Conservation agriculture for soil health sustainability

Conservation agriculture for soil health sustainability

• 2.
   Conservation Agriculture(CA) is a concept for resource-saving agricultural crop production system that strives to achieve acceptable profits together with high and sustained production levels while conserving the environment.  It is based on minimum tillage, crop residue retention, and crop rotations, has been proposed as an alternative system combining benefits for the farmer with advantages for the society.  Conservation Agriculture remains an important technology that improves soil processes, controls soil erosion and reduces production cost. Introduction cost.
• 3.
   CA enhancesbiodiversity and natural biological processes above and below the ground surface, which contribute to increased water and nutrient use efficiency and to improved and sustained crop production.  CA principles are universally applicable to all agricultural landscapes and land uses with locally adapted practices. Soil interventions such as mechanical soil disturbance are reduced to an absolute minimum or avoided, and external inputs such as agrochemicals and plant nutrients of mineral or organic origin are applied optimally and in ways and quantities that do not interfere with or disrupt, the biological processes.  CA facilitates timely operations and improves overall land husbandry for rainfed and irrigated production. Complemented by other known good practices, including the use of quality seeds, and integrated pest, nutrient, weed and water management, etc., CA is a base for sustainable agricultural production intensification. (FAO) cost.
• 4.
  cost. What is ConservationAgriculture (FAO) CA Minimum Soil Disturbance Permanent Soil Cover Diversified Crop Rotation Weed Control Farooq and Siddique, (2016)
• 5.
   Globally, CAis being practiced on about 125 M ha.  USA has been the pioneer country in adopting CA systems and currently more than 25.5 million ha land is under such system. Countries where CA practices have now been widely adopted for many years in Brazil (25.5 M ha), Argentina (25.5 M ha), Canada (13.5 M ha) and Australia (17.0 M ha).  France and Spain are the two countries where CA was being followed in about one million ha of area under annual crops. Conservation Agriculture Success World Over Bhan and Behera, (2014)cost.
• 6.
   The totalarea under no-tillage/zero tillage in India it is about 3.43 mha.  Efforts to adapt and promote resource conservation technologies have been underway for nearly a decade.  Spread of conservation agriculture have been made through the combined efforts of several SAU’s, ICAR institutes.  CA technologies is taking place in the irrigated regions of Indo- Gangetic plains where rice-wheat cropping system dominates.  CA systems have not been tried or promoted in other major agro-eco regions like rainfed semi-arid tropics, the arid regions. Conservation Agriculture in India Bhan and Behera, (2014)cost.
• 7.
  Conservation Agriculture Residue Mulching Cover cropping and crop Rotation Integrated Nutrient Managemen t Minimum Soil Disturbance Microclimate Management Soil C Sequestration OptimumNutrient Management Soil biodiversity Principles of Conservation Agriculture cost. Kumar et al., (2016)
• 8.
  Goals of conservationagriculture  Achieve acceptable profits  Alleviating hunger  High and sustained production levels  Contributing to food security  Reduce input and labor cost  Environmental objectives (such as carbon sequestration and climate change) cost. Kassam et al. (2014)
• 9.
  Why We DoIt?  Sustainability  Enhanced Biodiversity  Carbon Sequestration  Labour saving  Healthier Soils  Increased Yields  Reduced Cost FAO cost.
• 10.
  1. In situmanagement of crop residues. 2. Engineering measures: i) Contour bunding ii) Graded bunding iii)Terracing 3. Adoption of micro-irrigation system. 4. Mulching. 5. Tillage. 6. Integrated nutrient management in soil. Components of Conservation Agriculture Das et al.,(2009) cost.
• 11.
  1. Extra CO2emission into atmosphere 405.6 ppm Why CA represent a new paradigm? cost.
• 12.
  2.Land Degradation 3.Soil organicmatter reduction 4.Soil contamination 5.Soil compaction
• 13.
  6.Lesser storage ofwater 7.Decline in soil biodiversity Dumanski et al, (2006) cost.
