Conservation agriculture: impact on soil health and crop production

Seminar-1
on
Conservation Agriculture: Scope and its
Impact on Soil health and Crop Production
Chethan babu R T
MA1TAH0271
UAHS Shivamogga
2

Sequence of Presentation
 Introduction
What is Conservation agriculture(CA) ?
Principles of CA
Benefits of CA on soil health and crop production
Scope of CA
Constraints for adoption of CA
Research studies
 Conclusion
3

INTRODUCTION
In India, out of total geographical area (329 m ha), about 147 m ha is
subjected to varying degree and forms of soil degradation.
 Extensive tillage operations will results in Soil degradation, enhances
organic matter decomposition, destruction of soil aggregates, soil
erosion and ultimately results in decline of soil productivity.
Hence, there is need of practices that will minimize the various soil
problems such as degradation of land, the concept of conservation
agriculture is being emerging as a solution to this problem.
Conservation agriculture is not only essential for sustainance of soil
productivity but is also essential to minimize the energy consumption in
agriculture.
4

What is Conservation Agriculture?
“A concept for resource-saving agricultural crop production
that strives to achieve acceptable profits together with high and
sustained production levels while concurrently conserving the
environment” (FAO 2007).
Conservation agriculture aims to conserve, improve and make
efficient use of natural resources through integrated
management of available soil, water and biological resources
combined with external inputs.
It contributes to environmental conservation as well as to
enhanced and sustained agricultural production. It can also be
referred as resource- efficient agriculture
5

Why Conservation Agriculture?
Population pressure & Unsustainable use of land
Severe land degradation and food insecurity
So, we have to produce more food from less land through more efficient use of
natural resources and minimum impact on environment.
6

Table 1. Soil degradation in India (147 m ha)
Form of degradation Area (m ha)
Water erosion 94
Acidification 16
Flooding 14
Wind erosion 9
Salinity 6
Combination of factors 7
Bhattacharyya et al. (2015)
7

Problems associated with conventional agriculture
Excessive soil
tillage
Run off losses
Soil erosion
Nutrient leaching
Residue burning
Loss of
microorganisms
Environmental
pollution
Nutrient losses
Emission of GHG
8

9
The effects of badly choosen tillage practices.

Table 2. Global adoption of conservation agriculture
systems
Country Area ( m ha ) % of Global area
USA 26.5 21.2
Brazil 25.5 20.4
Argentina 25.5 20.4
Australia 17.0 13.6
Canada 13.5 10.8
Russia 4.5 3.6
China 3.1 2.5
Paraguay 2.4 1.9
Kazakhstan 1.6 1.3
India 2.0
Total 180 100
Kassam et al. (2018) 10

Sl No. Conventional agriculture Conservation agriculture
1 Cultivating land, using science and
technology to dominate nature
Least interference with natural
processes
2 Excessive mechanical tillage No-till / reduced tillage
3 High wind and soil erosion Low wind and soil erosion
4 Burning or removal of residue Surface retention of residues
5 Mono cropping, less efficient crop rotations Diversified and more efficient rotations
6 Kills established weeds but stimulates more
weed seeds to germinate
Weeds are problem in early stages of
adoption but decrease with time
7 Free- wheeling of farm machinery Controlled use of heavy machinery
8 Increased soil compaction No compaction in crop area
9 Water infiltration is low Infiltration rate of water is high
10 Productivity grains in long run are declining
order
Productivity grains in long run are in
incremental order
11 Poor adoption to stresses, yield losses
greater under stress condition
More resilience to stresses, yield losses
are less under stress condition
Table 3.Comparison of conventional and conservation agriculture systems
Sharma et al. (2012) 11

Minimum
mechanical
soil disturbance
(the minimum soil
disturbance
necessary to sow the
1
CA is based on three principles (FAO, 2014)
Permanent organic
soil cover
(retention of adequate
levels of crop residues
on the soil surface)
2
Diversified crop rotations
including cover crops
(to help moderate possible
weed, disease and pest
problems)
3
12

13
Conservation agriculture practices includes

14
Minimum mechanical soil disturbance
Conservation tillage a)zero tillage
b)reduced tillage
c)minimum tillage
Direct sowing
Specialized equipments: laser levelling,
happy seeder etc.,

15
Permanent organic soil cover
Cover crops
Mulching
Brown manuring
Crop residue retention
Green manuring

16
Diversified Cropping systems
Intercropping Crop rotation

18
a) Inverted-T coulter, b) Indian no-till drill using inverted T, c) disk type planter, d)
star-wheel punch planter, e) Happy seeder, which picks up straw and blows it behind
the seeder, f) disk planter with trash mover.
Machinery for minimum tillage

Double disc drill Zero till seed cum fertilizer
drill
Roto till drill
Slit till dril 19

Machinery for residue management
Stubble shaver Rotary slasher
20

Benefits of conservation agriculture
22
15-20%
20-30%

25
Large-scale trial at the IITA in Nigeria found zero tillage required 52 MJ
energy and 2.3 hours labour per hectare compared to 235 MJ and 5.4 hours on
conventional tillage
Wijewardene (2000)
Use of pre and post-plant herbicides in no till in Ghana required only 15
percent of the time required for seedbed preparation than in weed control with a
handhoe.
while the reduction in labour days required in rice in Senegal was 53-60 percent
Findlay and Hutchinson (1999)

26
Scope of Conservation agriculture
To regenerate the degraded lands
To improve soil biological processes
To recycle the crop residues
To conserve soil and water
Mechanization in CA
To improve resource use efficiency
To increase the yields
To reduce the cost of production

Constraints for adoption of conservation agriculture
1. Lack of appropriate seeders especially for small
and medium scale farmers
2. Mindset of farming community
3. Wide spread use of crop residues for livestock
feed and fuel
4. Lack of knowledge on recycling of crop residues
5. Lack of knowledge about potential of CA to
agriculture leaders, extension agents and
progressive farmers
6. Lack Skilled and scientific manpower
27

Effect of conservation agriculture practices on soil
physical properties 29

(a) (b)
(c)
Fig.1: Effect of laser levelling and residue on soil moisture content (a) initial, (b)90 DAS
and (c) harvest, at 0-15, 15-30 soil depths
Rajkumar et al. (2018)
Saline vertisols
Gangavathi , Koppal
Treatment details:
T1- Control (Farmer's Practice)
T2- zero tillage with 100% previous crop residue retained
T3- zero tillage in 100% previous crop residue removed
T5- laser levelling with zero tillage and 100% previous crop
residue retained
residue retained
residue removed
T8- laser levelling with farmer's practice
30

Singh et al. (2016)
Modipuram Sandy loam
Fig. 2: Steady-state soil water infiltration rate (cm hr-1) as influenced by tillage and crop
establishment techniques and residue management at maize harvest

Treatments Soil bulk density (mg m-3)
Tillage and crop establishment
Conventional tillage-raised bed 1.57
Conventional tillage-flat bed 1.57
Zero tillage-raised bed 1.59
Zero tillage-flat bed 1.61
CD(P=0.05) 0.02
Residue management
No residue 1.63
Wheat residue 1.57
Pigeon pea residue 1.58
Pigeon pea + wheat residue 1.56
CD (P=0.05) 0.02
Table 4. Bulk density of soil influenced by tillage, crop establishment
and residue management practices (pooled data over 4 years)
Seema et al.(2014)
Inceptisol
IARI, New Delhi 32

Table 5: Effect of tillage and crop establishment techniques on soil
aggregates (>0.25mm) in the rice-wheat cropping system
Tillage and crop establishment
methods
Soil aggregates (>0.25mm)
2005-06 2006-07
Rice Wheat Rice Wheat
PTR-CTW 51 bb 52 c 51 c 52 c
ZTDSR-ZTW 64 a 65 a 68 a 70 a
CTDSR-CTW 59 ab 60 b 60 b 59 b
BDSR-PBW 61 a 64 a 67 a 69 a
PTR-CTW: conventional puddled-transplanted rice and conventional-tillage wheat
ZTDSR-ZTW: zero-till direct drill-seeded rice and wheat after no tillage
CTDSR-CTW: conventional-till direct drill-seeded rice and wheat after conventional tillage
BDSR-PBW: direct drill-seeded rice and wheat on permanent raised beds
Uttar Pradesh Sandy loam Jat et al. (2009) 33

Treatment Infiltration rate (cm hr-1) Cumulative infiltration
(cm)
Tillage practices
No tillage 9.23a 499.31a
Reduced tillage 4.67b 265.67b
Mould board tillage 7.20a 226.48b
Conventional tillage 1.37c 65.69c
Table 6: Effect of different tillage methods on soil infiltration
characteristics
Hati et al. (2006)
Bhopal Deep heavy clay

Table 7 . Total porosity (%) and MWHC (%) influenced by tillage
practices and land configuration methods
Treatment Total porosity (%) MWHC (%)
CT-Flat 45.4 44.8
CT-FIRB 44.1 52.4
CT- Permanent FIRB 41.5 51.3
MT-Flat 45.7 53.3
MT-FIRB 47.2 57.5
MT- Permanent FIRB 44.6 52.0
Zero tillage 48.1 58.2
SEd± 0.85 1.6
C.D. (P=0.05) 2.1 3.1
Sathiyabama et al. (2014)
Tamil Nadu
CT: Conventional tillage, MT: Minimum tillage, FIRB: Furrow irrigated raised bed
35

Effect of conservation agriculture practices on soil chemical
properties 36

Fig. 3. Effect of laser levelling, zero tillage and residue on soil salinity
at (a) 0-15 cm,(b) 15-30 cm,(c) 30-45 cm depth
Saline vertisols
Gangavathi , Koppal
residue retained
residue retained
residue removed
T8- laser levelling with farmers practice
37
(a) (b)
(c)

Tillage systems SOC (%)
0-15 cm 15-30 cm
CT1-No tillage with BBF and crop residue retained on the
surface
0.62ab 0.56a
CT2-Minimum tillage with BBF and incorporation of crop
residue
0.64a 0.56a
CT3 -No tillage with Flat bed and crop residue retained on the
surface
0.60b 0.54a
CT4 –Minimum tillage with Flat bed and incorporation of
crop residue
0.62ab 0.55a
CT5-Conventional tillage with crop residue incorporation 0.56c 0.48b
CT6-Conventional tillage without crop residue 0.48d 0.39c
S.Em. ± 0.01 0.01
Table 8. Soil organic carbon as influenced by different
conservation agricultural practices(pooled data 2014-15)
Naveenkumar and Babalad (2018)
Vertic inceptisol
Dharwad 38

Fig.4: Soil carbon sequestration (t ha-1) as influenced by conservation
agricultural practices during 2014 and 2015
Vertic inceptisol
Dharwad
Treatment details
CT1 : NT with BBF and crop residue retained on the surface
CT2 : RT with BBF and incorporation of crop residue
CT3 : NT with flat bed and crop residue retained on the surface
CT4 : RT with flat bed and incorporation of crop residue
CT5 :Conventional tillage with crop residue incorporation
CT6 :Conventional tillage without crop residue
39

Table 9. Soil chemical properties under tillage practices and land
configuration methods in cotton - maize cropping sequence
Treatment OC
(%)
Available nutrients (kg ha-1 )
N P K
CT-Flat 0.70 252 23.1 722
CT-FIRB 0.68 235 23.4 705
CT- Permanent FIRB 0.61 232 20.1 763
MT-Flat 0.66 252 22.3 788
MT-FIRB 0.78 221 24.2 754
MT- Permanent FIRB 0.72 202 24.2 746
Zero tillage 0.88 260 26.2 812
S.Em± 0.07 11 NS 18
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.15 23 38
Tamil Nadu
40

Tillage
system
N
(kg ha-1)
P
(kg ha-1)
K
(kg ha-1)
S
(kg ha-1)
Fe
(kg ha-1)
Mn
(kg ha-1)
Zn
(kg ha-1)
Cu
(kg ha-1)
ZT (0-5 cm) 168.94 78.37 327.65 211.45 18.69 9.98 4.07 1.65
ZT (5-15cm) 142.63 42.12 230.26 191.56 15.65 8.89 2.58 1.28
CT (0-5cm) 148.23 58.63 254.34 100.41 5.45 6.28 3.62 1.18
CT (5-15cm) 132.28 46.98 274.98 88.62 3.86 5.36 1.98 1.58
Table 10. Effect of tillage systems on soil nutrient status
Usha et al. (2018)
Haryana Sandy loam
41

