WELCOME

COURSE SEMINAR ON

“ROLE OF PULSES IN SOIL HEALTH MANAGEMENT”

Shri A.N. Paslawar Dr. M.S. KhakareSeminar incharge Chairman

Presented byAndhalkar Ajinkya Shashikant

DEPARTMENT OF AGRONOMY,POST GRADUATE INSTITUTE,

DR. PANJABRAO DESHMUKH KRISHI VIDYAPEETH, AKOLA

CONTENT Introduction to soil health Indicators of soil health Introduction to pulses Pulses Scenario Why pulses are being

prefered? Impact on soil physical

properties Impact on soil chemical

properties Impact on soil biological

properties Impact on productivity Constraints in pulses

production Conclusion

INTRODUCTION

SOIL HEALTH• Harris and Bezidicek (1991) defined soil health as the continued

capacity of soil to function as a vital living system, within ecosystem and land use boundaries, to sustain biological productivity, maintain the quality of air and water environments.

• Doran and Parkin (1994) defined soil quality as the capacity of soil to function within the ecosystem and land-use boundaries, to sustain biological productivity, maintain the environmental quality and promote plant, animal and human health.

• Gregorich et al. (1994) described soil quality as the degree of fitness of a soil for a specific use. Soil quality encompasses not only crop productivity and environmental protection but also food safety and animal/human health.

SOIL HEALTH APPROACHESGregorich et al. (1994) have proposed two approaches.

Descriptive approachIndicative approach

INDICATORS OF SOIL HEALTH

Physical Chemical BiologicalTexture Organic matter Microbial biomass C & N

Depth & top soil pH Potentially mineralisable N

Infiltration EC Soil respiration

Bulk density Extractable N, P & K Water content & temperature

Water holding capacity

Nutrient Efficiency (%)

Cause of low efficiency

Nitrogen 30-50 Immobilization, volatilization, denitrification, Leaching

Phosphorus 15-20 Fixation in soils Al – P, Fe – P, Ca – P

Potassium 70-80 Fixation in clay - lattices

Sulphur 8-10 Immobilization, Leaching with water

Micro nutrients

(Zn, Fe, Cu, Mn, B)

1-2 Fixation in soils

LOW NUTRIENT USE EFFICIENCY

Year

?B B

Mn Mn MnS S S

K K K KZn Zn Zn ZnP P P P

Fe Fe Fe Fe FeN N N N N N

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Emerging Multi-Nutrient Deficiencies in Soils

INTRODUCTION TO PULSES

The term "pulse", as used by the Food and

Agricultural Organization (FAO), is

reserved for crops harvested solely for the dry

seed.

The word pulse is defined in some text books on

economic botany as the split cotyledons of dry

legume seed, boiled in excess of water, softened,

macerated and used as soup.

PULSES IN INDIASr. No. Common Name Botanical Name

Common Indian Name

1.Chickpea,

Bengalgram Cicer arientinum L. Chana

2. Lentil Lens culinaris Medik Masoor3. Pea Pisum sativum L. Matar

4.Lathysus grasspea Lathyrus sativus L. Khesari

5.Pigeonpea, Redgram Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp Arhar, Tur

6.Greengram, Mungbean Vigna radiata (L.) Mung

7.Blackgram, Blackbean Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper Urd, Mash

8. Mothbean Vigna aconitifolia (Jacq.) Moth9. Ricebean Vigna umbelata (Thumb) Sutari

10. Cowpea Vigna unguiculata (L.) Lobia11. Beans Phaseolus vulgaris L. Rajmash12. Horsegram Macrotyloma uniflorum Kulthi

Year

Kharif Rabi Total

Imports (MT)

Exports (MT)

Total con. (MT)

Area (Mha)

Prod. (MT)

Yield (kg/ha)

Area (Mha)

Prod. (MT)

Yield (kg/ha)

Area (Mha)

Prod (MT)

Yield (kg/ha)

