K. Jeevika B. Bakiyathu Saliha M. Vijayakumar


An assessment study was conducted in five sugarcane yielding blocks of theni district viz., Jeyamangalam, P.C.Patti, Chinnamanur, Andipatti and Usilampatti.The cane yielding zones of the district was classified into three categories viz., low yielding (less than 75 t ha-1), medium (75 to 100 t ha-1) and high yielding (more than 100 t ha-1). The key physico-chemical and biological indicators of soil were assessed in the surface (0-15 cm) and subsurface (15-30 cm) soils samples of each zone. The indicators assessed in the low cane yielding zone reflected slightly acidic pH (6.70), lower CEC (11.9 cmol (p+) kg-1) and low organic carbon (0.14 percent). The positive effects of soil physico - chemical and biological indicators on the sugarcane yield was well proved through the yield data of the high yielding zone. Almost 93 percent of the farms surveyed in the high yielding zone registered an average cane yield of 120 t ha-1. This may be attributed to a neutral pH of 7.21, non-saline soil with an average EC of 0.36 dSm-1, maximum organic carbon status (0.59 percent) and higher range of soil Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) (20 to 58.0 cmol (p+)kg-1) which resulted in maximum cane productivity. It was concluded that application of organic matter, amendments rich in calcium and magnesium in acidic soil and application of gypsum and other amendments rich in sulphur in alkali soils of low cane yielding zone can maximize productivity of sugarcane.


Download data is not yet available.


Metrics Loading ...




Biological indicator, Physicochemical indicators, Soil quality, Sugarcane productivity

Bower, C.A., Reitmeir, R.F. and Fireman, M. (1952). Exchangeablecation analysis of saline and alkali soils. Soil Science73:251-261.
Chand,R. (2007). Demand for food grains. Economic and Political Weekly 42 (52): 10 -13.
Cheong, L.R., Keekwong, K.F., Ahkoon, P.D. and Dupreez, C.C. (2010). Influence of sugarcane cropping on the Quality of an Oxisol and an Inceptisol in Mauritius. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 41: 1205- 1219.
Gomez, K.A. and Gomez, A.A.(1984). Statistical procedures for Agricultural Research, 2nd end. John Wiley Sons, New York. pp. 680.
Gopalasundaram, P., Bhaskaran, A. and Rakkiyappan, P.(2012). Integrated Nutrient Management in sugarcane. Sugar Tech 14 (1): 3-20.
Jackson, M.L. (1973). Soil Chemical analysis, Prentice Hall of India (Pvt.) Ltd., New Delhi.
Muhammad AleemSarwar, Muhammed Ibrahim Muhammad Tahir, Kafeelahamad, Zafar Iqbal khan and Ehsan ElahiValeem. (2010). Appraisal of pressmud and inorganic fertilizers on soil properties, yield and sugarcane quality.Pakistan Journal of Botany 42 (2): 1361– 1367, 2010.
Sarkar, U., Baruah, S.K.,Gangopadhyay, A.K.,Sahoo, and Velayutham, M. (2002). Characteristics and classification of soils of loktak catchment area of Manipur for sustainable land use planning.Journal of Indian Society of Soil Science 50:196 – 204.
Sharma, K.L. and Biswapati Mandal. (2009). Soil Quality and its Relevance for Sustainable Agriculture. Journal of In-dian Society of Soil Science57(4): 572 – 586.
Walkley, A. and Black, C.A.(1934). An estimation of methods for determining organic carbon and nitrogen in the soils. Journal of Agricultural Science 25: 598-609.
Citation Format
How to Cite
Jeevika, K., Saliha, B. B., & Vijayakumar, M. (2015). Soil quality indicators based recommendation to maximize sugarcane productivity in Theni district of Tamil Nadu, India. Journal of Applied and Natural Science, 7(1), 215–218. https://doi.org/10.31018/jans.v7i1.592
More Citation Formats:
Research Articles