Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive

Full Research Article

Residual impact of Zero Tillage and Conventional Tillage on the Productivity of Field Pea Variety Aman (IPF 5-19) and Prakash (IPFD 1-10) under Rice Fallow System

T
Tabitha Donbiaksiam1,*
0009-0005-8558-4256
N
Nongmaithem Jyotsna2
0009-0001-0040-2304
S
S. Zeshmarani3
0009-0003-2422-3954
L
Longjam Boris Singh4
0000-0001-6735-4151
R
R.S. Telem2
0009-0000-5104-7050
C
Chinmoy Deori5
0009-0003-9462-397X
J
Jack Ningthoujam6
0009-0004-4327-1131
L
Lunjapimon Haokip7
0009-0002-2856-1689
1FEEDS Group of Institutions, College of Agricultural Sciences, Hengbung-795 106, Manipur, India.
2Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Senapati-795 106, Manipur, India.
3College of Veterinary Sciences and Animal Husbandry, Jalukie-797110, Nagaland, India.
4Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Thoubal-795 138, Manipur, India.
5Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Shribumi, Karimganj-785 013, Assam, India.
6Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Institute of Agriculture Science, Utlou, Bishnupur-795 134, Manipur, India.
7Research scholar, CSK Himachal Pradesh Agriculture University, Palampur-176 062, Himachal Pradesh, India.

  • Submitted22-09-2025|

  • Accepted03-11-2025|

  • First Online 14-11-2025|

  • doi 10.18805/LR-5577

ABSTRACT

Background: This study evaluates the benefit of zero tillage over conventional tillage for cultivating field pea (Pisum sativum L.) varieties in rice fallow system (RFS) during winter season of 2023 at Hengbung, Manipur. The study is conducted to compare the productivity of the two varieties V1-Aman (IPF 5-19), V2-Prakash (IPFD 1-10) with tillage practices, W1-zero tillage and W2-conventional tillage. Soil analysis after harvest is recorded for studying the residual effect.

Methods: The experimental design adopted is split plot design where the field pea variety, V1 and V2 is assigned in subplots and the tillage practices, W1 and W2 is assigned in the mainplots. The study involves four treatments (T) which are T1@V1W1, T2@V1W2, T3@ V2W1 and T4@ V2W2 in 1hectare experimental farm at FGI, Hengbung in RFS replicated five times. The data for agronomic parameters were recorded and Soil chemical analysis for nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) were recorded to study the residual effect.

Result: The recorded agronomic parameters and their residual effect on soil nutrient indicates that zero tillage demonstrated better performance over conventional tillage with both the varieties. There is significant difference between the two varieties and also the nutrient released in soil after harvest where V1 shows better performance in yield and nutrient release over V2 and within the same varieties the treatment T1 and T3 shows better performance. The overall findings suggest that zero tillage significantly enhances the crop output of field pea cultivation in RFS.

INTRODUCTION

Field pea (Pisum sativum L.) of the family Leguminosae is a cultivated crop that are grown widely covering an area of 0.64 million hectares and an average yield of 1400 kilogram per hectare (kg/ha) in India (IIPR, 2020-21).  It is one of the main source of protein, carbohydrate, fat, vitamins, minerals and amino acids (Dahl et al., 2012., Bhat et al., 2013). The selection of better performing field pea varieties is important to opt for better cultivation (Singh et al., 2018). Breeding of field pea is done in great extend for better varieties (Parihar et al., 2022). Zero-tillage are tillage practices where there is no disturbance in the soil and involves only sowing operations (Baeumer and Bahermans, 1975). The zero tillage system adopted within an area of 1 ha land showed more sustainable approach and reduced the challenges faced in agronomic management and is easily adopted by farmers (Malik et al., 2011., Jat et al., 2012., Bhatt, 2017). The adoption of zero tillage contributes to improvement of overall soil properties but results in increased bulk density which disturbs the soil aggregations.  Soil loss can be managed and reduced with minimum tillage therefore lesser manipulation on the soil will improves soil physical properties for field pea cultivation in rice fallow lands (Bhatt and Khera, 2006). It results in soil degradation and also effect environment as compared to Conservation tillage (Haque et al., 2022). RFS improves productivity and sustain soil fertility when organic and inorganic nutrient source are utilized (Haque et al., 2019., Garnaik et al., 2024). The planting of rabi crop in rice fallow lands in north east had shown lower emission of greenhouse gas which results in the suitability of RFS (Yadav et al., 2017., Mohapatra et al., 2022). Study have found that there is an increment in productivity of crop and the economic benefit from crop intensification with field pea in RFS (Malik et al., 2017; Ruis et al., 2023). Residual effect of field pea is mainly the huge source of N, as they are fast growing and have the ability to enriched nitrogen in soil and is also utilized as green manures and crops for soil nutrient enrichment (Ahlawat et al., 1998., Devi et al., 2024). It also releases P (Singh et al., 2012) and K (Saha et al., 2021) in adequate amount and studies on its management is studied for better efficiency in nutrient release. Incorporation of green manure during cultivation increases the residual effect of soil nutrients (Marimuthu et al., 2024). With proper management  of RFS, the soil environment is fertile, healthy and supports the cultivation of next rabi crop after harvest (Choudhary et al., 2023). The study aims at assessing the residual impact of field pea for soil nutrient availability and reveals the importance of selection of a variety for profitable cultivation of field pea in Hengbung in RFS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The experiment was carried out in the month of september where a field trial is superintended during 2023 at FEEDS group of Institution, College of Agricultural Sciences, Hengbung (Fig 1), Manipur, where the soil texture is silty clay with percentage of clay (48.80), silt (40.10) and sand (11.10) respectively. The average temperature is 2oC to 22oC during winter season and located between 31o 30'N latitude to 33o30'E longitude with an altitude of 2011 m above mean sea level (MSL).  The experimental design adopted is split-plot design and replicated five times with four treatments (T) under RFS. The two field pea varieties- V1 and V2 are sown in the field without tillage, W1 and with tillage, W2 where the variety, V1 - Aman (IPF 5-19) and V2 - Prakash (IPFD 1-10) are grown in the subplot and the mainplot consist of tillage method with W1- Zero tillage (without tillage) and W2- Conventional tillage (with tillage). The characteristics of the field pea varieties (V1 and V2) were recorded in Table 1 (Ministry of Agriculture and farmer welfare, 2024). The treatments consist of T1@V1W1, T2@ V1W2, T3@ V2W1 and T4@ V2W2. Each plot size is 5 m x  3 m (15 m2) in an area of one hectare under RFS. No chemical fertilizers were added and FYM is placed @20 tonnes/hectare (t/ha) in the furrows under zero tillage for T1 and T3 whereas FYM is incorporated into the soil during final ploughing under conventional tillage for T2 and T4. Agronomic parameters viz., growth and development at 50% flowering, height of field pea plant (cm), number of pods per field pea, pod length (cm), number of seeds per pod, growth and development at 80% maturity, seed weight per plot (g) and seed yield (kg/ha) were recorded (Table 2). Yield data in tonnes per hectare (t/ha) were assessed to study and record the effect of W1 and W2 on field pea productivity of the two varieties after 130 days after sowing the field pea. The initial soil sample were collected and also after harvest at 15 cm depth for soil nutrient analysis. Alkaline permanganate method is used for determining the available N by Subbiah and Asija, (1956), P by Bray and Kurtz-1 extractants (Bray and Kurtz, 1945) and K is analyzed using neutral ammonium acetate method (Chapman, 1965). Analysis of variance is used in soil nutrient analysis as given by Gomez and Gomez (1984) at 0.05 significance.

Fig 1: Field pea cultivation in Hengbung.



 

Table 1: Field pea variety Aman (IPF 5-19) and Prakash (IPFD 1-10).



Table 2: Performance of field pea varieties with different tillage methods.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Agronomic parameters of the two field pea variety with different tillage practices
 
Among the treatments, T3@ V2W1 (Prakash with zero tillage) takes least days (65) to reach 50% flowering and maximum days (129) to reach 80% maturity whereas T2@ V1W2 (Aman with conventional tillage) takes longest day (71) for 50% flowering and shortest days (122) to reach 80% maturity showing Prakash (V2) shows early flowering but longer duration to mature (Table 3). The maximum field pea crop height was recorded in T1@ V1W1 (130.11) and lowest in T4@ V2W2 (88.83). The treatment T1@V1W1 shows maximum outcome in pod length (5.58 cm), number of pods per plant (15.38), number of seeds per pod (6.44), seed weight per plot (566 g) and seed yield per hectare (1597 kg/ha) and the observed record indicates that field pea variety Aman (V1) is more suitable and efficient than Prakash (V2) in Hengbung region (Table 3). Similar results are obtained from previous findings by kumar et al., (2013), Das et al., (2014), Dixit et al., (2014), Praharaj (2015) and Singh et al., (2018). The yield of the field pea V1 and V2 is higher in zero tillage system and similar findings is reported by Brandt,1989, Mahli and Nyborg, (1990); McAndrew et al., 1994., Das et al., 2019.

Table 3: Release of soil nutrient NPK in the soil initial and final readings after harvest at 130 days.


 
Residual management of soil nutrient of field pea Aman (IPF-5-19) and Prakash (IPFD 1-10)
 
In Table 3, the data on nitrogen mineralization of field pea variety V1 and V2 with tillage method W1 and W2 showed that T1@V1W1 (162.65 kg/ha) showed release in higher amount of N, similar rfindings were observed and reported by Zhou et al., (2020) and Hariniharishma et al., (2025) and lowest is observed in T4@ V2W2 (150.52 kg/ha). The data for available P for field pea varieties V1 and V2 is given in Table 3. T1@ (V1W1) resulted in a highest P availability (16.81 kg/ha) among the four treatments. The lowest P availability among all other treatments was recorded in T4@ (V2W2) with Prakash variety (15.0 kg/ha). The highest K availability of 51.2 kg/ha is observed in T1@ (V1W1). Residual P released is more from organic P sources than inorganic sources (Singh et al., 2012). Residual K availability increases the soil microbial activity which further enhance the release of K in the soil (Bargali et al., 2024). Among all the treatments, T4@ (V2W2) resulted in lowest K availability of 35.24 kg/ha. The results clearly indicate that W1 for both field pea varieties in Hengbung consistently outperformed W2 in terms of yield and residual nutrient availability. K is release in adequate with good nutrient management (Saha et al., 2021). The yield increment in zero tillage is due to better moisture conservation and improved soil structure (Bhatt and Khera, 2006, Haque et al., 2022). This enhanced yield directly contributed to higher net income despite the slight increase in gross cost over the years. The overall findings suggest that zero tillage is a beneficial practice for enhancing the profitability of field pea varieties in RFS.
 
Interpretation of the residual impact of the two field pea varieties under different tillage practices
 
The variety, V1@Aman (IPF 5-19) shows higher nutrient release than V2@Prakash (IPFD- 1-10) and within the same variety, treatment under zero tillage showed higher released of soil nutrient N, P, K. Under zero tillage system (W1), which is T1 and T3, the residual N availability of V1 (T1@ 162.65 kg/ha) is higher than V2 (T3@ 161.48) by 0.7% (Fig 2, Table 3), P availability by 50.5% (Fig 3) from T3@ 11.17 kg/ha to T1@ 16.81 kg/ha (Table 3) and K availability by 29.9% (Fig 4) from T3@ 39.42 kg/ha to 51.2 kg/ha (Table 3) showing that both V1 and V2 releases N in similar range but V1 releases P and K way more efficient than V2 but the release of P is to a much greater extend that zero tillage proves to release P efficiently with V1. Under conventional tillage system (W2) which is T2 and T4, the residual N in the soil is higher in V1 than V2 by 1.1% (T2@ 152.11 kg/ha, T4@ 150.52 kg/ha) which shows both variety releases N with minor difference and both field pea variety is a good source of N released in the soil. V1 releases P and K to higher extend to V2 by 45.5% (T2@ 15.27 kg/ha, T4@ 10.49 kg/ha) and 42.1% (T2@ 50.08 kg/ha, T4@ 35.24 kg/ha) showing that under conventional tillage practices, the release of both P and K is in similar range. Within the same variety, from Table 3, both variety showed better release of nutrients in zero tillage. The N, P, K released for Aman (IPF 5-19) under T1@V1W1 (162.65 kg/ha) is higher than T2@V1W2 (152.11 kg/ha) by 6.9%, 10.1% (T1@ 16.81 kg/ha, T2@ 15.27 kg/ha) and 2.2% (T1@ 51.2 kg/ha, T2@ 50.08 kg/ha) and for Prakash (IPFD 1-10) N released under T3@V2W1 (161.48 kg/ha) is higher than T4@V2W2 (150.52 kg/ha) by 7.3%, , P released by 6.5% (T3@ 11.17 kg/ha, T4@ 10.49 kg/ha) and K released by 11.9% (T3@ 39.42 kg/ha, T4@ 35.24 kg/ha). The recorded data from the present study shows that both variety releases N with similar efficiency whereas V1 resulted in higher P release and V2 resulted in higher K release in the soil after harvest.

Fig 2: Residual N of the two varieties under tillage and no tillage condition.



​

Fig 3: Residual P of the two varieties under tillage and no tillage condition.



​

Fig 4: Residual K of the two varieties under tillage and no tillage condition.


 
Economic analysis of field pea variety under zero and conventional tillage system
 
As per the data in Table 4, the variety Aman (IPF 5-19) showed an increase in yield by 5% from 1.56 t/ha under conventional tillage (T2) to 1.61 t/ha under zero tillage system (T1). The gross cost is more in T2 with total expenditure of Rs.48819.43/- and Rs.46823.95/- in T1. The net income for T1@ Rs.32953.24/-) is higher than T2@Rs.16600.57/- by 49.62%. The variety Prakash (IPFD 1-10) is recorded with an increase in yield by 9% from 1.22 t/ha under conventional tillage (T4) to 1.31 t/ha under zero tillage system (T3). The gross cost is more in T4@ Rs.47500/-  and lesser in T3@Rs.43256/-. The net income for T3@ Rs.32060/- is higher than T4@ Rs.15321/- by 52.21%. The profit benefits the farmer by improving the economic stability and farmer’s income (Nandan et al., 2018., Kumar et al., 2020., Kumar et al., 2025).

​

Table 4: Economic analysis of field pea varieties under zero and conventional tillage system.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the significant benefits of adopting zero tillage practices for field pea cultivation under rice fallow system in Hengbung. Treatment under zero tillage showed better result as compared to T2 and T4 with conventional tillage within the same variety. The field pea variety V1 (Aman) is more productive and gives higher yield than V2 (Prakash) therefore for Hengbung region with soil having acidic characteristic, clay loam texture with higher organic carbon availability, Aman (IPF 5-19) is most suitable. This study suggested selection of better performing varieties like Aman (IPF 5-19) over Prakash (IPFD 1-10) in rice-fallow regions and adopting minimum tillage could lead to enhanced productivity, economic stability and maintenance of sustainability of agriculture in the region. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors did not receive any financial funding from an external body but is totally grateful to the authorities of FEEDS Group of Institution, Hengbung for providing the raw materials, technical assistance and facilities for the successful completion of the research.
 
Disclaimer
 
The experiment, views and results conveyed and shown in this article is an original work. The authors take full responsibility for the accuracy of the information provided, but will not be held responsible for losses that may result from the utilization of this work.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest for the publication of this article and preparation of the manuscript.

REFERENCES


  1. Ahlawat, I.P.S., Ali, M., Yadav, R.L., Rao, J.D.V.K., Rego, T.J. and Singh, R.P. (1998). Biological nitrogen fixation and residual effects of summer and rainy season grain legumes in rice and wheat cropping systems of the Indo-Gangetic Plain. Residual Effects of Legumes in Rice and Wheat Cropping Systems of the Indo-Gangetic Plain ICRISAT, Inter. Crops Res. Inst. for the Semi-Arid Tropics. Patancheru.   [Kumar Rao, JVDK, Johansen, C. and Rego, TJ (eds).]. 502(324): 31-54.

  2. Baeumer, K. and Bakermans, W.A.P. (1975). Zero-tillage. Advances in agronomy. 25: 77-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113 (08)60779-8.

  3. Bargali, S.S. (2024). Soil microbial biomass: A crucial indicator of soil health. Current Agriculture Research Journal. 12(1).

  4. Bhat, T.A., Gupta, M., Ganai, M.A., Ahangar, R.A., Bhat, H.A (2013). Yield, soil health and nutrient utilization of field pea (Pisum sativum L.) as affected by phosphorus and biofertilizers under sub- tropical conditions of Jammu. International Journal of Modern Plant and Animal Sciences. 1(1): 1-8.

  5. Bhatt, R. (2017). Zero tillage impacts on soil environment and properties. Journal of Environmental and Agricultural Sciences. 10: 01-19.

  6. Bhatt, R. and Khera, K.L. (2006). Effect of tillage and mode of straw mulch application on soil erosion in the submontaneous tract of Punjab, India. Soil and Tillage Research. 88(1-2): 107-115.

  7. Brandt, S.A. (1989). Zero-Till Vs Conventional Tillage With Two Rotations: Crop Production Over The Last 10 Years. In Soils and Crops Workshop.

  8. Bray, R.H. and Kurtz, L.T. (1945) Determination of total organic and available forms of phosphorus in soils. Soil Science. 59: 39-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00010694-194501000- 00006.

  9. Chapman, D.D. (1965). Total Exchangeable Bases. pp. 902-904. In C.A. Black (ed), Methods Of Soil Analysis, Part 2., Agronomy No. 9. American Society Of Agronomy.

  10. Choudhary, A.K., Kumar, R. and Kumar, S. (Eds.). (2023). Rice Fallow Management In India. International Books and Periodicals Supply Service.

  11. Dahl, W.J., Foster, L.M., Tyler, R.T (2012). Review of the health benefits of peas (Pisum sativum L). British Journal of Nutrition. 108: S3-S10. 

  12. Das, A., Ramkrushna, G.I., Ngachan, S.V. and Munda, G.C. (2014). Resource conservation Technologies in pulse based cropping systemin NEH region. In: Resource conservation Technology in Pulses (Edit. Ghosh, P. K.,Kumar, N., Venkatesh, M.S., Hazra, K.K. and Nadarajan, N.), published by Scientific publisher, India pp. 43-57.

  13. Das, A., Basavaraj, S., Layek, J., Gandhiji Idapuganti, R., Lal, R., Rangappa, K., Ngachan, S. (2019). Can conservation tillage and residue management enhance energy use efficiency and sustainability of rice-pea system in the Eastern Himalayas? Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science. 66(6): 830-846. https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2019.1639157.

  14. Devi, K.M., Devi, K.N. and Abonmai, T. (2024). Residual effect of foliar application of nano fertlizers and organic source of nitrogen on the productivity and economics of zero tilled green pea in rice-green pea cropping sequence.  Legume Research-An International Journal. 48(10): 1771-1775. doi: 10.18805/LR-5228.

  15. Dixit, G.P., Parihar, A.K. and Gupta, S. (2014). Perspectives for increasing field pea production in India. In: Handbook on minor andimported pulses of India 2014. Published by International Crop Research Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics, Hyderabad, pp. 90

  16. Garnaik, S., Samant, P.K., Mandal, M., Sethi, D., Wanjari, R.H., Mohanty, T.R., Nayak, H.S. (2024). Long-term assessment of diverse nutrient management strategies in a rice-rice cropping system: Analyzing yield trends, resource use efficiency and economic viability over a sixteen-year period. Journal of Plant Nutrition. 47(6): 905-925. https://doi.org/10. 1080/01904167.2023.2291018.

  17. Gomez, K.A. and Gomez, A.A. (1984) Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. 2nd Edition, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 680 p.

  18. Haque, M.M., Biswas, J.C., Islam, M.R., Islam, A. and Kabir, M.S. (2019). Effect of long-term chemical and organic fertilization on rice productivity, nutrient use-efficiency and balance under a rice-fallow-rice system. Journal of Plant Nutrition.  42(20): 2901-2914. https://doi.org/10.1080/01904167. 2019.1659338.

  19. Haque, M.M., Biswas, J.C., Salahin, N., Alam, M.K., Akhter, S., Akhtar, S. Hossain, M.S. (2022). Tillage systems influence on greenhouse gas emission factor and global warming potential under rice-mustard-rice cropping system. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science. 69(4): 599-614. https:// doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2021.2020758.

  20. Hariniharishma, V.P., Subrahmaniyan, K., Elamathi, S., Arulmozhi, R., Manikandan, K., Devi T.S. and Abarajitha, P. (2025). Residual management of sunnhemp (Crotalaria juncea) varieties in releasing soil nutrients and their impact on succeeding Rice Crop. Legume Research- An International Journal. 1-6. doi: 10.18805/LR-5521.

  21. Jat, R.A., P.S. Wani and K.L. Sahrawat. (2012). Conservation agriculture in the semi-arid tropics: Prospects and problems. Advances in Agronomy. 117: 191- 273.

  22. Kumar B., Kumar A., Singh A.K. and Roopa Lavanya G. (2013). Selection strategy for seed yield and maturity in field pea (Pisum sativum L. arvense). African Journal of Agricultural Research. 8(44): 5411-5415. https://doi.org/10.5897/ AJA R2013.7332.

  23. Kumar, J., Singh, B., Yadav, B.D., Yadav, A., Yadav, K.P. and Tallapragada, S. (2025). Zero-tillage in mung bean-wheat cropping system: Impact on soil properties and crop productivity. Legume Research. 48(9): 1497-1504. doi: 10.18805/LR-5154.

  24. Kumar, R., Mishra, J.S., Rao, K.K., Mondal, S., Hazra, K.K., Choudhary, J.S. and Bhatt, B.P. (2020). Crop rotation and tillage management options for sustainable intensification of rice-fallow agro-ecosystem in eastern India. Scientific  Reports. 10(1): 11146. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598- 020-67973-9.

  25. Malhi, S.S. and Nyborg, M. (1990). Effect of tillage and straw on yield and N uptake of barley grown under different N fertility regimes. Soil and Tillage Research. 17(1-2): 115-124.

  26. Malik, A.I., Nasim, M., Flower, K., Hossain, M.A., Rahman, M.S., Anwar, B. and Erskine, W. (2017). Cropping system intensification: Vegetable pea can replace fallow between rainfed monsoon rice and irrigated spring rice. The Journal of Agricultural Science. 155(8): 1287-1298. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0021859617000351.

  27. Malik, R., Kamboj, B., Jat, M., Sidhu, H., Bana, A., Singh, V., Sharawat, Y., Pundir, A. et al. (2011). Notill and Unpuddled Mechanical Transplanting of Rice. Cereal Systems Initiative for south Asia, New Delhi, India http://repository.cimmyt. org/xmlui/handle/10883/1296 (accessed 17.02.14).

  28. Marimuthu, S., Gunasekaran, M., Raju, M. and Surendran, U. (2024). Green manuring-system of rice intensification-rice fallow pulses cropping system for enhancing the crop productivity and soil health: A sustainable farming solutions. Paddy and Water Environment. 22(4): 629-645. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10333-024-00989-3.

  29. McAndrew, D.W., Fuller, L.G. and Wetter, L.G. (1994). Grain and straw yields of barley under four tillage systems in northeastern Alberta. Canadian Journal Of Plant Science. 74(4): 713-722.

  30. Ministry of Agriculture and farmer welfare (2024). Seed net India Portal, National Initiatives for information on quality seeds. https://seednet.gov.in/https://dpd.gov.in/vi)%20Fieldpea% 20Varieties.pdf.

  31. Mohapatra, B.K., Veettil, P.C., Kumar, A. and Kumar, V. (2022). Rice- fallow management in eastern india: Challenges and opportunities for enhancing system productivity and profitability. Economic Affairs. 67(05): 859-867.

  32. Nandan, R., Singh, S.S., Kumar, V., Singh, V., Hazra, K.K., Nath, C.P. and Solanki, C.H. (2018). Crop establishment with conser- vation tillage and crop residue retention in rice-based cropping systems of Eastern India: Yield advantage and economic benefit. Paddy and Water Environment. 16(3): 477-492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-018-0641-3.

  33. Parihar, A.K., Yadav, R., Lamichaney, A., Mishra, R.K., Chandra, A., Gupta, D.S. and Dixit, G.P. (2022). Field Pea Breeding. In: Fundamentals of Field Crop Breeding. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore. (pp. 1237-1321). https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9257-4_25.

  34. Praharaj C.S. (2015). Annual report on Promotionof pulses in NEH Region (2014-2015), Published by Dr. Singh N.P., Director, ICAR-Indian Institute of Pulse Research, Kanpur, U.P., India, pp. 39

  35. Ruis, S.J., Stepanovic, S. and Blanco-Canqui, H. (2023). Intensifying a crop-fallow system: Impacts on soil properties, crop yields and economics. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems. 38: e42.

  36. Saha, M., Sarkar, A., Bandyopadhyay, P.K., Nandi, R. and Singh, K.C. (2021). Tillage and potassium management for improving yield, physiological and biochemical responses of rainfed lentil under moisture stressed rice-fallow. Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition. 21(1): 637-654.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-020-00389-6.

  37. Singh, G., Bhattacharyya, R., Das, T.K., Sharma, A.R., Ghosh, A., Das, S. and Jha, P. (2018). Crop rotation and residue management effects on soil enzyme activities, glomalin and aggregate stability under zero tillage in the Indo- Gangetic Plains. Soil and Tillage Research. 184: 291- 300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2018.08.006.

  38. Singh, R., Babu, S., Avasthe, R.K., Singh, A., Yadav, G.S., Pashte, V. and Singh, J.K. (2018). Screening of field pea varieties for rice-fallow areas under organic management conditions in NE Himalayas. Annals of Agricultural Science and Research. 39(3): 246-250.

  39. Singh, S.R., Najar, G.R. and Singh, U. (2012). Phosphorus manage- ment in field pea (Pisum sativum)-rice (Oryza sativa) cropping system under temperate conditions. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 82(6): 494.

  40. Subbiah, B.V. and Asija, G.L. (1956) A rapid procedure for the estimation of available nitrogen in soils. Current Science. 25: 259-260.

  41. Yadav, G.S., Lal, R., Meena, R.S., Datta, M., Babu, S., Das, A. and Saha, P. (2017). Energy budgeting for designing sustainable and environmentally clean/safer cropping systems for rainfed rice fallow lands in India. Journal of Cleaner Production. 158: 29-37.

  42. Zhou, G., Gao, S., Lu, Y., Liao, Y., Nie, J. and Cao, W. (2020). Co- incor poration of green manure and rice straw improves rice production, soil chemical, biochemical and microbiological properties in a typical paddy field in southern China. Soil and Tillage Research. 197: 104499.
Published In
Legume Research
Article Metrics
Metrics Icon
0
Views
0
Citations
Reviewed By
Share Article
Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Full Research Article

    Residual impact of Zero Tillage and Conventional Tillage on the Productivity of Field Pea Variety Aman (IPF 5-19) and Prakash (IPFD 1-10) under Rice Fallow System

    T
    Tabitha Donbiaksiam1,*
    0009-0005-8558-4256
    N
    Nongmaithem Jyotsna2
    0009-0001-0040-2304
    S
    S. Zeshmarani3
    0009-0003-2422-3954
    L
    Longjam Boris Singh4
    0000-0001-6735-4151
    R
    R.S. Telem2
    0009-0000-5104-7050
    C
    Chinmoy Deori5
    0009-0003-9462-397X
    J
    Jack Ningthoujam6
    0009-0004-4327-1131
    L
    Lunjapimon Haokip7
    0009-0002-2856-1689
    1FEEDS Group of Institutions, College of Agricultural Sciences, Hengbung-795 106, Manipur, India.
    2Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Senapati-795 106, Manipur, India.
    3College of Veterinary Sciences and Animal Husbandry, Jalukie-797110, Nagaland, India.
    4Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Thoubal-795 138, Manipur, India.
    5Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Shribumi, Karimganj-785 013, Assam, India.
    6Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Institute of Agriculture Science, Utlou, Bishnupur-795 134, Manipur, India.
    7Research scholar, CSK Himachal Pradesh Agriculture University, Palampur-176 062, Himachal Pradesh, India.

    • Submitted22-09-2025|

    • Accepted03-11-2025|

    • First Online 14-11-2025|

    • doi 10.18805/LR-5577

    ABSTRACT

    Background: This study evaluates the benefit of zero tillage over conventional tillage for cultivating field pea (Pisum sativum L.) varieties in rice fallow system (RFS) during winter season of 2023 at Hengbung, Manipur. The study is conducted to compare the productivity of the two varieties V1-Aman (IPF 5-19), V2-Prakash (IPFD 1-10) with tillage practices, W1-zero tillage and W2-conventional tillage. Soil analysis after harvest is recorded for studying the residual effect.

    Methods: The experimental design adopted is split plot design where the field pea variety, V1 and V2 is assigned in subplots and the tillage practices, W1 and W2 is assigned in the mainplots. The study involves four treatments (T) which are T1@V1W1, T2@V1W2, T3@ V2W1 and T4@ V2W2 in 1hectare experimental farm at FGI, Hengbung in RFS replicated five times. The data for agronomic parameters were recorded and Soil chemical analysis for nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) were recorded to study the residual effect.

    Result: The recorded agronomic parameters and their residual effect on soil nutrient indicates that zero tillage demonstrated better performance over conventional tillage with both the varieties. There is significant difference between the two varieties and also the nutrient released in soil after harvest where V1 shows better performance in yield and nutrient release over V2 and within the same varieties the treatment T1 and T3 shows better performance. The overall findings suggest that zero tillage significantly enhances the crop output of field pea cultivation in RFS.

    INTRODUCTION

    Field pea (Pisum sativum L.) of the family Leguminosae is a cultivated crop that are grown widely covering an area of 0.64 million hectares and an average yield of 1400 kilogram per hectare (kg/ha) in India (IIPR, 2020-21).  It is one of the main source of protein, carbohydrate, fat, vitamins, minerals and amino acids (Dahl et al., 2012., Bhat et al., 2013). The selection of better performing field pea varieties is important to opt for better cultivation (Singh et al., 2018). Breeding of field pea is done in great extend for better varieties (Parihar et al., 2022). Zero-tillage are tillage practices where there is no disturbance in the soil and involves only sowing operations (Baeumer and Bahermans, 1975). The zero tillage system adopted within an area of 1 ha land showed more sustainable approach and reduced the challenges faced in agronomic management and is easily adopted by farmers (Malik et al., 2011., Jat et al., 2012., Bhatt, 2017). The adoption of zero tillage contributes to improvement of overall soil properties but results in increased bulk density which disturbs the soil aggregations.  Soil loss can be managed and reduced with minimum tillage therefore lesser manipulation on the soil will improves soil physical properties for field pea cultivation in rice fallow lands (Bhatt and Khera, 2006). It results in soil degradation and also effect environment as compared to Conservation tillage (Haque et al., 2022). RFS improves productivity and sustain soil fertility when organic and inorganic nutrient source are utilized (Haque et al., 2019., Garnaik et al., 2024). The planting of rabi crop in rice fallow lands in north east had shown lower emission of greenhouse gas which results in the suitability of RFS (Yadav et al., 2017., Mohapatra et al., 2022). Study have found that there is an increment in productivity of crop and the economic benefit from crop intensification with field pea in RFS (Malik et al., 2017; Ruis et al., 2023). Residual effect of field pea is mainly the huge source of N, as they are fast growing and have the ability to enriched nitrogen in soil and is also utilized as green manures and crops for soil nutrient enrichment (Ahlawat et al., 1998., Devi et al., 2024). It also releases P (Singh et al., 2012) and K (Saha et al., 2021) in adequate amount and studies on its management is studied for better efficiency in nutrient release. Incorporation of green manure during cultivation increases the residual effect of soil nutrients (Marimuthu et al., 2024). With proper management  of RFS, the soil environment is fertile, healthy and supports the cultivation of next rabi crop after harvest (Choudhary et al., 2023). The study aims at assessing the residual impact of field pea for soil nutrient availability and reveals the importance of selection of a variety for profitable cultivation of field pea in Hengbung in RFS.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS

    The experiment was carried out in the month of september where a field trial is superintended during 2023 at FEEDS group of Institution, College of Agricultural Sciences, Hengbung (Fig 1), Manipur, where the soil texture is silty clay with percentage of clay (48.80), silt (40.10) and sand (11.10) respectively. The average temperature is 2oC to 22oC during winter season and located between 31o 30'N latitude to 33o30'E longitude with an altitude of 2011 m above mean sea level (MSL).  The experimental design adopted is split-plot design and replicated five times with four treatments (T) under RFS. The two field pea varieties- V1 and V2 are sown in the field without tillage, W1 and with tillage, W2 where the variety, V1 - Aman (IPF 5-19) and V2 - Prakash (IPFD 1-10) are grown in the subplot and the mainplot consist of tillage method with W1- Zero tillage (without tillage) and W2- Conventional tillage (with tillage). The characteristics of the field pea varieties (V1 and V2) were recorded in Table 1 (Ministry of Agriculture and farmer welfare, 2024). The treatments consist of T1@V1W1, T2@ V1W2, T3@ V2W1 and T4@ V2W2. Each plot size is 5 m x  3 m (15 m2) in an area of one hectare under RFS. No chemical fertilizers were added and FYM is placed @20 tonnes/hectare (t/ha) in the furrows under zero tillage for T1 and T3 whereas FYM is incorporated into the soil during final ploughing under conventional tillage for T2 and T4. Agronomic parameters viz., growth and development at 50% flowering, height of field pea plant (cm), number of pods per field pea, pod length (cm), number of seeds per pod, growth and development at 80% maturity, seed weight per plot (g) and seed yield (kg/ha) were recorded (Table 2). Yield data in tonnes per hectare (t/ha) were assessed to study and record the effect of W1 and W2 on field pea productivity of the two varieties after 130 days after sowing the field pea. The initial soil sample were collected and also after harvest at 15 cm depth for soil nutrient analysis. Alkaline permanganate method is used for determining the available N by Subbiah and Asija, (1956), P by Bray and Kurtz-1 extractants (Bray and Kurtz, 1945) and K is analyzed using neutral ammonium acetate method (Chapman, 1965). Analysis of variance is used in soil nutrient analysis as given by Gomez and Gomez (1984) at 0.05 significance.

    Fig 1: Field pea cultivation in Hengbung.



     

    Table 1: Field pea variety Aman (IPF 5-19) and Prakash (IPFD 1-10).



    Table 2: Performance of field pea varieties with different tillage methods.

    RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

    Agronomic parameters of the two field pea variety with different tillage practices
     
    Among the treatments, T3@ V2W1 (Prakash with zero tillage) takes least days (65) to reach 50% flowering and maximum days (129) to reach 80% maturity whereas T2@ V1W2 (Aman with conventional tillage) takes longest day (71) for 50% flowering and shortest days (122) to reach 80% maturity showing Prakash (V2) shows early flowering but longer duration to mature (Table 3). The maximum field pea crop height was recorded in T1@ V1W1 (130.11) and lowest in T4@ V2W2 (88.83). The treatment T1@V1W1 shows maximum outcome in pod length (5.58 cm), number of pods per plant (15.38), number of seeds per pod (6.44), seed weight per plot (566 g) and seed yield per hectare (1597 kg/ha) and the observed record indicates that field pea variety Aman (V1) is more suitable and efficient than Prakash (V2) in Hengbung region (Table 3). Similar results are obtained from previous findings by kumar et al., (2013), Das et al., (2014), Dixit et al., (2014), Praharaj (2015) and Singh et al., (2018). The yield of the field pea V1 and V2 is higher in zero tillage system and similar findings is reported by Brandt,1989, Mahli and Nyborg, (1990); McAndrew et al., 1994., Das et al., 2019.

    Table 3: Release of soil nutrient NPK in the soil initial and final readings after harvest at 130 days.


     
    Residual management of soil nutrient of field pea Aman (IPF-5-19) and Prakash (IPFD 1-10)
     
    In Table 3, the data on nitrogen mineralization of field pea variety V1 and V2 with tillage method W1 and W2 showed that T1@V1W1 (162.65 kg/ha) showed release in higher amount of N, similar rfindings were observed and reported by Zhou et al., (2020) and Hariniharishma et al., (2025) and lowest is observed in T4@ V2W2 (150.52 kg/ha). The data for available P for field pea varieties V1 and V2 is given in Table 3. T1@ (V1W1) resulted in a highest P availability (16.81 kg/ha) among the four treatments. The lowest P availability among all other treatments was recorded in T4@ (V2W2) with Prakash variety (15.0 kg/ha). The highest K availability of 51.2 kg/ha is observed in T1@ (V1W1). Residual P released is more from organic P sources than inorganic sources (Singh et al., 2012). Residual K availability increases the soil microbial activity which further enhance the release of K in the soil (Bargali et al., 2024). Among all the treatments, T4@ (V2W2) resulted in lowest K availability of 35.24 kg/ha. The results clearly indicate that W1 for both field pea varieties in Hengbung consistently outperformed W2 in terms of yield and residual nutrient availability. K is release in adequate with good nutrient management (Saha et al., 2021). The yield increment in zero tillage is due to better moisture conservation and improved soil structure (Bhatt and Khera, 2006, Haque et al., 2022). This enhanced yield directly contributed to higher net income despite the slight increase in gross cost over the years. The overall findings suggest that zero tillage is a beneficial practice for enhancing the profitability of field pea varieties in RFS.
     
    Interpretation of the residual impact of the two field pea varieties under different tillage practices
     
    The variety, V1@Aman (IPF 5-19) shows higher nutrient release than V2@Prakash (IPFD- 1-10) and within the same variety, treatment under zero tillage showed higher released of soil nutrient N, P, K. Under zero tillage system (W1), which is T1 and T3, the residual N availability of V1 (T1@ 162.65 kg/ha) is higher than V2 (T3@ 161.48) by 0.7% (Fig 2, Table 3), P availability by 50.5% (Fig 3) from T3@ 11.17 kg/ha to T1@ 16.81 kg/ha (Table 3) and K availability by 29.9% (Fig 4) from T3@ 39.42 kg/ha to 51.2 kg/ha (Table 3) showing that both V1 and V2 releases N in similar range but V1 releases P and K way more efficient than V2 but the release of P is to a much greater extend that zero tillage proves to release P efficiently with V1. Under conventional tillage system (W2) which is T2 and T4, the residual N in the soil is higher in V1 than V2 by 1.1% (T2@ 152.11 kg/ha, T4@ 150.52 kg/ha) which shows both variety releases N with minor difference and both field pea variety is a good source of N released in the soil. V1 releases P and K to higher extend to V2 by 45.5% (T2@ 15.27 kg/ha, T4@ 10.49 kg/ha) and 42.1% (T2@ 50.08 kg/ha, T4@ 35.24 kg/ha) showing that under conventional tillage practices, the release of both P and K is in similar range. Within the same variety, from Table 3, both variety showed better release of nutrients in zero tillage. The N, P, K released for Aman (IPF 5-19) under T1@V1W1 (162.65 kg/ha) is higher than T2@V1W2 (152.11 kg/ha) by 6.9%, 10.1% (T1@ 16.81 kg/ha, T2@ 15.27 kg/ha) and 2.2% (T1@ 51.2 kg/ha, T2@ 50.08 kg/ha) and for Prakash (IPFD 1-10) N released under T3@V2W1 (161.48 kg/ha) is higher than T4@V2W2 (150.52 kg/ha) by 7.3%, , P released by 6.5% (T3@ 11.17 kg/ha, T4@ 10.49 kg/ha) and K released by 11.9% (T3@ 39.42 kg/ha, T4@ 35.24 kg/ha). The recorded data from the present study shows that both variety releases N with similar efficiency whereas V1 resulted in higher P release and V2 resulted in higher K release in the soil after harvest.

    Fig 2: Residual N of the two varieties under tillage and no tillage condition.



    ​

    Fig 3: Residual P of the two varieties under tillage and no tillage condition.



    ​

    Fig 4: Residual K of the two varieties under tillage and no tillage condition.


     
    Economic analysis of field pea variety under zero and conventional tillage system
     
    As per the data in Table 4, the variety Aman (IPF 5-19) showed an increase in yield by 5% from 1.56 t/ha under conventional tillage (T2) to 1.61 t/ha under zero tillage system (T1). The gross cost is more in T2 with total expenditure of Rs.48819.43/- and Rs.46823.95/- in T1. The net income for T1@ Rs.32953.24/-) is higher than T2@Rs.16600.57/- by 49.62%. The variety Prakash (IPFD 1-10) is recorded with an increase in yield by 9% from 1.22 t/ha under conventional tillage (T4) to 1.31 t/ha under zero tillage system (T3). The gross cost is more in T4@ Rs.47500/-  and lesser in T3@Rs.43256/-. The net income for T3@ Rs.32060/- is higher than T4@ Rs.15321/- by 52.21%. The profit benefits the farmer by improving the economic stability and farmer’s income (Nandan et al., 2018., Kumar et al., 2020., Kumar et al., 2025).

    ​

    Table 4: Economic analysis of field pea varieties under zero and conventional tillage system.

    CONCLUSION

    This study highlights the significant benefits of adopting zero tillage practices for field pea cultivation under rice fallow system in Hengbung. Treatment under zero tillage showed better result as compared to T2 and T4 with conventional tillage within the same variety. The field pea variety V1 (Aman) is more productive and gives higher yield than V2 (Prakash) therefore for Hengbung region with soil having acidic characteristic, clay loam texture with higher organic carbon availability, Aman (IPF 5-19) is most suitable. This study suggested selection of better performing varieties like Aman (IPF 5-19) over Prakash (IPFD 1-10) in rice-fallow regions and adopting minimum tillage could lead to enhanced productivity, economic stability and maintenance of sustainability of agriculture in the region. 

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

    The authors did not receive any financial funding from an external body but is totally grateful to the authorities of FEEDS Group of Institution, Hengbung for providing the raw materials, technical assistance and facilities for the successful completion of the research.
     
    Disclaimer
     
    The experiment, views and results conveyed and shown in this article is an original work. The authors take full responsibility for the accuracy of the information provided, but will not be held responsible for losses that may result from the utilization of this work.

    CONFLICT OF INTEREST

    The author declares that there is no conflict of interest for the publication of this article and preparation of the manuscript.

    REFERENCES


    1. Ahlawat, I.P.S., Ali, M., Yadav, R.L., Rao, J.D.V.K., Rego, T.J. and Singh, R.P. (1998). Biological nitrogen fixation and residual effects of summer and rainy season grain legumes in rice and wheat cropping systems of the Indo-Gangetic Plain. Residual Effects of Legumes in Rice and Wheat Cropping Systems of the Indo-Gangetic Plain ICRISAT, Inter. Crops Res. Inst. for the Semi-Arid Tropics. Patancheru.   [Kumar Rao, JVDK, Johansen, C. and Rego, TJ (eds).]. 502(324): 31-54.

    2. Baeumer, K. and Bakermans, W.A.P. (1975). Zero-tillage. Advances in agronomy. 25: 77-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113 (08)60779-8.

    3. Bargali, S.S. (2024). Soil microbial biomass: A crucial indicator of soil health. Current Agriculture Research Journal. 12(1).

    4. Bhat, T.A., Gupta, M., Ganai, M.A., Ahangar, R.A., Bhat, H.A (2013). Yield, soil health and nutrient utilization of field pea (Pisum sativum L.) as affected by phosphorus and biofertilizers under sub- tropical conditions of Jammu. International Journal of Modern Plant and Animal Sciences. 1(1): 1-8.

    5. Bhatt, R. (2017). Zero tillage impacts on soil environment and properties. Journal of Environmental and Agricultural Sciences. 10: 01-19.

    6. Bhatt, R. and Khera, K.L. (2006). Effect of tillage and mode of straw mulch application on soil erosion in the submontaneous tract of Punjab, India. Soil and Tillage Research. 88(1-2): 107-115.

    7. Brandt, S.A. (1989). Zero-Till Vs Conventional Tillage With Two Rotations: Crop Production Over The Last 10 Years. In Soils and Crops Workshop.

    8. Bray, R.H. and Kurtz, L.T. (1945) Determination of total organic and available forms of phosphorus in soils. Soil Science. 59: 39-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00010694-194501000- 00006.

    9. Chapman, D.D. (1965). Total Exchangeable Bases. pp. 902-904. In C.A. Black (ed), Methods Of Soil Analysis, Part 2., Agronomy No. 9. American Society Of Agronomy.

    10. Choudhary, A.K., Kumar, R. and Kumar, S. (Eds.). (2023). Rice Fallow Management In India. International Books and Periodicals Supply Service.

    11. Dahl, W.J., Foster, L.M., Tyler, R.T (2012). Review of the health benefits of peas (Pisum sativum L). British Journal of Nutrition. 108: S3-S10. 

    12. Das, A., Ramkrushna, G.I., Ngachan, S.V. and Munda, G.C. (2014). Resource conservation Technologies in pulse based cropping systemin NEH region. In: Resource conservation Technology in Pulses (Edit. Ghosh, P. K.,Kumar, N., Venkatesh, M.S., Hazra, K.K. and Nadarajan, N.), published by Scientific publisher, India pp. 43-57.

    13. Das, A., Basavaraj, S., Layek, J., Gandhiji Idapuganti, R., Lal, R., Rangappa, K., Ngachan, S. (2019). Can conservation tillage and residue management enhance energy use efficiency and sustainability of rice-pea system in the Eastern Himalayas? Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science. 66(6): 830-846. https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2019.1639157.

    14. Devi, K.M., Devi, K.N. and Abonmai, T. (2024). Residual effect of foliar application of nano fertlizers and organic source of nitrogen on the productivity and economics of zero tilled green pea in rice-green pea cropping sequence.  Legume Research-An International Journal. 48(10): 1771-1775. doi: 10.18805/LR-5228.

    15. Dixit, G.P., Parihar, A.K. and Gupta, S. (2014). Perspectives for increasing field pea production in India. In: Handbook on minor andimported pulses of India 2014. Published by International Crop Research Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics, Hyderabad, pp. 90

    16. Garnaik, S., Samant, P.K., Mandal, M., Sethi, D., Wanjari, R.H., Mohanty, T.R., Nayak, H.S. (2024). Long-term assessment of diverse nutrient management strategies in a rice-rice cropping system: Analyzing yield trends, resource use efficiency and economic viability over a sixteen-year period. Journal of Plant Nutrition. 47(6): 905-925. https://doi.org/10. 1080/01904167.2023.2291018.

    17. Gomez, K.A. and Gomez, A.A. (1984) Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. 2nd Edition, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 680 p.

    18. Haque, M.M., Biswas, J.C., Islam, M.R., Islam, A. and Kabir, M.S. (2019). Effect of long-term chemical and organic fertilization on rice productivity, nutrient use-efficiency and balance under a rice-fallow-rice system. Journal of Plant Nutrition.  42(20): 2901-2914. https://doi.org/10.1080/01904167. 2019.1659338.

    19. Haque, M.M., Biswas, J.C., Salahin, N., Alam, M.K., Akhter, S., Akhtar, S. Hossain, M.S. (2022). Tillage systems influence on greenhouse gas emission factor and global warming potential under rice-mustard-rice cropping system. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science. 69(4): 599-614. https:// doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2021.2020758.

    20. Hariniharishma, V.P., Subrahmaniyan, K., Elamathi, S., Arulmozhi, R., Manikandan, K., Devi T.S. and Abarajitha, P. (2025). Residual management of sunnhemp (Crotalaria juncea) varieties in releasing soil nutrients and their impact on succeeding Rice Crop. Legume Research- An International Journal. 1-6. doi: 10.18805/LR-5521.

    21. Jat, R.A., P.S. Wani and K.L. Sahrawat. (2012). Conservation agriculture in the semi-arid tropics: Prospects and problems. Advances in Agronomy. 117: 191- 273.

    22. Kumar B., Kumar A., Singh A.K. and Roopa Lavanya G. (2013). Selection strategy for seed yield and maturity in field pea (Pisum sativum L. arvense). African Journal of Agricultural Research. 8(44): 5411-5415. https://doi.org/10.5897/ AJA R2013.7332.

    23. Kumar, J., Singh, B., Yadav, B.D., Yadav, A., Yadav, K.P. and Tallapragada, S. (2025). Zero-tillage in mung bean-wheat cropping system: Impact on soil properties and crop productivity. Legume Research. 48(9): 1497-1504. doi: 10.18805/LR-5154.

    24. Kumar, R., Mishra, J.S., Rao, K.K., Mondal, S., Hazra, K.K., Choudhary, J.S. and Bhatt, B.P. (2020). Crop rotation and tillage management options for sustainable intensification of rice-fallow agro-ecosystem in eastern India. Scientific  Reports. 10(1): 11146. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598- 020-67973-9.

    25. Malhi, S.S. and Nyborg, M. (1990). Effect of tillage and straw on yield and N uptake of barley grown under different N fertility regimes. Soil and Tillage Research. 17(1-2): 115-124.

    26. Malik, A.I., Nasim, M., Flower, K., Hossain, M.A., Rahman, M.S., Anwar, B. and Erskine, W. (2017). Cropping system intensification: Vegetable pea can replace fallow between rainfed monsoon rice and irrigated spring rice. The Journal of Agricultural Science. 155(8): 1287-1298. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0021859617000351.

    27. Malik, R., Kamboj, B., Jat, M., Sidhu, H., Bana, A., Singh, V., Sharawat, Y., Pundir, A. et al. (2011). Notill and Unpuddled Mechanical Transplanting of Rice. Cereal Systems Initiative for south Asia, New Delhi, India http://repository.cimmyt. org/xmlui/handle/10883/1296 (accessed 17.02.14).

    28. Marimuthu, S., Gunasekaran, M., Raju, M. and Surendran, U. (2024). Green manuring-system of rice intensification-rice fallow pulses cropping system for enhancing the crop productivity and soil health: A sustainable farming solutions. Paddy and Water Environment. 22(4): 629-645. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10333-024-00989-3.

    29. McAndrew, D.W., Fuller, L.G. and Wetter, L.G. (1994). Grain and straw yields of barley under four tillage systems in northeastern Alberta. Canadian Journal Of Plant Science. 74(4): 713-722.

    30. Ministry of Agriculture and farmer welfare (2024). Seed net India Portal, National Initiatives for information on quality seeds. https://seednet.gov.in/https://dpd.gov.in/vi)%20Fieldpea% 20Varieties.pdf.

    31. Mohapatra, B.K., Veettil, P.C., Kumar, A. and Kumar, V. (2022). Rice- fallow management in eastern india: Challenges and opportunities for enhancing system productivity and profitability. Economic Affairs. 67(05): 859-867.

    32. Nandan, R., Singh, S.S., Kumar, V., Singh, V., Hazra, K.K., Nath, C.P. and Solanki, C.H. (2018). Crop establishment with conser- vation tillage and crop residue retention in rice-based cropping systems of Eastern India: Yield advantage and economic benefit. Paddy and Water Environment. 16(3): 477-492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-018-0641-3.

    33. Parihar, A.K., Yadav, R., Lamichaney, A., Mishra, R.K., Chandra, A., Gupta, D.S. and Dixit, G.P. (2022). Field Pea Breeding. In: Fundamentals of Field Crop Breeding. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore. (pp. 1237-1321). https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9257-4_25.

    34. Praharaj C.S. (2015). Annual report on Promotionof pulses in NEH Region (2014-2015), Published by Dr. Singh N.P., Director, ICAR-Indian Institute of Pulse Research, Kanpur, U.P., India, pp. 39

    35. Ruis, S.J., Stepanovic, S. and Blanco-Canqui, H. (2023). Intensifying a crop-fallow system: Impacts on soil properties, crop yields and economics. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems. 38: e42.

    36. Saha, M., Sarkar, A., Bandyopadhyay, P.K., Nandi, R. and Singh, K.C. (2021). Tillage and potassium management for improving yield, physiological and biochemical responses of rainfed lentil under moisture stressed rice-fallow. Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition. 21(1): 637-654.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-020-00389-6.

    37. Singh, G., Bhattacharyya, R., Das, T.K., Sharma, A.R., Ghosh, A., Das, S. and Jha, P. (2018). Crop rotation and residue management effects on soil enzyme activities, glomalin and aggregate stability under zero tillage in the Indo- Gangetic Plains. Soil and Tillage Research. 184: 291- 300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2018.08.006.

    38. Singh, R., Babu, S., Avasthe, R.K., Singh, A., Yadav, G.S., Pashte, V. and Singh, J.K. (2018). Screening of field pea varieties for rice-fallow areas under organic management conditions in NE Himalayas. Annals of Agricultural Science and Research. 39(3): 246-250.

    39. Singh, S.R., Najar, G.R. and Singh, U. (2012). Phosphorus manage- ment in field pea (Pisum sativum)-rice (Oryza sativa) cropping system under temperate conditions. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 82(6): 494.

    40. Subbiah, B.V. and Asija, G.L. (1956) A rapid procedure for the estimation of available nitrogen in soils. Current Science. 25: 259-260.

    41. Yadav, G.S., Lal, R., Meena, R.S., Datta, M., Babu, S., Das, A. and Saha, P. (2017). Energy budgeting for designing sustainable and environmentally clean/safer cropping systems for rainfed rice fallow lands in India. Journal of Cleaner Production. 158: 29-37.

    42. Zhou, G., Gao, S., Lu, Y., Liao, Y., Nie, J. and Cao, W. (2020). Co- incor poration of green manure and rice straw improves rice production, soil chemical, biochemical and microbiological properties in a typical paddy field in southern China. Soil and Tillage Research. 197: 104499.
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us
      Published In
      Legume Research

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)