000			05211nab a22005777a 4500
001			G98582
003			MX-TxCIM
005			20240919020913.0
008			211124s2014 ne |||p|op||| 00| 0 eng d
022			_a0378-4290
024	8		_ahttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2013.12.017
040			_aMX-TxCIM
041			_aeng
090			_aCIS-7463
100	1		_aDas, T.K. _92992
245	1	0	_aConservation agriculture in an irrigated cotton-wheat system of the western Indo-Gangetic Plains : _bcrop and water productivity and economic profitability
260			_aAmsterdam (Netherlands) : _bElsevier, _c2014.
500			_aPeer review
500			_aPeer-review: Yes - Open Access: Yes|http://science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=MASTER&ISSN=0378-4290
520			_aCotton–wheat cropping system is the second most important wheat based system in the South Asia (4.5 M ha) and India (2.6 M ha) and contributes significantly to the food security in the region. However, with the conventional method of crop establishment and crop management, the productivity and profitability of the cotton–wheat system is low. Hence, despite non-suitability of growing situations, farmers are inclined towards cultivating the conventionally tilled rice–wheat rotation which has got severe consequences on the natural resources as well as the future food security. Therefore, an attempt was made to develop and evaluate the performances (in terms of system productivity, water productivity and profitability) of conservation agricultural technologies (like permanent narrow and broad-bed planting and residue management under zero tillage) under an irrigated cotton–wheat system in the region. Treatments included farmers’ practice (conventional tillage and flat-bed sowing without residue recycling; CT), and four combinations of raised-bed planting and residue management under zero tillage (viz., narrow-bed and broad-bed sowing with and without crop residue retention) in the first year. During the second year onwards two additional treatments were included: flat-bed sowing under zero tillage with and without residue retention. Results indicate that mean (of last two years) seed cotton yield in the plots under zero tilled permanent broad-bed sowing with residue retention (PBB + R) was about 24 and 51% higher compared with zero tilled narrow-bed sowing without residue retention (PNB; 2.91 Mg ha−1) and CT plots (2.59 Mg ha−1), respectively. Similarly, plots under PBB + R had significantly higher mean (of last two years) wheat grain yield than flat-bed zero tilled (ZT) and CT plots. Unlike seed cotton yield, wheat grain yield was not affected by the treatments in the first year. In the second year, plots under PBB + R had about 9 and 11% higher wheat grain yield than PNB (4.37 Mg ha−1) and CT (4.29 Mg ha−1) plots, respectively. Although the system productivity in terms of wheat equivalent yield (WEY) was similar in the plots under PBB + R and zero tilled-broad permanent bed sowing without residue retention (PBB) and zero tilled narrow-bed sowing with residue retention (PNB + R) in the first year, plots under PBB + R had about 15 and 13% higher WEY than PBB and PNB + R plots. Similarly, mean (of the last two years) water productivity of the system in the PBB + R treated plots (12.58 kg wheat grain ha−1 mm−1) was 48, 22, 12, 15, 13, 24% higher compared with CT, PNB, PNB + R, PBB, ZT + R and ZT plots, respectively. The above-said PBB + R plots also had the highest net returns (based on mean values of last two years) that was 36 and 13% higher compared with CT and PNB plots, but was similar to other treatments. Therefore, growing cotton–wheat system under permanent beds with residue retention is recommended under irrigated conditions in this region due to its potential of increased productivity, profitability and resource conservation.
536			_aConservation Agriculture Program
546			_aText in English
591			_aElsevier|CIMMYT Informa No. 1876
594			_aINT3072
595			_aCSC
650	1	0	_aBroad and narrow bed
650	1	0	_aConventional and Zero Tillage
650	1	0	_aGross and net returns
650	1	0	_aresidue retention
700	0		_aRanjan Bhattacharyya _98645
700	1		_aSudhishri, S. _92995
700	1		_aAjit Ram Sharma _95691
700	1		_92059 _aSaharawat, Y.S.
700	1		_aBandyopadhyay, K.K. _92993
700	1		_aSepat, S. _95690
700	1		_aBana, R.S. _925271
700	1		_aAggarwal, P. _910354
700	1		_aSharma, R.K. _gFormerly Global Wheat Program _8INT3065 _9888
700	1		_aBhatia, A. _925272
700	1		_aSingh, G. _925273
700	1		_aDatta, S.P. _911443
700	1		_aKar, A. _925274
700	1		_925275 _aSingh, B.
700	1		_aSingh, P. _925276
700	1		_aPathak, H. _92998
700	1		_aVyas, A.K. _92999
700	1		_aJat, M.L. _gFormerly Sustainable Intensification Program _gFormerly Sustainable Agrifood Systems _8INT3072 _9889
773	0		_tField Crops Research _gv. 158, p. 24-33 _x0378-4290 _wG444314 _dAmsterdam (Netherlands) : Elsevier, 2014.
856	4		_uhttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12665/103 _yAccess only for CIMMYT Staff
942			_cJA _2ddc _n0
999			_c30446 _d30446