Advertisement

Root distribution and soil properties under 12-year old sympodial bamboo plantation in Central Himalayan Tarai Region, India

  • R. Kaushal
  • Salil TewariEmail author
  • R. L. Banik
  • S. D. Thapliyal
  • Indra Singh
  • S. Reza
  • J. Durai
Article
  • 17 Downloads

Abstract

Worldwide, majority of the studies on root distribution have been confined to different tree species and monopodial bamboos in China with limited information on sympodial bamboos mainly due to methodological complexities. The present study therefore aims at understanding root distribution pattern of six commercial bamboo species and its impact on soil properties. Six bamboo species viz., Bambusa balcooa, Bambusa bambos, Bambusa nutans, Dendrocalamus asper, Dendrocalamus hamiltonii, and Dendrocalamus strictus were evaluated for their rooting pattern and impact on soil properties. Coarse root (CR) intensity was maximum in B. bambos (209.2) while, fine root (FR) intensity was highest in D. strictus (594.2). The FR contribution ranged from 69.9% in B. bambos to 80.1% in D. strictus. Coarse root biomass (in 0–50 cm soil profile) was highest in D. hamiltonii (1.19 Mg ha−1) and lowest in D. strictus (0.44 Mg ha−1). Maximum FR biomass (6.27 Mg ha−1) was observed in B. nutans which was closely followed by D. hamiltonii (6.19 Mg ha−1). In all the species, the share of fine root intensity was higher (70–80%) as compared to coarse roots. The contribution of FR was higher in genus Dendrocalamus (D. strictus, D. hamiltonii and D. asper) as compared to other species in genus Bambusa. Depth wise distribution of CR intensity revealed that roots were more or less uniformly distributed in 0–30 cm soil depth while fine root intensity was higher in 0–10 cm where 47% roots were observed. Soil physical properties viz., hydraulic conductivity, water stable aggregates and mean weight diameter showed significant improvement under different species. As compared to control treatment, soil organic carbon, NPK showed significant improvement. D. hamiltonii and B. balcooa were found better species are better species for maintaining soil fertility status. From the study it could be concluded that D. hamiltonii due to higher fine root biomass, is suitably recommended for resisting soil erosion, enhancing ground water recharge and maintaining soil fertility. B. balcooa can be preferred for agroforestry due to less root competition and compact canopy.

Keywords

Bamboo Coarse root Fine roots Physicochemical properties Root biomass Root pattern 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by National Mission on Bamboo Application, Department of Science and Technology (2005–2009), National Bamboo Mission (2010–2012), State Forest Department, Uttarakhand, India and International Bamboo and Rattan Organisation (INBAR) from 2016 to 2019. The financial help received during these periods is duly acknowledged. The authors are thankful to the Joint Director Agroforestry Research Centre, GBPUAT, Pantnagar for providing necessary facilities to conduct the work. The help rendered by Mr. Ramesh Kumar during laying of experiment and data collection is duly acknowledged. We extend our sincere thanks to the anonymous reviewers for the constructive suggestions and comments for improving the manuscript.

References

  1. Banik RL (2000) Siviculture and field-guide to priority bamboos of Bangladesh and South-Asia. Bangladesh Forest Research Institute, ChittagongGoogle Scholar
  2. Banik RL (2010) Biology and silviculture of muli bamboo Melocanna baccifera. In: National Mission on Bamboo Applications, Department of Science and Technology, Government of IndiaGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhol N, Nayak H (2014) Spatial distribution of root and crop yield in a bamboo based agroforestry system. Indian For 140(6):135–139Google Scholar
  4. Blake GR, Harte KH (1986) Bulk density. In: Methods of soil analysis part 1. Physical and mineralogical methods-agronomy monograph, 2nd edn. American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America, Madison, pp 425–442Google Scholar
  5. Bohm W (1979) Methods of studying root systems. Springer, Berlin, p 188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bremner JM (1996). Nitrogene-total. In: Methods of soil analyses, part III, chemical methods et al). SSSA, Madison, pp 1085–1184Google Scholar
  7. Burton AJ, Pregitzer KS, Hendrick RL (2000) Relationships between fine root dynamics and nitrogen availability in Michigan northern hardwood forests. Oecologia 125:389–399PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Cadisch GP, Willigen D, Suprayogo DC, Mobbs M, Noordwijk V, Rowe EC (2004) Catchingand competing for mobile nutrients in soils. In: vanNoordwijk M, Cadisch G, Ong CK (eds) Below-ground interactions in tropical agroecosystems. CABI publishing, MA, pp 171–191Google Scholar
  9. Carter MR (2004) Researching structural complexity in agricultural soils. Soil Tillage Res 79:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Christanty L, Mailly D, Kimmins JP (1996) Without bamboo, the land dies: biomass, litterfall, and soil organic matter dynamics of a Javanese bamboo talun–kebun system. For Ecol Manag 87(1–3):75–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Christanty L, Kimmins JP, Mailly D (1997) ‘Without bamboo, the land dies’: a conceptual model of the biogeochemical role of bamboo in an Indonesian agroforestry system. For Ecol Manag 91:83–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Comas LH, Eissenstat DM, Lakso AN (2000) Assessing root death and root system dynamics in a study of grape canopy pruning. New Phytol 147(1):171–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Divakara BN, Kumar B, Mohan Balachandran PV, Kamalam NV (2001) Bamboo hedgerow systems in Kerala, India: Root distribution and competition with trees for phosphorus. Agrofor Syst 51:189–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ekwue E (1992) Effect of organic and fertilizer treatments on soil physical properties and erodibilities. Soil Tillage Res 22:199–209.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-1987(92)90037-C CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fonseca W, Alice FE, ReyBenayas JM (2012) Carbon accumulation in aboveground and belowground biomass and soilof different age native forest plantations in the humid tropical lowlands of Costa Rica. New For 43(2):197–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gomez KA, Gomez AA (1984) Statistical procedure for agricultural research, 2nd edn. Willey, New York, p 80Google Scholar
  17. Helmisaari HS, Makkonen K, Kellomaki S, Valtonen E, Malkonen E (2002) Below- and above-ground biomass, production and nitrogen use in Scots pine stands in eastern Finland. For Ecol Manag 165(1–3):317–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hendrick RL, Pregitzer KS (1996) Temporal depth-related patterns of fine root dynamics in northern hardwood forests. J Ecol 84(2):167–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hosur GC, Dasog GS (1995) Effect of tree species on soil properties. J Indian Soc Soil Sci 43:256–259Google Scholar
  20. Joshi AP, Sundriyal RC, Bahini DC (1991) Nutrient dynamics of a lower Siwalik bamboo forest in the Garhwal Himalaya, India. J Trop Forest Sci 3(3):238–250Google Scholar
  21. Kaushal R, Verma A, Mehta H, Mandal D, Tomar JMS, Jana CR, Jayparkash J, Chaturvedi OP (2016) Soil quality under Grewia optiva based agroforestry systems in western sub-Himalaya. Range Manag Agrofor 37(1):50–55Google Scholar
  22. Komatsu H, Onozawa Y, Kume T, Tsuruta K, Kumagai T, Shinohara Y et al (2010) Stand-scale transpiration estimates in a Moso bamboo forest: II comparison with coniferous forests. For Ecol Manag 260:1295–1302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kukal SS, Kaur M, Bawa SS (2008) Erodibility of sandy loam aggregates in relation to their size and initial moisture content under different land uses in semi-arid tropics of India. Arid Land Res Manage 22:216–227.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15324980802183137 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kumar BM, Divakara BN (2001) Proximity, clump size and root distribution pattern in bamboo: a case study of Bambusa arundinacea (Retz.) Willd., Poaceae, in the Ultisols of Kerala, India. J Bamboo Rattan 1(1):43–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lobovikov M, Paudel S, Piazza M, Ren H, Wu J (2007) World bamboo resources: a thematic study prepared in the framework of the global forest resources assessment 2005 non wood forest products 18 (1, 11–33 and 55). Food and Agricultural Organization, RomeGoogle Scholar
  26. Makkonen K, Helmisaari HS (1998) Seasonal and yearly variations of fine-root biomass and necromass in a Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) stand. For Ecol Manag 102(2–3):283–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mandal D, Singh R, Dhyani SK, Dhyani BL (2010) Landscape and land use effects on soil resources in a Himalayan watershed. CATENA 81:203–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McLean EO (1982) Soil pH and lime requirement. In: AL Page, RH Miller, DR Keeney (eds) Methods of soil analysis, part 2, chemical and microbiological properties, 2 edn. Agronomy 9:199–224Google Scholar
  29. Mei L, Gu JC, Zhang ZW, Wang ZQ (2010) Responses of fine root mass, length, production and turnover to soil nitrogen fertilization in Larix gmelinii and Fraxinus mandshurica forests in North eastern China. J For Res JPN 15(3):194–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Paudel BR, Udawatta RP, Anderson SH (2011) Agroforestry and grass buffer effects on soil quality parameters for grazed pasture and row-crop systems. Appl Soil Ecol 48:125–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Raghubanshi AS (1994) Effect of bamboo harvest on dynamics of nutrient pools, N mineralization, and microbial biomass in soil. Biol Fertil Soils 18(2):137–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reubens B, Poesen P, Danjon F, Geudens G, Muys B (2007) The role of fine and coarse roots in shallow slope stability and soil erosion control with a focus on root system architecture: a review. Trees (Berl) 21:385–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Saha R, Tomar JMS, Ghosh PK (2007) Evaluation and selection of multipurpose tree for improving soil hydrophysical behaviour under hilly eco-system of north east India. Agrofor Syst 69:239–247.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-007-9044-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Seobi T, Anderson SH, Udawatta RP, Gantzer CJ (2005) Influence of grass and agroforestry buffer strips on soil hydraulic properties for an Albaqualf. Soil Sci Soc Am J 69:893–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shanmughavel P, Francis K (1997) Balance and turnover of nutrients in a bamboo plantation (Bambusa bambos) of different ages. Biol Fertil Soils 25(1):69–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shanmughavel P, Peddappaiah RS, Muthukumar T (2000) Litter production and nutrient return in Bambusa bambos plantation. J Sustain Forest 11(3):71–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sujatha MP, Thomas TP, Sankar S (2008) Influence of reed bamboo (Ochlandra travancorica) on soils of the western ghats in Kerala: a comparative study with adjacent non-reed bamboo areas. Indian For 134:403–416Google Scholar
  38. Takahashi M, Furusawa H, Limtong P, Sunathapongsuk V, Marod D, Panuthai S (2007) Soil nutrient status after bamboo flowering and death in a seasonal tropical forest in western Thailand. Ecol Res 22:160–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tewari S, Banik RL, Kaushal R, Bhardwaj DR, Chaturvedi OPC, Gupta AK (2016) Bamboo based agroforestry systems. In: Kaushik S, Singh YS, Kumar D, Thapliyal M, Barthwal S (eds) Bamboos in India. ENVIS Centre of Forestry. National Forest Library and Information Centre, FRI, Dehradun, pp 261–284Google Scholar
  40. Toky OP, Ramakrishnan PS (1983) Secondary succession following slash and burn agriculture in North-Eastern India: II. Nutrient cycling. J Ecol 71:747–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tripathi SK, Singh KP (1996) Fine root dynamics in a dry tropical bamboo savanna in India. In: Rangelands in a sustainable biosphere. Proceedings of the fifth international rangeland congress Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, July 23–28. Volume 1 Contributed presentations. Society for Range Management, Denver, pp 572–573Google Scholar
  42. Tripathi SK, Singh KP, Singh PK (1999) Temporal changes in spatial pattern of fine -root mass and nutrient concentrations in Indian bamboo savanna. Appl Veg Sci 2:229–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tufekcioglu A, Raich JW, Isenhart TM, Schultz RC (1999) Fine root dynamics, coarse root biomass, root distribution, and soil respiration in a multi-species riparian buffer in Central Iowa, USA. Agrofor Syst 44:163–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Udawatta RP, Kremer RJ, Garrett HE, Anderson SH (2009) Soil enzyme activities and physical properties in a watershed managed under agroforestry and row-crop systems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 131:98–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Upadhyaya K, Arunachalam A, Arunachalam K (2003) Microbial biomass and physico-chemical properties of soil under the canopy of Bambusa balcooa Roxb and Bambusa pallida Munro. Indian J Soil Conserv 31:152–156Google Scholar
  46. Van Noordwijk M, Brouwer G (1991) Review of quantitative root length data in agriculture. In: Persson H, McMichael BL (eds) Plant roots and their environment. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 515–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Venkatesh MS, Bhatt BP, Kumar K, Majumdar B, Singh K (2005) Soil properties influenced by some important edible bamboo species in the North Eastern Himalayan region, India. J Bamboo Rattan 4:221–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Verma KS, Kohli S, Kaushal R, Chaturvedi OP (2014) Root structure, distribution and biomass in five multipurpose tree species of Western Himalayas. J Mt Sci 11(2):519–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Walkley AJ, Black IA (1934) An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci 37:29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. White DG, Childers NF (1945) Bamboo for controlling soil erosion. J Am Soc Agron 37:839–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yang LY, Wu ST, Zhang LB (2010) Fine root biomass dynamics and carbon storage along a successional gradient in Changbai Mountains, China. Forestry 83(4):379–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yoder RE (1936) A direct method of aggregate analysis and a study of the physical nature of erosion losses. J Am Soc Agron 28:337–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ICAR-Indian Institute of Soil and Water ConservationDehradunIndia
  2. 2.G.B. Pant, University of Agriculture and TechnologyPantnagarIndia
  3. 3.Ex-Research Consultant Bamboo Coordinating CentreG.B. Pant, University of Agriculture and TechnologyPantnagarIndia
  4. 4.East Africa Regional OfficeInternational Bamboo and Rattan Organization (INBAR)Addis AbabaEthiopia

Personalised recommendations