Skip to main content
. 2022 Nov 16;12:19694. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-24055-2

Table 4.

Summary of findings of meta-analyses of the association between different types of rice cultivation practices and agronomic outcomes.

Study Country Comparison Plot size (no. of replications) Outcome Relative percent difference (95% CI)
Water management techniques
Hill and Cambournac (1941) Portugal 10 day wet, 7 day dry cycle* 2000 m2 (4) Rice yield  + 15.1 (+ 0.5, + 31.9)
Mutero et al. (2000) Kenya Flooded before TP1, drained during TP, flooded after TP 750 m2 (4) Rice yield − 7.9 (− 18.0, + 3.3)
Mutero et al. (2000) Kenya Flooded before TP, drained during TP, alternately flooded and drained after TP 750 m2 (4) Rice yield − 9.5 (− 21.3, + 4.0)
Krishnasamy et al. (2003) India 4 day wet, 3 day dry cycle* (rotational water supply) Varying sizes (5) Rice yield  + 3.9 (− 0.7, + 8.7)
Krishnasamy et al. (2003) India Irrigation to 5 cm one day after disappearance of ponded water in fields Varying sizes (5) Rice yield − 0.2 (− 5.5, + 5,4)
Rajendran et al. (1995) India 2.5 cm depth maintained for the first 10–14 DAT2. Fields subsequently dried out and re-irrigated to 5 cm depth after all standing water had disappeared (3–5 day after irrigation stopped) 162,000–223,000 m2 (2) Rice yield  + 2.4 (− 8.1, + 14.1)
RE model for all studies  + 0.8 (− 3.8, + 5.7)
Hill and Cambournac (1941) Portugal 10 day wet, 7 day dry cycle* 2000 m2 (4) Water use − 18.5 (− 30.0, − 5.1)
Krishnasamy et al. (2003) India 4 day wet, 3 day dry cycle* (rotational water supply) Varying sizes (5) Water use − 7.5 (− 10.5, − -4.5)
Krishnasamy et al. (2003) India Irrigation to 5 cm 1 day after disappearance of ponded water in fields Varying sizes (5) Water use − 21.0 (− 23.8, − 18.0)
RE model for all studies − 15.4 (− 24.0, − 5.7)

Significant values are in bold.

*Water is applied to the field so that it is wet for X days and left for X days to dry before being irrigated again.

1TP: Transplanting.

2DAT: Days after transplanting.