087 by International Journal

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Vol-3, Issue-2, 2017 ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in

Impact of Tree Management on the Growth and Production Behaviour of Zea Mays under an Agroforestry System in Solan District Of Himachal Pradesh Rupinder Kaur1*, Mamta Sharma1 & Sunil Puri1 1

School of Biological and Environment Sciences Shoolini University, Solan (Himachal Pradesh) - 173212, India Abstract: A field study on impact of tree management on the growth and production behaviour of Zea mays as intercrop was conducted under existing agrisilvicultural system in mid hills of Solan district, Himachal Pradesh. Study was conducted to evaluate the production behaviour of Zea mays as intercrop in an agri-silviculture system located in Sultanpur village of Solan district (Himachal Pradesh).The trees present were Grewia optiva, Bauhinia variegata and Toona ciliata. Plant height, number of leaves, number of cobs, number of grains, grain yield, straw yield and harvest index were evaluated during the year 2010 and 2011. Grain yield and harvest index was 1.21 and 1.13 times more in the year 2011 in comparison to year 2010. Average straw yield for the two years of study varied from 1208.5 to 1541.0 Mg/ha. Grain yield reduced near the tree base and it gradually increased with an increase in distance from the tree. It is pertinent to mention that there was statistical variability between four sites and sole crop for different parameters studied during both years of study. Results on biomass attributes in Zea mays were in the order of cob>shoot>leaf> root in different components of plant. Average biomass among different components varied from 1208.5 to 1541.0, 299.1 to 349.8, 82.9 to 174.0 and 33.1 to 59.9 Mg/ha in cob, shoot, leaf and root, respectively from the year 2010 to 2011. There was statistically significant variation among yield attributes and biomass of control and other studied sites. Key words: Agroforestry system, Biomass, Grain yield, Harvest index, Productivity and Zea mays 1.

Introduction

Agroforestry is a farming system integrating crop with trees and shrubs to obtain environmental, ecological and economical benefits (Thevathasan et al., 2004). Cultivation of agricultural crop along with trees (agri-silviculture) is an exclusive practice in Himalayan region of Himachal Pradesh, India.

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)

Traditional farmers retain certain trees and shrubs in their crop production systems as a means to restore soil fertility exhausted by cropping (Moorman and Greenland, 1980; Getahun et al., 1982). The agrisilviculture is a very common practice by the farmers of hilly region which includes cultivation of agricultural crops in association of forest trees present in the fields. In hilly regions the existence without agroforestry is difficult because trees not only supplement the fodder, fuel, fibre, fruits etc. but also reduces the pace of land sliding in the fields, protect crops adverse wind and climatic condition, conserve the moisture, improve the soil quality through nitrogen fixing and organic matter in terms of litter fall etc. The planting of trees along with crops improves soil fertility, controls and prevents soil erosion, controls water logging, checks acidification and eutrophication of streams and rivers, increase local biodiversity, decrease pressure on natural forests for fuel and provide fodder for livestock (Makundi and Sathaye, 2004). Reports are available where the positive and/ or negative impacts of the presence of tree canopies on the performance of understorey vegetation have been indicated (Huxley et al., 1989; Kessler, 1992; Ong et al., 1991; Puri and Bangarwa, 1992; Lakshmma and Rao, 1996; Rao et al., 1998 and Gillespie et al., 2000; Thakur and Dutt, 2003) Maize is one of the most important cereal crops of India not only in terms of hectares, but also in terms of its versality for adoption under wide range of agro climatic and crop growing situations. Intercropping of cereal crops between the rows of timber, fodder and fuel tree species may provide good opportunity to diversify agroforestry and increase economic returns to the farming community due to diversify agroforestry and increase economic returns to the farming community due to fast growth and valuable timber (Chauhan et al., 2013).

Page 502

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Vol-3, Issue-2, 2017 ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in Although a number of studies on the Himalayan agroforestry systems (Toky et al., 1989; Ralhan et al., 1991; Sundriyal et al., 1994; Semwal and Maikhuri, 1996; Singh et al., 1997) are available, but the productivity of agricultural crops under agroforestry systems has not been worked out properly. Keeping in view, the present investigation is an effort to examine the productivity of Zea mays in an existing agrisilvicultural system in the subtemperate mid-hills of Himachal Pradesh. 2.

Materials and Methods

Fresh and dry weight of Maize was also taken for biomass estimation. Cultural operations followed in Zea mays were as per the package of practices followed in Dr. Y. S. Parmar University of Horticulture, Solan (Anon, 2006). Data of all the parameters (growth, biomass and productivity) was statistically analysed using Duncan’s multiple range test (DMRT) at p<0.05.

The study was carried out in the Solan district of Himachal Pradesh (Fig.1), which lies between 30 0 50’30” N-300 52’0” N latitudes and 770 8’30” E77011’30” E longitude (Survey of India Top sheet No. 53F/1). Geographically it falls under Zone-II, sub-temperate and sub-humid, mid hills category. The traditional agroforestry fields are dominant with luxuriant and green lush natural vegetation. The study site falls within the vicinity of Shoolini University which is at a distance of 10 km from Oachghat (Fig. 2). In village Sultanpur, agrosilviculture practices are followed, which is a combined production system integrating agricultural crops as well as forest. The prominent tree species present in the study area are; Grewia optiva Drumm. (Beul), Bauhinia variegata Linn. (Kachnar) and Toona ciliata Roxb. (Toon). The agricultural fields are terraced with trees growing along boundaries but with no regular sequence. The area receives an average annual rainfall of 1400 mm, majority of which is received during monsoons, i.e. July to mid-September. The minimum and maximum temperature varies from 30C during winter (January) to 330C during summer (June). Soil is inceptisols and typic entrochrepts type and texture is gravelly, sandy and loamy (Devi et al., 2013). Five quadrates of 50x50 cm in triplicates were laid randomly which were site 1 (control), site 2, site 3, site 4 and site 5 for the growth and biomass estimation of Zea mays. The samples of agricultural crops were taken from farmers’ fields in completely randomized design. Samples of Zea mays from the laid quadrates were harvested at the time of maturity stage from control as well as crop growing under trees. Crop height, crop density, number of leaves per plant, number of cobs per plant, and number of grains per plant were measured. Further, mature crop was separated into grains and straw and dried to obtain net yield of Zea mays. The Harvest index is used to denote the fraction of economically useful products of plant in relation to its productivity and calculated using following formula (Khandakar, 1985)

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)

Fig. 1: Location map of Solan district, Himachal Pradesh

Fig. 2: Google map showing study site

Page 503

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Vol-3, Issue-2, 2017 ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in 3.

Results and Discussion

The present study was aimed to analyse the productivity of maize as intercrop under Grewia optiva, Bauhinia variegata and Toona ciliata based agroforestry system. Out of different growth parameters, average plant height varied from 2.55 to 2.76 m during two years of study. It was maximum in sole crop (Fig. 5). Similarly average crop density varied from 2.50 to 2.93 m-1 as given in Fig. 6. Number of leaves per plant, number of cobs per plant and number of grains were maximum in sole crop and varied from 12.3612.87, 6.78-7.13 and 383.5-356, respectively from the study years 2010-2011 (Fig. 7, Fig. 8 and Fig. 9). The reason for more number of leaves under control at the harvest stage might be due to more photosynthesis activity due to high light availability. Mutanal et al. (2008) also reported more number of leaves in agave under sole condition as compared to grown under trees. Grain yield and harvest index increased year wise and it was 1.21 and 1.13 times more in the year 2011 (556.9 Mg/ha and 31.94%) in comparison to year 2010 (458 Mg/ha and 28.18%) as shown in Fig. 10 and Fig.12. Grain yield reduced near to tree base and it gradually increased with an increase in distance from the trees. Straw yield varied from 1208.53 to 1541 Mg/ha from the first year of study to second year of study (Fig. 11). The reason for the more grain yield under control may be due to as there was no competition of light by the crops for synthesizing food materials. Similar to present study higher grain yield was recorded by Thaware et al. (2004) in sole crop as compared to intercropping under trees in Maharashtra. Kaur and Puri (2013) also reported more grain yield, number of pods and number of grains under sole crop in Vigna mungo. The morphology and productivity of Zea mays is summarised in Table 2. An overview of the table reveals that for any character studied it is not consistent, i.e., there is variability between first and second year. The variability is both in terms of morphological features and yield (productivity). This is an indicator that the crop growth is dependent upon various factors like environment and cultural practices followed. However, it is also maize production under agrihortisilviculture system in north-western Himalayas. Maximum plant height (195 cm), number of plants (6.72 m-2) and grain yield (42.17 q ha-1) of maize were recorded under control (sole cropping) in comparison to crop under six different tree species.

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)

evident that the trend for the two years was almost same and it did not vary except for quantity. As already explained this quantity variation is attributed to factors like environment (especially rainfall), cultural practices and competition for resources. However, the trend for reduction was same and crop productivity was higher in sole crop compared to crop growing under trees. Biomass of different components in Zea mays is presented in Table 1. Average biomass of different components was in the order of cob>shoot>leaf>root i.e. 1374.75 Mg/ha, 324.45 Mg/ha, 128.45 Mg/ha and 46.50 Mg/ha, respectively as presented in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4. There was statically significant variation in the biomass among control site and other four sites. Kaur and Puri (2013) also reported that sole crop had more biomass in comparison to crop grown under trees. They reported that total biomass of crop with trees was 33.34 Mg/ha whereas for sole crop it was 38.19 Mg/ha in Vigna mungo and also in Triticum aestivum the total biomass for sole crop was 79.25 Mg/ha whereas crop with trees showed 74.63 Mg/ha biomass. Therefore, the suitable matching of trees and crops, their proper spatial and geometrical arrangements and tree management are necessary to increase overall productivity. The reduction in productivity is attributed to various antagonistic interactions in tree based eco-systems, i.e., reduction in light availability, CO2, and less availability of water and nutrients. The impacts of these factors on productivity were reported by Kohli et al. (1990), Singh and Kohli (1992) who opined that agroforestry systems tree and crop components compete for same growth factors namely light, CO2, water and nutrients at the same time, hence causing reduction in all growth parameters i.e., plant height, number of shoots/unit area, dry matter accumulation, straw yield etc. The reduction in straw yield under trees was also confirmed by Itnal et al. (1991), Singh and Pathak (1993), Sharma et al. (1994) and Bhakuni (1998). Many authors found similar observations and attributed to reduction in light availability, and competition for water and nutrients between trees and crops (Kohli et al. 1990). Kumar et al. (2010) also evaluated 4.

Conclusion

There is no doubt that traditional agroforestry system studied is in vogue from centuries in the mid-hills of the Himalayaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s. Although the system is providing fewer yields compared to sole crops, these complex agroforestry land use systems provide a broad range of products for home consumption as foods, medicines, building

Page 504

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Vol-3, Issue-2, 2017 ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in materials, fuel and fodder for their day to day use. Structurally and functionally they are probably closest mimics of natural forests. During the present investigation it was observed that growth and yield attributes decreased highest in closer vicinity of tree trunk. The maximum crop growth (plant height), crop density, number of leaves per plant, grain yield and harvest index of Zea mays was recorded in control condition.

Acknowledgment

The authors are grateful to the Vice Chancellor, Prof. P.K. Khosla, Shoolini University (Solan, H.P.) for providing necessary laboratory conditions for conducting the study. The help extended by the farmers of the study area are duly acknowledged. 6.

References

[1] Anon, (2000). Path to prosperity through agroforestry: ICRAFâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s corporate strategy. 2001-2010. ICRAF Publication, Nairobi, Kenya. 43. [2] Bhakuni, B.P.S. (1998). Studies on growth and yield behaviour of mung bean (Vigna radiata L. wilczek) genotypes in open and under Eucalyptus hybrid [M.Sc dissertation]. G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, Uttaranchal. 134. [3] Devi, B., Bhardwaj, D.R., Panwar, P., Pal, S., Gupta, N.K. & Thakur, C.L., (2013). Carbon allocation, sequestration and carbon dioxide mitigation under plantation forests of north western Himalaya, India. Annals of Forest Research. 56(1), 123-35. [4] Getahun, A., Wilson, G.F. & Kang, B.T. (1982). The role of trees in farming systems in the humid tropics. In: Mac Donald L.H. (Ed.). Agroforestry in the African Humid Tropics. UNU, Tokyo, Japan. 28-35. [5] Gillespie, A.R., Jose, S., Mengel, D.B., Hoove, W.L., Pope, P.E., Street, J.R., Biehle, D.J., Stall, T. & Benjamin, T.J. (2000). Defining competition vectors in a temperate alley cropping system in the Midwestern USA. A production physiology. Agroforestry Systems. 48, 25-40. [6] Huxley, P.A., Darnhofer, T., Pinney, A., Akunda, E., Gatama, D., 1989. The tree/crop interface: a project designed to

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)

generate experimental Agroforestry. 2, 127-45.

methodology.

[7] Itnal, C.J., Dixit, L.A. & Patil, S.V., (1991). Influence of various economic tree species on growth and yield of Rabi sorghum in an agroforestry system. Karnataka Journal of Agriculture Sciences. 4(3-4), 132-41. [8] Kaur, R. & Puri, S. (2013). Productivity and nutrient dynamics in Vigna mungo and Triticum aestivum growing in an agroforestry system in Himachal Pradesh. International Journal of Botany and Research. 3: 43-50. [9] Kessler, J.J. (1992). The influence of karite (Vitellaria paradoxa) and nere (Parkia biglobosa) trees on sorghum production in Burkina Faso. Agroforestry Systems. 17, 97118 [10] Khandakar, A.L. (1985). Screening genotypes of higher Harvest Index. Annual Report. 158-65. [11] Kohli, R.K., Singh, D. & Verma, R.C. (1990). Influence of Eucalyptus shelterbelts on winter season agro-ecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment. 33(1), 23-31. [12] Kumar, T.M., Verma, K.S. & Pant, K.S. (2010). Evaluation of mulberry, peach and maize under agrihortisilviculture system in north- western Himalayas. Journal of Research, SKUAST-J. 9(2): 185-92.

[13] Kushwaha, H.S. & Mathur, G.M. (1995). Effect on yield of growing agriculture crops between multipurpose trees in an agroforestry system. Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika. 10(3), 101-04. [14] Lakshmma, P. & Rao, S.I.V. (1996). Response of Black gram (Vigna mungo) to shade and naphthalene acetic acid. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology. 1, 53-64 [15] Makundi, W.R. & Sathaye, J.A. (2004). GHG mitigation potential and cost in tropical forestry-relative role for agroforestry. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 6, 235-60. [16] Moorman, R.R. & Greenland, D.J. (1980). Major production systems related to soil properties in humid tropical Africa. In: Soil Related Constraints to Food Production in

Page 505

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Vol-3, Issue-2, 2017 ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in the tropics. IRRI, Loss Banos, Philippines. 55-77.

[25] Singh, D. & Kohli, R.K. (1992). Impact of Eucalyptus tereticornis Sm. shelterbelts on crops. Agroforestry Systems. 20, 253-66.

[17] Mutanal, S.M., Patil, S.J., Shahapurmath, G. & Mahes-warappa, V. (2008). Growth and yield of agave under different tree species. Journal of Tropical forestry. 24(2): 58-60.

[26] Singh, R.C. & Pathak, P.S. (1993). Growth and production of pigeon pea under Acacia tortilis canopy in an agri-silvicultural system. Range Management and Agroforestry. 14(2), 171-78.

[18] Ong, C.K., Corlett, J.E., Singh, R.P. & Black, C.K. (1991). Above and below ground interaction in Agroforestry systems. Forest Ecology and Management. 45, 45-57

[27] Singh, R.D. & Bhatnagar, V.K. (1997). Differences in soil and leaf litter nutrient status under Pinus, Cedrus and Quercus. Indian Journal of Forestry. 147-49.

[19] Puri, S. & Bangarwa, K.S. (1992). Effects of trees on the yield of irrigated wheat crop in semiarid regions. Agroforestry Systems (The Netherlands). 20(3), 229-41.

[28] Sundriyal, R.C. & Joshi, A.P. (1990). Effect of grazing on standing crop, productivity and efficiency of energy capture in an alpine grassland ecosystem at Tungnath (Garhwal Himalaya) India. Tropical Ecology. 31, 8797. [29 ]Thakur, P.S. & Dutt, V. (2003). Performance of Wheat as alley crop grown with Morus alba hedgerows under rain fed conditions. Indian Journal of agroforestry. 2, 36-44. [30] Thaware, B.L., Bhagat, S.B., Khadtar, B.S. & Jadhav, B.B. (2004). Effect of tree species on growth and yield of rice (Oryza sativa L.) in Konkan region. Indian Journal of Agroforestry. 6(2): 15-18.

[20] Puri, S. & Nair P.K.R. (2004). Agroforestry Research for Development in India: 25 years of experiences of a national program. Agroforestry Systems. 61, 437-52. [21] Ralhan, P.K., Singh, A. & Dhanda, R.S. (1992). Performance of wheat as intercrop under poplar (Populus deltoides Bartr.) plantation in Punjab India. Agroforestry Systems. 19(3), 217-22. [22] Rao, M.R., Nair, P.K.R. & Ong, C.K. (1998). Biophysical interactions in tropical agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Systems. 38:3-50.

[31] Thevathasan, N.V., Gordan, A.M., Simposon, J.A., Rey-nolds, P.E., Price, G.W. & Zhang, P. (2004). Bio-physical and ecological interactions in a temperate tree-based intercropping system. Journal of Crop Improvement. 12(1-2): 339-363.

[23] Semwal, R.L. & Maikhuri, R.K. (1996). Structure and function of traditional hill ecosystems of Garhwal Himalaya. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture. 13: 267-289.

[32] Toky, O.P., Kumar, P. & Khosla, P.K.. (1989). Structure and function of traditional agroforestry systems in the western Himalaya. I. Biomass and productivity. Agroforestry Systems. 9, 47-70.

[24] Sharma, B.M., Rathore, S.S. & Gupta, J.P. (1994). Compatibility studies on Acacia tortilis and Zizyphus rotundifolia with field crops under arid conditions. Farmers Digest. 30(6-7), 3-9.

Table 1: Biomass attributes of Zea mays grown under agroforestry system during two years of study Leaf biomass (Mg/ha)

Shoot biomass (Mg/ha)

Root biomass (Mg/ha)

Cob biomass (Mg/ha)

1st year

2nd year

1st year

2nd year

1st year

2nd year

1st year

2nd year

87.75 ab

245.7 ab

633.9 a

402.6 b

61.1 a

82.3 a

936.0 b

1530.0 e

75.9 abc

209.2 a

134.5 c

450.1 a

28.6 b

76.0 a

1242.0 ab

1753.3 a

110.8 a

135.8 c

284.8 b

193.4 d

30.5 b

49.1 b

1594.6 a

1242.0 d

60.5 c

158.1 bc

232.5 b

274.1 c

19.2 c

39.9 b

1334.6 ab

1560.0 c

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)

Page 506

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Vol-3, Issue-2, 2017 ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in S5

79.9 bc

121.0 c

209.7 b

429.0 b

26.2 b

52.1 b

935.3 ab

1620.0 b

Mean ± S.E

82.9±8.24

174.0±23.3

299.1±87.12

349.8±49.66

33.1±7.25

59.9±8.19

1208.5±125.5

1541.0±84.03

Average of two years

128.45

324.45

46.50

1374.75

Values are Mean ± standard error. Note S1 (Control) – Site 1 without trees, S2, S3, S4 and S5 are sites with trees Values in the column followed by different letter (s) are significantly different (p<0.05) according to DMRT.

Fig. 3 Biomass of different components of Zea mays for the year 2010 grown under agroforestry system

Fig. 4 Biomass of different components of Zea mays for the year 2011 grown under agroforestry system

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)

Page 507

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Vol-3, Issue-2, 2017 ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in Table 2: Growth and yield attributes of Zea mays grown under agroforestry system during two years of study Plant height

Crop density No. of leaves per plant

No. of cobs per plant

Grain yield

Straw yield

(Mg/ha)

No. of grains per plant

Harvest index (%)

(m-1)

(m)

Sites 1st

2nd

1st

2nd

1st

2nd

1st

2nd

1st

2nd

1st

2nd

1st

2nd

year

13.86±0.26 a

13.25±0.39b

6.85±0.21a

6.8± 0.26a

400.5±17.1b c

372.5±12.8 abc

570±34.64 ab

936±138.67b

456.3±20.2a b

421.6±28.0 a

341.6±16.4c

390.6±11.2 ab

450.6±45.8 ab

2nd year year

year

3.54±0.11a

2.97±0.10 a

2.50±0.33a

3±0.0a

2.73±0.05b

2.71± 0.11a

2.33±0.33a

2.67±0.3a

12.68±0.22 ab

12.42±0.10bc

12.48±0.21b

13.04±0.12ab

7.47±0.62a

7.23±0.33a

3±0.0a

2.36±0.16b

2.93± 0.13a

2.67±0.33a

6.97±0.12a

7.07±0.38a

3±0.01a

1.75±0.06c

2.47 ±0.27a

2.67±0.33a

2.37±0.10 b

2.73± 0.05a

2.33±0.33

Mean ±S.E.

2.55±0.9

2.76±0.9

2.5±0.07

37.63±3.71 1530±103.9 c

37.27±3.23a a

475.3±40.5ab

554.6±45.8 ab

660±34.6a

1242±121.7ab

1594±1249 a

1753±323.0 a

1242±107.7 2d

27.67±0.25 33.08±3.99 a ab 22.21±2.91 34.83±1.55 a b

10.80±0.20c

11.70±0.09c

5.87±0.26b

7.30±0.42a

195.6±12.2d

309±30.7 bc

312±30.0b

540±34.6 ab

1334.6±45.8 ab

1560±249.8 c

17.89±0.45 b

26.29±2.24 a

12.00±0.09b

13.91±0.11a

6.77±0.15a b

7.23±0.20a

523.3±21.5d

286.3±14.1 c

506±26.5 a

460±52.9 b

935±110.5 ab

1620±138.5 b

35.52±3.48 a

28.24±1.09 a

356±25.3

458±39.8

556.9±32

12.36±0.49

12.87±0.38

6.78±0.26

7.13±0.09

383.5±55.7

1208.53±125.5 1

1541±84.03

3±0.01a

2.93±0.07

546±30.a

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)

Page 508

28.18±3.77 31.94±2.04

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Vol-3, Issue-2, 2017 ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in

Fig. 5 Plant height of Zea mays grown under AFS

Fig. 6 Crop density of Zea mays grown under AFS

Fig. 7 Number of leaves in Zea mays grown under AFS

Fig. 8 Number of cobs in Zea mays grown under AFS

Fig. 9 Number of grains in Zea mays grown under AFS

Fig.10 Grain yield of Zea mays grown under AFS

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)

Page 509

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) Vol-3, Issue-2, 2017 ISSN: 2454-1362, http://www.onlinejournal.in

Fig. 11 Straw yield of Zea mays grown under AFS

Fig. 12 Harvest index of Zea mays grown under AFS

Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR)

Page 510