ISSN : 0975-3710
EISSN : 0975-9107
RAJENDRA HEGDE1*, B.A. DANORKARA2, G. BARDHAN3, B.P. BHASKARA4, S.K. SINGH5
1ICAR-National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Utilisation Planning, Regional Centre, Hebbal, Bangalore, 560024, India
2ICAR-National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Utilisation Planning, Regional Centre, Hebbal, Bangalore, 560024, India
3ICAR-National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Utilisation Planning, Regional Centre, Hebbal, Bangalore, 560024, India
4ICAR-National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Utilisation Planning, Regional Centre, Hebbal, Bangalore, 560024, India
5ICAR-National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Utilisation Planning, Amravati Road, Nagpur, 440033, India
* Corresponding Author : rajendrahanagar@gmail.com
Received : 23-06-2018 Accepted : 11-07-2018 Published : 15-07-2018
Volume : 10 Issue : 13 Pages : 6584 - 6591
Int J Agr Sci 10.13 (2018):6584-6591
Keywords : GIS, Land evaluation, Soil mapping units, soil suitability
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Author thankful to Department of Agriculture and Watershed Development Department, Karnataka and highly grateful to Karnataka State Remote Sensing Applications Centre, (KSRSAC), Bangalore for providing base maps and satellite imagery. All cadastral level resource mapping are using Arc GIS 10.2.
Author Contribution : All author equally contributed
The present study was carried out to examine the land suitability evaluation of Matki-3 microwatershed (686 ha) of Aland Taluk, Kalaburgi District, Karnataka, India for selected land utilization types pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) and Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). The land mapping units of the study area, prepared from land resource information obtained from detailed soil survey at 1:10000 scale using IRS-P6-LISS- IV merged with Cartosat-1 and GIS technique, were used for the purposes of land evaluation. The methodology used for land suitability evaluation was GIS-based multi-criteria evaluation following FAO (1976) guidelines involving matching diagnostic land qualities against crop requirements and assigning suitability rates for each land qualities. Seven Soil series were identified and derived twenty four mapping units as phases of soil series. The land suitability analysis results revealed that 393 ha (58%) of total area is suitable for Pigeon pea and sorghum as against the current land use of 645 ha with limitations of soil depth, sloping lands and gravelliness. In addition to land evaluation, suitable crop interventions suggested for enhancing productivity of these crops under drought prone areas of Karnataka.
1. Sehgal J.L., Saxena R.K., Vadivelu S. (1989) Field Manual–Soil resource mapping of different States. 2nd edition, Technical Bulletin 13, NBSS&LUP, Publication, Nagpur, India.
2. Ramakrishna Y.S., Rao G.G.S.N, Ramana Rao B.V., Vijay Kumar P. (1999) Agrometeorology. In Fifty years of natural resource management research, eds. G.B. Singh and B.R. Sharma, 32–60. New Delhi, India: Indian Council of Agricultural Research.
3. Dent D., Yong A. (1981) Soil survey and land evaluation: Allen &Unwin, London.
4. FAO. (1976) A framework for land evaluation. Soil Bulletin No.32, Food and Agriculture Organization, Geneva.
5. Madhava V.Rao., Prakash Om., Sharma Anand., Hermon R.R., Kesava Rao.P., Prasad N.S.R., Phanidra Kumar., Srinivas Kumar.S.S.R.S. (2008) The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences. Vol. XXXVII. Part B7 1451-1456.
6. Singh R.P., Subba Reddy.G. (1988) In Drought Research Priorities for the Dryland Tropics (eds Bidinger, F. R. and Johansen, C.), ICRISAT, Patancheru.
7. Srivastava R., Saxena R.K. (2004) Inter. Journal of Remote Sensing, 25 (4), 679-688.
8. Wadodkar M., Ravishankar T. (2011) Journal of the Indian Soc. of Remote sensing, 31(1), 43-57.
9. Bhaskar B.P., Sarkar Dipak., Bobade S.V., Gaikwad M.S., Gaikwad S.S., Nimkar A.M., Anantwar S.G., Patil S.V., Bhattacharyya Tapas. (2011) The Ecoscan, 1, 251-259.
10. Bhaskar B.P., Maske Sunil., Gaikwad S.S., Chaturvedi A., Prasad Jagdish., Anantwar S.G., Singh S.K. (2017) Archives of Agriculture and Environment Science, 2(3), 206-218.
11. Rajendra Hegde., Niranjana K.V., Srinivas S., Nair K.M., Dhanorkar B.A., Reddy R.S., Singh S.K. (2016) “Land Resource Inventory of Chikasavanur-1 Micro-watershed for Watershed Planning and Development, Shirahatti Taluk, Gadag District, Karnataka”, NBSS Publ. No., ICAR – NBSS & LUP, RC, Bangalore 36.
12. Ministry of Minority Affairs Government of India and Indian Council of Social Science Research. (2008) A baseline survey of minority concentration districts of India Gulberga (Karnataka). Institute for Human Development. Mahatma Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.
13. Velayutham M., Mandal D.K., Mandal C., Sehgal J. (1999) Agroecological sub regions of India for planning and development. NBSS&LUP, 35,372.
14. Thronthwaite C.W., Mathur J.R. (1995) Publication in Climate, 8 (1), 1-104.
15. Eswaran H., Mosi D., Manickam T.S. (1990) Soil moisture and temperature regimes of Southern India. Soil management support services. Washington, DC.USA.
16. Shambulingappa K.G., Rajana (1997) Pigeon peas ICPL-8863 and ICPL-87 in Karnataka. Ed. Bantilan, M.C.S. and Joshi, P.K. Integrated Research. Evaluation Efforts, ICRISAT, 138-139.
17. IARI. (1971) Soil Survey Manual, All India Soil and Land Use Survey Organization, IARI, New Delhi.121.
18. Soil Survey Staff. (2006) Keys to Soil Taxonomy, Tenth edition,
19. U.S. Department of Agriculture/ NRCS, Washington DC, U. S. A. Survey and Land Use Planning (ICAR), Nagpur, India.
20. Schoeneberger M., Bentrup G., Gooijer H. de., Soolanayakanahally R., Sauer T., Brandle J., Zhou X., Current D. (2012) Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 67(5), 128A- 136A.
21. Soil Survey Staff. (2014) Keys to Soil Taxonomy. 12th edition. USDA/NRSC, Washington, DC.
22. Jackson M.L. (1973) Soil chemical analysis. Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi.
23. Bower C.A., Reitemeiyer R.F., Fireman M. (1952) Soil Science, 73, 251-261.
24. Walkley A., Black I.A. (1934) Soil Science, 37, 29-38.
25. Lindsay W.L., Norvell W.A. (1978) Soil Science Society of America Journal, 42,421-428.
26. Olsen S., Cole C., Watanabe F., Dean L. (1954) Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. USDA Circular Nr 939, US Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C.
27. Williams C.H., Steinberg A. (1959) Aust. Journal of Agricultural Research, 10, 340- 352.
28. Gupta U.C. (1967) Soil Science, 103,424-8.
29. Arora V.K. (2002) Journal of Hydrology, 265, 164-177.
30. FAO. (1983) Guidelines: land evaluation for rainfed agriculture. Soils Bulletin 52, FAO, Rome, Italy.
31. FAO. (1985) Guidelines: Land evaluation for irrigated agriculture. FAO Soils Bulletin 55, Rome.
32. FAO. (2007) A framework for land evaluation. FAO Soil Bulletin No. 6, Rome, Italy.
33. FAO. (1986) A Forester’s guide for community involvement in upland conservation with special reference to the Asia and Pacific region, FAO, Rome.
34. Government of India. (2010) Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, Directorate of economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agricultural, NewDelhi-01.
35. Mallappa J., Madolli P.S., Kanannavaryaligar Ravindra (2015) International Journal of agriculture Science, 5, 93- 98.
36. Centre for sustainable technologies. (2014) Transitioning towards Climate Resilient Development in Karnataka. Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore.
37. Wilding L.P. (1985) Spatial variability: its documentation, accommodation and implication to soil surveys. In: Nielsen DR, Bouma J (eds) Soil spatial variability. Proceedings of a Workshop of ISSS and the SSSA, Las Vegas USA.
38. Siddayya, Dandekar Anil.Kumar., Kammar K.Shivanad. (2016) Adoption pattern of improved pigeon pea varieties in Gulbarga district, Karnataka, India Agriculture and Science Digest, 36 (4), 255-260.
39. Millet Network of India (MNI). (2009) Deccan Development Society and FIAN (Food First Information and Action Network), India. Millets: future of food and farming.
40. Swaminaidu N., Ghosh S.K., Mallikarjuna K. (2015) International Journal of Pharma and Bio Science, 6 (4), 440-446.