Advertisement

Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 56, Issue 1, pp 57–63 | Cite as

Crop productivity under differently lopped canopies of multipurpose trees in Central Himalaya, India

  • R.L. Semwal
  • R.K. Maikhuri
  • K.S. Rao
  • K. Singh
  • K.G. Saxena
Article

Abstract

Tree-crop mixed farming is the predominant traditional land use in the Central Himalaya. Knowledge on the effect of lopping the over story of trees on the productivity of under story of intercropped food crops is limited. Five levels of lopping regime (no lopping, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% lopping of branches) were established in a 6-year-old mixed plantation of locally valued multipurpose trees in a village at 1200 m altitude. Wheat(Triticum aestivum L.), mustard (Brassica campestris L.) and lentil (Lens esculenta Moench) were intercropped during winter season, and rice (Oryza sativa L.), foxtail millet (Setaria italica (L.)P. Beauv.) and barnyard millet (Echinochloa frumentaceaLink) during warm rainy season following traditional practices. No lopping resulted in only 16% of estimated photosynthetically active radiation available in full lopping treatments in case of winter crops and 12% incase of rainy season crops. Mean day temperature was lower by 2°C in no lopping treatments as compared to full lopping treatments in both seasons. There were no significant differences in grain and by-product yields between no lopping and 25% lopping, and between 75% and full lopping treatments in all crops, except lentil. For winter crops, grain yields in no lopping treatments were only 16 to 21% of the yields in full lopping treatments compared to 3 to 5% in rainy season crops. By-product yields from winter crops in no lopping treatments were 29 to 32% of the full lopping treatments compared to 6 to 8% in rainy season crops. Farmers frequently practice full lopping during winter season. This study shows that loss of crop yields may not be significant if 25% of branches are retained.

Photosynthetically active radiation Temperature Traditional practices 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Dadhwal K.S., Narain P. and Dhyani S.K. 1989. Agroforestry systems in the Garhwal Himalayas of India. Agroforestry Systems 7: 213-225.Google Scholar
  2. Dhyani S.K. and Tripathi R.S. 1999. Tree growth and crop yield under agrisilvicultural practices in north-east India. Agroforestry Systems 44: 1-12.Google Scholar
  3. Gillespie A.R., Jose S., Mengel D.B., Hoover W.L., Pope P.E., Seifert J.R. et al. 2000. Defining competition vectors in a temperate alley cropping system in the midwestern USA: 1. Production physiology. Agroforestry Systems 48: 25-40.Google Scholar
  4. Jackson N.A., Wallace J.S. and Ong C.K. 2000. Tree pruning as a means of controlling water use in an agroforestry system in Kenya. Forest Ecology and Management 126: 133-148.Google Scholar
  5. Kater L.J.M., Kante S. and Budelman A. 1992. Karite' (Vitellaria paradoxa) and ne're' (Parkia biglobosa) associated with crops in South Mali. Agroforestry Systems 18: 89-106.Google Scholar
  6. Kesseler J.J. 1992. The influence of Karite' (Vitellaria paradoxa) and ne're' (Parkia biglobosa) trees on sorghum production in Burkina Faso. Agroforestry Systems 17: 97-118.Google Scholar
  7. Khybri M.L., Gupta R.K., Ram S. and Tomar H.P.S. 1992. Crop yields of rice and wheat grown in rotation as intercrops with three tree species in the outer hills of western Himalaya. Agroforestry Systems 17: 193-204.Google Scholar
  8. Maikhuri R.K., Semwal R.L., Rao K.S. and Saxena K.G. 1997. Rehabilitation of degraded community lands for sustainable development in Himalaya: a case study in Garhwal Himalaya, India. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 4: 192-203.Google Scholar
  9. Maikhuri R.K., Semwal R.L., Rao K.S., Singh K. and Saxena K.G. 2000. Growth and ecological impacts of traditional agroforestry tree species in Central Himalaya, India. Agroforestry Systems 48: 257-272.Google Scholar
  10. McCree K.J. 1981. Photosynthetically active radiation. In: Lange O.L., Nobel P.S., Osmond C.B. and Ziegler H. (eds), Encyclopedia of plant physiology, New Series Volume 12A, Physiological plant ecology. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, pp. 41-55.Google Scholar
  11. Nair P.K.R. and Dagar J.C. 1994. An approach to developing methodologies for evaluating agroforestry systems in India. Agroforestry Systems 16: 55-81.Google Scholar
  12. Narain P., Singh R.K., Sindhwal N.S. and Joshie P. 1998. Agroforestry for soil and water conservation in the western Himalayan valley region of India. 2. Crop and tree production. Agroforestry Systems 39: 191-203.Google Scholar
  13. Nautiyal S., Maikhuri R.K., Semwal R.L., Rao K.S. and Saxena K.G. 1998. Agroforestry systems in the rural landscape-a case study in Garhwal Himalaya, India. Agroforestry Systems 41: 151-165.Google Scholar
  14. Okorio J., Byenkya S., Wajja N. and Peden D. 1994. Comparative performance of seventeen upper storey tree species associated with crops in the highlands of Uganda. Agroforestry Systems 26: 185-203.Google Scholar
  15. Osman M., Emminhgam W.H. and Sharrow S.H. 1998. Growth and yield of sorghum or cowpea in an agrisilviculture system in semiarid India. Agroforestry Systems 42: 91-105.Google Scholar
  16. Ralhan P.K., Negi G.C.S. and Singh S.P. 1991. Structure and function of the agroforestry systems in the Pithoragarh district of Central Himalaya: an ecological viewpoint. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 35: 283-296.Google Scholar
  17. Rao K.S., Maikhuri R.K. and Saxena K.G. 1999. Participatory approach to rehabilitation of degraded forest lands: a case study in a high altitude village of Indian Himalaya. International Tree Crops Journal 10: 1-17.Google Scholar
  18. Sae-Lee S., Vityakon P. and Prachaiyo B. 1992. Effects of trees on paddy bunds on soil fertility and rice growth in Northeast Thailand. Agroforestry Systems 18: 213-223.Google Scholar
  19. Schroth G. 1999. A review of belowground interactions in agroforestry, focussing on mechanisms and management options. Agroforestry Systems 43: 5-34.Google Scholar
  20. Singh G.S., Rao K.S. and Saxena K.G. 1997. Energy and economic efficiency of the mountain farming system: a case study in the north-western Himalaya. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 9: 25-49.Google Scholar
  21. Thapa G.B., Sinclair F.L. and Walker D.H. 1995. Incorporation of indigenous knowledge and perspectives in agroforestry development. Agroforestry Systems 30: 249-261.Google Scholar
  22. Toky O.P., Kumar P. and Khosla P.K. 1989. Structure and function of traditional agroforestry systems in the western Himalaya. I. Biomass and productivity. Agroforestry Systems 9: 47-70.Google Scholar
  23. Verinumbe I. and Okali D.U.U. 1985. The influence of coppiced teak (Tectona grandis L.F.) regrowth and roots on intercropped maize (Zea mays). Agroforestry Systems 3: 381-386.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • R.L. Semwal
    • 1
  • R.K. Maikhuri
    • 1
  • K.S. Rao
    • 2
  • K. Singh
    • 3
  • K.G. Saxena
    • 3
  1. 1.Garhwal Unit, G.B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and DevelopmentSrinagar (Garhwal)India
  2. 2.G.B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and DevelopmentSustainable Development of Rural Ecosystems ProgrammeKosi-Katarmal, AlmoraIndia
  3. 3.School of Environmental SciencesJawaharlal Nehru UniversityNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations