Search

Initial evaluations of the System of Rice Intensification in India and elsewhere focused mainly on its impacts on yield and income, and usually covered just one or two seasons. Researchers at the ICAR-Indian Institute of Rice Research have conducted a more comprehensive evaluation of SRI methods over six years (six wet and six dry seasons), comparing them with three alternatives: modified, partially mechanized SRI (MSRI) to reduce labor requirements; direct-seeded rice (DSR) as an alternative method for growing rice; and conventional transplanting of rice with flooding of fields (CTF). Grain yield with SRI methods was found to be about 50% higher than with CTF (6.35 t ha−1 vs. 4.27 t ha−1), while the MSRI yield was essentially the same (6.34 t ha−1), 16% more than with DSR (5.45 t ha−1). Water productivity with SRI methods was 5.32–6.85 kg ha-mm−1, followed by 4.14–5.72 kg ha-mm−1 for MSRI, 5.06–5.11 kg ha-mm−1 for DSR, and 3.52–4.56 kg ha-mm−1 for CTF. In comparison with CTF, SRI methods significantly enhanced soil microbial populations over time: bacteria by 12%, fungi by 8%, and actinomycetes by 20%. Biological activity in the rhizosphere was also higher as indicated by 8.5% greater dehydrogenase and 16% more FDA enzymes in soil under SRI management. Similarly, an indicator of soil organic matter, glucosidase activity, was 78% higher compared to CTF. SRI enhanced the relative abundance of beneficial microbial-feeding nematodes by 7.5% compared to CTF, while that of plant-pathogenic nematodes was 7.5% lower under SRI. Relative to conventional methods, SRI management reduced GHG emissions by 21%, while DSR reduced them by 23%, and MSRI by 13%, compared to standard rice-growing practice. Economic analysis showed both gross and net economic returns to be higher with SRI than with the other management systems evaluated. While the six-year study documented many advantages of SRI crop management, it also showed that MSRI is a promising adaptation that provides similar benefits but with lower labor requirements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Integrated management of rice–maize systems is an emerging challenge in southern India due to improper rice residues and tillage management in maize crops. Conservation agriculture (CA) practices such as a reduced tillage and maintaining stubble mulch may hold the potential to increase yields, reduce crop establishment costs and increase farm incomes. A five-year trial was performed to study the effect of different CA and establishment methods in rice on system productivity, profitability, and soil carbon status in a rice–maize system. In the rainy season, the trial consisted of two main treatments: (i) normal manual transplanting and (ii) direct-wet seeding, and three sub-main treatments at different sowing dates with fifteen day intervals. In addition, in the winter season, two tillage treatments (conventional and minimum tillage) were imposed over the rainy season treatments. Both rice and maize were grown under irrigated conditions. The results showed that sowing times at 15 day intervals did not impact the yield significantly. Transplanted rice obtained a significantly higher grain yield during the first four years, but in the last year, the yield was similar in both of the establishment methods. In the winter season, conventional tilled maize recorded a higher cob yield than under the minimum tilled treatment, except for the last year, where both the tillage treatment effects were the same. System productivity of CA-based minimum tilled rice–maize was inferior during the first three years but was superior to the conventionally tilled method in the fourth and fifth year. Pooled analysis revealed that the conventionally tilled rice–maize system resulted in a similar system productivity as that of the CA during the study period. The cost–benefit analysis revealed that transplanted rice and conventionally tilled maize fetched higher net returns of INR 111,074 and INR 101,658/ha, respectively, over the direct-wet seeded rice and CA. In addition, the 15 July rice sown followed by the maize system led to an increase in irrigation water productivity by 15.7%, and the total water (irrigation + rainfall) productivity by 27.1% in the maize crop compared with the 30 July sown system. The CA-based rice–maize system resulted in a significantly higher very labile (0.194%) and labile (0.196%) carbon concentration at a 0–5 cm depth of soil compared to those under the conventional system. Thus, CA can be recommended for southern India and similar agro-ecological tropic and sub-tropic conditions. This system can be followed with appropriate location-specific modification in South-Asian countries, where crop yields and soil health are declining as a result of continuous cereal–cereal crop rotation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]