Agricultural Science Digest
your articles with us

Quick Facts

Payment Options

payment portals

Click here to pay directly


Prasad Dharmasena and G. Hitinayake
PG Department of Geography and Regional Development, University of Kashmir, Srinagar-191 121, India

Page Range:
133 - 136
Article ID:
Online Published:
A Yield damage function helps to illustrate by relating yield damage and some independent parameters of soil such as top soil depth and organic matter content. But erosion damage function furnishes the monitory values and losses in relation to soil erosion. An erosion damage function refers to the private economic benefits forgone when an erosive practice is adopted instead of a conservation practice. Even though, erosion damage function is imperative to evaluate the on site effects of soil erosion to the plantations economy, it is important to estimate yield damage function before the erosion damage function is estimated. Yield damage function facilitates to identify severity of yield reduction in tea crops on different topsoil depths. The study was focussed on three tea growing district, Passara and Watawala sub district of Sri Lanka and the Nilgiris district of India. For this study, 208 tea fields from Passara, 52 tea fields from Watawala/Ginigathena and 96 tea fields from the Nilgiris districts were selected. The results of the study show that the Passara region is responsible for higher yield damage due to top soil reduction and poor ecological condition. If the Nilgiris is in a condition to manage the issue, Passara tea region of Sri Lanka is required immediate actions to control the problem for sustainability of tea industry of the region.
Erosion, Function, Tea, Top soil, Yield.
  1. Abeygunawardena, H.G. (1993). An Economic Analysis of Soil Conservation in Tobacco Lands in the Hanguranketha Area of Sri Lanka. Indian J. Agricultural Economics, Vol. 48:106-112.
  2. Ananda, J. (1998). Soil Erosion Damage Function for Smallholder Tea in Sri Lanka: An Empirical Estimation. 1st World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists (pp. 1-20). Giorgio, Venice, Italy: Isola di San.
  3. Central Soil and Water Conservation Research & Training Institute. (2009). USLE Parameters for the Nilgiris. Udhagamandalam: CSWCRTI.
  4. Food and Agricultural Organization. (2005). Global Forest Resources Assessment. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.
  5. Taylor, D B, E. Segarra. (1987). Farm Level Analysis of Soil Conservation An Application to the Piedmont Area of Virginia. Southern J. Agricultural Economics, Vol. 19, No. 2: 61-67.
  6. Pawsan, W. W, O. L.Brough. (1961). Economics of Cropping Systems and Soil Conservation in the Palouse. Agricultural Experimenta lStations Bulletin 2. Pulman: Washington State State University.
  7. Walker, D. J., D. L.Young. (1982). A Damage Function to Evaluate Erosion Control Economics. American Journal of Agricultural Economics Vol. 64, No. 4: 690-698.
  8. Walker D. J. (1986). The Effect of Technical Progress on Soil Erosion Damage and Economic Incentives for Soil Conservation. Land Economics Vol. 62:83-93.
Global footprints

© 2015 ARCC JOURNALS. All Rights Reserved. Powered By ARCC JOURNALS