Response of mechanization levels and in-situ rainwater-conservation practices, their dynamics on production potential of soybean [Glycine max] under rainfed condition

B.V. ASEWAR; M.S. PENDKE; S.H. NARALE; A.K. GORE; G. RAVINDRA CHARY; K.A. GOPINATH

doi:10.59797/ija.v65i4.3009

Authors

B.V. ASEWAR
M.S. PENDKE
S.H. NARALE
A.K. GORE
G. RAVINDRA CHARY
K.A. GOPINATH

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.59797/ija.v65i4.3009

Keywords:

Broad bed and furrow, Economics, Energy, Infiltration, Mechanization, Ridges and Furrow, Seed yield, Soybean

Abstract

A field experiment was conducted on medium black soils at All-India Coordinated Research Project for Dryland Agriculture, Parbhani, Maharashtra, during the rainy (kharif) seasons of 2016 to 2018, to evaluate the effect of mechanization practices coupled with different in-situ rainwater-conservation practices on soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] . The treatments comprising complete mechanization, partial mechanization and traditional methods of cultivation (flatbed) were evaluated for rainfed MAUS 162 soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] along with subplot treatments of broad bed and furrow (BBF), ridges and furrow and flatbed. Complete mechanization in soybean resulted in higher seed yield, gross monetary returns, net monetary returns, benefit: cost ratio and rainwater-use efficiency. In-situ moisture-conservation practices such as BBF and ridges and furrow method of sowing recorded the highest seed yield (25.23 and 15.71% increase), net monetary returns (51.95%, 30.7%) and rainwater use efficiency (25% and 15%) as compared to traditional method of cultivation. Complete mechanization along with BBF method of sowing in soybean proved be significantly superior to all treatment combinations with respect to seed yield, net monetary returns and rainwater-use efficiency. The highest energy output-input ratio (10.2) was observed in complete mechanization with BBF method of sowing

References

Bader, M.J., Sumner, P.E. and Culpepper, A.S. 2001. Harvest-aid application technology Cotton Harvest Management: Use and Influence of Harvest Aids. T (pp. 143): The Cotton Foundation Book Series. The Cotton Foundation, Publisher Memphis, TN, USA.

Blaise, D., Singh, J.V. and Bonde, A.N. 2009. Response of rainfed cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) to foliar application of potassium. Indian Journal of Agronomy 54(4): 444448

CPG. 2020. Crop Production Guide. Tamil Nadu Agricultural University: Coimbatore, India DCD. 2017. Status Paper of Indian Cotton: Directorate of Cotton Development, Government of India. Effrey Suttle C, 1985. involvement of Ethylene in the Action of the Cotton Defoliant Thidiazuron. Plant Physiology 78(2): 272

Fatullateshaev and Khaitov, B. 2015. Effect of defoliants and fertilizers on yield and quality of upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Journal of Cotton Research and Development,

(1): 5760. Gomez, K.A., Gomez, K.A., and Gomez, A.A. 1984. Statistical pro

cedures for agricultural research: John Wiley & Sons.

Green, P. N. 1992. The genus methylobacterium. The prokaryotes.

Grewal, H.S., and Kolar, J.S. 1990. Response of Brassica juncea to chlorocholine chloride and ethrel sprays in association with nitrogen application. The Journal of Agricultural Science 114(1): 8791.

Kannan, V., Srinivasan, G., Babu, R., Thiyageshwari, S., and Sivakumar, T. 2017. Effect of Biochar, Mulch and PPFM Spray on Leaf Relative Water Content, Leaf Proline, Chlorophyll Stability Index and Yield of Cotton under Moisture Stress Condition. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences 6(6): 604611.

Kulvir Singh, Pankaj Rathore. 2015. Effect of different defoliants and their rate and time of application on American cotton cultivars under semi-arid conditions of north-western India. Research on Crops. 16(2): 258263.

Nerkar, P.S., Gautam, V.S. and Bedekar, M.M. 2017. Evaluation of Techno-Economic Aspects of Mechanized Cotton Harvesting Process. International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology. 3(2): 168174.

Rajni, Deol, J.S., and Brar, A.S. 2011. Effect of chemical defoliation on boll opening percentage, yield and quality parameters of Bt Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) Indian Journal of Agronomy 56(1): 7477.

Sarlach, R., Sohu, S., and M.S. Gill, R. 2010. Effect of ethrel on yield and fibre quality traits in upland cotton. Crop Improvement 37(1): 8386.

Sexton, R. and Roberts, J.A. 1982. Cell biology of abscission. Annual Review of Plant Physiology 33(1): 133162.

Sindarov, O. 2007. Efficiency of Sardor defoliant to cotton variety S-6524 grown in different irrigation mode. Journal Agro-Ilm, 2(6): 1213.

Snipes Charles, E., and Baskin Charles, C. 1994. Influence of early defoliation on cotton yield, seed quality, and fiber properties. Field Crops Research 37(2): 137143.

Sudhir Rajpoot, K., Rana, D.S., Anil Choudhary, K. and Pooja, Pande. 2019. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) establishment methods based system-intensification: Effects on Bt-cotton growth, weed suppression, system crop and water productivity, system-profitability and landuse efficiency in Indo Gangetic plains region. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 89(2): 253260.

Wright, D. and Brecke, B. 2009. Cotton defoliation and harvest aid guide: Publication SS-AGR-181. University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Cooperative Extension Program r UF/IFAS Extension publications, University of Florida.