Yield gap analysis of recommended soybean (Glycine max) production technologies and their impact on energy and carbon budgeting
Abstract views: 216
/ 
PDF downloads: 175
Authors
-
RAKESH KUMAR VERMA
ICAR-Indian Institute of Soybean Research, Khandwa Road, Indore (MP)-452001
-
SUNIL DATT BILLORE
ICAR-Indian Institute of Soybean Research, Khandwa Road, Indore (MP)-452001
-
RAGHAVENDRA M
ICAR-Indian Institute of Soybean Research, Khandwa Road, Indore (MP)-452001
Keywords:
Carbon use efficiency, carbon intensity, energy, energy use efficiency, energy productivity, soybean, YieldAbstract
A field experiment was conducted during rainy (kharif) season of 2017–18 at Research farm of ICAR-IISR, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, to study the effect of different agronomic practices on productivity, energy indices and carbon balance of soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. The additional use of micronutrients (Zn, B and Mo) and secondary nutrients along with full package of practices showed positive yield effect by 6.08% and 3.20% as compared to whole package. The narrow row planting (30 cm) and 50% RDF + 2% urea spray along with full package of practices had very little negative effect on the yield. On pooled average basis, the deletion of any recommended practice from the full package of practices reduced the yield by 1.14–71.69%. The highest yield reduction was associated with the 50% reduction of seed rate in full package of practices. Energy output followed the similar trend as observed in seed yield. Highest energy use efficiency was recorded with 50% RDF + 2% urea spray. The maximum specific energy and energy profitability was registered under full package of practices + 50% (30 kg/ha) seed rate treatment. Highest carbon use efficiency was registered with full package of practices without RDF. Thus, when comparing the carbon intensity (biomass and seed), the maximum carbon intensity was associated with full package of practices + 50% seed rate.
Downloads
References
Alimagham S M, Soltani A and Zeinali E. 2014. Fuel consumption, energy use and GHGs emissions from field operations in soybean production. Electronic Journal of Crop Production 7(1): 1–23.
Balboa G R, Archontoulis S V, Salvagiotti F, Garcia F O, Stewart W M, Francisco E, Vara Prasad P V and CiampittiI A. 2019. A systems-level yield gap assessment of maize-soybean rotation under high- and low-management inputs in the Western US Corn Belt using APSIM. Agricultural Systems 174: 145–54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.04.008
Billore S D. 2017. Enhancing the Water Stress Tolerance in Soybean through Antitranspirants and Mulches. Soybean Research 15(1): 25–34.
Bose J F, de Haan J, Sukkel W and Schils R L. 2014. Energy use and greenhouse gas emissions in organic and conventional farming systems in the Netherlands. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 68: 61–70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2013.12.003
Gelfand I, Snapp S S and Robertson G P. 2010. Energy efficiency of conventional, organic, and alternative cropping systems for food and fuel at a site in the U.S. Midwest. Environmental Science Technology 44: 4006–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/es903385g
Gomez K A and Gomez A A. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. John Willley and Sons, NewYork.
Hellal F A and Abdelhamid M T. 2013. Nutrient management practices for enhancing soybean (Glycine max L.) production. Acta Biológica Colombiana 18(2): 239–50.
Lacerda J J de J, Lopes L O, Rambo T P, Marafon G, Silva A de O, Lira D N de Souza, Hickmann C, Dias K G de Lima and Bottan A J. 2017. Soybean Yield Responses to Micronutrient Fertilizers. Licensee InTech. doi.org/10.5772/67157. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5772/67157
NabaviPelesaraei A, Abdi R, Rafiee S and Taromi K. 2014. Applying data envelopment analysis approach to improve energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emission of rice production. Engineering in Agriculture, Environment and Food 7: 155–62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eaef.2014.06.001
Prajapat K, Vyas A K, Dhar S, Jain N K, Hashim Mohd and Choudhary G L. 2018. Energy input-output relationship of soybean-based cropping systems under different nutrient supply options. Journal of Environmental Biology 39: 93–101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22438/jeb/39/1/MRN-451
Raghuveer and Keeerti 2017. Nutrient management in soybean: A review. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry SP 1: 137–42.
Rana S, Pichandi S, Parveen S and Fangueiro R. 2014. Natural plant fibres: production, processing, properties and their sustainability parameters. Roadmap to Sustainable Textiles and Clothing, pp. 1–35. Textile Science and Clothing Technology, Springer Verlag, Singapore. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-065-0_1
Singh S and Mittal J P. 1992. Energy in Production Agriculture. Mittal Publications, New Delhi.
Tongwane M, Mdlambuzi T, Mliswa V and Grootboom L. 2016. Greenhouse gas emissions from different crop production and management practices in South Africa. Environmental Development 19: 23–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2016.06.004
West T O and Marland G. 2002. A synthesis of carbon sequestration, carbon emissions and net carbon flux in agriculture: comparing tillage practices in the United States. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 91: 217–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00233-X
Downloads
Submitted
Published
Issue
Section
License
The copyright of the articles published in The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences is vested with the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, which reserves the right to enter into any agreement with any organization in India or abroad, for reprography, photocopying, storage and dissemination of information. The Council has no objection to using the material, provided the information is not being utilized for commercial purposes and wherever the information is being used, proper credit is given to ICAR.
How to Cite
