Soil Quality and Its Potential Indicators under Different Land Use Systems in the Shivaliks of Indian Punjab
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Site Description
2.2. Sample Collection and Analysis
2.3. Overall State of Soils
2.4. Data Analysis
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Characteristics of the Soils
3.2. Overall State of Soils under Different Land Uses
3.3. Principal Component Analysis
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Grewal, S.S. Hoshiarpur torrents—Their extent, causes, characteristics and control measures. In Torrent Menace, Challenges and Opportunities; Sastry, G., Sharda, V.N., Guyal, G.P., Samra, J.S., Eds.; Publication of the Central Soil and Water Conservation Research and Training Institute: Dehradun, India, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Bhattacharyya, P.; Bhatt, V.K.; Mandal, D. Soil loss tolerance limits for planning soil conservation measures in Shivalik–Himalayan region of India. Catena 2008, 73, 117–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sidhu, G.S.; Walia, C.S.; Sachdev, C.B.; Rana, K.P.C.; Dhankar, R.P.; Singh, S.P.; Velayutham, M. Soil resources of N–W Shivaliks for perspective land use planning. In Fifty Years of Research on Sustainable Resource Management in Shivaliks; Mittal, S.P., Aggarwal, R.K., Samra, J.S., Eds.; CSWCRTI, Research Centre: Chandigarh, India, 2000; pp. 23–34. [Google Scholar]
- Sitaula, B.K.; Bajracharya, R.M.; Singh, B.R.; Solberg, B. Factors affecting organic carbon dynamics in soils of Nepal/Himalayan region—A review and analysis. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2004, 70, 215–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- GOI. Integrated Watershed Development Project (Hills): An analytical overview and future strategies. In Proceedings of the National Workshop on Watershed Approach to Rainfed Farming: Strategies for Integrated Watershed Development for Hill Regions, Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi, India, 1–2 May 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Kumar, R.; Sharma, B.D.; Sidhu, P.S. Soils of Zonal Research Station for Kandi Area, Ballowal Saunkhri, Distt. Nawanshahr; Punjab Agricultural University: Ludhiana, India, 1995; p. 49. [Google Scholar]
- Ezeaku, P.I. Evaluation of agro-ecological approach to soil quality assessment for sustainable land use and management system. Sci. Res. Essays 2015, 10, 501–512. [Google Scholar]
- Kalu, S.; Koirala, M.; Khadka, U.R.; Anup, K.C. Soil quality assessment for different land use in the Panchase area of western Nepal. Int. J. Environ. Prot. 2015, 5, 38–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lima, A.C.R.; Hoogmoed, W.; Brussaard, L. Soil quality assessment in rice production systems: Establishing a minimum data set. J. Environ. Qual. 2008, 37, 623–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Singh, A.K.; Bordoloi, L.J.; Kumar, M.H.; Parmar, B. Land use impact on soil quality in eastern Himalayan region of India. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2013, 185, 314–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z.; Chang, A.C.; Wu, L.; Crowley, D. Assessing the soil quality of longterm reclaimed wastewater-irrigated cropland. Geoderma 2003, 114, 261–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karlen, D.L.; Mausbach, M.J.; Doran, J.W.; Cline, R.T.; Harris, R.F.; Schuman, G.E. Soil quality: A concept definition and framework for evaluation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1997, 90, 644–650. [Google Scholar]
- Carter, M.R.; Gregorich, E.G.; Angers, D.A.; Donald, R.G.; Bolinder, M.A. Organic C and N storage and organic C fractions in adjacent cultivated and forested soils of eastern Canada. Soil Till. Res. 1998, 47, 253–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, M.J.; Khera, K.L.; Priyabrata, S. Selection of soil physical quality indicators in relation to soil erodibility. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2012, 58, 657–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chandel, S.; Hadda, M.S.; Mahal, A.K. Soil quality assessment through minimum data set under different land uses of submontane Punjab. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jassal, H.S.; Kumar, R.; Sharma, B.D. Description of benchmark soils. In Annual Progress Report of Research Scheme—Elemental Association in Relation to Mineralogical Assemblage of the Benchmark Soils of Punjab; Punjab Agricultural University: Ludhiana, India, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Soil Survey Staff. Keys to Soil Taxonomy, 12th ed.; USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2014.
- Walkley, A.; Black, C.A. An examination of the digestion method for determining soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci. 1934, 37, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olsen, S.R.; Cole, C.V.; Waternabe, F.S.; Dean, L.A. Estimation of available phosphorous in soil by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. USDA Circ. 1954, 939, 919. [Google Scholar]
- Knudsen, D.; Peterson, G.A.; Pratt, P.F. Lithium, sodium and potassium. In Methods of Soil Analysis Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties; Page, A.L., Miller, R.M., Keeney, D.R., Eds.; American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America: Madison WI, USA, 1982; pp. 225–246. [Google Scholar]
- Jalota, S.K.; Khera, R.; Ghuman, B.S. Methods in Soil Physics; Narosa Publishing House: New Delhi, India, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Richards, L.A. Physical condition of water in soil. In Methods of Soil Analysis—Part 1; Black, C.A., Ed.; American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America: Madison WI, USA, 1965; pp. 128–151. [Google Scholar]
- Middleton, H.E. Properties which Influence Soil Erosion; Technical Bulletin No. 178; USDA: Washington, DC, USA, 1930.
- Wymore, A.W. Model Based Systems Engineering: An Introduction to the Mathematical Theory of Discrete Systems and to the Tricotyledon Theory of System Design; CRC Press: Raton, FL, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Lakeria, B.L.; Biswas, H.; Mandal, D. Soil loss tolerance values for different physiographic regions of Central India. Soil Use Manag. 2008, 24, 192–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wold, S.; Esbensen, K.; Geladi, P. Principal component analysis. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 1987, 2, 37–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andrews, S.; Karlen, D.; Mitchell, J. A comparison of soil quality indexing methods for vegetable production systems in Northern California. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2002, 90, 25–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheema, H.S.; Singh, B. CPCS1—A Computer Program Package for the Analysis of Commonly Used Experimental Designs; Punjab Agricultural University: Ludhiana, India, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Sharma, R.R.; Biswas, N.R.D. Erodibility of hill soils of Sutlej catchment area in Himachal Pradesh. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 1972, 42, 161–169. [Google Scholar]
- Dabral, P.P.; Murry, R.L.; Lollen, P. Erodibility status under different land uses in Dikrong river basin of Arunachal Pradesh. Indian J. Soil Conserv. 2001, 29, 280–282. [Google Scholar]
- Singh, M.J.; Khera, K.L. Soil erodibility indices under different land uses in lower Shiwaliks. Trop. Ecol. 2008, 49, 113–119. [Google Scholar]
- Singh, R.; Singh, K.D.; Parandiyal, A.K. Characterisation and erodibility of soils under different land uses for their management and sustained production. Indian J. Soil Conserv. 2006, 34, 226–228. [Google Scholar]
- Ajami, M.; Khormali, F.; Ayoubi, S.; Omrani, R.A. Changes in soil quality attributes by conversion of land use on a loess hillslope in Golestan province, Iran. In Proceedings of the 18th International Soil Meeting (ISM) on Soil Sustaining Life on Earth, Maintaining Soil and Technology, Şanlıurfa, Turkey, 22–26 May 2006; pp. 501–504. [Google Scholar]
- Ray, R.; Mukhopadhyay, K.; Biswas, P. Soil aggregation and its relationship with physic-chemical properties under various land use systems. Indian J. Soil Conserv. 2006, 34, 28–32. [Google Scholar]
- Ashura Ally, D. Soil Aggregation and Organic Carbon Fractions under Different Land Uses in Submontane Punjab. Master’s Thesis, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Sharma, P.D.; Qahar, A.Q. Characterization of some outer Himalayan protected and eroded forest soils. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 1989, 37, 113–120. [Google Scholar]
- Gupta, R.D.; Arora, S.; Gupta, G.D.; Sumberia, N.M. Soil physical variability in relation to soil erodibility under different land uses in foothills of Siwaliks in N-W India. Trop. Ecol. 2010, 51, 183–197. [Google Scholar]
- Vashisht, B.B.; Sidhu, B.S.; Singh, S.; Biwalkar, N. Effect of different mulches on soil erosion and carry-over of residual soil moisture for sowing of Rabi crop in maize-wheat cropping sequence in rainfed Shivaliks of Punjab. Indian J. Soil Conserv. 2013, 41, 136–140. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, X.; Liu, M.; Liu, S.; Liu, G. Fractal characteristics of soils under different land-use pattern in the arid and semiarid region of the Tibetan Platue, China. Geoderma 2006, 134, 56–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shukla, M.K.; Lal, R.; Ebinger, M. Determining soil quality indicators by factor analysis. Soil Till. Res. 2006, 87, 194–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evrendilek, F.; Çelik, I.; Kilic, S. Changes in soil organic carbon and other physical soil properties along adjacent mediterranean forest, grassland, and cropland ecosystems in Turkey. J. Arid Environ. 2004, 59, 743–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Islam, K.R.; Weil, R.R. Soil quality indicator properties in mid-atlantic soils as influenced by conservation management. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2000, 55, 2269–2284. [Google Scholar]
- Maini, A.; Sharma, V.; Sharma, S. Assessment of soil carbon and biochemical indicators of soil quality under rainfed land use systems in North Eastern region of Punjab, India. Carbon Manag. 2020. [CrossRef]
- Nair, P.K.R. Role of trees in soil productivity and conservation. In Soil Productivity Aspects of Agroforestry; The International Council for Research in Agro-Forestry: Nairobi, Kenya, 1984; p. 85. [Google Scholar]
Horizon | Depth (cm) | Sand (%) | Silt (%) | Clay (%) | pH (1:2) | EC (dS m−1) | OC (%) | CEC (cmol kg−1) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ap | 0–28 | 69.1 | 22.9 | 8.0 | 8.15 | 0.16 | 0.35 | 5.28 |
C1 | 28–49 | 71.6 | 23.0 | 5.4 | 8.13 | 0.13 | 0.09 | 6.13 |
C2 | 49–65 | 66.1 | 28.1 | 5.8 | 8.05 | 0.15 | 0.23 | 4.93 |
C3 | 65–81 | 43.5 | 51.1 | 5.4 | 8.25 | 0.16 | 0.18 | 5.66 |
C4 | 81–99 | 83.1 | 13.1 | 3.8 | 8.35 | 0.12 | 0.07 | 4.15 |
C5 | 99–123 | 87.1 | 9.3 | 3.6 | 8.20 | 0.11 | 0.02 | 6.40 |
C6 | 123+ | 72.2 | 16.4 | 11.4 | 8.02 | 0.13 | 0.90 | 5.39 |
Wt. mean | 71.5 | 22.2 | 6.3 | 8.16 | 0.14 | 0.27 | 5.47 |
Soil Attribute/Rank | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
ER | <10 (1) | 10–30 (0.8) | 30–50 (0.5) | 50–70 (0.3) | >70 0.2 |
BD (Mg m−3) | <1.40 (1) | 1.40–1.48 (0.8) | 1.49–1.55 (0.5) | 1.56–1.63 (0.3) | >1.63 (0.2) |
C (%) | <5.0 (0.2) | 5.0–10.0 (0.3) | 10.0–15.0 (0.5) | 15.0–20.0 (0.8) | >20.0 (1) |
PWP (%) | <1.5 (0.2) | 1.5–3.0 (0.3) | 3.0–4.5 (0.5) | 4.5–6.0 (0.8) | >6.0 (1) |
OC (%) | <0.15 (0.2) | 0.15–0.3 (0.3) | 0.3–0.45 (0.5) | 0.45–6 (0.8) | >6 (1) |
pH | <5.0 >9.0 (0.2) | 5.0–5.5 8–8.5 (0.3) | 5.5–6.0 8.5–9.0 (0.5) | 6.0–6.5 7.5–8.0 (0.8) | 6.5–7.5 (1) |
N (kg ha−1) | <50 (0.2) | 50–100 (0.3) | 100–150 (0.5) | 150–200 (0.8) | >200 (1) |
P (kg ha−1) | <2.5 (0.2) | 2.5–5.0 (0.3) | 5.0–10.0 (0.5) | 10.0–25.0 (0.8) | >25.0 (1) |
K (kg ha−1) | <60 (0.2) | 60–100 (0.3) | 100–140 (0.5) | 140–280 (0.8) | >280 (1) |
Soil Function | Potential Indicator | Weights |
---|---|---|
Resistance to physical degradation/erodibility index | ER | 0.30 |
Water transport and retention | BD | 0.20 |
FC | 0.08 | |
PWP | 0.08 | |
Resistance to biochemical weathering | OC | 0.15 |
Plant growth | pH | 0.05 |
N | 0.05 | |
P | 0.05 | |
K | 0.05 |
Soil Parameter | Agriculture (n = 40) | Forest (n = 10) | Afforestation (n = 5) | Non–Arable Lands (n = 5) | LSD (0.05) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
ER | 24.6–86.7 (43.7±13.8) | 24.5–43.0 (34.5±4.75) | 41.0–51.4 (45.1±3.9) | 33.8–62.6 (50.9±12.4) | 5.30 |
BD (Mg m−3) | 1.35–1.58 (1.47±0.06) | 1.40–1.59 (1.53±0.04) | 1.37–1.58 (1.49±0.08) | 1.41–1.51 (1.45±0.05) | 0.05 |
FC (%) | 7.2–20.8 (13.81±3.9) | 7.0–18.8 (10.47±4.0) | 8.8–18.6 (13.4±4.9) | 8.6–18.4 (15.43±4.6) | 1.60 |
PWP (%) | 2.3–6.9 (4.8±1.5) | 2.0–5.9 (3.2±1.2) | 2.1–6.3 (3.9±1.9) | 2.6–7.0 (5.6±2.0) | 0.90 |
OC (%) | 0.03–0.75 (0.29±0.16) | 0.03–0.45 (0.20±0.14) | 0.12–0.33 (0.17±0.04) | 0.12–0.72 (0.30±0.29) | 0.60 |
pH | 6.9–9.4 (8.4±0.8) | 6.5–9.2 (7.9±0.9) | 8.2–9.3 (8.6±0.3) | 8.6–9.4 (9.0±0.3) | 0.49 |
N (kg ha−1) | 50.2–225.8 (165.4±36.9) | 62.7–174.6 (139.6±29.2) | 75.3–175.6 (103.5±12.0) | 112.9–263.4 (185.0±66.7) | 18.80 |
P (kg ha−1) | 3.0–41.8 (10.1±11.1) | 3–12.9 (6.7±3.4) | 2.3–4.6 (3.2±0.4) | 3.8–4.6 (4.6±0.2) | 2.10 |
K (kg ha−1) | 42–300 (114.6±61.3) | 60–264 (123.0±67.4) | 75–189 (108.8±34.9) | 36–96 (74.3±17.6) | 34.10 |
Mean weighted score | 0.394–0.900 (0.515±0.121) | 0.384–0.635 (0.465±0.088) | 0.359–.0490 (0.428±0.066) | 0.399–0.555 (0.456±0.071) |
Variables * | ER | BD | FC | PWP | pH | OC | N | P | K |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ER | 1 | ||||||||
BD | −0.911 | 1 | |||||||
FC | −0.969 | 0.952 | 1 | ||||||
PWP | −0.969 | 0.952 | 1.000 | 1 | |||||
pH | 0.530 | −0.146 | −0.333 | −0.333 | 1 | ||||
OC | −0.412 | 0.480 | 0.601 | 0.601 | 0.195 | 1 | |||
N | −0.409 | 0.433 | 0.585 | 0.585 | 0.116 | 0.994 | 1 | ||
P | 0.648 | −0.347 | −0.441 | −0.441 | 0.937 | 0.305 | 0.256 | 1 | |
K | 0.879 | −0.618 | −0.810 | −0.810 | 0.782 | −0.409 | −0.458 | 0.742 | 1 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Vashisht, B.B.; Maharjan, B.; Sharma, S.; Kaur, S. Soil Quality and Its Potential Indicators under Different Land Use Systems in the Shivaliks of Indian Punjab. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3490. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083490
Vashisht BB, Maharjan B, Sharma S, Kaur S. Soil Quality and Its Potential Indicators under Different Land Use Systems in the Shivaliks of Indian Punjab. Sustainability. 2020; 12(8):3490. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083490
Chicago/Turabian StyleVashisht, Bharat Bhushan, Bijesh Maharjan, Sandeep Sharma, and Samanpreet Kaur. 2020. "Soil Quality and Its Potential Indicators under Different Land Use Systems in the Shivaliks of Indian Punjab" Sustainability 12, no. 8: 3490. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083490