Loading...

Indian Journal of Agricultural Research

COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE OF FORAGE GRASSES FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF SALT-AFFECTED SOILS AND RICE CULTIVATION

Article Id: ARCC2736 | Page : 37 - 41
Citation :- COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE OF FORAGE GRASSES FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF SALT-AFFECTED SOILS AND RICE CULTIVATION.Indian Journal of Agricultural Research.2006.(40):37 - 41
Banwari Lal and Manju Suman
Address : Indian Grassland, Fodder and Agroforestry Research Institute, Jhansi - 284 003, India

Abstract

Application of usar tod masala as well as gypsum could increase the green biomass production
by 50 % over sole urea fertilizer application. Brachiaria mutica could produced maximum green
(54.3 and 73.2 t ha-1) as well as dry (12.77 and 13.17 t ha-1 ) biomass which was followed by
Leptochloa fusca (39.5 and 45.8 t ha-1 green and 11.06 and 12.82 t ha-1 dry), Setaria sphacelata
(36.4 and 46.4 t ha-1 green and 8.00 and 10.20 t ha-1 dry ), Chloris gayana (30.2 and 38.9 t
ha-1 green and 6.64 and 8.55 t ha-1 dry), Sorghum sudanensis (16.3 and 28.8 t ha-1 green and
4.23 and 7.48 t ha-1 dry) and Panicum maximum (7.8 and 26 t ha-1 green and 1.95 and 6.5 t
ha-1) dry biomass production respectively in the investigating years 1997-98 and 1998-99. The
increase in the yield attributing characters also significantly increase in the grain as well as straw
yield of rice due to growing of Brachiaria mutica (3.8 and 3.9 t ha-1 grain and 5.2 and 5.3 t ha-
1) yield of straw which was followed by Leptochloa fusca (3.6 and 3.7 t ha-1 grain and 4.8 and
4.9 t ha-1) straw yield of rice and Chloris gayana (3.2 and 3.4 t ha-1 grain yield of rice and 4.5
and 4.7 t ha-1 straw yield in 1999 and 2000 respectively. The application of amendments for
reclamation of salt-affected soils and residual effects of forage grasses increased the grain yield
of rice by 70 % due to gypsum, 55 % due to usar tod masala and 14% due to prilled urea
fertilizer application over control (without addition of amendment or chemical fertilizers

References

  1. Abrol, I.P. et al. (1973). Soil Sci., 120: 30-36.
  2. Ghassemi, F. et al. (1995). Salinization of Land and Water Resources: Human Causes, Extent, Management and Case Studies. Center for Resources and Environmental Studies. ANU, Canberra ACT 200 Australia. pp 526.
  3. Jackson, M.L. (1967). Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice Hall Inc. England.
  4. Lal, B. and Yadav, D.V. (1986). J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci.. 34: 647-49.
  5. Lal, B. (1995). Range Mgmt. Agroforestry, 16:119-121.
  6. Lal, B. (1997). In : Advances in Wastelands Development (Sarkar et al., ed.) Soil Conservation Society of India, New Delhi. pp-93-104.
  7. Lal, B. (1998). Comparative performance of forage grasses with amendments and row spacing on saline-sodic soils In 1st Agronomy Congress: Agronomy, Environment and food security for 21st Century Nov. 23-27, New Delhi.
  8. Kumar, A. and Abrol, I.P. (1979). Indian J. Agric. Sci., 49: 472-477.
  9. Kumar, A. (1998). Proc. Nat. Conf. Salinity Mgmt. in Agriculture, Dec. 2-5, 1998, Karnal. Pp 22.
  10. Yadav, J.S.P. (1980). Salt-affected Soils and Their Afforestation. Indian Forester, 106(4): 259-272.

Global Footprints