BINA/Ag. Engg.

Division-8

A Research Report on

Evaluation of Different Water Management Practices for Water Savings, Nitrate Leaching and Rice Yield

By
Dr. Md. Asgar Ali Sarkar (Chief Scientific Officer and Head) Dr. M. H. Ali * (Senior Scientific Officer)

Agricultural Engineering Division Bangladesh Institute of Nuclear Agriculture BAU Campus, Mymensingh 2202 Bangladesh
*

Corresponding Author, Email: mha_bina@yahoo.com, hossain.ali.bina@gmail.com

March 2010

1

Preface
Over the past few decades there has been increased attention to nitrate concentration in ground water, particularly to leaching associated with agricultural activities. Concerns grow about subsurface water quality due to advective downward transport of pollutants as more water moves through the soil profile. Application of excess nutrient fertilizers for crop production may directly affect subsurface water quality especially for NO3-N, which is highly mobile.

In Bangladesh, nitrate in groundwater is associated with irrigated rice-based cropping systems. Rice is generally grown under ponded water. The combination of high N-fertilizer input culture along with ponded water may lead to increased risk of nitrate leaching. Considering this point, the reported investigation was carried out. The research results will help in adopting appropriate water management strategy for water saving, increased rice yield and specifically for reducing risk of NO3-N leaching responsible for groundwater pollution.

The investigators

2

Summary
Contamination of groundwater with nitrate is attributed to deep percolation of water containing the chemical. Thus, proper irrigation scheduling can reduce deep percolation and resulting nitrate loss to a certain extent. Long-term (2000-2005) field and lysimetric study were conducted to evaluate different water management practices for saving the costly irrigation inputs, maximizing the rice yield and conversely minimizing the leaching of nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N) below the root zone. The study was carried out with recommended N-fertilizer rate for the study area and different irrigation strategies. The irrigation strategies were: Continuous ponding of 3-5 cm [T1]; continuous saturation [T2]; alternate flooding (5 cm) and drying to 3, 5 and 7 days after the disappearance of the ponded water, thereby referred to as T3, T4, and T5, respectively. The water samples were collected from the outlet pipe provided at the bottom of lysimeter and by ceramic suction cups installed in the treatment plots in the field, which were then analyzed in the laboratory for NO3-N concentration. The results showed that the variation in yield among the treatments were small and statistically insignificant. But irrigation water required in alternate wetting and drying methods (T3 to T5) were 44 to 54 % less than that of continuous ponding and 23 to 36 % less than that of saturation method (T2). The pattern of NO3-N concentration and the total NO3-N loss varied among treatments both at field and lysimeter. Nitrate leaching during crop growing period in lysimeter ranged from 1.5 to 3.5 kg/ha. The cumulative NO3-N concentration data showed that the total NO3-N loss were higher in continuous ponding and continuous saturation under field condition. Considering the nitrate loss, rice yield and water saving, the alternate flooding and drying 5 to 7 days after disappearance of ponded water seemed to be the best strategy for rice cultivation.

3

Table of Contents
Content Title page Preface Summary Table of contents List of Tables List of Figures 1 Introduction 2 Material and Methods 2.1 Experimental site, soil and climate 2.2 Irrigation treatments 2.3 Experimental plots and culture 2.3.1 Lysimeter 2.3.2 Field Page ....................................... 1 .......................................2 .................................... 3 .................................... 4 .................................... 5 .................................... 5 .................................... 5 .................................... 8 .................................... .................................... .................................... ................................................ ................................................

2.3.3 Fertilizer and other cultural practices ......................................... 2.4 Drainage collection, water sampling 2.5 Water balance 2.6 Water analysis for nitrate 2.7 Yield data recording 2.7 Statistical analysis 3. Results and Discussion 3.1 Rainfall amount during crop period 3.2 yield, water use and water productivity 3.3 NO3 –N leaching 3.3.1 Drainage water 3.3.2 NO3 –N concentration in soil profile 3.4 Conclusion ................................................ ................................................ ................................................. ................................................. ....................................................... .................................... 12 .................................... ................................... .................................... .................................... ............................. .................................

References

.............................. 17

4

List of Tables

Table No.

Page No.

Table 1. Yield, irrigation requirement and total water use of rice in field under different treatments .............

Table 2. Average yield and water productivity of rice in field under different treatments ………. Table 3. Average yield and water productivity of rice in lysimeter under different treatments ……….18 Table 4. Average estimated amount of NO3-N leaching under different treatments in lysimeter & field ................

List of Figures
Fig. No. Fig.1. Rainfall distribution during the crop growing period Page no. .................................... 19

Fig. 2(a). NO3-N concentration of drainage water during the crop growing season (Field and lysimeter) during 2000 .............................................

Fig.2(b). NO3-N concentration of drainage water during the crop growing season (Field and lysimeter) during 2001 ......................................

Fig.2(c) NO3-N concentration of drainage water during the crop growing season (Field and lysimeter) during 2002 ......................................

Fig.2(d)

NO3-N concentration of drainage water during the crop growing season (Field and lysimeter) during 2003 .....................................

Fig.2(e) NO3-N concentration of drainage water during the crop growing season (Field 5

and lysimeter) during 2004

.....................................................

Fig.2(f) NO3-N concentration of drainage water during the crop growing season (Field and lysimeter) during 2005 ............................................. Fig. 3(a). NO3-N concentration of soil sample (Field and lysimeter) during 2000 .......... Fig.3(b). NO3-N concentration of soil during the crop growing season (Field and lysimeter) during 2001 .................................................. ….. Fig.4. Average NO3-N concentration of drainage water collected from the field

Fig.5. Average cumulative NO3-N concentration of field and lysimeter soil at harvest ….29

Evaluation of Different Water Management Practices for Water Savings, Nitrate Leaching and Rice Yield
1 Introduction
Modern agriculture is changing its traditional priorities and practices by developing and adopting new techniques or methods, intending to increase farming production and maintain soil fertility. The farmers use water to irrigate and chemical fertilizers to increase soil fertility and production. Under ideal conditions, only the amount of fertilizer that can be used by the plant would be applied, leaving no residual to move below the root zone. However, in most cases, not all of the applied nitrogen is assimilated by the plants, allowing some to move below the root zone. Nitrogen in the soil that is not returned to the atmosphere in the form of nitrogen gas or ammonia is generally converted to the nitrate form by bacteria. Nitrate is very mobile, and if there is sufficient water in the soil, it can move readily through the soil profile. Addition of water and nitrogenous fertilizer are highly effective means to improve crop yield. There is a direct relationship between large NO3-N losses, excess N inputs and inefficient irrigation management (Santos et al., 1997). Extensively and specifically, intensively cropped areas are sources of ground water contamination. Contamination of ground water by agricultural chemicals is a major concern throughout the world. Nitrate contamination is a particular concern for both health and environmental quality. Ground water is the major source of drinking for both urban and rural people of Bangladesh as well 6

as many parts of the world. Nitrate may cause methemoglobinemia (blue baby syndrom) in infants (Stone et al., 1997) when it is above the maximum concentration level of 10 mg/l. Additionally, nitrate interaction with other dietary substances may cause health problems in human (Maidson and Brunett, 1985). A large number of research articles found in the literature deals with the problem of nitrate leaching under different conditions of soils, crops and cultural practices. Most of them are from studies conducted in crops grown under unsaturated or non-ponded condition (Moreno et al., 1999; Yets et al., 1992; Ferguson et al., 1991; Casey et al., 2002; Roth and Fox, 1990). But in irrigated rice cultivation, water is ponded in the field during the whole growing period. Under such conditions, the leaching of nitrate (amount and patterns) in agricultural soils can be different from that occurred from dry-land crops. Bawatharnai et al. (2004) showed that higher rates of irrigation push down the diluted nitrate solution rapidly. About 50% of the world’s rice area is irrigated by ponding of the field, and produces 75% of the world’s rice production (Tabuchi and Hasegawa, 1995). A high production is attained by high inputs (water, fertilizer, pesticide, etc.). Among the various factors contributing to increased rice production, irrigation has the highest effect followed by fertilizer and variety. Sustainable paddy production depends on the sustainable use of water resources including the technology that makes minimum use of agricultural chemicals. In Bangladesh, nitrate in the ground water is a concern in irrigated rice-based cropping systems. Rice is generally grown under ponded water. The combination of high Nfertilizer input culture along with ponded water may lead to increase risk of nitrate leaching. The objective of this study was to minimize nitrate leaching by effective management of irrigation water in irrigated Boro rice cultivation.

2 Materials and Methods
2.1 Experimental site, soil and climate
The experiments were conducted at the experimental farm of the Bangladesh Institute of Nuclear Agriculture (BINA), Mymensingh, Bangladesh (Latitude 240 43' N, longitude 900 26' E, and 7.2 m above mean sea level), during 2000-2005. The local climate is humid and subtropic with summer dominant rainfall. The average annual rainfall at the site (1991-2004) was about 2260 mm, mostly concentrated over the months of April to September. The texture of the experimental soil is silty loam.

7

2.2 Water management strategies / Irrigation treatments
Water management practices followed were: T1 = Continuous ponding (3-5 cm) T2 = Continuous saturation T3 = Alternate flooding (5 cm) and drying for 3-days after disappearance of the ponded water T4 = Alternate flooding (5 cm) and drying for 5-days after disappearance of the ponded water and T5 = Alternate flooding (5 cm) and drying for 7 days after disappearance of the ponded water

2.3

Experimental setup and cultural practices
The experiment was set up in field and lysimeter simultaneously. In both cases the

treatments and cultural practices were same but different only in crop environment. In field, the crop was grown under normal and natural condition having no three-dimensional barrier of water and solute flow. In contrast, crops grown in control condition in lysimeter having barrier of the lysimeter walls for horizontal movement of water and solute. Moreover, in micro-level experimental environment, the crops have climatic and nutrient receiving competition, and error factor for heat reflection due to lysimeter’s visible surface walls compared to the field condition. Some features of both experimental conditions are described below. 2.3.1 Lysimeter Each lysimeter tank (drainage type) has a surface area of 2m2 (2m x 1m) with soil depth of 1.5m. The investigation was carried out in 5 tanks, one for each treatment. Each tank has separate arrangements for irrigation, drainage and soil water measurements. Hassan et al. (1995) provided a detailed description of the construction of the lysimeter. 2.3.2 Field In the field, the experimental design was RCBD with four replications. The unit plot size was 5m x 4m. Line to line and plant to plant distances within the line were maintained as 20cm and 15cm, respectively.

8

2.3.3

Fertilizer and other cultural practices The experiment was fertilized with the recommended doses of urea @ 215 kg/ha, TSP

@ 180 kg/ha and MP @ 100 kg/ha. Seedling of 35~40 days old was transplanted on mid January every year and the crop was harvested on third week of May. All but urea fertilizer were applied at transplanting time. The urea was applied as top dressing in three equal splits at 7, 39 and 64 days after transplantation. Weeding was done as per need. Insecticide was sprayed at the pre-flowering and the grain formation stages. Soil samples from each treatment plot for both the field and lysimeter were also collected up to 90 cm depth at land preparation and at harvest to determine the NO3-N content in profile.

2.4 Drainage water collection and water sampling
Vacuum gauge water samplers (85 cm deep) were installed in all the treatment plots in one replication. Moreover, 38cm depth water samplers were installed in T1, T2, T3 and T5 treatment plots and 120cm water samplers were installed in only T1, T4 and T5 treatment plots in one replication. Water samples were collected after the normal accumulation of water into the sampler through the ceramic cup. Whenever normal accumulation was insufficient, each sampler was sucked for 20-30 minutes by a hand suction pump (having vacuum gauge) and then the accumulated water was collected. The water samples were then analyzed into the laboratory for NO3-N concentration. From the lysimeter plots, drainage water was collected by opening the bottom drainage outlet pipe situated at 120cm below the soil surface. In case of lysimeter, the NO3-N leached below the root zone (at 1.2m depth) for each sampling was calculated using the following formula: LN = V x Cd Where, LN = amount of NO3-N (mg) leached below the root zone V = volume of water leached below the root zone (Litre) Cd = concentration of NO3-N (mg/L) of the drainage water collected below the root zone. Total NO3-N leached during the growing season was calculated by summing up LN for each sampling and expressed as amount per unit area (Kg/ha). 9 ..........................................(1)

2.5 Water balance
The general water balance equation at plot level in paddy field can be written as: P + I = ET + R + D .............................................. (2)

where, P is precipitation (cm), I is irrigation water (cm), ET is evapo-transpiration (cm), R is surface runoff (cm) and D is deep percolation. The sum of the terms in the left hand and right hand side of the equation are water gain and water loss, respectively. Simplifying the equation for ET becomes: ET = I + (P – R) – D or , ET = I + Peffective – D ................................(3)

where, Peffective is effective rainfall which was calculated following the method outlined by Dastane (1974). Any amount above 75 mm/day and rainfall in excess of 125 mm in 10 days was treated as non-effective. In case of deep percolation, it was taken as 2 mm/day (equal to saturated hydraulic conductivity) for the whole growing period for ponding and saturated treatments, and one-third of the growing days with the same rate for the other treatments. For lysimeter, excess water was collected from the drainage outlet pipe provided at the bottom of each tank and the cumulative amount was considered as the total deep percolation for each treatments.

2.6 Water analysis for NO3-N
The collected samples were analyzed in laboratory for NO3-N concentration following the method of Rand et al. (1976).

2.7

Yield data recording
Agronomic data and yield parameters were recorded in time. The yield of the whole

unit plot was collected and then converted to Kg/ha.

2.8

Statistical analysis
The yield data was analyzed following analysis of variance technique using MSTATC

statistical package. The means were separated using ‘Least Significant Difference’ test at 5 % significance level. 10

3

Results and Discussion
The amount and distribution of rainfall during the rice growing period (transplanting to

3.1 Rainfall amount during the crop period
harvest) are showed graphically in Fig. 1. The amount of rainfall up to 90 days from transplanting (starting of grain formation) in all the years are low, thus, there were no problem to maintain the scheduled irrigation treatments.

3.2 Yield, water use and water productivity
Field Yield and components of water use of rice under different irrigation management practices are presented in Table 1. The irrigation treatments showed insignificant difference in yield. Pattern of yield variation among the treatments varied among years. The average yield, ET, water productivity (WP) and irrigation water productivity (IWP) are summarized in Table 2. On an average, the treatment T2 produced the highest yield followed by T5 (Table 1). But the variations in yield among the treatments are small. The alternate drying and re-watering ( in treatments T3 and T5) may have contributed to physio-biochemical changes and adjustment, which made the plants less sensitive to water stress, thus less adverse impact on yield. The results are comparable with the recent findings (Liang et al. 2002 ). Liang et al. (2002) demonstrated that alternate drying and re-watering had a significant compensatory effect that could reduce transpiration. Turner (1986) reported that plants can adapt to slowly developing water deficit so that the water potential at which physiological activity is affected is changed. It was also reported that osmotic adjustment allows for the maintenance of photosynthesis and growth by stomatal adjustment and photosynthetic adjustment (Turner, 2004). Another aspect is that monocarpic plants such as wheat and rice need the initiation of whole plant senescence so that stored carbohydrates in stems and leaf sheaths can be remobilized and transferred to their grains. Delayed whole plant senescence lead to poorly filled grains and unused carbohydrate in straws (Zhang and Yang, 2004). Slow grain filling may often be associated with delayed whole plant senescence. Zhang and Yang (2004) showed that the early senescence induced by water deficit does not necessarily reduce grain yield even when plants are grown under normal nitrogen (N) condition. The gain from accelerated grain-filling rate and improved translocation outweighed the possible loss of 11

photosynthesis as a result of shortened grain filling period when subjected to water stress during grain filling. On an average, the treatment T1 consumed highest amount of irrigation water (128 cm) followed by T2 (89 cm), but the yield difference is only 0.28 t/ha. The treatment T3 saved 20 cm of irrigation water compared to T2 accompanied by a yield reduction of 0.31 t/ha. Similarly, the treatment T5 saved 32 cm water with a yield reduction of only 0.25 t/ha. As the yield difference is small, water productivity and productivity of irrigation water are of reversed trend of water use, i.e. the highest with the lowest irrigation water (T5) and the lowest with the highest irrigation water (T1).

Lysimeter The average yield, water use and water productivity for the lysimeter grown rice are presented in Table 3. It is observed that yield in lysimeter is higher than that of the field. This may be due to less competition of micro-climatic in the lysimeter crops, specially the sunlight. Alike field, here also, yield varied among treatments by narrow range. Here, the treatment T4 produced the highest yield. The irrigation water consumed followed the similar trend as that of the field.

3.3 NO3-N leaching
3.3.1 Drainage water The concentration of NO3-N in the drainage water under different treatments are shown in Fig. 2(a) to Fig. 2(f). The fertilizer N were applied at 7, 39 and 64 days after transplanting (DAT). Leaching of NO3-N in general increased not immediately after the application of fertilizer, but lagging few days (Fig. 2(a)). The pattern of NO3-N concentration and thus the NO3-N loss varied among treatments, and also among field and lysimeter. During the crop period in 2000, the NO3-N concentration in the field at later stage (75 DAT) were higher in T3, and T4. The cumulative NO3-N concentration data (Fig. 2(b)) to Fig. 2(e)) showed that in most cases the total NO3-N loss were higher in T1 and T2 under field condition and in T4 and T5 under lysimeter. The higher value under stressed condition in lysimeter may be due to the higher inflow rate of water through the passage in between lysimeter wall and

12

soil. The total amount of NO3-N loss under lysimetric condition varied between 1.09 to 2.0 kg/ha (Table 4), having an average of 1.55 kg/ha. From the field data, it was observed that there was a reduction in nitrate leaching under the irrigation strategy in which irrigation water was applied at 3 to 7 days after disappearance of ponded water (treatment T3 to T5), without insignificant reduction in rice yield. Other studies (Skopp et al., 1990; Doran, 1980) have demonstrated that the increased soil-water increased mineralization rates, exposing more nitrate to leaching. Lower mineralization in lysimeter may occur due to a decrease in organic matter (Casey et al., 2002). Unfortunately, a record of soil organic-matter content at various stages of the study was not kept to verify whether mineralization rates were increasing or decreasing.

3.3.2 NO3-N concentration in soil profile
The NO3-N concentration at various depths at sowing and harvest under different treatments are shown in Fig. 3(a) and Fig. 3(b). The NO3-N concentration showed fluctuating pattern at different depths and also varied among treatments. During the year 2000 (Fig. 3(a)), the NO3-N concentration in field soil at harvest was higher than the sowing time and showed gradually higher trend in the more irrigated plots than the water stressed plots. Moreover, it was found that the maximum NO3-N concentration was at 90 - 120 cm soil depth in T1. On the other hand, in lysimeter, the highest NO3-N was found at 0 - 30 cm depths in T1. The cumulative NO3-N concentration increased gradually in lysimeter in the deeper soil profiles (Fig. 3(b)). Moreover, higher concentration trend was also observed in the water stressed plots (T3, T4). This may be attributed by the interspaces in between soil and lysimeter wall. But in the field, NO3-N showed a gradually higher downward trend in deeper soil layers in the more irrigated plots than the water stressed plots. It indicated that the irrigated plots with ponded water allowed the free downward movement of NO3-N causing its higher leaching rate. The average (over years) cumulative NO3-N of water and soil are presented in Fig.4 and Fig.5, respectively. From the field data, it revealed that there was a reduction in nitrate leaching under the irrigation strategy in which irrigation water was applied at 3 to 7 days after disappearance of ponded water (treatment T3 to T7), without insignificant reduction in rice yield.

13

3.4 Conclusion Considering the nitrate loss, rice yield and water saving, the alternate flooding and drying for 5 to 7 days after disappearance of ponded water seemed to be the best strategy for rice cultivation.

References
Casey, F.X.M., N. Derby, R.E. Knighton, D.D. Steele, and E.C. Stegman (2002). Initiation of irrigation effects on temporal nitrate leahing. Vadose Zone J. 1, 300-309. Dastane, N.G. (1974). Effective rainfall in irrigation agriculture. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 25, FAO, Rome, p. 61 Doran, J.W. (1980). Soil microbial and biochemical changes associated with reduced tillage. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 44, 765-771. Ferguson, R. B., C. A. Shapiro, G. W. Hergert, W. L. Kranz, N. L. Klocke and D. H. Krull (1991). Nitrogen and irrigation management practices to minimize nitrate leaching from irrigated corn. J. Prod. Agric. 4: 186-192. Hassan, A. A., A. A. Sarkar and A. H. Sarder (1995). Design and construction of nonweighing gravity type lysimeter for agro-hydrological studies. Lysimeter reportBINA / Ag. Engg/4, 1995. Liang, Z.S., F.S. Zhangand J.H. Zhang (2002). The relations of stomatal conductance, water consumption, growth rate to leaf water potential during soil drying and rewatering cycle of wheat. Botanical Bulletin of Academia Sinica, 43: 187 – 192 Maidson, R.J. and J.O. Brunett (1985). Overview of the occurrence of nitrate in groundwater of the United States. U.S. Geol. Surv. Water Supply Pap. 2275. Moreno, F., J. A. Cayuela, J. E. Fernandez, E. Fernandezboy, J. M. Murillo and F. Cabrera (1999). Water balance and nitrate leaching in on irrigated maize crop in SW spain. In: Kirda, et al. (edit.) Crop Response to Deficit Irrigation. 14

Rand, M. C., A. E. Greenberg, and

M. J. Taras (1976). Standard Methods for the

examination of Water and Wastewater. Published by American Public Health Association. pp. 189-205 Rashid, M.A., A.F.M. Saleh, and L.R. Khan (2005). Water savings and economics of alternate wetting and drying irrigation for rice. Bangladesh J. Water Resour. Res. 20: 81-93. Ritter, W. F. (1989). Nitrate leaching under irrigation in the united states – a review. J. Env. Sci. and Health. Part-A: Env. Sci. and Engg., A24: 4, 349-378 Roth, L. V. and R. H. Fox (1990). Soil nitrate accumulations following nitrogen-fertilized corn in Pennsylvania, J. Environ. Qual., 19: 243-248. Santos, D.V., P.L. Sousa, and R.E. Smith (1997). Model simulation of water and nitrate movement in a level-basin under fertigation treatments. Agric. Water Manage., 32: 293-306 Sarkar, A. A., A. A. Hassan, M. H. Ali and N. N. Karim (2002). Supplemental irrigation for Binashail rice cultivation at two agro-ecological zones of Bangladesh. Bangladesh J. of Agril. Sci., 29(1): 95-100 Skoop, J., M.D. Jawson, and J.W. Doran, (1990). Steady-state microbial activity as a function of soil water content. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 54, 1619-1625 Stone, K.C., P.G. Hunt, M.H. Johnson, and T.A. Matheny (1997). Groundwater nitrate-N concentrations on an eastern coastal plans watershed. Paper presented in an ASAE meeting on Aug.10-14, 19997, Paper No. 97-2152, 560 Niles Road, St. Joseph, MI 49085-9659, USA. Tabuchi, T. and S. Hasegawa (edit.)(1995). Paddy field in the world. Japanese Society of Irrigation, Drainage and Reclamation Engineering, Tokyo, 353p. Turner, N. C. (1986). Adaptation to water deficits: a changing perspective. Aust. J. Plant Physiol., 13: 175-190 Turner, N.C. (2004). Sustainable production of crops and pastures under drought in a Mediterranean environment. Annals of Applied Biology, 144: 139-147 Yates, M. V., D. E. Stottlemyer, and J. L. Meyer 1992. Irrigation and fertilizer management to minimize nitrate leaching in Avocado production. Proc. of Second World Avocado Congress, pp. 331-335. Zhang, J. and J. Yang (2004). Improving harvest index is an effective way to increase crop water use efficiency. In: Proc., 4th Int. Crop Sci. Congress, held at Brisbane, Sept. 2004, on the theme “Crop Science for Diversified Planet”. 15

Moreno, F., J. A. Cayuela, J. E. Fernandez, E. Fernandezboy, J. M. Murillo and F. Cabrera (1999). Water balance and nitrate leaching in on irrigated maize crop in SW spain. In: Kirda, et al. (edit.) Crop Response to Deficit Irrigation. Yates, M. V., D. E. Stottlemyer, and J. L. Meyer (1992). Irrigation and fertilizer management to minimize nitrate leaching in Avocado production. Proc. of Second World Avocado Congress, pp. 331-335. Ferguson, R. B., C. A. Shapiro, G. W. Hergert, W. L. Kranz, N. L. Klocke and D. H. Krull (1991). Nitrogen and irrigation management practices to minimize nitrate leaching from irrigated corn. J. Prod. Agric. 4: 186-192. Casey, F. X. M., N. Derby, R. E. Knighton, D. D. Steele and E. C. Stegman (2002). Initiation of irrigation effects on temporal nitrite leaching. Vadose Zone Journal, 1: 300-309. Roth, L. V. and R. H. Fox (1990). Soil nitrate accumulations following nitrogen-fertilized corn in Pennsylvania, J. Environ. Qual., 19: 243-248.

16

Table 1. Yield, irrigation requirement and water productivity under different treatments Year Treatment T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 Yield Irrigation Rainfall t/ha cm cm 5.57 76.62 80.00 5.39 61.12 80.00 5.98 55.75 80.00 6.14 55.00 80.00 5.84 46.50 80.00 3.94 125.7 36.97 4.47 100.00 36.97 3.31 78.00 36.97 3.49 78.00 36.97 4.03 68.00 36.97 4.73 148.52 66.07 4.7 84.87 66.07 4.28 72.67 66.07 3.95 54.91 66.07 3.93 49.67 66.07 5.31 169.00 44.13 5.58 128.00 44.13 5.27 90.00 44.13 5.46 85.00 44.13 4.97 80.00 44.13 4.63 120.09 26.90 5.27 79.24 26.90 5.01 58.83 26.90 4.39 46.87 26.90 5.51 42.5 26.90 3.1 129.00 61.62 3.56 82.00 61.62 3.31 59.00 61.62 3.15 54.00 61.62 3.17 54.00 61.62 Runoff cm 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 18.49 18.49 18.49 18.49 18.49 33.03 33.03 33.03 33.03 33.03 22.06 22.06 22.06 22.06 22.06 0 0 0 0 0 30.81 30.81 30.81 30.81 30.81 Deep Water percol. use, cm 39.78 92.84 35.13 81.99 33.52 78.23 33.3 77.7 30.75 71.75 43.27 100.91 35.55 82.93 28.94 67.54 28.94 67.54 25.94 60.54 54.46 127.1 35.37 82.54 31.71 74.00 26.38 61.57 24.81 57.90 5.32 185.75 45.02 105.05 33.62 78.45 32.12 74.95 30.62 71.45 0 146.99 0 106.14 0 85.73 0 73.77 0 69.40 47.94 111.87 33.84 78.97 26.94 62.87 25.44 59.37 25.44 59.37

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

17

Table 2. Average yield, irrigation water applied, total water use (ET), water productivity (WP) and irrigation water productivity (IWP) under different water management practices under field condition.
Treatments Yield (t/ha) Irrigation (cm) Effective Rainfall (cm) 39 39 39 39 39 Deep percolation (cm) 24 24 8 8 8 ET (cm) WP (kg/hamm) 3.18 4.64 4.52 4.76 5.20 IWP (kg/ha-mm) 3.55 5.43 6.55 7.15 8.04

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

4.55 4.83 4.52 4.43 4.58

128 89 69 62 57

143 104 100 93 88

Table 3. Average yield, water use (ET), water productivity (WP) and water productivity (IWP) under lysimeter.
Treatments Yield (t/ha) Irrigation (cm) Rainfall (cm) Runoff (cm) Deep percolation, (cm) 14.8 13.0 9.2 13.7 11.9 Water use (cm) 101.7 77.1 75.0 68.1 68.6 WP (kg/hamm 7.4 10.1 10.5 11.7 10.5 IWP (kg/hamm) 9.8 11.4 16.3 18.7 17.3

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

7.54 7.79 7.91 7.98 7.22

77.0 68.2 48.5 42.6 41.8

56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8

21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0

Table 4. Average estimated amount of NO3-N leaching under lysimeter and field condition
Treatment T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 NO3-N leaching (kg/ha) Lysimeter 1.59 1.56 1.53 2.00 1.09 Field 52.3 48.3 23.5 17.6 16.9

18

Rainfall (mm) Rainfall (mm) 15 30 45 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 100 20 40 60 80 0 0 Rainfall (mm) 60 80 20 40 60 0

Rainfall (mm)

Rainfall (mm) 0

Rainfall (mm) 15 30 45 60

20

40

0 1 1 1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103 109 115 121 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103 109 115 121 31 25 19 13 7 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 2004 1

1

1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43

6

11

16

21

26

31

36

2001

2003

2002

2000

2005

41 49 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103 109 115 121 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103 109 115 121

49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103 109 115 121

46

Days from transplanting

Days from transplanting

Days from transplanting

Days from transplanting

Days from transplanting

Days from transplanting

Fig.1. Rainfall amount during crop growing period

19

51

56

61

66

71

76

81

86

91

96

101

106

NO3-N Conc.,mg/L

10 8 6 4 2 0 0 25

NO3 Conc., mg/L

Lysimeter

I1

10 8 6 4 2 0

Field

I1

50 75 100 125 Days after transplanting

150

0 10

25

50

75

100

125

150

Days after transplanting

10 8 6 4 2 0 0
10 8 6 4 2 0 0 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 8 6 4 2 0 0 25 50 75 100 25 50 75 100 25 50 75 100

I2

I2

8 6 4 2 0

25

50

75

100 125 150

0 10 8 6 4 2 0

25

50

75

100

125

150

I3

I3

125

150 10

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

I4

8 6 4 2 0

I4

125

150 10 8 6 4 2 0

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

I5

I5

125

150

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

Fig.2(a). NO3-N concentration of drainage water during the crop growing season (Field and lysimeter) during 2000

20

18 0

38

39

DAT 55 77

81

105 123 0 T1 T2 T3 T4 NO3-N (mg/l)

9

19

35

DAT 51

67

88

111 123 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

-10 NO3-N (mg/)l

-10

-20

-20

-30

-30

-40 Sam pling at 38 cm depth -50 DAT 51 67

-40 Sam pling at 85 cm depth

-50

9 0

19

35

88

111 123 0 T1 T4 T5 NO3-N (mg/l) -10 -20 -30 -40 -50

9

19

35

DAT 51

67

88

111

123 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

-10 NO3 (mg./l)

-20

-30

-40 Sam pling at 120 cm depth -50

-60

Lysim eter

Fig.2(b). Cumulative NO3-N concentration of drainage water in field during 2001

21

8 0 -50 -100 -150 -200 -250 -300

29 33

DAT 43 58 65

DAT 87 117 132 0 T1 T2 T3 T5 NO3-N (mg/l) -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 -120 -140 -160 -180 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

8

29

33

43

58

65

87

117

NO3-N (mg/)l

Sam pling at 38 cm depth -350 DAT 43 58 65

-200

Sam pling at 85 cm depth DAT

8 0

29 33

87 117 132

8 0

29

33 43

58 65 87 117
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

T1 -50 T4

-20 -40 NO3-N (mg/l)

-100 NO3 (mg./l)

-60 -80 -100 -120

-150

-200

-250 Sam pling at 120 cm depth -300

Sampling from lysimeter -140

Fig. 2(c). Cumulative NO3-N concentration of drainage water in field during 2002

22

0 8 29 33 43 58 65 87 117 132 -10 DAT

0 8 -20 29 33 43 58 65 87 117 132

DAT
-40

NO3-N Conc., mg/l

-20 -30 -40 -50 -60 Sam pling at 38 cm depth -70 -120 0 8 29 33 43 58 65 87 117 132 -10 T1 T4 -30 T1 I2 T3 -50 -60 Sam pling at 120 cm depth Sam pling from lysim eter -70 T4 T5 -20 8 29 33 43 58 65 87 117 132 -100 Sam pling at 85 cm depth T1 T1 T2 T3 -80 -60 T2 T4 T5

0 -10 -20 -30 -40 DAT -50 -60 -70 -80

-40

Fig.2(d). Cumulative NO3-N concentration of drainage water in field and lysimeter 2003

23

9 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100

19

35

DAT 51 67

88 111 0 -5 -10 -15 NO3-N (mg/l) -20 -25 -30 -35 -40 -45 -50

9

19

DAT 35 51

67

88

111

NO3-N (mg/)l

T1 T2 T3 Sam pling at 38 cm depth

T1 T2 T3 Sam pling at 85 cm depth

-120

DAT
9 0 -10 -20 NO3 (mg./l) -30 -40 -50 Sam pling at 120 cm depth -60 19 35 51 67 88 111

T1 T4

Fig. 2(e). Cumulative NO3-N concentration of drainage water in field during 2004

24

DAT
1 0 -5 -10 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 -5 -10

0

8

24

DAT 39

67

93

NO3-N (mg./l)

-20 -25 -30 -35 -40 -45 T1 T2 T5 Sam pling at 38 cm depth

NO3-N (mg./l)

-15

-15 -20 -25 -30 -35 -40 Sam pling at 85 depth -45 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

DAT

0
0

8

24

39

67

93

NO3-N (mg./l)

-5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 Sampling at 120 cm depth -35

T1 T4

Fig. 2(f). Cumulative NO3-N leaching rate in rice experiment at BINA field during 2005

25

6

Field
5

Mean of sowing time I1

NO3 -N conc., mg/l

4 3 2 I3 1 0 0-30 30-60 60-90 Soil depth, cm Lysimeter 90-120 Mean of Sowing time I1 I2 6 I3 4 I4 2 I2

10

8

NO3 -N conc., mg/l

0 0-30 30-60 60-90 Soil depth, cm 90-120

Fig.3(a). NO3-N concentration in soil profile at sowing time and at harvest during 2000

26

0-30
0

Days after transplanting (DAT) 30-60 60-90

90-120
T1 T2 T3 T4

-5

NO3-N (mg/)l

-10

Lysimeter
-15

-20

DAT

0-30
0

30-60

60-90

90-120
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

-5

NO3-N (mg/l)

-10 Field -15

-20

Fig.3(b). Cumulative NO3-N concentration of soil sample during 2001

27

80 NO3 conc. , mg/l 60 40 20 0 9

I1 I2 I3 I4 I5

38 cm depth

20

40 DAS

65

87

120

100 I1 NO3 conc. , mg/l 80 60 40 20 0 9 20 40 DAS 60 120 cm depth I1 NO3 conc. , mg/l 40 I2 I5 65 87 120 I2 I3 I4 I5 85 cm depth

20

0 9 20 40 DAS 65 87 120

Fig.4. Average NO3-N concentration of drainage water collected from the field

28

18 I1 NO3 -N concentration (ppm) I2 I3 12 I4 I5

Lysimeter soil

6

0 0-30
18

30-60 60-90 Soil depth (cm) I1

90-120

Field soil

NO3-N concentration (ppm)

I2 I3
12

I4 I5

6

0 0-30 30-60 60-90 90-120 Soil depth (cm)

Fig. 5. Average cumulative NO3-N concentration of field and lysimeter soil at harvest

29