System productivity, energetics and economics of soybean (Glycine max)-wheat (Triticum aestivum) cropping system as influenced by weed management practices

R P DUBEY; SHYAM LAL; DIBAKAR GHOSH; P K SINGH

doi:10.56093/ijas.v92i8.97969

Authors

R P DUBEY ICAR-Directorate of Weed ResearchMaharajpur, Jabalpur-482004
SHYAM LAL
DIBAKAR GHOSH ICAR-Directorate of Weed Research, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh 482 004, India
P K SINGH ICAR-Directorate of Weed Research, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh 482 004, India

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v92i8.97969

Keywords:

Weed management, System productivity, Energy efficiency, Economics, Soybean, Wheat

Abstract

A field experiment was conducted during 2015–16 and 2016–17 to assess the system productivity, energetics and economics of weed management practices in soybean (Glycine max L.)-wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cropping system at ICAR-Directorate of Weed Research, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. The experiment comprised 10 treatments having combinations of sole and sequential application of pre-emergence and post-emergence herbicides in both the crops, and their integration with hand weeding undertaken in randomized block design replicated thrice. The highest system productivity (8.04 t/ha) was obtained by employing two hand weedings, sequential application of pendimethalin followed by (fb) imazethapyr in soybean and pendimethalin fb mesosulfuron + iodosulfuron in wheat as well as by integrating either pre or post-emergence herbicides with one hand weeding. Among weed management practices, energy requirement was lowest in sole post-emergence herbicide treatment, however, integration of manual weeding required maximum energy. The energy input for hand weeding was a major share of integrated weed management practices, and it varied from 54–83% of the total treatment energy. Due to requirement of less energy for sole post-emergence herbicides, energy output, net energy return and energy ratio were the maximum. Total output energy was higher (258×103 MJ/ ha) in post-emergence herbicide fb hand weeding treatment because of higher system productivity (7.29 t/ha), and this treatment was more energy efficient and gave the highest economic returns among the weed management practices. The highest benefit: cost ratio (3.10) was obtained by the application of post-emergence herbicides in both the crops.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Alam M S, Alam M R and Islam K K. 2005. Energy flow in agriculture: Bangladesh. American Journal of Environmental Sciences 1(3): 213–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3844/ajessp.2005.213.220

Behera U K, Sharma A R and Pandey H N. 2007. Sustaining productivity of wheat–soybean cropping system through integrated nutrient management practices on the Vertisols of central India. Plant Soil 297: 185–99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-007-9332-3

Bockstaller C, Girardin P and van der Werf H M G. 1997. Use of agro-ecological indicators for the evaluation of farming systems. European Journal of Agronomy 7(1-3): 261–70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1161-0301(97)00041-5

Chander N, Kumar S, Rana S S and Ramesh. 2014. Weed Competition, yield attributes and yield attributes in soybean– wheat cropping system as affected by herbicides. Indian Journal of Weed Science 59(3): 377–84.

Chaudhary V P, Gangwar B and Pandey D K. 2006. Auditing of energy use and output of different cropping systems in India. Agricultural Engineering International: CIGR Journal 8: 1–13

Dagistan E, Handan A, Bekir D and Yalcin Y. 2009. Energy usage and benefit-cost analysis of cotton production in Turkey. African Journal of Agricultural Research 4(7): 599–604.

Kalra M S and Arya Y C. 1980. Fossil-energy demands of crop-production in a multi-cropped area. Energy 5(11):1163–67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-5442(80)90085-7

Kewat M L, Pandey J, Yaduraju N T and Kulshreshtha G. 2000. Economic and ecofriendly weed management in soybean. Indian Journal of Weed Science 32(3&4): 135–39.

Kitani O. 1999. CIGR Handbook of Agricultural Engineering. Energy & Biomass Engineering, Vol. 5. St Joseph, MI: ASAE Publication, Madison, USA.

Kuemmel B, Langer V, Magid J, De Neergaard A and Porter J R. 1998. Energetic, economic and ecological balances of a combined food and energy system. Biomass and Bioenergy 15(4&5):407–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(98)00047-6

Mittal J P and Dhawan K C. 1988. Research Manual on Energy Requirements on Agricultural Sector, pp. 20–33. ICAR, New Delhi

Ozkan B, Akcaoz H and Fert C. 2004. Energy input–output analysis in Turkish agriculture. Renewable Energy 29: 39–51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-1481(03)00135-6

Patel S, Kokni R, Dhonde M B and Kamble A B. 2016. Integrated weed management for improved yield of soybean. Indian Journal of Weed Science 48(1): 83–85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2016.00020.4

Pervanchon F, Bockstaller C and Girardin P. 2002. Assessment of energy use in arable farming systems by means of an agro-ecological indicator: the energy indicator. Agricultural Systems 72(2):149–72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-521X(01)00073-7

Pimentel D, Herdendorf M, Eisenfeld S, Olander L, Carroquino M, Corson C, McDade J, Chung Y, Cannon W, Roberts J and Bluman L. 1994. Achieving a secure energy future: environmental and economic issues. Ecological Economics 9: 201–19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-8009(94)90078-7

Potkile S N, Bhale V M, Deshmukh J P, Choudhary A A and Shingrup P V. 2018. Energy Studies of Soybean-Wheat Cropping Sequence under Organic Sources. International Journal of Pure and Applied Bioscience 6(1): 1208–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18782/2320-7051.6150

Singh G. 2007. Integrated weed management in soybean (Glycine max). Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 77(10): 675–76.

Waheed A, Qureshi R, Jakhar G S and Tareen H. 2009. Weed community dynamics in wheat crop of district Rahim Yar Khan. Pakistan Journal of Botany 41(1): 247–54.

West T O and Marland G. 2002. A synthesis of carbon sequestration, carbon emission and net carbon flux in agriculture: comparing tillage practices in the United States. Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment.91: 217–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00233-X