SOIL PHYSICAL HEALTH INDICES, WUE AND WHEAT YIELD UNDER

DIFFERENT MULCHING AMENDMENTS

Haroon Shahzad1,2, Muhammad Imran3, Muhammad Iqbal1, Atif Javed1, Hafiz
Muhammad Bilal1, Sajid Hussain4, Zahid Hussain5, Bushra Huma6, Shazia Iqbal1,
Muhammad Arslan Safdar7
1
Institute of Soil & Environmental Sciences, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad.
2
Arid Zone Research Centre, Pakistan Agricultural Research Council, D.I. Khan.
3
Department of Soil & Environmental Sciences, Ghazi University, D.G. Khan.
4
State Key Laboratory of Rice Biology, China National Rice Research Institute,
Hangzhou, 310006 China
5
Department of Developmental Studies, COMSATS Institute of Information Technology
Abbottabad, Pakistan
6
Key laboratory of groundwater Resources and Environment (Jilin University), Ministry of
Education, Changchun 130021, PR China
7
College of resource and environmental sciences, Nanjing Agricultural University Nanjing
210095, PR China
Correspondence Mail: rhs2140@ymail.com
ABSTRACT
The foremost challenges provoking in agriculture are to enhance food production and
moisture conservation for agriculture under arid and semi-arid conditions. Various
techniques are practised to enhance the crop productivity by conserving more water. Surface
application of some organic material as mulch is considered to be most economical technique
in precision agriculture to conserve soil moisture along with enhancing productivity. A field
study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of different mulching amendments on soil
physical indicators, water use efficiency and wheat yield. Mulching amendment was done
using wheat straw and farm manure. Wheat variety “AARI-2011” was grown and 150 kg ha-
1
seed was used. Recommended dose of NPK was applied. Soil samples were collected from
0-15, 15-30, 30-45 and 45-60 cm depth at crop harvest and analysed for soil bulk density,
total porosity and soil organic carbon contents. Soil Ks and infiltration rate were measured at
harvest of crop. Yield and yield attributes of wheat, i.e. 1000 grain weight, plant height and
HI were taken at maturity. The data obtained was analysed statistically and HSD test with
5% significance was applied to compare the effectiveness of treatments. A significant
improvement 1.26-3.14, 2.09-4.20, 50.0-200.8 and 30.9-60.3% was observed in soil physical
parameters (bulk density, total porosity, infiltration rate and Ks) along SOC of soil that was
increased (11.72-36.24%) with the application of mulch. Crop yield parameters (grain yield,
harvest index and WUE) were also significantly improved up to 30.50, 28.3 and 55.9%,
respectively, as compared to control (CTRL) due to slow release of nutrient from organic
amendments and their ability to hold more water avoiding water losses. Water use efficiency
was increased due to more production of yield with minimum consumption of water. The
amount of water applied was ranged from 265-325 mm and we saved 6.92-18.46% water
with the application of wheat straw and farm manure as mulch.
Keywords: Mulch, WUE, Soil physical indices, Yield

[SYLWAN., 160(10)]. ISI Indexed 367

 1. INTRODUCTION

Wheat (Triticum aestivum) is most important cereal crop in Pakistan as it is used as staple
foodstuff. It fulfils the maximum food necessities by providing almost 60% of protein and
calories of normal diet (Khalil and Jan, 2002). In countries like Pakistan population explosion
has created the most prevailing problem of food security. Wheat as major foodstuff is cultivated
on an area of 9.04 million hectares yields 25.29 million tons of wheat annually with an average
of 2797 kg ha-1 (Anonymous, 2014). Wheat is cheaper than all other alternate grain sources of
food that is why it is totally consumed after harvesting. According to report of (Mustafa et al.,
2004) per capita (125 kg year-1) utilization is maximum in the world. Wheat straw is not only
used as animal feed along with industrial use of paper production (Iqtidar et al., 2006). In
Pakistan there are many cropping patterns followed but rice-wheat and cotton-wheat covers
about 60% of wheat production area. Agriculture is the economy backbone as 60% labour force
accommodation and with almost 26% GDP shares. In Pakistan almost 82% of cropped area is
canal commanded (almost 14.64 million hectares) with only 98 billion cubic meter water
supply at farm gate (Anonymous, 2014).
Mulching is one of the management techniques that improve soil quality by increasing
soil organic carbon (SOC). 30-60% water is lost from the soil surface by evaporation that is
unproductive loss except moderating the vapour pressure deficit (Rijsberman, 2006). So to
conserve soil moisture soil evaporation has to be reduced. For this purpose different techniques
are used i.e. development of methods for early enhancement of crop canopy such as early
sowing, increasing seed rate, increasing fertilizer rate and selecting early growing varieties
(Deng et al., 2006). But these mechanisms are laborious and expensive one so for this purpose
mulching is of great interest to increase crop, land and water productivity. Mulch application
increase soil moisture contents by reducing soil evaporation rate (Athy et al., 2006). Spreading
of mulch on soil surface between two successive crops is a recommended practice to conserve
soil moisture. Mulching is advantageous as it improves organic matter content of soil along
with enhanced N uptake by plants is better synchronized due to slow release by organic matter
decomposition than inorganic sources (Cherr et al., 2006). Mulch protects soil from solar
radiation, extensive evaporation and rain drop disturbances hence controlling soil temperature,
soil water content and degradation of structure (Acharya et al., 2005) directly affecting the
grain yield of crops (Ramalan and Nwokeocha, 2000). Accumulation of residues on the surface
of soil by applying straw mulches reduce soil disturbance ultimately conserve soil moisture
(Zhang et al., 2009). It is of particular importance in region of North-west India where water
is extensively withdrawn for irrigation purpose lowering ground water table ultimately
declining water storage of soil and increased salinization (Humphreys et al., 2010). According
to (Evett and Tolk, 2009) much more water can be conserved under irrigated conditions as the
soil remains wet for longer periods by application of mulches. It can be accessed from soil
evaporation, evapotranspiration and transpiration rate. Surface mulch application facilitates the
removal of organic wastes along with their benefit for soil, crop and water relations (Seller et
al., 2001). Mulching improves the production of crop by improving soil physical properties
along with topsoil stability (De Silva and Cook, 2003). Mulching reduces soil temperature
along with the water conservation that improves crop yield by reducing soil N losses and
improving soil K (Movahedi and Cook, 2000).

[SYLWAN., 160(10)]. ISI Indexed 368

 Under arid and semi-arid conditions high temperature prevails that causes high soil
moisture losses so there is keen need of time to evaluate different type of mulches that not only
covers the surface but also have high water storage capacities to provide it to plants for
improved production. In root zone increased mulching material reduce soil temperature
creating better conditions for seed germination, development and growth of plants than that of
un-mulched material (Hatcher and Melander, 2003). Mulching is used to reduce soil moisture
losses by reduction in day to day soil temperature and soil evaporation (Dahiya et al., 2007).
Along with increasing moisture content improving soil physical and chemical properties,
allelopathic effect for suppression of weed growth (Hiltbrunner et al., 2007), control plant pests
(Peachey et al., 2002) along with destruction of harmful organisms (Dupont et al., 2009) are
some of major benefits of mulching. By increasing soil organic matter soil porosity increases
hence more water retention and reduction in water loss due to soil evaporation and more
penetration less crusting also reduces water loss by runoff (Singh et al., 2005). Application of
rice straw mulch under wheat crop not only improves the moisture content of soil but also
improves wheat grain yield (Sidhu et al., 2007).
It is evident from the facts that extensive farming and high temperature has a negative
impact on the accumulation of the organic carbon. So mulch application is vital tool to assess
its direct impact on carbon accumulation and influencing the soil quality and crop parameters
indirectly. For this purpose, the present study was conducted to assess the effect of Farmyard
manure (FM) and wheat straw (WS) mulches as an amendment at different rates on
improvement of soil quality and crop yield.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1. Site description
A field experiment was conducted to evaluate the effect of different mulches applied at
different rates as an amendment on soil physicochemical properties and yield of wheat at the
Research Area, Institute of Soil & Environmental Sciences, University of Agriculture,
Faisalabad, Punjab, Pakistan during 2011-12 and 2012-13. Hot climate, very low organic
matter, loam texture and Typic Calciargids characteristic of experimental area. Pre sowing
values of different soil physical characteristics has been given in (Table 1).
Table 1.
Physical characteristics of soil before study
Parameters Unit Concentration/Class
Sand % 40
Silt % 37.5
Clay % 22.5
Textural Class Loam
-3
Bulk density Mg m 1.52
EC e dS m -1 1.45
pH 7.9
Saturation percentage % 35.5
Organic Carbon % 0.69

[SYLWAN., 160(10)]. ISI Indexed 369

 2.2. Experimental Design
Experiment was comprised of 5 mulch rates applied as an amendment in plot size of 25 m2
replicated 4 times in a randomized complete block design. These treatments were (CTRL:
control, no mulch, WS5: Wheat straw mulch @ 5 Mg ha-1, WS10: Wheat straw mulch @ 10 Mg
ha-1, FM5: Farm manure mulch @ 5 Mg ha-1, FM10: Farm manure mulch @ 10 Mg ha-1). Local
high yielding wheat variety AARI-2011 was cultivated by using recommended agronomic
practices under irrigated conditions by Department of Agronomy, University of agriculture,
Faisalabad with application of recommended dose of NPK @ (120: 85: 65) kg ha-1. Full dose
of P and K were applied at the time of sowing as basal dose but N was applied in 2 splits (1/2
at time of sowing and half with 1st irrigation). Canal water was used for Irrigation as required
according to the physical conditions of plant or plant showing water stress. The irrigation depth
was calculated by AD=Qt where Q is flow (L3 T-1), t is time (hours), A is area of plot (hectare)
and d is depth of irrigation (cm). The average amount of irrigation was applied (water plus rain
fall) during 2011-12 and 2012-13 seasons are given in Fig. 1.

350
300
Irrigation (mm)

250
200
150
100
50
0
CRTL FM5 FM10 WS5 WS10
Treatments

Fig. 1: Irrigation (amount of water applied and Rain fall during) applied (Average of
two seasons)

2.3. Soil sampling and analysis

Soil samples were collected using auger at 3 random places in plot at four soil depths
(0-15, 15-30, 30-45 and 45-60 cm) after crop harvest. Soil core sampler (7 cm inner diameter
and 5 cm in length) was used to take samples for bulk density determination (ρb). Soil samples
were air dried and sieved using <2 mm mesh sized sieve for further analysis.
2.3.1. Soil organic carbon
Soil organic carbon was determined by following the method described by Ryan et al.
(2001). One gram air dry soil sample was taken in a 500 mL beaker and added 10 mL 1N
Potassium Dichromate solution. Afterward added 20 mL concentrated sulfuric acid, swirled
the beaker to mix the suspension and then allowed it to stand for 30 minutes. To it added 200

[SYLWAN., 160(10)]. ISI Indexed 370

 mL de-ionized water; 10 mL concentrated orthophosphoric acid, allowed the mixture to cool
and added 10-15 drops of diphenylamine indicator. Then the contents were titrated with 0.5 M
ferrous ammonium sulfate solution, until the color changed from violet blue to green. Two
blank readings were obtained by following above procedure except adding soil and is
calculated using following relation.
% Oxidizable organic carbon = ﴾(Vblank - Vsample) x 0.3 x M﴿ / ﴾Weight of soil (g)﴿ - (Eq. 1)
% Total organic carbon (w/w) = 1.33 x % Oxidizable organic carbon ----------------- (Eq. 2)
2.3.2. Soil bulk density (ρb)
Soil bulk density was measured by collecting undisturbed soil samples of known weight in
metallic cores of known volume (internal diameter of 7 cm and 5 cm length up to 45 cm. These
samples were oven dried at 105 oC for 24 hours to take dry weight of soil samples (Blake and
Hartge, 1986) and are calculated using formula
ρb = Ws/V ----------------------------------------------- (Eq. 3)
(where Ws is oven dried soil weight and V is soil bulk volume)

2.3.3. Total Porosity:

The total porosity of the soil (ϕ) was obtained from its bulk density (b) and particle
density (p) by the following formula.

ϕ = 1- (b /p) ----------------------------------------- (Eq. 4)

2.3.4. Infiltration rate:

Infiltration rate was measured with double ring infiltrometer. The inner and outer rings
were driven 10 cm into the soil by means of driving plate and impact absorbing hammer. The
inner and outer rings were filled with water. The water flows vertically through the inner ring
into the soil was noted until constant rate was obtained (Klute, 1986).

2.3.5. Field saturated hydraulic Conductivity (K fs)

A uniform debris free well hole was made with the help of auger and sizing auger. The
Guelph Permeameter (Model 2800 KI) was assembled and installed in the well hole. Three
steady-state readings were taken from two depths (5.0 cm and 10.0 cm at constant head). The
field saturated hydraulic conductivity was calculated from the following formula:
Kfs = (0.0041) (X) (R2) – (0.0054) (X) (R1) ---------------------------- (Eq. 5)
Where R1 = the steady-state rate of fall of water in the reservoir when the first head H1 of water
is established, in mm h-1.
H1 = the first head of water established in the well hole, in cm.
H2 = the second head of water established in the well hole, in cm.
R2 = the steady-state rate of fall of water in the reservoir when the second head of water is
established, in cm/s.

[SYLWAN., 160(10)]. ISI Indexed 371

 X = Reservoir constant, corresponds to the cross sectional area of the combined reservoir
expressed in cm2.
Statistical analysis: A Statistical software Package Stat R freeware was used for the analysis
of data according to Randomized Complete Block Design. Data of both years were pooled and
performed the analysis of variance. Comparison of means and correlation analysis were
performed on the parameters which had high Fcal as compared to Ftab at P<0.05 (R Development
Core Team, 2008: Montogomery, 2013).
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1. Agronomic Parameters
3.1.1. Effect of mulch amendment on plant height
Plant height is generally considered as indication of plant growth. Data pertaining to the effect
of mulch on plant height of wheat is given in (Fig. 2A) that clearly indicates that application
of mulch with increasing level has significant effect on plant height.
As regard mulch level, maximum mean value of plant height (90.25 cm) was recorded
in plots where FM10 (Farm manure @ 10 Mg ha-1) was practiced followed by Farm manure
mulch (FM5 @ 5 Mg ha-1) and CTRL (no mulch) producing plant heights (85 and 76 cm),
respectively. While wheat straw mulch WS10 @ (10 Mg ha-1) producing 88.75 cm followed by
WS5 resulting in 83.75 cm, respectively. So, there is significant difference in plant heights of
plots containing mulches as compared to that of control treatments. In farm manure mulch
treatments F2 and F1 height has been increased by 18.75 and 11.84%, respectively. Plant height
increased 13.06 and 11.16% in WS10 and WS5 as compared to control treatment. There is
11.77% increase in plant height in FM10 as compared to that of WS10. Increased plant heights
in case of both the mulches may be due to decomposition of organic mulches and improved
soil water holding capacity. The presence of more organic carbon improved the availability of
water to plant excessively by reduction in soil evaporation and enhancing transpiration that
results in more vegetative growth.
Brahma et al. (2007) supported our results by reporting the same results of enhancement
in plant height recorded in straw mulch application as compared to that of control. Khursid et
al. (2006) pointed out more plant height with increasing mulch levels due to enhanced
availability of moisture for more transpiration and enhanced plant growth.

3.1.2 Effect of Mulch on grain yield (Mg ha-1) of wheat

Grain yield is interplay function of various yield components i.e. 1000-grain weight,
harvest index etc. It is explored from (Fig.2B) that presents a significant increasing impact of
mulching on grain yield of the crop.
In accordance with the farm manure treatments mean observed increase in the grain
yield was 0.96 and 0.48 Mg ha-1 over control in FM10 and FM5, respectively. Which is
significant increase because of improvements in soil physical properties due to least outside
disturbance by (rain, air as well as the applied water also), enhancing soil nutrient level because
of decomposition of the organic mulching material along with increase in nutrient availability
to plants due to increasing transpiration by conserving more water. While in wheat straw mulch
treatments there is less and non-significant increment of 0.50 and 0.22 Mg ha-1 in WS10 and
WS5 as compared to that of control treatment.

[SYLWAN., 160(10)]. ISI Indexed 372

 By comparing both of the mulching materials at different levels it can be easily
indicated that farm manure mulch performed much better in improving crop yield than that of
wheat treatments. Farm manure proves better due to enriched with nutrients and easy
decomposition.
Huang et al. (2005) supports our results by configuring out the same type of significant
influence of straw mulch on wheat yield. Biomass and grain yields were increased by 37% and
52% in 1997 while 20 and 26% in 1998, respectively. Govaerts et al. (2007) supports our results
in reporting that residue mulching gives significantly (29.56%) enhanced yield than without
mulch application. Glab and Kulig (2008) also presented higher grain yield of forder 6.79 tones
ha-1 under mulched treatment as compared to 5.54 tonnes ha-1 of non-mulched treatment. Shafi
et al. (2007) conducted residue mulch incorporation studies in K.P.K. province of Pakistan
came up with an increase of 23.7% in grain yield.
3.1.3 Effect of mulch on 1000 grain weight (g)
1000 grain weight is an important indicator of crop yield. Among farm manure mulch
treatments higher mean 1000 grain weight 49.5 g was produced in FM10 (FM @ 10 Mg ha-1)
following 46.26 g in FM5 (FM @ 5 Mg ha-1) that are 34.7 and 25.9 % higher than that of control
(Fig.1C) but it was statistically non-significant. While in case of wheat straw mulch WS10 @
10 Mg ha-1 produced mean 1000-grain weight of 49.09 g and WS5 @ 5 Mg ha-1 is 45.25 g
which are 33.6 and 23.1% more as compared to control treatment. Which indicates a clearly
that increasing the rate of applied mulch increase the 1000-grain weight of wheat crop.
In comparison with the both mulching materials there is a difference of 0.83% among
higher rates (10 Mg ha-1) and 2.23% in lower rates (5 Mg ha-1) which is considered due to easy
FM decomposition and more nutrient availability.
Our data is confirmed from the results report of (Zhang et al. 2008) of 13.86% more
1000-grain weight in mulched treatment in comparison with the control.

3.1.4 Effect of mulch on harvest index of wheat (%)

Harvest index of crop is indicated by conversion of dry matter into grain yield. Harvest
index is actually the economic yield of the crop. Mulching had a significant impact on the
harvest index as indicated by the results shown in (Fig. 2D).
Regarding farm manure there is 28.30 and 21.0% respective enhancement in the harvest
index of wheat crop under FM10 and FM5 treatments as compared to that of control treatment
while in case of wheat straw mulch there is an increase of 25.4 and 18.5% in harvest index
under WS10 and WS5 treatment plots as compared to that of the control treatments. While there
is not a significant difference in the harvest indices of the mulched treatments under wheat
straw or the farm manure except FM10 that differed significantly from control.
Zhang et al. (2008) presented the results which lie in the same line as that of ours that
by enhancing the mulch rate the harvest indices of the crop was increased.

