Agronomy Journal of Nepal, 7(1):28-35

ISSN: 2091-0649 (Print)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3126/ajn.v7i1.62062

Direct Seeded Rice Might Be One of the Potential Climate Smart Agricultural
Technologies in Nepal
Tika Bahadur Karki1*, Reshama Neupane1, Rajendra Kumar Bhattarai1, Bhimsen Chaulagain1, Sangita
Kaduwal1 , Pankaj Gyawaly 1, Ramesh Acharya2, Soni Kumari Das1 and Jiban Shrestha3
1
National Agronomy Research Centre, Khumaltar, Lalitpur, Nepal
2
Directorate of Agricultural Research, Lumle, Kaski, Nepal
3
National Plant Breeding and Genetics Research Centre, Khumaltar, Lalitpur, Nepal
*Corresponding author: [email protected], ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1653-7139

Received: May 7, 2023 ABSTRACT

Revised: June 18, 2023
Published: July 10, 2023 The conventional system of puddled transplanting of rice (PTR) with
intensive tillage is common practice of rice growing in Nepal. It has many
negative impacts on soil, water, labor, climate change and gender equality.
Therefore, an alternative production system has been explored. Direct seeded
rice (DSR) has been one of the potential systems of rice production in Nepal.
The results of various studies on DSR revealed that it saves labor, requires
less water, less drudgery, less energy, early crop maturity, low cost of
production, better soil physical conditions and less greenhouse gas emission.
The grain yields in DSR are comparable with PTR. However, special
attentions must be given in selection of suitable cultivars, appropriate time of
This work is licensed under the Creative sowing, optimum seed rate, proper weed and water management practices.
Commons Attribution-Noncommercial Despite its promise, the rate of its adoption is not as expected. It might be due
4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) to some of the constraints associated it. In this paper an attempt has been
made to highlight the works done in DSR within and outside of the country,
Copyright © 2023 by Agronomy Society its constraints and the possible solutions to scale-out it.
of Nepal (ASON). ASON permits for
free use, distribution and reproduction in Keywords: Direct seeded rice, climate smart, adoption, yield
any medium if the original work is
properly cited.

The authors declare that there is no

conflict of interest.

How to cite this article:

Karki TB, R Neupane, RK Bhattarai, B Chaulagain, S Kaduwal, P Gyawaly, R Acharya, SK Das and J Shrestha. 2023. Direct
seeded rice might be the potential climate smart agricultural technology in Nepal. Agronomy Journal of Nepal. 7(1):28-35.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3126/ajn.v7i1.62062

INTRODUCTION
Rice is the major cereal crop of Nepal and its average yield was 3.47 Mt ha-1 (MOALD 2022) and lags in
comparison to other neighboring countries Bangladesh (4.4 t ha −1) and China (6.7 t ha−1) albeit at par with India
(3.7 t ha−1), and Pakistan (3.5 t ha−1). Between 1960 and 2017, the annual growth rate of rice yield in Nepal was
1.14% which is substantively less than the neighboring countries such as India (2.5%), Bangladesh (3%) and
China (4.2%), and world average (4.5%) (FAOSTAT 2019). Rice contributes about 20% to Agricultural Gross
Domestic Product (AGDP) and 7% to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (MoALD 2020, CBS 2018).
Cultivation practice is one of the major production factors in rice. Puddling has been the common practice of
land preparation in rice cultivation. In puddling the soil is saturated by flooding followed by plowing the
supersaturated soil and again plowing or harrowing at progressively lowers water content. Transplanting is done
after the puddling. Ghildyal (1978) highlighted that during puddling coarse aggregates are broken down, non-
capillary pore spaces destroyed, water-holding capacity increases, hydraulic conductivity and permeability
decreases, evaporation decreases and soil reduction is favored. Hence, the existing puddling and transplanting
systems of rice seems not good in terms of soil quality, soil health, water use efficiency, climate change, labor
demand and production cost.

