Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Submerged soil chemistry and management

Submerged soil chemistry

  • Be the first to comment

Submerged soil chemistry and management

  1. 1. Welcome Good afternoon
  2. 2. ՙ No grain is ever produced without water, but too much water tends to spoil the grain and inundation is as injurious to growth as dearth of water ՚ - Narada Smriti XI,19; circa 3000BC
  3. 3. 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 80s 90s Current Population Growth Rate Foodgrain Production Growth Rate %
  4. 4. Abhijit Sarkar Roll No. 20346 Management of waterlogged soils and their impact in agriculture Division of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry Indian Agricultural Research Institute
  5. 5. Introduction Characterization Distribution Impacts on agriculture Management strategies Conclusions Path ahead CONTENTS
  6. 6. What is waterlogged soil ? Waterlogged soils are soils that are saturated with water for a sufficiently long time annually to give the soil the distinctive gley horizons resulting from oxidation-reduction processes: (a) a partially oxidized A horizon high in organic matter, (b) a mottled zone in which oxidation and reduction alternate, and (c) a permanently reduced zone which is bluish green . - Robinson (1949)
  7. 7. Plough sole sub soil Submerged profile Das (2002) Permanently reduced and mottled layer Eh < 400 mV Partially oxidized layer Eh > 400 mV Free surface water
  8. 8. Types of waterlogged soils Agropedia (2010)  Riverine flood waterlogged soil  Oceanic flood waterlogged soil  Seasonal waterlogged soil  Perennial waterlogged soil  Sub-soil waterlogging
  9. 9. Factors affecting formation of waterlogged soil  Climatological : Rainfall and Flood water  Irrigation : Uncontrolled, Unwanted  Drainage : Poor drainage  Topography : Depressed land  Land shape : Saucer shaped land become waterlogged  Height of ground water table: Higher ground water table Agropedia (2010)
  10. 10. Characteristics exhibits in waterlogged soil  Greater amount of soil solution  Reduced oxygen level  Reduced aerobic microbial activity  An altered chemical status of soil Das (2002)
  11. 11. Distribution of waterlogged soil USDA
  12. 12. o North America and Russia (34%of total area), o Tropical swamps,(14%) o Tropical floodplains(10%); o Temperate and tropical rice fields (4% & 12%). Guy Kirk (2004)  Submerged soils covers 5% to 7% of earth land surface.  The total global waterlogged soil is approx. 700 to 1000 Mha .
  13. 13. Present scenario in India States Waterlogged soil (ha) Andhra Pradesh 10654 Arunachal Pradesh 0 Assam 46021 Bihar 188070 Chhattisgarh 521 Goa 0 Gujarat 0 Haryana and Delhi 0 Himachal Pradesh 0 Jammu and Kashmir 0 Jharkhand 3321 Karnataka 0 Kerala 0 Madhya Pradesh 333 States Waterlogged soil (ha) Maharashtra 0 Manipur 8517 Meghalaya 1606 Mizoram 0 Nagaland 0 Orissa 242838 Punjab 0 Sikkim 0 Rajasthan 4108 Tamil Nadu 0 Tripura 14721 Uttar Pradesh 131428 Uttaranchal 0 West Bengal 240480 Total = 0.99 Mha ICAR (2011)
  14. 14. INDIA WATERLOGGED SOIL MAJOR WATERLOGGED SOIL
  15. 15. Properties of waterlogged soil Physical i. Oxygen depletion ii. CO2 accumulation iii. Compaction iv. Increasing BD v. Massive structure vi. Lowering diffusion coefficient of gases Electro-chemical i. Soil-pH ii. Increase specific conductance iii. Decrease redox potential (Eh) Biological i. Reduced aerobic microbial activity ii. Mineralization iii. Immobilization Chemical i. Soil reduction ii. Micronutrient toxicity (cationic) Waterlogged soil Das (2002)
  16. 16. Normal soil structure Increased bulk density, compaction, lesser porosity Physical properties Nishiuchi (2012) Depletion of oxygen
  17. 17. mmhoscm-1 meqliter-1 Weeks of submergence The specific conductance of the solution of most soils increase after submergence, attain a maximum, and decline to a fairly stable value, which is varies with the nature and properties of soils Ponnamperuma (1972) Specific conductance in waterlogged soil Total alkalinity Ca2+ +Mg2+ +NH4 + +Na+ +K+ Fe2+ +Mn2+
  18. 18. Normal soil Waterlogged soil Soil pH Ponnamperuma (1972) SoilpH Waterlogged week Soil pH tends to neutral
  19. 19. Redoxpotential(mV) Waterlogging time (days) Redox potential Eh=E0+RT/nF*ln(Ox)/(Red) -Nernst equation E0=Standard redox potential F=Faraday const.(96500 coulombs/equivalent) R=Gas constant(8.314 J/deg/mole) T=Absolute temp. n= Number of electron Eh decrease Yaduvanshi et al. (2012) Eh(mV) = -59 pH
  20. 20. Reduction Redox potential (mV) O2 H2O +380 to +320 NO - 3 N2 Mn4+ Mn2+ +280 to +220 +280 to +220 Fe3+ Fe2+ +180 to +150 SO 4 2- S2- -120 to -180 CO2 CH4 -200 to -280 H2 O H2 -200 to -420 Das (2009) Critical redox potential values of some important oxidized components in waterlogged soil
  21. 21. Time (days) Concentration(notinscale) Nutrients behavior during waterlogging Das (2002)
  22. 22. Change in N concentration as a result of waterlogging in a clay loam soil Hocking et al. (1985)
  23. 23. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Nitrogen (ppm) 1000 800 600 400 200 0.00 Waterlogging days Nitrogen loss Nitrate nitrogen Nitrite nitrogen Ammonium nitrogen N unaccounted Patric and Mahapatra (1968) Nitrogen transformation after waterlogging
  24. 24. Nitrogen movement in waterlogged soil
  25. 25. Weeks of submergence P(ppm) 420 360 300 240 180 120 60 0 P-ppm Al-P Fe-P Ca-P RS Fe-P Waterlogged soil Air dry soil Mahapatra (1966) Transformation of inorganic P in waterlogged soil Ponnamperuma (1972)
  26. 26. Critical limit 4.5 mg/ kg Waterlogging caused a 6 fold increase in DTPA Fe conc. In both soils at 21 days after waterlogging compared with drained condition Yaduvanshi et al. (2012) Iron toxicity with waterlogging
  27. 27. 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 0 d WL 7 d WL 14 d WL 21 d WL Days DTPAMn(mg/kg) pH 8.5 - HD2009 pH 8.5 - KRL3-4 pH 9.2 - HD2009 pH 9.2 - KRL 3-4 Critical limit 1.0 mg/kg Waterlogging caused a 12-15 fold increase in DTPA-Mn in both the soils at 21 days after waterlogging Yaduvanshi et al. (2012) Manganese toxicity with waterlogging
  28. 28. Period of flooding N P K Ca Mg Na Fe Mn Zn Drained 14.8 1.8 14.6 2.7 1.6 3.3 257 244 145 2 14.0 1.1 7.5 2.6 1.3 5.7 415 325 108 4 12.5 0.9 5.9 2.3 1.2 6.0 480 396 85 6 12.0 0.8 5.6 2.0 1.1 6.3 538 480 63 LSD (P=0.05) 0.9 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 45 41 11 Mineral composition Deficiency Toxicity mg/g dry matter mg/ kg dry matter Sharma and Swarup (1987) Effects of short-term flooding on mineral composition of wheat roots
  29. 29. Grain yield with waterlogging Yaduvanshi et al. (2012)
  30. 30. Gupta et al. (2009) Reduced grains yield due to waterlogging
  31. 31. Crop Yield (t ha-1) Normal lands Salt affected lands Waterlogged lands Paddy 39.9 21.8 (45) 23.0 (42) Wheat 26.0 15.8 (40) 18.6 (38) Cotton 16.3 6.1 (63) 3.7 (77) Sugarcane 636.8 330.2 (48) 247.5 (61) Crop yield (t ha-1) and losses (%) under water logging and soil salinity Joshi (1994)
  32. 32. Wilting of sunflower during summer waterlogging Spring waterlogging of poorly drained field of peas and injury sustained by leaves of a pea plant after several days waterlogging Affected crop growth Jackson (2003)
  33. 33. Jackson (2003)
  34. 34. Waterlogged soil
  35. 35. Impacts of Climate Change Reduction in snow cover Rise in sea level Increase in frequency of extreme events Change in biodiversity Decline in crop yield Increase in global hunger
  36. 36. Management of waterlogged soil  Leveling of land  Mechanical drainage  Controlled irrigation  Flood control measures  Plantation of trees having high transpiration rate  Check the seepage in the canals and irrigation channels  Selection of crops and their proper varieties  Sowing on bunds or ridges  Nutrient management Leveling of land Controlled irrigation Proper varieties Nutrient management Biodrainage
  37. 37. Sowing on raised bed in waterlogged soil GRDC (2005) Raised bed
  38. 38. Depth(cm) Bulk density (g cm -1) Hydraulicconductivity(mmh-1) Geometric mean hydraulic conductivity GRDC (2005) Bulk density and Hydraulic conductivity increase as a result of raised bed farming system
  39. 39. Crop type and area Yield(tha-1) GRDC (2005) Raised bed production of different crops
  40. 40. Leveling of land Laser Land Leveler Terra-Track 24 Furrow Grader and leveler Ezigrader
  41. 41. Pumping of excess soil water by deep-rooted plants using their bio-energy • Fast growing • Luxurious water consumption CSSRI Tech. Bull. (2008) CSSRI Tech. Bull. (2008) What is bio-drainage? Criteria of bio-drainage plants :
  42. 42. Different Bio-drainage plants Syzygium cuminii Pongamia pinnata Terminalia arjuna Casuriana glauca Eucalyptus tereticornis CSSRI Tech. Bull. (2008)
  43. 43. With bio-drainage Without bio-drainage Grain Straw Yield(tha-1) 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Wheat yield obtained with and without Eucalyptus tereticornis plantation The strip plantation sequestered 15.5 t ha-1 carbon during the first rotation 5 years 4 months Wheat yield increase 3 - 4 times from adjacent waterlogged soil without Eucalyptus sp. Ram (2011)
  44. 44. Arrangement Area Species Location Factor balancing recharge and discharge of groundwater For minimizing waterlogged soil  Reducing GW recharge  Increasing GW discharge Anonymous (1997)
  45. 45. Installation of pipes Corrugated pipes with filter Sump (for collection of drainage water)
  46. 46. Increase in rice yield and cropping intensity as a result of waterlogging control through sub-surface drainage Location Before drainage After drainage EC (dS m-1) Yield (t ha-1) Cropping intensity (%) EC (dS m-1) Yield (t ha-1) Cropping intensity (%) Konakki 5.7 3.7 70 2.8 5.6 130 Uppugun duru 4.8 4.3 77 2.9 5.6 165 Islampur 12 1.9 58.2 6.0 3.0 59.4 Sindhan ur 8.4 2.2 141 2.6 3.7 191 Gorebal 6.5 2.3 - 0.9 7.2 - Gupta et al. (2004)
  47. 47. Year Ece(dSm-1)andGrainyield(tha-1) Grain yield ECe Management with closed sub-surface drainage Subba Rao et al. (2009)
  48. 48. Wheat crop without and with drainage respectively without drainage drainage CSSRI Tech. Bull. (2008)
  49. 49. Crops Tolerant varieties Adaptability pH Ece (dS m-1) Rice CSR 10, 11, 12, 13 9.8 – 10.2 6 – 11 CSR 19, 23, 27, 30, 36 9.4 – 9.8 6 – 11 CSR 1, 2, 3, 4, SR 26 B, Sumati - 6 – 9 Wheat KRL 1-4, 3-4, 210, 213, WH 157 < 9.3 6 – 10 Raj 3077, KRL 19 <9.3 6 – 10 Barley DL 200, Ratna, BH 97, DL 348 8.8 – 9.3 - Indian musterd (Raya) Pusa Bold, Varuna 8.8 – 9.2 6 – 8 Kranti, CS 52, CS 330 -1 8.8 – 9.3 6 – 9 CST 609B 10, CS 54 8.8 – 9.3 6 – 9 Gram Karnal chana < 9.0 < 6 Sugarbeet Ramonskaaya 06, Maribo Resistapoly 9.5 – 10 < 6.5 Sugarcane Co 453, Co 1341 < 9.0 < 10 CSSRI (2006)
  50. 50. Yadav (2006)  Minimal amendment requirement  Stagnation of water  Dilution of root zone salinity  Extensive root system Why should we go for rice ?
  51. 51. Soil properties as affected by rice culture Original soil After experiment Without rice With rice pH EC (dS m-1) pH EC (dS m-1) pH EC (dS m-1) 10.3 93.6 9.6 68.6 8.9 28.6 9.5 46.0 8.9 26.3 8.3 1.2 9.0 29.9 8.4 9.5 8.2 0.6 8.4 10.5 8.1 1.8 7.2 0.2 Chhabra and Abrol (1977)
  52. 52. Aerenchyma formation , but HOW? Nishiuchi (2012)
  53. 53. Orange precipitation and black dots on rice roots due to (iron oxide) MnO2 during waterlogging condition in India When rice is grown in these soils they escape Fe toxicity by Fe precipitation due to oxygen diffusion from roots due to extensive aerenchyma. Growing rice in WL soils could be a cheap way to evaluate potential Fe toxicity in these soils. DTPA-Fe increased 6x; DTPA - Mn increased 15x in these WL soils after 21d (Yaduvanshi et al.). Orange Fe (iron oxide) precipitation on rice roots
  54. 54. Aerenchyma formation of Maize Hypertrophic lenticels at the stem base of young Apple plants Formation of adventitious roots at the soil surface by plants Jackson (2003) Survival of plants Sunflower Maize Mangrove
  55. 55. Nutrient management
  56. 56. Treatment Ammonia loss(%) Soil pH(water) T0 0 5.40 T1 42.87 7.21 T2 26.39 6.95 T3 19.85 7.03 T4 25.28 7.09 T0 T1 T2 T3 T4 Soil alone Urea without additives Urea+175 ml sago waste water+0.75g zeolite Urea+175 ml sago waste water+1.00g zeolite Urea+175 ml sago waste water Omar et al. (2010) Nutrient management in waterlogged soil
  57. 57. Treatment NH4-N (ppm) NO3-N (ppm) T0 12.07 1.55 T1 78.09 22.80 T2 177.87 34.00 T3 166.50 38.76 T4 126.78 24.76 Nutrient management in waterlogged soil T0 T1 T2 T3 T4 Soil alone Urea without additives Urea+175 ml sago waste water+0.75g zeolite Urea+175 ml sago waste water+1.00g zeolite Urea+175 ml sago waste water Omar et al. (2010)
  58. 58. Dailyammonialoss (%ofappliednitrogen) Days of volatilization (days) Treatments Omar et al. (2010) Minimizing ammonia volatilization in waterlogged soils through mixing of urea with zeolite and sago waste water
  59. 59.  Application of sulphate containing fertilizers control CH4 release from waterlogged soil Ammonium sulphate Urea Cai et al. (1997) Decrease in methane emission from waterlogged soils resulted nutrient management by sulphur containing nitrogenous fertilizers
  60. 60. Agro-ecological interactions in “Rice-Fish” culture Improve fertility of the ecosystem by increasing nutrient cycling and availability Organic matter, N, K were all higher in the fields of rice-fish culture Increases of N concentration in rice grain by 5% and N uptake by 10% It was demonstrated that reduction of N loss to some extent from rice-fish cultured field by lowering pH significantly (0.3-0.6 units) Application of triple superphosphate (100 kg ha-1) cause 1.3 t ha-1 higher yield in rice -fish ecosystem than control IRRI report (1996)
  61. 61.  Waterlogging causes lowering of redox potential, neutralized soil pH, N P K deficiency and micronutrient toxicity.  Except rice, yield of other crops severely affected by waterlogging and submergence.  Waterlogging can be efficiently control by forming different land configuration, mechanical as well as bio-drainage, controlling irrigation and different flood control measures.  Tolerant or resistant varieties and proper nutrient management would be much more effective during management of waterlogged soil. Conclusions
  62. 62.  Detailed study about the interaction mechanisms of microbes and different soil constituents in waterlogged soil is needed in order to have a better understanding of microbial activity in waterlogged soils.  Different new methods should be innovate to control the ground water recharge from different water resources.  Further study should be required to estimate the release characteristics of different micronutrients.  Different new methods should be introduced for running cultivation practices during waterlogged situation. Path ahead …
  63. 63. Thank you....

×