This document summarizes research on the effects of bed planting systems on wheat crop yield, water productivity, and soil physical properties. Several studies found that bed planting systems increased wheat grain yields, harvest index, water productivity, and soil properties compared to flat planting. Yield gains ranged from 10-13% in some studies comparing bed planting to flat planting. Optimal bed widths and numbers of rows per bed varied between studies but beds generally outperformed flat planting in terms of wheat productivity and efficient water use.

2. Performance of bed planting system on water
productivity, soil physical properties and yield of wheat
crop
Presented by
VIPIN KUMAR SAGAR
Id. No. - 2670
Ph.D. (AGRONOMY)
DEPARTMENT OF AGRONOMY
SARDAR VALLABHBHAI PATEL UNIVERSITY OF
AGRICULTURE & TECHNOLOGY, MEERUT- 250110 (U.P)
SEMINAR
on

3. INTRODUCTION
 Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) is the second most important cereal
crop of India.
 The total area of wheat in the world is around 222.6 mha.
 The total production 716.10 mt.
 The average world productivity is 32.2 q/ha. (USDA, 2014).
 In India it covers an wheat area of 31.2 mha.
 The total production of 95.90 mt.
 The total average productivity of 30.80 q/ha. (USDA, 2014).
 In India, U.P. having first rank in production (30.25 mt) and area
(9.96 mha).
 The Punjab having first rank with 48.48 q/ha.
 UP fourth rank with 30.38 q/ha yield.
(Directorate of Economics and Statistics Government of
India, 2014).

4. 31.2
24.1
23.8
18.7113.8
9.3
8.83
6.8
5.31
3.22
53.85
India
China
Russia
United state
Australia
Canada
Pakistan
Iran
france
Germany
Other
Source: United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2014.
Country wise area of wheat in the world (mha)

5. 126
95.9
59
55.238.7
28
26
25.6
24.5
13
151.63
China
India
Russia
United state
france
Canada
Australia
Germany
Pakistan
Iran
Other
Source: United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2014.
Country wise production of wheat in the world(mt)

6. Source: United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2014.
Country wise productivity of wheat in the world (q/ha)
79.5
73
52.3
30.8
30.1
29.5
27.7
24.8
19.01
18.8
Germany
france
China
India
Canada
United state
Pakistan
Russia
Iran
Australia

7. 9.96
5.8
3.6
2.9
2.5 2.26
1.4
1.1
0.38 0.35 0.3
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Area (million hectares)
Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics (DES), Government of India, 2014.
States wise area of wheat in India (mha)

8. 30.3
17
13.9
11.8
8.9
5.1
3.7
1.6 0.94 0.84
1.85
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Production (miilion tannes)
Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics (DES), Government of India.2013-14
States wise production of wheat in India (million tonnes)

9. 48.48 47.22
31.75 30.38
28.02 27.03
24.25 24.05
22.51
20.58
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Productivity (q/ha)
Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics (DES), Government of India, 2014.
States wise productivity of wheat in India (q/ha)

10. Planting
pattern
Grain yield
(kg/ha)
Biological
yield (kg/ha)
Harvest index
(%)
Water
productivity
(kg/m-3)
B75-2 4429 11925 37.20 1.52
B75-3 4560 11703 39.29 1.53
B90-2 4357 12026 36.27 1.63
B90-3 6180 14575 42.49 2.25
B90-4 4890 13398 36.67 1.75
Flat
planting
5282 15151 35.11 1.26
CD
(P=0.05)
343 917 2.43 0.11
Kumar et al., 2010 (Hisar)
Yield and water productivity of wheat as influenced by planting
patterns

11. Comparison of yield and water use efficiency for raised bed
versus flat irrigation/planting methods of wheat
Fahong et al., 2002 (China)
Variety Planting
method
Irrigation
water
applied
(m3/ha)
Grain yield
(kg/ha)
Total water
available
(m3/ha)
Water use
efficiency
(kg/m-3)
Jimai 19
Bed 1500 6900 3543 1.96
Flat 1800 6415 3843 1.67
Yannong 19
Bed 1500 7065 3543 1.99
Flat 1800 5799 3843 1.51
Mean - 6544 1.78
LSD
(P=0.05)
- 375 0.29

12. Grain yield and water productivity of wheat under bed
planting (FIRBS)
Planting
Methods
Grain yield (q/ha)
Water productivity
(kg/m-3)
2010-11 2011-12 2010-11 2011-12
Conventional 41.61 47.19 5.03 2.51
Bed (FIRB) 42.33 49.33 6.30 3.05
Singh et al., 2015 (Hisar)

13. Effect of bed planting system on water productivity of wheat
Planting
methods
Grain yield
(t ha–1)
Straw yield
(t ha–1)
Water productivity
(kg/m-3)
2002-03 2003-04 2002-03 2003-04 2002-03 2003-04
PLRB 5.00a 5.19a 6.00a 6.23a 1.90a 2.39a
TLRB 4.60b 4.74b 5.30b 5.44b 1.38b 1.65b
PLFB 4.60b 4.78b 6.20a 6.41a 1.31b 1.56c
TLFB 4.30c 4.42c 5.50c 4.60c 0.82c 1.03d
Means with the same letters are not significantly different at P = 0.05.
Jat et al., 2011
(Modipuram)

14. Effect of bed planting on water productivity for
wheat (2000–01 to 2003–04)
11.7
17.6
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Basin Raised Bed
Hassan et al., 2004 (Pakistan)
WP (kg/ha/mm)

15. Effect of bed planting on tiller density, grain yield
and water use efficiency of wheat
Treatment Emergence
(m−2)
Tiller
density
(m−2)
Grain
yield
(t ha−1)
WUE
(kg
ha−1 cm−1)
Flat sowing
(pre-sowing irrigation) 173 425 4.20 99
Bed sowing
(pre-sowing irrigation) 156 393 3.99 97
Bed sowing (dry sown)
followed by irrigation 176 474 4.52 110
Bed sowing
(sown after applying irrigation
to dry beds)
167 427 4.21 103
LSD (0.05) 13.3 44.1 0.32 -
Kaur, 2003 (Ludhiana)

16. Effects of bed planting on yield and yield -attributes wheat
with different bed width
Bed width Determined
rows
Grains/spike Grain weight
per spike (g)
1000-grain
weight (g)
Yield
(kg/ha)
60 cm
3 rows
Edge rows 29.62 1.74
58.17 5524
Middle rows 20.37 1.22
75 cm
4 rows
Edge rows 29.05 1.79
58.80 5752
Middle rows 24.82 1.53
90 cm
5 rows
Edge rows 30.12 1.81
58.56 5502
Middle rows 21.12 1.36
Zhongming et al., 2003 (China)

17. Yields of wheat in bed planting system
Treatments Layout Grain yield
(t ha-1)
2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Mean
CTW Flat 4.78 3.75 3.78 4.10
WB fresh beds 6.12 5.61 5.87 5.86
DDWB Perm. beds 4.26 4.01 3.02 3.52
Singh, 2005 (Ludhiana)

18. Yield and yield-attributes of wheat as influenced by
planting patterns
Planting
pattern
Plant
height
(cm)
Ear length
(cm)
No. of
spikes/m2
No. of
spikelets/
spike
No. of
grains/
spike
Grain
yield
(kg/ha)
B75-2 95.63 9.83 344.5 17.11 49.62 4429
B75-3 90.85 8.71 386.3 15.25 39.67 4560
B90-2 97.66 9.04 333.2 19.55 56.71 4357
B90-3 95.44 9.72 445.7 18.66 53.20 6180
B90-4 95.44 8.83 384.7 16.29 39.92 4890
Flat
planting
97.18 10.04 426.1 17.92 48.40 5282
CD
(P=0.05) 1.21 0.36 19.84 0.59 1.60 343
Kumar et al., 2010 (Hisar)

19. Effect of planting method on yield attributes of wheat
Method of
planting
Plant
height
90 DAS
(cm)
No. of
effective
tillers/m
Ear length
(cm)
No. of
spikelets/
spike
No. of
grain/spike
1000
grain
weight
(g)
FIRBS 79.5 78.5 9.9 17.1 44.2 49.9
Side sowing
on ridges
72.4 69.2 9.5 15.8 41.8 42.1
Conventional 71.3 55.2 8.7 15.5 35.5 40.0
CD (P=0.05) 6.48 21.81 0.44 1.28 3.99 6.28
Idnani and Kumar, 2012 (New Delhi)

20. Yield attributing characters and wheat yield as influenced
by planting method
Planting
method
Spikes m-1 Grains
spike-1
Test weight
(g)
Grain yield
(t/ha)
2003-04 2004-05 2003-04 2004-05 2003-04 2004-05 2003-04 2004-05
Zero till 68.10 73.36 46.78 47.07 43.30 45.01 3.29 3.53
Rota till 76.65 81.53 49.04 49.58 44.83 45.97 3.63 3.86
Bed
planting
89.01 92.25 50.82 51.52 45.87 46.84 3.75 4.20
Conventional
method
74.26 77.59 47.51 48.17 44.13 45.09 3.44 3.79.
CD (P=0.05) 6.69 3.47 2.61 2.44 NS NS 1.79 4.59
Maurya and Singh, 2008 (Faizabad)

21. Effect of Basin and Raised beds planting on
yield of wheat
Hassan et al., 2004 (Pakistan)

22. Effect of planting system on yield of wheat
Planting
system
Grain yield (q/ha) Straw yield (q/ha) Harvest index (%)
2007-08 2008-09 2007-08 2008-09 2007-08 2008-09
Conventional 41.15 43.80 57.48 58.20 41.68 42.90
FIRB 45.59 48.73 59.94 62.18 43.16 43.96
SEm± 0.668 0.548 0.800 0.546 0.248 0.289
LSD
(P=0.05)
1.914 1.569 2.291 1.563 0.814 0.828
Meena et al., 2013 (New Delhi)

23. Effect of bed planting system on Grain yield of wheat
Planting
methods
Grain yield
(t/ha)
2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Mean
Flat 3.30 3.45 3.08 3.28
Fresh beds 3.75 3.80 3.45 3.67
Perm. beds 3.70 3.23 2.63 3.19
Gill and Rehman, 2004 (Pakistan)

24. Effect of different planting methods on
yield attributes and yield
Variety Planting
method
Spikes
/ m2
Grains/
spike
1000-
Grain
weight
(g)
Grain
yield
(kg/ha)
Yield
increase
(%)
Harvest
index
(%)
Jimai 19 Bed 453 43.1 38.7 6195
10.0
0.40
Flat 448 39.8 36.0 5629 0.40
Yannong
19
Bed 633 36.1 36.3 6765
13.4
0.42
Flat 616 32.2 34.1 5965 0.41
LSD
(P=0.05)
28 2.0 1.8 312 0.15
Fahong et al., 2002 (China)

25. Effect of planting method on yield and yield attributes of wheat
Method of planting Plant height
(cm)
Spike length
(cm)
Grain
yield
(t ha-1)
Straw
yield
(t ha-1)
Bed width
(cm)
Rows
bed-1
2002
70 2 97.3 a 13.9a 2.85a 5.44bc
70 3 97.3a 13.7a 2.82a 6.11a
80 2 96.8a 13.4ab 2.54bc 4.78d
80 3 97.0a 13.2ab 2.65b 5.41c
90 2 97.2a 12.6bc 2.26d 4.90d
90 3 97.3a 12.5bc 2.43c 5.65b
Conventional 85.1b 12.0c 5.46bc 2.35dc
Mollah et al., 2003) Cont..Different letters differ significantly at (P<0.05)

26. Method of planting Plant height
(cm)
Spike length
(cm)
Grain yield
(t ha-1)
Straw yield
(t ha-1)
Bed width
(cm)
Rows
bed-1
2003
70 2 99.9b 14.3a 3.34a 6.02b
70 3 101.2ab 14.1a 3.28a 6..44a
80 2 102.3a 13.4ab 2.78bc 5.44d
80 3 102.4a 13.3ab 2.87b 5.77c
90 2 102.2a 13.1ab 2.64c 5.20e
90 3 101.8a 12.8b 2.67bc 5.54d
Conventional 91.9c 12.3b 2.81bc 6.35a
Mollah et al., 2003 (Bangladesh)
Different letters differ significantly at (P<0.05)

27. Yields of wheat on flats and raised beds in replicated
experiments at locations across North-Western India
Location Grain yield (t ha−1) Reference
Flat Raised bed
Delhi 4.93 4.99
Kumar & Mishra
(2001)
Haryana 5.67 5.50 Singh (1995)
Haryana 4.83 5.07 Yadav et al. (2002)
Punjab 5.45 5.67 Kaur (2000)
Punjab 3.48 3.68 Kumar (2002)
Punjab 4.22 4.37
Dhillon et al.
(2000)
Uttaranchal
5.00 5.19 Hobbs (2001)
Ram et al., 2005 (Ludhiana)

28. Effect sowing methods on economics of wheat
Method of
sowing
Grain yield
(tonnes/ha)
Cost of
cultivation
(Rs/ha)
Gross
income
(Rs/ha)
Net return
(Rs/ha)
B:C
ratio
FIRBS 4.765 10289 41875 31586 3.07
Side sowing
on ridges
3.726 9693 37897 28204 2.91
Conventional 3.531 11040 35768 24728 2.24
CD (5%) 0.3427 - - 2250 0.126
Idnani and Kumar, 2012 (New Delhi)

29. Effect planting methods on economics of
wheat
Planting
method
Gross cost
(Rs/ha)
Gross income
(Rs/ha)
Net income
(Rs/ha) B:C Ratio
FIRB 17045 49537 32492 1.90
Conventional 18134 40425 22291 1.22
Hassan et al., 2004 (Pakistan)

30. Effect of bed planting on wheat, water use efficiency
and soil physical properties
Treatment Grain yield
(q/ha)
Total water
applied
(cm)
WUE (kg/ha-
cm)
Bulk density
(g/cm3)
Zero tillage 41.60 30.80 135.06 1.49
Bed planting 46.30 26.00 178.07 1.40
Conventional
tillage
42.40 32.40 130.86 1.41
CD at 5% 0.68
Goel and Verma, 2005 (Karnal)

31. Effect of planting method on soil properties, grain yield, water
use and water use efficiency of wheat
Planting
method
Bulk density
(0–10 cm)
(mg m−3)
Infiltration
rate
(cm h−1)
Grain
yield
(t ha−1)
Water
applied
(cm)
WUE
(kg ha−1
cm−1)
Raised bed
3 rows/bed
1.35 0.83 5.31 21.4 186
Conventional
sowing
1.42 0.62 5.09 24.9 157
LSD (0.05) 0.05 NS 0.37 - 27
Aggarwal and Goswami, 2003 (New Delhi)
Cont..

32. Planting
system
Soil moisture
(mg/m3)
Infiltration rate
(cm/hr)
Penetration
resistance (MPa)
At
sowing
At
harvest
At sowing At harvest At sowing At harvest
Bed planting 1.35 1.50 2.1 0.83 0.08 0.36
Conventional
planting
1.42 1.53 1.6 0.62 0.14 0.38
CD (P=0.05) 0.05 NS 0.6 NS 0.03 NS
Infiltration rate and penetration resistance of sandy-loam soil
at sowing and harvest of wheat planted on beds and
conventionally
Agarwal and Goswami, 2003 (New Delhi)

33. Physical properties and wheat yield under various bed
planting techniques
Treatments Bulk
density
(Mg/m-3)
Water
stable
aggregates
>0.25 mm
(%)
Aggregate
Porosity
(%)
Grain yield (t/ha)
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
PLWB 1.44 82.8 43.2 5.15 5.20 5.35
TLWB 1.46 79.0 40.8 4.70 4.72 4.80
PLNB 1.45 81.9 42.7 4.95 5.00 5.15
TLNB 1.48 72.9 40.2 4.65 4.68 4.70
PLFB 1.49 80.3 41.3 4.75 4.77 4.85
TLFB 1.50 66.7 39.6 4.45 4.42 4.45
CD (P=0.05) 0.09 5.3 1.74 0.24 0.2 0.31
Naresh et al., 2014 (Meerut)

34. Effect of sowing method on yield and soil physical
properties of wheat
Method of
sowing
Grain yield
(tonnes/ha)
Straw yield
(tonnes/ha)
Harvest
index
(%)
Bulk
density
(g/cm-3)
Cumulative
infiltration
(cm/hr)
FIRBS 4.765 11.030 0.432 1.44 8.07
Side sowing
on ridges
3.726 9.00 0.414 1.50 7.75
Conventional 3.531 8.827 0.400 1.47 7.89
CD (5%) 0.3427 1.4219 0.0241 0.02 0.15
Idnani and Kumar, 2012 (New Delhi)

35. Hassan et al., 2004 (Pakistan)
Cumulative infiltration at wheat harvest

36. Geometric mean saturated hydraulic conductivity data for
PRBs and a normal seedbed.
Hamilton et al., 2005 (Australia)

37. Planting
pattern
Bulk density at harvest (g cm-3) Cumulative
infiltration
rate at
harvest
(cm)
0-15
cm
15-30
cm
30-60
cm
ZT 1.57 1.61 1.56 18.50
CT 1.49 1.63 1.54 16.26
BT 1.48 1.63 1.58 16.79
Effect of different planting pattern on bulk density at different depth
and cumulative infiltration rate at harvest of wheat
Singh et al., 2010 (Ludhiana)

38. Effect of bed planting system
on water productivity and yield of wheat
In this method wheat is sown on Raised beds
accommodating 2-6 rows of wheat.
Savings of about 40% irrigation water.
Less water requirement by 30-40%.
Enhance of water productivity.
Decrease seed rate up to 40%.
Save the 15-25% of total irrigation time with same or
enhance productivity.
Increase yield up to 10%.
Naresh et al., 2011

39. Effect of bed planting system
on soil physical properties
Reduce field compaction.
Reduce soil erosion.
Reduce of the salt concentration.
Reduction of soil crusting on the top of the bed.
The improvement of soil aggregation aggregate
stability.
Reduction the soil bulk density and increase
porosity of soil.
Increase rate of infiltration.
Improvement hydraulic conductivity of the soil.
Egball et al., 1996; Fahong et al., 2004

40. CONCLUSION
 Bed planting system for getting higher productivity on a sustained
basis in wheat crop.
 Bed planting technique in wheat is superior over flat sowing in
respect of productivity, input use efficiency and economic returns.
 Bed planting system improve saving of water, and superior water
productivity then conventional planting of wheat crop.
 Bed planting system for getting higher infiltration rate, aggregate
suability and aggregate porosity, hydraulic conductivity and low
bulk density of the soil.