Zero-till wheat (Triticum aestivum L.): A Nepalese perspective

Abstract

Agriculture is the main occupation in Nepal and around 60.4% Nepalese are actively engaged in the agricultural sector. Wheat is the third most important cereal crop after rice and maize in terms of area and production, in Nepal. Currently, less than 2 % area of the total wheat cultivation, is under zero – till wheat. Zero tillage (ZT) is a vital component of resource conserving technologies (RCTs) that are implementing to produce crops with lower inputs resulting in higher profit. ZT of wheat after rice generates significant benefits at the farm level, both in terms of significant yield gains (6–10%, particularly due to more timely planting of wheat) and cost savings (5–10%, particularly tillage savings) as compared to conventional tillage (CT). The paper reviews the prospects of ZT wheat technology in Nepal, based on the published information. ZT is the most widely used technology of wheat in Nepal, among other resource – conserving technologies. ZT wheat yielded 3.44 t ha-1 whereas CT wheat yielded 3.22 t ha-1. The total cost incurred under ZT wheat is NRs. 39,431/- whereas NRs. 48,300/- is of CT. The benefit: cost ratio was found 2.38 in ZT compared to 1.81 in CT which was 31.5 % more over the CT method of wheat cultivation. Hence, ZT technology in Nepal is cost – effective technology facilitating 15 days earlier sowing of wheat with higher yield and needs to be promoted on a large scale.

Full text

Fundamental and Applied Agriculture
Vol. 5(4), pp. 484–490: 2020
doi: 10.5455/faa.109442
AGRONOMY |PERSPECTIVE ARTI CLE
Zero-till wheat (Triticum aestivum L.): A Nepalese perspective
Bisheshwor Prasad Pandey 1*, Narayan Khatri1, Khem Raj Pant1, Mathura Yadav1,
Mahendra Marasini1, Govinda Prasad Paudel1, Madhav Bhatta1
1National Wheat Research Program, Bhairahawa, Nepal
2Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development, Kathmandu, Nepal
ARTI CL E INFORM ATION
Article History
Submitted: 18 Aug 2020
Accepted: 06 Sep 2020
First online: 29 Dec 2020
Academic Editor
Sharif Ahmed
s.ahmed@irri.org
*Corresponding Author
Bisheshwor Prasad Pandey
bisheshworpandey2009@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Agriculture is the main occupation in Nepal and around 60.4% Nepalese are
actively engaged in the agricultural sector. Wheat is the third most important
cereal crop after rice and maize in terms of area and production, in Nepal.
Currently, less than 2% area of the total wheat cultivation, is under zero-
till wheat. Zero tillage (ZT) is a vital component of resource conserving
technologies (RCTs) that are implementing to produce crops with lower
inputs resulting in higher profit. ZT of wheat after rice generates significant
benefits at the farm level, both in terms of significant yield gains (6–10%,
particularly due to more timely planting of wheat) and cost savings (5–10%,
particularly tillage savings) as compared to conventional tillage (CT). The
paper reviews the prospects of ZT wheat technology in Nepal, based on the
published information. ZT is the most widely used technology of wheat in
Nepal, among other resource - conserving technologies. ZT wheat yielded
3.44 t ha
−1
whereas CT wheat yielded 3.22 t ha
−1
. The total cost incurred
under ZT wheat is NRs. 39,431 whereas NRs. 48,300 is of CT. The benefit:
cost ratio was found 2.38 in ZT compared to 1.81 in CT which was 31.5 %
more over the CT method of wheat cultivation. Hence, ZT technology in
Nepal is cost-effective technology facilitating 15 days earlier sowing of wheat
with higher yield and needs to be promoted on a large scale.
Keywords:
Conventional tillage, rice-wheat system, yield, reduced tillage,
resource-conserving technology
Cite this article:
Pandey BP, Khatri N, Pant KR, Yadav M, Marasini M, Paudel GP, Bhatta M.
2020. Zero-till wheat (Triticum aestivum L.): A Nepalese perspective. Fundamental and Applied
Agriculture 5(4): 484–490. doi: 10.5455/faa.109442
1 Introduction
Nepal is a small land-locked mountainous coun-
try with diverse agroecologies, culture and agricul-
ture (Gauchan and Shrestha,2017). Wheat (Triticum
aestivum L.) is one of the most important food
crops worldwide for human nutrition, originated
8000–10,000 years ago (Dubcovsky and Dvorak,2007;
Brenchley et al.,2012). Wheat covers 17% (one sixth)
of the total cultivated land in the world (Shrestha
et al.,2018) feeding about 40% (nearly half) of the
world population and providing 20% (one fifth) of
total food calories and protein in human nutrition
(Gupta et al.,2008). Wheat is the third most impor-
tant cereal crop after rice and maize in terms of area
and production, in Nepal. In Nepal, currently 21%
land is used for agricultural crop production and
wheat was cultivated in 7,03,992 ha with production
of 20,05,665 metric tons, in the fiscal year 2075–76
(2018–19) (MoALD,2020). Among wheat cultivated
area currently less than 2% is only under zero-till.
Increasing water and labor scarcity and high cost of
production as well as climate change are compelling
farmers to change to zero tillage technology of wheat
from conventional farming. One of the major hin-
drances to optimum production of wheat on the 13.5
million hectares of land (rice – wheat system) in the
Indo - Gangetic flood plains (IGPs) of South Asia is
late planting and resulting in poor plant stands due
to low tillering. Late harvest of the previous rice crop,
as there are mostly long duration rice varieties or long

Pandey et al. Fundam Appl Agric 5(4): 484–490, 2020 485
turnaround time from rice harvest to wheat planting
are two major causes of late wheat planting (Hobbs
and Giri,1997). Reduced or zero tillage options are
becoming more effective in overcoming the late plant-
ing and poor plant stands in the rice-wheat systems
of Asia.
The process of direct drilling of wheat seeds us-
ing zero-till seed drills fitted with inverted T-openers
to place seed and fertilizers into a narrow slot with
only minimal of soil disturbance and without land
preparation is called Zero till (ZT) technology. ZT is
also known as zero till, no till, direct seeding and di-
rect drilling/planting without tillage (Erenstein and
Laxmi,2008). The existing ZT technology in the
IGP uses a tractor - drawn zero-till-seed drill to seed
wheat directly into unplowed fields with a single pass
of the tractor. The typical ZT drill has Inverted - T
openers and opens a number (6–13) of narrow slits
for placing seed and fertilizers at the depth not more
than 5 cm into the soil (Tripathi,2014). The most
widely used ZT drill in Nepal has nine Inverted - T
openers at a distance of 17.5 cm to 20 cm; jointed with
clamp. In contrast, conventional tillage (CT) prac-
tices in wheat typically involve ‘intensive tillage with
multiple passes of the tractor to accomplish plow-
ing, harrowing, planking, and seeding operations’
mechanically (Erenstein et al.,2008).
In various researcher-managed field trials across
South Asia, ZT with and without residue retention
(‘conservation agriculture’ implies ZT with residue
retention) has demonstrated considerable agronomic
and economic benefits, while improving the environ-
mental footprint of agriculture by reducing energy
costs and improving soil fertility and water use ef-
ficiency (Erenstein and Laxmi,2008;Chauhan et al.,
2012;Gathala et al.,2013;Mehla et al.,2000). Agro-
nomic factors leading to productivity advantages in
ZT wheat are related to (i) time - savings in crop es-
tablishment, allowing earlier sowing and, hence, re-
ducing risks of terminal heat stress during the grain-
filling phase; (ii) better control of weeds, such as
Phalaris minor; (iii) better nutrient management; and
(iv) water savings (Gathala et al.,2013;Mehla et al.,
2000).
Long term adoption of the ZT resulting in acidi-
fication of the surface soil which further affects the
supply and distribution of other nutrients within the
rhizosphere. Under ZT, a significant lowering of pH
observed at the upper soil 0-7.5 cm on silt loam soil
(Dick et al.,1986). In Kentucky, soil acidity with ZT
observed due to decomposition of organic residues at
the surface with subsequent leaching of organic acids
into mineral soil (Blevins et al.,1977;Moschler et al.,
1973). ZT reported to increase the bulk density to the
highest level (1.69 Mg m
−3
) while residue incorpora-
tion lowered it (1.59 Mg m
−3
) (Gangwar and Singh,
2010). ZT performance is still in question because of
higher weed biomass (Bhatt,2017).
Most of the Nepalese farmers are resource – poor.
Very few farmers possess their own tractors and spe-
cialized seed drills required to implement the ZT tech-
nology of wheat. As a result, adoption of ZT largely
hinges on affordable access to custom hire services.
Competition of crop residues between ZT use and
livestock feeding, burning of crop residues, availabil-
ity of skilled and scientific manpower are also the
major constaints for promotion of ZT in Nepal. The
need to develop the policy frame and strategies is ur-
gent to promote ZT (Sah,2017). This article reviews
and synthesizes the experience with ZT wheat in the
rice – wheat systems of Nepal.
2 Prerequisites of zero-till wheat
Soil moisture
Land should be moist at the time of
planting wheat under zero tillage, so that the seed
drill can be operated under unploughed land after
the rice harvest. If there is no sufficient moisture,
one pre-sowing irrigation should be provided before
sowing of wheat (Tripathi,2014).
Land topography
The land where zero- till wheat
is going to be practiced should not be undulated. The
land should be well prepared at the time of puddling
of land, in rice season (Tripathi,2014). Laser-assisted
precision land leveling considered as a precursor tech-
nology for RCTs has been reported to improve crop
yields and input-use efficiency including water and
nutrients (Jat et al.,2006). Different studies have con-
firmed that laser levelling technology will decrease
farming costs in different cultivation and harvest
stages (Abdullaev et al.,2007). Laser land levelling
causes the reduction of pesticides consumption, im-
proves the use of nutritious materials and reduces
consumption of chemical fertilizers (Abdullaev et al.,
2007;Jat et al.,2006;Gonzales et al.,2009). Decreasing
the amount of water consumption, uniform distri-
bution of water, reducing irrigation frequency and
time and water wasting are among the most impor-
tant impacts (Abdullaev et al.,2007;Jat et al.,2006;
Jehangir et al.,2007;Gonzales et al.,2009;Das et al.,
2018;Shahani et al.,2016;Ashraf et al.,2017). Re-
ducing the use of seeds, uniformity of germination
and crop growth and increasing yield have been men-
tioned in some studies (Abdullaev et al.,2007;Jat
et al.,2006;Jehangir et al.,2007). Jat et al. (2006) noted
that the amount of fuel consumed by pump engine for
pumping water and agricultural machinery would be
reduced by this technology. Also, land leveling led
to an increase in the cultivable area (farm useful area)
and under-cultivated area based on accessible water
supply. Abdullaev et al. (2007) and Jat et al. (2006)
indicated that farmers’ income will be increased by
levelling lands. Other impacts of land levelling are re-
ducing family workforce and the number of laborers

Pandey et al. Fundam Appl Agric 5(4): 484–490, 2020 486
Table 1.
Benefits of zero-tillage over conventional tillage for the planting of wheat after rice in Haryana, India
Item Farmers’ perceptions Researchers’ findings
Sowing
Wheat sowing earlier by 5 - 8 days (small-
to-medium farms) to 2 weeks (large farms)
On average, wheat sowing can be ad-
vanced by 5 – 15 days
Fuel savings Not available On average 60 litre diesel ha−1
Cost of cultivation US$ 42-92 ha−1US$ 37- 62 ha−1
Plant population
20 – 30 % more plants in zero-tillage fields
13.5% more plants in zero-tillage fields
Weed infestation
20% less and weaker weeds in zero-tillage
fields
43% fewer weeds in zero-tillage fields
Irrigation
Saves 30 - 50% water in the first irrigation
and 15 - 20% in subsequent irrigations
36% less water used, on average
Rice stem borer in-
festation
Less, because of less stubble sprouting
Winter coolness impairs sprouting and
thus borer development. Beneficial in-
sects in stubble help control borers
Rice stubble Decayed faster Decayed faster
Fertilizer-use
efficiency
High Higher because of placement
Wheat yields
Higher than under conventional system
depending on days planted earlier
420-530 kg more ha−1
needed for different farming operations (Abdullaev
et al.,2007;Akhtar,2006).
Weed management
Before operating the zero till
seed cum fertilizer drill, the land should be either free
or made free from weeds. If the land is not free from
weeds, use of non - selective herbicides is suggested;
before 7 days of sowing of zero-till wheat (Tripathi,
2014).
Calibration of zero-till-seed cum fertilizer drill
Calibration is needed before practicing zero-till wheat
to ensure appropriate amount of seed and fertilizer to
be placed in the soil, simultaneously (Tripathi,2014).
Trained driver
The driver should be well trained
for operating zero-till-seed cum fertilizer drill (Tri-
pathi,2014).
3 Impact of zero tillage
3.1 Crop yield
Research from Pakistan and India have reported the
higher wheat yields following the adoption of ZT in
rice–wheat rotations. In 34 zero-tillage on-farm trials
over 3 years in the rice-growing belt of the Pakistan
Punjab, higher yields were observed with zero-tillage
than the farmers’ practice. This is mainly due to the
time saved in land preparation that enabled a more
timely planting of wheat crop. It has been reported
from the simulation study that planting time of wheat
regulates yield, governed by the climatic parameters,
mainly through temperature and delayed planting
results in significant losses in yield (Rai et al.,2004).
Based on on-farm trials in Haryana, Mehla et al. (2000)
estimated a ZT induced yield gain of 15.4%, which
they attributed to timely sowing (9.4%) and enhanced
fertilizer- and water use efficiency, as well as weed
suppression (6.0%).
A field experiment conducted in Nepal during the
winter season of 2012 and 2013 showed that grain
yield under conventional and zero tillage was at par.
However, the yield was slightly higher (5.48%) with
conventional tillage than zero tillage in 2012 and
5.33% higher in 2013 (Pandey et al.,2016). Since
wheat was sown on the same date under zero and
conventional tillage, the yield might have been lower
with zero tillage. Another field experiment in Nepal
conducted during the wheat growing seasons of 2013
to 2016 showed that conventional tillage yielded sig-
nificantly higher grain yield than zero tillage in first
year but was at par in the second and third year
(Pandey and Kandel,2020).
3.2 Cost comparison under zero tillage
systems with conventional practices
ZT has the potentiality to saves in energy, water, la-
bor as well as other inputs. ZT drastically reduces
the tillage operations and the cost of the tillage op-
eration—a major cost of crop production in the IGP.
The ZT drill potentially saves seed and fertilizer, plac-

Pandey et al. Fundam Appl Agric 5(4): 484–490, 2020 487
Table 2. Expenditure and income (NRs ha−1) in wheat production using ZT and CT methods of sowing in
farmers’ field of Kailali district, Nepal during 2017-18
Particulars (Cost NRs.) Zero tillage Conventional tillage Change (%)
Variable cost
Cost of human labour 8000 8,800 10
Cost of machinery labour 11,250 20,250 80
Cost of seeds 6,600 8,250 25
Cost of fertilizer 7,531 3,450 -54
Cost of herbicides 2,700 2,700 0
Cost of irrigation 3,000 4,500 50
Total variable cost 39,081 47,950 23
Fixed cost 350 350 0
Total operational cost 39,431 48,300 23
Gross income 93,657 87,598 -7
Net income 54,226 39,258 -28
Benefit : cost ratio 2.38 1.81 -24
ing them at the desired depth and vicinity and in the
right quantities as compared to broadcasting (Eren-
stein and Laxmi,2008). Two factors contributing to
the overall profitability of ZT are : (i) the value of the
yield increase (the ‘yield effect’) and (ii) the savings in
production cost (the ‘cost-saving effect’). The ZT yield
effect averages Rs 2030 ha
−1
(US$ 45) across IGP stud-
ies. The ZT cost-saving effect averages Rs 2320 ha
−1
(US$ 52) across IGP studies (Erenstein and Laxmi,
2008). The production cost and returns of wheat pro-
duction using ZT and CT methods has been depicted
in Table 2. The table reflected that the gross incomes
were NRs. 93,657 ha
−1
in ZT and NRs. 87,598 ha
−1
in CT method of wheat cultivation. The net returns
of wheat were NRs. 54,255.5 ha
−1
in ZT and NRs.
39,298 ha
−1
in CT method of wheat production. The
net income of ZT method were found higher due to
higher grain yield and lower production cost than
the CT method of wheat cultivation. The total cost of
production amounted to NRs. 39,081 in ZT method
and NRs. 47,950 in CT method. The lower cost of
production was due to lower expenses on human
labour by 10%, machinery labour by 80%, seed cost
by 25%, irrigation cost by 50%, and no cost for the
land preparation in ZT compared to the CT method of
wheat cultivation. The benefit: cost ratio was found
2.38 in ZT compared to 1.81 in CT which was 31.49%
more over the CT method of wheat cultivation. Yield,
expenditure and income in ZT and CT methods of
wheat production in farmers’ field at Kailali district,
Nepal during 2017-18 has been presented in Table 3.
3.3 Impact on soil
ZT improves the soil physical, chemical and biolog-
ical properties but it might have some adverse con-
sequences viz. increased bulk density (Bhatt,2017).
Under-ground water pollution chances are very small
under ZT because of dramatic reduction in runoff.
Further, under zero tilled plots, herbicides are very
quickly broken down by soil organisms into harmless
compounds (Duiker and Myers,2005). When such
agrochemicals are used in intensively ploughed soil
they move more freely beyond the vadose zone com-
pared to how it would be in the zero tilled plots. Con-
servation tillage practices, such as zero and minimum
tillage are viable answer to the uplift the soil envi-
ronment as it includes the full residue onto the plots
(Miura et al.,2008;Bhatt and Khera,2006). Therefore,
conservation tillage approach is a must for practising
sustainable and climate smart agriculture by covering
the bare soils, minimizing the erosion losses.
3.4 Impact on environment
Straw retain on the soil surface reduces weed seed
germination and growth, moderates soil temperature
and reduces loss of water through evaporation. Crop
residue is also an important source of fodder for ani-
mals in the IGP countries. Despite these potential ben-
efits, however, large quantities of straw (left over af-
ter rice and wheat harvesting) are burnt each year by
farmers to facilitate land preparation for crop plant-
ing in Nepal too. It is estimated that the burning of
one ton of straw releases 3 kg particulate matter, 60
kg CO, 1460 kg CO
2
, 199 kg ash and 2 kg SO
2
. Nowa-
days, new seed drills have been developed which
are able to cut through crop residue, for zero-tillage
crop planting. These seed drills help to avoid burn-
ing of 10 t ha
−1
of straw which potentially reduces
release of about 13–14 tons of carbon dioxide (Gupta
et al.,2004). Elimination of burning on just 5 mil-

Pandey et al. Fundam Appl Agric 5(4): 484–490, 2020 488
Table 3.
Yield, expenditure and income in ZT and CT methods of wheat production in farmers’ field at Kailali
district, Nepal during 2017-18
Particulars Zero tillage Conventional tillage Change (%)
Grain yield (kg ha−1) 3440 3224 -6.28
Straw yield (kg ha−1) 2811 2516 -10.49
Total cost (NRs.) 39431 48300 22.49
Gross income (NRs.) 93657 87598 -6.47
Net income (NRs.) 54226 39298 -27.53
Cost of grain production (NRs. kg−1) 10.65 14.20 33.40
lion hectares would reduce the huge flux of yearly
CO
2
emissions by 43.3 million tons (including 0.8 mil-
lion ton CO
2
produced upon burning of fossil fuel in
tillage). Zero-tillage on an average saves about 60 L
of fuel ha
−1
thus reducing emission of CO
2
by 156 kg
ha−1yr−1(Grace et al.,2015;Gupta et al.,2004).
3.5 Socioeconomic and system impacts of
zero tillage in Nepal
Locally adapted resource conserving technologies,
RCTs (zero tillage, reduced tillage, surface seeding,
bed planting systems) are really a boon to farmers and
the biophysical environment. RCTs hold potential to
improve management of natural resources and pro-
vide sustainable increases in productivity. Zero tillage
technology provides opportunities to reduce the cost
of production with remarkable savings on water and
nutrients, increase in yield, improved efficiency in us-
ing the resources, and benefits the environment. This
would help the farmers to gain more profit from ZT
as compared to that of CT. Thus, economic condition
of the farmers would rise to some extent accompany-
ing increased social status, in the long run. Exercising
of ZT in wheat opens the scope for new technolo-
gies including the application of ZT to other crops
(e.g., pulses and cereals) and permanent beds. ZT
also has the potential of increasing cropping intensity
and diversity in selected areas of Nepal (e.g., mov-
ing towards double cropping in rice–fallow systems;
introducing triple cropping in rice–wheat systems).
The ever increasing demand for basic cereals in
the future would need to be met largely through in-
creased productivity, allowing some land (and other
resources) for diversification for greater income gener-
ation. Clearly, market forces and national and provin-
cial policies will drive the pace and form of the di-
versification. An additional factor influencing the
diversification of rice – wheat systems (RWSs) would
be the new ‘platform’ made possible by the RCTs. Cul-
tivating wheat via zero tillage technology facilitates
wheat sowing 15 days earlier as compared to that
of conventional tillage. The limited human labour
and time required for the use of tractor as well as
pumping sets for irrigation could also be consider-
ably reduced along with requirement of diesel which
ultimately reduced the cost of cultivation in case of
ZT method. For the upliftment of zero tillage tech-
nology of wheat in Nepal, the government should
either donate ZT seed-cum-fertilizer drill to the farm-
ers’ cooperatives or lower the tax in import of it from
neighboring countries.
4 Conclusions
Zero tillage technology of wheat is facilitating wheat
sowing by 15 days earlier in Nepal which is also cost
effective, less labour requirement, higher fertilizer-
use efficiency and higher yielding very crucial tech-
nology.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of inter-
ests regarding the publication of this paper.
References
Abdullaev I, Hassan MU, Jumaboev K. 2007. Water
saving and economic impacts of land leveling:
the case study of cotton production in Tajikistan.
Irrigation and Drainage Systems 21:251–263. doi:
10.1007/s10795-007-9034-2.
Akhtar MR. 2006. Impact of resource conservation
technologies for sustainability of irrigated agri-
culture in Punjab-Pakistan. Journal of Agricul-
tural Research (Pakistan) 44:239–257.
Ashraf M, Ejaz K, Arshad MD. 2017. Water use ef-
ficiency and economic feasibility of laser land
leveling in the fields in the irrigated areas of Pak-
istan. Science, Technology and Development
36:115–127.
Bhatt R. 2017. Zero tillage impacts on soil environ-
ment and properties. Journal of Environmental
and Agricultural Sciences 10:1–19.

Pandey et al. Fundam Appl Agric 5(4): 484–490, 2020 489
Bhatt R, Khera KL. 2006. Effect of tillage and
mode of straw mulch application on soil ero-
sion in the submontaneous tract of Punjab, In-
dia. Soil and Tillage Research 88:107–115. doi:
10.1016/j.still.2005.05.004.
Blevins RL, Thomas GW, Cornelius PL. 1977. Influ-
ence of No-tillage and Nitrogen Fertilization on
Certain Soil Properties after 5 Years of Continu-
ous Corn. Agronomy Journal 69:383–386. doi:
10.2134/agronj1977.00021962006900030013x.
Brenchley R, Spannagl M, Pfeifer M, Barker GLA,
D’Amore R, Allen AM, McKenzie N, Kramer M,
Kerhornou A, Bolser D, Kay S, Waite D, Trick
M, Bancroft I, Gu Y, Huo N, Luo MC, Sehgal S,
Gill B, Kianian S, Anderson O, Kersey P, Dvo-
rak J, McCombie WR, Hall A, Mayer KFX, Ed-
wards KJ, Bevan MW, Hall N. 2012. Analysis of
the bread wheat genome using whole-genome
shotgun sequencing. Nature 491:705–710. doi:
10.1038/nature11650.
Chauhan BS, Mahajan G, Sardana V, Timsina J, Jat
ML. 2012. Productivity and Sustainability of
the Rice–Wheat Cropping System in the Indo-
Gangetic Plains of the Indian subcontinent. Ad-
vances in Agronomy :315–369doi: 10.1016/b978-
0-12-394278-4.00006-4.
Das A, Lad M, Chalodia A. 2018. Effect of laser land
leveling on nutrient uptake and yield of wheat,
water saving and water productivity. Journal of
Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry 7:73–78.
Dick WA, Van Doren Jr D, Triplett Jr G, Henry J. 1986.
Influence of long-term tillage and rotation com-
binations on crop yields and selected soil param-
eters: II. Results obtained for a Typic Fragiudalf
soil 1181:1–34.
Dubcovsky J, Dvorak J. 2007. Genome plasticity a
key factor in the success of polyploid wheat un-
der domestication. Science 316:1862–1866. doi:
10.1126/science.1143986.
Duiker SW, Myers JC. 2005. Better soils with the
no-till system: A publication to help farmers un-
derstand the effects of no-till systems on the soil.
Harrisburg, PA: USDA-NRCS.
Erenstein O, Laxmi V. 2008. Zero tillage im-
pacts in India
'
s rice–wheat systems: A re-
view. Soil and Tillage Research 100:1–14. doi:
10.1016/j.still.2008.05.001.
Erenstein O, Sayre K, Wall P, Dixon J, Hellin J. 2008.
Adapting no-tillage agriculture to the conditions
of smallholder maize and wheat farmers in the
tropics and sub-tropics. In: Goddard T, Zoe-
bisch M, Gan Y, Ellis W,Watson A, Sombatpanit
S. (Eds), No-till Farming Systems. Special Pub-
lication 3. World Association of Soil and Water
Conservation, Bangkok, Thailand.
Gangwar KS, Singh HR. 2010. Effect of rice (Oryza
sativa) crop establishment technique on succeed-
ing crops. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sci-
ences 80:24–28.
Gathala MK, Kumar V, Sharma P, Saharawat YS,
Jat H, Singh M, Kumar A, Jat M, Humphreys
E, Sharma D, Sharma S, Ladha J. 2013. Op-
timizing intensive cereal-based cropping sys-
tems addressing current and future drivers
of agricultural change in the northwestern
Indo-Gangetic Plains of India. Agriculture,
Ecosystems & Environment 177:85–97. doi:
10.1016/j.agee.2013.06.002.
Gauchan D, Shrestha S. 2017. Agricultural and rural
mechanisation in Nepal: status, issues and op-
tions for future. Institute for Inclusive Finance
and Development.
Gonzales V, Ibarraran P, Maffioli A, Rozo S. 2009. The
Impact of Technology Adoption on Agricultural
Productivity: The Case of the Dominican Repub-
lic. SSRN Journal doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2481447.
Grace PR, Harrington L, Jain MC, Robertson GP.
2015. Long-term sustainability of the tropical
and subtropical rice-wheat system: An envi-
ronmental perspective. In: Improving the Pro-
ductivity and Sustainability of Rice-Wheat Sys-
tems: Issues and Impacts. American Society of
Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America,
and Soil Science Society of America. p. 27–43.
doi: 10.2134/asaspecpub65.c2.
Gupta PK, Mir RR, Mohan A, Kumar J. 2008. Wheat
genomics: Present status and future prospects.
International Journal of Plant Genomics 2008:1–
36. doi: 10.1155/2008/896451.
Gupta PK, Sahai S, Singh N, Dixit CK, Singh DP,
Sharma C, Tiwari MK, Gupta RK, Garg SC. 2004.
Residue burning in rice–wheat cropping sys-
tem: Causes and implications. Current science
87:1713–1717.
Hobbs PR, Giri GS. 1997. Reduced and zero-tillage
options for establishment of wheat after rice in
South Asia. In: Developments in Plant Breed-
ing. Springer Netherlands. p. 455–465. doi:
10.1007/978-94-011-4896-2_60.
Jat ML, Chandna P, Gupta R, Sharma SK, Gill MA.
2006. Laser land leveling: A precursor technol-
ogy for resource conservation. Rice-Wheat con-
sortium technical bulletin series 7:48.

c
2020 by the author(s). This work is
licensed under a Creative Commons.
Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0
International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License
The Official Journal of the
Farm to Fork Foundation
ISSN: 2518–2021 (print)
ISSN: 2415–4474 (electronic)
http://www.f2ffoundation.org/faa
Pandey et al. Fundam Appl Agric 5(4): 484–490, 2020 490
Jehangir WA, Masih I, Ahmed S, Gill MA, Ahmad
M, Mann R, Chaudhary MR, Qureshi AS, Turral
H. 2007. Sustaining crop water productivity in
rice-wheat systems of sour Asia: A case study
from Punjab. International Water Management
Institute, Pakistan.
Mehla RS, Verma JK, Hobbs PR, Gupta RK. 2000. Stag-
nation in the productivity of wheat in the Indo-
Gangetic Plains: Zero-till-seed-cum-fertilizer
drill as an integrated solution. Rice-Wheat Con-
sortium Paper Series 8. RWC, New Delhi, India.
Miura F, Nakamoto T, Kaneda S, Okano S, Nakajima
M, Murakami T. 2008. Dynamics of soil biota
at different depths under two contrasting tillage
practices. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 40:406–
414. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.09.004.
MoALD. 2020. Statistical Information on Nepalese
Agriculture. Planning & development coopera-
tion coordination division, statistics and analysis
section. Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock
Development. Singhdurbar, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Moschler WW, Martens DC, Rich CI, Shear GM.
1973. Comparative lime effects on con-
tinuous no-tillage and conventionally tilled
corn. Agroomy Journal 65:781–783. doi:
10.2134/agronj1973.00021962006500050032x.
Pandey BP, Kandel TP. 2020. Growth and yield re-
sponse of wheat to tillage, rice residue and weed
management under rice–wheat cropping system.
Global Journal of Agriculture and Allied Sci-
ences 1:43–48. doi: 10.35251/gjaas.2019.005.
Pandey BP, Tripathi J, Rawa lN, Jha SK, Bista NK. 2016.
Introducing Legume Crops through Crop Diver-
sification in Rice - Wheat System under Conven-
tional and Zero Tillage in Western Terai of Nepal.
In: Giri YP, Mahato BN, Khatiwada SP, Manand-
har HK, Tripathi BP, Shrestha R, Ghimire TB,
Shrestha HK, Joshi BK, Bista SP, Amgain RB and
Pokharel BB (Eds), Proceedings of the 29th Na-
tional Winter Crops Workshop, held on 11-12
June, 2014 at Regional Agriculture Research Sta-
tion, Lumle, Kaski, Nepal. Nepal Agricultural
Research Council.
Rai HK, Sharma A, Soni UA, Khan SA, Kumari K.
2004. Simulating the impact of climate change
on growth and yield of. Journal ofAgrometeo-
rology 6:1–8.
Sah A. 2017. Zero Tillage-A profitable resource
conservation technology in Agriculture. Bir-
sha Agricultural University, India. Advance in
Plants and Agricultural Research. MedCrave-
Step into the World of Research. Mini Re-
view. Accessed from http://medcraveonline.
com/APAR/APAR-06-00202.pdf.
Shahani WA, Kaiwen F, Memon A. 2016. Impact of
laser leveling technology on water use efficiency
and crop productivity in the cotton-wheat crop-
ping system in Sindh. International Journal of
Research Granthaalayah 4:220–231.
Shrestha KP, Giri R, Kafle S, Chaudhari R, Shrestha
J. 2018. Zero tillage impacts on economics of
wheat production in far western nepal. Farming
& Management 3:93–99. doi: 10.31830/2456-
8724.2018.0002.14.
Tripathi J. 2014. Resource conserving technologies in
rice - wheat system. Siddhartha Printing Press,
Lalitpur, India.