You are on page 1of 142

Introduction

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all my, heartful salutation to the almighty,

who bestowed upon me the strength, Zeal & Hope all

through the span of my studies as a result of which this

arduous task have been completed. I could not find any

words to express my heartful gratitude o my parents

without whom I wouldnt have been able to reach this far.

With immense pleasure and deep respect, a profound

sense of gratitude and heartful thanks to my Advisor Dr.

A.K. SHARMA H.O.D Department of agriculture Science,

Shree Dev Bhoomi Institute Of Education Science &

Technology, Dehradun (U.K.) , for his valuable guidance,

suggestions an constructive criticism during the period of

investigation and preparation of this Thesis.

I express my sincere thanks to Chairman, MR. S. N.

Nautiyal for his learnable advises, guidance and immense

support throughout the course of study period.

I express my sincere thanks to my Co-Adviser, Mr.

V.P.S Rawat Associate Professor Department of


Agronomy, Shree Dev Bhoomi Institute of Education

Science & Technology, Dehradun (U.K.), for his learnable

advise, guidance and immense support throughout the

course of study period.

I am very much grateful and thankful to the

member of my advisor committee Mr. Subham Kumar,

Assistant Professor of Entomology Science, and Mr.

Mukesh Deorari Assistant Professor of Horticulture and

Ranjan Kothari, Assistant Professor of Animal Science

SDBIT, Dehradun, for his kind help during the course of

my studies.

Our department, a prominent centre of learning his

always made me feel as a small and integral family.

I am highly indebted to my Parents, friends, and my

family members for their constant love, encouragement

and prayers throughout my study, without which I would

never have been able to reach this milestone.


I cannot express the role that my friends took

during those difficult steps I had gone through, cheer to

friendship o all for their moral support and persistent help

during the course of this study.

I , Once again extend my gratitude to all those who

have generously lend their helping hands for this

endeavor. Any omissions in this acknowledgement are

because of lack of words but not due to lack of deed.

Place : Dehradun Name

Date :
GROWTH AND PRODUCTIVITY OF WHEAT (Triticum aestuvum L.)
UNDER MODIFIED RAIDED BEADS OF VARYING SIZES AND
IRRIGATION LEVELS
Depatment of Agriculture, SDBIT, Dehradun(U.K.)

Malling Address: K. Anju Devi D/o K. Thoiba Singh

R/o Aprapti Mayai Leikai, P.O.-Lilong

Tehsil-Lilong, District-Imphal East (Manipur)

E-Mail- anjukonthoujam@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

A field experiment was conducted at Crop Research Farm, Department of


Agriculture, SDBIT, Dehradun (U.K.) during rabi seasonog 2016-2017 to study the
effect of planting techniques and irrigation levels on wheat and water productivity
and economics of wheat and water productivity and economics of wheat (Triticum
aesticum L.) The soil of the experimental site was sandy loam with pH 7.3, organic
carbon 0.89% and 245.0. 32.8 and 178.3kg/ ha N, p 2O5and K2O respectively. The
experiments consisting of 15 treatments, having five planting techniques (Flat
planting, Rasied bed with two rows, Broadcast seeding then making bed of 45, 60
and 80cm) and three irrigation at CGS) was laid in Factorial Randomized Block
Design with three replications. The depth of irrigation was 6 cm for flat and in
raised beds as per the requirement The wheat variety UP 2584 was sown at 20 cm
row spacing in flat bed@ 100 kg seed area. In flat bed the emergence, tillers/m2
and dry matter/m2 was significantly higher than raised beds. Yield attributes viz.
spiking length and grain/ spike were superior in raised bed plots than flat bed. All
the raised bed techniques recorded at par yield with flat, but required less amount
of irrigation water. The maximum water saving was recorded in MRB 80/25 (53
percent). The B:C ratio (2.15) and net returns 46668/ha were the maximum with
MRB 45/25.
CONTENTS

Sl. No. Chapter Page No.


1. Introduction
2. Review of Literature
3. Materials and Methods
4. Experimental Results
5. Discuss
6. Summary n
7. Literature Cited
8. Appendices
CHAPTER- 1 INTRODUCTION

Wheat is the second most important cereal after rice in India and rank 3 rd in
the Worlds cereal crops production. It is a staple food for 1/3 rd of the Worlds
population, thus primary food security concerns are focused on improving and
sustaining its productivity. In India, wheat is grown in 28.5 mha area with a
total production of 96.6mt (2016-2017) contributing 41.1 percent to the total
food grain production in the country, with productivity level of 27.03q/ha (
Directorate of Wheat Research, 2012-2013). As per an estimate, India
would need 109 mt wheat by 2020, which can be achieved by its assured
annual growth rate of 4.1 percent ( Nagarajan, 2005). Food security dilemma
is the major problem of the future for countries like India, where resources are
getting stretched to the limits. There is no doubt that intensive agriculture in
irrigated areas has brought out substantial enhancement in food grain
production but has also threatened the environmental safety and accelerated
the degradation and inefficient use of basic resources and production inputs.
In the present situation, the only option left is to shift towards eco-friendly
advance and efficient utilization of production resource especially soil, water
nutrients. Amongst the various agronomic practices, proper crop
establishment method may considerably increase
the efficiency of inputs/ productivity of wheat. It is also well known fact that
water management is one of the major factors responsible for
achieving better harvest in crop establishment method ( Maurya and Singh,
2008).
In many parts of the country, the availability of irrigation water is
decreasing as both ground and surface water are being over exploited. The
situation has further aggravated due to changing climate, especially the
rainfall pattern. In such areas, the wheat productivity is being hampered due to
inadequate availability of irrigation water.
Flat bed planting is the most common and popular wheat establishment
practice all over the country but consumes unrealistically high amount of
irrigation water resulting into low water use efficiency. Therefore, there is
need to find out the alternative water efficient planting method. The efficiency
of available irrigation water can be increased by resorting to raised bed
planting as in this method, the application of irrigation water is restricted to
furrows only, made between two parallel beds. The moisture of crop root zone
is made available through lateral movement of water. APart from this, such
configurations have also been found useful in trapping the rain water for soil
moisture augmentation. The piling up of fertile top soil in the form of bed
which also helps in vigorous root system, enabling the plant to explore more
soil volume and resist against lodging. The raised bed planting system with
furrow irrigation has been found to give higher water use efficiency and also
resulted 30 per cent saving in irrigation water over conventional flat planting
with flood irrigation (Wang et al., 2004). The added advantage observed with
former has been reduced crust problem on the soil surface and improved soil
physical health. Asif et al. (2003) reported that bed furrow method consumed
about 35.6 percent less irrigation water as compared to flat border irrigation
method. Also germination count and yield components were considerably
improved under bed furrow irrigation technique leading to 13.4 per cent
higher grain yield. In the recent years, the furrow irrigated raised bed system
has proved to be one of the important components of low cost sustainable
production system. This planning system facilitates mechanical weed control,
increase water use efficiency, reduces crop lodging and has lower seed
requirement (Sayre, 2000 and Yadav et al., 2002). In bed planting, some area
remains unsown in the form of furrows and crop in planted on the top of the
beds only. The yield compensation or advantage is assumed due to
border/edge effect, which may vary depending upon the soil type and actual
area sown. In this respect, bed width may play significant role in determining
the wheat as well as water productivity.
Irrigation water is one of the most crucial inputs for wheat growth,
development and yields expression. Maintaining adequate soil moisture in the
crop root zone is the prime aim of irrigation application. However, the time of
irrigation application is governed by type of the soil (texture), stage of the
crop as well as evapourative demand of the atmosphere. Improper scheduling
of irrigation results not only in wastage of water, but also decreases crop
yield. In flat bed planting, irrigation water is applied to the entire field, while
in raised bed system; it is restricted to furrows only, resulting in reduced
quantity of applied irrigation water. Therefore, crop is likely to respond
differently to variable irrigation applications under different methods of
establishment and bed sizes. Kakar (2003) reported notable variations in yield
of wheat under raised beds and flat bed planting, when subjected to variable
suply of irrigation water. For seeding wheat on raised bed, machines are
available for large, uniform fields of plain areas. However in resource poor
areas ( small plot size, terraced fields, high gravel content etc.), the
availability and operation ability of such devices are still limited. Therefore in
the present study efforts were made to make raised bed using the local tool
spade to offer and alternative for such areas. In view of above facts, the
present investigation entitled Growth and productivity of wheat (Triticum

aestivum L.) under modified raised beds of varying sizes and irrigation
levels was conducted with the following objectives:
1. To optimize the bed width for higher wheat and water productivity.
2. To optimize the irrigation levels under different planting techniques.
3. To work out the water use, nutrient uptake and economics.
Review
Of
Literature
CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Wheat is the second most important cereal after rice in India and rank in 3 rd in
the Worlds cereal crops production evolved for different crops with an
objective to improve/sustain input use efficiency and crop productivity. Water
being the prime input in agricultural production, needs to be economized as
agriculture is likely to face tough competition from other user sectors. A brief
resume of the work carried out on these aspects has been reviewed and
presented under various heads in this chapter.
2.1 Effect of planting techniques
2.1.1 Wheat growth
At Karnal, Haryana Khatri et al. (2002) studied the performance of
wheat cv. UP 2338 under raised and flat beds sowing and irrigation levels.
Growth parameters such as number of tillers per meter row length, leaf area
index, crop growth rate and dry matter accumulation were favored by raised
bed plating method. Asif et al. (2003) found that the germination count of
wheat got improved considerably under bed furrow irrigation technique as
compared to flat border irrigation method.
Walia et al. (2003) reported that bed sown crop with two rows per bed
had significantly less effective tillers as compared to bed sown crop with three
rows.
Jat and singh (2004) did not find significant variation in the overall
growth and productivity of wheat under furrow irrigated raised bed system
(FIRBs) that with cross-sowing system under flat field condition.
Kumar et al. (2007) observed faster growth, better root development
and aeration under furrow irrigated raised bed system than flat sown crop
owing to more free space available on both sides of the bed.
Wang et al. (2007) found that as compared to conventional flat planting,
the plant morphological characters related to the grain yield of winter wheat
changed greatly by the raised bed planting model, besides having heavier dry
weight of green leaves in canopy. While, comparing four winter wheat
varieties under raised bed planting (RBP) and conventional flat planting
(CFP), Li et al. (2008) found that the RBP inhibited the occurrence of invalid
tillers, promoted vigorous tillers and increased year-bearing tiller rate. This
resulted in significantly improved light conditions of the lower leaves of the
plants and increase the contribution of the 4th leaf from the top of seed yield. It
also increased the leaf area index (LAI) and dry matter accumulation of the
shoots.
Kong et al. (2010) found that furrow irrigation in a raised bed planting
system improved the root vitality by 8.9%, and root dry weight by 3.7 percent
as compared to conventional planting.
Kumar et al. (2010) reported that furrow irrigated raised bed system
with 3 rows per bed has significantly higher leaf area indez, dry matter
accumulation and more taller plants as compared to 2 rows per bed and
conventional sowing.
2.1.2 Yield and yield attributes
At karnal, Haryana Khatri et al. (2002) studied the performance of
wheat cv. UP 2338 under raised or flat bed sowing and irrigation levels and
found that the yield attributes such as number of grains per year head and test
weight were the highest with sowing in 3 row beds and irrigation at 1.2 IW :
CPE ratio. The highest grain (49.21q/ha and straw yield (60.52q/ha) were
recorded with 3-row beds and irrigation at 1.0 IW: CPE ratio, respectively.
Yadav et al (2002) credited the increase in wheat yield under furrow
irrigated raised bed system to higher number of spikelets/spike, grains /spike
and 1000- grain weight.
Asif et al. (2003) reported that the yield components were improved
considerably under bed furrow irrigation technique leading to 13.4 per cent
higher grain yield than flat sown crop.
Jat and Singh (2003) reported that furrow irrigated raised bed planting
of wheat with 2 rows per bed and simultaneous sowing of berseem in furrows
with multiple cuttings gave the highest wheat- equivalent yield (7.03 tones/
ha) and per day productivity (57.07 kg/ha/day).
Kumar et al (2004) obtained at per yields of different wheat
cultivators under the furrow irrigated raised bed system even with reduced
irrigation up to 70 per cent of the recommended to that under flat bed system
of sowing.
Moreno et al. (2004) conducted an experiment during winter season at
the yaqui valley agricultural experiment station, on beds widths and plant
density. Results indicated that yields were not modified when the broad bed
width (DBB) was changed.
Kumar et al. (2007) reported that under furrow irrigated raised bed
system, wheat varieties PBW 343, and HD 2687 were at per in terms of grain
yield and both produced significantly higher number of effective tillers/ m2
and 1000- grain weight and ultimately resulted in higher grain and straw
yields compared to WH-147 , WH-283 , C-306 and WH-896 varieties.
While comparing the performance of 20 wheat genotypes under two crop
establishment methods Satya and Choudhury (2005) reported that the wheat
genotypes thrived better under the furrow irrigated raised bed system than
under the surface seeding.
Buttar et al. (2006) conducted a field experiment and find that the
grain yields of wheat in flat (35.32q/ha) and bed planting (35.33q/ha)
treatments were not statistically different.
Bakker et al . (2007) found that the wheat grain yields on the raised
beds were significantly higher than the yields from crop grown on the flat bed
with an average yield enhancement of 0.48 t/ha.
The grain yield of wheat was marginally higher under bed planting than in
conventional method due to higher number of spike/m row length and number
of grain /spike (Mascangi et al., 1995 and Kumar et al., 2007).

Mollah et al. (2009) compared the bed widths, number of rows per bed
and seed rates along with conventional method. Bed width of 70 cm increased
the mean grain yield of wheat up to 21 per cent over conventional method due
to increased number of panicles/m2, grains / panicle 1000- grains weight.
They also reported that the sterility percentage was lower in bed planting.
In central Punjab , India Singh et al. (2009) studied the rice- wheat
system on permanent raised beds (37 cm wide, 15 cm high, furrow width 30
cm) in sandy loan soils. Permanent raised beds offered benefits for rice
wheat system in terms of both production and the possibility that furrow-
irrigation may be more efficient than flood irrigation in flat bed. Akbar et al.
(2010) reported that wide beds produced higher wheat (15%) and maize
(26%) yields than the flat basin system.
Kukal et al. (2010) found that yields of wheat on raised beds and
conventionally tilled wheat were similar on the loam but were sometimes
lower on beds on the sandy loam. Kumar et al. (2010) reported that the
higher grain yield found in bed planting was due to higher number of
spikelets/spike, grains /spike and 1000-grain weight as compared to
conventional sowing. The results of field studies conducted by Sepat et al.
(2010) revealed that furrow irrigated raised bed planting registered higher
mean spikes/ m2, grains/spike and 1000-grain weight resulting in 8.6% higher
grain yield than conventional planting (4.36 tones/ ha). While comparing the
performance of winter wheat under furrow irrigated raised bed planting and
flood irrigated conventional planting wang et al. (2010) found that the furrow
irrigated raised bed planting system improved the wheat grain yield by 7.6 per
cent (698.7 g/m2) than that in conventional planting.
2.1.3 Nutrient uptake

Singh (2001) found that in general, N and K concentration in wheat


grain and straw was higher under reduced tillage, conventional line sowing
and FIRB system than recorded under surface seeding, zero tillage and strip
till drill. The P uptake in grain and straw was almost equal in reduced tillage,
conventional line sowing and FIRB system but significantly higher than
surface seeding, zero tillage and strip till drill.

2.1.4 Econimics

The total variable cost of conventional method (16600 ha-1) was higher
than bed planting in 70, 80 and 90 cm wide beds with both two and three plant
rows. Many researchers have also reported lower costs of production in bed
planting which ranged from 20-30% compared to conventional method
(Reeves et al. 2000; Sayre, 2003 and Connor et al. 2003).
Jat and Singh ( 2003) reported that furrow irrigated raised bed planting of
wheat with 2 rows per bed and simultaneous sowing of berseem in furrows
with multiple cuttings gave the higher net returns ( Rs 33,265/ha ) than sole
wheat.
Goel and Verma ( 2005) compared the economics of different wheat
establishment systems and observed that bed planting system produced higher
monetary benefits than zero tillage and conventional tillage.
Maurya and Singh ( 2008) reported the maximum cost of cultivation
(Rs 17773/ha) under bed planting , while the minimum (Rs 14510/ha) was
recorded under zero tillage. Mollah et al (2009) found that the cost of
cultivation was lower and benefit cost ratio was higher in bed planting than
conventional method of sowing .
2.1.5 Water saving and water use efficiency :-
Planting of wheat on the bed required 25% less quantity of irrigation water
over the flat sown crop ( Aquino 1998). While assessing the water
productivity of wheat kukal et al ( 2010) recorded that in the small plots,
irrigation water productivity (WPIV)on beds and in conventnioally tilled
wheat was similar ( mean 2 g /kg) on the loam , but about 20% less on the
sandy loam mainly due to lower yields. In the farmers field, water
productivity of irrigation water ( 1.5 g/kg) was 15%. higher on the fresh beds
than on the permanent bed due to lower requirement of irrigation water.
Maurya and Singh, (2008) reported that the highest water use
efficiency was recorded under bed planting followed by Rota till drill, zero
tillage and conventional method.It increased by 26.88 and 40.70 kg/ha-cm
than that obtained under conventional method. They also found that the
maximum total soil moisture depletion (24.07 and 22.83 cm) by wheat crop
from 0-15 and 15-30 cm layers was recorded under conventional method of
sowing.
Wang et al. (2004) compared the two wheat varieties under two
planting system and observed that raised-bed planting system in comparision
to flat increased the soil moisture content, decreased soil surface crust and
improved soil physical properties.
Sayre (2000) found that the raised bed planting system increases the
water use efficiency and reduces the crop lodging.
Yadav et al .(2002) reported a saving of 46-56 prr cent in time and
quantity of irrigation water in wheat in case of tube well irrigation and 36 per
cent in case of canal irrigation under bed planting as compared to the
conventional planting.
Goel and Verma (2005) reported that the sowing of wheat on raised
beds by bed planter had 30 per cent more water use efficiency compared to
sowing by no-tillage seed-cum-fertilizer drill in untilled condition and sowing
by broadcasting method in conventional tillage.
Jin et al.(2008) found that the permanent raised beds significantly
increased the soil water content in 0.30 m depth by 7.2-10.7 per cent and ZT
treatments . Mean wheat yields over 3 years on PRB plots were slightly
greater and furrow irrigation in permanent beds was particularly effective in
increasing irrigation water use efficiency (similar to 18 per cent), compared
with TT and ZT treatments.
Maurya and Singh ( 2008) found that the consumptive use of water by
wheat decreased in the order of conventional method , rota till drill zero tillage
and bed planting , Ghane et al (2009) found that the furrow irrigated raised
wavy beds with 60 cm top produced higher grain yields with less irrigation
water and increased the water productivity by 14.9 and 18.4 percent in
comparison with the conventional flat planting method. Mollahet al (2009)
reported that the conventional method of wheat establishment received the
highest amount of water in every irrigation and the total amount was 316.5
mm. Total water savings by 70,80 and 90 cm wide beds over conventional
method were 41-46 per cent and 44-48 per cent, respectively.
Akbar et al (2010) reported that the lower water application in the
permanent raised bed compared to basin treatment was sound to be closely
related to bed width. The narrow, medium and wide beds used 31,16-17 and
18-22 per cent less wate than the basins, respectively.

2.2 Effect of irrigation scheduling

Different approaches are used for irrigating the wheat crop viz IW CPE
ratio critical growth stages, soil moisture depletion etc. As the basis for
applying irrigation is different in different approaches, thus these are likely to
affect the crop growth and productivity differently.

2.2.1 Growth
Li et al ( 2005) observed that in the semi arid regions in loamy soils
irrigation treatment in comparison to treatments without irrigation
significantly increased the root biomass of wheat.

2.2.2 Yield and yield attributes

Memon (2000) reported that wheat when irrigated only twice at the

stage of tillering and milky stage, produced plants with a minimum height,

formed smaller spikes and bore less number of grains . These parameters

were found to increase under more frequent irrigation.


Narang et al ( 2000) found that the wheat yield was significantly
higher when irrigation was applied at 60 per cent depletion of available soil
moisture (DASM) as compared to 40 and 50 per cent DASM.
Bandopadhyay and Mallick (2003) found wheat quite responsive to
increasing levels of irrigation and noted that IW:CPE ratio of 1.2 resulted in
13 and 21 per cent more yield than 0.9 and 06 IW:CPE , respectively.
Singh et al ( 2006) reported that irrigation at a depth of 7 cm recorded
the greatest root area at the itllering and flowering stages ( 5.6 and 10.2 cm2)
and surface density at the flowering stage ( 255.7 mm2 /ml) while root
diameter ant the tillering and flowering stages was the greatest ( 0.42 and
0.51 mm) under irrigation depth of 9 cm.
Pahlavan etal ( 2011) found that the highest wheat grain yield ( 3905
kg ha-1) was resulted from the 80 mm irrigation interval (shorter) interval
that 160 mm irrigation (longer interval)

2.2.3 Nutrient content and uptake

Kumar et al (1995) reported that the N content in wheat grain was


higher in unirrigated treatement , but not enough to be significantly over 0.6
IW:CPE ratio. The N content in straw also decreased significantly with
increasing IW :CPE ratio i.e more frequent application of irrigation whereas
the N uptake by grain was the highest at 1.20 IW :CFPE ratio and decreased
with decrease in I:CPE from 1.2 to 0.6 largely owing to low mobility of
inorganic N in the soil solution.
Kumar and Sharma (1997) observed that increase in IW:CPE ratio
upto 0.90 gave higher P content in grain and P uptake in grain aas compared
to 0.60 IW:CPE ratio and unirrigated condition. Whereas , Potassium content
and uptake in grain as well as straw the maximum under 1.20 IW::CPE ratio
and it was significantly superior to 0.60 IW :CPE ratio and unirragted
treatment.. At Jorhat, Assam Kaltia and Sharma ( 2000) found increase in
the N, P and K uptake with increase in irrigation frequency.

2.2.4 Economics

In a field experiment Maurya and Singh ( 2008) found that

irrigation at 1.20 IW :CPE ratio ( depth 6 cm ) incurred the maximum cost of


cultivation ( RS 16513/ha ) while the minimum Rs 15251/ha was at 0.80 IW
:CPE ratio ( depth 4 cm ) irrigation . However the maximum cost net profit
and B:C ratio was recorded with 1.0 IW CPE ratio ( depth 5 cm)

2.2.5 Water saving and water use efficiency :-

Sayre (2000) reported that with FIRBs the irrigation water requirement

can be reduced upto 35 per cent compared to the conventional row planting in

flat beds with flood irrigation.

Yadav et al. (2002) realized water saving in wheat under furrow


irrigated raised bed system to the extent to the extent of 36 per cent under
canal irrigation and 46-50 per cent under tube well irrigation system.
In yellow River Basin, China Pereira et al. (2007) reported that
improvements in basin inflow discharges, land leveling and optimum
irrigation scheduling could result in water savings of 33% relative to actual
demand.
In a field experiment Buttar et al (2006) found that the water
productivity based on the irrigation water in bed and flat planting methods
was 1.49 kg/m3 and 1.25kg/m3, respectively.
Among different irrigation scheduling criteria tested Maurya and Singh,
(2008) recorded the maximum total moisture depletion at 1.20 IW:CPE ratio.
The moisture utilization pattern showed 73 per cent depletion from upper soil
layer (0-30 cm), while lower layer (30-90 cm) for only 27 per cent of the total
moisture depletion.
Maurya and Singh, (2008) credited the lower water use efficiency
under conventional method of crop establishment at 1.20 IW : CPE ratio to the
fact that grain yield did not increase proportionally to that of consumptive use
of water with increasing irrigation frequency.
The resume of work carried out revelaed that furrow irrigated raised bed
system has a great potential to improve/sustain the wheat productivity, besides
saving the amount of irrigation water considerably. Wheat crop has been
found quite responsive to irrigation application. However, the optimum
scheduling varies with the soil type and climate conditions.
Material
&
Methods
CHAPTER 3 MATERIAL AND METHODS
The detail of the material used and the procedures and techniques
employed for execution of field experiment and laboratory analysis of the
investigation have been described in this chapter.

3.1 Experimental Site


The experiment was carried out Shree Dev Bhoomi Institute of
Education, Science and Technology village-Mazhon, P.O Poundha
Dehradun, Uttarakhand India during rabi season of 2016 -17. The highly
productive Tarai soils hold a great inherent potential for intensive farming.
However, this one time benifit of people and water rich region is now thickly
populated and its resources are gradually coming under stress 3.2 climate and
weather condition. The tarai belt is characterized bya s sub - humid and sub
tropical climate. It has extreme of weather condition with summer begins
very hot , dry and severly cold. Normally ,the monsoon season beings from
third/fourth week of June and prolongs upto mid of September. The are
receives a mean annual precipitation of 1364 mm. of which 80 to 90 per cent
in the contribution of the monsoon period (June to September). Occurrence of
frost is confined to a shorter period i.e from end of December to January.
May and June are the hottest months having maximum temperature reaches to
410C while December and January are the coldest months. The maximum
relative humidity oscillates around 90 percent during monsoon period. Weekly
average weather parametes viz, rainfall minimum and maximum temperature,
relative humidity, sunshine hours, evaporation and wind speed recorded
during the period of experimentation (November April ) for 2016 to 2017 at
the Shri Dev Bhoomi Institute of Education Science and Technology
Village Mazhon P.O Poundha, Dehradun are shown in fig 1 and also
presented as Appendix I respectively. Rainfall during crop period in 2016 -
2017 was medium 75.8 mm with April month receiving the highest rainfall
35.8 mm when crop was in vegetative stage and March month, received the
lowest rainfall ( 2.4 mm) During crop period average weekly the maximum
and minimum temperature were 35.4C in the standard meteorological week
16 and 4.4 C in standard meteorological week of 51 respectively.
The maximum relative humidity ranged from 66.8 to 95.0 per cent, while the
minimum from 27.4 to 81.0 per cent, during the crop period .

3.3 Soil Classification


The experimental soil has been classified (Desh pandy et al., 1971) as
follows :-
Order : Mollisols
Sub order : Udoll
Great group : Hapluadoll
Sub group : Typic hapluadoll
Table 3.1 Initial physic- chemical properties of experimental soil

Sl. PARTICULARS DEPTH( METHOD OF


No. 0.30 CM) DETERMINATION
1 Bulk density ( g/cc) 1.48 Core sampler (Black
1971)
2 Field Capacity (%) 21.9 Field method
3 PWP (%) 7.50 Pressure plate apparatus
4 Infiltration rate (cm/ hour ) 1.3 Double ring
infiltrometer
5 pH 1:2:5 soil water 7.2 Glass electrode to pH
suspension) meter ( Jackson 1967)
6 Organic carbon (%) 0.57 Modified Walkley and
Black
7 Available N (kg/ha) 185.5 Method (Jackson 1973)
8 Available P (kg/ha) 18 Alkaline KMnO4
method
9 Available K (kg/ha) 180 Olsens extraction
method (Olsen et al
1954)
1 N Neutral NH4OAC
extraction using flame
photometer.
3.4 Cropping history of the experimental site

During the preceding two years(2015-16,2016-17)the experimental field


was under rice wheat rotation.

3.5 Experiment detail

The field experiment consisting of 15 treatments (5 planting tech- nique


and 2 irrigation levels) was laid out in factorial RBD, having replicated two A
complete layout of the experiment is shown in fig 2. The experiment had a
total of 45 plots (experiment units) 0 of 4.2 x 4.0m sixe each. All the plots
were provided with 0.80 m wide buffer space around it. The gross area of
every plot was 16.8 m. The treatment details of the experiment are given as
below : -

Table 3.2 Planting techniques and symbol used


Sl. No. Planting techniques Symbol used
1 Flate bed (conventional) Flate

2 Raised bed, top 45 cm with two rows RB 45/15


3 Broadcast seeding then making raised MRB 45/25
bed (top 45 cm)
4 Broadcast seeding then making raised MRB 60/25
bed (top 60 cm)
5 Broadcast seeding then making raised MRB 80/25
bed (top 80 cm)
Table 3.3 Irrigation levels and symbol used
SNO. IRRIGATION LEVEL SYMBOL USED

1 Irrigation at iw ;CPE 0.80 IW :CPE 0.80

2 Irrigation at IW : CPE 1.20 IW :CPE 1.20


3 Irrigation at critical growth stages CGS

Table 3.4 Experimental details and layout plan

SNO. EXPERIMENT SITE PLOT CONDITION


1 Site of experiment Crop research centre

2 Crop Wheat
3 Season Rabi ( 2016-17)
4 Treatments 15
5 Replications 3
6 Gross plot size 4.20 m x 4.0 m ( 16.8
m2)
7 Net plot size As per treatment

8 Variety UP 2584

9 Irrigation depth 6 cm
Table 3.5 Net plot size as per treatment

Sl. No. TREATMENT NET PLOT SIZE


1 Flat 3.40 m x 3.0 m = 10.2 m2
2. RB 45 /15 3.0m x 3.0 m = 9.0m2
3. MRB 45/25 2.80m x 3.0 m=8.40m
4. MRB 60/25 2.55m x 3.0m = 7.65m2
5 MRB 80/25 2.10 m x 3.0m = 6.30 m

Table No. 3.6


Sl. No. Operation Date Implement /method used
1. Pre sowing Irrigation 03/11/16 Flood method
2. Harrowing 10/11/16 Tractor drown disk harrow
3. Patella /Plank 10/11/16 Tractor drown disk harrow
4 Harrowing 15/11/16 Tractor drown disk harrow
5. Plank 15/11/16 Tractor drown plank
6. Leveler 15/11/16 Tractor drown leveler
7. Layout 16/11/16 Manually using rope, lime
Measuring tape
8. Plot leveling 17/11/16 Manually
9. Fertilizer application 18/11/16 Broadcast manually as basal
10. Sowing 18/11/16 Manually
Table 3.7 Post planting cultural operation

Sl. NO. OPERATION DATE IMPLEMENT//METHOD USED


1. Irrigation As per treatment Manually
2. Herbicide 18.12.2016 Spraying mixture of Clodinofop
sprey propygil 15% a.i W.P and met
sulphuron mthy (MSM) 1% a.i
W.P @ 60 g /ha
3. Fungicide 10.03.2016 Knapsack sprayer propazinol
@ 1 ml./litre
4. Top dressing 16.12.2016 After first irrigation at per
of urea 14/02/2017 heading stage
5. Harvesting 15.04.2017 Manually
6. Threshing 20.04.2017 Plot thresher

3.7 Cultural Operation

The details of different cultural operation carried out during the


experimental period are given below under different sub heads.

3.7.1 Fertilizer application


The crop was fertilized at 120 kg N, 60 kg 25 and 40kg 2 O per
hecatare, Nitrogen phosphorus and potassium were applied through N P K
mixture (12:32:16) and remaining nitrogen was applied through urea. Full
quantity of phosphorus and potassium and one third of nitrogen was applied
just before sowing and incorporated. Remaining twothird nitrogen was top
dressed through urea in two equal splits on 16.12-2016 and 14.12.2017
respectively.

3.7.2 Seed rate and sowing

Wheat seeds were sown @ 100 kg/ha at a distance of 20 cm in flat


beds. In case of raised bed 45/15 with two rows seeds were sown at a spacing
of 22.5 cm whereas in raised bed (top 45, 60 and 80cm) seeds were broadcast
in leveled plots and beds were made using a spade as per treatment. These
were compacted thoroughly to ensure proper contact between seed and soil. In
raised beds, the seed rate was adjusted as per the net area sown.

3.7.3 Scheduling of irrigation


After first common irrigation at crown root initiation (CRI)
subsequently irrigation were applied as per treatment based on IW : CPE ratio
and on critical growth stage. The dates on which irrigation was adjusted
according to the rainfall received.
Table 3.8 Dates and number of irrigation

Sl. No Irrigation level Dates of Irrigation Number of irrigation


13.12.2016 2
. 1. IW :CPE 0.80 04.03.2017
13.12.2016
05.02.2017 3
07.03.2017
2. IW : CPE 1.20 20.03.2017
13.12.2017
25.01.2017 4
28.02.2017
3. CGS 18.03.2017

3.7.4 Weed Control

Ready mixture of clodinophop propygil 15 per cent and met sulphuron


methyl (MSM) 1 per cent WP @ 60 g/ ha as post emergence at 32 after
sowing was sprayed to control the weeds.
3.7.5 Harvesting and threshing

The crop of the individual plot was harvested manually when more than
90 percent of the grains in the spikes were fully ripened and free from
greenish tinge. At first, the border and sample rows of all the plots were
removed and then net plot was measured and harvested individually.
Subsequently after 6 days of sun drying, the product of individual plot was
threshed by a plot thresher.

3.8 Observations recorded


For recording observation, the sampling area was marked in each plot.
In flat bed and raised bet 45/15 with 2 rows, 25 cm row length in each second
row diagonally on both side of the plot and in broadcast seeding then making
raised bed treatments an area of 25 x 25 cm, diagonally on both sides of the
plot was marked leaving sufficient border. Observations on germination,
plant height, tiller number and yield attributes and developmental studies
were recorded on these market area. For dry matter accumulation and active
leaf count similar area was clipped from the sampling area. For parameters
viz. emergence count, dry matter accumulation (g/m) tiler number / m, active
leaves / m, the area lost in furrows was taken into account, in all the raised
bed treatments.

3.8.1 Emergence count


Total number of geminated seedlings was counted in the marked area
at 15 days after sowing and is reported as emergence count/m area.

3.8.2 Plant Height


Plant height was measured and 6 tagged shoots selected randomly
from the marked area. Height of the individual shoot was measured using a
wooden scale from the base of the Culm to tip of the longest leaf during
vegetative phase, and up to tip of the upper most spikelet during reproductive
phase. The growth parameters were recorded at 45 and 90 days after sowing.

3.8.3 Total number of tillers/m2


Total number of tillers was counted form marked area and were
multiplied by computed factor to arrive at number of tillers/m.

3.8.4 Physiologically active leaves

Crop area as mentioned in 3.8 was clipped from ground surface and
number of active leaves were counted. A leaf having more than half green
area was treated as active leaf. The active leaf number has been reported on
per m.

3.8.5 Dry matter accumulation

The plants clipped for active leaves count were also used for dry
matter accumulation. The samples were initially sun dried and then in plant
drier at 70 2C temperature to record the dry matter production/m.

3.8.6 Dry root weight and volume

For root study, the soil sample were drawn using a core of 7.5 cm
diameter upto 20 cm depth and put in a fine mesh nylon bag. The bag with all
contents was immersed in running water nearby Pucca Canel for about 1 hour
so that soil mass gets sufficiently lossened and roots are recovered during
washing. After thoroughly cleaning, the roots were soaked in bloating paper
then put in a measuring cylinder partially fill with clean water and the rise in
water level in the cylinder due to immersion of roots was noted ass root
volume. After determining the root volume, this were placed in numbered
brown paper bags and dried in an oven at 70 2 C until a constant weight
was obtained. Clipped shoots were also dried following the similar process.
The root volume has been expressed as cm, and root dry weight as root
weight density (g/cm).

3.8.7 Root: shoot ration

It was obtained by dividing oven dry weight of roots by oven day


weight of shoots of the same plant sample.

3.9 Development stages

3.9.1 Days to 50 per cent heading

A regular count on emerging heads at 2 days interval was made from


marked sampling area and when 50 per cent tillers bore fully emerged ears,
that particular day was counted and reported as days to 50 per cent heading.

3.9.2 Physiological maturity

When crop started turning yellowish, a regular counting at 2 days


interval was made to know the days taken to maturity. The day when more
than so per cent of the spikes turned yellow, treated as day to complete
maturity.

3.10 Studies at harvest

3.10 .1 Yield attributes

3.10.1.1 Plant height

The shoots ears marked for recording plant height during vegetative
phase were used for height determination at maturity also.

3.10.1.2 Number of spikes/m

Ears marked sampling area was clipped and in each plot the number of
spikes were counted and then multiplied with computed factor to get spikes
/m.

3.10.1.3 Spike length (cm)

From the harvested sample, randomly selected 10 spikes were


measured, from their base to tip (excluding awns)/ summed-up and divided by
ten to get the average spike length (cm).
10.1.4 Fertile and sterile spikelets / spike

The numbers of spikelet with grain were treated as fertile spikelet and

those without grain as sterile. Both fertile and sterile spikelet were counted

separately on all the 10 spikes and averaged to get fertile and sterile

spikelets/spike.

3.10.1.5 Grain weight per spike (g)

The sampled plants were threshed manually and cleaned for grains.
The total grain weight was divided by number of spikes to obtain grain weight
per spike.

3.10.1.6 1000-grain weight (g)

Form the grain produce of the net plot, 1000 grains were counted
weighted and reported as 1000 grain weight.

3.10.1.7 Grain number per spike

The number of grains was counted and divided by number of spikes


to get number of grains / spike.
3.10.2 Grain yield

The entire produce form each net plot was threshed by a plot
thresher. Then grains were cleaned by winnowing and weighted and expressed
as quintal per hectare.

3.10.3 Biological yield

The total produce form net plot was harvested and dried in sun for 3-
4 days, bundled and labeled then weighed to record biological yield per plot
and expressed in quintal per hectare.

3.10.4 Straw yield

Straw yield from net plot was obtained by substracting the grain
yield form the total biomass produce of the net plot and expressed as quintal
per hectare.

3.10.5 Harvest index

The index (HI) was calculated using the expression and expressed as
per cent value.
( / )
Harvest index (%) = ( / ) 100
3.11. Soil moisture studies

3.11.1 Moisture content measurement

Soil moisture content was determined for different depths viz. 0-20,
20-40 and 40-60 cm taking samples from the respective depths with the help
of screw auger. The sampling spots were close to the row during early stages
and between rows at later stages of crop growth. The layer wise soil samples
were collected in moisture boxes and brought to laboratory to record their
fresh weight. Then the samples were dried in oven at 105 C 2 C till they
attained constant weight.
Moisture content was determined as

12
Pw = 100
2

Where
Pw = moisture content per cent by weight
W1 = fresh weight of soil sample
W2 = oven dry weight of soil sample

3.12 water use parameters

3.12.1 Seasonal water use

The seasonal water use of individual treatment was calculated by the


following formula:
The gravimetric moisture was converted into depth of water in mm as follows:

MD =
100

Where,
MD = depth of water (mm)
MP = Moisture percent on oven dry weight basis.
BD = Bulk density of soil (g/cc)
d = depth of soil layer (mm)

The values of evapotranspiration (ET) from the profile were computer


with the following equation:

()
ET (mm) = 1 + ER
100

Where,
MAi = Percent moisture on oven dry basis after irrigation in ith layer
MBi = Percentage moisture on oven dry basis before irrigation in ith layer
BDi = Bulk density of the ith layer (g/cc)
di = depth of 1st layer (mm)
n = Number of layers
= Summation of
ER = Effective rainfall (mm)

In order to account for water used by the crop during the period from
date of irrigation to date of sampling after irrigation, the total water loss from
open pan evaporation (Eo) for this period was multiplied with 0.85 to get
evapotranspiration, and then added to the value of ET for particular cycle.
Thus CU (consumptive use) for any one cycle was computed as:

Cu= ET + 0.85 Eo
The crop water use for the entire growth period was the summation of all
these values.
CU = 1 cuj
Where,
CU = Consumptive use
n = Number of time intervals
j = jth cycle
cuj = Consumptive use in the jth time interval

3.12.2 Water use efficiency (WUE)

Water use efficiency (kg/ha - cm of water use) was calculated as:


WUE = Y/U
Where,
Y= Grain yield (Kg/ha), and
U= Seasonal consumptive use of water (cm)

3.12.3 Water productivity


Water productivity was calculated by dividing the grain yield with total water
received (irrigation + rainfall) by the crop and expressed as kg/ha cm.
3.13 Chemical studies
3.13.1 Soil analysis

Initial composite soil sample from the whole experimental site from 0-15 and
15-30 cm depths was drawn. The soil sample was analyzed for organic
carbon, pH, available nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium following the
procedure given in table 1.

3.13.2 Plant analysis

The grain and straw samples collected from each plot at harvest were analyzed
for nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. The plant materials were oven dried
at 70 2 C for 48 hrs, ground separately and passed through a 2mm sieve and
then subjected to chemical analysis. The plant samples were digested with
concentrated sulphuric acid containing salicylic acid (1 g salicylic acid in
30ml of concentrated sulphuric acid) for estimation of nitrogen, phosphorus
and potassium. The plant material were oxidized for release of nutrients with
di- acid mixture of concentrated HNO3 (70 per cent) and perchloric acid (70
per cent) in 4:1 ratio. The methods use for determination of various elements
in the plant samples are given in table 3.9

Table 3.9 Methods and instruments used for estimation of nutrients


plant materials
Element methods/instrument used and unit of content
Nitrogen Modified micro-kjedahl method (Jackson, 1973), digestion of
sample in sulphuric acid was done in micro-kjeldhal flask
(digestion tube) on a hot plate. The distillation process was
carried out using nitrogen analyzer (Gerhardt) and titration
was carried out using digital burette.
Phosphorus Phosphorus concentration in plant sample was determined
using standard protocol of Vanadomolybdo Phosphoric acid
yellow colour method (Jackson, 1973). The intensity of
yellow colour was read with spectrophotometer.
(Labomed Inc.) at 470 nm and the content was expressed as
per cent phosphorus.
Potassium Flame emission photometry method ( Jackson, 1973). Flame
photometer (Systronics Flame photometer 128) was used to
estimate the potassium content in the di-acid-digested plant
materials and reported as per cent potassium.

3.13.3 NPK uptake


Uptake of N, P and K was computed by multiplying the value of their
concentration in grains and straw with respective dry matter yield.
N/P/K content in sample x dry yield (Kg ha )
N/P/K uptake (Kg/ha) =
100

3.14 Economics

3.14.1 Economics of treatments


Record of different inputs used and operations performed was
maintained so as to work out the cost of production. The economics for
different treatments was worked on the basis of prevailing market price of
inputs and outputs.

3.14.2 Operational cost of cultivation

Operational cost of cultivation was calculated by adding the cost of


variable involved in each operation/input.

3.14.3 Gross return

Gross return was worked out by converting the economic yield of


the wheat crop (grain and straw) into monetary terms on the basis of support
price of wheat grain and prevailing local market price for straw and expressed
as /ha.

3.14.4 Net return

Net returns were obtained by subtracting the cost of production from


the gross returns and expressed as/ha.

3.14.5 Benefit: Cost ratio


Benefit: cost ratio for different treatments was worked out by
dividing the net return obtained from the respective treatment with respective
operation cost of production.

3.15 Statistical analysis

The data were analyzed using the Analysis of Variance Technique


for Factorial randomized Block Design as per the procedure given by
Rangaswamy (2006). Wherever, the effect exhibited significance at 5 per cent
level of significance, the critical differences (CD) was calculated for
comparison of treatments effect.
Experimental
Results
Chapter 4 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

The experimental findings based on the data recorded during the course of
investigation entitled Growth and productivity of wheat (Triticum

aestivum L.) under modified raised beds of varying sizes and irrigation
levels has been presented in this chapter in the form of tables and illustrated
through figures wherever necessary.

Emergence count per m2

The data pertaining to emergence count/m2 are given in table 4.1 and
their analyses of variance in appendix II.

The emergence count was affected significantly due to planting


techniques only. Among planting techniques, flat bed sown wheat recorded
significantly higher emergence cont/m as compared to all raised bed sown
wheat plots. Treatment MRD 80/25 recorded significantly the lowest
emergence, but was at par with MRD 60/25 and 45/25. Irrigation applied at
IW : CPE 1.20 recorded the highest emergence (592/m), which decreased by
2.7 per cent in irrigation at CGS and 2.2 percent at IW : CPE 0.80 Treatment
(579/m).
The interaction effect between planting techniques and irrigation levels on
emergence count was found to be non-significant.
Number of tillers per m2

The data pertaining to number of tillers/m are given in table 4.1 and their
analyses of variance in appendix III.
At both 45 and 90 DAS, the number of tillers was affected significantly
due to planting techniques. Flat bed sown wheat recorded the maximum and
significantly higher number of tillers (1201/m and 791/m), respectively at 45
and 90 DAS than all raised bed treatments. All the raised bed planting
techniques did not differ significantly in terms of tillers/m at both the stages
of recording.

At both the stages, the irrigation levels failed to bring significant


variation in the number of tillers/m. Irrigation applied at CGS recorded the
highest tillers/m (1018/m and 653/m), respectively at 45 and 90 DAS,
which decreased by 6.0 and 4.1 per cent at IW : CPE 1.20 ratio and 4.3 and
4.9 percent at IW : CPE 0.80 treatment, respectively.

The interaction effect between planting techniques and irrigation


levels on number of tillers/m was found be non-significant at 45 DAS and
significant at 90 DAS (Table 4.2)
At all the irrigation levels the flat sown crop recorded significantly
higher tillers than raised bed planting techniques. Among raised bed planting
techniques, MRD 60/25 at CGS recorded the highest tillers (641/m), but it
was significantly higher only than MRB 60/25 at IW : CPE 0.80 (523/m2) and
MRB 80/25, at IW : CPE 1.20 (524/m).
Table 4.1 Emergence count and number of tillers an influenced by
different planting techniques and irrigation levels
Treatments Emergence Number of tillers/m2
Cont/m2
Planting Technique
45 DAS 90 DAS
Flat 651 1201 791
RB 45/15 596 935 601
MRB 45/25 567 873 599
MRB 60/25 551 951 594
MRB 80/25 548 954 580
S.Em 9.9 40.9 13.7
C.D (5%) 28.8 118.5 39.5
Irrigation level
IW : CPE 0.80 579 974 621
IW : CPE 1.20 592 957 626
CGS 576 1018 653
S.Em 7.7 31.7 10.6
C.D (5%) NS NS NS
CV % 5.12 12.5 6.47
Interaction NS NS 68.5
Table 4.2 Interaction effect of planting techniques and irrigation levels on
number of tillers at 90 DAS

Irrigation Level Planting Technique

Flat RB 45/15 MRB 45/2 MRB 60/25 MRB 80/25

IW : CPE 0.80 780 601 576 523 624

IW : CPE 1.20 787 591 610 618 524

CGS 805 613 611 641 593

S.Em 23.6
C.D. (5%) 68.4

Active leaves per m2

The data pertaining to number of active leaves/m are given in table 4.3
and their analyses of variance in appendix IV.

At both 45 and 90 DAS the number of active was affected significantly


due to planting techniques. Flat bed sown wheat recorded the maximum and
significantly higher number of active leaves than all the raised bed treatment,
except MRD 80/25 at 45 DAS (4186/ m). It did not differ significantly
between MRD 80/25 and MRD 60/25 at both the stages. Treatment RB 45/15
recorded significantly the lowest number of active leaves at 45 DAS, while at
90 DAS it was at par with MRB 45/25.
Irrigation levels did not affect the number of active leaves/m
significantly at 45 DAS but difference was significant at 90 DAS. At 45 DAS,
irrigation level IW : CPE 1.20 recorded the highest number of active leaves,
which was higher by 7.8 per cent than IW : CPE 0.80 and only 1.4 per cent
than CGS treatment. At 90 DAS irrigation levels IW : CPE 0.80 and CGS did
not differ significantly, but both recorded significantly higher number of
active leaves/m than IW : CPE 1.20 (2771/m).
The interaction effect between planting techniques and irrigation levels
on number of active leaves/m was found to be non- significant at 45 DAS and
significant at 90 DAS (Table 4.4).

At all the irrigation levels the flat sown crop recorded significantly higher
tillers than raised bed planting techniques. Among raised bed planting
techniques, MRB 60/25 at CGS recorded the highest tillers (641/m), but it
was significantly higher only than MRB 60/25 at IW : CPE 0.80 (523/m) and
MRB 80/25, at IW : CPE 1.20 (524/m).
Table 4.3 Number of active leaves and dry matter accumulation as
influenced by planting techniques and irrigation levels

Treatments No. of active Dry matter


leaves/m accumulation (g/m)

45 DAS 90 DAS 45 DAS 90 DAS

Planting Technique
Flat 4350 3078 69 1286
RB45/15 3070 2702 53 1073
MRB 45/25 3759 2687 60 956
MRB 60/25 3793 2830 59 1078
MRB 80/25 4186 2887 53 1109

S.Em 136.3 26.8 2.9 31.6


CD (5% 394.8 77.7 8.5 91.4

Irrigation Level
IW:CPE 0.80 3645 2847 54 1079
IW : CPE 1.20 3953 2771 62 1046
CGS 3897 2892 60 1175

S.Em 105.6 20.8 2.3 24.5


C.D (5%) NS 60.2 6.6 70.8

CV% 10.6 2.84 15.1 8.6


Interaction NS 134.6 NS NS
Table 4.4 Interaction effect of planting techniques and irrigation levels on
active leaves count at 90 DAS

Irrigation level Planting Technique

Flat RB 45/15 MRB 45/25 MRB 60/25 MRB 80/25

IW:CPE 0.80 3173 2646 2553 2918 2947


IW:CPE 1.20 3016 2646 2732 2698 2760

CGS 3.45 2812 2775 2874 2956

S.Em 46
C.D. (5%) 135

Dry matter accumulation (g/m)

The data pertaining to dry matter accumulation are given in table 4.3
and their analyses of variance in appendix V.
At both 45 and 90 DAS, the dry matter accumulation was affected
significantly due to planting techniques. At both the stages flat bed sown
wheat accumulated the maximum and significantly higher dry matter than all
the raised bed treatments. Among raised bed treatments it did not differ
significantly at 45 DAS, while at 90 DAS, MRD 45/25 recorded the lowest
and significantly lowers dry matter (956 g/m) as compared to remaining
planting techniques.

Irrigation levels significantly affected the dry matter cultivation


both at 45 and 90 DAS. At 45 DAS, irrigation level IW : CPE 1.20 (62 g/m)
recorded the maximum and significantly higher dry matter than IW : CPE
0.80 but it was significantly at par with CGS (60 g/m). At 90 DAS, CGS
level recorded significantly higher dry matter than remaining two levels in
test. Irrigation level IW : CPE 0.80, recorded the lowest but significantly at
par dry matter with IW : CPE 1.20 (1079 g/m).

The interaction effect between planting techniques and irrigation


levels on dry matter accumulation was found to be non-significant.

At all the irrigation levels, the number of active leaves in flat sown
crop was significantly higher than the raised bed sown crop. In general, the
active leaves increased with increased in bed size, being the maximum in
MRB 80/25 at CGS (2956/m). MRB 60/25 and MRB 80/25, produced higher
active leaves than RB 45/15, at all the irrigation levels.

Plant height (cm)

The data pertaining to plant height are given in table 4.5 and their
analyses of variance in appendix VI.
At 45 DAS, planting techniques did not affect the plant height
significantly but at 90 DAS the difference was found to be significant. At 45
DAS, the plant height ranged from 25 cm (RB 45/15) to 28.1 (MRB 60/25).
The plant height decreased by 11.0, 2.5. 1.8 and 1.4 per cent under RB 45/15,
MRB 80/25 and MRB 45/25 and flat, respectively as compared to MRB
60/25. At the DAS, MRB 60/25 (77.2 cm) recorded significantly taller plants
but at par with treatment MRB 45/25. Flat sown wheat recorded the lowest
(71.2 cm) plant height, but it was at par with RB 45/25 (72.6 cm) and MRB
80/25 (72.5).

Plant height was not affected significantly due to irrigation levels at


both the stages. At 45 DAS, IW : CPE 0.80 recorded the highest (27.6 cm)
plant height, which decreased by 3.3 per cent at IW : CPE 1.20 and only 1.5
per cent at CGS treatment (27.2 cm). At 90 DAS, IW:CPE 1.20 recorded the
highest (77.7 cm) plant height which decreased by 2.4 per cent in irrigation at
CGS and only 1.1 percent at IW : CPE 0.80 treatment (73.6 cm).

The interaction effect between planting techniques and irrigation


levels on plant height was found to be non-significant.

At harvest plant height was not affected significantly due to both


planting techniques and irrigation levels. Among planting techniques, the
plant height ranged from 78.0 cm (Flat) to 81.6 cm (MRB 60/25). The plant
height decreased by 4.4, 3.2, 3.3, 2.9 and 0.3 per cent in flat, RB 45/15, MRB
45/25 and MRB 80/25, respectively as compared to MRB 60/25.

Table 4.5 Plant height as influenced by different planting techniques and


irrigation levels

Treatments Plant height (cm)


45 days 90 days At Harvest
Planting technique
Flat 27.7 71.2 78.0
RB 45/15 25.0 72.6 79.0
MRB 45/25 27.6 75.1 79.2
MRB 60/25 28.1 77.2 81.6
MRB 80/25 27.4 72.5 81.4

S.Em 0.9 1.0 1.7


C.D (5%) NS 2.3 NS

Irrigation level
IW : CPE 0.80 27.6 73.6 79.3
IW : CPE 1.20 26.7 74.7 80.5
CGS 27.2 72.9 79.6

S.Em 0.7 0.8 1.4


C.D (5%) NS NS NS
CV% 10.0 4.1 6.6
Interaction NS NS NS
Among irrigation levels IW:CPE 1.20 recorded the highest plant height
(80.5 cm), which was higher by 1.5 percent than IW : CPE 0.80 and only 1.1
per cent than CGS Treatment (79.6 cm).

The interaction effect between planting techniques and irrigation


levels on plant height was found to be non- significant.

Root weight density (mg/cm)

The data pertaining to root weight density are given in table 4.6 and their
analyses of variance in appendix VII and VIII.

At both 45 and 90 DAS, the root weight density was not affected
significantly both due to planting techniques and irrigation levels. At 45 DAS,
among planting techniques the root weight density ranged from 13.4 mg/cm3
(MRB 60/25 and MRB 80/25) to 16.4 mg/cm3 (MRB 45/25) and at 90 DAS
from 24.8 mg/cm3 (MRB 45/25) to 26.8 mg/cm3 (RB 45/15), respectively. At
45 DAS, the root weight density decreased by 18.3, 18.3, 17.7 and 9.8 per
cent in MRB 60/25, MRB 80/25, RB 45/15 and flat sown crop, respectively .
At 90 DAS, the root weight density decreased by 7.5, 6.0, 2.2 and 0.8 percent
under MRB 45/25, MRB 60/25, MRB 80/25 and flat, respectively as
compared to RB 45/15 (26.8 Mg/cm3).

Among irrigation levels, IW : CPE 1.20 recorded the highest (15.1


mg/cm3) root weight density at 45 DAS, which decreased by 11.9 per cent in
irrigation at CGS and only 3.9 percent at IW : CPE 0.80. AT 90 DAS, IW :
CPE 1.20 and CGS level recorded similar and the highest (26.4 mg/cm3) root
weight density, which decreased by 5.3 per cent in irrigation at IW : CPE 0.80
(25.0 mg/cm3).
Table 4.6 Root weight density, root volume and root: shoot ratio as
influenced by planting techniques and irrigation levels

Treatment Root Weight Root Volume Root: Shoot Ratio


Density (mg/cm3) (cm3)
Days after sowing

45 90 45 90 45 90

Planting technique
Flat 14.8 26.6 3.5 7.9 0.42 0.30
RB 45/15 13.5 26.8 3.3 7.9 0.41 0.26
MRB 45/25 16.4 24.8 3.0 7.4 0.46 0.24
MRB 60/25 13.4 25.2 2.8 7.1 0.38 0.26
MRB 80/25 13.4 26.2 3.3 8.1 0.40 0.25

S.Em 1.1 1.0 0.2 0.4 0.27 0.17


C.D (5%) NS NS NS NS NS NS

Irrigation Level
IW:CPE 0.80 14.5 25.0 3.2 7.2 0.38 0.26
IW : CPE 1.20 15.1 26.4 3.2 7.6 0.43 0.26
CGS 13.3 26.4 3.1 8.2 0.43 0.27

S.Em 0.8 0.80 0.2 0.3 0.21 0.13


C.D (5%) NS NS NS 0.8 NS NS

CV% 22.2 11.9 17.9 13.9 19.4 19.1


Interaction 5.3 NS 1.0 NS 0.13 0.84
The interaction effect between planting techniques and irrigation levels on
root weight density at 45 DAS was found to be significant, (Table 4.7) and
non-significant at 90 DAS.
The highest and significantly root weight density (1932 mg/cm3) was
recorded in MRB 45/25 at IW : CPE 1.20, than remaining treatment, treatment
combination except flat and MRB 80/25 at IW : CPE 0.80, flat and MRB
60/25 at IW : CPE 1.20 and MRB 45/25 at CGS level.

Table 4.7 Interaction effect of planting techniques and irrigation levels on


root weight density (mg/cm3) at 45 DAS.

Irrigation Level Planting technique

Flat RB MRB MRB MRB


45/15 45/25 60/25 80/25

IW : CPE 0.80 16.9 17.7 11.6 11.4 14.7


IW : CPE 1.20 14.8 9.9 19.2 17.8 13.7
CGS 12.6 12.9 18.4 11.0 11.7

S.Em 1.8
C.D. (5%) 5.3
Root Volume (cm3)
The data pertaining to root volume are given in table 4.6 and their analyses of
variance in appendix VII and VIII.
At both 45 and 90 DAS, the root volume was not affected significantly
both due to planting techniques and irrigation levels. Among planting
techniques, it ranged from 2.8 cm3 (MRB 60/25) to 3.5 cm3 (flat) at 45 DAS
and 7.1 cm3 MRB 60/25) to 8.1 cm3 (MRB 80/25) at 90 DAS. At 45 DAS the
root volume decreased by 20 14.3, 5.7 and 5.7 per cent under MRB 60/25,
MRB 45/25 RB 80/15 and RB 45/15 respectively as compared to flat. At 90
DAS the root volume decreased by 12.4 , 7.8, 2.1 and 2.0 per cent in MRB
60/25 , MRB 45/25 RB 45/15 and flat, respectively as compared to MRB
80/25. At 45 DAS the irrigation applied at IW : CPE 0.80 and IW : CPE 1.20
recorded the highest root volume ( 3.23 cm3) which decreased by 3.1 percent
in irrigation at CGS. At 90 DAS the irrigation applied at CGS recorded
significantly the highest higher root volume than IW : CPE 0.80 but it was
at par with IW : CPE 1.20. The interaction effect between planting technique
and irrigation levels on root volume was found to be significant ( Table 4.8)
at 45 DAS but non-significant at 90 DAS. Planting techniques treatment MRB
60/25 at CGS ( 1.9 cm3) recorded the lowest root volume, which was
significantly lower than other treatment except RB 45/15 at IW : CPE 1.20 (
2.5 cm3) , MRB 45/25 IW : CPE 0.80 ( 2.0 cm) and MRB 80/25 at CGS( 2.7
cm3). Remaining all the combination of planting techniques and irrigation
levels did not differ significantly with respect to root volume.
Table 4.8 Interaction effect of planting technique and irrigation levels
on root volume (cm3) at 45 DAS

IRRIGATON PLANTING TECHNIQUE


LEVEL Flate RB 45/1 MRB 45/25 MRB 60/25 MRB 80/25

IW : CPE 0.80 3.3 3.9 2.0 3.3 3.7

IW:CPE 1.20 3.5 2.5 3.6 3.2 3.4

CGS 3.7 3.4 3.4 1.9 2.7

S.Em 0.3
C.D.(%) 1.0

Root: Shoot ratio

The data pertaining to root: shoot ratio are given in table 4.6 and their
analyses of variance in appendix VII and VIII.

The root: shoot ratio decreased with the advancement of the crop age.
Both at 45 and 90 DAS, the root: shoot ratio was not affected significantly
due to planting techniques and irrigation levels. Among planting techniques
the root: shoot ratio ranged from 0.40 (MRB 80/25) to 0.49 (flat, MRB 45/25,
MRB 60/25) at 45 DAS and 0.24 (MRB 45/25 to 0.30 (flat). It decreased by
18.4 and 12.2 per cent under MRB 80/25 and RB 45/15, respectively
compared to the highest value (0.49). At 90 DAS, the root : shoot decreased
by 20.0, 16.7, 13.3 and 13.3 per cent in MRB 45/2 , MRB 80/25 ,MRB 60/25
and RB 45/15, respectively as compared to the maximum value (0.30)
recorded in flat sown crop.

At 45 DAS, the irrigation level IW : CPE 1.20 recorded the maximum


root : shoot ratio (0.47) which decreased by 4.3 per cent at IW : CPE 0.80 and
only 2.1 per cent at CGS treatment. At 90 DAS irrigation applied at CGS
recorded the highest root : shoot ratio (0.27) which decreased by 3.7 per cent
at IW : CPE 0.80 and IW : CPE 1.20, both having the similar root : shoot ratio
(0.26).

The interaction effect between planting techniques and irrigation


levels on root : shoot ratio at 45 and 90 DAS was found to be significant (
Table 4.9 and 4.10 respectively).

Treatment MRB 45/25 at IW : CPE 1.20 recorded the maximum (


0.61) and significantly higher root : shoot ratio than rest of the treatment
combinations, except flat at CGS (0.49). The lowest root : shoot ratio was
found in MRB 60/25 at IW : 1.20 (0.30)
Baring the treatment flat at IW :CPE 0.80 (0.37) and RB 45/15 at
CGS (0.34) remaining all treatment combination did not differ significantly in
terms of root : shoot ratio. The lowest root : shoot was registered by the
treatment RB 45/15 ( 0.20).
Table 4.9 Interaction effect of planting techniques and irrigation levels on
root : shoot ratio at 45 DAS

Irrigational PLANTING TECHNIQUE


level FLAT RB 45/15 MRB 45/25 MRB 60/25 MRB 80/25

IW : CPE 0.80 0.32 0.42 0.31 0.48 0.38


IW : CPE 1..20 0.46 0.34 0.61 0.30 0.43

CGS 0.49 0.46 0.45 0.36 0.38


SEm 0.05
C.D ( 5%) 0.13

Table 4.10 interaction effect of planting techniques and irrigation levels


on root : shoot ratio at 90 DAS
Irrigational level Planting technique
Flate RB 45/15 MRB 45/25 MRB 60/25 MRB 80/25

IW:CPE 0.80 0.37 0.20 0.21 0.28 0.25


IW:CPE 1.20 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.26 0.26
CGS 0.25 0.34 0.28 0.23 0.23
S.Em 0.030
C.D. (5%) 0.084
Days taken to 50 % heading

Days taken to 50 % heading did not vary significantly in response to


planting techniques and irrigation levels (Table 4.11 and analyses of variance
appendix IX ).

Among techniques, days taken to 50% heading ranged from 99 (MRB 60/25)
to 103 (flat). Irrigation applied at CGS and IW : CPE 1.20 TOOK 4 MORE
DAYS (102) than IW : CPE 0.80 (98) to attain the 50% heading stages.

The indication effect between planting techniques and irrigation levels on


days taken to 50 % heading was found to be non significant.

Days taken to maturity

Data on days taken to maturity reaveled non significant difference in


response to planting techniques, but differed significant due to irrigation
levels (Table 4.11 and analyses of variance aooendix IX).
Table 4.11 Days taken to 50% heading and maturity as influenced by
different planting techniques and irrigation levels

Treatment Days to 50% heading Days to maturity


Planting technique
Flat 103 137
RB 45/15 100 134
MRB 45/25 100 136
MRB 60/25 99 135
MRB 80/25 100 135
S.Em + 5.0 1.5
C.D ( 5% ) NS NS
Irrigation level
IW : CPE 0.80 98 133
IW : CPE 1.20 102 136
CGS 102 137
S.E m 3.9 1.6
C.D (5%) NS 3.4
CV% 15.0 3.3
Interaction NS NS

The duration of crop maturity was the maximum ( 137 days) in flat
bed sown crop, while RB 45/15 ( 134 days ) took the minimum time to attain
the maturity .
Irrigation at CGS took significantly higher number of day (137) to
attain maturity then IW : CPE 0.80 (133 days) but was at par with irrigation
at IW : CPE 1.20 ( 136 days )

The interaction effect between planting techniques and irrigation levels


on days taken to maturity was found to be non- significant.

Ears /m

The data pertaining to ears / m are given in table 4.12 and their
analyses of variance in appendix X.

The number of ears / m was affected significantly both due to


planning technique and irrigation levels. Among planting techniques, flat bed
sown wheat crop recorded the maximum and significantly higher number of
ears(723/m) than all raised bed treatments. Treatment MRB 45/25 recorded
the lowest number of ears (512/m) but it was at par with remaining raised
bed sown treatments.

Irrigation applied at CGS, recorded significantly higher number of


ears (632/m) than IW : CPE 0.80 ( 533 /m) but did not differ significantly
with IW : CPE 1.20 (585/m).

The interaction effect between planting techniques and irrigation


levels on ears / m was found to be non- significant.
Ear length (cm)

The data pertaining to ear length are given in table 4.12 and their
analyses of variance in appendix X.

The ear length was affected significantly only due to planting


techniques. Among planting techniques, treatment MRB 60/25 recorded the
maximum ( 9.1 cm) and significantly higher ear length than RB 45/15 and
flat but was at par with MRB 80/25 and MRB 45/25. Treatment RB 45/15 was
recorded the lowest (8.3 cm) ear length it was at par with flat sown crop (8.4
cm).

Among irrigation levels, IW : CPE 1.20 recorded the longest ear (8.9
cm), which was higher by 4.5 per cent than IW : CPE 0.80 and only 1.1 per
cent than CGS treatment ( 8.8 cm).

The interaction effect between planting techniques and irrigation levels on ear
length was found to be non - significant.

Grain weight /ear (g)


The data pertaining to grain weight / ear are given in table 4.12 and
their analyses of variance in appendix X.

The grain weight / ear was not affected significantly both due to
planting techniques and irrigation levels. Among planting techniques, the
grain weight / ear ranged from 1.29 g (flat) to 1.34 g (MRB 60/25). The grain
weight / ear decreased by 3.7, 1.5, 1.5 and 0.8 per cent under flat, RB 45/15,
MRB 80/25, MRB 45/25 respectively as compared to MRB 60/25. All the
raised bed treatment recorded higher grain weight / ear than flat sown crop.

Among irrigation level, the grain weight / ear did not differ much and
range from 1.31 g/ear (CGS) to 1.32 g/ ear in IW : CPE 1.20 and 0.80 ratios.

The interaction effect between planting techniques and irrigation levels


on grain weight / ear was found to be non- significant.

1000 grain weight (g)

Variation in 1000 grain weight due to planting techniques and


irrigation levels registered not significant difference (Table 4.12 analyses of
variance appendix X)

Among planting techniques, the 1000 grain weight ranged from


40.3 g (flat) to 41.4 g (MRB 45/25). The grain weight decreased by 2.7, 2.4,
1.2 and 1.2 percent under flat, MRB 60/25 MRB 80/25 and RB 45/15
respectively.
Irrigation applied at CGS recorded the highest 1000 grain weight (
41.3 g) which decreased by 2.4 percent at IW : CPE 0.80 and only1.5 per cent
at IW : CPE 1.20 treatment ( 40.7 g).
The interaction effect between planting techniques and irrigation levels on
1000 grain weight was found to be non- significant.

Table 4.12 Yield attributes of wheat as influenced by different planting


techniques and irrigation levels.

Treatment Ears /m2 Ear length Grain weight / 1000 grain


(cm) ear (g) wt. g
Planting
technique
Flat 723 8.4 1.29 40.3
RB 45/15 575 8.3 1.32 40.9
MRB 45/25 512 8.8 1.33 41.4
MRB 60/25 543 9.1 1.34 40.4
MRB 80/25 562 9.0 1.32 40.9
S.Em 41.4 0.2 0.5 0.6
CD (5% ) 120.0 0.5 NS NS
Irrigation level
IW : CPE 0.80 533 8.5 1.32 40.3
IW : CPE 1.20 585 8.9 1.32 40.3
CGS 632 8.8 1.31 41.3
S.E m+ 32.0 0.15 0.4 0.4
CD (5%) 92.8 NS NS NS

CV% 21.3 6.85 10.6 4.1


Interaction NS NS NS NS
Table 4.13 Yield attributes as influenced by different planting
techniques and irrigation levels

Treatment Grain No. /ear Number of spikelets / spike


Fertile Sterile
Planting
technique
Flat 30 14.4 1.55
RB 45/15 30 14.4 1.67
MRB 45/25 32 15.4 1.67
MRB 60/25 32 15.5 2.33
MRB 80/25 33 15.2 1.67
S.Em 0.7 0.3 0.93
CD (5%) 2.1 NS 0.27
Irrigation level
IW:CPE 0.80 31 14.8 1.80
IW :CPE 1.20 32 15.1 1.73
CGS 32 15.1 1.47
S.E m 6.8 0.3 0.72
CD (5%) NS NS 0.21
CV% 6.8 6.7 16.82
Interaction 3.6 NS NS
Grain number / ear
The data pertaining to grain / ear are given in table 4.13 and their analyses of
variance in appendix XI.

The grain number/ear differed significantly only due to planting


techniques. Among techniques treatment MRB 80/25 recorded the maximum
and significantly higher number of grains / ear (33) than flat and RB 45/15,
but was at par with MRB 45/25 and MRB 60/25.

Among irrigation levels, irrigation applied at CGS and IW : CPE


1.20 recorded same number of grains / ear (32) which was higher by 3.1 per
cent than IW : CPE 0.80 (31) .

Table 4.14 Interaction effect of planting techniques and irrigation levels


on grain number / ear

Irrigation level Planting technique


Flat RB 45/15 MRB MRB MRB
45/25 60/25 80/25

IW : CPE 0.80 30 29 31 32 35
IW : CPE 1.20 29 30 35 32 34
CGS 32 32 32 33 30
S.Em 1.2
CD(5%) 3.6
The interaction effect between planting technique and irrigation levels on
grain number / ear was found to be significant (Table 4.13)
The highest and significantly higher grain ear (35) was recorded in
MRB 45/25 at IW : CPE 1.20 and MRB 80/25 at IW :CPE 0.80. The (29)
grain /ear was in flat at IW : CPE 1.20 and RB 45/15 at IW : CPE 0.80 which
was significantly lower than MRB 80/25 at IW : CPE 0.80, MRB 45/25 and
MRB 80/25 at IW : CPE 1.20 and MRB 60/25 at CGS.

Number of fertile spikelets per spike


Data presented in table 4.13 and their analyses of variance in appendix XI
revealed that number of fertile spikelets per spike was not affected
significantly both by planting techniques and irrigation levels.

Among planting techniques, the number of fertile spikelets per spike


ranged from 14.4 (flat and RB 45/15) to 15.5 (MRB 60/25). The fertile
spikelets per spike as compared to MRB 60/25 (15.5) decreased by 7.1, 7.1,
1.9 and 0.7 per cent under flat, RB 45/15 MRB 80/25 and MRB 45/25,
respectively.

Irrigation levels IW : CPE: 1.20 and CGS recorded similar number


of fertile spikelets per spike (15.1) which decreased by 2.0 per cent at IW :
CPE 0.80 (14.8).
Number of sterile spikelets per spike

Data presented in table 4.13 and their analyses of variance in appendix XI


revealed that number of fertile spikelets per spike was not affected
significantly both due to planting techniques and irrigation levels.

Planting techniques, MRB 60/25 recorded the highest and


significantly higher number sterile spikelets per spike (2.33) than the rest of
planting techniques, except MRB 60/25 .All other planting technique recorded
at per number of sterile spikelets / spike.

Irrigation at IW : CPE 0.80 recorded significantly higher (1.80) sterile


spikelets thatn CGS ( 1.73) but was at per with IW :CPE 1.20 ( 1.73)

The interaction between planting techniques and irrigation levels on number


of sterile spikelets per spike was found to be non significant.

Grain yield

The data pertaining to grain yield are given in table 4.15 and their analyses of
variance in appendix XII and fig 4.1.

The grain yield was not affected significantly both due to planting
techniques and irrigation levels. Among planting techniques, the grain yield
ranged from 46.0 q/ha (MRB 80/25) to 48.3 q/ha (flat). As compared to flat
the grain yield decreased by 4.8, 1.7, 1,7 and 1.5 per cent under MRB 80/25,
MRB 60/25, MRB 45/25 and RB 45/15, respectively. The grain yield in
general decreased as the bed size was increased upto 80 cm however, the
decreased was not significant.

Irrigation applied IW : CPE 1.20 recorded the highest grain yield (


48.2 q/ha) which decreased by 3.3 percent at IW : CPE 0.80 and only 1.7 per
cent at CGS treatment (47.4 q/ha).

The interaction effect between planting techniques and irrigation levels on


grain yield was found to be non significant.

Straw yield

The data pertaining to straw yield are given in table 4.15 and their analyses of
variance in appendix XII.
50

49

48
Grain Yield q/ha

47

46 IW:CPE 0.80
IW:CPE 1.20
45
CGS
44

43

42

41
flat RB 45/15 MRB 45/25 MRB 60/25 MRB 80/25

Planting techniques and irrigation levels

Fig 4.1 Grain yield of wheat under different planting techniques and irrigation levels
The straw yield was not affected significantly due to planting techniques but
due to irrigation levels. Among planting techniques the straw yield ranged
from 65.5 q/ha (MRB 60/25) to 70.9 q/ha (MRB 45/25). The straw yield
decreased by 7.6, 4.9, 4.4 and 1.7 percent under MRB 60/2 , MRB 80/25, RB
45/15 and flat, respectively, as compared to MRB 45/25 ( 70.q/ha).

The straw yield was found to increase as the number of irrigation was
increased. Irrigation applied at CGS recorded the maximum straw yield ( 72.3
q/ha) which was statistically at par with irrigation at IW : CPE 1.20 but
significantly higher than IW : CPE 0.80.
The interaction effect between planting techniques and irrigation levels
on straw yield was found to be non- significant.

Biological Yield

The data pertaining to biological yield are given in table 4.15 and their
analyses of variance in appendix XII.

The biological yield was not affected significantly both due to


planting techniques and irrigation levels. Among planting techniques the
biological ranged from 113.0 q/ha ( MRB 60/25 and RB 45/15) to 119.0 q/ha
(flat). The biological decreased by 5.0, 5.0, 2.9 and 0.5 per cent under MRB
60/25, RB 45/15, MRB 80/25 and MRB 45/25, respectively as compared to
flat.
Table 4.15 Grain yield , Straw yield and Biological yield and Harvest
index as influenced by planting techniques and irrigation levels.

Treatments Yield (q/ha) Harvest


index
(%)
Grain Straw biological index

Planting Technique
Flat 48.3 69.7 119.0 40.9
RB45/15 47.6 67.8 115.4 41.3
MRB 45/25 47.5 70.9 118.4 40.1
MRB 60/25 47.5 65.5 113.0 42.0
MRB 80/25 46.0 67.4 113.4 40.6

S.Em 1.1 2.1 3.5 1.0


C.D (5%) NS NS NS NS

Irrigation Level
IW : CPE 0.80 46.6 65.5 111.9 41.6
IW : CPE 1.20 48.2 67.0 115.2 41.8
CGS 47.4 72.3 119.7 39.6

S.Em 0.8 1.6 2.7 0.7


C.D (5%) NS 4.7 NS 2.2

CV% 6.90 9.28 8.91 7.02


Interaction NS NS NS NS
Cost of Cultivation

The cost of wheat cultivation increased as the bed size was decreased, being
the maximum in RB 45/15 (22,708/ha). However, the higher cost of the
cultivation was found in case of flat sown crop (23,721/ ha).

Gross Return

Gross return as obtained under different treatments was not affected


significantly both due to planting techniques and irrigation levels (Table 4.16,
analyses of Variance in appendix XIII).
Flat bed recorded the maximum gross return (69,203/ha) and MRB
80/25, the lowest (65,908/ha). The gross return decreased by 4.5, 2.0, 1.1 and
1.0 per cent under MRD 80/25, MRB 60/25, RB 45/15 and MRB 45/25,
respectively as compared to flat crop.

Irrigation applied at IW : CPE 1.20 (68,519/ha) recorded the highest


gross return and the irrigation at IW : CPE 0.80 recorded the lowest gross
return (66,460/ha).
The interaction effect between planting techniques and irrigation
levels on gross return was found to be non-significant.

Net return

Net return was also not affected significantly both due to planting techniques
and irrigation levels (Table 4.16, analyses of Variance in appendix XIII). The
highest net return of (46,668/ha) was obtained from MRB 45/25 and the
lowest (44,167/ha) from MRB 80/25. All the raised bed treatments recorded
numerically higher net return than flat, except MRB 80/25.
Irrigation level at IW : CPE 1.20 recorded the highest net return
(45,883/ha), it was closely followed by irrigation at CGS(45,880/ha).
Irrigation applied at IW : CPE 0.80 recorded lower net return by 1,096/ha at
CGS and 1,099/ha at IW : CPE 1.20.
The interaction effect planting techniques and irrigation levels on net
return was found to be non significant.

B : C ratio

The B : C ratio was not affected significantly both due to planting techniques
and irrigation levels. Data on B : C ration are given in table 4.16 and their
analyses of variance in appendix XIII.
The B : C ratio was the lowest in flat (1.91) and the highest in
MRB 45/25 (2.15). The B : C ratio decreased by 11.2, 6.5, 5.6 and 1.9 under
flat, RB 45/15, MRB 80/25 and MRB 60/25, respectively as compared to
MRB 45/25. All the raised bed treatments had higher B : C ratio than flat
sown wheat.
Among irrigation levels, the B : C Ratio did not very much. It was
2.03 with IW : CPE 1.20 and CGS and 2.07 with IW : CPE 0.80.
The interaction effect between planting techniques and irrigation
levels on B : C ratio was found to be non-significant.
Table 4.16 Effect of different planting techniques and irrigation levels on
economics of wheat production

Treatment Cost of production Gross return Net Net B:C Ratio


( Rs/ha) (Rs/ha) return
(Rs/ha)

Planting techniques

Flat 23,721 69,023 45,303 1.91


RB 45/15 22,708 68,279 45,571 2.01
MRB 45/25 21,667 68,335 46,668 2.15
MRB 60/25 21,743 67,612 45,869 2.11
MRB 80/25 21,741 65,908 44,167 2.03
S.Em --- 1379 1379 0 .62
C.D (5%) --- NS NS NS
Irrigation level
IW:CPE 0.80 21,676 66,460 44,784 2.07
IW:CPE 1.20 22,636 68,519 45,883 2.03
CGS 22,636 68,518 45,880 2.03

S.Em --- 1067.8 1068 0.48


C.D (5% ) --- NS NS NS

CV % --- 6.10 9.1 9.1


Interaction --- NS NS NS
Water use

The seasonal consumptive water use was the maximum in flat sown crop (296
mm), which decreased as the bed size was increased. The decreased follows
the order of 26.4, 30.7, 34.5 and 35.8 percent, in RB 45/15, MRB 45/25, MRB
60/25 and MRB 80/25, respectively.
The consumptive use of water was the highest at IW:CPE 1.20 (254 mm),
which was higher by 87 mm and 14 mm than IW : CPE 0.80 and CGS,
respectively.
Consumptive water use efficiency (CWUE)
The data pertaining to consumptive water use efficiency are given in table
4.17 analyses of variance in appendix XIV and fig. 4.2.
The consumptive water use efficiency (CWUE) was affected significantly due
to planting techniques and irrigation levels. All the raised bed planting
techniques recorded significantly higher CWUE than the flat bed sown crop (
17.1 kg/ha-cm). the raised bed planting techniques did not differ significantly
with respect to CWUE.
The interaction effect between planting techniques and irrigation levels on
consumptive water use efficiency was found to be significant table 4.18.

All the planting technique at IW :CPE 0.80 recorded significantly higher


CWUE than IW :CPE 1.20 and CGs. Later two irrigation levels remained
statistically recorded significantly higher CWUE than flat sown crop at all the
irrigation levels.
Table 4.18 Interaction effects of planting techniques and irrigation levels
on consumptive water use efficiency

Irrigation Planting technique


level Flat RB 45/15 MRB 45/25 MRB 60/25 MRB 80/25

IW:CPE 0.80 22.2 30.5 32.3 31.6 25.8


IW:CPE 1.20 13.9 19.0 19.5 22.6 23.0

CGS 15.0 19.7 21.2 23.1 22.8


S.Em 0.83
CD (5%) 2.4

Irrigation level Planting technique

Flat RB 45/15 MRB 45/25 MRB 60/25 MRB 80/25


IW:CPE 0.80 22.2 30.5 32.3 31.6 25.8
IW:CPE 1.20 13.9 19.0 19.5 22.6 23.0
CGS 15.0 19.7 21.2 23.1 22.8

SEm 0.83
C.D ( 5%) 2.4
Irrigation water use efficiency
The data pertaining to irrigation water use efficiency (Table 4.17
analyses of variance appendix XV and fig 4.3) revealed that the irrigation
water use efficiency (IWUE) affected significantly both due to planting
technique and irrigation levels. Among planting techniques, MRB 80/25 the
recorded maximum and significantly higher IWUE (539 kg/ha-cm) than all
other planting techniques. Flat bed sown wheat crop recorded the lowest
IWUE (266kg/ha-cm). Irrigation applied at IW : CPE 0.80 recorded
significantly the highest IWUE (623 kg ha-cm). It was higher by 49.4 per cent
and 48.3 per cent than CGS and IW : CPE 1.20, respectively.

The interaction effect between planting techniques and irrigation levels on


irrigation water use efficiency was found to be significant ( Table 4.19 and
water saving Table 4.20).

Planting technique MRB 80/25 at IW : CPE 0.8 recorded significantly the


highest IWUE ( 791 kg/ha cm) than all the combination of irrigation levels
and planting techniques, except MRB 60/25 at IW : CPE 0.80 (761kg /ha
cm) . Flat sown crop at IW : CPE 1.20 had the lowest IWUE (204 kg ha-cm)
which was the significantly lower than all other treatment combinations,
except same planting techniques at CGS ( 205 kg/ha-cm)
Table 4.19 Interaction effect of planting techniques and irrigation level on
irrigation water use efficiency .
Irrigation level Planting technique
Flat RB 45/15 MRB 45/25 MRB 60/25 MRB 80/25

IW : CPE 0.80 391 544 625 761 791


IW : CPE 1.20 203 282 313 394 424
CGS 204 293 311 365 403
S.Em 16.5
C.D (5%) 47.8

Water saving under different treatments


The amount of water applied in different planting technique varied greatly as
shown in table 4.20 and fig 4.4 and 4.5 .In
40

35

30
Kg/ha-cm

25
Series1
IW:CPE 0.80
20
Series2
IW:CPE 1.20
15 Series3
CGS
10

0
Flat RB 45/15 MRB 45/25 MRB 60/25 MRB 80/25

Fig 4.2 Consumptive water use efficiency as influenced by planting


techniques and irrigation levels

900

800

700

600
Kg/ha-cm

500 IW:CPE 0.80


Series1

400 Series2
IW:CPE 1.20
300 Series3
CGS
200

100

0
Flat RB 45/15 MRB 45/25 MRB 60/25 MRB 80/25

Fig 4.3. Irrigation water use efficiency as influenced by planting techniques


and irrigation levels
25

20
Irrigation applied (cm)

15

Irrigation
10 Series1
applied (cm)

0
Flat RB MRB MRB MRB IW:CPE IW:CPE CGS
45/15 45/25 60/25 80/25 0.80 1.20

Fig 4.4 Amount of irrigation water applied under different planting techniques
and irrigation levels

70

60

50
Water saving (%)

40

30 Water Saving
Series1

20

10

0
Flat RB MRB MRB MRB IW:CPE IW:CPE CGS
45/15 45/25 60/25 80/25 0.80 1.20

Fig 4.5 Irrigation water saving under different planting techniques and
irrigation levels
Flat sown crop, over the irrigation levels a total 20 cm water was applied. The
water saving was the maximum in MRB 80/25 (53%) and decreased as the
bed size was decreased being 47 per cent t in MRB 60/25, 35 per cent in MRB
45/25 and 28 per cent in RB 45/15. During the crop season 74.4 mm rainfall
was received.

Among irrigation level, IW: CPE 0.80 required almost 50 percent water as
compared to IW : CPE 1.20 and CGS, each required 16 cm irrigation water.
Table 4.20 Repeat Water saving under different treatments,

Treatments Irrigation Water saving


Planting Applied (cm) (%)
technique
Flat 20 --
RB 45/15 14.1 28
MRB 45/25 12.7 35
MRB 60/25 10.5 47
MRB 80/25 9.4 53
Irrigation level
IW:CPE 0.80 8.0 50
IW:CPE 1.20 16.0 Nil
CGS 16.0 --
*Planting technique over flat
*Irrigation levels over CGS

Nitrogen uptake by grain straw and total


The data pertaining to nitrogen uptake by grain and straw are given in
table 4.21 and their analyses of variance in appendix XVIII.

Nitrogen uptake by grain and total N-uptake were not affected significantly
due to planting techniques and irrigation levels, while N uptake by straw
affected significantly due to both the practices. Among planting techniques,
the nitrogen uptake by grain ranged from 92.3 (MRB 80/25) to 97.1 (flat). As
compared to flat, the nitrogen uptake by grain decreased by 4.9, 2.7, 1.9 and
1.4 per cent under MRB 80/25, MRB 45/25, RB 45/15 and MRB 60/25,
respectively. Among planting techniques, the nitrogen uptake by straw was
the maximum by flat bed sown wheat (28.8 kg/ha), but it was at par with
MRB 45/25. The lowest nitrogen uptake was recorded by MRB 60/25 (25.2
kg/ha) but it was at par with all the raised bed planting techniques. Among
planting techniques, the total nitrogen uptake ranged from 118.3 kg/ha (MRB
80/25) to 125.9 kg/ha (flat). As compared to flat, the total nitrogen uptake
decreased by 6.0, 4.0, 3.3 and 3.0 per cent under MRB 80/25, MRB 60/25, RB
45/15 and MRB 45/25, respectively.

Irrigation applied at IW : CPE 1.20 recorded the highest nitrogen


uptake (96.2 kg/ha) by grain, which decreased by 2.2 percent at IW : CPE
0.80 and only 1.8 per cent at CGS treatment (94.5 kg/ha). In case of N-uptake
by straw, irrigation at CGS recorded significantly the maximum (28.3 kg/ha)
uptake. The lowest uptake was recorded by irrigation at IW : CPE 0.80 (26.1
kg/ha) but it was at par with irrigation at IW : CPE 1.20 (26.2 kg/ha).
Irrigation applied at CGS recorded the highest total nitrogen uptake (122.8
kg/ha) which decreased by 2.1 per cent at IW : CPE 0.80 and only 0.2 per cent
at IW : CPE 1.20 (122.5 kg/ha).
Table 4.21 Nitrogen uptake of wheat as influenced by different planting
techniques ant irrigation levels

Treatments N uptake (kg/ha) Total N uptake


(kg/ha)

Grain Straw

Planting Technique
Flat 97.1 28.8 125.9
RB45/15 95.3 26.5 121.8
MRB 45/25 94.5 27.6 122.1
MRB 60/25 95.7 25.2 120.9
MRB 80/25 92.3 26.1 118.3

S.Em 1.9 0.8 2.5


C.D (5%) NS 2.3 NS

Irrigation Level
IW : CPE 0.80 94.1 26.1 120.2
IW : CPE 1.20 96.2 26.2 122.5
CGS 94.5 28.3 122.8

S.Em 1.5 0.6 1.9


C.D (5%) NS 1.8 NS

CV% 6.0 8.9 6.1


Interaction NS NS NS
The interaction effect between planting techniques and irrigation levels on
nitrogen uptake by grain, straw and total nitrogen was found to be non-
significant.

Phosphorus uptake by grain, straw and total


The data pertaining to phosphorus uptake by grain, straw and total are given in
table 4.22 analyses of variance appendix XVIII.

Phosphorus uptake by grain, straw and total was affected significantly both
due to planting techniques and irrigation levels. Among planting techniques
phosphorus uptake in grain under flat (14.3 kg/ha) was significantly higher
than all the raised bed planting techniques. The lowest phosphorus uptake by
grain was recorded in MRB 80/25 (9.3 Kg/ha), but it was at par with
remaining all the raised bed planting techniques. Phosphorus uptake in straw
was the maximum (2.1 kg/ha) in flat sown and MRB 45/25 crop. The lowest
phosphorus uptake by straw was recorded under MRB 60/25 and 80/25 (1.9
kg/ha), which was significantly lower than flat and MRB 45/25. Among
planting techniques, Significantly higher total phosphorus uptake (16.4 kg/ha)
was recorded by flat sown wheat crop than rest of the planting techniques. All
the raised bed planting techniques recorded at par total P-uptake, except MRB
80/25 (14.4 kg/ha).

Among irrigation levels phosphorus uptake both by grain and straw


was increased in irrigation frequency from 0.80 to 1.20 IW : CPE ratio and
CGS. Irrigation applied at IW : CPE 1.20 recorded the highest phosphorus
uptake by grain (13.6 kg/ha), which decreased by 4.4 per

Table 4.22 Phosphorus uptake to wheat as influenced by different


planting techniques and irrigation levels

Treatments N uptake (kg/ha) Total N uptake


(kg/ha)

Grain Straw

Planting Technique
Flat 14.3 2.1 16.4
RB45/15 13.2 2.0 15.2
MRB 45/25 13.3 2.1 15.4
MRB 60/25 13.1 1.9 15.0
MRB 80/25 12.5 1.9 14.4

S.Em 0.3 0.06 0.3


C.D (5%) 0.8 0.18 0.9

Irrigation Level
IW : CPE 0.80 13.0 1.9 14.9
IW : CPE 1.20 13.6 2.0 15.6
CGS 13.2 2.1 15.4

S.Em+ 0.2 0.05 0.2


C.D (5%) NS 1.13 NS

CV% 6.1 9.1 6.1


Interaction NS NS NS
Cent at IW : CPE 0.80 and 2.9 per cent at CGS treatment (13.2 kg/ha). Among
irrigation levels, irrigation levels, irrigation at CGS recorded the significantly
maximum phosphorus uptake by straw. The lowest uptake was recorded at IW
: CPE 0.80 but was at par with IW : CPE 1.20 (1.98 kg/ha). Irrigation applied
at IW:CPE 1.20 recorded the highest total phosphorus uptake (15.6 kg/ha),
which decreased by 4.5 per cent at IW : CPE 0.80 and 1.3 per cent at CGS
treatment (15.4 kg/ha).

The interaction effect between planting techniques and irrigation levels on


phosphorus uptake by grain, straw and total P-uptake was found to be non-
significant.

Potassium uptake by grain, straw and total K-uptake

The data pertaining to potassium uptake by grain, straw and total K- uptake
are given in table 4.23 and their analyses of variance in appendix XVIII.

Due to planting techniques, the K-uptake in grain only was affected


significantly. K-uptake by grain was the maximum and significantly higher in
flat sown crop than other planting techniques, except MRB 60/25 (18.3
kg/ha). The highest uptake by straw and total uptake was found, respectively
in flat (108.3 kg/ha) and MRB 45/25 (121.5 kg/ha). All the raised bed
treatments removed lower total K than flat sown wheat. Potassium uptake by
grain, straw and total uptake was increased with increased in frequency of
irrigation. Irrigation applied at IW:CPE 1.20 recorded the highest potassium
Table 4.23 Potassium uptake of wheat influenced by different planting
techniques and irrigation levels
Treatment K uptake ((kg) Total K uptake (kh/ha)

Grain Straw

Planting techniques
Flat 19.4 108.9 120.1
RB 45/15 17.7 104.2 116.1
MRB 45/25 18.0 105.1 121.5
MRB 60/25 18.3 96.8 109.6
MRB 80/25 17.6 98.6 108.5
S.Em 0.4 3.2 3.4
C.DE (5%) 1.1 NS NS
Irrigation
IW : CPE 0.80 17.8 97.8 115.2
IW : CPE 1.20 18.5 101.8 120.3
CGS 18.3 109.0 127.3
S.Em 0.3 2.5 2.6
C.D (5%) NS 7.1 7.6
CV % 6.1 9.2 8.4
Interaction NS NS NS
uptake by grain (18.5 kg/ha), which decreased by 3.8 percent at IW : CPE
0.80 and only 1.1 percent at CGS treatment (18.3 kg/ha). Irrigation applied at
CGS (109.0 kg/ha) recorded the highest potassium uptake by straw. The
lowest uptake was recorded at IW: CPE 0.80 (97.3 kg/ha), but it was at par
with IW : CPE 1.20 (101.8 kg/ha).

The interaction effect between planting techniques and irrigation


levels on potassium uptake by grain, straw and total was found to be non-
significant.
Discussion
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION

The experimental results presented in the previous chapter gives a detail


account of the results obtained from the study Growth and productivity of
wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under modified raised beds of varying
sizes and irrigation levels. The present study was carried out to find out a
suitable sowing method for resource constraints situation and irrigation
scheduling for wheat to achieve the maximum crop and water productivity.
The result as described in preceding chapter are discussed in this chapter in
the light of scientific explanations with a view to understand the cause and
effect relationship for the variations observed and to sort out the information
of practical utility, wherever possible.

Flat sown plots registered higher emergence count than raised bed
plots, which could be due to use of higher seed rate and more net area sown.
Higher tillers count/m2 in flat may also be ascribed to these variables.
Frequent irrigation at IW : CPE 1.20 and at CGS favoured the tillers
production over IW : CPE 0.80 probably by ensuring better moisture
availability to the crop during the growing season.

Higher number of active leaves/m2 and dry matter production/m2 in


flat bed may be ascribed to more plant population per unit area. Among raised
bed plots, MRB 80/25 had higher value of these parameters, especially at later
stage (90 DAS). Since in this treatment, the area loss in the form of the
channels was the lowest which probably resulted in enhanced active leaves
and dry matter production.

Irrigation at IW : CPE 1.20 and CGS produced higher active leaves and dry
matter over IW : CPE 0.80. Better moisture availability through frequent
irrigations, favoured the plant growth by way of maintaining better moisture
regime. Increase in dry matter production with increase in irrigation frequency
has also been reported by Pal et al. (2000) and Shivani et al. (2003). Taller
plants were observed in raised bed plots than the flat bed. The better soil
environment in the form of raised bed might have caused the enhancement in
plant height. Better soil conditions inturn plant growth conditions in raised
bed techniques have also been reported by Kumar et al. (2007). Root growth
parameters were not affected significantly due to planting techniques. The
medium texture (sandy loam soil) of study area probably did not cause any
impedance in the root development under flat sown condition, thus resulting
in non significant variation in root growth between flat and raised bed plots.
Irrigation levels at IW : CPE 1.20 and CGS (4 irrigations) improved the root
growth over IW : CPE 0.80 (2 irrigations) at 90 DAS. This may be credited to
regular supply of soil moisture. Better root growth under higher soil moisture
regime are in accordance with Bandopadhay and Mallick (2003).

Flat sown wheat took 3 to 4 more days to 50% heading and maturity
than raised bed sown crop. More soil moisture loss from raised beds as
compared to flat beds owing to larger exposed area might have created
moisture stress, which in turn advanced the wheat growth under raised bed
plots. Moisture stress under IW : CPE 0.80 (2 irrigations) as compared to IW :
CPE 1.20 and CGS (4 irrigations), might have advanced the crop maturity in
the former treatment. The yield attributes except ears/m2, were favoured by
raised bed planting techniques. Higher ears/m2 in flat bed sown plots could be
attributed to larger net sown area and more tiller/m2. Improvement in the
remaining yield attributes under raised bed plots may be due to better plant
growth as evidenced from plant height under these treatments. Sterile
spikelets/spike were higher in raised bed plots, which may be ascribed to more
moisture loss, resulting into low moisture availability, leading to poor
translocation of Photosynthates. The results corroborated with the findings of
Kumar et al. (2007). More frequent irrigation IW : CPE 1.20 and at critical
growth stages resulted in higher values of yield attributes than IW : CPE 0.80
(less frequent irrigation). Variable availability of soil moisture under variable
soil moisture regimes might have caused such variation. More number of
sterile spikelets/spike in IW : CPE 0.80 indicates that under this treatment,
wheat might have experienced some moisture stress. Lower values of yield
attributes at less frequent irrigations are in line with Shivani et al. (2003).
Amont the planting techniques flat bed sown wheat crop recorded
higher (48.3 q/ha) grain yield but did not differ significantly with other
planting techniques, comprising of varying sizes of raised beds. Buttar et al.
(2006) also did not find significant variation in the wheat grain yield due to
planting techniques. The slight reduction in wheat grain yield under raised
beds as a compared to flat sowing are in match with Bouman et al. (2007).
Several other workers have also reported non-significant variations in yields
between raised bed and flat bed sown crop (Mishra, 2002; Singh et al., 2006;
Kumar et at., 2007 and Kukal et al., 2009). All the raised bed planting
techniques produced at par yield with flat sown crop. This may be attributed
to reasonably good plant stand, higher panicle weight and number of grain/ear
(Table 4.12 and 4.13). In the present study, contrarily the 1000-grain weight
was not improved significantly under the raised bed planting techniques,
which may be due to poor moisture supply by the soil especially during the
grain filling period, coinciding with high ET period (March second fortnight),
because raised bed have more expose area. In the modified raised bed
treatments, increasing bed size caused some reduction in grain yield and was
the lowest in MRB 80/25 (46.0 q/ha). Inspite of more net sown area in the
wider beds, did not contribute correspondingly to grain yield. The poor
moisture availability especially in the central portion of the wider beds, owing
to limited lateral movement of water applied in furrows, may be cited as
possible cause. Inspite of some area lost in making furrows, still comparable
yields in raised beds techniques can be supported by enhanced ear length,
grain number and grain weight per ear under these treatments (Table 4.12 and
4.13).

The grain yield did not increase significantly with increase in number
of irrigation i.e. from 2 in IW : CPE 0.80 to 4 in IW : CPE 0.80 to 4 in IW :
CPE 1.20 and irrigation applied at critical growth stages. During the crop
season, 74.4 mm rainfall was received, which was probably good enough to
fulfill the water requirement of the wheat crop along with 2 irrigations applied
at IW : CPE 0.80. Some enhancement was found in wheat yield with increase
number of irrigation at IW : CPE 1.20 and CGS, but increase was not enough
to become significant. Almost similar trend was observed in straw and
biological yield. Similar findings also have been reported by pal et al. (2000).
Total expenditure in raising flat bed wheat was the maximum (23721/ha),
while less in raised bed plots. Lowers seed rate in raised bed plots (seed rate
was in accordance with net sown area) and less volume of irrigation water
brought down the cost of the production of raised bed plots(Appendix XV).
Lower cost of production under bed planting are in accordance with Reeves et
al. (2000); Sayre (2003). Higher cost of the production in IW : CPE 1.20 and
CGS, was mainly due to more number of irrigations applied as compared to
IW : CPE 0.80. Maurya and Singh (2008), also recorded maximum cost of
cultivation at IW : CPE 1.20.

The gross return was the maximum from flat sown wheat (69,023/ha).
Higher grain and straw yield under this treatment resulted in higher gross
return. The lowest gross return in MRB 80/25 was largely due to the lowest
grain and straw yield under this treatment. Findings of Goel et al. (2005)
matches with the results of present study. The net return was highest in MRB
45/25 (46,668/ha), while the lowest in MRB 80/25 (44167/ha). Although flat
bed had higher gross return, but due to higher cost of production, the net
return got reduced. The B : C, ratio was higher n raised bed treatment as
comprared to flat (1.91). variation in net return and cost of production resulted
in higher B : C ratio in these treatments. Mollah et al., (2009) found higher
return and B : C ratio under bed planting The variation in gross return and net
return among irrigation levels can be explained in the light of variation in cost
of production, grain and straw yield. In IW : CPE 0.80, although the cost of
production was lower but due to lower yield, it could not achieve higher net
return as compared to IW : CPE 1.20 and CGS. Although IW : CPE 0.80 had
lower net return but owing to lower cost of production, it could surpass IW :
CPE 1.20 and CGS, in terms of B:C ratio.

All the raised bed treatments resulted in saving of irrigation water as


compared to flat. Since, water was applied only in the furrows, therefore less
volume of irrigation water was needed to irrigate the similar area. The
increased water saving with increased in the bed size (45 cm to 80 cm top)
was due to decreased number of furrows per unit area. The saving in irrigation
water in raised bed planting techniques is accordance with mishra (2002);
Sayre and Hobbs, (2004); Ram et al. (2005): Singh et al. (2006); Kumar
et al. (2007) and Kumar et al. (210a).
Water use, consumptive water use efficiency and irrigation water use
efficiency were affected significantly. Water use decreased with by 26.4, 30.7,
34.5 and 35.8 per cent under RB 45/15, MRB 45/25, MRB 60/25 and MRB
80/25, respectively. The increase was mainly due to more amount of water
applied in flat bed resulting into more depletion of profile moisture (Maurya
and Singh, 2008). The consumptive water use efficiency and irrigation water
use efficiency increased as the bed width was increased, this is because of
less amount of irrigation water applied, resulting into lower ET. Although ET
was decreased in raised bed treatments, but it did not cause corresponding
decrease in grain yield. This consequently resulted into higher water use
efficiency (WUE), which is a yield output per unit of water use. Enhanced
water use efficiency under raised bed plantings are in accordance with the
findings of Sayre, (2000), Goel and Verma (2005).

Consumptive use of water increased with increase in irrigation


frequency at IW : CPE 1.20 and CGS. However consumptive water use
efficiency and irrigation water use efficiency followed the reverse trend and
were the maximum at IW : CPE 0.80. Application of more amount of
irrigation water at higher IW : CPE Ratio/CGS made more moisture available
to the plant, thus increased the water use. Reduction in water use at lower
ration ahas been in line. At higher IW : CPE ratio (1.20) and irrigation at
CGS, although wheat consumed more water, but did not bring corresponding
increase in the grain yield, which is a numerator for working out consumptive
water use efficiency and irrigation water used efficiency. Less increase in
yield per unit of additional water used was largely responsible for such
reductions. Decrease in water use efficiency at more frequent irrigations
follow the results as reported by Butter et al. (2006), Maurya and Singh,
(2008). Uptake of N, P and K is product of their contents and respective dry
matter yield. Nitrogen uptake by grain and total under flat bed sown wheat
was recorded the maximum. Higher water requirement by flat bed also helped
to solubilize more of inorganic N and ultimately uptake was increased.
Further, the higher levels of grain and straw yield (table 4.21, 4.22 and 4.23),
resulted in higher uptake of N, P and K in flat sown wheat (Rath, 1999). The
total uptake was higher under more irrigation, it was due to higher grain and
straw yield under irrigation at IW : CPE 1.20 and irrigation at Critical growth
stages. Higher uptake of nutrients at IW : CPE 1.20 over lower ratios are in
accordance with Kumar et al. (1995) and Kumar and Sharma (1997).
Summary
&
conclusion
Chapter 6 SUMMARY & CONCLUSION

The field experiment was conducted during Rabi season of 2016-17 at


Agriculture department, SBDIT, Dehradun, on a sandy loam soli having
medium water table situation (>2.0m) to study the effect of planting
techniques and irrigation levels to optimize the bed width for higher wheat
and water productivity, optimize the irrigation levels under different planting
techniques, water use efficiency nutrient uptake and economics of wheat Cv.
UP -2584. The experiment consisted of five planting techniques and three
irrigation levels, was tested in a Factorial Randomized Block Design with
three replications. The results of the experiments on Growth and Productivity
of wheat (triticum aestivum l.) under modified raised beds of varying
sizeS and irrigation levels have been summarized and concluded in this
chapter.

1. Flat planting recorded the maximum (651/m2) and significantly higher


emergence count than all other raised bed planting techniques..Among
irrigation levels field emergence did not vary significantly. The tillers
/m2 followed almost the similar trend that of emergence count.

2. The number of active leaves decreased at 90 DAS as compared to 45


DAS. Flat bed sown wheat recorded the maximum and significantly
higher number of active leaves /m2 both at 45 and 90 DAS than other
planting techniques. lrrigation at IW:CPE 1.20 recorded the maximum
number of active leaves /m2 at 45 DAS, while at 90 DAS it was with
CGS (2892/m2).

3. Dry matter increased considerably at 90 DAS as compared to 45 DAS. Flat


bed sown wheat recorded the maximum and significantly higher dry matter
accumulation that all the raised techniques. Irrigation applied at IW : CPE
1.20 and at CGS recorded the highest dry matter/ m2 at 45 and 90 DAS,
respectively .

4. Plant height was affected significantly due to planting techniques at 90


DAS only. At 90 DAS and harvest, all the raised bed techniques, recorded
higher plant height that flat sown crop. At 90 DAS and harvest, MRB 60/25,
recorded the tallest plants. Irrigation at IW : CPE 1.20 recorded more plant
height, both at 90 DAS and at time of harvest, than IW : CPE 0.80 and CGS.

5. Root weight density was not affected significantly due to planting


techniques and irrigation levels. Amomg planting techniques, MRB 45 /25
and RB 45/15 recorded the maximum root weight density at 45 and 90 DAS,
respectively. Irrigation at IW : CPE 1.20 recorded maximum root weight
density at both the stages.

6. Root volume due to planting techniques and irrigation was not affected
significantly both at 45 and 90 DAS, except irrigation levels at 90 DAS. The
maximum root volume was recorded in flat sown wheat and MAB 80/25 at 45
and 90 DAS ,respectively. Among irrigation levels, the maximum root volume
was recorded at IW : CPE 1.20 and irrigation at CGS at 45 and 90 DAS ,
respectively.

7. Root: shoot ratio was not affected significantly due to planting techniques
and irrigation levels. Treatment MRB 45/25 at 45 DAS, flat shown wheat at
90 DAS recorded the maximum root : shoot ratio. Among irrigation levels, IW
: CPE 1.20 and irrigation at CGS recorded the maximum root : shoot ration at
45 and 90 DAS, respectively

8. DAYS taken to attain 50 % heading maturity were not affected significantly


due to planting techniques. However, flat sown wheat took relatively more
time to reach these stages. Among irrigation levels, IW : CPE 0.80 took
approximately 4 lesser days to attain these stages, as compared to IW : CPE
1.20 and CGS.

9. .Flat bed sown wheat recorded significantly higher number levels of ears
/m2 than raised bed methods. Among raised bed plots, it did not vary
significantly. Irigation at CGS recorded the maximum number of ears /m2.

10. Raised bed plots favoured the ear length over flat. MRB 60/25 and 80/25,
recorded significantly larger ears that flat sown wheat. Irrigation levels did not
affect significantly the ear length however it was favoured by more frequent
irrigation applied At CPE1.20 and CGS.
11. Grain weight per ear was not affected significantly both due to planting
techniques and irrigation levels. Raised bed sown wheat prouduced higher
grain weight per ear than flat sown (1.29/ear). Among irrigation levels it did
not differ much.

12. 1000-grain weight was not affected significantly both due to planting
techniques and irrigation levels. Planting techniques, MRB 45/25 an irrigation
at CGS recorded the higher 1000-grain weight than remaining planting
techniques and irrigation levels, respectivelty.

13. Planting method MRB 80/25 recorded significantly higher grain number
/ear than flat, but remained at par with MRB 60/25 and MRB 45/25. The
grains/ear, although not affected significantly due to irrigation at IW : CPE
1.20 and CGS.

14. Numbers of fertile spikelets were not affected significantly both due to
planting techniques and irrigation levels. Among plating techniques, MRB
60/25 had the maximum number of fertile spikeletS/spike . Irrigation at IW:
CPE 1.20 and CGS recorded similar (15.1/spike) fertile spikelets/spike and
higher than IW : CPE 0.80 (14.8/ear).

15. Number of sterile spikelet/spike slightly more in case of raised bed plots.
Among planting techniques, MRB 60/25 recorded significantly the maximum
sterile spikelets (2.33/spike). Irrigation at IW : CPE 0.80 recorded the
maximum and significantly higher sterile spikelets /ear than CGS (1.43/spike).

16. The grain yield was not affected significantly both due to planting
techniques and irrigation levels. All the raised bed plots produced comparable
yields with than of flat (48.3q/ha). The grain yield in general decreased with
increase in bed size . Frequent irrigation at IW : CPE 1.20 and CGS increased
the grain yield over IW : CPE 0.80 but the difference was not significant.

17. The straw yield was not affected significantly both due to planting
techniques and irrigation levels. Among planting techniques, MRB 45/25
(70.9q/ha) and irrigation at CGS (72.3q/ ha) recorded the maximum straw
yield .

18. The biological yield was also not affected significantly both due to
planting techniques and irrigation levels. Flat sown wheat, among planting
methods and irrigation at CGS, among irrigation levels recorded the
maximum biological yield.

19. The harvest index (H.I.) was not affected significantly both due to planting
techniques and irrigation levels. Panting techniques, RB 45/15 (41.3%) and
MRB 60/25 (24.0%), registered higher H.I. than flat (40.9 %). Among
irrigation levels, IW : CPE 1.20 had the highest H.I. (41.8%) and the lowest
was with CGS (39.6%).
20. Gross return net return and B : C ratio were not affected significantly both
due to planting techniques and irrigation levels. Among planting techniques,
the highest gross return (68,335/ha) and B : C (2.15) ratio were with MRB
45/25. Among irrigation levels, the highest gross return (68,519/ha) and net
return (45,883/ha) were recorded in irrigation at IW : CPE 1.20, and B:C
ration at IW : CPE 0.80 (2.07)

21. Among planting techniques, irrigation water saving was the maximum
(53%) in MRB 80/25. Irrigation levels IW : CPE 0.80 requried only half
number of irrigation (2)than CGS & iw : CPE 0.80required only half number
of irrigation (2) than CGS & IW : CPE 1.20 (4 each) .

22. The highest consumptive water use efficiency was recorded with MRB
60/25 among planting techniques and IW : CPW 0.80, among irrigation levels.

23. Among planting techniques, MRB 80/25 recorded the maximum irrigation
water use efficiency. Irrigation applied at IW : CPE 0.80 recorded the
maximum irrigation water use efficiency which decreased with increase in
irrigation frequency .

24. .Nitrogen uptake by grain and total was not affected significantly, while
in straw difference were significantly. The lowest uptake in grain and total
was recorded with MRB 80/25. Among planting techniques, nitrogen uptake
by grain straw and total was the maximum under flat sown wheat . Among
irrigation levels, the maximum uptake by strew and total was recorded at
irrigation at CGS ,while in it was grain at IW : CPE 1.20.

25. Among planting techniques the maximum phosphorus uptake in grain and
total was recorded in flat sown wheat and the lowest in MRB 80/25. Among
irrigation levels the maximum grain, straw and total uptake of phosphorus was
recorded at irrigation at IW: CPE 1.20 and the lowest at IW : CPE 0.80.

26. Among planting techniques the maximum potassium uptake in grain,


straw and total uptake was recorded in flat sown wheat and the lowest in MRB
80/25 (108.5 kg/ha). Among irrigation levels the maximum uptake of K in
grain was recorded at IW : CPE 1.20 and that of total K uptake in grain and
total was registered at IW : CPE 0.80 .

Results of present study revealed that comparable yields of wheat can be


obtained with modified raised bed system. The largest bed size MRB 80/25
produce at par yield with flat but required 53 per cent less irrigation water.
Crop growing season rainfall of 74.4 mm, 2 irrigation applied at IW : CPE
0.80 were adequate for wheat crop.
Literature cited
LITERATURE CITED

Akbar, G.; Steven R.; Greg, H.; Raine.2010. Permanent raised beds
configurations and renovation methods affect crop performance. In: 19th
World Congress of Soil Science: Soil Solutions for a changing world,

1-6 August 2010, Brisbane, Australia.

Aquino, P. 1998. The adoption of bed planting of wheat in the Yaqui valley,
Sonora, Mexico. Wheat Special report No. 17a. Mexico City: CYMMYT.

Ashraf, M.; Saeed, M.M. And Asgher, M.N. 2002. Evaporation pan: A tool
for irrigation scheduling. Journal Drainage Water management 6(1):
45-51.

Asif, M.: Aslam, Z: Gafoor. A. and Khalid, M. 2003. Effect of irrigation


techniques on wheat production and water saving in problem soils at
Faisalabad drainage project. Pakistan Journal of Scientific Research 55
(1-2: 57-60)

Bakker, D. M.: Hamilton G.J.; Houlbrooks D.J. and Spamn C. 2005. The
effect of raised beds on soil structure, waterlogging, and productivity on
duplex soils in Western Australia. Australia Journal of Soil Research
43: 575-585.
Bakker, D. M.: Hamilton G.J.; Houlbrooks D.J. and Burgel, A. 2007.
Furrow irrigated raised bed system. Productivity of crops grown on raised
beds on duplex soils prone to water logging in Western Australia. Australian
Journal of Experiment Agriculture 47 (11): 1368-1376.

Bandopadhyay, P.K. and Mallick, S. 2003. Actual evapotranspiration and

crop coefficients of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under varying moisture

levels of humid tropical canal command area. Agriculture Water Management


59 (1):33-37.

Black, C.A. 1971. Method of Soil Analysis. Part-2. American Society of


Agronomy. Inc. Publisher, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.

Bouman, B.A.M.: Singh, A.K. and Choudhury, B.U. 2007. Yield and water
productivity of rice-wheat on raised beds at New Delhi, India. Field Crop
Research. 100 (2/3): 229-239.

Buttar, G.S,: Jalota, S.K.: Mahey R.K. and Aggarwal, N. 2006. Early
prediction of wheat yield in south-western Punjab sown by different planting
methods, irrigation schedule and water quality using the ceres model Journal
of Agricultural Physics, 6 (1): 46-5.
Chhokar,R.S. and Sharma, R.K. 2001. Time of Sulfosulfuron in wheat for
Phalaris minor control. Indian J. Weed Science 33 (1&2): 85-86.

Connor, D.J.; Gupta, R.K. Hobbs, P.R. and Sayre, K.D. 2003. Bed
planting in rice-wheat systems. Addressing Resource Conservation Issues in
Rice-wheat systems of south Asia: A Resource book. Rice-Wheat consortium
for the Indo-Gangetic Plains. Intl. Maize and wheat Impr. Cent., New Delhi,
India. pp. 103-108

Deshpande, S.B.; Fehrenbacher, J.b. and Ray, B.W. 1971. Mollisol of


Tarai region of Uttar Pradesh, Northern India, 2. Genesis and Classification.
Geoderma. 6: 195-201.

Directorate of Wheat Research. 2010. All India area, production and yield
of wheat. Released on 9 July 4.7 (a). Dubey, Y.P. and Sharma, S.K. 1996.
Effect of irrigation and fertilizers on growth, yield and nutrient uptake by
wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Indian journal of Agronomy 41 (1): 48-51.

Ghane, E.; Feizi, M.B.; Fard, M. and Landi, E. 2009. Water productivity of
winter wheat in different irrigation/ planting methods with the used of saline
irrigation water. International Journal of Agriculture Biology 11: 131-137.
Ghodpage, R.M. and Gawande, R.L. 2001. Effect of scheduling of
irrigation on yield of late sown wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) on Morna
command area. Annas of Plant physiology. 15(1): 77-79.

Goel, A.C. and Verma, K.S. 2005. Bed planting of wheat a viable sowing
method to improve yield and water-use- efficiency. Haryana Agricultural
University Journal of Research 35 (1): 27-29.

Gomez, K.A. and Gomez, A.A. 1984. Statistical procedures for agriculture
research second edition, John Willey and Sons, New York, pp; 97-411 IARI
Manila.

Gupta, R.K.; Hobbs, P.R.; Salim, M.; Malik, R.K.; Varma, M.R.;
Pokharel, T.P.; Thakur, T.C. and Tripathri, J. 2000. Research and
extension issues for farm-level impact on the productivity on rice-wheat
systems in the Indo-Gangetic Plains of India and Pakistan. Rice-Wheat
Consortium Sem. Rep. Ser. 1. Rice-Wheat Consortium for the Indo-Gangetic
plains. New Delhi, India. 26 p.

Hobbs, P.R. and Gupta, R.K. 2003. Rice-wheat cropping systems in indo-
Gangetic plains: Issues of water productivity in Relation to New Resource-
Conserving Technologies.
Hobbs, P.R.; Giri, G.S. and Grace, P. 1997. Reduced and Zero-tillage
options for the establishment of wheat after rice in South Asia. RWCIGP
paper No.2. Mexico : Rice-Wheat Consortium for the Indo- Gangetic plains
(RWCIGP) and CIMMYT.

Hossain, M.I.; Meisner, C.: Duxbury, J.M.; Lauren, J.G.; Rahman, M.


M., Meer, M. M. and Rashid, M. H. 2004. Use of raised beds for increasing
wheat production in rice-wheat cropping system. New directions for a diverse
planet. Presented in 4th Intl. Crop Sci. Cong. 26 Sep. -1 Oct 2004. Brisbane,
Australia.

Jackson, M.L. 1973. Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice Hall Pvt. Ltd., New
Delhi, India. Jat, L. N. and Singhi, S.M. 2003. Varietal Suitability,
productivity and profitability of wheat (Triticum Aestivum L.) intercrop and
relay cropping under furrow-irrigated raised bed system. Indian Journal of
Agricultural Sciences. 73(4): 187-190.

Jat, L.N. and Singhi, S.M. 2004. Growth, Yield attributes and yield of wheat
(Triticum aestivum L.) under different planting pattern or cropping system and
varieties. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 49(2): 111-113.

Jin ,H,: Li, H,; Mchugh, A.D.; Ma Z.; Cao X.; Wang, Q.; Zhang, X. and
Zhang, X. 2008. Spring wheat performance and water use efficiency on
permanent raised beds in arid northwest China. Aust. J. Soil Res . 46(8):
659666. Jiyang, Z.; Jingsheng, S.; Aiwang D.; Jinglei., W.; Xiaojun, S.
and Xiaofei, L. 2007. Effect of different planting pattern on water use and
yield performance of winter wheat in the Huang-Huai Hai plain of China .
Agriculture water management. 92: 41-44.

Kakar, K. M. .2003. Irrigation and nitrogen levels for wheat varieties under
bed planting system. Ph.D. Thesis NWFP Agriculture University, Peshawar.

Kalita, M.C. and Sharma, N.M. 2000. Nutrient uptake by wheat as


influenced by irrigation regimes under different land situation. Advance plant
science 13(1): 297-303.

Khatri, R.S.; Goel, A.C. and Malik, R.K. 2002. Comparative wheat crop
performance in bed sowing and conventional flat sowing in rice-wheat system
under different irrigation levels. Haryana agricultural university journal of
research. 32(1): 11-18.

Kong, L.; Wang, F.; Feng, B.; Li, S. and Zhang, Si, J. B. 2010. A root
zone soil regime of Wheat: Physiological and Growth Responses to Furrow
Irrigation in Raised Bed Planting in Northern China. Agronomy journal. 102
(1): 154-162.
Kukal, S.S.; Yadav, S.; Humphreys, E.; Kour, A.; Singh, Y.; Singh, T.;
Singh, B. and Timsina, Timsina J. 2010 .Factors affecting irrigation water
saving in raised beds in rice and wheat. Field Crop Research. 118: 43-50.

Kukal, S. S.; Yadav, S.; Kour, A. and Singh, Y. 2009. Performance of rice
(Oryza Sativa) wheat (triticum aestivum L.) on raised bed in farmers scale
field plots. Indian Journal of Agricultural Science. 79 (1): 75-77.

Kumar R, Aggarwal SK, Nanwal RK (2007). Effect of planting system.


Kumar, A.and Sharma, DK. 1997. Dry matter and nutrient accumulation in
wheat as influenced by irrigation and nitrogen in Sodic soil. Indian Journal of
Agricultural Sciences. 31 (4): 217-221.

Kumar, A.; Chowdhury, S.; Pandey, I.B. and Faruqui, O.R. 2004.
Performance of wheat varieties under Furrow Irrigation Raised Bed Planting
System in sandy loam soil of North Bihar. Annals Agricultural research
25 (1): 52-55.

Kumar, A.; Sharma, D.K..; Sharma, H.C. and Kumar, A. 1995. Nitrogen
uptake recovery and nitrogen use efficiency in wheat (triticum aestivum L.) as
influenced by nitrogen and irrigation levels in semi reclaimed sodic soils.
Indian Journal of Agronomy.40 (2): 198-203.
Kumar, A.; Sharma, D.K.; Sharma, K.D.; Yadav, A. 2010. Enhancing
yield and water productivity of wheat (triticum aestivum L.) through furrow
irrigated raised bed system in the Indo-Gangetic plains of India. Indian
Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 80 (3):198 -202.

Kumar, M.; Sheoran, P. and Yadav, A. 2010. Productivity potential of


wheat (triticum aestivum L.) in relation to different planting methods and
nitrogen management strategies. Indian journal of agricultural sciences, 80
(5): 427-429.

Li, J.; Inanaga, S.; Li, Z. and Eneji, A.E. 2005. Optimizing irrigation
scheduling for winter wheat in the North China Plain. Agricultural water
management 76 (1): 8-23.

Li, S.D.; Wang, F.; Si, J., Kong, L.; Feng, B. and Zhang, B.2008. Crop
performance in permanent raised bed rice wheat cropping system in Punjab,
India. Journal of Triticeae Crops. 28 (4) : 638-643. Lyon, T.L., Buckman,
H.O. and Brady, N.C. 1952. The nature and property of soil. V edition , New
York, The Macmillan Co. p. 55.

Mahmood, N.; Akhtar, B. and Saleem, M. 2002. Scheduling irrigation in


wheat grown at different seed rates. Asian Journal of Plant Science .1(2): 136-
139.
Mascagni, H.J.; Keisling, T.C.; Sabbe, W.E,; May, M.; Oliver, L.R. and
Vories, E.D. 1995. Wheat production on raised beds on clayey and silt loam
soils. common .Soil Science and Plant Analysis. 26(3&4), 503-513.

Maurya, R.K. .and Singh, G. R. .2008. Effect of crop establishment methods


and irrigation schedules on economics of wheat (triticum aestivum L.)
production, moisture depletion pattern, consumptive use and crop water use
efficiency. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 78 (10);830-833.

Meisner, C. A.; Talukdar, H. M.; Hossain, I.; Gill, M.; Rahmen, H. M.;
Baksh, E.; Justice, S. and Sayre, K.D. 2005. Introduction and implementing
a permanent bed system in the rice wheat cropping pattern in Bangladesh and
Pakistan. Presented in ACIAR Workshop on Permanent Bed Planting
Systems. 1-3 mar. 2005. Griffith .NSW, Australia.

Memon, Z. 2000. Impact of irrigation scheduling on the growth and yield of


wheat . Sindh Agriculture University Tandojam. 58.

Mishra, M. 2002. Water requirement of wheat in conventional and furrow


irrigated bed system. Thesis Ph.D. submitted to G,B. Pant University of Agric.
& Tech., Pantnagar .
Mullah, M. I. U. ; Bhuiya, M. S. U. and Kabir, M.H. 2009. A new crop
establishment method wheat in ricewheat cropping system. Journal of
Agricultural and Rural Development. 7(1-2):23-31.

Moreno, R.: Oscar, H., Rodriguez, C.J.: Johnson, D. and Thompson, T.


2004. Wheat response to population density and bed spacing in northwest
Mexico. Cereal Research Communications. 32(2): 273-279.

Nagarajan, S. 2005. Commentary can India produce enough wheat even by


2020. Current science, 89(9) 10 November.

Narang, R.S.: Gill, M.S.; Gosal, K.S. and Mahal, S.S. 2000. Irrigation and
N-Fertilizer requirement for maximum yield potential of wheat. J. Res.
Punjab Agric. Univ. 37 (1-2): 20-27.

North, S. 2004. Irrigation Scheduling for top yields, Farmers. Newsletter.


166: 28-30. Olsen, S.R.; Cole, C.V.; Watanable F.S. and Dean, L.A. 1954.
Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium
bicarbonate. U.S. Deptt. Agri. Circular No. 939: 19.

Ortega, L.A.: Sayre, K.D. and Francis, C.A. 2000. Wheat Nitrogen use
efficiency in a bed planting system in Northwest Mexico. Agronomy Journal.
92 : 303-308.
Pahlavan-Rad M.R.; Movahedi-Naeini S. A. R. and Pessarakli M. 2011.
Responses of wheat plants in terms of soil water content, bulk density,
salinity, and root growth under different planting systems and various
irrigation frequencies. Journal of Plant Nutrition. 34: 1133-1143.

Pal, S.K.: Verma, U.N.; Thakur, R.: Singh, M.K. and Upasani, R.R. 2000.
Dry Matter partitioning of late sown wheat under different irrigation schedule.
Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 70 (12): 831-834.

Pereira, L.S., Goncalves, J.M.: Dong, B.; Mao, Z. and Fang, S.X. 2007.
Assessing basin irrigation and scheduling strategies for saving irrigation water
and controlling salinity in the upper Yellow River Basin, China. Agricutlure
water Management. 93 (3): 109-122.

Piper, C.S. 1950. Soil and plant analysis, ( Indian Ed.) Hane Pub., Bombay.
Ram, H.; Singh, Y.; Kler, D.S.; Kumar, K.; Humphreys, L. and Timsina,
J. 2005. Performance of non-rice crops and alternative cropping systems on
permanent raised beds in the Indo-Gangetic plains of north-western India.
Presented in ACIAR Workshop on permanent Bed planting Systems. 1-3 Mar.
2005. Griggith, NSW, Australia.

Rangaswamy, R 2006. A text book of Agricultural Statistics New Age


International (P) Limited, New Delhi 496p. Rath B.S 1999. Studies of
methods of wheat sowing at various levels of puddling in rice under rice
wheat cropping system. Thesis, Ph D. submitted to G.B. Pant University of
Agric & Tech., Pantnagar.

Reeves . T. G,: Ransom , J. K.; Sayre , K. D., Hobbs, P . R. and


Cassaday, K. 2000. From, Scarcity to Security: A Global perspective on
Weed Science and the Future Food Situation. Presented in 3rd Weed Sci.
Cong. on Global Weed Problems. Local and global solutions for the beginning
of the century. 6-11 Jun 2000, Foz de Iguacu, Brazil.

Riffkin ,P . and Evans, P . 2003. Successful high rainfall cropping in


southern Australia using raised beds solutions for a better environment.
Proceedings of the 11th Australian Agronomy Conference, Geelong, Victoria,
Australia, 2-6 February.

Satya, P. and Evans, P. 2005. Analysis and inferences on suitability od


Indian wheat genotypes under furrow irrigated raised bed tillage system. Crop
Research Hisar. 30(2): 146-151.

Satya, P.; Chowdhury, S.; and Tomar, S.M.S. 2002. Path coefficient
analysis of agronomic characters affecting grain yield in wheat (Triticum
aestivum L.) under furrow irrigated raised bed planting system. Annals of
Agricultural Research. 23(2): 248-255.
Sayre, K. D. 2000. Saving water and increasing sustainability with bed
planting. Outlook, Int. Maize and Wheat Improvement centre, CIMMYT
Mexico, Vol. I : 2.

Sayre, K. D. 2003. Raised bed system of cultivation. In: Bed Planting


Training Course, 19 May - 21 Jun. 2003. Intl. Maize And Wheat Impr. cent.
Mexico.

Sayre, K. D. and Moreno R.O.H. 1997. Application of Raised Bed Planting


System to wheat: Wheat Special Report no.31. Mexico, DF: CIMMYT.
Seed rates and nitrogen levels on bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Indian
Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 77 : 669-671.

Sepat, R.N.; Rai, R.K. and Dhar, S. 2010. Planting systems and integrated
nutrient management for enhanced wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) productivity.
Indian Journal of Agronomy. 55(2): 114-118.

Shivani., Verma, U.N., Kumar, S., Pal, S.K. And Thakur, R. 2003. Growth
analysis of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars under different seeding
dates and irrigation levels in Jharkhand. Indian Journal of Agrinomy. 48 (4):
282-286.
Singh, L. 2001. Tillage-cum-herbicide use studies in wheat grown under rice-
wheat cropping system. Thesis, Ph.D. submitted to G.B. Pant University of
Agric. & Tech., Pantnagar.

Singh, S.S.; Prasad, L.K. and Upadhyaya, A. 2006. Root growth, yield and
economics of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) as affected by irrigation and tillage
practices in South Bihar. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 51(2): 131-134.

Singh, Y: Humphreys, E.: Kukal, S.S; Singh, B.; Kaur, A.; Thaman, S.;
Prashar, A.; Yadav S.; Timsina, J.: Dhillon, S.S.; Kaur, N.; Smith, D.J.
and Gajri, P.R. 2009. Crop performance in permanent raised bed rice-wheat
cropping system in Punjab, India. Field Crop Research. 110(1): 1-2.

Subbaiah, B.V. and Asija G.L. 1956. A rapid procedure for the determition
of available nitrogen in soil. Current Sci. 25: 259-262.

Talukder, A.S. M.H.; Meisner, C.A.; Kabir, M.H.; Hossain, A.B. S. and
Rashid, M.H. 2004. Productivity of Multi-Crops sown on permanent raised
beds in the tropics. New directions for a diverse planet: presented in 4th Intl.
Crop Sci. Cong. 26 Sep.-10 Oct. 2004. Brisbane, Australia.

Walia, U.S. 2003. Weed Management, Kalyani Publishers, B-I/292, Rajendra


Nagar, Ludhiana. Wang, F.; He, Z.; Sayre, K.; Li, S.; Si, J.; Feng, B. and
Kong, L. 2009. Wheat Cropping systems and technologies in China. Field
Crop research. 111 (3): 181-188.

Wang, F.; Wang, P.X; Song, f.: Han, D.M: Zhang, Y.H. and Liu, X. 2010.
A Study of root water uptake of crops indicated by hydrogen and oxygen
stable isotopes; a case in Shanxi Province, China, Agriculture Water
management. 97 (2010), pp. 475-482.

Wang, F.; Xuqing, W. and Sayre, K.D. 2004. Comparison of conventional,


flood irrigated, flat planted with furrow irrigated, raised bed planting for
winter wheat in China. Field Crop Research. 87: 35-42.

Wang, F.; Yang, H.; Xu, C.; Li, S. and Si, J. 2007. Effect of raised bed
planting on plant morphological characters and grain yield of winter wheat.
Acta Agrinomica Sinica. 33 (6):1038- 1040.

Williams, C.H. and Steinbergs, A. 1959. Soil Sulphur fraction as chemical


indices of available sulphur in some Australian sols in. Australian journal of
Agricultural Research 10: 340-352.

Yadav, A.; Malik, R.K.; Chauhan, B. S.; Kumar, V.; Banga, R.S.; Singh,
Yadav, S., Punia, J.S.; Rathee, SS. and Sayre. K.D. 2002. Feasibility of
raising wheat on furrow irrigated raised beds in south-western Haryana. In :
Proc. Int. Workshop on Herbicide Resistance Management and Zero-Tillage
in Rice-wheat Cropping Systems. Held at CCSHAU, Hisar, India from 4-6
March, pp. 201-216.

Yadav, S.; Kukal, S.S.; Kour, A.; Singh, Y.; Thaman, S.; Humphreys, E.;
Singh, B.; Timsina, J. 2010. Factors affecting irrigation water savings in
raised beds in rice and wheat. Field Crop Research. 118 (1): 43-50.

Zhang, J.; Sun , J.S.; Duan, A., Wang, J.: Shen, X. and Liu, X. 2007.
Efects of different planting patterns on water use and yield performance of
winter wheat in the Huang-huai-Hai plain of China. Agriculture Water
Management. 92 (1-2): 41-47.
Appendices
Appendix I
Analyses of variance for field emergence count / m2

Source of variation d.f. mean sum of squares


Replication 2 990.3333
Planting techniques 4 16191.17**
Irrigation levels 2 1044.200ns
Interaction 8 500.9499ns
Error 28 887.7738

Appendix II
Analyses of variance for tillers at 45 DAS and 90 DAS

Source of variation d.f. mean sum of squares


45 days 90 days
Replication 2 7144.533 1490.067
Planting techniques 4 143550.2** 70334.72**
Irrigation levels 2 14918.40ns 4398.867ns
Interaction 8 21942.62ns 4359.507*
Error 28 15067.44 1676.186

Appendix III
Analyses of variance for plant dry mater accumulation (m2)
Source of variation d.f. mean sum of squares
45 days 90 days
Replication 2 46.74375 22775.60
Planting techniques 4 374.6163** 127300.3**
Irrigation levels 2 388.7104* 67635.34**
Interaction 8 75.69782ns 14852.50ns
Error 28 77.62321 8966.171
Appendix-IV
Analyses of variance for number of activity leaves count at 45 and 90 DAS

source of variation d.f. Mean Sum of squares


45 Days 90 Days
Replication 2 88247.47 33014.40
Planting techniques 4 2206653** 228438.2**
Irrigation levels 2 404424.5ns 56822.40**
interaction 8 221610.3ns 27621.96**
Error 28 167183.9 6476.496

Appendix V

Analyses of variance for plant height

source of variation d.f. Mean Sum of squares


45 Days 90 Days At Harvest
Replication 2 1.417969 58.64427 1005.748
Planting techniques 4 14.06228ns 52.16103** 23.32813ns
Irrigation levels 2 2.888802ns 13.22760ns 5.947917ns
interaction 8 3.210526ns 2.230425ns 9531251ns
Error 28 7.342634 9.230021 27.49606
Appendix-VI

Analyses of variance for root density, root volume and root: Shoot ratio
45 DAS

Source of d.f. Mean Sum of squares


variation Root Root Root: Shoot
Density Volume ratio
Replication 2 8.942611 0.2535177 .0061613728
Planting techniques 4 15.55412ns 0.7053206ns .007851508ns
Irrigation levels 2 12.21188ns 0.1741720ns .01136003E-
interaction 8 37.70802** 1.522002** .02920443**
Error 28 10.02096 0.3228449 .006415654

Appendix-VII

Analyses of variance for root density, root volume and root : shoot ratio
90 DAS

d.f. Mean Sum of squares


Source of Root Root Root: Shoot
variation Density Volume ratio
Replication 2 20.15710 1.224194 0.004868801
Planting techniques 4 6.943305ns 1.556335ns 0.005283270ns
Irrigation levels 2 10.57689ns 4.060132* 0.0002488216ns
interaction 8 14.42099ns 1.391339ns 0.0007768348*
Error 28 9.549744 1.126617 0.002502239
Appendix-VIII
Analyses of variance for 50% heading and maturity

Source of variation d.f. Mean Sum of squares


50% Heading Maturity
Replication 2 318.8604 1312.958
Planting techniques 4 16.51910ns 5.923611ns
Irrigation levels 2 79.99375ns 68.82500*
interaction 8 8.307118ns 2.238195
Error 28 227.3909 20.28869
Appendix-IX
Analyses of variance yield attributes

d.f. Mean Sum of squares


Ears/m2 Ear Grain Ear length
Source of Length weight 1000
variation 1000 Grain
Weight/ear
(g)
Replication 2 11062.23 .7830404E- 2.274479 .01241201
Planting 4 60337.70* 01 16.72787** .003013187ns
techniques
36980.10ns .9652913* 5.724479ns .0003799438n
s
Irrigation 2 5410.752ns .7889811ns 1.688020ns .01599689ns
levels
Interaction 8 15406.52 .5599568ns 2.632552 .01951380
Error 28 .3563163
Appendix-X
Analyses of variance for yield attributes
Source of d.f. Mean Sum of squares
variation Grain Straw Biological Harvest
Yield Yield yield Index
Replication 2 .3218750 86.68645 46.20625 10.94453
Planting techniques 4 6.603299ns 38.96267ns 92.36979ns 13.77886ns
Irrigation levels 2 9.713542ns 189.9615* 323.6396ns 33.90287*
interaction 8 4.851996ns 10.07648ns 36.14740ns 4.372157ns
Error 28 10.67651 40.10685 107.1058 8.286886

Appendix-XI
Analyses of variance for Consumptive use of water (CWUE)

source of variation d.f. Mean Sum of squares


CWUE
Replication 2 .02428385
Planting techniques 4 101.8200*
Irrigation levels 2 364.0607**
interaction 8 13.60418**
Error 28 2.070647
Appendix-XII
Analyses of variance for water use efficiency (IWUE)

Source of variation d.f. Mean Sum of squares


CWUE
Replication 2 10.86667
Planting techniques 4 106415.2**
Irrigation levels 2 466207.9**
interaction 8 6875.017**
Error 28 825.2000

Appendix-XIII
Analyses of variance for economics of wheat

Source of d.f. Mean Sum of squares


variation Gross Return Net return B:C ratio
Replication 2 2000486 1982737 .004070536
Planting techniques 4 .1264526E+08ns 7462685ns .08029726ns
Irrigation levels 2 .2115447E+08ns 6006648ns .007097880ns
interaction 8 6074596ns 5771924ns .01182789ns
Error 28 .1710205E+08 .1710371E+08 .03477013
Appendix-XIV
Fixed cost of cultivation of wheat crop (Rs/ha)

Sl. Particulars Amount/Quantity Cost


No
(A) Field preparations
1. Pre sowing 1 Rs. 240
irrigation
2. Ploughing, 5 Rs 5375
Harrowing and
leveling
3. Sowing Rs 250/acre Rs. 625
4. Ridge Making Rs 250/acre Rs. 625
(B) Inputs
1. Seeds 100kg @ Rs. 27.5/kg Rs. 2870
2. Fertilizers 325 Kg Urea Rs. Rs 2870
1800.5
125 kg NPK Rs
1070.0
3. Irrigation At IW:CPE 0.80=2 Irrigation

At IW:CPE 1.20=4 Irrigation Rs. 125/cm water


applied
At CGS= 4 Irrigation

4. Weed Control Spray of Topic+MSM Rs. 1500.0


2 Labour Rs. 250.0
5. Harvesting Grain Rs. 800/acre Rs. 2000.0
Straw Rs. 800/acre
6. Miscellaneous Rs. 1250/ha
Appendix-XV

Sl. No. Different input resources Rate


1. wheat UP 2584 1100 / 40 kg
2. Urea 277 / 50 Kg
3. NPK 428 / 50 Kg
6. Topic + MSM 600 / acre
10. Tractor Charge 400.00 / hr
11. Irrigation Charge 125 / cm
12. Labour wages 10.00
13. Harrowing 750 / ha
15. Grain Yield 1170 / q
16. Straw** 180 / q
*Based on minimum support price** Based on local mandi prices.
Apendix XVI
Analyses of variance for N, P and K uptake by grain, straw and total uptake
by wheat crop.

Mean sum of squares

N uptake P uptake K uptake


Source of d.f.
variation
Grain Straw Total Grain Straw Total Grain Straw Total
Replication
.3822917 11.72962 8.768750 .05004883 .07668355 .06236979 .1132161 170.7333 164.2813
2
Planting
28.94531 17.88113* 67.41493ns 3.721205 .09540219* 4.76502** 4.887858* 221.7778 266.0434
techniques 4 ns ns ns

Irrigation
18.59896 22.13587* 30.96875 1.367497** .1975332** 1.685286 1.790829 521.9667** 559.9479*
level 2 ns ns ns ns

Interaction 1.699430 24.22882 24.86992


18.25651 1.522130 18.04253 .2393161 .00710135 .2456164 ns ns ns
8 ns ns ns ns ns ns

Error
32.71480 5.682305 54.44732 .6516579 .03299637 .8704637 1.216972 90.05364 103.7359
28 ns