Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-05T00:30:17.991Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Conservation tillage and microbially mediated integrated phosphorus management enhance productivity, profitability and energy use efficiency of maize

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2023

Amit Kumar*
Affiliation:
ICAR RC for NEH Region, Sikkim Centre, Tadong, Gangtok, Sikkim-737102, India ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi-110012, India
U. K. Behera
Affiliation:
ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi-110012, India College of Agriculture Kyrdemkulai, CAU, Umiam, Meghalaya-793103, India
Shiva Dhar
Affiliation:
ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi-110012, India
Livleen Shukla
Affiliation:
ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi-110012, India
Raghavendra Singh
Affiliation:
ICAR-Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh-208024, India
Subhash Babu
Affiliation:
ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi-110012, India
V. K. Sharma
Affiliation:
ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi-110012, India
P. K. Upadhyay
Affiliation:
ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi-110012, India
Rakesh Kumar Bairwa
Affiliation:
ICAR-Directorate of Mushroom Research, Solan, Himachal Pradesh-173213, India
Gaurendra Gupta
Affiliation:
ICAR-Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh-284003, India
Adarsh Kumar
Affiliation:
ICAR-National Bureau of Agriculturally Important Microorganisms, Mau Nath Bhanjan, Uttar Pradesh-275103, India
Satyapriya Singh
Affiliation:
Central Horticultural Experiment Station (ICAR-IIHR), Bhubaneswar, Odisha-751019, India
Narendra Bhandari
Affiliation:
Graphic Era Hill University, Bhimtal Campus, Uttarakhand-263136, India
Abdul Aziz Qureshi
Affiliation:
CAR-Indian Institute of Oilseed Research, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, Telangana-500030, India
B. A. Gudade
Affiliation:
Spices Park Chhindwara, Spices Board of India, Chhindwara, Madhya Pradesh-480107, India
Gaurav Verma
Affiliation:
Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural, University, Hisar, Haryana-125004, India
Ranjeet Kumar
Affiliation:
Acharya Narendra Deva University of Agriculture and Technology, Kumarganj, Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh-224229, India
Avneesh Kumar
Affiliation:
Acharya Narendra Deva University of Agriculture and Technology, Kumarganj, Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh-224229, India
*
Corresponding author: Amit Kumar; Email: amitkumaricar13@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sustainability of maize production systems is threatened by poor economic returns and resource intensiveness. Therefore, an experiment was conducted at the ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi during 2016–17 to 2017–18 to assess the effect of tillage and microbial inoculantsintegrated phosphorus (P) management on productivity, quality, economic outcome and energy dynamics of maize. Three tillage practices viz., CT–R (conventional tillage with no residue), ZT–R (zero tillage with no residue) and ZT + R (zero tillage with wheat crop residue at 2.5 Mg/ha) were assigned in main plots and five P management practices viz., P1 (control–NK as per recommendation, but no P), P2 (17.2 kg P/ha), P3 (17.2 kg P/ha + PSB), P4 (17.2 kg P/ha + compost inoculants) and P5 (34.4 kg P/ha) were allocated in subplots in three times replicated split-plot design. The maximum grain yield (5.96 Mg/ha), protein content (9.13%), protein yield (546 kg/ha) and gross energy returns (209 × 103 MJ/ha) were recorded under ZT + R while higher benefit: cost ratio (B: C ratio – the amount of economic gain per unit investment) (1.53) and energy efficiency (12.5) was noticed under ZT–R. Among the P management practices, the application of 34.4 kg P/ha recorded the highest grain yield (6.45 Mg/ha), protein content (9.34%), protein yield (603 kg/ha), B: C ratio (1.65) and energy efficiency (10.1). The results suggested that the application of P at the rate of 34.4 kg/ha under ZT + R is an economically robust approach for the quality maize production in semi-arid region.

Type
Crops and Soils Research Paper
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

Maize (Zea mays L.) is a versatile industrial crop with the highest output potential among all cereals and has wide genetic diversity (Sun et al., Reference Sun, Wang, Zhang, Fowler and Rajaratnam2011; Volpicella et al., Reference Volpicella, Leoni, Fanizza, Distaso, Leoni, Farioli, Naumann, Pastorello and Ceci2017). Maize and maize products are used as food, feed and fodder for both humans and animals (Asgher et al., Reference Asgher, Ahmad and Iqbal2013; Junqueira et al., Reference Junqueira, Costa, Boff, Muller, Mendonça and Batista2017). Furthermore, a larger portion of the maize is consumed by the ethanol business, and increased prices will intensify the rivalry for consumers' attention and may have an impact on maize prices for both animal and human consumption (Cooper et al., Reference Cooper, Baranski, Stewart, Nobel-de Lange, Bàrberi, Fließbach, Peigné, Berner, Brock, Casagrande and Crowley2016; Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Ma, Wang, Lu, Li, Xie, Zhu and Guo2017). Over the years, increasing food and industrial demand for maize has exerted huge pressure on natural resources and conventional agriculture which led to numerous challenges for stable food production (Avnery et al., Reference Avnery, Mauzerall, Liu and Horowitz2011; Dang et al., Reference Dang, Moody, Bell, Seymour, Dalal, Freebairn and Walker2015). Loss of soil organic matter (SOM) and soil erosion are threatening the future viability of agricultural production on a worldwide scale, particularly in extreme weather conditions with insufficient nutrient management (Montgomery, Reference Montgomery2007; Smyth et al., Reference Smyth, Garcia, Rader, Foster and Bras2017). Maize growers of the Indo-Gangetic Plains (IGP) of India frequently use a huge quantity of nitrogen (N) in the form of urea, very little phosphorous (P) and potassium (K), and nearly no secondary and micronutrients (Singh et al., Reference Singh, Phogat, Dahiya and Batra2014). Chauhan et al. (Reference Chauhan, Mahajan, Sardana, Timsina and Jat2012) stated that the rice–wheat (RW) cropping system in the IGP has not only led to the mining of important nutrients (N, P, K and S) from the soil but also has induced a nutrient imbalance, deterioration in soil health and low input use efficiency. Excessive nutrient mining reduces the soil productivity in the intensive rice–wheat monocropping system because rice and wheat are nutrients that devour crops than supplemented by chemical fertilizers and other sources (NRC, 2009; Lal, Reference Lal2010). The repeated conventional tillage (CT) and unbalanced nutrition are all related to increased soil compaction, poor soil aggregate stability, disrupted soil productivity, decreased water retention and aggravated losses from run-off erosion (Goddard et al., Reference Goddard, Zoebisch, Gan, Ellis, Watson and Sombatpanit2008). Repeated CT increases the subsoil compaction which causes a 13–16% reduction in cob length (Singh et al., Reference Singh, Malik, Garg, Devraj and Sheoran2012).

Conservation agriculture (CA) is a resource-conserving climate-smart practice to make agriculture more sustainable by protecting the soil and environment (Singh et al., Reference Singh, Babu, Avasthe, Yadav and Rajkhowa2015). Long-term adoption of no-till/zero-till (NT/ZT) and minimum tillage (MT) improves crop yield, quality, soil porosity, soil organic carbon and water holding capacity, and reduces the soil bulk density (Akbarnia et al., Reference Akbarnia, Alimardani and Baharloeyan2010; Karami et al., Reference Karami, Homaee, Afzalinia, Ruhipour and Basirat2012; Singh et al., Reference Singh, Babu, Avasthe, Yadav, Das, Mohapatra, Kumar, Singh and Chandra2020). Permanent broad beds with residue (PBB + R) and without residue (PBB) produced 29 and 26% higher maize grain yields over CT, respectively (Das et al., Reference Das, Saharawat, Bhattacharyya, Sudhishri, Bandyopadhyay, Sharma and Jat2018). More P acquisition by crop was reported under minimum tillage with residue retention instead of minimum tillage with residue removal and CT (Gupta et al., Reference Gupta, Bali, Kour, Bharat and Bazaya2011). Similarly, long-term NT adoption in maize production systems increases soil carbon and phosphatase activities at the 0–50 cm soil depth as compared to the CT (Sharma et al., Reference Sharma, Chandrika, Grace, Srinivas, Mandal, Raju, Munnalal, Kumar, Rao, Reddy, Osman, Indoria, Rani and Kobaku2014a, Reference Sharma, Singh, Tyagi and Tomar2014b). The CA has various advantages, but it has not been widely implemented because of weed control issues, residue management issues, nutrient management issues and a lack of machinery. Among these CA-related aspects, crop and nutrient management have received considerable study, with a focus on three main CA principles such as minimum disturbance of soil, diversified crop rotations and crop residue management. Nutrient management has also been added as the fourth principle of CA in light of the particular impact on plant nutrient dynamics. There is a need to determine the nutrient demand of crops for various ecologies, specifically in the CA-based systems, as the nutrient requirement is expected to vary with crops, cropping systems and management approaches.

P deficiency in soil is one of the major limiting factors for sustainable crop production (Pattanayak et al., Reference Pattanayak, Suresh kumar and Tarafdar2009; Kumar et al., Reference Kumar, Behera, Shiva-Dhar, Shukla, Bhatiya, Meena, Gupta and Singh2018). It is an important component of ATP, nucleic acids and phospholipids and regulates several functions such as gene transfer, photosynthesis, respiration, root growth, reproduction and crop yield (Mahdi et al., Reference Mahdi, Hassan, Hussain and Faisulur2011; Haokip et al., Reference Haokip, Dwivedi, Meena, Datta, Jat, Dey and Tigga2020). The efficiency of P throughout the world as well as in India is around 10–25%, and the concentration of bio-available P in soil is very low about 1.0 ppm (Goldstein, Reference Goldstein2000; Oberson and Joner, Reference Oberson, Joner, Turner, Frossard and Baldwin2005). The P management in CA is entirely different as compared to conventional agriculture due to variations in soil conditions and nutrient dynamics altered with RT/ZT, therefore, appropriate P management is highly warranted (Saad, Reference Saad2014; Haokip et al., Reference Haokip, Dwivedi, Meena, Datta, Sharma and Saharawat2019). Most of the researchers have done work on N, K and other nutrients but very less work has been done on P management under CT systems (Swarna et al., Reference Swarna, Behera, Shivay, Pandey, Naresh and Pandey2018). In Indian soils, systematic information on P transformation is scanty under maize-based cropping systems concerning microbial inoculant-mediated integrated P management under CA. To achieve higher crop productivity, growers use higher chemical phosphatic fertilizers than the recommended level under CA in many areas in India. Hence, to sustain crop productivity, there is an urgent need to identify alternate eco-friendly and economically robust technologies to meet the P need of the crop grown under CT systems. Therefore, it was hypothesized that microbial inoculants-mediated integrated P management under CA can potentially enhance maize productivity, profitability and grain quality besides energy saving. Hence to achieve the above hypothesis, the current study was conducted with the following objectives (1) to assess the effect of tillage and microbial inoculants-mediated integrated P management on maize productivity and quality and (2) to assess the impact of tillage and microbial inoculants-mediated integrated P management on economic outturn and energy dynamics of maize production.

Materials and methods

Experimental site

The experiment was carried out over two consecutive years (2016–17 and 2017–18) during kharif season at Research Farm of ICAR-IARI, New Delhi (latitude 28°35′N, longitude 77°12′E and an elevation of 228.6 m above MSL). The experimental farm represents the Western Ghat Plains Zone and belongs to the Mehrauli series of order Inceptisol, which is taxonomically classified as Typic Haplustept. The soil of the experimental field was sandy clay loam with a pH of 8.2, low OC content (0.43%), low available N (191.5 kg/ha), medium available P (11.9 kg/ha) and high available K (208 kg/ha). Before the start of the experiment, baseline soil samples were taken from 0–15 cm depth with 10 cm intervals and completely mixed for analysis. The detailed analysis of initial soil samples of the experimental site is presented in Table 1. The climate of the site was semi-arid and sub-tropical, with hot, dry summers and bitterly cold winters. The hottest month of the year was June, with maximum temperatures hovering around 39–40°C, while the coldest month was January, with a mean low temperature of 7.7°C. The average annual rainfall was roughly 650 mm, with approximately 80% falling between July and September during the monsoon season and the rest rainfall occurs between October and May. The typical daily US Weather Bureau Class ‘A’ open pan evaporimeter value reaches a maximum (10.9 mm) in June and a minimum (1.5 mm) was observed in January. The average annual pan evaporation was 850 mm. The meteorological data for the period of experimentation (2016–17 to 2017–18) recorded at the meteorological observatory of ICAR–IARI, New Delhi are depicted in Fig. 1.

Figure 1. Weather parameters during the period of experimentation (average of 2016–17 and 2017–18). RH, relative humidity.

Table 1. Initial physical, chemical and biological properties of the soil of experimental site

C, carbon; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; K, potassium; EC, electrical conductivity; CEC, cation exchange capacity; SMBC, soil microbial biomass carbon; TPF, tri-phenyl formazon; TTC, tri-phenyl tetrazolium chloride; PNP, p-nitrophenol phosphate; cfu, colony forming unit.

Experimental design

The experiment was undertaken in split plot design assigning three tillage practices in main plots [T1: CT–R (conventional tillage with no residue); T2: ZT–R (zero tillage with no residue); T3: ZT + R (zero tillage with wheat crop residue at 2.5 Mg/ha)] and five microbial inoculants-mediated integrated P management in subplots [P1: control (NK as per recommendation, but no P); P2: 17.2 kg P/ha; P3: 17.2 kg P/ha + phosphate solubilizing biofertilizer (PSB); P4: 17.2 kg P/ha + compost inoculants and P5: 34.4 kg P/ha] with three replications. Except for CT–R and ZT–R plots, after sowing of the crop, sun-dried wheat residue (Table 2) was applied in maize crop at 2.50 Mg/ha on the soil surface as mulch in all treatments. The compost inoculant was a mixer of Aspergillus awamori, Trichoderma viride, Phanerochaete chrysosporium and Aspergillus nidulans. Aspergillus awamori releases cellulose and hemicellulose enzymes and degrades the in situ crop residues. While turning the starch into sugar, it also produces citric acid. Numerous enzymes including cellulases and chitinases, which can break down cellulose and chitin, are produced by Trichoderma viride. Extracellular enzymes are released by Phanerochaete chrysosporium to decompose the unique three-dimensional structure of lignin into molecules that can be used by its metabolism. The fungus Aspergillus nidulans secretes enzymes that effectively break down the linear polymer cellulose (which is made up of glucopyranose units joined by β-1, 4 bonds) to oligosaccharides and glucose. The culture of compost inoculants and PSB was obtained from the Division of Microbiology, ICAR–IARI, New Delhi.

Table 2. Chemical composition of wheat crop residues used in the experiment

N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus; K, potassium; Ca, calcium; Mg, magnesium; S, sulphur; Fe, iron; Mn, manganese; Zn, zinc; Cu, cupper.

Field experiment

Individual plots (5.60 m × 4.20 m) were formed in the experimental field by manual labourers using a spade to avoid soil mixing in various plots with various nutrient treatments. The recommended dose of fertilizer 150 kg N/ha, 34.4 kg P/ha and 49.8 kg K/ha was applied. Urea, diammonium phosphate and muriate of potash, respectively, served as the sources of the nutrients (N, P and K). The whole dose of K and half dose of N were supplemented as basal at sowing, and the remaining N was top-dressed at the first and second irrigations. However, the dose of P was applied according to the treatment plans as basal. Before sowing the crop, seeds were treated with suitable microbial culture. A mixture of warm water 20–25 litres (60°C) and jaggery (2.5 kg) was prepared in a plastic bucket. After 30 min, the seeds of maize were mixed. Seeds were treated at 20 g/kg by using a suitable carrier (PSB culture) as per the recommendation and after that seeds were shade dried for 6–7 h. The culture of compost inoculants was mixed with water and then distributed on crop residue at 500 g/acre in different plots shortly after the sowing of the crop. Across the study years, the crop was raised by using the recommended cultivation techniques.

Crop productivity

The net plot area consisted of two central rows of the gross plot area. To evaluate yield, crop was physically harvested from the net plot area. Hand-picking was used to harvest maize cobs, and hand-shelling was used to separate the kernels. The grain yield of maize was reported at 14% moisture content and the grain yield per net plot was recorded and expressed as Mg/ha.

Quality parameters (amino acids and protein content %)

The amino acid content in maize grains was assessed according to the procedure given in the Basic Biochemistry Manual, Division of Biochemistry, ICAR–IARI, New Delhi. The amino acid yield was calculated by using the following formula:

(1)$${\rm Amino}\;{\rm acids}\;{\rm yield}\;( {{\rm kg/ha}} ) \,{\rm} = {\rm amino}\;{\rm acids}\;{\rm content}\;( {\rm \% } ) \,\times \,{\rm grain}\;{\rm yield}\;( {{\rm kg/ha}} ) \,{\rm /}\,100$$

Protein content in grains was calculated by multiplying N% by the factor of 6.25. While protein yield was calculated by using the following formula:

(2)$${\rm Protein}\;{\rm yield}\;( {{\rm kg/ha}} ) \,{\rm} = {\rm protein}\;{\rm content}\;( {\rm \% } ) \,\times \,{\rm grain}\;{\rm yield}\;( {{\rm kg/ha}} ) \,{\rm /}\,100$$

Profitability

For financial auditing, the cost incurred by the cultivation of crop (sowing to harvesting) and the economic value of all the outputs were calculated on the basis of market price during study period (2016–18). The monetary value of the total output was expressed as gross returns, net returns and benefit-cost (B: C) ratio were calculated by the following equations:

(3)$${\rm Gross\;returns}\;( {{\rm US}\$ \!\!\ /\rm ha} ) \, = {\rm value\;\rm of\;the\;grain}\, + {\rm value\;of\;stover}$$
(4)$${\rm Net}\;{\rm returns}\;( {{\rm US\$ \!\!\ /ha}} ) \,{\rm} = {\rm gross}\;{\rm returns}\;{\rm \ndash }\;{\rm Total}\;{\rm costs}$$
(5)$${\rm B\colon C}\;{\rm ratio}\,{\rm} = {\rm net}\;{\rm returns/total}\;{\rm cost}$$

Energy dynamics

To estimate the total input energy, the energy equivalents of all the inputs were added. The input energy used in different field operations (field preparation to post-harvest operations) was used to determine operation-wise energy, which is shown in Table 3. The direct and indirect energies of the inputs, both renewable and non-renewable, were also calculated as follows:

(6)$${\rm Output}\;{\rm energy}\;( {{\rm MJ/ha}} ) \,{\rm} = {\rm value}\;{\rm of}\;{\rm grain}\;( {{\rm MJ/ha}} ) \,{\rm} + {\rm value}\;{\rm of}\;{\rm stover}\;( {{\rm MJ/ha}} ) $$
(7)$${\rm Net}\;{\rm energy}\;{\rm return}\,( {{\rm MJ/ha}} ) \,{\rm} = E_{\rm 0}{\ndash }E_i$$

Where E 0 = Energy output and E i = Energy input.

(8)$${\rm Energy}\hbox{-}{\rm use}\;{\rm efficiency}\,{\rm} = E_o/E_{\rm i}$$

where E 0 = energy output and E i = energy input.

Table 3. Energy equivalent of inputs and output in agricultural operations

N, nitrogen; P2O5, phosphorus pentoxide; K2O, potassium oxide; PSB, phosphate solubilizing biofertilizer.

The data obtained for various parameters were appropriately statistically analysed using the GLM process of Split Plot Design for analysis of variance (SAS Software packages), SAS EG 9.2. . The ‘F’ test was used to compare the means, and the least significant difference (LSD) was calculated when the variance ratio was determined to be significant for the treatment effect. At a 5% probability level, the significance of the treatment effects was examined.

Results

Productivity

Significant improvement in grain yield of maize was 20.3 and 19.7% higher under ZT + R as compared to CT–R but it remained statistically at par with ZT–R during 2016–17 and 2017–18. In the case of P nutrition, across the study years maize yield varied from 4.02 to 6.49 Mg/ha (Table 5). The treatment P5 registered a significantly (P < 0.05) higher grain yield (6.40 and 6.49 Mg/ha) than other treatments. Treatment P3 recorded a similar yield with P4 during both years of experimentation. The interaction effect between tillage and microbial inoculant-mediated integrated P management practices on grain yield was influenced significantly (P < 0.05) during both the years and presented (Table 5 and Fig. 2). However, treatment combination ZT + R along with P5 gave the highest grain yield (7.30 and 7.41 Mg/ha, respectively) than other treatment combinations.

Figure 2. Interaction effect of tillage and microbial inoculants-mediated integrated P management on grain yield of maize during kharif season 2016–17 and 2017–18. CT–R (conventional tillage with no residue); ZT–R (zero tillage with no residue); ZT + R (zero tillage with wheat crop residue at 2.5 Mg/ha); P1: control (NK as per recommendation, but no P); P2: 17.2 kg P/ha; P3: 17.2 kg P/ha + phosphate solubilizing biofertilizer (PSB); P4: 17.2 kg P/ha + compost inoculants and P5: 34.4 kg P/ha.

Table 5. Influence of tillage and microbial inoculants-mediated integrated phosphorus (P) management on productivity, amino acids and protein yield of maize under conservation tillage

CT–R (conventional tillage with no residue); ZT–R (zero tillage with no residue); ZT + R (zero tillage with wheat crop residue at 2.5 Mg/ha); P1: control (nitrogen–potassium as per recommendation, but no P); P2: 17.2 kg P/ha; P3: 17.2 kg P/ha + phosphate solubilizing biofertilizer (PSB); P4: 17.2 kg P/ha + compost inoculants and P5: 34.4 kg P/ha; s.e.m.±, Standard error of mean; LSD, Least significant difference.

Quality

Amino acids and protein content in maize grains were not significantly (P < 0.05) influenced by tillage and microbial inoculants-mediated integrated P management practices during both years of experimentation (Table 4). However, the highest value of amino acids and protein content was found under ZT + R treatment followed by ZT–R treatment whereas, the lowest value was recorded under CT–R treatment. Among the tillage practices, lysine content varies from 1.97 to 2.32%, methionine content varies from 1.71 to 2.18%, tryptophan content varies from 2.10 to 2.65% and protein content varies from 8.45 to 9.19% across the study years. Based on 2 years' mean data, maximum values of lysine (2.30%), methionine (2.15%), tryptophan (2.62%) and protein content (9.13%) were found under ZT + R followed by ZT–R. The minimum values of lysine (1.99%), methionine (1.74%), tryptophan (2.13%) and protein content (8.49%) were observed under CT–R. In the case of microbial inoculant-mediated integrated P management practices, amino acid content varied from 1.65 to 2.70% and protein content varied from 8.36 to 9.40%. During both years of experimentation, treatment P5 recorded maximum values of lysine (2.24 and 2.28%), methionine (2.05 and 2.13%), tryptophan (2.66 and 2.70%) and protein content (9.28 and 9.36%) followed by P3, P4 and P2. Furthermore, the lowest values of lysine (1.65 and 1.68%), methionine (1.60 and 1.63%), tryptophan (1.80 and 1.85%) and protein content (8.36 and 8.43%) were recorded under P1 during both the years of experimentation.

Table 4. Influence of tillage and microbial inoculants-mediated integrated phosphorus (P) management on quality parameters (amino acids and protein content) of maize under conservation tillage

CT–R (conventional tillage with no residue); ZT–R (zero tillage with no residue); ZT + R (zero tillage with wheat crop residue at 2.5 Mg/ha); P1: control (nitrogen–potassium as per recommendation, but no P); P2: 17.2 kg P/ha; P3: 17.2 kg P/ha + phosphate solubilizing biofertilizer (PSB); P4: 17.2 kg P/ha + compost inoculants and P5: 34.4 kg P/ha; s.e.m.±, standard error of mean; LSD, least significant difference.

Concerning amino acids and protein yield, tillage and microbial inoculants-mediated integrated P management had a significant (P < 0.05) effect on amino acid and protein yield (Table 5). However, significantly higher values of amino acids (lysine yield 134 and 139 kg/ha, methionine yield 125 and 131 kg/ha, tryptophan yield 153 and 159 kg/ha) and protein yield (538 and 553 kg/ha) were noticed under ZT + R as compared to ZT–R and CT–R. Among the P levels, treatment P5 recorded the significantly highest (P < 0.05) values of amino acids (lysine yield 143 and 148 kg/ha, methionine yield 131 and 138 kg/ha, tryptophan yield 170 and 175 kg/ha) and protein yield (597 and 608 kg/ha) as compared to all remaining treatments, respectively, during both the years.

Profitability

The maximum gross (1428 and 1552 US$/ha) and net returns (849 and 954 US$/ha) were noticed under ZT + R which was statistically at par with ZT–R and significantly higher than CT–R (Table 6). The cost of cultivation varied among the treatments, but the highest cost of cultivation was observed under CT–R followed by ZT + R and the lowest cost of cultivation was found under ZT–R. However, the maximum B: C ratio (1.46 and 1.59) was found under ZT–R which was statistically at par with ZT + R and significantly higher than CT–R. In terms of P nutrition, the maximum gross return (1540 and 1674 US$/ha), cost of cultivation (595 and 617 US$/ha) and net returns (945 and 1055 US$/ha) were found under P5 which were significantly higher than all remaining treatments. The maximum B: C ratio (1.59 and 1.71) was recorded under P5 which was statistically similar to P3 and significantly superior to the remaining treatments, respectively. During both the years of experiment, the interaction effect between tillage and microbial inoculants-mediated integrated P management practices on net returns was recorded as significant (P < 0.05) (Table 6 and Fig. 3). However, the combination of ZT + R along with P5 resulted in significantly higher net returns (945 and 1056 US$/ha, respectively) as compared to the other treatment combinations.

Figure 3. Interaction effect of tillage and microbial inoculants-mediated integrated P management on net returns of maize during kharif season 2016–17 and 2017–18. CT–R (conventional tillage with no residue); ZT–R (zero tillage with no residue); ZT + R (zero tillage with wheat crop residue at 2.5 Mg/ha); P1: control (NK as per recommendation, but no P); P2: 17.2 kg P/ha; P3: 17.2 kg P/ha + phosphate solubilizing biofertilizer (PSB); P4: 17.2 kg P/ha + compost inoculants and P5: 34.4 kg P/ha.

Table 6. Economics of maize influenced by tillage and microbial inoculants-mediated integrated phosphorus (P) management under conservation tillage

CT–R (conventional tillage with no residue); ZT–R (zero tillage with no residue); ZT + R (zero tillage with wheat crop residue at 2.5 Mg/ha); P1: control (nitrogen–potassium as per recommendation, but no P); P2: 17.2 kg P/ha; P3: 17.2 kg P/ha + phosphate solubilizing biofertilizer (PSB); P4: 17.2 kg P/ha + compost inoculants and P5: 34.4 kg P/ha; s.e.m.±, standard error of mean; LSD, least significant difference.

Energy dynamics

Tillage and microbial inoculants-mediated integrated P management practices exerted a significant (P < 0.05) effect on the energy dynamics of maize (Table 7). Among the tillage practices, the adoption of ZT + R registered significantly higher gross energy returns (205 and 214 × 103 MJ/ha) over CT–R but it remained statistically at par with ZT–R. Energy input varied significantly among the tillage practices but the maximum energy input (46.9 × 103 MJ/ha) was recorded under ZT + R and the lowest energy input (15.6 × 103 MJ/ha) was incurred under ZT–R. The maximum energy net returns (175 and 183 × 103 MJ/ha) and energy use efficiency (12.2 and 12.7) were recorded under ZT–R which was significantly higher than ZT + R and CT–R during both years. In the context of P management practices, treatment P5 recorded significantly highest gross returns of energy (219 and 229 × 103 MJ/ha), energy input (26.8 × 103 MJ/ha) and energy net returns (192 and 202 × 103 MJ/ha) over other treatments, respectively, during both the years. The maximum energy use efficiency (9.9 and 10.4) was found under the P5 treatment which was statistically similar to P3 and remarkably greater than all other treatments. During both years of experimentation, energy use efficiency was influenced significantly (P < 0.05) by the interaction effect of tillage and microbial inoculant-mediated integrated P management practices (Table 7 and Fig. 4). Treatment combination ZT–R along with P3 resulted in the significantly highest energy use efficiency (13.4 and 13.9, respectively) followed by ZT–R along with P4 and ZT–R along with P5.

Figure 4. Interaction effect of tillage and microbial inoculants-mediated integrated P management on energy use efficiency of maize during kharif season 2016–17 and 2017–18. CT–R (conventional tillage with no residue); ZT–R (zero tillage with no residue); ZT + R (zero tillage with wheat crop residue at 2.5 Mg/ha); P1: control (NK as per recommendation, but no P); P2: 17.2 kg P/ha; P3: 17.2 kg P/ha + phosphate solubilizing biofertilizer (PSB); P4: 17.2 kg P/ha + compost inoculants and P5: 34.4 kg P/ha.

Table 7. Impact of tillage and microbial inoculants-mediated integrated phosphorus (P) management on energy dynamics of maize under conservation tillage

CT–R (conventional tillage with no residue); ZT–R (zero tillage with no residue); ZT + R (zero tillage with wheat crop residue at 2.5 Mg/ha); P1: control (nitrogen–potassium as per recommendation, but no P); P2: 17.2 kg P/ha; P3: 17.2 kg P/ha + phosphate solubilizing biofertilizer (PSB); P4: 17.2 kg P/ha + compost inoculants and P5: 34.4 kg P/ha; s.e.m. ± : standard error of mean; LSD: least significant difference.

Discussion

Productivity

In general, crop productivity mainly depends on the characteristics that contribute to growth and yield, and it can be increased by adopting efficient agronomic management techniques (Shao et al., Reference Shao, Xie, Wang, Yue, Yao and Liu2016; Das et al., Reference Das, Pramanick, Goswami, Maitra, Ibrahim, Laing and Hossain2021; Kar et al., Reference Kar, Pramanick, Brahmachari, Saha, Mahapatra, Saha and Kumar2021). The increased grain yield in ZT plots as compared to CT plots is the result of the several benefits of more nutrients, including softened seed bed for quicker germination, better crop establishment (Jat et al., Reference Jat, Singh, Kumar, Jat, Parihar, Bijarniya, Sutaliya, Jat, Parihar, Kakraliya and Gupta2019), decreased weed population, enhanced soil health (Kumar et al., Reference Kumar, Mitra, Mazumdar, Majumdar, Saha, Singh, Pramanick, Gaber, Alsanie and Hossain2021), precise water management and improved nutrient usage efficiency (Jat et al., Reference Jat, Bijarniya, Kakraliya, Sapkota, Kakraliya and Jat2021a, Reference Jat, Choudhary, Singh, Meena, Singh and Rai2021b). Similar outcomes were reported by Naresh et al., Reference Naresh, Rathore, Kumar, Singh, Singh and Shahi2014; Page et al., Reference Page, Dang, Dalal, Reeves, Thomas, Wang and Thompson2019; Kumar et al., Reference Kumar, Mishra, Rao, Mondal, Hazra, Choudhary, Hans and Bhatt2020. In the current study, the grain yield of maize was increased by ~20.3% under ZT + R over CT–R. The ZT + R plots contributed to a decrease in evapotranspiration, and improved soil nutrient dynamics as compared to the CT-R plots (Singh et al., Reference Singh, Babu, Avasthe, Meena, Yadav, Das, Mohapatra, Rathore, Kumar and Singh2021). NT and mulching in CA, as opposed to CT without mulching, resulted in greater moisture conservation (Choudhary et al., Reference Choudhary, Datta, Jat, Yadav, Gathala, Sapkota, Das, Sharma, Jat, Singh and Ladha2018) which enhances the crop resistance to soil moisture stress and increases maize grain yield. Furthermore, higher N losses through immobilization and nitrate leaching in CT plots resulted in low productivity as compared to ZT plots (Nishigaki et al., Reference Nishigaki, Sugihara, Kilasara and Funakawa2017; Tamta et al., Reference Tamta, Kumar, Ram, Meena, Meena, Yadav and Subrahmanya2018). Crop yields have been shown to increase when crop residue is kept as surface mulch at 2–6 Mg/ha (Jimenez et al., Reference Jimenez, Pinto, Ripoll, Sanchez-Miranda and Navarro2017). The superior growth, agro physiological performance and yield characteristics observed with the ZT + R treatment might be attributed to the plants' improved growth as a result of the increased availability of N, P and K (Das et al., Reference Das, Bhattacharyya, Sudhishr, Sharma, Saharawat, Bandyopadhyay, Sepat, Bana, Aggarwal, Sharma, Bhatia, Singh, Datta, Kar, Singh, Singh, Pathak, Vyas and Jat2014). The growth and yield attributes are the outcome of every metabolic action taking place inside the plant's body (Congreves et al., Reference Congreves, Hayes, Verhallen and Van Eerd2015; Lizasoain et al., Reference Lizasoain, Trulea, Gittinger, Kral, Piringer, Schedl, Nilsen, Potthast, Gronauer and Bauer2017). P had a positive impact on the metabolism, energy conversion and root development of the plant, which increased the amount of photosynthates that were transported to the sink development (Husain et al., Reference Husain, Kashyap, Prusty, Dutta, Sharma, Panwar and Kumar2019). In the current study application of P at the rate of 34.4 kg/ha resulted in a higher maize yield. P administration increased the number of energy transfer processes, improved uptake of other critical cations and produced photosynthates, and translocation from source to sink, which finally gave the higher values of growth and yield contributing traits, which ultimately resulted in a considerable enhancement in grain and stover yields (Mi et al., Reference Mi, Chen, Wu, Lai, Yuan and Zhang2010; Singh et al., Reference Singh, Raj, Singh, Singh and Singh2018; Shyam et al., Reference Shyam, Rathore, Shekhawat, Singh, Pradhan and Singh2021. The enhanced availability of N and P led to well-developed roots, which improved plant growth and development as well as the better redirection of photosynthates towards sinks, even with the use of a single or combination of bio-fertilizers and ultimately this contributed significantly to the higher yield of maize (Franzini et al., Reference Franzini, Mendes, Muraoka, Silva and Adu-Gyamfi2013; Jat et al., Reference Jat, Bijarniya, Kakraliya, Sapkota, Kakraliya and Jat2021a; Pramanick et al., Reference Pramanick, Kumar, Naik, Kumar, Singh, Maitra, Naik, Rajput and Minkinia2022).

Quality

The addition of crop residues on the soil surface improves the product quality because increased bioavailability of essential and desired nutrients in the crop root zone, and increased photosynthetic and metabolic activity, which resulted in better partitioning of photosynthates from source to sink (Cai et al., Reference Cai, Ma, Zhang, Ping, Yan, Liu, Yuan, Wang and Ren2014). Crop residue management has been demonstrated to be an effective way for improving amino acid and protein content in grains, which is controlled not only by genetic factors but also by growing conditions, which has significant consequences for maize industrial demand (Martinsen et al., Reference Martinsen, Shitumbanuma, Mulder, Ritz and Cornelissen2017). The crop residues retention on the soil surface increases the availability of macro and micronutrients, improves the aeration and root activity and thereby increases the absorption and assimilation of nitrogen by plants and encouraged the translocation of ‘N’ from vegetative parts to grains which indirectly affect the protein concentration and amino acid content (Kabiri et al., Reference Kabiri, Raiesi and Ghazavi2016; Fernandez et al., Reference Fernandez, Zentner, Schellenberg, Aladenola, Leeson, Luce, McConkey and Cutforth2018). ZT + R improves SOM storage which resulted in higher amino acid content over the CT system (Swanepoel et al., Reference Swanepoel, Rotter, Van der Laan, Annandale, Beukes, Du Preez, Swanepoel, Van der Merwe and Hoffmann2018). In the current study, significantly higher amino acids (lysine, methionine and tryptophan) and protein yields were noticed under ZT + R as compared to ZT–R and CT–R might be due to early and better establishment of crop under ZT + R plots. Crop residues retentions in ZT maintain favourable soil moisture, regulate soil temperature and enhance nutritional conditions, which might be resulting in better crop growth and yield, amino acid and protein content in grains, and higher amino acid and protein output (Sharma et al., Reference Sharma, Chandrika, Grace, Srinivas, Mandal, Raju, Munnalal, Kumar, Rao, Reddy, Osman, Indoria, Rani and Kobaku2014a, Reference Sharma, Singh, Tyagi and Tomar2014b; Yadav et al., Reference Yadav, Das, Lal, Babu, Meena, Saha, Singh and Datta2018). Surface residue retention increases SOC, soil microbial biomass carbon, dehydrogenase activity, earthworm population, water and nutrient availability, which leads to enhanced crop growth, productivity and produce quality (Wang et al., Reference Wang, Liu, Li and Han2015; Kumar and Babalad, Reference Kumar and Babalad2018; Babu et al., Reference Babu, Singh, Avasthe, Yadav, Das, Singh, Mohapatra, Rathore, Chandra and Kumar2020).

Adequate nutrient availability regulates the metabolic processes in the plant system and improves protein and amino acid synthesis (Son et al., Reference Son, Diep, Giang and Thu2016; Jia et al., Reference Jia, Wang, Peng, Zhao, Kong, Wang, Yan and Wang2017). Better N and P nutrition led to higher root growth and more efficient utilization of other available nutrients and water by the plants, which resulted in higher amino acids and protein content in grains with increasing levels of P (Patil, Reference Patil2015; Stori et al., Reference Stori, Parihar, Ahmadi, Ahmadzai, Nayak, Jat, Mandal, Wasifhy, Sayedi, Shamsi, Ehsan, Parihar, Kumar and Meena2019; Wen et al., Reference Wen, Li, Shen, Tang, Xiong, Li, Pang, Ryan, Lambers and Shen2019). Adequate P supply enhanced the photosynthesis rate and redirected the photosynthates for the formation of amino acids and protein. Furthermore, enhanced P supply increases the degradation of the carbohydrates into ‘acetyl co-enzyme A’, which is necessary for the synthesis of amino acids and protein (Fecak et al., Reference Fecák, Sarikova and Cern2010; Nanthakumar et al., Reference Nanthakumar, Panneerselvam and Krishna kumar2014). Higher P bioavailability in the soil increases lateral root proliferation, nutrient uptake and formation of polypeptide chain which ultimately results in more protein and amino acid formation (Sharma, Reference Sharma2001; Roychowdhury et al., Reference Roychowdhury, Mondal and Banerjee2017).

Profitability

In the current study, the highest gross and net returns were noticed under ZT + R followed by ZT–R, and significantly higher than CT–R treatment due to higher economic yield. Similarly, the adoption of CT–R incurred the highest cost of cultivation, followed by ZT + R, and ZT–R with the lowest cost. The highest B:C ratio, however, was reported under ZT–R, followed by ZT + R, and was much higher than CT–R. Under CA tillage operations are largely avoided which result in cost saving for tillage practices (Halde et al., Reference Halde, Bamford and Entz2015; Kumar et al., Reference Kumar, Behera, Shiva-Dhar, Shukla, Bhatiya, Meena, Gupta and Singh2018, Reference Kumar, Kumar, Kumar, Gharsiram, Bhutekar and Kumar2022; Maiga et al., Reference Maiga, Alhameid, Singh, Polat, Singh, Kumar and Osborne2019; Munyao et al., Reference Munyao, Gathaara and Micheni2019; Rashid et al., Reference Rashid, Timsina, Islam and Islam2019). Less soil disturbance and higher crop yield with lower inputs under ZT + R resulted in more economic returns per unit of investment (Kabiri et al., Reference Kabiri, Raiesi and Ghazavi2016; Chalise et al., Reference Chalise, Singhm, Wegner, Kumar, Pe´rez-Gutie´rrez and Osborne2019). Adequate P supply improves the plant growth and yield which in turns in more economic returns as compared to poor P supply plots. Several workers also reported a similar increase in grain and stover yields at higher P doses (Martinsen et al., Reference Martinsen, Munera-Echeverri, Obia, Cornelissen and Mulder2019; Singh et al., Reference Singh, Singh and Singh2019; Haokip et al., Reference Haokip, Dwivedi, Meena, Datta, Jat, Dey and Tigga2020). The production cost was inversely related to the gross returns and net returns and the B: C ratio (Singh et al., Reference Singh, Babu, Avasthe, Yadav and Rajkhowa2015; Selassie, Reference Selassie2016; Naik et al., Reference Naik, Kumar, Singh, Karthika and Roy2022).

Energy dynamics

The energy utilization under CA is very much crop-specific and strongly aligned with management practices. The significant maximum gross returns of energy were registered under ZT + R as compared to the CT–R treatment. In comparison to CT–R, a higher amount of stover and seed production resulted in higher energy output (Karunakaran and Behera, Reference Karunakaran and Behera2016; Jat et al., Reference Jat, Bijarniya, Kakraliya, Sapkota, Kakraliya and Jat2021a, Reference Jat, Choudhary, Singh, Meena, Singh and Rai2021b). The next most energy-intensive component in all the tillage treatments was diesel usage for agronomic crop management activities. The ZT + R was the most energy-intensive system followed by CT–R and the lowest energy input was involved under ZT–R treatment. This was due to the residue incorporation (2.5 Mg/ha) in ZT + R, and more tiling operations performed in the CT–R system. The high energy value of residue (12.5 MJ/kg) was the driving force behind the highest energy demand. These findings are in agreement with Gathala et al. ( Reference Gathala, Timsina, Islam, Krupnik, Bose, Islam, Rahman, Hossain, Harun-Ar-Rashid, Ghosh, Hasan, Khayer, Islam, Tiwari and McDonald2016) and Kumar et al. (Reference Kumar, Mitra, Mazumdar, Majumdar, Saha, Singh, Pramanick, Gaber, Alsanie and Hossain2021). Tillage affects root growth and function, which in turn affects crop development. As a result, the root system acts as a link between changes in shoot function and harvested yield and the effects of soil management options (Singh et al., Reference Singh, Phogat, Dahiya and Batra2014; Pramanick et al., Reference Pramanick, Kumar, Naik, Kumar, Singh, Maitra, Naik, Rajput and Minkinia2022). In the current study, across the study years, ZT–R has recorded the highest energy net returns and energy use efficiency, and it out performed ZT + R and CT–R treatment. It might be a result of lower energy consumption and high energy output brought on by increased grain and stover yields. Due to crop residues' potential energy value, their excessive inclusion renders treatments ineffective in terms of energy balance and energy use efficiency (Jat et al., Reference Jat, Datta, Sharma, Kumar, Yadav, Choudhary, Choudhary, Gathala, Sharma, Jat, Yaduvanshi, Singh and McDonald2017). Singh et al. (Reference Singh, Singh, Dwivedi, Singh, Majumdar, Jat, Mishra and Rani2016) reported that tillage treatments had a substantial impact on crop growth, yield characteristics, yield and energy net returns. The RT was shown to have significantly higher yield and energy net returns than CT. In the context of P management practices, application of a treatment P5 considerably increased the gross returns of energy by 54.6 and 56.4% over the other P management practices. The energy net returns were increased with increased P levels in the current study. Combined application of ZT–R along with P3 noticed the significantly highest energy use efficiency (13.4 and 13.9, respectively) followed by ZT–R along with P4 and ZT–R along with P5. This was due to more grain and stover yield under ZT–R and integrated P management (Abbas et al., Reference Abbas, Aslam, Shah, Depar and Memon2016; Kumawat et al., Reference Kumawat, Sharma, Meena, Dwivedi, Barman, Kumar, Chobhe and Dey2018). This finding was also confirmed by Son et al. (Reference Son, Diep, Giang and Thu2016) and Haokip et al. (Reference Haokip, Dwivedi, Meena, Datta, Sharma and Saharawat2019). A higher degree of P application resulted in increased crop energy net returns due to higher grain and stover yields. Similar observations were also reported by Parihar et al. (Reference Parihar, Jat, Singh, Majumdar, Jat, Saharawat, Pradhan and Kuri2017) and Jat et al. (Reference Jat, Sharma, Jakhar and Sharma2018).

Policy implications and constraints

The P management in CA is entirely different as compared to conventional agriculture because soil conditions and nutrient dynamics alter with RT/ZT, therefore, appropriate P management is needed. The current study suggested that ZT + R along with the application of P at the rate of 34.4 kg/ha (P5) significantly improved crop yield by 59%, protein yield by 43.6%, profitability by 46% and energy use efficiency by 29% as compared to the control plot. Thus, it is a suitable and energy-saving practice for the profitable production of quality maize in the semi-arid region of India and other similar ecoregions. Achieving widespread adoption of CA requires not only the development of viable technological options but also needs the dynamic complement of enabling policies and institutional support to farmers and supply chains (e.g. custom hiring service providers and markets), which are presently lacking in the majority of countries. Furthermore, the provision of credit to the farmers for purchasing machinery, and inputs through banks and credit agencies at reasonable interest rates must be insured for larger adoption of CA.

Conclusions

The current study proved the hypothesis that conservation tillage and microbial-mediated integrated phosphorus management improve the productivity, quality, economic returns and energy use efficiency of maize production. The highest grain yield, amino acid and protein content and yield, gross returns, net returns and gross returns of energy were attained under ZT + R while, a higher B:C ratio, energy net returns and energy efficiency were found under ZT–R. Application of P at the rate of 34.4 kg/ha resulted in higher grain yield, amino acid and protein content and yield, gross returns, net returns, B: C ratio, gross returns of energy, energy net returns and energy use efficiency during both the years of experimentation. Hence, microbial-mediated integrated phosphorus management under ZT + R is an economically sound and environmentally robust approach for the sustainable production of quality maize in semi-arid regions.

Acknowledgement

The Director of the ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute in New Delhi is to be thanked for providing the facilities required to carry out the Ph.D. experiment on conservation agriculture.

Author contributions

Conceptualization – A. K., U. K. B., S. D., L. S.; methodology and visualization – A. K., U. K. B., S. D., L. S.; software – R. S., S. B.; validation – A. K., U. K. B., S. D., L. S.; formal analysis – A. K., G. G., A. K., V. K. S.; investigation – A. K.; writing original draft preparation – A. K., P. K. U., G. V., B. A. G., R. K. B.; writing review and editing – A. A. Q., N. B., R. K., A. K., S. P.; visualization – A. K., U. K. B., S. D., L. S.; supervision and research administration – U. K. B., S. D., L. S.

Financial support

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Conflict of interests

None.

Ethical standards

Not applicable.

References

Abbas, M, Aslam, M, Shah, JA, Depar, N and Memon, MY (2016) Relative growth response of hydroponically grown wheat genotypes to deficient and adequate phosphorus levels. Pakistan Journal of Agriculture, Agricultural Engineering and Veterinary Sciences 32, 169181.Google Scholar
Akbarnia, A, Alimardani, R and Baharloeyan, S (2010) Performance comparison of three tillage systems in wheat farms. Australian Journal of Crop Science 4, 586589.Google Scholar
Asgher, M, Ahmad, Z and Iqbal, HMN (2013) Alkali and enzymatic delignification of sugarcane bagasse to expose cellulose polymers for saccharification and bioethanol production. Industrial Crops and Products 44, 488495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avnery, S, Mauzerall, DL, Liu, J and Horowitz, LW (2011) Global crop yield reductions due to surface ozone exposure: 1 year 2000 production losses and economic damage. Atmospheric Environment 45, 22842296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babu, S, Singh, R, Avasthe, RK, Yadav, GS, Das, A, Singh, VK, Mohapatra, KP, Rathore, SS, Chandra, P and Kumar, A (2020) Impact of land configuration and organic nutrient management on productivity, quality and soil properties under baby maize in Eastern Himalayas. Scientific Reports 10, 114. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-73072-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bouyoucos, CJ (1962) Hydrometer method improved for making particle size analysis of soil. Agronomy Journal 54, 464465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cai, H, Ma, W, Zhang, X, Ping, J, Yan, X, Liu, J, Yuan, J, Wang, L and Ren, J (2014) Effect of subsoil tillage depth on nutrient accumulation, root distribution, and grain yield in spring maize. The Crop Journal 2, 297307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalise, KS, Singhm, S, Wegner, BR, Kumar, S, Pe´rez-Gutie´rrez, JD and Osborne, SL (2019) Cover crops and returning residue impact on soil organic carbon, bulk density, penetration resistance, water retention, infiltration, and soybean yield. Agronomy Journal 111, 99108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chauhan, BS, Mahajan, G, Sardana, V, Timsina, J and Jat, ML (2012) Productivity and sustainability of the rice–wheat cropping system in the Indo-Gangetic Plains of the Indian subcontinent: problems, opportunities, and strategies. Advances in Agronomy 117, 315369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choudhary, M, Datta, A, Jat, HS, Yadav, AK, Gathala, MK, Sapkota, TB, Das, AK, Sharma, PC, Jat, ML, Singh, R and Ladha, JK (2018) Changes in soil biology under conservation agriculture based sustainable intensification of cereal systems in Indo-Gangetic Plains. Geoderma 313, 193204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Congreves, KA, Hayes, A, Verhallen, LL and Van Eerd, LL (2015) Long term impact of tillage and crop rotation on soil health at four temperate agro-ecosystems. Soil and Tillage Research 152, 1728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, J, Baranski, M, Stewart, G, Nobel-de Lange, M, Bàrberi, P, Fließbach, A, Peigné, J, Berner, A, Brock, C, Casagrande, M and Crowley, O (2016) Shallow non-inversion tillage in organic farming maintains crop yields and increases soil C stocks: a meta-analysis. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 36, 120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dang, YP, Moody, PW, Bell, MJ, Seymour, NP, Dalal, RC, Freebairn, DM and Walker, SR (2015) Strategic tillage in no-till farming systems in Australia's northern grains-growing regions: II. Implications for agronomy, soil and environment. Soil and Tillage Research 152, 115123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Das, TK, Bhattacharyya, R, Sudhishr, S, Sharma, AR, Saharawat, YS, Bandyopadhyay, KK, Sepat, S, Bana, RS, Aggarwal, P, Sharma, RK, Bhatia, A, Singh, G, Datta, SP, Kar, A, Singh, B, Singh, P, Pathak, H, Vyas, AK and Jat, ML (2014) Conservation agriculture in an irrigated cotton–wheat system of the western Indo-Gangetic Plains: crop and water productivity and economic profitability. Field Crops Research 158, 2433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Das, TK, Saharawat, YS, Bhattacharyya, R, Sudhishri, S, Bandyopadhyay, KK, Sharma, AR and Jat, ML (2018) Conservation agriculture effects on crop and water productivity, profitability and soil organic carbon accumulation under a maize-wheat cropping system in the north-western Indo-Gangetic Plains. Field Crops Research 215, 222231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Das, P, Pramanick, B, Goswami, SB, Maitra, S, Ibrahim, SM, Laing, AM and Hossain, A (2021) Innovative land arrangement in combination with irrigation methods improves the crop and water productivity of rice (Oryza sativa L.) grown with okra (Abelmoschus esculentus L.) under raised and sunken bed systems. Agronomy 11, 2087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fecák, P, Sarikova, D and Cern, I (2010) Influence of tillage system and starting N fertilization on seed yield and quality of soybean Glycine max (L.) Merrill. Plant Soil and Environment 56, 105110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez, MR, Zentner, RP, Schellenberg, MP, Aladenola, O, Leeson, JY, Luce, MS, McConkey, BG and Cutforth, H (2018) Soil fertility and quality response to reduced tillage and diversified cropping under organic management. Agronomy Journal 111, 781792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franzini, VI, Mendes, FL, Muraoka, T, Silva, EC and Adu-Gyamfi, JJ (2013) Phosphorus use efficiency by Brazilian upland rice genotypes evaluated by the 32P dilution technique. International Atomic Energy Agency Techdoc 1721, 7992.Google Scholar
Gathala, MK, Timsina, J, Islam, MS, Krupnik, TJ, Bose, TR, Islam, N, Rahman, MM, Hossain, MI, Harun-Ar-Rashid, M, Ghosh, AK, Hasan, MMK, Khayer, MA, Islam, MZ, Tiwari, TP and McDonald, A (2016) Productivity, profitability, and energetics: a multi-criteria assessment of farmers’ tillage and crop establishment options for maize in intensively cultivated environments of South Asia. Field Crops Research 186, 3246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goddard, T, Zoebisch, M, Gan, Y, Ellis, W, Watson, A and Sombatpanit, S (2008) No-till farming systems. World Association of Soil and Water Conservation Special publication no 3.Google Scholar
Goldstein, AH (2000) Bio-processing of rock phosphate ore: essential technical considerations for the development of a successful commercial technology. In Proceedings of the 4th international fertilizer association technical conference, IFA, Paris 220.Google Scholar
Gupta, M, Bali, AS, Kour, S, Bharat, R and Bazaya, BR (2011) Effect of tillage and nutrient management on resource conservation and productivity of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Indian Journal of Agronomy 56, 116120.Google Scholar
Halde, C, Bamford, KC and Entz, MH (2015) Crop agronomic performance under a six-year continuous organic no-till system and other tilled and conventionally-managed systems in the northern Great Plains of Canada. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 213, 121130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haokip, IC, Dwivedi, BS, Meena, MC, Datta, SP, Sharma, VK and Saharawat, YS (2019) Effect of phosphorus fertilization and microbial inoculants on yield, phosphorus use-efficiency and available phosphorus in maize–wheat cropping system. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 89, 806812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haokip, IC, Dwivedi, BS, Meena, MC, Datta, SP, Jat, HS, Dey, A and Tigga, P (2020) Effect of conservation agriculture and nutrient management options on soil phosphorus fractions under maize-wheat cropping system. Journal of Indian Society of Soil Science 68, 4553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Husain, J, Kashyap, P, Prusty, AK, Dutta, D, Sharma, SS, Panwar, AS and Kumar, S (2019) Effect of phosphorus fertilization on growth, yield and quality of pea (Pisum sativum). Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 89, 13031307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, ML (1973) Soil chemical analysis, prentice hall of India private limited. New Delhi, 187p.Google Scholar
Jat, HS, Datta, A, Sharma, PC, Kumar, V, Yadav, AK, Choudhary, M, Choudhary, V, Gathala, MK, Sharma, DK, Jat, ML, Yaduvanshi, NPS, Singh, G and McDonald, A (2017) Assessing soil properties and nutrient availability under conservation agriculture practices in a reclaimed sodic soil in cereal-based systems of north-west India. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science 64, 531545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jat, RC, Sharma, Y, Jakhar, RK and Sharma, RK (2018) Effect of phosphorus, zinc and iron on yield and quality of wheat in Western Rajasthan, India. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Science 7, 20552062.Google Scholar
Jat, RK, Singh, RG, Kumar, M, Jat, ML, Parihar, CM, Bijarniya, D, Sutaliya, JM, Jat, MK, Parihar, MD, Kakraliya, SK and Gupta, RK (2019) Ten years of conservation agriculture in a rice–maize rotation of Eastern Gangetic Plains of India: yield trends, water productivity and economic profitability. Field Crops Research 232, 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jat, RK, Bijarniya, D, Kakraliya, SK, Sapkota, TB, Kakraliya, M and Jat, ML (2021a) Precision nutrient rates and placement in conservation maize-wheat system: effects on crop productivity, profitability, nutrient-use efficiency, and environmental footprints. Agronomy 11, 2320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jat, RS, Choudhary, RL, Singh, HV, Meena, MK, Singh, VV and Rai, PK (2021b) Sustainability, productivity, profitability and soil health with conservation agriculture based sustainable intensification of oilseed brassica production system. Scientific Reports 11, 13366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jia, F, Wang, J, Peng, J, Zhao, P, Kong, Z, Wang, K, Yan, W and Wang, R (2017) D-amino acid substitution enhances the stability of antimicrobial peptide polybia-CP. Acta Biochimica et Biophysica Sinica 49, 916925.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jimenez, MN, Pinto, JR, Ripoll, MA, Sanchez-Miranda, A and Navarro, FB (2017) Impact of straw and rock-fragment mulches on soil moisture and early growth of holm oaks in a semi-arid area. Catena 152, 198206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Junqueira, VB, Costa, AC, Boff, T, Muller, C, Mendonça, MAC and Batista, PF (2017) Pollen viability, physiology, and production of maize plants exposed to pyraclostrobin + epoxiconazole. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology 137, 4248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kabiri, V, Raiesi, F and Ghazavi, MA (2016) Tillage effects on soil microbial biomass, SOM mineralization and enzyme activity in a semi-arid Calcixerepts. Agriculture Ecosystems Environment 232, 7384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kar, S, Pramanick, B, Brahmachari, K, Saha, G, Mahapatra, BS, Saha, A and Kumar, A (2021) Exploring the best tillage option in rice based diversified cropping systems in alluvial soil of eastern India. Soil and Tillage Research 205, 104761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karami, A, Homaee, M, Afzalinia, S, Ruhipour, and Basirat, S (2012) Organic resource management: impacts on soil aggregate stability and other soil physico-chemical properties. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 148, 2228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karunakaran, V and Behera, UK (2016) Tillage and residue management for improving productivity and resource use efficiency in soybean (Glycine max) – wheat (Triticum aestivum) cropping system. Experimental Agriculture 52, 118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, BTN and Babalad, HB (2018) Soil organic carbon, carbon sequestration, soil microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen, and soil enzymatic activity as influenced by conservation agriculture in pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) + soybean (Gycine max) intercropping system. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences 7, 323333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, A, Behera, UK, Shiva-Dhar, , Shukla, L, Bhatiya, A, Meena, MC, Gupta, G and Singh, RK (2018) Effect of tillage, crop residue and phosphorus management practices on the productivity and profitability of maize cultivation in Inceptisols. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 88, 1558–1167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, R, Mishra, JS, Rao, KK, Mondal, S, Hazra, KK, Choudhary, JS, Hans, H and Bhatt, BP (2020) Crop rotation and tillage management options for sustainable intensification of rice-fallow agro-ecosystem in eastern India. Scientific Report 10, 11146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kumar, M, Mitra, S, Mazumdar, SP, Majumdar, B, Saha, AR, Singh, SR, Pramanick, B, Gaber, A, Alsanie, WF and Hossain, A (2021) Improvement of soil health and system productivity through crop diversification and residue incorporation under jute-based different cropping systems. Agronomy 11, 1622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, P, Kumar, M, Kumar, A, Gharsiram, , Bhutekar, S and Kumar, S (2022) Effect of conservation tillage and nutrient management on maize in maize-pigeon pea intercropping system. The Pharma Innovation Journal 11, 10051010.Google Scholar
Kumawat, C, Sharma, VK, Meena, MC, Dwivedi, BS, Barman, M, Kumar, S, Chobhe, KA and Dey, A (2018) Effect of crop residue retention and phosphorus fertilization on P use efficiency of maize and biological properties of soil under maize-wheat cropping system in an Inceptisol. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 88, 11841189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lal, R (2010) Managing soils for a warming earth in a food insecure and energy starved world. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 173, 415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lizasoain, J, Trulea, A, Gittinger, J, Kral, I, Piringer, G, Schedl, A, Nilsen, PJ, Potthast, A, Gronauer, A and Bauer, A (2017) Maize stover for biogas production: effect of steam explosion pretreatment on the gas yields and on the biodegradation kinetics of the primary structural compounds. Bioresource Technology 244, 949956.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahdi, SS, Hassan, GI, Hussain, A and Faisulur, R (2011) Phosphorus availability issue – its fixation and role of phosphate solubilizing bacteria in phosphate solubilization. Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences 2, 174179.Google Scholar
Maiga, A, Alhameid, A, Singh, S, Polat, A, Singh, J, Kumar, S and Osborne, S (2019) Responses of soil organic carbon, aggregate stability, carbon and nitrogen fractions to 15 and 24 years of no-till diversified crop rotations. Soil Research 57, 149157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinsen, V, Shitumbanuma, V, Mulder, J, Ritz, C and Cornelissen, G (2017) Effects of hand-hoe tilled conservation farming on soil quality and carbon stocks under on-farm conditions in Zambia. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 241, 168178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinsen, V, Munera-Echeverri, JL, Obia, A, Cornelissen, G and Mulder, J (2019) Significant build-up of soil organic carbon under climate-smart conservation farming in Sub-Saharan Acrisols. Science of the Total Environment 660, 97104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Metson, AJ (1956) Methods of chemical analysis for soil survey samples. New Zealand Soil Bureau Bulletin No. 12.Google Scholar
Mi, G, Chen, F, Wu, Q, Lai, N, Yuan, L and Zhang, F (2010) Ideotype root architecture for efficient nitrogen acquisition by maize in intensive cropping systems. Science China Life Sciences 53, 13691373.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mittal, JP and Dhawan, KC (1988) Research manual on energy requirements in agricultural sector. ICAR: New Delhi, pp. 2023.Google Scholar
Montgomery, DR (2007) Soil erosion and agricultural sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104, 1326813272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munyao, JK, Gathaara, MH and Micheni, AN (2019) Effects of conservation tillage on maize (Zea mays L.) and beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) chlorophyll, sugars and yields in humic enitisols soils of Embu County, Kenya. African Journal of Agricultural Research 14, 12721278.Google Scholar
Naik, BM, Kumar, M, Singh, SK, Karthika, M and Roy, NK (2022) Combined effect of tillage and nutrient management practices on kharif maize (Zea mays L.) yield and chlorophyll content. Journal of Crop and Weed 18, 3642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nanthakumar, S, Panneerselvam, P and Krishna kumar, S (2014) Effect of phosphorus and sulphur growth, yield and quality parameters of hybrid maize. International Journal of Advanced Life Sciences 7, 8592.Google Scholar
Naresh, RK, Rathore, K, Kumar, P, Singh, SP, Singh, A and Shahi, UP (2014) Effect of precision land levelling and permanent raised bed planting on soil properties, input use efficiency, productivity and profitability under maize (Zea mays)–wheat (Triticum aestivum) cropping system. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 84, 725732.Google Scholar
Nishigaki, T, Sugihara, S, Kilasara, M and Funakawa, S (2017) Soil nitrogen dynamics under different quality and application methods of crop residues in maize croplands with contrasting soil textures in Tanzania. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 63, 288299.Google Scholar
NRC (2009) Frontiers in soil science research. National Research Council. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, p 68.Google Scholar
Nunan, N, Morgan, MA and Herlihy, M (1998) Ultraviolet absorbance (280 nm) of compounds released from soil during chloroform fumigation as an estimate of the microbial biomass. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 30, 15991603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, SR, Cole, CV, Watanabe, FS and Dean, LA (1954) Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. Washington D.C.: Gov. Printing Office, USDA Circular No. 939, pp. 119.Google Scholar
Oberson, A and Joner, EJ (2005) Organic phosphorus in the environment. In Turner, BL, Frossard, E and Baldwin, DS (eds), Microbial Turnover of Phosphorus in Soil. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing, pp. 133164.Google Scholar
Page, KL, Dang, YP, Dalal, RC, Reeves, S, Thomas, G, Wang, W and Thompson, J (2019) Changes in soil water storage with no-tillage and crop residue retention on a Vertisols: impact on productivity and profitability over a 50 year period. Soil and Tillage Research 194, 104319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parihar, CM, Jat, SL, Singh, AK, Majumdar, K, Jat, ML, Saharawat, YS, Pradhan, S and Kuri, BR (2017) Bio-energy, water-use efficiency and economics of maize-wheat-mungbean system under precision-conservation agriculture in semi-arid agro-ecosystem. Energy 119, 245256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patil, AD (2015) Effect of liquid formation of Azotobacter and PSB inoculation on growth and yield of lettuce (M.Sc. (Agriculture Microbiology) Thesis). Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, Maharashtra.Google Scholar
Pattanayak, SK, Suresh kumar, P and Tarafdar, JC (2009) New vista in phosphorus research. Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science 57, 536545.Google Scholar
Piper, CS (1965) Soil and plant analysis. Adelaide, Australia: The university of Adelaide press, 355p.Google Scholar
Pramanick, B, Kumar, M, Naik, BM, Kumar, M, Singh, SK, Maitra, S, Naik, BSSS, Rajput, VD and Minkinia, T (2022). Long-term conservation tillage and precision nutrient management in maize–wheat cropping system: effect on soil properties, crop production, and economics. Agronomy 12, 2766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rashid, MH, Timsina, J, Islam, N and Islam, S (2019) Tillage and residue-management effects on productivity, profitability and soil properties in a rice-maize-mungbean system in the Eastern Gangetic Plains. Journal of Crop Improvement 33, 683710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, LA (1954) Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkaline Soils. Unites States Soil Salinity Staff. Agricultural handbook No.60. United states department of agriculture: 160.Google Scholar
Roychowdhury, D, Mondal, S and Banerjee, SK (2017) The effect of biofertilizers and the effect of vermicompost on the cultivation and productivity of maize – a review. Advances in Crop Science and Technology 5, 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saad, A (2014) Conservation agriculture for improving productivity and resource use efficiency in maize (Zea mays) based cropping system (Ph. D. Thesis). ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute New Delhi.Google Scholar
Selassie, YG (2016) Response and economic feasibility of maize (Zea mays L.) to P fertilization in acidic Alfisols of North-western Ethiopia. Environmental Systems Research 5, 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shao, Y, Xie, Y, Wang, C, Yue, J, Yao, Y and Liu, W (2016) Effects of different soil conservation tillage approaches on soil nutrients, water use and wheat-maize yield in rainfed dry-land regions of North China. European Journal of Agronomy 81, 3745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharma, SN (2001) Effect of residue management practices and nitrogen rates on chemical properties of soil in a rice (Oryza sativa)-wheat (Triticum aestivum) cropping system. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 71, 293295.Google Scholar
Sharma, KL, Chandrika, DS, Grace, JK, Srinivas, K, Mandal, UK, Raju, BMK, Munnalal, , Kumar, TS, Rao, CS, Reddy, KS, Osman, M, Indoria, AK, Rani, KU and Kobaku, SS (2014a) Long term effects of soil and nutrient management practices on soil properties and additive soil quality indices in SAT Alfisols. Indian Journal of Dryland Agricultural Research and Development 29, 5665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharma, SK, Singh, YV, Tyagi, S and Tomar, BS (2014b) Influence of varieties and integrated nitrogen management on productivity and nutrient uptake in aerobic rice (Oryza sativa L.). Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 85, 246250.Google Scholar
Shyam, CS, Rathore, SS, Shekhawat, K, Singh, RK, Pradhan, SR and Singh, VK (2021) Precision nutrient management in maize (Zea mays) for higher productivity and profitability. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 91, 933935.Google Scholar
Singh, MK, Pal, SK, Thakur, R and Verma, UN (1997) Energy input-output relationship of cropping systems. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 67, 262264.Google Scholar
Singh, S, Malik, R, Garg, R, Devraj, R and Sheoran, P (2012) On-farm nitrogen use pattern in wheat in rice-wheat cropping system of the trans-Gangetic plains of India. Cereal Research Communications 40, 122134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, A, Phogat, VK, Dahiya, R and Batra, SD (2014) Impact of long term zero till wheat on soil physical properties and wheat productivity under rice–wheat cropping system. Soil and Tillage Research 140, 98105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, R, Babu, S, Avasthe, RK, Yadav, GS and Rajkhowa, DJ (2015) Influence of tillage and organic nutrient management practices on productivity, profitability and energetic of vegetable pea (Pisum sativum L.) in rice–vegetable pea sequence under hilly ecosystems of North East India. Research on Crops 16, 683688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, VK, Singh, Y, Dwivedi, BS, Singh, KS, Majumdar, K, Jat, ML, Mishra, RP and Rani, M (2016) Soil physical properties: yield trends and economics after five years of conservation agriculture based rice-maize system in north-western India. Soil and Tillage Research 155, 133148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, CS, Raj, A, Singh, AK, Singh, AK and Singh, SK (2018) Nutrient expert assisted site-specific-nutrient-management: an alternative precision fertilization technology for maize production in Chota-Nagpur plateau region of Jharkhand. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry 7, 760764.Google Scholar
Singh, L, Singh, UP and Singh, MK (2019) Effect of crop establishment and nutrient management on growth parameter and nutrient uptake under maize in maize wheat system of northern plains of Indo-Gangetic plain. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Science 8, 305317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, R, Babu, S, Avasthe, RK, Yadav, GS, Das, A, Mohapatra, KP, Kumar, A, Singh, VK and Chandra, P (2020) Crop productivity, soil health, and energy dynamics of Indian Himalayan intensified organic maize-based systems. International Soil and Water Conservation Research 9, 260270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, R, Babu, S, Avasthe, RK, Meena, RS, Yadav, GS, Das, A, Mohapatra, KP, Rathore, SS, Kumar, A and Singh, C (2021) Conservation tillage and organic nutrients management improve soil properties, productivity, and economics of a maize-vegetable pea system in the Eastern Himalayas. Land Degradation and Development, 118. DOI: 10.1002/ldr.406.Google Scholar
Smyth, M, Garcia, A, Rader, C, Foster, EJ and Bras, J (2017) Extraction and process analysis of high aspect ratio cellulose nanocrystals from maize (Zea mays) agricultural residue. Industrial Crops and Products 108, 257266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Son, T, Diep, NC, Giang, TTM and Thu, TTA (2016) Effect of co–inoculants (Bradyrhizobia and PSB) Liquid on soybean under rice based cropping system. Omonrice 15, 135143.Google Scholar
Stori, RM, Parihar, CM, Ahmadi, S, Ahmadzai, KM, Nayak, HS, Jat, SL, Mandal, BN, Wasifhy, MK, Sayedi, SA, Shamsi, AB, Ehsan, Q, Parihar, MD, Kumar, L and Meena, BR (2019) Economical optimum dose of phosphorus for mungbean (Vigna radiata) under contrasting tillage practices in arid region. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 89, 165168.Google Scholar
Sun, XF, Wang, H, Zhang, G, Fowler, P and Rajaratnam, M (2011) Extraction and characterization of lignins from maize stem and sugarcane bagasse. Journal of Applied Polymer Science 120, 35873595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanepoel, CM, Rotter, RP, Van der Laan, M, Annandale, JG, Beukes, DJ, Du Preez, CC, Swanepoel, LH, Van der Merwe, A and Hoffmann, MP (2018) The benefits of conservation agriculture on soil organic carbon and yield in southern Africa are site-specific. Soil and Tillage Research 183, 7282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swarna, R, Behera, UK, Shivay, YS, Pandey, RN, Naresh, KS and Pandey, R (2018) Effect of conservation agricultural practices and nitrogen management on growth, physiological indices, yield and nutrient uptake of soybean (Glycine max). Indian Journal of Agronomy 63, 3337.Google Scholar
Tabatabai, MA and Bremner, JM (1969) Use of p-nitrophenyl phosphate for assay of soil phosphatase activity. Soil Biology Biochemistry 1, 254260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamta, A, Kumar, R, Ram, H, Meena, RK, Meena, VK, Yadav, MR and Subrahmanya, DJ (2018) Productivity and profitability of legume-cereal forages under different planting ratio and nitrogen fertilization. Legume Research 42, 102107.Google Scholar
Veihmeyer, FJ and Hendrickson, A (1948) Soil density and root penetration. Soil Science 65, 487494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volpicella, M, Leoni, C, Fanizza, I, Distaso, M, Leoni, G, Farioli, L, Naumann, T, Pastorello, E and Ceci, LR (2017) Characterization of maize chitinase-A, a tough allergenic molecule. Allergy 72, 14231429.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, C, Liu, Y, Li, SS and Han, GZ (2015) Insights into the origin and evolution of the plant hormone signaling machinery. Plant Physiology 167, 872886.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wen, Z, Li, H, Shen, Q, Tang, X, Xiong, C, Li, H, Pang, J, Ryan, MH, Lambers, H and Shen, J (2019) Tradeoffs among root morphology, exudation and mycorrhizal symbioses for phosphorus-acquisition strategies of 16 crop species. New Phytologist 223, 882895.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yadav, GS, Das, A, Lal, R, Babu, S, Meena, RS, Saha, P, Singh, R and Datta, M (2018) Energy budget and carbon footprint in a no–till and mulch based rice–mustard cropping system. Journal of Cleaner Production 191, 144157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, P, Ma, G, Wang, C, Lu, H, Li, S, Xie, Y, Zhu, Y and Guo, T (2017) Effect of irrigation and nitrogen application on grain amino acid composition and protein quality in winter wheat. PLoS ONE 12, e0178494.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Figure 1. Weather parameters during the period of experimentation (average of 2016–17 and 2017–18). RH, relative humidity.

Figure 1

Table 1. Initial physical, chemical and biological properties of the soil of experimental site

Figure 2

Table 2. Chemical composition of wheat crop residues used in the experiment

Figure 3

Table 3. Energy equivalent of inputs and output in agricultural operations

Figure 4

Figure 2. Interaction effect of tillage and microbial inoculants-mediated integrated P management on grain yield of maize during kharif season 2016–17 and 2017–18. CT–R (conventional tillage with no residue); ZT–R (zero tillage with no residue); ZT + R (zero tillage with wheat crop residue at 2.5 Mg/ha); P1: control (NK as per recommendation, but no P); P2: 17.2 kg P/ha; P3: 17.2 kg P/ha + phosphate solubilizing biofertilizer (PSB); P4: 17.2 kg P/ha + compost inoculants and P5: 34.4 kg P/ha.

Figure 5

Table 5. Influence of tillage and microbial inoculants-mediated integrated phosphorus (P) management on productivity, amino acids and protein yield of maize under conservation tillage

Figure 6

Table 4. Influence of tillage and microbial inoculants-mediated integrated phosphorus (P) management on quality parameters (amino acids and protein content) of maize under conservation tillage

Figure 7

Figure 3. Interaction effect of tillage and microbial inoculants-mediated integrated P management on net returns of maize during kharif season 2016–17 and 2017–18. CT–R (conventional tillage with no residue); ZT–R (zero tillage with no residue); ZT + R (zero tillage with wheat crop residue at 2.5 Mg/ha); P1: control (NK as per recommendation, but no P); P2: 17.2 kg P/ha; P3: 17.2 kg P/ha + phosphate solubilizing biofertilizer (PSB); P4: 17.2 kg P/ha + compost inoculants and P5: 34.4 kg P/ha.

Figure 8

Table 6. Economics of maize influenced by tillage and microbial inoculants-mediated integrated phosphorus (P) management under conservation tillage

Figure 9

Figure 4. Interaction effect of tillage and microbial inoculants-mediated integrated P management on energy use efficiency of maize during kharif season 2016–17 and 2017–18. CT–R (conventional tillage with no residue); ZT–R (zero tillage with no residue); ZT + R (zero tillage with wheat crop residue at 2.5 Mg/ha); P1: control (NK as per recommendation, but no P); P2: 17.2 kg P/ha; P3: 17.2 kg P/ha + phosphate solubilizing biofertilizer (PSB); P4: 17.2 kg P/ha + compost inoculants and P5: 34.4 kg P/ha.

Figure 10

Table 7. Impact of tillage and microbial inoculants-mediated integrated phosphorus (P) management on energy dynamics of maize under conservation tillage