Sustainable Soil Fertility Management: Emerging Issues and Future Challenges
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Sustainable Soil Fertility Management: Emerging Issues and Future Challenges

on

  • 2,864 views

Potassium nutrition of crop plants. Why to include nonexchangeable potassium in soil testing ? Emerging nutrient deficiencies in rainfed agriculture,Carbon sequestration strategies: Trends from long ...

Potassium nutrition of crop plants. Why to include nonexchangeable potassium in soil testing ? Emerging nutrient deficiencies in rainfed agriculture,Carbon sequestration strategies: Trends from long term manurial trials,Strategies for soil fertility management

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,864
Views on SlideShare
2,859
Embed Views
5

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
49
Comments
0

2 Embeds 5

http://paper.li 4
http://users.unjobs.org 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Sustainable Soil Fertility Management: Emerging Issues and Future Challenges Sustainable Soil Fertility Management: Emerging Issues and Future Challenges Presentation Transcript

  • Sl. Name of the Institute Name of post From ToNo. Cherukumalli Srinivasa Rao Work Experience1) National Academy of Agricultural Scientist (P) 1992 1993 Research and Management, Hyderabad, India2) Indian Institute of Soil Science, Scientist 1992 1998 Bhopal, India3) Indian Institute of Senior Scientist 1998 2003 Pulses Research, Kanpur, India4) Central Research Senior Scientist 2003 2005 Institute for Dryland Agriculture Hyderabad, India5) Central Research Principal Scientist 2006 Till Institute for Dryland Agriculture date Hyderabad, India6) Director General, International Crops Soil Scientist 2006 Jan, Research (On Deputation) January 2009 Institute for the Semi Arid (3 Years) Research, Patancheru (CGIAR), India7) Tel –Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel One Year Jan 1999 Dec (Post Doctoral) 1999
  • Sustainable Soil FertilityManagement: Emerging Issues and Future Challenges Cherukumalli Srinivasa Rao Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India At International Institute for Tropical Agriculture Ibadan, Nigeria On 30-4-2009
  • Out LinePotassium nutrition of crop plants. Why to includenonexchangeable potassium in soil testing ?Whether nutrient management can break yieldstagnation in grain legumes.Emerging nutrient deficiencies in rainfed agriculture! Aredryland soils are not only thirsty but also hungry ?Carbon sequestration strategies: Trends from long termmanurial trialsCGIAR ExperiencesStrategies for soil fertility management – from Africancontext- Way forward !
  • I) Potassium nutrition of crop plants. Why to include nonexchangeable potassium in soil testing ?Nutrient uptake in long-term fertilizer experiments under intensive cropping systems in IndiaCropping Soil Yield Nutrient uptake (kg/ha/year) type (t/ha) N P K TotalMaize- Incepti 6.8+0.6 240 45 250 535wheat- solscowpea(F)Maize- Molliso 9.5+1.9 260 65 295 620wheat- lscowpea(F)Soybean- Vertisol 6.3 285 44 225 554wheat sSoybean- Alfisols 4.2 220 35 170 425wheat
  • Fertilizer consumption ratios in IndiaConsu 1960 1970 1980 1990 2001 2004 2005mption -61 -71 -81 -91 -02 -05 -06N 1.4 9.0 21 43 59 62 67P2O5 0.4 3.3 7 17 23 24 27K2O 0.2 1.4 4 7 9 11 13Total 2 14 32 68 90 97 107P2O5:K2 0.37: 0.37: 0.33: 0.40: 0.37: 0.39: 0.40:O 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.18 0.18(N=1.0) Food Production in India Sub Continent 50  220 Million Tonnes
  • An illustrative balance sheet of NPK in Indian Agriculture (2001) (balance „000)Nutrient Additions Removal BalanceN 10,933 9,613 1,310P2O5 4,188 3,702 486K2O 1,454 11,657 -10,202Total 16,565 24,971 -8,406 Net Balance of K is Negative
  • Exchangeable and Nonexchangeable Potassium Status in Different Soil Types of India Exchangeable K in different soil types of India Nonexchagneable K in different soil types of India Surface Surface 140 Sub-surface 1200Exchangeable K (mg kg ) Sub-surface )-1 -1 Nonexchangeable K (mg kg 120 1000 100 800 80 600 60 40 400 20 200 0 0 Inceptisols Vertisols Alfisols Inceptisols Vertisols Alfisols Acidic red and lateritic soils, light textured and acidic alluvial and shallow black soils are deficient in K Srinivasa Rao et al., Soil Science (2001)
  • Cumulative K release from Bangalore profile Cumulative K release from Solapur profile under finger millet production system under rabi sorghum based production system 400 0-15 3000 0-15 Cum ulative K releaseCum ulative K release 350 15-30 2500 15-30 300 30-45 30-45 (m g/kg) (m g/kg) 45-60 2000 250 45-60 60-75 1500 200 75-90 60-75 1000 75-90 150 90-105 500 90-105 100 I II III IV V VI VII VIII I II III IV V VI VII VIII Extraction No Extraction No Cumulative K release from Hoshiarpur profile under maize based production systemGreater 2550 Srinivasa Rao et cumulative K releasevariations in K 0-15 al. Indian Soc. 2050 15-30status (mg/kg) 1550 30-45 Soil Sci (2006)mineralogically 45-60 1050different soil 60-75 550types I II III IV V VI VII VIII 75-90 90-105 Extraction No
  • X-Ray diffraction intensity ratio of the peak heights of 001/002 basal reflection in the silt and clay fraction of some A.P.soilsSoil Series Taxonomy Parent Size Fraction Material 50-2 um <2 umKasireddipalli Vertisol Deccan 1.56 1.04 basaltPatancheru Alfisol Granite 1.77 1.80 gneissNalgonda Alfisol Granite 2.00 1.87 gneissMica or illite content in clay or silt fraction of soil is important factor for Ksupplying power of particular soil Srinivasa Rao et al. J. Plant Nutrition and Soil Sci. 1998
  • Exchangeable K (mg/kg) 350 300 250 Continues cropping reduces soil 200 K to minimum levels Vertisol 150 100 50 0 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Successive Crops 2.5 1980 1994 K Buffering Power 2 20 years of cropping reduced K 1.5 buffering capacity of soils in Inceptisol 1 0.5 0 C N NP NPK NPK+FYM Srinivasa Rao et al. Australian J. Soil Sci. (1999) Srinivasa Rao et al. Communications in Soil Pl. An (2001) Srinviasa Rao et al. J. Plant Nutri. Soil Sci. (1994)
  • 4000 3500 K Removal 3000 Change in Soil Kkg K ha-1 2500 Change in soil reserve K is in 2000 tune of crop K uptake 1500 1000 500 0 C N NP NPK NPK+FYM Nonexchangeable K fraction in soil and its release rate is utmost important Srinivasa Rao et al. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems (2001)
  • Nonexchangeable K release rate constants of Inceptisols as influenced by 14years of Rice-Rice cropping, fertilization and manuring in 0.01 M citric acid (Zero order X 102)(Hyderabad) Treatment 1980 1994 0-73 h 0-217 h 0-73 h 0-217 hControl 53 29 33 22100% N 40 26 33 20100% NP 36 23 29 16100% NPK 63 32 52 25100% NPK+FYM 75 37 53 28 Drastic reductions in K release rates from Inceptisol after 14 years of cropping Srinivasa Rao et al. Australian J. Soil Sci. (1999)
  • Severe potassium depletion results in soilclay degradation in rhizosphere of cerealsX Ray Diffractogram of soil clay before and after potassium depletion
  • Categorization of soils based on soil K reserves and K recommendations for different rainfed regions in IndiaCate Exchangeable Non- Locations Recommendationgory K exchangeable K1 Low Low Bangalore, Inclusion of K in fertilization is must as Anantapur fingermillet based production system at Bangalore is K exhaustive and soil K status is low2 Low Medium S.K.Nagar, K fertilization is essential as maize and Ballowal-Saunkri, pearlmillet systems are K exhaustive and Rakh-Dhiansar soil K levels are low.3 Low High Agra, Ranchi, K additions at critical stages of crops Varanasi improve yield levels.4 Medium Low Akola Continuous cotton system needs K addition at critical stages as nonexchangeable K fraction does not contribute to plant K nutrition substantially.5 Medium Medium Phulbani As soils are light textured, maintenance doses of K may be required for upland rice systems6 Medium High Hisar, Arjia, Crops may not need immediate K Faizabad additions.7 High Low Bijapur Long term sorghum system would need K additions after few years8 High Medium Rajkot, Kovilpatti, K application is not required Bellary, Solapur, immediately. Indore9 High High Jhansi, Rewa K application is not required. Srinivasa Rao et al. Australian J. Soil Research (2007)
  • K content in healthy and affected banana leaves and corresponding soil test K in soils of Krishna districtLocation Healthy Affected Range Mean Range MeanK content (%)Nujvid 3.00-3.55 3.25 1.00-1..65 1.25Vijayawada 2.25-3.50 3.10 1.62-1.85 1.73Soil Test K (kg/ha)Nujvid 250-330 286 117-196 145Vijayawada 319-418 395 220-286 234 Drastic reductions in K content of banana in K deficient soils
  • Cassava tuber yield response to major nutrientsTreatm Puthiragoundanpal Paravakkaduents ayam Yield Yield Yield Yield Increase Increase (t/ha) (%) (t/ha) (%)Kc80 (1:1:1) 37.9 - 34.9 -K160 (1:1:2) 43.0 14 42.9 23K240 52.4 38 48.1 38(1:1:2.5)K320 48.2 27 46.8 34(1:1:2.5)C.D (5%) 4.5 3.3 cCommon doses: 90 kg N, 90 kg P2O5, 47 kg Ca, 40 kg S, 6 kg Zn, and 1 kg B/ha Kamaraj et al (2008)
  • K Deficiency •Therefore, nonexchangeable K content in soil should be included in soil testing. •Method for estimation standardized •Results into efficient utilization of costly input which is completely imported AwardsInternational Potash Institute, SwitzerlandIndian Council of Agricultural ResearchNational Academy of Agricultural SciencesIndian Science Congress AssociationIndian Society of Soil ScienceIndian Science Congress
  • II) Whether nutrient management can break yieldstagnation in grain legumes ? 25 20 15 Area (m ha) 10 Production (m t) 5 0 1964 1974 1984 1994 2004 2007 Productivity = around 0.6 t ha-1 (Remained Same) Population in India increased to 1030 millions Per capita grain legume availability decreased from 60 g in 1951 to 28 grams in 2005 ?
