1. 1
Supervisor: Prof. J. P. Singh Speaker: Sudhanshu Verma
I.D.No. A-14014
Department of Agronomy
Institute of Agricultural Sciences
Banaras Hindu University
Varanasi-221005
Course seminar
on
2. Content
Introduction
What is green manuring ?
Factors responsible for decline in green manure use
Why green manuring ?
Types of green manuring
Research finding
Advantages
Limitations
Conclusion
3. Green manuring “involves the soil incorporation of any field or forage crop
while green or just before flowering for the purpose of soil improvement.”
Green manures are effective alternatives to chemical fertilizers and preservation
of soil fertility, adding organic matter and nutrients into the soil as well as
protecting surface soil due to erosion.
Characteristics of green manures include a crop that is fast growing with rapid
decomposition and quick nutrient release.
Green manures may be applied directly, leaving it on the soil as mulch, or
composted before application and can serve a dual purpose as a source of green
manure and as a source of food.
Some green manures can be used as animal feed with the resulting animal
manure used as fertilizer.
4. What is green manuring
A practice of ploughing or turning into the soil
undecomposed green plant material for improving
physical condition of soil by adding organic matter and
nutrients.
Green manure is the practice of turning into soil
undecomposed green plant tissue. The function of a
green manure crop is to add organic matter to the soil.
As a result of the addition, the nitrogen supply of the soil
may be increased and certain nutrients made more
readily available, thereby increasing the productivity of
the soil. (Warman, 1990)
5. Factors responsible for decline in green manure use:
Availability of subsidized inorganic fertilizer
Easy in handling of inorganic fertilizers
More profitable alternate use for land
High seed cost
Labour shortage
Low emphasis by researcher and extension worker.
Substantial cost of cultivating green manure crop.
6. Decline in soil health
Stagnating productivity of food grains
Declining crop response to fertilizers
Emerging multi-nutrient deficiencies in soils
7. Green manuring are two type:
1. In-situ green manuring
In this system, the short duration legume crops are grown and
buried in the same site when they attain the pre flowering stage to
improve the organic matter content. This system of on-site nutrient
resource generation is most prevalent in northern and southern parts
of India where rice is the major crop in the existing cropping
systems.
Types of green manuring
8. Table.1: Common Legume Crops For In-situ Green
Manuring
S. No.
Common
name
Botanical name
Growing
season
1. Dhaincha
Sesbania aculeata Zaid/Kharif
Sesbania rostrata Zaid/Kharif
2. Sunhemp Crotalaria juncea Zaid/Kharif
3. Mung Vigna radiata Zaid/Kharif
4. Cowpea Vigna unguiculata Kharif
5. Guar Cyamopsis
tetragonoloba
Kharif
6. Senji Melilotus alba Rabi
7. Berseem Trifolium alexandrium Rabi
(Singh et al., 1992)
9.
10. 2. Ex-situ green leaf manuring
This refers to turning under of green leaves and tender
green twigs collected from shrubs and trees grown on bunds,
waste-lands and nearby forest areas. The common shrubs
and trees useful for this purpose are follows.
11. S.
No
Common
name
Botanical name
1. Subabool Leucaena leucocephala
2. Glyricidia Glyricidia maculeata
3. Wild dhaincha Sesbania speciosa
4. Karanj Pongamia glabra
5 Neem
Azadirachta indica
6 Water hyacinth Eichhornia crassipes
Table.2:The common shrubs/trees used for
green leaf manuring
12.
