Content uploaded by Roshan Man Bajracharya
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Roshan Man Bajracharya on Dec 13, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Ecology and Environmental Sciences 33(2-3): 143-158, 2007
© INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS, NEW DELHI
Soil Quality in the Nepalese Context – An Analytical Review
R.M. BAJRACHARYA1, B.K. SITAULA2*, S. SHARMA1, AND A. JENG3
1 Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, Kathmandu University,
2 Department of International Environment and Development Studies (NORAGRIC), University of Life Sciences,PO Box
5003, N-1432 Ås, Norway
3Bioforsk Centre for Soil and Environmental Research, Ås, Norway
*Corresponding author: E mail: bishal.sitaula@umb.no
ABSTRACT
The concept of soil quality deserves scientific investigation as well as societal recognition due to the
multifaceted role of the dynamic soil resource, which interacts with all other components of terrestrial
ecosystems, namely, water, air, flora and fauna, and ultimately influences human well-being. It is defined as "the
capacity of a specific kind of soil to function, within natural and managed ecosystem boundaries, to sustain plant
and animal productivity, maintain or enhance water and air quality, and support human health and habitation".
Work in developed countries have shown that mitigating soil degradation and enhancing productive capacity
requires an holistic approach which goes beyond merely dealing with erosion and fertility decline. In Nepal,
primary focus of farmers, land managers and policy makers alike has been that of enhancing agricultural
production, hence the emphasis on soil fertility monitoring and augmentation, as well as, erosion control. The
vast majority of studies encountered in a comprehensive review of available literature provided only fertility and
occasionally basic physical soil property data. Hence there is a need for systematic and extensive monitoring
of key physiochemical and biological parameters that would serve as reliable soil quality indices for Nepal and
the Himalayan region. Secondary data from available literature were analysed to propose a soil quality rating
index for soils of Nepal. A composite soil quality rating system using a weighted ranking procedure for soil
textural class, soil organic matter, pH and major nutrients may be a feasible semi-quantitative approach for
assessing the quality of soil in relation to productivity and susceptibility to erosion. The rating index, however,
requires additional testing and validation systematically across the wide range of agroecological zones of the
region.
Key Words: Soil Fertility, Organic Matter, Land Quality, Watershed Degradation, Soil Erosion
INTRODUCTION
Like other components of our physical environment,
such as water or air, the quality of soil has, in recent
years, become a topic of increasing concern and research.
Soil quality has been defined as "the capacity of a
specific kind of soil to function, within natural and
managed ecosystem boundaries, to sustain plant and
animal productivity, maintain or enhance water and air
quality, and support human health and habitation"
(Karlen et al. 1997, Karlen et al. 2003, Karlen 2004).
The notion of soil quality is deserving of scientific
investigation as well as societal recognition due to the
multifaceted role of the dynamic soil resource, which
interacts with all other components of terrestrial
ecosystems, namely, water, air, flora and fauna, and
ultimately influences human well-being. The agriculture
sector faces the daunting task of meeting ever-increasing
demands for food and fiber, while simultaneously
conserving and developing the soil resource for future
generations (Sturz and Christie 2003). Hence, there is
an undisputed need for regular, rapid and cost effective
means of assessing the quality or "health" of soils.
The concept of soil quality was first proposed for
development in the late 1970's, in view of the many
functions that soil must fulfill, such as, food/fibre
production, nutrient and water cycling, filtering and
buffering of pollutants, decomposition and because of
the increasing pressures and demands placed upon it. It
was also recognized that due to the inherent differences
Bajracharya et al.: Soil quality in Nepal Int. J. Ecol. Environ. Sci.
144
among soils, a single measure applicable under all
situations could not be expected for evaluating soil
quality (Warekentin and Fletche 1977). During the
following decade or so after its introduction, little direct
attention was paid to the soil quality concept mainly
because the focus of soil management was on soil erosion
control and reducing the effects of soil loss on
productivity. However, by 1990, it became evident that
addressing soil degradation and its restoration required
a more holistic approach which went beyond merely
dealing with erosion and productivity decline (Pierce et
al. 1984, Karlen et al. 2003). Thus, the concept of soil
quality was once again revived when Larson and Pierce
(1991) defined it as "the capacity of a soil to function
within the ecosystem boundaries and to interact
positively with surrounding ecosystems". Thereafter,
workers began to view soil quality as a useful and
dynamic tool for assessing overall soil status or "health",
response to management or resilience towards natural or
human degradative forces (Sturtz and Christie 2003,
Seybold et al. 1999, Norfleet et al. 2003).
Two distinct approaches have been followed in the
evolution of the soil quality concept, namely, education
and assessment (Karlen et al. 2003). The education
aspect emphasizes increasing public and farmer
awareness and understanding about the complex nature
and multiple functions of soils and the importance of
monitoring, maintaining and enhancing its biological,
chemical and physical quality. This is being done
through the development of educational materials for
use at both local and institutional levels. On the other
hand, assessment involves research to develop useful
simple or holistic methods and/or indices for monitoring
and evaluating soil quality and for recommending
alternatives for restoring or enhancing it (Shukla et al.
2004a & b).
The assessment of soil quality in different parts of
the world, as influenced by land management practices
and human intervention, also appears to take two
approaches. The first is a research based approach aimed
at determining the usefulness, accuracy and sensitivity
of various soil parameters to serve as indicators of soil
quality or sustainability of practices. While the other is
a practical approach involving the development of
assessment tools for farmer-based evaluation and
education regarding the effects of crop and soil
management practices on the soil resource, such as, test
kits and score-cards (Karlen et al. 2003, Karlen 2004).
Despite the difference in their focus, both these
approaches recognize that soil quality is clearly
dependent upon both the inherent and dynamic
properties and processes occurring within soils, and that
it is holistic, encompassing biological, chemical, as well
as, physical aspects of soils (Cambardella et al. 2004,
Karlen et al. 2003, Norfleet et al. 2003). Dynamic soil
quality considers the top 20-30 cm of the profile and
describes the status of a soil due to recent land use and
management, while inherent properties determine the
absolute capacities of the soil and can be used to
establish boundaries for quantifying the dynamic
properties. Moreover, the quality of a soil is also closely
related to and reflected in its resilience or resistance to
disturbance. Hence, the notion of soil resilience is also
relevant to the assessment of soil quality and is governed
largely by factors such as soil type, vegetation, climate,
land use, scale and disturbance regime (Seybold et al.
1999).
Considerable amount of research has already been
conducted in the developed world to describe soil
quality in discreet terms. A hitherto common approach
has been to determine a few key physical and chemical
parameters that closely relate to the stability, fertility
and productivity of soils. These include parameters such
as water stable aggregates, soil organic carbon (SOC),
bulk density, available water capacity, pH, water
infiltration, etc. (Shukla et al. 2004a & b, Logsdon and
Karlen 2004). Physical indices are useful for evaluating
management effects on soil condition, for instance, the
effect of tillage on compaction, erodibility and water
movement in agricultural soils. On the other hand,
productivity and fertility of soils may be better reflected
by SOC, forms of labile carbon, such as, particulate
organic carbon (POC), oxidizable C and microbial
biomass C, as well as by microbial biomass nitrogen, N
mineralization, and soil respiration (Murage et al. 2000,
Chan et al. 2001, Bowman et al. 2000). Fulvic acid
carbon has also been investigated by workers as a
sensitive diagnostic indicator of farming systems/
management influences on soil quality in Argentina
(Zalba and Quiroga 1999).
In the Asian region, China, in particular, has begun
to focus on soil quality work. It has been recognized that
human intervention has not only altered the quality of
soil through intensive farming and mining activities, but
that some practices have led to the formation of new
kinds of soils, such as in paddy cultivation and
horticulture (Chen 2003). Moreover, the long-term use
of wastewater for irrigation could have either beneficial
or adverse impacts on soil quality (such as reduced
porosity and magnesium holding capacity, Wang et al.
2003). Land use changes also have undoubted impacts
on soil quality. Islam and Weil (2000) in Bangladesh
33: 143-158 Bajracharya et al.: Soil Quality in Nepal 145
noted a deterioration of soil under cultivation compared
to natural forests, as reflected by increased compaction
accompanied by decreased porosity, aggregate stability,
nitrogen, fulvic acid C, labile C and microbial biomass
C. Similar effects of land use were noted by Shrestha et
al. (2007) in a mid-hill watershed in Nepal.
Of recent, biological indicators of soil quality
appear to be gaining importance and recognition
particularly in Europe (Ruf et al. 2003, Scholter et al.
2003). Biological and microbial assessment of soil
quality may offer a cost-effective and rapid means of
determining the impact of agriculture or other human
activities on the condition of the soil (Kennedy and
Gewin 1997). Organisms such as beetles, earthworms
and soil microbial activity were seen to be potentially
useful indicators of land use intensity in Germany
(Heyer et al. 2003). Along with such field-related
organisms, humus supply levels, weed cover and N
surplus/losses were noted to be important as part of
"indicator sets" for evaluating soil condition. Scholter et
al. (2003) suggested that the soil microbial consortium
should be a good indicator of soil quality due to their
ability to accommodate environmental constraints by
adjusting activity rates, biomass and community
structure, hence the latter parameters could be
monitored for fungal and bacterial populations in the
soil. A biological soil classification scheme was proposed
by Ruf et al., (2003) in Germany using a combination
of soil macro- and meso-fauna such as earthworms,
chilopods, diplopods and isopods, along with
enchytraeids and mites, which could serve as a reference
for assessing biological soil quality.
The two primary hazards facing soils in the steep,
geologically active and fragile Himalayan agro-eco-
systems are soil erosion and fertility/productivity
decline. It, therefore, follows that a soil quality index
useful for farmers, conservation workers and planners
should encompass both these aspects of soil quality. The
following is a review and analysis leading up to the
suggestion of such an index through examination of
physical, chemical and biological aspects of soil quality
in Nepal.
SOIL QUALITY IN THE NEPALESE CONTEXT
The assessment of soil quality per se is lacking in Nepal.
The primary focus of farmers, land managers and policy
makers alike has been that of enhancing agricultural
production, hence the emphasis on soil fertility
monitoring and augmentation, as well as, erosion
control. The vast majority of studies encountered in a
comprehensive review of available literature provided
only fertility and occasionally basic physical soil
property data.
Categorization and classification of soil types have
been done only on a few occasions as a part of a broader
land resource mapping (LRMP 1987) and for agro-
ecological zoning for sustainable agricultural planning
and development (Sharma et al. 1994). In the latter,
general soil quality determinations were made in order
to evaluate land qualities and produce GIS maps for
sustainable agricultural land use planning. Sharma et al.
(1994) described in some detail the soil units of Bagmati
Zone, Central Development Region, Nepal, on the basis
of: inherent soil fertility, textural class, drainage, rooting
depth, workability, flood risk and erosion hazard. The
descriptions were of a qualitative nature, with the
different levels of each quality parameter being ranked
into relative groupings (high, medium, low; good,
moderate, low; etc.). The study revealed a majority of
soil units (out of 15) within the Bagmati Zone to be of
moderate to high inherent fertility and good to moderate
workability, being of medium textures (loam, sandy
loam, silt loam). The main limitations of some of the soil
units appeared to be poor drainage, flood risk, shallow
depth or erosion hazard.
Soil Chemical Quality (Fertility-Related)
A comprehensive compendium of the fertility status of
soils covering all five development regions from east to
west, as well as, hills and plains, was compiled at a
workshop to assess soil fertility management in Nepal by
the Department of Agriculture in collaboration with
JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency) in 1999
(DOA/STSS 1999). Although data for thousands of
samples analyzed at the various Regional Agricultural
Research Centers was summarized, only qualitative
information regarding five chemical parameters, namely
soil pH, organic matter (OM), total nitrogen (TN),
available phosphorous (P2O5) and exchangeable
potassium (K2O) was provided (Table 1). On the basis
of the information presented, it could be deduced that
the majority (92 to 96%) of soils in Nepal fall into the
low to medium classes with respect to OM and TN
status. Also, a good proportion of soils (55%) are acidic
in nature, while the majority tends not to be low in
available P or exchangeable K (Table 1).
Other researchers have attempted to evaluate over-
all soil fertility status of soils in relation to dominant
crop grown, altitudinal effects and slope aspect effects in
Bajracharya et al.: Soil quality in Nepal Int. J. Ecol. Environ. Sci.
146
Table 1. Overall fertility status of soils (percent of soils in various classes) in five development regions of Nepal (from DOA/STSS 1999).
Development Sample Soil pH Organic Matter (%) Total Nitrogen (%) Available P (ppm) Exchangeable K (ppm)
Region* Nos. Acidic Neutral Basic Low Medium High Low Medium High Low Medium High Low Medium High
Range <6.5 6.5-7.8 >7.8 <1 1-3 >3 <0.1 0.1-0.2 >0.2 <50 50-180 >180 <50 50-250 >250
EDR – plains 913 66 12 22 80 17 3 73 23 4 27 25 48 38 41 21
EDR – hills 194 87 10 3 37 54 9 23 55 22 11 16 73 13 25 62
CDR – plains 255 31 53 16 44 55 1 33 65 2 27 34 39 47 42 11
CDR – hills 748 87 12 1 54 42 4 39 52 9 24 25 51 24 39 37
WDR 2100 65 34 1 43 50 7 33 55 12 34 22 44 6 31 63
MWDR –hills 252 31 28 31 80 17 3 79 18 3 50 24 26 62 18 20
MWDR -plains 980 40 36 24 63 28 9 52 38 10 61 21 18 54 27 19
FWDR 1000 37 35 28 78 21 1 63 33 4 50 22 28 4 50 46
Nepal (means) 6442 56 28 16 60 36 4 50 42 8 35 24 41 31 34 35
Std. deviation 23.8 15.2 12.5 17.9 16.6 3.3 20.6 16.9 6.6 16.7 5.1 17.4 22.4 10.6 20.3
*EDR = Eastern Development Region; CDR = Central Development Region; WDR = Western Development Region; MWDR = Mid-Western Development Region; FWDR =
Far-Western Development Region.
Table 2. Influence of altitude and slope aspect on soil nutrient status under various dominant crops.
Wheat Rice Maize Barley
Altitude / OM TN Av. P Ex. K OM TN Av. P Ex. K OM TN Av. P Ex. K OM TN Av. P Ex. K
Aspect % % mg kg-1 soil % % mg kg-1 soil % % mg kg-1 soil % % mg kg-1 soil
Elevation, m
300 - 1000 2.0 0.2 38 51 1.8 0.14 32 55 3.3 0.28 258 250
1000 - 1500 3.0 0.26 174 94 2.8 0.23 81 78 3.2 0.23 296 227 2.4 0.18 129 55
1500 - 2300 3.2 0.26 170 94 2.9 0.23 165 86 3.8 0.32 228 203 3.3 0.29 97 152
Slope Aspect
N, NE, NW 2.8 0.24 80 90 2.9 0.25 108 63 3.8 0.31 211 180 3.0 0.27 93 129
S, SE, SW 3.0 0.2 198 94 2.8 0.22 87 70 3.3 0.24 312 258 3.7 0.33 103 141
Source: Tuladhar (1995); OM = soil organic matter, TN = total soil nitrogen, Av. P = available soil phosphorus, Ex. K = exchangeable potassium
33: 143-158 Bajracharya et al.: Soil Quality in Nepal 147
the Western Region of Nepal (Tuladhar 1995, Tripathi
2000a). Consistent trends in altitudinal and aspect
effects on soil parameters were noted mainly for soil OM
and TN, and this was also reflected in the dominant
crop grown, which tends to be a function of elevation
(Tables 2, 3, and 4). That is, soil OM and TN generally
increased with increasing altitude and northern aspect
due to cooler, moist conditions and slower
decomposition rates as compared with lower elevations
and southern aspect (Table 2 and 4). Similarly, soil OM
and TN were higher under maize and barley, being
grown at higher elevations, than under rice and wheat,
which are grown in the warmer low lands with higher
decomposition and turnover rates (Table 3).
Table 3. Fertility status of soils of the LARC* command
area in Western Nepal as influenced by dominant
crop type (from Tuladhar 1995).
Dominant Soil pH OM TN Avail. P Exch. K
crop (%) (%) (mg kg-1 soil)
Wheat 5.6 2.9 0.25 159 90
Rice 5.5 2.8 0.22 100 82
Maize 5.4 3.4 0.27 264 227
Barley 5.9 3.3 0.29 95 149
Mean 5.6 3.10 0.26 155 137
S. D. 0.22 0.29 0.03 78 67
*Lumle Agricultural Research Centre
OM = Soil organic matter, TN = Total soil nitrogen, Av. P =
Available soil phosphorus, Ex. K = Exchangeable potassium
Change in soil fertility status and crop productivity
has been studied by numerous workers, particularly in
the Western and Eastern regions of Nepal (Tripathi et
al. 2000, Tripathi and Shrestha 2000, Sherchan et al.
1997 and 1998). In western Nepal, Tripathi and
Shrestha (2000) assessed the change in soil fertility due
to the application of organic and inorganic fertilizers.
They observed a generally decreasing trend in soil pH,
organic carbon, and total nitrogen over a period of 4
years at four different locations as shown in Table 5. In
contrast, however, Sherchan et al. (1997 & 1998)
noted an increasing trend in soil pH, OM, available P &
K, and exchangeable Ca & Mg over a four-year period
under both maize-millet and rice-wheat cropping
systems in eastern Nepal (Table 5). The status of micro-
nutrients, namely, iron, manganese, copper and zinc all,
however, declined in the same period. These results may
be due to addition of adequate compost, urea,
phosphorous and potassium fertilizers, which is
generally the practice, and neglecting of micro-nutrient
elements. Studies on available micro-nutrients in
western and eastern Nepal generally indicate the status
of Zn and B to be low (Table 4 and 6), while Fe, Mn
and Cu tend to be adequate (Tripathi 1999a & b,
Sherchan et al. 1998, Andersen 2000).
Soil Physical Quality and Erosion
Studies evaluating the physical quality of soils in
relation to tillage, management or erosion are few in
number, scattered and inconsistent in Nepal. Most of
the work is concentrated in the central and western
regions of the country. Available literature reports
mainly the soil texture, with very little data on other
physical parameters, such as available water capacity
Table 4. Variation of soil chemical quality (fertility) with elevation in Western Nepal.
Elevation range Land type Soil pH OM TN Av. P Ex. K Ex. Zn Ex. B
(m) (%) (%) (mg kg-1 soil) (mg kg-1 soil)
<600 River basin 6.1 1.1 0.15 30 156 0.91 0.5
600 - 1000 Low hills 5.8 1.6 0.17 44 125 1.05 0.55
1000 - 1600 Middle hills 5.6 2.2 0.22 98 164 0.87 0.65
1600 - 2200 High hills 5.7 2.9 0.27 202 176 0.85 0.66
Mean 5.8 2.0 0.20 94 155 0.92 0.59
Std. deviation 0.22 0.78 0.05 78 22 0.09 0.08
Source: Tripathi (2000b); OM = soil organic matter, TN = total soil nitrogen,
Av. P = Available phosphorus, Ex. K = Exchangeable potassium, Ex. Zn = Extractable zinc, Ex. B = Extractable boron
Bajracharya et al.: Soil quality in Nepal Int. J. Ecol. Environ. Sci.
148
Table 5. Change in soil chemical quality (fertility) due to application of organic and inorganic fertilizers at four
locations in Western Nepal and under two different copping patterns in Eastern Nepal.
------------------------- Western Nepal --------------------------- Eastern Nepal
Soil property Chambas Pakuwa Dordor Tar Dordor Gau Maize-millet Rice-wheat
1997 2000 1997 2000 1997 2000 1997 2000 1994 1997 1994 1997
Soil pH 6.4 6.1 5.9 5 5.7 4.1 5.4 4.3 5.5 6.7 4.4 5.6
OC (%) 0.92 0.82 0.95 1.09 1.04 0.96 0.82 0.54 1.4 2.3 1.9 2.4
TN (%) 0.1 0.09 0.11 0.06 0.14 0.12 0.08 0.07 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Av. P (mg kg-1)75 3628 45 3124 29411633
Ex. K (mg kg-1) 55 12 39 16 196 39 59 13 61 119 62 154
Sources: Tripathi and Shrestha (2000) - Lumle Agricultural Research Centre; Sherchan et al. (1997, 1998) - Pakhribas Agriculture Centre
OC = Organic carbon; TN = Total nitrogen; Av. P = Available phosphorus; Ex. K. = Exchangeable potassium
Table 6. Micronutrient* status (mg kg-1 soil) of some
soils in eastern, central and western Nepal.
District Zn Fe Mn Cu B
Dhankuta 1.21 107 12 2.27 n.a.
Gorkha 1.19 206 29 0.05 0.23
Kaski 1.03 142 70 2.23 0.40
Kaski 0.70 262 66 1.36 0.88
Kaski 0.77 161 66 2.06 0.54
Myagdi 0.71 174 58 1.64 0.70
Myagdi 1.00 187 112 2.01 0.73
Palpa 0.72 225 36 1.18 0.93
Parbat 1.26 179 57 1.72 0.38
Parbat 1.28 193 54 1.32 0.53
Tanahun 0.75 175 33 1.17 0.41
Tanahun 0.85 143 52 0.86 0.73
Tanahun 0.94 160 12 2.27 0.82
Means 0.95 178 51 1.55 0.61
Std.Dev. 0.22 39 27 0.65 0.22
Sources: Tripathi (1999b), Scherchan et al. (1998)
*Zn = zinc, Fe = iron, Mn = manganese, Cu = copper, B = boron
and bulk density. While textural composition is an
inherent soil property dependent upon the parent
material and geology, it could serve as an indirect
indicator of soil quality if it is related to the depth of
soil and underlying parent material, which in turn is
correlated with degree of erosion or deposition across a
landscape (Lal 1997, Shrestha 2000, Bajracharya
2003).
Data on soil physical quality could be obtained
from the few soil survey reports prepared by the Soil
Survey Staff of the National Agricultural Research
Council (NARC) and occasional reports of the Soil
Science Division of NARC (SSS1983 1984, 1998,
1999, SSD 1996). For a wide range of soils from 8
districts in the central and western regions of Nepal,
textural classes ranged from loamy sand to clay loam
based on particle-size distribution data for the top 25 to
30 cm of the soil profile (Tables 7 and 8). In the case of
agricultural soil shown in Table 7, soil textures reflected
geomorphology, i.e., landscape position, and degree of
exposure of subsoil layers. Increasingly heavy (fine) soil
textures tend to occur on upland soils where gradual
removal of the topsoil layers over decades of cultivation
exposes the clay-rich B-horizon layers within the soil
profile. On the other hand, sandy surface soils tend to
occur in low-lying depositional areas in the floodplains
of major streams and valley bottoms, or ancient river-
terraces in which sediment deposition by flowing water
occurred in the geologic past. For forest and grazing land
soils in the central and western districts, texture was
generally light ranging from sandy loam to sandy clay
loam (Table 8).
Soil runoff and erosion are highly variable in the
hills and mountain regions of Nepal due to the diverse
land use, soil, slope and climatic characteristics (Chalise
and Khanal 1997). In an extensive review of erosion
processes in the Nepal Himalayas, Chalise and Khanal
(1997) reported that runoff varied from as little as 0.5%
to as much as 35% of incident rainfall in various parts
of Nepal. High runoff proportions (20-25% of rainfall)
were noted for shifting cultivation practices
33: 143-158 Bajracharya et al.: Soil Quality in Nepal 149
Table 7. Means of soil physical and chemical properties† according to textural class for agricultural soils of various
districts of Nepal.
District Soil Texture pH OM % TN % Av. P Ex. K CEC SQR§
Texture‡ Sand Silt Clay mg kg-1 cmolc kg-1
Class (%) (%) (%)
Panchthar SL 61 29 10 6.1 1.9 303 19.8 0.66
Okhaldhunga SL 5.6 2.9 0.12 113 530 0.72
Dailekh SL 50 32 18 6.6 1.8 128 725 0.66
Gorkha SL 56 25 19 5.4 1.7 0.10 40 293 0.58
Dhading SL 68 14 18 5.6 1.6 0.09 14 25 18.2 0.58
Tanahun SL 57 25 18 6.2 1.2 0.04 20 119 0.54
Kaski SL 55 39 6 5.9 2.8 0.18 65 103 0.72
Kavre SL 4.8 1.5 0.10 21 78 8.0 0.56
Mean 58 27 15 5.8 1.9 0.11 57 272 15.3 0.63
Panchthar L 34 41 25 6.2 1.8 519 29.1 0.66
Okhaldhunga L 5.4 5.7 0.27 198 492 0.92
Dailekh L 44 43 13 6.0 2.3 144 344 0.74
Gorkha L 52 31 18 5.5 2.7 14 294 0.66
Gorkha L 36 43 22 5.5 2.9 0.26 34 319 0.78
Dhading L 40 48 12 6.7 2.5 0.19 18 32 14.0 0.68
Dhading L 51 27 22 5.3 1.3 0.11 17 30 21.2 0.58
Palpa L 38 36 26 6.2 2.8 0.09 20 149 0.68
Lalitpur L 36 46 18 5.4 3.0 0.13 350 310 24.0 0.72
Mean 41 39 19 5.8 2.8 0.17 99 277 22.1 0.71
Panchthar SiL 33 52 16 6.0 4.0 363 40.7 0.74
Okhaldhunga SiL 5.8 3.3 0.20 129 513 0.78
Dailekh SiL 33 53 14 6.2 2.5 110 368 0.74
Dhading SiL 25 58 17 5.9 1.9 0.20 360 350 18.0 0.70
Lalitpur SiL 21 61 18 5.3 2.9 0.14 360 285 21.0 0.72
Kabhre SiL 33 53 14 5.5 3.3 0.19 350 215 33.0 0.78
Kabhre SiL 37 50 13 5.2 3.0 0.19 330 350 29.0 0.78
Kathmandu SiL 22 52 26 5.1 2.4 0.13 240 240 23.0 0.72
Kathmandu SiL 20 61 19 4.3 1.9 0.12 258 19.0 0.62
Kathmandu SiL 38 50 12 5.5 3.2 0.17 254 21.0 0.72
Kathmandu SiL 14 63 23 5.2 1.7 0.11 340 35.0 0.64
Makwanpur SiL 30 53 17 4.9 3.2 0.17 340 270 25.0 0.76
Makwanpur SiL 31 49 20 5.2 2.8 0.15 385 395 23.0 0.72
Mean 28 55 17 5.4 2.8 0.16 289 323 26.2 0.72
Tanahun CL 23 31 46 6.3 1.0 0.06 7 342 0.38
Panchthar CL 22 38 40 6.2 1.7 750 34.0 0.58
Mean 23 35 43 6.2 1.4 0.06 7 546 34.0 0.48
Panchthar SiCL 24 48 28 5.8 2.3 400 35.0 0.76
Okhaldhunga SiCL 5.8 3.5 0.14 99 514 0.76
Gorkha SiCL 38 28 35 6.1 1.8 0.15 72 1200 0.70
Tanahun SiCL 20 51 29 6.4 1.8 0.08 24 182 0.64
Kathmandu SiCL 22 45 33 4.4 2.6 0.14 220 390 22.0 0.74
Mean 26 43 31 5.7 2.4 0.13 104 537 28.5 0.72
Okhaldhunga SCL 5.6 1.5 0.07 19 80 0.56
Dhading SCL 55 18 28 5.9 1.2 0.08 6 11 18.9 0.56
Mean 55 18 28 5.7 1.4 0.07 13 45 18.9 0.56
Gorkha LS 74 17 7 5.5 1.5 76 293 0.60
Sources: SSS 1983, SSS 1989, SSS 1996, SSS 1997, SSD 1999, Bajracharya 1999, Sherchan et al. 2003
†OM = soil organic matter, TN = total soil nitrogen, Av. P. = available phosphorus, Ex. K = exchangeable potassium,
CEC = cation exchange capacity.
‡SL = sandy loam, L = loam, SiL = silt loam, CL = clay loam, SiCL = silty clay loam, SCL = sandy clay laom, LS = loamy sand
§ Soil quality rating value
Bajracharya et al.: Soil quality in Nepal Int. J. Ecol. Environ. Sci.
150
Table 8. Soil physical and chemical properties† under forest and grazing (shrub, grass or degraded forest) land for
various districts in Nepal.
District Land Soil Texture pH OM TN Av. P Ex. K CEC SQR§
use Texture ‡ Sand Silt Clay (%) (%) (mg kg-1)cmolc kg-1
Class (%) (%) (%)
Dailekh Forest SL 47 39 15 5.8 3.7 34 337 0.66
Dhading Forest LS 74 17 9 4.6 1.0 0.09 6 11 0.38
Dhading Forest L 42 44 14 4.9 3.7 0.22 180 160 30.0 0.76
Kabhre Forest SL 50 25 25 5.3 1.8 0.11 2 156 0.52
Kabhre Forest L 36 26 38 5.7 1.0 0.05 1 130 0.44
Kabhre Forest SL 55 35 10 5.3 4.7 0.26 190 400 29.0 0.86
Kabhre Forest SiL 39 46 15 4.5 1.8 0.16 240 230 22.0 0.62
Kathmandu Forest SiL 32 52 16 4.8 3.8 0.15 130 180 17.0 0.70
Kathmandu Forest SiCL 25 45 30 4.5 3.7 0.14 195 176 28.0 0.74
Lalitpur Forest L 42 42 16 4.3 7.6 0.31 140 125 24.0 0.84
Lalitpur Forest L 43 46 11 4.5 4.6 0.29 240 420 40.0 0.84
Makwanpur Forest SiL 28 50 22 4.6 2.8 0.10 300 180 19.0 0.70
Makwanpur Forest SL 48 37 15 4.2 5.8 0.19 186 226 21.0 0.84
Panchthar Forest SL 51 37 13 5.3 6.7 287 33.0 0.78
Okhaldhunga Forest 5.2 5.5 0.19 48 243 0.76
Mean 44 39 18 4.9 3.9 0.17 135 217 26.3 0.70
Dailekh Grazing L 44 47 9 5.8 4.7 57 194 0.74
Dhading Grazing SL 68 15 17 4.4 2.0 0.17 3 4 18.5 0.50
Dhading Grazing SCL 66 10 24 4.0 1.0 0.05 7 12 13.0 0.46
Dhading Grazing SiL 32 52 16 6.4 2.2 0.12 240 150 15.0 0.60
Kavre Grazing 4.5 0.5 0.10 2 117 15.2 0.30
Kavre Grazing SiL 43 46 11 4.5 3.4 0.20 200 180 22.0 0.70
Kavre Grazing SiL 37 52 11 5.2 1.2 0.06 285 140 15.0 0.58
Kathmandu Grazing SiL 37 49 14 6.2 4.6 0.25 146 130 21.0 0.88
Kathmandu Grazing SiL 32 50 18 5.3 3.8 0.17 140 180 28.0 0.72
Lalitpur Grazing L 37 31 32 6.3 3.4 0.19 210 350 19.0 0.80
Lalitpur Grazing SiL 36 47 17 4.8 3.1 0.09 290 110 17.0 0.64
Makwanpur Grazing SiL 22 60 18 5.3 2.8 0.11 270 185 14.0 0.64
Makwanpur Grazing L 35 44 21 4.8 3.5 0.20 245 416 24.0 0.76
Okhaldhunga Grazing 5.1 8.0 0.35 47 343 0.76
Panchthar Grazing SL 58 36 6 5.4 8.0 360 33.0 0.80
Mean 42 41 16 5.2 3.5 0.16 153 191 19.6 0.66
Sources: SSS 1983, SSS 1989, SSS 1996, SSS 1997, SSD 1999, Bajracharya 1999, Sherchan et al. 2003
†OM = soil organic matter, TN = total soil nitrogen, Av. P. = available phosphorus, Ex. K = exchangeable potassium,
CEC = cation exchange capacity, AWC = available water capacity, BD = bulk density.
‡SL = sandy loam, L = loam, SiL = silt loam, CL = clay loam, SiCL = silty clay loam, SCL = sandy clay laom, LS = loamy sand
§ Soil quality rating value
and bare agricultural plots, while low runoff (3%) was
observed from dense forest and moderate (13-15%) from
degraded forest and pasture (Ries 1993, Schaffner
1987). Differences occurred due either to management
and soil types/conditions or to scale of measurement,
i.e., plot versus watershed scale (Chalise and Khanal
1987, Merz et al. 2000, Merz 2004).
Correspondingly, soil erosion rates also tend to vary
widely both spatially and temporally. Here too, land use
types, as well as, the scale of measurement considerably
influences the absolute range in values of annual soil loss
(Chalise and Khanal 1997). Annual soil loss rates from
agricultural land ranged from nearly 0 to about 105 t/ha
depending mainly on factors such as soil
33: 143-158 Bajracharya et al.: Soil Quality in Nepal 151
Table 9. Ranges of measured and estimated soil loss rates under different land uses for various locations in Nepal.
Location/Watershed Land use/Type Soil loss Data Source
rate (Mg ha-1)
Pakhribas Agriculture 17 - 37 Sherchan and Chand (1991)
Chyandanda Agriculture 54 - 105 Maskey and Joshi (1991)
Chisapani Agriculture - lowland 0.2 - 0.6
Kulekhani Upland/lowland agric. 0.3 - 4 Upadhyaya et al. 91991); DSCWM (1995a)
Jhikhu Khola Upland/lowland agric. 0.1 - 42 Carver and Nakarmi (1995)
Surkhet Agriculture 1.1 - 2.7 DSCWM (1995b)
Dailekh Agriculture 2 - 7 Carson (1985)
Phewa Mixed (watershed) 15.3 DSCWM (1996)
Trijuga Upland agriculture 35 - 41 Sah (1996)
Andhi Khola Upland agriculture 70 Pahari (1993)
Kulekhani Agriculture 1.5 - 2.3 Joshi (1994)
Likhu Khola Upland agriculture 6 - 56 Shrestha and Zinck (1999); Shrestha (2000)
Lowland agriculture 0.1 - 0.8
Trijuga Forest - protected 1.7 - 2 Sah (1996)
Forest - degraded 6 - 11
Andhi Khola Primary forest 2.2 Pahari (1993)
Secondary forest 15.3
Nakkhu Khola Forest 5 Tiwari (1990)
Likhu Khola Dense forest 0.1 - 0.4 Shrestha and Zinck (1999); Shrestha (2000)
Degraded forest 0.1 - 8.6
Kathmandu Forest 8 Laban (1978)
Phewa Forest 0.34 Mulder (1978)
Dailekh Degraded forest 5 - 15 Carson (1985)
Chatra Forest 7.8 Laban (1978)
Bamti-Bhandara Forest 1.4 Ries (1993)
Khumbu Forest 0.3 - 4.9 Byers (1987)
Trijuga Shrubland 123 - 180 Sah (1996)
Andhi Khola Shrubland 30 Pahari (1993)
Grazing 213
Nakkhu Khola Shrubland 42.5 Tiwari (1990)
Grazing 173
Likhu Khola Grazing 1.6 - 20 Shrestha and Zinck (1999); Shreshta (2000)
Phewa Pasture 9 - 35 Mulder (1978)
Dailekh Pasture 20 Carson (1985)
Chatra Pasture 37 Laban (1978)
Lothar Pasture 32 - 420
Dandapakhar Pasture 0.4 - 19 Schaffner (1987)
Bonch Pasture 3.7 - 67
Bamti-Bhandara Pasture 0.4 Ries (1993)
Khumbu Pasture 2.2 - 17 Byers (1987)
Langtang Pasture 0.4 - 3 Watanabe (1994)
Bajracharya et al.: Soil quality in Nepal Int. J. Ecol. Environ. Sci.
152
Table 10. Soil quality rating guide based on assigned range of values§ for commonly used soil parameters in Nepal.
Parameter Ranking values
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Soil textural class* C, S CL, SC, SiC Si, LS L, SiL, SL SiCL, SCL
Soil pH #4, >8.5 4.1 to 4.9 5 to 5.9 6 to 6.4; 7.6 to 8.5 6.5 to 7.5
Soil OC % #0.5 0.6 to 1.5 1.6 to 2.9 2.9 to 5.7 $5.8
Fertility (N+P+K) Low Moderate Low Moderate Moderate High High
SQR† Very poor Poor Fair Good Best
§ Based on DOA/STSS (1999); Sitaula et al. (2004) and D.P. Sherchan, personal communications (NARC)
*C=clay, S=sand, CL=clay loam, SC=sandy clay, SiC=silty clay, Si=silt, LS=loamy sand, L=loam, SiL=silt loam,
SL=sandy loam, SiCL=silty clay loam, SCL=sandy clay loam.
†Soil Quality Rating
surface conditions and cover, slope and rainfall charac-
teristics (Table 9). Lowland paddy areas have level
bench terraces with minimal soil loss, while upland areas
have sloping terraces of various widths and slopes, and
hence, higher, more variable soil loss rates. None-the-
less, a clear pattern of greatest proportion of the annual
soil loss being concentrated in the early mon-soon period
(March-June) for agricultural land has been observed by
numerous workers (Atreya et al. 2002, Nakarmi et al.
2000, Carver and Nakarmi 1995, Schaffner 1987). This
is reportedly due to the fact that agricultural soils tend
to be bare, freshly ploughed, and vulnerable at this time
whilst pre-monsoon rains tend to be intense. In the case
of entire watersheds, the greatest proportion of soil loss
(63 to 97%) tends to occur during the latter part of the
monsoon season (July to October) due presumably to a
lag effect in the concentration of sediment discharged
from the major stream at the mouth of the watershed
(Chalise and Kanal 1997, Merz 2004).
Soil loss from forest areas was least variable, with
a comparatively narrow range of values from 0.3 to 15.3
t/ha/y (Table 10). The key factors determining runoff
and soil erosion rates from forest land are tree density,
crown cover, ground vegetation/litter cover and slope
steepness. Of these, the coverage of ground vegetation
and leaf litter appears to be most influential. By contrast
the widest variation in soil loss rates occurred on grazing
or pastures lands, ranging from 0.4 to 420 t/ha/y (Table
9). Such high rates of soil loss from degraded grazing
lands is presumably due to soil type (clayey lateritic),
steep slopes, compaction of the surface layer, and
exposure resulting in the formation of large gullies
(Laban 1978, Carson 1985, Pahari 1993, Sah 1996,
UNEP 2001).
A recent study by Shrestha et al. (2007) examined
the structural quality of soils in a mid-hill watershed of
western Nepal in relation to land use and SOC content.
Cultivated soils were notably higher in bulk density,
reduced in wet and dry stable aggregates and generally
had lower SOC compared to naturally vegetated soils.
Among the naturally vegetated soils, grazing or shrub
land areas were more susceptible to erosion and degra-
dation than forest, which had least change in aggregate
size distribution under wet and dry sieving (data not
shown, Shrestha et al. 2007).
Biological Soil Quality
The biological quality of soil involves a variety of factors
occurring within the soil profile, at the surface or above
the ground, that are associated with the living
component of the soil ecosystem, or that derive from it.
This includes the diversity and species composition of
soil organisms, namely, meso- and macro-fauna, micro-
organisms, and flora (the types of plants, their root
systems and the vegetative litter produced at the soil
surface). In this respect, the amount and quality of soil
organic matter (SOM) or organic carbon (SOC) is a
reflection of the nature and abundance of soil flora and
fauna and can be considered a biological soil quality
indicator.
Work dealing with biological soil quality is
virtually non-existent in Nepal. A few studies on the
status and dynamics of SOC have been conducted,
33: 143-158 Bajracharya et al.: Soil Quality in Nepal 153
however, hardly any research related to soil fauna and
microbial activity has been done. Bajracharya et al.
(2004) analyzed existing SOC data from the literature
and concluded that expectantly forest and shrub land
soils had higher SOC contents in the top 30 cm,
however, due to shallow soils and low density, forest
soils had overall lower total OC stocks than other land
uses. While cultivation tends to reduce OC contents of
soils, practices such as mulching, minimum tillage,
retention/addition of organic residues and cover crops
could all enhance productivity and reduce erosion
losses. Concurrently, degraded forest and grazing lands
were noted to be severely depleted in SOC (on the order
of 0.1%). Sitaula et al. (2004) attempted to gather the
available data on SOC status under various land uses in
different watersheds of Nepal and to infer the total OC
stocks and pools. Mean SOC contents in topsoil ranged
from a low of 0.1% for severely degraded forests and
grazing lands to a modest 4% under well managed
forest. For agricultural soils the SOC contents fell mostly
between 1 and 3% in topsoil. Median SOC pools in the
upper 1 m soil profile was estimated to range from 2.6
kg C m-2 for Arenosols, to a maximum of 17.8 kg C m-2
for Humic Acrisols (Sitaula et al. 2004). Shrestha et al.
(2007) investigated SOC stocks and C sequestration in
a mid-hill watershed in western Nepal and reported a
significant influence of land use on SOC contents and
distribution in various aggregate size classes. Among the
cultivated land use types, upland soil had higher SOC,
while natural forest had the highest overall OC stocks.
A net loss of 29% of SOC stock in the upper 40 cm soil
layer was calculated due to changes in land use over the
period from 1978 to 1996 (Shrestha et al. 2007).
RATING SYSTEM FOR ASSESSING SOIL QUALITY
IN NEPAL
The above examination of the available soil data from
soil survey reports and other studies dealing with soil
fertility or erosion revealed that the most frequently
reported parameters included: soil texture, pH, OM (or
OC), and nutrient content (mainly N, P, K). It follows,
therefore, that these most commonly available soil
parameters could be used to develop an index to reflect
the quality or the condition of a soil with respect to its
productivity and relative susceptibility to degradation.
While other soil parameters, such as, bulk density,
available water capacity, infiltration rate and aggregate
stability are also important and frequently included in
the development of soil quality indices (Lal 1994,
Karlen et al. 2003), they were not used in the present
study due to lack of data for these parameters in Nepal.
We have attempted to develop a soil quality rating
(SQR) system by raking a soil based upon a composite
SQR value derived by summing the product of the
weighting factors with the assigned parameter ranking
values for the four most common soil parameters (Table
10) to arrive at a number between 0 and 1 (1 being best
and 0 the worst possible soil quality). This approach is
proposed as a simple and readily applicable, semi-
quantitative approach to assessing overall relative soil
quality from a production perspective. The represen-
tation of the model used is as follows:
SQR = [(a*RSTC) + (b*RpH) + (c*ROM) + (d*RNPK)]
where: RSTC, RpH, ROM, and RNPK are the assigned
ranking values for soil textural class, soil pH, OM
content, and fertility (considering N, P and K); and a,
b, c, and d, are weighting values corresponding to each
of the four parameters.
The relative ranking of soil with respect to each
parameter based on ranges of values is described in Table
10. The ranges for which each of the parameter values
are assigned are based upon corresponding ratings from
low to high levels recommended in guidelines by the
Nepal Agricultural Research Council (D.P. Sherchan,
personal communication; DOA/STSS 1999, Sitaula et
al. 2004). Of the parameters soil OM is considered the
most important parameter as it influences many other
aspects of soil quality in the mid-hills of Nepal, such as,
nutrient availability, aggregate stability, water retention,
erosion susceptibility, etc., hence it was given a value of
0.4 (c). The status of major nutrients N, P and K are
taken to be next in importance since crop production is
the highest on the priority of both farmers and policy-
makers alike (d = 0.3). Soil texture is also of importance
in both water conduction and retention as well as
erosion susceptibility (a = 0.2). Soil pH is viewed to be
of lower degree of importance (b = 0.1) but should be
within a critical range for optimum productivity and
quality of soil. The above assignment of weightages
corresponding to each of the four parameters was based
upon judgment and consultation with NARC and the
Department of Agriculture in the Ministry of Agriculture
and Cooperatives.
The soil data in Tables 7 and 8 were used to
determine soil quality ratings for agricultural, forest and
grazing land soils by the ranking system given in Table
10 and described above (see Tables 7 and 8 for SQR
values). Of the 40 agricultural soils from 12 districts
Bajracharya et al.: Soil quality in Nepal Int. J. Ecol. Environ. Sci.
154
representing a cross-section of the country's farmland, a
majority (68%, Table 7) were found to fall in the "good"
soil quality rating. Another 27% of the cropland soils
were rated as "fair", while only 5% were in "poor"
condition. Similarly, of the 15 forest soils from 8
districts of Nepal, 33% were rated as "fair", 20% as
"poor", and the majority (47%) were of "good" quality
(Table 8). For the 15 grazing (shrub/grass) land sites the
majority of soils (47%) were rated "fair", while 33% were
in "good" and 20% in "poor" condition, respectively
(Table 8). While no direct assessments of soil quality per
se could be found in the existing literature, data on
overall status or quality of watersheds in the Middle
Mountains of Nepal, as evaluated by numerous workers
in the Department of Soil Conservation and Watershed
Management (FAO 1994, Shrestha 2006) and by the
International Center for Integrated Mountain
Development (UNEP 2001), indicate that up to a third
of mountain watersheds in Nepal are in moderate to
severely degraded condition. If the agricultural, forest
and grazing land soil condi-tions in watersheds of the
above 12 districts can be regarded as reflecting the
overall watershed conditions, then our analysis would
appear to be in general agree-ment with the status of
watersheds across the nation. It should be noted,
however, that further work is needed to correlate
soil/land conditions and quality with overall watershed
conditions.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The review of literature and examination of existing soil
data in Nepal revealed that the available information is
at best scattered and incomplete. No published
information could be found relating soil physical or
chemical parameters with desired soil quality indicators
such as crop yields or biomass production. From a
production point of view, the fertility status of soils as
reflected by a combined measure of the macro-nutrient
and selected micro-nutrient status could be useful. These
would, however, need to be related to yields of major
crops for different agro-ecological zones. Other physical
parameters such as aggregate stability and bulk density
could serve as good indicators for evaluating soil
resistance to disturbance and erosion. Biological
characteristics of soil such as SOC content and soil
microbial or faunal diversity, biomass and species
composition may serve as more comprehensive indicators
of overall soil health and ecosystem functioning. Based
on the available existing soils data in Nepal, a composite
soil quality rating using a weighted ranking procedure
for soil textural class, soil organic matter, pH and major
nutrients appeared to be a feasible semi-quantitative
system for assessing the quality of soil in relation to
productivity and susceptibility to erosion. This rating
index, however, needs further systematic testing with a
more robust data set, and validation on soils across
various agro-ecological zones in Nepal and the
Himalayan region.
REFERENCES
Acharya, G.P. 2000. Identification of soil fertility status of
bari land to enhance soil fertility management in the
hills of Western Development Region of Nepal. Lumle
Working Paper No. 2000/8, Lumle Agricultural
Research Center, Kaski, Nepal.
Acharya, G.P., Tripathi, B.P., Shrestha, S.P. and Gregory,
P.J. 2000. Nutrients Management in Maize-Finger-
millet System in the Hills of Nepal. Lumle Seminar
Paper No. 2000/8, Lumle Agricultural Research
Center, Kaski, Nepal.
Adhikari, C., Adhikary, B. Rajbhandari, N.P., Hooper, M.,
Upreti, K.K., Gyawali, B.K., Rajbandari, N.K., and
Hobbs, P.R. 1999. Wheat and Rice in the Mid-Hills of
Nepal: A Benchmark Report on Farm Resources and
Production Practices of Kavre District. Nepal
Agricultural Research Council, and International
Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT),
Kathmandu, Nepal. 26 pages.
Andersen, P. 2000. Beyond Local Knowledge and
Institutional Reach: Micronutrient Disorders in Hill
Agriculture. Paper Presented at a Regional Conference
on Physical Mobility and Development in the
Mountains, March 15-17, 2000, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Atreya, K., Sharma, S., and Bajracharya, R.M. 2002.
Minimization of Soil and Nutrient Losses from Maize
Based Cropping Systems in Central Nepal Mid-hills,
Paper Presented at National Seminar on Biodiversity
and Sustainable Use of Bioresources held from 10 –12
October, 2002 at Department of Limnology, Barkat-
ullah University, Bhopal, India.
Bajracharya, R.M. 1999. Biodiversity Conservation and
Economic Development in the Phulchoki and
Chandragiri Hill Areas – Report on Agriculture and
Soil Conservation Aspects. Bagmati Integrated
Watershed Management Programme (BIWMP) Study
Project, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Bajracharya, R.M., Sitaula, B.K., Shrestha, B.M., Awasthi,
K.D., Balla, M.K. and Singh, B.R. 2004. Soil organic
carbon status and dynamics in the central Nepal
Middle Mountains. Journal of Institute of Forestry 12:
28-44. Institute of Forestry, Pokhara, Nepal.
33: 143-158 Bajracharya et al.: Soil Quality in Nepal 155
Baral, S.R., Malla M.B., Howell J. 1999. Reclaiming Rato
Mato: A Study of the Rehabilitation of Red Clay Soils
in the Nepal Middle Hills. Department of Roads,
HMG/ Ministry of Works and Transport, and
Ecological Society, Kathmandu, 44 pages.
Bhattarai, E.M. and Mishra, R. 1998. Effect of Long Term
Application of Chemical Fertilizer and Manure on
Crop Productivity and Soil Fertility under Rice-wheat
Cropping Pattern. Regional Agricultural Research
Station, Khajura, Nepalgunj, Nepal. 25 pages.
Brown, S., Schreier, H., Shah, P.B. and Lavkulich, L.M.
1999. Soil nutrient budget modeling: An assessment of
agricultural sustainability in Nepal. Soil Use &
Manage-ment 15: 1-15.
Cambardella, C.A., Moorman, T.B., Andrews, S.S. and
Karlen, D.L. 2004. Watershed-scale assessment of soil
quality in the loess hills of southwest Iowa. Soil and
Tillage Research 78(2): 237-247.
Carson, B. 1985. Erosion and Sedimentation Processes in
the Nepalese Himalaya, ICIMOD Occasional Paper
No. 1. International Center for Integrated Mountain
Development, Kathmandu. 39 pages.
Carver, M. and Nakarmi, G. 1995. The effect of surface
conditions on soil erosion and stream suspended
sediments. Pages 155-162, In: Schreier, H., Shah, P.B.
and Brown, S. (Editors) Challenges in Mountain
Resource Management, Processes, Trends and Dyna-
mics in Middle Mountain Watersheds. Proceedings of
the Workshop held in April 1995, International
Center for Integrated Mountain Development;
International Development Research Center;
University of British Columbia (ICIMOD/IDRC/UBC),
Kathmandu.
Chalise, S.R. and Khanal, N.R. 1997 Erosion processes and
their implications in sustainable management of
watersheds in Nepal Himalayas. In: FRIEND ’97–
Regional Hydrology: Concepts and Models for
Sustainable Water Resource Management. Pro-
ceedings Postojna, Slovenia Conference, Sept-Oct.
1997. IAHS Publication No. 246: 325-334.
Chen, J. 2003. Anthropogenic soils and soil quality change
under intensive management in China. Geoderma 115:
1-2.
DSCWM (Department of Soil Conservation and Watershed
Management). 1995a. Kulekhani Soil Loss and Runoff
Plot. Annual Report 1994-95, Watershed Management
Project, Department of Soil Conservation and
Watershed Management, Ministry of Forest and Soil
Conservation, Kathmandu.
DSCWM (Department of Soil Conservation and Watershed
Management). 1995b. Soil Loss and Runoff Study at
Subbakuna Demonstration Centre, Surkhet. Annual
Report 1994-95, Watershed Management Project,
Department of Soil Conservation and Watershed
Management, Ministry of Forest and Soil
Conservation, Kathmandu.
DSCWM (Department of Soil Conservation and Watershed
Management). 1996. Paired Catchment Study in
Kulekhani and Pokhara. Annual Report 1995-96,
Watershed Management Project, Department of Soil
Conservation and Watershed Management, Ministry
of Forest and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu.
DOA/STSS (Department of Agriculture./Soil Testing &
Service Section). 1999. Workshop on Soil Fertility
Management Activities in Nepal: Past, Present and
Future. Organized on 11 June 1999 by Department of
Agriculture./Soil Testing & Service Section, and Japan
International Cooperation Agency. Kathmandu, Nepal.
18 pages.
FAO. 1994. The Collection and Analysis of Land
Degradation Data in Nepal. Report of the Expert
Consultation of the Asian Network on Problem Soils.
FAO-RAPA Publication 1994/4, Bangkok.
Heyer, W., Hulsbergen, K.-J., Wittman, Ch., Papaja, S. and
Christen, O. 2003. Field related organisms as possible
indicators for evaluation of land use intensity.
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 98: 453-461.
Howell, J.H. 1986. Soils of the Forestry Research Project
Trial Sites: Chautara, Panchkhal, Thulo Sirubari and
Kadambas. FRP Trail Site Report No. 8. Soil Section,
Forestry Research and Information Centre, Babar
Mahal, Kathmandu.
Islam, K.R. and Weil, R.R. 2000. Land use effects on soil
quality in a tropical forest ecosystem of Bangladesh.
Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment (online:
www.sciencedirect.com).
Karlen, D.L. 2004. Soil quality as an indicator of sustainable
tillage practices. Soil and Tillage Research 78(2):129-
130.
Karlen, D.L., Ditzler, C.A. and Andrews, S.S. 2003. Soil
quality: why and how? Geoderma 114(3-4):145-156.
Karki, K.B. 2003. Status of potassium in intensively
cultivated soils of Kathmandu Valley. Nepal Journal
of Science & Technology 5:83-99.
Kennedy, A.C. and Gewin, V.L. 1997. Soil microbial
diversity: present and future considerations. Soil
Science 162 (9): 607-617.
Laban, P. 1978. Field measurements on erosion and
sedimentation in Nepal. Integrated Watershed
Management Project, Working Paper No. 5,
Department of Soil Conservation and Watershed
Management, Ministry of Forest and Soil
Conservation, Kathmandu. 28 pages.
Lal, R. 1994. Methods and Guidelines for Assessing
Sustainable Use of Soil and Water Resources in the
Tropics. Soil Management Support Services Technical
Monograph 21. US Department of Agriculture-Soil
Conservation Service and US-Agency for International
Development, Washington, DC. 78 pages.
Lal, R. 1997. Degradation and resilience of soils.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society,
London B, 352: 997-1010.
Bajracharya et al.: Soil quality in Nepal Int. J. Ecol. Environ. Sci.
156
Logsdon, S.D. and Karlen, D.L. 2004. Bulk density as a soil
quality indicator during conversion to no-tillage. Soil
and Tillage Research 78(2): 143-149.
Maskey, R.B. and Joshi, D. 1991. Soil and nutrient losses
under different soil management practices in the
middle mountains of central Nepal. Pages 105-120, In:
Shah, P.B., Schreier, H., Brown, S. and Riley, K.W.
(Editors) Soil Fertility and Erosion Issues in the
Middle Mountains of Nepal, Proceedings of the
Workshop held in April 1999. International Center
for Integrated Mountain Development, and
International Develop-ment Research Center,
Kathmandu.
Mawdesly, K.J., Tripathi, B.P. and Gardner, R.A. 1998.
Qualitative indicators of soil erosion on upland
bariland in the mid hills of Nepal. Lumle Agricultural
Research Center Seminar Paper No. 98/7, Lumle
Agricultural Reserch Center, Kaski, Nepal. 11 pages.
Merz, J. 2004. Water Balances, Floods and Sediment
Transport in the Hindu Kush-himalayas. Data
Analyses, Modeling and Comparison of Selected Meso-
scale Watersheds. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
Berne. International Center for Integrated Mountain
Development, Kathmandu, Nepal. 339 pages.
Merz, J., Dongol, B.S., Weingartner, R. and Nakarmi, G.
2000. Impact of land use on generation of high flows
in the Yarsha Khola watershed, Nepal. pages 185-198,
In: Allen, R., Schreier, H., Brown, S. and Shah, P.B.
(Editors). The People and Resource Dynamics Project:
The First Three Years (1996-1999). International
Center for Integrated Mountain Development,
Kathmandu, Nepal.
Mulder, R.P. 1978. Erosion Plot Measurements in Phewa
Tal Catchment. Integrated Watershed Management
Project, Phewa Tal Technical Paper No. 6, Department
of Soil Conservation and Watershed Management,
Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu.
Murage, E.W., Karanja, N.K., Smithson, P.C. and Woomer,
P.L. 2000. Diagnostic indicators of soil quality in
productive and non-productive smallholders' fields of
Kenya's Central Highlands. Agriculture Ecosystems &
Environment 79: 1-8.
Nakarmi, G., H. Schreier, J. Merg, and P. Mahatma. 2000.
Erosion dynamics in the Jhikhu and Yarsha Khola
watersheds in Nepal. IN: R. Allen, H. Schreier, S.
Brown and P. B. Shah (eds.). The People and Resource
Dynamics Project: The First Three Years (1996-1999).
International Center for Integrated Mountain
Development, Kathmandu, Nepal. P. 209-218.
Norfleet, M.L., Ditzler, C.A., Puckett, W.E., Grossman,
R.B., and Shaw, J.N. 2003. Soil quality and its
relationship to pedology. Soil Science 168(3): 149-
155.
Pahari, K.J. 1993. Soil Erosion Susceptibility Using Remote
Sensing and GIS: A Case Study of Andhikhola
Watershed Nepal. Asian Institute of Technology,
Master Thesis No. NR 93-16, Bangkok Thailand.
Pandey S.P., Tamang, D.B. & Baidya, S.N. 1995. Soil
fertility management and agricultural production
issues with reference to middle mountain regions of
Nepal. In: Scheier H., Shah, P.B. & Brown, S. (eds)
Challenges in Mountain Resource Management,
Processes, Trends and Dynamics in Middle Mountain
Watersheds. Proceedings of the Workshop held in
April 1995. Integrated Mountain Development;
International Development Research Center;
University of British Columbia (ICIMOD/IDEC/BC,
Kathmandu, Nepal.41-49.
Ries, J.B. 1993. Soil Erosion in the High Mountain Region,
Eastern Central Himalaya, a Case Study in Bamti/
bhandara/surma Area, Nepal. Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation, Geowissenschäftlichen Fakultät, Albert-
Ludwigs Universität, Freiburg, Germany. 397 pages.
Ruf, A., Beck, L., Dreher, P., Hund-Rinke, K., Rombke, J.
and Spelda, J. 2003. A biological classification concept
for the assessment of soil quality: Biological Soil
Classification Scheme (BBSK). Agriculture Ecosystems
& Environment 98: 263-271.
Sah, B.P. 1996. Degradation and its Scio Economic Impacts
Using Rs and Gis: a Case Study of Trijuga Watershed
Nepal, M.sc. Thesis, NR 96-20. Asian Institute of
Technology, Bangkok, Thailand.
Schaffner, R. 1987. Vegetation of Stabilizing and Eroding
Slopes in Eastern Nepal. Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology,
Zurich, Switzerland.
Scholter, M., Dilly, O. and Munch, J.C. 2003. Indicators for
evaluating soil quality. Agriculture Ecosystems &
Environment 98: 255-262.
Schreier, H. and Shah, P.B. 2000. Soil fertility status and
dynamics in the Jhikhu and Yarsha Khola Watersheds.
pages 281-289, In: Allen, R., Schreier, H., Brown, S.
and Shah, P.B. (Editors). The People and Resource
Dynamics Project: The First Three Years (1996-1999).
International Center for Integrated Mountain
Development, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Schreier, H., Shah, P.B., Lavkulich, L.M. and Brown, S.
1994. Maintaining soil fertility under increasing land
use pressures in the middle mountains of Nepal. Soil
Use and Management, 10:137-142.
Schreier, H., Brown, S. and Shah, P.B. 1995. Identification
of key resources issues: Discussion and recommen-
dations. Pages 247-252, In: Schreier, H., Shah, P.B.
and Brown, S. (Editors) Challenges in Mountain
Resource Management, Processes, Trends and
Dynamics in Middle Mountain Watersheds.
Proceedings of the Workshop held in April 1995.
International Center for Integrated Mountain
Development; International Development Research
Center; University of British Columbia
(ICIMOC/IRDC/UBC. Kathmandu, Nepal.
Seybold, C.A., Herrick, J.E., and Brejda, J.J. 1999. Soil
resilience: a fundamental component of soil quality.
Soil Science 164(4): 224-234.
33: 143-158 Bajracharya et al.: Soil Quality in Nepal 157
Shah, P.B. and Schreier, H. 1991. Nutrient deficiency and
soil fertility issues. In Proceeding of the workshop on
Soil fertility and erosion issues in the middle
mountains of Nepal, April 22-25 1991.Shah, P.B.,
Schreier, H., Brown, S.J. and Riley, K.W. (Editors).
Integrated Survey Section, Topographical Survey
Board, Kathmandu and International Development
Research Centre ottawa.
Shah, P.B. and Schreier, H. 1995. Maintaining soil fertility
in agriculture and forestry. In: Scheier H., Shah, P.B.
and Brown, S. (Editors) Challenges in Mountain
Resource Management, Processes, Trends and
Dynamics in Middle Mountain Watersheds.
Proceedings of the Workshop held in April 1995.
International Center for Integrated Mountain
Development; International Development Research
Center; University of British Columbia
(ICIMOD/IDRC/UBC, Kathmandu, Nepal. 171-182.
Shah, P.B,, Schreier, H.E. and Nakarmi, G. 1999.
Rehabilitation of degraded lands, pages 139-147, In:
Allen, R,, Schreier, H,, Brown, S, and Shah, P.B,
(Editors) The People and Resource Dynamics Project,
The First Three Years (1996-1999). Proceedings of a
workshop held in Baoshan, Yunnan Province, China,
March 2-3, 1999. International Center for Integrated
Mountain Development, Kathmandu,
Sharma, B.P., Nachtergaele, F.O. and Hebel, A. 1994. Soil
and Landform Resources Inventory for the Bagmati
Zone (Nepal). Technical Annex 2, Agro-ecological
zoning strategy for sustainable agricultural planning
and development. Technical Support Services Project,
Agricultural Projects Services Center (APROSC), FAO
and UNDP, Kathmandu, Nepal, 29 pages.
Sherchan, D.P. and Chand, S.P. 1991. A review of current
soils related research activities a Pakribas Regional
Agicultural Centre. In: Soil Fertility and Erosion
Issues in the Middle Mountains of Nepal (ed. by P.B.
Shah, H. Schreier, S. Brown and K.W. Riley),
Proceedings of the Workshop held in April 1999.
International Center for Integrated Mountain
Development; International Development Research
Center (ICIMOD/IDRC, Kathmandu, P. 83-104.
Sherchan, D.P., Gurung, G.B., Resham, K.C. 1997. Effects of
longterm application of chemical fertilizer and manure
on soil properties and crop yields under maize-millet
cropping pattern: the results of 1996/97 season. PAC
Working Paper No. 193 Pakhribas, Dhankuta, Nepal.
6 pages.
Sherchan, D.P., Gurung, G.B. 1998. Effect of long term
application of chemical fertilizers and manure on soil
chemical properties and crop yields under rice-wheat
cropping pattern (the results of 8 cropping cycles).
PAC Technical Paper No. 183, Pakhribas, Dhankuta,
Nepal. 20 pages.
Sherchan, D.P., Bajracharya, R.M., Tiwari, K.R., and Balla,
M.K. 2003. Soil survey report of Pokhare Khola sub-
watershed, Dhading, Nepal. Himalayan Degradation
Project, IOF-TU/AUN, Pokhara, Nepal. 52 pages.
Shrestha, B.D. 2006. Land degradation and rehabilitation.
Proceedings. of the Workshop on Managing Mountain
Watershed for Rural Development in Nepal:
Integration of Research into Teaching: 47-65.
Institute of Forestry, Pokhara, Nepal.
Shrestha, B.M., Singh, B.R., Sitaula, B.K., Lal, R.,
Bajracharya, R.M. 2007. Soil aggregate- and particle-
associated organic carbon under different land uses in
Nepal. Soil Science Society of America Journal 71(4):
1194-1203, publ. on line June 8, 2007.
Shrestha, B.M., Sitaula, B.K., Singh, B.R., Bajracharya, R.M.
2004. Soil organic carbon stocks in soil aggregates
under different land use systems in Nepal. Nutrient
Cycling in Agroecosystems 70(2): 201-213.
Shrestha, D.P. and Zinck, J.A. 1999. Land degradation
assess-ment using GIS: A case study in the middle
mountain region of the Nepalese Himalaya.
Proceedings of the international conference:
Geoinformatics-Beyond 2000.
http://pages.hotbot.com/edu/geoinformatics/f64.htm.
Shrestha, D.P. 2000. Aspects of erosion and sedi-mentation
in the Nepalese Himalaya: Highland-lowland relations.
Doctoral Thesis, Ghent University, Belgium. ITC,
Enschede, The Netherlands. 265 pages.
Shukla, M.K., Lal, R. and Ebinger, M. 2004. Soil quality
indicators for the North Appalachian Experimental
Watershed, Coshocton, Ohio. Soil Science 169(3):195-
205.
Shukla, M.K., Lal, R. and Ebinger, M. 2004. Soil quality
indicators for reclaimed minesoils in southeastern
Ohio. Soil Science 169(2):133-142.
Sitaula, B.K., Bajracharya, R.M. and Singh, B.R. 2004.
Factors affecting organic carbon dynamics in soils of
Nepal/Himalaya region – a review and analysis.
Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 70(2): 215-229.
SSD (Soil science division). 1996. Annual Report of the
Soil Science Division, Nepal Agricultural Research
Council (NARC), Khumaltar, Lalitpur, Nepal, 33
pages.
SSS (Soil Survey Staff). 1999. Soils of Panchthar District
(Mechi Zone), Soil Survey Staff, Soil Science Division,
Nepal Agricultural Research Council, Khumaltar,
Lalitpur, Nepal, 55 pages.
SSS (Soil Survey Staff). 1998. Soil of Okhaldhunda District.
Soil Survey Staff, Soil Science Division, Nepal
Agricultural Research Council, Khumaltar, Lalitpur,
Nepal, 33 pages.
SSS (Soil Survey Staff). 1984. Soil Survey Report of Gorkha
District (Gandaki Zone). Soil Survey Staff, Division of
Soil Science & Agricultural Chemistry, Nepal
Agricultural Research Council, Khumaltar, Lalitpur,
Nepal. 17 pages.
SSS (Soil Survey Staff). 1983. General Soil Survey Report of
Dailekh District, Bheri Zone. Soil Survey Staff,
Division of Soil Science & Agric. Chemistry, Rept.
Bajracharya et al.: Soil quality in Nepal Int. J. Ecol. Environ. Sci.
158
No. 18, Nepal Agricultural Research Council,
Khumaltar, Lalitpur, Nepal, 56 pages.
Sturtz, A.V. and Christie, B.R. 2003. Rationale for an
holistic approach to soil quality and crop health. Soil
and Tillage Research 72(2):105-106.
Tripathi, B.P. & Tuladhar, J.K. 1997. Effect of low and high
quality organic material on maize yield and soil
properties. Lumle Agricultural Research Center
seminar paper no. 97/13. Lumle, Kaski Nepal.
Tripathi, B.P. 1996. Present soil fertility research status and
future research strategy in the western hills of Nepal.
Proceeding of workshop: Soil Fertility and Plant
Nutrition Management, Nepal Agricultural Research
Council, Lalitpur Nepal. 42-60.
Tripathi, B.P. 1999a. Review on acid soil and its
management in Nepal. Lumle Seminar Paper No. 99/1,
Lumle Agricultural Research Center, Kaski, Nepal. 11
pages.
Tripathi, B.P. 1999b. Soil Fertility Status in Farmer's Fields
of Western Hills of Nepal. Lumle Seminar Paper No.
99/4, Lumle Agricultural Research Center, Kaski,
Nepal. 8 pages.
Tripathi, B.P. 2000a. Review of Literature on Soil Fertility
Research in the Hills of Nepal. Paper presented in the
workshop: Soil Fertility Research in the Hills of Nepal,
Nepal Agricultural Research Council, Lalitpur Nepal.
Tripathi, B.P. 2000b. Advances in soil fertility research in
the hills of Nepal. Lumle Seminar Paper No. 2000/19.
Lumle Agricultural Research Center, Kaski, Nepal. 17
pages.
Tripathi B.P. and Shrestha, S.P. 2000. Nitrogen content in
farm yard manure and its effects on the productivity
and soil properties of rice-wheat, upland blackgram
and maize-fingermillet systems. Lumle Working Paper
No. 2000/14, Lumle Agricultural Research Center,
Kaski, Nepal. 8 pages.
Tripathi B.P., Acharya, G.P., Shrestha, S.P. and Greogry, P.J.
2000. Integrated nutrients management on rice in
rice-wheat and upland rice-blackgram systems. Lumle
Seminar Paper No. 2000/18, Lumle Agricultural
Research Center, Kaski, Nepal. 8 pages.
Tuladhar, J.K. 1995. Fertility Status of Farmer's Field Soil
Within the Extension Command Area of Lumle
Agricultural Research Centre. Lumle Agricultural
Research Center Working Paper No. 95/47, Kaski,
Nepal. 27 pages.
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2001.
Nepal: State of the Environment. UN Environment
Programme in collaboration with HMG/Ministry of
Population & Environment, ICIMOD, SACEP and
NORAD. UNEP, Bangkok, Thailand. 211 pages.
Upadhyaya, G.P., Sthapit, M. and Shrestha, K.N. 1991.
Runoff and soil loss studies in the Kulekhani
watershed: Results 1985-1990. Pages 25-32, In: Shah,
P.B., Schreier, H., Brown, S. and Riley, K.W. (Editors)
Soil Fertility and Erosion Issues in the Middle
Mountains of Nepal. Proceedings of the Workshop
held in April 1999. International Center for Integrated
Mountain Development; International Development
Research Center (ICIMOD/IDRC), Kathmandu.
Vaidya, A., Turton, C., Joshi, K.D. and Tuladhar, J.K. 1995.
A system analysis of soil fertility issues in the hills of
Nepal: Implications for future research. In: Scheier H.,
Shah, P.B. and Brown, S. (Editors). Challenges in
Mountain Resource Management, Processes, Trends
and Dynamics in Middle Mountain Watersheds.
Proceedings of the Workshop held in April 1995.
International Center for Integrated Mountain
Develop-ment; International Development Research
Center; University of British Columbia
(ICIMOD/IDRC/UBC), Kathmandu, Nepal.
Warekentin, B.P., and Fletcher, H.F. 1977. Soil quality for
intensive agriculture. Pages 594-598, In: Proceedings
International Seminar on Soil Environment and
Fertilizer Management in Intensive Agriculture.
Society for Science of Soil and Manure, National
Institute of Agricultural Science, Tokyo.
Watanabe, T. 1994. Soil erosion on Yak-grazing steps in the
Langtang Himal, Nepal. Mountain Research and
Development 14(2): 171-179.
Wang, Z., Chang, A.C., Wu, L. and Crowley, D. 2003.
Assessing the soil quality of long-term reclaimed
wastewater-irrigated cropland. Geoderma 114(3/4):
261-278.
Zalba and Quiroga 1999. Fulvic acid as a diagnostic feature
for agricultural soil evaluation. Soil Science 164(1):
57-61.
