Status of soil available nickel (Ni) in different districts of eastern Uttar Pradesh, India


322 / 164

Authors

  • SATISH KUMAR SINGH Professor, Department of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh 221 005, India
  • ABHIK PATRA Ph D student, Department of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v90i11.108597

Keywords:

Chandauli, Mirzapur, Nickel, Nutrient index, Sant Ravidas Nagar, Varanasi

Abstract

Limited information is available regarding status of available Ni in Indian soil and almost no literatures available on Ni deficient soils. Hence, the present investigation was undertaken to generate database on Ni content in soil and identifying the potential Ni deficit areas. Plant available Ni in different districts soils was assessed by analyzing 526 surface soil samples from Varanasi, 684 from Mirzapur, 523 from Sant Ravidas Nagar and 558 from Chandauli district. The soil samples were analysed for soil reaction (pH), EC, organic carbon and DTPA extractable Ni. All the blocks of Varanasi were high in Ni and its content ranged from 0.03–20.88 mg kg-1. In Mirzapur district, overall 7.16% soil samples were Ni deficit, however at block level, highest deficiency was observed in Sikhar (31.67%) followed by Kon (27.78%) and Majhawa (24.32%). All the blocks of Sant Ravidas Nagar were high in nutrient index rating with variation in Ni content from 0.01–3.31 mg kg-1. Among the four districts, lowest number of Ni deficient soils (1.79 %) were found in Chandauli district with high nutrient index rating. While Mirzapur district had highest Ni deficit soil (7.16%) followed by Sant Ravidas Nagar (4.02%), however, potential threat of Ni deficiency was the highest in Sant Ravidas Nagar (22%) followed by Mirzapur (19%).

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Almås Å R, McBride M B and Singh B R. 2000. Solubility and lability of cadmium and zinc in two soils treated with organic matter. Soil Science 165: 250–259. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-200003000-00007

Asher C J. 1991. Beneficial elements, functional nutrients, and possible new essential elements. Micronutrients in Agriculture 703–723. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2136/sssabookser4.2ed.c18

Benedek S, Elfoughi A, Abdorhim H A, Bayoumi H H and Füleky G. 2012. Effects of compost application on soil fertility of a Luvisol from Gödöllő (Hungary). Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science 58: S103–S106. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2012.693603

Bradl H B. 2004. Adsorption of heavy metal ions on soils and soils constituents. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 277: 1–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2004.04.005

Brown P H, Welch R M, Cary E E and Checkai R T. 1987. Beneficial effects of nickel on plant growth. Journal of Plant Nutrition 10: 2125–2135. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01904168709363763

Dixon N E, Gazzola C, Blakeley R L and Zerner B. 1975. Jack bean urease (EC 3.5.1.5). A metalloenzyme. A simple biological role for nickel? Journal of the American Chemical Society 97: 4131–4133. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/ja00847a045

Eskew D L, Welch R M and Norvell W A. 1983. Nickel, an essential micronutrient for legumes and possibly all higher plants. Science 222: 621–623. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.222.4624.621

Gerendás J, Polacco J C, Freyermuth S K and Sattelmacher B. 1999. Significance of nickel for plant growth and metabolism. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 162: 241–256. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1522-2624(199906)162:3<241::AID-JPLN241>3.0.CO;2-Q

Iyaka Y A. 2011. Nickel in soils: a review of its distribution and impacts. Scientific Research and Essays 6: 6774–6777. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5897/SREX11.035

Kabata-Pendias A. 2010. Trace Elements in Soils and Plants. CRC Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1201/b10158

Katyal J C and Sharma B D. 1991. DTPA-extractable and total Zn, Cu, Mn, and Fe in Indian soils and their association with some soil properties. Geoderma 49: 165–179. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7061(91)90099-F

Kumar O, Singh S K, Singh A P, Yadav S N, Latare A M and Kumar M. 2018. Assessing a suitable extractant and critical limits of nickel in soil and plant for predicting the response of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) to nickel grown in Inceptisols. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 49: 2602–2613. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2018.1526948

Lindsay W L and Norvell W A. 1978. Development of a DTPA soil test for zinc, iron, manganese, and copper. Soil Science Society of America Journal 42: 421–428. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1978.03615995004200030009x

Marschner H. 1995. Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants, 2nd edition, pp 364-369. London: Academic Press.

Mellis E V, Cruz M C P D and Casagrande J C. 2004. Nickel adsorption by soils in relation to pH, organic matter, and iron oxides. Scientia Agricola 61: 190–195. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-90162004000200011

Parker F W, Nelson W L, Winters E and Miles I E. 1951. The broad interpretation and application of soil test information. Agronomy Journal 43: 105–112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1951.00021962004300030001x

Ponizovsky A A, Thakali S, Allen H E, Di Toro D M, Ackerman A J and Metzler D M. 2008. Nickel partitioning in acid soils at low moisture content. Geoderma 145: 69–76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2008.02.007

Ramamoorthy B and Bajaj J C. 1969. Available nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium status of Indian soils. Fertiliser News.

Richter R O and Theis T L. 1980. Nickel speciation in a soil/water system.(In) Nickel in the Environment, pp 189–202.

Shaheen S M, Antoniadis V, Kwon E E, Biswas J K, Wang H, Ok Y S and Rinklebe J. 2017. Biosolids application affects the competitive sorption and lability of cadmium, copper, nickel, lead, and zinc in fluvial and calcareous soils. Environmental Geochemistry and Health 39: 1365–1379. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-017-9927-4

Sparks D L. 1996. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 3-Chemical Methods. Soil Science Society of America Inc., American Society of Agronomy Inc., Madison Wisconsin, USA.

Sunderman F W and Oskarsson A. 1991. Metals and their Compounds in the Environment, pp 1101-1126. E. Merian (Ed). VCH, Weinheim.

Tejada M, Moreno J L, Hernández M T and García C. 2008. Soil amendments with organic wastes reduce the toxicity of nickel to soil enzyme activities. European Journal of Soil Biology 44: 129–140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2007.10.007

Walkley A and Black I A. 1934. An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Science 37: 29–38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-193401000-00003

Wang R H, Zhu X F, Qian W, Yu Y C and Xu R K. 2015. Effect of pectin on adsorption of Cu (II) by two variable-charge soils from southern China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 22: 19687–19694. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-5150-y

Wang R H, Zhu X F, Qian W, Zhao M H, Xu R K and Yu Y C. 2016. Adsorption of Cd (II) by two variable-charge soils in the presence of pectin. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 23: 12976–12982. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-6465-z

Wilson M J and Berrow M L. 1978. Mineralogy and heavy metal content of some serpentinite soils in northeast Scotland. Chemie der Erde 37: 181–205.

Downloads

Submitted

2020-12-16

Published

2020-12-16

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

SINGH, S. K., & PATRA, A. (2020). Status of soil available nickel (Ni) in different districts of eastern Uttar Pradesh, India. The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 90(11), 2209-2216. https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v90i11.108597
Citation