Next Article in Journal
The Effects of Digital Leadership and ESG Management on Organizational Innovation and Sustainability
Previous Article in Journal
Isolation of Biosurfactant-Producing Bacteria and Their Co-Culture Application in Microbial Fuel Cell for Simultaneous Hydrocarbon Degradation and Power Generation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 23
10.3390/su142315641
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Impacts of Mechanized Crop Residue Management on Rice-Wheat Cropping System—A Review

by
Santosh Korav
1,
Gandhamanagenahalli A. Rajanna
2,*,
Dharam Bir Yadav
3,
Venkatesh Paramesha
4,
Chandra Mohan Mehta
1,
Prakash Kumar Jha
5,
Surendra Singh
6 and
Shikha Singh
7
1
Department of Agronomy, School of Agriculture, Lovely Professional University (Phagwara), Phagwara 144411, India
2
ICAR-Directorate of Groundnut Research, Junagadh 362001, India
3
RRS Bawal, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, Hisar 125004, India
4
Department of Natural Resource Management, ICAR-Central Coastal Agricultural Research Institute, Old Goa 403402, India
5
Sustainable Intensification Innovation Lab, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA
6
Columbia Basin Agricultural Research Center, Oregon State University, Adams, OR 97810, USA
7
Hermiston Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Oregon State University, Hermiston, OR 97838, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(23), 15641; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315641
Submission received: 20 October 2022 / Revised: 16 November 2022 / Accepted: 21 November 2022 / Published: 24 November 2022
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Residue management has become a new challenge for Indian agriculture and agricultural growth, as well as environmental preservation. The rice-wheat cropping system (RWCS) is predominantly followed cropping system in the Indo-Gangetic plain (IGP), resulting in generating a large volume of agricultural residue. Annually, India produces 620 MT of crop residue, with rice and wheat accounting for 234 MT of the surplus and 30% of the total. Farmers are resorting to burning crop residue due to the short window between paddy harvest and seeding of rabi season crops, namely wheat, potato, and vegetables, for speedy field preparation. Burning of residues pollutes the environment, thus having adverse effects on human and animal health, as well as resulted in a loss of plant important elements. This problem is particularly prevalent in rice-wheat-dominant states such as Punjab, Haryana, Uttarakhand, and Uttar Pradesh. If we may use in situ management as residue retention after chopper and spreader, sowing wheat with Happy seeder/zero drill/special drill with full residue load, full residue, or full residue load incorporation with conventional tillage, burning is not the sole approach for residue management. In addition, off-farm residues generated are being utilized for animal feed and raw materials for industries. While there are regional variations in many mechanization drivers and needs, a wide range of mechanization components can be transported to new places to fit local conditions. This article focuses on innovations, methods, and tactics that are relevant to various mechanization systems in particular geographical areas. This article also stresses the need for a thorough analysis of the amount of residue generated, residue utilization using modern mechanical equipment, and their positive and negative effects on crop yield and yield attributes, weed diversity, soil physic-chemical, biological properties, beneficial, and harmful nematode populations in the IGP, which will aid researchers and policymakers in farming research priorities and policy for ensuring sustainability in RWCS.

1. Introduction

Global rice cultivation, which annually generates a billion tons of straw residue, feeds around half of the world’s population. Most farmers choose burning despite available alternatives and its well-known negative effects on the environment, human health, and soil quality because they do not have enough time before planting the next crop, and because it is cheaper, easier to manage, and reduces weeds in the succeeding crops. Likely, the introduction of combine harvesters decreased labor requirements for harvesting rice, because of the uneven distribution of straw that makes collection more expensive for the farmer. Crop residues can be easily and cheaply removed by burning prior to tillage or seedbed preparation for sowing or planting of next crop [1]. Leftover rice residues hinder tillage and seeding activities, which increases the cost of the operation and also results in poor germination. As a result, over 70% of the fresh rice straw produced, mostly in Asian countries, is burned. According to estimates, China burned 44% of all crop trash, followed by India (33.6%), Bangladesh (4.4%), Pakistan (4%), Thailand (3.1%), and the Philippines (3.1%) [2,3,4]. Therefore, in an effort to prevent biomass loss, smog production, and carbon dioxide emissions, open burning of straw has been banned by many national and international organizations [1]. In the 1990s, the US and EU implemented restrictions, which were then followed by China, India, Pakistan, Australia, and Southeast Asia [5].
Rice-wheat cropping system (RWCS) is the foremost production system in Indo-Gangetic plain (IGP) regions of South Asia occupying an area of ~13.5 M ha [6]. Due to diversified cropping systems, India produces large quantity of crop biomass. According to estimates of Ministry of new and Renewable Energy, India generates ~500 MT of crop residues every year. In India, Uttar Pradesh generates the most crop residues (60 MT) followed by Punjab (51 MT) and Maharashtra (46 MT) compared to rest of the country. Nearly 70% of residue is produced by cereal crops (rice, wheat, and maize), with the rice-wheat system producing one-fourth of all residues [7,8]. Together, Haryana and Punjab generated approximately 28.10 million tons of paddy straw, of which 11.3 million tons were burned in the fields. In addition, 59.8% of the straw was controlled by adding it to the soil in terms of incorporation or recycling into the soil [9]. In Punjab, 49.5% of the straw was burned, compared to 16.9% in Haryana. Therefore, crop productivity, type of crop, and cropping intensity are the key determinants of crop residue generation.
The implementation of technology in the form of automated combine harvesters and threshers was necessary due to the limited sowing window time (10–20 days available for wheat sowing after rice harvest) and labor shortage in these areas. It was observed that ~90% and 75% of paddy fields in Punjab and Haryana states used combine harvesters to harvest the paddy crop, respectively [10,11]. Therefore, huge amounts of crop residue fall behind the harvester in narrow bands across the fields. Hence, it is a difficult task to reuse or safely dispose of left-over residue in the field in a short period of 10–20 days to take up winter season wheat on time [6,12,13]. Concurrently, Yadvinder-Singh et al. [2] also expressed concerns about farmers burning rice residue due to a lack of alternatives that are user-friendly, economical, and time-effective solutions. In due course, RWCS faces many second-generation problems including diminishing soil health, declining water table, decreased total factor productivity, etc. Concurrently, rice straw burning has been more common in IGP, resulting in pollution in adjoining areas. Thus, major rice growing regions burn crop residues greatly than others. Therefore, rice cultivation in long-term viability is likewise under jeopardy because of deteriorating health effects due to air pollution and aforesaid second-generation problems.
Crop leftovers could be utilized for bioenergy, biofuel, briquetting, pelleting, composting, and other industrial applications. To preserve long-term soil health, however, the greatest quantity of crop residues should ideally be kept on the soil surface or incorporated into the soil. Therefore, effective residue management is the most significant aspect of conservation agriculture (CA). Retaining paddy straw as mulch conserves soil water, moderates temperature, suppresses weeds, and promotes soil health, all of which contribute to improved crop output and irrigation water savings [13,14]. Thus, manual placement of wheat seeds is difficult under no-till conditions with residues. Direct drilling of wheat seeds is possible using a zero-till (ZT) planter or happy-seeder, which exhibits proper placement of seeds under residue retained condition with enhanced germination [15]. In situ residue management techniques include incorporating paddy straw or cutting straw and mixing it into the soil. The long-term viability of wheat productivity under ZT in the RWCS is well demonstrated, and farmers in IGP largely accepted residue retention technology [16]. However, these efforts were made in the context of partial residue retention conditions. The area under ZT has reduced with time with entire residue retention. Therefore, happy seeders can help to guide wheat sowing under a full load of rice crop leftovers that are mulched on the surface soil [13]. Despite of these advantages, farmers are not implementing these approaches on a largescale due to a lack of understanding, awareness, and resources. Since requirements fluctuate for different areas under field condition, farmers need appropriate techniques for in situ residue management not only in ZT but also in conventional tillage systems [16,17]. This necessitates research into all feasible choices for rice crop residue management in a systematic manner under no-till and conventional tillage systems. For widespread use of mechanization without residue burning in these locations, it is necessary to understand the impacts of mechanization in crop residue integration on soil health and crop performance. In order to adopt mechanization on a large scale for the sustainable RWCS, the present review aims to provide a thorough assessment and insight into residue retention, mechanization in crop seed placement, its effects on soil health, crop productivity, and environmental sustainability.

2. Residue Generation Status in India

Crop residues typically refer to the biomass or the economic produce that remains on the cultivated land after crop harvest. India produces ~686 MT of annual gross crop residue, which is produced by 26 crops [18,19,20]. According to Niti Ayog data [21], cereals, pulses, oilseeds, and sugarcane crop cultivation generate ~545 MT, whereas horticultural crops such as coconut, arecanut, and banana produce ~61 MT, and other crops account for 80 MT (cotton and jute). In 2019, the sugarcane crop annual production was 285 MT followed by rice (153 MT) and wheat (81 MT) as compared to other crops (Figure 1a). Cereals are the most crop residue generation (54%, or 368 MT) crops. Rice and wheat contribute ~154 MT and ~131 MT of crop residues, respectively followed by sugarcane (~108 MT) and cotton (~91 MT) as compared to other crops. Sugarcane crop has the highest production, and dry residue generation is ~45% less than residue generation by the rice crop (Figure 1b). Crop residue can be utilized as a by-product for animal feed, roof building, burning material in brick kilns, paper, and board industries, mushroom cultivation, etc. However, in this modern day of plastics and mechanization, the utilization of crop by-products has declined, and it is now classified as agricultural residue, making burning the most cost-effective method of disposal. However, burning generates more pollutants that are harmful to the environment, human health, and animal health. Crop residue burning in the states of Punjab, Haryana, Uttarakhand, and Uttar Pradesh resulted in increased pollution in the IGP regions.
According to Sharma et al. [22], the average cost of crop residue burning to a farmer is INR 7370 ha−1. This cost was determined using farming data from 102 villages in Punjab and Haryana. Mulching (in situ) is the most economical option for farmers, with a cost that is 11% less than that of crop residue burning, under in situ crop residue management practices. At 9% less expensive than crop residue burning, soil integration (in situ) is not far behind. The standard group in two states in the northwest, however, has in situ costs that are 7–8% higher than crop residue burning. When compared to crop residue burning, ex situ baling is 67% more expensive. Even with the shared economy model or intervention group, ex situ costs 48% more per hectare than crop residue burning (INR 10875 ha−1) on average.

2.1. Effects of Residue Burning on Environment and Human Health

Rice straw burning is common in IGP, resulting in nutritional losses as well as serious air quality issues that put human health and safety at risk. Burning crop residue releases particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), non-methyl hydrocarbons (NMHC), black carbon, N2O, NOx, SO2, and volatile organic compounds (VOC), all of which have a significant impact on global warming [12,23]. Burning agricultural residue results in 1515 kg of carbon dioxide, 92 kg of carbon monoxide, 3.83 kg of nitrogen dioxide, 0.4 kg of sulfur dioxide, 2.7 kg of methane, and 15.7 kg of non-methane VOC [24,25]. Among plant nutrients, approximately 90% of the nitrogen, sulfur, and 15–20% of the phosphorus and potassium are lost due to burning [26]. The burning of 23 MT of rice residues in NW India resulted in an annual loss of 9.2 MT of carbon equivalent (CO2- equivalent of around 34 MT) and 1.4105 tons of nitrogen (similar to INR 200 crores) [19]. Black carbon, the second-largest contributor to global warming after CO2, is produced during residue burning and warms the lower atmosphere. Burning rice residue not only pollutes the environment but also depletes soil organic matter and plant nutrients [19]. A serious health risk is posed by the elevated levels of particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10) brought on by the extensive burning of rice residues [12]. The major pollutants emitted during rice straw burning are presented in Figure 2. Therefore, high emissions of this particulate matter cause chronic ailments such as cardiovascular problems, irreversible lung capacity, and asthma in human beings. According to Singh et al. [3], crop residue burning accounts for the majority of the air pollution experienced by residents of Punjab’s rice-growing regions, which affects about 60% of the population. Burning cereal crop residue also produces more PM2.5 than other types of burning. For open burning of crop residue, Figure 3 provides estimates of the biomass burned and the emission of aerosols and trace gases. The amount of crop residue burning in the fields varies significantly by location, ranging from 18–30% [27].

2.2. On-Farm Crop Residue Management Methods

Residue management in the farmer’s field can be accomplished by residue retention or residue incorporation. Surface retention can be achieved through partial or complete residue burning, anchored stubbles following loose straw removal, or full straw retention. Similarly, ZT seed drill, turbo seeder, happy seeder, special drill chopper and spreader, rotavator, and disc harrows can be used to perform residue incorporation in the soil. On the other hand, after a combine harvester, agricultural residues are collected, stored, and used for a variety of purposes, including animal feed, power generation, ethanol production input, fuel for brick kilns and boilers, paper/board manufacture, packing material, and others. Rice straw contains a significant amount of lignin and silica (8–14%), which results in delayed and incomplete ruminal digestion of the CHO, as well as low nitrogen and phosphorus content [29].
Therefore, it is crucial to choose crop residue management techniques that are both environmentally friendly and boost farm profitability. Numerous crop residue management techniques are being employed in various parts of the world under actual field conditions, including conservation tillage with or without residue retention, soil moisture conserving techniques, ZT and residue mulching, usage as animal feed, and preparation of vermicompost [30,31,32,33]. Besides these, the interventions in crop residue management include biomass energy production [9,34,35,36,37], biofuel generation [38,39], and crop residue-based biorefinery [9,40]. Rice leaf has more silica, making it indigestible and reducing feed digestibility. It also has modest pubescence (small hairs), which animals must adjust to over time [20,41].

3. Effect of Residue Management on Crop Performance and Soil Biota

3.1. Rice and Wheat Productivity

The phenology, growth, and development of wheat are significantly impacted by the use of machinery during sowing. Wheat sown with a Happy seeder matures 5–7 days later compared to wheat sown with a rotavator and traditional tillage [42]. Wheat sown with the Happy Seeder took longer to mature when paddy straw was on the soil’s surface due to increased soil moisture that was available for a longer time with less evaporation. Retaining rice residues at 5–7.5 t ha−1 and 10–12.5 t ha−1, 50% of heading will be delayed by 6 and 10 days, respectively [13]. Lower weed flora was observed due to enhanced soil physical conditions, increased soil moisture, and improved nutrient availability to the plants as residue mulch acts as a physical barrier on the soil surface [43,44]. With these benefits, rice, and wheat yield attributes such as the number of spikes, spike length, and test weights were highest under ZT with residue retention than conventional tillage [45]. Residue retention in ZT plots using the Happy-seeder increased wheat grain yield by 4.6–9.3% in comparison to conventional tillage practices [3,46]. Because of the increased organic matter content, improved nutrient availability, and good soil pulverization caused by rice residue integration, crop yields are increased. Interestingly, Meenakshi [47] and Kaushal et al. [48] observed the highest wheat productivity in ZT planter compared to Happy-seeder, rotavator, and conventional tillage wheat. Likewise, Rajanna et al. [17] showed adoption of mechanized furrow-irrigated raised beds (FIRB) enhances wheat grain yield by 17.4–24.7% and through higher water use efficiency by 35.7–38.8% over conventional tillage (CT). Interestingly, rice yields were reduced by 34.6–44.5% under ZT plots [49], while wheat yields were increased by ~18.4% with the ZT technique over conventional tillage [50] (Table 1).

3.2. Weed Dynamics

Conservation agriculture (CA) encourages minimal soil disturbance through tillage, and diversification of crops suppresses weeds and manages leftovers carefully. Nandan et al. [52] claim that ZTDSR followed by ZT wheat causes a high density of grasses and sedges at the beginning of the season and broad-leaved weeds later in the season. Therefore, crop residue retention was more successful than residue removal in reducing weed biomass. Because residue retention reduces light penetration and soil surface insulation, it alters the physical and chemical conditions of the seed environment, which affects seed germination [53,54,55]. The emergence of Phalaris minor, Rumex dentatus, Chenopodium album, Melilotus indica, and Polypogonmonspeliensis was reduced by 45, 83, 88, 22–43, and 26–40%, respectively under ZT with residues over without residual mulch [26] (Figure 4). Even sowing wheat with Happy seeder reduced weed infestation compared to rotavator and farmers’ practice because pulverization of soil created an unfavorable environment for weed seed germination [40,56].

3.3. Soil Physical Properties

The bulk density (BD) was often lower where there was the least amount of soil disturbance and more agricultural leftovers were kept on the soil surface or integrated into the soil. In general, surface soils (0–15 cm) have lower BD and BD increases in the lower soil profiles (15–30 cm). Zero tillage plots showed a lower bulk density (1.59 mg m−3) than conventional tillage (1.61 mg m−3) when comparing various tillage techniques [56]. Concurrently, surface soils with lower BD also exhibit higher levels of microbial activity. By boosting infiltration, aeration, and microbial populations, ZT+ residue retention (ZT+R) boosted soil organic matter and helped decrease BD [57,58,59]. Happy-seeder can reduce the number of tillage operations while causing the least amount of soil disturbance [39]. Crop leftovers are lighter than mineral matter, their decomposition process is faster, and thus crop residue promotes more soil aggregation, through lower BD particularly in RWCS [60,61]. Due to additional tillage operations, conventional tillage practices result in higher soil compaction [61,62].
By mulching crop leftovers and stubble left on the soil surface, ZT helps to increase the availability of soil moisture. It lowers evaporative loss by shielding the soil surface from direct sunlight and acting as a barrier to air passage over the surface in comparison to tilled soils [63,64]. Due to improved soil porosity, physical aggregation, and crop residue functioning as a barrier, there was an increase in water infiltration and a decrease in surface runoff in the CA system, resulting in more plant-available moisture [58,65,66,67,68]. Likewise, higher infiltration rates under ZT+R conditions also reduce water runoff. It retains an average of 13 to 14% more water than conventional tillage practices [69]. Similarly, soil moisture depletion, groundwater contribution, and total consumptive water use were lowered by 15–21%, 16–20%, and 9–12%, respectively, under ZT+R plots over CT [70].

