Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Soil Nutrient Status and Leaf Nutrient Norms in Oil Palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) Plantations Grown on Southern Plateau of India

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, India Section B: Biological Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Oil palm is a heavy feeder of nutrients and requires balanced and adequate supply of nutrients for optimum growth and yield. Information regarding soil nutrient status and leaf nutrient concentration is very much required for proper fertilizer application. Therefore, a survey was conducted for assessment of soil nutrient status and leaf nutrient concentration in 42 oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq) plantations in the state of Karnataka, situated in southern plateau of India. In surface soil layers, soil acidity (pH), electrical conductivity (EC) and organic carbon (OC) content ranged from 4.91 to 8.74, 0.10 to 2.54 dS m−1 and 1.17 to 28.9 g kg−1 respectively. The values of available potassium (K) (NH4OAc–K), phosphorus (P) (Olsen-P) and exchangeable calcium (Ca) (Exch. Ca) varied from 31.2 to 386 mg kg−1, 7.69 to 242 mg kg−1 and 156 to 1273 mg kg−1 respectively. The concentration of exchangeable magnesium (Mg) (Exch. Mg), available sulphur (S) (CaCl2-S) and hot water soluble boron (B) (HWB) ranged from 52.8 to 307 mg kg−1, 2.25 to 73.5 mg kg−1 and 2.29 to 16.0 mg kg−1 respectively. Diagnosis and recommendation integrated system (DRIS) norms were established for different nutrient expressions and it was used to compute DRIS indices. As per DRIS indices, the order of requirement of nutrients in the region was found to be K > P > nitrogen (N) > B > Mg. Optimum leaf nutrient ranges varied from 2.24 to 2.97 %, 0.08 to 0.14 % and 0.78 to 0.91 % for N, P and K respectively, from 0.74 to 1.53 %, 0.25 to 0.98 % and 0.72 to 1.09 % for Ca, Mg and S respectively and from 5.71 to 31.0 mg kg−1, 7.42 to 12.9 mg kg−1, 33.6 to 58.6 mg kg−1, 82.5 to 681 mg kg−1 and 82.8 to 936 mg kg−1 for B, copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), manganese (Mn) and iron (Fe) respectively. On the basis of DRIS derived sufficiency ranges, 57, 24, 62, 3, 3, 9, 7, 5, and 26 % leaf samples were having less than optimum concentration of N, P, K. Ca, Mg, S, B, Cu and Mn respectively. The optimum ranges developed can be used as a guide for routine diagnostic and advisory purpose for balanced utilization of fertilizers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Anonymous (2013) Oil world annual 2013. http://www.oilworld.biz/annual. Accessed 26 June 2014

  2. DOPR (2013) Annual Report 2012-13. Directorate of Oil Palm Research (DOPR), Pedavegi—534 450, Andhra Pradesh, India

  3. DOPR (2012) Oil Palm Area Assessment Report–DOPR [2012]. DOPR and Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  4. Goh KJ, Hardter R, Fairhust TH (2003) Fertilizer for maximum return. In: Fairhust TH, Hardter R (eds) Oil palm: management for high and sustainable yields. Potash and phosphate Institute, Potash and Phosphate Institute of Canada, International Potash Institute, Singapore, pp 279–306

    Google Scholar 

  5. Prasad MV, Sairam CV, Arulraj S, Jameema J (2012) Estimation of cost of production of oil palm in Andhra Pradesh. In: Abstracts of paper, Plantation Crops Symposium XX, Coimbatore, pp 136

  6. Narasimha Rao B, Suresh K, Behera SK, Ramachandrudu K, Manorama K (2014) Nutrient management in oil palm. Technical Bulletin, DOPR, Pedavegi, pp 1–24

    Google Scholar 

  7. Smith FW, Loneragan JF (1997) Interpretation of plant analysis: concepts and principles. In: Reuter DJ, Robinson B (eds) Plant analysis: an interpretation manual. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, pp 3–33

    Google Scholar 

  8. McLaughlin MJ, Reuter D, Rayment GE (1999) Soil testing-principles and concepts. In: Perverill KI, Sparrow LA, Reuter DJ (eds) Soil analysis: an interpretation manual. CSIRO publishing, Collingwood, pp 1–21

    Google Scholar 

  9. Walworth JL, Sumner ME (1987) The diagnosis and recommendation integrated system (DRIS). Adv Soil Sci 6:149–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Beaufils ER (1973) Diagnosis and recommendation integrated system (DRIS): a general scheme for experimentation and calibration based on principals developed from research in plant nutrition. Univ Natal Soil Sci Bull 1:1–132

    Google Scholar 

  11. Sumner ME (1978) Interpretation of nutrient ratios in plant tissues. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 9:335–345

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Beverly RB, Sumner ME, Letzch WS, Plank CO (1986) Foliar diagnosis of soybean by DRIS. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 17:237–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Mourao Filho FAA (2004) DRIS: concepts and applications on nutritional diagnosis in fruit crops. Sci Agri 61:550–560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hundal HS, Singh D, Singh K (2007) Monitoring nutrient status of guava fruit trees in Punjab, northwest India through diagnostic and recommendation integrated system approach. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 38:2117–2130

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Nachtigall GR, Dechen AR (2007) DRIS use on apple orchard nutritional evaluation in response to potassium fertilization. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 38:2557–2566

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Savita B, Anjaneyulu K (2008) Development of leaf nutrient norms and identification of yield limiting nutrients using DRIS in sapota cv. Kalipatti. J Hortic Sci 3(2):136–140

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hundal HS, Arora CL (1996) Preliminary micronutrients foliar diagnostic norms for litchi (Litchi chinensis Sonn) using DRIS. J Indian Soc Soil Sci 44:294–298

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Pimolaskar M, Bhargava BS (2003) Leaf and soil nutrient norms in mango (Mangifera indica L.) grown in tribal belt of southern Gujarat. J Indian Soc Soil Sci 51:268–272

    Google Scholar 

  19. Nayak AK, Sharma DK, Singh CS, Mishra VK, Singh G, Swarup A (2011) Diagnosis and recommendation integrated system approach for nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and zinc foliar diagnostic norms for anola in central Indo-gangetic plains. J Plant Nutr 34:547–556

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Jackson ML (1973) Soil chemical analysis. Prentice Hall of India, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  21. Walkley AJ, Black IA (1934) An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci 37:29–38

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Hanway JJ, Heidel H (1952) Soil analyses methods as used in Iowa state college soil testing laboratory. Iowa Agri 57:1–31

    Google Scholar 

  23. Olsen SR, Cole CV, Watanable FS, Dean LA (1954) Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. Cir U.S. Dept Agri 939

  24. Jones JB Jr (1998) Soil test methods: past, present, and future. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 29:1543–1552

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Williams CH, Steinbergs A (1969) Soil sulphur fractions as chemical indices of available sulphur in some Australian soils. Aust J Agric Res 10:340–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Gupta UC (1967) A simplified method for determining hot-water soluble boron in podzol soils. Soil Sci 103:424–428

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Bhargava BS, Raghupathi HB (2001) Analysis of plant material for macro- and micro-nutrients. In: Tandon HLS (ed) Methods of analysis of soils, plants, waters and fertilizers. Fertilizer Development and Consultation Organization, New Delhi, pp 49–82

    Google Scholar 

  28. Behera SK, Suresh K (2013) Soil and leaf sampling in oil palm. In: Prasad MV, Behera SK, Mounika B (eds) Compendium of lectures on soil and leaf nutrient analysis in oil palm. Directorate of Oil Palm Research, Pedavegi, pp 14–19

    Google Scholar 

  29. Beaufils ER, Sumner ME (1976) Application of DRIS approach for calibrating soil, plant yield and plant quality factors of sugarcane. Proc S Afr Sugar Tech Assoc 50:118–124

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Bhargava BS, Chadha KL (1988) Leaf nutrient guide for fruit and plantation crops. Fert News 33:21–29

    Google Scholar 

  31. Bhargava BS (2002) Leaf analysis for nutrient diagnosis, recommendation and management in fruit crops. J Indian Soc Soil Sci 50:352–373

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Raghupathi HB, Bhargava BS (1999) Preliminary nutrient norms for ‘Alphonso’ mango using DRIS. Indian J Agric Sci 69:648–650

    Google Scholar 

  33. Savita B, Raghupathi HB, Verma S, Anjaneyulu K (2013) Nutritional status of sapota (Manilkara achras M. Fosberg) gardens and optimum ranges of nutrients for higher production. J Indian Soc Soil Sci 61(2):112–116

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Raghupathi HB, Bhargava BS (1998) Diagnosis of nutrient imbalance in pomegranate by diagnosis and recommendation integrated system and compositional nutrient diagnosis. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 29(19&20):2881–2892

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Anjaneyulu K (2007) Diagnostic petiole nutrient norms and identification of yield limiting nutrients in papaya (Carica papaya) using diagnosis and recommendation integrated system. Indian J Agric Sci 77:711–714

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Rao Appa, Singh VVS, Sharma BD, Mesh Ram DT (2006) DRIS norms for sapota in western plains of India. Indian J Hortic 63:145–147

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors sincerely thank the Director, Ïndian Institute of Oil Palm Research, Pedavegi, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh, India for extending necessary advice, support and facilities to carry out the present study. The authors gratefully acknowledge the help rendered by M/s Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd., India for collection of samples. The authors are thankful to the anonymous reviewers and the editor in chief for their constructive suggestions for improving the quality of the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Indian Institute of Oil Palm Research, West Godavari District, Pedavegi, 534 450, Andhra Pradesh, India

    S. K. Behera, B. N. Rao, K. Suresh & K. Manoja

Authors
  1. S. K. Behera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B. N. Rao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K. Suresh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. K. Manoja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. K. Behera.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Behera, S.K., Rao, B.N., Suresh, K. et al. Soil Nutrient Status and Leaf Nutrient Norms in Oil Palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) Plantations Grown on Southern Plateau of India. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., India, Sect. B Biol. Sci. 86, 691–697 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40011-015-0508-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40011-015-0508-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation