<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">AS</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Agricultural Sciences</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2156-8553</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/as.2023.144034</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">AS-124396</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Biomedical&amp;Life Sciences</subject><subject> Earth&amp;Environmental Sciences</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Study on the Yield and Yield Contributing Characters of Aus Rice Varieties in Various Soil Moisture Levels
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Halima</surname><given-names>Sayeed Jasmine</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Kamal</surname><given-names>Uddin Ahamed</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Jiban</surname><given-names>Krishna Biswas</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural Research System (SAURES), Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University (SAU), Dhaka, Bangladesh</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff3"><addr-line>Bangladesh Rice Research Institute, Gazipur, Bangladesh</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Department of Agricultural Botany, Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University (SAU), Dhaka, Bangladesh</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>07</day><month>04</month><year>2023</year></pub-date><volume>14</volume><issue>04</issue><fpage>509</fpage><lpage>521</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>25,</day>	<month>August</month>	<year>2022</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>18,</day>	<month>April</month>	<year>2023</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>21,</day>	<month>April</month>	<year>2023</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  The experiment was conducted at the Plant Physiology Laboratory (central laboratory) and Shade house of Field Laboratory of Agricultural Botany Department, Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Dhaka, Bangladesh under a field experiment was also carried out on yield contributing parameters. There were three rice genotypes namely BRRI dhan55 (V
  <sub>1</sub>), BR6976-2B-15 (V
  <sub>2</sub>) and tolerant check Hashikalmi (V
  <sub>3</sub>) and seven water stress were imposed as treatments. The treatments were arranged for 0 days of water stress (control) irrigated continuously throughout the experimental period (T
  <sub>0</sub>). When the seedlings were 20 days old, water deficit was imposed for seven days (T
  <sub>1</sub>), when the seedlings were 35 days old, water deficit was imposed for seven days (T
  <sub>2</sub>), when the seedlings were 55 days old, water deficit was imposed for seven days (T
  <sub>3</sub>), when the seedlings were 75 days old, water deficit was imposed for seven days (T
  <sub>4</sub>). When the seedlings were 95 days old, water deficit was imposed for seven days (T
  <sub>5</sub>) and when the seedlings were 115 days old, water deficit was imposed for seven days (T
  <sub>6</sub>). BRRI dhan55 and Hashikalmi produced the highest tillers, grains, number of spikelets and yield. The grain sterility percentage is much higher in BR6976-2B-15 due to water stress treatment compared to other genotypes. Grain yield was the highest in BRRI dhan55 and Hashikalmi and gradually decreased with increased water stress treatment compared to other genotypes. Decreased grain yield per plant under water stress treatment reduction of tillers, panicle, filled grains, root, shoot, spikelet/panicle, panicle dry matter content, and with other causes. The harvest index was decreased due to water stress conditions in all the genotypes while less affected in BRRI dhan55 and Hashikalmi.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Water Stress</kwd><kwd> Rice Genotypes</kwd><kwd> Tiller</kwd><kwd> Spikelet</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Water deficit is a major problem of growing rice, especially in low rainfall season [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.124396-ref1">1</xref>] . According to the IRRI [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.124396-ref2">2</xref>] , water deficit is one of the major constraints to rice (Oryza sativa L.). Rice is more susceptible to drought than any other crops. Drought is one of the biggest enemies of Bangladeshi farmers. In 1999, Bangladesh suffered the longest drought in 50 years, with more than four months without rain and in 2010 the country recorded its lowest rainfall since 1995. It is estimated that the world needs to produce 40% more rice to feed the population by 2025 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.124396-ref3">3</xref>] .</p><p>Water stress is one of the major abiotic stresses that severely affect and reduce the yield and productivity of rice. It has been identified as the key factor for low productivity in the rain fed ecosystem reported by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.124396-ref4">4</xref>] . [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.124396-ref5">5</xref>] found that drought limits productivity and affects both quality and quantity of the yield. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.124396-ref6">6</xref>] found that in the case of rice shoots accumulate proline in water stress conditions. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.124396-ref7">7</xref>] observed that metabolic changes during drought affect reduction of nutrients. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.124396-ref1">1</xref>] stated that drought affected the growth and reduced shoot, root weights, lengths and also physiological processes. Severe water stress may result in the arrest of photosynthesis, disturbance of metabolism and finally the death of plants [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.124396-ref8">8</xref>] . Water stress at or before panicle initiation reduces potential spike number and decreases translocation of assimilates to the grains, which results low in grain weight and increases empty grains [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.124396-ref9">9</xref>] . [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.124396-ref10">10</xref>] found that a significant decrease in panicle number and filled grain per plant, and an increase in the number of unfilled grain were the main causes of sterility percentage increase due to drought treatment [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.124396-ref10">10</xref>] . In agriculture, mild to severe drought has been one of the major production limiting factors. The total rainfall in three months is very irregular and often inadequate which fails to meet the evapotranspiration demand. Most of the traditional aus varieties possess quite a good grade of resistance to water stress. That is why the government is thinking about growing crops in more fields in this season. According to [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.124396-ref3">3</xref>] , there is an urgent need to increase rice production to meet global demand. Hence, water stress management strategies need to be taken for better yield and improved varieties that are more resilient to abiotic stresses. Agricultural technology related to crop production has to be developed according to specific location. Considering this, the study was undertaken to achieve the following objectives yield contributing characters of aus rice genotypes under water deficit conditions.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Materials and Methods</title><p>The pot experiment was conducted at the Plant Physiology Laboratory (central laboratory) and also Agricultural research field of Agricultural Botany Department, Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Dhaka-1207, Bangladesh under polythene Shade house condition in controlling the intrusion of rainfall during the period from March to July 2014.</p><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. BRRI Materials</title><p>BRRI dhan55 (V<sub>1</sub>), BR6976-2B-15 (V<sub>2</sub>) and tolerant check Hashikalmi (V<sub>3</sub>) were collected from BRRI (Bangladesh Rice Research Institute).</p></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Methods, Design and Treatment</title><p>Seven drought conditions were used as treatments that started from 20 days of seedling age. The pot experiment was done with Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD). There were seven treatments of water deficiency, three replications, and three genotypes (63 pots) were used. Seven treatments were:</p><p>T<sub>0</sub> = Throughout the experimental period continuously irrigated (control).</p><p>T<sub>1</sub> = When the seedlings were 20 days old water deficit imposed for 7 days,</p><p>T<sub>2</sub> =When the seedlings were 35 days old water deficit imposed for 7 days,</p><p>T<sub>3</sub> = When the seedlings were 55 days old water deficit imposed for 7 days,</p><p>T<sub>4</sub> = When the seedlings were 75 days old water deficit imposed for 7 days,</p><p>T<sub>5</sub> = When the seedlings were 95 days old water deficit imposed for 7 days,</p><p>T<sub>6</sub> = When the seedlings were 115 days old water deficit imposed for 7 days.</p></sec><sec id="s2_3"><title>2.3. Seed Cured and Spreading</title><p>Uniform size and shape of seeds were cured with Bavistin (5 g in 1/2 liter of water) for 20 minutes. Cured seeds were spreading in the Petridis with water. In March, 2014 sprouted seeds were scattered in pots.</p></sec><sec id="s2_4"><title>2.4. Pot Filled up and Fertilizer Use</title><p>Pots were filled up with 10 kg sandy loam soil. Earthen pots were used of 38 cm &#215; 25 cm in size, sandy and sandy loam. The soil was fertilized 160-150-150 kg urea, triple super phosphate (TSP) and muriate of potash (MP) per hectare, respectively [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.124396-ref11">11</xref>] .</p></sec><sec id="s2_5"><title>2.5. General Observation of the Experiment</title><p>Three uniform and vigorous seedlings were permitted to grow in the pots after seedling establishment. For confirming normal growth, the germinated seeds were usually irrigated when the seedlings were 20, 35, 55, 75, 95 and 115 days old water deficit was forced for seven days.</p></sec><sec id="s2_6"><title>2.6. Detailed Procedures of Recording Data</title><p>Data were collected about yield and yield attributing character at maturity stage.</p><p>Dry matter</p><p>Total dry matter (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>) (root, shoot, panicle etc.) was measured after oven drying for 72 hours at 72˚C.</p><p>Weight of 1000-grain</p><p>After sun and oven drying thousand cleaned grains weight (g) was calculated with an electronic weighing scale.</p><p>Filled and unfilled grain</p><p>Filled and unfilled grain was counted up.</p><p>Spikelet sterility percentage</p><p>Spikelet sterility percentage was recorded from the main stem panicle. The calculation is given below-</p><p>Spikeletsterility ( % ) = Emptyspikelet/panicle Totalspikelet/panicle &#215; 100</p><p>Harvest index (HI)</p><p>HI is the percentage of grain yield and biological yield [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.124396-ref12">12</xref>] . HI was given below</p><p>HI ( % ) = Grainyield Biologicalyield &#215; 100</p></sec><sec id="s2_7"><title>2.7. Data Analysis</title><p>All the data were analyzed and the means were separated by DMRT at 5% level of significance using MSTAT-C [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.124396-ref13">13</xref>] .</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results and Discussions</title><p>Objectives were fulfilled by assessing the effects of different duration of water deficit on yield contributing characters of different genotypes. The results of this experiment with necessary discussion are in this chapter.</p><sec id="s3_1"><title>3.1. Leaf Dry Mass</title><p>Leaf dry weight was presented in Tables 1-3. There was 0.26 g in V<sub>1</sub> followed by 0.25 in V<sub>3</sub> and the lowest was 0.23 in V<sub>2</sub> in varietal effect. Leaf dry weight under different treatments varied significantly and ranged from 0.17 in T<sub>1</sub> and T<sub>5</sub> to 0.21 in T<sub>0</sub>. In the interaction effect of variety and treatment the highest leaf dry weight (0.26 g) was recorded in V<sub>1</sub>T<sub>0</sub> and the lowest weight (0.1267 g) was recorded in V<sub>2</sub>T<sub>1</sub>. Water stress significantly decreased plant total dry mass, but the proportion of changes differed among root, stem, and leaf, whereas leaf dry mass decreased [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.124396-ref14">14</xref>] .</p></sec><sec id="s3_2"><title>3.2. 1000-Grains Weight</title><p>Weight of thousand grains (g) was shown in Tables 1-3. The highest weight of thousand grains was 16 g recorded in V<sub>1</sub> followed by V<sub>3</sub> and the lowest weight of thousand grains was 11.67 g in V<sub>2</sub> in varietal effect. The highest weight of thousand grains 22.00 (T<sub>0</sub>) and the lowest weight 14.76 g in T<sub>6</sub> In combination effect (variety and treatment) thousand grains 22.66 g in V<sub>3</sub>T<sub>5</sub> and 11.67 g in V<sub>1</sub>T<sub>3</sub>.</p><p>Weight of a thousand grains was different which depends on the individual grain weight. In this study, BRRI dhan55 and Hashikalmi possess the highest weight of thousand grains.</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Varietal effect of leaf dry weight (g) and weight of 1000-grains (g)</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Variety</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Leaf dry weight (g)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Weight of 1000-grains (g)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >V<sub>1</sub> (BRRI dhan55)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.26 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.00 a</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >V<sub>2</sub> (BR 6976-2B-15)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.23 b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.67 c</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >V<sub>3</sub> (Hashikalmi)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.25 ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.86 b</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CV (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.31</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Values followed by some letter(s) did not differ significantly at 5% level of probability.</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Treatment effect of leaf dry weight (g) and weight of 1000-grains (g)</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Drought treatment</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Leaf dry weight</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Weight of 1000-grains (g)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>0</sub> (control)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.21 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.00 a</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>1</sub> (15 to 21 days)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.17 d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.79 ab</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>2</sub> (35 to 41 days)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.20 ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.32 ab</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>3</sub> (55 to 61 days)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.19 b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.17 a</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>4</sub> (75 to 81 days)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.19 b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.79 ab</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>5</sub> (95 to 101 days)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.17 d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.44 ab</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>6</sub> (115 to 121 days)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.18 c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.76 d</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CV (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.31</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Values followed by some letter(s) did not differ significantly at 5% level of probability.</p><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Interaction effect of variety and treatments on leaf dry weight (g) and weight of 1000-grains (g)</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Interaction</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >leaf dry weight (g)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >1000-grains wt (g)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="7"  >V<sub>1</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>0</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.26 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.66 a</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>1</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2033 ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.50 abcde</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>2</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1967 ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.26 def</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>3</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2100 ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.67 f</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>4</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1700 ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.00 ab</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>5</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1433 ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.78 cdef</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>6</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1600 ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.79 abcdef</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="7"  >V<sub>2</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>0</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2567 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.45 abc</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>1</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1267 b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.32 abcdef</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>2</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1967 ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.17 abcd</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>3</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1700 ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.79 abcdef</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>4</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2733 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.44 abcdef</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>5</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1533 ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.76 abcde</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>6</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2000 ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.41 abcdef</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="7"  >V<sub>3</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>0</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2033 ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.66 a</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>1</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1700 ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.00 ab</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>2</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2067 ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.62 abcde</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>3</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2167 ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.00 abc</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>4</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1533 ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.33 ab</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>5</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2100 ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.67 abcdef</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>6</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1867 ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.45 bcdef</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CV (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.31</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Values followed by some letter(s) did not differ significantly at 5% level of probability.</p><p>Considering the treatment effect the highest weight in T<sub>0</sub> and in combination the height weight thousand grains was in V<sub>1</sub>T<sub>0</sub>. Under drought conditions BR 6976-2B-15 was mostly source limited during the grain filling stage as a result, grain weight decreased.</p><p>The result has infirmity with the results of [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.124396-ref15">15</xref>] that showed that weight of 1000 grains was reduced depending on soil moisture levels. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.124396-ref16">16</xref>] showed that water stress after flowering decreased the individual grain weight. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.124396-ref17">17</xref>] advocated that water stress reduced grain weight.</p></sec><sec id="s3_3"><title>3.3. Number of Spikelets/Panicle</title><p>Total number of spikelets/panicles was shown in Tables 4-6. Total number of spikelets was 176.7 in V<sub>1</sub> followed by V<sub>3</sub> (169.0) and the lowest found 158 (V<sub>2</sub>). Number of spikelets was highest 158 in T<sub>0</sub> and was lowest 139.6 in T<sub>1</sub>. In combination effect the spikelet 200 in V<sub>0</sub>T<sub>1</sub> and 120 in V<sub>3</sub>T<sub>3</sub>.</p><p>When photosynthesis became lower, all the spikelets did not get sufficient assimilates, as a result decreased the number of spikelets per panicle. The spikelets recorded highest in BRRI dhan55 (V<sub>1</sub>). The spikelets found much lower in BR 6976-2B-15. Due to drought stress, the number of spikelets was decreased. After drought conditions the tolerant genotype would quickly recover their biomass, leaves and take no longer time to recover and then develop new growth. The less tolerant genotypes would lose their biomass, leaves and take much longer time to recover. Decreased spikelet’s might be due to inhibition of stomatal conductance, translocation of assimilate to the grains.</p></sec><sec id="s3_4"><title>3.4. Number of Empty Grains</title><p>Number of empty grains/panicles was shown in Tables 4-6. The empty grains/panicle 11 in V<sub>3</sub> followed by 10.00 in V<sub>2</sub> and the lowest unfilled grain 9.58 inV<sub>1</sub>. The highest unfilled grain was 12.38 in T<sub>0</sub> and the lowest 10.38 in T<sub>1</sub>. The highest unfilled grain was found at 18.88 in V<sub>3</sub>T<sub>0</sub> and the lowest at 10.27 in V<sub>2</sub>T<sub>3</sub>.</p><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Varietal effects on the total number of spikelet’s/panicle, number of unfilled grains per panicle and reduction percent of filled grains</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Variety</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Total number of spikelets/panicle</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >No of empty grains/panicle</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Reduction (%) of filled grains</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >V<sub>1</sub> (BRRI dhan55)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >176.7 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.58 c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.42</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >V<sub>2</sub> (BR 6976-2B-15)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >158.0 c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.00 b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.33</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >V<sub>3</sub> (Hashikalmi)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >169.0 b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.00 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.51</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CV (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Values followed by some letter(s) did not differ significantly at 5% level of probability.</p><table-wrap id="table5" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref></label><caption><title> Treatment effects on the total number of spikelet’s/panicle, number and reduction % filled grains</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Drought treatment</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Total number of spikelets/panicle</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >No of empty grains/panicle</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Reduction (%) of filled grains/panicle</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>0</sub> (Control)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >158.0 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.38 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.84</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>1</sub> (15 to 21 days)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >139.6 d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.84 c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.77</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>2</sub> (35 to 41 days)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >144.4 cd</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.76 c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.45</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>3</sub> (55 to 61 days)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >149.7 bc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.81 c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.22</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>4</sub> (75 to 81 days)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >154.1 ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.38 c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.74</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>5</sub> (95 to 101 days)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >147.4 bc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.23 b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.62</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>6</sub> (115 to 121 days)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >154.8 ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.36 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.00</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CV (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Values followed by some letter(s) did not differ significantly at 5% level of probability.</p><table-wrap id="table6" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref></label><caption><title> Interaction effect of variety and treatments on the total number of spikelets/panicle, unfilled grains/panicle and the reduction % filled grains/panicle</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Interaction</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Total number of spikelets/panicle</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >No. of empty grains/panicle</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Reduction (%) of filled grains</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="7"  >V<sub>1</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>0</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >200.0 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.45 ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.73</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>1</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >184.0 b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.08 d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.02</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>2</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >147.4 fgh</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.00 d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.46</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>3</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >169.0 cd</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.68 cd</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.91</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>4</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >139.6 h</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.84 d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.77</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>5</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >144.4 gh</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.23 cd</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.78</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>6</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >149.7 fgh</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.81 d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.22</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="7"  >V<sub>2</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>0</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >154.1 efg</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.19 ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.86</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>1</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >161.2 de</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.38 bc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.68</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>2</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >154.8 efg</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.76 d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.95</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>3</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >129.4 i</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.27 d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.94</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>4</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >158.0 ef</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.00 cd</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.96</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>5</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >137.1 h</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.17 cd</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.15</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>6</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >124.8 i</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.36 bc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.90</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="7"  >V<sub>3</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>0</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >182.0 b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.88 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.37</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>1</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >178.3 bc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.07 c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.33</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>2</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >178.3 bc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.47 cd</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.43</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>3</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >120.7 i</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.30 bc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.19</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>4</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >121.0 i</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.27 abc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.97</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>5</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >122.7 i</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.66 d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.69</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>6</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >121.0 i</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.95 cd</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.88</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >CV (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Values followed by some letter(s) did not differ significantly at 5% level of probability.</p><p>In this study, it was found that drought stress greatly reduced filled grain and increased the number of unfilled grain. Due to water stress, the current stomatal conductance decreased, as a result the current photosynthesis became lower, insufficient assimilates production was seen and its distribution to grains was insufficient, all the spikelets did not get sufficient assimilates which resulted increased the number of empty grains and decreased the number of filled grains ultimately causes yield losses [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.124396-ref15">15</xref>] . The results have the similarity with the results of [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.124396-ref16">16</xref>] observed that after flowering increased the number of empty spikelets per panicle under water stress. Before panicle initiation water stress reduces potential spike number and decreases translocation of assimilates to the grains, which results low in grain weight and increases empty grains [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.124396-ref9">9</xref>] . [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.124396-ref15">15</xref>] stated that under lower soil moisture levels reduced grain yield due to inhibition of photosynthesis and less translocation of assimilates towards grain due to soil moisture stress.</p></sec><sec id="s3_5"><title>3.5. Reduction Percentage of Filled Grains</title><p>Reduction percent of filled grains is in Tables 4-6. The reduction percent of filled grains found 6.51% in V<sub>3</sub> followed by 6.33% in V<sub>2</sub> and 5.42 in V<sub>1</sub>. The highest reduction percent filled grain was 8.00 in T<sub>6</sub> and the lowest was 6.74 in T<sub>4</sub>. In combination effect the reduction percent of filled grain 10.97% in V<sub>3</sub>T<sub>4</sub> and the lowest reduction percent filled grain 6.02% in V<sub>1</sub>T<sub>1</sub>.<sub> </sub></p><p>In this study, it was found that the lowest reduction percent of filled grains was 5.42 in BRRI dhan55 (V<sub>1</sub>) and the highest reduction of filled grain was found in Hashikalmi (V<sub>3</sub>) and in case of treatment effect the highest reduction percent of filled grains was 7.84, 8.00 in T<sub>0</sub>, T<sub>6</sub> respectively.</p><p>Therefore it is suggested that sterility percentage increased with increasing drought duration and number of unfilled grains, decrease in filled grains per plant, tiller number, panicle number, leaf number, plant height. A significant decrease in panicle number and filled grain per plant, increased in number of unfilled grain were the main causes of sterility percentage increase due to drought treatment. These results conform with the results of [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.124396-ref10">10</xref>] , who observed increased sterility in rice under water stress conditions. This result also agrees with [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.124396-ref16">16</xref>] , who observed that water stress after flowering, increased the number of empty spikelets per panicle. Increased unfilled grains per panicle under lower soil moisture level occurs which decreases translocation of assimilates to the grains, ultimately which results in low gain weight and increases empty grains [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.124396-ref9">9</xref>] .</p></sec><sec id="s3_6"><title>3.6. Total Dry Weight (Root, Shoot and Panicle)/Plant at Harvest</title><p>The data on total dry weight per plant (g) was presented in Tables 7-9. In varietal effect the highest dry weight was 64.79 g recorded in V<sub>3</sub> followed by 57.08 g in V<sub>1</sub> and the lowest weight was 44.82 g in V<sub>2</sub>. In treatment effect the highest total dry weight per plant was 58.05 recorded in T<sub>0</sub> and the lowest was 34.79 in T<sub>3</sub>.