Conservation agriculture effects on soil properties and crop productivity in a semiarid region of India

Abstract

Conservation agriculture (CA) including reduced or no-tillage and crop residue retention, is known to be a self–sustainable system as well as an alternative to residue burning. The present study evaluated the effect of reduced tillage coupled with residue retention under different cropping systems on soil properties and crop yields in a Vertisol of a semiarid region of central India. Two tillage systems – conventional tillage (CT) with residue removed, and reduced tillage (RT) with residue retained – and six major cropping systems of this region were examined after 3 years of experimentation. Results demonstrated that soil moisture content, mean weight diameter, percent water stable aggregates (>0.25mm) for the 0–15cm soil layer were significantly (P<0.05) affected by tillage practices. Soil penetration resistance was significantly higher for RT than CT. Irrespective of soil depth, there was higher soil organic carbon (SOC) for RT than CT. The SOC fractions followed in the order: non-labile>moderately labile>less labile. At the 0–15cm depth, the contributions of moderately labile, less labile and non-labile C fractions to total organic C were 39.3%, 10.3% and 50.4% respectively in RT and corresponding values for CT were 38.9%, 11.7% and 49.4%. Significant differences in different C fractions were observed between RT and CT. Soil microbial biomass C concentration was significantly higher in RT than CT at 0–15cm depth. The maize–chickpea cropping system had significantly (P<0.05) higher soybean grain equivalent yield of 4.65 t ha–1 followed by soybean+pigeon pea (2:1) intercropping (3.50 t ha–1) and soybean–wheat cropping systems (2.97 t ha–1). Thus, CA practices could be sustainable management practices for improving soil health and crop yields of rainfed Vertisols in these semiarid regions.

The Ability of Conservation Agriculture to Conserve Soil Organic Carbon and the Subsequent Impact on Soil Physical, Chemical, and Biological Properties and Yield

“…It can also indicate properties such as porosity and likely water infiltration (Blanco-Canqui and Ruis, 2018). Bulk density, has been observed to increase (Li et al, 2007;Soane et al, 2012;Mbuthia et al, 2015;Blanco-Canqui and Ruis, 2018;Somasundaram et al, 2019), decrease (Hansen et al, 2012;Mrabet et al, 2012;Blanco-Canqui and Ruis, 2018), and be no different under CA systems (Dalal et al, 2011;Zhang et al, 2014;Blanco-Canqui and Ruis, 2018), with differences between studies largely due to soil type, duration of the study and time of sampling. However, a recent global meta-analysis found that NT with residue retention, on average increased bulk density by 1.4% (Li et al, 2019b).…”

“…Conservation agriculture and its components have been associated with many benefits including greater soil water storage (Verhulst et al, 2011;Lampurlanés et al, 2016;Page et al, 2019), improved soil quality (Jat et al, 2019;Somasundaram et al, 2019), decreased erosion (Montgomery, 2007), and in some instances, greater yield and net farm income (Thierfelder et al, 2015;Pradhan et al, 2018;Page et al, 2019). These benefits have led to the identification of CA as an important tool to help ensure future food production and help buffer agricultural productivity against extreme climate events, such as drought and heat waves, which are likely to increase in frequency under climate change (FAO, 2019).…”

No-Till Farming and Conservation Agriculture in South Asia – Issues, Challenges, Prospects and Benefits

“…CA generally enhances the soil physical properties and associated processes, especially soil water infiltration and storage, soil aeration, soil structure, and porosity, regardless of soil types (Dalal and Bridge, 1996;Bronick and Lal, 2005). Also, it also reduces soil erosion, compaction, crusting, and moderates soil-hydrothermal regimes for crop growth (Acharya and Sharma, 1994;Acharya et al, 2005;Bhattacharyya et al, 2006;Sharma et al, 2016;Das et al, 2013Das et al, , 2014Patil et al, 2016;Hati et al, 2015a;Somasundaram et al, 2019). It leads to better soil physical environment that promotes root growth, nutrient recycling, and SOC sequestration (West and Post, 2002;Blanco-Canqui and Lal, 2004;Baker et al, 2007;Somasundaram et al 2017;.…”

“…It leads to better soil physical environment that promotes root growth, nutrient recycling, and SOC sequestration (West and Post, 2002;Blanco-Canqui and Lal, 2004;Baker et al, 2007;Somasundaram et al 2017;. The experiments in the SA on CA were reported a significant decrease in bulk density (BD), penetration resistance (PR) , while a significant increase in soil moisture content, mean weight diameter (MWD) and water-stable aggregates (WSA) (>0.25 mm), especially in the surface layer (0-15 cm) of soil layer (Somasundaram et al, 2019). The magnitude of the impact of CA on soil physical properties may vary with soil type and climatic conditions.…”

“…From the literature, it is also apparent that even a reduction in tillage and crop residue retention leads to enhanced chemical, microbial activity microbial biomass and enzymatic activies (Fluorescein diacetate, dehydrogenase, b Glucosidase, and Alkaline phosphatase) as compared to soils under CT (Ghosh et al, 2010;Singh et al, 2018;Choudhary et al, 2018a;Somasundaram et al, 2019;Nandan et al, 2019;Sharma et al, 2019) (Tables 3 and 4). Several authors reported that adopting CA practices including NT, crop residue retention coupled with optimum nutrient application increases SOC and total nitrogen stocks (Lal et al, 2015, Pasricha, 2017Bhattacharyya et al, 2013;2019) (Table 3).…”