SOIL-SITE SUITABILITY EVALUATION FOR GROUNDNUT IN SOUTHERN SAURASHTRA REGION OF GUJARAT

Legume Res., 32 (3 : 157-165, 2009 AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATION CENTRE www.arccjournals.com / indianjournals.com SOIL-SITE SUITABILITY EVALUATION FOR GROUNDNUT IN SOUTHERN SAURASHTRA REGION OF GUJARAT S.G. Savalia and J.D. Gundalia Department of Agricultural Chemistry and Soil Science, Junagadh Agricultural University, Junagadh-362 001, India. ABSTRACT The soil-site suitability for groundnut cultivation was evaluated in southern Saurashtra region of Gujarat. The soils over upper piedmont (except Lithic Ustorthents, 4, lower piedmont, piedmont plain (Typic Haplustepts, P 7 only and coastal plain (Fluventic Haplustepts P 8 only are moderately suitable ( whereas the soils over upper piedmont (Lithic Ustorthents, 4 only and coastal plain (Fluventic Haplustepts, 2 are marginally suitable (S for groundnut 3 cultivation. However, the soils over piedmont plain except Typic Haplustepts, P 7 and coastal plain (Calcic Haplustepts, 6 only are currently not suitable (N 1 whereas all the soils over hill slope are not suitable (N 2 for groundnut cultivation. Key words : Soil-site suitability, Groundnut, Land forms, Soil sustainability, Limitations. INTRODUCTION The soils of Saurashtra region are unique in origin having diverse in genesis, physiography, climate, vegetation, depth, colour, age etc. An understanding of soil characteristics are helpful in the magnitude of changes that may have taken place during the development and in planning the proper management practices to its efficient use in land use planning. Therefore, it is worthwhile to characterize the soils Southern Saurashtra region of Gujarat for their better management. Yield of any crop is influenced by kind of soils occurring in the area, prevailing climate, topography and management levels. Groundnut (Arachis hypogea is one of the important crops grown in the soils of Southern Saurashtra region in Gujarat state. The groundnut production of this region is not stable. Growing the crop without proper consideration of soil and site characteristics has resulted in overall lower yield and deterioration of soil health. Hence, it is essential to interpret the soil site and its characteristics in terms of their suitability for this major crop grown in this area and alternative land use planning on suitable basis. Information on soilsite suitability for groundnut crop in different land forms in Southern Saurashtra region or for that matter in entire Gujarat is scanty. Hence, it is desirable that the groundnut crop should be grown as per suitability in different kinds of soils as well as climate and physiography. Optimum requirement of a crop are always region specific. Considering this, soil-site requirement for groundnut in the region was developed taking into account the available literature and field and local experience as suggested by FAO (1976. In the present study, an attempt has been made to evaluate Soil-site suitability for groundnut crop in different land forms of Southern Saurashtra region of Gujarat. MATERIAL AND METHODS The study area comprises of south Saurashtra agro-climatic zone covering major part of Junagadh district and some part of Amreli district in Southern Saurashtra region of Gujarat. It lies between 20 0 402 to 21 0 102 N latitude and 70 0 252 to 71 0 262 E longitude. The area falls under semi-arid (dry climate with a mean annual rainfall of 732 mm. The temperature regime of the study area is megathermic in hill slope, upper piedmont and lower piedmont, and iso-megathermic in piedmont plain and coastal area. (SWMR and NBSS & LUP, 2000.

158 Vol. 32, No. 3, 2009 IRA LISS II FCC imagery on 1:50,000 scale in conjunction with survey of India topographical (SOI map referred above on 1:50,000 scales were used to identify various land forms units. Sixteen representative soils of five landforms viz., hill slope (LS-1, upper piedmont (LS-2, lower piedmont (LS-3, piedmont plain (LS-4 and coastal plain (LS-5 were selected for present study. Physical and chemical characteristics were estimated by using standard procedures. Indicators of soil sustainability were compared with the limits as proposed by Lal (1994. Evaluation of soil sustainability based on evaluating the constraints of soils and are accomplished by using scoring method, as outlined by Lal (1994, viz., = highly sustainable (<20, = Sustainable (20-25, = Sustainable with high input, (25-30 and S 4 = Sustainable with alternate land use (30-40. The soil-site suitability for groundnut was carried out using the FAO (1976 and Sys et al. (1991 with slight modification by NBSS & LUP (1994 were matched with soil-site characteristics of different soil types of arrive at suitability classes. Suitability classes were determined with regards to the number and intensity of limitations. The soils were evaluated in different suitability classes viz., : highly suitable, : moderately suitable, : marginally suitable, N-1: currently not suitable and N-2: unsuitable (Sys et al., 1993. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Soil characterization : The data pertaining to soil characteristics of different landforms of the pedon to 6 are presented in Table 1. Hill slope : The clay content ranged from 27.47 to 32.49 with the mean value of 29.98 per cent. The soil ph ranged from 7.70 to 7.87 with a mean of 7.78 showing the slightly alkaline in reaction which might be due to well drained nature of soils in association with comparative high rainfall. These findings are similar to those of Deshmukh and Bapat (1993. The organic carbon content varied from 0.57 to 0.81 per cent (mean of 0.69% indicating the soils were medium in organic carbon content. The content of calcium carbonate varied between 1.96 to 10.09% (mean of 6.03%. The CEC ranged from 22.24 to 25.77 cmol (P + kg -1 (mean of 24.01. cmol (P + kg -1. Similar observations have also been made by Sharma and Bhaskar (2003. The ESP ranged from 7.00 to 8.34 (mean of 7.67. The lower values of ESP might be due to the washing down of salts by rain. (Paramshivam, 1992. Upper piedmont : The value of clay content ranged between 29.48 to 41.55 with the mean of 35.06%. The soil ph varied from 8.08 to 8.13 with the mean of 8.12 indicating the soils were moderately alkaline in reaction. The findings of present investigation are in complete agreement with findings of NWR & WSD (1999. The organic carbon content of soils was medium and ranged between 0.34 to 0.70% (mean of 0.56% with CaCO 3 content ranging from 3.27 to 36.00% (mean of 12.20%. The CEC varied from 20.55 to 28.10 cmol (P + kg -1 (mean of 25.17 cmol (P + kg -1. The ESP ranged from 6.38 to 7.62 (mean of 6.95. The comparatively lower value of ESP might be due to the washing down of salt by rain or irrigation water which predicts no alkalinity hazards in near future. Lower piedmont : The clay content varied from 16.40 to 49.45 per cent (mean of 34.45%. The soils were moderately alkaline in reaction with ph ranged from 7.99 to 8.21 (mean of 8.13. The EC ranged from 0.22 to 0.31 dsm -1 (mean of 0.27 dsm -1. The organic carbon content was medium and varied from 0.15 to 0.93 per cent (mean of 0.58% and calcium carbonate content varied between 2.55 to 35.35 per cent (mean of 18.97%. Similar results were also observed by Savalia et al. (2000. The CEC ranged from 16.11 to 26.15 cmol (P + kg -1 (mean of 24.19 cmol (P + kg -1. The ESP ranged from 7.86 to 13.50 (mean of 10.58. Piedmont plain : The clay content ranged between 25.45 to 38.10 per cent (mean of 32.59 %. The soils were moderately alkaline in reaction and ph ranged from 8.00 to 8.24 (mean of 8.14. The EC varied from 0.23 to 1.06 dsm -1 (mean of 0.52 dsm -1. The soils were low in organic carbon content which varied from 0.17 to 0.53 per cent (mean of 0.36%. This might be due to frequent allvium depositional activities and less vegetative cover (Deshmukh and Bapat, 1993. The content of calcium carbonate ranged from 3.93 to 22.83

LEGUME RESEARCH 159 Table 1. Soil characteristics of the southern Saurashtra (weighted means. Pedon Particle size (% ph EC Org.C CaCO 3 CEC ESP Soil limitations SSC (1:2.5 (dsm -1 (% (% [cmol Sand Silt Clay (P + kg -1 ] Extreme Severe Moderate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Hill slope MSL : 150-170 m : Lithic Ustorthents 39.07 33.46 27.47 7.70 0.18 0.81 10.09 25.77 7.00 - Depth ph, OC S (22* 2 3 : Lithic Ustorthents 47.30 20.21 32.49 7.87 0.18 0.57 1.96 22.24 8.34 Depth ph, OC B.D. (26 Mean 43.18 26.84 29.98 7.78 0.18 0.69 6.03 24.01 7.67 - - - - Upper piedmont MSL : 75-150 m P 2 : Lithic Ustrothents 37.10 30.02 32.88 8.08 0.19 0.65 5.78 24.65 6.38 - Depth, B.D., S (28** 3 Texture, Sat.** ph, EC HC : Typic Haplustepts 32.78 37.74 29.48 8.13 0.24 0.70 36.00 20.55 7.62 - ph, OC Depth, S (26 3 B.D., AWC, Sat. HC P 9 : Lithic Ustrothents 47.40 16.26 36.34 8.13 0.19 0.56 3.27 28.10 6.74 Texture Depth, - S (30 4 B.D., Sat. HC, ph, OC 4 : Lithic Ustrothents 22.46 35.99 41.55 8.13 0.23 0.34 3.75 27.37 7.06 - Depth, B.D S 4 (30 Texture, Sat. HC, ph Mean 34.94 30.00 35.06 8.12 0.21 0.56 12.20 25.17 6.95 - - - - Lower piedmont MSL : 25-75 m : Vertic Haplustepts 21.00 38.87 40.13 7.99 0.31 0.70 17.63 28.80 7.86 - Texture, Depth (28 B.D., Sat. HC, ph, OC P 6 : Typic Ustrothents 50.77 32.83 16.40 8.15 0.25 0.15 20.33 16.11 13.50 B.D., Depth, AWC, (30 OC ph Sat. HC 0 : Typic Haplustepts 33.47 34.73 31.80 8.16 0.22 0.93 35.35 25.68 9.60 - Depth, AWC, (25 ph Sat. HC Contd...

160 Vol. 32, No. 3, 2009 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 : Vertic Haplustepts 20.56 29.99 49.45 8.21 0.31 0.55 2.55 26.15 11.35 ph B.D., Depth, (29 Texture, Sat. H.C. OC Mean 31.45 34.10 34.45 8.13 0.27 0.58 18.97 24.19 10.58 - - - - Piedmont plain MSL : 10-25 m P 4 : Fluventic 22.68 39.22 38.10 8.00 1.06 0.38 22.83 26.34 14.90 OC Sat. HC, B.D. (25 Calciustepts ph P 7 : Typic Haplustepts 51.87 22.68 25.45 8.19 0.26 0.53 19.28 10.99 9.26 - B.D., Depth, (26 OC Sat HC, ph 1 : Fluventic 26.64 39.14 34.22 8.24 0.23 0.17 3.93 23.99 11.21 ph, OC - Depth, B.D. (28 Haplustepts Sat. HC Mean 33.73 33.68 32.59 8.14 0.52 0.36 15.35 23.72 11.79 - - - - Coastal plain MSL : 0-10 m P 8 : Fluventic 25.02 43.98 31.00 8.05 0.67 0.36 9.17 26.21 8.62 - B.D., Sat. - (27 Haplustepts HC, ph, OC 2 : Fluventic 32.24 43.11 24.65 8.39 0.24 0.12 11.05 24.15 12.92 ph, OC Sat. HC (27 Haplustepts B.D. 6 : Calcic Haplustepts 35.66 39.07 25.27 8.59 1.01 0.34 47.05 23.27 12.30 Sat. HC, B.D., Depth, S 4 (33 ph OC,SAR AWC Mean 30.97 42.06 26.97 8.34 0.64 0.27 22.42 24.54 11.28 - - - - SSC = Soil Suitability Class, Sat. H.C. = Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity, OC = Organic Carbon, AWC = Available Water Capacity, SAR = Sodium Adsorption Ratio. * Figures in parenthesis indicate weighting factors.

LEGUME RESEARCH 161 per cent (mean of 15.35% indicating the soils were high calcareous in nature. This might be the part of local alluvium deposition in view of terrain characteristics. These findings are in close vicinity of those of Sharma et al. (1996. The CEC varied from 10.99 to 26.34 cmol (P + kg -1 (mean of 23.72 cmol (P + kg -1. The ESP was velatively high and ranged from 9.26 to 14.90 (mean of 11.79. This might be due its mobility and position of profile in transect (Sharma, 1995, poor drainage, shallow ground water and high Na-salts. The results are in accordance with the findings of Barua (1989. The relatively higher ESP of these soils indicates the possible potential alkalinity hazard in the near future. Preventive and reclamation measures and drainage improvement in this area is required. Coastal plain : The total sand, silt and clay content varied from 25.02 to 35.66, 39.07 to 43.98 and 24.65 to 31.00 per cent with the mean of 30.97, 42.06 and 26.97 per cent, respectively, indicating higher proportion of silt followed by total sand and minimum of clay. The ph, EC and organic carbon content ranged from 8.05 to 8.59, 0.24 to 1.01 dsm - 1 and 0.12 to 0.36 per cent with the mean of 8.34, 0.64 dsm -1 and 0.27 per cent, respectively, indicating the soils were moderately alkaline in reaction, low in organic carbon status and highly calcareous in nature. The high ph in these area might be due to calcareous parent material and accumulation of salts (Singh, 1999. The higher value of EC in these soils indicated the accumulation of salts received through flowing water from adjoining area. These findings are similar to those reported by Sharma (1995. The lower values of organic carbon status in these soils due to more alluvium depositional activities, continuing erosion and less vegetative cover (Deshmukh and Bapat, 1993. The calcium carbonate varied between 9.17 and 47.05 per cent (mean of 22.42%. This might be due to the poor drainage, shallow ground water and high Na-salts. In general, the soils of the study area were clay loam to clay in texture, slight to moderately alkaline in reaction and calcareous in nature. The soils on higher altitude have low ph, EC, CaCO 3 and ESP than the soils on lower altitude. Constraints analysis for soil sustainability : The soil constraints evaluation and soil sustainability of different land slopes of Southern Saurashtra are given in Table-1. In general, the soils of pedon (Sasan were placed in sustainable class, while the soils associated with the pedons P 2 to P 8, 0 to 3 and 5 were placed in sustainable with high input class whereas the soils of P 9, 4 and 6 were placed in sustainable with alternate land use class S 4. In general, the soils at higher elevation have the major soil constraints like shallow depth, fine texture, ph and poor soil fertility (low O.C., whereas at lower elevation have high ph, poor drainage as well as soil fertility (low O.C. and bulk density (Table 1. Soil-Site suitability for groundnut : The soil characteristics of studied pedons used in assessing suitability are presented in Table 2 while a perusal of data on degree of limitations and suitability of soils for groundnut are presented in Table 3 and 4. Hill slope : The soils associated with the pedon and 3 belong to Lithic Ustorthents are not suitable (N 2 for groundnut cultivation because of major limitations like topography and shallow depth in pedon and topography, Shallow depth and poor soil fertility (1ow O.C. in pedon 3. Upper Piedmont : The soils of pedons P 2, and P 9 belongs to Typic Ustorthents and belongs to Typic