28
Considering the above facts in rice, Direct Seeded Rice (DSR) can be an alternative to conventional PTR
system. Direct seeded rice refers to the process of developing seed crops from field seeds instead of
transplanting seedlings (Farooq et al 2011). Direct seeding eliminates three main basic operations, namely
puddling, transplantation and the management of standing water. Direct seeding refers to either wet or dry
methods, depending on the manner of crop establishment. Wet-seeding involves sowing pre-germinated seed,
either broadcast or drilled, on to puddled wet soil, and then gradually flooding the land. In dry-seeding, rice is
broadcast or drilled into dry soil and the seed is then covered. Direct Seeded Rice (DSR) is the technology
which is water, labor and energy efficient along with eco-friendly characteristics and can be a potential
alternative to CT-TPR (conventional puddled transplanted rice) (Kumar and Ladha 2011). DSR offers certain
advantages viz., it saves labor, requires less water, less drudgery, early crop maturity, low production cost, better
soil physical conditions for following crops and less methane emission, provides better option to be the best fit
in different cropping systems (Kaur and Singh 2017). DSR utilizes less water and labor (12–35%), lowers
methane emissions (10–90%), enhances soil physical properties, takes less labor and has lower production costs
($9–125 per hectare), while yet producing comparable yields (Chaudhary et al 2023). In order to produce rice
sustainably and with resilience in adverse climatic conditions, direct seeded rice (DSR) methods should be
applied. Therefore, an attempt was made to update the works within and outside of the country, its significance
and the way forward in this paper.

FINDINGS
Despite the tremendous yield potential, the productivity of rice remains low in Terai (Karki 2013). Intensive
tillage based conventional agricultural system destroy the soil's physical, chemical and biological properties
thereby crop yields (Ishaq et al 2002). Weed infestation is one of the major factors that contribute to low system'
productivity in the country (Karki et al 2014a). It is estimated that flooded rice fields produce about 10% of
global methane emissions. In order to save water and labor and promote conservation agriculture (CA), with
no/reduced tillage, it is absolutely essential to replace puddle transplanting with direct seeding. In South Asia,
DSR is being practiced on terraced and sloppy lands of Bangladesh, along the coast and Western Himalayan
region of India (Gupta et al 2007). The author found that after two seasons of experimentation (2010-2012) at
Rampur the rice yield under DSR was at par with PTR. However, Ali et al (2014) reported the higher
productivity of DSR than transplanted rice.

Table 1. DSR practices, sowing methods and ecologies

Direct Seed bed preparation Sowing method Rice growing ecology
seeding types
Direct seeding Dry seeds are sown in dry and Broadcasting, drilling or Mainly in rain-fed area, some in
in dry bed mostly aerobic soil sowing in rows at depth irrigated areas with precise
of 2-3 cm. water control
Direct seeding Pre germinated seeds sown in Mostly in favorable rainfed
in wet bed puddled soil, may be aerobic lowlands and irrigated areas
or anaerobic with good drainage facility
Direct seeding Dry or pre-germinated seeds Broadcasting on standing In areas with red rice or weedy
in standing sown mostly in anaerobic water of 5-10 cm rice problem and in irrigated
water condition in standing water lowland areas with good land
leveling

Transplanting and direct sowing are the most common methods of crop establishment in rice. In transplanting
system, rice seedlings are transplanted in the puddled field which requires huge amounts of water and higher
numbers of labors for uprooting seedlings, puddling field and transplanting. Similarly, repeated puddling also
adversely affects the soil physical properties by dismantling soil aggregates, reducing permeability in sub-
surface layers and forming hard pans at shallow depths which make land preparation difficult and require more
time and energy to achieve proper soil tilth for succeeding crops. It is well documented that the negative impacts
of puddling on the soil environment, especially on beneficial microorganisms and soil aggregation (Jat et al
2014).

DSR systems are classified into (1) dry-direct seeded rice (DDSR) (Photo 1), (2) wet-direct seeded rice (photo
2) and (3) water seeded rice (Table 1). In DDSR, rice is established using different methods, including (i)
broadcasting of dry seeds on un-puddled soil after zero tillage or conventional tillage, (ii) dibbled method in a
well-prepared field, and (iii) drilling of seeds in rows after conventional tillage, reduced tillage using a power
tiller-operated seeder, zero tillage or raised beds (Kumar and Ladha 2011). In wet direct seeded rice, usually
drum seeder is used. In water seeded rice, pre-germinated seeds are broadcasted in standing water on puddled or

29
unpuddled soil. Beside irrigated areas, water seeding is practiced in areas where early flooding occurs and water
cannot be drained (Kumar and Ladha 2011).

Photo 1. Dry-DSR using tractor mounted drill Photo 2. Wet-DSR using drum seeded

Photo 3. DSR after maize at Rampur, Chitwan Photo 4: Seed production of rice under DSR,
Khumaltar

In Nepal rice is produced mainly under rainfed lowland and upland production systems. Upland rice is popular
among farmers of mid and western hills, which is direct seeded in summer season (AGD 2017). Productivity of
upland rice depends on several climatic parameters (temperature, rainfall, humidity, etc.), hydrological
properties, soil, pH, organic carbon, cation exchange capacity, rice varieties, and major production inputs, such
as fertilizer management practices (AGD 2017). The summarized benefits of DSR technology reported by
Pathak et al (2011):
 It preserves physical properties of the soil,
 It facilitates in time rice sowing and provides sufficient time for next crop,
 It saves 50% production cost compared to transplanted rice,
 Less labor (35-45) required for a hectare of rice cultivation.
 It saves 30-40% irrigation water,
 Energy consumption reduced by 27%
 Rice yield remains unaffected
By reducing the amount of time required for field preparation, DSR helps advance the planting dates of
subsequent rabi crops by at least 7 to 10 days (Jat et al 2022). According to the findings, DSR technology can
potentially prevent up to 70% of crops from lodging under unfavorable weather circumstances (Jat et al 2022).
When compared to mechanically transplanted rice, DSR offers a yield advantage of about 10% (Jat et al 2022).
In the research front, NARC and agriculture university/colleges (AFU, TU etc.) has conducted many
experiments on DSR. A rice yield of up to 6 mt ha-1 was attained utilizing the DSR method on the Sambha
Masuli-1 rice variety with moderate agronomic practices, according to a study conducted jointly by the
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) and Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC). When compared
to traditionally transplanted rice (TPR), DSR had a benefit-cost ratio of 2.0 and a net profit of up to NPR.
62,000 ($570/ha) (Timsina et al 2023).

30
Figure 1. Benefits derived from DSR [Adapted from Kumar and Ladha (2011), Chakraborty et al. (2017)]

Variety/genotypes and time of planting for DSR:

No specific varieties are recommended for DSR; however, the performance pf drought tolerant rice genotypes
perform better under DSR. For the Madesh Province, NRRP (2015) identified IR05N341, IR12A190, IR11A325
and IR11A306 genotypes were found to be suitable for DSR. In this experiment, rice yield was higher under
DSR compared to transplanted rice.
During spring season (March sowing) genotypes Hardinath-1, IR92521-173-1-1-1, IR93835-73-23-1 and
IR93821-41-1-2-1 produced the higher grain yield of 5.6, 5.6, 4.9 and 4.8 t ha-1 respectively in Eastern Terai
condition (NRRP 2015).
Regarding the sowing dates, RARSN (2016) found 21 st May as the best sowing date for DSR in mid-western
Terai. The highest grain yield of 6600 kg ha-1 was recorded in seeding date of 21st May and the lowest of 3400
kg ha-1 in seeding date of 5th July. In the midhills, Khumal 10 variety can be directly seeded on 1st week of June.

Effect of DSR on soil moisture content

The soil moisture content (% by volume) after the fourth season of maize harvest, depicted that it was
statistically significant for establishment methods during the entire crop duration (Table 2). CA had significantly
higher soil moisture content across all-time series starting from 30 DAP to 130 DAP compared to ConA. The
effect of weeding methods on soil moisture content was only found evident at 60, 110 and 120 DAP (Table 2).

Table 2. Soil moisture content after fourth season in rice-maize system as influenced by establishment
methods, nutrient levels and weeding methods at Rampur, Chitwan, Nepal, 2012.
Treatments Soil moisture content (SMC%)
Days after planting (DAS)
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Establishment methods
ConA 20.1 21.0 23.8 21.9 21.4 21.7 26.9 23.6 22.8 25.6 22.8
CA (NT+Residue) 20.8 21.8 25.3 23.5 23.0 23.3 28.9 25.5 26.0 27.3 24.6
SEM (±) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1
LSD (0.05) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.3 3.0 0.8 0.4
CV, % 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 2.2 0.9 1.5
(Source: Karki et al 2023)

31
Fig 2. Infiltration rate of soil as affected by crop establishment methods, 2012 (Source: Karki et al 2023)
Infiltration rate was directly affected by crop establishment methods. Zero tillage with residue retention had
higher soil water content than zero tillage with residue removal and conventional tillage with or without residue,
and the effect was more It might be due to the effect of no tillage planting with rice crop's residue under CA.
Soil with a higher level of organic matter (Figure 2) has a higher percentage of micro and macro-pores, which
allows it to store more water than soil low in organic matter. Also, organic matter reduces the bulk density of a
soil (again due to higher pore content) therefore allowing for better infiltration of rainfall and snow melt
(Andrews 2006). Surface residues decreases convection, which decreases the gradient in partial pressure of
water vapour between the soil and the general atmosphere. Together with lower temperature, this reduces
evaporation from the soil surface and keeps soil moist for a longer period (Teasdale and Mohler 1993). This
might be the reason for greater soil moisture in CA. Van Donk et al (2010) also revealed that soil covered by
crop residue could hold the 90 mm more soil water in the soil profile of 1.83 m compared to the bare soil by the
end of the crop season. Similarly, Verhulst et al (2011) evaluated soil water content (0–60 cm) in different tillage
and residue management practices in the semi-arid areas of the Mexican highlands for a maize-wheat rotation. It
was due to recharged or retention of more water during winter fallow on soil profile of zero tillage causing the
difference. Use of crop residue reduced the evaporation losses by 56.5%, increased aggregate distribution and
increased infiltration as well (Govaerts et al 2009).

Water productivity
The per hectare water productivity on direct seeded rice fields was 1.27 kg per m3 whereas on puddled fields it
was 0.61 kg per m3 which means that DSR technology resulted in the enhancement of water productivity of
paddy crop (Sidana et al 2022). The per hectare water productivity on direct seeded rice fields was 1.27 kg per
m3 whereas on puddled fields it was 0.61 kg per m3 which means that DSR technology resulted in the
enhancement of water productivity of paddy crop (Sidana et al 2022).
In DSR, the rice seed is placed in the soil, either with or without irrigation before sowing. This method may be
more water-efficient because it doesn't call for ponding and the paddy field receives much less water before
sowing. According to Deb et al (2023), a minimum water savings of 18% can be made with the DSR system in
comparison to TPR.

DSR and Alternate Wetting and Drying (AWD) Method

Alternate wetting and drying technique can reduce water use by 30 percent and reduce greenhouse gas
emissions by 90 percent without reducing rice yield (https://jpn.mars.com/en/news-and-
stories/articles/sustainably-sourcing-rice-future). Likewise, AWD under DDSR reduced total water input by 27–
29% and improved the leaf area index (LAI), tillering, yield (7–9%), and water productivity by 44 to 50%
(Muhammad et al 2020).

DSR and greenhouse gas emission

Puddled transplanted rice makes up 12% global methane emissions and a staggering 1.5% total greenhouse gas
emissions (Julia et al 2022). Currently, to clear fields for future crops after the use of combined harvester,
farmers either burn the rice straw, which results in significant carbon dioxide emissions as well as methane,

32
carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and particulate matters, or they flood the field to encourage
swift decay, which also leads to extensive methane emissions. DSR reduces methane emissions ranging from 10
to 90% (Chaudhary et al 2023).

DSR and soil organic carbon sequestration:

An experiment was conducted by the author having two establishment methods consisting of conservation
agriculture (no till with residue) and conventional till (without residue) under rice-maize cropping system of
National Maize Research Program, Rampur’s agronomy farm during 2010 to 2016, the soil's organic matter
(SOM) was analyzed after each crop harvest; however, the ANOVA was prepared only for first, second, fourth
and eighth season of the experimentation. None of the tested treatments affected the SOM (%) during the first
two seasons (Figure 2). SOM (%) over benchmark value of 1.13% was consistently increasing with the
advancement in experimental period and was illustrated by the mean value of 1.136 in the first season to 2.06%
in eighth season. In both the seasons, the SOM was statistically higher in CA than ConA and the similar results
were recorded under recommended doses of nutrients (2.31%) over farmer's doses of nutrients (2.38%) (Figure
2). But weeding methods had no effect on the SOM across the seasons.
Alvear et al (2005) found higher soil microbial bacteria and N in the 0-20 cm layer under zero tillage than under
conventional tillage (disk-harrowing to 20 cm) in an Ultisol from southern Chile and attributed this to the higher
levels of C substrates available for microorganism growth, better soil physical conditions and higher water
retention under zero tillage. Reduction in tillage intensity leads to increased soil organic matter and to
accumulation of crop residue (Lal 2015) which might be reason for higher SOM on conservation agriculture
than conventional agriculture as shown in above table. Verhulst et al (2009) also found highest organic matter
content under zero tillage with residue retention (>20%) than other treatments. No-till management is a proven
practice for increasing soil organic matter in many environments (Nunes et al 2018). Because most N in the soil
is found in organic matter at a relatively constant proportion (Cleveland and Liptzin 2007), more soil organic
matter almost always means more soil N.

Figure 2: Soil organic matter as influenced by establishment methods at Rampur, Chitwan, Nepal, 2010-
2014 (Source: Karki et al 2023)

Limitation
Weed invasion, crop lodging, and fertilizer losses are some of the DSR limitations. Rainfed culture, inadequate
drainage, and delayed economic growth are the main obstacles to DSR in the South Asian region (Pandey et al
2002). Similar issues were reported in China with regard to poor crop establishment, weed infestation, lodging
susceptibility, and nitrous oxide gas production. The yield has decreased in DSR as a result of continuous
cropping and a lack of variety development Liu et al (2014). According to Qureshi et al (2004), DSR decreases
methane emissions while increasing nitrous oxide emissions (particularly under dry-DSR). Greater nitrogen loss
occurs under dry-DSR conditions with higher nitrous oxide emissions (Hou et al 2000). Although DSR have
many positive impacts on soil, water, environment and economics, very less studies have been done in this
regard in Nepal. The authors have limited options to illustrate the findings in assessing PTR and DSR’s effects
in GHG production and emission and their effects on crop from in Nepal.

33
The way forward
Different types of DSR practices (dry-DSR, wet-DSR and water seeding) can be adopted in Nepal for rice
cultivation. These techniques have advantages over TPR due to lower inputs with comparable yield as well as
quick crop establishment by reducing transplanting shock leading to an early harvesting. There must be a strong
research and development program in promoting DSR in Nepal. Collaboration with the concerned international
and national institutions is another option. Concerned authorities like International Rice Research Institute
(IRRI), Nepal Agriculture Research Council (NARC) and National Rice Research Program (NRRP) should
facilitate the research and extension programs on DSR. Basic research in generating knowledge on how DSR is
climate smart is to be done by NARC. On-farm verification of the DSR technology across the terai, river basin
and mid hills rice production ecologies need to be intensified jointly by NARC and provincial and local level
government’s extension bodies.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The scientific and farming communities working in the field of agricultural research and development,
particularly in agronomical research from across the globe are highly acknowledged.

AUTHORS' CONTRIBUTION
TB Karki conceptualized the topic of the paper and prepared the manuscript jointly with the co-authors namely
R Neupane, RK Bhattarai, B Chaulagain, S Kaduwal, P Gyawaly, R Acharya, SK Das and J Shrestha.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
There is no conflict of interest regarding this manuscript.

REFERENCES
AGD. 2017. Annual Report 2016/17 (2073/74). Agronomy Division (AGD), Nepal Agricultural Research Council,
Khumaltar, Lalitpur, Nepal.
Ali A, O Erenstein, DB Rahut. 2014. Impact of direct rice-sowing technology on rice producers’ earnings: Empirical
evidence from Pakistan. Development Studies Research (1):244–254.
Alvear M, A Rosas, JL Rouanet and F Borie. 2005. Effects of three soil tillage systems on some biological activities in an
Ultisol from southern Chile. Soil Till. Res. 82:195-202.
Andrews SS.2006. Crop Residue Removal for Biomass Energy Production: Effects on Soils and Recommendations. Agron.
J. 100: 1166-1172.
CBS. 2018. National Economic Census 2018: A New Initiative in the National Statistical System of Nepal. Central Bureau of
Statistics.
Chakraborty D, JK Ladha, DS Rana, ML Jat, MK Gathala, S Yadav, AN Rao, MS Ramesha and A Raman. 2017. A global
analysis of alternative tillage and crop establishment practices for economically and environmentally efficient rice
production. Scientific reports. 7(1):9342.
Chaudhary A, V Venkatramanan, A Kumar and S Sharma. 2023. Agronomic and Environmental Determinants of Direct
Seeded Rice in South Asia. Circ Econ Sustain. 3(1):253-290. doi: 10.1007/s43615-022-00173-x.
Cleveland CC and D Liptzin 2007. C:N:P Stoichiometry in soil: is there a “Redfield ratio” for the microbial biomass?
Biogeochemistry. 85: 235-252.
Deb P, V Kumar and A Srivastava. 2023. Direct seeded rice: what are the benefits, potential and suitability in Haryana,
India?. https://www.cgiar.org/news-events/news/direct-seeded-rice-what-are-the-benefits-potential-and-suitability-
in-haryana-india/
FAO. 2019. FAO statistics Nepal. Available on: http://faostat.fao.org/
Farooq M, KH Siddique, H Rehman, T Aziz, DJ Lee and A Wahid.2011. Rice direct seeding: experiences, challenges and
opportunities. Soil and Tillage Research. 111(2): 87-98.
Gauchan D, KP Timsina, S Gairhe, J Timsina and KD Joshi. 2022. Cereal Demand and Production Projections for 2050:
Opportunities for Achieving Food Self-Sufficiency in Nepal. In: Timsina J, TN Maraseni, D Gauchan, J Adhikari, H
Ojha, (eds) Agriculture, Natural Resources and Food Security. Sustainable Development Goals Series. Springer,
Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09555-9_2
Ghildyal BP. 1978. Effects of compaction and puddling on soil physical properties and rice growth. Soils and Rice.
International Rice Research Institute, Los Baños, Philippines.
Govaerts B, KD Sayre, B Goudeseune, P De Corte, K Lichter, L Dendooven and J Deckers. 2009. Conservation agriculture
as a sustainable option for the central Mexican highlands. Soil and Tillage Research. 103(2): 222-230.
Gupta M, AS Bali, S Sharma and AK Dixit. 2007. Potential role and influence of zero tillage technology on energy saving in
rice (Oryza sativa)-wheat (Triticum aestivum) system. Indian Journal of Agriculture science. 77(10): 657-659.
Hou AX, GX Chen, ZP Wang, O Van Cleemput and JrWH Patrick. 2000. Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from a rice
field in relation to soil redox and microbiological processes. Soil Science Society of America Journal.
64(6):2180–2186.

34
Jat RK, VS Meena, M Kumar, VS Jakkula, IR Reddy and AC Pandey.2022. Direct seeded rice: strategies to improve crop
resilience and food security under adverse climatic conditions. Land. 11(3):382.
https://doi.org/10.3390/land11030382
Jat RK, TB Sapkota, RG Singh, ML Jat, M Kumar and RK Gupta. 2014. Seven years of conservation agriculture in a rice-
wheat rotation of Eastern Gangetic Plains of South Asia: Yield trends and economic profitability. Field Crops
Research. 164:199−210.
Julia K and D Katherine. 2022. Innovation in reducing methane emissions from the food sector: Side of rice, hold the
methane. World Wildlife Fund.
Karki TB, N Gadal and J Shrestha. 2014. Systems optimization through tillage and residue management and cropping system
in maize based system. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci. 3(10): 990-1002.
Karki TB, SK Sah, RB Thapa, AJ McDonald, AS Davis and YG Khadka. 2014a. Weeds and their effect on the performance
of maize and fingermillet in the mid-hills of Nepal. Intl. J. Appl. Sci. Biotech. 2: 275-278.
Kaur J and A Singh. 2017. Direct Seeded Rice: Prospects, Problems/Constraints and Researchable Issues in India. Curr Agri
Res. 5(1): 13-32. doi : http://dx.doi.org/10.12944/CARJ.5.1.03
Kumar V and JK Ladha. 2011. Direct seeding of rice: Recent developments and future research needs. Advances in
Agronomy 111:297-413.
Lal R. 2015. Sequestering carbon and increasing productivity by conservation agriculture. Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation. 70(3): 55A-62A. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.70.3.55A
Liu H, S Hussain, M Zheng, L Sun, S Fahad, J Huang, K Cui and L Nie. 2014. Progress and constraints of dry direct-seeded
rice in China. J. Food Agric. Environ. 12:465–472.
MoALD. 2020. Statistical Information on Nepalese Agriculture 2075-76. Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock
Development, Government of Nepal.
MoALD. 2022. Statistical Information on Nepalese Agriculture 2075-76. Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock
Development, Government of Nepal
Muhammad I, A Nadeem, AA Shakeel and AIH Muhammad. 2020. Growth, yield and water productivity of dry direct seeded
rice and transplanted aromatic rice under different irrigation management regimes. Journal of Integrative
Agriculture. 19 (11): 2656-2673
NRRP. 2015. National Rice Research Program. Annual Report. 2015.
Nunes MR, HM van Es, R Schindelbeck, AJ Ristow and M Ryan.2018. No-till and cropping system diversication improve
soil health and crop yield. Geoderma. 328: 30-43.
Pandey S, M Mortimer, L Wade, TP Tuong, K Lopez and B Hardy. 2002. Direct seeding: research strategies and
opportunities. Int. Rice Res. Inst.
Pathak H, AN Tewari, S Sankhyan, DS Dubey, U Mina, V Singh, N Jain, and A Bhatia. 2011. Direct-seeded rice: potential,
performance and problems. Current Advances in Agricultural Sciences. 3(2): 77-88.
Prasad SK, H Pullabhotla and AG Kumar. 2011. Supply and Demand for Cereals in Nepal 2010-2030, In: IFPRI Discussion
Paper 01120, Environment and Production Technology Division, New Delhi.
Qureshi AS, I Masih and H Turral. 2004. Comparing land and water productivities of transplanted and direct dry seeded rice
for Pakistani Punjab. Paddy and Water Environment.
Sidana BK, JM Singh, H Kumar, J Singh and J Sachdeva. 2022. Comparative economics of direct seeded rice technology
and transplanted rice in Punjab. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2020; SP6: 35-41.
Teasdale JR and CL Mohler. 1993. Light transmittance, soil temperature, and soil moisture under residue of hairy vetch and
rye. Agronomy Journal. 85(3): 673-680.
Timsina KP, D Gauchan, S Gairhe, SR Subedi, BB Pokhrel, S Upadhyay, KD Joshi, S Pandey and J Shrestha. 2023. Rice
demand and production projections for 2050: Opportunities for achieving self-sufficiency in Nepal. Nepal
Agriculture Research Journal. 15(1): 163-180. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3126/narj.v15i1.51926
Van IMK, KG Cassman, P Grassini, J Wolf, P Tittonell and Z Hochman. 2013. Yield gap analysis with local to global
relevance–a review. Field Crops Res. 143: 4-17.
Verhulst N, B Govaerts, V Nelissen, KD Sayre, J Crossa, D Raes and J Deckers. 2011. The effect of tillage, crop rotation and
residue management on maize and wheat growth and development evaluated with an optical sensor. Field
Crops Research. 120(1): 58-67.

35