Article Sidebar

Submitted
October 13, 2021
Accepted
January 27, 2022
Published
April 17, 2022
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 234 Download : 175

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

A field experiment was conducted during Kharif 2019 at the Experimental Farm of the Department of Agronomy of CSK Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur (H.P.) to investigate the effect of different tillage systems and varieties on yield of rice. The treatments consist of three rice varieties (HPR 1156, HPR 2656 and HPR 2795) which were tested under three tillage systems viz., conventional tillage, and minimum tillage without residue and minimum tillage with residue retention. The experiment was set up in a split plot design, with the tillage system in the main plot and rice cultivars in the sub plots, and it was triple replicated. The texture of the soil at the test site was silty clay loam in texture, acidic in reaction and in terms of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, it was evaluated as medium. Significantly higher no. of panicles per meter square were observed in minimum tillage without residue though this treatment was at par with conventional tillage while significantly lower number of panicles m-2 were recorded with minimum tillage with residue retention. Significantly greater number of grains per panicle and panicle length were recorded in conventional tillage while minimum tillage with residue retention recorded lower values of number of grains per panicle and panicle length. Different tillage practices had no effect on the test weight of rice. Among different varieties tested, HPR 2656 recorded greater number of panicles per square meter which was at par with variety HPR 1156. Significantly higher number of grains per panicle and panicle length were recorded with HPR 2795 while the other two varieties were at par with each other. Rice variety HPR 1156 produced grains that had significantly greater test weight while the other two varieties (HPR 2795 and HPR 2656) were at par with each other with respect to this parameter. In terms of yield, conventional tillage produced much larger grain yield, straw yield, and biological yield and was at par with minimum tillage without residue. Among different varieties tested, HPR 2795 recorded much greater grain, straw and biological yields.

Keywords

Biological yield Conventional tillage Minimum tillage Residue Rice Varieties

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2022 Environment Conservation Journal

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Saini, A., Manuja, S. ., Kumar, S. ., K., S., Kumari, S. ., Kumar, A. ., & Suri, D. . (2022). Effect of different tillage systems and cultivars on yield and yield attributes of rice (Oryza sativa L.). Environment Conservation Journal, 23(1&2), 365–369. https://doi.org/10.36953/ECJ.021928-2185
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Anonymous. (2018). Statistical Abstract of Himachal Pradesh 2017 – 18. Department of Economics and Statistics, Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla. pp 31 – 32.
  2. Anonymous. (2020). Pocket Book of Agricultural Statistics 2018. Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture and Family Welfare, Government of India pp 22-24
  3. Anonymous.(2021).http://www.cropweatheroutlook.in/crida/amis/bramis.jsp
  4. Gomez, K. A., & Gomez, A. A., (1984). Statistical Procedure for Agricultural Research, edn 2, pp. 680. Wiley Inter Science, New York, USA.
  5. Gupta, R., & Seth, A. (2007). A review of resource conserving technologies for sustainable management of the rice–wheat cropping systems of the Indo-Gangetic plains (IGP). Crop protection, 26(3), 436-447. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2006.04.030
  6. Mathew, R. P., Feng, Y., Githinji, L., Ankumah, R., & Balkcom, K. S. (2012). Impact of no-tillage and conventional tillage systems on soil microbial communities. Applied and Environmental Soil Science, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/548620
  7. Mitra, B., & Patra, K. (2019). Performance of rice-wheat cropping system under conservation agriculture based establishment techniques in eastern Indian plains. Journal of Cereal Research, 11(3).268-274. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25174/2249-4065/2019/94043
  8. Pandey, B. P., & Kandel, T. P. (2020). Response of Rice to Tillage, Wheat Residue and Weed Management in a Rice-Wheat Cropping System. Agronomy, 10(11), 1734. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10111734
  9. Pretty, J., Toulmin, C., & Williams, S. (2011). Sustainable intensification in African agriculture. International journal of agricultural sustainability, 9(1), 5-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3763/ijas.2010.0583
  10. Schatz, M. C., Maron, L. G., Stein, J. C., Wences, A. H., Gurtowski, J., Biggers, E., ... & McCombie, W. R. (2014). Whole genome de novo assemblies of three divergent strains of rice, Oryza sativa, document novel gene space of aus and indica. Genome biology, 15(11), 1-16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-014-0506-z
  11. Seth, M., Thakurand, D. R., & Manuja, S. (2019). Effect of tillage and site-specific nutrient management on productivity of rice-wheat cropping system. J. Crop Weed, 15, 115-119.
  12. Singh, R. D., Bhattacharyya, R., Chandra, S., & Kundu, S. (2006). Tillage and Irrigation Effects on Soil Infiltration, Water Expense and Crop Yield under Rice-Wheat System in a Medium Textured Soil of North-West Himalayas. Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science, 54(2), 151-157.
  13. Seth, M., & Singh, S. M. S. (2020). Effect of tillage and site specific nutrient management on yield, nutrient uptake and status of soil in wheat in rice-wheat cropping system. Journal of Crop and Weed, 16(3), 32-37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22271/09746315.2020.v16.i3.1361
  14. Singh, S., Bhushan, L., Ladha, J. K., Gupta, R. K., Rao, A. N., & Sivaprasad, B. (2006). Weed management in dry-seeded rice (Oryza sativa) cultivated in the furrow-irrigated raised-bed planting system. Crop Protection, 25(5), 487-495. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2005.08.004