conservation tillge

conservation tillage in brief

1. C.SHIVASHANKAR

2. Minimum Tillage

3. Why is it recommended to change from conventional Tillage to minimum tillage?

4. Due to repeated conventional tillage soil structure is destroyed and more soil is eroded High cost of tillage due to Steep rise in oil prices

5. Minimum Tillage Definition Minimum Tillage is aimed at reducing Tillage to the minimum necessary for ensuring a good seedbed, rapid germination, a satisfactory stand and favourable growing conditions

6. Advantages Improved soil condition Higher infiltration rate Less resistance to root growth due to improved structure Less soil compaction

7. Disadvantages Seed germination is lower with minimum tillage In minimum tillage more Nitrogen has to be applied Nodulation is effected in some leguminous crops like peas and broad beans Sowing operations are difficult with ordinary implements Continuous use of herbicides cause pollution problems

8. How tillage can be reduced By omitting the tillage operations which do not give much benefit when compared to cost By combining operations like seeding and fertilizer application

9. Types of Minimum tillage

10. Row zone tillage

11. Plough-Planter

12. Wheel track planting

13. Case studies related to Minimum tillage

14. Effect of Tillage and Mulching on Yield of Corn in the Submontaneous Rainfed Region of Punjab, India

15. Soil characteristics values pH 8.0 EC (d S m -1 ) 0.3 Organic carbon (g kg -1 ) 21 Bulk density (Mg m -3 ) 1.4 Texture Sandy loam Available N (kg ha -1 ) 132 Available P (kg ha -1 ) 16.4 Available K (kg ha -1 ) 198 Available Zn (mg kg -1 ) 0.44 Physical and chemical characteristics of experimental site

16. Mode of mulch application Tillage Mean T m T c M w 294.2 212.8 253.5 M 1/3rd 201.5 193.0 197.2 M s 185.4 117.0 151.2 M v 114.8 100.1 107.1 M o 109.9 96.1 99.0 Mean 117.8 145.5 EFFECT OF TILLAGE AND MODE OF MULCH APPLICATION ON DRY MATTER YIELD OF CORN (g Plant -1 ) Tm = Minimum tillage, Tc = Conventional tillage, Mw= Mulch on the whole plot, M1/3rd= Mulch on the lower 1/3rd of the plot, Ms= Strip mulching, Mv= Vertical mulching, Mo= Control bare plots BHATT et al. (2004) Tillage (T) = 23.1; Mulching (M)= 10.7; T x M = 15.2 CD (5%)

17. Mode of mulch application Tillage Mean T m T c M w 41.4 39.1 40.3 M 1/3rd 33.1 32.0 32.6 M s 33.0 31.6 32.3 M v 25.6 25.0 25.3 M o 25.5 24.6 25.1 Mean 31.7 30.5 EFFECT OF TILLAGE AND MODE OF MULCH APPLICATION ON GRAIN YIELD OF CORN(q ha -1 ) Tm = Minimum tillage, Tc = Conventional tillage, Mw= Mulch on the whole plot, M1/3rd= Mulch on the lower 1/3rd of the plot, Ms= Strip mulching, Mv= Vertical mulching, Mo= Control bare plots BHATT et al. (2004) Tillage (T) = NS Mulching (M) = 1.04 T x M = NS CD (5%)

18. EFFECT OF TILLAGE AND MODE OF MULCH APPLICATION ON STRAW YIELD OF CORN (q ha -1 ) Mode of mulch application Tillage Mean T m T c M w 56.9 55.0 55.9 M 1/3rd 52.4 53.5 53.0 M s 51.9 51.0 51.5 M v 45.7 43.5 44.6 M o 44.1 40.7 42.4 Mean 50.2 48.7 Tm = Minimum tillage, Tc = Conventional tillage, Mw= Mulch on the whole plot, M1/3rd= Mulch on the lower 1/3rd of the plot, Ms= Strip mulching, Mv= Vertical mulching, Mo= Control bare plots BHATT et al. (2004) Tillage (T) = NS Mulching (M) = 1.04 T x M = NS CD (5%)

