Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Early Access

Soil fertility status and assessment of nutrient soil quality index of Ganasandra micro-watershed using GIS-based geospatial tool

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.10186
Submitted
23 June 2025
Published
31-08-2025
Versions

Abstract

Despite growing concerns about sustainable land management, limited studies have comprehensively evaluated soil fertility and spatial variability of nutrient soil quality at the micro-watershed level using geospatial techniques. The current research (2023-24) aimed to assess nutrient levels, soil health and the spatial variability of soil fertility within the Ganasandra micro-watershed, a component of the Naganahalli sub-watershed in Nagamangala taluk, Mandya district, Karnataka, using geospatial methods. Statistical evaluation of analytical data was performed using parameters such as range, mean and standard deviation. The soil was found to be slightly to strongly alkaline and nonsaline. Organic carbon levels ranged from low to medium; nitrogen and phosphorus availability were moderate; potassium was high and sulfur levels ranged from low to moderate. Diethylene triamine pentaacetic acid (DTPA) extractable micronutrients analysis indicated that half of the samples lacked sufficient zinc and iron, whereas copper and manganese concentrations were adequate. Shortages of N (nitrogen), P (phosphorus), S (sulphur), Zn (zinc) and Fe (iron) were identified as significant limitations to soil fertility. Principal component analysis (PCA) was employed to obtain the minimum data set (MDS) from the assessed soil parameters. Essential factors affecting soil quality include pH, organic carbon content and the availability of nitrogen and zinc. Three principal components with eigenvalues exceeding 1 accounted for 73.00 % of the overall variance. The soil quality index (SQI) ranged from 0.10 to 0.62. The study established that SQI, derived through grid sampling at a 320 m scale, successfully reflected spatial dependence through ordinary kriging and enabled the creation of thematic maps for soil management at the micro-watershed level. The SQI map showed that 46.63 % of the region was classified as low to very low soil quality, 22.79 % as medium and 31.32 % as high-quality categories.

References

  1. 1. Karlen DL, Mausbach MJ, Doan JW, Cline RG, Harris, RF, Schuman GE. Soil quality: A concept, definition and framework for evaluation. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 1997;61:4-10. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1997.03615995006100010001x
  2. 2. Yin X, Zhao L, Fang Q, Ding G. Differences in soil physico-chemical properties in different-aged Pinus massoniana plantations in Southwest China. Forests. 2021;12:987. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12080987
  3. 3. Harsha M, Sathish A, Ananthakumar MA. Assessment of soil quality indicators of Channegowdarapalya micro-watershed, Tumkur, Karnataka. J Indian Soc Soil Sci. 2021;69(3):233-47.
  4. 4. Yadav KK, Mali NL, Kumar S, Surya JN, Moharana PC, Nogiya M. et al. Assessment of soil quality and spatial variability of soil properties using geo-spatial techniques in sub-humid Southern Plain of Rajasthan, India. J Indian Soc Soil Sci. 2022;70(1):69-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-0228.2022.00004.4
  5. 5. Marques J, Jr Alleoni LRF, Teixeira DDB, Siqueira DS, Pereira GT. Sampling planning of micronutrients and aluminum of the soils of São Paulo. Geoderma Reg. 2015;4:91-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GEODRS.2014.12.004
  6. 6. Richards LA. Diagnosis and improvement of saline alkali soils. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1954.
  7. 7. Walkley A, Black IA. An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci. 1934;37:29-38.
  8. 8. Subbiah BV, Asija GL. A rapid procedure for the estimation of available nitrogen in soils. Curr Sci. 1956;25:259-60.
  9. 9. Olsen SR, Cole CV, Watanabe FS, Dean LA. Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. United States Department of Agriculture Circular No. 939; 1954.
  10. 10. Jackson ML. Soil chemical analysis. Prentice Hall of India (Pvt.) Ltd: New Delhi; 1973.
  11. 11. Black CA. Methods of soil analysis part – II. Chemical and microbiological properties. Agronomy Monograph No. 9. American Society of Agronomy, Inc. Madison, Wisconsin, USA; 1965.
  12. 12. Berger KC, Truog E. Boron determination in soils and plants using the quinalizar in reaction. Indian Engin Chem Anal Edu. 1939;11:540-45.
  13. 13. Lindsay WL, Norwell WA. Development of DTPA of soil test for zinc, iron, manganese and copper. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 1978;42:421-28. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1978.03615995004200030009x
  14. 14. Andrews SS, Karlen DL, Mitchell JP. A comparison of soil quality indexing methods for vegetable production systems in northern California. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2002;90(1):25-45.
  15. 15. Andrews SS, Mitchell JP, Mancinelli R, Karlen DL, Hartz TK, Horwath WR, et al. On-farm assessment of soil quality in California's central valley. Agron J. 2002;94:12-23. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2002.1200
  16. 16. Andrews SS, Carroll CR. Designing a soil quality assessment tool for sustainable agro-ecosystem management. Ecol Appl. 2001;11:1573-85.
  17. 17. Sathish A, Madhu L. Assessment of soil quality based on relationship of soil carbon stocks with different soil parameters in Lakkampura mini-watershed in Davanagere under semi-arid Alfisols in India. J Indian Soc Soil Sci. 2021;69(4):354-68.
  18. 18. Mukherjee A, Lal R. Comparison of soil quality index using three methods. PLoS One. 2014;9:1-15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105981
  19. 19. Mandal UK, Ramachandran K, Sharma KL, Satyam B, Venkanna K, Udaya Bhanu M, et al. Assessing soil quality in a semiarid tropical watershed using a geographic information system. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 2011;75:1144-60. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2009.0361
  20. 20. Ram RL, Sharma PK, Ahmed N. Characterization and fertility assessment of soils of Markapur Mandal, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh for sustainable land use planning. Ind J Agric Res. 2014;48(2):127-33.
  21. 21. Kumar MR, Patil PL, Dasog GS. Land evaluation of 48A distributary of Malaprabha right bank command of Karnataka. Karnataka J Agric Sci. 2009;22:89-94.
  22. 22. Amara DMK, Patil PL, Kumara AM, Saidu DH. Assessment of soil fertility status using nutrient index approach. Academia J Agric Res. 2017;5(2):28-38.
  23. 23. Kumara HK, Hundekar ST. Soil fertility status of Hittnalli micro-watershed of Vijayapur district of Karnataka for site specific recommendations. J Farm Sci. 2018:31(4):415.
  24. 24. Krishna NR, Chandravamshi P, Ashok LB. Soil fertility status of major nutrients, micronutrients and mapping in Nicchapura-2 micro watershed of Davanagere district, Karnataka, India. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2017;6:1178-86. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.609.142
  25. 25. Srinivasan R, Natarajan A, Kalaivanan D. Soil fertility status of cashew growing soils of Dakshina Kannada district of coastal Karnataka. J Plantn Crops. 2013;41:373-79.
  26. 26. Dessalegn D, Beyene S, Nandram Walley F, Gala TS. Effects of topography and land use on soil characteristics along the topo-sequence of Ele watershed in southern Ethiopia. Catena. 2013;115(8):47-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2013.11.007
  27. 27. Miheretu BA, Yimer A. Spatial variability of selected soil properties in relation to land use and slope position in Gelana sub-watershed, northern highlands of Ethiopia. Phys Geogr. 2018;39:230-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02723646.2017.1380972
  28. 28. Bufebo B, Elias E, Agegnehu G. Effects of landscape positions on soil physico-chemical properties at Shenkolla watershed, South Central Ethiopia. Environ Syst Res. 2021;10:14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40068-021-00222-8
  29. 29. Abebe G, Tsunekawa A, Haregeweyn N, Takeshi T, Wondie M, Adgo E, et al. Effects of land use and topographic position on soil organic carbon and total nitrogen stocks in different agro-ecosystems of the upper blue Nile Basin. Sustainability. 2020;12:2425. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062425
  30. 30. Ebabu K, Tsunekawa A, Haregeweyn N, Adgo E, Meshesha DT, Aklog D, et al. Exploring the variability of soil properties as influenced by land use and management practices: A case study in the upper blue Nile basin, Ethiopia. Soil Tillage Res. 2020;200:104614.
  31. 31. Zhang W, Lee SY, Song X. Local polynomial fitting in semi varying coefficient models. J Multivar Anal. 2002;82:166-88.
  32. 32. Hati KM, Swarup A, Dwivedi AK, Misra AK, Bandyopadhyay KK. Changes in soil physical properties and organic carbon status at the top soil horizon of a Vertisol of central India after 28 years of continuous cropping, fertilization and manuring. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2007;119:127-34.
  33. 33. Prasad V, Yadav MBN, Rundan V, Geetha GP, Mounika V, Vyas RDV. Assessment of soil quality of selected districts of Kaleshwaram project command area of Telangana state, India. Int J Environ Clim Chang. 2023;13(7):646-59. https://doi.org/10.9734/ijecc/2023/v13i71917
  34. 34. Jafarian Z, Kavian A. Effects of land-use change on soil organic carbon and nitrogen. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal. 2013;44(1-4):339-46.
  35. 35. Khan MZ, Islam MR, Salam ABA, Ray T. Spatial variability and geo-statistical analysis of soil properties in the diversified cropping regions of Bangladesh using geographic information system techniques. Appl Environ Soil Sci. 2021;1:6639180.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.