Yadav New Paper

Carbon Management
ISSN: 1758-3004 (Print) 1758-3012 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcmt20
Soil carbon dynamics and productivity of rice–rice

system under conservation tillage in submerged
and unsubmerged ecologies of Eastern Indian
Himalaya
Gulab Singh Yadav, Subhash Babu, Anup Das, S.N. Bhowmik, Mrinmoy Datta
& Raghavendra Singh
To cite this article: Gulab Singh Yadav, Subhash Babu, Anup Das, S.N. Bhowmik, Mrinmoy Datta
& Raghavendra Singh (2019): Soil carbon dynamics and productivity of rice–rice system under
conservation tillage in submerged and unsubmerged ecologies of Eastern Indian Himalaya, Carbon
Management, DOI: 10.1080/17583004.2018.1545518
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2018.1545518
Published online: 25 Jan 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tcmt20
CARBON MANAGEMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2018.1545518
Soil carbon dynamics and productivity of rice–rice system under

conservation tillage in submerged and unsubmerged ecologies
of Eastern Indian Himalaya
Gulab Singh Yadava, Subhash Babub, Anup Dasa, S.N. Bhowmika, Mrinmoy Dattac
and Raghavendra Singhd
a
ICAR Research Complex for NEH Region, Tripura Centre, Tripura, India; bICAR Research Complex for NEH Region, Umiam,
Meghalaya, India; cCollege of Agriculture, Tripura University, Tripura, India; dICAR-National Organic Farming Research Institute,
Tadong, Gangtok, India
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Intensive tillage practices along with improper residue management in a rice (Oryza sativa)– Conservation tillage; rice
rice system (RRS) contributed to soil fatigue and declining productivity in South Asia. ecologies; rice–rice system;
Therefore, a 3-year (2013–2015) field study was conducted to assess tillage modification soil carbon sequestration;
system productivity
effects on productivity and soil C sequestration under RRS at ICAR- RC for North Eastern Hill
Region, Tripura, India. The experimental site represented two different ecologies: unsub-
merged (ECO 1) and submerged (ECO 2), with three tillage practices: conventional tillage
(CT), reduced tillage (RT) and no-till (NT). Results showed that the cultivation of RRS under
RT produced significantly higher grain (8.6–9.4 Mg ha1) and straw (11.8–12.9 Mg ha1)
yields under both ecologies over those under CT and RT, in addition to recycling the max-
imum biomass. Soil under RT had lower bulk density (qb), the highest soil organic carbon
(SOC) concentration, pool, sequestration, accumulation, carbon retention efficiency, soil
microbial biomass carbon and dehydrogenase activities under both ecologies as compared
to CT. A total amount of 1.34 Mg C ha1 was accumulated under soils of RT over 3 years.
The rate of SOC sequestration ranged from 133.6 kg ha1 year1 under soils of CT
to 444.7 kg ha1 year1 under RT in RRS. Thus, cultivation of RRS under RT with effective
residue recycling is recommended for higher system productivity and C sequestration under
both rice production ecologies of the NEH region of India.
Introduction population a revolution in global food production

is a must, to boost it by about 60% by 2050
The rice (Oryza sativa L.)–rice system (RRS) is the
second most dominant cropping system after the (Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012). Hence, direct
rice–wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) system in India changes in the existing practices toward an
(Mohanty et al., 2013). The employment, income integration of technologies and restoring carbon
and ultimately livelihood security of millions of (C) and N pools in soil are prerequisites to enhance
rural and urban poor on the Indian sub-continent rice productivity in a sustainable manner. SOC
mainly depend on RRS (Das et al., 2014). Recent plays a decisive role in improving crop productivity
reports on long-term RRS experiments revealed and reducing C emissions in the agricultural
that the system productivity of RRS is either stag- production system; hence, proper management
nating or declining (Cassman and Dobbermann, of SOC is crucial (Rajan et al., 2012). Paddy soils
2001, Banerjee and Pal, 2009). Poor management are reported to retain higher amounts of C and
practices including intensive tillage, poor residue N compared with all other terrestrial ecosystems
management, low organic manure application and (Liu et al., 2006). Higher amounts of carbon
nutrient supplements, etc. have resulted in declin- added in submerged paddy soils and slower
ing productivity and soil degradation which will oxidation of soil organic matter (SOM) may lead to
eventually threaten the food security of the region higher net C accumulation (Majumdar et al., 2008;
(Ladha et al., 2003) and losses of soil organic Bhattacharyya et al., 2013). Slight alterations in
carbon (SOC) and nitrogen (N) (Lal, 2015). To cultivation practices could modify SOC contents
keep pace with the demands of the burgeoning (Zhu et al., 2014) to a great extent. Intensive soil
CONTACT Subhash Babu subhiari@gmail.com Scientist (Agronomy), ICAR Research Complex for NEH region, Umiam, Meghalya-793103, India,
Telephone no: þ91-8900527308.
ß 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 G. S. YADAV ET AL.
disturbances, and improper residue and nutrient RT, NT and integrated nutrients management
management, in rice ecosystems are mainly (INM) have been proven to increase crop and
responsible for depletion of SOC and N pools. soil productivity under irrigated conditions on the
Crop residue retention stabilizes SOC and also Indo-Gangetic Plains in the most common cropping
brings about the sequestration of C, which systems such as rice–wheat and maize (Zea mays)–
increases the crop yield (West and Post, 2002; wheat (Singh et al., 2016). However, meager
Sun et al., 2007), makes more nutrients available information is available on RRS under a CA system
(Kushwah et al., 2016) and reduces the level of (Nagarajan et al., 2013) and scant research work
greenhouse gas emissions (Liu et al., 2006). A bet- has been so far conducted in the NEH of India for
ter understanding of SOC and N dynamics in soils comparative assessment of modified tillage practi-
of RRS is a must to bring about the desired ces in diverse rice production ecologies. Hence,
changes and to increase the productivity of the it was hypothesized that conservation tillage practi-
system (Sainju et al., 2008). Hence, development ces along with residue retention may enhance the
of appropriate soil and crop management tech- system productivity of RRS, and increase C seques-
nologies, which can sequester more C and N to tration by reducing C losses and improving soil
enhance the system productivity and soil quality health under both ecologies. Therefore, the present
of rice-based ecosystems, is the prime challenge study was conducted to assess the effect of various
for researchers and policymakers of South Asia. tillage practices in two rice ecologies on system
Conservation agriculture (CA) mainly relies on productivity and soil C pools of RRS in the NEH
reduced tillage (RT)/no-till (NT), retention of crop region of India.
residues and crop rotation to conserve SOC in
diverse ecosystems (Gonzalez Sanchez et al., 2012; Materials and methods
Prasad et al., 2016). CA-based alternative tillage
and crop establishment methods are reported to Experimental site
have positive effects on soil health and crop prod- A 3-year study (2013–2015) on RRS was conducted
uctivity by curbing production cost, and sustaining in the two rice ecologies at the Agronomy experi-
crop yields and water productivity (Ladha et al., mental farm (Cocotilla farm) of the Indian Council of
2009; Jat et al., 2013). The practice of RRS in Asia is Agricultural Research (ICAR)-Research Complex for
characterized by repeated tillage and soil puddling NEH Region, Tripura Centre, Lembucherra, Tripura
after manual transplanting coupled with no rice (W), India (23 54’24.02”N, 91 18’58.35”E; altitude 52
residue incorporation and fertilization. These prac- m above mean sea level). The soil (Typic
tices aggravate the soil C and N losses (Singh et al., Kandihumults) of the experimental field is clay loam,
2016), disrupt capillary pores (Hobbs, 2007), and deep and free from gravels and hardpan. Baseline
increase the soil mechanical resistance by giving soil samples from 0–20 cm depth were collected and
rise to an impermeable soil layer that impedes root analyzed before initiation of the experiment. The
penetration, leads to poor crop stand and eventu- mixed soil of both ecologies had 10.2 g kg1 of SOC,
ally results in poor crop yield (Singh et al., 2015). 1.01 g kg1 total soil N, 9.5 mg kg1 available phos-
The North Eastern Hill (NEH) region of India is phorus (P) and 295.7 mg kg1 available potassium
characterized by diversified agro-climatic condi- (K). The soil pH was 5.1 (1:2.5 soil:water ratio) and
tions and a topography of hills and valleys, having bulk density (qb) was 1.33 Mg m3.
a rich resource base. Rice is the staple food of the
majority of the NEH population and RRS is the
Weather and crop information
most prevalent system; it accounts for about 8%
and 6.5% of India’s total rice area and production, The average annual rainfall at the site was 2200 mm,
respectively. Despite congenial edapho-climatic with >65% received between June and September.
conditions, the average rice productivity of The average monthly distribution of rainfall, tem-
the region is <2 Mg ha1 against India’s national perature and relative humidity (RH) of the three-year
average of 3.6 Mg ha1, and 4.42 Mg ha1 in period (2013–2015) are presented in Figure 1. The
neighboring Bangladesh, creating a superlative wet season rice (WR) was grown in a nursery during
challenge for researchers (Das et al., 2015). Thus, June and transplanted in the main field during July
sustainability of RRS is need of the hour as the and harvested during November. The dry season rice
food security of NEH India mainly depends on rice. (DR) was transplanted during winter (January) and
Conservation-effective agro-technologies such as harvested in summer (May–June).
CARBON MANAGEMENT 3
Max. Temp. (°C) Min. Temp. (°C) l1 was sprayed on NT plots using a flat fan nozzle
Monthly Rainfall (mm) (Knapsac sprayer, model AGM/001) to control the
40.0 500.0 weeds a week (7 days) prior to transplanting.
35.0 450.0
400.0
30.0
Temperature (°C)
350.0
Rainfall (mm)
25.0 300.0 Crop management
20.0 250.0
200.0 Twelve kilograms of rice seed was sown for
15.0
10.0
150.0 seedling production in a nursery area of 120 m2
100.0
5.0 50.0 for each crop. Rice seedlings, 21 days old, of the
0.0 0.0 popular high-yielding varieties Naveen (DR) and
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gomati Dhan (WR) were manually transplanted at
Figure 1. Average meteorological observations at the 20 cm 20 cm spacing with two seedlings per hill.
experimental site from 2013 to 2015.
DR was raised in a nursery during the first week of
Experimental design and crop management January and transplanted during the last week of
January. Similarly, WR was nursery-raised during
The experiment was laid out in a split plot design the third week of June and transplanted in the first
with three replications. The gross and net plot size week of July. The recommended dose of nutrients
were 6.0 5.0 m2 and 5.0 4.0 m2, respectively. (i.e. 60:18:33 kg N:P:K ha1) was applied through
Detailed experimental descriptions are as indicated urea, single superphosphate (SSP) and muriate of
below. potash (MOP), respectively, in both crops during
the two respective seasons. The full amounts of P
Rice ecologies and K and half of N were applied as basal fertilizer
ECO 1: This is unsubmerged, rainfed irrigated and the other 50% N applied in two equal splits at
ecology. WR was grown under rainfed conditions 30 and 75 days after transplanting (DAT). Weeds in
in the lowlands. Drainage channels were provided NT plots were controlled by spraying of glyphosate
around the field to drain excess water in the case (N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine) @ 5 ml l1 using a
of heavy rains. Therefore, submerged conditions flat fan nozzle (Knapsac sprayer, model AGM/001)
did not last continuously for more than a week. 7 days before transplanting of the succeeding rice
DR was grown under irrigated conditions in the crop. Irrespective of tillage, pretilachlor (2-Chloro-
lowlands. Irrigation was applied as per the needs N-(2,6-diethylphenyl)-N-(2-propoxyethyl) acetamide
of the crop. at 1200 g a.i. (active ingredient ) ha1 was applied
ECO 2: Both rice crops (WR and DR) were grown manually 2 DAT to minimize the weed infestation.
under rainfed conditions in the lowlands. The WR The DR plots were kept flooded (5 cm of standing
crop depended on rainfall and DR depended on seep- water) for the first 2 weeks, followed by irrigation
age water from the surrounding hills. The rice field (to 5 cm depth) at the appearance of cracks on the
was submerged throughout the experimental period soil surface till maturity. On average, total irrigation
and no irrigation was applied under this condition. water used in DR ranged between 800 and 900 ha-
mm across the treatments under ECO 1. In order
to avoid moisture stress in crops, irrigation water
Tillage systems
was applied to the rice at all critical growth stages
Conventional tillage (CT): To plow CT plots, 4 times
in the different treatments.
manual spading was performed and then they
were puddled with two more spadings under both
rice ecologies. Harvesting, economic yield and biomass
Reduced tillage (RT): Two manual spadings were measurement
given in RT plots and no puddling was done under Both WR and DR were harvested at physiological
both rice ecologies. Thirty percent of the rice resi- maturity, during the second fortnight of November
due of the previous crop was incorporated to up and the last week of May to the first week of June,
to 20 cm depth in soil during the spading. respectively, in all years. For recording yield, a net
No-till (NT): No spading or puddling was done plot area of 5 4 m was harvested and kept at the
under NT plots and 30% of the rice residue of pre- threshing floor to allow the biomass to dry for 4–5
vious rice crops was retained on the soil surface days. The harvested plants were weighed, and
under both ecologies and in both seasons. threshed manually. Sub-samples of grains and
Glyphosate (N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine) at 5 ml straw were dried in oven at 70 C to a constant
weight. Grain yields were adjusted to 14% mois- Sequestration of SOC was computed as per
ture content for both WR and DR crops. Biomass Equation (2) below:
of previous WR (grown during the previous rainy
season before the initiation of the present study,
C sequestered Mg C ha1 soil ¼
for treatment stabilization) in the amount of

2.1 Mg ha1 was considered the initial biomass SOC current Mg ha1 – SOC initial Mgha1
contribution to the first DR crop (2013).
Root samples were obtained at harvest in both year of experimentation (2)
crops at 20 cm depth using a core sampler (5.8 cm
height and 5.4 cm diameter). Five hills were
randomly selected for sampling from each plot. Carbon retention efficiency (CRE) was calculated
The core samples with roots and soil were soaked using Equation (3):
in water for at least 12 hours following the proced-
CRE ð%Þ ¼ ðSOC final – SOC initialÞ
ure described by Bohm (1979). The roots were
washed to clean off the soil and dead organic deb- 100 ECI (3)
ris and fresh roots were oven-dried at 70 ± 1 C
SOC final and SOC initial represent SOC (Mg
to constant weight, and the dry biomass was 1
ha ) in the final and initial soils, respectively, and
determined and converted into Mg ha1.
ECI is cumulative estimated C input (Mg ha1) to soil
between the initial and final years of experimentation.
Soil sampling and analysis
Soil samples were obtained (500 g composite sam- Statistical analysis
ple, one sample from each plot) from 0–20 cm
Statistical analyses were done using the GLM pro-
depth for analyzing the SOC, soil microbial biomass
cedure of SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, 2003) to analyze
carbon (SMBC) and dehydrogenase activities (DHA)
variance and to determine the statistical signifi-
after completion of the 3 years of the experiment.
cance of the treatment effects. The least significant
The total C was determined by the dry combustion
difference (LSD) at p ¼ 0.05 was used to compare
method (Nelson and Sommers, 2005) using a TOC
treatment means.
analyzer (Elementar Vario Select, Germany). Fresh
soil samples were stored in freezing temperatures Model SOC ¼ Eco rep rep Eco treat treat Eco;
and used for analyzing the SMBC and DHA. SMBC
Means were compared as follows:
was estimated by the soil fumigation technique
Means Eco/LSD;
(Anderson and Ingram, 1993). Soil DHA was esti-
Means treat/LSD;
mated by the procedure described by Tabatabai
Means Ecotreat/LSD.
(1982), by reducing 2, 3, 5-triphenyl tetrazolium
In the model, treat indicates tillage, Eco indi-
chloride (Casida et al., 1964). Soil bulk density (qb)
cates the rice ecology and rep is a replication.
was determined by the core method (Blake and
Hartge, 1986) using cores of 5.8 cm height and
5.4 cm diameter at 0–20 cm depth and oven-dried Results and discussion
at 105 C (one sample per plot). Wet season rice yield
Grain and straw yields of WR crop were signifi-
Computation of C pools cantly affected by tillage practices and produc-
The total SOC pool (Mg ha1) of 0–20 cm depth was tion ecologies (Table 1). Cultivation of WR under
calculated using the fixed depth (FD) method accord- RT recorded significantly higher grain yield
ing to the following equation (Lee et al., 2009): (4.2–4.7 Mg ha1) as compared to other treat-
ments across the years. Thus, there was a positive
MC ¼ qb Df CC 10 (1)
impact of RT practices on the production of the
where MC is the SOC mass per unit area (Mg C WR crop. Irrespective of tillage practices, the
ha ), qb is the soil bulk density (Mg m3), CC is the
1
productivity of WR was greater under ECO 1
concentration of SOC (g kg1), Df is the depth of the (4.5–4.69 Mg ha1) as compared to ECO 2
fixed soil layer (m), and 10 is a product of the unit (3.54–3.86 Mg ha1) across the years. The data for
conversion factor (m2 ha1, g Mg1 and kg Mg1). the three consecutive years indicated that the
CARBON MANAGEMENT 5
Table 1. Effect of tillage practices and production ecologies on grain and straw yield of wet season rice (WR).
WR grain yield (Mg/ha)
2013 2014 2015
Treatment ECO 1 ECO 2 Mean ECO 1 ECO 2 Mean ECO 1 ECO 2 Mean
CT 4.40 3.50 3.95 4.50 3.70 4.10 4.50 3.80 4.15
RT 4.80 3.60 4.20 5.00 4.10 4.55 5.10 4.30 4.70
NT 4.30 3.53 3.92 4.50 3.50 4.00 4.47 3.47 3.97
Mean 4.50 3.54 4.67 3.77 4.69 3.86
ECO Till ECO Till ECO Till ECO Till ECO Till ECO Till
LSD0.05 0.14 0.17 NS 0.25 0.31 NS 0.17 0.21 NS
WR straw yield (Mg/ha)
2013 2014 2015
ECO 1 ECO 2 Mean ECO 1 ECO 2 Mean ECO 1 ECO 2 Mean
CT 6.23 5.00 5.62 6.27 5.20 5.73 6.30 5.37 5.83
RT 6.80 5.00 5.90 7.00 6.00 6.50 7.30 5.90 6.60
NT 6.00 5.10 5.55 6.30 5.00 5.65 6.40 4.80 5.60
Mean 6.34 5.03 6.52 5.40 6.67 5.36
LSD0.05 0.48 NS NS 0.43 0.53 NS 0.31 0.38 NS
CT: Conventional Tillage; RT: Reduced Tillage, NT: No-Till, ECO: Ecology
conservation tillage with 30% residue retention/ Dry season rice yield
incorporation produced a higher rice grain yield
Yields of DR crop (grain and straw) were significantly
as compared with that of CT. These trends indi-
affected by rice ecologies and tillage practices
cate the opportunity to adopt CA in lowland rice
(Table 2). Across the years, RT yielded higher grain
cultivation with some yield advantage. A similar
(4.38–4.72 Mg ha1) and straw (5.97–6.37 Mg ha1)
grain yield of rice under puddled and minimum
yields of rice over those under CT and NT. The CT
puddled treatments was also reported by Singh
and NT treatments did not show a significant
et al. (2004). However, some researchers
difference in yield (grain or straw). However, trans-
(Hammel, 1995 Haque) observed that conversion planting of rice under NT systems recorded 7.9
from CT to CA did not increase crop yield under and 17.1% lower grain yield compared with CT. In
humid conditions. However, the soil of the NEH contrast, RT increased the grain yield of rice by
region is clay loam in texture coupled with a 4.8–5.5% over CT. In general, CT with puddling has
high water table, where percolation of water is greater impact during the dry season, by reducing
relatively low, and hence puddling has the least percolation loss of water and controlling weeds.
effect on rice productivity. This might be the rea- But these advantages might be achieved through
son for a good rice yield under RT in the present RT because initial plowing may keep the field
study. Many previous studies on conservation till- weed free and incorporate the crop residue into
age have also reported crop yield advantages the soil for better decomposition, which may also
over traditional repeated tillage systems (Ladha supply the essential plant nutrients to the crop.
et al., 2009). Most previous studies evaluated RT/ However, only a few studies on conservation till-
NT versus CT in wheat and maize (Sharma et al., age (RT and NT) under DR have been conducted in
2011; Yadav et al., 2015) rather than in trans- India (Pandey and Velasco, 1999; Naresh et al.,
planted rice under irrigated and rainfed condi- 2014) to assess the impact of RT in DR. Most of the
tions. Sharma et al. (2005) reported similar yields previous research related to CA involved the rice–-
of transplanted rice with intensive puddling and wheat system, with special emphasis on wheat
no puddling with RT. Similarly, Haque et al., (2016) (Hobbs, 2007; Jat et al., 2009). However, several
observed that RT and unpuddled transplanting of researchers in Bangladesh (Haque, 2009; Haque
rice produced higher grain yields, besides reducing et al., 2016) reported no significant yield differen-
the cost of production and the time for land prepar- ces between RT and CT treatments. In contrast,
ation and crop establishment across the seasons and several experiments in China (Peng et al., 2009;
years over the CT system. Ladha et al. (2009) also Huang et al., 2015; Mi et al., 2016) showed a
reported that transplanting into unpuddled NT soil declining trend in rice yield during the dry season
increased average rice yields on farmers’ fields by under conservation tillage, while others (Sun et al.,
0.3 Mg ha1. Therefore, negative effects of RT/NT on 2010; Xue et al., 2015; Huang et al., 2015, and Ma
crop growth are not observed in wet-seeded et al., 2016) reported an increase in rice yield
flooded-rice production systems (Huang et al., 2012). under conservation tillage irrespective of residue
Table 2. Effect of tillage practices and production ecologies on grain and straw yield of dry season rice (DR).
DR grain yield (Mg/ha)
2013 2014 2015
CT 4.80 3.50 4.15 5.07 3.70 4.38 5.10 3.90 4.50
RT 5.10 3.67 4.38 4.90 3.80 4.35 5.33 4.10 4.72
NT 4.10 3.53 3.82 4.00 3.60 3.80 4.00 3.47 3.73
Mean 4.67 3.57 4.66 3.70 4.81 3.82
LSD0.05 0.16 0.20 NS 0.22 0.27 NS 0.27 0.33 NS
DR straw yield (Mg/ha)
2013 2014 2015
CT 6.50 4.77 5.63 6.83 5.03 5.93 6.90 5.30 6.10
RT 7.00 4.93 5.97 7.10 5.13 6.12 7.20 5.53 6.37
NT 5.40 4.80 5.10 4.47 4.90 4.68 5.40 4.67 5.03
Mean 6.30 4.83 6.13 5.02 6.50 5.17
LSD0.05 0.35 0.43 NS 0.09 0.11 NS 0.29 0.35 NS
CT: Conventional Tillage; RT: Reduced Tillage; NT: No-Till; ECO: Ecology
removal or retention. These findings suggest that suitable for the NEH region. However, further stud-
the grain yield responses to CA vary among regions, ies are needed to identify a strategy to improve
due to differences in climatic factors (Huang et al., the productivity of RRS under NT under both
2015) and soil pH (Huang et al., 2015). Gregory ecologies for adoption of CA in the NEH region
(2012) reported that the NT practice reduces rice of India.
grain yield by 2.8% in soils with pH < 6.0 compared
with conventional tillage. The soil of the present Effects on biomass and carbon recycling
study also had an acidic soil reaction (pH < 5.5).
During the dry season, nutrient uptake by rice roots The amount of biomass (grain þ straw þ root mass
up to 20 cm soil depth) produced and C recycling
under NT might have been relatively low, leading to
varied among the treatments (Table 4). Recycling
poor biomass production (Huang et al., 2016). These
of biomass (straw þ root mass) and C was assessed
might be the reasons for lower rice yield under NT
to 20 cm soil depth with retention of residues by
than the CT. With regards to rice ecologies, ECO 1
30% along with root biomass, for each crop during
produced a higher rice grain yield for DR as com-
the entire experiment. The highest biomass and C
pared to ECO 2 (Table 2).
were recycled in RT and ECO 1 plots through 30%
residue þ root biomass (20 cm soil depth) due to
Effects on system productivity higher straw and root mass production. Higher C
recycling potential from retention of rice residue
System yields of grain and straw were also affected
and with adoption of RT and NT were also
by rice ecologies and tillage practices (Table 3).
reported by Dobermann and Witt (2000) and rice
The rice grain yields of the RRS ranged from 7.0
residue and weed biomass by Das et al., (Das
to 10.5 Mg ha1 across treatments and years.
2014) under RT in lowland rice compared to that
However, impacts of treatments on system prod-
grown in a CT system.
uctivity were similar to those recorded under indi-
vidual WR and DR. The system grain and straw
yield over three consecutive years were 6.2–9.0% Effects on bulk density and total soil
and 5.6–8.8% more, respectively, under RT practi- organic carbon
ces than that under CT. The highest system prod- Tillage modifications and rice ecologies signifi-
uctivity was recorded when RRS was grown in ECO cantly affected soil qb at 0–20 cm soil depth
1 as compared to ECO 2. Increased productivity (Table 5). By the end of the 3-year study, soil under
of RRS under conservation tillage (RT/NT) has also RT recorded lower qb than that under other treat-
been reported in other regions of world (Huang ments (CT and NT). Between the rice ecologies,
et al., 2015), but effects varied across climatic and ECO 2 had the lower soil qb (1.29 Mg m3) as com-
ecological regions (Huang et al., 2015). The data of pared to ECO 1 (1.32 Mg m3). The data presented
the present study demonstrate that cultivation of herein suggested that RT in both ECO 1 and ECO 2
RRS under RT under both rice ecologies was most may have a relatively positive effect on soil qb.
CARBON MANAGEMENT 7
Table 3. Effect of tillage practices and production ecologies on system productivity of RRS.
System grain yield (Mg/ha)
2013 2014 2015
CT 9.20 7.00 8.10 9.53 7.40 8.47 9.60 7.70 8.65
RT 9.93 7.27 8.60 9.90 7.90 8.90 10.47 8.40 9.43
NT 8.43 7.00 7.72 8.50 7.10 7.80 8.43 6.90 7.67
Mean 9.19 7.09 9.31 7.47 9.50 7.67
LSD0.05 0.35 0.43 NS 0.41 0.50 NS 0.22 0.27 NS
System straw yield (Mg/ha)
2013 2014 2015
CT 12.73 9.73 11.23 13.10 10.23 11.67 13.20 10.63 11.92
RT 13.80 9.93 11.87 14.10 11.13 12.62 14.50 11.43 12.97
NT 11.40 9.90 10.65 10.77 9.90 10.33 11.80 9.47 10.63
Mean 12.64 9.86 12.66 10.42 13.17 10.51
LSD0.05 0.44 0.54 NS 0.35 0.43 NS 0.49 0.61 NS
CT: Conventional Tillage; RT: Reduced Tillage; NT: No-Till; ECO: Ecology
Table 4. Biomass and carbon inputs in double cropping of rice (RRS) affected by tillage practices and production ecologies.
Biomass input (Mg/ha) Total carbon input (Mg/ha) Carbon input (Mg/ha/year)
CT 19.0 14.9 17.0 8.2 6.4 7.3 2.7 2.1 2.4
RT 20.7 15.9 18.3 8.9 6.8 7.9 3.0 2.3 2.6
NT 16.6 14.2 15.4 7.2 6.1 6.7 2.4 2.0 2.2
Mean 18.8 15.0 8.1 6.5 2.7 2.2
LSD0.05 0.68 0.83 NS 0.29 0.36 NS 0.10 0.12 NS
Where: CT: Conventional Tillage; RT: Reduced Tillage; NT: No-Till; ECO: Ecology, Till: Tillage.
In contrast, other studies have reported higher qb retention increases the SOC concentration in rice
under NT at 0–5 cm depth compared to that under soil. In addition, paddy soils also act as a sink for
CT in cropping systems other than RRS (Huang global C (Pan et al., 2004). Adoption of RRS under
et al., 2012; Jat et al., 2013). Management-induced ECO 2 (11.0 g kg1) produced a higher SOC con-
changes in soil qb depend on texture, SOM centration than that in soil under ECO 1 (10.7 g
content, tillage type and intensity, and cropping kg1). The increase in SOC concentration might be
system (Sharma et al., 2003; Kharub et al., 2004). due to the slow decomposition of added residues
The SOC concentration at 0–20 cm depth after and root mass in ECO 2 as compared to ECO 1
completing three consecutive cycles of RRS varied (Zhou et al., 2016). The continuous soil submer-
significantly among the rice ecologies and tillage gence creates anaerobic conditions and reduces
systems (Table 5). SOC concentration increased up the temperature, resulting in a reduction in the
to 10.9 g kg1 under NT and to 11.2 g kg1 under rate of decomposition of organic matter and SOC
RT as compared to CT (10.6 g kg1). The data indi- mineralization (Zhou et al., 2016). The results indi-
cate that NT and RT maintained consistently higher cate that CA (RT and NT) with residue retention/
SOC concentrations in soil, which were 2.8%and incorporation enhances the SOC content in the
5.6% higher than the SOC concentration under CT, soils of both ecologies under RRS, but the magni-
respectively. Other researchers have also indicated tude of the increase was greater under ECO 2 than
that RT and NT practices can produce comparable under ECO 1. In China, after 4 years of tillage and
higher SOC concentration than CT (Ramesh and straw retention practices significant differences in
Chandrasekaran). In the present study, the main- SOC concentration (0–40 cm) were observed with
tenance of SOC under RT and NT might be due to different tillage practices (Shang-Qi et al., 2013).
retention/incorporation of 30% of rice residues of Similarly, CA with organic manure and residue
each crop, and production of more above- and retention/incorporation increased the SOC in
below-ground biomass, in the respective treat- paddy soils of India (Mandal et al., 2004; Ramesh
ments. Several researchers (Mandal et al., 2004; and Chandrasekaran, Mandal et al., 2008). Conjoint
Ramesh and Chandrasekaran; Chen et al., 2017) use of organic with inorganic fertilizers increases
have also reported that residue incorporation/ the productivity and SOC under rainfed-irrigated
Table 5. Effect of tillage practices and production ecologies on bulk density and carbon dynamics of RRS.
Bulk density (Mg/m3) Soil organic carbon (g/kg) Soil organic carbon pool (Mg/ha)
CT 1.33 1.30 1.32 10.4 10.7 10.6 20.8 20.9 20.8
RT 1.31 1.28 1.30 11.0 11.4 11.2 21.6 21.9 21.8
NT 1.33 1.30 1.32 10.7 11.0 10.9 21.4 21.4 21.4
Mean 1.32 1.29 10.7 11.0 21.3 21.4
LSD0.05 0.01 0.02 NS 0.13 0.15 NS NS 0.5 NS
Total soil organic carbon accumulation (Mg/ha) Soil organic carbon sequestration (kg/ha/year) Carbon retention efficiency (%)
CT 0.50 0.37 0.43 144.7 122.4 133.6 5.2 5.7 5.5
RT 1.30 1.38 1.34 427.9 461.4 444.7 11.0 11.9 11.4
NT 1.00 0.98 0.98 336.5 315.0 325.8 13.5 14.7 14.1
Mean 1.07 1.09 355.8 358.7 11.8 12.2
LSD0.05 NS 0.06 NS NS 21.63 NS NS 1.0 NS
CT: Conventional Tillage; RT: Reduced Tillage; NT: No-Till; ECO: Ecology, Till: Tillage; NS: Non-significant
Table 6. Effect of tillage practices and production ecologies on soil pH and selected soil biological parameters in RRS.
pH SMBC (mg g1 dry soil) DHA (mg TPF g1 dry soils)
CT 5.25 5.18 5.22 234.5 185.1 209.8 6.2 4.1 5.2
RT 5.32 5.25 5.29 314.1 298.8 306.5 10.5 8.3 9.4
NT 5.29 5.22 5.26 304.4 284.6 294.5 9.5 7.0 8.3
Mean 5.29 5.22 284.3 256.2 8.7 6.5
LSD0.05 0.02 0.02 NS 5.83 7.14 0.32 0.39 NS
CT: Conventional Tillage; RT: Reduced Tillage; NT: No- Till; ECO: Ecology, Till: Tillage; NS = Non-Significant
lowland ecology of the northeastern region of India, and the retention of rice residues with inorganic
as compared to submerged ecology (Nath fertilizer may also enhance SOC sequestration
et al., 2016). in the double-rice cropping system in India
The SOC pool was also increased under RT over (Bhattacharyya et al., 2012). However, ECO 2 had a
CT in both rice ecologies. However, there were no greater SOC pool (21.4 Mg ha1) due to accumula-
significant differences in SOC under RT compared tion of more C (1.09 Mg ha1) during the 3 years
with NT. A total amount of 1.34 Mg Cha1 was as compared to that under ECO 1. The CRE is an
accumulated under soils of RT over the 3 years. important measure of the amount of C applied
The rate of SOC sequestration ranged from and retained in soil (Bhattacharyya et al., 2012). The
133.6 kg ha1 year1 under CT to 444.7 kg ha1 lowest CRE was observed in CT of ECO 1 (5.2%) and
year1 under soils of RT under RRS. Adoption of the highest in NT of ECO 2 (14.7%) under RRS.
RRS under RT/NT systems with retention/incorpor- This trend in CRE indicates that the adoption
ation of 30% rice residues sequestered 3 times of RT/NT systems under RRS is a better option for
more SOC in the soil systems over CT plots. The C sequestration than the CT-based systems
variation in SOC pool and sequestration were (Bhattacharyya et al., 2012), and might be due to
attributed largely to C addition through recycling the slow decomposition of applied biomass.
of crop residue retention (30% residue), minimal
soil disturbances (RT/NT), production of root mass,
Effects on soil microbial biomass carbon and
nutrient-use pattern, soil texture and the prevailing
dehydrogenase activities
ecosystem (Singh et al., 2015). Enhancement of the
SOC pool of paddy soils can improve soil quality Under both rice ecologies, SMBC and DHA ranged
and mitigate global warming. Moreover, the CT from 185.1 to 314.1 mg g1 dry soil and 4.1 to 10.5
practice can enhance SOC and N mineralization by mg TPF (Triphenyl formazan) g1 dry soil, respect-
incorporating crop residues, disrupting soil aggre- ively, across the tillage treatments. Irrespective of
gates, and increasing aeration, thereby reducing the tillage treatments, higher values of SMBC and
the SOC pool (Xue et al., 2015; Huang et al., 2016). DHA were recorded under ECO 1 as compared to
RT/NT practices have been reported to increase ECO 2 (Table 6). The SMBC concentration was sig-
the SOC pool compared with CT in paddy-based nificantly (p = 0.05) higher under RT (306.5 mg g1
agro-ecosystems (Sun et al., 2010; Xue et al., 2015), dry soil) and ECO 1 (284.6 mg g1 dry soil), than
CARBON MANAGEMENT 9
those recorded under CT (209.8 mg g1 dry soil) sequestration rate than ECO 1. In addition, SOC
and ECO 2 (256.2 mg g1 dry soil). Similarly, the concentrations, pool, CRE, SMBC and DHA also
DHA activity was also higher under RT of ECO 1 increased under RT with residue incorporation
(10.5 mg TPF g1 dry soil) and the minimum was under both ecologies. Thus, cultivation of RRS
observed under CT of ECO 2 (4.1 mg TPF g1 dry under RT with effective residue recycling under
soil). The SMBC and enzymes are good soil quality both ecologies (ECO 1 and ECO 2) is recom-
indicators because of their relevance to soil biol- mended for enhancing the system productivity
ogy, rapid response to changes in soil manage- and SOC sequestration in paddy soils of the NEH
ment, and ease of measurement (Dick et al., 1996). region of India and other, similar agro-ecosystems,
In the present study, increasing tillage intensity in South Asia especially.
reduced SMBC and DHA. Soil under RT and NT had
significantly higher SBMC and DHA as compared Acknowledgements
to CT in both ecologies. The SMBC and DHA under
Authors are very thankful to the Director, ICAR- Research
RT of ECO 1 were higher than under CT of ECO 2 Complex for NEH Region, Umiam, Meghalaya, India for
by 33.9% and 69.6%, respectively. Pandey et al. providing the necessary facilities to conduct this research.
(2014) concluded that higher DHA in soil under NT
and RT was due to larger proportions of SMBC
Disclosure statement
than in soil under CT. Higher activity of soil DHA
and SMBC under RT and NT compared to that No potential conflict of interest was reported by
the authors.
under CT has been also reported by other
researchers (Mina et al., 2008; Ghosh et al., 2010
and Pandey et al., 2014). The accumulation of crop References
residues on the soil surface is due to the enrich- Alexandratos, N., Bruinsma, J. (2012) World agriculture
ment of SOM in the surface layer and relatively towards 2030/2050: The 2012 revision. ESA Working
higher microbial activity in soil under NT and RT paper. No. 12 -03, Rome, FAO.
(Mathew et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2017). Anderson, J.M., Ingram, J.S.I., (1993). Tropical Soil Biology
and Fertility. CAB.
Concentration of SMBC is indicative of the soil’s
Banerjee, H., Pal, S. (2009). Integrated nutrient management
ability to store and cycle nutrients and SOM (Dick, for rice–rice cropping system Oryza 46,32–36.
1992), and plays an important role in physical sta- Bhattacharyya, P., Roy, K.S., Neogi, S., Adhya, T.K., Rao, K.S.,
bilization of aggregates. Consequently, SMBC is an Manna, M.C., (2012). Effects of rice straw and nitrogen
important indicator of soil quality, and is also fertilization on greenhouse gas emissions and carbon
storage in tropical flooded soil planted with rice. Soil
closely related to soil fertility. The rate of biomass-
Tillage Res. 124,119–130.
C input from plant residues is a predominant fac- Bhattacharyya,, T., Pal, D.K., Ray, S.K., Chandan, P., Mandal,
tor controlling the amount of SMBC in soil. A con- C., Telpande, B., Deshmukh, A.S., Tiwary, P., (2013).
tinuous and uniform supply of biomass-C is an Simulating change in soil organic carbon in two long fer-
energy source for microorganisms. Thus, RT/NT tilizer experiments in India: with the Roth C model.
Climate Change Environ. Sustain. 2, 107–117.
with crop residues is necessary for improving soil
Blake, G.R., Hartge, K.H., (1986). Bulk density. In: Klute, A.
quality of both soil ecologies (ECO 1 and ECO 2), (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis, Part I, ASA Monograph
particularly in the depleted soils of the NEH region No. 9. Lewis Publishers, Madison, WI, pp.363–376.
of India (Boulal et al., 2008). Bohm, W., (1979). Methods of Studying Rooting Systems.
Springer—Verlag, Berlin. Germany39–49.
Boulal, H., Gomez-Macpherson, H., Gomez, J.A., (2008).
Conclusions Water infiltration and soil loss in a permanent bed irri-
The results of the present study demonstrate that gated system in southern Spain. Ital. J. Agron. 3,45–46.
Casida, L.E., Klein, D., Santoro, T., (1964). Soil dehydrogen-
RT with 30% residue incorporation under both
ase activity. Soil Sci. 98,371–376. doi:http://dx.doi.org/
ecologies enhances system productivity (grain 10.1097/00010694-196412000-00004.
yield) by 6.2–9.0% over CT practices, and also accu- Cassman, K.G., Dobbermann, A. (2001) Evolving rice pro-
mulates 1.30 and 1.38 Mg C ha1 in soils of ECO 1 duction systems to meet global demand. Rice Research
and ECO 2 of RRS, respectively, over 3 years. and Production in the 21st century: Proceedings of a
symposium.
Irrespective of the rice production ecology, the
Chen, Z., Wang, H., Liu, X., Zhao, X., Lu, D., Zhou, J., Li, C.,
rate of SOC sequestration increased from 133.6 kg (2017). Changes in soil microbial community and organic
ha1 year1 under CT to 444.7 kg ha1 year1 carbon fractions under short-term straw return in a rice–
under soils of RT. However, ECO 2 had a higher C wheat cropping system. Soil Tillage Res. 165,121–127.
Das, A., Lal, R., Patel, D.P., Idapuganti, R.G., Layek, J., Huang, M., Zhou, X., Cao, F., Zou, Y., (2016). Long-term
Ngachan, S.V., Ghosh, P.K., Bordoloi, J., Kumar, M., (2014). effect of no-tillage on soil organic carbon and nitrogen
Effects of tillage and biomass on soil quality and in an irrigated rice-based cropping system. Paddy Water
productivity of lowland rice cultivation by small scale Environ. 14(2),367–371.
farmers in north eastern India, Soil Tillage Research. Jat, M.L., Gathala, M.K., Ladha, J.K., Saharawat, Y.S., Jat, A.S.,
143,50–58 Kumar, V., Sharma, S.K., Kumar, V., Gupta, R.K., (2009).
Das, A., Ramkrushna, G.I., Yadav, G.S., Layek, J., Debnath, C., Evaluation of precision land leveling and double zero-till
Choudhury, B.U., Mohaptara, K.P., Ngachan, S.V., Das, S. systems in the rice-wheat rotation: Water use, productiv-
(2015). Capturing traditional practices of rice based ity, profitability and soil physical properties. Soil Tillage
farming systems and identifying interventions for Res. 105,112–121.
resource conservation and food security in Tripura, India. Jat, M.L., Gathala, M.K., Saharawat, Y.S., Tetarwal, J.P., Gupta,
Appl. Ecol. Environ. Sci. 3 (4), 100–107. doi:10.12691/ R., Yadvinder-Singh , (2013). Double no-till and perman-
aees-3- 4-2 ent raised beds in maize–wheat rotation of north-west-
Dick, R.P., (1992). A review-long term effects of agricultural ern Indo-Gangetic plains of India: Effects on crop yields,
systems on soil biochemical and microbial properties. water productivity, profitability and soil physical proper-
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 40,25–36. ties. Field Crops Res. 149,291–299.
Dick, R.P., Breakwell, D.P., Turco, R.F., (1996). Soil enzyme Kharub, A.S., Sharma, R.K., Mongia, A.D., Chhokar, R.S.,
activities and biodiversity measurements as integrative Tripathi, S.C., Sharma, V.K., (2004). Effect of rice (Oryza sat-
microbiological indicators. In: Doran, J.W., Jones, A.J. (Eds.), iva) straw removal, burning and incorporation on soil prop-
Methods for Assessing Soil Quality. Soil Science Society of erties and crop productivity under rice–wheat (Triticum
America, Madison Wisconsin, USA, pp.247–271. aestivum) system. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 74,295–299.
Dobermann, A., Witt, C., (2000). The potential impact of Kushwah, S.S., Reddy, D.D ,Somasundaram, J., Srivastava, S.,
Khamparia, R.S. (2016). Crop Residue Retention and
crop intensification on carbon and nitrogen cycling in
Nutrient Management Practices on Stratification of
intensive rice systems. In: Kirk, G.J.D., Olk, D.C. (Eds.),
Phosphorus and Soil Organic Carbon in the
Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics in Flooded Soils.
Soybean–Wheat System in Vertisols of Central India.
International Rice Research Institute, Los Banos,
Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal. 47:21, 2387-2395,
Philippines, pp.1–25.
doi:10.1080/00103624.2016.1243703
Ghosh, P.K., Das, A., Saha, R., Kharkarang, E., Tripathi, A.K.,
Ladha, J.K., Dawe, D., Pathak, H., Padre, A.T., Yadav, R., Singh,
Munda, G.C., Ngachan, S.V., (2010). Conservation agricul-
B., Singh, Y., Singh, Y., Singh, P., Kundu, A., Sakal, R., Ram,
ture towards achieving food security in north east India.
N., Regmi, A.P., Gami, S., Bhandari, A., Amin, R., Yadav, C.,
Curr. Sci. 99,915–921.
Bhattarai, E., Das, S., Aggarwal, H., Gupta, R., Hobbs, P.,
Gonzalez Sanchez, E.J., Ordonez, F., ernandez, R.,
(2003). How extensive are yield declines in long-term rice-
CarbonellBojollo, R., Veroz Gonzalez, O., Gil, R., ibes, J.A.,
wheat experiments in Asia. Field Crops Res. 81,159–180.
(2012). Meta-analysis on atmospheric carbon capture in
Ladha, J.K., Yadvinder-Singh , Erenstein, O., Hardy, B.,
Spain through the use of conservation agriculture. Soil
(2009). Integrated Crop and Resource Management in
Tillage Res. 122,52–60.
the Rice? Wheat System of South Asia. International Rice
Gregory, P.J., (2012). Soils and food security: challenges and
Research Institute, Los Banos, Philippines.
opportunities. In: Hester, R.E., Iarrison, R.M. (Eds.), Soils Lal, R., (2015). Sequestering carbon and increasing product-
and Food Security. The Royal Society ofChemistry, ivity by conservation agriculture. J. Soil Water Conserv.
Cambridge, pp.1–30. 70(3),55A–62A.
Hammel, J.E., (1995). Long-term tillage and crop rotation Lee, J., Hopmans, J. W., Rolston, D. E., Baer, S. G. and Six, J.
effects on winter wheat production in northern Idaho. (2009). Determining soil carbon stock changes: Simple
Agron. J. 87,16–22. bulk density corrections fail. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ.
Haque, M.E. (2009). On-farm evaluation of unpuddled trans- 134,251–256.
planting on bed, strip, and single pass shallow tillage for Liu, D., Wang, Z., Zhang, B., Song, K., Li, X., Li, J., Li, F., Duan,
boro rice cultivation. In: Presented at The Annual H., (2006). Spatial distribution of soil organic carbon and
Meeting of ACIAR Funded Rice- Maize Project. BRAC analysis of related factors in croplands of the black soil
Center, Dhaka, Bangladesh. 3–4 October. region, Northeast China. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 113,73–81.
Haque, M.E., Bell, R.W., Islam, M.A., Rahman, M.A. (2016). Ma, Z., Chen, J., Lyu, X., Liu, L.L.,Siddique, K.H., (2016).
Minimum tillage unpuddled transplanting:,an alternative Distribution of soil carbon and grain yield of spring
crop establishment strategy for rice in conservation agri- wheat under a permanent raised bed planting system in
culture cropping systems. Field Crops Res. 185, 31–39. an arid area of northwest China. Soil Tillage Res.
Hobbs, P.R., (2007). Conservation agriculture: what is it and 163,274–281.
why is it important for future sustainable food produc- Majumdar, B., Mandal, B., Bandhyopadhyay, P.K.,
tion? J. Agric. Sci. 145,127. Gangopadhyay, A., Mani, P.K., Kundu, A.L., Majumder, D.,
Huang, M., Yingbin, Z., Peng, J., Bing, X., Feng, Y., Cheng, Z., (2008). Organic amendments influence soil organic car-
Yali, M., (2012). Effect of tillage on soil and crop properties bon pools and crop productivity in nineteen year old
of wet-seeded flooded rice. Field Crops Res. 129,28–38. rice-wheat agro-ecosystem. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 72:1–11.
Huang, M., Zhou, X., Cao, F., Xia, B., Zou, Y., (2015). No-till- Mandal, B., Majumder, B., Adhya, T.K., Bandyopadhyay, P.K.,
age effect on rice yield in China: A meta-analysis. Field Gangopadhyay, A., Sarkar, D., Samantaray, R.N., (2008).
Crops Res. 183,126–137. Potential of double-cropped rice ecology to conserve
CARBON MANAGEMENT 11
organic carbon under subtropical climate. Global change Rajan, G., Keshav, R.A., Zueng-Sang, C., Shree, C.S, Khem, R.D.
biol. 14(9),2139–2151. (2012) Soil organic carbon sequestration as affected by till-
Mandal, K.G., Misra, A.K., Hati, K.M., Bandyopadhyay, K.K., age, crop residue, and nitrogen application in rice–wheat
Ghosh, P.K., Mohanty, M., (2004). Rice residue-manage- rotation system. Paddy Water Environ 10:95–102
ment options and effects on soil properties and crop Sainju, U.M., Senwo, Z.N., Nyakatawa, E.Z., Tazisong, I.A.,
productivity. J. Food Agr. Environ. 2,224–231. Reddy, K.C., (2008). Tillage, cropping systems, and nitro-
Mathew, R.P., Feng, Y., Githinji, L., Ankumah, R., Balkcom, gen fertilizer source effects on soil carbon sequestration
K.S., (2012). Impact of no tillage and conventional tillage and fractions. J. Environ. Qual. 37(3),880–888.
systems on soil microbial communities. Appl. Environ. Shang-Qi, X.U., Zhang, M.Y., Zhang, H.L., Fu, C.H.E.N.,
Soil Sci. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/548620. Guang-Li, Y.A.N.G., Xiao-Ping, X.I.A.O.,(2013). Soil organic
Mina, B.L., Saha, S., Kumar, N., Srivastva, A.K., Gupta, H.S., carbon stocks as affected by tillage systems in a double-
(2008). Changes in soil nutrient content and enzymatic cropped rice field. Pedosphere 23(5),696–704.
activity under conventional and zero-tillage practices in Sharma, P., Abrol, V., Sharma, R.K., (2011). Impact of tillage
an Indian sandy clay loam soil. Nutr. Cycling Agroecosyt. and mulch management on economics, energy require-
82,273–281. ment and crop performance in maize–wheat rotation in
Mi, W., Wu, L., Brookes, P.C., Liu, Y., Zhang, X., Yang, X. rainfed subhumid Inceptisols, India. Eur. J. Agron.
(2016). Changes in soil organic carbon fractions under 34,46–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2010.10.003.
integrated management systems in a low-productivity Sharma, P., Tripathi, R.P., Singh, S., (2005). Tillage effects on
paddy soil given different organic amendments and soil physical propertiesand performance of rice–wheat–-
chemical fertilizers. Soil Tillage Res. 163, 64–70 cropping system under shallow water table conditions of
Mohanty, S., Nayak, A.K., Kumar, A., Tripathi, R., Shahid, M., Tarai, northern India. Eur. J. Agron. 23,327–335.
Bhattacharyya, P., Raja, R., Panda, B.B., (2013). Carbon Sharma, P.K., Ladha, J.K., Bhushan, L., (2003). Soil physical effects
and nitrogen mineralization kinetics in soil of rice–rice of puddling in rice–wheat cropping system. In: Ladha, J.K.,
system under long term application of chemical fertil- et al. (Ed.), Improving the productivity and sustainability
izers and farmyard manure. Eur. J. Soil. Biol. 58,113–121. of rice–wheat systems: Issues and impacts. ASA Spec.
Nagarajan, R., Aravind, J., Ravi, R., Venkatesh, A., (2013). Publ. 65, ASA, CSSA and SSSA, Madison WI, pp.97–114.
Improved measures for conservation agriculture practices Singh, S., Tripathi, R.P., Sharma, P., Kumar, R., (2004).
in rice farming system. Indian J. Hill Farming 26(2),26–31. Effect of tillage on root growth, crop performance
Naresh, R.K., Tomar, S.S., Samsher, P., Singh, S.P., Kumar, D., and economics of rice (Oryza sativa)–wheat (Triticum
Dwivedi, A., Kumar, V., (2014). Experiences with rice grown aestivum) system. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 74 (6),300–304.
on permanent raised beds: effect of water regime and Singh, V.K., Dwivedi, B.S., Singh, S.K., Majumdar, K., Jat, M.L.,
planting techniques on rice yield, water use, soil properties Mishra, R.P., Rani, M., (2016). Soil physical properties,
and water productivity. Rice Sci. 21(3),170–180. yield trends and economics after five years of conserva-
Nath, A.J., Bhattacharyya, T., Ray, S.K., Deka, J., Das, A.K., tion agriculture based rice-maize system in north-
Devi, H., (2016). Assessment of rice farming management western India. Soil Tillage Res. 155,133–148.
practices based on soil organic carbon pool analysis. Singh, V.K., Rani, M., Dwivedi, B.S., Singh, S.K., Gupta, V.K.,
Tropical Eco. 57(3),607–611. Majumdar, K., Mishra, R.P., (2015). Soil organic carbon
Nelson, D.W., Sommers, L.E., (2005). Total carbon, organic stock variability in the Northern Gangetic Plains of India:
carbon and Organic Matter. In: Spark, D.L. (Ed.), Analysis interaction between agro-ecological characteristics and
of Soil and Plants Chemical Methods. SSSA Book Series: cropping systems. Soil Use Manage., 31(4),461–473.
5. Soil Science Society of America Inc., American Society Sun, G., Xu, S., Zhang, H., Chen, F., Xiao, X., (2010). Effects
of Agronomy Inc., Wisconsin, USA. of rotational tillage in double rice cropping region
Pan, G., Li, L., Wu, L., Zhang, X., (2004). Storage and seques- on organic carbon storage of the arable paddy soil. Sci.
tration potential of topsoil organic carbon in China’s Agric. Sin. 43,3776–3783.
paddy soils. Glob. Change Boil. 10,79–92. Sun, X., Liu, Q., Wang, D.J., Zhang, B. (2007) Effect of
Pandey, D., Agrawal, M.,Bohra, J.S., (2014). Effects of con- long-term application of straw on soil fertility. Chinese J
ventional tillage and no tillage permutations on extracel- of Eco-Agri. 16(3):587–592
lular soil enzyme activities and microbial biomass under Tabatabai, M.A., (1982).Soil enzymes. In: Page, A.L., Miller,
rice cultivation.Soil Tillage Res. 136,51–60. R.H., Keeney, D.R. (Eds.), Methods in Soil Analysis, Part 2:
Pandey, S., Velasco, L.E., (1999). Economics of alternative Chemical and Microbiological Properties. American
rice establishment methods in Asia: a strategic analysis. In: Society of Agronomy (ASA) – Soil Science Society
Social sciences division discussion paper, International of America (SSSA), Wisconsin, USA.
Rice Research Institute, Los Ban~os, Philippines West, T.O., Post, W.M., (2002). Soil organic carbon
Peng, S., Tang, Q., Zou, Y., (2009).Current status and chal- sequestration rates by tillage and crop rotation. Soil Sci.
lenges of rice production in China. Plant Prod. Sci. 12,3–8. Soc. Am. J. 66,1930–1946.
Prasad, J.V.N.S., Rao, C.S., Srinivas, K., Jyothi, C.N., Xue, J.F., Pu, C., Liu, S.L., Chen, Z.D., Chen, F., Xiao, X.P., Lal,
Venkateswarlu, B., Ramachandrappa, B.K., Dhanapal, G.N., R., Zhang, H.L., (2015). Effects of tillage systems on soil
Ravichandra, K. and Mishra, P.K., (2016). Effect of ten organic carbon and total nitrogen in a double paddy
years of reduced tillage and recycling of organic matter cropping system in Southern China. Soil Tillage Res.
on crop yields, soil organic carbon and its fractions in 153,161–168.
Alfisols of semi-arid tropics of southern India. Soil Tillage Yadav, G.S., Datta, M., Babu, S., Das, A., Bhowmik, S.N.,
Res. 156,131–139. Ranebennur, H., Debnath, C., Saha, P., (2015). Effect
of tillage and crop-establishment techniques on incorporation than manure amendment on paddy soils.
productivity, profitability and soil health under maize Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 219,93–100.
(Zea mays)-maize-field pea (Pisum sativum) cropping Zhu, L., Hu, N., Yang, M., Zhan, X., Zhang, Z. (2014).
system. Indian J. Agron. 60(3),360–364 Effects of Different Tillage and Straw Return on Soil
Zhou, P., Sheng, H., Li, Y., Tong, C., Ge, T., Wu, J., (2016). Organic Carbon in a Rice-Wheat Rotation System.
Lower C sequestration and N use efficiency by straw PLoS One 9(2),e88900.

Yadav New Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yadav New Paper

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yadav New Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Carbon Management

ISSN: 1758-3004 (Print) 1758-3012 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcmt20

Soil carbon dynamics and productivity of rice–rice

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2018.1545518

Published online: 25 Jan 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Soil carbon dynamics and productivity of rice–rice system under

Introduction population a revolution in global food production

You might also like