Legume Research

  • Chief EditorJ. S. Sandhu

  • Print ISSN 0250-5371

  • Online ISSN 0976-0571

  • NAAS Rating 6.80

  • SJR 0.391

  • Impact Factor 0.8 (2024)

Frequency :
Monthly (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December)
Indexing Services :
BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Research Article

Legume Research, volume 44 issue 9 (september 2021) : 1092-1096

Productivity of Pigeonpea [Cajanus cajana (L.) Millsp] under Teak (Tectona grandis) Based Agroforestry Systems in Semiarid Tropics

Doddabasawa1,*, B.M. Chittapur2, M. Mahadeva Murthy3
1College of Agriculture, Bheemarayanagudi-585 287, Shahapur, Yadgir, Karnataka, India.
2Directorate of Extension, University of Agricultural Sciences, Raichur-584 102, Karnataka, India.
3Department of Forestry and Environmental Science, Gandhi Krishi Vigyana Kendra, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangaluru-560 065, Karnataka, India.

  • Submitted17-08-2019|

  • Accepted06-02-2020|

  • First Online 15-04-2020|

  • doi 10.18805/LR-4214

Cite article:- Doddabasawa, Chittapur B.M., Murthy Mahadeva M. (2021). Productivity of Pigeonpea [Cajanus cajana (L.) Millsp] under Teak (Tectona grandis) Based Agroforestry Systems in Semiarid Tropics . Legume Research. 44(9): 1092-1096. doi: 10.18805/LR-4214.

ABSTRACT

The productivity of teak based agroforestry system was studied during 2016-17 under irrigated ecosystem in Yadagir district of North-eastern dry zone (None II) of Karnataka. Significantly lower pigeonpea grain yield (1766 kg ha-1) and biomass yield (8207 kg ha-1) in association with teak were recorded at 5 m away from the tree line compared to the crop at a distance 10 m (2345 and 10089 kg ha-1, respectively) and 15 m (8207, 10526 kg ha-1, respectively) away from the tree line whereas harvest index remained unaffected. Non-significant differences were observed  in grain yield and harvest index, albeit numerically higher grain yield were recorded in the control (2316 kg ha-1) without teak nearby compared to the agroforestry systems and within agroforestry systems boundary planting recorded numerically higher grain yield (2228 kg ha-1) than with bund planting (2081 kg ha-1). Significantly higher girth, volume and biomass of teak were recorded in bund planting (76.37 cm, 0.390 m3 and 215 kg, respectively) followed by silvi-horti system (72.65 cm, 0.381m3 and 209 kg, respectively) and boundary planting (69.10 cm, 0.342 m3 and 215 kg, respectively), whereas significantly lower girth, volume and biomass were recorded in block plantation (51.45 cm, 0.182 m3 and 100 kg, respectively). The study also revealed significantly lower crown spread in block plantation (2.85 m) followed by boundary planting (4.63 m).

INTRODUCTION

The agroforestry systems are multifunctional land use systems comprising of both traditional and modern land use systems, where trees are managed together with crops, vegetables, fruits and/or livestock production under both irrigated and rainfed ecosystems where it produces multiple products along with ecosystem services such as soil and water conservation in the short run and carbon sequestration in the long run, decrease in deforestation, moderation of microclimate and conservation of biodiversity (NAP, 2014).  However, the structure and composition of agroforestry systems are influenced by the heterogeneous factors like socioeconomic status of the farmer, utility and economic value of the component species, competitive and complementary effect of trees and ecological condition of the area (Giller et al., 2006). Many studies reported that the species composition is manipulated or altered by the farmers primarily to get higher economic returns or to get special services or products. Nyaga et al., 2015 studied the factors affecting the adoption and practices of agroforestry system within small holder farms in rift valley in Kenya and reported that the farmers incorporated few species of native and exotic with higher density as source of fodder, fruit and timber. Farmers preferentially incorporated Calliandra calothyrsus and Sesbania spp. having higher protein content for fodder purpose in bund and boundary planting and Euclyptus spp., Cupressus lusitanica, Grevillea robusta, Markhamia lutea and Croton macrostachyus for timber value in the form of wood lot, bund and boundary planting. Similarly in India, Alnus nepalensis based agroforestry systems of Himalayan region in India (Rita et al., 2007), Prosopis cineraria with millets in Rajasthan (Tejwan, 1994) and Populus deltoids with wheat and block plantations in Western India (Chaun et al., 2015) proved advantageous over sole agricultural crops.
 
