gj dne] gj Mxj

fdlkuksa dk gelQj
Hkkjrh; d`f"k vuqla/kku ifj"kn
Hkkd`vuqi
ICAR

RESOURCE CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY

IN PULSE BASED CROPPING SYSTEMS

Indian Institute of Pulses Research

Kanpur – 208 024
 Resource Conservation
Technology in Pulse Based
Cropping Systems

Narendra Kumar
M.K. Singh
P.K. Ghosh
M.S. Venkatesh
K.K. Hazra
N. Nadarajan

Indian Institute of Pulses Research

Kanpur - 208 024
Publication No. : 1/2012

Printed : September, 2012

Published by : Dr. N. Nadarajan, Director

Indian institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur

Edited by : Mr. Diwakar Upadhyaya

Correct citation : Narendra Kumar, M.K. Singh, P.K. Ghosh, M.S. Venkatesh,
K.K. Hazra and N. Nadarajan. (2012). Resource Conservation
Technology in Pulse Based Cropping Systems. Indian institute
of Pulses Research, Kanpur.

Printed at : Army Printing Press, 33 Sadar Cantt., Lucknow

 FOREWORD
The conservation of natural resources becomes necessity to achieve
sustainable and profitable pulse production system and subsequently
to improve livelihoods of the farmers. The key challenge today is to
adopt strategies that will address the twin concerns of maintaining and
enhancing the integrity of natural resources and improved productivity.
The improvement of natural resources forms the very basis for long-
term sustained productivity. Over the past 2–3 decades globally,
Resource Conservation Technology (RCT) has emerged as a way for
transition to the sustainability of intensive production systems. RCT
permits management of water and soil for agricultural production
without excessively disturbing the soil, while protecting it from the
processes that contribute to degradation like erosion, compaction,
aggregate breakdown, etc.
Inclusion of pulses in cropping system needs to be viewed as long-
term benefit for resource conservation because of their intrinsic virtues
like nitrogen fixation ability, less dependence on external inputs like
water, fertiliser and power, per day productivity and higher protein
content and its role in ecological security. In recent years, research in
agricultural science has undergone a change with more emphasis on
sustainable high productivity under resource constraints. In this context,
bringing out the publication on Resource Conservation Technology in
Pulse Based Cropping Systems is very appropriate. I complement the
authors for their sincere efforts in bringing out this publication and
putting all relevant information at one place in a very lucid manner. I
believe the results of various activities embodied in this technical
bulletin will be very useful to researchers, extension and development
personnel in understanding and implementing resource conservation
practices in pulses and pulse based cropping systems.

(N. Nadarajan)
Director
 PREFACE
Degradation of natural resources is a serious environmental
problem that threatens ecosystem health and food security worldwide.
The over exploitation of soil and water resources lead to reduction in
use efficiency of inputs e.g., fertilizer, irrigation etc. Enhancing the
natural resource base is of paramount importance. It is relevant to study
the stresses on these resources and assess the concerns related to their
future use. The deteriorating production and sustainability of rice-wheat
cropping system in country are evident from either stagnation or decline
in the yield and factor productivity of rice and wheat.
Resource Conservation Technology (RCT) has shown to improve,
conserve and use natural resources in a more efficient way through
integrated management of available soil, water and biological resources.
It is now widely recognised as a viable concept for sustainable
agriculture due to its comprehensive benefits in economic,
environmental and social terms. Pulses, endowed with unique ability
of biological nitrogen fixation, deep root system, low water requirements
and capacity to withstand drought, constitute an important component
of crop diversification and resource conservation technology. The
present bulletin is a compilation of the results of different resource
conservation practices like crop diversification, conservation tillage,
residue management, raised bed planting and mechanization for
resource conservation carried out at IIPR. We are grateful to Dr. N.
Nadarajan, Director, IIPR for his necessary guidance and constant
support in compilation and publication of this technical bulletin. We
wish to express our sincere thanks to all technical and supporting staff
of the division for their help in compiling the manuscript. We hope
that this bulletin, a compilation of results of different research
programme carried out at IIPR will serve as a useful material for
upgradation of the knowledge level of researchers and extension
personnel.

Authors
 PREFACE

1. Introduction 1

2. Conservation Agriculture vs. Resource Conservation Technology 2

3. Pulses: Component of RCT 3

 Sequential Cropping 3
 Intercropping 6
 Kharif pulses 7
 Rabi pulses 9
 Spring season 13
 Improving soil health 14
4. Conservation Tillage and Pulses 16

5. Residue Management and Pulses 18

6. Pulses Under Raised Bed Planting System 22

7. Farm Mechanization and Pulses 26

 Raised bed planter 27
 Happy Seeder 27
 Star wheels drill 27
 Laser land leveler 28
 Direct drilling (No-Till Drilling) 28
8. Rice Fallow and No-till Drill 29

9. Critical Gaps and Researchable Issues 31

10. References 32
 Introduction
Indian agriculture is now at crossroads. We have come a long way. Over the
past five decades our strategies, policies and actions were guided by goals of ‘self-
sufficiency’ in foodgrain production with main focus on rice and wheat. Indian
agriculture has been successful in achieving increased foodgrains production albeit
at a low level of satisfaction. While the mission of increasing foodgrains production
stands somehow achieved without major jump in pulses productivity and
production in country, these were accompanied by widespread problems of resource
degradation, which now pose a serious challenge to the continued ability to meet
the demand of an increasing population and lifting our people above the poverty
line.
Rice and wheat are the two major food crops of India. Therefore, primary food
security concerns are focused on improving and sustaining their productivity. With
the advent of the “Green Revolution”, these two crops have come to occupy a
significant area in the country. Of late, concerns have been expressed that the rice-
wheat growing areas are developing a so-called “fatigue”, due to continuous
uninterrupted cultivation of this very exhaustive cereal-cereal (rice-wheat) cropping
system, for nearly about five decades. There is no doubt that rice and wheat, which
have similar adventitious rooting systems, are very heavy feeders of plant nutrients,
and rice in particular requires large number of irrigations (20–25 in the irrigated
rice-wheat areas of the IGP on light alluvial soils). Rice and wheat exploit the soil
to a greater extent making it poorer year after year. The rice-wheat system accounts
for annual removal of more than 650 kg/ha of N, P and K resulting in negative
balance of these nutrients even with recommended fertilizer use which adversely
affect the sustainability of production system (Abrol et al., 1999).
Pulses are next to cereals in terms of their economic and nutritional importance
as human food. The ability of pulses to fix atmospheric nitrogen in the soil-crop
system is their unique and beneficial characteristics among all plant species. Thus,
pulses can contribute significantly to achieve the twin objectives of increasing
productivity and improving the sustainability of rice and wheat based cropping
systems. The pulses grown together with or before a cereal crop can reduce and
sometimes substitute the need of nitrogen application as well. The deleterious effect
of spring fallow on soil physical and chemical properties, soil organic carbon content
and soil fertility can be decreased by cultivating pulse crops during fallow period.
On the other hand there is scope of increasing per capita availability of protein to
rural poor population by the introduction of pulses in the rice fallows during dry
season.

1
 In spite of many beneficial effects, pulses are still considered as secondary
crop with respect to management, more so with irrigation and hence have always
been relegated to marginal land and cultivated with meager inputs. Pulses are grown
on marginal and degraded land over the years with low or no inputs. Conservation
practices have shown advantages over traditional practices by means of improving
productivity and soil health in case of cereal crops in many parts of world.

Conservation Agriculture vs. Resource Conservation

Technology
According to FAO, Conservation Agriculture (CA) is an approach to manage
agro-ecosystems for improved and sustained productivity, increased profits and
food security while preserving and enhancing the resource base and the
environment. CA is characterized by three linked principles, namely:
i. Continuous minimum mechanical soil disturbance,
ii. Permanent organic soil cover, and
iii. Diversification of crop species grown in sequences and/or associations.
However, the term resource conservation technology (RCT) refers to the
practice that enhances resource- or input-use efficiency such as zero or reduced
tillage, new varieties, laser land leveling, bed and furrow configuration for planting
crops, etc.

Advantages of conservation agriculture

 Reduced soil erosion by wind and water
 Increased water infiltration and storage
 Reduced evaporation
 Prevention of overheating of the soil surface favours seed germination
 Build up of SOM
 Improved aggregate stability and soil structure
 Deepening of rooting horizon
 More abundant soil life - earth worms, etc.

2
 Less drought susceptibility
 Better quality of rural life, reduced drudgery
 Improved soil quality and fertilizer efficiency
 Reduction in poverty and labor demands for small framers.

Pulses: Component of RCT

Sequential Cropping
Sequential cropping is a kind of multiple cropping system in which two or
more crops are grown in a sequence on same land within a crop year, one crop
being sown after the harvest of the other. Pulses in the cereal/oilseed based cropping
systems are introduced to break the monotony of crop rotation. Pulses being rainfed
low input crop provide safeguard against crop failure due to poor rainfall and
adverse weather conditions. Apart from enriching soil fertility, introduction of
pulses in cropping system also improves nitrogen economy.
Early pigeonpea-wheat sequence was evaluated and found promising than
traditional rice-wheat cropping system in irrigated areas of Punjab, Haryana, central
and western Uttar Pradesh by advancing the pigeonpea sowing to May-June or
earlier. Early pigeonpea genotypes UPAS 120, Pusa 992, Manak, AL 15, AL 201
and ICPL 88039 were found promising for this cropping system.
Inclusion of pulses in rice-wheat system increased the system productivity
besides improving the soil fertility. Inclusion of rabi pulses significantly increased
the productivity of succeeding rice crop in comparison to wheat. In a three years
study, the highest yield of rice (4,912 kg/ha) was obtained after preceding crop of
rajmash which was at par with chickpea, lentil and fieldpea and significantly higher
over wheat. Crop rotation involving rabi pulses particularly rajmash, chickpea and
field pea economized N to the tune of 40 kg/ha over wheat and considerably
increased total economic yield under irrigated condition. Similarly, the yield of
wheat was improved significantly after kharif legumes especially mungbean,
soybean and groundnut than maize. Kharif pulses particularly cowpea and
pigeonpea + urdbean/mungbean contributed an equivalent of 40 kg N/ha to
subsequent cereal crops (Table 1).

3
Table.1 Nitrogen economy due to inclusion of pulses in sequential cropping
Preceding pulse crop Following cereal Fertilizer N- equivalent
(kg N/ha)
Chickpea Maize 60
Chickpea Rice 40
Pigeonpea Wheat 40
Mungbean Rice 40
Urdbean/mungbean Wheat 30
Lentil Maize 30
Fieldpea maize 25
Rajmash Rice 10
Cowpea Rice 40
Cowpea Wheat 43
(Source: Subbarao, 1988)

Inclusion of short duration catch crop in summer like mungbean not only
provide a bonus yield of 700-1000 kg/ha, but also economises nitrogen in the
subsequent rice crop to the tune of 34 kg/ha. Among the summer legumes, the
highest improvement in system productivity was recorded with mungbean,
followed by fodder cowpea and urdbean.
In low land areas of eastern UP, Bihar and parts of MP, where excess moisture
after harvest of rice poses serious problem, rust resistant high yielding lentil varieties
have been found suitable for rice-lentil sequence. Under this situation, two bold
seeded lentil genotypes (K 75 and DPL 62) and two small seeded genotypes (Pant
L 4076 and IPL 81) were found most suitable. However, in relay cropping system
rice - lathyrus was found most remunerative, followed by rice-linseed.
Development of early maturing chickpea varieties suitable for planting upto
mid-December with higher yield potential (1,500-2,000 kg/ha) has enabled the
farmers to adopt rice-chickpea sequence instead of cereal-cereal systems especially
in the tail end of command areas in eastern Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. After three
years of research experiments, rice genotype NDR 359 and chickpea genotype BG
256 recorded significantly higher rice equivalent yield (10,633 kg/ha), net return
and benefit cost ratio. Among the 10 AVT lines of chickpea along with two checks
(DCP 92-3 and BG 372) for their suitability under rice-chickpea sequence, IPC 2005-
61 recorded maximum yield (2,793 kg/ha), followed by DCP 92-3 (2, 790 kg/ha)
and found most suitable for rice – chickpea sequential cropping.
Short duration high yielding varieties like Uday, Amber, HUR 15 and HUR
137 of rajmash have been successfully introduced in the central and eastern plain

4
zone under irrigated condition. Cropping sequence like rajmash-mungbean and
rajmash –urdbean were found most remunerative (gross return Rs. 38,963/ha). The
yield of summer legumes after rajmash was higher than that after wheat and
chickpea mainly due to timely planting. Among the six rice-pulses cropping system
under lowland irrigated conditions, rice-rajmash-mungbean was found most
productive (5,210 kg/ha) and remunerative (Rs. 37,515/ha), followed by rice-wheat-
mungbean (4,644 kg/ha and Rs. 33,842 /ha) (Fig 1). However, B: C ratio of rice-
lentil (2.64) and rice - field pea (2.38) was higher than other crop sequences probably
due to low input cost as compared to other pulses. It was also observed that the
yield of summer legumes after rajmash was higher than that after wheat and
chickpea mainly due to timely planting.

Fig.1 System productivity of different pulse based cropping systems

(Source: 25 Years of Pulses Research at IIPR, 2009)

In a long-term study, significantly highest system productivity in terms of

chickpea equivalent yield (CEY) was recorded in case of rice-wheat-mungbean
(10,050 kg/ha), followed by rice-chickpea (8264 kg/ha) and rice-chickpea-rice-wheat
(7305 kg/ha) systems over rice-wheat (Fig 2). In maize based long-term experiment
highest pigeonpea equivalent yield (PEY) was recorded in maize-wheat-mungbean
(5244 kg/ha) as compared to maize-wheat system (3125 kg/ha) (Fig 3). Nitrogen
economy due to preceding pigeonpea was 51 kg N equivalent/ha.

5
Fig.2 System productivity of rice-pulse system under long-term fertlility experiment. (R-W :
Rice-Wheat; R-C : Rice-Chickpea; R-W-Mb : Rice-Wheat-Mungbean; R-C-R-W : Rice-
Chickpea- Rice-Wheat) (Source: IIPR Annual Report 2010-11)

Fig.3 System productivity of maize-pulse system under long-term fertlility experiment (M-W
: Maize-wheat; M-W-Mb : maize-wheat-mungbean, M-W-M-C : Maize-wheat-maize-chickpea;
P-W, Pigeonpea-wheat) (Source: IIPR Annual Report 2010-11)

Intercropping
Intercropping is the practice of growing two or more crops in proximity. The
most common goal of intercropping is to produce a greater yield on a given piece
of land by making use of resources that would otherwise not be utilized by a single
crop. Pulses are generally intercropped with coarse cereals and oilseeds under
rainfed condition in our country. The slow initial growth habit and deep tap root
system makes these crops more suitable for intercropping with cereals and oilseed
crops than any other crop. Apart from increasing profitability and resource use
efficiency, pulses as intercrop act as safeguard under unprecedented moisture stress
condition. Studies conducted at IIPR have also revealed that introduction of pulses

6
as intercrop could reduce the disease and weed intensity. The major intercropping
systems involving pulses are as follows:
Kharif pulses
The early maturing cereals such as sorghum, maize and millets accumulate
dry matter and utilized resources during the initial slow growth period of pigeonpea
offer a good option for intercropping with long duration pigeonpea. As the
reproductive growth of these intercrops does not coincide with pigeonpea, the yield
of cereals is not affected adversely. After harvest of cereals, pigeonpea growth is
compensated and additional pigeonpea yield is obtained.
In sorghum + pigeonpea intercropping system, the highest pigeonpea grain
yield (2,676 kg/ha), PEY (3,146 kg/ha), net return (Rs. 43,303 kg/ha) and B: C ratio
(3.6) were recorded with 2:1 row ratio. In another set of study, highest pigeonpea
yield (23.90 kg/ha) and PEY (27,40 kg/ha) were obtained with Pusa 9 (pigeonpea)
+ DPU 88-31 (urdbean) under 2:1 row ratio. However, pigeonpea cv. Pusa 9 and
groundnut cv. Chitra in 5:2 row ratio was found more productive (4422 kg/ha
Table 2. Yield and land use efficiency as influenced by genotypes and planting geometry
in pigeonpea + groundnut intercropping
Treatment Yield (kg/ha) LER
Pigeonpea Groundnut Pigeonpea
equivalent
Sole cropping
Pigeonpea cv. ICPL 151 626 - 626 1.0
Pigeonpea cv. UPAS 120 1150 - 1150 1.0
Groundnut cv. Chitra 1076 861 1.0
Intercropping ( Pigeonpea + groundnut)
ICPL 151 + Chitra
Additive 2:1 RR 578 238 768 1.14
Replacement 2:2 RR 324 387 634 0.88
2:4 RR 267 347 545 0.75
1:2 RR 133 313 383 0.50
1:4 RR 208 370 504 0.68
UPAS 120 + Chitra
Additive 1:2 RR 1056 204 1219 1.11
Replacement 2:2 RR 857 476 1238 1.19
2:4 RR 445 624 944 0.97
1:2 RR 409 508 815 0.83
1: 4 RR 350 509 757 0.78
LSD (p=0.05) 291
RR: Row ratio (Source: IIPR Annual Report 1997-98)

7
pigeonpea equivalent yield), followed by Bahar + Chitra in 1:1 row ratio. Similarly,
ICPL 151 + Chitra with 2:1 (additive series) and UPAS 120 + Chitra in 2:2
(replacement series) were found most profitable (Table 2).
In pigeonpea+ sorghum intercropping system, spatial arrangement of 2:1 row
ratio on ridge planting system recorded higher pigeonpea equivalent yield and B:
C ratio than 1:1 and mixed planting system.

Pigeonpea + sorghum intercropping (2:1)

Among pigeonpea based intercropping with maize, urdbean and sesame,

pigeonpea + urdbean was found best. Among the pigeonpea genotypes, Pusa 9,
Bahar and urdbean genotype DPU 88-31 were found most compatible.

Pigeonpea + urdbean intercropping

In paired row planting system, pigeonpea + sorghum recorded significantly

higher system productivity in terms of pigeonpea equivalent yield (5792 kg/ha).
Among different varieties/genotypes PDA 10 + sorghum gave highest yield,
followed by Bahar + sorghum and PDA 10 + urdbean.

8
 For long duration pigeonpea + groundnut intercropping system, semi-
spreading type variety Pusa 9 was more productive under 5:2 row ratio, but compact
type variety Bahar recorded 67% yield advantage and 46% higher land use efficiency
under 5:1 row ratio. Among the two spatial arrangements (2:1 and 2:2) for
intercropping pigeonpea + urdbean, 2:1 row ratio was found better.

Pigeonpea + groundnut intercropping

In early pigeonpea + groundnut intercropping system, 2:2 row ratio with row
orientation in North–South direction was found most productive (1,238 kg
pigeonpea equivalent yield/ha) and increased land use efficiency by 90%.
The companion crops viz., urdbean, mungbean, cowpea, soybean and sorghum
of pigeonpea appreciably suppressed the weed flora under both uniform and paired
row planting. However, weed suppression under uniform row planting (1:1) was
considerably higher (30.8%) than paired row planting (16.7%), mainly due to closer
sowing. Among companion crops, cowpea was found to be the most effective with
43.4% weed suppression under uniform row planting and 22.6% under paired row
system.
Pearl millet + urdbean and pearl millet + mungbean particularly under paired
row system (2:1) were found to be highly productive and efficient (LER >2).
Rabi pulses
Chickpea, lentil and rajmash also offer suitable options for intercropping with
cereals and oilseeds. Kabuli chickpea + barley in 3:1 row ratio recorded maximum
productivity and higher LER (1.3) as compared to sole crops (Fig 4). Similarly,
chickpea + linseed intercropping was found highly productive and profitable than
their sole cropping.

9
 Wheat + chickpea intercropping under 2:2 ratio was found more productive
(4769 kg wheat equivalent yield/ha) and LER of 1.20 than two other row ratios.
Application of recommended dose of fertilizer only to wheat was as efficient as
applying the fertilizer to both crops.
Among three genotypes (BG 256, KPG 59 and KWR 108) and three spatial
arrangements (2:1, 4:2 and 6:2), BG 256 with 6:2 row ratio of chickpea + linseed
(Neelam) was found most productive (CEY 2,609 kg/ha), profitable (Rs.18, 531 /
ha) and efficient (LER 1.48) as compared to others (Table 3). Similarly, kabuli chickpea
cv. KAK 2 with mustard cv. Vardan was found most compatible for intercropping.
Table 3. Genotypic compatibility of chickpea intercropped with mustard
Genotype Chickpea yield (kg/ha) Mustard yield Decrease in
Sole Intercrop (kg/ha) intercrop over sole
crop (%)
BG 256 2720 1580 1070 4190
BG 261 2180 1470 1400 3250
BG 267 2440 1380 1400 4340
PBG 84-16 2530 1580 1380 4030
Source: IIPR Annual Report 1993-95

Chickpea + mustard intercropping

Under late sown condition (first week of December), wheat + chickpea

intercropping under 2:2 row ratio was found more productive (4769 kg/ha wheat
equivalent yield) and LER (1.20) than the sole crop of either wheat or chickpea. In
3:1 and 2:1 row ratio, yield of chickpea was affected due to shading effect of wheat.
Lentil and linseed make perfect combination for intercropping as compared
to other rabi crops in rainfed conditions. Under lentil + linseed intercropping system,
lentil variety PL 4076 with 6:2 row ratio was found more compatible than DPL 62

10
and recorded maximum productivity in terms of lentil equivalent yield (2171 kg/
ha) and land use efficiency (21% higher) (Table 4).
Table 4. Yield, land equivalent ratio and net return in lentil + linseed intercropping system
Treatment Yield (kg/ha) LER Net B: C
Lentil Linseed Lentil return ratio
equivalent ( Rs/ha)
yield
Sole cropping
DPL 62 2118 - 2118 1.0 22025 2.88
PL 4076 1944 - 1944 1.0 19579 2.56
Neelam - 1587 1444 1.0 15237 2.37
Intercropping
DPL 62 + Neelam
2:1 979 442 1429 0.74 13684 1.89
3:1 1344 570 1745 0.99 17096 2.33
4:2 1156 613 1714 0.93 16764 2.32
6:2 1427 599 1954 1.05 20022 2.77
PL4076 + Neelam
2:1 1031 613 1589 0.92 15014 2.08
3:1 1513 559 2021 1.13 20960 2.85
4:2 1323 619 1886 1.07 19172 2.65
6:2 1625 600 2171 1.21 23060 3.14
LSD (p=0.05) - 280 -
(Source: 25 Years of Pulses Research at IIPR, 2009)

Lentil + linseed intercropping (2:1)

11
 Rajmash + potato intercropping has been found quite profitable and efficient
in irrigated areas of central Uttar Pradesh. On the basis of rajmash equivalent yield,
intercropping of rajmash + potato was more productive and efficient under all
planting geometry as compared to sole rajmash. However, the highest productivity
(3956 kg/ha) was obtained under 3:2 row ratio of potato + rajmash intercropping
system with 48% increase in land use efficiency (Table 5). Among intercrops, rajmash
+ linseed in 1:1 row ratio at 45 cm spacing proved most efficient with LER of 1.79
and also recorded highest yield (1753 kg/ha). Similarly, rajmash + wheat in 5:1 row
ratio was found efficient.

Table 5. Grain yield and LER under potato + rajmash intercropping system
Cropping system Yield (kg/ha) LER*
Potato Rajmash Rajmash
equivalent
Rajmash sole - 2315 2315 -
Potato sole 24581 - 3090 -
Potato+Rajmash (2:2) 14907 1778 3500 1.37
Potato+Rajmash (3:2) 18150 1722 3956 1.48
Potato+Rajmash (1:2) 9194 2463 3471 1.43
Potato+Rajmash (2:1) 19861 1333 3643 1.38
LSD (p=0.05) 286
*LER: Land Equivalent Ratio; (Source: 25 Years of Pulses Research at IIPR, 2009)

Rajmash + potato intercropping (3:2)

The slow growth during winter season of autumn planted sugarcane is also
ideal for intercropping with winter legumes like pea and lentil. Two lines of lentil
or pea can be planted between sugarcane rows.

12
Spring season
Spring sown sunflower + mungbean in 6:2 row ratio was found most efficient
intercropping system. Intercropping of mungbean variety PS 16 was found most
compatible with sunflowers cv. Modern for intercropping.

Spring planted sugarcane + mungbean intercropping (1:1)

Similarly, due to slow growth and wider row spacing of spring planted
sugarcane provide a good opportunity to grow short duration low statured plants
like mungbean and urdbean. Mungbean has shown advantage over urdbean and
Table 6. Genotypic compatibility of mungbean+urdbean for intercropping with spring
planted sugarcane
Treatment NMC ( 000/ha) Yield
Sugarcane (t/ha) Intercrop (kg/ha)
Sugarcane sole 93.5 76.2 71.2
Sugarcane + mungbean
PDM 11 90.1 71.2 379.6
PDM 54 82.3 62.0 495.9
Pant mung 2 81.9 55.4 503.1
PDM 84-143 87.7 69.9 604.7
Pusa Bold 77.2 53.1 411.7
Sugarcane + urdbean
Pant U 19 82.6 61.5 389.2
PDU 1 81.2 58.3 469.4
Pant U 35 77.2 59.2 372.8
DPU 88-31 91.9 70.2 424.5
NDU 1 76.8 59.2 467.1
LSD ( p=0.05) 12.3 10.5 -
NMC-No. of Mileable cane (Source: 25 Years of Pulses Research at IIPR, 2009)

13
mungbean varieties PDM 11 and PDM 84-143 were found compatible for
intercropping with spring sugarcane (Table 6).

Fig 4. System productivity of chickpea + barley intercropping under different row ratio
(Source: DPR Annual Report 1986-87) CEY : Chickpea equivalent yield

Improving soil health

In rice-wheat system, major concern for sustainability is decline in soil organic
carbon (SOC). The process of decline in SOC can be reversed by inclusion of pulses
in the cereal based system (Fig 5). The improvement in SOC was recorded under
rice-lentil, pigeonpea-wheat and rice-wheat-mungbean/green manure. Similar
observations were also recorded in a long-term trial at IIPR in which SOC
improvement was recorded in rice-chickpea, rice-wheat-mungbean in lowland
situation and maize-chickpea, pigeonpea-wheat and maize-wheat-mungbean
system in comparison to rice-wheat and maize-wheat, respectively.
The inclusion of pulses in cropping system not only increases the availability
of nutrients in the soil but also brings considerable changes in soil physical and
biological properties, resulting in buildup of soil fertility. In a long-term maize
based experiment, improvement in available P, K, S, Zn and B was recorded due to
inclusion of pulses in the system (Table 7). Similar trend was also recorded in low
land rice based cropping system.

14
Table 7. Effect of pulse based cropping systems on soil chemical properties in long-
term experiment
Cropping system Available P Available K Available S DTPA –Zn B
(kg/ha) (kg/ha) (kg/ha) (kg/ha) (kg/ha)
Maize-wheat 16.0 173.0 17.3 0.6 0.9
Maize-wheat- 17.2 186.0 19.4 1.1 0.9
mungbean
Maize-wheat-maize- 18.0 185.9 18.5 0.8 1.0
chickpea
Pigeonpea-wheat 16.8 183.2 19.1 0.8 1.0
Rice-wheat 18.55 234.2 14.10 1.68 0.86
Rice-wheat- 18.37 271.6 16.71 1.60 0.89
mungbean
Rice-wheat-rice- 21.20 247.9 17.54 1.69 0.92
chickpea
Rice-chickpea 21.55 243.4 17.15 1.82 0.93
(Source: IIPR Annual Report 2011-12)

0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
SOC (%)

0.004
0.002
0
Rice-lentil Pigeonpea-wheat Rice-wheat-green manure
-0.002
-0.004
Rice-wheat
-0.006

Fig.5 Changes in soil organic carbon (%) due to different pulse based cropping system
(Source: Singh et al., 1996)

Pulses are known to improve microbial activities in the soil. Pulses release
unused fixed nitrogen to soil which adds to microbial activities in soil. The increase
in nitrogen also helps in improving microbial activities to breakdown carbon rich
residue of non-leguminous crop. Improvement in soil microbial biomass carbon is
also recorded in a long-term study (Table 8). Dehydrogenase activity, an index of
soil microbial activity was also higher after the harvest of legumes in comparison

15
to cereal. Thus, pulses contribute to an increase in diversity of soil flora and fauna
which leads to greater stability of the total life of the soil.

Table 8. Microbial biomass carbon in maize and rice based cropping systems
Cropping system Microbial biomass carbon (µg/g)
Control Crop residue + Inorganic Mean
biofertilizers + fertilizers
FYM @ 5 t/ha (NPKSZnB)
Maize-wheat 247 298 291 279
Maize-wheat-mungbean 327 350 338 338
Maize-wheat-maize- 310 338 334 327
chickpea
Pigeonpea-wheat 295 305 301 300
Rice-wheat 262 305 300 289
Rice-wheat – mungbean 367 376 361 368
Rice-chickpea-rice – wheat 305 342 358 335
Rice-chickpea 301 336 338 325
(Source: Ali and Venkatesh, 2009)

Conservation Tillage and Pulses

Excessive tillage of agricultural soils may result in short term increase in fertility,
but degrade soils in the medium and long run. Structural degradation, loss of organic
matter, erosion and falling biodiversity are all to be expected. Soil erosion resulting
from soil tillage has forced us to look for alternatives and to reverse the process of
soil degradation. This led to promote conservation tillage, and especially zero-tillage
in many parts of the world. Over the last two decades the technologies have been
improved and accepted by the farmers in our country, mostly in Indo-Gangetic
plains. Conservation tillage involves the planting, growing and harvesting of crops
with minimal disturbance to the soil surface. Conservation tillage (CT) is designed
to reduce erosion and maintain or improve soil health and infiltration by reducing
surface sealing and enhancing macropores connectivity and flow.

16
 A study on rabi crops viz., lentil, fieldpea, fababean, lathyrus and chickpea
sown under zero as well as conventional tillage after rice harvest revealed that all
pulses performed equally well under both tillage practices. Similarly in another set
of study, performance of chickpea sown after rice in zero tillage (ZT) was at par
with conventional tillage, however, retention of rice residue on surface had
advantage over no-residue in zero tillage (Table 9).

Chickpea and lentil under mulching

Table 9. Chickpea productivity after rice under different tillage practices
Crop rotation Residue Tillage practice
management Zero Conventional
Rice-chickpea Residue 2020 2033
No-residue 1972 1910
Rice chickpea- Residue 2486 2498
mungbean No-residue 2177 2288
Mean 2164 2182

In a another set of study, higher yield of chickpea was recorded in zero till
drill and ZT dibbling sown chickpea crop when crop residue was retained as mulch
after rice harvest under rainfed condition (Table 10). The increase in chickpea
productivity was up to 28 per cent in comparison to conventional tillage. Leaf water
content at flowering stage was also higher under zero tillage practices (Fig 6). Soil
moisture dynamics was also worked out under the same set of study which revealed
that initial depletion of soil moisture is higher under zero tillage, while at flowering
and pod filling stages zero tillage + mulching retained higher soil moisture which
lead to higher yield of chickpea under rainfed conditions (Fig 7).

17
Table 10. Effect of conservation tillage on chickpea productivity in rice-chickpea system
Treatment Chickpea yield Increase over
(kg/ha) conventional tillage (%)
ZT dibbling + mulching 1660 28.2
No till drill + mulching 1589 22.7
Deep tillage 1314 1.5
Deep tillage + mulching 1482 14.4
Conventional 1295 -
CD (P=0.05) 115 -
(Source: IIPR Annual Report 2010-11)

Fig. 6. Relative water content of chickpea leaf at flowering stage under rainfed condition
(Source: IIPR, Annual Report, 2010-11)

Residue Management and Pulses

Crop residues are portions of plants remaining after seed harvest. Residues
are important in nutrient distribution and plant growth and they affect the amount
of soil nutrients available to crops. Plant residues influence N cycling in soils because
they are primary sources and sinks for C and N. Residues allow N to be available to
plants for longer period of time through initially immobilizing, and then gradually
mineralizing N. However, in many parts of the tropics, crop residues are burnt in
the field due to the ignorance of farmers about their value and lack of proper
technology for in situ incorporation of residues (Samra et al., 2003). One tonne
straw on burning releases 3 kg particulate matter, 60 kg CO, 1460 kg CO2, 199 kg

18
ash and 2 kg SO42-. The heat from burning cereal straw can penetrate into soil up to
1 cm, elevating the temperature to as high as 42.2oC. About 32-76% of straw weight
and 27-73% N are lost in burning. Bacterial and fungal populations are decreased
immediately upon burning.

0-15 cm 15-30 cm

30-45 cm 45-60 cm
Fig 7. Soil moisture dynamics at different soil depth (0-15, 15-30, 30-45 and 45-60 cm) under
conservation tillage (ZT: Zero tillage, Dib: Dibbling, M: Mulching, DT: Deep tillage, Conv.:
Conventional tillage)

Pulses also contribute to soil organic matter by leaf litter. It was observed that
long duration pigeonpea in northern India can add up to 2.8 t/ha leaf litter during
whole crop season, whereas chickpea up to 1.7 t/ha. On an average, nutrients
contribution by these leaf litters varies between 8-15 kg N, 2.5-5.0 kg P and 8-24 kg
K per hectare.
Besides supplementing the fertilizers, incorporation of crop residues is also
important for improvement of soil properties and thereby increasing productivity
and fertilizer use efficiency. In rice-chickpea sequence, yield of chickpea was
significantly influenced by rice-residue incorporation and highest seed yield was

19
 Mungbean crop under residue incorporation

obtained with incorporation of chopped straw + irrigation + 20 kg N/ha, while

lowest yield was obtained in rice residue removal treatment. Incorporation of
chopped residue of mungbean + irrigation + 20 kg N/ha resulted in maximum
wheat yield (4495 kg/ha) which was significantly higher (38%) than control
(Fig 8).
Rice Chickpea
4000

3000
Grain yield (kg/ha)

2000

1000

0
Removal Partial Incorp. + Incorp.+ N Incorp. +
burning Irrig. Irrig. + N

Method of residue incorporation

Fig. 8. Effect of residue incorporation on grain yield (kg/ha) of rice and chickpea in system
(Source: 25 Years of Pulses Research at IIPR, 2009)

Incorporation of urdbean and mungbean residue raised the organic carbon

level by 35.48% over control. Residue incorporation also resulted in higher soil
available N (24.6%), P (11.5%), and K (18.5%) over the initial fertility levels. Soil
physical parameters measured viz., bulk density, particle density, percent pore space
and WHC also improved under residue incorporation plots over residue removal
plots (Table 11). In same set of study, periodic changes in soil microbial biomass
carbon (SMBC) were also recorded. The results revealed increase in SMBC up to 56

20
days after incorporation of urdbean and mungbean under chopping + incorporation
+ irrigation (Table 12). Similar trend was also observed after harvest of wheat crop.
The ratio of microbial carbon to soil organic carbon was also higher under chopping
+ incorporation + irrigation.
Table 11. Effect of crop residue incorporation on soil physical properties
Treatments Bulk Density Particle Pore space WHC
(g/cc) Density (g/cc) (%) (%)
Residue magement
Mungbean 1 1.38 2.42 45.5 37.3
Urdbean 1 1.39 2.39 44.65 38.3
Mungbean 2 1.38 2.38 46.80 38.3
Urdbean 2 1.38 2.40 47.00 41.60
Mungbean 3 1.34 2.38 47.32 42.50
Urdbean 3 1.35 2.39 48.23 45.10
Mungbean 4 1.32 2.36 49.63 46.40
Urdbean 4 1.33 2.35 48.20 45.90
Control 1.44 2.50 38.15 33.40
CD (p=0.05) 0.05 0.10 3.51 3.8
Note: 1- Incorporation; 2- Incorporation + irrigation; 3- Chopping + incorporation; 4- Chopping +
incorporation + irrigation (Source: Singh et al., 2012)

Table 12. Effect of residue incorporation on periodic changes in microbial biomass carbon
and organic carbon content in soil
Treatment Periodic changes in soil microbial biomass After wheat harvest
carbon after residue incorporation (µg /100 g)
7 14 33 56 Microbial Ratio of
biomass microbial
carbon carbon to soil
(µg /100 g) organic carbon
(%)
Residue management
Mungbean1 335 347 345 351 262 6.71
Urdbean1 270 178 282 264 222 5.28
Mungbean2 345 351 358 367 322 8.25
Urdbean2 230 237 237 230 312 7.60
Mungbean3 348 369 363 378 327 9.08
Urdbean3 330 351 343 351 337 9.10
Mungbean4 355 395 377 391 320 9.14
Urdbean4 320 359 375 327 347 9.37
Control 240 242 268 248 132 4.25
CD (P=0.05) 4.78 4.81 5.16 4.96 39.8 NS
Note: 1- Incorporation; 2- Incorporation + irrigation; 3- Chopping + incorporation; 4- Chopping +
incorporation + irrigation (Source: Singh et al., 2012)

21
 Pulses Under Raised Bed Planting System
Technology of raising row crops on beds and furrows system is gaining
popularity amongst the progressive farmers, mainly because the cost of crop
production is considerably reduced as a result of minimum tillage, water saving,
etc. Bed shapers/makers are used behind the tractors to form beds and furrows to
sow row crops. Some of the advantages associated with furrow irrigated raised
bed (FIRB) technology of crop production are:
 Savings of about 30-40 percent irrigation water.
 Reduce seed requirement and fertilizers (by 25-30%) as compared with flat
system.
 Reduce chances of plant submergence due to excessive rain or over irrigation.
 Less crusting of soil around plants and, therefore, more suitable for saline and
sodic soils.
 Adaptable for various crops without changing basic design/layout of farm.
 Enhance resource use efficiency due to local application and effective utilization
by plants.
 Minimize the chances of lodging of crops, especially during rainy season.
 Reduce tillage under permanent beds reduces cost of labour and other inputs
like fertilizers and seeds.
 Provide opportunities to take additional green leafy vegetables in furrows.
The study conducted at IIPR revealed that in rice-lentil system, raised bed
enhanced the lentil yield by 16.5% over flat bed sowing. Increase in phosphorus
from 25 kg/ha to 50 kg/ha did not show significant increase in lentil yield under
raised bed as in case of flat bed system of planting. Similarly, lentil yield under 20
kg S/ha was at par with 40 kg S/ha in raised bed and significantly higher in flat
bed. The nodulation in lentil was also higher under raised bed (Fig 9).
In another set of study raised bed size and number of lines per bed was
evaluated. The study revealed that performance of chickpea and urdbean under 75
cm raised bed size was better than 67.5 cm and flat bed and the 2 lines per bed was
at par with 3 lines per bed.
The increase in grain yield of chickpea in raised bed of size 75 cm was 20.2%
and in 67.5 cm was 15.6% over flat bed planting. In case of urdbean, the yield increase
was 32.9% and 29.7% under 75 and 67.5 cm raised bed planting over flat bed (Table
13). In the same set of study, yields of urdbean and chickpea at 75% of recommended

22
23
 Intercropping of chickpea on raised bed and spinach in furrows

seed rate and fertilizer were at par with 100% under raised bed planting system.
Therefore, 25% seed and fertilizer inputs cost can be saved following raised planting
system. The better plant growth and relative leaf water content have attributed the
higher yield under raised bed planting system (Fig 10). Total irrigation water
requirement under raised bed chickpea was 40-45% less than flat bed system and
hence the water productivity was higher under raised bed (Fig 11).

Table 13. Effect of planting methods on urdbean productivity

Planting methods Chickpea Urdbean
Grain yield Per cent Grain Per cent increase
(q/ha) increase over yield over conventional
conventional (q/ha)
Bed planting (67.5 cm) 14.69 15.6 10.0 29.7
Bed planting (75 cm) 15.28 20.2 10.25 32.9
Conventional (flat bed) 12.71 7.71
CD (P=0.05) 1.16 1.33
Source: Annual report 2010-11

24
 30

32

20

15

10

0
Nodules Test weight (g) Grain yield
DW/plant (mg) (q/ha)

Fig. 9. Nodule dry weight, test weight and grain yield of lentil under raised bed system

Fig. 10. Relative leaf water content of chickpea at flowering under different planting systems

Fig. 11. Yield (q/ha) and WUE (kg/ha-mm) of chickpea under different planting system

25
 Farm Mechanization and Pulses
Farm mechanization is the need of hour to improve the land and labour
productivity. The rising wage rates and non-availability of manpower during peak
hours further strengthen the case for mechanization. The factors that justify the
strengthening of farm mechanization are numerous. The timeliness of operations
and increasing precision in input application with minimum cost demand for more
use of farm machinery. The various operations such as land preparation, leveling,
sowing planting, irrigation, fertilizers application , plant protection, harvesting and
threshing need a high degree of precision to increase the efficiency of the inputs
and reduce the losses. For example, sowing of the required quantity of seed at
proper depth and uniform application of given dose of fertilizer can only be possible
with the use of proper mechanical devices. However, when such operations are
performed through indigenous methods, their efficiency is reduced. The time taken
to perform sequence of operations is a factor determining the cropping intensity.
To ensure timeliness of various operations, it is quite inevitable to use such
mechanical equipments which have higher output capacity and cut down the
number of operations to be performed. This has helped in increasing area under
cultivation and cropping intensity. The benefits of mechanization can be utilized
not only by the farmers having large holdings, but even farmers with small holdings
can utilize selected improved farm equipments through custom hiring to increase
productivity and reduce cost of production.
The development, standardization and adoption of suitable farm machinery
for conservation agriculture including seeding with minimum soil disturbance
keeping residue maintained on the soil surface and developing harvesting
equipment are of major concern. To fetch the benefit of CA, the machinery suitable
to CA must be adapted to small landholder farmers and to different ecological
conditions. The main criteria which should be considered during the development
are that the machines should be suitable for use in small farms, easily repairable
and maintainable, inexpensive, and environmental friendly. The role of farm
mechanization in CA especially in rainfed regions would need to be very specific
and could include:
 Suitable equipments able to plant into unploughed soil.
 Direct seeders need to be designed to seed in the surface mulch in untilled
soils.
 Equipments for small farmers for sowing specific crops under CA need to be
made available.

26
Raised bed planter
The ridge/ raised bed planting of crops not only ensure desired plant stand of
the crop but also minimize the incidence of phytophthora stem blight as through
proper drainage. It avoids the negative effects of ponding and associated water
logging. This method increases water use efficiency by saving irrigation water as it
is applied only in the furrows requiring less volume of water, which works out to
be 20-30% water saving as compared to flat method. The other advantages of raise
bed technology include:
 Saving of seed and fertilizer Zby over 25%
 Less problem of Phalaris minor
 Mechanical weed control between rows by adjustment of drill
 Less lodging of crops
 Promotion of para-cropping i.e., moong/green manure crops in furrow before
wheat harvest
 Diversified application for legume crops etc.

Happy Seeder
Happy Seeder was developed by PAU, Ludhiana, in collaboration with
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research was developed for residue
covered fields. This handles high rates of residue and seeds either on beds or on
the flat. A combination of two machines, a forage harvester and a zero tillage drill
using inverted T winged openers. The chopped material is blown directly behind
the drill and floats down as mulch. The ‘Turbo Happy Seeder’ is a modified,
advanced and light weight version of the ‘Happy Seeder’ to plant in presence of
loose and or anchored residues. Turbo seeder differs from Happy Seeder in type of
the cutting blades, provision for adjustment of the rows, seed metering system and
is lighter in weight. This machine works satisfactorily in combine harvested fields.

Star wheels drill

Direct drilling in combine harvested rice field requires drill capable of cutting
through large quantities of crop residue, penetrating untilled soil and dropping
seed 25 to 50 mm deep. Disc openers meant for trashy conditions, fail to cut through
the crop residue resulting in the seed being placed either in the residue or on the
soil surface. In softer soil the trash is pushed into the bottom of the furrow without
being cut. With fixed type furrow openers drill, crop residue tends to collect in
front of the Tyne and block the machine operation. Therefore, there is need to

27
develop a device which may cut residue and help the openers to penetrate up to
desired depth for seeding. The star wheels drills are designed to plant into high
density of crop residues in high-yielding irrigated conditions but the main
limitations is proper planting depth. However, this limitation can be managed by
using proper management of irrigation at seeding.

Laser land leveler

Land leveling is necessary for
good agronomic, soil and crop
management practices. It saves
irrigation water, facilitates field
operations and increases yield and
quality of the produce. Leveled land
also helps in smooth operations of
various farm machineries during
field operations. The main
components of laser guided land
leveler are Laser transmitter, Laser
receiver mounted on electric manual Laser Land Leveler
mast and one receiver is used for
mapping, control box, electric/ manual mast fitted on the leveler, external hydraulic
system of leveler and drag scraper. The major advantages of laser land leveler are:
 Precise leveling and smooth surface
 Reduction in time and water required to irrigate the field
 Uniform distribution of water
 Increased crop yields (10-20%)
 Control over soil salinity and water logging
 Increase in fertilizer uptake efficiency
 Increase of machinery use efficiency by up to 30%
 Increase in cultivable land area by 2-5%.

Direct drilling (No-Till Drilling)

It is a practical tool to use crop residues and explore its advantages. Rabi pulses
after rice are generally delayed due to late harvesting of rice, soil wetness, poor rice
residue management and multiplicity of tillage operations, scarcity of power source
and appropriate farm equipment during peak hours and some time even arrivals

28
of rain in the month of November. The
major advantages of Zero-till drill
through various field experiences
include:
 Savings in cost of seed bed
preparation of approximately by
Rs. 2,500 to 3,000 per ha
 Savings in fuel from 37.3 to 70
liters of diesel/ha dependent on
soil condition
Zero Till-cum-Fertilizer Drill
 Saving in time through seed bed
preparation and sowing
 Advancement in sowing time over conventional system by 2 weeks depending
upon soil conditions
 Saving in water up to 30%

Rice Fallow and No-till Drill

The timely sowing of pulses is crucial in view of the moisture deficit during
critical periods in the rice fallow conditions. The farmers usually broadcast the
seeds to take advantage of residual moisture in rice fallow. The mechanization in
such conditions needs development, standardization and adoption of farm
machinery for direct seeding under residue retained on the soil surface.
The small landholder farmers, apart from broadcasting, also sow the seeds in
the furrow opened with the help of hand plough. The hand plough generally opens
wide and shallow furrow (trapezoidal shape), in which poor germination as well
as plant stand establishment is observed. This practice is also inconvenient, labour
intensive and not suitable for rice fallow.
Keeping in view of this situation, a low-cost manually operated No-Till Drill
for small farmers, having low purchasing power, was developed for line sowing in
rice fallow. This helps more moisture retention as least soil disturbance occurs. By
use of this no-till drill, the seeding is done timely at a reduced cost. It has field
capacity of 0.05 ha/h with two manpower against four manpower needed for hand

29
plough and is expected to be used for working on 20 ha per year. The cost of
operating manual zero-till drill is Rs.845/ha as against Rs.1690/ha incurred in hand
plough (Table 14 & 15).

Table 14. Comparative economics of manual operated No-till drill

Particulars Manually Operated Sowing with Hand
No-Till Drill Plough
Labour Requirement, Man-h/ha 40 80-100
Field Capacity, ha/h 0.05 0.04-0.05
Cost of operation, Rs/ha 845 1690
Energy Consumption, MJ ha-1 78.4 149-186.25

Table 15. Details of manually operated No-till drill

Particulars Specification Field performance
Overall dimensions (LxBxH), 970x520x1070 Operating speed, km/h =
mm 2.0-3.0
Source of power Manual Field capacity, ha/h = 0.05
Type/no. of furrow openers Inverted ‘T’ type/01 Labour requirement,
Man-h/ha = 40
Metering mechanism Fluted roller Cost of operation, Rs/ha = 845
Drive wheel Circular ring - front
mounted
Seed placement depth (mm) 30-50mm, adjustable

Sowing with the help of Hand Plough with Sowing with the help of No-Till Drill with two
four manpower manpower

30
 Critical Gaps and Researchable Issues
 The success of conservation agriculture in rainfed areas depends on two critical
elements, viz., residue retention on surface and weed control. Since residues
are generally used as fodder in drylands, there is a need to determine the
minimum residue that can be retained without affecting the crop-livestock
system. Initially, emphasis may be given for crops whose residues are not
used as fodder.
 More research is needed on weed management under minimum tillage in a
cropping system perspective.
 Identification of alternative sources of fodder for livestock to spare crop residue
for conservation farming.
 Identification of critical thresholds of tillage for various rainfall, soil and
cropping systems, so that the main objectives of rainwater conservation are
not compromised. This will balance the need for conserving soil and capture
rainwater in the profile.
 Farm implements needed for seed and fertilizer placement simultaneously for
ensuring optimum plant stand, early seedling vigour in rainfed crops under
minimum tillage.
 Control of termites in order to enhance the value of residue left on surface
during long interval period between two crops.
 Scarce crop residue leads to strong competition between soil and animals.
 In prolonged dry seasons the demand for residue is the greater, no farmer will
sacrifice residue in dry land areas.
 In irrigated region (Indo-Gangetic plains) production leads to high/ more
crops/year therefore residue competition is less.
 Managing feed supplies over the transition period from conventional
agriculture to CA system is a problem.

31
 References
25 Years of Pulses Research at IIPR. 2009. Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur.
Abrol, I.P., 1999. Sustaining Rice-Wheat system productivity in Indo-Gangatic
plains: water management related issues. Agricultural Water Management 40,
31-35.
Ali, M. and Venkatesh, M.S. 2009. Pulses in improving soil health. Indian farming
58 (11) : 18-22.
Annual Reports. 1986-2012. Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur.
Samra, J.S., Bijay-Singh, Kumar, K., 2003. Managing crop residues in the rice-wheat
system of the Indo-Gangetic plain. In: Improving the Productivity and
Sustainability of Rice-Wheat Systems: Issues and Impact. ASA, Spec. Publ. 65
(J. K. Ladha, J. E. Hill, J. M. Duxbury, R. K. Gupta, and R. J. Buresh, Eds.).pp
173–195. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI.
Singh, K.K. Srinivasarao, C.H., Swarnalakshmi, K., Ganeshamurthy, A.N. and
Narendra Kumar. 2012. Influence of legume residues management and nitrogen
doses on succeeding wheat yield and soil properties in Indo-Gangetic Plains
Journal of Food Legumes 25(2): 116-120.
Subbarao NS. 1988. Biological nitrogen fixation: Recent developments. Oxford and
IBH publication. pp. 1-19.

32
army printing press
www.armyprintingpress.com
Lucknow (0522) 6565333