Weed Dynamics and Productivity

8/10/2019 Weed Dynamics and Productivity

1/9

Weed dynamics and productivity of wheat in conventional

and

conservation

rice-based

cropping

systems

Muhammad Farooq a,b,c,*, Ahmad Nawaz a

aDepartment of Agronomy, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, PakistanbThe UWA Institute of Agriculture, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, AustraliacCollege of Food and Agricultural Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia

1.

Introduction

Ricewheat cropping system occupies an area of 24 Mha in Asia

with

13.5

Mha

in

South

Asia

(Anonymous,

2007).

Although,

rice

wheat

crop

rotation

is

dominant

in

irrigated

areas

but

there

are

rainfed pockets as well with this system (Surendra et al., 2001;

Hussain et al., 2012a,b).

Conventionally

puddling is done in rice

fields;

while after rice

harvest,

wheat

is

sown

in well-pulverized soil. This

shows an

edaphic conflict in conventional soil management practice for

rice and its subsequent wheat crop (Farooq et al. , 2008a).

Although,

puddling helps in weed

management and reducing

water loss through percolation (Surendra et al., 2001; Farooq

et al.,2011a); nonethelessit deteriorates thesoil environmentfor

post-rice

crops (Sharma and

DeDatta, 1985; Farooqet

al., 2008a;

Farooq and

Basra, 2008).

This results

in erratic stand establish-

ment of post-rice crops owing to poor contact of seed with soil

(Ringrose-Voase et al., 2000; Farooq et al., 2008a; Farooq and

Basra, 2008).

Subsurface compaction of

soil, caused by puddling,

may

induce the

drought

to

post-rice

crops

by restricting the

root

development (Kirchhof et al., 2000; Kukal and Aggarwal, 2003).

Moreover, conventional rice production system requires 3000

5000

l

of

water to

produce one

kg of

rice (Belder et

al., 2004;

Geethalakshmi et

al., 2011),

which is

23 times

more

than

other

cereals likemaize,barley,wheat andsorghum (Barker et al.,1998;

Bouman et al., 2007). However, declining water resources and

increasing

labor

cost

has threatened the

sustainability of

Soil & Tillage Research 141 (2014) 19

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:Received 30 December 2013

Received in revised form 8 March 2014

Accepted 23 March 2014

Keywords:

Resource conservation

Rice production system

Seed priming

Tillage

A B S T R A C T

There exist edaphic and time conflicts between rice and followingwheat crop in the conventional ricewheat system. Conservation agriculture offers a pragmatic option to resolve these conflicts in the

conventional ricewheatsystemin theIndo-GangeticPlains. Inthis two-yearfieldstudy;wheatwasraised

through zero tillage, deep tillage, conventional tillage and on raised beds after harvesting rice grown in

aerobic, alternate wetting and drying (AWD) and flooded systems. Various wheat tillage systems after

different riceproduction systemssignificantlyaffectedweeddynamics, stand establishment,morphologi-

calandyield-related traitsof wheat during both yearof study. Soil physical environmentwas betterin the

field occupiedby aerobic rice followedby AWD-sown rice while it waspoor after flooded rice. Densityof

lambsquarters(ChenopodiumalbumL.)waslowestafterfloodedricewhiledensitiesof tootheddock (Rumex

dentatus L.)and littleseedcanarygrass(PhalarisminorRetz.)were lowestafteraerobicrice.Broadleafweeds

like lambsquarters and toothed dock dominated in deep tillage, conventional tillage and bed sowing;

whereas narrow leaf weeds like littleseed canarygrass dominated in zero tillage. Better stand

establishment, water use efficiency, resource use efficiency and grain yield were recorded from wheat

following aerobic rice culture, which was followed by AWD. Amongst the wheat tillage systems, stand

establishment,morphologicaland yield related traits andwater useefficiencywerebetter in deeptillage;

whereasresource useefficiencywasthemaximum in zero tillagewheat. Performanceof bed-sownwheatwas poor in term of yield related traits and grain yield. However, bed-sown wheat completed the

phenological stagesmorerapidly thanotherwheat tillage systems.Maximumnet incomewasobserved in

zero tillage wheat followingaerobic rice culture. In crux, zero tilledwheat after aerobic rice culture is the

best resource conservation technology; whereas deep tillage in ricewheat cropping system may

ameliorate the puddling-induced edaphic problems.

2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

* Corresponding author at: Department of Agronomy, University of Agriculture,

Faisalabad, Pakistan. Tel.: +92 41 9201098; fax: +92 41 9200605.

E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Farooq).

Contents

lists

available

at

ScienceDirect

Soil & Tillage Research

journal homepage: www.elsev ier .co m/loc ate /s t i l l

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2014.03.012

0167-1987/ 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

8/10/2019 Weed Dynamics and Productivity

2/9

conventional rice production system (Pandey and Velasco, 1999;

Farooq et al., 2009).

In conventional rice productionareas, wheat plantation is delayed

mostly due to late maturation of Basmati varieties (Byerlee et al.,

1984; Farooq et al., 2008b, 2011b), and any rainfall during this time

accompaniedwith lowtemperature furtherdelaysthewheatplanting

(Farooq et al., 2008b; Farooq and Basra, 2008). This late plantation of

wheat is one of the major factors responsible for low wheat yield

(Hussainetal., 2012a,b).Moreover,floodedpaddyfields are the major

source of methane emission(Neue et al., 1990). This methane escapes

into the atmosphere through roots, stems and leaves of rice and

contributes to global warming (Maclean et al., 2002).

