Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 12 No. sp4 (2025): Recent Advances in Agriculture by Young Minds - III

Physicochemical transformations of soil under different rice establishment methods and residue management practices in rice-rice system

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.10362
Submitted
30 June 2025
Published
27-11-2025

Abstract

Mechanized harvesting often leads to residue burning due to narrow sowing windows, which harms both soil health and air quality. While alternatives exist, their impact under different rice establishment methods is not well understood. The experiment followed a split-plot design with four rice establishment methods and three replications. The establishment methods were M1: Wet Direct Seeded Rice (WDSR), M2: Modified System of Rice Intensification (MSRI), M3: mechanical transplanting and M4: manual line transplanting in main plots and the residue management practices were S1: straw removal, S2: open burning, S3: in-situ incorporation, S4: rice straw biochar application and S5: FYM application @ 5 t ha-1 in subplots. Cv. Swarna and Improved Lalat were used in Kharif and Rabi, respectively. A fertilizer dose of 80:40:40 kg ha-1 for Kharif and 60:30:30 kg ha-1 for Rabi rice was applied based on STBFR for medium N and low P and K soils. In MSRI, 50 % of N came from FYM (0.54 % N). Biochar addition improved bulk density, infiltration rate and water holding capacity. The MSRI method was very effective in improving the pH, EC, SOC and micronutrient status of the soil. Manual line planting was effective in maintaining the macronutrient (N, P and K) status of the soil. Straw incorporation was very effective in maintaining the overall soil health, including SOC, macronutrients and micronutrients. For improving the physical and chemical status of soil, modified SRI and FYM were the best practices.

References

  1. 1. Fukagawa NK, Ziska LH. Rice: Importance for global nutrition. J Nutr Sci Vitaminol. 2019;65:S2-S3. https://doi.org/10.3177/jnsv.65.S2
  2. 2. Tripathy SK, Dash M, Behera SK, Ithape DM, Maharana M. Nutrient rich quality rice-a journey to healthy life. Adv Plants Agric Res. 2017;7(5):364-7. https://doi.org/10.15406/apar.2017.07.00268
  3. 3. Van Dijk M, Morley T, Rau ML, Saghai Y. A meta-analysis of projected global food demand and population at risk of hunger for the period 2010-2050. Nat Food. 2021;2:494-501. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00322-9
  4. 4. Ashworth A, Brye KR. Residue burning in field crops. University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture. https://arkansascrops.uada.edu
  5. 5. Yue Q, Sun J, Hillier J, Sheng J, Guo Z, Zhu P, et al. Green manure rotation and application increase rice yield and soil carbon in the Yangtze River valley of China. Pedosphere. 2023;33:1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedsph.2022.11.009
  6. 6. Muhammad IA, Sukalpaa C, Gaurav S. Stubble burning: Effects on health and environment, regulations and management practices. Environ Adv. 2016;2:100011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envadv.2020.100011
  7. 7. Dwibedi SK, Mohanty MK, Pandey VC, Divyashree D. Sustainable biowaste management in cereal systems: A review. In: Wrigley C, Corke H, Seetharaman K, Faubion J, editors. Cereal grains: Volume 2. London: IntechOpen; 2021. p. 1-15
  8. 8. Chen S. Drainage of paddy soils and its significance. Acta Pedol Sin. 2007;20(3):214-24.
  9. 9. De Datta SK. Technology development and the spread of direct seeded flooded rice in Southeast Asia. Exp Agric. 1986;22:417-26. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479700014666
  10. 10. Kumar V, Ladha JK. Direct seeding of rice: Recent developments and future research needs. Adv Agron. 2011;111:297-413. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387689-8.00001-1
  11. 11. Kaur J, Singh A. Direct seeded rice: Prospects, problems/constraints and researchable issues in India. Curr Agric Res J. 2017;5:13-32. https://doi.org/10.12944/CARJ.5.1.03
  12. 12. Aziz MB, Hasan R. Evaluation of system of rice intensification (SRI) in Bangladesh. Locally Intensified Farming Enterprises Project, CARE, Bangladesh; 2000. p. 4-9
  13. 13. Nissanka SP, Bandara T. Comparison of productivity of system of rice intensification and conventional rice farming systems in the dry-zone region of Sri Lanka. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Crop Science Congress; 2004 Sep 26-Oct 1; Brisbane, Australia. Ithaca (NY): Cornell International Institute for Food, Agriculture and Development; 2004.
  14. 14. Carter MR, Gregorich EG, editors. Soil sampling and methods of analysis. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2007. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420005271
  15. 15. Black CA. Methods of soil analysis: Part 1, Physical and mineralogical properties. Madison: American Society of Agronomy; 1965. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronmonogr9.1
  16. 16. Jackson ML. Soil chemical analysis. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd.; 1973.
  17. 17. Jackson ML. Soil chemical analysis. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd.; 1967. p. 205
  18. 18. Subbiah BV, Asija GL. A rapid procedure for the estimation of available nitrogen in soils. Curr Sci. 1956;25:259-60.
  19. 19. Lindsay WL, Norvell WA. Development of a DTPA soil test for zinc, iron, manganese and copper. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 1978;42:421-8. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1978.03615995004200030009x
  20. 20. Gaines TP, Mitchell GA. Boron determination in plant tissue by the azomethine H method. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal. 1979;10:1099-1108. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103627909366965
  21. 21. Cochran WG, Cox GM. Experimental designs. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 1957
  22. 22. Gomez KA, Gomez AA. Statistical procedures for agricultural research. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 1984
  23. 23. Xu JM, Tang C, Chen ZL. The role of plant residues in pH changes of acid soils: A review. J Soils Sediments. 2006;6(4):200-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2005.06.022
  24. 24. Tang C, Yu Q. Impact of chemical composition of legume residues and initial soil pH on pH change of a soil after residue incorporation. Plant Soil. 1999;215:29-38. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004704018912
  25. 25. Uphoff N, Anugrah IS. Biological approaches to sustainable soil systems: The system of rice intensification (SRI). In: Uphoff N, editor. Biological approaches to sustainable soil systems. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2006. p. 297-312
  26. 26. Singh M, Kumar P, Kumar V, Solanki IS, McDonald AJ, Kumar A, et al. Intercomparison of crop establishment methods for improving yield and profitability in the rice-wheat system of Eastern India. Field Crops Res. 2020;250:107776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2020.107776
  27. 27. Lehmann J, Rillig MC, Thies J, Masiello CA, Hockaday WC, Crowley D. Biochar effects on soil biota-a review. Soil Biol Biochem. 2011;43(9):1812-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.04.022
  28. 28. Mandal KG, Misra AK, Hati KM, Bandyopadhyay KK, Ghosh PK, Mohanty M. Rice residue-management options and effects on soil properties and crop productivity. J Food Agric Environ. 2004;2(1):224-31.
  29. 29. Jilani J, Akram A, Ali RM, Hafiz AY. Enhancing crop growth, nutrients availability, economics and beneficial rhizosphere microflora through organic and biofertilizers. Ann Microbiol. 2007;57(2):177-84. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03175204
  30. 30. Zhao M, Wu LH, Li YS, Animesh S, Zhu DF, Uphoff N. Comparisons of yield, water-use efficiency and soil microbial biomass as affected by the system of rice intensification. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal. 2010;41:1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103620903360247

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.