Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T17:22:46.957Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A NEW WEED MANAGEMENT APPROACH TO IMPROVE SOIL HEALTH IN A TROPICAL PLANTATION CROP, RUBBER (HEVEA BRASILIENSIS)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2015

JOSHUA ABRAHAM  and
PHEBE JOSEPH
JOSHUA ABRAHAM*
Affiliation:
Agronomy/Soils Division, Rubber Research Institute of India, Kottayam 686009, Kerala, India
PHEBE JOSEPH
Affiliation:
Agronomy/Soils Division, Rubber Research Institute of India, Kottayam 686009, Kerala, India
*
†Corresponding author. Email: joshua@rubberboard.org.in
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The soil health of rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) plantations shows a declining trend, mainly due to the continuous mono crop cultivation and the ‘clean-weeding’ practices. Another weeding approach which allows the under-flora to grow profusely after closing up of the rubber canopy (no-weeding) can establish a multi-flora system that can improve soil health. A case study was undertaken to test this hypothesis. Rubber fields with and without control of under-flora were investigated for different soil properties, biomass and nutrients of under-flora and rubber yield. The ‘no-weeding’ practice for about 10 years in the rubber fields significantly improved the soil OC, N, available forms K and Mg, respiration rate and moisture status. The biomass and associated nutrients of under-flora also were much higher while the rubber yield was not negatively affected in the ‘no-weeding’ fields. The new weed management system is of great significance in improving soil quality, carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation, besides the economic and energy savings without affecting crop yield.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 52 , Issue 1 , January 2016 , pp. 36 - 50
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abraham, J. and Chudek, J. A. (2008). Studies on litter characterization using 13C NMR and assessment of microbial activity in natural forest and plantation crops’ (teak and rubber) soil ecosystems of Kerala, India. Plant and Soil 303 (1&2):265–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abraham, J., Jose, V. T., Joseph, K. and Thankamony, S. (2010). Organic and soluble forms of carbon and faunal and microbial population in soils under plantation crops (rubber and teak), cassava and natural forest in Kerala. In Placrosym XIX, 19th Biennial Symposium on Plantation Crops. 7–10 Dec, 2010, Kottayam, India.Google Scholar
Beukema, H., Danielsen, F., Vincent, G., Hardiwinoto, S. and Andel, J. V. (2007). Plant and bird diversity in rubber agroforests in the lowlands of Sumatra, Indonesia. Agroforestry Systems 70 (3):217–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillison, A. N. (2000). Above ground biodiversity assessment working group summary report 1996–1999: Impact of different land uses on biodiversity and social indicators. ASB Working Group Report, ICRAF, Nairobi, 160 p. Available at: http://www.asb.cgiar.org/PDFwebdocs/ASBBiodiversityReport.pdf.Google Scholar
Henry, M., Tittonell, P., Manlay, R.J., Bernoux, M., Albrecht, A. and Vanlauwe, B. (2009). Biodiversity, carbon stocks and sequestration potential in above ground biomass in smallholder farming systems of western Kenya. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 129:238–252.Google Scholar
Jackson, M. L. (1958). Soil Chemical Analysis, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc.Google Scholar
Jacob, J. (2000). Rubber tree, man and environment. In Natural Rubber: Agromanagment and Crop Processing, 599–610 (Eds George, P. J. and Jacob, C. K.). Kottayam, India: Rubber Research Institute of India.Google Scholar
Jordan, N. and Vatovec, C. (2004). Agro-ecological benefits from weeds. In Weed Biology and Management, 137–158 (Ed Inderjit). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic publishers.Google Scholar
Jordan, N. R., Zhank, J. and Huerd, S. (2000). Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi: potential role in weed management. Weed Research 40:397–410.Google Scholar
Karthikakutty, A. M. (1995). Effect of continuous cultivation of rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) on soil properties. Ph.D. thesis, Kerala University.Google Scholar
Kumar, B. M. (2005). Land use in Kerala: Changing scenarios and shifting paradigms. Journal of Tropical Agriculture 42 (1–2):1–12.Google Scholar
Meng, L., Martin, K., Weigel, A. and Xin, L. J. (2012). Impact of rubber plantation on carabid beetle communities and species distribution in a changing tropical landscape (southern Yunnan, China). Journal of Insect Conservation 16 (3):423–432.Google Scholar
NBSS & LUP (1999) Resource soil survey and mapping of rubber growing soils of Kerala and Tamilnadu on 1:50 000 scale. Nagpur, India: National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning (Indian Council of Agricultural Research).Google Scholar
Nelson, D. W. and Sommers, L. E. (1996). Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. In Methods of Soil Analysis, 961–1010, Part 2, 2nd edn. (Eds Page, A. L. et al.). Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
Patriquin, D. G. (1986). Biological husbandry and nitrogen problem. In The Role of Microorganisms in Sustainable Agriculture, 81–103 (Eds Lopes-Real, J. M. and Hodges, R. D.). Wye College: University of London.Google Scholar
Phommexay, P., Satasook, C., Bates, P., Pearch, M. and Bumrungsri, S. (2011). The impact of rubber plantations on the diversity and activity of understorey insectivorous bats in southern Thailand. Biodiversity and Conservation 20 (7):1441–1456.Google Scholar
Plank, C. O. (1992). Plant analysis reference procedures for the southern region of United States. Southern Cooperative series bulletin # 368. ISBN:1-58161-368.7. Available at: http://www.cropsoil.uga.edu.Google Scholar
Qiu, J. (2009). Where the rubber meets nature garden. Special report. Nature 457 (15):246–247.Google Scholar
Tata, H. L. (2011). Recognising Biodiversity in Rubber Plantations. Bogor, Indonesia: World Agroforestry Centre Southeast Asia Regional Program.Google Scholar
Wardle, D. A. (1992). A comparative assessment of factors which influence microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen levels in soil. Biological Reviews 67:321–358.Google Scholar
Webster, E. A., Hopkins, D. W., Chudek, J. A., Haslam, S. F., Simek, M. and Pîcek, T. (2001). The relationship between microbial carbon and the resource quality of soil carbon. Journal of Environmental Quality 30 (1):147–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yachi, S. and Loreau, M. (1999). Biodiversity and ecosystem productivity in a fluctuating environment: the insurance hypothesis. Ecology 96:1463–1468.Google Scholar
Zak, D. R., Holmes, W. E., White, D. C., Peacock, A. D. and Tilman, D. (2003). Plant diversity, soil microbial communities and ecosystem function: are there any links? Ecology 84:2042–2050.Google Scholar
Ziska, L. H. and Dukes, J. S. (2011). Weed Biology and Climate Change, Iowa, USA: Wiley-Blackwell publishing Google Scholar