Effect of conservation agriculture practices on soil
biological properties
42

CT1-No tillage with BBF and crop residue retained on the surface
CT2-Minimum tillage with BBF and incorporation of crop residue
CT3 -No tillage with Flat bed and crop residue retained on the surface
CT4 –Minimum tillage with Flat bed and incorporation of crop residue
CT5-Conventional tillage with crop residue incorporation
CT6-Conventional tillage without crop residue
Treatment details
Table 11: Soil microbial biomass carbon, soil microbial biomass nitrogen, soil
urease activity, soil dehydrogenase activity and total phosphatase activity as
influenced by different conservation agricultural practices (pooled data of 2
years) under pigeonpea+soybean cropping system
Naveenkumar and Babalad (2018 )
Vertic inceptisol
Dharwad 43

Tillage
system
SMBC
(mg kg soil-1)
SMBN
(mg kg soil-1)
SUA
( µg NH4-N
g-1 day-1)
SDA
(µg TPF g-1
day-1)
TPA
(µg PNP g-1
hr-1)
CT1 364.00a 14.97a 11.76a 32.29a 173.21a
CT2 355.20a 14.60a 11.86a 32.29a 174.55a
CT3 327.20a 13.43a 11.10b 31.14b 170.09b
CT4 362.00a 14.88a 11.44a 31.55ab 173.21a
CT5 325.47a 13.36a 11.12ab 29.70c 160.42c
CT6 294.00b 12.05b 11.39b 27.43d 154.32d
S.Em. ± 35.25 1.47 0.27 0.34 0.82
Table 11. Soil microbial biomass carbon, soil microbial biomass nitrogen, soil
urease activity, soil dehydrogenase activity and total phosphatase activity as
influenced by different conservation agricultural practices (pooled data of 2
years) under pigeonpea+soybean cropping system
Vertic inceptisol
Dharwad 44

Treatment Bacteria
(cfu × 10-6)
g soil-1
Fungi
(cfu × 10-4)
g soil-1
Actinomycetes
(cfu × 10-3)
g soil-1
Soil dehydrogenase
activity
(mg TPF kg-124 hr-1)
CT-Flat 52 25 10 77.0
CT-FIRB 58 25 11 85.4
CT- Permanent
FIRB
52 27 13 81.8
MT-Flat 54 23 12 83.3
MT-FIRB 63 29 15 92.0
MT- Permanent
FIRB
55 24 10 85.2
Zero tillage 74 35 21 101.8
S.Em.± 3 1.4 1.1 3.1
C.D. (P=0.05) 6 3 2 6.3
Tamil Nadu
Table 12. Soil biological properties under different tillage practices and land
configuration methods in cotton - maize cropping sequence
45

46
Table 13 . Effect of tillage treatments and residue management
on earthworm population
Residue
management
No tillage Reduced tillage Conventional
tillage
Residue retention 17 14 4
Residue burning 8 7 4
Chan and Heenan (2003 )
Australia

47
Fig.5. Population size of root nodule bacteria under zero tillage (left) and conventional
tillage (right) with different crop rotations [S=soya; W=wheat; M=maize]
Voss and Sidirias (2000)
Brazil

Effect of conservation agriculture practices on crop
growth and yield parameters
48

Treatments No. of
seeds in
5 plants
Spike
length(cm)
Plant
height(cm)
No. of
tillers per
m2
Grain yield
(kg ha-1)
Straw
yield
(kg ha-1)
T1 232 6.3 58.7 320 1850 1955
T2 240 7.5 66.1 360 2040 2320
T3 223 6.4 58.8 327 1880 2100
T4 237 6.9 59.6 333 1890 2220
T5 278 7.8 71.5 431 2450 2756
T6 255 7.6 70.5 423 2340 2654
T7 240 7.5 68.2 329 2130 2365
T8 245 7.5 66.7 333 2010 2218
SE.m± 8.65 0.25 1.94 15.30 34.12 36.25
CD @ 5% 33.54 0.86 5.65 48.45 112.25 120.50
Table 14. Effect of precision land levelling, zero tillage and
residue on wheat growth parameters (Pooled data of three years)
Medium black clay
Gangavathi, Koppal 49
Treatments details:
residue retained
residue retained
residue removed
T8- laser levelling with farmer's practice

Treatment Pigeon pea Wheat
Pods plant-1 Seeds plant-1 Seed index Spikes m-2 Grains spike-1 TW(g)
Tillage and crop establishment methods
CT-B 154.7 3.4 73.9 408.0 42.8 39.3
CT-F 149.2 3.2 73.5 424.9 45.2 41.6
ZT-B 155.6 3.6 74.3 412.8 44.8 40.6
ZT-F 153.2 3.4 73.5 429.0 47.0 42.9
SE.m± 1.3 0.1 2.1 1.1 0.6 0.7
CD(P=0.05) 4.4 NS NS 3.8 1.7 NS
Residue management (3 tonnes/ha)
No residue 137.2 2.5 70.2 323.8 38.1 34.3
Wheat 151.5 3.5 73.0 411.6 43.8 40.8
Pigeonpea 160.2 3.7 75.3 457.3 47.6 43.1
PP +wheat 163.7 3.9 76.8 481.9 50.2 46.2
SE.m± 0.9 0.1 0.9 1.0 0.3 0.5
CD(P=0.05) 2.7 0.3 2.5 3.0 0.9 1.7
Table 15 . Yield attributes of PP and wheat as influenced by tillage, crop
establishment and residue management practices (data pooled over 4 years)
Seema et al. (2015)
Sandy loam
IARI, New Delhi 50

Location ZT CT Gain%
Punjab (Ludhiana) 4.08 3.88 5.1
Haryana(Kaul) 4.76 4.66 2.0
Uttaranchal(Pant) 4.50 4.11 9.5
W UP(Meerut) 4.97 5.07 10.3
E UP(Faizabad) 3.91 3.61 8.7
E UP(Varanasi) 3.06 2.26 26.1
Bihar (Patna) 3.62 3.29 9.9
MP 4.84 4.60 5.2
IGP 3.98 3.74 6.4
E IGP 3.54 3.09 14.8
Table 16. On-station yield of wheat (t ha-1) under ZT and CT in research
centres of different regions of the Indian IGP and MP
Singh et al. (2017)
51
Ludhiana

Table 17. Grain yield and straw yield of wheat under conservation and
conventional agriculture practices in rice - wheat system
Treatment Grain yield (t ha-1) Straw yield (t ha-1)
NT – NT1 4.00c ± 0.18 5.95c ± 0.25
NT – NT2 4.64ab ± 0.15 6.89ab ± 0.21
NT - NT3 5.02a ± 0.15 7.52a ± 0.22
CT - NT 4.40bc ± 0.20 6.54bc ± 0.32
CT - CT 4.22bc ± 0.07 6.27bc ± 0.10
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.015 0.012
Treatment details
NT – NT1: Direct-seeded rice (DSR) – No-tilled wheat (NTW)
NT – NT2 : DSR + brown manuring - NTW
NT - NT3 : DSR + mungbean residue – NTW + rice residue – relay mungbean
CT – NT : Puddled-transplanted rice (PTR) -NTW
CT – CT : PTR- Conventionally tilled wheat
Mondal et al. (2019)
IARI, New Delhi Clay loam 52

Table 18. Yield of Kharif and rabi crops as influenced by different conservation
tillage practices during 2016-17
Treatments Groundnut
dry pod
( kg ha-1 )
Soybean
( kg ha-1 )
Maize
( kg ha-1 )
Sorghum
( kg ha-1 )
Wheat
( kg ha-1 )
Chickpea
( kg ha-1 )
CT1 3331a 1997 a 7542 a 1023 a 797 a 537 a
CT2 3215 ab 1881 ab 7178 bc 966 b 748 ab 501 a-c
CT3 3297 ab 1920 ab 7388 ab 1001 ab 775 a 520 ab
CT4 3184 b 1839 b 7083 c 957 b 730 ab 487 bc
CT5 3221 ab 1968 a 7458 ab 900 c 695 bc 469 cd
CT6 2835 c 1640 c 6659 d 743 d 631 c 439 d
S.Em. ± 36.0 36.1 87.0 13.6 21.8 12.3
CT1: No tillage with BBF and crop residues retained on the surface
CT2: Reduced tillage with BBF and incorporation of crop residues
CT3: No tillage with flat bed with crop residues retained on the surface
CT4: Reduced tillage with flat bed with incorporation of crop residues
CT5: Conventional tillage with crop residues incorporation
CT6: Conventional tillage (no crop residues)
Prabhamani and Babalad (2018)
Dharwad 53

Treatments FM PP
Grain yield
( kg ha-1 )
Straw
( kg ha-1 )
seed yield
( kg ha-1 )
Straw
( kg ha-1 )
T1 : Mulching with maize residue at 2.5 t ha-1 3,621 6288 223 947
T2 : Mulching with maize residue at 5 t ha-1 3,744 6657 241 889
T3 : Repeated inter-cultivation ( 3 times) 3,292 5362 185 761
T4 : Green leaf manuring at 10 t ha-1 3,740 6548 251 926
T5 : Tank silt at 10 Mt ha-1 3,734 5790 244 905
T6 : T4 + T1 3,981 7111 273 967
T7 : T5 + T1 3,765 6493 264 967
T8 : T4 + T3 3,760 6185 260 947
T9: T5 + T3 3,765 6670 252 967
T10 : Control ( recommended practices) 3,024 5200 146 741
S.Em. ± 132.78 406.68 4.10 35.12
C.D. ( P= 0.05) 394.51 1208.30 12.30 105.36
Table 19. Effect of moisture conservation practices on yield of Fingermillet+Pigeonpea
Reddy et al. (2015)
Red sandy loam
Bengaluru
54

Table 20. Effect of tillage and mulches on total weed density
under direct seeded upland rice
Treatments Total weeds density(weeds m-2 )
20 DAS 40 DAS 60 DAS 80 DAS
Tillage
CT-RI 98.0 168.1 118.7 89.0
NT-RR 81.7 160.7 107.7 75.5
SEm± 0.4 0.2 1.0 1.6
LSD(p=0.05) 2.6 1.1 6.1 9.6
Mulches
SM 80.0 166.5 126.2 79.5
GM 92.0 181.8 94.0 74.0
BM 76.0 157.5 72.5 61.0
NM 213.7 320.3 273.8 231.5
SEm± 2.4 3.2 2.3 1.7
LSD(p=0.05) 7.0 9.7 6.9 5.1
CT-conventional tillage; NT-no-till; RI-100% residue incorporation; RR-residue retention; SM-straw
mulch; GM-gliricidea mulch; BM-brown manuring; NM-no mulch
Yadav et al. (2018)
Tripura Sandy loam 55

56
Effect of conservation agriculture on resource
conservation

Soil losses (t/ha/year) Runoff losses (mm/ha/year)
CT ZT
Difference
(%)
CT ZT
Difference
%
Parana (southern
Brazil)
12 years of wheat-
soybean rotation
26.4 3.3 87 666 225 66
Cerrados (central
Brazil)
Soybean 4.8 0.9 81 206 120 42
Maize 3-3.4 2.4 20-29 252-318 171 32-41
Table 21 : Losses of soil and water under conventional tillage (CT) and
residue-based zero tillage (ZT)
Saturnino and Landers, (1997) 57
Brazil

58
Particulars Conventional
agriculture
Conservation
agriculture
Water loss (% of rain) 39.8 21.9
Soil loss (t ha-1 yr-1) 7.2 3.5
Grain yield of maize (kg ha-1 ) 1570 2000
Grain yield of wheat after maize (kg ha-1 ) 950 1700
Wheat equivalent yield (kg ha-1 ) 2320 3407
Moisture conservation for wheat (mm)
compared to fallow
28.1 58.5
Table 22. Impact of conservation agriculture on crop productivity and
conservation efficiency on a land
Ghosh et al. (2015)
Dehradun
Conventional agriculture (CT) : 100:60:40 N :P2O5:K2O kg ha-1 conventional
tillage(CT) chemical weeding
Conservation agriculture (CA) : Farmyard manure( FYM 5 t ha-1), vermicompost
(1.0 t ha-1), poultry manure (2.5 t ha-1), minimum tillage (MT) weed mulch (20,40
and 60 days after sowing), Palmarosa ( Cymbopogon martini) as vegetation strips

59
Table 23 . Effect of precision land leveling, zero tillage and residue
on total quantity of irrigation applied (Pooled data of three years)
Treatments Total irrigation
applied
(m3 ha-1 )
Water saving (%)
over control
Water
productivity
(kg grain m-3
water)
T1
5300 - 0.35
T2
5064 4.47 0.40
T3
4964 6.36 0.38
T4
5059 4.57 0.37
T5 4544 14.28 0.54
T6
4617 12.89 0.51
T7
4643 12.40 0.46
T8
4619 12.85 0.44
SE.m± 52.12 0.85 0.12
CD @ 5% 160.25 2.15 0.35
Medium black clay
Gangavathi ,Koppal
residue retained
residue retained
residue removed
T8- laser levelling with farmers practice

60
Treatment Emergence
( 7 DAS)
Tillering
(45 DAS)
Flowering (75
DAS)
Harvesting (120
DAS)
2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013
Tillage
CT-RI 110.3 124.7 132.0 149.8 149.8 155.2 155.3 161.0
NT-RR 122.1 134.1 150.2 164.4 160.3 172.0 171.6 172.0
SEm± 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.4 1.2
LSD (p=0.05) 2.4 3.6 3.6 3.3 4.2 3.4 2.2 7.0
Mulches
Straw mulch 122.3 125.7 141.5 161.8 153.0 168.3 167.6 165.1
Gliricydia 122.5 133.4 150.4 163.3 163.0 169.7 170.5 174.3
Brownmanuring 120.9 134.0 140.1 158.3 159.8 164.8 164.6 171.4
No mulch 109.0 124.4 132.3 145.0 143.5 151.5 151.1 155.2
SEm± 1.5 1.8 1.9 3.3 2.6 3.4 3.6 2.7
LSD(p=0.05) 4.5 5.5 5.7 10.3 7.9 10.4 11.2 8.2
Table 24. Effect of tillage and mulches on soil profile moisture at different stages
under DSR
Yadav et al.(2018)
Tripura Sandy loam

Location Establishment
method
Seasonal total
emission
(kg CH4 ha-1)
% change
from TPR
Korea CT-TPR 402
ZT-dry seeding 258 -36
Akasaka (Japan) CT-TPR 159
Suimon (Japan) CT-TPR 271
Sanyoh (Japan) CT-TPR 330
Pantnagar CT-TPR 315
Table 25: Methane emission from various tillage and rice
establishment methods in Asia
Singh et al. (2017)
Asia 61

Effect of conservation agricultural practices on
Economics
62

63
Treatment Grain yield
(t ha-1 )
Stover
yield
(t ha-1 )
COC
(₹ ha-1 )
Net returns
(₹ ha-1 )
B:C
Tillage system
CT 4.82 5.85 25000 41200 1.6
CT+residue 5.02 6.07 28000 40700 1.6
ZT 4.10 5.33 20000 36300 1.5
ZT+residue 5.35 6.31 23000 49800 1.7
Intercropping system
Sole maize 4.97 6.14 20000 43000 1.5
M + GN(1:1) 4.85 6.00 24000 41100 1.6
M + GN(1:2) 4.64 5.33 25000 41900 1.7
Table 26. Effect of tillage and intercropping on yield and
economics of maize during 2010-2012
Seema et al. (2019)
IARI, New Delhi

64
Table 27. Effect of conservation agriculture on net returns
Practice COC
(€ ha-1)
Gross returns
(€ ha-1)
Net returns
(€ ha-1)
maize wheat maize wheat maize wheat
CT 11178 11385 13179 16491 1656 5106
CA 13248 14007 18906 30360 -1311 16353
Ghosh et al. (2015)
Dehradun
Conventional agriculture (CT) : 100:60:40 N :P2O5:K2O kg ha-1 conventional
tillage(CT) chemical weeding
Conservation agriculture (CA) : Farmyard manure( FYM 5 t ha-1), vermicompost
(1.0 t ha-1), poultry manure (2.5 t ha-1), minimum tillage (MT) weed mulch (20,40
and 60 days after sowing), Palmarosa ( Cymbopogon martini) as vegetation strips

Challenges in CA
Understanding the system
Building a system and farming system perspective
Technological challenges
Site specificity
Long term research perspective
65

The technologies of CA such as,
 Conservation tillage slow down the OM decomposition and
reduces the loss C into atmosphere also reduces the cost of
production
 Residue retention, cover crops, mulching, brown manuring
reduces the evaporation losses and provides opportunity time for
infiltration of water
 Effective crop rotations and intercropping maintains the soil
fertility besides reduces the incidence of pest, diseases and weeds
 Conservation agriculture helps to maintain soil health and
sustainable yields with protecting the environment
66

68
THE OLD PROTECTING
THE YOUNG

Conservation agriculture: impact on soil health and crop production

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Conservation agriculture: impact on soil health and crop production

Similar to Conservation agriculture: impact on soil health and crop production (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Conservation agriculture: impact on soil health and crop production

Editor's Notes