3.1.5 Effect of mulch on water use efficiency (kg ha-1 mm-1) of wheat

Water use efficiency of wheat based on grain yield ranged between 9.74 to 15.12 kg ha-
1 -1
mm receiving two different mulches as shown in (Fig. 2E) describing a significant effect of
mulch application on water use efficiency of wheat crop.

[SYLWAN., 160(10)]. ISI Indexed 373

 Regarding farm manure mulch it is evident from the results that there is an improvement
in water use efficacy of the crop with increasing rate of applied mulch. As there is 55.88 and
22.89% enhanced water use efficiency in case of FM10 and FM5, respectively, over control.
While if we consider wheat straw mulch then also we find a significant increment in
the water use efficiency of the crop. WS10 and WS5 treatments have an enhanced water use
efficiency of 34.64 and 15.05 % over control. These increased water use efficacies are due to
more water storage in soil due to continuity of pores along with increase in total soil porosity
by increasing soil organic carbon content and less external disturbances. While as the mulching
material is spread over the surface of soil so it provides the soil cover reducing loss of water
by evaporation that is unproductive loss. With increasing water in surface layer and reduced
soil pores tortuosity the ground water also moves towards surface increasing water availability
to plant resulting enhanced water use efficacy of the crop and ultimately reduced the irrigation
requirement which enhanced the water use efficiency. Correlation Analysis revealed that WUE
and grain yield have inverse relationship with amount of water applied (Fig. 5) with R2 97.4
and 91.57%, respectively.
Zhang et al. (2008) favoured our results in the same way reduction in soil evaporation,
increased transpiration and deep percolation with water storage leading to enhanced wheat
yield and WUE. It was reported by (Xu et al., 2007) that 80-90% water use efficiency of the
crop is enhanced if crop is cultivated under non-flood conditions and wheat straw was used as
mulch.

[SYLWAN., 160(10)]. ISI Indexed 374

 95 A 5 B
a a

Grain Yield (Mg ha-1)

Plant Height (cm)

90 ab
4 ab b
abc b b
85 abc
3
80 a*
2
75
70 1

65 0
CTRL FM5 FM10 WS5 WS10 CTRL FM5 FM10 WS5 WS10
Treatments Treatments

NS C 50 D
60 a ab
Harvest Index (%) abc abc
50 40
1000 grain weight (g)

bc
40 30
30
20
20
10 10

0 0
CTRL FM5 FM10 WS5 WS10 CTRL FM5 FM10 WS5 WS10
Treatments Treatments
16 a E
30 a F
14 ab ab
WUE kg ha-1 mm-1)

bc 25 bc bc
12 bc
Kfs (mm hr-1)

c* 20
10 bc
8 15
6
10
4
2 5
0 0
CTRL FM5 FM10 WS5 WS10 CTRL FM5 FM10 WS5 WS10
Treatments Treatments

Fig. 2. Influence of treatments on plant height (A), grain yield (B), 1000 grain
weight(C), HI (D), WUE (E) and hydraulic conductivity (K fs ) (F)
* Means sharing the same letter on bar do not differ significantly at p<0.05
according to Least Significant Difference test

[SYLWAN., 160(10)]. ISI Indexed 375

 3.2. Soil Parameters

3.2.1. Effect of mulch on soil saturated hydraulic conductivity (mm hr-1)

The variation in Kfs of soil by application of both the mulching materials is presented
in Fig. 3A. It is evident from the figures that there is significant increase in the aggregate
stability of the upper soil surface due to less disturbances ultimately increasing water
conduction in soil profile. As regarding wheat straw mulch there is 47.10% increase in
saturated hydraulic conductivity of soil in plots under WS10 while in case of farm manure
treatments a significant increase of 60.30% was observed in plots under FM10 treatment over
control (CTRL). The treatment FM5 and WS5 both showed the same increase in Kfs over control
that was only 30.9%. The increase in saturated hydraulic conductivity is considered to be due
to decrease in soil bulk density increasing soil aggregate stability and developing an
unbreakable pore passage for the conduction of water. The increase in porosity is due to
reduced bulk density as both of them are in inverse relation with each other.
Mikha and rice (2004) reported soil aggregation and macro-pores continuity with
applied mulches that increase the water conduction (Ks). Macro-pores occupies a very small
fraction of soil volume but they highly contributes for the water flow within the profile so better
Ks is due to presence of surface residues that cause better soil aggregation and pore continuity
while reducing tortuosity (Shipitalo et al., 2000).
3.2.2. Effect of mulch on infiltration rate (mm ha-1)
Soils with applied mulches retained stable soil structure with improvement in soil
aggregation with ultimate increase in soil volume. Increase in volume decreases the soil bulk
density, enhancing surface porosity so the entry of water into the soil from surface became
easy. Increase in entry ultimately increases infiltration rate. (Fig. 3B) shows a gradual
difference in infiltration rate with increase in the rate of applied mulches. As regard wheat
straw mulch there is a significant increase of 114.7 and 50.0% in plots under WS10 and WS5,
respectively. While in case of the farm manure there is a clear difference in the infiltration rate
than that of the wheat straw mulch as well as control. If we compare it with control there is
respective increase of 200.8 and 85.3% in mean infiltration rates of plots under FM10 and FM5,
respectively. As we compare it with wheat straw mulch treatments there is also a significant
measurable increase that was 1.40 and 1.24 times more over each respective level of wheat
straw mulch. Increase in the infiltration rate is due to the presence of particle binders on soil
surface that causes aggregation, making a passage for the movement of water into the soil. If
the soil is dispersed then there is blockage of the pores which reduces the entry of water into
soil ultimately reducing infiltration.
Gangwar et al. (2006) presented favourable increase in the soil infiltration by leaving crop
residues over soil surface which reduced soil evaporation, soil sealing and surface crusting.
The observations of Barzegar et al. (2002) also shows linear increase in infiltration rate and
water retention with increasing the rate of applied wheat straw mulch from 0 to 15 Mg ha -1.
Presence of mulch on soil surface has a direct impact on infiltration of rainwater into soil by
holding it at the surface giving more time to infilterate into the soil. Pagliai et al. (2004)
observed improvement in soil porosity by manure application which contributes highly to
enhance water infiltration and sorptivity.

