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

Research Articles

Vol. 12 No. 3 (2025)

Edapho-climatic influence on the growth of farm-grown casuarina under different agroclimatic zones of Tamil Nadu, India

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.7688
Submitted
11 February 2025
Published
25-07-2025 — Updated on 01-08-2025
Versions

Abstract

Casuarina plantations are increasingly established in Tamil Nadu because of quick economic returns from its multi-utility uses. However, casuarina growth depends on site conditions and relationships have been established between various climatic and edaphic parameters and growth attributes. The present study evaluated the influence of climatic factors, such as rainfall, temperature and relative humidity, as well as soil physicochemical properties on teak growth in two agroclimatic zones of Tamil Nadu, namely North eastern zone (NEZ) and the Western zone (WZ) in two years old casuarina trees respectively. From each zone, climatic factors were analyzed and soil samples were collected at 0-15 cm and 15-30 cm in the soil profile for physicochemical analysis. The results show that the growth biometrics of block plantations of casuarina trees were positively correlated with climatic and edaphic factors. Maximum and minimum temperature, pH, electrical conductivity, organic carbon and available nitrogen showed significant positive correlations with the tree volume index. This studys’ key finding is that the casuarinas’ growth varies among agroclimatic zones, which can be monitored by means of edapho-climatic factors that influence casuarina plantations.

References

  1. 1. Riley IT. A case for assessing Allocasuarina and Casuarina spp. for use in agroecosystem improvement in semi-arid areas with a focus on Central Anatolia, Turkey. Front Agr Sci Eng. 2019. p. 1-16. https://doi.org/10.15302/J–FASE–2019270
  2. 2. Garg RK, Sra MS, Nicodemus A, Singh A, Singh G. Evaluation of interspecific hybrid clones of casuarina for adaptability and growth in arid and semi-arid regions of North–West India. J Environ Biol. 2022;43(2):317–25. https://doi.org/10.22438/jeb/43/2/MRN–1955
  3. 3. Chaudhary K, Jat JR, Joshi T, Chauhan AH. Growth, biomass production and CO2 sequestration of some important multipurpose trees under rainfed conditions. Int J Adv Biochem Res. 2024;8(6S):265–68.https://doi.org/10.33545/26
  4. 174693.2024.v8.i6Sd.1289
  5. 4. Ravi R, Buvaneswaran C, Venkatesh A, Prasad R. Growth and productivity of Casuarina equisetifolia in farmlands. Ind J Agroforest. 2013;15(1):36–44.
  6. 5. Berry N, Shukla A. Assessment of growth performance of Casuarina equisetifolia clones in the tropical region of Jabalpur district of Madhya Pradesh, India. Int J Environ Climate Change. 2023;13(11):266–71. https://doi.org/10.973
  7. 4/ijecc/2023/v13i113166
  8. 6. Prabha AC, Rajkamal A, Senthivelu M, Pragadeesh S. Soil characteristics of Casuarina, Eucalyptus, Melia and Teak plantations in Tamil Nadu, India. Ecol Environ Conserv. 2024;7. https://doi.org/10.53550/EEC.2024.v30i04s.022
  9. 7. Singh K, Nasir M, Vaishnav V, Gehlot A. Tree species composition in traditional agroforestry systems in various agroclimatic regions of India. In: Bhat JA, Gopal S, Rainer W, editors. Sustainable forest resources management. New York: Apple Academic Press; 2024. p. 383–404. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003539070-16
  10. 8. Vijayabhama M, Jaisankar R, Varadha Raj S, Baranidharan K. Spatial–temporal variation of casuarina spread in Cauvery delta and north eastern zone of Tamil Nadu, India: A spatial autoregressive model. J Appl Stat. 2018;45(1):1–
  11. 7. https://doi.org/10.1080/02664763.2016.1247786
  12. 9. Singh BK, Tomar A. Growth and biomass models for three fast–growing tree species under high–density plantation. Int J Environ Climate Change. 2024;14(2):562–70. https://doi.org/10.9734/ijecc/2024/v14i23970
  13. 10. Hatchell GE, Berry CR, Muse HD. Nondestructive indices related to the aboveground biomass of young loblolly and sand pines on ectomycorrhizal and fertilizer plots. Forest Sci. 1985;31(2):419–27. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestscience/31.2.419
  14. 11. R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Internet]. Vienna (Austria): R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2020 [cited on Jan 12, 2025]. Available from: http://www.r-project.org
  15. 12. Stigter K. Agroforestry and (micro) climate change. In: Ong CK, Black CR, Wilson J, editors. Tree–crop interactions: Agroforestry in a changing climate; 2015. p. 119–45 Wallingford, UK: CABI. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781780645117.
  16. 0119
  17. 13. Singh NR, Arunachalam A, Dobriyal MJ, Bhusaraand JB, Gunaga RP. Crop biomass and yield patterns of dominant agroforestry systems of Navsari district, Gujarat, India. Indian J Agrofor. 2017;19(2):72–78.
  18. 14. Maity PJ, Pawlowski K. Anthropogenic influences on the distribution of the Casuarina–Frankia symbiosis. Symbiosis. 2021;84(3):353–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13199–021–00765–5
  19. 15. Potgieter LJ, Richardson DM, Wilson JR. Casuarina: Biogeography and ecology of an important tree genus in a changing world. Biol Invas. 2014;16:609–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530–013–0613–x
  20. 16. Wang R, Li G, Lu Y, Lu D. A comparative analysis of grid–based and object–based modeling approaches for poplar forest growing stock volume estimation in plain regions using airborne LIDAR data. Geo–Spatial Inform Sci. 2024;27(5):1441–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/10095020.2023.2169199
  21. 17. Fernando PD, Subasinghe SM, Lokupitiya RS. Allometric models for biomass prediction of Hevea brasiliensis. Environ Qual Manage. 2024;33(4):401–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.22099
  22. 18. Wang YH, Hong L, Li JJ, Zhang QX, Wang AQ, Lin SX, et al. Analysis of growth inhibition of continuously planted Casuarina equisetifolia in relation to characteristic soil microbial functions and nutrient cycling. Appl Soil Ecol. 2024;202:105607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2024.105607
  23. 19. Sayed WF. Improving Casuarina growth and symbiosis with Frankia under different soil and environmental conditions. Folia Microbiol. 2011;56:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12223–011–0002–8
  24. 20. Buehler C, Rodgers J. Soil property differences between invaded casuarina (Casuarina equisetifolia L.) sites and non–casuarina sites in the Bahamas. Phys Geograp. 2012;33(6):574–88. https://doi.org/10.2747/0272–3646.33.6.574
  25. 21. Uma M, Saravanan TS, Rajendran K. Growth, litterfall and litter decomposition of Casuarina equisetifolia in a semi–arid zone. J Tropical For Sci. 2014;125–33.
  26. 22. Urakawa R, Ohte N, Shibata H, Isobe K, Tateno R, Oda T, et al. Factors contributing to soil nitrogen mineralization and nitrification rates of forest soils in the Japanese archipelago. Forest Ecol Manage. 2016;361:382–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.11.033
  27. 23. Wu Y, Wang W, Wang Q, Zhong Z, Wang H, Yang Y. Farmland shelterbelt changes in soil properties: soil depth–location dependency and general pattern in Songnen Plain, Northeastern China. Forests. 2023;14(3):584. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14030584
  28. 24. Rajah RA, Radhakrishnan S, Balasubramanian A, Balamurugan J, Ravi R, Sivakumar B, et al. The Influence of Climatic and Edaphic Factors on the Growth of Farm-Grown Teak in Tamil Nadu, India. Sci Rep. 2025;15:10862. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs–4093730/v1
  29. 25. Pal V, Sharma V, Gour VS. Ailanthus excelsa Roxb. in India: A multipurpose tree of Heaven for semi–arid regions. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods. 2023;32(4):268–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2023.2236122
  30. 26. Jackson ML. Soil chemical analysis: advanced course: a manual of methods useful for instruction and research in soil chemistry, physical chemistry of soils, soil fertility and soil genesis. UW–Madison Libraries parallel press; 2005
  31. 27. Subbiah BV, Asija GL. A rapid procedure for the estimation of available nitrogen in soils. Current Sci. 1956;25(8):259–60.
  32. 28. Bray RH, Kurtz LT. Determination of total, organic and available forms of phosphorus in soils. Soil Sci. 1945;59(1):39–46. https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-194501000-00006
  33. 29. Stanford G, English L. Use of the flame photometer in rapid soil tests for K and Ca. Agronomy J. 1949;41(9):446–47. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1949.00021962004100090012x
  34. 30. 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(1):29–38. https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-1934
  35. 01000-00003

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.