conservation tillge

Tillage

Preparatory cultivation

Primary Tillage

Deep Tillage

SubsoilingYear round

Tillage

Secondary Tillage

Lay out of seed bed

After cultivation

TILLAGE

CONVENTIONAL TILLAGE

CONSERVATION TILLAGE

MINIMUM TILLAGE

ZERO TILLAGESTUBBLE

MULCH TILLAGE

Why is it recommended to change from conventional Tillage to minimum tillage?

Due to repeated conventional tillage soil structure is destroyed and more soil is eroded

High cost of tillage due to Steep rise in oil

prices

Minimum Tillage

Definition

Minimum Tillage is aimed at reducing Tillage to the

minimum necessary for ensuring a good seedbed, rapid

germination, a satisfactory stand and favourable

growing conditions

Advantages

Improved soil condition

Higher infiltration rate

Less resistance to root growth due to improved

structure

Less soil compaction

Disadvantages

Seed germination is lower with minimum tillage

In minimum tillage more Nitrogen has to be applied

Nodulation is effected in some leguminous crops like

peas and broad beans

Sowing operations are difficult with ordinary

implements

Continuous use of herbicides cause pollution problems

How tillage can be reduced

By omitting the tillage operations which do

not give much benefit when compared to

cost

By combining operations like seeding and

fertilizer application

Minimum tillage

Row zone tillage

Plough-plant tillage

Wheel track planting

Row zone tillage

Plough-Planter

Wheel track planting

Effect of Tillage and Mulching on

Yield of Corn in the

Submontaneous Rainfed Region

of Punjab, India

Soil characteristics values

pH 8.0

EC (d S m-1) 0.3

Organic carbon (g kg-1) 21

Bulk density (Mg m-3) 1.4

Texture Sandy loam

Available N (kg ha-1) 132

Available P (kg ha-1) 16.4

Available K (kg ha-1) 198

Available Zn (mg kg-1) 0.44

Physical and chemical characteristics of

experimental site

Mode of mulch

application

Tillage Mean

Tm Tc

Mw 294.2 212.8 253.5

M1/3rd 201.5 193.0 197.2

Ms 185.4 117.0 151.2

Mv 114.8 100.1 107.1

Mo 109.9 96.1 99.0

Mean 117.8 145.5

EFFECT OF TILLAGE AND MODE OF MULCH

APPLICATION ON DRY MATTER YIELD OF CORN

(g Plant-1)

Tm = Minimum tillage, Tc = Conventional tillage, Mw= Mulch on thewhole plot, M1/3rd= Mulch on the lower 1/3rd of the plot, Ms= Stripmulching, Mv= Vertical mulching, Mo= Control bare plots

BHATT et al. (2004)Tillage (T) = 23.1;Mulching (M)= 10.7;T x M = 15.2

CD (5%)

Mode of mulch

application

Tillage Mean

Tm Tc

Mw 41.4 39.1 40.3

M1/3rd 33.1 32.0 32.6

Ms 33.0 31.6 32.3

Mv 25.6 25.0 25.3

Mo 25.5 24.6 25.1

Mean 31.7 30.5

EFFECT OF TILLAGE AND MODE OF MULCH APPLICATIONON GRAIN YIELD OF CORN(q ha-1)

Tm = Minimum tillage, Tc = Conventional tillage, Mw= Mulch onthe whole plot, M1/3rd= Mulch on the lower 1/3rd of the plot, Ms=Strip mulching, Mv= Vertical mulching, Mo= Control bare plots

BHATT et al. (2004)

Tillage (T) = NS Mulching (M) = 1.04T x M = NS

CD (5%)

EFFECT OF TILLAGE AND MODE OF MULCHAPPLICATION ON STRAW YIELD OF CORN (q ha-1)

Mode of mulch

application

Tillage Mean

Tm Tc

Mw 56.9 55.0 55.9

M1/3rd 52.4 53.5 53.0

Ms 51.9 51.0 51.5

Mv 45.7 43.5 44.6

Mo 44.1 40.7 42.4

Mean 50.2 48.7

Tm = Minimum tillage, Tc = Conventional tillage, Mw= Mulch onthe whole plot, M1/3rd= Mulch on the lower 1/3rd of the plot,Ms= Strip mulching, Mv= Vertical mulching, Mo= Control bare plots

BHATT et al. (2004)

Tillage (T) = NSMulching (M) = 1.04T x M = NS

CD (5%)

Manjith Kumar at al. (2014)

GROWTH AND YIELD PARAMETERS OF MAIZE AS

INFLUENCED BY TILLAGE AND MULCHING

Treatment Plant

height(cm)

LAI at 60

DAS

Cob

weight(g)

100-Seed

weight (g)

Tillage

T1 182.3 4.18 170.60 27.92

T2 169.1 3.58 155.42 26.22

T3 176.9 3.90 163.90 27.16

SEm± 1.3 0.02 2.02 0.26

CD(p=0.05) 5.2 0.09 7.93 1.02

Mulching

Mo 172..7 3.74 160.51 26.67

M1 179.5 4.03 166.10 27.52

SEm ± 1.6 0.02 1.55 0.34

CD (P=0.05) 5.7 0.07 5.36 NS

T1: Conventional tillage; T2 :Zero tillage ; T3 :Minimum tillage; Mo :without mulch; M1:With mulch

Yield and economics of maize as influenced by tillage and

mulch practices

Treatm

ent

Grain yield (t/ha) Harvest index(%) Net returns (rupees/ha)

2010 2011 Pooled 2010 2011 Pooled 2010 2011 pooled

Tillage

T1 5.96 5.86 5.91 42.4 42.2 42.3 30175 36495 33335

T2 5.41 5.23 5.32 41.8 41.9 41.8 28625 33417 31021

T3 5.68 5.61 5.64 42.2 42.1 42.2 30928 37673 34301

SEm± 0.10 0.09 0.06 0.3 0.2 0.2 915 1037 633

CD(P=0.05)

0.40 0.37 0.25 NS NS NS NS 4073 2485

Mulchi

ng

Mo 5.56 5.44 5.50 41.8 42.1 41.9 30098 35733 32916

M1 5.80 5.69 5.75 42.5 42.0 42.3 29721 35990 32855

Sem ± 0.11 0.07 0.08 0.3 0.2 0.2 1000 821 752

CD(P=0.05)

NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

Sonune et al. (2012)

Treatm

ents

Seed Cotton (q/ha) Cotton stalk (q/ha)

2005

-06

2006

-07

2007-

08

Pooled

Mean

2005

-06

2006

-07

2006-

07

Pooled

Mean

Tillage

Conventional

Tillage

12.82 12.18 13.72 12.91 26.14 30.51 32.91 29.85

Minimum

tillage

13.81 12.92 13.98 13.57 27.65 31.72 33.41 30.93

SE (m) ± 0.628 0.538 0.183 0.34 0.51 0.360 0.354 0.30

CD at 5 % NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 0.89

SEED AND STALK YIELD OF COTTON AS

INFLUENCED BY TILLAGE


PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF SOIL AFTER

HARVEST OF COTTON AS INFLUENCED BY

TILLAGE (2007-08)

Tillage BD (Mg m-3) HC (cm hr-1) Infiltration

rate (cm hr-1)

Percent water

stable

aggregates

MWD

Conventional

tillage

1.31 0.68 2.63 36.96 0.65

Minimum

tillage

1.32 0.66 2.45 37.33 0.66

SE(m) ± 0.004 0.01 0.054 0.88 0.003

CD(P=0.05) NS NS 0.158 NS NS

Initial value

(2005-06)

1.35 0.62 2.1 3.34 -


MICROBIAL COMMUNITIES OF SOIL AS

INFLUENCED BY TILLAGE

Tillage Bacteria (cfu g-1soil) Actinomycetes (cfu g-1soil) Fungi (cfu g-1soil)

Conventional

tillage34.50 25.66 19.05

Minimum tillage 34.77 26.77 19.77

SE(m) ± 0.46 0.56 0.40

CD(P=0.05) NS NS NS


FERTILITY STATUS OF SOIL AFTER HARVEST

OF COTTON AS INFLUENCED BY TILLAGE

Tillage Org . C (g/kg) Avail. N

(kg/ha)

Avail. P

(kg/ha)

Avail. K

(kg/ha)

Conventionaltillage

5.51 211.4 12.69 374.2

Minimum tillage 5.57 216.2 13.02 374.8

SE(m) ± 0.07 2.32 0.135 2.1

CD(P=0.05) NS NS NS NS


Tillage Avail. N Avail. P Avail. K

Conventional tillage 211.4 12.69 374.2

Minimum tillage 216.2 13.03 374.8

Initial value 180.2 12.1 365.5

BALANCE SHEET OF AVAILABLE N P AND K

(Kg/ha) AFTER THREE YEARS AS INFLUENCED

BY TILLAGE


DEFINITON

It is year round system of

managing plant residue with

implements that undercut

residue, loosen the soil and kill

weeds

Advantages:

Moisture conservation

Control of soil erosion

water holding capacity of soil

increases

Availability of nutrients increases

Good aeration

Disadvantages

residues left on the surface interfere

with seed bed preparation and sowing

operation

traditional tillage implements are

not suitable under these situations

this is practiced in developed

countries where agriculture is highly

mechanised

HUANG et al. (2012)

Soil chemical and physical properties at the start of experiment

Depth

(cm)

Bulk

density

(g/cm3)

Org.

Mat.

(g/kg)

Total N

(g/kg)

Total P

(g/kg)

Olsen P

(mg/kg)

Avail. K

(mg/kg)

PH

0-5 1.29 13.15 0.85 0.83 5.81 290.09 8.30

5-10 1.23 12.86 0.87 0.84 5.02 274.00 8.40

HUANG et al. (2012)

SOIL AVAILABLE NUTRIENTS AS AFFECTED BY

STUBBLE MANAGEMENT (mg/kg)

Depth(cm) Treatment P-W W-P

Avail. N Avail. P Avail. K Avail. N Avail. P Avail. K

0-5

T 37.37 13.61 211.41 37.31 14.22 192.04

NT 33.94 13.78 247.13 35.63 14.25 227.91

TS 33.97 16.40 263.76 40.64 16.23 265.17

NTS 37.44 18.96 280.66 40.76 18.68 286.98

5-10

T 35.13 12.34 190.74 35.94 14.95 187.41

NT 34.54 13.12 202.43 34.51 15.09 191.90

TS 36.77 14.15 259.75 39.63 16.30 248.04

NTS 34.61 16.04 262.65 37.95 16.11 265.27

T: conventional tillage with stubble removed; NT: No-till with stubble removed;

TS :Conventional tillage with stubble incorporated; NTS: No-till with stubble cover

HUANG et al. (2012)

Nitrogen balance under different treatments over 4 years(kg N /ha)

Rotation Item T NT TS NTS

P-W

Input 269.00 269.00 299.37 299.37

Fixation 4.65 27.12 20.73 26.06

Output 183.45 167.18 139.73 159.25

Balance 90.20 128.94 180.37 166.18

W-P

Input 269.00 269.00 299.37 299.37

Fixation 3.42 25.63 16.90 24.89

Output 144.82 130.34 102.51 139.09

Balance 127.60 164.29 213.76 185.17

HUANG et al. (2012)

Potassium balance under different treatments over 5 years(kg/ha)

Rotation Item T NT TS NTS

P-W

Input 4.93 4.65 40.15 49.27

Output 41.88 33.01 52.48 60.52

Balance -36.95 -28.36 -12.32 -11.25

W-P

Input 0.68 0.68 14.68 19.03

Output 27.82 31.38 35.99 39.87

Balance -27.14 -30.70 -21.31 -20.84

HUANG et al. (2012)

Grain yield under different treatments(t/ha)

Crop Year T

(pooled yield)

NT

(Pooled yield)

TS

(Pooled

yield)

NTS

(Pooled

yield)

Spring

wheat

2002-09 1.64 1.56 1.79 1.99

Field pea 2002-09 1.12 1.05 1.15 1.35

HUANG et al. (2012)

conservation tillge

Education