DYNAMICS OF SOYBEAN YIELD AS UNDER STOREY CROP IN D. SISSOO-E. OFFICINALIS-BASED AGROFORESTRY SYSTEM

Y. KUMAR¹*, T.K. THAKUR², M.L. SAHU³, A. THAKUR⁴, A. KUMAR^5
1Scientist Agroforestry, Department of Environmental Science, Indira Gandhi National Tribal University, Amarkantak, 484887, Madhya Pradesh, India
²Scientist Agroforestry, Department of Environmental Science, Indira Gandhi National Tribal University, Amarkantak, 484887, Madhya Pradesh, India
³Department of Forestry, Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur, 482002, Madhya Pradesh, India
⁴Scientist Agroforestry, Department of Environmental Science, Indira Gandhi National Tribal University, Amarkantak, 484887, Madhya Pradesh, India
⁵Centre for Protected Cultivation Technology, ICAR- Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, 110012, India
* Corresponding Author : yogeshrajput231987@gmail.com

Received : 01-12-2020     Accepted : 26-12-2020     Published : 30-12-2020
Volume : 12     Issue : 24       Pages : 10464 - 10467
Int J Agr Sci 12.24 (2020):10464-10467

Keywords : Agri-hort-Silviculture, Agroforestry, Emblica officinalis, Dalbergia sissoo, Soybean
Academic Editor : Dr Pramod Kumar Mishra, Dr Akhilesh Singh, Dr Vijay Prajapati, Kumaresan M., Dr Vipul N Kapadia
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Authors are thankful to Department of Environmental Science, Indira Gandhi National Tribal University, Amarkantak, 484887, Madhya Pradesh, India
Author Contribution : All authors equally contributed

Agri-horti-Silviculture system of agroforestry caters the basic needs of food, fodder, fuel and timber for farmers in addition to its economic benefits. Among several combinations one of the suitable systems is with soybean, aonla and sissoo. A study was carried out to evaluate the performance of soybean as under storey crop with different proportion of tree combinations. Five treatments viz. 100% Emblica officinalis, 75% Emblica officinalis + 25% Dalbergia sissoo, 50% Emblica officinalis + 50% Dalbergia sissoo, 25% Emblica officinalis + 75% Dalbergia sissoo and 100% Dalbergia sissoo were selected for the study. Soybean production trend was evaluated continuously for three years from 2017 to 2019. One-year old trees were planted with desired combinations in all the treatments. Soybean variety NRC-86 was grown in all three years. In first year of 2017 (tree age was 2-year) soybean yield was at par in all the five treatments. In second year of 2018 (tree age was 3-year) soybean yield was significantly varying in few treatments. In third year of 2019 (tree age was 4-year) significant variation of soybean yield was recorded in almost all the treatments. In third year among the five selected treatments highest yield (1106 kg/ha) was recorded under 100%Emblicaofficinalis and lowest (841 kg/ha) under 100%Dalbergiasissoo. The mean soybean grain yield was declined from 1200 kg/ha to 846 kg/ha during 2017 to 2019. However, this reduction in yield may be compensated by tree component. Three-year study revealed that 75% Emblica officinalis + 25% Dalbergia sissoo with soybean is most suitable for farmers because it fulfils the basic needs of farmers

1. Rao M.R., Nair P.K.R., Ong C.K. (1998) Agroforestry Systems, 38 (1-3), 3-50.
2. Bayala J., Sanou J., Teklehaimanot Z., Ouedraogo S., Kalinganire A., Coe R., van Noordwijk M. (2015) Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 205, 25-35.
3. Muthuri C., Bayala J. and Liyama M. (2014) An assessment of the Resilience provided by tree in the dry lands of Eastern Africa, World Agroforestry center, Nairobi, Kenya, 81-85.
4. Odhiambo, H. O. & Ong,Chin & Deans, J. D. & Wilson, J. & Khan, A. A. H &Sprent, Janet (2001) Plant and soil, 235, 221-233.
5. Thakur P.S. and Sonam S. (2008) Indian Journal of Forestry, 31 (1), 37-46.
6. Kater L.J., Kante S. and Budelman A., (1992) Agroforestry Systems, 18, 89-105.
7. Lott J.E., Khan A.A.H., Ong C.K. and Black C.K., (1996) Tree Physiology, 16, 995-1001.
8. Howard S.B., Ong C.K., Black C.R. and Khan A.A.H. (1997) Agroforestry Systems,35, 15-29.
9. Ong C.K., Black C.R., Wallace J.S., Khan A.A., Lott J.E., Jaackson N.A., Howard S.B. and Smith D.M. (2000) Environment, 80, 121-141.
10. Jose S., Gillespie A.R., Pallardy S.G. (2004) Agroforestry Systems, 61,237-255.
11. Fang S., Li. H, Sun Q. and Chen L. (2010) Agroforestry Systems, 79(2), 213-222.
12. Rivest D., Alain C., Anne V. and Alain O. (2009) Agriculture Ecosystem and Environment, 131(1), 51-60.
13. Smith Jo. (2017) Report of internship The Organic Research Centre.
14. Kaur N., Singh B., Gill R. I.S. (2017) Indian Journal of Agronomy, 62(2), 160-169.
15. Mutanlal S.M., Patil S.G., Patil H.Y., Girish S. & Maheswarappa V. (2009) Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 22(2), 377-381.
16. Singh R.P., Ong C.K., Saharan N. (1989) Agroforestry Systems, 9, 259-274.
17. Schroth G. (1999) Agroforestry Systems, 43,5-34.
18. Jose S., Gillespie A.R., Seifert J.R. (2000) Agroforestry Systems, 48,41-49.
19. Zamora D. S., Jose S., Nair P.K.R. (2007) Agroforestry Systems, 69,107-116.
20. Zhang W., Ahanbieke P., Wang B.J., Xu W.L., Li L.H., Christie P., Li L. (2013) Agroforestry Systems, 87, 929-939.
21. Shankaran K. A., Harsh L. N. and Patjus, (1987) Agroforestry Systems, 5, 59-88.
22. Righi C.A., Bernardes M.S., Lunz A.M.P., Pereira C.R., Neto D.D. and Favarin J.l. (2007) Rev.Arvore, 31, 195-207.
23. Reynolds P.E., Simpson J.A., Thevathasan N.V. and Gordon A.M. (2007) Ecol. Eng., 29, 362-371.
24. Wang Q., Han S., Zhang L., Zhang D., Van Der Werf W., Evers Jb., Sun H., Su Z. And Zhang S. (2016) Eur J Agron., 79, 58-65.
25. Jose S., Gillespie A.R., Seifert J.R., Pope P.E. (2001) Agroforestry Systems, 52:161-181.
26. Zhang W., Ahanbieke P., Wang B.J., Gan Y.W., Li L.H., Christie P., Li L. (2015) Agroforestry Systems, 89, 327-343.