Productivity, profitability and energy use efficiency of cropping systems in eastern India- Field Crops Research

Integrated assessment of cropping systems

in the Eastern Indo-Gangetic plain

B. Biswas a,1, D.C. Ghosh b, M.K. Dasgupta b, N. Trivedi a,1,J. Timsina c, A. Dobermann d,*

a Directorate of Agriculture, Government of West Bengal, Kolkata 700 001, Indiab Institute of Agriculture (Palli-Siksha Bhavana), Visva-Bharati, Sriniketan 731 236, West Bengal, India

c CSIRO Land and Water, Griffith, NSW 2680, Australiad Department of Agronomy & Horticulture, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, P.O. Box 830915, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915, USA

Received 22 August 2005; received in revised form 28 February 2006; accepted 5 March 2006

Abstract

Both intensification and diversification of cropping systems may allow improving the productivity and sustainability of agricultural

production in the Indo-Gangetic Plain (IGP), but the choices to be made require integrated assessment of various cropping systems. A field

experiment was conducted from 1999 to 2002 on a sandy clay loam (Inceptisol) to evaluate nine predominant cropping systems in West

Bengal, India. Productivity, energy use efficiency, and nutrient uptake generally increased with increasing cropping intensity. Positive residual

effects of potato and jute on yield and energy output of subsequently grown crops were observed as well as maintenance or improvement of

soil properties such as soil organic matter, available P, and available K. The P balance was positive for most systems, except for jute-containing

systems. However, negative K balances occurred due to almost complete removal of crop biomass in all systems, suggesting that

recommended rates of applied K fertilizer were to low for sustaining soil K supply over the longer term. Cropping systems containing

potato had the highest levels of yield, net return, benefit to cost ratio and energy productivity, but energy use efficiency was reduced due to

higher energy consumption in these systems. Jute–wheat and jute–rapeseed–rice systems showed high energy use efficiency along with

moderate cost and return. Based on economic considerations alone, jute–potato–rice, rice–potato–rice and rice–potato–sesame can be

recommended as cropping systems for resource-rich growers in the eastern part of the IGP. Systems such as jute–wheat, rice–wheat and jute–

rapeseed–rice appear to be most suitable for small and marginal farmers that cannot afford the large production costs associated with crops

such as potato.

# 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Cropping systems; Productivity; Economics; Energy use efficiency; Soil fertility; Nutrient budget; Rice–wheat system; India

www.elsevier.com/locate/fcr

Field Crops Research 99 (2006) 35–47

1. Introduction

The Lower Gangetic Plain forms the eastern part of the

Indo-Gangetic Plain (IGP), one of the world’s most important

agricultural eco-regions (Timsina and Connor, 2001). Most of

the Lower Gangetic Plain is located in the state of West

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 402 472 1501.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B. Biswas),

[email protected] (A. Dobermann).1 Present address: Zonal Adaptive Research Station, Government of West

Bengal, Mohitnagar, Jalpaiguri 735 101, India.

0378-4290/$ – see front matter # 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2006.03.002

Bengal, India, which is further divided into six agro-climatic

sub regions: (i) the northern hilly zone, (ii) the Tarai-Teesta

flood plain, (iii) the Gangetic flood plain, (iv) the coastal flood

plain, (v) the Vindhya old flood plain and (vi) the undulating

lateritic sub-region of the Eastern Plateau Region (SenGupta,

2001). Of those, the Gangetic flood plain is the largest

(19,389 km2) and the most fertile sub region. It is primarily a

traditional rice-growing area. On medium lands, farmers used

to grow pulses such as grass pea, lentil, or Bengal gram in

winter, on residual moisture after harvest of long duration,

photosensitive local rice. Productivity and return of those

crops were low. However, due to introduction of high-yielding

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2006.03.002

B. Biswas et al. / Field Crops Research 99 (2006) 35–4736

short duration rice in the 1970s and increasing irrigated area,

dry season rice replaced most pulses in this area. Crop

intensification and/or diversification has now further

increased with inclusion of short duration rapeseed and

potato in between wet season rice or jute and dry season rice,

resulting in higher production per unit area per unit time,

higher nutrient removal, and varying changes in soil fertility

as compared with rice–rice (R–R) and rice–wheat (R–W)

systems, the two predominant cropping systems of the IGP.

Most micro- and macro-level studies of cropping systems

in the IGP eco-region have focused on agronomic issues

related to R–W systems (Sarkar, 1997; Adhikari et al., 1999;

Yadav et al., 2000; Timsina et al., 2001; Bhandari et al., 2002;

Ladha et al., 2003). In the eastern IGP and similar areas,

several local studies have been conducted in the past to assess

various cropping systems in terms of productivity, profit-

ability, energy efficiency, soil fertility and nutrient balances.

In one of these studies, for example, rice–wheat–jutewas most

productive but had the lowest benefit: cost ratio, whereas rice–

mustard–sesame was least productive but had a high benefit:

cost ratio (R.C. Samui and A.L. Kundu, unpublished). In a

similar study, rice–potato–jute was the most productive and

profitable cropping sequence among five cropping sequences

tested (A.L. Kundu and R.C. Samui, unpublished). Mukho-

padhyaya and Roy (2000) reported potato–jute–rice as a more

productive system than other systems such as potato–moong–

jute, potato–maize–rice and wheat–jute–rice.

Nutrient balances and trends in soil fertility also tend to

vary widely in the various intensive cropping systems of West

Bengal and other areas of the IGP. Timsina et al. (2006)

reported negative N balances, Saleque et al. (2006) negative P

balances, and Panaullah et al. (2006) negative K balances for

rice–wheat–maize and rice–wheat–mungbean sequences in

northwest Bangladesh, a region similar to the lower Gangetic

plain of the eastern IGP in west Bengal. Mandal et al. (1984)

and Saha et al. (2000) reported a decline in soil organic matter

under continuous jute–rice–wheat (J–R–W) cropping.

Mukhopadhyaya and Roy (2000) reported build-up of soil

organic carbon and available P and K in potato–moong–jute,

Table 1

Weather at the experimental site in West Bengal, India

Cropping seasons

Wet/kharif (June–October) Winter

99–00 00–01 01–02 LTAa 99–00

Total rainfall (mm) 1450 1294 884 1137 81

Evaporation (mm) 526 658 456 544 412

Average maximum

temperature (8C)

31.6 32.8 32.7 32.9 26.2

Average minimum

temperature (8C)

25.5 30.6 25.7 25.0 12.5

Average maximum

relative humidity (%)

96.5 95.6 92.5 93.8 97.8

Average minimum

relative humidity (%)

78.9 76.1 74.4 81.0 53.0

a LTA indicates long-term average.

potato–maize–rice, and potato–jute–rice systems, while

Ghosh and Malik (1999) reported such a build-up in a

rice–potato–sesame system.

Most of the previous work has focused on specific aspects

of R–W systems with a strong emphasis on yields and

nutrient management. Studies providing an integrated

assessment of more diversified, intensive double and triple

cropping systems have remained relatively rare in the

scientific literature, but they are needed for understanding

options for intensification and diversification in the IGP.

Here we present a quantitative assessment of nine intensive

cropping systems of the eastern IGP in terms of crop

productivity, profitability, energy use efficiency, soil fertility

and soil P and K balances. Due to uncertainties associated

with measuring all components of the N cycle, a discussion

of N balances was not included.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Location, experimental design and treatments

A field experiment was conducted from 1999 to 2002

at the farm of the Zonal Adaptive Research Station,

Krishnagar, Nadia, West Bengal, India, located in the

Gangetic flood plain of the Eastern IGP (Lat. 238240N, Long.

888310E, Elev. 15 m a.s.l.). Prior to the experiment, the field

had been under irrigated R–W cropping for 5 years. The soil

of the experimental field is a very deep, well-drained, sandy

clay loam (Inceptisol) with 56% sand, 24% silt and 20% clay

in the surface layer (0–15 cm). Initial properties of a

composite soil sample collected at the beginning of the field

experiment were 4.6 g kg�1 organic carbon (Walkley-

Black), 0.44 g kg�1 total N (Kjeldahl), 24 kg ha�1 available

P (Bray-1), 140 kg ha�1 available K (1N NH4-acetate), and a

pH of 7.5 (1:2.5 soil: water).

The three cropping seasons at this site include a rainy or

kharif season from June to October, a winter or rabi season

from November to February, and a summer or dry season

/rabi (November–February) Summer/dry (March–May)

00–01 01–02 LTA 99–00 00–01 01–02 LTA

0.0 26 58 253 205 244 236

306 297 338 384 259 342 328

28.4 27.4 28.5 33.1 34.3 34.2 36.6

14.3 13.5 13.5 23.0 22.5 22.5 22.5

98.2 94.7 95.0 89.6 96.6 91.9 90.3

44.0 51.3 59.3 51.2 54.0 50.0 48.0

B. Biswas et al. / Field Crops Research 99 (2006) 35–47 37

from March to May (Table 1). Weather varied most among

the rainy seasons during the experimental period. Rainfall

during the rainy season always exceeds evaporation, while in

winter and dry seasons the reverse was the case. Maximum

temperatures are relatively stable throughout the year, but

minimum temperatures are lower in winter seasons than

in the other two seasons. Overall, weather during the

experimental period did not deviate much from the long-

term averages (Table 1).

The experiment was laid out in a randomised complete

block design with 10 m � 8 m plots replicated thrice. Nine

double- and triple-cropping systems were evaluated: rice–rice

(R–R), rice–wheat (R–W), rice–potato–rice (R–P–R), rice–

potato–sesame (R–P–S), rice–rapeseed–rice (R–Re–R), jute–

rice–rice (J–R–R), jute–wheat (J–W), jute–potato–rice (J–P–

R) and jute–rapeseed–rice (J–Re–R) (Fig. 1). These cropping

systems represent common traditional and recent cropping

systems in the eastern IGP. The experimental duration was 3

years, i.e., each cropping system was repeated three times,

resulting in 6–9 crops grown within 3 years.

2.2. Crop management practices and yield

measurements

Details of all cropping practices are given in Tables 2 and 3.

Land for all crops was prepared with a bullock drawn country

plough followed by laddering, while for rice puddling was

done prior to transplanting. Rice seedlings were 20 days old

for wet and late wet seasons and 40 days for dry season rice.

For all other crops, seeds were directly sown by hand. All

crops in the various cropping systems received recommended

doses of fertilizer (Table 2). Need-based irrigation was given

to each crop with ground water, with individual applications

Fig. 1. Predominant cropping systems of We

of about 50 mm water per irrigation event. No irrigation was

applied to sesame. Pressure due to insect pests and diseases

was generally low for most of the seasons during the

experimental years. However, chemical protection measures

were taken against yellow stem borer (Tryporyza incertulas

Walker) in dry and late wet rice during all 3 years and in wet

rice during 2000–2001 and 2001–2002 and against rice bug

(Leptocoryza varicornis Thunberg) in wet and dry rice during

2000–2001. Chemical protection was also needed in jute

against stem weevil (Apion corchori Marshall) during 2000–

2001 and 2001–2002 and in rapeseed against aphid (Lipaphis

erysimi Kaltenbach) in all 3 years.

Yields of main and by-products of each crop under

various cropping systems were measured by hand-harvest of

a 20 m2 area in each plot at physiological maturity. The

economic part of individual crops was separated manually

after harvesting. Sub-samples of main product and by-

product were oven-dried to constant weight at 70 8C. All

crops were cut at about 15 cm from the surface, except

potato. Crop residues were removed for use as fuel, which

resembles the predominant farmers’ practice in this area.

Potato haulm was incorporated in the soil during harvesting.

2.3. Productivity, profitability, and energetics

Rice equivalent yield (REY) was calculated to compare

system performance by converting the yield of each crop

into equivalent dry season rice yield on a price basis, using

the formula:

REY ðof crop xÞ ¼ YxðPx=PrÞ

where Yx is the yield of crop x (tons harvest product ha�1), Px

the price of crop x, and Pr is the price of rice.

st Bengal evaluated in the experiment.


Table 2

Management practices for individual crops grown in a field experiment in West Bengal, India

Crop Cultivar Seed rate

(kg ha�1)

Spacing

(cm)

Crop season

(seed to seed)a

Number of

irrigationsb

Nutrient rate

(N–P–K,

kg ha�1)c

Time of fertilizer

applicationc

Number of

weedings/

intercultural

operations

Jute JRO 524 5 25 � 5 April (1)–August (2) 1 50–11–21 1/4 N + P + K at basal;

1/2 N at 15 DAS and

1/4 N at 30 DAS

3

Wet rice MTU 7029 50 20 � 10 June (2)–October (1) 4 60–13–25 1/2 N + P + K as

basal; 1/4 N at 21

DAS and 1/4

N at 40 DAS

2

Late wet

rice

Kalinga 3 75 15 � 10 August (1)–December (2) 4 40–9–17 1/2 N + P + K as basal

and 1/2 N at 21 DAS

1

Wheat UP 262 100 20 cont. November (2)–March (2) 4 100–22–42 1/2 N + P + K as basal

and 1/2 N at 21 DAS

0

Potato K-Ashoka 2500 45 � 20 November (2)–February (1) 6 200–43–125 1/4 N + P + K as basal;

1/2 N at 21 DAP and

1/4 N at 35 DAP

3

Rapeseed B-9 7 30 � 10 October (4)–February (2) 2 80–17–33 1/2 N + P + K as basal

and 1/2 N at 21 DAS

1

Dry rice Kalinga 3 75 15 � 10 January (1)–April (2) 10 100–22–42 1/4 N + P + K as basal;

1/2 N at 21 DAT

and 1/4 N at 42 DAT

3

Sesame Rama 9 30 � 10 March (1)–June (2) 0 50–11–21 1/2 N + P + K as basal

and 1/2 N at 21 DAS

1

a Figures in parenthesis indicate week of the month.b Need-based irrigation was given and the numbers of irrigations listed are averages of 3 years.c Nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium were applied as days after sowing (DAS) or planting (DAP) as urea, single super phosphate and muriate of potash,

respectively.

Prices of individual inputs and outputs were assumed to

be stable during the experimental period. Working out

production cost of individual crops from small experimental

plots was considered inaccurate. The Directorate of

Agriculture, Government of West Bengal (Anonymous,

1999) has surveyed costs for and returns from crops at

various locations within the state and set standard values for

input use and yields. Hence, we calculated the cost of

Table 3

Input requirements of the individual crops grown

Item Wet rice Late wet rice Dry rice

Fertilizer-N (kg ha�1) 60 40 100

Fertilizer-P (kg ha�1) 13 9 22

Fertilizer-K (kg ha�1) 25 17 42

Seed (kg ha�1) 50 75 75

Endosulfan (L ha�1)

Carbendazim (kg ha�1) 0.83

Mancozeb (kg ha�1)

Dimethoate (L ha�1) 0.75 0.75 0.75

Carbofuron 10 G (kg ha�1) 1.50 1.50

Irrigation (mm ha�1) 200 200 500

Diesel (L ha�1) 5 5 7

Bullock pair (h ha�1) 32 32 32

Labor before harvest

Men (8-h days ha�1) 77 77 99

Women (8-h days ha�1) 39 39 51

Labor for harvest and processing

Men (8-h days ha�1) 96 96 106

Women (8-h days ha�1) 50 50 55

production on the basis of these standards. Family labor at

the mean wage rate of hired labor was included in the cost

calculations, thus ignoring possible opportunity costs. The

cost for harvesting and processing also depends on the

amount of yield. Therefore, cost per unit yield for harvest

and processing was calculated using measured mean yields

for individual crops under various cropping systems tested in

combination with the published standard costs for harvesting

Wheat Jute Potato Rapeseed Sesame

100 50 200 80 50

22 11 43 17 11

42 21 125 33 21

100 5 2500 7 9

1

6.25 0.02

1.88

0.50

200 50 300 100

5 15 5 5 5

24 24 32 24 24

45 100 103 43 20

23 51 53 22 10

23 101 67 40 17

12 51 34 21 9


Table 4

Production costs (Rs. ha�1) of the crops grown in the various cropping systems evaluated

Item Wet rice Late

wet rice

Dry rice Wheat Jute Potato Rapeseed Sesame

Land preparation 1856 1856 1750 1908 2379 2588 940 1800

Seed 500 750 750 1000 250 4500 120 90

Fertilizer 1681 1120 2972 2324 1270 6627 2207 1675

Pesticides 95 190 165 0 148 1039 84 166

Irrigation 267 267 3063 173 338 1993 449 0

Depreciation 224 224 271 277 283 1124 296 90

Tax 17 17 18 18 21 652 22 17

Labor before harvest 3730 3730 5251 2157 5460 5290 2284 1050

Total cost

before harvest

8369 8154 14240 7857 10149 23813 6402 4888

Mean yield (t ha�1)a 4.26 3.08 4.88 3.36 2.80 25.62 1.18 1.10

Cost for harvest

and processing

Rs. ha�1 5108 5108 5605 5504 5330 3527 2128 875

Rs. t�1 yield 1198 1658 1148 1636 1904 138 1811 796

Total cost at Y

ton yield

level (Rs. ha�1)

8369

+ 1198Y

8154

+ 1658Y

14240

+ 1148Y

7857

+ 1636Y

10149

+ 1904Y

23813

+ 138Y

6402

+ 1812Y

4888

+ 796Y

1 US $ = Indian Rupees (Rs.) 48.a Mean yield of a crop obtained under individual cropping systems in the experiment.

and processing of individual crops. A summary of

production costs by crops is shown in Table 4. Net return

or profit was calculated by subtracting production cost from

the gross value of the produce, including by-product value or

gross return. Prices used for harvest products were average

prices observed during the experimental period. The benefit:

cost ratio (BCR) was calculated by dividing the net return by

the production cost for individual crops and for various

systems.

To study energy inputs and outputs of individual cropping

systems, a complete inventory of all crop inputs (fertilizers,

seeds, plant protection chemicals, fuels, human labor and

animal power) and outputs of both main and by-products

was prepared. The energy value of each cropping system

was determined based on energy inputs and energy

Table 5

Component energy inputs (MJ ha�1) for raising various crops evaluated in a fiel

Operation/source Wet rice Late wet rice Dry rice

Land preparation 1318 1318 1318

N-fertilizer 3636 2424 6060

P-fertilizer 333 222 555

K-fertilizer 201 134 335

Seed 588 882 735

Pesticides 189 378 15

Irrigation 3200 3200 8000

Labor before harvest 1482 1482 1920

Labor for harvest and

processing (MJ t�1

main product)

438 606 420

Total energy

requirement at

Y t ha�1 yield

level (MJ ha�1)

10946

+ 438Y

10039

+ 606Y

18938

+ 420Y

production for the individual crops in the system. Inputs

and outputs were converted from physical to energy unit

measures through published conversion coefficients. Com-

ponent energy inputs for raising various crops are given in

Table 5. Energy output was calculated on both economic

yield (=sellable harvest product) and biological yield (=total

dry matter produced) basis. Average annual energy use

efficiency (EUE = energy output/energy input) and energy

productivity (EP = yield/energy input) were calculated for

each cropping system.

2.4. Soil, plant and water analysis

To study changes in soil fertility status, initial soil

samples were collected with an auger for the 0–15 cm soil

d experiment in West Bengal, India

Wheat Potato Jute Rapeseed Sesame

988 1318 988 988 988

6060 12120 2424 4848 3030

555 1110 222 444 275

335 1005 268 268 168

1470 9513 929 145 263

120 750 120 288 0

3200 4800 800 1600 800

862 1934 1996 835 383

130 50 695 662 289

13590

+ 130Y

32649

+ 50Y

6910

+ 695Y

9416

+ 662Y

5907

+ 289Y


depth at 20 locations of the experimental area. The samples

were thoroughly mixed, dried and passed through 2 mm

sieve and kept in poly bags for chemical analysis of organic

carbon, pH (1:2.5 soil: water), total N, available K (1N NH4-

acetate) and available P (Bray-1). Soil samples were also

taken and analyzed treatment wise after harvest of each crop

in each year under individual cropping systems. Plant

samples were taken at physiological maturity for rice, wheat

and sesame, and at harvest for potato and jute during each

cropping season for the determination of P (Spectro-

photometer method) and K (Flame photometer method) in

economic and by-product parts of the plant. In jute, whole-

plant samples were analyzed for P and K, but in potato, only

tubers were analyzed. Crop uptake of P and K was estimated

by multiplying the dry matter yields (after drying at 70 8C to

constant weight) of each crop with their corresponding

nutrient contents. Nutrient contents in irrigation and rain

water during each cropping season, and in seeds of

individual crops and in potato tubers were measured using

the standard procedures. Average (of 3 years) P and K

contributions through rainwater were 0.0013 and

0.0333 kg ha�1 cm�1, respectively, and through irrigation

water were 0.008 and 0.16 kg ha�1 cm�1, respectively.

2.5. P and K uptake and balances

Apparent balances of P and K were estimated after 3

years under individual cropping systems as

P balance ¼Xðfertilizer P; rain P; irrigation-water P;

P in seedlings and seedsÞ �X

Crop P removal

K balance ¼Xðfertilizer K; rain K; irrigation-water K;

K in seedlings and seedsÞ �XðCrop K removal;

leaching losses of KÞ

Fertilizer inputs to various crops were made as per the

recommendation of the Department of Agriculture, Govern-

ment of West Bengal (Anonymous, 1998). No manure was

applied to any crop, resembling the majority of the farmers’

Table 6

Mean crop productivity and rice equivalent yield (REY) of various cropping sys

Cropping system Yield (t ha�1)

Rainy Winter Summer

R–R 4.09 – 4.58

R–W 3.97 3.01 –

R–P–R 4.65 24.35 5.40

R–P–S 4.63 23.72 1.10

R–Re–R 3.98 1.06 4.29

J–R–R 2.68 3.08 5.00

J–W 2.76 3.72 –

J–P–R 3.18 28.79 5.63

J–Re–R 2.58 1.29 4.40

CD (5%)

R, rice; W, wheat; P, potato; S, sesame; Re, rapeseed; J, jute. Means of pooled R

practice. Roots and stubbles of previous crops and weed

biomass were fully removed so that their nutrient contribu-

tions to apparent balances were almost nil. Average seasonal

rainfall received and irrigation water applied were 806 and

50 mm for jute, 1084 and 200 mm for wet rice, 613 and

200 mm for late wet rice, 36 and 200 mm for wheat, 21 and

300 mm for potato, 36 and 100 mm for rapeseed, 68 and

500 mm for dry rice, and 450 and 0 mm for sesame. The P

and K contributions through rain and irrigation water during

each crop season were estimated by multiplying their

respective concentrations with the amount of rain received

and irrigation water applied over the season. The P

contribution through both rainfall and irrigation was

minimal (0.1–0.8 kg ha�1), compared to K (2.8–

16.0 kg ha�1), and that P and K inputs through rainfall

was much smaller (0.1–5.2 kg ha�1) than irrigation (0.2–

16.0 kg ha�1). We assumed that there would be no loss of P

through leaching or other wise from the soil system

(Dobermann et al., 1996a). Leaching loss of K for all crops

was assumed to be 150 g kg�1 of K input (Smaling and

Fresco, 1993).

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Productivity

Crops yields in the individual cropping systems varied by

climatic seasons and, within the same climatic season, were

much affected by the previous crop grown (Table 6). In the

rainy season, yield of rice tended to be higher (4.6–

4.7 t ha�1) in R–P–R and R–P–S systems than in R–R, R–W,

or R–Re–R systems (4.0–4.1 t ha�1). Jute grown in the J–P–

R system recorded higher fiber yield (3.2 t ha�1) than that

from other jute-based systems (�2.7 t ha�1). In winter

seasons, yield of potato grown in the J–P–R rotation

averaged 28.8 t ha�1 as compared to 23.7–24.4 t ha�1 in R–

P–R and R–P–S systems. Yield of all winter crops was

higher after jute than following rice. Yield of dry season rice

following potato was higher (5.4–5.6 t ha�1) than that of rice

tems evaluated in a field experiment in West Bengal, India

System-wise REY (t ha�1)

99–00 00–01 01–02 Pooled

8.99 7.00 8.79 8.26g

7.30 7.18 8.89 7.79g

22.01 21.44 21.82 21.76b

19.94 19.21 17.13 18.76c

10.86 10.62 9.78 10.42de

13.29 10.21 8.52 10.67d

9.21 8.85 9.14 9.07f

26.33 24.07 23.05 24.49a

12.14 11.91 9.22 11.09d

0.68 0.85 1.10 0.49

EY followed by the same letter do not significantly differ (P < 0.05).


following rapeseed or rice (4.3–5 t ha�1). When the system-

wise REY was considered, cropping systems including

potato recorded greater overall production (REY = 19–

25 t ha�1) than any other systems (8–11 t ha�1). Among the

potato-inclusive systems ranking in terms of total produc-

tivity followed the order J–P–R > R–P–R > R–P–S. Other

triple cropping systems that did not include potato recorded

intermediate system REY, whereas the three double

cropping systems (R–R, R–W and J–W) had the lowest

annual productivity.

In the potato-containing triple-cropping systems, rice

yields following potato were significantly higher than when

grown after rice or rapeseed. Residual effects of high doses of

fertilizer applied to potato as well as intensive soil aeration

during potato cropping may have caused benefits for rice, as

has also been observed in other studies with potato systems

(Biswas and Mitra, 1987). Jute also appears to have beneficial

effects on succeeding crops (Mandal et al., 1981; CRIJAF,

2000), which may be associated with improvements in

nutrient cycling, soil structure, and root growth. Jute itself

may perform better in a J–W system than in a J–R–R system

(Tomar and Tiwari, 1990), partly because the dissimilar

nature of crops in the J–W system results in better overall

nutrient use efficiency. Rice and wheat are more nutrient

exhaustive crops than jute and growing two rice crops in a J–

R–R system exhausts more nutrients than a single crop of

wheat in a J–W system. Low grain yields of cereals grown

after nutrient exhausting crops such as rapeseed or mustard

have also been observed in other studies (Singh and Beniwal,

1983). Poor performance of wet season rice in R–R and R–

Re–R systems was probably due to growing two rice crops in

quick succession (Gangwar et al., 1986). Poor performance of

late wet season rice was caused by delayed transplanting,

which can result in cold damage during flowering stage of

rice. Also, late wet season rice suffered from some insect and

diseases damage. Jute had positive residual effects on wheat

grown thereafter because it left the soil with better physical

structure than when wheat was grown after rice. Presence of a

individual crop species in the rotation generally reduced pest

pressure on wheat (data not shown).

Table 7

Economic return of various cropping systems evaluated in a field experiment in

Cropping system Production cost (Rs. ha�1) Net return (R

Rainy Winter Summer System Rainy Wi

R–R 13269 0 19497 32766 10720

R–W 13129 12780 0 25909 10315 12

R–P–R 13935 27165 20442 61543 13191 33

R–P–S 13911 27078 5759 46749 13272 32

R–Re–R 13137 8321 19168 40625 10100 6

J–R–R 15257 13262 19975 48494 9673 5

J–W 15403 13936 0 29339 10237 17

J–P–R 16209 27777 20706 64692 13218 44

J–Re–R 15054 8730 19287 43070 8826 9

CD (5%) 399 262 265 503 1285 1

1 US $ = Rs. 48.

3.2. Profitability

Both production costs and annual net returns must be

considered for choosing suitable cropping systems for the

IGP because those varied widely among individual cropping

systems (Table 7). In the wet season, production cost was

15% higher for jute (�Rs. 15,500 ha�1) than rice (�Rs.

13,500 ha�1). In summer, sesame had much lower produc-

tion cost (�Rs. 6000 ha�1) than rice (�Rs. 20,000 ha�1). In

winter, production cost was highest for potato (�Rs.

27,000 ha�1), intermediate for wheat (�Rs. 13,000 ha�1)

and least for rapeseed (�Rs. 8000 ha�1). Production cost of

rapeseed was lowest due to its low labor and less land

preparation requirement. Production cost for wheat was also

low due to its low labor requirement. Annual production

costs increased with increasing cropping intensity, with

triple cropping systems incurring considerably higher costs

than double-cropping systems. Inclusion of potato in triple

cropping systems resulted in significantly higher production

costs than that of any other systems, primarily due to high

costs for tuber, fertilizer, land preparation, irrigation and

plant protection (Table 4). Double-cropping systems such as

R–W and J–W had the lowest annual production costs.

Net returns were directly related to the price that the

producer received for the product and inversely related to the

production cost. Though growing potato was associated with

the highest production cost, it was also the most profitable

crop. Both net return and BCR were highest for potato as well

as for potato containing cropping systems than for other crops

and systems, mainly due to higher yield of potato. Among all

potato-based systems, economic performance of potato after

jute in J–P–R system was the best in terms of both net return

and BCR (Table 7). In contrast, the lowest BCR was observed

for late wet season rice under J–R–R and for rapeseed under

R–Re–R cropping systems. Though sesame produced some-

what lower return, it recorded the highest BCR due to its

lowest cost of production particularly for seed, labor and plant

protection. Despite the fact that R–R and R–W had lower

production costs, net returns from these systems were also the

lowest because of the low annual crop production. J–R–R and

West Bengal, India

s. ha�1) Benefit cost ratio

nter Summer System Rainy Winter Summer System

0 8999 19719 0.81 0.46 0.60

390 0 22704 0.79 0.97 0.88

702 12981 59874 0.95 1.24 0.64 0.97

214 9560 55046 0.95 1.19 1.66 1.18

387 7472 23959 0.77 0.77 0.39 0.59

998 10881 26552 0.63 0.45 0.54 0.55

360 0 27598 0.66 1.25 0.94

206 14220 71645 0.82 1.59 0.69 1.11

253 8013 26092 0.59 1.06 0.42 0.61

735 1179 2482 0.06 0.09 0.09 0.05


J–W cropping systems gave intermediate returns due to high

production cost of jute and lower market prices of rice and

wheat. It should be noted, however, that the average

production costs and economic returns shown in Table 7

only illustrate the major differences among cropping systems.

Annual price fluctuations are likely to cause significant

variation in the economic performance and also varying

economic risk among the systems.

3.3. Energetics

The total annual energy input in individual cropping

systems ranged from about 23,000 MJ ha�1 in J–W to 68,000

MJ ha�1 in R–P–R cropping system (Table 8). In winter,

potato required more energy (�34,000 MJ ha�1) than

wheat (�14,000 MJ ha�1) or rapeseed (�10,000 MJ ha�1).

In summer, the energy requirement for rice (�21,000

MJ ha�1) was much higher than for growing sesame

(�6000 MJ ha�1). Energy requirement for the production

of wet season rice was higher (�13,000 MJ ha�1) than that of

jute (�9000 MJ ha�1) due to higher energy expenditure in

rice for land preparation, nitrogen fertilization and irrigation,

in spite of higher labor requirement for jute.

Annual energy input was generally higher in triple-

cropping systems (40,000–68,000 MJ ha�1) than in double-

cropping systems (23,000–34,000 MJ ha�1), but triple-

cropping systems also produced more energy through both

greater economic (saleable harvest products) and biological

yields (total dry matter production) than the double-

cropping systems did (Table 8). The lowest energy output

in terms of both economic and biological yield occurred in

R–W and J–W cropping systems, while the highest energy

output was estimated for triple-crop systems that included

potato and/or jute, e.g., J–P–R, R–P–R, and J–R–R. In all

cropping systems, nitrogen fertilizer accounted for the

largest share of total energy input (26–37%) followed by

irrigation (17–33%, Table 9). Energy embedded in N

fertilizer was particularly high in the three triple-cropping

Table 8

Energy use efficiency of various cropping systems evaluated in a field experime

Cropping

system

Energy input (MJ ha�1) Energy output (MJ ha�1)

Economic yield (EY)

Rainy Winter Summer System Rainy Winter Summer Sy

R–R 12738 0 20858 33596 60123 0 67326 12

R–W 12686 13980 0 26667 58408 44247 0 10

R–P–R 12981 33876 21203 68060 68306 92761 79429 24

R–P–S 12973 33844 6296 53113 68012 90361 31996 19

R–Re–R 12689 10117 20738 43544 58506 21928 63112 14

J–R–R 8775 11907 21033 41714 48032 45276 73451 16

J–W 8828 14072 0 22900 49404 54635 0 10

J–P–R 9122 34100 21300 64522 56982 109703 82810 24

J–Re–R 8700 10267 20781 39749 46122 26606 64631 13

CD (5%) 232 289 243 705 6849 5452 6887 1

a Energy use efficiency for economic (EY, saleable harvest product) and biologib Energy productivity.

systems with potato, which also had relatively large

components of energy in seed and labor (Table 9).

All systems produced more energy than what was

required for annual crop production, but the system-wise

energy use efficiency varied from 3.3 to 4.5 MJ MJ�1 on

economic yield basis or from 5.9 to 11.2 MJ MJ�1 on

biological yield basis. The EUE was highest for J–W, J–R–R

and R–W systems, both in terms of economic and biological

yield (Table 8). It was relatively low in cropping systems

with potato because of the large energy input associated with

growing this crop. Energy productivity was highest for J–P–

R (583 g MJ�1) followed by R–P–S (554 g MJ�1) and R–P–

R (505 g MJ�1), primarily due to the high yield of potato in

these cropping systems. R–Re–R (214 g MJ�1) and J–Re–R

(208 g MJ�1) recorded the lowest energy productivity,

mainly because of low yield of rapeseed.

Wet season rice required more energy input and also

produced more energy output than jute, but jute was more

energy efficient than rice because of comparatively lower

energy requirement. However, in terms of converting solar

radiation into dry matter (i.e., energy productivity) both rice

and jute were not very productive crops. Among the winter

crops, potato was the highest energy producer and the

highest energy consumer, resulting in low energy efficiency

but still with the highest energy productivity. Energy use

efficiency of wheat, on the other hand, was higher than that

of potato because of lower energy requirement. All winter

crops grown after jute recorded greater energy output than

those following rice. Dry season rice required more energy

inputs than summer sesame, primarily because of greater

energy requirements for field operations, plant nutrients and

irrigation. Energy output was also higher in dry season rice

than in sesame but energy use efficiency was the reverse.

Among various systems, J–W was the most energy

efficient while R–Re–R was the least efficient in terms of

economic yield. Though cropping systems involving potato

produced higher energy output, their high-energy consump-

tion resulted in lower energy use efficiency. Jute under

nt in West Bengal, India

EUEa EPb (g MJ�1)

Biological yield (BY) EY BY

stem Rainy Winter Summer System

7449 129915 0 137284 267199 3.79 7.95 258

2655 127950 95497 0 223447 3.85 8.38 262

0496 146014 92761 159512 398287 3.53 5.85 505

0368 147554 90361 76051 313965 3.58 5.91 554

3546 125089 55611 127779 308479 3.30 7.08 214

6759 131012 93526 146868 371405 4.00 8.90 258

4039 134724 120635 0 255359 4.54 11.15 283

9494 153417 109703 167310 430429 3.87 6.67 583

7360 125007 69788 131089 325885 3.46 8.20 208

0451 10283 10623 9218 15347 0.18 0.42 15

cal yield (BY, total dry matter produced). EUE = energy output/energy input.


Table 9

Energy input components of various cropping systems evaluated in a field experiment in West Bengal, India

Component Cropping system

R–R

(MJ ha�1)

R–W

(MJ ha�1)

R–P–R

(MJ ha�1)

R–P–S

(MJ ha�1)

R–Re–R

(MJ ha�1)

J–R–R

(MJ ha�1)

J–W

(MJ ha�1)

J–P–R

(MJ ha�1)

J–Re–R

(MJ ha�1)

Land preparation 2636 2306 3954 3624 3624 3624 1976 3624 3294

N-fertilizer 9696 9696 21816 18786 14544 10908 8484 20604 13332

P-fertilizer 888 888 1998 1718 1332 999 777 1887 1221

K-fertilizer 536 536 1541 1374 804 737 603 1608 871

Seed 1323 2058 10836 10364 1468 2546 2399 11177 1809

Pesticides 204 309 954 939 492 513 240 885 423

Irrigation 11200 6400 16000 8800 12800 12000 4000 13600 10400

Labor before harvest 3402 2344 5336 3799 4237 5398 2858 5850 4751

Labor for

harvest/processing

3711 2130 5625 3709 4243 4989 1563 5287 3648

Total energy input 33596 26667 68060 53113 43544 41714 22900 64522 39749

Component Cropping system

R–R

(% of total)

R–W

(% of total)

R–P–R

(% of total)

R–P–S

(% of total)

R–Re–R

(% of total)

J–R–R

(% of total)

J–W

(% of total)

J–P–R

(% of total)

J–Re–R

(% of total)

Land preparation 7.8 8.6 5.8 6.8 8.3 8.7 8.6 5.6 8.3

N-fertilizer 28.9 36.4 32.1 35.4 33.4 26.1 37.0 31.9 33.5

P-fertilizer 2.6 3.3 2.9 3.2 3.1 2.4 3.4 2.9 3.1

K-fertilizer 1.6 2.0 2.3 2.6 1.8 1.8 2.6 2.5 2.2

Seed 3.9 7.7 15.9 19.5 3.4 6.1 10.5 17.3 4.6

Pesticides 0.6 1.2 1.4 1.8 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.4 1.1

Irrigation 33.3 24.0 23.5 16.6 29.4 28.8 17.5 21.1 26.2

Labor before harvest 10.1 8.8 7.8 7.2 9.7 12.9 12.5 9.1 12.0

Labor for harvest/processing 11.0 8.0 8.3 7.0 9.7 12.0 6.8 8.2 9.2

R, rice; W, wheat; P, potato; S, sesame; Re, rapeseed; J, jute.

J–P–R was the least energy efficient crop though most

energy productive. Likewise, rice under R–R, R–W and R–

Re–R was also the least energy efficient crop. Of all crop-

ping systems, R–W, J–W and R–R had lowest energy output.

Low energy output in R–W systems was also reported by

Subbian et al. (1995) and Parihar et al. (1999).

3.4. Soil fertility

Cropping system affected soil quality in terms of pH, EC,

SOC, available P, available K and total N (Table 10). Soil pH

declined in all cropping systems from initially 7.4 to 6.9 to

Table 10

Soil fertility status after 3 years of experimentation under individual cropping sy

System pH EC (dS m�1) Organic C (g kg�1) To

R–R 7.1 0.15b 3.6c 0.

R–W 7.2 0.24a 3.9bc 0.

R–P–R 6.9 0.22a 5.1a 0.

R–P–S 7.0 0.22a 5.0a 0.

R–Re–R 6.9 0.17b 3.9bc 0.

J–R–R 7.1 0.15b 5.0a 0.

J–W 7.2 0.23a 4.8a 0.

J–P–R 6.9 0.23a 5.5a 0.

J–Re–R 7.0 0.16b 4.6b 0.

Initial value 7.4 0.20 4.6 0.

CD (5%) NS 0.03 0.8 0.

Within each column, means followed by the same letter do not significantly diff

7.2 after 3 years of cropping, but treatment differences were

not significant (Table 10). Such decreases in pH have also

been reported in other studies with similar cropping systems

(Mandal and Pal, 1965; Sadanandan and Mhapatra, 1972).

Mechanisms causing the decrease in soil pH may vary

among the crops and cropping systems evaluated. In soils

with pH > 7, long periods of flooding such as found in two

rice crops grown per year are likely to cause a decline in pH

during the flooded phase due to changes in the CO2

equilibrium in soil solution and also due to rhizosphere

acidification in the root zone (Kirk, 2004). After rice, drying

out of the soil leads to re-oxidation of reduced substances

stems

tal N (g kg�1) Available P (kg ha�1) Available K (kg ha�1)

42bc 20.2c 122cd

41c 20.0c 118cd

47b 28.2ab 148b

46b 26.2b 149b

39 19.0c 110d

47b 26.4b 142b

50ab 27.2b 149b

55a 32.2a 175a

46b 26.2b 133bc

44 24.0 140

06 4.4 17

er (P < 0.05).


Fig. 2. Changes in soil organic carbon and available soil P and K under

individual cropping systems.

such as ferrous iron and sulfides, which may also cause a

decrease in pH. In crops or systems with greater soil aeration

and high N fertilizer rates, nitrification is likely to be a major

source of soil acidification. Of the systems compared here,

triple-crop systems containing potato may have been most

affected by this.

Soil EC increased in systems with potato and wheat,

irrespective of whether rice and jute were grown, and

decreased under R–R, R–Re–R, J–R–R and J–Re–R

systems. Rice generally resulted in lowering of EC

irrespective of season of its cultivation and cropping

systems. Soil EC is often related to soluble salts such as

nitrate and the concentration of those is much affected by N

fertilizer use and N losses due to leaching and denitrification

(Smith and Doran, 1996). Wet cultivation practices in sandy

loam soil probably caused nitrate and sulfate losses from the

soil, resulting in lower EC after rice. Under upland crops,

nitrate was likely to be major form of soil mineral N,

resulting in higher EC, particularly in crops with high N use

such as potato or wheat (Table 9). Overall, however, soil EC

levels (0.15–0.24 dS m�1) remained well below levels that

could cause any harm to crops.

Generally, organic carbon, total N, available P, and

available K in soil tended to increase in systems with either

jute or potato. More specifically, soil organic carbon, total

soil N and available P increased in J–P–R, J–R–R, R–P–R,

R–P–S, and J–W systems, but decreased in R–R, R–W, and

R–Re–R after three annual cycles (Table 10, Fig. 2). With

the exception of J–P–R, available soil K decreased (R–W,

R–R, R–Re–R) or remained unchanged in all cropping

systems (Fig. 2), primarily due to nearly complete removal

of K-rich vegetative biomass in these intensive cropping

systems (see below). The decline in organic carbon,

particularly in R–R and R–W systems, raises concern about

the sustainability of these systems in terms of maintaining

food security in the IGP as these are the predominant

systems in the region. Declining availability or use of

farmyard manure, continuous cropping, removal of crop

residues and excessive tillage are the main causes of the

decrease in soil organic matter in many rice-based

cropping systems of south Asia (Nambiar, 1994; Yadvin-

der-Singh et al., 2005). Soil drying and enhanced soil

aeration during fallow periods facilitate faster decomposi-

tion of crop residues and soil organic matter in double- or

triple-cropping systems with either long or dry fallow

periods or with upland crops in the rotation (van Gestel

et al., 1993; Witt et al., 2000). In our study, however,

organic matter increased considerably after jute and potato,

irrespective of cropping systems. This might be due to

greater rhizodeposition and leaf shedding of jute through-

out its growth period and due to the incorporation of potato

haulm at harvest, both contributing to an increase in

organic carbon. Increases in organic matter in jute-based

system (Chatterjee et al., 1978) and in rice–potato–sesame

cropping system (Ghosh and Malik, 1999) have also been

observed in West Bengal.

3.5. P and K budgets

Fertilizer was the dominant source of P input, with minor

contributions from rain and irrigation water and from seed

material. Total annual P output ranged from 33 to 75 kg ha�1

(Table 11). Average annual P balances ranged from

�24 kg ha�1 yr�1 in J–R–R to +25 kg ha�1 yr�1 in R–P–

S. Other cropping systems, such as R–P–R, R–W, R–Re–R,

and J–P–R exhibited positive balances, while J–W, J–Re–R

and R–R exhibited slightly negative balances (Table 11).

The negative P balances probably explained the decline in

available P in R–R (Fig. 2). In R–W and R–Re–R systems,

available P declined despite of a slightly positive P balance.

