Next Article in Journal
Nitrogen Balance in a Sweet Sorghum Crop in a Mediterranean Environment
Next Article in Special Issue
Assessment of Production and Qualitative Characteristics of Different Populations of Salvia sclarea L. Found in Sicily (Italy)
Previous Article in Journal
Acidified Biochar as a Soil Amendment to Drought Stressed (Vicia faba L.) Plants: Influences on Growth and Productivity, Nutrient Status, and Water Use Efficiency
Previous Article in Special Issue
Productivity and Profitability of Kharif Rice Are Influenced by Crop Establishment Methods and Nitrogen Management in the Lateritic Belt of the Subtropical Region
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

High Nitrogen Fertilization Modulates Morpho-Physiological Responses, Yield, and Water Productivity of Lowland Rice under Deficit Irrigation

by
Nasr M. Abdou
1,
Mohamed A. Abdel-Razek
1,
Shimaa A. Abd El-Mageed
2,
Wael M. Semida
3,*,
Ahmed A. A. Leilah
4,
Taia A. Abd El-Mageed
1,
Esmat F. Ali
5,
Ali Majrashi
5 and
Mohamed O. A. Rady
2
1
Soil and Water Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Fayoum University, Fayoum 63514, Egypt
2
Agronomy Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Fayoum University, Fayoum 63514, Egypt
3
Horticulture Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Fayoum University, Fayoum 63514, Egypt
4
Agronomy Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Mansoura University, Mansoura 35516, Egypt
5
Department of Biology, College of Science, Taif University, P.O. Box 11099, Taif 21944, Saudi Arabia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2021, 11(7), 1291; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11071291
Submission received: 10 May 2021 / Revised: 22 June 2021 / Accepted: 23 June 2021 / Published: 25 June 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Cropping Systems and Agronomic Management Practices of Field Crops)

Abstract

:
Sustainability of rice production under flooding conditions has been challenged by water shortage and food demand. Applying higher nitrogen fertilization could be a practical solution to alleviate the deleterious effects of water stress on lowland rice (Oryza sativa L.) in semi-arid conditions. For this purpose, field experiments were conducted during the summer of 2017 and 2018 seasons. These trials were conducted as split-split based on randomized complete blocks design with soil moisture regimes at three levels (120, 100 and 80% of crop evapotranspiration (ETc), nitrogen fertilizers at two levels (N1—165 and N2—200 kg N ha−1) and three lowland Egyptian rice varieties [V1 (Giza178), V2 (Giza177) and V3 (Sakha104)] using three replications. For all varieties, growth (plant height, tillers No, effective tillers no), water status ((relative water content RWC, and membrane stability index, MSI), physiological responses (chlorophyll fluorescence, Relative chlorophyll content (SPAD), and yield were significantly increased with higher addition of nitrogen fertilizer under all water regimes. Variety V1 produced the highest grain yield compared to other varieties and the increases were 38% and 15% compared with V2 and V3, respectively. Increasing nitrogen up to 200 kg N ha−1 (N2) resulted in an increase in grain and straw yields by 12.7 and 18.2%, respectively, compared with N1. The highest irrigation water productivity (IWP) was recorded under I2 (0.89 kg m−3) compared to (0.83 kg m−3) and (0.82 kg m−3) for I1 and I3, respectively. Therefore, the new applied agro-management practice (deficit irrigation and higher nitrogen fertilizer) effectively saved irrigation water input by 50–60% when compared with the traditional cultivation method (flooding system). Hence, the new proposed innovative method for rice cultivation could be a promising strategy for enhancing the sustainability of rice production under water shortage conditions.

1. Introduction

Rice (Oryza sativa L.) is a staple food crop for about half of the world’s population and ranks 2nd in production after wheat [1,2]. Globally, in 2018, the productivity of rice approximately amounted to 700 million tons, which was produced from 167 million hectares, by an average grain yield of 4.2 tons per hectare [2]. Rice (Oryza sativa L.) is being cultivated in various agro-ecosystems: irrigated rice, rainfed lowland rice, upland rice, and flood-prone rice. More than 75% of rice production is supplied by irrigated lowland rice [3]. Generally, rice has been grown under flooded conditions, maintaining a continuous water depth by 5–10 cm [4]. Under flooded conditions, a large amount of irrigation water supply is required, which is not only used for the growth and development of rice plants but also as a management technique during rice cultivation [5,6]. In a puddled rice field, the consumption of water depends on the rates of evaporation, transpiration, and water losses by percolation, seepage, and surface runoff. The irrigation water demand for rice crops under the traditional flooded system is more than 20,000 m3 ha−1 which is more than 3–4 times that of its biological needs from water, which ranges between 6000–8000 m3 ha−1 [7].
With increasing water scarcity, rapid population growth, increased urbanization, and the expected potential climate change, the sustainability, food production, and ecosystem services of rice fields are threatened [7,8,9,10]. It is estimated that, by 2025, 15–20 million ha of irrigated rice will suffer from some degree of water scarcity. Rice production in the Nile Delta of Egypt consumes about 11 billion m3 of irrigation water which represents about 20% of the whole quantity of irrigation water used in agriculture (55.5 billion3/year). In addition, many studies conducted in Egypt concluded that the total seasonal water input to rice under continuous flooding ranges between 16,190–21,428 m3 ha−1 [11]. Therefore, Egypt’s policymakers annually reduce the allotted area for rice cultivation, which has decreased by 59% from 745,000 ha to 304,080 ha during the past ten years (2008–2018) [2].
Therefore, good water governance should be adopted to develop socially acceptable, economically viable and environmentally sustainable novel rice-based systems that tend to reduce water losses and enhance crop productivity challenged by high evaporative demand and severe shortages of water supply. Hence, cultivating rice aerobically in non-puddled and non-saturated soils under water-saving irrigation technique as deficit irrigation could be a promising water-saving strategy to cope with water scarcity.
The application of irrigation water below the ET demand is termed deficit irrigation, aiming at optimization in economic output when water is very limited [12]. Plants under deficit irrigation receive a lower amount of irrigation water than their full water requirements either at specific crop growth stages or during the total cultivation period [12]. Consequently, under deficit irrigation technique, plants are subjected to water stress to some extent [13,14].
However, rice is very sensitive to water stress. Water stress negatively affects the growth and productivity of crops [15,16]. Physiological functioning in rice plants [17] viz root length density, root moisture extraction, the rate of apical development, canopy size, leaf elongation rate, leaf rolling, transpiration rate, relative water content, biomass production, spikelet number, spikelet sterility, panicle development, grain size and grain yield [17,18] may be drastically reduced due to water stress, if it occurs during vegetative or reproductive stages of rice, depending upon the stress severity and cultivar tolerance.
However, optimal application of nitrogen also plays a valuable role in combating drought [19]. Nitrogen (N) is considered a key component of many organic compounds. Nitrogen is one of the most essential nutrient elements for rice growth and metabolic processes [20,21]. Nitrogen represents a vital role in improving yield production and enhancing the photosynthetic activity especially during the grain filling stage of rice crops. Hence, the efficient use and nitrogen management respecting crop production is an urgent case for maximizing crop productivity, environmental safety with increasing economic returns [22,23] also concluded that increasing nitrogen supplying dose up to 144 kg N ha−1 improved and significantly affected plant growth, grain yield and yield components. Ref. Ref. [24] reported that increasing nitrogen application rates from 120 to 190 kg N ha−1 significantly improved plant height, panicle length, filled grains by panicle and grain yields. Ref. Ref. [25] reported that the inoculation with G. diazotrophicus Pal5 strain was alleviated deleterious effects of drought stress on rice plants, and improved biomass and grain yield. In addition, [26] noted that there were significant increases in plant growth traits, yield parameters and grain yield due to increasing nitrogen supplying rate of 100, 200 and 300 kg N ha−1. Ref. Ref. [27] observed an interaction between soil moisture deficit and N supply rates on the activity of photosynthesis and transpiration processes in rice. Application of N fertilizer resulted in a significant increase in grain yield of rainfed-lowland rice under water deficit, where observed the optimal timing of N application for continuously irrigated rice was when the rice was exposed to moderate water deficit before flowering [28]. The absorption and utilization of water and nitrogen nutrition are two coupled physiological processes [29,30]. Supplying plants with N can increase drought resistance by increasing root hydraulic conductivity (Lpr) through increased abscisic acid (ABA) and aquaporin expression [31,32,33,34].
Therefore, the current study hypothesized that exogenous application of N-fertilizer may positively affect the rice performance, irrigation water productivity, chlorophyll fluorescence, water status as well as yield of some drought-stressed lowland rice varieties. Accordingly, the recent investigation was conducted to evaluate the effect of new applied water and nutrition environment on water-saving capacity and productivity of some lowland rice varieties under water-scarce conditions in arid and semi-arid regions.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Design, Treatments, and Cultural Practices

The current investigation was conducted at the experimental station farm of Faculty of Agriculture, Fayoum University, Egypt, (30°56_N latitude, 75°52_ longitude). The site is described by arid climate type, hot in summer. The meteorological data in Table 1 show that the highest mean values of maximum temperature, minimum temperature and relative humidity % by 40.4 °C, 26 °C and 45%, respectively, were recorded during August. The maximum pan evaporation rate (mm day−1) 7.5 occurred in June month and decreased to its lowest value 5.3 in September during the two successive seasons of rice cultivation (2017–2018).

2.2. Soil Characteristics

Table 2 shows that the soil is clay-textured. Soil moisture content % (at 0.33 bar and at 15 bar), available water %, bulk density (g cm−3) and saturated hydraulic conductivity (cm h−1) were determined at the surface soil layer (0–0.25 m) and amounted to 34.33, 14.60, 19.73, 1.40 and 1.2, respectively, and by 32.19, 13.06, 19.13, 1.36 and 0.9, respectively, a subsurface (0.25–0.5 m).
According to the data represented in Table 2, organic matter content was 1.2%, available nitrogen—0.04%, available phosphorus (mg kg−1 soil) 5.84 and available potassium 61.9 (mg kg−1 soil), ECe, (dS·m−1), pH, CEC (cmole kg−1) and CaCO3 (%) were measured and amounted 2.62, 7.76, 14.10 and 4.81, respectively. Soil physical and chemical properties were determined according to [35,36].

2.3. Experimental Layout and Treatments

Seeds of the three studied lowland rice varieties [V1 (Giza-178), V2 (Giza-177) and V3 (Sakha-104)] were sown manually on 16 May 2017 and 10 May 2018 in rows with seed rate 130 kg h−1 with rows spaced distance 0.25 m. The characteristics of the tested rice varieties were reported by [37] as follows:
  • V1 (Giza-178): Pedigree (Giza175/Milyang 49), Properties (Indica/Japonica type—tolerant to drought—medium maturing—high yield), grain yield (10 t ha−1) growth period (135 days)
  • V2 (Giza-177): Pedigree (Giza 171/Yomjo No. 1//PiNo.4,) Japonica type—sensitive to drought—short stature—early duration—,grain yield (9 t ha−1) and the growth period (125 days)
  • V3 (Sakha-104): Pedigree (GZ4096-8-1/GZ4100-9-1), Properties (Japonica type—sensitive to drought—), grain yield (10 t ha−1) growth period (135 days)
Each sub-subplot (experimental unit) involved 5 rows. Agronomic practices for crop management viz fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides applications were implemented according to the recommended practices described by [38]. Fertilizers were manually broadcast then incorporated within the basal application (35 kg P and 50 kg K per hectare). The experiments were conducted in a randomized complete block design (Split-split Plot) in three replicates including three factors. Using a surface irrigation system, three different irrigation regimes as follows: I1 (120% of ETc), I2 (100% of ETc) and I3 (80% of ETc) were applied and allocated to the main plots and two N fertilization levels N1 (100% of recommended dose (RD) by 165 kg N ha−1) and N2 (125% of RD by 200 kg N ha−1), were broadcasted in three equal splits and added at basal, mid-tillering and panicle initiation of rice developing stages and allocated to the sub main plots, where the three lowland rice varieties seeded and allocated to sub-sub main plots. The total experimental area specified for each year was 1134 m2 divided into 54 experimental plots of 21 m2 for each. To protect against irrigation and nitrogen fertilizer treatment effects, three meters were utilized to isolate the experimental units.

2.4. Irrigation Water Requirements (IWR)

The IWR was determined according to [39] equation as follows:
IWR = A ×   ETc ×   Ii   Ea × 1000
where, IWR: irrigation water requirements (m3), A: plot area (m2), ETc: water consumptive use (mm day−1), Ii: intervals between irrigation (day), and Ea: application efficiency (%).
To convey water for each plot plastic pipe (spiles) of 2 inch diameter was used, and the amount of water delivered through a plastic pipe was calculated according to [40].
Q = CA 2 gh × 10 3
where: Q is the discharge of irrigation water (m3), C is the coefficient of discharge, A is a cross-sectional area of irrigation pipe (cm2), g is gravity acceleration (cm s−2) and h is the average of the effective head of water (cm) above the pipe.
ETc: Water consumptive use (mm day−1)
ETc = ET0 × Kc
where: ETc: crop water consumption (mm d−1), ET0 is the reference evapotranspiration (mm d−1), and Kc: crop coefficient.
ET0 = Epan × Kp
where Epan: is the evaporation from a class A (mm day−1) and Kp: is the pan coefficient.

2.5. Plant Physiological Measurements

2.5.1. Chlorophyll a Fluorescence (Fv/Fm) and Performance Index (PI) Values

Chlorophyll a fluorescence was determined by plant efficiency analyzer, Handy PEA (Hansatech Instruments Ltd., Norfolk, UK). From each plot, ten fully expanded flag leaves were randomly selected, the leaf samples were dark-adapted for 15 min before being illuminated with irradiance intensity of 3000 μmol/(m2·s) [41,42]. While PI was measured as reported by [43].

2.5.2. Relative Water Content (RWC)

Leaf samples for RWC measurement were randomly collected in the morning (8:00 to 9:00 a.m.). RWC was estimated according to the method described by [44].
RWC (%) = (FW − DW) × 100/(TW − DW)
where: FW: Fresh weight was measured within two hours after excision of leaves. Turgid weight (TW) was computed by soaking leaves in distilled water and left at room temperature for (16–18 h) then rapidly and carefully blotted dry by tissue paper to determine turgid weight. The small leaf pieces were later oven-dried for 48 h at 70 °C to estimate the dry weight (DW).

2.5.3. Relative Chlorophyll Content (SPAD)

The SPAD meter (SPAD502, KONICAMINOLTA. Inc., Tokyo, Japan) was used to estimate the relative chlorophyll content of the rice.

2.5.4. Membrane Stability Index (MSI %)

The (MSI %) was measured by the method described by [45]. The small leaf strips (0.2 g) of equal size were prepared and taken in two sets of test tubes containing 10 mL of distilled water. The test tubes arranged in one set were maintained at 40 °C in a water bath for 30 min then the ECe of the water covering the leaf samples was estimated (C1). While the test tubes of the other set were incubated in a bath of boiling water at 100 °C for 15 min then measured ECe (C2). The MSI was computed: MSI = [1 − (C1/C2)] × 100.

2.6. Growth, Yield and Yield Components Measurements

All the studied three rice varieties were harvested after 135 days from the sowing date. From each plot, ten plants were selected randomly to determine the plant growth and yield components parameters, i.e., tillers and productive tillers number, plant height (from ground level to the tip of panicle, was measured by meter-scale), length and weight of panicle, number and weight of grains per panicle and 100-grain weight. The grain and straw yield were measured by using digital balance from all plants collected from 1m2 sampling area.

2.7. Grain N Content

Digestion process was performed for the dried grain samples with a mixture consisting of perchloric and nitric acids (at 1:3, v/v, respectively). Using the previous digestion solution, an assessment of N content was performed. Determination of N was performed using the micro-Kjeldahl apparatus (Ningbo Medical Instruments Co., Ningbo, China) following [46] methods.

2.8. Irrigation Water Productivity (IWP)

IWP was determined according to [47].
IWP   ( Kg   m   3 ) = grain   yield   ( Kg   ha 1 )   irrigation   water   applied   ( m 3   ha 1 )  
Crop water productivity (CWP): was computed according to [48].
CWP   ( Kg   m 3 ) = grain   yield   ( Kg   ha 1 )   water   consumptive   ( m 3   ha 1 )  

2.9. Statistical Analysis

The obtained data for each variable were subjected to two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) using GenStat statistical package (12th Ed., VSN International Ltd., Oxford, UK). In case of significant effects, the treatment means were separated using LSD test at p ≤ 0.05 probability level.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Rice Water Status

Results of plant water status (RWC and MSI) in response to irrigation, nitrogen and variety are displayed in Table 3. In both seasons, the highest MSI, RWC values were recorded when rice was subjected to irrigation at 120% of ETc and received 200 kg N ha−1; on the other hand, the integrative application of irrigation at 80% of ETc and plants received 165 kg N ha−1 recorded the lowest values over all varieties.
Regarding the effect of varieties, data enumerated in Table 3 revealed that Giza-178 (V1) recorded the highest MSI, RWC values while Giza-177 (V2) gave the lowest values in both seasons. Application of 200 kg N ha−1 to drought-stressed plants up to 20% compensated for this shortage of irrigation and recorded similar values to well-irrigated plants (I120%) and received 165 kg N ha−1. RWC and MSI declined remarkably in both I100% and I80% treatment compared with well-watered treatment (I120%) [49,50]. We found that RWC and MSI had positive relationships with IWA irrespective of nitrogen applications. The RWC and MSI values were decreased as drought increased. Interestingly, leaf RWC and MSI in higher N treatment were 3.2 and 5.2% higher than that low N treatment, irrespective of the variety effect. In this investigation, N-supply decreased the detrimental effects of water stress on rice plants and kept their RWC and MSI values at close levels as in well-watered plants (Table 3). In the present study, the adverse changes that occurred in the health of cell membranes under drought stress were assessed. Our results revealed that higher N-application plays an important role in stabilizing membrane integrity and maintaining cell turgor of rice leaves under drought stress. In this respect, increases of tissue RWC and MSI as metabolically available water seems to maintain tissue health and may reflect on the metabolic processes in rice under water stress, which agrees with the results of [34,51], who stated that, N supply under drought stress improved RWC and MSI as well as enhanced the photosynthetic efficiency with increased grain yield of wheat plants. Our results agree with those of [48,52]. They reported that drought stress severely affected and reduced rice growth, photosynthesis, stomatal conductance. Ref. [53] reported drought adversely affects physiological responses of plants through a reduction in gas exchange especially stomatal conductance, photosynthetic pigments and overall crop water status.

3.2. Leaf Physiological Traits

For all varieties, physiological traits like relative chlorophyll content (SPAD value), chlorophyll fluorescence (Fv/Fm) and performance index (PI) were significantly improved in drought stress-treated rice plants under high N application (Table 3). Drought stress (80% of ETc) reduced the values of SPAD (18.7%), Fv/Fm (5.5%), and PI (46.1%) as compared to plants irrigated at 120% of ETc (Table 3). All physiological traits were significantly decreased under drought [17,54]. However, rice plants that received high N concentrations (200 kg ha−1) significantly increased SPAD (7.3%), Fv/Fm (3.8%), and PI (45.3%), as compared to low N concentration, over all varieties as average for both seasons. Moreover, results in Table 3 showed that the highest SPAD, Fv/Fm, and PI values were recorded in Giza178 (V1), while the lowest values were recorded under Giza177 (V2) for both seasons. The best results of these traits were recorded in Giza178 with application of 200 kg N ha−1 + I120 of ETc. Our results suggest that the application of high N concentration can mitigate the negative effects of water stress on SPAD, Fv/Fm, and PI and as a result of increasing the photosynthetic efficiency of rice plants. Similar trends were reported by [16,55,56,57,58].

3.3. Plant Growth Characteristics

Results presented in Table 4 showed that the applied irrigation regimes, nitrogen fertilization levels and their interaction significantly affected the plant height and the number of effective tillers. Applying water stress level (I 80%) significantly reduced plant height, tillers No, effective tillers no and panicle length by 9.45, 21.54, 21.12 and 10.58% compared by control (I 120%). Increasing the amount of the applied irrigation water and nitrogen dose at (I120 × N2) treatment gave the greatest values of plant height and effective tillers. Tillers number in particular fertile tillers is considered one of the most important components of yield. The observed increase in number of fertile tillers in the current investigation might be related to the higher availability of the nitrogen element that played a vital role in cell division. On the contrary, the lowest estimation for these parameters was observed at (I80 × N1) treatment. Drought stress may cause various structural and functional disruptions in reproductive organs [20]. Among the grown rice varieties (Giza178) recorded the maximum plant height (76.14 cm) and effective tillers number (2.75) as compared with other varieties. The increases in both plant height and produced effective tillers under (I1 × N2) treatment could be due to the availability of water and nitrogen resulting in better translocation of photosynthesis, higher cell deviation and there by favored highest yield attributes under these treatments. The obtained results were in line with [59] who observed that increasing nitrogen fertilizer resulted in drier matter accumulation. Ref. [60,61] found that the irrigation regime and N application significantly affected rice yield and yield traits. In addition, increasing the N uptake may have beneficial effects on plants grown under drought conditions, where the plant drought resistance increased with increasing N supply resulted in increasing root hydraulic conductivity (Lpr) through increased abscisic acid and aquaporin expression [30,31].

3.4. Yield Components

Yield components of, i.e., panicle length (cm), grains number per panicle, panicle weight, weight of grain per panicle (g) and weight of 100 grain (g), were significantly affected by irrigation and nitrogen nutrition treatments. Results in Table 5 showed that rice variety Giza178 yielded the highest values of these traits under irrigation and nutrition level (I120 × N2), while the lowest values were yielded by Giza177 under (I80 × N1). Among irrigation regimes (I120) produced the highest averages of these traits, that gradually reduced by increasing drought level. The reduction percent amounted to 5.48, 7.78, 13.63, 18.41 and 11.07% respectively, as compared with those obtained at moderate stress level (I100) and by 10.57, 17.83, 29.66 32.61and 18.38% respectively compared to (I80). The obtained results were in line with those reported by [52] who found that yield components of rice crop (panicle number, panicle length, 100-grain weight and grain yield) decreased with increasing water stress especially if it occurred at the stage of panicle initiation. Ref. [17,62] noted that depending upon the stress severity the plant physiological responses, the apical development rate, biomass production, panicle development, spikelet number, and grain yield were decreased.
However, applying nitrogen fertilization at N2 resulted in an increase in panicle length (cm), grains number per panicle, panicle weight, weight of grain per panicle (g) and weight of 100 grain (g) by 5.72, 10.81, 12.85, 11.91 and 5.21% as compared to N1. Inter varietal comparison showed that, yield component traits were significantly differed in both seasons. Results are in agreement with those revealed by [63,64] who noted that the application of N fertilizers significantly increased the yield and yield components of rice.

3.5. Grain, Straw and Biological Yield

Results presented in Table 6 show that, grain, straw, biological yield and grains N content were varied significantly among the grown rice varieties as affected by both irrigation and nitrogen nitration management. As average (2017–2018) rice variety Giza178 gave the highest grain, straw and biological yield 7.97, 12.23 and 20.19 t ha−1 respectively, while Giza177 recorded the lowest yields (5.78, 8.84 and 14.61 t ha−1 respectively). As presented above in (Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5) the higher application of irrigation water (I120) improved the plant water statues, enhanced growth and development of rice plants that contributed to achieve the maximum values for grain yield (8.11 t ha−1), straw yield (11.89 t ha−1) and biological yield (20.00 t ha−1). Furthermore, comparing with irrigation treatment (I120), moderate irrigation regime (I100) reduced the grain, straw and biological yield of grown lowland rice varieties. The reductions were by 10.98, 5.55 and 7.75%, respectively, and by 34.18, 26.53 and 29.63%, respectively, under the application of deficit irrigation treatment (I80). A similar trend was observed by [62,65,66,67].
However, nitrogen application gave an appositive effect and improved the productivity of all grown rice varieties. Data in Table 6 showed that increasing the nitrogen fertilization dose from N1 to N2 resulted in an increase in grain, straw and biological yield by 12.66, 18.20 and 15.99%, respectively. Nitrogen application could produce promoted root growth, enhanced water and nitrogen extraction from soil, resulting in better crop growth and higher yield productivity. Similar trend was noted by [68] who observed an increase in grain yield with the increasing of nitrogen application levels. The combined effect of (I × N) on grain and straw was found to be significant during both seasons except their effect on straw yield in the second year was non-significant. The effect of (V × N) during two seasons was non-significant. Meanwhile, the effect of (I × V × N) was significant.

3.6. Irrigation Water Applied and Water Productivity

Results in Table 7 show that total water applied was varied between the applied irrigation treatments. The lowest amount of irrigation water (646 mm ha−1) required was at (I80), while the highest (970 mm ha−1) was needed for (I120). According to the grain yield obtained under each watering treatment, the applied irrigation water and crop water consumption, irrigation water productivity (IWP) and crop water productivity (CWP) were significantly differed (p ≤ 0.05) in both growing seasons. Among irrigation treatments watering at (I100) gave the highest values of IWP and CWP by 0.89 and 1.28 (kg m3), respectively, when comparing with other irrigation treatments. In addition, increasing nitrogen application dose up to N2 resulted in higher IWP and CWP by 12.50 and 12.17%, respectively, than N1 (as average for both seasons). Between rice varieties, Giza179 corresponding to its high grain productivity which resulted in the highest value as averages of IWP (0.99 Kg m−3) and CWP (1.41 kg m−3) meanwhile, the lowest IWP and CWP amounted 0.71 and 1.02 kg m−3, respectively, noted for Giza177.
Many studies have been summarized that rice cultivation under flooded condition consumes approximately 20,000 m3 ha−1 [7]. In North Delta, Egypt [69] estimated water requirements for flooded-rice by 19,000 m3 ha−1 and water utilization efficiency by 48%. Similar results reported by [70] who found that rice normally needs under traditional methods in Egypt a water application of about 20,000 m3 ha−1. Studies conducted by [11] concluded that the water requirement of paddy fields in Egypt is about 1800–2200 mm ha−1. Therefore, compared with previous studies, the current investigation aimed to create new environmental cultivation conditions to grow lowland rice varieties (aerobically) in non-puddled fields under non-flooded conditions and maintain a profitable grain yield could save irrigation water by 60%. Moreover, results concluded that lowland rice variety Giza178 was observed to be more tolerant than other varieties, Giza177 and Sakha104, while v. Giza177 was much affected by deficiency of irrigation water. A similar trend was reported by [3].

3.7. Correlation Analysis

Results in Table 8 and Table 9 illustrated the correlation coefficients between rice grain yield and the other yield components. This type of examination could be used as an appropriate instrument to indicate which one of them is positive and greatly associated with the obtained yield of grains.
It was observed that grain yield was positive and strongly correlated with plant height, spike length, grain no/spike then followed by spike weight, which validates their economic importance.
Data in Table 9 show that plant height and spike weight in both seasons were significantly (p ≤ 0.01) contributed to variations in rice grain yield.

4. Conclusions

Cultivating rice aerobically under deficit irrigation has been observed to be used as an effective and efficient approach in saving irrigation water and improving IWP compared with the flooding system. Additionally, improving nitrogen supply enhanced rice crop productivity under deficit irrigation conditions. The combined effect of (I120 × N2) treatment achieved the greatest values of all agronomic and physiological traits, grain and straw yield of rice. Applying of irrigation water at (I2) produced the maximum (IWP) and (CWP) by 0.89 and 1.28 kg m−3, respectively, compared with other irrigation schedules. Rice variety (Giza178, V1), gave the highest CWP and grain yield which amounted to 1.41 and 7.97, respectively. Consequently, it could be a suitable genotype for improving rice productivity under drought conditions as compared with other tested rice varieties. Thus, based on the results of the current study the incorporating deficit irrigation technique at level (100 of ETc) with nitrogen application at 120% of recommended dose could be a valuable agro-management strategy for maintaining relatively high yields of some sensitive-drought Egyptian rice varieties and saving irrigation water supply by 50–60% compared to the conventional rice cultivation method.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.M.A., M.O.A.R. and T.A.A.E.-M.; methodology, N.M.A., M.O.A.R., W.M.S. and T.A.A.E.-M.; formal analysis, T.A.A.E.-M., M.O.A.R., N.M.A. and W.M.S.; investigation, T.A.A.E.-M., W.M.S., N.M.A. and M.O.A.R.; resources N.M.A., T.A.A.E.-M., W.M.S., S.A.A.E.-M., M.A.A.-R., E.F.A., A.M. and M.O.A.R.; data curation, N.M.A., M.O.A.R., T.A.A.E.-M.; E.F.A., A.M. and M.A.A.-R.; writing—original draft preparation, N.M.A., M.O.A.R. and T.A.A.E.-M.; and S.A.A.E.-M.; writing—review and editing, N.M.A., T.A.A.E.-M., W.M.S., A.A.A.L.; visualization, N.M.A., M.O.A.R., T.A.A.E.-M.; W.M.S., E.F.A., A.M., S.A.A.E.-M. and M.A.A.-R.; supervision, N.M.A., T.A.A.E.-M. and M.O.A.R. project administration, N.M.A., M.O.A.R. and T.A.A.E.-M.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to Taif University Researchers Supporting Project number (TURSP-2020/110), Taif University, Saudi Arabia, for the financial support and research facilities.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Manjappa, G.U.; Shailaja, H. Identification of drought tolerant and high yielding genotypes of rice under aerobic condition. Oryza 2014, 51, 273–278. [Google Scholar]
  2. FAOSTAT. Food and Agriculture Data; Food and Agriculture Organization: Rome, Italy, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  3. Tantawi, A.; Ghanem, S.A. Water use efficiency in rice culture. In Future of Water Management for Rice in Mediterranean Climate Areas: Proceedings of the Workshops; CIHEAM: Montpellier, France, 1999; pp. 39–45. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bouman, B.A.M. Water Management in Irrigated Rice: Coping with Water Scarcity; Internationa Rice Research Institute: Los Baños, Philippines, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  5. Brown, K.W.; Turner, F.T.; Thomas, J.C.; Deuel, L.E.; Keener, M.E. Water balance of flooded rice paddies. Agric. Water Manag. 1977, 1, 277–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. McCauley, G.N. Sprinkler vs. flood irrigation in traditional rice production regions of southeast Texas. Agron. J. 1990, 82, 677–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Tuong, T.P.; Bam, B.; Mortimer, M. More Rice, Less Water—Integrated Approaches for Increasing Water Productivity in Irrigated Rice-Based Systems in Asia. Plant Prod. Sci. 2005, 3, 231–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. WWAP, U. World Water Assessment Programme: The United Nations World Water Development Report 4: Managing Water under Uncertainty and Risk; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  9. Saxena, R.; Vanga, S.K.; Wang, J.; Orsat, V.; Raghavan, V. Millets for food security in the context of climate change: A review. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Abd El-Mageed, T.A.; Rady, M.O.A.; Semida, W.M.; Shaaban, A.; Mekdad, A.A.A. Exogenous Micronutrients Modulate Morpho-physiological Attributes, Yield, and Sugar Quality in Two Salt-Stressed Sugar Beet Cultivars. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2021, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Watanabe, T. Irrigation water requirement. In The Japanese Society of Irrigation, Drainage and Reclamation Engineering (JSIDRE), Editor; Advanced Paddy Field Engineering; Shinzansha Sci. & Tech.: Tokyo, Japan, 1995; pp. 31–50. [Google Scholar]
  12. English, M.J.; Nuss, G.S. Designing for deficit irrigation. J. Irrig. Drain. Div. 1982, 108, 91–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Abd El–Mageed, T.A.; El-Sherif, A.M.A.; Ali, M.M.; Abd El-Wahed, M.H. Combined effect of deficit irrigation and potassium fertilizer on physiological response, plant water status and yield of soybean in calcareous soil. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2017, 63, 827–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Rady, M.O.A.; Semida, W.M.; Howladar, S.M.; Abd El-Mageed, T.A. Raised beds modulate physiological responses, yield and water use efficiency of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under deficit irrigation. Agric. Water Manag. 2021, 245, 106629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Moustafa, E.S.A.; El-Sobky, E.-S.E.A.; Farag, H.I.A.; Yasin, M.A.T.; Attia, A.; Rady, M.O.A.; Awad, M.F.; Mansour, E. Sowing Date and Genotype Influence on Yield and Quality of Dual-Purpose Barley in a Salt-Affected Arid Region. Agronomy 2021, 11, 717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Abd El-Mageed, T.A.; Semida, W.M.; Rady, M.M. Moringa leaf extract as biostimulant improves water use efficiency, physio-biochemical attributes of squash plants under deficit irrigation. Agric. Water Manag. 2017, 193, 46–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Yang, X.; Wang, B.; Chen, L.; Li, P.; Cao, C. The different influences of drought stress at the flowering stage on rice physiological traits, grain yield, and quality. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Palanog, A.D.; Swamy, B.M.; Shamsudin, N.A.A.; Dixit, S.; Hernandez, J.E.; Boromeo, T.H.; Kumar, A. Grain yield QTLs with consistent-effect under reproductive-stage drought stress in rice. F. Crop. Res. 2014, 161, 46–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Saud, S.; Fahad, S.; Yajun, C.; Ihsan, M.Z.; Hammad, H.M.; Nasim, W.; Alharby, H. Effects of nitrogen supply on water stress and recovery mechanisms in Kentucky bluegrass plants. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  20. Noor, M.A. Nitrogen management and regulation for optimum NUE in maize–A mini review. Cogent Food Agric. 2017, 3, 1348214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ghoneim, A.M.; Gewaily, E.E.; Osman, M.M. Effects of nitrogen levels on growth, yield and nitrogen use efficiency of some newly released Egyptian rice genotypes. Open Agric. 2018, 3, 310–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Yoshida, S. Physiological aspects of grain yield. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 1972, 23, 437–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ebaid, R.A.; Ghanem, S.A. Productivity of Giza 177 rice variety grown after different winter crops and fertilized with different nitrogen levels. Egypt. J. Agric. Res. 2000, 78, 717–731. [Google Scholar]
  24. El-Batal, M.A.; Abdel-Gawad, M.H.; Abdou, F.A.; Abdel-Aziz, E.A. Uniconazole application as antilodging for rice plants fertilized with high nitrogen rate. Zagazig J. Agric. Res. 2004, 31, 473–490. [Google Scholar]
  25. Filgueiras, L.; Silva, R.; Almeida, I.; Vidal, M.; Baldani, J.I.; Meneses, C.H.S.G. Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus mitigates drought stress in Oryza sativa L. Plant Soil 2020, 451, 57–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Yoseftabar, S. Effect nitrogen management on panicle structure and yield in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Int. J. Agric. Crop Sci. 2013, 5, 1224–1227. [Google Scholar]
  27. Otoo, E.; Ishii, R.; Kumura, A. Interaction of nitrogen supply and soil water stress on photosynthesis and transpiration in rice. Jpn. J. Crop Sci. 1989, 58, 424–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Castillo, E.G.; Buresh, R.J.; Ingram, K.T. Lowland rice yield as affected by timing of water deficit and nitrogen fertilization. Agron. J. 1992, 84, 152–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Shangguan, Z.P.; Shao, M.A.; Dyckmans, J. Nitrogen nutrition and water stress effects on leaf photosynthetic gas exchange and water use efficiency in winter wheat. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2000, 44, 141–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ding, L.; Lu, Z.; Gao, L.; Guo, S.; Shen, Q. Is nitrogen a key determinant of water transport and photosynthesis in higher plants upon drought stress? Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Guo, S.; Chen, G.; Zhou, Y.; Shen, Q. Ammonium nutrition increases photosynthesis rate under water stress at early development stage of rice (Oryza sativa L.). Plant Soil 2007, 296, 115–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Shatil-Cohen, A.; Attia, Z.; Moshelion, M. Bundle-sheath cell regulation of xylem-mesophyll water transport via aquaporins under drought stress: A target of xylem-borne ABA? Plant J. 2011, 6, 72–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Ren, B.; Wang, M.; Chen, Y.; Sun, G.; Li, Y.; Shen, Q.; Guo, S. Water absorption is affected by the nitrogen supply to rice plants. Plant Soil 2015, 396, 397–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Agami, R.A.; Alamri, S.A.M.; Abd El-Mageed, T.A.; Abousekken, M.S.M.; Hashem, M. Role of exogenous nitrogen supply in alleviating the deficit irrigation stress in wheat plants. Agric. Water Manag. 2018, 210, 261–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Klute, A.; Dirksen, C. Hydraulic conductivity and diffusivity. Laboratory methods. Methods Soil Anal. Part 1. Phys. Mineral. Methods 1986, 9, 687–734. [Google Scholar]
  36. Page, A.I.; Miller, R.H.; Keeny, D.R. Methods of Soil Analysis. In Part II. Chemical and Microbiological Methods, 2nd ed.; American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA, 1982; pp. 225–246. [Google Scholar]
  37. Gaballah, M.M.; Metwally, A.M.; Skalicky, M.; Hassan, M.M.; Brestic, M.; El Sabagh, A.; Fayed, A.M. Genetic Diversity of Selected Rice Genotypes under Water Stress Conditions. Plants 2021, 10, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sariam, O.; Azmi, M.; Chan, C.S.; Badrulhadza, A.; Mohd Khusairy, K.; Mohd Fitri, M.; Alicia, J.A.; Rosnani, H.; Shamsul, S.A. Aerobic Rice Manual; MARDI Press: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  39. Allen, R.G.; Pereira, L.S.; Raes, D.; Smith, M. Crop evapotranspiration: Guidelines for computing crop requirements. Irrig. Drain. Pap. No. 56 FAO 1998, 300, D05109. [Google Scholar]
  40. Israelsen, O.W.; Hansen, V.C. Irrigation Principles and Practices; John Wiley & Sons Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1962. [Google Scholar]
  41. Maxwell, K.; Johnson, G.N. Chlorophyll fluorescence—A practical guide. J. Exp. Bot. 2000, 51, 659–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Spoustová, P.; Synková, H.; Valcke, R.; Čevrovská, N. Chlorophyll a fluorescence as a tool for a study of the Potato virus Y effects on photosynthesis of nontransgenic and transgenic Pssu-ipt tobacco. Photosynthetica 2013, 51, 191–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Clark, A.J.J.; Landolt, W.; Bucher, J.B.B.; Strasser, R.J.J. Beech (Fagus sylvatica) response to ozone exposure assessed with a chlorophyll a fluorescence performance index. Environ. Pollut. 2000, 109, 501–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Semida, W.M.; Abd El-mageed, T.A.; Abdelkhalik, A.; Hemida, K.A.; Abdurrahman, H.A.; Howladar, S.M.; Leilah, A.A.A.; Rady, M.O.A. Selenium Modulates Antioxidant Activity, Osmoprotectants, and Photosynthetic Efficiency of Onion under Saline. Agronomy 2021, 11, 855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Rady, M.M.; Taha, R.S.; Semida, W.M.; Alharby, H.F. Modulation of salt stress effects on vicia faba l. plants grown on a reclaimed-saline soil by salicylic acid application. Rom. Agric. Res. 2017, 34, 175–185. [Google Scholar]
  46. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis, 17th ed.; The Association of Official Analytical Chemists: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2000; ISBN 0935584676. [Google Scholar]
  47. Michael, A.M. Irrigation Theory and Practice-2Nd Edn: Theory and Practice; Vikas Publishing House: Delhi, India, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  48. Quampah, A.; Ren-Ming, W.; Shamsi, I.H.; Jilani, G.; Zhang, Q.; Hua, S.; Xu, H. Improving water productivity by potassium application in various rice genotypes. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2011, 13, 9–17. [Google Scholar]
  49. Abd El-Mageed, T.A.; El-Sherif, A.M.A.; Abd El-Mageed, S.A.; Abdou, N.M. A novel compost alleviate drought stress for sugar beet production grown in Cd-contaminated saline soil. Agric. Water Manag. 2019, 226, 105831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Desoky, E.M.; Elrys, A.S.; Mansour, E.; Eid, R.S.M.; Selem, E.; Rady, M.M.; Ali, E.F.; Mersal, G.A.M.; Semida, W.M. Application of biostimulants promotes growth and productivity by fortifying the antioxidant machinery and suppressing oxidative stress in faba bean under various abiotic stresses. Sci. Hortic. 2021, 288, 110340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Abid, M.; Tian, Z.; Ata-Ul-Karim, S.T.; Cui, Y.; Liu, Y.; Zahoor, R.; Dai, T. Nitrogen nutrition improves the potential of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) to alleviate the effects of drought stress during vegetative growth periods. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Zaman, N.K.; Abdullah, M.Y.; Othman, S.; Zaman, N.K. Growth and physiological performance of aerobic and lowland rice as affected by water stress at selected growth stages. Rice Sci. 2018, 25, 82–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Anjum, S.A.; Xie, X.; Wang, L.; Saleem, M.F.; Man, C.; Lei, W. Morphological, physiological and biochemical responses of plants to drought stress. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2011, 6, 2026–2032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Badal, E.; El-Mageed, T.A.A.A.; Buesa, I.; Guerra, D.; Bonet, L.; Intrigliolo, D.S. Moderate plant water stress reduces fruit drop of “Rojo Brillante” persimmon (Diospyros kaki) in a Mediterranean climate. Agric. Water Manag. 2013, 119, 154–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Belal, H.E.E.; Rady, M.M.; Gadallah, F.M.; Semida, W.M. Application in two methods elevates drought tolerance by increasing antioxidant defense system and reducing oxidative stress biomarkers in solanum lycopersicum plant. Fayoum J. Agric. Res. Dev. 2020, 34, 130–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Abd El-mageed, T.A.; Abdelkhalik, A.; Abd El-mageed, S.A.; Semida, W.M. Co-composted Poultry Litter Biochar Enhanced Soil Quality and Eggplant Productivity Under Different Irrigation Regimes. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2021, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Abd El-mageed, T.A.; Rady, M.M.; Taha, R.S.; Abd El Azeam, S.; Simpson, C.R.; Semida, W.M. Effects of integrated use of residual sulfur-enhanced biochar with effective microorganisms on soil properties, plant growth and short-term productivity of Capsicum annuum under salt stress. Sci. Hortic. 2020, 261, 108930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Semida, W.M.; El-mageed, T.A.A.; Abdalla, R.M.; Hemida, K.A.; Howladar, S.M.; Leilah, A.A.A.; Rady, M.O.A. Sequential Antioxidants Foliar Application Can Alleviate Negative Consequences of Salinity Stress in Vicia faba L. Plants 2021, 10, 914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Parasuraman, P. Integrated nitrogen management in rice (Oryza sativa) through split application of fertilizers at different levels with green manure. Mysore J. Agric. Sci. 2005, 39, 90–94. [Google Scholar]
  60. Sandhu, S.S.; Mahal, S.S.; Vashist, K.K.; Buttar, G.S.; Brar, A.S.; Singh, M. Crop and water productivity of bed transplanted rice as influenced by various levels of nitrogen and irrigation in northwest India. Agric. Water Manag. 2012, 104, 32–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Jiao, J.; Shi, K.; Li, P.; Sun, Z.; Chang, D.; Shen, X.; Xu, L. Assessing of an irrigation and fertilization practice for improving rice production in the Taihu Lake region (China). Agric. Water Manag. 2018, 201, 91–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kruzhilin, I.P.; Doubenok, N.N.; Ganiev, M.A.; Abdou, N.M.; Melikhov, V.V.; Bolotin, A.G.; Rodin, K.A. Water-saving technology of drip irrigated aerobic rice cultivation. ISVESTIYA 2015, 3, 47–56. [Google Scholar]
  63. Chaturvedi, I. Effect of nitrogen fertilizers on growth, yield and quality of hybrid rice (Oryza sativa). J. Cent. Eur. Agric. 2005, 6, 611–618. [Google Scholar]
  64. Singh, H.; Verma, A.; Ansari, M.W.; Shukla, A. Physiological response of rice (Oryza sativa L.) genotypes to elevated nitrogen applied under field conditions. Plant. Signal. Behav. 2014, 9, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Semida, W.M.; El-Mageed, T.A.A.; Mohamed, S.E.; El-Sawah, N.A. Combined effect of deficit irrigation and foliar-applied salicylic acid on physiological responses, yield, and water-use efficiency of onion plants in saline calcareous soil. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2017, 63, 1227–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Abd El-Mageed, T.A.; Semida, W.M. Effect of deficit irrigation and growing seasons on plant water status, fruit yield and water use efficiency of squash under saline soil. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 186, 89–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Abd El-Mageed, T.A.; Semida, W.M.; Taha, R.S.; Rady, M.M. Effect of summer-fall deficit irrigation on morpho-physiological, anatomical responses, fruit yield and water use efficiency of cucumber under salt affected soil. Sci. Hortic. 2018, 237, 148–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Mannan, M.A.; Bhuiya, M.S.U.; Akhand, M.I.M.; Saman, M.M. Growth and yield of basmati and traditional aromatic rice as influenced by water stress and nitrogen level. J. Sci. Found. 2012, 10, 52–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Abo Soliman, M.S.M.; Ghanem, S.A.; Abd El-Hafez, S.A.; El-Mowelhi, N. Effect of irrigation regimes and nitrogen levels on rice production and nitrogen losses under title drainage. Minist. Agric. L Reclam. Agric. Res. 1990, 1, 14–15. [Google Scholar]
  70. Tuong, T.P.; Bouman, B.A.M. Rice Production in Water Scarce Environments. In Water Productivity in Agriculture: Limits and Opportunities for Improvement; Kijne, J.W., Barker, R., Molden, D., Eds.; CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
Table 1. Meteorological data recorded at Meteorological observatory of Fayoum governorate, during crop growing seasons of 2017 and 2018.
Table 1. Meteorological data recorded at Meteorological observatory of Fayoum governorate, during crop growing seasons of 2017 and 2018.
MonthYearTemperature °CRelative
Humidity
(%)
Wind
Speed
(m s−1)
Pan
Evaporation
(mm day−1)
Max.Min.Mean
May201735.220.928.139.64.26.5
201837.322.629.941.03.96.6
June201736.021.728.942.15.27.3
201840.324.432.338.65.07.5
July201737.021.829.435.54.06.9
201839.323.931.637.83.76.9
August201740.426.033.236.91.96.2
201836.423.029.645.23.76.3
September201738.313.831.036.62.05.5
201835.321.028.044.33.55.3
Max, and Min are maximum, and minimum temperatures, respectively.
Table 2. Some initial physical and chemical properties of the experimental soil.
Table 2. Some initial physical and chemical properties of the experimental soil.
Physical Properties
Layer (cm)Particle Size DistributionBulk
Density
(g cm−3)
Ksat
Cm h−1
FC
(%)
WP
(%)
AW
(%)
Sand
%
Silt
%
Clay
%
Texture Class
0–2510.0020.0070.00Clay1.401.2034.3319.7314.60
25–507.0021.0072.00Clay1.360.9032.1919.1313.06
Physical Properties
pHECe (dS·m−1)CEC (cmole kg−1)CaCO3 (%)Organic Matter (%)N (%)P (mg kg−1 soil)K (mg kg−1 soil)
0–257.762.6214.104.811.200.045.861.90
25–50 7.782.5214.004.761.100.045.660.00
Ksat = Hydraulic conductivity, FC = Field capacity, WP = wilting point, and AW = Available water.
Table 3. Effect of deficit irrigation, nitrogen fertilizer varieties, and their interaction on plant water status (RWC% and MSI %), chlorophyll florescence (Fv/Fm and PI), and leaf chlorophyll content (SPAD) of rice plants in 2017 (SI) and 2018 (SII) seasons.
Table 3. Effect of deficit irrigation, nitrogen fertilizer varieties, and their interaction on plant water status (RWC% and MSI %), chlorophyll florescence (Fv/Fm and PI), and leaf chlorophyll content (SPAD) of rice plants in 2017 (SI) and 2018 (SII) seasons.
Source of VariationRWC%MSI%SPADFv/FmPI
SISIISISIISISIISISIISISII
Irrigation (I)********************
I120%70.20 ± 1.1a70.41 ± 1.2a65.70 ± 1.6a65.65 ± 1.5a44.64 ± 0.63a44.60 ± 0.46a0.82 ± 0.00a0.83 ± 0.00a5.50 ± 0.30a5.60 ± 0.28a
I00%68.91 ± 1.7b69.22 ± 1.6b68.94 ± 2.1a67.64 ± 1.8a42.14 ± 0.60b42.80 ± 0.56b0.80 ± 0.00b0.81 ± 0.01b4.04 ± 0.26b3.93 ± 0.23b
I80%61.65 ± 1.4c62.14 ± 1.3c61.00 ± 1.6b60.50 ± 1.7b36.35 ± 0.82c36.20 ± 0.72c0.78 ± 0.01c0.78 ± 0.01c2.94 ± 0.35c3.04 ± 0.32c
Nitrogen (N)********************
N16565.44 ± 1.2b66.20 ± 1.1b62.52 ± 1.4b63.00 ± 1.3b39.82 ± 0.69b39.64 ± 0.72b0.78 ± 0.00b0.79 ± 0.00b3.44 ± 0.27b3.40 ± 0.26b
N20068.40 ± 1.1a68.34 ± 1.0a66.54 ± 1.4a66.24 ± 1.6a42.34 ± 0.59a42.92 ± 0.65a0.81 ± 0.00a0.82 ± 0.01a4.94 ± 0.25a5.00 ± 0.30a
Variety (V)******NS**NSNSNS****
V169.11 ± 1.0a69.42 ± 1.1a66.00 ± 1.9a65.14 ± 1.6a42.13 ± 0.68a41.74 ± 0.74a0.81 ± 0.01a0.81 ± 0.01a4.34 ± 0.38a4.34 ± 0.36a
V266.14 ± 1.2b66.73 ± 1.3b65.50 ± 1.8a65.24 ± 1.4a40.84 ± 0.88b41.07 ± 0.95a0.81 ± 0.00a0.81 ± 0.01a4.45 ± 0.39a4.50 ± 0.33a
V365.50 ± 1.4b65.64 ± 1.3c62.14 ± 1.5b63.40 ± 1.3a40.20 ± 0.72b41.15 ± 0.63a0.80 ± 0.00a0.80 ± 0.01a3.80 ± 0.27b3.81 ± 0.31b
I × N****NSNS************
I × V****NS*NS********NS
V × N*****NS****NSNSNS**
I × N × VNS*****NSNSNS******
** and * refer to the significant difference at p ≤ 0.01 and p ≤ 0.05, respectively; and “ns” refers to no significant difference. Different letters next to mean values in each column indicate significant differences according to the LSD test (p < 0.05).
Table 4. Effect of deficit irrigation, nitrogen fertilizers varieties, and their interaction on growth characteristics of rice plants in 2017 (SI) and 2018 (SII) seasons.
Table 4. Effect of deficit irrigation, nitrogen fertilizers varieties, and their interaction on growth characteristics of rice plants in 2017 (SI) and 2018 (SII) seasons.
Source of
Variation
Plant
Height (cm)
Tillers NoEffective Tillers NoPanicle Length (cm)
SISIISISIISISIISISII
Irrigation (I)*************
I12074.73 ± 0.87a75.30 ± 0.67a3.11 ± 0.08a3.14 ± 0.09a2.95 ± 0.09a2.78 ± 0.08a20.46 ± 0.21a20.58 ± 0.18a
I0071.87 ± 0.65b72.26 ± 0.62b2.56 ± 0.09b2.79 ± 0.08b2.45 ± 0.09b2.54 ± 0.08b19.41 ± 0.24b19.38 ± 0.21b
I8067.84 ± 0.67c68.00 ± 0.63c2.44 ± 0.08c2.46 ± 0.08c2.35 ± 0.09b2.17 ± 0.09c18.36 ± 0.23c18.34 ± 0.20c
Nitrogen (N)******NS**NS****
N16569.92 ± 0.67b70.01 ± 0.55a2.54 ± 0.08b2.81 ± 0.08a2.44 ± 0.08b2.49 ± 0.09a18.87 ± 0.23b18.89 ± 0.22b
N20073.04 ± 0.70a73.69 ± 0.59a2.85 ± 0.08a2.80 ± 0.09a2.72 ± 0.08a2.51 ± 0.07a19.95 ± 0.19a19.97 ± 0.17a
Variety (V)****NSNSNS*****
V175.79 ± 0.77a76.49 ± 0.73a2.86 ± 0.09a3.01 ± 0.09a2.70 ± 0.08a2.80 ± 0.06a20.57 ± 0.21a20.56 ± 0.19a
V267.31 ± 0.57c67.47 ± 0.65b2.65 ± 0.09b2.76 ± 0.09b2.59 ± 0.10b2.44 ± 0.06b18.54 ± 0.23c18.57 ± 0.24c
V371.34 ± 0.57b71.59 ± 0.59b2.59 ± 0.10b2.64 ± 0.09b2.44 ± 0.09c2.26 ± 0.07b19.11 ± 0.20b19.14 ± 0.22b
I×N**************
I×V***************
V×N****NS*******
I×N×VNSNS**NSNS**
** and * refer to the significant difference at p ≤ 0.01 and p ≤ 0.05, respectively; and “ns” refers to no significant difference. Different letters next to mean values in each column indicate significant differences according to the LSD test (p < 0.05).
Table 5. Effect of deficit irrigation, nitrogen fertilizer varieties, and their interaction on yield component of rice in 2017 (SI) and 2018 (SII) seasons.
Table 5. Effect of deficit irrigation, nitrogen fertilizer varieties, and their interaction on yield component of rice in 2017 (SI) and 2018 (SII) seasons.
Source of VariationGrains No/PaniclePanicle WeightWeight of Grains/PanicleW of 100 g
SISIISISIISISIISISII
Irrigation (I)****************
I12093.56 ± 1.7a94.45 ± 1.6a2.50 ± 0.03a2.49 ± 0.09a2.24 ± 0.03a2.27 ± 0.13a2.39 ± 0.29a2.40 ± 0.28a
I0086.34 ± 1.9b87.05 ± 1.8b2.15 ± 0.06b2.16 ± 0.10b1.80 ± 0.06b1.88 ± 0.16b2.10 ± 0.47b2.16 ± 0.36b
I8077.16 ± 1.5c78.18 ± 1.6c1.75 ± 0.07c1.76 ± 0.06c1.46 ± 0.06c1.58 ± 0.09c1.89 ± 0.49c2.02 ± 0.45c
Nitrogen (N)****************
N16582.99 ± 1.6b83.63 ± 1.5b1.98 ± 0.06b2.00 ± 0.06b1.72 ± 0.06b1.81 ± 0.10b2.07 ± 0.45b2.16 ± 0.39b
N20088.39 ± 1.6a89.47 ± 1.7a2.27 ± 0.06a2.27 ± 0.12a1.93 ± 0.06a2.02 ± 0.16a2.19 ± 0.49a2.26 ± 0.38a
Variety (V)****************
V197.20 ± 1.6a95.85 ± 1.8a2.46 ± 0.04a2.48 ± 0.11a2.20 ± 0.04a2.25 ± 0.08a2.27 ± 0.26a2.34 ± 0.36a
V277.00 ± 1.2c79.01 ± 1.3c1.81 ± 0.07c1.80 ± 0.09c1.41 ± 0.07c1.54 ± 0.11c1.84 ± 0.65c1.95 ± 0.54c
V382.87 ± 1.3b84.80 ± 1.3b2.11 ± 0.07b2.13 ± 0.08b1.88 ± 0.12b1.94 ± 0.09b2.27 ± 0.67b2.29 ± 0.57b
I × N**********NS**
I × V****************
V × N****NS*****NS**
I × N × VNSNS**********
** and * refer to the significant difference at p ≤ 0.01 and p ≤ 0.05, respectively; and “ns” refers to no significant difference. Different letters next to mean values in each column indicate significant differences according to the LSD test (p < 0.05).
Table 6. Effect of deficit irrigation, nitrogen fertilizers varieties, and their interaction on grain yield, straw yield, biological yield, and grains N content of rice plants in 2017 (SI) and 2018 (SII) seasons.
Table 6. Effect of deficit irrigation, nitrogen fertilizers varieties, and their interaction on grain yield, straw yield, biological yield, and grains N content of rice plants in 2017 (SI) and 2018 (SII) seasons.
Source of VariationGrain Yield
(t ha−1)
Straw Yield
(t ha−1)
Biological Yield
(t ha−1)
N
(%)
SISIISISIISISIISISII
Irrigation (I)****************
I120%8.02 ± 0.18a8.19 ± 0.23a11.64 ± 0.34a12.14 ± 0.63a19.66 ± 1.3a20.33 ± 2.1a1.47 ± 0.13a1.48 ± 0.11a
I00%7.14 ± 0.16b7.29 ± 0.39b11.15 ± 0.32b11.31 ± 1.1b18.29 ± 2.3b18.60 ± 2.4b1.42 ± 0.12a1.45 ± 0.09a
I80%5.29 ± 0.15c5.38 ± 0.26c8.51 ± 0.27c8.96 ± 0.91c13.80 ± 2.1c14.34 ± 1.9c1.36 ± 0.11b1.33 ± 0.08b
Nitrogen (N)****************
N1656.38 ± 0.17b6.57 ± 0.19b9.54 ± 0.33b9.91 ± 0.32b15.92 ± 1.9b16.48 ± 1.6b1.45 ± 0.11a1.46 ± 0.11a
N2007.26 ± 0.17a7.33 ± 0.17a11.33 ± 0.31a11.66 ± 0.64a18.59 ± 2.5a18.99 ± 1.5a1.39 ± 0.13b1.40 ± 0.08b
Variety (V)****************
V17.88 ± 0.18a8.05 ± 0.21a12.11 ± 0.33a12.34 ± 0.32a19.99 ± 2.9a20.39 ± 2.3a1.48 ± 0.09a1.47 ± 0.12a
V25.79 ± 0.14c5.76 ± 0.17c8.55 ± 0.29c9.12 ± 0.45c14.34 ± 1.9c14.88 ± 2.1c1.38 ± 0.11b1.39 ± 0.10b
V36.78 ± 0.16b7.03 ± 0.17b10.64 ± 0.28b10.85 ± 0.39b17.42 ± 1.8b17.88 ± 2.3b1.42 ± 0.12b1.41 ± 0.09b
I × N******NS*NSNSNS
I × V************NSNS
V × N**NSNSNSNSNSNSNS
I × N × V***********NSNS
** and * refer to the significant difference at p ≤ 0.01 and p ≤ 0.05, respectively; and “ns” refers to no significant difference. Different letters next to mean values in each column indicate significant differences according to the LSD test (p < 0.05).
Table 7. Effect of deficit irrigation, nitrogen fertilizer varieties, and their interaction on grain yield, straw yield, biological yield, irrigation water productivity and crop water productivity of rice plants in 2017 (SI) and 2018 (SII) seasons.
Table 7. Effect of deficit irrigation, nitrogen fertilizer varieties, and their interaction on grain yield, straw yield, biological yield, irrigation water productivity and crop water productivity of rice plants in 2017 (SI) and 2018 (SII) seasons.
Source of VariationIrrigation Water Applied (m3 ha−1)Irrigation Water Productivity
(kg m−3)
Crop Water Productivity
(kg m−3)
SISIISISIISISII
Irrigation (I) ********
I120%966197330.83 ± 0.01b0.84 ± 0.01b1.19 ± 0.09b1.20 ± 0.12b
I00%805181110.89 ± 0.02a0.90 ± 0.02a1.27 ± 0.08a1.29 ± 0.09a
I80%644164890.82 ± 0.01b0.83 ± 0.01b1.17 ± 0.11c1.19 ± 0.08b
Nitrogen (N) ********
N165805181110.79 ± 0.01b0.81 ± 0.01b1.13 ± 0.09c1.16 ± 0.08c
N200805181110.90 ± 0.02a0.90 ± 0.02a1.29 ± 0.06a1.29 ± 0.07a
Variety (V) ********
V1805181110.98 ± 0.02a0.99 ± 0.02a1.40 ± 0.11a1.42 ± 0.09a
V2805181110.72 ± 0.00c0.71 ± 0.01c1.03 ± 0.09c1.02 ± 0.0c
V3805181110.84 ± 0.01b0.87 ± 0.02b1.20 ± 0.08b1.24 ± 0.10b
I × N ********
I × V ********
V × N NSNS***
I × N × V NSNSNSNS
** and * refer to the significant difference at p ≤ 0.01 and p ≤ 0.05, respectively; and “ns” refers to no significant difference. Different letters next to mean values in each column indicate significant difference according to the LSD test (p < 0.05).
Table 8. A matrix of simple correlation coefficients between grain yield and other important traits estimated for 2017 and 2018 seasons.
Table 8. A matrix of simple correlation coefficients between grain yield and other important traits estimated for 2017 and 2018 seasons.
ParameterSeason12345678910
1Grain yield20171
20181
2Plant height20170.920 **1
20180.921 **1
3Branch No20170.486 **0.469 **1
20180.361 **0.308 **1
4No spike20170.405 **0.396 **0.712 **1
20180.377 **0.313 **0.568 **1
5Spike length20170.827 **0.815 **0.535 **0.455 **1
20180.819 **0.775 **0.306 **0.349 **1
6Grain No20170.903 **0.879 **0.430 **0.380 **0.844 **1
20180.894 **0.849 **0.268*0.294 **0.736 **1
7Spike weight20170.915 **0.866 **0.541 **0.454 **0.841 **0.872 **1
20180.899 **0854 **0.393 **0.376 **0.781 **0.812 **1
8W of 1000 g20170.661 **0.613 **0.542 **0.435 **0.617 **0.524 **0.838 **1
20180.679 **0.644 **0.438 **0.363 **0.632 **0.504 **0.843 **1
9SPAD20170.652 **0.534 **0.359 **0.357 **0.514 **0.596 **0.698 **0.629 **1
20180.596 **0.586 **0.303 **0.339 **0.515 **0.517 **0.619 **0.562 **1
10FV/FM20170.362 **0.353 **0.392 **0.330 **0.316 **0.248 *0.416 **0.444 **0.134 **1
20180.485 **0.498 **0.257 *0.244 *0.438 **0.498 **0.486 **0.391 **0.606 **1
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Table 9. Correlation coefficient (r), coefficient of determination (R2) and standard error of the estimates (SEE) for predicting grain yield for SI (2017) and SII (2018) seasons.
Table 9. Correlation coefficient (r), coefficient of determination (R2) and standard error of the estimates (SEE) for predicting grain yield for SI (2017) and SII (2018) seasons.
SeasonrR2SEESignificanceFitted Equation
20170.9610.9240.33***Grain yield = −4.1 + 0.09 plant height + 1.69 spike weight + 0.179 skillets no − 0.074 weight of 1000 grain
20180.9610.9240.33***Grain yield = −6.18+ 0.08 plant height + 0.72 spike weight + 0.031 grain no + 0.104 spike length
*** indicate correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Abdou, N.M.; Abdel-Razek, M.A.; Abd El-Mageed, S.A.; Semida, W.M.; Leilah, A.A.A.; Abd El-Mageed, T.A.; Ali, E.F.; Majrashi, A.; Rady, M.O.A. High Nitrogen Fertilization Modulates Morpho-Physiological Responses, Yield, and Water Productivity of Lowland Rice under Deficit Irrigation. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1291. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11071291

AMA Style

Abdou NM, Abdel-Razek MA, Abd El-Mageed SA, Semida WM, Leilah AAA, Abd El-Mageed TA, Ali EF, Majrashi A, Rady MOA. High Nitrogen Fertilization Modulates Morpho-Physiological Responses, Yield, and Water Productivity of Lowland Rice under Deficit Irrigation. Agronomy. 2021; 11(7):1291. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11071291

Chicago/Turabian Style

Abdou, Nasr M., Mohamed A. Abdel-Razek, Shimaa A. Abd El-Mageed, Wael M. Semida, Ahmed A. A. Leilah, Taia A. Abd El-Mageed, Esmat F. Ali, Ali Majrashi, and Mohamed O. A. Rady. 2021. "High Nitrogen Fertilization Modulates Morpho-Physiological Responses, Yield, and Water Productivity of Lowland Rice under Deficit Irrigation" Agronomy 11, no. 7: 1291. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11071291

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop