Advertisement

Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 135–160 | Cite as

Agroforestry on alkali soil: effect of planting methods and amendments on initial growth, biomass accumulation and chemical composition of mesquite (Prosopis juliflora (SW) DC) with inter-space planted with and without Karnal grass (Diplachne fusca Linn. P. Beauv.)

  • Gurbachan Singh
  • I. P. Abrol
  • S. S. Cheema
Article

Abstract

Growth responses of mesquite (Prosopis juliflora (SW) DC.) during establishment stage to planting methods and amendments were studied in a highly alkali soil (Aquic Natrustalf, ESP 94), at the experimental farm of the Central Soil Salinity Research Institute, Karnal in July, 1984. Six combinations of planting methods and amendments with and without Karnal grass (Diplachne fusca Linn. P Beauv) in the inter-row space were compared in a four times replicated field experiment in randomised block design. The mean plant height (MPH), diameter at stump height (DSH), diameter at breast height (DBH), lopped biomass 16 months past planting and total biomass attained in 2 years period were significantly less when inter-row space was planted with Karnal grass. The MPH (cm), DSH and DBH (mm) attained in 2 years period were 319, 43.4 and 15.1 in with grass as compared to 405, 53.4 and 20.3 in without grass treatments. Similarly, the total biomass attained in 2 years was about 3 times more where inter-row space was not planted with grass. Growth was better when mesquite was planted by auger hole and pit methods than in trench plantation, when the original soil was treated with gypsum at 3 kg plant−1 and then refilled. However, using trenches of dimensions 30 × 30 cm and filled with a mixture of original soil, 3 kg gypsum and 8 kg farm yard manure plant−1 appeared to be promising method for establishing mesquite plantations on highly deteriorated alkali soils. The effect of amendments on growth decreased in the order gypsum + FYM, gypsum + rice husk, gypsum, control. In two years period, 37 percent mesquite died in the trenches in which the original soil was left unchanged. Effect of treatments on nutrient concentrations and total accumulations in different segments of mesquite is discussed. Karnal grass gave 25.3 t ha−1 green forage yield in 8 cuts without amendment in a growth period of 26 months proving its great potential as a folder crop for the adverse sites. The inorganic chemical composition of the shoots, including trace elements Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu, is such as to make this species a highly promising plant for the exploitation of alkali soils. Growing Karnal grass with mesquite for a period of about 2 years reduced soil pH and EC significantly and improved organic carbon and available N contents. The grass improved water infiltration rates and moisture storage in the lower layers of the profile.

Key words

Agroforestry alkali soil planting methods amendments biomass accumulation chemical composition mesquite Karnal grass 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abrol IP and Bhumbla DR (1971) Saline and alakli soils in India, their occurrence and management. World Soil Resources FAO Report No 41: 42–51Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abrol IP and Sandhu SS (1980) Growing trees in alkali soils. Indian Farming 30(6): 19–20Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abrol IP and Sandhu SS (1985) Growth responses of Eucalyptus tereticornis and Acacia nilotica to selected methods of site preparation in a highly sodic soil. The International Tree Crops Journal 3: 171–183Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Acharya CL and Abrol IP (1978) Exchangeable sodium and soil water behaviour under field conditions. Soil Sci 125: 310–319Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Acharya CL, Sandhu SS and Abrol IP (1979) Effect of exchangeable sodium on the field drying pattern of soil at two evaporative demands. Soil Sci 127: 56–62Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Agarwal SC, Mehrotra NK and Sinha BK (1964) Influence of Na on composition of plants. 1. Paddy and Barley. J Indian Soc Soil Sci 12: 7–24Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Anon (1980) Firewood crops. Shrub and tree species for energy production. US National Academy of Sciences, Washington DC: 158–159Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Anon (1984) Casuarinas: Nitrogen fixing trees for adverse site. US National Academy of Sciences, 111 ppGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bains SS and Fireman M (1964) Effect of exchangeable sodium on the growth and absorption of essential nutrients and sodium by five crop plants. Argon J 56: 432–435Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Becock PC (1965) Iron nutrition of plants at high pH. Soil Sci 79: 167–175Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bernstein L and Pearson GA (1956) Influence of exchangeable sodium on the yield and chemical composition of plants. 1. Green beans, garden beets, clover and alfalfa. Soil Sci 82: 247–258Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bhargava GP, Sharma RC, Pal DK and Abrol IP (1980) A case study of the distribution and formation of salt affected soils in Haryana state. Int Symp Salt Affected Soils, Karnal 83–91Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bhumbla DR (1977) Alkali and saline soils of India. Proc Indo-Hungarian Seminar on Management of Salt Affected Soils, Central Soil Salinity Research Institute, Karnal, Feb 7–12, 1977 pp 14–19Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bhumbla DR, Abrol IP, Bhargava GP and Singh SK (1972) Soils of the experimental farm, Karnal. Bulletin 1, CSSRI, KarnalGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bohm W (1979) Methods of studying root systems. Ecological studies 33. Springer-verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Burkart A (1976) A monograph of the genus (Prosopis leguminosae subfamily Mimosoidae). J Arnold Arboretum 57: 217–249 and 450–525Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chapman HD (1964) Suggested foliar sampling and handling techniques for determining the nutrient status of some field, horticultural and plantation crops. Ind J Hort 21: 97–119Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chhabra R and Abrol IP (1977) Reclaiming effect of rice grown in sodic soil. Soil Sci 124: 41–45Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cochran WG and Cox GM (1950) Experimental design. 2nd ed pp 304Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Colie TS (1952) Soil and the growth of trees. Adv Agron 4: 329–394Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    El-Lakany MH and Luard EJ (1982) Comparative salt tolerance of selected casuarina species. Aust For Res 13: 11–20Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Felker P and Clark P (1980) Nitrogen fixation (acetylene reduction) and cross inoculation in 12 Prosopis (mesquite) species. Plant and Soil 57: 177–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Felker P, Cannel GH, Clark PR, Osborn JF and Nash P (1981) Screening Prosopis (mesquite) species for biofuel production on semi arid lands. Final Report, US Dept Energy, Washington DC, 226 ppGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gill HS (1985) Studies of the evaluation of selected tree species for their tolerance to sddicity and mechanical impedance in a highly sodic soil with particular reference to root growth behaviour. Ph.D thesis, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Goertzen J and Bowers CA (1958) Carbon Dioxide from plant roots as a factor in the replacement of adsorbed sodium in calcareous soils. Soil Sci Soc Am Proc 22: 36–37Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Grewal SS (1984) Studies on rain water conservation for the establishment of an agroforestry system on sodic soil. Ph.D Thesis, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hayward HE and Wadleigh CH (1949) Plant growth on saline and alkali soils. Adv Agron 1: 1–38Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jackson ML (1973) Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice Hall, India, pp 151–153Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jokela EJ, Shannon CA and White EH (1981) Biomass and nutrient equations for mature Betula papyrifera Marsh. Can J For Res 11: 298–304Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Joshi YC, Qadar Ali, Bal AR and Diwedi RS (1980) Selective absorption and exclusion processes of toxic ions. Annual Report, CSSRI, Karnal pp 78Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jumanne AM, Karivki EM and Haller RD (1982) Biomass and nutrient accumulation in young Prosopis juliflora at Mombasa, Kenya. Final Report of on-the-job internship. ICRAF, Nairobi pp 59–74Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kaul RN and Mann HS (1977) Tree planting and energy crisis: Firewood. Indian Farming 26(2): 79–81Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Khan MAW and Yadav JSP (1962) Characteristics and afforestation problems of saline alkali soils. Indian Forester 83(4): 259–271Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kimmins JP (1977) Evaluation of consequences for future tree productivity of loss of nutrients in whole tree harvesting. Forest Ecol Manage 1: 169–183Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kumar A and Abrol IP (1979) Dry matter, crude protein and chemical composition of five perennial forage grasses as influenced by gypsum levels in a highly sodic soil. Indian J agric Sci 49: 535–541Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kumar A and Abrol IP (1983) Effect of gypsum on five tropical grasses grown in normal and extremely sodic soil. Expl Agric 19: 169–177Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kumar A and Abrol IP (1984) Studies on the reclaiming effect of Karnal grass and para grass grown in a highly sodic soil. Indian J agric Sci 54(3): 189–193Google Scholar
  38. 37a.
    Kumar A, Abrol IP and Dargan KS (1980) Karnal grass grows well in sodic soils. Ind Fmg 30(3): 14–15Google Scholar
  39. 38.
    Lundgren B (1978) Soil conditions and nutrient cycling under natural and plantation forests in Tanzanian high lands. Rep Forest Ecology and Forest Soils No 31, Dep Forest Soils, Swed Univ Agric Sci Uppsala, 426 ppGoogle Scholar
  40. 39.
    Massoumi A and Cornfield AH (1963) A rapid method for determining sulphate in water extracts of soils. Analyst 88: 321–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 40.
    Mehrotra CL and Dass SK (1973) Influence of exchangeable sodium on the chemical composition of important crops at different stages of growth. J Ind Soc Soil Sci 21: 355–365Google Scholar
  42. 41.
    Merwin HD and Peech M (1951) Exchangeability of soil potassium in the sand, silt and clay fractions, as influenced by the nature of the complimentary exchangeable cations. Soil Sci Soc Amer Proc 15: 125–128Google Scholar
  43. 42.
    NCA, New Delhi (1976) Report of the National Commission of Agriculture, Part V, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  44. 43.
    Olsen SR, Cole CV, Watanabe FS and Dean LA (1954) Estimation of available phosphorus by extraction with sodium carbonate. Circ USDA No 939, 19p, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  45. 44.
    Pearson GA and Bernstein L (1958) Influence of exchangeable sodium on yield and chemical composition of plant II. wheat, barley, oats, rice, tall fescue and tall wheat grass. Soil Sci 86: 254–261Google Scholar
  46. 45.
    Piper CS (1957) Soil and plant analysis. Hans Publishers, Nicol Road, Bombay, pp 368Google Scholar
  47. 46.
    Ponnamperuma FN (1972) The chemistry of submerged soils. Adv Agron 24: 29–88Google Scholar
  48. 47.
    Poonia SR, Virmani SR and Bhumbla DR (1972) Effect of ESP of the soil on the yield, chemical composition and applied calcium by wheat. J Indian Soc Soil Sci 20: 183–185Google Scholar
  49. 48.
    Raupach M (1967) Soil and fertilizer requirements for forests of pinus radiata. Adv Agron 19: 307–353Google Scholar
  50. 49.
    Singh B (1982) Nutrient content of standing crop and biological cycling in Pinus patula ecosystem. Forest Ecol Manage 4: 317–332Google Scholar
  51. 50.
    Singh SB and Abrol IP (1985) Effect of soil sodicity on the growth, yield and chemical composition of groundnut (Arachis hypogea Linn). Plant and Soil 84: 123–127Google Scholar
  52. 51.
    Singh Gurbachan, Cheema SS and Abrol IP (1987) Growth responses of Prosopis juliflora to pland density and surface soil sodicity. Proc Int Symp Afforestation of Salt Affected Soils, CSSRI, Karnal, Vol 2: 63–74Google Scholar
  53. 52.
    Steward HTL, Flinn DW and James JM (1981) Biomass and nutrient distribution in radiation pine pp 173–185. In Australian Forest Nutrition Workshop, productivity in perbetuity, Canberra, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  54. 53.
    Subbiah BV and Asija GL (1956) A rapid procedure for the estimation of available nitrogen in soils. Curr Sci 25: 259–260Google Scholar
  55. 54.
    Switzer YL and Nelson LE (1973) Maintenance of productivity under short rotations pp 365–389. In FAO-IVFRO Proc Int Symp Forest Fert Ministére de L'Agriculture, ParisGoogle Scholar
  56. 55.
    Tomar OS and Gupta RK (1985) Performance of some forest tree species in saline soils under shallow and saline water table conditions. Plant and Soil 87: 329–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 56.
    Walkley A and Black CA (1934) An examination of Degtyareff method for determining soil organic matter and proposed modification of the chronic acid titration method. Soil Sci 37: 29–38Google Scholar
  58. 57.
    Yadav JSP (1977) Improvement of saline soils through biological methods. Indian Forester 101(7): 385–395Google Scholar
  59. 58.
    Yadav JSP (1977) Tree growth on salt affected lands. Indian Farming 26(11): 43–45Google Scholar
  60. 59.
    Yadav JSP (1980) Salt affected soils and their afforestation. Indian Forester 106(4): 259–272Google Scholar
  61. 60.
    Yadav JSP, Bhumbla DR and Sharma OP (1972) Performance of certain forest species on a saline sodic soil. Proc Symp New development in the field of salt affected soils. ISSS, Cairo, pp 683–90Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gurbachan Singh
    • 1
  • I. P. Abrol
    • 1
  • S. S. Cheema
    • 1
  1. 1.Central Soil Salinity Research InstituteKarnalIndia

Personalised recommendations