Grasslands of India

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/289671465
Indian grasslands and their management
Chapter · January 2016
CITATIONS READS
0 2,597
2 authors, including:
J. C. Dagar
Central Soil Salinity Research Institute
257 PUBLICATIONS 1,701 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Saline agriculture View project
Agroforestry View project
All content following this page was uploaded by J. C. Dagar on 09 January 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Theme I
Grassland and Grazing Resource Appraisal
Grassland : A Global Resource Perspective
2
1
P.S. Pathak and J. C. Dagar
Introduction
A grassland is defined as a natural vegetation composed mainly by the members of gramineae
family of plants that are grazed by livestock. The term ‘grazing land’ adopted in 1972 at Montpellier
(France) by UNESCO Expert Panel on man and Biosphere Programme, denotes a-piece of vegetation
wherein grazing occurs. Pandeya (1988) referred the closely related terms in this context viz.
grassland – a land with more than 80% occupied by grasses; rangeland – a piece of vegetation
wherein grazing occurs or can occur; and pasture - a piece of land in which grasses are grown for
feeding. Grasslands are the largest single component of the Earth’s 117 million km2 of vegetated
lands. Generally grasslands are too arid to support croplands or dense forests and so contribute
mainly livestock to the earth’s human carrying capacity. About 85% of the world’s 50 million km2 of
ice-free land classed as semi-arid or arid are considered to be grasslands, though some arid lands
are also labeled as desert. Hyper-arid lands (about 6 million km2) are rarely, if ever, grazed and
cannot be termed as grasslands. Some humid and semi-humid lands are grasslands and are grazed,
but this is by human, rather than natural, design. Frequently they are too steep, or have soils too
poor to cultivate, so they are maintained and used as permanent pastures. Left as such, they would
usually revert to forestland. However, the recent land classification (WRI, 2000) considers these
permanent pastures as grasslands where, an overview of structure, status and attempts towards
management of grasslands is discussed in brief. Misra (1987) considered them as grazing lands in
the Indian context since they are maintained under the anthropogenic pressure and grazing.
Evolution of grassland systems and their degradation

Van Dyne et al. (1978) opined that the establishment of grasslands and grazing animals as
major life forms extends well back into geological history where fossil records of grasses have
been known from the Tertiary, and true grasses have been well developed at least as long as 6 to 12
3
million years ago. The fossil record of grasses is scanty, but it is assumed that they emerged as a
distinct class of Angiosperm complex during late Cretaceous times or even earlier when flowering
plants were spreading throughout the world. The earth has seen a long history of development of
grasslands which were able to withstand harsh climates and the grazing and trampling by such
animals as bison, elk and deer in North America, a variety of antelope, zebra, wildebeests and other
animals in Africa, and marsupials in Australia. The grazing animals and the plant upon which they
grazed have evolved simultaneously and thus are adapted to each other.
Grasslands were important to man before he ever domesticated plants and animals. Hunting
cultures existed in or on the fringe of grasslands. We often over-look the fact that the cereal crops
are grasses and that the most fertile and productive soils in the world developed under grassland
cover. Grasslands were an important segment in the world’s productivity long before the advent of
man and perhaps the extent of grasslands will control man’s diet, population and habits in the future
as it has for many other animals. Natural factors such as fluctuating rainfall, rise in temperature and
natural disasters; and artificial factors (mainly anthropogenic) such as over-grazing, deforestation,
overexploitation, faulty methods of agriculture and industrial activities have led to degradation of
pasturelands.
Degradation of grazing lands

Dregne and Chou (1992) classified 6075.76 million ha area under irrigated land, rain-fed
croplands, rangeland and hyper arid land throughout the globe, out of which 4556.42 million ha was
reported under rangeland alone. Out of that 3333.47 million ha (73%) were designated as degraded
(Table 1). Bridges and Oldeman (1999) reported 1965 million ha degraded area in the world as
human-induced, which also includes grazing lands. Deforestation, overgrazing, agricultural
mismanagement, over-exploitation and industrial activities are the major causative factors for land
degradation.
Global rangeland degradation is considered the most extensive among the three major land
uses (irrigated, rain-fed and rangeland). The world’s rivers that drain grazing lands are chocked
with sediments that flow down the arroyos and gullies running through active and abandoned grazing
lands and into streams whose riparian habitats bear little resemblance to their pre-grazing days.
Grasslands that are not overgrazed lose topsoil at a gross rate of about 100 t km-2 yr-1, about the
rate of topsoil creation on grasslands. Topsoil erosion characterized by phenomena like gullies and
arroyos lose soil at a typical rates of 40,000 t km-2 year-1, though as significant portion of this is sub
soil (http://home.altel.net/bsundquist1/og1.html).
The degradation problem is more accelerating in developing countries. The scale of grazing
land degradation has become so extreme that many people use the word ‘desertification’ to describe
it. Grazing animal populations tend to expand in parallel with human population, doubling every 5
decades. Carrying capacity of grazing lands decrease in parallel with topsoil loss, which in turn
increases with increased bare soil and water runoff. Overgrazing by livestock is the principal cause
4
Table 1. Rangeland desertification (million ha) and India’s share in it

Continent Total Degree of desertification Percent
rangeland Slight Moderate Severe Very Total
severe moderate
Africa 1342.35 347.27 273.61 716.21 5.26 995.08 74
Asia 1571.24 383.63 485.22 691.60 10.79 1187.61 76
Australia & New 657.22 295.87 277.04 55.31 29.00 361.35 55
Zealand
Europe 111.57 31.05 27.37 51.94 1.21 80.52 72
North America 483.14 71.99 116.10 284.86 10.19 411.15 85
South America 390.91 93.15 88.01 194.43 15.32 297.76 76
Total 4556.43 1222.96 1267.36 1994.35 71.76 3333.47 73
Source: Modified from Dregne and Chou (1992)
of land degradation coupled with cutting of woody species in many countries where fuel-wood is
the major crisis. As a result of overstocking, grasslands are now deteriorating to the worst condition
particularly in the developing world. Most degraded rangeland, worldwide, totals 860 million ha. In
India too the degraded and wastelands account for 120.72 m ha (Anonymous, 2010). Tapping the
productivity of this vast area depends on ruminants-cattle, sheep and goats-animals whose complex
digestive systems enable them to convert roughage into food, including beef, mutton, milk, and
industrial materials (leather and wool).
India too has a large animal population dependent upon these resources. In many states like
Rajasthan, Gujarat and Karnataka people live a nomadic life and leave number of unproductive
emaciated cattle as stray. According to an assessment of the earth’s dry land regions (Dregne and
Chou, 1992), it was estimated that livestock production losses from rangeland degradation exceeded
$ 23 billion. Unless measures to improve these degraded grasslands are taken, the situation shall
regain gloomy.
Grasslands: a global scenario

Considerable academic debate has focused on evolution, development and distribution of the
natural grasslands (US/IBP, 1973; Walter, 1973; Van Dyne et al., 1978; Coupland, 1992; Dagar and
Singh, 2003). The temperate natural grasslands exist only in Eurasia and North America (prairies
and steppes). Most of the temperate grasslands in Europe are recognized largely as artifacts and
those of the Southern Hemisphere are tropical or subtropical. Most of the European and Japanese
grasslands represent semi-natural grasslands created and maintained by man and date back to the
initiation of forest clearing, which in Europe occurred during Roman settlement in first few centuries
A.D. Tropical grasslands exist in India, East & West Africa and Central & South America. Many
of the world’s original grasslands have been largely converted to croplands or to seeded pastures.
Still, these regions carry large number of grazing animals. Many of the world’s original forests have
been converted to grasslands. Perhaps some 40% of the earth’s land surface is used by grazing
animals receiving the bulk of their yearlong diet from herbaceous plants, predominantly grasses.
5
Grass climates have large extremes. The precipitation-evaporation ratio and precipitation
seasonality are important factors in producing different types of grasslands. Box et al. (1969)
reported three major areas of climatically controlled grasslands:
(i) The temperate latitudes grasslands (e.g. steppes, prairies and pampas): These are found
where summer rainfall in the interior of continents drops below the minimum total, necessary
to provide soil water sufficient for conifers and where the winters are cold. Between the
summer drought and the winter-cold, there is a relatively short growing season in which
herbaceous plants, especially grasses, thrive. Total rainfall for prairies varies between 50 and
100 cm annually. Extensive prairies are found in Central North America, in the Argentinean,
Uruguayan, and Brazilian pampas, and in European Russia. Steppes characterize large part
of the semi-arid to sub-humid lands of the temperate zone in Great Plains of North America
and the steppes of Eurasia.
(ii) Important climatically controlled grasslands (savannas): These exist where rainfall
diminishes and becomes periodic in the tropical latitudes. Even though temperatures remain
uniformly high, the drought-resistant trees cannot maintain themselves in closed stands, and
give way to savanna.
(iii) Grasslands under rigid climate control: Those, which border the “cold deserts” of the
world. Such grasslands occur above the forest limit on the main mountain chains and in arctic
latitudes. Climatic factors such as high winds and low temperatures interact to exclude trees.
Van Dyne et al. (1978) and Singh & Gupta (1992) have described some of the important
types of grasslands of the world. Some of these are:
Prairies: These grasslands are dominated generally by tall grasses of warm season. In
temperate regions these are found where precipitation is reduced towards the end of the summer.
Relatively the woody component is rare. Prairies are found on all of the continents composing
almost 24% of the world’s plant cover and originally occupied about 44% of Europe and slightly
less than 10% in Australia. The tall grass prairie or high veld is found primarily in eastern South
Africa and Transvaal and smaller areas into east and central Africa. Mountain grasslands some
what resembling prairies occur in Kenya, Uganda, and Tanganyika, but these may not be climax
vegetation in the area. In Europe, these lie in Russia, Ukraine, Hungary and Transylvania. In South
America the prairie that is most prominent is the pampas in Argentina, but tall grass areas also exist
in Uruguay and Central Brazil. The US tall grass prairie is an assemblage of three grassland and
three deciduous forest ecotone types. The grassland types include the Agropyron-Andropogon-
Stipa type of the Dakotas, the Andropogon-Calamovilfa-Stipa type of the Nebraska sand hills,
and the most typical Andropogon-Panicum-Sorghastrum type, which extends from eastern North
Dakota and Western Minnesota to eastern Oklahoma. The intermixed forest types include the
Quercus-Andropogon type of the upper mid-west and the Juniperus-Quercus-Sporobolus-
Andropogon cross-timbers area from Kansas to Texas.
6
Steppes: The short grass and mixed prairies of North America, the steppes of Asia and some
of the transitional grasslands containing both tall and short species of grasses may be included in
this type. The steppes occur in northern temperate areas of the world where precipitation falls
primarily in summer and winters are cold.
The steppes in the former USSR and adjacent lands occur in vast areas. In contract to the
prairies, the vegetation of steppes is generally lower, more discontinuous, and with more scattered
shrubs. The grasses are highly xerophilous and form dense tufts or cushions. Steppe vegetation is
characteristics of high plateau of Turkey, Iraq and Afghanistan. Some of the grasslands of Australia,
Chile and part of Argentina approach a steppe appearance. Some of the high mountainous areas of
Columbia, Peru, Equator, and Bolivia are covered with steppe-like vegetation. Steppes are only
scattered and small in extent throughout Africa. In Israel, steppes of Stipa and Aristida exist on
elevations of 500 and 1000 m. In Jordan, Artemisia herba-alba shrub and grasses such as Poa,
Avena, Koeleria, Hordeum, Stipa and others dominate these grasslands. In Australia, the area
having 25 to 50 cm precipitation, which contains the steppe vegetation, surrounds most of the
deserts. The tussock and hummock grasslands are important steppes. The grasslands of northeastern
Australia have developed on volcanic or calcareous soils with Eragrostis, Astrebla, Aristida and
Sporobolus as important genera. The grasses of northwestern Australia are primarily on sandstone
soils. Heteropogon, Andropogon, Aristida and Stipa are important associates. Important grassland
areas exist in Venezuela, where several veld types of grasslands, resembling steppes, are found.
Cymbopogon-Themeda veld is quite dominating sweet veld type in South Africa. Themeda-
Tetrachne (mountain veld) and Poa-Festuca-Danthovia-Ehrharta are dominant on higher altitudes.
Annual grasslands: In several areas, annual grasslands are important. In some instances
these have replaced perennial stands, (e.g. North America) and in other instances they are annual
vegetation of desert and semi-desert areas. These are predominant where there is a Mediterranean
climate with hot dry summers and wet, relatively warm winters. These are dominated by Avena,
Bromus and Festuca. In Australia also where disturbed woodlands and forests occupy the pastures
composed of such species as Erodium, Cryptostemma, Vulpia, Hordeum, Trifolium and Medicago.
Another unique type of annual vegetation occurs in Peru on the Pacific coastal strip where ‘lomas’
are found between 150 and 1500 m elevation. Ephemeral vegetation often develops with periodic
rainfall in the major deserts of the world. An important type of annual grassland exists in much of
the Sahel in Africa, which integrates with desert and sub-desert on the north as well as the Sudan
and woodland zones on the south.
Savannas: The grasslands existing intermixed with woody plants are designated as savannas.
These occur in areas with unreliable rainfalls in subtropical, tropical and temperate areas. There is
generally a layer of dense vegetation (primarily grasses) under the trees. They occur widely in the
West Indies, Central & South America, both in north and south of the Amazonian forests, many
parts of Africa, in some disturbed upland areas of India, and around the large central tracts of
Australia. Africa is covered with more than one-third grassland savannas predominantly in association
7
with Acacia trees. Important grass genera include Panicum, Setaria, Themeda, Aristida,
Eragrostis, Andropogon, Heteropogon, Sporobolus and Hyparrhenia. In Australia, Acacia
and Eucalyptus trees dominate these grasslands. Very little savanna is found throughout Asia and
Europe, although parklands exist across part of the former USSR. Throughout India, Burma and
Indochina, occasional grassland savannas occur in the tropical rainforests. Blasco (1983) described
two types of savannas in South-east Asia as climax and secondary savannas. Climax grasslands
develop on narrow low alluvial plains constantly subjected to excessive soil moisture dominated by
hygrophilous grasses, including species of Echinochloa, Phragmites and Saccharum. The
secondary savannas develop on deep basaltic soil dominated by species of Imperata, Sehima,
Arundo, Aristida, Arundinela, Cymbopogon, Hyparrhenia and Themeda.
Other grasslands: Other important types of grasslands include desert, mountain, and arctic
and sub-arctic grasslands. Desert and semi-desert grasslands exist intermixed with desert shrubs
throughout the world. Thus, these types may be found in Asia surrounding the Gobi desert and
others (e.g. Thar); in Africa surrounding the Kalahari, Sahara, and the Sudan; in North America
surrounding the Sonoran Desert and others; and surrounding the Great Central Desert of Australia
and the coastal deserts of Chile.
Arctic and antarctic vegetation exists beyond the gradation of the arctic and alpine areas.
Important grasslands exist in parts of Scotland, northern continental Europe, North America, and
Iceland. Sedges like Carex, Eriophorum, Juncus and Luzula provide the grassland aspect rather
than by true grasses though they are also present. Caribou, reindeer, and in some areas sheep are
important grazing animals. On the mountain ranges of the world important alpine vegetation is
found, where grasslands, pasturage, and watershed vegetation dominate. Himalayas, Alps, Rocky
Mountains and Great Dividing Range are important alpine types.
In Iran (Southern Asia), the grasslands from coastal to dry alpine zone include elements such
as Aeluropus, Cymbopogon, Aristida, Cenchrus, Hyparrhenia, Stipa, etc. In Afghanistan, above
2000 m elevation, Astragalus, Bromus, Elymus, Festuca, Koeleria, Oryzopis, Poa and Stipa are
important genera. On sandy dunes, some of the predominant genera are Aristida, Aeluropus,
Cyperus, Pennisetum and Stellera. The winter rangelands are important for the livestock industry.
Xerophytes such as Haloxylon persicum cover a large area of mobile sand dunes of the Registan
desert, forming a mixed community with Aristida pennata and Calligonum molle. In Indian
subcontinent, Dichanthium-Cenchrus-Lasiurus, Chrysopogon, Themeda-Arundinella, Sehima-
Dichanthium and Phragmites-Saccharum-Imperata are important grassland regions.
In Sri Lanka, the grasslands of wet zone include talawa (Cynodon, Dimeria, Ischaemum,
Themeda), patana (Chrysopogon, Cymbopogon, Themeda), savanna and wet-black patana;
while the dry zone is consisting of dry damana grasslands with Aristida, Chloris, Dactyloctenium,
Digitaria, Imperata and Cymobopogon as important genera. In Bangladesh, Erianthus,
Phragmites, Saccharum, Arundo, Bambusa, Dendrocalamus and Melocanna are important
constituents of Sythet district and along marshes. In Nepal, various altitudes are dominated by
8
different species. Alpine and sub-alpine are covered by Agropyron, Phleum, Poa and Festuca;
cool temperate zone by Arundinella, Poa, Themeda and Festuca; warm temperate by
Andropogon, Chrysopogon, Setaria, Dichanthium, Heteropogon, Imperata and Ischaemum;
while tropical and subtropical zone by Bothriochloa, Dichanthium, Cynodon, Chrysopogon,
Paspalum, Eragrostis and Imperata grasses.
Indian grass covers

The first attempt at classifying grasslands was made by R. O. Whyte (1957) where he identified
8 different types of grasslands based on their floral characteristics in India. Later on based on
detailed survey the book, Grass Covers of India (Dabadghao and Shankaranarayan, 1973) was
published which is a milestone in the history of ecological research on grasslands. However, due
to unabated human and livestock population pressure, the whole land use and land cover pattern is
changing fast. Many species have altogether vanished or are at the verge of extinction quantitatively,
the number of species described has declined remarkably. The area represented by different grass
covers has drastically reduced because of enormous human activity. Indian grasslands are subject
to several constraints, viz., extremes of temperature, steepness of slope, irregular rainfall, lack of
water (arid and semi- arid areas) and their extreme fragility due to overstocking (Singh and
Gupta, 1992). They are largely in an advanced stage of deterioration due to a combination of
factors such as large bovine population, free range grazing, lack of management practices and
deforestation for development activities. More than 80 per cent of the grasslands are in ‘poor’
range condition class. The situation is more alarming in the Himalayan region where the grasslands
experience severe biotic pressure of both sedentary and migratory graziers (Misri, 2003).
Grass cover environment

The great variation in climate, soil and physiography makes the grass covers highly
heterogeneous in India. Dabadghao and Shankarnarayan (1973) recognized five major grass cover
types based on extensive survey of 500 sites throughout India (Fig 1). The nature of these grass
covers is primarily governed by climatic factors and especially by latitudes resulting in the occurrence
of Sehima - Dichanthium cover in tropical region, Dichanthium - Cenchrus-Lasiurus, Phragmites
- Saccharum - Imperata and Themeda-Arundinella grass covers in sub-tropical region and
temperate alpine grass cover in temperate region. Altitude separates Themeda-Arundinella cover
(restricted to the northern hills) from Phragmites - Saccharum-imperata (in moist to wet habitats)
and Dichanthium - Cenchrus - Lasiurus (in relatively dry habitats) types which occurs in the
plains. Studies of grass communities and their successional trends show that Sehima-Dichanthium
cover is highly productive at its climax stage, whereas Themeda-Arundinella yields the lowest.
But, the early seral stages of Phragmites - Saccharum - Imperata and Dichanthium - Cenchrus
- Lasiurus covers are comparatively highly productive. Phragmites - Saccharum - Imperata
cover is different predominantly because of its unpalatability. Most of these communities are in
their last stages of retrogression and represent poor condition of the grazing lands.
9
Sehima-Dichanthium type: It covers the whole of peninsular India (Dry sub-humid zone
except Nilgiri). The thorny bushes of the savanna are Acacia catechu, Mimosa rubicaulis, Zizyphus
spp. and some times fleshy Euphorbia, along with low trees of Anogeissus latifolia, Soymida
febrifuga and other deciduous species. The floristic list includes 24 perennial grasses and 129
other herbaceous species of
which 56 are legumes. Sehima is
more prevalent on gravel and the
cover may be 87 per cent.
Dichanthium flourishes on level
soils and may cover 80 per cent
of the ground.
Dichanthium-Cenchrus-
Lasiurus type: It extends to the
northern portion of Gujarat,
Rajasthan (excluding Aravallis),
Western Uttar Pradesh, Delhi and
Punjab (Semi arid zone). The
topography is broken up by hill
spurs and sand dunes. Eleven
perennial grasses, 45 other
herbaceous species (including 19
of the leguminosae) are listed. To
Fig 1. Grass covers of India
this list may be added shrubby
growth of Acacia senegal, Calotropis gigantea, Cassia auriculata, Prosopis cineraria,
Salvadora oloides and Zizyphus nummularia which make the savanna look like scrub.
Phragmitis-Saccharum-Imperata type: It covers the Ganga alluvial plain in northern India
(moist sub-humid zone). The topography is level, low-lying and ill-drained. There are 19 principal
grass species and 56 other herbaceous ones including 16 legumes. (Bothriochloa pertusa, Cynodon
dactylon and Dichanthium annulatum are found in transition zones. The common trees and
shrubs are; Acacia nilotica, Anogeissus latifolia, Butea monosperma, Phoenix sylvestris and
Zizyphus nummularia. Some of these are replaced by Borassus spp. in the palm savannas especialy
near Sunderbans.
Themeda-Arundinella grass cover: It extends to the humid montane regions and moist sub-
humid areas of Assam, Manipur, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and
Jammu and Kashmir. The savanna is derived from the humid forests on account of shifting cultivation
and sheep grazing. The tree and the bush elements are varied and numerous as given by Champion
and Seth (1968).
10
Temperate-Alpine Cover: This cover representing climatic climax grasslands is spread over
the higher altitudes (above 2100 m) in Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh,
West Bengal and north eastern states. The climate ranges from sub-temperate to temperate and
the soils are classified as undifferentiated forest soils. Fourteen major perennial grass species like
Agropyron, Agrostis, Dactylis, Poa etc. characterize this cover. Eleven other perennial grasses
are found in more than 10 percent frequency while 22 more grass species are associated with
cover. Five annual grass species have been reported. Sixty eight herbaceous species occurring
here include 6 legumes.
The presence of grass cover in India is primarily governed by climatic and bio-edaphic factors.
Thus the tropical Sehima-Dichanthium cover is quite distinct from the sub-tropical Dichanthium-
Lasiurus, Phragmitis-Saccharum-Imperata and Themeda-Arundinella cover. The latter are
quite different from the temperate alpine cover.
The peak biomass as studied in the grazing lands in different grass covers of India (Dabadghao
and Shankarnarayan, 1973) indicate the similar trend as shown by the ecoclimatic conditions of the
region (Table 2). The seral stages, giving very low production progressively give higher production
as they reach their climax. The table indicates that with the increasing altitudes, the species
composition changes affecting the site productivity.
Table 2. Production level (t/ha) of various grass covers of India
S. No. Grass Cover Harvestable actual Biomass potential
1. Sehima-Dichanthium type 3.5 6.0
2. Dichanthium-Cenchrus-Lasiurus 3.3 5.0
3. Phragmitis-Saccharum-Imperata 5.0 5.0
4. Themeda-Arundinella grass cover 2.2 4.0
5. Tempetrate-Alpine Cover 4.0 6.0
Stability of grazing lands

McNaughton (1967), studying the functional properties of California grasslands, concluded
that diversity is principally a mechanism, which generates community stability while dominance is a
mechanism which generates community productivity. It has been advocated (Patten, 1963) that
high productive capacity is associated with high diversity. Singh and Misra (1969) and Singh et al.
(1979) compared fourteen tropical grassland communities and found that species diversity increases
productive efficiency of the ecosystem while dominance made the system stable, though less efficient
for production. While studying nine tropical grassland communities in Central India, Singh et al.
(1979) found (Fig 2 a-g) that diversity was inversely proportion to stability and dominance; and
dominance made the system stable. Species number was found correlated with dominance. As the
species number increased, dominance increased, making the system more stable. Production of the
system was found inversely proportional to stability and dominance though less efficient while
diversity gave more production to the system. The same is true to many other savannas.
11
A considerable amount of surplus dry mater accumulates under protection in successional

tropical and subtropical grasslands. A comparison of rates of carbon output in soil respiration and of
decomposition of organic matter in tropical grassland suggested that about 35% of decomposing
plant organic matter is conserved as new soil organic matter (Gupta and Singh, 1982). This indicates
an accumulation of energy, which provides a basis, under protection from grazing, for succession
towards woodland (Singh and Gupta, 1992). On the other hand, in the alpine grassland, the total
amount of dry matter that disappeared almost balanced the total net production of organic matter,
indicating that the system is in equilibrium (Ram et al., 1989). The ratio of total net production both
above and below ground (TNP) to total time-weighted biomass has been used as in index of
stability (Singh and Krishnamurthy, 1981). This stability index proportionally reflects the frequency
of fluctuations in the system and is inversely related to stability (Margalef, 1968). Grasslands in
areas of low rainfall show an exponential increase in stability with increasing rainfall (Fig 3a). In
dry areas, the frequency of fluctuations in biomass is greater because it depends on fluctuations in
rainfall. Biomass fluctuations are fewer and stability is greater in high rainfall regions, where rainfall
oscillations are less pronounced (Singh and Gupta, 1992).
Standing crop and primary production

Many studies have been reported on the standing crop and the rate of primary production and
management of the grasslands throughout the world. Van Dyne et al. (1978) and Singh and Gupta
(1992) reviewed the world literature extensively.
Fig 2. Relationship between different structure parameters of tropical grasslands
12
l Annual increment: Annual fresh weight production of savannas is about 30 t ha-1, in a monsoon
climate, an estimate for equatorial savannas is 12.5 t ha-1 and India dry savannas have annual
increments about 70t ha-1 with green parts about 40%, perennial aerial parts 5% and roots 55%.
l Litter: Dry savannas in India have about 75 t ha-1.
l A mean of 700 g m-2 yr-1 net primary productivity for tropical grasslands and 500 g m-2 yr-1 for
temperate grasslands was estimated.
Several authors (Singh and Yadav, 1974; Yadav and Singh, 1977; Melkania and Singh, 1989;
Singh and Gupta, 1992) have reviewed the information about standing crop and rate of primary
production in tropical grasslands of India. Maximum values of standing plant biomass of some
grassland are summarized in Table 3. Maximum above ground biomass ranged form 114 g m-2 (hill-
top grazed land at Khirasara) to 3542 g m-2 for a mixed grassland at Kurukshetra. Biomass levels
for grazed ‘damana’ grassland (1800-2500 mm annual rainfall) in Sri Lanka ranged from 130 to 375
kg ha-1 shoot biomass and 57 to 125 kg ha-1 root biomass (cited by Singh and Gupta, 1992). Grasslands
in areas with annual rainfall less than 800 mm showed a curvilinear decrease, with increasing
rainfall, in percentage of total biomass that occur under ground (Singh and Krishnamurthy, 1981).
Apparently, this is because low rainfall coupled with high temperature retards growth. In arid area,
even a slight increase in rainfall promotes shoot growth and lateral spread of annuals. Under
favourable growing conditions in more humid areas, annuals are replaced by perennials, which
have their storage organs under ground. This is reflected in an increased proportion of root material
as compared to green canopy biomass. However, the proportion of root material does not increase
when annual rainfall is more than 1200 mm, because a more even balance is attained between
growth of shoots and underground parts (Singh and Gupta, 1992). This reflects the strategy of
vegetation in responding to availability of soil water.
Fig 3. Relationship between (a) total net production and annual rainfall and (b) stability-index and rainfall of
different tropical grasslands
13
The annual aboveground net primary production (ANP) ranges from 83 to 3396 g m-2 among
grasslands in India (Table 3). The values for the semi-arid grasslands are lower than more humid
grasslands. The maximum rate of production invariably occurs during the rainy season, as this
period coincides with the major growth phase of annuals as well as perennials. Singh and
Krishnamurthy (1981) demonstrated a functional relationship between total net production (TNP)
Table 3. Maximum value of standing biomass and productivity status of some grassland in India
Location Grassland type Aboveground* Belowground Production yr-1
biomass biomass Aboveground Belowground
Ambikapur Mixed grass 423 - 436 563
Behrampur Cynodon dactylon 1172 1992 571 1361
Delhi Heteropogon 771 - 798 -
Jhansi Sehima – Heteropogon 1634 333 1019 497
Jodhpur Mixed grass 164 780 164 570
Khirasara Plains, ungrazed 419 205 201 155
Khirasara Plain grazed 187 160 98 247
Khirasara Hilltops, grazed 114 52 83 96
Kurukshetra Mixed grass 3542 1167 2407 1131
Pilani Mixed grass 134 86 217 61
Ratlam Sehima nervosum 954 873 433 399
Sagar Heteropogon – Apluda – Cymbopogon 1523 1381 914 937
Sambalpur Andropogon – Saccharum 572 2368 458 1972
Udaipur Apluda 271 408 256 255
Ujjain Burned grassland 1367 1063 - -
Ujjain Central grassland 1074 920 - -
Ujjain Dichanthium 1302 925 520 464
Varanasi Desmostachya (upland) 2505 788 2218 1377
Varanasi Eragrostis (lowland) 3448 1282 3398 1161
Average 1136 870 835 703
*includes dead shoot and litter; Source: Modified from Singh and Gupta (1992)
and annual rainfall for 16 Indian grasslands (Fig. 3b). Net dry-matter output exponentially increases
with increasing rainfall in semiarid to dry sub-humid regions, where water is the factor limiting
growth.
According to recent estimates (http://home.alltel.net/bsundquist1/og2.html) the net primary
productivity, varies from 39 t C km-2 yr-1 in desert conditions to 407 t C km-2 yr-1 in savanna biotypes
(Table 4). Lieth and Whittaker (1973), however, reported 12.4 Gt. C yr-1 of grassland totals, which
tends to be on higher side as compared to other studies because of the reason that their studies
were from undisturbed areas. It is evident from these results that the productivity of grassland (and
14
so is capacity of grazing land) is strongly dependent on rainfall or access to water as illustrated by

the high productivity of riparian habitats. For example, in the US Great Basin, all riparian lands
cover fewer than 2% of the land area, yet receive 50% of the livestock pressure. Reparian meadows
occupy 1-2% of the interior northwest, but account for 81% of forage removed by livestock (Jacobs,
1991).
The ultimate biological production from US rangelands is estimated to be 566 million AUMs
under intensive management as against 213 million in 1976. If one assumes that only the range
currently being grazed is available for intensive management, herbage and browse could potentially
be increased from 169 million t yr-1 to 220, and range grazing could be increased from 127 million t
yr-1 to 247 by upgrading poor, fair and very poor range to good range (Hair, 1980).
Table 4. Net primary production (NPP), biomass and carrying capacity of the world’s grazing lands
Grassland biota type Area NPP Gt. Carbon NPP t C Biomass* Carrying capacity
(million km2) km-2 year-1 km-2 yr-1 * GT. C AU km-2 (million AU)
Woodland shrub land 8.5 2.7 318 22 27 (230)
Savanna 15.0 6.1 407 27 27 (405)
Temperate grassland 9.0 2.4 267 6.3 27 (243)
*Agricultural land 5.8 (8.0) 1.5 (0.5) 267 (63) 4.1 (2.3) 27(157)
(Tundra/Alpine Meadow)
Desert Shrub 18.0 0.7 39 5.9 3.9 (70)
Total 56.3 13.4 - 65.3 - (1105)
1 Gt = Gigga tonne = 1 billion metric tons
* An amount of land of the same NPP per unit area as temperate grassland has been added here to bring the total grazing land
inventory up to the calculated 56.3 million km2.
** To compute NPP in t km-2year-1 of dry organic matter the value should be multiplied by about 2, since plant dry organic
matter is 45-50% carbon by weight.
Comparatively, the situation is very alarming in many other parts of the world. For example, in
northern Africa, productivity of browse plants is only 150 kg DM km-2 mm-1rain year-1, of which
50% is actually consumed (LeHouerou, 1980). This implies the absence of grass and a fairly
desert-like environment. In central Soviet, 6-7 km2 of grazing land are required per 100 sheep with
capacity of 3AU km-2. In Latin America, it requires 15-50 km2 of rangeland to support 100 cows
with a capacity of 2 to 6 AU km-2 (WRI, 1990). The situation in many other dry regions of the world
is not different as mentioned above and most of the rangelands are over-grazed and deteriorated.
These need special management efforts.
Approaches to management of rangelands/pastures

From perusal of literature on status of grasslands, we may draw inference that natural and
anthropogenic factors are responsible for rangeland degradation particularly in semi-arid tropics.
Climatic reasons such as erratic and high intensity of rainfall leading to soil erosion, high evaporative
demand, and lack of moisture consequently effecting vegetative cover; edaphic factors such as
15
impoverished soils having limited moisture storage capacity and poor infiltration in problem sodic
soils; and anthropogenic and socio-economic factors such as increasing population, overstocking
rates leading to overgrazing, fire, lack of fodder resources and uncontrolled grazing, faulty methods
of forage cultivation and poor-resource-base of farmers are some important reasons which have
led to degradation of rangelands (Table 5).
Table 5. Causes of degradation and remedies for sustainable development of rangelands
Constraints Causes of degradation Remedy
Natural
Climatic Erratic, fluctuating and high Development of water-harvesting techniques
intensity rainfall, high
evapotranspiration/ rainfall
ratio, natural disasters.
Topographic Steep slopes, ravine lands Introduction of silvi-pastoral system
Edaphic Degraded & problematic lands Addition of organic manure & amendments, silvi-pastoral
system, introduction of tolerant species
Anthropogenic and socio-economic
High human & animal population overstocking Government policy of population control
rates Rearing only improved & productive livestock, discarding
low productive breeds.
Overgrazing Fencing or selective grazing, alternate feeds
Deforestation Silvi-pastoral systems
Low fertility level Use of organic fertilizers, introduction of legumes,
nitrogen fixing trees
Low productivity status Introduction of quality and productive forage species, use
of organic fertilizers.
Low moisture status Evolving water harvest techniques, use of moisture
conservation measures
High demand of fodder Use of alternate feed (oil cakes, straw, palatable weeds,
green tops etc.)
Faulty methods of forage cultivation Use of improved agroforestry models
Following approaches may help in management of rangelands particularly in degraded and

problem areas:
Protection from grazing: Most of the grasslands in arid and semi-arid areas are over-grazed.
When the same grassland is protected from grazing the productivity is increased many-fold. Number
of palatable species increase when fenced, the soil properties of problem soils including alkali soils
in terms of soil pH, organic matter, available nutrients and the biological activity (micro-organism) is
improved when grasslands are protected from grazing. These should be managed according to
their carrying capacity. In some situations, light grazing may increase productivity (Kumar and
Joshi, 1972), hence, controlled grazing may help in sustaining the productivity of grazing lands.
A highly grazed land on alkali soil is very poor in its productivity. In many saline basins halophytic
species are found which are very poor in their palatability. Grasses such as Sporobolus marginatus
16
and Aeluropus lagopoides are frequent in these stands. At many localities the above ground
biomass of entire community is found to range from 0.2 to 0.8 t ha-1. When protected from grazing
one sodic field which had a herbage biomass production of 0.25 t ha-1, could yield 2.6 t ha-1 forage
biomass mostly predominated by Sporobolus marginatus grass. Effect of long-term fencing showed
that the number of palatable species increased significantly and soil improved in terms of reduction
in pH and increase in organic matter and exchangeable cations (Table 6). Singh et al. (1979),
Dagar (1987a,c), Turner (1999) and El-Keblawy (2003) also indicated that the protection of grazing
lands from anthropogenic factors led to increase in total number and also palatable species, plant
cover and productivity. More leguminous species appeared in the range, which could enhance the
quality of fodder.
Table 6. Effect of long-term fencing of grazing land on soil status on highly alkali soil
Soil depth Soil parameters
Original alkali soil After 15 years of fencing
pH Org. C. Na Ca+ Mg pH Org. C. Na Ca+ Mg
(cm) (1:2) (%) (Percent of (1:2) (%) (Percent of exchangeable
exchangeable cation) cation)
0-15 10.6 0.24 91.4 5.6 8.6 0.46 19.5 69.8
15-30 10.2 0.20 90.3 6.8 9.0 0.34 27.6 58.5
30-60 9.9 0.14 79.1 12.7 9.5 0.21 54.1 31.7
60-90 9.5 0.12 62.3 29.8 9.4 0.16 49.8 39.4
Weed/Bush cleaning: Heavy infestation of bushes in degraded grazing lands not only
adversely affects the availability of open space for growing grasses but also forage production.
Studies conducted at IGFRI Jhansi (Table 7) and elsewhere in arid region (Table 8) reveal the
adverse effect of high bush density on forage yield. The standard practice of bush cleaning includes
either manual or mechanical felling or removal of stumps, or application of selective weedicides on
the cut stumps to kill them to stop coppicing.
Table 7. Bush density and dry forage yield of a semi-arid Sehima-Heteropogon grasslands
Bush density (No./ha) Protected grassland Forage yield ( t/ha)
0 4.2
1450 1.1
2175 1.25
3775 0.56
1300 Unprotected grassland 0.08
Leaf fodder yielding stumps, however, should be maintained in the grazing lands as these
provide fodder during lean period or drought. A certain ratio could be maintained between the bush
cover and the grass cover. Kaul and Ganguli (1963) recognized three density classes of the bushes
of Zizyphus nummularia in the grazing lands of Indian desert where yield of grass and leaf fodder
was influenced by varying densities of the bushes (Table 8). It was concluded that medium stocked
density level i.e. 14% of the land area covered by shrub canopy, was optimum for high forage as
well as leaf fodder production.
17
Table 8. Bush density and dry forage yield (kg/ha) relationship in desert grazing lands
Bush density (% canopy cover) Yield of leaf fodder Yield of grass Combined yield
18 150 545 695
14 125 875 1000
11 105 770 875
Control grazing or sickle harvesting: In series of experiments conducted by Mall and

Singh (1977); Pande and Singh (1985); Dagar (1987b) and Trivedi (2001), it was revealed that
frequent grazing and clipping (at various heights) reduced the total biomass production and deteriorated
the soil but in control conditions grasslands may be managed sustainably through long-intervals of
cuttings or control grazing following the principal of carrying capacity. In could be possible to
produce more aboveground biomass under selected cuttings of natural grasses like Dichanthium
annulatum, D. caricosum, Iseilema laxum, Ctrysopogon fulvus, Sehima nervosum and
Heteropogon contortus and also of cultivated forages like many grass species of Panicum,
Paspalum, Setaria, Tripasacum and Pennisetum and legumes like Stylosanthes, Calopogonium,
Clitoria and Phaseolus.
Application of fertilizers: Most of the grasslands are very poor in nutrition so in productivity.
If a small dose of fertilizers is applied the productivity increases many fold. In one trial in Andamans,
when fertilizers were applied @ 50 kg N, 30 kg P2O2 and 30 kg K2O ha-1, there was fresh forage
yield of 6.6 t ha-1 as compared to 2.1 t ha-1 without any fertilizer during first year itself. Both forage
production and quality of grasses in terms of per cent crude protein can be improved considerably
by application of nitrogen. Studies conducted at IGFRI Jhansi have shown that application of 40-60
kg N/ha and 20-30 kg P2O5/ha have increased pasture production by 50 to 100% in majority of
grasses besides increasing crude protein content considerably (Table 9). Increase in pasture
production due to the application of P205 was of lower order compared to nitrogen application. No
Table 9. Effect of fertilizer on dry matter yield (t/ha) in major range grasses
Treatment S. nervosum C. fulvus B. intermedia C. ciliaris C. setigerus I. laxam H. contortus
N (kg/ha)
0 3.91 4.43 2.52 2.74 2.6 4.43 3.47
20 - - - - 5.31 4.65
30 - 6.83 3.14 3.98 4.15 - -
40 - - - - - 6.37 5.57
60 6.07 8.27 3.32 4.7 5.25 - -
90 - 9.95 3.32 5.62 6.23 - 6.41
P (kg/ha)
0 4.5 6.37 2.28 3.56 3.99 5.09 4.13
20 4.74 7.93 - - - 5.74 5.02
30 - - 3.47 4.31 4.22 5.70 -
40 5.71 7.8 - - - - 6.73
60 - - 3.63 4.85 5.13 - -
18
significant effect on pasture production was found due to potash application (Shankarnarayan et
al., 1973; Shankarnarayan and Rai, 1975; Shankarnarayan et al., 1975). Application of nitrogen
and phosphorus increased pasture production in arid and semi-arid regions of Western India also
(Table 10). Fertilizer application increased crude protein from 7 to 12 per cent. In north-west
Himalayan grazinglands also fertilization (N&P) increased forage yield as shown in Table 11 (Sharma
and Koranne, 1988).
Table 10. Effect of fertilizers on forage production (t/ha) of different grassland of arid and semi arid region in
western India
Grass-cover Fertilizer levels (kg/ha)
0 N 20 N20 + P2O N40 + P2O
Arid region
Lasiurus-Eleusine 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Lesiurus sindicus 2.1 2.6 2.6 3.0
Lasiurus-Cymbopogon 1.8 2.3 2.1 2.0
Lasiurus-Eleusine-Aristita 2.4 2.9 3.1 3.5
Cenchrus-Eleusine-Aristida 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.5
Semi-arid region
Cenchrus-Aristida 2.0 1.8 2.3 2.4
Dichanthium-Aristida 3.2 4.8 5.0 5.4
Cenchrus-Aristida-Sporobolus 1.9 2.9 3.0 3.2
Table 11. Effect of N and P fertilization (kg/ha) on forage production (t/ha) in north-west Himalayan grass-
lands
N levels (kg/ha) P levels (kg/ha) Mean
0 30 60
0 1.78 2.32 3.22 2.44
30 3.42 4.28 5.27 4.32
60 4.70 5.51 7.02 5.74
Mean 3.30 4.03 5.16 -
Application of 60 kg N/ha as ammonium sulphate was the most economic dose for maximum
forage production from Sehima-Heteropogon grasslands as compared to urea, calcium ammonium
nitrate (CAN) and FYM. The increase in the dry matter yield due to ammonium sulphate was 15,
7 and 27 per cent higher than the yield obtained with the application of Urea, CAN and FYM,
respectively. This source of nitrogen also increased the cover of desired species Sehima nervosum
which was much lower in the control (Rai et al., 1979). Third week of July was found most suitable
for fertilizer application as compared to other periods. Studies on Sehima–Heteropogon grasslands
revealed that application of 60 kg N/ha in three equal split doses at 25 days interval from the onset
of monsoon were superior in respect of higher forage production and crude protein yield over single
dose or two split doses of nitrogen (Rai and Kanodia, 1981).
19
The use of nitrogenous fertilizers on grasslands is an expensive affair. Therefore, introduction

of legumes in natural grasslands is a cheap alternative because of their nitrogen fixing ability.
Studies conducted at IGFRI have shown nitrogen equivalence of legumes to the tune of 40-60 Kg
N/ha. Trivedi (2001) also found that application of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) showed a
considerable increase in herbageproduction in selective grazing. Nitrogen alone (40 kg ha-1) exhibited
average increase of 28% in yield while corresponding value for phosphorus (25 kg ha-1) was 22%.
Introduction of improved grass cultivars and legume components: The local grasses,
although hardy, have low yield potential, low protein content and are less palatable. Most of the
grasslands in dry regions, particularly in Africa, are very low in legume components. This is very
important area of concern. Improved grass cultivars with high yield potential and good quality
forage are now available. Of the 5 grasses (Cenchrus ciliaris, C. setigerus, Chloris gayana,
Panicum antidotale and Urochloa mosambicensis tried under semi-arid situations in southern
India (Singh, 1991), C. setigerus yielded highest (3 t ha-1 dry fodder) and was significantly superior
to P. antidotale) which could yield 2t ha-1. Newly introduced legumes like Stylosanthes hamata,
S. scabra and S. viscosa showed great promise not only in enhancing the quantity of forage
available per hectare but also improving the quality of the feed 4-5 fold for achieving higher animal
production. For an ideal range under drylands having rainfall from 70 to 150 cm. S. hamata was
found growing very well in association with Cenchrus ciliaris and the mixture contained 12 to
15% protein.
Peacock et al. (2003) reported that by cultivating selected indigenous forages of the desert in
Arabian Peninsula, which have a good nutritive value and use less water than those currently
grown by the farmers could help in sustainable animal production and sand stabilization. The low
water requiring grasses include Cenchrus ciliaris, Lasiurus scindicus and Coelachyrum piercei.
Dagar (1995a, 2003) and Jaradat (2003) also compiled the list of halophytes for sustainable biosaline
farming systems. Sharma et al. (1990, 1991, 1992) and Dagar (1995b) studied the comparative
yield performance of several perennial fodder grasses and legumes on highly sloping lands of high
rainfall areas of Andaman & Nicobar Islands. The annual average aboveground forage dry matter
of grasses ranged between 12.0 to 23.4 t ha-1. Hybrid napier (Pennisetum purpureum), kazungula
(Setaria anceps) and guinea (Panicum maximum) could produce 73.3, 48.9 and 54.1 t ha-1 fresh
forage while legume stylo (Stylosanthes guianensis) could produce 26.8 t ha-1 fresh forage on
highly sloping acidic soils (pH 6.1) under rainfed condition. When stylo (Stylosanthes guianensis
and S. scabra) were introduced (by simple seeding in natural grassland) it was found to successfully
compete with local grasses and weeds and established on a degraded grassland on sloping land on
acidic soils (pH 6.1), yielding up to 9.8 t ha-1 fresh fodder. In a protected grassland where legumes
like stylo (S. guianensis), calopo (Calopogonium mucunoides) and siratro (Phaseolus
atropurpurium) were coming up on sloping fallow land (colonized by local grasses and seasonal
weeds), it was observed that these legumes could contribute significantly to the total forage production.
The legume forage was about 23%of total forage production. The average total fresh forage
production was 41.8 t ha-1 which was sickle-harvested three times during year. When a systematic
20
experiment was conducted with three introduced grasses and six legume species planted on a
sloping land in grass- legume combination of 2:1 ratio, a fresh forage production of 2.8 to 78 t ha-1
was obtained in different combinations (Table 12).
Table 12. Forage yield (t ha-1) of some grass-legume combinations on hilly lands (with grass: legume ratio of
2:1 in a plant to plant and row to row space of 50 cm x 50 cm)
Legumes/ Grasses None Pennisetum Pennisetum Panicum
pedicellatum polystachion maximum
None - 48.0 58.2 31.2
Calopogonium mucunodies 31.2 78.0 31.6 28.0
Centrosema pubescens 18.6 45.6 57.6 29.2
Macrotyloma axillare 19.5 46.2 56.0 30.2
Phaseolus atropurpureous 21.2 49.2 54.2 30.8
Stylosanthes guianensis 29.5 58.2 59.4 44.8
Phaseolus aureus 24.3 61.0 62.2 44.0
The grazing lands of sodic soils which are very poor in forage production under open grazing
when brought under judicious management these can be explored successfully for sustainable
forage production. Normally grasses are more tolerant to sodicity than other forage crops. Based
on series of long-term experiments it was found that Kallar grass (Leptochloa fusca) can be rated
the most tolerant grass to highly alkali soil and does not show yield reduction at very high pH (10.4).
This is tolerant to high salinity and waterlogged conditions and produced 40 to 50 t ha-1 green
forage. Brachiaria mutica, Leptochloa fusca, Panicum laevifolium, P. antidotale, Chloris
gayana and Cynodon maritimus are other salt-tolerant grasses. Soil improvement under
Leptochloa was highest in terms of reduction in pH and exchangeable cations. Two grasses
(Leptochloa fusca and Brachiaria mutica) were also grown with and without pyrites on alkali
loam soils and found that these could produce on an average 18.9 and 13.8 t ha-1, respectively and
reduced soil pH from 10.3 to 9.5 and 9.6, respectively, soil ECe from 5.5 to 4.3 and 4.5 dS m-1 and
ESP from 75 to 53 and 57, respectively (Tomar and Patil, 1998).
Grasses are usually low in protein content except at early stage of growth. One of the best
method of getting over this situation is the introduction of suitable pasture legume, a component
which is generally lacking in tropical and sub-tropical grasslands. Studies conducted at IGFRI,
Jhansi have shown the nitrogen equivalence of legumes to the tune of 40-60 kg N/ha in natural
grasslands as indicated in table 10 (Rai et al., 1980). Maximum nitrogen equivalence was found in
M. lathyroides (129.7%), followed by D. lablab (121.1%), C. ternatea (89.1%) and Vigna luteola
(74.2%). This means that 40-50 kg N/ha can be added to the grassland soil as microbial fertilizer
manufactured by legumes. Besides being a substitute and a cheap source of nitrogenous fertilizers,
legumes also influence total dry matter production and crude protein yield. Legumes are sown in
lines or broadcast @ 4-6 kg seed/ha at the onset of monsoon. Species choice depends upon the
condition of site, soil type etc. For arid and semi-arid zone the most suitable grasses are Cenchrus
ciliaris.
21
Use of saline water in arid areas: In most of the arid regions of the world the underground
water is saline. During dry period, there is drastic scarcity of fodder and the people lead the
nomadic life taking their herds away in search of fodder. It is quite feasible to increase the production
of the grazing lands using saline water and cultivating improved species of grasses with saline
water. Grasslands on arid calcareous saline soils in dry regions are very poor in yield (average
forage biomass of 0.85 t ha-1 in grazed conditions and about 2.4 t ha-1 when protected from grazing)
but when selected improved species were cultivated and irrigated with saline water these produced
huge fresh forage biomass of 29.8 to 79.6 t ha-1 (Table 13). Interested feature in this study was that
the forage was available during dry season in arid areas when the cattle usually go nomadic due to
scarcity of fodder.
Table 13. Effect of saline irrigation schedules on the yield (t ha-1) of different forage grasses
Species Irrigation levels (Diw/CPE) of saline water
0.4 0.4 0.8 0.8 (D) 0.2 Mean
(canal water) -------Saline water (ECiw = 12 dSm-1)---------
Brachiaria mutica 67.9 57.5 56.1 49.6 45.7 55.7
Cynodon dactylon 39.4 26.4 29.6 27.8 26.0 29.8
Cenchris setigerus 28.9 23.2 22.2 26.6 23.9 25.0
Panicum antidotale 66.3 53.6 48.4 48.6 41.1 51.6
P. coloratum 51.2 35.4 30.4 32.9 23.7 34.7
P. leavifolium 104.6 77.5 81.4 71.0 63.6 79.6
P. maimum (GP) 86.6 58.7 57.3 57.4 48.8 61.8
P. maximum (Local) 83.4 56.9 52.9 51.9 54.1 59.8
P. virgatum 73.6 49.7 46.4 48.7 40.8 51.8
Mean 66.9 48.8 47.2 46.1 40.9 -
LSD (P=0.05) Grasses 17.5 Irrigation 5.0 Grass x Irrigation 14.8
Source: Tomar and Patil (1998); D=Diw doubled
Development of silvipastoral technology at Jhansi – a case study

During 1970-72 at IGFRI, Jhansi while studying the forest grazing areas under dry deciduous
forests and the common village grazing lands it was found that in the prevailing dry climate the
grasslands were seasonal in growth and biomass availability was poor. Under different condition
classes of the habitat and scientific interventions Patil and Pathak (1977) conceptualized the
availability and production of biomass from grasslands under natural pasture, improved pasture,
silvipasture and a synthetic multitier canopy system (Fig 4). Thus, while the natural pasture was
seasonal for only 3 months with less that 1 t dry matter/ha/yr, a multitier system if properly synthesized
could give about 8 t/ha/yr. Based on this hypothesis we worked on different species combinations
for silvipastoral systems. The species used were Albizzia lebbeck, A. amara, dalbergia sissoo,
Leucaena leucocephala, Cenchrus ciliaris, Dichanthium annulatum, Panicum maximum, Tri-
specific hybrid, Stylosanthis seabrana, S. hamata, Amla, etc. At the end of 6 years it was
possible to harvest 10 t/ha/yr. We further improved the components based on the soil quality and
inputs of the farmers and it was possible to harvest 14.6 t/ha/yr under a small farmer situation
22
(Table 14). This study has shown the merit of appropriate management and input decisions that can
improve land productivity. The improved land capability also helps higher productivity and livestock
carrying capacity.
Table 14. Production of different components of silvipasture (%) at different levels of land holding. (A
synthesis of results from 25 years of study at IGFRI, Jhansi)
Production components Small farmers Medium farmers Large farmers A Model
Total Biomass (t/ha) 14.6 12.6 11 10
Timber 13 14 16 23
Harvested firewood 9 17 20 27
Lopped firewood 15 14 16 5
Top feed 18 11 13 15
Pasture 45 44 35 30
Fig 4. Canopy and production attributes of different land use systems
23
Introduction of silvi-pastoral agroforestry systems/ cut-and-carry systems/ protein

banks: The land-use systems in which woody perennials are combined with livestock and pasture
production on the same unit of land was also studied at many places. Cut-and-carry (protein bank),
live fence posts and fodder foliage, and browsing / grazing are main components of these practices.
Silvipastoral systems involving a large number of tree and shrub species and various management
intensities, ranging from extensive nomadic silvi-pastoralism to very high intensity cut-and-carry
fodder systems, were also experimented at various sites. Livestock forms a major component of
agricultural productivity in many developing countries of Africa. For example, livestock makes up
to 30-40% (80% in Mauritania) of the agricultural gross domestic production in the Sudano-Sahelian
countries of West Africa (Nair, 1993) where most of the cattle population is raised primarily for
food products. Basically, two types of silvipastoral systems exist in the semiarid tropics: those with
a crop component and those without. In the Sahel, grazing on natural grass- and shrub-lands
predominating in the northern arid regions and post harvest grazing on agricultural residues in
parklands in southern zones with annual rainfall exceeding 350 mm. In the parklands, herded or
penned livestock are maintained on fallow fields and surrounding grassland during the cropping
season or herded, sometimes long distances, to arid but seasonal productive pastures to the north.
Throughout the semiarid tropics, animals are grazed on harvested fields. In dry season, they
derive between 50 and 80% of their feed intake from crop residues. In Botswana, Shorrock (1981)
estimated that 25% of the total annual diet of livestock was composed of browse trees and shrubs.
Le Houerou (1980) listed nutritional qualities of some tree and shrub fodders. Crude protein ranged
from 12.3 % in Balanites aegytiaca, 14.7% in Acacia albida, 16.2% in Combretum aculeatum,
16.5% in A. raddiana, 21.4% in Boscia angustifolia to 22.5% in Maeurua crassifolia. Dulormne
et al. (2003) assessed nitrogen fixation dynamics in a cut-and-carry silvipastoral system. Di-nitrogen
fixating ranged from 60 to 90% of the total N in aboveground tree (Gliricidia sepium) biomass
depending on season. On an average 76% of N exports in tree pruning (194 kg N ha-1 yr-l) originated
from N2 fixation. Grass production averaged 13t ha-l yr-l and N-export in cut grass was 195 kg N
ha-1 yr-1. The total N fixation by G. sepium as estimated from the tree and grass N exports and
increase of soil N content was 555 kg N ha-l yr-1. Carbon sequestration averaged 1.9 t C ha-1 yr-l
and soil organic N in the 0-02 m layer increased at the rate of 166 kg N ha-1 yr-1, corresponding to
30% of nitrogen fixation by the tree.
Live stock pressure must be balanced as per carrying capacity of a rangeland. However,
most grazing lands in semiarid Africa are communally exploited. Fadherbia albida is an important
tree of the scattered tree or parkland systems in the Sahel. It helps in increasing productivity of
croplands as well as pastures. Similarly, Acacia tortilis - grassland based system in East Africa has
helped in improving soil fertility of grazing lands. Improved, stall-fed dairy animals are the common
livestock types in the sub-humid zone, whereas communally-grazed, local-breed cattle and goats in
dry zone. Belsky et al. (1993) while studying the effects of widely spaced trees of Acacia tortilis
and Adansonia digitata and livestock grazing on understory environments in tropical savannas of
Kenya, reported that tree-crown zones at lightly and moderately grazed sites had a unique under-
24
story flora and higher plant biomass, lower temperatures and bulk density, and higher levels of P, K,
Ca and mineralizable N than their associated grassland zones. In the heavily grazed savanna only
few differences were found in these parameters. The beneficial effects of savanna trees on their
under-story environments appear to diminish with increasing livestock utilization.
For degraded and problematic lands silvi-pastoral management system is most appropriate. It
will not only supplement the additional requirement of forage from lopping of trees and provide fuel-
wood which in turn help in checking deforestation but also will ameliorate the soil properties. On a
shallow red chalka soil having about 2% slope, a silvi-pastoral system comprising tree Leucaena
leucocephala, grass Cenchrus ciliaris and legume forage Stylosanthes hamata in strips, could
rehabilitate the erosion-prone soils in southern India. Besides 5 t ha-1 yr-1 from L. leucocephala
loppings, 6 t ha-1 yr-1 dry forage was obtained from S. hamata and 3 t ha-1 yr-1 from C. ciliaris
(Singh, 1991).
Dagar et al. (2001) reported that for silvi-pastoral system on highly alkali soil Prosopis juliflora,
Acacia nilotica and Tamarix articulata are the most promising trees and Leptochloa fusca,
Chloris gayana and Brachiaria mutica most suitable grasses. L. fusca in association with P.
juliflora produced 46.5 t ha-1 green fodder over a period of 4 years without applying any amendment
and fertilizer. This system improved the soil to such an extent that less tolerant but more palatable
fodder species such as shaftal (Trifolium resupinatum), berseem (T. alexandrinum) and senji
(Melilotus parviflora) could be grown under mesquite trees after six year of growth.
In Australia, at least 5.7 million ha of land is at the high risk of secondary salinity and 17 million
ha are estimated to be at high risk of secondary salinity by the year 2050. Barrett – Lennard (2003)
while dealing with details of management of salt land pastures in Australia identified suitable pasture
plants for both saline and waterlogged situations. For highly saline regions he advocated to raise
samphire (Halosarcia spp.) and saltbushes (species of Atriplex i.e. A. amnicola, A. undulata, A.
nummularia, A. cinerea). For moderate saline regions, along with samphire and saltbushes, the
grasses such as Puccinellia ciliata, Thinophyrum ponticum (tall wheat grass), Distichlis spicata,
Paspalum vaginatum and Sporobolus virginicus could form an ideal pasture mixture. In low-
salinity regions Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana), Pennisetum clandestinum and legumes Melilotus
alba and Trifolium michelianum could increase protein contents of the forage. T. michelianum
also tolerates waterlogging.
Grewal (1984) developed a silvi-pastoral model for rainwater conservation and production of
fuel and forage from alkali lands. Trees such as Acacia nilotica, Eucalyptus tereticornis and
Parkinsonia aculeata were planted on ridges and kallar grass (L. fusca) was established in the
trenches between ridges. Besides producing forage and fuel-wood this system could conserve
rainwater during monsoon, which in turn increased forage in the interspaces and growth of trees on
ridges. Thus the system was found quite useful in checking run-off and soil loss and conserving
moisture (Table 15).
25
Table 15. Rainfall, runoff, soil loss and water balance in flat and ridge and furrow silvi-pastoral systems
Components Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Ridge-furrow Flat Ridge-furrow Flat Ridge-furrow Flat
Rainfall (mm) 295 295 585 585 512 512
Runoff (mm) 0 169 0 40.1 0 337
Soil loss (t ha-1) 83.05 114.73 9.39 23.86 1.10 8.58
Retention (mm) 295 126 585 184 512 175
Soil storage (mm) 88 58 132 79 216 95
Evaporation (mm) 207 69 453 105 269 80
Dagar et al. (2001) developed raised and sunken bed technique for silvi-pastoral and agri-
silvicultural practices on alkali soil in which forest and fruit trees were planted on raised bunds and
grasses and crops in sunken beds. The forages like Kallar grass (Leptochloa fusca) and berseem
(Trifolium alexandrium) could produce fresh forage respectively on an average of 26 and 48 t ha-
1
yr-1 with pomegranate and 26 and 46 t ha-1 yr-1 with Salvadora persica as compared to 21 and 45
t ha-1 yr-1 without any plantation. The silvi-pastoral system was found superior in soil amelioration
as compared to agri-silvicultural system and plantation alone. In one experiment conducted on
saline black soils (Vertic Ustochrepts) with about 2 to 3 % salt in the surface 30 cm soil which are
otherwise predominated by salt-tolerant grasses like Aeluropus lagopoides, Aristida adscensionis,
Sporobolus marginatus and Dactyloctenium aegyptium, it was found that Leptochloa fusca,
Dichanthium annulatum and Eragrostis sp. could produce on an average 3.72, 1.8 and 1.0 t ha-
1
yr-1 green forage, respectively (Rao and Babu, 1997).
While studying the soil erosion problems of Kshipra ravines, Dagar and Mall (1980) and
Dagar (1987 a,b,c; 1999) identified several suitable woody and herbaceous forage species for
raising in grazing lands of ravines. It was found that Dichanthium annulatum, D. caricosum,
Bothriochloa pertusa and Cynodon dactylon had very high conservation value and these are
considered quite palatable. These may be successfully raised in ravine lands. When protected
Themeda triandra, Iseilema laxum and legumes like species of Alysicarpus and Stylosanthes
can be mixed up with grasses. Species of Dicharithium, Bothriochloa, Iseilema, Chrysopogon,
Vetiver and Saccharum which are also resistant to grazing are most suitable for moderate grazing.
These also thrive well on slopes of ravines. Aggregate analysis under several grasses showed that
the above grasses have better aggregate properties. The forage trees which were suitable for
ravine lands included Acacia eburnea, A. nilotica, A. leucophloea, Cordia myxa, Balanites
roxburghii, Aegle marmelos, Azadirachta indica, Pongamia pinnata, Dichrostachis cineria,
Leucaena leucocephala and Prosopis juliflora. These along with suitable forage grasses and
legumes may form sustainable silvi-pastoral system in ravine lands.
Dhruvanarayana and Ram Babu (1991) while reviewing social and economic considerations
in the management of soils of hilly regions advocated that tree species Dalbergia sissoo and
Acacia catechu along with forage grass Chrysopogon fulvus and fibre grass Eulaliopsis binata
form economical viable system for hilly regions of Doon Valley. The benefit: cost indicated that
26
Dalbergia – Chrysopogon (B: C ratio = 2.75), Chrysopogon alone for fodder (B : C ratio = 3.02)
and Acacia catechu planted with Eulaliopsis (B : C ratio = 3.43) are quite economical for this
region. Encouraging results were also obtained in respect of raising woody species like Grewia
optiva, Albizia lebbeck, Bauhinia purpurea, Leucaeua leucopehala for prunned biomass and
top feed and grass Chrysopogon fulvus for forage and fibre species Eulaliopsis binata in bouldery
riverbed lands of Doon Valley. Kudzu vine (Pueraria lobata) was found a useful leguminous
species with an excellent fodder potential as a cover crop.
Environmental issues
Improvement of microenvironment
Early studies conducted on silvipastoral components showed reduced temperature under the
tree canopy, higher soil moisture and humidity. It provided ideal microenvironment to help higher
level of dry matter production for the under storey grasses and legumes and also succulent forage
for the grazing animals. The duration of availability of the green biomass also increased helping
better nutrition to the livestock.
Soil and water conservation
Silvipasture system reduced soil loss (1.3 against 17.8 t/ha/yr), It enhanced conservation of
soluble nutrients, improved infiltration rates, thus better water resources for drinking and agriculture.
It enriched soil carbon (1.13 times) and nitrogen (1.5 times) pool – thus showing its ameliorative
role, Change in soil physical structure, Providing higher nutrition to animals, 10 – 15% yield advantage
in tree biomass, the cover crop also checked erosion and consequently ensured enriched biodiversity
(IDRC, 2002).
Thus, when degraded and problem soils are brought under silvi-pastoral system, the soil health
could be restored in terms of organic carbon and available nutrients. Infiltration rate is increased
and runoff is reduced considerably. Significant improvement in soil physical and nutrient attributes
was observed after 4 years of land use under silvi-pastural system (Hazra, 1994) involving trees
like Albizia lebbeck, Acacia nilotica, Leucaena leucocephala along with grasses and legumes
such as Cenchrus ciliaris and Stylosanthes hamata (Table 16). There are several such studies
which prove that silvi-pastoral system helps in increasing organic matter content, available nitrogen
and phosphorus, field capacity and decrease in bulk density, runoff and soil loss (Misra et al., 1982;
Pathak and Dagar, 1998). Srivastava et al. (1989) and Jha and Singh (1991, 1994) observed that
grasses and legumes provided early colonization of mine spoils. Grass species such as Bothriochloa
intermidia, B. pertusa, Cenchrus setigerus and Chrysopogon fulvus and legumes like
Stylosanthes hamata, Clitoria ternatea, Macroptilium atropurpureum are desirable as colonizer
on mine spoils. Carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus are taken as indices of soil redevelopment and soil
microbial biomass plays a key role in the establishment of nutrient cycling.
27
Table 16. Effect of silvi-pastural development on barren hillocks on soil properties after ten years
Soil properties Initial After 10 years under silvi-pasture of
value Pasture Leucaena Hardwickia Acacia Albizia
alone leucocephola binata nilotica lebbeck
Organic carbon % 0.21 0.78 1.12 0.79 0.86 0.96
Available nutrients (kg/ha)
N 93 202 328 249 273 297
P 8 13 24 16 18 21
K 80 240 375 226 253 298
S 4 22 43 24 28 35
Bulkdensity (g l-1) 1.78 1.39 1.23 1.39 1.37 1.28
Pore space (%) 32 47 53 47 47 51
Source: Hazra (1994)
Carbon séquestration
Grasses and trees provide very good land cover and thus reduce surface runoff and soil loss
in turn saving precious soil and nutrients from erosion. The process also helps reducing siltation of
reservoirs. Biomass production increase through different innovations has implication for the fixation
of CO2 from the atmosphere. Gupta and Rao (1994) opined that the continuous increase in CO2
levels of the atmosphere leading to global warming has serious implications for agriculture and
environment. The tropical soils are largely carbon depleted and have a high potential to act as a sink
for this additional carbon. They state that the present stock of carbon in the Indian soils (24.3 Pg)
can be increased to 34.9 Pg. Thus, there is a potential of 10.6 Pg for sequestering additional carbon.
They advocate that grasses and trees planted on the degraded lands have a potential of sequestering
1.9 Pg in 7 years as against emission of 2.27 Pg in the same period thus slowing down the warming.
Thus, biomass production optimization through multi species stands should be the priority for sustaining
the system and continuously improving the environment.
In a separate study it was also found that under elevated CO2 levels accompanied by elevated
ambient temperature under open top chambers the perennial grasses and legumes produced >2.5
times more biomass due to their higher photosynthesis. Such a situation under three or four tier
silvipasture system helps biomass optimization due to increased level of CO2 from soil respiration
and also sequestration of Carbon in herbaceous, woody biomass and soil.
Bhatt et al. (2006) observed maximum carbon sequestration in a 3 year stand of Panicum
maximum, L. leucocephala and S. hamata (Table 17). In another study they found that in a 20
year old A. tortilis + C. ciliaris based silvipasture system the carbon sequestration potential was
57.37 Mg as against 13.74 Mg in open grassland and 10.125 Mg in the soil. Several studies on tree
based systems that mimic a savanna situation the carbon sequestration potential was high as compared
to only pasturelands. This shows the potential of grasslands and savannas in sequestering atmospheric
carbon dioxide. Follett and Schuman (2005) concluded that “on global basis, grazing lands sequester
28
Table 17. Carbon sequestration in silvipastures after three years of system growth
Systems Total carbon sequestration
(Vegetation + soil) (Mg carbon/ha)
Panicum maximum 23.00
Cenchrus ciliaris 19.40
Stylosanthes hamata 10.78
P. maximum + S.hamata + Leucaena leucocephala 29.16
P. maximum + S.hamata +Grewia optiva 28.88
C. ciliaris+ S. hamata + A. tortilis 23.29
C. ciliaris+ S. hamata + A. tortilis 23.26
Average 22.54
substantial amounts of SOC annually. That data in table 16 show that with improved management
and species inclusion the sequestration potential can be greatly enhanced. This will be an important
strategy to assist in mitigating the green house gas effect” to maintain a healthy environment.
Biodiversity
Ellenberg (1996) observed that the biodiversity of semi-natural species rich grasslands has
developed over centuries under the influence of traditional human management. It is the result of
wide range of environmental conditions and anthropogenic factors including the grazing management
that has shaped it. Natural grazing lands show very high species diversity. It is understood that
biodiversity supports production function of grasslands. Singh et al. (1979) observed that the
grassland production system was inversely proportional to stability, and dominance though less
efficient the diversity gave more production to the system. It is interesting to note that diversity
increases resilience of the system to face adverse environmental conditions. Recent ecological
studies on relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem services suggests that preserving and
restoring biodiversity has potential to support agricultural functions of the grasslands Minns et al.
(2001).
Interestingly the below ground biodiversity including the population density of the organisms
below ground under different production systems is maximum that helps higher biomass productivity
of the system including the total carbon sequestration. A comparison of below ground biodiversity in
different forage production systems viz., natural grasslands (NG), managed pasture (MP), tree
groves (TG), silvopastures (SP) and forage cultivation (FC) analyzed at IGFRI, Jhansi (Roy, 2003
unpublished Report, Table 18) showed comparatively, higher soil biodiversity in natural grassland
followed by silvipastures, managed pastures, tree groves and forage cultivation sites respectively.
Pasture development under old plantations: In India, about 3.7 million ha land is under
miscellaneous tree crops and groves, out of which 1.9 million ha is under coconut alone. Most of
ground area under these plantations lie unutilized and are open to stray animals and soil cover is
either negligible or covered by wild bushes or unpalatable weeds. They provide ideal site for
development of pasture / fodder resource without interfering with the fruit production. The available
29
Table 18. List of below ground soil biota associated with different forage systems at Jhansi
S.No Groups Genera Systems
BL NG MP TG SP FC
1 Collembola 12 5 12 9 7 8 3
2 Other Meso-fauna 2 0 1 1 2 1 1
3 Grasshoppers 2 0 2 2 0 2 2
4 Other insects 34 4 30 25 20 25 3
5 Spiders 5 1 3 5 2 3 3
6 Mites 20 4 20 10 14 18 10
7 Myriapoda 2 0 2 2 2 2 2
8 Molluscs 2 0 2 2 0 2 0
9 Nematode 8 4 8 8 4 8 4
10 Actinomycetes 6 3 6 5 3 6 6
11 Bacteria 9 2 9 8 5 9 9
12 Fungi 9 2 9 7 5 9 9
BL = Bare land, NG= Natural grassland, MP = Managed pasture, TG = Tree grove, SP = Silvopasture, FC = Forage cultivation
literature suggests that the carrying capacity under the old coconut plantations ranges from 0.5 to
3.0 animals per hectare and is capable of achieving a growth rate of 135 kg per animals per year
(Rika et al., 1981). Fertilizer use efficiency of plantation based fodder farms is more than open
area farming. In high rainfall areas, forage grasses like guinea hamil (Panicum maximum), dinanath
(Penmisetum pedicellatum) & hybrid napier (P. purpureum), Guatemala (Tripsacum laxum) and
legumes like calopo (Calopogonium mucunoides), centro (Centrosema pubescens), sirato
(Phaseolus atropurpureum) and stylo (Stylosanthes guianensis and S. hamata) were successfully
grown under the old plantations of coconut. In a specific study, it was found that Panicum maximum,
Pennisetum polystachion and P. pedicellatum when grown in coconut beds, these could yield 30
to 58 t ha-1 fresh forage per annum.
The new developments undertaken as a measure of degraded wastelands development or
grazing land improvement show great promise for optimizing biomass production. Under appropriate
management and utilization, they have a promise for improving livestock production. The increasing
human and livestock pressure on grasslands call for intensive management and new innovations to
save these grasslands. The examples of Kangayam grasslands in south India amply show the role
of management in sustainable production. Grasslands in different climatic regions of the country
are preserved by the wildlife parks in the forests where natural grasses and legumes are utilized by
the herbivores. Under increasing pressure of these, they also call for management. The issue of
land degradation due to water and wind erosion also calls for the services of grasses as land cover
to control them. Thus, humanity should take good care for the maintenance of grasslands to sustain
the economy and environment.
30
Epilogue
The sustained management of grasslands/rangelands is a serious global challenge The
establishment of grasslands and grazing animals as major life forms extends well back into the
geological history. Most fertile and productive soils developed under grasslands, praries, steppes,
annual grasslands and savannas have developed under different climatic and topographic situations.
Anthropogenic factors have played a significant role in shaping these grasslands from time to time.
But with increased biotic interferences it is evident that the desertification of the rangelands is
ongoing. Even though the damage from overgrazing is spreading, the world’s livestock population
continues to grow, tracking the growth in human population. With more than 180 million pastoralists
worldwide now trying to make a living tending 3.3 billion cattle, sheep and goats, grasslands are
under heavy pressure. As a result of overstocking, the grasslands (basically grazing lands) are now
further deteriorating in much of the developing world. Most of the rangelands in developing countries
are on degraded and problematic lands.. The current and future demands of feeds and fodder can
be met only if sincere efforts are made at political, scientific and farmer’s levels. There is no
alternative to improving local fodder production, if we want to cater to the perishable animal product
demands of the ever-increasing population. The onus of successfully tackling this monster of fodder
scarcity rests with a strategic planning. Conversion of culturable wastes and fallow lands into
perennial scientifically managed fodder farms/silvipastures can very effectively cater to year round
fodder demands. The permanent pasture or grazing lands can be developed into perennial sustainable
silvi-pastoral fodder farms. Control grazing or complete fencing, judicious application of fertilizers,
introduction of legume components, weeding, creation of local feed alternatives, seasonal fodder
cultivation, providing seeds/germplasm of quality fodders, optimizing harvest schedules, moisture
conservation, fodder farming under old plantations, using improved productive varieties of grasses
and legumes for fodder production, awareness among farmers, more research efforts, and
government initiatives are some measures which can help in sustainable management of rangelands.
Growing of indigenous potential nitrogen fixing fodder trees on pasture lands must be encouraged
under silvipasture programmes in social forestry. The carrying capacity of rangelands can only be
raised if the fertility status of soil on rangelands is increased and this can readily be done by fencing
or selective grazing and introducing leguminous forages during rainy season. The depleted
components of any ecosystem need to be made good for, lest the system will get imbalanced and
disarrayed. Hence, for sustained, ecologically tolerable, intensive fodder production and judicious
restocking of depleted nutrients from the soils need to be ensured. The stigmatic animal productivity
can only be improved if the nutrient status of local livestock is improved, which in turn can only be
done when the rangelands and other fodder resources are developed with scientific motto. The
problem can be tackled, surely but diligently. As most of the rangelands are on degraded and
problematic lands which need to bring under judicious silvi-pastoral systems. Above all the menace
of stray and poor breed cattle is to be tackled henceforth. If we are really serious about the
economic growth of the country we would have to give proper impetus to our dwindling grazing/
pasture lands.
31
References
Anonymous. 2010. Degraded and wastelands of India: status and spatial distribution, ICAR & NAAS. pp.158.
Barrett-Lennard, E.G. 2003. Salt land Pastures in Australia : A Practical Guide. Land, water & wool sustainable grazing
on saline lands programme. State of Western Australia. pp.176.
Bhatt, R.K., M.J. Baig, R.B. Yadav and S. Roy. 2006. Effect of high level CO2 on biomass production and carbon
sequestration in silvipastoral systems under semi-arid tropics. AP Cess Report, ICAR, New Delhi. pp 50.
Belsky A.J., S.M. Mwonga and J.M. Duxbury 1993. Effects of wide spaced trees and livestock grazing on understory
environments in tropical savannas. Agroforestry Systems. 24: 1-20.
lasco, F. 1983. The transition from open forest to savanna in continental South East Asia. In: Bourliere F. (ed.). Tropical
Savannas. Ecosystems of the world, 13, Elsevier, Amsterdam. pp. 167-181.
Box, T.W., G.M. Van Dyne and N.E. West. 1969. Range Resources of North America. Utah State Univ. Bookstore, Logan,
Utah. pp.769.
Bridges, E.M. and L.R. Oldeman. 1999. Global assessment of human-induced soil degradation. Arid Soil Research &
Rehabilitation 13: 319-325.
Champion, H.G. and S.K. Seth. 1968. A Revised Survey of Forest Types of India. Manager of Publication, Government of
India, New Delhi.
Coupland, R.T. 1992. Ecosystems of the World: Natural Grasslands : Eastern Hemisphere and Resume. Vol. 8 B. Elsevier
Science Publishers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Dabadghao, P.M. and K.A. Shankarnarayan 1973. The grass covers of India. Indian Council of Agricultural Research,
New Delhi.
Dagar, J.C. 1987a. Species composition and plant biomass of an ungrazed and a grazed grassland at Ujjain, India. Tropical
Ecology 28: 208-215.
Dagar, J.C. 1987b. Responses of clipping treatments on nine-palatable perennial grasses. Tropical Ecology. 28: 216-221.
Dagar, J.C. 1987c. Studies on reclamation of Kshipra ravines. Indian J. For. 10: 83-89.
Dagar, J.C. 1995a. Ecology of halophytic vegetation in India: a review. International Journal of Ecology and Environmental
