TY - JOUR
T1 - Impact of conservation agriculture and weed management on carbon footprint, energy efficiency, and sustainability in maize-wheat cropping systems
AU - Kumar, Sachin
AU - Rana, Surinder Singh
AU - Abdelrahman, Kamal
AU - Uddin, Md Galal
AU - Fnais, Mohammed S.
AU - Abioui, Mohamed
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 The Authors
PY - 2024/11/15
Y1 - 2024/11/15
N2 - This study assesses the impact of conservation agriculture (CA) and weed management practices on the productivity, profitability, energy use, and carbon sustainability of a maize-wheat cropping system. Fifteen treatment combinations, incorporating five tillage methods (conventional-till maize and wheat [CT-CT], conventional-till maize and zero-till wheat [CT-ZT], zero-till maize and zero-till wheat [ZT-ZT], zero-till maize and zero-till plus residue in wheat [ZT-ZTR], and zero-till plus residue maize and wheat [ZTR-ZTR]) and three weed management practices (recommended herbicide [H-H], integrated weed management [IWM-IWM], and hand weeding [HW-HW]), were tested in a strip plot design. The results showed that ZTR-ZTR significantly increased system productivity (6.90 Mg ha−1), net returns, and benefit-cost ratio (BCR; 2.69), compared to CT. However, CT systems had 173 % higher energy use efficiency (EUE) and 170 % higher energy intensity (EI) than CA systems. CA-based treatments used about 15 % direct renewable energy and 85 % indirect renewable energy, while CT systems used 15–20 % direct non-renewable energy and 85–86 % indirect non-renewable energy. Among weed management practices, recommended herbicides (H-H) led to the highest productivity (6.71 Mg ha−1), EUE (9.80), net returns (3003 US$ ha−1), and BCR (3.08), but also higher carbon footprints. This underscores the balance between productivity, energy efficiency, and carbon in agriculture.
AB - This study assesses the impact of conservation agriculture (CA) and weed management practices on the productivity, profitability, energy use, and carbon sustainability of a maize-wheat cropping system. Fifteen treatment combinations, incorporating five tillage methods (conventional-till maize and wheat [CT-CT], conventional-till maize and zero-till wheat [CT-ZT], zero-till maize and zero-till wheat [ZT-ZT], zero-till maize and zero-till plus residue in wheat [ZT-ZTR], and zero-till plus residue maize and wheat [ZTR-ZTR]) and three weed management practices (recommended herbicide [H-H], integrated weed management [IWM-IWM], and hand weeding [HW-HW]), were tested in a strip plot design. The results showed that ZTR-ZTR significantly increased system productivity (6.90 Mg ha−1), net returns, and benefit-cost ratio (BCR; 2.69), compared to CT. However, CT systems had 173 % higher energy use efficiency (EUE) and 170 % higher energy intensity (EI) than CA systems. CA-based treatments used about 15 % direct renewable energy and 85 % indirect renewable energy, while CT systems used 15–20 % direct non-renewable energy and 85–86 % indirect non-renewable energy. Among weed management practices, recommended herbicides (H-H) led to the highest productivity (6.71 Mg ha−1), EUE (9.80), net returns (3003 US$ ha−1), and BCR (3.08), but also higher carbon footprints. This underscores the balance between productivity, energy efficiency, and carbon in agriculture.
KW - Conventional tillage
KW - Crop rotation
KW - Energy utilization
KW - Environmental pollution
KW - GHGs emission
KW - Soil organic carbon
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85203493685
U2 - 10.1016/j.energy.2024.133131
DO - 10.1016/j.energy.2024.133131
M3 - Article
SN - 0360-5442
VL - 309
JO - Energy
JF - Energy
M1 - 133131
ER -