Sanatan-2020-JISSS

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348447490

Effect of Tillage and Irrigation Interactions on Soil Water Dynamics, Root

Growth and Water Use Efficiency of Wheat in the Indo-Gangetic Plain

Article in Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science · January 2020

DOI: 10.5958/0974-0228.2021.00004.9

CITATIONS

0

READS

134

7 authors, including:

Kk Bandyopadhyay

145 PUBLICATIONS 4,321 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Pramila Aggarwal

Indian Agricultural Research Institute


SEE PROFILE

Arjamadutta Sarangi



SEE PROFILE

Dipak Ranjan Biswas



SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Plant nutrition and fertility status in Soil Amended with Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers under different Cropping System View project

Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sanatan Pradhan on 14 January 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science, Vol. 68, No. 3, pp 275-286 (2020)

DOI: 10.5958/0974-0228.2021.00004.9

Effect of Tillage and Irrigation Interactions on Soil Water

Dynamics, Root Growth and Water Use Efficiency of Wheat

in the Indo-Gangetic Plain

Madanmohan Meena, K.K. Bandyopadhyay*, P. Aggarwal, A. Sarangi 1 ,

D.R. Biswas 2 , S. Pradhan 3 and P. Krishnan

Division of Agricultural Physics, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, 110012

Field experiment was undertaken during the rabi seasons of 2015-16 and 2016-17 to study the effect of

tillage and irrigation interaction on soil water dynamics, root growth, yield and water use efficiency (WUE)

of wheat in a maize-wheat rotation in a sandy loam soil. The treatments comprised of three levels of tillage

as main plot [Conventional tillage (CT), Deep tillage at the interval of two years (DT) and No tillage with

maize residue @ 5 t ha -1 (NT)] and three levels of irrigation as sub-plot [I 1 : 1 irrigation (CRI), I 2 : 3

Irrigations (CRI, Tillering, Flowering) and I 3 : 5 Irrigations (CRI, Tillering, Jointing, Flowering, Milk)]

were evaluated in a split plot design. Results showed that no tillage with residue (NT) treatment maintained

higher soil moisture content in the surface layer (0-15 cm) than that of conventional tillage (CT) and deep

tillage (DT) but in lower layers (45-120 cm), soil moisture content under DT was higher than that of NT

and CT. Profile moisture storage at 0-120 cm soil depth was the highest under DT followed by NT and CT,

respectively. In both the years, seasonal evapo-transpiration under DT was higher than that of CT, followed

by NT. The root length density (RLD) under DT was significantly higher than that of NT and CT by 12.5

and 40.7 per cent, respectively at 0-15 cm soil depth. The RLD increased significantly with increasing

irrigation level at 0-15 cm soil depth. Grain yield of wheat during high rainfall year (2016-17) was higher

than that of low rainfall year (2015-16) by 39.2 per cent due to higher water availability, lower maximum

air temperature and more bright sunshine hours received during that period. In both the years, there was no

significant difference among tillage treatments with respect to grain yield of wheat but it increased

significantly with irrigation. However, during the year 2015-16, there was no significant difference in the

grain yield due to I 2 and I 3 whereas during the year 2016-17, there was no significant difference in the grain

yield between I 1 and I 2 irrigation levels. There was no significant difference among tillage treatments with

respect to WUE of wheat in year 2015-16 but during 2016-17, WUE of wheat under DT was significantly

higher than NT. During the year 2015-16, WUE of wheat decreased with the increase in irrigation levels

but during the year 2016-17, there was no significant difference among the irrigation treatments with

respect to WUE of wheat.

Key words: Deep tillage, no tillage, root length density, water use efficiency, wheat

Due to growing competition for water among the

domestic and industrial sectors, there is a greater

challenge in the agricultural sector to produce more

food from less water, which can be achieved by

*Corresponding author (Email: kk.bandyopadhyay @gmail.com)

Present address

1

Water Technology Centre, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research

Institute, New Delhi, 110012

2

Division of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, ICAR-

Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, 110012

3

ICAR-Indian Institute of Water Management, Bhubaneswar,

751023, Odisha

increasing crop water productivity. Wheat (Triticum

aestivum L.), the second most important food crop in

India, is grown in an area of about 30-31 million

hectares (Mha) in India and water is the most limiting

factor for wheat production. There is a need to

optimize the irrigation scheduling of wheat under

different management strategies for improving water

use efficiency (WUE) and to sustain wheat production

at higher level. Sun et al. (2006) showed that with

increasing evapo-transpiration (ET), the irrigation

requirements of winter wheat increased as do soil

evaporation but excessive amounts of irrigation can

276 JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN SOCIETY OF SOIL SCIENCE [Vol. 68

decrease grain yield, WUE in terms of ET, and water

use efficiency in terms of irrigation (WUEi). These

results indicate that excessive irrigation might not

produce greater yield or optimal economic benefit,

thus, suitable irrigation schedules must be established.

Tillage methods influence wettability, water

extraction pattern and transport of water and solutes

through the soil profile by modification of soil

structure, aggregation, total porosity and pore size

distribution (Lindstrom and Onstad 1984). Tillage

practices influence the nutrient and water dynamics

and their utilization by crops by altering physical,

chemical and biological properties of soil. So optimum

synergistic combination of water, nutrient and tillage

should be found out for different cropping systems,

soil types and agro-climatic regions to improve the

overall input use efficiency. The conventional tillage

(CT) for wheat results in more compact soil, and a

hardpan is usually developed underneath the plough

layer, hindering air and water movements, and

consequently inhibiting root growth and reducing crop

yield (Huang et al. 2005). No-tillage (NT) is becoming

increasingly attractive to farmers because it clearly

reduces production costs relative to CT. The NT

management can increase both WUE and wheat grain

yield under dryland conditions (Bonfil et al. 1999).

Researchers found that the replacement of CT with

NT improved soil water storage capacity and crop

yields, among other economic benefits (Gicheru et al.

2004; Fabrizzi et al. 2005). Alvarez and Steinbach

(2009) reported that NT system covered with crop

residues had higher infiltration rate, lower

evapotranspiration, higher available water content

and, thus, higher WUE than tillage system. De Vita et

al. (2007) observed that NT produced enhanced yield

under limited rainfall condition due to lower

evaporation and high soil water availability than CT

system but not in case of high rainfall condition in

which CT yielded better. Compared with CT, several

researchers have found that subsoiling or deep tillage

(DT) can decrease the effect of soil compaction on

crop growth (Jennings et al. 2012) as well as increase

rooting depth and the amount of water available to

the crop (Mohanty et al. 2007).

In this backdrop, it was hypothesized that DT or

NT with crop residue mulch with limited irrigation

may produce higher gain yield and WUE of wheat

compared to CT with full irrigation. To test this

hypothesis a field experiment was undertaken with

the objectives to study the effect of tillage and

irrigation interaction on soil water dynamics, root

growth, yield and WUE of wheat in a maize-wheat

rotation in a sandy loam soil of the Indo-Gangetic

Plain region.

Materials and Methods

Soil and climate of the experimental site

The soil of the experimental site was sandy loam

(Typic Haplustept) of Gangetic alluvial origin, very

deep (>2 m), flat and well drained. Detailed soil

physicochemical characteristics were determined

before initiating the experiment and the data are

presented in table 1. It showed that the soil was mildly

alkaline, non-saline, low in organic C (OC) (Walkley

and Black C) and available nitrogen (N) (148.6 kg

ha -1 ), and medium in available phosphorus (P) (13.2

kg ha -1 ) and high in available potassium (K) (293.2

kg ha -1 ) content. The surface soil (0-15 cm) has bulk

density (BD) 1.58 Mg m -3 ; hydraulic conductivity

(saturated) 1.01 cm h -1 , saturated water content (0.41

m 3 m -3 ), electrical conductivity (EC) (1:2.5 soil/water

suspension) 0.36 dS m -1 ; OC 4.2 g kg -1 ; total N

0.032%; sand, silt and clay, 64.0, 16.8 and 19.2%,

respectively. Soil organic carbon (SOC) decreased

with depth whereas pH increased with depth. The BD

increased from 1.58 Mg m -3 in the 0-15 cm layer to

1.72 Mg m -3 in the 90-120 cm layer. Available soil

moisture content ranged from 24.6-28.3% (0.033

MPa) to 9.7-12.9% (1.50 MPa) in different layers of

0-120 cm soil depth.

Table 1. Physicochemical properties of the soil at the experimental site

Depth Bulk pH EC Saturated SOC Particle size distribution Soil Soil moisture

(cm) density (dS m -1 ) hydraulic (g kg -1 ) Sand Silt Clay texture content

(Mg m -3 ) conductivity (%) (%) (%) (cm 3 cm -3 ) at

(cm h -1 ) 0.033 MPa 1.5 MPa

0-15 1.58 7.1 0.46 1.01 4.2 64.0 16.8 19.2 sl 0.254 0.101

15-30 1.61 7.2 0.24 0.82 2.2 64.4 10.7 24.9 scl 0.269 0.112

30-60 1.64 7.5 0.25 0.71 1.6 63.8 10.0 26.2 scl 0.283 0.129

60-90 1.71 7.5 0.25 0.49 1.2 59.8 10.0 30.2 scl 0.277 0.110

90-120 1.72 7.7 0.30 0.39 1.1 53.7 13.4 32.9 scl 0.247 0.097

2020] TILLAGE AND IRRIGATION INTERACTIONS ON SOIL WATER DYNAMICS 277

New Delhi has sub-tropical semi-arid climate

with dry hot summer and brief severe winter. The

average monthly minimum and maximum temperature

in January (the coldest month) ranged between 5.9

and 19.9 °C. The corresponding temperature in May

(the hottest month) ranged between 24.4 and 38.6 °C.

The average annual rainfall is 651 mm, out of which,

75% is received through south-west monsoon during

July to September.

Experiment details

The field experiments were conducted during

rabi season of 2015-16 and 2016-17 at ICAR-Indian

Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi (28°35′ N

latitude, 77°12′ E longitude and at an altitude of

228.16 m above mean sea level) Farm (MB 4C) to

study the effects of tillage and irrigation management

on soil water dynamics, root growth, yield and WUE

of wheat (Triticum aestivum L) in a maize-wheat crop

rotation. The treatments comprising of three levels of

tillage as main plot [Conventional tillage (CT), No

Tillage with maize residues @ 5 t ha -1 (NT) and Deep

tillage (DT)], and three levels of irrigation [I 1 : 1

irrigation (CRI), I 2 : 3 Irrigations (CRI, Tillering,

Flowering) and I 3 : 5 Irrigations (CRI, Tillering,

Jointing, Flowering, Milk)] as sub-plot (each irrigation

amount is 6 cm) were evaluated in a split plot design

with three replications. The sub-plot size was 4 m ×

11 m.

Wheat crop (cv. HD 2967) was sown on 28 th

and 22 nd November in 2015 and 2016, respectively by

a tractor drawn seed drill (at a depth of 4-5 cm) with

a row spacing of 22.5 cm at a seed rate of 100 kg ha -1

and harvested on 5 th April 2016 and 7 th April 2017,

respectively. In CT treatment, the plot was ploughed

once with disk plough and once with duck-foot tine

cultivator followed by leveling and sowing by seed

drill. In NT treatment, the seed was directly sown

using an inverted T type no-till seed drill. Maize

residue was applied manually at the rate of 5 t ha -1 in

NT treatment after CRI stage. In DT treatment, the

plot was ploughed with a chisel plough to a depth of

35±5 cm at 50 cm spacing during kharif season once

in two years and sowing was done using normal seed

drill. Weedicide Glyphosate @ 10 mL L -1 was used to

control weeds before sowing of wheat. Nitrogen was

supplied as urea in three splits i.e., 50% at sowing,

25% at CRI stage and rest 25% at flowering stage.

All the plots received a uniform dose of 60 kg N ha -1

as urea, 60 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 as single superphosphate

(SSP) and 60 kg K 2 O ha -1 as muriate of potash (MOP)

applied as basal dose at sowing. Field was kept weed

free by employing manual weeding 3-4 times during

crop growth stages.

Experiment methods

Soil moisture measurement

Soil moisture dynamics was studied by

measuring soil moisture content thermogravimetrically.

Soil samples were collected from 0-

15, 15-30, 30-45, 45-60, 60-90 and 90-120 cm depths

at 15 days intervals during crop growth.

Soil water flux calculation

Soil water flux was computed for 7.5-22.5, 22.5-

45, 45-75 and 75-105 cm using Buckingham-Darcy’s

law. Volumetric moisture content was used to find

out corresponding matric suction (h) using soil

moisture characteristics (h vs θ). Soil water suction

represents the middle point of the soil sampling depth.

For example, suction at 7.5 cm (midpoint of 0-15 cm)

represents the soil moisture at 0-15 cm soil depth and

similarly suction at 22.5 cm (midpoint of 15-30 cm)

represents the soil moisture at 15-30 cm soil depth.

Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (k) was

determined using k vs θ relationship (Table 2)

developed for this soil (Pradhan et al. 2010).

Soil water flux (Buckingham-Darcy equation)

…(1)

where, h is the matric potential computed from soil

moisture characteristic curve (h vs θ relationship) for

different soil layers and z is the soil water depth and

k(θ) was computed from k vs θ relationship.

Estimation of evapotranspiration and water use efficiency

Evapo-transpiration (ET) by wheat crop was

computed by water balance method.

Table 2. Matric potential (h) (cm) vs volumetric moisture content

(θ) (cm 3 cm -3 ) relationship of the study site

Soil depth (cm) h vs θ relationship k vs θ relationship

0-15 cm h = 0.005(θ) -3.13 k=129585.38 (θ) 9.218

15-30 cm h = 0.002(θ) -3.50 k=185540 (θ) 9.949

30-60 cm h = 0.002(θ) -3.43 k=134769 (θ) 9.825

60-90 cm h = 0.003(θ) -3.67 k=82240.52 (θ) 10.30

90-120 cm h = 0.001(θ) -4.19 k=169940.34 (θ) 11.33


ET (mm) = P + I + C p - D – R -ΔS

…(2)

ET = P + I +C p - D– (S i – S f )

…(3)

where, P is precipitation (mm), I is depth of irrigation,

C p is contribution through capillary rise from the water

table (mm), D is deep percolation loss (mm), R is

runoff (mm), ΔS is change in soil moisture storage in

the profile (mm), S f is final moisture storage in the

profile at harvest (mm), S i is initial moisture storage

in the profile at sowing.

Since the depth of groundwater was very deep

(6-8 m), C p was assumed negligible. As soil moisture

studies were made up to a soil depth of 120 cm and

the profile was loamy with a clay loam layer having a

high BD of 1.71-1.72 Mg m -3 below 60 cm, deep

percolation out of the 120 cm profile (D) was assumed

to be negligible (Lenka et al. 2009; Bandyopadhyay

et al. 2010). There was no runoff (R) from the field

as all the plots were provided with bunds.

Effective precipitation, which is received during

growing period of the crop and is available in the

root zone to meet the consumptive water requirement,

was computed using USDA (1967) method. The

effective precipitation excludes the runoff and deep

percolation losses.

Pe = Pt (125–0.2 Pt)/125, when Pt < 250 mm …(4)

Pe = 125 + 0.1Pt, when Pt ≥ 250 mm …(5)

where, Pe = monthly effective rainfall (mm) and Pt =

total monthly rainfall (mm).

So, ET = Pe + I – (S i – S f )

…(6)

Water use efficiency (WUE) was computed as per the

following formulae:

WUE = GY/ET

…(7)

where, GY = Grain yield (kg ha -1 ) and ET =

Evapotranspiration (mm)

Root studies

Root samples were collected at 0-15 and 15-30

cm depths during flowering stage using core sampler

of 15 cm height and 7 cm diameter. The shoot of the

plant was cut close to the soil and the soil surface

was cleaned by removing unwanted materials if any.

The core of the auger was inserted into the soil in

such a manner that shoot was at the center of the

inserted core. The collected soil cores were sealed in

polythene bags, brought to the laboratory, washed and

processed for scanning. The root lengths were

recorded through the scanning and image analysis of

the root skeleton (WINRHIZO system, Regent

Instruments Inc., Canada). After that root samples

were kept in the hot air oven at 60 °C for 24 h to take

dry weight of the samples. The root weight was

divided by the volume of the soil core to get the root

mass density (RMD). The root length was divided by

the core volume to estimate root length density (RLD).

Statistical analysis

The data were statistically analyzed using

analysis of variance (ANOVA) as applicable to splitsplit

plot design (Gomez and Gomez 1984). The

F-test was employed to see the significance of the

treatment effects. The difference between the means

was estimated using Duncan’s multiple range test

(DMRT) at 5% probability level.

Results and Discussion

Weather conditions prevail

The monthly average maximum and minimum

temperature, maximum and minimum relative

humidity, bright sunshine hours, rainfall and

evaporation during the growth period of wheat for the

years 2015-16 and 2016-17 have been presented in

the table 3. It was observed that during 2016-17, the

crop received the total rainfall 92.7 mm as against

only 2.8 mm during 2015-16. January was the wettest

month during 2016-17. The average bright sunshine

hour during the year 2016-17 (5.4) was higher than

that of 2015-16 (4.8). The mean relative humidity

during 2016-17 (66.8%) was lower than that of year

2015-16 (69.4%).

Table 3. Monthly weather condition during wheat growth during the year 2015-16 and 2016-17

Max. temp. Min. temp. Max. RH Min. RH Sunshine hours Rainfall Evaporation

(°C) (°C) (%) (%) (mm) (mm)

Month 2015- 2016- 2015- 2016- 2015- 2016- 2015- 2016- 2015- 2016- 2015- 2016- 2015- 2016-

16 17 16 17 16 17 16 17 16 17 16 17 16 17

November 28.1 29.0 11.9 9.0 90.3 88.3 47.4 37.0 2.4 2.8 2.2 0 3.4 3.9

December 22.6 23.3 6.1 5.3 93.9 93.8 49.7 51.0 3.5 4.5 0 0 2.8 2.9

January 20.7 20.1 6.5 7.7 95.9 94.2 59.0 58.0 2.4 4.2 0 64.8 2.5 2.2

February 24.6 23.9 8.1 9.9 88.7 91.3 53.0 48.8 5.7 7.1 0 0 3.0 4.1

March 30.8 29.8 13.7 14.2 88.2 83.7 54.0 44.1 6.8 5.3 0.6 19.9 5.1 5.3

April 38.7 38.0 19.1 20.7 67.7 70.4 45.0 40.7 7.8 8.4 0 8.0 8.2 6.9


Soil water dynamics

Change in soil moisture content under different tillage

and irrigation practices

Temporal variation in the volumetric water

content at 0-15, 15-30, 30-45, 45-60, 60-90 and 90-

120 cm soil depth under different tillage treatments

are depicted in fig. 1 and 2 for the years 2015-16 and

2016-17, respectively. In general, soil moisture

content during 2015-16 was less than that of 2016-17

due to higher rainfall received during the year 2016-

17. It was observed that soil moisture content in the

surface layer (0-15 cm) was higher under NT with

residue retention than that of CT and DT in both the

years of study. During the year 2015-16, the mean

soil moisture content under NT treatment at 0-15 cm

soil depth was 0.16 cm³ cm -3 compared to 0.14 cm³

cm -3 under DT and 0.13 cm³ cm -3 under CT. Whereas,

Fig. 2. Temporal variation in soil moisture content under different

tillage practices during wheat, 2016-17

Fig. 1. Temporal variation in soil moisture content under different

tillage practices during wheat, 2015-16

during the year 2016-17, the mean soil moisture

content under NT treatment at 0-15 cm soil depth was

0.13 cm³ cm -3 compared to 0.11 cm³ cm -3 under DT

and CT. The higher moisture content under residue

mulch treatment was attributed to insulating effect of

mulch which minimizes vapor diffusion to atmosphere

(Gupta and Gupta 1986; Bhagat and Acharya 1987).

Crop residue mulching favorably influences the soil

moisture regime by controlling evaporation from soil

surface, improving infiltration and soil moisture

regime and facilitating condensation of water at night

due to temperature reversal (Acharya et al. 2005).

Rasmussen (1991) reported that under CT, higher

water content in the top soil and with more plant

residue in surface soil is attributed to decline in

evaporation because of lower soil temperature.


Reduced evaporation loss under crop residue mulch

has also been reported by several workers (Gill and

Jalota 1996; Prihar et al. 1996; Kitchen et al. 1998).

However, at lower soil depth (45-120 cm) the soil

moisture content under DT was higher than that of

CT and NT treatments. During 2015-16, the mean

soil moisture content under DT at 45-60, 60-90 and

90-120 cm soil depth were 0.21, 0.21 and 0.22 cm 3

cm -3 as compared to 0.17, 0.17 and 0.12 cm 3 cm -3

under CT and 0.18, 0.18 and 0.18 cm 3 cm -3 under NT

in these respective soil depths. Whereas, during 2016-

17, the mean soil moisture content under DT at 45-

60, 60-90 and 90-120 cm soil depth were 0.18, 0.20

and 0.21 cm 3 cm -3 compared to 0.15, 0.16 and 0.16

cm 3 cm -3 under CT and 0.15, 0.16 and 0.17 cm 3 cm -3

under NT in these respective soil depths. Higher

moisture content in lower layers under DT is attributed

to higher transmission of soil water under DT than

that of NT and CT. This finding is in agreement with

Mohanty et al. (2007) in Vertisols. Similarly,

Holloway and Dexter (1991) also reported improved

water storage in soil under DT.

Change in profile moisture storage

Temporal variation in soil profile moisture

storage up to 120 cm soil depth as influenced by

different tillage and irrigation managements for the

year 2015-16 and 2016-17 is presented in fig. 3 and

4, respectively. It was observed that profile moisture

storage at 0-120 cm soil depth was highest under DT

followed by NT and CT in both the years and with

increasing irrigation level, profile moisture storage

increased. During 2015-16, the mean profile moisture

storage under DT, CT and NT were 22.76, 22.24 and

21.51 cm, respectively, whereas during 2016-17 the

mean profile moisture storage under DT, CT and NT

were 21.25, 18.23 and 18.84 cm, respectively. This is

mainly attributed to grater profile recharge under DT.

Higher profile moisture storage under DT is in

agreement with Mohanty et al. (2007). Higher profile

moisture storage under NT + residue than that of CT

reported in this study is in agreement with other

researchers (Unger 1984; Fuentes et al. 2003).

Holloway and Dexter (1991) and Mohanty et al.

(2007) also reported improved water storage in soil

under DT. Averaged over tillage treatments, the

profile moisture storage under I 1 , I 2 and I 3 irrigation

levels were 19.61, 22.52 and 23.38 cm, respectively

during the year 2015-16 and 17.40, 20.02 and 20.89

cm, respectively during 2016-17.

Fig. 3. Temporal variation in the soil moisture storage in the

profile (0-120 cm) during wheat, 2015-16 as influenced by

tillage (A) and irrigation management (B)

Fig. 4. Temporal variation in the soil moisture storage in the

profile (0-120 cm) during wheat, 2016-17 as influenced by

tillage (A) and irrigation management (B)


Soil water flux

Temporal variation in soil water flux at 7.5-22.5,

22.5-45, 45-75 and 75-105 cm soil depth as influenced

by tillage is depicted in fig. 5 and 6 for the year

2015-16 and 2016-17, respectively. The positive value

indicates upward flux and negative downward flux.

In variably, soil water flux between 7.5-22.5 cm depth

was positive indicating evaporation and root water

uptake whereas, between 75-105 cm depth it was

negative indicating deep percolation loss. During

2015-16, the mean soil water fluxes between 7.5-22.5

cm soil depth were 0.659, 0.473 and 0.374 cm day -1 ;

between 22.5-45 cm soil depth, 0.772, 0.035 and

0.091 cm day -1 ; between 45-75 cm soil depth, 0.600,

-0.271 and -0.247 cm day -1 and between 75-105 cm

soil depth 0.362, -0.101 and 0.041 cm day -1 under

DT, CT and NT, respectively. During 2016-17 the

Fig. 6. Temporal variation in the soil water fluxes at 7.5-22.5,

22.5-45, 45-75 and 75-105 cm soil depths under DT, CT and

NT systems during wheat, 2016-17

Fig. 5. Temporal variation in the soil water fluxes at 7.5-22.5,

22.5-45, 45-75 and 75-105 cm soil depths under DT, CT and

NT systems during wheat, 2015-16

mean soil water fluxes between 7.5-22.5 cm soil depth

were 0.541, 0.377 and 0.418 cm day -1 ; between 22.5-

45 cm soil depth, 0.601, 0.014 and -0.043 cm day -1 ;

between 45-75 cm soil depth, -1.600, -0.111 and 0.099

cm day -1 and between 75-105 cm soil depth -0.362,

-0.095 and -0.064 cm day -1 under DT, CT and NT,

respectively.

During 2015-16, averaged across all treatments,

the mean upward flux was more than that of 2016-17

and the mean downward flux was less than that of

2016-17, which is attributed to higher rainfall received

during the year 2016-17 than that of 2015-16. Both

upward and downward flux was higher in DT

indicating better transmission properties of soil. Under

DT because of breakdown of the sub-soil hardpan the

pore continuity has improved leading better

transmission of water in the profile and recharge of


profile. This finding is in agreement with Mohanty et

al. (2007). The upward flux under NT with crop

residue mulch was less than that of DT and CT

treatments because of lower evaporation losses under

this treatment. It has been reported that application of

mulch retards intensity of radiation, wind velocity on

the soil surface which reduces evaporation loss

(Acharya et al. 2005). This finding is also in

agreement is with Gill and Jalota (1996) and Prihar et

al. (1996).

Seasonal Evapotranspiration

Soil water balance as influenced by tillage and

irrigation interaction during the year 2015-16 and

2016-17 is depicted in table 4. Root zone profile

moisture extraction ranged from 84.3 to 163.2 mm

(mean 131.4 mm) during 2015-16 and from 170.5 to

240 mm (mean 209.3 mm) during 2016-17. Higher

profile moisture extraction in 2016-17 was attributed

to higher rainfall received during this year than the

previous year. Profile moisture extraction under DT

was statistically similar to that of CT but significantly

higher than NT in both the years. In the low rainfall

year, profile moisture extraction increased

significantly with the increase in the irrigation level

but in high rainfall year there was no significant

difference among the irrigation levels with respect to

profile moisture extraction. Seasonal ET during the

year 2015-16 ranged from 146.3 (NTI 1 ) to 465.2 mm

(NTI 3 ) with mean value 313.4 mm whereas during the

year 2016-17, seasonal ET ranged from 347.1 (DTI 1 )

to 596.9 (DTI 3 ) with mean value 466.7 mm. Averaged

over irrigation level, seasonal ET under DT, CT and

NT were 320.2, 320.7 and 299.2 mm, respectively

during year 2015-16 and 477.3, 468.1 and 454.5 mm,

respectively during 2016-17. The mean seasonal ET

during 2016-17 (466.7 mm) was higher than that of

the year 2015-16 (313.4 mm) by 48.9 per cent. This

is attributed to higher rainfall received during 2016-

17 (total rainfall 84.7 mm and effective rainfall 77.4

mm) than that of 2015-16 (2.0 mm). In both the years,

seasonal ET under CT was higher than that of NT

(p<0.05). During the year 2016-17, seasonal ET under

DT was higher than that of CT but during 2015-16,

there was no significant difference in the ET between

DT and CT. This was mainly attributed to higher

profile moisture storage and higher root zone water

extraction under DT during the high rainfall year

(2016-17) than that of low rainfall year (2015-16).

The pooled profile moisture extraction under DT

(179.0 mm) was statistically similar to that of CT

(174.7 mm) but significantly higher (p<0.05) than that

of NT (157.2 mm). Under NT evaporation has been

reduced as it is associated with crop residue mulch

whereas in CT because of higher evaporation

component, ET is more than that of NT. However

contrary to our results, Su et al. (2007) reported higher

ET under NT plots than that of RT and CT plots due

Table 4. Field water balance of wheat under different tillage and irrigation management

Treatments Root zone profile Effective rainfall Irrigation (mm) Actual evapowater

change (mm) (mm) transpiration (mm)

2015-16 2016-17 2015-16 2016-17 2015-16 2016-17 2015-16 2016-17

Effect of tillage

DT 138.1 A 219.9 A 2.0 77.4 180.0 180.0 320.2 A 477.3 A

CT 138.7 A 210.7 A 2.0 77.4 180.0 180.0 320.7 A 468.1 A

NT 117.2 B 197.1 B 2.0 77.4 180.0 180.0 299.2 B 454.5 B

Effect of irrigation

I 1 125.9 B 222.9 A 2.0 77.4 60.0 60.0 187.9 C 360.3 C

I 2 121.5 B 204.8 A 2.0 77.4 180.0 180.0 303.5 B 462.2 B

I 3 146.7 A 200.1 A 2.0 77.4 300.0 300.0 448.7 A 577.5 A

Effect of tillage × irrigation

DTI 1 151.0 b# 209.7 cd 2.0 77.4 60 60 213.0 e 347.1 f

DTI 2 113.7 e 230.6 ab 2.0 77.4 180 180 295.8 d 488.0 c

DTI 3 149.7 b 219.5 bc 2.0 77.4 300 300 451.7 a 596.9 a

CTI 1 142.5 c 218.9 c 2.0 77.4 60 60 204.5 e 356.3 ef

CTI 2 146.5 bc 213.3 c 2.0 77.4 180 180 328.5 c 470.7 c

CTI 3 127.1 d 199.9 d 2.0 77.4 300 300 429.1 b 577.3 ab

NTI 1 84.3 g 240.0 a 2.0 77.4 60 60 146.3 f 377.4 e

NTI 2 104.2 f 170.5 e 2.0 77.4 180 180 286.2 d 427.9 d

NTI 3 163.2 a 180.9 e 2.0 77.4 300 300 465.2 a 558.3 b

# Values in a column followed by same letters are not significantly different at p<0.05 as per DMRT


to greater and deeper soil water storage and lower

evaporation loss. With increasing irrigation level,

seasonal ET of wheat increased (p<0.05) in both the

years. Averaged over tillage treatments, seasonal ET

due to I 1 , I 2 and I 3 irrigation levels were 187.9, 303.5,

and 448.7 mm, respectively during year 2015-16 and

360.2, 462.2, 577.5 mm, respectively during year

2016-17.

Root growth

Root length density (RLD) and root mass density

(RMD) of wheat at flowering stage at 0-15 and 15-30

cm soil depth are depicted in fig. 7. It was observed

that RLD at 0-15 cm soil depth ranged from 0.54

(CTI 1 ) to 1.11 cm cm -3 (DTI 5 ) with mean value 0.82

cm cm -3 , whereas at 15-30 cm soil depth, it ranged

from 0.18 (NTI 1 ) to 0.30 cm cm -3 (DTI 5 ) with mean

value of 0.22 cm cm -3 . At 15-30 cm soil depth, RLD

was less than that of 0-15 cm soil depth irrespective

of treatments. Average over irrigation level, RLD

under DT, CT and NT were 0.95, 0.67, and 0.84 cm

cm -3 , respectively at 0-15 cm soil depth and 0.28,

0.21 and 0.18 cm cm -3 , respectively at 15-30 cm soil

depth. Averaged over tillage treatments, RLD under

Fig. 7. Root length density (A) and root mass density (B) of

wheat as influenced by tillage and irrigation management

I 1 , I 2 and I 3 irrigation treatments were 0.65, 0.88 and

0.93 cm cm -3 , respectively at 0-15 cm soil depth, and

0.20, 0.22 and 0.25 cm cm -3 , respectively at 15-30 cm

depth. The RLD increased significantly (p<0.05) with

increasing irrigation level at 0-15 cm soil depth. The

RLD under DT was significantly (p<0.05) higher than

that of NT and CT by 12.5 and 40.7 per cent,

respectively at 0-15 cm soil depth. RLD under NT

was significantly higher (p<0.05) than CT by 25.1

per cent at 0-15 cm soil depth. The average ratio of

RLD between 0-15 and 15-30 cm soil depth was 3.74.

This ratio was maximum for NT (4.57) followed by

DT (3.37) and CT (3.28), which indicates that under

NT roots are mostly confined to 0-15 cm soil depth.

With increasing irrigation level, the RLD ratio

increased and the maximum RLD ratio was observed

under I 2 (4.12).

The RMD ranged from 3.21 (CTI 1 ) to 8.10 mg

cm -3 (CTI 2 ) with mean value 5.36 mg cm -3 at 0-15 cm

soil depth and from 0.16 (CTI 1 ) to 0.52 mg cm -3 (NTI 3 )

with mean value 0.28 mg cm -3 at 15-30 cm soil depth.

Averaged over irrigation level, RMD due to DT, CT

and NT were 5.45, 5.08 and 5.56 mg cm -3 , respectively

for 0-15 cm soil depth and 0.27, 0.21 and 0.36 mg

cm -3 , respectively at 15-30 cm soil depth. Average

over tillage treatments, RMD due to I 1 , I 2 and I 3

irrigation levels were 3.81, 4.44 and 7.83 mg cm -3 ,

respectively at 0-15 cm soil depth and 0.20, 0.27 and

0.37 mg cm -3 , respectively at 15-30 cm soil depth.

The RMD under DT was at par with NT followed by

CT at 0-15 cm soil depth (p<0.05). With increasing

irrigation level, RMD increased significantly

(p<0.05). The average ratio of RMD at 0-15 and 15-

30 cm soil depth was found to 19.8. This ratio is

much larger than that of the RLD ratio (3.74), which

indicates that at lower layer thinner roots are present.

With increasing irrigation level, this ratio increased

to 23.1 (I 3 ) indicating that at higher irrigation,

maximum root mass was confined to 0-15 cm soil

depth.

Grain yield and Water use efficiency

Grain yield and WUE of wheat as influenced by

tillage and irrigation for the year 2015-16 and 2016-

17 are presented in table 5. Grain yield of wheat

during 2016-17 was higher than that of 2015-16 by

39.2 per cent. This was attributed to higher rainfall,

lower maximum air temperature and more bright

sunshine hours received during 2016-17 as compared

to 2015-16. It was observed that there was no

significant difference among tillage treatments with

respect to grain yield for both the years. Tillage and


irrigation interaction was also not significant on grain

yield for both the years. This may be due to two years

old tillage experiments and tillage effect on yield is

usually seen only in long-term experiments (Ngwira

et al. 2014). They found that the positive effect of NT

system with residue retention in maize-cowpea

rotation was seen from fifth year in which the crop

shows higher yield than conventional agriculture and

also CA was less susceptible to climate variability

than CT. However, Ghosh et al. (2015) reported that

the wheat equivalent yield under CA was significantly

higher than conventional agriculture by 47 per cent

under maize-wheat rotation in a sandy loam soil.

Grain yield of wheat increased significantly with

increasing irrigation level. During 2015-16, grain

yield ranged from 1607 (NTI 1 ) to 2772 kg ha -1 (DTI 3 )

with mean value 2400 kg ha -1 , whereas during 2016-

17, it ranged from 2222 (NTI 1 ) to 4717 kg ha -1 (DTI 3 )

with mean value 3341 kg ha -1 . During 2015-16, grain

yield of wheat due to I 2 and I 3 treatments were

significantly higher than I 1 (p<0.05) but there was no

significant difference between I 2 and I 3 treatments.

However, during 2016-17, there was no significant

difference between I 1 and I 2 but I 3 treatment registered

significantly higher (p<0.05) grain yield than I 1 and

I 2 treatments.

Table 5. Grain yield and water use efficiency of wheat as

influenced by tillage and irrigation management

Treatments Grain yield Water use efficiency

(kg ha -1 ) (kg (ha-mm) -1 )

2015-16 2016-17 2015-16 2016-17

Effect of tillage

DT 2503 A# 3786 A 8.28 A# 8.00 A

CT 2430 A 3271 A 8.09 A 6.91 AB

NT 2267 A 2967 A 8.56 A 6.43 B

Effect of irrigation

I 1 1925 B 2496 B 10.32 A 6.96 A

I 3 2632 A 3182 B 8.70 B 6.86 A

I 5 2643 A 4346 A 5.90 C 7.52 A

Effect of tillage × irrigation

DTI 1 2056 a 2989 a 17.13 a 24.90 a

DTI 3 2111 a 2276 a 17.60 a 18.97 a

DTI 5 1607 a 2222 a 13.43 a 18.53 a

CTI 1 2682 a 3651 a 22.37 a 30.47 a

CTI 3 2618 a 3263 a 21.83 a 27.20 a

CTI 5 2596 a 2633 a 21.63 a 21.97 a

NTI 1 2771 a 4717 a 23.10 a 39.30 a

NTI 3 2559 a 4276 a 21.33 a 35.63 a

NTI 5 2599 a 4047 a 21.63 a 33.70 a

# Values in a column followed by same letters are not significantly

different at p<0.05 as per DMRT; The uppercase letters

and the lower case letters are used for comparing main effects

and interaction effects, respectively.

During 2015-16, WUE of wheat ranged from

5.62 to 11.0 with mean value 8.3 kg (ha-mm) -1 ,

whereas it ranged from 5.9 to 8.8 with mean value

7.4 kg (ha-mm) -1 during 2016-17. There was no

significant difference (p<0.05) among DT, CT and

NT with respect to WUE of wheat in the year 2015-

16. However, during 2016-17, WUE of wheat under

DT was significantly higher (p<0.05) than that of NT,

but there was no significant difference between DT

and CT or CT and NT with respect to WUE. The

WUE of wheat decreased significantly with increasing

irrigation level during the year 2015-16. This is in

agreement with Sun et al. (2006). No significant

differences among the irrigation levels with respect

to WUE of wheat was observed in 2016-17. This may

be attributed to the fact that crop received higher

rainfall during that year than the previous year. The

interaction of tillage and irrigation was not significant

on WUE of wheat in both the years.

Conclusions

From this study, it may be concluded that no

tillage with residue (NT) treatment maintained higher

soil moisture content in the surface layer (0-15 cm)

than that of conventional tillage (CT) and deep tillage

(DT) but in lower layers (45-120 cm), soil moisture

content under DT was higher than that of NT and CT.

Profile moisture storage at 0-120 cm soil depth was

the highest under DT followed by NT and CT.

Seasonal ET under DT was higher than that of other

tillage treatments. The root length density (RLD)

under DT was higher than other tillage treatments at

0-15 cm soil depth. The RLD increased with

increasing irrigation level at 0-15 cm soil depth. Grain

yield of wheat was statistically similar with respect to

the tillage treatments but it increased with irrigation

level and maximum grain yield was registered with

five irrigations. The tillage treatments were

statistically similar with respect to WUE of wheat

during low rainfall year (2015-16), however, DT

showed higher WUE during high rainfall year (2016-

17). The WUE of wheat decreased with the increase

in irrigation levels during low rainfall year but in

high rainfall year the irrigation treatments were

statistically similar with respect to WUE of wheat.

Hence, wheat may be grown under DT in alternate

years with five irrigations at critical growth stages to

improve root growth, profile moisture storage,

seasonal evapotranspiration, yield and water use

efficiency of wheat in the Indo-Gangetic Plain.


Acknowledgements

This work is a part of the M.Sc. degree research.

The first author acknowledges the help received from

ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI),

New Delhi in the form of Junior Research Fellowship

during the study period. The logistic support received

from the Director, IARI during the study period is

thankfully acknowledged.

References

Acharya, C.L., Hati, K.M. and Bandyopadhyay, K.K. (2005)

Mulches. In Encyclopedia of Soils in the Environment

(D. Hillel, C. Rosenzweig, D.S. Powlson, K.M. Scow,

M.J. Singer, D.L. Sparks and J. Hatfield, J. Eds.)

Elsevier Publication, pp. 521-532.

Alvarez, R. and Steinbach, H.S. (2009) A review of the

effects of tillage systems on some soil physical

properties, water content, nitrate availability and crops

yield in the Argentine Pampas. Soil and Tillage

Research 104, 1-15.

Bandyopadhyay, K.K., Misra, A.K., Ghosh, P.K., Hati,

K.M., Mandal, K.G. and Mohanty, M. (2010) Effect

of irrigation and nitrogen application methods on

input use efficiency of wheat under limited water

supply in a Vertisol of Central India. Irrigation

Science 28, 285-299.

Bhagat, R.M. and Acharya, C.L. (1987) Effect of soil mulch

management on rainfed wheat in Northern India. I.

Hydrothermal regime and root growth. Soil and

Tillage Research 9, 65-77.

Bonfil, D.J., Mufradi, I., Klitman, S. and Asido, S. (1999)

Wheat grain yield and soil profile water distribution

in a no-till arid environment. Agronomy Journal 91,

368-373.

De Vita, P., Di Paolo, E., Fecondo, G., Di Fonzo, N. and

Pisante, M. (2007) No-tillage and conventional tillage

effects on durum wheat yield, grain quality, and soil

moisture content in southern Italy. Soil and Tillage

Research 92, 69-78.

Fabrizzi, K.P., Garcia, F.O., Costab, J.L. and Picone, L.I.

(2005) Soil water dynamics, physical properties and

corn and wheat responses to reduced and no-tillage

systems in the southern Pampas of Argentina. Soil

and Tillage Research 81, 57-69.

Fuentes, J.P., Flury, M., Huggins, D.R. and Bezdicek, D.F.

(2003) Soil water and nitrogen dynamics in dry land

cropping system so Washington State, USA. Soil and


Ghosh, B.N., Dogra, P., Sharma, N.K., Bhattacharyya, R.

and Mishra, P.K. (2015) Conservation agriculture

impact for soil conservation in maize-wheat cropping

system in the Indian sub-Himalayas. International Soil

and Water Conservation Research 3, 112-118.

Gicheru, P., Gachene, C., Mbuvi, J. and Mare, E. (2004)

Effects of soil management practices and tillage

systems on surface soil water conservation and crust

formation on a sandy loam in semi-arid Kenya. Soil

and Tillage Research 75, 173-184.

Gill, B.S. and Jalota, S.K. (1996) Evaporation from soil in

relation to residue rate, mixing depth, soil texture and

evaporativity. Soil Technology 8, 293-301.

Gupta, J.P. and Gupta, G.N. (1986) Effect of tillage and

mulching on soil environment and cowpea seedling

growth under arid conditions. Soil and Tillage

Research 7, 223-236.

Gomez, K.A. and Gomez, A.A. (1984) Statistical procedures

for agricultural research. 2 nd Edition, John Wiley and

Sons, New York, 680 p.

Holloway, R.E. and Dexter, A.R. (1991) Tillage and

compaction effects on soil properties, root growth and

yield of wheat during drought in a semi-arid

environment. Soil Technology 4, 233-253.

Huang, Y., Chen, L., Fu, B., Huang, Z. and Gong, J. (2005)

The wheat yields and water-use efficiency in the

Loess Plateau: straw mulch and irrigation effects.

Agricultural Water Management 72, 209-222.

Jennings, T.N., Smith, J.E., Cromack, K., Sulzman, E.W.,

McKay, D., Caldwell, B.A. and Beldin S.I. (2012)

Impact of post fire logging on soil bacterial and fungal

communities and soil biogeochemistry in a mixedconifer

forest in central Oregon. Plant and Soil 350,

393-411.

Kitchen, N.R., Hughes, D.F., Donald, W.W. and Alberts,

E.E. (1998) Agrichemicals movement in the root zone

of clay pan soils: ridge and mulch tillage system

compared. Soil and Tillage Research 48, 179-193.

Lenka, S., Singh, A.K., Lenka, N. (2009) Water and

nitrogen interaction on soil profile water extraction

and ET in maize–wheat cropping system. Agricultural

Water Management 96, 195-207.

Lindstrom, M.J. and Onstad, C.A. (1984) Influence of tillage

systems on soil physical parameters and infiltration

after planting. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation

39, 149-152.

Mohanty, M., Bandyopadhyay, K.K., Painuli, D.K, Ghosh,

P.K., Misra, A.K. and Hati, K.M. (2007) Water

transmission characteristics of a Vertisol and water

use efficiency of rainfed soybean (Glycine max L.

Merr.) under subsoiling and manuring. Soil and



Ngwira, A.R., Aune, J.B. and Thierfelder, C. (2014) DSSAT

modelling of conservation agriculture maize response

to climate change in Malawi. Soil and Tillage

Research 143, 85-94.

Pradhan, S., Chopra, U.K. and Singh, R. (2010)

Comparative study on soil water functional

relationship in two texturally different Inceptisols.

Journal of Agricultural Physics 10, 16-20.

Prihar, S.S., Jalota, S.K. and Steiner, J.L. (1996) Residue

management for reducing vaporation in relation to

soil type and evaporativity. Soil Use and Management

12, 150-157.

Rasmussen, J.K. (1991) Reduced soil tillage and Italian

ryegrass as catch crop: II. Soil bulk density, root

development and soil chemistry. Tidsskrift for

Planteavl 95, 139-154.

Su, Z., Zhang, J., Wu, W., Cai, D., Lv, J., Jiang, G., Huang,

J., Gao, J., Hartmann, R. and Gabriels, D. (2007)

Effects of conservation tillage practices on winter

wheat water-use efficiency and crop yield on the

Loess Plateau, China. Agricultural Water

Management 87, 307-314.

Sun, H.Y., Chang-Ming Liu, A.B., Zhang, X.Y., Shen, Y. and

Zhang, Y.O. (2006) Effects of irrigation on water balance,

yield and WUE of winter wheat in the North China

Plain. Agricultural Water Management 85, 211-218.

Unger, P.W. (1984) Tillage and residue effects on wheat,

sorghum and sunflower grown in rotation. Soil

Science Society of America Journal 48, 885-891.

USDA (1967) Irrigation water requirements. Technology

Release No. 21, United States Department of

Agriculture, Soil Management 59, 67-75.

Received 19 December 2019; Accepted 27 September 2020

View publication stats

Sanatan-2020-JISSS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?