A comparative evaluation of soil pH of different land use classes from district Gilgit, Pakistan

Paper Details

Research Paper 01/07/2016
Views (1486)
current_issue_feature_image
publication_file

A comparative evaluation of soil pH of different land use classes from district Gilgit, Pakistan

Gul Sanam, Erum Abbas, Farhana, Aliya Jabeen, Tika Khan
J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 9(1), 376-380, July 2016.
Copyright Statement: Copyright 2016; The Author(s).
License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Abstract

Soil pH is an important factor for desirable crop productions. However, due to soil amendments it is changing and negatively impacting on agricultural produce and production. A total of 162 samples tested from three different land use classes (agriculture, barren and commercial) collected from four valleys of district Gilgit in Gilgit-Baltistan province of Pakistan. Different valleys and land use classes surveyed revealed a differential scope of pH level. However, in general entire soils are alkaline and pH ranges from 8.35 – 9.03 (average 8.65). Similarly, agriculture and barren lands in Gilgit town, Danyor and Sultanabad show relatively close affinity (average 8.52 and 8.62 respectively) as compared to Oshikhandas (average 9.02 and 9.03). Continuous unplanned use of chemical fertilizers and commercial wastes are continuously influence soil pH in the area which need a regular follow-up by the Government agriculture department. At the moments, farmers are totally ignorant about soil health status and such a technique or facility to monitor these parameters to optimize their agricultural productivity. Present study provides a baseline for future studies and caution for relevant departments to look into issues related to soil health. Study is unique and conducted for the first time from the area.

Anonymous. 2013. Soil. The Encyclopedia of Earth. Retrieved from Website. Retrieved from http://www. eoearth.org/view/article/156081/ on February 2016.

Anonymous. 2016a. Soil pH for Field Crops. Cornell University Cooperative Extension. Retrieved from Website retrieved from http://www.nnyagdev .org/PDF /SoilpH.pdf on 22nd February 2016.

Anonymous. 2015b. Soil. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved from Website retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Soil on February 2016.

Hussain E, Khan B, Lencioni V, Mumtaz S, Ali F. 2012. Stream macro-invertebrate assemblages in the Bagrot Valley of Central Karakoram National Park, Pakistan. Records Zoological Survey of Pakistan 21, 60-64.

Mullen R. 2004. Soil pH and Nutrient Availability. C.O.R.N Newsletter No. 2004-24, Agriculture and Natural Resources, OSU Extension, ATI, OARDC, College of Food, Agriculture, and Environmental Sciences, Ohio State USA.

Schulte EE,Walsh LM, Kelling KA, Bundy LM, Bland WL, Wolkowki RP, Sturgul SJ. 2005. Management of Wisconsin soils. Soil acidity and liming. Fifth Edition 49-51.

Williston HL, La Fayette R. 1978. Species suitab-ility and pH of soils in southern forests. USDA Forest Service. Southeastern Area, state and Private Forestry. Forest Management Bulletin 4p.

Zain FO. 2010. A Socio-Political Study of Gilgit Baltistan Province. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences (PJSS). Vol 30, No. 1, 181-190.

Related Articles

In vitro assessment of Bambara groundnut M3 mutant genotypes for resistance to Macrophomina phaseolina (Tassi) Goid. in the seedling stage in Burkina Faso

Brahime Tingueri*, Souleymane Ouattara, Adjima Ouoba, Romain W. Soalla, Mahamadi Hamed Ouedraogo, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 28(6), 141-149, June 2026.

Impact of Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae on biochemical and antioxidant enzymes in Rhynchophorus ferrugineus (Olivier) infesting oil palm

M. Malarvizhi, N. Santhana Bharathi, K. Sujatha*, A. Vijaya Anand, R. Manikandan, J. P. Antony Prabhu, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 28(6), 129-140, June 2026.

Typhoon risk perception and preparedness after Sendong in Bayug Island

Dinah Millendez*, Lex Rei Brendon Hilario, Jay Rey Alovera, Elizabeth Edan Albiento, Melgie Alas, Peter Suson, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 28(6), 120-128, June 2026.

Floristic composition and woody species diversity in Campo-Ma’an National Park, South Cameroon

Achey Nkenfack Djike Baudelair*, Temgoua Lucie Félicité, Kuete Fogang Marcien, Nfondem Poumie Mohamed Mounir, Atoupka Abdel Malik, Djeuni Duplex Romuald, Kontchiachou Nkana Didier, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 28(6), 103-119, June 2026.

Comparative effects of bio-inoculant on nutrient dynamics of biodegradable waste

Anjelle-J G. Debosura*, Carlo Stephen O. Moneva, Corazon V. Ligaray, Elizabeth Edan M. Albiento, MA. Cecilia V. Almeda, Melgie A. Alas, Frandel Louis S. Dagoc, Peter D. Suson, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 28(6), 97-102, June 2026.

Impact of deforestation on the aquatic macroinvertebrate community and the ecological quality of Mé River (South-East, Côte d’Ivoire)

Gnago Dohou Affri*, Tapé Logboh David, Edia Oi Edia, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 28(6), 80-96, June 2026.

Vulnerability and regeneration potential of Bambusa vulgaris in Ebolowa, South Cameroon

Rodine Tchiofo Lontsi*, Duchesse Elvira Kepmou, Emilienne Laure Ngahane, Jacques Christophe Awoa Essam, Isaac Blaise Djoko, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 28(6), 68-79, June 2026.

Temporal availability of floral resources for the honey bee (Apis mellifera) in a forest ecosystem in the sudanian zone of Côte d’Ivoire: The case of Badenou classified forest

Dofoungo Koné*, Comlan Mawussi Koudegnan, Siendou Coulibaly, Fofana Séguéna, Bruno Marcel Iritié, Wandan Eboua Narcisse, J. Biodiv. & Environ. Sci. 28(6), 56-67, June 2026.