See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/291974266

Simulation of soil moisture movement under rice field using Hydrus-2D

Article · April 2013

CITATIONS READS

0 78

3 authors, including:

Mahesh Chand Singh A K Jain

Punjabi University, Patiala Punjab Agricultural University
22 PUBLICATIONS   11 CITATIONS    17 PUBLICATIONS   24 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Protected cultivation-A Review View project

IRRI IFAD PROJECT ON RESOURCE CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGIES View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mahesh Chand Singh on 13 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Crop Res. 45 (1, 2 & 3) : 45-53 (2013)
With twenty-one figures
Printed in India
Simulation of soil moisture movement under rice field using
Hydrus-2D
MAHESH CHAND SINGH*, ANCHAL KUMAR JAIN AND SUNIL GARG
Department of Soil and Water Engineering
Punjab Agricultural University Ludhiana-141 004 (Punjab), India
*(e-mail : mahesh25pau@yahoo.co.in)

(Received : April 2012)

ABSTRACT

Soil moisture is a key variable in controlling the exchange of water between

land surface and atmosphere through evaporation and plant transpiration. A field study
was conducted at Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana (India), in the year 2009, to
simulate the soil moisture movement under rice field using numerical model Hydrus-
2D. The treatments included two dates of transplanting viz., June 5 (D1) and June 20
(D2), two varieties inbred PAU-201 (V1) and hybrid RH-257 (V2) of 120 and 90 days durations
(from transplanting to harvest) and two irrigation regimes viz., intermittent irrigation at
2-days drainage period (I1) and irrigation based on soil water suction (SWS) of 16 k Pa
(I2). A total of eight treatments were replicated thrice in 24 plots of each having size 10
x 4 m. The saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks varied from 0.36 to 1.48 cm/day with an
average value of 0.92 cm/day) and the fitting parameter (n varied from 1.58 to 2.76 with
an average value of 2.17) were found to be very sensitive during calibration. The results
from the experiment revealed that the soil moisture content was more in upper layer of
the soil profile as compared to the lower layers due to effect of puddling. The application
of Hydrus-2D confirmed that the simulated depth wise soil moisture content values
were in good agreement with observed data. The model performance was evaluated by
using parameters, namely, root mean square error, absolute percentage error, correlation
coefficient and model efficiency. During validation, the average absolute error varied
from 2.19 to 13.21%, root mean square error varied from 0.006 to 0.032 cm, correlation
coefficient varied from 0.773 to 0.996 and the average model efficiency was 98.6%. The
use of Hydrus-2D model can be successfully adopted for simulating soil moisture profiles
under rice crop.

Key words : Hydrus-2D, simulation, soil moisture

INTRODUCTION Tuong and Bouman, 2003). The amount of

Rice is one of the most important staple
food crops in the world. In Asia, more than two
billion people are getting 60-70% of their
energy requirement from rice. In India, the
average productivity of rice is only 2-3.5 t/ha
(Ladha et al., 2000). In India, the production of
rice was 99.18 mt (Anonymous, 2009a) and the
current production of rice is 87.56 mt
(Anonymous, 2010). To sustain present food
self-sufficiency and to meet future food
requirements, India has to increase its rice
productivity by 3% per annum (Thiyagarajan
and Selvaraju, 2001).
Rice is an important target for
irrigation water use reductions, because of its
relatively large water requirements compared
with other crops (Li, 2001; Wang et al., 2002,
water consumed to produce rice is much
higher than for other cereal crops (Bhuiyan,
1992), as the water use efficiency of rice is
quite low. Rice is generally grown under puddled
conditions mainly to reduce percolation losses
and control of weeds. However, the puddling
process besides consuming a substantial
amount of irrigation water results in sub-
surface compaction (Kukal and Aggarwal,
2003).
With the dominance of rice-wheat
system in the state of Punjab, the demand of
the water has increased manifold. The cropping
intensity increased from 161% in 1980 to 189%
in 2008 (Anonymous, 2009b). The area under
rice crop in Punjab is about 26 lakh ha. In the
central part of the state, the water table is
declining at the rate of about 0.75 m/year due
46 Singh, Jain and Garg

to over exploitation of ground water as the
surface water supply is not adequate. This
declining water table has caused increased cost
of production and energy use vis-à-vis threat to
sustainability of agricultural production.
The globally growing demand for water
has ushered the need for its efficient and
judicious utilization particularly in agriculture
sector being a single largest consumer of water.
The majority of irrigation projects in India
perform at a very low efficiency, which calls for
application of efficient water management
technologies for meeting the increasing water
demands. A variety of analytical and numerical
models have been developed in the past decades
to predict water process between the soil
surface and the groundwater (Goncalves et al.,
2005). Hydrus-2D is one such numerical model
used to simulate soil moisture movement with
or without crop under different field conditions.
In this study, Hydrus-2D has been adopted to
simulate the soil moisture profiles in a rice
field.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
General Description of Study Area
This experiment was conducted at the
4 m 
Research Farm of the Department of Soils, PAU,
Ludhiana (30°56′ N latitude and 75°52′ E
longitude) during the kharif season of 2008-
09. The soil at the site was sandy loam. The
bulk density of the soil was 1.6825 g/cm3, field
capacity was 20.68% and saturated hydraulic
conductivity was 0.92 cm/day. Neutron probe
was used for determination of depth-wise soil
moisture content, the access tubes were
installed at different depths for measurement
soil moisture content. The climate of Ludhiana
is semi-arid sub tropical with hot dry summers
and cold winters. The mean annual rainfall is
about 680 mm. The average rainfall received
during the crop period was 6.5 mm/day. The
treatments included two dates of transplanting
viz., June 5 (D1) and June 20 (D2), two varieties
inbred PAU-201 (V1) and hybrid RH-257 (V2) of
120 and 90 days durations (from transplanting
to harvest) and two irrigation regimes viz.,
intermittent irrigation at 2-days drainage
period (I1) and irrigation based on soil water
suction (SWS) of 16 k Pa (I2). A total of eight
treatments were replicated thrice in 24 plots
of each having size 10 x 4 m. Number of rows
transplanted in each plot was 20 and number
of hills per row 68. Number of plants per hill
was two. Row to row spacing was 20 cm and
hill to hill 15 cm. The layout of the

               
               
10 D1V1I1  D1V2I1  D1V2I2  D1V1I2  D2V1I1  D2V2I1  D2V2I2  D2V1I2 
m        

1 IRRIGATION WATER CHANNEL

m

               
               
D2V2I1  D2V1I1  D2V2I2  D2V1I2  D1V2I1  D1V1I1  D1V2I2  D1V1I2 
         
     

IRRIGATION WATER CHANNEL

               
               
D1V2I1  D1V1I1  D1V1I2  D1V2I2  D2V2I1  D2V1I1  D2V1I2 D2V2I2 
     

Fig. 1. Layout of field experiment.

