Sv

Pa

Pb

a

ARRA

KSJTMSS

1

tiaAitewego

(

h0

Ecological Engineering 68 (2014) 155–166

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Engineering

jou rn al hom ep age: www.elsev ier .com/ locate /eco leng

oil carbon sequestration potential of Jatropha curcas L. growing inarying soil conditions

ankaj Srivastavaa,1, Yogesh K. Sharmab, Nandita Singha,∗

Eco-Auditing Group, National Botanical Research Institute, Council of Scientific & Industrial Research, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow 226 001, Uttarradesh, IndiaDepartment of Botany, University of Lucknow, Lucknow 226 007, Uttar Pradesh, India

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 17 October 2013eceived in revised form 16 January 2014ccepted 25 March 2014

eywords:oil qualityatropha plantationsotal organic carbonicrobial biomass carbon

oil reclamation

a b s t r a c t

The present study was aimed to evaluate the soil carbon sequestration and reclamation potential of Jat-ropha curcas L. (JCL) growing in varying soil conditions. For this, a study was conducted during 2008–2012at four different sites of Jatropha plantations (Banthara, Gajaria, Bakshi ka talab and NBRI) growing in cen-tral India. Periodic sampling was done for plant biomass, litter turn over, microbial biomass, soil enzymesand carbon and nutrients stock of JCL plantations. The analytical studies clearly indicate that irrespectiveof the soil sites, the Jatropha plantations significantly enhanced ( ̨ = 5%; p ≤ 0.05) the total organic car-bon, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, available phosphorus and potassium content n the soil. During the fourthyear of plantations, the total plant biomass (including the above and below ground biomass) of JCL grow-ing in various plantation sites has been increased from 15.20 ± 4.60 to 203.00 ± 40.60 t ha−1 year−1 witha subsequent total biomass carbon content of 7.60 ± 2.30 to 101.50 ± 13.52 t ha−1 year−1, respectively.

−1 −1

oil carbon sequestration Similarly, the soil carbon stock of the plantation sites varied from 20.59 to 50.45 Mg ha year . Fur-thermore, the microbial biomass carbon content of the four different sites varied from 132.64 ± 9.28to 641.32 ± 38.48 �g g−1 soils. Therefore, the study clearly indicates that JCL plantations can significantly(p ≤ 0.01) enhance the soil quality including the soil carbon pool and microbial biomass carbon and can beused for the concurrent initiatives on biofuel production, soil carbon sequestration and soil reclamation.

© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

crp(amtm2F

. Introduction and background

Recent concerns about rising carbon dioxide (CO2) concentra-ions in the atmosphere and its effects on Earth’s climate havenitiated the necessity to capture and sequester a large amount oftmospheric carbon pool in terrestrial sinks in a sustainable way.s soil is an important terrestrial sink of carbon and vegetation

s the major source of carbon to the soils, this can be achievedhrough forestation and suitable land use conversions (De Gryzet al., 2004; Pandey et al., 2010). Therefore, the conversion ofasteland, degraded and marginal lands to vegetative land will

nhance the soil carbon pool through organic matter input fromrowing plants (Pandey et al., 2010). Among the various groupf plant species recommend for waste land reclamation, biofuel

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 5222297931; fax: +91 522 2205847.E-mail addresses: pksnbri@gmail.com, srivastava pankaj2000@yahoo.com

P. Srivastava), nanditasingh8@yahoo.co.in (N. Singh).1 Tel.: +91 522 2205847; fax: +91 522 2205847.

ghtafLJa(

ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.03.031925-8574/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

rops are often considered as a desirable option for wastelandsemediation. Apart from the benefit of bioenergy production androviding employment opportunities and livelihoods in rural areasAchten et al., 2010a; Phalan, 2009; Sreedevi et al., 2009a,b; Wanind Sreedevi, 2005; Wani et al., 2006, 2009a) the growing plants inarginal and degraded lands will also help in soil carbon fixation

hrough litter and biomass turnover, root exudation and increasedicrobial activity (Wani et al., 2006, 2009b; Betts, 2007; Heruela,

008; Sreedevi et al., 2009a,b; Doua et al., 2013; Evans et al., 2013;ereidooni et al., 2013; Singh et al., 2013).

Therefore, the sustainable and productive use of wastelands byrowing multipurpose species like Jatropha curcas L. (JCL) couldelp to strengthen the local livelihoods and income diversifica-ion (Mandal and Mitrha, 2004). It is estimated that India is havingbout 40–64 million ha of waste lands, which could be partially orully cultivated with JCL for biofuel production (Francis et al., 2005;

educ et al., 2009). Additionally, when marginal land is planted with. curcas, the soil quality of the degraded soil will gradually restorednd will create a positive effect on the surrounding ecosystemsFrancis et al., 2005). Most importantly, JCL is a drought-resistant,

156 P. Srivastava et al. / Ecological Engineering 68 (2014) 155–166

Table 1Soil textural properties under different plantation site.

Plantation Site Location Clay (%) Silt (%) Sand (%) Porosity (g/cc)

Site-1 BNT 48.33 ± 1.15 31.00 ± 1.00 20.67 ± 1.15 5.23 ± 0.002

mtmpLl

tasgc2a(lmeweipsboI

2

2

ftficltaw4mE2Bl8r8

t1rpa1

2

5dhttgwiailwtptatmp

amTbvPawfidccbcmbm

2

zmecgatac

Site-2 GJR 15.00 ± 1.15

Site-3 BKT 51.33 ± 1.15

Site-4 NBRI 22.33 ± 1.15

ultipurpose species well adapted to arid and semi-arid condi-ions, and can be easily cultivated and managed in degraded and

arginal lands with minimal inputs. Therefore, JCL is now widelylanted worldwide in the semi-arid and tropics (Fairless, 2007).ike other Jatropha species, JCL is also a succulent that sheds itseaves during the dry season (Heller, 1996).

Because of its biofuel production potential and adaptabilityo grow in harsh conditions, the growing economies like Indiand China have already incorporated the ‘Jatropha biofuel mis-ion’ within their energy policies. On the other hand, there is arowing apprehension that the careless cultivation of Jatrophaould lead to significant ecological and economic risks (Fairless,007). Furthermore, there is a worldwide debate over the foodnd biofuel production. Nevertheless, as suggested by Achten et al.2010b) and Dyer et al. (2012), a wise and proper use of JCL atocal level, supported by detailed life cycle and risk assessment

ight be a good solution for ascertaining the multipurpose ben-fits and actual potential of this shrubby plant especially for theasteland management and societal improvement in developing

conomies like India. However, there is a dearth of long term stud-es pertaining to the real carbon sequestration and soil reclamationotential of JCL plantations growing in different types of Indianoil. Therefore, the present work was aimed to ascertain the car-on sequestration potential and soil quality improvement abilitiesf JCL growing at four different sites of Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh,ndia.

. Materials and methods

.1. Study site and experimental setup

Jatropha plantations were established at four different sitesor the proposed study. The sites were selected on the basis ofhe textural and chemical properties (Table 1) of the soil. Therst site was Banthra Research Station (BNT) of National Botani-al Research Institute, which is a sodic soil site located at 26◦ 45′′ Natitude and 80◦ 53′′ E longitudes. The pH, EC and sodium concen-rations of the BNT soil were 11.64 ± 0.36, 358.67 ± 67 (�S cm−1)nd 731.33 ± 29.25 (�g g−1), respectively. The Gajaria Farm (GJR)as selected as the second plantation site and is located at 26◦

7′′ N latitude and 81◦ 01′′ E longitudes. The pH of the soil wasore or less neutral to slightly alkaline (7.94 ± 0.48) where as the

C and sodium concentrations were 71.09 ± 3.55 (�S cm−1) and62.29 ± 13.11 (�g g−1), respectively. The third plantation site wasakshi ka Talab (BKT) and is located 26◦ 47′′ N latitude and 80◦ 53′′ E

ongitudes. The soil pH, EC and sodium concentrations of BKT were.85 ± 0.35, 92.19 ± 4.61 (�S cm−1) and 205.28 ± 12.32 (�g g−1),espectively. The Garden Block of NBRI (26◦ 51.5′′ N Latitude and0◦ 57′′ E longitudes) was selected as the fourth experimental sites.

The soil parameters such as pH, EC and sodium concen-rations were found as 8.21 ± 0.41, 75.63 ± 4.54 (�S cm−1) and59.60 ± 9.58 (�g g−1), respectively. The field estimation was car-

ied out at four different sites from 2008 to 2012. The mean annualrecipitation in the overall region was varied from 700 to 1100 mmnd the average minimum and maximum temperature varied from7◦ C to 44◦ C and relative humidity varied from 30 to 80%.

cceh

10.33 ± 0.58 74.67 ± 1.15 10.95 ± 5.1718.00 ± 1.00 30.67 ± 1.15 6.14 ± 0.08014.67 ± 0.58 63.0 ± 1.00 7.80 ± 1.19

.2. Plant and soil analysis

Each experimental site were divided in to 10 micro-plots of m × 5 m and the plantations of 60 day old Jatropha plants wereone at a spacing interval of 1 × 1 m so that each micro-plot wasaving a density of 25 plants plot−1. Each year, 25 samplings wereaken from five different micro-plots in a random basis for assessinghe growth, biomass allocation etc. The aboveground and below-round biomass was estimated by destructive method and fresheight and dry weight were recorded accordingly. Total biomass

n live Jatropha plants was obtained by adding the abovegroundnd belowground biomass. The leaf litter biomass was determinedn different plantation sites by periodically collecting the falleneaves from 50 representative plants from selected micro-plots

ith the help of nylon net closures and the average of which wasaken as leaf biomass added to soil through each plant. Similarly,runed branch biomass were calculated by pruning 50 represen-ative plant samples selected randomly from different micro-plotsnd the average was taken as pruned biomass per plant. Finally,he leaf or pruned biomass added per hectare was calculated by

ultiplying the average biomass added per plant by total plantopulation.

The percentage C content (%) in harvested plant parts suchs leaves and pruned branches were determined by combustionethod using CN analyzer (Thermo electron-EA/1112 series, USA).

he C input per hectare through litter turn over and prunedranches were calculated out by multiplying the C content of indi-idual plant by total plant biomass of a particular area. The N,, and K content of the harvested plant parts were estimated inccordance of the standard procedural protocols. The plant partsere oven dried at 70 ◦C and firmly grounded in a Willey mill andnally passed through 2 mm sieve prior to chemical analysis. Thery materials were analyzed for total nitrogen after digested in con-entrated H2SO4 using a catalyst mixture (potassium sulphate andupric sulphate in a ratio of 9:1). The total nitrogen was estimatedy the micro-Kjeldhal method. Phosphorous and potassium con-entrations were estimated after digesting the samples in a di-acidixture (HNO3 and HClO4 in 5:1). Phosphorous was determined

y stannous chloride method and potassium by Flame Photometricethod.

.3. Soil sampling and pretreatment

At the year end, soil samples (n = 25) from two different depthones (0–15 and 15–30 cm) were collected randomly from eachicro-plot using a soil core of 4 cm diameter. Five samples from

ach depth in each micro-plots were mixed together to make aomposite samples of five. The collected soil samples were air dried,round and passed through a 2 mm sieve for further analysis of soilnd another set of sub-samples were stored at 4 ◦C for few dayso stabilize microbial activities prior to biological and biochemicalnalyses. The physico-chemical properties of such as pH, electricalonductivity (EC), microbial biomass carbon (MBC), total organic

arbon, nitrogen, phosphate, sodium, potassium and calcium con-entrations were estimated according to the procedure publishedarlier (Behera et al., 2010). The soil texture was analyzed byydrometric method (Sheldrick and Wang, 1993) and bulk density

l Engi

(t

2

(wfc5aewto

2

mi0wStampp

2

lgS

3

3s

vroitofTt1wr

6pswstBHh

bcttwTtA(

(se(i2pdClGdetasiocmRsttw

riiuSs(e(ti(aoTMi

smK(woe

P. Srivastava et al. / Ecologica

BD) and particle density (PD) were determined by the picnome-eric method (Blake and Hartge, 1986).

.4. Glomalin extraction

Glomalin extractions were performed in accordance of WrightWright and Upadhyaya, 1998). One-gram samples of air-dried soilere placed in 8 mL 20 mM citrate, pH 7.0 and autoclaved (121 ◦C)

or 30 min to remove the easily extractable glomalin (EEG). Afterentrifugation (10,000 × g) and removal of the supernatant, 8 mL0 mM citrate (pH 8.0) was added to the remaining soil and heatedt 121 ◦C for 60 min to extract the total glomalin (TG). Additionalxtractions with 50 mM citrate were done until the supernatantas become a straw color. One mL of EEG was removed and then

he remaining supernatant containing EEG was combined with allf the supernatants from the 50 mM citrate extractions.

.5. Enzyme activities in soil

Urease activity of the soil using urea as the substrate waseasured (Kandeler and Gerber, 1988). Five grams of soil were

ncubated with 5 ml of 0.05 M THAM buffer (pH 9.0) and1 ml of.2% of urea solution at 37 ◦C for 2 h. Acid phosphatase activityas assayed by the method of (Tabatabai and Bremner, 1969).

oil dehydrogenase activity was estimated by reducing 2,3,5-riphenyltetrazolium chloride (Casida et al., 1964). Alkaline (pH 11)nd acid (pH 6.5) phosphatase activities were determined by theethods of (Tabatabai, 1994), by measuring the concentration of

-nitrophenol (PN) released after incubation of soil samples with-nitrophenol phosphate in a universal buffer.

.6. Statistical analysis

The data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) fol-owed by Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT). The values wereiven as means ± SD. Statistical analysis was performed by usingPSS 17.0 software for windows program.

. Results and discussion

.1. Plantation induced changes in physicochemical properties ofoil

It is widely reported that JCL can improve the soil quality, pre-ent soil erosion and promoting marginal land reclamation and soilemediation (Openshaw, 2000). Furthermore, the positive effectsn soil quality improvements are evidenced from the soil structuralmprovement (Tables 1, 2a and 2b), improvement in nutrient con-ents as well soil microbial activity. In the present study, the effectf Jatropha plantations on soil quality changes were evaluated atour different sites Banthra (BNT); Gajaria Farm (GJR); Bakshi kaalab (BKT) and NBRI) having varying soil properties (Fig. 1). Amonghe four sites, the soil samples of BNT was sodic in nature (pH was1.64 ± 0.36 and sodium concentration was 731.33 ± 29.25 �g g−1)here as in the case of GJR, BKT and NBRI, the soil pH values were

anged from 7.94 ± 0.48 to 8.85 ± 0.35, respectively.The pH values of the surface soils (0–15 cm) were ranged from

.87 to 11.64 and were significantly higher in BNT site than in otherlantation sites (Table 2a). There was a considerable variation inoil organic C content of various sites. In GJR site, these valuesere significantly higher than in other plantations. Similarly, GJR

howed maximum SOC and total nitrogen, while BNT site showed

he lowest values. SOC accumulation was also found maximum inKT (significantly higher than in BNT), and was lowest in NBRI.owever, soil electrical conductivity content was significantlyigher in BNT than in other plantation, a reason mainly attributed

eoap

neering 68 (2014) 155–166 157

y the higher sodium concentration of the soil. BNT was the least inontributing soil extractable K content to soil while GJR contributedhe most. Concentration of exchangeable K in soil increased inhe presence of leaf litter. Total organic C and N concentrationsere comparatively high in GJR sites than in other plantation sites.

otal organic carbon in four different sites was ranged from 2.40o 10.39 g kg−1 and total nitrogen ranged from 2.90 to 14.58 g kg−1.vailable P and calcium contents were significantly higher in GJR

6.10 and 748.14 �g g−1) than in other plantation sites.However, as expected, the Jatropha plantations significantly

p ≤ 0.01) improved the soil chemical properties (0–15 cm) in allites. The changes was more prominent in BNT and this was furthervidenced from the fact that the sodium concentration of the BNT0–15 cm) was decreased significantly by the influence of grow-ng Jatropha plantations from an initial level of 731.33 ± 29.25 to95.44 ± 11.86 �g g−1 at the end of the fourth year. Similarly, theH of the site was also decreased from 11.64 ± 0.36 to 10.08 ± 0.50uring the fourth year sampling. Furthermore, the TOC, total N, K,a, available P were also increased significantly at 95% confidence

evel. Similar to BNT, the Jatropha plantations in other sites such asJR, BKT and NBRI were also helped to improve the soil propertiesrastically (Table 2a). Most importantly, the growing plantationsnhanced the MBC content of all the sites. This increase in MBC con-ent may attributed by the fact that the growing plants can secrete

wide range of chemicals which are beneficial for the growth andurvival of microorganisms. Although, the detailed chemical profil-ng in the rhizosphere was not done in the present study, it could bebvious that the significant increase in MBC content may be directlyontributed by the root effects of Jatropha plantations. However,ore studies are requested to elucidate the detailed mechanisms.

egarding the TOC input, maximum turnover was noticed in the soilamples of GJR and NBRI and this has been further evidenced fromhe respective MBC contents of the these two sites. Furthermore,he increased nutrient quality was positively correlated (r = 0.899)ith the growth of test plants in these two sites.

Similarly, the soil pH values of the sub-surface soils (15–30 cm)anged from 7.09 to 11.87 (Table 2b) and were significantly highern BNT site than in other plantation site. Considerable variationsn soil organic C was detected in various sites. In GJR, these val-es were significantly higher than in other plantations. Similarly,OC and total nitrogen were highest in GJR site, while BNT sitehowed the lowest values. SOC accumulation was found in BKTsignificantly higher than in BNT), and the lowest in NBRI. Soillectrical conductivity content was significantly higher in BNT544.43 �S cm−1) than in other plantation. Among the four cites,he available P and calcium contents were significantly highern GJR (4.68 and 663.29 �g g−1) than in other plantation sitesTable 2b). Microbial biomass carbon (MBC) in soil samples showed

significant variation under different plantation sites. The contentsf soil microbial biomass C ranged from 107.11 to 525.24 �g g−1.he Gajaria site had the highest and the BNT showed the lowestBC contents. The observed MBC in different Jatropha plantations

n were found in the decreasing order of BNT > BKT > NBRI > GJR.The experimental results clearly indicates that, in the case of

urface soil samples (0–15 cm), there was a noticeable improve-ent in the soil properties such as pH, EC, TOC, total N, Na,

, Ca, available P and MBC content of sub-surface soil samples15–30 cm) were also observed for all the sampling site. Previousorks reported that Jatropha can able to survive in a wide range

f soil types ranging from alluvial soil to red lateritic soil andven on gravelly, sandy and saline soils (Ye et al., 2009; Achten

t al., 2008). The action of Jatropha roots allows the incrementf the aggregate average diameter and the number of macro-ggregates in soil column which in turn decrease the bulk andarticle density and while increased the water holding capacity of

158

P. Srivastava

et al.

/ Ecological

Engineering 68

(2014) 155–166

Table 2aAnnual variation in soil properties of different study sites (0–15 cm) under Jatropha plantation (n = 10, mean ± SD)* (50 soil samples were collected randomly from different micro-plots and made 10 composite samples bymixing 5 samples together).

Sites Variables

pH EC (�S cm−1) TOC (g kg−1) Total N (g kg−1) Na (�g g−1) K (�g g−1) Ca (�g g−1) Avail. P (�g g−1) MBC (�g g−1)

BNT0 Year 11.64 ± 0.36h 358.67 ± 10.76i 2.90 ± 0.17a 0.40 ± 0.17a 731.33 ± 29.25k 14.72 ± 0.88a 300.45 ± 12.03ab 1.09 ± 0.08a 132.64 ± 9.28a

1 Year 11.46 ± 0.58h 320.54 ± 14.45h 3.15 ± 0.16ab 0.56 ± 0.19ab 690.10 ± 27.60j 15.77 ± 0.79a 310.22 ± 18.61ab 1.21 ± 0.08ab 181.35 ± 12.7b

2 Year 10.75 ± 0.54g 351.33 ± 10.53d 4.77 ± 0.23bc 0.76 ± 0.21bc 531.33 ± 15.94i 18.76 ± 0.94a 338.54 ± 16.93bc 1.79 ± 0.13cd 238.00 ± 16.66cd

3 Year 10.21 ± 0.61g 302.26 ± 15.11gh 5.13 ± 0.22cd 1.28 ± 0.20e 416.13 ± 16.65h 35.12 ± 1.76b 365.55 ± 18.28cd 2.68 ± 0.16e 287.31 ± 17.24e

4 Year 10.08 ± 0.50g 289.11 ± 20.40g 6.30 ± 0.24d 1.69 ± 0.26h 395.44 ± 11.86h 38.22 ± 1.53bc 381.21 ± 19.06d 3.16 ± 0.19f 332.11 ± 23.25f

GJR0 Year 7.94 ± 0.48cde 71.09 ± 3.55bcde 5.50 ± 0.33ef 0.92 ± 0.20e 262.29 ± 13.11h 58.88 ± 1.77f 485.22 ± 14.56f 1.75 ± 0.12cd 356.06 ± 21.36f

1 Year 7.63 ± 0.38abcde 66.19 ± 3.31abcd 6.40 ± 0.32gh 1.34 ± 0.38ef 240.48 ± 12.02gh 62.15 ± 1.86fg 572.20 ± 17.17ij 2.35 ± 0.16e 409.18 ± 24.55g

2 Year 7.32 ± 0.37abc 60.00 ± 3.60abc 8.44 ± 0.51i 1.69 ± 0.36g 222.59 ± 11.13fg 84.88 ± 2.55i 616.26 ± 18.49lm 3.91 ± 0.23h 486.88 ± 34.08h

3 Year 7.05 ± 0.42ab 55.62 ± 3.34ab 12.78 ± 0.77l 2.13 ± 0.38j 240.48 ± 14.43gh 98.44 ± 0.95k 722.45 ± 21.67f 5.50 ± 0.33k 562.34 ± 39.36i

4 Year 6.87 ± 0.41a 52.37 ± 3.14a 14.58 ± 0.73m 2.43 ± 0.52l 247.64 ± 12.38gh 104.55 ± 3.14l 748.14 ± 29.93e 6.10 ± 0.31l 641.32 ± 38.48j

BKT0 Year 8.85 ± 0.35f 92.19 ± 4.61f 4.12 ± 0.25c 0.46 ± 0.13a 205.28 ± 12.32ef 37.12 ± 1.48b 354.83 ± 14.19cd 1.12 ± 0.11a 208.54 ± 14.60bc

1 Year 8.45 ± 0.42ef 84.39 ± 5.06ef 5.21 ± 0.26ef 0.63 ± 0.19b 235.32 ± 14.12g 41.65 ± 1.25cd 425.16 ± 12.75e 1.55 ± 0.16bc 232.78 ± 16.29cd

2 Year 8.33 ± 0.50ef 80.56 ± 4.83def 6.88 ± 0.35fg 1.19 ± 0.30de 194.55 ± 13.62de 49.85 ± 1.99e 495.23 ± 19.81fg 2.45 ± 0.17e 357.89 ± 21.47f

3 Year 8.07 ± 0.48cdef 77.25 ± 4.62cdef 7.76 ± 0.47i 1.38 ± 0.36f 174.17 ± 12.19cd 63.52 ± 3.18g 521.57 ± 20.86gh 3.53 ± 0.25g 416.17 ± 24.97g

4 Year 7.98 ± 0.48cde 73.29 ± 4.40cde 8.45 ± 0.59i 2.02 ± 0.39i 156.11 ± 9.37bc 70.31 ± 3.81h 552.40 ± 22.10hi 3.95 ± 0.28h 468.68 ± 28.12h

NBRI0 Year 8.21 ± 0.41def 75.63 ± 4.54cde 4.88 ± 0.29de 0.70 ± 0.30c 159.60 ± 9.58bc 44.24 ± 2.65d 500.77 ± 15.02fg 1.40 ± 0.10ab 241.67 ± 16.92cd

1 Year 8.13 ± 0.49cdef 73.21 ± 3.66cde 6.70 ± 0.40h 1.07 ± 0.25de 144.61 ± 7.23b 58.39 ± 2.35f 528.71 ± 15.52gh 1.97 ± 0.12d 267.62 ± 18.73de

2 Year 8.07 ± 0.32cdef 68.80 ± 4.13abcde 7.80 ± 0.47i 1.56 ± 0.31g 139.56 ± 8.37b 70.59 ± 4.24h 595.37 ± 23.81jk 3.14 ± 0.19f 415.59 ± 24.94g

3 Year 7.72 ± 0.31bcde 64.20 ± 4.49abcd 10.50 ± 0.42j 1.75 ± 0.29gh 114.60 ± 4.91a 81.84 ± 3.27i 630.44 ± 18.91m 4.56 ± 0.23i 560.32 ± 33.62i

4 Year 7.43 ± 0.37abcd 61.77 ± 4.32abc 11.47 ± 0.46k 2.23 ± 0.38k 108.65 ± 6.78a 90.22 ± 2.71j 682.70 ± 26.51n 4.91 ± 0.25j 598.24 ± 29.91i

* Values with different letters in a particular column are significantly different at 95% confidence level (p ≤ 0.05; ANOVA-DMRT).

P. Srivastava

et al.

/ Ecological

Engineering 68

(2014) 155–166

159

Table 2bAnnual variation in soil properties of different study sites (15–30 cm) under Jatropha plantations (n = 10, mean ± SD)* (50 soil samples were collected randomly from different micro-plots and made 10 composite samples bymixing 5 samples together).

Sites Variables

pH EC (�S cm−1) TOC (g kg−1) Total N (g kg−1) Na (�g g−1) K (�g g−1) Ca (�g g−1) Avail. P (�g g−1) MBC (�g g−1)

BNT0 Year 11.87 ± 0.34h 544.43 ± 21.72l 2.63 ± 0.13a 0.34 ± 0.14a 777.04 ± 23.30m 12.12 ± 0.85a 278.55 ± 16.71a 0.97 ± 0.07a 107.11 ± 9.64a

1 Year 11.46 ± 0.46gh 498.00 ± 19.92k 2.97 ± 0.28a 0.50 ± 0.17c 724.22 ± 21.7l 14.74 ± 0.74ab 289.30 ± 14.47ab 1.14 ± 0.08ab 136.40 ± 9.55ab

2 Year 10.97 ± 0.55fg 460.00 ± 23.00j 3.16 ± 0.19a 0.89 ± 0.18e 566.32 ± 22.65k 17.65 ± 0.88b 310.55 ± 12.42bc 1.66 ± 0.10c 208.94 ± 14.63de

3 Year 10.74 ± 0.64fg 427.64 ± 21.38i 3.96 ± 0.20b 1.10 ± 0.20f 504.55 ± 20.18j 32.95 ± 0.99c 316.16 ± 8.26bc 2.26 ± 0.16d 262.04 ± 18.34fg

4 Year 10.35 ± 0.52f 394.23 ± 15.77h 4.23 ± 0.25bc 1.66 ± 0.22ij 487.12 ± 19.48j 33.97 ± 1.02cd 347.87 ± 13.91d 2.73 ± 0.19ef 282.56 ± 19.78gh

GJR0 Year 8.10 ± 0.32bcd 90.08 ± 4.50bcde 5.14 ± 0.21h 0.86 ± 0.20e 211.28 ± 12.68def 46.28 ± 1.85f 420.80 ± 21.04e 1.23 ± 0.20ab 261.57 ± 18.31fg

1 Year 8.00 ± 0.40bcd 82.51 ± 4.13abcd 5.77 ± 0.29i 1.10 ± 0.38f 266.47 ± 13.32i 48.69 ± 1.95fg 542.34 ± 26.27hi 1.70 ± 0.12c 315.09 ± 22.06hi

2 Year 7.75 ± 0.39abc 76.47 ± 3.82ab 6.11 ± 0.24i 1.32 ± 0.36h 270.29 ± 13.51i 72.63 ± 2.91j 587.76 ± 17.63jk 2.99 ± 0.15f 387.93 ± 23.28jc

3 Year 7.38 ± 0.44ab 70.11 ± 4.21ab 8.60 ± 0.26k 1.82 ± 0.38k 236.27 ± 14.18fgh 77.98 ± 2.34k 616.80 ± 24.67k 4.06 ± 0.20i 409.18 ± 28.59j

4 Year 7.09 ± 0.43a 64.20 ± 3.85a 9.47 ± 0.38l 2.19 ± 0.52m 233.87 ± 11.69efg 87.34 ± 3.49l 663.29 ± 26.53l 4.68 ± 0.24j 525.24 ± 36.77l

BKT0 Year 9.04 ± 0.45e 119.10 ± 5.96g 3.13 ± 0.16de 0.39 ± 0.13ab 262.14 ± 15.73hi 30.67 ± 1.53c 326.52 ± 16.33cd 1.00 ± 0.10a 164.29 ± 11.50bc

1 Year 8.81 ± 0.52de 113.53 ± 5.68fg 3.42 ± 0.17e 0.60 ± 0.19d 238.69 ± 14.32gh 34.85 ± 1.74cd 408.57 ± 16.34e 1.24 ± 0.12ab 183.28 ± 12.83cd

2 Year 8.67 ± 0.43de 106.11 ± 6.37efg 3.86 ± 0.19f 0.98 ± 0.30e 208.69 ± 14.61de 40.44 ± 2.43e 431.50 ± 21.70e 2.10 ± 0.15d 236.59 ± 16.56ef

3 Year 8.28 ± 0.41cde 100.58 ± 6.03defg 4.47 ± 1.18g 1.22 ± 0.36g 196.65 ± 11.80cd 52.16 ± 2.61h 514.47 ± 16.24gh 2.69 ± 0.13e 344.12 ± 20.65i

4 Year 8.16 ± 0.41bcde 94.36 ± 4.72cdef 5.70 ± 0.67i 1.73 ± 0.39kl 170.24 ± 8.51b 60.26 ± 3.01i 530.11 ± 15.90h 3.77 ± 0.26h 385.59 ± 23.14j

NBRI0 Year 8.77 ± 0.35de 87.73 ± 3.51bcde 4.20 ± 0.25fg 0.60 ± 0.30d 172.20 ± 10.33bc 37.68 ± 2.26de 469.47 ± 18.78f 1.16 ± 0.08ab 219.98 ± 15.39e

1 Year 8.59 ± 0.52cde 85.26 ± 5.12abcd 4.38 ± 0.18g 0.96 ± 0.25e 163.22 ± 8.16a 40.27 ± 2.01e 498.18 ± 19.91fg 1.44 ± 0.10bc 234.23 ± 16.40ef

2 Year 8.45 ± 0.42cde 81.06 ± 4.05abcd 4.90 ± 0.22h 1.20 ± 0.31g 149.31 ± 8.96ab 58.88 ± 2.94i 544.42 ± 16.33hi 2.74 ± 0.16ef 348.34 ± 20.95i

3 Year 8.17 ± 0.49bcde 78.56 ± 4.71abc 6.57 ± 0.26j 1.64 ± 0.29i 137.22 ± 9.61a 70.67 ± 4.24j 572.04 ± 22.88ij 3.43 ± 0.24g 446.23 ± 26.77k

4 Year 8.02 ± 0.56ab 75.23 ± 5.27abc 8.66 ± 0.35k 1.90 ± 0.38j 129.76 ± 7.79a 78.71 ± 4.04k 584.23 ± 17.53j 3.70 ± 0.22gh 491.44 ± 29.49l

* Values with different letters in a particular column are significantly different at 95% confidence level (p ≤ 0.05; ANOVA-DMRT).

160 P. Srivastava et al. / Ecological Engineering 68 (2014) 155–166

Statio

timartc

tradtst2sp

3p

mt

cast

gwatu2a76icsp

sc

Fig. 1. Plantations of JCL in different types of soil (A) Banthara Research

he soil. Furthermore, increased microbial activity under JCL hasmplications for decomposition and recycling of the soil organic

atter. Microbial biomass carbon (MBC) in soil samples showed significant variation under different plantation sites and wasanged from 132 to 641.11 �g g−1. The GJR site had recordedhe highest concentration of MBC where as the BNT site showedomparatively lower level of MBC.

Bulk density of the surface soil (0–15 cm) was ranged from 1.9o 1.3 g cm−3. Similarly, particle density of the surface samples wasanged from 1.62 to 2.26 g cm−3. The results showed that there was

significant difference between the WHC (40.28–33.64%) amongifferent plantation sites. During the fourth year, the WHC ofhe various sites has increased considerably. Regarding the sub-urface soil samples (15–30 cm), the bulk density ranged from 1.40o 1.96 g cm−3 where as the particle density varied from 1.66 to.33 g cm−3. Similar to the surface soil samples, the WHC of theub-surface samples were also varied considerably among differentlantation sites.

.2. Growth performance and nutrient allocation of Jatrophalantations growing at varying soil sites

JCL is a drought avoidant, succulent plant having a CAM-etabolism in the succulent stem while the leaves are adapted

o shift from C3-metabolims to CAM-metabolism under stress

Ba(r

n (BNT); (B) Bakshi ka talab (BKT); (C) NBRI; and (D) Gajaria Farm (GJR).

onditions (Maes et al., 2009). Because of this physiological adapt-bility, it can grow in a wide range of climatic conditions fromemi-arid to humid. The growth performance of Jatropha planta-ions in four different sites are presented in Fig. 2a and b.

After the one year of plantation, the height of JCL plantsrowing in four different sites such as BNT, GJR, BKT and NBRIere reached to 22.28 ± 1.55 cm, 100.42 ± 6.68 cm, 76.4 ± 5.35 cm

nd 94.37 ± 5.66 cm, respectively and during the fourth year,he growth of test plants in above four cites were reachedp to 77.92 ± 4.68 cm, 228.07 ± 11.4 cm, 166.4 ± 6.6 cm and07.42 ± 10.37 cm, respectively. Subsequently, the plant diameterlso increased from 5.62 ± 1.11 to 20.46 ± 1.92 cm, 22.36 ± 1.34 to7.18 ± 4.33 cm, 9.69 ± 0.67 to 40.28 ± 2.41 cm and 19.40 ± 1.36 to1.76 ± 3.09 cm, respectively in BNT, GJR, BKT and NBRI. Although

t was commonly reported that Jatropha can thrive in a diverse soilonditions, the growth performance of Jatropha plantations in sodicoil (BNT) was very poor. The maximum growth was observed fromlantations in Gajaria Farm (GJR).

The nutrient allocation in different plant parts of JCL are pre-ented in Tables 3a and 3b, respectively. During fourth year, thearbon content (as %) of leaf, stem and root samples of BNT, GJR,

KT and NBRI were recorded as 33, 34, 32; 42, 42, 40; 38, 40, 35nd 41, 42, 38, respectively. Similarly, the nitrogen concentrationas %) in leaf, stem and root sample of four different sites wereecorded as 6.98, 3.43, 2.33; 10.87, 4.15, 2.89; 8.43, 3.76, 2.87 and

P. Srivastava et al. / Ecological Engi

F(

1mfppgpn1

(srct

3

pocatsSNNvw1h(

wpGftNtpp6

Glomalin concentrations of the surface soil samples (mg g−1)

TC

ig. 2. Growth performance of JCL plantation at four different sites. (a) Height andb) diameter of the plant (n = 25, mean ± SD).

0.77, 3.88, 2.78, respectively. Among the various sites, the maxi-um nutrients concentrations in various plant parts were recorded

rom GJR. This was further correlated (r2 = 0.911) with the growtherformance of Jatropha plantations in Gajaria. The analysis of plantarts revealed that among different plant parts, leaves are relativelyood source of nitrogen and the nitrogen content of the leave sam-

les were ranged from 10.87 to 5.63%, where as the shoot and rootitrogen content were ranged from 4.15 to 1.81% and from 2.89 to.31%, respectively. Leaves are also rich in K content ranges from

aia

able 3aarbon and nitrogen content (%) in various plant parts of JCL at different Sites (n = 25, me

Plantation sites Variables

Carbon (%)

Leaf Stem Root

BNT1 Year 33.06 ± 1.65a 34.04 ± 1.70a 32.24 ±

2 Year 33.59 ± 2.02a 34.97 ± 2.10a 32.41 ±

3 Year 34.87 ± 2.09ab 35.66 ± 2.14abc 32.80 ±

4 Year 35.22 ± 2.11ab 35.88 ± 1.44a 33.25 ±

GJR1 Year 41.86 ± 2.51cde 42.00 ± 2.52b 40.41 ±

2 Year 42.27 ± 2.12cde 42.36 ± 2.12b 39.88 ±

3 Year 42.94 ± 2.15de 43.03 ± 2.15e 41.25 ±

4 Year 43.85 ± 2.19e 44.10 ± 2.65b 41.98 ±

BKT1 Year 38.59 ± 2.31bc 40.09 ± 2.40b 35.33 ±

2 Year 38.62 ± 1.93bc 40.77 ± 2.86b 35.60 ±

3 Year 39.24 ± 2.75cd 41.12 ± 2.06b 36.04 ±

4 Year 39.88 ± 2.39cde 41.66 ± 1.67b 36.57 ±

NBRI1 Year 40.86 ± 2.10cde 42.09 ± 2.53b 37.96 ±

2 Year 41.66 ± 2.08cd 42.54 ± 2.13b 37.84 ±

3 Year 42.26 ± 2.11cde 43.26 ± 2.60b 38.33 ±

4 Year 42.79 ± 2.57cde 43.68 ± 2.62b 39.11 ±

* Values with different letters in a particular column are significantly different at 95% c

neering 68 (2014) 155–166 161

179.45 to 70.93 �g g−1) and P least in sodic land plantation. Potas-ium content in shoots contain from 179.45 to 70.93 �g g−1 andoot potassium ranges from 130.01 to 49.79 �g g−1. Phosphorousontent in root and shoot ranged from 4.85 to 1.97 �g g−1 and (5.87o 2.47 �g g−1).

.3. Changes in soil biochemical properties

Enzymes in soil are biologically significant as they partici-ate in the cycling of elements and can influence the availabilityf nutrients to plants. Microorganisms, active roots and deadells are the principal sources of soil enzymes. Dehydrogenasectivity of the surface soil varied from 28.19 to 73.42 �g 2,3,5-riphenylformazan (TPF) produced g−1 24 h−1 (Fig. 4a) and wasignificantly higher in GJR site as compared to other plantations.imilarly, urease activity was found highest in GJR (136.33 �g NH4-

g−1 soil 2 h−1) site and the lowest was recorded in BNT (43.44 �gH4-N g−1 soil 2 h−1) Site. Acid phosphatase activity (Fig. 4b)aried from 11.07 to 81.12 �g p-nitrophenol produced g−1 h−1

hile the alkaline phosphatase activity ranged from 103.54 to76.62 �g p-nitrophenol produced g−1 h−1 and was significantlyigher in soil having pH 6.87 than all other plantation sitesFig. 3a).

Similarly, the dehydrogenase activity of the sub-surface soilsere varied from 21.87 to 66.11 �g 2,3,5-triphenylformazan (TPF)roduced g−1 24 h−1 (Fig. 2b) and was significantly higher inJR site as compared to other plantations. Urease activity was

ound also highest in GJR (126.65 �g NH4-N g−1 soil 2 h−1) site andhe lowest concentration was obtained from BNT (36.61 �g NH4-

g−1 soil 2 h−1) site. Acid phosphatase activity varied from 9.76o 69.23 �g p-nitrophenol produced g−1 h−1 whereas the alkalinehosphatase activity ranged from 66.19 to 152.35 �g p-nitrophenolroduced g−1 h−1 and was significantly higher in soil having pH.87 than all other plantation sites.

cross the different plantation sites are shown in Fig. 3. The eas-ly extractable Glomalin (EEG) varied from 3.74 to 1.06 (mg g−1)nd the Total Glomalin (TG) ranged from 5.14 to 1.71 (mg g−1),

an ± SD).*

Nitrogen (%)

Leaf Stem Root

3.53a 5.63 ± 0.28a 1.81 ± 0.13a 1.31 ± 0.09a

2.27a 5.87 ± 0.35ab 2.24 ± 0.13b 1.54 ± 0.11abc

1.97a 6.53 ± 0.33abc 2.96 ± 0.18de 1.90 ± 0.14ef

1.66a 6.98 ± 0.42abc 3.43 ± 0.24fg 2.33 ± 0.14hi

2.42de 8.11 ± 0.41bcde 2.36 ± 0.33bc 1.75 ± 0.11cde

1.54cde 10.02 ± 0.70defg 2.76 ± 0.19d 2.11 ± 0.15fgh

2.48e 10.62 ± 0.43fg 3.71 ± 0.22gh 2.41 ± 0.14i

2.52e 10.87 ± 0.65g 4.15 ± 0.29i 2.89 ± 0.16j

2.47ab 6.44 ± 0.38abc 2.06 ± 0.14ab 1.38 ± 0.10ab

2.14abc 7.78 ± 0.47abcd 2.65 ± 0.16cd 1.83 ± 0.13de

2.16abcd 8.09 ± 0.40bcde 3.21 ± 0.23ef 2.08 ± 0.15fg

2.19abcd 8.43 ± 0.34cdef 3.76 ± 0.26gh 2.87 ± 0.17j

2.66bcde 9.72 ± 0.58defg 2.10 ± 0.13ab 1.62 ± 0.11bcd

2.54bcde 9.65 ± 0.60d 2.66 ± 0.19cd 1.90 ± 0.13ef

1.53bcde 10.39 ± 0.62efg 3.32 ± 0.16ef 2.20 ± 0.15ghi

1.96bcde 10.77 ± 0.65fg 3.88 ± 0.23hi 2.78 ± 0.77j

onfidence level (p ≤ 0.05; ANOVA-DMRT).

162 P. Srivastava et al. / Ecological Engineering 68 (2014) 155–166

Table 3bPhosphorus and potassium concentration in various plant parts of JCL at different Sites (n = 25, mean ± SD).*

Plantation sites Variables

P (�g g−1) K (�g g−1)

Leaf Stem Root Leaf Stem Root

BNT1 Year 3.09 ± 0.22a 2.47 ± 0.15a 1.97 ± 0.14a 74.03 ± 3.70a 70.93 ± 4.26a 49.79 ± 2.99a

2 Year 3.87 ± 0.19b 2.99 ± 0.21b 2.10 ± 0.11ab 76.32 ± 4.58a 77.14 ± 3.86a 52.82 ± 2.64a

3 Year 4.16 ± 0.25b 3.14 ± 0.22bc 2.53 ± 0.15cd 80.88 ± 3.24ab 85.71 ± 5.14b 66.03 ± 3.96bc

4 Year 4.76 ± 0.33c 3.80 ± 0.19d 2.78 ± 0.19de 88.34 ± 4.42b 94.76 ± 4.74cde 80.12 ± 2.40e

GJR1 Year 6.64 ± 0.26f 4.47 ± 0.27e 3.12 ± 0.22ef 164.75 ± 4.59f 146.69 ± 5.92i 82.88 ± 3.32ef

2 Year 6.87 ± 0.41fg 4.88 ± 0.24ef 3.66 ± 0.26g 170.34 ± 7.57fg 153.87 ± 4.62ij 94.72 ± 4.74g

3 Year 7.38 ± 0.37g 5.15 ± 0.31f 4.04 ± 0.27h 180.83 ± 5.42g 160.56 ± 6.42j 105.07 ± 3.15h

4 Year 7.94 ± 0.40h 5.87 ± 0.41g 4.85 ± 0.24i 212.76 ± 8.51h 179.45 ± 8.97k 130.01 ± 5.88i

BKT1 Year 5.04 ± 0.30c 3.56 ± 0.25cd 2.08 ± 0.16ab 98.88 ± 4.94c 86.59 ± 4.33bc 63.79 ± 3.82b

2 Year 5.70 ± 0.29d 3.75 ± 0.23d 2.44 ± 0.15c 104.73 ± 6.28c 89.43 ± 5.37bcd 70.71 ± 4.24c

3 Year 6.29 ± 0.46ef 4.02 ± 0.28d 2.89 ± 0.20e 129.39 ± 5.13d 97.57 ± 3.89de 77.79 ± 3.89de4 Year 6.82 ± 0.34fg 4.77 ± 0.19ef 3.59 ± 0.26g 140.33 ± 7.02e 103.45 ± 4.14ef 84.23 ± 5.05ef

NBRI1 Year 5.68 ± 0.34d 3.59 ± 0.23cd 2.35 ± 0.15bc 139.55 ± 6.98e 99.01 ± 3.96e 72.40 ± 2.90cd

2 Year 5.80 ± 0.29de 3.96 ± 0.28d 2.94 ± 0.17e 145.43 ± 5.82e 108.38 ± 3.25fg 79.41 ± 3.97e

3 Year 6.54 ± 0.38f 4.51 ± 0.23e 3.35 ± 0.24fg 169.76 ± 6.79f 115.31 ± 4.61g 87.73 ± 3.51f

0.28 g

95% c

rrr

3J

stsJarFo1Itctbtca8f2t

yo6wttaJ

1tlrbatias

opGdfmf(bvbs

aadtbomett

4 Year 6.74 ± 0.40f 5.06 ± 035f 3.65 ±* Values with different letters in a particular column are significantly different at

espectively. During the fourth year, maximum EEG and TG wereecorded from NBRI while the minimum concentrations wereecorded from GJR.

.4. Carbon accumulation and addition to soil throughatropha biomass

The total biomass of Jatropha growing in various plantationsites as well as their respective carbon stock and carbon addedo the soil through litter turnover and pruned biomass in pre-ented in Tables 4a–4d. Regarding the BNT site, the 4-year oldatropha plantation has resulted in a total biomass (includingbove and below ground biomass) of 25.87 ± 6.29 t ha−1, whichesulted in a carbon stock in plant biomass as 13.0 ± 3.20 t ha−1.urthermore, the plantation has contributed about a carbon inputf 0.58 t ha−1 through a litter fall of about 1.67 t ha−1 year−1 and.23 t C ha−1 year−1 though a pruned biomass of 3.48 t ha−1 year−1.n the case of GJR site, the total biomass of the 4-year plan-ation was about 203 t ha−1, which resulted in a correspondentarbon stock in plant biomass of 101.5 t ha−1 and a carbonurnover through litter addition of 6.92 t ha−1 from a litteriomass of about 16 t ha−1 year−1 and 7.81 t C ha−1 year−1 throughhe pruned biomass of 17.33 t ha−1 year−1. However, in thease of BKT and NBRI, the total biomass were recorded as 74nd 174 t ha−1 with a correspondence carbon stock of 37 and7 t ha−1. Similarly, the litter addition and biomass obtainedrom pruned branches were contributed a carbon input of about

and 42 t ha−1 year−1 and 2.32 and 7 t ha−1 year−1, respec-ively.

The results of the field plantation study revealed that fourear old Jatropha plantations contributed in an annual leaf fallf 1560 to 167.4 g plant−1 and contributed to a C addition of.92 to 0.58 t C ha−1 year−1. During the second year, the leaf fallas ranged from 816 to 116 g plant−1, which corresponds to 3.48

o 0.39 C ha−1 year−1 added to the soil. The biomass generatedhrough pruning of Jatropha plantations during the later years wasnother good contribution of C to the soil. The pruned biomass ofatropha during the fourth year of the plantation was ranged to

mt(a

181.39 ± 7.26g 129.46 ± 3.88h 96.11 ± 4.81g

onfidence level (p ≤ 0.05; ANOVA-DMRT).

7.33–3.26 t ha−1 dry biomass and was subsequently resulted inhe carbon addition of about 7.81 to 1.23 t C ha−1 to the soil. Theive plant biomass in the fields also serves as a sink for C. Theesults from the field showed that during fourth year, the totaliomass in Jatropha plants were reached to 20.30 kg plant−1 as anbove and below ground biomass and subsequently contributedo a carbon addition of 101.50 t C ha−1 in Gajaria plantation. Sim-larly, the plantation at the BNT site showed 1.30 kg C plant−1

nd this contributed a carbon addition of 13.0 t C ha−1 to theoil.

The physiological variables and soil respiration rate in 4-yearld Jatropha plantation is provided in Table 5. The maximumhotosynthetic rate was recorded from Jatropha plantations inJR followed by NBRI, BKT and BNT. Similarly, the stomatal con-uctance, transpiration rate and water use efficiency was alsoollowed in a similar trend. Among the various sites, the maxi-

um soil respiration rate was recorded from GJR (12.19 ± 0.05),ollowed by NBRI (10.81 ± 2.89), BKT (3.33 ± 0.019) and BNT2.24 ± 0.17). There was a strong positive correlation observedetween the MBC content and the soil respiration rate of thearious sites since it is documented that increased microbialiomass and activity will leads to an increased respiration fromoil.

The soil carbon stock in different Jatropha plantations sitesre provided in Fig. 5. From this figure it is clear that thennual variation in soil carbon stock of various sites has beenirectly linked to the soil properties, growth performance ofhe plantations as well as the including the above ground andelow ground biomass, leaf litter turnover and the contributionf pruned biomass. Furthermore, it also depends upon the soilicrobial activity, soil properties and soil carbon pool. At the

nd of the fourth year, the Jatropha growing in different planta-ions sites were contributed a soil carbon addition of 20.59 ± 3.07o 50.45 ± 7.57 Mg ha−1 year−1. Among the four different sites,

aximum carbon stock was found in 4-year old Jatropha plan-ations in GJR (50.45 ± 7.57 Mg ha−1 year−1) followed by NBRI50.45 ± 7.57 Mg ha−1 year−1), BKT (32.33 ± 4.85 Mg ha−1 year−1)nd BNT (20.59 ± 3.07 Mg ha−1 year−1). Although, it has been

P. Srivastava et al. / Ecological Engineering 68 (2014) 155–166 163

Fig. 3. (a) Enzyme activities (acid phosphates, alkaline phosphatase, dehydrogenase and urease) of surface soil (0–15 cm) of different study sites under JCL plantations (n = 10,mean ± SD) (50 soil samples were collected randomly from different micro-plots and made 10 composite samples by mixing 5 samples together). (b) Enzyme activities (acidphosphates, alkaline phosphatase, dehydrogenase and urease) of sub-surface soil (15–30 cm) of different study sites under JCL plantations (n = 10, mean ± SD) (50 soil sampleswere collected randomly from different micro-plots and made 10 composite samples by mixing 5 samples together).

164 P. Srivastava et al. / Ecological Engineering 68 (2014) 155–166

Table 4aCarbon fixed by live Jatropha and carbon added to the soil through leaf fall and pruned branches at Banthara (BNT) site (n = 25, mean ± SD).*

Variables Site-I Banthara (BNT)

1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year 4th Year

Aboveground biomass per plant (kg) 1.12 ± 0.34a 1.27 ± 0.38a 1.39 ± 0.42a 1.87 ± 0.45ab

Belowground biomass per plant (kg) 0.40 ± 0.12a 0.46 ± 0.14a 0.54 ± 0.16a 0.71 ± 0.19a

Total biomass per plant (kg) 1.52 ± 0.46a 1.73 ± 0.52a 1.93 ± 0.58ab 2.58 ± 0.63ab

Total biomass C per plant (kg) 0.76 ± 0.23a 0.87 ± 0.26a 0.97 ± 0.29a 1.30 ± 0.32a

Total biomass per ha (t) 15.20 ± 4.60a 17.30 ± 5.20ab 19.30 ± 5.80ab 25.87 ± 6.29ab

Total biomass C per ha (t) 7.60 ± 2.30a 8.70 ± 2.60a 9.70 ± 2.90a 13.0 ± 3.20a

Leaf fall per plant (g) 80.00 ± 24.00a 116.0 ± 34.40a 136.0 ± 40.80a 167.4 ± 50.22a

Leaf fall per ha (t) 0.80 ± 0.24a 1.16 ± 0.34a 1.36 ± 0.42a 1.67 ± 0.51a

Plant biomass C per plant (%) 33.06 ± 2.31a 33.98 ± 2.38ab 34.66 ± 2.82ab 34.92 ± 3.46ab

Plant biomass C per ha (t) 0.26 ± 0.04a 0.39 ± 0.06ab 0.47 ± 0.07ab 0.58 ± 0.09ab

Pruning branch per plant (g) 212.00 ± 63.60a 292.17 ± 87.65ab 326.00 ± 97.80abc 348.23 ± 104.47abc

Pruning branch per ha (t) 2.12 ± 0.64a 2.92 ± 0.87ab 3.26 ± 0.98abc 3.48 ± 1.05abc

Pruning branch C per plant (%) 33.29 ± 2.00a 34.52 ± 2.42a 35.04 ± 2.10a 35.23 ± 2.47a

Pruning branch C per plant (g) 70.58 ± 25.31a 100.86 ± 30.26bc 114.23 ± 34.27abc 122.71 ± 36.81abc

Pruning branch C per ha (t) 0.71 ± 0.10a 1.01 ± 0.15ab 1.14 ± 0.17ab 1.23 ± 0.19abc

* Values with different letters in particular rows are significantly different at 95% confidence level (p ≤ 0.05; ANOVA-DMRT).

Table 4bCarbon fixed by live Jatropha and carbon added to the soil through leaf fall and pruned branches at Gajaria (GJR) site (n = 25, mean ± SD).*

Variables Site-II Gajaria (GJR)

1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year 4th Year

Aboveground biomass per plant (kg) 3.25 ± 0.97ab 4.88 ± 1.46abc 10.67 ± 3.20d 17.05 ± 5.15e

Belowground biomass per plant (kg) 0.60 ± 0.18a 1.30 ± 0.39ab 2.84 ± 0.85de 3.25 ± 0.98e

Total biomass per plant (kg) 3.85 ± 1.07abc 6.18 ± 1.16bc 13.51 ± 4.05e 20.30 ± 6.09f

Total biomass C per plant (kg) 1.93 ± 0.37abc 3.09 ± 0.59d 6.76 ± 0.62f 10.15 ± 2.03h

Total biomass per ha (t) 38.50 ± 11.55abc 61.80 ± 18.54d 135.1 ± 27.02f 203.00 ± 40.60h

Total biomass C per ha (t) 19.3 ± 3.70ab 30.90 ± 5.90cd 67.60 ± 10.14f 101.5 ± 13.52h

Leaf fall per plant (g) 489.0 ± 73.35bc 816.0 ± 81.60d 1505 ± 150.50f 1560 ± 156.00f

Leaf fall per ha (t) 4.89 ± 0.73bc 8.16 ± 0.82d 15.05 ± 1.51f 15.60 ± 1.96f

Plant biomass C per plant (%) 41.86 ± 2.93cde 42.66 ± 2.56cde 43.10 ± 2.16de 44.37 ± 2.66e

Plant biomass C per ha (t) 2.05 ± 0.41c 3.48 ± 0.70d 6.49 ± 1.30f 6.92 ± 1.39f

Pruning branch per plant (g) 532.45 ± 79.87bc 935.20 ± 140.00d 1638.0 ± 245.70e 1733.00 ± 259.95e

Pruning branch per ha (t) 5.32 ± 0.80bc 9.35 ± 1.40d 16.38 ± 2.46e 17.33 ± 2.60e

Pruning branch C per plant (%) 42.00 ± 2.10bcd 43.33 ± 2.60cd 43.66 ± 2.18cd 45.04 ± 2.70d

Pruning branch C per plant (g) 223.63 ± 33.54d 405.22 ± 32.42e 715.15 ± 42.91fg 780.54 ± 31.23ePruning branch C per ha (t) 2.24 ± 0.07de 4.05 ± 0.16f 7.15 ± 0.29gh 7.81 ± 0.24i

* Values with different letters in particular rows are significantly different at 95% confidence level (p ≤ 0.05; ANOVA-DMRT).

Table 4cCarbon fixed by live Jatropha and carbon added to the soil through leaf fall and pruned branches at BKT site (n = 25, mean ± SD).*

Variables Site-III Bakshi ka Talab (BKT)

1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year 4th Year

Aboveground biomass per plant (kg) 1.41 ± 042a 2.63 ± 0.79ab 3.98 ± 1.19ab 5.79 ± 1.16bc

Belowground biomass per plant (kg) 0.57 ± 0.17a 0.70 ± 0.21a 0.88 ± 0.26ab 1.65 ± 0.50bc

Total biomass per plant (kg) 1.98 ± 0.59a 3.33 ± 1.00abc 4.86 ± 1.46abc 7.44 ± 1.49cd

Total biomass C per plant (kg) 0.99 ± 0.20a 1.67 ± 0.33abc 2.43 ± 0.49bcd 3.72 ± 0.74d

Total biomass per ha (t) 19.80 ± 5.94ab 33.30 ± 6.63abc 48.60 ± 9.72bcd 74.40 ± 14.88d

Total biomass C per ha (t) 9.90 ± 1.98a 16.70 ± 3.34ab 24.30 ± 7.29abc 37.20 ± 11.16cd

Leaf fall per plant (g) 350.00 ± 21.00b 387.43 ± 23.25bc 457.87 ± 68.68bc 503.1 ± 75.47bc

Leaf fall per ha (t) 3.50 ± 0.21b 3.87 ± 0.24bc 4.58 ± 0.69bc 5.03 ± 0.76bc

Plant biomass C per plant (%) 38.59 ± 1.93bc 38.74 ± 1.55bc 39.24 ± 1.96cd 40.29 ± 2.01cde

Plant biomass C per ha (t) 1.35 ± 0.20abc 1.50 ± 0.23bc 1.80 ± 0.36c 2.03 ± 0.31c

Pruning branch per plant (g) 386.23 ± 57.58abc 420.45 ± 63.07abc 488.11 ± 73.22bc 560.20 ± 84.03c

Pruning branch per ha (t) 3.86 ± 0.58abc 4.20 ± 0.64abc 4.88 ± 0.73bc 5.60 ± 0.84c

Pruning branch C per plant (%) 39.10 ± 1.56b 39.92 ± 1.60bc 40.65 ± 1.63bc 41.34 ± 2.07bcd

Pruning branch C per plant (g) 151.02 ± 30.20abcd 167.84 ± 33.58bcd 198.42 ± 39.69c 231.59 ± 46.31d

1

confi

pistt

p

Pruning branch C per ha (t) 1.51 ± 0.23bcd

* Values with different letters in particular rows are significantly different at 95%

rojected that Jatropha can thrive on sodic lands, our study clearly

ndicate that the soil carbon sequestration potential of Jatropha inodic land (BNT) was significantly (p < 0.01) lower than other soilypes and therefore need a rethinking before the large scale plan-ation of this species in sodic land. However, suitable agronomic

occo

.68 ± 0.25bcde 1.98 ± 0.30cde 2.32 ± 0.35e

dence level (p ≤ 0.05; ANOVA-DMRT).

ractices and soil amendments will leads to the improved growth

f Jatropha in sodic conditions. Therefore, site specific (i.e. soil spe-ific) agronomic practices are explicitly required for the large scaleultivation of Jatropha plantations in marginal and degraded landsf India.

P. Srivastava et al. / Ecological Engineering 68 (2014) 155–166 165

Table 4dCarbon fixed by live Jatropha and carbon added to the soil through leaf fall and pruned branches at NBRI (n = 25, mean ± SD).*

Variables Site-IV CSIR-NBRI

1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year 4th Year

Aboveground biomass per plant (kg) 2.88 ± 0.86ab 3.70 ± 1.11ab 8.56 ± 2.57cd 14.62 ± 4.39e

Belowground biomass per plant (kg) 0.50 ± 0.15a 1.15 ± 0.35ab 2.11 ± 0.63cd 2.84 ± 0.85de

Total biomass per plant (kg) 3.38 ± 0.15abc 4.85 ± 0.97abc 10.67 ± 2.13de 17.46 ± 3.49f

Total biomass C per plant (kg) 1.69 ± 0.34abc 2.43 ± 0.49bcd 5.34 ± 1.07e 8.73 ± 0.98g

Total biomass per ha (t) 33.80 ± 5.07abc 48.50 ± 7.28bcd 106.70 ± 16.01e 174.40 ± 26.19g

Total biomass C per ha (t) 16.90 ± 3.38ab 24.30 ± 4.86abc 53.40 ± 10.68e 87.30 ± 17.46g

Leaf fall per plant (g) 428.00 ± 42.80bc 573.11 ± 85.97c 1240.43 ± 186.06e 1476.49 ± 221.47f

Leaf fall per ha (t) 4.28 ± 0.64bc 5.73 ± 0.86c 12.40 ± 1.86e 14.76 ± 2.22f

Plant biomass C per plant (%) 40.86 ± 1.63cde 41.66 ± 1.67cde 42.26 ± 2.11cde 42.79 ± 2.14cde

Plant biomass C per ha (t) 1.75 ± 0.26c 2.39 ± 0.36c 5.24 ± 0.79e 6.32 ± 0.95f

Pruning branch per plant (g) 410.00 ± 61.50abc 818.25 ± 81.83d 1505.00 ± 150.50e 1611.80 ± 161.18e

Pruning branch per ha (t) 4.10 ± 0.62abc 8.18 ± 0.82d 15.05 ± 1.50e 16.12 ± 1.61e

Pruning branch C per plant (%) 41.14 ± 1.65bcd 41.80 ± 1.67bcd 42.70 ± 2.14bcd 43.54 ± 2.18cd

Pruning branch C per plant (g) 168.67 ± 23.33bcd 342.03 ± 51.30e 642.64 ± 64.31f 701.78 ± 105.27fg

Pruning branch C per ha (t) 1.69 ± 0.25bcde 3.42 ± 0.51f 6.43 ± 0.97g 7.02 ± 1.05g

* Values with different letters in particular rows are significantly different at 95% confidence level (p ≤ 0.05; ANOVA-DMRT).

Table 5Physiological parameters and soil respiration in 4-year old plantation in various sites.

Sites Photosynthetic rate(�mol m−2 s−1)

Stomatal conductance(mmol m−2 s−1)

Transpiration rate(mmol m−2 s−1)

Water use efficiency(mmol CO2 mol H2O−1)

Soil respiration(� mol m−2 day−1)

BNT 3.84 ± 0.48a 0.04 ± 0.01a 1.87 ± 0.20a 0.23 ± 0.01a 2.24 ± 0.17a

GJR 12.65 ± 0.43b 0.12 ± 0.01b 4.58 ± 0.36b 0.38 ± 0.06c 12.19 ± 0.05c

BKT 4.25 ± 0.73a 0.04 ± 0.00a 1.09 ± 0.19a 0.28 ± 0.01ab 3.33 ± 0.19a

NBRI 8.77 ± 4.18b 0.08 ± 0.04ab 2.38 ± 1.24a 0.33 ± 0.04bc 10.81 ± 2.89b

Fig. 4. Easily extractable Glomalin (EEG) and total Glomalin (TG) of 0–15 cm soil ofdifferent study sites under JCL plantations. Replicates (n = 10, mean ± SD).

4

matuipisfiTsp(ti

Fig. 5. Soil carbon stock in different Jatropha plantations (n = 10, mean ± SD).

. Conclusion

There is a growing global attention toward the cultivation ofultipurpose biofuel crops like JCL since it has been projected that

part from the biofuel production, the Jatropha can also enhancehe soil quality through nutrients and litter turnover and can besed as a candidate species for soil carbon sequestration. Most

mportantly, it has been projected that this species can thrive inroblem affected soils such as sodic and alkaline with minimal

nput. Therefore, the present study was conducted to test the fea-ibility of Jatropha plantations for improving the soil quality ofour different soil types and their ability to improve the soil qual-ty through carbon sequestration and increased nutrient turnover.he analytical studies clearly indicate that irrespective of theoil sites, the Jatropha plantations significantly enhanced ( ̨ = 5%;

≤ 0.05) the total organic carbon (TOC), total Kjeldahl nitrogenTKN), available phosphorus and potassium in the soil. Duringhe fourth year of plantations, the total plant biomass (includ-ng the above and below ground biomass) of Jatropha growing in

1 al Engi

v2cSfbfs(awsfmatsl

A

itfDf

R

A

A

A

B

B

B

C

D

D

D

FE

F

F

H

H

K

L

M

M

O

P

P

S

S

S

S

T

T

W

W

W

W

Wright, S.F., Upadhyaya, A., 1998. A survey of soils for aggregate stability and gloma-

66 P. Srivastava et al. / Ecologic

arious plantation sites has been increased from 15.20 ± 4.60 to03.00 ± 40.60 t ha−1 year−1 with subsequent total biomass carbonontent of 7.60 ± 2.30 to 101.50 ± 13.52 t ha−1 year−1, respectively.imilarly, the soil carbon stock of the plantation sites variedrom 20.59 to 50.45 Mg ha−1 year−1. Furthermore, the microbialiomass carbon content (MBC) of the four different sites variedrom 132.64 ± 9.28 to 641.32 ± 38.48 �g g−1 soil. Therefore, thetudy clearly indicates that Jatropha plantations can significantlyp ≤ 0.01) enhance the soil quality including the soil carbon poolnd microbial biomass carbon, however, the rate of improvementas not in an expected rate in the case of sodic lands. Therefore,

uitable agronomic practices and soil amendments are necessaryor enhancing the growth of Jatropha in sodic conditions. Further-

ore, future research along these line including crop improvementnd optimization of agronomic practices for enhancing the produc-ivity under deprived conditions are explicitly required for the largecale promotion of Jatropha plantations in marginal and degradedands of India.

cknowledgements

The authors are thankful to the director of the National Botan-cal Research Institute for providing facilities. Pankaj Srivastava ishankful to Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, New Delhior providing Senior Research Fellowship. Financial help from theepartment of Biotechnology, Government of India, is also grate-

ully acknowledged.

eferences

chten, W.M.J., Almeida, J., Fobelets, V., Bolle, E., Mathijs, E., Singh, V.P., Tewari,D.N., Verchot, L.V., Muys, B., 2010a. Life cycle assessment of Jatropha biodieselas transportation fuel in rural India. Appl. Energy 87, 3652–3660.

chten, W.M.J., Maes, W., Aerts, R., Verchot, L., Trabucco, A., Mathijs, E., Singh, V.P.,Muys, B., 2010b. Jatropha: from global hype to local opportunity. J. Arid Environ.74, 164–165.

chten, W.M.J., Verchot, L., Franken, Y.J., Mathijs, E., Singh, V.P., Aerts, R., Muys,B., 2008. Jatropha bio-diesel production and use. Biomass Bioenergy 32,1063–1084.

ehera, S.K., Srivastava, P., Tripathi, R., Singh, J.P., Singh, N., 2010. Evaluation of plantperformance of Jatropha curcas L. under different agro-practice for optimizingbiomass – a case study. Biomass Bioenergy 32, 30–41.

etts, R., 2007. Implications of land ecosystem–atmosphere interactions for strate-gies for climate change adaptation and mitigation. In: Proceedings of the1st ILEAPS Science Conference, Boulder, Colorado, USA, Tellus B 59(3), 21–26January 2006, pp. 602–615.

lake, G.R., Hartge, K.H., 1986. Bulk density. In: Klute, A. (Ed.), Methods of Soil Anal-ysis: Part 1, Physical and Mineralogical Methods. , 2nd ed. American Society ofAgronomy, Madison, WI.

asida Jr., L.E., Klein, D.A., Santoro, T., 1964. Soil dehydrogenase activity. Soil Sci. 98,371–376.

e Gryze, S., Six, J., Paustian, K., Morris, S.J., Paul, E.A., Merckx, R., 2004. Soil organiccarbon pool changes following land-use conversions. Global Change Biol. 10,1120–1132.

oua, X., Denga, Q., Lia, M., Wanga, W., Zhanga, Q., Cheng, X., 2013. Reforestationof Pinus massoniana alters soil organic carbon and nitrogen dynamics in erodedsoil in south China. Ecol. Eng. 52, 154–160.

yer, J.C., Stringer, L.C., Dougill, A.J., 2012. Jatropha curcas: sowing local seeds ofsuccess in Malawi? In response to Achten et al. (2010). J. Arid Environ. 79,

107–110.

airless, D., 2007. Biofuel: the little shrub that could – maybe. Nature 449, 652–655.vans, D.M., Zipper, C.E., Burger, J.A., Strahm, B.D., Villamagna, A.M., 2013. Reforesta-

tion practice for enhancement of ecosystem services on a compacted surfacemine: path toward ecosystem recovery. Ecol. Eng. 51, 16–23.

Y

neering 68 (2014) 155–166

ereidooni, M., Raiesi, F., Fallah, S., 2013. Ecological restoration of soil respiration,microbial biomass and enzyme activities through broiler litter application in acalcareous soil cropped with silage maize. Ecol. Eng. 58, 266–277.

rancis, G., Edinger, R., Becker, K., 2005. A concept for simultaneous wasteland recla-mation, fuel production, and socio-economic development in degraded areasin India: need, potential and perspectives of Jatropha plantations. Nat. Resour.Forum. 29, 12–24.

eller, J., 1996. Physic Nut, Jatropha curcas L. Promoting the Conservation and Useof Underutilized and Neglected Crops. 1. Gatersleben. Institute of Plant Genet-ics and Crop Plant Research/International Plant Genetic Resources Institute,Germany/Rome, Italy.

eruela, C.S., 2008. Biomass energy-status, opportunities and challenges in the Asia-Pacific region. In: Paper Presented at an International Workshop, ExtensionBulletin-Food & Fertilizer Technology Center 617, Tagaytay City, Philippines,24–28 November, pp. 1–15.

andeler, E., Gerber, H., 1988. Short-term assay of soil urease activity using colori-metric determination of ammonium. Biol. Fertil. Soils. 6, 68–72.

educ, S., Nataraja, K., Dotzauer, E., McCallum, I., Obersteiner, M., 2009. Optimizingbiodiesel production in India. Appl. Energy 86, 125–131.

aes, W.H., Achten, W.M.J., Reubens, B., Raes, D., Samson, R., Muys, B., 2009. Plant-water relationships and growth strategies of Jatropha curcas L. seedlings underdifferent levels of drought stress. J. Arid Environ. 73, 877–882.

andal, R., Mitrha, P., 2004. Bio-fuels: Indian scenarios and policy issues. In: Pro-ceedings of the International Conference on Biofuels: Prospective and Prospects,New Delhi, India, 16/17 September.

penshaw, K., 2000. A review of Jatropha curcas: an oil plant of unfulfilled promise.Biomass Bioenergy 19, 1–15.

andey, C.B., Singh, G.B., Singh, S.K., Singh, R.K., 2010. Soil nitrogen and microbialbiomass carbon dynamics in native forests and derived agricultural land uses ina humid tropical climate of India. Plant Soil. 333, 453–467.

halan, B., 2009. The social and environmental impacts of biofuels in Asia. Anoverview. Appl. Energy 86, 21–29.

heldrick, B.H., Wang, C., 1993. Particle size distribution. In: Carter, M.R. (Ed.), SoilSampling and Methods of Analysis. Lewis Publications/CRC Press, Boca Raton,FL, pp. 499–511.

ingh, K., Singh, B., Tuli, R., 2013. Sodic soil reclamation potential of Jatropha curcas:a long-term study. Ecol. Eng. 58, 434–440.

reedevi, T.K., Wani, S.P., Osman, M., Shailendra, T., 2009a. Rehabilitation ofdegraded lands in watersheds. In: Proceedings of the Comprehensive Assess-ment of Watershed Programs in India, ICRISAT, Patancheru 502324, AndhraPradesh, India, 25–27 July 2007, pp. 205–220.

reedevi, T.K., Wani, S.P., Srinivasa Rao, Ch., Chaliganti, R., Reddy, R.L., 2009b. Jat-ropha and Pongamia rainfed plantations on wastelands in India for improvedlivelihoods and protecting environment. In: 6th International Biofuels Confer-ence, New Delhi, India.

abatabai, M.A., 1994. Soil enzymes. In: Weaver, R.W., Angle, J.S., Bottomley, P.S.(Eds.), Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Microbiological and Biochemical Prop-erties. SSSA Book Series No. 5. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, pp.775–833.

abatabai, M.A., Bremner, J.M., 1969. Use of p-nitrophenyl phosphate for assay ofsoil phosphatase activity. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1, 301–307.

ani, S.P., Sreedevi, T.K., Marimuthu, S., Kesava Rao, A.V.R., Vineela, C., 2009a.Harnessing the potential of Jatropha and Pongamia plantations for improv-ing livelihoods and rehabilitating degraded lands. In: 6th International BiofuelsConference, New Delhi, India.

ani, S.P., Osman, M., Emmanuel, D’Silva, Sreedevi, T.K., 2006. Improved liveli-hoods and environmental protection through biodiesel plantations in Asia. AsianBiotechnol. Dev. Rev. 8, 11–29.

ani, S.P., Sreedevi, T.K., 2005. Pongamia’s Journey from Forest to Micro-enterprisefor Improving Livelihood. Research Report – Global Theme on Agroecosystems.International Crop Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru,India.

ani, S.P., Sreedevi, T.K., Rockstrom, J., Ramakrishna, Y.S., 2009b. Rain-fed agricul-ture past trend and future prospects. In: Wani, S.P., Rockstrom, J., Oweis, T. (Eds.),Rain-fed Agriculture: Unlocking the Potential. Comprehensive Assessment ofWater Management in Agriculture Series. CAB International, Wallingford, UK,pp. 1–35.

lin, a glycoprotein produced by hyphae of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. PlantSoil 198, 97–107.

e, M., Li, C.Y., Francis, G., Makkar, H.P.S., 2009. Current situation and prospects ofJatropha curcas as a multipurpose tree in China. Agroforest. Syst. 76, 487–497.