Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Agri–Silvi–Horti Systems for Semiarid Regions of North-West India

  • Full-Length Research Article
  • Published:
Agricultural Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Reduction in yield of arable crops under agroforestry in the tropics and subtropics is well known, but information on how different agroforestry systems influence the yield of crops is scanty. All types of agroforestry models may not be useful for all sites, but the old and traditional practices can be manipulated for meeting site-specific needs. Therefore, various agroforestry models (agri–silvi–horti systems) were developed to study their performance under semiarid conditions in north-west India. The experiment was conducted in ten-year-old silvi–horti systems comprising of shisham (Dalbergia sissoo L.) + aonla (Embilica officinalis Gaertn.), shisham (D. sissoo) + guava (Psidium guajava L.), khejri (Prosopis cineraria (L.) Druce) + aonla (E. officinalis) and khejri (P. cineraria) + guava (P. guajava) planted at a spacing of 6 m × 6 m. Three crop sequences, viz. cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp)—wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), clusterbean (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (L.) Taub)—barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) and pearl millet (Pennisetum americanum (L.) R. Br.)—oat (Avena sativa L.), were intecropped for 2 years. The crops were also grown in open field. The fodder yield of the kharif crops, namely pearl millet, cowpea and cluster bean, was significantly suppressed by different silvi–horti systems during the period of study, and maximum yield was observed in sole cropping. Among different silvi–horti systems, maximum fodder yield of cowpea (10.27 t/ha) and clusterbean (5.67 t/ha) was recorded under khejri + guava, whereas pearl millet fodder yield (18.93 t/ha) was maximum in khejri + aonla silvi–horti system. Minimum fodder yield (3.47 t/ha) was recorded in clusterbean under shisham + guava, whereas maximum fodder yield (29.3 t/ha) was recorded in pearl millet under sole cropping. In rabi season, maximum grain yield of wheat (4.07 t/ha) and barley (4.38 t/ha) was recorded under sole cropping while minimum yield of wheat (2.34 t/ha) and barley (2.79 t/ha) was recorded under shisham + aonla. Fodder yield of oat was also influenced significantly by different silvi–horti systems. Maximum oat fodder yield of 62.00 t/ha was harvested from open field followed by 56.20 t/ha under khejri + guava. Maximum fruit yield (13.40 t/ha) was observed in aonla + wheat + khejri agri–silvi–horti system. Appreciable build up in organic carbon content (OC) and decrease in soil pH under agri–silvi–horti systems as compared to sole cropping. The available NPK content also increased under agri–silvi–horti systems and decreased with increasing soil depth. The agri–silvi–horti system of khejri + guava + clusterbean–barley fetched higher net returns (Rs. 76,650/ha), while the net returns from sole cropping of clusterbean–barley was only Rs. 15,953/ha.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ahmed P (2008) Trees outside forests (TOF): a case study of wood production and consumption in Haryana. Int For Rev 10(2):165–172

    Google Scholar 

  2. Banerjee H, Dhara P, Pal KS, Maiti S (2008) Agri–horti–silvicultural system of cropping in red laterite tract of West Bengal. In: Chattopadhyay PK, Mistra SK (eds) Proceedings of national workshop on “organic horticulture-it’s production, processing, marketing and export for sustainability. Society for Advancement of Horticulture, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalya, West Bengal, pp 185–189

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bayala J, van Noordwijk M, Lusiana B, Ni’matul K, Teklehaimanot Z, Ouedraogo SJ (2007) Separating the tree–soil–crop interactions in agroforestry parkland systems in Sapone’ (Burkina Faso) using WaNuLCAS. Adv Agrofor 4:296–308

    Google Scholar 

  4. Breman H, Kessler JJ (1995) Woody plants in agro-ecosystems of semi-arid regions: with an emphasis on the Sahelian countries. Advanced series in agricultural sciences. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Casper BB, Jackson RB (1997) Plant competition underground. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 28:45–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Datta M, Singh NP (2007) Growth characteristics of multipurpose tree species, crop productivity and soil properties in Agroforestry system under subtropical humid climate in India. J For Res 18(4):261–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Githae EW, Gachene CKK, Njoka JT (2011) Soil physico-chemical properties under Acacia Senegal varieties in the dryland areas of Kenya. Afr Plant Sci 5:475–482

    Google Scholar 

  8. Jackson ML (1973) Soil chemical analysis. Prentice Hall, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kaushik N, Sushil Kumari, Surender Singh, Kaushik JC (2014) Productivity and economics of different agri–silvi–horti systems under drip irrigation. Ind J Agric Sci 84(10):1166–1171

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kaushik N, Virender Kumar (2003) Khejri (Prosopis cineraria) based agroforestry system for arid Haryana, India. J Arid Environ 55:433–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Krishnankutty CN, Thampi KB, Chundamannil M (2008) Trees outside forests (TOF): a case study of the wood production–consumption situation in Kerala. Int For Rev 10(2):156–164

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kumar A, Hooda MS, Bahadur R (1998) Impact of multipurpose trees on productivity of barley in arid ecosystem. Ann Arid Zone 37:153–157

    Google Scholar 

  13. Olsen SR, Cole, CV Watanake FS, Dean CA (1954) Estimation of available P in soil by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. Circular/U.S. Department of Agriculture 939

  14. Panse VG, Sukhatme PV (1978) Statistical methods for agricultural workers. ICAR Publications, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  15. Patel JM, Jaimini SN, Patel SB (2010) Physico-chemical properties of soil under different tree species. Ind J For 33(4):565–568

    Google Scholar 

  16. Pateria DK, Jaggi S, Batra PK, Gill AS (2005) Modeling the impact of fruit trees on crop productivity. Ind J Agric Sci 75(4):222–224

    Google Scholar 

  17. Newaj Ram, Bhargava MK, Shanker AK, Yadav Ajit RS, Rai P (2005) Resource capture and tree-crop interaction in Albizia procera based agroforestry system. Arch Agro Soil Sci 51(1):51–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Reijntjes C, Haverkort B, Waters-Bayer A (1992) Farming for future: an introduction to low-external input and sustainable agriculture. Macmillan, London. www.ciesin.org/docs/004-176a/004-176a.html

  19. Seddaiu G, Porcu G, Ledda L, Roggero PP, Agnelli A, Corti G (2013) Soil organic matter content and composition as influenced by soil management in a semi-arid Mediterranean agro-silvopastoral system. Agric Eco Syst Environ 167:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Singh B, Sharma KN (2012) Tree growth and accumulation of organic carbon and nutrients in soil under tree plantations in arid zone of Punjab. Ind For 138(5):453–459

    Google Scholar 

  21. Singh G, Rathod TR (2006) Growth, production and resource use in Colophospermum mopane-based agroforestry system in north-western India. Arch Agro Soil Sci 53(1):75–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Singh G, Rathod TR, Mutha S, Upadhyaya S, Bala N (2008) Impact of different tree species canopy on diversity and productivity of under canopy vegetation in Indian desert. Trop Eco 49(1):13–23

    Google Scholar 

  23. Singh B, Bishnoi M, Baloch MR (2012) Tree growth and wheat yield in agri–horti–silvi system in the arid region of Rajasthan. Ind For 138(8):726–732

    Google Scholar 

  24. Siriri D, Ong CK, Wilson J, Boffa JM, Black CR (2010) Tree species and pruning regime affect crop yield on bench terraces in S.W. Uganda. Agrofor Syst 78:65–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Swaminathan C (2001) Sustainable tree mixtures: optimum species combination for a tropical alfisol of southern India. Biol Agric Hortic 18:259–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Thakur PS, Kumar R (2006) Growth and production behavior of medicinal and aromatic herbs grown under herbs grown of Leuceana and Morus. Ind J Agrofor 8:12–21

    Google Scholar 

  27. Toky OP, Bisht RP (1992) Observations on the rooting pattern of some agroforestry trees in arid regions of north western India. Agrofor Syst 18:254–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Walkley A, Black TA (1934) An examination of degtzariff method for determining soil organic matter and proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci 37:29–39

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Yadav RS, Yadav BL, Chhipa BR (2008) Litter dynamics and soil properties under different tree species in a semi-arid region of Rajasthan, India. Agrofor Syst 73:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors are thankful to CCS Haryana Agricultural University for providing the facilities to conduct the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to N. Kaushik.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kaushik, N., Tikkoo, A., Yadav, P.K. et al. Agri–Silvi–Horti Systems for Semiarid Regions of North-West India. Agric Res 6, 150–158 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40003-017-0247-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40003-017-0247-9

Keywords

Navigation