Conservation agriculture offers a pragmatic option to resolve

the edaphic conflict in the conventional ricewheat system (Hobbs

et al., 2007; Farooq and Basra, 2008; Farooq et al., 2011b). For

Instance, just by eliminating the puddling operation for rice, the

yield of succeeding wheat crop may be substantially improved

along with decrease in production cost (Timsina and Connor, 2001;

Farooq et al., 2008a). Conservation rice production systems, like

aerobic culture and alternate wetting and drying, may help in

resolving the edaphic conflict in the rice and proceeding crop

(Farooq and Basra, 2008; Farooq et al., 2008a, 2009) in addition to

substantial cut on the water and labor requirement, and the

greenhouse gas emission (Sarkar, 2001; Bouman and Tuong, 2001;Farooq et al., 2009, 2011a).

Conservation tillage may help in timely planting of wheat with

significant decrease in production cost (Erenstein and Laxmi,

2008). However, deep tillage before wheat planting may help to

break the hardpan created during puddling. Deep tillage reduces

soil strength, promotes deep rooting (Kundu et al., 1996), reduces

penetration resistance (Busscher et al., 2000), resulting in better

acquisition of water (Holloway, 1991). Deep tillage in post-rice

fields can improve wheat yields (Hobbs et al., 2002), by improving

the soil physical properties (Mahajan and Bhagat, 2006), through

reduction in bulk density and soil strength. Wheat planting with

conservation tillage is the most successful resource conservation

technology

in

Indo-Gangetic

Plains

(Erenstein

et

al.,

2007a;

Erenstein and Laxmi, 2008) with 516% decrease in productioncost (Thakur et al., 2004; Laxmi et al., 2007; Erenstein et al., 2007b)

and substantial yield increase (Gathala et al., 2011). However,

weed

flora

changes

while

switching

from

conventional

to

conservation

agriculture

(Farooq

et

al.,

2011b).

Tillage

helps

to

control certain weeds (Clement et al., 1996; Swanton et al., 2000);

nonetheless tillage may encourage the emergence of certain other

weed

species

(Shrestha

et

al.,

2003).

Although

several

studies

have

been

conducted

to

compare

the

performance of conservation and conventional ricewheat crop-

ping system, information on resource conservation, stand estab-

lishment

and

weed

dynamics

is

lacking.

Therefore,

this

study

was

conducted

to

compare

the

conservation

and

conventional

rice-

based wheat production systems for soil physical health, stand

establishment,

resource

conservation

and

weed

dynamics.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Site and soil

This two-year study was conducted at the Agronomic Research

Area, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad (latitude 318 N, longitude

738 E and altitude 184.4 masl), Pakistan during 20102011 and

20122013 as a part of long term experiment. The experimental soil

belongs to Lyallpur soil series (aridisol-fine-silty, mixed, hyperther-

mic Ustalfic, Haplarged in USDA classification and Haplic Yermosols

in FAO classification. Other physico-chemical properties of

experimental soil are given in Table 1. Weather data during the

experimental period are given in Table 2.

2.2. Plant material

Seeds of wheat cultivar Mairaj-2008 were collected from Wheat

Research Institute, Ayub Agricultural Research Institute, Faisala-

bad, Pakistan. Initial moisture and germination percentages were

9.1% and 95%, respectively.

2.3.

Experimental

details

The experiment was laid out in randomized complete blockdesign in split plot arrangement keeping rice production systems

in main plots and wheat tillage systems in sub-plot with four

replications and a net plot size of 3.3 m 1.80 m. The rice crop in

aerobic culture was sown on June 22, 2010 and was harvested on

November 15, 2010. The nursery for alternate wetting and drying

(AWD) and conventional flooding systems was sown on June 22,

2010 and was transplanted in puddled field on July 22, 2010. The

rice crop from AWD and conventional flooding systems was

harvested on November 20, 2010 at harvest maturity. In aerobic

rice, land was prepared by four cultivations followed by two

planking. To ensure a good soil for aerobic rice, rotavator was also

operated in the field before sowing. Rice seed was drilled in aerobic

soil

and

irrigation

was

applied

when

required

to

maintain

the

soil

moisture. In AWD, field was prepared in standing water to reduce

Table 2

Weather data during the wheat season of 20102011 and 20112012 at experimental site.

Months Rainfall Relative humidity Temperature (8C) Sunshine (h)

(mm) (%) Daily maximum Daily minimum Daily mean

20102011 20112012 20102011 20112012 20102011 20112012 20102011 20112012 20102011 20112012 20102011 20112012

November 0.00 0.00 62.3 61.2 27.1 27.6 10.5 13.3 18.8 20.5 8.50 8.50

December 1.00 0.00 70.5 59.1 20.8 20.9 05.9 04.2 13.3 12.5 7.00 6.90

January 0.00 3.8 73.4 69.6 15.9 17.3 04.3 03.2 10.1 10.2 5.40 7.20

February 20.6 8.0 73.0 62.1 20.2 18.4 08.7 04.6 14.4 11.5 5.50 7.30

March 6.80 1.50 59.8 58.2 26.4 25.9 13.1 11.7 19.8 18.8 8.40 8.30

April 20.9 10.5 47.0 59.1 32.0 32.7 17.2 18.0 24.8 25.3 9.30 9.20

Source: Agricultural

Meteorology

Cell,

Department

of

Crop

Physiology,

University

of

Agriculture,

Faisalabad,

Pakistan.

Table 1

Some physical and chemical characteristics of soil profile.

