Advertisement

Napier Grass: A Model Crop for Developing Partially Weathered Gravelly Land in the Central Deccan Plateau Region

  • Rajagopal Vadivel
  • Yogeshwar Singh
  • Santanu Kumar Bal
  • Jagadish Rane
  • Narendara Pratap Singh
Research Article
  • 5 Downloads

Abstract

The gravel content in the landscape varies in time and space for the interaction of external factors namely climate and vegetation. The vegetation plays a greater role on gravel disintegration in the landscape at initial stage of soil development can be studied keeping other factors as constant. The objective of this study was to account the change of particle content, particle movements, regolith depth, bulk density, soil organic carbon, cation exchange capacity, pH, mineralizable nitrogen and quantification of both above and below ground biomass production of grasses/fodder crops on the gravelly land. In this regard, locally suitable fodder crops such as napier grass, stylo grass, marvel-stylo grass intercrop and marvel grass were raised. Representative soil samples (45–50 kg) were collected from the surface as well as subsurface layers and separated into different sizes for four consecutive years i.e. 2012–13, 2013–14, 2014–15 and 2015–16. The amount of gravel disintegration decreased with increase in gravel size, time and depth. Overall, the gravel reduction under napier grass, stylo-marvel inter cropping system, stylo and marvel grass cultivation were 91, 65, 52 and 21 g kg−1, respectively higher than that of native fallow land. The increase of soil content, regolith depth, soil organic carbon content and mineralizable nitrogen were highly associated with lowering of gravel content, bulk density and soil pH observed across the treatments. To conclude, cultivation of napier grass may be preferred in barren land for faster disintegration of gravels as well as more fodder production and benefit for the subsequent crops to be taken.

Keywords

Fodder crops Gravel disintegration Gravel-temporal dynamics Soil production Biomass production 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This project work (Project code no; IXX10215, Project number 1004522) is financially supported by ICAR-National Institute of Abiotic Stress Management, Malegaon Khurd, Baramati Pune-41315 Maharashtra is gratefully acknowledged. The authors declare that there are no financial/commercial conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Minhas PS, Obi Reddy GP (2015) Edaphic stresses and agriculture sustainability: an Indian perspective. Agric Res 6:8–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Friedrich HB, Hari-Eswaran, Reich PF (2008) Edaphic Constraints on food production. In: Chesworth W (ed) Encylopdia of soils, Springer, Netherlands, pp 202–206Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jenny H (1941) Factors of soil formation-a system of quantitative pedology. McGraw-Hill, New York. URL: http://soilandhealth.org/wp-content/uploads/01aglibrary/010159.Jenny.pdf Accessed on Oct 12 2016
  4. 4.
    Phillips JD, Turkington AV, Marion DA (2008) Weathering and vegetation effects in early stages of soil formation. Catena 72:21–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hubbert KR, Beyers JL, Graham RC (2001) Roles of weathered bedrocks and soils in seasonal water relations of pinusjeffreyi and Arctostaphylospatula. Can J For Res 31:1947–1957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Drever JI (1998) The effect of land plants on weathering rates of silicate minerals. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 58:2325–2332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Khorassani R, Hettwer U, Ratzinger A, Steingrobe B, Karlovsky P, Claassen N (2011) Citramalic acid and salicylic acid in sugar beet root exudates solubilize soil phosphorus. BMC Plant Biol 11:121CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Graham RC, Rossi AM, Hubbert KR (2010) Rock to regolith conversion: producing hospitable substrates for terrestrial ecosystems. GSA Today 20:1–7Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Maurya UK, Vittal KPR, (2011) Identification of Abiotic Edaphic Stressors of Deccan Trap at NIASM site, Malegaon. A geotechnical and Geological Study. NIASM technical Bulletin-2. National Institute of Abiotic Stress Management, Baramati 40 pGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Minhas PS, Bal SK, Suresh Kumar P, Singh Y, Wakchaure GC, Ghadge SV, Nangare DD, Taware PB (2015) Turning Basaltic Terrain into Model Research Farm: Chronicle Description. NIASM Technical Bulletin 8, ICAR-National Institute of Abiotic Stress Management, Baramati, Pune, Maharashtra (India) p. 64Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    ICAR-IFGRI; Indian Fodder and Grass land Research Institute.2013. Vision document 2050. http://www.igfri.res.in/2013/Vision-2050.pdf.Accessed on 10 Dec 2016
  12. 12.
    Lyford WH (1964) Coarse fragments in the Gloucester soils of the Harvard forest. Harvard Forest paper 9. Harvard University, Harvard Forest, Petersham, Massachusetts P1-16. URL:http://harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/sites/harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/files/publications/pdfs/HFpubs/paper9.pdf Accessed on 10 Dec 2016
  13. 13.
    Vincent KR, Chadwick OA (1992) Synthesizing bulk density for soils with abundant rock fragments. Soil Sci Soc Am J 58:455–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grewal SS, Singh K, Dyal S (1984) Soil profile gravel concentration and its effect on rainfed crop yields. Plant Soil 81:75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ungar PW (1971) Soil profile gravel layers I. Effect on growth and water storage distribution and evaporation. Soil Sci Soc Am Proc 35:980–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Babalola O, Lal R (1977) Sub soils gravel horizon and maize root growth 1. Gravel concentration and bulk density effects. Plant Soil 46:337–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Humphreys GS, Wilkinson MT (2007) The soil production function: a brief history and its rediscovery. Geoderma 139:73–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Phillips JD, Turkington AV, Marion DA (2008) Weathering and vegetation effects in early stages of soil formation. Catena 72:21–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Arachchi LPV, Liyanage MS (1996) Role of Gliricidia sepium on physical improvement of gravelly soil. Cocos 11:40–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hallsworth EG (1963) An examination of some factors affecting the movement of clay in an artificial soil. Eur J Soil Sci 14(2):360–371.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.1963.tb00959.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Baetens JM, Verbist K, Cornelis WM, Gabriels D, Soto G (2009) On the influence of coarse fragments on soil water retention. Water Resour Res 45(7).  https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007402
  22. 22.
    Oso Viti, Rajashekhar Rao BK (2017) Land use conversion in humid tropics influences soil carbon stocks and forms. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr 17:543–553Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jobbagy EG, Jackson RB (2003) Patterns and mechanisms of soil acidification in the conversion of grasslands to forests. Biogeochem 64:205–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Parfitt RL, Giltrap DJ, Whitton JS (1995) Contribution of organic matter and clay minerals to the cation exchange capacity of soils. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 26:9–10Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The National Academy of Sciences, India 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ICAR - National Institute of Abiotic Stress ManagementPuneIndia
  2. 2.ICAR - Central Research Institute for Dryland AgricultureHyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations