https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3387-0830
![Sample our Built Environment journals, sign in here to start your access, Latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5926/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Built-Environment.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
In North India, sub-soiling is required to alleviate the problem of soil compaction raised due to the use of heavy machinery. We have emphasized energy auditing to understand the practical feasibility of sub-soiling in cotton-wheat cropping system. Four sub-soiling treatments (cross and single side sub-soiling at 1.0 m, 1.5 m under both cases) in addition to conventional tillage were compared with conventional tillage alone at two sites. Sub-soiling improved crop yield by 13.5–33.7% in cotton and 13.0–22.0% in wheat as compared to control. Net monetary returns earned with sub-soiling were 98–408 and 159–287 US$/ha higher under cotton and wheat, respectively over control. Energy auditing suggested that sub-soiling treatments consumed 489–1504 MJ/ha extra energy in cotton season, however, net energy gain was higher in cotton (by 11,518–29,715 MJ/ha) and wheat (by 19,861–32,594 MJ/ha) over control. Energy use efficiency was higher under sub-soiling treatments in cotton (5.36–7.25) and wheat (9.55–10.46), whereas corresponding values under control were 4.64–6.18 and 8.18–8.36. Similarly, lesser specific energy was observed under sub-soiling treatments as compared to control. The present study concluded that sub-soiling increased cotton productivity and energetic returns as well as had the significant residual effect on wheat crop. These results clearly suggest that sub-soiling is a sustainable practice for cotton-wheat system in north-western India.
List of various abbreviations used throughout the manuscript
| SS1 | = | Sub-soiling at 1.0m distance |
| SS1.5 | = | Sub-soiling at 1.5m distance |
| CSS1 | = | Cross sub-soiling at 1.0m×1.0m distance |
| CSS1.5 | = | Cross sub-soiling at 1.5m×1.5m distance |
| CT | = | Conventional tillage (no sub-soiling control) |
| SCY | = | Seed cotton yield |
| COC | = | Cost of cultivation |
| DE | = | Direct energy |
| IDE | = | Indirect energy |
| RNE | = | Renewable energy |
| NRNE | = | Non-renewable energy |
| NEG | = | Net energy gain |
| SE | = | Specific energy |
| EUE | = | Energy use efficiency |
Acknowledgments
Authors are grateful to Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) and Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana; Punjab for financial and providing the necessary facilities for the successful completion of the experiment.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Harjeet Singh Brar
Harjeet Singh Brar is an Agronomist at Regional Research Station of Punjab Agricultural University at Bathinda. He is engaged in reserach on various aspects of cotton production.
Manpreet Singh
Manpreet Singh is Senior Agronomist at Regional Research Station of Punjab Agricultural University at Abohar. He is engaged in research on crop production and weed management aspects of cotton.