Badawi A. Tantawi INTEGRATED WATER MANAGEMENT IN RICE FIELDS EGYPT Rice Research Program, field Crops Research Institute, Agricultural Research Center, Giza, 12619, EGYPT

Table (1): Actual consumptive use (Eta) and water requrment of the rice and its component as will as potantial evapotranspiration in mm /day as calculated by different methods. ETp Eta (E+T) W.R mm C.U P mm/day T E mm/day Period (day) Pan Blaney & Criddle Penman 4.87 4.14 4.20 3.23 2.21 6.21 6.01 4.94 4.18 2.72 6.94 6.14 4.78 3.75 2.50 7.77 8.04 5.84 3.94 2.51 524.61 489.49 340.80 234.36 58.80 209.79 249.24 175.20 122.14 25.10 11.66 7.75 5.52 3.62 3.37 2.95 3.54 2.92 1.46 0.78 4.82 4.50 2.48 1.73 July (27 day) Aug.(31day) Sep.(30 day) Oct. (31 day) Nov. (10 day) 508.1 658.9 662.4 781.4 1648.06 781.47 866.59 Total (129 day) The varity used Giza 172. E = EvapoTranspiration (mm/day), T = Transpiration (mm/day), P= Percolation (mm/day), C.U = Consumptive Use (mm), and W.R = Water Requirment (mm). Total amount of evapotranspiration calculated by the different methods from transplanting to harvesting.

Table(2):Average monthely water consumptive use valued (cm), actual evapotranspiration ETa, potential evapotranspirtion ETp and rice coefficient valus Kc. Irrigation every 8 days Irrigation every 4 days Month Kc ETp (mm/day) ETa (mm/day) C.U (cm) 0.56 1.23 1.15 1.26 7.6 7.4 7.3 4.5 4.28 8.98 8.30 5.75 8.55 28.45 25.00 6.88 0.64 1.40 1.30 1.43 4.85 10.43 9.43 6.50 9.73 32.35 28.35 7.80 June (20 days) July (31days) Aug. (31 days) Sept. (12 days) The varity used Giza 178. C.U = Consumptive Use (mm), ETa =actual evaporationtranspiratio (mm/day), ETp=potential evaporationtranspiratio (mm/day), and Kc = rice coefficient The values were measured after transplanting up to harvesting process.

Table(3) :Some water relations for some rice varieties as affected by irrigation treatments. WUE kg/m3 Water saved % Total water use (m3/ha) Irrigation treatments Variety ( duration) 0.64 0.84 0.83 - 26.68 7.48 14360.2 10529.5 13285.7 Continuous flooding Continuous saturation Irrigation every 6 days Sakha 101 (135 days) 0.63 0.80 0.58 24.36 6.73 13135.2 9935.6 12251.7 Sakha 102 (120 days) 0.51 0.77 0.48 34.32 7.81 16935.2 11123.3 15612.2 Giza 171 (155 days) WUE = water use efficiency

Table (4): Effect of irrigation treatments on grain yield of some rice varieties. mean Giza 176 Giza 175 Giza 181 Giza 171 Treatments 11.0 6.3 7.4 6.8 6.7 5.0 9.0 8.6 7.3 6.1 6.6 5.8 9.3 8.7 8.0 4.7 9.4 12.0 7.0 7.7 9.7 9.2 10.1 5.3 6.4 6.2 3.7 7.9 7.2 10.2 Irrigation every 6 days (IE 6 D) Irrigation every 12 days IE 6 D shifting to 12 days for 36 days during tillering IE 6 D shifting to 18 days for 36 days during tillering IE 6 D shifting to 12 days for 36 days during PI IE 6 D shifting to 18 days for 36 days during PI IE 6 D shifting to 12 days for 36 days during flowering IE 6 D shifting to 18 days for 36 days during flowering Continuous flooding (chek) 1.1 0.8 L.S.D 5% PI = panicle initiation

Table(5):Effect of irrigation withholding at different Productivity times of Sakha 102 rice variety Yield t/ha Treatments 6.92 e 6.91 e 7.85 bc 7.79 bcd 7.76 bcd 7.49 cd 7.77 bcd 8.21 ab 8.01 ab 8.38 a 7.33 de 8.00 ab 12 days withholding, 2 weeks AT 12 days withholding, 3 weeks AT 12 days withholding, 4 weeks AT 12 days withholding, 5 weeks AT 12 days withholding, 6 weeks AT 12 days withholding, 7 weeks AT 12 days withholding, 8 weeks AT 12 days withholding, 9 weeks AT 12 days withholding,10 weeks AT continuous flooding irrigation every 6 days alternate 4 days on + 6 days off AT = After transplanting

Table (6): Yield reduction and some water relations under different irrigation regimes Total water used m3 /ha Water saved % Yield reduction % Irrigation intervals 16200 13496 11756 10239 - 16.7 27.4 36.7 4.2 31.0 40.0 Irrigation every 3 days Irrigation every 6 days Irrigation every 9 days Irrigation every 12 days

