Advertisement

Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

, Volume 3, Issue 4, pp 1571–1587 | Cite as

Modelling of alternative crops suitability to tobacco based on Analytical hierarchy process in Dinhata subdivision of Koch Bihar district, West Bengal

  • Jayanta Das
  • Amiya Gayen
  • Sunil Saha
  • Sudip Kr. Bhattacharya
Original Article

Abstract

Land suitability evaluation is a systematic way for alternative crops cultivation and sustainable agricultural development in a region. Global anti-tobacco movement against health hazards and harmful impact of tobacco cultivation on environment, food production and human health, it is necessary to evaluate alternative cropping potentiality to tobacco in Dinhata subdivision. In the present study and research work land suitability evaluation has been determined for five alternative rabi crops such as potato, maize, boro paddy, mustard and wheat in Dinhata subdivision of Koch Bihar district, West Bengal by using parametric method for climate suitability and Analytical Hierarchy Process for soil-site suitability. Analytical Hierarchy Process is a powerful tool for evaluating land suitability for these crops followed by FAO (A framework for land evaluation, FAO Soils Bulletin 52. FAO, Rome; FAO, A framework for land evaluation, FAO Soils Bulletin 52, FAO, Rome, 1976) method. The parametric method examined climatic suitability for five major rabi crops, alternative to tobacco under irrigated condition, result showed that potato and wheat had high suitability (S1), with suitability rating 94.45 and 85.05% respectively. Boro paddy, maize and mustard were moderately suitable (S2) with suitability rating 67.63, 77.92 and 62.59% respectively. The selected theme layers includes slope, soil texture, soil reaction, organic carbon, nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, boron, sulphur, manganese, zinc and soil erosion, which are most influence crop suitability have been combined by the adopted methodology. Overlay operations have been done on these layers according to weighted significance of each of the factor. Results of the land suitability evaluation for potato, maize, boro paddy mustard and wheat indicated that highly suitable class (S1) accounts 15.88, 15.29, 14.52, 13.46 and 16.90% while moderately suitable (S2) constitutes 29.01, 30.99, 29.06, 29.62 and 25.01% and the marginally suitable (S3) are 33.38, 32.14, 34.69, 34.62 and 35.43% respectively. Whereas not suitable (N) areas for potato, maize, boro paddy mustard and wheat accounts 21.73, 21.58, 21.73, 22.31 and 22.66% respectively. It was found that better alternative crops of tobacco of the study area is exists for replacement of tobacco cultivation.

Keywords

Tobacco epidemic Alternative crops Land suitability Parametric method AHP model 

References

  1. Adinarayana B (1992) Physiological studies on chemical control of flowering with special reference to floral organisation in some crop plants results applied to weeds and their control, Published thesis. Department of Botany, Sri Venkateswara University. http://hdl.handle.net/10603/54626
  2. Bagherzadeh A, Gholizadeh A (2016) Modeling land suitability evaluation for wheat production by parametric and TOPSIS approaches using GIS, northeast of Iran. Modeling Earth Syst Environ 2(3)Google Scholar
  3. Belka KM (2005) Multicriteria analysis and GIS application in the selection of sustainable motorway corridor, Master’s thesis. Opingsuniversitet Institutionen for datavetenskapGoogle Scholar
  4. Brady NC, Weil RR (2002) The nature and properties of soils, 13th edn. Prentice-Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  5. Briggs D (1977) Soils. Butterworths and Co-Publishers, London, p 192Google Scholar
  6. Cook RL, Ellis BG (1987) Soil management: a world view of conservation and production. Wiley, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  7. Daji JA (1996) A text book of soil science. Media promoters and publishers, Bombay, p 316Google Scholar
  8. De Kok LJ, Stulen I, Rennenberg H, Brunold C, Rauser WE (1993) Sulfur nutrition and assimilation in higher plants regulatory agricultural and environmental aspects. SPB Academic Publishing, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  9. FAO (1976) A framework for land evaluation, FAO Soils Bulletin 52. FAO, Rome, p 79Google Scholar
  10. FAO (1984) Crop environmental requirements; report prepared for the Government of Ethiopia by FAO acting as executing agency for the UNDP. Land evaluation: technical report 5, Part III, RomeGoogle Scholar
  11. FAO (1985) Guideline: land evaluation for irrigated agriculture. FAO Soils Bulletin, No. 55. RomeGoogle Scholar
  12. FAO (2006) Plant nutrition for food security: a guide for integrated nutrient management. Plant and Fertilizer Bulletin 16, FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  13. Foth HD (1990) Fundamentals of soil science, 8th edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Foth HD, Ellis BG (1997) Soil fertility, 2nd edn. Lewis CRC Press LLC, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  15. Gayen A, Saha S (2017) Application of Weights-of-evidence (WoE) and Evidential belief function (EBF) models for the delineation of soil erosion vulnerable zones: a study on Pathro river basin, Jharkand, India. Model Earth Syst Environ 3:1123.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-017-0362-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gupta PK (2004) Soil, plant, water and fertilizer analysis. Shyam Printing Press, AgrobiosGoogle Scholar
  17. Gupta SP (2008) Statistical method. Sultan Chand and Sons, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  18. Harmsen K, Vlek PLG (1985) The chemistry of micronutrients in soils. Fertil Res 7, p 1–27Google Scholar
  19. Havlin JL, Beaton JD, Tisdale SL, Nelson WL (2010) Soil fertility and fertilizers, 7th edn. PHI Learning PVT Ltd, New Delhi, p 528Google Scholar
  20. Lee S, Talib JA (2005) Probabilistic soil erosion susceptibility and factor effect analysis. Environ Geol 47(7):982–990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Malczewski J (1999) GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Mengel K, Kirkby EA (1987) Principles of plant nutrition. Panima Publ. Corporation, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  23. Mustafa AA, Singh M, Sahoo RN, Ahmed N, Khanna M, Sarangi A, Mishra AK (2011) Land suitability analysis for different crops: a multi criteria decision making approach using remote sensing and GIS. Researcher 3:1–84Google Scholar
  24. NBSS and LUP (2001) Soil series of West Bengal, NBSS publ. no. 89. NBSS and LUP (ICAR), Nagpur, pp 38–40Google Scholar
  25. Orlov DS (1992) Soil chemistry. Oxford and IBH publishers, New Delhi, p 402Google Scholar
  26. Panchamukhi PR (2000) Agricultural diversification as a tool of tobacco control. In: Paper presented at the WHO international conference on global tobacco control law, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  27. Rowell DL (1994) Soil science: methods and applications. Addison Wesley Longman Singapore Publishers (Pte) Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Saaty TL (2000) Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the analytic hierarchy process, vol 6. Rws Publications, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  30. Sanchez PA (1976) Properties and management of soils in the tropics. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Schwartz RL (2011) World no tobacco day 2011: India’s progress in implementing the framework convention on tobacco control. Indian J Med Res 133(5):455–457Google Scholar
  32. Sys IC, Van Ranst E, Debaveye J (1991a) Land evaluation. Part I. Principles in land evaluation and crop production calculations. Agricultural publication, No. 7. General Administration for Development Cooperation, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  33. Sys C, Van Ranst E, Debaveye IJ (1991b) Land evaluation. Part II: methods in land evaluation. General Administration for Development Cooperation, Agricultural Publication-No. 7, Brussels, Belgium, p 247Google Scholar
  34. Sys IC, Van Ranst E, Debaveye J, Beernaert F (1993) Land evaluation, part III. Crop requirements. Agricultural publication, No. 7. General Administration for Development Cooperation, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  35. Tandon HLS (1997) Fertiliser recommendation for horticultural crops. FDCO, New Delhi, p 94Google Scholar
  36. Tilahun G (2007) Soil fertility status as influenced by different land uses in Maybar areas of South Wello zone, North Ethiopia, Thesis. Faculty of the Department of Plant Sciences, School of Graduate Studies, Harmaya UniversityGoogle Scholar
  37. Tisdale SL, Nelson WL, Beaton JD, Havlin JL (1995) Soil fertility and fertilizer, 5th edn. Prentice-Hall of India, New Delhi, 684pGoogle Scholar
  38. White RE (1997) Principles and practices of soils science: the soil is the natural resource. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jayanta Das
    • 1
  • Amiya Gayen
    • 2
  • Sunil Saha
    • 2
  • Sudip Kr. Bhattacharya
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Geography and Applied GeographyUniversity of North BengalDarjeelingIndia
  2. 2.Department of GeographyUniversity of Gour BangaMaldaIndia

Personalised recommendations