2000-01

10.7 4.5 417 9.7 6.6 684 20.4 11.1 544 0.4 0.2 11.2

2001-02

10.7 4.8 453 10.9 8.5 762 21.7 13.4 609 2.2 0.2 15.4

2002-03

10.0 4.2 417 10.6 7.0 661 20.5 11.1 543 2.0 0.2 13.0

2003-04

11.7 6.2 528 11.8 8.7 745 23.4 14.9 637 1.7 0.2 16.5

2004-05

11.3 4.7 417 11.4 8.4 735 22.8 13.1 577 1.3 0.3 14.2

2005-06

10.6 4.7 439 11.8 8.5 716 22.4 13.1 585 1.6 0.4 14.3

2006-07

10.7 4.8 449 12.5 9.4 751 23.2 14.2 612 3.7 0.4 17.5

2007-08

11.5 6.4 557 12.1 8.4 709 23.6 14.8 688 2.8 0.2 17.4

2008-09

10.4 5.0 484 12.6 9.2 726 23.0 14.2 617 2.3 0.1 16.4

Table 2. Sources of supply of pulses in India

(Source : Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, 2009)

PULSES SCENARIO

India Largest producing country Production – 15 mt. (22%) Area – 24 mha. (33%) Short of 3 mt.

Per capita availability of pulses• 60 gm/day/person in 1951• 31 gm/day/person in 2008• ICMR recommends 65 gm/day/capita

(Source : Reddy, A.A. 2009 & Department of Agril. & cooperation, 2009)

PULSES SCENARIO

About 90% of the global pigeonpea, 65% of chickpea and 37% of lentil area falls in India, corresponding to 93%, 68% and 32% of the global production respectively (FAOSTAT 2009).

NPDP- National Pulses Development Project _ Eighth plan (1985-86) TMOP- Technology Mission on Oilseeds and Pulses (1990) ISOPOM- Integrated Scheme of Oilseeds, Pulses, Oil palm and

Maize_Tenth plan (2002-2007) NFSM- National Food Security Mission_Elevanth plan (2007-12)

• Objective: to increase production of pulses by 2 mt. • Targets : an area of 17 million hectares under pulses in 171 identified districts.• NFSM-Pulses is one of the components of the centrally sponsored scheme of

NFSM. • Accelerated Pulses Production Programme (A3P) is another step forward under the NFSM-Pulses. • It is proposed to take up 1000 A3P units in the next two years i.e. 2010-11 and 2011-12 for active promotion of improved production technologies.

Source : Anonymous, 2009 Agricultural Statistics at a Glance.

AREA AND PRODUCTION OF PULSES IN INDIA

17%

15%

15%13%

20%

7%

7%

1%

1% 4%0%

DISTRICTWISE PRODUCTION OF PULSES IN VIDARBHA

Buldana

Akola

Washim

Amravati

Yeotmal

Wardha

Nagpur

Bhandara

Gondia

Chandrapur

Gadchiroli

20%

14%

13%17%

16%

8%7%

1%

1% 3%1%

DISTRICTWISE AREA OF PULSES IN VIDARBHA

Buldana

Akola

Washim

Amravati

Yeotmal

Wardha

Nagpur

Bhandara

Gondia

Chandrapur

Gadchiroli

Source : KRISHISANVADINI 2010, Dr. P.D.K.V., Akola

AREA AND PRODUCTION OF PULSES IN VIDARBHA

Why pulses are being preferred?

Early establishment & high seedling vigor. Fast growth & ability to accumulate large biomass & N in 5-7 weeks Ease of incorporation into soil. Rapid decomposition & release of plant available N. Pulses as a forage both in quality & quantity. Cost of seed Deep rootedness Ability to choke out weeds Good stand Increase in nitrate content of soil more rapidly than non-legumes. Influence on succeeding crop.

IMPACT ON SOIL PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

Erosion control

Soil aggregation

Bulk density

Hydraulic conductivity

Soil porosity

Water holding capacity

Soil texture

Soil depth and rooting

Soil quality indicator

Continuous pulse cropped field Farmer’s field Barren land

Range Mean CV Range Mean CV Range Mean CV

Soil tilth (friability) cm 8-17 14.6 22 7-9 8.2 24 - - -

Water content in mid crop

season (cm m-1)21-34 27 26 17-28 23 30 11-24 16 28

Period of water holding (hours) 17-21 18.4 23 14-15 14.3 20 11-13 12.1 22

Table 3. Physical indicators of soil quality of an alluvial soil cropped continuously for 15 years with pulse crop.

(Source : Ganeshmurthy, A.N. & et al., 2009)

Crop rotationMacro-

aggregation (%)

Aggregate stability (%)

Dispersion coefficient

(%)

Hydraulic conductivity

(cm h-1)

Infiltration (cm h-1)

Watermelon 20.2 29.5 3.5 8.4 15.1

Fallow 20.5 30.8 3.4 7.4 14.4

Wheat 14.4 22.1 4.2 6.2 13.9

Chickpea 24.9 33.1 3.1 8.7 16.2

Lentil 26.7 35.0 2.7 9.3 18.5

Table 4. Soil aggregation at the end of 12 years of various wheat rotation

(Source : Masri Z. & et al., 2006)

IMPACT ON SOIL CHEMICAL PROPERTIES

Soil pH

Electrical conductivity

Cation exchange capacity

Organic matter build up

Extractable N,P & K

Legumes Organic C (%) Total N (%) C / N

Cumulative N

mineralized (µg N g-1

soil)

Organic N mineralized

(%)

Control (soil) 1.1 0.23 8.8 129 5.6

Foliage

Alfalfa 41.5 3.43 12.1 158 46.1

Clover 40.3 5.45 7.4 390 71.6

Cowpea 46.0 2.89 15.9 104 36.0

Soybean 42.9 5.88 7.3 447 76.0

Stems

Alfalfa 40.6 2.43 16.7 45 18.5

Clover 36.8 2.14 17.2 34 15.9

Cowpea 47.7 1.55 30.8 -27 -

Soybean 44.9 2.39 18.8 -12 -

Table 5. Nitrogen and carbon status of various legumes mineralized in soil

(Source : Frankenberger, W.T. & et al., 1985)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2003 2010 2025

Year

Nu

trie

nts

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Fo

od

gra

in p

rod

uc

tio

n

Foodgrain production (Mt)NPK Demand (Mt)NPK Consumption (Mt)NPK Gap (Mt)

Projected Food Grain Production, Fertilizer Demand, likely Consumption and Gap

Soil quality

indicator

Continuous pulse cropped field

Farmer’s field Barren land

Range Mean CV Range Mean CV Range Mean CV

Soil pH7.91-8.27

- 198.26-8.54

- 248.90-8.94

- 18

Organic C (%)

0.29-0.36

0.32 260.21-0.38

0.30 270.16-0.23

0.20 24

Nutrient holding capacity

Nitrogen (kg ha-1)

149-208 173 26 126-174 139 28 91-117 102 24

Phoshorus (P2O5 kg

ha-1)

11.2-16.8

14.8 18 5.1-7.3 6.8 24 4.2-5.9 4.7 24

Potassium (K2O kg ha-

1)144-224 194 22 139-198 177 21 146-203 186 23

Table 6. Chemical indicators of soil quality of an alluvial soil cropped continuously for 15 years with pulse crop.

(Source : Ganeshmurthy, A.N. & et al., 2009)

Preveous crop Soil pH N tot (g kg-1) C org (g kg-1) C : N WSC (mg kg-1)

Maize 5.2 0.47 6.32 13.60 123.3

Fallow 5.2 0.48 6.15 12.94 165.0

Cowpea IT 96 D-724 5.4 0.58 6.42 11.27 246.7

Cowpea SAM PEA-7 5.3 0.59 6.45 10.98 240.0

Soybean TGx 1448-2E 5.4 0.60 6.53 10.91 220.3

Soybean SAMSOY-2 5.4 0.60 6.78 11.39 253.3

Table 7. Effect of crop rotation on soil pH, organic carbon, total nitrogen and water soluble carbon.

(Source : Yusuf, A.A. & et al., 2009)

Crop

Crop yield (kg ha-1)N concentration

(%)Total N content (kg ha-1)

Shoot biomass

Grain yield

Shoot biomass

Grain Grain ShootTotal

crop N

Soybean 7987 1532 2.27 4.90 77 180 270

Pigeon pea 11490 3200 2.33 2.44 80 269 404

Cowpea 11150 880 2.03 3.76 32 225 338

Mung bean 8920 810 1.82 3.94 33 162 243

Maize 1782 88 1.06 1.83 2 19 29

Table 8. Yield and N content of various summer pulse legumes and a reference maize crop

(Source : Shah, Z. & et al., 2004)

Crop Organic C (%) Total N (%)Total mineral N

(mg kg-1 soil)

Soybean 0.34 0.050 13.1

Pigeonpea 0.32 0.063 9.6

Cowpea 0.45 0.071 18.0

Mungbean 0.58 0.075 17.8

Maize 0.30 0.046 6.0

Table 9. Effect of pulse legumes on soil organic fertility

(Source : Shah, Z. & et al., 2004)

IMPACT ON SOIL BIOLOGICAL PROPERTIES

Microbial biomass C & N

Potentially mineralizable N

Soil respiration

Soil quality indicator

Continuous pulse cropped fied Farmer’s field Barren land

Range Mean CV Range Mean CV Range Mean CVPresence of earthworms 0-8 3.2 23 0-5 2.2 26 Nil Nil -

Birds following

tillage after rains in kharif

6-28 17 27 2-11 8 29 - - -

Organic residue on soil surface

(g m-2)

11-26 19 21 7-18 12 28 2-7 3.0 36

Soil colourGrey to

dark grey

Grey to dark grey

Grey

Crop colourGreen to dark green

- -

Pale yellow to pale green

- - - - -

Table 10. Biological indicators of soil quality of an alluvial soil cropped continuously for 15 years with pulse crop.

(Source : Ganeshmurthy, A.N. & et al., 2009)

Sr. No. LegumeDays of incubation

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

1.Cowpea

(NEP 593)

138.6 98.3 62.5 38.8 29.0 21.8 18.3 16.2

2. Bambara Gr.nut 134.8 62.1 40.07 26.5 21.7 17.3 16.0 14.8

3. Lima bean 111.3 75.4 57.0 40.3 30.8 24.7 20.9 19.2

4. Cowpea ( Brown) 96.2 64.7 45.6 34.4 29.8 24.5 22.0 19.8

5. Pigeon pea 82.6 57.3 48.3 35.9 28.4 22.9 20.7 18.6

6. Soybean 69.2 41.1 38.9 31.4 29.0 28.3 21.2 18.9

7. Control 20.3 10.6 9.2 8.1 7.1 5.8 5.9 5.7

Table 11. Effect of addition of legume roots to fallow soil on microbial activity (mg CO2 evolved)

(Source : Nnandi, L.A. & et al., 1978)

Preveous crop

C mic(mg kg-1)

N mic(mg kg-1)

C : NC mic : C org (%)

N mic : N org (%)

Maize 253.3 10.6 23.9 4.0 2.6

Fallow 250.0 11.9 21.0 4.1 2.5

Cowpea IT 96 D-724

326.7 31.4 10.4 5.1 5.5

Cowpea SAM PEA-7

335.0 30.8 10.9 5.2 5.2

Soybean TGx 1448-

2E330.0 30.8 10.8 5.1 5.2

Soybean SAMSOY-2

345.0 31.9 10.8 5.1 5.4

Table 12. Effect of crop rotation on soil biological properties including microbial carbon and microbial nitrogen.

(Source : Yusuf, A.A. & et al., 2009)

IMPACT ON PRODUCTIVITY

Sequential cropping

Crop residue management

Intercropping

Intercropping system Rainfed conditions Irrigated conditions

Sorghum yield (q/ha)

Net returns (`/ha)

LERSorghum

yield (q/ha.)

Net returns (`/ha)

Monetary advantage

Sorghum alone 27.8 2384 1.00 32.0 1959 1.00

Sorghum + moong 34.0 3521 1.82 34.5 2622 1.34

Sorghum + urid 33.3 3776 1.85 - - -

Sorghum + grain cowpea 36.0 3907 1.92 35.3 3015 1.54

Sorghum + fodder cowpea 38.1 5247 1.80 38.5 4576 2.34

Sorghum + groundnut 31.8 3142 1.46 32.7 3751 1.93

Sorghum + soybean - - - 33.9 2710 1.39

Table 13. Mean Sorghum yield, net returns and LER/monetary returns due to intercropping

(Source : Singh, S.P., 1983)

Intercropping systemsWheat yield (Kg/ha)

following intercropping

Sorghum alone 3335

Sorghum + Moong 4012

Sorghum + Groundnut 4335

Sorghum + Grain cowpea 4285

Sorghum + Fodder cowpea 4650

Sorghum + Soybean 3403

Table 14. Mean grain yield of Wheat after different intercropping systems.

(Source : Singh, S.P., 1983)

Maize grain yield (t/ha at 15% moisture Wheat yield (t/ha)

Treatments (kg N/ha) 0 40 60 120 Mean 0 40 60 120 Mean

Pure maize 3.33 3.97 4.95 4.68 4.23 0.94 0.90 0.94 0.88 0.92

Maize + Soyabean 3.23 4.00 5.01 4.87 4.28 1.24 1.14 1.22 1.06 1.16

Maize + Cowpea 3.44 4.04 4.89 4.95 4.33 1.26 1.25 1.24 1.17 1.23

Maize + Gr.nut 3.31 4.45 4.31 5.25 4.33 1.07 1.14 1.14 0.98 1.08

Mean 3.33 4.11 4.79 4.93 1.13 1.11 1.14 1.02

Table 16. Effect of N rates and intercropping treatments on maize grain yield and their residual effect on succeeding wheat yield.

CONSTRAINTS IN PULSES PRODUCTION

Delay sowing due to irregular rainfall pattern About 87 per cent pulses are grown in rainfed condition Poor drainage in heavy soil. Inadequate plant population particularly in chickpea Low seed replacement ratio of improved varieties of pigeonpea (29%) and

chickpea (19%) • Non adoption of seed treatment • Limited use due to unavailability of quality biofertilizer

Inadequate use of recommended dose of fertilizers Non-availability of protective irrigation at critical growth stages Lacking in timely insect pest management Limited information on

• Knowledge of improved varieties • Micronutrient application• Seed treatment• Biofertilizer • Integrated pest and disease management

CONCLUSION Inclusion of pulses in cropping systems helps to build up the soil fertility or

replenishment of soil nutrients.

Widespread nutrient deficiencies and deteriorating soil health are cause of low

nutrient use efficiency, productivity & profitability can be corrected by pulses.

Pulses also fulfils the needs of marginal farmers & agril. labours round a year.

Pulses provides forage to the milch and draft animals.

As a nitrogen fixers beneficial for companion crop.

Addition of organic residues due to more leaf senescence than other crops.

Short duration pulses suitable for double cropping.

Pulses should be grown on BBF for in-situ soil moisture conservation & proper

drainage.

Linking MSP to market prices can bridge the gap between demand and

supply.

Development of multiple disease and pest resistant varieties of pulses.

Reducing storage loss and improving market information and infrastructure.

THANK YOU!!!