Agricultural
Communication
Biosci. Biotech. Res. Comm. 10(3): 404-409 (2017)
Effect of soil tillage systems on chickpea yield and
moisture of soil
Saeed Salehi
1
*, Asad Rokhzadi
2
, Abdulwahab Abdolahi
3
, Khosro Mohammadi
4
and
Ghorban Nourmohammadi
5
1,2,4
Department of Agronomy, College of Agriculture, Sanandaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sanandaj, Iran
3
Dyland Agricultural Research Institute, Sararood branch, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension
Organization (AREEO), Kermanshah, Iran
5
Department of Agronomy, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
ABSTRACT
Sustainable agriculture is now considered as an important factor in the development of modern agriculture.
Sustainable agriculture emphasizes the long-term yield stability with the least adverse impact on the environment.
So tillage is a very important factor in agricultural economics. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of
tillage on chickpea yield in split strip plots based on a randomized complete block design with three replications in
two growing years of 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 in Mahidasht located in Kermanshah. In this research, it was found
that in the rst year, the results of analysis of variance showed that the effect of tillage was signi cant only on grain
yield at 5% level. However, the effect of tillage on moisture content was not signi cant in the studied properties.
In the second year of experiment, the tillage factor also had a signi cant effect on grain yield, biological yield, and
moisture content at the depth of 0-20 cm at 5% level, and it was signi cant on moisture content at the depth of 20-40
cm at second phase at 1% level. Since the yield of the crop was lower in no tillage than in other cases, but the use
of no tillage has caused that there is no place for agricultural equipment and machinery in the farm which caused
density in soil. It should be noted that these machines and equipment are so expensive,this issue is very important in
economic terms; therefore, the use of no tillage system is proposed.
KEY WORDS: NO TILLAGE, LOW TILLAGE, CONVENTIONAL TILLAGE, MOISTURE, CHICKPEA
404
ARTICLE INFORMATION:
*Corresponding Author: ss136555@yahoo.com
Received 12
th
June, 2017
Accepted after revision 14
th
Sep, 2017
BBRC Print ISSN: 0974-6455
Online ISSN: 2321-4007 CODEN: USA BBRCBA
Thomson Reuters ISI ESC and Crossref Indexed Journal
NAAS Journal Score 2017: 4.31 Cosmos IF: 4.006
© A Society of Science and Nature Publication, 2017. All rights
reserved.
Online Contents Available at: http//www.bbrc.in/
DOI: 10.21786/bbrc/10.3/11
Saeed Salehi etal.
BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS EFFECT OF SOIL TILLAGE SYSTEMS ON CHICKPEA YIELD AND MOISTURE OF SOIL 405
INTRODUCTION
In today’s world, agriculture has faced the enormous
challenges; soil erosion signi cantly reduces the yield
of crops.Shortage of water and an increase in the price
of fuel and fertilizer will increase production costs.
Increasing demand for food as a result of the unprec-
edented growth of the population in recent decades has
created a major challenge for researchers in the agri-
cultural sector. The limitation of susceptible lands has
caused that most of the strategies have not been led
to increase yields per unit area Beans are one of the
nutrient food for human and animal. In the agricultural
systems of the world in rotation with other crops and
nitrogen xation, atmosphere in co-existence with bac-
teria provides the major part of the nitrogen needed for
the next crops, (Sadeqipour, 2005, Goldani and Rezvani
Moqaddam, 2007 and Afzali and Javaheri, 2013).
Soil tillage affects the important properties of soil such
as temperature, moisture, and soil density. Thus, the cor-
rect use of tillage system can be the suitable strategy for
plant growth and the optimal yield. The conventional till-
age prepare arti cial bed for the plant growth through the
breakdown of soil impermeable layers, cleansing of soil
surface from plant debris and discontinuing the life cycle
of weeds, insects and diseases. But these systems not only
require a lot of energy, but also, in the long run, these
may destroy the physical properties of the soil and erode
it. While water permeability in soil increases in low tillage
systems due to increased organic matter and earthworm
activity compared with conventional tillage system. Also,
the use of low tillage systems and soil freeze will reduce
the cost of energy consumption, reduce erosion and soil
degradation, (Habibzadeh, 2006, Rasouli and Abbaspour,
2008 and Heidari, 2011).
Tillage operations are an inseparable part of the crop
production cycle. The purpose of the tillage operation is
the primary and main work on the soil, which is planned
to reduce soil resistance, cover vegetation cover, and
homogenizing its structure (Sha ei, 1992; Sha ei, 1995).
According to Papendick and Parr (1997), due to organic
matter depletion in dryland areas, the agricultural sys-
tem will not be sustainable based on conventional tillage.
Chen etal. (2006) concluded that the lack of moisture in
the surface layers of the soil may cause the plant derives
its moisture from the deeper layers of the soil that the
essential nutrients are low. Thus, the plant suffers from
nutrient stress; the sum of these factors reduces the plant
size and existing photosynthetic reserves to ll the pods,
and ultimately, it reduces the plant’s yield.
Chassot etal. (2011) found that the surface of soil in
no tillage is usually colder and wetter, and bulk densityis
higher than conventional tillage. This has had an effect
on the growth of chickpea root and the absorption of
nutrients. Amini and Movahedi Naeini (2013) concluded
that reducing the yield of products in no tillage system
is directly affected by more mechanical soil resistance or
lack of moisture and access to nutrients. By increasing
the special surface of soils and thinning of clay soils,
their cement property is strengthened and the mechani-
cal strength of the soil increases. Even in wet condi-
tions, the soil of the test site with a high surface has a
high mechanical strength because, due to the neness
of the clay, the velocity of in ation and its equilibrium
are very slowly absorbed by the waterwhich leads to a
clogging between the soil components and mechanical
strength. Long-term studies in the semi-arid region of
the United States regarding eld management by using
conventional tillage, no tillage, and low tillage meth-
ods indicated that the weed control in no tillage system
using herbicides only increased the wheat grain yield
and the soil moisture. The yield of tillage is in the mid-
dle of the conventional and no tillage systems (Norwood
and Currie, 1997).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
This research was carried out in dryland conditions in
two separate experiments for chickpea in split plots
(split plow split plots) based on a randomized complete
block design with three replications in two growing
years of 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 in Mahidshat which
is located in Kermanshah. Three levels of tillage include:
1- conventional tillage (moldboard plowing), 2- low till-
age (chisel plowing) and 3- no tillage. The experiment
is carried out in a eld that was cultivated the previous
year. The area of each experimental plot (5 x 10 m) is 50
square meters and each replicate includes 18 sub plots
and the distance is 10 meters to allow the tractor to pass.
The total number of plots in this experiment will be 108.
The amount of soil organic matter is measured before
and after the project at a depth of 0-20 cm. To determine
the percentage of soil moisture content at owering time
and harvesting, samples were taken from the depth of
0-20 cm and 20-40 cm. In the beginning of April, weeds
are removed manually.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Analysis of variance showed that the effect of tillage
was signi cant on yield only at 5% level. However, the
effect of tillage on moisture content was not signi cant
in any of the traits (Table 4-1).
SECOND YEAR EXPERIMENT OF CHICKPEA
In the second year of experiment, the effect of tillage
was signi cant on grain yield, biological yield, moisture
Saeed Salehi etal.
406 EFFECT OF SOIL TILLAGE SYSTEMS ON CHICKPEA YIELD AND MOISTURE OF SOIL BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS
Table 4.1. Analysis of variance of the rst year to investigate the effects of tillage
onchickpea
Mean of squares
Sources of
changes df
Weight of
100 seeds
Number of pods
per square meter
Number of
seeds per pods
Grain
yield
Biological
yield
Replication 2 1.00 22.67 7.25 21072 224437
Error 1 4 2.02 5.77 1.64 11207 35285
Tillage 2 1.66 46.07 0.89 51799* 210352
Error 2 4 0.39 9.55 1.09 5820 232341
*and
**indicate the signi cance level at 1 and 5, respectively.
Table 4.2. Analysis of variance of the rst year to investigate the effects of moisture on chickpea
Mean of squares
Sources of
changes df
Moisture content at
the depth of 0-20
cmphase 1
Moisture contentat
the depth of 20-40
cmphase 1
Moisture content
at the depth of
0-20 cm phase 2
Moisture content
at the depth of
20-40 cmphase 2
Replication 2 3.21 19.17 8.42 55.68
Error 1 4 0.50 2.72 2.19 16.99
Tillage 2 2.97 0.41 3.28 0.96
Error 2 4 1.36 0.91 1.51 1.66
*and
**indicate the signi cance level at 1 and 5, respectively.
Table 4.3. Analysis of variance of the second year to investigate the effects of tillage on chickpea
Mean of squares
Sources of
changes df
Weight of
100 seeds
Number of pods
per square meter
Number of
seeds per pods Grain yield
Biological
yield
Replication 2 0.97 238 12 21358 261282
Error 1 4 0.75 112 33 43026 69751
Tillage 2 4.36 18 10 155361 724726*
Error 2 4 1.05 15 34 1384 91214
*and
**indicate the signi cance level at 1 and 5, respectively.
content at the depth of 0-20 cm at 5% level, it was also
signi cant on moisture content at the depth of 20-40 cm
at the second phase at 1% level.
COMPARISON OF THE MEAN OF THE MAIN
LEVELS OF THE FACTORS STUDIED IN
CHICKPEA TWO-YEAR COMPOSITE ANALYSIS
The result of the comparison of the average levels of
tillage is shown in Table 4-5 and 4-6. As it can be seen,
the tillage factor had only signi cant effect on 100-seed
weight and moisture content at the depth of 20-40 cm
on the second phase; and it had no signi cant effect on
other properties (Table 4-4, 4-5).
The tillage factor was only signi cant on the char-
acteristics of 100 seed weight and leaf area index and
was not signi cant on other characteristics. Mudak etal.
(2001) in a seven-year trial on wheat yield reported
that there is no signi cant difference between con-
ventional tillage systems and no tillage. Simon et al.,
(2009) reported that soil tillage has an impact on most
soil characteristics such as temperature, moisture dis-
tribution, and soil density, and the proper selection and
implementation of an appropriate tillage system can
provide a suitable bedding for the seed, and ultimately
lead to optimal yield (Hemmat & Eskandari, 2006).
Although conventional tillage systems provide a good
basis for plant growth by breaking the impermeable lay-
Saeed Salehi etal.
BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS EFFECT OF SOIL TILLAGE SYSTEMS ON CHICKPEA YIELD AND MOISTURE OF SOIL 407
Table 4.4. Analysis of variance of the second year to investigate the effects of moisture on chickpea
Mean of squares
Sources of
changes df
Moisture content
at the depth of
0-20 cm phase 1
Moisture content
at the depth of
20-40 cm phase 1
Moisture content
at the depth of
0-20 cmphase 2
Moisture content
at the depth of
20-40 cmphase 2
Replication 2 5.09 7.95 0.17 0.7
Error 1 4 0.81 5.75 0.38 0.57
Tillage 2 6.35 4.30 *1.32 **5.13
Error 2 4 2.56 2.09 0.16 0.20
*and
**indicate the signi cance level at 1 and 5, respectively.
FIGURE 1. Effect of tillage on grain weight
FIGURE 2. Effect of tillage on biological yield
Saeed Salehi etal.
408 EFFECT OF SOIL TILLAGE SYSTEMS ON CHICKPEA YIELD AND MOISTURE OF SOIL BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS
Table 4.6. Comparison of the mean of moisture effect
Characteristics
Factor
Moisture content at
the depth of 0-20
cm phase1
Moisture content
at the depth of
20-40cm phase1
Moisture contentat
the depth of 0-20
cm phase 2
Moisture content
at the depth of
20-40cm phase 2
Year
First year 13.90
b
26.96
b
11.72
a
15.34
a
Second year 15.51
a
30.53
a
9.23
b
12.20
b
Tillage
0 1508
a
28.43
a
b10.25 13.47
a
1 14.89
a
a28.55 10.54
a
14.07
a
2 14.14
a
a29.25 a10.64 13.76
a
In each column and for each factor, the meanings that have at least one letter are not signi cantly different at the 5% probability level.
*: Tillage 0, 1 and 2 respectively means non-tillage, low tillage, and conventional tillage.
FIGURE 3. Effect of tillage on moisture
Table 4.5. Comparison of the mean of tillage effect
Characteristics
Factor
Weight of
100 seeds
Number of pods
per square meter
Number of
seeds per pods Grain yield Biologic yield
Year
First year 10.16
b
19.63
a
27.23
b
469.76 1248
b
Second year 30.93
a
25.41
a
30.97
a
829.06 2876
a
Tillage
0 20.70
a
21.53
a
28.67
b
0 1900
b
1 20.73
a
22.06
a
29.36
a
1 2125
ab
2 20.20
a
23.96
a
29.27
a
2 2161
a
In each column and for each factor, the meanings that have at least one letter are not signi cantly different at the 5% probability level.
*: Tillage 0, 1 and 2 respectively means non-tillage, low tillage, and conventional tillage.
ers of soil and cutting the weed life cycle, pests and
diseases (Mulumba & Lal, 2008), but these systems also
require a lot of energy and In the long term, they destroy
the physical properties of the soil (Sharma etal., 2011).
Also, the use of low tillage and non-tillage systems
reduces the costs of energy consumption, it decreases
erosion and soil degradation (Katsviro 2002; Barzegar
etal. 2004).
Astillage machines are heavy and large require 120
horsepower tractors to pull; these tractors cause density
in the soil when traveling on the farm. So it’s economi-
cal to use organic farming systems for ordinary farmers,
and any farmer can use no tillage system.Since the yield
in no-tillage compared to other system is lower, but there
is no use of agricultural equipment and machines in no
tillage system, this is so important in terms of economic.
Saeed Salehi etal.
BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS EFFECT OF SOIL TILLAGE SYSTEMS ON CHICKPEA YIELD AND MOISTURE OF SOIL 409
REFERENCES
Afzali, S.M. Javaheri A. (2013). The Effect of Soil Techniques
on Soil Immersion Resistance, Technical Indices and Wheat
yield. Journal of Agricultural Machinery, 3 (1): pp. 21-34.
Amini, S. Movahedi Naeini, S. A. R. (2013). Effects of Paper
Mill Sludge Applicationon Physical Properties of an Illitic
Loess Slowly Swelling Soil with High Speci c SurfaceArea
And Wheat Yield In a Temperate Climate. Journal of Agricul-
tural Science. 1: 295-313.
Barzegar, AR. Hashemi, AM. Herbert, SJ. Asoodar, M. (2004).
Interactive effects of tillage system and soil water content
aggregate size distribution for seedbed preparation in Fluvisols
southwest Iran. Soil and Tillage Research 78: 45-52.
Chassot, A. P. Stamp. W. Richner.(2011). Root distribution and
morphology of maizeseedling as affected by tillage and ferti-
lizer placement. Plant Soil 231, 123–135.13.
Chen, H.S. Liu, G.S. Yang Y.F.Ye, X.F. and Shi, Z. (2010). “Com-
prehensive evaluation of tobacco ecological suitability of
Henan province based on GIS”. Agri. Sci. China. 9: 583-592.
Goldani, M. Rezvani Moghadam, P. (2007). Effect of different
moisture regimes and planting date on phenological character-
istics and growth indices of three dry and blue chickpea culti-
vars in Mashhad. Journal of Agricultural Sciences and Natural
Resources. 14 (1): 229-242.
Habibzadeh, Y. (2006). Effect of plant density on grain yield
and morphophysiological characteristics of three genotypes of
mung bean in Ahvaz condition. Journal of Agricultural Sci-
ences of Iran, No. 81 (29): 66-78.
Heidari, A. (2011). Effect of soil tillage methods on soil physi-
cal characteristics and yield of wheat. Journal of Agricultural
Science and Technology. Volume Fifty-Seven, No. 15. Pages
124-115.
Hemmat, A. Eskandari, I. (2006). Dryland winter wheat response
to conservation tillage in a continuous cropping system in
northwestern Iran. Soil and Tillage Research, 86, 99-109.
Katsvairo, T. Cox, WJ. Van, EH. (2002). Tillage and rotation effects
on soil physical properties. Agronomy Journal 94: 299-304.
Mulumb, L. N. Lal, R. 2008. Mulching effects on selected soil
physical properties. Soil and Tillage Research, 98, 106-111.
Norwood, C.A. Currie, R. S. (1997). Dry land corn vs. Grain sor-
ghum in western kansas. Journal of production – agriculture
(USA). (Jan-Mar 1997). V10 (1): 152-157.
Papendick, R.I. Parr, J.F. (1997). No-till farming: The way of
the future for sustainable dryland agriculture. Ann. Arid Zone,
36 (3):193-208.
Rasouli, Sh. Abbaspour Gilandeh, Y.(2008). Investigating the
effect of different soil tillage methods on soil physical proper-
ties. Proceedings of the 5th National Congress on Agricultural
Machinery and Mechanization. Mashhad.
Sha ei, S. A.(1992). Principles of Agricultural Machinery,
Vol. 1. Tehran University Press. No. 2135.
Sha ee, S. A. (1995). Agricultural machines. Tehran University
Press. No. 757.
Sadeqipour, A. (2001). Plant production science, rst part,
beans (translation). Pezeshkiannejad Publications, Tehran.
Sharma, P. Abrol, V. Sharma, R.K. (2011). Impact of tillage and
mulch management on economics, energy requirement and
crop performance in maize–wheat rotation in rainfed subhumid
inceptisols, India. European Journal of Agronomy, 34, 46-51.
Simon, T. Javurek, M. Mikanová, O. Vach, M. (2009). The in u-
ence of tillage systems on soil organic matter and soil hydro-
phobicity. Soil and Tillage Research, 105, 44-48.