Greetings all,

First let me thank Andreas for keeping "at it" and "us". Good to see that
he is still supporting work and extension of this potentially valuable
technology.

Second, let me say that for our own efforts via NARC, there is still a
little "RD&E work going on in Birganj area but I am not sure to what
extent. I will endeavor to find out results from last year for everyone soon.

Third, our site in Bhairahawa dropped SRI last year. The feeling was
that the potential demand for SRI was not so good for the farmers we were
working with there. Three years ago we worked with a small group of farmers
near Bhairahawa and got very good results (reported in our meeting last
year). The following year they were not willing to do again on their own
with out some kind of support. MAybe we are working with dependent type
farmers too much? Not sure, but the dis-adoption aided in putting off the
scientists in Bhairahawa in doing more work on it....as well the fact that
funding was scarce last year. But our project scientists are still
interested and there is talk to resume work in Bhairahawa this year.

Fourth, I agree with the results reported below on seedling submergence.
Last year we direct seeded in farmers fields about 4 hectares of zero till
rice in lowland area. Just after emergence the very heathy and nicely
sprouted seedlings got two days of rain and three days of submergence due
to no drain/outlet. The total area was wiped out and we had to go back and
transplant at our cost.... Also, I have heard that seedlings are much more
vulnerable to submergence as opposed to mature plants. So I guess the
lesson here comes from the farmers themselves who do direct seeded
rice....in Nepal DSR is mainly found in upland well drained areas,. The
same caveat may apply to SRI. So, the mention of genetic emergence
tolerance could have a lot of importance not only to SRI but other DSR
technologies.

Cheers, Scott





At 07:53 PM 4/29/2004 +0545, you wrote:
>Hi! This message has been forwarded to you by Andreas Jenny
>
> >Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:40:48 -0400
> >To: andreas@... (Andreas Jenny),
> >From: Norman Uphoff <ntu1@...>
> >Subject: Submergence Tolerance of Rice Plants
> >
> >If you have internet access and do a search for -- michael b jackson
> >phool c ram -- you will find an article in ANNALS OF BOTANY (2003)
> >entitled "Physiological and Molecular Basis of Susceptibility and
> >Tolerance of Rice Plants to Complete Submergence." This explains in
> >great detail the processes that impair and even kill young plants
> >when completely submerged, as can happen with SRI if there is not
> >enough water control, e.g., in monsoon environments, but it also
> >gives a lot of insight into the mechanisms whereby rice plants are
> >set back by continuous flooding.
> >
> >The first two sentences of the abstract read: "Rice plants are much
> >damaged by several days of total submergence. The effect can be a
> >serious problem for rice farmers in the rainfed lowlands of Asia,
> >and runs contrary to a widespread belief amongst plant biologists
> >that rice is highly tolerant to submergence."
> >
> >The article (p. 234), e.g., describes how submergence leads to
> >depletion of plant protein reserves. Of importance for SRI, research
> >is cited that showed that attempt to raise the nitrogen levels in
> >submerged plants by providing ammonium sulfate were not beneficial
> >but instead reduced plant survival (from 79% to 15%). The
> >biochemistry of this is discussed in detail.
> >
> >The authors have identified some genes that confer submergence
> >tolerance in rice, which could be of value for both SRI and non-SRI
> >production methods. The references may also provide some interesting
> >reading for anyone concerned in this area of rice science. It is
> >clear that the claim of SRI that 'rice is not an aquatic plant' has
> >a solid scientific foundation. What to do about this is of course up
> >to use and others.
> >Norman
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>