Abstract
• Technology integration ensured efficient resource use and enhanced sustainability in RWS. • Rice residue mulching lowered blue WFs compared to non-mulched wheat. • Drip-DSR reduced WFs by 14% and 43% compared to PTR and SIS-DSR. • Drip-irrigated DSR/ZTW with rice residue mulch serves as a transformative alternative to conventional PTR/CTW. • AquaCrop model accurately predicted the spatial variability for soil moisture and yield in irrigation systems. Intensive tillage and on-field residue burning have gained significant traction in South Asia's rice-wheat system (RWS), often with little attention for their economic, soil health, and environmental impacts. This study seeks to identify the resource smart agri-food systems while promoting conservational tillage and residue management practices with pressurized (drip/mini-sprinkler) irrigation systems. A two-years field experiment was executed in RWS to assess the crop establishment [(puddled transplanted rice (PTR) and direct-seeded rice (DSR); conventional tillage wheat (CTW) and zero tillage wheat (ZTW)], conservation tillage (reduced/zero) and residue management (with and without mulching) practices with surface, drip, and mini-sprinkler (MSIS) irrigation techniques. The results indicated that the greater availability of soil moisture in PTR led to notable improvements in both morphological (DMA: 10.8%) and physiological traits (RWC: 5%; Pn: 7.9%, gS: 3.8% and E: 7.4%), ultimately resulting in enhanced yield components [(filled grains per panicle (17%) and 1000-grain weight (8%)] and an overall yield increase of 11% compared to DSR. Furthermore, the yield penalty of 10% associated with DSR was compensated by a 14% enhancement in crop performance in ZTW. The favorable alterations in soil moisture conditions and the more effective utilization of available resources in the pressurized irrigation residue mulched ZTW system (DRIP/MSIS-ZTW+RM) facilitated superior crop growth and enhanced yield metrics, achieving a 17% increase in wheat yields and a 53% improvement in irrigation water use efficiency relative to CTW. Residue mulching increased wheat yield by 7%, with gains of 6.3% in SIS, 7.1% in MSIS, and 7.7% in DRIP-irrigated ZTW. The AquaCrop model performance was deemed adequate to validate and simulate rice and wheat yield and water footprint (WF) for various treatments applied to both the crops. Notably, the DRIP-DSR treatment recorded a 14.2% lower blue WF in comparison to PTR, and a 42.7% reduction when compared to SIS-DSR. For wheat, the DRIP-ZTW treatment demonstrated a 29.4% decrease in blue WF compared to CTW, with residue mulch leading to an additional 32.8% reduction. On average, retaining surface residue as mulch (+RM) resulted in a 10.5% lower blue WF than without mulch (–RM). Transitioning from conventional RWS to a drip-irrigated DSR-ZTW system, complemented by rice residue mulching (DRIP-DSR/ZTW+RM), offers a resource-efficient sustainable alternative for ecological sustainability and food security in the western Indo-Gangetic Plains (IGP) and similar regions.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 11
Claim · model-written summary
Puddled transplanted rice gave an overall yield increase of 11% compared with direct-seeded rice.
- Taxon
- rice
Oryza sativat0 - Treatment
- PTRe1
- Outcome
- overall yielde2
- Direction
- increasee2
- Value
- 11%e2
- Comparator
- DSRe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“rice-wheat system”
e1“the greater availability of soil moisture in PTR”
e2“an overall yield increase of 11% compared to DSR”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip-irrigated residue-mulched zero-tillage wheat achieved a 17% increase in wheat yield relative to conventional tillage wheat.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume3 - Treatment
- residue mulched ZTW systeme4
- Outcome
- wheat yieldse3
- Direction
- increasee3
- Value
- 17%e3
- Comparator
- CTWe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“rice-wheat system”
e3“achieving a 17% increase in wheat yields and a 53% improvement in irrigation water use efficiency relative to CTW”
e4“in the pressurized irrigation residue mulched ZTW system (DRIP/MSIS-ZTW+RM) facilitated superior crop growth”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip-irrigated residue-mulched zero-tillage wheat achieved a 53% improvement in irrigation water use efficiency relative to conventional tillage wheat.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume3
- Treatment
- residue mulched ZTW systeme4
- Outcome
- irrigation water use efficiencye3
- Direction
- improvemente3
- Value
- 53%e3
- Comparator
- CTWe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“achieving a 17% increase in wheat yields and a 53% improvement in irrigation water use efficiency relative to CTW”
e4“in the pressurized irrigation residue mulched ZTW system (DRIP/MSIS-ZTW+RM) facilitated superior crop growth”
Claim · model-written summary
Residue mulching increased wheat yield by 7%.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume5
- Treatment
- Residue mulchinge5
- Outcome
- wheat yielde5
- Direction
- increasede5
- Value
- 7%e5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“rice-wheat system”
e5“Residue mulching increased wheat yield by 7%”
Claim · model-written summary
DRIP-DSR had a 14.2% lower blue water footprint than PTR in rice.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- DRIP-DSRe6
- Outcome
- blue WFe6
- Direction
- lowere6
- Value
- 14.2%e6
- Comparator
- PTRe6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“rice-wheat system”
e6“the DRIP-DSR treatment recorded a 14.2% lower blue WF in comparison to PTR”
Claim · model-written summary
DRIP-DSR had a 42.7% reduction in blue water footprint compared with SIS-DSR in rice.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- DRIP-DSRe6
- Outcome
- blue WFe6
- Direction
- reductione7
- Value
- 42.7%e7
- Comparator
- SIS-DSRe7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“rice-wheat system”
e6“the DRIP-DSR treatment recorded a 14.2% lower blue WF in comparison to PTR”
e7“a 42.7% reduction when compared to SIS-DSR”
Claim · model-written summary
DRIP-ZTW had a 29.4% decrease in blue water footprint compared with CTW in wheat.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume6
- Treatment
- DRIP-ZTWe6
- Outcome
- blue WFe6
- Direction
- decreasee6
- Value
- 29.4%e6
- Comparator
- CTWe6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“rice-wheat system”
e6“For wheat, the DRIP-ZTW treatment demonstrated a 29.4% decrease in blue WF compared to CTW”
Claim · model-written summary
Residue mulch gave an additional 32.8% reduction in blue water footprint of wheat.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume6
- Treatment
- residue mulche7
- Outcome
- blue WFe6
- Direction
- reductione7
- Value
- 32.8%e7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“rice-wheat system”
e6“For wheat, the DRIP-ZTW treatment demonstrated a 29.4% decrease in blue WF compared to CTW”
e7“with residue mulch leading to an additional 32.8% reduction”
Claim · model-written summary
On average, retaining surface residue as mulch gave a 10.5% lower blue water footprint than no mulch.
Verbatim
t0“rice-wheat system”
e2“On average, retaining surface residue as mulch (+RM) resulted in a 10.5% lower blue WF than without mulch”
Claim · model-written summary
The AquaCrop model performance was adequate to validate and simulate rice and wheat yield.
- Taxon
- rice and wheatOryza sativaTriticum aestivume3
- Outcome
- model performancee3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“The AquaCrop model performance was deemed adequate to validate and simulate rice and wheat yield”
Claim · model-written summary
AquaCrop accurately predicted the spatial variability of soil moisture and yield in irrigation systems.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“rice-wheat system”
e4“AquaCrop model accurately predicted the spatial variability for soil moisture and yield in irrigation systems”
The same questions in other papers
mulching · physiology: water · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
40 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- negative
40 papers more in this group
See all 44 papers →tillage · physiology: water · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
96 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
113 papers more in this group
See all 117 papers →mulching · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
136 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
145 papers more in this group
See all 149 papers →tillage · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
586 papers in the same direction as this paper · 115 in the opposite direction · 27 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
725 papers more in this group
See all 729 papers →transplanting · yield · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
921 papers in the same direction as this paper · 132 in the opposite direction · 24 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- no effect
1,074 papers more in this group
See all 1,078 papers →tillage · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
1,115 papers in the same direction as this paper · 257 in the opposite direction · 41 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- negative
1,410 papers more in this group
See all 1,414 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.