Next Article in Journal
Healthy Zerumbone: From Natural Sources to Strategies to Improve Its Bioavailability and Oral Administration
Next Article in Special Issue
Performance of APSIM to Simulate the Dynamics of Winter Wheat Growth, Phenology, and Nitrogen Uptake from Early Growth Stages to Maturity in Northern Europe
Previous Article in Journal
High-Throughput Sequencing Identified Distinct Bipartite and Monopartite Begomovirus Variants Associated with DNA-Satellites from Tomato and Muskmelon Plants in Saudi Arabia
Previous Article in Special Issue
Changes in Metabolic Profile of Rice Leaves Induced by Humic Acids
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 12
Issue 1
10.3390/plants12010009
plants-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

The Influence of Different Crop Mulches on Weed Infestation, Soil Properties and Productivity of Wheat under Conventional and Conservation Production Systems

by
Waqas Ahmed Minhas
1,
Noman Mehboob
1,
Muhammad Yahya
1,
Hafeez Ur Rehman
2,
Shahid Farooq
3 and
Mubshar Hussain
1,4,*
1
Department of Agronomy, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan 60800, Pakistan
2
Department of Agronomy, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad 30800, Pakistan
3
Department of Plant Protection, Faculty of Agriculture, Harran University, Şanlıurfa 63050, Turkey
4
School of Veterinary and Life Sciences, Murdoch University, 90 South Street, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2023, 12(1), 9; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12010009
Submission received: 14 November 2022 / Revised: 11 December 2022 / Accepted: 15 December 2022 / Published: 20 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Cereal Science and Cereal Quality)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Pakistan and other South Asian countries rely on wheat for human nutrition. However, wheat yield is declining in the region due to several biotic and abiotic constraints. Weeds are among the major factors responsible for yield decrease and farmers manage them by intensive tillage practices. Several studies have investigated the impact of various tillage practices on weed management in wheat. However, weed suppression abilities of different mulch types are rarely tested. This three-year (2019–20, 2020–21 and 2021–22) study investigated the impact of different mulch types (prepared from different crops) on weed infestation, soil properties and productivity of wheat under conventional and conservation production systems at three locations (Multan, Hafizabad and Faisalabad) in Punjab, Pakistan. The mulches included in the study were cotton sticks mulch, mungbean straw mulch, sorghum straw mulch, rice straw mulch, sunflower straw mulch, plastic mulch, and no mulch (as control). The production systems opted for wheat cultivation were conventionally tilled wheat (CTW), zero-tilled wheat (ZTW) and zero-tilled wheat sown with happy seeder machine (HSW). The CTW resulted in the lowest soil bulk density and the highest soil porosity after wheat harvest, while ZTW behaved oppositely. Similarly, incorporation of crop mulches resulted in the highest soil porosity and the lowest soil bulk density, while no-mulch incorporation and plastic mulch recorded the highest bulk density and the lowest soil porosity. Regarding mulches by production systems’ interaction, CTW with sorghum straw- and plastic mulches recorded the lowest weed density and biomass, while ZTW with no-mulch recorded the highest weed density and biomass at all locations. The CTW with mungbean straw- and plastic mulches resulted in the highest yield due to significant improvement in yield-related traits. However, ZTW with sorghum straw mulch and no-mulch resulted in the lowest wheat yield. Although sorghum straw mulch suppressed weed infestation, it negatively affected wheat growth. Economic analysis revealed that CTW with mungbean straw mulch resulted in the highest gross and net incomes and benefit:cost ratio (BCR), while the ZTW with rice straw- and sorghum straw mulches produced the lowest gross and net incomes and BCR at all locations. Therefore, mungbean straw mulch is a viable option to improve wheat productivity and net economic returns under different agro-climatic conditions of Punjab, Pakistan.

1. Introduction

Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) is an important cereal crop in Pakistan and majority of the country’s population rely on wheat for daily nutrition. Wheat accounts for 1.8% of Pakistan’s gross domestic product (GDP) [1]. Wheat production in the country must be increased by 1.7% annually to meet local demands. However, a 3.9% decrease in the country’s wheat production has been observed recently [2]. Weeds are among the major factors responsible for low wheat productivity [3,4]. Weeds compete with wheat plants and reduce yield by ~34% [5]. Moreover, weeds host several diseases and other pests, which could exert more negative impacts on crop production [6]. Weeds compete with crop plants for light, space, moisture, and nutrients, which reduce yield and quality of the produce [3,5,7]. It has been reported that weed infestation can reduce wheat yield by 25 to 30% depending upon the duration of weed-crop competition, weed species, and weed management practices [8]. Weed infestation is a major hurdle in the adoption of sustainable agriculture [3,4,7].
Conventional tillage (CT) methods are in use for wheat cultivation for several decades. The CT is beneficial in improving soil fertility. However, it deteriorates soil structure, and leads to soil compaction and erosion [9]. Mostly farmers use CT to incorporate previous crops’ residues into the soil [10]. However, it involves several cultivations inverting the entire soil surface, which is not feasible and economical for winter crops [11]. The CT is helpful in weed management during early growth stages of crop plants [12]. However, severe weed infestation is observed at later growth stages. Furthermore, recurrent use of CT at the same depth for seedbed preparation may create plough pan, which reduces crop productivity [13] and results in nutrients’ depletion [14].
Conservation agriculture (CA) practices include minimum tillage (MT) and zero tillage (ZT), which reduce production costs due to lesser tillage and ensure water and soil conservation [15]. The ZT is a viable option for wheat cultivation as it reduces cultivation costs and avoids a 2–3 week delay in crop planting [16]. Reduced or zero tillage is better than CT due to less greenhouse gases’ emissions and better crop yields [17]. However, higher weed infestation is observed in ZT compared to CT [18]. If ZT is practiced without proper soil cover, it can increase infestation of weeds, diseases, and pests, degrade soil structure and lower crop yields [19]. Weeds are a major barrier in the adoption of CA globally [20]. Since tillage is not employed for weed management, cultural practices and integrated weed management are the primary tools for suppressing weed infestation in CA [21].
Mulching is a soil covering technique, which expands soil surface area by adding organic carbon to the soil. Various organic and inorganic materials serve as mulches. The mulches act as a protective layer on the soil surface, conserve soil moisture and suppress weeds’ growth. Mulching helps in maintaining soil moisture and temperature for longer period and suppress weed infestation [22,23]. Different mulches (e.g., rice husk and black polythene sheet) are effective in conserving soil moisture through reducing water use by 3–11% and crop performance by 25%. On an average, 13–21%, 25% and 40% increase in grain yield, root weight and root length have been reported by using mulches [24]. Mulching increases soil temperature and covers the soil, which reduces weed growth [25]. It also reduces weed-crop competition and helps plants in early fruiting and seed setting [26,27]. Moreover, mulching reduces the use of herbicides, improves fertilizer use efficiency [28], reduces soil erosion, and improves grain yield and quality [29]. Mulching combined with deep and shallow cultivation has a great impact on increasing grain yield and water use efficiency [30].
Although various studies have compared the impact of CT and CA on wheat production and soil properties, the impact of different on weed infestation and wheat production is less explored. Moreover, the interactive effect of CT and CA, and different mulch types on soil properties and weed infestation have never been studied in Pakistan. This study investigated the interactive effects of CT and CA with different mulches on wheat productivity, soil properties and weed infestation. It was hypothesized that the mulches of allelopathic crops in CT [(sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.)] would suppress weed infestation. It was further hypothesized that wheat productivity and soil properties will be improved by the mulches prepared from leguminous crop [mungbean (Vigna radiata L.)] in CA. The results would help to improve wheat productivity and economic returns.

2. Results

2.1. Soil Physical Properties

Soil bulk density and soil porosity were significantly affected by production systems (T), mulches (M) and their interaction T × M at all locations (Table S1). The highest and the lowest soil BD was recorded for zero tilled wheat (ZTW) and conventionally tilled wheat (CTW), respectively. Similarly, CTW observed the highest total soil porosity, whereas ZTW resulted in the lowest values at all locations. Regarding mulches, the highest and the lowest soil BD was noted for no-mulch (N-M) and mungbean straw mulch (mungbean-M), respectively. Likewise, mungbean-M recorded the highest soil porosity, and it was statistically at par with cotton sticks mulch (cotton-M) and sunflower straw mulch (sunflower-M) at Multan and Hafizabad, and rice straw mulch (rice-M) at Faisalabad. The T × M interaction revealed that CTW with mungbean-M recorded the lowest and the highest soil BD and soil porosity, respectively. Likewise, ZTW with N-M recorded the highest soil BD and ZTW with plastic mulch (plastic-M) observed the lowest soil porosity (Table 1).

2.2. Total Weed Density and Biomass

The total weed density and biomass were significantly altered by individual and interactive effects of T and M at 45 and 65 days after sowing (DAS) at all locations (Tables S2–S4). The highest and the lowest weed density and biomass were recorded for ZTW and CTW, respectively, at all locations. Wheat sown with plastic-M recorded the lowest weed density and biomass followed by sorghum-M, while N-M observed the highest weed density and biomass at all locations. The T by M interaction indicated that ZTW with N-M observed the highest, while CTW with plastic-M and sorghum-M recorded the lowest density and biomass of weeds (Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4).

2.3. Yield-Related Traits of Wheat

Plant height, number of productive tillers, spike length, number of grains per spike and 1000-grain weight were significantly altered by individual effects of T and M at all locations. However, their interactive effect had non-significant on plant height at Multan and Hafizabad, spike length at all locations and number of grains per spike at Multan and Hafizabad (Tables S5–S7). The CTW recorded the highest plant height, number of productive tillers, spike length, number of grains per spike and 1000-grain weight, while ZTW observed the lowest values of these traits. Wheat sown with plastic-M observed the highest plant height, number of productive tillers, spike length, number of grains per spike and 1000-grain weight wheat followed by mungbean-M. However, wheat sown with N-M recorded the lowest values for yield-related traits. Interactive of T × M indicated that CTW with plastic-M recorded the highest values for plant height, number of productive tillers, number of grains per spike and 1000-grain weight followed by mungbean-M at all locations, while ZTW with N-M and sorghum-M recorded the lowest values for yield-related traits (Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7).
Biological, grain and straw yields were significantly altered by the individual and interactive effect of T and M at all locations (Tables S7 and S8). The highest and the lowest values of biological, grain and straw yields were noted for CTW and ZTW, respectively. Furthermore, the highest and the lowest values of biological, grain and straw yields were recorded for Plastic-M and N-M and sorghum-M, respectively. The T × M interaction indicated that CTW with plastic-M and mungbean-M had higher biological, grain and straw yields, whereas ZTW with N-M and sorghum-M recorded the lowest yields (Table 7 and Table 8).
Harvest index was significantly affected by individual and interactive effects of T and M except for non-significant interaction for Multan location (Table S9). The highest and the lowest harvest index was recorded for CTW and ZTW, respectively. Likewise, the highest and the lowest harvest index was recorded for plastic-M and N-M, respectively. The T by M interaction revealed that CTW with mungbean-M and sunflower-M recorded higher, while ZTW with N-M and sorghum-M had lower harvest index (Table 9).

2.4. Economic Analysis

Economic analysis indicated that CTW with Plastic-M and mungbean-M recorded the highest gross and net incomes and benefit cost ratio (BCR) at all locations. The CTW with mungbean-M recorded the highest gross and net incomes and BCR at Multan. Similarly, CTW with plastic-M recorded the highest gross and net incomes and BCR at Hafizabad. Likewise, CTW with plastic-M recorded the highest gross and net incomes; however, the highest BCR at Faisalabad was noted for CTW with mungbean-M. The ZTW with N-M resulted in the lowest gross and net incomes at all locations, whereas ZTW with rice-M recorded the lowest BCR at all locations (Table 10).

3. Discussion

Different wheat production systems (sowing techniques) and mulches significantly altered the physical properties of soil. The least soil BD and the highest porosity was noted for CTW, while the highest soil BD and the lowest porosity was recorded for ZTW (Table 1). Tillage practices are responsible for the change in soil’s physical characteristics as CTW loosens the soil, while ZTW compacts it. The ZTW conserves soil, minimizes soil BD, penetration resistance, and improves soil organic carbon and soil moisture retention capacity compared to CTW [31]. Heavy tillage practices reduced soil BD and increased soil porosity by 5.19% and 5.69%, respectively. Similarly, CTW had a higher soil porosity and a lower soil BD than no-tillage [32,33]. Reduced tillage intensity improved soil BD, hydraulic conductivity and reduced soil porosity and soil erosion [34]. Reduced tillage practices decrease soil BD, total carbon, and penetration resistances, whereas increased tillage intensity decreases total carbon, improves water infiltration rate and soil porosity [35]. Different crop mulches used in the current study significantly altered soil physical properties. Mungbean-M resulted in the highest soil total porosity and the lowest soil BD, while N-M recorded the highest BD and the lowest porosity. Mulching reduces soil temperature, BD, penetration resistance and improves soil porosity, which promotes root development [36]. The use of mulches improves soil organic carbon, loosens the soil, and alters the soil physical condition (Table 1). Low soil BD and less soil erosion have been observed under mulching compared to no-mulch treatment [37]. Crop residues used as mulch materials add organic matter to the soil. Therefore, crop mulches lowered soil BD along with a significant increase in soil porosity [33]. The Plastic-M changed soil BD, porosity, saturated hydraulic conductivity, and soil moisture contents [38].
Different wheat production systems and mulches significantly altered weed infestation at all locations. The ZTW with N-M recorded the highest weed density and biomass, whereas CTW with plastic-M and sorghum-M recorded the lowest weed density and biomass at all locations (Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4). The intensive tillage in CTW moves the weed seeds to deeper soil layer, which hinders their emergence. Thus, lesser weed infestation is recorded in CTW [39,40]. The deep buried weed seeds in CTW result in lower weed infestation compared to ZT, while ZT system had huge seed bank near to the soil surface, which allows weed emergence and weed-crop competition [41]. The CTW had a great impact on weed flora and proper use of tillage can suppress weed infestation [42]. However, ZT without sufficient soil cover and crop rotation may lead to soil deterioration, infestation of weeds, pests, and diseases, and decreased yields [43]. Many weed seeds are still present on the soil surface in ZT, where they get enough moisture and light to germinate and flourish [44]. The favorable growth conditions [18,19] for the weed seeds bank in the topsoil result in higher weed infestation [45]. Similar findings have been reported by earlier studies [46,47], where ZT observed higher weed infestation, while CT resulted in lower weed infestation.
Mulches are laid on top of the soil to prevent water evaporation and weed growth [48]. Mulches prepared from agricultural residues exert positive impacts on crop productivity because they help in retaining soi moisture, lower soil erosion, and increase organic matter in the soil [49,50]. Different crop mulches included in the current study significantly altered weed infestation in wheat crop. Sorghum-M and Plastic-M significantly suppressed weed flora and resulted in the lowest weed density and biomass at all locations (Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4). Some crops, such as sorghum, rice, and sunflower, had a strong allelopathic effect, which restricts weed growth. Sorghum mulch is known for its strong allelopathic effect [51], which reduces weed density and dry weight by 40.8% and 56.0%. The application of sorghum mulch (5 and 10 kg ha−1) reduced weed density by 6 to 43% and biomass by 48 to 66% [52]. Several studies [51,53,54] reported that sunflower and sorghum mulch exhibited strong allelopathic effect and suppressed weed infestation by 67.5 and 67.0%, respectively. These results coincide with our study that sorghum-M significantly suppressed weed infestation in wheat crop. Moreover, Plastic-M blocks sunlight and alters soil temperature, which suppresses weed growth [55], improves crop water use efficiency [56] and suppresses weed infestation [25]. Similarly, densities and dry weights of total weeds were significantly reduced by black plastic mulch [57].
Yield is dependent on early crop performance and if a crop suffers challenges during its early phase, yield and related traits are significantly hampered. The result of the current study revealed that tillage practices and crop mulches significantly affected wheat yield and related traits. The CTW observed the highest, while ZTW observed the lowest values for plant height, number of productive tillers, spike length, number of grains per spike, 1000-grain weight, grain, straw and biological yields, and harvest index at all locations (Table 5, Table 6, Table 7, Table 8 and Table 9). The ZTW recorded the highest soil BD and lowest porosity (Table 1), which restricted root penetration. The weaker root growth in CTW resulted in lesser moisture and nutrient uptake. Thus, resulting in lower yield and related traits. Moreover, ZTW recorded higher weed infestation, which resulted in weed-crop competition for light, space, water and nutrient leading to poor crop performance (Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4). However, the CTW plots had the lowest BD and porosity (Table 1), which help the roots to penetrate deeper for nutrient and moisture extraction leading to better crop growth and yield. Furthermore, CTW had lesser weed infestation and weed-crop competition, which ultimately improved yield and related traits. Lesser weed prevalence results in better yield, while more weed infestation significantly reduced yield [58]. Adoption of suitable sowing techniques can suppress weed infestation, which ultimately affects crop yield [59]. In CTW, soil is inverted [11], which eradicates weeds [12] and makes soil well pulverized, which favors root development and lesser weed-crop competition [60]. Similar findings were reported by Shahzad et al. [61] that CTW observed higher yield as compared to ZTW because it experienced less weed incidence, higher moisture, and nutrient uptake.
Different crop mulches significantly affected wheat yield and related traits. Mungbean-M and Plastic-M recorded the highest values for plant height, number of productive tillers, spike length, number of grains per spike, 1000-grain weight, grain, straw and biological yields, and harvest index at all locations, whereas N-M and sorghum-M recorded the lowest values for these traits (Table 5, Table 6, Table 7, Table 8 and Table 9). Mulches improve soil organic matter content, available P, K and decrease soil pH [8], improve water holding capacity of soil, reduce soil erosion and enhance soil organic matter [47]. Legumes have the tendency to fix atmospheric N2 into the soil, which is unavailable to plants [62]. These crops also provide essential nutrients that are readily available to plants [63]. Moreover, mungbean-M also observed lower weed infestation than N-M (Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4). Due to better early crop performance, higher yield and related traits were recorded for mungbean-M. Plastic-M also noted the highest values for yield traits because. The plastic cover did not allow the weeds’ emergence. Hence, the crop produced better yield in the absence of weed-crop competition (Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4). A similar trend has been reported in an earlier study [64] where plastic film mulching increased crop yield by 24%. The ZTW with sorghum-M recorded the lowest yield and related traits due to allelopathic effect of sorghum. Sorghum is highly allelopathic and it not only reduces weed infestation but also exerted negative impacts on wheat yield (Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6, Table 7, Table 8 and Table 9); [51]. Sorghum releases chemicals, including fatty acids, benzoxazinoids, indoles, phenolic acids, phenylalkanoic acids and terpenoids, which had a strong allelochemical effect on suppressing weeds and successive crops [51,54].
It is important how tillage affects nutrient availability after the incorporation of crop residues or their use as surface mulches [65]. Residues’ incorporation may alter nutrient availability because of their inherent nutritional composition [66]. Different crop residues supply varying amounts of nutrients depending on their decomposition speed and nutritional composition [67]. Tillage is another important factor influencing the availability of nutrients, although clay minerology is the most influential parameter in this regard. Several studies have revealed that nutrient supply/release was higher in conventionally tilled soils compared to no tillage [68,69]. The differences in the yield-related attributes in the current study under different production systems can be owed to tillage systems and composition of mulches. The CTW probably released more nutrients compared to ZTW, which improved the crop growth and yield. Similarly, mungbean-M could have higher nutrients than the rest of the crop mulches included in the study, which improved the growth and productivity of wheat crop. However, nutrient release and nutritional composition of the mulches were not tested in the current study. Therefore, these must be examined in future studies to confirm these inferences
Economic analysis revealed that CTW with mungbean-M and plastic-M recorded the highest net and gross incomes, and BCR. The CTW with plastic-M recorded the lowest weed infestation (Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4) and CTW with mungbean-M improved soil physical properties and soil organic carbon both of which produced higher yield. Mungbean-M recorded the highest BCR at all locations as Mungbean-M is cheaper than plastic-M thus, reduced production costs. The ZTW with N-M recorded the lowest gross and net incomes at all locations due to the lowest yield (Table 5, Table 6, Table 7, Table 8 and Table 9).

4. Materials and Methods

This three-year study was conducted at a research farm in the Department of Agronomy, Bahauddin Zakariya University Multan, a research farm of the University of Agriculture Faisalabad and at a farmer’s field in district Hafizabad, Pakistan during 2019–20, 2020–21 and 2021–22. The Multan site had loamy soil with 8.31 pH, 2.81 mS cm−1 EC, 0.81% organic matter content, 0.103 % total nitrogen (N), 7.85 mg kg−1 available phosphorus (P) and 200 mg kg−1 available potassium (K). The Hafizabad site had sandy loam soil with pH value of 8.0, 3.20 mS cm−1 EC, 0.67% organic matter content, 0.049% total N, 6.78 mg kg−1 available P and 175 mg kg−1 available K. The Faisalabad site had sandy clay loam soil with pH values of 7.9, EC of 1.35 mS cm−1, 0.76% organic matter content, 0.05% total N, 6.74 mg kg−1 available P and 181 mg kg−1 available K.

4.1. Experiment Details

The above ground parts of all kharif crops (cotton, sorghum, mungbean, rice and sunflower) were chaffed properly after harvesting and air dried for 15 days. The crop and plastic mulches were applied after sowing between wheat rows. Crop mulches were applied at the rate 5 t ha−1. For CTW, seedbed was prepared by cultivating field two times by tractor mounted cultivator followed by planking to produce well aerated seedbed. For HSM and ZTW, a tractor drawn happy seeder machine and a zero-drill machine were used for wheat sowing without disturbing the soil. This experiment was laid out following RCBD with factorial arrangement and replicated thrice with a net plot size of 5.0 m × 2.7 m.

4.2. Crop Husbandry

A pre-soaking irrigation of 10 cm was applied before sowing and seedbed was prepared according to the treatments. The wheat variety ‘Johar-2016′ was sown on November 23 at Multan, November 28 at Faisalabad and December 5 at Hafizabad during 2019–20. Similarly, wheat sowing was done on November 26 at Hafizabad, December 2 at Multan and December 3 at Faisalabad during 2020–21. Likewise, wheat sowing was done on November 23 at Multan, November 25 at Faisalabad and November 30 at Hafizabad during 2021–22. The wheat seed rate was kept at 150 kg ha−1 at all locations during all years. Fertilizer was applied at the rate of 150, 100 and 70 kg ha−1 of N, P, and K. Nitrogen-based fertilizer was applied in three splits, whereas the whole P and K fertilizers were applied at the time of sowing. Field was irrigated five times during the whole growth period of wheat. For better crop production all cultural and agronomical practices were used to ensure crop safety from pests and diseases. Final crop harvesting was done on 15 April at Multan, 19 April at Hafizabad and 25 April at Faisalabad during the 1st year. During the 2nd year, harvesting was done on 14 April at Multan, 23 April at Hafizabad and 25 April at Faisalabad. During the 3rd year, harvesting was done on 10 April at Multan, 13 April at Hafizabad and 17 April at Faisalabad site. No weed management practices were opted in any of the treatments. The recommended row spacing of 20 cm was used for sowing wheat crop.

4.3. Soil Physical Properties

Soil bulk density (BD) and total porosity were analyzed by taking soil samples with soil core sampler after wheat harvest during each year. Three random samples from all experimental plots were taken from 0–15 cm depth, mixed, dried in an oven for 24 h at 105 °C and then BD was measured by following the procedure of Blake and Hartge [70]. Total soil porosity was estimated following Danielson and Sutherland [71].

4.4. Data Collection of Weeds

Data regarding totals weed density and biomass were recorded at two different intervals, i.e., 45 and 65 days after sowing of wheat (DAS). Three random places from each experiment unit were selected by using quadrate (1 m × 1 m). All weed plants in the quadrate were uprooted from field and counted (to record density) from each treatment and oven dried for 70 ± 5 °C until the constant weight to record total dry biomass of all weeds.

4.5. Agronomic and Yield-Related Traits of Wheat

Data regarding the number of productive tillers were taken from each experimental unit using quadrate method and averaged. The number of spike bearing tillers in each treatment were counted from three different locations in each treatment and averaged. Plant height and spike length (from base to awns) were recorded from 10 randomly selected plants by using measuring tape and averaged. Similarly, the number of grains per spike were counted from 25 randomly selected spikes from each experimental unit. Further, 5 samples of 1000 grains were selected from each experimental unit randomly to record 1000 grain weight. For estimating biological, grain and straw yields, whole experimental units were harvested and sundried for two days and weighed using spring balance to record biological yield. Later, the wheat was threshed manually to obtain grain yield and straw yield using the same weighing balance. Biological, grain and straw yields were converted to t ha−1 by unitary method. Harvest index was recorded by using ratio of grain yield to biological yield and expressed in percentage.

4.6. Statistical Analysis

The collected data were checked for normality using the Shapiro–Wilk normality test which indicated a normal distribution. Therefore, all statistical analyses were performed on original data. The differences among years were tested by three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) by taking year as a factor. The ANOVA indicated that the year effect was non-significant. Similarly, the studied locations were far from each other and each in different climatic zones of the country. Therefore, data of different locations were pooled across years and analyzed, presented, and interpreted separately. Two-way ANOVA was used to infer the significance of wheat production systems and mulches for each location separately. The individual effects of wheat production systems and mulches were significant for all recorded traits, while interactions were non-significant for some of the traits. Therefore, both individual and interactive effects were presented and interpreted. Means of individual and interactive effects of mulches and wheat production systems were compared with the least significant difference (LSD) at a 95% probability level where ANOVA indicated significant differences [72]. All statistical computations were made on SPSS statistical software version 21.0.

4.7. Economic Analysis

Economic analysis of the current experiment was conducted to estimate the system productivity. The expenditures incurred on wheat production, including land rent, mulches, seed, tillage, labor costs, fertilizers, irrigation, harvesting, etc., were combined to get total expenses. Gross income was computed by using the prevailing market prices of wheat grains and straw. The net income was computed by subtracting the expenditure from gross income. The benefit cost ratio was computed by dividing the net income with the expenses incurred in wheat production. The existing market prices were taken for all the inputs and produce for the relevant years and then averaged across the years. The local currency was then converted into USD keeping in view the current exchange rate.

5. Conclusions

The ZTW promoted weed infestation due to least soil disturbance in the upper layer, while CTW suppressed weed infestation. The ZTW with N-M promoted weed infestation, while plastic-M and sorghum-M suppressed weed growth due to soil cover and strong allelopathic effect. The CTW with plastic-M and mungbean-M significantly improved soil physical properties and wheat yield. Moreover, CTW with plastic-M increased wheat yield. However, net benefits of CTW with mungbean-M were higher. Overall, CTW with mungbean-M resulted in the highest economic returns. Therefore, it can be opted for more economic benefits. However, CTW with sorghum-M resulted in the lowest weed infestation; therefore, it can be opted for better weed management in wheat crop.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/plants12010009/s1, Table S1: Analysis of variance for the individual and interactive effect of different mulches and production systems on soil bulk density and soil porosity after wheat harvest; Table S2: Analysis of variance for the individual and interactive effect of different mulches and production systems on weed density and biomass in wheat crop at Multan; Table S3: Analysis of variance for the individual and interactive effect of different mulches and production systems on weed density and biomass in wheat crop at Hafizabad; Table S4: Analysis of variance for the individual and interactive effect of different mulches and production systems on weed density and biomass in wheat crop at Faisalabad; Table S5: Analysis of variance for the individual and interactive effect of different mulches and production systems on plant height and number of productive tillers of wheat; Table S6: Analysis of variance for the individual and interactive effect of different mulches and production systems on spike length and number of grains per spike of wheat; Table S7: Analysis of variance for the individual and interactive effect of different mulches and production systems on thousand grain weight and biological yield of wheat; Table S8: Analysis of variance for the individual and interactive effect of different mulches and production systems on grain and straw yields of wheat; Table S9: Analysis of variance for the individual and interactive effect of different mulches and production systems on harvest index of wheat.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.H. and H.U.R.; methodology, W.A.M., N.M. and M.Y.; software, W.A.M. and S.F.; validation, M.H., H.U.R. and S.F.; formal analysis, W.A.M., M.Y. and N.M.; investigation, W.A.M.; resources, M.H.; data curation, W.A.M., M.Y. and N.M.; writing—original draft preparation, W.A.M.; writing—review and editing, S.F., M.H. and H.U.R.; visualization, M.H.; supervision, M.H. and H.U.R.; project administration, M.H. and H.U.R.; funding acquisition, M.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The corresponding author (Mubshar Hussain) is highly obliged to the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan for financial assistance to accomplish this study under NRPU grant no. 6997/Punjab/NRPU/R&D/HEC/2017.

Data Availability Statement

All data are within the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Economic Survey of Pakistan. Finance division, Government of Pakistan. 2021–2022. Available online: https://www.finance.gov.pk/survey_2022.html (accessed on 11 October 2022).
  2. Rosegrant, M.W.; Agcaoili, M. Global Food Demand, Supply, and Price Prospects to 2010; International food policy research Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  3. Shahzad, M.; Farooq, M.; Jabran, K.; Hussain, M. Impact of different crop rotations and tillage systems on weed infestation and productivity of bread wheat. Crop Prot. 2016, 89, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Melander, B.; Jabran, K.; De Notaris, C.; Znova, L.; Green, O.; Olesen, J.E. Inter-row hoeing for weed control in organic spring cereals-Influence of inter-row spacing and nitrogen rate. Eur. J. Agron. 2018, 101, 49–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Oerke, E.C. Crop losses to pests. J. Agric. Sci. 2006, 144, 31–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kubiszewski, I.; Cleveland, C. In Proceedings of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3–14 June 1992; Available online: http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/156773 (accessed on 8 September 2022).
  7. Verma, S.K.; Singh, S.B.; Meena, R.N.; Prasad, S.K.; Meena, R.S.; Gaurav, A. A review of weed management in India: The need of new directions for sustainable agriculture. Bioscan 2015, 10, 253–263. [Google Scholar]
  8. Chaudhary, S.; Iqbal, J. Weed control and nutrient promotion in zero-tillage wheat through rice straw mulch. Pak. J. Weed Sci. Res. 2013, 19, 465–474. [Google Scholar]
  9. Gómez, J.A.; Guzmán, M.G.; Giráldez, J.V.; Fereres, E. The influence of cover crops and tillage on water and sediment yield, and on nutrient, and organic matter losses in an olive orchard on a sandy loam soil. Soil Tillage Res. 2009, 106, 137–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Aulakh, M.S.; Khera, T.S.; Doran, J.W.; Bronson, K.F. Managing crop residue with green manure, urea, and tillage in rice-wheat rotation. Soil. Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2001, 65, 820–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Endale, D.M.; Cabrera, M.L.; Steiner, J.L.; Radcliffe, D.E.; Vencill, W.K.; Schomberg, H.H.; Lohr, L. Impact of conservation tillage and nutrient management on soil water and yield of cotton fertilized with poultry litter or ammonium nitrate in Georgia Piedmont. Soil Tillage Res. 2002, 66, 55–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gajri, P.R.; Gill, K.S.; Singh, R.; Gill, B.S. Effect of pre-planting tillage on crop yields and weed biomass in a rice- wheat system on a sandy loam soil in Punjab. Soil Tillage Res. 1999, 52, 83–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bertolino, A.V.F.A.; Fernandes, N.F.; Miranda, J.P.L.; Souza, A.P.; Lopes, M.R.S.; Palmieri, F. Effects of plough pan development on surface hydrology and on soil physical properties in Southeastern Brazilian plateau. J. Hydro. 2010, 393, 94–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. World Resources Institute. People and ecosystems, the frayling web of life. In World Resources Institute, United Nations Development Programme; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2000; p. 36. [Google Scholar]
  15. Jabran, K.; Mehmood, A.A. Higher yield and economic benefits for wheat planted in conservation till systems. Yuz. Yıl Univ. J. Agri. Sci. 2015, 25, 78–83. [Google Scholar]
  16. Sidhu, H.S.; Singh, M.; Humphrey, E.; Singh, Y.; Singh, B.; Dhillon, S.S.; Blackwell, J.; Bector, V.; Singh, M.; Singh, S. The Happy Seeder enables direct drilling of wheat into rice straw. Aust. J. Exp. Agri. 2007, 47, 844–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Stošic, M.; Ivezic, V.; Tadic, V. Tillage systems as a function of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission and fuel consumption mitigation. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 16492–16503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Sosnoskie, L.M.; Herms, C.P.; Cardina, J. Weed seed bank community composition in a 35 years old tillage and rotation experiment. Weed Sci. 2006, 54, 263–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Govaerts, B.; François, I.; Verhulst, N. Conservation agriculture (CA) for sustainable intensification of maize and other cereal systems: The case of Latin America. In Conservation Agriculture for Sustainable Intensification of Maize and Other Cereal Systems; Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing: London, UK, 2017; pp. 81–105. [Google Scholar]
  20. Lee, N.; Thierfelder, C. Weed control under conservation agriculture in dryland smallholder farming systems of southern Africa. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 37, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Nichols, V.; Verhulst, N.; Cox, R.; Govaerts, B. Weed dynamics and conservation agriculture principles: A review. Field Crop. Res. 2015, 183, 56–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Athy, E.R.; Keiffer, C.H.; Stevens, M.H. Effects of mulch on seedlings and soil on a closed landfill. Restor. Ecol. 2006, 14, 233–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Szwedo, J.; Maszczyk, M. Effects of straw mulching of tree rows on some soil characteristics, mineral nutrient uptake and cropping of sour cherry trees. J. Fruit Ornam. Plant Res. 2001, 8, 147–153. [Google Scholar]
  24. Chakraborty, D.; Garg, R.N.; Tomar, R.K.; Singh, R.; Sharma, S.K.; Singh, R.K.; Trivedi, S.M.; Mittal, R.B.; Sharma, P.K.; Kamble, K.H. Synthetic and organic mulching and nitrogen effect on winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in a semi-arid environment. Agric. Water Mana. 2010, 97, 738–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Qin, X.; Li, Y.; Han, Y.; Hu, Y.; Li, Y.; Wen, X. Ridge-furrow mulching with black plastic film improves maize yield more than white plastic film in dry areas with adequate accumulated temperature. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2018, 262, 206–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wang, X.; Xu, G.B.; Ren, Z.G.; Zhang, Z.J.; Jian, Y.F.; Zhang, Y.M. Effects of environment-friendly degradable films on corn growth and soil environment. Chin. J. Eco-Agric. 2007, 15, 78–81. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  27. Subrahmaniyan, K.; Zhou, W. Soil temperature associated with degradable, non-degradable plastic and organic mulches and their effect on biomass production, enzyme activities and seed yield of winter rapeseed (Brassica napus L.). J. Sustain. Agric. 2008, 32, 611–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Martín-Closas, L.; Costa, J.; Pelacho, A.M. Agronomic effects of biodegradable films on crop and field environment. In Soil Degradable Bioplastics for a Sustainable Modern Agriculture; Malinconico, M., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 67–104. [Google Scholar]
  29. Greer, L.; Dole, J.M. Aluminum foil, aluminium-painted, plastic, and degradable mulches increase yields and decrease insect-vectored viral diseases of vegetables. Hort. Tech. 2003, 13, 276–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Sarkar, S.; Singh, S.R. Interactive effect of tillage depth and mulch on soil temperature, productivity and water use pattern of rainfed barley (Hordium vulgare L.). Soil Tillage Res. 2007, 92, 79–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Yu, Q.; Wang, H.; Wen, P.; Wang, S.; Li, J.; Wang, R.; Wang, X. A suitable rotational conservation tillage system ameliorates soil physical properties and wheat yield: An 11-year in-situ study in a semi-arid agroecosystem. Soil Tillage Res. 2020, 199, 104600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sokolowski, A.C.; McCormick, B.P.; Grazia, J.D.; Wolski, J.E.; Rodríguez, H.A.; Rodríguez-Frers, E.P.; Gagey, M.C.; Debelis, S.P.; Paladino, I.R.; Barrios, M.B. Tillage and no-tillage effects on physical and chemical properties of an Argiaquoll soil under long-term crop rotation in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2020, 8, 185–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Naeem, M.; Mehboob, N.; Farooq, M.; Farooq, S.; Hussain, S.; Ali, H.M.; Hussain, H. impact of different barley-based cropping systems on soil physicochemical properties and barley growth under conventional and conservation tillage systems. Agronomy 2021, 11, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Vikas, R.; Pramanik, P.; Aggarwal, P.; Krishnan, P.; Bhattacharyya, R. Effect of conservation agriculture on soil physical health. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci. 2018, 7, 373–389. [Google Scholar]
  35. Peixoto, D.S.; Silva, L.C.M.; Melo, L.B.B.; Azevedo, R.P.; Araújo, B.C.L.; Carvalho, T.S.; Moreira, S.G.; Curi, N.; Silva, B.M. Occasional tillage in no-tillage systems: A global meta-analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 745, 140887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Nawaz, A.; Lal, K.; Shrestha, R.K.; Farooq, M. Mulching affects soil properties and greenhouse gas emissions under long-term no-till and plough-till systems in Alfisol of Central Ohio. Land Degrad. Develop. 2007, 28, 673–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Nzeyimana, I.; Hartemink, A.E.; Ritsema, C.; Stroosnijder, L.; Lwanga, E.H.; Geissen, V. Mulching as a strategy to improve soil properties and reduce soil erodibility in coffee farming systems of Rwanda. Catena 2017, 149, 43–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Qi, Y.; Beriot, N.; Gort, G.; Lwanga, E.H.; Gooren, H.; Yang, X.; Geissen, V. Impact of plastic mulch film debris on soil physicochemical and hydrological properties. Environ. Poll. 2020, 266, 115097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Singh, M.; Bhullar, M.S.; Chauhan, B.S. Influence of tillage, cover cropping, and herbicides on weeds and productivity of dry direct seeded rice. Soil Tillage Res. 2015, 147, 39–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Haruna, S.I.; Nkongolo, N.V. Influence of cover crop, tillage, and crop rotation management on soil nutrients. Agriculture 2020, 10, 225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Chauhan, B.S.; Gill, G.S.; Preston, C. Influence of tillage systems on vertical distribution, seedling recruitment and persistence of rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum L.). Weed Sci. 2006, 54, 669–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Mehmood-ul-hassan; Qayyum, A.; Sher, A.; Tahir, M.I.; Azeem, I.; Fareed, A. Weeds biomass as affected by tillage practices and cropping systems under a semiarid environment. Planta Daninha 2021, 38, e020214144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Bayala, J.; Sileshi, G.W.; Coe, R.; Kalinganire, A.; Tchoundjeu, Z.; Sinclair, F.; Garrity, D. Cereal yield response to conservation agriculture practices in drylands of West Africa: A quantitative synthesis. J. Arid Environ. 2012, 78, 13–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Singh, M.; Bhullar, M.S.; Chauhan, B.S. Seed bank dynamics and emergence pattern of weeds as affected by tillage systems in dry direct-seeded rice. Crop Prot. 2015, 67, 168–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Małecka-Jankowiak; Blecharczyk, I.A.; Sawinska, Z.; Piechota, T.; Waniorek., B. Impact of crop sequence and tillage system on weed infestation of winter wheat. Fragm. Agron. 2015, 32, 54–63. [Google Scholar]
  46. Naeem, M.; Farooq, M.; Farooq, S.; Ul-Allah, S.; Alfarraj, S.; Hussain, M. The impact of different crop sequences on weed infestation and productivity of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) under different tillage systems. Crop Prot. 2021, 149, 105759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Jabran, K.; Ullah, E.; Hussain, M.; Farooq, M.; Zaman, U.; Yaseen, M.; Chauhan, B.S. Mulching improves water productivity, yield, and quality of fine rice under water-saving rice production systems. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2015, 201, 389–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Jabran, K.; Hussain, M.; Fahad, S.; Farooq, M.; Bajwa, A.A.; Alharrby, H.; Nasim, W. Economic assessment of different mulches in conventional and water-saving rice production systems. Environ. Sci. Poll. Res. 2017, 23, 9156–9163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Bhatt, R.; Khera, K.L. Effect of tillage and mode of straw mulch application on soil erosion in the submontaneous tract of Punjab, India. Soil Tillage Res. 2006, 88, 107–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Głąb, T.; Kulig, B. Effect of mulch and tillage system on soil porosity under wheat (Triticum aestivum). Soil Tillage Res. 2008, 99, 169–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Jabran, K. Sorghum Allelopathy for Weed Control. In Manipulation of Allelopathic Crops for Weed Control; SpringerBriefs in Plant Science; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. El-Samnoudi, I.M.; Ibrahim, A.E.A.M.; Abd El Tawwab, A.R.; Abd El-Mageed, T.A. Combined effect of poultry manure and soil mulching on soil properties, physiological responses, yields and water-use efficiencies of sorghum plants under water stress. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2019, 50, 2626–2639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kandhro, M.N.; Shah, A.N.; Habib-ur-Rehman; Memon, M.A.; Kubar; Laghari, M. Weed management and yield improvement in cotton through allelopathic mulches of sorghum and sunflower straw. Pak. J. Weed Sci. Res. 2015, 21, 523–532. [Google Scholar]
  54. Jabran, K. Sunflower Allelopathy for Weed Control. In Manipulation of Allelopathic Crops for Weed Control; SpringerBriefs in Plant Science; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ding, F.; Li, S.; Lü, X.T.; Dijkstra, F.A.; Schaeffer, S.; An, T. Opposite effects of nitrogen fertilization and plastic film mulching on crop N and P stoichiometry in a temperate agroecosystem. J. Plant Ecol. 2019, 12, 682–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Zhou, L.M.; Li, F.M.; Jin, S.L.; Song, Y. How two ridges and the furrow mulched with plastic film affect soil water, soil temperature and yield of maize on the semiarid Loess Plateau of China. Field Crops Res. 2009, 113, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Mohtisham, A.; Ahmad, R.; Ahmad, Z.; Aslam, M.R. Effect of different mulches techniques on weed infestation in aerobic rice (Oryza sativa L.). Am.-Eurasian J. Agric. Environ. Sci. 2013, 13, 153–157. [Google Scholar]
  58. Woźniak, A. Content of weed seed in rendzina soil under spring triticale. Ann. Univ. Mariae Curie-Skłodowska Sect E Agric. 2007, 62, 250–256, (In Polish, abstract in English). [Google Scholar]
  59. Ullah, A.; Khaliq, A.; Riaz, A.; Noor, M.A.; Waqas, M.A.; Zain, M.; Fiaz, S.; Ashraf, U.; Nawaz, A. Seed pre-treatment and planting geometry positively influence herbicide efficacy in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Planta Daninha 2018, 36, e018170372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Chassot, A.; Richner, W. Root characteristics and phosphorus uptake of maize seedlings in a bilayered soil. Agron. J. 2002, 94, 118–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Shahzad, M.; Farooq, M.; Hussain, M. Weed spectrum in different wheat-based cropping systems under conservation and conventional tillage practices in Punjab, Pakistan. Soil Tillage Res. 2016, 163, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ojiem, J.O.; Vanlauwe, B.; de Ridder, N.; Giller, K.E. Niche-based assessment of contribution of legumes to nitrogen economy of Western Kenya smallholder farm. Plant Soil 2007, 292, 119–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Hocking, P.J. Organic acids exuded from roots in phosphorus uptake and aluminum tolerance of plants in acid soils. Adv. Agron. 2001, 74, 63–97. [Google Scholar]
  64. Gao, H.; Yan, C.; Liu, Q.; Ding, W.; Chen, B.; Li, Z. Effects of plastic mulching and plastic residue on agricultural production: A meta-analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 651, 484–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Sarker, J.R.; Singh, B.P.; Fang, Y.; Cowie, A.L.; Dougherty, W.J.; Collins, D.; Dalal, R.C.; Singh, B.K. Tillage history and crop residue input enhanced native carbon mineralisation and nutrient supply in contrasting soils under long-term farming systems. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 193, 71–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Fang, Y.; Nazaries, L.; Singh, B.K.; Singh, B.P. Microbial mechanisms of carbon priming effects revealed during the interaction of crop residue and nutrient inputs in contrasting soils. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2018, 24, 2775–2790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Fink, J.R.; Inda, A.V.; Bavaresco, J.; Barrón, V.; Torrent, J.; Bayer, C. Phosphorus adsorption and desorption in undisturbed samples from subtropical soils under conventional tillage or no-tillage. J. Plant Nutri. Soil Sci. 2016, 179, 198–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Sarker, J.R.; Singh, B.P.; Cowie, A.L.; Fang, Y.; Collins, D.; Dougherty, W.J.; Singh, B.K. Carbon and nutrient mineralisation dynamics in aggregate-size classes from different tillage systems after input of canola and wheat residues. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2018, 116, 22–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Sarker, J.R.; Singh, B.P.; Cowie, A.L.; Fang, Y.; Collins, D.; Badgery, W.; Dalal, R.C. Agricultural management practices impacted carbon and nutrient concentrations in soil aggregates, with minimal influence on aggregate stability and total carbon and nutrient stocks in contrasting soils. Soil Tilage Res. 2018, 178, 209–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Blake, G.R.; Hartge, K.H. Bulk density. In Methods of Soil Analysis: Part. 1 Physical and Mineralogical Methods, 2nd ed.; American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA, 1986; Volume 5, pp. 363–375. [Google Scholar]
  71. Danielson, R.E.; Sutherland, P.L. Porosity. In Methods of Soil Analysis: Part. 1 Physical and Mineralogical Methods, 2nd ed.; American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA, 1986; Volume 5, pp. 443–461. [Google Scholar]
  72. Steel, R.; Torrei, J.; Dickey, D. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach; McGraw Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
Table
Table 1. Effect of different mulches and production systems on soil bulk density and soil porosity after wheat harvest.
Table 1. Effect of different mulches and production systems on soil bulk density and soil porosity after wheat harvest.
MulchesCTWZTWHSWMeans (M)CTWZTWHSWMeans (M)
2019–202020–21
Bulk density (g cm−3)Porosity (%)
Multan
Cotton- M1.42 l1.51 b1.47 hi1.47 C41.89 bc37.57 ij38.62 f–i39.36 A
Sorghum- M1.42 kl1.50 bc1.48 gh1.47 C40.94 cd35.74 k38.25 g–j38.31 C
Mung bean- M1.38 m1.48 gh1.46 j1.44 D43.27 a34.53 lm39.90 de39.23 AB
Rice-M1.43 k1.51 b1.49 de1.48 B40.75 cd35.43 kl38.78 e–h38.32 C
Sunflower- M1.42 l1.49 cd1.48 ef1.47 C42.59 ab35.07 k–m39.42 ef39.03 AB
Plastic- M1.43 kl1.50 bc1.49 de1.47 B39.26 e–g34.22 m38.11 h–j37.20 D
N-M1.47 i1.53 a1.48 fg1.49 A39.80 de37.45 j38.56 f–j38.60 BC
Means (ST) 1.42 C1.50 A1.48 B 41.22 A35.72 C38.80 B
LSD at 5% for ST = 0.02; M = 0.02; ST × M = 0.01LSD at 5% for ST = 1.15; M = 0.66; ST × M =1.15
Hafizabad
Cotton- M1.45 k1.54 bc1.51 gh1.50 C33.05 a–c29.65 fgh30.47 d–g31.06 A
Sorghum- M1.46 jk1.53 cd1.51 fg1.50 C32.29 b–d28.20 hi30.18 fg30.23 AB
Mung bean- M1.41 l1.51 fg1.49 i1.47 D34.41 a27.25 i31.48 c–f31.05 A
Rice-M1.46 j1.54 bc1.53 de1.51 B32.15 b–e27.95 hi30.59 d–g30.23 AB
Sunflower- M1.45 k1.54 b1.52 e1.51 B33.61 ab27.67 i31.09 d–g30.79 A
Plastic- M1.45 k1.56 a1.53 de1.51 B30.98 d–g27.00 i30.06 fg29.35 B
N-M1.49 h1.56 a1.52 ef1.52 A31.39 c–f29.54 gh30.42 e–g30.45 A
Means (ST) 1.45 C1.54 A1.51 B 32.56 A28.18 C30.61 B
LSD at 5% for ST = 0.02; M = 0.01; ST × M = 0.01LSD at 5% for ST = 0.69; M = 1.06; ST × M = 1.83
Faisalabad
Cotton- M1.44 lm1.54 a–c1.50 g–i1.49 C36.54 bc32.39 h–k33.95 f–h34.29 BC
Sorghum- M1.45 kl1.53 b–d1.51 f–i1.49 C36.45 bc29.83 m34.06 e–h33.44 CD
Mung bean- M1.41 n1.51 f–i1.49 j1.47 E39.16 a32.11 i–l35.86 c–e35.71 A
Rice-M1.46 k1.54 ab1.52 b–f1.51 B36.28 b–d31.54 j–m34.53 d–g34.11 B–D
Sunflower- M1.45 kl1.53 b–e1.52 d–g1.49 BC37.92 ab31.22 k–m35.09 c–g34.74 AB
Plastic- M1.43 m1.51 e–h1.49 h–j1.48 D34.95 c–g30.47 lm33.93 f–i33.11 D
N-M1.49 ij1.56 a1.52 c–f1.53 A35.43 c–f33.34 g–j33.95 f–h34.24 BC
Means (ST) 1.45 C1.53 A1.51 B 36.67 A31.55 C34.48 B
LSD at 5% for ST= 0.02; M = 0.01; ST×M = 0.02LSD at 5% for ST = 0.69; M = 1.06; ST×M = 1.84
Means of various parameters followed by different case letters (uppercase for individual effects and lowercase for interactions) within columns or rows significantly differ from each other at p ≤ 0.05. Here, M = mulches, ST = sowing techniques, CTW = conventionally tilled wheat, ZTW = zero tilled wheat, and HSW= Happy seeder drilled wheat.
Table
Table 2. Effect of different mulches and sowing techniques on total weed density and biomass at Multan.
Table 2. Effect of different mulches and sowing techniques on total weed density and biomass at Multan.
MulchesCTWZTWHSWMeans (M)CTWZTWHSWMeans (M)
Multan
Total weed density (plants m−2)Total weed biomass (g m−2)
45 DAS
Cotton- M10.67 fg25.33 d17.67 e17.89 C1.81 g–i4.53 d3.37 e3.24 B
Sorghum- M3.33 ij11.00 fg7.00 h7.11 E0.29 k1.56 g–j0.92 h–k0.92 D
Mungbean- M7.67 gh20.67 e12.00 f13.44 D1.74 g–i3.04 ef1.84 gh2.21 C
Rice-M12.33 f28.67 d19.33 e20.11 B2.38 fg5.00 cd3.35 e3.58 B
Sunflower- M5.00 hi14.00 f8.00 gh9.00 E0.63 jk1.72 g–i0.86 i–k1.07 D
Plastic- M0.67 j5.33 hi2.67 ij2.89 F0.04 k0.67 jk0.26 k0.32 E
N-M33.33 c73.00 a49.33 b51.89 A5.56 c11.7 a8.06 b8.45 A
Means (ST) 10.43 C25.43 A16.57 B 1.78 C4.04 A2.67 B
LSD at 5% for ST = 1.34; M = 2.05; ST × M = 3.56LSD at 5% ST= 0.36; M = 0.56; ST × M = 0.97
65 DAS
Cotton- M29.00 i58.33 e44.33 g43.88 C11.85 f22.52 d17.79 e17.39 B
Sorghum- M12.67 kl31.33 i21.67 j21.88 F4.09 kl9.92 gh7.04 ij7.02 E
Mungbean- M23.33 j54.00 f36.67 h38.00 D7.78 i17.61 e12.45 f12.61 C
Rice-M31.67 i65.33 d45.00 g47.33 B12.26 f23.48 d16.27 e17.34 B
Sunflower- M15.33 k36.67 h25.00 j25.67 E5.20 jk11.33 fg8.09 hi8.21 D
Plastic- M4.33 m16.00 k9.67 l10.00 G1.19 m4.96 k3.03 lm3.06 F
N-M72.00 c126.67 a89.33 b96.00 A26.64 c45.50 a32.60 b34.91 A
Means (ST) 26.90 C55.48 A38.81 B 9.86 C19.33 A13.89 B
LSD at 5% for ST = 1.30; M = 1.99; ST × M = 3.44LSD at 5% ST = 0.72; M = 1.11; ST × M = 1.92
Means of various parameters followed by different case letters (uppercase for individual effects and lowercase for interactions) within columns or rows significantly differ from each other at p ≤ 0.05. Here, M = mulches, ST = sowing techniques, CTW = conventionally tilled wheat, ZTW = zero tilled wheat, and HSW= Happy seeder drilled wheat.
Table
Table 3. Effect of different mulches and sowing techniques on total weed density and biomass at Hafizabad.
Table 3. Effect of different mulches and sowing techniques on total weed density and biomass at Hafizabad.
MulchesCTWZTWHSWMeans (M)CTWZTWHSWMeans (M)
Hafizabad
Total weed density (plants m−2)Total weed biomass (g m−2)
45 DAS
Cotton- M12.00 h30.67 d20.33 f21.00 C2.17 hi6.36 de4.06 f4.19 C
Sorghum- M4.00 jk15.67 g8.67 i9.44 E0.66 j–l3.01 gh1.51 ij1.73 E
Mungbean- M11.67 h29.00 de19.67 f20.11 C2.19 hi5.92 e3.80 fg3.97 C
Rice-M15.33 g38.67 c26.33 e26.78 B2.96 gh7.97 c5.46 e5.46 B
Sunflower- M7.33 i19.33 f12.00 h12.89 D1.39 i–k3.71 fg2.41 hi2.50 D
Plastic- M1.00 l6.67 ij3.33 kl3.67 F0.05 l1.04 j–l0.43 kl0.51 F
N-M37.67 c79.00 a58.67 b58.44 A7.31 cd18.07 a12.21 b12.53 A
Means (ST) 12.71 C31.29 A21.29 B 2.39 C6.58 A 4.27 B
LSD at 5% for ST = 1.07; M = 1.63; ST × M = 2.83LSD at 5% ST = 0.59; M = 0.39; ST × M = 1.03
65 DAS
Cotton- M29.00 i57.00 d40.00 fg42.00 C11.89 j23.74 e16.45 gh17.36 C
Sorghum- M15.00 k36.00 gh23.33 j24.78 F6.08 l15.43 hi9.79 k10.43 F
Mungbean- M26.33 ij50.00 e36.33 gh37.56 D11.47 j22.15 e15.51 h16.38 D
Rice-M34.33 h61.00 cd46.67 e47.33 B13.89 i25.73 d19.52 f19.72 B
Sunflower- M18.67 k41.33 f28.00 i29.33 E7.66 l17.51 g11.66 j12.28 E
Plastic- M5.33 l15.00 k9.33 l9.89 G2.18 n6.24 l4.09 m4.17 G
N-M64.00 c123.33 a91.33 b92.89 A27.58 c53.79 a40.33 b40.57 A
Means (ST) 27.52 C54.81 A39.29 B 11.54 C23.51 A16.76 B
LSD at 5% for ST = 1.53; M = 2.35; ST × M = 4.06LSD at 5% ST = 0.60; M = 0.92; ST × M = 1.60
Means of various parameters followed by different case letters (uppercase for individual effects and lowercase for interactions) within columns or rows significantly differ from each other at p ≤ 0.05. Here, M = mulches, ST = sowing techniques, CTW = conventionally tilled wheat, ZTW = zero tilled wheat, and HSW= Happy seeder drilled wheat.
Table
Table 4. Effect of different mulches and sowing techniques on total weed density and biomass at Faisalabad.
Table 4. Effect of different mulches and sowing techniques on total weed density and biomass at Faisalabad.
MulchesCTWZTWHSWMeans (M)CTWZTWHSWMeans (M)
Faisalabad
Total weed densityTotal weed biomass
45 DAS
Cotton- M11.67 g–i29.00 c19.33 de20.00 B2.64 gh6.72 d4.64 e4.67 B
Sorghum- M5.67 k–m16.33 ef10.67 h–j10.89 D1.19 jk3.60 f2.32 hi2.37 D
Mungbean- M8.67 i–k22.00 d14.67 fg15.11 C1.89 ij4.99 e3.17 fg3.35 C
Rice-M11.67 g–i26.67 c19.00 de19.11 B3.13 fg6.37 d4.88 e4.79 B
Sunflower- M7.67 j–l21.33 d13.33 f–h14.11 C1.51 jk4.81 e3.24 fg3.19 C
Plastic- M2.00 m7.00 j–l4.00 lm4.33 E0.25 l1.44 jk0.83 kl0.84 E
N-M30.00 c60.33 a40.00 b43.44 A7.65 c15.49 a11.13 b11.42 A
Means (ST) 11.05 C26.09 A17.29 B 2.61 C6.20 A4.32 B
LSD at 5% for ST = 1.45; M = 2.21; ST × M = 3.83LSD at 5% ST =0.27; M = 0.41; ST × M = 0.72
65 DAS
Cotton- M23.33 i47.67 c33.00 fg34.67 B9.79 i20.73 c14.17 fg14.89 B
Sorghum- M13.00 m31.00 g20.00 j21.33 F4.95 lm13.37 g8.28 j8.87 F
Mungbean- M18.67 jk39.67 e26.33 h28.22 D7.87 jk17.53 e11.31 h12.24 D
Rice-M23.00 i44.33 d31.33 g32.89 C9.69 i18.99 d13.45 g14.04 C
Sunflower- M16.33 kl35.33 f23.67 i25.11 E6.88 k15.21 f10.22 hi10.77 E
Plastic- M5.67 o14.33 lm10.00 n10.00 G1.92 n5.44 l3.88 m3.75 G
N-M42.00 de77.00 a58.00 b59.00 A18.13 de33.59 a24.89 b25.54 A
Means (ST) 20.29 C41.33 A28.90 B 8.46 C17.84 A12.32 B
LSD at 5% for ST = 1.44; M = 0.94; ST × M = 2.50LSD at 5% ST = 0.42; M = 0.65; ST × M = 1.12
Means of various parameters followed by different case letters (uppercase for individual effects and lowercase for interactions) within columns or rows significantly differ from each other at p ≤ 0.05. Here, M = mulches, ST = sowing techniques, CTW = conventionally tilled wheat, ZTW = zero tilled wheat, and HSW= Happy seeder drilled wheat.
Table
Table 5. Effect of different mulches and sowing techniques on plant height and number of productive tillers of wheat.
Table 5. Effect of different mulches and sowing techniques on plant height and number of productive tillers of wheat.
MulchesCTWZTWHSWMeans (M)CTWZTWHSWMeans (M)
Plant Height (cm)Number of Productive Tillers (m−2)
Multan
Cotton- M107.00 NS 100.77104.07103.94 B172.50 de155.13 f–h157.57 e–g161.73 CD
Sorghum- M108.1098.70100.00102.27 C169.33 d–f157.73 e–g141.00 h–j156.02 D
Mung bean- M114.60103.87107.43108.63 A223.00 b163.13 ef179.93 d188.69 B
Rice-M108.90 99.73104.30104.31 B180.53 d138.23 ij166.53 d–f161.77 CD
Sunflower- M108.03 101.13103.40104.19 B205.70 c142.77 g–i159.13 ef169.20 C
Plastic- M115.20103.13 106.43108.26 A243.90 a167.33 d–f199.10 c203.44 A
N-M102.3394.5099.3398.72 D139.87 h–j126.70 j131.53 ij132.70 E
Means (ST) 109.17 A100.26 C103.57 B 190.69 A150.15 C162.11 B
LSD at 5% for ST = 1.06; M = 1.63; ST × M = NSLSD at 5% for ST = 6.02; M = 9.19; ST × M =15.92
Hafizabad
Cotton- M103.63 d94.73 ij99.50 g99.29 D212.40 c158.67 ij176.73 fg182.60 D
Sorghum- M100.50 e–g90.70 k94.90 ij95.37 E192.67 de141.50 k164.40 hi166.19 E
Mungbean- M108.00 b100.97 e–f 102.97 d103.98 B229.17 b178.17 f189.33 de198.89 B
Rice-M105.50 c97.40 h100.20 e–g101.03 C227.67 b164.17 hi180.87 f190.90 C
Sunflower- M102.67 d95.67 i99.83 fg99.39 D214.50 c160.87 i170.33 gh181.90 D
Plastic-M109.73 a101.37 e105.00 c105.37 A252.33 a195.37 d212.67 c220.12 A
N-M99.37 g89.87 k94.07 j94.43 F188.00 e132.00 l152.33 j157.44 F
Means (ST) 104.20 A95.81 C99.50 B 216.68 A161.53 C178.10 B
LSD at 5% for ST = 0.46; M = 0.69; ST × M = 1.21LSD at 5% for ST = 2.47; M = 3.77; ST × M = 6.53
Faisalabad
Cotton- M103.47 NS97.33100.50100.43 D214.00 de178.97 hi197.83 fg196.93 C
Sorghum- M101.8094.1097.2797.72 E195.17 g164.50 jk162.50 k174.06 D
Mungbean- M106.5399.13101.93102.53 B243.33 b189.17 h210.00 d–f214.17 B
Rice-M106.4397.20101.23101.62 C221.17 cd177.00 h–j202.83 e–g200.33 C
Sunflower- M102.9097.1399.9099.98 D232.10 bc167.9 i jk193.93 g197.99 C
Plastic- M109.77102.63105.03105.81 A284.00 a217.17 d241.33 b247.50 A
N-M100.6092.6396.8096.68 F198.33 fg154.17 k166.17 i–k172.89 D
Means (ST) 104.50 A97.17 C100.38 B 226.87 A178.41 C196.37 B
LSD at 5% for ST = 0.57; M = 0.88; ST × M = NSLSD at 5% for ST = 5.37; M = 8.19; ST × M = 14.20
Means of various parameters followed by different case letters (uppercase for individual effects and lowercase for interactions) within columns or rows significantly differ from each other at p ≤ 0.05. Here, M = mulches, ST = sowing techniques, CTW = conventionally tilled wheat, ZTW = zero tilled wheat, and HSW= Happy seeder drilled wheat.
Table
Table 6. Effect of different mulches and sowing techniques on spike length and number of grains per plant of wheat.
Table 6. Effect of different mulches and sowing techniques on spike length and number of grains per plant of wheat.
MulchesCTWZTWHSWMeans (M)CTWZTWHSWMeans (M)
Spike Length (cm)Number of Grains Per Spike
Multan
Cotton- M10.67 NS 9.47 9.97 10.03 B48.47 NS43.3745.7745.87 C
Sorghum- M9.70 8.979.339.33 C45.2741.5344.7343.84 D
Mung bean- M11.409.8310.5310.59 A50.93 46.1047.7348.26 B
Rice-M10.779.40 10.1310.10 B49.1043.1346.8046.34 C
Sunflower- M10.409.23 9.939.86 B48.6043.6046.6746.29 C
Plastic- M11.509.9610.77 10.74 A53.2046.8049.9349.98 A
N-M9.608.709.339.21 C44.5740.5743.5342.89 E
Means (ST) 10.58 A9.37 C10.00 B 48.59 A43.59 C46.45 B
LSD at 5% for ST = 0.18; M = 0.28; ST × M = NSLSD at 5% for ST = 0.51; M = 0.78; ST × M = NS
Hafizabad
Cotton- M10.83 NS9.9310.7010.48 D48.27 NS42.5345.0345.28 D
Sorghum- M10.809.4310.4010.21 E45.8341.3341.9343.03 E
Mung bean- M11.70 10.2710.9710.98 B49.9744.8047.4047.39 B
Rice-M11.43 10.1010.7010.74 C49.0343.0346.8046.29 C
Sunflower- M11.139.7310.0710.31 DE47.5342.3344.0344.63 D
Plastic- M12.4011.0711.5011.65 A54.3347.9350.3050.86 A
N-M10.539.139.679.78 F44.6039.7042.1042.13 F
Means (ST) 11.26 A9.95 C10.57 B 48.51 A43.09 C45.37 B
LSD at 5% for ST = 0.14; M = 0.21; ST × M = NSLSD at 5% for ST = 0.48; M = 0.74; ST × M = NS
Faisalabad
Cotton- M11.00 NS9.9010.4710.46 C50.10 cd44.13 jk47.60 efg47.28 C
Sorghum- M10.539.439.979.98 D47.43 fg41.37 l44.17 jk44.32 D
Mung bean- M11.7710.3010.9010.99 B53.17 b47.10 gh49.00 de49.76 B
Rice-M11.8310.2310.9311.00 B50.97 c44.50 ijk48.70 def48.06 C
Sunflower- M11.079.5310.3710.32 C50.77 c44.90 ij47.03 gh47.57 C
Plastic- M12.3310.8311.6011.58 A56.26 a48.53 ef51.40 c52.07 A
N-M10.479.40 9.579.81 D45.83 hi44.63 ij43.13 k44.53 D
Means (ST) 11.29 A9.95 C10.54 B 50.65 A45.02 C47.29 B
LSD at 5% for ST = 0.13; M = 0.19; ST × M = NSLSD at 5% for ST = 0.54; M = 0.83; ST × M = 1.43
Means of various parameters followed by different case letters (uppercase for individual effects and lowercase for interactions) within columns or rows significantly differ from each other at p ≤ 0.05. Here, M = mulches, ST = sowing techniques, CTW = conventionally tilled wheat, ZTW = zero tilled wheat, and HSW= Happy seeder drilled wheat.
Table
Table 7. Effect of different mulches and sowing techniques on 1000-grain weight (g) and biological yield (t ha−1) of wheat.
Table 7. Effect of different mulches and sowing techniques on 1000-grain weight (g) and biological yield (t ha−1) of wheat.
MulchesCTWZTWHSWMeans (M)CTWZTWHSWMeans (M)
Thousand Grain Weight (g)Biological Yield (t ha−1)
Multan
Cotton- M41.60 c–e39.47 h–j40.30 f–h40.46 BC16.40 bc12.84 kl13.98 gh14.41 D
Sorghum- M40.30 f–h37.90 l40.17 f–i39.46 D14.02 gh11.25 n12.39 lm12.56 E
Mung bean- M45.13 a40.93 ef42.47 bc42.84 A18.55 a14.69 f15.76 de16.34 B
Rice-M43.00 b38.93 jk40.63 e–g40.86 B16.63 bc12.99 jk13.43 ij14.35 D
Sunflower- M42.07 b–d38.97 jk39.70 g–j40.24 C16.88 b13.29 ijk14.46 fg14.88 C
Plastic- M44.87 a41.10 d–f42.00 cd42.66 A19.06 a15.51 e16.27 cd16.95 A
N-M39.80 g–j38.23 kl39.23 ij39.09 D13.66 hi10.96 n12.04 m12.22 F
Means (ST) 42.39 A39.36 C40.64 B 16.46 A13.08 C14.05 B
LSD at 5% for ST = 0.36; M = 0.56; ST × M = 0.98LSD at 5% for ST = 0.20; M = 0.31; ST × M =0.54
Hafizabad
Cotton- M40.33 de37.07 k37.97 ij38.46 D12.80 c9.60 k10.83 hi11.08 D
Sorghum- M39.23 fg35.70 m38.17 hi37.70 E11.03 gh8.63 m9.57 kl9.74 F
Mung bean- M42.03 b38.80 gh40.50 d40.44 B13.90 b10.67 i11.80 de12.12 B
Rice-M41.37 c37.50 jk38.93 g39.27 C13.57 b10.13 j11.60 ef11.77 C
Sunflower- M40.67 d37.17 k38.03 ij38.62 D12.13 d9.23 l10.67 i10.68 E
Plastic- M42.97 a39.70 ef40.87 cd41.18 A15.40 a11.30 fg12.57 c13.09 A
N-M38.70 gh36.40 l36.90 kl37.33 E11.10 gh8.30 m9.43 kl9.61 F
Means (ST) 40.76 A37.48 C38.77 B 12.85 A9.69 C10.92 B
LSD at 5% for ST = 0.24; M = 0.37; ST × M = 0.64LSD at 5% for ST = 0.13; M = 0.20; ST × M = 0.35
Faisalabad
Cotton- M40.13 cd36.87 k37.73 ij38.24 D12.67 c9.87 i10.97 gh11.17 C
Sorghum- M39.00 ef35.47 l37.93 hi37.47 E11.47 ef8.77 k9.97 i10.07 D
Mung bean- M41.63 b38.57 fgh40.27 c40.15 B14.40 b10.67 h11.77 de12.28 B
Rice-M41.40 b37.27 jk38.73 fg39.13 C14.33 b10.87 gh12.03 d12.41 B
Sunflower- M40.47 c36.93 k38.27 ghi38.56 D13.03 c9.87 i11.13 fg11.34 C
Plastic- M42.73 a39.47 de40.63 c40.94 A16.267 a11.40 ef12.80 c13.49 A
N-M38.47 f–h35.80 l36.87 k37.04 F11.37 f8.40 k9.37 j9.71 E
Means (ST) 40.55 A37.19 C38.633 B 13.36 A9.97 C11.15 B
LSD at 5% for ST = 0.26; M = 0.39; ST × M = 0.68LSD at 5% for ST = 0.14; M = 0.22; ST × M = 0.38
Means of various parameters followed by different case letters (uppercase for individual effects and lowercase for interactions) within columns or rows significantly differ from each other at p ≤ 0.05. Here, M = mulches, ST = sowing techniques, CTW = conventionally tilled wheat, ZTW = zero tilled wheat, and HSW= Happy seeder drilled wheat.
Table
Table 8. Effect of different mulches and sowing techniques on grain and straw yields of wheat.
Table 8. Effect of different mulches and sowing techniques on grain and straw yields of wheat.
MulchesCTWZTWHSWMeans (M)CTWZTWHSWMeans (M)
Grain Yield (t ha−1)Straw Yield (t ha−1)
Multan
Cotton- M5.07 b4.17 f4.47 e4.57 C11.35 cd8.68 jk9.50 f–h9.84 D
Sorghum- M4.43 e3.87 gh3.97 g4.09 D9.62 fg7.38 m8.43 kl8.48 E
Mung bean- M5.50 a4.43 e4.87 c4.93 B13.06 a10.24 e10.91 d11.40 B
Rice-M5.07 b4.23 f4.50 de4.60 C11.59 bc8.78 ijk8.90 i–k9.76 D
Sunflower- M5.03 b4.23 f4.47 e4.58 C11.85 b9.06 hij9.98 ef10.30 C
Plastic- M5.60 a4.60 d5.00 b5.07 A13.48 a10.94 d11.26 cd11.89 A
N-M4.47 e3.77 h3.93 g4.06 D9.22 ghi7.17 m8.13 l8.17 F
Means (ST) 5.02 A4.18 C4.46 B 11.45 A8.89 C9.59 B
LSD at 5% for ST = 0.04; M = 0.06; ST × M = 0.11LSD at 5% for ST = 0.18; M = 0.28; ST × M = 0.49
Hafizabad
Cotton- M4.27 d3.17 h3.50 g3.64 E8.57 c6.40 i7.30 fg7.42 C
Sorghum- M3.73 f2.73 j3.17 h3.21 F7.30 fg5.90 jk6.40 i6.53 E
Mung bean- M4.83 b3.63 fg4.00 e4.16 B9.13 b7.03 gh7.77 de7.98 B
Rice-M4.67 c3.30 h3.77 f3.91 C8.90 bc6.83 h7.83 de7.86 B
Sunflower- M4.57 c3.20 h3.57 g3.78 D7.57 ef6.03 j7.10 gh6.90 D
Plastic- M5.67 a4.10 e4.57 c4.78 A9.80 a7.17 gh8.00 d8.32 A
N-M3.57 g2.60 j3.00 i3.06 G7.53 ef5.67 k6.43 i6.54 E
Means (ST) 4.47 A3.25 C3.65 B 8.40 A6.43 C7.26 B
LSD at 5% for ST = 0.05; M = 0.08; ST × M = 0.15LSD at 5% for ST = 0.13; M = 0.20; ST × M = 0.36
Faisalabad
Cotton- M4.43 c2.97 k3.67 h3.69 D8.20 c6.87 ef7.27 de7.44 C
Sorghum- M4.03 de2.80 l3.37 ij3.40 E7.47 d5.97 hi6.60 fg6.68 D
Mung bean- M4.87 b3.37 ij4.13 d4.12 B9.50 b7.23 de7.63 d8.12 B
Rice-M4.87 b3.47 i3.93 ef4.09 B9.43 b7.43 d8.07 c8.31 B
Sunflower- M4.73 b3.27 j3.70 gh3.90 C8.30 c6.60 fg7.40 d7.43 C
Plastic- M5.30 a3.80 f–h4.37 c4.49 A10.93 a7.63 d8.43 c9.00 A
N-M3.83 fg2.63 m3.03 k3.17 F7.50 d5.73 i6.37 gh6.53 D
Means (ST) 4.58 A3.18 C3.74 B 8.76 A6.78 C7.39 B
LSD at 5% for ST= 0.06; M = 0.09; ST × M = 0.16LSD at 5% for ST = 0.15; M = 0.23; ST × M = 0.40
Means of various parameters followed by different case letters (uppercase for individual effects and lowercase for interactions) within columns or rows significantly differ from each other at p ≤ 0.05. Here, M = mulches, ST = sowing techniques, CTW = conventionally tilled wheat, ZTW = zero tilled wheat, and HSW= Happy seeder drilled wheat.
Table
Table 9. Effect of different mulches and sowing techniques on harvest index of wheat.
Table 9. Effect of different mulches and sowing techniques on harvest index of wheat.
MulchesCTWZTWHSWMeans (M)
Harvest Index
Multan
Cotton- M35.16 NS38.00 35.5036.22 A
Sorghum- M32.10 35.53 29.5732.40 BC
Mung bean- M36.86 33.06 33.10 34.34 AB
Rice-M32.80 22.30 33.4729.52 C
Sunflower- M35.00 32.90 32.7733.56 AB
Plastic- M35.60 33.7734.03 34.47 AB
N-M32.43 29.7730.23 30.81 BC
Means (ST) 34.2832.19 32.67
LSD at 5% for ST = 2.45; M = 3.75; ST × M = NS
Hafizabad
Cotton- M31.57 de27.97 hi30.97 d–g30.17 D
Sorghum- M29.43 gh25.60 jk29.83 fg28.29 E
Mung bean- M34.33 b29.93 e–g30.87 d–g31.71 C
Rice-M32.43 cd31.17 d–f29.80 fg31.13 CD
Sunflower- M36.20 a29.83 fg32.33 d32.79 B
Plastic- M34.70 ab34.10 bc34.33 b34.38 A
N-M30.47 efg24.43 k26.97 ij27.29 F
Means (ST) 32.73 A29.00 C30.73 B
LSD at 5% for ST = 0.65; M = 0.99; ST × M = 1.72
Faisalabad
Cotton- M35.13 ab26.53 k31.37 e–h31.01 CD
Sorghum- M32.30 d–f27.43 k31.20 f–i30.31 D
Mung bean- M36.20 a30.46 g–j33.90 bc33.52 A
Rice-M34.00 bc29.60 j30.31 g–j31.31 C
Sunflower- M35.37 ab29.77 j31.50 e–h32.21 B
Plastic- M33.40 cd31.80 efg32.70 c–e32.63 B
N-M31.23 e–i30.70 g–j30.17 h–j30.70 CD
Means (ST) 33.95 A29.47 C31.59 B
LSD at 5% for ST = 0.56; M = 0.86; ST × M = 1.48
Means of various parameters followed by different case letters (uppercase for individual effects and lowercase for interactions) within columns or rows significantly differ from each other at p ≤ 0.05. Here, M = mulches, ST = sowing techniques, CTW = conventionally tilled wheat, ZTW = zero tilled wheat, and HSW= Happy seeder drilled wheat.
Table
Table 10. Economic analysis of wheat under different surface mulches and sowing techniques.
Table 10. Economic analysis of wheat under different surface mulches and sowing techniques.
Surface MulchCTWZTWHSWCTWZTWHSWCTWZTWHSWCTWZTWHSW
Cost of Production (US$)Gross Income (US$)Net Income (US$)BCR
Multan
Cotton- M73066866817801512163410508449662.442.262.45
Sorghum- M7246626621600142715188757648562.212.152.29
Mung bean- M7186576571929166417661211100811092.692.532.69
Rice-M8938318311808153416429157038112.031.851.98
Sunflower- M73066866818701503164811418359802.562.252.47
Plastic- M807745745191816471776111290210312.382.212.38
N-M65759559516641320145010077258562.532.222.44
Hafizabad
Cotton- M7306686681532114612778024786092.101.721.91
Sorghum- M7246626621336100511406123434781.851.521.72
Mung bean- M7186576571706129114279876357702.371.972.17
Rice-M8938318311658119413597653645291.861.441.64
Sunflower- M7306686681576113012818464626132.161.691.92
Plastic- M80774574519621428158811556838432.431.922.13
N-M657595595130396310956463685011.981.621.84
Faisalabad
Cotton- M7306686681568111013238394426562.151.661.98
Sorghum- M7246626621419102112026943595401.961.541.82
Mung bean- M71865765717431240145210245847962.431.892.21
Rice-M8938318311734126614228414355911.941.521.71
Sunflower- M7306686681651117913369215116682.261.762.00
Plastic- M80774574519251363155411186188092.391.832.09
N-M657595595137897011017213755062.101.631.85
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Minhas, W.A.; Mehboob, N.; Yahya, M.; Rehman, H.U.; Farooq, S.; Hussain, M. The Influence of Different Crop Mulches on Weed Infestation, Soil Properties and Productivity of Wheat under Conventional and Conservation Production Systems. Plants 2023, 12, 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12010009

AMA Style

Minhas WA, Mehboob N, Yahya M, Rehman HU, Farooq S, Hussain M. The Influence of Different Crop Mulches on Weed Infestation, Soil Properties and Productivity of Wheat under Conventional and Conservation Production Systems. Plants. 2023; 12(1):9. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12010009

Chicago/Turabian Style

Minhas, Waqas Ahmed, Noman Mehboob, Muhammad Yahya, Hafeez Ur Rehman, Shahid Farooq, and Mubshar Hussain. 2023. "The Influence of Different Crop Mulches on Weed Infestation, Soil Properties and Productivity of Wheat under Conventional and Conservation Production Systems" Plants 12, no. 1: 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12010009

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