Next Article in Journal
Biostimulant-Treated Seedlings under Sustainable Agriculture: A Global Perspective Facing Climate Change
Next Article in Special Issue
Temporal Variations of Soil Organic Carbon and pH at Landscape Scale and the Implications for Cropping Intensity in Rice-Based Cropping Systems
Previous Article in Journal
Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) in Agriculture: A Pursuit of Sustainability
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effect of Differentiated Nitrogen Fertilization on the Enzymatic Activity of the Soil for Sweet Potato (Ipomoea batatas L. [Lam.]) Cultivation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 11
Issue 1
10.3390/agronomy11010008
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Impact of Different Barley-Based Cropping Systems on Soil Physicochemical Properties and Barley Growth under Conventional and Conservation Tillage Systems

by
Muhammad Naeem
1,
Noman Mehboob
1,
Muhammad Farooq
2,3,
Shahid Farooq
4,
Shahid Hussain
5,
Hayssam M. Ali
6,7 and
Mubshar Hussain
1,8,*
1
Department of Agronomy, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan 60800, Pakistan
2
Department of Agronomy, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad 38000, Pakistan
3
Department of Crop Sciences, College of Agricultural and Marine Sciences, Sultan Qaboos University, Al-Khoud 123, Oman
4
Department of Agronomy, Ghazi University, Dera Ghazi Khan 32200, Pakistan
5
Department of Soil Science, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan 60800, Pakistan
6
Botany and Microbiology Department, College of Science, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2455, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
7
Timber Trees Research Department, Sabahia Horticulture Research Station, Horticulture Research Institute, Agriculture Research Center, Alexandria 21526, Egypt
8
Agriculture Discipline, College of Science Health, Engineering and Education, Murdoch University, 90 South Street, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2021, 11(1), 8; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/agronomy11010008
Submission received: 15 November 2020 / Revised: 21 December 2020 / Accepted: 21 December 2020 / Published: 23 December 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Effects of Agricultural Management on Soil Properties and Health)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This two-year study observed the influence of various barley-based cropping systems on soil physicochemical properties, allometric traits and biomass production of barley sown under different tillage systems. Barley was cultivated in different cropping systems (CS), i.e., fallow-barley (fallow-B), maize-barley (maize-B), cotton-barley (cotton-B), mungbean-barley (mungbean-B) and sorghum-barley (sorghum-B) under zero tillage (ZT), minimum tillage (MT), strip tillage (ST), conventional tillage (CT) and bed-sowing (BS). Interaction between different CS and tillage systems (TS) positively influenced soil bulk density (BD), total porosity, available phosphorus (P), ammonical and nitrate nitrogen (NH4-N and NO3-N), available potassium (K), allometric traits and biomass production of barley. The highest soil BD along with lower total porosity were noted in ZT leading to lesser leaf area index (LAI), leaf area duration (LAD), specific leaf area (SLA), crop growth rate (CGR) and net assimilation rate (NAR) of barley. Nonetheless, bed-sown barley produced the highest biomass due to better crop allometry and soil physical conditions. The highest postharvest soil available P, NH4-N, NO3-N, and K were recorded for zero-tilled barley, while BS followed by CT recorded the lowest nutrient contents. Barley in mungbean-B CS with BS produced the highest biomass, while the lowest biomass production was recorded for barely sown in fallow-B cropping system with ZT. In conclusion, barley sown after mungbean (mungbean-B cropping system) with BS seems a pragmatic choice for improving soil fertility and subsequently soil health.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

World population is witnessing a rapid increase and expected to reach ~9100 million, which would require 3000 million tons of grain crops’ production by 2050 [1]. Therefore, improving crop yields to fulfil the rising demand of massive population is a dire need of the time [2]. Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), rice (Oryza sativa L.), maize (Zea mays L.) and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) are regarded as main cereal crops, which provide >50% of total caloric intakes for human population [3]. Barley is a fast-growing, annual cereal, grown during winter season. Commonly, it is cultivated as a cover crop to preserve soil and usually used as forage. Wheat crop could be substituted with barley as the later can withstand drought and adverse environmental conditions [4]. Similarly, barley performs better in low rainfall areas where other crops fail to establish [5]. Barley is an important food source for African countries, while it is primarily cultivated for animal feed in Pakistan [6]. It is an important cereal crop that ranks 4th (after wheat, rice, and maize crop) by production and 5th by cultivation among cereals throughout the world.
Tillage is regarded as the main soil management tool used to improve soil physical conditions and crop growth. Crop performance and soil properties are significantly altered by tillage practices [7]. Tillage exerts 20% impact on crop yields among the factors affecting crop production and ensures sustainable use of available resources through altering soil characteristics [8,9]. Management practices opted to alter soil structure could have positive or negative consequences [10,11,12]. Soil health is negatively affected by unsuitable management practices, which decrease crop productivity [13]. Lowering soil disturbance by reducing tillage intensity alters several physical, chemical and biological properties of soil [7,14,15,16]. Any change in soil physical condition modifies ecosystem functions [17]. Nonetheless, excessive tillage practices negatively affect soil physical conditions [14,18].
Conservation agriculture (CA) is a resource-saving and environment-friendly approach. It consists of least or no soil disturbance (zero or no tillage) along with stable soil cover [19]. The CA plays a significant role in water conservation and efficient utilization of natural resources through integrated management of soil moisture and nutrients [20]. The CA or minimum tillage results in better system productivity than conventional tillage practices [21,22]. Conservation tillage practices like zero tillage (ZT) combined with crop residues and nutrient management improve soil organic carbon (SOC) content and its retention in soil layer, resulting in moisture retention and improved hydraulic conductivity, soil porosity and soil aggregation [23]. Better soil physical conditions stimulate root growth and nutrient cycling [24]. Reduced tillage practices and residue retention influence soil properties such as organic matter, nutrients and pH [14,25,26]. Total nitrogen is increased by adoption of conservation tillage practices, including residues’ retention followed by nutrient application and ZT [23].
Cropping systems exert significant impacts on soil physicochemical properties, which ultimately affect crop yield [27]. Soil physical properties are positively influenced by cropping systems and management practices, i.e., residue retention and tillage [26,27,28,29]. The CA could conserve soil from detrimental effects of excessive tillage and enhance soil fertility in different cropping systems [15]. However, limited literature is available for the impact of different tillage practices on soil properties in barley-based cropping systems [30,31]. Nonetheless, different barley-based cropping systems have rarely been compared for their impact on soil properties under conventional and conservation tillage practices.
Therefore, this two-year field study assessed the soil physicochemical properties, allometry and biomass production of barley crop grown in different barley-based cropping systems under conventional and conservation tillage systems. The major objective of the study was to infer the impact of different barley-based cropping systems on soil physicochemical properties. Moreover, exploring the impact of different tillage systems on soil physicochemical properties was the second major objective of the study.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Site

This 2-year field experiment was conducted at Agronomy Farm, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences and Technology, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan (30.2° North, 71.43° East, and 122 m above sea level), Pakistan during winter seasons of 2017–2018 and 2018–2019.
Experimental soil was loamy in texture with 8.20 and 8.25 pH, 2.78 and 2.80 mS cm−1 EC, 0.03 and 0.03% total nitrogen (N), 7.25 and 7.18 mg kg−1 available phosphorus (P), 240 and 230 mg kg−1 available potassium (K) and 0.60 and 0.63% organic matter during 1st and 2nd year of study, respectively. Weather data during both cropping years are given in Table 1.

2.2. Experimental Details

Barley was sown under five different tillage systems, i.e., zero tillage (ZT), minimum tillage (MT), strip tillage (ST), conventional tillage (CT) and bed-sowing (BS) in fallow-B, maize-B, cotton-B, mungbean-B and sorghum-B cropping systems. In case of ZT, barley seeds were directly drilled using a ZT drill and residues of previous summer crops were retained in the soil. In MT, seeds were sown with the help of manual drill by disturbing limited soil. In case of ST, seedbeds were made in the form of strips without interfering the remaining field. In CT, field was cultivated two times with tractor-drawn cultivator followed by planking. In BS, similar method of field preparation was used as in CT and beds were prepared with manual bed maker. Experiment was laid out using randomized complete block design with split-plot arrangement. Tillage systems were kept in main, while cropping systems were allocated to sub-plots. During both years, experiment was replicated three times with net plot size of 5 m × 2.7 m.

2.3. Crop Husbandry

During both seasons, experimental field was irrigated with a pre-soaking (locally called rouni) irrigation of 10 cm before sowing of all crops. When soil attained appropriate moisture level, field was prepared following respective tillage systems. Recommended production technologies (http://agripunjab.gov.pk/) were followed for the cultivation of all crops included in the study. The recommended crop production practices for all crops are summarized in Table 2. For barley crop, 75 kg N and 50 kg P ha−1 were applied using urea and di-ammonium phosphate as sources, respectively. Half of N and whole amount of P were applied at sowing, whereas remaining N was applied with 1st irrigation. Barley was irrigated four times during the whole growing season. Crop was harvested at 105 days after sowing (DAS) to record total biomass production.

2.4. Soil Physical Properties

Soil bulk density (BD) and total porosity were analyzed by taking soil samples with soil core sampler after barley harvest during both years of study. Three random samples from all experimental plots were taken from 0–15 cm depth, mixed, dried in an oven for 24 h at 105 °C and then BD was measured by following the procedure of Blake and Hartge [32]. Total soil porosity was estimated following Danielson and Sutherland [33].

2.5. Soil Chemical Properties

The soil available NH4-N, NO3-N, P and K contents were determined during both years after barley harvest by AB-DTPA method (Ammonium Bicarbonate-DTPA) devised by Soltanpour and Schwab [34] and modified by Soltanpour and Workman [35].

2.6. Allometric Traits of Barley

The barley plants were harvested (1.0 m length of two rows) after every fifteen days to determine different allometric traits. Three random samples were taken from each replication of every experimental unit. Thus, the average was computed from 9 different samples at each harvest for a given allometric trait. The sampling was started at 60 DAS and terminated at 105 DAS of barley crop. The leaves of harvested plants were separated from stem and leaf area was determined by using a leaf area meter (DT Area Meter, model MK2). Briefly, fresh weight of leaves was recorded and then area of pre-weighed leaves was measured. The measured leaf area was converted to total leaf area of the harvested samples by unitary method. Later, leaf area index (LAI) was determined following Watson [36] by dividing total leaf area to total ground area of the harvested samples. Specific leaf area (SLA) was assessed by following Garnier et al. [37], while leaf area duration (LAD) was determined following Hunt [38]. For SLA calculation, a pre-weighed quantity of leaves was taken, their area was measured and leaves were dried in an oven. The SLA was then computed by dividing leaf areas with dry biomass of the leaves. Moreover, the collected plant samples were chaffed and dried for 3 days under sunlight and further oven-died at 75 °C for constant weight. After that crop growth rate (CGR) and net assimilation rate (NAR) were determined by following Hunt [38]. The dry biomass produced by the harvested plants at each harvest was used to record CGR.

2.7. Barley Biomass Yield

Two central rows from each experimental unit were harvested at 105 DAS. The harvested samples were sun-dried for three days and then oven-dried at 75 °C until constant weight. Afterwards, dry weight of these samples was recorded by using spring balance to determine dry biomass yield.

2.8. Statistical Analysis

All data taken during both years of experiment were analyzed following Fisher’s analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique and means of all treatments were compared by least significant difference (LSD) test at 5% level of probability [39]. Data relating to soil physicochemical properties had 9 values (3 replications and 3 samples from each replication) for each experimental unit, which were used in statistical analysis. Similarly, biomass yield had 3 values per experimental units included in the statistical analysis. The ANOVA indicated significant differences among experimental years; therefore, data of both years were analyzed, presented and interpreted, separately. The data were tested for normality before ANOVA using Shapiro-Wilk normality test, which indicated normal distribution. Therefore, statistical analysis was performed on original data. The tillage systems by cropping systems’ interaction was significant during both years; therefore, only interactions were presented and interpreted in the manuscript. Likewise, graphical presentation of the data relating to LAI, LAD, SLA, CGR and NAR as well as nutrient dynamics was done with MS-Excel Program 2010 along with standard errors (S.E.) of means.

3. Results

3.1. Soil Physical Properties

Soil BD and total soil porosity were significantly affected by TS × CS interaction during both years (Table 3). Barley sown in fallow-B cropping system with ZT recorded the highest soil BD, while lower BD was recorded for barley sown in all CS with BS. Furthermore, higher porosity was noted for all cropping systems with BS except for sorghum-B during 1st year and maize-B systems during 2nd year of study. However, the lowest soil porosity was recorded in all cropping systems with ZT during 2017–2018, and maize-B cropping system with ST and fallow-B, maize-B and sorghum-B cropping systems with ZT during 2018–2019 (Table 3).

3.2. Soil Chemical Properties

The TS × CS interaction had significant effect on soil NH4-N and NO3-N contents, and available P and K (Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4). The highest NH4-N contents were recorded for mungbean-B (including maize-B during 2nd year) cropping system with ZT during both years. Likewise, mungbean-B and maize-B systems with ZT recorded higher NO3-N contents during 1st year of study. However, the lowest NH4-N and NO3-N contents were noted in fallow-B cropping system with BS during both years (Figure 2 and Figure 3). Mungbean-B system with ZT noted higher available P and K contents, while fallow-B system with BS had lower available P and K during both years (Figure 3 and Figure 4).

3.3. Crop Allometry

All cropping systems with ZT had lower values of LAI at 60, 75, 90 and 105 DAS, whereas all cropping systems with BS recorded the highest values of LAI during both years (Figure 5). The mungbean-B cropping system noted higher LAI values, while sorghum-B system recorded lower LAI values at all sampling dates (Figure 5). All cropping systems with ZT recorded the lowest SLA, while the highest SLA was noted for all cropping systems with BS at all sampling dates during both years (Figure 6). Periodic data showed that LAI and CGR increased from 60–75 DAS and then started to decline.
Barley sown under all CS with ZT observed the lowest CGR, while all CS with BS as well as CT had the highest values of CGR during both years (Figure 7). The NAR progressively reduced throughout the growing season during both years (Figure 8). Barley sown under BS and CT noted more NAR, while ZT had least NAR during both years (Figure 8). However, the fallow-B cropping systems recorded the lowest, whereas maize-B and cotton-B systems documented the highest NAR during both years (Figure 8).

3.4. Biomass Yield

The dry biomass yield of barley was significantly influenced by TS × CS interaction during both years (Table 4). Barley sown in fallow-B cropping system with ZT recorded the lowest, whereas the mungbean-B system with BS noted the highest value of biomass during both years (Table 4).

4. Discussion

Different tillage and cropping systems significantly altered soil physicochemical properties. Nonetheless, tillage systems and barley-based cropping systems also differed for allometric traits and biomass production of barley. The least soil BD and higher soil porosity were noted for BS, while the highest soil BD and low soil porosity were recorded for ZT during both years (Table 3). The CA approach helps in conserving soil physical conditions by minimizing BD and penetration resistance, improves water penetration in the soil profile and hydraulic conductivity, and protect soil against different weathering conditions [40]. Different CA practices, like ZT have various beneficial impacts, like minimum soil damage by erosion, reduced soil disturbance and less soil evaporation [41]. Several studies have indicated that BS plays a significant role in improving root development due to better nutrient and water use efficiencies as a result of reduced mechanical impedance [42,43]. Khan et al. [44] also reported that ridge sowing method resulted in loose fertile soil with better moisture availability and soil aeration. The BS reduces mechanical impedance offered by the soil to germinating seeds and growing roots. The loose soil in BS allows the roots to proliferate in deeper soil layers and extract moisture and nutrients. Conversely, tillage systems resulting in hard soil structure restrict root growth; thus, prohibiting the growing plants to extract nutrients and moisture from deeper soil layers. Tillage and cropping systems exert strong impact on soil physicochemical properties [45]. Conventional tillage or deep ploughing have negative impact on soil organic matter and exposes soils to erosion [46]. Thus, conservative agricultural practices are alternative of conventional deep ploughing for improving the physicochemical properties of the soil [47]. Likewise, legumes are incorporated in the cropping systems to improve the soil fertility, particularly N contents [48]. Although, the role of legumes in improving soil fertility is greatly understood, interaction among cropping systems having legumes in rotation and tillage systems remains unclear. This study inferred the interaction of different cropping and tillage systems on soil properties and allometric traits of main crop.
Among different cropping systems, mungbean-B and cotton-B had minimum soil BD and high soil porosity, whereas maize-B recorded the highest bulk density and the lowest soil porosity (Table 3). Cropping systems significantly alter physicochemical properties of soil [26,27]. Similarly, crop rotation improves soil aggregate stability, water contents in the soil and organic matter [49,50]. Appropriate crop rotation practices produce numerous macro and micro-pores in the soil, which permit the circulation of nutrients, air and moisture encouraging healthier root growth [49,50]. Cotton, maize and sorghum are exhaustive crops, whereas mungbean is a restorative crop. The differences in nutrients contents of different barley-based cropping systems can be linked to the nature of the crops sown before barley. Lu et al. [51] reported that inclusion of legumes in cropping systems increases available N and K, while reduces P contents. Similar results have been recorded in the current study where addition of mungbean in the cropping system improved soil available N and K and lowered available P contents. Nevertheless, ZT has been reported to increase P, total N, and mineral N contents in the soil surface [52]. The combination of ZT and mungbean-B cropping system improved soil nutrients in the current study, which can be linked to the N fixing ability of mungbean and lower uptake of nutrients in ZT due to compacted soil. Hence, inclusion of legume in the cropping system can improve soil fertility if ZT is inevitable.
The BS resulted in the lowest NH4-N, NO3-N, P and K contents, whereas ZT observed the highest values of these nutrients. As explained above ZT has been reported to increase P, total N, and mineral N contents in the soil surface [52]. Thus, the results of the current study are in a god agreement with the earlier reports of improved N contents in soil with ZT. It may be due to higher uptake of nutrients from loose soil due to better root growth and moisture uptake in BS. However, barley extracted lesser nutrients in ZT due to compacted soil layer and hence more nutrients were recorded in ZT. Muhammad et al. [53] described that reduced or minimum tillage had the highest NPK and organic matter contents in soil as compared to deep or conventional tillage. Furthermore, higher NH4-N, NO3-N, P and K contents were recorded in mungbean-B cropping system, while least was noted in fallow-B cropping system (Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4). Mungbean is capable of fixing atmospheric nitrogen and well-known for improving soil physical conditions and N availability. The inclusion of legumes in cropping systems increases available N and K, while reduces P contents [51]. The higher nutrient contents of mungbean-B are directly linked to N-fixing ability of mungbean. Venkatesh et al. [54] reported that crop rotation enhances soil fertility and ability of crops to absorb nutrients. Aref and Wander [55] noted that organic matter content was lowest in fallow-maize, highest in maize-oat-hay rotation, while intermediate in maize-oat rotation. In the same way, organic matter content was reduced as a result of reduced practices of legume, green manure and jute-based rotation [56]. Thus, adding legumes in crop sequence of different cropping systems could enhance organic matter contents as well as N.
Better allometric traits of barley were observed for all cropping systems under BS, whereas ZT resulted in poor allometric traits (Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8). The loose fertile soil of BS had more soil porosity, which resulted in more CGR. Continuous tillage practices can cause soil compaction [29,57], which result in lower crop yield. Soil compaction adversely affect soil properties, which cause obstruction in plant root development and hence result in lower crop yield [29,58]. Selection of appropriate tillage system can efficiently minimize compaction [59]. In an experiment, zero-tilled wheat performed poor due to limited availability of nutrients and moisture, which caused weaker allometric traits and finally lesser crop yield [60]. However, in the current study, ZT had higher available nutrients, but barley was unable to utilize these properly. Allometric traits and biomass production of barley were poor under ZT, although nutrients were available in sufficient quantities. Allometric traits of barley were significantly improved with BS method owing to loose fertile soil. The BS system enhanced root growth due to suitable soil conditions, which ensured better nutrient and moisture uptake and utilization than other tillage systems [44]. Similarly, it has also been reported that deep tillage, i.e., BS had considerable effect on crop performance through better root development in addition to nutrient accumulation and use [61].
Barley cultivated under BS recorded the highest dry biomass, while the lowest was noted with ZT (Table 4). It may be due to better soil condition (more soil porosity) in BS method, which played its role in healthier root growth. These roots have ability to consume more nutrients and water ensuing higher LAI and CGR. These results are in line with Khan et al. [44] and Bakht et al. [62] who found that the root growth of ridge-sown maize crop was improved due to better soil condition. In the same way, raised beds or ridges had less compacted soil, which is suitable for circulation of air and moisture than flat seedbed [62]. Likewise, BS method can save irrigation water, decrease weed flora and increase crop yield [63].
The highest biomass yield was noted in mungbean-B system, while the lowest was resulted in barley sown after fallow condition (Table 4). The reduction in yield-related traits of barley in fallow-B cropping system may be owing to more weed population [64]. The mungbean-B system increased dry biomass and associated traits due to improved soil condition, which helped in better root growth and finally ensured greater allometric traits. Thus, plants uptake more water and nutrients, which lead to high dry matter yield of barley and other yield components. In case of CS, legume-based system enhanced different components of soil fertility like humus, N, P and SOC contents [65]. It was also reported that pulses could increase SOC through the addition of organic C, N and biomass [66]. Similar findings were observed in the current study. The cropping systems containing pulses can restore the soil nutrients, particularly N. Furthermore, legumes also play their role in protecting the soil profile by bringing organic matter and soil fertility back to the soil [67]. The mungbean-B cropping systems could lower the fertilizer use due to N fixing ability of mungbean crop compared to the rest of the cropping systems.

5. Conclusions

Mungbean-barley cropping system with bed sowing significantly improved soil physicochemical properties and barley growth. It may be due to more nutrients’ uptake from loose fertile soil in bed-sown barley after mungbean crop, which resulted in higher LAI and CGR, and ultimately total biomass yield. Nonetheless, mungbean-barley cropping system and bed-sowing can be opted for improving barley growth and soil health. Additional studies are needed to find the soil organic carbon contents and possible mechanism(s) of nutrients removal from soil under different tillage systems as observed in the current experiment.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.H. and M.F.; methodology, M.H. and S.F.; software, S.H.; validation, N.M. and M.N.; formal analysis, M.N.; investigation, M.N.; resources, M.H.; data curation, M.N. and N.M.; writing—original draft preparation, M.N.; writing—review and editing, S.F., M.F., M.H., H.M.A.; visualization, M.N.; supervision. M.H. and M.F.; project administration, M.H.; funding acquisition, H.M.A. and M.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Researchers Supporting Project number RSP-2020/123, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Acknowledgments

The first author acknowledges the financial grant from Higher Education Commission, Islamabad, Pakistan.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Elferink, M.; Schierhorn, F. Global Demand for Food Is Rising. Can We Meet It? Harvard Business Review, 7 April 2016. [Google Scholar]
  2. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); IFAD; UNICEF; WFP; WHO. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  3. Awika, J.M. Major cereal grains production and use around the world. In ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, USA, 2011; pp. 1–13. ISBN 9780841226364. [Google Scholar]
  4. Ikram ul Haq, M.; Maqbool, M.M.; Ali, A.; Farooq, S.; Khan, S.; Saddiq, M.S.; Khan, K.A.; Ali, S.; Ifnan Khan, M.; Hussain, A.; et al. Optimizing planting geometry for barley-Egyptian clover intercropping system in semi-arid sub-tropical climate. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0233171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Cammarano, D.; Hawes, C.; Squire, G.; Holland, J.; Rivington, M.; Murgia, T.; Roggero, P.P.; Fontana, F.; Casa, R.; Ronga, D. Rainfall and temperature impacts on barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) yield and malting quality in Scotland. Field Crop. Res. 2019, 241, 107559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Khan, M.; Anderson, D.; Nutkani, M.; Butt, N. Preliminary results from reseeding degraded Dera Ghazi Khan rangeland to improve small ruminant production in Pakistan. Small Rumin. Res. 1999, 32, 43–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Alam, M.K.; Islam, M.M.; Salahin, N.; Hasanuzzaman, M. Effect of tillage practices on soil properties and crop productivity in wheat-mungbean-rice cropping system under subtropical climatic conditions. Sci. World J. 2014, 2014, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Khurshid, K.; Iqbal, M.; Arif, M.S.; Nawaz, A. Effect of tillage and mulch on soil physical properties and growth of maize. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2006, 8, 593–596. [Google Scholar]
  9. Lal, R.; Stewart, B.A. Principles of Sustainable Soil Management in Agroecosystems; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  10. Derpsch, R.; Friedrich, T.; Kassam, A.; Hongwen, L. Current status of adoption of no-till farming in the world and some of its main benefits. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2010, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wolfarth, F.; Schrader, S.; Oldenburg, E.; Weinert, J.; Brunotte, J. Earthworms promote the reduction of Fusarium biomass and deoxynivalenol content in wheat straw under field conditions. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2011, 43, 1858–1865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gomiero, T. Soil degradation, land scarcity and food security: Reviewing a complex challenge. Sustainability 2016, 8, 281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Ramos, M.E.; Robles, A.B.; Sánchez-Navarro, A.; González-Rebollar, J.L. Soil responses to different management practices in rainfed orchards in semiarid environments. Soil Tillage Res. 2011, 112, 85–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Çelik, İ.; Günal, H.; Acar, M.; Acir, N.; Bereket Barut, Z.; Budak, M. Evaluating the long-term effects of tillage systems on soil structural quality using visual assessment and classical methods. Soil Use Manag. 2020, 36, 223–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Malobane, M.E.; Nciizah, A.D.; Mudau, F.N.; Wakindiki, I.I.C. Tillage, crop rotation and crop residue management effects on nutrient availability in a sweet sorghum-based cropping system in marginal soils of South Africa. Agronomy 2020, 10, 776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Jaskulska, I.; Romaneckas, K.; Jaskulski, D.; Gałęzewski, L.; Breza-Boruta, B.; Dębska, B.; Lemanowicz, J. Soil properties after eight years of the use of strip-till one-pass technology. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Blanco-Canqui, H.; Ruis, S.J. No-tillage and soil physical environment. Geoderma 2018, 326, 164–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Srinivasarao, C.; Kundu, S.; Lakshmi, C.S.; Rani, Y.S.; Nataraj, K.C.; Gangaiah, B.; Laxmi, M.J.; Babu, M.V.S.; Rani, U.; Nagalakshmi, S. Soil health issues for sustainability of south Asian agriculture. EC Agric. 2019, 5, 310–326. [Google Scholar]
  19. Sims, B.; Corsi, S.; Gbehounou, G.; Kienzle, J.; Taguchi, M.; Friedrich, T. Sustainable weed management for conservation agriculture: Options for smallholder farmers. Agriculture 2018, 8, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Somasundaram, J.; Sinha, N.K.; Dalal, R.C.; Lal, R.; Mohanty, M.; Naorem, A.K.; Hati, K.M.; Chaudhary, R.S.; Biswas, A.K.; Patra, A.K.; et al. No-till farming and conservation agriculture in South Asia—Issues, challenges, prospects and benefits. CRC Crit. Rev. Plant. Sci. 2020, 39, 236–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Jat, R.K.; Sapkota, T.B.; Singh, R.G.; Jat, M.L.; Kumar, M.; Gupta, R.K. Seven years of conservation agriculture in a rice-wheat rotation of Eastern Gangetic Plains of South Asia: Yield trends and economic profitability. Field Crop. Res. 2014, 164, 199–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Jat, R.K.; Singh, R.G.; Kumar, M.; Jat, M.L.; Parihar, C.M.; Bijarniya, D.; Sutaliya, J.M.; Jat, M.K.; Parihar, M.D.; Kakraliya, S.K.; et al. Ten years of conservation agriculture in a rice–maize rotation of Eastern Gangetic Plains of India: Yield trends, water productivity and economic profitability. Field Crop. Res. 2019, 232, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bhattacharyya, R.; Das, T.K.; Das, S.; Dey, A.; Patra, A.K.; Agnihotri, R.; Ghosh, A.; Sharma, A.R. Four years of conservation agriculture affects topsoil aggregate-associated 15nitrogen but not the 15nitrogen use efficiency by wheat in a semi-arid climate. Geoderma 2019, 337, 333–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Somasundaram, J.; Chaudhary, R.S.; Awanish Kumar, D.; Biswas, A.K.; Sinha, N.K.; Mohanty, M.; Hati, K.M.; Jha, P.; Sankar, M.; Patra, A.K.; et al. Effect of contrasting tillage and cropping systems on soil aggregation, carbon pools and aggregate-associated carbon in rainfed Vertisols. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2018, 69, 879–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Neugschwandtner, R.W.; Liebhard, P.; Kaul, H.P.; Wagentristl, H. Soil chemical properties as affected by tillage and crop rotation in a long-term field experiment. Plant. Soil Environ. 2014, 60, 57–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Celik, I. Land-use effects on organic matter and physical properties of soil in a southern Mediterranean highland of Turkey. Soil Tillage Res. 2005, 83, 270–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ranamukhaarachchi, S.L.; Begum, M.M.R.S.N. Soil fertility and land productivity under different cropping systems in highlands and medium highlands of Chandina Sub-district, Bangladesh. Asia. Pac. J. Rural Dev. 2005, 15, 63–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bhushan, L.; Sharma, P.K. Long-term effects of lantana residue additions on water retention and transmission properties of a medium-textured soil under rice-wheat cropping in northwest India. Soil Use Manag. 2006, 21, 32–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Hamza, M.A.; Anderson, W.K. Soil compaction in cropping systems. Soil Tillage Res. 2005, 82, 121–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Swędrzyńska, D.; Małecka-Jankowiak, I. The impact of tillaging spring barley on selected chemical, microbiological, and enzymatic soil properties. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2017, 26, 303–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. López, F.J.; Pastrana, P.; Casquero, P.A. Soil physical properties and crop response in direct seeding of spring barley as affected by wheat straw level. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2019, 74, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Blake, G.R.; Hartge, K.H. Bulk density. In Methods of Soil Analysis: Part. 1 Physical and Mineralogical Methods, 2nd ed.; American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA, 1986; Volume 5, pp. 363–375. [Google Scholar]
  33. Danielson, R.E.; Sutherland, P.L. Porosity. In Methods of Soil Analysis: Part. 1 Physical and Mineralogical Methods, 2nd ed.; American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA, 1986; Volume 5, pp. 443–461. [Google Scholar]
  34. Soltanpour, P.N.; Schwab, A.P. A new soil test for simultaneous extraction of macro- and micro-nutrients in alkaline soils. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant. Anal. 1977, 8, 195–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Soltanpour, P.N.; Workman, S. Modification of the NH4HCO3-DTPA soil test to omit carbon black1. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant. Anal. 1979, 10, 1411–1420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Watson, D.J. Comparative physiological studies on the growth of field crops: I. Variation in net assimilation rate and leaf area between species and varieties, and within and between years. Ann. Bot. 1947, 11, 41–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Garnier, E.; Shipley, B.; Roumet, C.; Laurent, G. A standardized protocol for the determination of specific leaf area and leaf dry matter content. Funct. Ecol. 2001, 15, 688–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hunt, R. Plant Growth Analysis; Institute of Terrestrial Ecology: Brighton, UK, 1982; Volume 4, ISBN 090428266X. [Google Scholar]
  39. Steel, R.; Torrei, J.; Dickey, D. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach; McGraw Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  40. Rai, V.; Pramanik, P.; Aggarwal, P.; Krishnan, P.; Bhattacharyya, R. Effect of conservation agriculture on soil physical health. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2018, 7, 373–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lal, R.; Reicosky, D.C.; Hanson, J.D. Evolution of the plow over 10,000 years and the rationale for no-till farming. Soil Tillage Res. 2007, 93, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Aggarwal, P.; Goswami, B. Bed planting system for increasing water-use efficiency of wheat (Triticum aestivum) grown on Inceptisol (Typic Ustochrept). Indian J. Agric. Sci. 2003, 73, 422–425. [Google Scholar]
  43. Aggarwal, P.; Choudhary, K.K.; Singh, A.K.; Chakraborty, D. Variation in soil strength and rooting characteristics of wheat in relation to soil management. Geoderma 2006, 136, 353–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Khan, M.B.; Rafiq, R.; Hussain, M.; Farooq, M.; Jabran, K. Ridge sowing improves root system, phosphorus uptake, growth and yield of Maize (Zea Mays L.) Hybrids. J. Anim. Plant. Sci. 2012, 22, 309–317. [Google Scholar]
  45. Lee, H.; Lautenbach, S.; Nieto, A.P.G.; Bondeau, A.; Cramer, W.; Geijzendorffer, I.R. The impact of conservation farming practices on Mediterranean agro-ecosystem services provisioning—A meta-analysis. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2019, 19, 2187–2202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. López-Garrido, R.; Madejón, E.; Moreno, F.; Murillo, J.M. Conservation tillage influence on carbon dynamics under Mediterranean conditions. Pedosphere 2014, 24, 65–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Kassam, A.; Friedrich, T.; Derpsch, R.; Lahmar, R.; Mrabet, R.; Basch, G.; Serraj, R. Conservation agriculture in the dry Mediterranean climate. Field Crops Res. 2012, 132, 7–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Fustec, J.; Lesuffleur, F.; Mahieu, S.; Cliquet, J.B. Nitrogen rhizodeposition of legumes. A review. Agron. Sustain. Develop. 2010, 30, 57–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Indoria, A.K.; Srinivasa Rao, C.; Sharma, K.L.; Sammi Reddy, K. Conservation agriculture—A panacea to improve soil physical health. Curr. Sci. 2017, 112, 52–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Shahzad, M.; Farooq, M.; Jabran, K.; Yasir, T.A.; Hussain, M. Influence of various tillage practices on soil physical properties and wheat performance in different wheat-based cropping systems. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2016, 18, 821–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lu, M.; Yang, Y.; Luo, Y.; Fang, C.; Zhou, X.; Chen, J.; Li, B. Responses of ecosystem nitrogen cycle to nitrogen addition: A meta-analysis. New Phytol 2011, 189, 1040–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Fierer, N.; Strickland, M.S.; Liptzin, D.; Bradford, M.A.; Cleveland, C.C. Global patterns in belowground communities. Ecol. Lett. 2009, 12, 1238–1249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Muhammad, I.; Khan, F.U.; Khan, A.; Wang, J. Soil fertility in response to urea and farmyard manure incorporation under different tillage systems in Peshawar, Pakistan. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2018, 20, 1539–1547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Venkatesh, M.S.; Hazra, K.K.; Ghosh, P.K.; Khuswah, B.L.; Ganeshamurthy, A.N.; Ali, M.; Singh, J.; Mathur, R.S. Long-term effect of crop rotation and nutrient management on soil-plant nutrient cycling and nutrient budgeting in Indo-Gangetic plains of India. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2017, 63, 2007–2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Aref, S.; Wander, M.M. Long-term trends of corn yield and soil organic matter in different crop sequences and soil fertility treatments on the morrow plots. Adv. Agron. 1997, 62, 153–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Alam, M.K. Effect of Tillage Depths and Cropping Patterns on Soil Properties and Crop Productivity. Ph.D. Thesis, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University, Gazipur, Bangladesh, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  57. Hamza, M.A.; Al-Adawi, S.S.; Al-Hinai, K.A. Effect of combined soil water and external load on soil compaction. Soil Res. 2011, 49, 135–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Mosaddeghi, M.R.; Mahboubi, A.A.; Safadoust, A. Short-term effects of tillage and manure on some soil physical properties and maize root growth in a sandy loam soil in western Iran. Soil Tillage Res. 2009, 104, 173–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Daniells, I.G. Hardsetting soils: A review. Soil Res. 2012, 50, 349–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Shahzad, M.; Farooq, M.; Jabran, K.; Hussain, M. Impact of different crop rotations and tillage systems on weed infestation and productivity of bread wheat. Crop. Prot. 2016, 89, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Alam, M.; Salahin, N. Changes in soil physical properties and crop productivity as influenced by different tillage depths and cropping patterns. Bangladesh J. Agric. Res. 2013, 38, 289–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Bakht, J.; Shaf, M.; Rehman, H.; Uddin, R.; Anwar, S. Effect of planting methods on growth, phenology and yield of maize varieties. Pak. J. Bot. 2011, 43, 1629–1633. [Google Scholar]
  63. Shahzad, M.; Farooq, M.; Hussain, M. Weed spectrum in different wheat-based cropping systems under conservation and conventional tillage practices in Punjab, Pakistan. Soil Tillage Res. 2016, 163, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Asad, M.; Ali, S.; Ansar, M.R.; Ahmad, I.; Suhaib, M.; Abuzar, M.K. Weed and wheat dynamics preceding different herbicides. Pak. J. Agric. Res. 2017, 30, 346–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Jensen, E.S.; Peoples, M.B.; Boddey, R.M.; Gresshoff, P.M.; Hauggaard-Nielsen, H.; Bruno, J.R.A.; Morrison, M.J. Legumes for mitigation of climate change and the provision of feedstock for biofuels and biorefineries. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2012, 32, 329–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Lemke, R.L.; Zhong, Z.; Campbell, C.A.; Zentner, R. Can Pulse crops play a role in mitigating greenhouse gases from North American agriculture? Agron. J. 2007, 99, 1719–1725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Ahmad, W.; Khan, F.; Naeem, M. Impact of cropping patterns and fertilizer treatments on the organic fertility of slightly eroded pirsabak soil series in NWFP, Pakistan. Soil Environ. 2010, 29, 53–60. [Google Scholar]
Agronomy 11 00008 g001 550
Figure 1. Interactive effect of tillage systems and barley-based cropping on NH4-N (mg kg−1) after barley harvest during 2017–2018 (A) and 2018–2019 (B) ±S.E. In the legend, Fallow-B = Fallow-barley, Maize-B = Maize-barley, Cotton-B = Cotton-barley, Mungbean-B = Mungbean-barley and Sorghum-B = Sorghum-barley. The means sharing same letters do not differ significantly (p > 0.05). LSD 0.05 (2017–2018 = 0.10, 2018–2019 = 0.07).
Figure 1. Interactive effect of tillage systems and barley-based cropping on NH4-N (mg kg−1) after barley harvest during 2017–2018 (A) and 2018–2019 (B) ±S.E. In the legend, Fallow-B = Fallow-barley, Maize-B = Maize-barley, Cotton-B = Cotton-barley, Mungbean-B = Mungbean-barley and Sorghum-B = Sorghum-barley. The means sharing same letters do not differ significantly (p > 0.05). LSD 0.05 (2017–2018 = 0.10, 2018–2019 = 0.07).
Agronomy 11 00008 g001
Agronomy 11 00008 g002 550
Figure 2. Interactive effect of tillage systems and barley-based cropping systems on soil NO3-N (mg kg−1) after barley harvest during 2017–2018 (A) and 2018–2019 (B) ±S.E. In the legend, Fallow-B = Fallow-barley, Maize-B = Maize-barley, Cotton-B = Cotton-barley, Mungbean-B = Mungbean-barley and Sorghum-B = Sorghum-barley. The means sharing same letters do not differ significantly (p > 0.05). LSD 0.05 (2017–2018 = 0.08, 2018–2019 = 0.05).
Figure 2. Interactive effect of tillage systems and barley-based cropping systems on soil NO3-N (mg kg−1) after barley harvest during 2017–2018 (A) and 2018–2019 (B) ±S.E. In the legend, Fallow-B = Fallow-barley, Maize-B = Maize-barley, Cotton-B = Cotton-barley, Mungbean-B = Mungbean-barley and Sorghum-B = Sorghum-barley. The means sharing same letters do not differ significantly (p > 0.05). LSD 0.05 (2017–2018 = 0.08, 2018–2019 = 0.05).
Agronomy 11 00008 g002
Agronomy 11 00008 g003 550
Figure 3. Interactive effect of tillage systems and barley-based cropping systems on soil available P (mg kg−1) after barley harvest during 2017–2018 (A) and 2018–2019 (B) ±S.E. In the legend, Fallow-B = Fallow-barley, Maize-B = Maize-barley, Cotton-B = Cotton-barley, Mungbean-B = Mungbean-barley and Sorghum-B = Sorghum-barley. The means sharing same letters do not differ significantly (p > 0.05). LSD 0.05 (2017–2018 = 0.65, 2018–2019 = 0.56).
Figure 3. Interactive effect of tillage systems and barley-based cropping systems on soil available P (mg kg−1) after barley harvest during 2017–2018 (A) and 2018–2019 (B) ±S.E. In the legend, Fallow-B = Fallow-barley, Maize-B = Maize-barley, Cotton-B = Cotton-barley, Mungbean-B = Mungbean-barley and Sorghum-B = Sorghum-barley. The means sharing same letters do not differ significantly (p > 0.05). LSD 0.05 (2017–2018 = 0.65, 2018–2019 = 0.56).
Agronomy 11 00008 g003
Agronomy 11 00008 g004 550
Figure 4. Interactive effect of tillage systems and barley-based cropping systems on soil available K (mg kg−1) after barley harvest during 2017–2018 (A) and 2018–2019 (B) ±S.E. In the legend, Fallow-B = Fallow-barley, Maize-B = Maize-barley, Cotton-B = Cotton-barley, Mungbean-B = Mungbean-barley and Sorghum-B = Sorghum-barley. The means sharing same letters do not differ significantly (p > 0.05). LSD 0.05 (2017–2018 = 3.18, 2018–2019 = 3.24).
Figure 4. Interactive effect of tillage systems and barley-based cropping systems on soil available K (mg kg−1) after barley harvest during 2017–2018 (A) and 2018–2019 (B) ±S.E. In the legend, Fallow-B = Fallow-barley, Maize-B = Maize-barley, Cotton-B = Cotton-barley, Mungbean-B = Mungbean-barley and Sorghum-B = Sorghum-barley. The means sharing same letters do not differ significantly (p > 0.05). LSD 0.05 (2017–2018 = 3.18, 2018–2019 = 3.24).
Agronomy 11 00008 g004
Agronomy 11 00008 g005 550
Figure 5. Interactive effect of tillage systems and barley-based cropping Scheme 2017. (A) and 2018–2019 (B) ±S.E. In the legend, Fallow-B = Fallow-barley, Maize-B = Maize-barley, Cotton-B = Cotton-barley, Mungbean-B = Mungbean-barley and Sorghum-B = Sorghum-barley.
Figure 5. Interactive effect of tillage systems and barley-based cropping Scheme 2017. (A) and 2018–2019 (B) ±S.E. In the legend, Fallow-B = Fallow-barley, Maize-B = Maize-barley, Cotton-B = Cotton-barley, Mungbean-B = Mungbean-barley and Sorghum-B = Sorghum-barley.
Agronomy 11 00008 g005
Agronomy 11 00008 g006 550
Figure 6. Interactive effect of tillage systems and barley-based cropping systems on specific leaf area (cm-2g-1) of barley during 2017–2018 (A) and 2018–2019 (B) ±S.E. In the legend, Fallow-B = Fallow-barley, Maize-B = Maize-barley, Cotton-B = Cotton-barley, Mungbean-B = Mungbean-barley and Sorghum-B = Sorghum-barley.
Figure 6. Interactive effect of tillage systems and barley-based cropping systems on specific leaf area (cm-2g-1) of barley during 2017–2018 (A) and 2018–2019 (B) ±S.E. In the legend, Fallow-B = Fallow-barley, Maize-B = Maize-barley, Cotton-B = Cotton-barley, Mungbean-B = Mungbean-barley and Sorghum-B = Sorghum-barley.
Agronomy 11 00008 g006
Agronomy 11 00008 g007 550
Figure 7. Interactive effect of tillage systems and barley-based cropping on crop growth rate (g m−2 day−1) of barley during 2017–2018 (A) and 2018–2019 (B) ±S.E. In the legend, Fallow-B = Fallow-barley, Maize-B = Maize-barley, Cotton-B = Cotton-barley, Mungbean-B = Mungbean-barley and Sorghum-B = Sorghum-barley.
Figure 7. Interactive effect of tillage systems and barley-based cropping on crop growth rate (g m−2 day−1) of barley during 2017–2018 (A) and 2018–2019 (B) ±S.E. In the legend, Fallow-B = Fallow-barley, Maize-B = Maize-barley, Cotton-B = Cotton-barley, Mungbean-B = Mungbean-barley and Sorghum-B = Sorghum-barley.
Agronomy 11 00008 g007
Agronomy 11 00008 g008 550
Figure 8. Interactive effect of tillage systems and barley-based cropping systems on net assimilation rate (g m−2 day−1) of barley during 2017–2018 (A) and 2018–2019 (B) ±S.E. In the legend, Fallow-B = Fallow-barley, Maize-B = Maize-barley, Cotton-B = Cotton-barley, Mungbean-B = Mungbean-barley and Sorghum-B = Sorghum-barley.
Figure 8. Interactive effect of tillage systems and barley-based cropping systems on net assimilation rate (g m−2 day−1) of barley during 2017–2018 (A) and 2018–2019 (B) ±S.E. In the legend, Fallow-B = Fallow-barley, Maize-B = Maize-barley, Cotton-B = Cotton-barley, Mungbean-B = Mungbean-barley and Sorghum-B = Sorghum-barley.
Agronomy 11 00008 g008
Table
Table 1. Weather data for the period of research at the experimental site.
Table 1. Weather data for the period of research at the experimental site.
Months2017–20182018–2019
Mean Temperature (°C)Mean Relative Humidity (%)Mean Daily Sunshine (h)Total MonthlyRainfall (mm)Mean Temperature (°C)Mean Relative Humidity (%)Mean Daily Sunshine (h)Total MonthlyRainfall (mm)
May34.063.04.80.132.952.610.30.0
June33.174.94.545.634.664.73.50.0
July33.673.07.24.933.271.25.50.0
August31.885.27.730.032.475.14.30.0
September30.677.18.010.029.877.16.80.0
October27.077.67.44.223.075.15.50.0
November18.081.43.716.018.982.24.40.0
December14.675.05.216.014.285.05.90.0
January13.683.14.40.012.286.34.311.0
February17.575.44.96.814.480.66.725.1
March23.570.97.20.019.575.97.321.0
April29.456.75.43.028.673.17.712.7
Table
Table 2. Crop husbandry of different crops sown in barley-based cropping systems of the study.
Table 2. Crop husbandry of different crops sown in barley-based cropping systems of the study.
CropsSowing TimeCultivarsSeed Rate (kg ha−1)PPFertilizer
NPK (kg ha−1)		Plant Spacing
(cm)		Row Spacing
(cm)
Summer Seasons (2017 and 2018)
Cotton15th MayIUB-2013256250-200-02075
Sorghum10th JuneYS-161011100-60-01560
Mungbean15th JuneNIAB-Mung 2011203320-60-01030
Maize25th JulyYH-1898256200-150-02275
Winter Seasons (2017–2018 and 2018–2019)
Barley10th NovHaider-938040050-25-0 25
PP = Plant population (plants or tillers m−2).
Table
Table 3. Impact of barley-based cropping systems on soil bulk density and soil porosity after barley harvest under conventional and conservation tillage systems.
Table 3. Impact of barley-based cropping systems on soil bulk density and soil porosity after barley harvest under conventional and conservation tillage systems.
Cropping Systems2017–20182018–2019
ZTMTSTCTBSZTMTSTCTBS
Soil bulk density (g cm−3)
Fallow-B1.52 a1.48 c–e1.49 b–d1.46 fg1.45 gh1.53 a1.48 de1.48 de1.46 fg1.45 gh
Maize-B1.50 b1.49 bc1.50 b1.48 de1.46 fg1.50 bc1.50 bc1.51 b1.49 cd1.47 ef
Cotton-B1.48 de1.47 ef1.48 de1.45 gh1.44 h1.48 de1.48 de1.46 fg1.45 gh1.45 gh
Mungbean-B1.48 de1.46 fg1.48 de1.44 h1.44 h1.48 c–e1.47 ef1.47 ef1.45 gh1.44 h
Sorghum-B1.50 b1.48 de1.49 b–d1.46 fg1.44 h1.49 b–d1.48 de1.50 bc1.47 ef1.46 fg
LSD value (p < 0.05)0.01 0.01
Soil porosity (%)
Fallow-B40.5 n43.7 fg43.8 e–g45.1 b–d46.0 ab40.4 kl42.3 gh42.6 g44.2 f46.3 ab
Maize-B41.0 mn41.7 k–m41.9 kl43.4 g44.9 cd40.4 kl41.3 i–k40.0 l44.6 ef44.8 c–f
Cotton-B41.3 l–n42.3 i–k43.1 g–i44.6 de46.3 a41.8 g–j42.6 g43.8 f45.9 a–c46.8 a
Mungbean-B41.3 l–n42.4 h–k43.0 g–j44.5 d–f45.8 a–c41.4 g–j42.6 g42.1 g–i44.8 d–f45.8 b–d
Sorghum-B40.9 mn42.1 j–l42.1 kl43.3 gh43.5 g41.0 j–l42.4 gh42.1 g–j45.2 b–e46.2 ab
LSD value (p < 0.05)0.840.98
Means not having common letter for interactive effects significantly vary from each other at p ≤ 0.05., Here, ZT = zero tillage, MT = minimum tillage, ST = strip tillage, CT = conventional tillage, BS = bed sowing, Fallow-B = Fallow-barley, Maize-B = Maize-barley, Cotton-B = Cotton-barley, Mungbean-B = Mungbean-barley and Sorghum-B = Sorghum-barley.
Table
Table 4. Impact of different barley-based cropping systems on dry biomass yield (g m−2) of barley under conservation and conventional tillage systems.
Table 4. Impact of different barley-based cropping systems on dry biomass yield (g m−2) of barley under conservation and conventional tillage systems.
Cropping Systems2017–20182018–2019
ZTMTSTCTBSZTMTSTCTBS
Fallow-B222.8 r254.0 kl240.9 op275.8 g297.4 d231.5 r253.0 o264.9 m281.3 h312.3 e
Maize-B244.7 no262.2 hi249.2 mn285.1 ef310.8 b246.7 p266.2 lm273.7 ij290.3 g326.6 c
Cotton-B236.8 pq259.6 ij250.2 lm284.3 ef307.3 bc255.8 o268.7 kl267.6 lm287.5 g317.8 d
Mungbean-B226.3 r264.7 h259.1 ij288.1 e325.3 a238.8 q275.9 i275.7 i294.5 f336.0 a
Sorghum-B232.7 q257.3 jk250.2 lm282.8 f303.0 c244.2 p259.6 n271.1 jk294.3 f330.5 b
LSD value (p < 0.05)4.72 3.30
Means not having common letter for interactive effects significantly vary from each other at p ≤ 0.05. Here, ZT = zero tillage, MT = minimum tillage, ST = strip tillage, CT = conventional tillage, BS = bed sowing, Fallow-B = Fallow-barley, Maize-B = Maize-barley, Cotton-B = Cotton-barley, Mungbean-B = Mungbean-barley and Sorghum-B = Sorghum-barley.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Naeem, M.; Mehboob, N.; Farooq, M.; Farooq, S.; Hussain, S.; M. Ali, H.; Hussain, M. Impact of Different Barley-Based Cropping Systems on Soil Physicochemical Properties and Barley Growth under Conventional and Conservation Tillage Systems. Agronomy 2021, 11, 8. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/agronomy11010008

AMA Style

Naeem M, Mehboob N, Farooq M, Farooq S, Hussain S, M. Ali H, Hussain M. Impact of Different Barley-Based Cropping Systems on Soil Physicochemical Properties and Barley Growth under Conventional and Conservation Tillage Systems. Agronomy. 2021; 11(1):8. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/agronomy11010008

Chicago/Turabian Style

Naeem, Muhammad, Noman Mehboob, Muhammad Farooq, Shahid Farooq, Shahid Hussain, Hayssam M. Ali, and Mubshar Hussain. 2021. "Impact of Different Barley-Based Cropping Systems on Soil Physicochemical Properties and Barley Growth under Conventional and Conservation Tillage Systems" Agronomy 11, no. 1: 8. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/agronomy11010008

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop