Role of conservation agriculture under climate change scenario

1. JINENDRA BIRLA
M.Sc. (Agri.) Agronomy
Sardarkrushinagar Dantiwada Agricultural University Gujarat
Role of conservation agriculture under
climate change scenario

2.  Climate Change
 Indian scenario
 Indian Agriculture
 Conservation Agriculture
 Management Option for conservation agriculture
 Tillage practices
 Crop residue incorporation
 Land configuration
 In situ moisture conservation
 Mulches
 System of rice intensification
 Conclusion

3. INTRODUCTION
* Occupies – 2.45 %of worlds area
- 4.0% of water resources
* Supports - 16.2% of world’s population
- 15% of livestock
• Diverse physiographic features – Himalayas
coastal areas, northern plains, peninsular plateau
and islands
* Dominating feature of climate – Monsoon
* Endowed with varied climate, biodiversity and
ecological regions (forest covers – 676 thousand
sq.km)
•2/3rd population depends on climatic sectors.
•Per capita water availability in India – 2200 CUM /person
* Agricultural land – 61% of total land area
* CO2 emissions – 1.2 t/capita
* Energy use – 509 kg of oil equivalent per capita
* GDP growth – 9% annually (Av.)
* Food Production growth falling/stagnating – A
concern climate change
Diverse natural conditions,
high population, limited
natural resources
1

4. Climate Change
Climate change refers to any change in climate
elements like temperature, precipitation,
atmospheric gases, solar radiation, etc., over a
time, whether due to natural variability or as a
result of human activity.
2

5. (IPCC, 2007)
Climate change is any change in climate
over time that is attributed directly or indirectly to
human activity that alters the composition of
global atmosphere in addition to natural climate
variability observed over comparable time
periods.
3

6. Climate Change: Indian Scenario
Rainfall
No long term trend noted. Regional variations
seen, increase in summer rainfall and
decrease in number of rainy days
Temperature
Extreme
events
CO2
Glaciers
Sea level rise
0.60C rise in temperature during 100 years.
Projected increase 3.50 to 50C by 2100
Increasing @ 1.9 ppm per year and expected
to reach 550 ppm by 2050 and 700 ppm by
2100
Increased frequency of heat wave, cold wave,
droughts and floods observed during last
decade
Sea level risen 10-25 cm, to rise 50 cm by 2100
Retreating noted in Himalayas
4

7. Climate change-Indian Agriculture
Productivity of most of the cereals would decrease due to
increase in temperature
Reports indicates a probable loss of 10-40% in crop
production by 2100 AD
Increased floods and droughts are likely to increase
production variability
Increased temperature would increase fertilizer
requirement for the same production targets (IPCC, 2007)
5

8. Climate Change: Impact on Agriculture
 Increase in temperature (1.4-6.1 0C)
 Widespread runoff
 Reduction in first water availability
 Droughts
 Increased frequency of diseases and insect pest attacks; and
vanishing habitats of plant and animals
 Adverse impact on coastal agriculture due to rise in sea
levels (17.5-57.5cm) and sea-water intrusion by 2100 and
another 10-20 cm rise if polar ice melting continues
(IPCC, 2007)6

9. • Rice is an important food crop in India. The maximum CH4
emission is from rice fields
• In rice-wheat system, zero tillage has a direct mitigation effect.
• Keep the rice fields moist rather than flooded
• Minimize anaerobic conditions
• Use of zymogenic bacteria, methanogens, nitrifiers and
denitrifiers in rice, which will help in maintaining the soil redox
potential in a range where both NO2 and CH4 emissions are low
Mitigation of the Impacts of Climate Change
7

10. • Crop residue management has the potential to mitigate
effects of climate change
• Application of mulching on soil which minimize the soil
moisture loss
• Land configuration, land leveling to reduced water logging
• Improved management of livestock population and its diet
could also assist in mitigation of GHGs
8

11. Management options for conservation agriculture
Tillage Practices
Crop residues management
Land configuration
In-Situ moisture conservation
Mulches
System of rice intensification (SRI)
9

