American Journal of Plant Sciences, 2011, 2, 578-588
doi:10.4236/ajps.2011.24069 Published Online October 2011 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ajps)
Layering Precision Land Leveling and Furrow
Irrigated Raised Bed Planting: Productivity and
Input Use Efficiency of Irrigated Bread Wheat in
Indo-Gangetic Plains
M. L. Jat1*, Raj Gupta1, Y. S. Saharawat2, Raj Khosla3
1International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT), NASC Complex, New Delhi, India; 2International Rice Research
Institute (IRRI), NASC Complex, New Delhi, India; 3Colorado State University, Fort Collins, USA.
Received May 21st, 2011; revised June 29th, 2011; accepted July 18th, 2011.
ABSTRACT
Stagnating yield and declining input use efficiency in irrigated wheat of the Indo-Gangetic Plain (IGP) coupled with
diminishing availab ility of water for agriculture is a major concern of food security in South Asia. The objective of our
study was to establish an understanding o f how wheat yield and input use efficiency can be improved and ho w land lev-
eling and crop estab lishment practices can be modified to be more efficient in water use through layering of precision-
conservation crop management techniques. The “precision land leveling with raised bed” planting can be used to im-
prove crop yield, water and nutrient use efficiency o ver the existing “traditional land leveling with flat” planting prac-
tices. We conducted a field experiment during 2002-2004 at Modipuram, India to quantify the b enefits of alternate land
leveling (precision land leveling) and crop establishmen t (furrow irrigated raised bed planting) techniques alone or in
combination (layering precision-conservation) in terms of crop yield, water savings, and nutrient use efficiency of
wheat production in IGP. Th e wheat yield was about 16.6% higher with nearly 50% less irrigation water with layering
precision land leveling and raised bed planting compared to traditional practices (traditional land leveling with flat
planting). The agronomic (AE) and uptake efficiency (UE) of N, P and K were significantly improved under precision
land leveling with raised bed planting technique compared to other practices.
Keywords: Precision Land Leveling, Furrow Irrigated Raised Bed Planting, Input Use Efficiency, Irrigated, Bread
Wheat, Water Productivity, Uptake Efficiency, Agronomic Efficiency
1. Introduction
Bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) is the most widely
grown and consumed food crop and is the staple food for
35% of the world population [1]. The irrigated wheat
systems contribute over 40% of wheat production in the
developing world [1,2]. To meet the growing wheat de-
mand, the global production need an 1.6% to 2.6% an-
nual growth rate, which can be mainly achieved through
improvement in input use efficiency [1]. However, under
the current production practices, crop productivity and
input use efficiency has decreased/stagnated. In the Indo-
Gangetic Plains (IGP), ground water is being depleted 13
to 17 km3·yr–1 (Mathew Rodell et al. 2009) coupled with
diminishing factor productivity [3], an accelerated growth
in crop productivity needs an enhanced resource use effi-
ciency to meet the future wheat demand in the region.
The improvement of input use efficiency in wheat crop-
ping systems can be achieved through two main strate-
gies: by adopting precise and more efficient crop man-
agement practices and germplasm [4]. Although both are
important, this paper will focus on improving input use
efficiency (specifically, of water & nutrients) through
layering precision-conservation agriculture based crop
management approaches.
Wheat being a densely planted crop, limits the use of
micro-irrigation by the producers due to economic con-
cerns. Hence, the surface irrigation remains a major irri-
gation system for densely planted crops and the effi-
ciency of external inputs is mainly relying on the irriga-
tion and soil moisture. Majority of the wheat growers in

Layering Precision Land Leveling and Furrow Irrigated Raised Bed Planting: Productivity and Input Use Efficiency 579
of Irrigated Bread Wheat in Indo-Gangetic Plains
the IGP practice surface irrigation either through flood or
check basin methods. The light textured soils under un-
dulating topography leads to uneven distribution of water,
which limits the availability of water and nutrients to the
crop plants. Undulated crop fields when managed with
flood irrigation, also lead to within field spatial variabil-
ity in grain production owing to leaching of certain nu-
trients due to excess water at lower elevations and in-
adequate availability of irrigated water at higher eleva-
tions.
Raised bed planting systems has been used since time
immemorial by farmers in many parts of the world [5].
Their application have traditionally been associated with
water management issues, to reduce the adverse impact
of excess water on crop production or to irrigate crops in
semi-arid and arid regions [6] where water productivity
is comparatively low. A widely used application of raised
beds in many semi-arid and arid areas is to plant crops on
the edges of beds or ridges that are formed between fur-
rows that carry irrigation water. With the lessons learnt
from Mexico (semi-arid, sub-topical highlands), the
raised bed planting system is being evaluated and advo-
cated for many crops including wheat in south Asia [7-
11].
Precision land leveling using laser assisted land leveler
equipped with drag scrapper is a process of smoothening
the land surface within ±2 cm of its average micro-ele-
vation. It is contemplated that laser levelers may play a
significant role in improving resource use efficiency un-
der surface irrigated systems in the IGP. Reference [12]
rated the development of laser technology for precision
land leveling as second only to breeding of high yielding
crop varieties. Improvement in operational efficiency
[13-15], weed control efficiency [16], water use effi-
ciency [14,17-20], nutrient use efficiency [21], crop pro-
ductivity and economic returns [13,21], and environ-
mental benefits [22] been reported as a result of precision
land leveling when compared to traditional practice of
land leveling.
In the recent years, planting of wheat on raised bed is
being advocated in South Asia for improving resource
use efficiencies, especially water use efficiency (WUE).
While, significant increase in WUE on laser level fields
has been reported by several researchers under different
soil and climatic conditions [18,19,23,24]. However, the
results reported for wheat productivity due to raised bed
planting technique were quite inconsistent [8,24-26]
compared to flat bed planting. Review of the literature
indicates that very little to no data exist on application of
raised bed planting on a precision laser leveled field.
Coupling the two techniques has potential to further en-
hance the overall resource use efficiencies associated
with wheat production in IGP. The objective of this study
was to evaluate the effect of precision land leveling and
furrow irrigated raised bed planting techniques on pro-
ductivity and input use efficiency in irrigated wheat on a
sandy loam soil of IGP. It is hypothesized that a system-
atic effort on integrated technologies (precision laser
leveling and raised bed furrow irrigation) would improv-
ing resources use efficiency under semi-arid sub-tropical
climatic conditions of IGP of India.
2. Material and Methods
2.1. Location
The study was conducted during the winter months (No-
vember through April) in 2002, 2003 and 2004, on an
experimental farm of the Project Directorate for Crop-
ping Systems Research, Modipuram, India (29˚04′ N
latitude, 77˚46′ E longitude and 237 m MSL).
2.2. Climate
The climate of the region is broadly classified as semi-
arid subtropical, characterized by very hot summers and
mild winters. The hottest months are May and June when
the maximum temperature reaches 46˚C, whereas, during
December and January, the coldest months of the year,
the temperatures are often recorded below 5˚C as in
2002-2003 (Figure 1). The average annual rainfall is 863
mm, 75% to 80% of which is received through the north-
west monsoon season from July through September
months. The total rainfall received during the crop
growth period was 13 mm and 51 mm, respectively in
year 1 and year 2. Figures 1 and 2, present the weekly
temperature, rainfall, and relative humidity for the ex-
perimental location for the winter months of 2002-2003
and 2003-2004 respectively.
2.3. Experimental Techniques
2.3.1. Treatments
The experiment consisted of five combinations of land
leveling and planting techniques. The treatments were:
(T1) Precision leveling with raised bed planting (PLRB)
with recommended amount of balanced nutrients such as
120 kg·N·ha–1; 26 kg·P·ha–1 and 50 kg·K·ha–1 (N120 + P26
+ K50).
(T2) Traditional leveling with raised beds (TLRB) with
N120 + P26 + K50.
(T3) Precision leveling with flat beds (PLFB) with N120
+ P26 + K50.
(T4) Traditional leveling with flat beds (TLFB) with
N120 + P26 + K50.
(T5) Traditional leveling with flat beds (TLFB) with
o fertilizer application (N0 + P0 + K0) to be treated as n

Layering Precision Land Leveling and Furrow Irrigated Raised Bed Planting: Productivity and Input Use Efficiency
of Irrigated Bread Wheat in Indo-Gangetic Plains
580
Figure 1. Maximum and minimum temperatures (˚C), rainfall (mm), sunshine (hrs) and relative humidity (RH %) for the
winter months of 2002-2003 (year 1).
Figure 2. Maximum and minimum temperature (˚C), rainfall (mm), sunshine (hrs) and relative humidity (RH %) for the
winter months of 2003-2004 (year 2).
control. These treatments were laid out in a Randomized
Block Design (RBD) with four replications. The size of
each plot was 20 m× 10 m and there were 45 rows of
wheat in each plot having 20 m length.
2.3.2. Soil S a mpl i n g and An al ysi s
Before the treatments lay out random soil samples (0 - 15
cm) depth were collected and composited. Composite
soil samples were dried, sieved through 2 mm mesh and
were analyzed for texture, pH, EC, organic carbon,
available N, P and K [27]. The soil (0 - 15 cm) of the
experimental site was typic Ustochrept (sobhapur sandy
loam), with a pH 8.5, organic C 0.73%, available N 256
kg·ha–1, Olsen P 12 kg·ha–1 and available K 133 kg·ha–1.
The bulk density was measured using core-ring method
and one core per stratus of each plot was collected and
the samples were oven dried for 48 h at 105˚C, weighed
and bulk density calculated according to reference [28].
The initial bulk density of the soil was 1.48 Mg·m–3. Af-
ter the wheat harvest, soil samples were collected again
and analyzed in an identical manner described above.
However, after harvest soil samples were acquired from
the raised bed planting treatments, hence the samples
were collected from the center of the raised beds.
2.3.3. Land Leveling
The land was first ploughed at the field capacity with
harrow/cultivator for pulverization and was leveled as
per the treatments. A laser equipped drag scrapper
(TrimbleTM, USA) with automatic hydraulic system at-
tached with 60 HP tractor was used for laser land level-
ing. Before running the laser leveler, the field was sur-

Layering Precision Land Leveling and Furrow Irrigated Raised Bed Planting: Productivity and Input Use Efficiency 581
of Irrigated Bread Wheat in Indo-Gangetic Plains
veyed at 10 feet distance for recording the elevation. The
elevation points were averaged to desired elevation for
leveling the field. The average elevation value was en-
tered in to the control box for controlling the scrapper at
this elevation point [13,19]. For the traditional land lev-
eling treatment, the field was first ploughed as described
above and was leveled using an iron plank attached to a
tractor and was dragged across the land surface.
2.3.4. Nutrient Application
Plant nutrients were applied as per the state recommen-
dations for wheat (N120 + P26 + K50). N60 + P26 + K50
through urea, di-ammonium phosphate and muriate of
potash respectively, were placed in band in seed rows at
the time of sowing using ferti-cum-seed drill. The re-
maining N was broadcast with dry urea in two equal
splits of 30 kg·N·ha–1, (N30) at crown root initiation (CRI)
and the flag leaf initiation (FLI) crop growth stages.
2.3.5. Sowing Techniques
Wheat cultivar PBW-343 was sown on December 4th
2002 using 100 kg·seed·ha–1. Flat bed planting was done
using seed-cum-fertilizer drill at a row spacing of 22 cm.
For raised bed planting, seed-cum-fertilizer bed planter
was used. The bed: furrow width at top was kept at 37
cm:30 cm having three seed rows and the depth of the
furrow was kept at 15 cm. The plant population was
maintained equal in flat as well as raised bed planting.
