ISSN : 0975-3710
EISSN : 0975-9107
P. GURUMURTHY1*, D. SRINIVAS2, A. UPENDRA RAO3
1Professor, Department of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, Agricultural College, Naira, 532185, Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural University, Lam, Guntur, 522034, Andhra Pradesh, India
2Associate Dean, Agricultural College, Naira, 532185, Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural University, Lam, Guntur, 522034, Andhra Pradesh, India
3Professor, Department of Agronomy, Agricultural College, Naira, 532185, Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural University, Lam, Guntur, 522034, Andhra Pradesh, India
* Corresponding Author : d.srinivas@angrau.ac.in
Received : 01-12-2022 Accepted : 28-12-2022 Published : 30-12-2022
Volume : 14 Issue : 12 Pages : 12048 - 12051
Int J Agr Sci 14.12 (2022):12048-12051
Keywords : Land forms, Cropping systems, Physical properties, hydrological properties
Academic Editor : Vandana Bhagat, Altino Choupina
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Authors are thankful to Department of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, Agricultural College, Naira, 532185, Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural University, Lam, Guntur, 522034, Andhra Pradesh, India
Author Contribution : All authors equally contributed
Assessment of soil physical quality is essential for addressing issues of agro-ecosystem and optimizing soil productivity for sustainable land use. The Agricultural college farm, Naira has three different land forms viz., low lands, upland irrigated and upland rainfed. The different cropping systems followed are, Rice- rice, Rice- pulse, Rice- maize in upland irrigated system, Mesta- pulse, Mango, Sapota, Cashew, Coconut and Guava in upland rainfed system while in Low lands Rice- fallow system was followed. In each cropping system the soil physical investigations were made in three places and the mean values were interpreted. The results of the study revealed that soil depth was deep to very deep in low lands, moderate too deep in uplands. Soil texture was sandy clay to clay in lowlands, sandy clay loam in upland irrigated systems and sandy loam in upland rainfed systems. Clay content was relatively more in subsurface while sand content was relatively more in surface soil. In general surface soil recorded relatively low dry bulk density values (g/cm3) compared to subsurface and the values ranged from 1.46 to 1.63 g/cm3 in upland cropping systems and 1.44 to 1.53 in low land cropping system. The mean soil organic carbon content ranged from low to medium (2.57 to 7.31 g/kg soil). In general, higher soil organic carbon (SOC) was registered in surface soil and lower SOC in subsurface soil. Orchard cropping systems recorded higher SOC than agricultural systems. Coefficient of linear extensibility (COLE) was high in lowland rice- fallow system (0.094- 0.128) and low in upland irrigated systems (0.011- 0.021) and negligible in upland rainfed orchard system. Highest final infiltration rate of 23.5 mm/hr was recorded in the surface of coconut orchard and lowest of 5.7 mm/hr was in subsurface of low land rice- fallow system. The surface soil infiltration rates were relatively higher than subsurface soil. Saturated hydraulic conductivity values have also followed similar trend of infiltration rate. Water retention at field capacity was highest (24.3%) in subsurface of lowland rice system compared to other systems. Aggregate stability (mean weight diameter) index of soil in the form of mean weight diameter of water stable aggregates was ranged from 0.51(subsurface of Mesta-pulse cropping system) to 1.24 (surface of wetland rice system). The variations in soil physical and hydrological properties among cropping systems and land forms indicate the need for site specific crop planning and employing need based tillage and irrigation methods in sustainable manner to optimize and maintain the favorable soil physical and hydrological properties of the soils
1. Islam K. R. and Wali R. R. (2000) Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment, 7, 9-16.
2. Reijneveld A., Van Wensem J. and Oenema O. (2002) Geoderma 152, 231-238.
3. Wen-bin Yang P., Tang H. J., Qngaro L. and Shibasaki (2007) Ryosukez Agricultural Science in China, 6, 1369-1375.
4. Gandhe A. (2015) Research Journal of Chemical Sciences, 5, 53-56.
5. Singh R.P. and Mishra A. (2012) Indian Journal of Soil Research, 37, 97-100.
6. Piper C.S. (1966) Soil and Plant Analysis. Hans Publications, Bombay, 59.
7. Black C.A (1965) Methods of soil analysis - Part I, Physical and Mineralogical properties. America Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin.
8. Black G.R. and Hartge K.H. (1986) Bulk density and particle density. In:Methods of soil analysis, part-1. Ed. By Amoid Klute, Monograph No.9, Agronomy series, American Society of Agronomy, Inc., Wisconsin, USA, 363-382.
9. Betrand A.R. (1965) Agronomy, 9, 374-390.
10. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. (2012) National soil survey handbook, No 430.
11. Jalota S.K., Khera R. Ghuman B.S. (1998) Methods in soil physical Analysis, Oxford IBH publishers, New Delhi.
12. Sankaram A. (1966) A Laboratory Manual for Agricultural Chemsitry. Published by Jaya Singer, Asia publishing house, Bombay, 56-57.
13. Himabindu K. (2018) MSc.(Ag.) (Soil Science & Agricultural chemistry) thesis, Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural University, Lam, Guntur, 522034, Andhra Pradesh, India.
14. Geethasireesha P.V. and Naidu M.V.S. (2013) Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science, 61(3), 167-178.
15. Balpande H. S., Challa O and Jagdish P. (2007) Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science, 55(1), 80-83.
16. Prabhavathi K., Dasog G.S., Sahrawat K.L., Patil P.L. and Wani S.P. (2017) Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science, 65(1), 1-9.
17. Ashok kumar H. P. and Jagdish P. (2010) Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science, 58(3), 257-266.
18. Himabindu K., Gurumurthy P., Prasad P.R.K. and Martin Luther M. (2019) Indian Journal of Agricultural Research, 53(4), 429-434.
19. Himabindu K., Gurumurthy P. and Prasad P.R.K. (2019) Agropedology, 29(1), 1-10.