RATE OF LITTERFALL AND DECOMPOSITION IN Prosopis cineraria AND Ailanthus excelsa BLOCK PLANTATION IN ARID CONDITION OF HARYANA

M.K. SINGH¹*, K.K. BHARDWAJ², R.S. BENIWAL³, D. SIHAG^4
1Department of Forestry, Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, 125004, India
²Department of Soil Science, Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, 125004, India
³Department of Forestry, Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, 125004, India
⁴Department of Soil Science, Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, 125004, India
* Corresponding Author : mks.hau.cssri@gmail.com

Received : 12-06-2018     Accepted : 11-07-2018     Published : 15-07-2018
Volume : 10     Issue : 13       Pages : 6603 - 6605
Int J Agr Sci 10.13 (2018):6603-6605

Keywords : Prosopis cineraria, Ailanthus excelsa, Block plantation, Litterfall and Decomposition
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Author thankful to CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, 125004, India
Author Contribution : All author equally contributed

The study was carried out in Balsamand Research Farm, Hisar, for rate of litter fall and its decomposition rate in Prosopis cineraria (Khejri) and Ailanthus excelsa (Mahaneem) block plantation. The leaf-litter was collected at monthly interval from August, 2012 to September, 2013. Distribution indicated that litter production was much higher in December-February period and decreased in June-August. Maximum litter production was recorded in Prosopis cineraria block plantation than Ailanthus excelsa block plantation. Decomposition of leaf litter was studied using nylon bag technique. Decomposition of biomass varied with time in both the plantations. Highest decomposition was recorded Prosopis cineraria than Ailanthus excelsa block plantation. The practical implication of the study is that profuse litter under Prosopis cineraria increases more microbial activity which ultimately improves soil health.

1. Temel S. (2003) Turkish Journal of Agriculture Forestry, 27,237-243.
2. Odiwe A.I. and Moughalu J.I. (2003) Tropical Ecology, 44, 241-249.
3. Hasanuzzaman M. and Mahmood, H. (2014) Agriculture and Forestry, 60, 221–233.
4. Triadiati S., Tjitrosemito E., Sundarsono G., Qayim I. and Leuschner C. (2011) Asian Journal of Biological Sciences, 4, 221-234.
5. Hossain M., Siddique M.R.H., Rahman M.S., Hossain M.Z. and Hasan M.M. (2011) Journal of Forestry Research, 22,577-582.
6. Semwal R. L., Maikhuri R. K., Rao K.S., Sen K. K. and Saxena K. G. (2003) Biomass and Bioenergy, 24,3-11.
7. Das T. and Das A.K. (2010) Agroforestry System, 79,157-170.
8. Tripathi O. P., Pandey H.N. and Tripathi R.S. (2009) African Journal of Plant Science, 3,160-167.
9. Das C. and Mondal N.K. (2016) Journal of Forestry Research, 27,1055-1065.
10. Kanagaraj N., Kaleeswari R.K., Palanikumaran B. and Tilak, M. (2017) International Journal of Agriculture Sciences, 9,4435-4437.
11. Bray J.R. and Gorham E. (1964) Advances in Ecological Research, 2, 101-157.
12. Joergensen R.G., Kubler H; Heyer, B. and Wolters V. (1995) Biology and Fertility of Soils, 19,215-219.
13. Cleveland C., Townsend A.R., Constance B.C., Ley R.F. and Schmidt S.K. (2004) Biotropica, 36,184-195.
14. Simlai A. and Roy A. (2012) Journal of Medicinal Plants Research, 6,4755–4765.
15. Sun Y. and Zhao S. (2016) Annals of Forest Science, 73,1063-1072.
16. Semwal R. L., Maikhuri R. K., Rao K.S., Sen K. K. and Saxena K. G. (2003) Biomass and Bioenergy, 24,3-11.
17. Ibrahima A., Biyanzi P. and Halima M. (2008) Forest, 1,27-33.
18. Loranger G., Jean-Franccois P., Imbert D. and Lavelle P. (2002) Biology and Fertility of Soils, 35,247-252.
19. Seneviratne, G. (2000) Biology and Fertility of Soils, 31,60-64.
20. Isaac S.R. and Nair M.A. (2005) Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 37, 1656–1664.
21. Seneviratne G., Kuruppuarachchi K. A. J. M., Somaratne S. F. and Seneviratne K. A. C. N. (2006) International Journal of Agriculture Research, 1,169–182.