Published online September 10, 2007
Saving of Water and Labor in a Rice–Wheat System with No-Tillage and Direct
Seeding Technologies
Lav Bhushan, Jagdish K. Ladha,* Raj K. Gupta, S. Singh, A. Tirol-Padre, Y.S. Saharawat,
M. Gathala, and H. Pathak
ABSTRACT
Conventional tillage and crop establishment methods such as puddled
Reproduced from Agronomy Journal. Published by American Society of Agronomy. All copyrights reserved.
transplanting in the rice–wheat (Oryza sativa L.–Triticum aestivum L.)
system in the Indo-Gangetic Plains (IGP) require a large amount of
water and labor, both of which are increasingly becoming scarce and
expensive. We attempted to evaluate alternatives that would require
smaller amounts of these two inputs. A field experiment was conducted
in the IGP for 2 yr to evaluate various tillage and crop establishment
systems for their efficiency in labor, water, and energy use and eco-
nomic profitability. The yields of rice in the conventional puddled trans-
planting and direct-seeding on puddled or nonpuddled (no-tillage) flat
bed systems were equal. Yields of wheat following either the puddled-
transplanted or no-tillage direct-seeded rice were also equal. Normally,
puddled transplanting required 35 to 40% more irrigation water than
no-tillage direct-seeded rice. Compared with conventional puddled trans-
planting, direct seeding of rice on raised beds had a 13 to 23% savings
of irrigation water, but with an associated yield loss of 14 to 25%.
Nevertheless, water use efficiency (WUE) in the rice–wheat system
was higher with direct-seeded rice (0.45 g L21) than with transplanted
rice (0.37–0.43 g L21). In Year 1, no-tillage rice–wheat had a higher
net return than the conventional system, whereas in Year 2 the net
returns were equal. The study showed that the conventional practice
of puddled transplanting could be replaced with no-tillage-based crop
establishment methods to save water and labor. However, the occur-
rence and distribution of rainfall during the cropping season had con-
siderable influence on the savings in irrigation water.
T HE RICE–WHEAT ROTATION is one of the major agricul-
tural production systems in Asia, occupying about
18 million ha, of which 13.5 million ha are in the Indo-
Gangetic Plains (IGP) of Bangladesh, India, Nepal, and
Pakistan (Ladha et al., 2000; Dawe et al., 2004). The in-
tensively cultivated irrigated rice–wheat system is fun-
damental to employment, income, and livelihoods for
hundreds of millions of rural and urban poor of South
Asia. In the last few decades, annual increases in growth
rates for food grain production (wheat 3.0%, rice 2.3%)
in the IGP have kept pace with population growth. But
evidence is now appearing that rice–wheat system pro-
ductivity is plateauing because of a fatigued natural re-
source base (Ladha et al., 2003). Thus, the region’s food
security is threatened by the emerging challenges of post
Green Revolution agriculture, and the rising population.
L. Bhushan, Y.S. Saharawat, M. Gathala, and H. Pathak, International
Rice Research Institute (IRRI), India Office, and R.K. Gupta and S.
Singh, Rice–Wheat Consortium for IGP, CIMMYT-RWC, CG Block,
NASC Complex, DPS Marg, Pusa Campus, New Delhi 110012, India;
J.K. Ladha, Dep. of Crop and Soil Sciences, Cornell Univ., Ithaca 14853,
NY; and A. Tirol-Padre, IRRI, Los Baños, Manila, the Philippines. Re-
ceived 6 Aug. 2006. *Corresponding author (J.K.Ladha@cgiar.org).
Published in Agron. J. 99:1288–1296 (2007).
Soil & Water
doi:10.2134/agronj2006.0227
ª American Society of Agronomy
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA
1288
Farmers in this region usually grow rice in the wet
(monsoon) season, followed by wheat in the dry (winter)
season. Rice and wheat crops have contrasting edaphic
requirements and differing tillage and agronomic prac-
tices. For rice, intensive wet tillage (puddling) is practiced,
whereas wheat is grown as a dryland crop. The drastically
different seedbed requirements for rice and wheat create
problems in tillage, timeliness of wheat seeding, mainte-
nance of soil structure, and management of irrigation,
weeds and other pests, fertilizers, and crop residues. A
short turnaround time between rice and wheat is required
to prevent delayed wheat planting that can result in yield
losses of 35 (northwestern IGP) to 60 kg d21 ha21 (east-
ern IGP) (Pathak et al., 2003). However, delays do occur
because farmers insist on excessive tillage before wheat
planting and the growing of a medium-duration (140-d)
basmatic rice variety. Moreover, seasonality of labor
demand and the seasonal migratory nature of the labor
market are increasingly becoming a serious concern for
the timely planting of crops.
In the IGP, as well as in many other parts of Asia,
water is increasingly becoming scarce. Per capita avail-
ability of water has declined in many Asian countries by
40 to 60% between 1955 and 1990 (Gleik, 1993). Agri-
culture’s share of freshwater supplies is likely to decline
by 8 to 10% because of increasing competition from the
urban and industrial sectors (Seckler et al., 1998; Toung
and Bhuiyan, 1994). Poor-quality irrigation systems and
greater reliance on groundwater have led to water table
decline of 0.1 to 1.0 m yr21 in parts of the IGP, result-
ing in a scarcity and higher cost of pumping water (Gill,
1994; Harrington et al., 1993; Sharma et al., 1994; Sondhi
et al., 1994).
The growing labor and water shortages are likely to
adversely affect the productivity of the rice–wheat sys-
tem (Ladha et al., 2003). One way to reduce water demand
is to grow direct-seeded rice instead of the conventional
puddled transplanted rice (Bhuiyan et al., 1995; Cabangon
et al., 2002). Dry seeding of rice with subsequent aerobic
soil conditions avoids water application for puddling and
maintenance of submerged soil conditions, and thus re-
duces the overall water demand (Bouman, 2001; Sharma
et al., 2002). Another way to save water is to grow rice
in raised beds, as Borrel et al. (1997) observed that the
raised-bed system saved 16 to 43% water compared with
puddled transplanted rice, though at the expense of yield.
Similarly, a yield reduction of .15% was reported when
rice was grown on raised beds vis-à-vis the puddled-
transplanted system (Sharma et al., 2003; Vories et al.,
2002). Intermittent irrigation and mid-season drying of
Abbreviations: IGP, Indo-Gangetic Plains; LCC, leaf color chart; WUE,
water use efficiency.
 BHUSHAN ET AL.: SAVING OF WATER AND LABOR IN RICE–WHEAT SYSTEM
soil instead of continuous submergence as used in the
conventional puddled-transplanted system could be an-
other option for saving water.
Compared with rice, wheat has a much lower water
demand. Rice consumes about 80% of the total water ap-
plied in the rice–wheat system. Therefore, much water
could be saved if tillage and crop establishment practices
of wheat were adopted in rice. However, the extension
of tillage and crop establishment practices followed in
Reproduced from Agronomy Journal. Published by American Society of Agronomy. All copyrights reserved.
wheat to rice without a yield penalty has always been a
major challenge for researchers. Minimum tillage or no-
tillage is becoming an increasingly accepted manage-
ment technology in parts of the IGP (Hobbs and Gupta,
2002; Singh and Ladha, 2004). Tillage operations per-
formed and establishment methods followed for grow-
ing rice should complement those practiced for growing
wheat and vice versa. It is the overall system produc-
tivity that should be considered while judging the suit-
ability of a practice, and not just the individual crop
productivity. Although it is often claimed that reduced-
tillage operations with alternative crop establishment
methods such as direct seeding on flat land and raised
beds can result in significant water savings (Gupta et al.,
2003), systematic studies evaluating the effects of these
practices on yield, soil fertility, and water requirement
of the rice–wheat system are lacking. The objectives of
our study were to evaluate the effects of various till-
age and seeding methods on productivity, irrigation re-
quirement and WUE, and net return of the rice–wheat
system of the IGP.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Experimental Site
The experiment was conducted at the research farm (29j01¶ N,
77j45¶ E, and 237 m above mean sea level) of Sardar Vallabh
Bhai Patel University of Agriculture & Technology, Uttar Pra-
desh, India, during 2002–2004. The climate of the area is semi-
arid, with an average annual rainfall of 800 mm (75–80% of
which is received during July to September), minimum tem-
perature of 0 to 4jC in January, maximum temperature of
41 to 45jC in June, and relative humidity of 67 to 83% through-
out the year. The experimental soil (0–15 cm) was silty loam
in texture, with a bulk density of 1.42 Mg m23, weighted mean
diameter of soil aggregates 5 0.71 mm, pH 8.1, EC (satura-
tion extract) 5 0.4 dS m21, total C 5 8.3 g kg21, total N 5
0.88 g kg21, Olsen P 5 25 mg kg21, and 1 M NH4OAC ex-
tractable K 5 121 mg kg21. The soil retained 18 and 7% water
(mass basis) at 30 and 1500 kPa water potential.
Experimental Design and Treatments
Six treatments (T1 to T6) involving three tillage and two
rice establishment methods were evaluated in the rice–wheat
rotation during 2002–2003 (Year 1) and 2003–2004 (Year 2)
using a randomized complete block design with three replica-
tions. The total plot area for each treatment was 100.5 m2
(15.0 3 6.7 m). The tillage methods were (i) conventional pud-
dling for rice and conventional tillage for wheat, (ii) raised
beds with reduced-tillage for rice and wheat, and (iii) flat land
with no-tillage for rice and wheat. The crop seeding methods
included (i) conventional puddled transplanting of rice, (ii) di-
rect seeding of rice, and (iii) no till seeding of both wheat and
1289
rice. The details of practices followed in various treatments
are described below and summarized in Table 1.
Treatment 1: Conventional Puddled-Transplanted Rice and
Conventional-Tillage Wheat
For rice, conventional puddling involving two dry-harrowings
and three wet-tillage operations and one field leveling with a
wooden plank after water was imponded, followed by manual
transplanting of 21-d-old seedlings (V4 stage as per Counce
et al., 2000) at 20- by 20-cm spacing (Fig. 1a). The plots were
kept flooded (5-cm submergence) for an initial 2 wk, and in
subsequent irrigations, which were applied at the appearance
of hairline cracks at the soil surface, the field was flooded up to
the point where 5 cm water was standing. Farmers in the study
area commonly use the appearance of hairline cracks at the soil
surface as an indicator to initiate irrigation. Other researchers
(Tabbal et al., 2002) also used the appearance of hairline cracks
for irrigation scheduling. Although this is not directly related
to evapotranspiration or crop water usage, it is a simple way
of assessing the soil moisture status. In the soil used in present
study, the hairline cracks appear at field capacity moisture regime
(33 kPa). After rice was harvested, wheat was seeded in rows
20 cm apart (using a press drill with dry-fertilizer attachment)
following the conventional practice of two harrowings, three
plowings (using a field cultivator), and one field leveling (using
a wooden plank). In 2002, wheat was irrigated at the crown
root initiation, tillering, jointing, and dough growth stages.
These growth stages correspond to Z20, Z29, Z36, and Z83,
respectively (Zadoks et al., 1974). In 2003, the wheat was ir-
rigated at the Z20, Z29, Z36, Z55 (flowering), Z83, and Z87
(late dough) growth stages. Each irrigation field was flooded
up to the point where 5 cm water was standing in the field.
Treatment 2: Puddled-Transplanted Rice with Mid-Season
Drying and No-Tillage Wheat
Tillage operations and transplanting of rice were performed
as in the case of T1, except that the irrigation was stopped for
about a month after the maximum tillering stage (V8 stage) to
impose mid-season drying to economize on water application.
Subsequent irrigations (5 cm) were applied at the appearance of
hairline cracks at the soil surface as in T1. Wheat was seeded
using a no-till press drill with dry-fertilizer attachment. In 2002,
wheat was irrigated at 1 wk before crown root initiation (Z20),
and at tillering (Z29), jointing (Z36), and dough (Z83) growth
stages. In 2003, the wheat was irrigated at 1 wk before the Z20,
and at the Z29, Z36, Z55, Z83, and Z87 stages. Each irriga-
tion field was flooded up to the point where 5 cm water was
standing in the field.
Treatment 3: Direct Drill-Seeded Rice and Wheat on Raised
Beds after Reduced Tillage
Soil was tilled by two harrowings and two plowings followed
by one field leveling with a wooden plank, and the raised beds
Table 1. Description of the treatments.
Treatment Rice Wheat
T1 transplanted after puddling drill-seeded after
conventional tillage
T2 transplanted after puddling drill-seeded after no-tillage
with mid-season drying
T3 direct drill-seeded on drill-seeded on raised beds
raised beds
T4 transplanted on raised beds drill-seeded on raised beds
T5 direct drill-seeded after drill-seeded after no-tillage
no-tillage
T6 transplanted after no-tillage drill-seeded after no-tillage
 1290 AGRONOMY JOURNAL, VOL. 99, SEPTEMBER–OCTOBER 2007
Reproduced from Agronomy Journal. Published by American Society of Agronomy. All copyrights reserved.
Fig. 1. Method of rice establishment in (a) transplanted on flat land in
puddled and no-tillage conditions, (b) raised-bed system, and (c)
no-till direct-seeded conditions.
were made using a tractor-drawn bed planter. The configura-
tion of the beds is shown in Fig. 1b. The beds were 37 cm wide
at the top and 15 cm in height, and separated by furrows
30 cm wide. Two rows of rice were direct-seeded on each raised
bed at 20-cm row-to-row spacing. The raised beds were seeded
using a bed planter, which placed seeds and fertilizer simulta-
neously. The first irrigation was applied at 1 day after seeding
(DAS), followed by daily irrigations for 2 wk after germina-
tion to maintain soil saturation. The irrigations were applied
to completely fill the furrows. Subsequent irrigations (com-
pletely filling the furrows) were given at the appearance of
hairline cracks at the soil surface at the bottom of the furrow.
After rice, wheat was seeded directly after reshaping the beds
using a bed planter. In 2002, the wheat was irrigated at the
Z20, Z29, Z36, and Z83 growth stages, whereas in 2003, irri-
gation was applied at the Z20, Z29, Z36, Z55, Z83, and Z87
stages. The irrigation treatments were applied to completely
fill the furrows.
Treatment 4: Transplanted Rice on Raised Beds and
Drill-Seeded Wheat after Reduced Tillage
Beds were prepared as in T3, followed by transplanting
of one 21-d-old seedling per hill in two rows at 20-cm spacing
on the raised beds (Fig. 1b). Plant-to-plant spacing was 12 cm
to maintain the population equal to that of the conventional
transplanted method. The plots were kept flooded for 2 wk
after seeding and subsequent irrigations were applied to com-
pletely fill the furrows at the appearance of hairline cracks
at the soil surface at the bottom of the furrow. After rice,
wheat was seeded directly after reshaping the beds using a
bed planter. The same number and timing of irrigation events
were applied as in T3.
Treatment 5: No-Till Drill-Seeded Rice and No-Till Wheat
Rice was direct-seeded in flat plots at 20-cm row spacing
using a no-till press drill with dry-fertilizer attachment. The
seeding was done on the same day when the nursery for trans-
planted rice was seeded. The first irrigation was applied imme-
diately after seeding, and the plots were irrigated daily for 2 wk
after germination to maintain saturation. Subsequent irriga-
tions were applied at the appearance of hairline cracks at the
soil surface. Wheat was seeded using a no-till press drill with
dry-fertilizer attachment. As in T2, four irrigations in 2002 and
six irrigations in 2003 were applied to the crop.
Treatment 6: No-Till Transplanted Rice and No-Till
Drill-Seeded Wheat
For rice, slits were opened using a no-till drill in dry con-
ditions. The plots were then flooded and transplanting was
done in the open slits with 20- by 20-cm spacing. The plots
were irrigated daily for 2 wk after transplanting, and subse-
quent irrigations were applied at the appearance of hairline
cracks at the soil surface. Wheat was seeded using a no-till
press drill with dry-fertilizer attachment. The crop received ir-
rigations as in T2.
Out of these six treatments, the conventional practice (T1)
is currently used in about 10 million ha in the IGP. The prac-
tice of no-tillage in wheat is gaining popularity and is now prac-
ticed in about 2.0 million ha (R.K. Gupta, unpublished data,
2006). Farmers in north India also occasionally follow the
practice of midseason drying (T2) as the cost of irrigation is
escalating due to increasing price of diesel.
Seeding and Seed Rate
‘NDR 359’ rice was seeded on 7 and 3 June in direct-seeded
plots, whereas transplanting was done on 28 and 24 June in
2002 and 2003, respectively. Rice was seeded in flat beds as
well as in raised beds after seed priming (soaking seeds in
water for 12 h followed by air drying). A seeding rate of 40 and
30 kg ha21 was used for direct-seeded rice on flat and raised
beds, respectively. ‘PBW 343’ wheat was seeded on 2 and 7 Nov.
2002 and 2003, respectively. A seeding rate of 90 kg ha21 was
used in treatments where wheat was seeded on beds, and
120 kg ha21 was used in the rest of the treatments. The press
drill with dry-fertilizer attachment was calibrated every time
before seeding to adjust the seeding rate.
Water Application and Measurements
Irrigation water was applied using polyvinyl chloride pipes
of 10-cm diameter and the amount of water applied to each
plot was measured using a water meter (Dasmesh Co., India).
The quantity of water applied and the depth of irrigation were
computed using the following equations:
Quantity of water applied (L) 5 F 3 t [1]
Depth of water applied (mm) 5 (L/A)/1000 [2]
21
where F is flow rate (L s ), t is time (s) taken during each
irrigation, and A is area of the plot (m2).
Rainfall data were recorded using a rain gauge. The total
amount of water applied was computed as the sum of water
received through irrigations and rainfall. The soil water ten-
sion was measured at the 15-cm depth in all the plots using
mercury tensiometers. In the case of raised beds, tensiometers
were placed in the center of the beds. These data were used
to compute the soil matric suction (cm, kPa) using the follow-
ing formula:
cm 5 (12:6 3 H-R-D)/10 [3]
where H 5 height of mercury column from a reference point
(cm), R 5 height of the mercury reservoir (reference point)
from the soil surface (cm), and D 5 depth of soil at which the
tensiometer is placed (cm).
The WUE (g grains L21 of water) was computed as follows
(Prihar and Sandhu, 1987):
WUE 5 grain yield (g ha21 )/[irrigation water applied (L)
1 rainfall received by the crop (L)] ha21 [4]
Fertilizer Application
All plots received 120 kg N, 26 kg P, 50 kg K, and 8.75 kg
Zn ha21 in rice and wheat. Although K and Zn fertilizers were
 BHUSHAN ET AL.: SAVING OF WATER AND LABOR IN RICE–WHEAT SYSTEM
broadcast for rice, N and P fertilizers were placed at the 10-cm
depth using a no-till drill attached with a bed planter at the
time of seeding except in puddled transplanting (T1), where
they were placed at the 10-cm depth manually at the center of
each cluster of four hills. An additional dose of 30 kg N ha21
was applied to rice when the leaf color in individual plot was
below the leaf color chart (LCC) critical value of 4. The color
of leaves was monitored every week by LCC in individual plots
separately, and when the color of leaves was below 4, N was
applied in that plot. For LCC-based N application, the critical
Reproduced from Agronomy Journal. Published by American Society of Agronomy. All copyrights reserved.
value of 4 was based on the findings of Shukla et al. (2004) for
cultivar NDR 359 of rice. For wheat, all the fertilizers were
applied basally using press drill with dry-fertilizer attachment.
Weed Management
Weeds that germinated before the seeding of rice and wheat
in no-till plots were killed by spraying glyphosate at 900 g a.i.
ha21. The plots were then kept weed-free throughout the
growing season. Anilophos at 375 g a.i. ha21 at 2 d after trans-
planting (DAT) in the case of transplanted rice and pretila-
chlor plus safener at 480 g a.i. ha21 at 3 DAS in direct-seeded
rice were applied to control grass weeds, followed by a spray ap-
plication of chlorimuron ethyl 1 metsulfuron methyl (Almix,
DuPont, Wilmington, DE) at 4 g a.i. ha21 at 21 DAS for broad-
leaf weeds. Additionally, two hand weedings in transplanted
rice and three in direct-seeded rice were also required to keep
the plots weed-free. For wheat, grassy weeds were controlled
by spraying sulfosulfuron at 35 g a.i. ha21 at 21 DAS, and broad-
leaf weeds were controlled using 2,4-D at 500 g a.i. ha21 at
35 DAS, followed by one hand weeding.
Harvesting
At maturity, rice and wheat were harvested manually at
15 cm above ground level. Grain and straw yields were de-
termined from an area of 70.2 m2 in flat beds and 69.7 m2 in
raised beds located in the center of each plot. The grains were
threshed using a plot thresher, dried in a batch grain dryer,
and weighed. Grain moisture was determined immediately
after weighing. Grain yields of rice and wheat were reported
at 140 and 120 g water content kg21, respectively. Straw weight
was determined after oven-drying at 70jC to constant weight
and expressed on an oven dry-weight basis.
Soil and Plant Sampling and Analysis
Soil samples were collected at the start of the experiment
from the 0- to 15-cm soil depth using an auger of 5-cm diam-
eter. Each sample was a composite from three locations within
a plot. The freshly collected soil samples were mixed thor-
oughly, air-dried, crushed to pass through a 2-mm sieve, and
stored in sealed plastic jars before analysis. Olsen-P (0.5 M
NaHCO3 extractable) and NH4OAc-extractable K were ana-
lyzed using the methods described by Olsen et al. (1954) and
Page et al. (1982), respectively. Soil organic C was analyzed by
Walkley and Black method (Page et al., 1982). The bulk den-
sity of the soil was determined from core-ring samples taken
at 0- to 15-cm depth at seeding or transplanting. Soil sam-
ples were analyzed for particle size distribution (Bouyoucos,
1962), mean weight diameter of peds (Yoder, 1936), and water
retention (Richards, 1965).
Grain and straw samples of rice and wheat collected from
each plot were dried at 70jC in a hot-air oven. The dried sam-
ples were ground in a stainless steel Wiley Mill and N con-
tents in leaf, grain, and straw were determined by digesting
the samples in sulfuric acid (H2SO4), followed by analysis of
1291
total N by the Kjeldahl method (Page et al., 1982) using a
Kjeltec autoanalyzer.
Labor Use
Human labor use for tillage, seeding, irrigation, fertilizer and
pesticide application, weeding, and harvesting in rice and wheat
were measured in this study. Time (h) required to complete one
field operation in a particular treatment was recorded and was
expressed as person-day ha21, considering 8 h to be equivalent
to 1 person-day. Similarly, time (h) required by a tractor-drawn
machine to complete a field operation such as tillage, seeding,
fertilizer application, and harvesting was recorded and ex-
pressed as h ha21. Time (h) required to irrigate a particular
plot and consumption of diesel (1 h21) by the pump was also
recorded. Labor and machine requirements have a compo-
nent of site-specificity as they depend on the existing soil,
crop and climatic conditions, and the efficiency and skill of
operation. For example, a heavy soil will require more time to
be plowed compared with a light soil. Similarly, time required
for irrigation largely depends on the depth of ground water,
the capacity of the pump, and method of irrigation. The data
on labor use presented in this paper pertains to a silty loam
soil in a semiarid climate and water was pumped from a depth
of 50 m with a 10 horse power pump, and irrigation was given
by the surface-flooding method. In this study, only one mea-
surement per treatment was taken, and no distinction was
made between the skilled and unskilled laborers.
Economic Analysis
The cost of cultivation was calculated by taking into account
costs of seed, fertilizers, biocide, and the hiring charges of
human labor (U.S. $2.30 d21) and machines (U.S. $5.6 h21) for
land preparation, irrigation, fertilizer application, plant pro-
tection, harvesting, and threshing, and the time required per
hectare to complete an individual field operation. Cost of ir-
rigation was calculated by multiplying time (h) required to
irrigate a particular plot, consumption of diesel by the pump
(1 h21) and cost of diesel (U.S. $0.73 l21). The prices of hu-
man and machine labor, and diesel are their current prices in
north India collected by market survey. Gross income was the
minimum support price offered by the Government of India
for rice (U.S. $126.09 Mg21) and wheat (U.S. $124.78 Mg21).
Net income of the farmers was calculated as the difference
between gross income and total cost. System productivity
was calculated by adding the grain yield of rice and wheat in
each year.
Data Analysis
All the data on yield and yield parameters of rice and
wheat, WUE, economics, and nutrient uptake were analyzed
with IRRISTAT for Windows for one-way ANOVA with par-
titioning of treatments by linear contrast (IRRI, 2005). Dun-
can’s multiple range test was used at the P , 0.05 level of
probability to test the differences between the treatment means.
Linear contrasts were used to compare single or multiple treat-
ments against one another.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Rice, Wheat, and System Productivity
Rice
The various tillage and crop establishment methods
had a significant effect on rice yield in both years. Yields
 1292 AGRONOMY JOURNAL, VOL. 99, SEPTEMBER–OCTOBER 2007

Table 2. Yield of rice and wheat with various tillage and seeding shown) were also recorded in this treatment. Several
treatments. The values are means of four replicates. researchers have shown that moisture stress at panicle
Grain yield initiation and flowering stages could lead to yield loss
Rice Wheat System because of reduction in number of grains per panicle and
spikelet sterility (Lu et al., 2001; Nieuwenhuis et al., 2002;
Treatment† 2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003
21
Belder et al., 2002). However, despite the higher pani-
Mg ha cle number (Table 3) in the direct-seeded no-tilled flat
T1 7.3a‡ 7.2a 4.9a 4.1a 12.2 11.3a
T2 6.7bc 6.8ab 5.3a 4.3a 12.0 11.1ab
land (T5) than that of puddled-transplanted conditions
(T1), rice yields were equal in both years (Table 2). This
Reproduced from Agronomy Journal. Published by American Society of Agronomy. All copyrights reserved.

T3 6.3c 5.4c 5.1a 4.0b 11.4 9.4c

T4 6.7bc 6.3bc 5.1a 3.8b 11.8 10.1bc was due to higher sterility nullifying the advantage of
T5 7.3a 6.6ab 4.9a 4.3a 12.2 10.9ab
T6 7.0ab 7.0a 5.3a 4.4a 12.3 11.4a higher panicle number in T5. Comparison of transplant-
ANOVA with partitioning: ing (T4, T6) and direct seeding (T3, T5) showed that
Source of variation Significance of F value from ANOVA rice yield was higher in the former in 2003. There was
Treatment ** ** ns§ * ns ** a significant interaction between tillage and seeding in
T1 vs. T2 * ns ns ns ns ns 2002 only (Table 2).
T1&T2 vs. T3–T6 ns * ns ns ns *
T3&T4 vs. T5&T6 ** ** ns ** ** **
T4&T6 vs. T3&T5 ns * ns ns ns * Wheat
* Significant at 0.05. Tillage and crop establishment methods had no ef-
** Significant at 0.01. fect on wheat yield in 2002 (Table 2). In 2003, however,
† Refer to Table 1 for a description of the treatments.
‡ Within a column, means followed by the same letter are not significantly wheat grown on beds (T3, T4) yielded less than in the
different at the 0.05 level of probability by the Duncan’s multiple range test. other treatments (Table 2). Moreover, partitioning of
§ ns, nonsignificant.
treatments using linear contrast showed that in 2003,
no-till treatments (T5, T6) gave higher yields than the
were similar when rice was conventionally transplanted
raised bed treatments (T3 and T4) (Table 2). A lower
(T1), direct drill-seeded after no-tillage (T5), and trans-
number of effective tillers caused by poor crop establish-
planted in slits after no-tillage (T6) (Table 2). This in-
ment as a result of the presence of rice residue (Table 4)
dicated that puddling of soil, for which normally a large
caused lower wheat yields on beds. This highlights the
amount of water and labor are required, can be avoided
need for a suitable no-till drill for rice and wheat that is
without any yield penalty in rice. Mid-season drying af-
suitable for raised beds for uniform seeding in the pres-
ter the maximum tillering stage (T2) had a lower yield
ence of crop residue (Pathak et al., 2006). In both years,
in 2002 than transplanted rice after conventional pud-
wheat after either puddled-transplanted or direct-seeded
dling (T1) and direct drill-seeded rice after no-tillage
rice gave equal yields. These findings are in agreement
(T5). Reducing the number of irrigations in 2003 did not
with Ladha et al. (2003), who found that the perfor-
affect the rice grain yield negatively because adequate
mance of wheat is not much affected by the way the
precipitation was received. As a result, this treatment (T2)
previous rice crop is grown.
had a yield similar to that of T1, T5, and T6. Rice either
direct drill-seeded (T3 in 2003) or transplanted (T4 in
Rice–Wheat System
2002) on beds yielded 8 to 25% lower than conventional
puddled transplanting (T1). Partitioning of treatments Significant treatment effects on rice 1 wheat (sys-
using linear contrast showed that conventional tillage tem) yields were observed in 2003 but not in 2002 by
treatments (T1, T2) gave higher rice yields than the raised ANOVA (Table 2). The yields of the rice–wheat sys-
bed and no tillage treatments (T3–T6) in 2003, whereas tem were similar in the puddled (T1 and T2) and non-
no tillage treatments (T5, T6) gave higher yields than puddled (T5 and T6) systems, but were lower in direct
the raised bed treatments (T3, T4) regardless of seed- drill-seeded on raised beds (T3) (Table 2). Partitioning
ing method in both years (Table 2). Transplanted rice on of treatments by linear contrast showed that system
beds (T4) apparently suffered from more water stress yields under no-tillage (T5 and T6) were significantly
compared with flat land, resulting in lower yields. Lower higher than those in raised beds (T3 and T4) regardless
panicle number (Table 3) and poor tillering (data not of seeding method. Moreover, transplanting (T4 and T6)

Table 3. Yield components (panicle number, 1000-grain weight, number of grains per panicle, and percentage of sterility) in rice with vari-
ous tillage and seeding treatments. Values are means of four replicates.
21
Panicle number 1000-grain wt. No. of grains panicle Sterility
Treatment† 2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003
22
m g %
T1 297bc‡ 277b 30.9a 28.4a 169a 159a 27.3b 16.8c
T2 265d 267bc 29.8a 28.6a 158a 146ab 29.2b 18.3bc
T3 268c 244cd 30.4a 28.7a 160a 115c 33.2a 22.7bc
T4 238d 232d 31.0a 29.0a 163a 150ab 27.5b 24.8b
T5 385a 342a 29.5a 27.6a 147a 131bc 37.0a 32.9a
T6 307b 292b 30.4a 27.8a 165a 143ab 27.7b 16.2ca
† Refer to Table 1 for a description of the treatments.
‡ Within a column, means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 0.05 level of probability by the Duncan’s multiple range test.
 BHUSHAN ET AL.: SAVING OF WATER AND LABOR IN RICE–WHEAT SYSTEM 1293

Table 4. Yield components (the number of effective tiller, 1000-grain

weight, and number of grains per spike) in wheat with various till-
age and seeding treatments. Values are means of four replicates.
21
Effective tillers 1000-grain wt. No. of grains spike
Treatment† 2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003
22
m g
T1 408b‡ 377bc 42.3a 39.5c 48ab 56a
T2 472a 408b 40.1a 40.0bc 48ab 56a
T3 459a 347cd 42.4a 42.5ab 48ab 53ab
Reproduced from Agronomy Journal. Published by American Society of Agronomy. All copyrights reserved.

T4 442ab 302d 42.8a 41.3abc 46b 52b

T5 462a 407b 41.8a 42.7a 50a 54ab
T6 482a 480a 41.3a 41.5abc 48ab 53ab
† Refer to Table 1 for a description of the treatments.
‡ Within a column, means followed by the same letter are not signifi-
cantly different at the 0.05 level of probability by the Duncan’s multiple
range test.

gave higher system yields than direct drill-seeding (T3

and T5) under both no-tillage and raised bed treatments.
The rice plus wheat yields in the direct drill-seeded raised-
bed systems (T3) was lower by 16% in 2003 compared
with the conventional systems (T1). The data indicated
that there is still a need to improve the direct drill-seeded
bed-planting systems to increase productivity.

Water Application and Use Efficiency

Rice
Fig. 2. Rainfall pattern during rice seasons in 2002 and 2003.
The irrigation water application was 38% higher in
Year 1 than Year 2 (Table 5) because of less rainfall and
in both years. It was observed that the matric suction values
poorer distribution pattern of rain (Fig. 2). Drought oc-
at a given time were higher on raised beds than on flat
curred early in the season of Year 1, which adversely
land except in the treatment with intensive drying (T2).
affected the growth of rice seedlings. Transplanted rice
used the highest amount of water in all tillage treatments
Wheat
(T1, T4, and T5) in both years (Table 5). Mid-season dry-
ing after puddled-transplanting (T2) had 15 to 22% less Approximately eight times more water was applied to
water applied than conventional puddle-transplanting the rice crop than the wheat crop in this study (Table 5).
(T1). Direct seeding of rice on flat land and raised beds Wheat received 171 to 247 mm and 265 to 363 mm of
(T3, T5) resulted in 13 to 23% less water application than irrigation water in Year 1 and Year 2, respectively. Con-
in conventional puddled systems (T1). Table 6 shows the ventional tillage (T1) had the highest water application
number of days when matric suction values were . 10 kPa and the lowest water efficiency. Unlike rice, wheat on

Table 5. Water application and water use efficiency in rice and wheat with various tillage and seeding treatments.†
Irrigation water applied Total water use efficiency
Rice Wheat System Rice Wheat System
Treatment‡ 2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003
21
mm g grains L of water
T1 3070a§ 1907a 247a 363a 3317a 2269a 0.18bc 0.23a 1.20c 0.99c 0.27c 0.32b
T2 2595d 1486d 212b 339b 2807d 1825f 0.18bc 0.25a 1.42ab 1.10bc 0.30ab 0.36a
T3 2367f 1660c 174c 265c 2541f 1925d 0.18bc 0.19c 1.51a 1.26a 0.30ab 0.29c
T4 2745c 1741b 171c 269c 2916c 2156c 0.18bc 0.20bc 1.55a 1.20ab 0.29bc 0.30bc
T5 2492e 1530d 215b 342b 2707e 1891e 0.20a 0.24a 1.31bc 1.10bc 0.31a 0.34ab
T6 3039b 1775b 204b 347ab 3242b 2212b 0.17c 0.23ab 1.46a 1.11b 0.28c 0.34ab
Source of variation
Treatment ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
T1 vs. T2 ** ** * * ** ** ns¶ ns ** * ** *
T1&T2 vs. T3-T6 ** ns ** ** ** ns ns * ** ** * *
T3&T4 vs. T5&T6 ** ** ** ** ** ** ns ** * ** ns **
T4&T6 vs. T3&T5 ** ** ns ns ** * ** ns ns ns ** ns
* Significant at 0.05.
** Significant at 0.01.
† Rainfall during rice: 2002 5 1066 mm, 2003 5 1238 mm; wheat: 2002 5 160 mm, 2003 5 53 mm.
‡ Refer to Table 1 for a description of the treatments.
§ Within a column, means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 0.05 level of probability by the Duncan’s multiple range test.
¶ ns, nonsignificant.
 1294 AGRONOMY JOURNAL, VOL. 99, SEPTEMBER–OCTOBER 2007

Table 6. Number of days matric potential values were more than Table 7. Machine and human labor use in a rice–wheat system with
10 kPa at 15 cm below soil surface during rice seasons in 2002 various tillage and seeding treatments.
and 2003 with various tillage and seeding treatments. Values are
Machine labor Human labor
means of four replicates.
Treatment† Rice Wheat Rice Wheat
No. of days when matric suction values were . 10 kPa
21 21
h ha d ha
Treatment† 2002 2003
T1 11.5 12.0 65.7 15.0
T1 40 6 6 39 62 T2 11.3 6.5 61.2 14.0
T2 54 6 2 48 62 T3 14.3 6.5 46.7 14.0
T3 48 6 3 47 61 T4 12.4 6.5 64.6 14.0
Reproduced from Agronomy Journal. Published by American Society of Agronomy. All copyrights reserved.

T4 45 6 1 50 66 T5 7.6 6.5 47.1 14.0

T5 42 6 6 35 61 T6 8.2 6.5 66.8 14.0
T6 43 6 1 38 61
† Refer to Table 1 for a description of the treatments.
† Refer to Table 1 for a description of the treatments.

Direct-seeded rice (T3 and T5) had lower human

raised beds had consistently higher WUE in both years labor requirement (46.7 and 47.1 person-days ha21,
than wheat planted on flat land, confirming that wheat respectively) compared with the treatments T1, T2, T4,
has an advantage on raised beds in terms of utilizing and T6, which required 61.2 to 66.8 person-days ha21
water (Sayre and Moreno Ramos, 1997). because of the larger human labor requirement for trans-
planting rice (Table 7). In wheat, the human labor re-
Rice–Wheat System quirement was equal (14.0 d ha21) in all the treatments
Analysis of variance showed significant treatment ef- except in the conventional treatment, which needed one
fects on WUE of a rice–wheat system (Table 5). Com- additional labor day (15.0 d ha21).
pared with the conventional tillage systems (T1), WUE
was improved in the T2 treatment where mid-season dry- Economic Analysis
ing was imposed on the rice and the subsequent wheat The net returns of rice were higher in Year 2 than in
was planted no-till. Over all, both systems had similar Year 1 largely because of more rainfall resulting in a lower
crop yields (Table 2), but the T2 system used 15 to 20% cost of irrigation in Year 2 (Table 8). The largest finan-
less water. The ANOVA with partitioning of treatments cial benefit (U.S. $139, difference between the years) was
showed a significant effect of seeding methods (T4 and for puddled transplanted rice (T1), followed by the no-
T6 vs. T3 and T5) on WUE in Year 1 but not in Year 2. tillage system (U.S. $30 in T5) and bed-planting system
In addition, WUE was greater in no-tillage systems com- (U.S. $10 in T3). In wheat, the returns were higher in
pared with raised bed systems (T3 and T4 vs. T5 and T6) Year 1 than in Year 2 largely because of the differences
in Year 2 but not in Year 1 (Table 5). in the amount of water applied. On a system basis, the
Direct seeding into no-till (T5) and raised beds (T3) returns were higher in T3 and T5 in Year 1, and in T1
increased WUE over conventional tillage (T1) in Year 1 in Year 2.
but not in Year 2. Less water was applied to both the The rice on raised beds had the lowest return: about
T3 and T5 treatments compared with T1, but there was 50% of either T1 or T5. The data showed that, though
no system yield difference in Year 1 (Table 2). In Year 2, savings were made in land preparation and irrigation
both T3 and T5 had lower yields than T1. Transplanting water application in direct-seeded rice (T3 and T5), weed
rice into no-till (T6) and raised beds (T4) also required management incurred higher cost than with the con-
less water than the conventional T1 treatment, though ventional systems. Wheat in both raised beds (T3) and
the savings were not as great as in direct seeding sys- no-tillage (T5) had higher returns than the conventional
tems, but the WUE was not improved of T1. In no-tillage system (T1).
systems, direct seeding (T5) saved about 17 to 18% and
transplanting (T6) about 2 to 3% irrigation water on a
system basis compared with conventional puddled trans- CONCLUSIONS
planted rice (T1). With raised beds, water savings was Conventional practices of puddled transplanting in rice
15 to 23% with direct-seeding (T3) and 5 to 12% with and extensive tillage in wheat require a large amount of
transplanted rice–wheat (T4) (Table 5). water and labor. The emerging shortages and increasing
costs of water and labor will therefore force a change in
Labor Use the way farmers grow these crops. An extented turnaround
Direct drill-seeded rice on raised beds (T3) had the
highest machine labor requirement (14.3 tractor h ha21) Table 8. Net returns from rice and wheat in selected tillage and
seeding treatments.
followed by transplanted rice either on raised beds (T4)
or after conventional puddling (T1) (Table 7). No-till Rice Wheat System
rice either direct-seeded (T5) or transplanted (T6) had Treatment† 2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003
the lower machine labor requirements. Conventionally- 21
U.S. $ ha
tilled wheat (T1) had the highest machine labor require- T1 270b 409a 457b 347c 727b 756a
ment (12 tractor h ha21), whereas all other treatments had T3 176c 186c 552a 406bc 728b 592b
a machine labor requirement of about 6 tractor h ha21 as T5 324a 354b 527a 448a 850a 801a
they were seeded using the no-till drill. † Refer to Table 1 for a description of the treatments.
 BHUSHAN ET AL.: SAVING OF WATER AND LABOR IN RICE–WHEAT SYSTEM
time between rice and wheat delays wheat planting that
can result in yield losses. In addition, many farmers tend
to transplant rice during the hot, high water evaporative
demand months of May and June. No-tillage can allow
timely seeding of wheat immediately after rice harvest.
This would also enable farmers to delay rice seeding until
end of June when the monsoon season starts, thereby re-
ducing the irrigation application in rice planting. But
there is grower apprehension that planting of rice in
Reproduced from Agronomy Journal. Published by American Society of Agronomy. All copyrights reserved.
May will result in more yield compared to planting in
July. However, simulation modeling using CERES-Rice
has shown that planting of rice between April 20 and
July 20 had similar potential yield (Pathak et al., un-
published data, 2005). Therefore, delaying rice planting
up to 20 July may not affect yield potential.
This 2-yr study showed that with no-tillage and direct
seeding, efficiencies of water and labor use, as well as net
income, were greater than in the conventional farmers’
practices. The water-saving feature of direct seeding is
largely attributed to the avoidance of puddling used in
transplanted rice. However, savings in irrigation largely
depended on the occurrence and distribution of rainfall
during the crop growing period. Therefore, more efforts
will be needed to evaluate and improve the technologies
on a site- and season-specific basis. Shifting from conven-
tional tillage practice to no-till system may cause changes
in soil properties, microflora, microfauna, and weed flora
affecting long-term crop productivity and input use effi-
ciency. Therefore, long-term changes in the crop per-
formance, input efficiencies, and weed flora should be
monitored to achieve a paradigm shift in farmers’ prac-
tices. Appropriate integration of crop residue in no-
tillage rice–wheat systems is another crucial issue which
needs to be addressed. Therefore, we need to develop
cost effective and profitable residue management prac-
tices which will attract the farmers for adoption. It is also
important that small-scale farmers be trained and have
access to these technologies.
REFERENCES
Belder, P., B.A.M. Bouman, and L. Spiertz. Guoan Lu, and E.J.P.
Quilang. 2002. Water use of alternately submerged and non-sub-
merged irrigated lowland rice. 51–61. In B.A.M. Bouman et al. (ed.)
Water-wise rice production. IRRI, Los Baños, the Philippines.
Bhuiyan, S.I., M.A. Sattar, and M.A.K. Khan. 1995. Improving water
use efficiency in rice irrigation through wet seeding. Irrig. Sci. 16:1–8.
Borrel, A.K., A.L. Garside, and S. Fukai. 1997. Improving efficiency
of water for irrigated rice in semi-arid tropical environment. Field
Crops Res. 52:231–248.
Bouman, B.A.M. 2001. Coping with the water crisis: Water management
strategies in rice production. Paper presented at the International
Symposium on Sustainable Soil and Water Resources Management.
30–31 May 2001. Diliman, Quezon City, the Philippines.
Bouyoucos, G.J. 1962. Hydrometer method improved for making par-
ticle size analysis of soils. Agron. J. 54:464–465.
Cabangon, R.J., T.P. Tuong, and N.B. Abdullah. 2002. Comparing water
input and water use efficiency of transplanted and direct-seeded rice
production systems. Agric. Water Manage. 57:11–13.
Counce, P.A., T.C. Keisling, and A.J. Mitchell. 2000. A uniform, ob-
jective, and adaptive system for expressing rice development. Crop
Sci. 40:436–443.
Dawe, D., S. Frolking, and C. Li. 2004. Trends in rice–wheat area in
China. Field Crops Res. 87:89–95.
Gill, K.S. 1994. Sustainability issues related to rice–wheat production
1295
system. p. 30–61. In R.S. Paroda et al. (ed.) Sustainability of rice–
wheat production systems in Asia. FAO, Bangkok, Thailand.
Gleik, P.H. (ed.). 1993. Water crisis: A guide to the world’s fresh water
resources. Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environ-
ment and Security. Stockholm Environment Institute. Oxford Univ.
Press, New York.
Gupta, R.K., P.R. Hobbs, J. Jiaguo, and J.K. Ladha. 2003. Sustain-
ability of post-Green revolution agriculture. 1–25. In J.K. Ladha
et al. (ed.) Improving the productivity and sustainability of rice–
wheat systems: Issues and impacts. ASA Spec. Publ. 65. ASA,
CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI.
Harrington, L.W., S. Fujisaka, M.L. Morris, P.R. Hobbs, H.C. Sharma,
R.P. Singh, M.K. Choudhary, and S.D. Dhiman. 1993. Wheat and
rice in Karnal and Kurukshetra districts, Haryana, India: Farmers’
practices, problems and an agenda for action. ICAR, HAU, CIMMYT,
Mexico, and IRRI, Los Baños, the Philippines.
Hobbs, P.R., and R.K. Gupta. 2002. Rice–wheat cropping systems in
the Indo-Gangetic plains: Issues of water productivity in resource-
conserving technologies. Water Productivity Workshop, 12–14 Nov.
2001. Int. Water Management Inst., Colombo, Sri Lanka.
IRRI. 2005. IRRISTAT for Windows: A statistical package for analy-
sis of data [CD-ROM]. IRRI, Manila, the Philippines.
Ladha, J.K., K.S. Fischer, M. Hossain, P.R. Hobbs, and B. Hardy.
2000. Improving the productivity of rice–wheat systems of the Indo-
Gangetic Plains: A synthesis of NARS-IRRI partnership research.
IRRI Discussion Paper No. 40. IRRI, Los Baños, the Philippines.
Ladha, J.K., H. Pathak, A.T. Padre, D. Dawe, and R.K. Gupta. 2003.
Productivity trends in intensive rice–wheat cropping systems in
Asia. 45–76. In J.K. Ladha et al. (ed.) Improving the productivity
and sustainability of rice–wheat systems: Issues and impacts. ASA
Spec. Publ. 65. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI.
Lu, J., T. Hirasawa, and J. Lu. 2001. Study on intermittent irrigation
for paddy rice: I. Water use efficiency. Pedosphere 11:49–56.
Nieuwenhuis, J., B.A.M. Bouman, and A. Castaneda. 2002. Crop-water
responses of aerobically grown rice: Preliminary results of pot ex-
periments. p. 177–185. In B.A.M. Bouman et al. (ed.) Water-wise
rice production. IRRI, Los Baños, the Philippines.
Olsen, S.R., C.V. Cole, F.S. Watanabe, and L.A. Dean. 1954. Estima-
tion of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicar-
bonate. USDA Circ. 939. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, DC.
Page, A.L., R.H. Miller, and D.R. Keeney (ed.). 1982. Methods of soil
analysis. Part 2. Chemical and microbiological properties. 2nd ed.
Agron. Monogr. 9. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI.
Pathak, H., J.K. Ladha, P.K. Aggarwal, S. Peng, S. Das, Y. Singh, B.
Singh, S.K. Kamra, B. Mishra, A.S.R.A.S. Sastri, H.P. Aggarwal,
D.K. Das, and R.K. Gupta. 2003. Trends of climatic potential and
on-farm yields of rice and wheat in the Indo-Gangetic Plains. Field
Crops Res. 80:223–234.
Pathak, H., R. Singh, A. Bhatia, and N. Jain. 2006. Recycling of rice
straw to improve crop yield and soil fertility and reduce atmo-
spheric pollution. Paddy Water Environ. 4:111–117.
Prihar, S.S., and B.S. Sandhu. 1987. Irrigation of field crops, Princi-
ples and practices. Indian Council of Agricultural Research. New
Delhi, India.
Richards, S.J. 1965. Soil suction measurements with tensiometers.
p. 153–163. In C.A. Black (ed.) Methods of soil analysis. Agron.
Monogr. 9. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI.
Sayre, K.D., and O.H. Moreno Ramos. 1997. Applications of raised-
bed planting systems to wheat. Wheat Spec. Rep. No. 31. CIMMYT,
Mexico.
Seckler, D., U. Amarasinghe, D. Molden, R. De Silva, and R. Barker.
1998. World water demand and supply, 1990 to 2025: Scenarios and is-
sues. Res. Rep. 19. Int. Water Management Inst., Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Sharma, P.K., L. Bhushan, J.K. Ladha, R.K. Naresh, R.K. Gupta, V.
Balasubramanian, and B.A.M. Bouman. 2002. Crop–water rela-
tions in rice–wheat cropping systems and water management prac-
tices in a marginally sodic, medium-textured soil. p. 223–235. In
B.A.M. Bouman et al. (ed.) Water-wise rice production. IRRI, Los
Baños, the Philippines.
Sharma, H.C., S.D. Dhiman, and V.P. Singh. 1994. Rice–wheat crop-
ping system in Haryana: Potential, possibilities and limitations.
p. 27–39. In S.D. Dhiman et al. (ed.) Proc. of the Symp. on Sus-
tainability of Rice–Wheat System in India. CCS Haryana Agric.
Univ., Regional Research Station, Karnal, India.
 1296 AGRONOMY JOURNAL, VOL. 99, SEPTEMBER–OCTOBER 2007
Sharma, P.K., J.K. Ladha, and L. Bhushan. 2003. Soil physical ef-
fects of puddling in rice–wheat cropping system. p. 97–114. In J.K.
Ladha et al. (ed.) Improving the productivity and sustainability of
rice–wheat systems: Issues and impacts. ASA Spec. Publ. 65. ASA,
CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI.
Shukla, A.K., J.K. Ladha, V.K. Singh, B.S. Dwivedi, R.K. Gupta, S.K.
Sharma, V. Balasubramanian, Y. Singh, H. Pathak, A.T. Padre, and
R.L. Yadav. 2004. Calibrating the leaf color chart for N manage-
ment in different genotypes of rice and wheat in a system perspec-
tive. Agron. J. 96:1606–1621.
Singh, Y., and J.K. Ladha. 2004. Principles and practices of no-tillage
Reproduced from Agronomy Journal. Published by American Society of Agronomy. All copyrights reserved.
systems in rice–wheat systems of Indo-Gangetic plains. p. 167–207.
In R. Lal et al. (ed.) Sustainable agriculture and the rice–wheat
systems. Marcel Dekker, New York.
Sondhi, S.K., M.P. Kaushal, and P. Singh. 1994. Irrigation manage-
ment strategies for rice–wheat cropping system. p. 95–104. In
S.D. Dhiman et al. (ed.) Proc. of the Symp. on Sustainability of
Rice–Wheat Systems in India. CCS Haryana Agricultural Univ.,
Regional Research Station, Karnal, India.
Tabbal, D.F., B.A.M. Bouman, S.I. Bhuiyan, E.B. Sibayan, and M.A.
Sattar. 2002. On-farm strategies for reducing water input in irri-
gated rice; case studies in the Philippines. Agric. Water Manage. 56:
93–112.
Toung, T.P., and S.I. Bhuiyan. 1994. Innovations towards improving
water-use efficiency in rice. Paper presented at the World Bank’s 1994
Water Resource Seminar, 13–15 Dec. 1994. Landsdowne, VA, USA.
Vories, E.D., P.A. Counce, and T.C. Keisling. 2002. Comparison of
flooded and furrow irrigated rice on clay. Irrig. Sci. 21:139–144.
Yoder, R.E. 1936. A direct method of aggregate analysis and study of
the physical nature of erosion losses. J. Am. Soc. Agron. 28:337–351.
Zadoks, J.C., T.T. Chang, and C.F. Konzak. 1974. A decimal code for
the growth stages of cereals. Weed Res. 14:415–421.