| Literature DB >> 25197702 |
Md Khairul Alam1, Md Monirul Islam2, Nazmus Salahin1, Mirza Hasanuzzaman3.
Abstract
This study was conduEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25197702 PMCID: PMC4147294 DOI: 10.1155/2014/437283
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Physical characteristics of the initial soil of the experimental plot.
| Particle size distribution | Value |
|---|---|
| Sand (%) | 35.30 |
| Silt (%) | 37.29 |
| Clay (%) | 27.41 |
| Textural class | Clay loam |
| Bulk density (g cm−3) | 1.60 |
| Particle density (g cm−3) | 2.58 |
| Total porosity (%) | 37.98 |
| Moisture content at field capacity (%) | 24.00 |
Chemical status of the initial soil of the experimental plot.
| Depth | pH | OM | Total | P | S | B | Cu | Fe | Mn | Zn | K | Ca | Mg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (cm) | — | (%) | (%) | (mg kg−1) | |||||||||
| 0–25 | 5.7 | 1.30 | 0.085 | 13 | 12 | 0.15 | 7.34 | 590 | 17.63 | 2.12 | 70 | 1202 | 240 |
| Critical level | — | 14 | 14 | 0.20 | 1.0 | 10.0 | 5.00 | 2.00 | 78 | 400 | 96 | ||
Morphological and taxonomical characteristics of the experimental site.
| Morphological characteristics | |
| Locality | BARI, Gazipur, Bangladesh |
| Geographic position | 24°-0′N latitude, 90°-25′E longitude, 8.40 m height above the sea level |
| AEZ | Madhupur tract (AEZ 28) |
| General soil type | Near neutral soil pH, Grey Terrace soils (Aeric Albaquept) |
|
| |
| Taxonomic soil classification | |
| Order | Inceptisol |
| Suborder | Aquept |
| Subgroup | Aeric Albaquept |
| Soil series | Chhiata |
| Physiographic unit | Madhupur tract |
| Drainage | Moderate |
| Flood level | Above flood level |
| Vegetation | Clean cultivation and maintaining cropping pattern |
| Topography | Medium high land, 8.40 m height above the sea level |
Figure 1Geographical position of ⊚ Gazipur district (←).
Figure 2Rainfall (mm) distribution of the experimental site.
Figure 3Temperature (a) and relative humidity (b) of the experimental site.
Figure 4Change in bulk density (a) and particle density (b) as influenced by different tillage practices (most recent year first). Notes: ZT: zero tillage, MT: minimum tillage, CT: conventional tillage, and DT: deep tillage.
Figure 5Change in soil porosity (a) and field capacity (b) as influenced by different tillage practices (year most recent first). Notes: ZT: zero tillage, MT: minimum tillage, CT: conventional tillage, and DT: deep tillage. Means ± SE are shown in error bar (P ≤ 0.05).
Figure 6Effect of tillage practice on available water content of soils (a), cumulative infiltration (b), and permanent wilting point (c) (most recent year first). Notes: ZT: zero tillage, MT: minimum tillage, CT: conventional tillage, and DT: deep tillage. Means ± SE are shown in error bar (P ≤ 0.05).
Figure 7Cumulative infiltration (mm) over cumulative time (hour). Notes: ZT: zero tillage, MT: minimum tillage, CT: conventional tillage, and DT: deep tillage.
Figure 8Change in soil organic matter (a) and total nitrogen (%) (b) due to different tillage practices (most recent year first). Notes: ZT: zero tillage, MT: minimum tillage, CT: conventional tillage, and DT: deep tillage. Means ± SE are shown in error bar (P ≤ 0.05).
Effect of tillage practice on available P, available K, and available S after wheat-mungbean-T. aman cropping sequence.
| Treatment | P (ppm) | K (ppm) | S (ppm) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | |
| ZT | 13.99a | 14.96a | 18.54a | 20.32a | 89.7 | 89.7 | 93.6 | 105.3a | 14.00a | 16.12a | 17.23a | 18.89a |
| MT | 13.97a | 14.13a | 15.43b | 18.53b | 89.7 | 85.8 | 81.9 | 89.7b | 13.56ab | 15.27ab | 15.21b | 15.89b |
| CT | 13.21a | 13.92a | 14.90b | 14.86c | 85.8 | 78.0 | 81.9 | 78.0c | 13.32ab | 14.23bc | 14.43b | 14.45b |
| DT | 12.65a | 13.21a | 13.76b | 14.32c | 85.8 | 78.0 | 78.0 | 74.1c | 12.52b | 13.52c | 14.08b | 14.05b |
| SE (±) | 0.95 | 1.09 | 0.61 | 0.27 | 8.08 | 5.69 | 5.39 | 2.06 | 0.36 | 0.43 | 0.44 | 0.65 |
Figures in a column having common letter(s) do not differ significantly at 5% level of DMRT.
ZT: zero tillage, MT; minimum tillage, CT: conventional tillage, and DT: deep tillage.
Effect of tillage practice on root mass density of wheat and rice.
| Treatments | Root mass density (mg cm−3) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wheat | Rice | |||||||
| 0–15 cm | 15–30 cm | 30–45 cm | Total | 0–15 cm | 15–30 cm | 30–45 cm | Total | |
| ZT | 9.99 | 1.98c | 0.87b | 12.84 | 5.40a | 0.98b | 0.49b | 6.87 |
| MT | 9.92 | 2.26b | 0.93b | 13.11 | 4.90b | 1.26b | 0.63b | 6.79 |
| CT | 8.72 | 2.87ab | 1.21b | 12.80 | 4.75b | 1.87a | 0.81a | 7.43 |
| DT | 7.21 | 2.96a | 1.54a | 11.71 | 4.64b | 1.96a | 0.94a | 7.54 |
| SE (±) | 0.89 | 0.19 | 0.07 | — | 0.09 | 0.18 | 0.06 | — |
Figures in a column having common letter(s) do not differ significantly at 5% level of DMRT.
ZT: zero tillage, MT: minimum tillage, CT: conventional tillage, and DT: deep tillage.
The yield of wheat as influenced by different tillage practices.
| Treatment | Grain yield (t ha−1) | Straw yield (t ha−1) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | |
| ZT | 2.76b | 3.00b | 3.53 | 3.69 | 4.45c | 3.99 | 4.22 | 4.38 |
| MT | 3.89a | 3.88a | 3.71 | 3.78 | 5.10bc | 4.60 | 4.8 | 4.60 |
| CT | 4.22a | 4.00a | 3.88 | 3.95 | 5.50ab | 5.80 | 4.91 | 5.00 |
| DT | 4.50a | 4.46a | 4.13 | 4.11 | 6.00a | 5.92 | 5.31 | 5.34 |
| SE (±) | 0.19 | 0.20 | 0.39 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.60 | 0.41 | 0.51 |
Figures in a column having common letter(s) do not differ significantly at 5% level of DMRT.
ZT: zero tillage, MT: minimum tillage, CT: conventional tillage, and DT: deep tillage.
Effect of tillage practice on the yield of mungbean.
| Treatment | Grain yield | Biomass yield | Grain yield | Biomass yield | Grain yield | Biomass yield | Grain yield | Biomass yield |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ZT | 632 | 6.26 | 644c | 6.39b | 780 | 7.26 | 812 | 7.56 |
| MT | 784 | 7.12 | 841b | 6.83b | 785 | 7.28 | 792 | 7.60 |
| CT | 837 | 7.82 | 1000a | 7.68a | 800 | 7.62 | 800 | 7.87 |
| DT | 882 | 8.15 | 1100a | 8.29a | 820 | 8.00 | 820 | 8.10 |
| SE (±) | 12.56 | 0.14 | 10.11 | 0.12 | 12.11 | 0.13 | 11.57 | 0.13 |
Figures in a column having common letter(s) do not differ significantly at 5% level of DMRT.
ZT: zero tillage, MT: minimum tillage, CT: conventional tillage, and DT: deep tillage.
The yield of T. aman as influenced by different tillage practices.
| Treatment | Grain yield (t ha−1) | Straw yield (t ha−1) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | |
| ZT | 2.87c | 3.64b | 4.18 | 4.49 | 3.07b | 3.75 | 3.95 | 4.54 |
| MT | 3.77b | 3.84ab | 4.24 | 4.30 | 4.13a | 3.96 | 3.96 | 4.32 |
| CT | 4.40a | 4.29ab | 4.29 | 4.37 | 4.68a | 4.39 | 4.40 | 4.40 |
| DT | 4.56a | 4.63a | 4.43 | 4.51 | 4.84a | 4.69 | 4.60 | 4.60 |
| SE (±) | 0.13 | 0.28 | 0.17 | 0.12 | 0.27 | 0.31 | 0.52 | 0.11 |
Figures in a column having common letter(s) do not differ significantly at 5% level of DMRT.
ZT: zero tillage, MT: minimum tillage, CT: conventional tillage, and DT: deep tillage.