MANUAL

ON

Course No. Agron. 511 Credit hours: 2+0

By

PAWAN KUMAR
Agronomist
R.K. NANWAL
Professor
A.S. DHINDWAL
Sr. Agronomist & Head
S.K. YADAV
Chief Agronomist

2012

DEPARTMENT OF AGRONOMY
CCS HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY
HISAR-125004

1
 FOREWORD

Indian Agriculture has made very remarkable strides in

the last four decades. Introduction of input responsive, high
yielding, photo-insensitive and short duration varieties coupled
with improved production technology ushered the era of high
crop productivity.
The rapidly rising food needs due to steadily mounting demographic pressures
necessitated systems approach in an integrated manner. It is how multiple/ intensive
cropping came into existence. Commensurating identification of efficient crops,
evaluation of crop varieties and formulation of agro-practices landed adequate support
to our war on low productivity and India was able to witness Green Revolution to belie
the prophets of dooming. In fact, the Indian Agriculture, therefore, never looked back.
Traditional cropping systems were re-tailored for intensification both in time and space.
New courses on various aspects of cropping systems have been designed in
agricultural universities at undergraduate and post-graduate levels as per 4th Deans’
Committee recommendations of ICAR. Presently no reference book is available to meet
the requirement of students in this area of specialization. This manual is a good
beginning to meet the requirement of students to study various facets of the course
“Cropping systems and sustainable agriculture (Agro.511)”.

Authors have made efforts to collect, collate, and present the available literature
and data in a systematic manner so as to be useful to the students. It is praise worthy
effort and it is hoped that the purpose for which this compilation has been published
will be fully served and will stimulate further work in this important area of agronomy.

March 29, 2012 (Sucheta

Khokhar)
Hisar Dean
College of Agriculture
CCS HAU, Hisar

2
Sr.No. Contents Page
Number
1 Cropping system, Indices and its importance 1-8
2 Cropping system, its physical resources, soil and water management in 9-14
cropping system
3 Concept of sustainability in cropping and farming system, its scope and 15-27
objectives
4 Production potential under monocropping, multiple cropping, alley 28-54
cropping, sequential cropping etc.
5 Intercropping-its definition, advantages and importance. Mechanism of yield 55-58
advantage in intercropping system
6 Above-ground and below-ground interaction and allelopathy 59-76
7 Competition relations multi-storied cropping and yield stability n 77-88
intercropping
8 Role of Non-Monetary Inputs and Low Cost Technology in crop production 89-95
9 Research needs in sustainable agriculture 96-103
10 Crop Diversification For Sustainability 104-117
11 Role of organic matter in Maintenance in soil fertility and Crop residue 118-123
management
12 Fertilizer Use Efficiency and Concept of Fertilizer Use in Intensive 124-134
Cropping System
13 Plant Growth Regulators and its Role in sustainable Agriculture 135-149
14 Role of INM in Intensive Cropping System 150-165
15 Scenario of intensive cropping systems in India after green revolution 166-172
16 Plant ideotypes 173-180
17 Suggested readings 181-187

3
 Course: Cropping systems and sustainable agriculture (Agron. 511)
Semester: I
Credit: 2+0
Objective
To acquaint the students about prevailing cropping systems in the country and
practices to improve their productivity.

Course content
Theory

Cropping system: definition, Indices and its importance; physical resources, soil
and water management in cropping system; assessment of land use; concept of
sustainability in cropping and farming system, its scope and objectives; production
potential under monocropping, multiple cropping, alley cropping, sequential
cropping and intercropping; mechanism of yield advantage in intercropping system;
above-ground and below-ground interaction and allelopathy effects; Competition
relations; multi-storied cropping and yield stability in intercropping; role of non-
monetary inputs and low cost technology;; Research needs on sustainable agriculture;
crop diversification for sustainability; role of organic matter in maintenance of soil
fertility; crop residue management; fertilizer use efficiency and concept of fertilizer use
in intensive cropping system;; plant ideotypes for drylands; plant growth regulators and
their ole in sustainability.

4
 Preface
Bourgeoning human population on one hand and progressively shrinking
agriclutural land availability per capita on the other warrants temporal and spatial
intensification on cropping. Integrated information on crop, soil, climate, vis-à-vis
socio-economic condition could be generated to evolve new cropping systems or to
modify the traditional once to meet the challenge of time. Temporal and spatial
intensification of cropping constitutes the basic ingredients of national food production
strategy for its stabilization.
Research efforts in the past have been directed not only on increasing
productivity of individual crop, but also towards improving the efficiency of farm
utilization or maximizing return per unit area per unit time. The results of these
experiments have come up with suitable cropping patterns for different areas with
annual food crops, as the base around which the cropping patterns are built.
Doubtless their will be short comings, omissions and scope for improvement in
the manual. We will be grateful to receive suggestion in this regards.
We express our indebtedness to Dr. K.S. Khokhar, Worthy Vice-Chancellor,
CCSHAU, Hisar his keen interest in the teaching programme of the department. The
task of manual writing could not have been possible but due to the encouragement by
Dr. (Mrs.) Sucheta Khokhar, Dean College of Agriculture, who has also kind enough to
provide forward to this manual. Our thanks are also due particularly to Dr. A.S.
Dhindwal, Prof. & Head, Deptt. of Agronomy who is also one of the authors, for the
guidance during the course of writing the manual. The financial support received from
ICAR is gratefully acknowledged.

Authors

1
5
 Cropping system, indices and its importance

Cropping system: is an important component of a farming system. It represents

cropping pattern used on a farm and their interaction with farm resources, other farm
enterprises and available technology which determine their make up.
Copping pattern: means the proportion of area under various crops at a point of time in
a unit area. It indicates the yearly sequence and spatial arrangement of crops and fallow
in an area.
Cropping scheme is a plan according to which crops are grown on individual plot of a
farm during a given period of time with the object of obtaining maximum return from
each crop without impairing soil fertility. Thus a cropping scheme is related to the most
profitable use of resources, land, labour, capital, and management.
Types of Cropping System:
Monocropping: Monocropping refers to growing of only one crop on a piece of land
year after year. E.g. under rainfed conditions shorgum is grown year after year.
Multiple cropping: Growing two or more crops on the same piece of land in one
calendar year is known as multiple cropping. It is intensification of cropping in space
and time dimensions. It includes intercropping, mixed cropping and sequence cropping.
Double cropping: Growing of two crops in a year in sequence.
Tripple cropping: Growing of three crops in a year in sequence.
Quadruple cropping: Growing of four crops in a year in sequence.
Competition effect: Competition of intercropped spp. For light, nutrients, water,
carbon dioxide, and other growth factors.
Complementary effect: Effect of one component on another which enhances growth
and productivity.
Intercropping: Intercropping is growing two or more crops simultaneously on the same
piece of land with a definite row pattern. For example growing maize + green gram in
2:1 ratio
Mixed cropping: is growing two or more crops simultaneously intermingled without
any row pattern. It is common practice in most of dry land areas
Sequence cropping: sequence cropping can be defined as growing of two or more
crops in sequence on the same piece of land in a farming year.
Parallel cropping: Cultivation of such crops which have different natural habit and
zero competition e.g. Black gram /green gram+miaze. The peak nutrient demand period
for green gram is around 30-35 DAS while it is 50 DAS for maize.
Multi-storied/multi-tiered cropping/multi-level: Cultivation of two or more than two
crops of different heights simultaneously on a certain piece of land in a certain period
e.g., sugarcane+mustard+onion.

6
Sustainable agriculture is a form of agriculture aimed at meeting the needs of present
generation without endangering the resource base of future generation. It is the practice
of farming using principles of ecology, the study of relationships between organisms
and their environment. It has been defined as "an integrated system of plant and animal
production practices having a site-specific application that will last over the long term.
Contour farming is the practice of tilling sloped land along lines of consistent
elevation in order to conserve rainwater and to reduce soil losses from surface erosion.
These objectives are achieved by means of furrows, crop rows, and wheel tracks across
slopes, all of which act as reservoirs to catch and retain rainwater, thus permitting
increased infiltration and more uniform distribution of the water.Contour farming has
been practiced for centuries in parts of the world where irrigation farming is important.
Although in the United States the technique was first practiced at the turn of the 19th
century,
Crop rotation: The practice of planting a succession of crops in a field over a period of
years. Rotations can maintain field fertility since different crops use different soil
nutrients, so excessive demands are not made of one nutrient. In certain rotations, plants
like legumes (peas and beans) are grown to restore fertility. Crop rotation is a type of
cultural control that is also used to control pests and diseases that can become
established in the soil over time. The changing of crops in a sequence tends to decrease
the population level of pests. Plants within the same taxonomic family tend to have
similar pests and pathogens. By regularly changing the planting location, the pest cycles
can be broken or limited. For example, root-knot nematode is a serious problem for
some plants in warm climates and sandy soils. It is also difficult to control weeds
similar to the crop which may contaminate the final produce. For instance, ergot in
weed grasses is difficult to separate from harvested grain.
Agroforestry is a collective name for land use systems and practices in which woody
perennials are deliberately integrated with crops and/or animals on the same land
management unit. The integration can be either in a spatial mixture or in a temporal
sequence. There are normally both ecological and economic interactions between
woody and non-woody components in agroforestry.
In agroforestry systems, trees or shrubs are intentionally used within agricultural
systems, or non-timber forest products are cultured in forest settings. Knowledge,
careful selection of species and good management of trees and crops are needed to
optimize the production and positive effects within the system and to minimize negative
competitive effects.
Alley cropping: Agroforestry, farm forestry and family forestry can be broadly
understood as the commitment of farmers, alone or in partnerships, towards the
establishment and management of forests on their land. Where many landholders are
involved the result is a diversity of activity that reflects the diversity of aspirations and
interests within the community. Alley cropping, sometimes referred to as 'sun systems',
is a form of intercropping.

7
Organic farming is the form of agriculture that relies on techniques such as crop
rotation, green manure, compost and biological pest control to maintain soil
productivity and control pests on a farm. Organic farming excludes or strictly limits the
use of manufactured fertilizers, pesticides (which include herbicides, insecticides and
fungicides), plant growth regulators such as hormones, livestock antibiotics, food
additives, and genetically modified organisms.
"Organic agriculture is a production system that sustains the health of soils, and
people. It relies on ecological processes, biodiversity and cycles adapted to local
conditions, rather than the use of inputs with adverse effects. Organic agriculture
combines tradition, innovation and science to benefit the shared environment and
promote fair relationships and a good quality of life for all involved.
Permaculture is an approach to designing human settlements and agricultural systems
that is modeled on the relationships found in nature. It is based on the ecology of how
things interrelate rather than on the strictly biological concerns that form the foundation
of modern agriculture. Permaculture aims to create stable, productive systems that
provide for human needs; it's a system of design where each element supports and feeds
other elements, ultimately aiming at systems that are virtually self-sustaining and into
which humans fit as an integral part.
Deforestation is the removal of a forest or stand of trees where the land is thereafter
converted to a nonforest use. Examples of deforestation include conversion of forestland
to farms, ranches, or urban use. The term deforestation is often misused to describe any
activity where all trees in an area are removed. However in temperate mesic climates,
the removal of all trees in an area—in conformance with sustainable forestry
practices—is correctly described as regeneration harvest
Agroecology is the application of ecological principles to the production of food, fuel,
fiber, and pharmaceuticals. The term encompasses a broad range of approaches, and is
considered "a science, a movement, [and] a practice.
Forest farming also known as 'shade systems', is the sustainable, integrated cultivation
of both timber and non-timber forest products in a forest setting. Forest farming is
separate and distinct from the opportunistic exploitation / wild harvest of non-timber
forest products. Successful forest farming operations produce: mushrooms, maple and
birch syrup, native plants used for landscaping and floral greenery.
Silvipasture: Silvipastures combine livestock grazing on forage crops or pastures
within actively managed tree or shrub crops. Cattle, sheep and goats are the most
common livestock incorporated into silvipasture systems and they may be deployed
entirely within a private farm/woodlot silvipasture or through collaborative
arrangements between forest licensees and livestock producers on public lands.

Indices in Cropping System

8
Land Equivalent Ratio: It denotes relative land area under sole crop required to
produce the same yield as obtained under a mixed or an intercropping system at the
same level of management. It is the ratio of land required by pure crop to produce the
same yield as intercrop.
LER = Ya/Sa + Yb/Sb
Ya, Yb is the yield of a and b crop grown as intercrop,
Sa, Sb is the yield of a and b crop grown as sole crop,
LER = Yield of intercrop over yield of pure crop.
Relative Crowding Coefficient (RCC): It is used in replacement series of
intercropping .It indicates whether a crop, when grown in mixed population, has
produced more or less yield than expected.
Kab= Yab/Yaa_-Yab X Zba/Zab
Where, Kab=RCC of crop a intercropped with crop b,
Yab=Yield per unit area of crop a intercropped with crop b,
Yaa= Yield per unit of sole crop a
Zab=Proportion of intercropped area initially allocated to crop, a
Zba=Proportion of intercropped area initially allocated to crop, b
RCC > 1 means yield advantage
RCC = 1 no difference
RCC < 1 yield disadvantage
Aggressivity: It is the mixture of how much the relative yield increase in component a
is greater than that for b.
Aab = Yab / (Yaa x Zab) - Yba/( Ybb x Zba)
Aab = Zero mean component crops are equally competitive,
Aab = negative means dominated,
Aab = Bigger value either positive or negative means bigger difference in
competitive abilities.
Competition Index: It is measure to find out the yield of various crops when grown
together as well as separately. It represents the yield per plant of different crops in
mixture and their respective pure stand on unit area basis.
CI= (Yaa-Yab) X (Ybb-Yba) / Yaa x Ybb
Yab- mixture yield of a crop grown with b
Yba- mixture yield of b crop grown with a
Yaa-yield in pure stand of crop a
Ybb-yield in pure stand of crop b
Competition coefficient: Ratio of the RCC of any given spp. In the mixture
CC = RCC of a given spp. /Total RCC of all crops in mixture
Rotational Intensity: This is calculated by counting the number of crops grown in a
rotation and is multiplied by 100 and then divided by the duration of rotation.
Cropping intensity:
Cropping intensity = Total cropped area over net cultivated area x 100

9
 Or area under kharif + rabi + zaid over area under actual cultivation x 100
Importance of Cropping System in Present Era of Intensive Cropping
Integrated assessment of multifunctional agricultural systems
This approach focuses on the multifunctionality of the landscape, instead of focusing
solely on the agricultural enterprise. Agriculture and the food system are considered
parts of an institutional complex that relates to and integrates with other social
institutions. Scholars adopting this highly integrated approach, mostly Europeans, do
not consider any one discipline the leader of agroecology.
Farming and Natural Resources
The physical aspects of sustainability are partly understood Practices that can cause
long-term damage to soil include excessive tillage (leading to erosion) and irrigation
without adequate drainage (leading to salinization). Long-term experiments have
provided some of the best data on how various practices affect soil properties essential
to sustainability. There is a federal agency, USDA-Natural Resources Conservation
Service that specializes in providing technical and financial assistance for those
interested in pursuing natural resource conservation and production agriculture as
compatible goals. The most important factors for an individual site are sun, air, soil and
water. Of the four, water and soil quality and quantity are most amenable to human
intervention through time and labour.
Although air and sunlight are available everywhere on Earth, crops also depend on soil
nutrients and the availability of water. When farmers grow and harvest crops, they
remove some of these nutrients from the soil. Without replenishment, land suffers from
nutrient depletion and becomes either unusable or suffers from reduced yields.
Sustainable agriculture depends on replenishing the soil while minimizing the use of
non-renewable resources, such as natural gas (used in converting atmospheric nitrogen
into synthetic fertilizer), or mineral ores (e.g., phosphate). Possible sources of nitrogen
that would, in principle, be available indefinitely, include: recycling crop waste and
livestock or treated manure growing legume crops and forages such as peanuts or alfalfa
that form symbioses with nitrogen-fixing bacteria called rhizobia. Genetically
engineering (non-legume) crops to form nitrogen-fixing symbioses or fix nitrogen
without microbial symbionts. The last option was proposed in the 1970s, but is only
recently becoming feasible. Sustainable options for replacing other nutrient inputs
(phosphorus, potassium, etc.) are more limited.
More realistic, and often overlooked, options include long-term crop rotations, returning
to natural cycles that annually flood cultivated lands (returning lost nutrients
indefinitely) such as the flooding of the Nile, the long-term use of biochar, and use of
crop and livestock landraces that are adapted to less than ideal conditions such as pests,
drought, or lack of nutrients.
In some areas, sufficient rainfall is available for crop growth, but many other areas
require irrigation. For irrigation systems to be sustainable they require proper
management (to avoid salinization) and must not use more water from their source than
is naturally replenished, otherwise the water source becomes, in effect, a non-renewable
10
resource. Improvements in water well drilling technology and submersible pumps
combined with the development of drip irrigation and low pressure pivots have made it
possible to regularly achieve high crop yields where reliance on rainfall alone
previously made this level of success unpredictable. However, this progress has come at
a price, in that in many areas where this has occurred, such as the Ogallala Aquifer, the
water is being used at a greater rate than its rate of recharge.
Indicators for sustainable water resource development: It is internal renewable
water resource which is the average annual flow of rivers and groundwater generated
from endogenous precipitation, after ensuring that there is no double counting. It
represents the maximum amount of water resource produced within the boundaries of a
country. This value, which is expressed as an average on a yearly basis, is invariant in
time (except in the case of proved climate change). The indicator can be expressed in
three different units: in absolute terms (km3/yr), in mm/yr (it is a measure of the
humidity of the country), and as a function of population (m3/person per yr).
Global renewable water resources: This is the sum of internal renewable water
resources and incoming flow originating outside the country. Unlike internal resources,
this value can vary with time if upstream development reduces water availability at the
border. Treaties ensuring a specific flow to be reserved from upstream to downstream
countries may be taken into account in the computation of global water resources in
both countries.
Dependency ratio: This is the proportion of the global renewable water resources
originating outside the country, expressed in percentage. It is an expression of the level
to which the water resources of a country depend on neighbouring countries.
Water withdrawal: In view of the limitations described above, only gross water
withdrawal can be computed systematically on a country basis as a measure of water
use. Absolute or per-person value of yearly water withdrawal gives a measure of the
importance of water in the country's economy. When expressed in percentage of water
resources, it shows the degree of pressure on water resources. A rough estimate shows
that if water withdrawal exceeds a quarter of global renewable water resources of a
country, water can be considered a limiting factor to development and, reciprocally, the
pressure on water resources can have a direct impact on all sectors, from agriculture to
environment and fisheries.
Soil Management Techniques
Incorporating organic matter back into fields
Stop using ago-chemicals including fertilizers (which contain salts)
Protecting soil from water runoff
Socioeconomic aspects of sustainability are also partly understood. Regarding less
concentrated farming, the best known analysis is Netting's study on smallholder systems
through history. The Oxford Sustainable Group defines sustainability in this context in a
much broader form, considering effect on all stakeholders in a 360 degree approach.

11
Given the finite supply of natural resources at any specific cost and location, agriculture
that is inefficient or damaging to needed resources may eventually exhaust the available
resources or the ability to afford and acquire them. It may also generate negative
externality, such as pollution as well as financial and production costs.
What grows where and how it is grown are a matter of choice. Two of the many
possible practices of sustainable agriculture are crop rotation and soil amendment, both
designed to ensure that crops being cultivated can obtain the necessary nutrients for
healthy growth. Soil amendments would include using locally available compost from
community recycling centers. These community recycling centers help produce the
compost needed by the local organic farms.
Many scientists, farmers, and businesses have debated how to make agriculture
sustainable. Using community recycling from yard and kitchen waste utilizes a local
area's commonly available resources. These resources in the past were thrown away into
large waste disposal sites, are now used to produce low cost organic compost for
organic farming. Other practices includes growing a diverse number of perennial crops
in a single field, each of which would grow in separate season so as not to compete with
each other for natural resources.
This system would result in increased resistance to diseases and decreased effects of
erosion and loss of nutrients in soil. Nitrogen fixation from legumes, for example, used
in conjunction with plants that rely on nitrate from soil for growth, helps to allow the
land to be reused annually. Legumes will grow for a season and replenish the soil with
ammonium and nitrate, and the next season other plants can be seeded and grown in the
field in preparation for harvest.
Monoculture: It is a method of growing only one crop at a time in a given field, is a
very widespread practice, but there are questions about its sustainability, especially if
the same crop is grown every year. Today it is realized to get around this problem local
cities and farms can work together to produce the needed compost for the farmers
around them. This combined with growing a mixture of crops (polyculture) sometimes
reduces disease or pest problems
Polyculture has rarely, if ever, been compared to the more widespread practice of
growing different crops in successive years (crop rotation) with the same overall crop
diversity. Cropping systems that include a variety of crops (polyculture and/or rotation)
may also replenish nitrogen (if legumes are included) and may also use resources such
as sunlight, water, or nutrients more efficiently.
Polyculture practices in Andhra Pradesh
Replacing a natural ecosystem with a few specifically chosen plant varieties reduces the
genetic diversity found in wildlife and makes the organisms susceptible to widespread
disease. The Great Irish Famine (1845–1849) is a well-known example of the dangers
of monoculture. In practice, there is no single approach to sustainable agriculture, as the
precise goals and methods must be adapted to each individual case. There may be some
techniques of farming that are inherently in conflict with the concept of sustainability,
but there is widespread misunderstanding on impacts of some practices. Today the

12
growth of local farmers' markets offer small farms the ability to sell the products that
they have grown back to the cities that they got the recycled compost from. By using
local recycling this will help move people away from the slash-and-burn techniques that
are the characteristic feature of shifting cultivators are often cited as inherently
destructive, yet slash-and-burn cultivation has been practiced in the Amazon for at least
6000 years.
Off-farm impacts
A farm that is able to "produce perpetually", yet has negative effects on environmental
quality elsewhere is not sustainable agriculture. An example of a case in which a global
view may be warranted is over-application of synthetic fertilizer or animal manures,
which can improve productivity of a farm but can pollute nearby rivers and coastal
waters (eutrophication). The other extreme can also be undesirable, as the problem of
low crop yields due to exhaustion of nutrients in the soil has been related to rainforest
destruction, as in the case of slash and burn farming for livestock feed.
During the last three decades, the rice-wheat based cropping systems (RWCS) in India
have significantly contributed in enhancing the food grain production and achieving the
food self-sufficiency and food security. The production system now is under threat due
to stagnating or declining crop productivity, and threatening the issues related to
sustainability. Legumes play important role in improving the sustainability of the
system. With the availability of high yielding and short duration varieties of important
legumes, there is a need to incorporate them in the RWCS to improve the sustainability
of the system without degradation of the natural resources.

13
Chapter 2
Cropping System, its Physical Resources, Soil and Water Management

Cropping system
A system is set of elements which depend on each other and interacting among
themselves. Farming system consists of several enterprises like cropping system,
dairying, piggery, poultry, fishery, bee keeping, etc. These enterprises are interrelated.
The end products and wastes of one enterprise are used as inputs in other .The wastes of
cow, dung used as FYM in crop production and straw is used as feeding material for
cow. Bullock is used for field preparation.
Cropping system is an important component of a farming system. It represents
cropping pattern used on a farm and their interaction with farm resources, other farm
enterprises and available technology which determine their makeup.
Copping pattern: means the proportion of area under various crops at appoint of time in
a unit area. It indicates the yearly sequence and spatial arrangement of crops and fallow
in an area. It indicates the early sequence and spatial arrangement of crops and fallow in
an area. Crop sequence and crop rotation are generally used synonymously. Crop
rotation refers to recurrent succession of crops on the same piece of land either in a year
or over a longer period of time. Component crops are so chosen so that soil health in not
Impaired.
Types of cropping system:-
Monocropping:
Monocropping refers to growing of only one crop on a piece of land year after
year. E.g. under rain fed conditions sorghum is grown year after year.
Multiple Cropping :
Growing two or more crops on the same piece of land in one calendar year is
known as multiple cropping. It is intensification of cropping in space and time
dimensions. It includes intercropping , mixed cropping and sequence cropping.
Intercropping:
Intercropping is growing two or more crops simultaneously on the same piece
of land with a definite row pattern. For example growing maize+ green gram in 2:1
ratio
Mixed cropping: is growing two or more crops simultaneously intermingled without
any row pattern. It is common practice in most of dry land areas
Sequence cropping: sequence cropping can be defined as growing of two or more
crops in sequence on the same piece of land in a farming year.

14
 Parallel cropping:
Cultivation of such crops which have different natural habit and zero competition e.g
Black gram/green gram+maize. The peak nutrient demand period for green gram is
around 30-35 DAS while it is 50 DAS for maize.
Multi-storied / multi tiered cropping/ multilevel
Cultivation of two or more than two crops of different heights simultaneously on a
certain piece of land in a certain period e.g. sugarcane+ mustard + onion.
Efficient Cropping System:
Efficient cropping system for a particular farm depends on farm resources. Farm
enterprise and farm technology. The farm resources include land, labor, water, capital,
and infrastructure. When land is limited, intensive cropping is adopted to fully utilize
available water and labor. When sufficient and cheap labor is available, vegetable
crops also include in the cropping system as they require more labor. Capital intensive
crops like sugarcane, banana, turmeric etc... Find a place in the cropping system when
capital is not a constraint. In low rainfall regions (<750mm/annum) monocropping is
followed and when rainfall is more than 750 mm intercropping is practiced. With
sufficient irrigation water. Triple and quadruple cropping is adopted when other
climatic factors are not limiting farm enterprises like dairying, poultry etc., also
influence the type of cropping system. When the farm enterprise includes dairy, the
cropping system should contain fodder cops as components. Chang in cropping system
takes place with the development of technology. The feasibility of growing four crop
sequence in gangetic alluvial plains gave impetus to multiple cropping.
What are the benefits of cropping systems?
1. Maintain and enhance soil fertility. Some crops are soil exhausting while others
help restore soil fertility. However, a diversity of crops will maintain soil fertility and
keep production level high.
2. Enhanced crop growth. Crops may provide mutual benefits to each other for. for
example, reducing lodging, improving winter survival, or even acting as windbreaks to
improve growth.
3. Minimize spread of disease. The more divers the species of plants and the longer
period before the soil is reseeded with the same crop, the more likely disease problems
will be avoided.
4. Control weeds. Crops planted at different times of the year have different weed
species associated with them. Rotating crops helps prevent build up of any one serious
weed species. The more different growth cycles the crops have in your rotation, the
fewer weeds will be able to adapt to the field conditions.
5. Inhibit pest and insect growth. Changing crops each year to unrelated species can
dramatically reduce the population of pests and insects. Corp, crop rotation frequently
eliminates their food source and changes the habitat available to them.
6. Increase soil cover. Growing a diversity of crops helps keep field sizes smaller,
which increases soil cover, improves solar radiation capture and reduces erosion.
15
7. Use resources more efficiently. Having a diverse group of crops helps to more
efficiently use the available resources, natural resources, such as nutrients, sunlight and
water in the soil, are evenly shared by plants over the growing period, minimizing the
risk for nutrient deficiencies and drought. Other resources, such as labor, animal draft
power, and machinery are also utilized more efficiently as the time and effort spent
planting and harvesting crops are more spread out over the harvesting period.
8. Reduce risk for crop failure. Having a diverse group of corps helps prevent total
crops equally. It also reduces food security concerns, as well as the amount of money
required to finance production.
9. Improved food and financial security. Choosing an appropriate and diverse
number of crops will lead to a moue regular food production throughout the year. With
a lower risk for crop failure, there is a greater reliability on feed production and income
generation.
Physical resources:
Fertilizer Application. The amount of nutrients present in the component crops
indicates the requirement of fertilizers for the intercropping system. The nutrient
uptake is generally more in cropping system compared to pure crops. When legumes
are associated with cereal crop in intercropping system, a portion of nitrogen
requirement of cereal is supplemented by the legume. The amount may be as small as a
few kilograms to 20 kg/ha. Application of higher dose of nitrogen to the cereal +
legume intercropping system not only reduces the nitrogen fixation capacity of legume,
but also growth of legume is suppressed by aggressive cereals owing to fast growth of
cereals with increased availability of nitrogen. Cereal + legume intercropping,
therefore, are mainly advantageous under low fertilizer application.
Considering all the factors, it is suggested that the nitrogen dose recommended for
base crop as pure crop is sufficient for intercropping system with cereals + legume or
legume + legume. With regards to phosphorus and potassium, one-eighth-one-fourth of
the recommended dose of intercrop is also added in addition to recommended dose of
base crop to meet the extra demand.
Nutrient supplementation index (NSI).
Nutrient supplementation index has been proposed to adjust fertilizer requirement NSI
express the per cent of usual uptake for a given nutrient by sole crop A which should be
added to the intercrops to meet the combined requirement of crops A and B.
NSI (A) = 100 x Na + Nb/NA-1
Where, NSI (A) = NAI of crop A for a given nutrient,
NA= nutrient uptake by sole crop A for the same land area (kg/ha),
Na= nutrient uptake of mixture A for the same land area as sole crops A , and
Nb= nutrient uptake of B in mixture for the same land area as sole crop B.
The NSI attempts to adjust total fertilizer input into cropping system, based on the
relative uptake of each component crop as sole crop,

16
Example,
The nitrogen uptake by sole and intercropped finger millet crops is 185 and 163 kg/ha
respectively. Uptake or nitrogen by sole pigeon pea and as intercrop with finger millet
is 101 and 40 kg/ha respectively. Calculate the NSI of finger millet?
Solution
NSI = of finger millet = 100x 163x40/185-1 = 9.7 %
To satisfy both pigeon pea and finger millet requirements for nitrogen in the mixture,
there is need to add an additional 9.7 per cent of that is required by sole finger millet.
Similarly, NSI for pigeon pea is
100 x 163 + 40 / 101 – 1 = 100 per cent
Methods of fertilizer application are important where the components have
different requirements, as with nitrogen in cereals and legume system. Nitrogen should
be applied to the cereal as far away from legume as possible so that nitrogen fixation
by legume is not affected. If both the components require the same nutrient, as with
nitrogen when both the component crops are cereals and phosphorus in cereal and
legume systems, the nutrient can be applied in one application to both.
Solar Radiation. The taller crop in the intercropping systems intercepts most of solar
radiation while shorter component suffers. In some intercropping systems, solar
radiation is utilized efficiently by both crops. In groundnut + red gram intercropping
system, light interception is prolonged as red gram starts growing after the harvest of
groundnut. If the component crops have different growth durations, the peak demand
for light occurs at different times. In maize + green gram intercropping system, green
gram flowers in 35 days after sowing and is harvested 65 days after sowing. Peak light
demand for maize occurs at 60 days after sowing when green gram is ready for harvest.
In such intercrops, there is less competition among component crops and higher solar
radiation is intercept in intercropping systems than in pure stands.
Basal dose of nitrogen is applied to rows of both components in cereals + legume
intercrop system. Top dressing of nitrogen is done only to cereal rows. Phosphorus and
potassium are applied as basal dose to both crops.
Soil and water management in cropping system.
Seedbed preparation. Seedbed preparation for different crops varies depending
on the crop. Deep rooted crops respond to deep ploughing while for most of the cereals
shallow tillage is sufficient the crops with small seed require fine seedbed. Certain
crops like cotton and maize are planted on ridges, while most of the other crops are
grown on flat seedbed. Since more than one crop is involved in intercropping, the
seedbed preparation is generally done as per the needs of base crop. The seedbed for
sugarcane, as usual, is made into ridges and furrows. Sugarcane is planted isn furrows
and intercrops are sown on ridges. In groundnut + green gram intercropping system,
flat seedbed is preferred for sowing the crops\. However, ICRISAT is recommending
broad bed and furrows for black soils of semi-arid regions for pure crops as well as
intercrops grown under rain fed conditions. Where the crop requirements are quite

17
different as in rice + maize under rain fed conditions and also in agro-forestry, seedbed
preparation is done separately for component crops. In rice + maize intercropping
system, ridges and trenches are formed. Maize is planted on ridges and rice in trenches.
In agro forestry, pits are dug for tree species and a rough seedbed is prepared in
interspaces for the introduction of forage crops.
Sowing. Sowing practices are slightly altered to accommodate intercrop in such a
way that it causes less competition to the base crop. Sowing of base crop is done either
as paired row, paired-wider row or skip-row plating, the sowing of base crop and
intercrop is also done in fixed ratio, in paired-row planting, two rows of base crop are
brought close by reducing inter row spacing. The spacing between the two pairs of
rows are increased o accommodate the intercrop, for example, the normal row spacing
of rain fed groundnut is 30 cm. the row spacing is reduced to 20 cm between the paired
rows and 50 cm spacing is given between two pairs of rows. The spacing in paired row
plumping designated as 20/50 cm indicates that the spacing between two rows in a pair
is 20 cm and among the pair 50 cm. similarly, pearl millet is planted with row spacing
of 30/60 cm in paired row planting. These in crop geometry do not alter base crop
yield, but intercrops are benefited to some to some extent. The seed drill used for
normal planting contains tunes with uniform spacing. The spacing of the types on the
beam of seed drill is to be changed to 20/40 or 30/60 as per requirement for sowing in
paired rows. Planting in fixed ratio of intercrops is most common. The intercropping
system of groundnut + reed gram is either in 7:1 or 11:1 ratio and sorghum + red gram
+ 2:1 ratio. In these cases, the normal three tyned or four tyned or tyned seed drill can
be used without any modification. The whole pertaining to intercrop row in the hopper
is closed with a piece of cloth. In that row, intercrop is sown with akkadi or kera. In
traditional cropping systems, the component crops are grown with sub-optimum
population. Yields of intercrops can be increased with higher pant population. For
higher yields, base crop population is maintained at its sole crop population and
intercrop population is kept at 80 per cent of its sole crop population. Even 100 per
cent population of both the crops is maintained with advantage in some intercropping
system. For example sorghum red gram intercropping with 100 per cent population of
both crop (180 x 1000 and 50 x 1000) gives higher yield than lower population of these
crops. When the difference in duration of component crops is less than 30 days,
staggered planting is done to increase the difference in duration. The aggressive or
dominant crop is sown 10 to 15 days after sowing the dominated crop.
Tillage.
Tillage increases conservation of soil moisture by making the soil more permeable to
rain water. Deep tillage (25 to 30 cm) breaks open hard soil layers for faster
penetration of rain water. Off season or pre-monsoon tillage has marked impact on rain
water intake and weed management. Improvement in yield due to off season tillage
ranges from 150 to 250 kg/ha under different situations. However, excessive tillage in
light soil accelerates erosion besides creating unfavorable conditions for soil organic
matter buildup. In general, no tillage systems are not ideal under rain fed situation in
India.

18
 Water Management.
Spatial distribution of maize poorly correlated with soil chemical and
physical properties during drought years. During drought years there is no correlation
between crop yield and soil nutrients availability especially to phosphorus and
potassium. There is no relation between soil physical properties like clay content and
organic matter with crop yield. However, there is close correlation between surface
water flows and grain yield of maize of suggest that subsurface hard layers makes the
subsurface water to move in different directions based on the hard pans or clay lens.
The subsurface water path ways can be mapped with color infrared and with ground
penetrating radar. The method of increasing water use efficiency can be grouped into
three: (1) increasing the efficiency of water delivery and timing of water application.
(2) increasing the water use efficiency of crop, and (3) increasing drought tolerance of
crop, water use efficiency (WUE) usually is defined as the yield obtained per unit of
water used in failed scale,
WUE= Y/W
Where Y is the yield (kg/ha) and W is the amount of water used by the crop (mm).
Yield may be dry matter or amount of carbon fixed etc. in plant level.
WUE varies among species in the same environment among climates for the same
crop among varieties of same crop. WUE of pineapple is about 20 g of dry matter per
kilogram of water, 3 to 5 for C4 plants and 2 to 3 C3 plants.
Water Storage.
Rainfall can be stored directly in the soil for crop production using terraces,
contour ridges, and other types of water retention methods. However, the efficiency of
these methods is limited by the infiltration characteristics of soil and climatic
conditions. With high evaporation rates, collected water is lost to the atmosphere very
rapidly and is therefore, unavailable for plants. The experiment consisted of digging
experimental trenches 80 cm deep, 5 m long and 1 m wide across the land slope
between two row of olive trees, the trenches were filled up to the original soil level
using local deposits of fractured rock and river sand with large infiltration rate. These
filled trenches, called sand ditches, were expected to collect rainfall, intercept runoff,
and store water in the surrounding soil at grater depths to be used by plants for longer
periods of time. It can be a very efficient method since it increases water infiltration
and prevents evaporation during the growing season. Sand ditches increased both the
percentage of rainfall stored in soil matrix and the infiltration depth of water, the
calculated ratio of depth of water stored in sand ditch area to rainfall was 73 per cent
compared to only 45 per cent in the control area.

19
Chapter 3
Concept of sustainability in cropping and farming system, its scope
and objectives

The food scenario is beset with ecological, technological and demographic

problems .In contrast ,the demand scenario features a high growth rate in food-grain
requirements .such a situation leads to dwindling global food reserves and an escalation
in the cost of food-grains and other agricultural commodities .In this contest ,the need
for redoubling our efforts in enhancing agricultural production and in promoting
agrarian prosperity is obvious .Fortunately ,there is growing interest in promoting
sustainable agriculture which is also referred to by other names such as natural farming
,organic farming, eco-farming, permaculture.
The concept of sustainable agriculture has been conceived differently by different
authors. In essence, sustainable development means protecting the natural resources
needed for human food-grain production and cooking fuels, while expanding production
to meet the needs of growing population. In other words, sustainable development
means more efficient use of arable lands and water supply as well as development and
adoption of improved agricultural practices and technologies to increase crop yields.
Sustainable agriculture
It can be defined as that form of agriculture aimed at meeting the food and fuel
needs of the present generation without endangering the resource base for the future
generations. It is an efficient management system of renewable resources including
soil, forests, crops, biodiversity and ecosystem without degradation, to provide
adequate food and other needs for the current and future generations.
Cropping system
It is a set of crop systems, making up the cropping activities of farm system. It
comprises all component for required for the production of particular crop and the
interrelations between them and environment. It is often use interchangeably with
multiple cropping , which is essence represents a philosophy of maximum crop
production per unit area of land within an year or some other relevant time unit with
minimum land degradation.
Components of sustainable system:
Major components of sustainable agricultural system are :
• Soil and water conservation to prevent degradation of soil productivity and
lengthening of crop growing season in dry-land agriculture
• Efficient use of limited irrigation water to avoids problems of soil salinity,
alkalinity and high groundwater table.
• Appropriate crop rotations to mitigate weed, disease and insect problems besides
soil productivity improvement.

20
 • Integrated nutrient management that reduces the need for inorganic fertilizers,
improves the soil health and minimize the environmental pollution by conjuctive
use of organics, in-organics and bio-fertilizers.
• Integrated plant protection that reduces the need for agrochemicals through crop
rotation, weather monitoring, use of resistant varieties, timely planting of crops and
biological plant protection.
• Management systems to control weeds by preventive measures, tillage, timely
cultivation and crop rotation which improve plant health.
Management practices for sustainable agriculture
Soil management
Overstraining damage to soil can also be due to natural resources beyond their carrying
capacity. Land degradation due to erosion, salinization and loss of organic matter and
nutrients is threatening sustainability of crop production.
1. Soil and water conservation technology:-it includes contour farming, agronomic,
cultural and biotic conservation measures, runoff cycling and mechanical measures such
as contour bunding, graded bunding, bench terracing etc.
2. Soil fertility management:-integrated nutrient management is applied for application
of fertilizers to soil and also the recycling of organic resources including FYM, compost
, crop residues. Also use biological nitrogen fixation and green mannuring.
3. Problem soil management:-Deep tillage, land leveling, scraping of soil surface are
use for management of problem soils. Also add lime and Gypsum for soil management.

Water resources management

1. On-farm water management technology such as land shaping, land leveling and
efficient design and layout of irrigation methods.
2. Minimizing seepage losses while conveying water .
3. Scientific scheduling of irrigation water.
4. Introduction of sprinkler and drip irrigation in water scarcity area.
5. Recharging of groundwater during rainy season.
Integrated pest management and disease management
It is a combination of agronomical biological , chemical ,physical and other methods of
plant protection . it reduces the environmental pollution.
Integrated weed management
It includes preventive measures, tillage and biological control measures.
Objectives of sustainable Agriculture:-
1. Satisfy human food and fiber needs.

21
 2. Enhance environmental quality and the natural resource base upon which the
agricultural economy depends .
3. Make the most efficient use of non-renewable resources. appropriate, natural
biological cycles and controls .
4. Sustain the economic viability of farm operations .
5. Enhance the quality of life for farmers and society as whole.
Farming and Natural Resources
Practices that can cause long-term damage to soil include excessive tillage (leading to
erosion) and irrigation without adequate drainage (leading to salinization). Long-term
experiments have provided some of the best data on how various practices affect soil
properties essential to sustainability. There is a federal agency, USDA-Natural
Resources Conservation Service that specializes in providing technical and financial
assistance for those interested in pursuing natural resource conservation and production
agriculture as compatible goals. The important factors for an individual site are sun, air,
soil and water. Of the four, water and soil quality and quantity are most amenable to
human intervention through time and labour. Although air and sunlight are available
everywhere on Earth, crops also depend on soil nutrients and the availability of water.
When farmers grow and harvest crops, they remove some of these nutrients from the
soil. Without replenishment, land suffers from nutrient depletion and becomes either
unusable or suffers from reduced yields. Sustainable agriculture depends on
replenishing the soil while minimizing the use of non-renewable resources, such as
natural gas (used in converting atmospheric nitrogen into synthetic fertilizer), or mineral
ores (e.g., phosphate).
Principles of sustainable agriculture
1. Recycling of crop waste and livestock management.
2. Growing legume crops and forages such as peanuts or alfalfa that form
symbioses with nitrogen-fixing bacteria called rhizobia.
3. Industrial production of nitrogen by the Haber Process uses hydrogen, which is
currently derived from natural gas, (but this hydrogen could instead be made by
electrolysis of water using electricity (perhaps from solar cells or windmills)) or
4. Genetically engineering (non-legume) crops to form nitrogen-fixing symbioses
or fix nitrogen without microbial symbionts.
The last option was proposed in the 1970s, but is only recently becoming feasible.
Sustainable options for replacing other nutrient inputs (phosphorus, potassium, etc.) is
more limited. More realistic, and often overlooked, options include long-term crop
rotations, returning to natural cycles that annually flood cultivated lands (returning lost
nutrients indefinitely) such as the Flooding of the Nile, the long-term use of biochar,
and use of crop and livestock landraces that are adapted to less than ideal conditions
such as pests, drought, or lack of nutrients.Crops that require high levels of soil
nutrients can be cultivated in a more sustainable manner if certain fertilizer management
practices are adhered to.

22
Water
In some areas, sufficient rainfall is available for crop growth, but many other areas
require irrigation. For irrigation systems to be sustainable they require proper
management (to avoid salinization) and must not use more water from their source than
is naturally replenished, otherwise the water source becomes, in effect, a non-renewable
resource. Improvements in water well drilling technology and submersible pumps
combined with the development of drip irrigation and low pressure pivots have made it
possible to regularly achieve high crop yields where reliance on rainfall alone
previously made this level of success unpredictable. However, this progress has come at
a price, in that in many areas where this has occurred, such as the Ogallala Aquifer, the
water is being used at a greater rate than its rate of recharge.
Several steps should be taken to develop drought-resistant farming systems even in
"normal" years, including both policy and management actions: 1) improving water
conservation and storage measures, 2) providing incentives for selection of drought-
tolerant crop species, 3) using reduced-volume irrigation systems, 4) managing crops to
reduce water loss, or 5) not planting at all.
Indicators for sustainable water resource development are
Internal renewable water resources: This is the average annual flow of rivers and
groundwater generated from endogenous precipitation, after ensuring that there is no
double counting. It represents the maximum amount of water resource produced within
the boundaries of a country. This value, which is expressed as an average on a yearly
basis, is invariant in time (except in the case of proved climate change). The indicator
can be expressed in three different units: in absolute terms (km3/yr), in mm/yr (it is a
measure of the humidity of the country), and as a function of population (m3/person per
yr).
Global renewable water resources: It is the sum of renewable water resources and
incoming flow originating outside the country. Unlike internal resources, this value can
vary with time if upstream development reduces water availability at the border.
Treaties ensuring a specific flow to be reserved from upstream to downstream countries
may be taken into account in the computation of global water resources in both
countries.
Dependency ratio: It is the proportion of the global renewable water resources
originating outside the country, expressed in percentage. It is an expression of the level
to which the water resources of a country depend on neighbouring countries.
Water withdrawal: In view of the limitations described above, only gross water
withdrawal can be computed systematically on a country basis as a measure of water
use. Absolute or per-person value of yearly water withdrawal gives a measure of the
importance of water in the country's economy. When expressed in percentage of water
resources, it shows the degree of pressure on water resources. A rough estimate shows
that if water withdrawal exceeds a quarter of global renewable water resources of a
country, water can be considered a limiting factor to development and, reciprocally, the

23
pressure on water resources can have a direct impact on all sectors, from agriculture to
environment and fisheries.
Soil
Soil erosion is fast becoming one of the world’s greatest problems. It is estimated that
"more than a thousand million tonnes of southern Africa's soil are eroded every year.
Experts predict that crop yields will be halved within thirty to fifty years if erosion
continues at present rates. Soil erosion is not unique to Africa but is occurring
worldwide. The phenomenon is being called Peak Soil as present large scale factory
farming techniques are jeopardizing humanity's ability to grow food in the present and
in the future. Without efforts to improve soil management practices, the availability of
arable soil will become increasingly problematic.
Soil treatment
Soil steaming can be used as an ecological alternative to chemicals for soil
sterilization. Different methods are available to induce steam into the soil in
order to kill pests and increase soil health. Community and farm composting of
kitchen, yard, and farm organic waste can provide most if not all the required
needs of local farms. This composting could potentially be a reliable source of
energy.
Methods
Two of the many possible practices of sustainable agriculture are crop rotation
and soil amendment, both designed to ensure that crops being cultivated can obtain the
necessary nutrients for healthy growth. Soil amendments would include using locally
available compost from community recycling centers. These community recycling
centers help produce the compost needed by the local organic farms. Many scientists,
farmers, and businesses have debated how to make agriculture sustainable. Using
community recycling from yard and kitchen waste utilizes a local area's commonly
available resources. These resources in the past were thrown away into large waste
disposal sites, are now used to produce low cost organic compost for organic farming.
Other practices includes growing a diverse number of perennial crops in a single field,
each of which would grow in separate season so as not to compete with each other for
natural resources. This system would result in increased resistance to diseases and
decreased effects of erosion and loss of nutrients in soil. Nitrogen fixation from
legumes, for example, used in conjunction with plants that rely on nitrate from soil for
growth, helps to allow the land to be reused annually. Legumes will grow for a season
and replenish the soil with ammonium and nitrate, and the next season other plants can
be seeded and grown in the field in preparation for harvest.
Monoculture, a method of growing only one crop at a time in a given field, is a
very widespread practice, but there are questions about its sustainability, especially if
the same crop is grown every year. Today it is realized to get around this problem local
cities and farms can work together to produce the needed compost for the farmers
around them. This combined with growing a mixture of crops (polyculture) sometimes

24
reduces disease or pest problems ,but polyculture has rarely, if ever, been compared to
the more widespread practice of growing different crops in successive years (crop
rotation) with the same overall crop diversity. Cropping systems that include a variety
of crops (polyculture and/or rotation) may also replenish nitrogen (if legumes are
included) and may also use resources such as sunlight, water, or nutrients more
efficiently (Field Crops Res. 34:239). Replacing a natural ecosystem with a few
specifically chosen plant varieties reduces the genetic diversity found in wildlife and
makes the organisms susceptible to widespread disease. The Great Irish Famine (1845–
1849) is a well-known example of the dangers of monoculture. In practice, there is no
single approach to sustainable agriculture, as the precise goals and methods must be
adapted to each individual case. There may be some techniques of farming that are
inherently in conflict with the concept of sustainability, but there is widespread
misunderstanding on impacts of some practices. Today the growth of local farmers'
markets offer small farms the ability to sell the products that they have grown back to
the cities that they got the recycled compost from. By using local recycling this will
help move people away from the slash-and-burn techniques that are the characteristic
feature of shifting cultivators are often cited as inherently destructive, yet slash-and-
burn cultivation has been practiced in the Amazon for at least 6000 years; serious
deforestation did not begin until the 1970s, largely as the result of Brazilian government
programs and policies. To note that it may not have been slash-and-burn so much as
slash-and-char, which with the addition of organic matter produces terra preta, one of
the richest soils on Earth and the only one that regenerates itself. There are also many
ways to practice sustainable animal husbandry. Some of the key tools to grazing
management include fencing off the grazing area into smaller areas called paddocks,
lowering stock density, and moving the stock between paddocks frequently.
Off-farm impacts
A farm that is able to "produce perpetually", yet has negative effects on
environmental quality elsewhere is not sustainable agriculture. An example of a case in
which a global view may be warranted is over-application of synthetic fertilizer or
animal manures, which can improve productivity of a farm but can pollute nearby rivers
and coastal waters (eutrophication). The other extreme can also be undesirable, as the
problem of low crop yields due to exhaustion of nutrients in the soil has been related to
rainforest destruction, as in the case of slash and burn farming for livestock feed.
Sustainability affects overall production, which must increase to meet the increasing
food and fiber requirements as the world's human population expands to a projected 9.3
billion people by 2050. Increased production may come from creating new farmland,
which may ameliorate carbon dioxide emissions if done through reclamation of desert
as in Palestine, or may worsen emissions if done through slash and burn farming, as in
Brazil. Additionally, Genetically modified organism crops show promise for radically
increasing crop yields, although many people and governments are apprehensive of this
new farming method.

25
Urban planning
There has been considerable debate about which form of human residential habitat may
be a better social form for sustainable agriculture.
Many environmentalists advocate urban developments with high population density as a
way of preserving agricultural land and maximizing energy efficiency. However, others
have theorized that sustainable ecocities, or ecovillages which combine habitation and
farming with close proximity between producers and consumers, may provide greater
sustainability.
The use of available city space (e.g., rooftop gardens, community gardens, garden
sharing, and other forms of urban agriculture) for cooperative food production is
another way to achieve greater sustainability.
One of the latest ideas in achieving sustainable agricultural involves shifting the
production of food plants from major factory farming operations to large, urban,
technical facilities called vertical farms. The advantages of vertical farming include
year-round production, isolation from pests and diseases, controllable resource
recycling, and on-site production that reduces transportation costs. While a vertical farm
has yet to become a reality, the idea is gaining momentum among those who believe
that current sustainable farming methods will be insufficient to provide for a growing
global population.
Characteristics of sustainable agriculture include
• Conservation and preservation: It taken out of the environment is put back in,
so land and resources such as water, soil and air can be replenished and are
available to future generations. The waste from sustainable farming stays within
the farm’s ecosystem and cannot cause buildup or pollution. In addition,
sustainable agriculture seeks to minimize transportation costs and fossil fuel use,
and is as locally-based as possible.
• Biodiversity: Farms raise different types of plants and animals, which are
rotated around the fields to enrich the soil and help prevent disease and pest
outbreaks. Chemical pesticides are used minimally and only when necessary;
many sustainable farms do not use any form of chemicals.
• Animal welfare: Animals are treated humanely and with respect, and are well
cared for. They are permitted to carry out their natural behaviors, such as
grazing, rooting or pecking, and are fed a natural diet appropriate for their
species.
• Economically viable: Farmers are paid a fair wage and are not dependent on
subsidies from the government. Sustainable farmers help strengthen rural
communities.
• Socially just: Workers are treated fairly and paid competitive wages and
benefits. They work in a safe environment and are offered proper living
conditions and food.