In southern India, teak, eucalyptus, silver oak, ailanthus and melia have attracted the farmers for their economic and industrial value who grew in the form of wood lots, shelterbelts, alley cropping, bund and boundary planting. Especially in recent days, teak is a choice species in the farm land for its premium timber, easy manageability and suitability for agroforestry system because of deep root system, deciduous nature and minimal canopy cover with least shading effect (Nimatul et al., 2015). However, the research information on growth and productivity of teak and the associated seasonal agricultural crops under different agroforestry systems and their interaction is necessary to further popularize teak based agroforestry on farm land. Therefore, present investigation was undertaken to know the productivity of teak based agroforestry systems in the North-eastern dry zone of Karnataka, at Yadagir district, India.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was under taken in Yadagir district of North eastern part of Karnataka during 2016-17. The climate is semi-arid with an average rainfall of 750 mm and mean annual temperature ranges from 18.6° to 32.5°C and mean elevation ranges from 350-680 m. The soils are deep to very deep black soils and medium black soils in major areas while sandy loam and light textured soils are also found in some pockets. The major crops grown are pigeonpea, bengalgram, soybean, groundnut, greengram, pearlmillet (bajra), sorghum, sunflower and safflower under rainfed condition and chilli, cotton, sugarcane, paddy and maize under irrigated condition.
 
Higher economic value of Teak attracted the farmers and is being grown by majority of the farmers under irrigated ecosystem in the region with higher density since 25 years. Teak is incorporated in the form of bund planting, boundary planting, block plantation and silvi-horti system for the present study Teak based agroforestry systems were selected in the farmers field and 4 farmers in each system with a plot size of one hectare were selected and as the plots were located in different locations average of 4 farmers without trees representing the locations were taken as control plot to compare with the agroforestry systems. The pigeonpea is the major field crop grown in the region. The system components, cropping pattern and other details are given in the Table 1 further the soil particle analysis was carried out to know the genetically difference in the soil characteristics and the soil of the study area is sandy clay loam texture (Sand= 66.19 to 74.19%, Sil= 5.10 to 9.04% and Clay= 20.04 to 28.72% ) at 0-15 cm depth .
 

Table 1: The details of the prominent teak based agroforestry systems selected for assessment under irrigated ecosystem.


 
The productivity of the teak based agroforestry system was assessed in terms of yield and biomass of field crop and perennial component of the agroforestry systems. The biomass and grain yield of pigeonpea was recorded with a net plot size of 6 m × 5 m and the sample plots were laid out randomly with 3 replication at a desistance of 5 m, 10 m and 15 m from the tree line and total plots laid were 9 in each farmers field whereas in control 9 plots of 6 m × 5 m were laid out randomly in the entire field. The mature crop was harvested at ground level; later grain and haulm were separated. Further, they were dried and weighed in electronic balance and were computed, averaged and extrapolated to per ha basis and expressed as kg ha-1. The harvest index of the crop was calculated with the following equation.

 
  
Tree productivity
 
The tree productivity refers to increase in tree biomass per unit area. The productivity of tree biomass was calculated by non-harvesting method by taking the measurements of girth and height of the standing trees and then volume was calculated. 20 trees were randomly selected in each agroforestry system and mean girth, height and volume of tree was worked out and extrapolated by multiplying with number of trees in each agroforestry systems on per hectare basis. The tree height was measured with help of Ravi altimeter from the ground level to the tip of the tree and expressed in meter (Chaturvedi and Khanna, 1981), tree girth at breast height (1.37 m) from the ground level was measured with the help of measuring tape and expressed in cm, crown spread was measured with measuring tape by taking the width of the crown in North-South and East-West direction by projecting the perimeter of the crown vertically to the ground and calculated by using the formula given by Chaturvedi and Khanna (1981).
 
 

Where,
D1- Crown width in North-South direction D2 -Crown width in East-West direction and the tree volume was calculated with the following formula. Where ‘g’ is girth at breast height (cm), ‘h’ is height in (m), π is 3.4125 (Chaturvedi and Khanna, 1981).

 

Data analysis
 
The data was analyzed for univariate analysis and one way ANOVA at a significance level of 0.05 and further, to know the difference between the means post hoc test was performed using Duncan test at significance level of 0.05 by using SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Science) version 20.0

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The growth performance of pigeonpea at different distances from the tree line is given in the Table 2.  The non-significant differences were recorded for grain yield, biomass yield and harvest index between the agroforestry systems. However, significantly lower grain yield (1766 kg ha-1) and biomass yield (8207 kg ha-1) were recorded at 5 m away from the tree line compared to the crop at a distance 10 m (2345 and 10089 kg ha-1, respectively) and 15 m (8207, 10526 kg ha-1, respectively) away from the tree line whereas harvest index remained unaffected. 
 

Table 2: Growth performance of pigeonpea at different distances from the tree line in different agroforestry systems under irrigated ecosystem.


       
The non-significant differences were observed  in grain yield and harvest index, while numerically higher value of grain yield were recorded in the control (2316 kg ha-1) without teak nearby compared to the agroforestry systems and within agroforestry systems boundary planting recorded numerically higher grain yield (2228 kg ha-1) than the bund planting (2081 kg ha-1), while significantly higher biomass was recorded in boundary planting (10046 kg ha-1) followed by control (9922 kg ha-1)  and bund planting (9169 kg ha-1) (Table 3).
 

Table 3: Productivity of pigeonpea in different agroforestry systems under irrigated ecosystem.


 
The lower grain and biomass yield near the tree line could be due to the competition of trees for light, moisture and nutrients with field crops through shading and root competition.  This confirmed that the competition effect was more near the tree line compared to away from the tree line. In the present study it was noticed that competition effect of trees on crop growth was up to 5 m. It could be mainly attributed to the shading effect by the tree canopy and root competition. This also suggested that while selecting the tree species for agroforestry systems light crown and deep rooted species should be preferred or the timely pruning management may be followed to reduce the competition effect on crop to some extent. The results are in line with Muthuri et al., (2005) who observed reduction of grain, biomass yield and harvest index of maize in agroforestry system over sole maize and reported 36% of grain yield reduction close to the tree rows at a distance up to 5 m.
 
Further the grain yield did not differ significantly among the agroforestry systems compared to the sole crop. This could again be attributed to less competition for growth factors by teak trees with field crops as the teak tree is deciduous in nature and has thin crown which made little adverse impact on the associated crop growth and as crop was mainly grown under irrigation, moisture was not the constraint for competition by tree and if anything else it could be nutrients and light. Again nutrients are not the problem as irrigated crops are sufficiently fertilized/manured. Besides, crop canopy basically in teak is sparse and not dense. However, numerically higher yield was recorded in the control which total lack of competition and even absence of falling leaves which may be rich in some allelo-chemicals such as tannins etc. Further, the crop grown along the boundary recorded higher biomass yield for the reasons already explained in the previous paragraphs. The findings are in line with Kamal and Mohammed (2013).
 
Productivity of teak in agroforestry systems
 
Growth performance of teak trees in different agroforestry systems is presented in Table 4. The height of the tree did not differ significantly among the agroforestry systems. However, significantly higher girth, volume and biomass were recorded in bund planting (76.37 cm, 0.390 m3 and 215 kg, respectively) followed by silvi-horti system (72.65 cm, 0.381 m3 and 209 kg, respectively), boundary planting (69.10 cm, 0.342 m3 and 215 kg, respectively), whereas significantly lower girth, volume and biomass were recorded in block plantation (51.45 cm, 0.182 m3 and 100 kg, respectively). The study also revealed significantly lower crown spread in block plantation (2.85 m) followed by boundary planting (4.63 m).
 

Table 4: Growth performance of teak trees in different agroforestry systems under irrigated ecosystem.


 
This gives insight that the teak trees grown with field crops had higher biomass and volume compared to the sole teak. This was mainly because the trees gown in block plantation were planted in close spacing by 2.5 m  X 2.5 m and thinning operation was not yet carried out by the farmers at proper time hence teak tree did not put expected growth in terms of girth as well as crown spread. The high density and continued competition from the perennial tree component all round plant suppressed the plant in putting required growth. Another factor could be the application of fertilizer and irrigation to the field crops which might have been made use by teak grown in association with crop. Besides associated crop could put up hardly any competition to teak thereby teak could put ups more volume and biomass. Within agroforestry higher volume and biomass were recorded in bund planting compared to the silvi-horti and boundary planting. This might be due to trees on bund planting were better managed to reduce the competition effect and another factor was that the trees in silvihorti and boundary planting were thickly planted which might have caused inter and intra species competition among the trees. The findings are in line with. Bilas and Singh (2015) who reported higher biomass of trees grown in agroforestry system compared to trees grown in pure/block stand.

CONCLUSION

The results indicated the competitive effect of teak tree on pigeon is minimal and varied with the density of trees and pattern of planting. Further pigeon pea yields were found to be lower in near the tree lines which suggest that the silviculture management such as pruning and lopping needs to be undertaken to minimize the shading effect and trenching in the early planting may limit the root competition. The growth and productivity of teak was also affected by the crop management and silviculture management. The farmers planted teak in block plantation   with close spacing have not practiced thinning in order to get higher productivity and quality timber of teak application of silvicultural management is utmost important. Finally the study indicated that the farmer needs to be educated to practice the silvicultural management application to get higher productivity and income.

REFERENCES


  1. Bilas, S. and Singh, G., (2015), Biomass production and carbon stock in a silvi-horti based agroforestry system in arid region of Rajasthan. Indian Forester. 141(12): 1237-    1243.

  2. Chaturvedi, A.N. and Khanna, L.S. (1981). Forest Mensuration. International Book Distributors, Dehradun.

  3. Chauhan, S.K., Sharma, R., Singh, B. and Sharma, S.C. (2015). Biomass production, carbon sequestration and economics of on-farm poplar plantations in Punjab, India. Journal of Applied and Natural Science. 7(1): 452-458.

  4. Giller, K.E., Rowe, E.C., De-Ridder, N. and Van-Keulen, H. (2006). Resource use dynamics and interaction in tropics: scaling up in space and time. Agroforestry Systems. 88: 8-27.

  5. Kamal, E. and Mohammed, F. (2013). Influence of Acacia senegal agroforestry system on growth and yield of sorghum, sesame, roselle and gum in north Kordofan State, Sudan. Journal of Forestry Research. 24(1): 173-177.

  6. Muthuri, C.W., Ong, C.K., Black, C.R., Ngumi, V.W. and Mati, B.M. (2005). Tree and crop productivity in Grevillea, Alnus and Paulownia- based agroforestry systems in semi-arid Kenya. Forest Ecology and Management. 212: 23-39.

  7. National Agroforestry Policy (NAP). (2014). Government of India, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi. Pp1-14.

  8. Nimatul, K., Aulia, P., Arif, R., Gerhard, M., James, M. R. and Meine, V.N. (2015). Intercropping of teak (Tectona grandis) and maize (Zea mays): bioeconomic trade off analysis of agroforestry management practices in Gunungkidul, West Java. Agroforestry Systems. 89: 1019-1033.

  9. Nyaga, J., Barrios, E., Muthuri, C.W., Oborn, I., Matiru, V. and Sinclair, F.L. (2015). Evaluating factors influencing heterogeneity in agroforestry adoption and practices within smallholder farmers in Rift Valley, Kenya. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 212: 106-118.

  10. Rita, S., Jianchu X and Sharma, G. (2007). Traditional agroforestry in the eastern Himalayan region: Land management systme supporting ecosystem services. Tropical Ecology. 48(2): 1-12

  11. Tejwani, K.G. (1994). Agroforestry in India. Oxford and IBH, New Delhi, India. 
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)