Cargando…

Effect of residue and weed management practices on weed flora, yield, energetics, carbon footprint, economics and soil quality of zero tillage wheat

A two-year field study was conducted during Rabi 2018–2019 and 2019–20 to find out the influence of different residue and weed management practices on weed dynamics, growth, yield, energetics, carbon footprint, economics and soil properties in zero-tilled sown wheat at Research Farm, AICRP-Weed mana...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Puniya, R., Bazaya, B. R., Kumar, Anil, Sharma, B. C., Nesar, Nesar Ahmed, Bochalya, R. S., Dwivedi, M. C., Sharma, Neetu, Kumar, Rakesh, Sharma, Jyoti, Sharma, Ashu, Mehta, Swati
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10630349/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37935693
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-45488-3
_version_ 1785132131486269440
author Puniya, R.
Bazaya, B. R.
Kumar, Anil
Sharma, B. C.
Nesar, Nesar Ahmed
Bochalya, R. S.
Dwivedi, M. C.
Sharma, Neetu
Kumar, Rakesh
Sharma, Jyoti
Sharma, Ashu
Mehta, Swati
author_facet Puniya, R.
Bazaya, B. R.
Kumar, Anil
Sharma, B. C.
Nesar, Nesar Ahmed
Bochalya, R. S.
Dwivedi, M. C.
Sharma, Neetu
Kumar, Rakesh
Sharma, Jyoti
Sharma, Ashu
Mehta, Swati
author_sort Puniya, R.
collection PubMed
description A two-year field study was conducted during Rabi 2018–2019 and 2019–20 to find out the influence of different residue and weed management practices on weed dynamics, growth, yield, energetics, carbon footprint, economics and soil properties in zero-tilled sown wheat at Research Farm, AICRP-Weed management, SKUAST-Jammu. The experiment with four rice residue management practices and four weed management practices was conducted in a Strip-Plot Design and replicated thrice. The results showed that residue retention treatments recorded lower weed density, biomass and higher wheat growth, yield attributes and yields of wheat as compared to no residue treatment. The magnitude of increase in wheat grain yield was 17.55, 16.98 and 7.41% when treated with 125% recommended dose of nitrogen + residue + waste decomposer (RDN + R + WD), 125% RDN + R, and 100% RDN + R, respectively, compared to no residue treatment. Further, all three herbicidal treatments decreased weed density and biomass than weedy treatments. Consequently, a reduction of 29.30, 28.00, and 25.70% in grain yield were observed in control as compared to sulfosulfuron + carfentrazone, clodinafop-propargyl + metasulfuron, and clodinafop-propargyl + metribuzin, respectively. Moreover, 125% RDN + R + WD obtained significantly higher energy output (137860 MJ ha(−1)) and carbon output (4522 kg CE/ha), but 100% RDN had significantly higher net energy (101802 MJ ha(−1)), energy use efficiency (7.66), energy productivity (0.23 kg MJ(−1)), energy profitability (6.66 kg MJ(−1)), carbon efficiency (7.66), and less carbon footprint (7.66) as compared to other treatments. Despite this, treatments with 125% RDN + R + WD and 125% RDN + R provided 17.58 and 16.96% higher gross returns, and 24.45% and 23.17% net outcomes, respectively, than that of control. However, compared to the control, sulfosulfuron + carfentrazone showed considerably higher energy output (140492 MJ ha(−1)), net energy (104778 MJ ha(−1)), energy usage efficiency (4.70), energy productivity (0.14 kg MJ(−1)), energy profitability (3.70 kg MJ(−1)), carbon output (4624 kg CE ha(−1)), carbon efficiency (4.71), and lower carbon footprint (0.27). Furthermore, sulfosulfuron + carfentrazone, clodinafop-propargyl + metasulfuron, and clodinafop-propargyl + metribuzin recorded 29.29% and 38.42%, 27.99%, and 36.91%, 25.69% and 34.32% higher gross returns and net returns over control treatment, respectively. All three herbicides showed higher gross returns, net returns, and benefit cost ratio over control. The soil nutrient status was not significantly affected either by residue or weed management practices. Therefore, based on present study it can be concluded that rice residue retention with 25% additional nitrogen and weed management by clodinafop-propargyl + metasulfuron herbicide found suitable for zero tillage wheat.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10630349
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106303492023-11-07 Effect of residue and weed management practices on weed flora, yield, energetics, carbon footprint, economics and soil quality of zero tillage wheat Puniya, R. Bazaya, B. R. Kumar, Anil Sharma, B. C. Nesar, Nesar Ahmed Bochalya, R. S. Dwivedi, M. C. Sharma, Neetu Kumar, Rakesh Sharma, Jyoti Sharma, Ashu Mehta, Swati Sci Rep Article A two-year field study was conducted during Rabi 2018–2019 and 2019–20 to find out the influence of different residue and weed management practices on weed dynamics, growth, yield, energetics, carbon footprint, economics and soil properties in zero-tilled sown wheat at Research Farm, AICRP-Weed management, SKUAST-Jammu. The experiment with four rice residue management practices and four weed management practices was conducted in a Strip-Plot Design and replicated thrice. The results showed that residue retention treatments recorded lower weed density, biomass and higher wheat growth, yield attributes and yields of wheat as compared to no residue treatment. The magnitude of increase in wheat grain yield was 17.55, 16.98 and 7.41% when treated with 125% recommended dose of nitrogen + residue + waste decomposer (RDN + R + WD), 125% RDN + R, and 100% RDN + R, respectively, compared to no residue treatment. Further, all three herbicidal treatments decreased weed density and biomass than weedy treatments. Consequently, a reduction of 29.30, 28.00, and 25.70% in grain yield were observed in control as compared to sulfosulfuron + carfentrazone, clodinafop-propargyl + metasulfuron, and clodinafop-propargyl + metribuzin, respectively. Moreover, 125% RDN + R + WD obtained significantly higher energy output (137860 MJ ha(−1)) and carbon output (4522 kg CE/ha), but 100% RDN had significantly higher net energy (101802 MJ ha(−1)), energy use efficiency (7.66), energy productivity (0.23 kg MJ(−1)), energy profitability (6.66 kg MJ(−1)), carbon efficiency (7.66), and less carbon footprint (7.66) as compared to other treatments. Despite this, treatments with 125% RDN + R + WD and 125% RDN + R provided 17.58 and 16.96% higher gross returns, and 24.45% and 23.17% net outcomes, respectively, than that of control. However, compared to the control, sulfosulfuron + carfentrazone showed considerably higher energy output (140492 MJ ha(−1)), net energy (104778 MJ ha(−1)), energy usage efficiency (4.70), energy productivity (0.14 kg MJ(−1)), energy profitability (3.70 kg MJ(−1)), carbon output (4624 kg CE ha(−1)), carbon efficiency (4.71), and lower carbon footprint (0.27). Furthermore, sulfosulfuron + carfentrazone, clodinafop-propargyl + metasulfuron, and clodinafop-propargyl + metribuzin recorded 29.29% and 38.42%, 27.99%, and 36.91%, 25.69% and 34.32% higher gross returns and net returns over control treatment, respectively. All three herbicides showed higher gross returns, net returns, and benefit cost ratio over control. The soil nutrient status was not significantly affected either by residue or weed management practices. Therefore, based on present study it can be concluded that rice residue retention with 25% additional nitrogen and weed management by clodinafop-propargyl + metasulfuron herbicide found suitable for zero tillage wheat. Nature Publishing Group UK 2023-11-07 /pmc/articles/PMC10630349/ /pubmed/37935693 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-45488-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Puniya, R.
Bazaya, B. R.
Kumar, Anil
Sharma, B. C.
Nesar, Nesar Ahmed
Bochalya, R. S.
Dwivedi, M. C.
Sharma, Neetu
Kumar, Rakesh
Sharma, Jyoti
Sharma, Ashu
Mehta, Swati
Effect of residue and weed management practices on weed flora, yield, energetics, carbon footprint, economics and soil quality of zero tillage wheat
title Effect of residue and weed management practices on weed flora, yield, energetics, carbon footprint, economics and soil quality of zero tillage wheat
title_full Effect of residue and weed management practices on weed flora, yield, energetics, carbon footprint, economics and soil quality of zero tillage wheat
title_fullStr Effect of residue and weed management practices on weed flora, yield, energetics, carbon footprint, economics and soil quality of zero tillage wheat
title_full_unstemmed Effect of residue and weed management practices on weed flora, yield, energetics, carbon footprint, economics and soil quality of zero tillage wheat
title_short Effect of residue and weed management practices on weed flora, yield, energetics, carbon footprint, economics and soil quality of zero tillage wheat
title_sort effect of residue and weed management practices on weed flora, yield, energetics, carbon footprint, economics and soil quality of zero tillage wheat
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10630349/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37935693
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-45488-3
work_keys_str_mv AT puniyar effectofresidueandweedmanagementpracticesonweedflorayieldenergeticscarbonfootprinteconomicsandsoilqualityofzerotillagewheat
AT bazayabr effectofresidueandweedmanagementpracticesonweedflorayieldenergeticscarbonfootprinteconomicsandsoilqualityofzerotillagewheat
AT kumaranil effectofresidueandweedmanagementpracticesonweedflorayieldenergeticscarbonfootprinteconomicsandsoilqualityofzerotillagewheat
AT sharmabc effectofresidueandweedmanagementpracticesonweedflorayieldenergeticscarbonfootprinteconomicsandsoilqualityofzerotillagewheat
AT nesarnesarahmed effectofresidueandweedmanagementpracticesonweedflorayieldenergeticscarbonfootprinteconomicsandsoilqualityofzerotillagewheat
AT bochalyars effectofresidueandweedmanagementpracticesonweedflorayieldenergeticscarbonfootprinteconomicsandsoilqualityofzerotillagewheat
AT dwivedimc effectofresidueandweedmanagementpracticesonweedflorayieldenergeticscarbonfootprinteconomicsandsoilqualityofzerotillagewheat
AT sharmaneetu effectofresidueandweedmanagementpracticesonweedflorayieldenergeticscarbonfootprinteconomicsandsoilqualityofzerotillagewheat
AT kumarrakesh effectofresidueandweedmanagementpracticesonweedflorayieldenergeticscarbonfootprinteconomicsandsoilqualityofzerotillagewheat
AT sharmajyoti effectofresidueandweedmanagementpracticesonweedflorayieldenergeticscarbonfootprinteconomicsandsoilqualityofzerotillagewheat
AT sharmaashu effectofresidueandweedmanagementpracticesonweedflorayieldenergeticscarbonfootprinteconomicsandsoilqualityofzerotillagewheat
AT mehtaswati effectofresidueandweedmanagementpracticesonweedflorayieldenergeticscarbonfootprinteconomicsandsoilqualityofzerotillagewheat