Effect of organic and inorganic sources of nutrients on rice crop

An experiment was conducted for two consecutive years (2011-2012 and 2012-2013) on fine texture soils of Agricultural college farm, Bapatla. The experiment was laid out in a randomized block design in wet season with four treatments and five replications. The treatments consisted of M1 (recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF) - Control), M2 (10t farmyard yard manure (FYM) ha-1 + RDF), M3 (1.5t vermicompost ha-1 + RDF), M4 (Green manuring + RDF). Data collected on biometric observations (plant height, number of tillers, dry matter accumulation) and yield. The yield of crop was significantly increased with the application of 100%NPK in combination with FYM @10t ha-1. However, it was at par with green manuring along with the application of 100% RDF (NPK).Thus, green manure in situ with Dhaincha may be used as an alternative organic source of nutrients to the FYM

Factors determining the soil health card adoption behaviour among farmers in Andhra Pradesh

The soil health card (SHC) is used to assess the current status of soil health and when used over time, helps to determine changes in soil health that are affected by land management. A SHC displays soil health indicators and associated descriptive terms. The SHC carries cropwise recommendations of nutrients / fertilizers required for farms, making it possible for farmers to improve productivity by using appropriate inputs. The Central Government is providing assistance to State Governments for setting up soil testing laboratories for issuing such SHCs to farmers. State Governments have adopted innovative practices like involvement of agricultural students, NGOs and private sector in soil testing, determining average soil health of villages, etc., to issue SHCs. Though quite a few states including Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh and Haryana are successfully distributing such cards, the Centre plans to make it a pan India effort. According to a data, till November 15th 2017, over 9.72 crore soil health cards have been issued to farmers to make them aware about nutrient deficiencies in their fields

Effect of nitrogen and phosphorus levels on oil quality of rainfed Palmarosa (Cymbopogan martini var. Motia)

A field experiment was conducted during 2007-08 to study the effect of different levels of nitrogen and phosphorus on oil quality of Palmarosa (both physical and chemical tests) under rainfed conditions on vertisols

Influence of Crops and Different Production Systems on Soil Carbon Fractions and Carbon Sequestration in Rainfed Areas of Semiarid Tropics in India

Organic agriculture’s economic benefits and widespread adoption are well documented, but its impact on soil C dynamics in rainfed regions of semiarid tropics is less understood. The use of organic amendments in organic farming not only supply nutrients but also have the potential to contribute to soil carbon sequestration. Carbon storage and various soil organic pools are affected differently by various crops and production systems. A study was conducted with three crops (sunflower, pigeonpea, and greengram) under three production systems (control, organic and integrated) to assess the effect on soil C stocks, carbon sequestration potential, and crop yield. After seven years of experiment, pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L.) cultivation improved soil bulk density, porosity and water holding capacity compared to greengram [Vigna radiata (L) Wilczek] and sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Furthermore, plots under pigeonpea cultivation being on par with greengram had 15.6% higher total C (113.52 Mg C ha−1), 14% higher easily oxidizable organic C (17.5 Mg C ha−1) and C sequestration rate of 1.22 Mg C ha−1 yr−1 compared to sunflower. Among the three production systems, plots under organic management had significantly lower bulk density and higher water holding capacity and porosity at all of the profile depths compared to integrated production system and control. Similarly, organic production system being on par with integrated production system improved the easily oxidizable, oxidizable and weakly oxidizable organic C fractions at different soil depths compared to control. The C sequestration rate ranged from 0.21 to 0.85 Mg C ha−1 yr−1 in organic production systems compared to negligible rate (0.01–0.04 Mg ha−1 yr−1) in the plots under control. On average, integrated production system being on par with organic management recorded significantly higher pigeonpea equivalent seed yield (886 kg ha−1) compared to control (792 kg ha−1). These results suggest the potential of organic production system in improving soil properties, C sequestration, and crop yields in semiarid rainfed areas

AgroEcoList 1.0: A checklist to improve reporting standards in ecological research in agriculture

Many publications lack sufficient background information (e.g. location) to be interpreted, replicated, or reused for synthesis. This impedes scientific progress and the application of science to practice. Reporting guidelines (e.g. checklists) improve reporting standards. They have been widely taken up in the medical sciences, but not in ecological and agricultural research. Here, we use a community-centred approach to develop a reporting checklist (AgroEcoList 1.0) through surveys and workshops with 23 experts and the wider agroecological community. To put AgroEcoList in context, we also assessed the agroecological community's perception of reporting standards in agroecology. A total of 345 researchers, reviewers, and editors, responded to our survey. Although only 32% of respondents had prior knowledge of reporting guidelines, 76% of those that had said guidelines improved reporting standards. Overall, respondents agreed on the need of AgroEcolist 1.0; only 24% of respondents had used reporting guidelines before, but 78% indicated they would use AgroEcoList 1.0. We updated AgroecoList 1.0 based on respondents' feedback and user-testing. AgroecoList 1.0 consists of 42 variables in seven groups: experimental/sampling set-up, study site, soil, livestock management, crop and grassland management, outputs, and finances. It is presented here, and is also available on github. AgroEcoList 1.0 can serve as a guide for authors, reviewers, and editors to improve reporting standards in agricultural ecology. Our community-centred approach is a replicable method that could be adapted to develop reporting checklists in other fields. Reporting guidelines such as AgroEcoList can improve reporting standards and therefore the application of research to practice, and we recommend that they are adopted more widely in agriculture and ecology

AgroEcoList 1.0: A checklist to improve reporting standards in ecological research in agriculture.

Acknowledgements: We thank Dr Rose O’Dea and Dr Lindsay Todman for advice, and Dr Michael Pashkevich, Dr Michael Garratt, and Dr Maxime Aeraerts for user-testing the guidelines.Many publications lack sufficient background information (e.g. location) to be interpreted, replicated, or reused for synthesis. This impedes scientific progress and the application of science to practice. Reporting guidelines (e.g. checklists) improve reporting standards. They have been widely taken up in the medical sciences, but not in ecological and agricultural research. Here, we use a community-centred approach to develop a reporting checklist (AgroEcoList 1.0) through surveys and workshops with 23 experts and the wider agroecological community. To put AgroEcoList in context, we also assessed the agroecological community's perception of reporting standards in agroecology. A total of 345 researchers, reviewers, and editors, responded to our survey. Although only 32% of respondents had prior knowledge of reporting guidelines, 76% of those that had said guidelines improved reporting standards. Overall, respondents agreed on the need of AgroEcolist 1.0; only 24% of respondents had used reporting guidelines before, but 78% indicated they would use AgroEcoList 1.0. We updated AgroecoList 1.0 based on respondents' feedback and user-testing. AgroecoList 1.0 consists of 42 variables in seven groups: experimental/sampling set-up, study site, soil, livestock management, crop and grassland management, outputs, and finances. It is presented here, and is also available on github (https://github.com/AgroecoList/Agroecolist). AgroEcoList 1.0 can serve as a guide for authors, reviewers, and editors to improve reporting standards in agricultural ecology. Our community-centred approach is a replicable method that could be adapted to develop reporting checklists in other fields. Reporting guidelines such as AgroEcoList can improve reporting standards and therefore the application of research to practice, and we recommend that they are adopted more widely in agriculture and ecology

AgroEcoList 1.0: A checklist to improve reporting standards in ecological research in agriculture.

Many publications lack sufficient background information (e.g. location) to be interpreted, replicated, or reused for synthesis. This impedes scientific progress and the application of science to practice. Reporting guidelines (e.g. checklists) improve reporting standards. They have been widely taken up in the medical sciences, but not in ecological and agricultural research. Here, we use a community-centred approach to develop a reporting checklist (AgroEcoList 1.0) through surveys and workshops with 23 experts and the wider agroecological community. To put AgroEcoList in context, we also assessed the agroecological community's perception of reporting standards in agroecology. A total of 345 researchers, reviewers, and editors, responded to our survey. Although only 32% of respondents had prior knowledge of reporting guidelines, 76% of those that had said guidelines improved reporting standards. Overall, respondents agreed on the need of AgroEcolist 1.0; only 24% of respondents had used reporting guidelines before, but 78% indicated they would use AgroEcoList 1.0. We updated AgroecoList 1.0 based on respondents' feedback and user-testing. AgroecoList 1.0 consists of 42 variables in seven groups: experimental/sampling set-up, study site, soil, livestock management, crop and grassland management, outputs, and finances. It is presented here, and is also available on github (https://github.com/AgroecoList/Agroecolist). AgroEcoList 1.0 can serve as a guide for authors, reviewers, and editors to improve reporting standards in agricultural ecology. Our community-centred approach is a replicable method that could be adapted to develop reporting checklists in other fields. Reporting guidelines such as AgroEcoList can improve reporting standards and therefore the application of research to practice, and we recommend that they are adopted more widely in agriculture and ecology

AgroEcoList 1.0: A checklist to improve reporting standards in ecological research in agriculture.

Many publications lack sufficient background information (e.g. location) to be interpreted, replicated, or reused for synthesis. This impedes scientific progress and the application of science to practice. Reporting guidelines (e.g. checklists) improve reporting standards. They have been widely taken up in the medical sciences, but not in ecological and agricultural research. Here, we use a community-centred approach to develop a reporting checklist (AgroEcoList 1.0) through surveys and workshops with 23 experts and the wider agroecological community. To put AgroEcoList in context, we also assessed the agroecological community's perception of reporting standards in agroecology. A total of 345 researchers, reviewers, and editors, responded to our survey. Although only 32% of respondents had prior knowledge of reporting guidelines, 76% of those that had said guidelines improved reporting standards. Overall, respondents agreed on the need of AgroEcolist 1.0; only 24% of respondents had used reporting guidelines before, but 78% indicated they would use AgroEcoList 1.0. We updated AgroecoList 1.0 based on respondents' feedback and user-testing. AgroecoList 1.0 consists of 42 variables in seven groups: experimental/sampling set-up, study site, soil, livestock management, crop and grassland management, outputs, and finances. It is presented here, and is also available on github (https://github.com/AgroecoList/Agroecolist). AgroEcoList 1.0 can serve as a guide for authors, reviewers, and editors to improve reporting standards in agricultural ecology. Our community-centred approach is a replicable method that could be adapted to develop reporting checklists in other fields. Reporting guidelines such as AgroEcoList can improve reporting standards and therefore the application of research to practice, and we recommend that they are adopted more widely in agriculture and ecology