• 14.
  cost.  Reduction incost of production.  Enhancement of soil quality.  Enhancement in long term C sequestration.  Reduction of the incidence of weeds, such as phalaris minor in wheat.  Enhancement of water and nutrient use efficiency.  Enhancement of production and productivity (4% – 10%).  Advanced sowing date.  Reduction in greenhouse gas emission.  Avoiding crop residue burning reduces loss of nutrients.  Providing opportunities for crop diversification.  Improvement of resource use efficiency.  Use surface residues as mulch. Potential benefits of Conservation Agriculture Bhan and Behera, (2014)
• 15.
  Conservation Agriculture andSoil Quality  Soil Physical Quality  Soil structure and aggregation  Hydraulic conductivity  Soil bulk density  Soil Chemical Quality  Soil organic carbon  Nutrient dynamics  Biological Soil Quality  Microbial biomass carbon (MBC)  Soil enzymatic activity Yadav et al., (2017) cost.
• 16.
  Comparison of conventionaland conservation agriculture systemsS.No. Conventional agriculture Conservation agriculture 1. Cultivating land, using science and technology to dominate nature Least interference with natural processes 2. Excessive mechanical tillage and soil erosion No-till or drastically reduced tillage (biological tillage) 3. High wind and soil erosion Low wind and soil erosion 4. Residue burning or removal (bare surface) Surface retention of residues (permanently covered) 5. Water infiltration is low Infiltration rate of water is high 6. Use of ex-situ FYM/composts Use of in-situ organics/composts 7. Green manuring (incorporated) Brown manuring/cover crops (surface retention) 8. Kills established weeds but also stimulates more weed seeds to germinate Weeds are a problem in the early stages of adoption but decrease with time 9. Free-wheeling of farm machinery, increased soil compaction Controlled traffic, compaction in tramline, no compaction in crop area. 10. Mono cropping/culture, less efficient rotations Diversified and more efficient rotations 11. Heavy reliance on manual labor, uncertainty of operations Mechanized operations, ensure timeliness of operations 12. Poor adaptation to stresses, yield losses greater under stress conditions More resilience to stresses, yield losses are less under stress conditions Productivity gains in long-run are in Productivity gains in long-run are in Rai et al (2018)cost.
• 17.
  The semi aridtropic region is characterized by highly variable and low rainfall, poorly developed infrastructure, degraded soils, and low socio-economic condition of the farmers.  Conservation agriculture has been reported as sustainable and eco-friendly crop production technique in the fragile eco- systems of semi arid tropic. In the long-term CA has been found to render several benefits including 1. Soil conservation with improved soil health 2. Higher rain water use efficiency 3. Climate change mitigation and adaptation cost.
• 18.
   Conservation tillageis defined as: "any tillage or planting system in which at least 30% of the soil surface is covered by plant residue after planting to reduce erosion.  No tillage, minimum tillage, reduced tillage and mulch tillage are terms synonymous with conservation tillage.  Appropriate tillage practices are those that avoid the degradation of soil properties but maintain crop yields as well as ecosystem stability  Conservation tillage provides the best opportunity for halting degradation and for restoring and improving soil productivity  In recent years interest in conservation tillage systems has increased in response to the need to limit erosion and promote water conservation. Conservation tillage cost. Bista et al, (2017)
• 19.
  1) Zero Tillage: Soilis completely left undisturbed from harvest to planting except sowing and nutrient application. Weed control is only by herbicides. 2) Strip Tillage: Strip-tillage is a form of conservation tillage that clears crop residues in a narrow zone of soil and loosens subsoil layers prior to planting. 3) Reduced tillage Little soil disturbance before sowing to break the crust, loosen compact soil and prepare seedbed. Weed control by herbicides or some secondary tillage. 4) Mulch Tillage: It includes any CT system other than no-tillage, strip tillage, or ridge-tillage that preserves 30 % or more surface residues. Types of Conservation Tillage Systems cost. Bista et al, (2017)
• 20.
  Minimum tillage Zero tillage Stubblemulch tillage cost.
• 21.
   Direct plantinginvolves growing crops with minimum soil disturbance since the harvest of the previous crop.  Direct planting can be used with all annual and perennial crops and vegetables.  Conservation agriculture can be done manually or mechanically ( i.e. animal or tractors drawn conservation agriculture planters). Improves soil organic matter Protects the soil against erosion by water and wind Cost Savings : fuel, time and labour costs in the long term Improves infiltration and conserves soil moisture (FAO)cost.
• 22.
  Agricultural and environmentalco-benefits of zero tillage 1. Zero tillage is a ‘cornerstone’ of CA, and can be practiced in both large and small farming system 2. Gradually, organic matter of the surface layers of zero tilled land increases, due to reduced erosion, increased yields resulting in more crop residue added to the soil surface 3. Most of the agricultural benefits of zero tillage relate to increased organic matter in the soil. 4. Increased biomass from improved crop yields, reduced surface soil temperatures and increased biodiversity. 5. In dry years, the improved soil moisture levels, aggregation and organic matter status of the zero till soils. 6. Soil carbon sinks are increased by increased biomass due to increased yields, as well as by reducing organic carbon losses from soil erosion. 7. Greatly improved soil aggregation, biodiversity and organic matter status, and subsequent improved water infiltration and water storage in the soil. cost. Busari et al, (2015)
• 23.
   Mulch isany organic material (such as decaying leaves, bark, or compost) spread over the soil and around a crop to enrich and insulate the soil.  Live mulches are crops intercropped for purposes of providing soil cover. Suppresses weed germination and growth Improves organic matter accumulation and carbon sequestration Improves recycling of nutrients Protects the soil from erosion by water and wind (FAO)cost.
• 24.
  Crop residue management “Theportion of a plant left in the field after harvest of the crop that is (straw, stalks, stems, leaves, roots) not used domestically or sold commercially.”  Need of conservation agriculture to enhance soil physical, chemical and biological properties.  Crop residues are excellent source of organic matter and plant nutrients.  Organic recycling has to play a key role in achieving sustainability in agricultural production. cost.
• 25.
   Soil structure: Favor the formation of aggregates.  Bulk Density & porosity : Decreases the bulk density of soil & increase the porosity of the soils.  Hydraulic conductivity : Increase hydraulic conductivity by modifying soil structure microspores.  Soil temperature : Increases the minimum soil temperature in winter and decrease soil temperature during summer due to shading effect.  Soil moisture : Reduces evaporation rate due to increase in amount of residues on the soil surface. Effect of crop residues on physical properties of soil cost.
• 26.
  Crop Rotation “Crop rotationrefers to recurrent succession of crops on the same piece of land either in a year or over a longer period of time.' In crop rotation land is fixed but crop is rotated year after year. Maintains and even improve soil fertility. It checks the soil erosion and conserves moisture. The rotation of crops offer a diverse "diet" to the soil micro organisms. (FAO) cost.
• 27.
  Advantages of croprotation Improvement of Water use: Crops with different water systems also utilize soil water at different soil depths. Improve fertility and production: crops have different rooting patterns which take up nutrients at different soil depths. Rotations help to utilize soil nutrients more efficiently. In addition, legumes fix nitrogen in the soil for the benefit of successive cereal crops in a rotation cost. Reduction of Pest and Diseases: Different crops are susceptible to different diseases and pest agent. Therefore growing such crops in rotation will reduce the (FAO)
• 28.
  Constraints in adoptingConservation Technologies cost.  Possess a challenge both for the scientific community and the farmers to overcome the past mindset and explore the opportunities.  The wide spread use of crop residues for livestock feed and as fuel .  Burning of crop residues.  Lack of knowledge about the potential of CA to Agril. leaders, extension agents & farmers.  Compaction can be a problem in initial stage of conservation agriculture.  Managing conservation agriculture systems will be highly demanding in terms of knowledge base, Conservation agriculture as an upcoming paradigm for raising crops will require an innovation system.  Conservation agriculture systems are much more complex than the conventional systems. Bhan and Behera, (2014)
• 29.
  cost.
• 30.
  cost.
• 31.
  Table 1. Effectof tillage practices on physical properties under different tillage methods over two years under fixed crop rotation of maize– maize (pooled data for two years) Treatment Bulk density (Mgm-3) Kharif Rabi T1 - Conventional tillage 1.36 1.43 T2 - Zero tillage with residue 1.34 1.33 T3 - Zero tillage without residue 1.38 1.46 T4 - Raised fresh bed 1.34 1.34 T5 - Permanent raised bed with residue 1.36 1.42 SE(m)+ 0.01 0.03 (P<0.05) 0.02 0.08 Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture , Pantnagar Singh et al. (2011) cost. Source : Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences
• 32.
  cost. Table 2. Effectof tillage and nutrient management on available micronutrients in Maize Treatments Zn (mg kg-1) Fe (mg kg-1) Cu (mg kg-1) B (mg kg-1) Tillage 1. Conservation Tillage 0.42 6.24 1.74 0.41 2. Conventional Tillage 0.41 6.20 1.64 0.40 SE(m)+ 0.002 0.02 0.12 0.001 CD at 5% 0.004 NS NS 0.003 Nutrient management T1: 100 % RDF ( 60:30:30 NPK kg/ha ) 0.38 5.94 1.48 0.36 T2: 50 % RDF + in situ GM ( Sunhemp ) 0.41 6.02 1.52 0.41 T3: 50 % RDF + 50 % N ( FYM ) 0.44 6.39 1.93 0.45 T4: 50 % RDF + 50 % N ( Wheat straw ) 0.42 6.20 1.68 0.40 T5: 50 % RDF + 50 % N ( GLM ) 0.41 6.18 1.56 0.39 T6: 50 % RDF + 25 % N ( FYM ) + 25 % ( WS ) 0.43 6.38 1.85 0.43 T7: 50% RDF + 25 % N ( FYM ) +25 % N (GLM) 0.42 6.38 1.79 0.42 T8: 50% RDF + 25 % N ( WS ) + 25 % N (GLM) 0.41 6.24 1.69 0.41 SE(m)+ 0.006 0.04 0.09 0.001 CD at 5% 0.018 0.14 0.27 0.003 WS - Wheat straw, GLM - Green leaf manuring Wagh et al.,(2016)Source : International Journal of Current Research Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth , Akola
• 33.
  cost.Source : AsianJournal of Soil Science Table 3. Effect of tillage and nutrient management on soil physical properties in Maize Wagh et al.,(2016) WS - Wheat straw, GLM - Green leaf manuring Treatments Bulk density (Mgm-3) MWD (mm) AWC (%) Hydraulic conductivity Tillage 1. Conservation Tillage 1.34 0.67 23.94 0.70 2. Conventional Tillage 1.35 0.66 21.72 0.71 SE(m)+ 0.005 0.002 0.17 0.003 CD at 5% NS 0.006 0.50 0.009 Nutrient management T1: 100 % RDF ( 60:30:30 NPK kg/ha ) 1.39 0.64 20.83 0.67 T2: 50 % RDF + in situ GM ( Sunhemp ) 1.36 0.65 21.09 0.69 T3: 50 % RDF + 50 % N ( FYM ) 1.29 0.70 24.47 0.73 T4: 50 % RDF + 50 % N ( Wheat straw ) 1.37 0.66 23.32 0.70 T5: 50 % RDF + 50 % N ( GLM ) 1.31 0.66 22.95 0.69 T6: 50 % RDF + 25 % N ( FYM ) + 25 % ( WS ) 1.37 0.69 23.25 0.72 T7: 50% RDF + 25 % N ( FYM ) +25 % N (GLM) 1.32 0.67 23.50 0.70 T8: 50% RDF + 25 % N ( WS ) + 25 % N (GLM) 1.37 0.65 23.24 0.68 SE(m)+ 0.022 0.005 0.28 0.006 CD at 5% NS 0.015 0.78 0.018 Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth , Akola
• 34.
  cost.Source : AsianJournal of Soil Science Table 4. Effect of tillage and nutrient management on soil chemical properties PDKV, Akola Year of experiment – 2012- 13 Wagh et al.,(2016) Treatments pH EC (dS m-1) OC ( g kg-1 ) CaCo3 ( % ) Tillage 1. Conservation Tillage 8.19 0.23 5.76 8.15 2. Conventional Tillage 8.24 0.24 5.71 8.13 SE(m)+ 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.003 CD at 5% 0.04 0.01 0.08 0.010 Nutrient management T1: 100 % RDF ( 60:30:30 NPK kgha-1 ) 8.27 0.26 5.55 8.19 T2: 50 % RDF + in situ GM (Sunhemp) 8.31 0.24 5.75 8.17 T3: 50 % RDF + 50 % N ( FYM ) 8.13 0.21 5.89 8.09 T4: 50 % RDF + 50 % N ( WS ) 8.24 0.23 5.71 8.15 T5: 50 % RDF + 50 % N ( GLM ) 8.16 0.22 5.65 8.17 T6: 50 % RDF + 25 % N ( FYM ) + 25 % (WS ) 8.22 0.24 5.76 8.12 T7: 50% RDF + 25 % N( FYM )+25 % N( GLM) 8.17 0.22 5.75 8.12 SE(m)+ 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.007 CD at 5% 0.03 0.02 0.11 0.021
• 35.
  Table 5.Effect ofmedium-term tillage practices and intensified cropping systems on total soil organic carbon at different depths after harvest of winter season crops in the sixth year. Parihar et al., (2018) PB- Permanent Bed; ZT - Zero Tillage; CT- Conventional Tillage; MWMb - Maize–Wheat– Mungbean; MCS- Maize–Chickpea–Sesbania; MMuMb - Maize–Mustard–Mungbean; MMS - Maize–Maize– Sesbania Treatment SOC gkg−1 Depths(cm) 0-5 5-15 15.-30 Tillage practices PB 7.74 6.28 5.41 ZT-flat 7.49 6.31 5.52 CT-flat 5.46 4.71 4.35 SE(m)+ 0.08 0.08 0.15 LSD (P<0.05) 0.33 0.29 0.58 Cropping pattern MWMb 7.48 6.04 5.32 MCS 7.52 6.25 5.64 MMuMb 6.30 5.33 4.50 MMS 6.30 5.45 4.90 SE (m)+ 0.12 0.13 0.13 LSD (P<0.05) 0.35 0.40 0.41 cost.Source : European Journal of Soil Science ICAR New Delhi Year of experiment : 2013–2014
• 36.
  Table 6. Effectsof tillage, crop residue management practices and cropping systems on soil organic carbon Jat et al.,(2015) Treatment SOC % Depths(cm) 0-15 15-30 Tillage practices Conventional tillage (CT) 0.40 0.25 Minimum tillage (MT) 0.41 0.26 SE(m)+ 0.01 0.02 (P<0.05) NS NS Residue management Crop residues removed (RR) 0.37 0.25 Crop residues retained (RT) 0.43 0.26 SEd 0.03 0.01 (P<0.05) NS NS Cropping pattern Maize – Chickpea system 0.36 0.26 Maize/pigeonpea system 0.44 0.26 SE(m)+ 0.02 0.01 (P<0.05) 0.06 NS cost.Source : British Journal of Environment & Climate Change ICRISAT, Telangana Year of experiment :2010- 12
• 37.
  Table 7. Effectof tillage practices, organic manures and amendments on soil organic carbon in Rice- Wheat cropping system Yaduvanshi and Sharma (2008) CT– Conventional tillage,. NT – No tillage ., SPM – Sulphitation pressmud ., FYM – Farm Yard Manure Treatment Soil organic carbon (g kg-1) 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 CT NT CT NT CT NT T1-Control 2.12 2.30 2.10 2.33 2.22 2.37 T2-75% NP 2.20 2.64 2.21 2.61 2.33 2.71 T3-100% NP 2.33 2.54 2.38 2.72 2.37 2.86 T4-75% NP + Gypsum 5 t ha-1 2.26 2.58 2.39 2.76 2.84 2.82 T5-75% NP + SPM 10 t ha-1 2.28 2.87 2.51 3.06 3.23 3.21 T6-75% NP + FYM 10 t ha-1 2.34 3.25 3.10 3.32 2.89 3.54 T7-100% NP + Gypsum 5 t ha-1 2.89 3.15 2.87 3.19 3.27 3.27 T8-100% NP + SPM 10 t ha-1 2.95 3.33 3.15 3.56 3.12 3.85 T9-100% NP + FYM 10 t ha-1 2.89 3.38 3.08 3.63 3.32 3.90 Tillage(A) 0.079 0.066 0.060 Treatment(B) 0.105 0.116 0.102 A X B 0.149 0.165 0.145 cost.Source : Soil & Tillage Research Kaithal, India Year of experiment :2001-04
• 38.
  cost. Table 8. Effectof legume mulching on physico-chemical properties of soil under maize-wheat Sharma et al., (2010) Treatment Organic C (%) Total N (%) BD (Mg m-3) IR (mm h-1) Legume mulching Control 0.56 0.074 1.44 7.50 Sunhemp (S) 0.67 0.079 1.40 8.05 Leucaena (L) 0.66 0.080 1.39 7.93 S + L 0.72 0.084 1.36 8.90 Initial 0.57 0.064 1.39 7.0 Jammu Year of Experimemt:2001-04 Source : International Soil and Water Conservation Research
• 39.
  Table 9. Oxidizablesoil organic carbon (SOC) and liable carbon (LC) in soils under contrasting tillage and cropping systems. cost. Tillage System (T) Cropping Systems (CS) Organic Carbon (%) Liable Carbon (mg C kg - 1) 0-15 cm 0-15 cm Conventional tillage Soybean + P. Pea (2:1) 0.60 250.25 Soybean - Wheat 0.54 209.54 Maize + P. Pea (1:1) 0.57 212.97 Maize - Gram 0.59 229.20 Mean 0.57 225.49 Reduced tillage Soybean + P. Pea (2:1) 0.63 340.76 Soybean - Wheat 0.60 266.40 Maize + P. Pea (1:1) 0.64 255.28 Maize - Gram 0.61 289.29 Mean 0.62 287.93 No tillage Soybean + P. Pea (2:1) 0.63 330.56 Soybean - Wheat 0.61 272.78 Maize + P. Pea (1:1) 0.61 249.12 Maize - Gram 0.64 256.99 Mean 0.62 277.37 Lsd (p<0.05) T S* S CS NS S* T X CS NS NS Kumar et al., (2017)Source : International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences Research farm of ICAR, Bhopal, India. Year of Experimemt:2011
• 40.
  Effect of ConservationAgriculture on Biological Properties of Soil cost.
• 41.
  cost. Table 10. Soildehydrogenase activity under tillage practices and land configuration methods in a cotton maize cropping sequences CT-Flat (conventional tillage on flat surface), CT-FIRB (conventional tillage on furrow irrigated raised bed), MT-flat (Minimum tillage on flat surface), MT-FIRB (Minimum tillage on FIRB), MT-permanent FIRB (Minimum tillage in permanent FIRB), Bama et al.,(2017) Treatments Soil dehydrogenase activity (mg TPF/kg/24 hrs) T1 CT-Flat 77.0 T2 CT-FIRB 85.4 T3 CT-permt FIRB 81.8 T4 MT-flat 83.3 T5 MT-FIRB 92.0 T6 MT-permt FIRB 85.2 T7 Zero tillage 101.8 SE(m)+ 3.1 CD(5%) 6.3 Source :Source : International Journal of Chemical Studies Tamil Nadu Year of experiment: 2012-15
• 42.
  cost.Source : InternationalJournal of Chemical Studies Table 11. Soil biological properties under tillage practices and land configuration methods in a cotton maize cropping sequences CT-Flat (conventional tillage on flat surface), CT-FIRB (conventional tillage on furrow irrigated raised bed), MT-flat (Minimum tillage on flat surface), MT-FIRB (Minimum tillage on FIRB), MT-permanent FIRB (Minimum tillage in permanent FIRB), Tamil Nadu Year of experiment: 2012-15 Bama et al.,(2017) Treatments Bacteria (cfu x 10-6) g/soil Fungi (cfu x 10-4) g/soil Actinimycetes (cfu x 10-3) g/soil T1 CT-Flat 52 25 10 T2 CT-FIRB 58 25 11 T3 CT-permt FIRB 52 27 13 T4 MT-flat 54 23 12 T5 MT-FIRB 63 29 15 T6 MT-permt FIRB 55 24 10 T7 Zero tillage 74 35 21 SE(m)+ 3 1.4 1.1 CD(5%) 6 3 2
• 43.
  cost.Source : IndianJ. Dryland Agric. Res. & Dev. Table 12. Effect of different treatments on biological parameters of soil after harvest of cotton Gabhane et al., (2014) Treatments SMBC (mg kg-1) SMBN (mg kg-1 ) DHA (µg g-124hr-1) A) Tillage T1 Conventional tillage 237.1 33.1 47.20 T2 Minimum tillage 243.1 36.8 50.40 SE (m) ± 1.96 0.82 0.91 CD at 5 % 5.75 2.41 2.68 B) Nutrient Management F1 100 % RDF (50:25:00 kg ha-1 ) 223.6 29.95 43.70 F2 50 % RDF 195.1 25.12 38.60 F3 50 % RDF + FYM @ 5 t ha-1 237.1 32.58 48.18 F4 50 % RDF + FYM @ 10 t ha-1 263.5 40.05 55.05 F5 50 % RDF +FYM @ 15 t ha-1 281.6 46.80 58.12 F6 50 % RDF + GM (Dhaincha) 239.7 35.25 49.11 SE (m) ± 3.40 1.42 1.58 CD at 5 % 9.96 4.17 4.64 C) Interaction effect NS NS NS Akola Year of experiment-2005-06 to 2009-10
• 44.
  Table 13. Effectof conservation agricultural practices and nitrogen management on biological properties of soil in soybean-wheat cropping system. ZT+SR: Zero with soybean residues in wheat crop; ZT+SWR: Zero till with soybean residue in wheat and wheat residue in preceding soybean crop; CT-R: Conventional till without residues Ronanki and Behera.,(2018) Treatment Dehydrogenase (TPF hr-1 g-1 soil) Microbial biomass carbon (ug g-1 soil) Conservation agricultural practices ZT+SR 6.50 131.86 ZT+SWR 7.21 143.81 CT-R 7.97 153.55 SE(m)+ 5.74 121.91 LSD(p=0.05) 0.14 5.27 IARI, New Delhi Year of experiment:2014-16 cost.Source : International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences
• 45.
  Table 14. Soilbiological properties as influenced by different conservation agricultural practices. Kumar and Babalad.,(2018) Tillage systems Soil dehydrogenase activity (μg TPF g-1 day-1) Soil microbial biomass carbon (mg kg soil-1) CT1 -Conservation tillage with BBF and crop residue retained on the surface. 32.29 364.00 CT2 -Conservation tillage with BBF and incorporation of crop residue. 32.29 355.20 CT3 -Conservation tillage with flat bed with crop residue retained on the surface. 31.14 327.20 CT4 -Conservation tillage with flat bed with incorporation of crop residue. 31.55 362.00 CT5 -Conventional tillage with crop residue incorporation. 29.70 325.47 CT6 -Conventional tillage without crop residue 27.43 294.00 S.E.( m)± 0.34 35.25 cost. Dharwad, Karnataka Year of experiment: 2014- 16 Source : International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences
• 46.
  Effect of ConservationAgriculture on Yield of Crop cost.
• 47.
  cost.Source : AsianJournal of Soil Science Table 15. Effect of tillage and nutrient management on seed cotton yield Wagh et al., (2016) Treatments Seed cotton yield (q/ha ) Tillage Conservation tillage 14.63 Conventional tillage 12.73 SE(m)+ 0.32 C.D. (p=0.05) 0.95 Nutrient management T1: 100 % RDF ( 60:30:30 NPK kg/ha ) 15.20 T2: 50 % RDF + in situ GM ( Sunhemp ) 11.69 T3: 50 % RDF + 50 % N ( FYM ) 14.47 T4: 50 % RDF + 50 % N ( WS ) 13.78 T5: 50 % RDF + 50 % N ( GLM ) 12.32 T6: 50 % RDF + 25 % N ( FYM ) + 25 % ( WS ) 14.11 T7: 50% RDF + 25 % N ( FYM ) + 25 % N ( GLM ) 14.10 T8: 50% RDF + 25 % N ( WS ) + 25 % N ( GLM ) 13.69 SE(m)+ 0.65 C.D. (p=0.05) 1.92 Location – Akola Year of experiment – 2012-13
• 48.
  Nalatwadmath et al.,(2002) Table 16. Sorghum grain and straw yield as influenced by residue management with Dolichos Treatments Grain yield (kg ha-1) Straw yield (kg ha-1) T1- Control (Sorghum without disturbance of soil) 1469 2644 T2 - Sorghum + Dolichos (Dolichos grown for grain pupose and the Dolichos residue was incorporated at harvest)) 1674 3010 T3 - Sorghum + Dolichos (Doichos was cut at 45 DAS and used as mulch) 2121 3271 T4 - Sorghum + Dolichos (Dolichos incorporated into soil at 45 DAS) 2301 3614 T5- Sorghum with interculture (soil Disturbance) 1916 3050 Bellary, Karnataka Year of Experiment:1998-2002 cost. Source : Indian J. Dryland agric. Res. & Dev.
• 49.
  Table 17. Effectof tillage practices on yield under different tillage methods over two years (pooled data for two years) Singh et al., (2011) Treatments Yield (t ha-1) Kharif Rabi T1 : Conventional tillage 4.08 4.21 T2 : Zero tillage with residue 3.64 3.87 T3 : Zero tillage without residue 3.41 3.65 T4 : Raised fresh bed 4.12 4.47 T5 : Permanent raised bed with residue 3.88 3.93 SE(m)+ 0.76 1.86 (P<0.05) - 6.06 Location: Pantnagar Year of experiment: 2007-09 cost. Source : Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences
• 50.
  CONCLUSION  Conservation agriculturetechnologies are the future of sustainable agriculture.  Conservation agriculture practices such as conservation tillage, residue and land cover management, appropriate crop rotation have shown the proven benefit to improve soil quality across the world.  The benefits range from nano-level (improving soil properties) to micro-level (saving inputs, reducing cost of production, increasing farm income), and macro-level by reducing poverty, improving food security, alleviating global warming.  To achieve sustainable food production with minimal impact on the soil and the atmosphere, conservation agriculture practices become more important now than ever. cost.
• 51.
  cost.  CA sequesteredmore carbon as compared to conventional practice particularly in the surface soil layers.  In Rice-Wheat cropping system the results showed that the no- tillage (NT) in comparison with conventional tillage (CT), caused increase in organic carbon and infiltration rate.  Among the different tillage practices and land configuration methods, zero tillage recorded more favorable soil microbial population, and dehydrogenase activity.  Higher soil enzymatic activity under conservation tillage practices could be attributed to the minimum soil disturbance, retention as well as incorporation of residues, root exudates from crops, availability of soil moisture, better aeration, optimum temperature and higher organic matter present increases the carbohydrate content which act as an energy source for microbes which resulted in higher soil enzymatic activity.  Significantly higher content of micronutrients viz., Fe, Mn, Cu, Zn and B were recorded in the treatment receiving 100 % RDF
• 52.
   Preserving environmentand natural resources  Preserving biodiversity  Increasing soil carbon storage  Promoting sustainable agriculture FUTURE CHALLENGES cost.
• 53.
  “ SOIL HEALTHCARE - THE KEY TO NATIONS PROSPERITY”