Journal of Researches in Mechanics of Agricultural Machinery

Journal of Researches in Mechanics of Agricultural Machinery

Comparing the effects of different conservation and conventional tillage methods on rice yield and water consumption indices

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Naeim Loveimi 1
Ahmad Sharifi-Malvajerdi 2
Ali Mokhtaran 1
1 Agricultural and horticultural Research Department, Khuzestan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, AREEO, Ahvaz, Iran
2 Agricultural Engineering Research Institute (AERI), Agricultural Research Education and Extension Organization, AREEO, Karaj, Iran
10.22034/jrmam.2026.14810.746
Abstract
Abstract
conservation tillage has attracted considerable attention due to its role in preventing erosion, maintaining soil organic matter, preserving soil moisture, and reducing water loss. This study aimed to compare different conservation tillage methods under periodical irrigation conditions with a conventional tillage method under continuous irrigation conditions (control treatment) for rice cultivation over two years (2020–2021). The experiment was conducted using a randomized complete block design with three replications at the Shavoor Station of the Khuzestan Agricultural Research Center. The treatments included four conservation tillage methods: no-till, chisel with disc, chisel packer, once disc, under periodical irrigation conditions, and conventional method: (control treatment: moldboard plow with twice disc under continuous irrigation conditions). The results of agronomic traits showed that there was no significant difference between different tillage-irrigation methods in terms of yield and agronomic traits, except for thousand-grain weight. Comparison of means showed that, no-till, chisel with disc, chisel packer, once disc, under periodical irrigation conditions, had 3137, 2900, 2892, and 2940 kg.ha-1 respectively, and control treatment had 3509 kg.ha-1 in yield. In terms of seed weight, the four conservation tillage methods under periodical irrigation conditions were at the same level and between 19.3 and 19.6 grams, but the control treatment achieved the highest amount with 20.6 grams. Also, the results showed that there was a significant difference among different tillage-irrigation methods in terms of applied water and water productivity. Comparison of the means showed that the control treatment with 41084 and no-tillage- periodical irrigation with 22753 m3.ha-1 had the highest and lowest applied water, respectively. Also, in terms of water productivity, the no-tillage periodical irrigation with 0.128 and control treatment with 0.084 kg.m-3 obtained the highest and lowest values, respectively.
Introduction
Conservation tillage is one of the important foundations of sustainable agriculture. The transition from conventional tillage to conservation tillage is underway in many developing countries. The advantages of conservation tillage compared to conventional tillage, depending on different conditions, can include reduced energy consumption, reduced water and wind erosion, less labor required, increased soil organic matter, and reduced operation time and increased operational efficiency. Also, a more important issue is reducing water consumption and increasing its productivity in agriculture, in which conservation tillage can play a role. Drought and climate change have made water issues a top priority in all fields, so conservation tillage on the one hand, and water-reduction patterns on the other, are being developed, taking into account the advantages of each. Therefore, in order to protect the soil and increase its productivity in reduced-tillage or no-tillage systems and also to reduce water consumption in periodical irrigation methods, considering recent droughts and climate change conditions, such a study was conducted. This study aimed to compare different conservation tillage methods under periodical irrigation and control conditions (conventional tillage- continuous irrigation method used by most farmers).
Material and Methods
This study aimed to compare different conservation tillage methods under periodical irrigation conditions, and the conventional tillage method under continuous irrigation conditions (control treatment) of rice, for two years (2020-2021) in a randomized complete block design with three replications, at the Shavoor Station of the Khuzestan Agricultural Research Center. The treatments included four conservation tillage methods: no-till, chisel with disc, chisel packer, once disc, under periodical irrigation conditions, and conventional method: (Control treatment: moldboard plow with twice disc under continuous irrigation conditions). The measured indicators included yield and yield components, including seed germination percentage, plant height, number of clusters per square meter, number of grains per cluster, harvest index, thousand grain weight, and biological yield. Also, economic indicators such as costs and incomes and two important indicators of irrigation water, including applied water and water productivity, were measured and evaluated. After completing the measurements and performing analysis of variance (ANOVA) using MSTATC software, comparison of the means of the indicators was performed using Duncan's multiple range test.
Results and Discussion
The combined analysis of variance indicated no significant differences among the tillage–irrigation methods between different tillage-irrigation methods in terms of yield and agronomic traits, except for thousand-grain weight. Also, the interaction effect of these methods with year did not have a significant difference in yield or any of the traits. Comparison of means showed that among different tillage- irrigation methods, no-till, chisel with disc, chisel packer, once disc, under periodical irrigation conditions, had 3137, 2900, 2892, and 2940 kg.ha-1 respectively, and control treatment (moldboard plow with twice disc under continuous irrigation conditions) had 3509 kg.ha-1 in yield. In terms of seed weight, the four conservation tillage methods under periodical irrigation conditions were at the same level and between 19.3 and 19.6 grams, but the conventional tillage method under continuous irrigation conditions achieved the highest amount, with about 5 percent more and with 20.6 grams. In terms of biological yield, the control was relatively higher than the other methods with 11026 kg.ha-1, and the lowest biological yield with 9936 kg.ha-1 belonged to the chisel packer- periodical irrigation. Also, the results showed that there was a significant difference among different tillage-irrigation methods in terms of applied water and water productivity, but no significant difference was observed in the interaction between tillage-irrigation methods and year in these two indices. Comparison of the means showed that the control treatment (moldboard plow with twice disc under continuous irrigation conditions) with 41084 and no-tillage- periodical irrigation with 22753 m3.ha-1 had the highest and lowest applied water, respectively. Also, in terms of water productivity, the no-tillage periodical irrigation with 0.128 and control treatment with 0.084 kg.m-3 obtained the highest and lowest values, respectively. In terms of cost, the control treatment had the highest cost, and the no-till-periodical irrigation method had the lowest cost with a rate of 0.91 compared to the control. Also, the net income assessment showed that all conservation tillage-periodical irrigation methods were less than the control, and among these methods, the no-till-periodical irrigation method had the highest net income with a rate of 0.89 compared to the control.
Conclusions
Based on the results of this study, in terms of crop yield, there is no significant difference between the different tillage-irrigation methods (four conservation tillage-periodical irrigation methods and conventional tillage-continuous irrigation method) in rice cultivation in Khuzestan Province, with the control treatment (conventional tillage with continuous irrigation) producing the highest yield, and the chisel packer-periodical irrigation obtained the lowest yield. In terms of applied water and water productivity, there is a significant difference between different tillage-irrigation methods in rice cultivation in Khuzestan Province, and the control (conventional tillage-continuous irrigation) achieved the highest applied water and lowest water productivity, while the no-till-periodical irrigation method achieved the lowest applied water and highest water productivity. Comparison between conservation tillage - periodical irrigation methods indicates better results of the no-tillage method in terms of higher yield, lower applied water, and higher water productivity than other reduced tillage methods. Therefore, for the development of rice cultivation in Khuzestan Province, considering its lower applied water and higher water productivity, conservation tillage methods such as no-tillage, under periodical irrigation, are recommended.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization for its support in conducting this research.
Author Contributions
First Author: Conducting research in field conditions, collecting data, analyzing data, and writing a research report.
Second Author: Selecting treatments, determining the research implementation method, and consulting on research implementation.
Third Author: Consulting on how to measure water consumption indicators and monitor data collection and analysis of this data.
Data Availability Statement
Information and results are presented in the text of the article. Further details and required data will be provided upon request.
Ethical Considerations
The authors have observed ethical principles in conducting and publishing this scientific work, and this is confirmed by all of them. Also, in this study, artificial intelligence was not used in any of the research and writing of the article. 
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that there are no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that may have influenced the work reported in this article.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization under project number 0-14-14-011-990173.
Keywords
Rice
Conventional Tillage
Conservation Tillage
Water Productivity
Applied Water

Subjects

Absalan, Sh. (2022). Evaluation of deficit or excess of water allocation in farms irrigation networks in khuzestan province. Final report of project. Agricultural Engineering Research Institute. (In Persian).
