Abstract
The future of South Asia’s major production system (rice–wheat rotation) is at stake due to continuously aggravating pressure on groundwater aquifers and other natural resources which will further intensify with climate change. Traditional practices, conventional tillage (CT) residue burning, and indiscriminate use of groundwater with flood irrigation are the major drivers of the non-sustainability of rice–wheat (RW) system in northwest (NW) India. For designing sustainable practices in intensive cereal systems, we conducted a study on bundled practices (zero tillage, residue mulch, precise irrigation, and mung bean integration) based on multi-indicator (system productivity, profitability, and efficiency of water, nitrogen, and energy) analysis in RW system. The study showed that bundling conservation agriculture (CA) practices with subsurface drip irrigation (SDI) saved ~70 and 45% (3-year mean) of irrigation water in rice and wheat, respectively, compared to farmers’ practice/CT practice (pooled data of Sc1 and Sc2; 1,035 and 318 mm ha −1 ). On a 3-year system basis, CA with SDI scenarios (mean of Sc5–Sc8) saved 35.4% irrigation water under RW systems compared to their respective CA with flood irrigation (FI) scenarios (mean of Sc3 and Sc4) during the investigation irrespective of residue management. CA with FI system increased the water productivity (WPi) and its use efficiency (WUE) by ~52 and 12.3% (3-year mean), whereas SDI improved by 221.2 and 39.2% compared to farmers practice (Sc1; 0.69 kg grain m −3 and 21.39 kg grain ha −1 cm −1 ), respectively. Based on the 3-year mean, CA with SDI (mean of Sc5–Sc8) recorded −2.5% rice yield, whereas wheat yield was +25% compared to farmers practice (Sc1; 5.44 and 3.79 Mg ha −1 ) and rice and wheat yield under CA with flood irrigation were increased by +7 and + 11%, compared to their respective CT practices. Mung bean integration in Sc7 and Sc8 contributed to ~26% in crop productivity and profitability compared to farmers’ practice (Sc1) as SDI facilitated advancing the sowing time by 1 week. On a system basis, CA with SDI improved energy use efficiency (EUE) by ~70% and partial factor productivity of N by 18.4% compared to CT practices. In the RW system of NW India, CA with SDI for precise water and N management proved to be a profitable solution to address the problems of groundwater, residue burning, sustainable intensification, and input (water and energy) use with the potential for replication in large areas in NW India.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 17
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation agriculture with drip irrigation saved about 70% irrigation water in rice.
- Taxon
- rice
Oryza sativae0 - Treatment
- conservation agriculture (CA) practices with subsurface drip irrigation (SDI)e0
- Outcome
- irrigation watere0
- Direction
- savede0
- Value
- ~70e0
- Comparator
- farmers’ practice/CT practicee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“bundling conservation agriculture (CA) practices with subsurface drip irrigation (SDI) saved ~70 and 45% (3-year mean) of irrigation water in rice and wheat, respectively, compared to farmers’ practice/CT practice”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation agriculture with drip irrigation saved about 45% irrigation water in wheat.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- conservation agriculture (CA) practices with subsurface drip irrigation (SDI)e0
- Outcome
- irrigation watere0
- Direction
- savede0
- Value
- 45%e0
- Comparator
- farmers’ practice/CT practicee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“bundling conservation agriculture (CA) practices with subsurface drip irrigation (SDI) saved ~70 and 45% (3-year mean) of irrigation water in rice and wheat, respectively, compared to farmers’ practice/CT practice”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation scenarios saved 35.4% irrigation water compared with conservation agriculture and flood irrigation.
Verbatim
e0“CA with SDI scenarios (mean of Sc5–Sc8) saved 35.4% irrigation water under RW systems compared to their respective CA with flood irrigation (FI) scenarios”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation agriculture with flood irrigation increased water productivity by about 52%.
- Taxon
- mung bean
.jpg?width=60)
Vigna radiatat0 - Treatment
- CA with FI systeme0
- Outcome
- water productivity (WPi)e0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- ~52e0
- Comparator
- farmers practicee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“CA with FI system increased the water productivity (WPi) and its use efficiency (WUE) by ~52 and 12.3% (3-year mean), whereas SDI improved by 221.2 and 39.2% compared to farmers practice”
t0“mung bean with intensive cereal systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation agriculture with flood irrigation increased water use efficiency by 12.3%.
- Taxon
- mung beanVigna radiatat0
- Treatment
- CA with FI systeme0
- Outcome
- use efficiency (WUE)e0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 12.3%e0
- Comparator
- farmers practicee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CA with FI system increased the water productivity (WPi) and its use efficiency (WUE) by ~52 and 12.3% (3-year mean), whereas SDI improved by 221.2 and 39.2% compared to farmers practice”
t0“mung bean with intensive cereal systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation improved water productivity by 221.2%.
- Taxon
- mung beanVigna radiatat0
- Treatment
- SDIe0
- Outcome
- water productivitye0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Value
- 221.2e0
- Comparator
- farmers practicee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CA with FI system increased the water productivity (WPi) and its use efficiency (WUE) by ~52 and 12.3% (3-year mean), whereas SDI improved by 221.2 and 39.2% compared to farmers practice”
t0“mung bean with intensive cereal systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation improved water use efficiency by 39.2%.
- Taxon
- mung beanVigna radiatat0
- Treatment
- SDIe0
- Outcome
- use efficiencye0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Value
- 39.2%e0
- Comparator
- farmers practicee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CA with FI system increased the water productivity (WPi) and its use efficiency (WUE) by ~52 and 12.3% (3-year mean), whereas SDI improved by 221.2 and 39.2% compared to farmers practice”
t0“mung bean with intensive cereal systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation agriculture with drip irrigation reduced rice yield by 2.5%.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae0
- Treatment
- CA with SDIe0
- Outcome
- rice yielde0
- Direction
- −2.5%e0
- Value
- −2.5%e0
- Comparator
- farmers practicee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CA with SDI (mean of Sc5–Sc8) recorded −2.5% rice yield, whereas wheat yield was +25% compared to farmers practice”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation agriculture with drip irrigation increased wheat yield by 25%.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- CA with SDIe0
- Outcome
- wheat yielde0
- Direction
- +25%e0
- Value
- +25%e0
- Comparator
- farmers practicee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CA with SDI (mean of Sc5–Sc8) recorded −2.5% rice yield, whereas wheat yield was +25% compared to farmers practice”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation agriculture with flood irrigation increased rice yield by 7%.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae0
- Treatment
- CA with flood irrigatione0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- +7e0
- Comparator
- CT practicese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“rice and wheat yield under CA with flood irrigation were increased by +7 and + 11%, compared to their respective CT practices”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation agriculture with flood irrigation increased wheat yield by 11%.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- CA with flood irrigatione0
- Outcome
- wheat yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- + 11%e0
- Comparator
- CT practicese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“rice and wheat yield under CA with flood irrigation were increased by +7 and + 11%, compared to their respective CT practices”
Claim · model-written summary
Mung bean integration contributed about 26% to crop productivity.
- Taxon
- Mung beanVigna radiatae0
- Treatment
- Mung bean integration in Sc7 and Sc8e0
- Outcome
- crop productivitye0
- Direction
- contributede0
- Value
- ~26%e0
- Comparator
- farmers’ practice (Sc1)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mung bean integration in Sc7 and Sc8 contributed to ~26% in crop productivity and profitability compared to farmers’ practice (Sc1)”
Claim · model-written summary
Mung bean integration contributed about 26% to profitability.
- Taxon
- Mung beanVigna radiatae0
- Treatment
- Mung bean integration in Sc7 and Sc8e0
- Outcome
- profitabilitye0
- Direction
- contributede0
- Value
- ~26%e0
- Comparator
- farmers’ practice (Sc1)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mung bean integration in Sc7 and Sc8 contributed to ~26% in crop productivity and profitability compared to farmers’ practice (Sc1)”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation advanced mung bean sowing by one week.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“SDI facilitated advancing the sowing time by 1 week”
t0“mung bean”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation agriculture with drip irrigation improved energy use efficiency by about 70%.
- Taxon
- mung beanVigna radiatat0
- Treatment
- CA with SDIe0
- Outcome
- energy use efficiency (EUE)e0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Value
- ~70%e0
- Comparator
- CT practicese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CA with SDI improved energy use efficiency (EUE) by ~70% and partial factor productivity of N by 18.4% compared to CT practices”
t0“mung bean with intensive cereal systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Conservation agriculture with drip irrigation improved nitrogen partial factor productivity by 18.4%.
- Taxon
- mung beanVigna radiatat0
- Treatment
- CA with SDIe0
- Outcome
- partial factor productivity of Ne0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Value
- 18.4%e0
- Comparator
- CT practicese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CA with SDI improved energy use efficiency (EUE) by ~70% and partial factor productivity of N by 18.4% compared to CT practices”
t0“mung bean with intensive cereal systems”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude that conservation agriculture with drip irrigation is profitable for the regional rice–wheat system.
Verbatim
e0“In the RW system of NW India, CA with SDI for precise water and N management proved to be a profitable solution”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · physiology: water · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
96 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
113 papers more in this group
See all 117 papers →flooding · physiology: water · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Positive and negative results
2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
irrigation · physiology: water · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →tillage · physiology: water · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
39 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
40 papers more in this group
See all 44 papers →irrigation · yield · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Positive and negative results
62 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
71 papers more in this group
See all 75 papers →tillage · yield · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Positive and negative results
66 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
77 papers more in this group
See all 81 papers →flooding · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 84 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
98 papers more in this group
See all 102 papers →flooding · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
192 papers in the same direction as this paper · 82 in the opposite direction · 11 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
282 papers more in this group
See all 286 papers →8 of 15 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.