Weed dynamics, wheat (Triticum aestivum) yield and irrigation water-use efficiency under conservation agriculture

TARUN SHARMA; T K DAS; SUSAMA SUDHISHRI; PRAGATI PRAMANIK MAITY; SUNANDA BISWAS; PRABHU GOVINDASAMY; RISHI RAJ; SUMAN SEN; TEEKAM SINGH; AMRIT KUMAR PAUL; ARKAPRAVA ROY; PRIYANKA SAHA; SUBHASH BABU

doi:10.56093/ijas.v93i3.132171

Authors

TARUN SHARMA ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012, India
T K DAS ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012, India
SUSAMA SUDHISHRI ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012, India
PRAGATI PRAMANIK MAITY ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012, India
SUNANDA BISWAS ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012, India
PRABHU GOVINDASAMY ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012, India
RISHI RAJ ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012, India
SUMAN SEN ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012, India
TEEKAM SINGH ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012, India
AMRIT KUMAR PAUL ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012, India
ARKAPRAVA ROY ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012, India
PRIYANKA SAHA ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012, India
SUBHASH BABU ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012, India

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v93i3.132171

Keywords:

Benefit-cost analysis, Crop residue retention, Weed dynamics, Zero tillage

Abstract

A field experiment was conducted to evaluate the impacts of a 12-year old conservation agriculture (CA)- based pigeon pea-wheat system on weeds, wheat crop, and resource use during winter (rabi) 2021–22. Results indicated that surface retention of residue irrespective of ZT permanent bed and N dose led to significant reduction in weed interference at 60 DAS. CA-based systems reduced weed density and dry weight considerably than CT. CA- based systems led to significantly higher wheat grain yield (by 11.6–14.9%) and net B:C (by 24.0 –28.0%) than CT, and PFBR100N and PBBR100N were slightly superior to others. PBBR100N and PBBR75N had lower irrigation water use and significantly higher irrigation water productivity than CT. Contrast analysis showed that wheat yield and water productivity were comparable between 75% N and 100% N in CA, indicating a saving of 25% N under CA.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Aryal j P, Sapkota T B, jat M l and Bishnoi D K. 2014. on-farm economic and environmental impact of zero-tillage wheat: A case of north-west India. experimental Agriculture 51(1). doi: 10.1017/S001447971400012X DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S001447971400012X

Baghel j K, Das T K, Mukherjee I, Nath C P, Bhattacharyya R, ghosh S and Raj R. 2020. Impacts of conservation agriculture and herbicides on weeds, nematodes, herbicide residue and productivity in direct-seeded rice. Soil and Tillage Research 201: 104634. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2020.104634

Chauhan B S, Singh R and Mahajan g. 2012. ecology and management of weeds under conservation agriculture: A review. Crop Protection 38: 57–65. doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2012.03.010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2012.03.010

Chhokar R S, Sharma R K, jat g R, Pundir A K and gathala M K. 2007. Effect of tillage and herbicides on weeds and productivity of wheat under rice-wheat growing system. Crop Protection 26: 1689–96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2007.01.010

Dahiya S S, Chauhan y S, johansen C, waldia R S, Sekhon h S and Nandal j K. 2002. extra-short duration pigeonpea for diversifying wheat based cropping systems in the sub-tropics. experimental Agriculture 38: 1–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S001447970200011X

Das T K, Bandyopadhyay K K, Bhattacharyya R, Sudhishri S, Sharma A R, Behera u K, Saharawat y S, Sahoo P K, Pathak H, Vyas A K, Gupta H S, Gupta R K and Jat M L. 2016. Effects of conservation agriculture on crop productivity and water use efficiency under an irrigated pigeonpea-wheat cropping system in the western Indo-gangetic Plains. Journal of Agricultural Science 154(8): 1327–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859615001264

Das T K, Bhattacharyya R, Sudhishri S, Sharma A R, Saharawat y S, Bandyopadhyay K K, Sepat S, Bana R S, Aggarwal P, Sharma R K, Bhatia A, Singh g, Datta S P, Kar A, Singh B, Singh P, Pathak h, vyas A K and jat M l. 2014. Conservation agriculture in an irrigated cotton-wheat system of the western Indo-gangetic Plains: Crop and water productivity and economic profitability. Field Crops Research 158: 24–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2013.12.017

Das T K, Nath C P, Das S, Biswas S, Bhattacharyya R, Sudhishri S, Raj R, Singh B, Kakraliya S K, Rathi N and Sharma A R. 2020. Conservation agriculture in rice-mustard cropping system for five years: Impacts on crop productivity, profitability, water-use efficiency and soil properties. Field Crops Research 250: 107781. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2020.107781

Das T K, Saharawat y S, Bhattacharyya R, Sudhishri S, Bandyopadhyay K K, Sharma A R and jat M l. 2018. Conservation agriculture effects on crop and water productivity, profitability and soil organic carbon accumulation under a maize-wheat cropping system in the North-western Indo- gangetic Plains. Field Crops Research 215: 222–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2017.10.021

Das T K. 1999. Is transformation of weed data always necessary. Annals of Agricultural Research 20: 335–41.

Das T K. 2001. Towards better appraisal of herbicide bio-efficacy. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 71(10): 676–78.

Erenstein o. 2003. Smallholder conservation farming in the tropics and sub-tropics: A guide to the development and dissemination of mulching with crop residues and cover crops. Agriculture, ecosystems and environment 100(1): 17–37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(03)00150-6

govindasamy P, Sarangi D, Provin T, hons F and Bagavathiannan M. 2020. No-tillage altered weed species dynamics in a long-term (36-year) grain sorghum experiment in southeast Texas. Weed Science 68(5): 476–84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/wsc.2020.40

jat M l, Dagar j C, Sapkota T B, yadvinder-Singh, govaerts B, Ridaura S l, Saharawat y S, Sharma R K, Tetarwal j P, jat R K, hobbs h and Stirling C. 2016. Climate change and agriculture: Adaptation strategies and mitigation opportunities for food security in South Asia and latin America. Advances in Agronomy 137: 127–235. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.agron.2015.12.005

Kassam A, Friedrich T and Derpsch R. 2022. Successful experiences and lessons from conservation agriculture worldwide. Agronomy 12(4): 769. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12040769

Nandan R, Singh v, Kumar v, Singh S S, hazra K K, Nath C P, Malik R K and Poonia S P. 2020. viable weed seed density and diversity in soil and crop productivity under conservation agriculture practices in rice-based cropping systems. Crop Protection 136: 105210. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2020.105210

Nath C P, Das T K, Rana K S, Pathak h, Bhattacharyya R, Paul S, Singh S B and Meena M C. 2015. weed-management and wheat productivity in a conservation agriculture-based maize (Zea mays)-wheat (Triticum aestivum)-mungbean (Vigna radiata) system in north-western Indo-gangetic plains of India. Indian Journal of Agronomy 60(4): 554–63.

Powlson D S, Stirling C M, Thierfelder C, white R P and jat M l. 2016. Does conservation agriculture deliver climate change mitigation through soil carbon sequestration in tropical agro- ecosystems? Agriculture, ecosystems and environment 220: 164–74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.01.005