12. The term “Conservation Agriculture” (CA)
refers to the system of raising crops without tilling the
soil while retaining crop residues on the surface. Land
preparation through precision land leveling and bed
and furrow configuration for planting crops further
enables improved resource management.
Conservation Agriculture
10

13. The FAO has characterized CA as above
Conservation agriculture maintains a permanent or
semi-permanent organic soil cover. This can be a growing
crop or dead mulch. Its function is to protect the soil
physically from sun, rain and wind and to feed soil biota.
The soil micro-organisms and soil fauna take over the
tillage function and soil nutrient balancing. Mechanical
tillage disturbs this process. Therefore, zero or minimum
tillage and direct seeding are important elements of CA. A
varied crop rotation is also important to avoid disease and
pest problems.
11

14. Conservation Agriculture
Conservation Agriculture (CA) enhances productivity of
resource use; thus offers opportunities for climate change
adaptation and mitigation solutions while improving food
security through sustainable production intensification.
Conservation Agriculture also contributes to adaptation
to climate change by reducing crop vulnerability.
12

15. The key features which characterize CA
Minimum soil disturbance by adopting no-tillage and
minimum traffic for agricultural operations
Leave and manage the crop residues on the soil
surface
Maximum benefits from input and minimize adverse
environmental impacts
13

16. Tillage
Practices
14

17. Table 1. Effect of planting techniques on grain and straw
yield of wheat
Treatments Grain yield (kg/ha) Straw yield (kg/ha)
2004-05 2005-06 2004-05 2005-06
CT 4454 4156 6670 6148
Zero till sowing 4518 4238 6761 6325
ZT Sowing (in standing
stubbles)
4885 4637 7148 6759
ZT sowing after partial
burning
4806 4586 7016 6921
Bed planting 4634 4383 6767 6346
CD(P=0.05) 282 338 NS 581
PAU, Ludhiana Brar and Walia (2007)
CT = Conventional Till, ZT = Zero Till Soil – Loamy Sand
15

18. Table 2. Effect of tillage practices on yield of groundnut
Treatments Pod yield (kg/ha) Haulm yield (kg/ha)
CT (cultivator + blade
harrowing)
862 1828
Ploughing followed by CT 914 1913
Tillage through rotavator 852 1751
CT +subsoiling between rows 902 1900
CT + broad bed and furrow 1,078 2035
No tillage 709 1652
CD (P=0.05) 171 234
JAU, Junagadh Anonymous (2008)
CT=Convetnional tillage Soil - Medium Black
16

19. Table 3. Effect of tillage on yield and economics of wheat
Treatments Grain yield (t/ha) Biological yield
(t/ha)
Net returns
(Rs/ha)
2003-04 2004-05 2003-04 2004-05 2003-04 2004-05
ZT 3.48 3.36 7.86 8.05 17,683 20,073
CT 3.66 3.76 8.10 8.27 16,696 18,800
SEm+ 0.04 0.05 0.28 0.05 - -
CD(P=0.05
)
NS NS NS NS - -
SKUAS, J&K Gupta et al. (2011)
Soil - Sandy clay loam
ZT = Zero Tillage, CT = Conventional tillage
17

20. Table 4. Total productivity, water productivity, economics of rice –
wheat system as affected by tillage in wheat
Tillage and
sowing methods
Rice
EY
(t/ha)
Water
productivity
(kg/ha/cm)
Production
efficiency
(kg/ha/day)
Net
return
(Rs/ha)
BCR
Conventional till
sowing
11.15 64.14 44.87 44,509 2.7
Zero tillage till
sowing
11.08 62.16 43.26 45,695 3.0
Strip till sowing 11.88 67.87 47.26 49,116 3.2
Bed planting 10.65 61.83 41.34 42,037 2.9
SEm+ 0.01 0.7 0.8 623 -
CD(P=0.05) 0.05 2.1 2.5 1,871 -
JNKVV, Jabalpur (M.P.) Jha et al. (2011)
Soil – Sandy Clay Loam
18

21. Table 5. Yield of rice and wheat with different tillage
Jabalpur, (M. P.) Mishra and Singh (2012)
Soil – Clay loam
ZT = Zero Tillage, CT = Conventional tillage
Treatments Grain yield (t/ha)
Rice Wheat Wheat equivalent yield
2006 2007 2008 Mean 2006 2007 2008 Mean 2006 2007 2008 Mean
ZT-ZT 1.06 1.84 2.94 1.95 2.73 3.72 4.45 3.63 3.56 5.17 6.77 5.17
ZT-CT 1.06 2.16 2.59 1.94 1.85 3.92 3.62 3.13 2.69 5.62 5.67 4.66
CT-ZT 1.31 2.10 2.47 1.96 2.37 3.98 3.31 3.22 3.40 5.64 5.25 4.77
CT-CT 1.31 2.26 2.35 1.97 1.91 3.80 3.86 3.13 2.94 5.58 5.71 4.74
SEm+ 0.08 0.14 0.22 0.09 0.09 0.02 0.15 0.17 0.17
CD (P=0.05) 0.24 0.40 0.65 0.26 NS 0.55 0.47 NS 0.51
19

22. Table 6. Economics of wheat under different tillage techniques
Treatments Net income
(US$ ha−1)
BCR
Conventional tillage 444.0 1.71
Reduced tillage 534.0 1.93
Rotavator tillage 523.7 1.93
Raised bed planting 441.5 1.73
Zero-till seeding of wheat 590.3 2.07
SVPUA&T, U. P. Kumar et al. (2013)
Soil -Sandy Loam
20

23. Soil depth
(cm)
Soil organic carbon (kg/cm2)
Conventional Tillage No Tillage
M0 M1 M0 M1
0-5 11.01 12.12 12.73 14.23
5-10 8.53 10.83 10.08 10.94
10-15 7.13 9.26 10.11 8.06
15-30 4.63 5.73 5.80 4.82
30-50 4.43 4.90 4.69 3.99
0-50 7.15 8.57 7.81 8.68
Table 7. SOC affected by interaction of tillage x crop residue
management on different soil depth
Gangtok, Sikkim Patle et al. (2013)
M0 = No crop residue, M1 = Crop residue @4 t/ha Soil- Clay loam soil
21

24. Table 8. Effect of tillage on yield and economics of rice–wheat
system (pooled data of 2 year)
Treatments Grain yield (t/ha) Straw yield (t/ha) Net return
(×103 Rs/ha)
BCR
Rice Wheat Rice Wheat
ZT-ZT 1.40 2.50 2.07 4.52 20.0 0.77
ZT-CT 1.81 2.84 2.62 5.28 28.5 1.03
CT-ZT 1.78 2.48 2.60 4.55 22.4 0.80
CT-CT 1.96 2.85 2.86 5.26 28.4 1.00
SEm± 0.08 0.06 0.12 0.14 1.8 0.06
CD (P=0.05) 0.25 0.20 0.38 0.45 5.7 0.18
BAU (Ranchi) Upasani et al. (2014)
Soil-Sandy loam
22

25. Crop
Residues
Incorporation
23

26. Table 9. Effect of short duration legumes on yield and
economics of succeeding finger millet (mean of 2000-
01 and 2002-03)
Treatment Grain yield
(kg ha-1)
Straw yield
(kg ha-1)
Net returns
(Rs ha-1)
BCR
M1 2315 3897 7386 2.54
M2 2640 4268 8950 2.84
M3 2270 3910 6820 2.39
M4 2430 4051 7820 2.64
M5 1680 3339 5807 2.30
CD (P=0.05) 243 286 - -
TNAU, Coimbatore Soil – Clay Loam Ramamoorthy et al. (2004)
M1=Cowpea for fodder after harvest for vegetable purpose
M2= Cowpea for incorporation after harvest for vegetable purpose
M3= Greengram for fodder after harvest for grain purpose
M4= Greengram for incorporation after harvest for grain purpose
M5= Fallow 24

