daw yinn mar soe mmr

Land Responses to Different Land Management Practices in Shwe Taung,

Mandalay Region

Yinn Mar Soe(Myanmar)

Outlines

Background

Objectives

Materials & Methods

Results & Discussion

Conclusions

Suggestion

2

Background

Sustainable Land Management(SLM)-

Land management issues -for sustainable intensification of food & fiber systems - for rehabilitation of degraded crop, pasture,

forestlands (FRP, 2005)-necessary to meet requirements of a growing

population- pertain to most significant land issues – sustaining

soil productivity & averting land degradation (FRP, 2006)

3

Solution for sustainability - soil quality concept offering

itself as a tool for studying soil responses to

different management practices

(Schjønning et al., 2004)

Soil quality - how well soil does what we want it to do

- considered as a cognitive concept - any

evaluation of some property / function in

soil necessarily involves values & priorities

Soil Quality Indicators(SQIs)

4

Link between soil quality & sustainability - very important

- soil quality not remain an abstract concept

- but to be strived for by management

(Bouma et al., 1998)

Schjønning et al. (2004) - explained “soil quality

indicators in sustainability system” for threshold level

deciding management threshold step-by-step

5

Solution for sustainability - soil quality concept offering

itself as a tool for studying soil responses to

different management practices

(Schjønning et al., 2004)

Soil quality - s how well soil does what we want it to do

- considered as a cognitive concept - any

evaluation of some property / function in soil

necessarily involves values & priorities

6

SLM - cannot be addressed without evaluating soil

attributes (i.e. indicators)

- but putting the focus on the effects of

management may establish a more relevant

foundation for soil quality concept

7

Objective

Major objective- To assess soil responses due to different land management practices

Specific objectives-

• To identify the soil physical & chemical properties of soil

• To inform the best management practices for sustainable

production in Shwe Taung

• To develop the soil quality indicator for the sustainability in

these land management practiced by Shwe Taung

8

Soil AnalysesJuly-Oct , 2011

Materials & Methods

Study Site – Shwe Taung, Mandalay Region, Myanmar (around 21° 16’ N 96° E) , 337 ft asl

9

Soil Sampling13th July, 2011

Soil Survey15th May 2011

Design – RCB with 4 replications

sampling from 0-15 cm and 15-30

cm depthsPacking sample samples from 0-15 cm and

15-30 cm soil depths

Systematically preparationDisturbed

samplesRandomed

disturbed sampling

samples from 0-15 cm and 15-30 cm soil

depths

Undisturbed soil samples

Undisturbed soil samples sampling

Disturbed soil samples sampling

10

Soil Properties Analysis

Sr.no Properties Method

1 Soil Bulk density (kgm-3) Core Method

2 Particle density Pycnometer Method

3 Total porosity (%) Baruah and Barthakur, 1999

4 Soil Organic Matter Walkley and Black Method

5 Soil Aggregate Stability White,1993

6 Soil pH (H2O 1:5) Baruah and Barthakur, 1999

7 Electrical Conductivity (EC)(dS/m) Van rust et. Al (2006

8 Soil Total Nitrogen (STN%) Kjeldahl method

9 Total CaCO3 (%) van rust et. Al (2006)

10 C:N Bashour and Sayegh, 2007

11 Soil Texture Pipette Method

12 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity(cm day-1) Darcy Law apparatus 11

Table.1 Different Land Use and Soil Management Practices in Shwe-Daung

Land Use and Soil Management Practices

(L)Land Use Soil Management Practices

L1 Pasture Grassland for Cattle

L2 Forest Nature

L3 Cultivated land Irrigated Cotton, 20 years practiced (RF)

L4 Cultivated land Rainfed Cotton, 20 year practiced (RF)

L5 Cultivated land Irrigated Cotton-Rice Rotation (FF)L6 Cultivated land Rice-Legume Rotation (RF)

L7 Cultivated land Irrigated Cotton-Rice Rotation(RF)

L8 Cultivated land Rainfed Cotton(FF) 12

Table.2 Soil quality indicators with critical level for agricultureSoil Quality Indicators Critical level for agriculture Reference

Soil bulk density (kg/m3)

Loams and clay loams (1100-1500 kg/m3) (1100-1300 kg/m3), sandy (1400-1800 kg/m3) (1300-1700 kg/m3), organic soils (500 kg/m3)(400 kg/m3)

Baruah and Barthakur (1999)Bashour and Sayegh (2007)

Soil particle density (kg/m3) The standard value – 2.65 kg/m3Baruah and Barthakur (1999) Hillel (1998)

Soil porosity (%) 30-60 %, 30-70 %Baruah and Barthakur (1999)Foth (1990)

Soil organic matter (%)0.344 % (very sandy arid soils) , 86% (peats and mucks ), <2% for tropical soil

Baruah and Barthakur (1999), Barrow (1991)

Soil Aggregate Stability Increase in > 2 mm size class for tropical

Castro Filho et al., 2002

Soil pH (H2O, 1:2)Soil pH 5.5-6.5, Plants grow best in the range of 5.0 to 8.5 Pansu and Gautheyrou (2006),

Wheet (2004)

Soil electrical conductivity (dS/m)

Yield of most crops restricted between 4 and 8 dS/m. Sensitive plants (e.g. beans, carrots) may be affected between 2 and 4, while some tolerant crops (e.g. barley, cotton) may yield satisfactorily between 8 and 16 dS/cm

Marshall and Holmes, 1979

13

Soil Quality Indicators Critical level for agriculture Reference

Soil organic carbon (%) 1.10-1.45 % depending on the soils and type of vegetation

Pansu and Gautheyrou (2006)

Soil total nitrogen (%) Its amount on cultivated soil is 0.03-0.04 % by weight.

Mengel and Kirkby (1987), Tisdale et al. (1995)

Corg/NtThe average value – 10-15 Baruah and Barthakur (1999)

Total CaCO3 (%)

Total CaCO3 was above 20 % , active CaCO3 was more than 10 % which affect soil physical and chemical properties.

Bashour andSayegh (2007)

Soil texture Fine textured soil (loams and clay loams) Baruah and Barthakur (1999)

Saturated hydraulic conductivity (cm/day)

The infiltration capacities of many tropical soils may change from over 2400 cm/day to less than 240 cm/day. 48 cm/day showed soil compact condition.

Greenland and Lal (1981)Trouse and Baver (1965)

14

Data Analysis

SPSS–version 17.0

LSD at 5 % level

Correlation analysis and factor analysis

14

15

Results and Discussion

15

L1 - Pasture, L2 - Natural Forest, L3 - Irrigated Cotton, L4 - Rainfed Cotton, L5 - Irrigated Cotton-Rice Rotation, L6 - Rice-Legume Rotation, L7- Irrigated Cotton-Rice Rotation (SFF), L8 - Rainfed Cotton (SFF)

Figure.1 Effect of different Land Use and soil management practices on Soil Bulk Density (BD)

16

L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L80

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000 0-15 cm cv% 8.22 Pr≥F ** LSD(0.05) 209.315-30 cm cv% 4.45 Pr≥F ** LSD(0.05) 118.40-30 cm cv% 6.72 Pr≥F ** LSD(0.05) 174.9


Soil

bulk

den

sity

(kg

m-3

)

Figure.3 Effect of Land Use and Soil Management Practices on Soil Porosity (SP) (%)

17

L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L80

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40 0-15 cm cv% 24.31 Pr≥F ** LSD(0.05) 9.97 15-30 cm cv% 16.2 Pr≥F ** LSD(0.05) 5.86 0-30 cm cv% 21.6 Pr≥F ** LSD(0.05) 8.34


Soil

poro

sity

%


18

Figure.4 Effect of Land Use and Soil Management Practices on Soil Organic Matter (% SOM)

18

L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L80

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2 0-15 cm cv% 32.03 Pr≥F ** LSD(0.05) 0.5715-30 cm cv% 38.37 Pr≥F ** LSD(0.05) 0.52 0-30 cm cv% 38.2 Pr≥F ** LSD(0.05) 0.60


Soil

orga

nic

mat

ter

(%)


Figure.5 Effect of Land Use and Soil Management Practices on Soil Aggregate Stability (SAS)

19

L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L80

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8 0-15 cm cv% 20.36 Pr≥F ** LSD(0.05) 0.08 15-30 cm cv% 39.19 Pr≥F ** LSD(0.05) 0.12 0-30 cm cv% 29.34 Pr≥F ** LSD(0.05) 0.11


Soil

Agg

rega

te S

tabi

lity


20

Figure.6 Effect of Land Use and Soil Management Practices on Soil pH

20

L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L80

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 0-15 cm cv% 8.82 Pr≥F ** LSD(0.05) 0.91 15-30 cm cv% 4.86 Pr≥F ** LSD(0.05) 0.540-30 cm cv% 6.94 Pr≥F ** LSD(0.05) 0.74


Soil

pH (H

2O, 1

:2)


Figure.7 Effect of Land Use and Soil Management Practices on total CaCO3 (%)

21

L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L80

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20 0-15cm cv% 35.64 Pr≥F ** LSD(0.05) 1.97 15-30cm cv% 38.52 Pr≥F ** LSD(0.05) 2.13 0-30cm cv% 34.84 Pr≥F ** LSD(0.05) 1.92


Tot

al C

aCO

3 (%

)


Figure.8 Effect of Land Use and Soil Management Practices on Soil Electrical Conductivity (EC)

22

L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L80

1

2

3

4

5

6 0-15 cm cv% 147.76 Pr≥F ** LSD(0.05) 2.29 15-30 cm cv% 91.2 Pr≥F ** LSD(0.05) 0.99 0-30 cm cv% 134.25 Pr≥F ** LSD(0.05) 1.77


Soil

Ele

ctri

cal C

ondu

ctiv

ity

(dS/

m)


Figure.10 Effect of Land Use and Soil Management Practices on Soil Total Nitrogen (STN)

23

L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L80

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2 0-15 cm cv% 18.63 Pr≥F ** LSD(0.05) 0.2215-30 cm cv% 24.2 Pr≥F ** LSD(0.05) 0.280-30 cm cv% 20.94 Pr≥F ** LSD(0.05) 0.25


Soil

Tot

al N

itrog

en (%

)


24

Figure.11 Effect of Land Use and Soil Management Practices on Corg/Nt

24

L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L80

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4 0-15 cm cv% 33.94 Pr≥F ** LSD(0.05) 0.4415-30 cm cv% 43.04 Pr≥F ** LSD(0.05) 0.440-30 cm cv% 41.28 Pr≥F ** LSD(0.05) 0.48


Cor

g/N

t


25

Table.3 Effect of Land Use and Soil Management Practices on Soil Hydraulic Conductivity (HC)

Land Use and Soil Management Practice

0-15cm 15-30cm 0-30cmHC (m/day)

HC(min)

HC(max)

HC (m/day)

HC(min)

HC(max)

HC (m/day)

HC(min)

HC(max)

L1 .011 .006 .020 .011 .000 .033 .011 .003 .026

L2 .027 .020 .043 .016 .013 .031 .022 .016 .037

L3 .006 .000 .015 .004 .002 .018 .005 .000 .017

L4 .104 .083 .190 .037 .024 .075 .071 .053 .132

L5 .083 .036 .144 .012 .009 .031 .048 .023 .088

L6 .005 .002 .018 .005 .003 .017 .005 .002 .017

L7 .009 .004 .028 .006 .000 .031 .008 .002 .030

L8 .026 .017 .036 .005 .000 .012 .016 .008 .024

25

L4 (Rainfed Cotton) - an appropriate LU & SMP for

sustainability of agricultural soils lowest soil bulk density (BD kg m-3)

lowest soil particle density (PD kg m-3)

highest soil porosity (SP %)

fastest rate of saturated hydraulic conductivity (HC cm day-1)

greatest total CaCO3 content (%)

best soil aggregate stability (SAS)

Conclusion-1

27

Table- 4 Correlation between all parameters at 0-15 cm soil depth

EC (dS/m)

HC(cm/day)

BD(kg/m3)

PD(kg/m3) SP % SOM% SOC% STN% Corg/Nt sand % silt % clay % Soil pH SAS

Total CaCO3

%EC

(dS/m) 1

HC(cm/day) .104 1

BD(kg/m3) -.345 -.606** 1

PD(kg/m3) -.398* .029 -.004 1

SP % .186 .573** -.930** .369* 1

SOM% -.186 -.265 -.025 .014 .022 1

SOC% -.124 -.058 -.149 -.126 .092 .906** 1

STN% -.218 -.204 .087 -.140 -.143 .428* .397* 1

Corg/Nt -.027 -.050 -.238 .054 .244 .576** .625** -.197 1

sand % -.096 .169 -.211 .482** .365* .337 .291 -.114 .370* 1

silt % .210 -.409* .247 -.498** -.403* -.058 -.074 -.043 -.008 -.583** 1

clay % -.129 .271 -.047 .032 .053 -.299 -.232 .171 -.391* -.433* -.480** 1

Soil pH .207 -.124 .301 -.171 -.344 -.145 -.189 -.072 -.066 -.357* .341 .008 1

SAS .487** .335 -.283 -.442* .112 -.453** -.295 -.217 -.131 -.553** .343 .216 .242 1

Total CaCO3

%.656** .435* -.414* -.548** .199 -.415* -.187 -.206 -.105 -.422* .324 .096 .178 .894** 127

28

Table.5 Correlation between all parameters at 15-30 cm soil depth

EC (dS/m)

HC(cm/day)

BD(kg/m3)


Total CaCO3

%EC

(dS/m) 1

HC(cm/day) .808** 1

BD(kg/m3) -.681** -.580** 1

PD(kg/m3) -.511** -.195 .386* 1

SP % .475** .526** -.878** .100 1

SOM% .067 .076 -.342 -.103 .309 1

SOC% .046 .079 -.292 -.063 .275 .991** 1

STN% -.009 -.014 -.156 -.171 .071 .214 .221 1

Corg/Nt .079 .040 -.300 -.055 .292 .766** .752** -.217 1

sand % .323 .479** -.447* -.040 .470** .188 .159 .079 .107 1

silt % .095 -.043 -.062 -.122 -.013 -.086 -.078 .027 -.087 -.634** 1

clay % -.471** -.473** .567** .193 -.500** -.101 -.079 -.120 -.011 -.321 -.529** 1

Soil pH .022 -.212 .292 -.334 -.492** -.195 -.214 -.206 -.053 -.491** .477** -.045 1

SAS .692** .415* -.740** -.591** .497** .189 .141 .045 .206 .167 .123 -.334 .127 1

Total CaCO3

%.731** .520** -.782** -.663** .507** .165 .100 -.042 .181 .381* .054 -.485** .130 .893** 128

Table.6 Correlation between all parameters at 0-30 cm soil depth

EC (dS/m)

HC(cm/day)

BD(kg/m3)


Total CaCO3

%EC

(dS/m) 1

HC(cm/day) .212 1

BD(kg/m3) -.439** -.570** 1

PD(kg/m3) -.401** -.020 .189 1

SP % .274* .555** -.910** .233 1

SOM% -.070 -.067 -.225 -.041 .198 1

SOC% -.030 .082 -.274* -.084 .230 .949** 1

STN% -.127 -.106 -.050 -.157 -.027 .323** .311* 1

Corg/Nt .031 .050 -.307* -.003 .302* .690** .707** -.185 1

sand % .031 .148 -.278* .186 .356** .199 .152 -.019 .181 1

silt % .142 -.278* .105 -.279* -.225 -.098 -.106 -.010 -.074 -.584** 1

clay % -.192 .157 .176 .119 -.123 -.100 -.041 .031 -.108 -.399** -.512** 1

Soil pH .112 -.219 .347** -.233 -.441** -.244 -.289* -.146 -.132 -.331** .406** -.108 1

SAS .514** .291* -.510** -.528** .291* -.102 -.053 -.066 .060 -.145 .210 -.083 .164 1

Total CaCO3

%.639** .380** -.576** -.609** .325** -.128 -.045 -.119 .040 .002 .175 -.200 .147 .890** 1

29

To select the most appropriate indicator, soil aggregate stability (SAS)

To select the MDS; total CaCO3 %, SAS and EC (dS/m)

Factor 1(23 %)

Soil Aggregation

Properties

Total

CaCO3 %

SASEC (dS/m)

Factor 2(22 %)

Soil Pores’ Nature

SP %

BD (kg/m3)

HC (cm/day)

Factor 3(17 %)

Soil Organ

ic Carbo

n

SOC%

SOM %

STN %

Factor 4(14 %)

Soil Texture (clay

%)

Soil texture(cla

y %)

Corg

/Nt

STN %

Factor Analysis for 0-15 cm soil depth

30

31

Factor 1(30 %)

Soil Aggregation Proper

ties

Total CaCO3 %

SAS

EC (dS/m)

Factor 2(19 %)

Soil Organ

ic Matte

r

SOM %

SOC %

Corg

/Nt

Factor 3(17 %)

Soil Textur

e

Soil Texture (silt %)

Soil Texture (san

d %)

Soil pH (H2

O, 1:2)

Factor 4(13 %)

Soil Texture (clay

%)

Soil texture(cla

y %)

Corg

/Nt

STN %


To select the most appropriate indicator, soil aggregate stability (SAS)


Factor 1(24 %)Soil

Aggregation

Properties

Total Ca

CO3 %

SASEC (dS/m)

Factor 2(19 %)

Soil Pores’ Nature

SP %

Soil texture (silt %)

HC (cm/day)

Factor 3(18 %)

Soil Organ

ic Matte

r

SOM%

SOC %

Corg

/Nt

Factor 4(10 %)

Soil Texture

(clay %)

Soil texture(clay %)

Soil texture (san

d %)

STN %


To select the most appropriate indicator, soil aggregate stability (SAS)32


Conclusion-2

To Identify MDS soil aggregation - CaCO3 (%), soil aggregate

stability (SAS) & soil electrical conductivity (EC) (dS/m)

Conclusion-3

To Select appropriate soil quality indicatorSAS –soil aggregate stability

LM that responses to low soil aggregate stability is not a sustainable manner 33

THANK YOU FOR YOUR KIND ATTENTION

34

daw yinn mar soe mmr

Education