WELCOME

COURSE SEMINAR
ON

“ROLE OF PULSES IN SOIL HEALTH MANAGEMENT”

Shri A.N. Paslawar Dr. M.S. Khakare

Seminar incharge Chairman

Presented by
Andhalkar Ajinkya Shashikant

DEPARTMENT OF AGRONOMY,
POST GRADUATE INSTITUTE,
DR. PANJABRAO DESHMUKH KRISHI VIDYAPEETH, AKOLA
CONTENT
 Introduction to soil health
 Indicators of soil health
 Introduction to pulses
 Pulses Scenario
 Why pulses are being prefered?
 Impact on soil physical properties
 Impact on soil chemical properties
 Impact on soil biological properties
 Impact on productivity
 Constraints in pulses production
 Conclusion
 INTRODUCTION
SOIL HEALTH
• Harris and Bezidicek (1991) defined soil health as the continued
capacity of soil to function as a vital living system, within ecosystem
and land use boundaries, to sustain biological productivity, maintain
the quality of air and water environments.

• Doran and Parkin (1994) defined soil quality as the capacity of soil
to function within the ecosystem and land-use boundaries, to
sustain biological productivity, maintain the environmental quality
and promote plant, animal and human health.

• Gregorich et al. (1994) described soil quality as the degree of fitness

of a soil for a specific use. Soil quality encompasses not only crop
productivity and environmental protection but also food safety and
animal/human health.
 SOIL HEALTH APPROACHES
Gregorich et al. (1994) have proposed two approaches.
 Descriptive approach
 Indicative approach
INDICATORS OF SOIL HEALTH
Physical Chemical Biological
Texture Organic matter Microbial biomass C & N
Potentially
Depth & top soil pH mineralisable N
Infiltration EC Soil respiration
Bulk density Extractable N, P & K Water content &
temperature
Water holding capacity
 LOW NUTRIENT USE EFFICIENCY
Nutrient Efficiency Cause of low efficiency
(%)
Nitrogen 30-50 Immobilization, volatilization,
denitrification, Leaching
Phosphorus 15-20 Fixation in soils Al – P, Fe – P,
Ca – P
Potassium 70-80 Fixation in clay - lattices
Sulphur 8-10 Immobilization, Leaching with
water
Micro 1-2 Fixation in soils
nutrients
(Zn, Fe, Cu,
Mn, B)
Emerging Multi-Nutrient Deficiencies in Soils
?
B B
Mn Mn Mn
S S S
K K K K
Zn Zn Zn Zn
P P P P
Fe Fe Fe Fe Fe
N N N N N N
 INTRODUCTION TO PULSES
The term "pulse", as used by the Food and
Agricultural Organization (FAO), is
reserved for crops harvested solely for the dry
seed.
The word pulse is defined in some text books on
economic botany as the split cotyledons of dry
legume seed, boiled in excess of water, softened,
macerated and used as soup.
 PULSES IN INDIA
Sr. Common Indian
Common Name Botanical Name
No. Name
Chickpea,
1. Cicer arientinum L. Chana
Bengalgram
2. Lentil Lens culinaris Medik Masoor
3. Pea Pisum sativum L. Matar
Lathysus
4. Lathyrus sativus L. Khesari
grasspea
Pigeonpea,
5. Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp Arhar, Tur
Redgram
Greengram,
6. Vigna radiata (L.) Mung
Mungbean
Blackgram,
7. Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper Urd, Mash
Blackbean
8. Mothbean Vigna aconitifolia (Jacq.) Moth
9. Ricebean Vigna umbelata (Thumb) Sutari
10. Cowpea Vigna unguiculata (L.) Lobia
11. Beans Phaseolus vulgaris L. Rajmash
12. Horsegram Macrotyloma uniflorum Kulthi
Table 2. Sources of supply of pulses in India
Kharif Rabi Total
Total
Imports Exports
Year Area Prod. Yield Area Prod. Yield Area Prod Yield con.
(MT) (MT)
(Mha) (MT) (kg/ha) (Mha) (MT) (kg/ha) (Mha) (MT) (kg/ha) (MT)

2000-
10.7 4.5 417 9.7 6.6 684 20.4 11.1 544 0.4 0.2 11.2
01

2001-
10.7 4.8 453 10.9 8.5 762 21.7 13.4 609 2.2 0.2 15.4
02

2002-
10.0 4.2 417 10.6 7.0 661 20.5 11.1 543 2.0 0.2 13.0
03

2003-
11.7 6.2 528 11.8 8.7 745 23.4 14.9 637 1.7 0.2 16.5
04

2004-
11.3 4.7 417 11.4 8.4 735 22.8 13.1 577 1.3 0.3 14.2
05

2005-
10.6 4.7 439 11.8 8.5 716 22.4 13.1 585 1.6 0.4 14.3
06

2006-
10.7 4.8 449 12.5 9.4 751 23.2 14.2 612 3.7 0.4 17.5
07

2007-
11.5 6.4 557 12.1 8.4 709 23.6 14.8 688 2.8 0.2 17.4
08

2008-
10.4 5.0 484 12.6 9.2 726 23.0 14.2 617 2.3 0.1 16.4
09

(Source : Department of Agriculture and Cooperation,

2009)
 PULSES SCENARIO

India
 Largest producing country
 Production – 15 mt. (22%)
 Area – 24 mha. (33%)
 Short of 3 mt.
Per capita availability of pulses
• 60 gm/day/person in 1951
• 31 gm/day/person in 2008
• ICMR recommends 65 gm/day/capita

(Source : Reddy, A.A. 2009 & Department of Agril. & cooperation, 2009)
 PULSES SCENARIO

About 90% of the global pigeonpea, 65% of chickpea and 37% of lentil area
falls in India, corresponding to 93%, 68% and 32% of the global production
respectively (FAOSTAT 2009).
 NPDP- National Pulses Development Project _ Eighth plan (1985-86)
 TMOP- Technology Mission on Oilseeds and Pulses (1990)
 ISOPOM- Integrated Scheme of Oilseeds, Pulses, Oil palm and
Maize_Tenth plan (2002-2007)
 NFSM- National Food Security Mission_Elevanth plan (2007-12)
• Objective: to increase production of pulses by 2 mt.
• Targets : an area of 17 million hectares under pulses in 171 identified
districts.
• NFSM-Pulses is one of the components of the centrally sponsored scheme of
NFSM.
• Accelerated Pulses Production Programme (A3P) is another step forward
under the NFSM-Pulses.
• It is proposed to take up 1000 A3P units in the next two years i.e. 2010-11
and
2011-12 for active promotion of improved production technologies.
AREA AND PRODUCTION OF PULSES IN INDIA

Source : Anonymous, 2009 Agricultural Statistics at a Glance.

 AREA AND PRODUCTION OF PULSES IN VIDARBHA

Buldana
Buldana
Akola Akola
Washim Washim
8% 20% 7% Amravati
Amravati
1% 3% 1% 4% 0%
7% 7% 1% Yeotmal
Yeotmal 17%
1% 1% 15%
Wardha
14% Wardha
16% 20% Nagpur
17% Nagpur
13% 15% Bhandara
Bhandara 13% Gondia
Gondia Chandrapu
r
Chandrapur
Gadchiroli
DISTRICTWISE PRODUCTION OF PULSES IN VIDARBHA
Gadchiroli
DISTRICTWISE AREA OF PULSES IN VIDARBHA

Source : KRISHISANVADINI 2010, Dr. P.D.K.V., Akola

 Why pulses are being preferred?

 Early establishment & high seedling vigor.

 Fast growth & ability to accumulate large biomass & N in 5-7 weeks
 Ease of incorporation into soil.
 Rapid decomposition & release of plant available N.
 Pulses as a forage both in quality & quantity.
 Cost of seed
 Deep rootedness
 Ability to choke out weeds
 Good stand
 Increase in nitrate content of soil more rapidly than non-legumes.
 Influence on succeeding crop.
 IMPACT ON SOIL PHYSICAL
PROPERTIES

 Erosion control
 Soil aggregation
 Bulk density
 Hydraulic conductivity
 Soil porosity
 Water holding capacity
 Soil texture
 Soil depth and rooting
Table 3. Physical indicators of soil quality of an alluvial soil cropped continuously for 15
years with pulse crop.

Continuous pulse
Farmer’s field Barren land
Soil quality cropped field
indicator
Range Mean CV Range Mean CV Range Mean CV

Soil tilth
8-17 14.6 22 7-9 8.2 24 - - -
(friability) cm

Water content in
mid crop 21-34 27 26 17-28 23 30 11-24 16 28
season (cm m-1)

Period of water
17-21 18.4 23 14-15 14.3 20 11-13 12.1 22
holding (hours)

(Source : Ganeshmurthy, A.N. & et al., 2009)

Table 4. Soil aggregation at the end of 12 years of various wheat rotation

Macro- Dispersion Hydraulic

Aggregate Infiltration
Crop rotation aggregation coefficient conductivity
stability (%) (cm h-1)
(%) (%) (cm h-1)

Watermelon 20.2 29.5 3.5 8.4 15.1

Fallow 20.5 30.8 3.4 7.4 14.4

Wheat 14.4 22.1 4.2 6.2 13.9

Chickpea 24.9 33.1 3.1 8.7 16.2

Lentil 26.7 35.0 2.7 9.3 18.5

(Source : Masri Z. & et al., 2006)

 IMPACT ON SOIL CHEMICAL
PROPERTIES

 Soil pH
 Electrical conductivity
 Cation exchange capacity
 Organic matter build up
 Extractable N,P & K
Table 5. Nitrogen and carbon status of various legumes mineralized in
soil

Cumulative
N Organic N
Organic C
Legumes Total N (%) C/N mineralized mineralized
(%)
(µg N g-1 (%)
soil)

Control (soil) 1.1 0.23 8.8 129 5.6

Foliage
Alfalfa 41.5 3.43 12.1 158 46.1
Clover 40.3 5.45 7.4 390 71.6
Cowpea 46.0 2.89 15.9 104 36.0
Soybean 42.9 5.88 7.3 447 76.0
Stems
Alfalfa 40.6 2.43 16.7 45 18.5
Clover 36.8 2.14 17.2 34 15.9
Cowpea 47.7 1.55 30.8 -27 -
Soybean 44.9 2.39 18.8 -12 -
(Source : Frankenberger, W.T. & et al., 1985)
Projected Food Grain Production, Fertilizer Demand, likely
Consumption and Gap
Foodgrain production (Mt)
NPK Demand (Mt)
NPK Consumption (Mt)
NPK Gap (Mt)
50 400
45 350
40

Foodgrain production
300
35
Nutrients

30 250

25 200
20 150
15
100
10
5 50

0 0
2003 2010 2025
Year
Table 6. Chemical indicators of soil quality of an alluvial soil cropped
continuously for 15 years with pulse crop.
Soil
Continuous pulse cropped
quality Farmer’s field Barren land
field
indicator

Range Mean CV Range Mean CV Range Mean CV

7.91- 8.26- 8.90-
Soil pH - 19 - 24 - 18
8.27 8.54 8.94

Organic C 0.29- 0.21- 0.16-

0.32 26 0.30 27 0.20 24
(%) 0.36 0.38 0.23
Nutrient holding capacity
Nitrogen
149-208 173 26 126-174 139 28 91-117 102 24
(kg ha-1)

Phoshorus
(P2O5 kg 11.2-
14.8 18 5.1-7.3 6.8 24 4.2-5.9 4.7 24
16.8
ha-1)

Potassium
(K2O kg ha- 144-224 194 22 139-198 177 21 146-203 186 23
1
)

(Source : Ganeshmurthy, A.N. & et al., 2009)

Table 7. Effect of crop rotation on soil pH, organic carbon, total
nitrogen and water soluble carbon.

Preveous
Soil pH N tot (g kg-1) C org (g kg-1) C:N WSC (mg kg-1)
crop

Maize 5.2 0.47 6.32 13.60 123.3

Fallow 5.2 0.48 6.15 12.94 165.0

Cowpea IT
5.4 0.58 6.42 11.27 246.7
96 D-724

Cowpea
5.3 0.59 6.45 10.98 240.0
SAM PEA-7

Soybean
5.4 0.60 6.53 10.91 220.3
TGx 1448-2E

Soybean
5.4 0.60 6.78 11.39 253.3
SAMSOY-2

(Source : Yusuf, A.A. & et al.,

2009)
Table 8. Yield and N content of various summer pulse legumes and a
reference maize crop
N concentration
Crop yield (kg ha-1) Total N content (kg ha-1)
(%)
Crop
Shoot Grain Shoot Total
Grain Grain Shoot
biomass yield biomass crop N

Soybean 7987 1532 2.27 4.90 77 180 270

Pigeon
pea
11490 3200 2.33 2.44 80 269 404

Cowpea 11150 880 2.03 3.76 32 225 338

Mung
bean
8920 810 1.82 3.94 33 162 243

Maize 1782 88 1.06 1.83 2 19 29

(Source : Shah, Z. & et al., 2004)

Table 9. Effect of pulse legumes on soil organic fertility

Total mineral N
Crop Organic C (%) Total N (%)
(mg kg-1 soil)

Soybean 0.34 0.050 13.1

Pigeonpea 0.32 0.063 9.6

Cowpea 0.45 0.071 18.0

Mungbean 0.58 0.075 17.8

Maize 0.30 0.046 6.0

(Source : Shah, Z. & et al., 2004)

IMPACT ON SOIL BIOLOGICAL
PROPERTIES

 Microbial biomass C & N

 Potentially mineralizable N

 Soil respiration
Table 10. Biological indicators of soil quality of an alluvial soil cropped
continuously for 15 years with pulse crop.
Soil quality Continuous pulse
Farmer’s field Barren land
indicator cropped fied
Range Mean CV Range Mean CV Range Mean CV
Presence of
0-8 3.2 23 0-5 2.2 26 Nil Nil -
earthworms
Birds
following
tillage after 6-28 17 27 2-11 8 29 - - -
rains in
kharif
Organic
residue on
11-26 19 21 7-18 12 28 2-7 3.0 36
soil surface
(g m-2)
Grey to Grey to
Soil colour dark dark Grey
grey grey
Pale
Green
yellow
Crop colour to dark - - - - - - -
to pale
green
green

(Source : Ganeshmurthy, A.N. & et al., 2009)

Table 11. Effect of addition of legume roots to fallow soil on microbial
activity (mg CO2 evolved)
Days of incubation
Sr. No. Legume
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Cowpea
1. (NEP 138.6 98.3 62.5 38.8 29.0 21.8 18.3 16.2
593)

Bambara
2. 134.8 62.1 40.07 26.5 21.7 17.3 16.0 14.8
Gr.nut
Lima
3. 111.3 75.4 57.0 40.3 30.8 24.7 20.9 19.2
bean
Cowpea
4. 96.2 64.7 45.6 34.4 29.8 24.5 22.0 19.8
( Brown)
Pigeon
5. 82.6 57.3 48.3 35.9 28.4 22.9 20.7 18.6
pea

6. Soybean 69.2 41.1 38.9 31.4 29.0 28.3 21.2 18.9

7. Control 20.3 10.6 9.2 8.1 7.1 5.8 5.9 5.7

(Source : Nnandi, L.A. & et al., 1978)

Table 12. Effect of crop rotation on soil biological properties including
microbial carbon and microbial nitrogen.

Preveous C mic N mic C mic : C N mic : N

C:N
crop (mg kg-1) (mg kg-1) org (%) org (%)

Maize 253.3 10.6 23.9 4.0 2.6

Fallow 250.0 11.9 21.0 4.1 2.5

Cowpea IT
326.7 31.4 10.4 5.1 5.5
96 D-724

Cowpea
335.0 30.8 10.9 5.2 5.2
SAM PEA-7
Soybean
TGx 1448- 330.0 30.8 10.8 5.1 5.2
2E
Soybean
345.0 31.9 10.8 5.1 5.4
SAMSOY-2

(Source : Yusuf, A.A. & et al.,

2009)
IMPACT ON PRODUCTIVITY

 Sequential cropping

 Crop residue management

 Intercropping
Table 13. Mean Sorghum yield, net returns and LER/monetary returns due to
intercropping
Intercropping
Rainfed conditions Irrigated conditions
system

Sorghum Net Sorghum Net

Monetary
yield returns LER yield returns
advantage
(q/ha) (`/ha) (q/ha.) (`/ha)

Sorghum alone 27.8 2384 1.00 32.0 1959 1.00

Sorghum + moong 34.0 3521 1.82 34.5 2622 1.34
Sorghum + urid 33.3 3776 1.85 - - -

Sorghum + grain
36.0 3907 1.92 35.3 3015 1.54
cowpea

Sorghum + fodder
38.1 5247 1.80 38.5 4576 2.34
cowpea

Sorghum +
31.8 3142 1.46 32.7 3751 1.93
groundnut
Sorghum +
- - - 33.9 2710 1.39
soybean

(Source : Singh, S.P., 1983)

Table 14. Mean grain yield of Wheat after different intercropping systems.

Wheat yield (Kg/ha)

Intercropping systems
following intercropping

Sorghum alone 3335

Sorghum + Moong 4012
Sorghum + Groundnut 4335
Sorghum + Grain cowpea 4285
Sorghum + Fodder cowpea 4650
Sorghum + Soybean 3403

(Source : Singh, S.P., 1983)

Table 16. Effect of N rates and intercropping treatments on maize grain yield
and their residual effect on succeeding wheat yield.
Maize grain yield (t/ha at 15%
Wheat yield (t/ha)
moisture

Treatments
0 40 60 120 Mean 0 40 60 120 Mean
(kg N/ha)

Pure maize 3.33 3.97 4.95 4.68 4.23 0.94 0.90 0.94 0.88 0.92

Maize +
3.23 4.00 5.01 4.87 4.28 1.24 1.14 1.22 1.06 1.16
Soyabean

Maize +
3.44 4.04 4.89 4.95 4.33 1.26 1.25 1.24 1.17 1.23
Cowpea

Maize +
3.31 4.45 4.31 5.25 4.33 1.07 1.14 1.14 0.98 1.08
Gr.nut

Mean 3.33 4.11 4.79 4.93 1.13 1.11 1.14 1.02

 CONSTRAINTS IN PULSES
PRODUCTION
 Delay sowing due to irregular rainfall pattern
 About 87 per cent pulses are grown in rainfed condition
 Poor drainage in heavy soil.
 Inadequate plant population particularly in chickpea
 Low seed replacement ratio of improved varieties of pigeonpea (29%) and
chickpea (19%)
• Non adoption of seed treatment
• Limited use due to unavailability of quality biofertilizer
 Inadequate use of recommended dose of fertilizers
 Non-availability of protective irrigation at critical growth stages
 Lacking in timely insect pest management
 Limited information on
• Knowledge of improved varieties
• Micronutrient application
• Seed treatment
• Biofertilizer
• Integrated pest and disease management
 CONCLUSION
 Inclusion of pulses in cropping systems helps to build up the soil fertility or
replenishment of soil nutrients.
 Widespread nutrient deficiencies and deteriorating soil health are cause of low
nutrient use efficiency, productivity & profitability can be corrected by pulses.
 Pulses also fulfils the needs of marginal farmers & agril. labours round a year.
 Pulses provides forage to the milch and draft animals.
 As a nitrogen fixers beneficial for companion crop.
 Addition of organic residues due to more leaf senescence than other crops.
 Short duration pulses suitable for double cropping.
 Pulses should be grown on BBF for in-situ soil moisture conservation & proper
drainage.
 Linking MSP to market prices can bridge the gap between demand and
supply.
 Development of multiple disease and pest resistant varieties of pulses.
 Reducing storage loss and improving market information and infrastructure.
THANK YOU!!!