13. Multipurpose
Short duration, fast growing, high nutrient accumulation ability
Tolerance to shade, flood, drought and high temperatures
Wide ecological adaptability
High N fixing capacity
Able to respond inoculation
Pest and disease resistant
Important characteristics of green manure crops
14. Table.3:Biomass accumulation at different growth stages of Vigna
unguiculata and Sesbania rostrata green manure crops
Growth stages Green biomass (t ha-1) Dry biomass (t ha-1)
Vigna unguiculata
30 DAS 12.5 3.0
45 DAS 18.1 4.1
60 DAS 25.2 5.3
Sesbania rostrata
30 DAS 9.4 2.1
45 DAS 16.5 3.8
60 DAS 25.3 5.1
CD (P=0.05) 3.5 0.8
DAS: Days After Sowing (Kumar et al., 2007)
15. Table.4:Fresh and dry biomass accumulation at different growth
stages of Crotalaria juncea and Sesbania cannabina
Growth stages Green biomass (t ha-1) Dry biomass (t ha-1)
Crotalaria juncea
30 DAS 15.0 2.5
45 DAS 21.1 3.9
60 DAS 34.3 6.8
Sesbania cannabina
30 DAS 11.1 3.0
45 DAS 20.4 4.2
60 DAS 30.0 5.7
CD (P=0.05) 3.5 0.8
DAS: Days After Sowing (Kumar et al., 2007)
16. Plant
Scientific name
Nutrient content (%) air dry
basis
N P K
Sunhemp Crotalaria juncea 2.30 0.50 1.80
Dhaincha Sesbania aculeata 3.50 0.60 1.20
Sesbania Sesbania speciosa 2.71 0.53 2.21
(Pieters, 2006)
Table.5:Nutrient content (%) in different green manure
crops
17. Plant Scientific name Nutrient content (%) on air dry basis
N P K
Gliricidia Gliricidia sepium 2.76 0.28 4.60
Pongania Pongamia glabra 3.31 0.44 2.39
Neem Azadirachta indica 2.83 0.28 0.35
Gulmohur Delonix regia 2.76 0.46 0.50
Parthenium Peltophorum
ferrugenum
2.68 0.37 1.45
Water hyacinth Eichhornia crassipes 3.01 0.90 0.15
Calotrophis Calotropis gigantea 2.06 0.54 0.31
Cassia Cassia fistula 1.60 0.24 1.20
(Pieters, 2006)
Table.6:Nutrient content in important green leaf manure
plants
18. Table.7:Nitrogen accumulation by different green
manure crops
Crop Age (days) N accumulated (kg ha-1)
Dhaincha 60 133
Sun hemp 60 134
Cow pea 60 74
Cluster bean 50 91
New dhaincha 50 96
(Pieters, 2006)
19. Green
manure crops
Nutrient accumulation (kg ha-1)
N P K
Sunnhemp 50.43 11.08 40.23
Green gram 25.62 9.46 21.64
Cowpea 44.24 17.90 34.28
S.Em+ 1.62 0.22 0.43
C.D. at 5 % 6.35 0.86 1.69
Table.8:Nutrient accumulation by different green
manure crops at the time of incorporation
Note -2 years experiment at Dharwad, Karnatka (Yogesh et al., 2014)
27. Table.10:Effect of summer green manuring on soil CEC and soil
organic carbon after harvest of rice
Treatments CEC [cmol (p+) kg-1 ] O. C. (g kg-1)
Fallow 17.3 4.3
Green gram 18.1 5.4
Sunhemp 19.6 5.6
Dhaincha 20.5 5.6
CD(P=0.05) 0.90 0.70
Initial value 17.3 4.0
Note-2 years experiments at BHU Varanasi (Saraswat et al., 2010)
28. Treatments Soil pH
Before transplanting At harvesting
45 DAS Sesbania 9.08 8.72
60 DAS Sesbania 9.06 8.80
45 DAS Crotalaria 9.12 8.80
60 DAS Crotalaria 9.07 8.71
Summer fallow 9.19 9.12
SEm + 0.026 0.181
CD(P=0.05) 0.085 0.265
Table.11:Comparative performance of green manuring on
soil pH at different stages of rice
DAS = Days after sowing, DAT= Days after transplanting (Singh et al., 2009)
Note-2 years experiment at Faizabad
29. Treatments Organic carbon(%)
Before transplanting At harvesting
45 DAS Sesbania 0.35 0.36
60 DAS Sesbania 0.41 0.42
45 DAS Crotalaria 0.34 0.35
60 DAS Crotalaria 0.41 0.41
Summer fallow 0.32 0.33
SEm + 0.002 0.003
CD(P=0.05) 0.009 0.010
Table.12:Comparative performance of green manuring on
organic carbon at different stages of rice
DAS = Days after sowing, DAT= Days after transplanting (Singh et al., 2009)
Note- 2 years experiment at Faizabad
30. Treatments pH O.C. (%)
S1- Rice-Wheat 7.43 0.34
S2- Rice-Chickpea 7.29 0.36
S3- Rice-Wheat-Green gram 7.00 0.37
S4- Rice-Wheat-Sesbania (GM) 6.97 0.39
S5- Rice-Mustard-Green gram 7.03 0.38
S6- Rice-Lentil-Cowpea (F) 7.06 0.37
S7- Rice-Pea 7.26 0.35
S8- Rice-Lentil+ Mustard (3:1)-Cowpea(F) 7.06 0.38
S9- Rice-Maize+ Pea (1:1)-Cowpea (F) 7.05 0.38
S10 - Rice-Potato-Green gram 6.98 0.37
SEm ± 0.11 0.01
CD (P = 0.05) 0.31 NS
Initial value 7.30 0.34
Table.13:Chemical properties of soil after four year
completion of experiment under different crop sequences
Note- 4 years experiment at BHU, Varanasi (Singh et al., 2013)
31. Treatments Available N
(kg ha-1)
Available P
(kg ha-1)
Available K
(kg ha-1)
S1- Rice-Wheat 186.2 21.70 194.2
S2- Rice-Chickpea 200.4 24.70 209.4
S3- Rice-Wheat-Greengram 206.1 22.20 218.7
S4- Rice-Wheat-Sesbania (GM) 218.6 23.20 219.5
S5- Rice-Mustard-Greengram 205.4 22.80 216.2
S6- Rice-Lentil-Cowpea (F) 212.5 23.00 211.6
S7- Rice-Pea 199.8 22.00 207.3
S8- Rice-Lentil+ Mustard (3:1)-
Cowpea(F)
216.4 22.30 207.6
S9- Rice-Maize+ Pea (1:1)-Cowpea (F) 211.2 22.50 201.4
S10 - Rice-Potato-Green gram 203.3 22.40 204.6
SEm ± 5.41 1.20 9.08
CD (P = 0.05) 15.70 NS NS
Initial value 192.0 21.4 224
Table.14:Available nutrients in soil after four year completion of experiment
under different crop sequences
Note- 4 years experiment at BHU (Singh et al., 2013)
33. Treatment Microbial population (per g soil)
Bacteria
105
Actinomycetes
104
Fungi
104
Azotobacter
102
Azospirillum
104
PSB
102
Fallow 42 0.3 0.1 22 0.9 0.4
Sesbania
aculeate
95 1.1 0.5 67 4.8 1.1
Sesbania
rostrata
155 4.9 0.9 105 29.7 5.4
Mungbean
(SR)
105 1.2 0.8 87 15.5 3.5
Mungbean
(SI)
167 5.5 1.3 202 37.5 6.0
C.D. at 5% 40.5 1.25 0.72 25.8 10.7 0.9
Table.15:Effect of summer crops and their residue on soil microbial
population in rice crop
SR: both grain and straw harvested; SI: grain harvested but straw incorporated
(Tilak, 2004)
34. Treatment Nitrogenase activity*
Rice Wheat
Fallow 5.2 6.2
Sesbania aculeate 28.5 30.7
Sesbania rostrata 102.8 85.6
Mungbean (SR) 32.5 35.8
Mungbean (SI) 86.5 75.7
C.D. at 5% 2.55 3.47
Table.16:Effect of summer crops on nitrogenase activity of root of
rice and wheat.
*Nitrogenase activity in root (n mol C2H4 h−1g−1 root) of rice and wheat.
(Tilak, 2004)
35. Green manure
crops
Dehydrogenase activity (mg TPF/g of soil /day)
2011 2012 Mean
Sunnhemp 5.17 4.41 4.79
Green gram 4.30 2.79 3.55
Cowpea 5.91 5.24 5.58
Fallow 3.18 2.38 2.78
S.Em+ 0.53 0.84 0.60
C.D. at 5 % 1.56 2.49 1.79
Table.17:Effect of different green manure crops on
dehydrogenase activities of soil before sowing of safflower
Note -2 years experiment at Dharwad, Karnatka (Yogesh et al., 2014)
36. Green manure
crops
Phosphatase activity (mg of PNP/g of soil/h)
2011 2012 Mean
Sunnhemp 36.94 32.47 34.70
Green gram 33.34 29.56 31.45
Cowpea 43.89 36.15 40.02
Fallow 31.37 24.28 27.83
S.Em+ 1.88 0.19 0.94
C.D. at 5 % 5.58 0.55 2.79
Table.18: Effect of different green manure crops on
phosphatase activities of soil before sowing of safflower
Note -2 years experiment at Dharwad, Karnatka (Yogesh et al., 2014)
37. Treatment SMBC(µg g-1soil) SMBN(µg g-1soil) SMBP(µg g-1soil)
Summer Kharif Summer Kharif Summer Kharif
Without green
manure(G1)
389.97 338.95 50.78 51.60 11.06 12.02
With green
manure(G2)
(Ricebean)
428.35 370.22 53.87 54.93 12.82 12.89
CD(P=0.05) 18.96 24.61 2.18 1.27 1.56 NS
Table.19:Direct and residual effect of green manure on
SMBC, SMBN, and SMBP in summer and kharif seasons
Note-1 year experiment at Umiam, Meghalaya (Kar et al., 2015)
38. Table.20:Effect of different crop sequences on grain yield and straw yield
of rice
Crop sequences Grain yield (q ha-1) Straw yield (q ha-1)
2003-04 2003-04
S1–Rice-Wheat 40.11 53.47
S2–Rice-Chickpea 41.23 57.55
S3–Rice-Wheat-Greengram 44.62 59.73
S4–Rice-Wheat-Sesbania (GM) 45.92 62.07
S5–Rice-Mustard-Greengram 42.55 58.33
S6–Rice-Lentil-Cowpea (F) 43.40 57.12
S7–Rice-Pea 42.71 55.90
S8–Rice-Lentil+Mustard (3 : 1)-Cowpea (F) 45.49 54.95
S9–Rice-Maize+Pea (1 : 1)-Cowpea (F) 45.31 56.34
S10–Rice-Potato-Greengram 45.33 56.08
S. Em± 1.32 1.85
LSD (P=0.05) 3.83 NS
Note- 4 years experiment at BHU Varanasi (Singh et al., 2008)
39. Table.21:Comparative performance of green manuring crops on
yield attributes of rice
Treatment Panicles m-2 No. of grains
panicle-1
1000 grain weight
(g)
45 DAS Sesbania 637.5 198.56 24.30
60 DAS Sesbania 728.0 210.67 25.03
45 DAS Crotalaria 568.0 193.67 22.90
60 DAS Crotalaria 670.0 206.33 24.20
Summer fallow 528.5 190.00 22.60
SEm + 10.0 3.10 0.36
CD(P=0.05) 32.5 10.12 1.20
Note-2 years experiment at Faizabad (Singh et al., 2009)
40. Table.22:Comparative performance of green manuring
crops on yield of rice
Treatment Yield (t ha-1)
Grain Straw
45 DAS Sesbania 4.08 5.12
60 DAS Sesbania 4.38 5.38
45 DAS Crotalaria 3.97 4.88
60 DAS Crotalaria 4.24 5.23
Summer fallow 3.81 4.69
SEm + 0.028 0.026
CD(P=0.05) 0.085 0.079
Note-2 years experiment at Faizabad (Singh et. al., 2009)
41. Treatment Grain yield (t ha-1) Straw yield (t ha-1)
2009 2010 2009 2010
Sesbania aculeata 4.89 5.56 9.04 10.21
Crotalaria juncea 4.74 5.34 8.83 10.02
Vigna unguiculata 4.58 5.12 8.64 9.82
Summer fallow 4.30 4.86 8.36 9.63
SEm+ 0.041 0.026 0.039 0.031
LSD (P =0.05) 0.141 0.091 0.135 0.105
Table.23:Effect of summer green manuring crops on the grain and
straw yield of basmati rice
Note-2 years experiment at IARI New Delhi (Singh & Shivay, 2016)
43. Table.25:Effect of different levels of NPK and organic
sources on yields and relative economics of rice.
Treatments Grain yield (t ha-1) Benefit : Cost
ratio
50% RFD + 30 kg N/ ha through FYM 3.79c 0.83
50% RFD + 30 kg N/ ha through dhaincha* 3.74c 0.86
50% RFD + 60 kg N/ ha through FYM 5.15b 1.31
50% RFD + 60 kg N/ ha through dhaincha 5.00b 1.37
75% RFD + 30 kg N/ ha through FYM 4.80b 1.21
75% RFD + 30 kg N/ ha through dhaincha 5.23b 1.48
75% RFD + 60 kg N/ ha through FYM 5.90a 1.54
75% RFD + 60 kg N/ ha through dhaincha 5.54ab 1.52
100% RFD** + 30 kg N/ ha through FYM 5.24b 1.31
100% RFD + 30 kg N/ ha through dhaincha 5.67ab 1.58
100% RFD + 60 kg N/ ha through FYM 5.95a 1.47
100% RFD + 60 kg N/ ha through dhaincha 5.69ab 1.49
SEm± 0.18 -
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.54 -
Note- 1 year experiment at BHU, Varanasi (Srivastava et al., 2013)
44. Advantages
Reduces the need of fertilizers
Increases soil organic carbon
Increase in microbial population and their activity in the soil
Suppression of weed
Protect the soil from erosion
Improve physical and chemical property of soil
Improve the quality of food
Enhances soil productivity
Improves soil fertility
Reduced green house gas emission
Ameliorate alkaline/saline soil
45. Limitations
Compete for time, labour, land and water
Scarce and costly seed
Incorporation is costly and difficult
Attract certain pest and diseases that have adverse
effect on succeeding crop
Competition for resources in intercropping
Control of the quantity and timing of nutrients is
more complex than with inorganic fertilizer
46. Green manuring improve soil physical condition such as bulk
density, porosity and water holding capacity.
It also improve the soil chemical characteristics such as pH, CEC,
organic carbon, NPK content.
By improving the soil physical and chemical properties, green
manuring provide congenial environment for microbial growth and
development.
Green manuring also improves biochemical properties of soil like
phosphatase, dehydrogenase and other enzyme activity.
Thus the use of green manure crops can play a vital role in
sustaining the soil health and improving crop productivity.
Conclusion
