Author
Listed:
- Nazmus Salahin
(Soil Science Division, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, Gazipur 1701, Bangladesh)
- Mohammad Jahiruddin
(Department of Soil Science, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh 2202, Bangladesh)
- Mohammad Rafiqul Islam
(Department of Soil Science, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh 2202, Bangladesh)
- Md. Khairul Alam
(Soil Science Division, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, Gazipur 1701, Bangladesh
Centre for Sustainable Farming Systems, Future Food Institute, Murdoch University, Perth, WA 6150, Australia)
- M. Enamul Haque
(Project Implementation Office, Murdoch University, Dhaka 1230, Bangladesh)
- Sharif Ahmed
(International Rice Research Institute, Bangladesh Office, Dhaka 1213, Bangladesh)
- Alaa Baazeem
(Department of Biology, College of Science, Taif University, P.O. Box 11099, Taif 21944, Saudi Arabia)
- Adel Hadifa
(Rice Research and Training Center (RRTC), Field Crops Research Institute, Agricultural Research Center, Kafr Elsheikh 33717, Egypt)
- Ayman EL Sabagh
(Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Kafrelsheikh, Kafrelsheikh 33516, Egypt)
- Richard W. Bell
(Centre for Sustainable Farming Systems, Future Food Institute, Murdoch University, Perth, WA 6150, Australia)
Abstract
Minimum soil disturbance and increased crop residue retention practices are promising options to enhance soil organic matter, nutrient concentration and crop yield. However, the potentials of the practices in improving soil properties, increasing crop yield and in ensuring economic return have not been tested in the monsoon rice ( Oryza sativa L.)-lentil ( Lens culinaris L.)/wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.)-jute ( Corchorus culinaris L.) cropping systems on seasonally flooded lowlands of the Eastern Gangetic Plain of South Asia. A field trial for consecutive three years was conducted in the Gangetic Plains of Bangladesh to evaluate the effects of zero tillage (ZT), strip-tillage (ST), bed planting (BP) and conventional tillage (CT) with two residue retention levels (RL—a low level similar to current farmers’ practice and RH—increased retention) on soil properties, yield and economic return. Between rice and jute crops, lentil was grown for the 1st and 2nd years and wheat for the 3rd year during the dry winter season. The ST and BP performed better than the CT and ZT in terms of yield of rice and lentil, whereas ST and ZT performed better than other practices in the case of jute. Higher residue retention (RH) increased crop yield for all the years. The highest rice equivalent yield (sum of 3 crop yields, expressed as rice yield) and the greatest benefit-cost ratio (BCR) were recorded with ST and RH. The increased yield in the ST was associated with reduced soil bulk density (BD), while ST with RH increased soil water (SW) and decreased penetration resistance (PR) of soil. Compared to CT, minimum soil disturbance of ZT and ST increased soil organic matter (SOM) stock by 24% and 23%, respectively; total nitrogen (TN) by 23.5% and 18.4%, respectively; extractable sulphur (S) by 21% and 18%, respectively; whereas Zinc (Zn) concentrations increased by 53% and 47%, respectively, in the upper 0–5 cm soil depth. Accumulation of extractable P, S and Zn in the 0–5 cm depth of soil followed the sequence as ZT > ST > BP > CT practice. The higher amount of residue retention significantly increased SOM, TN and extractable P, K, S and Zn concentrations at 0–5 cm and 5–10 cm soil depths. The 3-year study suggests that ST with RH is a potential crop management approach for the seasonally flooded rice-lentil/wheat-jute cropping systems to enhance soil nutrients status, crop yield and farm economy.
Suggested Citation
Nazmus Salahin & Mohammad Jahiruddin & Mohammad Rafiqul Islam & Md. Khairul Alam & M. Enamul Haque & Sharif Ahmed & Alaa Baazeem & Adel Hadifa & Ayman EL Sabagh & Richard W. Bell, 2021.
"Establishment of Crops under Minimal Soil Disturbance and Crop Residue Retention in Rice-Based Cropping System: Yield Advantage, Soil Health Improvement, and Economic Benefit,"
Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-18, May.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:6:p:581-:d:566625
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:6:p:581-:d:566625. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.