8/3/2018

IMPACT OF REHABILITATION OF TEA

SOILS AND DEVELOPMENT OF AN
SOIL QUALITYINDEX

NPSN Bandara1, UP Abeysekara1, N Navaratna2, AK Prematunga2

MGS Liyanage1, EWTP Prematunga1, DW Vithana1, DDN Amendra1
GP Guneratna3, KG Prematilaka4

1Agronomy Division, 2Entomology Division

3Soil & Plant Nutrient Division, 4Uva-Wellassa University
2018-08-03

Te a Re s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e o f S r i L a n k a

Introduction
• Soil rehabilitation with planting Mana or Gautemala Grass is
recommended for a period of 18 or 24 months as a measure of
improving the conditions of the soil.
• The aim of the soil rehabilitation is to improve soil physical,
chemical and biological properties, favorable for the tea plant
growth.
• Eliminating the soil born and other pathogens and reducing the
weed seed density in soil are other benefits.

Te a Re s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e o f S r i L a n k a

1
 8/3/2018

Introduction..,
• Planting grasses for a certain period can be considered as a
part of land preparation techniques, like tillage or adding
organic amendments.
• Conventional land preparation prior to cultivation has some
limitations in tea cultivation;
• Being a perennial crop
• Grown in high rain fall areas/ high intensity rain falls
• Undulating terrain
• High capital cost
• Material availability
Te a Re s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e o f S r i L a n k a

Land Preparation Techniques

Tillage, crop
rotation and
cultivation of
cover crops and
crop rotation can
be considered as
land preparation
techniques in
annual and
perennial crop
cultivation.

Te a Re s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e o f S r i L a n k a

2
 8/3/2018

Opportunity Cost of Rehabilitation

• Some concern from the small holder farmers, about the long
term period, avoiding the farmgate income
• Some claims about the less impact of rehabilitation
• As the rehabilitation is a recommendation for entire fields,
some claim for the necessity of rehabilitating a “fertile field”
• Hence, there is a necessity for a mechanism to identify the
quality status of the soils for identifying for direct planting

Te a Re s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e o f S r i L a n k a

Development of a Soil Quality Index

• Development of a soil quality was first discussed by Warkentin and
Fletcher 1977. They emphasized that soil resources are constantly
being evaluated for many different uses;
• Larson & Pierce (1991) defined soil quality as the capacity of a soil
to function within the ecosystem boundaries and to interact
positively with surrounding ecosystems.
• For tea plantations, soils quality index can be defined as the ability
to sustain a profitable tea cultivation with an ability to increase the
productivity, with enduring changes in climate

Te a Re s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e o f S r i L a n k a

3
 8/3/2018

Component of a Soil Quality Index

• Component of a Soil Quality Index are (Arshad and Martin
2002)
1. the ability of soil to enhance crop production (productivity
component);
2. the ability of soil to function in attenuation of
environmental contaminants, pathogens, and offsite
damage (environment component); and
3. the linkage between soil quality and plant, animal and
human health (health component).

The present calculated SQI has shown productivity component

of a SQI in some elevations.

Te a Re s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e o f S r i L a n k a

Objectives
1. To determine the soil physical, chemical and biological property
status in tea lands more precisely through a novel approach
2. To establish SQIs for all soil groups under the all AERs, where tea is
cultivated
3. For decision making on rehabilitation with a grass or direct planting
of tea based upon the SQI in a given land in future thereby to
reduce or eliminate the time period of rehabilitation

Te a Re s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e o f S r i L a n k a

4
 8/3/2018

METHODOLOGY

Te a Re s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e o f S r i L a n k a

Conceptual Model (Andrews, 1998)

Te a Re s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e o f S r i L a n k a

5
 8/3/2018

Soil Parameters

Following parameters are used for calculating the Soil Quality

Index (SQI)
Physical
1. Soil bulk density – BD (g/cm3)
2. Water Holding Capacity – AWC (mm/30cm)
Chemical
3. Soil Carbon C (%)
Biological
4. Microbial Biomass Content – MBC (µg/g soil)

Te a Re s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e o f S r i L a n k a

Te a Re s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e o f S r i L a n k a

6
 8/3/2018

Computation of Soil Quality Index

Y= (∑Sii *wi) - Summation of Soil indicator * weightage

Y= (In1 * w1 + In2 * w2 +In3* w3 +In4 * w4 +In5* w5 + In6 * w6)

