| Literature DB >> 32055081 |
H S Jat1,2, Ashim Datta1, M Choudhary1, A K Yadav1,3, V Choudhary1, P C Sharma1, M K Gathala4, M L Jat2, A McDonald5.
Abstract
Intensive tillage based management practices are threatening soil quality and systems sustainability in the rice-wheat belt of Northwest India. Furthermore, it is accentuated with puddling of soil, which disrupts soil aggregates. Conservation agriculture (CA) practices involving zero tillage, crop residue management and suitable crop rotation can serve as better alternative to conventional agriculture for maintaining soil quality. Soil organic carbon is an important determinant of soil quality, playing critical role in food production, mitigation and adaptation to climate change as well as performs many ecosystem functions. To understand the turnover of soil carbon in different forms (Total organic carbon-TOC; aggregate associated carbon-AAC; particulate organic carbon- POC), soil aggregation and crop productivity with different management practices, one conventional agriculture based scenario and three CA based crop management scenarios namely conventional rice-wheat system (Sc1), partial CA based rice-wheat-mungbean system (Sc2), full CA-based rice-wheat-mungbean system (Sc3) and maize-wheat-mungbean system (Sc4) were evaluated. TOC was increased by 71%, 68% and 25% after 4 years of the experiment and 75%, 80% and 38% after 6 years of the experiment in Sc4, Sc3 and Sc2, respectively, over Sc1 at 0-15 cm soil depth. After 4 years of the experiment, 38.5% and 5.0% and after 6 years 50.8% and 24.4% improvement in total water stable aggregates at 0-15 and 15-30 cm soil depth, respectively was observed in CA-based scenarios over Sc1. Higher aggregate indices were associated with Sc3 at 0-15 cm soil depth than others. Among the size classes of aggregates, highest aggregate associated C (8.94 g kg-1) was retained in the 1-0.5 mm size class under CA-based scenarios. After 6 years, higher POC was associated with Sc4 (116%). CA-based rice/maize system (Sc3 and Sc4) showed higher productivity than Sc1. Therefore, CA could be a potential management practice in rice-wheat cropping system of Northwest India to improve the soil carbon pools through maintaining soil aggregation and productivity.Entities:
Keywords: AAC, aggregate associated carbon; Aggregate associated carbon; CA, conservation agriculture; CT, conventional tillage; Crop management; Crop productivity; MAC, macroaggregate associated carbon; MicC, microaggregate associated carbon; Particulate organic carbon; Sc, scenario; Soil organic carbon; TWSa, total water stable aggregates; WSMa, water stable macroaggregates; ZT, zero tillage
Year: 2019 PMID: 32055081 PMCID: PMC7001980 DOI: 10.1016/j.still.2019.03.005
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Soil Tillage Res ISSN: 0167-1987 Impact factor: 5.374
Fig. 1Conventional farmers practice and different CA based agricultural scenarios with soil and crop management practices.
Residues management (retention/ incorporation) in different scenarios (Mg ha−1).
| Scenarios | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | Total | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rice/maize | Wheat | Mung bean | Rice/maize | Wheat | Mung bean | Rice/maize | Wheat | Mung bean | Rice/maize | Wheat | Mung bean | Rice/maize | Wheat | Mung bean | Rice/maize | Wheat | Mung bean | ||
| Sc1 | R | R | F | R | R | F | R | R | F | R | R | F | R | R | F | R | R | F | – |
| Sc2 | 4.2 | 3.5 | 2.6 | 4.1 | 2.6 | 4.7 | 7.4 | 1.6 | 3.3 | 10.6 | 0.7 | 2.5 | 10.6 | 1.8 | 3.0 | 12.7 | 0.9 | 1.7 | 78.5 |
| Sc3 | 6.4 | 3.6 | 2.2 | 10.2 | 2.8 | 4.4 | 7.2 | 1.6 | 3 | 5.3 | 1.8 | 4.6 | 3.7 | 2.0 | 3.1 | 6.9 | 0.9 | 1.8 | 74.5 |
| Sc4 | 10.0 | 3.5 | 2.1 | 13.7 | 2.6 | 3.9 | 9.5 | 1.6 | 2.9 | 10 | 1.4 | 4.6 | 10.2 | 1.7 | 2.8 | 13.1 | 1.1 | 2.1 | 96.7 |
Where, R: remove residue; F: fallow; Sc1: conventional rice-wheat system; Sc2: partial CA-based rice-wheat-mungbean system; Sc3: full CA-based rice-wheat-mungbean system; Sc4: full CA-based maize-wheat-mungbean system.
Effect of different CA-based scenarios on oxidizable organic carbon and TOC in different soil layers after 4 (year 2013) and 6 years (year 2015).
| 2013 | 2015 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WB-C (g kg−1) | TOC (g kg−1) | WB-C (g kg−1) | TOC (g kg−1) | |||||
| Soil Layer (cm) | ||||||||
| Scenarios | 0-15 | 15-30 | 0-15 | 15-30 | 0-15 | 15-30 | 0-15 | 15-30 |
| Sc1 | 4.5b | 3.5a | 6.5b | 3.8b | 4.9c | 4.4b | 6.3c | 5.6ab |
| Sc2 | 5.5b | 4.9a | 8.1ab | 5.4a | 6.8b | 5.5a | 8.7b | 7.0a |
| Sc3 | 7.5a | 3.6a | 10.9a | 3.8b | 8.1a | 4.0c | 11.4a | 5.2b |
| Sc4 | 7.7a | 3.6a | 11.1a | 3.8b | 8.2a | 3.4c | 11.0a | 5.0b |
Where, WB-C: walkley and Black Carbon; TOC: total organic carbon; Sc1: conventional rice-wheat system; Sc2: partial CA-based rice-wheat-mungbean system; Sc3: full CA-based rice-wheat-mungbean system; Sc4: full CA-based maize-wheat-mungbean system.
Different small letters within the same column showed the significant difference at p < 0.05 according to Duncan Multiple Range Test for separation of mean.
Effect of different CA-based practices on distribution of different aggregate indices.
| WSMa (%) | WSMia (%) | Total WSA (%) | MWD (mm) | AS (%) | GMD (mm) | AR | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scenarios | 2013 | 2015 | 2013 | 2015 | 2013 | 2015 | 2013 | 2015 | 2013 | 2015 | 2013 | 2015 | 2013 | 2015 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 0-15 cm soil depth | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sc1 | 21.93c | 23.46b | 8.91a | 9.82a | 30.84b | 33.29b | 1.48c | 1.67c | 22.42d | 24.00b | 0.76d | 0.79c | 0.79c | 0.89b | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sc2 | 32.34b | 42.57a | 9.10a | 6.63b | 41.44a | 49.20a | 2.06b | 2.20b | 32.61c | 42.92a | 0.98c | 1.15b | 1.83bc | 6.00a | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sc3 | 40.33a | 44.40a | 3.44b | 6.91b | 43.77a | 51.32a | 2.44a | 2.65a | 41.54a | 45.74a | 1.28a | 1.29a | 4.62a | 7.97a | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sc4 | 37.65a | 44.00a | 5.31b | 6.10b | 42.97a | 50.10a | 2.02b | 2.09b | 37.96b | 44.36a | 1.08b | 1.12b | 3.05b | 7.74a | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Mean | 33.06 | 38.60 | 6.61 | 7.37 | 39.76 | 45.98 | 2.0 | 2.15 | 33.63 | 39.26 | 1.03 | 1.09 | 2.58 | 5.65 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| 15-30 cm soil depth | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sc1 | 17.95a | 20.28c | 10.85a | 8.79b | 28.80a | 29.07c | 1.27a | 1.12c | 18.49a | 20.88c | 0.62a | 0.66a | 0.56a | 0.69b | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sc2 | 17.54a | 30.99a | 12.95a | 8.43a | 30.50a | 39.41a | 1.31a | 1.56a | 17.69a | 31.24a | 0.56a | 0.66a | 0.55a | 1.64a | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sc3 | 13.90b | 24.80b | 12.49a | 7.11a | 26.39a | 31.91b | 1.34a | 1.53ab | 14.32b | 25.55b | 0.49a | 0.63a | 0.39b | 0.99b | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sc4 | 18.89a | 29.97a | 14.89a | 7.22a | 33.79a | 37.19a | 1.33a | 1.41b | 19.05a | 30.22a | 0.53a | 0.64a | 0.62a | 1.50a | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Mean | 17.07 | 26.51 | 12.80 | 15.39 | 29.87 | 34.40 | 1.31 | 1.41 | 17.39 | 26.97 | 0.55 | 0.65 | 0.53 | 1.21 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Where, WSMa: water stable macroaggregates; WSMia: water stable microaggregates; WSA: water stable aggregates; MWD: mean eight diameter; AS: aggregate stability; GMD: geometric mean diameter; AR: aggregate ratio; Sc1: conventional rice-wheat system; Sc2: partial CA-based rice-wheat-mungbean system; Sc3: full CA-based rice-wheat-mungbean system; Sc4: full CA-based maize-wheat-mungbean system.
Different small letters within the same column showed the significant difference at p < 0.05 according to Duncan Multiple Range Test for separation of mean.
Fig. 2Effects of tillage, cropping system and residue management on soil aggregate associated carbon at 0–15 cm soil depth after rice harvest. a) 2013 (after 4 years) and b) 2015 (after 6 years). Same small letters are not significantly different at P < 0.05 according to Duncan Multiple Range Test for separation of mean. Vertical bars indicate ± S.E. of mean of the observed values. Where, Sc1: conventional rice-wheat system; Sc2: partial CA-based rice-wheat-mungbean system; Sc3: full CA-based rice-wheat-mungbean system; Sc4: full CA-based maize-wheat-mungbean system.
Fig. 3Effects of tillage, cropping system and residue management on soil aggregate associated carbon at 15–30 cm soil depth after rice harvest. a) 2013 and b) 2015.
Same small letters are not significantly different at P < 0.05 according to Duncan Multiple Range Test for separation of mean. Vertical bars indicate ± S.E. of mean of the observed values. Where, Sc1: conventional rice-wheat system; Sc2: partial CA-based rice-wheat-mungbean system; Sc3: full CA-based rice-wheat-mungbean system; Sc4: full CA-based maize-wheat-mungbean system.
Fig. 4Effects of tillage, cropping system and residue management on particulate organic carbon (POC) after rice harvest. a) 2013 and b) 2015. Same small letters are not significantly different at P < 0.05 according to Duncan Multiple Range Test for separation of mean. Vertical bars indicate ± S.E. of mean of the observed values. Where, Sc1: conventional rice-wheat system; Sc2: partial CA-based rice-wheat-mungbean system; Sc3: full CA-based rice-wheat-mungbean system; Sc4: full CA-based maize-wheat-mungbean system.
Fig. 5Aggregate associated carbon at 0–15 cm soil depth under conservation agriculture (mean of Sc3 and Sc4) and conventional tillage (Sc1) after rice harvest. a) 2013 and b) 2015. Same small letters are not significantly different at P < 0.05 according to Duncan Multiple Range Test for separation of mean. Vertical bars indicate ± S.E. of mean of the observed values. Where, Sc1: conventional rice-wheat system; Sc2: partial CA-based rice-wheat-mungbean system; Sc3: full CA-based rice-wheat-mungbean system; Sc4: full CA-based maize-wheat-mungbean system.
Relationships among the SOC, aggregate indices and aggregate associated carbon in 2013.
| Pearsons Bivariate Correlations | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Residue | WB-C | TOC | WSMa | WSMia | TWSa | MWD | AS | GMD | AR | POC | MAC | MicC | |
| Residue | 1 | ||||||||||||
| WB-C | 0.811 | ||||||||||||
| TOC | 0.826 | 0.999 | |||||||||||
| WSMa | 0.891 | 0.941 | 0.952 | ||||||||||
| WSMia | −0.52 | −0.91 | −0.9 | −0.83 | |||||||||
| TWSa | 0.962 | 0.854 | 0.871 | 0.967 | −0.66 | ||||||||
| MWD | 0.779 | 0.782 | 0.802 | 0.938 | −0.75 | 0.921 | |||||||
| AS | 0.869 | 0.939 | 0.950 | 0.999 | −0.85 | 0.957 | 0.946 | ||||||
| GMD | 0.75 | 0.887 | 0.898 | 0.965 | −0.89 | 0.893 | 0.969 | 0.976 | |||||
| AR | 0.665 | 0.899 | 0.906 | 0.932 | −0.95 | 0.819 | 0.918 | 0.947 | 0.986 | ||||
| POC | 0.447 | −0.0 | 0.034 | 0.332 | 0.132 | 0.508 | 0.555 | 0.326 | 0.334 | 0.185 | |||
| MAC | 0.992 | 0.861 | 0.875 | 0.94 | −0.62 | 0.986 | 0.843 | 0.924 | 0.826 | 0.752 | 0.435 | ||
| MicC | 0.941 | 0.952 | 0.961 | 0.985 | −0.78 | 0.970 | 0.875 | 0.977 | 0.907 | 0.868 | 0.285 | 0.972 | 1 |
Where, WBC: Walkley Black carbon, TOC: Total organic carbon; WSMa: water stable macro aggregates; WSMia: water stable microaggregates; TWSa: total water stable aggregates; MWD: mean eight diameter; AS: aggregate stability; GMD: geometric mean diameter; AR: aggregate ratio; POC: particulate organic carbon; MAC: macroaggregate associated carbon; MicC: microaggregate associated carbon.
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Relationships among the SOC, aggregate indices and aggregate associated carbon in 2015.
| Pearsons Bivariate Correlations | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Residue | WB-C | TOC | WSMa | WSMia | TWSa | MWD | AS | GMD | AR | POC | MAC | MicC | |
| Residue | 1 | ||||||||||||
| WB-C | 0.925 | ||||||||||||
| TOC | 0.865 | .991 | |||||||||||
| WSMa | 0.974 | 0.938 | 0.90 | ||||||||||
| WSMia | −0.999 | −0.911 | −0.849 | −0.976 | |||||||||
| TWSa | 0.963 | 0.938 | 0.905 | 0.999 | −0.966 | ||||||||
| MWD | 0.673 | 0.794 | 0.828 | 0.821 | −0.677 | 0.845 | |||||||
| AS | 0.964 | 0.943 | 0.911 | 0.999 | −0.966 | 1.000 | 0.845 | ||||||
| GMD | 0.853 | 0.894 | 0.893 | 0.949 | −0.857 | 0.961 | 0.959 | 0.961 | |||||
| AR | 0.953 | 0.986 | 0.967 | 0.981 | −0.948 | 0.983 | 0.839 | 0.985 | 0.945 | ||||
| POC | 0.972 | 0.964 | 0.921 | 0.931 | −0.960 | 0.92 | 0.638 | 0.924 | 0.806 | 0.954 | |||
| MAC | 0.772 | 0.736 | 0.675 | 0.628 | −0.749 | 0.601 | 0.175 | 0.608 | 0.395 | 0.673 | 0.862 | ||
| MicC | 0.957 | 0.987 | 0.959 | 0.936 | −0.943 | 0.929 | 0.702 | 0.934 | 0.843 | 0.973 | 0.994 | 0.823 | 1 |
Where, WB-C: walkley black carbon, TOC: total organic carbon; WSMa: water stable macroaggregates; WSMia: water stable microaggregates; TWSa: total water stable aggregates; MWD: mean eight diameter; AS: aggregate stability; GMD: geometric mean diameter; AR: aggregate ratio; POC: particulate organic carbon; MAC: macroaggregate associated carbon; MicC: microaggregate associated carbon.
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Fig. 6Systems productivity (rice equivalents) over the years as influenced by crop management practices in different scenarios. Same small letters are not significantly different at P < 0.05 according to Duncan Multiple Range Test for separation of mean. Vertical bars indicate ± S.E. of mean of the observed values. Where, Sc1: conventional rice-wheat system; Sc2: partial CA-based rice-wheat-mungbean system; Sc3: full CA-based rice-wheat-mungbean system; Sc4: full CA-based maize-wheat-mungbean system.