LAND RESOURCE INVENTORY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURAL LAND USE PLANS USING GEOSPATIAL TECHNIQUES: A CASE STUDY OF SANTIKALLUR NORTH-5 MICRO-WATERSHED

N.L. RAJESH¹*, A.M. HEMANJALI², NAGABHUSHANA³, CHAITRA⁴, V. RAJESH^5
1Department of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, Agriculture College, University of Agricultural Sciences, Raichur, 584104, Karnataka, India
²Department of Environmental Science, Bangalore University, Bengaluru, 560056, Karnataka, India
³Department of Geography, Bangalore University, Bengaluru, 560056, Karnataka, India
⁴RS&GIS lab, The World Bank funded Sujala Watershed Development Project, University of Agricultural Sciences, Raichur, 584104, Karnataka, India
⁵RS&GIS lab, The World Bank funded Sujala Watershed Development Project, University of Agricultural Sciences, Raichur, 584104, Karnataka, India
* Corresponding Author : rajesh.neralikere@gmail.com

Received : 04-10-2022     Accepted : 27-10-2022     Published : 30-10-2022
Volume : 14     Issue : 10       Pages : 11742 - 11748
Int J Agr Sci 14.10 (2022):11742-11748

Keywords : Land resource inventory, Land capability, Crop suitability, Sustainable crop plan, Geospatial techniques
Academic Editor : Dr Mehul G. Thakkar
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Authors are thankful to The World Bank and Watershed Development Department, Govt. of Karnataka. Authors are also thankful to Department of Soil Science; RS&GIS lab, The World Bank funded Sujala Watershed Development Project, University of Agricultural Sciences, Raichur, 584104, Karnataka, India and Department of Geography, Bangalore University, Bengaluru, 560056, Karnataka, India
Author Contribution : All authors equally contributed

Lingasugur taluk, Raichur district, Karnataka, India was carried out at 1:8000 scale for characterization and classification of soils, and to derive sustainable land use plan based on the limitations observed in land capability and crop suitability. Soil mapping units were delineated using cadastral map overlaid on IRS-P6 LISS IV merged Cartosat-1 satellite imagery. Land morphological observations and soil survey was carried out and identified five soil series further divided into five soil-phases. The soils were developed on very gently to gently slope. The soil profiles were moderately deep (50-75 cm) to deep (100-150 cm), moderately well drained, slight to moderately calcareous, brown (7.5YR 5/3) to dark gray (10YR 3/1) in color, with sub angular blocky structures and strongly alkaline in reaction (8.02-8.72). Soil texture was sandy clay to clay. The silt has significantly moderate positive association (p<0.05) with clay. Sand has significantly moderate negative association with clay (p<0.05) and significantly strong negative association with silt (p<0.01). Soil available nitrogen (85 to 250.75 kg ha-1) was low and it has significantly strong positive correlation with SOC (p<0.01). The available phosphorus was low to medium in range (20.62 to 53.80 kg ha-1) and because of low mobility of available P, it was negatively correlated with Zn (p<0.01). ESP has significantly strong positive association with Na (p<0.01), and it was significantly strong negative association with clay (p<0.01). Land capability sub classes in the study area were IIIes with limitations of soil erosion, texture, soil drainage, soil fertility and topography. The land was highly suitable (S1) for sorghum, bengalgram, custard apple and amla and moderately suitable (S2) for cotton, redgram, bajra and guava with limitations of rooting and topography. Further, soil-phase unit wise crop plan with suitable interventions for field and horticulture crops were developed

1. Sharma R.P., Verma T.P., Singh R.S., Singh S.K. and Sarkar D. (2015) NBSS Publ. No. 1107, NBSS&LUP, Nagpur, 1-95.
2. Manoharachari D., Kuligod V.B., Gundlur S.S., Patil P.L., Hosmath J.A. (2017) Int. J Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci., 4, 131-141.
3. Soil Survey Staff (2014) Keys to Soil Taxonomy. 12th Edition, USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington DC.
4. Black C.A. (1965). Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1. American Society of Agronomy, Inc. Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
5. Jackson M.L. (1973) Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi.
6. Rangaswamy R. (2006) A text book of agricultural statistics. New age international (P) limited publishers, New Delhi, 495.
7. Leelavathi G.P., Naidu M.V.S., Ramavatharam N., Karuna Sagar G. (2009) J of Ind soci of Soil Science, 57, 109-120.
8. Sitanggang M., Rao Y.S., Nayan Ahmed and Mahapatra S.K. (2006) J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci., 54, 106-110.
9. Nagendra B.R. and Patil P.L. (2015) J. Agric. Sci., 28(4), 504-509.
10. Pillai M.Y. and Natarajan A. (2004) Mysore J. Agric. Sci., 38, 193-200.
11. Rajesh N.L., Narayana Rao K., Sathishkumar U., Wali V.B., Basavaraj K., Rudramurthy H.V. and Desai B.K. (2021) F1000Research, 10, 944.
12. Rajesh N.L., Rajesh V., Bai M.R., Sathishkumar U., Rudramurthy H.V. and Hiremat R.B. (2019) Int J of Chem Studies., 7(2), 160-172.
13. Basava Raju D., Naidu M.V.S., Ramavatharam N., Venkaiah K., Rama Rao G. and Reddy K.S. (2005) Agropedology, 15, 55-62.
14. Balpande H.S., Challa O. and Prasad J. (2007) J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci., 55, 80-83.
15. Mahantesh K.S., Patil P.L. and Gundulur S.S (2016) J. Farm Sci., 29(1), 37-40.
16. Rajkumar G.R. (1994) University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, India.
17. Rana R., Badiyala D. (2014) Indian J Agron., 59(4), 641-645.
18. Maheshkumar, Basavaraj K., Sharanbhoopal R., Rudramurthy H.V., Rajesh N.L. (2017) Res. J. Agric. Sci., 8(5), 1110-1114.
19. Sehgal J.L. (1996) Pedology - Concepts and applications. Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi, 488.
20. Geetha G.P., Veerendra Patel G.M., Shruti Y., Ramakrishna Parama V.R. and Sathish A. (2019) Int. J. Chem. Studies., 7(1), 84-94.
21. Naidu L.G.K., Ramamutrhy V., Challa O., Hegde R. and Krishnan P. (2006) Manual soil site criteria for major crops. NBSS publication no. 129, NBSS & LUP, Nagpur, 118.
22. Mathews D., Patil P.L. and Dasog G.S. (2009). Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 22(1), 77-80.