<?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.2024.155030</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">AS-133519</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>
 
 
  Effect of Water Application Rate on Growth Parameters of Farro 44 Rice Grown in a Selected Irrigation Scheme in Niger State, Nigeria
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Ebierni</surname><given-names>Akpoebidimiyen Otuaro</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>John</surname><given-names>Jiya Musa</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>Abayomi</surname><given-names>Ibrahim Kuti</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>Peter</surname><given-names>Obasa</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>Sunday</surname><given-names>Enebojojo Daniel</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Maritime University, Okerenkoko, Nigeria</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff3"><addr-line>Department of Agricultural and Bio-Environmental Engineering Technology, Kogi State Polytechnic, Lokoja, Nigeria</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Department of Agricultural and Bioresources Engineering, Federal University of Technology, Minna, Nigeria</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>30</day><month>05</month><year>2024</year></pub-date><volume>15</volume><issue>05</issue><fpage>533</fpage><lpage>547</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>29,</day>	<month>March</month>	<year>2024</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>27,</day>	<month>May</month>	<year>2024</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>30,</day>	<month>May</month>	<year>2024</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>
 
 
  Water and land are the necessary agricultural inputs, and both are scarce these days. This study aims to determine the effect of water application rate on selected planting and crop parameters of Farro 44 rice during dry season farming and its growth response. The randomised complete block design was employed for the Farro 44 rice variety, with each plot size 4 m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; (2 m &amp;#215; 2 m) for ease of monitoring. A 0.3 m bound space separated each plot. The crop spacing was 0.2 m &amp;#215; 0.3 m, 0.3 m &amp;#215; 0.3 m, and 0.3 m &amp;#215; 0.4 m, respectively, for the row-to-row and plant-to-plant distance. The data collected were statistically analysed. The height of the faro 44 variety of rice ranged between 35.50 cm to 44.00 cm for plots with 2 tillers per hill, while that of 4 and 6 tillers per hill ranged between 35.50 cm to 41.40 cm and 35.50 cm to 39.30 cm, respectively. Minimum damage of 2.32% was seen for plant hills of 2 tillers, while 9.21% and 11.89% were observed for tillers of 4 and 6, respectively. It was seen that plots with the highest spacing of 30 &amp;#215; 40 cm and tillers of 2 per hill were observed to perform better than those of the other plots within the experimental pots. Such plots had a maximum plant tiller of 37 when counted, with the height of the plants reaching 44 cm after 70 days of planting. In conclusion, farmers within the study area of the Kanko community in Niger State. Nigeria appears not to have any known knowledge of the soil they are cultivating and the water they use as a source of irrigation within the farming areas. It was further concluded that the rice crops would be produced maximally with minimal water application to the rice field.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Farro 44</kwd><kwd> Water</kwd><kwd> Rice</kwd><kwd> Irrigation</kwd><kwd> Days</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Soil moisture content significantly determines plant growth and yield rate, especially in irrigated systems [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref1">1</xref>] . Therefore, irrigation scheduling aims to reduce the plant’s water application rate to the barest level. This process manipulates the biological function of cell elongation and cell reproduction for improved plant yield.</p><p>Evolution has carefully chosen plants with decreased leaf area and seed number underwater application rate conditions allowing the production of few viable seeds. As a result, their alleles are not lost during the dry years. Thus, high soil water deficit is a factor that limits seedling establishment and growth in arid environments [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref2">2</xref>] . Water shortages could affect photosynthesis, stomatal conductance, and plant growth, even in species adapted to dry conditions. Reducing the transpiration rate by diminishing leaf area saves soil water during vegetative stages in favour of reproductive stages and keeps plants at a better water status [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref3">3</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref4">4</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref5">5</xref>] . However, this old-fashioned approach decreases plant carbon acquisition, but it has two drawbacks. First, it reduces seed number and yield, crucial traits for agriculture and natural environments, because this reduces the number of potential offspring. Secondly, conservative altruistic plants may be outgrown by fast-growing plants in natural habitats and excluded from their niche [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref6">6</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref7">7</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref8">8</xref>] .</p><p>Rice is a significant consumer of irrigation water [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref9">9</xref>] . Though innovative methods such as sprinklers and drip irrigation are available to increase irrigation efficiency, they are unsuitable for crops like rice [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref10">10</xref>] , which demands standing water for its growth. Therefore, the water application rating method was adopted as an alternative, and its effect on rice yield was studied. A field experiment conducted at the National Institute of Technology, Trichy, India’s demonstration research farm showed the influence of moisture stress on rice yield under different stress treatments during various crop growth stages [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref11">11</xref>] . Although rice is consumed globally, there is no general quality characteristic [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref12">12</xref>] . However, consumers consider rice appearance and cooked rice texture the foremost quality attributes [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref13">13</xref>] . Thus, determining and understanding the factors that influence appearance and texture properties is an absolute challenge for industries and breeders to meet consumer preferences.</p><p>Rice is particularly susceptible to soil water deficit, which causes significant yield losses in many Asian countries [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref14">14</xref>] . Moreover, drought affects its growth in about 50% of the world’s production area. More than 50% of the 40 million ha of the rainfed lowland rice area in South and Southeast Asia is affected by drought annually, which has contributed to significant yield losses [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref15">15</xref>] . In Nigeria, rice is one of the leading irrigation crops with high water consumption, accounting for 65% of agricultural water consumption [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref16">16</xref>] . In the Southern country, rice is grown in areas with maximum rainfall availability. Still, the distribution is uneven, with an intense seasonal characteristic of drought sometimes occurring [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref17">17</xref>] . Reduced rainfall duration has become one of the most limiting factors influencing rice production [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref18">18</xref>] in some areas of Nigeria. Statistics indicated that the reduction of yield, which the drought causes, may surpass other factors that lead to the total decrease by other factors [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref19">19</xref>] .</p><p>In West Africa, the annual consumption of rice has increased by 6.5% annually [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref15">15</xref>] , but there is an upsurge in the water application rate for rainfed crops such as rice [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref20">20</xref>] . Hence, soil moisture stress is a noteworthy influence on the gap in producing the maximum quantity and quality of rice to meet the growing population demand [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref21">21</xref>] . The scarcity effect of water on the crop depends on soil nutrient content as well as climate and variety of the crops planted [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref22">22</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref23">23</xref>] .</p><p>To improve crop productivity, it is necessary to understand the mechanism of plant responses to drought situations to improve crop performance in vast areas where rainfall is limiting or unreliable. Also, plants’ behaviour responses to drought are complex, and different mechanisms are adopted by plants when they encounter water deficit [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref24">24</xref>] .</p><p>This study examines the impact of water application rate on specific planting and crop parameters of rice cultivated in an irrigation system during dry season farming. Additionally, the study aims to identify the parameters that affect the growth and yield response of the Farro 44 rice variety under different underwater application rate conditions.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Materials and Methods</title><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Study Area</title><p>Niger state is located in the Southern Guinea Savannah ecological zone of Nigeria, between latitudes 8˚10'N and 11˚3'N and longitude 3˚20'E and 7˚30'E, with Wushishi as one of the Local Government Areas within the State. Niger state has two distinct seasons, which are the rainfall and dry seasons. The rainy season usually starts in the southern part of the State in early April, ends in late October, and, in some rare cases, the first half of November. The dry season begins mostly in mid-November and ends in March of the following year. According to Ahaneku and Sadiq [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref25">25</xref>] , Niger State receives an average annual rainfall of 1312 mm. The minimum and maximum temperature range between 27.3˚C and 40˚C, respectively. The relative humidity of the State is around 50.2%.</p><p>Gbako Local Government borders Wushishi local government to the south, Rafi and Bosso Local Government Areas to the east, Mariga Local Government Area to the north, Mashegu and Lavun Local Government Areas to the west. The experimental plot location was latitude 9˚39'42&quot;N 6˚5'56&quot;E, 9˚41'22&quot;N 6˚5'35&quot;E, and longitude 9˚44'33&quot;N 6˚5’25&quot;E, respectively.</p></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Experimental Set Up</title><p>The experiment consisted of three treatments with replications for each treatment in a Randomised Complete Block Design (RCBD) for the rice variety of Faro 44. A 1 m alley separated each replication, and a 0.3 m bund space separated each plot. Each replicate plot had a size of 4 m<sup>2</sup> with 2 m length and 2 m breadth. The crop planting space varied between 0.20 m &#215; 0.30 m, 0.30 m &#215; 0.30 m, and 0.30 m &#215; 0.40 m row-to-row and plant-to-plant distance. The six-edged rows were considered net plot rows for yield calculation and plant growth rate observations.</p></sec><sec id="s2_3"><title>2.3. Cultivation Practice</title><p>The nursery bed was prepared on a small wet bed of 3 m in length and a width of 1.5 m in the plot. The plot was initially treated with herbicide. The weeds were left to wither for a week, after which the soils were manually upturned to cover the weeds to a depth of 25 cm using the big local hoe. Water was allowed into the plot to soften the hardpan and smooth the up-turning process of the soil. The plots were left for a week to decay the covered weeds.</p><p>Seeds were sown at 50 kg&#183;ha<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> for the Farro 44 rice cultivar. A section of the plot was prepared as the nursery beds so the crops could be transplanted with minimal injury to the seedlings. Seeds were soaked for 24 hours and were evenly sown in line in a well-leveled nursery bed. A light surface check basin irrigation system was given for three hours before uprooting to make the seedling easier to uproot.</p><p>The experimental field was manually ploughed and crisscrossed twice, and major weeds were removed seven days before transplanting. During these processes, no form of manure was added to the plot. Twenty-eight days old seedlings were transplanted from the nursery plots to the field plots of 2 m &#215; 2 m, with the plant stands varying between two to six per stand. This transplanting process was carried out following the works of Karki et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref26">26</xref>] . Gap fillings were done five days after transplanting to keep the desired plant population in the experimental plots. This agrees with the works of Gopalakrishnan et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref27">27</xref>] . Seven days after transplanting, varying quantities of fertiliser per plot, as shown in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>, were applied to the different plots. A one-hand weeding was conducted to remove unwanted plants from the plots.</p></sec><sec id="s2_4"><title>2.4. Determination of Growth Parameters</title><sec id="s2_4_1"><title>2.4.1. Root Studies</title><p>Root samples were collected from the top 15 cm of soil proﬁle from each plot every two weeks during the growing season. The drugged-out soil was placed in a big bucket, made into a slurry with extra water, passed through a 2 mm sieve to collect roots and other debris, and stored in plastic bags. The root samples were brought to the laboratory, washed, and cleaned to remove debris. The root lengths were measured using a meter rule.</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Treatments with a different water application rate, fertilisers, plant population stand, and plant spacing for each plot</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Treatment</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Water Application Rate (cm<sup>3</sup>/tiller)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Fertiliser application (g/tiller)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Tillers per hill (Nos)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Planting Spacing (cm)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.025</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30 &#215; 30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.025</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20 &#215; 30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.025</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40 &#215; 30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.030</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30 &#215; 30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.025</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20 &#215; 30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.030</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30 &#215; 30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.020</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20 &#215; 30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.025</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30 &#215; 30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.025</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30 &#215; 30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.025</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20 &#215; 30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.020</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40 &#215; 30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.025</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40 &#215; 30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.030</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40 &#215; 30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.025</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30 &#215; 30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.025</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30 &#215; 30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.025</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20 &#215; 30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.025</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30 &#215; 30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.030</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30 &#215; 30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.025</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30 &#215; 30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.020</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30 &#215; 30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.020</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30 &#215; 30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.020</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40 &#215; 30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >23</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.025</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30 &#215; 30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.025</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30 &#215; 30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.025</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30 &#215; 30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.020</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30 &#215; 30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.025</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30 &#215; 30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.030</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40 &#215; 30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >29</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.030</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20 &#215; 30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CONTROL</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Unknown measure</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Unknown measure</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20 &#215; 20</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></sec><sec id="s2_4_2"><title>2.4.2. The Number of Effective Plants Stands per Square Meter</title><p>The number of effective tillers per square meter (m<sup>2</sup>) was calculated for each plot just before crop harvesting. The tillers having filled grains were recorded as effective tillers, and the tillers without filled grains were recorded as non-effective tillers.</p></sec><sec id="s2_4_3"><title>2.4.3. Number of Tillers per Plant Stand</title><p>Tillers from 10 plant stands in each growing stage were counted randomly, and the average stand per plant was calculated. The main stem was also included in calculating the total plant stand per hole.</p></sec><sec id="s2_4_4"><title>2.4.4. Number of Grains per Plant Stand</title><p>The total number of grains per plant stand was counted manually from the panicles, which were selected randomly from 10 plant stands in each plot. The mean of ten randomly selected panicles from each plot was used to determine the number of grains per panicle.</p></sec><sec id="s2_4_5"><title>2.4.5. Straw Yield</title><p>After the field’s rice harvest, the matured and dried stems, leaves, and chaff were considered straw. Farmers mostly used this farm waste as bedding materials for livestock, erosion control, and mulching. Determination of straw yield was done following the works of Kristensen et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref28">28</xref>] . The straw obtained from the net plot area of each plot was sun-dried for 3 - 4 days and weighed. The yields so obtained were translated into tons per hectare.</p></sec></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results and Discussion</title><sec id="s3_1"><title>3.1. Water Application Rate</title><p>Rice is a major crop in most areas of Niger State, which is known to be a water-loving crop. The crop is mainly grown under submergence or variable ponding conditions in the open field. The soil moisture levels within each plot were achieved through the daily variability application of water, as stated in the experimental design. The soil water content in each plot was successfully controlled according to the design of the irrigation regime. The application rate in each plot maintained differences in water depth due to the abnormality of levelling, which often upset rice growth and yield. Efforts in recent times have been geared towards the effect of deeper ponding of water depth for plant growth because of the different types of irrigation systems employed by farmers and the water table conditions in large-sized paddy fields [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref29">29</xref>] . Water depth is a significant factor in the prediction of rice growth. In irrigable areas, the frequency at which water is applied to farmlands by force of circumstances of inadequate storage of water in the reservoir during the crop season is resorting to intermittent water supply.</p><p>During this study, the difference in water depths presented a tangible impact on the growth and productivity nature of the Farro 44 rice crop. At the early stage of planting of the Farro 44 rice variety, there was no significant difference (p &gt; 0.05) in the height of plants and the total number of tillers per hill as similar water depth was applied in all the plots for the first week to avoid the damaging of transplanted plants. The height of the Farro 44 variety of rice ranged between 35.50 cm to 44.00 cm for plots with 2 tillers per hill, while that of 4 and 6 tillers per hill ranged between 35.50 cm to 41.40 cm and 35.50 cm to 39.30 cm, respectively. When the height of the plant was compared to that of the control, it was observed that the control ranged between 18.00 cm and 29.00 cm. This implies a positive response in growth to water application rate. A similar observation was made regarding the survival rate of the plants grown at 2 tillers per hill in 7 cm<sup>3</sup> of water depth over those of the 6 cm<sup>3</sup> and 8 cm<sup>3</sup> for the 4 and 6 tillers per hill. Minimum damage of 2.32% was seen for plant hills of 2 tillers, while 9.21% and 11.89% were observed for tillers of 4 and 6, respectively.</p><p>The water entering each prepared plot was limited during the land preparation stage to soften the soils for ease of upturning manually. Three days before crop transplanting, water was made available twice the required amount to soften the soil for ease of penetration of the roots. This implies that a depth of 6 cm, 7 cm, and 8 cm of water was applied to the various plots, as stated in the methodology. The pretreatment process before transplanting ensured the stabilisation of the transplanted crops, which follows the works of Bappa et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref30">30</xref>] within the various plots. <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref> presents the volume of water added to the crops during the growing stage at a four-day interval and the initial pretreatment of water given to the plots. The required volume of water was applied to the various plots based on the requirements of various plots based on the soil moisture conditions. The irrigation scheduling period for the 2 tillers per hill plot was everyother eight days, while that of the 4 and 6 tillers per hill was at seven- and six-day intervals, respectively. This conforms with the works of Zaman et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref31">31</xref>] . This scheduling ensured the constant availability of water to take care of</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Water application rate per tiller per hill per plot for four days intervals and pretreatment given to each plot</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Tillers per Hill</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Hill Population</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Depth of water per plant hill (cm<sup>3</sup>)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Required volume of water per plot (mm<sup>3</sup>)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Water requirement before transplanting (mm<sup>3</sup>)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Water application rate for controlled experimental plots (mm<sup>3</sup>)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >192</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >384</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="9"  >Unestimated amount of water applied according to the farmer’s decision.