Refine your search
Collections
Co-Authors
Year
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z All
Srivastav, Anubha
- Status of Agroforestry Practices in Varanasi District of Eastern Plain Region of Uttar Pradesh, India
Abstract Views :541 |
PDF Views:1
Authors
Affiliations
1 Forest Research Centre for Eco-rehabilitation, Prayagraj (U.P.), IN
1 Forest Research Centre for Eco-rehabilitation, Prayagraj (U.P.), IN
Source
International Journal of Forestry and Crop Improvement, Vol 10, No 1 (2019), Pagination: 1-8Abstract
The study was conducted in selected villages (1%) of Varanasi district of Eastern plain region of Uttar Pradesh in India during the year 2018 to record the crop combinations with tree species and their stratified arrangement to identify agroforestry practices. The socio-economic studies based on general village profile, land holding, land use pattern and tree species planting pattern were performed in 12 villages representing eight blocks to collect the data with structured questionnaire and participatory rural appraisal (PRA) tools. The results demonstrated that a total of nine different agroforestry practices, silvi-horticulture, agrisilviculture, agri-horticulture, aqua-silviculture, agri-silvi-horticulture, agri-silvi-pastoral, silvi-pastoral, silvi-medicinal and homestead existed in different villages. Out of different categories, timber, fruits, medicinal, agriculture, flower and other plant species were recorded. It was recorded that out of existing agroforestry practices, scattered near farms and around homestead was found most common (about 47.0 %). The benefits from agro forestry practices in the villages was also assessed and ranked in their order of preferences in respective blocks of district. The different benefits as shade, fruits/vegetables, timber, protection, firewood, soil erosion, medicinal and fodder were scored from 1 to 8. The status of tree plantation in different area was also studied and found trees of mango were most abundant (33.1%), it was noticed that old mango trees were of deshi variety but new trees were mostly of kalmi variety for fruits. The Neem trees were recorded (25.5 %) followed by shisham (9.5 %) and teak (14.0 %). It was concluded from the results that status of agro forestry in the studied zonal area of the region is in developing stage and needs to be improved by imparting technical knowledge about planting material, methods and sale of end produces of trees to the farmers and tree growers.Keywords
Socio-Economic Studies, Agroforestry Practices, Species Diversity, Homestead System, Trees Benefit Scoring.
References
- Atul, P. and Khosla, P.K. (1990). Classification of traditional agroforestry systems. Proceeding IUFRO, 19th World Forestry Congress, Montreal: 24-27.
- Bhatt, V.P. (2002). Germination behaviour of Ficus spp. in Garhwal Himalaya. Ph.D. Thesis, HNB, Garhwal University, Sri Nagar, Garhwal, 40–50 pp.
- Bhatt, V.P., Purohit, V. and Negi, V. (2010). Multipurpose tree species of Western Himalaya with an agroforestry perspective for rural needs. J. American Sci., 6(1): 73–80.
- CAFRI Vision 2050 (2015). Central agroforestry research institute, Jhansi (U.P.) India, 2015.
- Dadhwal, K.S., Narain, P. and Dhyani, S.K. (1989). Agroforestry systems in the Garhwal Himalayas of India. Agroforestry Systems, 7: 213–225.
- Dagar, J.C., Singh, A.K. and Arunachalam, A. (2014). In: Agroforestry systems in India: Livelihood security and ecosystem services (eds.) JC Dagar, AK Singh and A Arunachalam. Springer, India. Advances in Agronomy, 10 : 1-20.
- Dhyani, S.K., Handa, A.K. and Uma (2013). Area under agroforestry in India: An assessment for present status and future perspective. Indian J. Agroforestry, 15(1):1-11.
- Dobriyal, M.J.R. (2014). Agroforestry practices for non-wood forest products and rural development. In: Agroforestry: Theory and pactices (eds.) AJ Raj and SB Lal. Scientific Publishers, India, 540 pp.
- Kumar, B.M. and Nair, P.K.R. (2004). The enigma of tropical homegardens. Agroforestry Systems, 61: 135-152.
- Kumar, Y., Thakur, T.K. and Thakur, A. (2017). Socio-cultural paradigm of Agroforestry in India. Int. J Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci., 6 (6):1371-1377.
- National Agroforestry Policy (2014).Department of agriculture and co-operation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, 2014.
- Puri, S. and Nair, P.K.R. (2004). Agroforestry research for development in India: 25 years of experiences of a national programme. Agroforestry Systems, 61:437-452.
- Singh, V.S. and Pandey, D.N. (2011). Multifunctional agroforestry systems in India: Science-Based policy options. RSPCB, 4 : 1-34.
- Smith, N., Dubois, J., Current, D., Lutz, E. and Clement, C. (1998). Agro- forestry experiences in the Brazilian Amazon: constraints and opportunities, Federal Government of Brazil, p. 67.
- Steiner, A.(2012). Agroforestry and transition to the future. In: Agroforestry-The future of global land use (eds) PKR Nair and D Garrity. Springer, Dordrecht.; 17-27.
- Toky, O.P., Kumar, P. and Khosla, P.K. (1989). Structure and function of traditional agroforest- ry systems in Western Himalaya. I. Biomass and productivity. Agroforestry Systems, 9 (1) : 47–70.
- Torquebiau, E. (1992). Are tropical agroforestry homegardens sustainable? , Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 41: 189-207.
- Verma, P., Bijalwan, A., Dobriyal, M.J.R., Swamy, S.L. and Thakur, T.K. (2017). A paradigm shift in agroforestry practices in Uttar Pradesh, Current Sci., 112 (3):509-516.