  • II) Whether nutrient management can break yieldstagnation in grain legumes ? Constraints in Grain Legume Production Grain legumes continued to be rainfed crops Cultivation on marginal lands Neglect of input application Poor crop management Biotic stresses Lack of extension programme
  • Fig. 1 : Emerging nutrient deficiences as a result of increased productionProduction (mt) 250 200 Food Production Pulse Production 150 100 50 0Nutrient Defic iencies 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 N N N N N N Fe Fe Fe Fe Fe P P P P Zn Zn Zn Zn K K K K S S S Mn Mn Mn B B ? Srinivasa Rao et al. IIPR Bulletin (2003)
  • Available nitrogen content in different soil types in food legume growing regions 0-15cm 300 15-30cmAvailable N (kg ha )-1 250 200 150 100 50 0 Delhi Ranchi Varanasi Sehore Faizabad Gulbarga Hyderabad Bangalore Kanpur Raipur N Deficiency in Chickpea and Fieldpea
  • Available P status in different soil types in food legume growing regions of India 50 45 0-15cmAvailable P (kg ha -1) 40 15-30cm 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Delhi Ranchi Varanasi Sehore Faizabad Gulbarga Bangalore Hyderabad Kanpur Raipur P Deficiency in Chickpea in Greenhouse and Field Conditions Won International Plant Nutrition Institute Prize
  • Available S status in different soil types in chickpea growing regions of India 0-15cm 30 15-30cm 25Available S (kg ha -1) 20 15 10 5 0 ad r r i e re ad i a hi ch as pu pu or rg el lo ab ab an an an eh ai ba D ga R iz er R ar K S ul an Fa yd G V B H Sulphur Deficiency in Lentil and Fieldpea
  • Available zinc status in different soil types in food legume growing regions 1 0-15cm 0.9 15-30cmZinc status (mg kg-1) 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Delhi Ranchi Varanasi Sehore Faizabad Gulbarga Bangalore Hyderabad Kanpur Raipur Zn Deficiency in Chickpea Initial-Later Stages
  • Available iron status of different soil types in food legume growing regions 30 0-15cm 15-30cm 25Iron status (mg kg-1) 20 15 10 5 0 Delhi Ranchi Varanasi Sehore Faizabad Gulbarga Hyderabad Bangalore Raipur Kanpur Iron Deficiency in Chickpea and Lentil
  • Iron Deficiency in Pigeonpea Genotypic Variations in Iron Deficiency in Chickpea Srinivasa Rao et al. IIPR Bulletin (2003)
  • Contribution of different soil layers to available nitrogen Contribution of different soil layers to available P in content in different soil types different soil types 100% 100% 80% 80% 60% 60% 40% 40% 20% 20% 0% Delhi Ranchi Faizabad Gulbarga Hydearabad 0% Raipur Sehore Bangalore Kanpur Varanasi Delhi Ranchi Faizabad Gulbarga Hydearabad Raipur Sehore Bangalore Kanpur Varanasi 0-15cm 0-15cm 15-30cm 15-30cm 30-45cm 30-45cm Contribution of different soil layers to available K in Contribution of different soil layers to available S in dffiernt different soil types soil types 100% 100% Contribution 80% 80%Contribution 60% 60% 40% 40% 20% 20% 0% 0% hi d e i ur r ad a re 0-15cm si ch 0-15cm hi pu d e i ur r ad a re ba or si ch rg el pu np ho ba or na rg el ab np ho an na al D ai ba ab ra an al D ai ba ra ra Ka Se ng R iz R ra Ka Se ea ng ul R iz R 15-30cm ea 15-30cm ul Fa Va Fa Va Ba G yd Ba G yd H H 30-45cm 30-45cm Deep rooted crops such as chickpea and pigeonpea can extract nutrients from sub-soil layers also Srinivasa Rao et al. Indian J.Fertilizers (2004)
  • Genotypic variations in P use efficiency in chickpea* Substantial area of chickpea cultivation in India isconcentrated on marginal and sub marginal lands havinglimited nutrient supply.* Low soil fertility, particularly phosphorus deficiency, is oneof the major constraints in increasing chickpea productivity.* Some genotypes are known to mine the insoluble soil P andutilize it more efficiently while others utilize applied P in abetter manner.* Selecting genotypes with high P uptake efficiency is one ofthe alternative approaches to manage P deficient soils.
  • Srinivasa Rao et al. J. Plant Nutrition (2006)
  • Srinivasa Rao et al. J. Plant Nutrition (2006)
  • Shoot Drymatter Yield of Chickpea Genotypes at Different Levels of Applied P on multi-nutrient deficient Inceptisol 9 Control 8Shoot Yield (g/pot) 13.5 mg/kg 7 6 27mg/kg 5 4 3 2 1 0 GPF 2 GCP 101 GCP 105 GNG 663 DCP 92-3 KPG 59 RSG 888 JG 315 Phule G-5 Pant G- BG 413 BG 256 HK 94-134 Pusa 209 Radhey K 850 Vikash Sadabahar SAK 1- Vijay Genotype Srinivasa Rao et al., J. Plant Nutrition (2006)
  • •Based on these criteria, BG-256 can berecommended under P deficient conditions.•Further, it can be a good source inchickpea breeding program for evolvinghigh P efficient genotypes.
  • Relationship between root dry weight and P Relationship between P influx and Zn uptake in chickpea genotypes at different concentration in chickpea (n=60) levels of added P Control 24 Zn concentration (ug/g shoot) 30 13.5 mg/kg 22 25 27mg/kg 20P uptake (mg/pot) 20 18 15 16 10 14 12 5 10 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 P influx (m g P/g DW/Day) Root dry w eight (g/pot) Better root growth is essential for optimum P nutrition in grain legumes P induced Zn deficiency occurs only at higher levels of P application
  • Effect of P application on Cu concentration in Effect of P application on Zn concentration in chickpea shoot chickpea shoot 6 Cu concentration (ug/g 30 Zn concentration (ug/g 5 25 4 20 shoot) shoot) 15 3 10 2 5 1 0 0 0 13.5 27 0 13.5 27 Applied P (m g/kg soil) Applied P (mg/kg soil) Effect of P application on Fe concentration in Effect of P application on Mn concentration chickpea shoot in chickpea shoot 520 300Fe concentration (ug/g Mn concentration (ug/g 290 500 280 shoot) shoot) 480 270 460 260 250 440 240 420 230 0 13.5 27 0 13.5 27 Applied P (m g/kg soil) Applied P (m g/kg soil) Zn and Cu have positive interaction at lower P levels Fe has negative relation with P levels Mn has positive interaction with P Srinivasa Rao et al. Indian J Food Legumes (2007)
  • Integrated sulphur management in Maize-Chickpea cropping sequence Four years of sulphur management experiment in maize-chickpea sequence FYM and elemental sulphur were the sources Fractionation of sulphur Sulphur use efficiency was studied 20 kg S/ha was recommended on large number of frontline demonstrations and All India Coordinated Research programe on grain legumes Srinivasa Rao et al., Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis (2004a) Srinivasa Rao et al., Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis (2004b) Srinivasa Rao et al., Indian Journal of Food Legumes (2003)
  • Root Architecture and Nutrient Acquisition in Faba beans @ Largest aeroponics laboratory at Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel @ Effects of root pruning: at least 50 % lateral roots along with half tap root is essential for optimum plant growth @ Salinity effected more lateral roots @ Low P concentration affected lateral roots @ K uptake by young root types studied Tap and lateral root volume of faba beans at different Surface area of tap and lateral roots of faba beans at levels of P different levels of P b b c 1.8 0.02mM c 25 0.02mM 1.6 b b 0.2mM Surface area (cm 2) 0.2mM 20 1.4Volume (cm 3) 1mM 1mM 1.2 a 1 15 0.8 b b 10 a 0.6 0.4 a 5 a 0.2 0 0 Tap Laterals Tap Laterals Srinivasa Rao et al. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci (2002. 2003, 2005); Eshel and Srinivasarao Plant and Soil (2001).
  • Conclusions@ Rhizobium inoculation, FYM application,N= 20kg/ha, P2O5=60-80 kg/ha, S= 20 kg/ha;Zn, B and K = depending upon soil test.@Efficient genotypes for low and high inputconditions identified
  • Awards@ International Plant Nutrition Institute-Fertilizer Association of India Award-2006@IPNI Prize-2008@Fellow of Indian Society of Pulses Researchand Development
  • III) Emerging nutrient deficiencies in rainfed agriculture!Are dryland soils are not only thirsty but also hungry ? Maintaining soil and crop productivity in the long term in continuous cropping is a major challenge in rainfed production systems. These regions are characterized by low rainfall, sparse vegetation and poor soil fertility. The productivity of these soils regions depends on the content of organic carbon (SOC), which is a critical component of soil quality (Chander et al. 1997). However, due to high temperature and low rainfall, organic matter rapidly decomposes. Regular additions of organic matter is essential to improve soil organic carbon!
  • Srinivasa Rao and Vittal, Indian J.Fertilizers (2007)
  • Emerging Nutrient Deficiencies in Different Soil Types under Rainfed Production Systems ofIndia Location Limiting Nutrient (Low/Deficient) Varanasi N, Zn, B Faizabad N Phulbani N, Ca, Mg, Zn, B Ranchi Mg, B Rajkot N, P, S, Zn, Fe, B Anantapur N, K, Mg, Zn, B Indore N Rewa N, Zn Akola N, P, S, Zn, B Kovilpatti N, P Bellary N, P, Zn, Fe Bijapur N, Zn, Fe Jhansi N Solapur N, P, Zn Agra N, K, Mg, Zn, B Hisar N, Mg, B SK.Nagar N, K, S, Ca, Mg, Zn, B Bangalore N, K, Ca, Mg, Zn, B Arjia N, Mg, Zn, B Ballowal-Saunkri N, K, S, Mg, Zn Rakh-Dhiansar N, K, Ca, Mg, Zn, B Srinivasa Rao and Vittal, Indian J.Fertilizers (2007)
  • Carbon stocks in soils under diverse rainfed production systems 450.00 Organic Carbon (Mg/ha) 400.00 Inorganic Carbon (Mg/ha) 350.00 Total Carbon (Mg/ha)Carbon (Mg/ha) 300.00 250.00 200.00 150.00 100.00 50.00 0.00 ce um n ze n t et et nu ea tto Ri ill i ll ai h d yb lm m M Co rg un er So ar So ro ng Pe G bi Fi Ra Srinivasa Rao et al., Communications in Soil Science & Plant Analysis (2009)
  • IV) How to improve soil fertility and soil organic carbonin dryland soil ?Availability of biomass is a major problem as it has competitiveusage.Residue left over or recycling in the field is minimal (only rootbiomass)Fertilizer additions are low: varied between 30-50 kg/ha in rainfedagriculture as against above 100 kg/ha in irrigated agriculture inIndiaThus, yield levels are stabilized, factor productivity is less, soils aredegraded and resulted in multi-nutrient deficiencies.Thus maintaining and improving soil organic carbon became majorchallenge in rainfed agriculture !
  • Details of location, soil type and production system of studied location Production AICRPDA State Latitude, Soil type Climate Average SNo system Centre Longitude and Annual based Altitude Rainfall (mm) 1 Groundnut Anantapur Andhra 14 42’ N, 77 40’ E, Alfisols Arid 566 Pradesh 350 m 2 Rabi Sorghum Solapur Maharashtra 17 51’N, 75 32’E, Vertisols Semi- 723 480m arid 3 Finger millet Bangalore Karnataka 12 46’ N, 77 11’ E, Alfisols Semi- 768 810m arid 4 Soybean Indore Madhya 22 51’N, 75 51’E, Vertisols Semi- 900-1000 Pradesh 530m arid 5 Rice Varanasi Uttar Pradesh 25 11’N, 82 51’E. Inceptisols Sub- 1080 hum id 6 Pearlmillet SK Nagar Gujarat 24 30’N, 72 13’E, Entisols Arid 550 152.5m
  • Selected treatments in permanent manurial trials in the studied locations Treatmental detailsLocationAnantapur T1=Control (no fertilizer),Groundnut T2=100% recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF) (20:40:40 N, P2O5, K2O),21 years old T3=50% RDF+ 4t groundnut shells (GNS) ha-1,(1985-2005) T4= 50% RDF+ 4 t FYM ha-1 T5=100% organic (5t FYM ha-1).Bangalore T1-ControlFingermillet T2- FYM @ 10 t/ha26 years old T3- FYM@ 10 t/ha + 50 % NPK(1978-2005) T4-FYM @ 10 t/ha + 100 % NPK T5- Rec.NPK (25:50 : 25 kg NPK /ha – groundnut; 50: 50:25 Kg NPK/ha – fingermilletSolapur T1-ControlRabi Sorghum T2-25 kg N/ha –Urea21 years old T3-50 kg N/ha – Urea(1985-2006) T4-25 kg N/ha – CR T5-25 kg N/ha – FYM T6-25 kg N/ha -CR+25 kg N/ha-Urea T7-25 kg N/ha -FYM+25 kg N/ha-Urea T8-25 kg N/ha -CR+25 kg N/ha-Leucaena T9-25 kg N/ha – Leucaena T10-25 kg N/ha -Leucaena +25 kg N/ha-Urea
  • S.K. Nagar T1-Control;Pearlmillet T2-100% recommended dose of N;18 years T3-50% recommended dose of N (fertilizer);(1988-2006) T4-50% recommended N (FYM); T5-50% recommended N (fertilizer) + 50% recommended N (FYM); T6 –Farmers method (5 t of FYM/ha once in 3 years)Indore T1-Control;Soybean T2-20 Kg N+ 13 Kg P;15 years old T3-30 Kg N+ 20 Kg;(1992-2007) T4-40 Kg N+ 26 Kg; T5-60 Kg N+ 35 kg P; T6-FYM 6t/ha+ N20P13; T7-Soybean residue 5t/ha+N20P13; T8-FYM@6t/ha; T9-Crop residues of Soybean @ 5t/ha.Varanasi T1-Control;Upland Rice T2-100% RDF (inorganic);21 years old T3-50% RDF (inorganic);(1986-2007) T4-100% organic (FYM); T5-50% organic (FYM); T6-50% RDF+ 50%(foliar); T7-50% organic (FYM)+ 50%RDF; T8-Farmers practice
  • Mean annual and seasonal rainfall in relation mean podyields of groundnut across the treatments during 20 years (1985-2005) Srinivasa Rao et al. (2009)
  • Trends in yield levels of groundnut (Alfisol) due to different integrated nutrient management under rainfed conditions (moving averages)
  • 0-20cm 20-40cm 40-60cm 60-80cm 80-100cm 0-20cm 20-40cm 40-60cm 60-80cm 80-100cm 180.0 280 kg/ha 35.0 160.0 30.0 140.0 Available N (kg/ha) Available P (kg/ha) 25.0 120.0 100.0 20.0 80.0 15.0 60.0 10.0 40.0 5.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 Control 100%RDF 50%RDF+4t gnut 50%RDF+4t FYM 5 t FYM /ha Control 100%RDF 50%RDF+4t gnut 50%RDF+4t FYM 5 t FYM /ha shells shells Treatment TreatmentEffect of 20 years of cropping, fertilization, groundnut Effect of 20 years of cropping, fertilization, shells and FYM addition on Available N of Alfisol groundnut shells and FYM addition on Available P profile of Alfisol profile * After 20 years manuring and fertilization, available N was still low in all the treatments. * However available P reached to medium to high range
  • 0-20cm 20-40cm 40-60cm 60-80cm 80-100cm 0-20cm 20-40cm 40-60cm 60-80cm 80-100cm 180.0 16.0 160.0 14.0Available K (kg/ha) 140.0 12.0 Ex. Ca (me/100g) 120.0 10.0 100.0 8.0 80.0 60.0 6.0 40.0 4.0 20.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 Control 100%RDF 50%RDF+4t 50%RDF+4t 5 t FYM/ha Control 100%RDF 50%RDF+4t gnut 50%RDF+4t FYM 5 t FYM /ha gnut shells FYM shells Treatment Treatment 0-20cm 20-40cm 40-60cm 60-80cm 80-100cm 0-20cm 20-40cm 40-60cm 60-80cm 80-100cm 3.5 35.0 3.0 30.0Ex. Mg (me/100g) Available S (kg/ha) 2.5 25.0 2.0 20.0 1.5 15.0 1.0 10.0 0.5 5.0 0.0 0.0 Control 100%RDF 50%RDF+4t gnut 50%RDF+4t FYM 5 t FYM /ha Control 100%RDF 50%RDF+4t 50%RDF+4t 5 t FYM/ha shells gnut shells FYM Treatment Treatment Even after 20 years of manuring, available K, Ca, Mg and S are in the medium range
  • 0-20cm 20-40cm 40-60cm 60-80cm 80-100cm 0-20cm 20-40cm 40-60cm 60-80cm 80-100cm 0.80 0.40 0.70 0.35Available Zn (mg/kg) Available B (mg/kg) 0.60 0.30 0.50 0.25 0.40 0.20 0.30 0.15 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.00 Control 100%RDF 50%RDF+4t gnut 50%RDF+4t FYM 5 t FYM /ha Control 100%RDF 50%RDF+4t gnut 50%RDF+4t FYM 5 t FYM /ha shells shells Treatment Treatment Available Zn Available B Twenty years of integrated nutrient management options followed have not improved available Zn and B contents above critical limits
  • Organic Carbon in Alfisol Profile after 20 Years of Cropping and Manuring 0.7 0.6 0.5 Organic Carbon, % 0-20cm 0.4 20-40cm 40-60cm 0.3 60-80cm 80-100cm 0.2 0.1 0 Cont rol 100%RDF 50%RDF+4t 50%RDF+4t 5 t FYM / ha gnut shells FYM Treatment
  • Microbial Biomass Carbon and POC in Alfisol Profile after 20 Years of Cropping and Manuring 160 0.45 140 0.40 0.35 120 0-20cm 0-20cmMBC(ug/g soil) 0.30 100 20-40cm POC (%) 20-40cm 0.25 40-60cm 80 40-60cm 0.20 60-80cm 60-80cm 60 80-100cm 0.15 80-100cm 40 0.10 20 0.05 0 0.00 Cont rol 100%RDF 50%RDF+4t 50%RDF+4t 5 t FYM / ha Cont rol 100%RDF 50%RDF+4t 50%RDF+4t 5 t FYM / ha gnut shells FYM gnut shells FYM Treatment Treatment MBC POC Srinivasa Rao et al. (2007)
  • 0-20cm 20-40cm 40-60cm 60-80cm 80-100cm 0-20cm 20-40cm 40-60cm 60-80cm 80-100cm 45 8Dehydrgenage (ug TPF/g soil/24 hr) Aryl Sulfatase (ugPNF/g soil/hr) 40 7 35 6 30 5 25 4 20 3 15 2 10 5 1 0 0 Control 100%RDF 50%RDF+4t gnut 50%RDF+4t FYM 5 t FYM /ha Control 100%RDF 50%RDF+4t gnut 50%RDF+4t FYM 5 t FYM /ha shells shells Treatment Treatment 0-20cm 20-40cm 40-60cm 60-80cm 80-100cm 25.0 Effect of 20 years of cropping, Urease (ug NH4/g soil/hr) 20.0 fertilization, groundnut shells and 15.0 FYM addition on a) dehydrogenase, 10.0 b) Aryl sulfatase, c) Urease activity of Alfisol profile at Anantapur 5.0 0.0 Control 100%RDF 50%RDF+4t gnut 50%RDF+4t FYM 5 t FYM /ha shells Treatment
  • Build up of organic carbon in Alfisol (0-20 cm) after 20 years of cropping, fertilization and manuring 0.7Organic carbon (%) 0.6 0.5 Buildup 0.4 Initial 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Control 1 RDF 50%RDF+4t 50%RDF+4t 5 t FYM/ha 00% gnut shells FYM Treatment
  • Bangalore: Long Term Manurial Experiment in Acid Alfisol (1978-2005)
  • Initial Buildup 0.9 0.8 0.7Organic carbon (%) 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Cont rol FYM 10t ha-1 FYM 10 t +50%NPK FYM 10 t +100%NPK 100%NPK Treatment Build up of organic carbon in Alfisol (0-20 cm) after 28 years of Ragi-Ragi cropping, fertilization and manuring (Bangalore)
  • Initial Buildup 0.80 0.70 0.60 Organic carbon (%) 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 Cont rol FYM 10t ha-1 FYM 10 t +50%NPK FYM 10 t +100%NPK 100%NPK -0.10 -0.20 TreatmentBuild up/depletion of organic carbon in Alfisol (0-20 cm) after 28 years of Groundnut-Ragi cropping, fertilization and manuring. (Bangalore)
  • Initial Buildup 0.70 0.60 Organic carbon (%) 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 Cont rol 50 kg N (urea) 25 kg N (crop residue) 25 kg N (FYM) + 25 kg 25 kg N (crop residue) 25 kg N (Leucaena) + + 25kg N (urea) N (urea) + 25kg N (Leucaena) 25kg N (urea) TreatmentBuild up/depletion of organic carbon in Vertisols (0-20 cm) after 20 yearsof Soybean-safflower cropping, fertilization and green leaf manuring andcrop residue addition (Solapur)
  • Initial Buildup 0.40 0.30 Organic carbon (%) 0.20 0.10 0.00 Cont rol 100 %RDN 50 %RDN (Fert ilizer) 50 %N (FYM) 50 %N (Fert ) + 50%N Farmer’s met hod (5 t (Fert ilizer) (FYM) FYM ha-1once in 3 yrs) -0.10 -0.20 Treatment Build up/depletion of organic carbon in Aridisol (0-20 cm) after longterm cropping, nutrient addition through conjunctive use of inorganic fertilizer and FYM and adoption of farmer‟s. (SK Nagar)
  • Build up/depletion of organic carbon in Vertisol (0-20 cm) after 15years of long term cropping, fertilization, and FYM and crop residue addition (Indore)
  • Initial Buildup 0.40 0.35 0.30 Organic carbon (%) 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 Cont rol 100%RDF 50%RDF 100%organic 50%organic 50%RDF+ 50%organic Farmers (inorganic) (inorganic) (FYM) (FYM) 50%(f oliar) (FYM)+ pract ice -0.05 50%RDF TreatmentBuild up/depletion of organic carbon in Inceptisol (0-20 cm) after long- term rice-lentil cropping sequence, fertilization, and FYM addition. (Varanasi)
  • ConclusionsYield reductions in rainfed agriculture is serious issueLow organic carbon and emerging nutrient deficiencies are importantreasonsSoil organic carbon levels can be maintained by regular additions oforganic matter even under arid and semi-arid conditionsOptimum moisture level in soil and nutrient application should besynchronized.
  • V) Watershed Management under Semi Arid Tropics ICRISAT (CGIAR) Experience (2006-2008)Multi disciplinary team (Agronomists, Plant Breeders,Microbiologists, Soil Water Conservation Engineers, SocialScientists, Agro meteorologists, Plant Protection Scientists.CGIAR, NARS, Governmental Agencies, NGOs, Extension agenciesSeveral states in India and Several donors including World BankMicronutrient deficienciesBiofortificationWorked extensively with farmers of semi arid tropics in severalstates and several rainfed crops and also vegetables
  • Several thousands of soil samples collected in farmer participatory mode.Extensive deficiencies of S, B and Zn along with major nutrients5 districts of Karnataka were mapped with GIS for soil fertility.Soil health cards were distributed for 12,000 farmersBased on fertility status, improved method consisting of recommendeddose of NP and S, Zn and B yielded 30-40 per cent higher yields. Srinivasa Rao et al. Indian. J.Dryland Agril. (2008) Srinivasa Rao et al. International J. Crop Production (2008)
  • Organic Carbon NITROGEN Available Phosphorus Nitrogen PhosphorusOrganic Carbon Sample points Sample points Sample points SSP_Boundary SSP_Boundary SSP_Boundary Nitrogen phosphorusOrganic Carbon <VALUE> <VALUE><VALUE> 3.99 - 10.05 < 150 < 0.4 10.05 - 25.03 150 - 250 0.4 - 0.6 25.03 - 42.09 > 250 > 0.6 GIS Mapping Nutrient Deficiencies can be mapped with GPS and these locations can be useful for impact studies and long term monitoring the soil quality parameters
  • Available Potassium Soil Quality IndexPotassium Sample points SSP_BoundaryPotasiumValue < 250 250 - 350 > 350 SQI Sample points SSP_Boundary sqi <VALUE> Fertilization based on GIS mapping 3.32 - 3.76 for up scaling 3.76 - 4.20 4.20 - 4.64 4.64 - 5.08 5.08 - 5.52
  • Economic Benefits Due to Balanced Nutrition in Karnataka--------------------------------------------------------------------------Crop Additional benefit due to increased yield due to balanced fertilization (Rs/ha) (US $)--------------------------------------------------------------------------Fingermillet 6300 130Sunflower 21000 430Maize 16000 320Groundnut 15200 310Soybean 14410 285--------------------------------------------------------------------------
  • LegumeIntercropping
  • Nitrogen Fixation by some Pulse Crops ------------------------------------------------ Crop N2 fixed(kg/ha) --------------------------------------------- Chickpea 3-141 Lentil 10-192 Fieldpea 17-244 Fababean 53-330 ---------------------------------------------
  • Residue Recycling-Soybean
  • Vermicomposting Vermi-wash
  • Weeds can be potential organic sources
  • Nutrient content Vermicompost (%)Organic carbon 9.8-13.4N 0.51-1.61P 0.19-1.02K 0.15-0.73Ca 1.18-7.61Mg 0.093-0.568Zn 0.0042-0.110
  • Bio-Fertilizers-RhizobiumInoculation Eco-friendly
  • On Farm Generation of Organic Matter•Gliricidia leaves contain 3.4% N, 0.1% Pand 1.8% K besides several other nutrients.•Gliricidia plants grown on 700 m long bundscan provide about 30 kg N/ha/year
  • Amount of Sediment, Organic Carbon, N and P Contents in Different Tanks in Medak District of Andhra Pradesh Total number of Tanks = 21 Amount of sediment = 48777 tons Amount of Carbon = 521 tons Amount of Nitrogen = 34.1 tons Amount of Phosphorus = 14.9 tons N Fertilizer Equivalent = Rs 378240 P Fertilizer Equivalent = Rs 285174 B:C Ratio of Desilting of Tanks: 1.23
  • Potential of organic and biological resources in India------------------------------------------------------------Resource Annual potential dung/biomass(m t)------------------------------------------------------------Cattle - 745 Crop Residue-100Buffalo- 258 Forest litter-15.0Goat and Sheep-12.2 Water hyacinth-3.0Pigs-5.0 Rural compost-226Poultry- 3.4 Urban compost-6.0Other livestock-6.1 Total-1410Human beings-10.1 Paroda (1997)------------------------------------------------------------
  • Fertilizer equivalent of organic materials (mtons)---------------------------------------------------------Organic Waste 1991 2011 2025---------------------------------------------------------Crop Residues 0.76 1.10 1.33Animal Wastes 3.70 5.40 6.69Municipal wastes 0.02 0.03 0.04Sewage Wastes 0.15 0.21 0.27Total 4.65 6.75 8.73---------------------------------------------------------
  • VI) African Soils @ Desert Soils @ Sandy Soils @ Acid Soils @ Deep Clay Soils @ Shallow Soils @ Mediterranean Soils
  • Nutrient Uptake by IITA Mandate Crops Banana: 50 N, 15kg P, 175 kg K, 10kg Ca, 25kg Mg (30t/ha); for 58 t/ha nutrient requirements are doubled. Cassava: 12 t FYM/ha, 100-50-100 NPK (30-35 t/ha); 12 t FYM/ha, 75- 50-75 NPK (25-30t/ha), 12t FYM/ha, 50-25-50 NPK (20-25 t/ha) besides Ca, Mg and S (not in the recommendation presently) Soybean: Removal per tonne grain (67kg N, 18kg P2O5, 45kg K2O, 7kg S, 14 kg Ca, 8kg Mg, 80g Zn, 346g Fe, 83 g Mn and 30 g Cu Maize: Removal per tenne grain (26kg N, 14kg P2O5, 36kg K2O) Yam: 10-15 t FYM/ha, 80-60-80 NPK besides secondary and micro nutrients Fertilizer application: Regionally 16 kg/ha in southern Africa, 8kg/ha in eastern Africa, 3 kg/ha in Central Africa and 4 kg/ha inSudano-Sahelian zone. Average nutrient removal in Africa= 30-40kg/ha This compares with 96 kg/ha in S and SE Asia, 101 kg/ha in southAsia, and 78 kg/ha in Latin America (Morris et al., 2007).
  • Issues in Soil Science Research and Way Forward: African SituationsOptimum plant nutrition strategies: Critical nutrients!Integrated nutrient management- On farm generationUpscaling the fertility management practices (Secondaryand Micronutrients) (GIS tools)Mobilization of soil reserve nutrients- Native PSelection of efficient genotypes: Water & nutrient stressWater and nutrient interactions: Water productivityBest bet options: Genotype x Water x Nutrientinteraction should be tapped
  • Issues in Soil Science Research and Way forward: African Situations• Nutrient use efficiency: Key issue (Reducing losses and efficient genotypes)• Plant nutrition and human health:Combating malnutrition• Land degradation, soil health or quality: Long term sustainability• Conservation agriculture: Minimum tillage, nutrient recycling, reduced runoff, low energy, reduced soil loss• Carbon sequestration strategies: Climatic Change
  • AcknowledgementsDirectors of IISS- Bhopal, IIPR-Kanpur, CRIDA-Hyderabad, IndiaDirector General- ICRISAT, IndiaPartners and collaboratorsTel-Aviv UniversityFarmersStudents, trainees, internsDonarsWas elected as Fellow “National Academy of AgriculturalSciences (NAAS)” in 2008 for overall contributions inNRM Research.
  • Thank You Very Much