 Simulation of soil moisture movement under rice field using Hydrus-2D
experimental field is shown in Fig. 1. The
amount of irrigation water applied at each
irrigation from transplanting till maturity was
monitored with Parshal flume. Differential
irrigations were started 15 days after
transplanting.
The daily meteorological data were
collected from the records of the Meteorological
Observatory located at the experimental area.
The variables collected were temperature,
relative humidity, vapour pressure, wind speed,
sunshine hours and rainfall on daily basis. The
data collected were utilized for computation of
potential evapotranspiration, potential
evaporation and potential crop transpiration.
Model Description
The Hydrus-2D program numerically
solves the Richards equation for saturated and
unsaturated water flow. The flow equation
incorporates a sink term to account for water
uptake by plant roots. Hydrus-2D can handle flow
domains delineated by irregular boundaries. The
flow region itself may be composed of non-
uniform soils having an arbitrary degree of local
anisotropy. Flow and transport can occur in the
vertical plane, the horizontal plane and in a three
dimensional region. The water flow part of the
model considers prescribed head and flux
boundaries, boundaries controlled by atmospheric
conditions, free drainage boundary conditions,
as well as a simplified representation of nodal
drains using results of electric analog
experiments.
Governing Flow Equation
Governing flow equation in Hydrus-2D
is given by the following modified form of the
Richards’ equation (Simunek et al., 2006) :
dθ d ⎡ ⎛ A dh ⎞ ⎤
= ⎢ K ⎜⎜ K ij ⎟⎟ + K izA ⎥ − S
dt dx i ⎣ ⎝ dx i ⎠ ⎦ simulated data.
Where θ=Volumetric water content [L3 L-3]
h=Pressure head [L]
S=Sink term [T-1] (The flow equation
incorporates a sink term to account
for water uptake by plant roots)
xi=Spatial coordinates (i=1, 2) [L]
t=Time [T]
S=Components of a dimensionless
anisotropy tensor KA
K=Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity
47
[LT-1] given by
K (h, x, z)=Ks (x, z) Kr ( h, x, z)
Where, Ks is saturated hydraulic conductivity,
(LT -1 ] and K r is the relative hydraulic
conductivity.
Initial and Boundary Conditions
The simulations were carried out with
atmospheric boundary conditions (BC) at the
surface of the soil for the time dependant data
of precipitation (cm/day), potential evaporation
(cm/day), potential transpiration (cm/day),
irrigation rate (cm/day) and minimum allowed
pressure head (cm). Left and right boundaries
of the flow domain were given no flux of water.
A free drainage was applied at bottom boundary
(z=-180 cm) of the flow domain. The irrigation
was implemented by applying variable flux BC
to an area of cross-section of 15000 cm2 at a
depth of 15 cm below soil surface. The initial
water content in the flow domain was set equal
to field capacity.
Criteria for Model Evaluation
To check the performance of Hydrus-2D
model, four performance indicators, namely, root
mean square error (RMSE in %), absolute
percentage error (APE), correlation coefficient
and model efficiency (EF) were used, which
compared the observed and simulated values
of soil moisture content. RMSE, APE, correlation
coefficient and model efficiency (EF) were
calculated using equations 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Root mean square error
The model was evaluated by using root
mean square error (RMSE) which quantifies
the differences between observed and
∑(Pi − Oi )
1
RMSE =
2
...(1)
N
Where, N is the number of observations, Pi and
Oi are the ith simulated and observed values,
respectively.
Absolute percentage error
Pi − O i
A PE = × 100 ...(2)
Oi
48 Singh, Jain and Garg

Where, Pi and Oi are the i th simulated and
observed values, respectively.
Correlation coefficient
The correlation coefficient, R2 varied
from 0 to 1 and describes the degree of
association between observed and predicted
values.
{
Correlation R 2 = N∑ i =1 i
N
(Oi
− O )( P − P )
the input parameters required to use Hydrus-
2D were determined by detailed field
experimentation, however, a few were taken
from published literature matching to our soil
and crop conditions. In order to obtain the
initial values of model parameters, the
calibration of Hydrus-2D was conducted on
computer through simulation runs using input
data. It was done against two parameters
}
2

...(3)
saturated hydraulic conductivity [K s varied
from 0.312 to 0.408 in upper layer (0-15 cm)
coefficient (
∑i =1 i
O − O )2
∑ i=1 (Pi − P )
N 2
and 1.03 to 0.93 in lower layers (15-180 cm)]
and fitting parameter [n varied from 1.26 to
Model efficiency 1.89 in upper layer (0-15 cm) and 1.89 to 3.6 in
lower layers (15-180 cm)].
The model efficiency (EF), the measure
of the deviation between model predictions and Model Validation for Treatment-D2V1I1
measurements relative to the scattering of the
observed data was calculated by the formula The depth-wise observed and simulated
(Nash and Sutcliffe, 1970), given below : values of soil moisture content are shown in
Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. From Figs. 2 to 7 and
⎡n 2⎤
⎢∑ (Pi − Oi ) ⎥ Table 1, it is clear that on the 43rd (17 July)
EF= 1 − ⎣ i =n1 ⎦
...(4) day after crop transplantation, the average
⎡
( )
2⎤
⎢ ∑ Oi − O ⎥ absolute error between simulated and observed
⎣ i =1 ⎦
values of soil moisture content was 4.98%, the
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION average RMSE value was 0.014 cm, average
correlation coefficient was 0.982 and model
Simulated Soil Moisture Content efficiency was 99.4%. At 62nd (5 Aug.) day after
the crop transplantation, the average absolute
Hydrus-2D was calibrated to predict the error between simulated and observed values
soil moisture content in the rice crop with the of moisture content was 8.56%, the average
help of observed soil moisture content. Most of RMSE value was 0.02 cm, average correlation
Table 1. Summary of results of statistical performance parameters for validation

Time (days) 17 Jul. 5 Aug. 11 Aug. 25 Aug. 9 Sep. 18 Sep.

Treatment-D2V1I1
Absolute percentage error 4.98 8.56 5.03 3.68 2.19 3.81
RMSE (cm) 0.014 0.02 0.014 0.01 0.006 0.011
Correlation coefficient (R2) 0.982 0.92 0.938 0.979 0.996 0.983
Model efficiency 99.4 98.9 99.4 99.7 99.9 99.6
Time (days) 5 Aug. 7 Aug. 25 Aug. 9 Sep. 18 Sep.
Treatment-D2V1I2
Absolute percentage error 6.84 6.89 5.3 5.18 5.9
RMSE (cm) 0.016 0.019 0.012 0.014 0.016
Correlation coefficient (R2) 0.945 0.88 0.967 0.973 0.964
Model efficiency 96.0 94.3 97.1 97.0 96.2
Time (days) 17 Jul. 5 Aug. 11 Aug. 26 Aug. 9 Sep. 18 Sep.
Treatment-D2V2I1
Absolute percentage error 3.15 7.24 13.21 3.92 6.58 2.71
RMSE (cm) 0.007 0.022 0.032 0.01 0.016 0.007
Correlation coefficient (R2) 0.995 0.916 0.773 0.984 0.97 0.981
Model efficiency 99.9 98.6 96.6 99.7 99.2 99.9
Time (days) 5 Aug. 7 Aug. 11 Aug.
Treatment-D2V2I2
Absolute percentage error 4.46 6.65 4.18
RMSE (cm) 0.013 0.017 0.01
Correlation coefficient (R2) 0.981 0.956 0.962
Model efficiency 99.6 99.1 99.7
 Simulation of soil moisture movement under rice field using Hydrus-2D
Fig. 2. Trend between simulated and observed
values (17 July).
Fig. 3. Trend between simulated and observed
values (5 Aug.).
Fig. 4. Trend between simulated and observed
values (11 Aug.).
coefficient was 0.92 and model efficiency was
98.9%.
On 68th (11 Aug.) day after the crop
transplantation, the average absolute error
between simulated and observed values of
moisture content was 5.03%, the average
RMSE value was 0.014 cm, average correlation
coefficient was 0.938 and model efficiency was
99.4%. On 82nd (25 Aug.) day after the crop
transplantation, the average absolute error
between simulated and observed values of
49
Fig. 5. Trend between simulated and observed
values (25 Aug.).
Fig. 6. Trend between simulated and observed
values (9 Sept.).
Fig. 7. Trend between simulated and observed
values (18 Sept.).
moisture content was 3.68%, the average
RMSE value was 0.01 cm, average correlation
coefficient was 0.979 and model efficiency was
99.7%. On 97th (9 Sept.) day after the crop
transplantation, the average absolute error
between simulated and observed values of
moisture content was 2.19%, the average
RMSE value was 0.006 cm, average correlation
coefficient was 0.996 and model efficiency was
99.9%. On 106th (18 Sept.) day after the crop
50 Singh, Jain and Garg

transplantation, the average absolute error

between simulated and observed values of
moisture content was 3.81%, the average
RMSE value was 0.011 cm, average correlation
coefficient was 0.983 and model efficiency was
99.6%.

Model Validation for Treatment-D2V1I2

The depth-wise observed and simulated

values of soil moisture content are shown in
Figs. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. From Figs 8 to 12 and
Table 1, it is clear that on the 62nd (5 Aug.)
day after crop transplantation, the average Fig. 10. Trend between simulated and observed
absolute error between simulated and observed values (25 Aug.).
values of soil moisture content was 6.84%, the
average RMSE value was 0.016 cm, average
correlation coefficient was 0.945 and model
efficiency was 96.0%. On 64th (7 Aug.) day after
the crop transplantation, the average absolute
error between simulated and observed values
of moisture content was 6.89%, the average
RMSE value was 0.019 cm, average correlation
coefficient was 0.88 and model efficiency was
94.3%.

Fig. 11. Trend between simulated and observed

values (9 Sept.).

Fig. 8. Trend between simulated and observed

values (5 Aug.).

Fig. 12. Trend between simulated and observed

values (18 Sept.).

On 82nd (25 Aug.) day after the crop

Fig. 9. Trend between simulated and observed
values (7 Aug.).
transplantation, the average absolute error
between simulated and observed values of
moisture content was 5.30%, the average
RMSE value was 0.012 cm, average correlation
coefficient was 0.967 and model efficiency was
97.1%. On 97th (9 Sept.) day after the crop
transplantation, the average absolute error
between simulated and observed values of
 Simulation of soil moisture movement under rice field using Hydrus-2D 51

moisture content was 5.18%, the average

RMSE value was 0.014 cm, average correlation
coefficient was 0.973 and model efficiency was
97.0%. On 106th (18th Sept.) day after the crop
transplantation, the average absolute error
between simulated and observed values of
moisture content was 5.90%, the average
RMSE value was 0.016 cm, average correlation
coefficient was 0.964 and model efficiency was
96.2%.

Model Validation for Treatment-D2V2I1

Fig. 14. Trend between simulated and observed
The depth-wise observed and simulated values (5 Aug.).
values of soil moisture content are shown in
Figs. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18. From Figs. 13 to
18 and Table 1, it is clear that on the 28th (17
July) day after crop transplantation, the
average absolute error between simulated and
observed values of soil moisture content was
3.15%, the average RMSE value was 0.007 cm,
average correlation coefficient was 0.995 and
model efficiency was 99.9%. At 47th (5 Aug.)
day after the crop transplantation, the average
absolute error between simulated and observed
values of moisture content was 7.24%, the
average RMSE value was 0.022 cm, average
correlation coefficient was 0.916 and model
Fig. 15. Trend between simulated and observed
efficiency was 98.6%.
values (11 Aug.).
On 53rd (11 Aug.) day after the crop
transplantation, the average absolute error
between simulated and observed values of
moisture content was 13.21%, the average
RMSE value was 0.032 cm, average correlation
coefficient was 0.773 and model efficiency was
96.6%. On 68th (26 Aug.) day after the crop
transplantation, the average absolute error
between simulated and observed values of

Fig. 16. Trend between simulated and observed

values (26 Aug.).

moisture content was 3.92%, the average

Fig. 13. Trend between simulated and observed
values (17 July).
RMSE value was 0.01 cm, average correlation
coefficient was 0.984 and model efficiency was
99.7%.
On 82nd (9 Sept.) day after the crop
transplantation, the average absolute error
between simulated and observed values of
moisture content was 6.58%, the average
52 Singh, Jain and Garg
Fig. 17. Trend between simulated and observed
values (9 Sept.).
Fig. 18. Trend between simulated and observed
values (18 Sept.).
RMSE value was 0.016 cm, average correlation
coefficient was 0.97 and model efficiency was
99.2%. On 90th (18 Sept.) day after the crop
transplantation, the average absolute error
between simulated and observed values of
moisture content was 2.71%, the average
RMSE value was 0.007 cm, average correlation
coefficient was 0.981 and model efficiency was
99.9%.
Model Validation for Treatment-D2V2I2
The depth-wise observed and simulated
values of soil moisture content are shown in
Figs. 19, 20 and 21. From Figs. 19 to 21 and
Table 1, it is clear that on the 47th (5 Aug.)
day after crop transplantation, the average
absolute error between simulated and observed
values of soil moisture content was 4.46%, the
average RMSE value was 0.013 cm, average
correlation coefficient was 0.981 and model
efficiency was 99.6%. On 49th (7 Aug.) day after
Fig. 19. Trend between simulated and observed
values (5 Aug.).
Fig. 20. Trend between simulated and observed
values (7 Aug.).
Fig. 21. Trend between simulated and observed
values (11 Aug.).
the crop transplantation, the average absolute
error between simulated and observed values
of moisture content was 6.65%, the average
RMSE value was 0.017 cm, average correlation
coefficient was 0.956 and model efficiency was
99.1%.
On 53rd (11 Aug.) day after the crop
transplantation, the average absolute error
between simulated and observed values of
moisture content was 4.18%, the average
RMSE value was 0.01 cm, average correlation
coefficient was 0.962 and model efficiency was
99.7%.
 Simulation of soil moisture movement under rice field using Hydrus-2D
CONCLUSIONS
The study revealed that the soil
moisture content was more in upper layer of
the soil profile as compared to the lower layers
due to effect of puddling. The saturated
hydraulic conductivity (Ks varied from 0.36 to
1.48 cm/day with an average value of 0.92 cm/
day) and the fitting parameter (n varied from
1.58 to 2.76 with an average value of 2.17) were
found to be very sensitive during calibration.
The simulated values of depth-wise soil
moisture content were in good agreement with
the corresponding observed values. The
average absolute error varied from 2.19 to
13.21%, RMSE varied from 0.006 to 0.032 cm,
correlation coefficient varied from 0.773 to
0.996 and the average model efficiency was
98.6% for all the treatments. It was observed
that the simulated values were in good
agreement with observed data. Thus, Hydrus-
2D model can be successfully adopted for
simulating soil moisture profiles under rice
crop.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The numerical model Hydrus-2D was
provided by the Department of Soil and Water
Engineering, COAE & T, PAU, Ludhiana. The
authors appreciate the assistance from their
colleagues and thankful to them, specifically,
S. K. Jalota, Senior Soil Physicist, Department
of Soil Science, PAU, Ludhiana. Additionally,
the authors are very thankful to Rita Dahiya,
Department of Soil Science, CCS Haryana
Agricultural University, Hisar, Haryana and
Jiri Simunek, Professor and Hydrologist,
Department of Environmental Sciences,
University of California Reverside, Reverside,
CA.
REFERENCES
Anonymous (2009a). Review of the Economy.
Economic Advisory Council to the Prime
Minister, Hall-E, Vigyan Bhawan, Maulana
Azad Road, New Delhi.
Anonymous (2009b). Punjab Agricultural Hand Book.
Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana.
Anonymous (2010). Review of the Economy.
Economic Advisory Council to the Prime
Minister, Hall-E, Vigyan Bhawan, Maulana
Azad Road, New Delhi.
Bhuiyan, S. I. (1992). Water management in
View publication stats
53
relation to crop production : case study on
rice. Outlook Agric. 21 : 293-99.
Goncalves, M. C., Simunek, J., Romos, T. B.,
Martin, J. C., Neves M. J. and Pires, F. P.
(2005). Using Hydrus to simulate water and
solute transports in soil lysimeters. Proc.
Workshop on Hydrus Application. Utrecht
University, Netherland. pp. 38-41.
Kukal, S. S. and Aggarwal, G. C. (2003) Puddling
depth and intensity effects in rice-wheat
system on a sandy loam soil (I).
Development of sub-surface compaction.
Soil Till Res. 72 : 1-8.
Ladha, J. K., Fischer, K. S., Hossain, M., Hobbs,
P. R. and Hardy, B. (eds.) (2000). Improving
the productivity and sustainability of rice-
wheat systems of the Indo-Gangetic Plains
: a synthesis of NARS-IRRI partnership
research. IRRI Discussion Paper Series
No. 40. pp. 31. Rice Research Institute,
Los Banos, Philippines.
Li, Y. (2001). Research and practice of water saving
irrigation for rice in China. In : Water-
Saving Irrigation for Rice, Barker, R., Loeve,
R., Li, Y. and Tuong, T. P. (eds.). Proc
International Workshop, Wuhan, China,
March 23-25. International Water
Management Institute, Colombo, Sri
Lanka. pp. 135-44.
Nash, J. E. and Sutcliffe, J. V. (1970). River flow
forecasting through conceptual models
part I-A discussion of principles. J.
Hydrology 10 : 282-90.
Simunek, J., Sejna, S. and van Genuchten, M. Th.
(2006). The Hydrus-2D model for
simulating water, heat and solute
transport in two-dimensional variably
saturated media, version 1.0. U. S. Salinity
Laboratory, USDA, Riverside, CA, USA.
Thiyagarajan, T. M. and Selvaraju, R. (2001). Water
saving in rice cultivation in India. In : Proc.
International Workshop on Water Saving
Rice Production Systems. Nanjing
University, China. pp. 15-45.
Tuong, T. P. and Bouman, B. A. M. (2003). Rice
production in water scarce environments.
In : Water Productivity in Agriculture : Limits
and Opportunities for Improvement, Kijne, J.
W., Barker, R. and Molden, D. (eds.). CABI
Publishing, UK. pp. 53-67.
Wang, H., Bouman, B. A. M., Zhao, D., Wang, C.
and Moya, P. F. (2002). Aerobic rice in
northern China–Opportunities and
challenges. In : Proc International Workshop
on Water-Wise Rice Production, April 8-11,
Bouman, B. A. M., Hengsdijk, H., Hardy,
B., Bindraban, P. S., Tuong, T. P. and Ladha,
J. K. (eds.). International Rice Research
Institute, Los Banos, Philippines. pp. 143-
54.