assessment of water use efficiency and growth of tree species of agroforestry importance neha tolia

63 Pages·2014·6.82 MB·English

ASSESSMENT OF WATER USE EFFICIENCY AND GROWTH
OF TREE SPECIES OF AGROFORESTRY IMPORTANCE

NEHA TOLIA
PALB 2211

DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY & ENVIRONMENTAL
SCIENCE
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
BENGALURU
2014
ASSESSMENT OF WATER USE EFFICIENCY AND GROWTH
OF TREE SPECIES OF AGROFORESTRY IMPORTANCE

NEHA TOLIA
PALB 2211

Thesis submitted to the
University of Agricultural Sciences, Bengaluru
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the award of the degree of

MMMMaaaasssstttteeeerrrr ooooffff SSSScccciiiieeeennnncccceeee ((((AAAAggggrrrriiiiccccuuuullllttttuuuurrrreeee))))
in
EEEENNNNVVVVIIIIRRRROOOONNNNMMMMEEEENNNNTTTTAAAALLLL SSSSCCCCIIIIEEEENNNNCCCCEEEE

BENGALURU JULY, 2014
A ffectionately
D edicated to m y
B eloved G randparents,
P arents
&
M y G uide
DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY & ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
BENGALURU

CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the thesis entitled “Assessment of Water use efficiency and
growth of tree species of agroforestry importance ” submitted by Ms. Neha Tolia, ID
No. PALB 2211 for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE (Agriculture) in
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE to the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore,
is a record of bonafide research work done by her during the period of her study in this
university under my guidance and supervision and the thesis has not previously formed
the basis of the award of degree, diploma, associateship, fellowship or any other similar
titles.

Bangalore ( Dr.A. S.
DEVAKUMAR)
July, 2014 Major
advisor

APPROVED BY:

Chairman :
___________________________
(Dr. A. S. DEVAKUMAR)

Members :
___________________________
(Dr. S. HATTAPPA)

__________________________
(Dr. K. T. PRASANNA)

___________________________
(Dr. NAGARAJU)

__________________________
(Dr. M. S.
SHESHSHAYEE)
AAAACCCCKKKKNNNNOOOOWWWWLLLLEEEEDDDDGGGGEEEEMMMMEEEENNNNTTTT
Working as a M. Sc. Student in UAS-B was a magnificent as well as challenging experience to me.
During these years, many people were instrumental directly or indirectly in shaping up my academic
career. I take this opportunity to convey my love and appreciation to all those who have been a part of
my life during this phase of my life.

It is with immense gratitude that I acknowledge the support and help of my supervisor Prof. dr. A. S.
Devakumar. It was only due to his valuable guidance, cheerful enthusiasm and supporting nature that
I was able to complete my research work in a respectable manner. I extend my warm regards for him
for his being whatever he has been to me.

With a sense of pride and dignity, I sincerely thank the members of my advisory committee Dr. S.
Hattappa Professor & Head of Dept. of Forestry and Environmental Science, UAS, Bangalore, Dr.
K. T. Prasanna, Professor, Dept. of Forestry and Environmental Science, UAS, Bangalore, Dr.
Nagraju, Profressor of Agronomy and Dr. M. S. Sheshshayee Professor, Dept. of Crop Physiology,
UAS, Bangalore for their constructive suggestions, valuable guidance, providing facilities in carrying
out my research work and timely correction of my thesis manuscript.

In addition, a thank you to all my course teachers who has imparted me knowledge and wisdom during
the course of my study.

I am indebted to my colleagues Dincy Dechama, Hamsa R and Pardis for their support, co-operation
and physical help rendered during the conduct of these experiments.

I express thanks to Mr. Sumanth Kambalimath for providing technical support during my experiment.

The thesis must surely bear the imprint of the love and affection showered on me by my family
members. I want to extend my appreciation to my grandparents and parents for their boundless love,
unshakable confidence and dedicated efforts in shaping my career since childhood. My diction does not
seem to be rich enough to provide suitable words to articulate my love to them.

A personal note of gratitude to my lovable and dearest friends Gunjan, Goldi and Shweta for their
moral support, care and constant encouragement throughout my degree and also for making my journey
enjoyable and memorable.

I extent my sincere thanks to all other supporting staff of Forestry & Environmental Science and
Crop Physiology Department for providing all the material requirements for smooth execution of my
research work.

Finally, zillions of thanks from my teeming heart to all those who have been involved in some way or
the other in the completion of this thesis.

Bangalore Neha Tolia
July, 2014
ABSTRACT
To understand drought adaptation mechanisms of any tree species its
physiological analysis is the best way. In present investigation six agroforestry tree
species (Melia dubia, Pongamia pinnata, Eucalyptus camaldulensis (clone: BCM-413),
Calophyllum inophyllum, Simarouba glauca & Aphanamixis polystachya) were analyzed
for their Water Use Efficiency (WUE) and drought tolerance. Two sets of plants were
grown at field capacity and 50% field capacity (stress) and various morphological,
physiological and biochemical parameters were monitored along with gravimetric
approach and carbon isotope discrimination. The total period of the experiment after
moisture stress imposition was 70 days. E. camaldulensis and M. dubia recorded
maximum growth rates and photosynthetic rates, whereas C. inophyllum and A.
polystachya recorded highest reduction under stress. This reduction in growth and carbon
assimilation was due to reduction in stomatal conductance which can be attributed to leaf
area and photosynthetic rates under stress. The cumulative water transpired was directly
related to the dry biomass production and so also the carbon isotope discrimination and
WUE. In P. pinnata and S. glauca growth rates were less compared to E. camaldulensis
and M. dubia, but the reduction in growth under stress was also less. The wax content had
also not decreased except in E. camaldulensis and S. glauca under stress. Species with
higher wax content had shown lower leaf temperature. Lower reduction in growth at 50%
moisture stress in all the species studied is an indication of relatively higher stress
tolerance of tree species studied. M. dubia is a better species for drought susceptible
regions compared to E. comaldulensis as it had better WUE.

Forestry & Environmental Science A.S. Devakumar
UAS, GKVK, Bangalore. (Major advisor)
¸ÁgÁA±À
ºªÀ ÁªÀiÁ£ À §z¯À ÁªuÀ ¬É ÄAzÀ PÀȶ ºÁUÀÆ PÁr£À ¨¼É ªÀ uÀ ÉUAÉ iÀÄ ªÉÄï É C¢Pü À ¥jÀ uÁªÀÄ ©ÃgÀĪ À
ªÀÄÄ£ÀÆìZ£À É ¸AÀ ±ÉÆÃz£À UÉ ½À z À PAÀ qÀħA¢z.É F ¤nÖ£°À è ºªÀ ÁªÀiÁ£ À §z¯À ÁªuÀ AÉ iÀÄ ¥ÀæªÀÄÄR
PÁgtÀ ªÁz À EAUÁ®z À ¥ÀæªÀiÁtª£À ÀÄß UÁ½AiÀÄ°è PrÀ ªÉÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ CUvÀ Àå. DzÀÄzjÀ Az À C¢Pü À d®
§¼PÀ AÉ iÀÄ PÀëªÀÄv É ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ ªÀÄgUÀ ¼À À ¥Àæ¨ÃÉ zUÀ ¼À £À ÀÄß UÀÄgÀÄw¹ Cz£À ÀÄß PÀȶ CgtÀ åz°À è ¨¼É ¸É ÀĪÀÅzjÀ Az À
ºªÀ ÁªÀiÁ£ À §z¯À ÁªuÀ AÉ iÀÄ ¸ÀªÀĸÉåAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤AiÀÄAw渮À Ä ¸ÁzÀå. F ¤nÖ£°À è DgÀÄ ªÀÄg À ¥Àæ¨ÃsÉ zUÀ ¼À À d®
§¼PÀ AÉ iÀÄ PÁAiÀÄðPÀëªÀÄv É ºÁUÀÄ C£ÁªÀ馅 vqÀÀ zÉ ÀÄ PÉƼÀÄîª À PÀëªÀÄvAÉ iÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥jÀ ÃQ븯À Á¬ÄvÀÄ. EªÀÅU¼À °À è
Bem-143
¤Ã®Vj ( ) ºÁUÀÄ º¨ÉÉ ÉâêÀÅ CwºZÉ ÀÄ Ñ ¨¼É ªÀ uÀ ÉUAÉ iÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÆtð PÉëÃvÀæ ¸ÁªÀÄxÀåð ¹ÜwAiÀÄ°è
ºÉÆA¢zÀÄÝ ¹ÃªÀiÁgÀƧ ºÁUÀÆ PÁè¯ÉƦ®A ¥Àæ¨ÃÉ zUÀ ¼À ÀÄ Cw PrÀ ªÉÄ ¨¼É §À tU AÉ iÀÄ£ÀÄß zÁR°¹gÀÀÄvÀÛz.É
DzgÀ É d®§¼PÀ AÉ iÀÄ PÁAiÀÄð ±ÀæªÀÄvAÉ iÀÄÄ ¤Ã®Vj ºÁUÀÆ º¨É Éâ룰À è Cwà PrÀ ªÉÄAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, ¹ÃªÀiÁgÀƧ
ºÁUÀÆ PÁè¯ÉÆæ®AU¼À °À è Cwà ºZÉ ÀÄÑ PAÀ qÀħA¢z.É F ¥Àæ¨ÃÉ zUÀ À¼£À ÀÄß CzsðÀ PÉëÃvÀæ ¸ÁªÀÄxÀåðz°À è
¨¼É zÉ ÁU À ¹ÃªÀiÁgÀƧ ¨¼É §À tU AÉ iÄÀ °è ¥ÀÆtðPÉëÃvÀæ ¸ÁªÀÄxÀåð ¨¼É ªÀ tÀ U VÉ AvÀ ºaÉ £Ñ À ªÁåvÁå¸ À
PAÀ qÀħg°À ®è DzgÀ É PÁè¯ÉÆæ®A, C¥ÉÆ£«À ÄQë¸ï ºÁUÀÆ ¤Ã®Vj ¥Àæ¨ÃÉ zUÀ ¼À °À è ±ÃÉ RqÁ 41.4 ºÁUÀÄ
36 gµÀ ÀÄÖ ¨¼É ªÀ tÀ UÂ É PrÀ ªÉÄAiÀiÁV PAÀ qÀÄ §AvÀÄ. ºÀUAÉ iÉÄà ¥ÀÆtð PÉëÃvÀæ ¸ÁªÀÄxÀåðz°À è ¨¼É zÉ ÁU À
d®§¼PÀ AÉ iÀÄ PÀëªÀÄvAÉ iÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤Ã®Vj ºÁUÀÄ º¨É Éâ룰À è Cwà PrÀ ªÉÄAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ ¹ÃªÀÄgÀƧ ºÁUÀÄ
PÁè¯ÉÆæ®AU¼À °À è Cwà ºZÉ ÀÄ Ñ PAÀ qÀÄ §A¢z.É F ¥Àæ¨ÉÃzUÀ ¼À £À ÀÄß CzsÀð PÉëÃvÀæ ¸ÁªÀÄxÀåðz°À è ¨¼É zÉ ÁU À
DgÀÄ ¥Àæ¨ÃÉ zUÀ ¼À °À è £Á®ÄÌ ¥Àæ¨ÃÉ zUÀ ¼À ÀÄ ºZÉ ÀÄÑ d® §¼ÀPAÉ iÀÄ PÁAiÀÄðPÀëªÀÄvAÉ iÀÄ£ÀßAiÀÄ vÉÆÃj¹gÀÄvÀÛz.É DzgÀ É
ºÉÆAU É ºÁUÀÆ PÁè¯ÉƦ®A ¥Àæ¨ÃÉ zUÀ ¼À ÀÄ PrÀ ªÉÄAiÀiÁV PAÀ qÀħA¢z.É DgÀÄ ¥Àæ¨ÃÉ zUÀ ¼À À°è º¨É ÉâêÀÅ ±ÃÉ PqÀ À
25 gµÀ ÀÄÖ ºaÀÉ £Ñ À d® §¼PÀ AÉ iÀÄ PÁAiÀÄð PÀëªÀÄvAÉ iÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢zÀÄÝ ºaÉ £Ñ À d¯ÁªÀȶÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vqÀÀ zÉ ÀÄPÉƼÀÄîª À
¸ÁªÀÄxÀåðª£À ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀÅzÁV PAÀ rz.É DgÀÄ ¥Àæ¨ÃÉ zUÀ ¼À °À è ¤Ã®Vj ºÁUÀÆ º¨É ÉâêÀÅ ºaÉ £Ñ À
¨¼É ªÀ tÀ U AÉ iÀÄ ¸ÁªÀÄxÀåð ºÉÆA¢zÀÄÝ EªÀÅU¼À °À è ºaÀÉ Ñ£ À d®§¼PÀ AÉ iÀÄ PÁAiÀÄð PÀëªÀÄv É ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀÅzjÀ Az À
§g À ¦Ãrv À ª®À AiÀÄU¼À °À è F ¥Àæ¨ÃÉ z¢À Az À ºaÉ £Ñ À DzÁAiÄÀ ¥qÀ AÉ iÀÄĪ À ¸ÁzÀåv É Ez.É F DgÀÄ
¥Àæ¨ÃÉ zUÀ ¼À °À è ºZÉ ÀÄ Ñ ¨É¼ªÀ tÀ UÂ É vÉÆÃj¹zAÀ v À ¤Ã®Vj ºÁUÀÄ º¨É ÉâêÀÅU¼À ÀÄ Cwà ºZÉ ÀÄÑ ¢éw ¸AÀ ¸ÉèñuÀ Á
¸ÁªÀÄxÀåðv É ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀÅzÁV PAÀ qÀħA¢z É ºÁUAÉ iÉÄà ¨ÁµÀ૸dÀ ð£,É J¯UÉ ¼À À ªÉÄÃt GvÁàz£À É J¯UÉ ¼À À
«¹ÛÃtð, VqzÀ À ¤Ãj£À CA±,À ¨ÃÉ j£ À ¨¼É ªÀ tÀ ÂU É Eª®É èªÅÀU¼À °À è£ À ¸ÁªÀÄxÀåðU½À U£À ÀÄUÀÄtªÁV
¨¼É ªÀ tÀ U AÉ iÀÄ°è ªÁåvÁå¸UÀ ¼À ÀÄ PAÀ qÀÄ §gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ F ¸«À ÄÃPÉë¬ÄAz À PAÀ qÀħA¢z.É

(qÁ. J.J¯ï. zÉêÀPÀĪÀiÁgï)
CgtÀ å ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥jÀ ¸gÀ À «eÁУ À
PÀȶ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄ, ¨AÉ U¼À ÀÆgÀÄ ¥ÀæzsÁ£ À ¸®À ºUÉ ÁggÀ ÀÄ

CONTENTS

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE NO.

I 1-2
INTRODUCTION

II
3-9
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

III
10-20
MATERIAL AND METHODS

IV 21-24
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

V
25-28
DISCUSSION

VI
29
SUMMARY

VII
30-42
REFERENCES
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
Title
No. No.
Effect of moisture stress (50%) on TDW and TLA in
1 21
selected tree species of agroforestry importance.
Effect of moisture stress (50%) on WUE, A and g in
2 s 22
selected tree species of agroforestry importance.
Effect of moisture stress (50%) on growth and certain
3 physiological traits in selected tree species of agroforestry 22
importance.
4 Stomatal distribution among different tree species. 23
Effect of moisture stress (50 %) on Wax content and RWC
5 24
in selected tree species of agroforestry importance.