The term ‘Green Revolution’ (GR) is used to highlight an unprecedented increase in wheat production

in India during 1968–72. The critics of GR allege that there is technology fatigue, especially

after 1980s. The present study was undertaken to analyse the trends in productivity of major

cereals and compare yield gains during the GR era and post-GR era. The period of 68 years since

1950 was divided in four phases: pre-GR era (1950–66) referred to as phase I, GR era (1967–83)

as phase II, post-GR era of 1984–2000 as phase III and post-GR era of 2001–17 as phase IV. The

annual rate of gain in productivity (kg/ha/yr) in each phase was estimated by linear regression. The

annual gain in wheat productivity in phase III (53.1 kg/ha) was 30% higher than that in the GR era

(41.0 kg/ha). In rice, the productivity gains increased consistently: annual gain in phase III

(32.3 kg/ha) and phase IV (41.6 kg/ha) was 68% to 117% respectively, higher than that in the GR

era (19.2 kg/ha). The rate of gain in productivity of maize and pearl millet in phases III and IV was

188–530% higher in comparison to the GR phase. The progress can largely be attributed to development

and adoption of improved cultivars with higher yield potential and crop management technologies.

The analysis provided conclusive evidence of India experiencing evergreen revolution in

major cereals

Dhillon, B S

Mohapatra, Trilochan

Singh, D V

Yadav, O P

CMFRI Digital Repository

GENERAL ARTICLES  CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 116, NO. 11, 10 JUNE 2019 1805O. P. Yadav and D. V. Singh are in the ICAR-Central Arid Zone Re-search Institute, Jodhpur 342 003, India; B. S. Dhillon is in the PunjabAgricultural University, Ludhiana 141 004, India; T. Mohapatra is inthe Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi 110 014, India.*For correspondence. (e-mail: opyadav21@yahoo.com) India’s evergreen revolution in cereals  O. P. Yadav*, D. V. Singh, B. S. Dhillon and T. Mohapatra  The term ‘Green Revolution’ (GR) is used to highlight an unprecedented increase in wheat produc-tion in India during 1968–72. The critics of GR allege that there is technology fatigue, especially after 1980s. The present study was undertaken to analyse the trends in productivity of major  cereals and compare yield gains during the GR era and post-GR era. The period of 68 years since 1950 was divided in four phases: pre-GR era (1950–66) referred to as phase I, GR era (1967–83) as phase II, post-GR era of 1984–2000 as phase III and post-GR era of 2001–17 as phase IV. The  annual rate of gain in productivity (kg/ha/yr) in each phase was estimated by linear regression. The annual gain in wheat productivity in phase III (53.1 kg/ha) was 30% higher than that in the GR era (41.0 kg/ha). In rice, the productivity gains increased consistently: annual gain in phase III (32.3 kg/ha) and phase IV (41.6 kg/ha) was 68% to 117% respectively, higher than that in the GR era (19.2 kg/ha). The rate of gain in productivity of maize and pearl millet in phases III and IV was 188–530% higher in comparison to the GR phase. The progress can largely be attributed to devel-opment and adoption of improved cultivars with higher yield potential and crop management tech-nologies. The analysis provided conclusive evidence of India experiencing evergreen revolution in major cereals.  Keywords: Cereals, crop productivity, green revolution, improved cultivars.  WITH bitter memories of the Bengal famine of 1943 still fresh, India was facing a stiff challenge in early 1960s, of feeding its fast growing population of 459 million as the country was experiencing deficit of food grains produc-tion by 10 million tonnes (mt). Fortunately, 1960s also witnessed development of dwarf wheat cultivars, the cul-tivation of which in a large area resulted in 88% increase in wheat production during 1968–72 compared to 1963–67. Such an unprecedented increase in production was termed as ‘green revolution’ (GR) in India. During the same period, 17–22% increase was recorded in rice,  maize and pearl millet production. Since then, the country has made consistent progress in foodgrains production, primarily through increase in productivity (Figure 1) and has achieved a record production of 284.9 mt in 2017–18.  Critics of GR often allege that its achievements were short-lived, remained restricted to a certain geographical area and that there has not been any impressive progress after mid-1970s (refs 1–3). Some also consider that tech-nology fatigue has set in4. In the present study, an analy-sis of the trends in productivity over 68 years since 1950 is presented and the annual productivity gains in the GR era (1967–83) are compared with two post-GR eras (1984–2017) in wheat, rice, maize, pearl millet and sorghum. Data source and analysis The study is based on data on the productivity of crops (www.agricoop.nic.in) for 68 years (1950–2017). This period was partitioned in four phases of 17 years each. Pre-GR era (1950–66) is referred to as phase I, GR era (1967–83) as phase II, post-GR era of 1984–2000 as phase III and post-GR era of 2001–17 as phase IV. The      Figure 1. Area (m ha), production (mt) and productivity (kg/ha) of food grains in India since 1950. GENERAL ARTICLES  CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 116, NO. 11, 10 JUNE 2019 1806gain in productivity (kg/ha/yr) was estimated using  linear regression in different phases. Productivity  increase is considered as the combined outcome of  enhanced genetic potential of cultivars and improved crop management practices. Trends in productivity Wheat During phase I, tall varieties were cultivated which were not responsive to external inputs. The annual increment in productivity was 11.6 kg/ha (Figure 2). In phase II, productivity gain increased to 41.0 kg/ha/yr as dwarf breeding materials were successfully used to develop  locally adapted cultivars, which made a huge impact. This phase also included 5 years of the GR period.  Improved agronomic management, including appropriate depth of sowing and irrigation at crown root initiation played a catalytic role in the exploitation of genetic  potential of dwarf cultivars.  In phase III, emphasis was given to the development of cultivars with high yield potential and built-in resistance to rusts by deploying genes imparting resistance. This phase registered an annual productivity gain of 53.1 kg/ha, which was 29% higher than that in the GR phase.   Continued improvement in productivity (36.3 kg/ha/yr) was witnessed in phase IV. However, the rate of improve-ment was slightly lower than that obtained in phase III but close to that achieved during the GR phase. A critical look at the yield data in this phase indicated that produc-tivity during 2014–15 was clearly an outlier (Figure 2). Hailstorms, unseasonal rainfall and high-speed winds during February–March caused lodging and damaged the crop in about 6 m ha area in major wheat-growing states, namely Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, Mad-hya Pradesh and Maharashtra5. If data of 2014–15 are considered as an outlier, increase in wheat productivity during this phase is 40.8 kg/ha/yr that is equal to that of the GR era (41.0 kg/ha/yr). Rice During the pre-GR era, rice improvement emphasized  selection in traditional varieties to develop new, locally adapted cultivars. Hybridization between indica and  japonica types was also attempted6. The annual yield im-provement during this phase was 15.7 kg/ha (Figure 2). During the GR era, the dwarf and semi-dwarf rice varie-ties made a significant impact and productivity further  increased @ 19.2 kg/ha/yr.   In phase III, greater emphasis was given to the deve-lopment of cultivars with adaptation to specific niche  environments with the result that the rate of productivity increased further to 32.3 kg/ha/yr, which is 68% higher than the gain achieved during the GR era. In phase IV, rice improvement programme emphasized on the incorpo-ration of multiple genes for resistance to diseases and to-lerance to abiotic stresses like submergence and drought using conventional and molecular techniques, leading to the development of climate-resilient varieties. Hybrid  development and amalgamation of high yield, short  duration and superior grain quality were given top priori-ty. This phase witnessed productivity increase of 41.6 kg/ha/yr, which was 116% higher than that achieved during the GR era.   Not only has rice productivity witnessed a continuous increase during all four phases, what is more striking is that the productivity gain has been improving further in each phase. This is a significant achievement since rice is cultivated in the rainy season in northern and eastern  India, and thus is always vulnerable to variation in both amount and distribution of rainfall.  Maize Up to mid-1950s, maize research largely concentrated on the improvement of local landraces and traditional open-pollinated varieties (OPVs). In addition, efforts were also made, though not successful, to introduce hybrids from USA. Because of their temperate background and, there-fore, poor adaptation to Indian agro-ecologies, these  hybrids did not express their yield potential. The inbred parents had poor vigour, which rendered hybrid seed pro-duction extremely difficult. Starting in 1961, a large number of indigenously developed multi-parent hybrids were released. The productivity increase during 1950–66 was 25.1 kg/ha/yr (Figure 2). Under the impression that the major reason for poor impact of hybrids was the diffi-culty in production and supply of quality hybrid seed to farmers, the emphasis by the end of phase I shifted to composite breeding. There was a modest improvement (9.8 kg/ha/yr) in growth rate of maize productivity during phase II.  Maize improvement strategy was, therefore, given a  relook during phase III and a mixed approach of compo-site breeding, multi-parent and single cross (SC) hybrid breeding was adopted to meet the requirements of  different production environments7. The improvement in maize yield during phase III occurred at 37.9 kg/ha/yr which was 287% higher than that achieved during the GR era.   Since 2001, the major emphasis has been on breeding of SC hybrids that have the highest yield potential among various types of cultivars. The area under such hybrids is continuously expanding under good agronomic condi-tions8. Maize productivity gain increased to 61.7 kg/ha/yr during phase IV, which was 530% higher than that achieved during the GR era (Figure 2). GENERAL ARTICLES  CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 116, NO. 11, 10 JUNE 2019 1807  Figure 2. Productivity (kg/ha) trend of cereal crops in four phases since 1950. The coefficient b is rate of increase in yield (kg/ha/yr) in each phase and R2 is the coefficient of determination.  Pearl millet During phase I, pearl millet improvement largely concen-trated on the enhancement of yield in locally adapted ma-terials and a good number of OPVs were developed. The rate of improvement in productivity during this phase was only 4.5 kg/ha/yr (Figure 2). Utilization of cytoplasmic male sterility (CMS) marked the beginning of hybrid de-velopment, though large-scale cultivation of few hybrids with narrow genetic base led to downy mildew (DM) epi-demics in mid-1970s, offsetting the impressive achieve-ments made in hybrid development. Thus, there was an-nual increase of 6.6 kg/ha in productivity during phase II.   A large number of genetically diverse CMS lines were developed and utilized in hybrid breeding during phase III. Consequently, DM was largely contained and produc-tivity increase during this period was 19.0 kg/ha/yr, which was 188% higher than that during the GR era. Dur-ing phase IV, the improvement programme laid much great emphasis on adaptation to niche area and genetic GENERAL ARTICLES  CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 116, NO. 11, 10 JUNE 2019 1808diversification of both seed and pollinator parents9. As a result, rate of improvement in grain productivity further increased to 31.1 kg/ha/yr, which was nearly five times that achieved during the GR era. This rate of improve-ment assumes greater significance considering that more than 90% of pearl millet is grown on marginal soils under rainfed conditions. Sorghum During phase I, sorghum yields went up by 7.0 kg/ha/yr (Figure 2) as traditional OPVs and local cultivars domi-nated the scene. In phase II, the yields increased by 16.5 kg/ha/yr, largely due to development of high-yielding hybrids based on CMS. The yields in sorghum increased by only 5.8–10.6 kg/ha/year in phases III and IV which was much lower than that obtained in other crops, this rendering sorghum a lesser competitive crop in its cultivation domain.   During 1966–2017, the sorghum area in kharif season, in spite of higher productivity drastically decreased from 11 to 2 m ha. During this period, rabi area also decreased from 6 to 3 m ha. The sorghum improvement programme continued mainly targeting kharif season, in spite of dras-tic reduction in the area. The serious problem of grain moulds in kharif sorghum continued to remain a chal-lenge. On the other hand, research on rabi sorghum which is cultivated on residual moisture in Maharashtra, Karnataka and Telangana did not get due attention. As a result, productivity gain declined during phases III and IV, though the productivity per se increased.  Conclusion The analysis of rate of increase in productivity of major cereal crops since 1950 clearly shows that there is consis-tent increase in productivity. This is a result of strategic and applied research in crop improvement and manage-ment practices. The rate of increase in productivity of pearl millet and maize since 1980s has been several times higher than that realized during the GR era. Rice produc-tivity witnessed a continuous increase during all four phases with the rate of productivity being 68–117% high-er in last two phases than that in the GR era. The rate of productivity gains in wheat in the last two phases was  either higher or close to that realized in the GR era.  The present study convincingly shows that India has  been witnessing a silent evergreen revolution in major  cereals.   1. Byerlee, D., Modern varieties, productivity and sustainability: recent experience and emerging challenges. World Dev., 1996, 24, 697–718. 2. Singh, I. J., Rai, K. N. and Karwasrea, J. C., Regional variations in agricultural performance in India. Indian J. Agric. Econ., 1997, 52, 374–386. 3. Pingali, P. L., Green revolution: impacts, limits, and the path ahead. Proc. N.Y. Acad. Sci., 2012, 109, 12302–12308. 4. Narayanamoorthy, A., Deceleration in agricultural growth: techno-logy fatigue or policy fatigue? Econ. Polit. Wkly, 2007, 42, 2375–2377. 5. Singh, S. K., Saxena, R., Porwal, A., Neetu and Ray, S. S., Assess-ment of hailstorm damage in wheat crop using remote sensing. Curr. Sci., 2017, 112, 2095–2100. 6. Richaria, R. H. and Mishro, B., The Japonica × Indica hybridization project in rice – an attempt for increased rice production. J. Biol. Sci., 1959, 2, 35–47. 7. Dhillon, B. S. and Malhi, N. S., Maize breeding in India – retrospec-tive analysis and prospects. Indian J. Plant Genet. Resour., 2006, 19, 327–345. 8. Yadav, O. P. et al., Genetic improvement of maize in India – retrospect and prospects. Agric. Res., 2015, 4, 325–338. 9. Yadav, O. P. and Rai, K. N., Genetic improvement of pearl millet in India. Agric. Res., 2013, 2, 275–292.    Received 2 August 2018; revised accepted 27 March 2019   doi: 10.18520/cs/v116/i11/1805-1808              

India’s evergreen revolution in cereals

http://eprints.cmfri.org.in/13705/1/Current%20Science_2019_Trilochan%20Mohapatra_India%E2%80%99s%20evergreen%20revolution%20in%20cereals%20-%20OP%20Yadav%20et%20al..pdf

India’s evergreen revolution in cereals

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CMFRI Digital Repository