2.3.6. Irrig ation Applic ation and Water Prod uctivity
In 2002-2003 wheat was irrigated at the crown root ini-
tiation, tillering, jointing, flowering and dough stages
that corresponds to Z20, Z29, Z36, Z55 and Z83 [29]. In
2003-2004, the wheat was irrigated at the Z20, Z29, Z55
and Z83 stages. During each irrigation, the water applied
to each treatment was measured using Parshall flume
[30]. The total water use during the cropping was calcu-
lated as m3·ha–1. The water productivity was calculated as
grain yield produced per unit of irrigation water applied
during cropping and was converted to kg·grain·m–3 water
[31,32].
2.3.7. Plan t Gr ow t h and Yield Paramete rs
The height of five randomly selected plants in each plot
(20 m × 10 m) was recorded at physiological maturity
from ground level to tip of the leaf. The effective number
of tillers (ear bearing tillers) were counted from an area
of 0.25 m2 using 0.50 m × 0.50 m quadrant at similar
locations from where the plant height measurements
were recorded. The spike length was measured by taking
the spikes from the plants measured for plant height and
the same spikes were used for counting the number of
grains. The number of grains were counted for five
spikes and averaged to convert it on per spike basis. The
plants were harvested from the net plot area, air and sun
dried for five days and weighed for recording the total
biomass. The plants were threshed using mini-plot
thresher and the grain weight was recorded on net plot
basis. The grain weight was subtracted from the total
biomass to get the straw weight. The grain and straw
weight from net plot was converted to yield per hectare.
2.3.8. Plant A nal ysi s and Nutrient Upt ake
The plants measured for growth and yield were used for
analyzing the N, P and K content in grain and straw. The
grain and straw samples were dried at 70˚C in a hot air
oven. The dried samples were ground in a stainless steel
Wiley Mill. The N content in grain and straw were de-
termined by digesting the samples in sulfuric acid
(H2SO4), followed by analysis of total N by Kjeldahl
method [33] using a Kjeltec autoanalyser. The P content
(grain and straw) was determined by vanadomolybdo-
phosphoric yellow colour method and the K content both
in grain and straw was analysed in di-acid (HNO3 and
HClO4) digests by Flame Photometeric method [33].
The uptake of the nutrients was calculated by multi-
plying the nutrient content (%) by respective yield
(kg·ha–1) and was divided by 100 to get the uptake values
in kg·ha–1. The uptake in grain and straw was summed to
get the total uptake of nutrient·ha–1.
2.3.9. Nutrient Use Efficiency
The agronomic and uptake efficiencies of applied N, P and
K were calculated as presented in Equations 1 and 2.
2.3.10. Data Analysis
All the data on yield and yield parameters, water produc-
tivity, nutrient uptake, nutrient use efficiency and soil
parameters were analysed with IRRISTAT for Windows
for one-way ANOVA [34]. Duncan’s multiple range test
(DMRT) was used at the P < 0.05 level of probability to
test the differences between the treatment means.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Plant Growth, Yield Parameters and Yield
Data pertaining to crop growth and yield parameters of

1Grain yield of treatment plotGrain yield of control plot
Agronomic Efficiency kgkgQuantity of nutrient applied

 (1)

1Nutrient uptake treatment plotNutrient u
p
take in control plot
Uptake Efficiency kgkgQuantity of nutrient applied

 (2)

Layering Precision Land Leveling and Furrow Irrigated Raised Bed Planting: Productivity and Input Use Efficiency
of Irrigated Bread Wheat in Indo-Gangetic Plains
582
wheat (Table 1 ) showed significant variation due to land
leveling and planting techniques during both the study
years. The plant height recorded at physiological matur-
ity of the crop showed that land leveling with similar
crop establishment technique had significant effect on
plant height. Maximum plant height was recorded in the
“PLRB” planting treatment, which was significantly su-
perior to all other treatments. The number of productive
tillers under “PLRB” planting treatment was 9.3% and
9.8% higher during yr. 1 (2003-2004) and yr. 2 (2002-
2003), respectively, compared to the “TLRB” planting
treatment. The effect of land leveling on productive till-
ers was more pronounced under flat bed planting. The
increase in the number of tillers in “PLFB” planting
treatment over the “TLFB” planting treatment was about
12% for both years. Similarly, land leveling and plant-
ing methods showed increased spike length. The longer
spikes were recorded with precision land leveling and
raised bed planting techniques. The increase in spike
length due to precision land leveling was measured at 9.9
and 10.15 cm, respectively during yr. 1 and yr. 2 com-
pared to other treatments. The number of grains/spike
with precision land leveling under raised bed planting
were 6.3% and 6.4% higher over traditional leveling
during 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 respectively. Whereas,
with PLFB the respective increase in number of grains/
spike was 4.4% and 3.8% over traditional leveling (Ta-
ble 1) treatment.
The yield level, in general, under all the treatments
was little higher during yr. 2 compared to yr. 1. This was
attributed mainly due to more sunshine hours across the
season in yr. 2 compared to yr. 1 (Figures 1 and 2). Also,
the minimum temperature during flowering season was
higher during yr. 1 compared to yr. 2 (Figures 1 and 2)
which limits the reproductive period and responsible for
lower yields of wheat. Grain yield of wheat varied sig-
nificantly due to PLRB techniques and significantly
higher yield levels of 5.0 and 5.19 t·ha–1 were recorded
under PLRB during yr. 1 and yr. 2, respectively com-
pared to other treatments. The increase in grain yield
with PLRB was 8.0% and 8.7% during yr. 1 and yr. 2,
respectively whereas the corresponding increase under
flat bed planting was recorded at 6.5% and 7.5%. The
yield under TLRB and PLFB did not varied significantly
during both the years. Further, with the same level of
land leveling and different levels of planting techniques,
the wheat yield varied remarkably. Raised bed showed
8.70% and 8.58% yield advantage over flat bed planting
under precision leveling during yr. 1 and yr. 2, respec-
tively whereas, the corresponding increase in yield under
traditional leveling was recorded at 6.98% and 7.24%. It
showed that the raised bed planting technique is more
advantageous under precisely leveled fields.
Significantly higher yield of wheat was recorded with
precision land leveling as it takes care of maintaining
near homogeneity by way of cut and fill and also tillage
[35]. The formation of fragipan and duripan are two im-
portant diagnostic horizons responsible for formation of
hard pans/crusts on the surface soils of semi-arid zones
as in our experimental site due to accumulation of salts
[36]. Precision land leveling helps in the removal of
these hard sub-surface layers by way of deep tillage and
subsequent leveling. The frequent micro-relief which is a
common characteristic of saline-alkaline soils as at the
study site, is also eliminated through laser leveling. The
precision land leveling helps in uniform distribution of
water even if the depth of application of water is less
(about 5 cm) that facilitates good establishment of wheat
in sodic soils [37] that resulted in higher yields. The uni-
formity of land surface with precision land leveling also
lowers the within field yield variability compared to tra-
ditional leveling [22] that in-turn leads to uniform ger-
mination, crop establishment and higher crop yields. The
significant increase in wheat yield on raised beds com-
pared to conventional flat planting was attributed due to
significantly higher productive tillers, length of spike and
number of grains/spike as presented in Table 1. These
findings are in agreement with reference [10,24,26] who
Table 1. Effect of laser land leveling and planting te chniques on growth and yie l d of whe a t.
Plant height at harvest
(cm)
Productive tillers m–2
(Nos) Length of spike (cm)Grains/spike (Nos)Grain yield (t·ha–1) Straw yield (t·ha–1)
Treatment
2002-2003 2003-2004 2002-2003 2003-2004 2002-2003 2003-2004 2002-2003 2003-2004 2002-2003 2003-2004 2002-2003 2003-2004
T1 99.9a 101.7a 311a 316a 9.9 10.15a 44.2a 46.43a 5.00a 5.19a 6.00a 6.23a
T2 87.9c 90.1b 282c 285b 9.7 9.90ab 41.4c 43.45b 4.60b 4.74b 5.30b 5.44b
T3 95.5b 97.5c 300b 305c 9.8 9.93ab 43.0b 45.07c 4.60b 4.78b 6.20a 6.41a
T4 87.4c 88.4d 264d 268d 9.6 9.73b 41.1c 43.35b 4.30b 4.42c 4.50c 4.60c
T5 76.1d 75.7e 231e 229e 9.1 8.93c 39.2d 38.82c 2.70c 2.64d 2.90d 2.88d
SE ± 0.76 0.56 3.06 2.42 0.21 0.138 0.383 0.328 0.165 0.111 0.184 0.102
M
eans with the same letters are not significantly different at P = 0.05.

Layering Precision Land Leveling and Furrow Irrigated Raised Bed Planting: Productivity and Input Use Efficiency 583
of Irrigated Bread Wheat in Indo-Gangetic Plains
summarized the finding of multi-location trails across
IGP and reported higher yield of wheat with raised beds
compared to flat sowing.
3.2. Irrigation Water Use and Water
Productivity
The total irrigation water use was about 20% higher in yr.
1 than yr. 2 (Table 2) because of one additional irrigation
application in yr. 1 owing to non-uniform distribution of
rainfall, less number of rainy days and rainfall during the
crop growth cycle (Figures 1 and 2). Land leveling and
planting technique significantly influenced the total irri-
gation water use during both the years. The planting
techniques had significant influence on water use at same
level of land leveling. Raised bed planting helped in sav-
ing of 25% and 29% irrigation water during yr. 1 and yr.
2 compared to flat planting under precision land leveling.
Whereas, the corresponding water saving under tradi-
tional leveling was recorded at 38% and 33% (Table 2).
The results revealed that the saving in irrigation water
with raised bed planting technique was more under tradi-
tional leveling as in this technique water moves in fur-
rows only. Laser assisted precision land leveling can re-
duce evaporation and percolation losses from wheat by
enabling faster irrigation times and by eliminating de-
pressions and therefore ponding of water in depressions
[38] that results in average wheat irrigation water savings
of 25% in comparison with non-laser leveled fields while
increasing crop yield by 15% to 35% [22,26,39-41].
Higher grain yield and less water use in raised bed plant-
ing and precision land leveling compared to other treat-
ments resulted in higher irrigation water productivity
(kg·grain·m–3 irrigation water). The water productivity of
precision leveling with raised beds was 31% and 35%
higher yr. 1 and yr. 2, respectively compared to precision
leveling with flat sowing and the corresponding increase
in WP under traditional leveling with raised beds over
traditional leveling with flat planting was 40% and 37%.
The higher irrigation water productivity (WP) during yr.
1 compared to yr. 2 was mainly due to less irrigation
water use and higher productivity levels during yr. 2 than
yr. 1.
3.3. Nutrient Uptake
Total (grain + straw) uptake of nutrients (N, P, K) ana-
lyzed at crop maturity varied significantly due to land
leveling and planting techniques. Maximum uptake of
total N was recorded with PLRB which was significantly
higher over all other treatments during yr. 2 but during yr.
1, it was higher to treatments other than PLFB (Table 3).
Similar to nitrogen, maximum uptake of total P uptake
was also recorded in PLRB which was at par to PLFB
during yr. 1 but during yr. 2, it was significantly higher
over all the treatments (Table 4). The total K uptake by
the crop during both the years was, though at par, under
precision land leveling irrespective of the planting tech-
Table 2. Effect of laser land leveling and planting te chniques on water productivity of wheat.
Total number of irrigations applied Irrigation water use (m3·ha–1) Irrigation water productivity (kg·grain·m–3 water)
Treatment 2002-2003 2003-2004 2002-2003 2003-2004 2002-2003 2003-2004
T1 5 4 2635d 2170a 1. 90a 2.39a
T2 5 4 3335c 2870b 1.38b 1.65b
T3 5 4 3525b 3060c 1.31b 1.56c
T4 5 4 5270a 4309d 0.82c 1.03d
T5 5 4 5270a 4309d 0.51d 0.61e
SE ± ― ― 15.87 11.89 0.045 0.040
Means with the same letters are not significantly different at P = 0.05.
Table 3. Effect of laser land leveling and planting te c hniques on N uptake of wheat.
N uptake (kg·ha–1)
Grain Straw Total
Treatment
2002-2003 2003-2004 2002-2003 2003-2004 2002-2003 2003-2004
T1 84.51a 88.28a 25.86a 27.24a 110.37a 115.52a
T2 76.36b 78.93b 21.21b 22.05b 97.57b 100.98b
T3 76.83b 80.11b 25.45a 26.92a 102.27ab 106.97c
T4 70.54b 72.42c 17.10c 17.58c 87.64c 90.00d
T5 44.02c 43.28d 10.46d 10.67d 54.46d 53.95e
SE ± 2.96 2.07 1.28 0.58 3.98 1.98
M
eans with the same letters are not significantly different at P = 0.05.

Layering Precision Land Leveling and Furrow Irrigated Raised Bed Planting: Productivity and Input Use Efficiency
584
of Irrigated Bread Wheat in Indo-Gangetic Plains
nique (i.e. PLFB and PLRB) but significantly higher over
rest of the treatments (Table 5). The higher amount of
uptake of nutrients under precision leveling and raised
bed planting techniques was associated with higher bio-
mass accumulation under these treatments, which led to
higher amount of uptake of these nutrients. The higher
nutrient uptake in precision leveling with raised beds is
mainly due to less leaching loss of nutrients and avail-
ability of sufficient moisture for mineralization of native
as well as applied nutrients. The higher uptake efficiency
of nutrients depends on a myriod of factors including
nutrient availability due to favourable soil biota under
precision leveling with raised beds compared to precision
leveling with flat beds.
3.4. Nutrient Use Efficiency
The agronomic as well as uptake efficiency of applied
nutrients was in general higher during yr. 2 compared to
yr. 1 due to higher crop yield during yr. 2 with the same
level of nutrient application.
3.4.1. Agronomi c Efficiency (AE)
The agronomic efficiency (AE) of applied nutrients as
unit grain production per unit of applied nutrients after
deducting the soil supplying capacity was calculated for
all the treatments. The AE of applied N (AE-N at 120
kg·ha–1), P (AE-P at 26 kg·ha–1) and K (AE-K at 50
kg·ha–1) was significantly higher under precision leveling
with raised bed treatment compared to other treatments
during either of the year. The efficiency of the nutrient
under PLFB, and TLRB was at par but significantly su-
perior to TLFB during yr. 2. During yr. 1, the efficiency
under TLRB, PLFB, and TLFB were at par but signifi-
cantly inferior to PLRB (Figure 3).
3.4.2. Upta ke E ffi ci en cy (U E )
Precision leveling irrespective of planting technique ex-
erted significant effect on UE-N. The UE-N under PLRB
was significantly higher over all other treatments during
both the years. Further, the uptake efficiency under
PLFB also improved significantly compared to TLRB
and TLFB. The uptake efficiency of P was significantly
improved with precision leveling compared to traditional
leveling irrespective of the planting methods. The UE-P
between raised beds & flat sowing with precision level-
ing and that of traditional leveling with raised beds and
flat sowing did not varied significantly during either of
the years of experimentation (Figure 4). The UE-K un-
der precision leveling in either of planting techniques
(raised beds and flat sowing) did not varied and was sig-
nificantly superior to both the planting techniques under
traditional leveling (Figure 4).
3.4.3 Soil Properties
Significant variations in bulk density, organic carbon,
available N, P and K were recorded due to different
Table 4. Effect of laser land leveling and planting te chniques on P uptake of wheat.
P uptake (kg·ha–1)
Grain Straw Total
Treatment
2002-2003 2003-2004 2002-2003 2003-2004 2002-2003 2003-2004
T1 13.03a 13.38a 6.02a 6.11a 19.05a 19.49a
T2 10.61b 10.56bc 4.24b 4.49b 14.85bc 15.06b
T3 11.04b 11.70b 5.57a 5.92a 16.61ab 17.62c
T4 9.49b 9.74c 3.61b 3.57b 13.10c 13.31d
T5 5.42c 5.50d 2.31c 2.16c 7.74d 7.66e
SE ± 0.0876 0.57 0.38 0.44 1.15 0.703
Means with the same letters are not significantly different at P = 0.05.
Table 5. Effect of laser land leveling and planting te c hniques on K uptake of wheat.
K uptake (kg·ha–1)
Grain Straw Total Treatment
2002-2003 2003-2004 2002-2003 2003-2004 2002-2003 2003-2004
T1 35.59a 37.19a 72.71a 75.80a 108.29a 112.99a
T2 31.75b 32.47b 62.02b 63.81b 93.77b 96.28b
T3 32.22ab 33.78b 73.18a 76.22a 105.40a 110.02a
T4 29.26b 30.16c 52.24c 53.35c 81.51c 83.49c
T5 18.10c 17.91d 33.35d 33.27d 51.45d 51.17d
SE ± 1.78 0.909 2.96 1.562 4.63 2.212
M
eans with the same letters are not significantly different at P = 0.05.

Layering Precision Land Leveling and Furrow Irrigated Raised Bed Planting: Productivity and Input Use Efficiency 585
of Irrigated Bread Wheat in Indo-Gangetic Plains
Figure 3. Effect of land leveling and crop establishment on
agronomic efficiency of N (AE-N), P (AE-P) and K (AE-K).
treatments. The bulk density did not varied significantly
due to land leveling however, planting techniques had
significance influence and it was significantly reduced
under raised bed planting compared to flat sowing irre-
spective of the land leveling practice. This was attributed
mainly due to more pore spaces created in the beds
through modified land configuration by accumulations
the topsoil. Bed planting provides natural opportunity to
reduce compaction by confining traffic to the furrow
bottoms [42]. The soil organic carbon content in top soil
(0 - 15 cm) was increased significantly due to raised bed
planting compared to flat sowing planting mostly be-
cause of localized deposition of more fertile top soil on
beds under altered land configuration than flat planting
[43]. Available nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium
status of soil analyzed after harvest of wheat during both
the years showed significant variation due to different
Figure 4. Effect of land leveling and crop establishment on
uptake efficiency of N (UE-N), P (UE-P) and K (UE-K).
treatments (Table 6). Maximum available N, P and K
content in soil was recorded under PLRB being at par
with TLRB but were significantly superior to all other
treatments. Further, flat planting either on precision or
traditional leveling were at par with each other at similar
fertility levels.
4. Conclusions
Over the past decade, researchers in association with
farmers and entrepreneurs have been trying to overcome
the problems of depleting water resources, diminishing
input use efficiency, declining farm profitability, and
deteriorating soil health by developing, evaluating and
refining conservation and precision agriculture-based
resource-conserving technologies for the wheat system in
the IGP of South Asia. The adoption of raised bed plant-
ng within the past decade largely associated with in- i

Layering Precision Land Leveling and Furrow Irrigated Raised Bed Planting: Productivity and Input Use Efficiency
586
of Irrigated Bread Wheat in Indo-Gangetic Plains
Table 6. Soil properties after harvest of wheat.
Soil properties (0 - 15 cm) #
Bulk density (Mg·m–3)Organic carbon (%) Available N (kg·ha–1) Available P (kg·ha–1) Available K (kg·ha–1)
Treatment
2002-2003 2003-2004 2002-2003 2003-2004 2002-2003 2003-2004 2002-20032003-2004 2002-2003 2003-2004
T1 1.44b 1.45a 0.77a 0.78a 258a 259.25a 13.2a 13.3a 245ab 244.25ab
T2 1.44b 1.45a 0.78a 0.79a 261a 261.50a 13.5a 13.7a 247a 245.87a
T3 1.49a 1.49b 0.67c 0.69bc 249b 250.00b 11.8b 11.9b 240c 240.69b
T4 1.48a 1.48b 0.70b 0.70b 252b 250.13b 12.1b 12.0b 243bc 241.75ab
T5 1.48a 1.49b 0.67c 0.68c 243c 139.50c 8.6c 8.5c 236d 232.50c
SE ± 0.008 0.009 0.011 0.011 1.55 1.96 0.39 0.40 1.76 2.05
Means with the same letters are not significantly different at P = 0.05. #In raised-bed planting, soil samples were collected from the centre of the bed.
creases in farm income related to less use of water and
labour. Recently, laser-assisted precision land levelling
has shown promise for better crop establishment, water
savings and enhanced input use efficiency. This study on
the integrated effect of raised bed planting of irrigated
wheat on laser levelled fields increased wheat yields (av-
erage of 2 yrs) by 16.63% over flat planting on tradition-
ally levelled fields. Whereas, the yield enhancing effects
of precision land levelling alone under raised beds and
flat beds were 9.49% and 8.14%, respectively. The sav-
ing in irrigation water with layering of precision-con-
servation was 49.83% compared to traditional practice
(traditional levelling, flat planting), whereas precision
levelling could save 31.26% water in flat planting and
22.56% in raised beds. The improvement in nutrient use
efficiency was also significant with layering of preci-
sion-conservation management compared to individual
effects. Therefore, this study confirms that Precision-
Conservation Agriculture (PCA) based crop management
solutions seem to be promising options to sustain the
irrigated wheat systems of South Asia on a long-term
basis.
5. Acknowledgements
The research was funded by National Agriculture Tech-
nology Project (NATP), Indian Council of Agricultural
Research, New Delhi, India.
REFERENCES
[1] S. Rajaram, K. D. Sayre, J. Diekmann, R. Gupta and W.
Erskine, “Sustainability Considerations in Wheat Im-
provement and Production,” In: M. S. Kang, Ed., Agri-
cultural and Environmental Sustainability-Considerations
for Future, Haworth Food & Agricultural Products Press,
New York, 2007, pp. 105-124.
[2] P. L. Pingali and S. Rajaram, “Global Wheat Research in
a Changing World: Options and Sustaining Growth in
Wheat Productivity,” In: P. L. Pingali, Ed., CIMMYT
1998-1999 World Wheat Facts and Trends, CIMMYT,
Mexico, 1999.
[3] J. K. Ladha, H. Pathak, A. T. Padre, D. Dawe and R. K.
Gupta, “Productivity Trends in Intensive Rice-Wheat
Cropping Systems in Asia”, In: J. K. Ladha, et al., Eds.,
Improving the Productivity and Sustainability of
Rice-Wheat Systems: Issues and Impacts, ASA Spec. Publ.
65, ASA, CSSA and SSSA, Madison, 2003, pp. 45-76.
[4] M. P. Reynolds, J. I. Ortiz-Monasterio and A. McNab,
“Application of Physiology in Wheat Breeding,” CIM-
MYT, Mexico, 2001.
[5] B. Govaerts, K. D. Sayre, K. Lichter, L. Dendooven and J.
Deckers, “Influence of Permanent Raised Bed Planting
and Residue Management on Physical and Chemical Soil
Quality in Rainfed Maize/Wheat Systems,” Plant and
Soil, Vol. 291, No. 1-2, 2007, pp. 39-54.
doi:10.1007/s11104-006-9172-6
[6] K. D. Sayre, “Raised Bed Cultivation,” In: R. Lal, Ed.,
Encyclopedia of Soil Science, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New
York, 2004.
[7] K. D. Sayre and O. H. Morena Ramos, “Application of
Raised Bed Planting Systems to Wheat,” Wheat Program
Special Rep. 31., CIMMYT, Mexico, 1997.
[8] S. S. Dhillon, P. R. Hobbs and J. S. Samra, “Investiga-
tions on Bed Planning System as an Alternative Tillage
and Crop Establishment Practice for Improving Wheat
Yields Sustainably,” Proceedings of the 15th Conference
of the International Soil Tillage Research Organization,
Fort Worth, 2-7 July 2000.
[9] M. L. Jat, S. Singh, H. K. Rai, R. S. Chhokar, S. K.
Sharma and R. K. Gupta, “Furrow Irrigated Raised Bed
Planting Technique for Diversification of Rice-Wheat
System of Indo-Gangetic Plains,” Journal of Japan Asso-
ciation for International Cooperation for Agriculture and
Forestry, Vol. 28, 2005, pp. 25-42.
[10] R. Gupta and K. D. Sayre, “Conservation Agriculture in
South Asia,” Journal of Agricultural Sciences, Vol. 145,
2007, pp. 207-214. doi:10.1017/S0021859607006910
[11] Y. S. Saharawat, Bhagat Singh, R. K. Malik, J. K. Ladha,
M. K. Gathala, M. L. Jat and V. Kumar, “Evaluation of
Alternative Tillage and Crop Establishment Methods in a
Rice-Wheat Rotation in North Western IGP,” Field Crop
Research, Vol. 116, No. 3, 2010, pp. 260-267.
doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2010.01.003
[12] J. E. Hill, D. E. Bayer, S. Bocchi and W.S. Clampett,
“Direct Seeded Rice in the Temperate Climates of Aus-
tralia,” Direct Seeded Flooded Rice in the Tropics, IRRI,
Manila, 1991, pp. 91-102.
[13] J. F. Rickman, “Manual for Laser Land Leveling,” Rice-

Layering Precision Land Leveling and Furrow Irrigated Raised Bed Planting: Productivity and Input Use Efficiency 587
of Irrigated Bread Wheat in Indo-Gangetic Plains
Wheat Consortium Rice-Wheat Consortium for the Indo-
Gangetic Plains, New Delhi, Technical Bulletin Series 5,
2002, p. 24.
[14] T. B. S. Rajput and Neelam Patel, “Effect of Land Level-
ing on Irrigation Efficiencies and Wheat Yield,” Journal
of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 3, 2004, pp. 86-96.
[15] T. B. S. Rajput, Neelam Patel and Ghanshyam Agrawal,
“Laser Levelling―A Tool to Increase Irrigation Effi-
ciency at Field Level,” Journal of Agricultural Engineer-
ing, Vol. 41, 2004, pp. 20-25.
[16] M. L. Jat, S. S. Pal, A. V. M. Subba Rao, K. Sirohi, S. K.
Sharma and R. K. Gupta, “Laser Land Leveling: The Pre-
cursor Technology for Resource Conservation in Irrigated
Eco-System of India,” Proceedings of the National Con-
ference on Conservation Agriculture, New Delhi, 2004,
pp. 9-10.
[17] A. Sattar, F. H. Khan and A. R. Tahir, “Impact of Preci-
sion Land Leveling on Water Saving and Drainage Re-
quirement,” Journal of AMA, Vol. 34, 2003, pp. 39-41.
[18] M. L. Jat, S. K. Sharma, R. K. Gupta, K. Sirohi and P.
Chandana, “Laser Land Leveling: The Precursor Tech-
nology for Resource Conservation in Irrigated
Eco-System of India,” In: I. P. Abrol, et al., Eds., Con-
servation Agriculture-Status and Prospects, CASA, New
Delhi, 2005, pp. 145-154.
[19] M. L. Jat, M. K. Gathala, J. K. Ladha, Y. S. Saharawat, A.
S. Jat, Vipin Kumar, S. K. Sharma, V. Kumar and R.
Gupta, “Evaluation of Precision Land Leveling and Dou-
ble Zero-Till Systems in the Rice―Wheat Rotation: Wa-
ter Use, Productivity, Profitability and Soil Physical
Properties,” Soil and Tillage Research, Vol. 105, No. 1,
2009, pp. 112-121. doi:10.1016/j.still.2009.06.003
[20] M. L. Jat, R. Gupta, P. Ramasundaram, M. K. Gathala, H.
S. Sidhu, S. Singh, R. G. Singh, Y. S. Saharawat, V.
Kumar, P. Chandna and J. K. Ladha, “Laser Assisted Pre-
cision Land Leveling: A Potential Technology for Re-
source Conservation in Irrigated Intensive Production
Systems of Indo-Gangetic Plains,” In: J. K. Ladha, et al.,
Eds., Integrated Crop and Resource Management in the
Rice-Wheat System of South Asia, International Rice Re-
search Institute, Los Banos, 2009, pp. 223-238.
[21] M. A. Choudhary, M. A. Gill, A. Kahlown and P. R. Hobbs,
“Evaluation of Resource Conservation Technologies in
Rice-Wheat System of Pakistan,” Proceedings of the Inter-
national Workshop on Developing an Action Program for
Farm Level Impact in Rice-Wheat System of Indo-Gangetic
Plains, 25-27 September 2000, New Delhi, p. 148.
[22] M. L. Jat, P. Chandana, S. K. Sharma, M. A. Gill and R.
K. Gupta, “Laser Land Leveling-A Precursor Technology
for Resource Conservation,” Rice-Wheat Consortium
Technical Bulletin Series 7, Rice-Wheat Consortium for
the Indo-Gangetic Plains, New Delhi, 2006.
[23] R. K. Gupta, R. K. Naresh, P. R. Hobbs, Z. Jiaguo and J.
K. Ladha, “Sustainability of Post Green Revolution Ag-
riculture: The Rice-Wheat Cropping Systems of the Indo-
Gangetic Plains and China,” In: J. K. Ladha, et al., Eds.,
Improving the Productivity and Sustainability of Rice-
Wheat Systems: Issues and Impact, ASA, Spec. Publ. 65,
chapter 1:, ASA Madison, 2003, pp. 1-25.
[24] M. L. Jat, M. K. Gathala, K. K. Singh, J. K. Ladha, S.
Singh, R. K. Gupta, S. K. Sharma, Y. S. Saharawat and J.
P. Tetarwal, “Experiences with Permanent Beds in the
Rice-Wheat System of the Western Indo-Gangetic Plain,”
In: E. Humphreys and C. Roth, Eds., Permanent Beds and
Rice-Residue Management for Rice-Wheat System of the
Indo-Gangetic Plain, ACIAR Proceedings, Vol. 127,
2008, pp. 98-107.
[25] P. R. Hobbs and R. K. Gupta, “Resource Conserving
Technologies for Wheat in the Rice-Wheat System,” In: J.
K. Ladha, et al., Eds., Improving the Productivity and
Sustainability of Rice-Wheat Systems: Issues and Impact,
ASA, Spec. Publ. 65, chapter 7, ASA Madison, 2003, pp.
149-171.
[26] L. Bhushan, J. K. Ladha, R. K. Gupta, S. Singh, A. T.
Padre, Y. S. Saharawat, M. Gathala and H. Pathak, “Sav-
ing of Water and Labour in a Rice-Wheat System with
No-Tillage and Direct Seeding Technologies,” Agronomy
Journal, Vol. 99, No. 5, 2007, pp. 1288-1296.
doi:10.2134/agronj2006.0227
[27] D. W. Nelson and L. E. Sommers, “Total Carbon, Or-
ganic Carbon and Organic Matter,” In: D. L. Sparks, ed.,
Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 3, SSSA Book Series
SSSA, ASA, Madison, No. 5, 1996, pp. 961-1010.
[28] G. R. Blake and K. H. Hartge, “Bulk Density,” In: A.
Klute, et al., Eds., Methods of Soil Analysis, Part I, ASA
and SSSA, Madison, 1986, pp. 363-375.
[29] J. C. Zadoks, T. T. Chang and C. F. Konzak, “A Decimal
Code for the Growth Stages of Cereals,” Weed Research,
Vol. 14, No. 6, 1974, pp. 415-421.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-3180.1974.tb01084.x
[30] R. L. Parshall, “Measuring Water in Irrigation Channels
with Parshall Flumes and Small Weirs,” USDA Circular,
No. 843, 1950.
[31] D. Molden and R. Shaktivadivel, “Water Accounting to
Assess Use and Productivity of Water,” Water Resources
Development, Vol. 15, No. 1-2, 1999, pp. 55-71.
doi:10.1080/07900629948934
[32] J. W. Kijne, R. Barker and D. Molden, “Water Productiv-
ity in Agriculture: Limits and Opportunities for Im-
provement,” Wallingford, 2003, p. 332.
[33] A. L. Page, R. H. Miller and D. R. Keeney, “Methods of
Soil Analysis. Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological
Properties,” 2nd edition, Agronomy Monograph, No. 9,
ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, 1982.
[34] IRRI, “IRRISTAT for Windows,” A Statistical Package
for Analysis of Data, IRRI, Manila, 2005.
[35] M. L. Jat, S. S. Pal, A. V. M. Subba Rao and S. K.
Sharma, “Improving Resource Use Efficiency in Wheat
through Laser Land Leveling in an Ustochrept of
Indo-Gangetic Plain,” Proceedings of the National Semi-
nar on Developments in Soil Science, 68th Annual Con-
vention of the Indian Society of Soil Science, Kanpur, 4-8
November 2003, 2003.

Layering Precision Land Leveling and Furrow Irrigated Raised Bed Planting: Productivity and Input Use Efficiency
of Irrigated Bread Wheat in Indo-Gangetic Plains
588
[36] Salinity Laboratory Staff, “Diagnosis and Improvement
of Saline and Alkali Soils,” Agriculture Handbook No. 60,
USDA, US Government Printing Office, Washington, D.
C., 1954.
[37] N. K. Tyagi, “Effect of Land Surface Uniformity on Irri-
gation Quality and Economic Parameters on Sodic Soils
under Reclamation,” Irrigati on Science, Vol. 5, 1984, pp.
151-166. doi:10.1007/BF00264604
[38] E. Humphreys, S. Thaman, A. Prashar, P. R. Gajri, S. S.
Dhillon, Yadvinder-Singh, V. K. Nayyar, J. Timsina and
Bijay-Singh, “Productivity, Water Use Efficiency and
Hydrology of Wheat on Beds and Flats in Punjab, India,”
CSIRO Land and Water Technical Report 03/04, CSIRO
Land and Water, Griffith, 2004.
[39] M. A. Kahlown, M. A. Gill and M. Ashraf, “Evaluation
of Resource Conservation Technologies in Rice-Wheat
System of Pakistan,” Pakistan Council of Research in
Water Resources (PCRWR), Research Report-I, PCRWR,
Islamabad, 2002.
[40] M. M. Alam, J. M. Asim and Z. I. Raza, “Economic
Evaluation of Resource Conserving Technologies in
Rice-Wheat Cropping System,” MERP Publication,
WAPDA, No. 255, 2003.
[41] R. K. Gupta and A. Seth, “A Review of Resource Con-
serving Technologies for Sustainable Management of the
Rice-Wheat Cropping Systems of the Indo-Gangetic
Plains,” Crop Protection, Vol. 26, 2007, pp. 436-447.
doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2006.04.030
[42] B. Govaerts, K. D. Sayre, J. M. Ceballos-Ramirez, M. L.
Luna-Guido, A. Limon-Ortega, J. Deckers and L. Den-
dooven, “Conventionally Tilled and Permanent Raised
Beds with Different Crop Residue Management: Effect
on Soil C and N Dynamics,” Plant and Soil, Vol. 280,
2006, pp. 143-155. doi:10.1007/s11104-005-2854-7
[43] T. W. Walker, W. L. Kingery, Joe E. Street, M. S. Lox, J.
L. Oldham, P. D. Gerard and F. X. Han, “Rice Yield and
Soil Chemical Properties as Affected by Precision Land
Leveling in Alluvial Soils,” Agronomy Journal, Vol. 95,
2003, pp. 1483-1488. doi:10.2134/agronj2003.1483