3.4. Soil Chemical Properties

Burning crop residues resulted in higher soil pH, increased organic carbon, and electrical conductivity (EC) of the soil. Soil pH and EC values increased from 7.94 to 699 S cm−1, and 8.46 to 800 S cm−1 from the pre-burning period to the post-burning period, respectively [71,72]. Post-burning treatments, on the other hand, considerably reduced N and P status, lower soil moisture, reduced beneficial bacteria, and soil characteristics were all affected by heat generation [72]. There is no nutrient buildup in the soil profile and the concentration of exchangeable NH4+ form of N and bicarbonate extractable P increases [73,74,75,76,77]. Likewise, zero tillage with residue (ZT+R) plots were found to have higher total soil nitrogen on the surface than in ZT without residue (ZT-R) [41]. Therefore, ZT+R in soil increased RWCS productivity with favorable nutrient balance, enhanced soil quality coupled with lower bulk density and soil pH, higher soil organic matter, and increased availability of nutrients than CT [78,79]. Contrastingly, Patra et al. [80]; Gupta et al. [81] claimed that crop yields were decreased because surface residue retention prevents soil nitrate mineralization and increases nitrate immobilization, denitrification, and NH3 volatilization. Under these conditions, wheat plants turn yellow in color due to the unavailability of nutrients. Another excellent source of potassium is crop residue, which releases around 70% of it during the first 10 days of being integrated into the soil [2]. Availability of nutrients concurrent with better soil conditions due to mechanization and its effect on plant growth and the environment is depicted in Figure 5.
The organic matter in the soil is increased as a result of the decomposition of straw mulch, which is a great source of carbon (Table 2). The ZT+R elevated soil organic carbon (SOC) to depths of 0.10, 0.15, and 0.25 m, respectively, showing that it accumulates to greater depths with higher soil texture fineness (29,80,81). As a result, the rates of carbon sequestration in sandy loam, loam, and clay loam soils were 0.24, 0.46, and 0.62 Mg ha−1 year−1, respectively [56]. Reeder [82] also observed higher OC under ZT and lower in plough field (CT), which is due to ploughing system accelerates the mineralization of organic matter. Long-term effects of mechanization in rice-wheat system also resulted in enhance soil organic carbon content, and available N, P, and K in soils [3].
Rice residue integrated with 30% extra NPK along with recommended NPK produced better nitrogen uptake in both wheat grain and straw as compared to CT wheat without residue incorporation with recommended NPK [83]. The crop output was raised as a result of the increasing cumulative effect of improved soil health, higher nutrient availability, and improved root and plant growth and development.
Growing crops under ZT+R helps to moderate and stabilize soil temperature changes during the crop growth period over unmulched soil. During the early crop stages, soil temperature was higher under ZT+R over CT plots, while it was reduced during the later phases of wheat growth and development [84] (Figure 6). Therefore, traditional method of cultivation disturbs the soil surface every time, increasing soil drying and heating as well as air pockets, resulting in increased moisture loss owing to evaporation [17,69,83]. In winter season, residue retention as insulator against the night’s significant drop in soil temperature and has fewer temperature changes between day and night than CT. When compared to un-mulched circumstances, residue mulching at varied soil depths of 5, 15, and 30 cm reduced soil temperature by 0.58 °C, 0.66 °C, and 0.74 °C, respectively [84,85].

3.5. Soil Biological Activities

Burning residue raises soil temperature, which adversely impacts bacterial and fungal diversity and abundance [11]. On the other hand, frequent field burning permanently lowers the mesothermic microbial population. Although the microorganisms will regenerate after a few days and the population reduction is temporary, frequent field burning permanently reduces the microbial population. Burning raises soil surface temperature (0 to 3 cm) to 50–70 °C [86] and 33.8–42.2 °C at a depth of 10 mm [87], as well as reducing the number of heterotrophic microorganisms in the topsoil by up to 77% [88]. Likewise, burning also reduces dehydrogenase enzyme along with amylase, cellulase, invertase, and alkaline phosphatase activity as these enzymes are present in all viable microbial cells that are essential for maintaining soil health and fertility [70]. Therefore, residue retention in RWCS is an important key factor in promoting better soil health through enhanced (SOC) soil microbial activity, thus helping in maintaining soil temperature under extreme conditions, as well as increasing CO2 respiration [8,58,69]. Tillage practices alters soil microbial dynamics, with Gram-positive bacteria and arbuscular mycorrhiza fungi (AMF) dominating in CT plots and Gram-negative bacteria and AMF dominating in ZT plots [10,89]. High microbial activity due to more residues is observed at reproductive stage of wheat, then slowly decreases at harvest due to less food material available for degradation by multiplying their populations [89,90].
Time and tillage practices such as no-tillage/minimum tillage and CT affect nematode activity. Before sowing paddy, a puddling operation is performed to reduce the number of root knot nematodes (Meloidogyne graminicola) [27]. In agricultural soil, number of free-living nematodes is higher, which is an excellent predictor of soil health. These nematodes are associated with enhancing SOC and crop residue, either directly or indirectly. Zero tillage followed by minimum tillage enhances free living nematodes in the soil. Because residue mulch creates a good soil environment and reduces plant harmful microbes present in soil, residue retention treatments were found to have fewer plant parasitic nematodes than conventional tillage [91,92,93]. Residue burning resulted in a higher number of plant parasitic nematodes, followed by conventionally tilled wheat, while residue retention exhibited higher free-living nematodes. Therefore, burning and removing crop residue decreased beneficial free-living nematode populations in the soil while increasing plant parasitic nematode populations. The Rhabditida population was substantially greater in conventionally cultivated plots (7244 kg−1 soil) compared to direct drilled plots when stubble retention was in place (3981 kg−1 soil) [94]. According to canonical correspondence analysis, tillage and residue management observed 4.9% and 15.4% of the changes in soil nematode abundance and biomass, respectively, as soil nematodes were more susceptible to residue effect under long-term ZT practice [94,95]. Therefore, accelerated decomposition of crop residues or stubbles release nutrients thus increased the population of free-living nematodes.
Soil macro-fauna, which are crucial to agricultural ecosystems, are significantly impacted by CA systems. Examples of macro-fauna include earthworms and termites that eat plant residue and/or burrow into the soil to increase soil microporosity and to incorporate organic matter into the soil to improve water infiltration and hydraulic conductivity, encourage nutrient cycling, and for aggregate formation [96,97]. According to Thierfelder and Wall [98], Mutema et al. [99], TerAvest et al. [100], earthworm and termite populations have increased in regions with high residue cover and a diversity of crop rotations. Species diversity with significantly more population of earthworms and termite were found in no-till or CA compared to in CT [101]. Due to unfavorable environmental conditions, excessive tillage practices in normal agricultural systems can have a negative effect on macrofauna through soil inversion [96,102]. As a result, macro-fauna populations are frequently more abundant and biomass-rich in CA systems, and this increase in abundance develops as the CA system’s duration increases [97,102]. Likewise, Singh et al. [103] observed that tillage had a significant effect on termite damage, which was much higher in conventional tillage (2.2%) compared to that in rotary tillage (1.9%), ZT (1.2%), and ZT + mulch (0.9%). Reduced tillage increases the variety and functional diversity of ground-dwelling predators, which enhances agroecosystems’ resilience by fostering predator arthropod communities at the local level [104]. Concurrently, CA therefore benefits birds, small animals, reptiles, and earthworms in addition to supporting the preservation of insect species [105].
Similarly, CA improves insect pest management by increasing biodiversity by establishing groundcover that is advantageous to both above and below ground native biota [106]. More helpful insects (predators and parasitoids) have been found in fields with ground cover/residue retention/mulch, which keep insect pests in check [106,107]. Interestingly, Kaur et al. [108] found army worm (Mythimna distinct) and pink stem borer (Sesamiainferens) appear as new pests under residue-retained plots. In agricultural ecosystems supported by less disturbed soils, herbivorous insect pest outbreaks are less likely to occur [109]. For example, Tamburini et al. [110] found more aphid parasitism in winter cereals grown using conservation tillage due to additional nutrient supply. Whereas Singh et al. [111], Sharma and Singh [112], and other sources, claim that rodent damage to wheat fields was much more severe and that rice residue was retained. Farmers’ field data reveal that when residue is preserved compared to when residue is not there, moderate to severe pest occurrence increases by 43% [111]. Kumar et al. [113] estimated that growing wheat using the conventional tillage without rice residue had the lowest rate of armyworm larvae (10.2 larvaem−2) as compared to conservation agriculture (58.2 larvaem−2) and partially implemented conservation agriculture (43.2 larvaem−2).
Crop residue also contributes significantly to the spread of soil-borne diseases to succeeding crops. Fusarium head blight infection of wheat is higher by 12 to 43% in residue retention fields compared to residue incorporation by moldboard plough [114]. Furthermore, increased weed infestation usually linked to conservation tillage may act as a reservoir for the thrips-vectored Iris Yellow Spot Virus (IYSV) and its vectors as well as the aphid-vectored Potato Virus Y [115,116].

3.6. Soil Enzymatic Activity

Microbial biomass and soil enzymatic activity are the possible indicators of soil quality that can react quickly to changes in management and environment activities [117]. Among soil enzymes, dehydrogenase enzyme is an oxido-reductase enzyme present in all viable microbial cells that are vital to maintaining soil health and fertility [118,119]. However, non-cellulosic polysaccharides and hemi-cellulose enzymes are greatly required for the breakdown of rice residues, and which are involved in the decomposition of residues. The higher the concentration of these soil enzyme, the quicker the degradable rates [117,119]. Lowest alkaline phosphatase activity was found due to higher environmental temperature [120]. Soil temperature affected dehydrogenase activity indirectly by influencing the redox status of soil. Ceccanti et al. [121] reported that a change in soil management practices change the microbial activity in the soil. Burning also reduces amylase, cellulase, invertase, and alkaline phosphatase activity [57]. Residue burning significantly lowers alkaline phosphatase activity and this is due to increased availability of phosphorus in the soil. Increase in soluble phosphorus inhibits the extracellular synthesis of phosphatase enzyme [122]; and fertilization with phosphatic fertilizer also inhibits phosphatase activity. Likewise, increased soil respiration is also facilitated by increased soil enzymatic activity and soil microbial biomass carbon. Plant root respiration, soil microbial respiration, soil animal respiration, and soil organic matter decomposition are all examples of soil respiration, which is the exchange process of carbon dioxide (CO2) between the soil and atmosphere [123,124]. Hu et al. [124] found that as crop burn severity increases, soil respiration and yearly carbon flux decrease. Soil respiration is improved by various crop rotations under ZT+R with ideal soil temperature and soil water content [124]. Therefore, adoption of CA with residue incorporation enhances soil enzymatic activity and soil respiration greatly.

4. Residue Degradation Using Microbes

Microbes have a lot of energy to break down the crop residue’s fragments. Components of crop residues such as cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin, among others, are easily breakable. Some microbes decompose crop residues significantly and in faster rates include bacteria, diazotrophs, fungi, actinomycetes, etc. Singh et al. [125] showed that Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus niger fungi are responsible for the highest amount of the wheat residue degradation into simple components such as sugar, amino acids, peptides, minerals, etc., during the first 40 days after application. Later, when the decomposition rate accelerated, cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, and pectin began to break down. Similarly, over the 40 and 60 days of estimation, the applied fungus caused the degradation of leaves (19.62–32.86%), straw (18.40–24.02%), chaff (15.58–18.94%), and internodes (08.19%, 10.75%) [124]. Likewise, wheat lignin can be broken down by Pleurotus species 47 [126,127]. Zaidi [127] also reported that application of Pusa decomposer has a significant effect on decomposing rice straw residues and resulted in 90% of rice residue decomposed in 15 days under farmers’ fields of Indo-Gangetic Plain regions. After applying a decomposer, adding rice straw encourages the growth of Actinobacteria, Betaproteobacteria, and Proteobacteria, which speeds up soil biological activity and decomposition [128]. In irrigated paddy field, soil invertebrates help with rice residue decomposition and contribute to soil fertility improvement, so it may be promoting residue management practices [129].

5. Profitability

When compared to CT wheat, ZT with residue retention (anchored stubbles or full residue) reduces cost of production because it reduces the cost incurred on other tillage operations, and because ZT planter can do four operations in one pass (furrow opening, seed insertion, fertilizer application, and seed covering). However, a variety of processes such as ploughing, chopping, and spreading residue, residue integration into soil by disc harrowing and rotavator, planking and levelling, and planting may all improve cost of production under conventional tillage practices. Wheat sown with Happy seeder saved INR 424, 366, and 1989 ha−1 in nutrients, bringing the total to INR 2779 ha−1, while also increasing the physical characteristics over a longer period of time as fewer passes with machinery for fertilizer application and intercultural activities followed in Happy seeder sowing [130]. Aside from preventing paddy straw burning, the Happy seeder method saved INR 2311 ha−1 in field preparation, planting, and crop management costs [130]. Additionally, storing the paddy straw in the field rather than burning it results in savings of about 3400 and 6200 ha−1, respectively [130]. Therefore, net profitability is much higher with Happy seeder and turbo seeder type of sowing than conventional sowing [131,132]. When compared to conventional wheat crop raising techniques and other reduced tillage systems, the ZT fertilizer-cum-seed drill method was found to be the most economical and to have the best benefit-cost ratio [133].
Burning crop residue calls for an integrated agricultural bioeconomy plan in the current situations of changing climatic conditions. As stated by Venkatramanan et al. [37], the agricultural bioeconomy plan advances the objectives of sustainable development while simultaneously attempting to prevent ill-effects of climate change. Agroecosystem benefits from crop residue recycling and re-use, which is made possible by agricultural bioeconomy, which also makes it easier to switch from input-intensive agriculture to multifunctional agriculture [134]. Crop residue has historically been used as a source of domestic energy, animal feed, packaging material, and roof thatching [11]. To be economically viable and sustainable, the multifunctional agricultural system must consider the recycling and reuse of crop residue. In the meanwhile, there are numerous options for sustainable crop residue management that can be established by viewing crop residue management from the perspective of a circular economy. Thus, it makes it possible to maximize the benefits of agricultural leftover while minimizing the drawbacks of burning crop residue. Effective crop residue management also makes it possible to achieve sustainable development goals while emitting fewer greenhouse gases (GHGs) (by avoiding crop residue burning), adopting climate-smart farming practices [135,136], conservation agriculture [17,43,44], and carbon sequestration. Farmers have access to economic and livelihood options when crop residues are used as industrial raw materials or feedstock for the manufacture of biofuel and bioenergy.

6. Conclusions

Crop residue has a high economic value due to its primary use as animal feed, fuel, and industrial raw materials. Crop residue burning is not a management solution as it causes environmental deterioration, crucial nutrient loss, and the disruption of beneficial microbes in the soil. For winter season crops, in situ crop residue management techniques such as zero tillage (ZT) with Happy seeder, zero till cum fertilizer drill, and chopper and spreader special drill are used effectively for sustainable RWCS. These machines can perform all operations in a single pass, saving time and fuel costs, allowing farmers to lower their cultivation costs. Second, CT with full residue incorporation is also beneficial because the residue decomposition process completes early and releases organic matter into the soil which is helpful in the development of beneficial microorganisms and free-living nematodes populations. Therefore, utilizing microbial cultures has positive impact on rice residue decomposition. Off-farm residue management, such as baling and using the residue for animal feed, mushroom production, electricity generation, cardboard, and paper production, and so on, is also possible. However, because of the cost of transportation and the additional labor required to gather residues in the field, it is not cost effective for farmers. Therefore, machine-led crop sowing through Happy seeder in rice crop stubbles enhances wheat germination, reduces evaporation, maintains higher soil moisture content besides increasing crop yields significantly. Residue retention fields had higher soil macro fauna which helps in increasing soil microporosity through improved water infiltration and hydraulic conductivity. Earthworms also help in incorporating organic matter into the soil, thus, it encourages nutrient cycling, and aggregate formation. However, more research is needed to better understand the impact of insect pests, diseases, earthworms, rodents, etc., under changing climatic conditions, which are anticipated to become increasingly more crucial under residue retention fields. Therefore, researcher need to find possible solutions for faster degradation of residues and more efficient machineries with lower energy requirement in a short sowing window. Hence, farm-level economics and feasibility of mechanization in RWCS are systematically studied which may give a clear idea in large-scale adoption and also reducing residue burning in IGP. In order to use crop residue more effectively, especially leftover rice, in south Asia and other resource-poor places, agricultural researchers, agro-industry, agriculture engineers, and government officials should collaborate.

Author Contributions

S.K., G.A.R., D.B.Y., V.P., C.M.M. and P.K.J., designed the study, data collection, and interpretation; S.K., G.A.R., D.B.Y., V.P., C.M.M., P.K.J., S.S. (Surendra Singh) and S.S. (Shikha Singh), validation, draft manuscript preparation, final manuscript preparation and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Lovely Professional University (Phagwara) Jalandhar, Punjab and Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi for providing necessary support to conduct the review on the mechanization in crop residue management.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Singh, G.; Gupta, M.K.; Chaurasiya, S.; Sharma, V.S.; Pimenov, D.Y. Rice straw burning: Areview on its global prevalence and the sustainable alternatives for its effectivemitigation. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 32125–32155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Singh, Y.; Singh, B.; Ladha, J.K.; Khind, C.S.; Khera, T.S.; Bueno, C.S. Effects of residue decomposition on productivity and soil fertility in rice–wheat rotation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2014, 68, 854–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Singh, Y.H.B.; Shan, Y.H.; Beebout, S.E.J.; Singh, Y.; Buresh, R.J. Crop residue management for lowland rice-based cropping systems in Asia. Adv. Agron. 2008, 98, 117–199. [Google Scholar]
  4. Jain, N.; Bhatia, A.; Pathak, H. Emission of air pollutants from crop residue burning in India. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 2014, 14, 422–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Nguyen, M.N. Worldwide bans of rice straw burning could increase human arsenic exposure. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 3728–3729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Jat, H.S.; Choudhary, M.; Datta, A.; Yadav, A.K.; Meena, M.D.; Devi, R.; Sharma, P.C. Temporal changes in soil microbial properties and nutrient dynamics under climate smart agriculture practices. Soil Till. Res. 2020, 199, 104595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Sarkar, A.; Yadav, R.L.; Gangwar, B.; Bhatia, P.C. Crop Residues in India. In Technical Bulletin; Project Directorate of Cropping Systems Research: Modipuram, India, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  8. Kumar, A.; Kushwaha, K.K.; Singh, S.; Shivay, Y.S.; Meena, M.C.; Nain, L. Effect of paddy straw burning on soil microbial dynamics in sandy loam soil of Indo-Gangetic plains. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2019, 16, 100469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. DOACFW. Review of the Scheme Promotion of Agricultural Mechanization for In-Situ Management of Crop Residue in States of Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and nct of Delhi Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare; Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare: Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  10. Gupta, P.K.; Sahai, S.; Singh, N.; Dixit, C.K.; Singh, D.P.; Sharma, C.; Tiwari, M.K.; Gupta, R.K.; Garg, S.C. Residue burning in rice–wheat cropping system: Causes and implications. Curr. Sci. 2004, 87, 1713–1717. [Google Scholar]
  11. Chauhan, B.S.; Mahajan, G.; Sardana, V.; Timsina, J.; Jat, M.L. Productivity and sustainability of the rice-wheat cropping system in the Indo-Gangetic Plains of the Indian subcontinent: Problems, opportunities and strategies. Adv. Agron. 2012, 117, 315–369. [Google Scholar]
  12. Lohan, S.K.; Jat, H.S.; Yadav, A.K.; Sidhu, H.S.; Jat, M.L.; Choudhary, M.; Peter, J.K.; Sharma, P.C. Burning issues of paddy residue management in north-west states of India. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 81, 693–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sidhu, H.S.; Humphreys, E.; Dhillon, S.S.; Blackwell, J.; Bector, V. The Happy Seeder enables direct drilling of wheat into rice stubble. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2007, 47, 844–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Rajanna, G.A.; Dhindwal, A.S. Water dynamics, productivity and heat use efficiency responses in wheat (Triticum aestivum) to land configuration techniques and irrigation schedules. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 2019, 89, 912–919. [Google Scholar]
  15. Keil, A.; Mitra, A.; McDonald, A.; Malik, R.K. Zero-tillage wheat provides stable yield and economic benefits under diverse growing season climates in the Eastern Indo-Gangetic Plains. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2020, 18, 567–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Malik, R.K.; Balyan, R.S.; Yadav, A.; Pahwa, S.K. Herbicide resistance management and zero tillage in rice-wheat cropping system. In Proceedings of the International Workshop, Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University (CCSHAU), Hisar, India, 4–6 March 2002. [Google Scholar]
  17. Rajanna, G.A.; Dhindwal, A.S.; Narender, Y.; Patil, M.D.; Shivakumar, L. Alleviating moisture stress under irrigation scheduling and crop establishment techniques on productivity and profitability of wheat (Triticum aestivum) under semi-arid conditions of western India. Indian J. Agric Sci. 2018, 88, 372–378. [Google Scholar]
  18. Hiloidhari, M.; Das, D.; Baruah, D.C. Bioenergy potential from crop residue biomass in India. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 32, 504–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. NAAS. Innovative Viable Solution to Rice Residue Burning in Rice-Wheat Cropping System Through Concurrent Use of Super Straw Management System-Fitted Combines and Turbo Happy Seeder. Policy Brief No. 2; National Academy of Agricultural Sciences: New Delhi, India, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  20. Singh, R.; Yadav, D.B.; Ravisankar, N.; Yadav, A.; Singh, H. Crop residue management in rice–wheat cropping system for resource conservation and environmental protection in north-western India. Env. Dev. Sustain. 2020, 22, 3871–3896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. NITI Aayog. India. 2015. Available online: https://www.niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2019-03/EOI_on_the_Topic_of_A_Researsh_Study_on_Mass_Production_of_Manure_Fertilizer_form_Agriculture_Bio-Mass.pdf (accessed on 20 November 2022).
  22. Sharma, M.; Sahajpal, I.; Bhuyan, A. Impacts, and Learnings of Crop Residue Management Programme; Confederation of Indian Industry (CII): New Delhi, India, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  23. Milham, N.; Kumar, P.; Crean, J.; Singh, R.P. Policy Instruments to Address Air Pollution Issuesin Agriculture: Implications for Happy Seeder Technology Adoption in India. Final Report. FR 2014-17; Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR): Canberra, ACT, Australia, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  24. Pathak, H.; Bhatia, A.; Jain, N. Crop Residues Management with Conservation Agriculture: Potential, Constraints and Policy Needs; Indian Agricultural Research Institute: New Delhi, India, 2012; p. vii+ 32. [Google Scholar]
  25. Bakker, R.; Elbersen, W.; Poppens, R.; Lesschen, J.P. Rice Straw and Wheat Straw. Potential Feed Stocks for the Biobased Economy Netherlands Programmes Food and Biobased Research NL Energy and Climate Change; NL Agency: Utrecht, The Netherland, 2013; p. 32. [Google Scholar]
  26. Singh, R.P.; Verma, S.K.; Kumar, S.; Lakara, K. Impact of tillage and herbicides on the dynamics of broad leaf weeds in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Inter. J. Agric Environ. Biotechnol. 2017, 10, 643–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Venkataraman, C.; Habib, G.; Kadamba, D.; Shrivastava, M.; Leon, J.F.; Crouzille, B.; Streets, D.G. Emissions from open biomass burning in India: Integrating the inventory approach with high-resolution Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) active-fire and land cover data. Glob. Biogeo. Cycles 2006, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kumar, P.; Singh, V.P.; Kalhapure, A.; Pandey, D.S. Effect of tillage practices on soil properties under rice- wheat cropping system. Agrica 2015, 4, 111–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sarnklong, C.; Cone, J.W.; Pellikaan, W.; Hendriks, W.H. Utilization of rice straw and different treatments to improve its feed value for ruminants: A review. Asian Aus. J. Anim. Sci. 2010, 23, 680–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Singh, B.; Humphreys, E.; Gaydon, D.S.; Eberbach, P.L. Evaluation of the Effects of Mulch on Optimum Sowing Date and Irrigation Management of Zero Till Wheat in Central Punjab, India Using APSIM. Field Crop Res. 2016, 197, 83–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  31. Ventrella, D.; Stellacci, A.M.; Castrignanò, A.; Charfeddine, M.; Castellini, M. Effects of Crop Residue Management on Winter Durum Wheat Productivity in a Long Term Experiment in Southern Italy. Eur. J. Agron. 2016, 77, 188–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Brahmachari, K.; Nanda, M.K.; Saha, H.; Goswami, R.; Ray, K.; Sarkar, S.; Ghosh, A. Final Report of the Project on Cropping Systems Intensification in the Salt Affected Coastal Zones of Bangladesh and West Bengal, India; Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research: Canberra, Australia, 2020.
  33. Sarkar, S.; Skalicky, M.; Hossain, A.; Brestic, M.; Saha, S.; Garai, S.; Ray, K.; Brahmachari, K. Management of Crop Residues for Improving Input Use Efficiency and Agricultural Sustainability. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Porichha, G.K.; Hu, Y.; Rao, K.T.V.; Xu, C.C. Crop residue management in India: Stubble burning vs. other utilizations including bioenergy. Energies 2021, 14, 4281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Jiang, D.; Zhuang, D.; Fu, J.; Huang, Y.; Wen, K. Bioenergy potentialfrom crop residues in China: Availability and distribution. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 1377–1382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ngan, N.; Chan, F.; Nam, T.; van Thao, H.; Maguyon-Detras, M.; Hung, D.; Cuong, D.M.; van Hung, N. Anaerobic Digestion of Rice Straw for Biogas Production. In Insustainable Rice Straw Management; Gummert, M., van Hung, N., Chivenge, P., Douthwaite, B., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 65–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Venkatramanan, V.; Shah, S.; Rai, A.K.; Prasad, R. Nexus between cropresidue burning, bioeconomy andsustainable development goals over North-Western India. Front. Energy Res. 2021, 8, 614212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Liska, A.; Yang, H.; Milner, M.; Goddard, S.; Blanco-Canqui, H.; Pelton, M.; Fang, X.X.; Zhu, H.; Suyker, A.E. Biofuels from crop residue can reduce soil carbon and increase CO2 emissions. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2014, 4, 398–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Prasad, S.; Kumar, S.; Sheetal, K.; Venkatramanan, V. Global Climate Change and Biofuels Policy: Indian Perspectives. In Global Climate Change Andenvironmental Policy: Agriculture Perspectives; Shah, V.V., Ed.; Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.: Singapore, 2020; pp. 207–226. [Google Scholar]
  40. Thuc, L.; Corales, R.; Sajor, J.; Truc, N.; Hien, P.; Ramos, R.; Bautista, E.; Tado, C.J.M.; Ompad, V.; Son, D.T.; et al. Rice-Straw Mushroom Production. In Sustainable Rice Straw Management; Gummert, N., van Hung, N., Chivenge, P., Douthwaite, B., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 93–109. [Google Scholar]
  41. Van-Soest, P.J. Review: Rice straw, the role of silica and treatments to improve quality. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2006, 130, 137–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Singh, A.; Kang, J.S.; Kaur, M.; Goel, A. Root parameters, weeds, economics and productivity of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) as affected by methods of planting in-situ paddy straw. Int. J. Curr. Microb. App. Sci. 2013, 2, 396–405. [Google Scholar]
  43. Singh, V.K.; Dwivedi, B.S.; Singh, S.K.; Mishra, R.P.; Shukla, A.K.; Rathore, S.S.; Jat, M.L. Effect of tillage and crop establishment, residue management and K fertilization on yield, K use efficiency and apparent K balance under rice-maize system in north-western India. Field Crop Res. 2018, 224, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Choudhary, A.K.; Yadav, D.S.; Sood, P.; Rahi, S.; Arya, K.; Thakur, S.K.; Lal, R.; Kumar, S.; Sharma, J.; Dass, A.; et al. Post-Emergence herbicides for effective weed management, enhanced wheat productivity, profitability and quality in North-Western Himalayas: A ‘Participatory-Mode’ Technology Development and Dissemination. Sustainability 2020, 13, 5425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Usman, K.; Khan, E.A.; Khan, N.; Rashid, A.; Yazdan, F.; Saleem, U.D. Response of Wheat to Tillage Plus Rice Residue and Nitrogen Management in Rice-Wheat System. J. Integr. Agric. 2014, 13, 2389–2398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Zamir, M.S.I.; Ahmad, A.H.; Nadeem, M.A. Behavior of various wheat cultivars at tillage in Sub-tropical conditions. Cerc. Agron. Moldov. 2010, 4, 13–19. [Google Scholar]
  47. Meenakshi. Influence of Paddy Residue and Nitrogen Management on the Productivity of Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Master’s Thesis, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  48. Kaushal, M.; Singh, A.; Kang, J.S. Effect of planting techniques and nitrogen levels on growth, yield and N recovery in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). J. Res. Punjab Agric. Univers. 2012, 49, 14–16. [Google Scholar]
  49. Tripathi, S.C.; Chander, S.; Meena, R.P. Effect of residue retention, tillage options and timing of nitrogen application in rice-wheat cropping system. SAARC J. Agri. 2015, 13, 37–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Timalsina, H.P.; Marahatta, S.; Sah, S.K.; Gautam, A.K. Effect of tillage method, crop residue and nutrient management on growth and yield of wheat in rice-wheat cropping system at Bhairahawa condition. Agron. J. Nepal 2021, 5, 52–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Pandey, B.P.; Kandel, T.P. Response of rice to tillage, wheat residue and weed management in a rice-wheat cropping system. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Nandan, R.; Singh, V.; Kumar, V.; Singh, S.S.; Hazra, K.K.; Nath, C.P.; Malik, R.K.; Poonia, S.P. Viable weed seed density and diversity in soil and crop productivity under conservation agriculture practices in rice-based cropping systems. Crop Prot. 2020, 136, 105210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zhang, J.; Wu, L.-F. Impact of tillage and crop residue management on the weed community and wheat yield in a wheat–maize double cropping system. Agriculture 2021, 11, 265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Teasdale, J.R.; Mohler, C. Light transmittance, soil temperature, and soil moisture under residue of hairy vetch and rye. Agron. J. 1993, 85, 673–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Singh, A.; Kaur, J. Impact of conservation tillage on soil properties in rice wheat cropping system. Agric. Sci. Res. J. 2012, 2, 30–41. [Google Scholar]
  56. Kumar, V.; Singh, S.; Chhokar, R.S.; Malik, R.K.; Brainard, D.C.; Ladha, J.K. Weed management strategies to reduce herbicide use in zero-till rice-wheat cropping systems of the Indo-Gangetic Plains. Weed Technol. 2013, 27, 241–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Walia, U.S.; Brar, L.S. Effect of tillage and weed managem4nt on seed bank of Phalaris minor in wheat under rice-wheat sequence. Ind. J. Weed Sci. 2006, 38, 104–107. [Google Scholar]
  58. Choudhary, M.; Datta, A.; Jat, H.S.; Yadav, K.A.; Gathala, M.K.; Sapkota, T.B.; Das, A.K.; Sharma, P.C.; Jat, M.L.; Singh, R.; et al. Changes in soil biology under conservation agriculture based sustainable intensification of cereal systems in Indo-Gangetic Plains. Geoderma 2018, 313, 193–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Jat, M.L.; Gathala, M.K.; Ladha, J.K.; Saharawat, Y.S.; Jat, A.S.; Kumar, V.; Sharma, S.K.; Kumar, V.; Gupta, R.K. Evaluation of precision land levelling and double zero-tillage systems in the rice-wheat rotation: Water use, productivity, profitability and soil physical properties. Soil Till. Res. 2009, 105, 112–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Singh, Y.; Gupta, R.K.; Singh, J.; Singh, G.; Singh, G.; Ladha, J.K. Placement effects on rice residue decomposition and nutrient dynamics on two soil types during wheat cropping in rice—wheat system in north-western India. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2010, 88, 471–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Gathala, M.K.; Kumar, V.; Sharma, P.C.; Saharawat, Y.S.; Jat, H.S.; Singh, M.; Kumar, A.; Jat, M.L.; Humphreys, E.; Sharma, D.K. Optimizing intensive cereal-based cropping systems addressing current and future drivers of agricultural change in the north western Indo-Gangetic Plains of India. Agri. Ecosyst. Environ. 2013, 177, 85–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Acharya, C.L.; Hati, K.M.; Bandyopadhyay, K.K. Mulches. In Encyclopedia of Soils in the Environment; Hillel, D., Rosenzweig, C., Pawlson, D.S., Scow, K.M., Sorger, M.J., Sparks, D.L., Hatfield, J., Eds.; Academic Press: London, UK, 2005; pp. 521–532. [Google Scholar]
  63. Abid, M.; Lal, R. Tillage and drainage impact on soil quality, aggregate stability, carbon and nitrogen pools. Soil Till. Res. 2008, 100, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Osunbitan, J.A.; Oyedele, D.J.; Adekalu, K.O. Tillage effects on bulk density, hydraulic conductivity and strength of a loamy sand soil in southwestern Nigeria. Soil Till. Res. 2005, 82, 57–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Indoria, A.K.; Rao, C.S.; Sharma, K.L.; Reddy, K.S. Conservation agriculture—A panacea to improve soil physical health. Curr. Sci. 2017, 112, 52–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Upadhyay, P.K.; Sen, A.; Singh, Y.; Singh, R.K.; Prasad, S.K.; Sankar, A.; Singh, V.K.; Dutta, S.K.; Kumar, R.; Rathore, S.S.; et al. Soil health, energy budget, and rice productivity as influenced by cow products application with fertilizers under South Asian Eastern Indo-Gangetic Plains Zone. Front. Agron. 2022, 3, 758572. [Google Scholar]
  67. Dardanelli, J.L.; Ritchie, J.T.; Calmon, M.; Andriani, J.M.; Collino, D.J. An empirical model for root water uptake. Field Crop Res. 2004, 87, 59–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Shaxson, T.F.; Barber, R.G. Conservation Agriculture. In Optimizing Soil Moisture for Plant Production; The Significance of Soil Porosity FAO Soils Bulletin: Rome, Italy, 2003; Volume 79, pp. 1–107. [Google Scholar]
  69. Kroulik, M.; Hula, J.; Sindelar, R.; Illek, F. Water infiltration into soil related to the soil tillage intensity. Soil Water Res. 2007, 2, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Stawinski, C.; Cymerman, J.; Witkowska-Walczak, B.; Lamorski, K. Impact of diverse tillage on soil moisture dynamics. Int. Agrophys. 2015, 26, 301–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Rajput, R.; Arunachalam, K.; Arunachalam, A. Role of crop residue management practices on microbial dynamics of Soil—A Mini Review. Ind. J. Hill Farm. 2017, 30, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  72. Kaur, R.; Bansal, M.; Sharma, S.; Tallapragada, S. Impact of in situ rice crop residue burning on agricultural soil of district bathinda, Punjab, India. Rasayan J. Chem. 2019, 12, 421–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Mandal, K.G.; Misra, A.K.; Hati, K.M.; Bandyopadhyay, K.K.; Ghosh, P.K.; Mohanty, M. Rice residue- management options and effects on soil properties and crop productivity. Food Agric. Environ. 2004, 2, 224–231. [Google Scholar]
  74. Moharana, P.C.; Sharma, B.M.; Biswas, D.R.; Dwivedi, B.S.; Singh, R.V. Long-term effect of nutrient management on soil fertility and soil organic carbon pools under a 6-year-old pearl millet-wheat cropping system in an Inceptisol of subtropical India. Field Crops Res. 2012, 136, 32–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Cheng, Z.S.; Yun, C.C.; Jiang, L.K.; Qiu, S.J.; Wei, Z.; Ping, H.E. Effects of long-termstraw return on soil fertility, nitrogen pool fractions and crop yields on a fluvoaquic soil in North China. J. Plant Nutri. Fert. 2014, 20, 1441–1449. [Google Scholar]
  76. Gu, S.; Guo, X.; Cai, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Wu, S.; Li, X.; Yang, W. Residue management alters microbial diversity and activity without affecting their community composition in black soil, Northeast China. Peer J. 2018, 6, 5754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  77. Pandey, C. Management of Crop Residue for Sustaining Soil Fertility and Food grains Production in India. Acta Sci. Agric. 2019, 3, 188–195. [Google Scholar]
  78. Wozniak, A.; Gos, M. Yield and quality of spring wheat and soil properties as affected by tillage system. Plant Soil Environ. 2014, 60, 141–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Sah, G.; Shah, S.C.; Sah, S.K.; Thapa, R.B.; McDonald, A.; Sidhu, H.S.; Gupta, R.K.; Sherchan, D.P.; Tripathi, B.P.; Davare, M.; et al. Tillage, crop residue, and nitrogen level effects on soil properties and crop yields under rice-wheat system in the terai region of Nepal. Glob. J. Biol. Agric. Health Sci. 2014, 3, 139–147. [Google Scholar]
  80. Patra, A.K.; Chhonkar, P.K.; Khan, M.A. Nitrogen loss and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) yields in response to zero tillage and sowing time in a semi-arid tropical environment. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2004, 190, 324–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Gupta, R.K.; Singh, Y.; Ladha, J.K.; Singh, B.; Singh, J.; Singh, G.; Pathak, H. Yield and phosphorus transformations in a rice-wheat system with crop residue and phosphorus management. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2007, 71, 1500–1507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Reeder, R. Conservation Tillage Systems and Management; MidWest Plan Service: Ames, IA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  83. Nandan, R.; Singh, V.; Singh, S.; Hazra, K.; Nath, P.C. Performance of crop residue management with different tillage and crop establishment practices on weed flora and crop productivity in rice-wheat cropping system of eastern Indo-Gangetic plains. J. Crop Weed 2018, 14, 65–71. [Google Scholar]
  84. Dwivedi, D.K.; Thakur, S.S. Production potential of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) crop as influenced by residual organics, direct and residual fertility levels under rice (Oryza sativa)-wheat cropping system. Ind. J. Agron. 2000, 45, 641–647. [Google Scholar]
  85. Korav, S. Rice Crop Residue Management in No-Till Wheat Under Rice-Wheat Cropping System. Ph.D. Thesis, CCSHAU Hisar, Haryana, India, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  86. Licht, M.A.; Al-Kaisi, M. Strip-tillage effect on seedbed soil temperature and other soil physical properties. Soil Till. Res. 2005, 80, 233–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Dahiya, R.; Ingwersen, J.; Streck, T. The effects of mulching and tillage on the water and temperature regimes of a loess soil: Experimental findings and modeling. Soil Till. Res. 2007, 96, 52–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Mickovski, M. Effect of burned straw on the microflora of the soil. Ann. Fac. Agric. Univers. 1967, 20, 55–68. [Google Scholar]
  89. Baghel, J.K.; Das, T.K.; Mukherjee, I.; Nath, C.P.; Bhattacharyya, R.; Ghosh, S.; Raj, R. Impacts of conservation agriculture and herbicides on weeds, nematodes, herbicide residue and productivity in direct-seeded rice. Soil Till. Res. 2020, 201, 104634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Das, T.K.; Sourav, G.; Das, A.; Sen, S.; Datta, D.; Sonaka, G.; Raj, R.; Behera, B.; Roy, A.; Vyas, A.K.; et al. Conservation agriculture impacts on productivity, resource-use efficiency and environmental sustainability: A holistic review. Indian J. Agron. 2021, 66, S111–S127. [Google Scholar]
  91. Yang, Q.; Wang, X.; Shen, Y.; Philp, J.N.M. Functional diversity of soil microbial communities in response to tillage and crop residue retention in an eroded Loess soil. Soil Sci. Plant Nutri. 2013, 59, 311–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Wortman, S.E.; Drijber, R.A.; Francis, C.A.; Lindquist, J.L. Arable weeds, cover crops, and tillage drive soil microbial community composition in organic cropping systems. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2013, 72, 232–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Zhong, S.; Zeng, H.C.; Jin, Z.Q. Influences of different tillage and residue management systems on soil nematode community composition and diversity in the tropics. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2017, 107, 234–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Gaind, S.; Nain, L. Soil health in response to Bio-Augmented paddy straw compost. World J. Agric. Sci. 2011, 7, 480–488. [Google Scholar]
  95. Bhagat, P.; Gosal, S.K. Long term application of rice straw and nitrogen fertilizer affects soil health and microbial communities. Chem. Sci. Rev. Lett. 2018, 7, 586–593. [Google Scholar]
  96. Kladivko, E.J. Tillage systems and soil ecology. Soil Till. Res. 2001, 61, 61–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Spurgeon, D.J.; Keith, A.M.; Schmidt, O.; Lammertsma, D.R.; Faber, J.H. Land-use and land-management change: Relationships with earthworm and fungi communities and soil structural properties. BMC Ecol. 2013, 13, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Thierfelder, C.; Wall, P.C. Rotation in conservation agriculture systems of Zambia: Effects on soil quality and water relations. Exp. Agric. 2010, 46, 309–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Mutema, M.; Mafongoya, P.L.; Nyagumbo, I.; Chikukura, L. Effects of crop residues and reduced tillage on macrofauna abundance. J. Org. Syst. 2013, 8, 5–16. [Google Scholar]
  100. TerAvest, D.; Carpenter-Boggs, L.; Thierfelder, C.; Reganold, J.P. Crop production and soil water management in conservation agriculture, no-till, and conventional tillage systems in Malawi. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015, 212, 285–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Mcinga, S.; Muzangwa, L.; Janhi, K.; Mnkeni, P.N.S. Conservation agriculture practices improve earthworm species richness and abundance in the semi-arid climate of Eastern Cape, South Africa. Agriculture 2020, 10, 576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Briones, M.J.I.; Schmidt, O. Conventional tillage decreases the abundance and biomass of earthworms and alters their community structure in a global meta-analysis. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2017, 23, 4396–4419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Singh, B.; Kular, J.S.; Ram, H.; Mahal, M.S. Relative abundance and damage of some insect pests of wheat under different tillage practices in rice-wheat cropping in India. Crop Prot. 2014, 61, 16–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Jacobsen, S.K.; Sigsgaard, L.; Johansen, A.B.; Kristensen, K.T.; Jensen, P.M. The impact of reduced tillage and distance to field margin on predator functional diversity. J. Insect Conserv. 2022, 26, 491–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Nawaz, A.; Ahmad, J.N. Insect Pest Management in Conservation Agriculture. In Conservation Agriculture; Farooq, M., Siddique, K.H.M., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  106. Jaipal, S.; Singh, S.; Yadav, A.; Malik, R.K.; Hobbs, P.R. Species diversity and population density of macro-fauns of rice-wheat copping habitat in semi-arid subtropical northwest India in relation to modified tillage practices of wheat sowing. Herbicide-resistance management and zero-tillage in the rice-wheat cropping system. In Proceedings of the International Workshop, Hissar, India, 4–6 March 2002. [Google Scholar]
  107. Singh, B. Incidence of the pink noctuid stem borer, Sesamiainferens (walker), on wheat under two tillage conditions and three sowing dates in north-western plains of India. J. Entomol. 2012, 9, 368–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Kaur, R.; Kaur, S.; Deol, J.S.; Sharma, R.; Kaur, T.; Brar, A.S.; Choudhary, O.M. Soil Properties and Weed Dynamics in Wheat as Affected by Rice Residue Management in the Rice–Wheat Cropping System in South Asia: A Review. Plants 2021, 10, 953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Alyokhin, A.; Nault, B.; Brown, B. Soil conservation practices for insect pest management in highly disturbed agroecosystems—a review. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2020, 168, 7–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Tamburini, G.; De-Simone, S.; Sigura, M.; Boscutti, F.; Marini, L. Conservation tillage mitigates the negative effect of landscape simplification on biological control. J. Appl. Ecol. 2016, 53, 233–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  111. Singh, J.M.; Singh, J.; Kumar, H.; Singh, S.; Sachdeva, J.; Kaur, B.; Chopra, S.; Chand, P. Management of paddy straw in Punjab: An economic analysis of different techniques. Indian J. Agric. Econ. 2019, 74, 301–310. [Google Scholar]
  112. Sharma, A.; Singh, R. Effect of abiotic factors on burrow density of Indian gerbil, Tatera indica (Hardwicke) (Rodentia: Muridae) in Punjab. J. Entomol. Zool. Stud. 2018, 6, 1508–1513. [Google Scholar]
  113. Kumar, R.; Choudhary, J.S.; Mishra, J.S.; Mondal, S.S.; Poonia, S.; Monobrullah, M.; Hans, H.; Verma, M.; Kumar, U.; Bhatt, B.P.; et al. Outburst of pest populations in rice-based cropping systems under conservation agricultural practices in the middle Indo-Gangetic Plains of South Asia. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 3753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Dill-Macky, R. The effect of previous crop residues and tillage on Fusarium head blight of wheat. Plant Dis. 2000, 84, 71–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Gray, S.; De-Boer, S.; Lorenzen, J.; Karasev, A.; Whitworth, J. Potato virus Y: An evolving concern for potato crops in the United States and Canada. Plant Dis. 2010, 94, 1384–1397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  116. Smith, E.A.; Ditommaso, A.; Fuchs, M.; Shelton, A.M.; Nault, B.A. Weed hosts for onion thrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) and their potential role in the epidemiology of Iris yellow spot virus in an onion ecosystem. Environ. Entomol. 2011, 40, 194–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  117. Mohammadi, K. Soil microbial activity and biomass as influenced by tillage and fertilization in wheat production. Am. Eur. J. Agric. Environ. Sci. 2011, 10, 330–337. [Google Scholar]
  118. Nannipieri, P. The potential use of soil enzymes as indicators of productivity, sustainability and pollution. In Soil biota: Management in Sustainable Farming Systems; CSIRO Publications: Clayton, Australia, 1994; pp. 238–244. [Google Scholar]
  119. Majumder, B.; Kuzyakov, Y. Effect of fertilization on decomposition of 14C labeled plant residues and their incorporation into soil aggregates. Soil Till. Res. 2010, 109, 94–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Nisha, S.; Kewat, M.L.; Sharma, A.R. Impact of conservation agriculture and weed control measures on soil physical and biological properties under rice-wheat-mungbean cropping system in vertisols. Int. J. Agric. Sci. 2016, 8, 2691–2695. [Google Scholar]
  121. Ceccanti, B.; Pezzarossa, B.; Gallardo-Lancho, F.J.; Masciandaro, G. Biotests as markers of soil utilization and fertility. Geomicrobiol. J. 1993, 11, 309–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Nannipieri, P.; Pedrazzini, F.; Arcara, P.G.; Piovanelli, C. Changes in amino acids, enzyme activities, and biomasses during soil microbial growth. Soil Sci. 1979, 127, 26–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Yang, F.; Ali, M.; Zheng, X.; He, Q.; Yang, X.; Huo, W.; Liang, F.C.; Wang, S.M. Diurnal dynamics of soil respiration and the influencing factors for three land-cover types in the hinterland of the Taklimakan Desert, China. J. Arid. Land 2017, 9, 568–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  124. Hu, T.; Sun, L.; Hu, H.; Guo, F. Effects of fire disturbance on soil respiration in the non-growing season in a Larix gmelinii forest in the Daxing’an Mountains, China. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0180214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  125. Singh, R.; Singh, B.J.; Mukherjee, T.K.; Kumar, V.; Upadhyay, S.K. Biochemical changes during solid state fermentation of wheat crop residues by Aspergillus flavus Link and Aspergillus niger. Biointerface Res. Appl. Chem. 2022, 13, 231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Dash, P.K.; Padhy, S.R.; Bhattacharyya, P.; Pattanayak, A.; Routray, S.; Panneerselvam, P.; Nayak, A.K.; Pathak, H. Efficient lignin decomposing microbial consortium to hasten rice-straw composting with moderate GHGs fluxes. Waste Biomass Valoriz. 2021, 13, 481–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Zaidi, S.T. Rice Crop Residue burning and alternative measures by India: A Review. J. Sci. Res. Inst. Sci. 2021, 65, 132–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Zhao, J.; Ni, T.; Xun, W.; Huang, X.; Huang, Q.; Ran, W.; Shen, B.; Zhang, R.; Shen, Q. Influence of Straw Incorporation with and without Straw Decomposer on Soil Bacterial Community Structure and Function in a Rice-Wheat Cropping System. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2017, 101, 4761–4773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Schmidt, A.; John, K.; Arida, G.; Auge, H.; Brandl, R.; Horgan, F.G. Effects of Residue Management on Decomposition in Irrigated Rice Fields Are Not Related to Changes in the Decomposer Community. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0134402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  130. Tomar, R.K.; Singh, J.P.; Garg, R.N.; Gupta, V.K.; Sahoo, R.N.; Arora, R.P. Effect of weed management practices on weed growth and yield of wheat in rice-based cropping system under varying levels of tillage. Ann. Plant Prot. Sci. 2003, 11, 123–128. [Google Scholar]
  131. Zhang, X.; Qi, L.; Zhub, A.; Lianga, W.; Zhangb, J.; Steinbergerc, Y. Effects of tillage and residue management on soil nematode communities in North China. Ecol. Ind. 2012, 13, 75–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Dhillon, G.S. Comparative evaluation of happy seeder technology versus normal sowing in wheat (Triticum aestivum) in adopted village Killi Nihal Singh of Bathinda district of Punjab. J. Appl. Nat. Sci. 2016, 8, 2278–2282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Iqbal, M.F.; Hussain, M.; Faisal, N.; Iqbal, J.; Rehaman, A.U.; Ahmad, M.; Padyar, J.A. Happy seeder zero tillage equipment for sowing of wheat in standing rice stubbles. Int. J. Adv. Res. Biol. Sci. 2017, 4, 101–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Rafiq, M.H.; Ahmad, R.; Jabbar, A.; Munir, H.; Hussain, M. Wheat productivity responses in the rice-based system under different no-till techniques and nitrogen sources. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 17, 9813–9818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Jordan, N.; Boody, G.; Broussard, W.; Glover, J.; Keeney, D.; McCown, B.; McIsaac, G.; Muller, M.; Murray, H.; Neal, J.; et al. Sustainable development of the agricultural bio-economy. Science 2007, 316, 1570–1571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  136. Singh, R.; Babu, J.N.; Kumar, R.; Srivastava, P.; Singh, P.; Raghubanshi, A.S. Multifaceted application of crop residue biochar as a tool for sustainable agriculture: An ecological perspective. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 77, 324–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 15641 g001 550
Figure 1. (a) Crop-wise production and (b) residue generated (million ton/year) in India during 2019 [21].
Figure 1. (a) Crop-wise production and (b) residue generated (million ton/year) in India during 2019 [21].
Sustainability 14 15641 g001
Sustainability 14 15641 g002 550
Figure 2. Pollutants released due to burning of crop residue [2,28]. Note: SPM—suspended particulate matter, PM—particulate matter, FPM—fine particulate matter.
Figure 2. Pollutants released due to burning of crop residue [2,28]. Note: SPM—suspended particulate matter, PM—particulate matter, FPM—fine particulate matter.
Sustainability 14 15641 g002
Sustainability 14 15641 g003 550
Figure 3. National estimates for crop residue open burning in terms of biomass burned and aerosol and trace gas emissions (Source: [27,28]).
Figure 3. National estimates for crop residue open burning in terms of biomass burned and aerosol and trace gas emissions (Source: [27,28]).
Sustainability 14 15641 g003
Sustainability 14 15641 g004 550
Figure 4. Weed density (number of weeds m−2) as influenced by tillage practices [26].
Figure 4. Weed density (number of weeds m−2) as influenced by tillage practices [26].
Sustainability 14 15641 g004
Sustainability 14 15641 g005 550
Figure 5. Mechanization modulates soil condition, plant growth, and atmosphere.
Figure 5. Mechanization modulates soil condition, plant growth, and atmosphere.
Sustainability 14 15641 g005
Sustainability 14 15641 g006 550
Figure 6. Effect of residue management techniques soil morning and afternoon temperature [85].
Figure 6. Effect of residue management techniques soil morning and afternoon temperature [85].
Sustainability 14 15641 g006
Table
Table 1. Effect of residue management on grain yield of rice and wheat under rice-wheat cropping system.
Table 1. Effect of residue management on grain yield of rice and wheat under rice-wheat cropping system.
Rice Yield (kg ha−1)ReferenceWheat Yield (kg ha−1)Reference
CTZTZT+RCTZTZT+R
480044004900[50]557052806750[51]
724050105380[49]191624262268[50]
Note: CT, conventional tillage; ZT, zero tillage; ZT+R, zero tillage with residue.
Table
Table 2. Effect of residue management on soil chemical properties in the rice-wheat cropping system.
Table 2. Effect of residue management on soil chemical properties in the rice-wheat cropping system.
Soil parameterRiceReferenceWheatReference
CTZTZT+RCTZTZT+R
pH7.447.417.38[83]8.98.88.9[3]
TOC (g kg−1)1.902.302.290.520.500.56
N (kg ha−1)185.8185195.7---
P (kg ha−1)2927.530.6101011
K (kg ha−1)236.2222.4250.6208204206
Note: CT, conventional tillage; ZT, zero tillage; ZT+R, zero tillage with residue.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Korav, S.; Rajanna, G.A.; Yadav, D.B.; Paramesha, V.; Mehta, C.M.; Jha, P.K.; Singh, S.; Singh, S. Impacts of Mechanized Crop Residue Management on Rice-Wheat Cropping System—A Review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15641. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315641

AMA Style

Korav S, Rajanna GA, Yadav DB, Paramesha V, Mehta CM, Jha PK, Singh S, Singh S. Impacts of Mechanized Crop Residue Management on Rice-Wheat Cropping System—A Review. Sustainability. 2022; 14(23):15641. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315641

Chicago/Turabian Style

Korav, Santosh, Gandhamanagenahalli A. Rajanna, Dharam Bir Yadav, Venkatesh Paramesha, Chandra Mohan Mehta, Prakash Kumar Jha, Surendra Singh, and Shikha Singh. 2022. "Impacts of Mechanized Crop Residue Management on Rice-Wheat Cropping System—A Review" Sustainability 14, no. 23: 15641. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315641

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop