On-farm assessment of resources utilized in wet-DSR through paddy drum seeder and its practicability

Introduction

Resource conservation technologies (RCT) are developed for optimizing the available resources and inputs to produce the maximum outputs from the agricultural land. Many of these technologies are realized and adopted by the farmers as per the projections of that region. Encouragement to adopt the new technology and its optimization to the small stakeholder is still need more attention to sustain the agriculture in remunerative way. On farm trials and demonstrations are more effective tools used by extension system of India as well as by Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVKs) to extend the RCTs. Land, labor and water are the critical resources for agriculture production (Sharma et al., 2018) [1] and it is extremely important to use these resources wisely to reduce cultivation costs, increases crop yields and achieve maximum benefits. Rice-wheat cropping system is most common in Indo-Gangetic plains specially. Rice is cultivated through conventional method (transplantation) which involves high man-days for bed preparation, nursery growing and transplanting as well as high demand of water resources. High labor requirements in rice affect the input cost thus results low benefit-cost-ratio (BCR). Only puddling and transplanting accounts 42-49% of labor costs in rice cultivation and rest for other activities like weeding, harvesting, and threshing etc. (Hoki, 1977, Singh et al., 2017) [2] . The size of workforce in the agriculture is declined by 30.57 million between the year 2004-2012 and about 28% agricultural workforces were reduced from 43.3 million in 2004 to 34.83 million in 2012 in Uttar Pradesh and having a declining trend (FICCI et al., 2015) [3] . The studies conducted in Andhra Pradesh showed that there was a declining trend in all three types of agricultural labor (family, casual and attached) during 2005-2011 with dramatically 4-fold increment in their wages in rice cultivation (Reddy et al., 2013) [4] . The availability of labor at nominal cost during the peak period of transplanting rice is also a major concern in the region. The scarce availability of labor at peak season of rice transplanting (TR) results the late transplanting/establishment of rice and which in-turn results the late sowing of wheat in Rabi. Therefore, it is important that farmers should be motivated by providing direct seeded rice technology (DSR) either wet or dry to resolve the labor shortage during the peak season of TR and find out the possibility and feasibility of its adaptation in the district. Rice, the high-water demanding crop can produce only 0.35-0.37 kg of physical rice in 1-meter cube water (Sharma et al., 2018 and Mishra, 2020) [1] . Gross irrigation water requirement for rice is in between 1192. [5] . About 70% of rice and wheat cropping pattern is depending on 60% groundwater irrigated area (SIA 2017) which substantially depleted the groundwater level and put them under over-exploited category. A declining trend in groundwater is also reported in Unnao district (Agarwal et al., 2017) [6] . There is an immense scope for bringing down wasteful use of water and enhancing agricultural productivity by employing on-farm water management solutions (SIA 2017). Water intensive irrigation practices for rice cultivation result in the consumption of about one-third of total water required for agriculture in India (Sharma et al., 2018) [1] . Water saving techniques like alternate wet and dry (AWD) (Carrijo, 2011, Muhammad et al., 2020), SRI (Geethalakshmi et al., 2011) [7] and DSR (Kumar & Ladha, 2011; Chaudhary et al., 2023) [9,8] are well known techniques for improving the water productivity in rice cultivation. Farmer's interaction with these technologies under a controlled environment may be difficult except with DSR as the possibility of adoption of DSR is much easier than AWD and SRI techniques. Water productivity in DDSR and WDSR ranged from 0.4 to 0.46 and 0.3 to 0.4 respectively in comparison of 0.29 to 0.39 kg of grain m -3 irrigation water in TR which accounted about 24% higher than TR under a proper management practice (Gill et al., 2006; Kumar et al., 2017; Nayak et al., 2020) [10,11,12] . Wet-DSR (WDSR) requires significantly higher irrigation input than Dry-DSR (DDSR) because it required more water for puddling and bed preparations at the beginning of rice establishment (Yadav et al., 2014; Kumar & Katagami, 2016) [13] which is 10-15 days earlier the onset of monsoon (Kamboj et al., 2012) [14] . Other than rainfall, Weirs, flumes etc. are important structures for the assessment of water input to the field. The quantification of irrigation can be recorded in terms of water pumping hours (WPH) in rice field and the water resources can be assessed and analyzed for wet DSR and transplantation methodology. At farmer's field, on-farm assessment of irrigation inputs by recording WPH, is easy and accurate practice for that particular pump installed at their fields. The scarcity or involvement of expensive labor and intensive water requirement has become a challenge and it is pressurizing on the cost of rice cultivation in Unnao district as well as the GHGs emissions. Paddy drum seeder (Wet-DSR) tool in the field may prove to be a good substitute for saving labor and cost of rice cultivation in the district with the marginal increment of grain yield (Hobbs et al., 2002; Sharma et al., 2004; Kumar & Ladha 2011) [15,16,9] . The main objective of the trial was to assess and analyze the on-farm data for the water utilization, labor saving, effects on yield, cost of cultivation and BCR value of farmers of Unnao district and the farmers perspective about wet DSR.

Material and methods

Site description

During the kharif season (2020-2022), an on-farm trial (OFT) was carried out in farmer's field located at 19 sites in 14 different villages of Unnao district of Uttar Pradesh (26 0 48 N and 80 0 39 E). The district lies in central plain agro-ecological sub zone.

Climate

Unnao is having sub-tropical humid climate with hot summer and falls in Upper Indo Ganagatic Plains (UIGP) agro-climatic zone. May is generally the hottest month with mean daily maximum at 40.6 °C and the mean daily minimum at 25.5 °C whereas January is usually the coldest month with the mean daily maximum at 22.8 °C and mean daily minimum at 8.6 °C (Maurya et al., 2019) [17] . The normal rainfall in the district is about 840 mm in which more than 86% occurs during monsoon season (June-Sept). The month of highest relative humidity is August (81.22 %) and with the lowest relative humidity is April (29.58 %).

Soil status

Soil samples were collected and analyzed in soil laboratory of Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Unnao to check the soil properties and status (Table 1). Overall, soil in the experimental field was deep, fine associated with loamy clay soils having high sodicity waterlogging condition.

Treatments

Two basic treatments were selected viz. farmers practice i.e., transplanted rice as T 1 and wet direct seeded rice (Wet-DSR) through paddy drum seeder (PDS) as T 2 . There are 14 replications of the experiments during the kharif season of years 2020, 2021, and 2022, respectively. Each replication was carried out on about 0.50 ha of farmers' land, in which 0.25 ha was allotted to each of the T 1 and T 2 treatments.

Bed preparation

Farmer's practice (T 1 ): -A small plot was prepared for growing rice seedlings nursery during second fortnight of May to 1 st week of June. The size of the nursery plot was selected as 1/20 th of the experimental area. For the transplanting of rice seedlings, the field was prepared at the onset of monsoons or during mid of June to last week of July. Farmers typically used harrows or rotavators to prepare the bed or puddle the soil. They then performed one or two irrigations to ensure adequate standing water in the field for reducing the germination of weeds.

Wet DSR (T 2 ):-The plots for DSR were prepared during 1 st to 20 th June. Before sowing, these were irrigated to attain some moisture so that the harrow and rotavator could be used easily for bed preparation. The pre-emergence weedicide was sprayed on the field for reducing the effect of weeds.

Seeding and transplanting

For seeding purposes, local rice seed of farmers choice (generally named as Ganga Cauvery) was soaked in the water for 6-7 hours and dried in a shade in such a way that seeds should fell in a plunging manner. Manually operated paddy drum seeder with four drum was used for seeding the rice in the field (Figure -1). In paddy drum seeder, the seeds were equally filled in all the drum in such a manner that it should neither be more than 2/3 rd nor less than 1/4 th volume of the drum to maintain the proper contact pressure to drop the seed from the holes of the drum. Seeder was then run over the prepared field for seeding rice in rows (Figure 1). To ensure proper soil moisture, a flush irrigation of 32.8 to 47.6 mm was applied to each of the experimental plots. The water was applied to the experimental field in such a manner that the soil surface was just get wet, without any standing water, to prevent seed rotting. (Kumar et al., 2016; Balasubramanian et al., 2002) [13,18] . This continuous wetting process lasted up to seedlings grew up to 4-5 inches. While transplanting the seedlings in T 1 , 5-6 kilograms of rice seeds were broadcasted to grow a rice nursery in a well-prepared and irrigated land.

Data collection

Data were collected under the head of resources used (water and labor), economical (input cost and benefit-cost ratio value) and outcome (yield) parameters. Water resources (groundwater and rainfall) for irrigation were assessed through water pumping hours monitored by farmer and effective rainfall. In present study, the rainfall data were collected for the respective year of trials and presented in [19,20,21] . Effective rainfall was estimated by Brouwer et al. (1986) [22] as follow: -𝑃 𝑒 = 0.8𝑃 -25 Groundwater drafted for irrigation were averaged yearly and summed up with effective rainfall of respective year for assessing the total wa ter utilization. Discharge of individual pumping set was calculated by volume-duration method which was in the range of 41.78 to 56.81 m 3 hr -1 (Table 1). Similarly, the depth of Irrigation was calculated as 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑖𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (𝑚𝑚) = 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒 (𝑚 3 ℎ𝑟 -1 ) × 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑔 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 (ℎ𝑟) 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑖𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (𝑚 2 ) × 1000

The input cost and benefit-cost ratio (BCR) were calculated on the basis of cost involved for different inputs and resources at local level. The data and observations collected from the trial fields were integrated for 1 ha land and represented in this paper. The results of the study were analyzed statistically to check the significance among the trials through single factor ANOVA.

Weed and disease control

Weed is the primary concern in rice cultivation using DSR technology. To effectively manage weeds, weedicides were sprayed to control both pre-emergence and post-emergence weeds. Further, leaf folder (LF) was observed in most of the trials along with the brown plant hopper (BPH) as presented in Table 4. It was also sprayed in all the trials as the preventive measure.

Results and discussion

Water pumping hours

Number of pumping hours were recorded for evaluating the utilization of on-farm water resource other than rainfall. Table 5 exhibits the number of irrigations, duration for irrigation in terms of average pumping hours and corresponding irrigation depth for the crop period in each trial field for both the treatments. During the rice crop period, there were 7-9 irrigation events in T 1 after transplanting rice seedlings, while T 2 experienced the same irrigation events (Vibhute et al., 2016) [23] except 3-4 more irrigation has to be given for establishment of crop before onset of monsoon. On an average, pumping hours in T 2 is high i.e., 138 hr.ha -1 as compared to the T 1 i.e., 114 hr.ha -1 which causes 21.05 % more water pumping in T 2 which concludes high water application in T 2 as 686.8 mm in comparison of T 1 , that is 564.9 mm through pumping sets. Initially, the area prepared for rice cultivation in T 2 was more than T 1 , as the whole area was to be seeded for rice cultivation while in T 1 only 1/20 th area was to be prepared for growing nursery to cover the same area. Therefore, paleo irrigation and frequent wetting spells (4-6 days interval) required 22.9-30 hr more water pumping in T 2 with the comparison of T 1 . At the initial level, groundwater pumping was conducted for 8-14 hr.ha -1 per wetting spell in T 2 to maintain adequate moisture up to crop establishment. In contrast, during the growing nursery phase in T 1 , the pumping time was significantly shorter, typically lasting only 3/4 hours for the same interval. T 2 experienced a total of 3-4 frequent wetting spells, which necessitated increased water pumping activities. (Figure 3). Geethalakshmi et al. (2011) [7] found higher no of irrigation events against the conventional rice cultivation practice which causes more water requirement at field level in wet DSR. The water pumping hours used for irrigation in growing nursery were also recorded and included in the table in T 1 . Statistical analysis shows that water pumping hours used in T 2 is significantly low (p < 0.05) (Table 8). Number of irrigation and working hours of pumping set with respect to the crop is illustrated by Figure 4. The length of the strips describes the crop duration and its thickness defines the area of the field. The length of the strip is divided according to the crop stages (Allen et al., 1998) [24] . The color changing in strips represents the rate of change of vegetative or greenery cover over the field. The lines over the strips, exhibit the water pumping hours during the irrigation. In T 1 , thickness of the strip up to 38 days was very small as compared to T 2 . The smaller area represents over which the rice nursey was growing up for transplantation. The spikes over this segment of strip shows the pumping hours used to irrigate the nursery. On 38 th day, rice seedlings were uprooted and transplanted to the main field and there-fore thickness of the strip has widened. The figure clearly elucidates comparatively higher pumping required in T 2 . Initial watering in T 2 causes high water pumping in pre-monsoon season. In contrast of T 2 , bed preparation and puddling for transplanting was mostly rainfed in T 1 , and water pumping was low or negligible.

Water utilization

The effective rainfall was also calculated to quantify the total water utilized in the trials. Table 6 concludes that in T 2 utilized 792 mm of groundwater against 593.7 mm used in T 1 which was 25% lower than T 2 . Total water utilization in T 2 and T 1 was 946.2 mm and 826.4 mm respectively and concluded that the T 2 utilized about 14.4 % more water than T 1 These findings are close to the study of Vibhute et al., 2016 [23] that concluded about 970 mm surface irrigation for rice establishment under T 1 . Statistical approaches indicates that total water utilized for T 2 is significantly higher (p < 0.05) than that of T [10,11,12] .

Labor resource

Labor involved in rice cultivation in different stages were assessed as shown in Table 8. The labor requirement in T 1 was higher in comparison of T 2 . There is high labor requirement during uprooting and transplantation of rice seedling in puddled field. The labor used in all other activity like irrigation, fertilization, weeding, and harvesting were remained almost same except the bed preparation for nursery growing at earlier stages in T 1 . It was observed about 48-50 labor are needed together for uprooting and transplanting in T 1 . However, the total labor requirement in T 1 was recorded 111 and in T 2 , it was 63 that was about 43 % less labor used in T 2 . The labor-saving in T 2 was close to the finding reported in all the related studies as 12-35% (Chaudhary et al., 2023) [8] , 50% (Marasini et al., 2017) [25] , 37% (Kaur et al., 2017) [26] .

Yield

Results revealed that there is significant difference (p < 0.05) in yield in T 1 and T 2 . The crop yield was recorded as 40.7 and 38.3 quintal per hectare (qt. ha -1 ) in T 1 and T 2 , respectively (Table 8 &9). Drum seeder drops 5-8 sprouted rice seeds from the hole which in-turn makes a heavy bunch of rice plants at development stage than that of T 1 as 2-3 seedlings were transplanted together which showed good crop establishment but later on (30-35 DAS) dominancy of weed in T 2 against the weed control measure, suppressed the yield of rice by 2.4 qt. ha -1 about 5.89 %. Kumar et al. (2011) [9] assessed significantly lower yield by 1.9% in 35 studies across India. The yield data in this trial has the close conformity with the findings of Chaudhary et al., 2023 [8] ; Marasini et al., 2017 [25] and Kaur et al., 2017 [26] by 5-6% low yield.

Water productivity (WP)

Irrigation depth (m 3 ) and yield (kg) were worked out to draft the water productivity. Table 8 presents the 16.4% lower water productivity in T 2 , expressed as 0.411 kg.m -3 , in contrast to T 1 , which exhibits a productivity of 0.492 kg.m -3 . This disparity arises from the increased water application in T 2 , leading to a subsequent decrease in yield due to weed infestation. Geethalakshmi et al. (2011) [7] reported low water productivity (0.33 kg.m -3 ) in wet DSR than transplanted rice. Lower productivity in T 2 implies that 2433 liter water was used to produce 1 kg grain whereas it was 2032 liter in T 1 . This revealed that wet DSR required 390 liter more water to produce 1 kg grain. Statistically T 1 is having significantly higher (p < 0.05) water productivity than T 2 . Early seeding or transplantation reduces water productivity regardless of the method of sowing in rice cultivation as in the case of T 2 . (Das et al., 2018) [27] .

Economics

The cost breakup for transplanting and sowing with paddy drum seeder was calculated in the year 2022 and presented in Table 10. The input cost for rice cultivation in T 1 and T 2 was 57941 and 50342 INR respectively. High labor requirement during the transplantation time increases the cost of cultivation in T 1 in comparison of T 2 which increases the cost of cultivation through traditional methodology in T 1 .

The cost of cultivation was reduced by ₹ 12000/-in wet DSR which was also reported to be ₹10500/-(Nayak et al., 2021) [28] . However, the cost of irrigation was 32.1% high in T 2 because maintaining proper moisture during the early stage of the crop. The reduction in the cost of rice cultivation in T 2 was observed as the 13.1% in respective of T 1 , which is close to the finding of Bohra et al., (2015) [29] . Net economic return value was higher in T 2 as ₹ 3729 (12.7%) in comparison of T 1 which is aligned to the findings of Chakraborty et al., (2017) [30] and as 13%. Thus, the benefit-cost ratio (BCR) was high in T 2 i.e., 1.51 in comparison of T 2 i.e. 1.66.

Conclusions

On-farm trials revealed that more water was required in wet DSR for bed preparation and maintaining soil moisture to sustain the seeded seeds in the field. Following points can be concluded after the trials:-1. High Water Requirement: -The water need of more than 119.8 mm was fulfilled with other source of water than rainfall i.e. blue water in wet DSR.

2. Labor Saving: -Wet DSR through paddy drum seeder is definitely a labor-saving technique as it required only 2-4 labors per hectare for rice seeding while it requires 48-52 for transplantation during the peak demand of labors.

3. High Weed Infestation: -Weed infestation was the major problem despite of recommended weedicide application in wet DSR field in contrast to transplanted rice field. Merely wetting of the field and weed infestation suppressed the yield of the rice by 2.4 qt. ha -1 in T 2 which was 40.7 qt. ha -1 in T 1 .

4. Low water productivity: -High water demand and low yield in wet DSR resulted lower water productivity of 0.411 kg.m -3 as compared to 0.492 kg.m -3 in transplanted rice.

5. Economic benefits: -A farmer can get the benefit about ₹ 3000/to 5000/-per hectare by adopting wet DSR technology through paddy drum seeder at his farm with 1.66 BCR value.

Keeping is viewing the availability of the water, in Unnao and nearby districts, farmers may adopt wet direct seeded rice technology (DSR) through paddy drum seeder if frequent irrigation at the initial stage of rice cultivation could be done. This technology can address the high wages or labor shortage problem during the peak season of transplanting.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementAuthor thankful to ICAR-Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Unnao, 229881, Uttar Pradesh for providing necessary research facilities for conducting on-farm trial (OFT).

References

1. Sharma BR, Gulati A, Gayathri M, Stuti M, Ray I, Singhe UA. Water Productivity Mapping of Major Indian Crops. NABARD and ICRIER. 2018.
2. Hoki M. Farming Operations and Labor Requirements for Rice Cultivation in Sarawak. South East Asian Studies. 1977;15(3).
3. FICCI, KPMG. Labour in Indian Agriculture: A growing challenge. 2015.
4. Reddy DN, Venkatanarayana M. Declining Labour Use in Agriculture: A Case of Rice Cultivation in Andhra Pradesh. MPRA Paper No. 49204. 2013.
5. Jangre N, Sinha J, Fanesh K, Raj J. Assessment of rice water requirements under Inceptisols in Raipur district using CROPWAT 8.0. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 2022;21(3):285-292.
6. Agarwal E, Garg RD, Srivastav SK. Spatio-Temporal Trend Analysis of Groundwater Level in Unnao District, Uttar Pradesh, India. International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts. 2017;5(4):1617-1626.
7. Geethalakshmi V, Ramesh T, Palamuthirsolai A, Lakshmanan A. Agronomic evaluation of rice cultivation systems for water and grain productivity. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science. 2011;57(2):159-166.
8. Chaudhary A, Venkatramanan V, Mishra AK, Sharma S. Agronomic and Environmental Determinants of Direct Seeded Rice in South Asia. Circular Economy and Sustainability. 2023;3:253-290.
9. Kumar V, Ladha JK. Recent Developments in Direct-Seeding of Rice. Advances in Agronomy. 2011;111:347.
10. Gill MS, Kumar A, Kumar P. Growth and yield of rice (Oryza sativa L.) cultivars under various methods and ties of sowing. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 2006;51:123-127.
11. Kumar A, Nayak AK, Pani DR, Das BS. Physiological and morphological responses of four different rice cultivars to soil water potential-based deficit irrigation management strategies. Field Crop Res. 2017;205:78-94.
12. Nayak AK, Chatterjee D, Tripathi R, Muhammad S, Vijayakumar S, Satapathy BS, Kumar A, Mohanty S, Bhattacharyya P, Mishra P, Kumar U, Mohapatra SD, Panda BB, Rajak M, Bhaduri D, Munda S, Chakraborty K, Priyadarsani S, Swain CK, Moharana KC, Nayak PK, Kumar GAK, Swain P, Tesfai M, Nagaothu US, Pathak H. Climate Smart Agricultural Technologies for Rice Production System in Odisha. ICAR-National Rice Research Institute, Cuttack, Odisha, 753006, India. 2020. pp 366.
13. Kumar A, Katagami M. Developing and Disseminating WaterSaving Rice Technologies in Asia. ADB Brief No. 60. 2016.
14. Kamboj BR, Kumar A, Bishnoi DK, Singla K, Kumar V, Jat ML, et al. Direct seeded rice technology in Western Indo-Gangetic Plains of India: CSISA Experiences. CSISA, IRRI and CIMMYT; 2012. p. 16.
15. Hobbs PR, Singh Y, Giri GS, Lauren JG, Duxbury JM. Direct seeding and reduced tillage options in the rice-wheat systems of the Indo-Gangetic Plains of South Asia. Direct seeding in Asian Rice Systems: Strategic Research Issues and Opportunities International Rice Research Institute. 2002:201-205.
16. Sharma P, Tripathi RP, Singh S, Kumar R. Effects of tillage on soilphysical properties and crop performance under rice-wheat system. Journal Indian Society Soil Science. 2004;52:12-16.
17. Maurya RC, Singh AK, Sahay R, Singh A. On-farm Evaluation of Furrow Irrigated Raised Bed System with Plastic Mulch for Brinjal Crop. Journal of Agricultural Engineering (India). 2019;56(4):294-302.
18. Balasubramanian V, Hill J. Direct seeding of rice in Asia: Emerging issues and strategic research needs for the 21st century. Direct Seeding: Research Strategies and Opportunities. 2002:1539.
19. Bhan SC, Das AK, Saxena R, Manik SK. Rainfall Statistics of India - 2022 (report no. moes/imd/hs/rainfall report/02(2023)/6230). Hydromet Division, India Meteorological Department (Ministry of Earth Sciences), GoI, New Delhi, India; 2023.
20. Yadav BP, Saxena R, Das AK, Manik SK. Rainfall Statistics of India -2020 (report no. esso/imd/hs/rainfall report/). Hydromet Division, India Meteorological Department (Ministry of Earth Sciences), GoI, New Delhi, India. 2021.
21. Yadav BP, Saxena R, Das AK, Ashok RSK, Manik SK, Bharwani H. Rainfall Statistics of India -2021 (report no. esso/imd/hs/rainfall report/). Hydromet Division, India Meteorological Department (Ministry of Earth Sciences), GoI, New Delhi, India. 2022.
22. Brouwer C, Heibloem M. Irrigation Water Management: Irrigation Water Need. FAO Training Manual No. 3; 1986.
23. Vibhute SD, Sarangi A, Singh DK. Development of Crop Water Demand Based Water Delivery Schedule for a Canal Command. Journal of Agricultural Engineering (India). 2016;53(2):12-23.
24. Allen RG, Pereira LA, Raes D, Smith M. Crop Evapotranspiration. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Rome, Italy; 1998.
25. Marasini S, Joshi TN, Amgain LP. Direct Seeded Rice Cultivation Method: A New Technology For Climate Change And Food Security. The Journal of Agriculture and Environment. 2017;17.
26. Kaur J, Singh A. Direct Seeded Rice: Prospects, Problems/ Constraints and Researchable Issues in India. Current Agriculture Research Journal. 2017;5(1):13-32.
27. Das DM, Mailapalli DR, Dalai A, Kumar N. A Comparative Study on Water Productivity of Rice under Different Cultivation Practices. Journal of Agricultural Engineering (India). 2018;55(4):66-73.
28. Nayak AK, Kumar A, Tripathi R, Panda BB, Mohanty S, Muhammad S, Raja R, Khanam R, Bhaduri D, Satapathy BS, Lal B, Gautam P, Nayak PK, Vijayakumar S, Panneerselvam P, Swain P. Improved Water Management Technologies for Rice Production System. NRRI Research Bulletin No. 32, ICARNational Rice Research Institute, Cuttack 753006, Odisha, India. 2021. pp-40.
29. Bohra J, 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;85:217-223.
30. Chakraborty D, Ladha JK, Rana DS et al. A global analysis of alternative tillage and crop establishment practices for economically and environmentally efficient rice production. Sci Rep. 2017;7:9342.
31. Carrijo DR, Lundy ME, Linquist BA. Rice yields and water use under alternate wetting and drying irrigation: A meta-analysis. Field Crops Research. 2017;203:173-180.
32. Mishra MC. The paradox of chhattishgarh's summer rice highyielding but water intensive. News and inspiration from nature's front line of India. 2020.
33. Muhammad I, Nadeem A, Shakeel A, Muhammad A. Growth, yield and water productivity of dry direct seeded rice and transplanted aromatic rice under different irrigation management regimes. Journal of Integrative Agriculture. 2020;19(11):26562673.
34. State of Indian Agriculture. Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare, Directorate of Economics & Statistics, New Delhi. 2017.
35. Singh TV, Kumar RM, Viraktamath BC. Selective Mechanization in Rice Cultivation for Energy Saving and Enhancing the Profitability. Rice Knowledge Management Portal, Directorate of Rice Research, Hydrabad. 2017.
36. Sudhir-Yadav, Gio Evangelista, Jaime Faronilo, Elizabeth Humphreys, Amelia Henry, Luzviminda Fernandez. Establishment method effects on crop performance and water productivity of irrigated rice in the tropics. Field Crops Research. 2014;166:112-127.
37. Virender Kumar, Jagdish K Ladha. Direct Seeding of Rice: Recent Developments and Future Research Needs. Advances in Agronomy. 2011;111:297-413.
38. How to cite this article: Maurya RC, Singh AK, Singh A, Sahay R, Yadav JK, Katiyaar M, et al. On-farm assessment of resources utilized in wet-DSR through paddy drum seeder and its practicability. International Journal of Research in Agronomy. 2026;9(9):1624-1633. doi: https://www.doi.org/10.33545/261806 0X.2026.v9.i9v.6740