Legume Research, 39 (5) 2016 : 786-791 Print ISSN:0250-5371 / Online ISSN:0976-0571 AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATION CENTRE www.arccjournals.com/www.legumeresearch.in Effect of tillage, mulching and weed management practices on the performance and economics of chickpea B.R. Manjith Kumar* and S.S. Angadi 1 Department of Agronomy, College of Agriculture, UAS, Dharwad-580 005, Karnataka, India. Received: 27-06-2015 Accepted: 04-07-2016 DOI:10.18805/lr.v0iOF.3552 ABSTRACT A field experiment was conducted to study the effect of tillage, mulching and weed management practices on growth, yield and uptake of nutrients by chickpea during rabi 2010 and 2011 at MARS, UAS Dharwad, Karnataka. Conventional tillage increased various growth, yield parameters and chickpea yield and also nutrient uptake and nitrogen use efficiency over minimum and zero tillage practices. Significantly higher gross return, net return and B:C ratio were recorded in conventional tillage as compared to minimum and zero tillage practices. Mulching practice showed higher growth, yield and yield parameters of chickpea and also nutrient uptake and economics over minimum and zero tillage practices. Significantly higher growth, chickpea yield and yield parameters, nutrient uptake, gross return, net return and B:C ratio were recorded in application of pendimethalin as compared to other weed management practices. Key words: Chickpea, Mulching, Tillage, Weed Management, Yield. INTRODUCTION Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is the most important legume crop of rabi season cultivated mainly in semi-arid and warm temperate regions of the world. It contains 18.24 per cent protein which is almost three times more than that of cereals, so that it is considered as an economical source of quality vegetable protein in human diet. Chickpea is also credited with the ability of atmospheric nitrogen fixation through symbotic process. Limited availability of soil moisture at critical stages of crop growth, low and erratic rainfall resulting in poor establishment of crop. Further, continuous tillage practices resulted in degradation of soil physical, chemical and biological properties (Lal, 1981a and Lal, 1984). The main principle of conservation agriculture is to cover the soil surface with mulch, which included crop residues, straw, leaves etc. Mulches provide many benefits to crop including erosion control, water conservation, reducing temperature fluctuations, increasing soil organic matter levels, improving soil structure, reducing evaporation, improving soil microbial activity and suppressing weeds. Suppression of weeds by mulch was attributed to various chemical and physical factors. Physical effects of mulch resulted in reduced weed growth with lower soil temperatures and shade. Since light is necessary to stimulate seed germination in many weed species, mulch might have reduced germination of such seeds. Straw mulch might have improved soil nitrogen availability, increased plant growth (Fang et al., 2011) and influenced the physical and chemical properties of the soil (Govaerts et al., 2007). Keeping in view the importance of different tillage, mulching and weed management practices research trail on chickpea was conducted at the Main Agricultural Research Station, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, Karnataka. MATERIALS AND METHODS A field experiment was conducted to study the effect of different tillage, mulching and weed management practices on the growth, yield, nutrient uptake and economics of maize at the Main Agricultural Research Station, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, Karnataka. Experiment comprised of three tillage practices as main plot ( : Conventional tillage (Two tractor drawn harrowing + collection of stubbles + two hoeing except in mulched treatment), T 2 :Zero- tillage (Glyphosate @ 3 l a.i. /ha used as pre-plant descicator at 10-15 days before sowing of crop) and T 3 :Minimum tillage (two tractor drawn harrowing + one hoeing except in mulched treatment)) and two mulching practices as sub plot ( : No mulching and M 1 :With mulching (4t/ha of maize stalk on dry weight basis)) and three weed management practices ( : Unweeded check, W 1 : Alachlor @ 1.25 kg a.i/ha and W 2 : Pendimethalin @ 1.00 kg a.i /ha. The split-split plot design was followed with three replications. The soil was medium black clay in nature having ph 7.6 with 248.4 kg N, 30.6 kg P 2 O 5 and 342.8 kg K 2 O ha -1, respectively. In a fixed plot, the main plots of 8 m x 37.5 m were demarcated. Between the maize rows the line sowing was done for succeeding chickpea variety Annigeri-1 at all the *Corresponding author s e-mail: manjeetkumar2007@gmail.com. 1 KWDP II Sujala III Davanagere, Department of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Extension Education, Veterinary College, Shivamogga.
tillage treatments with the help of bullock drawn seed drill with row spacing of 30 cm and at an inter-row plant spacing of 10 cm apart. The recommended dose of fertilizer for chickpea (10 kg N and 25 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 ) was applied through Urea and Diammonium Phosphate. Small furrows were opened with desi plough five cm away from the seed line. Full dose of N and P 2 O 5 were applied at five centimetre deep and five centimetre away from seedling and covered. The herbicides were applied as per the treatments. Alachlor and pendimethalin were applied on the next day after sowing. Data on growth and yield components of chickpea were recorded at various crop growth stages and at harvest of maize. The grain and haulm yield were recorded from net plot area of each treatment and data was converted into kg per hectare. Statistical analysis of data was done using MSTAT-C software and treatment means were compared at P<0.05. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Tillage practices: Conventional tillage recorded significantly higher grain (1416.6 kg ha -1 ) and haulm yields (2200.5 kg ha -1 ) of chickpea as compared to minimum tillage and zero tillage. The increase in chickpea grain and haulm yields with conventional tillage were to an extent of 10.1 and 4.8 per cent respectively over minimum tillage and 12.7 and 4.8 per cent over zero tillage. It was due to higher growth and yield parameters. Significantly higher 100 grain weight was recorded in conventional tillage (16.22 g) as compared to zero (14.89 g) and minimum tillage (15.40 g) practices (Table 1). Further, the increased 100 grain weight with conventional tillage was to an extent of 5.32 per cent over minimum tillage and 8.93 per cent over zero tillage. This higher yield and yield parameters were due to higher availability and absorption of nutrients which influenced cell elongation, cell division, increased chlorophyll content and root development which in turn resulted in higher yield (Thripathi et al. 2004 and Mukundam et al. 2008). Conventional tillage recorded significantly higher total dry matter production at harvest (11.29 g/ plant) as compared to zero tillage and minimum tillage practices. Total dry matter production was increased by 12.56 per cent with conventional tillage over minimum tillage and 17.48 per cent over zero tillage. It was mainly due to increased height of crop and more number of reproductive parts and its weight. Also, significantly taller plant (31.8 cm) were observed by conventional tillage over zero tillage (30.1 cm) and minimum tillage (30.6 cm) practices. Leaf area is a major source of photosynthesis which governs the yield of crop. Conventional tillage recorded significantly higher leaf area (2.03 dm 2 / plant) over other tillage practices. This helped to increase the production and accumulation of photosynthates into leaf, stem and pods and thus resulted in higher yield attributes such as number of pods per plant, 100 grain weight and grain yield per plant. Volume 39 Issue 5 (2016) 787 Similarly, conventional tillage showed significantly higher nitrogen uptake by grain (34.0 kg/ha) and haulm (29.2 kg/ha) as compared to zero and minimum tillage practices. Whereas, significantly higher phosphorus uptake by grain (3.8 kg/ha) and haulm (2.6 kg/ha) was recorded in conventional tillage as compared to the rest of the tillage practices. However, significantly higher potassium uptake by grain (20.0 kg/ha) and haulm (36.0 kg/ha) of chickpea was recorded with conventional tillage as compared to zero and minimum tillage practices. This might be due to improved nutritional environment in the rhizosphere as well as in the plant system leading to enhanced translocation especially nitrogen and phosphorus to reproductive parts. Since uptake is the function of seed and haulm yield as well as their nutrient content resulted in higher uptake. These results are in conformity with the findings of Verma et al. (1988) in wheat and Arya et al. (2005) in chickpea. Similarly, significantly higher chickpea nitrogen use efficiency (141.66 kg/ha) was recorded in conventional tillage as compared to minimum tillage (129.22 kg/ha) and zero tillage (125.65 kg/ ha). The increased nitrogen use efficiency with conventional tillage was to an extent of 9.63 per cent over minimum tillage and 12.74 per cent over zero tillage. Zero tillage is generally associated with a lower N availability because of greater immobilization by residues (Bradford and Peterson 2000). Further, lower immobilization and higher mineralization of nitrogen resulted in higher availability and uptake of nitrogen by chickpea which increased yield and finally NUE in conventional tillage. However, conventional tillage recorded significantly higher gross return ( 47744/ha), net return (33868/ha) and B- C ratio (3.48) of chickpea as compared to zero tillage and minimum tillage. This might be due to production of higher yield and gross returns. Mulching practice: Significantly higher grain (1360.6 kg ha -1 ) and haulm yields (2150.0 kg ha -1 ) of chickpea were recorded with mulching practice as compared to no mulching practice. The increase in chickpea grain and haulm yields with mulching practice was to an extent of 6.25 and 4.76 per cent respectively over no mulching practice. The higher grain yield in chickpea could be attributed to higher nutrient and moisture availability in soil and further decomposition of added crop residue material as mulch, which resulted in buildup of organic matter content of the soil and uptake of applied nutrients by the succeeding crop and led to higher chickpea yield. Significantly higher 100 grain weight was recorded with mulching practice (15.82 g) as compared to no mulching practice (15.19 g/ plant). The increased 100 grain weight with mulching practice was to an extent of 4.15 per cent over no mulching practice. This improved performance of yield attributes might be related to increased availability of nitrogen in soil as a consequent of addition of higher biomass as reflected in the available nitrogen status after harvest of chickpea. Mulching practice recorded
788 LEGUME RESEARCH - An International Journal Table 1: Effect of tillage, mulching and weed management practices on growth, yield and economics of chickpea (Pooled data of 2 years) Treatment Plant height Leaf area Total dry matter 100 grain Grain yield Haulm yield Gross return Net return B:C ratio (cm) (dm 2 / plant) production weight (kg/ha) (kg/ha) ( /ha) ( /ha) (g/plant) Tillage practices 31.8a 2.03a 11.29a 16.22a 1416.6a 2200.5a 47744a 33868a 3.48a T 2 30.1b 1.84c 9.61b 14.89c 1256.5b 2051.0b 42399c 29356b 3.28b T 3 30.6b 1.89b 10.03b 15.40b 1292.2b 2088.8b 43703b 30256b 3.28b S.Em± 0.15 0.01 0.13 0.12 7.94 8.78 263 263 0.02 C.D (p= 0.05) 0.57 0.04 0.52 0.49 31.18 34.46 1031 1031 0.08 Mulching 30.3b 1.88b 9.94b 15.19b 1282.9b 2076.8b 43343b 31171a 3.57a M 1 31.4a 1.96a 10.68a 15.82a 1360.6a 2150.0a 45887a 31149a 3.12b S.Em± 0.20 0.01 0.07 0.10 12.4 12.82 384 384 0.03 C.D (p= 0.05) 0.68 0.04 0.25 0.35 42.9 44.35 1329 NS 0.11 Weed management practices 29.3b 1.76c 8.81c 14.25c 1165.4c 1960.9b 39493c 27029c 3.21b W 1 31.3a 1.98b 10.69b 15.92b 1370.3b 2159.0a 46222b 32498b 3.39a W 2 31.9a 2.03a 11.43a 16.34a 1429.5a 2220.3a 48130a 33953a 3.43a S.Em± 0.25 0.01 0.13 0.11 14.69 15.07 480 480 0.04 C.D (p= 0.05) 0.72 0.04 0.38 0.33 42.86 44.00 1400 1400 0.11 = Conventional tillage T 2 = Zero tillage T 3 = Minimum tillage = Without Mulch M 1 = With Mulch = Unweeded check W 1 = Alachlor @ 1.25 kg a.i/ha, W 2 = Pendimethaline @ 1.00 kg a.i /ha
significantly higher total dry matter production at harvest (10.68 g/ plant) as compared to no mulching practice (9.94 g/ plant). Total dry matter production was increased by 7.44 per cent with mulching practice over no mulching practice. The higher TDMP of chickpea at in mulched practice might be due to differential residual effect and addition of mulching material generated favourable environment for crop growth and development. Higher translocation of photosynthates to pods at harvest in mulched plot was due to higher sink capacity as indicated by higher uptake of nutrients. Significantly higher leaf area (1.96 dm 2 / plant) was observed by mulching practice over no mulching practice (1.88 dm 2 / plant). Leaf area was increased by 4.26 per cent with mulching practice over no mulching practice. However, significantly higher plant height (31.4 cm) was recorded by mulching practice over no mulching practice (30.3 cm). Plant height was increased by 3.63 per cent with mulching practice over no mulching practice. This might be due to improved soil physical properties resulted in enhanced uptake of moisture and nutrients which enhanced the growth of chickpea and ultimately increased chickpea yield and yield parameters. Similarly, significantly higher nitrogen uptake by grain (32.2 kg/ha) and haulm (28.1 kg/ha) of chickpea was recorded in mulching practice as compared to no mulching practice. Whereas, significantly higher phosphorus uptake by grain (3.6 kg/ha) and haulm (2.5 kg/ha) of chickpea was recorded in mulching practice over no mulching practice. However, significantly higher potassium uptake by grain (19.1 kg/ha) and haulm (35.1 kg/ha) of chickpea was recorded in mulching practice as compared to no mulching Volume 39 Issue 5 (2016) 789 practice. Nitrogen uptake (8.78 and 6.44 % of grain and haulm uptake respectively), phosphorous uptake (16.13 and 31.58 % of grain and haulm uptake respectively) and potassium uptake (16.46 and 8.33 % of grain and haulm uptake respectively) was increased with mulching practice over no mulching practice (Table 2). This might be due to higher chickpea seed yield and higher soil nutrient status as a result of higher biomass. Further, decomposition of residue resulted in higher availability of N, P and K which helped increased uptake of these nutrients. Similarly, significantly higher chickpea nitrogen use efficiency (136.06 kg/ha) was recorded with mulching practice as compared to no mulching practice (128.29 kg/ha). The increased nitrogen use efficiency with mulching practice was to an extent of 6.06 per cent over no mulching practice. Surface mulching helped in increased availability of nitrogen through decomposition, reduced percolation and volatilization losses (Kushwaha et al., 2000). Further, improved uptake of nitrogen by crop resulted in increased NUE. Whereas, significantly higher gross return ( 45887/ha) was recorded with mulching practice as compared to no mulching practice ( 43343/ha). This might be due to production of higher yield resulted higher gross return. However, net return did not differ significantly between mulching and no mulching practices. Similarly, B: C ratio (3.57) was significantly higher with no mulching practice as compared to mulching practice (3.12). Weed management practices: Significantly higher grain (1429.5 kg ha -1 ) and haulm yields (2220.3 kg ha -1 ) of chickpea was recorded with application of pendimethaline @ 1.00 kg a.i./ha as compared to unweeded check and application of alachlor @ 1.25 kg a.i./ha. The increase in chickpea grain Table 2: Nutrient uptake of chickpea as influenced by tillage, mulching and weed management practices (Pooled data of 2 years) Treatment Nitrogen (kg/ha) Phosphorus (kg/ha) Potassium(kg/ha) Nitrogen Use Grain Haulm Grain Haulm Grain Haulm Efficiency (kg/ha) Tillage practices 34.0a 29.2a 3.8a 2.6a 20.0a 36.0a 141.66a T 2 28.4b 25.6c 3.2b 2.0b 16.1b 32.0b 125.65c T 3 30.3b 26.9b 3.1b 2.2ab 17.2b 33.2b 129.22b S.Em± 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.4 0.79 C.D (p= 0.05) 2.9 1.3 0.3 0.3 2.2 1.5 3.12 Mulching 29.6b 26.4b 3.1b 1.9b 16.4b 32.4b 128.29b M 1 32.2a 28.1a 3.6a 2.5a 19.1a 35.1a 136.06a S.Em± 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.4 1.24 C.D (p= 0.05) 2.0 1.6 0.2 0.4 1.4 1.5 4.29 Weed management practices 25.2c 24.6b 2.8c 1.7c 14.1c 29.8c 116.54c W 1 32.5b 28.1a 3.6b 2.3b 18.2b 34.6b 137.03b W 2 35.0a 29.0a 3.8a 2.7a 21.0a 36.8a 142.95a S.Em± 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.6 1.47 C.D (p= 0.05) 1.6 0.9 0.2 0.3 1.1 1.6 4.30 = Conventional tillage T 2 = Zero tillage T 3 = Minimum tillage = Without Mulch M 1 = With Mulch = Unweeded check W 1 = Alachlor @ 1.25 kg a.i/ha, W 2 = Pendimethaline @ 1.00 kg a.i /ha
790 LEGUME RESEARCH - An International Journal and haulm yields with pendimethalin @ 1.00 kg a.i./ha were to an extent of 22.2 and 10.0 per cent respectively over unweeded check. The increased yield with pendimethalin was mainly due to inhibition of synthesis of microtubule associated proteins during mitosis caused cell division and resulted in death of plants (Das, 2008). This was also due to favourable conditions created during the early crop growth stages due to efficient control of weeds which must have paved the way for better utilization of nutrients, moisture, light and soil aeration by chickpea, consequently resulted in better photosynthesis and distribution of photosynthates. Significantly higher 100 grain weight was recorded in pendimethaline @ 1.00 kg a.i./ha (16.34 g) as compared to unweeded check (14.25 g) and application alachlor @ 1.25 kg a.i./ha (15.92 g). The increased 100 grain weight with application of pendimethaline @ 1.00 kg a.i./ha was to an extent of 14.67 per cent over unweeded check and 2.64 per cent over application of alachlor @ 1.25 kg a.i./ha. This might be due to lower weed competition and greater supply of photosynthates for development of reproductive part resulted in higher 100 seed weight. These results are in conformity with the findings of many workers in cowpea (Bhan et al., 1976 and Raghvani et al., 1985). Application of pendimethaline @ 1.00 kg a.i./ha recorded significantly higher total dry matter production at harvest (11.43 g/ plant) as compared to unweeded check and application of alachlor @ 1.25 kg a.i./ha. Total dry matter production was increased by 29.74 per cent with application of pendimethaline @ 1.00 kg a.i./ha over unweeded check and 6.92 per cent over application of alachlor @ 1.25 kg a.i./ha. This was mainly due to effective reduction in weed population and congenial environment for crop growth and there by increased growth parameters. Consequently better photosynthesis and its accumulation in plant indicated higher translocation of photosynthates from source to sink. Whereas, significantly higher leaf area (2.03 dm 2 / plant) was observed with application of pendimethaline @ 1.00 kg a.i./ha over unweeded check (1.76 dm 2 / plant) and application of alachlor @ 1.25 kg a.i./ha (1.98 dm 2 / kg). Leaf area was increased by 15.34 per cent with application of pendimethaline @ 1.00 kg a.i./ha over unweeded check and 2.52 per cent over application of alachlor @ 1.25 kg a.i./ha. This was mainly attributed to non phytotoxic effect of herbicides on crop. However, significantly higher plant height at harvest (31.9 cm) was observed with application of pendimethaline @ 1.00 kg a.i./ha over unweeded check (29.3 cm) and was on par with application of alachlor @ 1.25 kg a.i./ha (31.3 cm). The improvement in growth and yield components was a consequence of lower crop weed competition, which shifted the balance in favour of utilization of resources. This might have helped the plant to accumulate more photosynthates and resulted in higher plant growth and development which in turn was reflected by higher leaf area. Similarly, application of pendimethaline @ 1.00 kg a.i./ha showed significantly higher nitrogen uptake by grain (35.0 kg/ha) and haulm (29.0 kg/ha) as compared to unweeded check and application of alachlor @ 1.25 kg a.i./ ha. Whereas, significantly higher phosphorus uptake by grain (3.8 kg/ha) and haulm (2.7 kg/ha) was recorded with application of pendimethaline @ 1.00 kg a.i./ha as compared to the rest of the weed management practices. However, significantly higher potassium uptake by grain (21.0 kg/ha) and haulm (36.8 kg/ha) was recorded with application of pendimethaline @ 1.00 kg a.i./ha as compared to unweeded check and application of alachlor @ 1.25 kg a.i./ha. It could be attributed to application of herbicide did not allow the weeds to establish which resulted in complete elimination of weed competition from early stage of crop and provided a good opportunity for the crop to utilize available nutrients. Similarly, significantly higher chickpea nitrogen use efficiency (142.95 kg/ha) was recorded with application of pendimethaline @ 1.00 kg a.i./ha as compared to unweeded check (116.54 kg/ha) and application of alachlor @ 1.25 kg a.i./ha (137.03 kg/ha). The increased nitrogen use efficiency with application of pendimethaline @ 1.00 kg a.i./ha was to an extent of 22.66 per cent over unweeded check and 4.32 per cent over application of alachlor @ 1.25 kg a.i./ha. The greater nitrogen removal by crop could be attributed to poor competition by weeds and consequently made more nitrogen available to crop and thereby resulted in higher removal and led to improved yield. Whereas, application of pendimethaline @ 1.00 kg a.i./ha recorded significantly higher gross return ( 48130/ha), net return ( 33953/ha) and B:C ratio (3.43) of chickpea as compared to unweeded check and application of alachlor @ 1.25 kg a.i./ha. This might be due to higher production which resulted in higher gross return, net return and benefit cost ratio. CONCLUSION The results of the experimented revealed that conventional tillage with mulching and application of pendimethaline were found to be the best for higher crop growth, yield and economics of chickpea. REFERENCES Arya, R. L.; Lalit Kumar; Singh, K. K. and Kushwaha (2005). Effect of fertilizers and tillage management in rice-chickpea cropping system under varying irrigation schemes. Indian J. Agron., 50: 256-259. Bhan, V. M.; Singh, S. D. and Tripathi, S. S. (1976). Influence of weeds on onion (Allium cepa L.) yield and their methods of control using herbicides. Indian J. Weed Sci., 8: 140-144. Bradford, J. M. and Peterson, G. A. (2000). Conservation tillage. In Handbook of Soil Science Ed. M E Sumner. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL (USA). pp. 247 269.
Volume 39 Issue 5 (2016) 791 Das, T. K. (2008). Weed Science: Book, published by Jain brothers. pp. 407-430. Fang, S. Z.; Xie B. D.; Liu D and Liu J. J. (2011). Effects of mulching materials on nitrogen mineralization, nitrogen availability and poplar growth on degraded agricultural soil. New Forests. 41: 147 162. Govaerts, B.; Sayre K. D.; Lichter, K.; Dendooven, L. and Deckers, J. (2007). Influence of permanent raised bed planting and residue management on physical and chemical soil quality in rain fed maize/wheat systems. Plant and Soil, 291: 39 54. Kushwaha, C. P.; Tripathi, S. K. and Singh, K. P. (2000). Variation in soil microbial biomass and N availability due to residue and tillage management in a dry land rice agroecosystem. Soil Till. Res., 56:153-166. Lal, R. (1981). Spoil conditions and tillage methods in the tropics. Proceedings of the WARSS/WSS Symposium on No Tillage and Crop Production in the Tropics in Liberia. Lal, R. (1984). Conservation tillage for sustainable agriculture: tropics versus temperate environments. J. Adv. Agro. 42: 86-197. Mukundam, B.; Venkata Ramana M.; Subha Lakshmi, C. and Raja, V. (2008). Effect of tillage practices and seed priming on growth and yield of upland crops in rice fallows a review. Agric. Reviews, 29: 74 78. Raghvani, B. R.; Goyal, S. N.; Patel, J. C. and Malavia, D. P. (1985). Weed competition in mungbean. Indian J. Weed Sci., 17: 18-21. Thripathi, R. S.; Manish Kumar; Panday, N.; Sonboir, H. L. and Panday, D. (2004). Establishment, yield and water use efficiency of on farm rainfed chickpea (Cicer arietinium L.) as influenced by tillage practices. Ann. Agric. Res. New Series. 25: 35-37. Verma, U. N.; Srivastava, V. C. and Verma, U. K. (1988). Nitrogen management in wheat under conventional and no tillage conditions in rice- wheat sequence. Indian J. Agron. 33: 37-43.