Table 4 Impact of tillage and weed management options on carbon management index depth-wise after 5th year (after harvest of maize in winter) in the 10th cropping cycle, 2023–24.

From: Assessment of conservation agriculture on soil nutrient’s stratification ratio, carbon sequestration rate, management indices and crop productivity in Southern Telangana India

Treatments

0–15 cm

15–30 cm

Lability index (LI)

Carbon pool index (CPI)

Carbon management index (CMI)

Lability index (LI)

Carbon pool index (CPI)

Carbon management index (CMI)

Tillage practices

 T1: CT(C)-CT(M)-Fallow (NSr)

2.04

0.54

108.43

1.53

0.68

102.94

 T2: CT(C)-ZT(M)-ZT(Sr)

2.06

0.58

118.72

1.69

0.72

121.50

 T3: ZT(C) + SrR-ZT(M) + CR-ZT(Sr) + MS

2.26

0.63

142.47

1.99

0.74

146.32

SE(m)±

0.02

0.01

3.08

0.08

0.01

5.56

CD(P = 0.05)

0.08

0.05

12.40

0.34

0.03

22.40

Weed management options

 W1- Chemical weed control

2.02

0.58

117.29

1.58

0.70

108.36

 W2-Herbicide rotation

1.91

0.58

111.42

1.79

0.71

126.98

 W3- IWM

2.09

0.59

122.77

1.71

0.72

122.34

 W4- Single hand-weeded control

2.46

0.58

141.33

1.86

0.74

136.65

SE(m)±

0.08

0.02

4.32

0.08

0.02

5.18

CD(P = 0.05)

NS

NS

12.92

NS

NS

15.52

Interactions (TxW) CD(P = 0.05)

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

  1. T1 = conventional tillage (cotton) – conventional tillage (maize) – Fallow (No Sesbania rostrata), T2 = conventional tillage (cotton) – zero tillage (maize) – zero tillage (Sesbania rostrata), T3 = zero tillage (cotton) + Sesbania rostrata residues (SrR) – zero tillage (maize) + cotton residues (CR) – zero tillage (Sesbania rostrata) + maize stubbles (MS), IWM = integrated weed management., CD (P = 0.05) = critical difference at 5% probability level, NS = non-significant, SE(m) = standard error of the mean.
Back to article page