27. Table 10. Grain yield and economics of rice as influenced by crop
residue incorporation
Treatments Grain yield
(kg /ha)
Straw yield
(kg /ha)
Net returns
(Rs /ha)
BCR
2002
-03
2003
-04
2002
-03
2003
-04
2002
-03
2003
-04
2002
-03
2003
-04
Incorporation of
greengram residues
3936 3574 5641 5537 31783 29170 2.07 1.91
Incorporation of
clusterbean residues
4357 4142 6342 6242 35254 33674 2.31 2.21
Incorporation of
fieldbean residues
5342 5326 7547 7506 43054 42911 2.83 2.82
Incorporation of
cowpea residues
5020 4698 6946 6850 40348 38022 2.65 2.49
SEm+ 101 108 187 173 639 612 0.06 0.04
CD(P=0.05) 248 265 458 425 1564 1498 0.14 0.11
Tirupati (A. P) Kumari and Reddy (2009)
Soil – Sandy clay loam 25

28. Table 11. Yield of toria under conservation tillage
Umiam, Meghalaya Soil – Acidic Saha and Ghosh (2012)
Residue management
treatments
Total dry matter
(kg/ha)
Seed yield (kg/ha)
M0 2080 323
M1 9222 1552
M2 12720 2240
M3 11374 1904
LSD (P = 0.05) 1232.8 376.2
M0 : No residue
M1 : Maize stalk cover (MSC)
M2 : MSC + Ambrossia sp. @ 10 tonnes/ha
M3 : MSC + FYM @ 10 tonnes/ha 26

29. Treatments
PMEY
(q/ha)
Gross
Return
(Rs/ha)
Cost of
Cultivation
(Rs/ha)
NR
(Rs/ha)
M1: No mulch 153.9 1,84,691 60,468 1,24,223
M2: Mulch/Residue
incorporation
168.1 2,01,730 67,293 1,34,437
CD at 5% 5.9 7,080 -- --
AGRESCO Report AICRP-IFS, SDAU Annual Report (2013)
Table 12. Management of cropping system for resource
conservation and climate change at S.K. Nagar
27

30. Land
configuration
28

31. Table 13. Effect of ridge planting on yield of different crops
grown on vertisols
Crops Slope Grain yield (kg/ha)
Ridge Flat % increase
Maize 0.3 3376 1601 106
0.6 3247 1704 88
1.2 3644 1601 127
Sorghum 0.3 3608 2638 37
0.6 3754 2445 54
1.2 3553 2717 30
Soybean 0.3 2900 1890 53
0.6 2650 1740 52
1.2 3030 2390 27JNKVV, Jabalpur , Soil-Black Clay Gupta (2002)
29

32. Table 14. Effect of different treatments on yield and yield
contributing characters of durum wheat
Treatment Grain yield
(q/ ha)
Straw yield
(q/ ha)
Harvest Index
2004-05 2005-06 2004-05 2005-06 2004-05 2005-06
FB/PB 48.76 48.65 46.92 56.68 0.510 0.462
PB 47.45 47.92 42.66 54.65 0.526 0.467
NT 47.71 48.31 43.58 55.81 0.523 0.464
CT 48.14 48.09 46.80 55.15 0.507 0.466
CD(P=0.05) NS NS NS NS - -
FB = Fresh bed (kharif)
PB = Permanent bed (rabi)
NT = No tillage
CT = Conventional tillage
PAU, Ludhiana Soil – Loamy sand Kler et al. (2007)
30

33. Treatments Total runoff
volume (m3 ha -1)
Average runoff
Coefficient (%)
Traditional ploughing 653 15.5
Terwah system 381 9.0
Permanent raised beds 255 6.0
Table 15. Runoff volume and runoff coefficient for the entire
the cropping season
Woreda, Ethiopia , Gebreegziabher et al. (2009)
Soil- Black Clay
31

34. Table 16. Runoff sediment concentration and total soil loss due
to different treatments
Treatment
Mean runoff
sediment
concentration (g l-1)
Total soil loss
in the cropping
season (t ha-1)
Traditional ploughing 56.3 19.5
Terwah ploughing 33.94 7.6
Permanent bed 28.32 4.7
Woreda, Ethiopia Soil- Black Clay Gebreegziabher et al. (2009)
32

35. Treatments
Dry
matter
(g/ plant)
Seed yield
(kg/ha)
Stover yield
(kg/ha)
HI (%)
L1 = Raised bed 37.80 1193 2205 35.16
L2 = Flat 35.31 1102 2023 35.29
S.Em.+ 0.599 30.63 58.20 0.672
C.D. at 5% 1.761 90.02 171.17 NS
Table 17. Yield attributes and yield of summer soybean
as influenced by land configuration
NAU, Navsari Soil- Medium Black Shinde (2012)
33

36. Treatment Grain
yield
(t/ha)
Fodder
yield
(t/ha)
Net returns
(Rs/ha)
BCR
Ridges and furrows 1.5 5.5 76000 2.03
Flatbed 1.2 4.1 59000 1.81
SEm± 0.04 0.20 0.16 0.01
CD (P=0.05) 0.13 0.62 0.49 NS
IARI , New Delhi Soil-Sandy Loam Gabir et al. (2014)
Table 18. Effect of planting method on yield attributes and
economics of sorghum (pooled data of 2 years).
34

37. Table 19. Seed yield, total biological yield (kg/ha) and economics of
mustard as influenced by various tillage methods
Tillage Seed yield (kg /ha) Biological yield (kg/ha) Net
returns
BCR
2009
–10
2010
–11
2011
–12
2012
–13
2009
–10
2010
–11
2011
–12
2012
–13
(Rs/ha)
CT 1571 2082 2063 2156 6832 8216 8410 8829 782 1.93
RT 1692 2029 2140 2436 6968 7818 8156 8927 879 2.48
ZT 1493 1810 2040 2533 6866 7752 8114 8739 876 2.87
FIRB 1954 2383 2275 2765 7673 8569 8924 9642 1063 3.31
ICAR-DRMR, Rajasthan Soil-Clay Loam Shekhawat et al.(2016)
CT = Conventional tillage ZT = Zero tillage
RT = Reduced tillage FIRB = furrow irrigated raised beds
35

38. In-situ
moisture
conservation
36

39. Table 20. Yield of soybean, loss of soil and plant nutrients under
different land treatments during kharif
Treatments Rainfall causing
runoff (mm)
Yield
(kg/ha)
Soil loss
(kg/ha)
N loss
(kg/ha)
Flat 717.3 262 1404 34.88
BBF 717.3 1333 1331.9 21.35
BBTF 717.3 1510 717.1 27.89
RSB 717.3 1546 220.5 7.28
JNKVV, Jabalpur Soil- Black Clay Gupta (2002)
BBF= Broad bed and furrow,
BBFT = Broad bed and tied furrows,
RSB= Raised and sunken beds
37

40. Table 21. Effect of moisture conservation practices on yield of
groundnut and net returns
Treatment Pod yield
(t/ha)
Net returns
(×103 Rs/ha)
Flat bed 1.432 20.06
Alternate between row sub -soiling 1.545 21.91
Between row sub-soiling 1.740 25.54
In row sub-soiling 1.564 21.81
Broad bed and furrow 1.713 24.83
CD (P+0.05) 0.116 2.30
JAU, Junagadh Soil-Medium Black Vaghasia et al. (2007)
38

41. Table 22. Productivity and economics of the systems under
various levels of land configuration (Pooled 2 years)
Indore, (M. P.) Soil – Clay Loam Paliwal et al. (2011)
Treatment System productivity
and economics
SEY
(t/ha)
NR
(Rs/ha)
BCR
Flat bed sowing in soybean and wheat 4.11 38,400 1.86
Ridge and furrow planting in soybean
followed by FBS with Glirichidia leaves
mulching in wheat
4.72 50,400 2.11
BBF in soybean and wheat 4.70 50,500 2.12
Flat bed sowing with Glirichidia leaves
mulching in soybean and wheat
4.26 40,500 1.89
SEm+ 0.04 600 0.01
CD (P=0.05) 0.13 2,300 0.05
39

42. Table 23. Effect of land configuration on yield of sorghum, net
return and BCR
Indore, (M.P.) Soil- Medium Black Soil Thakur et al. (2011)
Treatment Yield (t/ha) Net returns
(Rs/ha)
BCR
Grain Stover
2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008
Flat 4.98 4.34 14.34 20.07 34,647 35,046 2.38 2.29
Ridge &
furrow
5.81 5.58 15.28 23.63 40,909 46,271 2.72 2.93
Flat sowing
with
earthing at
25 DAS
5.77 5.12 15.7 22.75 40,689 42,956 2.65 2.67
SEm+ 0.05 0.15 0.20 0.50 534 1,341 0.04 0.08
CD (P=0.05) 0.21 0.61 0.78 1.97 2,098 5,263 0.14 0.33
40

43. Mulches
41

44. Table 24. Effect of mulches on dry forage yield and N and P
uptake of corn
Mulch Dry forage yield
(t/ ha-1)
Nutrient uptake
(kg ha-1)
N P
No mulch 8.1 116 16.2
Wheat straw 9.1 167 19.0
Transparent polythene +
wheat straw
10.2 167 22.7
CD (0.05) 0.8 23 3.2
Bhopal , MP Acharya (2002)
Soil- Medium Black
42

45. Table 25. Economics of different crops as affected by mulch
practices
Raipur, Chhattisgarh Soil – Silty Clay Tripathi et al. (2004)
Crops Mulches Net realization (Rs/ha) Profit per Rupee
investment
1999-2000 2000-01 Avg. 99-2000 2000-01 Avg.
Gram M0 2,786 1,247 2,016 0.38 0.16 0.27
M1 2,348 1,112 1,730 0.27 0.12 0.19
M2 3,202 1,984 2,593 0.32 0.20 0.26
Saf-
flower
M0 7,759 2,723 5,241 1.38 0.36 0.87
M1 8,977 3,941 6,459 1.27 0.39 0.83
M2 10,142 4,535 7,338 1.47 0.43 0.95
M0 = No mulch, M1 = Soil and stubble mulch, M2 = Rice straw @ 5 t /ha mulch
43

46. Table 26. Effect of organic mulches on yield and quality of
sugarcane (Pooled of 1999-00 and 2000-01)
Cuddalore, (TN) Jayachandran et al. (2004)
Soil- Black
Treatments
WCE
(%)
Cane
yield
(t/ha)
Commercial
cane sugar
(%)
Sugar
yield
(t/ha)
B:C
Ratio
Raw pressmud as mulch
@ 25 t/ha
62.5 119.0 11.62 13.05 2.64
Cowpea as intercrop
(Two lines along the
ridge mulch)
63.8 112.8 09.97 11.24 2.61
Trash mulching @ 5 t/ha 71.8 128.5 11.99 15.28 2.90
Atrazine 1 kg/ha + one
HW
67.8 118.4 10.42 12.34 2.63
FP (3 hoeing) 66.9 115.7 10.11 11.75 2.61
Unweeded Control - 82.4 10.15 8.36 -
CD (P=0.05) - 8.59 00.50 1.26 -
44

47. Table 27. Effect of mulch on yield (t/ha) and economics of turmeric
crop (pooled 2 years)
PAU, Ludhiana Soil – Loamy Sand Manhas et al. (2011)
Treatment Fresh
rhizome yield
(t/ha)
Net return
(Rs/ha)
B:C ratio
No mulch 14.5 67,300 2.12
Straw mulch @ 6.25 t/ha 20.0 1,11,400 3.21
Straw mulch @ 9.38 t/ha 25.3 1,55,600 4.36
SEm+ 0.56 3410 0.06
CD (P=0.05) 1.82 12,800 0.26
45

48. Treatment System
productivity
Production
efficiency
(Kg/ha/day)
Net returns
(x103 Rs/ha)
BCR
2010-11 2011-
12
2010-11 2011-
12
2010-11 2011-
12
2010-11 2010-
11
CT 14.22 15.02 38.9 41.2 92.70 118.90 1.71 2.14
MT 15.89 17.08 43.5 46.8 103.20 135.20 1.69 2.17
SEm± 0.08 0.12 0.23 0.34 0.75 1.03 - -
CD
(P=0.05)
0.51 0.75 1.41 2.05 4.54 6.25 - -
Table 28. Effect of tillage practices on system productivity, production
efficiency and economics of maize-soybean based cropping system
IARI, New Delhi Soil-Sandy loam Prasad et al.(2014)
CT=Conventional tillage without mulch
MT= minimum tillage with crop residue mulch 46

49. Table 29. Effect of mulching on yield of green gram
Treatments Grain yield
(kg/ha)
Straw yield
(kg/ha)
No mulching 597 1597
Dust mulching 747 1797
Paddy straw mulching 712 1662
CD (P= 0.05) 12.92 13.02
BHU, Varanasi Verma et al .(2016)
Soil-Sandy clay loam
47

50. System of Rice
Intensification
(SRI)
48

51. Important features of SRI
 Low seed and water requirement
Transplantation of young seedlings
(8-12days)
Transplanting at wider spacing
(25 x 25 cm)
 Incorporating weeds into the soil
while weeding with cono-weeder/
rotary hoe
Organic manures in place of chemical
fertilizers
System of Rice Intensification (SRI)
Increased soil aeration and organic matter help in improving soil
biology and thus help in better nutrient availability
49

52. Results from SRI vs. Conventional methods evaluations in China
and India (yield t ha-1)
Source: Norman Uphoff , WPRC presentation, New Delhi, India, 2006
Province/state No. of on-farm
comparison
trials
Conventional
(Yield t ha-1)
SRI
(Yield t
ha-1)
%
increase
in SRI
Zhejiang 16.8 ha of
SRI rice with
2 hybrid
vars.
8.8* 11.9* 35.2%
Sichuan 8 trials (0.2
ha each)
8.13* 11.4* 40.7%
Andra
Pradesh
1,525 trials
(av. 0.4ha)
6.31 8.73 33.83%
Tami Nadu 100 trials(0.1
ha each )
5.66 7.23 27.7%
50

53. Extensions of SRI to Other Crops: Uttarakhand / Himachal
Pradesh, India
Crop No. of
Farmers
Area (ha) Grain Yield (t/ha) %
Incr.
2006 Conv. SRI
Rajma 5 0.4 1.4 2.0 43
Manduwa 5 0.4 1.8 2.4 33
Wheat Res.
Farm
5.0 1.6 2.2 38
2007
Rajma 113 2.26 1.8 3.0 67
Manduwa 43 0.8 1.5 2.4 60
Wheat
(Irrig.)
25 0.23 2.2 4.3 95
Wheat
(Unirrig.)
25 0.09 1.6 2.6 63
Rajma
(kidney bean)
Manduwa
(millet)
Source: Norman Uphoff, IFAD presentation, 2009 51

54.  Reduce emissions of CO2, CH4 and N2O by following
CA.
 Adopting CA such as zero tillage, reduced or minimum
tillage, crop residue incorporation, mulches as well as in
situ moisture conservation, SRI technology etc. can help
to mitigate the effect of climate change, enhance
productivity of crops and conserve soil and soil fertility.
 Protection of environment by elimination of burning of
straw, facilitating recycling of residues and plant
nutrients.
Conclusion
52

55. “ Conserve ”