26
Concept of sustainibility in farming systems
Sustainability is defined as the production system aimed at achieving maximum
production while maintaining the resources base for the future generations i.e. meeting
the present demands while protecting ecology and preserving the resources base and
high environmental quality. Future ecology is more important than present economy.
Farming system is defined as the integrated resource management strategy involving the
systems approach in agricultural production through integration of crop production with
allied enterprises like animal rearing, ducky, piggery, bee-keeping, sericulture, fisheries,
mushroom cultivation and agro-forestry etc
The concept of sustainable agriculture is a relatively recent response to the decline in
the quality of the natural resource base associated with modern agriculture (McIsaac and
Edwards 1994). Today, the question of agricultural production has evolved from a
purely technical one to a more complex one characterized by social, cultural, political
and economic dimensions. The concept of sustainability although controversial and
diffuse due to existing conflicting definitions and interpretations of its meaning, is
useful because it captures a set of concerns about agriculture which is conceived as the
result of the co-evolution of socioeconomic and natural systems (Reijntjes et al. 1992).
A wider understanding of the agricultural context requires the study between
agriculture, the global environment and social systems given that agricultural
development results from the complex interaction of a multitude of factors. It is through
this deeper understanding of the ecology of agricultural systems that doors will open to
new management options more in tune with the objectives of a truly sustainable
agriculture. The sustainability concept has prompted much discussion and has promoted
the need to propose major adjustments in conventional agriculture to make it more
environmentally, socially and economically viable and compatible. Several possible
solutions to the environmental problems created by capital and technology intensive
farming systems have been proposed and research is currently in progress to evaluate
alternative systems (Gliessman 1998). the main focus lies on the reduction or
elimination of agrochemical inputs through changes in management to assure adequate
plant nutrition and plant protection through organic nutrient sources and integrated pest
management, respectively.
Although hundreds of more environmentally prone research projects and technological
development attempts have taken place, and many lessons have been learned, the thrust
is still highly technological, emphasizing the suppression of limiting factors or the
symptoms that mask an ill producing agroecosystem. The prevalent philosophy is that
pests, nutrient deficiencies or other factors are the cause of low productivity, as opposed
to the view that pests or nutrients only become limiting if conditions in the
agroecosystem are not in equilibrium (Carrol et al. 1990). For this reason, there still
prevails a narrow view that specific causes affect productivity, and overcoming the
limiting factor via new technologies, continues to be the main goal. This view has
diverted agriculturists from realizing that limiting factors only represent symptoms of a
more systemic disease inherent to unbalances within the agroecosystem and from an

27
appreciation of the context and complexity of agroecological processes thus
underestimating the root causes of agricultural limitations (Altieri et al. 1993). On the
other hand, the science of agroecology, which is defined as the application of ecological
concepts and principles to the design and management of sustainable agroecosystems,
provides a framework to assess the complexity of agroecosystems (Altieri 1995). The
idea of agroecology is to go beyond the use of alternative practices and to develop
agroecosystems with the minimal dependence on high agrochemical and energy inputs,
emphasizing complex agricultural systems in which ecological interactions and
synergisms between biological components provide the mechanisms for the systems to
sponsor their own soil fertility, productivity and crop protection (Altieri and Rosset
1995).
Components of sustainable farming systems
In essence, the optimal behavior of agroecosystems depends on the level of
interactions between the various biotic and abiotic components. By assembling a
functional biodiversity it is possible to initiate synergisms which subsidize
agroecosystem processes by providing ecological services such as the activation of soil
biology, the recycling of nutrients, the enhancement of beneficial arthropods and
antagonists, and so on (Altieri and Nicholls 1999). Today there is a diverse selection of
practices and technologies available, and which vary in effectiveness as well as in
strategic value. Key practices are those of a preventative nature and which act by
reinforcing the "immunity" of the agroecosystem through a series of mechanisms.
Various strategies to restore agricultural diversity in time and space include crop
rotations, cover crops, intercropping, crop/livestock mixtures, and so on, which exhibit
the following ecological features:
1. Crop Rotations. Temporal diversity incorporated into cropping systems, providing
crop nutrients and breaking the life cycles of several insect pests, diseases, and weed life
cycles (Sumner 1982).
2. Polycultures. Complex cropping systems in which tow or more crop species are
planted within sufficient spatial proximity to result in competition or complementation,
thus enhancing yields (Francis 1986, Vandermeer 1989).
3. Agroforestry Systems. An agricultural system where trees are grown together with
annual crops and/or animals, resulting in enhanced complementary relations between
components increasing multiple use of the agroecosystem (Nair 1982).
4. Cover Crops. The use of pure or mixed stands of legumes or other annual plant
species under fruit trees for the purpose of improving soil fertility, enhancing biological
control of pests, and modifying the orchard microclimate (Finch and Sharp 1976).
5. Animal integration in agroecosystems aids in achieving high biomass output and
optimal recycling (Pearson and Ison 1987).
All of the above diversified forms of agroecosystems share in common the following
features (Altieri and Rosset 1995):

28
a. Maintain vegetative cover as an effective soil and water conserving measure, met
through the use of no-till practices, mulch farming, and use of cover crops and other
appropriate methods.
b. Provide a regular supply of organic matter through the addition of organic matter
(manure, compost, and promotion of soil biotic activity).
c. Enhance nutrient recycling mechanisms through the use of livestock systems based
on legumes, etc.
d. Promote pest regulation through enhanced activity of biological control agents
achieved by introducing and/or conserving natural enemies and antagonists.
Research on diversified cropping systems underscores the great importance of diversity
in an agricultural setting (Francis 1986, Vandermeer 1989, Altieri 1995). Diversity is of
value in agroecosystems for a variety of reasons (Altieri 1994, Gliessman 1998):
• As diversity increases, so do opportunities for coexistence and beneficial
interactions between species that can enhance agroecosystem sustainability.
• Greater diversity often allows better resource-use efficiency in an agroecosystem.
There is better system-level adaptation to habitat heterogeneity, leading to
complementarity in crop species needs, diversification of niches, overlap of species
niches, and partitioning of resources.
• Ecosystems in which plant species are intermingled possess an associated resistance
to herbivores as in diverse systems there is a greater abundance and diversity of
natural enemies of pest insects keeping in check the populations of individual
herbivore species.
• A diverse crop assemblage can create a diversity of microclimates within the
cropping system that can be occupied by a range of noncrop organisms - including
beneficial predators, parasites, pollinators, soil fauna and antagonists - that are of
importance for the entire system.
• Diversity in the agricultural landscape can contribute to the conservation of
biodiversity in surrounding natural ecosystems.
• Diversity in the soil performs a variety of ecological services such as nutrient
recycling and detoxification of noxious chemicals and regulation of plant growth.
• Diversity reduces risk for farmers, especially in marginal areas with more
unpredictable environmental conditions. If one crop does not do well, income from
others can compensate.
Sustainable agriculture" according to Lockeretz (1988) is a loosely defined term that
encompasses a range of strategies for addressing many of the problems that afflict
U.S. agriculture and agriculture worldwide. Such problems include is of soil
productivity from excessive erosion and associated plant nutrient losses; surface and
groundwater pollution from pesticides, fertilizers, and sediment; impending
shortages of nonrenewable resources; and low farm income from depressed

29
commodity prices and high productioa costs. Furthermore, "sustainable" implies a
time dimension and the capacity of a farming system to endure indefinitely
(Lockeretz, 1988).
The ultimate goal or the ends of sustainable agriculture is to develop farming
systems that are productive and profitable, conserve the natural resource base,
protect the environment, and enhance health and safety, and to do so over the
long-term. The means of achieving this is low-input methods and skilled
management, which seek to optimize the management and use of internal
production inputs (i.e., on-farm resources) in ways that provide acceptable levels of
sustainable crop yields and livestock production and result in economically
profitable returns. This approach emphasizes such cultu,., ind management
practices as crop rotations, recycling of animal manures, and conservation tillage
to control 4 J.F. Parr et al. soil erosion and nutrient losses and to maintain or
enhance soil productivity.Low-input farming systems seek to minimize the use of
external production inputs(i.e., off-farm resources), such as purchased fertilizers
and pesticides, wherever and whenever feasible and practicable; to lower production
costs; to avoid pollution of surface and groundwater; to reduce pesticide residues
in food; to reduce a farmer's overall risk; and to increase both short- and long-term
farm profitability (Parr et al., 1989, 1990; Parr and Hornick. 1990).Another
reason for the focus on low-input farming systems is that most highinput systems,
sooner or later, would probably fail because they are not eithereconomically or
environmentally sustainable over the. long-term. Thus, in the U.S., "sustainable
agriculture" has settled in as the ultimate goal. How we achieve this goal depends
on creative and innovative conservation and production practices that provide farmers
with economically viable and environmentallysound alternatives or options in their
farming systems.
Dynamics of Soil Productivity
The "key" to improving the sustainability of dryland farming systems is soil
productivity, which has been defined as "The capability of soil for producing a
specified plant or sequence of plants under a defined set of management practices.
It is measured in terms of outputs or harvests in relation to the inputs
ofproduction factors for aspecific kind of soil under a physically defined system of
management" (USDA, 1957). An important relationship that iSoften overlooked is
that for most agriculturalsoils, degradative processes such as soil erosion, nutrient
runoff losses, andorganic matter depletion are going on simultaneously with the
beneficial effects of conservation practices such as crop rotations, conservation
tillage, and recycling of animal manures and crop residues. Hornick and Parr
(1987) first illustrated this relationship, shown in Figure 2, which was modified by
Stewart et al.(1990) to include the last two processes and practices shown here.
As soil degradative processes proceed and intensify, soil productivity decreases
concomitantly. Conversely, soil conservation practices tend to slow these
degradative processes and increase soil productivity. Thus, the potential productivity
of a particular soil at any point in time is the result of ongoing degradative processes
30
and applied conservation practices. Generally, in arid and semiarid environments the
most serin,,s degradative processes are soil erosion and associated nutrient losses,
and organic matter depletion.On our best agricultural soils-that is,gently sloping,
medium-textured, well structured, and with a deep, well-drained profile-a high
level of productivity can be maintained by relatively few, but essential
conservation practices that readily offset most degradative processes. However, on
marginal soils of limited capability, such as stee'Iy sloping, coarse-textu-ed, poorly
structured soi!s depleted ofnutrients and with ashallow, pc .rly drained profile, soil
conservation practices must be. maximized to counteract further degradation. Organic
wastes and residues offer the best possible means of restoring the productivity of
severely eroded agricultural soils or of reclaiming marginal soils(Hornick and Parr,
1987).
The vital component in this dynamic equilibrium (see Figure 2) is soil organic
matter, which must be maintained and replenished through regular additions of
organic materials such as animal manures and crop residues (Parr and Colacicco,1987)
and composted municipal wastes (Hornick et al., 1984). The proper use of organic
amendments is of utmost importance in maintaining the tilth, fertility, and
productivity of agricultural soils and in minimizing wind and water erosion and
preventing nutrient losses through runoff and leaching.
Design of Sustainable farming systems
Most people involved in the promotion of sustainable agriculture aim at creating a form
of agriculture that maintains productivity in the long term by (Pretty 1994, Vandermeer
1995):
• optimizing the use of locally available resources by combining the different
components of the farm system, i.e. plants, animals, soil, water, climate and people,
so that they complement each other and have the greatest possible synergetic
effects;
• reducing the use of off-farm, external and non-renewable inputs with the greatest
potential to damage the environment or harm the health of farmers and consumers,
and a more targeted use of the remaining inputs used with a view to minimizing
variable costs;
• relying mainly on resources within the agroecosystem by replacing external inputs
with nutrient cycling, better conservation, and an expanded use of local resources;
• improving the match between cropping patterns and the productive potential and
environmental constraints of climate and landscape to ensure long-term
sustainability of current production levels;
• working to value and conserve biological diversity, both in the wild and in
domesticated landscapes, and making optimal use of the biological and genetic
potential of plant and animal species; and

31
• taking full advantage of local knowledge and practices, including innovative
approaches not yet fully understood by scientists although widely adopted by
farmers.
Sustainable farming system provides the knowledge and methodology necessary for
developing an agriculture that is on the one hand environmentally sound and on the
other hand highly productive, socially equitable and economically viable. Through the
application of agro-ecological principles, the basic challenge for sustainable agriculture
to make better use of internal resources can be easily achieved by minimizing the
external inputs used, and preferably by regenerating internal resources more effectively
through diversification strategies that enhance synergisms among key components of
the agro-ecosystem.
The ultimate goal of sustainable farming system designs is to integrate components so
that overall biological efficiency is improved, biodiversity is preserved, and the agro-
ecosystem productivity and its self-regulating capacity is maintained. The goal is to
design sustainable farming system that mimics the structure and function of local
natural ecosystems; that is, a system with high species diversity and a biologically
active soil, one that promotes natural pest control, nutrient recycling and high soil -
cover to prevent resource losses.
Sustainable farming system provides guidelines to develop diversified agro-ecosystems
that take advantage of the effects of the integration of plant and animal biodiversity such
integration enhances complex interactions and synergisms and optimizes ecosystem
functions and processes, such as biotic regulation of harmful organisms, nutrient
recycling, and biomass production and accumulation, thus allowing agro-ecosystems to
sponsor their own functioning. The end result of sustainable farming system design is
improved economic and ecological sustainability of the agro-ecosystem, with the
proposed management systems specifically in tune with the local resource base and
operational framework of existing environmental and socioeconomic conditions. In an
agro-ecological strategy, management components are directed to highlight the
conservation and enhancement of local agricultural resources (germplasm, soil,
beneficial fauna, plant biodiversity, etc.) by emphasizing a development methodology
that encourages farmer participation, use of traditional knowledge, and adaptation of
farm enterprises that fit local needs and socioeconomic and biophysical conditions.

32
Chapter 4
Production potential under monocropping, multiple cropping, alley
cropping, sequential cropping etc.

Mono-Cropping
With the rise of intensive agriculture, most farmers today utilize mono-crop
systems, the planting of a genetically singular crop. Mono-crop systems have become
more economically rewarding, partly because government agricultural subsidies tend to
favor mono-cropping (Lean, 6; 2006). Cultivating only a single species, however, can
stress the fertile topsoil and reduce genetic diversity. Mono-crop systems are often
accompanied by an increase in both farm size and dependency on technology. Such
large, intensive farming systems lend themselves to greater waste production and
greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, mono-cropping increases the susceptibility of
plants to disease as a single pathogen has the potential to destroy an entire crop. Rice
farms in China have successfully combated diseases that coincide with mono-cropping
by planting genetically dissimilar strains of rice in a field (Tilman 2002).

Monocropping can also contribute to the proliferation of crop pests and diseases, which
can be a serious liability when a farmer's land isplanted exclusively with one crop. Mon
ocropping also generally reduces crop diversity, which is perceived as a bad thing both
because the lossof biodiversity is unfortunate, and because if a crop does become subjec
t to a particular pest or disease, a lack of biodiversity makes itespecially vulnerable.Hyb
ridization in agriculture is vitally important to maintain genetic diversity, and by extensi
on the health and longevity of a crop. Many largeagricultural companies engage in mon
ocropping, planting only one strain of one crop, which is very harmful for diversity and
for the crop.
Monocropping is an agricultural practice in which the same crop is planted year after
year, without practicing crop rotation or resting the soil. While there are some distinct
advantages to monocropping, it is environmentally questionable, and it can potentially
lead to serious economic problems for farmers, as well. Many environmental advocates
would like to see a shift away from monocropping, as would people who work in the
developing world.
The obvious advantage to monocropping is that it allows a farmer to specialize in a
particular crop, which means that he or she can invest in machinery designed
specifically for that crop, along with high-yield seeds which will generate a large
volume of the crop at harvest. With staple crops like wheat, corn, and soy, farmers can
also be confident that the crop will produce a high income, although this scheme can
backfire; if demand declines radically, a farmer's monocrop may become a liability.
From an environmental perspective, monocropping is harmful for a number of reasons.
For one thing, it severely depletes the soil, as the plant will strip the soil of

33
the nutrients it needs. This forces farmers to use fertilizers, which can disturb the natural
balance of the soil and contribute to a host of environmental problems, from pollution to
desertification.Monocropping can also contribute to the proliferation of crop pests and
diseases, which can be a serious liability when a farmer's land is planted exclusively
with one crop. The soil where we grow food is a critical foundation of our food system
and ultimately, our health. Because the food system affects our health so profoundly, it
is critical to make certain of the bio-diversity of the soil in which our food is grown.
The same is not only true for vegetables, fruits, legumes, nuts, and other foods but for
the feed our cattle, sheep, pigs, poultry, ducks, and other creatures consume.
When our food is grown in healthy soil containing diverse populations of
microorganisms:
• Nutrient content of the soil is increased, thereby producing food which also
contains higher nutrients
• Harmful pathogens and bacteria that can make people sick decrease dramatically
and encourage the growth of friendly bacteria
• The larger the number of plant species, the greater the variety of crops, and thus
disease and scourge are less able to take over
• Greater species diversity ensures natural sustainability for all life forms
• Healthy ecosystems are more likely to survive through incidence of various
disasters (flooding, fire, etc.)
Healthy biodiversity also provides a number of natural services for everyone:
Ecosystem services, such as:
• Protection of water resources
• Soils formation and protection
• Nutrient storage and recycling
• Pollution breakdown and absorption
• Contribution of climate stability
• Maintenance of ecosystems

Biological resources such as:

• Food
• Medicinal resources
• Wood products
• Ornamental products
• Breeding stocks, population reservoirs
• Future resources
• Diversity in genes, species, and ecosystems

Social benefits, such as:

• Research, education, and monitoring
• Recreation and tourism
• Cultural values
According to the Organic Consumers Association:
A growing body of sophisticated research over the last decade has compared the
impacts of organic and conventional farming systems on soil and food quality. Based on

34
this body of research, some of it carried out in field experiments and laboratories, we
can conclude that:
1. Studies of apple production demonstrate that organically farmed soils display
improved soil health as measured by increased biological diversity, greater soil
organic matter, and improved chemical and physical properties. Enhancement of soil
quality in organic apple production systems can lead to measurable improvements in
fruit nutritional quality, taste, and storability.
2. Organically farmed tomatoes have significantly higher levels of soluble solids and
natural plant molecules called secondary plant metabolites, including flavonoids,
lycopene, and Vitamin C. Most secondary plant metabolites are antioxidants, a class
of plant compounds that have been linked to improved human health in populations
that consume relatively high levels of fruit and vegetables.
3. Organic farming can, under some circumstances, delay the onset of the “dilution
effect.” In hundreds of studies, scientists have shown that incrementally higher levels
of fertilizer negatively impact the density of certain nutrients in harvested foodstuffs,
hence the name, the “dilution [of nutrients] effect.” Specifically, tomatoes grown
with organic fertilizers maintain constant concentrations of beneficial phenolic
secondary plant metabolites and antioxidants, even as fruit grow larger, whereas
concentrations of these same beneficial compounds decline with increasing fruit size
when the same tomato cultivar is grown using conventional methods and fertilizer.
4. Studies of 27 cultivars of organically grown spinach demonstrate significantly higher
levels of flavonoids and vitamin C, and lower levels of nitrates. Nitrates in food are
considered detrimental to human health as they can form carcinogenic compounds
(nitrosamines) in the GI tract and can convert hemoglobin to a form that can no
longer carry oxygen in the blood.
5. The levels of secondary plant metabolites in food appear to be driven by the forms of
nitrogen added to a farming system, as well as the ways in which the biological
communities of organisms in the soil process nitrogen. Compared to typical
conventional farms, the nitrogen cycle on organic farms is rooted in substantially
more complex biological processes and soil-plant interactions, and for this reason,
organic farming offers great promise in consistently producing nutrient-enriched
foods.
6. Organic soil fertility methods, which use less readily available forms of nutrients,
especially nitrogen, improve plant gene expression patterns in ways that lead to more
efficient assimilation of nitrogen and carbon in tomatoes. This improvement in the
efficiency of nutrient uptake leaves plants with more energy to produce beneficial
plant secondary metabolites, compounds that promote plant health as well as human
health.
Commenting on the well-attended symposium, Dr. Preston Andrews said, “The work
we reviewed over the last decade points directly to two major scientific challenges.
First, we need to understand more fully how soil biological communities process

35
nutrients and communicate to plant roots in order to promote improved quality in
organically grown crops. And second, we need better tools to help organic farmers fine-
tune their production systems in order to maximize the soil and nutritional quality
benefits of organic farming.”
What effect does conventional farming have on the soil and health of ecosystems?
Conventional farming uses chemical and synthetically-produced fertilizers, pesticides,
herbicides, and insecticides to control pests and insects, and weed growth. Farmers
following conventional practices use hormones to artificially spur growth in animals
and antibiotics to keep animals “healthy”. The use of genetically-modified organisms
(which have had their DNA altered in a laboratory), which disrupt the natural life cycle
and health of both crops and farm animals are commonly used in conventional farming
both for planting, cultivating, and in feeds for livestock.
Conventional farming, by its very nature, has an adverse effect on microbial properties
of soil. Conventional farming degrades soil fertility, increases erosion, and cause more
resistant pests. They also cause massive amounts of pollution from runoff and chemicals
used (pesticides, herbicides, antibiotics, hormones, and waste residues. They harm our
water due to pesticide runoff into groundwater areas, streams, and rivers. Nitrogen from
conventional fertilizers leaching into the oceans “dead zones”.
The use of conventional farming methods actually causes organism growth to be
extremely limited due to the practice of mono-cropping (planting the same crop year
after year) and promotes the destruction of soil diversity, thereby decreasing nutrient
value and nutrition in crops and other products in farming such as meat, dairy products,
and others. These practices, used largely by industrial agriculture, are responsible for
displacing heirloom strains, native crops, and local farmers. It also causes an increased
need for chemical pesticides and fertilizers, due to the increase in disease and scourge in
the crops. When plants growing near each other are too genetically similar as in mono-
cropping, it causes vulnerability to the health of the plants and the ecosystems alike.
One of the most devastating effects on the environment from conventional farming is
the government’s directive to subsidize farmers growing soy and corn to for ethanol.
The intent of this activity is to shift the dependence from oil to alternative fuel sources.
Ironically, the production of biofuels requires massive amounts of oil. The practice of
mono-cropping is an incredibly energy and chemical intensive process.
The conclusion drawn from various studies of these practices is that the amount of
energy required to produce one unit of bio-fuel is greater than the amount of energy it
generates. The amount of fertilizers and pesticides required to treat the thousands of
acres of U.S. fields these crops is massive, and untold damage is done to the soil,
ambient environment, and groundwater as a result of seepage from these toxic
chemicals. Most of these farmers have abandoned traditional farming methods such as
rotation of crops and replenishing soils of critical nutrients. The more this occurs, the
dryer the soil becomes and erosion sets in. This renders the soil arid and worthless. The

36
requirement to use yet more land becomes problematic. As this cycle continues,
destruction of more and more land is inevitable.
Here are some things to consider:
• Soil health is paramount to the survival of human and environmental health.
Supporting farming practices that recognize the importance of sustainable soil
management is crucial!
• Every time your food dollars go toward conventional farming, you are supporting
monocropping and industrial farming practices that are harming the environment and
human health.
• Genetic modification is viewed as a viable solution to the problems that originate
with the practices of monocropping (used in conventional farming). This is a vicious
cycle that must be broken.
• Every time your food dollars go toward sustainable and true organic farming, you are
supporting movements that are healthy for the environment and human health.
• Buy from your local farmer’s markets, local farms, and food merchants that use
sustainable practices in their farming methods
• Sustainable and organic foods do not use pesticides, fertilizers, hormones,
antibiotics, genetically-modified organisms or monocropping…so the answer is
simple. support sustainable and organic farming!
In realizing its efficiency goals, this can lead to an increased dependency on fossil fuels
and reliance on expensive machinery that cannot be produced locally and may need to
be financed. This can make a significant change in the economics of farming in regions
that are accustomed to self-sufficiency in agricultural production. In addition, political
complications may ensue when these dependencies extend across national boundaries
While economically a very efficient system, allowing for specialization in equipment
and crop production, monocropping is also controversial, as it can damage the soil
ecology (including depletion or reduction in diversity of soil nutrients) and provide an
unbuffered niche for parasitic species, increasing crop vulnerability to opportunistic
insects, plants, and microorganisms. The result is a more fragile ecosystem with an
increased dependency on pesticides and artificial fertilizers. The concentrated presence
of a single cultivar, genetically adapted with a single resistance strategy, presents a
situation in which an entire crop can be wiped out very quickly by a single opportunistic
species. An example of this would be the potato famine of Ireland in 1845–1849, and
according to Devlin Kuyek is the main cause of the current food crisis with
monoculture rice crops failing as the effects of climate change become more acute.
Multiple cropping
Multiple cropping, simply defined, is the growing of two or more crops on the same
field during the same year. When the crops are grown one after another the term
“sequential cropping” is applied. If the second or later crops are the result of regrowth
of the first crop, then the term “ratoon cropping” is used. Sugar cane (Saccharum spp.),
37
sorghum (Sorghum spp.), and even rice (Oryza sativa L.) can be ratoon cropped. Crops
that produce no regrowth, as in the case of most annuals, cannot be ratoon cropped.
When two or more crops are grown simultaneously on the same plot of land the term
“intercropping” is appropriate. Such crops may be mixed planted, that is, the plants of
different crops are intermingled; or they may be sole (pure stand) planted in alternating
rows, that is, the plants of each crop are grown in separate rows or strips (wide rows).
When one crop is interplanted with a second crop as the first crop approaches maturity,
the practice is termed “relay cropping.” All of these cropping practices come under the
general heading of multiple cropping.
All forms of multiple cropping have the potential to utilize the soil more efficiently,
resulting in greater production from a given unit of land. This is especially true in
tropical or subtropical areas of the world with wet and dry seasons. Where water for
irrigation is available, exploitation of the abundant solar energy in the dry season is
possible. Double, triple, and even quadruple cropping has dramatically increased food
production in some countries–making them exporters instead of importers of food
crops. Less dramatic increases can also result from other forms of multicropping. Beans
(Phaseolus vulgaris L.), for example, can complete their life cycle in dry periods, if
fertilized and relay planted in corn or maize (Zea mays L.) toward the end of the wet
season.
The exploding world population continues to place a severe strain on existing land
resources and their ability to provide enough food. Any technology that can result in
increased food production from present land holdings has great potential for easing
hunger around the world. Some researchers consider multiple cropping the most
important of today’s agricultural practices. Both high and low technology societies can
profit from greater use of multiple cropping.
Multicropping is not a new agricultural technique. Evidence of the practice has been
found in Egypt dating back to 300 B.C. The Maya Indians in Central America and the
Incas in South America practiced both sequential and intercropping.
Systems of multiple cropping
Sequential cropping
Sequential cropping, to be used most effectively, requires the use of fertilizers, high
yielding plant varieties, pest control, high planting rates, mechanization, and, where
appropriate, irrigation. Sequential cropping of plants with relatively short growing
seasons offers better total annual use of land than does a single crop system. It is
particularly important to use the improved, early maturing, high yielding varieties.
Unlike traditional varieties, these improved types do not lodge, or fall over to the
ground, when heavily fertilized and also produce more grain per unit of fertilizer
applied. Pest control, as well as irrigation and fertilizers, allows them to yield more
nearly at their full potential.
Mechanization, or the use of appropriate mechanical equipment, allows the farmer to
perform promptly all the operations of soil preparation–planting, pest control, and
38
harvesting–so that the next crop in sequence is not delayed and a portion of the growing
season wasted. In the United States and other more temperate regions of the world
where growing seasons are shorter, notillage planting is widely used. With the use of
specially designed equipment and early maturing varieties, crops can be planted in the
stubble of a previous crop without any further soil preparation. This ensures a minimum
of delay and full use of the available growing season. Leaving the stubble in place also
minimizes water and wind erosion and affords protection for the newly emerging
seedlings.
The use of day-neutral varieties–those not requiring a specific day length to flower and
set seed–allows the farmer to grow them at any time of the year, regardless of latitude, if
growing conditions are favorable. The availability of water for irrigation permits full
use of the dry season.
Early maturing varieties may also suffer less damage from pests. As a general rule, the
most serious crop loss due to weeds occurs during the first third of the life cycle. An
exception occurs where late maturing varieties compete better with barnyard grass
(Echinochloa crusgalli L. Beauv.). Although crop rotation with different crops will
generally result in better pest control, it may be feasible to rotate different varieties of
the same crop having different disease and insect resistance and better ability to
compete with weeds. Sometimes natural predators of pests (biological control) build up
to more effective levels when same crop follows same crop. The buildup of the pests
with continuous cropping is perhaps more likely to happen, however, and thus rotation
with different crops is preferred.
Ratoon cropping
The principles involved in ratoon cropping, a form of sequential cropping, are different
from other types of multiple cropping because of such factors as the presence of a well
developed root system, earlier maturity, and the perennial nature of the plant. Although
the term may be applied to perennial pasture plants, it is considered more appropriately
used with respect to field crops such as sugar cane, sorghum, banana (Musa sapientum,
M. caven-dishii), cotton, kodra millet (Paspalum scrobiculatum), pineapple (Ananas
comosa), and rice.
The advantages of ratoon cropping include the following:
1. reduced cost of production through savings in land preparation and care for the
plant;
2. reduced crop cycle: crop planted less often, so replanting cycle is longer;
3. better use of growing season;
4. higher yield per unit area in a given period of time;
5. less use of irrigation water and fertilizer than main (original) crop because of a
shorter growing period; and
6. simple and effective way to provide windbreaks for vegetable production.
On the other hand, ratoon cropping has a number of drawbacks.
These include:
1. later crops have lower yields than the first crop

39
 2. build up of insect pests
3. build up of harmful weeds
4. increased disease problems
5. greater cost per unit produced
6. where heavy equipment is used, the soil may become hard, causing poor
drainage and lack of oxygen for roots
7. loss of crop density (number of plants per unit of land) and
8. growth of volunteer seedlings inferior to sown variety.
Inter cropping
Intercropping requires only 60-80 percent of the land to equal the production of
monocropping systems. Traditional farmers in many parts of the world-have practiced
intercropping in various forms for many centuries. This form of multiple cropping,
which generally involves the growing of rain-fed crops in mixtures, uses available
resources and permits farmers to maintain low but often adequate and relatively steady
production.
Intercropping can take any of three forms–strip planting, row planting, or mixed
planting. The form chosen should be based on crops grown and such factors as ease of
planting, weeding, and harvesting. Yield also may be affected. Intercropping is
particularly suited to those situations where labor is abundant and land is not. If it is to
be successful economically, the sum of the competition of the interplanted species
should be less than when the species are grown alone. Crops of different maturities have
varying peak requirements for water, fertilizer, light, and space. Thus, there may be less
competition between different crops than there is in a sole planting of identical plants.
Moreover, disease and insect infestation of intercropped plants tends to be less. For
example, virus diseases may spread more easily through adjacent plants than to those
separated by unlike, and frequently non-susceptible, neighbouring plants. Insects that
spread disease are also thwarted or at least slowed. Insects tend to be less attracted to
plants that are intermingled with other species than to those in solid stands of the same
species.
Interplanting of some crop species, however, may be harmful because of allelopathic
effects. Allelopathy is defined as “any direct or indirect harmful effect that one plant has
on another through the production of chemical compounds that escape into the
environment.”(*) The harmful compound may take varied forms such as volatile
chemicals produced by roots, or leached from leaves. Dead or decaying plant tissues
may also be a source of allelopathic substances. Note that the nitrogen released from
legumes is not considered a form of allelopathy.
Some common combinations are maize-bean, maize-soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.) ,
maize-rice, maize-sorghum, sorghum-millet, sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas Lam.) in
sugar cane (Saccharum officinarum L.), and cotton (Gossypium sp.) with peanuts
(Arachis hypogaea L.). The net result of such combinations can vary widely from
productive to unproductive compared to sole planting of the same crops. Factors such as
fertilization schedule, seeding rate and spacing, selection of variety and type of plant,

40
e.g., dwarf versus normal (maize), bush versus pole (bean), as well as many other
cultural factors can markedly influence results. <see figure>

The overall advantages of intercropping include the following:

1. provides increased protection against erosion;
2. insures against crop failure;
3. spreads labour and harvesting more evenly during the growing season and helps
minimize storage problems;
4. helps allocate space for crops required in small quantities, and facilitates
production of many commodities in a limited area;
5. results in efficient use of resources by plants of different heights, rooting
systems, and nutrient requirements;
6. where legumes are grown with grasses (or other non-legumes), grasses may
benefit from the nitrogen fixed by the legume companion crop; and
7. inhibits the spread of diseases and pests since not all crops involved are
susceptible to the same extent to the same problems.

Disadvantages, on the other hand, are:

1. mechanized planting and harvesting are difficult;
2. it is more difficult to apply needed fertilizers and other chemicals as in sole
cropping; and
3. experimentation with intercropping is more complex and difficult to manage
than with sole cropping.
Relay cropping
Relay intercropping is a common practice in wet-dry climates where the wet season is
not sufficiently long for two full season crops. Generally corn is the wet season crop,
with beans interplanted as the corn approaches maturity. With relay planting, greater
crop density and protection against wind and water erosion are achieved. Since the first
crop has reached maturity, its demands on soil moisture and fertility are minimal as

41
natural aging and deterioration of leaves occur. The relay interplanted seedling crop
likewise places small but increasing demands on the soil. As the first crop gradually
fades out of the picture and is finally removed entirely through harvest, the sequential
crop continues to advance and the transition is completed.
Summary
Multiple cropping in some form can help get the maximum crop production from fixed
land holdings, particularly in subtropical and tropical areas of the world. Both low and
high technology societies can profit by adopting one or more of the various
multicropping techniques. Even small farmers who lack the capital to purchase inputs
(e.g., equipment, fertilizers, herbicides) but generally have abundant hand labor, can
find the practice of some form of multicropping to be to their benefit.
Multiple cropping places heavy demands on the soil and cannot be successful unless the
crop is supplied with adequate fertilizer. Where the extra fertilizer is not available, a few
crops with low fertilizer needs may be planted (such as cassava [Manihot sp.] and
plantain [Plantago sp.]). Many marginal farmers find the purchase of inorganic
fertilizers beyond their means, even if obtainable, and should not consider intensive
multicropping systems. More limited multicropping can be practiced where substantial
amounts of animal manure and/or composted plant materials are available. Minerals
provided by burning cleared land have only temporary value. On the other hand, many
systems of multicropping originated under subsistence farming and can be made to
work using available sources of fertilizer. Placing fertilizer in bands between plants or
directly in the planting hole are two ways of making more efficient use of fertilizer at
hand. Where possible, legumes should be planted for their ability to obtain nitrogen
from the air and convert it into forms available to plant roots.
The advantages of multicropping include greater use of available solar energy in the dry
season, improved pest control, greater insurance against crop failure, better nutritional
balance for families because a wider variety of foods is produced, and a more stable
farm income.
As in any departure from traditional methods, some cautions and hazards may be
encountered in switching from mono- to multicropping. Farmers should consider their
options carefully and seek help if necessary from local extension agencies or from
technical assistance services such as VITA.
Sequential cropping
The future demand of food can probably be met through more intensive crop production
with increase in productivity/unit area and time. The major challenge is to produce more
from unit land on one hand and to sustain soil health on the other. Development of
improved production technology with suitable crop sequences for particular zone plays
a vital role in getting maximum monetary return without impairing the fertility of soil.

42
Potato based cropping sequences
Potato is a short duration crop and fits well in a variety of multiple cropping systems.
Besides the short duration of the crop, a considerable flexibility in the time of its
planting and harvesting offers a unique added advantage over other crops for its
inclusion in multiple cropping. Many studies indicated that the multiple cropping
systems involving potato were profitable.
At Ludhiana, Sandhu et al. (1972) compared the standard practice of maize-wheat
rotation with other rotations viz., maize-potato-wheat-cowpea and maize-potato-
wheatgreengram, wheat after potato sown in standing potato immediately after earthing
up in potato as a relay crop, produced maximum yields due to the inclusion of heavy
yielding crop of potato and near normal yield of wheat.
Soni and Rajinder Kaur (1984) in their studies to identify crop sequences for high
productivity and economic returns, observed that in addition to two principal crops, a
third crop of legume in summer season or short duration variety of potato in between
two principal crops was useful for increased production and net profits. Long term
experiments carried out in Gangetic plains of West Bengal on potato based cropping
systems of 330 per cent intensity revealed that the production potential of potato based
crop sequences viz., potato-maize-rice was higher than rice-rice system (Chatterjee and
Mondal, 1987). The economic analysis of crop sequence under Sikkim conditions
revealed that the highest net return of Rs. 14, 430 ha-1 could be obtained with maize-
potato sequence closely followed by maize-mustard (Rs. 13,422 ha-1) while maize-rice
sequence recorded Rs. 10,410 ha-1 (Gupta and Rai, 1990).
Govindakrishnan et al. (1990) evaluated six crop sequences viz., maize-potato,
ricepotato, green manure-potato-wheat, maize-potato-bittergourd, rice-potato-
greengram and green manure-potato-maize for their production potential, economics
and yield stability under Modipuram (Uttar Pradesh) conditions. Involving potato in
cropping sequence, maize, wheat, greengram or bittergourd showed high land utilization
index, total yield and gave higher returns and stable yields. Singh and Singh (1992) at
Modipuram (Uttar Pradesh), while working out potential productivity and returns of
some intensive crop sequence maximum maize equivalent yield and per day
productivity was recorded in maize-potato-wheat sequence followed by maizepea-black
gram and maize – wheat + mustard – maize + cowpea. Similarly, at Chhindwara
(Madya pradesh), Nandekar et al. (1992) evaluated different potato based crop
sequences along with most popular maize-wheat-cowpea cropping sequence. They
noticed lower land utilization index in all the potato based crop sequences than maize-
wheat-cowpea sequence. Potato equivalent yield of 321 q ha-1 was the highest in maize-
potato-greengram followed by 318 q ha-1 in soybean-potato-lady’s finger and 311 q ha-
1 in greengram-potato-clusterbean crop sequences. Soybean-potato-lady’s finger was
the most remunerative sequence (Rs. 21,540 ha-1) followed by maize-potato-greengram
(Rs. 21, 410 ha-1). The net return was lowest in non-potato based crop sequence of the
area i.e. maize-wheat-cowpea (Rs. 11, 545 ha-1). In Eastern Uttar Pradesh, where rice-
wheat is by and large the dominant cropping system with greengram during summer,

43
maize-potato + mustard-black gram cropping system recorded the highest total
production (183 q of potato and 64 q of grain ha-1) and the highest wheat equivalent
yield among the cropping systems (Ram Newaj and Yadav, 1992). This system also
proved to be the most remunerative with the net return of Rs. 21, 806 ha-1year-1as
compared to Rs. 17,425 ha-1 year-1 with rice-wheat-greengram system (Yadav and
Ram Newaj, 1990). Potato crop following green manuring (dhaincha) gave significantly
higher tuber yield (19.4 t ha-1) than that following maize (15.6t ha-1) and paddy (14.5t
ha-1) at Jalandhar, Punjab (Trehan et al., 1991).
At Pusa (Bihar) the maximum rice equivalent yield and net returns were recorded in
rice-potato-greengram sequence, followed by rice-maize-blackgram and minimum with
ricechickpea-greengram sequence (Singh et al., 1992). Sharma et al. (1993) reported
that on sandy loam soil of New Delhi, the highest gross and net income were obtained
from potato + wheat relay cropping followed by potato-wheat sequential cropping
system. Meena et al. (1993) observed that the greengram crop sown after potato
produced taller plants, more number of branches and pods per plant and higher number
of seeds per pod than that sown after wheat. The crop sown after sole potato and potato
+ wheat relay cropping gave 124 per cent higher yield than the crop sown after either
sole wheat or potato wheat sequential cropping, because of the residual effect of potato.
Nutrient status under Ludhiana (Punjab) conditions, Sidhu et al. (1994) noticed that the
cropping system having legume or potato as one of the components increased the
organic carbon and available P and K status of the soil. Chettri et al. (2003) reported
from West Bengal on sandy loam soil that the maximum net return (Rs. 71,120 ha-1)
was realized in potato-okra-paddy system where potato groundnut-paddy, potato-jute-
paddy recorded Rs.58,260 and Rs. 56,430 ha-1, respectively. Thus, these reviews
revealed that the sequences involving potato proved to be best in every respect. This
was due to high yield produced by potato.
Groundnut based cropping sequences
At Bhilwara (Rajasthan) under rainfed condition on sandy loam soil
groundnutwheat system gave the highest wheat-equivalent yield (82.19 q ha-1), net
return (Rs. 31,912 ha-1) and benefit cost ratio (2.28) followed by groundnut-Indian
mustard, while predominant crop sequence of the area (maize-wheat) gave only 54.93
q ha-1 wheatequivalent yield. Groundnut-wheat cropping sequence also proved most
efficient in terms of land use efficiency and production efficiency (Kumpawat, 2001).
At Akola, Gangwar et al. (2003) found that cropping sequence involving upland cotton-
groundnut was efficient with the highest grain equivalent yield (10079 kg ha-1) and B:
C ratio (19.57). In terms of energetics, soybeangroundnut sequence was better than
others.
Chandrappa et al. (2005) from Kathalageri (Karnataka) concluded that rice-rice
sequence was found better in terms of employment generation and monetary profit.
Wherever water is scarce, hybrid cotton – groundnut sequence was found to be more
efficient in terms of employment generation, natural resource use (water) and profit.

44
The sequences of groundnut – wheat and cotton – groundnut were more productive,
profitable and efficient in land usage and employment generation.
Pulse based cropping sequences
Favourable effects of grain legumes on the subsequent crops have been reported by
Mulik et al. (1989), observed that net return of Rs.2,225 ha-1 was obtained in the
greengram rabi sorghum cropping sequence as compared to kharif fallow -rabi sorghum
in Maharashtra. In Northern hill zone of Uttar Pradesh, grain yield of rabi crops was
higher after soybean than after fingermillet. The extent of advantage was 14 per cent in
wheat, 27 per cent in field pea and 20 per cent in toria. Relatively higher yields after the
soybean crop indicated its favorable residual effects (Prakash et al., 1991). Similarly,
soybean- wheat sequence recorded significantly higher rice equivalent yield during the
two consecutive years of study followed by rice- lentil sequence (Singh and Lal, 1994).
Ghosh and Singh (1993) at Pantnagar observed that cowpea for fodder was more potent
among summer pulses (black gram, green gram, fodder cowpea and grain cowpea) in
improving the soil N status which improved the productivity of subsequent maize crop.
At Dharwad, soybean was grown during kharif season followed by seven rabi crops,
where higher net return was recorded with soybean-sorghum sequence followed by
soybean sunflower and soybean-wheat sequence (Anonymous, 1994). Soybean-wheat
sequence has removed the maximum quantity of N while wheat grown after blackgram
harvested the maximum quantity of N. Soybean– wheat sequence further removed the
highest quantity of P but stylo-wheat sequence recorded the maximum recovery of K
(Prasad and Kumar, 1999).
Raskar et al. (2000) observed that the total grain equivalent yield of soybean -
chickpea (65.929 q ha-1) was significantly higher than the rest of sequences under
optimum and suboptimum irrigation levels in Maharashtra. Further they concluded
that soybean - chickpea was the most remunerative and profitable crop sequence in
moisture scarcity tract of Maharashtra, whereas soybean - wheat proved to be the next
best crop sequence with optimum irrigation to both the crops of the sequences. Ved
Prakash et al. (2002) found that combined application of recommended doses of NPK
and 10 t FYM ha-1 to soybean and growing wheat on residual fertility was a better
nutrient management option for sustained productivity of both the crops and it
maintained a lower rate of mining K from non-exchangeable pool of the soil profile
(Almora, Uttaranchal). Wani et al. (2004) from Maharashtra reported that the soybean
- rabi sorghum sequence recorded significantly higher sorghum equivalent yield (6046
kg ha-1) than rest of the crop sequences (3973 to 5330 kg ha-1) except black gram-rabi
sorghum (5558 kg ha-1). Among the different pulses, soybean and French bean were
more profitable than others. The sequences involving soybean and mungbean as kharif
crops were having beneficial effect on the subsequent rabi crops.
Performance of rabi crops
Pawar et al. (1992) opined that the crop sequence involving wheat, chickpea and
sorghum during rabi gave more monetary returns than the crops involving sunflower

45
and safflower. Calargiu (1971) reported 5.6 to 7.09 q ha-1 higher grain yield of wheat
in rotation with potato than with continuous cropping of wheat. Nawrocki and Kur
(1973) reported that the highest yields of 39.4 and 39.29 q ha-1 of grain were harvested
by wheat grown after potato and the legume mixture, respectively. The residual effect of
various cropping systems involving legumes in kharif increased the yield of succeeding
wheat crop (Ahlawat et al., 1981). Shindhe et al. (1984) reported that wheat following
Vigna radiata or Vigna mungo and fertilized with 30 kg N ha-1 gave grain yields similar
to those obtained with 60 kg N ha-1 in wheat following sorghum with 120 kg N ha-1.
Tomar and Tiwari (1990) from Madhaya Pradesh observed that sequences involving
wheat gave the highest production than those involving mustard as a winter crop.
Sharma et al. (1993) indicated that potato–wheat sequential cropping was productive
than potato mono-cropping. The potato-wheat sequence recorded higher wheat
equivalent yield than potato mono cropping.
Of the six winter sunflower based cropping sequences, the sunflower-
groundnutgreengram cropping system resulted in highest net return and stability (Reddy
and Kumar, 1999). Under irrigated condition of sandy loam soil of Rajasthan, Singh et
al. (1995) reported that significantly higher mean net return (Rs. 13158 ha-1 year) was
obtained from pigeonpea-wheat cropping sequence over other sequences (Rs. 9,150 and
Rs. 9,894 ha-1year-1 for greengram-wheat and clusterbean-wheat sequence,
respectively). Sanjaykumar et al. (2008) from Dehradun reported that on loamy sand
soil, the mean wheat equivalent yield was higher with pigeonpea-wheat cropping
sequence (8995 kg ha-1) which was on par with groundnut-wheat sequence (8822 kg
ha-1) and was significantly superior to rest of the sequences (6951-7658 kg ha-1) tested.
Thus, double cropping involving wheat, sunflower, chickpea and sorghum in
rabiseason were having higher monetary benefit than the monocropping in kharif only.
Land utilization index, energetics and energy budgeting of different cropping
sequences
Tomar and Tiwari (1990) of Madhya Pradesh reported that the highest land use
efficiency (69.3%) was in pigeonpea-wheat and clusterbean – wheat sequences, since
these sequences occupied the field for longest duration (253 days). The least land use
efficiency was in fallow-mustard sequence (37.5%) which occupied the land only for
137 days. Reddy and Kumar (1999) reported that among different winter sunflower
based cropping systems of Andhra Pradesh, the land use efficiency was higher in
soybeangroundnut-greengram (80%) followed by soybean-maize-greengram (76%) and
lowest was recorded by sorghum-groundnut-greengram sequence (67%).
Kumpawat (2001) reported that the highest land use efficiency (69.6%) was recorded
in groundnut-wheat cropping sequences, because of longest occupation of land (254
days) compared to other sequences (57.3 to 64.4%). At Ludhiana, Sandhu et al. (1972)
compared the standard practice of maize-wheatrotation with other rotations. Maize-
potato-wheat-cowpea and maize-potato-wheat-greengram with wheat as relay crop
immediately after earthing up in potato, produced maximum yields due to the inclusion
of heavy yielding crop of potato and near normal yield of wheat. The protein yield and

46
calories were also higher with the rotation involving potato. These rotations were found
most remunerative in terms of net income. The higher yields per unit area per unit time
could be achieved by adopting intensive rotations. Maize-potato-wheat sequence in
which potato was grown as an extra crop between maize and wheat produced higher
yields when wheat was sown in standing potato. The grain/tuber yields with one year
rotation of maize-potato-wheat-green gram were 33.3 t ha-1compared to 7.3 t ha-1 with
maize-wheat rotation, giving 13.5 and 6.4 t ha-1 edible dry matter, 1.4 and 0.8 t ha-1 of
protein and 53 and 25 k cal ha-1 of energy (Sandhu et al., 1976). At Akola, Gangwar et
al. (2003) found that cropping sequence involving soybeangroundnut sequence was
better than others in terms of energetics.
Among all the rotations, maize-toria consumed the highest energy owing to the
maximum energy utilization by its individual component crops which also gave the
highest energy output and energy output: input ratio due to maximum production of
total dry matter (Padhi et al., 1993). Subbian et al. (1995) from Tamil Nadu reported
that among the six high intensity cropping systems tried, sorghum + pigeon pea- maize
+ fodder maize system used the lowest amount of energy input and irrigation water. It
recorded the maximum energy use efficiency (18.10 kg 1000 MJ-1) than others (7.04-
9.99 kg 1000 MJ-1). Billore et al. (2005) at Indore (Madhya Pradesh) observed that
application of FYM @ 5 t ha-1 to soybean showed the highest net energy output (6976
MJ ha-1), energy use efficiency (1.23) and energy productivity (87.62 g MJ-1) in
soybean- wheat sequence. Land use efficiency was high where crops of the sequence
occupy the land for longer period. Sequences involving potato, soybean and groundnut
were better in energetics compared to other crops. Sequences involving sorghum, maize
or pigeonpea were superior in energy production and energy use efficiency. It was
attributed to the energy produced by their stalks or straw.

Alley Cropping
Alley cropping is broadly defined as the planting of two or more sets of single or
multiple rows of trees or shrubs at wide spacing, creating alleyways within which
agricultural, horticultural, or forage crops are cultivated. The trees may include valuable
hardwood species, such as nut trees, or trees desirable for wood products. This
approaches sometimes called intercropping and multicropping. Currently most of the
emphasis and research focuses on pecan and black walnut alley cropping or
intercropping applications. However, there are numerous other potential tree, shrub, and
crop combinations.
Benefits of Alley Cropping
• Diversify farm enterprise
• Reduce erosion
• Improve water quality
• Protect crops
• Enhance wildlife
• Improve aesthetics

47
Diversifying farm products and supplementing income:
Alley cropping diversifies farm enterprises by providing short-term cash flow
from annual crops while also providing medium to long-term products from the trees.
Timber and non-timber products may contribute to income generation from the farm. In
addition to the potential for producing nuts, berries, and fruits, well-managed timber can
provide a long term investment.
Reducing soil erosion from wind and water:
Soils with a high erodibility index (>8 ) are highly susceptible to damage and are
difficult to protect when used as crop land. The soil erodibility index provides a
numerical expression of the potential for a soil to erode considering the physical and
chemical properties of the soil and the climatic conditions where it is located. The
higher the index, the greater the investment needed to maintain the sustainability of the
soil resource base if intensively cropped. Alley cropping protects fragile soils through a
network of roots produced by the trees and supplemental ground-cover resulting from
fallen leave sand the companion crop. Rows of trees, shrubs, and/or grasses planted on
the contour of a slope will also serve to reduce soil movement down the slope.

48
Reducing water erosion on sloping crop land:

The interception of rainfall by the tree canopy and increased infiltration due to tree and
herbaceous roots protects the soil; water quality is improved due to interception of
sediment by herbaceous cover in tree rows and interception, sequestration, and
decomposition of agricultural chemicals by tree and herbaceous root environment.

Reducing erosion:
Trees and shrubs improve crop production by slowing wind speed and reducing wind
erosion,

49
modifying the crop microclimate with similar effects to that of windbreaks (see section
#6 on windbreaks). Alley cropping can reduce crop evapotranspiration by 15-30 percent
and increase water content in the tillage layer by 5-15 percent. Deep tree roots transport
soil nutrients to leaves. Leaves contribute organic matter to soil and release nutrients as
they decompose.
Protecting crops:
Alley cropping protects crops from insect pests by reducing crop visibility, diluting pest
hosts due to plant diversity, interfering with pest movement, and creating environments
less favorable to pests and more favorable to beneficial insects.
Enhancing wildlife habitat and aesthetics:
Linear plantings of trees and/or shrubs in an agricultural landscape increases the habitat
diversity for wildlife, both through increased amount of edge and/or as a result of the
increased diversity(vertical and horizontal) of vegetative types. Increased vertical
complexity has been correlated with increased bird numbers. These areas can also serve
as protective corridors for wildlife movement and provide a food source.
Limitations to Alley Cropping:
Alley cropping, as with other forms of multi-cropping, requires more intensive technical
management skill and marketing knowledge. The following limitations should be
considered: Requires a more intensive management system including specialized
equipment for tree management and additional managerial skills and training to manage
multiple crops on a given site. Removes land from annual crop production and may not
provide a financial return from the trees for several years. Require smartening
infrastructure for the tree products that may not be present in the local area. Trees may
be an obstacle to crop cultivation if not carefully planned and designed. Trees compete
with companion crops for sun, moisture and nutrients. Companion crops may compete
with trees for moisture and nutrients. Herbicide drift from crops may damage trees.
Alley Cropping Functions
There are numerous mechanisms in which alley cropping impacts the landscapes to
which it is applied, including water management, nutrient cycling, soil quality,
microclimate modification and pest management. Alley cropping impacts water
management by altering the hydrologic cycle through increased water infiltration is
disruption of overland flow by the tree/grass strip. Water cycled through the system is
more thoroughly filtered and any excess is gradually released. Nutrient cycling and soil
quality are impacted as deeply rooted trees exploit lower soil horizons and cycle the
nutrients to the surface through litterfall. Additional nitrogen is added to the nutrient
pool if a nitrogen-fixing tree or shrub is used. Reduced soil erosion by wind and water
help maintain soil quality. Additional moisture is added to the site through interception
of rainfall by the tree canopy. Microclimates are modified due to reductions in wind
velocity which reduces air temperatures and evapotranspiration of intercropped plants
and soil. Pest management can be strengthened through the structural diversity in the
landscape.
50
Physical growth traits of individual trees and how these influence the crop, are
based on three factors:
A. Light Competition
B. Root Competition
C. Allelopathy
A) Light Competition (above ground): A tree species should be selected that best
accommodates the sunlight requirements of a specific crop. Some tree species have
small leaves and feathery foliage casting a light shade and lend themselves well to alley
cropping. When considering a tree species for an alley cropping practice, small leaves
and light shade is preferable to heavy shade.
In what ways can light competition be reduced? Spacing When the distance between
rows of trees is increased, the years an alleyway may be cropped with minimal
competition from the trees is also increased. Row Orientation An East-West orientation
of tree rows will maximize the sunlight received by an alley crop, provided the
topography permits this arrangement. Trees may have to be planted on the contour if
erosion is a consideration. Trees may be planted in other orientations if prevailing winds
have a negative influence on crop yields. Maximizing available light Trees with small
fine leaves will allow more light through the canopy. These leaves decompose rapidly
and allow nutrients to be recycled into the soil faster. As decomposed materials
contribute organic matter to the soil, the soil moisture-holding capacity is increased.
Increased organic matter enhances soil microbe and earthworm activity. Taken together,
this also improes soil tilth and health. Understanding crown and foliage characteristics
– phenology Utilize trees that leaf-out late in the spring and/or drop leaves early in the
fall. If the agronomic crop component matures in the early spring, such as winter wheat
(Triticum aestium L.) does, or heads out in the late fall, such as milo does,, a tree
species should be incorporated that best accommodates the light needs of that specific
crop (e.g., a tree species that breaks dormancy late for winter wheat or a species that
drops its leaves early for moil - a good example of a tree that satisfies both needs is
black walnut). Timely Thinning and Pruning Properly thinning trees within rows can
maintain semi-open crown conditions. Maintained through regular thinning, these
openings can help continue the vigorous growth of shade intolerant companion crops.
Pruning basal branches before they reach 1 inch in diameter improves future wood
quality and thins the depth of the canopy permitting more sunlight to reach companion
crops.
B) Root Competition (below ground) Competition for water and nutrients between the
tree and the intercropped species not only affects the yields of the companion crop but
also the growth of the trees.
What ways can root competition be reduced? Understanding rooting zones vertical
distribution of root systems arise among species. Deep-rooted species have a reduced
volume of roots near the surface (good for minimizing competition with adjacent crops).
Erosion can be addressed through ground core establishment and management. Which

51
trees have deep roots? Species have different site requirements. For instance, as a rule,
wetland species tend to be shallow rooted. While a potential species list has been
included in the appendices, it is always useful to consult your local forester for
assistance in determining species suitable to your planting site. What can be done if the
trees are more shallow rooted? Through the use of a Ripper, Coulter, or Chisel Plow,
roots can be severed (the addition of subsurface knifes may also be used to seer more
roots outside the rip). Trenching trials strongly suggest that even during the early years
of tree development; competition for water and/or nutrients is the major reason for
reduced crop yields. By early (beginning with young trees) and repeated (every couple
of years) severing of shallow lateral roots, the number of tree roots can be significantly
decreased in the plow zone. The remaining roots will remain active deeper in the soil
profile.
C) Allelopathy (Chemical Interactions) traditionally, the term allelopathy denotes the
negative biochemical influence exerted by one plant on the growth of nearby plants. For
example, pine needles may produce acids that inhibit growth of plants on the forest
floor, while roots of black walnut trees produce a compound called jug lone, which also
inhibits the growth of other plants. A broader definition would also include positional
quinces. For example, some plants (e.g., legumes, European black alder and black
locust) fix nitrogen that can benefit nearby plants. Chemical interactions can be
controlled by choosing plant combinations that work together. Jug lone, for instance,
does not affect all plants. Conversely, nitrogen-fixing plants are only useful to
neighboring plants that require extra nitrogen.
Tree arrangement on the land
Layout: The tree and/or shrub row(s) are placed at internals across the crop field,
depending on the purpose, either on the contour or perhaps even perpendicular to
prevailing troublesome winds. Several factors are used to determine the interval
between the row(s) of trees or shrubs including slope length, field width, crop light
requirements and equipment width. As mentioned earlier, landowner objectives will
determine the products to be harvested from the alley cropping practice. These
objectives also determine the arrangement of trees and crops and the set of management
practices needed to obtain those products. Alley cropping practices are highly diverse
and range from simple to complex. Plantings can consist of a single tree species or a
number of species. Similarly, single tree rows or multiple rows may be used. There are
several key factors to consider when planning and establishing the practice on a given
site:
Layout - Tree Arrangement • Single or mixed species • Number of tree rows - single
s. multiple • Alley width: Between row spacing • within row spacing with a
conservation perspective in mind, slope length relates to the spacing needed to reduce
water erosion. The light requirement for the crop or forage to be grown in the alleyway
must be considered prior to tree establishment. Finally, alley width must be set as
multiples of the widest field equipment width.

52
Single s. Mixed Species - The row(s) of trees can have either a single species in the row
or mixed species. A single species is the easiest to plant but a mixed species planting
with similar growth rates and site requirements may provide greater economic and
environmental diversity. Factors to consider when deciding how many rows to establish
and the arrangement of the trees within the rows may be based on a number of potential
benefits including: Annual crop being produced and area removed from production by
tree/shrub rows Desired tree/shrub crops and management needed to enhance
production (such as weed control and pruning) Erosion concerns that multiple rows
and combinations of trees/shrubs/grasses can better address Wildlife habitat created
through multiple rows of combined trees/shrubs/grasses
Single s. Multiple Row Sets of Trees - The single row takes up the least amount of
space but the trees will probably require pruning to enhance the quality of the future
wood product. Multiple rows, however, will result in self pruning of the interior row(s).
Conifers are a good choice as the “trainer” trees in the outside rows since hardwood
species will tend to bend toward the light in the alleyway thus reducing their wood
value except for chips. Nitrogen-fixing “nurse trees” can also be used.
Advantages to single rows: Environment maintained Less tree to tree competition
Reduced competition Wildlife habitat Plant-Insect relationships Economics Excellent
environment for nut trees to develop full crowns. Trees in single rows which are spaced
further apart develop wider, more branched crowns. Conversely, if high value tree form
is important, then closely spaced trees may encourage self pruning and straight bole
development. Trees are open on at least two sides, and therefore have less competition
between trees within each row, when compared to multiple row configurations. Single
tree rows add diversity to a typical row crop field. Researchers think the greatest value
to wildlife of woody-herbaceous buffers are the benefits created through breaking-up
the traditional mono-culture setting associated with agriculture. Vegetation change and
structural diversity is an important tool in controlling agricultural pests. Products
coming from the farm are diversified through the addition of trees and their products.
Advantages to double rows: Environment maintained reduced competition Wildlife
habitat Economics: When rows are offset, double rows of trees maintain similar
advantages to that of single row plantings while improving the potential to realize
environmental benefits, such as soil and water protection. Compared to rectangular grid
patterns of tree planting; double rows allow maximum utilization of space for
companion crops. Competition for light between trees can be reduced through offset
row configurations.* Multiple rows of trees planted in offset configurations maintain
exposure of a majority of each trees crown/canopy to sunlight. Double rows provide the
same benefits as a single row alley crop setting, but allow structure (vertical and
horizontal vegetative layering and density components) and diversity (variety of species
planted) to be increased. This creates an environment for greater utilization of the tree
row by increased numbers of wildlife species. Finally, products coming from the farm
are further diversified. It is also possible that thinned trees can provide early economic
gain (prior to final crop tree maturation). [*As mentioned, caution should be observed
since deciduous hardwood trees will exhibit a tendency to grow towards light. If an
53
environment of unequal lighting is created (more light to one side of a trees’ crown),
most hardwood species will grow towards sunlight, and away from competition. This
can cause devaluing of the tree for wood products due to sweep (stem curvature).
Advantages to multiple rows: Benefit from competition between tree rows Wildlife
habitat Plant-Insect relationships Economics Certain trees will benefit t from some
light competition. For high value wood, it is desirable to grow a single, straight stem.
Trees and /or shrubs planted on either side of a high value tree species can be used to
train the stem of that tree. By using ‘trainer’ trees on either side of the high value tree,
natural pruning and straight stem growth can be encouraged. Ultimately, this starts the
process (may also require pruning) of producing a straight, clear (small or no knots) log
of higher quality than might be grown in an open setting. However, choosing the correct
‘trainer’ species is important because you do not want the outside trees to outgrow your
center tree. If they do, they will provide too much shade. Wildlife habitat potential
increases greatly with a wider row of trees. Increased numbers of animals will use this
area for travel lanes and the interior creates protective cover opportunities for birds and
small mammals. Plant-insect benefits are the same for single and double row
configurations, though some additional advantages may be realized by diversifying the
species planted. Economic benefits ts are similar to double row configurations. As with
double rows, additional trees per acre in multiple row configurations may also qualify
these plantings for cost-share assistance and create opportunities for medium-term tree
crops to be removed for cash flow (e.g., trees grown for landscaping). Crown
competition between adjacent trees (A) as compared to the increased growing space
available to individual trees when planting in an offset configuration (B). Double or
triple rows of long-needled hard pines (e.g., cold tolerant loblolly or pitch x loblolly
hybrids) can be grown either as (A) or (B). A byproduct of a double or triple planting is
the potential for pine straw production within tree rows.
Tree and shrub arrangement To enhance the growth of trees in multiple-row plantings,
staggering the trees between adjacent rows will permit maximum crown development.
Staggered spacing provides more room to grow.
Alley Width: between tree row/set spacing: If wood production is of primary
importance, closer row spacing is desirable. Wider row spacing is preferred when nut
production is desired. Equipment Travel Lanes: The use of trees planted in rows can
allow equipment passage in any number of directions. The spacing should also be
adjusted based on multiples of the widest farm equipment to be used in the alley way.
Spacing to accommodate equipment is particularly important in nut production when
early crown development is desirable. Plan alleys such that full, or multiple, passes of
the equipment are utilized. For example, if using a 13-foot wide disk it may be desirable
to have an alleyway 60 feet wide. This allows for 4 passes with the disk (52 feet) and a
buffer (to ensure damage is not done to the base of the tree) of 4 feet adjacent to each
tree row (8 feet; 4 feet on either side of the cropped alley). The number of years that
light-demanding crops are to be grown in the alleyways is another consideration:
60 feet spacing will generally allow crop production (e.g. corn, soybeans, cereals, etc.)
for 5-10 years 80-120 foot spacing will allow production for up to 20 years or more As
54
the shade increases over the life of the trees, it may be necessary to change the
companion crop being grown in the alleyway (see plant material section).
Within Tree Row Spacing: The primary objective for the trees, and the cost of the
planting stock, will help determine the within-row spacing. If erosion control is desired,
a closer spacing would give better results. If the tree stock is of unknown origin and
quality, a closer spacing would also be desirable to give more opportunities to select the
best quality trees during succeeding thinning. Closer spacing may also be required if
minimum numbers of trees per acre are required to meet government cost share
requirements. However, if expensive grafted tree stock is used for nut production, a
wider spacing may be used to reduce cost. For example, trees that are grown tightly
spaced will have a tendency to grow up, towards the light. This growth trait is highly
desirable when growing trees for quality wood production. Additionally, as these tightly
spaced trees begin to shade one another, each of their branches in the shade will begin
to die and eventually fall off. This is called self-pruning, and is again desirable when
trying to grow high quality wood in timber production.
Tree and Shrub Selection: Desirable Characteristics There are a number of desirable
characteristics for trees or shrubs that will be grown in an alley cropping system. It is
not necessary (probably not possible) that all the following characteristics be exhibited
by one tree species: Produces a commercially valuable product or multiple products
(i.e., timber, nuts) that has an acceptable local market. Relatively fast growing (medium
growth rate on high value trees is acceptable) or highly valued for production or
conservation benefits Produces appropriate shade for the companion crop Be adapted
to a variety of sites and soils Deep-rooted with minimal roots at the soil surface to
minimize competition with crops in the alleyway. Have foliage with minimal acid-
generating potential if companion crops prefer a pH neutral soil. Conifers acidify soil;
combine well with acid loving crops. Does not produce growth inhibitory chemicals
(allelo chemicals) that would prevent some crops from growing near them (e.g., black
walnut) have a growing season that complements the companion crop produces wildlife
benefits
Selecting companion crops Companion crops are planted in the alleys between the tree
rows. The choice of companion crop will vary depending on the types of trees selected
and the crop(s) desired by the grower. There are three major groups of crops which can
be grown in an alley cropping practice: 1) Row/cereal and forage crops; 2) Fruits and
other specialty crops; and 3) biomass producing crops. Initially, the growing
environment in the alley will be favorable to row crops requiring full sun (corn,
soybeans, wheat) or forages. Potential companion crops include row/cereal crops,
forages, fruits and other specialty crops, biomass producing crops. As trees grow taller
and develop larger crowns, they will exert greater influence on the growing
environment in the alley with increased shade, water and nutrient competition and
humidity levels, along with decreased temperatures and decreased wind movement.

55
Plant Materials - Trees for Alley Cropping
Black walnut: Outstanding markets available for wood. Opportunities exist for the sale
of wild nuts, cultivars provide a higher return. Produces light shade, has a short foliage
period, and is deep rooted. The jug lone allelo chemical limits companion crop choices
somewhat.
Pecan: Markets available for both wood and nuts. Markets exist for nuts from native
wild pecans and for cultivars. Nuts more valuable than the wood. More shade produced
than with walnut but no allelo chemicals.
Oaks: The wood has a high value and the acorns are good wildlife food. The oaks are
relatively slow growing and produce fairly dense shade.
Chestnuts: Chinese chestnut produce valuable nuts at an early age, are blight resistant
and adapted to the climate of the eastern US. Markets are growing for domestic
producers.
Ash: The wood is high value but there are no other potential products. They are
relatively fast growing and produce a light shade.
Nut or fruit bearing shrubs: The hazelnut, pawpaw, blueberries, etc. could be used as
stand-alone hedgerows or in combination with other taller tree species. While
availability of sunlight is a primary factor that determines how well row crops or
forages perform in the alley, water and nutrient competition is even more significant.
The tree canopy density will be partially determined by the spacing of the trees within a
row and the width between tree rows. This spacing will also influence below ground
competition.
Tree/Shrub selection for row crops - - Corn, soybeans, wheat, barley, oats, potatoes,
pumpkins, lettuce, peas, etc. have demonstrated success in alley cropping. Most of these
crops have high light demands. Using corn in the first few years speeds tree growth by
creating a greenhouse effect for the tree rows. In an alleyway 60 feet wide, shade will
limit their use after 5-10 years depending on the tree species.
Selection of forage crops - In an alley cropping practice, forage crops such as fescue,
orchard grass, bluegrass, or alfalfa, are grown for hay production between rows of
planted trees, but are not grazed. This distinguishes the alley cropping practice from a
silo pasture practice. Kentucky 31 tall fescue and orchard grass tolerate considerable
shade and are very productive cool season grasses. Other potential forages that show
shade tolerance include Kentucky bluegrass, ryegrass, smooth brome, timothy and white
closer. Winter annuals such as cereal grains, crimson closer, and hairy etch must be
reseeded every year and only provide one cutting of hay, but do not compete with the
trees and provide good erosion control. Bluegrass hay is harvested between rows of
pecan trees in this alley cropping example. It is also necessary to consider whether a
cool or warm season crop and/or forage may be more appropriate for the site conditions
and objectives. Studies conducted by the University of Missouri have found that many
cool-season legumes and grasses produce greater biomass when grown under partial

56
shade as compared to full sun. Some warm-season grasses showed similar responses,
but most were southern temperate zone species.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Cool Season Forages: Cool-season perennial
species are most productive in the spring when temperatures are typically cool and
moisture plentiful. They grow less or become dormant during the hot summer months
when moisture is often limiting, then increase growth in the fall. Cool-season forages
can be highly competitive with tree crops for moisture and nutrients, especially in the
spring as trees break dormancy. As young trees are becoming established, it is desirable
that no vegetation grow within a 3-foot radius. To maximize the growth of older trees,
vegetation should be controlled in a diameter approximately equal to the crown
diameter size. However, this may or may not result in the greatest economic gain.
Warm-season forages: Warm-season perennial species grow most during the summer
months. Though warm-season forages have a shorter growing season, they are still very
productive. Eastern gamagrass, bermuda grass, Switchgrass, Indiangrass, and big
bluestem are examples of warm-season perennial grasses identified for use in Missouri.
Southern climates may use bahia grass or bermudagrass.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Warm- Season Forages: The root systems
associated with warm-season forages are typically deeper than cool season grasses. This
makes them an excellent choice for controlling erosion and protecting sub-surface water
from leached pesticides and nutrients. These forages will likely be less competitive in
the early spring when many trees are beginning their annual growth. Warm season
“clump” grasses provide excellent habitat for quail in combination with woody shrubs.
Warm-season forages grow vigorously in the hot summer months. Therefore, a
consideration is that this may put them in competition with trees and other woody
vegetation at a time of the year when water is quite possibly the most limited resource.
On the other hand, if a tree species puts on its growth in late spring, in certain instances
a warm-season forage can make a good companion crop. The point is that compatibility,
even seasonal compatibility, must be considered when selecting trees, shrubs, grasses,
and crops for an alley cropping practice.
Integrating Specialty Crops into an Alley Cropping Practice Most often associated
with the forest farming practice, specialty crops also have potential for integration into
alley cropping practices. Landscaping plants, Christmas trees, small fruit trees or shrubs
and berries can be grown either temporarily between the permanent in-row crop trees or
in the alleyways. As the alleyways become more shaded, shade tolerant species such as
redbud, dogwood and spruce could be grown for landscaping if there is a nearby market.
Plants which can be marketed for their medicinal, ornamental, or food blues (including
St. John’s Worth, wildly owners for seed, pumpkins, etc.) also provide unique
opportunities for alley cropping. Species that are light demanding can be established in
the alleyways while those requiring some shade can be planted within the tree rows as
shade develops.
Specialty crops that can be produced in full sun include: Horticultural plants, such
as tomatoes, pumpkins and blackberries Forages, grains and oilseeds Tree crops, such

57
as nuts Seed production, such as wildflower or select grasses Christmas trees Shrubs
and other landscaping plants Trees for lumber and wood fiber products.
Biomass Crops Both woody and herbaceous plants for biomass production could be an
option for the alleyways. Soft hardwood species such as cottonwood, hybrid poplars,
willow, sycamore and slier maple could be grown for pulp, paper or oriented strand
board if markets are available. Herbaceous biomass crops (e.g. switch grass) could be
another alternative.
Operation and Maintenance: Pest management: Periodic inspection of the crops and
trees is recommended to detect and identify possible pests. Insects and diseases can be
significant factors in reducing the health and vigor of both the tree crop and the
intercrop. The corrective actions should minimize the impacts on beneficial insects.
Fertilization and nutrient management: A normal fertility program should be applied
for the intercrop in the alleyway. Generally, fertilization of the tree crop is not needed,
but fertilizing the intercrop may also benefit the trees. Competition for nutrients can be
minimized by root pruning or by adding more nutrients. Nutrients can be added in the
form of chemical fertilizer, animal manure or a wide range of other materials. This may
also include the use of lying mulches or green manures.
Canopy management (Pruning): If there is too much shade under an existing stand of
trees, the canopy can be pruned to allow more light to reach the under story plants. You
may be able to accomplish this by clear-stem pruning for improved timber production.
This involves the removal of branches low on the stem of a tree in order to raise the
height at which the canopy begins. This allows more light to enter the under story from
side angles while also creating adequate space for operating equipment. Remember,
removing more than 40% of the trees foliage will significantly reduce the growth of the
tree. It is best to always have 40-50% of a tree’s height in crown or foliage. Top:
Lettuce intercropped until mid-June followed immediately by a pumpkin intercrop until
October. inland, Ontario. Bottom: Grain is alley-cropped in a young pecan orchard,
Georgia, U.S. Alley cropping example: Pauline and winter wheat in China-- Through
careful pruning, the proper shade canopy can be developed and light levels can be
manipulated in an alley cropping practice. Often, the alley cropping practice will
transition to more shade tolerant crops, or extensive tree removal by thinning will be
needed in order to maintain light levels.
Periodic root “training” will improve crop yields: Based on research into tree and crop
interactions it has been shown that even during the early years of tree development,
competition for water and/or nutrients is the major reason for reduced crop yields. By
early (beginning with young trees) and repeated (every couple of years) searing of
lateral roots, the number of tree roots can be significantly decreased in the plow zone.
Row crops will continue to produce commercial yields even as shade levels increase.
Weed Control: Weed control for an alley cropping includes both the rows of trees and
the intercrop. For the tree row(s), weeds need to be minimized usually for the first three
to fi e years in a band about three feet on each side of the trees. Weed removal can be

58
done in a number of different ways, from herbicides and cutting to cultivation. An
additional consideration for use in controlling weeds adjacent to trees may include
mulch, fabric barriers or lying mulches. Nothing will improve the growth of trees and
shrubs like the control of competing grasses.
Maintenance tasks specific to trees:
Replanting: Replant all trees or shrubs that has failed for the first 3 years.
Branch Pruning: Pruning of the trees may be necessary to improve wood quality, the
microenvironment for the companion crop, allow equipment access, or correct storm
damage.
Root Pruning: Pruning tree roots (up to 24 inches deep) projecting into the companion
crop area may reduce competition. Do not prune both sides of the trees the same year.
Allow a 3-year interval before pruning the other side. Pruning will need to be repeated
on a 5- to 8-year interval.
Thinning: The tree rows will normally need to be thinned to increase light in the
alleyways and speed production of high value crop trees. To achieve the objective of
maximum tree growth rates throughout the timber rotation, growers must be willing to
periodically thin out trees. Failure to do so dramatically and adversely impacts future
tree growth rates and rotation length.
Economic incentives for alley cropping: There are many agencies offering programs
that can be used to establish and maintain agro forestry practices on private land. One of
the most significant of these agencies is the USDA Natural Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS), which offers the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP)
that may be utilized toward agro forestry practices like alley cropping. The EQIP
program is designated for environmental concerns associated with livestock production.
Land owners engaged in livestock or agricultural production can apply for 1-to 10-year
contracts through a competitive application process based on environmental benefits.
Eligible lands include cropland, rangeland, pasture, forestland, and other farm and ranch
lands. Conservation practices are designed with the help of USDA/NRCS and other
agencies to address the locally-identified priority resource concerns. EQIP contracts
provide cost share payments up to 50 percent of the establishment cost for conservation
practices and various incentive payments. For alley cropping practices, EQIP will pay
$50 per acre for first 3 years on land planted in trees and the grass strip adjacent to trees.
No more than 50% of the cropland can be enrolled. NRCS Standard 311 identifies the
guidelines for establishing an alley cropping practice for EQIP. For more information,
contact your local USDA/ NRCS office. Additional USDA programs to establish and
maintain an alley cropping practice are offered through the Forest Service (FS) and the
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program. See chart below for
a listing of incentives offered by these federal agencies or consult the UMCA
publication “Funding Incentives for Agro forestry in Missouri.”

59
Chapter 5
Intercropping - its definition, advantages and importance. Mechanism of
yield advantage in intercropping system

Intercropping is the cultivation of two or more crops simultaneously on the same

field. It also means the growing of two or more crops on the same field with a definite
row arrangement. The rationale behind intercropping is that the different crops planted
are unlikely to share the same insect pests and disease-causing pathogens and to
conserve the soil.
Intercropping is defined as the growth of more than one crop species or cultivar
simultaneously in the same field during a growing season. It is the practical application
of ecological principles such as diversity, crop interaction and other natural regulation
mechanisms. Intercropping has many advantages, mainly related to the complementary
use of environmental resources by the component crops which results in increased and
more stable yields, better nutrient recycling in the soil, better control of weeds, pests
and diseases and an increased biodiversity. Cereals and legumes, both for forage and for
grain, are the most common intercrops .The main advantage of the legume–cereal
intercrop is the input of nitrogen to the system by the fixation of atmospheric N2 by the
legume, which results in improved use of renewable nitrogen sources.
Types of intercropping practices:
• Strip Intercropping- Growing two or more crops in strips , wide enough to
permit independent cultivation , but narrow enough for the crops to interact .
• Row Intercropping- Growing two or more crops in well defined row.
• Mixed Intercropping- Growing two or more crops together in no distinct row
arrangement.
• Relay Intercropping- Planting a second crop into a standing crop at a time
when the standing crop is at its reproductive stage but before harvesting.

60
 Example of crop arrangement
Advantage of intercropping and its importance:
The various advantages of intercropping system are described bellow-
1. Biodiversity and stability: Intercropping is a way to increase the biodiversity of the
farming system. More diversity in the farming system means more stability,
resulting in risk spreading and reduced pest and disease incidence.
2. Increased yield: When two or more crops with different rooting system, a different
pattern of water and nutrient demand, and a different above ground habit are planted
together. Water, nutrient and sunlight are used more efficiently. Therefore the
combined yields of two crops grown as intercrops can be higher than the yield of the
same crop grown as pure stand.

Treatment Chick pea Mustard Chickpea

grain yield seed yield equivalent
(q/ha) (q/ha) yield (q/ha)
Pure gram 13.2 - 13.2
Pure mustard - 12.1 18.9
Gram + Mustard (3:1) 8.7 6.8 19.4
Gram + Mustard (4:1) 8.0 5.4 16.5
Paired planting of gram and 5.3 9.5 19.9
mustard

61
3. Maintenance of soil fertility: An important reason for intercropping is the
improvement and maintenance of soil fertility. This is reached when a cereal crop
(such as maize or sorghum) or a tuber crop (like cassava) is grown in association
with pulses (bean, peas etc.). Deep rooted pulses like pigeon pea, also take up
nutrients from deeper soil layer, there by recycle nutrients leased from the
surface. Legumes also grow well in low phosphate. After the intercrop is
harvested, decaying roots and fallen leaves provide nitrogen and other nutrient
for the next crop.
4. Fodder and manure: The crop residue of the pulses crop can also be used as
fodder, by cutting and carrying them to the animal, or by letting the animals graze
the residues in the field. The nutrients in the crop residue then can be recycled when
manure is used to fertilize the crops. Animal manure improves soil fertility through
supply of nutrients and soil structure, as it increases the amount of humus in the soil.
It should be sprayed evenly over the field, whether the manure is left on the field
during grazing or collected from the stable and applied later.
5. Soil cover: Pulses in an intercropping system do not only provide only a source of
nitrogen and other nutrients to the associated crop but, also increase the amount of
humus in the soil, due to decaying crop remains. This result in improved soil
structure, reducing the need for soil tillage. Water losses, soil erosion and leaching
of nutrients are also reduced in intercropping system, due to improved soil structure
and better soil cover, especially when creeping pulses crops are used. With a good
soil cover, the impact of rain drops on disruption of the soil is reduced. In relay
intercropping, the pulse crop is planted some time after the main crop and continues
growing after the harvest of main crop. This result in more efficient use of soil water
and prevent leaching and erosion, as the soil is still covered after the harvest of main
crop.
6. Risk spreading and food security: When two or more crops are grown on the same
field, the risk for crop failure is spread over the different crop as the different crops
have different periods and patterns of growth, and are affected by different diseases.
If one of the crops fail (due to drought, pest or diseases), there still a harvest from
other crops. This increases food security. In good year the yield of two crops grown
on the same field as an intercrop is often higher than the yield of the same crop
grown separately.
7. Weed control: In an intercropping system weeds are more easily controlled. For
example in maize bean intercrop, the bean covers the soil, preventing weeds to
grow.
8. Microclimate: When the intercrop provides a good soil cover, soil temperature will
stay relatively low. This prevents burning of the organic matter in the soil and loss
of nutrients. It also provides a microclimate that can be favourable for the associated
crop.

62
9. Physical support: In a maize bean intercrop, climbing beans can use the maize
stacks for support.
10. Pest and diseases control: Pest and diseases are less abundant in intercropping
system. There are different ways to explain it. If the pest or disease has a specific host, it
does not spread as easily through an intercrop as it does in a mono crop. Insect or other
pest can also be mislead by the canopy of an intercrop and not recognize the specific
crop they use as host. Substance that other crops produce may drive insects away from
the main crop or natural enemies of insects may be attracted by one of the crops in the
intercrop.
Importance of intercropping system:
The demand for food is increasing day by day due to population pressure and
practically there is no scope of bringing new area under cultivation. Therefore it is
become necessary to increase the production of food grain by adopting intensive
cropping system or by increasing the production per unit area.
Intercropping is an agronomic refinement of the old practice of crop mixtures
that in this new system the components, usually two are sown in separate rows, their
population ratios are known and can be harvested singly and produce recorded
separately. Broadly, intercropping may be defined as the growing of two or more crop
species simultaneously on the same piece of land but the crop components often have
different growth periods.
Scientific interest in intercropping has developed recently as means of making
full use of the entire growing season and optimizing the utilization of environmental
resources and thus increasing the total crop production per unit area of land.
Generally, the farmers grow the food grain crops as the main crop and pulses or
oilseed as minor crops in the mixture. The food grain crop like sorghum and pearl millet
being C4 plants posses an inherent higher yield potential than legume or pulses. But the
present market rates of pulses are two to four times higher than the most of the cereals
crop. So if a farmer goes with an intercropping practice, he can get additional income
from his land and he can boost his family income.
Our soil health is deteriorated day by day due to intensive agriculture. Food
production also got a static position. So to improve the soil health and to reduce the use
of inorganic fertilizer farmer can move toward intercropping practice by adopting a
pulse crop as an intercrop. As pulses have the capacity to fix atmospheric nitrogen by
their symbiotic relationship.
To meet the protein demand of the nation intercropping with pulses is the one of
the best option because pulses form an essential component of the Indian vegetarian diet
as dal roti or bhat. The intake of protein from various foods indicated that out of 53 g
protein per day 36 g comes from cereals, 10 g from animal sources and only 7 g from
pulses. The pulse contribution has shrunk over the last quarter of the century.

63
 There is a vast challenge to choose suitable intercrop to get maximum benefit so
that a farmer can build up his family economically stronger and socially prior able. Thus
it is become essential to go for better research and new findings for providing national
food security, increasing family income, better environment for the next crop so that
they can be grown successfully.
Mechanism of yield advantages in intercropping system:
Since several crops are involved in intercropping system, it is not logical to
compare total yield of different crop in on system with the other. Several indices are
developed to evaluate yield advantages in intercropping system.
A. Crop equivalent yield (CEY):
The yields of different intercrops are converted into equivalent yield of
anyone crop based on price of the produce. The crop equivalent yield (CEY) is
calculated as follows-
CEY = Σ (Yi ei)
Where, Yi is the yield of ith component and ei is the equivalent factor of ith
component or price of ith crop.
B. Land equivalent ratio (LER):
Land equivalent ratio (LER) is the relative land area under sole crops that
is required to produce the yields achieved in intercropping. LER can be
mathematically represented as follows-
LER = ΣYi / Yij
Where, Yi is the yield of ith component crop from a unit area grown as intercrop
and Yij is the yield of ith component grown as sole crop over the same area.
LER is the summation of ratios of yields of intercrop to the yield of sole
crop.
C. Relative yield total (RYT):
In pasture, different species of plants are grown for grazing in different
proportion. The yields of these crops are higher when they are grown as sole
crops with 100 percent population compared to their yield in pastures with
reduced population. To accommodate more number of crops in pasture, certain
amount of population of intercrops are reduced It is necessary to know which
crop combination gives higher forage yield. The yield advantage is, therefore,
measured not only based on unit area , but also based on unit population which
is estimated by relative yield total. This is mainly used for replacement series of
experiments. It is mathematically expressed as-
RYT =(Yab+Yba) / (Yaa+Ybb)
Where, Yaa = Yield of component “a” as sole crop.
Ybb= Yield of component “b” as sole crop
64
 Yab = Yield of component “a” as inter crop in “b”.
Yba= Yield of component “b” as inter crop in “a”.
D. Relative crowing coefficient (RCC):
This was proposed by deWit (1960) and is used in replacement series
experiment. Each component has its own coefficient (K) which gives a measure
of whether that component has produced more, or less yield than expected.
Rab= Mixture yield of “a” / (Pure stand yield of “a”- mixture yield of “a”)
Rab= Yab×Zab / (Yaa- Yab)×Zab
Where, Zab=proportion of component “a” in combination with “b”
Zab=proportion of component “b” in combination with “a”

To determine the yield advantage of mixing, the product of the coefficient is

formed. This is termed K
For, K>1=Yield advantage
K=1=Yield advantage
K<1=Yield disadvantage

65
Chapter 6
Above-ground and below-ground interaction and allelopathy

Competition-which takes into account how plants affect the abundance of an

intermediary and how other plants respond to the change in abundance. For resource-
mediated competition to occur belowground, a plant must have a negative effect on the
availability of some belowground resource to which another plant shows a positive
response in growth, survival, or reproduction. It is the struggle for survival and for
continued existence.
Competition occur when two or all plants present in a given area demand a
particular growth factor and the instantaneous supply of that factor falls below their
combined demand. In plant communities, each individual is in continuous state of war
to gain in its competition for various growth factors both under-ground and above-
ground. Plant competition is a powerful force responsible for limitation or extinction of
weaker competitors.
Competition is relationship between two or more plants in which supply of
growth factors falls below their combined demand. The competition does not start as
long as the growth factor is abundant in supply and does not fall below their combined
demand. However, it start immediately when the growth factor fall short in supply
(Aldrich, 1984). Amensalism is negative effect or inhibition of growth of one species by
another and it involves addition of something to the environment, whereas competition
is more or less same as Amensalism, but it involves the removal of growth resources
from the environment. Competition offers negative effects to both species, whereas, in
Amensalism, one species has negative effect and the other experiences no or zero effect.
General principles in crop competition
1. Competition is most serious when the crop plants are young e.g. in seedling to
tillering, branching or early flowering stage.
2. Competition is likely greater between plants of similar morphology and growth
behaviour.
3. Plant competition is both under-and above-ground.

66
Fig1: In this framework plants must have an effect on the abundance of a resource and
other plants must respond to the change. Both the effect and the response must be of
appropriate sign for competition to occur.
Resource uptake and mechanisms of competition
Soil resources reach the root surface through three general processes: 1. Root
interception, 2. mass flow of water and nutrients, and 3. diffusion. Root interception is
the capture of water and nutrients as the root grows through the soil, physically
displacing soil particles and clay surfaces. In general, root interception accounts for less
than 10% of resource uptake by roots and is the least important of the three processes.
Mass flow of water and dissolved mineral nutrients is driven by plant transpiration and
is a function of the rate of water movement to the root and the concentration of
dissolved nutrients in the soil solution. Diffusion of nutrients toward the root occurs
when nutrient uptake exceeds the supply by mass flow, creating a local concentration
gradient. Diffusion is especially important for nutrients with large fractions bound to the
solid soil matrix, such as potassium and phosphate, whereas mass flow is often more
important for nitrogen, particularly nitrate.
Among mechanisms of root interactions, competition via diffusion has received
the most attention. Neighboring roots reduce nutrient uptake when nutrient depletion
zones overlap. For a given inter root distance, the degree of competition increases as
effective diffusion increases, resulting in potentially greater competition for nitrate ions
than for potassium or the relatively immobile phosphate ions. The relationship between
the width of the diffusion zone and overall soil nutrient levels may imply that
competition occurs at lower root densities in high nutrient soils than in low nutrient
soils. The concept of overlapping diffusion zones is less applicable to water and
dissolved nutrients that are primarily supplied to the root by mass flow. For those
nutrients, competition must depend both on nutrient uptake and water uptake, driven by
transpiration. Aboveground attributes such as maximum transpiration or stomatal
conductance will both affect and be affected by rates of water uptake.
Different factors for competition
1. Competition for nutrient: crop plants require nutrient immediately after
germination and emergence. Among the plant nutrients nitrogen, phosphorus,

67
 and potassium are limiting ones and among them nitrogen is the first nutrient to
become limiting due to crop-weed competition. Nitrogen depletion zones are
likely wider and similar to those for water. Since rooting depth and root area of
plant determine their ability to obtain resources, relative competitiveness for
nitrogen is largely determined by the soil volume occupied by the roots of
competing species. Competition foe P and K most likely occur after the plants
are mature and have extensive overlapping roots. Even applying fertilizers to
increase crop yield will fail to provide maximum benefit unless weeds are
adequately managed. Main competitor in crop field is weeds. Allowing weeds to
compete with sorghum for 4 weeks when N was applied resulted in a 23% yield
loss compared to keeping the crop weed free all through the season. However, if
N applied, this period of competition caused a 69% yield loss. Some species
show greater preference to certain nutrients. For example, Amaranthus viridis
accumulates 3.16% N apart from containing very high level of K2O (4.51%) in
their dry matter and is thus a nitrophilus weed, whereas Achyranthus aspera and
Digitaria sanguinalis are P-accumulators with P2O5 content of 1.6% and 3.36%,
respectively. Chinopodium album and Portulacea quadrifida,on the contrary are
K-lover with 4.34% and 4.57% K2O content, respectively in their dry matter.
It is apparent that weeds absorbs considerable amount of nutrients sometimes
higher than the crop associated. This is mainly due to fact that crops are
broadcasted or sown in rows with required density determined by seed rate,
while weeds grow around the crop plants and there is no limit population.
2. Competition for water: Water is the primary environmental factor limiting
crop production and is probably the most critical of all plant growth requirement
(King, 1966). Weeds compete for water, reduce water availability and contribute
to water stress. They demand for equal or more water than crop and are often
more successful in acquiring it. Plant competition foe water occurs along with
other forms of competition. It varies from season to season, year to year, site to
site and even species to species if irrigation is not available. Weed removed
moisture evenly from up to 90cm soil depth, while the major uptake of moisture
by heat was limited to top 15cm of soil. In general, for producing equal dry
matter, weeds transpire more water than do most of our crop plants. C4 plants
having higher water use efficiency are better competitor with crop plants than C3
plants. Stomata in some plants are less sensitive to declining leaf water potential
than those of crops with which they compete. When this is combined with a
larger root system or better drought tolerance, plants are formidable competitor
for water. Water competition is more in rainfed areas compare to humid or well
irrigated areas. If there is very high density of plants than there is higher
competition for limited water. A plant have good root development and deeper
rooting habit is more competitor than one which have shallower root system.
3. Competition for light: Light constitute a key external variable of the
photosynthesis process of plants. It varies in duration, intensity and quality and
regulates many aspects of plant growth and development. The sites for light

68
 competition are leaves. The leaves that first intercept light may reflect it, absorb
it, convert it into photosynthetic products and heat or transmit it. If transmitted,
the light is gradually filtered and when it reaches to the lowermost leaves, it is
dimmer and spectrally altered. Competition for light is not immediately the
competition between species nor even between plants, it is competition between
leaves. Once a leaf is shaded by another leaf , there starts competition for light.
Neighbourer plant reduces light supply by direct interception and shading. Plant
architecture, especially height, location of branches and height of maximum leaf
area determine competition foe light and influence crop yield. Competition foe
light may even begin at the very early stage of crop if there is a
shading/smothering effect by dense and crowd growth of weeds. It may become
more severe, if moisture and nutrient in soil are plentiful and weeds have an
edge over crop plants in respect of height. Plant height and vertical leaf area
distribution define effective components of the competitive struggle for light.
Tall and dwarf cultivars of rice and wheat vary widely in their competitive
abilities for light. Tall cultivars because of their greater height are normally
superior to dwarf cultivars in competition against weeds. Broad-leaved plants,
on the contrary, being normally short stature than other plants, weaker
competitor of light. There is varietal difference in response to competition for
light. Straw yield is primarily influenced by root competition, whereas grain
yield is most affected by light.
4. Competition for space: Since resource use is integrated with an individual and
among plants in mixture. Some workers have been to consider the impact of all
resource on growth as a single conceptual unit, called space. Thus space refers
to the composite of all resource necessary for growth and their interaction. The
competition for space increases when plants starts growing both above-and
below-ground. Dawson (1965) through a field study demonstrated the capture of
all such resource constituting space as opposed to evaluating single resource. He
opined that critical time of interference would occur among neighbouring plants
based on the time of emergence and physiological factors governing growth. If
the measure are taken foe controlling weeds, it should be exercised when there is
enough space available foe capture so that crop can translate/convert the benefit
of weed control/weeding into its growth and yield. inter-specific/intergeneric
competition (usually often), intra-specific competition (under situation of over-
crowding, excessive tillering/branching etc.) or both competition together may
occur based on density of crop and weeds, initial canopy coverage and how fast
is the available space getting occupied by them. The severity of competition,
however, depends on the time of their emergence, nature of weeds total plant
density, growth and development pattern of weeds and crop.

69
Traits related to below ground competitive ability
Root Surface Area and Rates of Resource Uptake
Of primary importance in belowground competition is the occupation of soil
space. The ability to occupy space depends on several root characters, including relative
growth rate, biomass, fine root density, and total surface area.
Several factors may explain the lack of direct correspondence between root
density and the outcome of belowground competition. First, competition may also occur
among roots on the same plant, so the return per investment in new root growth may
decline at higher root densities. Second, where and when roots are deployed may be just
as important as average root density. A plant with much root surface area in one region
of the soil might be poorly represented in a second region or less able to concentrate its
roots in localized nutrient patches, or rooting density may vary temporally. Third,
mycorrhizae play an important role but are frequently ignored in studies of nutrient
acquisition, and fourth, physiological properties related to the rate of uptake are also
crucial to competitive ability.
Morphological and Physiological Plasticity
The ability to make morphological or physiological adjustments to the local soil
environment may be critical to a plant’s belowground competitive success. Advantages
of plasticity must be viewed both in terms of howmuch additional resource is taken up
and how quickly because increasing the rate of uptake could be very important in the
presence of competitors. Many plants respond to nutrient-enriched patches of soil by
root proliferation. Proliferated roots tend to be smaller in diameter and greater in density
than those found in the background soil, and consequently they have much greater
surface area.
Physiological plasticity involves changes in uptake rates attributable to altered
enzyme attributes or other physiological traits. For water, osmoregulation can lower cell
water potential and maintain net uptake in the face of drying soils. To show that plants
are able to increase uptake by selectively altering physiological attributes is different
from predicting when and if it is beneficial to do so. Another factor not usually
considered is the cost involved in constructing or operating additional enzymes . For
mineral nutrients, mobility within the soil is also important. When competition occurs
through overlapping depletion zones, physiological plasticity should increase the uptake
of relatively mobile nutrients (e.g. nitrate) more than the uptake of less mobile ones
(e.g. ammonium, phosphate). Conversely, root proliferation may be less beneficial for
the uptake of relatively mobile nutrients, since a single root depletes a broader volume
of soil.

70
 Figure 2. Plant traits that influence belowground competitive ability
Spatial and Temporal Soil Partitioning
Spatial and temporal partitioning of soil resources can be related. Deep roots
may allow plants access to a water source available after upper soil layers have dried
out, enabling them to decouple the timing of growth from rainfall events, persisting
after neighboring species have died or become dormant. Some spatial and functional
root overlap does occur between grasses and woody plants, however. Some grass roots
are more than 5 m deep , and many woody plants are capable of taking up resources
from both shallow and deep layers.

Factors affecting plant competition

1. Weed factors: Weed species, density, dry weight, onset and duration of weed
association with crop, plant architecture (height and growing habit, nature and
orientation of leaf, tillering/branching, root system) total growing duration etc.
2. Crop factors: Crop species, variety, density and seedling vigour, plant
architecture, total growing duration etc.
3. Environmental factors: Climate (temperature, light, rainfall, humidity,
cloudiness), soil (fertility, pH, moisture, texture, structure, topography), biotic
stress (insect pest, diseases, nematodes etc.).
4. Human/crop management factors: Tillage, time, method, rate and depth of
planting, spacing, cropping pattern, fertilization, irrigation, insect pests and
diseases control.

71
Effect of legumes in intercropping system on the resource
The purpose of mixing legume and cereals in the cropping systems is to optimise
the use of spatial, temporal, and physical resources both above- and below ground, by
maximising positive interactions (facilitation) and minimising negative ones
(competition) among the components. The complex interactions in legume/cereal
cropping systems such as those used by traditional farmers have received little research
attention. Information from such studies is likely to provide an understanding of plant
survival strategies when subjected to stress in mixtures. Current knowledge on how
plants in mixtures change their biological and chemical environments and the potential
benefits associated with such processes are assessed in this review.
Interactions between plants in mixtures
Plant-to-plant interactions can occur in the above- or below-ground plant
compartments. Interactions will occur in the growth process, especially when the
component species are exploiting growth resources above-and below-ground
(Vandermer, 1989; Willey, 1990; Ong et al., 1996) from the same location or at the
same time. In crop mixtures, any species utilizing the same combination of resources
will be in direct competition. However, based on differences in phenological
characteristics of species in mixtures, the interaction among them may lead to an
increased capture of a limiting growth resource (Willey and Osiru, 1972; Willey, 1979)
and then accrue greater total yield than the cumulative production of those species if
they were grown separately on an equivalent land area (Dapaah et al., 2003). Thus,
mixed culture systems between cereals and legumes may experience a complex series of
inter- and intra-specific interaction (Izaurralde et al., 1990; Giller and Cadisch, 1995;
Evans et al., 2001; Li et al., 2003c) guided by modifications and utilisation of light,
water, nutrients and enzymes.
Rhizosphere interaction in legume cereal mixtures
Most annual crop mixtures such as those involving cereals and legumes are
grown almost at the same period, and develop root systems that explore the same soil
zone for resources ( Reddy et al., 1994; Jensen et al., 2003). Under such conditions,
below-ground competition for resources such as nutrients is most likely to occur. For
example, research has shown that activities in mixed cropping systems involving maize
and cowpea occur between the top 30 – 45 cm of soil, and their density decreased with
depth (Maurya and Lal, 1981; McIntyre et al., 1997). Because of these interactions,
cowpea yields can be reduced significantly relative to that of maize (Watiki et al.,
1993). In contrast to some negative effects on yield, root systems in mixtures may
provide some of the major favorable effects on soil and plants. These include, amongst
others, carbon enrichment through carbon turnover (Ridder et al., 1990; Vanlauwe et al.,
1997), release of phenolics, phytosiderophores and carboxylic acids as root exudates by
component plants (Dakora and Phillips, 2002; Dakora, 2003). These molecules play a
major role in the mineral nutrition of plants. For instance, some studies have shown that,
in P-deficient soils, pigeon pea roots use piscidic, malonic, and oxalic acids to solubilise
Fe-, Ca- and Al-bound P (Ae et al., 1990). Once mobilised, P and Fe then become

72
available for uptake by the pigeon pea plant as well as by other associated plant species
and micro flora in the cropping system. In aluminum-toxic soils, oxalate released by
buckwheat roots forms an Al–oxalate complex that renders the Al non-toxic to plants
and mutualistic microbes in the cropping system (Ma et al., 1998). In that way,
productivity of the cultural system is enhanced.

Rhizospheric ph changes in different management systems in legume/cereal

mixtures
Many plants have the ability to modify the pH of their rhizosphere (Hoffland et
al., 1989) and enhance nutrient availability such as P, K, Ca, and Mg, which are
otherwise fixed in unavailable forms (Vandermeer, 1989; Hauggaard-Nielson and
Jensen, 2005). For instance, legumes induce several reactions that modify the
rhizosphere pH (Tang et al., 2001) and affect nutrient uptake (Brady, 1990). For
example, Dakora et al. (2000) have shown that due to pH changes in the rhizosphere,
Cyclopia genistoides, a tea-producing legume indigenous to South Africa, increased
nutrient availability in its rhizosphere by 45 – 120% for P, 108 – 161% for K, 120 –
148% for Ca, 127 – 225% for Mg and 117 – 250% for boron (B) compared with bulk
non-rhizosphere soil. Hence, legumes may take up higher amounts of base cations, and
in the process of balancing internal charge, release H ions into the rhizosphere that
results in soil acidification (Jarvis and Robson, 1983; Dakora and Phillips, 2002; Cheng
et al., 2004). Other legumes such as alfalfa, chickpea, lupines, and cowpea can release
considerable amounts of organic anions and lower their rhizosphere pH, a condition
conducive for the hydrolysis of organic P and hence improving P nutrition for plants
and micro organism in the soil. In the same context, white lupine (Lupinus albus)
exuded organic acids anions and protons that lowered rhizosphere pH and recovered
considerable amounts of P from the soil and made them more available to wheat than
when it was grown in a monoculture (Horst and Waschkies, 1987; Kamh et al., 1999).
Similarly, pigeon pea increased P uptake of the intercropped sorghum by exuding
piscidic acid anions that chelated Fe and subsequently released P from FePO4 (Ae et al.,
1990). In a field experiment, faba bean facilitated P uptake by maize. In another
comparative study, the ability of chickpea to mobilise organic P was shown to be
greater than that of maize due to greater exudation of protons and organic acids by
chickpea relative to maize (Li et al., 2004a). Thus, in mixed cultures, plants such as
cereals, which do not have strong rhizosphere acidification capacity can benefit directly
from nutrients solubilised by legume root exudates. What is, however, not clearly
known is the extent of rhizosphere pH changes in mixed cultures involving nodulated
legumes and cereals and their influence on other biological and chemical processes in
the soil.
Nitrogen fixation in legumes and the associated benefits to the cereal component
Biological nitrogen fixation by grain legume crops has received a lot of attention
because it is a significant N source in agricultural ecosystems (Heichel, 1987; Dakora
and Keya, 1997). However, studies on N2 fixation in complex cereal/legume mixtures

73
are few (Stern, 1993; Peoples et al., 2002). Intercropping usually includes a legume
which fixes N2 that benefits the system, and a cereal component that depends heavily on
nitrogen for maximum yield (Ofori and Stern, 1986; Cochran and Schlentner, 1995).
Controlled studies have shown a significant direct transfer of fixed-N to the associated
non-legume species (Stern, 1993; Elgersma et al., 2000; Høgh-Jensen and Schjoerring,
2000; Chu et al., 2004). There is evidence that the mineralisation of decomposing
legume roots in the soil can increase N availability to the associated crop (Dubach and
Russelle, 1994; Schroth et al., 1995; Evans et al., 2001). In mixed cultures, where row
arrangements and the distance of the legume from the cereal are far, nitrogen transfer
could decrease. Research has shown that competition between cereals and legumes for
nitrogen may in turn stimulate N2 fixation activity in the legumes (Fujita et al., 1990;
Hardarson and Atkins, 2003). The cereal component effectively drains the soil of N,
forcing the legume to fix more N2.
Soil microbial biomass in legume/cereal mixtures
The microbial biomass is influenced by biological, chemical, and physical
properties of the plant-soil system. Generally, soil and plant management practices may
have greater influence on the level of soil microbial C (Gupta and Germida, 1988; Dick
et al., 1994; Dick, 1997; Alvey et al., 2003). For instance, soil microbial C tend to show
the highest values in cropland and grassland soils and the lowest in bare cultivated soils
(Brookes et al., 1984; Gupta and Germida, 1988). Monoculture systems are expected to
contain reduced amounts of microbial biomass and activities in comparison to those in
mixed cultures (Moore et al., 2000). Studies have indicated that legumes accumulated
greater amounts of soil microbial C in the soil than cereals (Walker et al., 2003). This is
attributed to lower C:N ratio of legume than that of cereal (Uriyo et al., 1979; Brady,
1990). Microbial biomass activities could increase after the addition of an energy
source. The stimulation of soil microbial biomass activity by organic amendments is
higher than that induced by organic fertilisers (Bolton et al., 1985; Goyal et al., 1993;
Höflich et al., 2000).
Soil organic matter content and soil microbial activities, vital for the nutrient
turnover and long term productivity of soil, are enhanced by the balanced application of
nutrient and/or organic matter/manure (Bolton et al., 1985; Guan, 1989; Kanchikerimath
and Singh, 2001). Under conditions of adequate nutrient supply such as P, the microbial
biomass C will be increased due to improved plant growth and increased turnover of
organic matter in the soil (Bolton et al., 1985). Whether the management practices in
mixed cultures involving legumes and cereals may favour the stimulation of biological
soil activity and, thus, result in a higher turnover of organic substrates in the soil that are
utilised by micro-organisms is a good subject to be investigated. Although there is a lot
of information that show the relationship between soil management and soil microbial
activity, little is known about these effects under mixed cultures such as those practised
by farmers in the tropical / subtropical environments (Dick, 1984; Dick et al., 1988;
Deng and Tabatabai, 1996). In this context, the measurement of their activities could
provide useful information concerning soil health, and also serve as a good index of
biological status in different crop management systems.
74
Phosphatase activity in legume/cereal mixtures
Plants have evolved many morphological and enzymatic adaptations to tolerate
low phosphate availability. This includes transcription activity of acid phosphatases,
which tends to increase under P starvation (Tarafdar and Jungk, 1987; Goldstein, 1992;
Duff et al., 1994; del Pozo et al., 1999). Phosphatase enzymes in the soil serve several
important functions, and are good indicators of soil fertility (Dick and Tabatai, 1992;
Eivazi and Tabatabai, 1997; Dick et al., 2000). Under conditions of P deficiency, acid
phosphatase secreted from roots is increased (Nakas et al., 1987). Gilbert et al. (1999)
found that white lupin roots from P-deficient plants had significantly greater acid
phosphatase activity in both the root extracts and the root exudates than comparable
samples from P-sufficient plants. At different stress levels, these enzymes release
phosphate from both cellular and extra cellular organic compounds. The transcripts and
activity of phosphate transporters are increased to optimise uptake and remobilisation of
phosphate in P-deficient plants. It is thought that these morphological and enzymatic
responses to P starvation are coordinated by both general stress-related and P-specific
signalling systems. The amount of acid phosphatase secreted by plants is genetically
controlled, and differs with crop species and varieties as well as crop management
practices (Wright and Reddy, 2001). Some studies have shown that the amount of
enzymes secreted by legumes were 72 % higher than those from cereals (Yadav and
Tarafdar, 2001). Li et al. (2004a) found that, chickpea roots were also able to secrete
greater amounts of acid phosphatase than maize.
The activity of acid phosphatase is expected to be higher in biologically
managed systems because of higher quantity of organic C found in those systems. In
fact, the activity of acid and alkaline phosphatase was found to correlate with organic
matter in various studies (Guan, 1989; Jordan and Kremer, 1994; Aon and Colaneri,
2001). It is, therefore, anticipated that management practices in mixed cultures that
induce P stress in the rhizosphere, may also affect the secretion of these enzymes.
ALLELOPATHY
The phenomenon of allelopathy, where a plant species chemically interferes
with the germination, growth or development of other plant species has been known for
over 2000 years. Statements as early as 300 years BC points to the phenomenon that
many crop plants, including chick pea (Cicer arietinum) and barley (Hordeum vulgare),
inhibit the growth of weeds and crop plants other than barley (Rice 1984).
The term allelopathy, was introduced by Molisch in 1937, and is derived from
the Greek words allelon ‘of each other’ and pathos ‘to suffer’ and mean the injurious
effect of one upon the other (c.f. Rizvi et al. 1992). However, the term is today
generally accepted to cover both inhibitory and stimulatory effects of one plant on
another plant (Rice 1984). Some use the term in a wider sense, for instance
entomologists, who include the effects of secondary compounds on plant-insect
interactions.

75
Definition
In 1996 The International Allelopathy Society defined allelopathy as follows:
“Any process involving secondary metabolites produced by plants, micro-organisms,
viruses, and fungi that influence the growth and development of agricultural and
biological systems (excluding animals), including positive and negative effects” (Torres
et al. 1996).
Allelochemicals
Chemicals released from plants and imposing allelopathic influences are termed
allelochemicals or allelochemics. Most allelochemicals are classified as secondary
metabolites and are produced as offshoots of the primary metabolic pathways of the
plant. Often, their functioning in the plant is unknown, but some allelochemicals are
known also to have structural functions (e.g. as intermediates of lignification) or to play
a role in the general defence against herbivores and plant pathogens (e.g. Einhellig
1995, Corcuera 1993, Niemeyer 1988).
Allelochemicals can be present in several parts of plants including roots, rhizomes,
leaves, stems, pollen, seeds and flowers. Allelochemicals are released into the
environment by root exudation, leaching from aboveground parts, and volatilisation
and/or by decomposition of plant material (Rice 1984).
Ways of releasing allelochemicals
Allelopathic chemicals are released from the plants as:
• Vapour-from root and leaf (through stomata)
• Foliar leachate
• Root exudate
• Breakdown/decomposition product of dead plant parts
• Seed extract
Volatilization- Allelopathic trees release a chemical in a gas form through small
opening in their leaves. Other plants absorb the toxic chemicals and die.
Leaching- All plants lose leaves. Some plants store protective chemicals in the leaves
they drop. When the leaves fall to the ground, they decompose and give off chemicals
that protect the plant. Fall foliage tends to release more potent allelochemicals the fresh,
spring foliage. Water-soluble phytotoxins may be leached from roots or aboveground
plant parts or they my be actively exuded from living roots. Rye and quackgrass release
allelopathic chemicals from rhizomes or cut leaves.
Exudation- Some plants release defensive chemicals into the soil through their roots. The
released chemicals are absorbed by the roots of nearby trees. Exuding compounds are
selectively toxic to other plants. Exudates are usually various Phenolic compounds (e.g.,
coumarins) that tend to inhibit development.

76
Types of allelopathy
Alloallelopathy: It is inter-specific chemical co-action. Allelochemicals are toxic to
other species other than species which release it. e.g. maize is allelopathic for
Chenopodium, Amaranthus etc.
Autoallelopathy: It is intra-specific chemical co-action. Allelochemical are toxics to
same species from which they are released. e.g. wheat, alfalfa, cowpea, rice, apple etc.
True allelopathy: It refers to the release into the environment of chemical compound
that are toxicin the forms they are produced by the plants.
Functional allelopathy: It refers to the release into the environment of compound that
is toxic after chemical modification by micro-organisms.
Concurrent/direct allelopathy: It refers to instantaneous direct effect of released
toxins from the living plants to another growing in vicinity. It is also called ‘live plant
effect’. e.g. sorghum suppress many weeds growing in vicinity.
Residual allelopathy: It is the effect obtained on the plants growing in succession from
the decaying residues, leaf litters, stems, roots of the previous plants. e.g. sorghum is
allelopathic to wheat and Phalaris minor and sweet potato to cowpea.
Some examples of allelopathy are given below:-
1. Weed on Crop:
• Agropyron repens (Quackgrass)- maize and potato. Ethylene is
generated in quackgrass rhizomes due to microbial activity in soil.
• Avena fatua (Wild oat)- winter annuals like wheat, barley and oats.
• Cynodon dectylon (Bermunda grass)- Barley
• Cyperus esculentus (Yellow nut sedge)- maize, soybean and orchards.
the effect on soybean is due to the allelopathic compounds-vanillic acid,
hydroxybenzoic acid in the yellow nut sedge extract.
• Sorghum halepense- sugarcane, maize, soybean etc.
• Setaria viridis (Gaint foxtail)- maize
2. Weed on Weed:
• Impereta cylindrical- annual broadleaf weed i.e. Borreria
hispada(Button weed)
• Soghum helepense- setaria viridis, Digitaria sanguinalis (Large
crabgrass) and Amarantus spinosusi(Spiny amarath)
3. Crop on Weed:
• Coffea Arabica(Coffee) release 1,3,7-trimethyxanthin which inhibits
germination on Amaranthus spinosus (Spiny amaranth)

77
 • Zea mays root extract increase catalase and peroxidise activity of the
weeds which inhibits their growth.
• Oat, pea and wheat suppress the growth of Chenopodium album
(Lamsquarter).

Effects of allelopathy:
Commonly cited effects of allelopathy include reduced seed germination and
seedling growth. Likesynthetic herbicides, there is no common mode of action or
physiological target site for all allelochemicals. However, known sites of action for
some allelochemicals include cell division, pollen germination, nutrient uptake,
photosynthesis, and specific enzyme function. Allelopathic inhibition is complex and
can involve the interaction of different classes of chemicals like phenolic compounds,
flavonoids, terpenoids, alkaloids, steroids, carbohydrates, and amino acids, with
mixtures of different compounds sometimes having a greater allelopathic effect than
individual compounds alone. Furthermore, physiological and environmental stresses,
pests and diseases, solar radiation, herbicides, and less than optimal nutrient, moisture,
and temperature levels can also affect allelopathic weed suppression. Different plant
parts, including flowers, leaves, leaf litter and leaf mulch, stems, bark, roots, soil and
soil leachates and their derived compounds, can have allelopathic activity that varies
over a growing season. Allelopathic chemicals can also persist in soil, affecting both
neighboring plants as well as those planted in succession. Although derived from plants,
allelochemicals may be more biodegradable than traditional herbicides but may also
have undesirable effects on non-target species, necessitating ecological studies before
widespread use. Selective activity of tree allelochemicals on crops and other plants has
also been reported. For example, Leucaena leucocephala, the miracle tree promoted for
revegetation, soil and water conservation and animal improvements in India, also
contains a toxic, non-protein amino acid in leaves and foliage that inhibits the growth of
other trees but not its own seedlings. Leucaena species have also been shown to reduce
the yield of wheat but increase the yield of rice. Leachates of the chaste tree or box elder
can retard the growth of pangolagrass but stimulate growth of bluestem, another pasture
grass. Allelochemical concentrations in the producer plant may also vary over time and
in the plant tissue produced. Foliar and leaf litter leachates of Eucalyptus species, for
example, are more toxic than bark leachates to some food crops.
Prospects for the application of allelopathy to farming
Allelopathic interactions between plants have been studied in both managed and
natural ecosystems. In agricultural systems allelopathy can be part of the interference
between crops and between crops and weeds and may therefore affect the economical
outcome of the plant production. Both crop and weed species with allelopathic activity
are known (e.g. Inderjit & Dakshini 1998, Inderjit & Foy 1999, Putnam & Weston
1985, Weston 1996).

78
 Weed control mediated by allelopathy - either as natural herbicides or through
the release of allelopathic compounds from a living crop cultivar or from plant residues
- is often assumed to be advantageous for the environment compared to traditional
herbicides. Due to their origin from natural sources, some authors suggest that the
allelopathic compounds will be biodegradable and less polluting than traditional
herbicides (e.g. Macias et al. 1998a, 1998b, Narwal et al. 1998). However, other authors
emphasise that even though most compounds derived from natural sources appear to
have short halflives compared to synthetic pesticides, some of these products also have
toxicologically undesirable target effects (Duke et al. 1997). The need of
ecotoxicological studies to unveil the consequences of growing allelopathic cultivars on
large scale has also been stressed (e.g. Olofsdotter 1999).
With the possibility for development of genetically modified crops with
enhanced allelopathic effect, the ecological consequences of the growth of such crops
must be considered. This includes the possible spread of allelopathic plants to other
ecosystems than the agricultural and spread of allelopathic traits to other plants.
Factor affecting Allelopathic effect
• Varieties
• Specificity- there is a significant degree of specificity in allelopathic effects.
Thus, a crop which is strongly allelopathic against one weed may show little or
no effect against another.
• Autotoxicity
• Crop on crop effects- Larger seeded crops are affected less and transplanted are
not affected.
• Environmental factors- several factors impact on the strength of the
allelopathic effect. These include pests and disease and especially soil fertility.
Low fertility increases the production of allelochemicals. After incorporation the
allelopathic effect declines fasted in warm wet conditions and lowest in cold wet
conditions.
Indication of allelopathy
• Autotoxicity : Allelopathy occurring among individuals of the same species is
termed autotoxicity. Autotoxicity is known for example in Medicago sativa
(alfalfa), Trifolium spp. (clovers) and Asparagus officinalis (asparagus).
• Residue effect: Inhibitory effects on germination and establishments of crops
caused by residues of either crops or weeds have lead to investigation of the
release of toxic compounds from such residues. For example, the allelopathic
interference of both living plant and of plant residues of the highly aggressive
weed Elytrigia repens, quackgrass, has been strongly indicated (Weston &
Putnam 1985).
• Hazardous weeds: In cases where the success of a plant, typically a weed, can
not be explained by the competitive ability, allelopathy has been suspected to
play a role. Investigations of such observations have established or strongly
indicated an allelopathic activity of weeds, e.g. Avena fatua (wild oat), E. repens
(quackgrass), Cirsium arvense (Canada thistle) and Stellaria media (common

79
 chickweed) (Putnam & Weston 1986, Seigler 1996, Inderjit & Dakshini 1998).
Reduced weed problems within a crop may indicate that the seed germination or
development of weedy species is inhibited by the release of allelo-chemicals
from the crop. This has for example been reported in cultivated fields of some
Brassica species, where no herbicides were applied (Weston 1996). Also in
fields of cultivated sunflower, the weed biomass was equally reduced in plots
with or without herbicide treatments (Leather 1983).
• Halo zone and fairy rings: The observation of a weed-free zone around some
up-land rice cultivars in a germplasm collection growing in a weed infested field
has initiated an extensive research programme with the aim of finding
allelopathic rice cultivars for weed control. Weed free zones (80-90% weed
control) with a radius of up to 20 cm has been observed (Dilday 1994).

“Fairy rings” has also been observed both in fields with wild and cultivated
sunflower (Helianthus rigidus and H. annuus, respectively). These rings are
characterised by a decrease in the number of plants, and inflorescences as well
as smaller size of individual plants in the middle of the ring (Rice 1984). Distinct
zones with sparse or without vegetation has been observed around some shrubs
in chaparrals (Rice 1984, Williamson 1990) and under a number of trees
(reviewed by Kohli 1998). This includes the observation of the inhibition of
adjoining plants by Juglans nigra (black walnut) back in 1881 by Stickney &
Hoy (Rice 1984).
• Replanting and reforestry problems: Allelopathy has been investigated as an
explanation of the difficulties of replanting fruit trees in orchards - for example
apple (Malus spp.), citrus (Citrus spp.) and peach (Prunus persica) (Rice 1984,
Putnam & Weston 1986).
The role of allelopathy in the interaction between forest trees and their
understory species is also of current interests. For example, inadequate natural
regeneration and reduced growth of planted seedlings has been attributed to the
release of allelochemicals by herbaceous vegetation. Especially ericaceous
shrubs have been investigated for their effect on seed germination, rooting
ability and seedling growth of conifers (e.g. Mallik 1998, Pellisier & Souto
1999, Zackrisson & Nilsson 1992)
• Pure stand: An example frequently referred to, is the formation of pure stands
of Brassica nigra (black mustard), after invading annual grasslands of coastal
California. In these pure stands of B. nigra, other plant species could not
successfully invade (Bell & Muller 1973).
• Minor changes: In other cases the effect of allelopathic activity may not be
observed immediately if the development of visual symptoms is slow (Putnam &
Tang 1986). Interactions may be caused by marginal but persistent presence of
allelochemicals. This can result in changes in floristic diversity and in changes
in the distribution patterns of some plant species within a community (e.g.

80
 Chaves & Escudero 1997, Gentle & Duggin 1997). A reduction in the number of
the plant species sensitive to allelochemicals might not be noticed at short term.
Allelopathic activity of selected crops
Rye (Secale cereale):
The allelopathic activity of rye has mainly been investigated in relation to the
weed suppressive ability when used as green manure or as cover crop. The release of
allelochemicals via root exudates has also been documented (e.g. Barnes & Putnam
1986, 1987, Creamer et al. 1996, Hoffman et al. 1996).
Allelochemicals identified from rye:
Phenolic acids: The Phenolic acids beta-phenyl-lactic acid (PLA) and beta-
hydroxybutyric acid (BHA) have been identified as allelochemicals in water extracts of
rye residues.
Hydroxamic acids: DIBOA (2,4-dihydroxy-1,4(2H)-benzoxazin-3-one)amd
BOA (2(3H)-benzoxazolinone) has also been isolated from root and shoot tissue of rye
and were found to be toxic to many weed species,e.g. inhition of the germination of
wild oat (Avena fatua). In water, DIBOA decomposes immediately to BOA. Additional
phytotoxic compounds may be formed by microbial transformation of compounds from
rye residues. AZOB (2,2’-oxo- 1,1’-azobenzene), an azoperoxide, has been isolated
from nonsterilised soil after addition of BOA or DIBOA. AZOB was found to be more
toxic to seedling growth than BOA or DIBOA in seedling bioassays (Nair et al. 1990).
The release of hydroxamic acids from rye cultivars during the period between
emergence and first leaf stage has been reported. The concentrations of BOA and
DIBOA in rye shoots are influenced by nutrient availability and were highest when rye
was grown under low or moderate nutrient availability compared to high availability
(Mwaja et al. 1995). In the studies by Mwaja et al. (1995), the higher concentration of
hydroxamic acids in shoots were found to correlate with an enhanced toxicity of rye
residues. Also, the iron status of the plant significantly affects the release of
hydroxamates from rye seedlings. When rye seedlings were grown in a nutrient solution
containing iron, the secretion of hydroxamates increased considerably.
Among the species inhibited by rye allelochemicals, the following cultivated and
weedy species have been mentioned: Echinochloa crusgalli, Lactuca sativa, Lepidum
sativum, Panicum miliaceum and Lycopersicon esculentum (Barnes & Putnam 1986,
1987, Hoffmann et al. 1996, Mwaja et al. 1995). Hydroxamic acids from rye suppressed
the growth of wild oat Avena fatua (Friebe et al. 1996, Pérez & Ormemeño-Núñez
1993), whereas Avena sativa showed high tolerance to hydroxamic acids (Friebe et al.
1996). In a field plot with a rye cultivar exuding hydroxamic acid, the total biomass of
the mixed population of the following species was reduced: Veronica persica, Lamium
amplexicaule, Chenopodium album, Polygonum aviculare and Bilderdykia convolvulus.

81
Wheat (Triticum aestivum)
Wheat allelochemicals: Phenolic acids and Hydroxamic acids
(DIMBOA,DIBOA and MBOA). It has been documented that DIBOA and DIMBOA
accumulate in the roots and in the leaves of wheat during germination. DIMBOA and its
decomposition product MBOA have been tested for their effect on wild oat, Avena
fatua, and both compounds inhibits root growth and seed germination (Pérez 1990). The
decomposition product, MBOA, inhibited the seed germination of A. fatua more than
DIMBOA when tested at concentrations between 0 and 8 mM (Pérez 1990). This was
suggested to be due to the documented and significant faster and more extensive uptake
of MBOA than of DIMBOA by the tested seeds (Pérez 1990). When comparing the
uptake of the two compounds the transformation of DIMBOA to MBOA in the plant
should also be taken into account.
Increase in temperature increase hydroxamic acids but with the increase in iron,
the secretion of hydroxamate decreased. In contrast, the secretion of hydroxamates from
rye roots increased considerably when rye seedlings where grown under the same
experimental conditions.
Barley (Hordeum vulgare/Hordeum spp.)
Barley is known as a “smother” crop. This effect has both been attributed to the
competitive ability for nutrients and water and to the direct effect of allelochemicals
released from barley. Also the residues of barley have been associated with
phytotoxicity (Overland 1966, Lovett & Hoult 1995).
Barley allelochemicals:
Phenolic acids- ferulic, vanilic and p-hydroxybenzoic acids
Alkaloids- gramine (N,N-dimrthyl-3-amino-mehtyliodole) and hordenine (N,N-
dimethytyramine)
Hydroxamic acids- DIBOA only in the wild barley not in cultivated barley
Release of allelochemicals from barley:
The release of alkaloids has been documented both from roots and from leaves
of living plants. Gramine is not present in seeds or roots of barley, but is a constituent of
barley leaves. In the leaves, gramine is located in mesophyll parenchyma and in
epidermis. Both the surface gramine and some inner gramine can be released by rain
(artificial rain, 20 min of treatment) (Hanson et al. 1981, Yoshida et al. 1993). The
content of gramine in barley shoots reaches a maximum during the first two weeks of
growth of barley seedlings, decreasing afterwards (Hanson et al. 1983, Lovett et al.
1994) to near zero for some genotypes.
Hordenine is not found in seeds of barley, but appears in the roots from the first
day of germination and can be released from roots of barley for up to 60 days in a
hydrophonic system. From one barley line, the maximum release of hordenine,
2gplant-1 day-1 was observed after 36 days and then declined (Liu & Lovett 1993).

82
 Both gramine and hordenine has been reported to inhibit the growth of various
plants including; Capsella bursa-pastoris (shepherd’s purse), Nicotiana tabaccum
(tobacco), Sinapsis alba, Stellaria media (common chickweed), whereas Triticum
aestivum was not inhibited (Liu & Lovett 1993, Overland 1966). Allelopathic
compounds released from residues of barley apparently inhibit the emergence of Setaria
glauca (yellow foxtail) whereas Solanum ptycanthum (eastern black nightshade) was
apparently only affected by the physical suppression of barley straws (Creamer et al.
1996).
Effects of environmental conditions on the production of barley allelochemicals:
Temperature and availability of nitrates tend to increase gramine content in
barley (Corcuera 1993, Hanson et al. 1983). Also, when barley lines were grown under
increased light intensity and increased temperature at outdoor conditions compared to a
growth chamber, gramine production was enhanced up to 100% for some barley lines
(Lovett et al. 1994). In contrast, the production of hordenine was higher when the plants
were grown under the cooler conditions. The balance of hordenine and gramine
production changes in response to environmental changes (Lovett et al 1994). In
conclusion, the production of allelochemicals by barley is influenced by environmental
conditions e.g. stress. Oats (Avena spp.), Scopoletin is found in oats
Research strategies and potential applicationof allelopathy
The basic approach used in allelopathic research for agricultural crops has been
to screen both crop plants and natural vegetation for their capacity to suppress weeds.
To demonstrate allelopathy, plant origin, production, and identification of
allelochemicals must be established as well as persistence in the environment over time
in concentrations sufficient to affect plant species. In the laboratory, plant extracts and
leachates are commonly screened for their effects on seed germination with further
isolation and identification of allelochemicals from greenhouse tests and field soil,
confirming laboratory results. Interactions among allelopathic plants, host crops and
other non-target organisms must also be considered. Furthermore, allelochemistry may
provide basic structures or templates for developing new synthetic herbicides.
Incorporation of allelopathic traits from wild or cultivated plants into crop plants
through traditional breeding or genetic engineering methods could also enhance the
biosynthesis and release of allelochemicals. An allelopathic crop can potentially be used
to control weeds by planting a variety with allelopathic qualities, either as a smother
crop, in a rotational sequence, or when left as a residue or mulch, especially in low-till
systems, to control subsequent weed growth. Alternatively, application of allelopathic
compounds before, along with, or after synthetic herbicides could increase the overall
effect of both materials, thereby reducing application rates of synthetic herbicides.

83
Chapter7
Competition relations; multi-storied cropping and yield stability in
intercropping

In intercropping the component specie compete for the growth factors the close
proximity of species causes suboptimal utilization of the growth and hence there is
inequitable distribution of resources among the plants generally competition will
develop between two component or within the component for example factor such as
light , water, nutrient , oxygen and CO2.
Light
Photosynthesis active radiation is directly related to photosynthetic rate of component
crops. Intercropping can increase light interception by as much as 30-40 % when one
component is taller than the other in an intercropping system, the taller components
intercept the most of the solar radiation.
The pattern of light interception varies according to age of the crop in the intercropping
situation where the component crops have different growth duration. The peak demand
for light would occur at different times for example in maize + green gram
intercropping. The peak light demand for maize occur at 60 days when green gram
ready for harvest. Proper choice of crops and varieties adjustment of planting density
and pattern are the techniques to reduce the competition and increase the light use
efficiency
Moisture and nutrient
Competition for moisture and nutrient may result in two types of effects on the less
successful or suppressed component. First the roots of this component may grow less on
the sides towards plants of aggressive component. Secondly plants effected by
competition for soil factors may have increased roots- shoot ratio. The aggressive
component generally absorbs greater quantity of nutrient and soil moisture.
Allelopathy
Allelopathy is any direct or indirect harmful effect that one plant has on another through
the production of chemical substance that escape into the environment. SOME crops
may unsuitable to be grown as intercrop because they may produce an excrete toxin into
the soil which are harmful to the associated component .Allelochemicals produce from
the leaves of eucalyptus globules drastically reduce the germination of mustard sown
underneath.

84
 Effect of Allelopathy
Annidation
Annidation refer to the complementary interaction which occur both in space and time
A. Annidation in space
The canopies of component crops may occupy different vertical layers with
taller component tolerant to strong light and high evoparative demand and the
shorter component favouring shade and high relative humidity. Multistoreyed
cropping in coconent and planting shade trees uncoca and tea plantation use this
principle.

B. Annidation in time
When component crops of widely varying duration are planted there peak
demand for light and nutrients are likely to occur at different of periods thus
reducing competition. In a combination having early and late maturing crops
when early maturing crops are harvested condition become favorable for the late
maturing crop to put forth its full vigour.
Multi-story/Multi-tierCropping
It is a system of growing together, crops of different heights at the same time on the
same piece of land and thus using land, water, and space most efficiently and
economically i.e coconut + pepper + pineapple + grass.

85
Cocoa, pepper offer better returns in coconut intercropping
Intercropping coconut gardens with cocoa and pepper is the only alternative for
sustainable farming instead of depending on monocropping alone. While cocoa gives
good results as an intercrop under coconuts assuring better returns than the main crop,
pep per being a twiner will also grow on coconuts promising reasonable income
according to Mr Thomas John, General Manager (Cocoa Operations), Cadbury India
Ltd.
This `three-in-one system' is most relevant now especially when the prices of almost all
plantation crops have reached rockbottom and created an alarming situation throughout
the State.

Cocoa intercropping with coconut

Speaking on the economics of intercropping coconut gardens with cocoa, Mr
Thomas John said while coconut after 10 years gives an income of Rs 12,000 per 100
nuts per palm, cocoa offers after four years Rs 28,000 per 2 kg dry beans per plant
based on a calculation of 48 coconut palms and 350 (2 rows) cocoa plants from a unit
area of one acre.Sustainability of coconut cultivation totally depends on inter-cropping
as prices have crashed and farmers are finding it difficult to get on and in this context
cocoa is the most suited perennial intercrop.Though some are cultivating yam, banana
etc as intercrops, they are only seasonal and as such, the returns are not economically
viable. But cocoa is dependable as it gives sustainable income. The growers could grow
pepper also on coconuts.This three-in-one pattern is successfully undertaken in
Kozhikode areas and some other parts where rubber has reached slaughter stage after
normal life of tapping. Cocoa can be grown there as intercrop among rubber and pepper
also could be grown on rubbe r trees. It gives satisfactory results per a unit area per acre,
said Mr Thomas.Depending on a monocrop is not sustainable. Therefore, there must be
at least two or three crops in a unit area which are compatible and mutually beneficial.
There has to be problems as price crash, demand-supply situations etc. and to overcome
this a ne w pattern has to be followed.Domestic need for cocoa is also high. As against
the demand for 13,500 tonnes in 1998, the supply was only 5,200 tonnes. To fill up the
gap, 8,300 tonnes of cocoa was imported. In 2000, too, the country had to import 10,850

86
tonnes as the cocoa demand was at 17,850 tonnes against the production of 7,000
tonnes.It is estimated that by 2005, the country might require 31,450 tonnes against a
supply of only 10,000 tonnes. The country will have to depend on an import of 21,450
tonnes to meet the increasing domestic demand.
Intercropping Tea with Rubber
The tappers have counted all the rubber trees in the 10 acres of our garden. There are
960 trees in our Estate. The average tree density of rubber is about 160 trees. Whereas
ours is 96, that is nearly 60% of the tree density of an average rubber plantation. The
low tree density has both advantages and disadvantages. The direct impact is the low
yeild per acre. We cannot expect more than 30 kilos of daily avarge yeild from the
pentire plantation. That is less than 20 kilos of our initial expectation.

Intercropping Tea and Rubber Tree & Coconut

Advantages of Multistorey cropping
• Better use of growth resources including light, nutrient and water.
• Suppression of weeds reduced plant and disease incidence yield stability.
• Ecological stability i.e improvement of soil health and agro-ecosystem.
• Other e.g. spreading of labour, physical support of one crop to another and home
gardening leading to amore pluriform food supply is a good example of
realization of multistory advantages.
Disadvantages of Multistorey cropping
• Labour intensive.
• Control of pest and disease or chemical weed control may be difficult.
• Mechanisation is difficult to realize.
• Disadvantages caused by adverse competitive effect or by allelopothy.

87
Yield stability in intercropping system
Sorghum based system

Sorghum + pigeonpea intercropping Groundnut +Sorghum inter cropping

1. Four contrasting intercropping systems, sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.)
Moench)/pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.), groundnut (Archis
hypogaeaL.)/pigeonpea, sorghum/pearl millet (Pennisetum americanum (L.)
Leeke), and groundnut/pearl millet, were evaluated along with sole crops from
1979 to 1982, each year in nine different situations spread over different soil
types and agronomic managements, with the objective of analysing the
productivity and risk associated with these systems. Productivity of intercrops
was closely related to the diversity of the crops involved. The two pigeonpea-
based systems, with an interval of about 3 months between harvests of the crops,
showed a large and consistent advantage over the respective sole crops. On the
basis of land productivity, sorghum/pigeonpea averaged 49% and
pigeonpea/groundnut 53% advantage over their respective sole-crop yields. In
economic terms, these intercrops were also more profitable than the respective
sole crops. The other two systems, with only 2–4 weeks' difference between
harvests of the components, showed a much lower and less-consistent
advantage. The groundnut/millet recorded 18% advantage and the
sorghum/millet 7% over their respective sole crops. Risk was measured by
calculating the probability of success or failure of intercrops in satisfying
specified quantities of yields or income in comparison with an optimal shared
sole system having some of both sole crops. Pigeonpea-based intercropping
systems were less risky than shared (or optimal) sole crops over a wide range of
expected yields or income. There was no advantage for the sorghum/millet
intercropping compared with the shared sole crops at lower expectation, and for
higher expectations sole sorghum should be preferred to the intercrop. Risk from
groundnut/millet was less than from the shared sole system only in limited
situations. Reduced risk of pigeonpea-based intercrops was associated with
higher productivity and lower variability of combined intercrop yields or
income. The methods employed in this study can be extended for risk evaluation
in other intercropping and mixed systems.
2. Experimental evidence on yield stability of intercropping is sparse. This work
was carried out to examine the stability of four intercrop patterns: maize (Zea
88
 mays L.)/cowpea (Vigna unguiculata(L.) Walp); maize/common bean
(Phaseolus vulgaris L.); sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench)/cowpea; and,
sorghum/common bean against their component crops. Twenty-one trials were
established from 1974 to 1978. The mean relative yield advantage of
intercropping patterns as indicated by the land equivalent ratio (LER) was 32%.
The combined analysis of variance for the absolute total yields revealed that
most of the pattern × environment interaction is accounted for by the
heterogeneity of regressions. Pulses were less responsive to environmental
change. However, cereals were more responsive to improvement in the
environment resulting in increased yield. The regression lines of the
intercropping patterns and sole cereals were closer to each other, due to the low
yield contribution of the pulses to the intercropping total yield. However, the
slopes of the intercropping pattern lines were closer to b = 1.0. On the basis of
mean yield and regression slope, it was demonstrated that sole cereals or
intercropping have better performance stability than sole pulses in northeastern
Brazil.
Soybean –maize
Four improved varieties of soybean (TGX 1448-2E, TGX 1445-2E, TGX 1485-
1D and TGX 1019-2E) were evaluated for growth and yield performance under
intercropping system with maize and cassava at Ibadan and Oniyo in 2001 and 2002.
Plant height at harvest, number of pods per plant, weight of 100 seeds and seed yield
were used to assess the performance of improved varieties of soybean while grain yield
and fresh tuber yield were considered for maize and cassava under the intercropped.
Combined analysis of variance of growth and yield parameters showed variations
among improved varieties of soybean, maize and cassava for intercropping, location,
year and their interactions.

Soybean -maize
Soybean variety TGX 1485-1D with highest number of pods per plant, weight of
100 seeds and seed yield was the most desirable variety for intercropping with
maize and cassava across the two locations. Maize grain yield and cassava fresh
tuber yield were similar among the four improved varieties of soybean in their

89
response under the intercropped across the two locations. Higher seed yields of
soybean varieties were obtained from Oniyo (derived savanna agro ecology)
compared to Ibadan (rain forest agro ecology) probably due to differences in
climatic conditions. The study has indicated that TGX 1485-1D, which was highest
yielding across the different locations, will fit well into the farming systems of
small-scale farmers of Southwest Nigeria.
Vegetables intercropping

Corn-patoto intercropping
1. Research project entitled "Growth, yield and economic dynamics of
intercropping in vegetables" was conducted at Horticultural Research Farm,
Malkander, NWFP Agricultural University, Peshawar (Pakistan) during 1998-
2000. Summer and winter vegetables were evaluated alone and in various
combinations for their growth and yield performances under competition. Each
plot was 4x4 meters whereas number of rows varied depending on kind of
vegetables. In summer, tomato was intercropped with okra, potato, com, chili
and eggplant whereas among winter vegetables, pea was tested in combination
with cauliflower, potato, lettuce, radish, turnip, coriander and spinach. All
vegetables generally yielded more when grown as a single crop. But the focus of
this study was to evaluate them in combinations. Pea + radish intercropping was
found the most economical. This combination gave significantly maximum net
income of Rs. 181648 ha-1 due to highest land equivalent ratio (1.54), followed
by yield of pea and radish (6.5 and 68.2 t ha-1 respectively) resulting net income
of Rs. 80800 ha-l from pea -lettuce combination, which yielded (7.0 and 5.5 t
ha-1 respectively). Pea intercropped with spinach and potato remained least
economical and resulted in the minimum net income of Rs. 432l5 and Rs. 44949
ha-1 respectively. Similarly, summer vegetables showed more yields when
grown as single crops, than their respective yields in intercropping except
tomato grown in okra and corn. The best companion of tomato was okra and
their combination gave maximum net income of Rs. 134241ha-1 due to
maximum yield of tomato (27.61 t ha-l) as compared to that in sole crop (20.34 t
ha-l) and high market price of both vegetables. Tomato + corn combination
resulted highest net income of Rs. 12579 due to high yields of tomato in

90
 intercropping and stability of corn yield in both years. The maximum net income
was also due to market price of tomato and corn. The least income (Rs.59486
ha-l) has been recorded from intercropping tomato with potato due to high
reduction in yield of both vegetables and high cost of production. These results
have shown heavy reduction in yields of all vegetables (grown alone or in
combination) in hot summer of 2000 compared to those in mild summer in 1999.
The temperature difference in both years was apparently negligible but it
communicated a message that even such minor fluctuations in temperature can
hardly devastate crop yields.
Multi-storied tree/cropping system:
A sustainable land use system and vertical yield achievements in a landscarce
community forestry conditions
A case study of Bangladesh
Introduction
In Bangladesh, the need for maintaining the population-food-nutrition balance can
hardly be overemphasized. The country, which has only 8.16 million hectares (ha) of
arable land, has to feed about 120 million people. The population has doubled in the last
30 years, the population density is 806 persons per square kilometer. Two important
implications of the rapidly expanding population are that per capita land availability has
declined from 0.19 ha in 1961 to 0.101 ha in 1992, which puts heavy pressure on land
for human habitation and crop production. In fact, in Bangladesh, most of the native
fruits, country vegetables, fuelwood and timber come from the homesteads, home yards
and marginal lands attached to or near by homestead. It has been estimated that thirty
thousand hectares of our homesteads provide 80% of total fruits and 85% of fuel wood
and timber. Still then there are very much shortage of food, nutrient and other forest
products. Absolutely there is no scope for increasing land under forestry/agriculture to
fulfill our national demands. Mixed cultivation of trees (fruit/forest) and agricultural
crops under multi-storied system will provide yield vertically and the forest land
brought under effective cultivations. Therefore, a well-planned and well managed multi-
layered cropping can play a great role in improving homestead production and fruit
orchard development in Bangladesh. Multiple cropping specially multi-layer homestead
production systems should be emphasized. Since the space limitation in the homestead,
multi-storied cropping should be encouraged which could produce more economic
return per unit area. Without increasing the land area the production of these items may
be increased considerably using management technology of horticulture and
agroforestry under multi-storied cropping system. The utilization of land should be done
in such a way (multi-layered gardens) that is also maintains the ecological balance in the
region. The multi-layer production system also enhance to utilization of the natural
resources (light, soil nutrient, land, etc.) properly.

91
Advantages of multiple cropping system
i. Multi-layered cropping systems are quite important for Bangladesh in view of
the scarcity of land, a plentiful supply of labour and a non-mechanized approach
to crop production.
ii. Multi-layered cropping helps in proper utilization of natural resources.
iii. Multi-layered cropping specially the combination of medium terms fruits like
papaya, banana, pineapple and annual crops as intercrops will provide the
farmers with a continual cash flow, during the non-bearing years of the fruit
trees (those are alternate bearing habit especially mango trees) and it optimizes
the use of farmers land.
iv. A multiple cropping system is approaches biodiversity in nature, in that any
plant species are represented in a relatively small area. This biodiversity greatly
reduces pest and disease pressure.
Multi-storied/Multi-layered cropping system: The multi-layered cropping system is
found in most of the ecological regions of the tropics and subtropics, but a majority of
them are in the lowlands humid tropics. The population density is generally high in the
homestead gardens. All multi-layered homestead agroforestry system contains some
kind of food crops and many of the trees produce fruits or other forms of food.
However, there are also several secondary outputs from the systems. In a recent study
by Fernandes et. al. (1986) reported that in an average the homestead agroforestry
system produce 15-20% of the total fuelwood requirements of the local households. In
Bangladesh, it has been estimated that thirty thousand hectares of our homesteads
provide 80% of total fruits and 85% of fuelwood and timber (Rahim 1994). Indeed, it is
only possible that a mixed stand of a large number of multipurpose species provide a
variety of products. Multi-layer tree garden or multi-storied cropping are practiced in
and around the homestead of Bangladesh in an unsystematic manner. However, a
systematic system was tried under Ford Foundation project on Crop Diversification
(Rahim 1995) and VFFP project (Farooque et. al. 1996). In this system, natural
resources can be utilized properly. Trees at different layer harvest sunlight at diffferent
strata and also harvest soil nutrient from the different layer by the plants with different
depth of rooting. Environmental protection is also an effect of the multi-storied plant
configuration.
Issues, Ideas and Achievements
Structure of multi-layered homegarden:
A multi-layered Homegardens are characterized by a high species diversity and usually
3-4 vertical canopy strata, thus indicating the intimacy of plant associations. Schematic
presentations of canopy configurations of multi-layered home garden models have been
presented in Fig. 1. Some woody and herbaceous species that are most commonly found
and, therefore, are the characteristics of the systems have also been indicated in the
figures.

92
Three storied cropping in coconut orchard:
The experimental multi-storied cropping system at the horticulture farm of the
Bangladesh Agricultural University under the Village and Farm Forestry Programme
project (VFFP) produced a good indication of multi-storied cropping system in three
layered canopy configuration where the 1st layer consists of aroids (Colocasia) or ginger
or pineapple, the 2nd layer banana and the 3rd layer was coconut. This system is also
economically viable (Table 1). The orchard plants (coconut) also get benefit from the
cultivating under-storey crops.

Three layered cropping system (Pineapple+Banana+Coconut) under VFFP project

Table 1. Income from multi-storied cropping system in coconut orchard

Multi-storied system Income (US$ per hectare)

Coconut+Banana+Taro 420 + 1,530 + 250 = 2,200

Coconut+Banana+Ginger 420 + 1,530 + 2,040 = 3,990
Coconut+Banana+Pineapple 420 + 1,530 + 1,260 = 3,210
Coconut+Banana 420 + 1,990 = 2,410
Monocrop system (Coconut) 540 = 540
Coconut+Pasture 540 + 105 = 645

Three/two storied cropping in mango orchard:

Under the mango orchard pineapple and papaya grown very well. At the horticulture
farm of BAU under mango orchid papaya and pineapple are grown very well (Fig. 3).
93
Under same conditions, mango and pineapple grown successfully. These two/three
storied system also given high economic return per unit area (Table 2).

Three storied (pineapple+papaya+mango) cropping in mango orchard

Two storied (pineapple+mango) cropping in mango orchard

94
Table 2. Income from multi-storied cropping system in mango orchard

Multi-storied system Income (US$ per hectare)

Mango (on year) + Pineapple 1,650 + 1,260 = 2,910

Mango (off year) + Pineapple 105 + 1,290 = 1,395
Mango (on year) + Papaya+Pineapple 1,450 + 605 + 1,120 = 3,175
Mango (off year) + Papaya+Pineapple 150 + 1,020 + 1,260 = 2,430
Mango+Pasture 1,450 + 60 = 1,510

Suggested structure for multi-layered system in Bangladesh

In general terms, all homegardens consist of a herbaceous layer near the ground, a tree
layer at the upper level and an intermediate layer in between. The lower layer can
usually be partitioned into two, the lowermost being less than 1.0 m in height,
dominated by different vegetables and medicinal plants, and the second layer of 1.0-3.0
m height being composed of food plants such as cassava, banana, papaya, yams, and so
on. The upper tree layer can also be divided into two, consisting of fully grown timber
and fruit trees occupying the uppermost layer of over 25 m height, and medium-sized
trees of 10-20 m height is dominated by various fruit plants/trees.
Plant/crop selection: Plants/crops selection is an important consideration for multi-
storied cropping. Shade tolerant, shade loving plants/crops should be identified. Another
aspect of the important role of food production in multi-layered homegardens is the
maintenance of almost continuous production throughout the year from the unit. The
combination of crops with different production cycles and rhythms is such that an
uninterrupted supply of food products is maintained. Depending upon the climate and
other environmental characteristics, there may be some peak and lag seasons for
harvesting various products, but, in general, there is something to harvest daily from
homegardens. Most of this production is for home consumption, but marketable surplus
can provide a safeguard against failure and security for the interval between the harvests
of other agricultural crops of the multi-layered homegardens. All these harvesting and
other upkeep operations require only a relatively small amount of working time of the
members of the family.
Multi-layered homegardens – practices and management: The management of
crops in multi-layered gardens specially trees is very important to maximize fruits and
biomass production and also to intensify plant population (Hossain 1991; Farooque and
Rahim 1991; Haque 1991). From the point of planting up to the level of final harvest,
appropriate horticultural practices and technology should be followed for better
utilization of land and more production from the trees and their associates (Farooque
and Rahim 1991).

95
Chapter 8
Role of Non-Monetary Inputs and Low Cost Technology in crop
production

Introduction:
The world as a whole is thinking and conceiving ideas for sustainable
development and the same applies to the agricultural sector in India also. The first green
revolution initiated in 1960’s aimed at securing the nation in terms of food reserves. No
doubt we have achieved the objective but sacrificed or more correctly compromised in
the sustainability of the development. In this new era which throws a no of problems
towards us, we are thinking of a second green revolution due to the alarming rate of
population growth. It is apt to follow the achievements of those countries that have
succeeded in establishing a system for sustainable agriculture development.
Cuban revolution in Organic Agriculture:
In 1990 after the fall of Berlin wall, Cuba was isolated and side lined from all
streams of development by American political brains. Growing food was the major
challenge because America tightened its embargo and newly independent states
scrambled for US and were forced to end all trade with Cuba.Then came the real reform
in organic agricultural sector through non monetary or low cost technologies from
Cuban organic farmers association. They started composting techniques and relied upon
locally available materials. The farmers adopted Bio fertilizers through developing
strains of organisms suitable. The absence of fuel led to the abandoning of tractors and
increased use of Oxen which incorporated farm yard manure into the fields. In 1999
Swedish parliament awarded the alternate Nobel Prize to the association for the
revolution. By 2003 supply of vermicompost became one million tones and by 2006
three million tons of food was produced within the states.
India looking out for second green revolution:
India, looking to launch a second green revolution to boost its food security, has
begun looking at distant South America where countries have been able to ramp up food
production with new technology and farming methods. And to take lessons first-hand,
Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar visited Argentina, Brazil and Mexico last days. A
revolutionary method is ‘no-till farming’, which is applied in 80 percent of the land
cultivated in the Mercosur countries (a trading bloc comprising Brazil, Argentina,
Uruguay and Paraguay,). In this kind of farming, land is not ploughed. Instead, the
agricultural residue of the last plant is allowed to enrich the soil. The seed is then
injected into the soil through special machines. In Zimbabwe also low cost technology
is saving the poor and marginal farmers from alarming price rise for agricultural inputs.

96
Low cost technology or non monetary inputs.
These technologies are locally adaptable techniques which can bring down the
cost of cultivation to a great extent. The good agronomic practices and good cultural
practices like sanitation are included in this.
Timely sowing is very important practice which can affect the productivity to a great
extend. The photoperiod sensitivity and reactions contribute to the above technique.
Optimum plant population is another technique deciding the yield. The tightly
populated field will lead to competition between the plants reducing the yield.
Research work on non monitory inputs
Field experiment with split plot design was conducted to study the effect of
monetary and non-monetary inputs on growth, nutrient uptake, yield and economics of
turmeric. Non-monetary inputs viz., two varieties (BSR 1 and BSR 2) and three planting
time (15 May, 15 June and 15 July); monetary inputs viz., three spacing (30 cm x 15
cm, 45 cm x 15 cm, 60 cm x 15 cm) and three N levels (125, 150 and 175 kg/ha) formed
the treatment combination. Turmeric variety BSR 2 out yielded BSR 1 in terms of
growth, nutrient uptake and yield. Planting the turmeric during middle of May (15 May)
was superior compared to 15 June and 15 July plantings. Among spacing, 30cm x 15cm
recorded significantly higher growth, nutrient uptake and yield than 45 cm x 15 cm and
60 cm x 15 cm. The crop response was better for higher rate of nitrogen (175 kg/ha)
than other levels. Economic evaluation indicated that combination of non-monetary
inputs viz., planting BSR 2 at 15 May with monetary inputs viz., 30 x 15 cm spacing
with 175 kg/ha N would increase the turmeric production and income of the farmers.
Crop rotation and integrated farming systems are also low input technologies suitable
for sustainable crop production. Through these the disease and pest infestation and be
controlled. Integrated farming systems are best examples since the systems are in an
integrated manner and they substitute the inputs between each other.
Some practical low cost technologies:
The mulching and irrigation in tea is a practical example for low cost
technology. The mulching was done with coir pith. Instead of that we started a method
of growing mulch crops in the field and then cutting it and incorporating it as mulch and
then planting tea. Also the sprinkler irrigation system was also not cost effective and
hence we installed Drip irrigation through Jain.
The use of Neem leaves for cereal storage is another low cost technology. Sun
drying is a common low non monetary input which has got lot of prospects in the
processing industry also. VRIKSHAYURVEDA is a young science to be researched
and developed since it carries low cost techniques and non monetary inputs like use of
panchagavya. Last but not the least, Kerala has got a huge potential in harnessing these
low cost technologies since the ‘know how’ is there from the age old organic practices
in cultivation. The concern is how we are going to conceive, extend, administer and
practice those techniques.

97
Low-cost culture technology using family farm resources, feeding fish with home-
made feed.
Communication tools
The purpose of using extension teaching aids is to make the communication more
effective. However, there is complete dearth of appropriate teaching aids and tools on
aquaculture to be used by the rural farming communities and extension personnel in
most of the developing countries. Extension delivery system need to be strengthened
through making improvements in the quality of materials used and the instructional
ability of the staff. Use of extension teaching tools helps in making the communication
more effective and meaningful. However, to develop appropriate extension teaching
aids it is necessary to consider the level of literacy of the target group and the local
situation where these tools are expected to be used. It should be noted that majority of
the rural small-scale farmers are either illiterate or semi-literate and very few villages
have proper electricity supply. Again these group of people are not used to class room
type of captive environment. As a result, most of the commonly used aids such as slide
and over head projectors become useless for this purpose. Furthermore, due to
limitations of transport facility and rural road conditions, it is difficult to carry
blackboard, whiteboard, etc. The available manual or guide for the farmers are heavily
text and thus are of little use to the illiterate or semi-literate rural farming communities.
Game card
Cost effective and simple teaching aids were developed by the FAO/TCP/BGD/4451
project which were useful for the farmers and the extension personnel. Special mention
is made about the flannel board set and fish culture card game. Similar training aids also
need to be developed for other appropriate technology packages like fish seed rearing,
fish breeding, family level integrated fish farming etc. Based on the principle of
“learning while playing”, a fish culture card game was developed and used with
growing interest. This interesting and inexpensive training tool also helped in
conducting post training evaluation (PTE) and bringing post-training clarity (PTC) even
among illiterate farmers. The kit consists of a set of 31 coloured pictures depicting
various steps of semi-intensive fish culture practice. Cards are reshuffled and each
group of farmer is asked to rearrange the cards in sequence as followed in the culture
practice. After the cards are arranged in sequence each group is asked to participate in
the fault finding exercise.
Farmers playing fish culture game card.
Similar game cards may be developed for other appropriate technology packages. Game
cards displaying various events of fish/shrimp culture technologies were very helpful in
organizing group exercise for effective learning. Extension agents can make game cards
for the technology they intend to transfer, pictures are drawn on card board paper or on
ordinary paper and laminated for long life.
Flannel board set

98
Flannel board set is another simple low cost tool developed by the project which has
been widely accepted by the extension personnel as one of the most practical training
tool for rural Bangladesh. A piece of 1.5 meter flannel cloth, 41 sketches printed on
coloured card board paper, 5-6 sand paper sheets and few ordinary paper clips are the
essential components of this training tool set. It is low cost, convenient to carry and easy
to use in rural conditions where electricity and dark room facilities are seldom available.
It is a display board which works on the principle that one piece of rough textured cloth
adhere or sticks to another rough surface. The support is created by rough textured cloth
such as flannel or a blanket. Figures, graphs, words, symbols etc., drawn on cardboard
and backed by clipped sand paper get readily attached to the board as soon as it is
placed on the board. Flannel board is well adapted for step by step story buildup. The
capacity for building up interesting story and suspense is the main advantage of the
flannel board presentation. Sets of pictures/sketches can be prepared on appropriate
subject/area such as fish breeding, rearing of spawn to fry and fingerling stages,
identification of technical problems related to environment and fish health, and
appropriate measures to taken etc. Flannel board is cheap, can be made locally in a
variety of sizes and can be rolled up and tied to a bicycle for convenience of
transportation. The flannel cloth can be overlaid on wooden planks or hanged against
wall or door and used for sequential presentation by fixing sand paper backed
illustrations one after another. Flannel board set on fish culture was found an effective
and convenient training tool.
Application of folk media
Folk songs are extremely popular and closely integrated with rural life and culture in
most of the developing countries including Bangladesh. There is rich cultural heritage
and as such the people have great love for songs and music in Bangladesh. Some of the
folk songs are very popular among the rural people. Based on the tune of most popular
folk songs lyrics dealing with cultivation of fish, up keep of pond, maintenance of fish
health were recorded. Whenever played in the rural areas, there were quick responses
from the villagers. The music always attracted big crowds. Within a short time some of
the culture methods were at the tip of the tongue of the local rural communities. These
songs were based on the tune of most popular folk songs of Bangladesh and were
played during field based demonstration and training programmes. At times these songs
were also broadcast by radio. The project produced three video films in SVHS and U-
matic systems entitled, “Rameezer Swapna”-Dream of Rameez dealing with success
story of a RDF; “Trickle Down System of Aquaculture Extension” (Bangla and English
versions) and “Fish Culture in Undrainable Rural Ponds” (Bangla and English
versions). The drama was also in line with the folk plays which are popularly played in
rural Bangladesh during winter months. These films featured actual field conditions and
the actors were participating farmers, their family members and field based extension
personnel. Video and audio programmes based on local folk music and drama are
popular among the local communities.

99
Input assistance
It is worth to note that all the demonstrations were organized by the RDFs exclusively
through their own resources. No material or credit input assistance were provided either
by the project or by the Government. Reducing the role of material input/credit
assistance made it easy for the extension officers to concentrate their efforts on
providing technical assistance and training rather than spend their time on credit
delivery and credit recovery activities. It was concluded that pond fish culture extension
service worked more efficiently and smoothly when the credit component was kept
separate from the scope of extension services, especially when the manpower was
limited. A prospective farmer, if needed credit to start fish culture, could be helped in
getting credit assistance from local financial institutions. Alternatively, informal credit,
may be of high interest rate, is always available in the local community. The culture
technology selected for transfer need to be of low-cost, so that most of the inputs are
available as by-products of other farming activities. In rural Bangladesh, even the fish
seed for stocking ponds can be bought on credit from the seed producers/suppliers, and
the money is paid after the first harvest. Opportunity to partially harvest the crop within
three to four months of rearing, ensure quick return of the investment made by the
farmer. A fish farmer like any other professional should start small, grow and gradually
intensify their activities gaining experience.
Extension research linkage
The TDS approach had made provision for divisional / provincial level workshops after
completion of one cropping cycle. This workshop provided a common platform for the
extension agents, senior fisheries officers, selected RDFs and the scientists from the
nearby research station to meet and discuss the various emerging issues. The workshop
also provided opportunity for the participants to get first hand information about the
performance of particular technology packages at the farm level. In such workshops
operational and administrative problems were also discussed. Frank discussions and
exchange of ideas helped scientists to get an insight into field problems and plan for
cost-effective field research. The scientists also got opportunity to brief the group about
some of the recent findings and technology developed by the research institutions, and
offered ready solutions to some of the emerging technical problems.
Driving force and sustainability
The system aimed at building up problem solving capacity among the farmers and their
community and creating an overall friendly environment where farmers, extension
agents, fisheries officers and scientists were encouraged to come closer and work
together by breaking traditional barriers. To facilitate creating such environment several
steps were taken. The most significant was the community meal shared by officers,
extension agents, RDFs and FFs during the course of the training. The meal was simple
and prepared at the site by the participating farmers. Enabling and strengthening
collective action for implementation of their own activities and problem-solving
exercise played increasingly more important role in bringing sustainability.

100
 It was experienced that active involvement of the female members of the family
was essential. They were approached during pond/home visits and invited to attend the
entire training programme. The female members of the family always took the
recommendations more readily and followed the instructions more strictly and
seriously. It was quite evident from the results of the demonstration. In majority of the
cases, results were much better where women member of the family were involved in
the result demonstration activities. Impact of the monetary benefit was also more
pronounced where women took lead role. Women RDFs spent their earnings more
carefully and exclusively for the welfare of their children and family as a whole. This
was a good lessons for neighbors.
Appreciation and recognition generated enthusiasm and initiative. The work of
successful RDFs were frequently appreciated and as a token of official recognition,
medals and other prizes were awarded to them by the authorities. This simple act
created tremendous inspiration among the RDFs. They became more dedicated to their
duties as extension volunteer and took active interest and pride in helping their FFs.
This way they derived pleasure, enjoyed social recognition and respect in their own
community. Some of the best performers were also given national level awards. Notice
boards were placed near their pond/home indicating that they were the extension
volunteers and community level agent representing the DOF. Such acts of appreciation
and recognition were found to be the driving force for the success of TDS approach.
Role of NGOs
Aquaculture was found to be a priority area for NGOs. Many NGOs were actively
working in this area. They were particularly more experienced and efficient in
organizing the rural poor and assisting them in food production / employment
generating activities by utilizing common property resources like community ponds, ox-
bow lakes, seasonal water bodies etc. In view of the limited field level personnel with
the DOF, NGOs were encouraged to participate in the programme. Depending upon
their interest, NGOs workers were also invited to attend the comprehensive training
courses organized for the government field personnel. In view of their growing interest
and at their request exclusive training programme for NGOs were also conducted. In
fact, association of NGOs in the programme catalyzed the horizontal expansion of
aquaculture activities at a much faster rate.
Agriculture as a Social Safety Net
In Thailand and other developing Asian countries, most of which are located in the
tropics, the agricultural sector is fundamental. It is not only a major source of goods and
foreign exchange, but is a way of life for the majority of the population. Agriculture
provides an occupation, culture, traditions and values for rural people, who have long
existed in harmony with nature. Agriculture is also part of the natural capital of the
country, in terms of natural resources, biodiversity and the environment. Whatever
changes occur in the agricultural sector, in one way or another they are likely to affect
the rest of the country.It is a necessary condition for Asian countries in general that
agricultural development is the basic requirement for their overall economic

101
development.In 1997, a serious economic crisis took place in Thailand, before
spreading into other Asian countries. Industrialization based on imported technologies
and borrowed capital had gradually led the country into a foreign debt problem
(approximately US$90,000 million). In addition, the liberalization of the financial
sector, together with speculation in foreign exchange, led Thailand into an unavoidable
currency devaluation. The exchange system of a fixed rate of 1US$ = 26 Baht became a
managed floating system, in which 1US$ = 45 Baht. As a result, stagnation and then
recession have been seen in the industrial and service sectors ever since. This economic
crisis has had, directly and indirectly, at least three significant impacts on the
agricultural sector.
Movement of Capital and Labor into Agriculture
A surplus of capital and unemployed workers, once engaged in the financial, industrial
and service sectors, has moved into agriculture. Investment into agro-industry and
export-oriented agricultural commodities such as food processing, contract farming for
vegetables and shrimp aquaculture, are all increasing. Some people feel that Thailand
should take advantage of this opportunity to concentrate more on food production and
processing, so that the country can be regarded as the "food center" of the world. More
Intensive Use of Agricultural ResourcesSecond, as affected by the first issue,
agricultural resources and the environment, especially farmland, forestland, the coastal
zone and the water supply, have become more intensively utilized. Farm resources and
the environment are expected to deteriorate as a result.
Need to Restructure Agriculture
Agriculture itself thus needs to be restructured, in terms of production planning and
resource use, if it is to sustain itself into the future. If the country continues to promote
commercial agriculture without proper resource planning and appropriate technologies,
agriculture will not be sustainable for long.On the one hand, it seems that the crisis the
financial sector of Thailand has resulted in a crisis for the agricultural sector. Farm-
based resources such as land, water and forest have been affected significantly, due to
increasing demand. On other hand, it seems that whenever Thailand has a crisis,
agriculture has always played an important role as the county's "social safety net",
protecting the country from a worse situation. Agriculture has again and again proved
itself to be the source of comparative advantage to create self-sufficiency for Thailand.
The fertile resource base of agriculture and the structure of rural society in Thailand,
although they may have been ignored during the period of rapid industrial growth,
remain solid assets for the country.From agriculture come benefits such as food
security, household employment, rural community support and various environmental
benefits, which become even more important in critical periods? In addition to
environmental resources, the age-old knowledge and wisdom of Thai farmers still
remains in the agricultural sector as "social capital" which can be utilized. The term
"social safety net", therefore, implies the continued support given by the agricultural
sector to the rest of the country.

102
Chapter 9
Research needs in sustainable agriculture

What is Sustainable Agriculture?

Agriculture has changed dramatically, especially since the end of World War II.
Food and fiber productivity soared due to new technologies, mechanization, increased
chemical use, specialization and government policies that favored maximizing
production. Although these changes have had many positive effects and reduced many
risks in farming, there have also been significant costs. Prominent among these are
topsoil depletion, groundwater contamination, the decline of family farms, continued
neglect of the living and working conditions for farm laborers, increasing costs of
production, and the disintegration of economic and social conditions in rural
communities. A growing movement has emerged during the past two decades to
question the role of the agricultural establishment in promoting practices that contribute
to these social problems. Today this movement for sustainable agriculture is garnering
increasing support and acceptance within mainstream agriculture. Not only does
sustainable agriculture address many environmental and social concerns, but it offers
innovative and economically viable opportunities for growers, laborers, consumers,
policymakers and many others in the entire food system.
Sustainable agriculture integrates three main goals--environmental health,
economic profitability, and social and economic equity. A variety of philosophies,
policies and practices have contributed to these goals. People in many different
capacities, from farmers to consumers, have shared this vision and contributed to it.
Despite the diversity of people and perspectives, the following themes commonly
weave through definitions of sustainable agriculture. Sustainability rests on the principle
that we must meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs. Therefore, stewardship of both natural and human
resources is of prime importance. Stewardship of human resources includes
consideration of social responsibilities such as working and living conditions of
laborers, the needs of rural communities, and consumer health and safety both in the
present and the future. Stewardship of land and natural resources involves maintaining
or enhancing this vital resource base for the long term.
A systems perspective is essential to understanding sustainability. The system is
envisioned in its broadest sense, from the individual farm, to the local ecosystem, and to
communities affected by this farming system both locally and globally. An emphasis on
the system allows a larger and more thorough view of the consequences of farming
practices on both human communities and the environment. A systems approach gives
us the tools to explore the interconnections between farming and other aspects of our
environment. A systems approach also implies interdisciplinary efforts in research and
education. This requires not only the input of researchers from various disciplines, but
also farmers, farmworkers, consumers, policymakers and others. Making the transition

103
to sustainable agriculture is a process. For farmers, the transition to sustainable
agriculture normally requires a series of small, realistic steps. Family economics and
personal goals influence how fast or how far participants can go in the transition. It is
important to realize that each small decision can make a difference and contribute to
advancing the entire system further on the "sustainable agriculture continuum." The key
to moving forward is the will to take the next step. Finally, it is important to point out
that reaching toward the goal of sustainable agriculture is the responsibility of all
participants in the system, including farmers, laborers, policymakers, researchers,
retailers, and consumers. Each group has its own part to play, its own unique
contribution to make to strengthen the sustainable agriculture community.
The remainder of this document considers specific strategies for realizing these
broad themes or goals. The strategies are grouped according to three separate though
related areas of concern: Farming and Natural Resources, Plant and Animal Production
Practices, and the Economic, Social and Political Context. They represent a range of
potential ideas for individuals committed to interpreting the vision of sustainable
agriculture within their own circumstances.The Economic, Social & Political Context In
addition to strategies for preserving natural resources and changing production
practices, sustainable agriculture requires a commitment to changing public policies,
economic institutions, and social values. Strategies for change must take into account
the complex, reciprocal and ever-changing relationship between agricultural production
and the broader society.
The "food system" extends far beyond the farm and involves the interaction of
individuals and institutions with contrasting and often competing goals including
farmers, researchers, input suppliers, farmworkers, unions, farm advisors, processors,
retailers, consumers, and policymakers. Relationships among these actors shift over
time as new technologies spawn economic, social and political changes. A wide
diversity of strategies and approaches are necessary to create a more sustainable food
system. These will range from specific and concentrated efforts to alter specific policies
or practices, to the longer-term tasks of reforming key institutions, rethinking economic
priorities, and challenging widely-held social values. Areas of concern where change is
most needed include the following:
Food and agricultural policy: Existing federal, state and local government policies
often impede the goals of sustainable agriculture. New policies are needed to
simultaneously promote environmental health, economic profitability, and social and
economic equity. For example, commodity and price support programs could be
restructured to allow farmers to realize the full benefits of the productivity gains made
possible through alternative practices. Tax and credit policies could be modified to
encourage a diverse and decentralized system of family farms rather than corporate
concentration and absentee ownership. Government and land grant university research
policies could be modified to emphasize the development of sustainable alternatives.
Marketing orders and cosmetic standards could be amended to encourage reduced
pesticide use. Coalitions must be created to address these policy concerns at the local,
regional, and national level.
104
Land use: Conversion of agricultural land to urban uses is a particular concern in
California, as rapid growth and escalating land values threaten farming on prime soils.
Existing farmland conversion patterns often discourage farmers from adopting
sustainable practices and a long-term perspective on the value of land. At the same time,
the close proximity of newly developed residential areas to farms is increasing the
public demand for environmentally safe farming practices. Comprehensive new policies
to protect prime soils and regulate development are needed, particularly in California's
Central Valley. By helping farmers to adopt practices that reduce chemical use and
conserve scarce resources, sustainable agriculture research and education can play a key
role in building public support for agricultural land preservation. Educating land use
planners and decision-makers about sustainable agriculture is an important priority.
Labour: In California, the conditions of agricultural labor are generally far below
accepted social standards and legal protections in other forms of employment. Policies
and programs are needed to address this problem, working toward socially just and safe
employment that provides adequate wages, working conditions, health benefits, and
chances for economic stability. The needs of migrant labor for year-around employment
and adequate housing are a particularly crucial problem needing immediate attention.
To be more sustainable over the long-term, labor must be acknowledged and supported
by government policies, recognized as important constituents of land grant universities,
and carefully considered when assessing the impacts of new technologies and practices.
Rural Community Development: Rural communities in California are currently
characterized by economic and environmental deterioration. Many are among the
poorest locations in the nation. The reasons for the decline are complex, but changes in
farm structure have played a significant role. Sustainable agriculture presents an
opportunity to rethink the importance of family farms and rural communities. Economic
development policies are needed that encourage more diversified agricultural
production on family farms as a foundation for healthy economies in rural communities.
In combination with other strategies, sustainable agriculture practices and policies can
help foster community institutions that meet employment, educational, health, cultural
and spiritual needs.
Consumers and the Food System: Consumers can play a critical role in creating a
sustainable food system. Through their purchases, they send strong messages to
producers, retailers and others in the system about what they think is important. Food
cost and nutritional quality have always influenced consumer choices. The challenge
now is to find strategies that broaden consumer perspectives, so that environmental
quality, resource use, and social equity issues are also considered in shopping decisions.
At the same time, new policies and institutions must be created to enable producers
using sustainable practices to market their goods to a wider public. Coalitions organized
around improving the food system are one specific method of creating a dialogue
among consumers, retailers, producers and others. These coalitions or other public
forums can be important vehicles for clarifying issues, suggesting new policies,
increasing mutual trust, and encouraging a long-term view of food production,
distribution and consumption.
105
Research on Sustainable Agriculture
The livelihoods of 75% of the world’s poor will continue to depend on
agriculture for the foreseeable future. At the same time, rising food prices are likely to
make problems of hunger and poverty worse for urban and rural people. Research that
produces innovation in agriculture is therefore more important than ever for reducing
poverty. DFID has promised to double funding for research on agriculture, fisheries and
forestry to £80 million a year by 2010. To meet that promise, we will continue to work
on the research priorities in the 2006 Strategy for Research on Sustainable Agriculture.
We will also focus on key emerging issues related to agriculture and natural resource
management that fit our broader agenda of inclusive growth and clim Strategy for
Research on Sustainable Agriculture
In March 2006 the Secretary of State announced the allocation of £200 million
pounds over 5 years for the new Strategy for Research on Sustainable Agriculture
(SRSA). This is built around 4 main components:
• A facility to capitalise on the achievements of DFID’s current and past
investment in RNR research;
• Four regional research programmes (East, West and Southern Africa and South
Asia);
• International agricultural research to deliver high quality and effective
international public goods to tackle poverty reduction and achieve sustainable
growth. The majority of this support is channelled through the 15 centres and 4
challenge programmes of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural
Research (CGIAR).
• A responsive programme in partnership with UK research councils to support
long-term basic/fundamental research linked to applied research in southern-
based organisations.
Getting Agricultural Research into Use to Reduce Rural Poverty
The Research into Use (RIU) programme started implementation of it’s inception phase
in July 2006 and moved to full implementation in July 2007. The aim of the programme
is to promote the best results of past research funded by DFID and other donors in
Africa and South Asia.
The most promising outputs are being selected on their potential to raise farmers’
incomes, reduce poverty, halt environmental degradation, and increase food security.
Lessons from the programme will be collected and shared to show how best to get
forestry, fishing, farming and livestock rearing technologies and policies into use to
maximise their impact on reducing poverty. Regional Research Programmes
The Regional Research Programmes focus on West Africa, East Africa, Southern Africa
and South Asia. A smaller programme has been commissioned in the Andes. These
programmes are working in close partnership with existing regional organisations so
that research is undertaken on the issues that most affect the lives of the people living
there. In Africa we have been working with CORAF and ASARECA and expect to be
providing support to them later this year. An important part of these programmes is a
focus on capacity building. DFID is already supporting the Forum for Agricultural

106
Research in Africa (FARA) to implement a major capacity building programme in
Africa. The purpose of the programme is to maximise the poverty reducing impact of
interventions in the agricultural sector by supporting clearly expressed demands for
human and institutional capacity strengthening, including competencies and capacity in
agricultural research management and the capacity for professional development in
research and development.
Advanced Research Organisations
A responsive research programme with the UK’s Biotechnology and Biological
Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) on sustainable agriculture for international
development was launched in 2006. This and potentially further programmes will
provide opportunities for advanced research institutes to increase their efforts geared
towards meeting the science and technology needs of developing countries.
Research Programmes (completed in March 2008)
• Animal Health Programme
• Aquaculture and Fish Genetics Research
• Crop Post-Harvest Programme
• Crop Protection Programme
• Fisheries Management Science Programme
• Forestry Research Programme
• Livestock Production Programme
• Natural Resources Systems Programme
• Plant Sciences Research Programme
• Post Harvest Fisheries Research Programme
Needs of sustainable agriculture: Favorable Policy Environment: Most policy
frameworks still encourage types of farming that are dependent on external inputs and
technologies, and are not sustainable in the long term. In the face of these policy
frameworks sustainable agriculture has become a worldwide movement, including
people of both the First and Third World, and focused around the "islands of success"
that have been "lighthouses of hope" to those attempting to promote a more sustainable
world. A widely used tool for measuring the sum total amount of monetary assistance
given to farmers is the producer subsidy equivalent (PSE). This measures "all the
transfers to an examination of PSE values most industrialized countries give very large
amounts of agricultural support. Agricultural support in the North, acts to promote the
increase of production levels above what is necessary for the market. In the South,
agriculture is almost always given a very low priority. Often times, through "macro-
economic policies that incure high real exchange rates and by protecting industry"
developing countries turn the turns of trade against agriculture. These "bad terms of
trade" for agriculture have very real implications for the possibility of shifting to
sustainable agricultural systems, for real prices of agricultural goods are so low that it is
nearly impossible for farmers to obtain the capital (in the form of profits) in order to
shift to new production systems.

107
Resource conserving technologies:
A wide range of "green technologies" do exist, but in reality the number of
farmers using them are small. These technologies involve the substitution of labor,
knowledge and managerial skills in place of previously used external inputs. The shift
to sustainable technologies means sometime very large adjustment costs, and so many
farmers see little benefit in the short run from adoption of these policies. A lack of
information and skills is oftentimes a major barrier to the adoption of green
technologies. The most important thing to realize about technologies, especially "green"
ones, is that technology does not in fact exist in a vacuum. Technology is not "value
free". Every technology "has inherent and identifiable social, political, and
environmental consequences". In modern times, it is often assumed (both by scientists
and the general public) that the "problem is not with technology itself, but with how we
use it, and who controls it". The idea that technology is somehow "neutral" is not only
false, but dangerous. For in believing in the neutrality of technology, we allow
technology to develop "without analyzing its actual bias.". The graph above, shows the
effects the shift to conventional farming has on the labor pool. By decreasing the need
for labor in the countryside (through mechanization), conventional farming increases
the overall supply of labor in the market and drives down wages. A large movement
away from conventional technologies towards more sustainable ones would do the exact
opposite, it would increase demand for labor in the countryside. This increase in
demand would both decrease unemployment and increase wages for workers.
Enabling external institutions
The changes involved in shifting from a conventional agricultural system to an
agroecological one are complex and sometimes very difficult. These changes mean that
"organizations will have to adopt new ways of working". Organizations need to be more
multidisciplinary, including more structured participation with farming communities in
research, extension and development activities and services, and the development of a
whole new "agricultural professionalism itself".
What is really needed is a complete redefinition of what it means to be a scientist. This
"new scientist" must be held accountable to the general public for their research and
should include a larger role for participation in their research. There has been a large
push for these reforms internationally, especially for the increasing in Participatory
research. Within this reform process, there has been the creation of two schools of
thought. One school sees participation as a "means to increase efficiency" and another
that sees "community participation as a right". The school that has focused on
efficiency, has done so in a way that overshadows the role of participatory research as a
"means of empowerment and institution building" . The more radical school of thought
that focuses on community rights can be seen as very threatening to the inequitable
power structures that dominate most of the countries of the world. Participation has
become a catch phrase in development projects, one that lacks real meaning for "more
often than not, people are asked or dragged into participating in operations of no interest
to them, in the very name of participation"(Rahnema 1992 in Sachs The Development

108
Dictionary. Zed books Ltd, London). Participatory research is a very important means
of building local skills, interests and capacities.Without it, "local people have no stake
or desire to the maintenance of structures or practices recommended once the flow of
incentives stops".
The specialist in agriculture has a very interesting and specific role. As in all sciences
there is a certain notion of "science for the sake of science". Oftentimes, on the research
end of things, changes to crops and animals are "made without regard to the real-world
context of these crops/animals." This focus on research that is not applicable, or
appropriate to real world conditions, is reinforced by the fact that "disciplinary work
generally receives greater recognition and acceptance than does multidisciplinary work
in peer-oriented professional journals, in university tenure and in promotional
processes." (Thomas Dobbs 1990).
Within work in the developing world, the agricultural specialist often falls prone to
problems surrounding what has been referred to as "development tourism visits". These
visits, and their accompanied focus on questionnaire surveys and brief stays, lead
researchers to believe that they have a deep understanding of a subject they really only
understand on a cursory level.
Water Resources and Sustainable Agriculture in 21st Century: Challenges and
Opportunities
Global agriculture faces some unique challenges and opportunities for the rest of
this century. The need for food, feed and fiber will continues to grow as the world
population continue to increase in the future. Agricultural ecosystems are also expected
to be the source of a significant portion of renewable energy and fuels around the world,
without further compromising the integrity of the natural resources base. How
can agriculture continue to provide these services to meet the growing needs of world
population while sustaining the integrity of agricultural ecosystems and natural
resources, the very foundation it depends on? In the last century, scientific discoveries
and technological innovations in agriculture resulted in significant increase in food, feed
and fiber production globally, while the total amount of water, energy, fertilizers and
other input used to achieve this growth remained the same or even decreased
significantly in some parts of the world. Scientific and technical advances in
understanding global and regional water and energy cycles, water resources
management, soil and water conservation practices, weather prediction, plant breeding
and biotechnology, and information and communication technologies contributed to this
tremendous achievement. The projected increase in global population, urbanization, and
changing lifestyles will continue the pressure on both agriculture and other managed
and natural ecosystems to provide necessary goods and services for the rest of this
century. To meet these challenges, we must obtain the requisite scientific and technical
advances in the functioning of Earth's water, energy, carbon and biogeochemical cycles.
We also need to apply the knowledge we gain and technologies we develop in assessing
Earth's ecosystems' conditions, and their management and stewardship. In agricultural
ecosystems, management of soil and water quality and quantity together with

109
development of new varieties of plants based on advances in genomic, genetics,
breeding and applied biotechnologies are a key to our ability to address these
challenges. We must also continue to develop agronomic practices that sustain the
integrity of natural resources and conserve energy on one-hand while maximizing
agricultural production per unit area of land on the other hand. This will require
managing agricultural ecosystems for their multiple functions and services together,
instead of looking at each function/service in isolation. In this presentation, we will
provide an overview of the scientific and technical knowledge required for sustainable
management of agricultural ecosystems and associated natural resources. We will
describe the soil, water and energy research needs/priorities in agriculture. We will also
provide some examples of recent accomplishments and future directions in developing
decision support tools for assessing the impacts of weather and climate variations and
change, and their risk to agricultural ecosystems. We will then focus on opportunities
and challenges associated with measurement, monitoring and modelling of soil moisture
and its use in management and operation of agricultural ecosystems. The overall intent
of this presentation is to stimulate some discussion on future directions and priorities for
soil, water and energy research in agricultural ecosystems, and how the knowledge we
gain from this research can be conveyed to the users for risk assessment, decision
making, and multi-service ecosystem management purposes.

110
Chapter 10
Crop Diversification for Sustainability

Concept of crop diversification

In agriculture diversification refers to the addition of new crops or
enterprises with or without the addition a shift from one crop or enterprise in a
production system. Crop diversification needs to sustain the production system of the
region by enhancing the soil health, reducing biotic and abiotic stresses and increasing
employment generation.
Crop diversification also refers to bringing about a desirable change in the
existing cropping patterns towards a more balanced cropping system to meet the ever
increasing demand for food. The changes suggested should be technologically feasible
and economically viable. Lack of diversification in our crops and cropping system has
posed never ending problems of significance, that mainly include
• Excessive use of water resources (as in case of rice) leading to poor water use
efficiency
• Deterioration in soil health
• Multiplication of diseases, pests and weeds
• Unplanned consumption of energy
• Reduction in the availability of other protective food and high value crops
• Pollution of the ecosystem
Major agricultural crops in temperate regions include rice, maize, oilseeds
(mustard etc.) fodder oats and limited area under pulses, wheat and other minor food
crops. Horticultural crops as well notably apple and other temperate fruits occupy
sizeable area. Vegetables are also cultivated in a substantial area. With the exception of
horticultural crops, majority of other crops are grown for subsistence purposes and
diversification would be a descramble change towards more potential crops and
cropping systems of commercial value. Crop diversification can be a useful means to
increase crop output under different situations. Crop diversification can be approached
in two ways. The main form and the commonly understood concept is the addition of
more crops to the existing cropping system, which could be referred to as horizontal
diversification. For instance, cultivation of field crops in rice fields or growing various
types of other crops in uplands have been defined as crop diversification. However, this
type of crop diversification means the broadening of the base of the system, simply by
adding more crops to the existing cropping system utilizing techniques such as multiple
cropping techniques coupled with other efficient management practices. The systems of
multiple cropping have been able to increase food production potential to over 30 t/ha,
with an increase of the cropping intensity by 400-500 percent. The other type of crop
diversification is vertical crop diversification, in which various other downstream
activities are undertaken. This could be illustrated by using any crop species, which
could be refined to manufactured products, such as fruits, which are canned or
manufactured into juices or syrups as the case may be. Vertical crop diversification will
111
reflect the extent and stage of industrialization of the crop. It has to be noted that crop
diversification takes into account the economic returns from different crops. This is very
different to the concept of multiple cropping in which the cropping in a given piece of
land in a given period is taken into account. Besides the above, some other
terminologies are also used to define crop diversification. There are terms such as “crop
substitution” and “crop adjustment”. It is necessary to indicate here that crop
substitution and adjustment are linked to the main concept of crop diversification and
are strategies often used to maximize profit of growing varieties of crops. The level of
diversification will also be different in various countries. Diversification at farm level
will involve growing of several crops for achieving self-sufficiency, but it may be a
totally different approach at the national level. Crop diversification at national level will
demand more resources and require selection and management of a specific crop or a
group of crops sold freshly or value added to achieve higher profits.
There are several advantages of crop diversification, which could be listed as follows:
· Comparatively high net return from crops.
· Higher net returns per unit of labour.
· Optimization of resource use.
· Higher land utilization efficiency.
· Increased job opportunities.
In order to achieve the above benefits the process of diversification should be changed
from very simple forms of crop rotations, to intensive systems such as relay cropping
and intercropping or specialization by diversifying into various crops, where the output
and processing etc., could be different. This process could be similar at farm level and
national level.
Need for diversification
Te main goal of crop diversification is to stabilize farm income and promote
better farm linkages among primary, secondary and tertiary sectors of economic
acyivity.te major reasons which highlight to need for adopting diversification are as
under:
• Conservation of natural resources
• Combat ill-effects of aberrant weather
• More income to marginal farmers
• Provide employment opportunities
• Diversify food basket
• Withstand price fluctuations
• Reduce dependence on outside supply
• Promote export possibilities
Factors affecting diversification
• Climatic features of the area
• Crop physiology
• Suitability of the crop in rotation
• Effect on employment
• Local demand of the new crop

112
 • Proper utilization of the natural resources
• Crop adaptability in the introducing area
• Market availability for newly introduced crop
• Utilization of the by-products

Suggested alternate Crops in place Of Rice and Wheat in major growing states

State Main Kharif alternate Main Rabi alternate crop

crop crop crop

Punjab Rice Maize, moong/urad Wheat Mustard, chick pea, lentil, field peas

Uttar Rice Arhar (short Wheat Mustard, chick pea, lentil, field peas
Pradesh duration)
moong/urad

Bihar Rice Not suggested as Wheat Maize, mustard, lentil.

most of the rice area
is waterlogged

Hazra (2003)

3. Patterns of crop diversification

3.1 Crop Diversification in the Indian Perspective
With the advent of modern agricultural technology, especially during the period
of the Green Revolution in the late sixties and early seventies, there is a continuous
surge for diversified agriculture in terms of crops, primarily on economic
considerations. The crop pattern changes, however, are the outcome of the interactive
effect of many factors which can be broadly categorized into the following five groups:
a) Resource related factors covering irrigation, rainfall and soil fertility.
b) Technology related factors covering not only seed, fertilizer, and water technologies
but also those related to marketing, storage and processing.
c) Household related factors covering food and fodder self-sufficiency requirement as
well as investment capacity.
d) Price related factors covering output and input prices as well as trade policies and
other economic policies that affect these prices either directly or indirectly.
e) Institutional and infrastructure related factors covering farm size and tenancy
arrangements, research, extension and marketing systems and government regulatory
policies.

113
 Obviously, these factors are not watertight but inter-related. For instance, the
adoption of crop technologies is influenced not only by resource related factors but also
by institutional and infrastructure factors. Similarly, government policies - both
supportive and regulatory in nature - affect both the input and output prices. Likewise,
special government programmes also affect area allocation and crop composition. More
importantly, both the economic liberalization policies as well as the globalization
process are also exerting strong pressures on the area allocation decision of farmers,
essentially through their impact on the relative prices of inputs and outputs. Although
the factors that influence the area allocation decision of farmers are all important, they
obviously differ in terms of the relative importance both across farm groups and
resource regions. While factors such as food and fodder self-sufficiency, farm size, and
investment constraints are important in influencing the area allocation pattern among
smaller farms, larger farmers with an ability to circumvent resources constraints usually
go more by economic considerations based on relative crop prices than by other non-
economic considerations. Similarly, economic factors play a relatively stronger role in
influencing the crop pattern in areas with a better irrigation and infrastructure potential.
In such areas, commercialization and market networks co-evolve to make the farmers
more dynamic and highly responsive to economic impulses.
What is most notable is the change in the relative importance of these factors
over time. From a very generalized perspective, Indian agriculture is increasingly
getting influenced more and more by economic factors. This need not be surprising
because irrigation expansion, infrastructure development, penetration of rural markets,
development and spread of short duration and drought resistant crop technologies have
all contributed to minimizing the role of non-economic factors in crop choice of even
small farmers. What is more, the reform initiatives undertaken in the context of the
ongoing agricultural liberalization and globalization policies are also going to further
strengthen the role of price related economic incentives in determining crop
composition both at the micro and macro levels. Obviously, such a changing economic
environment will also ensure that government price and trade policies will become still
more powerful instruments for directing area allocation decisions of farmers, aligning
thereby the crop pattern changes in line with the changing demand-supply conditions. In
a condition where agricultural growth results more from productivity improvement than
from area expansion, the increasing role that price related economic incentives play in
crop choice can also pave the way for the next stage of agricultural evolution where
growth originates more and more from value-added production.
3.2 Consequences of Crop Pattern Changes
Turning now to the socio-economic and environmental consequences of crop
pattern changes, the Green Revolution technologies have fomented, among other things,
an increasing tendency towards crop specialization and commercialization of
agriculture. While these developments have positive effects on land/labour productivity
and net farm income, they have also endangered a number of undesirable side effects
like reduced farm employment and crop imbalances. Although the expansion of
commercialized agriculture has fomented new sets of rural non-farm activities and
114
strengthened the rural-urban growth linkages, it has also weakened the traditional inter-
sectoral linkages between the crop and livestock sectors. Besides, crop pattern changes
also lead to serious environmental consequences that take such forms as groundwater
depletion, soil fertility loss and waterlogging and salinity - all of which can reduce the
productive capacity and growth potential of agriculture over the long-term. A classical
example is the rice-wheat system in North western India replacing traditional crops like
pulses, oilseeds and cotton.
3.2.1 Crop Pattern Changes: A Temporal Analysis
The temporal analysis of the changes in crop pattern is observed both at the
national and state level. For the purpose of the present study, crop pattern changes at the
all India level are evaluated by considering the area share of crops and crop groups at
four time points capturing, respectively, the triennium ending (TE) averages of areas in
1966/67, 1976/77, 1986/87 and 1996/97. These time points have been selected so as to
capture the major events and stages in the evolution of Indian agriculture which are of
direct relevance to the purpose of this study.
The pre-Green Revolution situation is represented by the 1966/67 period. The
post-Green Revolution situation is represented, on the other hand, by three sub-periods.
These periods have been chosen deliberately to highlight the temporal differences in the
factors contributing to agricultural growth. In the first of these three post-Green
Revolution periods, i.e., 1966/67 to 1976/77, the impact of the Green Revolution has
mainly been on wheat, especially in the irrigation-wise better endowed Northwestern
parts of India. But in the second period, i.e., 1976/77 to 1986/87, the new technologies
have expanded to other regions and also covered crops such as rice. During this period,
the Southern and Eastern regions showed remarkable improvement in agricultural
growth and productivity. More or less during the same period, the benefits of the new
crop and irrigation technologies that were confined earlier to large and medium sized
farms have also started percolating to the small farms. The third period, i.e. 1986/87 to
1996/97, is characterized by a number of policy changes including the launching of the
Technology Mission on Oilseeds (TMO) as well as price support and stabilization
policies for oilseed crops. During this period there is also a marked shift in the pattern
of agricultural investment in favour of the private sector. This period not only covers
such important policy changes as unleashed by agricultural liberalization policies but
also represents the consolidation phase of rural infrastructure. Since these four periods
can capture well the changes in the set of factors that affect crop pattern, they can
provide a better analytical framework for evaluating both the nature and technical
context of crop pattern shifts observed not only at the national level but also at the state
level.
3.2.2 Crop Pattern Changes: Analysis at the all India Level
The analysis of crop pattern changes to be attempted at the macro level
(national) will focus on three main aspects. These aspects are: a) the nature and
direction of area shifts across crops and crop groups observed through time, b) the
implications of these shifts for crop diversification and balance in the inter-crop

115
allocation of existing and additional areas brought under cultivation, and c) the output
and productivity impact of crop pattern changes.
Temporal Changes in the Area Share of Crops
The temporal behaviour of crop pattern changes at the all India level, the area
share of main crop groups and major crops for the four periods. Though obvious, it
needs to be stated that the changing area share of crops is due as much to shift in area
under other competing or alternative crops as to the relative area allocation of fresh
areas brought under cultivation. In any case, the changing area share of crops does
capture the ongoing changes in the comparative advantage calculus of farmers. The
changes in the comparative advantage of crops reflect, in reality, the ongoing changes in
relative prices of inputs and outputs, production conditions (including irrigation
expansion), development and spread of new crop and farm technologies, extension and
input support policies and trade policies and domestic regulations. As such, the
changing area share of crop pattern, though looking deceptively simple, becomes a
useful tool for understanding the direction in which crop pattern changes are influenced
by the variations in the comparative advantage of crops and crop groups .
Although cereals gained a marginal increase in area share in the first decade of
the Green Revolution, their area and share declined gradually thereafter. Between
1966/67 and 1996/97, 3.35 percent of the gross cultivated area (GCA) - representing
approximately about 5.7 million hectares (m/ha) - has shifted from cereal crops to non-
cereal crops. Since the area share of pulses taken as a group also declined by 1.57
percent during the same period, the area share of food grains as a group declined by
4.92 percent during 1966-97. In area terms, the shift from food grains to non-food
grains involves an approximate area of about 8.36 m/ha. While cereals and pulses have
lost area, the major gainers of this area shift are the non-food grain crops especially
oilseeds. The area share of oilseeds as a group that has gone up by 4.08 percent accounts
for about 83 percent of the 8.36 m/ha involved in the area shift between 1966/67 and
1996/97. As we consider the share of individual crops within cereals, although the share
of cereals as a group has declined, the area share of rice has increased continuously over
all the four periods. Wheat, although having a declining area share until 1986/87, also
gained in its share when the entire period is considered. Thus, the area loss of cereals
can be attributed entirely to the declining area share of coarse cereals, especially
sorghum, pearl millet, barely and small millets. It can be noted that even within coarse
cereals, the area share of maize shows a marginal improvement over the years. Within
oilseeds, the crops showing steady improvement in their area share are: rapeseed and
mustard, soybean and sunflower. Among these three oilseeds gaining in area share,
rapeseed and mustard are substantially grown as intercrops with wheat. On the other
hand, the area shares of other oilseeds including groundnut (that has a dominant area
share within oilseeds) but excluding coconut, which is more a plantation crop than field
crop, have either fluctuated or declined.
The area share of groundnut, though improved during the last period, has
declined as compared to its share in the pre-Green Revolution period. But, the declining

116
area share of crops - especially those with only a marginal change in their area share -
need not necessarily imply a decline in the actual area under these crops. Since the
Gross Cropped Area (GCA) is constantly increasing over time, partly through an
expansion of net sown areas as in the initial stages of the Green Revolution and partly
through increasing intensity of cropping mainly by irrigation expansion, the declining
area share can coincide with an increase in absolute increase in the area under crops.
This can be seen from Tables 4 and 5 showing actual area under various crops and their
groups. Although the increase in the area share of other commercial crops is not as
dramatic as that of oilseeds, it is still notable because of its implications for the direction
of Indian agriculture. But, among these other commercial crops that cover fibres, spices,
fruits and vegetables, and other field crops such as tobacco and sugar cane and
plantation crops, only spices, fruits and vegetables show a steady improvement in their
area shares, whereas others show mostly a declining trend. This is particularly true for
fibres and other field crops that have over four fifths of the total area under the broad
group of other commercial crops. However, sugar cane, included in the category of
other field crops, shows an increase in its area share. This is also true for cotton
included in the fibre category. While all spice crops show a gradual increase in their
area share, only three of the six crops included in the fruits and vegetables category
show a gain in their area share over the years. These crops are banana, potato and onion.
3.3 Success Story in Crop Diversification
It is clear that most of the area shifts that occurred during the three decades
between 1966/67 and 1996/97 is from coarse cereals to oilseeds. Three notable aspects
of this area shift towards oilseeds can be noted. First, most of these area shifts have
occurred particularly during the decade ending 1996/97. A protective trade
environment, favourable price policy and the connecting of the Technology Mission on
Oilseeds (TMO) during this period have all enhanced the comparative advantage of
oilseeds. As can be seen from Table 2, the area share of oilseeds that increased just by a
percentage each during the two decades before 1986/87 has risen suddenly by 43
percent during the decade ending 1996/97. Second, the area shift during this period
comes mainly from barley and pulses other than pigeon pea. Since most of those crops
losing their area share are usually grown under rainfed conditions where oilseeds can
also be grown, the area shift can be said to involve mostly rainfed areas, although
comparative advantage and crop rotation considerations often favour oilseeds even in
groundwater irrigated areas. Thirdly, as can be seen from Table 3, there is also a
significant area shift within oilseed crops. For instance, while the area shares of
rapeseed and mustard, sunflower and soybean are increasing steadily, those of
sesamum, linseed and niger seed are declining gradually. Thus, the area shift has
favoured only a sub-sector within the oilseed sector partly because of constant changes
in the comparative advantage of different oilseeds and partly because of the impact of
changing consumers' preferences on the relative demand of oilseeds.

117
3.4 Crop Diversification and Composition
As noted already, area shifts and crop pattern changes can lead either to crop
specialization or to crop diversification. The area share of food grains increased during
1967-76 due partly to their yield advantages created by irrigation expansion and Green
Revolution technologies and partly to government policies pursued to encourage food
production and eliminate food imports. As a result, there was a tendency towards cereal
centered specialization. But, later when increased productivity of food grains, especially
cereals, made it possible to allocate more area to other crops such as oilseeds with a
severe supply shortage, the specialization tendency witnessed earlier has given room for
overall crop diversification. Even within such an overall crop diversification, it is also
possible to see specialization tendencies within each crop group. For instance, within
cereals, the declining share of coarse cereals and increasing share of wheat and rice
indicates a rice and wheat centered specialization.
Such a specialization has become possible because within the achievement of
self-sufficiency, mainly through an expanding production of wheat and rice, the food
implication of coarse cereals has declined almost coinciding with their declining
demand prompted by an increasingly incurring income level. On the other hand, within
oilseeds, even though groundnut still has a dominant area share, the growth of area
under rapeseed and mustard, sunflower and soybean indicates an ongoing structural
change leading to diversification within the oilseed sector. The issue of crop
diversification, although considered in area terms, assumes significance in view of its
effects on the supply-demand balance of main crops and crop groups. The rice and
wheat-centered specialization, for instance, indicates an increase in the supply of wheat
and rice but a reduced supply of coarse cereals. Since the demand for coarse cereals is
declining and that for wheat and rice is increasing due to changes in the income pattern,
the changes in their supply are actually necessary to achieve the required demand-
supply balance. A similar line of argument can also be extended to other crops where in
addition to domestic demand, international demand and supply also assume
significance.
Clearly, during the Green Revolution period, the food grains category has evinced an
increasing tendency towards specialization with an unbalanced area composition,
whereas the non-food grains category has shown an increasing tendency to diversify
with an improved balance in their area composition. But, during 1976-97 the non-food
grains category has also caught up with the specialization tendency and area imbalance
that characterized food grains throughout the entire period. The reason for the
specialization tendency within food grains is rather obvious in view of the declining
area share of coarse cereals and the increasing area share of rice and wheat. The
changing area share of crops can also explain the specialization tendencies observed
among the non-food grains.
As we have seen in the context of Tables 2 and 3, the area shares of oilseeds and
other commercial crops have increased especially during the post Green Revolution
period characterized by a prices and market-responsive agriculture inevitable in the

118
aftermath of achieving food self-sufficiency. It is important to note, however, that
oilseeds are more diversified with an enhanced balance in their area composition.
Within food grains, on the other hand, while cereals tend towards specialization with an
increasing imbalance in their area composition, pulses evince a tendency to diversify
with a declining imbalance in their area composition. The latter result is mainly due to
the fact that the area shares of the dominant pulses such as gram have declined to give
room for other pulses such as pigeon pea. But it should be noted that diversification and
area balance achieved by pulses have occurred only with a reduced area share. Among
the non-foodgrain crops, spices are notable not only for their increasing tendency
towards diversification but also for a declining imbalance in their area composition. In
contrast, fibres, fruits and vegetables, other field crops and plantation crops have all
evinced a specialization tendency especially after 1986/87.
4. Crop diversification as a strategy for various national commitments
4.1 Food and Nutritional Security and Poverty Alleviation
The agricultural growth rate of around 2.7 percent per annum in the post-
independence period was much higher than the negligible growth rate of 0.3 percent per
annum in the first half of this century. It is not only in the areas of food grain production
but also the production of commercial crops like cotton, oilseeds, sugar cane, fruits and
vegetables as well as livestock products and fisheries have recorded significant
increases since independence. Poverty eradication is one of the major objectives of plan
development. The magnitude of the problem is quite staggering. The incidence of
poverty declined from 54.9 percent in 1973/74 to 36 percent in 1993/94. The absolute
number of population did not decline much throughout this period of 20 years. There
were 321 million poor in 1973/74 and 320 million in 1993/94. In the rural areas, the
corresponding numbers were 261 million and 244 million. The land resources are
limited and the average size of holding in India is only 1.57 ha for the census year of
1990/91. The main determinants of poverty are: i) lack of income and purchasing power
contributable to lack of productive employment; ii) the continuous increase in price of
food, specially food grains which account for 70-80 percent of the consumption; and iii)
inadequacy of social infrastructure, affecting the quality of life of the people and their
employability.
The National Agenda for Governance of the present government has given top
priority to doubling food production in the next 10 years. The food includes food grains
(rice, wheat, coarse cereals, pulses), oilseeds, sugar (sugar cane), fruits and vegetables,
meat, milk, and fish. The Action Plan envisages a detailed strategy and specific
problems of productivity to substantially increase the supply of various food items in
such a way that the demand for such items for the entire population is comfortably met
and some exportable surplus also becomes available. The development strategy to be
perused in the medium term has been consciously interwoven with the country's food
security concern.

119
4.2 Natural Resource Management for Sustainable Agricultural Development
It is known fact that there is little scope for further expansion of the net sown
area (142 m/ha) and that land scarcity will become an acute feature of the rural
economy. Water is a precious national asset and there are several concerns regarding
water resources in the country. Therefore, a judicious use of land and water resources
will have to be the central theme for sustainability of agricultural growth. There has
been a growing concern in recent years about the deteriorating conditions of soil health
and water resources due to improper management and pollution. The deterioration in
land and water resources has been in the form of land degradation, waterlogging and
decline in watertable. There is a greater need to have an integrated approach in the
management of plant nutrients, chemicals and taking effective measures to deal with the
overall pollution problems. There are several possible technologies and alternatives to
reduce the use of chemicals in agriculture. These alternatives are not perfect substitutes
to chemicals but adoption of these can substantially reduce the adverse impact on
environment. Proper land and water management policies would reduce environmental
degradation. Community and village institutions should be encouraged to participate in
protecting natural resources from degradation. Programmes for regeneration of land and
water resources will be strengthened.
4.3 Agricultural Planning: An Area Approach
A new approach to agricultural planning - the Agro Climatic Regional Planning
(ACRP) was put into action in 1988. This holistic approach digresses from the sectoral
approach of planning practiced so far in the country. It explicitly recognizes the local
resource endowments and constraints of the agro-climatically homogeneous regions,
quite often cutting across the States. The ACRP can be considered as a bridge between
the resource base and decentralized planning, which aims at providing a scientific
support to planning for attainment of sustainability and having due consideration of
basic resources and the local needs. The project was initiated by regionalizing the
country into 15 zones/regions and later into 73 sub-regions and subsequently
demarcation of sub-zone/region within a State using district as the lowest unit of
analysis. The principles used for this sub-regionalization were those which relate
intrinsically with the character of the agricultural economy like soil, climate, rainfall,
etc. In a recent study, agro-climatic zones have been delineated into 4 agro-economic
zones to address the issues of poverty, productivity and sustainability. These agro-
economic zones are: i) High Productivity Zone (103 districts); ii) Low Productivity -
High Potential Zone (181 districts); iii) Low Productivity Zone (179 districts); and iv)
Ecologically Fragile Zone (Himalayan and Desert areas).
5. Challenges, opportunities and prospects of crop diversification
5.1 Constraints in Crop Diversification
Crop diversification in the country is taking the form of increased areas under
commercial crops including vegetables and fruits since independence. However, this has

120
gained momentum in the last decade favouring increased area under vegetables and
fruits and also to some extent on commercial crops like sugar cane, cotton and oilseeds
crops specially soybean. The major problems and constraints in crop diversification are
primarily due to the following reasons with varied degrees of influence:
i. Over 117 m/ha (63 percent) of the cropped area in the country is completely
dependent on rainfall.
ii. Sub-optimal and over-use of resources like land and water resources, causing a
negative impact on the environment and sustainability of agriculture.
iii. Inadequate supply of seeds and plants of improved cultivars.
iv. Fragmentation of land holding less favouring modernization and mechanization of
agriculture.
v. Poor basic infrastructure like rural roads, power, transport, communications etc.
vi. Inadequate post-harvest technologies and inadequate infrastructure for post-
harvest handling of perishable horticultural produce.
vii. Very weak agro-based industry.
viii. Weak research - extension - farmer linkages.
ix. Inadequately trained human resources together with persistent and large scale
illiteracy amongst farmers.
x. Host of diseases and pests affecting most crop plants.
xi. Poor database for horticultural crops.
xii. Decreased investments in the agricultural sector over the years.
5.2 Globalization and Crop Diversification
With the advent of WTO and India being a member and signatory to GATT, the
scenario of the agricultural sector will not be the same as that of past. With the
liberalization of trade and providing the market access of agricultural produce between
the different countries, the country will be required to promote much more diversified
agriculture. For crops on which we have substantial area and production, specially
foodgrains, the import market has to be insulated through increased productivity which
gives us a kind of comparative advantage and also a level playing field so that large
scale importation is contained and farmers interests are protected. The crops which are
traditionally exported like basmati rice and spices and condiments also need to be
supported in terms of area expansion and quality improvement to look towards much
more opportunity for export. Crop diversification in the areas of certain tropical fruits
and also a few vegetables also need support for both production and post-harvest
handling in terms of their export opportunity.
Accelerated growth in fruits and vegetables production is also required for
improved nutrition of the country's population. In future, with improved living standards
along with increased purchasing power, more and more people will look for nutritional
and quality foods which will also call for greater crop diversification. There are some
production areas such as food crops, plantation crops, poultry, dairy, sugar, cotton and
oilseeds in which India has made its mark. There are some in which its emerging
strength is already evident - sericulture, marine and inland fisheries for example. There
are also others which now attract less attention, but in which the competitive advantages
that India possesses can put it on the top of the world. No country grows such a wide
range of fruits, vegetables, and flowers and in such abundance as India and yet it has no

121
record worth mentioning in horticultural exports. The rich variety when processed and
marketed can help India take care of the health needs of its population besides being
major export commodities.
5.3 Emerging Technology and Crop Diversification
It is being increasingly realized that agriculture is no longer a subsistence activity
carried out by peasant cultivators, but rather an enterprise and manufacturer of biomass
using land, water, genetic material and the latest in technology. The agriculture of the
twenty first century will increasingly be farmers' entrepreneurship harnessing
technologies to optimize returns from his land and investments he makes on it.
Biotechnology and genetic engineering in crops with focus on primary productivity and
also on many quality traits will go a long way to improving the yield and quality of
many important crop plants. With the advent of such emerging technologies and
consequent scope for increased economic returns, the diversification in favour of such
crops will be the future focus. Many other related technologies and their adoption will
also inject an added dimension in crop diversification. Decision support systems,
governmental policies, geographic information system, application of information
technology leading to market information etc., will also lead to crop diversification
primarily on economic considerations.
5.4 Research and Developmental Support for Crop Diversification
Future agriculture will be much more knowledge and skill based rather than the
traditional subsistence agriculture. In the wake of globalization and opening up of the
global market, there will be much more opportunity for entrepreneurship development
in agriculture. This also calls for paradigm shifts in research and technology
development and also the transfer of technology for successful crop diversification. The
research system not only needs to address the issues connected with continuance and
indulgence and knowledge in the areas of emerging technologies but also create a cadre
of scientists through the continuous upgrade of skills and human resource development.
The researchers also need to popularize the technologies, impart knowledge and skills to
the extension functionaries for the transfer of technologies to the farmers. This
knowledge-based farming will call for much more interaction between the researchers,
extension workers and farmers. The fruits of the innovative technologies should reach
the farmers at the earliest and also spread in the quickest possible time.
5.5 Institutional and Infrastructure Developments Towards Crop Diversification
To sustain and operationalize crop diversification, institutional support is
required to the two thirds of the country's crop area which is rainfed. Crop
diversification in terms of reducing the risk of rainfed farmers is also very vital to a
country like India two thirds of the farmers are also resource poor. However, crop
diversification in well endowed area is more of an economic consideration. The
National Agricultural Research System with its Crop and Commodity based Institutions,
Natural Research Management Based Institutions and State Agricultural Universities
are jointly addressing the issues connected with the crop diversification. The

122
government of India has also developed a counter support mechanism through the
establishments of Crop Directorates for each of the major crops and groups of crops like
Oilseeds and Pulses for developmental and technology transfer focus on each of these
crops and commodities. These Directorates act as a coordinating agency between the
research and development activities on the one hand and between the Federal
Government at the central and Regional Governments at the State level for technology
transfer and other promotional activities.
6. Government policies and strategies for crop diversification
Considering the importance of crop diversification in the overall developmental
strategy in Indian agriculture, the government of India has taken several initiatives for
agricultural development in general and crop diversification in particular. These
initiatives are as follows:
i) Launching a Technology Mission for the Integrated Development of
Horticulture in the North Eastern Region: The programme will establish
effective linkages between research, production, extension, post-harvest
management, processing, marketing and exports and bring about a rapid
development of agriculture in the region.
ii) Implementing National Agriculture Insurance Scheme: The scheme will cover
food crops and oilseeds and annual commercial and horticulture crops. Small and
marginal farmers are eligible for 50 percent subsidy under the Scheme.
iii) Operationalizing Technology Mission on Cotton: The Technology Mission will
have separate Mini-Missions on technology generation, product support and
extension, market infrastructure and modernization of ginning and pressing units.
iv) Provision of Capital Subsidy of 25 percent for
construction/modernization/expansion of cold storages and storages for
horticultural produce.
v) Creation of Watershed Development Fund: At the National level for the
development of Rainfed lands.
vi) Infrastructure Support for Horticultural Development with emphasis on
Post-harvest Management.
vii) Strengthening Agricultural Marketing: Greater attention to be paid for
development of a comprehensive, efficient and responsive marketing system for
domestic marketing as well as exports by ensuring proper quality control and
standardization.
viii) Seed Crop Insurance: A pilot scheme on Seed Crop Insurance has been launched
which will cover the risk factor involved in production of seeds.
ix) Seed Bank Scheme: About 7-8 percent of certified seeds produced in the country
will be kept in buffer stock to meet any eventualities arising out of drought, floods
or any other form of natural calamities.
x) Cooperative Sector Reforms: Amendment to the National Cooperative
Development Corporation (NCDC) Act, 1952, and Replacement of the Multi-
State Cooperative Societies (MSCS) Act, 1984.
All these measures will lead to crop diversification and increase the production and
productivity of crops.
India, being a vast country of continental dimensions, presents wide variations in
agroclimatic conditions. Such variations have led to the evolution of regional niches for
various crops. Historically, regions were often associated with the crops in which they
123
specialize for various agronomic, climatic, hydro-geological, and even, historical
reasons. But, in the aftermath of technological changes encompassing bio-chemical and
irrigation technologies, the agronomic niches are undergoing significant changes. With
the advent of irrigation and new farm technologies, the yield level of most crops-
especially that of cereals-has witnessed an upward shift making it possible to obtain a
given level of output with reduced area or more output with a given level of area and
creating thereby the condition for inter-crop area shift (diversification) without much
disturbance in output level. Besides, as agriculture become drought proof and growth
become more regionally balanced, there has been a reduction in the instability of
agricultural output. In the face of these new changes including the achievement of food
self-sufficiency, the area shift that tended towards cereals in the immediate aftermath of
the Green Revolution, has started moving in the opposite direction, i.e., from cereals to
non-cereals.
Although these reverse area shifts actually took place in the mid-1970's as a part
of the process of commercialization, they became more pronounced since the mid
1980's as a response partly to emerging supply deficit in edible oils and partly to the
changing comparative advantage of crops. Since the recent trend in inter-crop area shifts
has it origin in the price and trade policy changes of the 1980's, they indicate the
increasing market influence on area allocation. The area under commercial crops has
almost doubled in the last three decades. Among the foodgrain crops, the area under
superior cereals, i.e., rice and wheat, is increasing; while that of coarse cereals (millets)
is on decline. The area share of jute and allied fibres has also gone down substantially.
Like any other economy, the share of agriculture in the GDP is also declining in India.
Increase in income from the agriculture sector, further growth of non-crop sub-
sectors within agriculture; faster growth of non-food grain crops; and faster growth of
superior cereals among the food grains are all happening, but the pace of such change is
far too slow. An accelerated pace of diversification to create positive import of higher
income, higher employment and conservation and efficient use of natural resources
emphasizes the need for efficient policies, especially in technological development,
selective economic reforms and institutional change. A strategy of crucial importance is
growth enhancing non-farm activities. This calls for investment in rural infrastructure
and skill up gradation and it also implies a careful examination and adjustment of
macro-policies, which influence the relative profitability of different activities and in
turn determine the nature and pace of diversification. In order to ensure social equity,
policies on structural adjustment and reforms must pay special attention to the band of
marginal and small farmers and agricultural labourers. The direct benefits from
diversification should reach these sections of the farmers.

124
Chapter 11
Role of organic matter in Maintenance of soil fertility and Crop
residue management

Vertisol are swell-shrink type soils with high water retentively, low infiltration
rate and high cation exchange capacity. Improvement and maintenance of the organic
matter these soils is an essential precondition to sustain reasonable levels of organic
cotton production as this would increase water infiltration, reduce erosion, improve soil
structure and aggregate stability, besides enhancing the supply of nutrients, particularly,
N, P and S. Hence, a good organic matter management programme is needed for
fertility management under organic production system. Rainfed cotton crop in Central
India removes around 5.8 kg N, 2.0 kg P and 6.6 kg K per 100 kg seed cotton produced.
With many such alternate used of FYM, such huge quantities required to meet the
crop’s nutrient requirement is generally not available. Hence, a combination of sources
with different biological properties must be resorted.
Manures
Manures are plant and animal wastes that are used as sources of plant nutrients.
Manures can be grouped into bulky organic manures and concentrated organic manures
based on concentration of the nutrients.
Bulky Organic Manures
Bulky organic manures contain small percentage of nutrients and they are applied in
large quantities. Farmyard manure (FYM), compost and green manure are the most
important and widely used bulky organic manures.
Advantages:
(1) They supply plant nutrients including micronutrients,
(2) They improve soil physical properties like structure, water holding capacity etc.,
(3) They increase the availability of nutrients,
(4) Carbon dioxide released during decomposition acts as a CO2 fertilizer, and
(5) Plant parasitic nematodes and fungi are controlled to some extent by altering the
balance of microorganisms in the soil.
Farmyard Manure
Farmyard manure refers to the decomposed mixture of dung and urine of the farm
animals along with litter and left over material from roughages or fodder fed to the
cattle. On an average well decomposed farmyard manure contains 0.5 per cent N, 0.2
per cent P2O5 and 0.5 percent K2O. The present method of preparing farmyard manure
by the farmers is defective. Urine, which is wasted, contains one per cent nitrogen and
1.35 per cent potassium. Nitrogen present in urine is mostly in the form of urea which is
subjected to volatilization losses. Even during storage, nutrients are lost due to leaching
and volatilization.

125
 However, it is practically impossible to avoid losses altogether, but can be
reduced by following improved method of preparation of farmyard manure. Trenches of
size 6m to 7.5m length, 1.5m to 2.0m width and 1.0m deep are dug. All available litter
and refuse is mixed with soil and spread in the shed so as to absorb urine. The next
morning, urine of the trench from one end should be taken up for filling with daily
collection. When the section is filled up to a height of 45 cm to 60 cm above the grow
level, the top of the heap is made into a dome and plastered with cowered earth slurry.
The process is continued and when the firstmtrench is completely filled, second trench
is prepared. The manure becomes ready for use innabout four to five months after
plastering.
Compost
A mass of rotted organic matter made from waste is called compost. The compost made
from farm waste like sugarcane trash, paddy straw, weeds and other plants and other
waste is called farm compost. The average nutrient contents of farm compost are 0.5 per
cent N, 0.15 per cent P2O5 and 0.5 per cent K2O. The compost made from town refuses
like night soil, street sweepings and dustbin refuse is called town compost. It contains
1.4 per cent N, 1.00 per cent P2O5 and 1.4 per cent K2 O. Farm compost is made by
placing farm wastes in trenches of suitable size, say 4.5 m to 5.0 m long, 1.5 m to 2.0m
wide and 1.0 m to 2.0m deep. Waste is placed in the trenches layer by layer. Each layer
is well need by sprinkling cow-dung slurry or water. Trenches are filled up to of 0.5 m
above the ground. The compost is ready for application five to six months.
Sewage and Sludge
In the modern system of sanitation adopted in cities and town, human excreta if flushed
out with water which is called sewage. The Solid portion in the sewage is called sludge
and liquid portion is sewage water. Both the components of sewage are separated and
are given a preliminary fermentation and oxidation treatments to reduce bacterial
contamination and offensive smell.
Green Manure
Green, undecomposed plant material used as manure is called green manure. It is
obtained in to ways: growing green manure crops or by collecting green leaf (along with
twigs) from plants grown in wastelands, field bunds and forest. Green manuring is
frown in the field plants usually belonging to leguminous family and incorporating into
the soil after sufficient growth. The most important green manure crops are sunhemp,
dhaincha, pillipesara, clusterbeans and Sesbania rostrana.
Application to the field, green leaves and twigs of trees, shrubs and herbs collected form
elsewhere is known as green-leaf manuring. The important plant species useful for
green-leaf manure are neem, mahua, wild indigo, glyricidia, Karanji (Pongamia glabra)
calotropis. avise (Sesbens grandiflora), subadul and other shrubs. Several advantages
accrue due to the addition of green manures. Organic matter and nitrogen are added to
the soil. Growing deep rooted green-manure crops and their incorporation facilitates in
bringing nutrients to the top layer from deeper layers. Nutrient availability increases due

126
to production of carbon dioxide and organic acids during decomposition. Green
manuring improves soil structure, increases water-holding capacity and decreases soil
loss by erosion. Green manuring helps in reclamation of alkaline soils. Root-knot
nematodes can be controlled by green manuring.
Sheep and Goat Manure
The dropping of sheep and goats contain higher nutrients than farmyard manure and
compost. On an average, the manure contains 3 per cent N, 1 per cent P2O5 and 2 per
cent K2O. It is applied to the field in two ways. The sweeping of sheep or goat sheds are
placed in pits for decomposition and it is applied later to the field. The nutrients present
in the urine are wasted in the method. The second method is sheep penning, wherein
sheep and goats are allowed to stay over might in the field and urine and fecal matter is
added to the soil which is incorporated to a shallow depth by running blade harrow or
cultivar.
Poultry Manure
The excreta of birds ferments very quickly. If left exposed, 50 per cent of its nitrogen is
lost within 30 days. Poultry manure contains higher nitrogen and phosphorus compared
to other bulky organic manures. The average nutrient content is 3.03 per cent N, 2.63
per cent P2O5 and 1.4 per cent K2O.
Concentrated Organic Manures
Concentrated organic manures have higher nutrient content than bulky organic manure.
The important concentrated organic manures are oilcakes, bloodmeal, fish manure etc.
These are also known as organic nitrogen fertilizer. Before their organic nitrogen is used
by the crops, it is converted through bacterial action into readily usable ammoniacal
nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen. These organic fertilizers are, therefore, relatively slow
acting, but they supply variables nitrogen for a longer period.
Oilcakes
After oil is extracted from oilseeds, the remaining solid portion is dried as cake which
can be used as a manure. The oil-cakes are of two types:
1. Edible oil-cakes which can be safely fed to livestock, e.g., Groundnut cake, coconut
cake.
2. Non-edible oil cakes which are not fit for feeding livestock e.g.: Castor cake, neem
cake, mahua cake etc.,
Both edible and non-edible oil-cakes can be used as manures. Nutrients present in oil-
cakes, after mineralization, are made available to crops 7 to 10 days after application.
Oil-cakes need to be well powdered before application for even distribution and quicker
decomposition. The average nutrient content of different oil-cakes are presented.
Other Concentrated Organic Manures
Blood-meal when dried and powdered can be used as a manure. The meat of dead
animals is dried and converted into meat-meal which is a good source of nitrogen.

127
Crop residues
Substantial quantities of crop residues are produced in India every year Major crops like
rice, Wheat Sorghum, Peal mullet and Maize alone yield approximately 236 m.t straw
per year. The nutrient potential of cereal straw/residue from five crops comes to 1.13
m.t N. 1.41 t + P205 and 3.54 m.t. K20. Crop residues can be recycled either by
compositing or by way of mulch or direct incorporation in the soil.
Soil Physical Properties
Use of organic amendments improves the various physical properties of the soil. Yin-
Po Wang and Chen-Ching Chao (1995) reported that the bulk density, total porosity and
aggregate stability of surface soil improved by the organic farming and this can be
attributed to the higher organic matter levels of the organic farming soil.
Soil Chemical Properties
Yin-Po Wang and Chen-Ching Chao (1995) reported that application of green manure
continuously after four cropping cycles the soil pH of the organic farming increased to
as high as 7.6 to 8.3 than conventional farming (pH 5.7 to 6.6).
Soil Microbial Population
Organic farming have direct contribution to soil organic matter levels thereby increase
the microbial population. Scullion and Ram Shaw (1987) showed that earth worm
populations increased due to FYM application. Application of poultry manure
encourages costing and burrowing to the surface whereas application of inorganic
fertilizers of high rates discouraged these activities.
Effect on Organic Carbon and micronutrients
Biswas et al (1971) earlier and Kanwar and Prihar (1992) reported that continuous
application of FYM increased the organic carbon content as well as nitrogen contents.
Yadav (1995) reported that press mud application increases the organic carbon content.
Continuous application of FYM at 15 t ha-I for 3 years increased zinc level from 0.48 to
0.87 percent (Radhav and Takakar. 1975). Biogas slurry poultry manure compost and
pressmud have been found to be superior sources of Zn a compared to Zinc sulphate
particularly in Zn deficient calcareous soil (Prasad et al. 1981, 1984, 1985) Azolla
incorporation increased the availability of Fe and Mm in soils (Sing 1992).
Crop residue management
Plant, animal including human residues, green plant materials and municipal
wastes are serve as effective source of plant nutrients and humus in soil. SOM plays an
important role in maintaining proper rhizosphere for better growth of the plants. In
intensive agriculture, soil often gets sickness due to continuous use of chemical
fertilizers. Organic manures are used to increase efficiency of fertilizers. Jharkhand
State with red & laterite soil with low organic matter P and S needs balanced input of
plant nutrients improve crop productivity.

128
Why crop residues?
• To maintain an acceptable environment free from excessive pollution on ground
and the air.
• To conserves ever scare & more costly raw material and energy cycle (in situ)
Method of Organic Recycling
• Improvements in the process of composting by reduction in the processing
period and enrichment in quality.
• Utilization of available organic residues in the natural plant production
• As mulching

Factors affecting crop residues decomposition

1. Quantity added
2. Size of the residue

Method of application –
(i) Incorporation
(ii) Surface application
Advantages of residue management on physical properties of soil
Soil structure
Favour the formation of aggregates due to addition of Organic matter to the soil
structural stability increase due to straw addition & better aggregate size distribution
occurs due to a reduction in soil disturbance crop residues.
Bulk Density & porosity
Low bulk density so incorporation of straw with FYM reduces the bulk density of soil
& increase the probity of the soils.
Hydraulic conductivity
Crop residues increase hydraulic conductivity by modifying soil structure microspores
& aggregate stability
Soil temperature
Mulching with plant residues raised the minimum soil temp. in winter due to reduction
in upward heat flux from soil & decrease soil temp. during summer due to shading
effect.
Soil Moisture
Reduces evaporation rate due to increase in amount of residues on the soil surface.
Advantages of residue management on chemical properties of soil
Organic carbon: Increases with continuous O. M. addition
Soil pH : Increases soil pH significantly by decarboxylation of organic anions and
exchange & addition of basic cations.

129
 C.E.C.: Soil O.M. as reservoir for plant nutrients essential prevents leaching of
elements, required for growth. Addition of residues increases C.E.C.
Advantages of residue management on Biological properties of soil
It provides energy for growth & activities of microbes & substrates for microbial
biomass
• Provide suitable environment for Biological N – fixation
• Enzymes *Microbial biomass, dehydrogenase & alkaline phosphatase activities
increase in sandy loam soil.
• Microbial population: Increase microbial biomass & it can enhance nutrients
availability in soil as well as the microbial biomass act as sink & source of plant
nutrients.
The importance of SOM for sustainable maximum economic production through INM
can never be underestimates.
• O.M. is a dynamic material chancing physical, chemical & & biological properties.
fertility & productivity.
• Organic imputes are essential for promoting organic farming.
• Therefore, it is essential to regularly monitor the changes in soil health for sustained
productivity.

130
Chapter 12
Fertilizer Use Efficiency and Concept of Fertilizer Use in Intensive
Cropping Systems

Awareness of and interest in improved fertilizer use efficiency has never been
greater. Driven by a growing public belief that crop nutrients are excessive in the
environment and farmer concerns about rising fertilizer prices and stagnant crop prices,
the fertilizer industry is under increasing pressure to improve nutrient use efficiency.
However, efficiency can be defined in many ways and is easily misunderstood and
misrepresented. Definitions differ, depending on the perspective. Environmental
nutrient use efficiency can be quite different than agronomic or economic efficiency and
maximizing efficiency may not always be advisable or effective.
Agronomic efficiency may be defined as the nutrients accumulated in the
above-ground part of the plant or the nutrients recovered within the entire soil-crop-root
system.
Economic efficiency occurs when farm income is maximized from proper use
of nutrient inputs, but it is not easily predicted or always achieved because future yield
increases, nutrient costs, and crop prices are not known in advance of the growing
season. Environmental efficiency is site-specific and can only be determined by
studying local targets vulnerable to nutrient impact. Nutrients not used by the crop are at
risk of loss to the environment, but the susceptibility of loss varies with the nutrient, soil
and climatic conditions, and landscape. In general, nutrient loss to the environment is
only a concern when fertilizers or manures are applied at rates above agronomic need.
Though perspectives vary, agronomic nutrient use efficiency is the basis for economic
and environmental efficiency. As agronomic efficiency improves, economic and
environmental efficiency will also benefit.
Fertilizer Use Efficiency Terminology
Fertilizer use efficiency can be expressed several ways. Mosier et al. (2004)
described 4 agronomic indices commonly used to describe nutrient use efficiency:
partial factor productivity (PFP, kg crop yield per kg nutrient applied); agronomic
efficiency (AE, kg crop yield increase per kg nutrient applied); apparent recovery
efficiency (RE, kg nutrient taken up per kg nutrient applied); and physiological
efficiency (PE, kg yield increase per kg nutrient taken up). Crop removal efficiency
(removal of nutrient in harvested crop as % of nutrient applied) is also commonly used
to explain nutrient efficiency. Available data and objectives determine which term best
describes nutrient use efficiency. Fixen (2005) provides a good overview of these
different terms with examples of how they might be applied. Understanding the
terminology and the context in which it is used is critical to prevent misinterpretation
and misunderstanding. For example, Table 1 shows the same maize data from the north

131
central U.S. can be used to estimate crop recovery efficiency of nitrogen (N) at 37%
(i.e. crop recovered 37% of added N) or crop removal efficiency at 100% (N removed in
the grain was 100% of applied N; Bruulsema et al., 2004).
Which estimate of nutrient use efficiency is correct? Recovery of 37% in the
above-ground biomass of applied N is disturbingly low and suggests that N may pose an
environmental risk. Assuming the grain contains 56% of the above-ground N, a typical
N harvest index; only 21% of the fertilizer N applied is removed in the grain. Such low
recovery efficiency prompts the question … where is the rest of the fertilizer going and
what does a recovery efficiency of 37% really mean? In the above data, application of N
at the optimum rate of 103 kg ha-1 increased above-ground N uptake by 38 kg ha-1
(37% of 103). Total N uptake by the fertilized maize was 184 kg ha-1; 146 from the soil
and 38 from the fertilizer. The N in the grain would be 56% of 184, or 103 kg ha-1:
equal to the amount of N applied. Which is correct — a recovery of 21% as estimated
from a single-year response recovery in the grain or 100% as estimated from the total
uptake (soil N + fertilizer N) of N, assuming the soil can continue to supply N long-
term? The answer cannot be known unless the long-term dynamics of N cycling are
understood. Fertilizer nutrients applied, but not taken up by the crop, are vulnerable to
losses from leaching, erosion, and denitrification or volatilization in the case of N, or
they could be temporarily immobilized in soil organic matter tobe released at a later
time, all of which impact apparent use efficiency. Dobermann et al. (2005) introduced
the term system level efficiency to account for contributions of added nutrients to both
crop uptake and soil nutrient supply.
Current Status of Nutrient Use Efficiency
A recent review of worldwide data on N use efficiency for cereal crops from
researcher-managed experimental plots reported that single-year fertilizer N recovery
efficiencies averaged 65% for corn, 57% for wheat, and 46% for rice (Ladha et al.,
2005). However, experimental plots do not accurately reflect the efficiencies obtainable
on-farm. Differences in the scale of farming operations and management practices (i.e.
tillage, seeding, weed and pest control, irrigation, harvesting) usually result in lower
nutrient use efficiency. Nitrogen recovery in crops grown by farmers rarely exceeds
50% and is often much lower. A review of best available information suggests average
N recovery efficiency for fields managed by farmers ranges from about 20% to 30%
under rainfed conditions and 30% to 40% under irrigated conditions. Cassman et al.
(2002) looked at N fertilizer recovery under different cropping systems and reported
37% recovery for corn grown in the north central U.S. They found N recovery averaged
31% for irrigated rice grown by Asian farmers and 40% for rice under field specific
management. In India, N recovery averaged 18% for wheat grown under poor weather
conditions, but 49% when grown under good weather conditions. Fertilizer recovery is
impacted by management, which can be controlled, but also by weather, which cannot
be controlled.
Pathway and Control of Nutrient Losses

132
The nutrient losses from soil include gases, leaching and erosion losses that can be
reduced through soil, crop and fertilizer management practices.
Reducing gases losses
Part of fertilizer N is lost from soil as Ammonia, Nitrous oxide, or N2. Ammonia
is a high volatile compound and can either be absorbed or release through stomata in
plant leaves. Plants well fertilized with N are reported to emit NH3 through stomata
during the maturation stage. Similarly, NH3 can also be adsorbed emitted directly by the
soil. Nitrification is preceded by ammonification of the substrate, whereby protein and
other nitrogenous compound in organic matter are converted to NH4+ ions. Estimate of
nitrogen losses through volatilization are most imprecise and exhibit a high degree of
variability. The loss of NH3 from soil to atmosphere is affected by soil and climatic
conditions. The fate of NH4+ -N-containing fertilizers including urea can be described
by the following equation:
NH4+ (exch) <----->NH4+ (soil solution) <-----> NH3 + H+
Temperature, soil moisture, method of N application, CEC, pH, soil texture,
organic matter and many other variables exert some degree of control on NH3 losses.
Gases losses from soil can be reduce by proper choice of timing of application and
placement of fertilizer, according to soil conditions prevailing during crop growth. The
losses of NH4+ - N are minimized by placing fertilizer deep into soil, using acids and
urease inhibitors and addition of inorganic salt----Ca, Mg or K with urea. Placement of
N fertilizer at depth 10-12 cm could effectively reduce NH3 volatilization losses to less
than 1% of the total N applied.
Reduces of leaching loss: -
Downward flow of water leaches nutrient below the root zone and these are lost
for crop use. If the downward movement continues, leached nutrients may join ground
water and deteriorate it quality. Nitrogen is vital concern to us because leaching of NO0-
not only exacerbates production costs but also degrades ground water quality,
particularly for drinking. Leaching losses of N may be sever on rapidly percolating
sandy, gravelly and lateritic soil under condition of heavy rainfall or excessive
irrigation. Measures to reduce the leaching loss of NO3- below the root zone include
balanced fertilization, manipulation of water application and rooting depth, appropriate
crop rotations, and the use of slow release fertilizers and nitrification inhibitors.

133
Balanced Fertilization
A balanced fertility program is essential for optimizing yields, increasing profits,
and improving the efficiency of fertilizer applications. For non-legumes, nitrogen (N)
may be the most common limiting nutrient. However, without balanced nutrition,
fertilizer N applications may be less efficient, and part of the fertilizer investment is
wasted. To address these issues, a four-year study was conducted on a Crosby silt loam
soil near Springfield, Ohio. The study examined four pre plant N rates: 0, 80, 160, and
240 lb/A. In addition, several soil potassium (K) levels were included to test how K and
N interacted to influence corn grain yield, N uptake efficiency, and soil N levels after
harvest. The effects of K and N on corn grain yield are presented in Figure 1. In
considering only the effects of N, corn grain yields were highest at rates of at least 160
lb/A. However, the yields attainable at this level of fertilizer N increased as the K level
of the soil became greater. The highest yields occurred when the soil K levels were at
least 232 lb/A. These results demonstrate that higher levels of soil K are necessary to
ensure that crop yields reach their fullest potential. Nitrogen and K also complement
each other to optimize the efficiency of N fertilizer applications. The percentage of the
fertilizer N used by each acre of corn was calculated for each level of applied N as well
as each soil K level. These data are plotted in Figure 2. The most noticeable result is
that the percentage of applied N fertilizer used by the corn crop decreased with greater
N rates. This occurred because the amount of N taken up by the crop initially increased
as increasing amounts of fertilizer were applied; however, as N rates continued to
increase, crop uptake began to reach a plateau. When N uptake reached this maximum,
lower percentages of fertilizer N were utilized. The effects of K are also evident. Higher
levels of soil K resulted in greater use of applied N fertilizer by the corn crop. Other
data from this experiment (not presented here) showed that K did not increase fodder N
uptake significantly, but it did produce significant increases in N uptake by the grain.
The removal of N by the grain was therefore most likely responsible for the observed
increases in whole plant uptake of N with increased K levels in the soil. So far,
increased soil K levels have been shown to improve the efficiency of fertilizer N
utilization and to increase the yields attainable at higher N rates. Both of these effects
may work together to reduce the quantity of N fertilizer remaining in the soil after
harvest. Figure 3 shows the percentage of applied N fertilizer remaining in the top 3 ft.
of soil after grain harvest for five different soil test K levels. Higher soil K levels
resulted in a smaller percentage of the applied N fertilizer remaining in the soil. These
lower levels may have resulted from the greater fertilizer N removal by corn growing on
the areas with higher K levels. The data from this study also show that N and K work
together to maximize profitability. The change in yield response to increasing fertilizer
N applications was calculated for each soil K level. Income generated or lost from each
fertilizer increment was based upon a price of $2.90/bu for corn and $0.25/lb of N for
fertilizer. The income from yield was compared to the investment in fertilizer N. The
results of this analysis are plotted in Figure 4. The most evident feature of this graph is
the well-known relationship that marginal return is highest at the initial increments of
fertilizer N, but begins to reach a plateau at higher fertilizer N levels. The data clearly

134
show that higher levels of soil K greatly increase the marginal returns from applications.
This response is directly related to the heightened yield response at the higher soil K
levels. Eventually, N additions either produce no additional profit or begin to reduce
profit. Higher soil test K levels allow corn to achieve its maximum profitability at lower
N rates. The results from this study have several implications for N and K management.
When N and K work together, yields and N uptake are superior to those arising from N
alone. Higher K levels also reduce the amount of fertilizer N needed to maximize
profitability. The increased yields and N levels in the crop lead to a more efficient use
of applied N fertilizer. When more of the N fertilizer is used by the crop, less is left over
in the soil after harvest. Reduced soil N levels mean reduced chances for groundwater
contamination through runoff or leaching.

135
Slow release fertilizers
Anticipated benefits from slow/controlled release fertilizers (SRF/CRF) are
addressed through two main processes: a. nutrient availability in the plant-soil system as
affected by the interaction/competition between: plant roots, soil microorganisms,
chemical reactions and pathways for loss; and b. matching nutrient release with plant

136
demand. The various aspects of fertilization and environmental hazards associated with
SRF/CRF and factors affecting nutrient use efficiency (NUE) are discussed in the light
of these controlling processes. Environmental aspects include: pollution by nitrate,
phosphate, and emission/volatilization of N2O or NH3; quality of food and fibers; and
factors affecting soil degradation. Agronomic or physiologic aspects include: reduced
losses of nutrients, labour saving, reduction of specific stress or toxicity, increased
availability of nutrients and induction of synergistic effects between specific chemical
forms of nutrients (e.g. interaction of mixed NH4/NO3 nutrition with K, effects of
physiological acidification of the rhizosphere on P and Fe availability etc.).
Despite the environmental and agronomic benefits offered by SRF/CRF their practical
use in agriculture is still very limited. Possible measures which may encourage their use
in practice are: a better assessment of expected benefits; attainment of improved
technologies or concepts for producing more efficient and less expensive SRF/CRF;
optimal design of fertilizer compositions to induce synergistic effects; better
understanding of the mechanisms which control nutrient release; construction of
conceptual and mathematical models for predicting release rates and patterns under both
laboratory and field conditions, for supporting the technologist, farmer and
environmentalist in their decision making.
Reducing erosion losses
The magnitude of nutrient loss through accelerated erosion can be very high.
The data in Tables show examples of the magnitude of nutrient loss in runoff and
eroded soil for different systems of soil and crop management in western Nigeria.
Expectedly, nutrient losses are very high in bare uncropped land. Nonetheless, losses of
nutrients are also high in cropped plow-till systems of seedbed preparation. Total
nutrient loss in maize-maize plow-till treatment was 32.2 kg/ha/yr in runoff and 35.0
kg/ha/yr in eroded soil. Similarly, nutrient loss in cowpea-maize plow-till treatment was
23.4 kg/ha/yr in runoff and 29.3 kg/ha/yr in eroded soil. In contrast, nutrient loss in
runoff was decreased to 1.1 kg/ha/yr with mulch and to 4.0 kg/ha/yr with no-till systems
of soil management. Because the use of mulch and no-till systems reduced soil loss to
zero, there was practically no nutrient loss in eroded soil. The judicious use of erosion
preventive and control measures described in the previous sections can drastically
reduce nutrient loss in runoff and eroded soil.
Integrated Nutrient use
The cost of chemical fertilizer, coupled with relative greater losses for fertilizer
N, make it necessary to look for cheaper and more sustainable ways to improve
productivity. The possibilities include the organic manures and crop residue in
conjunction with chemical fertilizer, rotation of cereals with legumes and use of
biofertilizers.

137
Strategies for decreasing chemical fertilizer requirements

Organic manure and chemical fertilizers

There is increased emphasis on the impact on environmental quality due to
continuous use of chemical fertilizers. The integrated nutrient management system is an
alternative and is characterized by reduced input of chemical fertilizers and combined
use of chemical fertilizers with organic materials such as animal manures, crop residues,
green manure and composts. Management systems that rely on organic inputs as plant
nutrient sources have different dynamics of nutrient availability from those involving
the use of chemical fertilizers. For sustainable crop production, integrated use of
chemical and organic fertilizer has proved to be highly beneficial. Several researchers
have demonstrated the beneficial effect of combined use of chemical and organic
fertilizers to mitigate the deficiency of many secondary and micronutrients in fields that
continuously received only N, P and K fertilizers for a few years, without any
micronutrient or organic fertilizer. A field experiment was conducted by Chand et al.
(2006) for seven years continuously to evaluate the influence of combined applications
and organic and chemical fertility buildup and nutrient uptake in a mint (Mentha
arvensis) and mustard (Brassica juncea) cropping sequence. Results indicated that
integrated supply of plant nutrients through FYM (farmyard manure) and fertilizer
NPK, along with Sesbania green manuring, played a significant role in sustaining soil
fertility and crop productivity. Based on the evaluation of soil quality indicators, Dutta
et al. (2003) reported that the use of organic fertilizers together with chemical fertilizers,
compared to the addition of organic fertilizers alone, had a higher positive effect on
microbial biomass and hence soil health. Application of organic manure in combination
with chemical fertilizer has been reported to increase absorption of N, P and K in
sugarcane leaf tissue in the plant and ratoon crop, compared to chemical fertilizer alone
(Bokhtiar & Sakurai 2005).

138
 Kaur et al. (2005) compared the change of chemical and biological properties in
soils receiving FYM, poultry manure and sugarcane filter cake alone or in combination
with chemical fertilizers for seven years under a cropping sequence of pearl millet and
wheat. Results showed that all treatments except chemical fertilizer application
improved the soil organic C, total N, P, and K status. Increase in microbial biomass C
and N was observed in soils receiving organic manures only or with the combined
application of organic manures and chemical fertilizers compared to soils receiving
chemical fertilizers. This study showed that balanced fertilization using both organic
and chemical fertilizers is important for maintenance of soil organic matter (OM)
content and long-term soil productivity in the tropics where soil OM content is low.
The effects of organic fertilization and combined use of chemical and organic
fertilizer on crop growth and soil fertility depends on the application rates and the nature
of fertilizers used. In general, the application rates of organic fertilizer mostly are based
on crop N need and estimated rates of organic fertilizer N supply, but do not consider
the amount of P and K provided with organic fertilizer. However, the N/P ratio of
organic fertilizer usually is significantly lower than the N/P uptake ratio of the crop.
Therefore, basing organic fertilizer on N supply typically results in P addition in excess
of the crop's need. Nutrients, salt or heavy metal accumulation has also been reported in
many papers , especially for the long-term or heavy use of organic fertilizers with
higher contents of P, K, salt, or heavy metals.
Biofertilizers and Chemical Fertilizers
The activity of soil organisms is very important for ensuring sufficient nutrient
supply to the plant. If the microorganisms find suitable conditions for their growth, they
can be very efficient in dissolving nutrients and making them available to plants.
Sundara et al. (2002) found that the application of PSB, Bacillus megatherium var.
phosphaticum, increased the PSB population in the rhizosphere and P availability in the
soil. It also enhanced sugarcane growth, yield and quality. When used in conjunction
with P fertilizers, PSB reduced the required P dosage by 25%. In addition, 50% of
costly superphosphate could be replaced by a cheap rock phosphate, when applied in
combination with PSB. The effects of a combined treatment of multifunctional
biofertilizer (mixture of Bacillus sp. B. subtillis, B erythropolis, B. pumilus and P.
rubiacearum) plus 50% chemical fertilizer (½ CF + biofertilizer) on a treatment of with
chemical fertilizer (CF) and biofertilizer on the growth of lettuce were compared by
Young et al. (2003). Results showed there was a 25% increase of lettuce yield for the
treatment of ½ CF + biofertilizer compared to that of the CF treatment, indicating that at
least 50% of chemical fertilizer can be saved as multifunctional biofertilizer was used
along with chemical fertilizer.
Young et al. (2004) evaluated the effects of multifunctional biofertilizer
(mixture of Bacillus sp. B. subtillis, B erythropolis, B. pumilus and P. rubiacearum) on
rhizosphere microbial activity and the growth of water celery in a field experiment.
Results showed that the dry weight of water celery in the treatment with 50% organic
compound fertilizer with multifunctional biofertilizer (MC + ½ OCF) was increased by

139
34% compared to the treatment with 100% organic compound fertilizer added (OCF). In
addition, the beneficial bacterial counts including mineral PSB, cellulolytic bacteria and
N2-fixing bacteria in the rhizosphere of water celery in the MC + ½(OCF) treatment
were increased 102-104 CFU/gin.
Legumes-based crop rotation
Legumes play an essential role in obtaining many of the benefits from crop
rotations (Gustafson, 1941, Hambridge, 1938, Leighty, 1938, Smith, 1911). A wide
range of legumes allow a farmer to custom fit the most appropriate legume for various
soil, climate, seasonal and cropping conditions. The more prominent forage and soil
improving legumes in Kansas include: alfalfa, red clover, sweet clover, lespedeza, hairy
vetch, soybeans, Austrian winter peas and cowpeas. Key attributes of forage legumes
include nitrogen fixation, erosion control, soil structure improvement, forage, cash hay
and seed production. Legumes also can help farmers meet conservation compliance on
highly erodible land. In rotation with other crops, legumes help break pest and disease
cycles. Legumes can fit well into cropping schemes and also can enhance pasture
production. Grasses inter seeded with legumes can increase quantity and quality of
forage and soil improvement over forage legumes seeded alone. The soil improving
character of legumes is increased when the legume is used as a green manure crop. Each
small grain is an opportunity to introduce another legume in the rotation. Clovers and
alfalfa over seeded in small grains can extend the annual productivity of the field as a
double cropping strategy, while also helping to control weeds and soil erosion. In recent
years, farmers and researchers have studied the potential of over seeding winter annual
legumes such as hairy vetch and winter peas in row crops for soil improvement and
erosion control. The soil structure improvements associated with legume-based
rotations increase the moisture holding capacity and drought tolerance of soils
(Goldstein, 1989). However, in dry situations, legume sods used as green manures pose
a risk of moisture depletion and must be managed accordingly. Any well-designed crop
rotation should include legumes used as green manure crops.
Crop residues and fertilizers:-
Crop residues contain substantial quantities of plant nutrients. The data in show
the nutrient composition of the crop residues of some crops grown in the humid tropics.
The concentration in oven-dry tissue ranges from 0.58% to 4.0% for N. 0.1% to 1.1%
for P. and 0.2% to 3.4% for K. Nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations are generally
higher in legumes than in cereals. On a weight basis, the major plant nutrients contained
in 1 Mg of crop residue may range from 15 to 60 kg of N. P. and K.
The beneficial effects of returning crop residue as mulch on crop yield are well
known. These benefits are due not only to the recycling of plant nutrients but also to
improvements in soil moisture and temperature regimes, enhancement of soil structure,
and erosion control. However, the use of crop residues as fertilizers is especially
important to resource-poor farmers. Some examples of the beneficial effects of crop
residue mulch on crop yields are shown by the data in Tables 33 through 37. The data in
Table 33 show that compared with an unmatched control, crop yields were improved

140
with any mulch material. Rice husks increased maize yield by 0.7 Mg/ha and cassava
yield by 12 Mg/ha. The data in Table 34 on yam production on an acid soil in eastern
Nigeria show that mulching significantly increased the yam tuber yield. Mulching
increased tuber yield by 20% on both ridge till and flat seedbed.
Source, Rate, Time and Method of Nutrient Application
The nature of fertilizer used and the rate, time, and method of its application
influence recovery of added nutrient. The efficiency of ammonium sulphate lies
between urea and ammonium nitrate. The best approach for determining fertilizer rate
requirement will be site-specific and depend on several factors including soil, climate,
economics, labor supply, and logistics. The specifics will be different for each site,
crop, and grower, but the principles are the same for all. Selecting the “right rate for the
most efficient and effective use of fertilizer requires that several factors be considered
including:
• Plant demand for nutrients
• Soil nutrient supply
• Other available sources of nutrients
• Season-to-season variability in nutrient demand
• In-season changes in nutrient demand

Method of applying fertilizers greatly affects their fertilizer use efficiency by

influencing nutrients losses and their availability to plant roots. Surface application of
ammonium containing fertilizer and of urea on all soils leads to N loss by ammonium
volatilization. The losses are minimized by top dressing urea before an irrigation event.
Fertilizer application before pre-sowing irrigation over application at the time of
seeding for enhancing fertilizer use efficiency in wheat.

141
Chapter13.
Plant Growth Regulators and its Role in Sustainable Agriculture

Introduction
Growth regulator may be defined as chemical substance, other than nutrient and
vitamin regulate the growth of plant when applied in small quantities. A plant growth
regulator is an organic compound, either natural or synthetic, that modifies or controls
one or more specific physiological processes within a plant. If the compound is
produced within the plant it is called a plant hormone. A plant regulator is defined by
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as "any substance or mixture of substances
intended, through physiological action, to accelerate or retard the rate of growth or
maturation, or otherwise alter the behavior of plants or their produce. Additionally,
plant regulators are characterized by their low rates of application; high application rates
of the same compounds often are considered herbicidal".
Plant growth regulators may be defined as any organic compounds, which are
active at low concentrations (1-10 ng / nl) in promoting, inhibiting or modifying growth
and development. The naturally occurring (endogenous) growth substances are
commonly known as plant hormones, while the synthetic ones are called growth
regulator.
Plant hormone is an organic compound synthesised in one part of the plant and
translocated to another part, where in very low concentrations it causes a physiological
response. The plant hormones are identified as promoters (auxins, gibberellin and
cytokinin), inhibitors (abscissic acid and ethylene) and other hypothetical growth
substance (florigen, flowering hormone, etc).
Plant hormones (also known as phytohormones) are chemicals that regulate
plant growth, which, in the UK, are termed 'plant growth substances'. Plant hormones
are signal molecules produced within the plant, and occur in extremely low
concentrations. Hormones regulate cellular processes in targeted cells locally and when
moved to other locations, in other locations of the plant. Hormones also determine the
formation of flowers, stems, leaves, the shedding of leaves, and the development and
ripening of fruit. Plants, unlike animals, lack glands that produce and secrete hormones;
instead each cell is capable of producing hormones. Plant hormones shape the plant,
affecting seed growth, time of flowering, the sex of flowers, senescence of leaves and
fruits. They affect which tissues grow upward and which grow downward, leaf
formation and stem growth, fruit development and ripening, plant longevity, and even
plant death. Hormones are vital to plant growth and lacking them, plants would be
mostly a mass of undifferentiated cells.
Plant growth regulators (also known as growth regulators or plant hormones) are
chemicals used to alter the growth of a plant or plant part. Hormones are substances
naturally produced by plants, substances that control normal plant functions, such as

142
root growth, fruit set and drop, growth and other development processes. Plant growth
regulators are regulated as pesticides by the Florida Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services (FDACS) and must be registered with the FDACS for lawful use in
Florida like any pesticide lawfully used in Florida
FDACS Definition of "Plant Regulator"
Any substance or mixture of substances intended, through physiological action,
for accelerating or retarding the rate of growth or maturation or for otherwise altering
the behavior of ornamental or crop plants or the produce thereof, but not including
substances intended as plant nutrients, trace elements, nutritional chemicals, plant
inoculants, or soil amendments.
Exactly how do changes made through genetic engineering compare to classical
methods of genetic manipulation? An example that contrasts the two approaches is
helpful in understanding the differences and similarities between these two methods.
Both classical and molecular approaches were used to increase the sugar content of the
commercially available tomato. This work was made possible because certain wild
tomato relatives, although unlike commercial varieties in appearance, have higher sugar
content. The plan was to transfer the higher sugar content of the wild tomato to the
domesticated tomato and leave behind its smaller size, lower yield and bitter taste.
The classical breeding approach accomplished this goal through the mixing of
genetic information from the two parents upon sexual exchange. After many cycles of
backcrossing to the parental commercial variety, most information from the wild parent
was eliminated but still some remained. In that uncharacterized bit of genetic material
was the information for the sweetness characteristic, but also the information for an
unexpected characteristic. The newly developed variety had lowered fertility. This is
because the breeder did not have total control over exactly what information was
retained in the new tomatoes. They tried to minimize the unwanted information from
the wild species, but despite this effort they were unable to eliminate everything but the
sweetness characteristic. They ended up with a new variety that still had a substantial
input from the wild species and in that information was the sweetness characteristic and
something that caused lower fertility.
In the genetic engineering approach, the researchers found a single piece of
genetic information that when removed would slow the breakdown of sugar. Through
genetic engineering technologies, they were able to build that characteristic into the
commercial variety and stop sugar degradation in the commercial tomato. They did this
by making a very specific change in a single gene. They changed nothing else about the
tomato. Additionally, in contrast to classical breeding, they knew precisely what
information they were adding. Another difference with this approach is that, although in
this case the changed information came from the tomato species itself, it would have
been possible to take that new genetic information from another plant species, a microbe
or any other organism for that matter. In addition with this approach it is possible to
"define" precisely when and where this newly acquired information will be made by
using characterized regulatory regions that function when and where they are need.

143
Plant growth regulators are necessary for, but do not control, many aspects of plant
growth and development. - Better name is growth regulator. The effect on plant
physiology is dependent on the amount of hormone present and tissue sensitivity to the
plant growth regulator.
The word hormone is derived from Greek, meaning 'set in motion.' Plant
hormones affect gene expression and transcription levels, cellular division, and growth.
They are naturally produced within plants, though very similar chemicals are produced
by fungi and bacteria that can also affect plant growth. A large number of related
chemical compounds are synthesized by humans, they are used to regulate the growth of
cultivated plants, weeds, and in vitro-grown plants and plant cells; these manmade
compounds are called Plant Growth Regulators or PGRs for short. Early in the study of
plant hormones, "phytohormone" was the commonly used term, but its use is less
widely applied now.
Plant hormones are not nutrients, but chemicals that in small amounts promote
and influence the growth, development, and differentiation of cells and tissues. The
biosynthesis of plant hormones within plant tissues is often diffuse and not always
localized. Plants lack glands to produce and store hormones, because, unlike animals,
which have two circulatory systems (lymphatic and cardiovascular) powered by a heart
that moves fluids around the body, plants use more passive means to move chemicals
around the plant. Plants utilize simple chemicals as hormones, which move more easily
through the plant's tissues. They are often produced and used on a local basis within the
plant body; plant cells even produce hormones that affect different regions of the cell
producing the hormone.
Hormones are transported within the plant by utilizing four types of movements.
For localized movement, cytoplasmic streaming within cells and slow diffusion of ions
and molecules between cells are utilized. Vascular tissues are used to move hormones
from one part of the plant to another; these include sieve tubes that move sugars from
the leaves to the roots and flowers, and xylem that moves water and mineral solutes
from the roots to the foliage.
Not all plant cells respond to hormones, but those cells that do are programmed
to respond at specific points in their growth cycle. The greatest effects occur at specific
stages during the cell's life, with diminished effects occurring before or after this period.
Plants need hormones at very specific times during plant growth and at specific
locations. They also need to disengage the effects that hormones have when they are no
longer needed. The production of hormones occurs very often at sites of active growth
within the meristems, before cells have fully differentiated. After production they are
sometimes moved to other parts of the plant where they cause an immediate effect or
they can be stored in cells to be released later. Plants use different pathways to regulate
internal hormone quantities and moderate their effects; they can regulate the amount of
chemicals used to biosynthesize hormones. They can store them in cells, inactivate
them, or cannibalise already-formed hormones by conjugating them with carbohydrates,
amino acids or peptides. Plants can also break down hormones chemically, effectively

144
destroying them. Plant hormones frequently regulate the concentrations of other plant
hormones. Plants also move hormones around the plant diluting their concentrations.
The concentration of hormones required for plant responses are very low (10−6
to 10−5 mol/L). Because of these low concentrations, it has been very difficult to study
plant hormones, and only since the late 1970s have scientists been able to start piecing
together their effects and relationships to plant physiology.[4] Much of the early work on
plant hormones involved studying plants that were genetically deficient in one or
involved the use of tissue-cultured plants grown in vitro that were subjected to differing
ratios of hormones, and the resultant growth compared. The earliest scientific
observation and study dates to the 1880s; the determination and observation of plant
hormones and their identification were spread-out over the next 70 years.
Classes of plant hormones
In general, it is accepted that there are five major classes of plant hormones,
some of which are made up of many different chemicals that can vary in structure from
one plant to the next. The chemicals are each grouped together into one of these classes
based on their structural similarities and on their effects on plant physiology. Other
plant hormones and growth regulators are not easily grouped into these classes; they
exist naturally or are synthesized by humans or other organisms, including chemicals
that inhibit plant growth or interrupt the physiological processes within plants. Each
class has positive as well as inhibitory functions, and most often work in tandem with
each other, with varying ratios of one or more interplaying to affect growth regulation.
According to the American Society for Horticultural Science, plant growth
regulators fall into six major classes. Table 1, below, lists these classes with the plant
development function(s) that are controlled by the plant growth regulators. Table 1 also
provides examples of the practical uses with which plant growth regulators are typically
associated.
Table 1: - Plant growth regulator class, associated function(s) and practical uses.

Class Function(s) Practical uses

Thin tree fruit, increase rooting and flower

Auxins Shoot elongation
formation

Stimulate cell division Increase stalk length, increase flower and fruit
Gibberellins
and elongation size

Prolong storage life of flowers and vegetables

Cytokinins Stimulate cell division
and stimulate bud initiation and root growth

Ethylene Ripening Induce uniform ripening in fruit and vegetables

Abscisic Abscission of leaves

Dormancy induction of buds and seeds
acid and fruits

145
Plant hormones differ from animal hormones in that:
• No evidence that the fundamental actions of plant and animal hormones are the
same.
• Unlike animal hormones, plant hormones are not made in tissues specialized for
hormone production. (e.g., sex hormones made in the gonads, human growth
hormone - pituitary gland)
• Unlike animal hormones, plant hormones do not have definite target areas (e.g.,
Auxins can stimulate adventitious root development in a cut shoot, or shoot
elongation or apical dominance, or differentiation of vascular tissue, etc.).
At least five major plant hormones or plant growth regulators are below
1) Auxins (cell elongation)
2) Gibberellins (cell elongation + cell division - translated into growth)
3) Cytokinin (cell division + inhibits senescence)
4) Abscisic acid (abscission of leaves and fruits + dormancy induction of buds
and seeds)
5) Ethylene (promotes senescence, epinasty, and fruit ripening)

Auxins
Dr. Kogl and his co-workers in 1933 isolated auxins –‘a’ from human urine and
auxin ‘b’ from corm germ oil. Afterwards physiological roles of auxins have been
reported by many scientists. These auxins who are responsible for revolutionary
changes in the field of horticulture. Auxins are compounds that positively influence cell
enlargement, bud formation and root initiation. They also promote the production of
other hormones and in conjunction with cytokinins, they control the growth of stems,
roots, and fruits, and convert stems into flowers. Auxins were the first class of growth
regulators discovered. They affect cell elongation by altering cell wall plasticity. They
stimulate cambium, a subtype of meristem cells, to divide and in stems cause secondary
xylem to differentiate.
Auxins act to inhibit the growth of buds lower down the stems (apical
dominance), and also to promote lateral and adventitious root development and growth.
Leaf abscission is initiated by the growing point of a plant ceasing to produce auxins.
Auxins in seeds regulate specific protein synthesis, as they develop within the flower
after pollination, causing the flower to develop a fruit to contain the developing seeds.
Auxins are toxic to plants in large concentrations; they are most toxic to dicots and less
so to monocots. Because of this property, synthetic auxin herbicides including 2, 4-D
and 2, 4, 5-T have been developed and used for weed control. Auxins, especially 1-
Naphthaleneacetic acid (NAA) and Indole-3-butyric acid (IBA), are also commonly
applied to stimulate root growth when taking cuttings of plants. The most common
auxin found in plants is indoleacetic acid or IAA. The correlation of auxins and
cytokinins in the plants is a constant (A/C = const.). Auxin increases the plasticity of
plant cell walls and is involved in stem elongation.

146
 Arpad Paál (1919) - Asymmetrical placement of cut tips on coleoptiles resulted
in a bending of the coleoptile away from the side onto which the tips were placed
(response mimicked the response seen in phototropism). Frits Went (1926) determined
auxin enhanced cell elongation. It is discovered as substance associated with
phototropic response. It occurs in very low concentrations.
• Isolated from human urine, (40mg 33 gals-1)
• In coleoptiles (1g 20,000 tons-1)

Functions of auxins
1. Auxin transport – pola- basi- apex to
base.
2. Cell elongation.
3. Promote root initiation.
4. Inhibits root elongation.
5. Delay leaf abscission.
6. Induce callus formation.
7. Restore apical dominance.
Examples

1. IAA (Indole Acetic Acid)

2. IBA (Indole Butyric Acid)
3. NAA (Naphthalene Acetic Acid)
4. 2, 4-D (2, 4 – Dichlorophenxy Acetic Acid)
5. 4-CPA (4-Chloropenoxy Acetic Acid).

Gibberellin
In 1929 scientist ‘Yabata and Hayashi’ first isolated gibberellins from fungal
culture. Since then number of gibberellins have been isolated from both the fungus and
plants.
Gibberellins are named after the fungus Gibberella fujikuroi which causes rice
plants to grow abnormally tall. It is synthesized in apical portions of stems and roots,
important effects on stem elongation and in some cases, hastens seed germination.
Gibberellins, or GAs, include a large range of chemicals that are produced
naturally within plants and by fungi. They were first discovered when Japanese
researchers, including Eiichi Kurosawa, noticed a chemical produced by a fungus called
Gibberella fujikuroi that produced abnormal growth in rice plants.[16] Gibberellins are
important in seed germination, affecting enzyme production that mobilizes food
production used for growth of new cells. This is done by modulating chromosomal
transcription. In grain (rice, wheat, corn, etc.) seeds, a layer of cells called the aleurone
layer wraps around the endosperm tissue. Absoption of water by the seed causes

147
production of GA. The GA is transported to the aleurone layer, which responds by
producing enzymes that break down stored food reserves within the endosperm, which
are utilized by the growing seedling. GAs produce
bolting of rosette-forming plants, increasing
internodal length. They promote flowering, cellular
division, and in seeds growth after germination.
Gibberellins also reverse the inhibition of shoot
growth and dormancy induced by ABA.
Effects of Gibberellins:-
• GA induces cellular division and cellular elongation; auxin induces cellular
elongation alone.
• GA-stimulated elongation does not involve the cell wall acidification
characteristic of auxin-induced elongation
• Breaking of dormancy in buds and seeds.
• Seed Germination - Especially in cereal grasses, like barley. Not necessarily as
critical in dicot seeds.
• Promotion of flowering.
• Transport is non-polar, bidirectional producing general responses.
• "Thompson Seedless" grapes grown in California are treated with GA to
increase size and decrease packing.
Functions of Gibberellins:
1. Promote growth (Especially those plants are genetically dwarf types).
2. Promote bolting and flowering.
3. Replace chilling requirements of plants and light requirements.
4. Promote seed germination and break dormancy.
5. Increase pollinations.
6. Increase cell elongation.
7. Induce maleness.
Cytokines
The first Cyotkininn hormone in plant was identified by ‘Lethan and his co-
workers’ from corn seeds which can stimulate cell division. Gottlieb Haberlandt in 1913
reported an unknown compound that stimulated cellular division.
In the 1940s, Johannes van Overbeek, noted that plant embryos grew faster
when they were supplied with coconut milk (liquid endosperm), which is rich in nucleic
acids. In the 1950s, Folke Skoog and Carlos Miller studying the influence of auxin on
the growth of tobacco in tissue culture. When auxin was added to artificial medium, the
cells enlarged but did not divide.
Miller took herring-sperm DNA. Miller knew of Overbeek's work, and decided
to add this to the culture medium, the tobacco cells started dividing. He repeated this
experiment with fresh herring-sperm DNA, but the results were not repeated. Only old
DNA seemed to work.
Miller later discovered that adding the purine base of DNA (adenine) would
cause the cells to divide. Adenine or adenine-like compounds induce cell division in
148
plant tissue culture. Miller, Skoog and their coworkers isolated the growth facto
responsible for cellular division from a DNA preparation calling it kinetin which
belongs to a class of compounds called cytokinins.
In 1964, the first naturally occurring
cytokinin was isolated from corn called zeatin.
Zeatin and zeatin riboside are found in coconut
milk. All cytokinins (artificial or natural) are
chemically similar to adenine. Cytokinins move
nonpolarly in xylem, phloem, and parenchyma
cells. Cytokinins are found in angiosperms,
gymnosperms, mosses, and ferns. In
angiosperms, cytokinins are produced in the
roots, seeds, fruits, and young leaves. Cytokinins
and auxin affect organogenesis. High
cytokinin/auxin ratios favor the formation of
shoots. Low cytokinin/auxin ratios favor the
formation of roots. Most cytokinin produced in
root apical meristems and transported throughout plant.
Cytokinins or CKs are a group of chemicals that influence cell division and
shoot formation. They were called kinins in the past when the first cytokinins were
isolated from yeast cells. They also help delay senescence or the aging of tissues, are
responsible for mediating auxin transport throughout the plant, and affect internodal
length and leaf growth. They have a highly synergistic effect in concert with auxins and
the ratios of these two groups of plant hormones affect most major growth periods
during a plant's lifetime. Cytokinins counter the apical dominance induced by auxins;
they in conjunction with ethylene promote abscission of leaves, flower parts and fruits.
The correlation of auxins and cytokinins in the plants is a constant (A/C = const.).
Functions of Cytokines
1. Cell division.
2. Shoot initiation.
3. Breaking dormancy: promote seed germination.
4. Retard senescence: freeness’s of plants.
5. Promote hermaphrodite flower. e.g Grape.
6. Induce parthenocarpic and increase fruit size.
Abscisic acid
Abscisic acid also called ABA, was discovered and researched under two
different names before its chemical properties were fully known, it was called dormin
and abscicin II. Once it was determined that the two latter compounds were the same; it
was named abscisic acid. The name "abscisic acid" was given because it was found in
high concentrations in newly abscissed or freshly fallen leaves.
In 1940s, scientists started searching for hormones that would inhibit growth and
development, what Hemberg called dormins. In the early 1960s, Philip Wareing

149
confirmed that application of a dormin to a bud would induce dormancy. F.T. Addicott
discovered that this substance stimulated abscission of cotton fruit. He named this
substance abscisin. (Subsequent research showed that ethylene and not abscisin controls
abscission). Abscisin is made from carotenoids and moves nonpolarly through plant
tissue.
This class of PGR is composed of one chemical compound normally produced
in the leaves of plants, originating from chloroplasts, especially when plants are under
stress. In general, it acts as an inhibitory chemical compound that affects bud growth,
seed and bud dormancy. It mediates changes within the apical meristem causing bud
dormancy and the alteration of the last set of leaves into protective bud covers. Since it
was found in freshly abscissed leaves, it was thought to play a role in the processes of
natural leaf drop but further research has disproven this. In plant species from temperate
parts of the world it plays a role in leaf and seed dormancy by inhibiting growth, but, as
it is dissipated from seeds or buds, growth begins. In other plants, as ABA levels
decrease, growth then commences as gibberellin levels increase. Without ABA, buds

and seeds would start to grow during warm periods in winter and be killed when it froze
again. Since ABA dissipates slowly from the tissues and its effects take time to be offset
by other plant hormones, there is a delay in physiological pathways that provide some
protection from premature growth. It accumulates within seeds during fruit maturation,
preventing seed germination within the fruit, or seed germination before winter.
Abscisic acid's effects are degraded within plant tissues during cold temperatures or by
its removal by water washing in out of the tissues, releasing the seeds and buds from
dormancy. In plants under water stress, ABA plays a role in closing the stomata. Soon
after plants are water-stressed and the roots are deficient in water, a signal moves up to
the leaves, causing the formation of ABA precursors there, which then move to the
roots. The roots then release ABA, which is translocated to the foliage through the
vascular system and modulates the potassium and sodium uptake within the guard cells,
which then lose turgidity, closing the stomata. ABA exists in all parts of the plant and
its concentration within any tissue seems to mediate its effects and function as a
hormone; its degradation, or more properly catabolism, within the plant affects
metabolic reactions and cellular growth and production of other hormones. Plants start
life as a seed with high ABA levels, just before the seed germinates ABA levels
decrease; during germination and early growth of the seedling, ABA levels decrease

150
even more. As plants begin to produce shoots with fully functional leaves - ABA levels
begin to increase, slowing down cellular growth in more "mature" areas of the plant.
Stress from water or predation affects ABA production and catabolism rates, mediating
another cascade of effects that trigger specific responses from targeted cells. Scientists
are still piecing together the complex interactions and effects of this and other
phytohormones. Abscisic acid is produced chiefly in mature green leaves and in fruits.
It suppresses bud growth and promotes leaf senescence and it also plays important role
in controlling stomatal opening and closing
Ethylene
Ethylene is a gas that forms through the Yang Cycle from the breakdown of
methionine, which is in all cells. Ethylene has very limited solubility in water and does
not accumulate within the cell but diffuses out of the cell and escapes out of the plant.
Its effectiveness as a plant hormone is dependent on its rate of production versus its rate
of escaping into the atmosphere.
Ethylene is produced at a faster rate in rapidly growing and dividing cells,
especially in darkness. New growth and newly germinated seedlings produce more
ethylene than can escape the plant, which leads to elevated amounts of ethylene,
inhibiting leaf expansion (see Hyponastic response). As the new shoot is exposed to
light, reactions by phytochrome in the plant's cells produce a signal for ethylene
production to decrease, allowing leaf expansion. Ethylene affects cell growth and cell
shape; when a growing shoot hits an obstacle while underground, ethylene production
greatly increases, preventing cell elongation and causing the stem to swell. The
resulting thicker stem can exert more pressure against the object impeding its path to the
surface. If the shoot does not reach the surface and the ethylene stimulus becomes
prolonged, it affects the stems natural geotropic response, which is to grow upright,
allowing it to grow around an object.
H H
\ /
C=C
/ \
H H
In the 1800s, it was recognized that street lights that burned gas, could cause
neighboring plants to develop short, thick stems and cause the leaves to fall off. In
1901, Dimitry Neljubow identified that a byproduct of gas combustion was ethylene gas
and that this gas could affect plant growth. In R. Gane showed that this same gas was
naturally produced by plants and that it caused faster ripening of many fruits. Synthesis
of ethylene is inhibited by carbon dioxide and requires oxygen.
Studies seem to indicate that ethylene affects stem diameter and height: When
stems of trees are subjected to wind, causing lateral stress, greater ethylene production
occurs, resulting in thicker, more sturdy tree trunks and branches. Ethylene affects fruit-

151
ripening: Normally, when the seeds are mature, ethylene production increases and
builds-up within the fruit, resulting in a climacteric event just before seed dispersal. The
nuclear protein Ethylene Insensitive2 (EIN2) is regulated by ethylene production, and,
in turn, regulates other hormones including ABA and stress hormones.
A synthetic chemical known as Ethrel (Ethephon -2), Chloroethyl phosphoric
acid (CEPA) which reduce ethylene when applied on plant.
Functions of Ethylene :
1. Apical dominance arrested.
2. Stimulate of lateral growth.
3. Promote abscission of leaves, flowers, and fruit.
4. Induction of flowering.
5. Helps in fruit ripening.
6. Promote rooting.
7. Helps in chlorophyll formation.
8. Promote seed germination.
9. Increase female flowers.
10. Breaks dormancy.
11. Gaseous in form and rapidly diffusing.
12. Gas produced by one plant will affect nearby plants.
13. Fruit ripening.
14. Epinasty – downward curvature of leaves.
15. Encourages senescence and abscission.
16. Initiation of stem elongation and bud development.
17. Flowering - Ethylene inhibits flowering in most species, but promotes it in a few
plants such as pineapple, bromeliads, and mango.
18. Sex Expression - Cucumber buds treated with ethylene become carpellate
(female) flowers, whereas those treated with gibberellins become staminate
(male) flowers.
Other known hormones
Other identified plant growth regulators include:
1. Brassinosteroids, are a class of polyhydroxysteroids, a group of plant growth
regulators. Brassinosteroids have been recognized as a sixth class of plant
hormones which stimulate cell elongation and division, gravitropism, resistance
to stress and xylem differentiation. They inhibit root growth and leaf abscission.
Brassinolide was the first identified brassinosteroid and was isolated from
organic extracts of rapeseed (Brassica napus) pollen in 1970.
2. Salicylic acid - activates genes in some plants that produce chemicals that aid in
the defense against pathogenic invaders.
3. Jasmonates - are produced from fatty acids and seem to promote the production
of defense proteins that are used to fend off invading organisms. They are
believed to also have a role in seed germination, and affect the storage of protein
in seeds, and seem to affect root growth.
4. Plant peptide hormones - encompasses all small secreted peptides that are
involved in cell-to-cell signaling. These small peptide hormones play crucial
roles in plant growth and development, including defense mechanisms, the
control of cell division and expansion, and pollen self-incompatibility.

152
 5. Polyamines - are strongly basic molecules with low molecular weight that have
been found in all organisms studied thus far. They are essential for plant growth
and development and affect the process of mitosis and meiosis.
6. Nitric oxide (NO) - serves as signal in hormonal and defense responses.
7. Strigolactones, implicated in the inhibition of shoot branching.
8. Karrikins, a group of plant growth regulators found in the smoke of burning
plant material that have the ability to stimulate the germination of seeds
Auxin
• Auxin is a Greek word which means to increase.
• It is a generic term for chemicals that typically stimulate cell elongation, but
auxins also influence a wide range of growth and development response.
• The chemical isolations and characterization was done by Kogi et al. (1934).
• Auxins are the first identified hormones of which IAA seems to be the major
naturally occurring, endogenous auxin in crops.
• Besides IAA, plants contain three other compounds which are structurally
similar and elicit many of the same response as that of IAA, 4, chloroindole
acetic acid (CIAA),phenylacetic acid (PAA), indole butyric acid (IBA).
• Synthetic compounds are classified into five major categories; indole acids,
naphthalene acids, chlorophenoxy acids, benzoic acid and picolinic acid
derivatives.
Role of Auxin
1 Cell divisions and enlargement e.g. IAA + GA
cambial growth in diameter
2 Tissue culture Shoot multiplications (IBA and BAP),callus Growth (2,4,-
D), root multiplication IAA and IBA (1-2 mg)
3 Breaking dormancy and Apical NAA
dominance
4 Shortening internodes Apple trees (NAA) (dwarf branch-fruit)
5 Rooting of cuttings (10-1000 ppm - NAA, IAA, phenyl acetic acid)
6 Prevent lodging NAA- develop woody and erect stem
7 Prevent abscission Premature leaf, fruit, flower fall
(NAA, IAA and 2,4-D)
8 Parthenocarpic fruit Grapes, banana, orange - (IAA)
9 Flower initiations Pine apple -uniform flowering - fruit ripening (NAA).
Delay flowering (2,4-D)
10 Weed eradications 2,4,D and auxin compounds

Gibberellin
• It is the active substance isolated from the soil borne fungus Gibberella fujikuroi
the concentration of GA3 is usually highest in mature seeds.
• Reaching up to 18 mg / kg fresh weight in Phaseolus species, but it decreases
rapidly as the seed mature.
• In general, roots contain higher amounts of GA3 than shoots.
• Gibberellins have also been found effective in overcoming both kinds of
dormancy, buds as wells as seeds.
• Treatments with Gibberellins have been observed and it substitute effectively for
long day, low temperature or red light exposure requirements.

153
 Role of gibberellic acid
1. Gibberellic acid Synthesis in leaf and induce shoot elongation (IAA + GA3)
2. Enhance metabolic activity Mobilisation of reserve food material promotes growth and
height, increase root actively and Kinetin production in root
- translocate to growing Bud (GA3).
3. Shoot elongation GA3 spray increase height of nursery seedlings
4. Delay senescence Increase photosynthesis and proteins synthesis and thereby
decrease abscission
5.Increase cambial growth and Induce flower and fruit set (IAA + GA3)
differentiation
6.Dwarf plant (genetically) to GA3
normal height
7.Promote flowering in long day Substitute for long day conditions and cold treatment
plants (verbalizations)
8. Induction of parthenocarpy eg. Grapes
Ethylene
• Neljubow (1901) is credited with having identified the active growth-regulating
component of the illuminating gas as ethylene.
• Ethylene is formed naturally in plants in amounts sufficient to bring about
regulatorly effects and it might be considered as plant hormone.
• Ethylene may be active in alleviation of secondary dormancy also (Ross,1984).
• Synthetic chemical known as Etherel, Ethephon, Chloroethyl phosphonic acid
(CEPA) has been reported to release ethylene when applied on plants.
Role of ethylene
• Breaking dormancy
• Induce ripening of fruits
• Induce abscission of leaves
• Inhibit elongation and lateral bud growth

Cytokinin
• First endogenous cytokinin was isolated from maize kernels named as zeatin.
• Germinating seeds, roots, sap streams, developing fruits and tumor tissue are
rich in cytokinins.
• Cytokinins imbibed seeds germinate better in dark than unimbibed lettuce seeds.
• Similarly cytokinin together with gibberllin effectively breaks the
photodormancy of celery (Apium graveolens) seeds.
• Synthetic cytokinins are kinetin, benzyladenine and ethoxy ethladenine.
Role of cytokinin
• Cell divisions, elongation and enlargement
• Induction of flowering, fruit development
• Apical dominance-overcoming
• Delay senescence
• Tissue culture morphogenesis
• Parthenocarpy
• Breaking dormancy
• Improves N2 metabolism

154
Others growth retardants
• The term growth retarding or growth retardant is that the chemical slows cell
division and cell elongation of shoot tissue and regulate plant height
physiologically without formative effects.
• Eg. AMO 1618, phosphon-D, CCC, MC and Alar. These do not occur naturally
in plants and acts in retardation of stem elongation, preventing cell division.
Inhibitors
Suppress the growth of plants. There are phenolic inhibitors and synthetic
inhibitors and Abscissic acid (ABA). Benzoic acid, Salicylic acid, Coumarin and
Chlorogenic acid are examples for phenolic inhibitors, while malichydrazide (MH) and
Triiodo benzoic acid (TIBA) are examples of synthetic inhibitors. Inhibitor from young
leaves of Betula spp. prevents the growth of apical buds eg. ABA and Dormin.
Abscisic Acid (ABA)
• To stop elongation
• Induce dormancy
• Delay germination
• Inhibit growth process
Role of inhibitors
• Accumulation leads to induce dormancy
• Regulation of flowering, senescence and tuber formation
• Induction of cold hardiness
• Cause abscission and dehiscence of fruits
• ABA application increase GA (Gibberellic acid) levels and may cause increase
in growth
• Suppress the formation of a amylase in the barley endosperm
• Interfere with DNA and RNA synthesis
• Modify the nucleic acid and protein synthesis systems.
• Phenolic compounds inhibit stem and root growth
• Phenolics affect almost all the metabolic system
• Control Gibberellin - stimulated growth
Methods of application
• Spraying method
• Injection of solution into internal tissues
• Root feeding method
• Application of powder mixtures to the bases of cuttings
• Dipping of the cutting in PGR solution
• Soaking in dilute aqueous solution

155
GROWTH REGULATORS IN AGRICULTURAL CROPS
Crop Chemical/ Dosage Response
Rice Kinetin, GA3 and Grain filling and partitioning. Delayed
Triacontanol (1000 ppm) senescence
Cotton IAA, NAA (30 ppm), Increase grain yield
CCC (cycocel) Decrease boll shedding
Increase photosynthetic rate and yield
Increase number of bolls, boll weight and lint
yield
Sunflower Benzyl adenine (BA) (250 Increase yield and Achenes weight and number
ppm) GA+BA(150ppm)
Groundnut Mepiquat chloride (125 Increased grain yield and chlorophyll synthesis
ppm) and decrease chlorophyllase activity
(2,3,4-D-chlorophynoxy Stimulation of assimilate transport in germination
triethyl amine)
Sugarcane Ethephon Glyphosine Reduced growth rate and regulate ripening
Tapioca Ethrel (250 ppm) Early tuberisation
CCC (1000 ppm) Increase the weight of storage roots
Pigeonpea Ethrel (40 ppm) and GA3 Increase grain yield
(20 ppm) Respond well for RWC, chlorophyll and stomatal
CCC(0.64 mM) conductance
Carrot and GA3 (50 ppm) Induction of flowering in long day and seed
Potato setting

156
Chapter 14

Role of Integrated Nutrient Management in Intensive Cropping

Systems

Integrated nutrient management (INM) or integrated nutrient supply (INS)

system aims at achieving efficient use of chemical fertilizers in conjunction with
organic manures. Long term fertilizer experiments involving intensive cereal based
cropping systems reveal a declining trend in productivity even with the application of
recommended levels of N, P and K fertilizers. The crop productivity increases from the
combined application of chemical fertilizers and organic manures. Such combination
contributed to the improvement of physical, chemical and biological properties and soil
organic matter and nutrient status. Integrated Nutrient Management refers to the
maintenance of soil fertility and of plant nutrient supply at an optimum level for
sustaining the desired productivity through optimization of the benefits from all possible
sources of organic, inorganic and biological components in an integrated manner.

Inorganic Fertilizers Organic Manures

+ +

Green manures Biofertilizers

157
Intensive farming or intensive agriculture is an agricultural production system
characterized by the high inputs of capital, labour, or heavy usage of technologies such
as pesticides and chemical fertilizers relative to land area. This is in contrast to many
sorts of sustainable agriculture such as organic farming or extensive agriculture, which
involve higher inputs of labor, and energy relative to the area of land farmed, but focus
on maintaining the long-term ecological health of the farmland, also the product which
is being produced is generally produced with few or no chemicals.
Modern day forms of intensive crop based agriculture involve the use of mechanical
ploughing, chemical fertilizers, plant growth regulators and/or pesticides. It is
associated with the increasing use of agricultural mechanization, which have enabled a
substantial increase in production, yet have also dramatically increased environmental
pollution by increasing erosion and poisoning water with agricultural chemicals.
Intensive animal farming practices can involve very large numbers of animals
raised on limited land which requires large amounts of food, water and medical inputs
(required to keep the animals healthy in cramped conditions). Very large or confined
indoor intensive livestock operations (particularly descriptive of common US farming
practices) are often referred to as factory farming and are criticized by opponents for the
low level of animal welfare standards and associated pollution and health issues.
Concept of INM system
1. The basic concept of INM system is the maintenance of plant nutrients supply to
achieve a given level of crop production by optimizing the benefits from all
possible sources of plant nutrients in an integrated manner, appropriate to each
cropping system and farming situation.
2. If the soil fertility has already eroded to a high degree by inappropriate
management practices, one major task of INM system will be to at least stop the
ongoing loss of surface or top soil nutrients.
3. Regulated nutrient supply for optimum crop growth and higher productivity.
4. Improvement and maintenance of soil fertility.
5. Zero adverse impact on agro – ecosystem quality by balanced fertilization of
organic manures, inorganic fertilizers and bio- inoculant
Determinants
1. Nutrient requirement of cropping system as a whole.
2. Soil fertility status and special management needs to overcome soil problems, if
any
3. Local availability of nutrients resources (organic, inorganic and biological
sources)
4. Economic conditions of farmers and profitability of proposed INM option.
5. Social acceptability.
6. Ecological considerations.
7. Impact on the environment
Need of INM system in modern agriculture
INM system is an age-old concept. Its importance was not realized earlier as
nutrient removal by the crops was very low due to subsistence farming. At present, INM
system has a great significance because of intensive farming. Its need in modern
agriculture has arisen due to:
(i) high price of chemical fertilizers;

158
 (ii) imbalance in the ratio of NPK consumption;
(iii) imbalance between consumption and domestic production;
(iv) deterioration of soil health;
(v) consumption of non-renewable energy sources by inorganic fertilizers;
(vi) pollution hazards of chemical fertilizers;
(vii) loss of chemical productivity;
(viii) deterioration in soil physical properties;
(ix) deterioration in biological activity;
(x) additive effect of organic and mineral fertilizers;
(xi) organic materials as a source of secondary micronutrients;
(xii) interaction benefit crops;
(xiii) reduction in crop productivity

Distribution of Rice-wheat cropping system in south Asian countries

Rice-wheat is the principal cropping system occupying 24 million ha (m ha) of
cultivated land in the Asian subtropics. In South Asian countries, the system is prevalent
in about 13.5 m ha in the Indo-Gangetic Plains (IGP) of which 10 m ha lies in India, 2.2
m ha in Pakistan, 0.8 m ha in Bangladesh and 0.5 m ha in Nepal and about 10.5 m ha in
China. This system covers about 32 per cent of the total rice area and 42 per cent of the
total wheat area in these four countries (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal) and
account for one-quarter to one-third of the total rice and wheat production. The ten-fold
increase in rice-wheat sequence in India, Nepal, Bangladesh and Pakistan during the last
30 years support the statement. Further, rice has been grown as a food crop for more
than 6,000 years in Asia. Today more than 90 per cent of global rice are produced and
consumed in Asia, contributing 30-75 per cent of dietary calories for populations in
Asian countries. The rice-wheat occupies 10.5 m ha area, dominates agricultural
systems in India mostly in Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh and
contributes 75 per cent of the national food grain production. Importance of rice-wheat
system for food security in India is obvious from a rise in food grains production,
during “Green Revolution” (1967-68), about 55 mt in 1949-50 to 206 mt during 1999-
2000.
The major contribution in this respect was from wheat and rice, the production
of which increased from 6.4 mt in 1949-50 to 88.2 mt in 1999-2000. The concerted
efforts of the Technology Mission on Oilseeds in May 1986 contributed to raise oilseed
production from 10.83 mt (1985-86) to 25.2 mt (1989-99). The total value of fruit
export increased from Rs. 19723 million in 1991-92 to Rs. 90315 million in 1998-99.
Besides Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, rice-wheat system
occupies sizeable area in the adjoining parts of Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh and
Jammu and Kashmir regions of the Jammu and Kashmir state. On all India basis, total
area under rice and wheat is 41.91 and 26.38 m ha with production of 91.04 and 69.48
million tonnes (Anonymous, 2005-06), respectively.

159
Role of INM in rice-wheat cropping system
In the past research mineral fertilizers boosted the rice-wheat yield in the IGP,
but their rising cost and diminishing resources led to search for alternative sources of
plant nutrients. Complementary use of the available renewable sources of plant nutrients
(Organic/biological) along with mineral fertilizers led to the development of INM
system. The role and contribution of INM from each of its components in rice-wheat
cropping is discussed under the following heads:
Chemical fertilizer: Since 1950, the fertilizer consumption in India has
increased remarkably. India is now the third largest in the world in terms of both
production and consumption of fertilizers. The dependence on fertilizers is increasing
rapidly in intensive farming, because soil nutrient resources alone can’t support the
system.
Fertilizer contributed to about 50 per cent increase in food grain production of
India. About three-fourth of the fertilizer is consumed in rice and wheat. In rice-wheat
system, recommended dose of N should be applied to both crops as there is no residual
effect on succeeding crops. Due to increased availability of native soil P under
submergence, rice generally responds to applied P than wheat. Therefore P application
to wheat should be preferred over rice. However, in phosphate deficient soils, it is very
essential to apply P in both the crops. Rice is more responsive to K than wheat and it
should be added as per soil test based recommendation. Increased use of S-free
fertilizers like urea, DAP and MOP increased the need of S application. Due to
intensive cropping with high nutrient-responsive varieties of rice and wheat widespread
deficiencies of micronutrients particularly Zn, are emerging as yield-limiting factors.
Hence, the deficient micronutrient should be applied through their respective carriers in
soil. In rice-wheat system, if soil is Zn deficient, then ZnS04 application should be done.

Organic manures: The dead plant residues and animal remains were
traditionally used in developing countries until the 1960’s when mineral fertilizers
began to achieve popularity. Organic manures are generally of two types- bulky organic
manures and concentrated organic manures. The manures that are applied in large
quantities and contain low amount of plant nutrients are known as bulky organic
manures such as farm yard manure (FYM), compost, night soil etc. and concentrated
organic manures contain higher percentage of major plant nutrients than bulky organic
manures. The important concentrated organic manures are edible oil cakes (mustard,
groundnut, seasame and linseed cake), non-edible cakes (castor, neem, sunflower,
mahua and karaja cakes), blood meal, bone meal, fish meal etc.
Organic manures are the important component in the INM. The rice-wheat
system of the IGP had been traditionally dependent on organic manurial sources. The
inclusion of FYM regulates nutrients uptake, improves crop yields and physical and
chemical properties of soils and produces a synergistic effect. Use of organic manures in
India was 99.86 per cent of the total nutrient use in 1949 but it decreased to 32.5 per
cent in 1993 and probably further decreased to 20-25 per cent. Research results of INM
established that besides serving as a source of plant nutrients to crop, the organic
160
manures improve soil aeration, permeability, aggregation, water holding capacity and
biological properties of soils and enhances the fertilizer use efficiency. The organic
manure also provides essential micro nutrients like S, Mg, Cu, Mn and Fe etc. The
results of 16 years long field experiment on rice-wheat system at Faizabad, Uttar
Pradesh revealed that substitution of 25-50 per cent N through FYM along with 50-75
per cent recommended NPK through chemical fertilizers to rice resulted in higher yield
as compared to 100 per cent chemical fertilizers application alone. The results indicated
-1 -1
that FYM application @ 12-15 t ha to rice could substitute nearly 60 kg N ha . The
higher reduction in pH, electrical conductivity and exchangeable sodium percentage of
soil was observed by using organic manures along with chemical fertilizers as compared
to fertilizers alone. The combination of chemical fertilizers with FYM registered more
increase in available N and P content of the soil against the chemical fertilizers alone.
The more build up in available N and P is attributed to solubilization of nutrients from
their native sources during decomposition and mineralization of organic manures.
Depletion rate of DTPA-extractable micronutrient cations viz. Zn, Cu, Mn and Fe was
found higher in inorganic fertilizers added as compared to the organics. Chelating action
of organic compounds released during decomposition of organic sources increased the
availability of micronutrients by preventing their fixation, oxidation, precipitation and
leaching.
Organic manure and recommended doses of fertilizers had significant influence
on soil bulk density and total soil porosity after harvesting of rice under rice-wheat
system in silty loam calcareous soil at Rajendra Agricultural University Farm, Pusa
(Bihar). In surface soil layer, application of FYM significantly reduced the bulk density
-3 -3
(1.32 Mg m ) in comparison to control (1.45 Mg m ). In sub-surface layer, FYM and
NPK fertilizer treatments showed the significant reduced bulk density over the control.
The increment in soil bulk density and reduction in total porosity in the surface layer of
the rice field was attributed to soil particle dispersion and soil submergence. The lower
values of bulk density in the plots under recommended levels of fertilizers was due to
the presence of more crop residues (roots) being left after crop harvest. The significantly
higher pore space in plots receiving FYM and higher levels of fertilizer treatments was
credited to the better soil profile aggregation and reduction in bulk density. The
application of organic manure has enhanced the water retention capacity of the soils. In
some soils under rice-wheat system the variation in moisture content at permanent
wilting point (15 bar suction) among the treatments was not as apparent as it was at
field capacity (0.33 bar suction). This was due to the native capacity of the soil to hold
water under stress condition.
Enriched compost: The process of decomposition of organic wastes is termed
as composting and the decomposed material is called compost. In compost making
process the bulk of the material used is plant residues. On an average, it contains 1.01
per cent N, 0.5 per cent P2O5 and 0.8-0.9 per cent K2O. The enrichment of organic
manures is of practical interest because demerits of bulky organic manures can be
overcome by their enrichment. It increases the nutrient content of manures, reduces the

161
bulk to be handled per unit of nutrients, and offers a potential for the utilization of
insoluble materials such as low-grade phosphate rocks. By using the N-fixing bacteria
and P-solubilizing bacteria and fungi the nutrient content of compost can be further
improved. The use of efficient microbial inoculates e.g. Azotobacter chroococcum (N-
fixer), Bacillus polymixa, Aspergillus awamori, A. nigre and A. lipoferum (P-
solubilizing fungi) along with mineral N and rock phosphate produces the nutrient rich
compost with low C: N ratio which produces higher crop yields than ordinary compost
and FYM. Enrichment of the compost can also be done by using urea, DAP and rock
phosphate Field trials conducted at Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh on the effect of enriched
straw compost prepared from the chopped and unchopped material on the yield of wheat
crop showed that the grain yield increased by 41.8 per cent and 36.9 per cent,
respectively. Similarly, chopped straw compost+50 per cent NPK produced statistically
similar grain yields to 100 per cent NPK dose.
Vermicompost: Vermicomposting is one of the best processes of recycling of
different type of wastes available on farm, rural areas and urban settlements and may
become most important component of INM system. It has attracted the attention of not
only scientists, but farmers’ worldwide, since it is a natural organic product which is
eco-friendly and leaves no adverse effects either in the soil, produces or the
environment. Thus, much interest in vermicomposting has been noticed due to the fact
that earthworms play an important role in soil improvement, organic matter
decomposition and in enhancing plant growth. The use of earthworms in organic waste
management has been termed as vermicomposting and the compost is generally called
as vermicompost. It is estimated that 1800 worms which is an ideal population for one
sq. meter can feed on 80 -Prilled Urea (PU) along with 60 kg N hatonnes of humus per
year. The worm commonly used for this purpose is Eisenia fetida, Eudrillus eugeniae
and Pheritima elongate which is potential agent in breaking down animal wastes (Gupta
and Bhagat, 2004). On an average, it contains 1.6 per cent N, 5.04 per cent P2O5 and 0.8
per cent K2O. Apart from this, vermicompost also contains harmones like auxins and
cytokines, enzymes, vitamins and useful micro-organisms like bacteria, actinomycetes,
protozoa’s, fungi and others. Field experiment conducted at IARI, New Delhi concluded
-1-1
that the integrated use of half the dose of 120 kg N ha either through Vermicompost
and FYM gave comparable grain yield of rice and wheat crop with application of 120
-1
kg N ha -PU.
Micro-nutrients: With the adoption of exhaustive rice-wheat systems involving
HYV’s and use of high doses NPK fertilizers (practically devoid of secondary and
micro-nutrients) widespread deficiencies of S and Zn, and sporadic deficiencies of Fe,
Mn and B deficiencies have been noticed. Among micro-nutrients, Zn deficiency is the
most common. about 50 per cent soils of intensively cultivated areas suffer from Zn
deficiency, especially lowland rice soils with low organic matter and alkaline in
reaction. Integrated use of macro and micro-nutrient fertilizers with organic manures,
crop residues including green manure can serve a source of micro-nutrients.
Experiments on integrated use of organics and micro-nutrients at Rajendra Agricultural

162
 -1
University Farm, Pusa (Bihar) indicated that integrated use of 2.5 kg Zn ha and 2.5 to
-1
5 t ha biogas slurry was quite effective in improving fertilizer use efficiency and grain
yield of rice-wheat cropping system.
The grain yield of wheat in rice-wheat cropping system increased significantly
with the adoption of INM system. Yield and yield attributes of wheat studied in rice-
wheat sequence (average of 3 years) in sandy loam soils at Bulandshar, Uttar Pradesh
indicated that when Zn was added to 100 per cent NPK and FYM, it increased plant
height, grain weight and grain yield rather than 150 per cent NPK and Zn. This was due
to more availability of Zn element to crop by chelation with FYM. Thus continuous
application of organic manures like FYM, poultry manure, decomposed pressmud,
biogas slurry and sewage-sludge prevented Zn deficiency even in intensive cropping
systems, except on the soils severely deficient in Zn where organic manures alone failed
to meet the Zn demands of the crops.
Crop residues: Residues left out after the harvest of the economic portion is
called as crop residues. On an average, it contains 0.5 per cent N, 0.6 per cent P2O5 and
1.5 per cent K2O. Crop residues mostly are staple food of cattle and dry fodder for
animals. In certain regions where mechanical harvesting is done, the crop residues are
left behind in the field which acts as a source of nutrient supply. Crop residues improve
the soil properties, micro nutrient supply and productivity. The major advantage of
incorporation of rice/wheat residue is the increases of the soil organic carbon, total N,
and available K. The incorporation of crop residues on a long term basis also increased
the DTPA-extractable Zn, Cu, Fe and Mn content in the soil. Judicious use of crop
residues is an important consideration in reducing the nutrient losses through leaching,
volatilization or fixation especially under adverse soil conditions. Direct application of
crop residues with wide C: N ratio may immobilize all the available N and P leading to
adverse effect on crop growth during initial periods of decomposition. Introduction of
certain microbial strains capable of accelerating carbon mineralization can cut short the
time necessary for complete residue composting. The results of a field study indicated
that wheat straw in combination with N application increased the rice yield and net
returns. The residual effect of the wheat straw was more pronounced and statistically
higher than 100 per cent N dose.
Green manures: Green manuring is the cheapest locally available resource for
building up soil fertility and supplementing plant nutrients, especially N. The practice of
ploughing in of un-decomposed green plant material into the soil for improving the
physical condition as well as fertility of the soil is called as “green manuring.” Green
manures may be grown in situ by raising a legume such as Sesbania aculeata or
Crotolaria juncia for a period of 45 to 60 days. Sesbania aculeate (dhaincha),
Crotolaria juncia (sunnhemp) and Vigna unguiculata (cowpea) are capable of
-1 -1
accumulating 4-5 t ha of dry mass and about 100 kg N ha in 50-60 days. Integrated
use of green manures with recommended inorganic fertilizers indicated that increase in
rice and wheat yields was largest in case of Sesbania along with 100 per cent NPK

163
doses in both the crops than Crotolaria juncia and cowpea green manure crops. Field
experiments carried out for ten years (1983-84 to 1992-93) at Ludhiana, Punjab under
irrigated conditions in rice-wheat cropping system on loamy sand soil indicated that
significantly higher yield of rice was obtained when 25 per cent N substitution was done
with green manure (prickly sesban).
Bio-fertilizers: Bio-fertilizers have been recognized as important inputs in INM
system and their use is of recent origin. They are apparently environmentally friendly,
low cost and non-bulky agricultural inputs which play a significant role in plant
nutrition as a supplementary and complementary factor to mineral nutrition.
Blue green algae (BGA): BGA is predominant in submerged rice soils which
provided an ideal condition for their growth and fixing atmospheric N. A judicious use
of BGA could provide to the country’s entire rice acreage as much N as obtained from
15-17 lakh tons of urea. It is estimated that at farm level, it can contribute about 25-30
-1
kg N ha . A field experiment conducted at Bilaspur, Madhya Pradesh in rice-wheat
-1
sequence revealed that rice yields under treatments of BGA @ 5 kg culture ha and
-1
FYM @ 5 t ha were statistically at par with each other. Organic manures and BGA
-1
combined with 60 kg N+37.5 kg P2O5+22.5 kg K2O ha as chemical fertilizers proved
superior to other treatments for rice yields and their residual effect on wheat yields.
These results suggested that organic manures and bio-fertilizers play an important role
in augmenting physical properties of soils apart from fixing atmospheric N.
Azolla: Azolla-anabaena association is a live, floating N factory using energy
-1
from photosynthesis to fix atmospheric N, amounting to 100-150 kg ha annually from
0
about 40-60 tons of biomass and requires temperature around 25 C and high relative
humidity. It helps to the increase of crop yields by 15-25 per cent in rice crop. On an
average, decomposed Azolla contains N (4-6%), P (0.5-0.9%), K (2-6%), Ca (0.4-
1.0%), Mg (0.5%), Mn (0.11-0.16%), Fe (0.06-0.16%) and H20 (>80%).

Phosphorous solubilizing micro-organisms (PSMs): There has also been

considerable research in India on PSM in rice and wheat. The introduction of PSM
(Pseudomonas striate, Bacillus polymyxa, Aspergillus awamori, Penicillium digitatum
etc.) in the rhizosphere of rice and wheat increases the availability of phosphate from
insoluble phosphates such as rock phosphate and increases the utilization efficiency of
ordinary superphosphate. Inoculation of seeds or seedlings with PSM can provide 13 kg
-1
P ha equivalent of ordinary superphosphate. PSM could be useful in sustaining crop
yields in rice-wheat rotation when adequate P solubilization is not made.
INM in Maize (Zea mays L.)
Irrigated Maize
Application of FYM or Compost
Spread 12.5 t/ha of FYM or compost or composted coir pith evenly on the
unploughed field along with 10 packets of Azospirillum + Phosphobacteria 2 kg each/ha
or Azophos at 4 kg/ha and incorporate in the soil.

164
Application of Fertilizers
Apply NPK fertilizers as per soil test recommendation as far as possible. If soil
test recommendation is not available adopt a blanket recommendation of 135:62.5:50
NPK kg/ha, ZnSO4 at 37.5 kg/ha. Apply quarter of the dose of N; full dose of P2O and
K2O basally before sowing. Apply the fertilizer mixture along the furrows evenly and
cover to a depth of 4 cm with soil. If bed system of planting is followed, open furrows 6
cm deep at a distance of 60 cm apart. Place the fertilizer mixture along the furrows
evenly and cover to a depth of 4 cm with soil. When Azospirillum is used as seed and
soil application, apply 100 kg of N/ha (25% reduction on the total N recommended by
soil test).
Application of micronutrient
12.5 kg of micronutrient mixture mixed with sand to make a total quantity of 50
kg/ha is to be applied. Apply the mixture over the furrows and two thirds in the top of
ridges, if ridge planting is followed. If bed system of sowing is followed, apply the
micronutrient mixture over the furrows. Do not incorporate the micronutrient mixture in
the soil.
Seed treatment
Seeds treated with fungicides may be treated with three packets (600 g/ha) of
Azospirillum + Phosphobacteria (600g/ha) or Azophos 600g/ha.
Top dressing with N
Place half of the dose of N on the 25th day of sowing along the furrows evenly
and cover it with soil. Place the remaining quarter of N on the 45th day of sowing
Rainfed maize
Application of FYM or Compost
Spread 12.5 t/ha of FYM or compost or composted coir pith evenly on the
unploughed field along with 10 packets of Azospirillum (2000 g/ha) + 10 packets of
Phosphobacteria (2000 g/ha) or Azophos at 4 kg/ha and incorporate in the soil.
Application of Fertilizer
Apply NPK as per soil test recommendation as far as possible. If soil test
recommendation is not available, adopt a blanket recommendation of 60: 30: 30 NPK
kg/ha for Alfisols and 40: 20: 0 NPK kg/ha for Vertisols. Apply half of N and full dose
of P2O and K2O with enriched FYM as basal. Top dress remaining half of N at
tasseling.
Pre-treatment of seeds with Boifertilizers
Seeds treated with fungicides may be treated with three packets (600 g/ha) of
Azospirillum + Phosphobacteia (600 g/ha) or Azosphos (600g/ha).
INM in Sorghum
Application of FYM

165
 Spread 12.5 t/ha FYM or composted coir pith along with 10 packets of
Azospirillum (2000g/ha) and 10 packets (2000 g/ha) of phosphobacteria or 20 packets
of Azophos (4000g/ha) on the unploughed field and incorporate the manure in the soil.
Apply well decomposed poultry manure @ 5 t/ha to improve the grain yield as well as
physical properties of soils.
Application of fertilizers
Transplanted crop
Apply NPK fertilizers as per soil test recommendations. If soil test
recommendations are not available, adopt a blanket recommendation of 90 N, 45 P2O5,
45 K2O kg/ha. Apply N @ 50:25:25 % at 0, 15 and 30 DAS and full dose of P2O5 and
K2O basally before planting. In the case of ridge planted crop, open a furrow 5 cm deep
on the side of the ridge at two thirds the distance from the top of the ridge and place the
fertilizer mixture along the furrow and cover with soil upto 2 cm. Soil application of
Azospirillum at 10 packets (2 kg/ha) and 10 packets (2000g/ha) of phosphobacteria or
20 packets of Azophos (4000g/ha) after mixing with 25 kg of FYM + 25 kg of soil may
be carried out before sowing/planting.
Direct sown crop
Apply NPK fertilizers as per soil test recommendations as far as possible. If soil
test recommendations are not available, adopt a blanket recommendation of 90 N, 45
P2O5, 45 K2O kg/ha. Apply N @ 50:25:25 % at 0, 15 and 30 DAS and full dose of
P2O5 and K2O basally before sowing and if basal application is not possible the same
could be top dressed within 24 hours. In the case of bed planted crop, mark lines to a
depth of 5 cm and 45 cm apart. Place the fertilizer mixture at the depth of 5 cm along
the lines. Cover the lines up to 2 cm from the top before sowing. In the case of sorghum
raised as a mixed crop with a pulse crop (Black gram, Green gram or Cowpea) open
furrows 30 cm apart to a depth of 5 cm. Apply fertilizer mixture in two lines in which
sorghum is to be raised and cover up to 2 cm. Skip the third row in which the pulse crop
is to be raised and place fertilizer mixture in the next two rows and cover up to 2 cm
with soil. Application of bio-fertilizers: When Azospirillum is used apply only 75% of
recommended N for irrigated sorghum. Soil test based fertilizer recommendation may
be adopted in Western and North Western Zone viz., Alfisol, Inceptisol and Vertisol for
prescribing fertilizer doses for specified yield targets.
Application of micronutrient mixture
Transplanted Crop
Mix 12.5 kg/ha of micronutrient mixture formulated by the Department of
Agriculture, Tamil Nadu with enough sand to make a total quantity of 50 kg and apply
the mixture over the furrows and on top one third of the ridges. If micronutrient mixture
is not available, mix 25 kg of zinc sulphate with sand to make a total quantity of 50 kg
and apply on the furrows and on the top one third of the ridges.

166
Direct Sown Crop
Mix 12.5 kg of micronutrient mixture formulated by the Department of
Agriculture, Tamil Nadu with enough sand to make a total quantity of 50 kg. Spread the
mixture evenly on the beds. Basal application of 25 kg ZnSO4/ha for the deficient soils.
Basal application of FeSO4, 50 kg/ha along with 12.5 t/ha FYM for iron deficient soils.
Direct sown crop
Spray only if micronutrient mixture is not applied. Apply in case of iron
deficiency. If soil is calcareous
Role of INM in Greengram ( Vigna radiata L. )
Seed Treatment with Biofertilizer
Treat the seeds with 3 packets (600 g/ha) of Rhizobial culture CRM 6 and 3
packets (600 g/ha) of Phosphobacteria. If the seed treatment is not carried out apply 10
packets of Rhizobium (2000g/ha) and 10 packets (2000 g) of Phosphobacteria with 25
kg of FYM and 25 kg of soil before sowing.
Fertilizer Application
a) Apply fertilizers basally before sowing.
Rainfed: 12.5 kg N + 25 kg P2O5 + 12.5 kg K2O +10 kg S*/ha
Irrigated: 25 kg N + 50 kg P2O5 + 25 kg K2O + 20 kg S*/ha
*Note: May be applied in the form of gypsum if Single Super Phospate is not applied as
a source of phosphorus
b) Soil application of 25 kg ZnSO4/ha under irrigated condition
Multi Bloom Technology
A special technology being practiced in Pattukottai block of Tanjore district for
black gram and green gram. The soil is alluvial and rich in organic matter and nutrients.
The crop is sown during early summer (Jan.-Feb.) as normal crop and fertilizer is
applied as per the recommendation for irrigated crop. In addition to that, top dressing of
Nitrogen is done with an extra dose of 25 to 30 kg through urea. Since pulses are
indeterminate growth habit and continue to produce new flushes, the top dressing will
be done on 40-45 days after sowing.
The crop complete its first flushes of matured pods during 60-65th day and put
further second new flush within 20-25 days. Therefore two flushes of pods can be
harvested at a time within the duration of 100 days.
Role of INM in Cotton
Application of FYM or Compost
Spread 12.5 t of FYM or compost or 2.5 t of vermicompost per ha if available,
uniformly on the unploughed soil.
Application of Boifertilizers
167
 Seed treatment with 3 packets of Azospirillum (600 g/ha) and 3 packets (600
g/ha) of Phosphobacteria or 6 packets of Azophos (1200 g/ha). In addition apply and 10
packets of Azospirillum (2000 g/ha) and 10 packets(2000 g/ha) of Phosphobacteria or
20 packets of Azophos(4000 g/ha)mixed with 25 kg FYM and 25 kg of soil on the seed
line. This saves 25% nitrogen besides increasing yield.
Application of Inorganic Fertilizers
Apply NPK fertilizers as per soil test recommendations. If basal application
could not be done, apply on the 25th day after sowing. Apply 50 per cent of N and K
full dose of P2O5 as basal and remaining ½ N and K at 40 – 45 DAS for varieties. For
hybrids apply N in three splits viz., basal, 45 and 65 DAS. Foliar applications of 2%
DAP + 1% KCl will improve kapas yield. Apply the fertilizers in a band, two-thirds of
the distance from the top of the ridge, and incorporate.
Application of Micronutrient Mixture
Mix 12.5 kg of micronutrient mixture with enough sand to make a total quantity
of 50 kg for one ha.
Nutritional Disorders Correction
In the case of Zinc deficient soils ZnSO4 @ 50 kg/ha as basal or ZnSO4 0.5%
spray thrice at 45, 60 and 75 DAS. When reddening occurs in leaves apply 5%
MgSO4 Urea (1.0%) and ZnSO4 (0.10%) as foliar spray on 50th and 80th day to correct
this malady. In Mg deficient areas apply MgSo4 @ 20 kg/ha basally.
Rainfed Cotton
Application of FYM or Compost
Spread 12.5 t of FYM or compost or composted coir pith or 2.5t of
vermicompost per ha uniformly on the unploughed soil. Incorporate the manure in the
soil by working the multipurpose implement or country plough.
Application of Inorganic Fertilizers
Apply NPK fertilizers as per soil test recommendation as far as possible.
Application of Micronutrient Mixture
Mix 12.5 kg of micronutrient mixture with enough sand to make a total quantity
of 50 kg. Apply uniformly over the furrows after sowing and cover the seeds. Do not
incorporate in the soil.
Foliar Fertilization
Spray 0.5% urea and 1% KCl on the 45th and 65th day of sowing if sufficient
moisture is available.
Studies conducted on farmers fields under All India Coordinated Agronomic
Research Project have shown that:
• Combined use of 12 t FYM and 80 kg of N showed yield of rice equivalent
-1
to the dose of 120 kg N ha .
• Use of 50 per cent of NPK through chemical fertilizers could substitute the
needs of rice with FYM for higher productivity of rice-wheat system.

168
 • On an average adoption of green manuring with Dhaincha (Sesbania
-1
• aculeate) or sunnhemp (Crotolaria juncea) contributed about 60 kg N ha to
rice with sufficient residual effect on wheat.
-1
• Application of Azolla along with 30 kg N ha produced rice yield equivalent
-1 -1
to 60 kg N ha thus, showing a net gain of 30 kg N ha .

Constraints of INM system:

• Increasing compulsion to use cow dung as a source of fuel in rural India, leaving
very little for composting. Rice straw is also used as livestock bedding, thatching
for huts and temporary dwellings in villages.
• Increasing competitive value of crop residue as animal feed, being rich in silica
and oxalic acid, affecting recycling of agricultural wastes.
• Although organic residues of rice and wheat straw can be used to make up the
plant nutrients need yet they require their complete decomposition due to having
wide C: N ratio. If they are not fully decomposed and added as such, will cause
immobilization of nutrients, especially of N. Thus, the crop yields will be affected
badly.
• Handling problems of bulky organic manures and high cost of transportation.
• The organic manures like compost, FYM, poultry manure etc. have low amount of
plant nutrients. A large amount is required to fulfill the nutrients requirement for
the various high yielding varieties.
• Rate of mineralization and release of nutrients, particularly of N, are slow in
organic manures.
• Delay in timely preparation of field due to incorporation and decomposition of
agricultural waste and green manures.
• Growing of green manuring crops has not been adopted widely because of needs
for additional labour/inputs.
• Extra cost and time required in raising green manure crops.
• Poor quality bio-fertilizers reaching farmers are ineffective.
• Difficult marketing of bio-fertilizers because the product contains living
organisms.
• Faulty transport and storage system destroy microbial population in inoculants.
• Unawareness and unavailability of bio-fertilizers to the farmers.

Suggested INM activities

• The crop production should focus on increasing crop productivity through INM.
• NPK chemical fertilizer should be applied in right ratio of 4:2:1 and organic
manures and bio-fertilizers are considered as complementary and not substitutive.

169
 • Generate more efficient INM systems using compost, FYM, farm wastes, green
manures, sewage, sludge etc. and quantify the effect of these resources.
• Cow dung burning should be totally banned like China. Agro forestry
development, quick growing leguminous trees and installation of biogas plants are
needed to enhance fuel and plant nutrients.
• Quantification of nutrient losses from organic manures and devise methods to
increase efficiency of their uses are required.
• Develop simple techniques to handle bulky organic manures and make it as simple
as chemical fertilizers.
• Investigate direct and indirect effects of crop residue incorporation on soil quality
and crop productivity.
• Develop technology for in situ incorporation, rapid decomposition of crop
residues and inoculation of suitable micro-organisms, particularly for the intensive
rice-wheat system.
• Recommend fertilizers on the basis of soil test-crop response correlations, local
availability and economics of different fertilizers and manures. Where soil testing
is not possible, the fertilizer recommendations are too made on the basis of “Soil
Test Plant Correlation” worked out by the State Agricultural Universities (SAUs)
and/or Department of Agriculture.
• Estimate contribution of organic sources of soil nutrients during growing season
and residual nutrients from their applications.
• Identify cheaper, efficient and economic sources of micro-nutrients and location
specific techniques to alleviate micro-nutrient deficiency.
• Develop effective use of nitrifying inhibitors and growth hormones in INM
technology.
• Develop of technology for speedy decomposition of crop residues with use of
cellulolytic micro-organisms like Trichoderma viridie.
• Popularize green manuring.
• Prepare database on supplementary use of organic, chemical and bio-fertilizers for
rice-wheat system in different agro-climatic zones.
• Bio-fertilizer technology needs to be to be made more acceptable to farmers.
Microbial strains which can compete with indigenous ones and work over a range
of soil climatic conditions need to be isolated and multiplied.

Goal of INM
Sustainable agricultural production incorporates the idea that natural resources
should be used to generate increased output and incomes, especially for low-income
groups, without depleting the natural resource base. In this context, INM maintains soils
as storehouses of plant nutrients that are essential for vegetative growth. INM’s goal is
to integrate the use of all natural and man-made sources of plant nutrients, so that crop
productivity increases in an efficient and environmentally benign manner, without
sacrificing soil productivity of future generations. INM relies on a number of factors,
including appropriate nutrient application and conservation and the transfer of
knowledge about INM practices to farmers and researcher Balanced application of
appropriate fertilizers is a major component of INM. Fertilizers need to be applied at the
level required for optimal crop growth based on crop requirements and agro climatic
considerations. At the same time, negative externalities should be minimized. Over
application of fertilizers, while inexpensive for some farmers in developed countries,
170
induces neither substantially greater crop nutrient uptake nor significantly higher yields.
Rather, excessive nutrient applications are economically wasteful and can damage the
environment. Under application, on the other hand, can retard crop growth and lower
yields in the short term, and in the long term jeopardize sustainability through soil
mining and erosion. The wrong kind of nutrient application can be wasteful as well. In
Ngados, East Java, for example, the application of more than 1,000 kilograms per
hectare of chemical fertilizer could not prevent potato crop yields from declining.
Yields on these fields decreased more than 50 percent in comparison with yields on
fields where improved soil management techniques were used and green manure was
applied. The correction of nutrient imbalances can have a dramatic effect on yields. In
Kenya the application of nitrogenous fertilizer on nitrogen-poor soils increased maize
yields from 4.5 to 6.3 tons per hectare, while application of less appropriate phosphate
fertilizers increased yields to only 4.7 tons per hectare. Balanced fertilization should
also include secondary nutrients and micronutrients, both of which are often most
readily available from organic fertilizers such as animal and green manures. Lastly,
balance is necessary for sustainability over time which shows that wheat yield become
uneconomical after 5 years when only N fertilizer is applied. Even annual field
applications of NP and NPK fertilizers were insufficient to sustain yields over the long
term. Only when both lime and NPK fertilizer were applied did yields increase and
fields remain productive despite continuous cultivation. Coupled with other
complementary measures, effective nutrient and soil management can help to reclaim
degraded lands for long-term use in some cases. Heavy fertilizer applications on
moderately degraded soil can not only replenish nutrients, but can produce about 7 tons
per hectare of maize and about 6 tons per hectare of grain straw, which long-term
studies in Iowa have shown can increase organic matter content in the soil. Experiments
in Ghana and Niger have demonstrated that by increasing the longevity and productivity
of suitable agricultural land, the application of inorganic and organic fertilizer reduces
the need to cultivate unsustainable and fragile marginal lands. Nutrient conservation in
the soil is another critical component of INM. Soil conservation technologies prevent
the physical loss of soil and nutrients through leaching and erosion and fall into three
general categories.
First, practices such as terracing, alley cropping, and low-till farming alter the
local physical environment of the field and thereby prevent soil and nutrients from
being carried away. Second, mulch application, cover crops, intercrop-ping, and
biological nitrogen fixation act as physical barriers to wind and water erosion and help
to improve soil characteristics and structure. Lastly, organic manures such as animal and
green manures also aid soil conservation by improving soil structure and replenishing
secondary nutrients and micronutrients. Improved application and targeting of inorganic
and organic fertilizer not only conserves nutrients in the soil, but makes nutrient uptake
more efficient. Most crops make inefficient use of nitrogen. Often less than 50 percent
of applied nitrogen is found in the harvest crop. In a particular case in Niger, only 20
percent of applied nitrogen remained in the harvest crop. Volatilization of ammonia into
the atmosphere can account for a large share of the lost nitrogen. In flooded rice, for

171
example, volatilization can cause 20 to 80 percent of nitrogen to be lost from fertilizer
sources. These losses can be reduced, however. Deep placement of fertilizers in soil
provides a physical barrier that traps ammonia. The use of inhibitors or urea coatings
that slow the conversion of urea to ammonium can reduce the nutrient loss that occurs
through leaching, runoff, and volatilization. With innovations of these kinds, better
timing, and more concentrated fertilizers, nutrient uptake efficiency can be expected to
improve by as much as 30 percent in the developed world and 20 percent in developing
countries by the year 2020.
Benefits of Integrated Nutrient Management
Sufficient and balanced application of organic and inorganic fertilizers is a
major component of INM. Classical field experiments at the Rothamsted Experimental
Station in England have provided a wealth of INM related information on crops grown
continuously and in rotation under a variety of soil fertility amendments. A number of
lessons can be learned about appropriate and balanced fertilization from these
experiments. Continuously cropped wheat, without the benefit of organic and inorganic
fertilizers, typically has low yields, on the order of 1.2 tons per hectare. Short fallow
rotations of one to three years have little effect on yields. The application of organic and
inorganic fertilizers can increase average wheat yields to 6-7 tons per hectare. Wheat
yields are highest (9.4 tons per hectare) when farmyard manure is applied, wheat is
grown in rotation, and inorganic fertilizers are used to top-up nitrogen availability.
Enhances the availability of applied as well as native soil nutrients Synchronizes
the nutrient demand of the crop with nutrient supply from native and applied sources.
Provides balanced nutrition to crops and minimizes the antagonistic effects resulting
from hidden deficiencies and nutrient imbalance. Improves and sustains the physical,
chemical and biological functioning of soil. Minimizes the deterioration of soil, water
and ecosystem by promoting carbon sequestration, reducing nutrient losses to ground
and surface water bodies and to atmosphere

172
Chapter 15
Scenario of intensive cropping systems in India after Green revolution

Cropping systems vary among farms depending on the available resources and
constraints; geography and climate of the farm; government policy; economic, social
and political pressures; and the philosophy and culture of the farmer. Shifting
cultivation or slash and burn is a system in which forests are burnt, releasing nutrients to
support cultivation of annual and then perennial crops for a period of several years.Then
the plot is left fallow to regrow forest, and the farmer moves to a new plot, returning
after many more years (10-20). This fallow period is shortened if population density
grows, requiring the input of nutrients (fertilizers and manures) and some manual pest
control. Annual cultivation is the next phase of intensity in which there is no fallow
period. This requires even greater nutrient and pest control inputs.
Further industrialization lead to the use of monoculture, when one cultivar is
planted on a large acreage. Because of the low biodiversity, nutrient use is uniform and
pests tend to build up, necessitating the greater use of pesticides and fertilizers. Multiple
cropping, in which several crops are grown sequentially in one year, and intercropping,
when several crops are grown at the same time are other kinds of annual cropping
systems known as polyculture. In tropical environments, all of these cropping systems
are practiced. In subtropical and arid environments, the timing and extent of agriculture
may be limited by rainfall, either not allowing multiple annual crops in a year, or
requiring irrigation. In all of these environments perennial crops are grown (coffee) and
systems are practiced such as agro forestry. In temperate environments, where
ecosystems were predominantly grassland or prairie, highly productive annual cropping
is the dominant farming system.
The last century has seen the intensification, concentration and specialization
agriculture, relying upon new technologies of agricultural chemicals (fertilizers and
pesticides), mechanization, and plant breeding( hybrids and GMO’s ). In the past few
decades, a move towards sustainability in agriculture has also developed, integrating
ideas of socio-economic justice and conservation of resources and the environment
within a farming system. This has led to the development of many responses to the
conventional agriculture approach, including, organic agriculture, urban agriculture ,
community supported agriculture ecological or biological agriculture, integrated
farming and holistic management, as well as an increased trend towards agricultural
diversification.

173
Intensive cropping
Intensive cropping is an agricultural system that aims to produce maximum yield
from available land. This farming is applicable to the yield of the livestock also. You
could say food is produced in large quantities with the help of chemical fertilizers and
pesticides. The products such as eggs, meat and many agricultural products available in
many supermarkets are produced using modern intensive farming. Intensive cropping is
practiced widely by many of the developed economies of the world. Sustainable
intensive farming, intensive aquaculture, intensive live stock farming and managed
intensive grazing fall under intensive farming. Here we look at both the advantages and
the disadvantages of intensive cropping.
Advantages of intensive cropping systems
• One of the major advantages of intensive cropping is that its yield is high.
• With the introduction of intensive cropping, the farm produce such as
vegetables, fruits and poultry products have become less expensive. This means
that poor people can afford a balanced and nutritious diet.
• Many opine, organic food is affordable only to the rich and the elite strata of the
society. Apart from that, large farming spaces are required to cultivate organic
crops using natural manure. However, with the introduction of intensive
cropping, the space requirement for cropping is less.
• Another advantage of intensive cropping is that large productivity of food is
possible with less amount of land. This would help to meet the ever-growing
demand for food supplies.
• Compared to the disadvantages, the advantages of intensive cropping are less.
Disadvantages of intensive cropping systems
• The pesticides sprayed on crops not only destroy pests and contaminate the
crops but also kill good insects. Eventually, these chemicals are passed on to the
human beings.
• The fruits and vegetables bought from farms that promote intensive farming are
covered with invisible pesticide. These are not easily washed off. The residues
of the pesticide affect the health of human beings.
• Reports and studies reveal intensive farming affects and alters the environment
in multiple ways. Forests are destroyed to create large open fields and this could
lead to soil erosion. Intensive farming affects the natural habitats in the forests.
Use of chemical fertilizers contaminates water bodies such as lakes and rivers
near the farming land.

Green Revolution

174
 Green Revolution refers to a series of research, development, and technology
transfer initiatives, occurring between the 1940s and the late 1970s that increased
agriculture production around the world beginning most markedly in the late 1960s. The
initiatives involved the development of high yielding varieties of cereal grains,
expansion of irrigation infrastructure, modernization of management techniques,
distribution of hybridized seeds, synthetic fertilizers and pesticides to farmers. The term
"Green Revolution" was first used in 1968 by former United States Agency for
International Development (USAID) director William Gaud, who noted the spread of
the new technologies and said, These and other developments in the field of agriculture
contain the makings of a new revolution. It is not a violent Red revolution like that of
the Soviets, nor is it a White revolution like that of the Shah of Iran. I call it the Green
Revolution.
History
The agricultural development that began in Mexico by Norman Borlaug in 1943 (based
on Nazareno Strampelli’s studies) had been judged as a success and the Rockefeller
Foundation sought to spread it to other nations. The Office of Special Studies in Mexico
became an informal international research institution in 1959, and in 1963 it formally
became CIMMYT, The International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre.
In 1961 India was on the brink of mass famine. Borlaug was invited to India by
the adviser to the Indian minister of agriculture. M. S. Swaminathan, Despite
bureaucratic hurdles imposed by India's grain monopolies, the Ford Foundation and
Indian government collaborated to import wheat seed from CIMMYT. Punjab was
selected by the Indian government to be the first site to try the new crops because of its
reliable water supply and a history of agricultural success. India began its own Green
Revolution program of plant breeding, irrigation development, and financing of
agrochemicals.
India soon adopted IR-8 – a semi-dwarf rice variety developed by the
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) that could produce more grains of rice per
plant when grown with certain fertilizers and irrigation. In 1968, Indian agronomist S.K.
De Datta published his findings that IR8 rice yielded about 5 tons per hectare with no
fertilizer, and almost 10 tons per hectare under optimal conditions. This was 10 times
the yield of traditional rice.[5 IR8 was a success throughout Asia, and dubbed the
"Miracle Rice". IR8 was also developed into Semi dwarf IR-36.
In the 1960s, rice yields in India were about two tons per hectare; by the mid-1990s,
they had risen to six tons per hectare. In the 1970s, rice cost about $550 a ton; in 2001,
it cost under $200 a ton. India became one of the world's most successful rice producers,
and is now a major rice exporter, shipping nearly 4.5 million tons in 2006.
Agricultural production and food security
Technologies
The Green Revolution spread technologies that had already existed before, but had not
been widely used outside industrialized nations. These technologies included modern
175
irrigation projects, pesticides, synthetic nitrogen fertilizers and improved crop varieties
developed through the conventional, science-based methods available at the time. The
novel technological development of the Green Revolution was the production of novel
wheat cultivars. Agronomists bred cultivars of maize, wheat, and rice that are generally
referred to as HYVs or “high-yielding varieties”. HYVs have higher nitrogen-absorbing
potential than other varieties. Since cereals that absorbed extra nitrogen would typically
lodge, or fall over before harvest, semi-dwarfing genes were bred into their genomes. A
Japanese dwarf wheat cultivar (Norin 10 wheat), which was sent to Washington, D.C.
by Cecil Salmon, was instrumental in developing Green Revolution wheat cultivars.
IR8, the first widely implemented HYV rice to be developed by IRRI, was created
through a cross between an Indonesian variety named “Peta” and a Chinese variety
named “Dee-geo-woo-gen.”
With advances in molecular genetics, the mutant genes responsible for
Arabidopsis thaliana genes (GA 20-oxidase, ga1, ga1-3), wheat reduced-height genes
(Rht) and a rice semi dwarf gene (sd1) were cloned. These were identified as gibberellin
biosynthesis genes or cellular signalling component genes. Stem growth in the mutant
background is significantly reduced leading to the dwarf phenotype. Photosynthetic
investment in the stem is reduced dramatically as the shorter plants are inherently more
stable mechanically. Assimilates become redirected to grain production, amplifying in
particular the effect of chemical fertilizers on commercial yield.
HYVs significantly outperform traditional varieties in the presence of adequate
irrigation, pesticides, and fertilizers. In the absence of these inputs, traditional varieties
may outperform HYVs. Therefore, several authors have challenged the apparent
superiority of HYVs not only compared to the traditional varieties alone, but by
contrasting the monocultural system associated with HYVs with the polycultural system
associated with traditional ones.
Production increases
Cereal production more than doubled in developing nations between the years 1961–
1985.Yields of rice, maize, and wheat increased steadily during that period. The
production increases can be attributed roughly equally to irrigation, fertilizer, and seed
development, at least in the case of Asian rice.While agricultural output increased as a
result of the Green Revolution, the energy input to produce a crop has increased faster,
so that the ratio of crops produced to energy input has decreased over time. Green
Revolution techniques also heavily rely on chemical fertilizers, pesticides and
herbicides , some of which must be developed from fossil fuels, making agriculture
increasingly reliant on petroleum products. Proponents of the peak oil theory fear that a
future decline in oil and gas production would lead to a decline in food production or
even a Malthusian catastrophe.
Effects on food security
The effects of the Green Revolution on global food security are difficult to assess
because of the complexities involved in food systems.

176
 The world population has grown by about four billion since the beginning of the
Green Revolution and many believe that, without the Revolution, there would have
been greater famine and malnutrition. India saw annual wheat production rise from 10
million tons in the 1960s to 73 million in 2006. The average person in the developing
world consumes roughly 25% more calories per day now than before the Green
Revolution. Between 1950 and 1984, as the Green Revolution transformed agriculture
around the globe, world grain production increased by over 250%.The production
increases fostered by the Green Revolution are often credited with having helped to
avoid widespread famine, and for feeding billions of people.
There are also claims that the Green Revolution has decreased food security for
a large number of people. One claim involves the shift of subsistence-oriented cropland
to cropland oriented towards production of grain for export or animal feed. For
example, the Green Revolution replaced much of the land used for pulses that fed
Indian peasants for wheat, which did not make up a large portion of the peasant diet.
Globalization
In the most basic sense, the Green Revolution was a product of globalization as
evidenced in the creation of international agricultural research centers that shared
information, and with transnational funding from groups like the Rockefeller
Foundation, Ford Foundation, and United States Agency for International Development
(USAID). Additionally, the inputs required in Green Revolution agriculture created new
markets for seed and chemical corporations, many of which were based in the United
States. For example, Standard Oil of New Jersey, established hundreds of distributors in
the Philippines to sell agricultural packages composed of HYV seed, fertilizer, and
pesticides.
Environmental impact

Increased use of irrigation played a major role in the green revolution.

177
Pesticides
Green Revolution agriculture relies on extensive use of pesticides, which are necessary
to limit the high levels of pest damage that inevitably occur in monocropping – the
practice of producing or growing one single crop over a wide area.

Biodiversity
The spread of Green Revolution agriculture affected both agricultural biodiversity and
wild biodiversity. There is little disagreement that the Green Revolution acted to reduce
agricultural biodiversity, as it relied on just a few high-yield varieties of each crop.
This has led to concerns about the susceptibility of a food supply to pathogens that
cannot be controlled by agrochemicals, as well as the permanent loss of many valuable
genetic traits bred into traditional varieties over thousands of years. To address these
concerns, massive seed banks such as Consultative Group on International Agricultural
research’s (CGIAR) International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (now Biodiversity
International) have been established (see Svalbard Global Seed Vault).
There are varying opinions about the effect of the Green Revolution on wild
biodiversity. One hypothesis speculates that by increasing production per unit of land
area, agriculture will not need to expand into new, uncultivated areas to feed a growing
human population. However, land degradation and soil nutrients depletion have forced
farmers to clear up formerly forested areas in order to keep up with production. A
counter-hypothesis speculates that biodiversity was sacrificed because traditional
systems of agriculture that were displaced sometimes incorporated practices to preserve
wild biodiversity, and because the Green Revolution expanded agricultural development
into new areas where it was once unprofitable or too arid. For example, the development
of wheat varieties tolerant to acid soil conditions with high aluminium content,
permitted the introduction of agriculture in the Amazonian cerrado ecosystem in Brazil.
Nevertheless, the world community has clearly acknowledged the negative aspects of
agricultural expansion as the 1992 Rio Treaty, signed by 189 nations, has generated
numerous national Biodiversity Action Plans which assign significant biodiversity loss
to agriculture's expansion into new domains.
Health impact
The consumption of the pesticides used to kill pests by humans in some cases may be
increasing the likelihood of cancer in some of the rural villages using them. Poor
farming practices including non-compliance to usage of masks and over-usage of the
chemicals compound this situation.In 1989, WHO and UNEP estimated that there were
around 1 million human pesticide poisonings annually. Some 20,000 (mostly in
developing countries) ended in death, as a result of poor labeling, loose safety standards
etc.

178
Pesticides and cancer
Long term exposure to pesticides such as organochlorines, creosote, and sulfate have
been correlated with higher cancer rates and organochlorines DDT, chlordane, and
lindane as tumor promoters in animals. Contradictory epidemiologic studies in humans
have linked phenoxy acid herbicides or contaminants in them with soft tissues sarcoma
(STS) and malignant lymphoma, organochlorine insecticides with STS, non-Hodgkin’s
lymphoma (NHL), leukemia, and, less consistently, with cancers of the lung and breast,
organophosphorous compounds with NHL and leukemia, and triazine herbicides with
ovarian cancer.

Punjab case
The Indian state of Punjab pioneered green revolution among the other states
transforming India into a food-surplus country. The state is witnessing serious
consequences of intensive farming using chemicals and pesticide. A comprehensive
study conducted by Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and research
(PGIMER) has underlined the direct relationship between indiscriminate use of these
chemicals and increased incidence of cancer in this region. An increase in the number of
cancer cases has been reported in several villages including Jhariwala, Koharwala,
Puckka, Bhimawali, and Khara.
Environmental activist Vandana Shiva has written extensively about the social, political
and economic impacts of the Green Revolution in Punjab. She claims that the Green
Revolution's reliance on heavy use of chemical inputs and monocultures has resulted in
water scarcity, vulnerability to pests, and incidence of violent conflict and social
marginalization.
In 2009, under a Greenpeace Research Laboratories investigation, Dr Reyes Tirado,
from the University of Exerter, UK conducted the study in 50 villages in Muktsar,
Bathinda and Ludhiana districts revealed chemical, radiation and biological toxicity
rampant in Punjab. Twenty percent of the sampled wells showed nitrate levels above the
safety limit of 50 mg/l, established by WHO, the study connected it with high use of
synthetic nitrogen fertilizers. With increasing poisoning of the soil, the region once
hailed as the home to the green revolution, now due to excessive use of chemical
fertilizer, is being termed by one columnist as the "Other Bhopal".

Organic farming
About four decades after the Green Revolution widely helped the world to be able to
produce food in sufficient levels, a small percentage of farmers in India have chosen to
employ organic farming methods in response to side effects from their adoption of
modern agriculture techniques.

179
Chapter 16
PLANT IDEOTYPES

The term ideotype was introduced by Donald (1968). Ideotype “a biological

model, which is expected to perform or behave in a predictable manner within a
defined environment.
A crop ideotype is a plant model, which is expected to yield a greater quantity or quality
of grain, oil or other useful product when developed as a cultivar. This term has the
following synonyms:

Ideotype : Plan of the phenotype of a cultivar that will perform optimally in a specific
set of climatic, soil, biotic and socio-cultural conditions (Hall 2001).
Types of ideotype

180
1) Isolation ideotype
2) Competition ideotype
3) Crop ideotype
Isolation ideotype: It is the model plant type that perform best when the plants are
space-planted.

Competition ideotype: This ideotype perform well in genetically heterogeneous

population. In case of cereals, this ideotype is tall, leafy, free-tillering plant that is able
to shade its less aggressive neighbours.

In case of annual seed crops, such an ideotype will include the following
features: annual habit, tallness, leafy canopy, tillering or branching, seed size,
speed of germination and root characters.

181
Crop ideotype: This ideotype perform best at commercial crop densities because it is a
poor competitor. In case of cereals, a crop ideotype is erect, sparsely-tillered plant, with
small erect leaves.
Ideotype for Dryland Farming:

Short growth duration

Effective root system

Drought tolerance

High yield potentiality with altered morphology viz.
• Plant with few leaves just sufficient to maintain photosynthetic output
and growth (to minimize the use of water).
• Leaves horizontally disposed for better light interception contrary to
vertically disposed most effective under irrigated conditions.
Several other ideotype are:

Market ideotype: Includes traits like seed colour, seed size, cooking and baking
quality, etc.

Climatic ideotype: Includes traits important in climatic adaptation such as heat
and cold resistance, maturity duration, drought resistance etc.

Edaphic ideotype: Includes salinity tolerance, mineral toxicity/ deficiency
tolerance etc.

Stress ideotype: Shows resistance to both biotic and abiotic stress.

Disease/pest resistance ideotype

182

Other main traits of the ideotype should be

Satisfactory levels of production (both quantitative and qualitative)

a deep root system

being able to establish symbiotic relationships with soil
micro-organisms.

Moreover it should compete with weeds exploiting genetic variability for

competitiveness
Main features of ideotype breeding

Emphasis on individual trait: Emphasis is given on individual morphological
and physiological trait which enhances the yield.

Includes yield enhancing traits: Characters which exhibit positive association
with yield are included in the model.

Exploits physiological variation: Ideotype breeding makes use of genetically
controlled physiological variation in increasing crop yields.

Slow progress

Selection

Designing of model: The phenotype of new variety to be developed is specified
in terms of morphological and physiological traits in advance

Interdisciplinary approach

A continuous process
Differences between traditional and ideotype breeding
In case of ideotype breeding values for individual traits are specified whereas
such values are not fixed in case of traditional breeding. In other words, first a
conceptional plant model is fixed and then efforts are made to achieve such
model. In traditional breeding such models are not developed before initiation of
breeding program.

183
 Wheat ideotype

Features of wheat ideotype

A short strong stem

Erect leaves

Few small leaves

Larger and an erect ear

Presence of awns

The improved wheat lines developed at CIMMYT, Mexico have some features
in common such as
• Reduced height
• Photoperiod insensitivity due to Ppd1 or Ppd2
• Durable rust resistance

184
Rice ideotype
In 1964, Jennings introduced ideal plant of rice

Features

Erect, short and thick leaves

Semi- dwarf stature

High tillering capacity

More panicles

High harvest index

Maize ideotype:

In 1975, Mock and Pearce proposed
Ideal plant type of maize

Small tassel size

Low tillers

Large cobs

Angled leaves for good light interception

185
 Gram: Pande and Suxena (1973) proposed the ideotypes for gram having
following features:

The vegetative growth must be stopped before the starting of reproductive stage.

Plant is to have erect branching.

To harness long photoperiod and favorable temperature at the time of flowering.
Cotton ideotype
Cotton ideotype proposed by Singh and coworkers in (1974)
for irrigated cultivation and by Singh and Narayanan in (1993) for rainfed
cultivation

Ideotype of cotton for rainfed conditions

• Short stature
• Medium to big boll size(3.5 to 4 g)
• High degree of resistance to insects and diseases
• Few smaller and thick leaves with sparse hairiness

Ideotype for irrigated cultivation
• Short stature(90-120cm)
• Short duration(150-165days)

186
 • Responsive to high fertilizer dose
• High degree of resistance to insect pests and diseases
• Boll size (3.5 to 4g)

Steps in ideotype breeding

Development of conceptual model: The values of various morphological and
physiological traits specified to develop a conceptual theoretical model.

Selection of base material: Genotypes for plant stature, maturity duration, leaf
size and angle are selected from the global gene pool of the concerned crop
species.

Incorporation of desirable traits: Knowledge of the association between
various characters is essential before starting hybridization programme.

Selection of ideal plant type: plants with desirable traits are selected in
segregating population and intermated to achieve the desired plant type.
Factors affecting ideotypes

Crop species: In monocots, tillering is more important but in dicots branching is
important.

Cultivation: The features of irrigated crops differ from that of rainfed crop.

Socio-economic condition of farmers: eg., dwarf Sorghum is ideal for
mechanical harvesting in USA, but it is not suitable for the farmers of Africa.

Economic use

Merits: It exploits both morphological and physiological variation. It provides
solution to several problems at a time and it is an efficient method of developing
cultivars for specific situation or environment.Genes for specific traits are
introgressed from unimproved into the elite gene pool.

Demerits: ideotype breeding is a slow method of cultivar development. It has not been
possible to identify individual traits that enhance yield universally or in a limited
genetic and environmental situations.
Strategy to increase wheat productivity & Production
• Massive Awareness Campaign
• Early/timely planting (By 15th Nov)
• Location specific varieties
• Increased Seed replacement rate (27%)
• Seed treatment to be promoted to protect from seed & soil borne diseases
• Sowing with zero till seed drill (7.00 lakh hac)
• Use of gypsum in high pH soils
• Use of micronutrients to mitigate micronutrients deficiency
• Weed management.
• Suggested Readings

Abderrahman W.A. and Abdelhadi Y.M. 1990. Arid Soil Research and Rehabilitation 4: 269–272.

187
Adewumi M.O. and Omotesho A.O. 2002. J. Rural Dev., 25: 201-211.
nd
Adhikari, N.P and Mishra, B.N. 2002. 2 International Agronomy Congress (pp. 63-64). New Delhi, India: ICAR.
Agunga, R. A. 1995. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 5(3), 169-l 78.
Ahmad N, Qureshi RH and Qadir M. 1990. Land Degradation and Rehabilitation, 2: 277–284.
Ahmed P. 1991. Agroforestry Systems 14: 23–37.
Akhtar J, Gorham J,and Qureshi RH. 1994. Plant and Soil ,166: 47–54.
Alamu J.F, Coker A.A. 2005. J. of Agric. Res., 21: 42-50.
Aldrich,R.J. 1984. Weed-Crop Ecology. 465 pp.
Ali M. 1996. Agric. Econ. 14: 45 – 60.
Allen, L.H., Jr.; Sinclair, T.R.; and Lemon, E.R 1976. 171. Edited by M. Stelly. Madison,Wisconsin: American
Society of Agronomy,.
Alonge, A. J. & Martin, R. A. 1995. Journal of Agricultural Education, 36(3), 34-42.
Amgain, L.P., & Singh, A.K. 2001. Journal of Institutional Agricultural and Animal Sciences, 21 (22), 43-53.
Andrews, D.J. and Kassam, A.H. 1976 American Society of Agronomy- Report.
Anon. 1997. Agricultural Research Centre of Finland-Report.
Anonymous, 2001. www.hindu.com/businessline/2001/03/29/stories/0729036s.htm
Anonymous 2005-06. The fertilizer Association of India, New Delhi. Fertilizer Statistics.
Anonymous, 1998. Sustainable Agriculture; People and the Planet; Vol: 7(1).
Anwar M, Singh DV, and Subrahmanyam K. 1988. International Journal of Tropical Agriculture 6: 125–128.
Arshad, M., and Frankenberger, Jr., W.T. 1991. Soil Science 151: 377-386.
Azam, F., Malik, K. A. &Sajjad, M. I.1985. Plant and Soil 86: 3
Bangal, D.B., Deshmukh, S.N and Patil, V.A. 1982. Legume Research 5: 54-56.
Barnes, J. P. & Putnam, A. R. 1986. Weed Science 34, 384-390.
Barnes, J. P. & Putnam, A. R. 1987. Journal of Chemical Ecology 13, 889-906.
Barnett,V., Payner,R., and Steiner,R. 1995. Agricultural Sustainability-Report.
Bashist, D.P. (1988) Indian Acadamy Science (Plant Sci.) 98 (5): 419-424.
Batán (Mexico): International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center. p 36-51.
Beets, Willem C. 1982. Cropping systems. Westview Press.
Bell, D. T. & Muller, C. H. 1973. American Midl. Nat. 90, 277-299.
Ben-Asher, J. and Pacardo, E. 1997. In: Proc. Regional Workshop of the International Potash Institute, Bornova,
Izmir, Turkey, 26-30 May 1997, pp. 360- 369.
Blaylock, A.D., J. Kaufmann and R.D. Dowbenko. 2005. In: Proceedings of the Western Nutrient Management
Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, March 3-4, 2005. Vol. 6, pp. 8-13.
Bockman, O.C. and H.W. Olfs. 1998. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 52: 165-170.
Boxem, Herman, van, Annuario 1998: Ricerca e Sperimentazione sulla Agricoltura Sostenibile in Italia. I-Cesena.
Boxem, Herman, van 1998. Ökologischer Landbau in Belgien. In: Willer (Ed.), Holm.
Brown,L.R. 2001 , WW Norton &Co.,New York,
Bruulsema, T.W., P.E. Fixen and C.S. Snyder. 2004. Better Crops. 88: 15- 17.
Buford, J. A., Jr., Bedeian, A. G., &Lindner, J. R. 1995. Management in Extension-An Report.
Cassman, K.G., A. Dobermann and D.T. Walters. 2002. Agroecosystems, nitrogen use efficiency, and nitrogen
management. Ambio. 31: 132-140.
Centro Documentazione Agricoltura Sostenibile nad CIHEAM: Annuario 1998: Ricerca e Sperimentazione sulla
Agricoltura Sostenibile in Italia. I-Cesena.
Chaves, N. & Escudero, J. C. 1997. Functional Ecology 11, 432-440.
Chhonker, P.K. 1994. Fertilizer News, 39 (4), 39-41.
Chhonker, P.K., & Tilak, K.V.B.R. 1997. Plant Nutrient Needs, Supply, Efficiency and Policy Issues: 2000-2025 (pp.
57-66).
Chizari, M., Karbasioun, M., & Lindner, J.R.1998. Journal of Agricultural Education, s (l), 48-55.
Cilas, C., Bar-Hen, A., Montagnon, C., Godin, C., 2006. Ann. Bot. 97, 405–411.
Cleaver, Harry 1972. Ithaca, N.Y: Comstock Pub. ISBN 0-8014-8610-6.
Corcuera, L. J. 1993. Phytochemistry 33, 741-747.
Cournède, P.H., Mathieu, A., Houllier, F., Barthélémy, D., de Reffye, P., 2008. A contribution to the study of the
effects of density on resource acquisition and architectural development.
Creamer, N. G., Bennett, M. A., Stinner, B. R., Cardina, J. & Regnier, E. E. 1996. Hortscience 31, 410-413.
Dahama, A.K. 1997. Organic farming for sustainable agriculture (pp. 133-138).
Dawson, J.H. 1965. Weeds, 13(3):245-249.
De Luca, T. H., Drinkwater, D. E., Wie¯ ing, B. A. & Denicola, D. M.1996 Biol. Fertil. Soils 23, 140-144
Dhiman, S.D., Nandal, D.P., & Om, H. 2000. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 45 (1), 1-5.
Dibb, D.W. 2000. The mysteries (myths) of nutrient use efficiency. Better Crops. 84: 3-5.
Dilday, R. H., Lin, J. & Yan, W. 1994. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 34, 907-910.
Dingkuhn M, Penning de Vries FWT, De Datta SK, van LaarHH. 1991. International Rice Research Institute. p 17-
38.
Directorate of Wheat Research, Karnal 132001, India. Research Bulletin. 1: 20 p.
Dobermann, A., & Cassman, K.G. 1996. Better Crops, 10 (2), 20-25.
Dobermann, A., K.G. Cassman, D.T. Waters and C. Witt. 2005. In: Proceedings of the XV International Plant
Nutrient Colloquium, Sep. 14-16, 2005. Beijing, China.
Dobermann, A., Witt, C., Dawe, D., Abdulrachman, S., Gines, H.C., 2002. Field Crops Research 74: 37-66.

188
Donald CM. 1968. The breeding of crop ideotypes. Euphytica17:385-403.
Dowie, Mark 2001. Cambridge, Mass: MIT. ISBN 0-262-04189-8.
Drinkwater, L. E.,Workneh, F., Letourneau, D. K., van Bruggen, A. H. C. & Shennan, C. 1995 Ecol. Appl. 5, 1098-
1112
Duke, S. O., Dayan, F. E., Hernandez, A., Duke, M. V. & Abbas, H. K. 1997. In The 1997 Brighton Crop Protection
Conference - Weeds, pp. 578-586, Brighton.
Einhellig, F. A. 1995. ACS Symposium Series 582 (ed. Inderjit, K. M. M. Dakshini and F. A. Einhellig), pp. 96-116.
Evans LT. 1993. Crop evolution, adaptation and yield.Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.
Fageria NK, Baligar VC 1993. Growth and Mineral Nutrition of Field Crops. Chectarerles Allen Jones Publication,
London. 208p.
FAO 1997: Biological Farming Research in Europe. REU Technical Series No. 54. FAO Regional Office for Europe,
Rome, www.fao.org
FAO 1989. Sustainable development and natural resources management. In: The state of food and agriculture 1988,
FAO, Rome.
Farrell, John Joseph; Altieri, Miguel A. 1995. Agroecology: the science of sustainable agriculture (2nd ed.). Boulder,
CO: Westview. ISBN 0-8133-1718-5.
Fixen, P.E. 2005. Satellite symposium at the XV International Plant Nutrient Colloquium, Sep. 14-16, 2005. Beijing,
China.
Fixen, P.E. 2006. Fluid Fertilizer Foundation, February 12-14, 2006, Scottsdale, Arizona.
Fixen, P.E., J. Jin, K.N. Tiwari, and M.D. Stauffer. 2005. Life Sci. 48: 1-11.
Francis, D.D. and W.P. Piekielek. 1999. Reference 99082/ Item#10-1012.
Frederick M. Fishel 2009. University of Florida. Original publication date, February 2006. Revised April 2009. Web
site at
Friebe, A., Wieland, I. & Schulz, M. 1996. Angewandte Botanik 70, 150-154.
Frison, Emile (2008). http://www.inwent.org/ez/articles/070224/index.en.shtml.
Früchtenicht, K., Heyn, J., Kuhlmann, H., Laurenz, L. and Müller, S. 1993: Hydro Agri Dülmen, Germany, pp. 254-
295.
Gentle, C. B. & Duggin, J. A. 1997. Plant Ecology 132, 85-95.
Gregorich, E. G., Ellert, B. H., Drury, C. F. & Liang, B. C. 1996. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 60, 472±476
Guar, A.C. (1990). Phosphate Solubilizing Micro-organisms. Omega Scientific Publishers.
Guar, A.C., & Singh, G. 1993. Fertilizer and Agriculture Organization, Fertilizer and Plant Nutrition Bulletin.
Gupta, R.D. 2005. Environmental degradation of Jammu and Kashmir Himalayas and their control. Associated
Publishing Company.
Gupta, R.D. 2005. The Views Today, 11 (284), 4.
Gupta, R.D., & Bhagat, K.C. 2004. Indian Farmer Digest, 37 (2), 41-44.
Gupta, R.D., & Sharma, S.P. 2006. Balanced Fertilization for Sustainable Crop Production (pp. 32-38).
Gupta, R.D., Gupta, J.P., & Singh, H. 1992. Conserving Indian Environment.
Gupta, R.D., Khajuria, M.R., Gupta, J.P., & Bali, S.V. 2001. Indigeneous Nutrient Management practices - Wisdom
Alive in India.
Gupta, R.D., Sharma, Y.R., Sharma, A.K., & Gupta, N.K. 2004. Co-operative Perspective, 38 (12), 69-75.
Haerdter, R. and Fairhurst, T, 2003: Cheju Island, Korea, 6-8 October 2003.
Hamblin J. 1993. Crop Science Society of America. p 589-597.
Hanson, A. D., Dietz, K. M., Singletary, G. W. & Leland, T. J. 1983. Plant Physiology 71, 896-904.
Hanson, A. D., Traynor, P. L., Dietz, K. M. & Reicosky, D. A. 1981. Crop Science 21, 726-730.
Havlin, J.L., J.D. Beaton, S.L. Tisdale and W.L. Nelson. 2005. An Introduction to Nutrient Management. Pearson
Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Hazra, C.R.1999. Crop diversification in India. ICAR, New Delhi.
Hegde, D.M. 1998. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 43 (1), 7-12.
Hegde, D.M., & Dwivedi, B.S. 1993 Fertilizer News, 38 (12), 49-59.
Heinonen, Sampsa 1998: Impacts of international wheat breeding research in developing countries.1966–97. Mexico,
D.F.: CIMMYT, 73 p.
Herdt RW 1993. Proc Conf held at Rothamstead Experimental Station 1993, Rothamstead, UK.
Hicks JR 1946. “National F Abdel-Dayem S. 2005. In Proceedings of the International Salinity Forum, 25– 27 April
2005, Riverside, California; 1–4.
Hoffman, M. L., Weston, L. A., Snyder, J. C. & Regnier, E. E. 1996. Weed Science 44, 579-584.
Hornick, S.B. and J.F Parr. 1987. Am. J. Alternative Agric. 2:64-68.
Hornick, S.B., L.J. Sikora, S.B. Sterrett, J.J. Murray, 1984. Information Bulletin No. 464.
Humberto B.R.L. 2010. Principles of soil conservation and management. Pp. 542, 617.
ICAR(1999). ICAR – Vision 2020, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi,India,
Inderjit & Dakshini, K. M. M. 1998. Canadian Jorunal of Botany 76, 1317-1321.
Inderjit & Foy, C. L. 1999. Weed Technology 13, 176-182.
Indo-U.S. Sub commission on Agriculture. USDA-OICD-FERRO, December 1987, New Delhi.
International conference on Agribusiness and Food Industry in Developing countries; Opportunities and Challenges
(August 10- 12,2007,Lucknow- India).
IRRI 1992. IRRI Repertor. International Rice Resources Institute, Los Bano’s, Philippines. 4/92:4.
IRRI 1995. Water: A Loaming Crisis. International Rice Research Institute, Los Banos, Phillippines, pp. 90.
J.F. Parr et al.1986. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) An Report.

189
Jaggi, R.C., Mahajan, A., Choudhary, A.K., & Baghla, K. 2001. Indian Farmer's Digest, 2 (6): 10-12.
Jain, H.K. 2010. The Green Revolution: History, Impact and Future (1st ed.). Houston, TX: Studium Press.
Jain, K.B.L. 1994. Wheat cultivars in India (Compiled). Directorate of Wheat Research, Karnal- 132001, India.
Johnson, J.W., T.S. Murrell and H.F. Reetz. 1997. Better Crops. 81: 3-5.
Johnston, A.E., Poulton, P.R. and Syers, J.K. 2001: The International Fertiliser Society, York, UK.
Kanwar, J.S., & Sekhon, G.S. 1998. Fertilizer News, 43 (2), 33-40.
Katyal, J.C. 2001. Journal of Indian Society of Soil Science, 49 (4), 570-582.
Khan, N.A. 2004 BMC Plant Biology 4: Article No. 21.
Khan, N.A., Mobin, M. and Samiullah. 1997. National Seminar, Plant Physiology for Sustainable Agriculture, March,
19-21. Pp 67.
Khush GS, Peng S.1996. Breaking the yield frontier of rice. In: Increasing yield potential in wheat: breaking the
barriers. Reynolds MP, Rajaram S, McNab A, editors. El
Khush GS, Virk PS, Evangelista A, Romena B, Pamplona A,Lopena V, Dela Cruz N, Peng S, Cruz CV, Cohen M.
2001. International Rice Research Institute. p 4-5.
King, L.J. 1966 Inter science Publisher, New York, pp 1-48.
Knudsen, L. 2003: The International Fertiliser Society, York, UK.
Kohli, R. K. 1998. Allelopathic interactions in forestry systems. Environmental Forest Science 54, 269-283.
Kuiper, D., Schuit, J. and Kuiper, P.J.C. 1989. Kluwer Academic Publishers, London.
Ladd, J. N. & Amato, M. 1986 Soil Biol. Biochem. 18, 417-425.
Ladha, J.K., Fischer, K.S. Hossain, M. Hobbs, P.R., & Hardy, B. 2000. IRRI, Los Banos, Philippines.
Ladha, J.K., H. Pathak, T.J. Krupnik, J. Six and C. van Kessel. 2005. Adv. Agron. 87: 85-156.
Lal R 1991. Soil structure and sustainability. J Sustainable Agriculture. 1:67-92.
Lal R and Miller FP 1990. Sustainable farming systems in the tropics.
Leather, G. R. (1983). Journal of Chemical Ecology 9, 983-989.
Lickacz, J and Renny, D.: Soil organic matter. www.Agric.gov.ab.ca.
Litsinger, J.A., and Moody, K. 1976. “Integrated Pest Management in Multiple Cropping Systems.” In Multiple
Cropping, p. 299.
Liu, D. L. & Lovett, J. V. 1993. Journal of Chemical Ecology 19, 2231-2244.
Lovett, J. V. & Hoult, A. H. C. 1995. Organisms, Processes, and Applications. (ed. Inderjit, K. M. M. Dakshini and
F. A. E. (eds.).), pp. 170-183.
Lovett, J. V., Hoult, A. H. C. & Christen, O. 1994. Hordenine production by different barley lines. Journal of
Chemical Ecology 20, 1945-1954.
Lynam,J.K 1994. AcademicPublishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp 3-28.
M. A. Faris, M. R. A. de Araújo, M. de A. Lira, A. S. S. Canadian Journal of Plant Science , 63:(4) 789-799,
M.R. Rao, Singh M. 1990, Field Crops Research volume 23 (3-4), June Pages 279-293
Macias, F. A., Molinillo, J. M. G., Varela, R. M., Torres, A. & Troncoso, R. O. 1998. In VII International Congress
of Ecology 19-25 July 1998. (ed. A. Farina, J. Kennedy and V. Bossù), pp. 266, Firenze, Italy.
Macias, F. A., Oliva, R. M., Simonet, A. M. & Galindo, J. C. G. 1998. IRRI Press, Manilla.
MAHAJAN et Sharma, M.P., & Bali, S.V. 1998. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 68 (10), 695-696.
Mahajan, A., & Sharma, R. 2005. Agrobios Newsletter, 4 (3), 29-32.
Mahajan, A., Bhagat, R.M., & Trikha, A. 2003. Agriculture Today, 6 (9), 52-54.
Mahajan, A., Choudhary, A.K., & Bhagat, R.M. 2002. Indian Farmer's Digest, 35 (7), 29-32.
Mahajan, A., Choudhary, A.K., Jaggi, R.C., & Dogra, R.K. 2003. Farmers' Forum, 3 (4), 17-19.
Mahajan, A., Gupta, R.D. & Sharma, R. 2007. Gram Vikas Jyoti July-September Issue, pp. 8-9.
Mahajan, A., Gupta, R.D. & Sharma, R. 2008. Agrobios Newsletter, 6 (9), 36-37.
Mahajan, A., Sharma, R., Gupta, R.D. & Trikha, A. 2007. Agriculture Today, 10 (3), 48-50.
MahajanA., Gupta, R.D., Kher, D., & Jalali, V.K. 2005 Journal of Research, SKUAST- Jammu, 4 (1), 25-37.
Mahapatra, B.S., Sharma, K.C., & Sharma, G.L. 1987. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 32 (1), 7-11.
Mallik, A. U. 1998. Environmental Forest Science 54, 309-315.
Marschner, H., Kirkby, E.A. and Cakmak, I. 1996: J. Exp. Botany 47: 1255-1263.
Martin, R. J. and Grace, P. R. 1998. Canberra for GRDC and LWRRDC.
Metcalf, D.S., and Elkins, D.M. 1980. New York, New York: MacMillan Publishing Co.,Inc.
Meyyappan, M., Vaiyapuri, V. and Alagappan, R.M. 1991. Proc. Of Intnl. Conf. Pl. Physoil. Banaras Hindu
Universtiy, India pp. 7-11.
Meyyappan, M., Vaiyapuri, V. and Alagappan, R.M. 1991. Int nl. Conf. Pl. Physoil. Banaras Hindu Universtiy, India
pp. 7-11.
Mir, A. 2010, Journal of Phytology 2010, 2(10): 09–19
Mishra, M.M. 1992. Non-traditional Sectors for Fertilizer use (pp. 48-60). New Delhi, India:
Mishra, V.K., & Sharma, R.B. 1997. Journal of Indian Society of Soil Science, 45 (1), 84-88.
Mishra,B.; Dept. of Soil Science and Agril. Chemistry. Birsa Agricultural University,
Morgan, D.G., Kieller, D.R. and Prynne, A.O. 1983. In: Interaction Between Nitrogen and Growth Regulators in
Control of Plant Development.
Mosier, A.R., J.K. Syers and J.R. Freney. 2004. Island Press, London.
Mwaja, V. N., Masiunas, J. B. & Weston, L. A. 1995. Journal of Chemical Ecology 21, 81-96.
Nagarajan, S. 2000. Indian Farming.50: 9-16.
Nagarajan, S. and D. Mohan. 1994 Sustainingthe wheat revolution in India through coordinated research-Report of
DWR.

190
Nagarajan, S., R.P. Singh, Randhir Singh, Satyavir Singh, Ajmer Singh, Anuj Kumar and Ramesh Chand. 2001.
Transfer of technologies in wheat through frontline demonstrations in India – A Report of DWR
Nair, M. G., Whiteneck, C. J. & Putnam, A. R. 1990. Journal of Chemical Ecology 16, 353-364.
Narwal, S. S., Sarmah, M. K. & Tamak, J. C. 1998. International Rice Research Institute (ed. M. Olofsdotter). IRRI
Press, Manila.
Nasr, H.G. 1976. American Society of Agronomy Report.
National Research Council. 1989. Board on Agriculture, National Academy Press. Washington, D.C.
Nene, Y.N. 1966. Indian Phyto-pathology Society, 3, 97-101.
Niemeyer, H.M. 1988 Phytochemistry, 27, 3349-3358.
Oasa, Edmud K Oelsligle, O.D.; and Kang, B.T. 1976 American Society of Agronomy Pub..
Okigbo, B.N., and Greenland, D.J. 1976. American Society of Agronomy Pub.
Olofsdotter, M. 1999. Ukrudt. DJF Rapport nr. 9. , 101-112.
Otter, L.B. and Scholes, M.C. 2003: FSSA Journal 2003: 13-18.
Overland, L. 1966. Amer. J. Bot. 53 (5), 423-432.
Panda SC, 2003 Cropping and Farming systems, Agrobios.
Panda, S.C. 2006. Cropping system and farming system, Agro bios (India)
Panda,S.C.2003 Crop management and integrated farming AGROBIOS (INDIA)
Papastylianou, I. & Danso, S. K. A. Soil biol. Biochem. 23, 447-452.
Parr, J.F and S.B. Hornick. 1990. In Proc. Intl. Conf. on Kyusei Nature Farming, October 17-21, 1989, Khon
Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand (in press).
Parr, J.F, R.I. Papendick, S.B. Hornick, and R.E. Meyer. 1990. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New
Delhi (in press).
Parr, J.F., R.I. Papendick, and R.E. Meyer. 1989. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, Iowa.
Parr, J.E and D. Colacicco. 1987. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Pellissier, F. & Souto, X. C. 1999. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 18, 637-652.
Peng Alscher, R.G., Donahue, J.L. and Cramer, C.L. 1997. Reactive oxygen species and antioxidants:
Pérez, F. J. & Ormeno-nunez, J. 1993. Weed Research 33, 115-119.
Pérez, F. J. 1990. Phytochemistry 29, 773-776.
Pillai, K.G. 1994 Proceeding of symposium on sustainability of rice-wheat cropping in India (pp. 14-60). Hisar,
India: CCS Haryana Agricultural University.
Pinchinat, A.M.; Soria, J.; and Bazan, R. 1976. American Society of Agronomy.
Pluknett, D.L.; Evenson, J.P.; and Sanford, W.G. 1970. Academic Press.
Prasad, B., Prasad, J., & Prasad, B. 1995. Fertilizer News, 40 (3), 39-45.
Prasad, R. 2000. Nutrient management strategies for the next decade. Fertilizer News, 45 (4), 13-28.
Prasad, R. 1996. FDCO, New Delhi, India. pp. 104-115.
Putnam, A. R. & Tang, C.S. 1986. The science of allelopathy. (ed. A. R. Putnam and C.-S. Tang),. John Wiley &
Sons.
Putnam, A. R. & Weston, L. A. 1986. (ed. A. R. Putnam and C.-S. Tang), pp. 43-56. John Wiley & Sons.
Rajiv K. Sinha 2009.V American-Eurasian J. Agric. & Environ. Sci., 5 (S): 01-55,
Rajput, A.L., & Warsi, A.S. 1992. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 31 (4), 716-720.
Rangacharya, R.P. and Bawankar, P.R. 1991. Annual Plant of Physiology 5(2): 230-233.
Rathore, A.L., Chipde, S.J., & Pal, A.R. 1995. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 40 (1), 14-19.
Reddy SR 2000 Principles of crop production, Kalyani.
Reddy, S.R. 1999. Principles of Agronomy, Kalayani Publishers.
Reddy, T. Yellamanda and Readdy Sankara, B.H.1992. Principles of Agronomy, Kalayani Publishers.
Reeves, G., Breckwoldt, R. and Chartres, C. LWRRDC. Canberra. Physiol. Plant., 100: 224-233.
Rice E.L. 1984 IN Allelopathy;2nd Ed; Academic: New York, 1-7.
Rice, E.L. Allelopathy. New York, New York: Academic Press, 1974.Thomas, G.W.; Curl, S.E.; and Bennett, W.F.
Food and Fiber for a Changing World. Danville, Illinois: Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1976.
Rizvi, S. J. H., M. Tahir, V. Rizvi, R. K. Kohli, and A. Ansari. 1999. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 18: 773-
779.
Rokima, J. 1985. Ph.D. Thesis. Bihar, India: Rajendra Agricultural University.
Ross, Eric 1998. The Malthus Factor: Poverty, Politics and Population in Capitalist Development. London: Zed
Books. ISBN 1-85649-564-7.
Roy, R.N., & Dudal, R. 1993. In Integrated Plant Nutrition Systems (pp. 1-12). Fertilizer and Agriculture
Organization, Fertilizer and Plant Nutrition Bulletin.
Ruttan, Vernon 1977International Development Review 19: 16–23.
Sadanandan, N., & Mapapatra, I.C. 1973. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 18 (4), 459-463.
Sankaram, A. 1992. Food and Nutrition Security for developing world. Indian Farming. 42: 3-10.
Saskatchewan. 1999. Crop residue management. Current Sci., 42: 34-44.
Seigler, D. S. 1996 Agronomy Journal 88, 876-885.
Sekhon, G.S. 1997. In J.S. Kanwar and J.C. Katyal (Eds.), Supply Efficiency and Policy Issues: 2000-2025 (pp. 78-
90). New Delhi,
Sen, Amartya Kumar; Drèze, Jean 1989. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Sharma P.K., Mishra, B., Singh, Y.H., & Chaudhary, D.C. 2000 International Conference on Managing National
st
Resources for Sustainable Agricultural Production in the 21 Century (pp. 894-895

191
Sharma S.N., Singh, R.K., Singh, A.K., & Prasad, R. 2000. International Conference on Managing National
st
Resources for Sustainable Agricultural Production in the 21 Century (pp. 894-895).
Sharma, P.K., Ladha, J.K., & Bhushan, L. 2003. ASA Special Publications 65.
Shiva, Vandana 1989. Dehra Dun: Research Foundation for Science and Ecology.
Shyam, S.B.1998. Patterns of crop concentration and diversification in India. New Delhi.
Singh, A.P., Sakal, R., Sinha, R.B., & Bhogal, N.S. 1998. Journal of Indian Society of Soil Science, 46 (1), 75-80.
Singh, H., Chandra, S. and Jolly, R.S. 1987. Annuals of Applied Biology 3:36-43.
Singh, Y., Singh, B., Meelu, O.P., & Khind, C.S. 2000. Rice-Wheat Consortium for the Indo-Gangetic Plains (pp.
149-162). New Delhi, India: ICAR.
Sinha, Rajiv K., 2007. Sustainable Development Pointer Publisher, India; ISBN 978-81-7132-499-6.
Smil, Vaclav 2004. Enriching the Earth: Fritz Haber, Carl Bosch, and the Transformation of World Food
Production. MIT Press. ISBN 0262693135.
Spitz, Pierre 1987. The Green Revolution revisited: critique and alternatives. Allen & Unwin. pp. 57–75.
Steiner, J.L., J.C. Day, R.J. Papendick, R.E. Meyer, and A.R. Bertrand. 1988. Adv. Soil Science. 8:79-122.
Springer-Verlag, New York.
Stewart, B.A., R. Lal, and S.A. EI-Swaify. 1990. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, Iowa (in
press).
Subba Rao, A., & Sammi Reddy, A. 2005. Indian Journal of Fertilizer, 1 (4), 61-76.
Subba Rao, A., & Srivastava, S. 1998. Fertilizer News, 43 (4), 65-75.
Swaminathan, M.S. 1978. The Indian Farming. Special issue. 27(11): 2–53.
Swaminathan, M.S. 1993. The MacMillan India Ltd. Madras. 164 p.
Syed Asghar Hussain growth, yield and economic impacts of intercropping in vegetables NWFP Agriculture
University,Peshawar.
TAC1989.Sustainable agriculture production system: Implications for International Agricultural Research. CGIAR
Washington.
Tandon, H.L.S. 1997. In J.S. Kanwar and J.C. Katyal (Eds.), National Academy of Agricultural Sciences.
Thakur, R.C., Bindra, A.D., Sood, R.D., & Bhargava, M. 1995. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 40 (1), 4-13.
Thomas, G.W., and Phillips, S.H.1981. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Government Printing Office.
Tisdale SL, Nelson W.L, Beaton, J.D and Havlin, J.L. 1997. Soil Fertility and Fertilizers. Prentice Hall.www.
Sameti.org
Tiwar i, K.N., and Dwivedi, B.S. 1990. Response of eight winter crops to zinc fertilizer on a Typic A Report
Tomar OS, Minhas PS, Gupta RK. 1994. Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Ltd: New Delhi; 111–120.
Tomar OS, Minhas PS, Sharma VK, Singh YP, Gupta RK. 2002. Forest Ecology and Management 177: 333–346.
Tomar OS, Minhas PS. 1998. Central Soil Salinity Research Institute: Karnal Report; 453–471.
Tomati, V., A. Grappelli and E. Galli, 1987. The Presence of Growth Regulators in Earthworm-Worked Wastes. In
Proceeding of International Symposium on ‘Earthworms’; Italy;
Torres, A., Oliva, R. M., Castellano, D. & Cross, P. 1996. SAI (University of Cadiz). Spain, Cadiz.
U.S. Salinity Laboratory Staff. 1954.The Journal of Agricultural Science. 115:383-387.
Visvanathan, et al., 2005. Anna University, India.
Vitousek, P. M. Ecol. Appl. 7, 737±750 (1997).
nd
Vivek, & Dhyani, B.P. 2002 2 International Agronomy Congress (pp. 67-68). New Delhi, India: ICAR.
Wagner, B. I., J.W.B. Stewart and J.L. Henry. 1986. Can. J. Soil Sci. 66: 237-248.
Wang Q.B., C. Halbrendt, and S.R. Johnson. 1996. Journal of Environmental Management 47: 283-296.
Weston L.A. 1996 Agron J., 88,860-866.
Weston, L. A. & Putnam, A. R. 1985. Crop Science 25, 561-565.
Williamson, B. G. (1990). Academic Press, Inc. 1990 , 143-162.
Witt, C. and A. Dobermann. 2002. Better Crops International. 16: 20-24.
Witt, Ch. 2003: Fertilizer use efficiencies in irrigated rice in Asia., Korea, 6-8 October 2003.
Wright, Angus 1984San Francisco: North Point Press. pp. 124–38. ISBN 0-86547-171-1.
Wright, Angus Lindsay 2005. University of Texas Press. ISBN 0-292-71268-5.
Wrigley, G. 1969. The Development of Production. London, England: Faber and Faber, 1969.
Yadav, D.S. & Kumar, A. (1993). Fertilizer News, 38 (7), 45-51.
Yadav, D.S., & Kumar, A. 2000. Indian Farming, 50 (1), 28-30.
nd
Yadav, D.S., & Kumar, A. 2002. 2 International Agronomy Congress (pp. 51-53). New Delhi, India: ICAR.
Yadav, R. L., D. S. Yadav, R. M. Singh, and A. Kumar. 1998. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 51: 193-200.
Yadav, R.L. (1996). In 50 years of Crop Science Research in India (pp. 117-120). ICAR Publications.
Yadav, R.L., & Subba Rao, A.V.M. 2001. PDCSR Bulletin No. 2001-02, Modipuram, pp. 96.
Yaduvanshi, H.S., & Gupta, R.D. 1983. Journal of Agricultural Research, 9 (1), 42-46.
Yoshida, H., Tsumuki, H., Kanehisa, K. & Corucuera, L. J. (1993). Phytochemistry 34, 1011-1013.
Zackrisson, O. & Nilsson, M.-C. 1992. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 22, 1310-1319.

192