Ahmadi, H., Ebadzadeh, H., Hatami, F., Mohamadnia, Sh., Afandiaripor, A., & Abastaghani, R. (2021). Agricultural Statistics for the 2019-2020 Crop Year (Volume 1: Crop Production). Ministry of Agriculture. Deputy for Planning and Economics. Information and Communication Technology Center. (in Farsi).
Alexandratos, N., & Bruinsma, J. (2012). World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.288998
Dehghan, A., & Almassi, M. (2005). The effect of different tillage methods on energy consumption indices, yield and yield components of rice cultivars using dry seeding method in Shavour area of ​​Khuzestan. M. Sc. Thesis. Faculty of Agriculture. Shahid Chamran University. (In Persian).
Devkota, P., Yadav, S. P., Bhattarai, S., & Bhujel, S. (2023). Effect of Seed Priming on Germination, Seedling Emergence and Development of Spring Rice Var. Hardinath-1. SAARC Journal of Agriculture, 21(2), 81-93. https://doi.org/10.3329/sja.v21i2.62917
Ding, W., Sun, L., Qi, Z., Li, S., Filipović, V., Wu, X., & He, H. (2025). Conservation tillage enhances both organic and inorganic carbon in dryland: Insights from a 20-year field experiment and meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 393, 109845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2025.109845
Gilani, A. (2008). The effect of minimum tillage methods with wheat stubble mulch on yield and yield components of three rice cultivars under dry seeding condition in Khuzestan. Final report of the research project. Rice Research Institute of Iran. (In Persian).
Gilani, A., Absalan, Sh,.Jalali, S., & Behbehani, L. (2019). The effect of sprinkler irrigation on grain yield, yield components and water use efficiency of rice cultivars under drill-seed cultivation in Khuzestan. Journal of Irrigation Science and Engineering. 42(2): 63-73. (In Persian). https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.25885952.1398.42.2.5.0
Gilani, A., & Loveimi, L. (2021). Evaluation of different tillage-planting methods and different seed rates under dry seeding of rice. Agricultural Mechanization & Systems Research. 22(77): 85-100. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22092/amsr.2021.341744.1341
Guo, L., Zhang, L., Liu, L., Sheng, F., Cao, C., & Li, C. (2021). Effects of long-term no tillage and straw return on greenhouse gas emissions and crop yields from a rice-wheat system in central China. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 322: 107650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2021.107650
Karki, S., Poudel, N. S., Bhusal, G., Simkhada, S., Regmi, B. R., Adhikari, B., & Poudel, S. (2018). Growth parameter and yield attributes of rice (Oryza sativa) as influenced by different combination of nitrogen sources. World J. Agric. Res, 6(2), 58-64. https://doi.org/10.12691/wjar-6-2-4
Kelton, J. A., Flanders, W. A., Ball, E. P., Bagnall, D. K., & Honeycutt, C. W. (2025). Partial Budgets Quantify Economic Outcomes of Soil Health Management for Farmers. The Journal of Extension, 63(3), 11.
Lateef, N. S., Ghani, E. T. A., Alnedawi, I. S., & Alshamary, W. F. (2024). Effects of Binary Irrigation and Humic Acid on Maize Yield in Saline Conditions. International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, 19(5), 1725-1732. https://doi.org/10.18280/ijdne.190526
Li, M., Li, C., Liu, M., Xiong, T., Wu, X., & Tang, Y. (2024). Balancing grain yield and environmental performance by optimizing planting patterns of rice-wheat cropping systems. Science of The Total Environment, 906, 167813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.167813
Liang, K., Zhang, X., McCarty, G. W., Zhao, K., & Gao, F. (2025). From basin to gulf: Conservation tillage improves soil health but exacerbates hypoxia. npj Sustainable Agriculture, 3(1), 47. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44264-025-00090-0
Liebhard, G., Klik, A., Neugschwandtner, R. W., & Nolz, R. (2022). Effects of tillage systems on soil water distribution, crop development, and evaporation and transpiration rates of soybean. Agricultural Water Management, 269, 107719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2022.107719
Limochi, K., Siadat, A., & Gilani, A. (2013). The effect of different planting dates on growth indexes and yield of rice cultivars at northern Khozestan. Journal of Crop Production Research. 6(2): 167-184. (In Persian). https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.2008739.1392.6.2.10.8
Linscombe, S.D., Jordan, D.L., Burns, A.B. & Viator, R.P. (2004). Rice Response to Planting date differs at two locations in Louisiana. Plant manage. 86: 41-53.
Madarasz, B., Járási, É. Z., Jakab, G., Szalai, Z., & Ladányi, M. (2025). Economic comparison of conventional and conservation tillage in a long-term experiment: Is it worth shifting?. International Soil and Water Conservation Research, 13(3), 501-510. https://doi:10.1016/j.iswcr.2025.02.012
Mahajan, G., Chauhan, B. S., & Gill, M. S. (2013). Dry-seeded rice culture in Punjab State of India: Lessons learned from farmers. Field Crops Research. 144: 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2013.01.008
Mubarak, T., Jehangir, I. A., Hussain, A., Dar, E. A., Shah, Z. A., Lone, A. H., ... & Salem, A. (2025). Yield and water productivity of rice as influenced by crop establishment and irrigation methods under temperate environment. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 29494. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-09584-w
Rao, A. N., Johnson, D. E., Sivaprasad, B., Ladha, J. K., & Mortimer, A. M. (2007). Weed management in direct‐seeded rice. Advances in Agronomy. 93: 153-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(06)93004-1
Ren, Y., Cheng, S., Pan, S., Tian, H., Duan, M., Wang, S., & Tang, X. (2021). Effect Of conservation tillage practices on aroma, yield and quality of mechanical-transplanting fragrant rice. Journal of Plant Interactions, 16(1), 522-532. https://doi.org/10.1080/17429145.2021.1999511
Sharma, R., Rallapalli, S., & Magner, J. (2025). Optimizing water-efficient agriculture: evaluating the sustainability of soil management and irrigation synergies using fuzzy extent analysis. Scientific reports, 15(1), 29382. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-15426-6
Shelton, D. P., & Jasa, P. J. (2009). Estimating percent residue cover by using the line-transect method. University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension, Institute of Ariculture and Natural resources.
Singh, Y., Singh, G., Johnson, D., & Mortimer, M. (2005). Changing from transplanted rice to direct seeding in the rice–wheat cropping system in India. In: Rice is Life: Scientific Perspectives for the 21st Century. Tsukuba. Japan: Proceedings of the World Rice Research Conference. 4–7 November 2004. PP: 198–201.
Toth, M., Davies, J., Quinton, J., Davies, J., Stumpp, C., Klik, A., ... & Strohmeier, S. (2025). Long-term effects of tillage practices and future climate scenarios on topsoil organic carbon stocks in Lower Austria–A modelling and long-term experiment study. International Soil and Water Conservation Research, 13(2), 486-499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2025.02.011
Vanani, H. R., & Ostad-Ali-Askari, K. (2022). Correct path to use flumes in water resources management. Appl Water Sci. 12, 187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-022-01702-7
Vitali, A., Moretti, B., Lerda, C., Said-Pullicino, D., Celi, L., Romani, M., ... & Vidotto, F. (2024). Conservation tillage in temperate rice cropping systems: Crop production and soil fertility. Field Crops Research, 308, 109276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2024.109276
Wahid, M. A., Irshad, M., Irshad, S., Khan, S., Hasnain, Z., Ibrar, D., ... & Cheema, M. A. (2022). Nitrogenous fertilizer coated with zinc improves the productivity and grain quality of rice grown under anaerobic conditions. Frontiers in Plant Science, 13, 914653. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.914653
Xu, L., Li, X., Wang, X., Xiong, D., & Wang, F. (2019). Comparing the Grain Yields of Direct-Seeded and Transplanted Rice: A Meta-Analysis. Agronomy. 9(11): 767. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9110767