</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >384</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >768</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >576</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1152</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >224</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >448</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >448</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >896</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >672</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1344</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >256</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >512</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >512</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1024</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >768</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1536</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>the evapotranspiration process that was taking place. It was observed that after the rice crop was transplanted, more water was applied to the field to allow for the stability of the crop. The intermittent irrigation process is thought to improve the supply of oxygen to the root zone of the rice with the potential for nutrient uptake and help to avoid an accumulation of toxic substances within the zone. Researchers [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref32">32</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref33">33</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref34">34</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref35">35</xref>] have reported that more activity took place around the root zone, which secured a high photosynthetic activity by supplying sufficient nutrients to the shoot, thus ensuring a high yield of grains.</p><p>Water supply to the various plots indicated that 46.6%, 29.1%, and 24.3% of water was saved from the point of tillering to harvest for each of the respective water application rates to the plots. Overall, over 50% of the water used by the regular rice farmers was saved, as observed in the quantity of the grain yield from each rice plot. This is similar to the works of Belder et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref36">36</xref>] , Tao et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref37">37</xref>] , and Yao et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref38">38</xref>] .</p><p>Several researchers [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref39">39</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref40">40</xref>] have stated that excessive and inadequate water supply deterred root development, thus decreasing tiller growth, as observed in the control plot. The population of tillers on the control plot ranged between 14 and 24, while the plots with initial tillers of 2, 4 and 6 had tiller populations of 27 to 35, 22 to 31 and 19 to 28, respectively. Each of the tiller population reached a maximum after 60 days of transplanting. Due to the late transplanting effect of the Farro 44 variety of rice, the population of the paddy per till was negatively affected. Water application showed no significant impact on the average rice paddy per hill (APPS) regarding the respective experimental plots’ seed rate and plant spacing. Thus, different water depths produced different grain productivity for the Farro 44 variety of rice. Water application rate at various stages of crop growth and the population of the tillers either reduced or increased the grain and straw yield, which impacted the development of rice crops. The height of the crops, the number of grains per panicle, the length of the leaves, and the root population were affected depending on the amount of water applied to the various plots. Thus affecting the grain yield components of the crop. The grain yield from the various plots was closely observed to have a significant impact because of the amount of water applied to the various plots. It was observed that the plots with 2 tillers, which later increased to between 27 and 35, had the highest grain yield compared to those with initial tillers of 4 and 6. The plots with 2 tillers at the initial stage were determined to be the most sensitive yield component, which is similar to the findings of Matsuo &amp; Mochizuki [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref41">41</xref>] . This provided further evidence of the sensitivity of water application rate on the reproductive stage of rice production in the various irrigated water depth treatments. The potential value of a newly formed yield component decreased as the previously formed yield component increased. The grain yield observed in this study is similar to the works of Tao et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref37">37</xref>] , Wang et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref42">42</xref>] , and Yao et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref38">38</xref>] . The total number of panicles and spikelets for the plot with 2 tillers was more (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>) than those of the 4 and 6 tillers, which indicates more effective water use. The tillers’ population density affected the developmental stages of the crops’ life cycle. In this study, the survival rate of the tillers per hill was estimated to be 82.73% for the 2-tillers spacing of 30 &#215; 40 cm plot, while those with 4 and 6 tillers had survival rates of 71.26% and 59.13%, respectively, for the same spacing.</p><p>A decrease in plant tiller per hill showed stunted growth in all parameters considered for this study. The stunted growth and densely populated plots resulted in a significant reduction of photosynthetic activities, which led to the poor development of the grained yield development of the growth parameters of the plants [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref43">43</xref>] . The variation in the growth parameters could be linked to the amount of available moisture content within the soils of the study area. This variation follows the study conducted by Akinbile and Sangodoyin [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref44">44</xref>] . <xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref> presents the measured Farro 44 rice growth parameters with respect to water application rate, the rate of tillering of the plant and spacing between plant stands while <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref> is the measured growth parameter with respect to the water application rate and fixed plant hill spacing.