DOI: https://doi.org/10.

59983/s2023010201
AgroEnvironmental Sustainability, 2023, 1(2), 86-92

RESEARCH

Yield Performance Evaluation of Thirty Spring Rice

(Oryza sativa L.) Cultivars Under Terminal Drought ARTICLE HISTORY
Conditions Using Various Drought-Tolerant Indices Received: 18 July 2023
Revised: 13 August 2023
Accepted: 14 August 2023
Neha Rai 1, Sandesh Thapa 2, * , Sara Rawal 2, Dinesh Prasad Jamkatel 2 and Published: 26 September 2023
Binaya Maharjan 2
KEYWORDS
abiotic stress
1
G.P. Koirala College of Agriculture and Research Centre, Purbanchal University, Morgang 56600, Nepal
drought tolerant
2
Gokuleshwor Agriculture and Animal Science College, Baitadi, 10200 Nepal
rainfed areas

Author responsible for correspondence; Email: sand.thapa.2056@gmail.com.
tolerance index

Abstract EDITOR
An experiment was conducted from February 19, 2022, to July 4, 2022, in the farmer's field of Itahari Fidelis O. Ajibade
Sub-metropolitan city in Nepal under well water and drought conditions to screen thirty drought-
tolerant spring rice (Oryza sativa L.) genotypes using various drought tolerant indices for its
cultivation under rainfed and drought areas. Analysis of variance revealed that grain yield under
both conditions were significantly different and yield under well-watered condition was higher than COPYRIGHT
yield under drought condition. The greater value of tolerance index (TOL) was reported in Chaite-2 © 2023 Author(s)
and IR-80991-B330-0-2 and the minimum value of TOL was reported in IRE16L1661 and IR16L1004. eISSN 2583-942X
The lowest value of stress susceptibility index (SSI) was reported in IRE16L1661, the maximum value
of yield susceptibility index (YSI) was reported in IRE16L1661, and the maximum values of mean LICENCE
productivity index (MP), geometrical mean productivity (GMP), and stress tolerance index (STI) were
reported in IRE 1621661. Correlation analysis revealed that the high-yielding genotype under well-
watered conditions also yielded higher under-stress conditions. For grain yield, analysis of variance This is an Open Access
and principal component analysis revealed that IRE 1621661 is suitable for both conditions and Article published under
genotype IRE16L1661 is stable under drought conditions based on drought tolerance indices. Thus, a Creative Commons
these two genotypes can be recommended under drought stress in the inner plains of Nepal with Attribution-NonCommercial
appropriate agronomic practices. 4.0 International License

Citation: Rai, N., Thapa, S., Rawal, S., Jamkatel, D. P., & Maharjan, B. (2023). Yield Performance Evaluation of Thirty Spring Rice
(Oryza sativa L.) Cultivars Under Terminal Drought Conditions Using Various Drought-Tolerant Indices. AgroEnvironmental
Sustainability, 1(2), 86-92. https://doi.org/10.59983/s2023010201

Statement of Sustainability: This study focuses on the role of water stress conditions in food security, as the yield of a crop is
directly affected by how well it is irrigated, depending on the crop. Therefore, this study emphasizes SDG 1 (no poverty), 2 (zero
hunger), and 13 (climate action). We focused on selecting genotypes that are suitable for both well-watered and water-stressed
conditions to ensure that grain yield is not greatly affected by future climatic variability. Therefore, genotypes IRE 1621661 is
suitable for both conditions and can be further studied under different environmental conditions under different packages of
practices to ensure sustainability in production.

1. Introduction
Rice (Oryza sativa L.) is an important staple food, consumed by more than half of the world's population (Dawe et
al., 2010). Rice is a cereal crop in the family Poaceae, belonging to the genus Oryza (Singh et al., 2018). Two species of
rice, Oryza sativa (Asian rice) and Oryza glaberrima (African rice) are known to be widely cultivated for their commercial
value (Gadal et al., 2019). Asia produces the lion's share of the world's rice, which is mostly grown in tropical areas with
abundant rainfall - about 90% of the rice consumed globally is produced there. In 2019, about 418.56 million tons of
rice will be produced in East and Southeast Asia, accounting for about 55.4% of global rice production and 47.6% of the
region's total cereal production (Lin et al., 2011). Rice contributes 15% of the protein and 21% of the carbohydrate
consumed per capita by humans worldwide, and provides trace amounts of minerals, vitamins, and fiber (Dawe et al.,
2002).

Society for AgroEnvironmental Sustainability, Dehradun, India [86]

 AgroEnvironmental
Rai et al.
Sustainability

In Nepal, rice is divided into agro-ecological zones (terai, mid-hills, and mountains), growing seasons (spring,
summer, rainy, and winter), and varieties (O. indicia, O. japonica, and O. javanica) (Adhikari and Haefele, 2014). In Nepal,
rice is grown in three seasons: main season rice (Barkhe dhan), boro rice (winter season rice), and spring season rice
(Chaite dhan). Irrigated and rainfed habitats account for 49% and 51% of Nepal's productive ecosystems, respectively
(Ghimire and Mahat, 2019). Due to the availability of rainfall, main-season rice has a larger area than other rice; however,
the yield is higher in the spring season (Rajapur, 2021). Despite having a larger yield than main season rice, spring rice
production in Nepal is limited to a small region, this might be caused by lack of water availability during spring rice
cultivation, resulting in drought. In Nepal, main-season rice accounts for 92 percent of the country's total rice supply,
while spring rice, also known as Chaite rice, accounts for only 8 percent (MoLAD, 2021). Large annual and seasonal
variations in rainfall cause significant fluctuations in total rice production, as a large proportion of the total rice area in
Nepal is rainfed (about 65%). Due to rice's high susceptibility to water stress, which can result in either partial or total
yield loss, drought can cause significant damage at any stage of crop growth and development (Adhikari et al., 2018).

Drought stress is one of the major issues due to climate change and the intensification of agricultural production.
Rice is the major cereal crop of Nepal and ranks 3rd in the world. Despite being the major staple food crop of Nepal
and having the largest area under cultivation, the average production and productivity still show a huge difference when
compared to the neighboring countries of China and India. In rainfed systems, drought is the major limiting abiotic
stress that reduces productivity by 13-35% (Kandel et al., 2022; Tiwari et al., 2019). The yield of rainfed rice is very low
compared to favorable growing conditions (Kandel et al., 2022; Kumar et al., 2012; Pavithra and Vengadessan, 2020;
Raman et al., 2012). The development and deployment of drought stress-tolerant rice genotypes specific to agroclimatic
conditions have been recommended by several authors to enhance production and maintain food security (Amgai, 2020;
Kandel et al., 2022; Majumder et al., 2016; Mau et al., 2019; Ouk et al., 2006; Tiwari et al., 2019).

Various drought tolerance indices are used to screen for drought-tolerant genotypes under normal and drought-
stress conditions, and their success in selecting the stress-tolerant rice genotype has also been reported by Kandel et
al. (2022). Rice is susceptible to water stress and can have very low to almost no economic yield. Moreover, drought
stress is associated with heat waves (Hussain et al., 2019), which further enhances pollen sterility, resulting in husked
grains. Thus, this experiment was conducted to screen the drought-tolerant rice genotypes based on the grain yield
suitable for the spring season in the rainfed and drought-prone inner plains of Nepal.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Location
An experiment was conducted in a farmers' field in Itahari Sub metropolitan city (26°39′47″N 87°16′28″E) in the
spring season when rainfall is highly scattered, and farmers depend on canals and pumps for cultivation. The study area
is located at 110 m asl and experiences hot and humid summers and cold winters. The soil type present in the study
area was clay loam soil. The details of agro-climatic data have been presented in Figure 1.

40 600
TMAX TMIN PRECIPITATION(MM)

35
500
30
400
Precipitation (mm)
Temperature(0C)

25

20 300

15
200
10
100
5

0 0
feb mar apr may jun jul

Figure 1. Agro-climatic parameters (TMAX: maximum temperature; TMIN: minimum temperature) of the experimental site.

sagens.org/journal/agens [87]
 AgroEnvironmental
Rai et al.
Sustainability

2.2. Design of Experiment, Treatment Details, and Agronomic Practices

The experiment was conducted in an alpha lattice design with 30 treatments (genotypes) and two replications. There
were six blocks per replication and each block had five genotypes. The thirty genotypes (seeds) used in this study were
provided by Regional Agriculture Research Station (RARS), Tarahara. All the genotypes are under evaluation phase
except Chaite-4, Chaite-5, Sukkha-4, Sukkha-6, Sukkha-3, and Hardinath-1 which are released varieties for spring and
main season cultivation (Kandel et al., 2022; Adhikari et al., 2019). Sowing was done in a dry bed (1 × 1 m) on February
19, 2022, and 20-day-old seedlings were transplanted in the main field (3 × 3 m) on March 11, 2022, and harvesting was
done from June 26 to July 4, 2022. A spacing of 20 × 20 cm was maintained during transplanting and the water level
was maintained at 5 cm in both environmental conditions (irrigated and non-irrigated). The distance between plots was
50 cm and between blocks was 1 m. One month after transplanting, the water level was reduced and one of the
environments was subjected to terminal drought stress, taking care that no moisture from rainfall or artificial means
reached the drought field. After one month, the drought field was water-stressed - no additional irrigation was provided
and it was subjected to terminal stress (Kandel et al., 2022). The distance between the drought field and the well-watered
field was 12 m to ensure that there was no movement of subsurface water between the environments. Agronomic
practices were followed as suggested by (Kandel et al., 2022; Tiwari et al., 2019).

2.3. Data Collection and statistical analysis

Grain yield data were collected for the whole plot and weighed using a digital scale, and moisture content was
recorded in the field using a hand-held moisture meter (Wile 55). Grain yield was converted to moisture content at
12.5% in kg/ha according to Kandel et al. (2022). From the data of both environmental conditions entered in Ms-Excel
2016, drought tolerance indices were calculated and processed for further analysis. Correlation analysis was performed
using SPSS v.25 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) and biplot analysis was performed using Minitab. Analysis of variance
with the environment was done using R-studio v.4.0.1 (R Core Team LLP, Boston Massachusetts, USA). The drought
tolerant indices (Table 1) used in the study have been used by several researchers to select the appropriate genotype
under both conditions (Kandel et al., 2022; Kumar et al., 2012; Muthuramu and Ragavan, 2020; Poudel et al., 2021; Garg
and Bhattacharya, 2017). The drought tolerance indices used in the study are as follows:

Table 1. Description of the drought tolerance indices used in the study.

Index Formula Description
Tolerance index TOL = Yp -Ys TOL= Tolerance index, Yp = yield under well-watered conditions, and Ys
(TOL) = yield under drought conditions
A higher value of TOL indicates, the susceptibility of a given cultivar
(Rosielle and Hamblin, 1981)
Mean productivity MP = (Yp +Ys)/2 The average performance of genotypes under both conditions (Adhikari
index (MP) et al., 2019; Kandel et al., 2022)
Geometrical mean GMP= (Yp *Ys )1/2 When breeding goals are focused on comparing performance in
productivity (GMP) favorable and unfavorable environments while taking variability in
drought intensity and years into consideration, GMP is more effective
and valuable (Adhikari et al., 2019).
Stress tolerance STI = Yp × Ys/ (average Yp)2 Used to quantify genotypes performing well under contrasting
index (STI) environmental conditions viz. optimal vs. stress-induced (Adhikari et al.,
2019)
Yield stability index YSI = Ys/ Yp If the result is near 1, it means that genotypes are more stable under
(YSI) stress than they are under non-stress (Bouslama and Schapaugh, 1984;
Adhikari et al., 2019)
Stress susceptibility SSI= [1- (Ys/Yp)]/[1-( average Ys/ average Yp)] Fisher and Maurer (1978): The stress susceptibility index (SSI), developed
index (SSI) by Fisher and Maurer in 1978, measures the yield drop induced by
favorable vs. unfavorable environmental conditions. proposed stress
susceptibility index (SSI), which assesses the reduction in yield caused by
unfavorable vs favorable environments,

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Performance of Grain Yield and Drought Tolerant Indices
Grain yield is significantly (P≤0.001) influenced by genotype, environment, and genotype × environment
interactions, which accounted for 93.68%, 4.02%, and 2.30% of the observed variation, respectively, according to the

sagens.org/journal/agens [88]
 AgroEnvironmental
Rai et al.
Sustainability

analysis of variance results. In addition, yield under ideal (well-watered) and drought conditions, as well as all drought-
tolerant metrics, varied significantly (P≤0.05). Grain yield under ideal conditions ranged from 4472.5 to 2969.5 kg/ha,
with a mean yield of 3555.35 kg/ha (Table 2). Under ideal conditions, genotype IRE 1621661 was the best performer,
followed by Chaiate-2 and Chaite-1, while IR-192077-21-21-3-B (2969.5 kg/ha) was the worst performer. Under drought
conditions, genotype IRE 1621661 (3099.5 kg/ha) had the highest grain production, followed by IR- 12907721-36-8-B
(2888.5 kg/ha) and IR-129077-11-12-7-B (2750 kg/ha). Yield under ideal and drought conditions was used to determine
drought tolerance indices (Muthuramu and Ragavan, 2020). To reduce the trade-off between water and grain yield,
genotype selection is also influenced by the performance of a genotype under optimum conditions. Under water stress
conditions, the grain yield of drought-tolerant genotypes is higher than that of drought-susceptible genotypes (Garg
and Bhattacharya, 2017).

Table 2. Mean Performance of thirty rice genotypes using various drought tolerant indices.
Name Code Genotype Yield (Optimum) Yield (Drought) TOL YSI MP GMP SSI STI
1 Chaite-1 4011 2641.5 1369.5 0.66 3326.25 3254.89 1.02 0.83
2 Chaite-2 4051.5 2402 1649.5 0.59 3226.75 3117.92 1.22 0.77
3 HARDINATH-1 3839.5 2570.5 1269 0.67 3205 3141.139 0.99 0.78
4 IR- 12907721-36-8-B 3844 2888.5 955.5 0.75 3366.25 3332.16 0.74 0.87
5 IR10L192 3636.5 2420 1216.5 0.66 3028.25 2963.89 1.02 0.77
6 IR-10L192 3141.5 2073 1068.5 0.67 2607.25 2551.36 1.02 0.55
7 IR-1-19-2-1-1-1-186515 3679.5 2524 1155.5 0.68 3101.75 3043.26 0.95 0.76
8 IR129077-11-12—7-B 3641 2750 891 0.75 3195.5 3163.61 0.73 0.79
9 IR129077123-1-1-55-8-B-83 3544.5 2572 972.5 0.72 3058.25 3018.90 0.82 0.72
10 IR-129077-21-42-5-B 3822 2181 1641 0.57 3001.5 2887 1.28 0.66
11 IR129077-21-7-8-B 3722.5 2580 1142.5 0.69 3151.25 3099.03 0.91 0.76
12 IR1611795 3673 2505.5 1167.5 0.67 3089.25 3021.63 0.99 0.75
13 IR1621004 3505.5 2215 1290.5 0.63 2860.25 2786.22 1.10 0.61
14 IR1621226 3638 2375.5 1262.5 0.66 3006.75 2937.68 1.04 0.68
15 IR16L1004 3179 2399 780 0.75 2789 2761.04 0.73 0.60
16 IR16L1226 3370 2511.5 858.5 0.74 2940.75 2908.70 0.77 0.68
17 IR16L1411 3032.5 2200 832.5 0.72 2616.25 2582.89 0.82 0.53
18 IR17A1723 3249.5 1604.5 1645 0.49 2427 2282.28 1.51 0.42
19 IR17L1317 3894.5 2694.5 1200 0.69 3294.5 3239.03 0.92 0.83
20 IR-192077-21-21-3-B 2969.5 1969.5 1000 0.66 2469.5 2418.05 1.00 0.46
21 IR-80991-B330-0-1 3534.5 2207.5 1327 0.62 2871 2791.85 1.12 0.62
22 IR-80991-B330-0-2 3782 2384 1398 0.63 3083 3002.72 1.10 0.71
23 IR96321-1447651-B-1-1-2 3292 2036 1256 0.61 2664 2588.79 1.14 0.53
24 IRE 1621661 4472.5 3099.5 1373 0.69 3786 3722.97 0.92 1.20
25 IRE16L1661 3358 2628.5 729.5 0.78 2993.25 2970.35 0.65 0.70
26 NR2184 3461.5 2266.5 1195 0.65 2864 2800.88 1.03 0.62
27 Sukkha-3 3506 2200 1306 0.61 2853 2771.33 1.14 0.62
28 Sukkha-4 3240 1889 1351 0.58 2564.5 2473.68 1.25 0.49
29 Sukkha-6 3556.5 2332.5 1224 0.65 2944.5 2878.99 1.03 0.66
30 SVIN-312 3013 1827 1186 0.60 2420 2345.27 1.179 0.44
Grand Mean 3555.36 2364.93 1190.43 0.66 2960.15 2895.24 1.01 0.68
CV% 7 13.9 9.3 7.2 9.7 10.4 14.2 20.8
F-test ** ** ** ** * ** ** *
*: Denotes level of significance at P-value≤0.05; **: denotes Level of significance at P-value ≤ 0.01, CV: coefficient of variation; TOL: tolerance index;
YSI: yield susceptibility index; MP: mean productivity; GMP: geometric mean productivity; SSI: stress susceptibility index: STI: stress tolerance index.

The higher value of TOL was reported in Chaite-2 and IR17A1723. The lowest value of TOL was reported in
IRE16L1661 and IR16L1004. The higher stress tolerance of a particular variety is indicated by the lower value of TOL
(Adhikari et al., 2019). The lower SSI value indicates higher yield stability as reported in IRE16L1661. Maximum YSI was
reported in IRE16L1661 and minimum in IR17A1723. Adhikari et al. (2019), reported that genotypes with lower SSI have
high drought tolerance capacity. Kandel et al. (2022) also reported that stress-tolerant cultivars had lower TOL; SSI and
TOL are important drought-tolerant indices as they favor the selection of high-performing (high-yielding) genotypes
under drought-stress conditions. In addition, MP, GMP, and STI are used to identify the genotype that produces a high
yield under both conditions. Maximum MP, GMP, and STI were reported in IRE 1621661. The genotypes with high levels

sagens.org/journal/agens [89]
 AgroEnvironmental
Rai et al.
Sustainability

of STI and MP index and low levels of SSI are considered drought-tolerant genotypes. The importance of STI in the
selection of stable and resistant genotypes has also been reported by (Kandel et al., 2022).

3.2. Correlation and Principal Component Analysis

The correlation between Yp, Ys, and drought tolerance indices was calculated to evaluate the most appropriate
drought tolerance criterion. The correlation between Yp and Ys was positive and had a significant effect on the
genotypes (Table 3). This implies that genotypes with high yields in non-stressed conditions can anticipate better yields
in drought conditions. Thus, the selection of drought-tolerant genotypes based on the performance of genotypes under
normal conditions is not beneficial. There was a negative and insignificant correlation between TOL and Ys, whereas SSI
was negatively and significantly correlated with Ys. In addition, Ys had a significant and positive correlation with YSI.

Table 3. Correlation analysis between yield under optimum and drought conditions, and various stress tolerance indices
Parameters Yield (Optimum) Yield (Drought) TOL YSI MP GMP SSI STI
Yield (Optimum) 1
Yield (Drought) 0.737** 1
TOL 0.425* -0.299 1
YSI 0.050 0.709** -0.878** 1
MP 0.936 **
0.928 **
0.078 0.398* 1
GMP 0.903** 0.955** -0.003 .0471** 0.997** 1
SSI -0.050 -0.709** 0.878** -1.000** -0.398* -0.471** 1
STI 0.907 **
0.948 **
0.011 0.452 *
0.995 **
0.997** -0.452* 1
*: Denotes level of significance at P-value≤0.05; **: denotes level of significance at P-value ≤ 0.01; TOL: tolerance index; YSI: yield susceptibility index;
MP: mean productivity; GMP: geometric mean productivity; SSI: stress susceptibility index: STI: stress tolerance index.

The first two principal components showed cumulative variation greater than 99% with an eigenvalue greater than
1. The first and second components contributed 65% and 34.5% of the variation, respectively. Principal component
analysis was performed for drought tolerance indices and genotype response. PC1 was positively correlated with all
traits except SSI and TOL (Figure 2). PC2 has a negative relationship with all traits except YSI and yield under drought.
Similar results were reported by Kandel et al. (2022). These drought indices Yp, Ys, SSI, MP, GM, and STI can be called
drought stress tolerance components. Genotypes with a higher value of PC1 and a low value of PC2 are high-yielding
genotypes under both conditions i.e., genotypes IR- 12907721-36-8-B, IR17L1317, and IRE1621661 (Figure 2). While
genotypes with a high value of PC2 and a low value of PC1 are low-yielding genotypes under stress conditions i.e., SVIN-
312, IR-192077-21-21-3-B, and IR10L192 which had relatively low performance under both conditions. Kamrani et al.
(2018) and Puri et al. (2020) reported similar results while evaluating durum wheat and spring wheat genotypes for heat
stress tolerance, respectively. A positive and significant correlation between STI, GMP, and MP with Yp and Ys has also
been previously reported by other researchers (Abdolshahi et al., 2013; Carvalho et al., 2022; Hussain et al., 2021; Pavithra
and Vengadessan, 2020; Garg and Bhattacharya, 2017; Ullah and Shakeel, 2019), which further supports our findings.
Therefore, genotype selection considering MP, GMP, and STI would determine the genotype with high yield potential.

Figure 2. PCA biplot analysis of various drought tolerant indices and genotypes.

sagens.org/journal/agens [90]
 AgroEnvironmental
Rai et al.
Sustainability

4. Conclusion
Results from our study suggest that genotype IRE1621661 has paramount performance in both environmental
conditions and is suitable for cultivation under drought-prone and rainfed areas of the inner plains of Nepal to cope
with a yield penalty. However, stability in yield drought tolerant indices suggests that genotype IRE16L1661 with a low
value for TOL and SSI, and a higher value for YSI, which makes it suitable for drought-prone areas. Thus, genotypes
IRE1621661 and IRE16L1661 can be suggested for further testing for their response to agronomic practices and
commercial cultivation in drought-prone / rainfed areas.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Neha Rai, Sandesh Thapa, Sara Rawal; Data curation, Sandesh Thapa, Sara Rawal;
Investigation, Neha Rai; Methodology, Sandesh Thapa, Sara Rawal; Resources: Dinesh Prasad Jamkatel, Binaya Maharjan; Software,
Sara Rawal; Supervision, Neha Rai; Validation, Sandesh Thapa; Visualization, Neha Rai, Sandesh Thapa, Sara Rawal; Writing – original
draft, Neha Rai, Sandesh Thapa, Sara Rawal, Dinesh Prasad Jamkatel, Binaya Maharjan; Writing – review and editing, Neha Rai, Sandesh
Thapa, Sara Rawal, Dinesh Prasad Jamkatel, Binaya Maharjan. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the
manuscript.

Funding: The authors did not receive any funding during and after the completion of the study.

Acknowledgment: The authors express their gratitude to RARS, Tarahara for providing genetic material, and farmers for providing
land for experimentation.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Institutional/Ethical Approval: Not applicable.

Data/Supplementary Information Availability: Not applicable.

References
Abdolshahi, R., Safarian, A., Nazari, M., Pourseyedi, S., & Mohamadi-Nejad, G. (2013). Screening drought-tolerant genotypes in bread
wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) using different multivariate methods. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 59(5), 685–704.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2012.667080
Adhikari, B. B., & Haefele, S. M. (2014). Characterization of cropping systems in the western mid hills of Nepal: Constraints and
Opportunities. International Journal of Research and Innovations in Earth Science, 1(1), 20–26.
Adhikari, B. B., Mehera, B., & Haefele, S. M. (2018). Selection of drought tolerant rice varieties for the western mid hills of Nepal.
Journal of the Institute of Agriculture and Animal Science, 33, 195–206. https://doi.org/10.3126/jiaas.v33i0.20705
Adhikari, M., Adhikari, N. R., Sharma, S., Gairhe, J., Bhandari, R. R., & Paudel, S. (2019). Evaluation of drought tolerant rice cultivars
using drought tolerant indices under water stress and irrigated condition. American Journal of Climate Change, 08(02), 228–236.
https://doi.org/10.4236/ajcc.2019.82013
Amgai, R. B. (2020). Evaluation of Nepalese rice for drought tolerant characteristics. In: Proceedings of 29th National Summer Crops
Workshop At: Lumle, Kaski, Nepal.
Bouslama, M., & Schapaugh, W. T. (1984). Stress Tolerance in Soybeans. I. Evaluation of Three Screening Techniques for Heat and
Drought Tolerance. Crop Science, 24, 933-937. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1984.0011183X002400050026x
Carvalho, M., Novaes, D., Santos, B., Gramacho, K., Lopes, U., Gomes, A., & Valle, R. (2022). Screening Cacao germplasm for drought
tolerance. Agrotrópica (Itabuna), 34(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.21757/0103-3816.2022v34n1p5-18
Dawe, D. C., Hardy, B., & Hettel, G. P. (2002). Source Book for the Most Important Economic Activity on Earth. CABI Publishing,
Wallingford, UK. pp. 256.
Dawe, D., Pandey, S., & Nelson, A. D. (2010). Emerging trends and spatial patterns of rice production. In: Rice in the Global Economy:
Strategic Research and Policy Issues for Food Security, International Rice Research Institute, Los Baños, Philippines. pp. 15–35.
Fischer, R.A., & Maurer, R. (1978). Drought Resistance in Spring Wheat Cultivars, I. Grain Yield Responses. Australian Journal of
Agricultural Research, 29, 897-912. https://doi.org/10.1071/AR9780897
Gadal, N., Shrestha, J., Poudel, M. N. and Pokharel, B. (2019). A review on production status and growing environments of rice in Nepal
and in the world. Archives of Agriculture and Environmental Science, 4(1): 83-87, https://doi.org/10.26832/24566632.2019.0401013
Ghimire, N. H., and Mahat, P. M. (2019). Genetic Variability and Correlation Coefficients of Major Traits in Cold Tolerance Rice (Oriza
sativa L.) Under Mountain Environment of Nepal. International Journal of Applied Sciences and Biotechnology, 7, 445–452.
https://doi.org/10.3126/ijasbt.v7i4.26922
Hussain, T., Hussain, N., Ahmed, M., Nualsri, C., & Duangpan, S. (2021). Responses of lowland rice genotypes under terminal water
stress and identification of drought tolerance to stabilize rice productivity in southern Thailand. Plants, 10(12).
https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10122565

sagens.org/journal/agens [91]
 AgroEnvironmental
Rai et al.
Sustainability

Kamrani, M., Hoseini, Y., & Ebadollahi, A. (2018). Evaluation for heat stress tolerance in durum wheat genotypes using stress tolerance
indices. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 64(1), 38–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2017.1326104
Kandel, B. P., Joshi, L. P., Sharma, S., Adhikari, P., Koirala, B., & Shrestha, K. (2022). Drought tolerance screening of rice genotypes in
mid-hills of Nepal using various drought indices. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B — Soil and Plant Science, 72(1), 744–
750. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064710.2022.2072382
Kumar, A., Verulkar, S. B., Mandal, N. P., Variar, M., Shukla, V. D., Dwivedi, J. L., Singh, B. N., Singh, O. N., Swain, P., Mall, A. K., Robin,
S., Chandrababu, R., Jain, A., Haefele, S. M., Piepho, H. P., & Raman, A. (2012). High-yielding, drought-tolerant, stable rice
genotypes for the shallow rainfed lowland drought-prone ecosystem. Field Crops Research, 133, 37–47.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2012.03.007
Lin, H. I., Yu, Y. Y., Wen, F. I., & Liu, P. T. (2011). Status of food security in east and southeast Asia and challenges of climate change.
Climate, 10(3), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli10030040
Majumder, R. R., Hore, T. K., Kader, M. A., & Aditya, T. L. (2016). Genotype and environment interaction of drought tolerant rice
genotypes evaluated in drought prone areas of Bangladesh. Journal of the Bangladesh Agricultural University, 14(1), 23–30.
Mau, Y. S., Ndiwa, A. S. S., Oematan, S. S., & Markus, J. E. R. (2019). Drought tolerance indices for selection of drought tolerant, high
yielding upland rice genotypes. Australian Journal of Crop Science, 13(1), 170–178. https://doi.org/10.21475/ajcs.19.13.01.p1778
MoLAD (2021). Statistical Information Statistical Information. Hariharbhawan, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Muthuramu, S., & Ragavan, T. (2020). Studies on indices and morphological traits for drought tolerance in rainfed rice (Oryza sativa
L.). Electronic Journal of Plant Breeding, 11(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.37992/2020.1101.001
Ouk, M., Basnayake, J., Tsubo, M., Fukai, S., Fischer, K. S., Cooper, M., & Nesbitt, H. (2006). Use of drought response index for
identification of drought tolerant genotypes in rainfed lowland rice. Field Crops Research, 99(1), 48–58.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2006.03.003
Pavithra, S., & Vengadessan, V. (2020). Selection for Drought Tolerance in Rice Genotypes Based on Principal Components and
Selection Indices. Electronic Journal of Plant Breeding, 11(4), 1032–1036. https://doi.org/10.37992/2020.1104.168
Poudel, P. B., Poudel, M. R., & Puri, R. R. (2021). Evaluation of heat stress tolerance in spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes
using stress tolerance indices in western region of Nepal. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research, 5.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2021.100179
Puri, R. R., Tripathi, S., Bhattarai, R., Dangi, S. R., & Pandey, D. (2020). Wheat variety improvement for climate resilience. Asian Journal
of Research in Agriculture and Forestry, 21–27. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajraf/2020/v6i230101
Rajapur, L. (2021). Effect of number of seedlings per hill on performance and yield of spring rice (Oryza sativa L.) in Rajapur, Bardiya,
Nepal. 2(1), 61-67. https://doi.org/10.52804/ijaas2021.217
Raman, A., Verulkar B, S., Mandal P, N., Variar, M., Shukla D, V., Dwivedi, J., Singh N, O., Swain, P., Mall, A., Robin, S., Chandrababu, R.,
Jain, A., Ram, T., Hittalmani, S., Haefele, S., Piepho, H.-P., & Kumar, A. (2012). Drought yield index to select high yielding rice lines
under different drought stress severities. Rice, 5, 31. https://doi.org/10.1186/1939-8433-5-31
Rosielle, A. A., & Hamblin, J. (1981). Theoretical Aspects of Selection for Yield in Stress and Non-Stress Environment. Crop Science, 21,
943-946. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1981.0011183X002100060033x
Garg, H. S., & Bhattacharya, C. (2017). Drought tolerance indices for screening some of rice genotypes. International Journal of
Advanced Biological Research, 7(4), 671-674.
Singh, S. K., Singh, M., Raj Vennela, P., Singh, D. K., N. Kujur, S., & Kumar, D. (2018). Studies on genetic variability, heritability and
genetic advance for yield and yield components in drought tolerant rice (Oryza sativa L.) landraces. International Journal of Current
Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 7(3), 299–305. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2018.703.035
Tiwari, D. N., Tripathi, S. R., Tripathi, M. P., Khatri, N., & Bastola, B. R. (2019). Genetic variability and correlation coefficients of major
traits in early maturing rice under rainfed lowland environments of Nepal. Advances in Agriculture, 2019, 5975901.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/5975901
Ullah, A., and Shakeel, A. (2019). Assessment of drought tolerance in some cotton genotypes based on drought tolerance indices. The
Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences, 29(4), 998-1009.

Publisher’s note/Disclaimer: Regarding jurisdictional assertions in published maps and institutional affiliations, SAGENS maintains
its neutral position. All publications' statements, opinions, and information are the sole responsibility of their respective author(s) and
contributor(s), not SAGENS or the editor(s). SAGENS and/or the editor(s) expressly disclaim liability for any harm to persons or
property caused by the use of any ideas, methodologies, suggestions, or products described in the content.

sagens.org/journal/agens [92]