SQI = 0.4*BD + 0.1*AWC + 0.3*C% + 0.2*MBC

Scores are given according to the value of soil parameters

Te a Re s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e o f S r i L a n k a

Scores given for Soil Parameters

Bulk Density Available Water Microbial Biomass

(g/cm3) Content Carbon (%) Content

Value Score Value Score Value Score Value Score

1.0 - 0.7 10 60 - 70 9 to 10 >5 10 300-400 10

1.2 -1.0 9 to 10 50 - 60 8 to 9 4-5 10 to 8 250-300 8 to 10

1.3-1.2 7 to 9 40- 50 7 to 8 3-4 6 to 8 200-250 7 to 8

1.4-1.3 5 to 7 30 - 40 6 to7 2-3 4 to 6 150-200 5 to 7

1.5-1.4 3 to 5 20- 30 3 to 6 1-2 2 to 4 100-150 3 to 5

1.6 - 1.5 1 to 3 10-20 1 to 3 0.6 -1 0 -2 50-100 1 to 3

>1.6 0 <10 0 <0.6 0 <50 0

Te a Re s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e o f S r i L a n k a

7
 8/3/2018

Estate Selection
No Estate AER Elevation No Estate AER Elevation
1 Warapittiya IL1b Low 1 Hangurugamuwa IM1b Mid
2 Millakanda WL1a Low 2 Hathale WM3b Mid
3 Doloswala WL1a Low 3 Pitakanda WM3b Mid
4 Watapatha WL1a Low 4 Beaumont WU2b Mid
5 Homadola WL2a Low 5 New Peacock WU2b Mid
6 Houpe WL2a Low 6 Stelenberg WU2b Mid
7 Kottawa WL2a Low
8 Deniyaya WM1a Low
9 Pambegama WL1a Low
10 Vogan WLa Low
11 Endane WL2a Low
12 Madampe WM1b Low
13 Hathaleigh WM1b Low
14 Indola WL2a Low

Te a Re s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e o f S r i L a n k a

Estate Selection
No Estate AER Elevation No Estate AER Elevation
1 Kenilworth WM1a Up 1 Cocogalla IU2 Uva
2 Laxapana WU1 Up 2 Mahadowa IU2 Uva
3 Vellai oya WU1 Up 3 Dambetenne IU3b Uva
4 Dickoya WU2a Up 4 Glennanore IU3b Uva
5 Kew WU2a Up 5 Gonakelle IU3c Uva
6 St. Coombs WU2a Up 6 Batawatte IU2 Uva
7 Venture WU2b Up 7 Pitaratmale IU3b Uva
8 Campion WU2b Up 8 Thotalagala IU3b Uva
9 Pedro WU3 Up 9 Wewessa IU3c Uva

Te a Re s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e o f S r i L a n k a

8
 8/3/2018

Methodology
• Random samples of following
soil parameters, on rehabilitated
(Grass existing) field and
adjoining seedling/VP fields.
• Fields were selected in such a
way to minimize the difference
among two fields

• Soil bulk density

• Available water content
• Organic carbon%
• Microbial biomass content

Te a Re s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e o f S r i L a n k a

RESULTS

Te a Re s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e o f S r i L a n k a

9
 Available water content(mm/30cm) -3
Bulk density (g/cm )

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6

Tea
Grass

Low
Low

Mid
higher BD

Mid
grass fields

Elevation
Elevation

Up
Up

upcountry soils
• Less difference in

Uva
Uva
• Lower bulk density in

• Low & Mid fields show

Tea
Grass
Soil Bulk Density

Available Water Content

-3
Avialble water content(mm/30cm) Bulk density (g/cm )

20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7

Deniyaya Deniyaya
Doloswala Doloswala
Endane
Hapugastenna Endane

Te a Re s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e o f S r i L a n k a
Te a Re s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e o f S r i L a n k a
Grass

Hathaleigh Hathaleigh
Homadola Homadola
Tea

Houpe Houpe
Indola Indola
Kottawa Kottawa

Low
Madampe Madampe
Millakanda Millakanda
Pambegama Pambegama
St Joachim

Tea
Vogan Vogan

Grass
Warapittiya Warapittiya
Watapatha Watapatha
Beamount Beamount
Hangurugamuwa Hangurugamuwa
Hathale Hathale
New Peacock New Peacock
Pitakanda Pitakanda

Estate
Estate

Mid
Stelenberg Stelenberg
Campion
Dick Oya Campion
Kenilworth Dick Oya
Kew Kenilworth
Laxapana Kew
Pedro Laxapana

Up
St.Coombs Pedro
Velly oya St.Coombs
Venture Velly oya
Batawatte Venture
Cocogalla Batawatte
Dambetenna
Glenanore Cocogalla
Gonakelle Dambetenna
Mahadowa Glenanore
Pitaratmale Mahadowa

Uva
Thotalagala Pitaratmale
Wewessa Thotalagala

10
8/3/2018
 Microbial biomass content (g/g soil) Organic carbon %

0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5

0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Tea

Tea
Grass

Low

Grass

Low
Mid

Mid
increased with

Elevation

Elevation
Up

Up
elevational increase
• Organic carbon level
Organic Carbon (%)

Uva

Uva
Biomass content showed
very high variations in Uva
Microbial Biomass Content
Avialble water content(mm/30cm)
Avialble water content(mm/30cm)
0
1
2
3
4
5

0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Deniyaya Deniyaya
Doloswala Doloswala
Endane Endane
Hathaleigh

Te a Re s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e o f S r i L a n k a
Te a Re s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e o f S r i L a n k a
Hathaleigh
Homadola Homadola
Tea

Tea
Houpe Houpe
Grass

Grass
Indola Indola
Kottawa Kottawa
Madampe Madampe
Millakanda Millakanda
Pambegama
Vogan Pambegama
Warapittiya Vogan
Watapatha Warapittiya
Beamount Watapatha
Hangurugamuwa Beamount
Hathale Hangurugamuwa
New Peacock Hathale
Pitakanda Stelenberg
Stelenberg Campion
Estate

Estate
Campion Dick Oya
Dick Oya Kenilworth
Kenilworth Kew
Kew Laxapana
Laxapana Pedro
Pedro St.Coombs
St.Coombs Velly oya
Velly oya Venture
Venture Batawatte
Batawatte
Cocogalla Cocogalla
Dambetenna Dambetenna
Glenanore Glenanore
Gonakelle Gonakelle
Mahadowa Mahadowa
Pitaratmale Pitaratmale
Thotalagala Thotalagala
Wewessa Wewessa

11
8/3/2018
 8/3/2018

Soil Quality Index

• In summarily, all parameters showed averagely more
favorable values for tea cultivation under grass planted
conditions.
• Based on these values, soil Quality Index value can be
calculated
Values
BD AWC C% MBC
Elevation G T G T G T G T
Low 1.40 1.45 45.2 40.6 1.47 1.21 214.1 169.6
Mid 1.31 1.39 51.2 47.8 1.42 1.06 332.4 265.9
Up 1.24 1.28 47.6 47.3 2.17 1.81 478.8 372.5
Uva 1.16 1.28 54.4 48.7 2.68 1.97 888.2 729.8
සමස්ථය 1.28 1.35 49.6 46.1 1.94 1.51 478.4 384.4

Te a Re s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e o f S r i L a n k a

Calculation

Bulk Density Available Water Microbial Biomass

(g/cm3) Content Carbon (%) Content

Value Score Value Score Value Score Value Score

1.0 - 0.7 10 60 - 70 9 to 10 >5 10 300-400 10

1.2 -1.0 9 to 10 50 - 60 8 to 9 4-5 10 to 8 250-300 8 to 10

1.3-1.2 7 to 9 40- 50 7 to 8 3-4 6 to 8 200-250 7 to 8

1.4-1.3 5 to 7 30 - 40 6 to7 2-3 4 to 6 150-200 5 to 7

1.5-1.4 3 to 5 20- 30 3 to 6 1-2 2 to 4 100-150 3 to 5

1.6 - 1.5 1 to 3 10-20 1 to 3 0.6 -1 0 -2 50-100 1 to 3

>1.6 0 <10 0 <0.6 0 <50 0

SQI = 0.4*BD + 0.1*AWC + 0.3*C% + 0.2*MBC

Te a Re s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e o f S r i L a n k a

12
 8/3/2018

Calculation
Value
Location BD AWC OC MBC
Deniyaya 1.32 28.0 1.28 148.7

Weightage
BD AWC OC MBC
6.6 5.41 2.6 5.0

Score
BD AWC OC MBC
1.32 1.082 1.28 0.5

4.18
Te a Re s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e o f S r i L a n k a

Soil Quality Index Values for Elevations

• Following factors have to be
considered when giving an
index value for soil
Elevatio Soil Quality Index
Increase rehabilitation
n Grass Tea
• Improvement of soil
Low 4.5(±0.3) 3.7(±0.2) 26% after rehabilitation in
Mid 5.0(±0.3) 4.2(±0.3) 26% each region
Up 6.2(±0.4) 5.6(±0.4) 11% • Threat posed by outside
Uva
biotic and abiotic
7.0(±0.5) 5.8(±0.3) 19% factors; specially climate
All 5.6(±0.2) 4.7(±0.2) 19% change etc.,

Te a Re s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e o f S r i L a n k a

13
 8/3/2018

Soil Quality Index - Suggestions

10

Up & Uva
Soil Quality Index

6 Mid

Low

SQI grass
SQI tea
2

0
Low Mid Up Uva

Elevation

Te a Re s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e o f S r i L a n k a

DISCUSSION

Te a Re s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e o f S r i L a n k a

14
 8/3/2018

Discussion

• Soil Quality Index value is significantly higher as an

average in soil rehabilitated fields
• Based on the elevation, different SQI values have to
be given
• Main reason for different values are related to
difference in soil parameters
• Highest gains for rehabilitation achieved by improving
organic matter content
• This survey shows the key parameters need to
improve for improving the productivity in different
elevation levels

Te a Re s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e o f S r i L a n k a

Discussion

• This survey analyses only the available data, establishing

experiment plots were not considered.
• Poor grass growth, inability to lop at regular intervals may
be reasons for poor improvement is soil after rehabilitation
in some locations
• Improving material availability and mechanization mana
lopping may be solutions for such limitations

Te a Re s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e o f S r i L a n k a

15
 8/3/2018

Discussion
• Reduction of rehabilitation time period
• Testing alternative grass species (e.g: CO3 grass)
• Terracing suitable lands
• Accumulation of organic matter
• Ease of mechanization

Te a Re s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e o f S r i L a n k a

Conclusion

• The developed SQI has an ability to indicate the status of soil

in relation to soil parameters
• Soil Quality Index values of 5.0 for Low & Mid elevation, 6.0
for Up country and 7.0 for Uva can be used as base levels
• However final decision should be taken with other
assessments on field
• Can be used for plantations to evaluate the long term
performance of the fields or new fields

Te a Re s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e o f S r i L a n k a

16
 8/3/2018

Proposed Mechanism

Land suitability for tea

cultivation

Favorable sorrounding

Free from Nematode

infestation

Measure Soil Quality Index

Te a Re s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e o f S r i L a n k a

References

1. Arshad, M. A. and S. Martin (2002). "Identifying critical limits for soil quality
indicators in agro-ecosystems." Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 88(2): 153-
160.
2. Andrews, S. (1998). "Sustainable agriculture alternatives: Ecological and
managerial implications of poultry litter management alternatives applied to
agronomic soils." PhD. diss University of Geor~ gia, Athens.
3. Larson, W. E. and F. J. Pierce (1991). Conservation and enhancement of soil quality.
Evaluation for Sustainable Land Management in the Developing World, Bangkok,
Thailand, Int. Board for Soil Res. and Management,.
4. Warkentin, B. P. and H. F. Fletcher (1977). Soil quality for intensive agriculture.
Proceedings of the International Seminar on Soil Environment and Fertility
Management in Intensive Agriculture, Tokyo, National Institute of Agricultural
Science.
5. Shepherd, T. G. (2000). Visual Soil Assessment. Volume 1. Field guide for cropping
and pastoral grazing on flat to rolling country. Palmerston North: horizons.mw &
Landcare Research.

Te a Re s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e o f S r i L a n k a

17
 8/3/2018

Acknowledgement

• Team, formulation of Soil Quality Index.., lead Dr.

Permathilaka, Dr Guneratna, Dr. Hettiarachchi, Dr.
Mohotti, Dr Luxmi and Dr Wijeratna
• All the Managers and staff of each estate
• Prof. Suriyagoda of University of Peradeniya for
statistical consultation.

Te a Re s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e o f S r i L a n k a

Te a Re s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e o f S r i L a n k a

18
 8/3/2018

THANK YOU

Te a Re s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e o f S r i L a n k a

19