</p><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Measured growth parameter to water application rate, plant tiller, and hill spacing</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Plant population</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Parameters</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="5"  >Plants</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="6"  >2 per hill</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Height of Plant (cm)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44.00</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >No of Leaves</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.00</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >No of roots</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.00</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Length of root (cm)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.80</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Length of leaf (cm)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32.00</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Width of leaf (cm)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.80</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.80</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.00</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="6"  >4 per hill</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Height of Plant (cm)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37.30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37.80</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41.40</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >No of Leaves</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.00</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >No of roots</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.00</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Length of root (cm)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.80</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.90</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.90</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Length of leaf (cm)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.80</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23.40</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.20</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Width of leaf (cm)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.90</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="6"  >6 per hill</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Height of Plant (cm)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37.10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37.70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39.30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >No of Leaves</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.00</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >No of roots</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.00</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Length of root (cm)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.60</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Length of leaf (cm)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26.00</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Width of leaf (cm)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.60</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.90</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.40</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Measured growth parameter to water application rate and fixed plant spacing</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Growth Parameters of Crop</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="5"  >Control</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Height of Plant (cm)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.00</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >No of Leaves</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.00</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >No of roots</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.00</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Length of root (cm)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.60</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.90</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.10</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Length of leaf (cm)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.00</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Width of leaf (cm)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.80</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.60</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.90</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></sec><sec id="s3_2"><title>3.2. Plant Spacing between Hills</title><p>The spacing between hills on the various plots was 30 cm &#215; 30 cm, 20 cm &#215; 30 cm, and 40 cm &#215; 30 cm, respectively, for the experiment plots. The control plot was maintained at 20 cm &#215; 20 cm as the various seed industries recommended. It was observed that plots with the highest spacing of 30 cm &#215; 40 cm and tillers of 2 per hill were seen to perform better than those of the other plots within the experimental pots. Such plots were observed to have a maximum plant tillers of 37, with the height of the plants reaching 44 cm after 70 days of planting. They were observed to have fewer leaves when compared to those plots that had 4 and 6 tillers per hill. The maximum and minimum lengths of the roots with a maximum spacing of 30 cm &#215; 40 cm were 3.00 and 5.80 cm, respectively and when compared with plant hills with lesser spacing, the various roots ranged between 2.80 cm and 4.60 cm. This indicates that spacing significantly affects the length of roots within the study area [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref43">43</xref>] . The number of roots for experimental plots with a spacing of 20 cm &#215; 30 cm showed fewer root hires. The maximum and minimum number of leaves for the plant hills with maximum spacing of 30 cm &#215; 40 cm was between 10 and 12, respectively, while their length ranges between 15 cm and 32 cm, respectively. The width of the leaves ranges between 3.00 and 4.00 cm.</p><p>Plant spacing significantly affected the leaves’ number, length, and width. When compared with those with lesser plant hill spacing, the length and number of the leaves in some cases were the same, but the width was much smaller, implying that the width was not significant to the spacing of the plants. The length, number, and width of the plant leaves significantly affected the photosynthetic activities of the plant, which is the primary factor in crop yield. Therefore, it could be said that increased spacing between plant hills increases crop yield. This is similar to the works of Baloch et al., [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref45">45</xref>] . Durga et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref46">46</xref>] studied the effect of seedling age and spacing schedule on rice productivity and quality traits under India’s rice intensification (SRI) system. <xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref> below shows the level of interaction between plant spacing and the other factors considered during the study. It was seen that the plant hill spacing was insignificant for the factors of water application rate, fertiliser application rate, and plant tillers during this study.</p><table-wrap id="table5" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref></label><caption><title> Statistical interaction between several factors</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Interactions</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Sum of squares</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >df</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Mean square</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >F-value</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >P-value</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="6"  >Plant Tiller per hill</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >AB</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >52.56</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >52.56</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.87</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1880</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >AC</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0802</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.7803</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >AD</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.06</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.06</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5010</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4881</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="6"  >Average Paddy per tiller</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >BC</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11342.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11342.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.84</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0299</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >BD</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >169.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >169.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0870</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.7723</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CD</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >729.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >729.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3753</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5499</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="6"  >Plant tiller with paddy</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >AC</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.8519</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3682</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >BC</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.06</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.06</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.9779</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3358</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CD</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.2782</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6043</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="6"  >Spacing between hills</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >AC</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0802</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.7803</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >BC</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.1425</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.7102</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CD</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.3129</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>A is the statistical relationship between the water application rate, B is the fertiliser application rate, C is the plant tiller, and D is the plant hill. It was observed that there were no significant interactions of the various parameters as regards the threshed paddy, plant hill with paddy, and the spacing between the plant hills. This is similar to the findings of Matsuo and Mochizuki [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.133519-ref41">41</xref>] .</p></sec></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Conclusion</title><p>The water application rate to farms for irrigation and the nature of the soils are the main factors that determine the amount of water retained in soils and its consequential effect on the growth rate of the crop. It is therefore concluded that with the minimal application of water to the field of the rice crops, various plots showed significant panicle reduction except for plots with a seed rate of 2 and spacing of 30 cm &#215; 40 cm. It is therefore concluded that the multiplication of the tillers within 70 days of planting from the nursery stage for the 2 seed rates with a spacing of 30 cm &#215; 40 cm for the Farro 44 variety of rice is said to be a better method of rice planting that will give a maximum growth rate as observed in the results obtained. Other findings also proved that water stress or deficit provided at the mid-panicle initiation stage caused a significant reduction in the spikelet number per panicle and tillering rate. It was further concluded that water stress at the flowering and ripening stages did not significantly affect the panicle number but significantly reduced the grain yield. The maximum and minimum depth water application rate for rice farmers in the Kanko community should range between 4 and 6 cm as it will help the farmer reduce rice–weed competition. The maximum plant survival and tallest average plant height were recorded in water depths of between 4 and 6 cm from cultivation till to the mid-stage of growth. It was seen that the amount of grain loss due to excessive water depth had an adverse impact compared to deficient water depths. This study has shown that managing soil–plant–water relationships to exploit rice plants’ adaptive root traits can achieve “more crop per drop,” achieving more satisfactory crops with reduced water applications. Greater root length density increases the storage capacity of the root zone, and a deeper root system is associated with more water uptake from the soil and better crop performance under drought conditions. Deep and healthy root systems are not only correlated with better water uptake, but they also inﬂuence yield physiology. The best time to carry out weeding on the farm is 35 days after transplanting the rice to the main plots.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>Conflicts of Interest</title><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Otuaro, E.A., Musa, J.J., Kuti, A.I., Obasa, P. and Daniel, S.E. (2024) Effect of Water Application Rate on Growth Parameters of Farro 44 Rice Grown in a Selected Irrigation Scheme in Niger State, Nigeria. Agricultural Sciences, 15, 533-547. https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2024.155030</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.133519-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lobell, D.B. and Gourdji, S.M. (2012) The Influence of Climate Change on Global Crop Productivity. &lt;i&gt;Plant Physiology&lt;/i&gt;, 160, 1686-1697.&lt;u&gt;&lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.112.208298&lt;/u&gt;</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Zheng, M., Lai, L., Jiang, L., An, P., Yu, Y., Zheng, Y., Shimizu, H., Baskin, J.M. and Baskin, C.C. (2012) Moderate Water Supply and Partial Sand Burial Increase Relative Growth Rate of Two Artemisia Species in an Inland Sandy Land. &lt;i&gt;Journal of A&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;r&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;id Environments&lt;/i&gt;, 85, 105-113. &lt;u&gt;&lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2012.05.006&lt;/u&gt;</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bouman, B.A.M. and Tuong, T.P. (2001) Field Water Management to Save Water and Increase Its Productivity in Irrigated Lowland Rice. &lt;i&gt;Agricultural Water Ma&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;agement&lt;/i&gt;, 49, 11-30. &lt;u&gt;&lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3774(00)00128-1&lt;/u&gt;</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Shao, H.-B., Chu, L.-Y., Jaleel, C.A. and Zhao, C.-X. (2008) Water-Deficit Stress-Induced Anatomical Changes in Higher Plants. &lt;i&gt;Comptes&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt; &lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;Rendus&lt;/i&gt;.&lt;i&gt; &lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;Biologies&lt;/i&gt;, 331, 215-225. &lt;u&gt;&lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crvi.2008.01.002&lt;/u&gt;</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Tardieu, F., Parent, B., Caldeira, C.F. and Welcker, C. (2014) Genetic and Physiological Controls of Growth under Water Deficit. &lt;i&gt;Plant Physiology&lt;/i&gt;, 164, 1628-1635.&lt;u&gt;&lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.113.233353&lt;/u&gt;</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">McKey, D.B., Elias, M., Pujol, B. and Duputi&amp;#233;, A. (2012) 17 Ecological Approaches to Crop Domestication. In: Gepts, P., Famula, T.R., Bettinger, R.L., &lt;i&gt;et al&lt;/i&gt;., Eds., &lt;i&gt;Bi&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;o&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;diversity in Agriculture&lt;/i&gt;:&lt;i&gt; Domestication&lt;/i&gt;,&lt;i&gt; Evolution&lt;/i&gt;,&lt;i&gt; and Sustainability&lt;/i&gt;, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 377-406. &lt;u&gt;&lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139019514.023&lt;/u&gt;</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Buiatti, M., Christou, P. and Pastore, G. (2013) The Application of GMOs in Agriculture and Food Production for Better Nutrition: Two Different Scientific Points of View. &lt;i&gt;Genes &amp; Nutrition&lt;/i&gt;, 8, 255-270. &lt;u&gt;&lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1007/s12263-012-0316-4&lt;/u&gt;</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Wezel, A., Casagrande, M., Celette, F., Vian, J.F., Ferrer, A. and Peign&amp;#233;, J. (2014) Agroecological Practices for Sustainable Agriculture. A Review. &lt;i&gt;Agronomy for Su&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;s&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;tainable Development&lt;/i&gt;, 34, 1-20. &lt;u&gt;&lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0180-7&lt;/u&gt;</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Chandrasekaran, K., Devarajulu, S. and Kuppannan, P. (2009) Farmers&amp;#8217; Willingness to Pay for Irrigation Water: A Case of Tank Irrigation Systems in South India. &lt;i&gt;W&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;a&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;ter&lt;/i&gt;, 1, 5-18. &lt;u&gt;&lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.3390/w1010005&lt;/u&gt;</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Perry, C., Steduto, P., Allen, R.G. and Burt, C.M. (2009) Increasing Productivity in Irrigated Agriculture: Agronomic Constraints and Hydrological Realities. &lt;i&gt;Agricu&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;l&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;tural Water Management&lt;/i&gt;, 96, 1517-1524. &lt;u&gt;&lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2009.05.005&lt;/u&gt;</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Saha, M. (2013) The State, Scientists, and Staple Crops: Agricultural &amp;#8220;Modernization&amp;#8221; in Pre-Green Revolution India. &lt;i&gt;Agricultural History&lt;/i&gt;, 87, 201-223.&lt;u&gt;&lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.3098/ah.2013.87.2.201&lt;/u&gt;</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Unger, P.W., Payne, W.A. and Peterson, G.A. (2006) Water Conservation and Efficient Use. In: Peterson, G.A., Unger, P.W. and Payne, W.A., Eds., &lt;i&gt;Dryland Agricu&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;l&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;ture&lt;/i&gt;. &lt;i&gt;Agronomy Monographs&lt;/i&gt;, Vol. 23, American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America and Soil Science Society of America, Madison, 39-85.&lt;u&gt;&lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.2134/agronmonogr23.2ed.c3&lt;/u&gt;</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Bao, J. (2014) Genes and QTLs for Rice Grain Quality Improvement. In: Yan, W. and Bao, J., Eds., &lt;i&gt;Rice&lt;/i&gt;-&lt;i&gt;Germplasm&lt;/i&gt;,&lt;i&gt; Genetics and Improvement&lt;/i&gt;, InTechOpen, Rijeka, 239-278. &lt;u&gt;&lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.5772/56621&lt;/u&gt;</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Sridhar, V., Hubbard, K.G., You, J. and Hunt, E.D. (2008) Development of the Soil Moisture Index to Quantify Agricultural Drought and Its &amp;#8220;User Friendliness&amp;#8221; in Severity-Area-Duration Assessment. &lt;i&gt;Journal of Hydrometeorology&lt;/i&gt;, 9, 660-679.&lt;u&gt;&lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JHM892.1&lt;/u&gt;</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Erythrina, E., Anshori, A., Bora, C.Y., Dewi, D.O., Lestari, M.S., Mustaha, M.A., Ramija, K.E., Rauf, A.W., Mikasari, W., Surdianto, Y. and Suriadi, A. (2021) Assessing Opportunities to Increase Yield and Profit in Rainfed Lowland Rice Systems in Indonesia. &lt;i&gt;Agronomy&lt;/i&gt;, 11, Article 777. &lt;u&gt;&lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11040777&lt;/u&gt;</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">T&amp;#225;rn&amp;#237;k, A. and Igaz, D. (2015) Quantification of Soil Water Storage Available to Plants in the Nitra River Basin. &lt;i&gt;Acta Scientiarum Polonorum Formatio Circumie&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;c&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;tus&lt;/i&gt;, 14, 209-216. &lt;u&gt;&lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.15576/ASP.FC/2015.14.2.209&lt;/u&gt;</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Rockstr&amp;#246;m, J., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Hoff, H., Rost, S. and Gerten, D. (2009) Future Water Availability for Global Food Production: The Potential of Green Water for Increasing Resilience to Global Change. &lt;i&gt;Water Resources Research&lt;/i&gt;, 45, W00A12. &lt;u&gt;&lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006767&lt;/u&gt;</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Rockstr&amp;#246;m, J., Karlberg, L., Wani, S.P., Barron, J., Hatibu, N., Oweis, T., Bruggeman, A., Farahani, J. and Qiang, Z. (2010) Managing Water in Rainfed Agriculture&amp;#8212;The Need for a Paradigm Shift. &lt;i&gt;Agricultural Water Management&lt;/i&gt;, 97, 543-550. &lt;u&gt;&lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2009.09.009&lt;/u&gt;</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Wu, N., Guan, Y. and Shi, Y. (2011) Effect of Water Stress on Physiological Traits and Yield in Rice Backcross Lines after Anthesis. &lt;i&gt;Energy Procedia&lt;/i&gt;, 5, 255-260.&lt;u&gt;&lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.03.045&lt;/u&gt;</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Morvan, X., Saby, N.P.A., Arrouays, D., Le Bas, C., Jones, R.J.A., Verheijen, F.G.A., Bellamy, P.H., Stephens, M. and Kibblewhite, M.G. (2008) Soil Monitoring in Europe: A Review of Existing Systems and Requirements for Harmonisation. &lt;i&gt;Science of the Total Environment&lt;/i&gt;, 391, 1-12. &lt;u&gt;&lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.10.046&lt;/u&gt;</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Molden, D., Oweis, T., Steduto, P., Bindraban, P., Hanjra, M.A. and Kijne, J. (2010) Improving Agricultural Water Productivity: Between Optimism and Caution. &lt;i&gt;Agricultural Water Management&lt;/i&gt;, 97, 528-535. &lt;u&gt;&lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2009.03.023&lt;/u&gt;</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mzuku, M., Khosla, R., Reich, R., Inman, D., Smith, F. and MacDonald, L. (2005) Spatial Variability of Measured Soil Properties across Site-Specific Management Zones. &lt;i&gt;Soil Science Society of America Journal&lt;/i&gt;, 69, 1572-1579.&lt;u&gt;&lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2005.0062&lt;/u&gt;</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ochsner, T.E., Cosh, M.H., Cuenca, R.H., Dorigo, W.A., Draper, C.S., Hagimoto, Y., Kerr, Y.H., Njoku, E.G., Small, E.E., Zreda, M. and Larson, K.M. (2013) State of the Art in Large-Scale Soil Moisture Monitoring. &lt;i&gt;Soil Science Society of America Journal&lt;/i&gt;, 77, 1888-1919. &lt;u&gt;&lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2013.03.0093&lt;/u&gt;</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mariano, M.J., Villano, R. and Fleming, E. (2012) Factors Influencing Farmers&amp;#8217; Adoption of Modern Rice Technologies and Good Management Practices in the Philippines. &lt;i&gt;Agricultural Systems&lt;/i&gt;, 110, 41-53. &lt;u&gt;&lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2012.03.010&lt;/u&gt;</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ahaneku, I.E. and Sadiq, B.O. (2014) Assessment of Heavy Metals in Nigerian Agricultural Soils. &lt;i&gt;Polish Journal of Environmental Studies&lt;/i&gt;, 23,1091-1100.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Karki, S., Poudel, N.S., Bhusal, G., Simkhada, S., Regmi, B.R., Adhikari, B. and Poudel, S. (2018) Growth Parameter and Yield Attributes of Rice (&lt;i&gt;Oryza sativa&lt;/i&gt;) as Influenced by Different Combination of Nitrogen Sources. &lt;i&gt;World Journal of Agr&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;i&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;cultural Research&lt;/i&gt;, 6, 58-64.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Gopalakrishnan, S., Kumar, R.M., Humayun, P., Srinivas, V., Kumari, B.R., Vijayabharathi, R., Singh, A., Surekha, K., Padmavathi, C., Somashekar, N., Rao, P.R., Latha, P.C., Rao, L.V.S., Babu, V.R., Viraktamath, B.C., Goud, V.V., Loganandhan, N., Gujja, B. and Rupela, O. (2013) Assessment of Different Methods of Rice (&lt;i&gt;Oryza sativa&lt;/i&gt;. L) Cultivation Affecting Growth Parameters, Soil Chemical, Biological, and Microbiological Properties, Water Saving, and Grain Yield in Rice-Rice System. &lt;i&gt;Paddy and Water Environment&lt;/i&gt;, 12, 79-87. &lt;u&gt;&lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-013-0362-6&lt;/u&gt;</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kristensen, J.B., Felby, C. and J&amp;#248;rgensen, H. (2009) Determining Yields in High Solids Enzymatic Hydrolysis of Biomass. &lt;i&gt;Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology&lt;/i&gt;, 156, 127-132. &lt;u&gt;&lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-008-8375-0&lt;/u&gt;</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Peng, S., Huang, J., Sheehy, J.E., Laza, R.C., Visperas, R.M., Zhong, X., Centeno, G.S., Khush, G.S. and Cassman, K.G. (2004) Rice Yields Decline with Higher Night Temperature from Global Warming. &lt;i&gt;Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences&lt;/i&gt;, 101, 9971-9975. &lt;u&gt;&lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0403720101&lt;/u&gt;</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bappa, D.A.S., Chakraborty, D., Singh, V.K., Ahmed, M., Singh, A.K. and Barman, A. (2016) Evaluating Fertilisation Effects on Soil Physical Properties Using a Soil Quality Index in an Intensive Rice-Wheat Cropping System. &lt;i&gt;Pedosphere&lt;/i&gt;, 26, 887-894. &lt;u&gt;&lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/S1002-0160(15)60093-5&lt;/u&gt;</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Zaman, N.K., Abdullahi, M.Y., Othman, S. and Zaman, N.K. (2018) Growth and Physio-Logical Performance of Aerobic and Lowland Rice as Affected by Water Stress at Selected Growth Stage. &lt;i&gt;Rice Science&lt;/i&gt;, 25, 82-93.&lt;u&gt;&lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsci.2018.02.001&lt;/u&gt;</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Roy, R.N., Finck, A., Blair, G.J. and Tandon, H.L.S. (2006) Plant Nutrition for Food Security. A Guide for Integrated Nutrient Management. FAO Fertilizer and Plant Nutrition Bulletin. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 368.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Z&amp;#246;rb, C., Senbayram, M. and Peiter, E. (2014) Potassium in Agriculture&amp;#8212;Status and Perspectives. &lt;i&gt;Journal of Plant Physiology&lt;/i&gt;, 171, 656-669.&lt;u&gt;&lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jplph.2013.08.008&lt;/u&gt;</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Fischer, T., Byerlee, D. and Edmeades, G. (2014) Crop Yields and Global Food Security. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, 8-11.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Eigenbrod, C. and Gruda, N. (2015) Urban Vegetable for Food Security in Cities. A Review. &lt;i&gt;Agronomy for Sustainable Development&lt;/i&gt;, 35, 483-498.&lt;u&gt;&lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-014-0273-y&lt;/u&gt;</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Belder, P., Bouman, B.A.M., Cabangon, R., Guoan, L., Quilang, E.J.P., Yuanhua, L., Spiertz, J.H.J. and Tuong, T.P. (2004) Effect of Water-Saving Irrigation on Rice Yield and Water Use in Typical Lowland Conditions in Asia. &lt;i&gt;Agricultural Water Management&lt;/i&gt;, 65, 193-210. &lt;u&gt;&lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2003.09.002&lt;/u&gt;</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Tao, H., Brueck, H., Dittert, K., Kreye, C., Lin, S. and Sattelmacher, B. (2006) Growth and Yield Formation of Rice (&lt;i&gt;Oryza sativa&lt;/i&gt; L.) in the Water-Saving Ground Cover Rice Production System (GCRPS). &lt;i&gt;Field Crops Research&lt;/i&gt;, 95, 1-12.&lt;u&gt;&lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2005.01.019&lt;/u&gt;</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Yao, F., Huang, J., Cui, K., Nie, L., Xiang, J., Liu, X., Wu, W., Chen, M. and Peng, S. (2012) Agronomic Performance of High-Yielding Rice Variety Grown under Alternate Wetting and Drying Irrigation. &lt;i&gt;Field Crops Research&lt;/i&gt;, 126, 16-22.&lt;u&gt;&lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2011.09.018&lt;/u&gt;</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Venkatesan, G., Selvam, M.T., Swaminathan, G. and Krishnamoorthi, S. (2005) Effect of Water Stress on Yield of Rice Crop. &lt;i&gt;International Journal of Ecology &amp; D&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;e&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;velopment&lt;/i&gt;, 3, 77-89.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Zhang, J., Zhang, S., Cheng, M., Jiang, H., Zhang, X., Peng, C., Lu, X., Zhang, M. and Jin, J. (2018) Effect of Drought on Agronomic Traits of Rice and Wheat: A Meta-Analysis. &lt;i&gt;International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health&lt;/i&gt;, 15, Article 839. &lt;u&gt;&lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15050839&lt;/u&gt;</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Matsuo, N. and Mochizuki, T. (2009) Growth and Yield of Six Rice Cultivars under Three Water-Saving Cultivations. &lt;i&gt;Plant Production Science&lt;/i&gt;, 12, 514-525.&lt;u&gt;&lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.1626/pps.12.514&lt;/u&gt;</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Wang, M., Liang, Z., Wang, Z., Huang, L., Ma, H., Liu, M. and Gu, X. (2010) Effect of Irrigation Water Depth on Rice Growth and Yield in a Saline-Sodic Soil in Songnen Plain, China. &lt;i&gt;Journal of Food&lt;/i&gt;,&lt;i&gt; Agriculture &amp; Environment&lt;/i&gt;, 8, 530-534.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Akram</surname><given-names> H.M.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> Ali</surname><given-names> A.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> Sattar</surname><given-names> A.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> Rehman</surname><given-names> H.S.U. and Bibi. A. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2013</year>)<article-title>Impact of Water Deficit Stress on Various Physiological and Agronomic Traits of Three Basmati Rice (&lt;i&gt;Oryza sativa&lt;/i&gt; L.) Cultivars</article-title><source> &lt;i&gt;The Journal of Animal &amp; Plant Sciences&lt;/i&gt;</source><volume> 23</volume>,<fpage> 1415</fpage>-<lpage>1423</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Akinbile, C.O. and Sangodoyin, A.Y. (2011) Response of Upland Rice Agronomic Parameters to Variable Water Supply. &lt;i&gt;International Journal of Agricultural and B&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;i&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;ological Engineering&lt;/i&gt;, 4, 50-58.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Baloch, A.W., Soomro, A.M., Javed, M.A., Ahmed, M., Bughio, H.R., Bughio, M.S. and Mastoi, N.N. (2002) Optimum Plant Density for High Yield in Rice (&lt;i&gt;Oryza s&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;a&lt;/i&gt;&lt;i&gt;tiva&lt;/i&gt; L.). &lt;i&gt;Asian Journal of Plant Sciences&lt;/i&gt;, 1, 114-116.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.133519-ref46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Durga, K.K., Rao, P.S. and Raju, K. (2015) Effect of Seedling Age and Spacing Schedule on the Productivity and Quality Traits of Rice under System of Rice Intensification (SRI). &lt;i&gt;Journal of Cereals and Oilseeds&lt;/i&gt;, 6, 15-19.&lt;u&gt;&lt;br&gt;https://doi.org/10.5897/JCO2014.0132&lt;/u&gt;</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>