Land Responses to Different Land Management Practices in Shwe Taung, Mandalay Region

1. Land Responses to Different Land
Management Practices in Shwe Taung,
Mandalay Region
Yinn Mar Soe
(Myanmar)

2. Outlines
 Background
 Objectives
 Materials & Methods
 Results & Discussion
 Conclusions
 Suggestion
2

3. Background
Sustainable Land Management(SLM)-
Land management issues
-for sustainable intensification of food & fiber
systems
- for rehabilitation of degraded crop, pasture,
forestlands (FRP, 2005)
-necessary to meet requirements of a growing
population
- pertain to most significant land issues –
sustaining soil productivity & averting land
degradation (FRP, 2006)
3

4. Solution for sustainability - soil quality concept offering
itself as a tool for studying soil responses to
different management practices
(Schjønning et al., 2004)
Soil quality - how well soil does what we want it to do
- considered as a cognitive concept - any
evaluation of some property / function in soil
necessarily involves values & priorities
Soil Quality Indicators(SQIs)
4

5. Link between soil quality & sustainability - very important
- soil quality not remain an abstract concept
- but to be strived for by management
(Bouma et al., 1998)
Schjønning et al. (2004) - explained “soil quality
indicators in sustainability system” for threshold
level deciding management threshold step-by-step
5

6. Solution for sustainability - soil quality concept offering
itself as a tool for studying soil responses to
different management practices
(Schjønning et al., 2004)
Soil quality - s how well soil does what we want it to do
- considered as a cognitive concept - any
evaluation of some property / function in
soil necessarily involves values &
priorities
6

7. SLM - cannot be addressed without evaluating soil
attributes (i.e. indicators)
- but putting the focus on the effects of
management may establish a more relevant
foundation for soil quality concept
7

8. Objective
Major objective- To assess soil responses due to
different land management practices
Specific objectives-
• To identify the soil physical & chemical properties of soil
• To inform the best management practices for sustainable
production in Shwe Taung
• To develop the soil quality indicator for the sustainability in
these land management practiced by Shwe Taung
8

9. Soil Analyses
July-Oct , 2011
Materials & Methods
Study Site – Shwe Taung, Mandalay Region, Myanmar
(around 21° 16’ N 96° E) , 337 ft asl
9
Soil Sampling
13th July, 2011
Soil Survey
15th May 2011
Design – RCB with 4 replications

10. sampling from 0-
15 cm and 15-30
cm depths
Packing sample samples from 0-15 cm
and 15-30 cm soil depths
Systematically
preparation
Disturbed
samples
Randomed
disturbed sampling
samples from 0-15
cm and 15-30 cm soil
depths
Undisturbed
soil samples
Undisturbed soil samples sampling
Disturbed soil samples sampling
10

11. Soil Properties Analysis
Sr.no Properties Method
1 Soil Bulk density (kgm-3) Core Method
2 Particle density Pycnometer Method
3 Total porosity (%) Baruah and Barthakur, 1999
4 Soil Organic Matter Walkley and Black Method
5 Soil Aggregate Stability White,1993
6 Soil pH (H2O 1:5) Baruah and Barthakur, 1999
7 Electrical Conductivity (EC)(dS/m) Van rust et. Al (2006
8 Soil Total Nitrogen (STN%) Kjeldahl method
9 Total CaCO3 (%) van rust et. Al (2006)
10 C:N Bashour and Sayegh, 2007
11 Soil Texture Pipette Method
12 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity(cm day-1) Darcy Law apparatus
11

12. Table.1 Different Land Use and Soil Management Practices in Shwe-Daung
Land Use and Soil
Management Practices
(L)
Land Use Soil Management Practices
L1 Pasture Grassland for Cattle
L2 Forest Nature
L3 Cultivated land
Irrigated Cotton, 20 years practiced
(RF)
L4 Cultivated land Rainfed Cotton, 20 year practiced (RF)
L5 Cultivated land Irrigated Cotton-Rice Rotation (FF)
L6 Cultivated land Rice-Legume Rotation (RF)
L7 Cultivated land Irrigated Cotton-Rice Rotation(RF)
L8 Cultivated land Rainfed Cotton(FF) 12

13. Table.2 Soil quality indicators with critical level for agriculture
Soil Quality Indicators Critical level for agriculture Reference
Soil bulk density (kg/m3)
Loams and clay loams (1100-1500
kg/m3) (1100-1300 kg/m3), sandy
(1400-1800 kg/m3) (1300-1700 kg/m3),
organic soils (500 kg/m3)(400 kg/m3)
Baruah and Barthakur (1999)
Bashour and Sayegh (2007)
Soil particle density (kg/m3) The standard value – 2.65 kg/m3
Baruah and Barthakur (1999) Hillel
(1998)
Soil porosity (%) 30-60 %, 30-70 %
Baruah and Barthakur (1999)
Foth (1990)
Soil organic matter (%)
0.344 % (very sandy arid soils) , 86%
(peats and mucks ), <2% for tropical
soil
Baruah and Barthakur (1999),
Barrow (1991)
Soil Aggregate Stability
Increase in > 2 mm size class for
tropical
Castro Filho et al., 2002
Soil pH (H2O, 1:2)
Soil pH 5.5-6.5, Plants grow best in the
range of 5.0 to 8.5
Pansu and Gautheyrou (2006),
Wheet (2004)
Soil electrical conductivity
(dS/m)
Yield of most crops restricted between 4
and 8 dS/m. Sensitive plants (e.g. beans,
carrots) may be affected between 2 and
4, while some tolerant crops (e.g.
barley, cotton) may yield satisfactorily
between 8 and 16 dS/cm
Marshall and Holmes, 1979
13
Soil Quality Indicators Critical level for agriculture Reference
Soil organic carbon (%)
1.10-1.45 % depending on the soils
and type of vegetation
Pansu and Gautheyrou (2006)
Soil total nitrogen (%)
Its amount on cultivated soil is 0.03-
0.04 % by weight.
Mengel and Kirkby (1987),
Tisdale et al. (1995)
Corg/Nt The average value – 10-15 Baruah and Barthakur (1999)
Total CaCO3 (%)
Total CaCO3 was above 20 % , active
CaCO3 was more than 10 % which
affect soil physical and chemical
properties.
Bashour andSayegh (2007)
Soil texture
Fine textured soil (loams and clay
loams)
Baruah and Barthakur (1999)
Saturated hydraulic
conductivity (cm/day)
The infiltration capacities of many
tropical soils may change from over
2400 cm/day to less than 240
cm/day. 48 cm/day showed soil
compact condition.
Greenland and Lal (1981)
Trouse and Baver (1965)

14. Data Analysis
 SPSS–version 17.0
 LSD at 5 % level
 Correlation analysis and factor analysis
14
14

15. Results and Discussion
15
15

16. L1 - Pasture, L2 - Natural Forest, L3 - Irrigated Cotton, L4 - Rainfed Cotton, L5 - Irrigated
Cotton-Rice Rotation, L6 - Rice-Legume Rotation, L7- Irrigated Cotton-Rice Rotation (SFF),
L8 - Rainfed Cotton (SFF)
Figure.1 Effect of different Land Use and soil management practices on Soil Bulk
Density (BD)
16
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8
Soilbulkdensity(kgm-3)
Land Use and Soil Management Practices
0-15 cm cv% 8.22 Pr≥F **
LSD(0.05) 209.3
15-30 cm cv% 4.45 Pr≥F **
LSD(0.05) 118.4
0-30 cm cv% 6.72 Pr≥F **
LSD(0.05) 174.9

17. Figure.3 Effect of Land Use and Soil Management Practices on Soil Porosity (SP)
(%)
17
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8
Soilporosity%
Land Use and Soil Management Practices
0-15 cm cv% 24.31 Pr≥F **
LSD(0.05) 9.97
15-30 cm cv% 16.2 Pr≥F **
LSD(0.05) 5.86
0-30 cm cv% 21.6 Pr≥F **
LSD(0.05) 8.34
L1 - Pasture, L2 - Natural Forest, L3 - Irrigated Cotton, L4 - Rainfed Cotton, L5 - Irrigated
Cotton-Rice Rotation, L6 - Rice-Legume Rotation, L7- Irrigated Cotton-Rice Rotation (SFF),
L8 - Rainfed Cotton (SFF)

18. Figure.4 Effect of Land Use and Soil Management Practices on Soil Organic
Matter (% SOM)
18
18
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8
Soilorganicmatter(%)
Land Use and Soil Management Practices
0-15 cm cv% 32.03 Pr≥F **
LSD(0.05) 0.57
15-30 cm cv% 38.37 Pr≥F **
LSD(0.05) 0.52
0-30 cm cv% 38.2 Pr≥F **
LSD(0.05) 0.60
L1 - Pasture, L2 - Natural Forest, L3 - Irrigated Cotton, L4 - Rainfed Cotton, L5 - Irrigated
Cotton-Rice Rotation, L6 - Rice-Legume Rotation, L7- Irrigated Cotton-Rice Rotation (SFF),
L8 - Rainfed Cotton (SFF)

19. Figure.5 Effect of Land Use and Soil Management Practices on Soil Aggregate
Stability (SAS)
19
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8
SoilAggregateStability
Land Use and Soil Management Practices
0-15 cm cv% 20.36 Pr≥F **
LSD(0.05) 0.08
15-30 cm cv% 39.19 Pr≥F **
LSD(0.05) 0.12
0-30 cm cv% 29.34 Pr≥F **
LSD(0.05) 0.11
L1 - Pasture, L2 - Natural Forest, L3 - Irrigated Cotton, L4 - Rainfed Cotton, L5 - Irrigated
Cotton-Rice Rotation, L6 - Rice-Legume Rotation, L7- Irrigated Cotton-Rice Rotation (SFF),
L8 - Rainfed Cotton (SFF)

20. Figure.6 Effect of Land Use and Soil Management Practices on Soil pH
20
20
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8
SoilpH(H2O,1:2)
Land Use and Soil Management Practices
0-15 cm cv% 8.82 Pr≥F **
LSD(0.05) 0.91
15-30 cm cv% 4.86 Pr≥F **
LSD(0.05) 0.54
0-30 cm cv% 6.94 Pr≥F **
LSD(0.05) 0.74
L1 - Pasture, L2 - Natural Forest, L3 - Irrigated Cotton, L4 - Rainfed Cotton, L5 - Irrigated
Cotton-Rice Rotation, L6 - Rice-Legume Rotation, L7- Irrigated Cotton-Rice Rotation (SFF),
L8 - Rainfed Cotton (SFF)

21. Figure.7 Effect of Land Use and Soil Management Practices on total CaCO3 (%)
21
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8
TotalCaCO3(%)
Land Use and Soil Management Practices
0-15cm cv% 35.64 Pr≥F **
LSD(0.05) 1.97
15-30cm cv% 38.52 Pr≥F **
LSD(0.05) 2.13
0-30cm cv% 34.84 Pr≥F **
LSD(0.05) 1.92
L1 - Pasture, L2 - Natural Forest, L3 - Irrigated Cotton, L4 - Rainfed Cotton, L5 - Irrigated
Cotton-Rice Rotation, L6 - Rice-Legume Rotation, L7- Irrigated Cotton-Rice Rotation (SFF),
L8 - Rainfed Cotton (SFF)

22. Figure.8 Effect of Land Use and Soil Management Practices on Soil Electrical
Conductivity (EC)
22
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8
SoilElectricalConductivity(dS/m)
Land Use and Soil Management Practices
0-15 cm cv% 147.76 Pr≥F **
LSD(0.05) 2.29
15-30 cm cv% 91.2 Pr≥F **
LSD(0.05) 0.99
0-30 cm cv% 134.25 Pr≥F **
LSD(0.05) 1.77
L1 - Pasture, L2 - Natural Forest, L3 - Irrigated Cotton, L4 - Rainfed Cotton, L5 - Irrigated
Cotton-Rice Rotation, L6 - Rice-Legume Rotation, L7- Irrigated Cotton-Rice Rotation (SFF),
L8 - Rainfed Cotton (SFF)

23. Figure.10 Effect of Land Use and Soil Management Practices on Soil Total
Nitrogen (STN)
23
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8
SoilTotalNitrogen(%)
Land Use and Soil Management Practices
0-15 cm cv% 18.63 Pr≥F **
LSD(0.05) 0.22
15-30 cm cv% 24.2 Pr≥F **
LSD(0.05) 0.28
0-30 cm cv% 20.94 Pr≥F **
LSD(0.05) 0.25
L1 - Pasture, L2 - Natural Forest, L3 - Irrigated Cotton, L4 - Rainfed Cotton, L5 - Irrigated
Cotton-Rice Rotation, L6 - Rice-Legume Rotation, L7- Irrigated Cotton-Rice Rotation (SFF),
L8 - Rainfed Cotton (SFF)

24. Figure.11 Effect of Land Use and Soil Management Practices on Corg/Nt
24 24
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8
Corg/Nt
Land Use and Soil Management Practices
0-15 cm cv% 33.94 Pr≥F **
LSD(0.05) 0.44
15-30 cm cv% 43.04 Pr≥F **
LSD(0.05) 0.44
0-30 cm cv% 41.28 Pr≥F **
LSD(0.05) 0.48
L1 - Pasture, L2 - Natural Forest, L3 - Irrigated Cotton, L4 - Rainfed Cotton, L5 - Irrigated
Cotton-Rice Rotation, L6 - Rice-Legume Rotation, L7- Irrigated Cotton-Rice Rotation (SFF),
L8 - Rainfed Cotton (SFF)

25. Table.3 Effect of Land Use and Soil Management Practices on Soil Hydraulic
Conductivity (HC)
Land Use and Soil
Management Practice
0-15cm 15-30cm 0-30cm
HC
(m/
day)
HC
(min)
HC
(max)
HC
(m/
day)
HC
(min)
HC
(max)
HC
(m/
day)
HC
(min)
HC
(max)
L1 .011 .006 .020 .011 .000 .033 .011 .003 .026
L2 .027 .020 .043 .016 .013 .031 .022 .016 .037
L3 .006 .000 .015 .004 .002 .018 .005 .000 .017
L4 .104 .083 .190 .037 .024 .075 .071 .053 .132
L5 .083 .036 .144 .012 .009 .031 .048 .023 .088
L6 .005 .002 .018 .005 .003 .017 .005 .002 .017
L7 .009 .004 .028 .006 .000 .031 .008 .002 .030
L8 .026 .017 .036 .005 .000 .012 .016 .008 .024
25 25

26. L4 (Rainfed Cotton) - an appropriate LU & SMP for
sustainability of agricultural soils
 lowest soil bulk density (BD kg m-3)
 lowest soil particle density (PD kg m-3)
 highest soil porosity (SP %)
 fastest rate of saturated hydraulic conductivity (HC cm day-1)
 greatest total CaCO3 content (%)
 best soil aggregate stability (SAS)
Conclusion-1

27. 27
Table- 4 Correlation between all parameters at 0-15 cm soil depth
EC
(dS/m)
HC(cm/
day)
BD(kg/
m3)
PD(kg/
m3)
SP % SOM% SOC% STN% Corg/Nt sand % silt % clay % Soil pH SAS
Total
CaCO3
%
EC
(dS/m)
1
HC(cm/
day)
.104 1
BD(kg/
m3)
-.345 -.606
**
1
PD(kg/
m3)
-.398
*
.029 -.004 1
SP % .186 .573
**
-.930
**
.369
*
1
SOM% -.186 -.265 -.025 .014 .022 1
SOC% -.124 -.058 -.149 -.126 .092 .906
**
1
STN% -.218 -.204 .087 -.140 -.143 .428
*
.397
*
1
Corg/Nt -.027 -.050 -.238 .054 .244 .576
**
.625
**
-.197 1
sand % -.096 .169 -.211 .482
**
.365
*
.337 .291 -.114 .370
*
1
silt % .210 -.409
*
.247 -.498
**
-.403
*
-.058 -.074 -.043 -.008 -.583
**
1
clay % -.129 .271 -.047 .032 .053 -.299 -.232 .171 -.391
*
-.433
*
-.480
**
1
Soil pH .207 -.124 .301 -.171 -.344 -.145 -.189 -.072 -.066 -.357
*
.341 .008 1
SAS .487
**
.335 -.283 -.442
*
.112 -.453
**
-.295 -.217 -.131 -.553
**
.343 .216 .242 1
Total
CaCO3
%
.656
**
.435
*
-.414
*
-.548
**
.199 -.415
*
-.187 -.206 -.105 -.422
*
.324 .096 .178 .894
**
127

28. Table.5 Correlation between all parameters at 15-30 cm soil depth
28
EC
(dS/m)
HC(cm/
day)
BD(kg/
m3)
PD(kg/
m3)
SP % SOM% SOC% STN% Corg/Nt sand % silt % clay % Soil pH SAS
Total
CaCO3
%
EC
(dS/m)
1
HC(cm/
day)
.808**
1
BD(kg/
m3)
-.681**
-.580**
1
PD(kg/m
3)
-.511**
-.195 .386*
1
SP % .475**
.526**
-.878**
.100 1
SOM% .067 .076 -.342 -.103 .309 1
SOC% .046 .079 -.292 -.063 .275 .991**
1
STN% -.009 -.014 -.156 -.171 .071 .214 .221 1
Corg/Nt .079 .040 -.300 -.055 .292 .766**
.752**
-.217 1
sand % .323 .479**
-.447*
-.040 .470**
.188 .159 .079 .107 1
silt % .095 -.043 -.062 -.122 -.013 -.086 -.078 .027 -.087 -.634**
1
clay % -.471**
-.473**
.567**
.193 -.500**
-.101 -.079 -.120 -.011 -.321 -.529**
1
Soil pH .022 -.212 .292 -.334 -.492**
-.195 -.214 -.206 -.053 -.491**
.477**
-.045 1
SAS .692**
.415*
-.740**
-.591**
.497**
.189 .141 .045 .206 .167 .123 -.334 .127 1
Total
CaCO3
%
.731**
.520**
-.782**
-.663**
.507**
.165 .100 -.042 .181 .381*
.054 -.485**
.130 .893**
128

29. Table.6 Correlation between all parameters at 0-30 cm soil depth
EC
(dS/m)
HC(cm/
day)
BD(kg/
m3)
PD(kg/m
3)
SP % SOM% SOC% STN% Corg/Nt sand % silt % clay % Soil pH SAS
Total
CaCO3
%
EC
(dS/m)
1
HC(cm/
day)
.212 1
BD(kg/
m3)
-.439**
-.570**
1
PD(kg/m
3)
-.401**
-.020 .189 1
SP % .274*
.555**
-.910**
.233 1
SOM% -.070 -.067 -.225 -.041 .198 1
SOC% -.030 .082 -.274*
-.084 .230 .949**
1
STN% -.127 -.106 -.050 -.157 -.027 .323**
.311*
1
Corg/Nt .031 .050 -.307*
-.003 .302*
.690**
.707**
-.185 1
sand % .031 .148 -.278*
.186 .356**
.199 .152 -.019 .181 1
silt % .142 -.278*
.105 -.279*
-.225 -.098 -.106 -.010 -.074 -.584**
1
clay % -.192 .157 .176 .119 -.123 -.100 -.041 .031 -.108 -.399**
-.512**
1
Soil pH .112 -.219 .347**
-.233 -.441**
-.244 -.289*
-.146 -.132 -.331**
.406**
-.108 1
SAS .514**
.291*
-.510**
-.528**
.291*
-.102 -.053 -.066 .060 -.145 .210 -.083 .164 1
Total
CaCO3
%
.639**
.380**
-.576**
-.609**
.325**
-.128 -.045 -.119 .040 .002 .175 -.200 .147 .890**
1
29

30. To select the most appropriate indicator, soil aggregate stability (SAS)
To select the MDS; total CaCO3 %, SAS and EC (dS/m)
Factor 1
(23 %)
Total
CaCO3
%
SAS EC
(dS
/m)
Soil
Aggregation
Properties
Factor 2
(22 %)
SP
%
BD
(kg/
m3)
HC
(cm/
day)
Soil Pores’
Nature
Factor 3
(17 %)
SOC
%
SOM
%
STN
%
Soil
Organic
Carbon
Factor 4
(14 %)
Soil
texture
(clay
%)
Corg/
Nt
STN
%
Soil
Texture
(clay %)
30

31. 31
Factor 1
(30 %)
Total
CaCO3
%
SAS EC
(dS/
m)
Soil
Aggregation
Properties
Factor 2
(19 %)
SOM
%
SOC
%
Corg/
Nt
Soil
Organic
Matter
Factor 3
(17 %)
Soil
Texture
(silt %)
Soil
Texture
(sand
%)
Soil
pH
(H2O,
1:2)
Soil
Texture
Factor 4
(13 %)
Soil
texture
(clay
%)
Corg/
Nt
STN
%
Soil
Texture
(clay %)
To select the most appropriate indicator, soil aggregate stability (SAS)
To select the MDS; total CaCO3 %, SAS and EC (dS/m)

32. Factor 1
(24 %)
Total
CaCO3
%
SAS EC
(dS
/m)
Soil
Aggregation
Properties
Factor 2
(19 %)
SP
%
Soil
texture
(silt
%)
HC
(cm/
day)
Soil Pores’
Nature
Factor 3
(18 %)
SOM
%
SOC
%
Corg/
Nt
Soil
Organic
Matter
Factor 4
(10 %)
Soil
texture
(clay
%)
Soil
texture
(sand
%)
STN
%
Soil
Texture
(clay %)
To select the most appropriate indicator, soil aggregate stability (SAS)
32
To select the MDS; total CaCO3 %, SAS and EC (dS/m)

33. Conclusion-2
To Identify MDS
soil aggregation - CaCO3 (%), soil aggregate
stability (SAS) & soil electrical
conductivity (EC) (dS/m)
Conclusion-3
To Select appropriate soil quality indicator
SAS –soil aggregate stability
LM that responses to low soil aggregate stability is
not a sustainable manner 33

34. THANK YOU FOR YOUR KIND ATTENTION
34