Soil carbon sequestration and erosion control potential of hedgerows and grass filter strips in sloping agricultural lands of eastern India

Lenka, Narendra Kumar; Dass, Anchal; Sudhishri, S.; Patnaik, U. S.

doi:10.1016/j.agee.2012.05.017

Cited by 79 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Linear elements can greatly reduce runoff (Borin et al 2010) and in the UK the presence of individual trees and shelterbelts increases the infiltration capacity of grazed pastures (Marshall et al 2009). The effect of land cover depends however on the amount of rainfall and diminishes with increasing soil saturation (Lull Pisani et al (2013), Macfadyen and Muller (2013), Veres et al (2013), Bianchi et al (2013), Martin et al (2013), Rusch et al (2013), Mitchell et al (2014), Morandin et al (2014) f Svensson et al (2000), Kells et al (2001), Potts et al (2003), Kremen et al (2004), Bodin et al (2006), Williams and Kremen (2007), Ricketts et al (2008), Winfree et al (2009), Isaacs andKirk (2010), Kennedy et al (2013), Morandin and Kremen (2013), Rollin et al (2013), Bailey et al (2014), Stanley and Stout (2014) g de la Fuente de Val et al (2006), Dramstad et al (2006), Borin et al (2010), Kienast et al (2012), van Zanten et al (2014 h Castelle et al (1994), Bartley et al (2006), Ludwig et al (2007), Bu et al (2008), Lenka et al (2012), Yang et al (2012), Shi et al (2013) and Reinhart 1972;Calder 2007;Acreman and Holden 2013). In mountainous catchments the riparian z...…”

Section: Review Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of landscape configuration on mapping ecosystem service capacity: a review of evidence and a case study in Scotland

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context Humans structure landscapes for the production of food, fibre and fuel, commonly resulting in declines of non-provisioning ecosystem services (ESs). Heterogeneous landscapes are capable of providing multiple ESs, and landscape configuration-spatial arrangement of land cover in the landscape-is expected to affect ES capacity. However, the majority of ES mapping studies have not accounted for landscape configuration. Objectives Our objective is to assess and quantify the relevance of configuration for mapping ES capacity. A review of empirical evidence for configuration effects on the capacity of ten ESs reveals that for four ESs configuration is relevant but typically ignored in ES quantification. For four ESs we quantify the relevance of configuration for mapping ESs using Scotland as a case study. Methods Each ES was quantified through modelling, respectively ignoring or accounting for configuration. The difference in ES capacity between the two ES models was determined at multiple spatial scales. Results Configuration affected the capacity of all four ESs mapped, particularly at the cell and watershed scale. At the scale of Scotland most local effects averaged out. Flood control and sediment retention responded strongest to configuration. ESs were affected by different aspects of configuration, thus requiring specific methods for mapping each ES. Conclusions Accounting for configuration is important for the assessment of certain ESs at the cell and watershed scale. Incorporating configuration in landscape management provides opportunities for spatial optimization of ES capacity, but the diverging response of ESs to configuration suggests that accounting for configuration involves trade-offs between ESs.

show abstract

Section: Review Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of landscape configuration on mapping ecosystem service capacity: a review of evidence and a case study in Scotland

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Among different nutrient-management options available for the region, green manuring with Gliricidia sepium-a hedge crop-is one of the cheapest and most feasible alternatives because it is widely available and has satisfactory growth performance (Lenka et al 2012) in the eastern Ghats region. Of four major species, Gliricidia sepium is the only species with real agronomic potential.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…High vulnerability of sloping uplands leads to water erosion caused by rolling topography, high rainfall (1,500 mm year −1 ), low soil fertility, and faulty agricultural practices, such as cultivation along the slopes, combined with frequent droughts at critical crop-growth stages, resulting in low crop yields. Enrichment of soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks through sequestration of atmospheric CO 2 in such degraded lands is vital for soil health, sustainable production, as well as adaptation to and mitigation of climate change effects (Lenka et al 2012). Farmyard manure (FYM), the principal amendment used by the farmers for fertilizing finger millet at a rate of about 2.0 t ha −1 , is not available in adequate quantities and is often of low quality (Dass, Sudhishri, and Lenka 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated Nutrient Management to Improve Finger Millet Productivity and Soil Conditions in Hilly Region of Eastern India

Dass

Sudhishri

Lenka

2013

Journal of Crop Improvement

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies on effective integrated nutrient management (INM) modules for marginal landholders of eastern India relying upon crops,such as finger millet ( Eleusine coracana L. Gaertn), are lacking. Thus, an experiment was conducted on farmer's field for three years (2002−2004) at Malipungar watershed in the Koraput district of Odisha, India, to evaluate various INM combinations and select the most remunerative INM option relative to productivity and profitability of finger millet crop and soil properties. The seven INM treatments consisted of different combinations of Gliricidia green-leaf manure, farmyard manure (FYM), synthetic fertilizers, and bio-fertilizers and compared with farmer's practice. The treatments were arranged in a randomized complete-block design replicated three times. Yield and net returns from Gliricidia-amended plots were greater than those from the FYM-amended plots. Soil-moisture status during crop period and bulk density, soil pH, organic carbon (C), and phosphorus (P) at the end of the three-year experiment were comparable between Gliricidia-and FYM-amended plots. Residual amounts of N and Integrated Nutrient Management of Finger Millet 529 K were significantly higher in the plots amended with Gliricidia. Overall, the treatment receiving 50% recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF), Gliricidia at 2.5 t ha −1 , and 2.5 kg ha −1 each of Azotobactor and phosphorus solubilizing bacteria (PSB) as soil inoculants (INM 7 ) produced the highest grain yield (3.95 t ha −1 ), net returns (US$ 400 ha −1 ), and highest benefit:cost ratio (2.39). Year x INM interaction effects for growth parameters, such as shoots plant −1 , dry matter plant −1 , dry root weight plant −1 , and straw yield were significant. The INM 7 was significantly better than most of the other INM treatments for growth parameters and straw yield during two (2003 and 2004) out of three study years and hence was consistently better. Therefore, integrated use of 50% RDF, 2.5 t ha −1 Gliricidia, and 2.5 kg ha −1 each of Azotobactor and PSB (INM 7 ) is recommended for improving productivity of finger millet in eastern India.

show abstract

“…As higher soil moisture conservation helps in more water uptake, the present results also influenced higher water use in resource conservation treatments in both the crops with highest in T 4 treatment. Higher WUE is expected and observed in resource conservation system as dry matter yield is water production function of water use [27]. Resource conservation system also exhibited higher NPKUE as loss of nutrients through runoff water, sediment and leaching through soil profile was less [19].…”

Section: Nutrient Use Efficiency (Npkue) and Carbon Retention Potentimentioning

confidence: 98%

Effects of Resource Conservation Practices on Productivity, Profitability and Energy Budgeting in Maize–Wheat Cropping System of Indian Sub-Himalayas

Ghosh

Dogra

Sharma

et al. 2015

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., India, Sect. B Biol. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Resource conservation issues have drawn the attention of scientists to devise innovative tillage and crop establishment techniques for higher productivity in small holder farming systems in the tropics but relatively less attention has been given in rainfed sloping lands of the Indian sub-Himalayan (sub-temperate) regions. To investigate these issues, an experiment was conducted on resource conservation practices under rainfed conditions for 5 years (June 2007-May 2012) at Dehradun, Uttarakhand in the Indian Himalayan region. Four treatments, 1. 100:60:40 kg N:P 2 O 5 :K 2 O ? conventional tillage (CT) ? chemical weeding ? PANICUM vegetation strip (T 1 ); 2. FYM (5 t ha -1 ) ? minimum tillage (MT) ? 1 weed mulch (30 DAS) @ 0.52 t ha -1 ? PALMAROSA vegetation strip (T 2 ); 3. FYM (5 t ha -1 ) ? vermi-compost (1.0 t ha -1 ) ? MT ? 2 weed mulch (25 and 50 DAS) @ 1.47 t ha -1 ? PALMAROSA vegetation strip (T 3 ) and 4. FYM (5 t ha -1 ) ? vermi-compost (1.0 t ha -1 ) ? poultry manure (2.5 t ha -1 ) ? MT ? 3 weed mulch (20, 40 and 60 DAS) @ 2.18 t ha -1 ? PALMAROSA vegetation strip (T 4 ). The results showed that resource conservation treatments (T 4 , T 3 and T 2 ) had significant (P B 0.05) multiple benefits as compared to traditional agriculture treatments (T 1 ). T 1 gives the highest yield of maize whereas T 4 gives highest yield of wheat. For the maize-wheat cropping system, mean wheat equivalent yield (WEY) was *16 % higher in T 4 than T 1 . Mean runoff was *30 % lesser and mean soil loss was *34 % lesser in T 4 as compared with T 1 . Similarly, mean soil moisture conservation for rainfed wheat was *31 % higher in T 4 than T 1 . Mean carbon retention potential increased by *53 % which subsequently increased mean soil quality index (SQI) by *25 %. Mean energy productivity increased by *70 % and mean energy intensiveness decreased by *56 % in T 4 than T 1 . Treatment T 1 (2,560 MJ -1 ) emerged to be the most energy intensive system as compared to T 4 (1,113 MJ Rs. -1 ). On an average, T 4 had 7 % higher net returns than T 1 and in terms of net returns per tonne of soil loss, T 4 was the best treatment (Rs. 4,907). Therefore, resource conservation system (PALMAROSA as a vegetation strip along with organic amendments, FYM, vermicompost, poultry manure and weed mulch under minimum tillage) had significant positive impact on yield, resource conservation and energy saving and may be introduced as a substitute of conventional system in the Indian sub-Himalayas and under similar climatic and edaphic conditions.

show abstract

Soil carbon sequestration and erosion control potential of hedgerows and grass filter strips in sloping agricultural lands of eastern India

Cited by 79 publications

References 29 publications

Effects of landscape configuration on mapping ecosystem service capacity: a review of evidence and a case study in Scotland

Effects of landscape configuration on mapping ecosystem service capacity: a review of evidence and a case study in Scotland

Integrated Nutrient Management to Improve Finger Millet Productivity and Soil Conditions in Hilly Region of Eastern India

Effects of Resource Conservation Practices on Productivity, Profitability and Energy Budgeting in Maize–Wheat Cropping System of Indian Sub-Himalayas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About