J Sci Food Agric 1998, 78, 149È161

Tillage and Mulching Eþects on Water Use, RootGrowth and Yield of Rainfed Mustard andChickpea Grown after Lowland RiceA L Rathore,* A R Pal and K K Sahu

Land and Water Management Department, Indira Gandhi Agricultural University, Raipur-492 012 (MP),India

(Received 20 June 1997 ; revised version received 24 December 1997 ; accepted 21 January 1998)

Abstract : Crops grown under rainfed conditions are prone to water stress, owingto rapid loss of soil moisture and development of mechanical impedance to rootgrowth. The stress can be alleviated by enlarging rooting volume in the soiland/or by regulating the supply of soil moisture. This study reports the e†ects ofzero, minimum and conventional tillage with and without rice straw mulch onconservation of soil moisture, root growth and yield of chickpea and mustardgrown under rainfed conditions for three years (1990È91 to 1992È93) in a deepclayey soil (Typical Chromusterts). Minimum tillage, with or without straw,enhanced soil moisture conservation and moisture availability during cropgrowth. As a consequence, the root mass, yield components (plant stand, numberof pods per plant and plant height) and grain yield increased. Availability of soilmoisture during the crops growth period, maintained better plant water status.Zero tillage was superior to the other tillage practices for mustard. On the otherhand, chickpea grain yield was statistically similar for zero tillage and minimumtillage. Straw mulch conserved more water in the soil proÐle during the earlygrowth period compared to no mulch. Subsequent release of conserved soil waterregulated proper plant water status, soil temperature, and lowered soil mechani-cal resistance, leading to better root growth and higher grain yield of both chick-pea and mustard in straw mulch than in no mulch plots. 1998 Society of(Chemical Industry

J Sci Food Agric 78, 149È161 (1998)

Key words : chickpea ; mustard ; tillage ; mulch ; soil moisture ; root growth ;evapotranspiration ; penetrometer resistance ; canopy temperature ; soil tem-perature.

INTRODUCTION

The productivity of rainfed post-rainy-season cropsdepends on seasonal rainfall distribution and amountof moisture in the soil proÐle at planting time. Seasonalrainfall in eastern India is very scanty, but deep soils(Vertisols and AlÐsols) have considerable plant-extractable soil moisture (200È300 mm) to allow growthof a post-rainy-season dryland crop after lowland rice(Pal et al 1993). However, these soils are mostly notcropped due to quick drying of the upper soil layer.DeÐciency of soil moisture in the seedzone (upper soil

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.

layer) caused poor plant stand, which su†ers during thecrop growth period from water stress and the rapiddevelopment of mechanical resistance to growing roots.To minimise the extent and duration of water stress,attempts should be made to synchronise the active rootzone with a soil zone containing water. Managementpractices that encourage deeper and denser rooting tocapture water moving downward and to extract themfrom greater depth are likely to enhance crop yields.

Crop establishment is a major production constraintof rainfed post-rainy-season crops in a poorly struc-tured seedbed after lowland rice, because the soil maybe wet or dry. When the soil is wet, germination may beinhibited due to poor aeration. A delay in sowing,

1491998 Society of Chemical Industry. J Sci Food Agric 0022È5142/98/$17.50. Printed in Great Britain(

150 A L Rathore, A R Pal, K K Sahu

however, increases the risk of the seedbed becoming toodry for successful germination. Moreover, as thepuddled soil dries, it may become compact and hard,thus inhibiting both seedling emergence and rootgrowth. Soil mechanical impedance and lack of aerationcan both be alleviated by conventional tillage, althoughthis may accelerate loss of soil moisture (Agrawal et al1989 ; Gupta and Woodhead 1989). Therefore, zero orminimum tillage could be beneÐcial (Khan et al 1981 ;Syarifuddin 1979). Establishment of crops in zero tillagemay not only eliminate the problems associated withcreating an adequate seedbed but also the turnaroundtime and cultivation cost may be lowered. Crops mayalso su†er due to the formation of cracks, which mayaccelerate soil moisture loss from zero or minimumtillage. Pertinent information is lacking on such lossesfrom cracks in zero or minimum tilled soils.

Higher temperatures and evaporative demand, espe-cially in eastern India, often cause water shortageduring the reproductive stage of dryland post-rainy-season crops, leading to yield reduction (Sheldrake andSaxena 1979). Mulches have been found to decrease soilmoisture losses by reducing soil temperature and evapo-ration, promoting favourable soil biotic activities,reducing hard soil setting and contributing plant nutri-ents (Pal et al 1994). Information is needed on the inter-active e†ects of di†erent tillage options and mulchingon crop performance. Hence, the present study wasaimed at assessing the e†ects of tillage with and withoutmulching on the development of mechanical resistance,root growth, moisture extraction pattern and yield ofchickpea (Cicer areitinum L) and mustard (Brassicajuncea L) grown under rainfed conditions after lowlandrice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Field investigations were conducted for three years(1990È91 to 1992È93) on a deep black clay soil at IndiraGandhi Agricultural University, Raipur, India (20¡ 16@N, 81¡ 36@ E and 289É6 m.a.s.l.). Water retained in theproÐle of the experimental soil at Ðeld capacity and

after maximum water extraction by roots (lower limits)are given in Fig 1 (VsM). Field capacity was determinedin situ 48 h after a thorough wetting, and lower limit(soil moisture retained at 15 bar suction) was deter-mined in a pressure plate apparatus of Soil MoistureEquipment Corporation, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, inthe laboratory. Between Ðeld capacity (FC) and lowerlimit (WP), the soil retained 244 mm water to a depth of105 cm. The bulk density (at FC) increased from thesurface to 60 cm depth (1É41È1É68 mg m~3), andremained almost constant (1É68È1É70 mg m~3) to105 cm soil depth. The soil is neutral in reaction (pH7É3), low in available nitrogen (318 kg ha~1) and phos-phorus (8É8 kg ha~1) and rich in potassium(428 kg ha~1). The growing season of chickpea andmustard lasts from the end of October to March.Monthly means of maximum and minimum air tem-peratures, Class A pan evaporation and total rainfallduring the three years are given in Table 1.

Treatments included combinations of four tillagesystems, two straw mulching and two crops. In allyears, the treatments were replicated three times. Thetillage systems were : (1) conventional tillage (CT), ie twocultivations to stir the soil to 8È10 cm depth with a cul-tivator operated with a 6 hp power tiller followed bylevelling of the soil with a wooden plank ; (2) minimumtillage (MT), ie rotovating twice to stir the soil to2È4 cm depth followed by planking ; (3) direct drillingbetween the rows of preceding rice in zero tillage fol-lowed by inter-row tilling (ZTIRT) down to 3È5 cmdepth in order to create soil mulch ; and (4) direct drill-ing in zero tillage (ZT) between the rows of precedingrice. Mulch treatment consisted of no mulch (M0) andmulch with rice straw (M1) applied at 8 t ha~1 betweenthe rows of the crops, 4 days after sowing (DAS). Con-ventional tillage during 1990È91 and drilling the seed inzero tillage followed by inter-row tilling during 1992È93were not tested. The crops were chickpea cv JG 74 andmustard cv V ardan. Recommended fertiliser doses(20 kg N and 50 kg for chickpea and 60 kg N andP2O540 kg ha~1 for mustard) to both crops wereP2O5drilled at sowing. Mustard and chickpea were sown inrows spaced at 30 cm during the Ðrst week of Novem-

TABLE 1Weather during the three growing seasons

Month Mean air temperature (¡C)a Pan evaporation (mm day~1) Rainfall (mm)

Max Min 1990È91 1991È92 1992È93 1990È91 1991È92 1992È93

November 28É6 ^ 0É7 14É2 ^ 2É1 3É1 3É0 3É1 8É4 16É4 28É8December 26É9 ^ 1É0 10É1 ^ 1É2 2É6 2É7 2É8 4É4 33É2 0É0January 26É8 ^ 1É1 10É2 ^ 1É1 3É3 3É1 3É6 0É7 0É0 0É0February 31É4 ^ 1É2 12É9 ^ 2É9 5É0 5É7 4É9 0É0 0É4 0É0March 36É1 ^ 1É2 17É5 ^ 1É4 6É9 8É3 7É2 0É0 0É0 0É0

a Three-year mean for crop growth period.

Rainfed mustard and chickpea grown after lowland rice 151

Fig 1. Moisture content in soil proÐle of chickpea (C) and mustard (M) under various treatments during di†erent crop growthstages in 1990È91 : Vs, vegetative stage ; Fs, Ñowering stage ; Gs, grain Ðlling stage ; Ms, maturity stage ; Fc, Ðeld capacity ; Wp,

wilting point.

ber in the three years using a seed rate of 5 kg ha~1 formustard and 80 kg ha~1 for chickpea. The crops werewell protected against weeds and pest damage. Vegeta-tive (sowing to start of Ñowering), Ñowering (start ofÑowering to 50% Ñowering), grain Ðlling (50% Ñoweringto 50% pod-Ðll) and physiological maturity (50% pod-Ðll to physiological maturity) stages of chickpeaoccurred between 0È65, 66È80, 81È106 and 106È116DAS. These stages in mustard occurred between 0È45,46È76, 77È100 and 101È120 DAS.

Soil cores for determining root growth were sampledat the grain Ðlling stage with a 30 cm diameter ringfrom all the plots in two replications. The plant waskept in the centre of the ring, and samples were col-lected at 10 cm intervals down to 80 cm depth of soil.Each sample was washed on a 2 mm iron sieve with agentle stream obtained from a foot sprayer. Afterwashing, the roots of weeds and other debris wereremoved. In order to take the root weight, the rootswere dried in an oven at 60¡C temperature.

152 A L Rathore, A R Pal, K K Sahu

Fig 2. Moisture content in di†erent soil layers of chickpea (C) and mustard (M) under di†erent treatments during the crop growthseason of 1991È92 : Vs, vegetative stage ; Fs, Ñowering stage ; Gs, grain Ðlling stage ; Ms, maturity stage.

Soil water content was measured gravimetrically inthree replications at 15 cm depth intervals down to105 cm during the three years to determine the soilmoisture extraction pattern of the crops. Water use effi-ciency (WUE) was computed as the ratio of grain yieldto seasonal evapotranspiration of the crop. The pen-etration resistance of the soil (15 cm depth) was mea-sured between the rows at the time of moisturesampling using an hydraulic-type penetrometer. The dif-ference of canopy and air temperature were measuredbetween 14 :00 and 15 :00 h from 55 to 90 DAS in all thetreatments during 1991È92 with an infrared thermom-eter (Telatemp Corporation, Fullerton, CA, USA). The

soil temperature was recorded hourly by data loggers(Omni Data International, UT, USA) using thermistortemperature probes which were placed between therows to a depth of 15 cm from the soil surface. The soiltemperatures were taken on sunny days with radiationsof 5É55, 6É44 and 5É76 W m~2 d~1, respectively, on 25December 1991 and 3 and 10 January 1992. Themaximum air temperatures were 26É8, 30 and 28É9¡C at15 :00 h, and minimum air temperatures were 8É5, 11É1and 14É7¡C at 7 :00 h during the same periods. Sta-tistical signiÐcance of treatments was inferred from leastsigniÐcant di†erence (LSD) tests using analysis ofvariance for a split-plot design in 1990È91 and split-

Rainfed mustard and chickpea grown after lowland rice 153

split-plot design in 1991È92 and 1992È93. Three-yearmean data of each replication was used for pooledanalysis.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Water use

The soil proÐle (0È105 cm deep) contained 365È383 mmwater during the three years at harvest of rice. Thewater losses were more in CT (13È26 mm) than in MT(11È21 mm), ZTIRT (6È13 mm) and ZT plots (4È

11 mm) during sowing to establishment of the crops(data not given here). During the vegetative stage ofchickpea and mustard, as roots were restricted withinupper layers, moisture extraction also occurred fromthese layers. In both the crops, moisture loss was morein CT plots than in MT, ZTIRT and ZT plots at thevegetative stage during the three years. At the Ñoweringand grain Ðlling stages of the crops, loss of moisture wasmore from ZT plots due to formation of wider cracksand continuity of capillarity, as also reported bySharma et al (1982). In the MT and CT plots, loss ofsoil moisture was more from the tilled layer than fromthe untilled layer in ZT plots during the vegetativestage, but the tilled layer subsequently acted as soilmulch, which kept the lower layers relatively wetter

Fig 3. Moisture content in di†erent soil layers of chickpea (C) and mustard (M) under di†erent treatments during the crop growthseason of 1992È93 : Vs, vegetative stage ; Fs, Ñowering stage ; Gs, grain Ðlling stage ; Ms, maturity stage.

154 A L Rathore, A R Pal, K K Sahu

Fig 4. Cumulative moisture use (based on moisture depletion from 105 cm proÐle) from plots under di†erent treatments duringdi†erent crop growth stages in 1991È92.

than in the zero tillage (Figs 1È3). As a result, morewater was available for plant uptake in MT and CTtreatments during the Ñowering and grain Ðlling stages.However, during the Ñowering, grain Ðlling and physio-

logical maturity stages, moisture was extracted from allthe proÐle layers (Figs 1È3) due to deeper and denserrooting (see Figs 6 and 7). Depending on the growingseason and soil moisture availability, the water use of

Fig 5. Cumulative moisture use (based on moisture depletion from 105 cm proÐle) from plots under di†erent treatments duringdi†erent crop growth stages in 1990È91 and 1992È93.

Rainfed mustard and chickpea grown after lowland rice 155

Fig 6. Rooting pattern of chickpea and mustard in relation to tillage and mulching during 1991È92.

mustard at the vegetative, Ñowering, grain Ðlling andmaturity stages was in the range of 23È27, 30È37, 26È38and 9È10% of the total water use, respectively (Figs 4and 5). Of the total water use by chickpea, 39 to 43, 26to 28, 19 to 25 and 7 to 13 percent water was extractedduring vegetative, Ñowering, grain Ðlling and maturitystages respectively.

The cumulative saving of 12È13 mm of water inchickpea and 16È23 mm of water in mustard was due tothe application of straw mulch during 1991È92 and1992È93. The cracks formation in ZT plots increasedthe evaporation losses from the deep soil proÐle ratherthan show an increase in transpiration. But deeper anddenser rooting (Figs 6 and 7) in tilled plots (MT andCT) compared to untilled plots (ZT and ZTIRT) may

augment transpiration losses by the crops in tilled plotsand narrow down the di†erences in water use of thecrops grown in tilled and untilled plots. The reductionin evaporation brought by tillage, and consequentincrease in transpiration, signiÐcantly increased cropyield and WUE of the crops (Sharma et al 1982).

Chickpea canopy in MT plots was 0É3È1É1, 0É3È1É2and 2É6È4É8¡C cooler (an indicator of better plant waterstatus) than in ZTIRT, ZT and CT plots, respectively,during 55È90 DAS (Table 2) due to the fact that greaterextraction of proÐle stored water helped the crops tomaintain better plant water status. This e†ect was morepronounced as the drying cycle progressed becauseextensive rooting of the crop helped to maintain morefavourable plant water status even if available water in

156 A L Rathore, A R Pal, K K Sahu

Fig 7. Rooting pattern of chickpea and mustard in relation to tillage and mulching during 1990È91 and 1992È93.

the soil was reduced (Gajri and Prihar 1985). Thecanopy of chickpea in mulched plots was about 1É2È1É8¡C cooler than unmulched plots. In mustard, MTplots were about 1É2È2É7, 0È0É3 and 1É6È3É8¡C coolerthan ZT, ZTIRT and CT plots during the same period.There was a 1É2È3É2¡C cooler canopy temperature inmulched plots than in unmulched plots. In general,chickpea canopy was 0É02È2É1¡C cooler than mustardduring 55È90 DAS, indicating that mustard su†eredmore water stress than chickpea.

Penetration resistance

Penetration resistance was signiÐcantly lower in the MTplot than in the ZT, ZTIRT and CT plots for chickpea

and mustard during both years (Table 3). However, inmustard, soil penetration resistance was lowest in ZTplots. Straw mulching signiÐcantly reduced soil pen-etration resistance as compared to unmulched plots inboth years. In general, soil penetration resistance wasgreater in chickpea plots than in mustard plots. Pen-etration resistance is inversely related to soil moisturecontent (Fig 8). Thus, at a given moisture content, pen-etration resistance and hence impedance to root growthshould be the same in each treatment. However, duringdi†erent days after sampling, lower penetration resist-ance in MT plot than in other plots was due to highermoisture content, as discussed earlier. Thus, the tillagea†ected penetration resistance indirectly by changingthe moisture content in the soil. Gajri et al (1991)

Rainfed mustard and chickpea grown after lowland rice 157

TABLE 2Tillage and mulching e†ects on the canopy and air tem-perature di†erential in chickpea and mustard during 1991È92

T reatmentsa Canopy minus air temperature (¡C)

55 DAS 70 DAS 80 DAS 90 DAS

ChickpeaT illageZT [7É8 [5É9 [5É2 [3É8ZTIRT [7É1 [5É9 [5É4 [4É9MT [8É3 [6É2 [5É7 [5É0CT [5É7 [3É2 [2É9 [0É2

MulchingM1 [7É5 [5É6 [5É2 [3É9M0 [7É0 [5É0 [4É4 [3É1

MustardT illageZT [6É8 [4É0 [2É8 0É0ZTIRT [7É7 [6É2 [5É3 [2É5MT [8É0 [6É3 [5É5 [2É6CT [6É4 [2É5 [1É7 [0É4

MulchingM1 [7É8 [5É1 [3É9 [3É0M0 [6É6 [4É4 [3É7 0É2

LSD (P\0É05)

Tillage 0É5 0É5 0É3 0É2Mulching 0É4 0É3 0É2 0É2Crops 0É6 0É5 0É4 0É4

a M1, mulched ; M0, no mulch.

observed that a 1% increase in gravimetric moisturecontent decreased the cone index by 0É2 MPa in loamsoils.

Soil temperature

Soil temperature was low in the ZT plot compared tothe MT and CT plots (Fig 9). In general, the Ñuctuation

Fig 8. Penetration resistance (MPa) in relation to soil mois-ture content (v/v.%) under di†erent tillage treatments.

Fig 9. Soil temperature in relation to tillage and mulching inchickpea at di†erent time intervals during 1992È93.

in soil temperatures was related to variations inmaximum and minimum air temperatures and incomingsolar radiation. The CT plots had bigger clods than MTplots ; owing to this, more air currents may penetrateinto large cavities among the clods and increase vapouroutÑow and temperature, as also reported by Hillel(1968). Soil temperature in straw-mulched plots was0É8È3É0¡C lower than in unmulched plots duringDecemberÈJanuary, because the mulches a†ected soiltemperature by altering the radiant energy reaching theground (Harrison-Murray and Lal 1979).

Root growth

Root weight was lower in the ZT plot than in theZTIRT, MT and CT plots during the three years (Figs 6and 7). Straw mulch increased 3È5% root weight in

158 A L Rathore, A R Pal, K K Sahu

TABLE 3Penetrometer resistance (MPa) in relation to tillage and mulching at di†erent periods of

crop growtha

T reatmentsa Penetration resistance (MPa)

1991È92 1992È93

Days after sowing Days after sowing

35 55 70 80 35 55 70 80

ChickpeaT illageZT 2É19 2É73 2É94 3É30 2É33 3É31 3É85 4É81ZTIRT 2É15 2É58 2É88 3É14 2É11 3É31 3É85 4É64MT 2É48 2É99 3É22 3É55 2É49 3É45 4É30 5É19CT 2É34 2É90 3É13 3É34 È È È È

MulchingM1 2É06 2É51 2É79 3É12 1É66 2É19 2É48 3É26M0 2É51 3É08 3É30 3É54 2É40 3É62 4É56 5É42

MustardT illageZT 1É84 2É32 2É88 3É37 2É22 3É33 4É01 4É88ZTIRT 2É00 2É65 3É34 3É48 1É96 3É15 3É81 4É75MT 2É08 2É70 3É34 3É67 2É37 3É55 4É17 5É22CT 2É03 2É51 3É03 3É53 È È È È

MulchingM1 1É58 2É38 2É94 3É30 1É62 2É76 3É44 4É54M0 2É39 2É71 3É28 3É72 2É74 3É92 4É56 5É37

LSD (P\ 0É05)

Tillage 0É15 0É19 0É22 0É25 0É16 0É18 0É28 0É35Mulching 0É13 0É17 0É20 0É22 0É14 0É15 0É25 0É30Crops 0É20 0É21 NSb NS NS 0É22 0É30 0É40

a M1, mulched ; M0, no mulch.b Not signiÐcant.

mustard and 13È15% root weight in chickpea. Rootweight index (mg root per square centimetre soil cross-sectional area in rooted proÐle) was 2É7, 2É8, 3É1 and2É9, respectively, in ZT, ZTIRT, MT and CT in mustardand 2É9, 3É1, 3É2 and 3É1 in chickpea during 1991È92.Root weight index in straw mulch and no mulch plotswere 3É2 and 3É0 in mustard and 2É7 and 3É1 in chickpeaduring 1991È92. Similar treatment e†ects were observedin 1990È91 and 1992È93.

In chickpea, root density was maximum in MT at allthe soil layers, followed by CT, ZTIRT and ZT treat-ments. The rooting pattern of mustard was similar tochickpea ; however, below 60 cm soil depth, very fewroots (2%) were found compared to chickpea (5%). Inmustard, most of the roots were found within 30 cm soillayers ; in chickpea, the root density was higher up to60 cm soil layers (Figs 6 and 7). This might be thereason for more extraction of soil water from deeperlayers by chickpea and why it performed better than

mustard under rainfed conditions. Rooting density inupper layers during 1990È91 and 1991È92 was greaterthan during 1992È93, due to the wetter soil proÐlecaused by seasonal rains ; in 1992È93, due to lack ofmoisture in upper layers, roots grew up to deeper layersin a search for water, leading to better root growth inlower layers (Figs 6 and 7). Arora et al (1991) alsoobserved more rooting density of mustard in top 0È30 cm due to seasonal rains. Better availability of soilmoisture in straw mulching reduced evaporation losses(Prihar et al 1968) and increase root density by lateralspread of roots (Chaudhary and Prihar 1978 ; Singh etal 1976).

Crop response

Chickpea and mustard di†ered in their response totillage methods. ZT and MT gave statistically similar

Rainfed mustard and chickpea grown after lowland rice 159

TABLE 4Grain yield of chickpea and mustard in relation to tillage practices and mulchinga

T reatments Grain yield (kg ha~1)

1990È91 1991È92 1992È93 Mean

M0 M1 Mean M0 M1 Mean M0 M1 Mean M0 M1 Mean

ChickpeaT illageZT 850 NTb 850 1240 1600 1420 940 1170 1055 1010 1385 1198ZTIRT 870 NT 870 1200 1480 1340 NT NT È 1035 1480 1258MT 970 NT 970 1330 1630 1480 1030 1220 1125 1110 1425 1268CT NT NT NT 710 1100 905 770 790 780 740 945 843Mean 897 NT È 1120 1452 È 913 1060 È 1052 1309 È

MustardT illageZT 320 NT 320 660 740 700 710 890 800 563 815 689ZTIRT 360 NT 360 620 700 660 NT NT È 490 700 595MT 270 NT 270 440 490 465 750 940 845 487 715 601CT NT NT NT 370 430 400 510 720 615 440 575 508Mean 317 È 317 523 590 È 667 850 È 495 701 È

LSD (P\ 0É05)

Tillage (T) 50 62 87 90Mulching (M) NT 40 55 77Crop (C) 210 230 218 176Interaction (T ] M) NT 60 NSc NSInteraction (T ] C) NS 80 180 126

a M0, no mulch ; M1, mulched.b Not tried.c Not signiÐcant.

yields of chickpea during 1992È93 ; in 1990È91 and1991È92, MT produced a signiÐcantly higher yield ascompared to ZT and CT (Table 4). Average grain yieldof the three years indicated that MT, ZT and ZTIRTwere statistically similar, but they were signiÐcantlysuperior over CT. A signiÐcantly lower yield in CT wasmainly due to poor plant population and subsequentlypoor growth of plant characteristics like plant heightand number of pods per plant (Table 5). Mustard yieldwas signiÐcantly reduced with increased tillage oper-ations from MT to CT compared to ZT. Mustard seedcould not tolerate rough seedbed or deep soil cover andrequires moisture at the soil surface, which dried due totillage operation. In spite of more winter rains andavailability of proÐle moisture in 1990È91, the cropsgrain yield was poor, owing to poor plant stand (datanot presented). Availability of soil moisture in deeperlayers during later growth stages of crops was more intilled than in untilled plots (Figs 1È3). Soil penetrationresistance was low in deeper layers, because it isinversely related with the moisture status of the soil (Fig8). Low penetration resistance due to better moistureavailability encouraged a greater depth and prolifer-

ation of rooting and, consequently, a greater accumula-tion of above-ground dry matter. Deeper and denserrooting helped the crop to extract more water from thesoil (Chancy and Kamprath 1982 ; Arora et al 1991) andprovided an interim relief against the development ofwater stress. The increased dry matter during earlyvegetative growth resulted in a greater demand forwater and nutrients. The improved synchronisation insupply and demand for water was responsible for theirincreased use and, consequently, the higher yields andwater use efficiency (Table 6).

REFERENCES

Agrawal R P, Sharma S K, Mundra M C 1989 Physicalaspects of soil management in paddy-wheat croppingsystem in Haryana. In : Agrophysics Monograph No 1.Indian Society of Agrophysics, Indian AgriculturalResearch Institute, New Delhi, India, pp 31È36.

Arora V K, Gajri P R, Prihar S S 1991 Tillage e†ects on cornin sandy soils in relation to water retentivity, nutrient andwater management and season evaporativity. Soil T illageRes 21 1È21.

160 A L Rathore, A R Pal, K K Sahu

TABLE 5Yield components of chickpea and mustard in relation to tillage and mulching

T reatmentsa Plant height Number of Number of Straw yield(cm) plants per square metre pods per plant (t ha~1)

1991È92 1992È93 1991È92 1992È93 1991È92 1992È93 1991È92 1992È93

ChickpeaT illageZT 60É9 49É3 44É7 35É8 47É7 57É1 1É72 1É29ZTIRT 59É2 È 41É3 È 46É0 È 1É60 ÈMT 61É5 52É8 40É7 34É6 49É8 59É8 1É95 1É24CT 53É6 50É8 33É8 31É8 41É2 43É0 1É06 1É27LSD (P\ 0É05) 2É5 1É7 9É0 1É3 5É4 9É2 0É11 0É13

MulchingM0 57É6 49É5 38É5 30É2 42É3 54É5 1É47 1É06M1 59É9 52É4 41É8 33É7 49É1 63É4 1É79 1É48LSD (P\ 0É05) 1É8 1É4 6É4 1É1 3É8 7É5 0É10 0É11

MustardT illageZT 141É8 176É6 51É4 47É9 224É6 488É2 1É99 2É28ZTIRT 140É7 È 49É5 È 223É5 È 1É63 ÈMT 141É0 173É0 48É0 49É0 217É2 483É8 1É33 2É31CT 134É2 172É6 47É2 41É8 213É5 462É8 1É10 1É82LSD (P\ 0É05) 2É5 1É7 9É0 1É3 5É4 9É2 0É12 0É13

MulchingM0 137É2 171É1 47É3 44É8 199É0 460É1 1É44 1É94M1 141É7 177É0 50É3 47É7 208É7 483É1 1É58 2É40LSD (P\ 0É05) 1É8 1É4 6É4 1É1 3É8 7É5 0É10 0É11

a M0, no mulch ; M1, mulched.

Chancy H F, Kamprath E J 1982 E†ects of deep tillage on soilcoastal plain soil. Agron J 74 657È662.

Chaudhary M R, Prihar S S 1978 Rooting development andgrowth response of corn following mulching, cultivation orinter-row compaction. Agron J 66 350È355.

Gajri P R, Prihar S S 1985 Rooting water use and yield rela-tions in wheat in loamy sand and sandy loam soils. FieldCrops Res 12 115È132.

Gajri P R, Prihar S S, Cheema H S, Kapoor A 1991 Irrigationand tillage e†ects on root development water use, and yieldof wheat in coarse textured soils. Irrig Sci 12 161È168.

Gupta R P, Woodhead T 1989 Tillage for seedzone and root-zones for non-rice crops grown before or after rainfedlowland rice. In : Agrophysics Monograph No 1. IndianSociety of Agrophysics, Indian Agricultural Research Insti-tute, New Delhi, India, pp 113È129.

Harrison-Murray R S, Lal R 1979 High soil temperature andthe response of maize to mulching in the lowland humidtropics. Indian Society of Agrophysics, Indian AgriculturalResearch Institute, New Delhi, India, pp 285È304.

Hillel D 1968 Evaporation from bare-surface soils. In : Appli-cation of Soil Physics. Academic Press, New York, USA, pp139È141.

Khan S A, Roy A S, Chatterjee B N 1981 Note on growingwinter maize under minimum tillage after transplanted rice.Indian J Agric Sci 51 54È55.

Pal A R, Rathore A L, Pandey V K 1993 Rainwater storagesystems for improving riceland productivity : opportunitiesand challenges for eastern India. A paper presented at the

International Workshop on Prospects and Limitations ofOn-Farm Rainwater Storage and Conservation for Improv-ing Productivity of Rainfed Ricelands, Semarang, CentralJava, Indonesia, 8È10 February 1993.

Pal A R, Baghel S S, Rathore A L, Sahu R K 1994 Resourcemanagement for rainfed rice and rice-based croppingsystems. A paper presented at the 29th All India AnnualRice Group Meetings, Indira Gandhi Agricultural Uni-versity, Raipur (MP), India, 20È22 March 1994.

Prihar S S, Behajan Singh, Sandhu B S 1968 InÑuence of soiland deviate environments on evaporating from mulchedand unmulched plots. J Res (Punjab Agril Univ Ludhiana)5 320È328.

Sharma R A, Verma G P, Gupta R K, Katre R K 1982 Mois-ture depletion pattern and use by unirrigated wheat andsafflower grown on Vertisol as inÑuenced by cultural prac-tices. J Agron Crop Sci 15 267È274.

Sheldrake R, Saxena N P 1979 Growth and development ofchickpeas under progressive moisture stress. In : StressPhysiology in Crop Plants, ed Mussell H & Staples R C.Wiley, New York, USA, pp 465È483.

Singh C, Singh N T, Chaudhary M R 1976 E†ects of mulchindeed hydrothermal regimes on root growth in the case ofmaize. Indian J Ecol 3 141È148.

Syarifuddin A K 1979 Establishment and performance ofrainfed maize (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max L) inthe dry season after the puddled Ñooded rice. PhD thesis,University of Philippines at Los Banos, Philippines.

Rainfed mustard and chickpea grown after lowland rice 161

TABLE 6Seasonal water use and water use efficiency of chickpea and mustard in relation to tillage practices and mulching

T reatmentsa Seasonal water use (cm) W ater use efÐciency (kg ha~1 cm~1)

1990È91 1991È92 1992È93 Mean 1990È91 1991È92 1992È93 Mean

ChickpeaT illageZT 17É4 17É5 18É8 17É9 43É1 81É3 56É2 62É1ZTIRT 15É2 16É4 NTb 15É8 63É9 81É6 NT 69É4MT 14É5 18É8 18É3 17É2 60É1 78É6 62É1 69É2CT NT 18É5 18É4 18É5 NT 48É6 42É6 45É6

MulchingM0 15É7 18É5 19É1 18É8 55É7 64É4 47É8 56É4M1 NT 17É2 17É9 17É6 NT 80É6 59É4 70É0

MustardT illageZT 13É6 18É7 19É2 17É2 23É6 37É9 41É7 34É4ZTIRT 14É6 17É5 NT 16É1 24É6 38É1 NT 31É4MT 13É4 20É6 18É6 17É5 20É2 22É7 45É8 29É6CT NT 22É2 17É5 17É9 NT 18É2 35É9 27É1

MulchingM0 13É9 20É9 19É2 18É8 22É8 25É7 34É1 29É9M1 NT 18É6 17É6 17É6 NT 32É8 48É2 40É5

LSD (P\ 0É05)

Tillage 1É2 1É5 1É7 1É4 2É7 3É4 3É1 3É8Mulching NT 1É1 1É2 1É1 NT 2É9 2É6 2É7Crops 1É4 1É7 1É8 NSc 2É8 3É6 3É4 3É9

a M0, no mulch ; M1, mulched.b Not tried.c Not signiÐcant.