This document summarizes the key points about crop residue management. It begins with definitions of crop residue and discusses the importance of crop residues as a source of organic matter and plant nutrients. It then discusses different types of crop residues including field residues and process residues. The potential uses of crop residues are outlined, including as animal feed, household purposes, composting, biofuels, and improving soil properties. Methods of recycling crop residues like surface mulching, in-situ incorporation, and composting are described. Tables show the effects of different crop residue management practices on soil physical, chemical and biological properties.

1. WEL COME

2. Presented by
Mr. Chavhan Govind Daulatrao
Reg. No. :-2018A/104M
Research Guide
Dr. P. K. Rathod
Asst. Prof. Dept. of SSAC,
COA, Golegaon
Seminar incharge
Dr. Syed Ismail
Head, Dept. of SSAC,
COA, Parbhani
SUBMITTED TO
HEAD
DEPARTMENT OF SOIL SCIENCE AND AGRIL. CHEMISTRY
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE,
V.N.M.K.V., PARBHANI
2019-2020

3. Crop residue:-
 “The portion 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”.
“The non – economical plant parts that are left in the field after
harvest and remains that are generated from packing sheds or
that are discarded during crop processing.
 Introduction

4.  A tremendous natural resource and not a waste.
 Crop residues are excellent source of organic matter and plant
nutrients.
 Incorporation of crop residues alters the soil environment, which
in turn influences the microbial population and activity in the soil
and subsequent nutrient transformations.
 Increasing prices of chemical fertilizers and declining soil health
has attention on the need of recycling of organic residues in crop
production.

5.  Organic recycling has to play a key role in achieving sustainability
in agricultural production.
 Multipurpose uses of crop residue include, but are not limited to,
animal feeding, soil mulching, bio-manure, thatching of rural homes
and fuel for domestic and industrial use. Thus, crop residues are of
tremendous value to the farmers.
 Crop residue benefit the soil physically, chemically as well as
biologically.

6. Crop Residue Management
Crop residue management:
Use of the non-commercial portion of the plant or crop for
protection or improvement of the soil.
CRM, a cultural practice that involves fewer and/or less intensive
tillage operations and preserves more residue from the previous crop, is
designed to help protect soil and water resources and provide additional
plant nutrients and environmental benefits.

7. Need of Crop Residue Management :
 Effective nutrient management involving available organic source
including wastes and crop residue.
 The deficit of nutrients to meet crop demand has to come from
source other than chemical fertilizers.
 Demand for fertilizer will increase by 10 to 15 mt in near future.
 So in order to meet these demands effectively on alternative way like
CRM in need to be addressed sincerely.

8. What is residue good for :
-As a soil amendment.
 Soil Structure
 Erosion control
 Soil temperature
 Microbial activity
 Nutrient cycling
 Reducing evaporation
 Water holding capacity

9.  Types of crop residues:
There are different types of agricultural crop residues.
1. Field/harvest residues:
The materials left in the field after the crop has been
harvested.
Example: Straw, Stubble, Stover, Haulms, Leaves.
 These are ploughed directly into the soil.
 Good management of field residues improves soil physical,
chemical and biological properties.

10. 2. Process residues:
The materials left after the crop is processed in to a usable
resource.
Example: Groundnut shells, husk, bagasse, molasses, oil
cakes, cobs of Maize, Sorghum, Bajra.
 These can be used as animal fodder and soil amendment,
fertilizers and in manufacturing.

11. Types of Agricultural Crop Residues
Process Residues
 Groundnut shell
 Oil cakes
 Cobs of Maize,
Sorghum & Bajara
Field / Harvest Residue
eg. Straws, Stubble,
Stover, Haulms, Leaves.

12.  Potential uses of crop residues
1) Crop residues as feed for live-stock
2) Crop residues as household purpose
3) Crop residues as compost:
4) Crop residues for mushroom cultivation
5) Crop residues as bio-fuel
6) Crop residues as biochar production
7) Crop residues as surface mulch
8) Crop residues as source of plant nutrients

13. Crop Residue Utilization in Agriculture
In situ incorporation Crop Residue as surface mulch Composting from crop residues
Soil Cover Crops Green manuring As animal feed

14. Methods of Crop Residues
Recycling :
 As a surface mulch.
 In situ incorporation of residues
in soil.
 Composting from cop
residues.
Composting
Surface
mulch
In-situ
incorporation
Recycling

15.  Crop Residues as a Surface Mulch :
 Mulch influences reflectivity of heat and water transmission
characteristics of mulched soil.
 Mulch also improves the soil water storage capacity and
reduces evaporation losses.
 Beneficial effect of crop residue mulch on soil is moisture
conservation and moderate soil temperature.
 Crop residue is an effective mean of runoff, erosion and
transport of sediment to stream.

16.  In situ incorporation of crop
residues in soil:
Crop residues are incorporated in soil before
sowing of succeeding crop.
Period available for decomposition of crop
residues is important so as to insure
availability of nutrients.
Crop residues having wide C:N ratio
decomposes slowly in the soil.
Decomposition is highly influenced by soil
properties, temperature and moisture regime.
Residues available for
in situ recycling

17.  In situations, disallowing adequate decomposition period for the soil
incorporated residues; the residues should be managed through
composting during the crop season
 Composting is a process that works to speed up the natural decay
of organic material by providing the ideal conditions for detritus-
eating organisms to thrive, according to the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA).
 Composting from cop residues:

18.  Soil structure
 Bulk Density & porosity
 Hydraulic conductivity
 Soil temperature
 Soil moisture
Effect of crop residue management on physical
properties of soil

19.  Organic carbon
 Soil pH
 Cation Exchange Capacity
 Available N, P and K
 Available Micronutrient.
Effect of crop residue management on chemical properties of
soil

20.  It provides energy for growth & activities of microbes & substrates
for microbial Biomass.
 Provide suitable environment for Biological N – fixation.
 Enzymes (dehydrogenase and alkaline phosphatase) activities
increase in soil.
 Increase in microbial population.
 Humus formation.
Effect of crop residue management on biological properties
of soil

21. Table No.1: Effect of rice residue management on physico-chemical
properties of soil at harvest.
(Source: Chandra et al. (2018) Thesis Submitted to the Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh).
Treatment
Bulk density
(Mg m-3)
pH
EC
(dS m-1)
OC (%)
T1: Rice Stubble + Zero tillage
1.37 7.24 0.23 0.30
T2: Rice Stubble Burn (@ 5 t ha-1) +
Conventional tillage
1.30 7.62 0.27 0.40
T3: Rice Stubble + Rice Biochar
(@ 2 t ha-1) + Conventional tillage
1.34 7.28 0.25 0.56
T4:Rice Stubble + Trichoderma
(@ 10 kg ha-1) + Conventional
tillage
1.36 7.36 0.30 0.48
T5: Rice Stubble + 5% Urea Spray +
Conventional tillage
1.33 7.19 0.25 0.44
T6: Rice Stubble + Trichoderma
(@ 10 kg ha-1) + FYM (@ 2 t ha-1) +
Conventional tillage
1.34 7.00 0.32 0.55
SE m ± 0.01 NS NS 0.03
CD at 5 % 0.04 NS NS 0.09

22. Table No: 2 Soil physical properties as influenced by tillage and residue
management practices in soybean-wheat cropping system
(at the end of two cropping cycles).
(Source: Monsefi et al. (2014) International Journal of Plant Production 8 (3). Location: Delhi.)
Treatment Bulk density (Mg m-3) Hydraulic conductivity (cm h-1)
Infiltration
rate (cm h-1)
Soyabean Wheat 0 -15 cm 16 -30 cm 0 -15 cm 16-30 cm
CT CT 1.69 1.70 1.061 0.934 1.124
CT ZT 1.67 1.71 1.019 0.841 1.021
ZT ZT 1.68 1.70 1.024 0.896 0.782
CT+WS ZT 1.67 1.69 1.051 0.921 0.986
CT ZT+SR 1.66 1.71 1.001 0.882 1.039
CT+WS ZT+SR 1.69 1.73 1.966 0.854 1.102
ZT+WS CT 1.68 1.71 1.016 0.845 1.214
ZT CT+SR 1.66 1.67 1.008 0.911 1.189
ZT+WS CT+SR 1.66 1.69 0.969 0.872 1.014
ZT+WS ZT 1.67 1.68 0.976 0.901 0.659
ZT ZT+SR 1.68 1.70 1.008 0.872 0.598
ZT+WS ZT+SR 1.68 1.71 1.026 0.869 1.064
Initial 1.64 1.012 1.024

23. Table No: 3 Effect of incorporation of crop residue on physico-chemical
properties of soil green gram - sunflower sequence.
T1 Control, T2 RDF green gram , T3 incorporation of cotton stalk @ 41 ha-1 + 50% N of RDF, T4 incorporation of cotton stalk @ 41kg ha-1 + 100
% N of RDF, T5 incorporation of cotton stalk @ 41 ha-1 + 125 % N + 100 % P through RDF, T6 - incorporation of sunflower straw @ 41 ha-1 +
50% N of RDF, T7 incorporation of sunflower straw @ 4 t ha-1 + 100 % N of RDF, T8 incorporation of sunflower straw @ 4 t ha-1 + 125 % N +
100% P of RDF, T9 incorporation of farm waste (including grasses) @ 4 t ha-1 + 50 % N of RDF, T10 incorporation of farm waste (including
grasses) @4 t ha-1 + 100% N of RDF, T11 incorporation of farm waste (including grasses) @ 4 t ha-1 + 125 % N + 100% P of RDF
(Source: Krishnaprabhu et. al. (2017) Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 8(3): 324-327.
Treatment
Bulk density
(Mg m-3)
pH EC (dS m-1) Org. C (g kg-1)
T1 1.28 8.01 0.29 4.0
T2 1.27 8.07 0.29 4.4
T3 1.26 8.04 0.28 4.2
T4 1.25 7.99 0.29 4.4
T5 1.25 7.97 0.25 4.4
T6 1.27 7.97 0.28 4.5
T7 1.24 7.99 0.27 4.6
T8 1.24 7.95 0.26 4.8
T9 1.25 7.97 0.27 4.2
T10 1.27 7.99 0.28 4.1
T11 1.26 8.05 0.28 4.2
SE (m) ± 0.015 0.01 0.06 0.06
CD at 5 % - - - -

24. Table No: 4 Cumulative effect of crop residue in combination with
organics, inorganics and cellulolytic organisms on soil physical
properties.
(Source: Bellakki et. al. (2007). Journal Of Indian society of soil science. 48(2):393-395. Location: Bijapur, Karnataka)
Treatment
BD
(Mg m-3)
IR (cm h-1)
Water stable
aggregates of >0.25mm
Moisture retention (%) at
0.33 bar 15 bar
T1 Sorghum stubbles @ 5 t ha-1 1.23 0.93 51.25 31.42 14.24
T2 stubbles + subabul loppings (50:50)
@ 5 t ha-1
1.27 0.92 51.46 31.85 14.88
T3 stubbles + subabul loppings (25:75)
@ 5 t ha-1
1.30 0.78 50.63 31.29 14.67
T4 Sorghum stubbles @ 5 t ha-1 +
10 kg N ha-1
1.28 0.83 49.62 30.82 14.13
T5 Sorghum stubbles @ 5 t ha-1 +
20 kg N ha-1
1.31 0.90 50.77 30.68 15.10
T6 Sorghum stubbles @ 5 t ha-1+
30 kg N ha-1
1.32 0.83 49.50 30.94 14.80
T7 Sorghum stubbles @ 5 t ha-1+
cellulolytic organism-A
1.20 0.76 51.42 31.13 14.30
T8 Sorghum stubbles @ 5 t ha-1+
cellulolytic organism-B 1.21 0.93 50.25 30.40 13.85
T9 RDF 1.35 0.53 47.18 29.62 14.00
T10 Control 1.31 0.45 46.77 28.35 13.84
CD at 5 % 0.23 0.28 3.17 1.61 0.60

25. Table No: 5 Effect of crop residue management in Rice-Wheat system on
soil physico-chemical properties
(Source: Sharma et. al. (2018). Current Journal of Applied Science and Technology. Location: Bhagalpur, Bihar.)
Indicators
Crop Residue Management practices
Removed Burned Incorporated
Incorporated +
Green manuring
CD
(P=0.05)
Bulk density (M gm-3) 1.57 1.59 1.48 1.46 0.02
Infiltration rate (cm h-1) 0.32 0.32 0.38 0.41 0.01
Aggregate stability (%) 9 10 14 14 0.04
pH 6.7 6.7 6.8 6.8 NS
EC (dS m-1) 0.20 0.21 0.27 0.28 0.01
OC (%) 0.40 0.38 0.58 0.62 0.14
Avail. N (kg ha-1) 175 178 205 230 2.82
Avail. P (kg ha-1) 20 18 32 34 0.46
Avail. K (kg ha-1) 190 188 264 265 0.84

26. Table No: 6 Effect of crop residue management in Rice-Wheat rotation
on physico-chemical properties of soil .
(Source: Thorat et al. (2015) JNKVV Res J. 49(2):125-136. Location: Jabalpur, M.P.)
Parameter Initial status Retained Incorporation Removed Burnt
pH 7.83 7.65 7.35 7.40 7.65
Water stable aggregate 51.9 57.4 56.9 46.3 38.2
OC (%) 0.46 0.53 0.58 0.43 0.47
Avail. N (kg ha-1) 64.6 89.0 83.0 32.0 21.0
Avail. P (kg ha-1) 25.8 39.0 42.0 21.0 29.0
Avail. K (kg ha-1) 52.1 67.0 69.0 48.0 55.0

27. Table No: 7 Nutrients content in grain and straw of wheat as affected by
different residue management practices and nitrogen levels
(pooled results of two year).
(Source: Shah et al. (2006) An international j. of life sci.10:385-389. Location: Nawsari, Gujarat)
Treatments
N (%) P (%) K (%)
Grain Straw Grain Straw Grain Straw
R0 Control 1.74 0.46 0.36 0.18 0.35 0.69
R1 WSI @ 5 t/ha at 30 DBS 1.89 0.49 0.37 0.18 0.36 0.73
R2 WSI @ 5 t/ha + 20 kg N/ha
at 30 DBS
1.93 0.50 0.38 0.19 0.37 0.74
R3 WSI @ 5 t/ha + 20 kg
P2O5 kg/ha at 30 DBS
1.88 0.51 0.38 0.19 0.38 0.74
R4 WSI @ 5 t/ha + 20 kg N and
20 kg P2O5 /ha at 30 DBS
1.93 0.53 0.39 0.20 0.40 0.75
R5 FYM 10 t/ha 1.83 0.49 0.37 0.19 0.37 0.72
CD at 5 % 0.085 0.031 0.016 0.08 0.022 0.032

28. Table No: 8 Effect of rice residue management on microbial Biomass
Carbon (μg g⁻1 soil) of soil at different days after sowing.
Treatments
Microbial biomass carbon (μg g-1 soil)
30 DAS 60 DAS 90 DAS At harvest
T1: Rice Stubble + Zero tillage 138.10 157.10 193.84 128.10
T2: Rice Stubble Burn (@ 5 t ha-1) +
Conventional tillage
126.36 145.36 194.21 113.03
T3: Rice Stubble + Rice Biochar
(@ 2 t ha-1) + Conventional tillage
155.68 174.68 204.40 145.68
T4:Rice Stubble + Trichoderma
(@ 10 kg ha-1) + Conventional tillage
162.61 181.61 225.50 152.61
T5: Rice Stubble + 5% Urea Spray +
Conventional tillage
151.71 170.71 195.40 141.71
T6: Rice Stubble + Trichoderma
(@ 10 kg ha-1) + FYM (@ 2 t ha-1) +
Conventional tillage
171.96 189.96 214.58 158.63
SE (m) ± 8.13 8.57 9.59 8.48
CD at 5 % 25.61 27.01 30.22 26.72
(Source: Chandra et al. (2018) Thesis Submitted to the Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh).

29. Table No: 9 Effect of rice residue management on CO2 evolution
(mg CO2 per 100 gram) at different days after sowing.
Treatments
CO2 evolution (mg CO2 100 g-1)
30 DAS 60 DAS 90 DAS At harvest
T1 : Rice Stubble + Zero tillage 28.57 30.47 32.17 19.37
T2 : Rice Stubble Burn (@ 5 t ha-1) +
Conventional tillage
31.80 34.40 35.57 27.87
T3 : Rice Stubble + Rice Biochar
(@ 2 t ha-1) + Conventional tillage
34.40 38.20 40.50 30.60
T4 : Rice Stubble + Trichoderma (@ 10
kg ha-1) + Conventional Tillage
37.17 43.10 46.47 33.00
T5 : Rice Stubble + 5% Urea Spray +
Conventional tillage
31.67 33.63 34.30 25.97
T6 : Rice Stubble + Trichoderma
(@ 10 kg ha-1) + FYM (@ 2 t ha-1) +
Conventional tillage
36.50 40.70 43.47 31.93
SE (m) ± 0.88 0.83 0.92 1.26
CD at 5 % 2.76 2.60 2.89 3.96
(Source: Chandra et al. (2018) Thesis Submitted to the Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh).

30. Table No: 10 Effect of different treatments on physical properties of soil
at harvest of safflower
Treatment
Bulk
Density
(M gm-3)
Hydraulic
conductivity
(cm hr-1)
Infiltration
rate
(cm hr-1)
Max. water
holding
capacity (%)
Water stable
aggregate of >
0.25 mm (%)
T1 100% RDF NPK without incorporation of crop residue 1.51 0.15 1.23 51.35 46.23
T2 Incorporation of crop residue @2 t ha-1 1.50 0.20 1.41 52.48 47.81
T3
PSB 10 kg ha-1 + crop residue @ 2 t ha-1 + Alkali water
irrigation passed through gypsum bed (30 cm
thickness) for safflower only
1.40 0.24 1.66 53.70 49.25
T4
50% RDF NPK with incorporation of crop residue
@ 2 t ha-1
1.43 0.28 1.69 55.69 47.10
T5 50% RDF NPK + PSB 10 kg ha-1 1.45 0.18 1.36 51.98 49.85
T6 50% RDF NPK + PSB 10 kg ha-1 + crop residue
@ 2 t ha-1
1.42 0.30 1.72 57.15 51.26
T7
50% RDF NPK + PSB 10 kg ha-1 + crop residue @ 2 t
ha-1 + Alkali water irrigation passed through gypsum
bed (30 cm thickness) for safflower only
1.39 0.33 1.78 58.44 52.75
Initial value 1.51 0.14 1.25 50.90 47.00
SE 0.034 0.017 0.028 0.64 0.56
CD at 5% 0.098 0.048 0.080 1.81 1.57
Source: Bhowate et. al.(2005) International Journal of Current Microbialogy & App.Sci. 6(9):3717-3730. Location: Ramzanpur, M.H.

31. Table No: 11 Effect of different treatments on NPK uptake by green gram
kg ha-1
Treatments
N uptake (Kg ha-1) P uptake (Kg ha-1) K uptake (Kg ha-1)
Grain Straw Grain Straw Grain Straw
T1
100% RDF NPK without incorporation of
crop residue
24.49 31.52 4.42 4.34 10.75 33.46
T2 Incorporation of crop residue @2 t ha-1 11.21 16.65 1.65 1.62 4.31 16.81
T3
PSB 10 kg ha-1 + crop residue @ 2 t ha-1 +
Alkali water irrigation passed through
gypsum bed (30 cm thickness) for
safflower only
14.96 22.40 2.47 2.45 6.10 23.91
T4
50% RDF NPK with incorporation of crop
residue @ 2 t ha-1
18.55 24.04 2.99 2.77 7.75 25.24
T5 50% RDF NPK + PSB 10 kg ha-1 16.21 13.89 2.75 3.11 6.32 24.15
T6 50% RDF NPK + PSB 10 kg ha-1 + crop
residue @ 2 t ha-1
20.04 27.57 3.44 3.49 8.49 29.19
T7
50% RDF NPK + PSB 10 kg ha-1 + crop
residue @ 2 t ha-1 + Alkali water irrigation
passed through gypsum bed (30 cm
thickness) for safflower only
23.71 28.73 4.15 3.81 10.43 30.53
SE (m)± 0.54 0.78 0.14 0.20 0.22 0.80
C.D. at 5 % 1.53 2.33 0.40 0.64 0.69 2.26
Source: Bhowate et. al.(2005) International Journal of Current Microbialogy & App.Sci. 6(9):3717-3730. Location: Ramzanpur, M.H.

32. Table No: 12 NPK content (%) in Safflower as influenced by different
treatments.
Source: Bhowate et. al.(2005) International Journal of Current Microbialogy & App.Sci. 6(9):3717-3730. Location: Ramzanpur, M.H.
Treatments
N (%) P (%) K (%)
Grain Straw Grain Straw Grain Straw
T1 100% RDF NPK without incorporation of crop residue 2.39 1.37 0.68 0.23 0.89 1.72
T2 Incorporation of crop residue @2 t ha-1 2.05 1.21 0.50 0.13 0.75 1.51
T3
PSB 10 kg ha-1 + crop residue @ 2 t ha-1 + Alkali water
irrigation passed through gypsum bed
(30 cm thickness) for safflower
2.20 1.25 0.55 0.16 0.80 1.60
T4
only 50% RDF NPK with incorporation of crop residue
@ 2 t ha-1
2.18 1.27 0.57 0.18 0.83 1.62
T5 50% RDF NPK + PSB 10 kg ha-1 2.24 1.26 0.53 0.20 0.83 1.65
T6 50% RDF NPK + PSB 10 kg ha-1 + crop residue
@ 2 t ha-1
2.31 1.33 0.60 0.19 0.86 1.68
T7 50% RDF NPK + PSB 10 kg ha-1 + crop residue @ 2 t
ha-1 + Alkali water irrigation passed through gypsum
bed (30 cm thickness) for safflower only
2.37 1.35 0.64 0.21 0.87 1.70
SE (m) ± 0.01. 0.014 0.011 0.014 0.014 0.016
C.D. at 5 % 0.030 0.041 0.031 0.040 0.041 0.045

33. Table No: 13 Effect of different treatments on grain and straw yield of
green gram and safflower
Source: Bhowate et. al.(2005) International Journal of Current Microbialogy & App.Sci. 6(9):3717-3730. Location: Ramzanpur, M.H.
Treatment
Green gram (q ha-1) Safflower (q ha1)
Grain Straw Seed Straw
T1
100% RDF NPK without incorporation of
crop residue
9.04 11.72 16.14 14.94
T2 Incorporation of crop residue @2 t ha-1 4.45 4.27 9.56 8.76
T3 PSB 10 kg ha-1 + crop residue @ 2 t ha-1 +
Alkali water irrigation passed through
gypsum bed (30 cm thickness)
5.87 5.96 11.15 11.67
T4
50% RDF NPK with incorporation of crop
residue @ 2 t ha-1
7.11 9.89 14.29 12.08
T5 50% RDF NPK + PSB 10 kg ha -1 6.26 9.82 13.36 12.45
T6
50% RDF NPK + PSB 10 kg ha-1 + crop
residue @ 2 t ha-1
7.65 10.50 14.71 13.45
T7 50% RDF NPK + PSB 10 kg ha-1 + crop
residue @ 2 t ha-1 + Alkali water irrigation
passed through gypsum bed
8.85 11.66 15.55 13.81
SE (m) ± 0.20 0.38 0.42 0.37
C.D. at 5 % 0.56 1.08 1.24 1.04

34. Table No: 14 Impact of ISTM on soil organic carbon and available
nitrogen
( Source: Manjunath et al. (2015) Advances in Crop Science Tech. 3(1). Location: Mandya, Karnataka.)
Year
Organic carbon (%)
Difference in OC over
years (%)
Available N
(Kg ha-1)
Difference in
Avail. N over years (%)
ISTM Check ISTM Check ISTM Check ISTM Check
Before 0.42 0.44 - - 312.4 324.8 - -
Rabi 2008 0.45 0.42 6.3 -4.3 319.6 306.4 2.3 -5.7
Rabi 2009 0.50 0.40 11.3 -4.1 330.5 297.3 3.4 -3.0
Rabi 2010 0.58 0.40 16.0 -1.5 347.3 284.7 5.1 -4.2
Average 0.49 0.41 11.2 -3.3 327.4 303.3 3.6 -4.3

35. Table No: 15 Impact of ISTM on soil available phosphorus and
potassium
Year
Available P2O5
(Kg ha-1)
Difference in
Avail. P2O5 over
years (%)
Available K2O
(Kg ha-1)
Difference in
Avail. K2O over
years (%)
ISTM Check ISTM Check ISTM Check ISTM Check
Before 31.8 31.2 - - 232.5 244.6 - -
Rabi 2008 34.2 29.6 7.4 -5.1 248.3 236.8 6.8 -3.2
Rabi 2009 37.0 29.2 8.3 -1.4 277.1 228.4 11.6 -3.5
Rabi 2010 40.6 27.6 9.8 -5.5 319.2 230.3 15.2 0.8
Average 35.9 29.4 8.5 -4.0 269.3 235.0 11.2 -2.0
( Source: Manjunath et al. (2015) Advances in Crop Science Tech. 3(1). Location: Mandya, Karnataka.)

36. Table No: 16 Effect crop residue management in rice-wheat system on
soil microbial and enzymatic activity.
Indicators
Crop residue management practices
C.D.
(P=0.05)Removed Burned Incorporated
Incorporated +
Green manure
Bacteria (*106) 14.5 2.6 28.36 32.25 2.04
Fungi(*103) 58 11 105 125 15.83
Phosphatase activity
(Mg p-NP g-1h-1)
121 124 172 178 2.33
Dehydrogenase
activity
(mg TPFg-1 24 h-1)
32 29 55 65 1.07
(Source: Sharma et. al. (2018). Current Journal of Applied Science and Technology. Location: Bhagalpur, Bihar.)

37. Table No: 17 Effect of crop residue management on growth, yield
attributes and yield of rice and wheat.
Indicators
Crop residue management practices
C.D.
(P =0.05)Removed Burned Incorporated
Incorporated
+green manure
RICE
Plant Height (cm) 92 95 105 110 2.3
Panicle (numbers m-2) 282 290 402 423 16
Panicle weight (g) 2.94 2.96 3.03 3.05 0.06
Filled grain
(numbers panicle-1)
124 126 135 138 1.04
1000 grain weight (g ) 21.48 21.52 22.23 22.24 0.08
Grain yield (qt ha-1) 22 22 34 36 0.72
Straw yield (qt ha-1) 32 32 45 44 0.48
Harvest Index 0.41 0.41 0.43 0.45 -
Benefit : Cost ratio 2.31 2.35 3.02 3.10 -

38. WHEAT
Plant Height (cm) 85 88 95 98 3.1
Panicle (numbers m-2) 611 645 740 757 21
1000 grain weight (g ) 41.02 41.11 42.17 42.34 0.05
Grain yield (qt ha-1) 24 24 37 38 0.04
Straw yield (qt ha-1) 52 52 79 81 0.37
Harvest Index 0.46 0.46 0.47 0.47 -
Benefit : Cost ratio 2.80 2.87 3.35 3.42 -
Indicators
Crop residue management practices
C.D.
(P = 0.05)Removed Burned Incorporated
Incorporated +
green manure
(Source: Sharma et. al. (2018). Current Journal of Applied Science and Technology. Location: Bhagalpur, Bihar.)

39. Table No: 18 Effect of rice residue management on yield attribute
character of wheat.
Treatment
Total tillers
(m-2)
Effective
tillers (m-2)
Plant height
cm
Spike length
(cm)
No. of grains/
spike
Test weight
(g)
T1 : Rice Stubble + Zero
tillage
331.67 325.33 75.67 10.27 42.80 43.93
T2 : Rice Stubble Burn
(@ 5 t ha-1)+
Conventional tillage
256.33 250.00 72.83 9.03 35.70 42.70
T3 : Rice Stubble + Rice
Biochar (@ 2 t ha-1) +
Conventional tillage
304.67 296.67 75.20 9.47 38.73 43.47
T4 : Rice Stubble +
Trichoderma
(@ 10 kg ha-1) +
Conventional Tillage
291.67 285.00 73.60 9.40 37.87 43.08
T5 : Rice Stubble + 5%
Urea Spray
+Conventional tillage
260.33 253.00 73.47 9.27 36.33 42.99
T6 : Rice Stubble +
Trichoderma (@ 10
kg ha-1) + FYM (@ 2
t ha-1)+Conventional
tillage
343.00 334.67 79.10 10.73 45.47 44.55
SE m ± 10.99 10.52 NS 0.16 1.08 0.34
CD at 5 % 34.63 33.14 NS 0.51 3.41 1.08
(Source: Chandra et al. (2018) Thesis Submitted to the Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh).

40. Table No: 19 Effect of rice residue management on yield of wheat.
Treatments Grain yield (qha-1) Straw yield (qha-1)
T1: Rice Stubble + Zero tillage
28.22 37.55
T2: Rice Stubble Burn (@ 5 t ha-1) +Conventional
tillage
23.87 30.53
T3: Rice Stubble + Rice Biochar (@ 2 t ha-1) +
Conventional tillage
26.58 35.95
T4: Rice Stubble + Trichoderma (@ 10 kg ha-1) +
Conventional tillage
25.67 33.95
T5: Rice Stubble + 5% Urea Spray + Conventional
tillage
24.10 32.48
T6: Rice Stubble + Trichoderma (@ 10 kg ha-1) + FYM
(@ 2 t ha-1) + Conventional tillage
30.13 39.76
SE m ± 1.31 1.78
CD at 5 % 4.13 5.63
(Source: Chandra et al. (2018) Thesis Submitted to the Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh).

41. Table No: 20 Nutrient potential of different crop residues in India.
Crop N (%) P2O5 (%) K2O (%) Total
Tone nutrients
t-1 residue
Rice 0.61 0.18 1.38 2.17 0.0217
Wheat 0.48 0.16 1.18 1.82 0.0182
Sorghum 0.52 0.23 1.34 2.09 0.0209
Maize 0.52 0.18 1.35 2.05 0.0205
Pearl millet 0.45 0.16 1.14 1.75 0.0175
Barley 0.52 0.18 1.30 2.00 0.0200
Finger millet 1.00 0.20 1.00 2.20 0.0220
Pulses 1.29 0.36 1.64 3.29 0.0329
Oilseeds 0.80 0.21 0.93 1.94 0.0194
Groundnut 1.60 0.23 1.37 3.20 0.0320
Sugarcane 0.40 0.18 1.28 1.86 0.0186
Potato tuber 0.52 0.21 1.06 1.79 0.0179
(Source: Bhattacharjya (2019) Current Science ,vol.116, No.8.)

42.  Conclusion:
 Crop residue management increase the organic matter
content in soil.
 It improves the microbial activity in the soil.
 It promote the utilization of agricultural raw material.
 Crop residue must be used for conservation agriculture
for sustainable agriculture and healthy soil.
 It improves soil physical, chemical and biological health.

43.  Reduces the cost of cultivation.
 Crop residue management helps to reduce environmental
pollution by reducing crop residue burning.
 Judicious use of chemical fertilizer & organic residues
could bring considerable improvement in productivity of
various crops.