Assessment of different pools of organic carbon for better C management in cotton-growing shrink-swell soils of Jalgaon district, Maharashtra

A S GAJARE; D K MANDAL; JAGDISH PRASAD

doi:10.56093/ijas.v86i5.58344

Authors

A S GAJARE ICAR-National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning, Nagpur, Maharashtra 440 033
D K MANDAL ICAR-National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning, Nagpur, Maharashtra 440 033
JAGDISH PRASAD ICAR-National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning, Nagpur, Maharashtra 440 033

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v86i5.58344

Keywords:

Optimum and threshold value, Oxidizable soil organic carbon, Shrink-swell soils, Soil organic carbon fractions, Total soil organic carbon

Abstract

Information on dynamics of soil organic carbon (SOC) in agricultural soils is important for sustained crop productivity, maintenance of soil health and alleviating the climate related stress. Researchers have found that oxidizable soil organic carbon (SOC) fractions are more important in maintaining the soil quality than total organic carbon (TOC). The SOC measured by Walkley and Black method is not sensitive to assess soil quality, but labile fractions of TOC is directly related to the soil productivity and quality. It is therefore, imperative to find out its quantum of SOC and fractions of TOC for better C management and carbon sequestration. In such an endeavour, a case study on carbon dynamics was undertaken for cotton-growing shrink-swell soils of Jalgaon district, Maharashtra, to quantify the SOC and its fractions in TOC and their interrelation with the crop yield. The surface (0-30 cm) soil samples (75) were collected from dominant cotton-growing shrink- swell soils in 2011-12 and analyzed for SOC, very labile carbon (VLC), labile carbon (LC), less labile C (LLC) and non-labile C (NLC). Factorial relationship between SOC with TOC and their relationship with crop yield was worked out. The result indicated that VLC, LC, LLC and NLC contributed to the tune of 15.33%, 11.85%, 51.15% and 21.07% of the TOC, respectively. The dichromate oxidizable SOC (y) was found linearly related to the TOC (x) by the equation, y = 0.782x + 0.025 (RÂ² = 0.932), indicating that oxidizable SOC comprised 78.2 % of the TOC, in other words, a correction factor of 1.278 (inverse of the slope of linear regression line) may be used to convert SOC values in shrink-swell soils of Jalgaon. The crop yield was closely related to the SOC (r = 0.642) compared to TOC (r = 0.610). Considering the maximum and minimum cotton yield, the threshold value and maximum value of SOC were worked out to be 5.688 and 8.312 g C/kg, respectively, reflecting the carbon sequestrations potential of soils. Among the different fractions, VLC was found to be well correlated (r = 0.512) with the crop productivity. The computed threshold and maximum value for VLC were 0.547 and 2.147 g C/kg, respectively. The study thus establishes that only 27.18 % of active carbon (VLC+LC) are important for the crop production in cotton- growing shrink-swell soils.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bayer C and Mielniczuk J. 2008. Dinaˆmica e func¸a˜o da mate´ria orgaˆnica, Fundamentos da Mate´ria Orgaˆnica do Solo: ecossistemas tropicais e subtropicais, 2nd edn, pp7–18. Santos G A, Silva L S, Canellas L P, Camargo F A O (Eds). Metro´pole, Porto Alegre.

Brejda J J, Karlen D L, Smith J L and Alan D L. 2000. Identification of regional soil quality factors and indicators: II. Northern Mississippi Loess Hills and Paulose Prairie. Soil Science Society of American Journal 64: 2 125–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2000.6462125x

Chivane S P and Bhattacharya T. 2010. Effect of land use and bio- climatic system on organic carbon pool of shrink-swell soils of Vidarbha region, Maharashtra. Agropedology 20 (2): 145–56.

Chan K Y, Bowman A and Oates A. 2001. Oxidizable organic carbon fraction and soil quality changes in an Oxic Paleustaff under different pastures leys. Soil Science 166: 61–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-200101000-00009

Chan K Y. 1997. Consequences of changes in particulate organic carbon in Vertisols under pasture and cropping. Soil Science Society of American Journal 61: 1 376–82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1997.03615995006100050013x

De Vos B, Lettens S, Muys B and Deckers J A. 2007. Walkley – Black analysis of forest soil organic carbon: recovery, limitations and uncertainty. Soil Use Management 23: 221–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.2007.00084.x

Duxbury J M, and Nkambule S V. 1994. Assessment and significance of biologically active soil organic nitrogen. Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment. pp125–46 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaspecpub35.c8

Doran JW, Coleman DC, Bezdicek DF, and Stewart BA (Eds). SSSA Special Publ. no. 35, SSSA, Madison,WI.

Franchini J C, Crispino C C, Souza R A, Torres E and Hungria M. 2007. Microbiological parameters as indicators of soil quality under various soil management and crop rotation systems in Southern Brazil. Soil Tillage Research 92: 18–29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2005.12.010

Ghosh B N, Ved Prakash, Kundu S, Singh R D and Gupta H S. 2001. Relationship between oxidizable and total organic carbon content in an Inceptisol after twenty-seven years of soybean- wheat cropping. Journal of Indian Society of Soil Science 49: 744–5.

Krishan G, Srivastav S K, Kumar S, Saha S K and Dadhwal V K. 2009. Quantifying the under estimation of soil organic carbon by the Walkely and Black technique – examples from Himalayan and Central Indian soils. Current Science 96(1): 133–6.

Lal R. 2004. Soil carbon sequestration impact on global climate change and food security. Science 304: 1 623–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1097396

Lal R. 2005. Forest soils and carbon sequestration. Forest Ecological Management 220: 242–58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.08.015

Mandal B, Majumdar B, Adhya T K, Bandyopadhyay P K, Gangopadhyay A, Sarkar D, Kundu M C, Gupta Choudary S, Hazara G C, Kundu S, Samantaray R N and Mishra A K. 2008. Potential of double cropped rice ecology to conserve organic carbon under subtropical climate. Global Change Biology 14(2): 139–51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01627.x

Murage W E, Karanja N K, Smithson P C and Woomer P L. 2000. Diagnostic indicator of soil in productive and non-productive smallholders fields of Kenya’s Central Highlands. Amst Agric Ecosyst Environ 79: 1–8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(99)00142-5

Majumdar B, Mandal B, Bandopadhyay P K, Gangopadhyay A, Mani P K, Kundu A L and Majumdar D. 2008. Organic amendments influence soil organic carbon pools and crop productivity in nineteen year old rice-wheat agroecosystem. Soil Science Society of American Journal 72: 1–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2006.0378

Nelson D W and Sommers L E. 1996. Total carbon, organic carbon and organic matter. (In) Methods of Soil Analysis, pp 961–1 010. Page A L (Eds). American Society of Agronomy Inc., Madison, WI. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2136/sssabookser5.3.c34

Parton W J, Mckeown B, Krichner V and Ojima D. 1992. Century User Manual. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.

Reeves D W. 1997. The role of soil organic matter in maintaining soil quality in continuous cropping systems. Soil Tillage Research 43: 131–167 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987(97)00038-X

Swarup A, Manna M C and Singh G B. 2000. Impact of land use and management practices on organic carbon dynamics in soils of India. (In) Lal R, Kimble J M, Stewart BA (eds). Global Climatic Change and Tropical Ecosystems, pp 261–81. Advances in Soil Science. CRC, Boca Raton. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203753187-14

Walkley A and Black I A. 1934. An examination of 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

Wattel-Kockkocke J W, Van Genuchten P P L, Buurman P and Van Lagen B. 2001. Amount and composition of clay-associated soil organic matter in a range of kaolinitic and smectitic soils. Geoderma 99: 27–49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7061(00)00062-8