Conservation agriculture for soil health sustainability

 Conservation Agriculture (CA) is a concept for resource-saving
agricultural crop production system that strives to achieve
acceptable profits together with high and sustained production
levels while conserving the environment.
 It is based on minimum tillage, crop residue retention, and crop
rotations, has been proposed as an alternative system
combining benefits for the farmer with advantages for the
society.
 Conservation Agriculture remains an important technology that
improves soil processes, controls soil erosion and reduces
production cost.
Introduction
cost.

 CA enhances biodiversity and natural biological processes above
and below the ground surface, which contribute to increased water
and nutrient use efficiency and to improved and sustained crop
production.
 CA principles are universally applicable to all agricultural
landscapes and land uses with locally adapted practices. Soil
interventions such as mechanical soil disturbance are reduced to
an absolute minimum or avoided, and external inputs such as
agrochemicals and plant nutrients of mineral or organic origin are
applied optimally and in ways and quantities that do not interfere
with or disrupt, the biological processes.
 CA facilitates timely operations and improves overall land
husbandry for rainfed and irrigated production. Complemented by
other known good practices, including the use of quality seeds,
and integrated pest, nutrient, weed and water management, etc.,
CA is a base for sustainable agricultural production intensification.
(FAO)
cost.

cost.
What is Conservation Agriculture
(FAO)
CA
Minimum
Soil
Disturbance
Permanent
Soil Cover
Diversified
Crop
Rotation
Weed
Control
Farooq and Siddique,
(2016)

 Globally, CA is being practiced on about 125 M ha.
 USA has been the pioneer country in adopting CA systems and
currently more than 25.5 million ha land is under such system.
Countries where CA practices have now been widely adopted for
many years in Brazil (25.5 M ha), Argentina (25.5 M ha), Canada
(13.5 M ha) and Australia (17.0 M ha).
 France and Spain are the two countries where CA was being
followed in about one million ha of area under annual crops.
Conservation Agriculture Success World Over
Bhan and Behera, (2014)cost.

 The total area under no-tillage/zero tillage in India it is about
3.43 mha.
 Efforts to adapt and promote resource conservation
technologies have been underway for nearly a decade.
 Spread of conservation agriculture have been made through
the combined efforts of several SAU’s, ICAR institutes.
 CA technologies is taking place in the irrigated regions of Indo-
Gangetic plains where rice-wheat cropping system dominates.
 CA systems have not been tried or promoted in other major
agro-eco regions like rainfed semi-arid tropics, the arid regions.
Conservation Agriculture in India
Bhan and Behera, (2014)cost.

Conservation
Agriculture
Residue
Mulching
Cover
cropping
and crop
Rotation
Integrated
Nutrient
Managemen
t
Minimum
Soil
Disturbance
Microclimate
Management
Soil C
Sequestration
Optimum Nutrient
Management
Soil
biodiversity
Principles of Conservation Agriculture
cost. Kumar et al., (2016)

Goals of conservation agriculture
 Achieve acceptable profits
 Alleviating hunger
 High and sustained production levels
 Contributing to food security
 Reduce input and labor cost
 Environmental objectives (such as carbon
sequestration and climate change)
cost. Kassam et al. (2014)

Why We Do It?
 Sustainability
 Enhanced Biodiversity
 Carbon Sequestration
 Labour saving
 Healthier Soils
 Increased Yields
 Reduced Cost
FAO
cost.

1. In situ management of crop residues.
2. Engineering measures:
i) Contour bunding
ii) Graded bunding
iii)Terracing
3. Adoption of micro-irrigation system.
4. Mulching.
5. Tillage.
6. Integrated nutrient management in soil.
Components of Conservation Agriculture
Das et al.,(2009)
cost.

1. Extra CO2 emission into atmosphere
405.6
ppm
Why CA represent a new paradigm?
cost.

2.Land Degradation
3.Soil organic matter reduction
4.Soil contamination
5.Soil compaction

6.Lesser storage of water
7.Decline in soil biodiversity
Dumanski et al, (2006)
cost.

cost.
 Reduction in cost of production.
 Enhancement of soil quality.
 Enhancement in long term C sequestration.
 Reduction of the incidence of weeds, such as phalaris minor in wheat.
 Enhancement of water and nutrient use efficiency.
 Enhancement of production and productivity (4% – 10%).
 Advanced sowing date.
 Reduction in greenhouse gas emission.
 Avoiding crop residue burning reduces loss of nutrients.
 Providing opportunities for crop diversification.
 Improvement of resource use efficiency.
 Use surface residues as mulch.
Potential benefits of Conservation Agriculture
Bhan and Behera, (2014)

Conservation Agriculture and Soil Quality
 Soil Physical Quality
 Soil structure and aggregation
 Hydraulic conductivity
 Soil bulk density
 Soil Chemical Quality
 Soil organic carbon
 Nutrient dynamics
 Biological Soil Quality
 Microbial biomass carbon (MBC)
 Soil enzymatic activity
Yadav et al., (2017)
cost.

Comparison of conventional and conservation agriculture
systemsS.No. Conventional agriculture Conservation agriculture
1.
Cultivating land, using science and
technology
to dominate nature
Least interference with natural processes
2.
Excessive mechanical tillage and soil
erosion
No-till or drastically reduced tillage
(biological tillage)
3. High wind and soil erosion Low wind and soil erosion
4. Residue burning or removal (bare surface)
Surface retention of residues (permanently
covered)
5. Water infiltration is low Infiltration rate of water is high
6. Use of ex-situ FYM/composts Use of in-situ organics/composts
7. Green manuring (incorporated)
Brown manuring/cover crops (surface
retention)
8.
Kills established weeds but also stimulates
more weed seeds to germinate
Weeds are a problem in the early stages of
adoption but decrease with time
9.
Free-wheeling of farm machinery, increased
soil compaction
Controlled traffic, compaction in tramline, no
compaction in crop area.
10.
Mono cropping/culture, less efficient
rotations
Diversified and more efficient rotations
11.
Heavy reliance on manual labor, uncertainty
of operations
Mechanized operations, ensure timeliness of
operations
12.
Poor adaptation to stresses, yield losses
greater under stress conditions
More resilience to stresses, yield losses are
less under stress conditions
Productivity gains in long-run are in Productivity gains in long-run are in
Rai et al (2018)cost.

The semi arid tropic region is characterized by highly variable
and low rainfall, poorly developed infrastructure, degraded soils,
and low socio-economic condition of the farmers.
 Conservation agriculture has been reported as sustainable
and eco-friendly crop production technique in the fragile eco-
systems of semi arid tropic.
In the long-term CA has been found to render several benefits
including
1. Soil conservation with improved soil health
2. Higher rain water use efficiency
3. Climate change mitigation and adaptation
cost.

 Conservation tillage is defined as: "any tillage or planting system in which
at least 30% of the soil surface is covered by plant residue after planting to
reduce erosion.
 No tillage, minimum tillage, reduced tillage and mulch tillage are terms
synonymous with conservation tillage.
 Appropriate tillage practices are those that avoid the degradation of soil
properties but maintain crop yields as well as ecosystem stability
 Conservation tillage provides the best opportunity for halting degradation
and for restoring and improving soil productivity
 In recent years interest in conservation tillage systems has increased in
response to the need to limit erosion and promote water conservation.
Conservation tillage
cost. Bista et al, (2017)

1) Zero Tillage:
Soil is completely left undisturbed from harvest to planting except sowing
and nutrient application. Weed control is only by herbicides.
2) Strip Tillage:
Strip-tillage is a form of conservation tillage that clears crop residues in a
narrow zone of soil and loosens subsoil layers prior to planting.
3) Reduced tillage
Little soil disturbance before sowing to break the crust, loosen compact soil
and prepare seedbed. Weed control by herbicides or some secondary
tillage.
4) Mulch Tillage:
It includes any CT system other than no-tillage, strip tillage, or ridge-tillage
that preserves 30 % or more surface residues.
Types of Conservation Tillage Systems
cost. Bista et al, (2017)

Minimum tillage
Zero tillage
Stubble mulch tillage
cost.

 Direct planting involves growing crops with minimum soil disturbance since
the harvest of the previous crop.
 Direct planting can be used with all annual and perennial crops and
vegetables.
 Conservation agriculture can be done manually or mechanically ( i.e. animal
or tractors drawn conservation agriculture planters).
Improves soil organic matter
Protects the soil against erosion
by water and wind
Cost Savings : fuel, time and
labour costs in the long term
Improves infiltration and
conserves soil moisture (FAO)cost.

Agricultural and environmental co-benefits of zero
tillage
1. Zero tillage is a ‘cornerstone’ of CA, and can be practiced in both large and
small farming system
2. Gradually, organic matter of the surface layers of zero tilled land increases,
due to reduced erosion, increased yields resulting in more crop residue
added to the soil surface
3. Most of the agricultural benefits of zero tillage relate to increased organic
matter in the soil.
4. Increased biomass from improved crop yields, reduced surface soil
temperatures and increased biodiversity.
5. In dry years, the improved soil moisture levels, aggregation and organic
matter status of the zero till soils.
6. Soil carbon sinks are increased by increased biomass due to increased
yields, as well as by reducing organic carbon losses from soil erosion.
7. Greatly improved soil aggregation, biodiversity and organic matter status,
and subsequent improved water infiltration and water storage in the soil.
cost. Busari et al, (2015)

 Mulch is any organic material (such as decaying leaves, bark, or compost)
spread over the soil and around a crop to enrich and insulate the soil.
 Live mulches are crops intercropped for purposes of providing soil cover.
Suppresses weed germination
and growth
Improves organic matter accumulation
and carbon sequestration
Improves recycling of
nutrients
Protects the soil from
erosion by water and wind
(FAO)cost.

Crop residue management
“The portion of a plant left in the field after harvest of the crop that
is (straw, stalks, stems, leaves, roots) not used domestically or
sold commercially.”
 Need of conservation agriculture to enhance soil physical, chemical and
biological properties.
 Crop residues are excellent source of organic matter and plant
nutrients.
 Organic recycling has to play a key role in achieving sustainability in
agricultural production.
cost.

 Soil structure :
Favor the formation of aggregates.
 Bulk Density & porosity :
Decreases the bulk density of soil & increase the porosity of the soils.
 Hydraulic conductivity :
Increase hydraulic conductivity by modifying soil structure
microspores.
 Soil temperature :
Increases the minimum soil temperature in winter and decrease soil
temperature during summer due to shading effect.
 Soil moisture :
Reduces evaporation rate due to increase in amount of residues on
the soil surface.
Effect of crop residues on physical properties of soil
cost.

Crop Rotation
“Crop rotation refers to recurrent succession of crops on the same
piece of land either in a year or over a longer period of time.'
In crop rotation land is fixed but crop is rotated year after year.
Maintains and even improve soil fertility.
It checks the soil erosion and conserves moisture.
The rotation of crops offer a diverse "diet" to the soil micro
organisms.
(FAO)
cost.

Advantages of crop rotation
Improvement of Water use:
Crops with different water systems
also utilize soil water at different
soil depths.
Improve fertility and production:
crops have different rooting
patterns which take up nutrients
at different soil depths.
Rotations help to utilize soil nutrients
more efficiently. In addition, legumes
fix nitrogen in the soil for the benefit
of successive cereal crops
in a rotation
cost.
Reduction of Pest and
Diseases:
Different crops are susceptible to
different diseases and pest
agent.
Therefore growing such crops in
rotation will reduce the
(FAO)

Constraints in adopting Conservation Technologies
cost.
 Possess a challenge both for the scientific community and the farmers
to overcome the past mindset and explore the opportunities.
 The wide spread use of crop residues for livestock feed and as fuel .
 Burning of crop residues.
 Lack of knowledge about the potential of CA to Agril. leaders,
extension agents & farmers.
 Compaction can be a problem in initial stage of conservation
agriculture.
 Managing conservation agriculture systems will be highly demanding
in terms of knowledge base, Conservation agriculture as an upcoming
paradigm for raising crops will require an innovation system.
 Conservation agriculture systems are much more complex than the
conventional systems. Bhan and Behera, (2014)

Table 1. Effect of tillage practices on physical properties under different
tillage methods over two years under fixed crop rotation of maize–
maize (pooled data for two years)
Treatment
Bulk density (Mgm-3)
Kharif Rabi
T1 - Conventional tillage 1.36 1.43
T2 - Zero tillage with residue 1.34 1.33
T3 - Zero tillage without residue 1.38 1.46
T4 - Raised fresh bed 1.34 1.34
T5 - Permanent raised bed with residue 1.36 1.42
SE(m)+ 0.01 0.03
(P<0.05) 0.02 0.08
Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture , Pantnagar Singh et al. (2011)
cost.
Source : Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences

cost.
Table 2. Effect of tillage and nutrient management on available
micronutrients in Maize
Treatments
Zn
(mg kg-1)
Fe
(mg kg-1)
Cu
(mg kg-1)
B
(mg kg-1)
Tillage
1. Conservation Tillage 0.42 6.24 1.74 0.41
2. Conventional Tillage 0.41 6.20 1.64 0.40
SE(m)+ 0.002 0.02 0.12 0.001
CD at 5% 0.004 NS NS 0.003
Nutrient management
T1: 100 % RDF ( 60:30:30 NPK kg/ha ) 0.38 5.94 1.48 0.36
T2: 50 % RDF + in situ GM ( Sunhemp ) 0.41 6.02 1.52 0.41
T3: 50 % RDF + 50 % N ( FYM ) 0.44 6.39 1.93 0.45
T4: 50 % RDF + 50 % N ( Wheat straw ) 0.42 6.20 1.68 0.40
T5: 50 % RDF + 50 % N ( GLM ) 0.41 6.18 1.56 0.39
T6: 50 % RDF + 25 % N ( FYM ) + 25 % ( WS ) 0.43 6.38 1.85 0.43
T7: 50% RDF + 25 % N ( FYM ) +25 % N (GLM) 0.42 6.38 1.79 0.42
T8: 50% RDF + 25 % N ( WS ) + 25 % N (GLM) 0.41 6.24 1.69 0.41
SE(m)+ 0.006 0.04 0.09 0.001
CD at 5% 0.018 0.14 0.27 0.003
WS - Wheat straw, GLM - Green leaf
manuring
Wagh et al.,(2016)Source : International Journal of Current Research
Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth ,
Akola

cost.Source : Asian Journal of Soil Science
Table 3. Effect of tillage and nutrient management on soil physical
properties in Maize
Wagh et al.,(2016)
WS - Wheat straw, GLM - Green leaf
manuring
Treatments
Bulk
density
(Mgm-3)
MWD
(mm)
AWC
(%)
Hydraulic
conductivity
Tillage
SE(m)+ 0.005 0.002 0.17 0.003
CD at 5% NS 0.006 0.50 0.009
Nutrient management
T1: 100 % RDF ( 60:30:30 NPK kg/ha ) 1.39 0.64 20.83 0.67
T2: 50 % RDF + in situ GM ( Sunhemp ) 1.36 0.65 21.09 0.69
T3: 50 % RDF + 50 % N ( FYM ) 1.29 0.70 24.47 0.73
T4: 50 % RDF + 50 % N ( Wheat straw ) 1.37 0.66 23.32 0.70
T5: 50 % RDF + 50 % N ( GLM ) 1.31 0.66 22.95 0.69
T6: 50 % RDF + 25 % N ( FYM ) + 25 % ( WS ) 1.37 0.69 23.25 0.72
T7: 50% RDF + 25 % N ( FYM ) +25 % N (GLM) 1.32 0.67 23.50 0.70
T8: 50% RDF + 25 % N ( WS ) + 25 % N (GLM) 1.37 0.65 23.24 0.68
SE(m)+ 0.022 0.005 0.28 0.006
CD at 5% NS 0.015 0.78 0.018
Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth ,
Akola

Table 4. Effect of tillage and nutrient management on soil
chemical properties
PDKV, Akola Year of experiment – 2012-
13
Wagh et al.,(2016)
Treatments pH EC
(dS m-1)
OC
( g kg-1 )
CaCo3
( % )
Tillage
SE(m)+ 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.003
CD at 5% 0.04 0.01 0.08 0.010
Nutrient management
T1: 100 % RDF ( 60:30:30 NPK kgha-1 ) 8.27 0.26 5.55 8.19
T2: 50 % RDF + in situ GM (Sunhemp) 8.31 0.24 5.75 8.17
T3: 50 % RDF + 50 % N ( FYM ) 8.13 0.21 5.89 8.09
T4: 50 % RDF + 50 % N ( WS ) 8.24 0.23 5.71 8.15
T5: 50 % RDF + 50 % N ( GLM ) 8.16 0.22 5.65 8.17
T6: 50 % RDF + 25 % N ( FYM ) + 25 % (WS ) 8.22 0.24 5.76 8.12
T7: 50% RDF + 25 % N( FYM )+25 % N(
GLM)
8.17 0.22 5.75 8.12
SE(m)+ 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.007
CD at 5% 0.03 0.02 0.11 0.021

Table 5.Effect of medium-term tillage practices and intensified cropping
systems on total soil organic carbon at different depths after
harvest of winter season crops in the sixth year.
Parihar et al.,
(2018)
PB- Permanent Bed; ZT - Zero Tillage; CT- Conventional Tillage; MWMb - Maize–Wheat–
Mungbean;
MCS- Maize–Chickpea–Sesbania; MMuMb - Maize–Mustard–Mungbean; MMS - Maize–Maize–
Sesbania
Treatment SOC gkg−1
Depths(cm)
0-5 5-15 15.-30
Tillage practices
PB 7.74 6.28 5.41
ZT-flat 7.49 6.31 5.52
CT-flat 5.46 4.71 4.35
SE(m)+ 0.08 0.08 0.15
LSD (P<0.05) 0.33 0.29 0.58
Cropping pattern
MWMb 7.48 6.04 5.32
MCS 7.52 6.25 5.64
MMuMb 6.30 5.33 4.50
MMS 6.30 5.45 4.90
SE (m)+ 0.12 0.13 0.13
LSD (P<0.05) 0.35 0.40 0.41
cost.Source : European Journal of Soil Science
ICAR New Delhi Year of experiment : 2013–2014

Table 6. Effects of tillage, crop residue management practices and
cropping systems on soil organic carbon
Jat et al.,(2015)
Treatment SOC %
Depths(cm)
0-15 15-30
Tillage practices
Conventional tillage (CT) 0.40 0.25
Minimum tillage (MT) 0.41 0.26
SE(m)+ 0.01 0.02
(P<0.05) NS NS
Residue management
Crop residues removed (RR) 0.37 0.25
Crop residues retained (RT) 0.43 0.26
SEd 0.03 0.01
(P<0.05) NS NS
Cropping pattern
Maize – Chickpea system 0.36 0.26
Maize/pigeonpea system 0.44 0.26
SE(m)+ 0.02 0.01
(P<0.05) 0.06 NS
cost.Source : British Journal of Environment & Climate Change
ICRISAT, Telangana Year of experiment :2010-
12

Table 7. Effect of tillage practices, organic manures and amendments on
soil organic carbon in Rice- Wheat cropping system
Yaduvanshi and Sharma (2008)
CT– Conventional tillage,. NT – No tillage ., SPM – Sulphitation pressmud ., FYM – Farm Yard Manure
Treatment
Soil organic carbon (g kg-1)
2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004
CT NT CT NT CT NT
T1-Control 2.12 2.30 2.10 2.33 2.22 2.37
T2-75% NP 2.20 2.64 2.21 2.61 2.33 2.71
T3-100% NP 2.33 2.54 2.38 2.72 2.37 2.86
T4-75% NP + Gypsum 5 t ha-1 2.26 2.58 2.39 2.76 2.84 2.82
T5-75% NP + SPM 10 t ha-1 2.28 2.87 2.51 3.06 3.23 3.21
T6-75% NP + FYM 10 t ha-1 2.34 3.25 3.10 3.32 2.89 3.54
T7-100% NP + Gypsum 5 t ha-1 2.89 3.15 2.87 3.19 3.27 3.27
T8-100% NP + SPM 10 t ha-1 2.95 3.33 3.15 3.56 3.12 3.85
T9-100% NP + FYM 10 t ha-1 2.89 3.38 3.08 3.63 3.32 3.90
Tillage(A) 0.079 0.066 0.060
Treatment(B) 0.105 0.116 0.102
A X B 0.149 0.165 0.145
cost.Source : Soil & Tillage Research
Kaithal, India Year of experiment :2001-04

cost.
Table 8. Effect of legume mulching on physico-chemical properties
of soil under maize-wheat
Sharma et al., (2010)
Treatment
Organic C
(%)
Total N (%)
BD
(Mg m-3)
IR
(mm h-1)
Legume mulching
Control 0.56 0.074 1.44 7.50
Sunhemp (S) 0.67 0.079 1.40 8.05
Leucaena (L) 0.66 0.080 1.39 7.93
S + L 0.72 0.084 1.36 8.90
Initial 0.57 0.064 1.39 7.0
Jammu Year of Experimemt:2001-04
Source : International Soil and Water Conservation Research

Table 9. Oxidizable soil organic carbon (SOC) and liable carbon (LC) in soils under
contrasting tillage and cropping systems.
cost.
Tillage System (T) Cropping Systems (CS)
Organic Carbon (%)
Liable Carbon (mg C kg -
1)
0-15 cm 0-15 cm
Conventional tillage
Soybean + P. Pea (2:1) 0.60 250.25
Soybean - Wheat 0.54 209.54
Maize + P. Pea (1:1) 0.57 212.97
Maize - Gram 0.59 229.20
Mean 0.57 225.49
Reduced tillage
Soybean + P. Pea (2:1) 0.63 340.76
Maize + P. Pea (1:1) 0.64 255.28
Maize - Gram 0.61 289.29
Mean 0.62 287.93
No tillage
Soybean + P. Pea (2:1) 0.63 330.56
Maize + P. Pea (1:1) 0.61 249.12
Maize - Gram 0.64 256.99
Mean 0.62 277.37
Lsd (p<0.05) T S* S
CS NS S*
T X CS NS NS
Kumar et al., (2017)Source : International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences
Research farm of ICAR, Bhopal, India. Year of
Experimemt:2011

Effect of Conservation Agriculture
on Biological Properties of Soil
cost.

cost.
Table 10. Soil dehydrogenase activity under tillage practices and land
configuration methods in a cotton maize cropping sequences
CT-Flat (conventional tillage on flat surface),
CT-FIRB (conventional tillage on furrow irrigated raised bed), MT-flat (Minimum tillage on flat surface),
MT-FIRB (Minimum tillage on FIRB),
MT-permanent FIRB (Minimum tillage in permanent FIRB),
Bama et al.,(2017)
Treatments
Soil dehydrogenase activity
(mg TPF/kg/24 hrs)
T1 CT-Flat 77.0
T2 CT-FIRB 85.4
T3 CT-permt FIRB 81.8
T4 MT-flat 83.3
T5 MT-FIRB 92.0
T6 MT-permt FIRB 85.2
T7 Zero tillage 101.8
SE(m)+ 3.1
CD(5%) 6.3
Source :Source : International Journal of Chemical Studies
Tamil Nadu Year of experiment: 2012-15

cost.Source : International Journal of Chemical Studies
Table 11. Soil biological properties under tillage practices and land
configuration methods in a cotton maize cropping sequences
CT-Flat (conventional tillage on flat surface),
CT-FIRB (conventional tillage on furrow irrigated raised bed), MT-flat (Minimum tillage on flat
surface),
MT-FIRB (Minimum tillage on FIRB),
MT-permanent FIRB (Minimum tillage in permanent FIRB),
Tamil Nadu Year of experiment: 2012-15
Bama et al.,(2017)
Treatments
Bacteria
(cfu x 10-6)
g/soil
Fungi
(cfu x 10-4)
g/soil
Actinimycetes
(cfu x 10-3)
g/soil
T1 CT-Flat 52 25 10
T2 CT-FIRB 58 25 11
T3 CT-permt FIRB 52 27 13
T4 MT-flat 54 23 12
T5 MT-FIRB 63 29 15
T6
MT-permt
FIRB
55 24 10
T7 Zero tillage 74 35 21
SE(m)+ 3 1.4 1.1
CD(5%) 6 3 2

cost.Source : Indian J. Dryland Agric. Res. & Dev.
Table 12. Effect of different treatments on biological parameters
of soil after harvest of cotton
Gabhane et al., (2014)
Treatments SMBC
(mg kg-1)
SMBN
(mg kg-1 )
DHA
(µg g-124hr-1)
A) Tillage
T1 Conventional tillage 237.1 33.1 47.20
T2 Minimum tillage 243.1 36.8 50.40
SE (m) ± 1.96 0.82 0.91
CD at 5 % 5.75 2.41 2.68
B) Nutrient Management
F1 100 % RDF (50:25:00 kg ha-1 ) 223.6 29.95 43.70
F2 50 % RDF 195.1 25.12 38.60
F3 50 % RDF + FYM @ 5 t ha-1 237.1 32.58 48.18
F4 50 % RDF + FYM @ 10 t ha-1 263.5 40.05 55.05
F5 50 % RDF +FYM @ 15 t ha-1 281.6 46.80 58.12
F6 50 % RDF + GM (Dhaincha) 239.7 35.25 49.11
SE (m) ± 3.40 1.42 1.58
CD at 5 % 9.96 4.17 4.64
C) Interaction effect NS NS NS
Akola Year of experiment-2005-06 to 2009-10

Table 13. Effect of conservation agricultural practices and nitrogen
management on biological properties of soil in soybean-wheat
cropping system.
ZT+SR: Zero with soybean residues in wheat crop; ZT+SWR: Zero till with soybean
residue in wheat and wheat residue in preceding soybean crop;
CT-R: Conventional till without residues
Ronanki and Behera.,(2018)
Treatment
Dehydrogenase
(TPF hr-1 g-1 soil)
Microbial biomass
carbon
(ug g-1 soil)
Conservation agricultural practices
ZT+SR 6.50 131.86
ZT+SWR 7.21 143.81
CT-R 7.97 153.55
SE(m)+ 5.74 121.91
LSD(p=0.05) 0.14 5.27
IARI, New Delhi Year of experiment:2014-16
cost.Source : International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied
Sciences

Table 14. Soil biological properties as influenced by different
conservation agricultural practices.
Kumar and Babalad.,(2018)
Tillage systems
Soil
dehydrogenase
activity (μg
TPF g-1 day-1)
Soil microbial
biomass
carbon (mg kg
soil-1)
CT1 -Conservation tillage with BBF and crop
residue retained on the surface.
32.29 364.00
CT2 -Conservation tillage with BBF and
incorporation of crop residue.
32.29 355.20
CT3 -Conservation tillage with flat bed with
crop residue retained on the surface.
31.14 327.20
CT4 -Conservation tillage with flat bed with
incorporation of crop residue.
31.55 362.00
CT5 -Conventional tillage with crop residue
incorporation.
29.70 325.47
CT6 -Conventional tillage without crop
residue
27.43 294.00
S.E.( m)± 0.34 35.25
cost.
Dharwad, Karnataka Year of experiment: 2014-
16
Source : International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied
Sciences

Effect of Conservation Agriculture
on Yield of Crop
cost.

Table 15. Effect of tillage and nutrient management on seed cotton
yield
Wagh et al., (2016)
Treatments Seed cotton yield (q/ha )
Tillage
Conservation tillage 14.63
Conventional tillage 12.73
SE(m)+ 0.32
C.D. (p=0.05) 0.95
Nutrient management
T1: 100 % RDF ( 60:30:30 NPK kg/ha ) 15.20
T2: 50 % RDF + in situ GM ( Sunhemp ) 11.69
T3: 50 % RDF + 50 % N ( FYM ) 14.47
T4: 50 % RDF + 50 % N ( WS ) 13.78
T5: 50 % RDF + 50 % N ( GLM ) 12.32
T6: 50 % RDF + 25 % N ( FYM ) + 25 % ( WS ) 14.11
T7: 50% RDF + 25 % N ( FYM ) + 25 % N ( GLM ) 14.10
T8: 50% RDF + 25 % N ( WS ) + 25 % N ( GLM ) 13.69
SE(m)+ 0.65
C.D. (p=0.05) 1.92
Location – Akola Year of experiment – 2012-13

Nalatwadmath et al., (2002)
Table 16. Sorghum grain and straw yield as influenced by residue
management with Dolichos
Treatments
Grain yield
(kg ha-1)
Straw yield
(kg ha-1)
T1- Control (Sorghum without disturbance of
soil)
1469 2644
T2 - Sorghum + Dolichos
(Dolichos grown for grain pupose and the
Dolichos residue was incorporated at harvest))
1674 3010
(Doichos was cut at 45 DAS and used as mulch)
2121 3271
(Dolichos incorporated into soil at 45 DAS)
2301 3614
T5- Sorghum with interculture
(soil Disturbance)
1916 3050
Bellary, Karnataka Year of Experiment:1998-2002
cost.
Source : Indian J. Dryland agric. Res. & Dev.

Table 17. Effect of tillage practices on yield under different tillage
methods over two years (pooled data for two years)
Singh et al., (2011)
Treatments
Yield (t ha-1)
Kharif Rabi
T1 : Conventional tillage 4.08 4.21
T2 : Zero tillage with residue 3.64 3.87
T3 : Zero tillage without residue 3.41 3.65
T4 : Raised fresh bed 4.12 4.47
T5 : Permanent raised bed with residue 3.88 3.93
SE(m)+ 0.76 1.86
(P<0.05) - 6.06
Location: Pantnagar Year of experiment: 2007-09
cost.
Source : Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences

CONCLUSION
 Conservation agriculture technologies are the future of
sustainable agriculture.
 Conservation agriculture practices such as conservation
tillage, residue and land cover management, appropriate crop
rotation have shown the proven benefit to improve soil quality
across the world.
 The benefits range from nano-level (improving soil properties)
to micro-level (saving inputs, reducing cost of production,
increasing farm income), and macro-level by reducing poverty,
improving food security, alleviating global warming.
 To achieve sustainable food production with minimal impact on
the soil and the atmosphere, conservation agriculture practices
become more important now than ever.
cost.

cost.
 CA sequestered more carbon as compared to conventional
practice particularly in the surface soil layers.
 In Rice-Wheat cropping system the results showed that the no-
tillage (NT) in comparison with conventional tillage (CT),
caused increase in organic carbon and infiltration rate.
 Among the different tillage practices and land configuration
methods, zero tillage recorded more favorable soil microbial
population, and dehydrogenase activity.
 Higher soil enzymatic activity under conservation tillage
practices could be attributed to the minimum soil disturbance,
retention as well as incorporation of residues, root exudates
from crops, availability of soil moisture, better aeration,
optimum temperature and higher organic matter present
increases the carbohydrate content which act as an energy
source for microbes which resulted in higher soil enzymatic
activity.
 Significantly higher content of micronutrients viz., Fe, Mn, Cu,
Zn and B were recorded in the treatment receiving 100 % RDF

 Preserving environment and natural resources
 Preserving biodiversity
 Increasing soil carbon storage
 Promoting sustainable agriculture
FUTURE CHALLENGES
cost.

“ SOIL HEALTH CARE - THE KEY TO NATIONS PROSPERITY”

Conservation agriculture for soil health sustainability

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Similar a Conservation agriculture for soil health sustainability

Similar a Conservation agriculture for soil health sustainability (20)

Más de Vasantrao Nail Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, Parbhani

Más de Vasantrao Nail Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, Parbhani (20)

Último

Último (20)

Conservation agriculture for soil health sustainability