[ Drought conditions and management strategies in the Philippines ]

Practices to alleviate drought impacts:

> Promotion of water saving technologies (WST) in Irrigated Rice P
roduction System.
________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
[ Field water management to save water and increase its productivity in irrigate
d lowland rice ]
- "Total rice production can then only be maintained, or increased, by using th
e water thus saved to irrigate other previously unirrigated lands."
Objectives
> Through reviewing literature and analyzing published data, thi
s study investigates how
water-saving irrigation techniques at the field level can cont
ribute to meet the three
challenges facing rice producers as formulated above. The main
aim is to establish
generalizations from a large number of reported experiments. D
etails of individual cases
are only given to illustrate typical results or deviations fro
m general findings. First, the
effects of drought on growth and yield of rice that might be i
ncurred by water-saving
irrigation are investigated. Next, relationships between water
savings and yield reductions
are quantified. Then, water productivities of rice are quantif
ied, and production functions
between water input and rice yield are investigated.
Abstract
> Water-saving irrigation increases water productivity, up to a
maximum of about 1.9 g grain per kg water, but decreases yield.
It therefore does not produce more rice with less water on the
same field. Field-level water
productivity and yield can only be increased concomitantly by
improving total factor productivity
or by raising the yield potential. Total rice production can b
e increased by using water saved in one
location to irrigate new land in another. If this is not done,
a strategy of saving water at the eld
level potentially threatens total rice production at large.
Introduction
> Because of the combined increasing demand for food with the in
creasing scarcity of water, rice producers face three major challenges:
(1) to save water;
(2) to increase water productivity (i.e. grain yield over wate
r input, in g grain per kg water) and
(3) to produce more rice with less water. As will be shown in
this study, these three challenges are not the same (though they overlap).
> Recently, the term `water-saving irrigation techniques' has be
en introduced (Guerra et al.,
1998) to denominate irrigation strategies that aim at reducing
SP rates by
(i) reducing the depth of ponded water;
(ii) keeping the soil just saturated or

(iii) alternate wetting/drying, i.e. allowing the soil to dry

out to a certain extent before re-applying irrigation water.
Water-saving irrigation techniques, however, run the risk of y
ield reduction because of possible drought-stress effects on the crop
Methods and Materials
> The experiments and treatments were divided into two groups: o
ne aimed at the study
of drought effects on rice (experiments 1, 2, 47, 9, 1618, 25, 2
6, 31) henceforward
called the `drought experiments', and a second one aimed at wa
ter savings and their
effects of rice yield (experiments 24, 8, 1015, 17, 19, 2031) hen
ceforward called the
`water saving experiments'. All experiments used transplanted
rice, except for nos. 7, 12,
and 20, which used direct-seeded rice, and nos. 15, 17 and 19,
which used both.
Data analysis and terminology
> Since the experiments span a wide range of conditions, yield l
evels and water
inputs are not comparable. Therefore, relative yields and rela
tive water inputs were
calculated by normalizing the yields/water inputs obtained in
the drought or water-saving
treatments to the yield/water inputs obtained in the reference
treatments (in percent). The
reference treatment consisted of continuously ponded water of
510 cm depth, which is
generally considered as the optimum depth for rice growth (De
Datta, 1981; Anbumozhi
et al., 1998).
Conclusion and discussion
> For the three challenges facing rice production mentioned in S
ection 1, water-saving irrigation techniques have the following potential.
1. They can substantially reduce water input at the eld l
evel (as their name implies). A
risk of unintended extra water input, however, exists
in heavy (clayey) soils because
percolation rates may increase with drying of the soi
l or because of the development of
cracks that allow for rapid bypass ow.
2. They increase eld-level water productivity. In heavy s
oils, however, water
productivity may decrease when water input unintentio
nally increases (see above).
Also, Sanchez (1973a,b) reported that in such soils y
ields can be severely reduced
because roots may be physically damaged or impeded in
their growth as the soil dries
below the saturation level.
3. They maintain or decrease land productivity (compared
with continuously flooded
rice) and, therefore, do not produce more rice with l
ess water on a eld basis.
> The most promising option to save water and increase water pro
ductivity without
decreasing land productivity too much is by reducing the ponde
d water depth from 5

10 cm to the level of soil saturation. Water savings were on a

verage 23% (14%)
whereas yield reductions were only 6% (6%). The adoption of suc
h techniques will
have implications for irrigation systems because water deliver
y to the field needs to be
very accurate and timely. Farmers operating pumps would likely
benefit most from this
water-saving irrigation technique. Most Asian farmers in publi
c irrigation systems have
little incentive to reduce water input to their fields since i
rrigation water is mostly
charged on an area basis. Some economists therefore advocate s
hifting to a pay-pervolume
system to induce farmers to save water (e.g. Rosegrant, 1997).
> Total rice production can then only be maintained, or increase
d, by using the water thus saved to irrigate other
previously unirrigated lands. If this is not done, a strategy
of saving water at the field
level to improve water productivity potentially threatens tota
l rice production at large.
Optimization of water use requires knowledge of the water prod
uction function. Some
experimentally derived production functions were presented in
this study. However, ecophysiological
models, which describe the interaction between crop, water, so
il and
weather, are needed to extrapolate the empirical results as pr
esented here to other areas
(e.g. the model ORYZA; Wopereis et al., 1996a).
________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
[ Rice Production in Water-scarce Environments ]
Abstract
> This chapter reviews the International Rice Research Institute
(IRRI) s integrated
approach, using genetics, breeding and integrated resource man
agement to increase rice yield and
to reduce water demand for rice production.
> Water-saving irrigation, such as saturated-soil culture and al
ternate wetting and drying, can drastically cut down the unproductive
water outflows and increase water productivity. However, these
technologies mostly lead to some yield decline in the current lowland
rice varieties.
> Through the adoption of water-saving irrigation technologies,
rice land will shift away from being continuously
anaerobic to being partly or even completely aerobic. These sh
ifts will have profound changes
in water conservation, soil organic-matter turnover, nutrient
dynamics, carbon sequestration, soil productivity,
weed ecology and greenhouse-gas emissions. Whereas some of the
se changes can be perceived
as positive, e.g. water conservation and decreased methane emi
ssion, some are perceived as negative,
e.g. release of nitrous oxide from the soil and decline in soi
l organic matter.

Strategies for Increasing Water Productivity at the Field Level

> (i) increasing the yield per unit cumulative ET;
(ii) reducing the unproductive water outflows and depletions (
SP, E); or
(iii) making more effective use of rainfall
(II) Reducing unproductive water outflows
> Large reductions in water input can be potenti
ally realized by reducing the unproductive
E and SP flows during land preparation and dur
ing the crop growth period (Tuong, 1999; Bouman and Tuong, 2001).
There are basically three ways to do so:
(i) Minimizing the idle periods during land pr
eparation
> In transplanted rice, seedlings are us
ually nurtured in a seedbed for about 2 4 weeks. In irrigation systems
that lack tertiary and field channels
and with field-to-field irrigation, all the fields surrounding the
seedbeds are being tilled (land prepar
ation) and flooded during this period. This land-preparation period can
be shortened by the provision of terti
ary infrastructure to:
(i) supply irrigation water directly t
o the nurseries without having to submerge the main fields; and
(ii) allow farmers to carry out their
farming activities independently of the surrounding fields (Tuong, 1999).
> In the Muda irrigation scheme, Malaysi
a, increasing the canal and drainage intensity from 10 to 30 m ha1 has
enabled farmers to shorten their land
preparation by 25 days, resulting in annual water
savings of 375 mm in two rice cropping
seasons (Abdullah, 1998).
> In some countries, such as Vietnam and
China, specific land areas are set aside for community seedbeds,
which can be irrigated independently.
> Another way to reduce the idle period
during land preparation in irrigation systems
without tertiary canals is the use of
direct seeding (Bhuiyan et al., 1995). However, the crop growth period
in the main field of transplanted rice
is shorter than that of directseeded rice. Thus, the amount of water saved
by direct seeding depends on the balan
ce between the reduction in water use caused by
shortened land preparation and the inc
rease in water use caused by prolonged crop
growth duration in the main field (aft
er crop establishment (Cabangon et al., 2002)).
(ii) Soil management to increase resistance to
water flow
> The resistance to water flow can be in
creased by changing the soil physical properties.
Cabangon and Tuong (2000) showed the b
eneficial effects of an additional shallow soil tillage before
land preparation to close cracks that
cause rapid bypass flow at land soaking.

(iii) Water management to reduce hydrostatic p

ressure
> Reducing S and P flows through reduced
hydrostatic pressure can be achieved by changed water management
(Bouman et al., 1994). Instead of keep
ing the rice-field continuously flooded with 5 10 cm of water, the
floodwater depth can be decreased, the
soil can be kept around saturation (saturated soil
culture (SSC)) or alternate wetting an
d drying (AWD) regimes can be imposed. Soil saturation
is mostly achieved by irrigating to ab
out 1 cm water depth a day or so after disappearance
of standing water. In AWD, irrigation
water is applied to obtain 2 5 cm floodwater
depth after a larger number of days (r
anging from 2 to 7) have passed since the disappearance
of ponded water. Wei Zhang and Si-tu S
ong (1989) reported yield increase under
AWD. Our recent work indicates, howeve
r, that these are the exception rather than the
rule (Bouman and Tuong, 2001; Tabbal e
t al., 2002b). In most cases, SSC and AWD decrease
yield. The level of yield decrease dep
ends largely on the ground water-table depth, the
evaporative demand and the drying peri
od in between irrigation events (in the case of
AWD). Mostly, however, relative reduct
ions in water input are larger than relative losses
in yield, and therefore water producti
vities in respect of total water input increase (Fig. 4.2).
In some cases, AWD even doubled the wa
ter productivity compared with conventional
flooded irrigation, but with yield red
uctions up to 30% (e.g. Tabbal et al., 1992).
Opportunities and Challenges in the Adoption of Water-saving Practices
> The challenge is to identify the environmental and socio-econo
mic conditions that encourage farmers to adopt them. In this respect, our
research is far from complete. We can, however, identify impor
tant factors that affect the farmers acceptance of water-saving technologies.
Unlike fertilizers and pesticides, water is generally not acti
vely traded on markets in Asia, and government-administered fees
for irrigation water are often low or zero. This discourages f
armers from treating water as a scarce resource. Farmers have no
incentive to adopt water-saving technologies because water con
servation does not reduce the farming expenditures nor does it increase income.