20102011 20112012

Sand (%) 59 58

Silt (%) 23 23

Clay (%) 18 19

Soil texture Sandy loam Sandy loam

Soil pH 8.20 8.19

EC (dSm1) 0.34 0.33

Organic matter (%) 0.90 0.87

N (%) 0.05 0.06

P (ppm) 5.00 4.97

K (ppm) 168.0 166.7

M. Farooq, A. Nawaz/Soil & Tillage Research 141 (2014) 192

8/10/2019 Weed Dynamics and Productivity

3/9

the water percolation losses and to keep the water standing for

weed suppression. Four weeks old seedlings were transplanted in

standing water. Field was kept flooded for a week, drained for three

days and was then water was applied in alternate cycles of wetting

and drying. In conventional rice production system, seedbed was

prepared as in case of AWD. Four weeks old seedlings were

transplanted in standing water. Field was kept flooded for a week,

drained for three days and then was kept flooded till physiological

maturity. All other operations like fertilizer were same for all three

production systems during both years.

For wheat sowing, field was prepared for wheat sowing as per

treatment. In zero tillage, wheat was directly drilled into the

stubbles with zero tillage drill. In deep tillage, field was ploughed

with chisel plough followed by two cultivations with cultivator

and two plankings. In conventional tillage, after rice harvesting

field was cultivated two times with a cultivator followed by two

plankings. In bed sowing, field was cultivated twice with a

cultivator followed by two plankings. One meter wide beds were

made and wheat was sown in 22.5 cm spaced lines on each bed.

Crop was sown with a locally designed hand drill on November 24,

2011 using seed primed with CaCl2(Farooq et al., 2008b) with rate

of 125 kg ha1 in 22.5 cm spaced rows during both the years.

Fertilizers were applied at 1009075 NPK kg ha1 using urea

(46% N), diammonium phosphate (18% N, 46% P2O5) and sulphateof potash (50% K2O) as source fertilizers. Whole of the phospho-

rous, potassium and one third of the nitrogen was applied as basal

dose. Remaining nitrogen was applied with 1st and 2nd irrigation

in equal splits. Selective herbicide [Atlantas (iodo-mesosulfuron)

at 14.4 g a.i. ha1] was applied as early post-emergence 30 days

after sowing, after taking weed data, to control the weeds. In total,

four irrigations (each of 3 acre inches) were applied to the crop

during the growth period in addition to soaking irrigation of four

acre inches. Crop was harvested during last week of April during

both years. Each plot was harvested separately and was threshed to

record the yield and other related traits.

2.4.

Observations

After rice harvesting, soil bulk density was measured from

depth of 05 cm. The core sampler was used to take soil sample

form

the

soil,

and

then

these

collected

samples

were

dried

in

oven

at

105

8C

to

a

constant

weight,

were

cooled

and

weighed.

Soil

volume was taken equal to inner volume of core sampler, and bulk

density was estimated as ratio between mass of oven dry soil and

soil

volume

including

pore

spaces

(Blake

and

Hartge,

1986).

Total

porosity

was

then

measured

using

the

following

formula

of

Vomocil (1965):

f 1 rb

rp

!:

where

f

=

total

porosity;

rb= bulk density; rp= particle density.

For

recording

data

on

stand

establishment,

experimental

field

was visited daily. Two spots (each measuring 1 m2) were randomly

marked in each plot and number of seedlings emerged were

counted

daily

according

to

the

seedling

evaluation

Handbook

of

Association

of

Official

Seed

Analysts

(1990). Seedling

count

was

made until constant seedling number was achieved from each plot.

Mean emergence time (MET) was calculated according to the

equation

of

Ellis

and

Roberts

(1981).

Time

to

50%

emergence

of

seedlings

(E50) was calculated following the formulae of Coolbear

et al. (1984) modified by Farooq et al. (2005).

Data on individual weed density was recorded, from two

random

places

(each

measuring

1

m2)

in

each

plot,

30

days

after

sowing.

Number

of

days

from

sowing

to

booting

was

taken

as

time

when 50% booting was completed. Number of productive tillers

was counted from unit area in each plot at final harvest. From each

plot, ten spikes were randomly taken and threshed manually to

separate the grain. The grains separated were counted to record

number of grains per spike. A sub-sample of 1000 grain was taken

from each plot then weighted on an electric balance and average

1000-grain weight was calculated. The crop was harvested, tied

into bundles and sundried for a week in respective plots. Total

wheat biomass of sun-dried samples was recorded for each

treatment by using a spring balance. The crop was threshed by a

mini-thresher. Grain yield for each treatment was recorded by a

spring balance in kilograms and later expressed in tons per hectare

(t ha1).

Measured quantity of water was applied to each treatment then

water use efficiency (WUE) was calculated as the ratio between

grain yield harvested and water used (Viets, 1962). Resource use

efficiency was calculated as the ratio of net benefits to the total

cost. To determine the comparative net benefits, economic analysis

was done following CIMMYT (1998). For economic analysis, the

actual biological and yield was reduced by 10% to obtain adjusted

biological and grain yield. Variable cost (tillage cost) was

calculated for each respective wheat tillage system. Total

permanent cost remained fixed for all treatments and this cost

included the cost of seed, fertilizer, irrigation, plant protection andharvesting. Net benefits were calculated by subtracting the total

cost from gross income per treatments.

Data recorded, on all the parameters, were analyzed statisti-

cally by using computer software MSTAT-C. Least significance

difference test at 5% probability level was applied to compare the

treatments means (Steel et al., 1996).

3. Results

Rice production systems significantly affected the soil physical

properties (Table 3). Maximum soil bulk density was recorded in

flooded rice and lowest in aerobic rice during both years (Table 3).

However, total porosity was the maximum in aerobic rice andlowest in flooded rice in both years (Table 3).

Wheat stand establishment was also significantly affected by

different wheat tillage systems after various rice production

systems

(Table

4).

Among

the

wheat

tillage

systems,

deep

tillage

(DT) took less time to start emergence which was followed by zero

tillage (ZT) while wheat sown on beds took maximum time to start

emergence in first year; while during the second year, the influence

of

different

tillage

systems

on

time

to

start

emergence

was

non-

significant.

However,

rice

production

systems

do

not

affected

the

time to start emergence during both years (Table 4). Time to 50%

emergence (T50) and mean emergence time (MET) were lowest in

zero

tillage

followed

by

deep

tillage

during

both

years,

while

among

rice

production

systems,

minimum

T50 was recorded

following

aerobic

rice

(AR)

during

first

year.

However,

wheat

sownon beds taken more day to complete 50% emergence and mean

emergence

which

was

followed

by

conventional

tillage

in

both

Table 3

Influence of different rice production systems on soil physical properties.

Rice production

systems

Soil bulk density (gcm3) Total porosity (%)

20102011 20112012 20102011 20112012

Aerobic rice 1.14c 1.10c 57a 58a

Alternate wetting

and drying

1.37b 1.33b 48b 50b

Flooded rice 1.41a 1.43a 47c 46c

Figures

sharing

the

same

letter

in

a

column

do

not

differ

significantly

at

p

=

0.05.

M. Farooq, A. Nawaz/Soil & Tillage Research 141 (2014) 19 3

8/10/2019 Weed Dynamics and Productivity

4/9

years. Differences among rice production systems were non-

significant for time to 50% emergence in first year and for mean

emergence time during both years (Table 4).

Regarding the weed dynamics, maximum density of lambs-

quarters (Chenopodium album L.) was noted from wheat sown with

deep tillage after aerobic rice; whereas its minimum density was

recorded from zero tilled wheat after AWD-sown rice, followed by

zero-tilled wheat after flooded and aerobic rice and bed-sown

wheat after flooded rice and aerobic rice during first year (Table 5).

During second year of experimentation, minimum density of

lambsquarters was noted from zero tilled wheat; whereas its

maximum density was observed from bed-sown wheat followed

by wheat sown through deep and conventional tillage respectively

(Table 5). Toothed dock (Rumex dentatus L.) density was lowest inzero-tilled wheat sown after flooded rice; whereas its highest

density was recorded from wheat sown on beds after flooded rice

during first year of experimentation (Table 5). During second year

of experimentation, lowest toothed dock density was observed in

bed-sown wheat followed by zero-tilled wheat; whereas its

density was greater in wheat sown after conventional tillage

followed by deep tillage (Table 5). Among rice production systems,

toothed dock density was lowest after aerobic rice in both years.

However, its density was higher after flooded rice which was

statistically similar with AWD in both years. Likewise, littleseed

canarygrass (Phalarisminor Retz.) density was lowest in bed-sown

after aerobic rice; whereas its highest density was recorded from

wheat sown with conventional tillage after AWD-rice during first

year of experimentation (Table 5). Among rice production systems,

lowest littleseed canarygrass density was noted in aerobic rice;

being highest in AWD during first year of experimentation. During

second year of experimentation, density of littleseed canarygrass

was more in zero-tilled wheat followed by deep tillage; whereas itwas highest in bed-sown wheat, which was statistically similar

with the conventional tilled wheat (Table 5).

During both years, minimum days to booting were recorded in

bed-sown wheat after flooded and aerobic rice respectively

Table 4

Stand establishment of wheat as affected by different wheat tillage systems after various rice production systems.

20102011 20112012

AR AWD FR Mean AR AWD FR Mean

Time to start emergence (days)

Zero tillage 5.00 5.38 5.25 5.21BC 5.00 5.00 5.25 5.08

Deep tillage 5.13 5.13 5.25 5.17C 5.25 5.25 5.00 5.17

Conventional tillage 5.25 5.38 5.50 5.38B 5.25 5.13 5.00 5.13

Bed sowing 5.75 5.38 5.63 5.58A 5.00 5.38 5.25 5.21

Mean 5.28 5.31 5.41 5.13 5.19 5.13

Time to 50% emergence (days)

Zero tillage 6.45 6.63 6.98 6.69C 6.54 6.81 6.62 6.66B

Deep tillage 6.82 6.67 7.08 6.86C 6.60 6.90 6.69 6.73AB

Conventional tillage 6.76 7.09 7.52 7.12B 6.93 6.80 6.86 6.86A

Bed sowing 7.67 7.76 7.76 7.73A 6.93 6.81 6.84 6.86A

Mean 6.93C 7.04B 7.34A 6.75 6.83 6.75

Mean emergence time (days)

Zero tillage 8.36 7.85 8.95 8.39C 8.37c 8.63ab 8.37c 8.46B

Deep tillage 8.96 8.67 8.75 8.79BC 8.52bc 8.74a 8.40c 8.55B

Conventional tillage 8.35 9.28 9.24 8.95AB 8.73a 8.62ab 8.82a 8.72A

Bed sowing 9.35 9.45 9.31 9.37A 8.66ab 8.70ab 8.78a 8.71A

Mean 8.75 8.81 9.06 8.57 8.68 8.59

Figures sharing the same case letter, for a parameter, in a year do not differ significantly at p=0.05.