[SYLWAN., 160(10)]. ISI Indexed 376

 3.2.3 Effect of mulch amendment on soil organic carbon concentration (%) at wheat harvest
It is evident from results (Fig. 3C) that mulch has a significant effect on soil organic
carbon concentration. The SOC concentration at crop harvest was observed to be higher
(1.03%) in farm manure mulch plots FM10 compared to that of (1.01%) in plots of wheat straw
mulch WS10.
So the application of mulch was found to be statistically significant to improve SOC
concentration in upper layer of the soil that is evident from the results when compared with the
control treatments. As in case of wheat straw mulch there is 12.86 and 44.64%, respective,
enhancement in soil organic carbon under WS5 and WS10 to 15cm depth. While in case of farm
manure there is 15.71 and 47.5% increase in SOC in plots under FM5 and FM10 with respect to
control treatment (CTRL).
As we go deeper 15-30 cm there is significant decrease in SOC due to reduced root
biomass, microbial biomass and reduced porosity. At this depth FM10 and FM5 and WS10
differs significantly from control (CTRL) treatment. But as we go below this depth the organic
matter content seems to be stagnant with insignificant increase due to compactness and less
porosity causing least root penetration.
Average organic matter content under mulched treatments differs significantly with
36.24 and 15.09% increase as in case of FM10 and FM5 while 31.9 and 11.7% increase in case
of WS10 and WS5 over control, respectively.
The increase in the upper layer is might be due to two major reasons. First and most
important is that we have applied both of the organic materials as mulch so the SOC
concentration on the surface enhanced due to the applied materials. There is slow
decomposition rate of wheat straw than farm manure so carbon is sequestered in organic form
increasing SOC while farm manure was more mineralized making much more nutrients
available to plant which results in enhanced root development causing increased SOC as
compared to control as well as wheat straw mulch treatments. The second reason is presence
of root biomass in the upper layers resulting in more organic carbon. As there is more root
length development under mulched treatments resulting in more SOC with significant
differences from controls. Farm manure performed better as releasing more nutrients hence
increasing the root lengths. But as we go down this depth there was a very small amount of
SOC present that may be due to some organisms present over there or due to some of the roots
reaching that depths but there was not a significant difference between control and mulched
treatments.
Govaerts et al. (2007) put forward similar results reporting that residues placed over
the surface of soil enhances the soil carbon 1.37 times as compared to that of residues
incorporated in soil. Similarly, Canque and Lal (2007) performed an experiment to find the
impacts of mulching materials at different levels on SOC with findings of 58% more SOC @
8 Mg ha-1 as compared to that of control treatments which are just similar to that of our
investigations. Similarly, Khurshid et al. (2006) reported increased soil organic matter content
significantly with increasing rate of applied mulch.

3.2.4. Effect of mulch amendment on soil bulk density (Mg m-3)

Fig. 3D shows that the top surface soil retained structural stability in both of the
mulches by lowering bulk density than that of control treatments. The mulch treatments FM5,

[SYLWAN., 160(10)]. ISI Indexed 377

 FM10, WS5 and WS10 had bulk densities in order 1.48, 1.45, 1.51 and 1.49 Mg m-3 which are
significantly reduced than that of control (CTRL) treatment (1.54 Mg m-3). These differences
arose presumably because of more aggregation due to presence of organic residues. In 2nd depth
(15-30 cm) there is significant decrease under FM treatments but wheat straw mulch do not
affected so significantly. But as we go down this depth then there is not any significant
difference in soil bulk density. Due to increased mulch level there was an increase in organic
carbon concentration in upper soil. With increasing organic matter the number of living
particles also increased. The living matter not only includes microbes but also the earthworm
casts, fungus and roots of crop plants which loosen the soil enhancing soil porosity by making
macro-pores the rhizoids development and enhanced root development of crop plants,
respectively. These are the main causes of increase in bulk volume and reduced bulk density.

Many researcher’s reported similar kind of results, they observed decrease in soil bulk
density with the application of rice straw mulch, corn stover mulch, application of plant
residues as mulch (Blanco-Canqui et al., 2006 and Kahlon et al., 2013). The reduction of soil
bulk density might be due to improvement in soil structure and increased in soil bulk volume
due to decomposition of organic residues (Glab and kulig, 2008).

3.2.5. Effect of mulch on soil total porosity (m3 m-3)

The depth wise statistical variation in total porosity of soil was presented in Fig. 3E. It
is evident from data that there is a significant depth wise change present in the soil total porosity
in both of the mulching materials. As regarding the farm manure mulch there is significant
increase of 8.43, 2.5 and 2.63% increase in total porosity of soil under treatment FM10 while in
case of FM5 4.82, 2.5 and 2.63% increased total porosity of soils was observed in comparison
with control treatment at 0-15, 15-30 and 30-45 cm depth, respectively. As regarding wheat
straw mulch there is significant increase total soil porosity of 3.61, 2.5 and 2.63% in 0-15, 15-
30 and 30-45 cm depth with WS10 treatment while there is only 2.41% enhanced porosity in
the upper 0-15 cm layer of WS5 treatment plots as compared to that of control treatment.

This increased porosity is related with that of bulk density. In the upper layers there is
significant increase in SOC which loosen the soil reducing the soil bulk density which has a
direct effect on soil porosity. Due to mulch cover there is no disturbance created by rain drops
so the surface crusting is avoided having impact on soil porosity. Presence of organic matter
also provide medium for the growth of microbes as well as earthworms which increase the soil
total porosity. Increased root growth of the crop also has a beneficial impact on soil total
porosity creating more space for expansion. While the most important one considered is that
the mulch cover reduces the external disturbances i.e. rain and wind impact on surface soil
which break continuity of the pores. By reduction in the impact of these two factors the soil
structure is not disturbed increasing the total porosity of the soil.

Glab and kulig (2008) and Mulumba and Lal (2008) reported the reduction in bulk
density of the soil, increase in soil bulk volume is the main reasons of enhanced aggregation
and improvement in the soil porosity due to decomposition of residues which are just similar
to our results.

[SYLWAN., 160(10)]. ISI Indexed 378

 30 A a 30 B

Infiltration rate (mm hr-1)

ab a
25 b b 25
Ksat (mm hr-1)

20 20 ab
c bc
15 15 bc
10 c
10
5 5

0 0
CTRL FM5 FM10 WS5 WS10 CTRL FM5 FM10 WS5 WS10
Treatments Treatments

C Treatments
CTRL FM5 FM10 WS5 WS10
0
0.2
SOC (g kg-1)

d g g g g g g g g g
0.4 f C
d B de B d
0.6 d A A
0.8 c
b b
1
a a
1.2
0-15 15-30 30-45 45-60 Mean

1.70 0-15 15-30 30-45 Mean

D
a ab ab
1.65 ab b
Bulk Density (Mg m-3)

1.60 c A
c-e B
e B e e B
1.55 e* C
f
g fg
1.50
h
1.45

1.40

1.35
CTRL FM5 FM10 WS5 WS10
Treatments

[SYLWAN., 160(10)]. ISI Indexed 379

 Treatments
CTRL FM5 FM10 WS5 WS10
0.34
0.36
Porosity (m3 m-3)

0.38
h gh
0.4 fgh fgh gh
ef C de
0.42 de AB de B de A
cd A
0.44 bc ab
ab
0.46
0-15 15-30 a 30-45 Mean E
Fig. 3: Influence of treatments on Soil Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity Kfs (A), Infiltration
rate (B), SOC (C), Bulk density (D) and Soil Porosity (E)
*Means sharing the same letter(s) (small letters shows difference within Treatments and
between depths while Capital letters shows difference between Treatment means of 0-45 cm
soil depth) on bar do not differ significantly at p<0.05 according to Least Significant
Difference test

3.3 Impact of SOC on soil saturated hydraulic conductivity and soil Infiltration rate
Soil organic carbon has a crucial impact on two major physical characteristics of soil which
is evident from the (Fig. 4). As the amount of soil organic carbon increases there is a net
increase in the saturated hydraulic conductivity as well as soil infiltration rate while the
increase in organic carbon occurs by increasing the applied organic mulch rate. The analysis
showed that the hydraulic conductivity and infiltration rate was related 93.26 and 89.38% with
SOC and increased with the increase of SOC. Pakistani soils are deficient in soil organic matter.
So it is need of time to apply organic carbon to enhance its level. By applying mulch the organic
carbon content is improved in the upper 30 cm layer but the lower layer carbon content have
not a significant change. The higher values of organic carbon were observed in farm manure
treatments than that of wheat straw which also have significantly improved SOC. This
increased amount have a beneficial impact on the soil porosity. As due to applied mulch there
was less surface disturbance so the soil structure was improved resulting in enhanced water
passage in profile due to continuity of pores and entry of water into soil was also enhanced due
to removal of water from lower parts or the increased number of pores in surface soil which
have capacity to intake more water from surface. In other words we can say that the soil
infiltration rate as well as soil saturated hydraulic conductivity were improved due to increased
rate of applied mulches because of increased soil organic carbon which is evident from the
linear relationship between these parameters.
Gangwar et al. (2006) presented that increase in applied organic mulch not only provide
surface cover but also increase SOC which reduced soil sealing and surface crusting enhancing
surface entry of water. The observations of Lal (2004) also shows that with increasing rate of
wheat straw mulch enhances SOC along with linear increase in infiltration rate and water
retention. Presence of mulch on soil surface develops an organic layer like sponge on soil
surface which has a direct impact on infiltration of rainwater into soil by holding it at the

[SYLWAN., 160(10)]. ISI Indexed 380

 surface giving more time to infiltrate into the soil. Pagliai et al. (2004) observed improvement
in soil porosity by manure application which contributes highly to enhance water infiltration
and sorptivity. Mikha and rice (2004) reported soil aggregation and macropores continuity
under applied mulches due to presence of soil particles binders in the form of organic matter
that increase the water conduction (Ks).

30 Kfs IR Linear (Kfs) Linear (IR) 30

Conductivity(mm hr-1)

Infiltration rate (mm

25 25
20 20
Hydraulic

hr-1)
15 15
10 10
5 IR = 110.17x - 31.937 Kfs = 67.554x - 6.7439 5
R² = 0.8938 R² = 0.9326
0 0
0.35 0.37 0.39 0.41 0.43 0.45 0.47 0.49 0.51
SOC (%)

Fig. 4: Impact of SOC on soil Infiltration rate (IR) and soil saturated hydraulic conductivity
(Kfs)
3.5 Impact of SOC on soil bulk density and total porosity
By the application of organic amendments soil volume get enhanced due to following
reasons i.e. mineralization of organic matter release nutrients slowly resulting in root
expansion, more earthworm casts, least disturbances by rain drops, least compaction and
crusting. All of these factors improve soil aggregation due to particles binding by presence of
organic materials. The higher values of organic carbon were observed in farm manure
treatments than that of wheat straw. Due to this increased amount have a beneficial impact on
the soil porosity. It reduced the bulk density of soil significantly in upper layers increasing soil
pore volume.
In the upper most layer there is much more SOC carbon and less is the bulk density
with more porous medium due to its spongy characteristics. But as we go deeper SOC decreases
with compactness of soil the number of pores get reduced and ultimately the bulk density
reduces elaborated in Fig. 5. In our simulation, the highest porosity (0.41%) and minimum bulk
density (1.54 Mg m-3) were attained as the SOC approach to a critical value 0.47 and 0.49%
around 73.51 and 81.05% of the observed maximum SOC.

[SYLWAN., 160(10)]. ISI Indexed 381

 1.6 ρb ϕ Linear (ρb) Linear (ϕ) 0.42
Bulk density (Mg m-3)

ϕ= 0.097x + 0.3648 0.42

Porosity (m3 m-3)

1.58
R² = 0.7351
ρb= -0.3283x + 1.7033 0.41
1.56 R² = 0.8105
0.41
1.54
0.40

1.52 0.40
0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
SOC (%)

Fig. 5: Impact of SOC on soil soil bulk density (ρb) and Soil total porosity (ϕ)
3.5 Impact of sequestered SOC on wheat yield and WUE
It is clear from the results that there is a net increase soil organic carbon content as by
increasing the amount of mulch applied to the soil. Previous literature also presents this fact
that increasing rate of applied mulch improves SOC. Increase in soil organic matter has a
beneficial indirect impact on crop productivity and yields due to its impact on soil physical
processes, nutrient availability and water storage capacity. Increase in soil organic matter due
to applied mulch loosen the soil at surface reducing soil compactness providing more root
penetration in soil. Larger the root penetration increases contact of root with soil medium
ultimately enhancing the nutrient availability to crop. More the nutrients available to crop more
will be the productivity. On the other hand, these organic residues are also a rich source of
nutrients that they release on mineralization. So more the mulch applied more will be organic
matter content and release of nutrients is enhanced resulting in more productivity. While
decomposition of organic matter also releases some weak acidic materials which reduces pH
of soils near the roots in microenvironments enhancing P availability which is a major concern
in our soils which impacts positively on crop productivity and yields.
Along with all of these water is also a major factor which has an impact on crop
productivity. As water use efficacy of crop is ratio of crop yield and total water applied. So by
increasing soil organic matter the water is captured by soil and evaporation losses are reduced
increasing water uptake by crop plants ultimately increasing crop yield. Fig. 6 show direct
relationship of SOC with grain yield of wheat and wheat WUE. Our simulation revealed that
the highest grain yield (4.11 Mg ha-1) and water use efficiency (15.12 kg ha-1 mm-1) were
achieved when SOC value approaches to 0.53 and 0.52% around 81.73 and 92.87% of the
observed maximum SOC (Fig. 7). The results indicate that the maximum yield and water use
efficiency were not recorded at maximum observed SOC but at some higher value of SOC.
This might be due to high organic matter in soil during the crop stand or before harvest and
soil sample collected for SOC analysis after the harvest which may lead to decrease in soil
organic carbon content.

[SYLWAN., 160(10)]. ISI Indexed 382

 4.2 gy wue Linear (gy) Linear (wue) 17
Grain Yield (Mg ha-1)

WUE (kg ha-1 mm-1)

4
15
3.8 gy = 35.877x - 3.4719
3.6 R² = 0.9287 13
3.4
WUE = 5.9204x + 0.9951 11
3.2
R² = 0.8173
3 9
0.350 0.370 0.390 0.410 0.430 0.450 0.470 0.490 0.510
SOC (%)
Fig. 6: Impact of SOC on soil (A) Infiltration rate (IR) and soil saturated hydraulic
conductivity (Kfs), (B) grain yield (gy) and WUE, (C) soil bulk density (ρb) and Soil total
porosity (ϕ)

4.5 gy wue Linear (gy) Linear (wue) 16

15
4 14
Grain yield (kg ha-1)

WUE (kg ha-1 mm-1)

WUE = -0.0151x + 8.0144 13
3.5 R² = 0.9157 12
11
3 10
gy = -0.0886x + 38.19
R² = 0.974 9
2.5 8
7
2 6
260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330
Irrigation (mm)
Fig. 7: Relationship of irrigation with grain yield and WUE under different mulch
amendments
Conclusion:
1. Mulching amendment with increasing level significantly influenced most of the growth
and yield parameters of wheat. A significant increase in plant height, 1000-grain
weight, and harvest index and grain yield of wheat was observed with increasing
mulching levels of both the mulching materials.
2. Soil organic carbon (SOC) up to 30 cm depth was significantly affected by mulching
materials at different levels but maximum SOC was observed in treatment FM10 (Farm
manure mulch @ 10 Mg ha-1). Mulching levels significantly improved the soil physical
parameters i.e. bulk density, total porosity, saturated hydraulic conductivity and
infiltration rate.

[SYLWAN., 160(10)]. ISI Indexed 383

 3. Mulches increase SOC which has linear increasing relationship with soil infiltration
rate and soil hydraulic conductivity as well as grain yield and water use efficiency of
wheat crop.
REFERENCES
Acharya, C.L., Hati, K.M. and Bandyopadhyay, K.K., 2005. Mulches. In: Encyclopedia of soils
in the environment (Eds D. Hillel, C. Rosenzweig, D.S. Pawlon, K.M. Scow, M.J. Sorger, D.L.
Sparks and J. Hatfield). Elsevier Publication, St Louis, MO, USA.
Anonymous, 2014. Economic survey of Pakistan 2013-14, Govt. of Pakistan, Ministry of Food,
Agriculture and Livestock, Economic Wing, Islamabad.
Athy, E.R., Keiffer, C.H. and Stevens, M.H., 2006. Effects of mulch on seedlings and soil on
a closed landfill. Restoration Ecol., 14, 233-241.
Barzegar, A.R., Yousefi, A. and Daryashenas, A., 2002. The effect of addition of different
amounts and types of organic materials on soil physical properties and yield of wheat. Plant
Soil., 247, 295–301.
Black, G.R. and Hartage, K.H., 1986. Bulk density. In: Methods of Soil Analysis Part 1.
Physical and Mineralogical Methods (Eds A. Klute). Agronomy Monograph No. 9, 2nd Ed.,
Madison, WI, USA.
Blanco-Canqui, H., Lal, R. and Post, W.M., 2006. Corn stover impacts on near surface soil
properties of no-till corn in Ohio. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 70, 266–278.
Brahma, R., Janawade, A.D. and Palled, Y.B., 2007. Effect of irrigation schedules, mulch and
antitranspirant on growth, yield and economics of wheat. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 20(1), 6-9.
Canque, H.B. and Lal, R., 2007. Soil structure and organic carbon relationship following 10
years of wheat straw management in no-till. Soil Till. Res., 95(1-2), 240-254.
Cherr, C.M., Scholberg, J.M.S. and McSorley, R., 2006. Green manure approaches to crop
production: A synthesis. Agron. J., 98, 302–319.
Dahiya, R., Ingewersen, J. and Streck, T., 2007. The effect of mulching and tillage on the water
temperature regimes of a loess soil: Experimental findings and modeling. Soil Till. Res., 96(1),
52-63.
De Silva, S.H.S.A. and Cook, H.F., 2003. Soil physical conditions and performance of cowpea
organic matter amelioration of sand. Commum. Soil Sci. Plant Anal., 34, 1039-1058.
Deng, X.P., Shan, L., Zhang, H. and Turner, N.C., 2006. Improving agricultural water use
efficiency in arid and semiarid areas of china. Agric. Water Manage., 80(1-3), 23-40.
Dulormne, M., Sierra, J., Nygren, P. and Cruz, P., 2003. Nitrogen-fixation dynamics in a cutand
carry silvopastoral system in the subhumid conditions of Guadeloupe, French Antilles.
Agroforestry Sys., 59(2), 121–129.

[SYLWAN., 160(10)]. ISI Indexed 384

 DuPont, S.T., Ferris, H. and Horn, M.V., 2009. Effects of cover crop quality and quantity on
nematode-based soil food webs and nutrient cycling. Appl. Soil Ecol., 41, 157-167.
Evett, S.R. and Tolk, J.A., 2009. Introduction: Can water use efficiency be modeled well
enough to impact crop management? Agron. J., 101, 423–425.
Gangwar, K.S., Singh, K.K., Sharma, S.K. and Tomar, O.K. 2006. Alternative tillage and crop
residue management in wheat after rice in sandy loam soils of Indo-Gangetic Plains. Soil Till.
Res., 88, 242–252.
Glab, T. and Kulig, B. 2008. Effect of mulch and tillage system on soil porosity under wheat.
Soil Till. Res., 99, 169-178.
Govaerts, B., Sayre, K.D., Lichter, K., Dendooven, L. and Deckers, J., 2007. Influence of
permanent raised bed planting and residue management on physical and chemical soil quality
in rain fed maize/wheat systems. Plant soil., 291, 39-54.
Hatcher, P.E. and Melande, B., 2003. Combining physical, cultural and biological methods:
Prospects for integrated non-chemical weed management strategies. Weed Res., 43, 303-322.
Hiltbrunner, J., Streit, B. and Liedgens, M., 2007. Are seeding densities an opportunity to
increase grain yield of winter wheat in a living mulch of white clover? Field crops Res., 102,
163-171.
Huang, Y., Chen, L, Bojie, F., Huang, F. and Gong, J., 2005. The wheat yields and water use
efficiency in Loess Plateau: straw mulch and irrigation effects. Agric. Water Manage., 72(3),
209-222.
Humphreys, E., Kukal, S.S., Christen, E.W., Hira, G.S., Singh, B., Sudhir, R.K. and Sharma,
Y., 2010. Halting the groundwater decline in north west India-which crop technologies
will be winners? Adv. Agron., 109, 155–217.
Iqtidar, H., Ayyaz, K.M. and Ahmad, K.E., 2006. Bread wheat varieties as influenced by
different nitrogen levels. J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci., 7, 70-78.
Kahlon, M.S., Lal, R. and Varughese, M.A., 2013. Twenty two years of tillage and mulching
impacts on soil physical characteristics and carbon sequestration in Central Ohio. Soil Till.
Res., 126, 151-158.
Khalil, I.A. and Jan, A., 2002. Cereal crops. In: Cropping technology. A text book of
Agriculture. National Book Foundation, Islamabad. pp. 169.
Khurshid, K., Iqbal, M., Arif, M.S. and Nawaz, A., 2006. Effect of tillage and mulch on soil
physical properties and growth of maize. Int. J. Agric. Biol., 8, 593–596.
Klute, A. 1986. Method of soil analysis. Part1 Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Anc. Pub. Madison,
Wisconsin. U.S.A.
Lal, R. 2004. Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security.
Sci. J., 304, 1623-1627.

[SYLWAN., 160(10)]. ISI Indexed 385

 Mikha, M.M. and Rice, C.W., 2004. Tillage and manure effects on soil and aggregate
associated carbon and nitrogen. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 68, 809–816.
Montogomery, D.C., 2013. Design and analysis of experiments. 8th Ed. 98-100, John Wiley
and Sons Inc, New York (USA).
Movahedi, S.A.R. and Cook, H.F., 2000. Influence of compost on temperature, water, nutrient
status and the yield of maize in a temperate soil. Soil Use Manage., 16, 215-221.
Mulumba, L.N. and Lal, R., 2008. Mulching effects on selected soil physical properties. Soil
Till. Res., 98 (1), 106–111.
Mustafa, Z.S., Yasmin, S., Kisana, N.S. and Mujahid, M.Y., 2004. Results of national uniform
yield trials. PARC, Islamabad.
Pagliai, M., Vignozzi, N. and Pellegrini, S., 2004. Soil structure and the effect of management
practices. Soil Till. Res., 70, 131–134.
Peachey, R.E., Moldenke, A., William, R.D., Berry, R., Ingham, E. and Groth, E., 2002. Effect
of cover crop and tillage systems on symphylan (Simphyla: Scutigerella immaculate, Newport)
and Pergamasus quisquiliarm Canestrini (Acari: Mesotigmata) populations, and other soil
organisms in agricultural soils. Appl. Soil Ecol., 21, 56-70.
R Development Core Team. 2008. R: A language and environment for statistical computing.
R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL
http://www.R-project.org.
Ramalan, A.A. and Nwokeocha, C.U., 2000. Effects of furrow irrigation methods, mulching
and soil water suction on the growth, yield and water use efficiency of tomato in the Nigerian
Savana. Agric. Water Manage., 45, 317-330.
Rijsberman, F.R., 2006. Water scarcity: Fact or fiction? Agric. Water manage., 80(1-3), 5-22.
Ryan, J., Estefan, G. and Rashid, A., 2001. Soil and Plant Analysis Laboratory Manual (2nd
Ed.). 46-48, International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA).
Aleppo, Syria.
Sellers, G., McRae, S.G. and Cook, H.F., 2001. Oilseed rape and field bean production
potential on an amended former landfill site restored with London clay. Land Degrad. Dev.,
12, 487-504.
Shafi, M., Bhkhat, J., Jan, M.J., and Shah, Z., 2007. Soil C and N dynamics and maize (Zea
mays L.), yield as affected by cropping system and residue management in northwest Pakistan.
Soil Till. Res. 94, 520–529.
Shipitalo, M.J., Dick, W.A. and Edwards, W.M., 2000. Conservation tillage and macropore
factors that affect water movement and the fate of chemicals. Soil Till. Res., 53, 167–183.

[SYLWAN., 160(10)]. ISI Indexed 386

 Sidhu, H.S., Manpreet, S., Humpreys, E., Singh, Y., Singh, B., Dhillon, S.S., Blackwell, J.,
Bector, V., Malkeet, S. and Sarbjeet, S., 2007. The happy seeder enables direct drilling of wheat
into rice stubble. Aust. J. Exp. Agric., 47, 844-854.
Singh, Y., Singh, B. and Timsina, J., 2005. Crop residue management for nutrient cycling and
improving soil productivity in rice based cropping systems in Tropics. Adv. Agron., 85, 269-
407.
Xu, G.W., Zhang, Z.C., Zhang, J.H. and Yang, J.C., 2007. Much improved water use efficiency
of rice under non-flooded mulching cultivation. J. Integr. Plant Biol., 49, 1527-1534.
Zhang, S.L., Lovdahl, L., Grip, H., Tong, Y.A., Yang, X.Y. and Wang, Q.J., 2009. Effects of
mulching and catch cropping on soil temperature, soil moisture and wheat yield on the loess
Plateau of China. Soil Till. Res., 102, 78-86.
Zhang, Z., Zhang, S., Yang, J. and Zhang, J., 2008. Yield, grain quality and water use efficiency
of rice under non-flooded mulching cultivation. Field Crops Res., 108(1), 71-81.

[SYLWAN., 160(10)]. ISI Indexed 387