Effect of Conservation Agriculture with INM Under Rice-Wheat cropping system”

1. 1

2. “Effect of Conservation Agriculture with INM Under
Rice-Wheat cropping system”
Presented By- SAUHARD DUBEY
ID No - 4905
Ph.D 2nd year
Department of Agronomy
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel University of Agriculture & Technology, Meerut
A Seminar
on
2

3. • Rice (Oryza sativa L.) - Wheat (Triticum aestivum) (RW) cropping system is
one of the largest cropping systems in the world.
• It covers approximately 24 million hectares (Mha) spread over the Indo-
Gangetic Plains (IGP) and China.
• Indian portion of IGP contributes 33% to the total cereals production of India.
• North-western IGP has played a vital role in the food security of India by
contributing about 40% of wheat and 30% of rice to the central grain stock
every year during the last four decades.
INTRODUCTION
3

4. • Development of herbicide resistance .
• Formation of sub-soil hard pan with a consequent increase in
bulk density.
• Over exploitation of groundwater.
.
• Sharp decline in soil organic matter.
Problems related to R-W Cropping System
4

5. Herbicide Resistance Hard pan soil
Multi nutrient deficiency Reduced organic matter
Pictures of problems related to R-W Cropping System
5

6. 6

7. INM in Rice-wheat cropping system
7

8. • Enhance the availability soil nutrient
• Synchronise the nutrient demand of resources
• Provide balance nutrition to crops
• Improves and sustain the physical , chemical and biological functioning of soil.
• Minimize the deterioration of soil, water & ecosystem by promoting carbon sequestation
• Optimal use of available nutrient sources (cow dung, crop residues, green manuring crops etc.)
• Promotion of sustainable agriculture
• Minimize the antagonistic effects resulting from hidden deficiency and nutrient balance.
Advantages of INM
8

9. • Conservation Agriculture (CA) is a production
system that-
Has minimum soil disturbances
Practices suitable crop rotations
Keeps the soil covered with plant residues
CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE
9

10. Principles of Conservation Agriculture
10

11. 11

12. Conservation Tillage
Non inversion
Tillage
No Tillage
Deep
cultivation
(10-20cm
Shallow
cultivation(
5-10cm)
Strip
tillage
Direct
drilling
No tillage into
crops residues
Cover crops
based no tillage
Living cover crop -
based nno
tillage(LBNT)
Cover crop mulch
based no
tillage(MBNT)
12

13. Improved seeds
• Fast Maturity Rate
• High Yield
• Resistance to Pest and Diseases
• Clean Seed
• Modified to survive extreme conditions
Design & implementations of crop rotations
• Automatic Pests Control
• Fallow Fields Periods Shorten
• Minimize Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Increased Ability to Store Carbon
CROP ROTATION
13

14. Crop cover Managed
natural flora
Stubble and
crop residues
Soil Cover
14

15. • Reduced erosion and environmental degradation
• Improved soil structure and biology
• Improved soil moisture retention
• Higher soil carbon levels
• Increased yields
• Reduced input cost.
• Reduced CO2 emissions.
• Long term sustainability- both environmental and economic
Benefits of Conservation Agriculture
15

16. Conservation technologies in rice-wheat cropping
system
16

17. SRI Brown manuring
Methods of CA in Rice
17

18.  AWD is also called “intermittent irrigation‟ or “controlled irrigation‟
 Alternate flooding
 Compared with the traditional continuous flooding system.
 AWD using lowland rice cultivars can reduce water input by 15-30% without yield loss
KEY POINTS OF AWD
Transplant young seedlings into puddled soil
Install a PVC pipe with holes
Start AWD at 10 DAT and allow the field to dry out
Re-flood the field to a standing water layer of 5 cm when the groundwater is 15-20 cm
below the soil surface
 Keep a standing water layer of 5 cm for 1week at flowering
Continue AWD cycles after flowering until harvest
Scope for 10, 20, 25 and 30 cm with different genotypes and different location
Alternate Wetting and Drying (AWD)
18

19. FIRB
Zero Tillage
Methods of CA in Wheat
19

20. SWI Crop residue management
20

21. Table 1. Effect of different CA practices on different soil properties
Management practices Effect on soil physical properties References
Minimum tillage along with residue
retention
Improve soil biological activity, form more stable aggregates Kassam and friedrich (2009)
Permanent soil cover
Protect the soil from the harmful impact of rainfall and sunshine, increase
microbial population
Ghoshet al. (2010)
Crop rotation with legume
Minimizing pest instance, enhance biological nitrogen fixation and microbial
diversity.
Dumanski et al. (2006)
Zero tillage (ZT) Higher bulk density Gantzer& Blake (1978)
Zero tillage (ZT) with residue retention Reduce bulk density Bautista et al. (1996)
Zero tillage (ZT) Improve hydraulic cinductivity Mcgarryet al. (2000)
No tillage Improved pore size distribution, increase pore diameters, pore continuity and
numbers of macropore
Cameiraet al. (2003)
Zero tillage Increase soil organic carbon in surface layer of soil Chakrabarti et al. (2014)
Plant residues with a low C: N ratio Induce relatively high N2O emissions Huang et al. 2004
Zero tillage Reduce N2O gas emission Drury et al. 2006 (2012)
Soil amendments like straw mulch, superabsorbent
polymer (SAP) and organic fertilizers
Improve soil structure and porosity Yang et al. (2018)
21

22. Table 2. Grain, straw yield and harvest index as influenced by planting methods and integrated nutrient management of rice
Treatment Grain yield (q/ha) Straw yield (q/ha) Harvest index (%)
Transplanting 42.36 65.22 39.38
SRI 46.70 70.80 39.76
Drum seeded 37.60 58.30 39.24
Direct seeded 35.78 55.63 39.16
SEm± 1.10 1.56 -
C.D. (P=0.05) 2.5 3.67 -
Integrated Nutrient Management
100% NPK 41.50 63.05 39.69
75% NPK +25%FYM 41.80 64.57 39.28
50% NPK+50%FYM 38.53 59.84 39.19
SEm± 0.62 1.04 -
C.D. (P=0.05) 1.30 2.18 -
Source: Tomar et al (2018)
22

23. Table 3. Effect of various crop establishment method and Integrated Nutrient Management on
growth attributes of rice
Treatments Plant height at harvest
(cm)
Leaf area index at 60
DAT
Effective tillers m2
Dry matter
production(g/hill) at
harvesting
(A) Main Plot : Crop Establishment Method
Farmer’s practice 90.7 3.4 214.5 32.44
Wetland transplanting 91.9 3.5 215.1 33.41
SRI 94.5 4.4 219.8 35.41
SEm± 0.71 0.11 0.70 0.50
CD (P=0.05) 2.78 0.42 2.74 1.96
100% RDF 91.3 3.7 214.4 32.03
100% RDF + Zinc 91.8 3.6 215.8 33.43
100% RDF + Vermicompost 91.8 3.6 216.0 33.83
100% RDF + Zinc +
Vermicompost
94.2 4.1 219.2 35.51
100% RDF + FYM 92.9 3.8 216.7 33.52
SEm± 0.42 0.11 0.63 0.45
CD (P=0.05) 1.22 0.33 1.83 1.30
Source: R.K chandankute et al (2015), BHU
23

24. Table 4. Effect of various crop establishment method and integrated nutrient management on yield
attributes and yield of rice
Treatments Panicle
length
Panicle
weight(g)
1000 grain
weight(g)
Grain yield
(t ha-1)
Straw yield
(t ha-1)
Harvest
Index(%)
(A) Main Plot : Crop Establishment Method
Farmer’s practice 22.94 2.96 18.02 37.76 69.13 34.21
Wetland transplanting 23.88 3.15 20.76 40.22 70.30 35.67
SRI
SEm± 0.23 0.07 0.64 0.87 0.58 0.51
CD (P=0.05) 0.92 0.29 2.50 3.41 1.97 2.00
(B) Sub plot : Integrated Nutrient Management
100% RDF 22.81 3.11 18.74 37.08 69.12 35.10
100% RDF + Zinc 23.29 3.12 19.63 39.83 70.12 35.28
NPK + Vermicompost 23.70 3.12 19.54 39.86 70.50 35.14
100% RDF + Zinc + Vermicompost 24.67 3.48 22.27 43.61 73.15 37.60
100% RDF + FYM 23.93 3.14 21.42 40.85 71.08 36.29
SEm± 0.30 0.90 0.57 0.91 0.71 0.50
Source: R.K chandankute et al(2015), BHU
24

25. Table 5. Effect of crop-establishment methods, integrated nitrogen management on
growth attributes of rice (pooled data of 2 years)
Treatment
Plant height
(cm) at
harvesting
Tillers/hill at
harvesting
Leaf-area index at 90
DAT
Dry-matter (g/hill) at
harvesting
Crop-establishment methods
Normal transplanting 118.6 15.2 4.8 62.8
SRI 123.5 18.5 5.3 69.4
SEm± 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.7
CD (P=0.05) 2.6 0.6 0.2 2.0
Integrated Nitrogen Management
100% RDN 124.2 17.5 5.1 71.0
125 % RDN 128.3 19.7 5.3 73.3
50% RDN + 50% N through FYM 119.5 16.7 4.9 69.3
50% RDN + 50% N through FYM + Azospirillum 129.1 20.0 5.4 74.5
100% RDN through FYM 113.6 15.3 4.9 62.6
No fertilizer (control) 111.7 11.9 4.8 46.1
SEm± 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.7
CD (P=0.05) 2.8 0.5 0.1 2.0
Source:- Jat et al. (2015), B.H.U
25

26. Table 6. Effect of rice establishment methods, tillage and rice straw as mulch on grain
yield, straw yield and thousand grain weight
Treatments Grain yield (t ha-1) Straw yield (t ha-1) Harvest index
Rice establishment systems
DSR-ZT 4.84 6.23 0.44
DSR-CT 4.84 6.21 0.44
DTR 4.88 6.37 0.43
PTR 4.77 6.48 0.43
LSD (0.05) NS NS NS
Tillage and rice straw management practices
CT 4.77 6.68 0.42
ZTW-R 4.47 5.32 0.46
ZTW+R 5.26 6.97 0.43
LSD (0.05) 0.19 0.25 0.01
Interaction
LSD (0.05) NS 0.51 0.02
Source - Sushil kumar kharia et al (2017) , PAU, ludhiana
ZT-DSR - Zero till direct seeded rice ; CT-DSR - Conventional till direct seeded rice ; ZT- DTR - Zero till mechanically transplanted rice and PTR -
Puddled transplanted rice,
CTW-R - Conventional till wheat without residues; ZT - Wheat without residues, ZTW-R and ZT wheat with residues retained as surface mulch
using Happy Seeder, ZTW+R 26

27. Table 7. Effect of crop-establishment methods, hybrids and integrated nitrogen
management on yield, crop productivity, returns/day and economics of rice
Treatment
Grain yield
(t/ha)
Straw yield
(t/ha)
Crop productivity
(kg grain/ha/day)
Returns/ day (
/ha/day)
Net returns
(× 103 /ha)
Output: input
ratio
(A) Crop-establishment method
Normal transplanting 5.69 7.70 49.1 430.0 49.87 2.27
SRI 6.53 8.71 56.3 570.2 66.13 2.86
SEm± 0.06 0.06 0.5 6.9 - 0.02
CD (P=0.05) 0.18 0.19 1.5 21.2 - 0.06
(B) Integrated Nitrogen management
100% RDN 6.49 8.66 55.9 569.3 66.02 2.87
125 % RDN 6.60 8.77 56.9 578.9 67.13 2.88
50% RDN + 50% N through FYM 6.41 8.50 55.2 516.7 59.93 2.50
50% RDN + 50% N through FYM +
Azospirillum
100% RDN through FYM 5.91 7.92 50.9 397.1 46.06 1.99
No fertilizer (control) 4.33 6.23 37.4 351.9 40.82 2.44
SEm± 0.06 0.07 0.5 7.0 - 0.02
CD (P=0.05) 0.17 0.19 1.5 19.7 - 0.06
Source:- Jat et al. (2015), B.H.U
27

28. Table 8. Yield of different
tillage practices with five
nutrient-residue
combination
Tillage Yield (Kg/ha)
Zero tillage (ZT) 2,319.00
Reduced tillage (RT) 2,262.42
Conventional tillage (CT) 1,591.52
CD (0.05) 82.284
SE (m) 21.075
Nutrient Residue Combination Yield (Kg/ha)
0% residue + 100% N.P.K 1,767.16
50% residue + 100% N.P.K 2,541.76
50% residue + 75% N.P.K 2,293.84
100% residue + 75% N.P.K 2,115.59
100% residue + 50% N.P.K 1,569.88
CD (0.05) 168.568
SE (m) 23.486
Source –
Sahely kanthal et al (2019) , West Bengal
28

29. Table 9. Effect of tillage and nutrient management practices on plant population at 25 days
after sowing of wheat crop during 2014-2016
Treatment 2014-15 2015-16
Tillage Practices Plant Population m-2
ZT 92.3 93.47
CT 93.1 94.26
S.Em (±) 0.51 0.50
CD (P=0.05) NS NS
Nutrient management
N1= 150kg N (after irrigation) 92.06 92.41
N2= 150 kg N (before irrigation) 91.16 92.10
N3= 125kg N (Nutrient expert) 92.70 93.07
N4= SSNM & Green seeker 93.33 94.99
N5= 225kg N 94.21 95.90
N6= 150kg N. (SPAD based) 92.93 94.97
S.Em (±) 1.16 1.05
CD (P=0.05) NS NS
Interaction NS NS
Source: Pratap et al (2020), Sabour Bihar
ZT=Zero Tillage; CT=Conventional Tillage; DAS= Days After Sowing; S.Em (±) = Standard error of mean; C= Critical difference
29

30. Table 10. Performance of wheat varieties under CA and CT in rice-wheat
system
Treatments Plant height(cm) Ear head length(cm) Tillers/m2
Biological yield,
(q/ha)
Yield,
q/ha
1000-grains
weight,( g)
Tillage and residue management
CT 105.1 10.9 402.1 155.0 59.08 42.5
ZT+R (CA) 104.9 11.5 404.6 155.4 58.64 42.2
LSD at 5 NS 0.2 NS NS NS NS
*CT=Conventional tillage; **R= Residue retention; CA= Conservation agriculture, ZT= Zero tillage
Source:- R.S Chokkar et al. (2018) IIWBR,Karnal
30

31. Table 11. Effect of rice establishment methods, tillage and rice straw as mulch on
yield attributing characters of wheat crop
Treatments Effective tiller Non-effective tiller Spike length (cm) Grain weight spike-1 (gram)
Rice establishment systems
DSR-ZT 76.1 6.56 10.5 2.08
DSR-CT 69.7 6.61 10.8 1.97
DTR 77.4 7.33 10.7 2.04
PTR 81.3 8.61 11.0 2.01
LSD (0.05) NS NS NS NS
Tillage and rice straw management practices
CT 79.8 7.67 10.5 2.01
ZTW-R 74.9 7.54 10.9 1.90
ZTW+R 73.7 6.63 10.8 2.16
LSD (0.05) NS NS 0.3 0.08
Interaction
LSD (0.05) NS NS NS NS
ZT-DSR - (zero till direct seeded rice, ; CT-DSR - (conventional till direct seeded rice) ; ZT- DTR -(zero till mechanically transplanted rice), and
PTR - (puddled transplanted rice), CTW-R - (conventional till wheat without residues; ZT -(wheat without residues), ZTW-R, and ZT wheat
with residues retained as surface mulch using Happy Seeder, ZTW+R)
Source - Sushil kumar kharia et al (2017) , PAU
31

32. Table 12. Influence on net returns in rice and wheat with integrated nutrient
management over inorganic alone, organic alone, and control treatments in percent.
Nutrient management practices Crops
Rice Wheat
INM vs. IORA 2.93 (−9.48 to 3.93) 9.34 (4.28 to 15.07)*
INM vs. ORA −0.27 (−3.78 to 3.37) 0.13 (−3.85 to 4.27)
INM vs. CO 121 (101 to 142)* 127 (97 to 156)*
Mean values are given with 95% CI in parentheses. In bracket the values represent the ranges of percent net return for
compared nutrient management practices. * Indicates percent net returns significant at p < 0.05. Where INM stands for
integrated nutrient management, IORA for inorganic alone, ORA for organic alone, and CO for control (No fertilizer applied).
CI used for confidence interval.
Source - Sheetal sharma et al (2019) , IRRI office NASC complex, Delhi
32

33. Fig. 1. Effect of different nutrient residues and tillage system on wheat yield
Source - Sahely kanthal et al (2019) , West Bengal
Conventional Tillage Zero Tillage Reduced Tillage
33

34. Table 13. Grain yield(t/ha) of rice and wheat and soil studies as influenced by various treatments
Source - S.P Singh et al (2002) , G.B pantaagar
S.No
Treatments 1998-1999 1999-2000 Soil studies after rice
Rabi kharif Rice wheat Rice wheat Total N(%) Av P(kg/ha) Av K(kg/ha)
1 Control Control 2.8 2.0 2.0 1.7 0.102 18.4 160.4
2 50% R N as urea 50% R N as urea 3.5 3.0 3.1 2.8 0.108 20.4 171.4
3 75% R N as urea 75% R N as urea 3.9 3.3 3.7 3.5 0.114 20.8 172.3
4 100% R N as urea 100% R N as urea 4.8 4.2 4.5 4.4 0.125 21.8 175.7
5 T2 + 50 % N through
FYM
100% R N as urea 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.4 0.132 22.0 188.3
6 T3+ 25 % N through
wheat straw
75% R N as urea 4.7 3.3 4.7 4.1 0.127 22.9 185.4
7 T2 + 50 % N through
wheat straw
100% R N as urea 4.3 4.2 4.1 4.2 0.138 21.1 180.4
8 T3+25% N through
wheat straw
75% R N as urea 4.4 3.1 4.2 4.0 0.134 23.0 181.4
9 T2+50% N through
greengram straw
100% R N as urea 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.5 0.134 25.9 199.3
10 T3+ 25% N through
green gram straw
75% R N as urea 4.8 3.5 4.6 4.1 0.131 23.5 185.4
CD (P=0.05) 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.005 0.7 13.9
Note:- Recommended dose of N for rice as well as wheat is 120 kg/ha, R=recommended 34

35. Table 14. Effect of different Rice planting methods and INM on yield of rice and wheat
Source - Rajiv Kumar et al. (2015), G.B pantaagar
Treatments
Rice(q/ha) Wheat (q/ha)
2006-07 2007-08
Mean
2006-07 2007-08
Mean
TP rice DSR Rice TP Rice DSR Rice TP rice DSR Rice TP rice DSR Rice
Rec. NPK 55.3 43.2 62.2 41.4 50.52 49.5 50.3 54.5 55.6 52.40
Rec NPK+FYM 55.1 44.3 63.7 40.8 50.97 50.2 50.5 54.9 56.4 53.00
Rec
NPK+Residual
GM
56.9 44.8 64.4 45.4 52.87 50.8 50.9 55.7 56.8 53.55
Rec. NPK +
FeS04
55.6 42.2 63.2 43.0 51.00 50.6 50.7 56.4 55.4 53.30
Rec. NPK +
FYM + FeS04
56.0 45.5 64.4 43.7 52.40 50.2 50.8 56.9 56.1 53.50
Rec. NPK +
residual GM +
FeS04
58.4 45.1 65.3 5.03 54.77 51.6 52.4 57.6 57.5 54.77
Mean 56.2 44.2 63.9 44.1 50.5 50.9 56.0 56.3
SEm=
Main Plot =0.21Sub Plot
=0.72
Main Plot =0.25Sub Plot =0.72
Main Plot =0.64Sub
Plot =0.44
Main Plot =0.69Sub
Plot =0.10
CD (P=0.05)
Main Plot =1.22Sub Plot
=2.14
Main Plot =3.59Sub Plot =2.91
Main Plot =3.83Sub
Plot =1.30
Main Plot =NSSub Plot =NS
35

36. Table 15. Effect of CA based technologies on yield gain, water saving and increase in water productivity
(WPI) over conventional practice in IGP of South Asia
Technologies
Cropping
System
Yield Gain
(%)
Water
Saving (%)
Increase in
WPI (%) References
Laser land levelling (LLL) Rice–wheat 12–15 15–20 25–30 Jat et al., () and Kakraliya et al. ()
LLL + ZT + Mulch + Site specific
nutrient management (SSNM)
Rice– wheat
7–9 17–30 21–38 Kakraliya et al. (2018)
Gathala et al. (2013), Kakraliya et al.
(2018)
ZT + Mulch Maize 8.4 72 281 Kumar et al., 2018
ZT + Mulch Wheat 15 – – Aryal et al. (2016)
Permanent beds (PBs)+Mulch Maize- wheat
38 83–85 270 Choudhary et al. (2018a
DSR + Mulch Rice 5–15 15–30 20–42 Gathala et al. (2013)
PBs + Mulch Maize- wheat 28–31 27–31 – Jat et al. (2018c)
SSNM Maize- wheat 13.4 – – Jat et al. (2018c)
Legumes inclusion (Mungbean) Rice-wheat 10–18 – – Jat et al. (2018a), Gathala et al. (2013)
Source - H.S jatl et al (2019) , CSSRI
36

37. • The role and importance of an integrated nutrient management system as a management
strategy can bring sustainability to the rice–wheat cropping system.
• The meta-analysis data points of rice and wheat during the period of 1989– 2016 revealed
that INM treatment over inorganic alone, organic alone, and control treatments was positive
on grain yield, both crop-wise as well as texture-wise.
• Net returns through INM were increased by 121% and 127% in rice and wheat, respectively,
compared to control.
• Conservation Agriculture for rice can be best done by SRI followed by transplanting as
shown bythe results given in table.
• In Wheat, zero tillage and residue management gives high yield with minimum cost.
Summary
37

38. • To conclude, the findings of the present
review suggested that INM with CA can be
one of the viable nutrient management
options in India, particularly for the rice–
wheat cropping system.
38

39. 39