The most likely explanation for this is a decrease in soil P

availability due to alternating aerobic–anaerobic periods and

their influence on the dynamics of Fe and Ca-phosphates in

soil (Sah and Mikkelsen, 1986; Willett and Higgens, 1978;

Yadvinder-Singh et al., 2000). Of the systems compared,

uneconomical excessive P additions only occurred in the R–

P–R and R–P–S systems, primarily due to high rates (43 kg

P ha�1) of P application to potato.

Fertilizer was also the dominant source of K input, with

significant contribution from irrigation water, and minor


Table 12

Average annual K input–output balance of the cropping systems evaluated

System Inputs Outputs Balance

Fertilizer Rainfall Irrigation Seed Total Crop removal Losses Total

R–R 66.4 3.8 11.2 4.6 86 166 24 190 �104

R–W 66.4 3.7 6.4 2.6 79 142 24 166 �87

R–P–R 190.9 3.9 16.0 11.2 222 248 54 302 �80

R–P–S 170.2 5.2 8.0 9.0 192 185 47 231 �39

R–Re–R 99.6 4.0 12.8 4.6 121 180 36 216 �95

J–R–R 78.9 5.0 12.0 4.7 101 251 29 279 �179

J–W 62.3 2.8 4.0 0.4 70 170 23 192 �123

J–P–R 186.8 3.0 13.6 9.0 212 289 53 342 �130

J–Re–R 95.5 3.0 10.4 2.4 111 213 35 248 �136

CD (5%) 11

All values are in kg K ha�1 per year.

Table 11

Average annual P input–output balance of the cropping systems evaluated

System Inputs Output Balance

Fertilizer Rainfall Irrigation Seed Total Crop removal

R–R 34.4 0.1 0.6 0.6 35.7 39.7 �4.0

R–W 34.4 0.1 0.3 0.6 35.4 32.5 2.9

R–P–R 77.4 0.2 0.8 2.2 80.5 59.9 20.6

R–P–S 66.7 0.2 0.4 1.9 69.1 44.3 24.8

R–Re–R 51.6 0.2 0.6 0.6 53.0 47.2 5.8

J–R–R 40.9 0.2 0.6 0.6 42.2 66.3 �24.1

J–W 32.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 32.9 44.5 �11.6

J–P–R 75.3 0.1 0.7 1.9 78.0 75.0 3.0

J–Re–R 49.5 0.1 0.5 0.3 50.4 58.0 �7.6

CD (5%) 0.2

All values are in kg P ha�1 per year.

contributions from rain water and seed material. Total

annual crop K removal ranged from 142 to 289 kg ha�1, but

estimated K losses of 23–54 kg ha�1 (Table 12) remain quite

uncertain due to the lack of measurements of leaching losses

in the present study. The apparent average annual K balances

were all negative and ranged from �179 kg ha�1 yr�1 in J–

R–R to �39 kg ha�1 in R–P–S (Table 12). R–W had a

negative K balance of 87 kg ha�1 and R–P–R had negative

balance of 80 kg ha�1. These results confirmed the declining

trends in available soil K in many treatments (Fig. 2) and

they are comparable with many other long-term studies in

R–R and R–W systems of Asia (Dobermann et al., 1996b;

Ladha et al., 2003). One major exception was the J–P–R

system in which available soil K measured in 0–15 cm depth

increased over time (Fig. 2) despite a highly negative annual

K balance of �130 kg ha�1 (Table 12). The most likely

explanation for this apparent discrepancy is that re-

distribution of K from greater soil depths occurred in this

system, i.e., extraction of soil K by crops with a deeper root

system and deposition near the surface through crop

residues. This system was the only one with significant

increases in SOC, available P, and available K over time

(Fig. 2). Regardless of this exception, it remains obvious that

improvements in K management considering crop require-

ment, soil nutrient supply, long-term fate of added fertilizer,

and the overall input/output balance must be made to

maintain the productivity of intensive cropping systems in

West Bengal.

4. Conclusions

There is potential for greater adoption of intensified

cropping systems with increased productivity and energy

efficiency as compared to rice–wheat or rice–rice systems in

the Eastern IGP. Diversified triple cropping systems such as

rice–potato–rice, rice–potato–sesame and jute–potato–rice

had high cost, but also highest annual yield, net return, benefit:

cost ratio, and energy productivity. Compared to R–R or R–W,

potato and/ or jute inclusive cropping systems also maintained

or improved soil organic matter and P status. Negative K

balances and declines in available soil K in many of the

cropping systems studied data indicate inadequacy of present

recommended rates of fertilizer-K for all component crops of

the systems studied, whereas P recommendations seem

adequate. Considering all this, triple cropping systems

involving potato appear to be most suitable for resource-

rich large farmers. Steady expansion of potato area and


production after rice and jute has already occurred in the

eastern IGP in spite of strong price seasonality and higher risk.

Whether this process continues remains to be seen and will

also depend on factors such as prices and cold storage

availability. The main harvest of potato in the eastern IGP

occurs in February and March. Temperatures rise steadily

until the onset of the southwest monsoon in June. Traditional

storage is not an effective option from mid-April onwards, but

prices continue to rise until the rainy season crop is harvested

in October. Recent public and private sector initiatives have

focused on increasing the cold storage area, expansion of

potato exports and diversified processing, thus reducing the

risk of price decline and improving the overall potato market.

Compared to triple-crop system with potato, systems such as

jute–wheat, jute–rapeseed–rice, and rice–wheat require fewer

inputs and are also less risky, which probably makes them

more suitable for resource-poor small farmers.

References

Adhikari, C., Bronson, K.F., Panaullah, G.M., Regmi, A.P., Saha, P.K.,

Dobermann, A., Olk, D.C., Hobbs, P., Pasuquin, E., 1999. On farm soil

N supply and N nutrition in the rice–wheat system of Nepal and

Bangladesh. Field Crops Res. 64, 273–286.

Anonymous, 1998. Soil Test-based Fertilizer Recommendations for Prin-

cipal Crops and Cropping Sequences in West Bengal. Department of

Agriculture, Government of West Bengal.

Anonymous, 1999. Study on Farm Management and Cost of Production of

Crops in West Bengal, 1995–96, Evaluation Wing, vol. XXXVIII.

Directorate of Agriculture, Government of West Bengal, Calcutta.

Bhandari, A.L., Ladha, J.K., Pathak, H., Padre, A.T., Dawe, D., Gupta, R.K.,

2002. Yield and soil nutrient changes in a long-term rice–wheat rotation

in India. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 66, 162–170.

Biswas, G.C., Mitra, P.C., 1987. Residual effect of fertilizers applied to

potato and rice on the yield of jute fibre in rice–potato–jute cropping

sequence. Jute Dev. J. 7 (1), 43–53.

Chatterjee, B.N., Banerjee, N.C., Ghosh, D.C., Debnath, P.K., 1978.

Response to P, K and FYM in multiple cropping with potato. J. Ind.

Potato Assoc. 5, 9–12.

CRIJAF (Central Research Institute of Jute and Allied Fibre), 2000. Annual

Report for 1999–2000, pp. 79–84.

Dobermann, A., Cassman, K.G., Sta. Cruz, P.C., Adviento, M.A.A., Pam-

polino, M.F., 1996a. Fertilizer input, nutrient balance, and soil nutrient

supplying power in intensive, irrigated rice systems. III. Phosphorus.

Nutrient Cycl. AgroEcosyst. 46, 111–125.

Dobermann, A., Sta.Cruz, P.C., Cassman, K.G., 1996b. Fertilizer inputs,

nutrient balance, and soil nutrient supplying power in intensive, irri-

gated rice systems. I. Potassium uptake and K balance. Nutrient Cycl.

Agroecosyst. 46, 1–10.

Gangwar, S.K., Chakraborty, S., Dasgupta, M.K., Huda, A.K.S., 1986.

Modeling yield loss in Indica rice in farmers’ fields due to multiple

pests. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 17, 165–171.

Ghosh, D.C., Malik, G.C., 1999. Fertility management in potato under

potato–sesame–rice cropping system. Environ. Ecol. 17, 643–645.

Kirk, G.J.D., 2004. The Biogeochemistry of Submerged Soils. Wiley, New

York.

Ladha, J.K., Dawe, D., Pathak, H., Padre, A.T., Yadav, R.L., Singh, B.,

Singh, Y., Singh, Y., Singh, P., Kundu, A.L., Sakal, R., Ram, N., Regmi,

A.P., Gami, S.K., Bhandari, A.L., Amin, R., Yadav, C.R., Bhattarai,

E.M., Das, S., Aggarwal, H.P., Gupta, R.K., Hobbs, P.R., 2003. How

extensive are yield declines in long-term rice–wheat experiments in

Asia? Field Crops Res. 81, 159–180.

Mandal, A.K., Pal, H., 1965. Study on the soil available phosphorus as

affected by cropping with jute under the influence of nitrogen from

organic and inorganic sources. Jute Bull. 57–59.

Mandal, A.K., Roy, A.B., Pal, H., 1981. Fertilizer use in jute based cropping

system in individual agro-climatic zones. Fert. News 45–50.

Mandal, B.C., Roy, A.B., Saha, M.N., Mondal, A.K., 1984. Wheat yields

and soil nutrient status as influenced by continuous cropping and

manuring in a jute–rice–wheat rotation. J. Ind. Soc. Soil Sci. 32,

696–700.

Mukhopadhyaya, S.K., Roy, D., 2000. Potato-based crop rotations in West

Bengal. Environ. Ecol. 18, 793–797.

Nambiar, K.K.M., 1994. Soil Fertility and Crop Productivity under Long

Term Fertilizer Use in India. ICAR, New Delhi, India, pp. 144.

Panaullah, G.M., Timsina, J., Saleque, M.A., Ishaque, M., Pathan,

A.B.M.B.U., Connor, D.J., Saha, P.K., Quayyum, M.A., Humphreys,

E., Meisner, C.A., 2006. Nutrient uptake and apparent balances for rice–

wheat sequences. III. Potassium. J. Plant Nutr. 29, 173–187.

Parihar, S.S., Pandey, D., Shukla, R.K., Verma, V.K., Chaure, N.K.,

Choudhary, K.K., Pandya, K.S., 1999. Energetics, yield, water use

and economics of rice based cropping system. Ind. J. Agron. 44,

205–209.

Sadanandan, N., Mhapatra, I.C., 1972. Effects of various cropping

patterns on pH of upland alluvial rice soils. Ind. J. Agron. 18,

41–44.

Sah, R.N., Mikkelsen, D.S., 1986. Transformation of inorganic phosphate

during the flooding and draining cycles of soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 50,

62–67.

Saha, M.N., Saha, A.R., Mandal, B.C., Roy, P.K., 2000. Effect of long-term

Jute–R–W cropping system on crop yield and soil fertility. In: Abrol,

I.P., Bronson, K.F., Duxbury, J.M., Gupta, R.K. (Eds.), Long-term Soil

Fertility Experiments in R–W Cropping Systems. R–W consortium

Paper Series 6. R–W Consortium for the IGPs, New Dehli, pp. 94–

104.

Saleque, M.A., Timsina, J., Panaullah, G.M., Ishaque, M., Pathan,

A.B.M.B.U., Connor, D.J., Saha, P.K., Quayyum, M.A., Humphreys,


wheat sequences. II. Phosphorus. J. Plant Nutr. 29, 157–172.

Sarkar, A., 1997. Energy use patterns in sub-tropical rice-wheat cropping

under short-term application of crop residue and fertilizer. Agric.

Ecosyst. Environ. 61, 59–67.

SenGupta, P.K., 2001. Monograph on West Bengal. Directorate of Agri-

culture, Government of West Bengal, Kolkata, India.

Singh, G.B., Beniwal, R.K., 1983. Performance of wheat and mustard in

cropping sequences in Sikkim. Ind. J. Agric. Sci. 53, 820–825.

Smaling, E.M.A., Fresco, L.O., 1993. A decision-support model for mon-

itoring nutrient balances under agricultural land use (NUTMON).

Geoderma 60, 235–256.

Smith, J.L., Doran, J.W., 1996. Measurement and use of pH and electrical

conductivity for soil quality analysis. In: Doran, J.W., Jones, A.J.

(Eds.), Methods for Assessing Soil Quality. SSSA Spec. Pub. No. 49.

SSSA, Madison, WI, pp. 169–185.

Subbian, P., Gopalsundaran, P., Palaniappan, S.P., 1995. Energetics and

water use efficiency of intensive cropping system. Ind. J. Agron. 40,

398–401.

Timsina, J., Connor, D.J., 2001. Productivity and management of R–W

cropping systems: issues and challenges. Field Crops Res. 69, 93–

132.

Timsina, J., Panaullah, G.M., Saleque, M.A., Ishaque, M., Pathan,

A.B.M.B.U., Quayyum, M.A., Connor, D.J., Shah, P.K., Humphreys,


wheat sequences. I. Nitrogen. J. Plant Nutr. 29, 137–156.

Timsina, J., Singh, U., Badaruddin, M., Meisner, C., Amin, M.R., 2001.

Cultivar, nitrogen, and water effects on productivity, and nitrogen-use

efficiency and balance for rice–wheat sequences of Bangladesh. Field

Crops Res. 72, 143–161.

Tomar, S.S., Tiwari, A.S., 1990. Production potential and economics of

individual crop sequences. Ind. J. Agron. 35, 30–35.


van Gestel, M., Merckx, R., Vlassak, K., 1993. Microbial biomass responses

to soil drying and rewetting: the fate of fast and slow growing micro-

organisms in the soils from individual.

Willett, I.R., Higgens, M.L., 1978. Phosphate sorption by reduced and

deoxidized rice soils. Aust. J. Soil. Res. 16, 319–326.

Witt, C., Cassman, K.G., Olk, D.C., Biker, U., Liboon, S.P., Samson, M.I.,

Ottow, J.C.G., 2000. Crop rotation and residue management effects on

carbon sequestration, nitrogen cycling and productivity of irrigated rice

systems. Plant Soil 225, 263–278.

Yadav, R.L., Dwivedi, B.S., Pandey, P.S., 2000. Rice–wheat cropping

systems: assessment of sustainability under green manuring and che-

mical fertilisers input. Field Crop. Res. 65, 15–30.

Yadvinder-Singh, Bijay-Singh, Timsina, J., 2005. Crop residue manage-

ment for nutrient cycling and improving soil productivity in rice-based

cropping systems in the tropics. Adv. Agron. 85, 269–407.

Yadvinder-Singh, Dobermann, A., Bijay-Singh, Bronson, K.F., Khind, C.S.,

2000. Optimal phosphorus management strategies for wheat-rice crop-

ping on a loamy sand. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 64, 1413–1422.

Productivity, profitability and energy use efficiency of cropping systems in eastern India- Field Crops Research

Documents