Conservation agriculture practices and sulphur fertilization effects on productivity and resource-use efficiency of rainfed mustard (Brassica juncea)

MUKESH CHOUDHARY; K S RANA; R S BANA; C M PARIHAR; S R KANTWA

doi:10.56093/ijas.v91i1.110924

Authors

MUKESH CHOUDHARY ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012, India
K S RANA ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012, India
R S BANA ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012, India
C M PARIHAR ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012, India
S R KANTWA ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012, India

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v91i1.110924

Keywords:

Crop residue, Nutrient balance, oil, Sulphur, Tillage

Abstract

Moisture and sulphur deficiency in soil are major reasons for low productivity of mustard [Brassica juncea (L.) Czern.] in rainfed semi-arid areas. To overcome this problem a field experiment was conducted during 2013-15 to find out the effect of conservation agriculture and sulphur fertilization on productivity and resource-use efficiency of mustard under rainfed conditions. Five tillage and residue management practices, i.e. conventional tillage with 0, 2 and 4 t/ha crop residue; zero tillage with 2 and 4 t/ha crop residue were allocated to main plots and four sulphur levels (0, 15, 30 and 45 kg S/ha) in sub-plots. Result showed that zero tillage with 4 t/ha crop residue produced 24.6% higher mustard seed yield than conventional tillage without residue resulted maximum net returns (44.7 × 103 ₹/ ha). Similarly, highest water use efficiency (12.7 kg/ha mm) and total nutrient uptake were also recorded in the same treatment. Increasing levels of sulphur (S) up to 45 kg/ha significantly increased seed and oil yield (37.5%). However, sulphur use efficiency was decreased with graded levels of sulphur. Conversely, higher net returns (47.6 × 103 ₹/ha) and benefit-cost ratio (1.89) were fetched with 45 kg S/ha.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Baligar V C, Fagerai N K and He Z L. 2001. Nutrient use efficiency in plants. Communication in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 32: 921–50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1081/CSS-100104098

Choudhary M, Rana K S, Bana R S, Ghasal P C, Choudhary G L, Jakhar P and Verma R K. 2017. Energy budgeting and carbon footprint of pearl millet – mustard cropping system under conventional and conservation agriculture in rainfed semi-arid agro-ecosystem. Energy 141: 1052–58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.09.136

Choudhary M, Rana K S, Meena M C, Bana R S, Jakhar P, Ghasal P C and Verma R K. 2019. Changes in physico-chemical and biological properties of soil under conservation agriculture based pearl millet – mustard cropping system in rainfed semi-arid region. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science 65: 911–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2018.1538556

Friedrich T, Derpsch R and Kassam A. 2017. Overview of the global spread of conservation agriculture. In: Sustainable Development of Organic Agriculture, pp 75-90. Apple Academic Press, USA. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315365800-4

Gupta A K and Jain N K. 2008. Sulphur fertilization in a pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum)-Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) cropping system. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science 54: 533–39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340802280435

Jackson M.L.1973. Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice Hall of India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi.

Jakhar P, Rana K S, Dass A, Choudhary A K, Choudhary M, Adhikary P P and Maharana J. 2018. Resource conservation practices in maize-mustard cropping system: Impact on energy, soil carbon and nutrient dynamics. Journal of Environmental Biology 39: 440–46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22438/jeb/39/4/MRN-549

Jamal A, Moon Y S and Abdin M Z. 2010. Sulphur -a general overview and interaction with nitrogen. Australian Journal of Crop Science 4: 523–29.

Jat M L, Chakraborty D, Ladha J K, Rana D S, Gathala M K, McDonald A and Gerard B. 2020. Conservation agriculture for sustainable intensification in South Asia. Nature Sustainability 3: 336–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0500-2

Messick D L. 2014. World Sulphur Outlook. Available from: http://www.firt.org/sites/default/files/DonMessick_Sulphur_Outlook. pdf

Omidi, H, Tahmasebi Z, Naghdi Badi H A, Torabi H and Miransari M. 2010. Fatty acid composition of canola (Brassica napus L.) as affected by agronomical, genotypic and environmental parameters, Comptes Rendus Biologies 333: 248–54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crvi.2009.10.001

Pradhan A, Chan C, Roul P K, Halbrendt J and Sipes B. 2018. Potential of conservation agriculture (CA) for climate change adaptation and food security under rainfed uplands of India: A transdisciplinary approach. Agricultural Systems 163: 27–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.01.002

Prasad R and Shivay Y S. 2018. Sulphur in soil, plant and human nutrition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, India Section B: Biological Sciences 88: 429–34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40011-016-0769-0

Ranaivoson L, Naudin K, Ripoche A, Affholder F, Rabeharisoa L and Corbeels M. 2017. Agro-ecological functions of crop residues under conservation agriculture. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 37: 26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-017-0432-z

Rego T J, Sahrawat K L, Wani S P and Pardhasaradhi G. 2007. Widespread deficiencies of sulfur, boron, and zinc in Indian semi-arid tropical soils: On-farm crop responses. Journal of Plant Nutrition 30: 1569–83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01904160701615475

Valbuena D, Erenstein O, Tui S H K, Abdoulaye T, Claessens L, Duncan A J, Gérard B, Rufino MC, Teufel N, van Rooyen A and van Wijk M T. 2012. Conservation Agriculture in mixed crop–livestock systems: Scoping crop residue trade-offs in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Field Crops Research 132: 175–184. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2012.02.022