Changes in Physico-chemical and chemical characteristics of soil due to adoption of natural farming practices in wheat- mustard cropping systems

Introduction

According to FAO, by 2050 the world needs to increase overall food production by 70 per cent in order to keep up with the growing global population and the changes in consumption driven by expanding middle class. At the same time India is expected to be the most populous country in the world by 2030, with 1.51 billion people (FAO, 2017) [13] . Under such condition, ensuring food security for the population would be one of the biggest concerns for the country. Therefore, adopting Large-scale agricultural techniques or production technologies that lack scientific backing, could negatively impact crop productivity, or both could raise severe questions for the country's aim of guaranteeing food and nutrition security. 'Green Revolution' The country's food deficit was alleviated in part by the adoption of technologies in the middle of the 1960s, including irrigation, chemical fertilizer, and extensive usage of HYV seeds. However, there have been significant negative effects of agriculture intensification on the environment, such as soil degradation, eutrophication of land and water bodies, emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), and losses in biodiversity (Evenson and Gollin, 2003; Canfield et al., 2010) [11, 7] . In contrast, Natural Farming (NF) is a distinct chemicalfree farming technique that integrates crops, trees, and livestock in a varied farming system based on agro ecology, allowing for functional biodiversity (Rosset and Martinez-Torres, 2012) [30] . Similarly organic farming has several advantages over farming by inorganic fertilizers like organic manures produce optimal condition in the soil for high yields and good quality crops. They supply the entire nutrient required by the plant (primary, secondary and micronutrients), improve plant growth and physiological activities of plants, soil physical properties such as granulation and good tilt, good aeration, easy root penetration and improved water holding capacity. Organic manures improve the soil chemical properties such as supply and retention of soil nutrients and promote favorable chemical reaction. They reduce the need for purchased inputs. The prolonged application of chemical fertilizers alone leads to deterioration of soil productivity and fertility, reduced agricultural productivity, the main reasons to consider replacing the nutrients that crops require with different inputs are rising production costs, a heavy reliance on non-renewable resources, a reduction in microbial diversity, water contamination, chemical residues in food grains, and public health risks (Aher et al., 2012) [2] . Organic sources of nutrients improve the availability and quality of food while providing a special blend of ecologically friendly methods with minimal outside inputs. The growing concerns about the ill effects of chemical fertilizers emphasize a need for change in agricultural production technologies through an appropriate sustainable, eco-friendly approach. Worldwide the concept of organic farming was started with the objective of providing safe and quality produce just few decades back. However, some of the burning issues like availability of large quantity of organic manures to meet out the nutrient requirement, diseases and insect-pests problems, weeds and low yields during the initial years of conversion, etc. are imposing setback for adoption of organic farming at a large scale. Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) is an additional farming approach that Padam Shri Dr. Subhash Palekar has suggested. This is a new concept introduced with an aim of sustainable development. It replaces use of farm yard manure and compost from organic farming with cover crops, green manure crops and use of preparations made from desi cow. With the help of these, humus formation takes places within field as compared to organic farming in which humus formation takes place at the site of farm yard manure and compost preparation. Humus is a rich source of nutrients where in nutrients are released slowly and leads to better uptake by plants. Zero budget Natural Farming is a low-input, climate-resilient type of farming that encourages farmers to use low cost locally-sourced inputs, eliminating the use of artificial fertilizers, and industrial pesticides. According to Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO, 2002) [12] , integrated crop management (ICM) has been adopted recently in agriculture and is of much significance and relevance than the individual approach of energy management, weeds, diseases, pests, crop, soil, water, and nutrients (Varatharajan et al. 2019). Therefore, integrated crop management, or ICM, is a comprehensive and site-specific approach to sustainable agriculture that considers every aspects of farm productivity, including environmental, socioeconomic, and on-farm resources to provide the safest and most appropriate strategy for long-term gains (Choudhary et al., 2018) [10] . Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) is a native of Turkey belonging to Poaceae family. It is known to India since prehistoric time. Around the world, wheat is grown in a variety of conditions. Soybean followed by wheat cropping system under variable sowing windows results higher productivity and uptake of nutrients of soybean-wheat cropping system (Nawale et al., 2018) [24] . Natural farming saw enormous rise with several state adoption as state policy or grass root movement in southern states. With adoption as state policies of several state government to move towards organic farming it needs scientific validation in terms of its impacts on productivity in different agro climatic conditions, different cropping systems and different soil types. Utilizing natural farming methods and cereal-legume intercropping together can be the best ways to lower greenhouse gas emissions, stabilize yields, and preserve soil fertility. Keeping these in mind the present study was conducted to examine natural farming in terms of soil health research. Keeping this in view, in this study wheat -mustard crop will be grown in rabi season which normally grown as inter crops. The present study is planned to find out the best system which will give maximum crop productivity, its sustainability and keep the soil healthy

Materials and Methods

The present investigation was conducted in instructional cum research farm of Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur where three different combination of nutrient management systems were compared by using randomized block design (RBD). Different combinations of nutrient management were, (T1) Control (No addition of any inputs except labour for operation including weeding), (T2) Complete Natural Farming (Ⅰ. Beejamrit+Ghanjeevamrit+jeevamrit ⅠⅠ. Crop residue mulching ⅠⅡ. Intercropping IⅤ.Whapasa), (T3) Natural Farming-1 (Without Beejamrit+Ghanjeevamrit+jeevamrit), (T4) Natural Farming-2 (Without Crop residue/ Mulching ), (T5) Natural Farming-3 (Without Intercropping ), (T6) Natural Farming-4 ( Without Whapasa ), (T7) Organic farming practices as per AI-NPOF Package (75% RDN through organic sources + 10% foliar spray of vermiwash and cow urine at 30 and 50 DAS), (T8) Integrated crop management (50% RDN through organic sources and 50% RDN through inorganic nutrient sources with application of Neemastra, Agniastra, Bramhastra and Dasparni ark for pest management), and (T9) Integrated crop management (50% RDN through organic sources and 50% RDN through inorganic nutrient sources with application of need based inorganic pesticide for the control of pest management). Which were applied in treatment plots sampling of soil was done from different experimental plots carrying different treatments and analyzed for physico-chemical and chemical properties at different growth stages of crops. The crop yield was also recorded at harvest. Soil samples from field were collected from 7.5-15cm from the soil surface at different stages of crop growth. The pooled soil samples were subjected to analysis for soil physico-chemical and chemical analysis. A 10 g air dried soil was taken in a clean 50 ml. beaker and 25 ml. of distilled water was added to it. The suspension was stirred intermittent for 30 minutes. The pH of soil water suspension was recorded using pH meter (Piper, 1967) [28] . The EC was determined by Conductivity Bridge as described by Jackson (1973). For this determination 10 g of soil was weighed and taken in a 50 ml. beaker, 25 ml. distilled water was added and suspension was stirred intermittently for 30 minutes and allowed the suspension to settle for about one hour. The measure of EC in supernatant solution was done by using EC Bridge. Organic carbon content in soil was determined by the rapid dichromate oxidation technique given by Schollenberber et al. (1927) [31] . One g air dried soil sample was taken in dry 500 ml conical flask and added 10 ml of 1N K2Cr2O7 with the help of volumetric pipette and swirled a little. To this 20 ml of H2SO4 was then added and swirl again 2-3 times and kept the flask on an asbestos sheet for 30 min. Then 200 ml of distilled water, 10 ml of H3PO4, 0.5 gm Sodium Fluoride and 1 ml Diphenylamine indicator were added. Titrated the content against 0.5N Fe (NH4)2 (SO4)2 till the colour flashed from blue-violet to green. Crop yield was recorded at harvest of the crop. Before and after harvest of crop soil analysis was done for quantification of available NPK. In this regard available N was determined by alkaline KMnO4 method of Subbiah and Asija (1965), Soil phosphorus was extracted by 0.5M NaHCO3 as described by Olsen et al. (1954) [25] , Potassium was estimated by flame photometer (Muhr et al., 1965) [23] . All the pre and post-harvest observations were recorded and tabulated in a systematic manner. The final observations were statistically analyzed by randomized block design (RBD).

Treatment details

Results and Discussion

Physico-chemical analysis Soil pH:

The data pertaining to soil pH of wheat and mustard crop at initial and at harvest as influenced by different natural, organic farming and integrated crop management practices are interpreted in this section. After the completion of experiment the pH of all the treatments remained in acidic spectrum are presented in Table 1. The finding revealed that different treatments of wheat and mustard crop did not affect the soil pH significantly before and after conduction of experiments in both the years on mean basis. Almost no differences were observed in soil pH in 2020-21, as this is the year of initialization of experiment. Hence we can hypothesized that soil pH is uniform throughout the experimental field. However in 2nd year of experimentation a non-significant change in soil pH was observed among treatments. In 2nd year (2021-22), the initial highest soil pH (6.95) was observed in organic farming practice, followed by complete natural farming (6.94) and integrated crop management (6.93) using organic pest control and minimum soil pH was observed in control treatment (6.86).

At harvest stage highest soil pH (6.96) was observed in organic farming practice followed by complete natural farming (6.95) and integrated crop management (6.94) using organic pest control. Minimum soil pH was observed in control treatment (6.87). The variation in soil pH before and after the experimentation was found 0.02 that was due to the conduction of experimentation. The increment was found uniform across the treatment. The enhancement of pH value under different treatments might be due release of different salts which acts buffering agent to enhance the soil pH towards neutrality. Similar results have also been reported Pathak et al. (2007) [27] and Sharma et al. (2007) [33] also reported the moderating effect of FYM and vermi compost on soil pH, as registered in the present study found that organic farming package recorded maximum pH was found at initial and harvest stage of crop growth compared to control treatment, probably due to complexing of exchangeable and free Al-ion by aliphatic and aromatic hydroxyl acids produced during decomposition.

The data pertaining to soil electrical conductivity (EC) (dS m -1 ) of wheat and mustard crop at initial, and at harvest as influenced by different natural, organic farming and integrated crop management practices are interpreted in this section and are presented in Table 2.

The findings revealed that different treatments applied to soybean and maize crop did not affect the soil EC significantly before and after conduction of experiments in both the years on mean basis. Almost no differences were observed in soil EC in 2020, as this the year of initialization of experiment. Hence we can hypothesized that soil EC is uniform throughout the experimental field. However in 2nd year of experimentation a non-significant change in soil pH was observed among treatments. In 2 nd year (2021), the initial highest soil EC (0.26 dS m -1 ) was observed in organic farming practice, followed by complete natural farming (0.25) and integrated crop management (0.24) using organic pest control. Minimum soil EC was observed in control treatment (0.18). At harvest stage highest soil EC (0.27 dS m -1 ) was observed in organic farming practice followed by complete natural farming (0.26) and integrated crop management (0.25) using organic pest control, Minimum soil EC was observed in control treatment (0.19). The variation in soil EC before and after the experimentation was found 0.02 that was due to the conduction of experimentation. The increment was found uniform across the treatments. Slight increase of EC in organic farming practices might be due to addition of organic inputs (FYM and vermi compost), that resulted increase of salt concentration in soil as compared to control treatment. Higher EC under different treatments comprising organic manures and nutrient management might be due release of different salts. These finding were in close conformity with similar results were found by Gore and Sreenivasa (2011) [14] , Shaikh and Gachande (2016) [32] who found that EC values of the soil were not significantly influenced by organic manures and nutrient management either alone or in combination at different levels of nutrients.

The data pertaining to soil organic carbon content (%) in wheat and mustard cropping system quantified at 0, 30, 60 DAS and at harvest as influenced by different natural, organic farming and integrated crop management practices are interpreted in this section are presented in Fig. 1.

The findings revealed that different treatments applied to wheat and mustard crop significantly affected the soil organic carbon at 30, 60 DAS and at harvest due to conduction of experiments in both the years on mean basis. In 2 nd year (2021-22), the initial highest soil organic carbon content was observed under organic farming package (0.60%) followed by complete natural farming practice (NF) (0.59%). Minimum was found under control treatment (0.52%). However, all the treatments were found at par among each other. At 30 DAS maximum soil organic carbon content was observed under organic farming practice (0.62%) followed by complete natural farming package (NF) (0.61%), Minimum was found under control treatment (0.54%). At 60 DAS maximum soil organic carbon content was observed under organic farming practice (0.64%), followed by complete natural farming package (NF) (0.63%) and minimum was found under control treatment (0.55%). The organic carbon content quantified in organic farming practice found significantly superior over natural farming practice. At harvest highest soil organic carbon content was observed under organic farming practice (0.70%) followed by complete natural farming package (NF) (0.68%), Minimum was found under control treatment (0.55%). The data on soil organic carbon (%) as influenced by different treatments have indicated slightly higher values of organic carbon content after harvest of the crop during both the years of experiment. Maximum organic carbon accumulation (0.08%) was found in organic farming system, followed by complete natural farming package where (0.07%) organic carbon increased in soil. In this study we found a gradual increase in soil organic carbon from 60 DAS onwards up to harvest due to adoption of different treatments. Organic nutrients (manures and root biomass) have the largest effect in soil organic carbon (Khaleel et al., 1981; Badanur et al., 1990) [18, 4] . Tiwari et al. (2002) [38] and Kaur et al. (2005) [17] reported increased soil organic carbon in organic farming system compared to chemical farming practice. The soil organic carbon was greater in organic and integrated farming practices, which attributed to more carbon going to soil via organic manure addition. Manna et al. (2007) [22] ; Ramesh et al. (2009) [29] and Panwar et al. (2010) [26] reported higher soil organic carbon in the treatments receiving organic nutrients over a long term period. Chang et al. (2014) [8] suggested organic amendment for improving soil organic carbon. The level of organic matter tends to be enhanced in soils amended with organic nutrient (manure and straw). Significant increase in organic carbon due to application of FYM might be attributed to excessive microbial activity of soil. Manjunath et al. (2012) [21] and Sharma and Prasad (2002) [34] also reported a significant increase in soil organic carbon in wheat cropping system due to addition of FYM and crop residues.

The data pertaining to soil available nitrogen (kg/ha) in wheat and mustard cropping system quantified at initial and at harvest as influenced by different natural, organic farming and integrated crop management practices are interpreted in this section and are presented in Table 3.

The findings revealed that different treatments imposed on wheat and mustard crop significantly affect the available nitrogen at harvest stage of 2021 and initial and harvest stage of 2021-2022 of experimentation. In the year 2020, the initial available nitrogen content in soil did not differ among the treatments, as this is the year of initiation of experiments. In 2021, which is the second year of experimentation significant differences were observed among treatments. In 2 nd year 2021, of crop the initial highest soil available nitrogen (kg/ha) was observed in integrated crop management system using organic pest control (155.90 kg/ha), followed by integrated crop management system using inorganic pest control (155.40 kg/ha).

Lowest was found under control treatment (133.38 kg/ha). At harvest highest soil available nitrogen (kg/ha) was observed in integrated crop management using organic pest control (157.74 kg/ha). The treatment integrated crop management using inorganic pest control (157.26 kg/ha) was second in order. Lowest was found under control treatment (138.98 kg/ha) which was found at par with most of the treatments except integrated crop management system using inorganic pest control, organic farming system and natural farming practices. The available nitrogen quantified in integrated crop management system using organic pest control found significantly superior over integrated crop management system using inorganic pest control without intercropping. Maximum accumulation of available nitrogen 3.13 kg/ha was found in integrated crop management system using organic pest control, where 2.71 kg/ha was more nitrogen accumulated in case of integrated crop management system using inorganic pest control. The enhancement of soil available nitrogen (N) value under the integrated crop management system might be due release of different effect of the experiment. This might be due to fast mineralization of organic pool of nitrogen through higher microbial activity in these treatments with application of organic and inorganic sources. The organic inputs are important source of plant nutrient, especially N, and the supply of N from applied manures makes an important contribution to the nitrogen demand of growing crops (Abbasi et al., 2007) [1] . Similarly, Tiwari et al. (2002) [38] reported the higher available N in treatments receiving organic inputs. The data pertaining to soil available phosphorus (kg/ha) in wheat and mustard cropping system quantified at initial and at harvest as influenced by different natural, organic farming and integrated crop management practices are interpreted in this section and are presented in Table 4.

The findings revealed that different treatments imposed on wheat and mustard crop did not affect the available phosphorus at harvest stage of 2021 and initial and harvest stage of 2021-2022 of experimentation. In the year 2020, the initial available phosphorus content in soil did not differ among the treatments, as this is the year of initiation of experiments. In 2 nd year 2021, the initial highest soil available phosphorus was observed under integrated crop management system using organic pest control (18.70 kg/ha), followed by integrated crop management system using inorganic pest control (18.60 kg/ha). Lowest was found under control treatment (16.30 kg/ha). However all the treatments were found at par among each other. At harvest highest soil available phosphorus (19.20 kg/ha) was observed in integrated crop management system using organic pest control followed by integrated crop management system using inorganic pest control (19.08 kg/ha). Lowest was found under control treatment (17.55 kg/ha). The treatments were found at par to each other. Maximum available phosphorus (kg/ha) accumulation was found in integrated crop management system using organic pest control where an accumulation of 0.78 kg/ha available phosphorus was observed, followed by integrated crop management system using inorganic pest control where 0.71 kg/ha available phosphorus increased in soil. In this study we found non-significant increase in available phosphorus (kg/ha) from initial to harvest due to adoption of different treatments. Sudhanshu et al. (2015) [36] also found higher availability of soil phosphorus when integrated with organic sources applied in wheat crop. Addition of organic manures influences P enrichment in soil (Johnston and Poulton, 1997) [15] . The increase in available phosphorus might be due to the organic acids, which were released during microbial decomposition of organic matter, which helped in the solubility of native phosphate (Bhardwaj and Omanwar, 1994) [6] .

The data pertaining to soil available potash (kg/ha) in wheat and mustard cropping system quantified at initial and at harvest as influenced by different natural, organic farming and integrated crop management practices are interpreted in this section and are presented in Table 5. The findings revealed that different treatments imposed on wheat and mustard crop did not affect the available potash at harvest stage of 2021 and initial and harvest stage of 2021-2022 of experimentation. In the year 2020, the initial available potassium content in soil did not differ among the treatments, as this is the year of initiation of experiments. In 2 nd year 2021, the initial highest soil available potash (379.19 kg/ha) was observed in integrated crop management system using organic pest control, followed by integrated crop management using inorganic pest control (376.32 kg/ha).

Lowest was found under control treatments (363.31 kg/ha).

However all the treatments were found at par among each other. At harvest highest soil available potassium (386.05 kg/ha) was observed in integrated crop management system using organic pest control followed by integrated crop management system using inorganic pest control (384.85 kg/ha). Lowest was found organic farming practice (375.37 kg/ha). The treatments were found at par to each other. Maximum available potash (kg/ha) accumulation was found in integrated crop management system using organic pest control where 1.91 kg/ha increase in available potash (kg/ha) was observed followed by integrated crop management system using inorganic pest control where 1.44 kg/ha available potash (kg/ha) increased in soil. In this study we found non-significant increase in available potash (kg/ha) from initial to harvest due to adoption of different treatments. These results are agreement with Amit et al. (2009) [3] the beneficial effect of K the build-up of soil available potassium due to FYM application might be due to addition of potassium solubilizing action of certain organic acids produced during FYM decomposition and its greater capacity to hold potassium in the available form it also release organic collides with grater cation exchange sites that attract K from the non-exchangeable pool and applied K, which ultimately favour the available K (Majumdar et al., 2005) [20] . Higher available potassium with application of FYM and vermi compost applied might be due to solubilizing action of certain organic acids produced during FYM decomposition and its greater capacity to hold potassium in the available form. Similar findings were also reported by Chaudhary (2021) [9] in wheat crop.

The data pertaining to seed yield (kg ha -1 ) of wheat crop at harvest as influenced by different natural, organic farming and integrated crop management practices are interpreted in this section and are presented in Table 6.

The finding revealed that different treatments which were imposed on wheat crop significantly affected the seed yield at harvest of the crop due to adoption of three different types of nutrient practices during the crop cultivation in both the years on mean basis. At harvest highest seed yield (kg ha -1 ) was observed in organic farming package (3492.21 kg ha -1 ), followed by integrated crop management using organic pest control (3438.71 kg ha -1 ). Lowest was found under control treatment (1398.50 kg ha -1 ). The seed yield in treatment organic farming package was found at par with integrated crop management system using organic pest control and integrated crop management system using inorganic pest control and rest of the treatments found significantly inferior than organic farming practices. The yield of wheat crop depends on vegetative and reproductive growth of the plant which affected positively by application of organic manures i.e. FYM and vermi compost and supply of photosynthates for the formation of wheat grains. These results are in agreement with those reported by Yadav et al. (2009) [40] and Verma et al. (2015) [39] . Behera et al. (2009) [5] who reported that the application of organic manures, particularly FYM and vermi compost along with the ghanjeevamrit + jeevamrit to wheat crop was essential for improving productivity of wheatmustard system. Applying higher quantities of organic nutrient at basal dose accumulate more dry matter and increase the vegetative growth compared to other splits. The similar result was reported by Singh and Singh (2005) [35] . The application of organic manures improved the yield compared to no organic manure. Higher biological yield was mainly due to combined effect of grains and straw. Similar results were also reported by Kumar et al. (2015) [19] . T1: Control, T2: Complete Natural Farming package (NF), T3: NF-(Without Beejamrit+Ghanjeevamrit+jeevamrit), T4: NF-(Without crop residue mulching), T5: NF-(Without intercropping), T6: NF-(Without whapasa), T7: AI-NPOF package (organic farming practices), T8: Integrated Crop Management (Organic pest control), T9: Integrated Crop Management (Inorganic pest control).

The mustard crop was grown on different natural farming practices. The data pertaining to seed yield (kg ha -1 ) at harvest was affected by different natural farming practices which are interpreted in this section and are presented in Table 7.

The finding revealed that different treatments which were imposed on mustard seed yield significantly affected the seed yield at harvest of the crop due to adoption of three different types of nutrient practices during the crop cultivation in both the years on mean basis. At harvest highest mustard seed yield (kg ha -1 ) was observed in complete natural farming package (NF), (377.87 kg ha -1 ), followed by NF-(without whapasa) (348.47 kg ha -1 ). Lowest was found under NF-(without Beejamrit+ Ghanjeevamrit+jeevamrit) (249.78 kg ha -1 ). The seed yield in treatment complete natural farming package (NF), was found significantly superior over NF-(without whapasa). These results are in conformity with those of Joshi et al., (2021) [16] , who stated that, application of beejamrit, ghanjeevamrit and jeevamrit along with crop residue significantly increased the grain yield of mustard over control treatment during two years of experiment. Sushila and Giri (2000) [37] reported that natural farming practice involves to improved the production of crop and significantly increased the yield of mustard.

Conclusion

The study highlights the critical need for sustainable agricultural practices in the face of increasing food demand and environmental challenges. The comparison of various nutrient management systems, including Complete Natural Farming, Organic Farming, and Integrated Crop Management, demonstrates that these approaches can significantly enhance soil health and crop productivity. Notably, the Complete Natural Farming package yielded the highest results for both wheat and mustard crops, indicating its potential as a viable alternative to conventional methods. As India approaches a population of 1.51 billion by 2030, adopting eco-friendly farming techniques will be essential for ensuring food security while preserving soil health and biodiversity. Future research should focus on optimizing these practices across diverse agro-climatic conditions to maximize their benefits.

References

1. Abbasi MK, Hina M, Khalique A, Khan SR. Mineralization of three organic manures used as nitrogen source in a soil incubated under laboratory conditions. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. 2007;38:1691-1711.
2. Aher SB, Lakaria BL, Singh AB, Kaleshananda S, Ramana S, Ramesh K, et al. Effect of organic sources of nutrients on performance of soybean (Glycine max). Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2012;89(11):1787-1791.
3. Moench) production as influenced by different organic sources of nutrients. Mysore Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2009;43(1):18-23.
4. Badanur VP, Poleshi CM, Naik BK. Effect of organic matter on crop yield, physical and chemical properties of a Vertisol. Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science. 1990;38:425-429.
5. Behera UK, Meena JR, Sharma AR. Tillage and residue management effect on performance of green gram and carbon sequestration in a maize-based cropping system. Proceedings of 4th World Congress on Conservation Agriculture. 2009:453-454.
6. Bharadwaj V, Omanwar PK. Long-term effects of continuous rotational cropping and fertilization on crop yields and soil properties. II. Effects on EC, pH, organic matter and available nutrients of soil. Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science. 1994;42(3):387-392.
7. Canfield D, Glazer A, Falkowski P. The evolution and future of earth's nitrogen cycle. Science. 2010;330:192-196.
8. Chang XF, Zhu XX, Wang SP, Cui SJ, Luo CY, Zhang ZH, Wilkes A. Impacts of management practices on soil organic carbon in degraded alpine meadows on the Tibetan Plateau. Biogeosciences. 2014;11:3495-3503.
9. Chaudhary R. Comparative efficacy of different components of natural farming in wheat + gram cropping system [MSc Thesis]. Palampur: Department of Agronomy, CSKHPKV; 2021. p. 128.
10. Choudhary AK, Bana RS, Pooniya V. Integrated crop management practices for enhancing productivity, resourceuse efficiency, soil health and livelihood security. New Delhi: ICAR IARI; 2018. p. 229.
11. Evenson R, Gollin D. Assessing the impact of the green revolution, 1960-2000. Science. 2003;300:758-762.
12. FAO. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome; 2002.
13. FAO. The future of food and agriculture -Trends and challenges. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2017. ISBN 978-92-5-109551-5.
14. Gore NS, Sreenivasa MN. Influence of liquid organic manures on growth, nutrient content and yield of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.) in the sterilized soil. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Science. 2011;24(2):153157.
15. Johnston AE, Poulton PR. The downward movement and retention of phosphorus in agricultural soils. In: Tunney H, Carton OT, Brookes PC, Johnston AE, editors. Phosphorus loss from soil to water. Oxon: CAB International Press; 1997. p. 441-445.
16. Joshi R, Adarsh PV, Singh J. Vermicompost as a soil supplement to enhance growth, yield and quality of Triticum aestivum L. International Journal of Recycling of Organic Waste in Agriculture. 2013;2:16.
17. Kaur K, Kapoor KK, Gupta AP. Impact of organic manures with and without mineral fertilizers on soil chemical and biological properties under tropical conditions. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science. 2005;168:117-122.
18. Khaleel R, Reddy KR, Overcash MR. Changes in soil physical properties due to organic waste applications: A review. Journal of Environmental Quality. 1981;10:133141.
19. Kumar Y, Singh SP, Singh VP. Effect of FYM and potassium on yield, nutrient uptake and economics of wheat in alluvial soil. Annals of Plant and Soil Research. 2015;17(1):100-103.
20. Majumdar B, Venkatesh MS, Kumar K, Patiram. Effect of potassium and farmyard manure on yield, nutrient uptake and quality of ginger in a Typic Hapluadalf of Meghalaya. Indian Journal of Agricultural Science. 2005;75:809-811.
21. Manjunatha GR, Asha Latha KV, Bhat ARS, Patil KR. Organic farming: A way to sustainable agriculture development. Environment and Ecology. 2013;31(2C):1043-1046.
22. Manna MC, Swarup A, Wanjari RH, Mishra B, Shahi DK. Long-term fertilization, manure and liming effects on soil organic matter and crop yields. Soil & Tillage Research. 2007;94:397-409.
23. Muhr GR, Datta NP, Sankarasubramoney H, Laley VK, Donahue RL. Critical soil test values for available N, P and K in different soils. Soil Testing in India. 2nd ed. New Delhi: USAID Mission to India; 1965. p. 52-56.
24. Nawale SS, Kolekar PT, Solanke AV. Soybean followed by wheat cropping system under variable sowing windows and fertilizer levels. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2018;7(1):2181-2185.
25. Olsen SR, Cole CV, Watanabe FS, Dean LA. Estimation of available P, nitrogen in soils. Current Science. 1954;25:259260.
26. Panwar NR, Ramesh P, Singh AB, Ramana S. Influence of organic, chemical and integrated management practices on soil organic carbon and soil nutrient status under semi-arid tropical conditions in central India. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. 2010;41:1073-1083.
27. Pathak RK, Ram RA. Role of cow for evergreen revolution through integrated organic farming system. In: Proceedings of National Conference on Glory of Gomatha. Tirupati: S.V. Veterinary University; 2007. p. 170-177.
28. Piper CS. Soil and Plant Analysis. Indian Reprint. Bombay: Hans Publishers; 1967.
29. Ramesh P, Panwar NR, Singh AB, Ramana S. Production potential, nutrient uptake, soil fertility and economics of soybean (Glycine max)-based cropping systems under organic, chemical and integrated nutrient management practices. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 2009;54(3):278283.
30. Rosset PM, Martinez-Torres. Rural social movements and agroecology: Context, theory and process. Ecology and Society. 2012;17(3).
31. Schollenberger CJ. A rapid approximate method for determining soil organic matter. Soil Science. 1927;24:6568.
32. Shaikh NF, Gachande BD. Correlation between soil mycoflora and productivity under the influence of organic and inorganic inputs applied in the field of Cajanus cajan. International Journal of Science and Research. 2016;5:191195.
33. Sharma M, Mishra B, Singh R. Long-term effects of fertilizers and manures on physical and chemical properties of a Mollisol. Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science. 2007;55:523-524.
34. Sharma SP, Subehia SK, Sharma PK. Long-term effects of organic farming on soil quality, crop productivity, and sustainability. Research Bulletin, CSK Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya. 2002; p. 33.
35. Singh KD, Singh NP. Legume effect of soybean on succeeding wheat crop as influenced by excess soil water duration at different growth stages. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 2005;39(3):217-220.
36. Sudhanshu SK, Mukund J, Bhaskar S, Gopinath KA, Kumar MK. Evaluation of jeevamrutha as a bio-resource for nutrient management in aerobic rice. International Journal of Bio-resource and Stress Management. 2015;6(1):155160.
37. Sushila R, Giri G. Influence of farmyard manure, nitrogen, and biofertilizer on growth, yield attributes, and yield of wheat under limited water supply. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 2000;45(3):590-595.
38. Tiwari A, Dwivedi AK, Dikshit PR. Long-term influence of organic and inorganic fertilization on soil fertility and productivity of the soybean-wheat system in a Vertisol. Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science. 2002;50:472475.
39. Verma VK, Singh V, Choudhary S, Tripathi AK, Srivastava AK. Effect of organic manures and microbial inoculants superimposed over inorganic fertilizers on production and profitability of wheat (Triticum aestivum). Current Advances in Agricultural Sciences. 2015;7(2):129-132.
40. Yadav DS, Shukla RP, Kumar B. Effect of zero tillage and nitrogen level on wheat (Triticum aestivum) after rice (Oryza sativa). Indian Journal of Agronomy. 2005;50(1):5253.