Agricultural Reviews

  • Chief EditorPradeep K. Sharma

  • Print ISSN 0253-1496

  • Online ISSN 0976-0741

  • NAAS Rating 4.84

Frequency :
Quarterly (March, June, September & December)
Indexing Services :
AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Agricultural Reviews, volume 25 issue 1 (march 2004) : 16- 28

EFFECT OF FOREST ECOSYSTEMS ON SOIL PROPERTIES - A REVIEW

J.C. Sharma, Yogender Sharma
1Department of Soil Science and Water Management, Dr Y. S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni-Solan - 173230, India

  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Sharma J.C., Sharma Yogender (2024). EFFECT OF FOREST ECOSYSTEMS ON SOIL PROPERTIES - A REVIEW. Agricultural Reviews. 25(1): 16- 28. doi: .

ABSTRACT

Forests have been the primary source to rejuvenate productivity of land by improving soil health through the action of root system and addition of organic matter through litter fall. Results of various research studies conducted under different forest ecosystems in India and abroad revealed that the decomposition of forest litter and recycling of nutrients made soil physico-chemical and biological properties favourable for plant growth. The differences in vegetation types imparted differences in soil properties. With fast growing human and livestock population in India, the pressure on limited forest resources is inevitable. Consequently, the area under forests is dwindling and also the forests are getting denuded/degraded. Hence, fast growing species of short rotation are being advocated for degraded, marginal, sub-marginal and fragile lands to meet the multiple needs of the people and industry. Evaluation of soil properties under different forest covers revealed profound impact on soil health. However, the beneficial effects of tree stands on the magnitude of improvement varied from species to species. Establishment of forest covers of suitable tree species on marginal, sub-marginal, waste/degraded lands could be a very effective and eco-friendly way of improving/reclaiming these scarce and problem land resources and also increasing area under forests.

KEYWORDS

    REFERENCES

    1. Abrol, I.P. etal. (1968). Geoderma, 2: 33-39.
    2. Adams, T.M. and Laughlin, RJ. (1981). J. Agric. Sci. (Camb.), 97: 319.
    3. Alexander, M.e. (1977). Introduction to Soil Microbiology. John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York.
    4. Annon (1962). Forest Influences. Forestry Series 9. FAO. Rome.
    5. Arunachalam, A and Arunachalam, K. (2002). Indian J. Soil Cons., 30: 21-28.
    6. Aweto, A. O. (1981) J. Ecol. 69: 609.
    7. Balamurugan, K. et al. (2000). J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci., 48: 491-495.
    8. Banerjee, S.P. and Badola. S.K. (1980). Indian For., 106: 558-560.
    9. Banerjee, S.K. et al (1985). J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci., 33: 357-361.
    10. Banerjee, S.K. et al. (1985). J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci., 33: 788.
    11. Bhavanarayana, M. etal (1986)./nt. Agrophys., 2: 135-144.
    12. Bhoumik, A.K. and Totey, N.G. (1990). J.lndian Soc. Soil Sci., 38: 481-487.
    13. Biswas, T.O. and Ali, M.H. (1969). IndianJ. Agric. Sci., 39: 618-624.
    14. Biswas, T.O. et al (1961). J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci., 9: 299.
    15. Biswas, T.O. and Khosla, B.K. (1971). Proc. Int. Symp. Soil Fert. Evaln. (Kanwar, J.S. etal., ed.) 1: 831-842.
    16. Brady, N.C. (2000). Nature and Properties of Soils. Prentice HaD of India, New Delhi pp 332-333.
    17. Chakraborty, RN. and Chakraborty, O. (1989). Indian For., U5: 272-273.
    18. Chavan, KN. et al. (1995). J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci., 43: 43-46.
    19. Chesters, C. et aI. (1957). Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Am., 21: 272.
    20. Contractor, RM. and Badanur, V.P. (1996). J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci., 44: 51D-5U.
    21. Gadgil, R.L. (1971). PI. Soil, 34: 357-367.
    22. Gars, V.K. (1992). Biomass and Bioenergy, 3: 323-328.
    23. Garg, V.K. and Jain, R.K. (1992). Can. J. For. Res., 22: 729-735.
    24. GiD, H.S. etal. (1987). For. Ecol. and Manage., 22: 57-69.
    25. Gupta, S.C. etal (1977). SoiISci. Soc. Am. J., 41: 601-605.
    26. Gupta, S.C. and Larson, W.E. (1979). Water Resour. Res., 15: 1633-1635.
    27. Hosur, G.e. and Oasog, G.S. (1995). J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci., 43: 256-259.
    28. Jacques, RJ. et al. (1975). J. For., 401.
    29. Jalali, B.L. (1986). Plant Pathology (Verma, A and Verma, J.P. ed.). MPH Pub. New Delhi. pp. 437.
    30. Jose, AI. and Koshy, M.M. (1972). Indian For., 98: 338-348.
    31. Jain, RK and Garg, V.K. (1996). Indian For. 122: 467-475.
    32. Janny, Hans (1941). Factors of Soil Formation. McGraw HiD Book Co. Inc. New York.
    33. Jenkinson, O.S. and Ladd, J.N. (1981). In: Soil Biochemistry Vol. 5, Marcel Dekkar, New York.
    34. Kittredge, J. (1948). Forest Influences. McGraw-HiD, New York. pp. 394.
    35. Maithani, Ketal (1996). AppUedSoilEcology, 4: 31-37.
    36. Malik, P.C. (1992). M.Sc. Thesis UHF, Solan (HP) India.
    37. Martin, K (1979). J. Ecol, 67: 565-577.
    38. Martikainen, P.J. and Palojarve, A (1990). Soil Bioi Biochem., 22: 797-802.
    39. Marx (1972). In: Ectomycorrhizae their Ecology and Physiology (Marx, G.S. and Kozl(>wski, T.T.ed.) Academic Press,
    40. New York. pp. 351.
    41. Mathan, KK and Kannan, N. (1993). J.lndian Soc. Soil Sci., 41: 606-608.
    42. Mathur, H.N. etal. (1971). In: Soil and Water Conservation Research 1956-70 (Tejwani, Gupta and Mathur ed.)
    43. lCAR Publication.
    44. Mathur, RN. et aJ. (1982). Indian For., 108: 648-653.
    45. 28 AGRICULTURAL REVIEWS
    46. Miles, J. (1985). J. Soil Sci. 36: 571-584.
    47. Minhas, HK (1986). M.Sc. Thesis HPKV, Palampur, (HP) India.
    48. Megahan, w.F. and Satterland, RD. (1962). Eastern Snow, Coni Proc., 7: 121-132.
    49. Mongia, A.D. and Bandyopadhyay, A. (1992). J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci., 40: 420- 424.
    50. Mordelet, P. et a/. (1993). PI. Soil, 153: 103.
    51. Mukhopadhyay, N. and Banerjee, SK (1983). J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci., 33: 248.
    52. Nair, PKR et al. (1998). In: Agroforestry in Sustainable Agricultural Systems (Buck, L.E. et a/. , ed.) Lewis Publishers
    53. CRC Press, New York. pp. 4-5.
    54. Nandi, A. etal. (1991). Indian For., 117: 53-57.
    55. Nath, M. eta/. (1998). J. Indian Soc. SoiISci., 36: 51: ',21.
    56. Nath, S. and Banerjee, SK (1992). J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci., 40: 828.
    57. Nazarov, G.v. (1969) In: Soviet Hydrology, Selected papers No.1 Amer. Geophys. Union. 79-84.
    58. Nitant, H.C. eta/. (1992). J. Trop. For., 8: 31.
    59. Ohta, S. (1990). Soil Sci. PA Nutr., 36: 633.
    60. Pal, 0.1. et al (1985) J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci., 33: 84-91.
    61. Powlson, D.S. e f al. (1987). Soil Bio/. Biochem., 19: 159.
    62. Prasad, KG. eta/. (1985). Indian For., 111: 794-801.
    63. Pratap Narain and Ravender Singh (1985). Indian For., Ill: 230-239.
    64. Pratap Narain et a/. (1990). Indian For.·, 116: 901-916.
    65. Pritchett, w.L. and Fisher, RF. (1987). Properties and Management of Forest Soils. John Wiley and Sons, New York..
    66. Ravender Singh et a/. (1990). Indian For., 116: 795-802.
    67. Salter, P.J.and William, J.B. (1963). J. Soil Sci., 14: 73-82.
    68. Sanginga, NK eta/. (1995). PI. Soil, 174: 119.
    69. Seth, SK etal. (1963). Indian For., 89: 90-98.
    70. ShanmughC'vel, P. (1993). My/orest, 29: 249-252.
    71. Sharma, B.H. et aI. (1985). J. Tree Sci., 4: 79.
    72. Sharma, l.P. et a/. (2001). lrldian J. Soil Cons., 28: 91-97.
    73. Sharma, J.R and Lakhanpal, T.N. (1982). In: Improvement of Forest Biomass. (Khosla, PK ed.) Indian Society of
    74. Tree Scientists, University of Horticulture and Forestry, Solan (HP) India.
    75. Sharma, SK eta/. (1984). J. Tree Sci., 3: 10.
    76. Shulda, A.N. and Mishra, P.N. (1993). Indian For., 119: 43-52.
    77. Singh, K and Banerjee, S.P.(1980). v.m lngyan, 18: 31.
    78. Singh, R.D. and Bhatnagar, VK (1997). InBian J. For., 20: 147-~49.
    79. Singh, B.P. and Chatterjee; B.N. (1966). J.lndian Soc. Soil Sci.,14-:~5.
    80. Singh, S.B. eta/. (1985). Indian For., 111: 90-98.
    81. Singh, S.B. eta/. (1986). Indian For., 112: 314.
    82. Soni, P. eta/. (1985). IndianJ. For., 8: 170-173.
    83. Srivastavi\, S.c. (1999). J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci., 47: 156-158.
    84. Srivastav, S.C. and Singh, J.S. (1999). Soil Bio/. Biochem.,· 20: 117.
    85. Sugar, G.v. (1989). My/orest, 25: 43.
    86. S;:abolcs, I. (1989). Salt Affected Soils: CRC Press. Bocaraton Rorida
    87. Thapar, H.S. and Khan, S.N. (1973). Natn. Sci. Acad., 39B: 687.
    88. Tomar, v.P.S. et a/. (1987). Soil Cons. Newsletter, 6: 5.
    89. Totey, N.G. eta/. (1986). Indian For., 122: 314.
    90. Vadiraj, B.A. and Rudrappa, N. (1990). My/orest, 26: 157.
    91. Yadav, J.S.P. (1963). Indian For., 89: 18-38.
    92. Yadav, J.S.P. (1968). Indian For., 93: 95.
    93. Yadav, LI.~.P. c ld Banerjee. S.P. (1968). J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci., 16: 31.
    94. Yadav, J.S.P. ,.ad Sharma, D.C. (1968). Indian For., 94: 897-902.
    95. Yz.:lav, J.S.P. and Singh, K (1970). Indian For., 96: 587-599.
    96. Yadav, J.S.P. and Singh, K (1976). J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci., 24: 363-368.
    97. Wood, H.B. (1977). SoiISci. Soc. n. J., 41: 132-136.
    98. Wooldridge, D.O. (1970). In: Tree urowth and Forest Soils. (Youngberg, C.T. and Davey, C.B. ed.) Oregon State Univ. Press, Carvallis. pp 327-337.
    Reviewed By

    Download Article
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)