ASSESSMENT OF AGRONOMIC BENEFITS OF MIXED …prr.hec.gov.pk/jspui/bitstream/123456789/8238/1/Sher Afzal Agronomy Complete Final... · 4.2 Growth and yield components of rice affected

1

ASSESSMENT OF AGRONOMIC BENEFITS OF MIXED

CROPPING SYSTEM AND SOIL HEALTH

By

2

Sher Afzal 2005-ag-1428

M.Sc. (Hons.) Agriculture

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

IN

AGRONOMY

DEPARTMENT OF AGRONOMY

UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE

FAISALABAD

PAKISTAN

2017

Declaration

3

I hereby declare that the contents of the thesis “Assessment of agronomic benefits of mixed

cropping system and soil health.” are the product of my own research and no part has been

copied from any published source (except the references, standard mathematical or genetic

models/equations/formulate/protocols etc). I further declare that this work has not been

submitted for awards of any other diploma/degree. The university may take action if the

information provided is found inaccurate at any stage. (In case of any default the scholar

will be proceeded against as per HEC plagiarism policy).

Sher Afzal

Regd. No. 2005-ag-1428

4

The Controller of Examination,

University of Agriculture,

Faisalabad.

We, the supervisory committee, certify that the contents and the form of thesis

submitted by Mr. Sher Afzal, Regd. No. 2005-ag-1428 have been found

satisfactory and recommended that it be processed for valuation by the

External Examiner (s) for the award of degree.

SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE:

CHAIRMAN :____________________________________

(Dr. NADEEM AKBAR)

5

MEMBER :____________________________________

(Prof. Dr. RIAZ AHMAD)

MEMBER :____________________________________________

(Dr. MANSOOR HAMEED)

6

This humble effort is

Dedicated To

My Beloved

PARENTS

BROTHERS, SISTERS AND MY BETTER HALF

Whose hands are always raised in prayer for me

7

And

who are with me to feel the bud of their wishes and prayers

blooming into a flower

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

All the praises and thanks are for Almighty ALLAH who bestowed me with

the potential and ability to contribute a little to the existing scientific knowledge. Trembling

lips and wet eyes praise for The Holy Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) for enlightening

our conscience with the essence of faith in Allah, converging all His kindness and mercy

upon him.

If there were dreams to sell, merry and sad to tell and crier rings the bell, what

would you buy, I will say that “University charming days”. Actually it is impossible but it

shows my blind love to this institution, which is homeland of knowledge, wisdom and

8

intellectuality. I love my institute with the core of my heart. I am proud of being student of

this university.

The work presented in this manuscript was accomplished under the sympathetic

attitude, brotherly behavior, animate direction, observant pursuit, scholarly criticism,

cheering perspective and enlightened supervision of Dr. Nadeem Akbar, Assistant

Professor, Department of Agronomy UAF, his thorough analysis and rigorous critique

improved the quality of this dissertation. I am grateful to his ever-inspiring guidance, keen

interest, scholarly comments and constructive suggestions throughout the course of my

studies, research and in thesis completion.

I deem it utmost pleasure in expressing my gratitude with the profound thanks to

Prof. Dr. Riaz Ahmad, Department of Agronomy UAF, for providing me with strategic

command at every step. I extend deep emotions of appreciation, gratitude and indebtedness

for his valuable guidance. I offer my sincere thanks to Dr. Mansoor Hameed, Department

of Botany UAF, for his scholastic guidance and immense moral support.

Words are lacking to express my humble obligation to my affectionate Father,

Mother, Brothers and Sisters for their love, good wishes, inspirations and unceasing

prayers for me. How can I forget, my wife Areej Ihsan, who’s love, prayers and

anticipations made me to walk through the hurdles and without which the present

destination would have been mere a dream.

Friends are valuable asset. I am very thankful to my friends Qamar ud Din sahib,

Hameed ud Din sahib, Dr. Qaiser Maqsood, Dr. Irfan Akram, Dr. Aamir Iqbal, Rai

M. Ajmal, Dr. Ahmad Mustafa, Dr. Abdul Manaan Saleem, Dr. Irfan Shoukat &

Nadeem Randhawa for their moral support and making this assignment enjoyable.

9

Finally, I apologize if I have caused offence to anybody and the errors those remained

in the manuscript are mine alone.

May Allah bless all these people with long, happy and peaceful lives. (Ameen).

Sher Afzal

CONTENTS

Chapter No. Title Page No.

1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 7

3 MATERIALS AND METHODS 29

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 48

5 SUMMARY 100

- REFERENCES 103

10

LIST OF CONTENTS

Sr. No. TITLE Page No.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 7

2.1. Cropping system 7

2.2. Agronomic benefits 20

2.3. Soil Health 21

2.4. Economic benefits 25

CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS 29

11

3.1. Site Characteristics 29

3.1.1. Soil Health 29

3.1.2. Soil analysis 29

3.1.3. Mechanical analysis 29

3.1.4. Chemical analysis 29

3.1.5. Meteorological data 31

3.2. Studies on different cropping systems 31

3.3. Agronomic practices 35

3.3.1. Cropping system 1 35

3.3.1.1. Maize (Grain) during 2013 35

3.3.1.2. Wheat during 2013 35

3.3.1.3. Rice during 2014 35

3.3.1.4. Wheat during 2014 36



3.3.2.2. Gram during 2013 36

3.3.2.3. Millet during 2014 37

3.3.2.4. Sarson during 2014 37


3.3.3.1. Mungbean during 2013 37

3.3.3.2. Rice during 2013 38

3.3.3.3. Wheat during 2013 38

3.3.3.4. Cotton during 2014 38

3.3.3.5. Sarson during 2014 39

12



3.3.4.2. Rice during 2013 39

3.3.4.3. Berseem during 2013 40


3.3.4.5. Sesame during 2014 40

3.3.4.6. Wheat during 2014 40


3.3.5.1. Sunflower during 2013 41


3.3.5.3. Wheat during 2013 41

3.3.5.4. Jantar during 2014 42

3.3.5.5. Rice during 2014 42

3.3.5.6. Gram during 2014 42


3.3.6.1. Sunflower during 2013 42


3.3.6.3. Barley during 2013 43

3.3.6.4. Cotton during 2014 43

3.3.6.5. Wheat during 2014 44

3.4. Harvesting and Threshing 44

3.5. Data Collection 44

3.5.1. Agronomic Data 44

3.5.1.1. Plant height at maturity (cm) 44

3.5.1.2. Stem diameter (cm) 45

3.5.1.3. Grain weight per cob (g) 45

13

3.5.1.4. Cob length (cm) 45

3.5.1.5. Number of tillers m-2 45

3.5.1.6. 1000-grain weight (g) 45

3.5.1.7. Biological yield (t/ha) 45

3.5.1.8. Grain yield (t/ha) 45

3.6. Analysis of Data 46

3.6.1. Cost of production of various cropping systems 46

3.6.2. Gross income 46

3.6.3. Net profit 46

3.6.4. Productivity System 46

3.6.5. Statistical Analysis 47

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 48

4.1. Growth and yield components of maize affected by various

cropping systems 50

4.1.1. Plant height (cm) 50

4.1.2. Stem diameter (cm) 50

4.1.3. 1000 grain weight (g) 51

4.1.4. Grain weight/cob (g) 51

4.1.5. Cob length (cm) 51

4.1.6. Grain yield (t/ha) 52

4.2. Growth and yield components of rice affected by various

cropping systems 54


4.2.2. No. of Tillers/Hill 54

4.2.3. 1000 grain weight (g) 55

14

4.2.4. No. of panicles/hill 56

4.2.5. Paddy yield (t/ha) 56

4.3. Growth and yield components of wheat affected by various

cropping systems 58


4.3.2. No. of tillers/m2 58

4.3.3. 1000 grain weight (g) 59

4.3.4. No. of spikes/m2 59

4.3.5. Biological Yield (t/ha) 60


4.4. Growth and yield components of mungbean affected by 63

various cropping systems


4.4.2. No. of pods/plant 63

4.4.3. 1000 grain weight (g) 64

4.4.4. Biological yield (t/ha) 64


4.5. Growth and yield components of gram affected by various

cropping systems 67

4.5.1. Plant Height (cm) 67

4.5.2. 100 grain weight (g) 67

4.5.3. Number of grains/plant 68


4.6. Growth and yield components of cotton affected by various

cropping systems 71


15

4.6.2. Number of branches/plant 71

4.6.3. Number of bolls/plant 72

4.6.4. Cotton seed yield (t/ha) 72

4.6.5. Seed cotton yield (t/ha) 72

4.6.6. Lint yield (t/ha) 73

4.7. Growth and yield components of sarson affected by

various cropping systems 75


4.7.2. Seed yield (kg/ha) 75

4.7.3. Biological yield (kg/ha) 76

4.8. Growth and yield components of sunflower affected by

various cropping systems 78


4.8.2. 1000 grain weight (g) 78

4.8.3. Grain yield (g/plant) 79

4.9. Soil nitrogen status as affected by different cropping

systems 81

4.10. Soil phosphorous status as affected by different cropping

systems 83

4.11. Soil potassium status as affected by different cropping

systems 85

4.12. Soil organic matter status as affected by different cropping

systems 87

4.13. Soil C/N ratio as affected by different cropping systems 89

4.14. Soil pH as affected by different cropping systems

91

4.15. Net profit of different cropping systems 93

4.15.1. Total cost 93

16

4.15.2. Total income 93

4.15.3. Net profit 93

4.16. System productivity (SP) of different cropping systems 96

4.17. Energy equivalent 99

CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY 100

Conclusion 102

References 103

Annexures 114

LIST OF TABLES

Table

No. Title Page

3.1 Physical characteristics of soil 30

3.2 Chemical characteristics of soil 30

3.3 Crops durations and sowing dates 33

4.1 Growth and yield components of maize affected by various cropping systems 49

4.2 Growth and yield components of rice affected by various cropping systems 53

4.3 Growth and yield components of wheat affected by various cropping systems 57

4.4 Growth and yield components of mungbean affected by various cropping

systems 62

4.5 Growth and yield components of gram affected by various cropping systems 66

4.6 Growth and yield components of cotton affected by various cropping systems 70

4.7 Growth and yield components of sarson affected by various cropping systems 74

4.8 Growth and yield components of sunflower affected by various cropping

systems

77

17

4.9 Soil nitrogen status as affected by different cropping systems 80

4.10 Soil phosphorus status as affected by different cropping systems 82

4.11 Soil potassium status as affected by different cropping systems 84

4.12 Soil organic matter status as affected by different cropping systems 86

4.13 Soil C/N as affected by different cropping systems 88

4.14 Soil pH as affected by different cropping systems 90

4.15 Net profit of different cropping systems 92

4.16 Productivity system of different cropping systems 95

4.17 Energy equivalent of different crops used in different cropping systems 97

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

% Percentage

@ At the rate of

Cm Centimeter

G Gram

ha-1 Per hectare

t ha-1 Tons per hectare

m-2 Per square meter

Rs. Rupees

Ppm Parts per million

18

MRR Marginal rate of return

BCR Benefit cost ratio

LSD Least significant difference

DAS Days after sowing

19

ABSTRACT

Diversified cropping systems are also a major economic activity to those in rural areas,

providing principal food for majority of people and affecting their livelihoods and health

of urban and rural poor. Cropping system is a producer’s map of their approach to

production. Intensive cropping systems in irrigated areas of Punjab are cotton-wheat, rice-

wheat and mixed cropping systems having wheat as an essential crop. The mixed cropping

system does not appear to give its economic potential during kharif period. A research

work was planned to develop a cropping system under the prevailing conditions of

Faisalabad, Punjab where mixed cropping system has been adopted by most of the farmers.

Maize, Rice, Sunflower, Mungbean, Sarson (mustard), Wheat, Barley, Cotton, Gram,

Millet, Berseem, Sesame and Jantar were grown. Randomized complete block design was

used in the research with three replications. All the agronomic parameters were observed

during this study and analyzed by statistics computer program. The variances among

significant means were assessed by Least Significant Difference test at 5% probability

level. Results showed that yield and growth of key crops like wheat, cotton, maize, millet,

rice and sunflower is increased when grown after legume and restorative crops. Growth

and yield of major crops like cotton, maize, wheat, millet, sunflower and rice is decreased

when grown after non- legume and exhaustive crops. Nutrients contents in soil after

harvesting increased after growing the legume and restorative crops. More net profit and

benefit cost ratio was shown by S1 cropping systems.

20

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Exhaustive as well as intensive agricultural systems are most of the times based on

enhancing the production of monocultures. In such systems, crop diversity is abridged to

one or very few species which are genetically homogeneous. The planting design is

uniform, balanced, and external inputs are usually supplied in huge quantities. Such systems

are commonly criticized these days for their negative environmental effects, like soil

erosion and degradation, loss of biodiversity, fossil fuel use and chemical contamination

(Tilman et al., 2002). On the other hand, multispecies cropping systems may often be

considered to be an applied application of ecological principles that are based on

biodiversity, other natural regulation mechanisms and plant interactions. According to

Singh (1972), cropping system is type and arrangement of crops grown on a specific area

of land for a specific period of time. Zandastra (1976) concluded that it could be defined as

crop production enterprise used to drive benefits from a given resource and specific

environment condition. It might be a systematic rotation of dissimilar crops in which the

crops follow a fixed order of land or it might consist of only one crop year after year on the

same land. They are expected to have potential advantages in stability of outputs,

productivity, ecological sustainability and resilience to disruption, even though they are

occasionally considered more difficult to manage. Confronted with the critical situation of

exhaustive monocultures, novel conceptual ways of making sustainable agro-ecosystems

are being considered now a days (Malézieux and Moustier, 2005b). Many agronomists

freshly proposed that old-style multispecies systems can be used as models for scheming

sustainable cropping systems (Gliessman, 2001; Altieri, 2002).

Now agricultural research has enough tool-box of models and methods for

technology advancement in mono-specific cropping systems, but then again its suitability

for more multifaceted systems is uncertain. In most of the cases methods for designing

multispecies systems hardly exist. Universal agronomy concepts (cropping system, crop

management sequences), and particularly the tools which are derived from that discipline,

barely deal with the involvedness of multispecies systems. With some degree of genetic

heterogeneity plant communities have advantages over pure stands, while debates and

21

disagreements remain on the thorough role of biodiversity in ecosystem functioning and

productivity is reported in many studies (Garcia-Barrios, 2003). Current work by many

authors has thus revealed positive associations between the richness of different species

and many ecological processes such as primary production, nutrient withholding and

bounciness after stress. However, research studies have predominantly focused on ordinary

prairie ecosystems or the studies on natural forest ecosystems (Vila et al., 2003; Kelty,

2006; Erskine et al., 2006). On cultivated ecosystems very few studies have been

concentrated. Biodiversity in agro-ecosystems, may (i) attribute to reduce the risk of crop

failure and constant biomass production in unpredictable prevailing environments, (ii)

reestablish troubled ecosystem services, such as nutrient and water cycling, and (iii)

minimize risks of invasion, diseases and pests through heightened direct control of pests or

biological control (Gurr et al., 2003).

Many definitions of soil health have been proposed. The most common to all the

soil health definitions is the ability of soils to function efficiently at present and in the future

days. An extended version of this definition grants soil quality as: “the capacity or the

ability of a certain kind of soil to function, within the natural or achieved ecosystem

boundaries, to sustain animal and plant productivity, enhance or maintain water and quality

of air, and support habitation and human health”. Nevertheless, no soil is supposed to

provide all these desired functions, some of which are the result of human modification and

some of those are present in natural ecosystems (Govaerts et al., 2006). Inherent quality of

soils as attributed to their chemical, physical and biological properties inside the restrictions

set by the climate and ecosystems, but the land manager is the ultimate determinant of soil

health (Doran, 2002). Sensitivities of what establishes a good soil fluctuate depending on

individual primacies with respect to intended land use, soil function and interest of the

desired observer (Shukla et al., 2006). Inside the framework of agricultural productivity,

good quality soil health relates to maintenance of good quality productivity without

noteworthy soil or environmental dilapidation (Govaerts et al., 2006). The evaluation of

soil quality can be considered as a principal indicator of the sustainability of land

supervision or management (Doran, 2002).

22

In the areas of small-farm situations wherever most of the intercropping is being

practiced by farmers with their limited resources, the social and economic situation is very

much different than other areas. The complication of such farming systems is basically due

to the many biological, climatological, social and economic factors that interact with each

other within the total land of small farm environment. Further-more their inter-actions and

the complexity of these factors, there is a broad range of determinations of the farm family,

which includes production of food, minimizing the risk of income and providing constancy

of productivity of food and income through as plentiful of the year as possible. With a

minimal land resource and with limited or no capital, this must all be accomplished.

Multiple cropping in most parts of the world is one of the on farms approach that

farmers use to meet these promising challenges (Swift et al., 2004). Cropping systems may

include mono cropping, double cropping, triple cropping and multiple cropping systems.

In different parts of the world mono cropping system is considered an agricultural practice

in which same type of crop is planted year after year, without resting the soil or practicing

crop rotation. Double cropping system is the practice of consecutively producing of two

crops of either like or unlike commodities on the same land within the same year. Triple

cropping system means planting and harvesting three crops in one year from the same filed.

Multiple cropping system means growing of 3 or more than 3 crops in one year on the same

field in irrigated areas of Punjab.

Faisalabad, Punjab lies in rolling flat plains of northeast part of the province, it lies

between the longitude 73°-74° East and the latitude 30°-31.5° North. It lies at an elevation

of 184 meters (604 feet) above sea level. This city of Punjab properly covers an area of

around 830 square kilometers (320 square miles). There are no distinct natural boundaries

between Faisalabad and the adjoining districts of the province. The River Chenab flows

nearly 30 km (19 miles) to the north-west direction while the River Ravi flows in the form

of meanders about 40 km (25 miles) south-east of this city. The canal lower Chenab is the

core source of irrigation water for this area, which meets the 80% requirements for

cultivated land. The soil of Faisalabad consists of alluvial deposits mixed with loess having

calcareous characteristics, making it very fertile and suitable for many crops.

Due to more evapotranspiration, this city Faisalabad features an arid climate. The

climate of this district can experience extremes, having the highest temperature in summer

23

50°C (122°F) and the lowest winter temperature of −1°C (30.2°F). The average maximum

and minimum temperature of this city in summer are 39°C (102°F) and 27°C (81°F),

respectively. In the winter season it averages at around 21°C (70°F) and 6°C (43 °F)

respectively. The summer season which is the longest season starts from April and

continues until October. The hottest months are May, June and July. The winter season

usually starts from mid of November and continues until March. The coldest months are

December, January and February. The average per annum rainfall is only about 400 mm

(16 in) and is highly seasonal most of the times with nearly half of the annual rainfall in the

two months of July and August. The wild life of this area includes Foxes, Jackals, Pigs and

Wild Cats. Among the famous birds, Dove, Tilliar, Lal Mena, Bias, Parrot, Partridge,

Pigeon, Quail, Pochard, Mallard, and Teal are found in most parts of the district. Faisalabad

district is famous for its fruit production and also un-parallel for its agricultural

productivity. Significant fruits like Malta, Fruiter, Mango, Kinno, Guava and Faalsa are

also grown here. The total area which is under fruit orchards is 34,517 acres.

This area has grown in importance as the grain belt of the province Punjab. In the

wake of colonization, prosperous towns and villages sprung up. The Kharif crops are

sugarcane, maize, rice and bajra. The crops in Rabi season are wheat, gram, barley and

barseem. There are also some other crops which are known as Zaid Kharif and Zaid Rabi

crops. The crops of Zaid Kharif are toria, raiya and sarson while the only Zaid Rabi crop is

tobacco. The use of tractors is also becoming very popular and is replacing the conventional

ploughs used for tillage. Per hectare yield of crops has been increased by the use of

improved variety of seeds, pesticides and fertilizers. In this way the prosperity is spreading

among the peasant community which has sweated for three generations to convert a barren

land into verdant fields. There is a dire need of modified suite of cropping system which

must be based on modern and scientific agricultural practices. These practices must be

economical, sustainable, viable, acceptable and less exhaustive to farming community of

the area because the currently used cropping system is out dated and insignificant returns

are obtained by the local farmers. Simultaneously such cropping system is projected to

maximize farm productivity in terms of increased farm production, to achieve maximum

water use efficiency and better water distribution and best consumption of farm machinery,

24

labor and other resources. Some of the cropping systems implemented by the farmers were

considered very exhaustive and fruitless that results not only in low yield but also causing

tenacious decline in soil production. Improved crops arrangements include improve soil

productivity, green manuring, fertility and higher economic returns that were of primary

importance to the farmers. The economic use of various resources and inputs would

definitely lower production cost, resulted in beneficial farming which was the burning need

of the farming community as the cost of inputs was very high.

Green manuring vetch and fallow treatments gave equivalent grain yield, straw

yield and plant height. When vetch biomass was picked and detached at flowering stage,

yield of bread wheat was lowered. However, when livestock production was considered,

the total farm productivity could be higher. Hence, most of the times, growing forage

legumes is preferred to fallowing the land (Belachew and Abera, 2011). The beneficial

effects of legumes in improving and maintaining soil fertility in different crop production

systems are eminent. In spite of the knowledge, legume cultivation has been reduced in

many agricultural systems, which also includes the rice based cropping systems in tropical

Asia. The waning in legume cultivation was driven by the need for staple cerealrice and

most importantly the policies of the national government to make sure the selfefficiency in

rice production. Most of the productive areas were used for multiple cropping of rice, and

the legumes were either regulated to marginal lands or not cultivated at all. As a result soil

health has been affected badly. Lessened availability and high price have caused in low per

capita feasting of grain legumes by the poor people. Although grain legumes are major

sources of protein to them in many Asian countries.

On-farm partaking research needs to be supported in our country to adopt and adapt

high-yield legume technologies (variety + agronomic management of crops). Commodities

to be produced in combination must be highly competitive in the open market not only to

compensate for the naturally limited competitive potential of nonirrigated rice but also to

generate enough economic value necessary to fuel investments for further modernization.

Chnadera and Gautam (1997) reported that net return was highest in grain-rice cropping

systems.

Apart from all above facts, till now no systematic research has been done on

cropping system. So, a comprehensive study was needed to convey the knowledge to small

25

farmers about potentially effective cropping system, and also to bring awareness among the

people about the potential use of farm resources in a better and economic way.

Also there was a need to study the impact of the legume crops and vegetables in the

cropping system. Hence this research study was proposed with the following objectives.

To evaluate the productivity of mixed cropping systems under Faisalabad (Punjab,

Pakistan) conditions and its impact on soil health.

To compare the economic analysis of different cropping systems.

The hypothesis of the research project was ‘under mixed cropping system,

leguminous crops improve soil health but compromised production, whereas, exhaustive

crops are high in production but decrease soil health’.

26

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The relevant research work done in the past on the various aspects of the project is

reviewed as under:-

2.1. Cropping system

Malezieux and Moustier (2005b) found that after facing the problem of intensive

monoculture system, new conceptual ways of constructing sustainable agro-ecosystems

should be sought. Several agronomists now are of the view that traditional multispecies

systems could play a role of models for developing sustainable cropping systems. Jackson

(2004) proposed replicating the structure of the grassland ecosystem, with a number of

species of different functional groups, to achieve resilience to changes in climate and water

supplies, and to control pests and other natural disturbing agents. The field experiment

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 (Biswas et al.,

2006).

Agronomic and economic analysis indicated that including a legume crop and low

fertilizer application in low input/ sustainable system performs better under drought

condition and net returns appeared to be less variable than conventional systems (Smolik

and Dobbs, 1991). Significantly higher wheat yield was observed in fallow – wheat system

compared to wheat - mung bean system. They attributed this to low soil moisture available

after mungbean than after fallow during early growth period of wheat, however, they did

not discuss any data on soil moisture. They had reported significantly high net returns with

mungbean- wheat system (RS.784ha-1) than wheat fallow system (RS.3327ha-1) (Zahid et

al., 1991). Reduced tillage in continuous cotton resulted in slightly higher net returns than

conventional tilled cotton while using less diesel fuel. Adding wheat as a winter cover crop

to reduced tillage under continuous cotton system reduced soil erosion by approximately 5

ton acre-1 year-1 and also reduced net returns by $16 acre-1 due to increased purchase of

inputs (Bryant et al., 1992).

27

Corn - soybean-cropping systems significantly increased the yields of both crops,

Cereal-legume system positively affected plant nutrient concentration and accumulation.

Both crops maintained shoot nutrient concentrations up to adequate level. However,

nutrient accumulation and concentration in soybean was less affected than corn. They also

reported the general improvement in root function under this type of cropping system

(Copeland and Crooks, 1992).

Continuous wheat, wheat - wheat - fallow and wheat fallow had significant effect

on the proportion of phosphorus and its distribution among labile and fixed states without

N and P fertilizer application the proportion of total soil P that were sequentially extractable

with an anion exchange resin. Sodium bicarbonate (Na(HCO3)2) and sodium hydroxide

(NaOH-'Pi and Po) were reduced to an extent in continuous wheat than in rotations like

wheat - wheat - fallow and wheat - fallow rotations. The addition of inorganic P (Phosphate

fertilizer) increase total P and Pi fractions significantly with the greatest change in more

labile Pi (available forms) but had no effect on labile Po forms. Contrarily, the addition of

nitrogen fertilizer increased the proportion of P in labile Po fractions in all the concerned

rotations while it decreased the proportion of P in labile Pi forms. The combination of

fertilizers of N and P sources generally increased both labile forms of Pi and Po. Mackenzie

(1992) proposed that continuous wheat-wheat rotation coupled with fertilizer inputs

(nitrogen and phosphorus) had the most optimistic effect on cycling and transformations of

Phosphorus.

Wheat - fallow (WF) and wheat -- sorghum -- fallow (WSF) yielded more than

wheat - wheat (WW) in both years and wheat - fallow (WF) yielded more than wheat -

sorghum - fallow (WSF) in 1989. No till increased the yield of WF and WSF 1989 but cold

temperature reduced the number of spikes per square foot and yield of WSF -- no till (LT)

in 1990. Tillage did not affect WW yields. Sorghum " fallow and WSF yielded more than

sorghum - sorghum (SS) in both years sorghum -- fallow yielded less than WSF in 1989

because of lack of maturity before frost, but tillage did not affect WSF yield. Yield increase

of both crops was often accompanied by improved water use efficiencies (Norwood, 1992).

In a field experiment of five cropping systems as main plots and three levels of

water availability as sub-plots, Rodge et al. (1992) concluded that sorghum-wheat, pearl

millet-wheat, and black gram-sorghum systems resulted in 37, 52, 69, and 70% less net

28

income, respectively than the cotton-summer ground nut system. Sorghum-safflower was

the most efficient water user and economically beneficial under sub optimal conditions of

water availability.

Stevens et al. (1992) studied the effects of seven cotton cropping systems and

reported no major difference in productivity of different cropping systems during 1986. In

1987, yield decreased as a result of increase in tillage intensity but this trend was reversed

in 1988. Variation in precipitation distribution in each growing season had contributed to

this variation in yield along with fruiting response to cover crops and tillage in 1986.

Reduced tillage in cotton following wheat had 16 fruiting sites compared with 32 sites with

cotton under conventional tillage system. Reduced abscission in cotton planted in no till or

reduced tillage system into wheat offset the reduced fruiting site production. The number

of fruiting sites when averaged over years showed that reproductive branches were 11%

less with no till cotton. Fruiting of cotton without any tillage operation and with cover crops

like vetch was similar to reduced and conventional till cotton.

Urnrani et al. (1992) conducted an experiment to study the sustainability of

cropping systems under rain fed conditions and assessed that gram crop was sustainable

than sorghum and safflower. Gram included in rotation gave better results than

continuously growing sorghum or safflower. It also gave higher and sustainable yield index.

Rate of recommended level of fertilizer was reduced to one half and it was found

satisfactory compared with the recommended dose of fertilizer for sorghum and safflower

under dry farming. Hence cropping of gram in rotation with recommended level of

fertilizer, showed significant effect rather than cropping of sorghum alone at 50 kg N ha-1.

Six crop sequences viz.: maize-wheat, rice (wet land) - wheat, rice (wet

land)'berseem (Trifolium), ground nut-wheat, cotton-wheat and pearl millet'- berseem were

studied by Barar et al. (1993). Fertilizer treatments were control 10, 100 and 125% NPK.

A base application of 28 kg K ha-1was applied to each crop. Soils were sampled after ten

cropping cycles. They concluded that application of P increased Olsen extractable P in the

soil profile under all crop sequences although it was less under rice based sequences (12.5

- 14.1 ug/g soil compared with 18.8 - 20.3 ug/g soil for the other crop sequences). The

differences in the Olsen extractable P in the control and the fertilizer treated plots were

large in the top 30 cm and decreased with depth. The P uptake by crops was significantly

related to Olsen extractable P in the 0-15 cm soil depth,

29

Santos et al. (1993) tested nine cropping systems where soybean was seeded after

different winter crops (oats, barley, rapeseed, flax, and wheat) distributed in several crop

rotation systems and stated that soybean showed high values of primary yield component

sand plant height which reflected directly in grain production. In relatively dryer years,

when the winter crop residue decomposition was slower, grain yield, plant population, plant

height and insertion of first pods were affected mainly after rapeseed. The study brought

both economic and agronomic merits for farmers of the area to adopt these new production

methods.

Kurlekar et al. (1993) studied the performance of crop rotation receiving 75 and

100% recommended N, P and K fertilization and observed that gross and net returns from

sorghum-wheat green manuring (sunhemp) and soybean-wheat rotations were significantly

higher than returns from sorghum-wheat or sorghum-chickpea rotations and further added

that soil fertility was enhanced by the adoption of remunerative sequences.

A field trial was directed on rice in 1991/92 at Siruguppa, Karnataka by Setty and

Chalmabasananna, 1993. Rice cv. IR-66 was grown during the Summer [monsoon] season

followed by sunflowers cv. Morden, sesame cv. E-8, mustard [Brassica juncea] cv.

Varadan, Bengal gram (Cicer arietinum) cv. A-1, maize cv. Deccan and wheat cv. HD2189

or rice. Grain/seed yields in the rice-mustard system were 5.71 and 0.79 t/ha, respectively.

This cropping system gave the highest net return.

Wani and Umrani, 1993 conducted a field experiment in 1983-85 at Rahuri,

Maharashtra, intercropping L. Ieucocephala cv. Peru with Stylosanthes hamata, sorghum

in M-35 or cowpeas cv. EC-4216 produced mean forage yields of 17.2, 31.7 and 23.8 t ha-

1 respectively. Total forage yield increased with increase in rate (0, 50, 75 and 100 kg ha -

1), Sorghum intercropped with L. Ieucocephala and sorghum under recommended N rate

produced the highest forage yield and net returns.

Yadav et al. (1993) performed an experiment during the Summer [monsoon]

season at Indore, Madhya Pradesh. In these experiments, cotton cv. JKHY-1 and Hy-4 were

grown alone or intercropped with green gram (Vigna radiata), black gram (Vignu mungo)

or soyabeans in uniform (90 X 90 cm) o skipped (90 X60-180 cm) rows Intercropping with

green gram, black gram o soybeans gave seed cotton yields of 1566, 1507 and 1319 kg ha-

1, respectively compared with 1512 kg from sole cotton crop. Seed cotton yield was not

30

significantly changed by sowing pattern, but the yield of the intercrops was higher in

uniform rows. All the intercropping treatments gave higher net returns than the sole crop

and the highest net return was obtained with the soybeans intercrop. Ahmad (1994)

concluded that high cropping intensity could be preserve organic matter. He further

emphasized that the soil with higher organic content, retain moisture for a long period and

leguminous crops are most suitable for this purpose.

Badaruddin and Meyer (1994) reported 28% higher soil nitrate N level, following

legumes than the one following N fertilized wheat. Yield of wheat grain following grain

legumes was almost equivalent to that following a wheat crop that was fertilized with 75

kg N ha-1. Accumulation of total N by wheat following grain legumes was 9% higher than

wheat following wheat but it was almost 13% lower than those of wheat following fallow

field. Nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) for wheat following legumes, was up to 32% higher

than those for wheat- fallow and it (NUE) was up to 21% higher than those for continuous

wheat-wheat cropping system.

During the monsoon seasons, in a field experiment, Billore et al. (1994)

investigated that pigeon peas given no fertilizer and those given recommended fertilizer

(NP) gave mean seed yields of 1 .04 and 1.57 t ha-1. In another experiment soybeans were

grown in the Summer season and given the recommended fertilizer (NPK) and then

followed, in Winter [winter] seasons, by Cicer arietinum that was given 50% of the

recommended fertilizer (NP) gave mean seed yields of 1.49 and 1.14 t ha -1 respectively.

The net returns were the highest as compared to other fertilizer rat combinations.

George et al. (1994) reported that in low land rice-based cropping systems, weeds

were most effective in conserving soil nitrogen during dry to wet (DTW) period but

legumes were preferably more suitable N conserving crops as legume allowed the harvest

of the crop as an economic product or more N to recycle in a subsequent flooded rice.

In the Malaprabha Command Area, Koppad et al. (1994) reported in a summer

(monsoon), maize/Winter (winter) wheat continuous cropping system the costs and returns

relation to newly available irrigation facilities, Farms in the head, middle and tail reaches

of an irrigation canal were compared. A reduction of inputs in the middle reaches was

recommended to increase net returns, It was suggested that maize yields in the tail reaches

could be increased if adequate irrigation was applied at critical growth stages. Reynolds et

al. (1994) conducted an experiment by using legume crops for the fixation of nitrogen in

31

those soils where wheat or barley were to be sown. The leguminous crop was sown between

the rows of wheat or barley. The results showed that there was no decrease in the yields of

the main crops where legumes were grown as compared to control conditions. Grain yields

obtained were 1.4 t ha-1 whereas nearly additional two times more biomass was obtained

from the legumes. They reported that during the experiment when different legumes were

used to find out the adaptableness of the cropping system to the changing needs of the

farmers, legumes yielded dry biomass as much as 6.5 t ha-1 when they harvested fodder

crop of hairy vetch having yield of dry beans 1.4 t ha -1 and an additional 3.5 t ha-1 of biomass

in case of Vicia faba. In addition to this more nitrogen was fixed when legume crops were

inter-cropped and levels of leaf nitrogen were 3.8% which were significantly more than

when wheat crop was sown alone.

Wiese et al. (1994) evaluated the economics of conservation tillage systems for

dry land and irrigated cotton. He concluded that a lint yield of cotton in dry land was almost

390 kg ha-1 with disk harrow used in spring and it was 540 kg ha-1 in fields sprayed with

glyphosate to kill weeds. In irrigated fields, lint yield was almost 660 kg ha -1 with disk

harrow used for ploughing the field and 759 kg ha-1 with no till treatment. They further

added that a long-term profit per hectare on dry land ranged from $ 340 for disk harrow to

$ 524 for reduced tillage operations. Profit per hectare ranged from $ 707 for disk plough

alone to $ 751 when glyphosate herbicide was used after wheat harvest and followed by

disk plough and incorporation of herbicide (trifluraline) the next spring before planting

cotton in irrigated lands.

Young et al. (1994) evaluated the performance of 12 farming systems on the basis

of economics in the Palouse region of south eastern Washington, USA. They concluded

that the conservation tillage/winter wheat-spring barley-spring pea system performed much

better at maximum weed management and dominated all other agriculture systems in high

profitability and had less economic risks. In addition, this system also satisfied soil

conservation attributes. It reduced nitrogen use compared to monoculture system having

cereals (wheat). There are three potential explanations of this income-stabilizing and

optimal conservation cropping system. The conservation systems performed relatively the

best in dry periods and bore cold damage to winter planted wheat in case of severe winter.

32

These crop rotations also adopted such that to resist diseases under the high residue and

moist seedbed under conservation tillage system.

Zade et al. (1994) conducted field experiment in India, with six sequences, each

with three crops in a year (300% intensity) for four years and concluded that in comparison

to initial nutrient status plus added nutrients, NPK uptake was maximum

(82.2, 67.8 and 214.7%, respectively) in a sorghum-wheat-green gram (Vigna radiata) crop

sequence whereas it was minimum for N (47.6%) and K (79.8%) in cotton-wheatgreen

gram and for P (15.8%) in maize-gram-black gram (Vigna mungo) sequences. They further

concluded that apparent N gain was noticed in sorghum-safflower-green gram (6o/o)

sorghum and sorghum mustard-groundnut (4.6%) sequence only. Among the other

sequences, N loss was more (31.8%) with cotton-wheat-green gram. Apparent P loss was

recorded with all the sequences, which was maximum in cotton wheat-green gram. The

sequence of maize-gram-black gram showed greater apparent K gain than sorghumwheat-

green gram and cotton-wheat-green gram sequences. Among the other sequences, K loss

was more in sorghum-safflower-cowpea (Vigna unguliculata).

Diebel et al. (1995) stated that the profitability of crop rotation systems was based

on several factors, such as length and type of rotations, government policy, crop price, and

yield. An analysis of cost of production and net returns (involving maize, soybeans, wheat

and sorghum) and three alternative farming systems (including rotations involving wheat

inter-planted with clover, lucerne or lucerne inter seeded with oats) for northeast Kansas

state (USA) farm was performed once with` and then without the basic government

commodity provisions. At start of the study, constant crop yields were presumed in all the

production systems. Price, equivalent net return and yield sensitivity analyses were used to

know the sensitivity of the initial results to forage price variations and yield modulation in

wheat, maize, grain sorghum and soybeans. In order to address the possibility of reduced

yields, a unique analysis was performed under the alternative cropping systems compared

with the conventional agriculture system. The yield reduction for the crops in the alternative

agriculture systems was assessed based on reduced nitrogen uptake by the Groundwater

Loading Effects of Agricultural Management System (GLEAIVIS) model. The

significantly highest net return was obtained out of an alternative cropping system where

wheat/clover-sorghum-soybean were the crops. This highest net output was with as well as

without government commodity program participation. When the analysis was re-examined

33

considering yields, estimated N uptake and alternative forage and fodder prices, all

alternative and transitional systems were proved to be less profitable than the conventional

agriculture system.

Sesame planted in rows or broadcasted produced no significant difference in

yield. Though, this practice reduced the yield of maize by 53-69% compared with

monocropped maize (Mkamilo, 2004). Though, planting the sesame in rows is a labor

intensive method than broadcasting it. Maize yield would be significantly high using this

farming practice. Ahmed et al. (2004) conducted the experiments to know the impact of

different cultural practices on number of subterranean termites in field of wheat crop at

PostGraduate Agricultural Research Station (PARS), Faisalabad, Pakistan. Sorghum

(Sorghum bicolor) and Bajra (Pennisetum americanum) were sown in a field that was

followed by wheat crop. In another study, wheat crop was intercropped with Ajowain

(Trachyspermum ammi), cumin (Negella sativa) and Sounf (Foeniculum vulgare). One

cubic feet soil core was dug and then number of termite’s individuals was counted. The

results showed that comparative population of termites under study in sorghum and bajra

was non-significantly different (F=0.02; p=0.89). Mean of the population was significantly

different at different dates in both crops but it was son-significant for the interaction (crops

× time (F=50.83; p=0.00 and F=0.11; p=0.00, respectively).

Dogliotti et al. (2004) working at South Uruguay, proposed in his study an

explorative land use model to support the re-orientation of vegetable production systems.

They presented a new way to quantitatively integrate agricultural, socio-economic and

environmental aspects of agricultural land use. They carefully identified and quantified all

workable rotations and assessed inputs and outputs at every crop rotation scale, considering

interactions among crops. Relevant inputs and outputs of each land use activity. They

strictly followed the target-oriented approach for this study. They evaluated 336,128

suitable land use activities for different soil types having variable availability of resources

i.e., land, soil quality, capital, labor and water for irrigation. All these land use practices

produced better results in the form of maintaining soil organic matter, reducing soil erosion

and increasing farmer’s net income along with improvement in current farming systems of

the region by providing a diverse set of strategic ways for farmers in the region.

34

Nel, A. A. and H. L. Loubser (2004) conducted an experiment to know the

performance of different crops like maize and wheat in monoculture and in rotations

involving fallow, dry-bean, soya-bean and sunflower in the Eastern Free State. They also

performed second trial located in the North Western Free State where they compared mono-

cropped maize with rotations involving sunflower, groundnut and soy-bean. They

concluded that crop rotation and the associated diversification produced promising results

and increased net returns and increased risk to dramatically reduced risk depending upon

the crops involved and the net return level accepted as a disaster threshold. Compared to

monoculture, groundnut improved net returns without affecting risk. Dry-bean and

soyabean improved net returns in terms of money and reduced risks involved whereas,

sunflower most effectively reduced risk with little impact on net return. Low level of risks

in the Eastern Free State was due to improved yields. However, in the North western Free

State, risk reduction was due to the inclusion of different crops in rotation.

Becker et al. (2004) reported that rice-based cropping systems in West Africa rely

on fallow period to restore soil fertility and to prevent buildup of weeds diseases and other

insect pests. Population growth at increased level in the world and ever increasing demand

for land are now forcing many farmers to intensify their existing rice-production systems.

The farmers are trying to shorten the fallow periods and to increase the intensity of crops

they grow. The most important cropping-system alternatives may include the weed

suppression, use of site-specific practices, and using cover legumes as shortduration

fallows. In view of the poor rate of adoption of legume technology of West Africa, a multi

scale approach was needed to generate and extrapolate fallow technology. In their study,

they determined the constraints of rice production system and the yield gaps related to rice

intensification in 190 farmers' fields in three agro-ecological zones of West Africa (farm

level). They also evaluated nitrogen accumulation and weed’s suppression in 54 legume

accessions in dry season grown for 6 months under a range of hydrological and soil

conditions (plot level).

Stipešević and Kladivko (2005) reported that adding a cover crop in rotation could

increase soil physical properties those might be deteriorated from different tillage practices.

Sown in rows of cover crop, young maize plants tend to grow more in height and have

greater shoot length. Early desiccation of winter wheat and regular desiccation improves

35

maize growth. However, in drought situations, the early desiccation proved significantly

better for maize, due to the better soil water conservation.

Khan and Khaliq (2005) conducted a research on Rabi cereals sown by surface

seeding in one half of standing cotton and by conventional method in the second half after

harvest. Wheat by surface seeding produced 69% higher yield compared to sowing after

harvest of cotton. Yield of barley increased by 23% over conventional planting. Yield and

quality traits of cotton were not affected at all by the relay cropping systems. Substantially

maximum net benefits were obtained from relay cropping system compared to wheat

followed by cotton in conventional system. Among other cotton based cereal production

systems, cotton-wheat proved better.

Johnson et al. (2006) evaluated cotton-sorghum rotations in Texas under

stochastic dominance analysis techniques. The profitability of cotton and grain sorghum

production was evaluated by using Standardized Performance Analysis program at farm

level. Analysis of cotton yields in a cotton-grain sorghum rotation indicated an increase of

190.6 and 159.6 kg ha-1 following grain sorghum respectively. The rotational effects on

cotton yields from grain sorghum had a significant impact on increased cotton yield. All

rotational strategies evaluated were preferred over continuous cotton for all levels of risk

evaluated in the study. Intensification and diversification of crops may allow improving the

productivity and sustainability of agricultural production system in the Indo-Gangetic

Plains, but the choices to be made require integrated assessment of various cropping

systems.

Biswas et al. (2006) conducted a three years field experiment from 1999 to 2002

on a sandy clay loam soil to evaluate nine predominant cropping systems in West Bengal,

India. They concluded that productivity, nutrient uptake and energy use efficiency generally

increased with increasing cropping intensity. Positive effects of potato and jute crop on

yield and energy output of following crops were recorded along with maintenance or

improvement of soil physical and chemical properties such as organic matter, P and K

availability. The P availability was well for most of the systems, except for the system with

jute. However, negative K balances occurred because of complete biomass removal in all

systems. It suggested that recommended rates of applied K fertilizer were too low for

sustaining soil K supply over the longer period. Cropping systems containing potato in

36

rotation had the significantly high levels of yield, net return and energy productivity. In this

system, energy use efficiency was reduced due to higher energy consumption. Jute–wheat

and jute–rapeseed–rice systems showed significantly high energy use efficiency along with

moderate cost and net return. Based on economic situations, jute–potato–rice, rice–potato–

rice and rice–potato–sesame are recommended as better cropping system for resource-rich

growers. Systems such as jute-wheat, jute– rapeseed–rice and rice-wheat appear to be most

suitable for small and substance farms those cannot afford the high production costs of

crops such as potato.

Singh et al. (2007) conducted a study to evaluate the effects of wheat straw mulch

on intercropping of Sesbania with dry-seeded rice. Wheat straw and herbicides were used

for managing weeds of the experimental plots. The density of narrow-leaved weeds was

lower mulched plots at all stages of crop growth. The dry biomass of narrowleaved weeds

at 30 days after seeding (DAS) was significantly less with Sesbania than with mulch, but

they were almost similar at later stages. Broadleaved weed density and dry biomass was

lower with Sesbania than with the mulch used in experimental plots. It was concluded that

application of wheat straw as mulch at the rate of 4 t ha-1 and Sesbania intercropping for 30

DAS were equally effective in controlling both broadleaved and narrow-leaved weeds

associated with dry-seeded rice cultivation. However, pretilachlor with safener (500 g a.i.

ha-1) or pendimethalin (1000 g a.i. ha-1) applied as pre-emergence herbicides followed by

one hand-weeding were most effective in suppressing weeds, maximizing grain yield of

dry-seeded rice, and giving higher net return.

Klimekova et al. (2007) compared cereal crop rotation in conventional as well as

organic farming system in terms of energy inputs, production, profit and energy efficiency

evaluation in year 2003 to 2005 in south west Slovakia (near Piešťany town). Increased

energy inputs caused the increase in production of the conventional farming system being

followed in the region. The conventional system of farming was more energy demanding

(53%) in comparison with the ecological one. Such systems are usually much complex with

several species involving combinations of annual and perennial woody and non-woody

species. Agricultural research of the world now has an adequate tool-box of models and

methods for the development of technology in monospecific cropping systems. However,

its suitability and adoptability for more complex agro-ecosystems is unsure (Ewel, 2009).

37

Dogan et al. (2008) conducted a study in rain-fed conditions of Southern Marmara

Region to determine the most suitable crop rotation system(s). In this long term study

(1995-2001) on winter wheat and sunflower as main crops experiments, results were

evaluated on the basis of crop yield, soil productivity and fertility and economic aspects.

The sunflower-rapeseed-wheat, rapeseed-fodder pea + sunflower-wheat and rapeseed-

common vetch + sunflower-wheat were found to be the most suitable rotation system where

wheat was used as main the crop. The highest yield of sunflower was obtained from a fodder

pea + sunflower-wheat-fodder pea + sunflower crop rotation in the first and second year

periods when sunflower was used as main crop under rain-fed conditions. Economic

analysis of the research produced the significantly highest net returns from the rapeseed-

common vetch + sunflower-wheat and a fodder pea + sunflower-wheat-fodder pea +

sunflower crop rotation systems under rain-fed conditions. These rotation systems were

most suitable under rain-fed conditions of Turkey (Southern Marmara). Rotation systems

with common vetch and peas gave economically the highest net profit under rain-fed

conditions.

Murtaza et al. (2009) carried out two year field experiment in the Indus Basin area

of Pakistan to evaluate different irrigation and soil management options of using saline-

sodic waters (SSW) and soils for reclamation and for growing salt-tolerant cultivars of rice

(SSRI-8) and wheat (SIS-32). These soils have variable levels of salinity and sodicity (ECe

9–44 dS m-1 and SAR 83–319). The treatments on both the sites were the same and

consisted of: (1) Irrigation with SSW, (2) Irrigation with freshwater (FW),

(3) Soil application of gypsum at 100 % gypsum requirement of soil + SSW (G + SSW),

(4) G + one irrigation with SSW and one with FW (G + 1SSW + 1FW), (5) G + two

irrigations with SSW and one with FW (G + 2SSW + 1FW), (6) Farm manure at 25 Mg ha-

1 each year before rice + one irrigation with SSW and one with FW (FM + 1SSW + 1FW)

and (7) FM + two irrigations with SSW and one with FW (FM + 2SSW + 1FW). Rice was

grown as the first crop. After harvesting final wheat crop (fourth in sequence), maximum

decrease in bulk density and increase in infiltration rate was observed with G + 1SSW +

1FW while FM + 1SSW + 1FW treatment showed higher decrease in pHs and ECe.

Significantly the highest decrease in SAR occurred at both sites with G + 1SSW + 1FW.

Maximum yields of rice and wheat were generally observed with G + 1SSW + 1FW. The

38

crop yield and economic benefits with treatments showed a positive correlation with that

of improvement in soil physical and chemical properties. Overall, the greatest net benefit

was obtained from G + 1SSW + 1FW treatment. They also found that the farmers’

management skills were crucial in the overall success in improving crop yields during

reclamation of saline-sodic soils. Based on the results of this study, they proposed that SSW

could be used to reclaim saline-sodic soils by using a rice–wheat rotation and a site-specific

combination of soil amendments and water application strategies. The rapid increase in

population and consequent pressure for food was driving agriculture towards greater

intensification in West Africa.

Ajeigbe et al. (2009) tested various options including double and triple cropping,

with and without irrigation for intensification to succeed. Double and triple cropping

options with irrigation in Sudan and Sahel savannas and without irrigation in the northern

Guinea savanna zones of West Africa were explored as possible options for intensification

in these areas. A total of 8-10 ton of grain/ha/annum was obtained in the Sudan and Sahel

savanna with irrigation. These were made up of 2-4 tons/ha wheat, 0.91.5 ton/ha of cowpea

grain and 4 to 4.5 ton/ha of rice. It was concluded that triple cropping was a viable option

for intensification in the Sudan and Sahel savanna where irrigation facilities are available.

In the Northern Guinea Savanna, the rain season starts in June and end in September with

a few showers in May and October. Taking advantage of extra early maturing varieties of

cowpea, farmers obtained an average of 0.7 to 1.1 t of cowpea grain/ha as first crop, 3 to 4

t of maize per ha and 0.8 to 1.3 t of cowpea/ha as third crop. Relay cropping of legumes in

cereals was tested in the Sudan and Northern Guinea savanna Zones. The total grain and

fodder (cowpea and maize) produced by the relay cropping system was higher than the sole

crops. This implies that if the cropping system of the Sudan savanna was to be intensified,

relay cropping was a potential option.

Nielsen et al. (2010) conducted an experiment to evaluate yield and precipitation

use efficiency of cropping systems where crop choice was based on several crop selection

rules incorporating a grass/broadleaf rotation scheme and crop responses to available soil

water and expected growing season precipitation. Available soil water at planting was

measured at several decision points each year and combined with three levels of expected

growing season precipitation to provide input data for water use/yield production functions.

The predicted yield from those production functions was compared against established

39

yield thresholds, and crops were retained for further consideration if the threshold yield was

exceeded. Crop choice was then narrowed by following a rule which rotated summer crops

with winter crops and grasses with broadleaf crops. Yields, gross receipts, and economic

precipitation use efficiency from the various opportunity cropping selection schemes were

compared with yields, gross receipts, and economic precipitation use efficiency from four

set rotations [wheat-fallow (conventional till), wheat-fallow (no-till), wheat-corn-fallow

(no-till), wheat-millet (no-till)]. Two of the four opportunity cropping selection schemes

resulted in higher gross receipts and economic precipitation use efficiency than the set

rotations, with the other two selection schemes resulting in lower gross receipts and

economic precipitation use efficiency than the set rotations. Cropping frequency could be

effectively increased in dry land cropping systems by use of crop selection rules based on

water use/yield production functions, measured available soil water, and expected

precipitation.

Prasad et al. (2011) conducted Field experiment under AICRP- cropping system

research project during Kharif, Rabi, and summer season (2006-07) at Raipur (C.G.). The

experiment comprised of seven cropping sequences viz., rice-wheat-fallow, rice-

mustardgreen manure, rice-coriander (green leaf)-mung, rice-pea-maize, rice-brinjal-green

manure, rice-oniongreen manure and rice-potato-cowpea. The most productive system

among different cropping sequences was rice-potato-cowpea system (270.39 q ha-1 year-1)

having production efficiency of 83.97 kg ha-1 day-1 and profitability of Rs.320.36 ha-1 day-

1. This system was found with highest relative economic efficiency (199.29%) and gave

Rs.116929 ha-1 year-1 net return. Higher production efficiency and maximum gross as well

as net return was observed in vegetable based cropping sequences than a traditional one.

2.2. Agronomic Benefits

Khan and Khaliq (2005) conducted a research in which Rabi cereals were sown by

surface seeding in standing water in one half of standing cotton and by conventional method

in the second half after harvest of the cotton. Surface seeding produced 69.37% higher grain

yield when relaying wheat was sown than sowing after harvest the cotton crop. This

technique also increased in barley yield by 22.84% compared to conventional planting.

However, yield and quality traits of cotton were not affected significantly by any of the

40

relay cropping systems. Significantly higher net field and economic benefits were obtained

from relay cropping system as compared to wheat being followed by cotton. The

Standardized Performance Analysis program was used to assess the economic benefits of

cotton and grain sorghum production by using farm level data. Analysis of cotton yields in

a cotton-grain sorghum rotation showed an increase of 190.6 and 159.6 kg ha -1 following

grain sorghum 32 one and two years, respectively. The rotational effects of grain sorghum

had a significant impact on increased cotton profits and yield. All rotational strategies those

evaluated were preferred to continuous cotton for all levels of risk aversion evaluated in the

study (Johnson et al., 2006).

Reddy and Bheemaiah (1991) in a two years study on corn grain found that

cropping or cropping systems in both the years except to soils in 1983-84. Similar trend

was also observed in respect of straw yield and harvest index of maize. All the yield

components of maize such as cob length and girth, seeds per cob and test weight were not

influenced by soils and cropping systems. While under furrow irrigation cropping systems

were found superior to the conventional cotton production systems. Under dry land, it was

also found that all the cotton-cropping systems analyzed were superior to conventional

cotton practices. They concluded that the cotton cropping systems analyzed seem to be

viable alternative to current cotton production practices in the area (Segarra et al. 1991).

Nielsen et al. (2010) conducted an experiment on different cropping systems to

evaluate yield and precipitation use efficiency of crops where choice of a crop was entirely

based on different crop selection rules considering narrow and broadleaved weeds rotation

schemes. Crop responses were recorded to avail different soil, water and other forms of

seasonal precipitation. Available soil water at sowing time was recorded at several dates

each year and it was combined with three levels of expected precipitation have input data

for water use production functions. The predicted yield of the crop from those production

systems was then compared against established yield thresholds while crops were retained

in the field for further data record to see if the threshold yield exceeded or not. It helped us

in making a decision regarding crop by following a rule of rotating summer crops with

winter crops of the area along with grasses and broadleaf crops. Yields, gross receipts, and

economic precipitation use efficiency from four set rotations [wheat-fallow (conventional

till), wheat-fallow (no-till), wheat-corn-fallow (notill), wheat-millet (no-till)] was

compared with different cropping scheme opportunities. Significantly higher gross receipts

41

and economic precipitation use efficiency was recorded from two of the cropping scheme

opportunities than the set rotations while the other two selection schemes resulted in less

economic output. Crop selection rules depending on water use yield production systems

can help in increasing frequency of crops in dry land cropping systems. This system will

help us in measuring available soil water, and expected precipitation.

2.3. Soil Health

Stipešević and Kladivko (2005) reported that using a cover crop could improve soil

chemical as well as physical properties those were deteriorated from different soil tillage

systems, due to cover crop growing during the winter season. Young maize seedlings

showed better growth and taller shoot length. Early desiccation of winter wheat and regular

desiccation improves maize growth at early stage. In presence of drought, the early

desiccation proved to be significantly better for maize crop, due to the better soil water

conservation. A field study performed at the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New

Delhi, India from 2000-2001 and 2003-2004. This study was designed to work out the

effects of cropping systems on the physical, chemical and productive features of soil.

Among all the systems studied, Rice-potato-mungbean cropping system proved to be 59–

89% higher in terms of productivity, 30–46% higher in terms of protein yield, 18–38%

higher in terms of energy output. This system also resulted in, 60% higher in fungi

population, 14% higher in microbial biomass, 15% higher in actinomycetes population, 7–

16% higher in available P and 3% higher in CO2 evolution in soil than rice-wheat cropping

system. Rice-rapeseed - mungbean cropping system was also much productive but it

followed the above one. It gave 19–26% higher protein yield, 12–15% higher productivity,

and resulted in 11–18% higher available P, 22% higher actinomycetes population, 12%

higher microbial biomass, 65% higher fungi population and 2% higher CO2 evolution in

soil than rice-wheat cropping system as reported by Sharma et al. (2009).

Lal (1990) had cited that if farmer add legumes in cropping systems of rain fed

areas would add ample organic matter in the soil and ultimately improve soil structure and

enhance nutrient and water holding capacity of soil. Soybean grown after white oats black

oats, rye grass and wheat showed no significant differences for yield, yield components

42

such as 1000 grain weight. The preceding winter crops influenced final stand, plant height

and insertion of first pods.

Prasad and Kerketta (1991) conducted an experiment to study nutrients uptake

and their fate in the soil under seven cropping sequences, comprising mono, double and

triple crop intensities and reported that Egyptian clover or berseem as individual crop

removed maximum nitrogen and phosphorous, whereas maize and cowpea removed

maximum quantity of potash. Among the cropping sequences, Deenanath grass

(Pennisetum pedicellatum L.)-Berseem-maize+cowpea removed the maximum quantities

of the three major plant nutrients.

They found that Hedgerow intercropping boosted soil fertility but did not increase

incomes sufficiently, however, mono-cropping was profitable but yields and soil fertility

declined rapidly. Mono-cropping remains popular with farmers with little and or without

tenure. Nitrogen fixation was sufficient to match off take in a moderately yielding food-

crop in these systems; more intensive production requires additional input. Singh and Singh

(2000) carried out a field experiment during 1993-94 and 1994-95 to study the effect of

green manure (Sesbania aculeata) and nitrogen levels on crop yield and economics of a

rice-wheat cropping system. S. aculeata + 100% N produced 21.5 and 20.1% more rice

grain and I .6 and 8.8% more wheat grain in the respective years than fallow (nogreen

manure) + 100% N for both rice and wheat. Yield components were also increased. Total

net return from S. aculeata + 75% N to rice and 100% N to wheat was Rs 7730 ha -1 as

compared to Rs 8063 ha-1 from fallow (no green manure) + 100% N to both rice and wheat.

The highest net returns were given by green manure + 100% N applied to both crops.

Another experiment was conducted by Belachew and Abera (2011) at SinanaDinsho

in 2001 – 2003. He evaluated the effects of short term manuring by green vetch for fallow

in “Ganna” season. In this experiment, three land preparation treatments (weedy fallow,

Vetch harvested and Vetch under ploughed) were used in the main plots having three

nitrogen rates (0, 20.5 and 41 kg N/ha) in the subplot. Crop was ploughed to add green

manure in soil after three weeks. After three weeks, a slight decrease in pH value of the soil

and available phosphorus and an increase in organic carbon contents were observed.

Adding green manuring of vetch and fallow treatments gave significantly better plant

height, straw yield and grain yield. It adversely affected yield of bread wheat when vetch

43

biomass was harvested at flowering stage. However, farm productivity could be increased

when livestock production was considered along with crop production.

Jabbar et al. (2010) conducted a research in which efficiency of intercropping was

studied biologically in direct seeded upland rice (DSR) and its impact on residual soil

fertility at University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan. It was a two years study. The

treatments of intercropping systems comprised of rice alone, rice + sesbania, rice + maize,

rice + mungbean, rice + cowpea, rice + ricebean and rice + pigeonpea. The rice was seeded

in 75 cm spaced 4-row strips (15/75 cm) with forage in spaces between the rice strips in

row. A significant level of reduction in rice yield was observed by forage intercrops

compared to mono-cropped rice (rice alone) which varied from 11-26%. Maximum yield

increase (26%) was observed when sesbania was intercropped. This treatment was followed

by pigeonpea (17%). Minimum yield was recorded when only maize was intercropped

(11%). In terms of total rice grain yield equivalent (TRGYE), significantly highest TRGYE

(6.5 ton ha-1) was recorded for rice + forage maize intercropping system. It was followed

by rice + cowpea (5.1 ton ha-1) and rice + sesbania (4.9 ton ha-1). In this experiment, lowest

yield (4.0 ton ha-1) was obtained in monocropped rice. This experiment clearly indicated

that intercropping had great yield advantages over mono-cropping in case of rice. Similarly,

when intercropping was compared on the basis of net field benefits obtained, different

intercropping systems gave considerably higher net benefits compared against sole

cropping of rice. Maximum net benefit (Rs.42325 ha-1) was documented for rice + maize

which was 37% more than sole rice crop. This was followed by rice + cowpea (Rs.30885

ha-1) giving 14% higher net benefits than mono-cropping of rice which produced only

(Rs.26526 ha-1) of net benefits. By using the method of intercropping, residual soil nitrogen

contents and organic matter was improved in all the intercropping systems. However, this

increase was not observed in case of rice + maize intercropping system. The maximum

increase in soil nitrogen contents was 7 % that was recorded for rice + sesbania

intercropping system. Although, intercropping systems were recorded with increase in

nitrogen contents of the soil but residual soil phosphorus and potassium were depleted in

all the studied intercropping systems as compared to initial soil analysis.

44

Ahmad et al. (2010) undertook a study as a part of soil fertility management of

eroded soils in NWFP, Pakistan. The study was started in summer 2006 and continued for

four consecutive crop seasons till winter 2007, in District Swabi, NWFP, Pakistan. Soil

fertility status of the experimental site was determined before the start of the experiment.

The experiment was laid out in a factorial split plot design using two factors viz., cropping

patterns and fertilizer treatments. The cropping patterns studied were maizewheat-maize

rotation, maize-lentil-maize rotation and maize-wheat + lentil intercropmaize rotation and

these were kept in main plots whereas the fertilizer treatments included control, 50% NP,

100% NPK and 20 t ha-1 farmyard manure integrated with 50% N and 100% PK as mineral

fertilizers which were placed in sub plots. Fertilizers were applied for four seasons

continuously. At the end of winter 2007, soil samples from two depths (0-20 cm and 20-40

cm) were collected from each plot and analyzed for microbial biomass carbon (MBC) at

day 3, day 6 and day 10 incubation periods, total nitrogen (TN), microbial biomass nitrogen

(MBN), and mineralizable nitrogen (MN). Results showed significant improvement in

organic fertility of soil with fertilizer addition and cropping patterns. Combined application

of organic and inorganic fertilizers (20 t ha1 farmyard manure integrated with 50 % N and

100 % PK) showed 55, 25, 18 and 61 % increase in total N, MBN, MN, and MBC after 10

days incubation period over the control, respectively, in the surface soil whilst 100% NPK

showed 44, 15, 6 and 45 % improvement over the control treatment for the same parameters

in surface soil. Data further showed 43, 23, 19 and 60 % increase in the corresponding

microbial parameters in combined organic and inorganic fertilizer treatment over the

control treatment in sub soil whilst 100% NPK showed 39, 20, 10 and 54 % increase in TN,

MBN, MN and MBC over the control in sub soil. The cropping patterns having cereal-

legume rotation also improved organic soil fertility and showed 27 and 13% more total N

and MBC after 10 days incubation period over the cereal-cereal rotation respectively and

the improvement in MBN and MN in cereal-legume rotation over cereal-cereal rotation was

non-significant in surface soil. In the sub-surface soil cereal-legume rotation improved TN,

MBN, MN and MBC by 9, 6, 8 and 28 % over the cereal-cereal rotation. It was concluded

that there was sufficient potential to improve soil organic fertility in Pirsabak soil series,

the restoration of which on sustained basis would require at least 50% N from the organic

sources. Moreover, in the traditional cereal-cereal cropping patterns, legumes should be

included to further improve the nitrogen contents and organic fertility of these soils

45

2.4. Economic Benefits

Dogan et al. (2008) developed a study working under rain-fed conditions of

Southern Marmara Region, Turkey to device the most suitable crop rotation system(s). In

his six years study (1995-2001), two different crop rotation systems were tested: winter

wheat and sunflower as main crops experiments. Results relating to the crop yielding

ability, economic aspects and soil fertility were recorded. The sunflower-rapeseed-wheat,

rapeseed-common vetch + sunflower-wheat and rapeseed-fodder pea + sunflower-wheat

were found to be the most suitable rotation systems in rain-fed conditions. This cropping

system had multiple advantages in the first experiment where wheat was used as main the

crop. In the first and second year of study, significantly highest sunflower achene yield was

obtained from a fodder pea + sunflower-wheat-fodder pea + sunflower crop rotation

systems. In this system, sunflower was used as main crop under rain-fed conditions. A

methodology was established to design a site specific crop management (SSCM) practice

to increase nutrient use efficiency of fertilizers like nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium for

cropping system dominated by cereals. They conducted the experiment on different field

comprising an area of 95 ha, 145 ha and 240 ha with different levels of nitrogen, phosphorus

and potassium. After a long term experiment in the fields, they concluded that in our pedo-

climatic conditions, SSCM was more profitable when the surface area was large enough

and the heterogeneity in terms of nutrient of soil was greater (Bourgain et al., 2009).

Rice crop requires 30 kg N ha-1less when planted after gram and lucern than wheat

while Parkash et al. (1982) got highest average annual net return and benefit cost ratio using

rice-cluck pea rotation followed by rice-lentil, rice-field pea and rice-wheat sequences.

Jakkro and Faroque (1986) suggested that planting legumes in winter season (winter)

helped economic fertilizer use. Whereas Majid et al. (1983) concluded that ricemustard-

mung rotation gave the maximum income, which was 33% more than the standard rice-

wheat rotation.

Seth and Balyan (1985) reported that legume crop grown in summer had a

significant effect on grain yield of wheat. Their two years indicated that wheat yield of

50.5 Quintal ha-1was obtained when it was sown after cowpeas (fodder) compared to 39.49

quintal ha-1 after fallow and 41.8 quintal ha-1 after maize. This increase was attributed to

46

the fact that cowpea being a legume, fix nitrogen, which was used by succeeding crop. The

economic net return obtained with cowpeas (fodder) - wheat, fallow - wheat and maize -

wheat systems was Rs 3917, 2441, and 3319 per hectare, respectively.

Singh and Verma (1985) stated that wheat yield was significantly higher after

cowpeas, mash bean and mung bean than that obtained after pigeon pea, fallow and pearl

millet. 10.4, 13.1 and 13.8 percent with mung bean augmented the productivity of wheat in

a legume-based system, mash bean and cowpeas, respectively over fallow. In a nonlegume

system, wheat yield decreased after pearl millet by 8% as compared to fallow. In a legume

based system a net saving of residual nitrogen was observed as 37.2 kg ha-1with mung bean

41.4 kg ha-1 with mash bean and 42.2 kg ha-1 with cowpeas compared to after pearl millet.

Singh and Faroda (1985) assessed the carry over effect of phosphorus applied to

Summer legumes and its up take by succeeding wheat crop. They observed increased

concentration and uptake of phosphorus in wheat at all growth stages was observed in

legume – wheat cropping system compared to fallow - wheat system. Maintenance of soil

productive potential through appropriate management practice was very essential for

sustained development of rice production. He also suggested proper crop rotation for

maximizing the productivity of the farm with the available resources and concluded that

rice based cropping system needs a thorough review to optimize the productivity of the

system and making it more relevant to the country's priority needs (Chaudhary, 1986).

Production and feasibility of different cropping sequences and found that groundnutwheat-

mungbean gave the highest yields and gross returns compared to a fallow system. (Malavia

et al., 1986)

Negi et al. 1988 reported that sorghum following soybean out-yielded continuous

sorghum. The higher yield was attributed to the added benefits of cereal-legume rotation.

They also noticed that residual N from soybean when rotated to grain sorghum resulted in

significant savings in fertilizer inputs. The average yearly N credit from soybean in rotation

with sorghum was about 89.6 kg, this shows that a cereal could be successfully use N fixed

from a previous legume crop (Hanson et al., 1988). Phosphorus applied to maize did not

show significant residual effect on any of the yield contributing characteristics of wheat,

because wheat did not utilize residual phosphorus efficiently due to poor soil moisture and

low temperature during Winter season. However, maize responded to direct residual

47

phosphorus up to 60 kg P2O5 applied to wheat. The availability of phosphorus increased in

summer due to solubility factor.

Saini (1986) observed that farmyard manure and chemical fertilizers were the major

energy inputs for rice and wheat crop under both farmer and improved technology levels.

In terms of energy output-input ratio, wheat performed better than rice, Velayudham and

Seth (1986) reported that wheat produced more tillers, longer ears, heavier and more

grains/ear when grown after cowpeas compared to a non-legume cropping system including

maize and fallow during summer. Wheat grain yield of 40.74, 42.31 and 49.6 q/ha was

obtained after fallow, maize (fodder) and cowpeas (fodder) respectively. Cowpeas - wheat

system gave a net return of RS. 6220 compared to RS. 5259 q/ha/year in maize - wheat

system, while fallow-wheat system gave only RS. 3007/ha/year. Apart from this, fertilizer

use efficiency could be increased further if optimum schedule was adopted for cropping

system rather than for a single crop (Zia et al., 1986).

Legume based cropping systems resulted in a significant increase in wheat yield. It

was 48.1q/ha after cowpeas as green manuring, 46.4 after cowpeas (fodder) compared to

39.79q/ha when grown after maize. This increase in grain yield of wheat was associated

with residual nitrogen fixed by previous legumes. Wheat based legume cropping systems

also gave higher net returns than non-legume cropping systems (Balyan and Seth, 1989).

All legumes, except soybean significantly enhanced the dry matter production of wheat as

compared to preceding non-legume crops. Wheat grain yield was also significantly higher

following legume based cropping systems than non-legumes systems. The results on N

uptake by wheat as affected by preceding crops indicated that higher nitrogen content in

wheat straw and grain was observed when followed legume crops and was lowest after non-

legume crops. (Saeed et al., 1989)

Average yield of mung bean over six sites was 660 kg ha-1 and straw yield was 1521

kg ha-1 The net benefit of RS. 2689 ha-1, with benefit cost Ratio of 2.72 had been reported

for mung bean planted in mung bean-wheat cropping System, which was significantly

higher than fallow- wheat system (Anonymous, 1990). The effects of four conventional and

four organic cropping systems on a crop yield and yield quality and presented that the

48

average yield of barley in organic cropping varied between one quarter and half of that in

conventional cropping. The yield of winter wheat, oats and potato were about 40% of those

obtained conventionally. The yield of clover-grass hay in organic farming was similar to

those of grass hay in the conventional system. The primary reason for the poor crop growth

in organic cropping systems was apparently the acute N deficiency caused by poor

performance of legumes, low N contents of organic manures and N losses in anaerobic

condition. Pronounced soil compaction and anaerobic conditions in organic cropping

systems had harmful effect on microbiological activities of soil as well (Hannukkala et al.,

1990).

It is obvious from the above information that considerable research has been done

throughout the world in different Agro climatic conditions. However, little information is

available in Pakistan on the yield, soil fertility and system economics. Therefore, the

present study will be initiated to determine the effect of different cropping systems on the

yield and associated parameters like fertility, agronomic benefits and economics of those

cropping systems under Agro climatic condition of Faisalabad, Punjab, Pakistan.

CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1. Site Characteristics

This research project was designed to study the different cropping systems under

agro-climatic conditions of Faisalabad, Pakistan. The research study was conducted at

Agronomic Research Farm area, Department of Agronomy, University of Agriculture,

Faisalabad during 2013-2015. The climate of the district is semi-arid and subtropical. The

soil type on which the studies were conducted is described as sandy clay loam.

3.1.1. Soil Health

From all the three replications composite soil samples were collected before and

after harvesting from all the cropping systems at 0-30 cm depth. The samples were

examined for Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium status following methods described in

Association of Official Agricultural Chemist (A.O.A.C., 1980) by micro Kjeldahl and

Olson bicarbonate extraction method for N and P respectively (Olsen and Khasawneh,

1980). Extractable K was determined by using flame photometer method (Knudsen et al.,

1982)

49

3.1.2. Soil analysis

The soil of the experimental area is fairly uniform, so a representative and

composite soil sample to a depth of 30 cm was collected with soil auger, before sowing of

the crop. Soil sample was analyzed for its various physio-chemical properties.

3.1.3. Mechanical analysis

By using one percent sodium hexa-metaphosphate as a dispersing agent, percentage

of sand, silt and clay was determined by Bouyoucos hydrometer method. Textural class was

determined by using the international textural triangle (Moodie et al., 1959).

3.1.4. Chemical analysis

Soil was analyzed for organic matter, pH, C:N, Nitrogen, Phosphorus and

Potassium contents by employing the methods as designed by Homer and Pratt (1961).

Table: 3.1. Physical characteristics of soil

Determination Unit Value

Sand % 33.80

Silt % 34.00

Clay % 32.20

Texural class clay loam

Table: 3.2. Chemical characteristics of soil

Determination Unit Value

Saturation % 37

pH 7.6

EC dS/m 1.2

50

Organic matter mg kg-1 0.74

Total nitrogen mg kg-1 620

Available phosphorus mg kg-1 7.4

Available Potassium mg kg-1 132

CaCO3 % 5

51

3.1.5. Meteorological data

The meteorological data for the raising/growing period of the crop was obtained from

the meteorological observatory of the Department of Crop Physiology, University of

Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan.

3.2. Studies on different cropping systems

The experiments were designed to study the relationship of six different pre-assigned

cropping systems. The details of the pre-assigned cropping systems are given below.

S1 Maize (sp) - Maize - Wheat - Rice - Wheat

S2 Maize (sp) - Maize - Gram - Millet – Sarson (Mustard)

S3 Mungbean - Rice - Wheat - Cotton/ Sarson (Mustard)

S4 Mungbean - Rice – Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame – Wheat

S5 Sunflower - Mungbean - Wheat/ Jantar - Rice - Gram

S6 Sunflower - Mungbean - Barley - Cotton - Wheat

All the cropping systems were arranged in a randomized complete block design

(RCBD) with three replications. There were 18 plots in the experiment, each having size of 15

× 10 m. The experiment was initiated during February 2013 with the sowing of different pre-

assigned crops in the respective (randomized) plots. After the harvest of first phase crops, the

subsequent crops included in different systems were planted in their respective plots. Soil

analysis was also conducted before planting and after the harvesting of each crop.

According to the experimental design and description of cropping systems, different

crops were grown using standard procedures recommended for all the crops.

52

Layout Plan

Main water channel

Non experimental area



0.6 m

S3

(15m x

10m)

Non experimental area Non experimental area Non experimental area

53

Table: 3.3 Crops durations and sowing dates

Types of System Crops in System

S1 M-M-W-R-W

Crop Sowing Date Duration (days)

Maize 15-02-2013 122

Maize 15-07-2013 112

Wheat 10-11-2013 191

Rice 04-06-2014 151

Wheat 12-11-2014 183

S2 M-M-G-M-S

Crop Sowing Date Duration

Maize 15-02-2013 123

Maize 15-07-2013 107

Gram 10-11-2013 140

Millet 20-04-2014 102

Sarson 08-11-2014 136

S3 M-R-W-C/S


Mungbean 15-02-2013 102

Rice 04-06-2013 147

Wheat 11-11-2013 190

Cotton 02-06-2014 150

Sarson 14-10-2014 148

S4 M-R-B-M-S-W

54


Mungbean 15-02-2013 105

Rice 04-06-2013 147

Berseem 13-11-2013 49

Maize 15-02-2014 101

Sesame 02-06-2014 150

Wheat 10-11-2014 195

S5 S-M-W/J-R-G

Sunflower 15-02-2013 115

Mungbean 15-07-2013 104

Wheat/Jantar 08-11-2013 192

Rice 06-06-2014 146

Gram 16-11-2014 141

S6 S-M-B-C-W

Sunflower 15-02-2013 115

Mungbean 15-07-2013 105

Barley 11-11-2013 183

Cotton 02-06-2014 149

Wheat 09-11-2014 193

55

3.3. Agronomic practices

According to the experimental design and description of cropping systems, different

crops were grown following agronomic practices described as below.

3.3.1. Cropping system 1

S1- Maize (sp) - Maize - Wheat - Rice - Wheat

3.3.1.1. Maize (Grain) during 2013

Hybrids were used for spring (on 15 February, 2013) and seasonal (on 15 July, 2013)

planted maize in their respective plots according to the pre-assigned randomization using

recommended agronomic practices and were kept uniform. Seed rate was kept 10 kg per acre.

The crop was grown by keeping 60 cm R-R distance and 20 cm P-P distance. An inorganic

fertilizer dose @ 200 -150 -125 kg/ha was applied to get maximum yield. To control the weeds

manual labor was used and herbicide was also applied. Spring planted maize was harvested on

18 June, 2013 and seasonal planted maize was harvested on 02 November, 2013. Data were

recorded for the crops.

3.3.1.2. Wheat during 2013

Wheat was sown on 10 November, 2013. All the agronomic practices were kept

uniform in all the plots according to the pre-assigned randomization. Seed rate of 40 kg per

acre was used. The row to row distance was maintained at 22.5 cm. Nitrogen at the rate of 64

kg per acre and phosphorus at the rate of 46 kg per acre was applied. To control the weeds

herbicide was also applied at recommended dose. All the phosphorus was applied at the tilth

condition. Wheat was harvested on 20 May, 2014. Data were recorded for various parameters.

56

3.3.1.3. Rice during 2014

Rice nursery was grown on 4 June, 2014. It was transplanted in the field on 3 July,

2014 by manual laborers. All the cultural operations were kept constant in all the plots

according to the randomization. The crop was grown by maintaining 20 cm P-P distance and

22.5 cm R-R distance. Recommended dose of fertilizer was applied as nitrogen 46 kg per acre

and phosphorus 25 kg per acre. All the phosphorus was applied before transplanting the rice

nursery in the soil. To control the weeds herbicide was also applied at recommended dose. The

crop was harvested on 2 November, 2014 and data were recorded.





kg per acre and phosphorus at the rate of 46 kg per acre was applied. All the phosphorus was

applied at the tilth condition. To control the weeds herbicide was also applied at recommended

dose. Wheat was harvested on 24 May, 2015. Data were recorded for various parameters.


S2- Maize (sp) - Maize - Gram - Millet - Sarson


Hybrids were used for spring (on 15 February, 2013) and seasonal (on 15 July, 2013)

planted maize in their respective plots according to the pre-assigned randomization using

recommended agronomic practices and were kept uniform. Seed rate was kept 10 kg per acre.

The crop was grown by keeping 60 cm R-R distance and 20 cm P-P distance. Recommended

dose of fertilizer was given to get maximum yield. To control the weeds manual labor was used

and herbicide was also applied. Spring planted maize was harvested on 18 June, 2013 and

seasonal planted maize was harvested on 2 November, 2013. Data were recorded for the crops.

57

3.3.2.2. Gram during 2013

Gram was grown on 10 November, 2013 following all the recommended procedures.

Seed rate of 25 kg per acre was used. Gram was planted by keeping 15 cm P-P distance and

45 cm R-R distance. Gram is a leguminous crop so it requires nitrogen at 12 kg per acre while

phosphorus at 25 kg per acre. To control the weeds manual labor was used and herbicide was

also applied. The crop was harvested on 5 April, 2014 and data were recorded.

3.3.2.3. Millet during 2014

The crop millet was grown on 20 April, 2014 on well prepared land. Seed rate of 4 kg

per acre was used. The seed was sown with drill by maintaining 8 cm P-P distance and 30 cm

R-R distance to maintain the required number of plants in the field. Fertilizer was also applied

at recommended dose to get the maximum yield. Nitrogen was applied at 25 kg per acre and

phosphorus was applied at 25 kg per acre. According to the researchers all the phosphorus was

applied before sowing the crop. There was no need of applying herbicide to control the weeds.

The crop was harvested on 2 August, 2014.

3.3.2.4. Sarson during 2014

Sarson was grown on 8 November, 2014 by keeping all the practices same in all the

plots. The recommended seed rate of 2.5 kg per acre was used to grow the crop. The distance

among the plants was kept 20 cm while among the rows it was maintained at 60 cm. Nitrogen

was applied at 32 kg per acre while phosphorus was applied at 32 kg per acre. Manual weeding

practice was used to control the weeds. The crop was harvested on 24 March, 2015 and data

were recorded.


S3- Mungbean - Rice - Wheat - Cotton/ Sarson

3.3.3.1. Mungbean during 2013

Mungbean was grown on 5 February, 2013 by keeping all the standard practices in all

the plots pre-allocated by randomization. The recommended seed rate was 8 kg per acre. To

58

achieve the desired number of plants in the field the P-P distance was maintained at 10 cm,

while R-R distance was maintained at 30 cm. As mungbean is leguminous crop and it fixes the

atmospheric nitrogen by the help of nodules, so nitrogen was applied at 10 kg per acre. The

phosphorus was applied at 25 kg per acre. All the phosphorus was applied before the sowing

of crop. To control the weeds manual labor was used and herbicide was also applied.

The crop was harvested on physiological maturity.







nursery in the soil. To control the weeds manual labor was used and herbicide was also applied.

The crop was harvested on 1 November, 2013 and data were recorded.






applied at the tilth condition. To control the weeds manual labor was used and herbicide was

also applied. Wheat was harvested on 22 May, 2014. Data were recorded for various

parameters.

3.3.3.4. Cotton during 2014

Cotton crop was sown on 2 June, 2014 by keeping in view all the standard practices to

have maximum yield of cotton crop in all the plots. Seed rate of 10 kg per acre was used. The

P-P distance of 30 cm and R-R distance of 60 cm was maintained. Recommended fertilization

was applied as, nitrogen at 46 kg per acre and phosphorus at 23 kg per acre. All the phosphorus

59

was applied before sowing the crop. To control the weeds manual labor was used and herbicide

was also applied. The crop was harvested on 2 November, 2014.

3.3.3.5. Sarson during 2014

Sarson was sown as relay crop in the standing cotton crop. The seed was sown by

keeping the P-P distance of 20 cm and R-R distance of 60 cm. All the other recommended

practices were used to grow this crop. Nitrogen was applied at the rate of 32 kg per acre and

phosphorus was applied at 32 kg per acre. To control the weeds manual labor was used and

herbicide was also applied. All the phosphorus was applied before sowing of the crop. The

crop was harvested on 14 March, 2015.


S4- Mungbean - Rice – Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame – Wheat


Mungbean was grown on 5 February, 2013 by keeping all the standard practices in all

the plots pre-allocated by randomization. The recommended seed rate was 8 kg per acre. To






The crop was harvested on physiological maturity.





60





3.3.4.3. Berseem during 2013

Berseem was sown on 13 November, 2013. It was broadcasted in the field at the rate

of 2 kg per acre. Only nitrogen was applied at 10 kg per acre. To control the weeds manual

labor was used only. The crop was green manured in the field on 1 January, 2014.


Hybrids were used for maize crop on 15 February, 2014 in their respective plots

according to the pre-assigned randomization using recommended agronomic practices and

were kept uniform. Seed rate was kept 10 kg per acre. The crop was grown by keeping 60 cm

R-R distance and 20 cm P-P distance. Recommended dose of fertilizer was given to get

maximum yield. To control the weeds manual labor was used and herbicide was also applied.

The maize crop was harvested on 26 May, 2014 at physiological maturity. Data were recorded

for the crop.

3.3.4.5. Sesame during 2014

Sesame was sown on 2 June, 2014 in their respective plots according to assigned

randomization. All the recommended practices were followed to achieve maximum yield. The

seed rate of 2 kg per acre was used. The P-P distance of 10 cm and R-R distance of 45 cm was

maintained to have the desired plant population. Nitrogen was applied at 24 kg per acre, while

phosphorus was applied at 24 kg per acre. All the phosphorus was applied before sowing of

crop. To control the weeds manual labor was used and herbicide was also applied.

The crop was harvested on 2 November, 2014.

61






applied at the tilth condition. To control the weeds manual labor was used and herbicide was

also applied. Wheat was harvested on 25 May, 2015. Data were recorded for various

parameters.


S5- Sunflower - Mungbean - Wheat/ Jantar - Rice - Gram

3.3.5.1. Sunflower during 2013

Sunflower was sown on 15 February, 2013 in the respective plots according to the pre-

assigned randomization, using recommended agronomic practices. Seed rate was kept 3 kg per

acre. The crop was grown by keeping 60 cm R-R distance and 20 cm P-P distance.

Recommended dose of fertilizer was given to get maximum yield. Nitrogen was applied at 40

kg per acre and phosphorus was applied at 30 kg per acre. All the phosphorus was

applied at the sowing time. To control the weeds manual labor was used and herbicide was also

applied.

Sunflower was harvested at physiological maturity on 10 June, 2013.


Mungbean was grown on 15 July, 2013 by keeping all the standard practices in all the

plots pre-allocated by randomization. The recommended seed rate was 8 kg per acre. To






62

The crop was harvested on 30 October, 2013 at physiological maturity.


Wheat was sown on 8 November, 2013. All the agronomic practices were kept uniform

in all the plots according to the pre-assigned randomization. Seed rate of 40 kg per acre was

used. The row to row distance was maintained at 22.5 cm. Nitrogen at the rate of 64 kg per

acre and phosphorus at the rate of 46 kg per acre was applied. All the phosphorus was applied

at the tilth condition. To control the weeds manual labor was used and herbicide was also

applied. Wheat was harvested on 20 May, 2014. Data were recorded for various parameters.

3.3.5.4. Jantar during 2014

Jantar was sown as relay crop at last irrigation of wheat crop. It was broadcasted in the

field at the rate of 8 kg per acre. There was no need of applying herbicide.









3.3.5.6. Gram during 2014

Gram was grown on 16 November, 2014 following all the recommended procedures.

Seed rate of 25 kg per acre was used. Gram was planted by keeping 15 cm P-P distance and 45

cm R-R distance. Gram is a leguminous crop so it requires nitrogen at 12 kg per acre while

phosphorus at 25 kg per acre. To control the weeds manual labor was used and herbicide was

also applied. The crop was harvested on 7 April, 2015 and data were recorded.

63


S6- Sunflower - Mungbean - Barley - Cotton - Wheat

3.3.6.1. Sunflower during 2013

Sunflower was sown on 15 February, 2013 in the respective plots according to the pre-

assigned randomization, using recommended agronomic practices. Seed rate was kept 3 kg per

acre. The crop was grown by keeping 60 cm R-R distance and 20 cm P-P distance.

Recommended dose of fertilizer was given to get maximum yield. Nitrogen was applied at 40

kg per acre and phosphorus was applied at 30 kg per acre. All the phosphorus was

applied at the sowing time. To control the weeds manual labor was used and herbicide was also

applied.

Sunflower was harvested at physiological maturity on 10 June, 2013.


Mungbean was grown on 15 July, 2013 by keeping all the standard practices in all the

plots pre-allocated by randomization. The recommended seed rate was 8 kg per acre. To






The crop was harvested on 30 October, 2013 at physiological maturity.

3.3.6.3. Barley during 2013

Barley was sown on 11 November, 2013 in the respective plots according to the

preassigned randomization, using recommended agronomic practices. Seed rate was kept 10

kg per acre. The crop was grown by keeping 60 cm R-R distance. Recommended dose of

fertilizer was given to get maximum yield. Nitrogen was applied at 40 kg per acre and

phosphorus was applied at 30 kg per acre. All the phosphorus was applied at the sowing time.

64

To control the weeds manual labor was used and herbicide was also applied. Barley was

harvested at physiological maturity on 14 May, 2014.

3.3.6.4. Cotton during 2014

Cotton crop was sown on 2 June, 2014 by keeping in view all the standard practices to

have maximum yield of cotton crop in all the plots. Seed rate of 10 kg per acre was used. The

P-P distance of 30 cm and R-R distance of 60 cm was maintained. Recommended fertilization

was applied as, nitrogen at 46 kg per acre and phosphorus at 23 kg per acre. All the phosphorus

was applied before sowing the crop. To control the weeds manual labor was used and herbicide

was also applied. The crop was harvested on 1 November, 2014.


Wheat was sown on 9 November, 2014. All the agronomic practices were kept uniform

in all the plots according to the pre-assigned randomization. Seed rate of 40 kg per acre was

used. The row to row distance was maintained at 22.5 cm. Nitrogen at the rate of 64 kg per

acre and phosphorus at the rate of 46 kg per acre was applied. All the phosphorus was applied

at the tilth condition. To control the weeds manual labor was used and herbicide was also

applied. Wheat was harvested on 22 May, 2015. Data were recorded for various parameters.

3.4. Harvesting and Threshing

Each crop was harvested manually at physiological maturity, bundles were tied and sun

dried.

3.5. Data Collection

Data was collected on agronomic and economic aspects of different crops to assess the

performance of different cropping systems under irrigated condition.

3.5.1. Agronomic Data

The data was collected for each crop included in the study. However, the major

emphasis was given to the monetary returns of the unlike cropping systems. The data was

recorded on yield of each crop in a cropping system. In addition to that, soil fertility (N and P)

65

status was also be observed during the length of cropping sequences. Methods and procedures

used to obtain such data are given below:

3.5.1.1. Plant height at maturity (cm)

The plant height of 10 randomly selected plants from each plot at maturity was taken

from the visible node above the ground to the top with the help of meter rod. Finally, the

average plant height was calculated accordingly.

3.5.1.2. Stem diameter (cm)

The plants were randomly selected and stem diameter was measured for 10 plants from

every plot at maturity by using measuring tape. Finally, the average stem diameter was

calculated accordingly.

3.5.1.3. Grain weight per cob (g)

Ten plants were selected and total grain weight on each cob per plant from each plot

were recorded with digital electronic balance at the time of harvest and then averaged.

3.5.1.4. Cob length (cm)

The plants were randomly selected and cob length was measured for 10 plants from

each plot at maturity by using measuring tape. Finally, the average stem cob length was

recorded accordingly.

3.5.1.5. Number of tillers m-2

Number of tillers per m2 were calculated for wheat and rice.

3.5.1.6. 1000-grain weight (g)

From the grain lot of ten randomly selected cobs of each plot and grains for the other

crops, a representative sample of 1000-grains was made when moisture level was 10-12 % and

weight was recorded by digital weighing balance.

66

3.5.1.7. Biological yield (t/ha)

At maturity the biological yield of each plot was measured by taking the weight of all

plant matter along with grains. Readings were taken by digital balance and then converted into

tonnes per hectare.

3.5.1.8. Grain yield (t/ha)

After sun drying of cobs and other grains for 15 days the cobs of each plot were shelled

mechanically with maize sheller while other grains were threshed accordingly. Grains per plot

were weighed by digital balance and then converted into tonnes per hectare.

3.6. Analysis of Data

Data obtained was analyzed for,

Partial budget analysis

a) Cost of production of various cropping systems.

b) Gross income

c) Net profit

d) Benefit cost ratio

3.6.1. Cost of production of various cropping systems

All the expenses occurred during the research was recorded and cost of production

involved in growing all those crops were calculated and summed up for all cropping systems.

3.6.2. Gross income

The economic part of all the crops were measured and sold at the prevailing market

rate. All the income was summed up to calculate the gross income.

3.6.3. Net profit

Gross benefits were calculated as

67

Net Benefits = Gross Income – Total Cost

3.6.4. Productivity System

Productivity system for each of the cropping system was calculated by using the

following formula:

Gross Income

PS = ------------------------------

Total Cost

3.6.5. Statistical Analysis

Data collected from different cropping systems were analyzed statistically by

employing the Fisher analysis of variance technique (Steel et al., 1997) and treatment means

were compared by using Least Significance Difference (LSD) test at 5% probability level.

68

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


providing chief/staple food for millions of people and affecting the livelihoods as well as health

of both urban and rural poor. Cropping system is a producer’s map of their approach to

production. Intensive cropping systems in irrigated areas of Punjab are cottonwheat, rice-wheat

and mixed-wheat cropping systems. The mixed cropping system seems like deficient in giving

its economic potential during Kharif season. A research work was planned to develop a

cropping system under agro-climatic conditions of Faisalabad where mixed cropping system

is being followed. The experiment was designed to study the relationship of six different pre-

assigned cropping systems. The details of the pre-assigned cropping systems are given below.


S2 Maize (sp) - Maize - Gram - Millet - Sarson

S3 Mungbean - Rice - Wheat - Cotton/ Sarson



S6 Sunflower - Mungbean - Barley - Cotton – Wheat

All the cropping systems were arranged in a randomized complete block design

(RCBD) with three replications. There were 18 plots in the experiment, each having size of 15

× 10 m. The experiment was initiated during February 2013 with the sowing of different pre-

assigned crops in the respective (randomized) plots. Analysis of soil was conducted before and

after the harvesting of each crop. All the agronomic parameters were observed during this study

and analyzed by statistics computer program. The differences among significant means will be

assessed by Least Significant Difference test at 5% probability level. The descriptions of results

are given below;

69

Table: 4.1 Growth and yield components of maize affected by various cropping systems

Cropping

Systems

Plant

height

(cm)

Stem

diamete

r (cm)

1000 grain

weight (g)

Grain

weight/cob

(g)

Cob length

(cm)

Grain yield

(t/ha)

S1 172.4 c 0.8 c 249.50 c 109.00 bc 12.00 4.9 bc

S2 178.8

b

0.9 b 260.00 b 112.50 b 12.75 5.00 b

S4 184.6 a 1.0 a 272.75 a 125.25 a 13.87 5.9 a

Significance * * * * NS *

* = Significant at p 0.05

NS = Non significant



S4 Mungbean - Rice - Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame - Wheat

70

4.1. Growth and yield components of maize affected by various cropping

systems

Table (4.1) showed detailed comparison of effects of different cropping systems on

growth and yield components of maize.

4.1.1. Plant height (cm)

Results regarding (Table-4.1) showed that cropping system had significant effect on

plant height of maize. It was observed that maximum plant height (184.6 cm) was noticed in

S4 (Mungbean – Rice Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame – Wheat) cropping system, followed

by S2 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Gram - Millet – Sarson) and minimum plant height (172.4cm) was

observed in S1 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Wheat - Rice – Wheat) cropping system. More plant

height in S4 (Mungbean – Rice Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame – Wheat) cropping system is

due to growing of maize after leguminous crops and rice. These (Mungbean – Rice Berseem

(GM) are restorative crops that improved the soil nutrient status and physical properties of soil.

That is why after these crops maize plant growth is improved. Singh et al., 2003 and Singh et

al., 2011 also reported the beneficial effect of including legumes and restorative crops in

sequence on soil health and yield of succeeding crop due to favorable effect of growing

legumes on soil health.

4.1.2. Stem diameter (cm)

It was observed that stem diameter of maize was significantly affected by different

cropping systems (Table-4.1). In S4 (Mungbean – Rice Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame –

Wheat) cropping system maximum stem diameter (1.0 cm) was observed and minimum stem

diameter (0.8 cm) was shown by S1 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Wheat - Rice – Wheat) cropping

system. More stem diameter in S4 (Mungbean – Rice Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame –

Wheat) cropping system is due to this cropping system included green manuring crop and

leguminous crops that promoted the soil health and fertility of soil. Due to this reason stem

diameter of maize is more in S4 (Mungbean – Rice Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame – Wheat).

These results can be correlated with work of Singh et al. (2011).

71

4.1.3. 1000 grain weight (g)

Results showed that cropping systems significantly affected the 1000 grain weight of

maize (Table-4.1). Data revealed more 1000 grain weight (272.75 g) was given by S4

(Mungbean - Rice Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame - Wheat) cropping system and minimum

was shown by S1 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Wheat - Rice - Wheat) cropping system. More 1000

grain weight in S4 (Mungbean - Rice Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame - Wheat) cropping

system is due to growing of maize after leguminous crops and rice. These (Mungbean - Rice

Berseem (GM) are restorative crops that improved the soil nutrient status and physical

properties of soil. That is why after these crops maize plant growth is improved.

Seth and Balyan (1985) reported that legume crop grown in summer had a significant effect on

yield and yield parameters of wheat. This increase was attributed to the fact that cowpea being

a legume, fix nitrogen, which was used by succeeding crop. The economic net return obtained

with cowpeas (fodder) - wheat, fallow - wheat and maize - wheat systems was Rs 3917, 2441,

and 3319 per hectare, respectively.

4.1.4. Grain weight/cob (g)


grain weight of maize. It was observed that maximum grain weight/ cob (125.25 g) was noticed

in S4 (Mungbean – Rice Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame – Wheat) cropping system, followed

by S2 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Gram - Millet – Sarson) and minimum grain weight/ cob was

observed in S1 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Wheat - Rice – Wheat) cropping system. More grain

weight/cob in S4 (Mungbean – Rice Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame – Wheat) cropping

system is due to this cropping system included green manuring crop and leguminous crops that

promoted the soil health and fertility of soil. Due to this reason grain weight/cob of maize is

more in S4 (Mungbean – Rice Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame – Wheat). These results are

similar with findings of Singh et al. (2003)

4.1.5. Cob length (cm)

It was observed that cob length of maize was non- significantly affected by different

cropping systems (Table-4.1). But in S4 (Mungbean – Rice Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame –

72

Wheat) cropping system maximum cob length was observed and minimum was shown by S1

(Maize (sp) - Maize - Wheat - Rice – Wheat) cropping system. Similar results were also

reported by Singh and Verma (1985).

4.1.6. Grain yield (t/ha)

Results showed that cropping systems significantly affected the grain yield of maize

(Table-4.1). Data revealed more grain yield (5.9 t/ha) was given by S4 (Mungbean – Rice

Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame – Wheat) cropping system and minimum (4.9 t/ha) was shown

by S1 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Wheat - Rice – Wheat) cropping system. More grain yield in S4

(Mungbean – Rice Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame – Wheat) cropping system is due to

growing of maize after leguminous crops and rice. These (Mungbean – Rice Berseem (GM)

are restorative crops that improved the soil nutrient status and physical properties of soil. That

is why after these crops maize plant yield is improved. Singh and Verma (1985) stated that

wheat yield was significantly higher after cowpeas, mash bean and mung bean than that

obtained after pigeon pea, fallow and pearl millet. 10.4, 13.1 and 13.8 percent with mung bean

augmented the productivity of wheat in a legume-based system, mash bean and cowpeas,

respectively over fallow. In a non-legume system, wheat yield decreased after pearl millet by

8% as compared to fallow. In a legume based system a net saving of residual nitrogen was

observed as 37.2 kg ha-1with mung bean 41.4 kg ha-1 with mash bean and 42.2 kg ha -1 with

cowpeas compared to after pearl millet The rotating payback of legume on following crop is

in line with the results as reported by Kuo & Jellum, (2002) and Shah et al., (2003). Likewise,

many researchers have testified that Nitrogen is an important factor in the rejoinder of cereals

succeeding legumes compared with cereals succeeding non-legumes (Evans et al., 1991; Chalk

et al., 1993; Smiley et al., 1994).

73

Table: 4.2 Growth and yield components of rice affected by various cropping systems

Cropping

Systems

Plant

height

(cm)

No. of

Tillers/Hill

1000 grain

weight (g)

No. of

panicles/hill

Paddy yield (t/ha)

S1 80 c 17 c 33 c 16 8.4

S3 82 b 19 b 35 b 17 8.5

S4 82.3 b 20 b 35.5 b 17 8.54

S5 85 a 23 a 38 a 18 8.6

Significance * * * NS NS





S4 Mungbean - Rice - Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame - Wheat S5

Sunflower - Mungbean - Wheat/ Jantar - Rice - Gram

4.2. Growth and yield components of rice affected by various cropping

systems

Effect of different cropping systems on growth and yield components of rice is

presented in Table-4.2

74



plant height of rice. It was observed that maximum plant height (85 cm) was noticed in S5

(Sunflower -Mungbean - Wheat/ Jantar - Rice – Gram) cropping system, followed by S4

(Mungbean – Rice Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame – Wheat), followed by S3 (Mungbean -

Rice - Wheat - Cotton/ Sarson) and minimum plant height (80 cm) was observed in S1 (Maize

(sp) - Maize - Wheat - Rice – Wheat) cropping system. S4 (Mungbean – Rice Berseem (GM)

- Maize - Sesame – Wheat) and S3 (Mungbean - Rice - Wheat - Cotton/ Sarson) are statistically

at par with each other for plant height. Less plant height in S1 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Wheat -

Rice – Wheat) cropping system is because in this cropping system rice is grown after maize

and wheat crops. These both crops are exhaustive crops. So rice grown after these crops gave

low plant height as compared to other cropping systems. It was observed that S5 (Sunflower -

Mungbean - Wheat/ Jantar - Rice – Gram) cropping system gave better plant height as

compared to other cropping system, reason is that in this cropping system rice was grown after

mungbean and green manuring crop (jantar). These crops are restorative crops and enhance the

soil fertility status of soil. So rice grown in this cropping system produced more plant height.

These results are in agreement with work of Akbar et al. (2000). They reported that leguminous

crops increased the nitrogen content of soil and enhanced vegetative growth of next sowing

crops.

4.2.2. No. of Tillers/Hill

It was observed that number of tillers/hill was significantly affected by different

cropping systems (Table-4.2). In S5 (Sunflower -Mungbean - Wheat/ Jantar - Rice – Gram)

cropping system maximum number of tillers/hill (23) were recorded, followed by S4

(Mungbean – Rice Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame – Wheat), followed by S3 (Mungbean -

Rice - Wheat - Cotton/ Sarson) and minimum (17) were observed in S1 (Maize (sp) - Maize -

Wheat - Rice – Wheat) cropping system. S4 (Mungbean – Rice Berseem (GM) - Maize -

Sesame – Wheat) and S3 (Mungbean - Rice - Wheat - Cotton/ Sarson) are non-significant to

each other for number of tillers/hill. Less number of tillers/hill in S1 (Maize (sp) - Maize -

75

Wheat - Rice – Wheat) cropping system is because in this cropping system rice is grown after

maize and wheat crops. These both crops are exhaustive crops. So rice grown after these crops

gave low number of tillers/hill as compared to other cropping systems. It was observed that S5

(Sunflower -Mungbean - Wheat/ Jantar - Rice – Gram) cropping system gave better plant

height as compared to other cropping system, reason is that in this cropping system rice was

grown after mungbean and green manuring crop (jantar). These crops are restorative crops and

enhance the soil fertility status of soil. So rice grown in this cropping system produced more

number of tillers/hill. Similar results were also observed by (Singh and Singh, 2000).


Results showed that cropping systems significantly affected the 1000 grain weight of

rice (Table-4.2). Data revealed more 1000 grain weight (38 g) was recorded in S5 (Sunflower

-Mungbean - Wheat/ Jantar - Rice – Gram) cropping system followed by S4 (Mungbean –

Rice Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame – Wheat), followed by S3 (Mungbean - Rice - Wheat -

Cotton/ Sarson) and minimum (33 g) was observed in S1 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Wheat - Rice -

Wheat) cropping system. S4 (Mungbean - Rice Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame - Wheat) and

S3 (Mungbean - Rice - Wheat - Cotton/ Sarson) are at par to each other for 1000 grain weight.

Less 1000 grain weight in S1 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Wheat - Rice – Wheat) cropping system is

because in this cropping system rice is grown after maize and wheat crops. These both crops

are exhaustive crops. So rice grown after these crops gave low 1000 grain weight as compared

to other cropping systems. It was observed that S5 (Sunflower -Mungbean - Wheat/ Jantar -

Rice - Gram) cropping system gave better 1000 grain weight as compared to other cropping

system, reason is that in this cropping system rice was grown after mungbean and green

manuring crop (jantar). These crops are restorative crops and enhance the soil fertility status

of soil. So rice grown in this cropping system produced more1000 grain weight. Our results

are in line with work of Chandra and Gautam, 1997. They reported the rice gave more 1000

grain weight when planted after leguminous crops.

76

4.2.4. No. of panicles/hill

Results regarding (Table-4.2) showed that cropping system had non-significant effect

on number of panicles per hill but S5 (Sunflower -Mungbean - Wheat/ Jantar - Rice – Gram)

cropping system produced maximum number of panicles, followed by S4 (Mungbean – Rice

Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame – Wheat), followed by S3 (Mungbean - Rice - Wheat -

Cotton/ Sarson) and minimum were observed in S1 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Wheat - Rice –

Wheat) cropping system. These results can be correlated with work of Chandra and Gautam

(1997).

4.2.5. Paddy yield (t/ha)

Results showed that cropping systems had no-significant effect on paddy yield of rice

(Table-4.2) but maximum paddy yield was recorded in S5 (Sunflower -Mungbean - Wheat/

Jantar - Rice – Gram) cropping, followed by S4 (Mungbean – Rice Berseem (GM) - Maize -

Sesame – Wheat), followed by S3 (Mungbean - Rice - Wheat - Cotton/ Sarson) and minimum

was observed in S1 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Wheat - Rice – Wheat) cropping system. More plant

height in S4 (Mungbean – Rice Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame – Wheat) cropping system is

due to this cropping system contains more restorative crops that improved the soil nutrient

status and physical properties of soil. That is why after these crops wheat plant height is

improved. Our results are in line with work of Chandra and Gautam, 1997. They reported the

rice gave more yield when planted after leguminous crops.

77

Table: 4.3 Growth and yield components of wheat affected by various cropping systems

Cropping

Systems

Plant

height

(cm)

No. of

tillers/m2

1000

grain

weight

(g)

No. of

spikes/m2

Biological

Yield

(t/ha)

Grain yield (t/ha)

S1 80 c 278 bc 43 c 264 b 9.4 d 3.3 b

S3 82b 280 b 45 b 265 b 9.5 c 3.4 b

S4 87 a 290 a 47 a 275 a 9.7 a 3.5 a

S5 82b 281 b 43 c 266 b 9.65 b 3.33 b

S6 79 c 277 bc 41 d 263 b 9.35 d 3.0 c

Significance * * * * *

*








78

4.3. Growth and yield components of wheat affected by various cropping

systems

Effect of different cropping systems on growth and yield components of wheat is




plant height of wheat. It was observed that maximum plant height (87 cm) was shown by S4

(Mungbean – Rice Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame – Wheat) cropping system while minimum

(79 cm) was observed in S6 (Sunflower - Mungbean - Barley - Cotton – Wheat) cropping

system. S5 (Sunflower -Mungbean - Wheat/ Jantar - Rice – Gram) and S3 (Mungbean - Rice -

Wheat - Cotton/ Sarson) cropping system are at par to each other for plant height and also S1

(Maize (sp) - Maize - Wheat - Rice – Wheat) cropping system is statistically at with S6

(Sunflower - Mungbean - Barley - Cotton – Wheat) cropping system for plant height. Minimum

plant height in S1 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Wheat - Rice – Wheat) cropping system is due this

cropping system mostly contains exhaustive crops that reduces the soil fertility and ultimately

plant height of wheat. Similar results were observed by Akbar et al. (2000). They reported that

inclusion of leguminous crops in cropping system increased the nitrogen content of soil and

ultimately improved the growth and growth parameters of plant. While inclusion of exhaustive

crops reduced the nitrogen and organic matter content of soil and ultimately decreased the

growth and growth components of plants.

4.3.2. No. of tillers/m2

Data presented in (Table-4.3) revealed that different cropping systems showed different

response for number of tillers/m2 of wheat. Results showed that highest number of tillers (290)

was given by S4 (Mungbean – Rice Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame – Wheat) cropping system

while lowest (277) was observed in S6 (Sunflower - Mungbean - Barley - Cotton – Wheat)

cropping system. Cropping system S5 (Sunflower -Mungbean - Wheat/ Jantar - Rice – Gram)

and S3 (Mungbean - Rice - Wheat - Cotton/ Sarson) are at par to each other for number of

79

tillers/m2 and similarly, S1 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Wheat - Rice – Wheat) cropping system is

statistically non significant with S6 (Sunflower - Mungbean - Barley - Cotton – Wheat). Low

number of tillers/m2 in S1 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Wheat - Rice – Wheat) cropping system is due

this cropping system has exhaustive crops that reduces the soil fertility and nutrient status of

soil and ultimately number of tillers/m2 of wheat. Similar results were reported by Raundal and

Sabale (2000).


Results of (Table-4.3) predicted that different cropping system had different effect on

1000 grain weight of wheat. It was observed that S4 (Mungbean – Rice Berseem (GM) - Maize

- Sesame – Wheat) cropping system showed maximum 1000 grain weight of wheat while S6

(Sunflower - Mungbean - Barley - Cotton – Wheat) cropping system revealed minimum 1000

grain weight. S3 (Mungbean - Rice - Wheat - Cotton/ Sarson) and S5 (Sunflower -Mungbean -

Wheat/ Jantar - Rice – Gram) cropping system are statistically at par to each other for 1000

grain weight of wheat and also S1 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Wheat - Rice – Wheat) cropping system

is statistically at par with S6 (Sunflower - Mungbean - Barley - Cotton – Wheat) cropping

system for1000 grain weight of wheat. In S1 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Wheat - Rice – Wheat)

cropping system minimum 1000 grain weight is due to this cropping system mostly involves

exhaustive crops that decreased the nutrient status of soil and soil fertility and as a results

reduced the 1000 grain weight of wheat. All legumes, except soybean significantly enhanced

the dry matter production of wheat as compared to preceding nonlegume crops. Wheat grain

yield/1000 grain weight was also significantly higher following legume based cropping

systems than non-legumes systems (Saeed et al., 1989)

4.3.4. No. of spikes/m2

Results regarding (Table-4.3) showed that maximum number of spikes/m2 wheat of

wheat was observed in S4 (Mungbean – Rice Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame – Wheat)

cropping system while minimum were in S6 (Sunflower - Mungbean - Barley - Cotton – Wheat)

cropping system. S5 (Sunflower -Mungbean - Wheat/ Jantar - Rice – Gram) and S3 (Mungbean

- Rice - Wheat - Cotton/ Sarson) cropping system are at par to each other for number of

spikes/m2 wheat and also S1 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Wheat - Rice – Wheat) cropping system is

80

statistically at par with S6 (Sunflower - Mungbean - Barley - Cotton – Wheat) cropping system

for number of spikes/m2 wheat. The results of Hossain et al. (1996) strongly support these

results.

4.3.5. Biological Yield (t/ha)

It was observed that cropping system significantly affected biological yield of wheat.

Results showed that S4 (Mungbean – Rice Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame – Wheat) cropping

system produced maximum biological yield of wheat while minimum was noticed in S6

(Sunflower - Mungbean - Barley - Cotton – Wheat) cropping system. Effect of S5 (Sunflower

-Mungbean - Wheat/ Jantar - Rice – Gram) and S3 (Mungbean - Rice - Wheat -

Cotton/ Sarson) cropping system was non-significant to each other and also S1 (Maize (sp) -

Maize - Wheat - Rice – Wheat) cropping system is statistically at par with S6 (Sunflower -

Mungbean - Barley - Cotton – Wheat) cropping system for biological yield of wheat. Minimum

biological yield of wheat in S1 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Wheat - Rice – Wheat) cropping system

is due this cropping system mostly contains exhaustive crops that reduces the soil fertility and

ultimately biological yield of wheat of wheat. Seth and Balyan (1985) reported that legume

crop grown in summer had a significant effect on grain yield of wheat. Their two years

indicated that wheat yield of 50.5 Quintal ha-1was obtained when it was sown after cowpeas

(fodder) compared to 39.49 quintal ha-1 after fallow and 41.8 quintal ha1after maize. This

increase was attributed to the fact that cowpea being a legume, fix nitrogen, which was used

by succeeding crop. The economic net return obtained with cowpeas (fodder) - wheat, fallow

- wheat and maize - wheat systems was Rs 3917, 2441, and 3319 per hectare, respectively.


Results regarding (Table-4.3) showed that cropping system had significant effect on grain yield

of wheat. It was observed that maximum grain yield of wheat was shown by S4 (Mungbean –

Rice Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame – Wheat) cropping system while minimum was

observed in S6 (Sunflower - Mungbean - Barley - Cotton – Wheat) cropping system. S5

(Sunflower -Mungbean - Wheat/ Jantar - Rice – Gram) and S3 (Mungbean - Rice - Wheat -

Cotton/ Sarson) cropping system are at par to each other for grain yield of wheat and also S1

(Maize (sp) - Maize - Wheat - Rice – Wheat) cropping system is statistically at par with S6

81

(Sunflower - Mungbean - Barley - Cotton – Wheat) cropping system for grain yield of wheat.

Minimum grain yield of wheat in S1 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Wheat - Rice – Wheat) cropping

system is due this cropping system mostly contains exhaustive crops that reduces the soil

fertility and ultimately grain yield of wheat. Reynolds et al. (1994) conducted an experiment

by using legume crops for the fixation of nitrogen in those soils where wheat or barley were to

be sown. The leguminous crop was sown between the rows of wheat or barley. The results

showed that there was no decrease in the yields of the main crops where legumes were grown

as compared to control conditions. Grain yields obtained were 1.4 t ha-1 whereas nearly

additional two times more biomass was obtained from the legumes. They reported that during

the experiment when different legumes were used to find out the adaptableness of the cropping

system to the changing needs of the farmers, legumes yielded dry biomass as much as 6.5 t ha-

1 when they harvested fodder crop of hairy vetch having yield of dry beans 1.4 t ha -1 and an

additional 3.5 t ha-1 of biomass in case of Vicia faba. In addition to this more nitrogen was

fixed when legume crops were inter-cropped and levels of leaf nitrogen were 3.8% which were

significantly more than when wheat crop was sown alone. Singh and Verma (1985) also

reported that when the cropping system included mung bean, mash bean and cowpeas the yield

of successive grain crop wheat was significantly increased by 13.8, 13.1 and 10.4%

respectively than that of wheat grown after other crops like pearl millet, fallow or pigeon pea.

Thus the productivity of the crop wheat increased after legume-based cropping system. In other

systems which were not legume based wheat production was significantly reduced by 8% when

planted after pearl millet as compared to the crop sown after fallow. Whereas in the cropping

system where legumes were used there was significant saving of nitrogen in the form of

residues. Mash bean gave 41.4 kg ha-1, mash bean resulted in 42.4 kg ha-1 residual nitrogen

while mung bean resulted in 37.2 kg ha-1 nitrogen in the form of residues.

82

Table: 4.4 Growth and yield components of mungbean affected by various cropping

systems

Cropping

Systems

Plant

height

(cm)

No. of

pods/plant

1000

grain

weight

(g)

Biological yield

(t/ha)

Grain yield (t/ha)

S3 70 60 46b 3.1 b 1.1 b

S4 71 63 48a 3.3 a 1.2 a

S5 69 62 46b 3.08 c 1.14 b

S6 68 59 43c 3.08 c 1.08 bc

Significance NS NS * * *







83

4.4. Growth and yield components of mungbean affected by various

cropping systems

Effect of different cropping systems on growth and yield components of mungbean is

presented in Table-4.4.


Results regarding (Table-4.4) showed that cropping system had non- significant effect

on plant height of mungbean. But maximum plant height (71 cm) was shown by S4 (Mungbean

– Rice Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame – Wheat) cropping system followed by

S3 (Mungbean - Rice - Wheat - Cotton/ Sarson), followed by S5 (Sunflower -Mungbean -

Wheat/ Jantar - Rice – Gram) while minimum (68 cm) was observed in S6 (Sunflower -

Mungbean - Barley - Cotton – Wheat) cropping system. Minimum plant height in S6 (Maize

(sp) - Maize - Wheat - Rice – Wheat) cropping system is due this cropping system mostly

contains exhaustive crops that reduces the soil fertility and ultimately plant height of wheat.

Plant height similarity was due to uniform agronomic practices and same preceding sunflower

crop in S5 (Sunflower -Mungbean - Wheat/ Jantar - Rice – Gram) and S6 (Sunflower -

Mungbean - Barley - Cotton – Wheat) cropping system and first mung bean crop in S4

(Mungbean – Rice Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame – Wheat) and S3 (Mungbean - Rice -

Wheat - Cotton/ Sarson) cropping system. These results are in agreement with work of Akbar

et al. (2000). They reported that leguminous crops increased the nitrogen content of soil and

enhanced vegetative growth of next sowing crops.

4.4.2. No. of pods/plant

Results related to number of pods/plant (Table-4.4) revealed that cropping system had

non- significant behavior on number of pods/plant of mungbean. However, maximum number

of pods/plant were produced by S4 (Mungbean – Rice Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame –

Wheat) cropping system followed by S3 (Mungbean - Rice - Wheat - Cotton/ Sarson), followed

by S5 (Sunflower -Mungbean - Wheat/ Jantar - Rice – Gram) while lowest number of

pods/plant were observed in S6 (Sunflower - Mungbean - Barley - Cotton – Wheat) cropping

84

system. Lowest number of pods/plant in S6 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Wheat - Rice – Wheat)

cropping system is due this cropping system involves exhaustive crops that reduces the soil

fertility and ultimately number of pods/plant of mung bean. Number of pods/plant similarity

was due to uniform agronomic practices and same preceding sunflower crop in S5 (Sunflower

-Mungbean - Wheat/ Jantar - Rice - Gram) and S6 (Sunflower - Mungbean - Barley - Cotton -

Wheat) cropping system and first mung bean crop in S4

(Mungbean – Rice Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame - Wheat) and S3 (Mungbean - Rice - Wheat

- Cotton/ Sarson) cropping system. Similar results were observed by Akbar et al. (2000). They

reported that inclusion of leguminous crops in cropping system increased the nitrogen content

of soil and ultimately improved the growth and growth parameters of plant. While inclusion of

exhaustive crops reduced the nitrogen and organic matter content of soil and ultimately

decreased the growth and growth components of plants.



1000 grain weight of mungbean. Maximum 1000 grain weight was shown by S4 (Mungbean –

Rice Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame – Wheat) cropping system followed by S3

(Mungbean - Rice - Wheat - Cotton/ Sarson), followed by S5 (Sunflower -Mungbean -

Wheat/ Jantar - Rice – Gram) while minimum was observed in S6 (Sunflower - Mungbean -

Barley - Cotton – Wheat) cropping system. Minimum 1000 grain weight in S6 (Maize (sp) -

Maize - Wheat - Rice – Wheat) cropping system is due this cropping system mostly contains

exhaustive crops that reduces the soil fertility and ultimately 1000 grain weight of mung bean.

All legumes, except soybean significantly enhanced the dry matter production of wheat as

compared to preceding non-legume crops. Wheat grain yield/1000 grain weight was also

significantly higher following legume based cropping systems than non-legumes systems

(Saeed et al., 1989)

4.4.4. Biological yield (t/ha)

It was observed that biological yield of mung bean was significantly affected by

cropping systems (Table-4.4). S4 (Mungbean - Rice Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame - Wheat)

cropping system produced maximum biological yield followed by S3 (Mungbean - Rice -

85

Wheat - Cotton/ Sarson), followed by S5 (Sunflower -Mungbean - Wheat/ Jantar - Rice – Gram)

while S6 (Sunflower - Mungbean - Barley - Cotton - Wheat) cropping system showed minimum

biological yield. In S6 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Wheat - Rice - Wheat) cropping system minimum

biological yield is due to this cropping system mostly contains less restorative crops and more

exhaustive crops that declined the soil fertility and ultimately biological yield of mung bean.

Seth and Balyan (1985) reported that legume crop grown in summer had a significant effect on

yield and yield parameters of wheat. This increase was attributed to the fact that cowpea being

a legume, fix nitrogen, which was used by succeeding crop. The economic net return obtained

with cowpeas (fodder) - wheat, fallow - wheat and maize - wheat systems was Rs 3917, 2441,

and 3319 per hectare, respectively.


Results regarding grain yield of mungbean (Table-4.4) showed that maximum grain

yield was observed in S4 (Mungbean - Rice Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame - Wheat) cropping

system followed by S3 (Mungbean - Rice - Wheat - Cotton/ Sarson), followed by S5 (Sunflower

-Mungbean - Wheat/ Jantar - Rice - Gram) while minimum was observed in S6 (Sunflower -

Mungbean - Barley - Cotton - Wheat) cropping system. Minimum grain yield in S6 (Maize (sp)

- Maize - Wheat - Rice - Wheat) cropping system is due to this cropping system mostly contains

exhaustive crops that reduces the soil fertility and ultimately grain yield of mung bean. Singh

and Verma (1985) stated that wheat yield was significantly higher after cowpeas, mash bean

and mung bean than that obtained after pigeon pea, fallow and pearl millet. 10.4, 13.1 and 13.8

percent with mung bean augmented the productivity of wheat in a legume-based system, mash

bean and cowpeas, respectively over fallow. In a nonlegume system, wheat yield decreased

after pearl millet by 8% as compared to fallow. In a legume based system a net saving of

residual nitrogen was observed as 37.2 kg ha-1with mung bean 41.4 kg ha-1 with mash bean

and 42.2 kg ha-1 with cowpeas compared to after pearl millet.

86

Table: 4.5 Growth and yield components of gram affected by various cropping systems

Cropping

Systems

Plant

height

(cm)

100 grain

weight (g)

Number of

grains/plant

Grain yield t/ha)

S2 65 b 26 b 85 b 1.8 b

S5 71 a 28 a 91 a 1.9 a

Significance * * * *





87

4.5. Growth and yield components of gram affected by various cropping

systems

Effect of different cropping systems on growth and yield components of gram is

presented in Table-4.5.

4.5.1. Plant Height (cm)

Data of (Table-4.5) showed that cropping system significantly affected the plant height

of gram. Results showed that maximum plant height (71 cm) was observed in S5 (Sunflower -

Mungbean - Wheat/ Jantar - Rice - Gram) while minimum plant height (65 cm) was observed

in S2 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Gram - Millet - Sarson) cropping system. Maximum plant height

in S5 (Sunflower -Mungbean - Wheat/ Jantar - Rice - Gram) is due to, in this cropping system,

gram was grown after green manuring and rice crop. These crops are restorative crops and

enhance nutrient status of soil and stimulate the plant growth promoting bacteria in soil that

enhance plant growth through different direct and indirect mechanisms. Minimum plant height

in S2 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Gram - Millet - Sarson) cropping system is because in this cropping

system gram was grown after maize crops. This maize crop is exhaustive crop and reduced the

fertility status of soil and ultimately decreased plant height of the next crop. Similar results

were observed by Akbar et al. (2000). They reported that inclusion of leguminous crops in

cropping system increased the nitrogen content of soil and ultimately improved the growth and

growth parameters of plant. While inclusion of exhaustive crops reduced the nitrogen and

organic matter content of soil and ultimately decreased the growth and growth components of

plants.


It was observed that cropping system had significant effect on 100 grain weight of

gram (Table-4.5). Maximum 100 grain weight was shown by S5 (Sunflower -Mungbean -

Wheat/ Jantar - Rice - Gram) while minimum was observed in S2 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Gram

- Millet - Sarson) cropping system. Maximum 100 grain weight in S5 (Sunflower -Mungbean

- Wheat/ Jantar - Rice - Gram) is due to, in this cropping system, after green manuring and rice

88

crop, gram was grown. Green manuring and rice crop enhance nutrient status of soil and

stimulate the plant growth promoting bacteria in soil that enhance plant growth through

different direct and indirect mechanisms. Minimum 100 grain weight in S2 (Maize (sp) - Maize

- Gram - Millet - Sarson) cropping system is because in this cropping system gram was grown

after maize crops. This maize crop reduced the fertility status of soil and ultimately affected

the next crop growth and yield. Wheat grain yield/1000 grain weight was also significantly

higher following legume based cropping systems than non-legumes systems (Saeed et al.,

1989) 4.5.3. Number of grains/plant

Results regarding (Table-4.5) showed that maximum number of grains/plant were

produced by S5 (Sunflower -Mungbean - Wheat/ Jantar - Rice - Gram) while minimum in S2

(Maize (sp) - Maize - Gram - Millet - Sarson) cropping system. Maximum number of

grains/plant in S5 (Sunflower -Mungbean - Wheat/ Jantar - Rice - Gram) is due to, in this

cropping system, gram was grown after green manuring and rice crop. As green manuring and

rice crops are restorative crops. These crops enhance nutrient status of soil and promoted the

plant growth promoting bacteria in soil that improved the plant growth through siderophores

production, nutrient solubilization and phytohormones production. In S2 (Maize (sp) - Maize -

Gram - Millet - Sarson) cropping system minimum number of grains/plant is because in this

cropping system, maize crop was grown before gram crop sowing. This crop is exhaustive crop

and declined the fertility status of soil and ultimately affected the next crop. Wheat grain

yield/1000 grain weight was also significantly higher following legume based cropping

systems than non-legumes systems (Saeed et al., 1989).


Results regarding (Table-4.5) showed that cropping system had significant effect on grain yield

of gram. Maximum grain yield was shown by S5 (Sunflower -Mungbean - Wheat/ Jantar - Rice

- Gram) while minimum was observed in S2 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Gram -

Millet - Sarson) cropping system. Maximum grain yield in S5 (Sunflower -Mungbean - Wheat/

Jantar - Rice - Gram) is due to in this cropping system gram was grown after green manuring

and rice crop. These crops are restorative crops and enhance nutrient status of soil and stimulate

the plant growth promoting bacteria in soil that enhance plant growth through different direct

89

and indirect mechanisms. Minimum grain yield in S2 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Gram - Millet -

Sarson) cropping system is because in this cropping system gram was grown after maize crops.

This maize crop is exhaustive crop and reduced the fertility status of soil and ultimately

affected the next crop. Reynolds et al. (1994) conducted an experiment by using legume crops

for the fixation of nitrogen in those soils where wheat or barley were to be sown. The

leguminous crop was sown between the rows of wheat or barley. The results showed that there

was no decrease in the yields of the main crops where legumes were grown as compared to

control conditions. Grain yields obtained were 1.4 t ha-1 whereas nearly additional two times

more biomass was obtained from the legumes. They reported that during the experiment when

different legumes were used to find out the adaptableness of the cropping system to the

changing needs of the farmers, legumes yielded dry biomass as much as 6.5 t ha-1 when they

harvested fodder crop of hairy vetch having yield of dry beans 1.4 t ha-1 and an additional 3.5

t ha-1 of biomass in case of Vicia faba. In addition to this more nitrogen was fixed when legume

crops were inter-cropped and levels of leaf nitrogen were

3.8% which were significantly more than when wheat crop was sown alone.

90

Table: 4.6 Growth and yield components of cotton affected by various cropping systems

Cropping

Systems

Plant

height

(cm)

Number of

branches/plant

Number of

bolls/plant

Cotton

seed yield

(t/ha)

Seed cotton

yield (t/ha)

Lint

yield

(t/ha)

S3

119 a 14 a 20 a 1.10 a 1.80 a 0.87 a

S6

112 b 11 b 16 b 0.83 b 1.2 b 0.65 b

Significance

* * * * *

*





91

4.6. Growth and yield components of cotton affected by various cropping

systems

Effect of different cropping systems on growth and yield components of cotton is presented

in Table-4.6.


Plant height of cotton showed that cropping system had significant effect on plant

height of cotton (Table-4.6). S3 (Mungbean - Rice - Wheat - Cotton/ Sarson) showed maximum

plant height (119 cm) and in S6 (Sunflower - Mungbean - Barley - Cotton - Wheat) cropping

system minimum plant height was observed. Maximum plant height in S3 (Mungbean - Rice -

Wheat - Cotton/ Sarson) is due to this cropping system included two restorative crops before

cotton crops while minimum plant height in S6 (Sunflower - Mungbean - Barley - Cotton -

Wheat) cropping system is due to two exhaustive crops were sown before cotton sowing.

Similar results were observed by Akbar et al. (2000). They reported that inclusion of

leguminous crops in cropping system increased the nitrogen content of soil and ultimately

improved the growth and growth parameters of plant. While inclusion of exhaustive crops

reduced the nitrogen and organic matter content of soil and ultimately decreased the growth

and growth components of plants.

4.6.2. Number of branches/plant

Data (Table-4.6) showed that cropping system significantly affected the number of

branches/plant of cotton. Results showed that maximum number of branches/plant were shown

by S3 (Mungbean - Rice - Wheat - Cotton/ Sarson) and minimum was observed in S6

(Sunflower - Mungbean - Barley - Cotton - Wheat) cropping system. More number of

branches/plant in S3 (Mungbean - Rice - Wheat - Cotton/ Sarson) as compared to other

cropping system is due to this cropping system included two restorative crops such as

mungbean and rice before cotton crops sown while minimum number of branches/plant in S6

(Sunflower - Mungbean - Barley - Cotton - Wheat) cropping system is due to two exhaustive

crops were sown before cotton sowing. Yadav et al. (1993) also reported similar results.

92

4.6.3. Number of bolls/plant

Results (Table-4.6) revealed that maximum number of bolls /plant were observed in S3

(Mungbean - Rice - Wheat - Cotton/ Sarson) and minimum were observed in S6 (Sunflower -

Mungbean - Barley - Cotton - Wheat) cropping system. Maximum number of bolls /plant in S3

(Mungbean - Rice - Wheat - Cotton/ Sarson) is due to this cropping system included two

restorative crops before cotton crops sown while minimum number of bolls /plant in S6

(Sunflower - Mungbean - Barley - Cotton - Wheat) cropping system is due to two exhaustive

crops were sown before cotton sowing. These results can be correlated with work of Yadav et

al. (1993).

4.6.4. Cotton seed yield (t/ha)

Cotton seed yield is important parameter for cotton crops. Data (Table-4.6) showed that

cropping system showed different response against cotton seed yield of cotton. However, more

cotton seed yield was shown by S3 (Mungbean - Rice - Wheat - Cotton/ Sarson) as compared

to other cropping system. Maximum cotton seed yield in S3 (Mungbean - Rice - Wheat -

Cotton/ Sarson) is due to this cropping system included two restorative crops before cotton

crops sown while minimum cotton seed yield in S6 (Sunflower - Mungbean - Barley - Cotton

- Wheat) cropping system is due to two exhaustive crops were sown before cotton sowing.

These findings are similar with work of Babu et al. (1996).

4.6.5. Seed cotton yield (t/ha)


seed cotton yield of cotton. Maximum seed cotton yield was shown by S3 (Mungbean - Rice -

Wheat - Cotton/ Sarson) and minimum was observed in S6 (Sunflower - Mungbean - Barley -

Cotton - Wheat) cropping system. Maximum seed cotton yield in S3 (Mungbean - Rice - Wheat

- Cotton/ Sarson) is due to this cropping system included two restorative crops before cotton

crops while minimum seed cotton yield in S6 (Sunflower - Mungbean - Barley - Cotton -

Wheat) cropping system is due to two exhaustive crops were sown before cotton sowing. These

findings are similar with work of Babu et al. (1996).

93

4.6.6. Lint yield (t/ha)

It was observed that maximum lint yield was shown by S3 (Mungbean - Rice - Wheat

- Cotton/ Sarson) and minimum was observed in S6 (Sunflower - Mungbean - Barley - Cotton

- Wheat) cropping system (Table-4.6). In S3 (Mungbean - Rice - Wheat - Cotton/ Sarson)

Maximum lint yield is due to this cropping system involved two restorative crops before cotton

crops sown while minimum lint yield in S6 (Sunflower - Mungbean - Barley - Cotton - Wheat)

cropping system is due to two exhaustive crops were sown before cotton sowing.

These findings are similar with work of Babu et al. (1996).

94

Table: 4.7 Growth and yield components of sarson affected by various cropping systems

Cropping

Systems

Plant height (cm) Seed yield (kg/ha) Biological yield (kg/ha)

S2

101 2890

8000

S3

103 2900

8020

Significance

NS NS

NS





95

4.7. Growth and yield components of sarson affected by various cropping

systems

Effect of different cropping systems on growth and yield components of cotton is



Data presented in (Table-4.7) showed that cropping system had non-significant effect

on plant height of sarson but maximum plant height (103 cm) was shown by S3 (Mungbean -

Rice - Wheat - Cotton/ Sarson) and minimum was observed in S2 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Gram

- Millet - Sarson) cropping system. Maximum plant height in S3 (Mungbean - Rice - Wheat -

Cotton/ Sarson) is due to this cropping system included two restorative crops before sarson

crops while minimum plant height in S2 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Gram - Millet - Sarson) cropping

system is due to two exhaustive crops were sown before sarson sowing. Similar results were

observed by Akbar et al. (2000). They reported that inclusion of leguminous crops in cropping

system increased the nitrogen content of soil and ultimately improved the growth and growth

parameters of plant. While inclusion of exhaustive crops reduced the nitrogen and organic

matter content of soil and ultimately decreased the growth and growth components of plants.

4.7.2. Seed yield (kg/ha)


on seed yield of sarson but maximum seed yield was shown by S3 (Mungbean - Rice - Wheat

- Cotton/ Sarson) and minimum was observed in S2 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Gram - Millet -

Sarson) cropping system. Maximum seed yield in S3 (Mungbean - Rice - Wheat - Cotton/

Sarson) is due to this cropping system included two restorative crops before cotton crops while

minimum seed yield in S2 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Gram - Millet - Sarson) cropping system is

due to two exhaustive crops were sown before sarson sowing. Seth and Balyan (1985) reported

that legume crop grown in summer had a significant effect on yield and yield parameters of

wheat. This increase was attributed to the fact that cowpea being a legume, fix nitrogen, which

was used by succeeding crop. The economic net return obtained with cowpeas (fodder) - wheat,

96

fallow - wheat and maize - wheat systems was Rs 3917, 2441, and 3319 per hectare,

respectively.

4.7.3. Biological yield (kg/ha)

Results regarding (Table-4.7) showed that cropping system had non-significant effect on

biological yield of sarson but maximum seed yield was shown by S3 (Mungbean - Rice - Wheat

- Cotton/ Sarson) and minimum was observed in S2 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Gram - Millet -

Sarson) cropping system. Maximum biological yield in S3 (Mungbean - Rice - Wheat - Cotton/

Sarson) is due to this cropping system included two restorative crops before cotton crops while

minimum biological yield in S2 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Gram - Millet - Sarson) cropping system

is due to two exhaustive crops were sown before sarson sowing. Reynolds et al. (1994)

conducted an experiment by using legume crops for the fixation of nitrogen in those soils where

wheat or barley were to be sown. The leguminous crop was sown between the rows of wheat

or barley. The results showed that there was no decrease in the yields of the main crops where

legumes were grown as compared to control conditions. Grain yields obtained were 1.4 t ha -1

whereas nearly additional two times more biomass was obtained from the legumes. They

reported that during the experiment when different legumes were used to find out the

adaptableness of the cropping system to the changing needs of the farmers, legumes yielded

dry biomass as much as 6.5 t ha-1 when they harvested fodder crop of hairy vetch having yield

of dry beans 1.4 t ha-1 and an additional 3.5 t ha-1 of biomass in case of Vicia faba. In addition

to this more nitrogen was fixed when legume crops were intercropped and levels of leaf

nitrogen were 3.8% which were significantly more than when wheat crop was sown alone.

97

Table: 4.8 Growth and yield components of sunflower affected by various cropping

systems

Cropping

Systems

Plant height

(cm)

1000 grain weight (g) Grain yield (g/plant)

S5 120 48 27

S6

118

47 26

Significance NS NS NS




98

4.8. Growth and yield components of sunflower affected by various

cropping systems

Effect of different cropping systems on growth and yield components of sunflower is




on plant height of sunflower but maximum plant height shown by S5 (Sunflower - Mungbean

- Wheat/ Jantar - Rice - Gram) and minimum was observed in S6 (Sunflower - Mungbean -

Barley - Cotton - Wheat) cropping system. Similarity between both cropping system is due to

in both cropping system sunflower was grown as a first crop. Similar results were observed by

Akbar et al. (2000). They reported that inclusion of leguminous crops in cropping system

increased the nitrogen content of soil and ultimately improved the growth and growth

parameters of plant. While inclusion of exhaustive crops reduced the nitrogen and organic

matter content of soil and ultimately decreased the growth and growth components of plants.



on 1000 grain weight of sunflower but maximum 1000 grain weight shown by S5 (Sunflower

- Mungbean - Wheat/ Jantar - Rice - Gram) and minimum was observed in S6 (Sunflower -

Mungbean - Barley - Cotton - Wheat) cropping system. Similarity between both cropping

systems is due to in both cropping system sunflower was grown as a first crop. Seth and Balyan

(1985) reported that legume crop grown in summer had a significant effect on yield and yield

parameters of wheat. This increase was attributed to the fact that cowpea being a legume, fix

nitrogen, which was used by succeeding crop. The economic net return obtained with cowpeas

(fodder) - wheat, fallow - wheat and maize - wheat systems was Rs 3917, 2441, and 3319 per

hectare, respectively.

99

4.8.3. Grain yield (g/plant)

Results regarding (Table-4.8) showed that cropping system had non-significant effect on grain

yield of sunflower but maximum grain yield shown by S5 (Sunflower - Mungbean - Wheat/

Jantar - Rice - Gram) and minimum was observed in S6 (Sunflower - Mungbean - Barley -

Cotton - Wheat) cropping system. Similarity between both cropping systems is due to in both

cropping system sunflower was grown as a first crop. Reynolds et al. (1994) conducted an

experiment by using legume crops for the fixation of nitrogen in those soils where wheat or

barley were to be sown. The leguminous crop was sown between the rows of wheat or barley.

The results showed that there was no decrease in the yields of the main crops where legumes

were grown as compared to control conditions. Grain yields obtained were 1.4 t ha -1 whereas

nearly additional two times more biomass was obtained from the legumes. They reported that

during the experiment when different legumes were used to find out the adaptableness of the

cropping system to the changing needs of the farmers, legumes yielded dry biomass as much

as 6.5 t ha-1 when they harvested fodder crop of hairy vetch having yield of dry beans 1.4 t ha -

1 and an additional 3.5 t ha-1 of biomass in case of Vicia faba. In addition to this more nitrogen

was fixed when legume crops were inter-cropped and levels of leaf nitrogen were 3.8% which

were significantly more than when wheat crop was sown alone.

Table:

100

4.9 Soil nitrogen status as affected by different cropping systems

System

Code

Cropping System Nitrogen content (mg/kg)

Before

planting

After Planting

S1 Maize (sp) - Maize - Wheat - Rice – Wheat 620 625-628-633-650-635

S2 Maize (sp) - Maize - Gram - Millet – Sarson 620 630-632-655-635-633

S3 Mungbean - Rice - Wheat - Cotton/ Sarson 620 656-663-640-643-642

S4 Mungbean - Rice – Berseem (GM) - Maize -

Sesame – Wheat

620 652-666-670-638-648-

634

S5 Sunflower - Mungbean - Wheat/ Jantar - Rice

– Gram

620 625-654-636-666-656-

670

S6 Sunflower - Mungbean - Barley - Cotton –

Wheat

620 623-656-640-638-637

4.9. Soil nitrogen status as affected by different cropping systems

Data regarding (Table-4.9) showed all cropping systems S1 (Maize (sp) -

Wheat - Rice – Wheat), S2 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Gram - Millet – Sarson), S3 (Mungbean

Rice - Wheat - Cotton/ Sarson), S4 ( Mungbean - Rice – Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame –

Maize -

-

101

Wheat), S5 (Sunflower - Mungbean - Wheat/ Jantar - Rice – Gram) and S6 (Sunflower

Mungbean - Barley - Cotton – Wheat) showed variation in soil nitrogen content after

harvesting the each crops. It is clear from the data nitrogen content was increased after

harvesting the leguminous, green manuring and other restorative crops while nitrogen content

reduced after exhaustive crops like maize, sunflower, sarson and wheat. It was observed that

over all more nitrogen content was observed in S4 (Mungbean - Rice – Berseem (GM) - Maize

- Sesame – Wheat) cropping system while minimum was observed in S1 (Maize (sp) -

Maize - Wheat - Rice – Wheat) cropping system. More nitrogen in S4 (Mungbean - Rice –

Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame – Wheat) cropping system is due to this cropping system

included the mostly restorative crops that enhance the fertility status of soil and stimulate the

plant growth promoting bacteria, nitrogen fixing bacteria and nutrient solubilizing bacteria in

soil that ultimately improved the nutrient content in soil. Kanwarkamla (2000) found that

farming of legume crops was observed more as a soil fertility enhancer than as individual crops

grown for their grain yield. This is due to the reason that legume crops are self-reliant in N

supply. Singh et al. (1997) testified that multiple cropping systems with legume crops offer

special benefit to farmer. Parallel results have also been conveyed by Saroch et al. (2005). At

the start of experiment the nitrogen level in all the plots was about the same because before

planting the crops homogenous cropping system was being used.

4.10 Soil phosphorous status as affected by different cropping systems

System

Code

Cropping System P content (mg/kg)

Before

planting

After Planting

Table:

102

S1 Maize (sp) - Maize - Wheat - Rice - Wheat 7.4 7.45-7.43-7.45-

7.70-7.5

S2 Maize (sp) - Maize - Gram - Millet - Sarson 7.4 7.44-7.46-7.50-

7.51-7.48

S3 Mungbean - Rice - Wheat - Cotton/ Sarson 7.4 7.5-7.78-7.48-7.44-

745


Sesame - Wheat

7.4 7.47-7.78-7.59-7.5-

7.46-7.50

S5 Sunflower - Mungbean - Wheat/ Jantar - Rice -

Gram

7.4 7.43-7.47-7.54-7.7-

7.52

S6 Sunflower - Mungbean - Barley - Cotton -

Wheat

7.4 7.45-7.50-7.48-

7.50-7.48

Maize -

-

-

-

103

4.10. Soil phosphorous status as affected by different cropping systems

Data regarding (Table-4.10) showed all cropping systems S1 (Maize (sp) - Wheat -

Rice - Wheat), S2 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Gram - Millet – Sarson), S3 (Mungbean Rice - Wheat

- Cotton/ Sarson), S4 (Mungbean - Rice - Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame

Wheat), S5 (Sunflower - Mungbean - Wheat/ Jantar - Rice - Gram) and S6 (Sunflower

Mungbean - Barley - Cotton - Wheat) showed variation in soil P content after the harvesting

of each crops. It is clear from the data P content was increased after harvesting rice crops then

leguminous, green manuring and other restorative crops while P content reduced after

exhaustive crops like maize, sunflower, sarson and wheat. It was observed that over all more

P content was observed in S4 (Mungbean - Rice - Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame - Wheat)

cropping system while minimum was observed in S1 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Wheat - Rice -

Wheat) cropping system. More P in S4 ( Mungbean - Rice - Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame

- Wheat) cropping system is due to this cropping system included the mostly restorative crops

that enhance the fertility status of soil and stimulate the plant growth promoting bacteria,

Phosphorous solubilizing bacteria and nutrient solubilizing bacteria in soil that ultimately

improved the nutrient content in soil. Similar results have also been reported by Saroch et al.

(2005). At the start of the experiment the phosphorus level in all the plots was about the same

because before planting the crops homogenous cropping system was being used.

4.11 Soil potassium status as affected by different cropping systems

Table:

104

System

Code

Cropping System Potassium content (mg/kg)

Before

planting

After Planting

S1 Maize (sp) - Maize - Wheat - Rice - Wheat 132 135-134-136-137-

137

S2 Maize (sp) - Maize - Gram - Millet - Sarson 132 134-134-135-137-

136-135

S3 Mungbean - Rice - Wheat - Cotton/ Sarson 132 137-136-135-134-

125


Sesame – Wheat

132 136-137-140-136-

137-135


– Gram

132 133-137-136-141-

143

S6 Sunflower - Mungbean - Barley - Cotton -

Wheat

132 134-135-134-136-

135

4.11. Soil potassium status as affected by different cropping systems

Data regarding (Table-4.11) showed all cropping systems S1 (Maize (sp) - Wheat -

Rice – Wheat), S2 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Gram - Millet - Sarson), S3 (Mungbean

Rice - Wheat - Cotton/ Sarson), S4 ( Mungbean - Rice - Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame


Mungbean - Barley - Cotton - Wheat) showed variation in soil K content after harvesting the

each crops. It is clear from the data K content was increased after harvesting leguminous, green

Maize -

-

-

-

105

manuring and other restorative crops while K content reduced after exhaustive crops like

maize, sunflower, sarson and wheat. It was observed that over all more K content was observed

in S4 (Mungbean - Rice - Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame - Wheat) cropping system while

minimum was observed in S1 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Wheat - Rice - Wheat) cropping system.

More K in S4 (Mungbean - Rice - Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame - Wheat) cropping system

is due to this cropping system included the mostly restorative crops that enhance the fertility

status of soil and stimulate the plant growth promoting bacteria, Potassium solubilizing

bacteria and nutrient solubilizing bacteria in soil that ultimately improved the nutrient content

in soil. Similar results have also been reported by Saroch et al. (2005). At the start of

experiment the potassium level in all the plots was about the same because before planting the

crops homogenous cropping system was being used.

Table:

106

4.12 Soil organic matter status as affected by different cropping

systems

System

Code

Cropping System O.M content (mg/kg)

Before

planting

After Planting

S1 Maize (sp) - Maize - Wheat - Rice - Wheat 0.74 0.747-0.743-0.75-

0.76-0.746

S2 Maize (sp) - Maize - Gram - Millet - Sarson 0.74 0.748-0.744-0.77-

0.75-0.748

S3 Mungbean - Rice - Wheat - Cotton/ Sarson 0.74 0.77-0.76-0.749-

0.75-0.746


Sesame - Wheat

0.74 0.79-0.78-0.787-

0.75-0.749


– Gram

0.74 0.74-0.78-0.757-

0.75-0.77


Wheat

0.74 0.743-0.78-0.755-

0.75-0.76

4.12. Soil organic matter status as affected by different cropping systems

Data regarding (Table-4.12) showed all cropping systems S1 (Maize (sp) - Maize Wheat

- Rice - Wheat), S2 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Gram - Millet - Sarson), S3 (Mungbean

Rice - Wheat - Cotton/ Sarson), S4 ( Mungbean - Rice - Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame


Mungbean - Barley - Cotton - Wheat) showed variation in soil O.M content after harvesting

the each crops. It is clear from the data 0.M content was increased after harvesting leguminous,

green manuring and other restorative crops while O.M content reduced after exhaustive crops

like maize, sunflower, sarson and wheat. It was observed that over all more

O.M content was observed in S4 (Mungbean - Rice - Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame -

-

-

-

-

107

Wheat) cropping system while minimum was observed in S1 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Wheat -

Rice - Wheat) cropping system. More O.M in S4 (Mungbean - Rice - Berseem (GM) - Maize

- Sesame - Wheat) cropping system is due to this cropping system included the mostly

restorative crops that enhance the fertility status of soil and stimulate the plant growth

promoting bacteria, Potassium solubilizing bacteria and nutrient solubilizing bacteria in soil

that ultimately improved the nutrient content in soil. At the start of experiment, the organic

matter level in all the plots was about the same because before planting the crops homogenous

cropping system was being used.

4.13 Soil C/N ratio as affected by different cropping systems

System

Code

Cropping System C/N ratio

Before

planting

After Planting

S1 Maize (sp) - Maize - Wheat - Rice - Wheat 11 10.8-10.9-10.710.9-

11

S2 Maize (sp) - Maize - Gram - Millet - Sarson 11 10.7-11-10.7-10.9-

11.2

S3 Mungbean - Rice - Wheat - Cotton/ Sarson 11 10.6-11.1-10.9-

10.8-11.1

Table:

108


Sesame – Wheat

11 10.7-11-10.4-10.9-

11


– Gram

11 10.6-10-10.9-10.9-

10


Wheat

11 10.8-10.3-10.710.9-

11

4.13. Soil C/N ratio as affected by different cropping systems

Data regarding (Table-4.13) showed all cropping systems S1 (Maize (sp) - Maize Wheat

- Rice - Wheat), S2 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Gram - Millet - Sarson), S3 (Mungbean

Rice - Wheat - Cotton/ Sarson), S4 (Mungbean - Rice - Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame


Mungbean - Barley - Cotton - Wheat) showed variation in soil C/N ratio after harvesting the

each crops. It is clear from the data C/N ratio was decreased after harvesting leguminous, green

manuring and other restorative crops while C/N ratio rise after exhaustive crops like maize,

sunflower, sarson and wheat. It was observed that over all less C/N ratio was observed in S4

(Mungbean - Rice - Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame - Wheat) cropping system while

maximum was observed in S1 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Wheat - Rice - Wheat) cropping system.

At the start of experiment, the C/N in all the plots was about the same because before planting

the crops homogenous cropping system was being used.

-

-

-

-

109

4.14 Soil pH as affected by different cropping systems

System

Code

Cropping System Nitrogen content

(mg/kg)

Before

planting

After Planting

S1 Maize (sp) - Maize - Wheat - Rice – Wheat 7.6 7.6-7.62-7.61-7.53-

7.6

S2 Maize (sp) - Maize - Gram - Millet – Sarson 7.6 7.6-7.63-7.61-7.58-

7.6

S3 Mungbean - Rice - Wheat - Cotton/ Sarson 7.6 7.6-7.55-7.60-7.57-

7.62


Sesame – Wheat

7.6 7.63-7.55-7.61-

7.57-7.64


– Gram

7.6 7.62-7.59-7.60-

7.56-7.62


Wheat

7.6 7.6-7.61-7.60-7.59-

7.6

Table:

110

-

111

4.14. Soil pH as affected by different cropping systems

Data regarding (Table-4.14) showed all cropping systems S1 (Maize (sp) - Maize

Wheat - Rice - Wheat), S2 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Gram - Millet - Sarson), S3 (Mungbean -

Rice - Wheat - Cotton/ Sarson), S4 (Mungbean - Rice - Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame -

Wheat), S5 (Sunflower - Mungbean - Wheat/ Jantar - Rice - Gram) and S6 (Sunflower -

Mungbean - Barley - Cotton - Wheat) showed very low variation in soil pH after harvesting

the crops. But it is clear from the data that significant reduction in soil pH was observed after

rice crop harvesting. Reduction in soil pH after harvesting the rice is due to as rice crop require

flooding due to flooding soil pH is reduced. At the start of experiment, the pH level in all the

plots was about the same because before planting the crops homogenous cropping system was

being used.

Economic analysis

112

Table: 4.15 Net profit of different cropping systems

System

Code

Cropping System Total cost

(Rs)

Total income

(Rs)

Net profit (Rs)

S1 Maize (sp) - Maize - Wheat -

Rice - Wheat

321000 834000 513000

S2 Maize (sp) - Maize - Gram -

Millet – Sarson

316000 683250 367250

S3 Mungbean - Rice - Wheat -

Cotton/ Sarson

312000 742000 430000

S4 Mungbean - Rice – Berseem

(GM) - Maize - Sesame –

Wheat

314000 719000 405000

S5 Sunflower - Mungbean -

Wheat/ Jantar - Rice – Gram

296000 724190 428190


Barley - Cotton – Wheat

302000 739752 437752

113

Economic analysis

4.15. Net profit of different cropping systems

4.15.1. Total cost

The cost involved in raising a crop from sowing till harvesting and that directly

generates revenue is known as cost of production. Cost of production of purposed crops was

calculated. The cost of production of each crop was calculated separately on current rate basis.

Then total cost of production of all cropping systems was calculated by summing up the cost

of all the crops in the cropping systems and presented in table-4.15. More cost of production

was observed in S1 and low cost of production was observed in S5 as shown in table-15.

4.15.2. Total income

It was observed that more total income was shown by S1 and lowest total income was

observed in S2.

4.15.3. Net profit

It was observed that more net profit was shown by S1 and lowest net profit was observed

in S2. More net profit in S1 is due to more cash crops in this cropping system. Dogan et al.

(2008) under rain-fed conditions of Southern Marmara Region, Turkey, developed a study to

notice the most appropriate crop rotation system(s). In this research study (1995-2001), two

dissimilar crop rotation systems were used: sunflower and winter wheat as main crops

experiments. Results were assessed in terms of crop production ability, economic aspects and

soil fertility. The sunflower-rapeseed-wheat, rapeseed-common vetch + sunflower-wheat and

rapeseed-fodder pea + sunflower-wheat were recorded, the most appropriate rotation systems

because of their various returns in the first experiment in which wheat was used as major crop.

The maximum sunflower seed harvests were gained from a fodder pea + sunflower-wheat-

fodder pea + sunflower crop rotation system both in the first and second three year periods in

which sunflower was used as core crop under rain-fed conditions. A procedure was established

to study the productivity of site specific crop management (SSCM) of fertilizers N, K and P

for cropping system subjugated by cereals in Haute-Normandie. They imitated the fertilization

114

for inconstant surface areas (95 ha, 145 ha, 240 ha) and for dissimilar heterogeneity levels of

N, K and P. The direct boundaries calculated for a uniform application and with precision

agriculture (PA) showed that, in our pedo-climatic conditions, SSCM was more gainful when

the surface area was greater and the heterogeneity was more (Bourgain et al., 2009).

115

Table: 4.16 Productivity system of different cropping systems

System

Code

Cropping System Total cost

(Rs)

Total income

(Rs)

Productivity system

(Rs)

S1 Maize (sp) - Maize - Wheat -

Rice - Wheat

321000 834000 2.6

S2 Maize (sp) - Maize - Gram -

Millet – Sarson

316000 683250 2.2

S3 Mungbean - Rice - Wheat -

Cotton/ Sarson

312000 742000 2.4

S4 Mungbean - Rice - Berseem

(GM) - Maize - Sesame –

Wheat

314000 719000 2.3


Wheat/ Jantar - Rice - Gram

296000 724190 2.4


Barley - Cotton - Wheat

302000 739752 2.4

116

4.16. System productivity (SP) of different cropping systems

It was observed that more SP was shown by S1 and lowest SP was observed in S2. More SP

in S1 is due to more cash crops in this cropping system. The field research was performed by the

Prasad et al. (2011) at Research and Instructional Farm of Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya,

Raipur (C.G.) during Kharif, Rabi, and summer season of 2006-07 under AICRP- cropping system

research project. The treatments were comprised of seven cropping sequences viz., rice-

mustardgreen manure, rice-wheat-fallow, rice-pea-maize, rice-coriander (green leaf)-mung, rice-

oniongreen manure, rice-brinjal green manureand rice-potato-cowpea. Among dissimilar cropping

systems evaluated rice-potato-cowpea system was identified to be most productive with rice

equivalent yield of (270.39 q ha -1 year-1), production efficiency (83.97 kg ha-1 day-1), profitability

(Rs.320.36 ha-1 day-1), relative economic efficiency (199.29%) and net return of higher Rs.116929

ha-1 year-1. Cropping sequences based on vegetable also showed high production efficiency, grass

and net returns than a traditional system.

117

Table: 4.17 Energy equivalent of different crops used in different cropping systems

Particulars Unit Energy equivalent (MJ unit_1)

A. Inputs

Human labor H 1.92

Machinery H 62.70

Diesel fuel L 56.31

Chemical fertilizers

Nitrogen (N) Kg 66.14

Phosphate (P2O5) Kg 12.44

Potassium (K2O) Kg 11.15

Chemical

Herbicide L 238

Pesticide L 199

Fungicide L 92

Water for irrigation M3 1.02

Seeds (Wheat) Kg 20.1

Seeds (Barley) Kg 14.7

Seeds (maize) Kg 50.0

Seeds (rice) Kg 14.57

Seeds (cotton) Kg 11.8

Seeds (mungbean) Kg 13.5

Seeds (Sunflower ) Kg 3.6

Seeds (gram) Kg 14.7

Seeds (sesame) Kg 15.2

Millet Kg 50.0

Sarson Kg 15.2

B. Outputs

Grains yield (Wheat) Kg 14.48

Grains yield (Barley) Kg 14.70

Grains yield (maize) Kg 14.70

Grains yield (rice) Kg 14.70

Grains yield (cotton) Kg 11.8

Grains yield

(mungbean)

Kg 14.7

Grains yield

(Sunflower )

Kg 25.0

Grains yield (gram) Kg 14.7

118

Grains yield (sesame) Kg 25.0

Grains yield (millet) Kg 14.7

Grains yield (sarson) Kg 25.0

Energy equivalent of output (grain yield) of different cropping systems

System

Code

Cropping System Energy equivalent (MJ unit_1)

S1 Maize (sp) - Maize - Wheat - Rice – Wheat 73.06

S2 Maize (sp) - Maize - Gram - Millet – Sarson 83.8

S3 Mungbean - Rice - Wheat - Cotton/ Sarson 55.68


Sesame – Wheat

83.58

S5 Sunflower - Mungbean - Wheat/ Jantar - Rice –

Gram

83.58


Wheat

80.68

119

4.17. Energy equivalent

Different cropping systems had variable response for energy equivalent. Data showed

that S2 (Maize (sp) - Maize - Gram - Millet - Sarson) cropping system had more energy

equivalent as compared to other cropping system while S3 (Mungbean - Rice - Wheat - Cotton/

Sarson) revealed low energy equivalent as compared to other cropping systems.

120

CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY


providing staple food for millions of people and affecting the livelihoods and health of both

urban and rural poor. Cropping system is a producer’s map of their approach to production.

Intensive cropping systems in irrigated areas of Punjab are rice-wheat, cottonwheat and mixed-

wheat cropping systems. The mixed cropping system seems deficient in giving its economic

potential during Kharif season. A research work was planned to develop a cropping system

under agro-climatic conditions of Faisalabad where mixed cropping system was being

followed. The experiment was designed to study the relationship of six different pre-assigned

cropping systems. The details of the pre-assigned cropping systems are given below.




S4 Mungbean - Rice – Berseem (GM) - Maize - Sesame - Wheat


S6 Sunflower - Mungbean - Barley - Cotton – Wheat

All the cropping systems were arranged in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with

three replications. There were 18 plots in the experiment, each having size of 15 × 10 m. The

experiment was initiated during February 2013 with the sowing of different pre-assigned crops

in the respective (randomized) plots. After the harvest of first phase crops, the subsequent crops

included in different systems were planted in their respective plots. Soil analysis was conducted

before and after the harvest of each crop. All the agronomic parameters were observed during

this study and analyzed by statistics computer program.

The differences among significant means will be assessed by Least Significant Difference test at

5% probability level. The summary of results is given below;

121

Growth and yield of major crops like cotton, maize, wheat, millet, sunflower and rice is

increased approximately 40% when grown after legume and restorative crops.

Growth and yield of major crops like cotton, maize, wheat, millet, sunflower and rice is

decreased about 34% when grown after non- legume and exhaustive crops.

Nutrients contents in soil after harvesting increased 70% after growing the legume and

restorative crops.

More net profit of Rs. 513000 was shown by S1 cropping system while minimum of Rs.

367250 was obtained in cropping system S2.

The productivity system analysis showed highest value of Rs. 2.6 for the S1 cropping

system and minimum value of Rs. 2.1 was observed in S2.

Energy equivalent of different cropping systems showed that maximum value of 83.8 was

observed in S2 while minimum value of 55.68 was observed in S3.

Negligible differences in nitrogen contents of the soil were observed. Maximum increase

was found in cropping systems in which legume crops were involved. Cropping system

S5 was the best N restoring cropping system which showed a maximum increase of 8.2

percent from initial N level of 620 mg/Kg.

Similarly, the differences in phosphorous contents in the soil were also negligible. The

cropping system S5 showed a mixmum increase of 2 percent from an intial level of 7.4

mg/kg. In case of potassium (K), the increase was not significant. Here again cropping

system S5 showed some increase in soil potassium at the end in restoring fertility status

of soil.

122

CONCLUSION

In the view of present studies, this can be suggested that maize (sp)- maize- wheat- rice-

wheat is the best combination of crops in mixed cropping zone. This cropping system gave

maximum net returns and productivity as compared to all other cropping systems.

Janter, berseem and mung bean based cropping systems improved the fertility status of the soil

so it is recommended that these crops should be included in our cropping systems especially

under Faisalabad conditions.

123

LITERATURE CITED

Ahmad, R. 1994. Need for improving irrigation practices. DRIP Monthly Newsletter. Drainage and

Reclamation Institute of Pakistan, Tandojam. 15(2).

Ahmad, W., F. Khan and M. Naeem. 2010. Impact of cropping patterns and fertilizer treatments

on the organic fertility of slightly eroded Pirsabak soil series in NWFP, Pakistan, Soil

& Environ. 29(1): 53 – 60.

Ajeigbe, H. A., A. Y. Kamara and D. Chikoye. 2009. Potential of triple and double cropping

with and without irrigation in the Sudan and Northern Guinea Savanna zones of West

Africa. African Crop Sci. Conf. Proc., 9: 197- 200.

Akbar, M.A., M.S. Islam and M.S.U. Bhuiya. 2000. Integration of fodder legumes into

ricebased cropping systems in Bangladesh. Proc. 9th Cong. Asia-Australasian Assoc.

Animal Prod. Soc. and 23rd Biennial Conf. Australian Soc. Animal Prod. 3-7 July,

2000, Sydney, Australian J. Animal Sci. 13: 526-528.

Altieri, M.A. 2002. Agroecology: the science of natural resource management for poor farmers in

marginal environments, Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 93, 1-24.

Anonymous. 1990. To increase cropping in Fatehjang area with the introduction of mungbean in

wheat-fallow-wheat system. Annual Report, Food Legumes improvement Programme,

1989-1990, NARC, Islamabad. 148-185.

Babu, R., M. V. H. Raoand, S. Muralikrishna.1996. Cotton based multiple cropping systems for

sustained yield. Indian J. Agric. Sci., 66 (10): 577-580.

Badaruddin, M., and D.W. Meyer. 1994. Grain legume effects on soil-nitrogen, grain yield, and

nitrogen nutrition of wheat. Crop Sci. 34(5): 1304-1309.

Balyan, J.S. and J. Seth. 1989. Effect of cropping systems on maize production and their residual

effect on succeeding wheat. Ind. J. Agron. 34(1): 57-60.

124

Barik, A.K., D.P. Tiwari and R.S. Tripathi. 1997. Effect of intercropping winter season forage crops

on their yield and nodulation. Ind. J. Agric. Sci. 67(6): 253-255.

Becker, M., D.E. Johnson and Z.J. Segda. 2004. The role of legume fallows in intensified

upland rice-based systems of West Africa. The Inter. Develop. Res. Centre, Canada.

http://www.idrc.ca/fr/ev-31917-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html, 15-36.

Belachew, T. and Y. Abera. 2011. Effect of green manuring in combination with nitrogen on

soil fertility and yield of bread wheat (Triticum aestivum) under double cropping

system of Sinana-dinsho, Southeast Ethiopia. J. of Biodiver. and Environ. Sci. (JBES)

1(1): 1-11.

Billore, S.B., K Singh and M. Bargale. 1994. Fertilizer management in cropping system under

rainfed conditions. J. Maharashtra Agric, Univ. 19(2): 297-299.

Biswas, B., D.C. Ghosh, M.K. Dasgupta, N. Trivedi, J. Timsina and A. Dobermann. 2006.

Integrated assessment of cropping systems in the Eastern Indo-Gangetic Plain. Field

Crop Research. 99:35-47.

Bourgain, O. and J. M. L. Lorens. 2009. Methodology to estimate economic levels of

profitability of precision agriculture: simulation for crop systems in HauteNormandie

EFITA Conf. Proc. 9:91-91

Bryant, K.J., S.M. Masud, R D. Lacewell, and J.W. Keeling. 1992. Profit, cost and soil erosion

implication of dry land crop production systems - Texas High-Plains. J. Prod. Agric.

5(3): 307-312.

Copeland, P.J., and R.K. Crookston. 1992. Crop sequence of ects. nutrient composition of corn and

soybean grown under high fertility. Agron. J. 84:503–509.

Chandra, S and RC, Gautam. 1997. Effect of preceding crops and nitrogen rates on rice yields and

economics of its rotation. Annals Agric. Res. 18(4): 454-459.

125

Chaudhary, M.Y. 1986. Problems and prospects of rice cultivation in Pakistan. Progressive Farming,

PARC, Islamabad 6(1): 6-11.

Diebel, P.L., J.R. Williams, and R.V. Llewelyn. 1995. “An economic comparison of

conventional and alternative cropping systems for a representative northeast Kansas

farm. Review of Agricultural Economics 17(3): 120–127.

Dogan, R., T. A. Goksoy, K. Yagdi, and M. Z. Turan. 2008. Comparison of the effects of

different crop rotation systems on winter wheat and sunflower under rain-fed

conditions. Afric. J. Biotec. 7 (22):4076-4082.

Dogliotti, S., W. A. H. Rossing and M. K. V. Ittersum. 2004. Systematic design and evaluation

of crop rotations enhancing soil conservation, soil fertility and farm income: a case

study for vegetable farms in South Uruguay. J. Agri. Sys. 80: 277– 302.

Doran, J.W. 2002. Soil health and global sustainability: translating science into practice. Agric.

Ecosystems and Environ. 88: 119-127.

Erskine, P.D., D. Lamb and M. Bristow. 2006. Tree species diversity and ecosystem fonction:

can tropical multi-species plantations generate greater productivity? Forest Ecol.

Manag. 233, 205–210.

Ewel J.J. (1999) Natural systems as models for the design of sustainable systems of land use,

Agroforest. Syst. 45, 1–21.

Garcia-Barrios, L. (2003). Plant-plant interactions in tropical agriculture, in: Vandermeer J. (Ed.),

Tropical Agroecosystems, CRC Press, pp. 11–58.

George, T., J.K. Ladha., D.P. Garrity., and R.J. Buresh. 1994. Legumes as nitrate catch crops during

the dry-to-wet transition in lowland rice cropping systems. Agron. J. 86(2):

267-273.

Gliesmann S.R. (2001) Agroecosystem sustainability: developing practical strategies, CRC Press,

Boca Raton, Florida, USA.

126

Govaerts, B., K.D. Sayre and J. Deckers. 2006. A minimum data set for soil quality assessment

of wheat and maize cropping in the highlands of Mexico. Soil and Tillage Res. 87:163-

174.

Gurr, G.M., S.D. Wratten and J.M. Luna. 2003. Multi-function agricultural biodiversity: pest

management and other benefits, Basic Appl. Ecol. 4, 107–116.

Hanson, R.G., J.A. Sleeker and S.R. Meledy. 1988. Effect of soybean rotation on the response of

sorghum to fertilizer nitrogen. J. Prod. Agric. 318-321.

Hannukkala, A.O., J. Korva and E. Tapio. 1990. Conventional and organic cropping systems

at Suitia.1. Experimental design and summaries. J. Agric. Sci. in Finland. 62(4): 295-

307.

Hossain, S. A., W. M. Strong, S. A. Waring, R C. Dalal and E. J. Weston. 1996. Comparison

of legume-based cropping systems at Warn, Queensland. 2. Mineral nitrogen

accumulation and availability to the subsequent wheat crop. Australian J. Soil Res.

34(2): 289-297.

Jabbar, A., R. Ahmad, I. H. Bhatti1, A. Rehman, Z. A. Virk and S. N. Vains. 2010. Effect of

different rice-based intercropping systems on rice grain yield and residual soil

fertility. Pak. J. Bot. 42(4): 2339-2348.

Jackson, W. 2004. Natural systems agriculture: a truly radical alternative, Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 88,

111–117.

Jakkro, A. A. and G. Faroque. 1986. Number of tillers, nitrogen concentration and grain yield of

Summer rice crops as influenced by dubari crops and nitrogen level. IRRN. 7(6):

22-23.

Johnson, P. J., J. Blackshear, and E. Segarra. 2006. “Economics of Irrigated Cotton-Grain

Sorghum Rotations in the Southern High Plains of Texas.” Southwestern Economic

Review, 33: 161-172.

127

Kelty, M.J. 2006. The role of species mixtures in plantation forestry, Forest Ecol. Manag. 233, 195-

204.

Khan, M. B. and A. Khaliq. 2005. Production of winter cereals as relay crops by surface seeding in

cotton based cropping system. J. of Res. Sci. 16(2): 79-86.

Klimekova, M. and Z. Lehocka. 2009. Analyze of different cropping systems and year conditions

on grain yields and thousand-kernel weight of pea (Pisum sativum L.). J.

Agric. 18:33-39.

Koppad, M. B., H. S. S. Khan and H. G. Shatlkarrnurthy. 1994. Economic analysis of

maizewheat farming system (irrigated) in Malaprabha Command Area

(Karnataka)locationwise study, Farming Systems l0(1-2): 16-19.

Kurlekar, V.G., V.C. Kele, S.R. Nagorgoge, RM. Vislmupurikar, P.S. Joshi, and B.B. Lat, R.

1990. Tillage and crop production in the Tropics. Soil physics application under stress

environments. Barani Agric, Res. and Development Project (BARD), PARC,

Islamabad

Lal, R.1990. Soil erosion in the tropics: principles and management. McGraw-Hill, newyork.

Li, J. G., X. G. Qing and Y. P. Li. 1995. A study of gradient differences in rice fields and the

economic effect of some cropping system models. Acta Agric. Shanghai. 11(4):55-

67.

Mackenzie, R. H., J. W. B. Stewart, J. F. Domlaar, and G. B. Schaalje. 1992. Long-term crop-

rotation and fertilizer effects on phosphorus transformations in a chernozemic soil.

Canadian J. Soil Sci. 72(4): 569-579.

Majid, A. M., S. Iqbal, and H. U. Rehman. 1983. Release of a new early maturing and medium

grain rice variety, KS-282 and its impact on cropping systems. Paper presented at

National seminar on rice research and production, Islamabad.

128

Malavia, D. D., M. P. Sinha, M. N. Vyas, J. C. Patel and K. K. Kalaria. 1986. Production

potential and economic feasibility of different crop sequences. Indian J. Agron. 31(1):

75-78.

Malézieux, E., & Moustier, P. (2005). La diversification dans les agricultures du Sud: à la

croisée de logiques d’environnement et de marché. II. Niveaux d’organisation,

méthodes d’analyse et outils de recherche, Cah. Agr. 14:375–382.

Mkamilo, G. S. 2004. Maize-sesame intercropping in Southeast Tanzania: Farmers' Practices

and Perceptions, and Intercrop Performance. PhD Thesis, Wageningen University,

Netherlands.

Murtaza, G., A. Ghafoor, G. Owens, M. Qadir & U. Z. Kahlon. 2009. Environmental and

Economic Benefits of Saline-Sodic Soil Reclamation Using Low-quality Water and

Soil Amendments in Conjunction with a Rice–Wheat Cropping System, J. Agron. &

Crop Sci. 124:136.

Narayanpur, MN. and G.S. Sulikeri. 1996. Economics of companion cropping system in turmeric

(Curcuma longa L,). Indian Cocoa, Arecanut and Spices J. 20(3) 77-79.

Negi, S.C., K.K. Singh and R C. Thakur. 1988. Response of maize-wheat cropping sequence to

phosphorus and farm yard manure. Indian J. Agron. 33(3): 270-273.

Nel, A. A. and H. L. Loubser. 2004. The impact of crop rotation on profitability and production risk

in the eastern and north western free state. J. Agrekon. 43:101-111.

Nielsen, D. C., M. F. Vigil and J. G. Benjamin. 2010. Evaluating decision rules for dryland rotation

crop selection. Field Crops Res. 120:254-261.

Norwood, C. A. 1992. Tillage and cropping system effects on winter wheat and grain- sorghum. J.

Prod. Agric. 5(1): 120-126.

129

Olson, S.R, C.V. Cole, F.S. Watanabe and L.A. Dean. 1954. Estimation of available phosphorus in

soil by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. USDA circular. 939.

Parkash, V., V.S. Chauhar, and J.P. Tandon. 1982. Economics of rain fed upland rice based cropping

systems in north western Himalayas. IRRN. 7(6): 22.

Prasad, D., J. S. Urkurkar, S. K. Bhoi and N. Nag. 2011. Production Potential and Economic

Analysis of Different Rice Based Cropping Systems in Chhattisgarh Plains, Res. J.

of Agri.Sci. 2011, 2(1): 36-39

Prasad, N. K. and R. Kerketta. 1991. Nutrients harvest and soil fertility in sequential cropping

systems. Indian J. Agron. 36: 68-73.

Rao, A. V., J. C. Tarafdar, S. K. Sharma, P. Kumar, and R. K. Aggarwal. 1995. Influence of

cropping systems on soil biochemical properties in an arid rain fed environment. J.

Arid Environ. 31(2): 237-244.

Raundal, P. U. and R. N. Sabale. 2000. Grain quality and economics of green gram-wheat cropping

system. J. Maharashtra Agric. Univ. 25(1): 98-99.

Reddy, K. A. and G. Bheemaiah. 1991. Effects of cropping systems and soil types on yield of maize.

Indian J. Agron. 36(2): 139-142.

Reynolds, M. P., K. D. Sayre and H. E. Vivar. 1994. Intercropping wheat and barley with N'

fixing legume species - A method for improving ground cover, N-use efficiency and

productivity in low input systems. J. Agric. Sci. 123(2): 175-183.

Saeed. M., K. H. Shah and S. H. Siddiqui. 1989. Effect of different cropping sequences on N

uptake and productivity of succeeding wheat crop. Pak. J. Sci. Ind. Res. 32(6): 410

412.

Saini, A. S. 1986. Energy use in rice-based farming system in India. IRRN, 11 (4): 42-43.

130

Santos H. P. D., R. P. Zentner, F. Selles and I. Ambrosi. 1993. Effect of crop rotation on yields,

soil chemical characteristics, and economic returns of zero-till barley in southern

Brazil. Soil and Tillage Research Volume 28(2): 141-158.

Segarra, E., J. W. Keeling and J. R Abernathy. 1991. Tillage and cropping system effects on

cotton yield and profitability on the Texas southern high plains. J. Prod. Agric. 4(4):

566-571.

Seth, J. and J. S. Balyan. 1985. Plant residue management in some cropping systems. Indian J.

Agron. 30(4): 483-487.

Setty, R. A. and A. S. Channabasavanna. 1993. Rice based cropping systems and its economics.

Farming Systems, 9(3-4): 115-118.

Sharma, A. R. 1995. Fertiliser use in rice and rice-based cropping system. Fertilizer News, 40(5):

29-41.

Sharma, K. N., A. L. Bhandari, M. L. Kapur and D. S. Rana. 1985. Influence of growing

various crops in five different fixed rotations on the changes in nitrate and total

nitrogen content of soils. J. Agric. Sci. 104:3.

Sharma, S. N., R Prasad and S. Singh. 1995, New multiple cropping systems for higher production

and profit. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 65(4): 237-241.

Sharma, S. N., R. Prasad, M. K. Dwivedi, S. Kumar, M. R. Davari and M. Ram.2009. E ect

of cropping system on production and chemical and biological properties of soil.

Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science 55(4): 429-438.

Shukla, M.K., R. Lal and M. Ebinger. 2006. Determining soil quality indicators by factor analysis.

Soil Till. Res. 87:194-204.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01671987

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01671987

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%235162%231993%23999719997%23436855%23FLP%23&_cdi=5162&_pubType=J&view=c&_auth=y&_acct=C000060478&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=3414960&md5=3f4c1ad87b549d568fde4606527ff87f



131

Singh S., J.K. Ladha, R.K. Gupta, Lav Bhushan, A.N. Rao, B. Sivaprasad, P.P. Singh. 2007.

Evaluation of mulching, intercropping with Sesbania and herbicide use for weed

management in dry-seeded rice (Oryza sativa L.) Crop Protection, 518-524.

Singh, A. 1972. Conceptual and experimental basis of cropping patterns. In. Proc. Sym. Cropping

patterns. CAR, New Delhi, 271-274.

Singh, V., S. K. Sharma, R. K. Siag and B. L. Verma. 1995. Economics of legume-wheat

(Triticum aestivum L.) cropping systems under different levels of irrigation. Indian J.

Agric. Sci. 65(10): 712-716.

Singh, S. B. and B. S. Verma. 1985. Effect of Summer grain legumes on nitrogen economy in

succeeding crop of wheat. Indian J. Agron. 30(4): 397-400.

Singh, R. C. and A. S. Faroda. 1985. Effect of summer pulses residual and direct phosphorus

application of the phosphorus uptake by succeeding wheat. Indian J. Agron. 30(3):

329-333.

Singh, R., D.S. Rana, A, Bhandari and R. S. Barar. 1996. Nutrient uptake in typic Ustochrept. Ind.

J. Agril. Scis. 66(1): 7-10.

Smolik, J. D. and T. L. Dobbs. 1991. Crop yields and economic returns accompanying the transition

to alternative farming systems. J. Prod. Agric. 4: 153-161.

Steel, R.G.D., J.H. Torrie and D. Dickey. 1997. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A

Biometrical Approach. 3rd Ed. pp: 172-177 McGraw Hill Book Co. Inc. New York,

USA.

Stevens, W. E., J. R Johnson, J. J. Varco and J. Parkman. 1992. Tillage and winter cover management

effects on fertilizing and yield of cotton. J. Prod. Agric. 5(4): 570-575.

Stipešević B. and E. J. Kladivko. 2005. Effects of winter wheat cover crop desiccation times on

soil moisture, temperature and early maize growth. Plant Soil Environ. 51(6):

132

255–261.

Swift M.J., Izac A.M.N., Van Noordwijk M. (2004) Biodiversity and ecosystem services. Are we

asking the right questions? Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 104, 113–134.

TAC, CGIAR.1978. Farming systems research at International Agricultural Research Centre, Rome,

Italy, Agric. Deptt. FAO, 8-12.

Tanaka, D. L., J. M. Krupinsky, M. A. Liebig, S. D. Merrill, R. E. Ries, J. R. Hendrickson, H.

A. Johnson, and J. D. Hanson. 2002. Dynamic Cropping Systems: An adaptable

approach to crop production in the Great Plains. Agron. J. 94:957-961.

Tilman, D., Cassman, K., Matson, P., Naylor, R., & Polasky, S. (2002). Agricultural sustainability

and intensive production practices, Nature 418: 671–677.

Urnrani, N. K., C. B. Gaikwad and B. N. Gare. 1992. Sustainability of cropping systems under dry

land conditions of vertisol. Indian J. Agron. 37(4): 645-649.

Velayudham, K. and J. Seth. 1986. Effect of preceding crops of cowpea and maize on the yield of

wheat. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 56(4): 263-266.

Vila, M., J. Vayreda, C. Gracia and J.J. Ibanez. 2003. Does tree diversity increase wood production

in pine forests? Oecologia 135, 299-303.

Warn, A.G. and N.K. Umrani. 1993. Production potential and economics of Leucaena leucocephala

forage inter-cropping system under nitrogen fertilization. Indian J.

Dryland Agric. Res. and Development: 8(I): 23-29.

Whitmore, A. P. 2000. The biological management of soil fertility project. Netherlands J.

Agric. Sci. 48(1): 115-122.

Wiese, A. F., W. L. Harman and C. Regier. 1994. Economic evaluation of conservation tillage

systems for dry land and irrigated cotton in southern great-plains. Weed Sci. 42(2):

316-321.

133

Xiao, Y. L., Y. Z. Zhang and R. Z. Hu. 1997. Effect of rice-based cropping system on organic matter

status in soils. Pedosphere 7(4): 349-354.

Yadav, K. S., S. C. Jain and H. S. Kushwaha. 1993. Effect of cropping system in relation to

planting pattern on growth and yield of cotton, Agric. Sci. Digest Karna 13(3-4): 181

184.

Young, D. L., T. J. Kwon and F. L. Young. 1994, Profit and risk for integrated conservation farming

systems in the Palouse. J. Soil and Water Conservation, 49(6): 601-606.

Zahid, M. S., M. A. Khokhar., H. R. Khan., A. Razzaq and A. Majid. 1991. Cropping system

interventions in the FSR target area Fatehjang (Pakistan). J, Appl. Pure Sci. 1(2): 99-

102.

Zade. K. B., S. G. Kharche, R. T. Patil, V. A. Deshrnukh and P. D. Deshmukh. 1994. Major

nutrients and its balance in crop sequences under vertisol soils. Annals of Plant

Physiol. 8:1.

Zhang, J. H., A. S. Hamill, and S. E. Weaver. 1996. Corn yield after 10 years of different

cropping sequences and weed management practices. Canadian J. Plant Sci. 76(4):

795-797.

Zia, M., M. Sharif, M. Ashraf and M. Aslam. 1986. Fertilizer management in rice-based cropping

system. Progressive farming, PARC, Islamabad. 6(1): 43-48.

ANNEXURES

Income (Rs) Yield/acre EXPENSES

36000/- 40 munds 3000/- Ploughing/Land

preparation/acre

4800/- DAP/acre

2800/- UREA/acre

134

2500/- Labour

cost/acre

Maize

2400/- Water

application/acre

2000/- Seeds/acre

6000/- Harvesting/acre


Maize


preparation/acre

4800/- DAP/acre

2800/- UREA/acre

2500/- Labour

cost/acre

2400/- Water

application/acre

2000/- Seeds/acre




preparation/acre

3600/- DAP/acre

2100/- UREA/acre

135

1000/- Labour

cost/acre

Wheat

1400/- Water

application/acre

2500/- Seeds/acre



Rice


preparation/acre

3600/- DAP/acre

2100/- UREA/acre

7000/- Labour

cost/acre

3000/- Water

application/acre

1500/- Seeds/acre



Sarsoo


preparation/acre

2400/- DAP/acre

1400/- UREA/acre

800/- Labour

cost/acre

136

900/- Water

application/acre

300/- Seeds/acre



Millet


preparation/acre

2400/- DAP/acre

1400/- UREA/acre

800/- Labour

cost/acre

700/- Water

application/acre

300/- Seeds/acre



Sunflower


preparation/acre

4800/- DAP/acre

2800/- UREA/acre

1800/- Labour

cost/acre

137

1100/- Water

application/acre

3000/- Seeds/acre



Barley


preparation/acre

4200/- DAP/acre

1400/- UREA/acre

1100/- Labour

cost/acre

1200/- Water

application/acre

1800/- Seeds/acre



Cotton


preparation/acre

4200/- DAP/acre

3000/- UREA/acre

4000/- Labour

cost/acre

138

2400/- Water

application/acre

3000/- Seeds/acre



Gram


preparation/acre

2400/- DAP/acre

1400/- UREA/acre

300/- Labour

cost/acre

700/- Water

application/acre

1500/- Seeds/acre


Documents

ASSESSMENT OF AGRONOMIC BENEFITS OF MIXED …prr.hec.gov.pk/jspui/bitstream/123456789/8238/1/Sher Afzal Agronomy Complete Final... · 4.2 Growth and yield components of rice affected