AR, aerobic rice; AWD, alternate wetting and drying; FR, flooded rice.

Table 5

Weed density in different wheat tillage systems after different rice production systems.

20102011 20112012

AR AWD FR Mean AR AWD FR Mean

Chenopodium album density (m2)

Zero tillage 13.0e 6.60e 8.40e 9.30D 8.50 1.00 1.50 3.70B

Deep tillage 109.0a 56.0b 21.0de 62.0A 28.0 59.0 19.6 35.5A

Conventional tillage 59.5b 48.5bc 28.6cde 45.5B 37.0 28.0 35.0 33.3A

Bed sowing 16.5e 44.0bcd 15.5e 25.3C 43.0 41.0 47.0 43.7AMean 49.5A 38.8B 18.4C 29.1 32.3 25.8

Rumex dentatus density (m2)

Zero tillage 35.0f 22.0g 5.50i 20.8C 17.5 18.5 16.5 17.5BC

Deep tillage 39.0ef 13.5h 54.0d 35.5B 15.0 18.5 27.0 20.2AB

Conventional tillage 62.9c 74.8b 41.3e 59.6A 21.5 23.5 34.0 26.3A

Bed sowing 22.0g 70.8b 80.3a 57.7A 9.50 15.0 18.0 14.2C

Mean 39.7B 45.3A 45.3A 15.9B 18.9AB 23.9A

Phalaris minor density (m2)

Zero tillage 48.5f 91.5b 85.0c 75.0A 24.5 38.0 46.5 36.3A

Deep tillage 33.3h 82.8c 47.8fg 54.6C 6.50 18.0 15.5 13.3AB

Conventional tillage 45.8g 107.3a 61.3e 71.4B 5.50 7.50 8.00 7.0BC

Bed sowing 14.5i 66.5d 46.0gf 42.3D 6.00 4.50 5.50 5.3C

Mean 35.5C 87.0A 60.0B 10.6 17.0 18.9

Figures sharing the same case letter, for a parameter, in a year do not differ significantly at p=0.05.

AR,

aerobic

rice;

AWD,

alternate

wetting

and

drying;

FR,

flooded

rice.

M. Farooq, A. Nawaz/Soil & Tillage Research 141 (2014) 194

8/10/2019 Weed Dynamics and Productivity

5/9

(Table 6). Maximum days to booting were noted in wheat sown by

conventional tillage after AWD-sown rice during first year;however during second year, wheat sown through deep tillage

followed by conventional tillage after flooded rice took maximum

days to reach booting stage and both these were statistically

similar with conventional tillage after AWD in second year

(Table 6). During both years, plant height was highest in deep

tillage; however, it was similar with conventional tillage and bed

sowing during the second year. Lowest plant height was recorded

in zero tillage during both years. Among riceproduction systems,

maximum plant height was observed after aerobic rice. Interac-

tion showed thatmaximum plant height was noted in deep tillage

after flooded rice followed by zero tillage and deep tillage after

aerobic rice while it was lowest in zero tillage after flooded rice

during first year (Table 6). During the second year, highest plant

height

was

noted

in

deep tillage followed

by bed sowing andconventional tillage after aerobic rice; while it was lowest in zero

tillage following both flooded and aerobic rice respectively

(Table 6). Maximum productive tillers were noted in zero tillage

after AR followed by bed-sown wheat after FR during first year.

However, during second year, deep tillage after AWD-sown rice

followed byzero tillage afterAR anddeeptillage after FRproduced

more productivetillers. Minimum productivetillers were noted in

bed sowing after aerobic rice during first year and conventional

tillage after flooded rice during second year of experimentation

(Table 6).

Zero-tilled wheat after AWD-sown rice followed by conven-

tional-tilled wheat after aerobic rice produced maximum grains

per spike; whereas lesser grains per spike were noted in bed-sown

wheat

after

flooded

rice

during

first

year.

During

the

second

year

of

experimentation, more grains per spike were noted from deep and

conventional tillage than zero tillage and bed sowing (Table 6).However, 1000-grain weight was highest in deep tillage during

both years of experimentation; however, it was similar with zero

tillage during first year (Table 6). During first year, lowest 1000-

grain weight was noted in conventional sowing followed by bed

sowing; however during second year it was lowest in bed-sown

wheat (Table 6).

Maximum grain and biological yields were recorded in zero

tillage after aerobic rice during first year; whereas during second

year, more grain and biological yields were noted from deep tillage,

which was similar to conventional tillage for grain yield, and was

followed by zero tillage and conventional tillage for biological yield

(Table 7). Among rice production systems, highest biological and

grain yield were noted from wheat crop sown after AR during first

year;

results

being

non-significant

for

second

year

(Table

7).Water use and resource use efficiencies were highest in zero

tilled wheat after aerobic rice during the first year. Among rice

production systems, highest values of water use and resource use

efficiencies were recorded from wheat raised after aerobic rice;

whereas these were minimum in wheat raised after flooded rice

during both years (Table 7). Among wheat tillage systems, water

use efficiency was highest in deep tillage during both years;

however it was followed by conventional tillage during second

year. Resource use efficiency was highest in wheat raised with zero

tillage in both years; however being similar with conventional

tillage in second year. Minimum resource use efficiency was

observed in bed-sown wheat in both years (Table 7). During both

experimental years, maximum net benefits were recorded from

zero-tilled

wheat

sown

after

aerobic

rice

(Table

8).

Table 6

Phenological and yield related traits of wheat as affected by different wheat tillage systems after various rice production systems.

20102011 20112012

AR AWD FR Mean AR AWD FR Mean

Days to booting (days)

Zero tillage 91.88bc 92.00bc 89.38de 91.08B 91.63c 91.50cd 91.00de 91.38C

Deep tillage 89.13de 92.63b 92.00bc 91.25B 91.25cd 91.25cd 92.75a 91.75B

Conventional tillage 91.38c 93.75a 92.25bc 92.46A 91.75bc 92.25ab 92.38a 92.13A

Bed sowing 89.00de 90.00d 88.38e 89.13C 90.25f 90.50ef 90.25f 90.33D

Mean 90.34B 92.09A 90.50B 91.22B 91.38B 91.59A

Final plant height (cm)

Zero tillage 96.18ab 83.88f 79.70g 86.58C 81.29d 89.12bc 81.05d 83.82B

Deep tillage 95.48ab 94.98abc 97.98a 96.14A 98.52a 90.56bc 91.33bc 93.47A

Conventional tillage 92.33bcd 88.15e 92.35bcd 90.94B 94.51ab 89.08bc 93.44ab 92.34A

Bed sowing 92.60bcd 91.07cde 88.66de 90.78B 98.00a 90.85bc 87.04cd 91.96A

Mean 94.14A 89.52B 89.67B 93.08A 89.90B 88.21B

Productive tillers (m2)

Zero tillage 422.8a 333.5cde 243.0fg 333.1 349.5a 280.5ef 295.0de 308.3B

Deep tillage 378.5abc 342.0cd 331.5de 350.7 318.0bc 355.5a 347.0a 340.2A

Conventional tillage 349.0bc 288.0ef 294.0e 310.3 295.5de 324.0b 267.5f 295.7C

Bed sowing 241.0g 337.5cde 392.5ab 323.7 321.3bc 327.0b 304.0cd 317.4B

Mean 347.8A 325.3B 315.3B 321.1A 321.8A 303.4B

Grains per spike

Zero tillage 36.2c 39.4a 35.3cd 37.0A 35.2 34.8 34.8 34.9B

Deep

tillage

34.2cde

36.3bc

36.0c

35.5AB

35.4

35.1

35.5

35.3AConventional tillage 39.1ab 31.7ef 32.8def 34.5B 35.4 35.4 35.0 35.3A

Bed sowing 36.7abc 35.2cd 30.9f 34.2B 34.9 34.9 34.8 34.9B

Mean 36.5A 35.6AB 33.7B 35.2 35.0 35.0

1000-grain weight (g)

Zero tillage 37.7 37.8 38.4 38.0A 35.4 34.7 34.3 34.8B

Deep tillage 38.9 38.1 38.4 38.5A 36.0 35.3 35.4 35.6A

Conventional tillage 36.4 36.5 36.9 36.6B 34.9 35.0 35.1 35.0B

Bed sowing 36.4 36.2 37.5 36.7B 34.3 33.3 33.2 33.6C

Mean 37.4 37.2 37.8 35.1 34.6 34.5

Figures sharing the same case letter, for a parameter, in a year do not differ significantly at p=0.05.

AR, aerobic rice; AWD, alternate wetting and drying; FR, flooded rice.

M. Farooq, A. Nawaz/Soil & Tillage Research 141 (2014) 19 5

8/10/2019 Weed Dynamics and Productivity

6/9

Table 7

Grain yield, biological yield, harvest index, water use efficiency and resource use efficiency as affected by different wheat tillage systems after various rice production systems.

20102011 20112012

AR AWD FR Mean AR AWD FR Mean

Grain yield (tha1)

Zero tillage 4.9a 3.9d 3.7e 4.2B 3.7 3.3 3.3 3.4B

Deep tillage 4.4b 4.6b 4.2c 4.4A 3.9 3.6 4.0 3.8A

Conventional tillage 4.2c 3.9d 3.5f 3.9C 3.9 3.9 3.5 3.8A

Bed sowing 3.5f 3.9de 4.0cd 3.8C 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.4B

Mean 4.3A 4.1B 3.9C 3.7 3.5 3.5

Biological yield (tha1)

Zero tillage 10.8a 6.7h 7.1fg 8.2B 6.7 6.5 6.1 6.4A

Deep tillage 10.4b 9.7c 8.9d 9.6A 7.1 6.6 6.5 6.7A

Conventional tillage 9.7c 6.8gh 6.3i 7.6C 6.0 6.1 6.6 6.2A

Bed sowing 7.2ef 7.1fg 7.5e 7.3D 5.9 4.9 4.8 5.2B

Mean 9.5A 7.5B 7.4B 6.4 6.0 6.0

Water use efficiency (kgm3)

Zero tillage 0.21a 0.17f 0.16gh 0.18B 0.16 0.14 0.14 0.15B

Deep tillage 0.19bc 0.20b 0.182cd 0.19A 0.18 0.16 0.17 0.17A

Conventional tillage 0.18de 0.17f 0.15hi 0.17C 0.17 0.17 0.15 0.16AB

Bed sowing 0.147i 0.167fg 0.172ef 0.16C 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.15B

Mean 0.18A 0.17B 0.16C 0.16 0.15 0.15

Resource use efficiency

Zero

tillage

1.70a

1.01cd

0.98de

1.23A

1.13

0.91

0.88

0.97ADeep tillage 1.06c 1.08c 0.90fg 1.01B 0.83 0.70 0.80 0.78B

Conventional tillage 1.20b 0.93ef 0.71h 0.94C 1.00 1.02 0.90 0.97A

Bed sowing 0.67h 0.82g 0.86fg 0.79D 0.69 0.62 0.60 0.64C

Mean 1.16A 0.96B 0.86C 0.91A 0.81B 0.80B

Figures sharing the same case letter, for a parameter, in a year do not differ significantly at p=0.05.

AR, aerobic rice; AWD, alternate wetting and drying; FR, flooded rice.

Table 8

Economic analysis different wheat tillage systems after various rice production systems.

Treatments Grain yield(kgha1)

Strawyield (kgha1)

Adjusted grainyield (kgha1)

Adjusted strawyield (kgha1)

Grossincome ($)

Total fixedcost ($)

Total variablecost ($)

Totalcost ($)

Netbenefits ($)

20102011

ARZT 4904 10,813 4413 9731 1645.1 524 32.1 556.1 1089.0

AWDZT 3942 6651 3548 5986 1230.6 524 32.1 556.1 674.5

FRZT 3738 7098 3364 6388 1202.4 524 32.1 556.1 646.3

ARDT 4440 10,375 3996 9338 1515.8 524 155.6 679.6 836.2

AWDZT 4624 9668 4161 8702 1527.5 524 155.6 679.6 847.9

FRZT 4209 8873 3788 7985 1393.6 524 155.6 679.6 714.0

ARCT 4223 9662 3801 8696 1432.5 524 69.2 593.2 839.3

AWDCT 3963 6757 3567 6081 1240.4 524 69.2 593.2 647.2

FRCT 3505 6251 3154 5626 1109.2 524 69.2 593.2 516.1

ARBS 3455 7177 3110 6459 1139.3 524 106.2 630.2 509.1

AWDBS 3889 7105 3500 6395 1238.5 524 106.2 630.2 608.3

FRBS 4021 7525 3619 6772 1288.6 524 106.2 630.2 658.4

20112012

ARZT 3738 6684 3364 6016 1184.1 524 32.1 556.1 628.0

AWDZT 3252 6476 2927 5829 1059.8 524 32.1 556.1 503.7

FRZT 3263 6066 2937 5459 1044.0 524 32.1 556.1 487.9

ARDT 3921 7075 3528 6367 1244.7 524 155.6 679.6 565.1

AWDZT 3625 6642 3262 5978 1155.3 524 155.6 679.6 475.7

FRZT 3955 6485 3560 5836 1226.4 524 155.6 679.6 546.8

ARCT 3871 6013 3484 5412 1185.3 524 69.2 593.2 592.1

AWDCT 3904 6102 3514 5492 1197.1 524 69.2 593.2 603.9

FRCT 3526 6567 3173 5910 1128.6 524 69.2 593.2 535.5

ARBS 3394 5865 3055 5279 1066.0 524 106.2 630.2 435.7

AWDBS 3401 4886 3061 4398 1023.5 524 106.2 630.2 393.3

FRBS 3347 4819 3012 4337 1007.68 524 106.2 630.2 377.5

Remarks $10.5/40kg $2/40 kg 10% reduction

to bring at

farm level

10% reduction

to bring at

farm level

AR, aerobic rice; AWD, alternate wetting and drying; FR, flooded rice; ZT, zero tilled wheat; CT, conventional tillage in wheat; DT, deep tillage in wheat; BS, bed sowing in

wheat.

M. Farooq, A. Nawaz/Soil & Tillage Research 141 (2014) 196

8/10/2019 Weed Dynamics and Productivity

7/9

8/10/2019 Weed Dynamics and Productivity

8/9

8/10/2019 Weed Dynamics and Productivity

9/9

Maclean, J.L., Dawe, D.C., Hardy, B., Hettel, G.P., 2002. Rice Almanac, 3rd ed. CABIPublishing, Wallingford, Oxon.

Mahajan, A., Bhagat, R.N., 2006. Effect of depth of tillage on root growth parametersof wheat vis-a-vis wheat yield in post rice soil in Pallam Valley of HamachalPradesh, India. In: Arora, S., Sharama, V. (Eds.), Natural Resource Managementfor Sustainable Hill Agriculture. Soil Conservation Society of India, Jammu,SKAUST-J, pp. 3541.

McDonald, A.J., Riha, S.J., Duxbury, J.M., Steenhuis, T.S., Lauren, J.G., 2006. Soilphysical responses to novel rice cultural practices in the ricewheat system:comparative evidence from a swelling soil in Nepal. Soil Till. Res. 86, 163175.

Mollah, M.I.U., Bhuiya, M.S.U., Kabir, M.H., 2009. Bed planting a new crop

establishment

method

for

wheat

in

ricewheat

cropping

system.

J.

Rural

Agric.Dev. 7, 2331.Mrabet, R., 2000. Differential response of wheat to tillage management systems in a

semiarid area of Morocco. Field Crop Res. 66, 165174.Nawaz, A., Farooq, M., Cheema, S.A., Wahid, A., 2013. Differential response of wheat

cultivars to terminal heat stress. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 15, 13541358.Neue, H.U., Heidmann, P.B., Scharpenseel, H.W., 1990. Organic matter dynamics, soil

properties, and cultural practices in rice lands and their relationship to methaneproduction. In: Bouwman, A.F. (Ed.), Soils and the Greenhouse Effect.John Wileyand Sons, New York, pp. 457466.

Pandey, S., Velasco, L.E., 1999. Economics of direct seeding in Asia: patterns ofadaptation and research priorities. Int. Rice Res. Notes 24, 611.

Quanqi, L., Chen, Y., Liu, M., Xunbo, Yu, S., Dong, B., 2008. Effects of irrigation andplanting patterns radiation use efficiency and yield of winter wheat in NorthChina. Agric. Water Manage. 95, 469476.

Ram, H., Singh, Y., Kler, D.S., Kumar, K., Humphreys, L., Timsina, J., 2005. Perfor-mance of non-rice crops and alternative cropping systems on permanent raisedbeds in the Indo-Gangetic plains of North-western India. In: Presented in ACIARWorkshop on Permanent Bed Planting Systems, 13 March, Griffith, NSW,

Australia.Rautaray, S.K., 2005. Machinery for conservation agriculture: progress and needs.

In: Abrol, I.P., Gupta, R.K., Malik, R.K. (Eds.), Conservation AgricultureStatusand Prospects. Centre for Advancement of Sustainable Agriculture, New Delhi,India, pp. 4349.

Ray, S.S., Gupta, R.P., 2001. Effect of green manuring and tillage practices on physicalproperties of puddled loam soilunder ricewheat cropping system.J. Indian Soc.Soil Sci. 49, 670678.

Ringrose-Voase, A.J., Kirby, J.M., Djoyowasito, G., Sanidad, W.B., Serrano, C., Lando,T.M., 2000. Changes to the physical properties of soils puddled for rice duringdrying. Soil Till. Res. 56, 83104.

Saharawat, Y.S., Singh, B., Malik, R.K., Ladha, J.K., Gathala, M., Jat, M.L., 2010.Evaluation of alternative tillage and crop establishment methods in a rice-wheat rotation in North-Western IGP. Field Crops Res. 116, 260267.

Samarajeewa, K.B.D.P., Horiuchi, T., Oba, S., 2005. Weed population dynamics inwheat as affected by Astragalus sinicus L. (Chinese milk vetch) under reducedtillage. Crop Prot. 24, 864869.

Sarkar, S., 2001. Effect of water stress on growth, productivity and water expenseefficiency of summer rice. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 71, 153158.

Sharma, P.K., DeDatta, S.K., 1985. Effect of puddling on soil physical properties andprocesses. In: Soil Physics and Rice. International Rice Research Institute, LosBanos, Philippines, pp. 217234.

Shrestha, A., Vargas, R., Mitchell,J., Cordova, D., 2003. Initial experiences in transi-tion from conventional to conservation tillage: a farming systems perspective.In: Proc. Cons. Tillage 2003: The California Experience, October 79, Tulare, Five

Points,

Davis,

CA.Singh, A., Kaur, R., Kang, J.S., Singh, G., 2012. Weed dynamics in ricewheat croppingsystem. Global J. Biol. Agric. Health Sci. 1, 716.

Steel, R.G.D., Torrie, J.H., Dickey, D.A., 1996. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: ABiometric Approach, 3rd ed. McGraw Hill Book Co. Inc., New York, USA.

Sur, H.S., Prihar, S.S., Jalota, S.K., 1981. Effect of ricewheat and maizewheatrotations on water transmission and wheat root development in a sandy loamof the Punjab, India. Soil Till. Res. 1, 361371.

Surendra, S., Sharma, S.N., Prasad, R., 2001. The effect of seeding and tillage methodson productivity of ricewheat cropping system. Soil Till. Res. 61, 125131.

Swanton, C.J., Shrestha, A., Knezevic, S.Z., Roy, R.C., Ball-Coelho, B.R., 2000. Influenceof tillage type on vertical weed seed bank distribution in a sandy soil. Can. J.Plant Sci. 80, 455457.

Thakur, T.C., Kishor, R., Malik, R.K., Gupta, R.K., 2004. Socio-economic Impact of Zero-till Technology of Wheat in the State of Uttaranchal. NATP Project AcceleratingtheAdoption ofResourceConservationTechnologies (RCTs) forFarmLevel Impacton Sustainability of RiceWheat Systems of the Indo-Gangetic Plains Depart-ment ofFarm Machineryand PowerEngineering, College of Technology.G.B. PantUniversity of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, Uttaranchal.

Timsina,

J.,

Connor,

D.J.,

2001.

Productivity

and

management

of

ricewheat

crop-ping systems: issues and challenges. Field Crop Res. 69, 93132.

Tomar, R.K., Singh, D., Gangwar, K.S., Garg, R.N., Gupta, V.K., Sahoo, R.N., Chakra-borty, D., Kalra, N., 2006. Influence of tillage systems and moisture regimes onsoil physical environment, growth and productivity of ricewheat system inupper Gangetic plains of Western Uttar Pradesh. Ind. J. Crop Sci. 1, 146150.

Viets, F.G., 1962. Fertilizers and the efficient use of water. Adv. Agron. 14, 223264.Vomocil,J.A., 1965. Porosity. In: Blake, C.A. (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis. American

Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp. 299314.Walia, U.S., Brar, L.S., 2006. Effect of tillage and weed management on seed bank

of Phalaris minor in wheat under ricewheat sequence. Indian J. Weed Sci. 38,104107.

Whitbread, A.M., Blair, G.J., Lefroy, R.D.B., 2000. Managing legume leys, residues andfertilizers to enhance the sustainability of wheat cropping systems in Australia1. The effects on wheat yields and nutrient balances. Soil Till. Res. 54, 6375.

M. Farooq, A. Nawaz/Soil & Tillage Research 141 (2014) 19 9