Water use efficiency (WUE) Table(7):Water used, water saved and water use efficiency of some rice varieties as affected by water regime Water Relations Treatments Water use efficiency (WUE) Water saved % Water used m3/ha* 0.68 0.51 0.72 0.66 - 15064.2 16253.3 13211.2 Continuous Flooding: Giza 182 Egyptian Jasmine Sakha 103 Sakha 104 0.64 14898.2 Mean 0.88 0.65 0.86 25.69 23.90 18.96 11193.7 12368.1 10706.2 1 1119.7 Continuous Saturation: 0.81 23.56 11365.4 0.69 0.53 0.74 0.67 7.80 8.70 8.25 13889.0 14838.6 12121.6 Irrigation every 6 days: 8.14 13684.6 0.77 0.48 0.70 23.21 14.06 17.67 11568.1 13968.5 10876.4 Irrigation every 9 days: 19.54 11995.3 Including the amount of water used before applying treatments ( through nursesries and land preparation) RRTC (2001).

Organic manure rates t/ha Table(8):water use, water saved % and water use efficiency kg/m3 as affected by different irrigation intervals and organic manure of Sakha 101 rice variety. Mean Organic manure rates t/ha Irrigation Intervals characters 12 8 4 13278 11888 9800 12900 11500 8900 13115 11620 9400 13350 12000 13750 12400 11100 Cont. flooding 6 days 9 days Water used m3 4.5 15.5 25.8 6.0 18.0 35.0 4.0 15.0 29.0 3.0 13.0 20.0 - 10.0 19.0 saved % 0.82 0.86 0.80 0.95 0.96 0.94 0.84 0.91 0.78 0.83 0.76 0.71 0.73 0.64 Water use efficiency (WUE) kg/ m3

Table (9) Effect of cut of irrigation dates on grain yield of some rice cultivars Grain yield (T/ha) Treatments 8.99 7.95 8.47 0.21 Rice cultivars ( V ) : Sakha 101 Sakha 102 Sakha 104 L.S.D 5 % 6.88 7.93 9.13 9.93 0.19 Cut of irrigation dates (C): At complete heading (CH) 1 week after CH. 2 weeks after CH. 3 weeks after CH. L.S.D 5 % Source : RRTC(2002 &2003)

At complete heading (CH) Table(10) Effect of the interaction between cut of irrigation dates treatments and cultivars on grain yield. Sakha 104 Sakha 102 Sakha 101 Treatments 7.12 7.93 9.13 9.93 6.35 7.63 8.32 9.50 7.18 8.40 9.97 10.40 At complete heading (CH) 1 week after CH 2 weeks after CH 3 weeks after CH 0.25 L.S.D 5 %

Table(11)water use efficiency (WUE) kg /m3 of Giza 177 and Sakha 102 rice varieties as affected by land preparation and planting methods Sakha 102 Giza 177 Treatments 0.505 0.519 0.485 0.544 0.512 0.493 0.455 0.520 Land preparation: Disk + Leveling Chisel + Disk + Leveling Chisel + Leveling Mold + Disk + Leveling 0.506 0.593 0.460 0.540 0.522 0.465 0.572 0.484 0.558 0.433 Planting methods: Drilling Dibbling Broadcastinig Manual Transplanting Mech. Transplanting

Table(12):Total water requirement and water use efficiency as affected by land preparation and irrigation interval. Water used efficiency Total water used Treatment Sakha 101 Giza 177 0.507 0.406 0.372 0.415 0.468 0.487 0.401 0.320 0.423 0.373 0.361 0.251 0.394 0.404 0.332 0.278 7182 7413 9079 6500 8556 7823 7180 6615 6394 6572 7975 6092 7987 6896 6333 5818 Land Preparation: Chisel plough (2 passes) + wet leveling Chisel plough (1 pass) + dry leveling Moldboard plough + disk + dry leveling Zero tillage Irrigation interval: Every 3 days Every 6 days Every 9 days Every 12 days

Irrigation treatments Table (13):some of water relations for Giza 178 and Sakha 102 rice varities as affected by irrigation regimes and different planting methods. WUE kg /m3 Water saved % Total water use m3/ha Irrigation treatments Planting method mean Sakha 102 Giza 178 0.69 0.70 0.68 0.63 0.71 0.62 0.67 0.64 - 7.06 11.19 17.37 6.99 11.08 16.04 7.12 11.30 18.70 13501.2 12548.7 11989.9 11149.5 12983.9 12076.9 11545.3 10901.9 14018.4 13020.5 12434.4 11397.1 I1 I2 I3 I4 Maual transplanting 0.60 0.56 0.61 0.58 0.53 0.59 6.12 9.01 14.74 7.55 12.10 16.66 14719.4 13709.3 13156.9 12402.8 14167.0 13300.0 12890.2 12078.3 15271.7 14118.5 13423.5 12727.3 Broadcasting 0.66 0.65 6.76 12.44 16.43 6.87 11.27 15.37 6.64 13.60 17.52 13363.3 12460.9 11696.5 11162.5 12915.0 12027.8 11459.6 10933.2 13811.6 12894.0 11933.4 11391.8 Mech. Drilling 0.55 6.79 11.95 15.68 6.55 11.41 14.85 7.03 12.46 16.50 14172.5 13783.9 13021.7 12466.5 14790.2 12067.5 15407.8 14324.1 13487.7 12865.5 Dibbling I1= 4days on + 6 days off, I2= 4days on + 8 days off, I3= 4days on + 10 days off, I4= 4days on + 12 days off

Irrigation regimes ( I ) : Cont. flooding I1 Cont. saturation I2 Table (14): Grain yield (t/ha) as influenced by irrigation treatments and different planting methods. Grain yield (t / ha) Treatments 9.85 9.54 9.18 8.17 0.21 Irrigation regimes ( I ) : Cont. flooding I1 Cont. saturation I2 6- day off I3 8- day off I4 L.S.D 5 % 9.28 8.61 9.16 9.70 Planting methods (P): Broadcasting P1 Drilling P2 Mech. Transplanting P3 Transplanting P4 L.S.D 5 %

Water used before treatments m3/ha Table (15A): Some of water relations of Sakha 104 rice cultivar as affected by irrigation treatments and methods of planting . Water saved % Total water used 1000 m3/ha Planting methods Mean P4 P3 P2 P1 - 24.29 9.72 18.88 24.16 8.40 17.37 23.92 12.23 20.70 23.67 9.60 18.10 25.41 8.66 19.34 14959 11322 13509 12125 15016 11388 13755 12407 14599 11107 12812 11577 14389 10984 13009 11786 15833 11809 14460 12771 Cont.flooding Cont.saturation 6- day off 8- day off 4353 3420 3603 5967 Water used before treatments m3/ha P1=Broadcasting, P2= Drilling, P3= Mech. Transplanting, P4 = Transplanting.

Table (15 B): Grain yield (t/ha) as influenced by irrigation treatments and different planting methods. WUE Kg /m3 Yield reduction % Planting Mean P4 P3 P2 P1 methods 0.66 0.85 0.68 0.70 0.89 0.72 0.67 0.86 0.71 0.82 0.65 0.63 0.81 - 3.11 6.91 17.06 3.15 5.35 21.10 1.44 5.89 13.65 3.53 8.24 19.59 4.33 8.15 13.88 Cont. flooding Cont. saturation 6- day 8- day 0.75 0.74 0.69 P1=Broadcasting, P2= Drilling, P3= Mech. Transplanting, P4 = Transplanting.

Table (16): Weed dry weight as influenced by regime, row spacing, and number of seedling in manually transplanted rice. Weed dry weight (g/m2)* Water regime 4-days on + 12- days off 6- days off Continuous flooding Seedling no/hill Spacing (cm) 288 c 167 d 14 b 3 10x20 241 de 129 ef 0.0 b 6 224 e 100 f 9 220 dc 227 c 17 b 20x20 295 c 183 d 12 b 261 d 156 de 7 b 389 e 328 a 56 a 331 b 263 b 28 ab 218 c 15 b * Means followed by a common are not significantly at the 5% level by DMRI

(Hreebicides kg a.i/ha) Table 17 Dry weight of weeds and grain yield of transplanted rice (Sakha 101 cv) as influenced by conventional weed control treatments MBCR Yield (t/ha) Weeds (g/m2) Treatments (Hreebicides kg a.i/ha) A. Improved weed control (10x20 cm) 1- Continuous flooding for 15 days: 28 9.13 38 - Butachlor (1.1) 6.34 169 - Weedy check 2- Continuous flooding for 15 days: 32 9.97 0.0 6.83 142 B. Conventional weed control (20x20 cm) 1- flooding every 6 days: 25 8.23 75 - Hand weeding twice 19 8.97 64 - Thiobencarb (2.4) 22 8.87 59 - Butachlor (2.4) 4.51 373

CONCLUSION In order to increase the efficiency of the irrigation water in rice fields the following alternatives should be used Substituting long duration varieties with short duration varieties in all rice growing areas. Convince farmers to use the laser technique and dry leveling in land preparation. Use the optimum plant density with the specific rice varieties. Use the drought tolerance varieties such as Giza 178 at the end of canals. Withholding irrigation water for short time at medium tillering stage and during late grain filling stage. Improving the irrigation and drainage system to minimize water losses. Extensive public awareness campaign on the importance of the water and the possible methods for saving. Other water resources have to be developed such as ground water particularly for the reclaimed areas.

Thank you