significance of soil site suitability in fruit crops

Master´s Seminar (SOILS 591)

Significance of Soil Site Suitability in Fruit crops .

Vasantrao Naik Marathawada Krishi Vidyapeeth, ParbhaniCollege of agriculture, Latur.

RESERCH GUIDEDR. P. H. VAIDYA ASSOCIATE PROFESSER. DEPARTMENT OF SSAC, COA, LATUR.

PREPARED BYRAKESHA M.C2015A/48MLDEPT. OF SSACCOA, LATUR

http://www.google.co.in/imgres?imgurl=http://www.mkv.ac.in/maulogo.png&imgrefurl=http://www.mkv.ac.in/&usg=__6QaL3xHTLanbK3-f2JUPL6pZ0Jw=&h=117&w=123&sz=13&hl=en&start=2&zoom=1&tbnid=feUO8hISSM4oyM:&tbnh=85&tbnw=89&ei=VGxeUvfFA4rVkQWu64GABA&prev=/search?q=marathwada+krishi+vidyapeeth+parbhani&hl=en-IN&gbv=2&tbm=isch&itbs=1&sa=X&ved=0CC0QrQMwA

What do you mean by soil suitability ?

Soil suitability is the fitness of given type of land for defined use.

soil suitability analysis is a method of land evaluation, which measures the degree of appropriateness of land for a certain use.

Significance of Soil Site Suitability• To classify and determine the soil profile type with in the

study area .• Assess the soil suitability classes within the study area.• Assess the good quality agriculture soil classes with in the

study area .• Provide preliminary assessment of strategic cropping land• Assess suitability of top soil for rehabilitation including

identification of unfavourable materials .• Provide soil management recommendation for top soil.• The execution and interpretation of basic surveys of climate,

soils, vegetation and others aspects of soil in terms of requirements of alternative forms of soil use.

• Identifying the most suitable location for specific agriculture use .

Objective • To understand soil quality under fruit

growing soils.

• To know the soil site suitability for fruit orchards .

Methods of Soil Site Suitability

• Actual limitation method (Sys et al .1971)• Optimum yield basis ( FAO 1983)• Storie index (1976)• Productivity index (Requier et al. 1970)• Soil irrigability classification (USBR 1953)• USDA land capability classification(1961)

S1 (Highly suitable) Land unit with nil. or up to 5 slight limitation.

S2 (Moderately suitable) Land units with more than 5 slight limitation and / or no more than two severe limitation

S3 (Marginally suitable)Land unit with more than 4 moderate limitation or/ and no more than two sever limitations.

N1 (Currently not suitable) Land unit with more than 2 severe limitation that can be corrected.

N2 (Unsuitable) Land units having very severe limitation that cannot be corrected.

Suitability classes based on limitation titative land evaluation

Suitability class Degree of limitation

Suitability classes based on optimum yield basis (FAO, 1983)

This was based on optimum yield level of suitability classes as fallows.• S1 > 80% of optimum yield • S2 40 to 80% of optimum yield • S3 20 to 40% of optimum yield • N <20% of optimum yield

Storie method ( Storie 1976)This method is based on soil characteristics that govern the land potential utilization and productive capacity .SI = A*B*C*X*YSI : Storie indexA - General characteristics of soil profileB - Texture of surface soilC - SlopeX - Miscellaneous factor Y - Average annual rainfall

Storie index values of suitability class as fallows

• Very poor (10-19)• Poor (20-39)• Fair (40-59)• Good (60-79)• Excellent (80-100)

Soil site suitabality of fruit crop

POMENGRANATE

Horizo-nes

Depth (cm)

Boundary

Matrix Colour

Texture

Structure

Consistency

Pores Roots Effervescence

Pedon 2 Waruda , Osmanabad ( Lithic Ustorthent )

Ap 0-9 Cs 10 YR 4/3 C m2sbk s, fr, ns,np vfm Vfm es

AC 0-19 Gi 10 YR 4/3 Cl m3sbk fr ,ns,np vfm Vfm es

Ck 19-25----murrum ( Saprolite)----

Pedon 8 Shiradhone Kalam ( Typic Ustochrept)

Ap 0-18 Cs 10 YR 3/2 Cl m1 sbk s, fr,ss, sp vfm Vfm es

Bw1 18-26 Cs 10 YR 3/3 Sc m1sbk fr,ss, sp vfm Fm es

C 26-36 weather basaltPedon 1 Wagholi ( Typic Haplusterts)

Ap 0-30 Cs 10 YR3/2 C m 2 sbk vh,vfi,vsvp vfm vfm, fm e

Bw 30-64 Cs 10YR2.5/1 C m 3sbk vh,vfi,vsvp vfm vfm, fm,cc es

Bss 64-93 Gw 10 YR 2.5/1 C m 3abk vh,vfi,vsvp vfm vfm,fm,cc ev

C 93-130 weather basalt

Table 1. Morphological characteristic of representative pedons pomegranate orchards in Osmanabad District

Pawar et al.(2015)

Horizones

Depth ( cm)

Coarse fragment %

BD (mg/cm

3)

HC cm/hr

Partial size analysis( %)

Moisture retention % AWC

%PAWCmm

Sand Silt Clay 33kPa 1500 kPa

Pedon 2 Waruda , Osmanabad ( Lithic Ustorthent )

Ap 0-9 25 1.29 4.21 30.95 26.55 42.5 39.4 25.6 13.8

Ac 0-19 26.31 1.49 5.12 33.1 49.4 17.5 35.2 23.1 12.1 193.8

M 19-25 62.16 1.67 4.89 37.8 47.2 15 33.4 23.9 9.5 Pedon 8 Shiradhone Kalam ( Typic Ustochrept)

Ap 0-18 7.73 1.68 2.26 3.15 46.85 50 41.1 27.2 13.9

Bw1 18-26 9.49 1.65 4.5 24.55 39.93 37.5 35.4 25.2 10.2 52.51

M 26-36 15.84 1.72 -- 43.35 44.15 12.5 32.1 23.9 8.2 Pedon 1 Wagholi ( Typic Haplusterts)

Ap 0-30 6.19 1.38 4.41 2.55 42.45 55 44.4 25.2 19.2

Bw1 30-64 10.7 1.66 7.73 1.7 35.08 62.5 48.6 24.1 24.5 323

Bss1 64-93 10.37 1.64 5.29 0.8 34.2 65.5 49.3 25.8 23.5

C 93-130 45.38 1.39 -- 28.55 41.45 30 47.3 25.2 22.1

Table 2. Physical characteristic of representative pedons under pomegranate orchards in Osmanabad district

Pawar et al.(2015)

Horizones

Depth ( cm)

pH EC dSm-1

OC %

CaCO3 %

CEC (cmol(p+) kg-1 )

Cations (cmol(p+) kg-1 )

Base Saturation %

Ca++ Mg++ Na+ K+ Sum of Cations

Pedon 2 Waruda (Lithic Ustorthents)Ap 0-9 7.52 0.74 0.31 5.4 42.93 23 16 2.21 0.9 42.11 98

Ac 9-19 7.63 0.57 0.27 5.6 25.11 13 9 2.21 0.6 24.81 98

M 19-25 7.64 0.53 0.25 4.6 22.43 11 7 2.15 0.57 20.72 92Pedon 8 Shiradhon Kalam (Typic Ustrochrepts )Ap 0-18 7.76 0.41 0.25 17.0 49.37 31 15.5 1.29 0.87 48.66 98Bw1 18-26 7.76 0.34 0.23 21.1 42.36 26 13.0 1.07 0.48 40.55 95M 26+36 7.86 0.36 0.24 20.2 21.14 15 7.0 1.50 0.17 23.67 89Pedon-1 Wagholi (Typic Haplusterts)Ap 0-30 7.66 0.35 0.72 9.2 61.90 35 23 1.09 0.81 59.90 96Bw1 30-64 7.73 0.32 0.45 9.6 65.72 41 23 1.10 0.62 67.72 97Bss1 64-93 7.76 0.32 0.24 13.0 62.11 38 23 1.20 0.8 61.00 98Ck 93-130 7.8 0.35 0.12 15.2 49.42 22 15 1.09 0.25 38.34 97

Table 3.Chemical characteristic of the representative pedons under Pomegranate Orchards in Osmanabad District.

Pawar et al.(2015)

Table 4. Soils site suitability criteria (crop requirement)for pomegranate.

Soil- site characteristic Rating

Unit Highly suitable S1

Moderately suitable S2

Marginally suitable S3

Not suitable N

Climatic regime Mean temp in growing seasons

oC 30-34 35-3825-29

39-4015-24

--

Soil quality Soil requirements

Moisture availability Length of growing period

Days >150 120-150 90-120 <90

Oxygen availability to roots

Soil drainage Class Well drainedMod. To

Imperfectly Poorly V. poorly

Nutrient availability Texture Class Sl,scl,l,cl C,sic,sicl Cl,s,ls -

pH1:2.5 5.5-7.5 7.6-8.5 8.6-9.0 -

Rooting conditions Soil depth Cm >100 75-100 50-75 <50

Coarse fragments

Vol%Nil 15-35 >35 -

Soil toxicity Salinity dS/m Nil <9 >9 <50

Erosion hazard Slope % <3 3-5 5-10

Naidu et al. (2006)

17

SIR:classes Very poor- (10-19), Poor- (20-39), Fair-(40-59), Good (60-69), excellent(80-100)FAO: Optimum yield of pomegranate in study area - 25.4 t/ha.Suitability classes: S2- Highly suitable, S2- Moderatly suitable, S2- Marginally suitable, N1- currently not suitable, N2 - unsuitable

Table 6. Storie index rating and soil site suitability classification as per Storie (1976) and FAO (1983)

Storie (1976) FAO(1983)

Pedon Factor A

Depth

Factor B

Texture

Factor C

Slope

FactorX

Drainage

Alkali Nutrients level

Erosion

Storie Index

SuitabilityClassStorie(1976)

Yield(t/ha)

% of optim

um yield

SuitabilityClass

FAO(1983)

Pedon-1 60 75 100 95 100 90 100 38.4 Poor 12.0 47.0 S2

Pedon-2 30 95 95 100 100 90 90 21.0 Poor 18.0 70.0 S2

Pedon3 30 100 95 100 100 90 90 25.0 Poor 15.1 69.0 S2

Pedon-4 60 75 100 100 100 90 100 36.4 Poor 18.0 70.0 S2

Pedon-5 100 80 100 95 100 90 100 68.7 Good 13.1 51.0 S2

Pedon-6 30 95 95 100 100 90 90 21.9 poor 15.5 61.0 S2

Pedon-7 30 95 95 100 100 90 90 21.9 Poor 18.1 70.0 S2

Pedon-8 35 95 95 100 100 90 90 25.5 Poor 25.0 97.0 S1

Pedon-9 30 95 95 95 100 90 90 20.8 Poor 17.0 67.0 S2

Pawar et al.(2015)

Table 7. Soil site suitability for pomegranate of representative pedon of Osmanabad

Pedon Suitability class Limitation

ENTISOLS(Lithic Ustorthent )

Moderately suitable Soil depth

INCEPTISOLS (Typic Ustochrept)

Highly suitable Soil depth <30 cm

VERTISOLS( Typic Haplusterts)

Moderately suitable Soil depth >30 cm

Pawar et al. (2015)

Horizo-nes

Depth (cm)

Boundary

Matrix Colour

Texture

Structure

Consistency

Pores Roots Effervescence

Pedon 4 Alani (Lithic Ustorthents)

Ap 0-20 CS 10 YR 4/4 Scl f 1 gr 1 vfr ns np fm, cm vfm, fm -

C 20-34 - 10 YR 4/6 S f 1 gr fr ns np mm, cm ff, cm -

Pedon 1 Upla (Typic Ustochrepts)

Ap 0-15 CS 10 YR 3/2 Cl m 2 sbk S fr ss sp vfm, fm vff, fm e

BW 15-30 CS 10 YR 3/2 Scl F 1 sbk fr ss sp vfm, fm ff, cm -

C 30-59 - 10 YR 5/6 S c 3 gr 1 ns np cm cm -

Pedon 2 Upla (Typic Haplusters)

Ap 0-29 CS 10 YR 3/2 C m 2 abk Sh fr vs vp vfm, fm vfm, mc es

Bw1 29-42 CS 10 YR 3/2 C m 2 abk fr vs vp vfm, fm vfm, mc es

Bw2 42-61 CS 10 YR 3/2 C m 2 abk fr vs vp vfm, fm vfm, mc es

Bss1 61-87 CS 10 YR 3/2 C m 2 abk fr vs vp vfm, fm cm, vff es

Bss2 87-117 CS 10 YR 4/1 C m 2 abk fr vs vp vfm, fm ff, cm es

Ck 117-150 - 10 YR 4/3 Cl - fr ss sp vff, ff, cm ff, cm es

Table 8.Morphological characteristic of representative pedons Grape orchards in Osmanabad District

Mane et al.(2015)

Horizones

Depth ( cm)

Coarse fragment %

BD (mg/cm

3)

HC cm/hr


Moisture retention % AWC

%PAWC

mmSand Silt Clay 33kPa 1500

kPa


Ap 0-20 18.4 1.43 13.8 50.4 19.6 30.0 23.1 10.9 12.2 33.60

C 20-34 32.2 1.52 16.9 50.85 21.65 27.5 15.9 7.5 8.4

Pedon 1 Upla (Typivc Ustochrepts)

Ap 0-15 12.5 1.42 21.2 19.5 45.5 35..0 19.5 7.9 11.6

BW 15-30 20.0 1.47 17.2 20.0 47.4 32.5 19.7 7.6 12.1 62.04

C 30-59 71.5 1.88 - 45.7 39.2 15.0 - - -Pedon 2 Upla (Typic Haplusters)

Ap 0-29 10.0 1.46 4.8 6.5 38.9 55.0 41.3 31.2 10.1

Bw1 29-42 10.0 1.53 8.3 5.90 34.1 58.0 43.1 32.1 11.2

Bw2 42-61 9.0 1.68 5.4 6.7 31.3 62.0 45.6 33.2 12.4 281.73

Bss1 61-87 11.8 1.68 4.0 4.65 28.3 67.0 45.7 34.8 10.9

Bss2 87-117 14.7 1.73 4.6 6.8 27.8 67.5 42.7 31.8 11.9

Ck 117-150 26.3 1.89 - 35.9 24.1 40.0 32.8 21.6 11.2

Table9. Physical characteristic of representative pedons under grape orchards in Osmanabad district

Mane et al.(2015)

Horizones

Depth ( cm)

pH EC dSm-1

OC %

CaCO3 %


Cations (cmol(p+) kg-1 ) Base

Saturation %

Ca++ Mg++ Na+ K+ Sum of Cations


Ap 0-20 7.35 0.21 1.20 2.50 34.30 19.00 12.00 0.30 0.70 32.70 95.33

C 20-34 7.19 0.21 1.00 2.40 30.20 18.50 9.00 0.30 0.40 28.30 93.70

Pedon 1 Upla (Typic Ustochrepts)

Ap 0-15 7.23 0.44 0.93 7.30 36.20 23.20 10.40 0.80 0.50 35.00 96.68

Bw 15-30 7.23 0.27 0.49 1.40 31.10 19.20 9.80 0.30 0.10 30.10 96.78

C 30-59 7.26 0.18 0.10 1.50 18.10 9.10 5.70 0.40 0.20 16.90 93.37Pedon 2 Upla (Typic Haplusters)

Ap 0-29 7.97 0.30 0.45 12.00 62.00 33.00 23.00 3.87 0.90 60.70 97.90

Bw1 29-42 8.02 0.36 0.48 11.50 60.50 32.00 23.00 3.44 0.60 59.00 97.50

Bw2 42-61 8.11 0.20 0.25 9.50 58.40 30.00 24.00 2.73 0.60 57.30 98.10

Bss1 61-87 8.08 0.26 0.10 12.50 57.00 29.00 23.00 2.89 0.80 55.60 97.00

Bss2 87-117 8.06 0.34 0.33 14.50 57.80 31.60 20.00 3.60 0.80 56.00 96.80

Ck 117-150 8.10 0.35 0.12 25.20 46.10 26.00 16.00 2.70 0.40 45.10 98.20

Table 10. Chemical characteristic of the representative pedons under grape Orchards in Osmanabad District.

Mane et al.(2015)

Table 11. Soils site suitability criteria (crop requirement) for Grape.





Not suitable N

Climatic regime Mean temp oC 25-30 31-3520-24

36-40 --

Mean RH % 50-60 60-80 >80 --





Depth of water table

m >2.50 >2.00 >1.50 --

Nutrient availability Texture Class Scl,l,sl,cl Sl,sc,sic,sicl,c C(s<60%) C(>60%),s,ls

pH1:2.5 6.5-7.5 6.0-6.4, 7.6-8.0 4.0-5.9, 8.1-8.5 --

Rooting conditions Soil depth Cm 100-150 75-100 50-75 <50

Hard pan cm >250 150-250 75-150 <75

Soil toxicity Salinity(EC) dS/m Non saline Upto 1.0 1.0-2.5 >2.5

Sodicity (ESP) % Non sodic 5-10 10-15 >15

Erosion hazard Slope % <3 3-5 5-10 --

Naidu et al. (2006)

Table 12. Overall suitability classification of grape

Pedon

Contents

Yield Q/ha

%Yield

to optim

um

Suitability

based on

actual yield

Slope Depth Texture

HC (Draina

ge)o.c CaCO3

EC dSm-1 pH Suitabili

ty Class

Pedon 1 * -- -- ** ** -- -- -- S2 27.1 81.0 S1

Pedon 2 -- -- ** *** *** *** -- * S3 19.26 58.0 S2

Pedon 3 -- -- -- -- ** **** -- * N1 25.4 76.2 S2

Pedon4 -- * -- * * -- -- -- S1 29.6 88.8 S1

Pedon5 -- -- -- -- ** **** -- * N1 24.9 74.7 S2

Pedon6 * * ** -- -- *** -- * S3 29.4 88.2 S1

Optimum yield : 33.3t/haLimitation No, * Slight ., ** Moderate., *** Marginal., **** sever limit, ***** Very severeS1 > 80% of optimum yield ,S2- 40 to 80%,S3 - 20 to 40% ,N - <20% Mane et al.(2015)

Table 13. Soil site suitability for Grape of representative pedon of Osmanabad


ENTISOLS(Lithic Ustorthents)

Highly suitable Soil depth,O.C

INCEPTISOLS(Typic Ustochrepts)

Highly suitable O.C, drainage

VERTISOLS(Typic Haplusters)

Moderately suitable CaCO3, O.C, drainage and texture

Mane et al. (2015)

BANANA

Horizo-nes

Depth (cm)

Matrix Colour Texture Structure Consistency effervescence

Pedon 2. Fine- loamy, calcareous, Typic Rhodustalfs

Ap 0-18 5 YR 3/4 sl 1 m sbk sh vfr ss ps ev

Bt1 18-45 2.5 YR 3/6 sc 2 m sbk fr s p es

Bt2 45-76 2.5 YR 3/6 scl 2 m sbk fr s p es

Bt3 76-108 2.5 YR 3/4 scl 2 m sbk fr s p es

Bt4 108-142 2.5 YR 3/4 scl 2 m sbk fr s p esPedon 3. Fine loamy, Typic Paleustalfs

Ap 0-20 2.5 YR 3/4 sl 1 m sbk fr ss ps -

Bt1 20-62 2.5 YR 3/4 scl 2 m sbk fr ss ps -

Bt2 62-98 2.5 YR 3/6 scl 2 m sbk fr ss ps -

Bt3 98-135 5 YR 3/4 cl 2 m sbk fr s p -

Bt4 135-155 5 YR 3/4 c 2 m sbk fr s p -Pedon1 . Very fine , smectitc, Vertic Haplusteps

Ap 0-15 10 YR 3/2 c 2 c sbk h vfi vs vp e

Bw1 15-33 10 YR 3/2 c 2 c sbk fi vs vp e

Bw2 33-55 10 YR 3/2 c 2 m sbk fi vs vp e

Table 14.Morphological characteristic of representative pedons Banana orchards in Pulivendla region AP

Niranjana et al. (2011)

Horizones

Depth ( cm)

pH(1.:2.5)

EC dSm-1O.C (g kg-1)

CaCO3

(g kg-1)Sand (0.05-2mm)

Silt (0.002-0.05)

Clay (<0.002mm)

CEC (coml(p+)kg-1

Base saturation (%)

Pedon 2. Fine- loamy, calcareous, Typic Rhodustalfs

Ap 0-18 8.6 0.16 3.6 20 74.9 10.3 14.8 7.6 >100Bt1 18-45 8.6 0.15 2.0 30 51.4 13.2 35.4 15.8 >100Bt2 45-76 8.6 0.17 1.4 30 50.9 13.7 35.4 16.8 >100Bt3 76-108 8.6 0.19 1.1 70 54.4 15.2 30.4 17.3 >100Bt4 108-142 8.6 0.20 0.1 80 54.2 15.1 30.7 15.7 >100Pedon 3. Fine loamy, Typic Paleustalfs

Ap 0-20 8.6 0.25 4.7 10 71.1 14.7 14.7 7.2 >100Bt1 20-62 8.6 0.21 3.8 10 45.5 27.6 26.9 15.5 >100Bt2 62-98 8.5 0.16 3.5 20 55.4 19.1 25.5 12.6 >100Bt3 98-135 8.0 0.12 3.3 10 42.7 21.9 35.4 17.9 >100Bt4 135-155 7.7 10.5 3.1 10 31.6 31.6 48.5 23.2 >100Pedon1 . Very fine , smectitc, Vertic HaplustepsAp 0-15 8.3 0.22 11.2 40 14.9 27.8 57.3 54.5 >100Bw1 15-33 8.4 0.19 10.5 40 11.5 23.9 64.6 58.8 >100Bw2 33-55 8.3 0.13 8.9 40 9.9 24.3 65.8 58.8 >100

Table 15.Physical and chemical characteristic of representative pedons Banana orchards in Pulivendla regiom of AP

28Niranjana et al. (2011)

Table 16. Soils site suitability criteria (crop requirement)for Banana.


Unit Highly

suitable S1

Moderately

suitable S2

Marginally

suitable S3

Not suitable N


37-38 >38

Total rainfall Mm/month

100 50-100 25-50 <25


Oxygen availability

to roots



Depth of water table

m >1.25 1.25-0.75 0.5-0.75 <0.5

Nutrient

availability

Texture Class l, cl,scl,sil Sicl,sc,c(<45%) C(>45%),sic,sl ls,s

pH 1:2.5 6.5-7.0 7.1-8.5 >8.5 --


Stoniness % <10 10-15 15-35 >35

Soil toxicity Salinity(EC) dS/m <1.0 1.0-2.0 >2.0 --

Sodicity (ESP) % <5 5-10 10-15 >15

Erosion hazard Slope % <3 3-5 5-15 >15

Niranjana et al. (2011)

Table 17. Soil site suitability ratings for banana

Pedons

SoilDepth

Drainage

Texture

Topography

Stoniness

CaCO3 Salinity/ alkalinity Overall

suitability Class

Surface Sub soil

Pedon 1 S3 S1 S3 S1 S1 S1 S1 S2 S3






Nirajana et al. (2011)


ALFISOL( Typic Rhodustalfs and Typic Paleustalfs )

Moderately suitable Alkalinity

INCEPTISOLS(Vertic Haplusteps)

Marginally suitable Depth, texture and alkalinity

Table 18.Soil site suitability for Banana of representative pedon of Pulivendla, AP

Nirajana et al. (2011)

CITRUS

Horizones Depth (cm)

Matrix Colour Texture Structure Consistency Effervescence

Pedon 1Clayey, Fine,Smectite (Calareous), Typic Haplustept

Ap 0-20 10 YR 4/2 c sbk sh fl s violent

Bk 20-35 10 YR 6/3 c sbk sh fl ss violent

Bwk 35-90 10 YR 5/4 c sbk sh vfl ss violentPedon 2 Clayey, Fine,Smectite (Calareous), Vertic Haplustert

Ap 0-22 10 YR 5/2 c sbk sh f ss strong

B 22-45 10 YR 4/3 c sbk sh f s strong

Bwk 45-60 10 YR 4/2 c sbk sh f s violent

Bssk 60-80 10 YR 6/4 c sbk sh f ns violent

Ck 80-90 10 YR 5/3 c sbk sh f ns violentPedon 3. Clayey, Fine,Smectite (Calareous), Vertic Haplustert

Ap 0-25 10 YR 5/3 c sbk sh f p slight

Bw 25-45 10 YR 4/2 c sbk sh f p strong

Bssk 45-70 10 YR 4/2 c sbk sh efl vp strong

Ck 70-100 10 YR 5/1 c sbk ah efl vp violent

Table 19. Morphological characteristic of representative pedons Citrus orchards in Nagpur district

Rupali et al. (2014)

Horizones

Depth ( cm)

BD (mg/cm3)


Moisture retention %AWC

%Sand Silt Clay 33kPa 1500 kPa

Pedon 1Clayey,Fine,Smectite (Calareous), Typic HaplusteptAp 0-20 1.45 23.8 17.8 58.4 40.0 22.1 17.9Bk 20-35 1.42 15.6 22.2 62.2 41.3 24.3 17.0

Bwk 35-90 1.43 16.8 21.2 62.0 43.5 25.9 17.6Pedon 2 Clayey,Fine,Smectite (Calareous), Vertic Haplustert

Ap 0-22 1.43 14.8 24.9 60.3 38.5 26.0 12.3B 22-45 1.44 15.7 21.7 62.6 42.4 25.8 16.6

Bwk 45-60 1.43 16.2 22.4 61.4 44.9 25.4 19.5Bssk 60-80 1.48 17.2 22.2 60.6 42.3 25.0 17.3Ck 80-90 1.49 20.9 22.4 56.7 44.5 26.8 17.7

Pedon 3. Clayey,Fine,Smectite (Calareous), Vertic HaplustertAp 0-25 1.46 10.4 26.2 63.4 38.9 22.8 16.1Bw 25-45 1.50 14.8 16.8 68.4 36.0 22.4 17.8

Bssk 45-70 1.49 15.2 23.5 61.3 32.8 20.0 13.6Ck 70-100 1.49 18.4 10.8 70.8 40.4 20.1 20.3

Table 20.Physical characteristic of representative soils (Pedons) of Citrus in Nagpur district


Horizones

Depth ( cm)

pH EC dSm-1

OC %


Cations (cmol(p+) kg-1 )

Base Saturati

on %Ca++ Mg++ Na+ K+ Sum

Pedon 1Clayey,Fine,Smectite (Calareous), Typic Haplustept

Ap 0-20 8.08 0.241 9.6 43.7 32.5 6.6 0.55 0.48 40.13 91.8Bk 20-35 8.12 0.167 5.6 47.3 33.1 8.7 0.44 0.46 42.70 90.2

Bwk 35-90 8.13 0.187 3.8 44.9 33.2 5.0 0.43 0.35 38.98 86.6Pedon 2 Clayey,Fine,Smectite (Calareous), Vertic Haplustert

Ap 0-22 7.76 0.548 8.7 50.1 38.5 6.4 0.48 0.50 45.88 91.6B 22-45 7.86 0.499 7.3 51.0 38.7 7.3 0.46 0.44 46.94 92.0

Bwk 45-60 7.97 0.498 7.0 49.8 38.5 7.1 0.39 0.33 46.47 93.3Bssk 60-80 8.12 0.234 5.9 47.5 37.9 7.0 0.39 0.30 45.73 96.2Ck 80-90 8.15 0.318 5.3 43.7 34.1 6.0 0.58 0.40 41.08 94.0

Pedon 3. Clayey,Fine,Smectite (Calareous), Vertic Haplustert

Ap 0-25 7.70 0.350 10.1 49.8 36.4 7.6 0.50 0.45 45.01 90.3Bw 25-45 8.37 0.304 9.9 51.9 36.8 7.9 0.50 0.48 45.68 88.0

Bssk 45-70 7.99 0.257 9.0 46.7 35.1 7.7 0.48 0.46 43.74 93.6Ck 70-100 8.04 0.334 7.9 50.3 35.4 7.2 0.31 0.46 43.37 86.2

Table 21.Chemical characteristic of representative soils (Pedons) of Citrus in Nagpur district


Table 22.Soils site suitability criteria (crop requirement) for Citrus.





Not suitable N


36-4020-23

>4040<20

Total rainfall mm 1200-1800 1000-1200 800-1000 <800


Moisture availability Length of growing period

Days 240-265 180-240 150-180 <150




Nutrient availability Texture Class scl,l,sicl,cl,s, Sc,sc,c C(>70%) S,ls

pH1:2.5 6.5-7.5 7.6-8.0 8.1-8.5 >8.5

CaCO3 In root

zone% Non cal Upto 5 5-10 >10


Hard pan cm >200 200-150 100-150 <100

Soil toxicity Salinity dS/m Non saline Upto 1.0 1.0-2.5 >2.5

Sodicity (ESP) % Non sodic 5-10 10-15 >15

Naidu et al. (2006)

Table 23.Degree and limitation of soil suitabality for citrus

Pedons

SlopeDepth Drainage Texture

Soil depth

CaCO3 pH EC dSm-

1suitability

Class

Pedon 1 S1 S2 S1 S3 S4 S1 S2 S4







INCEPTISOLS(Typic Haplustept)

Not suitable Drainage,CaCO3, pH and EC.

VERTISOLS(Vertic Haplustert and Vertic Haplustert)

Marginally suitable CaCO3 ,drainage.

Table 24.Soil site suitability for Citrus of representative pedon of Telangkhedi garden, Nagpur


Conclusion PomegranateThe Typic Ustochrept (Inceptisol) soils underlined by loose weathered basalt ( murrum layer) below 30 cm soil depth were found to be highly suitable (S1) followed by Typic Ustorthants and Typic Haplusterts for pomegranate production in Maharashtra. GrapeThe Lithic Ustorthent (Entisol) underlined by loose weathered basalt were found highly suitable (S1) followed by Typic Ustochrepts (Inceptisol) preforming better in terms of productivity of grape in Maharashtra. BananaThe Typic Rhodustalfs and Typic Paleustalfs (Alfisol) were moderately suitable (S2) followed by Vertic Haplustepts (Inceptisol) (S3) for banana in Andhra Pradesh. Citrus The Vertic Haplustert (vertisol) was marginally suitable (S3) and calcareous Typic Haplustepts currently not suitable (N1) for production Citrus production in Nagpur District. From above however concluded that specific soil site selection for specific fruits crop helps to increase the production and profitability of fruits .

Thank you

significance of soil site suitability in fruit crops

Education