Water productivity in direct seeded rice and puddled transplanted rice: Evidence from farmers’ practices

By Proloy Deb, Anton Urfels, Virender Kumar, Swatantra Kumar Dubey, and Jasbir Singh

Naveen Dalal lives in the village of Basi Akbarpur in the Karnal district of Haryana, India. In the last five years, he says, several farmers in his village have had to deepen their tubewells due to unprecedented groundwater depletion. He also explains that although the farmers are experiencing an abrupt decline in the groundwater table, they continue to irrigate extensively in paddy.

Gurmail Singh, a resident of Talakaur village in Haryana’s Yamuna Nagar district, also reports a declining water table. However, Mr Singh adopted direct seeded rice (DSR) five years ago and has since seen a drastic reduction in the use of irrigation water compared to the conventional puddled transplanted rice (PTR) that he used previously.

These experiences both touch upon the core issue of the declining groundwater tables across Haryana and Northwest India more broadly. Extensive water withdrawals that far exceed recharge continue, due to intensifying double and triple cropping throughout the year with rice sown in the pre-monsoon season and grown during the monsoon season.

Direct seeded rice: a promising solution?

The crop water use in rice is high, especially during the early stages when canopies are small, fields flooded, and hot, dry weather persists during the pre-monsoon season. On average, PTR requires 1,000–2,500 mm of water and accounts for almost 40 percent of all freshwater withdrawals in India. Farmers use groundwater pumps powered by heavily subsidized electricity, putting pressure on the energy system and the state budget. Additionally, an increase in climate variability is reducing water availability. To combat these issues, alternative agronomic practices may provide respite, with the new practice of DSR gaining traction thanks to its labor-saving benefits, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic.

Under DSR establishment, shorter-duration seeds are sown by a seed drill, thus eliminating nursery preparation, transplanting, and the water-intensive puddling of soil. Further benefits include faster planting, earlier harvests, reduced labor and drudgery, and lower energy consumption and resulting greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, experimental studies suggest that DSR saves five or six irrigations, totaling 350–420 mm – equivalent to 17 percent of PTR water applications. Yet, it remains poorly understood how farmers adjust actual water application in their fields, whether DSR really saves irrigation water, and – if so – by how much.

Exploring irrigation practices on rice farms

To shed light on irrigation practices, the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) initiated field studies in Northwestern India. The researchers collected standard production and weather station data, and – supported by the CGIAR Initiative on NEXUS Gains – installed 200 water flow meters in PTR and DSR fields to measure actual irrigation water requirement and application (Figure 1). The meters were installed at the outlet of the pumps which recorded volumetric irrigation water application (m³) for the entire 2023 season. Farms considered in this study only used short-duration varieties (in which seeding/transplanting to maturity takes 115–120 days) and grew basmati (PB 1509) and non-basmati (PR 126) varieties.

The study focused on consumptive water use by rice and irrigation water applications by farmers, and determined the crop water productivity (CWP; yield per unit evapotranspiration by the rice crop in kg/m³) and irrigation water productivity (IWP; yield per unit of water applied in kg/m³) for DSR and PTR farms.

The results show that the average paddy yield under DSR establishment is at par, or higher, compared to PTR across all districts (Table 1). Similarly, the irrigation water application (IWA) is noted to be significantly higher than the IWA in experimental stations (which have an IWA of  around 1,000–1,250 mm) in the case of both DSR and PTR establishments across all four districts (Table 1). Farmers apply approximately 2.5 to 3.7 times more water than on research stations (where controlled experiments are conducted), which suggests very large potential water and energy savings from reducing irrigation.

Table 1. District-wise paddy yield and IWA under DSR and PTR establishments

While water use patterns vary widely among the districts, DSR farmers on average pump less water per crop in most districts and thus have higher IWP values than PTR farmers. The exception to this is Karnal district, in which severe flooding substantially reduced yields, particularly on the DSR plots. Further discussions also suggested a stronger preference for maintaining ponded conditions in Karnal compared to other districts, leading to higher irrigation rates.

The study also found that more crops are produced per unit of water consumed for DSR compared to PTR. Overall, CWP was 22.5 percent higher under DSR than PTR in all districts except Karnal (Figure 2), which is again attributed to excessive flooding.

Reflections from the rice farmers

To further understand farmers’ experiences with the shift from PTR to DSR and associated changes in water management, the researchers conducted a post-kharif season focus group discussion with progressive farmers from all four districts.

One of the farmers, Rajinder Kumar, said, “DSR has been good for me … I have gotten a yield penalty of around 1 quintal/acre (~0.247 t/ha) … I had saved a couple of irrigations by adopting DSR and my crop duration was shorter compared to PTR – thus escaping climate risks.”

Sanjay Singh, another farmer, said, “I heard about DSR a couple of years ago from a scientist from Haryana Agricultural University … This past season, when IRRI scientists approached me and discussed the benefits of DSR, I thought to try it out on 2 acres (~0.809 ha) of my farm. Yield is comparable, and more significantly I saved around five irrigations during the season.”

Outcomes and recommendations

Overall, the analysis suggests that, apart from Karnal district, consumptive water use and energy use for pumping water were reduced through DSR adoption, with increases in CWP and IWP. Furthermore, the focus group discussions indicate that farmers see a positive impact of DSR over PTR. As groundwater tables in Northwestern India are declining, DSR can be part of a solution mix to curb consumptive water and energy use during the rice season.

However, the promotion of DSR will only be effective if water management adjustments go together with DSR adoption. Importantly, the amount of water that farmers pump is several orders of magnitude higher than that used on research stations – calling for more in-field research on practical solutions for reducing water and energy use in Northwestern India through better-integrated agronomy and water management.

Proloy Deb is Postdoctoral Fellow – Water Management, and Swatantra Kumar Dubey is a Senior Specialist – Economic Modeling, both at IRRI South Asia Regional Center (ISARC), Varanasi, India. Anton Urfels is a Senior Scientist – Water Management, and Virender Kumar is Principal Scientist – Weed Science and Systems Agronomy and Deputy Head of the Sustainable Impact Department, both at IRRI, Los Baños, Philippines. Jasbir Singh is a Specialist – Agriculture Research at Development at IRRI, New Delhi.

This work was carried out under the CGIAR Initiative on NEXUS Gains, which is grateful for the support of CGIAR Trust Fund contributors: www.cgiar.org/funders

Header image: Farmer holding a bundle of harvested rice. Photo by IWMI.