Table 3.

Significance effects of different agronomic management practices and their linear contrast on grain yield, net return, protein yield, carbohydrate yield and fate yield under different scenarios during 2018–19 and 2019–20.

Scenarios	Grain yield (Mg ha-1)			Net return (USD ha-1)			Protein yield (Mg ha-1)			Carbohydrates yield (Mg ha-1)			Fat yield (Mg ha-1)
	Rice/maize/soybean/ pigeon pea	Wheat/mustard	System	Rice/maize/soybean/ pigeon pea	Wheat/mustard	System	Rice/maize/soybean/ pigeon pea	Wheat/mustard	System	Rice/maize/soybean/ pigeon pea	Wheat/mustard	System	Rice/maize/soybean/ pigeon pea	Wheat/mustard	System
Year 2018–19
CT vs CA	NS	NS	NS	*	NS	NS	**	NS	**	**	***	***	***	***	***
RW vs MMs	NS	NS	***	***	NS	**	***	***	NS	*	***	***	***	***	***
RW vs MW	***	NS	***	***	NS	**	***	NS	***	***	NS	**	***	NS	***
RW vs SW	NS	***	NS	*	**	NS	***	NS	***	***	***	***	***	NS	***
RW vs PW	***	***	NS	NS	*	NS	**	NS	NS	***	***	***	NS	NS	NS
MM vs MW	NS	NS	NS	NS	*	NS	NS	***	*	NS	***	***	NS	***	***
SW vs PW	*	NS	NS	*	NS	NS	***	NS	***	NS	NS	NS	***	NS	***
Year 2019–20
CT vs CA	NS	**	***	***	**	***	***	*	***	***	NS	NS	***	***	***
RW vs MMs	***	*	***	***	***	***	***	**	***	***	***	NS	***	***	***
RW vs MW	***	NS	***	***	NS	***	***	NS	***	***	NS	***	***	NS	***
RW vs SW	NS	*	***	***	NS	***	***	NS	***	***	**	***	***	NS	***
RW vs PW	***	NS	NS	***	NS	NS	***	**	NS	NS	NS	***	NS	NS	NS
MMs vs MW	NS	*	**	NS	***	NS	NS	***	NS	NS	***	***	**	***	***

CT conventional tillage (Sc1), CA conservation agriculture (Sc2–Sc7), rice–wheat (Sc1–Sc3), MMs maize-mustard (Sc4), MW maize-wheat (Sc5), SW soybean-wheat, PW pigeon pea-wheat.

*Significance at the p < 0.05

**Significance at the p < 0.01

***Significance at the p < 0.001.