Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-lrf7s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-30T07:09:26.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Land use options on a semi-arid Alfisol

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

S.K. Das ,
Shriniwas Sharma ,
K.L. Sharma ,
Neelam Saharan ,
N.N. Nimbole  and
Y.V.R. Reddy
S.K. Das
Affiliation:
Principal Soil Scientist (Soil Chemistry/Fertility), Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Santoshnagar, Hyderabad - 500 639, Andhra Pradesh, India
Shriniwas Sharma
Affiliation:
Principal Scientist (Soil and Water Conservation), Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Santoshnagar, Hyderabad - 500 639, Andhra Pradesh, India
K.L. Sharma
Affiliation:
Scientist (Soil Chemistry/Fertility), Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Santoshnagar, Hyderabad - 500 639, Andhra Pradesh, India
Neelam Saharan
Affiliation:
Scientist (Agricultural Chemistry), Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Santoshnagar, Hyderabad - 500 639, Andhra Pradesh, India
N.N. Nimbole
Affiliation:
Scientist Selection Grade (Agronomy), Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Santoshnagar, Hyderabad - 500 639, Andhra Pradesh, India
Y.V.R. Reddy
Affiliation:
Principal Scientist (Agricultural Economics), Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Santoshnagar, Hyderabad - 500 639, Andhra Pradesh, India
Get access

Abstract

Four land use options—annual cropping, agroforestry, agrihorticulture, and agrosilviculture—were tried on a Land Capability Class IVs Alfisol under rainfed conditions to find a farming system that would be profitable and sustainable. The agrihorticultural system required more cash input but gave a value/cost ratio of 2.16 compared with 1.95 with annual cropping, 1.69 with agroforestry and 1.52 with agrosilviculture. Runoff was 4.9% in the agrihorticultural system, and 10.6% with agroforesty. Economic and soil health considerations led to the conclusion that the agrihorticultural system would be a sustainable land use option for the semi-arid Alfisol However, other options also are profitable, with value/cost ratios of more than 1.50. Therefore, land users can choose among several systems, depending on their desired production level and their investment capacity.

Keywords

agrihorticultureagroforestryagrosilvicultureannual croppingsustainable land use
Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , March 1993 , pp. 34 - 39
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Abrol, I.P. 1991. Challenge of the nineties—the role of soil scientists. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 39:6–13.Google Scholar
2.Chow, Ven Te. 1964. Runoff. In Ven Te Chow, (ed). Handbook of Applied Hydrology. McGraw-Hill, New York, N.Y. pp. 14–1 to 14–54.Google Scholar
3.Jaradat, A.A. 1990. Farming systems around the Mediterranean: Exploitation versus sustainability. In R.P. Singh (ed). Sustainable Agriculture: Issues, Perspectives and Prospects in Semi-arid Tropics. Vol. I. Indian Soc. Agronomy, New Delhi, pp. 313–336.Google Scholar
4.Kang, B.T., and Wilson, G.F.. 1987. The development of alley cropping as a promising agroforestry technology. In Steppler, H. A. and Nair, P.K.R. (eds). Agroforestry: A Decade of Development. International Center for Research in Agroforestry, Nairobi, Kenya.Google Scholar
5.Kang, B.T., Wilson, G.F., and Sipkens, L.. 1981. Alley cropping maize (Zea mays L.) and Leucaena (Leucaena leucocephala Lam) in southern Nigeria. Plant and Soil 63:165–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Kang, B.T., Wilson, G.F., and Lawson, T.L.. 1984. Alley cropping: A stable alternative to shifting cultivation. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria.Google Scholar
7.Kessler, J.J., and Breman, H.. 1991. The potential of agroforestry to increase primary production in the Sahelian and Sudanian zones of West Africa. Agroforestry Systems 13:41–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Khanna, S.S. 1991. Presidential Address. 55th Annual Convention of the Indian Society of Soil Science. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 39:1–5.Google Scholar
9.Klingebiel, L.A., and Montgomery, P.H.. 1961. Land Capability Classification. Handbook 210. U.S. Dept. of Agric, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
10.MacDicken, K.G. 1990. Multipurpose nitrogen fixing trees and their role in agroforestry systems. In R.P. Singh (ed). Sustainable Agriculture: Issues, Perspectives and Prospects in Semiarid Tropics. Vol. II. Indian Soc. Agronomy, New Delhi, pp. 141–157Google Scholar
11.Reddy, Y.V.R., and Korwar, G.R.. 1985. A comparative economic evaluation of agroforestry, silvo-agriculture and silvo-pastoral systems in drylands. Agricultural Situation in India 40(8):705–708.Google Scholar
12.Saharan, N., Korwar, G.R., Das, S.K., Osman, M., and Singh, R.P.. 1989. Silvipastoral system in marginal Alfisols for sustainable agriculture. Indian J. Dryland Agric. Research and Development 4(2):41–47.Google Scholar
13.Sharma, S., Das, S.K., Gupta, P.D., and Srivastava, N.N.. 1988. Soil loss under different land use systems in dryland Alfisols. Indian J. Dryland Agric. Research and Development 3(1):43–48.Google Scholar
14.Singh, R.P. 1989. Dryland agricultural research in India. In Forty Years of Agricultural Research and Education in India. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi, pp. 136–164.Google Scholar
15.Singh, P. 1990. Forage production systems for different agroecological zones of India. In R.P. Singh (ed.) Sustainable Agriculture: Issues, Perspectives and Prospects in Semiarid Tropics. Vol. I. Indian Soc. Agronomy, New Delhi. 395–415Google Scholar
16.Singh, R.P., Vijayalakshmi, K., Korwar, G.R., and Osman, M.. 1987. Alternative Land Use Systems for Drylands of India. Central Research Institute for Dryland Agric, Hyderabad.Google Scholar
17.Singh, R.P., Ong, C.K., and Saharan, N.. 1989. Above and below ground interactions in alley-cropping in semi-arid India. Agroforestry Systems 9:259–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Swindale, L.D. 1991. Research for the implementation of a land use policy in India. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 39:14–31.Google Scholar
19.Verinumbe, I., and Okali, D.U.U.. 1985. The influence of coppiced teak (Tectona grandis L.F.) regrowth and roots on intercropped maize (Zea mays L.). Agroforestry Systems 3:381–386.Google Scholar
20.Wiersum, K.F. 1984. Surface erosion under various tropical agroforestry systems. In O'Loughlin, C.L. and Pearce, A.J. (eds). Symposium on Effects of Forest Land Use on Erosion and Slope Stability. East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii, pp. 231–239.Google Scholar
21.Wiersum, K.F. 1985. Effects of various vegetation layers in an Acacia auriculiformis forest plantation on surface erosion in Java, Indonesia. In El-Swaify, S.A., Moldenhauer, W.C., and Lo, A. (eds). Soil Erosion and Conservation. Soil Conservation Society of America, Ankeny, Iowa. pp. 79–89.Google Scholar
22.Young, A. 1989. Agroforestry for soil conservation. Science and Practice of Agroforestry No. 4. International Center for Research in Agroforestry, Nairobi, Kenya.Google Scholar