19. EFFECT OF TILLAGE AND MULCHING ON PERFORMANCE OF MAIZE (Zea mays) IN KARNATAKA Manjith Kumar at al. (2014)

20. GROWTH AND YIELD PARAMETERS OF MAIZE AS INFLUENCED BY TILLAGE AND MULCHING Treatment Plant height(cm) LAI at 60 DAS Cob weight(g) 100-Seed weight (g) Tillage T 1 182.3 4.18 170.60 27.92 T 2 169.1 3.58 155.42 26.22 T 3 176.9 3.90 163.90 27.16 SEm ± 1.3 0.02 2.02 0.26 CD(p=0.05) 5.2 0.09 7.93 1.02 Mulching M o 172..7 3.74 160.51 26.67 M 1 179.5 4.03 166.10 27.52 SEm ± 1.6 0.02 1.55 0.34 CD (P=0.05) 5.7 0.07 5.36 NS T1: Conventional tillage; T2 :Zero tillage ; T3 :Minimum tillage; Mo :without mulch; M1:With mulch

21. Yield and economics of maize as influenced by tillage and mulch practices Treatment Grain yield (t/ha) Harvest index(%) Net returns (rupees/ha) 2010 2011 Pooled 2010 2011 Pooled 2010 2011 pooled Tillage T 1 5.96 5.86 5.91 42.4 42.2 42.3 30175 36495 33335 T 2 5.41 5.23 5.32 41.8 41.9 41.8 28625 33417 31021 T 3 5.68 5.61 5.64 42.2 42.1 42.2 30928 37673 34301 SEm ± 0.10 0.09 0.06 0.3 0.2 0.2 915 1037 633 CD(P=0.05) 0.40 0.37 0.25 NS NS NS NS 4073 2485 Mulching M o 5.56 5.44 5.50 41.8 42.1 41.9 30098 35733 32916 M 1 5.80 5.69 5.75 42.5 42.0 42.3 29721 35990 32855 Sem ± 0.11 0.07 0.08 0.3 0.2 0.2 1000 821 752 CD(P=0.05) NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

22. Productivity of rainfed cotton and soil health as influenced by tillage in vertisol under semi-arid agro-ecosystem of Maharashtra Sonune et al. (2012)

23. Treatments Seed Cotton (q/ha) Cotton stalk (q/ha) 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Pooled Mean 2005-06 2006-07 2006-07 Pooled Mean Tillage Conventional Tillage 12.82 12.18 13.72 12.91 26.14 30.51 32.91 29.85 Minimum tillage 13.81 12.92 13.98 13.57 27.65 31.72 33.41 30.93 SE (m) ± 0.628 0.538 0.183 0.34 0.51 0.360 0.354 0.30 CD at 5 % NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 0.89 SEED AND STALK YIELD OF COTTON AS INFLUENCED BY TI LLAGE Sonune et al. (2012)

24. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF SOIL AFTER HARVEST OF COTTON AS INFLUENCED BY TILLAGE (2007-08) Tillage BD (Mg m -3 ) HC (cm hr -1 ) Infiltration rate (cm hr -1 ) Percent water stable aggregates MWD Conventional tillage 1.31 0.68 2.63 36.96 0.65 Minimum tillage 1.32 0.66 2.45 37.33 0.66 SE(m) ± 0.004 0.01 0.054 0.88 0.003 CD(P=0.05) NS NS 0.158 NS NS Initial value (2005-06) 1.35 0.62 2.1 3.34 - Sonune et al. (2012)

25. MICROBIAL COMMUNITIES OF SOIL AS INFLUENCED BY TILLAGE Tillage Bacteria (cfu g -1 soil) Actinomycetes (cfu g -1 soil) Fungi (cfu g -1 soil) Conventional tillage 34.50 25.66 19.05 Minimum tillage 34.77 26.77 19.77 SE(m) ± 0.46 0.56 0.40 CD(P=0.05) NS NS NS Sonune et al. (2012)

26. FERTILITY STATUS OF SOIL AFTER HARVEST OF COTTON AS INFLUENCED BY TILLAGE Tillage Org . C (g/kg) Avail. N (kg/ha) Avail. P (kg/ha) Avail. K (kg/ha) Conventional tillage 5.51 211.4 12.69 374.2 Minimum tillage 5.57 216.2 13.02 374.8 SE(m) ± 0.07 2.32 0.135 2.1 CD(P=0.05) NS NS NS NS Sonune et al. (2012)

27. Tillage Avail. N Avail. P Avail. K Conventional tillage 211.4 12.69 374.2 Minimum tillage 216.2 13.03 374.8 Initial value 180.2 12.1 365.5 BALANCE SHEET OF AVAILABLE N P AND K (Kg/ha) AFTER THREE YEARS AS INFLUENCED BY TILLAGE Sonune et al. (2012)

28. STUBBLE MULCH TILLAGE

29. DEFINITON It is year round system of managing plant residue with implements that undercut residue, loosen the soil and kill weeds

30. Advantages: Moisture conservation Control of soil erosion water holding capacity of soil increases Availability of nutrients increases Good aeration

31. Disadvantages residues left on the surface interfere with seed bed preparation and sowing operation traditional tillage implements are not suitable under these situations this is practiced in developed countries where agriculture is highly mechanised

32. CASE STUDIES RELATED TO STUBBLE MULCH TILLAGE

33. EFFECT OF STUBBLE MANAGEMENT ON SOIL FERTILITY AND CROP YIELD OF RAINFED AREA IN WESTERN PLATEAU, CHINA HUANG et al. (2012)

34. Soil chemical and physical properties at the start of experiment Depth (cm) Bulk density (g/cm 3 ) Org. Mat. (g/kg) Total N (g/kg) Total P (g/kg) Olsen P (mg/kg) Avail. K (mg/kg) P H 0-5 1.29 13.15 0.85 0.83 5.81 290.09 8.30 5-10 1.23 12.86 0.87 0.84 5.02 274.00 8.40 HUANG et al. (2012)

35. SOIL AVAILABLE NUTRIENTS AS AFFECTED BY STUBBLE MANAGEMENT (mg/kg) Depth(cm) Treatment P-W W-P Avail. N Avail. P Avail. K Avail. N Avail. P Avail. K 0-5 T 37.37 13.61 211.41 37.31 14.22 192.04 NT 33.94 13.78 247.13 35.63 14.25 227.91 TS 33.97 16.40 263.76 40.64 16.23 265.17 NTS 37.44 18.96 280.66 40.76 18.68 286.98 5-10 T 35.13 12.34 190.74 35.94 14.95 187.41 NT 34.54 13.12 202.43 34.51 15.09 191.90 TS 36.77 14.15 259.75 39.63 16.30 248.04 NTS 34.61 16.04 262.65 37.95 16.11 265.27 T: conventional tillage with stubble removed; NT: No-till with stubble removed; TS :Conventional tillage with stubble incorporated; NTS: No-till with stubble cover HUANG et al. (2012)

36. Nitrogen balance under different treatments over 4 years (kg N /ha) Rotation Item T NT TS NTS P-W Input 269.00 269.00 299.37 299.37 Fixation 4.65 27.12 20.73 26.06 Output 183.45 167.18 139.73 159.25 Balance 90.20 128.94 180.37 166.18 W-P Input 269.00 269.00 299.37 299.37 Fixation 3.42 25.63 16.90 24.89 Output 144.82 130.34 102.51 139.09 Balance 127.60 164.29 213.76 185.17 HUANG et al. (2012)

37. Potassium balance under different treatments over 5 years(kg/ha) Rotation Item T NT TS NTS P-W Input 4.93 4.65 40.15 49.27 Output 41.88 33.01 52.48 60.52 Balance -36.95 -28.36 -12.32 -11.25 W-P Input 0.68 0.68 14.68 19.03 Output 27.82 31.38 35.99 39.87 Balance -27.14 -30.70 -21.31 -20.84 HUANG et al. (2012)

38. Grain yield under different treatments(t/ha) Crop Year T (pooled yield) NT (Pooled yield) TS (Pooled yield) NTS (Pooled yield) Spring wheat 2002-09 1.64 1.56 1.79 1.99 Field pea 2002-09 1.12 1.05 1.15 1.35 HUANG et al. (2012)