</p><table-wrap id="table7" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">Table 7</xref></label><caption><title> Varietal effect on total dry weight/plant, harvest index (%) and yield/plant</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Variety</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Total dry weight/plant (g)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Harvest index (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Yield/plant (g)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >V<sub>1</sub> (BRRI dhan55)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >57.08 b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.401 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23.80 a</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >V<sub>2</sub> (BR 6976-2B-15)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44.82 c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.325 b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.33 b</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >V<sub>3</sub> (Hashikalmi)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >64.79 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.329 b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.77 b</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CV (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.52</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.88</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.50</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Values followed by some letter(s) did not differ significantly at 5% level of probability.</p><table-wrap id="table8" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table8">Table 8</xref></label><caption><title> Treatment effect on total dry weight per plant, harvest index (%) and yield/plant</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Drought treatment</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Total dry weight/plant (g)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Harvest index (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Yield/plant (g)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>0</sub> (Control)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >58.05 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.40 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.08 a</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>1</sub> (15 to 21 days)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53.97 abc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.32 c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.44 d</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>2</sub> (35 to 41 days)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44.82 bc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.33 c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.13 cd</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>3</sub> (55 to 61 days)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34.79 c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.32 bc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.33 cd</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>4</sub> (75 to 81 days)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >57.08 ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.34 bc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.04 bcd</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>5</sub> (95 to 101 days)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >47.79 abc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.34 b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.91 bc</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>6</sub> (115 to 121 days)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >58.79 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.36 ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.00 ab</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CV (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.52</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.88</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.50</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Values followed by different letter(s) indicate significantly different from each other by DMRT at 5% level.</p><table-wrap id="table9" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table9">Table 9</xref></label><caption><title> Interaction effects of variety and treatment on total dry weight per plant, harvest index (%) and yield/plant</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Interaction</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Total dry weight/plant (g)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Harvest index</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Yield/plant (g)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="7"  >V<sub>1</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>0</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >65.05 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.46 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23.80 a</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>1</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44.82 abc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.36 cdefg</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.50 def</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>2</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34.79 bc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.35 defg</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.11 abcde</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>3</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41.66 abc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.39 bcd</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.40 abcde</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>4</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >47.79 abc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.42 ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.11 bcdef</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>5</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >57.08 ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.41 abc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.00 abc</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>6</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >64.79 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.42 ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.04 a</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="7"  >V<sub>2</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>0</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >65.42 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.29 gh</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.70 a</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>1</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.43 bc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.31 fgh</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.13 ef</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>2</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44.36 abc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.34 defgh</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.44 ef</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>3</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37.04 bc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.32 efgh</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.20 g</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>4</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.66 d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.31 fgh</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.33 cdef</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>5</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.74 bc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.34 defgh</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.77 abc</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>6</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >52.33 ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.30 gh</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.66 abc</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="7"  >V<sub>3</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>0</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >65.05 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.32 efgh</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.78 a</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>1</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36.95 bc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.36 bcdef</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.33 bcdef</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>2</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >51.66 ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.23 i</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.67 abcde</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>3</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53.97 ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.32 efgh</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.03 abcde</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>4</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54.03 ab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.35 defg</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.55 cd</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>5</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >47.86 abc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.28 h</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.65 abcde</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>6</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >65.42 a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.37 bcde</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.33 ab</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >CV (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.88</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.50</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Values followed by some letter(s) did not differ significantly at 5% level of probability.</p><p>In combination effect the highest found 65.05 in V<sub>1</sub>T<sub>0</sub> and the lowest found 28.66 in V<sub>2</sub>T<sub>4</sub>.</p><p>Due to drought stress conditions root, shoot, leaf and panicle dry weight decreased, as a result the total dry matter became lower. In this study, the highest total dry weight per plant was in V<sub>1</sub> and V<sub>2</sub> and the lowest weight was in V<sub>2</sub>. This might be due to reduction in tiller number, panicle number and filled grain per plant, plant height, leaf area etc. All of this ultimately affected the grain yield under water stress treatment. The results also agree with the results of [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.124396-ref14">14</xref>] who stated that drought stress significantly decreased plant total dry mass, but the proportion of changes differed among root, stem, and leaf, whereas leaf dry mass ratio was decreased. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.124396-ref17">17</xref>] stated that water stress reduced grain weight. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.124396-ref9">9</xref>] observed that water stress at or before panicle initiation reduces potential spike number and decreases translocation of assimilates to the grains, which results low in grain weight and increases empty grains. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.124396-ref15">15</xref>] stated that reduced grain yield under lower soil moisture levels might be due to inhibition of photosynthesis and less translocation of assimilates towards grain due to soil moisture stress. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.124396-ref18">18</xref>] advocated that drought affect rain fed rice systems. Root characteristics such as root length density, root thickness, changes in root dry matter.</p></sec><sec id="s3_7"><title>3.7. Harvest Index (HI)</title><p>The results of harvest index (%) were shown in Tables 7-9. Significant differences found among the varieties and the treatments for harvest index. Harvest index 0.40 was recorded in V<sub>1</sub> followed by 0.329 in V<sub>3</sub> and the lowest harvest index was found as 0.325 in V<sub>2</sub>. In treatment effect the highest harvest index 0.40 was recorded in T<sub>0</sub> and 0.32 in the T<sub>1</sub> treatment. Considering the combination effect, harvest index 0.46 was recorded in V<sub>1</sub>T<sub>0</sub> and 28.66 in V<sub>3</sub>T<sub>3</sub>.</p><p>In this study, the highest harvest index found was 0.40 in V<sub>1</sub> and the lowest harvest index in V<sub>2</sub>. The results have the similarity with the results that harvest index was significantly influenced by moisture level in all rice genotypes [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.124396-ref15">15</xref>] . Where water shortages occurred, harvest index was more conservative than biomass accumulation; harvest index was reduced only when water deficits severely decreased grain-yield [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.124396-ref19">19</xref>] .</p></sec><sec id="s3_8"><title>3.8. Grain Yield per Plant</title><p>Yield/plant (g) was shown in Tables 7-9. Yield/plant 23.80 g was recorded in V<sub>1</sub> followed by 21.77 g in V<sub>3</sub> and 21.33 g in V<sub>2</sub>. Yield/plant 22.08 g was recorded in T<sub>0</sub> control and the lowest yield/plant found as 14.44 g in the treatment T<sub>6</sub>. In combination effect (variety and drought treatment) the highest yield/plant was found as 23.80 in V<sub>1</sub>T<sub>0</sub> and the lowest yield/plant found 12.20 g in V<sub>2</sub>T<sub>3</sub>.</p><p>In this study, the highest yield/plant in BRRI dhan55 followed by tolerant check Hashikalmi and the lowest yield/plant in BR 6976-2B-15. The lowest grain yield per plant was recorded in V<sub>2</sub> genotypes. The results also have the similarity with the results of [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.124396-ref15">15</xref>] who stated that reduced grain yield under lower soil moisture levels. Yield parameters were decreased with the increase of water stress in different growth stages of the crop. As a result of drought, the stomatal conductance and gas exchange were decreased. All of this ultimately affected the grain yield under water stress treatment. The yield components like grain number and grain size were decreased in wheat [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.124396-ref20">20</xref>] . Water deficit during vegetative, flowering and grain filling stages reduced grain yield.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Conclusion</title><p>Hashikalmi and BRRI dhan55 produced the highest number of tillers per plant. It revealed that Hashikalmi showed significantly taller plants throughout the growing period. Hashikalmi produced the largest panicle in all water stress conditions. The largest length of panicle contains more grain which is higher weight than small length of panicle. The grain yield per plant recorded was the highest at control treatment and gradually decreased with increasing water stress duration in the genotypes. But the grain yield was less affected due to water stress treatment compared to others.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>The authors are grateful to acknowledge SAURES and HEQEP (Higher Education Quality Enhancement Project) for providing financial support to conduct the research work.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Authors’ Contributions</title><p>Author HSJ conducted the research work. KUA designed and supervised the study and edited the manuscript. Author HSJ managed the literature searches and JKB collected genotypes from Bangladesh Rice Research Institute.</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>Conflicts of Interest</title><p>The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.</p></sec><sec id="s8"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Jasmine, H.S., Ahamed, K.U. and Biswas, J.K. (2023) Study on the Yield and Yield Contributing Characters of Aus Rice Varieties in Various Soil Moisture Levels. Agricultural Sciences, 14, 509-521. https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2023.144034</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.124396-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Usman, M., Raheem, Z.F., Ahsan, T., Iqbal, A., Sarfaraz, Z.N. and Haq, Z. (2013) Morphological, Physiological and Biochemical Attributes as Indicators for Drought Tolerance in Rice (Oryza sativa L.). European Journal of Biological Sciences, 5, 23-28.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.124396-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">International Rice Research Institute (2005) Annual Report for 2004. International Rice Research Institute, Los Banos.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.124396-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Food and Agriculture Organization (2002) Crops and Drops Making the Best Use of Water for Agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.124396-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Zeigler, R.S. and Puckridge, D.W. (1995) Improving Sustainable Productivity in Rice Based Rainfed Lowland Systems of South and Southeast Asia. GeoJournal, 35, 307-324. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00989138</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.124396-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Boyer, J.S. (1982) Plant Productivity and Environment. Science, 218, 443-445. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.218.4571.443</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.124396-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Peleg, Z. and Blumwald, E. (2011) Hormone Balance and Abiotic Stress Tolerance in Crop Plants. Current Opinion in Plant Biology, 14, 290-295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2011.02.001</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.124396-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Shao, H.B., Chu, L.Y., Shao, M.A., Jaleel, C.A. and Hong-Mei, M. (2008) Higher Plant Antioxidants and Redox Signaling under Environmental Stresses. Comptes Rendus Biologies, 331, 433-441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crvi.2008.03.011</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.124396-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Jaleel, C.A., Manivannan, P., Murali, P.V., Gomathinayagam, M. and Panneerselvam, R. (2008) Antioxidant potential and Indole Alkaloid Profile Variations with Water Deficits along Different Parts of Two Varieties of Catharanthus roseus. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, 62, 312-318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2007.10.013</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.124396-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Rice Research and Development Institute (1999) Effect of Water Deficit. Department of Agriculture, Ibbagamuwa.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.124396-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">O’Toole, J.C. and Moya, T.B. (1981) Water Deficit and Yield in Upland Rice. Field Crops Research, 4, 247-259. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4290(81)90076-9</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.124396-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bangladesh Rice Research Institute (2008) Annual Internal Review for 2007-2008. Bangladesh Rice Research Institute, Gazipur.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.124396-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Donald, C.M. (1963) Competition among Crops and Pasture Plants. Advances in Agronom, 15, 11-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(08)60397-1</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.124396-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Russell, D.F. (1986) MSTAT-C Package Programme. Crop and Soil Science Department, Michigan University, Ann Arbor.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.124396-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Liu, F. and Stütze, H. (2004) Biomass Partitioning, Specific Leaf Area, and Water Use Efficiency of Vegetable Amaranth (Amaranthus spp.) in Response to Drought Scientia Horticulturae, 102, 15-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2003.11.014</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.124396-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Zubaer, M.A., Chowdhury, A.K.M.M.B., Islam, M.Z., Ahmed, T. and Hasan, M.A. (2007) Effects of Water Stress on Growth and Yield Attributes of Aman Rice Genotypes. International Journal of Sustainable Crop Production, 2, 25-30.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.124396-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Begum, F.A. (1992) Effect of Different Levels of Light and Drought Stress on Individual Spikelet Filling in Rice. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of the Philippines, Los Banos.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.124396-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Tsuda, M. and Takami, S. (1991) Changing Heading Date and Panicle Weight in Rice Subjected to Water Stress during the Early Stage of Panicle Development. Japanese Journal of Crop Science, 60, 241-264. https://doi.org/10.1626/jcs.60.241</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.124396-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Asch, F., Dingkuhn, M., Sow, A. and Audebert, A. (2005) Drought-Induced Changes in Rooting Patterns and Assimilate Partitioning between Root and Shoot in Upland Rice. Field Crops Research, 93, 223-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2004.10.002</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.124396-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Muchow, R.C. (1989) Comparative Productivity of Maize, Sorghum and Pearl Millet in a Semi-Arid Tropical Environment II. Effect of Water Deficits. Field Crops Research, 20, 207-219. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4290(89)90080-4</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.124396-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Edward, D. and Wright, D. (2008) The Effects of Winter Waterlogging and Summer Drought on the Growth and Yield of Winter Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). European Journal of Agronomy, 28, 234-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2007.07.010</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>