Haplustepts have been evaluated to be suitable ( for groundnut cultivation. The major limitations in pedons P 2 and P 9 belongs to Typic Ustorthents are soil texture and shallow soil depth. The soils of pedon belongs to Typic Haplustepts have the major soil constraints like soil texture, shallow soil depth and high CaCo 3. The soils of pedon 4 belongs to Lithic Ustorthents have been evaluated to be marginal suitable ( for groundnut cultivations on account of limitations like topography, texture, shallow soil depth and poor soil fertility (low O.C.. On adoption of corrective measures in the soils of upper piedmont, the suitability class for the groundnuts can be corrected. Lower Piedmont : The soils of pedons and 5 belongs to Vertic Haplustepts, P 6 belongs to Typic Ustorthents and 0 belongs to Typic Haplustepts are found to be moderately suitable ( for groundnut on account of limitations like poor drainage, texture and shallow soil depth in pedon, texture, shallow soil depth, poor soil fertility (low

162 Vol. 32, No. 3, 2009 Table 2. Soil characteristics of studied pedons used in assessing suitability. Pedon No. Climate (c Wetness (w Physical characteristics (S* Soil fertility characteristics (f* Salinity / Alkalinity (n* Rainfall Temp. Topography Drainage Texture Soil depth AWC CaCO 3 Organic Base CEC ECe ESP (mm ( 0 C slope (% (cm (mm/m (% carbon saturation (cmol (dsm -1 (% (% (p + kg -1 LS-1 : Hill slope MSL 150-170 m 870 27.2 8-15 Well sicl 35 234 10 1.25 92 26 0.76 7.00 3 870 26.8 8-15 Well sicl 15 226 2 0.65 92 22 0.75 8.34 LS-2 : Upper Piedmont MSL 75-150 m P 2 870 27.2 1-3 Well sic 30 215 6 0.87 93 25 0.77 6.38 870 27.2 1-3 Well sicl 55 196 36 0.84 91 21 0.91 7.62 P 9 870 27.2 0-1 Well c 27 274 3 0.81 93 28 0.78 6.74 4 870 26.8 3-8 Well sic 33 273 4 0.38 94 27 0.86 7.06 LS-3 : Lower piedmont M5-75 m 594 27.2 1-3 Imperfect sic 60 263 18 0.75 94 29 1.07 7.98 P 6 769 27.2 1-3 Well sl 40 190 20 0.42 92 16 1.32 13.50 0 870 27.2 0-1 & 1-3 Mod.well sicl 45 221 35 1.10 93 26 0.76 9.60 5 589 26.8 1-5 Imperfect sic 65 327 3 0.75 93 26 1.01 11.35 LS-4 : Piedmont Plain MSL 10-25 m P 4 594 27.2 0-1 Poor sicl 200 305 23 0.42 93 26 3.45 14.00 P 7 769 27.2 0-1 Mod.well sicl 85 217 19 0.80 93 20 1.00 9.26 1 594 27.2 0-1 Poor sicl 85 266 4 0.29 92 24 0.90 11.21 LS-5 : Coastal Plain MSL 0-10 m P 8 594 27.2 0-1 Imperfect sicl 120 293 9 0.59 91 26 2.30 8.92 2 594 27.2 0-1 Imperfect sl 115 266 11 0.20 91 24 0.75 12.92 6 589 26.8 0-1 Poor sicl 70 185 47 0.69 93 23 3.66 12.30 * Weighted mean, sicl = silty clay loam, sic = silty clay, sil = silty loam, sl = sandy loam, c = clay.

LEGUME RESEARCH 163 Table 3. Soil-site suitability evaluation for the groundnut in the soils of different landforms of Southern Saurashtra (FAO, 1976 and sys et al, 1991. Pedon No. Climate (c Wetness (w Physical Characteristics (s Soil fertility (f Salinity/Allcalinity (n Rainfall Temp. Topography Drainage Texture Soil depth CaCo 3 CEC BSP O.C. Salinity Sodicity (r ( o c (t (d (te (sd (ca (% (ce (Sa (ESP(es 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 LS-1 Hill Slope MSL 150-170 m N 2 3 N 2 N 2 LS-2 Upper Piedmont MSL 75-150 m P 2 P 9 4 LS-3 Lower Piedmont MSL 25-75 m P 6 0 5 LS-4 Piedmont Plain MSL 10-25 m P 4 N 1 P 7 1 N 1 LS-5 Coastal Plain MSL 0-10 m P 8 2 6 N 1

164 Vol. 32, No. 3, 2009 Table 4. Limitation levels of the land characteristics and land suitability class for groundnut. Pedon Location Sub group Soil-site suitability class No. for groundnut LS-1 : Hill Slope, MSL : 150-170 m Sasan (Gir, Ta.Talala, Dist. Junagadh Lithic Ustorthents N 2 w(t 4 s(t e 3 Dedan, Ta.Khambha, Dist. Khambha Lithic Ustorthents N 2 w(t 4 s(te 1 sd 4 f(oc 1 LS-2 : Upper Piedmont, MSL : 75-150 m P 2 Borvav(Gir Ta.Talala, Dist. Junagadh Lithic Ustorthents s(te 1 Jamwala (Gir Tal.Una, Dist. Junagadh Typic Haplustepts s(te 1 sd 1 ca 2 P 9 Fatsar, Ta. Una, Dist. Junagadh Lithic Ustorthents s(te 1 4 Dedan, Ta.Khambha, Dist. Amreli Lithic Ustorthents w(t 2 s(te 1 LS-3 : Lower Piedmont, MSL : 25-75 m Maljinjava, Ta.Talala, Dist. Junagadh Vertic Haplustepts w(d 2 s(te 1 sd 1 P 6 Kerada, Ta.Kodinar, Dist. Junagadh Typic Ustorthents s(te 1 f(oc 1 n(es 1 0 Judavadali, Ta.Una, Dist. Junagadh Typic Haplustepts w(d 1 s(te 1 ca 1 5 Chotara, Ta.Rajula, Dist. Amreli Vertic Haplustepts w(d 2 s(te 1 sd 1 n(es 1 LS-4 : Piedmont Plain, MSL : 10-25 m P 4 Kajali, Ta.Veraval, Dist. Junagadh Fluventic Calciustepts N 1 w(d 3 s(te 1 f(oc 1 n(es l P 7 Devali Ta.Kodinar, Dist. Junagadh Typic Haplustepts w(d 1 s(te 1 1 Delwada, Ta.Una, Dist. Junagadh Fluventic Haplustepts N 1 w(d 3 s(te 1 f(oc 2 n(es l LS-5 : Coastal Plain, MSL : 0-10 m P 8 Chauhani Kahn, Ta.Kodinar, Dist. Junagadh Fluventic Haplustepts w(d 2 s(te 1 f(oc 1 2 Ramapra, Ta.Kodinar, Dist. Junagadh Fluventic Haplustepts w(d 2 s(te 1 f(oc 2 n(es l 6 Kadiyali, Ta.Jafrabad, Dist. Amreli Calcic Haplustepts N 1 w(d 3 s(te 1 sd 1 ca 2 f(oc 1 n(es 1 =highly suitable, =moderately suitable, =marginally suitable, N 1 =currently suitable, N 2 =unsuitable, c = climate, w = wetness, s = physical characteristics, f = soil fertility, n = salinity / alkalinity hazards, t = topography, te = texture, Sd= soil depth, OC= organic carbon, Ca = CaCO 3, es = ESP, r = rainfall, ce = CEC, Sa = salinity, Small figures in parenthesis indicate crop requirement at different levels : slight (1, moderate (2, severe (3 and very severe (4. O.C. and high ESP in pedon P 6, poor drainage, texture, shallow soil depth and high CaCo 3 in pedon 0 whereas poor drainage, texture, shallow soil depth and high ESP in pedon 5. On adoption of corrective measures, the suitability class for groundnut could be upgraded up to suitability class. Savalia and Gundalia (2004 have also identified the drainage and texture as constraints for groundnut in medium black calcareous soils of Uben Irrigation Command area of Saurashtra region in Gujarat. Piedmont Plain : The soils associated with the pedon P 7 belongs to Typic Haplustepts are moderately suitable ( for groundnut due to the limitations like poor drainage and texture. However, the soil of pedons P 4 belongs to Fluventic Calciustepts and 1 belongs to Fluventic Haplustepts are currently not suitable (N 1 for groundnut. This may be due the limitations like poor drainage, texture, poor soil fertility (low O.C. and high ESP. On adoption of corrective measures like soil water conservation practices, use of organic manures/ green manures improving drainage conditions along with nitrogenous fertilizers, the suitability class of groundnut could be raised from to class in pedon P 7 belong to Typic Haplustepts and N 1 to class in pedon P 4 belongs to Fluventic Calciustepts as well as 1 belongs to Fluventic Hapluestepts. Coastal Plain : The soils of pedon P 8 belongs to Fluventic Haplustepts are moderately suitable ( for groundnut on account of limitations like poor

drainage, texture and poor soil fertility (low O.C. and high ESP. However, the soils of pedon P C belongs to Calcic Haplustepts are currently not suitable (N 1 for groundnut. This may due to the major soil constraints like poor drainage, texture, soil depth, high CaCo 3, poor soil fertility (low O.C. and high ESP. On adoption of corrective measures like provision of surface drainage through lateral ditches (Giri et al, 1999, adoption of salt tolerant varieties, use of organic manures along with gypsum and nitrogenous fertilizers and soil and water conservation practices, the suitability class of groundnut could be corrected in these soils. Based on the present study it can be concluded that the soils over hill slope belong to Lithic Ustorthents are not suitable (N 2 for groundnut cultivation. The soils over upper piedmont belongs to Lithic Ustorthents, Typic Haplustepts and Lithic LEGUME RESEARCH 165 Ustorthents, piedmont plain belongs to Typic Haplustepts and coastal plain belongs to Fluventic Haplustepts are moderately suitable( whereas the soils over upper piedmont belongs to Lithic Ustorthents and coastal plain belongs to Fluventic Haplustepts are marginally suitable( for groundnut cultivation. However, the soils over piedmont plain belongs to Fluventic Calciustepts, Fluventic Haplustepts and coastal plain belongs to Calcic Haplustepts are currently not suitable(n 1 whereas the soils over hill slope belongs to Lithic Ustorthents are not suitable(n 2 for groundnut cultivation. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The senior author is highly grateful to Dr. J.D. Giri, Sr. Scientist, Regional Centre, NBBS & LUP (ICAR, Udaipur (Rajasthan for providing valuable suggestions and guidance during the course of study. REFERENCES Barua, J. (1989. Ph.D. Thesis, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana. Deshmukh, S.N. and Bapat, M.V. (1993. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci., 41:326-330. FAO, (1976. A Framework of Land Evaluation. Soils Bull., 32, FAO, Rome. Giri, J.D. et al (1999. J. Indian Soc. Coastal Agric. Res., 17(1&2:76-79. Lal, R. (1994. Methods and Guidelines for Assessing Sustainability use of Soil and Water Resources in the Tropics. Scientific Publishers, Jodhpur. Pp. 290. NBSS & LUP (1994. Proc. National Meet on Soil-site Suitability Criteria for Different Crops. Feb. 7-8, held at NBSS and LUP (ICAR, New Delhi. NWR & WSD (1999. Land Irrigability Appraisal Report. Narmada Water Resources and Water Supply Department, Gujarat State. Paramsivam, P.C. (1992. Ph.D. Thesis,Tamilnadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, India. Savalia, S.G. and Gundalia, J.D.(2004, National Symposium on Current trends of Research on Groundnut in India held at National Research Centre of Groundnut,. Junagadh during Oct.11-13,PP 227-230. Savalia, S.G.; et al (2000. Proceedings of GAU-PRII-IPI National Symposium on Balanced Nutrition of Groundnut and Other Field Crops Grown in Calcareous Soils of India, held at Gujarat Agricultural University, Junagadh from Sept. 19-22, 186-190. Sharma, J.P. and Bhaskar, B.P. (2003. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci., 51:279. Sharma, R.K. (1995. M.Sc. (Agri. Thesis, Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner, Udaipur (Rajasthan, India. Sharma, S.S. et al. (1996. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci., 44:470-475. Singh, S.K. (1999. Ph.D. Thesis, Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner, Udaipur (Rajasthan, India. Sys, C. et al. (1991. Land Evaluation Part 2. Method in Land evaluation. Agricultural Pub. No. 7, Belgium. Sys, C. et al. (1993. Land Evaluation Part-3. Crop Requirement. Agricultural Pub. No. 3, Belgium. SWMR and NBSS & LUP (2000. Natural Resources of Gujarat. Soil and Water Management Research Unit, Gujarat Agricultural University, Navsari and Natural Bureau of Soil Science and Land use Planning,, Regional Centre, Udaipur, SWMP Pub. 11.