Yield attributes, yield and economics of different rice varieties under different systems of cultivation for central Telangana zone

Introduction

Rice (Oryza sativa L.) serves as the primary dietary staple for nearly 60% of India's population (Biswas et al.) [5] . While India leads globally in terms of rice cultivation area, it ranks second in total production. On an annual basis, the country produces approximately 120 million tonnes of rice across 44 million hectares, maintaining a productivity rate of over two tonnes per hectare. To keep pace with projected population growth by 2025, rice production must increase by an estimated 50-60% (Banerjee et al.) [3] . Within Telangana, rice remains the most significant crop and is grown extensively across all districts during both the kharif and rabi seasons. According to the 2021-22 Agriculture Action Plan from the Department of Agriculture [1] , the state cultivated 42.45 lakh hectares in 2020-21, achieving a total output of 252.63 lakh tons with a productivity of 5948.75 kg/ha. Most of the world's rice production-around 77%-relies on the traditional puddledtransplanting system (Chakraborty et al.; Xu et al.) [7,33] . However, the high intensity of labor, water, and energy required for this method has rendered it less sustainable and less profitable in modern agriculture (Chakraborty et [7, 14-, 18] . Because transplanting constitutes nearly a quarter of total labor needs, peak-season shortages frequently cause delays. These delays often result in the use of over-aged seedlings, which exacerbates transplanting shock and ultimately lowers yield. Given these rising costs and labor constraints, shifting from puddled-transplant systems to direct seeding is becoming a necessity. For the purposes of this study, both wet and dry sowing techniques are referred to as direct seeding. Wet direct seeding is a traditional method of crop establishment that involves broadcasting or sowing sprouted seeds directly into puddled, water-saturated soil (Farooq et al.) [13] . Compared to the conventional transplanting system, wet direct seeding offers several distinct advantages: it eliminates the need for nursery management, simplifies the sowing process, reduces labor dependency, and enhances water-use efficiency (Chauhan et al.) [10] . Furthermore, this practice is associated with lower methane emissions and improved overall profitability. From a physiological and scheduling standpoint, direct-seeded rice often reaches maturity one to two weeks earlier than transplanted crops; this not only mitigates the risk of terminal drought but also facilitates the timely planting of subsequent rotational crops (Rana et al.) [25] .

Here are a few ways to rephrase this final section. These versions focus on a professional, researcher-driven tone that flows logically from the problems of traditional puddling to the specific objectives of your study. Dry direct seeding (DDS) is a key resource-conservation technique that eliminates the labor-intensive processes of nursery preparation, land puddling, and transplanting. By bypassing these steps, DDS offers significant savings in both time and capital investment. In conventional systems, repeated puddling can damage soil physical properties by breaking down soil aggregates, lowering subsurface permeability, and creating restrictive hard pans at shallow depths. Furthermore, dry direct seeding conserves the substantial volume of water typically required for puddling, which can account for 20% to 40% of the total water used in a transplanted rice cycle. The success of such establishment methods often depends on cultivar-specific traits, such as morphology and growth rates, which influence overall yield potential. A competitive variety with the right morphological and physiological characteristics can capture and utilize resources more efficiently. Since a single variety may not perform optimally across all establishment techniques, it is essential to evaluate high-yielding rice varieties under these alternative strategies. Consequently, the present investigation was designed to analyze the growth and yield differences of local rice cultivars as influenced by various crop establishment methods.

Materials and Methods Experimental Site and Soil Characteristics

The present investigation was conducted during the 2021 kharif season at the Regional Agricultural Research Station, located on the Agricultural College campus in Warangal. Geographically, the site is positioned at an altitude of 259 m above mean sea level (18 0 07' 911" N latitude and 79 0 59' 752" E longitude) within the central Telangana zone. The experimental soil was a clay loam with an alkaline reaction (pH 7.72) and an organic matter content of 0.65%. Initial soil fertility analysis showed available nitrogen at 275 kg ha -1 , phosphorus (P) at 75 kg ha -1 , and potassium (K) at 256 kg ha -1 .

Experimental Design and Treatments

The experiment followed a strip-plot design with 12 treatment combinations replicated three times. The main plots consisted of three crop establishment methods:

Fertilizer Management

For the transplanted and wet DSR systems, the recommended fertilizer dose was 120:60:40 kg of N:P 2 O 5 :K 2 O ha -1 . The full dose of phosphorus (as single super phosphate) and half the dose of potash (as muriate of potash) were applied basally. Nitrogen (as urea) was applied in three equal splits:

• Transplanted (M1): At basal, maximum tillering, and panicle initiation. • Wet DSR (M2): At 10 days after sowing (DAS), maximum tillering, and panicle initiation.

For the dry DSR method (M3), a higher fertilizer dose of 150:50:40 kg of N:P 2 O 5 :K 2 O ha -1 was utilized. Phosphorus and half the potash were applied basally. Nitrogen was provided in three equal splits at 30 DAS (maximum tillering), 60 DAS, and panicle initiation, with the remaining half of the potash applied at the final split.

For the wet direct seeding method, sprouted seeds were sown into a thoroughly puddled and levelled field using a drum seeder. The seeder was configured to maintain a spacing of 30 cm between rows and 7 cm between plants within each row, allowing for the simultaneous seeding of six rows per pass.

In the dry direct seeding method, lines were established using a cultivator at 30 cm row spacing, followed by the manual placement of seeds at a spacing of 30 cm x 10 cm. Immediately after sowing, a light irrigation was provided to ensure adequate moisture for seed germination, followed by regular scheduled irrigations. For consistency across the trial, the sowing for both the wet and dry DSR plots, as well as the nursery preparation for the transplanted system, was initiated on 26th August.

Results and Discussion

The data presented in Table 3. indicate weight of panicle as influenced by different systems of cultivation and varieties and their interaction effect. As per data superior panicle weight was observed with transplanted rice system (M 1 ) (7.2) which was on par with wet DSR (M 2 ) (6.5). The lowest panicle weight was recorded under dry DSR (M 3 ) (6.1). This might be due to higher dry matter accumulation, higher panicle length and also more number of grains per panicle in transplanted rice. Wet DSR performed superior over the dry DSR which might be due to better crop growth at earlier stages of crop that has resulted in more nutrient uptake and formation of more number of filled grains. The similar results were also reported in findings of [16] , Singh et al. (2017) [29] and Singh et al.

As per the data presented in Table 3. higher length of panicle was recorded with transplanted system of cultivation (M 1 ) (26.5 cm) and this was on par with wet DSR (M 2 ) (24.9 cm). [16] , Chowhan et al. (2017) [11] , Gewaily et al. (2018), Anil and Siddi (2020) [2] and Mangaraj et al. (2021) [20] .

The data pertaining to test weight, which is an important yield attributing character of a crop, is presented in Table 3. The data in table revealed that there was no significant difference in different systems of cultivation of rice, as test weight is mainly influenced by the inherent genetic character and is least affected by the growing conditions and other crop management practices. The results were in accordance with the findings of Barla and Kumar (2011) [4] , Kanthi et [16] , Chowhan et al. (2017) [11] , Gewaily et al. (2018), Dileep et al. (2018) [12] , Anil and Siddi (2020) [2] and Mangaraj et al. (2021) [20] .

The grain yield data (kg ha -1 ) are presented in Table 4. Grain yield serves as a cumulative reflection of various growth and yield-attributing parameters, such as dry matter production, tiller count, panicle density, panicle length and weight, and the number of grains per panicle. The experimental findings revealed that the highest grain yield (6806 kg ha -1 ) was achieved through the transplanted system (M1). The wet DSR (M2) system followed closely, recording a grain yield of 6247 kg ha -1 , which was statistically on par with the transplanted method. In contrast, the dry DSR (M3) system recorded the lowest grain yield at 5058 kg ha -1 . Conventional transplanting offered a yield advantage of 8.22% over wet DSR and 25.68% over dry DSR.

The superior performance of the transplanted system can be attributed to enhanced nutrient uptake, which augmented dry matter accumulation and leaf production. This, in turn, supported a higher number of panicle-bearing tillers, increased spikelet counts, and improved grain-filling capacity. Conversely, the lower yields in dry DSR were linked to high weed density and a higher weed index, where intense weed competition and restricted root growth resulted in reduced nutrient uptake and inferior growth characteristics. These observations align with the findings reported by Yadav and Singh (2006) [32] , Shan et al.

(2012) [28] , and Singh et al. (2017) [29] . Furthermore, the significantly higher yield in wet DSR compared to dry DSR may be due to optimized plant-to-plant spacing, better light interception, and rapid seedling establishment. These results are consistent with the findings of Mandhatasingh and Singh (2010) [19] . Among the tested genotypes, KNM 118 (S4) recorded the significantly highest grain yield (6617\kg ha -1 ), which was statistically on par with WGL 44 (S2) at 6244 kg ha -1 . These were followed by WGL 915 (S3) at 5943 kg ha -1, while RNR 15048 (S1) produced the lowest yield (5343 kg ha -1 ). The lower productivity in certain genotypes was likely due to reduced dry matter production, fewer tillers, lower test weights, and smaller panicle dimensions with fewer filled grains. These results conform to the research of Hussain et al. (2014), Kumhar et al.

(2016) [16] , and several others, including Mangaraj et al. (2021) [20] .

The data regarding straw yield (expressed in kg/ha) are detailed in Table 4. Analysis of the results indicates that the highest straw yield of 7692 kg/ha was achieved using the transplanted rice system (M1). This result was statistically on par with the wet DSR (M2) system, which produced 7153 kg/ha. In contrast, the dry DSR (M3) system recorded the lowest straw yield at 5992 kg/ha. The observation of straw yield patterns suggests that both conventional transplanting and wet DSR significantly outperformed dry DSR. This superiority is likely attributed to enhanced dry matter accumulation and a higher tiller density per unit area. These gains were further supported by improved nutrient absorption from the soil, which accelerated metabolic rates, increased light interception, and boosted photosynthetic activity. Consequently, these factors led to greater plant height and a higher leaf area index compared to the dry DSR cultivation method. These findings are consistent with the research reported by Shan et al. (2012) [28] , Kanthi et al. (2014), and Singh et al. (2017) [29] . Perusal of data on straw yield revealed that, significantly higher straw yield was recorded in KNM 118 (S 4 ) (7543) which is statistically on par with WGL 44 (S 2 ) (7159), closely followed by WGL 915 (S 3 ) (6832) and least straw yield was recorded in RNR 15048 (S 1 ) (6250). Higher straw yield in WGL 44 might be due to efficient utilization of resources to produce higher dry matter production, more number of tillers and maximum leaf area production. In RNR 15048 lower number of tillers and lower dry matter resulted in poor straw yield. The results are in line with the findings of Hussain et al. (2014), Kumhar et al.

(2016) [16] , Harish et al. (2017) [15] , Chandrika et al. (2017) [9] , Dileep et al. (2018) [12] , Chandra et al. (2019) [8] , Anil and Siddi (2020) [2] , Mangaraj et al. (2021) [20] .

The harvest index was not significantly influenced either by different systems of cultivation or varieties and even the interaction effect remained non significant as presented in Table 4. The results were supported by Barla and Kumar (2011) [4] , Lavanya and Mallareddy (2019) [17] .

Transplanted rice system recorded 46.87% harvest index closely followed by wet DSR as 46.55% and 45.67% for dry DSR system which was found to be non significant. Among genotypes, similar trend was observed like systems of cultivation. KNM 118 recorded 46.58% of harvest index closely followed by 46.53% for WGL 44 and WGL 915 with 46.41%. Lowest harvest index was observed in RNR 15048 which was recorded as 45.95%. Harvest index among all the varieties was found to be statistically non significant.

Cost of cultivation

The data pertaining to cost of cultivation is presented in Table 2.

The data shows that highest mean cost of cultivation was recorded with transplanted rice system (M 1 ) as 51158 Rs ha -1 and it is followed with dry DSR system (M 3 ) with 44006 Rs ha -1 where as wet DSR (M 2 ) recorded 40410 Rs ha -1 . Highest cost of cultivation is mainly due to more expenditure incurred towards nursery management and transplanting operation in transplanted rice system whereas dry DSR incurred more expenditure than wet DSR due to weeding operation. Among varieties, RNR 15048 (S 1 ) and WGL 44 (S 2 ) recorded highest cost of cultivation of 45438 Rs ha -1 followed by KNM 118 (S 4 ) and WGL 915 (S 3 ) observed similar cost of cultivation which is recorded as 44961 Rs ha -1 . The variation in cost of cultivation was due to variation in seed cost.

Gross returns

The gross returns (Rs ha -1 ) for different systems of cultivation and varieties is presented in the Table 5.

The result disclosed highest gross returns with transplanted rice system (M 1 ) which was recorded as 148779 Rs ha -1 and it is on par with wet DSR system (M 2 ) with 136741 Rs ha -1 where as 111128 Rs ha -1 is recorded as lowest gross returns with dry DSR system (M 3 ). Transplanted rice system fetched 12038 Rs ha -1 higher gross returns than wet DSR and 37651 Rs ha -1 higher gross returns than dry DSR. Lower gross returns is mainly attributed to low grain and straw yield obtained and evaluated based on their MSP (minimum support price) or market price. This was supported by Yadav and Singh (2006) [32] , Singh and Singh (2010) [19] and Bhardwaj et al. (2018). Among the sub plot treatments, highest gross return was observed with KNM 118 (S 4 ) (144773 Rs ha -1 ) which was on par with WGL 44 (S 2 ) (136709 Rs ha -1 ). The lowest gross return was recorded with RNR 15048 (S 1 ) (117229 Rs ha -1 ) which is closely followed with WGL 915 (S 3 ) which was recorded as 130154 Rs ha -1 . Higher gross returns in KNM 118 was ascribed to higher grain and straw yields obtained. The findings are in close conformation with Barla and Kumar (2011) [4] , Singh et al.

(2017) [29] , Chandra et al. (2019) [8] , Prashanthi et al. (2020), Anil and Siddi (2020) [2] and Mangaraj et al. (2021) [20] .

Net returns

The data presented in Table 5. regarding net returns reflects similar trend as to that of gross returns where transplanted rice system (M1) which recorded 97621 Rs ha -1 as net returns is highest and it is on par with wet DSR system (M2) with 96306 Rs ha -1 . The lowest net return was recorded with dry DSR system (M3) as 67122 Rs ha -1 . Net return is obtained by deducting cost of cultivation from gross returns. High cost of cultivation in transplanted rice system has resulted narrow edge over wet DSR system in respect of net returns. This findings are supported by Yadav and Singh (2006) [32] , Singh and Singh (2010) [19] and Bhardwaj et al. (2018). Similar trend was observed among varieties, where KNM 118 (S 4 ) (99812 Rs ha -1 ) recorded higher net return and it is on par with WGL 44 (S 2 ) with 91271 Rs ha -1 . The lowest net return was recorded in RNR 15048 (S 1 ) (71791 Rs ha -1 ) which is on par with WGL 915 (S 3 ) recorded as 85192 Rs ha -1 . The similar results were documented by Barla and Kumar (2011) [4] , Singh et al. (2017) [29] , Chandra et al. (2019) [8] , Prashanthi et al.

(2020), Anil and Siddi (2020) [2] and Mangaraj et al. (2021) [20] .

Benefit cost ratio

The benefit cost ratio obtained is presented in Table 5. where highest B:C ratio was recorded for wet DSR system (M2) with 2.38, which is on par with transplanted rice system (M1) which recorded 1.91. The lowest B:C ratio of 1.53 was

Conclusion

In conclusion, the transplanted rice system (M1) demonstrated superior yield-attributing characteristics and grain productivity. This performance is attributed to optimal plant spacing, which facilitated improved light interception, and the puddling process, which effectively suppressed weed growth while ensuring better nutrient availability. These factors collectively promoted higher tiller counts, greater dry matter accumulation, and efficient translocation to the grain sink. Among the evaluated varieties, KNM 118 (S4) consistently outperformed the other genotypes in all yield attributes and total productivity. This superiority suggests a higher genetic capacity for nutrient uptake, competitive resource utilization, and efficient biomass production. Notably, the interaction effect between cultivation systems and rice varieties was found to be non-significant regarding yield-attributing characters. From an economic perspective, while the transplanted system generated the highest gross and net returns, the wet DSR system achieved the most favorable benefit-cost (B:C) ratio. The lower B:C ratio in the transplanted system was primarily due to high labor costs associated with manual transplantation, whereas the higher costs in the dry DSR system were driven by intensive weeding requirements. Consequently, the wet DSR system provides a more cost-effective alternative. Within the tested varieties, KNM 118 recorded the highest gross returns, net returns, and B:C ratio, underscoring its potential for maximizing economic efficiency in this region.

References

1. Agriculture action plan report 2021-22 of Department of Agriculture, Government of Telangana. www.agri.telangana.gov.in.
2. Anil D, Siddi S. Evaluation of pre released rice (Oryza sativa L.) genotypes under different sowing dates in rainy season. Current Journal of Applied Science and Technology. 2020;39:74-84.
3. Banerjee H, Samanta S, Sarkar S, Garai S, Pal S, Brahmachari K. Growth, productivity and nutrient uptake of different rice cultivars under coastal ecosystem of West Bengal. Journal of the Indian Society of Coast Agricultural Research. 2018;36:115-121.
4. Barla S, Kumar SS. Evaluation of rice establishment techniques in Jharkhand plateau. Oryza -An International Journal on Rice. 2011;48(1):79-80.
5. Biswas B, Timsina J, Patra SR, Mishra B, Chakraborti R, Patra A, et al. Climate change-resilient rice production technology: A high yielding, water efficient and remunerative option for South Asian farmers. Global Journal of Agricultural and Allied Sciences. 2019;1:20-29.
6. Bohra JS, Kumar R. Effect of crop establishment methods on productivity, profitability and energetics of rice (Oryza sativa)-wheat (Triticum aestivum) system. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2015;85(2):217-223.
7. Chakraborty D, Ladha JK, Rana DS, Jat ML, Gathala MK, Yadav S, et al. A global analysis of alternative tillage and crop establishment practices for economically and environmentally efficient rice production. Scientific Reports. 2017;7(1):1-11.
8. Chandra MS, Kumar KA, Madhavi M, Chary DS. Dry matter production and nutrient uptake of rice (Oryza sativa L.) varieties under alternate wetting and drying in puddled soil. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2019;8(8):2302-2313.
9. Chandrika M, Devi MU, Ramulu V, Ramana MV. Evaluation of different varieties of aerobic rice (Oryza sativa L.) under different fertigation levels on growth and yield parameters. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2017;6(5):2793-2801.
10. Chauhan BS, Singh RG, Mahajan G. Ecology and management of weeds under conservation agriculture: A review. Crop Protection. 2012;38:57-65.
11. Chowhan S, Haider MR, Hasan AFMF, Hoque MI, Kamruzzaman M, Gupta R. Comparative on farm performance of five modern rice varieties with two local cultivars. Journal of Bioscience and Agriculture Research. 2017;13(1):1074-1086.
12. Dileep K, Pasupalak S, Baliarsingh A. Effect of establishment methods and sowing time on growth and yield of rice varieties (Oryza sativa L.). The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2018;7(4):904-907.
13. Farooq M, Siddique KHM, Rehman H, Aziz T, Lee DJ, Wahid A. Rice direct seeding: Experiences, challenges and opportunities. Soil and Tillage Research. 2011;111(2):8798.
14. Guruprem, Choudhary R, Kumar A, Jhorar R, Singh VD. Recent production technologies of rice for its sustainable cultivation in Haryana. International Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2017;13(1):83-92.
15. Harish MN, Choudhary AK, Singh YV, Pooniya V, Das A, Varatharajan T, et al. Effect of promising rice (Oryza sativa L.) varieties and nutrient management practices on growth, development and crop productivity in eastern Himalayas. Annals of Agricultural Research. 2017;38(4):375-384.
16. Kumhar BL, Chavan VG, Rajemahadik VA, Kanade VM, Dhopavkar RV, Ameta HK, et al. Effect of different rice establishment methods on growth, yield and different varieties during kharif season. International Journal of Plant Animal and Environmental Sciences. 2016;6:127-132.
17. Lavanya N, Reddy MM. Yield attributes and quality parameters of rice under different establishment methods and varieties with nitrogen levels under late sown conditions in Telangana state. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2019;8(3):4185-4192.
18. Mahajan G, Chauhan BS, Timsina J, Singh PP, Singh K. Crop performance and water and nitrogen-use efficiencies in dry-seeded rice in response to irrigation and fertilizer amounts in Northwest India. Field Crops Research. 2012;13(4):59-70.
19. Singh M, Singh RP. Influence of crop establishment methods and weed management practices on yield and economics of direct-seeded rice (Oryza sativa). Indian Journal of Agronomy. 2010;55(3):224-229.
20. Mangaraj S, Sahu S, Panda PK, Rahman FH, Bhattacharya R, Patri D, et al. Assessment of stress tolerant rice varieties under rainfed condition in North Eastern Ghat of Odisha. International Journal of Environment and Climate Change. 2021;11(4):128-134.
21. Mohanta S, Banerjee M, Malik GC, Shankar T, Maitra S, Ismail IA, et al. Productivity and profitability of kharif rice are influenced by crop establishment methods and nitrogen management in the lateritic belt of the subtropical region. Agronomy. 2021;11(7):1280.
22. Mohanty TR, Maity SK, Roul PK. Response of rice to establishment methods and nutrient management practices in medium land. Oryza. 2014;51(2):136-142.
23. Nayaka GV, Reddy GP, Kumar RM. Dry matter production and partitioning in different plant parts of rice cultivars under irrigation regimes and systems of cultivation. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 2021;55(3):347-352.
24. Poudel K, Timilsina RH, Bhattarai A. Effect of crop establishment methods on yield of spring rice at Khairahani, Chitwan, Nepal. Big Data in Agriculture. 2020;3(1):6-11.
25. Rana MN, Al Mamum MA, Zahan A, Ahmed MN, Mridha MAJ. Effect of planting methods on the yield and yield attributes of short duration aman rice. American Journal of Plant Sciences. 2014;5:250-255.
26. Sampath O, Srinivas A, Avil KK, Ramprakash T. Effect of plant density and fertilizer levels on growth parameters of rice varieties under late sown conditions. International Journal of Agricultural Science and Research. 2017;7(3):375-384.
27. Sandhya Kanthi M, Ramana AV, Ramana Murthy KV. Effect of different crop establishment techniques and nutrient doses on nutrient uptake and yield of rice (Oryza sativa L.). Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2014;27(3):293-295.
28. Shan FA, Bhat MA, Ganai MA, Hussain A, Bhat TA. Effect of crop establishment and weed control practices on the performance of rice (Oryza sativa L.). Applied Biological Research. 2012;14(1):79-85.
29. Singh DK, Pandey PC, Thapliyal SD, Nanda G. Yield and economics of rice (Oryza sativa L.) as influenced by establishment methods and varieties under mollisols of Pantnagar. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2017;6(6):297-306.
30. Singh SK, Abraham T, Kumar R, Kumar R. Response of crop establishment methods and split application of nitrogen on productivity of rice under irrigated ecosystem. Environment and Ecology. 2016;35(2A):859-862.
31. Tomar R, Singh NB, Singh V, Kumar D. Effect of planting methods and integrated nutrient management on growth parameters, yield and economics of rice. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2018;7(2):520-527.
32. Yadav V, Singh B. Effect of crop establishment method and weed management practice on rice (Oryza sativa) and associated weeds. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 2006;51(4):301-303.
33. Xu L, Li X, Wang X, Xiong D, Wang F. Comparing the grain yields of direct-seeded and transplanted rice: A metaanalysis. Agronomy. 2019;9(11):767.