Advertisement

Journal of Forestry Research

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 333–338 | Cite as

Does litterfall from native trees support rainfed agriculture? Analysis of Ficus trees in agroforestry systems of southern dry agroclimatic zone of Karnataka, southern India

  • B. Dhanya
  • Syam Viswanath
  • Seema Purushothaman
Original Paper

Abstract

Trees of the genus Ficus, integral components of indigenous rainfed agro-ecosystems of the southern dry agro-climatic zone of Karnataka, southern India, have traditionally been associated with the ecological service of soil quality enhancement in addition to various direct use benefits. We assessed the soil enrichment service of Ficus benghalensis L. a common Ficus species in these agroforestry systems, by quantifying nutrient return via litter fall. Litterfall estimation and chemical analysis of litter showed that F. benghalensis trees produce 3,512 kg·ha−1 of litter annually which, on decomposition, can satisfy up to 76.70 % of N, 20.24% of P and 67.76% of K requirements of dryland crops annually per hectare. This can lead to an avoided cost of compost of US $ 36.46 ha−1·a−1 in dryland farming systems. The slow rate of decay of Ficus litter, as revealed in litter decomposition studies indicates its potential as ideal mulch for dryland soils. We discuss the complementarity between Ficus litterfall and cropping patterns in Mandya, and its implications for rainfed agricultural systems.

Keywords

soil enrichment litter traps litter bags litter decomposition complementarity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson JM, Ingram JS. 1993. Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility: A Handbook of Methods (second edition). Wallingford, UK: CAB international, p. 221.Google Scholar
  2. Constantinides M, Fownes JH. 1994. Nitrogen mineralization from leaves and litter of tropical plants: relationship to N, lignin and soluble polyphenol concentrations. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 26(1): 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Deb BAR, Arunachalam A, Arunachalam KS. 2009. Ecological analysis of traditional agroforest and tropical forest in the foothills of Indian Eastern Himalaya: Vegetation, soil and microbial biomass. Tropical Ecology, 49(1): 73–79.Google Scholar
  4. Dhanya B. 2011. Integrated study of a Ficus based traditional agroforestry system in Mandya district, Karnataka. Ph. D thesis. Dehradun, India; Forest Research Institute Deemed University, p. 211.Google Scholar
  5. Dhanya B, Viswanath S, Purushothaman S, Suneeta B. 2010. Ficus trees as components of rainfed agrarian systems in Mandya district of Karnataka. My Forest, 46(2): 161–165.Google Scholar
  6. Isaac SR, Nair MA. 2006. Litter dynamics of six multipurpose trees in a homegarden in Southern Kerala, India. Agroforestry Systems, 67: 203–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jackson ML. 1973. Soil Chemical Analysis. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd., p. 1–125.Google Scholar
  8. Jamaludheen R, Kumar BM. 1999. Litter of multipurpose trees in Kerala, India: Variations in the amount, quality, decay rates and release of nutrients. Forest Ecology and Management, 115: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Khiewtam RS, Ramakrishnan PS. 1993. Litter and fine root dynamics of a relict sacred groove forest at Cherrapunji in north eastern India. Forest Ecology and Management, 50: 181–201.Google Scholar
  10. Kumar BM, Deepu JK. 1992. Litter production and decomposition dynamics in moist deciduous forests of the Western Ghats in Peninsular India. Forest Ecology and Management, 50: 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mubarak AR, Elbashir AA, Elamin LA, Daldoum DMA, Steffens D, Benckiser G. 2009. Decomposition and nutrient release from litter fall in the semi-arid tropics of Sudan. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 39: 2359–2377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mugendi DN, Nair PKR. 1997. Predicting the decomposition patterns of tree biomass in tropical highland microregions of Kenya. Agroforestry Systems, 35: 187–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nair MA, Abraham J, John J, Sanjeev V. 1996. Biomass productions and nutrient cycling for sustainability in agroforestry homegardens in Kerala -a case study. In: Proceedings of National Seminar on Organic Farming and Substantial Agriculture. Bangalore: University of Agricultural Sciences, pp 19–20.Google Scholar
  14. Nair PKR. 1993. Introduction to Agroforestry. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer, p. 499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Oglesby KA, Fownes JH. 1992. Effects of chemical composition on nitrogen mineralisation of green manures of seven tropical leguminous trees. Plant and Soil, 143: 127–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Palm CA. 1995. Contribution of agroforestry trees to nutrient requirements of intercropped plants. Agroforestry Systems, 30: 105–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Parker DT. 1962. Decomposition in the field of buried and surface-applied corn stalk residues. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 26: 559–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pragasan LA, Parthasarathy N. 2005. Litter production in tropical dry evergreen forests of south India in relation to season, plant life forms and physiognomic groups. Current Science, 88(8): 125–126.Google Scholar
  19. Proctor J. 1983. Tropical forest litterfall I. Problems of data comparison. In: S. L Sutton, T. C. Whitmore and A. C. Chadwick (eds), Tropical Rain Forest: Ecology and Management. Oxford, U. K: Blackwell Scientific Publications, pp. 287–309.Google Scholar
  20. Read MD, Kang BT, Wilson GF. 1985. Use of Leucaena leucocephala (Lam.de Wit) leaves as nitrogen source for crop production. Fertility Research, 8: 107–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rowell RM, Pettersen R, Han JS, Rowell J, Tshabalala MA. 2005. Cellwall chemistry: In: R. M. Rowell (ed.), Handbook of Wood Chemistry and Wood Composites. USA: Taylor and Francis, CRC Press, p. 65.Google Scholar
  22. Sadasivam S, Manickam A. 1992. Biochemical Methods for Agricultural Sciences. New Delhi: Wiley Eastern Limited and Coimbatore: Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, p. 246.Google Scholar
  23. Saravanan A, Kalieswari RK, Nambeesan KMR, Sankaralingam P. 1995. Leaf litter accumulation and mineralisation pattern of hilly soils. Madras Agricultural Journal, 82: 184–187.Google Scholar
  24. Semwal RL, Maikhuri RK, Rao KS, Sen KK, Saxena KG. 2005. Leaf litter decomposition and nutrient release pattern of six multipurpose tree species of central Himalaya, India. Biomass and Bioenergy, 24(1): 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tanner EVJ, Kapos V. 1992. Nitrogen and phosphorus fertilisation effects on Venezuelan montane forest trunk growth and litterfall. Ecology, 73: 78–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Waring RH, Schlesinger WH. 1985. Forest Ecosystem: Concepts and Management. New York: Academic Press, pp. 181–211.Google Scholar
  27. World Agroforestry Centre. 2009. Creating an Evergreen Agriculture in Africa for Food Security and Environmental Resilience. Nairobi, Kenya: World Agroforestry Centre, p. 24.Google Scholar
  28. Young A. 1997. Agroforestry for Soil Management (Second edition). New York, USA: CAB International and Nairobi, Kenya: International Centre for Research in Agroforestry, pp. 47–109.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Northeast Forestry University and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Dhanya
    • 1
    • 2
  • Syam Viswanath
    • 3
  • Seema Purushothaman
    • 4
  1. 1.Tree improvement and Propagation DivisionInstitute of Wood Science and TechnologyMalleswaram, BangaloreIndia
  2. 2.College of AgricultureUniversity of Agricultural SciencesRaichurIndia
  3. 3.Tree improvement and Propagation DivisionInstitute of Wood Science and TechnologyMalleswaram, BangaloreIndia
  4. 4.Centre for Environment and DevelopmentAshoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the EnvironmentRoyal Enclave, Srirampura, Jakkur, BangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations