24.04.2013 Views

impact of farmers' organic farming practices on soil properties in ...

impact of farmers' organic farming practices on soil properties in ...

impact of farmers' organic farming practices on soil properties in ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Under sugarcane based cropp<strong>in</strong>g system, the nitrogen c<strong>on</strong>tent added to <strong>soil</strong> through<br />

<str<strong>on</strong>g>organic</str<strong>on</strong>g>s varied from 111.00 (S1) to 152.20 (S2) kg per ha per year and phosphorus c<strong>on</strong>tent<br />

from 48.35 (S1) to 88.80 (S3) kg per ha per year and potassium c<strong>on</strong>tent from 87.30 to 159.60<br />

(S3) kg per ha per year.<br />

In case <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> v<strong>in</strong>e yard system, additi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> nitrogen through <str<strong>on</strong>g>organic</str<strong>on</strong>g>s ranged from 89.00<br />

(V2) to 150.80 (V3) kg per ha per year, phosphorus c<strong>on</strong>tent varied from 49.30 (V2) to 74.20<br />

(V3) kg per ha per year and potassium c<strong>on</strong>tent ranged from 70.60 (V2) to 112.80 (V1) kg per<br />

ha per year.<br />

4.2 EFFECT OF ORGANIC FARMING ON SOIL PHYSICAL<br />

PROPERTIES<br />

4.2.1 Soil texture (Table 4)<br />

Particle size distributi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> cott<strong>on</strong> based cropp<strong>in</strong>g system <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> four <str<strong>on</strong>g>organic</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>farm<strong>in</strong>g</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>soil</strong><br />

samples revealed that the average sand, silt and clay c<strong>on</strong>tent were 12.14, 22.50 and 63.33<br />

per cent, respectively. While <strong>in</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>al <str<strong>on</strong>g>farm<strong>in</strong>g</str<strong>on</strong>g>, they were 12.32, 23.78 and 62.35<br />

per cent, respectively.<br />

In kharif jowar cropp<strong>in</strong>g system, <strong>soil</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> two <str<strong>on</strong>g>organic</str<strong>on</strong>g> farms <strong>on</strong> an average, recorded<br />

sand, silt and clay c<strong>on</strong>tent <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 12.61, 23.16 and 63.67 per cent, respectively, while <strong>in</strong> the<br />

c<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>al <str<strong>on</strong>g>farm<strong>in</strong>g</str<strong>on</strong>g>, they were 13.17, 24.45 and 62.39 per cent, respectively.<br />

An average <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 13.29, 22.76 and 61.60 per cent <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> sand, silt clay c<strong>on</strong>tents were<br />

observed <strong>in</strong> <strong>soil</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> rabi jowar cropp<strong>in</strong>g system under <str<strong>on</strong>g>organic</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>farm<strong>in</strong>g</str<strong>on</strong>g>. Soils <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>al<br />

<str<strong>on</strong>g>farm<strong>in</strong>g</str<strong>on</strong>g> under same cropp<strong>in</strong>g system c<strong>on</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed 12.70, 24.20 and 60.37 per cent <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> sand, silt<br />

clay, respectively.<br />

In sugarcane based cropp<strong>in</strong>g system, the average <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> four <str<strong>on</strong>g>organic</str<strong>on</strong>g> farm <strong>soil</strong>s<br />

accounted for sand, silt and clay c<strong>on</strong>tent <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 11.57, 23.51 and 63.66 per cent, respectively as<br />

compared to 11.60, 24.79 and 61.84 per cent, respectively <strong>in</strong> <strong>soil</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>al farms.<br />

In v<strong>in</strong>eyard system, the average <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> sand, silt and clay c<strong>on</strong>tent <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>soil</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>organic</str<strong>on</strong>g> farms<br />

was 10.15, 20.23 and 68.70 per cent, respectively. While <strong>in</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>al <str<strong>on</strong>g>farm<strong>in</strong>g</str<strong>on</strong>g>, they<br />

were 11.96, 20.63 and 66.72 per cent, respectively.<br />

All the <strong>soil</strong>s under both <str<strong>on</strong>g>organic</str<strong>on</strong>g> and c<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>al <str<strong>on</strong>g>farm<strong>in</strong>g</str<strong>on</strong>g> were clay <strong>in</strong> texture,<br />

irrespective <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> cropp<strong>in</strong>g system followed.<br />

4.2.2 Bulk density<br />

The data <strong>on</strong> the effect <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>organic</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>farm<strong>in</strong>g</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> bulk density <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>soil</strong>s under different<br />

cropp<strong>in</strong>g systems is given <strong>in</strong> Table 5, 6, 7 and 8.<br />

Under cott<strong>on</strong> based cropp<strong>in</strong>g system (Table 5), <strong>on</strong> an average, the <strong>soil</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> four farms<br />

showed a reducti<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong> bulk density <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> surface <strong>soil</strong> from 1.42 Mg m -3 <strong>in</strong> c<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>al farms to<br />

1.31 Mg m -3 <strong>in</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>organic</str<strong>on</strong>g> farms and from 1.44 to 1.35 Mg m -3 <strong>in</strong> subsurface <strong>soil</strong>. The average<br />

decrease <strong>in</strong> bulk density was to the extent <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 7.75 per cent and 6.25 per cent <strong>in</strong> surface and<br />

subsurface <strong>soil</strong>, respectively. Am<strong>on</strong>g the <strong>soil</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> four <str<strong>on</strong>g>organic</str<strong>on</strong>g> farms, the highest decrease <strong>in</strong><br />

bulk density was observed <strong>in</strong> <strong>soil</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> C4 farmer (9.40%) followed by C2 farmer (7.30%) and<br />

lowest reducti<strong>on</strong> was observed <strong>in</strong> <strong>soil</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> C 1 farmer (3.60%).<br />

In kharif jowar based cropp<strong>in</strong>g system (Table 6), the average <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> two <strong>soil</strong>s <strong>in</strong>dicated a<br />

reducti<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong> bulk density from 1.40 to 1.25 Mg m -3 and 1.44 to 1.30 Mg m -3 <strong>in</strong> surface and<br />

subsurface <strong>soil</strong>s, respectively. The overall reducti<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong> bulk density <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>soil</strong> due to <str<strong>on</strong>g>organic</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />

<str<strong>on</strong>g>farm<strong>in</strong>g</str<strong>on</strong>g> worked to 10.7 per cent <strong>in</strong> surface <strong>soil</strong> and 9.72 per cent <strong>in</strong> subsurface <strong>soil</strong>. The<br />

highest decrease <strong>in</strong> bulk density <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>soil</strong> was observed <strong>in</strong> <strong>soil</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> K1 farmer (10.65%).<br />

In rabi jowar based cropp<strong>in</strong>g system (Table 6), the average <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> three <strong>soil</strong>s <strong>in</strong>dicated a<br />

decrease <strong>in</strong> bulk density <strong>in</strong> both surface and subsurface <strong>soil</strong>s (1.44 to 1.32 Mg m -3 and 1.48 to<br />

1.34 Mg m -3 , respectively). Am<strong>on</strong>g three <str<strong>on</strong>g>organic</str<strong>on</strong>g> farms, <strong>soil</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> R1 farm showed a highest<br />

reducti<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong> bulk density (12.00%).

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!