Sciences 21: 273-296.
Dagar, J.C. 1995b. Agroforestry systems for the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. International Tree Crops J. 8:107-128.
Dagar, J.C. 2003. Biodiversity of Indian saline habitats and management and utilization of high salinity tolerant plants
with industrial application for rehabilitation of saline areas. In: A.S. Alsharhen, W.W. Wood, A.S. Goudie, A.D.
Fowler, E.M. Aodellatif (eds.). Desertification of the Third Millennium. A.A. Balkema Publishers, Lisse, The
Netherlands. pp. 151-172.
Dagar, J.C. and L.P. Mall. 1980. Studies on the vegetation of ravines and banks of the river Kshipra and its tributaries. J.
Indian Bot. Soc. 59: 234-245.
Dagar, J.C., H.B. Sharma and Y.K. Shukla. 2001. Raised and sunken bet technique for agroforestry on alkali soils of
northwest India. Land Degradation & Development. 12:107-118.
Dagar, J.C. and G. Singh. 2003. Pasture production in degraded and problematic soils – Status and Prospects. In: R.C.
Jakhmola and R.K. Jain (eds.). Sustainable Animal Production. Pionter Publishers, Jaipur, India. pp. 94-119.
32
Dhruva Narayana, V.V. and Ram Babu. 1991. Social and economic considerations in the management of soils of hilly
regions. In: Technologies for Wasteland Development. ICAR, New Delhi. pp. 273-284.
Dregne, H.E. and N-Ting. Chou. 1992. Global desertification dimensions and costs. In: H.E. Dregne (ed.). Degradation
& Restoration of Arid Lands. International Centre for Arid & Semiarid Land Studies, Texas Tech. Univ. pp. 249-282.
Dulormne M., J. Sierra, P. Nygren and P. Cruz. 2003. Nitrogen-fixation dynamics in a cut-and-carry silvopastoral system
in the subhumid conditions of Guadeloupe, French Antilles. Agroforestry Systems 59: 121-129.
El-Keblawy, A.A. 2003. Effects of protection from grazing on species diversity, abundance and productivity in two
regions of Abu Dhabi, United Arab emirates. In: .S. Alsharhen, W.W. Wood, A.S. Goudie, A.D. Fowler, E.M.
Aodellatif (eds.). Desertification of the Third Millennium. A.A. Balkema Publishers, Lisse, The Netherlands. pp.
217-226.
Ellenberg, H. 1996. The vegetation of central Europe including the Alps. 5th edition. Ulmer Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany.
pp 1095.
Grewal, S.S. 1984. Studies on rainwater conservation for the establishment of an agroforestry system on sodic soil. Ph.D.
Thesis, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra.
Gupta, S.R. and J.S. Singh. 1982. Carbon balance of a tropical successional grassland. Oecol. Generalis 3: 459-467.
Hair, D. 1980. An Assessment of Forest and Rangeland Situation in the United States. U.S. Forest Service, USA. pp 631.
Hazra, C.R. 1994. Soil and water conservation for natural resource regeneration in agroforestry. Range Mgmt. & Agroforestry
15(2): 229-239.
IDRC. 2002. Final Report Operational Research Project on Silvipastoral systems, IGFRI, Jhansi.
Jacobs, L. 1991. Waste of the West. Public Land Grazing. Tuscon, Az. pp. 602.
Jaradat, A.A. 2003. Halophytes for sustainable biosaline farming systems in Middle East. In: A.S. Alsharhen, W.W.
Wood, A.S. Goudie, A.D. Fowler, E.M. Aodellatif (eds.). Desertification of the Third Millennium. A.A. Balkema
Publishers, Lisse, The Netherlands. pp. 187-204.
Jha, A.K. and J.S. Singh. 1991. Vascular flora of naturally revegetated coalmine spoils in a dry tropical environment. J.
Tropical For. 6: 131-141.
Jha, A.K. and J.S. Singh. 1994. Rehabilitation of mine spoils with particular reference to multipurpose trees. In: Agroforestry
Systems for Sustainable Land Use. Oxford & IBH Publ. Co., New Delhi. pp. 237-249.
Kaul, R.W. and B.N. Ganguli. 1963. Fodder potential of Zizyphus in the shrub grazing lands of arid zone. Indian For. 39:
623-630.
Kumar, A. and M.C. Joshi. 1972. The effect of grazing on the structure and productivity of vegetation near Pilani,
Rajasthan, India. J. Ecol. 60: 665-675.
Kwesiga F. 1994. Performance of fifteen provenances of Gliricidia sepium in eastern Zambia. Forest Ecology & Management.
64: 161-170.
Kwesiga F., F.K. Akinnifesi, P.L. Mafongoya, M.H. McDermott and A. Agumya. 2003. Agroforestry research and
development in southern Africa during the 1990s: Review and challenges ahead. Agroforestry Systems 59: 173-186.
Le Houerou H.N. 1980. Browse in Africa– The Current State of Knowledge. ILCA, Addis Ababa. pp. 498.
Lieth, H. and R. Whittaken. 1973. Primary Productivity of the Biosphere. Springer-Verlog, New York.
33
Mall, L.P. and V.P. Singh. 1977. Responses of Themeda triandra Forsk. grass to various clipping treatments. J. Indian
Bot. Soc. 56: 202-207.
Margalef, R. 1968. Perspectives in Ecological Theory. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago. pp. 111.
Mc Naughton, S.J. 1967. Relationship among functional properties of California grassland. Nature 216 (5111): 168-169.
Melkania, N.P. and J.S. Singh. 1989. Ecology of Indian grasslands. In: J.S. Singh and, B. Gopal (eds.). Perspectives in
Ecology. Jagmander Book Agency, New Delhi. pp. 67-103.
Minns, A., J. Finn, A. Hector, M. Caldeira, J. Joshi, C. Palmberg, B. Schmid, M. Scherer-Lorenzen, E. Spehn and A.
Troumbis. 2001. The functioning of Europian grassland ecosystems: potential benefits of biodiversity to agriculture.
Outlook on Agriculture 30: 179-185.
Misra, R. 1987. Ecology of grazing land of India. Sri P. M. Dabadghao Memorial Lecture, Range Management Society of
India, IGFRI, Jhansi. pp. 1-29.
Misra, S.M., B.D. Patil and P.S. Pathak. 1982. Comparative differences in soil properties as a result of growing different
grass, legume and tree combination. Indian J. Range Mmgt. 3(1-2): 71-74.
Misri, B. 2003. Migratory goat and sheep rearing in Himachal Pradesh, India. In: J.M. Suttie, S.G. Reynolds (eds.).
Transhumant grazing systems in Temperate Asia. FAO, Rome. pp. 331.
Nair, P.K.R. 1993. An Introduction to Agroforestry. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Pande, H. and J.S. Singh. 1985. Influence of clipping and water stress on growth performance and nutrient value of four
range grasses. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. (Plant Sci.) 95: 389-403.
Pandeya, S.C. 1988. Status of Indian rangelands. Range Management Society if India. Jhansi, India. pp. 213.
Patil, B.D. and P.S. Pathak. 1977: Energy plantation and silvipastoral systems for rural areas. Invention Intelligence 12(1-2):79-87.
Pathak, P.S. and J.C. Dagar. 1998. Agroforestry: a strategy for rehabilitation of degraded lands. In: B. Gopal P.S. Pathak
and K.G. Saxena (eds.). Ecology Today: An Anthology of Contemporary Ecological Research. International
Scientific Publications, New Delhi. pp.333-371.
Patten, B.C. 1963. Plankton : Optimum diversity structure of a summer community. Science 140: 894-898.
Peacock, J.M., G.A. Alhadrami, M.E. Ferguson, R. Karnik, I.R. McCann, and A. Saleh. 2003. Desert forages of the
Arabioan Peninsula – The Conservation and utilization of biodiversity for sustainable animal production in the
united Arab Emirates. In: A.S. Alsharhen, W.W. Wood, A.S. Goudie, A.D. Fowler, E.M. Aodellatif, (eds.).
Desertification of the Third Millennium. A.A. Balkema Publishers, Lisse, The Netherlands. pp. 131-138.
Rai, P. and K.C. Kanodia. 1981. Effect of split application of nitrogen on the quantity and quality of Sehima-Heteropogon
grasslands. Forage Res.7: 8385.
Rai, P., K.C. Kanodia, B.D. Patil, K.C. Velayudhan and R. Agrawal. 1980. Nitrogen equivalence of range legumes
introduces in natural grasslands. Indian J. Range Mgmt.1: 97-101.
Ram, J., J.S. Singh, and S.P. Singh. 1989. Plant biomass, species diversity and net primary production in a central
Himalayan high altitude grassland. J. Ecol. 77: 456-468.
Rao, Gururaja, G. and R. Babu. 1997. Forage grasses for saline black soil-an appraisal. Salinity News 8: 5-6.
Rika, I.K., I.M. Nitish and L.R. Humphrogs. 1981. Effects of stocking rates on cattle growth, pasture production and
coconut yield in Bali. Tropical Grasslands. 15: 149-157.
34
Shankarnarayan, K.A., P.M. Dabadghao, P. Rai, V.S. Upadhyay and R.K. Maurya. 1973. Fertilizers for the grasslands
of Heteropogon contortus in Jhansi. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 43: 562-566.
Shankarnarayan, K.A., P.M. Dabadghao, V.S. Upadhyay and P. Rai.1975b. Note of the effect of NPK on Sehima
grasslands. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 45: 383-386.
Shankarnarayan, K.A. and P. Rai. 1975a. Effect of fertilizer application on dry matter production in Iseilema laxum
grassland at Jhansi. Forage Res. 1: 155-157.
Sharma, A.K., J.C. Dagar and A.K. Bandyopadhyay. 1990. Fodder Resources of Bay Islands. CARI Research Bulletin
No. 3. CARI, Port Blair. pp.71.
Sharma, A.K., J.C. Dagar and R.N. Pal. 1991. Comparative yield performance and water use efficiency of eleven exotic
fodder grasses in the humid tropics. Trop. Ecol. 32(2): 245-254.
Sharma, A.K., J.C. Dagar and R.N. Pal. 1992. Performance of perennial fodder grasses under continuous growth in
tropical islands. Trop. Sci. 32: 383-388.
Sharma, B.R. and K.D. Karanne. 1988. Present status and management strategies for increasing biomass production in
North-Western Himalayan rangelands. In: P. Singh and P.S. Pathak (eds), Rangeland Resource and Management.
RMSI, IGFRI, Jhansi, India, pp.138-147.
Shorrock C. 1981. A note on the in-vitro dry matter digestibility determination of mixed harbage and browse samples
collected with oescophlageal fistulated steers. J. Agric. Sci. 98: 483-485.
Singh, J.S. and S.R. Gupta. 1992. Grasslands of Southern Asia. In: R.T. Coupland (ed.). Ecosystems of the World: Natural
Grasslands: Eastern Hemisphere and Resume. Vol. 8B. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
pp. 83-123.
Singh, J.S. and L. Krishnamurthy. 1981. Analysis of structure and function of tropical grassland vegetation of India.
Indian Review of Life Sci. 1: 225-270.
Singh, J.S. and R. Misra. 1969. Diversity, dominance, stability and net production in the grasslands at Varanasi. Can. J.
Bot. 47: 425-427.
Singh, H.S., K.P. Singh and P.S. Yadav. 1979. Ecosystem synthesis. In: R.T. Coupland (ed.). Grassland Ecosystems of the
World: Analysis of Grasslands and Their Uses. Intl. Biol. Prog. 18, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge. pp. 231-239.
Singh, J.S. and P.S. Yadav. 1974. Seasonal variation in composition, plant biomass and net primary productivity of a
tropical grassland at Kurukshetra India. Ecol. Monograph. 44: 351-275.
Singh, R.P. 1991. Land degradation problems- their management in the semi-arid tropics. In: Technologies for Wasteland
Development. ICAR, New Delhi. pp. 125-136.
Srivastava, S.C., A.K. Jha and J.S. Singh.1989. Changes with time in soil biomass C, N and P of mine spoils in a dry
tropical environment. Canadian J. Soil Sci. 69: 849-855.
Trivedi, B.K. 2001. Ecological management of Iseilema grassland for sustainable production. Range Mgmt. & Agroforestry
22(1): 6-19.
Tomar, O.S. and S.D. Patil. 1998. Alternate land uses. In: 25 Years of Research on Management of Salt-affected Soils and
Use of Saline Water in Agriculture. CSSSRI, Karnal. pp. 189-202.
US/IBP Grassland Biome. 1973. Analysis of Structure, Function, and Utilization of Grassland Ecosystems : Vol. I and II.
A Progress Report. Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, Colorado. pp. 305-316.
35
Van Dyne, G.M., F.M, Smith, R.L Czaplewski, and R.G. Woodmansee. 1978. Analysis and syntheses of grassland
ecosystem dynamics. In: J.S. Singh and B. Gopal (eds.). Glimpses of Ecology. International Scientific Publications,
Jaipur, India. pp. 1-79.
Walter, H. 1973. Vegetation of the Earth– in Relation to Climate and the Eco-physiological Condition. Springer-Verlag,
New York. pp. 237.
WRI. 1990. World Resources 1991. World Resource Institute, Oxford Univ. Press, New York. pp. 383.
WRI. 2000. World Resources 2000-2001. World Resource Institute, Oxford Univ. Press, nEw York. pp. 389.
Yadav, P.S. and J.S. Singh.1977. Grassland Vegetation: its Structure, Function, Utilization and Management. Today and
Tomorrow’s Printers and Publishers, New Delhi. pp. 132.
36
View publication stats

Grasslands of India

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Grasslands of India

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Indian grasslands and their management

Chapter · January 2016

Saline agriculture View project

Agroforestry View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Evolution of grassland systems and their degradation

Degradation of grazing lands

Table 1. Rangeland desertification (million ha) and India’s share in it

Grasslands: a global scenario

Indian grass covers

Grass cover environment

Stability of grazing lands

A considerable amount of surplus dry mater accumulates under protection in successional

Standing crop and primary production

Fig 2. Relationship between different structure parameters of tropical grasslands

so is capacity of grazing land) is strongly dependent on rainfall or access to water as illustrated by

Approaches to management of rangelands/pastures

Following approaches may help in management of rangelands particularly in degraded and

Control grazing or sickle harvesting: In series of experiments conducted by Mall and

The use of nitrogenous fertilizers on grasslands is an expensive affair. Therefore, introduction

Development of silvipastoral technology at Jhansi – a case study

Fig 4. Canopy and production attributes of different land use systems

Introduction of silvi-pastoral agroforestry systems/ cut-and-carry systems/ protein

View publication stats

You might also like