ANNUAL REPORT (2017-18)

All Coordinated Research Project on Micro and Secondary Nutrients & Pollutant Elements in Soils and Plants (Ranchi Centre)

PCM/New Centre/11th Plan/ISSS/dt.20.02.2009 (Out sourcing Centre) ICAR Household Food Security Survey Household Food Security Survey Ekamba village, Kanke, ranchi Nagri, Kanke, ranchi

Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer Delinetion programme of

Safe limit: HRI<1.0

Delinetion programme of Delinetion programme of Bokaro district

Department of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry Birsa Agricultural University Ranchi-834006,

All India Coordinated Research Project on Micro and Secondary Nutrients & Pollutant Elements in

Soils and Plants

(Out Sourcing Centre)

SANCTION NO.PCM/New Centre/ 11th Plan/ ISSS / dt. 20.02.2009

Annual Report 2017-2018

Dr Arvind Kumar Principal Investigator

Dr. Manas Denre Research Associate

Mr. Ruplal Prasad Senior Research Fellow

Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi – 834006,Jharkhand

Correct Citation: Kumar, A., Denre, M. and Prasad, R. (2018). Micro and Secondary Nutrients and Pollutant Elements Research in Jharkhand. Ranchi Center Annual Report 2017-2018, AICRP on Micro and Secondary Nutrients and Pollutant Elements in Soils and Plants, BAU, Ranchi, pp. 1-82.

I. PREFACE

All India Coordinated Research Project on “Micro and Secondary Nutrients & Pollutant Elements in Soils and Plants” was started in 2009 as an out sourcing centre at B.A.U., Ranchi, with the objective to generate systematic information on micro, secondary and pollutant elements in soils and plants of Jharkhand state. In accordance with the mandate of the project in financial year 2017-18, delineation works of two tribal dominated districts and household food security survey in five villages of Ranchi district were completed. I am extremely thankful to the ICAR for giving an opportunity with financial support to work on Micro and Secondary & Pollutant elements for resource poor farmers of Jharkhand state. I am grateful to Dr. A. K. Shukla, Project Coordinator AICRP (Micronutrients), IISS (ICAR) Bhopal for his valuable and constructive suggestions, guidance in completion of all research works assigned to Ranchi Centre. I express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Parvinder Kaushal, Hon’ble Vice-Chancellor, B.A.U., Ranchi, Jharkhand for constructive and moral support in all the ways. Dr. D. N. Singh, Director of Research, BAU and Dr. D. K. Shahi, Chairman, Department of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry for providing necessary facilities, time to time technical advice and sincere help and support for successful completion of all the activities in the project. I am equally grateful to Dr. R. Thakur (Dean, Faculty of Agriculture, B.A.U) for his encouragement and moral support. I am also grateful to Dr. B. K. Agrawal Chief Scientist- cum- University Prof., Department of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry for his kind cooperation in all matters related to the Project. Faculty members of the department especially Dr. Rakesh Kumar, Univ. Prof. cum Chief Scientist, Dr. S. B. Kumar, Dr. N. C. Gupta, , Dr. P. Mahapatra, Dr. (Mrs.) Asha Kumari, Sri Bhupendra Kumar, and particularly Dr. Manas Denre, Research Associate and Mr. Ruplal Prasad, Senior Research Fellow of the project for extending their cooperation in research work.

(ARVIND KUMAR) Principal Investigator, AICRP-MSPE, Ranchi Centre Department of Soil Science & Agricultural Chemistry B.A.U., Ranchi-834006, Jharkhand

II. Executive Summary

 Rice based mono cropping system mostly adopted by the farmers of Koderma and Bokaro district, while as per available of irrigation facility in Rabi season mainly wheat, mustard, vegetables, linseed, onion, chilli etc. also grown by the farmers.  In Koderma district 19.26, 55.19 (Don III+II), 19.26 and 6.20 % of total 270 soil samples and in Bokaro district 13.23, 56.92 (Don III+II), 21.54 and 8.31% of total 325 soil samples were collected from up land, medium land, low land and badi land situations of cultivated land, respectively.  Acidic, Neutral and Alkaline soils were found 62.22, 20.00 and 17.78 % in Koderma district and subsequently 86.27, 9.50 and 4.23 % in Bokaro district, respectively.  Content of Fe, Mn and Cu in soils of Koderma and Bokaro districts were found sufficient.  Zinc and Boron content were found deficient in 60.37 and 39.39 % soils of Koderma and 62.60 and 55.69% soils of Bokaro district, respectively.  Sulphur content was observed <30 mg kg-1 in 90.00 and 80.62% soils of Koderma and Bokaro district.  Health Risk Index for Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu, Pb, Ni, and Co in most of the tested edible plants part of Koderma and Bokaro district were found safe for human diet.  Percent gap of Fe, Zn, Cu and Mn supplement in human nutrition was observed 65.2 to 76.8, 84.1 to 89.4, 73.6 to 85.3 and 53.1 to 76.6 percent in Koderma district, while it was noticed from 73.30 to 82.20, 91.90 to 94.00, 87.20 to 92.89 and 68.00 to 84.00 percent in Bokaro district, respectively in different age groups and gender of human.  Electrical conductivity in water resources was found 0.33 (Pond) to 0.59 (Bore well) dS m-1 in Koderma and 0.32 (Well) to 0.78 (River) dS m-1 in Bokaro district.  High pH value 7.67 in canal water and less pH value 7.02 in well water of Koderma district and similarly high pH value 7.54 in river water and low pH value 5.94 in well water were observed in Bokaro district.  Relative concentration of Zn, Cu, Fe, Mn, B, S, Pb, Ni, Co and Cd in different irrigation sources of Koderma district was observed in following sequence Relative concentration of elements in different water sources Sources Relative elements Bore well Fe>S>B>Ni>Pb>Mn>Zn>Co>Cu>Cd Canal S>Fe>Mn>Ni>B>Pb>Cu>Zn>Co>Cd Pond S>Fe>Mn>B>Ni>Pb>Cu>Co>Zn>Cd River S>Fe>Mn>Ni>B>Pb>Co>Cu>Zn>Cd Well S>Fe>Mn>B>Ni>Pb>Zn>Co>Cu>Cd

 Relative concentration of Zn, Cu, Fe, Mn, B, S, Pb, Ni, Co and Cd in different irrigation sources of Bokaro district was observed in following sequence

Relative concentration of elements in different water sources of Bokaro district Sources Relative elements Bore well S>B>Fe>Zn>Ni>Co>Mn>Pb>Cu>Cd Canal S>B>Fe>Ni>Pb>Co>Zn>Cu>Mn>Cd Pond S>B>Fe>Ni>Pb>Co>Zn>Mn>Cu>Cd River S>B>Fe>Ni>Pb>Zn>Mn>Co>Cu>Cd Well S>B>Fe>Ni>Zn>Co>Pb>Cu>Mn>Cd

 In Koderma district all water resources were found safe for irrigation, except some resources, where pH Co and Cd found slightly higher to permissible limit. More or less similar findings also reflected in water resources of Bokaro district.

 House hold food security survey reflected poor socio-economical condition of farmers in all five surveyed villages of Ranchi District. Where on an average about 90% farmers having <1.0 ha house holding, annual income of 60% family was <1.50 lakhs. Main occupation of the people was wages (About 30%) and agriculture (about 20%), illiteracy rate were found in about 25% villages. Goat, pig and poultry rearing were more popular in all five villages.

 Measurement of HFIAS, CSI, FCS and HDDS on the basis of interacted questions reflected the sever food insecurity in tribal dominated Nagri, Ekamba, Chandwey, Dubliya and Hisir village of Ranchi district.

INDEX

Sl. Particulars Page No. No. 1. Introduction 1 1.2 General Report 1 1.1 Budget & Finance 1 2. Materials and Methods 2-5 2.1 Delineation work in two tribal dominated districts (Koderma & Bokaro) 2 of Jharkhand 2.1.1 Koderma District 2 2.1.2 Bokaro District 2 2.1.3 Methods adopted for analysis of soil samples 3 2.1.4 Methods adopted for analysis of water samples 3-4 2.1.5 Methods adopted for analysis of plant samples 4 2.1.6 Method adopted for determination of Daily Intake of Trace Metal 5 (DITM), Health Risk Index (HRI) and Transfer Factor (TF) 3. Progress of Research Work 6-82 3.1 Delineation works in Koderma district 6-23 3.1.1 Collection of samples 6 3.1.2 Cropping System in Koderma district 6-7 3.1.3 Land situation status of Koderma district 6-7 3.1.4 Soils of Koderma district 7-13 3.1.4.1 Variation in Soil Reaction (pH), Electrical 7-9 Conductivity (EC) and Organic Carbon (OC) content as per land situation in Koderma district 3.1.4.2 Variation of Fe, Mn and Cu content (mg kg-1) in soil as 10 per land situation in Koderma district 3.1.4.3 Variation of Content of Zn, B and S in different land 11-12 situation of Koderma district 3.1.4.4 Variation of Pb, Ni and Co content (mg kg-1) in soil as 12 per land situation in Koderma district 3.1.4.5 Scenario of Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu, B and S deficiency in 12-13 different blocks of Koderma district 3.1.5 Plants analysis and interpretation of Koderma district 13-18 3.1.5.1 Moisture content in edible part of plants 13-14 3.1.5.2 Trace metal content mg kg-1 on fresh weight basis in 13-14 edible part of plant 3.1.5.3 Trace metal contents in soils at plant collection site 13-15 3.1.5.4 Transfer factor of trace metal in edible part of plant 15 3.1.5.5 Trace metal content (mg kg-1) on dry weight basis in 16 edible part of plant 3.1.5.6 Daily intake of metals 16-17 3.1.5.7 Health Risk Index 17 3.1.5.8 Recommended Dietary Allowance of trace metal 17-18 3.1.6 Water analysis and interpretation of Koderma district 19-23 3.1.6.1 pH and EC in water of different irrigation sources in 19 Koderma district 3.1.6.2 Content of Fe and Mn in irrigation water 19-20 3.1.6.3 Content of Cu and Zn in irrigation water 19-20 3.1.6.4 Content of Pb and Ni in irrigation water 20-21 3.1.6.5 Content of Co and Cd in irrigation water 21 3.1.6.6 Content of B and S in irrigation water 22 3.1.6.7 Relative concentration of elements in different water 22 sources of Koderma district 3.1.6.8 Suitability of irrigation water 22-23 3.2 Delineation works in Bokaro district 23-42 3.2.1 Collection of samples 23-24 3.2.2 Cropping System in Bokaro district 23-24 3.2.3 Land situation status of Bokaro district 25 3.2.4 Soils of Bokaro district 25-32 3.2.4.1 Variation in Soil Reaction (pH), Electrical 25-28 Conductivity (EC) and Organic Carbon (OC) content as per land situation in Bokaro district 3.2.4.2 Variation of Fe, Mn and Cu content (mg kg-1) in soil as 28-29 per land situation in Bokaro district 3.2.4.3 Variation of Zn, B and S content (mg kg-1) in different 29-31 land situation of Bokaro district 3.2.4.4 Scenario of Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu, B and S deficiency in 31 different blocks of Bokaro district 3.2.4.5 Variation of Pb, Ni and Co content (mg kg-1) in soil as 31-32 per land situation in Bokaro district 3.2.5 Plants analysis and interpretation of Bokaro district 32-37 3.2.5.1 Moisture content in edible part of plant 32-33 3.2.5.2 Trace metal content in edible part of plant 32-33 3.1.5.3 Trace metal content in soil at plant collection sites 34 3.1.5.4 Transfer factor of trace metal in edible part of plant 34-35 3.1.5.5 Trace metal content (mg kg-1) on dry weight basis in 35 edible part of plant 3.1.5.6 Daily intake of metals 35-36 3.1.5.7 Health Risk index 36 3.1.5.8 Percent gap in nutrition analysis 36-37 3.2.6 Water analysis and interpretation of Bokaro district 37-42 3.2.6.1 pH and EC in water of different irrigation sources in 37-38 Bokaro district 3.2.6.2 Content of Fe and Mn in irrigation water 38 3.2.6.3 Content of Cu and Zn in irrigation water 38-39 3.2.6.4 Content of Pb and Ni in irrigation water 39-40 3.2.6.5 Content of Co and Cd in irrigation water 40 3.2.6.6 Content of B and S in irrigation water 40-41 3.2.6.7 Relative concentration of elements in different water 41 sources of Bokaro district 3.2.6.8 Suitability of irrigation water 41-42 3.3 House hold Food Security Survey 42-82 3.3.1 House Hold Food Security Survey in Nagri village, Kanke block, 42-50 Ranchi 3.3.1.1 Household land holding status 42 3.3.1.2 Household annual income status 43 3.3.1.3 Occupation Scenario 43-44 3.3.1.4 Education level 43-44 3.3.1.5 Household livestock holding 45 3.3.1.6 Scenario of Production, Consumption and Market 45-46 surplus of Agriculture 3.3.1.7 Measurement of Food Security through Household 46-47 Food Insecurity and Access Scale (HFIAS) 3.3.1.8 Measurement of Food Security through Coping 46-48 Strategies Index (CSI) 3.3.1.9 Measurement of Food Security through Food 48-49 Consumption Score (FCS)/Household 3.3.1.10 Status of Various Welfare Schemes (Food and Non- 49-50 Food Related) 3.3.2 House Hold Food Security Survey in Ekamba village, Kanke 51-59 block, Ranchi 3.3.2.1 Household land holding status 51 3.3.2.2 Household annual income status 51-52 3.3.2.3 Occupation Scenario 51-52 3.3.2.4 Education level 53 3.3.2.5 Household livestock holding 53-54 3.3.2.6 Scenario of Production, Consumption and Market 54 surplus of Agriculture 3.3.2.7 Measurement of Food Security through Household 55-56 Food Insecurity and Access Scale (HFIAS) 3.3.2.8 Measurement of Food Security through Coping 56-57 Strategies Index (CSI) 3.3.2.9 Measurement of Food Security through Food 56-58 Consumption Score (FCS)/Household 3.3.2.10 Status of Various Welfare Schemes (Food and Non- 58-59 Food Related) 3.3.3 House Hold Food Security Survey in Chandwey village, Kanke 59-67 block, Ranchi 3.3.3.1 Household land holding status 59 3.3.3.2 Household annual income status 60 3.3.3.3 Occupation Scenario 60-61 3.3.3.4 Education level 60-61 3.3.3.5 Household livestock holding 62 3.3.3.6 Scenario of Production, Consumption and Market 62-63 surplus of Agriculture 3.3.3.7 Measurement of Food Security through Household 63-64 Food Insecurity and Access Scale (HFIAS) 3.3.3.8 Measurement of Food Security through Coping 64-65 Strategies Index (CSI) 3.3.3.9 Measurement of Food Security through Food 65-66 Consumption Score (FCS)/Household 3.3.3.10 Status of Various Welfare Schemes (Food and Non- 66-67 Food Related) 3.3.4 House Hold Food Security Survey in Dubaliya village, Kanke 67-74 block, Ranchi 3.3.4.1 Household land holding status 67 3.3.4.2 Household annual income status 68 3.3.4.3 Occupation Scenario 68-69 3.3.4.4 Education level 68-69 3.3.4.5 Household livestock holding 70 3.3.4.6 Scenario of Production, Consumption and Market 70-71 surplus of Agriculture 3.3.4.7 Measurement of Food Security through Household 71-72 Food Insecurity and Access Scale (HFIAS) 3.3.4.8 Measurement of Food Security through Coping 72-73 Strategies Index (CSI) 3.3.4.9 Measurement of Food Security through Food 73 Consumption Score (FCS)/Household 3.3.4.10 Status of Various Welfare Schemes (Food and Non- 74 Food Related) 3.3.5 House Hold Food Security Survey in Hisri village, Ratu block, 74-82 Ranchi 3.3.5.1 Household land holding status 74-75 3.3.5.2 Household annual income status 75 3.3.5.3 Occupation Scenario 76 3.3.5.4 Education level 76-77 3.3.5.5 Household livestock holding 77 3.3.5.6 Scenario of Production, Consumption and Market 77-78 surplus of Agriculture 3.3.5.7 Measurement of Food Security through Household 78-79 Food Insecurity and Access Scale (HFIAS) 3.3.5.8 Measurement of Food Security through Coping 78-80 Strategies Index (CSI) 3.3.5.9 Measurement of Food Security through Food 78-81 Consumption Score (FCS)/Household 3.3.5.10 Status of Various Welfare Schemes (Food and Non- 81-82 Food Related) Appendix I-V P.G. and Ph.D. research work supported by AICRP-MSPE project I Published Research Papers I-II Published Book Chapter II Abstract published in seminar and symposium II Extension activities II-III References IV-V Annexure i-xvii Physicochemical properties of soils in Koderma district i-viii Physicochemical properties of soils in Bokaro district ix-xvii

Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL REPORT

PROJECT TITLE : All India Coordinated Research Project on Micro & Secondary Nutrients and Pollutant Elements in Soils and Plants.

SANCTION NO. : PCM/New Centre/11th Plan/ISSS/dt.20.02.2009 (Out sourcing Centre)

DATE OF START : Kharif – 2009

ADDRESS OF CENTRE : Department of Soil Science & Agricultural Chemistry, Birsa Agricultural University, Kanke, Ranchi- 834006, Jharkhand

Principal Investigator : Dr. Arvind Kumar

Technical Personnel Employed

Research Associate : Dr. Manas Denre

Date of Joining : 25.11.2013 to continue

Senior Research Fellow : Mr. Ruplal Prasad

Date of Joining : 18.05.2016 to continue

1.2 BUDGET & FINANCE

Period Opening Received from Actual Closing Balance the council expenditure Balance 2017-18 20,56,199.00 6,70,000.00 11,79,286.00 15,46,913.00

1 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 Delineation work in two tribal dominated districts (Koderma & Bokaro) of Jharkhand

2.1.1 Koderma District

To study the present scenario of crops, cropping system and fertility status in Koderma district of Jharkhand (Fig. 1), Global Positioning System (GPS) based 270 soils, 35 plants and 19 water samples were collected from cultivated field of farmers (Fig. 2 & 4). Among 270 soil samples 41, 51, 52, 44, 42 and 40 soils were collected from Chandwara, Domchanch, Jainagar, Koderma, Markacho and Satgawan blocks of Koderma district, respectively (Table 6).

2.1.2 Bokaro District

On the other hand, from all around the 9 blocks of Bokaro district of Jharkhand (Fig. 1), GPS based 325 soils, 42 plant and 25 water samples were collected from farmer’s cultivated field (Fig. 3 & 5). Among 325 soil samples, 41, 37, 40, 40, 41, 36, 33, 19 and 38 soils were collected from Bermo, Chandamkeyari, Chandrapura, , Gomia, Jassidih, Kasmar, and Peterwar blocks of Bokaro district, respectively. Along with soil samples 42 plant samples and 25 water samples also were collected from different blocks of Bokaro district (Table 20). After processing of all collected soil, plant and water samples through prescribed scientific methods, different physicochemical properties were determined by widely accepted analysis methods and procedure (Table 1, 2 & 3).

Fig. 1: Block wise map of Koderma and Bokaro district

2 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

2.1.3 Methods adopted for analysis of soil samples

Table 1: Following methods were adopted for analysis of soil samples Parameters Reference Measurement pH 1:2.5 (soil: water) By pH meter (µ pH system 362) (Page et al., 1982) Electrical Conductivity 1:2.5 (soil: water) By EC meter (Spectrum (EC) (Page et al., 1982) Technologies, Inc. Item # 2265) Organic Carbon (OC) Nelson and Sommer Titration with 0.1 N Ferrous (1982) Ammonium Sulphate Micronutrients (Zn, Cu, DTPA extractable method Atomic Absorption Fe, Mn) [Lindsay & Norvell Spectrophotometer (1978)] Boron (B) Hot water soluble By UV-Spectrophotometer (Gupta, 1967) Heavy metals (Pb, Ni, DTPA extractable method Atomic Absorption Co and Cd) Lindsay & Norvell (1978) Spectrophotometer Sulphur (S) 0.15% CaCl2 [Chesnin and By UV-Spectrophotometer Yien (1951)]

2.1.4 Methods adopted for analysis of water samples

Table 2: Methods were adopted for analysis of water samples Parameters Reference Measurement pH Jackson (1973) By pH meter (µ pH system 362) EC Jackson (1973) By EC meter (Spectrum Technologies, Inc. Item # 2265) Zn, Cu, Fe, Mn, Pb, Ni, Co Acid digestion Atomic Absorption and Cd (Trivedi and Goel, 1984) Spectrophotometer Boron Using Azomethine H By UV- (Wear, 1965) Spectrophotometer Sulphur Turbidity method [Chesnin By UV- and Yien (1951)] Spectrophotometer

Fig. 2: Different irrigation sources in Koderma district

3 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

Fig. 3: Different irrigation sources in Bokaro district

2.1.5 Methods adopted for analysis of Plant samples

Table 3: Following methods were adopted for analysis of plant samples Parameters Reference Measurement Zn, Cu, Fe, Mn, Pb, Ni, Co Di-acid (4:1, Atomic Absorption and Cd HNO3:HClO4) digestion Spectrophotometer (Jackson, 1973) Boron Dry ashing (Gupta 1979) By UV-Spectrophotometer Sulphur Willium & Steinberg By UV-Spectrophotometer (1954)

Fig. 4: Various activities during collection of soil and plant samples in Koderma district

Fig. 5: Various activities during collection of soil and plant samples in Bokaro district

4 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

2.1.6 Methods adopted for determination of Daily Intake of Trace Metal (DITM), Health Risk Index (HRI) and Transfer Factor (TF)

-1 -1 Daily Intake of Trace Metal (DITM) (mg metal kg body weight day ) = (Cmetal × Factor × D food intake) / B average weight

Where, Cmetal = Metal concentration in edible part of plant (Dry weight basis) Factor = Fresh to dry conversion factor is 0.085 Dfood intake = Daily intake of edible part of plant Baverage weight = Average body weight If, Daily intake of edible part of plant is 200 g person-1 Average body weight is 70 kg person-1

Sources: Datta et al., 2017

Health Risk Index = DITM/RfDo

Where, DITM = Daily Intake of Trace Metal RfDo = Oral Reference Dose Oral Reference Dose (RfDo) Trace metal RfDo (mg kg-1 day-1) Reference Zn 3.0 × 10-1 USEPA 2001 and Cu 4.0 × 10-2 2012 Fe 7.0 × 10-1 Mn 1.4 × 10-1 Ni 2.0 × 10-2 Pb 3.5 × 10-3 WHO, 1993 Co 4.3 × 10-2 Food and Nutrition Board, 2004

Trace element concentration in edible part of plant (Fresh wt. basis) Transfer Factor (TF) = Trace element concentration in soil from where the plant was grown

Source: Cui et al., 2004

5 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

3. PROGRESS OF RESEARCH WORK

3.1 Delineation works in Koderma district

3.1.1 Collection of samples

Under delineation programme in Koderma district (Covering all 6 blocks i.e., Chandwara, Chandwara, Jainagar, Koderma, Markacho and Satgawan, GPS based 270 soils, 35 plants and 19 water samples were collected. Geographical situation of sampling site in the district were circled from latitude 24019'00.0" to 24º46′14.5″, longitude 85025'14.6" to 85º50′30.6″ and altitude varied from 117 to 392 m (Table 4).

Table 4: GPS based collected soil, plant and water samples from different blocks of Koderma district Name of No. of sample Latitude Longitude Altitude Block Soil Plant Water (m) Chandwara 41 8 1 24020'59.1"- 85025'14.6"- 352-392 24023'51.1" 85030'12.6" Chandwara 51 12 6 24025'50.5"- 85040'45.3"- 301-392 24030'20.8" 85046'52.6" Jainagar 52 4 1 24019'00.0"- 85036'21.0"- 218-382 24025'54.7" 85046'09.7" Koderma 44 1 3 24024'16.9"- 85029'13.2"- 301-392 24028'50.3" 85038'27.7" Markacho 42 4 5 24º19′18.0″- 85º46′24.6″- 301-392 24º26′40.0″ 85º50′30.6″ Satgawan 40 6 3 24º39′33.8″- 85º44′06.2″- 117-383 24º46′14.5″ 85º48′22.9″ Overall 270 35 19 24019'00.0"- 85025'14.6"- 117-392 24º46′14.5″ 85º50′30.6″

3.1.2 Cropping System in Koderma district

Primary cropping system was observed mono cropping (Rice-fallow), while secondary cropping system was also observed as per availability of irrigation sources in limited area. As per discussion with farmers and observation of cultivated field in Rabi season wheat, potato, mustard, linseed and vegetables were more popular among the farmers (Table 5).

3.1.3 Land situation status

Soil sampls were collected from different sites of farmer’s field randomly and categorized as per variation of land situations of cultivated field. Among 270 soil samples 52, 149, 52 and 17 were collected, respectively from up, medium, low and badi lands situation of soil sampling site. Per cent distribution of soil as per variation of situation was found in decreasing order 55.19 (medium land) >19.26 (low land) >19.26 (up land) > 6.30 (badi

6 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

land). This result more over also reflected physiographical variation of Koderma district situated at lower plateau (Table 6 & Fig. 6).

Table 5: Block wise Predominant cropping systems (primary and secondary) in Koderma district of Jharkhand. Sl. No. Name of Block Primary Cropping system Secondary Cropping system 1 Chandwara Rice -fallow Rice - wheat 2 Domchanch Rice -fallow Maize - potato/mustard 3 Jainagar Rice -fallow Rice - wheat - vegetable 4 Koderma Rice -fallow Rice - wheat + mustard 5 Markacho Rice -fallow Rice - linseed 6 Satgawan Rice -fallow Rice - wheat + mustard - vegetable

Table 6: Per cent land situation in Koderma district Land Situation No. Sample % Up land 52 19.26 Medium land 149 55.19 Low land 52 19.26 badi land 17 6.30

Fig. 6

3.1.4 Soils of Koderma district

3.1.4.1 Variation in Soil Reaction (pH), Electrical Conductivity (EC) and Organic Carbon (OC) content in soils as per land situation

Soil Reaction (pH), EC and OC status in soils

Soil reaction (pH) in analyzed soil samples was observed in the range 5.07 to 8.15 with mean value 5.97 pH. Mean pH in upland situation (5.91) and in badi land situation of cultivated land were apparent almost in neutral range. Overall pH was observed in increasing order with slope and varied from 5.91(upland) to 6.45 (lowland). Similar trend was also observed in EC and noted 0.19 dS m-1 in upland situation and 0.34 dS m-1 in

7 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

lowland situation. Overall EC in analyzed soil samples varied from 0.01 to 0.86 dS m-1 with 0.25 dS m-1 its mean value. Organic carbon status in Koderma soil was found in medium status and varied from 5.47 (upland) to 7.99 g kg-1 (lowland) (Table 7).

Table 7: Variation of pH, EC and OC in soil of different land situations Land No. pH EC (dS m-1) OC (g kg-1) Situation of Range Mean±Std. Range Mean±Std. Range Mean±Std. Soil Up land 52 4.49- 5.91±0.97 0.01- 0.19±0.14 0.69- 5.47±2.74 8.17 0.60 13.18 Medium 149 4.25- 6.25±1.04 0.02- 0.27±0.16 0.36- 6.12±2.22 land 8.44 0.86 12.96 Low land 52 4.30- 6.45±1.07 0.03- 0.34±0.21 1.60- 7.99±3.15 9.28 0.84 17.62 Badi land 17 5.07- 5.97±0.84 0.06- 0.25±0.15 1.85- 6.32±3.05 8.15 0.57 12.87 Overall 270 4.25- 6.15±0.98 0.01- 0.26±0.17 0.36- 6.36±2.79 9.28 0.86 17.62

Table 8: Block wise per cent Status of pH in soil Name of blocks Rating Denominatio pH Chand Domc Jainag Kode Mark Satga n range wara hanch ar rma acho wan Ultra acidic <3.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Acidic Extremely acidic 3.5-4.5 0.00 5.88 1.92 0.00 2.38 0.00 Very strongly acidic 4.5-5.0 4.88 9.80 9.62 4.55 16.67 2.50 Strongly acidic 5.0-5.5 12.20 25.49 25.00 22.73 38.10 5.00 Moderately acidic 5.5-6.0 17.07 21.57 21.15 13.64 14.29 12.50 Slightly acidic 6.0-6.5 14.63 13.73 11.54 15.91 23.81 2.50 Neutral 6.5-7.3 24.39 21.57 21.15 18.18 4.76 30.00 Neutral Slightly Alkaline alkaline 7.3-7.8 12.20 1.96 9.62 9.09 0.00 30.00 Moderately alkaline 7.8-8.4 9.76 0.00 0.00 15.91 0.00 15.00 Strongly alkaline 8.4-9.0 2.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.50 Very strongly alkaline >9.0 2.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Soil reaction have been categorized in three broad groups i.e., acidic, neutral and alkaline with different ranges for fruitful interpretation of results. In Chandwara block 24.39% soils

8 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

was found neutral followed by 17.07, 14.63, 12.20 and 9.76 per cent, respectively moderately acidic, slightly acidic, slightly alkaline and moderately alkaline. In other blocks like Domchanch, Jainagar, Koderma and Markacho maximum percentage of soils 25.00, 22.73 and 38.10 per cent soil showed strongly acidic pH, while in Satgawan block maximum 30.00 % soils showed neutral pH and same percentage of soil in Satgawan block also showed slightly alkaline soil reaction (Table 8). Overall scenario of soil pH variation in table 9 reflected that about 82.22 % soils come in the pH category range 5.0 to 7.8 (strongly acidic to slightly alkaline). Moreover, in total analyzed soil samples 62.22, 20.00 and 17.72 per cent showed acidic, neutral and alkaline soil reaction, respectively in Koderma district.

Table 9: Overall status of Soil Reaction Denomination pH range % Rating Ultra acidic <3.5 0.00 Acidic Extremely acidic ≥3.5 - ≤4.5 1.85 Very strongly acidic >4.5 - ≤5.0 8.15 Strongly acidic >5.0 - ≤5.5 21.48 Moderately acidic >5.5 - ≤6.0 15.93 Slightly acidic >6.0 - ≤6.5 14.81 Neutral >6.5 - ≤7.3 20.00 Neutral Slightly alkaline >7.3 - ≤7.8 10.00 Alkaline Moderately alkaline >7.8 - ≤8.4 6.30 Strongly alkaline >8.4 - ≤9.0 1.11 Very strongly alkaline >9.0 0.37

Organic carbon status in low range <5.0 g kg-1 was found highest 53.66 per cent in Chandwara block followed by decreasing order Markacho (33.33%), Satgawan (30.00%), Jainagar (26.92%), Koderma (25.00%) and Dochanch (13.73%). Similarly soil showed medium range <5.0 to 7.5 g kg-1 of organic carbon in 47.50 % analyzed soil samples of Satgawan block followed by Markacho (40.48%), Domchanch (39.32%), Chanwara (36.59%) and Koderma (29.55%). High range of organic carbon >7.5 g kg-1 was observed in Domchanch block (47.06%) followed by Koderma, Jainagar, Markacho, Satgawan and Chandware block of the district. Overall 30.44% soil showed lower range of organic carbon (<5.0 g kg-1), 39.91 % soil having medium OC status and 29.65% high OC in cultivated farmers field in Koderma district (Table 10).

Table 10: Block wise per cent deficient of Organic Carbon -1 OC range in g kg / <5.0 5.0-7.5 >7.5 Name of blocks Chandwara 53.66 36.59 9.76 Domchanch 13.73 39.22 47.06 Jainagar 26.92 46.15 26.92 Koderma 25.00 29.55 45.45 Markacho 33.33 40.48 26.19 Satgawan 30.00 47.50 22.50 Overall 30.44 39.91 29.65 OC categorized as Low Medium High

9 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

3.1.4.2 Variation of Fe, Mn and Cu content (mg kg-1) in soil as per different land situation

Range of DTPA extractable Fe, Mn and Cu varied from 3.84 to 62.00, 5.92 to 40.00 and 0.42 to2.72 mg kg-1, respectively with its mean values 33.87, 22.75 and 1.96 mg kg-1. As per topographical variation, content of Fe also varied and observed maximum 39.62 mg kg-1 in low land situation and minimum 29.80 mg kg-1 in badi land situation. Similarly Mn 122.83 and Cu 2.42 mg kg-1 also found higher in low land situation. However, mean variation of Mn content was found in narrow range (21.43-23.74 mg kg-1) in different land situation of Koderma district. On the other hand Cu content 1.50 mg kg-1 in badi land and 2.42 mg kg-1 in low land situation was observed (Table 11). DTPA extractable available Fe, Mn and Cu were categorized from acute deficiency to higher by given rating of Shukla et al., 2016. On the basis of this categorization, 98.15, 97.04 and 88.89 per cent analyzed soil samples were found in higher range or sufficient, only 1.48 per cent soil samples for Cu found deficient (Table 12).

Table 11: Variation of Fe, Mn and Cu (mg kg-1) in soil of different land situations Land No. Fe Mn Cu Situation of Range Mean±Std. Range Mean±Std. Range Mean±Std. Soil Up land 52 3.84- 30.91±11.49 5.96- 22.98±8.67 0.46- 1.78±0.68 51.80 40.00 3.16 Medium 149 7.82- 35.15±12.11 5.92- 23.74±8.36 0.42- 2.12±0.77 land 62.00 38.20 5.40 Low land 52 14.64- 39.62±12.06 7.60- 22.83±8.80 0.70- 2.42±0.73 60.00 40.00 4.02 Badi land 17 8.60- 29.80±9.99 6.58- 21.43±8.80 0.50- 1.50±0.64 43.40 36.80 2.72 Overall 270 3.84- 33.87±11.41 5.92- 22.75±8.66 0.42- 1.96±0.71 62.00 40.00 2.72

Table 12: Status of Fe, Mn and Cu in soil Available nutrients in soil (mg kg-1) Transition zone of DTPA- % DTPA- % DTPA- % Rating critical limit† Fe sample Mn sample Cu sample Acute deficiency ≤2.5 0.00 ≤1.0 0.00 ≤0.2 0.00 Deficient 2.5- 1.0- 0.2- Deficiency ≤4.5 0.37 ≤3.0 0.00 ≤0.4 0.00 Marginally 4.5- 3.0- 0.4- deficiency ≤6.5 0.00 ≤5.0 0.00 ≤0.6 1.48 Marginally 6.5- 5.0- 0.6- Sufficient sufficient ≤8.5 1.11 ≤7.0 1.48 ≤0.8 5.55 8.5- 7.0- 0.8- Adequate ≤10.5 0.37 ≤9.0 1.48 ≤1.0 4.07 High >10.5 98.15 >9.0 97.04 >1.0 88.89 †Source: Shukla et al., 2016

10 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

3.1.4.3 Variation of Content of Zn, B and S in different land situation

DTPA extractable Zn, hot CaCl2 extractable B and 0.15% CaCl2 extractable S content in soil were varied respectively in the range of 0.16-4.66, 0.15-1.75 and 0.69-65.13 mg kg-1. Lowest Zn content 0.87 mg kg-1 was observed in upland situation followed by in increasing order low land (0.89 mg kg-1), medium land (0.93 mg kg-1) and 1.45 mg kg-1 in badi land. Almost similar trend of B content variation in soil also observed and ranged from 0.61 mg kg-1 (lowland) to 0.89 mg kg-1 (badi land) (Table 13). Mean content of S was found in following increasing trend 10.17 (up land) <12.88 (badi land) < 15.46 (medium land) <27.82 mg kg-1 (low land).

Table 13: Variation of Zn, B and S (mg kg-1) in soil of different land situations Land No. Zn B S Situation of Range Mean±Std. Range Mean±Std. Range Mean±Std. Soil Up land 52 0.36- 0.87±0.47 0.28- 0.63±0.23 0.69- 10.17±6.72 2.80 1.37 41.48 Medium 149 0.16- 0.93±0.59 0.15- 0.67±0.26 3.43- 15.46±16.95 land 4.66 1.59 147.40 Low land 52 0.34- 0.89±0.54 0.21- 0.61±0.30 2.74- 27.82±30.15 2.72 1.75 186.13 Badi land 17 0.36- 1.45±0.89 0.47- 0.89±0.25 5.83- 12.88±6.51 3.18 1.33 30.85 Overall 270 0.16- 1.04±0.62 0.15- 0.70±0.26 0.69- 16.58±15.08 4.66 1.75 186.13

Table 14: Status of Zn, B and S in soil Available nutrients in soil (mg kg-1) Transition zone of DTPA- % HWS-B % CaCl2- % Rating critical limit† Zn sample sample S sample Acute deficiency ≤0.3 1.11 ≤0.2 0.37 ≤10.0 41.48 Deficient 0.3- 0.2- Deficiency ≤0.6 28.52 ≤0.5 27.04 10-≤20 39.63 Marginally 0.6- 0.5- deficiency ≤0.9 30.74 ≤0.7 35.19 20-≤30 8.89 Marginally 0.9- 0.7- Sufficient sufficient ≤1.2 21.85 ≤0.9 20.74 30-≤40 4.44 1.2- 0.9- Adequate ≤1.8 8.89 ≤1.10 10.00 40-≤50 1.11 High >1.8 8.89 >1.10 6.67 >50 4.44 †Source: Shukla et al., 2016

Availability of Zn, B and S in soil

Analyzed value of soil for Zn, B and S content were categorized in six major group i.e., acute deficiency, deficiency, marginal deficiency, marginal sufficient, adequate and high for

11 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

better interpretation in soil-plant relationship (Shukla et al., 2016). Deficiency of Zn, B and S was found 60.37, 62.60 and 90.00 per cent soil samples of farmer’s field, respectively and rest 39.63, 37.40 and 10.00 per cent soils observed sufficient in Zn, B and S. Results reflected a strong message to take necessary action for proper management of these essential elements in farmer’s field of Koderma district (Table 14).

3.1.4.4 Variation of Pb, Ni and Co content (mg kg-1) in soil as per different land situation

DTPA extractable Pb, Ni and Co in soil of the district was found in the range of 0.01 to 4.34, 0.04-2.48 and 0.02-2.36 mg kg-1 respectively. Mean value was 1.43 (Pb), 1.03 (Ni) and 0.75 (Co) mg kg-1. No much variation in Pb content in soil was found as per variation of topographical changes of surface soil. In low land situation mean content of Pb was observed 1.78 mg kg-1. Nickel content in soil was recorded minimum 0.90 mg kg-1 in badi land situation and maximum 1.10 mg kg-1 in medium land situation. Result reflected that Pb content variation was found in narrow range as per topographical and different situation of cultivated soil (Table 15).

Table 15: Variation of Pb, Ni and Co (mg kg-1) in soil of different land situations Land No. Pb Ni Co Situation of Range Mean±Std. Range Mean±Std. Range Mean±Std. Soil Up land 52 0.18- 1.44±0.74 0.34- 1.040.39 0.08- 0.75±0.39 4.08 2.12 1.74 Medium 149 0.02- 1.44±0.64 0.04- 1.10±0.41 0.04- 0.85±0.43 land 3.52 2.48 2.36 Low land 52 0.01- 1.78±0.82 0.34- 1.06±0.38 0.02- 0.74±0.43 4.34 2.30 2.04 Badi land 17 0.18- 1.04±0.35 0.32- 0.90±0.37 0.04- 0.67±0.47 1.62 1.48 1.50 Overall 270 0.01- 1.43±0.64 0.04- 1.03±0.39 0.02- 0.75±0.43 4.34 2.48 2.36 †Safe limit for plant growth and development is 20.00 mg kg-1 for Pb, 10.00 mg kg-1 for Ni and 20.00 mg kg-1 Co †Source: Kabata Pendias, 2011

3.1.4.5 Scenario of Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu, B and S deficiency in different blocks of Koderma district

As per given deficiency level of Fe (<6.5), Mn (<5.0), Zn (<0.9), Cu (<0.6), B (<0.7) and S (<30.0) in soil very interesting results were reflected in table 16. Content of Fe, Mn and Cu in soil was well sufficient. Copper deficiency was observed only in about <2.0% soil in four blocks and on this basis can be advocated that emerging deficiency of copper is likely to be initiated and further it may be accelerated, when farmers will shift on intensive cropping with increasing irrigation potential in plateau region of Jharkhand.

12 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

As per deficiency level of Zn, B and S problem of these nutrients have reached at alarming stage in the district. Among different blocks minimum 45.45 % soils were found Zn deficient in the Koderma block, while maximum deficiency 75.0% was observed in Satgawan block. Boron deficiency also varied from 40.91% in Koderma to 90.48% in Markacho block in the district. Sulphur deficiency was observed 78.43% in Domchanch block followed by 86.36% in Koderma block, 90.30% in Jainagar, 95.00% in Satgawan, 95.12% in Chandwara and 97.62% in Markacho Block of Koderma district, need immediate planning to rectify this problem.

Table 16: Block wise per cent deficiency of Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu, B and S in Koderma district Name of Block Fe Mn Zn Cu B S Chandwara 0.00 0.00 60.98 2.44 51.22 95.12 Domchanch 0.00 0.00 60.78 0.00 56.86 78.43 Jainagar 0.00 0.00 57.69 1.92 63.46 90.38 Koderma 0.00 0.00 45.45 2.27 40.91 86.36 Markacho 0.00 0.00 59.52 0.00 90.48 97.62 Satgawan 2.50 0.00 75.00 0.00 75.00 95.00 Overall 0.42 0.00 59.91 1.11 62.99 90.49 †Deficient value (mg kg-1) <6.5 <5.0 <0.9 <0.6 <0.7 <30.0 †Source: Shukla et al., 2016

3.1.5 Plants Analysis and Interpretation

3.1.5.1 Moisture content in edible part of plants

Moisture content was observed highest 94.10% in bottle guard followed by Tomato (93.79%). Radish (93.50%), Brinjal (91.52%), Cauliflower (90.85%) (Table 17), where as lowest moisture content observed in Lentil (7.48%) and in Mustard (11.72%).

3.1.5.2 Trace metal content mg kg-1 in edible part of plant on fresh weight basis

Trace metal content such as Fe, Mn , Zn , Cu , Pb , Ni, and Co varied from 4.84 to 64.30 (mean 17.41 mg kg-1 ), 1.07 to 18.22 (mean 4.11 mg kg-1) , 1.30 to 33.77 (mean 7.96 mg kg- 1), 0.26 to 7.86 (mean 1.66 mg kg-1), 0.74 to 12.37 (mean 3.27 mg kg-1), 0.89 to 12.95 (mean 3.01 mg kg-1) and 0.68 to 17.12 mg kg-1 (mean 3.94 mg kg-1), respectively. In Mustard Fe, Mn and Pb content were observed 64.30, 18.22 and 12.37 mg kg-1, respectively and found higher to other crops. Similarly Zn, Cu, Ni and Co content 33.77, 7.86, 12.95 and 17.12 mg kg-1 were found respectively in Lentil (Table 18).

3.1.5.3 Trace metal content (mg kg-1) in soil at plant collected site

Trace metals content in soil were found in the range from 17.74 to 33.00 mg kg-1 (Fe), 17.53 to 31.20 mg kg-1 (Mn), 0.74 to 2.94 (Zn), 0.60 to 2.72 mg kg-1 (Cu) , 0.82 to 1.62 mg kg-1 (Pb), 0.64 to 1.74 mg kg-1 (Ni) and 0.44 to 1.06 mg kg-1 (Co) (Table 19).

13 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

Table 17: Moisture content of edible part of plant collected from different sites Name of Edible part Family Botanical name No. of MC plants of plants sample (%)

Beat root Root Amaranthaceae Beta vulgaris 1 87.68 Bottle gourd Fruit Cucurbitaceae Lagenaria siceraria 1 94.10 Brinjal Fruit Solanaceae Solanum melongena 4 91.52

Broad bean Grain Fabaceae Vicia faba L. 2 80.87 Cauliflower white Brassicaceae Brassica oleracea inflorescence var. botrytis meristem 1 90.85

Dolicous Fruit Fabaceae Lablab purpureus bean 3 86.73 Gram Grain Fabaceae, Cicer arietinum 1 79.04

Vegetable Grain Fabaceae Pisum sativum pea 1 78.53

Lentil Grain Fabaceae Lens culinaris 1 7.48

Mustard Grain Brassicaceae Brassica nigra 5 19.72

Potato Modified Solanaceae Solanum tuberosum stem 8 76.02 Radish Modified Brassicaceae Raphanus sativus root var. Longipinnatus 1 93.50 Fruit Solanaceae Solanum Tomato lycopersicum 6 93.79

Table 18: Trace metals content [mg kg-1(Fresh weight basis)] in edible part of plants Plants Fe Mn Zn Cu Pb Ni Co Beat root 9.24 3.76 1.79 0.55 0.90 0.86 2.90 Bottle gourd 6.61 1.53 1.89 0.74 0.85 0.83 1.39 Brinjal 5.04 1.09 1.72 0.68 1.03 0.92 0.81 Broad bean 17.27 4.21 5.93 1.82 1.99 2.25 3.92 Cauliflower 8.01 1.37 3.43 0.41 1.13 0.09 1.01 Dolicous bean 11.22 3.42 3.88 0.98 2.05 1.31 1.64 Gram 21.69 4.61 9.01 2.31 3.01 1.36 5.55 Vegetable pea 12.02 3.22 6.87 1.82 3.74 3.11 3.11 Lentil 49.96 8.33 33.77 7.86 10.68 12.95 17.12 Mustard 64.30 18.22 26.57 2.41 12.37 12.20 8.35 Potato 10.42 1.57 4.26 1.32 3.14 2.31 3.79 Radish 5.66 1.07 3.02 0.26 0.82 0.26 0.98 Tomato 4.84 1.07 1.30 0.41 0.74 0.69 0.68 4.84- 1.07- 1.30- 0.26- 0.74- 0.09- 0.68- Range 64.30 18.22 33.77 7.86 12.37 12.95 17.12 Mean 17.41 4.11 7.96 1.66 3.27 3.01 3.94

14 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

Table 19: Trace metals content [mg kg-1] in soil at plant collected site Plants Fe Mn Zn Cu Pb Ni Co Beat root 28.40 30.80 1.08 2.22 0.82 0.64 0.82 Bottle gourd 33.00 31.20 1.36 2.72 1.62 1.10 0.72 Brinjal 30.09 25.37 1.43 1.43 1.20 0.92 0.92 Broad bean 20.77 21.86 1.96 0.87 0.91 1.13 0.44 Cauliflower 17.74 19.32 2.94 1.02 1.02 0.98 0.58 Dolicous bean 22.82 22.85 1.85 1.40 1.10 0.99 0.86 Gram 19.48 23.00 1.20 1.80 0.96 1.74 1.06 Vegetable pea 21.00 20.60 0.74 0.60 0.56 0.82 0.78 Lentil 20.00 17.72 1.56 2.44 0.82 1.48 0.66 Mustard 30.34 23.17 1.44 1.85 0.89 1.32 0.99 Potato 27.79 21.40 1.70 1.38 1.35 0.90 0.71 Radish 28.40 30.80 1.08 2.22 0.82 0.64 0.82 Tomato 25.71 17.53 1.35 1.14 1.23 1.03 0.67

3.1.5.4 Transfer factor of trace metal in edible part of plant

Highest transfer factors were observed for Fe (2.50) , Zn (21.65) , Cu (3.22) and Co (25.43) in lentil, while transfer factor 0.79, 13.90 and 9.24 for Mn, Pb and Ni were observed in Mustard. On the other hand lowest transfer factor among all collected edible part of plants were found for Fe (0.17) in Brinjal, Mn (0.03) in radish, Zn (0.97) in tomato, Cu (0.12) in Radish, Pb (0.52) in bottle guard, Ni (0.09) in cauliflower and Co (0.88) in Brinjal. More over transfer factor of lentil and Mustard were observed higher as compared to other plants (Table 20).

Table 20: Transfer factor of trace metals in edible part of plants Plants Fe Mn Zn Cu Pb Ni Co Beat root 0.33 0.12 1.65 0.25 1.10 1.35 3.53 Bottle gourd 0.20 0.05 1.39 0.27 0.52 0.75 1.93 Brinjal 0.17 0.04 1.20 0.47 0.86 1.00 0.88 Broad bean 0.83 0.19 3.03 2.09 2.19 1.99 8.92 Cauliflower 0.45 0.07 1.17 0.40 1.11 0.09 1.74 Dolicous bean 0.49 0.15 2.10 0.70 1.87 1.32 1.91 Gram 1.11 0.20 7.51 1.28 3.13 0.78 5.24 Vegetable pea 0.57 0.16 9.28 3.04 6.69 3.80 3.99 Lentil 2.50 0.47 21.65 3.22 13.02 8.75 25.93 Mustard 2.12 0.79 18.45 1.30 13.90 9.24 8.43 Potato 0.37 0.07 2.50 0.96 2.33 2.56 5.34 Radish 0.20 0.03 2.80 0.12 1.00 0.41 1.19 Tomato 0.19 0.06 0.97 0.36 0.60 0.67 1.01

15 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

3.1.5.5 Trace metal content (mg kg-1) on dry weight basis in edible part of plant

Trace metals content in edible part of plants (on dry weight basis) were found higher in following crops (Table 21). Fe: Bottle guard (112.00 mg kg-1) Mn: Beet root (30.50 mg kg-1) Zn: Radish (46.50 mg kg-1) Cu: Bottle guard (12.50 mg kg-1) Pb: Green gram (17.49 mg kg-1) Ni: Mustard (15.20 mg kg-1) Co: Gram (26.50 mg kg-1) Lower content of trace metals were found in following crops (Table 21) Fe: Potato (43.44 mg kg-1) Mn: Potato (6.56mg kg-1) Zn: Beet root (14.50 mg kg-1) Cu: Mustard (3.00 mg kg-1) Pb: Beet root (7.31 mg kg-1) Ni: Broad bean (1.00 mg kg-1) Co: Brinjal (9.50 mg kg-1)

Table 21: Trace metals content [mg kg-1(Dry weight basis)] in edible part of plants (Koderma district) Plants Fe Mn Zn Cu Pb Ni Co Beat root 75.00 30.50 14.50 4.50 7.31 7.00 23.50 Bottle gourd 112.00 26.00 32.00 12.50 14.35 14.00 23.50 Brinjal 59.38 12.88 20.25 8.00 12.17 10.88 9.50 Broad bean 90.25 22.00 31.00 9.50 10.41 11.75 20.50 Cauliflower 87.50 15.00 37.50 4.50 12.38 1.00 11.00 Dolicous bean 84.50 25.75 29.25 7.38 15.47 9.88 12.38 Gram 103.50 22.00 43.00 11.00 14.35 6.50 26.50 Vegetable pea 56.00 15.00 32.00 8.50 17.44 14.50 14.50 Lentil 54.00 9.00 36.50 8.50 11.54 14.00 18.50 Mustard 80.10 22.70 33.10 3.00 15.41 15.20 10.40 Potato 43.44 6.56 17.75 5.50 13.09 9.63 15.81 Radish 87.00 16.50 46.50 4.00 12.66 4.00 15.00 Tomato 77.83 17.17 21.00 6.67 11.96 11.17 10.92 Range 43.44- 6.56- 14.50- 3.00- 7.31- 1.00- 9.50- 112.0 30.50 46.50 12.50 17.44 15.20 26.50 Mean 77.73 18.54 30.33 7.20 12.96 9.96 16.31

3.1.5.6 Daily intake of metals

On the basis of metals content in edible plant parts and same (200 g fresh edible part) consumed by human having 70kg body weight, daily intake of trace metals (mg metal kg-1 body weight day-1) was calculated.

16 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

Daily intake of Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu, Pb, Ni and Co were varied in the range of 0.01055 - 0.02720, 0.00159 - 0.00741, 0.00352 - 0.01129, 0.00073 - 0.00304, 0.00178- 0.00424, 0.00024 - 0.00369 and 0.00231- 0.00644, respectively with their mean value 0.01888, 0.00450, 0.00737, 0.00175, 0.00315, 0.00242 and 0.00396 (Table 22)

Table 22: Daily Intake Trace Metals (mg metal kg-1 body weight day-1) from edible part of plants Plants Fe Mn Zn Cu Pb Ni Co Beat root 0.01821 0.00741 0.00352 0.00109 0.00178 0.00170 0.00571 Bottle gourd 0.02720 0.00631 0.00777 0.00304 0.00349 0.00340 0.00571 Brinjal 0.01442 0.00313 0.00492 0.00194 0.00296 0.00264 0.00231 Broad bean 0.02192 0.00534 0.00753 0.00231 0.00253 0.00285 0.00498 Cauliflower 0.02125 0.00364 0.00911 0.00109 0.00301 0.00024 0.00267 Dolicous bean 0.02052 0.00625 0.00710 0.00179 0.00376 0.00240 0.00301 Gram 0.02514 0.00534 0.01044 0.00267 0.00349 0.00158 0.00644 Vegetable pea 0.01360 0.00364 0.00777 0.00206 0.00424 0.00352 0.00352 Lentil 0.01311 0.00219 0.00886 0.00206 0.00280 0.00340 0.00449 Mustard 0.01945 0.00551 0.00804 0.00073 0.00374 0.00369 0.00253 Potato 0.01055 0.00159 0.00431 0.00134 0.00318 0.00234 0.00384 Radish 0.02113 0.00401 0.01129 0.00097 0.00307 0.00097 0.00364 Tomato 0.01890 0.00417 0.00510 0.00162 0.00290 0.00271 0.00265 0.01055- 0.00159- 0.00352- 0.00073- 0.00178- 0.00024- 0.00231- Range 0.02720 0.00741 0.01129 0.00304 0.00424 0.00369 0.00644 Mean 0.01888 0.00450 0.00737 0.00175 0.00315 0.00242 0.00396

3.1.5.7 Health Risk index

Health risk index values for all the metals in different crops were computed in table 23, result reflected that only computed values of Pb in dolicous bean, vegetable pea and mustard reached slightly higher to 1.0 and for other crops Health Risk index were noted below 1.0 for all the trace metals (Table 23).

3.1.5.8 Recommended Dietary Allowance of trace metal

On the basis of established threshold value (food and Nutrition) of Fe, Zn, Cu, and Mn for healthy children, male and female, nutrition gap of these four elements have been Calculated (Table 24). Intake of these elements in human body were consider on content and moisture basis in 200 g fresh mixed edible part of all analyzed plants per day by different age group and gender of farmers. Result reflected that through 200 g mixed edible part of plant, only 3.48 mg Fe will intake in human body in respect to daily recommended requirement of Fe 10, 12 and 15 mg day-1 for different age groups and gender. Considering this fact percent gap of Fe nutrition in children, male and female were found 65.2, 71.0 and 76.80 percent, respectively. Similarly through same (200 g) daily intake of plant part only 1.58 mg Zn, 0.33 mg Cu and 0.82 mg Mn day-1 supplemented the daily human requirement against 10 to 15 mg Zn, 1.0 to 3.0 mg Cu and 1.5 to 5.0 mg Mn per day. With critical analysis nutrition gap

17 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

of Zn, Cu and Mn were found 84.1 to 89.4, 73.6 to 85.3 and 53.1 to 76.6 percent among children, male and female of farmer’s family residing in study areas.

Table 23: Hazard Quotient/Health risk index for trace metals intake from edible part of plants Plants Fe Mn Zn Cu Pb Ni Co Beat root 0.0260 0.0529 0.0117 0.0022 0.5072 0.0850 0.1327 Bottle gourd 0.0389 0.0451 0.0259 0.0061 0.9957 0.1700 0.1327 Brinjal 0.0206 0.0223 0.0164 0.0039 0.8444 0.1321 0.0537 Broad bean 0.0313 0.0382 0.0251 0.0046 0.7223 0.1427 0.1158 Cauliflower 0.0304 0.0260 0.0304 0.0022 0.8590 0.0121 0.0621 Dolicous bean 0.0293 0.0447 0.0237 0.0036 1.0734 0.1199 0.0699 Gram 0.0359 0.0382 0.0348 0.0053 0.9957 0.0789 0.1497 Vegetable pea 0.0194 0.0260 0.0259 0.0041 1.2101 0.1761 0.0819 Lentil 0.0187 0.0156 0.0295 0.0041 0.8007 0.1700 0.1045 Mustard 0.0278 0.0394 0.0268 0.0015 1.0693 0.1846 0.0587 Potato 0.0151 0.0114 0.0144 0.0027 0.9083 0.1169 0.0893 Radish 0.0302 0.0286 0.0376 0.0019 0.8784 0.0486 0.0847 Tomato 0.0270 0.0298 0.0170 0.0032 0.8299 0.1356 0.0617 Mean 0.0270 0.0322 0.0246 0.0035 0.8996 0.1210 0.0921

Table 24: Recommended Dietary allowance of trace metals in Koderma district on the basis of trace metal availability in edible part of plant. Fe Zn Intake Intake Age mg % gap in mg % gap in Category Recommended** Recommended (Year) day-1* nutrition day-1 nutrition mg day-1 mg day-1 200 supplement 200 supplement gm gm Children 4-10 10 3.48 65.2 10 1.59 84.1 Male 11+ 12 3.48 71.0 12 1.59 86.7 Female 11+ 15 3.48 76.8 15 1.59 89.4 Cu Mn Intake Intake Age mg % gap in mg % gap in Category Recommended Recommended (Year) day-1 nutrition day-1 nutrition mg day-1 mg day-1 200 supplement 200 supplement gm gm Children 4-6 1.0-1.5 0.33 73.6 1.5-2.0 0.82 53.1 Male 7-10 1.0-2.0 0.33 78.0 2.0-3.0 0.82 67.2 Female 11+ 1.5-3.0 0.33 85.3 2.0-5.0 0.82 76.6 *Calculation of daily intake of trace metal based on mean value of content and moisture percent in edible part of 200 g fresh mixed edible part of plant. **Recommended dietary allowance reported by Food and Nutrition Board (1989)

18 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

3.1.6 Waters Analysis and Interpretation

3.1.6.1 pH and EC

Among collected water samples pH and EC of water ranged from 5.77 to 8.02 and 0.05 to 1.11 dS m-1, respetively with its mean value 7.35 pH and 0.41 dS m-1. Among different sources of water high pH 7.67 was observed in canal and also in river water (pH 7.52) followed by pond (pH 7.52), bore well (pH 7.24) and well (pH 7.02). Mean value of EC in different water sources varied in narrow range from 0.33 dS m-1 (Pond) to 0.59 dS m-1 (Bore well) in Koderma district (Table 25 & Fig. 8).

Table 25: Variation of pH and EC in water of different irrigation sources in Koderma district Sources No. of pH EC sample (dS m-1) Bore 3 Range 7.05-7.41 0.18-1.11 well Mean 7.24 0.59 Canal 3 Range 7.40-7.89 0.16-0.45 Mean 7.67 0.35 Pond 5 Range 7.26-7.88 0.05-0.88 Fig. 8 Mean 7.52 0.33 River 2 Range 7.27-8.02 0.33-0.54 Mean 7.65 0.44 Well 6 Range 5.77-7.56 0.09-1.01 Mean 7.02 0.42 Overall 19 Range 5.77-8.02 0.05-1.11 Mean 7.35 0.41

3.1.6.2 Content of Fe and Mn

Iron content in irrigation water ranged from 0.185 to 3.375 mg L-1 with mean value 0.859 mg L-1. Among irrigation sources bore well water contents 1.402 mg L-1 Fe followed by canal, pond, well and river water, 1.106, 0.860, 0.616 and 0.396 mg L-1 Fe, respectively in decreasing order. On the contrary, Mn content was high 0.364 mg L-1 in well water followed by decreasing trend in other water sources i.e., river (0.290 mg L-1) > pond (0.265 mg L-1) > canal (0.158 mg L-1) > bore well (0.076 mg L-1) (Table 26 & Fig. 9).

3.1.6.3 Content of Cu and Zn

Copper content in canal water was observed comparatively higher 0.032 mg L-1 followed by 0.027, 0.025, 0.024 and 0.018 mg L-1 Cu in water collected from river, pond, well and bore well, respectively. Content of Cu in water of different sources reflected a narrow variation among each others, while range of Cu in different water samples varied from 0.015 to 0.046 mg L-1 with its mean value 0.025 mg L-1. Similarly Zn content was found higher 0.042 mg L-1 in well water among all water sources, while Cu content was found 0.031, 0.027, 0.023 and 0.021 mg L-1 in river, canal, and pond water. Overall range of Cu in tested water

19 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

samples of Koderma district were observed in the range of 0.015 to 0.098 mg L-1 with mean value 0.030 mg L-1 (Table 27 & Fig. 10).

Table 26: Content of Fe and Mn in water of different irrigation sources Sources No. of Fe Mn sample Bore 3 Range 0.39-3.38 0.051-0.106 well Mean 1.402 0.076 Canal 3 Range 0.64-1.53 0.085-0.204 Mean 1.11 0.158 Pond Range 0.34-1.50 0.200-0.370 5 Fig. 9 Mean 0.86 0.265 River 2 Range 0.19-0.61 0.060-0.520 Mean 0.40 0.290 Well 6 Range 0.37-0.95 0.054-1.120 Mean 0.62 0.364 Overall 19 Range 0.19-3.38 0.051-1.120 Mean 0.86 0.252

Table 27: Content of Cu and Zn in water of different irrigation sources in Koderma district Sources No. of Cu Zn sample Bore 3 Range 0.015-0.024 0.026-0.038 well Mean 0.018 0.031 Canal 3 Range 0.024-0.046 0.020-0.025 Mean 0.032 0.023 Pond 5 Range 0.016-0.046 0.016-0.030 Mean 0.025 0.021 Fig. 10 River 2 Range 0.026-0.028 0.026-0.028 Mean 0.027 0.027 Well 6 Range 0.023-0.029 0.015-0.098 Mean 0.024 0.042 Overall 19 Range 0.015-0.046 0.015-0.098 Mean 0.025 0.030

3.1.6.4 Content of Pb and Ni in irrigation water

Content of Pb and Ni in irrigation water was found in the range of 0.020 to 0.118 and 0.071- 0.175 mg L-1 with its mean value 0.069 and 0.130 mg L-1, respectively. Pb content found higher among all sources in well water 0.083 mg L-1 followed by bore well, river and canal and pond 0.076, 0.066 and 0.057 mg L-1 Pb, respectively. Nickel content was found higher 0.157 mg L-1 in canal water followed by well (0.134 mg L-1), pond (0.126 mg L-1), and bore well (0.094 mg L-1) water sources of Koderma district (Table 28 & Fig. 11).

20 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

Table 28: Content of Pb and Ni in water of different irrigation sources Sources No. of Pb Ni sample Bore 3 Range 0.048-0.113 0.071-0.123 well Mean 0.076 0.094 Canal 3 Range 0.020-0.088 0.131-0.175 Mean 0.057 0.157 Pond 5 Range 0.034-0.076 0.121-0.154 Mean 0.057 0.131 Fig. 11 River 2 Range 0.038-0.095 0.124-0.129 Mean 0.066 0.126 Well 6 Range 0.040-0.118 0.096-0.175 Mean 0.083 0.134 Overall 19 Range 0.020-0.118 0.071-0.175 Mean 0.069 0.130

3.1.6.5 Content of Co and Cd in irrigation water

Lowest content of Co 0.017 mg L-1 was observed in canal water with increasing trend in pond (0.023 mg L-1) < river (0.029 mg L-1) < well (0.028 mg L-1) < bore well (0.031 mg L-1) water. Similarly, low content of Cd also found in canal water 0.0013 mg L-1, while increasing trend of Cd noted in pond (0.0048 mg L-1) < river (0.0057 mg L-1) < bore well (0.0059 mg L-1) < well (0.0092 mg L-1) water. Moreover, Co and Cd content in all water samples were found in range of 0.01 to 0.053, 0.0013 to 0.0138 mg L-1 with mean value 0.026 and 0.0059 mg L-1, respectively (Table 29 & Fig. 12).

Table 29: Content of Co and Cd in water of different irrigation sources Sources No. of Co Cd sample Bore 3 Range 0.019-0.048 0.0013-0.0100 well Mean 0.031 0.0059 Canal 3 Range 0.016-0.019 0.0013-0.0013 Mean 0.017 0.0013

Pond 5 Range 0.010-0.039 0.0013-0.0075 Fig. 12 Mean 0.023 0.0048 River 2 Range 0.028-0.030 0.0025-0.0088 Mean 0.029 0.0057 Well 6 Range 0.011-0.053 0.0063-0.0138 Mean 0.028 0.0092 Overall 19 Range 0.010-0.053 0.0013-0.0138 Mean 0.026 0.0059

21 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

3.1.6.6 Content of B and S in irrigation water

Content of B and S in tested water samples were found in the range of 0.078 to 0.439 and 0.093 to 2.060 mg L-1 with mean value 0.163 and 1.125 mg L-1, respectively. Among different water sources B content was observed higher 0.225 mg L-1 in bore well water followed by 0.170, 0.161, 0.141 and 0.092 mg L-1 B in pond, well canal and river water, respectively. Sulphur content was noted higher 1.301 mg L-1 in well water followed by 1.272, 1.164, 0.988 and 0.829 mg L-1 respectively in canal, river, pond and bore well water of Koderma district (Table 30 & Fig. 13).

Table 30: Content of B and S in water of different irrigation sources Sources No. of B S sample Bore 3 Range 0.107-0.439 0.271-1.283 well Mean 0.225 0.829 Canal 3 Range 0.136-0.144 0.926-1.589 Mean 0.141 1.272 Pond Range 0.122-0.283 0.598-1.431 5 Fig. 13 Mean 0.170 0.988 River 2 Range 0.078-0.107 1.059-1.268 Mean 0.092 1.164 Well 6 Range 0.100-0.423 0.093-2.060 Mean 0.161 1.301 Overall 19 Range 0.078-0.439 0.093-2.060 Mean 0.163 1.125

3.1.6.7 Relative concentration of elements in different water sources

Table 31: Relative concentration of elements in different water sources Sources Relative elements Bore well Fe>S>B>Ni>Pb>Mn>Zn>Co>Cu>Cd Canal S>Fe>Mn>Ni>B>Pb>Cu>Zn>Co>Cd Pond S>Fe>Mn>B>Ni>Pb>Cu>Co>Zn>Cd River S>Fe>Mn>Ni>B>Pb>Co>Cu>Zn>Cd Well S>Fe>Mn>B>Ni>Pb>Zn>Co>Cu>Cd

3.1.6.8 Suitability of irrigation water

On the basis of established permissible limit of irrigation water given by Rowe and Abdel- Magid (1995), Ayers and Westcot (1976) and Hameed et al., 1966, result reflected that all the collected water samples of different irrigation sources viz., bore well, canal, pond, river and well were found safe for irrigation in respect to physicochemical properties. pH values were observed slightly lower than the permissible limit in some pond and well. Similarly Co content was noticed slightly higher in some bore well, pond and well water. Cadmium in some bore well, canal, pond and well water was also found slightly higher to its permissible limits (Table 32).

22 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

Table 32: Suitability of various irrigation water on the basis of physiochemical properties of water in Bokaro district Trace metals Recommended Conc. (mg L-1) of Suitability of water for limits collected irrigated water irrigation purpose -1 mg L Range Mean pH 6.5-8.4b 5.77-8.02 7.35 All the collected water EC (dS m-1) 1.50c 0.05-1.11 0.41 samples of different irrigation sources viz., bore well, canal, Zn (mg L-1) 2.00a 0.015-0.098 0.030 pond, river and well were Cu (mg L-1) 0.20a 0.015-0.046 0.025 found safe for irrigation in -1 a respect to physiochemical Fe (mg L ) 5.00 0.185-3.375 0.859 properties were found within Mn (mg L-1) 0.20a 0.051-1.120 0.252 the permissible limits except pH was slightly lower than Pb (mg L-1) 5.00a 0.020-0.118 0.069 limit in some pond and wells; Cd (mg L-1) 0.01a 0.0013-0.0138 0.0059 Co was slightly higher in Co (mg L-1) 0.05a 0.010-0.053 0.026 some bore well, pond and wells; Cd in bore well, pond, -1 a Ni (mg L ) 0.20 0.071-0.175 0.130 canal and well slightly higher B(mg L-1) 0.75a 0.078-0.439 0.163 were found the permissible limits. S(mg L-1) 21.0b 0.093-2.060 1.125 aRowe and Abdel-Magid (1995) bAyers and Westcot (1976) cHameed et al., 1966

3.2 Delineation work in Bokaro district

3.2.1 Collection of samples

Delineation work in Bokaro district was undertaken by AICRP-MSPE and completed during February – March, 2018. During this programme all nine blocks viz., Bermo, Chandankeyari, Chandrapura, Chas, Gomia, Jassidih, Kasmar, Nawadih and Peterwar were covered and GPS based 41, 37, 40, 40, 41, 36, 33, 19 and 38 (Total 325) soil samples were collected, respectively. Besides soil samples 42 plant and 25 water samples also collected from farmer’s field. All the samples (soil, plant and water) were collected covering Latitude N23º33'03.2" to N 23º51'35.5" and longitude E85º00'29.9" to E 86º59'42.0" with the variation of altitude from 132 to 384m (Table 33).

3.2.2 Cropping System

Cropping system information was collected by observing field situation and with discussion to the farmers in all blocks of Bokaro district. Rice-fallow ominant cropping system was

23 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

found in the district, while as per irrigation facility availability and market linkage facility in different blocks following cropping system also in practice in limited areas (Table 34).

Table 33: GPS based collected soil, plant and water samples from different blocks of Bokaro district, Jharkhand Name of Block No. of sample Latitude Longitude Altitude Soil Plant Water (m) Bermo 41 14 7 N23º44'51.7"- E86º06'41.4"- 132-185 N23º48'30.2" E 86º27'16.9" Chandankeyari 37 0 1 N23º45'46.5"- E86º00'51.6"- 250-368 N23º51'35.5" E 86º06'52.2" Chandrapura 40 1 3 N23º43'52.2"- E85º39'20.9"- 247-365 N23º47'16.7" E 85º48'12.7" Chas 40 9 4 N23º34'02.6"- E86º18'09.0"- 132-191 N23º40'41.1" E 86º27'41.5" Gomia 41 0 0 N23º36'43.0"- E86º11'26.6"- 187-218 N23º39'30.9" E 86º14'41.2" Jassidih 36 0 1 N 23º33'3.2"- E85º56'04.4"- 275-384 N 23º38'33.3" E 85º57'00.0" Kasmar 33 0 0 N23º37'53.6"- E85º00'29.9"- 258-317 N23º42'04.1" E 86º59'42.0" Nawadih 19 0 0 N23º42'06.0"- E86º01'24.4"- 195-251 N23º45'05.7" E 86º03'18.9" Peterwar 38 18 6 N23º35'36.7"- E85º48'25.8"- 325-384 N23º40'28.4" E 85º53'31.7" Overall 325 42 22 N23º33'03.2"- E85º00'29.9"- 132-384 N 23º51'35.5" E 86º59'42.0"

Table 34: Block wise Predominant cropping systems (primary and secondary) in Bokaro district of Jharkhand. Sl. Name of Block Primary Cropping Secondary Cropping system No. system 1. Bermo Rice-fallow Maize-Wheat 2. Chandankeyari Rice -fallow Maize-vegetables-cucurbits 3. Chandrapura Rice -fallow Cauliflower-potato-onion 4. Chas Rice -fallow Maize-chilli/brinjal 5. Gomia Rice -fallow Chilli-pumkin 6. Jassidih Rice -fallow Maize-wheat 7. Kasmar Rice -fallow Maize-vegetables 8. Nawadih Rice -fallow Pulses-cucurbit-vegetable 9. Peterwar Rice -fallow Maize-vegetables

24 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

3.2.3 Land situation status in Bokaro district

During delineation programme actual land situation of sampling site was also recorded. As per categorization of land location in four major groups up land, medium land, Low land and badi land, 43, 185, 70 and 27 soil samples were collected, respectively. Percent distribution of collected samples 13.23, 56.92, 21.54 and 8.31%, respectively observed in the district. These figures reflected actual land availability for cultivation in different land situations in Bokaro district, where most of the land were already occupied for industrials and mining purposes (Table 35 & Fig. 14).

Table 35: Per cent land situation in Bokaro district Land Situation No. Sample % Up land 43 13.23 Medium land 185 56.92 Low land 70 21.54 badi land 27 8.31

Fig. 14

3.2.4 Soils of Bokaro district

3.2.4.1 Soil Reaction (pH) , Electrical conductivity (EC) and organic carbon (OC)

Soil reaction was found in the range from 4.35 to 6.44, 4.18 to 8.09, 4.01 to 8.66, 4.82 to 7.65 with mean values of pH 5.43, 5.57, 5.92, 5.84 and 5.69, respectively in up, medium, low and badi lands situation of the district. Over all soil pH varied from 4.01 to 8.66 with mean value 5.69 in analyzed 325 soil samples that were collected from nine blocks of Bokaro district. Soil pH increases with slope (Up→low) and variation was found in the range of 5.43 to 5.92 pH. Electrical conductivity (EC) of the soils was found in the range of 0.02 to 1.56 dS m-1. As per topographical variation EC also followed the similar trend of pH and found lower EC value 0.15 in upland situation and maximum 0.32 in low land situation of cultivated farmer’s field. More over mean value of EC was noted 0.23 dS m-1 in soil of Bokaro. Overall organic carbon variations in soil of Bokaro district were found in the range of 0.08 to 15.16 g kg-1. Interestingly mean value of OC was found at par (6.78 g kg-1) in upland

25 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

and badi land situation of cultivated land. Other two lands situation Medium and low land contents comparatively higher OC 7.12 and 7.08 g kg-1, respectively (Table 36).

Table 36: Variation of pH, electrical conductivity (EC) and organic carbon (OC) in soil of different land situations in Bokaro district Land No. pH EC (dS m-1) OC (g kg-1) Situation of Range Mean±Std. Range Mean±Std. Range Mean±Std. Soil Up land 4.35- 5.43±0.41 0.04- 0.15±0.09 0.08- 6.78±2.41 43 6.44 0.39 11.01 Medium 4.18- 5.57±0.75 0.02- 0.19±0.13 1.40- 7.12±2.50 land 185 8.09 0.76 15.16 Low land 4.01- 5.92±1.03 0.06- 0.32±0.22 0.53- 7.68±2.66 70 8.66 1.56 14.82 Badi land 4.82- 5.84±0.68 0.09- 0.25±0.14 3.00- 6.78±2.26 27 7.65 0.53 12.35 Overall 325 4.01- 5.69±0.72 0.02- 0.23±0.15 0.08- 7.09±2.46 8.66 1.56 15.16

Table 37: Block wise per cent status of pH pH Name of blocks Rating Denomination range Bermo Chandankiyari Chandrapura Chas Ultra acidic <3.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Acidic Extremely acidic 3.5-4.5 0.00 0.00 4.88 0.00 Very strongly acidic 4.5-5.0 15.79 5.00 9.76 0.00 Strongly acidic 5.0-5.5 42.11 40.00 39.02 46.34 Moderately acidic 5.5-6.0 31.58 40.00 21.95 12.20 Slightly acidic 6.0-6.5 5.26 10.00 12.20 9.76 Neutral 6.5-7.3 0.00 5.00 12.20 9.76 Neutral Slightly Alkaline alkaline 7.3-7.8 5.26 0.00 0.00 9.76 Moderately alkaline 7.8-8.4 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.32 Strongly alkaline 8.4-9.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.88 Very strongly alkaline >9.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Soil reaction of different blocks of Bokaro district

For interpretation of analyzed pH values more in relevant way, pH range has been categorized in eleven groups from <3.5 to >9.0 pH (Table 37). Strongly acidic soils (5.0 to

26 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

5.5 pH) were found 42.11, 40.00, 39.02, 46.34, 35.00, 42.42, 19.44, 16.22 and 18.42 per cent respectively in Bermo, Chandankeyari, Chandrapura, Chas, Gomia, Jassidih, Kasmar, Nawadih and Peterwar block of Bokaro district. While neutral range (6.5-7.3 pH) of pH in same sequence of blocks only 0.00, 5.00, 12.20, 9.76, 17.50, 24.24, 11.11, 5.41 and 5.26 per cent analyzed soil were found. In of the district a considerable no. (About 20.00%) of analyzed soil showed their pH range in between 7.3 to 9.0, while about 2.0 to 3.0 percent soil of Gomia, Jassidih, Nawadih and Peterwar blocks of the district also showed alkaline nature from 7.3 to 9.0 pH (Table 38). Soil reaction overall reflected that 86.27 % soils showed acidic nature with pH variation <3.5 to 6.5, followed by 9.50% neutral and only 4.33% alkaline nature of soil (Table 39).

Table 38: Block wise per cent status of pH pH Name of blocks Denomination range Gomia Jassidih Kasmar Nawadih Peterwar Ultra acidic <3.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Acidic Extremely acidic 3.5-4.5 2.50 0.00 0.00 2.70 7.89 Very strongly acidic 4.5-5.0 12.50 3.03 2.78 29.73 36.84 Strongly acidic 5.0-5.5 35.00 42.42 19.44 16.22 18.42 Moderately acidic 5.5-6.0 17.50 12.12 52.78 29.73 15.79 Slightly acidic 6.0-6.5 17.50 15.15 13.89 13.51 13.16 Neutral 6.5-7.3 12.50 24.24 11.11 5.41 5.26 Neutral Slightly alkaline 7.3-7.8 0.00 3.03 0.00 0.00 2.63 Alkaline Moderately alkaline 7.8-8.4 2.50 0.00 0.00 2.70 0.00 Strongly alkaline 8.4-9.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Very strongly alkaline >9.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Table 39: Overall status of pH Denomination pH range % Rating Ultra acidic <3.5 0.00 Extremely acidic ≥3.5 - ≤4.5 2.00 Very strongly acidic >4.5 - ≤5.0 12.83 86.27% Acidic Strongly acidic >5.0 - ≤5.5 33.22 Moderately acidic >5.5 - ≤6.0 25.96 Slightly acidic >6.0 - ≤6.5 12.27 Neutral >6.5 - ≤7.3 9.50 9.50% Neutral Slightly alkaline >7.3 - ≤7.8 2.30 Moderately alkaline >7.8 - ≤8.4 1.39 4.23%Alkaline Strongly alkaline >8.4 - ≤9.0 0.54 Very strongly alkaline >9.0 0.00

27 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

Organic carbon status in table 40 reflected that 17.42%, 37.96% and 44.62% soil come in categorizes of low, medium and higher status of OC, respectively in Bokaro district. Among different blocks a wide variation of OC status was noticed. Low status of OC was observed in 43.24% soil of followed by 31.71% Chandrapura and 25% in . Similarly maximum OC in medium status was found in Kasmar (35.56%) followed by Peterwar (52.63%) and Gomia (45.00%). High status of OC in 70.00% soil samples was found in Chandankeyari block followed by 68.42% Bermo and 60.61% in Jassidih block of Bokaro district.

Table 40: Block wise per cent status of low, medium and high deficient of OC OC range in g kg-1 <5.0 5.0-7.5 >7.5 Name of blocks Bermo 10.53 21.05 68.42 Chandankeyari 10.00 20.00 70.00 Chandrapura 31.71 43.90 24.39 Chas 14.63 31.71 53.66 Gomia 25.00 45.00 30.00 Jassidih 0.00 39.39 60.61 Kasmar 11.11 55.56 33.33 Nawadih 43.24 32.43 24.32 Peterwar 10.53 52.63 36.84 Overall 17.42 37.96 44.62 OC categorized as Low Medium High

3.2.4.2 Variation of Fe, Mn and Cu in soil of Bokaro district

Iron, Mn and Cu contents

Average content of Fe, Mn and Cu in soil of Bokaro district was found in the range of 13.74 to 64.60, 4.48 to 46.60 and 0.08 to 4.66 mg kg-1 with its mean values 42.47, 22.56 and 2.09 -1 mg kg , respectively. As per land situation variation comparatively higher content of Fe (46.91 mg kg-1), Mn (23.91 mg kg-1) and Cu (2.34 mg kg-1) were found in low, badi and medium land situation, while low content of Fe and Cu were noticed in badi land 36.45 mg -1 -1 -1 kg and 1.44 mg kg , while low content of Mn observed 20.74 mg kg in medium land (Table 41).

Status of Fe, Mn and Cu

For interpretation and critical explanation of generated DTPA extractable data of Fe, Mn and Cu, critical limit has been explored from Acute deficiency (<2.5 mg kg-1) to high (>10.5 mg kg-1). In table 42 reflected that 100% soil samples for Fe, 96% soil samples for Mn and Cu were found in higher range and rest were adequate.

28 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

Table 41: Variation of Fe, Mn and Cu (mg kg-1) in soil of different land situations in Bokaro district Land No. Fe Mn Cu Situation of Range Mean±Std. Range Mean±Std. Range Mean±Std. Soil Up land 25.20- 43.14±8.20 9.26- 22.80±8.84 0.08- 2.31±0.70 43 60.80 40.20 3.76 Medium 22.60- 43.39±8.82 4.48- 20.74±7.96 0.28- 2.34±0.69 land 185 60.60 46.60 4.36 Low land 22.80- 46.91±8.46 7.28- 22.78±9.02 0.70- 2.25±0.75 70 63.60 45.00 4.66 Badi land 13.78- 36.45±12.5 8.76- 23.91±9.05 0.56- 1.44±0.69 27 64.60 45.20 3.22 Overall 325 13.78- 42.47±9.51 4.48- 22.56±8.71 0.08- 2.09±0.71 64.60 46.60 4.66

Table 42: Status of Fe, Mn and Cu in soil of Bokaro district Transition zone Available nutrients in soil (mg kg-1) of critical DTPA- % DTPA- % DTPA- % Rating limit† Fe sample Mn sample Cu sample Acute Deficient deficiency ≤2.5 0.00 ≤1.0 0.00 ≤0.2 0.00 Deficiency 2.5-≤4.5 0.00 1.0-≤3.0 0.00 0.2-≤0.4 0.31 Marginally deficiency 4.5-≤6.5 0.00 3.0-≤5.0 0.31 0.4-≤0.6 0.31 Marginally Sufficient sufficient 6.5-≤8.5 0.00 5.0-≤7.0 1.23 0.6-≤0.8 2.15 Adequate 8.5-≤10.5 0.00 7.0-≤9.0 2.46 0.8-≤1.0 1.54 High >10.5 100.0 >9.0 96.00 >1.0 95.69 †Source: Shukla et al., 2016

3.2.4.3 Variation of Zn, B and S in soil

DTPA extractable Zn, hot CaCl2 extractable B and 0.15% CaCl2 extractable S content were varied respectively in the range of 0.02 to 7.80, 0.14 to 4.87and 0.52 to 77.67 mg kg-1. Lowest mean Zn content 1.11 mg kg-1 was observed in medium land situation followed by in increasing order up land (1.16 mg kg-1), low land (1.25 mg kg-1) and 3.22 mg kg-1 in badi land situation. Trend of B content variation also observed as per topographical variation in soil and found 0.74 mg kg-1 in lowland and 1.48 mg kg-1 in badi land . Mean content of S was found in following increasing trend 13.35 (up land) <17.20 (medium land) < 19.11 (badi land) < 32.82 mg kg-1 (low land) (Table 43).

29 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

Table 43: Variation of Zn, B and S (mg kg-1) in soil Land No. Zn B S Situation of Range Mean±Std. Range Mean±Std. Range Mean±Std. Soil Up land 0.06- 1.16±0.69 0.17- 0.80±0.79 1.03- 13.35±10.28 43 3.5 4.91 47.71 Medium 0.02- 1.11±0.74 0.14- 0.77±0.53 0.52- 17.20±13.71 land 185 6.00 3.36 77.67 Low land 0.06- 1.25±0.62 0.21- 0.74±0.57 5.29- 32.82±19.79 70 3.34 4.87 76.07 Badi land 0.84- 3.22±1.82 0.49- 1.48±0.91 3.10- 19.11±14.45 27 7.80 3.99 71.42 Overall 325 0.02- 1.69±0.97 0.14- 0.95±0.70 0.52- 20.62±14.56 7.80 4.87 77.67

Status of Zn, B and S in soil

Rating of these plant nutrients (Zn, B and S) was categorized in between ≤0.30 (Acute deficiency) to >1.8 mg kg-1 (high) for interpretation of generated data. On this categorization maximum 25.85% soil samples that extracted by DTPA solution for Zn was come in category of marginally deficient (0.6 to ≤0.9 mg kg-1) followed by 22.15% marginally sufficient (0.9-≤1.2 mg kg-1) and 21.85 % adequate (1.2-≤1.8 mg kg-1). Similarly hot water extractable B in soil was found marginally deficient (0.5-≤0.7 mg kg-1) in 31.69% followed by deficient (0.3-≤0.6 mg kg-1) 22.15% and only 17.54 per cent soil was found marginally deficient (0.9-≤1.2 mg kg-1) in B availability. Sulphur status in soil was found deficient (10-≤20 mg kg-1) in 35.69% tested soil samples followed by 28.62% acute deficiency (≤10 mg kg-1) and 16.62% marginally deficient in S availability. (Table 44)

Table 44: Status of Zn, B and S in soil of Bokaro district Transition Available nutrients in soil (mg kg-1) zone of DTPA- % Hot % CaCl2- % Rating critical limit† Zn sample CaCl2- B sample S sample Acute Deficient deficiency ≤0.3 2.77 ≤0.2 1.85 ≤10.0 28.62 Deficiency 0.3-≤0.6 10.77 0.2-≤0.5 22.15 10-≤20 35.69 Marginally deficiency 0.6-≤0.9 25.85 0.5-≤0.7 31.69 20-≤30 16.62 Marginally Sufficient sufficient 0.9-≤1.2 22.15 0.7-≤0.9 17.54 30-≤40 6.46 0.9- Adequate 1.2-≤1.8 21.85 ≤1.10 11.38 40-≤50 3.69 High >1.8 16.62 >1.10 15.38 >50 8.92 †Source: Shukla et al., 2016

30 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

3.2.4.4 Scenario of Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu, B and S deficiency in different blocks of Bokaro district

Iron (<6.5 mg kg-1) deficiency was not observed in any block of Bokaro district and all analyzed soil samples having > 6.5 mg kg-1 Fe. Almost similar trend also reflected for Mn and Cu deficiency in different blocks, except Mn in Chandankeyari and Cu in Peterwar soil, respectively in both the blocks 2.50 and 5.26 percent soil status was <5.0 mg kg-1 Mn and <0.6 mg kg-1 Cu. On the other hand Zn deficient soil (<0.9 mg kg-1) was found higher 52.50% in Chandankeyari block followed by 47.90, 43.90, 39.02, 38.89, 37.84, 31.58, 17.27 and 7.89 per cent respectively in Gomia, Chas, Chandrapura, Kasmer, Nawadih, bermo, Jassidih and Peterwar blocks of Bokaro district. Boron deficient soil was found 17.07% (Chandrapura) to 100% (Chas) in different blocks , similarly deficient (<30.00 mg kg-1) per cent variation of S also varied from 64.86% (Nawadih) to 100% (Peterwar) among all nine block of Bokaro district as per analysis of soil data (Table 45).

Table 45: Block wise per cent (%) deficient of Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu, B and S Name of Block Fe Mn Zn Cu B S Bermo 0.00 0.00 31.58 0.00 68.42 78.95 Chandankeyari 0.00 2.50 52.50 0.00 90.00 75.00 Chandrapura 0.00 0.00 39.02 0.00 17.07 68.29 Chas 0.00 0.00 43.90 0.00 100.00 85.37 Gomia 0.00 0.00 47.50 0.00 57.50 85.00 Jassidih 0.00 0.00 27.27 0.00 30.30 84.85 Kasmar 0.00 0.00 38.89 0.00 83.33 86.11 Nawadih 0.00 0.00 37.84 0.00 24.32 64.86 Peterwar 0.00 0.00 7.89 5.26 31.58 100.00 Overall 0.00 0.28 36.27 0.58 55.84 80.94 †Deficient value (mg kg-1) <6.5 <5.0 <0.9 <0.6 <0.7 <30.0 †Source: Shukla et al., 2016

Table 46: Variation of Pb, Ni and Co (mg kg-1) in soil Land Situation No. of Pb Ni Soil Range Mean±Std. Range Mean±Std. Up land 43 0.24-4.88 2.03±0.91 0.12-3.40 1.25±0.67 Medium land 185 0.24-5.23 2.01±0.99 0.04-3.82 1.36±0.70 Low land 70 0.24-4.14 1.44-0.86 0.12-3.66 1.62±0.78 Badi land 27 0.24-3.38 1.27±0.92 0.72-2.36 1.56±0.42 Overall 325 0.24-5.23 1.69±0.92 0.04-3.82 1.44±0.64 †Safe limit for plant growth and development is 20.00 mg kg-1 for Pb and 10.00 mg kg-1 for Ni †Source: Kabata Pendias, 2011

31 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

3.2.4.5 Content of Pb, Ni, Co and Cd in soil

Lead, Ni, Co and Cd content in soil varied in different situations of land in narrow range. Mean content of Pb, Ni, Co and Cd were found in range of 0.24 to 5.23, 0.04 to 3.82, 0.16 to 3.56 and 0.02 to 0.34 mg kg-1, respectively. In different land situation mean value of Pb was found high (2.03 mg kg-1) in upland situation and low (1.27 mg kg-1) in badi land situation, while Ni and Co content 1.62 and 1.39 mg kg-1 in soil also noticed higher in low land situation in the district. Content of all four heavy metals i.e., Pb, Ni, Co and Cd in soil were found in very low level as per its established safe limit 20.00, 10.00, 20.00 and 5.00 mg kg-1, respectively (Table 46 & 47).

Table 47: Variation of Pb, Ni and Co (mg kg-1) in soil Land Situation No. of Co Cd Soil Range Mean±Std. Range Mean±Std. Up land 43 0.16-2.58 1.17±0.67 0.02-0.33 0.16±0.07 Medium land 185 0.16-3.90 1.27±0.70 0.02-0.34 0.16±0.08 Low land 70 0.16-3.96 1.39±0.87 0.04-0.28 0.15±0.07 Badi land 27 0.32-2.14 0.86±0.51 0.04-0.26 0.14±0.06 Overall 325 0.16-3.96 1.17±0.69 0.02-0.34 0.15±0.07 †Safe limit for plant growth and development is 20.00 mg kg-1for Co and 5.00 mg kg- 1and for Cd †Source: Kabata Pendias, 2011

3.2.5 Plants analysis and interpretation

3.2.5.1 Moisture content in edible part of plant

All together 42 edible plant parts were collected from standing crop of farmer’s field during January –March 2018. Collected plant samples belong to solanaceae, brassicaceae, fabaceae, moringaceae, leguminosae family of plant kingdom. Moisture content was observed higher 94.08% in radish, followed by 94.04, 91.37 and 91.05 per cent moisture content respectively in edible part of plants in tomato, cabbage and brinjal. Minimum 82.14% Moisture content was noticed in potato among all edible part of plant (Table 48).

3.2.5.2 Trace metal contents in edible part

Trace metal contents in plants was observed on dry weight basis, while considering the moisture content in plant trace metals values computed in mg kg-1 on fresh weight basis in table 49. Iron content was found higher 29.14 mg kg-1 in drumstick followed by 26.08, 16.03 and 14.78 mg kg-1 Fe respectively in coriander, potato and French bean that were collected from farmer’s field of Bokaro. Lowest Fe content 5.11 mg kg-1 was found in tomato fruit. Similarly Mn content in edible part varied from 0.74 to 7.92 mg kg-1, while coriander content higher Mn (7.92 mg kg-1) and radish content low Mn (0.74 mg kg-1) among all collected plant samples of Bokaro district. Zinc content in edible part of plants ranged from 1.35 to 8.50 mg kg-1. Similarly to Fe and Mn contents, Zn content also was found higher (8.50 mg kg-1) in coriander and lowest in tomato fruit. Copper content was observed in range

32 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

of 0.24 to 1.37 mg kg-1 with mean value 0.80 mg kg-1. In five plants species like coriander, chilli, dolicous bean, drumstick and French bean Cu content was found >1.0 mg kg-1, while rest listed plant species content <1.0 mg kg-1 Cu in edible plant part. Lead, Ni and Co contents in tested plant species were varied from 0.32 to 1.21, 0.10 to 1.70 and 0.74 to 6.72 mg kg-1, respectively. Interestingly Pb and Ni content in soil were found almost in similar range (Table 49), while Co content found about 4 fold higher.

Table 48: Moisture content of edible part of plant collected from different sites of Bokaro district in Jharkhand Name of plants Edible part of Family Botanical name No. of MC plants sample (%) Brinjal Fruit Solanaceae Solanum melongena 9 91.05 Cabbage Modified stem Brassicaceae Brassica oleracea var. capitata 3 91.37

Coriander Stem and leaf Apiaceae Coriandrum sativum L. 1 89.44 Cauliflower white Brassicaceae Brassica oleracea var. inflorescence botrytis meristem 3 90.56 Chilli Fruit/pod Solanaceae Capsicum annum L. 3 87.26

Dolicous bean Fruit Fabaceae Lablab purpureus 1 84.72 Drumstick fruit Moringaceae Moringa oleifera L. 1 83.90 Fruit Leguminosae Phaseolus vulgaris L. French bean / Fabaceae 7 87.66

Potato Modified stem Solanaceae Solanum tuberosum 6 82.19

Radish Modified root Brassicaceae Raphanus sativus var. Longipinnatus 2 94.08

Tomato Fruit Solanaceae Solanum lycopersicum 6 94.04

Table 49: Trace metals content [mg kg-1(Fresh weight basis)] in edible part of different plants species Plants Fe Mn Zn Cu Pb Ni Co Brinjal 7.64 1.34 2.09 0.85 0.69 0.44 1.95 Cabbage 8.37 2.22 3.05 0.27 0.43 0.10 0.99 Coriander 26.08 7.92 8.50 1.37 0.32 0.11 0.74 Cauliflower 8.21 1.81 3.05 0.28 0.54 0.30 1.49 Chilli 11.76 2.89 3.59 1.08 1.21 1.70 3.76 Dolicous bean 12.99 5.35 5.73 1.15 0.53 1.15 6.72 Drumstick 29.14 1.93 4.43 1.13 1.13 0.16 2.01 French bean 14.78 4.30 5.70 1.16 0.92 1.58 2.30 Potato 16.03 1.07 4.64 0.89 0.73 0.55 4.78 Radish 6.99 0.74 2.25 0.24 0.47 0.41 1.20 Tomato 5.11 1.16 1.35 0.43 0.35 0.46 1.24 5.11- 0.74- 1.35- 0.24- 0.32- 0.10- 0.74- Range 29.14 7.92 8.50 1.37 1.21 1.70 6.72 Mean 13.37 2.79 4.03 0.80 0.67 0.63 2.47

33 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

3.2.5.3 Trace metals content in soil at plant collection site

During collection of plant samples soil samples were also collected to same cultivated field. Content of Fe, Mn, Zn, and Cu in soil were found in the range of 22.80 to 46.33, 16.58 to 30.20, 1.70 to 4.52 and 0.68 to 2.38 mg kg-1, with their mean values 36.83, 23.25, 3.13 and 1.41 mg kg-1, respectively. Variation range of Pb, Ni and Co was found from 0.64 to 3.38, 1.28 to 2.04 and 0.52 to 1.94 mg kg-1 with their mean values 1.79, 1.59 and 1.02 mg kg-1, respectively (Table 50).

Table 50: Trace metals content (mg kg-1) in soil at plant collection side Plants Fe Mn Zn Cu Pb Ni Co Brinjal 32.94 26.91 2.88 1.58 4.83 1.64 0.96 Cabbage 46.33 24.18 3.46 1.79 10.04 1.89 0.67 Coriander 29.80 30.20 2.70 1.10 1.56 2.04 1.94 Cauliflower 44.07 26.33 4.52 1.55 0.64 1.73 0.78 Chilli 33.40 24.07 2.60 1.18 10.65 1.51 1.20 Dolicous bean 22.80 16.58 1.70 0.68 1.62 1.44 1.60 Drumstick 35.60 23.20 3.82 2.38 7.38 1.72 0.52 French bean 41.20 18.03 2.89 1.24 0.93 1.55 0.98 Potato 34.77 21.20 4.04 1.34 1.80 1.28 0.91 Radish 44.4 18.27 2.62 1.21 0.81 1.38 0.58 Tomato 35.36 20.23 2.94 1.34 3.86 1.48 0.96

Table 51: Transfer factor of trace metals in edible part of plants Plants Fe Mn Zn Cu Pb Ni Co Brinjal 0.23 0.05 0.73 0.54 0.14 0.27 2.04 Cabbage 0.18 0.09 0.88 0.15 0.04 0.05 1.48 Coriander 0.88 0.26 3.15 1.25 0.20 0.05 0.38 Cauliflower 0.19 0.07 0.68 0.18 0.84 0.17 1.92 Chilli 0.35 0.12 1.38 0.92 0.11 1.12 3.13 Dolicous bean 0.57 0.32 3.37 1.69 0.33 0.80 4.20 Drumstick 0.82 0.08 1.16 0.47 0.15 0.09 3.87 French bean 0.36 0.24 1.97 0.94 0.99 1.02 2.35 Potato 0.46 0.05 1.15 0.66 0.40 0.43 5.25 Radish 0.16 0.04 0.86 0.20 0.58 0.30 2.07 Tomato 0.14 0.06 0.46 0.32 0.09 0.31 1.29

3.2.5.4 Transfer factor of trace metals in edible part of plants

On the basis of trace metal contents in edible part and inherent capacity of soil that was used for growing the same plant, transfer factor of each trace metal by different species of crop were computed (Table 51). Calculated transfer factor was found higher 0.88 for Fe in coriander followed by 0.82, 0.57 and 0.46 of Fe in drumstick, dolicous bean and potato, respectively. Manganese transfer factor among all tested crops was found in between 0.04 (Radish & tomato) to 0.32 (Dolicous bean). Zinc transfer factor was observed higher 3.37 in

34 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

dolicous bean followed by coriander (3.15) and French bean (1.98), while lowest TF 0.42 was observed in tomato. Transfer factor of Cu also followed almost similar trend and showed higher TF in dolicous bean followed by coriander (TF 1.25). Lowest TF 0.20 was observed in radish. Transfer factor of Pb, Ni and Co were found from 0.18 (Cabbage) to 0.99 (French bean), 0.05 (Coriander) to 1.12 (Chilli) and 1.14 (Tomato) to 5.25 (Potato) among all collected edible part of plants from different blocks of Bokaro district.

3.2.5.5 Trace metals content in edible part of plants on Dry weight basis

Nutritionally important of Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu content in tested edible part of plant on dry weight basis were found in the range of 85.0 (Dolicous bean) to 247.0 (Coriander), 6.0 (Potato) to 75.0 (Coriander), 22.67 (Tomato) to 80.5 (Coriander), 3.0 (Cauliflower) to 13.0 (Coriander) mg kg-1 with their mean value 117.11, 25.21, 36.15 and 7.02 mg kg-1, respectively. Interestingly Zn, Cu, Fe & Mn content on dry weight basis found highest among all tested edible part of plant. On the other hand Pb, Ni and Co content in tested edible part were found in the range of 3.0 (Coriander) to 9.5 (Chilli) (Mean value 6.07 mg kg-1), 1.0 (Coriander) to 13.33 (Chilli) (Mean value 5.70 mg kg-1) and 7.0 (Coriander) to 44.00 (Dolicous bean) (Mean value 20.79 mg kg-1) (Table 52). On the contrary high content of Zn, Cu, Fe and Mn and low content of Pb and Ni content observed in coriander among all tested edible part of plant collected from standing crop in farmer’s field of Bokaro district.

Table 52: Trace metals content [mg kg-1(Dry weight basis)] in edible part of plants Plants Fe Mn Zn Cu Pb Ni Co Brinjal 85.33 15.00 23.33 9.50 7.72 4.89 21.83 Cabbage 97.00 25.67 35.33 3.17 5.00 1.17 11.50 Coriander 247.00 75.00 80.50 13.00 3.00 1.00 7.00 Cauliflower 87.00 19.17 32.33 3.00 5.67 3.17 15.83 Chilli 92.33 22.67 28.17 8.50 9.50 13.33 29.50 Dolicous bean 85.00 35.00 37.50 7.50 3.50 7.50 44.00 Drumstick 181.00 12.00 27.50 7.00 7.00 1.00 12.50 French bean 119.79 34.86 46.21 9.43 7.43 12.79 18.64 Potato 90.00 6.00 26.08 5.00 4.08 3.08 26.83 Radish 118.00 12.50 38.00 4.00 8.00 7.00 20.25 Tomato 85.75 19.42 22.67 7.17 5.92 7.75 20.83 85.0- 22.67- 3.0- 1.0- 7.0- Range 247.0 6.0-75.0 80.5 3.0-13.0 9.5 13.33 44.0 Mean 117.11 25.21 36.15 7.02 6.07 5.70 20.79

3.2.5.6 Daily intake of trace metals (mg metal kg-1 body weight day-1)

To interpret the generated data of element content in edible part of plant in respect to human health that reached in human body through daily intake (mg metal kg-1 body weight day-1) was computed (Datta et al., 2017) in table 53. Daily intake of Fe 0.5999 was found higher through coriander followed by 0.04396 intakes through drumstick, while lower intake of Fe was observed in dolicous bean (0.2064). Intake of trace metal was calculated to assume 200g each plant part per day consumed by human. Intake of trace metals positively

35 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

correlated to content of trace metals in edible part on dry weight basis and found maximum intake of Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu through coriander, while highest Pb and Ni intake through chilli and Co through dolicous bean was observed.

Table 53: Daily intake trace metals (mg metal kg-1 body weight day-1) from edible part of plants Plants Fe Mn Zn Cu Pb Ni Co Brinjal 0.02072 0.00364 0.00567 0.00231 0.00188 0.00119 0.00530 Cabbage 0.02356 0.00623 0.00858 0.00077 0.00122 0.00028 0.00279 Coriander 0.05999 0.01821 0.01955 0.00316 0.00073 0.00024 0.00170 Cauliflower 0.02113 0.00466 0.00785 0.00073 0.00138 0.00077 0.00385 Chilli 0.02242 0.00551 0.00684 0.00206 0.00231 0.00324 0.00716 Dolicous bean 0.02064 0.00850 0.00911 0.00182 0.00085 0.00182 0.01069 Drumstick 0.04396 0.00291 0.00668 0.00170 0.00170 0.00024 0.00304 French bean 0.02909 0.00847 0.01122 0.00229 0.00180 0.00311 0.00453 Potato 0.02186 0.00146 0.00634 0.00121 0.00099 0.00075 0.00652 Radish 0.02866 0.00304 0.00923 0.00097 0.00194 0.00170 0.00492 Tomato 0.02083 0.00472 0.00551 0.00174 0.00144 0.00188 0.00506

3.2.5.7 Hazard Quotient/Health risk index for metals intake

Health risk index was calculated to address the human health as per given formula by Datta et al., 2017 (Table 54). All the calculated HRI of metals for each edible part of plant were found <1.0, on the basis of HRI value in all the edible part found safe for human consumption.

Table 54: Hazard Quotient/Health risk index for metals intake from edible part of plants Plants Fe Mn Zn Cu Pb Ni Co Brinjal 0.02961 0.02602 0.01889 0.00461 0.53583 0.05937 0.12331 Cabbage 0.03365 0.04452 0.02860 0.00154 0.34694 0.01417 0.06495 Coriander 0.08569 0.13010 0.06517 0.00631 0.20816 0.01214 0.03954 Cauliflower 0.03018 0.03325 0.02618 0.00146 0.39320 0.03845 0.08942 Chilli 0.03203 0.03932 0.02280 0.00413 0.65918 0.16191 0.16661 Dolicous bean 0.02949 0.06071 0.03036 0.00364 0.24286 0.09107 0.24851 Drumstick 0.06280 0.02082 0.02226 0.00340 0.48571 0.01214 0.07060 French bean 0.04156 0.06047 0.03741 0.00458 0.51545 0.15526 0.10529 Potato 0.03123 0.01041 0.02112 0.00243 0.28333 0.03744 0.15155 Radish 0.04094 0.02168 0.03076 0.00194 0.55510 0.08500 0.11437 Tomato 0.02975 0.03368 0.01835 0.00348 0.41054 0.09411 0.11766

3.2.5.8 Percent gap in nutrition analysis

Gap nutritional analysis of Zn, Cu, Fe & Mn was reflected a wider gap between recommended and supplemented values of these four nutritionally important elements in

36 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

human body (Table 55). As per recommended Fe, Zn, Cu and Mn and intake through food chain (200g mixed vegetable), per cent gap of Fe was found 73.30% for children, 77.75% for male and 82.20% for female. Similarly Zn nutritional gap was found 91.90, 93.25 and 94.60 per cent in children, male and female, respectively. Similar trend of nutritional gap was also observed of Cu and Mn and found 87.20 and 68.00% gap in children, 89.33 and 77.60% gap in male and 92.89 and 84.00% gap in female residing in rural areas of Bokaro district.

Table 55: Recommended Dietary allowance of trace metals in Bokaro district on the basis of trace metal availability in edible part of plant. Fe Zn Intake Intake Age mg % gap in mg % gap in Category Recommended** Recommended (Year) day-1* nutrition day-1 nutrition mg day-1 mg day-1 200 supplement 200 supplement gm gm Children 4-10 10 2.67 73.30 10 0.81 91.90 Male 11+ 12 2.67 77.75 12 0.81 93.25 Female 11+ 15 2.67 82.20 15 0.81 94.60 Cu Mn Intake Intake Age mg % gap in mg % gap in Category Recommended Recommended (Year) day-1 nutrition day-1 nutrition mg day-1 mg day-1 200 supplement 200 supplement gm gm Children 4-6 1.0-1.5 0.16 87.20 1.5-2.0 0.56 68.00 Male 7-10 1.0-2.0 0.16 89.33 2.0-3.0 0.56 77.60 Female 11+ 1.5-3.0 0.16 92.89 2.0-5.0 0.56 84.00 *Calculation of daily intake of trace metal based on mean value of content and moisture percent in edible part of 200 g fresh mixed edible part of plant. **Recommended dietary allowance reported by Food and Nutrition Board (1989)

3.2.6 Waters Analysis and Interpretation

3.2.6.1 pH and electrical conductivity (EC) in water of different irrigation sources

Altogether 25 water samples from different available water sources such as bore well (3), canal (3), pond (6), river (1) and well (11) were collected. Mean pH in river water was found higher 7.54 pH followed by canal (pH 7.29) and bore well (pH 7.18). Lowest pH 5.94 was observed in well water among all tested sources of water in Bokaro district. Almost similar trend was also observed in EC variation. Higher mean EC 0.78 dS m-1 was observed in river water followed by 0.49, 0.47 and 0.44 dS m-1 EC in bore well, canal, and pond water, respectively (Table 56 & Fig. 15).

37 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

Table 56: Variation of pH and EC in water of different irrigation sources Sources No. of pH EC (dS sample m-1) Bore 3 Range 6.57-7.53 0.19-0.71 well Mean 7.18 0.49 Canal 4 Range 6.69-7.93 0.33-0.75 Mean 7.29 0.47 Pond 6 Range 6.49-7.61 0.18-0.96 Fig. 15 Mean 6.97 0.44 River 1 Range 0.00-7.54 0.00-0.78 Mean 7.54 0.78 Well 11 Range 4.93-6.94 0.12-0.61 Mean 5.94 0.32 Overall 21 Range 4.93-7.93 0.12-0.96 Mean 6.98 0.50

3.2.6.2 Content of Fe and Mn in water

Content of Fe and Mn in water of different sources was found in the range of 0.106 to 0.565 (Mean 0.216) and 0.005 to 0.126 (Mean 0.026) mg L-1. Iron content was found higher in bore well (0.250 mg L-1) followed by 0.237 and 0.227 mg L-1 Fe in pond and well water. Similar trend of Mn content in water was also observed with higher Mn content (0.060 mg L-1) in bore well water followed by 0.025, 0.017, 0.016 and 0.014 mg L-1 Mn in pond, well, river and canal water, respectively (Table 57 & Fig. 16).

Table 57: Content of Fe and Mn in water of different irrigation sources Sources No. of Fe Mn sample Bore 3 Range 0.221-0.285 0.024-0.126 well Mean 0.250 0.06 Canal 4 Range 0.125-0.209 0.008-0.023 Mean 0.177 0.014

Pond 6 Range 0.136-0.370 0.006-0.056 Fig. 16 Mean 0.237 0.025 River 1 Range 0.000-0.191 0.000-0.016 Mean 0.191 0.016 Well 11 Range 0.106-0.565 0.005-0.049 Mean 0.227 0.017 Overall 21 Range 0.106-0.565 0.005-0.126 Mean 0.216 0.026

3.2.6.3 Content of Cu and Zn in water

Overall content of Cu in tested 25 water samples of Bokaro district varied from 0.009 to 0.024 mg L-1 with its mean value 0.016 mg L-1. Variation of Cu mean content in different

38 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

water sources was found in narrow range from 0.013 (River) to 0.018 (Well) mg L-1. On the other hand a wider variation of Zn content in tested water of different sources was observed in Bokaro district. Overall Zn content variation in water samples was observed from 0.006 to 0.443 mg L-1 with its mean value 0.067 mg L-1. As per Zn content variation in tested water of different sources bore well contents higher Zn 0.189 mg L-1 as compared to other sources of water. Next to river and pond (0.030 mg L-1), well water also showed 0.063 mg L- 1 Zn content (Table 58 & Fig. 17).

Table 58: Content of Cu and Zn in water of different irrigation sources Sources No. of Cu Zn sample Bore 3 Range 0.009-0.021 0.020-0.443 well Mean 0.017 0.189 Canal 4 Range 0.011-0.018 0.018-0.025 Mean 0.015 0.020 Pond Range 0.009-0.024 0.011-0.086 6 Fig. 17 Mean 0.016 0.030 River 1 Range 0.000-0.013 0.000-0.030 Mean 0.013 0.030 Well 11 Range 0.009-0.023 0.006-0.421 Mean 0.018 0.063 Overall 21 Range 0.009-0.024 0.006-0.443 Mean 0.016 0.067

Table 59: Content of Pb and Ni in water of different irrigation sources Sources No. of Pb Ni sample Bore 3 Range 0.044-0.078 0.129-0.149 well Mean 0.058 0.138 Canal 4 Range 0.034-0.079 0.139-0.159 Mean 0.064 0.150 Pond 6 Range 0.019-0.101 0.098-0.150 Fig. 18 Mean 0.066 0.127 River 1 Range 0.000-0.055 0.000-0.136 Mean 0.055 0.136 Well 11 Range 0.018-0.096 0.070-0.148 Mean 0.063 0.121 Overall 21 Range 0.018-0.101 0.070-0.159 Mean 0.061 0.135

3.2.6.4 Content of Pb and Ni in water

Content of Pb and Ni was found in the range of 0.018 to 0.101 mg L-1 with 0.61 mg L-1 and 0.135 mg L-1 mean value, respectively in tested water samples of Bokaro district. Mean value of Pb and Ni in different water sources also was found in narrow range and found

39 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

higher 0.066 mg L-1 in pond water followed by canal (0.064 mg L-1), well (0.063 mg L-1), bore well (0.085 mg L-1) and river (0.055 mg L-1). Similarly Ni in canal, bore well, river, pond and well water was observed respectively in decreasing trend 0.150>0.138>0.136>0.127>0.121 mg L-1 (table 59 & Fig. 18).

3.2.6.5 Content of Co and Cd in water

Content of Co and Cd was found in the range of 0.010 to 0.131 and 0.005 to 0.016 mg L-1 with mean value 0.048 and 0.010 mg L-1, respectively. Among different water sources bore well contents 0.088 mg L-1 Co followed by well, pond and canal 0.083, 0.043 and 0.031 mg L-1, respectively. Similarly mean value of Cd in different water sources was found at par 0.009 mg L-1 in well, river and canal water, while slightly higher value of Cd 0.011 mg L-1 was observed in bore well water (Table 60 & Fig. 19).

Table 60: Content of Co and Cd in water of different irrigation sources Sources No. of Co Cd sample Bore 3 Range 0.016-0.131 0.010-0.011 well Mean 0.088 0.011 Canal 4 Range 0.015-0.041 0.006-0.013 Mean 0.031 0.009 Pond Range 0.015-0.119 0.005-0.016 6 Fig. 19 Mean 0.043 0.011 River 1 Range 0.000-0.016 0.000-0.009 Mean 0.016 0.009 Well 11 Range 0.010-0.121 0.006-0.016 Mean 0.063 0.009 Overall 21 Range 0.010-0.131 0.005-0.016 Mean 0.048 0.010

Table 61: Content of B and S in water of different irrigation sources Sources No. of B S sample Bore 3 Range 0.195-0.468 0.566-1.793 well Mean 0.377 1.363 Canal 4 Range 0.485-0.495 0.539-1.140 Mean 0.538 0.897 Pond Range 0.054-0.608 1.104-1.546 6 Fig. 20 Mean 0.460 1.311 River 1 Range 0.000-0.502 0.000-2.603 Mean 0.502 2.603 Well 11 Range 0.025-0.654 0.628-2.102 Mean 0.420 1.239 Overall 21 Range 0.025-0.654 0.539-2.603 Mean 0.447 1.271

40 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

3.2.6.6 Content of B and S in water

Boron content in different sources of water bodies in Bokaro district was found in the range of 0.025 to 0.0654 (Mean 0.447) mg L-1. Among different sources mean value of B content in water was recorded higher 0.538 mg L-1 in canal followed by river (0.502 mg L-1), pond (0.460 mg L-1), well (0.420 mg L-1) and bore well (0.377 mg L-1). Sulphur content in water ranged from 0.539 to 2.603 mg L-1 with its mean value 1.271 mg L-1 in tested water samples. Among different water sources higher content of S was observed 2.603 mg L-1 in river water followed by 1.363 mg L-1 in bore well, 1.311 mg L-1 in pond , 1.236 mg L-1 in well and 0.897 mg L-1 in canal water in bokaro district (Table 61 & Fig. 20).

3.2.6.7 Relative concentration of elements in different water sources of Bokaro district

Table 62: Relative concentration of elements in different water sources of Bokaro district Sources Relative elements Bore well S>B>Fe>Zn>Ni>Co>Mn>Pb>Cu>Cd Canal S>B>Fe>Ni>Pb>Co>Zn>Cu>Mn>Cd Pond S>B>Fe>Ni>Pb>Co>Zn>Mn>Cu>Cd River S>B>Fe>Ni>Pb>Zn>Mn>Co>Cu>Cd Well S>B>Fe>Ni>Zn>Co>Pb>Cu>Mn>Cd

Table 63: Suitability of irrigation water sources on the basis of physicochemical properties of water in Bokaro district Trace metals Recommen Conc. (mg L-1) of Suitability of water for irrigation ded limits irrigation water purpose mg L-1 bodies Range Mean pH 6.5-8.4b 4.93-7.93 6.98 All the collected water samples of EC (dS m-1) 1.50c 0.12-0.96 0.50 different irrigation sources viz., bore Zn (mg L-1) 2.00a 0.006-0.443 0.067 well, canal, pond, river and well were Cu (mg L-1) 0.20a 0.009-0.024 0.016 found safe for irrigation in respect to physiochemical properties that were Fe (mg L-1) 5.00a 0.106-0.565 0.216 -1 a found within the permissible. While pH Mn (mg L ) 0.20 0.005-0.126 0.026 values were observed slightly lower than -1 a Pb (mg L ) 5.00 0.018-0.101 0.061 permissible limit in some pond and well. Cd (mg L-1) 0.01a 0.005-0.016 0.010 Similarly Co content was noticed slightly Co (mg L-1) 0.05a 0.010-0.131 0.048 higher in some bore well, pond and well Ni (mg L-1) 0.20a 0.070-0.159 0.135 water. Cadmium in some bore well, B(mg L-1) 0.75a 0.025-0.654 0.447 canal, pond and well water also found slightly higher to its permissible limits. S(mg L-1) 21.0b 0.539-2.603 1.271 aRowe and Abdel-Magid (1995) bAyers and Westcot (1976) cHameed et al., 1966

41 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

3.2.6.8 Suitability of irrigation water

On the basis of established permissible limit of irrigation water given by Rowe and Abdel- Magid (1995), Ayers and Westcot (1976) and Hameed et al., 1966, result reflected that all the collected water samples of different irrigation sources viz., bore well, canal, pond, river and well were found safe for irrigation in respect to physicochemical properties that were found within the permissible limit. While pH values was observed slightly lower than permissible limit in pond and well. Similarly Co content was noticed slightly higher in bore well, pond and well water. Cadmium in bore well, canal, pond and well water also found slightly higher to its permissible limits (Table 63).

3.3 House hold food security survey

3.3.1 House hold food security survey: Nagri, Kanke, Ranchi (Door to door contact to 30 household)

3.3.1.1 Category of land holding

Nagri village having about 350 households, among these 30 households were targeted randomly for food security survey (HFSS). On the basis of HFSS 93.33% farmers were found of marginal (>0.01-≤1.0 ha) land holding and the rest only 6.67% farmers came in small (>1.0-≤2.0 ha) landholding (Table 64 & Fig. 21).

Table 64: Category of land holding in Nagri village Category of land Per cent Landless (≤0.01 ha) 0.00 Marginal (>0.01-≤1.0 ha) 93.33 Small (>1.0-≤2.0 ha) 6.67 Semi Medium (>2.0-≤4.0 ha) 0.00 Medium (>4.0-≤10 ha) 0.00 Large (>10 ha) 0.00

Fig. 21

42 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

3.3.1.2 Status of annual household income

Survey report reflected that about 63% families of the village came under annual income Rs. >50,000 to ≤1,50,000 followed by 20% families annual income Rs. >3,50,000 to ≤5,00,000. While, rest 3.33%, 6.67% and 6.67% household earned annual income Rs. ≤50,000, >1,50,000 to ≤2,50,000 and >5,00,000, respectively (Table 65 & Fig. 22).

Table 65: Status of income (Rs.) as per target family in Nagri village Category of Income (Rs.) Per cent ≤50,000 3.33% >50,000-≤1,50,000 63.33% >1,50,000-≤2,50,000 6.67% >2,50,000-≤3,50,000 0.00% >3,50,000-≤5,00,000 20.00% >5,00,000 6.67%

Fig. 22

3.3.1.3 Occupation level

The targeted populations were mainly dependent on agriculture and allied sectors along with wages for their livelihood security. In very few families of the village additional income came through Govt. service, private jobs and self employment (business) (Table 66 & Fig. 23). Agriculture enterprise totally depends on rain (rainfed farming), while annual average precipitation comes about 1400-1500 mm in Nagri village. The source of irrigation in the village is very limited, more over some farmers using ponds, small nalas and well for irrigation in small areas, generally all these irrigation sources are seasonal in nature and holding water only for about 6-8 months (July to Feb.).

3.3.1.4 Education level

Educational scenario on the basis of HFSS reflected that about 1/4th population of the village in 21st century are illiterate (26.21%), while about 17.72%, 17.07%, 10.97% and 2.43% population having degree Matric, Intermediate, graduation and post graduation, respectively. About 23.78% and 1.82% population were found literate and child (<5 years) of total population (Table 67 & Fig. 24).

43 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

Table 66: Occupation level in Nagri village Category of occupation Per cent Agriculture 9.47 Wages 21.89 Study (School/College) 32.54 Service (Govt.) 6.51 Business 1.18 Private job 1.18 Senior citizen/Child (<5 years) 8.28 House wife 18.93

Fig. 23

Table 67: Education level in Nagri village Category of education Per cent Illiterate 26.21 Literate 23.78 Matric 17.72 Intermediate 17.07 Graduate 10.97 Post Graduate 2.43 Child (<5 years) 1.82

Fig. 24

44 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

3.3.1.5 Per cent household of livestock in Nagri village

About 89 % farmers are involved in livestock rearing and as per survey report only 8.7%,15.2%, 2.2%, 23.9%, 36.9% and 2.2% families having cattle/buffalo (Milch), cattle/buffalo (Dry), pig, goat, poultry/hen and duck. While 10.9% farmers family not having livestock in their household. On the other hand, among the livestock, more per cent was covered by poultry/hen (36.9%) rearing followed by goat (23.9%) and buffalo (15.2%), respectively (Table 68 & Fig. 25).

Table 68: Per cent household of livestock in Nagri village Category of livestock species No. of family Per cent Cattle/buffalo (Milch) 3 8.7 Cattle/buffalo (Dry) 5 15.2 Pig 1 2.2 Goat 7 23.9 Poultry/Hen 11 36.9 Duck 1 2.2 Any no available of livestock species 3 10.9

Fig. 25

3.3.1.6 Scenario of Production, Consumption and Market surplus of agricultural produces in Nagri village

Rice based agriculture is main occupation in Nagari village and due to unavailability of seasonal and perennial irrigation resources agriculture is mainly dependent on rainfall. Therefore, 100% families adopted only rice cultivation in their low and medium lands (Don II & III) and cropping intensity was observed about 115%. So, farmers produced surplus rice and on an average 67.83% they consumed and 32.17% rice marketed. Some families (About 14.47%) consumed wheat meal (atta) in their regular diet but they don’t cultivated wheat on their farm and purchase from the market for fulfill the requirement. In case of pulses, only few farmer families grown pulses in their upland field. Farmers of the village about 4.4% pulse requirement was fulfilled through their own production while for rest 95.6% requirement, they are totally dependent on market. Oilseed crop production was observed negligible in Nagari village, while some farmers cultivated vegetable crops as per irrigation water availability (near pond, small nala and well). Only 7% farmers of the village included vegetables in their diet by producing through own farm, 43% farmers purchased vegetables

45 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

from daily market or weekly market organized near the villages, only 2% farmers were said they sold some vegetables in local market and the rest of the farmers generally not included vegetable in their daily diet (Table 69).

Table 69: Scenario of Production, Consumption and Market surplus of agricultural produces in Nagri village Production Consumption Purchased Market Item (%) (%) (%) surplus (%) Cereals 44.0 36.2 6.40 13.4 Pulses 2.20 50.0 47.8 0.00 Oilseeds 0.00 50.0 50.0 0.00 Vegetables 6.90 48.5 43.1 1.60 Milk & milk products 28.1 31.5 21.9 18.5 Meat/fish 2.10 50.0 47.9 0.00 Others (fruits) 0.00 50.0 50.0 0.00

3.3.1.7 Measurement of Food Security through Household Food Insecurity and Access Scale (HFIAS)

Measurement of food security through household food insecurity and access scale (HFIAS) indicated the appropriate response for the questions mentioned below with respect to the 30 days preceding the survey. After the survey, it can be revealed that highest household responsed on “never” (46.67%) means did not have any crisis to sufficient food supply in their regular diet followed by “some times” (28.84%) and “rarely” (19.26%) means they have crisis 3-10 times and 1-2 times per week to sufficient food supply in their regular diet. While about 5.18% house hold were gave their oppinion on “often” means they have crisis every day to sufficient food supply in their diet (Table 70).

3.3.1.8 Measurement of Food Security through Coping Strategies Index (CSI)

Measurement of food security through Coping Strategies Index Indicated the appropiate response “If there have been times in the past 30 days when you did not have enough food or enough money to buy food, has your household had to: 1. Rely on less preferred or less expensive food? 2. Borrow food, or rely on help from a relative? 3. Purchased food on credit? 4. Gather wild foods, gather "famine foods", hunt, or harvest immature crops? 5. Consume seed stock that will be needed for next season? 6. Send household members to eat elsewhere? 7. Send household members to beg? 8. Limit portion size at mealtimes? 9. Restrict consumption by adults in order for small children to eat? 10. Reduce number of meals eaten in a day? 11. Skip entire days without eating As per interpretation of answer of above questions, it can be revealed that highest household responsed in favour of “never” (73.33%) did not any crisis to sufficient food supply or

46 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

enough money to buy food in their regular diet followed by “hardly at all” (22.12%) means they have crisis <1 time per week to sufficient food supply or enough money to buy food in their regular diet. While about 4.55% house holds were gave their openion on “Once in a while” means they faced crisis 1-2 times per week to sufficient food supply in the past 30 days in their diet (Table 71).

Table 70: Measurement of Food Security through Household Food Insecurity and Access Scale (HFIAS) Indicate the appropriate response “If the question mentioned below with respect to the 30 days proceding the survey Sl. Never Rarely Some times Often No. Questions (%) (%) (%) %) 1. Did You worry that your 30.00 26.67 43.33 0.00 household would not have enough food due to a lack of resources Were you or any household 26.67 40.00 6.66 2. member not able to eat the kinds of 26.67 foods you preferred because of a lack of resources 3. Did you or any household member 30.00 26.67 30.00 13.33 have to eat a limited variety of foods due to a lack of resources? Did you or any household member 20.00 36.67 10.00 4. have to eat some foods that you 33.33 really did not want to eat because of a lack of resources to obtain other types of food? 5. 26.67 36.67 3.33 Did you or any household member 33.33 have to eat a smaller meal than you 6. Did you or any household member 40.00 16.67 40.00 3.33 to eat fever meals in a day because there was not enough food? 7. Was there ever no food at all in 53.33 16.67 26.67 3.33 your household because there were not resources to get more? 8. Did you or any household member 80.00 10.00 6.67 3.33 go to sleep at night hungry because there was not enough food? Did you or any household member 3.33 0.00 3.33 9. go whole day without eating 93.34 because there was not enough food? Overall responses 46.67 19.26 28.84 5.18 N.B.: Response to be scored “0” if the answer is “never”, “1” if “rarely” (1-2 times), “2” if the “sometimes” (3-10 times) and “3” if the “often” (>10 times).

47 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

Table 71: Measurement of Food Security through Coping Strategies Index (CSI) Indicate the appropriate response “If there have been times in the past 30 days when you did not have enough food or enough money to buy food, has your household had to……….. Never Hardly Once in a Pretty Always Sl. (%) at all while often (%) No. Questions (%) (%) %) Rely on less preferred 40.00 53.33 6.67 0.00 0.00 1. or less expensive food? Borrow food, or rely on 70.00 23.33 6.67 0.00 0.00 2. help from a relative? Purchased food on 70.00 26.67 3.33 0.00 0.00 3. credit? Gather wild foods, 83.33 16.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 gather “famine foods", hunt, or harvest immature 4. Crops? Consume seed stock 46.66 26.67 26.67 0.00 0.00 that will be needed for 5. next season? Send household 83.33 16.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 members to eat 6. elsewhere? Send household 73.33 26.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 7. members to beg? Limit portion size at 70.00 26.67 3.33 0.00 0.00 8. mealtimes? Restrict consumption by 80.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 adults in order for small 9. children to eat? Reduce number of 90.00 6.67 3.33 0.00 0.00 10. meals eaten in a day? Skip entire days without 100.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11. eating Overall responses 73.33 22.12 4.55 0.00 0.00 The response to the questions are scored “0” (Never), “1” (Hardly at all: <1 time/week), “2” (Once in a while: 1-2 times/week), “3” (Pretty often: 3-6 times/week) and “4” (Always: every day).

3.3.1.9 Measurement of FOOD SECURITY through Food Consumption Score (FCS)/Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS)

Eight questions regarding food consumption were interacted to each house hold and answer was noted down in five segment it was “never” (o time week-1), “hardly at all” (<1 time week-1), “once in a while” (1-2 times week-1), “pretty often” (3-6 time week-1) and

48 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

“always” (every day). In table 72 clearly reflected that 100% household consumed cereal based food followed by 70.67%, 75.00 and 30.04% vegetable, any oil/fat/butter and pulses every day (Always), respectively. In support of never 65.37%, 59.52% and 48.57 % household responded their answer means that household within 30 days before survey did not included any dairy product, fruit and sugar or honey in their daily diet. Food habit of most the family members found non-vegetarian, but only 3.57% families always consumed non-veg. food (Q. no. 5), while 15.00% family advocated that they never consumed non veg. food within 30 days before survey (Table 72).

Table 72: Measurement of Food Security through Food Consumption Score (FCS)/Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) Indicate the appropriate response “in the past 30 days, how often have you eaten…………” Never Hardly Once in Pretty Always Sl. (%) at all a while often (%) No. Questions (%) (%) %) 1. Cereal- based food materials (rice/roti/bread/biscuits made from grains- rice, wheat, millet, sorghum, maize) or any food made from tubers- potatoes, sweet potatoes, carrots, or other foods made from roots or tubers? (2) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 2. Any Pulses (Beans, Lentils, Peas)? 0.00 4.70 27.93 37.33 30.04 3. Any vegetables? 0.00 0.00 12.81 16.52 70.67 4. Any fruits? 59.52 20.24 11.34 6.90 3.00 Any eggs or meat: beef lamb, goat, 5. wild game, fish, chicken, or other birds, liver, kidney, or other organ meats? 3.57 43.57 28.57 10.00 15.00 Any dairy products- milk, cheese, 6. yogurt (not including butter)? 65.37 7.41 5.00 13.70 8.52 7. Any sugar or honey? 48.57 34.29 12.00 5.14 0.00 8. Any oil, fat, or butter? 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 75.00 The response to the questions are scored “0” (Never), “1” (Hardly at all: <1 time/week), “2” (Once in a while: 1-2 times/week), “3” (Pretty often: 3-6 times/week) and “4” (Always: every day).

3.3.1.10 Access to Various Welfare Schemes

Listed different Govt. welfare schemes in table 73 and answer of farmers indicated that about 33.33% farmers family were benefitted through pension schemes (like “Bridha” or “Service” pension) followed by 20.00% farmers family through NFSM/Antyodaya Yojana (Food security), 16.67% family through NREGS, 10.00% family through Indra Awas Yojana and 3.33 % family through Navojyoti and Biju Krushak Kalyan Yojana (health

49 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

insurance). While interestingly 13.33% farmers family said they did not take any benefit till date from Govt. welfare scheme (Table 73 & Fig. 26).

Table 73: Status to Various Welfare Schemes (Food & Non Food Related) Number of Benefits Types of household received scheme Name of Scheme benefits received (family) Housing Indra Awas Yojana 3 10.00 Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana 0 0.00 Mo Kudia/Biju Pucca Ghar Yojana 0 0.00 Nirman Shramik Pucca Ghar Yojana 0 0.00 Food security NFSM/Antyodaya Yojana 6 20.00 Annapurna Scheme 0 0.00 Employment NREGS 5 16.67 Biju Atma Nijukti Yojana 0 0.00 Navojyoti 1 3.33 Health care Reproductive Child Health cere 0 0.00 Biju Krushak Kalyan Yojana (health insurance) 1 3.33 Mamata Yojana 0 0.00 ICDS 0 0.00 Others Pension Schemes 10 33.33 No benefits received household 3 13.33

Fig. 26

50 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

3.3.2 Household food security survey: Ekamba, Kanke, Ranchi (Door to door contact 27 household)

3.3.2.1 Land holding

Ekamba village was a sheath of about 100 households among them only 26 households were selected randomly for food security survey (HFSS) under AICRP-MSPE. On the basis of HFSS, it was found that 88.46% farmers were marginal (>0.01-≤1.0 ha), while 3.85% and 8%, respectively having small (>1.0-≤2.0 ha) and semi medium (>2.0-≤4.0 ha) landholding (Table 74 & Fig. 27).

Table 74: Land holding status in Ekamba village Category of Land Per cent household Landless (≤0.01 ha) 0.00 Marginal (>0.01-≤1.0 ha) 88.46 Small (>1.0-≤2.0 ha) 3.85 Semi Medium (>2.0-≤4.0 ha) 8.00 Medium (>4.0-≤10 ha) 0.00 Large (>10 ha) 0.00

Fig. 27

3.3.2.2 Status of Income

In Ekamba village about 27% farmer families were earned, annual income Rs. 50,000 to 1,50,000, followed by Rs. 3,50,000 to 5,00,000 by 23% families and Rs. 1,50,000 to 2,50,000 by 19% families, respectively (Table 75 & Fig. 28).

3.3.2.3 Occupation

The population of Ekamba village was mainly dependent on agriculture and allied sectors (19.59%) along with wages (16.89%). Of the total population only 8.11%, 0.68% and 3.38 % had additional sources of income through service, self employment (business) and private jobs, respectively. Agriculture is mainly dependent on rain and annual rainfall is about 1300-1400 mm in the Ekamba village. The sources of irrigation in the village were found ponds, small nalas and wells etc. which were seasonal in nature and holding water for about 6-9 months and most of

51 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

the irrigation resource remain dried from Feb. to mid of June each year (Table 76 & Fig. 29).

Table 75: Status of income in Ekamba village Category of income (Rs.) Per cent household ≤50,000 7.69 >50,000-≤1,50,000 26.92 >1,50,000-≤2,50,000 19.23 >2,50,000-≤3,50,000 11.53 >3,50,000-≤5,00,000 23.10 >5,00,000 11.53

Fig. 28

Table 76: Status of occupation in Ekamba village Category of occupation Per cent Agriculture 19.59 Wages 16.89 Study (School/College) 27.03 Service (Govt.) 8.11 Business 0.68 Private job 3.38 Senior citizen/Child (<5 years) 5.41 House wife 18.92

Fig. 29

52 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

3.3.2.4 Education levels

On the basis of HFSS, It was found that about 10.88%, 21.08%, 10.88% and 0.68% population came under Matric, Intermediate, graduation and post graduation and about 29.25%, 24.51% and 2.72% population under illiterate, literate and child, respectively (Table 77 & Fig. 30).

Table 77: Status of education in Ekamba village Category of education level Per cent Illiterate 29.25 Literate 24.51 Metric 10.88 Intermediate 21.08 Graduation 10.88 Post graduation 0.68 Child (<5 years) 2.72

Fig. 30

Table 78: Per cent household of livestock in Ekamba Category of livestock Per cent household Cattle/buffalo (Milch) 3.57 Cattle/buffalo (Dry) 25.00 Pig 14.29 Goat 46.43 Poultry/Hen 32.14 Dog 10.71 Not available 28.57

Fig. 31

53 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

3.3.2.5 Livestock holding

On the basis of HFSS, it can be revealed that the farmer’s family kept livestock including cattle, buffalo, pig, goat, poultry/hen and dog etc. The per cent distribution of house hold according to livestock rearing were found 3.57%, 25.00%, 14.29%, 46.43%, 32.14% and 10.71% respectively. They reared cattle/buffalo (Milch), cattle/buffalo (Dry), pig, goat, poultry/hen and dog, interestingly about 28.57% family did not keep any livestock in their household. On the other hand, among the livestock, more per cent was covered by goat (46.43%) followed by poultry/hen (32.14%) and cattle/buffalo (Dry) (25.00%) (Table 78 & Fig. 31).

3.3.2.6 Scenario of Production, Consumption and Market surplus of agricultural produces in Ekamba village

Agriculture in Ekamba village mainly dependent on rain and 100% families were adopted rice-fallow cropping system. Results of HFSS reflected that rice production was higher than consumption, in which about 59% rice was consumed and 41% rice marketed through villagers, particularly in local market. Some families consumed wheat meal (atta) in their regular diet, therefore about 1% farmer families purchased or exchange wheat with their relatives. Pulses production is very limited so total consumption of pulses in this village depends on market. Very few families are adopted the oilseed crops cultivation near the pond, small nala and well that only fulfilled about 4% requirement of oilseed and rest 96% requirement depends on market. Only few families were involved in vegetable cultivation in their nearest field to house, due to grazing problems and water availability for irrigation. So that only 13% vegetable crops were produced, 37% were purchased from the market and only 1% vegetable crops were marketed surplus in this village (Table 79). Milk and milk production was slightly lower (34.27%) to consumption (40.58%). While these products about 8.34% also reached in market and as per interaction to farmers 16.8% milk and milk product were purchased by the farmers. Similarly 50% requirement of meat/fish/fruit of farmers purchased from the market.

Table 79: status of Production, Consumption and Market surplus of agricultural produce in Ekamba village Production Consumption Purchased Market Item (%) (%) (%) surplus (%) Cereals 48.93 28.75 0.93 21.39 Pulses 0.00 50.00 50.00 0.00 Oilseeds 1.46 50.44 48.10 0.00 Vegetables 12.73 49.17 37.11 0.99 Milk & milk products 34.27 40.58 16.81 8.34 Meat/fish 0.00 50.00 50.00 0.00 Others (fruits) 0.00 50.00 50.00 0.00

54 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

Table 80: Measurement of Food Security through Household Food Insecurity and Access Scale (HFIAS) Indicate the appropriate response “If the question mentioned below with respect to the 30 days processing the survey Never Rarely Some Often Sl (%) (%) times %) No. Questions (%) 1. Did You worry that your household would not have enough food due to a lack of resources 51.85 18.52 29.63 0.00 were you or any household member 2. not able to eat the kinds of foods you preferred because of a lack of resources 55.56 18.52 25.93 0.00 3. Did you or any household member have to eat a limited variety of foods due to a lack of resources? 66.67 18.52 11.11 3.70 Did you or any household member 4. have to eat some foods that you really did not want to eat because of a lack of resources to obtain other types of food? 62.96 25.93 7.41 3.70 5. Did you or any household member have to eat a smaller meal than you 66.67 29.63 3.70 0.00 6. Did you or any household member to eat fever meals in a day because there was not enough food? 77.78 11.11 7.41 3.70 7. Was there ever no food at all in your household because there were not resources to get more? 77.78 14.81 7.41 0.00 8. Did you or any household member go to sleep at night hungry because there was not enough food? 92.59 3.70 3.70 0.00 9. Did you or any household member o a whole day without eating because there was not enough food? 96.30 0.00 3.70 0.00 Overall response 72.02 15.64 11.11 1.23 N.B.: Response to be scored “0” if the answer is “never”, “1” if “rarely” (1-2 times), “2” if the “sometimes” (3-10 times) and “3” if the “often” (>10 times).

3.3.2.7 Measurement of Food Security through Household Food Insecurity and Access Scale (HFIAS)

During HFIAS in village Ekamba nine questions (Enlisted in table 80) were interacted to farmer’s family together the constraints related to food security. In favour of all questions

55 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

(1-9) more than 50% answer was “never”, while 3.70% to 29.63% answer was rarely means farmers family suffering by various types of food crisis 1 and 2, times within 30 day before survey. Similarly 29.63 and 25.63% answer in favour of some times indicated that farmer’s family 3 to 10 times (30 days before survey) worried for enough food (Q. no. 1) and preferred food (Q. no. 2) due to lack of food resources. Few farmers (3.70%) also chosen the answer often means they eat limited variety of foods, eat some food that rarely do not want to eat and fever meal due lack of resources in Ekamba village.

3.3.2.8 Measurement of Food Security through Coping Strategies Index (CSI)

In continuous of previous questions (Table 80) eleven questions were also interacted to farmers (Enlisted in table 81) to find out the real facts of food security in village. In support of never 50% to 92.86 % answers of farmers family were noted down, on the other hand 46.43% (Q. no. 1) farmers member replied they had to rely on less preferred food as less

Table 81: Measurement of Food Security through Coping Strategies Index (CSI) Indicate the appropriate response “If there have been times in the past 30 days when you did not have enough food or enough money to buy food, has your household had to……….. Never Hardly Once Pretty Always (%) at all in a often (%) Sl (%) while %) No. Questions (%) Rely on less preferred or less expensive 1. food? 50.00 46.43 0.00 3.57 0.00 2. Borrow food, or rely on help from a relative? 57.14 39.29 3.57 0.00 0.00 3. Purchased food on credit? 75.00 21.43 0.00 3.57 0.00 4. Gather wild foods, gather “famine foods", hunt, or harvest immature Crops? 96.43 0.00 0.00 3.57 0.00 5. Consume seed stock that will be needed for next season? 71.43 21.43 0.00 7.14 0.00 6. Send household members to eat elsewhere? 85.71 10.71 0.00 3.57 0.00 7. Send household members to beg? 85.71 10.71 0.00 3.57 0.00 8. Limit portion size at mealtimes? 71.43 21.43 3.57 3.57 0.00 9. Restrict consumption by adults in order for small children to eat? 85.71 10.71 0.00 3.57 0.00 Reduce number of meals eaten in a 10. day? 85.71 10.71 0.00 3.57 0.00 11. Skip entire days without eating 92.86 3.57 0.00 3.57 0.00 Overall response 77.92 17.86 0.65 3.57 0.00 The response to the questions are scored “0” (Never), “1” (Hardly at all: <1 time/week), “2” (Once in a while: 1-2 times/week), “3” (Pretty often: 3-6 times/week) and “4” (Always: every day).

56 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

expensive food and 39.29% (Q. no. 2) households borrowed food or rely for help to relatives and rest 3.57 to 21.43 % also gave their answer in favour of hardly at all, means they had to faced difficulties as mentioned in table <1 times in a week within 30 days before survey. Answer of few farmers also came in support of once in a while (1-2 times in a week) and pretty often (3-6 times in a week), no any answer was found in favour of always that reflected the crisis of food resources in village Ekamba, Kanke, Ranchi (Table 81).

3.3.2.9 Measurement of Food Security through Food Consumption Score (FCS)/Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS)

Eight questions regarding food consumption were interacted to each house hold, answers noted down in four segment it was never (o time week-1), hardly at all (<1 time week-1), once in a while (1-2 times week-1), pretty often (3-6 time week-1) and always (every day). In table 82 clearly reflected that 100% household consumed cereal based food followed by

Table 82: Measurement of Food Security through Food Consumption Score (FCS)/Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) Indicate the appropriate response “in the past 30 days, how often have you eaten…………” Never Hardly Once Pretty Always (%) at all in a often (%) Sl. (%) while %) No. Questions (%) Cereal- based food materials (rice/roti/bread/biscuits made from 1. grains- rice, wheat, millet, sorghum, maize) or any food made from tubers- potatoes, sweet potatoes, carrots, or other foods made from roots or tubers? (2) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 2. Any pulses (Beans, Lentils, Peas)? 0.00 3.70 33.33 25.93 37.04 3. Any vegetables? 0.00 0.00 14.81 18.52 66.67 4. Any fruits? 65.52 17.24 6.90 0.00 10.34 Any eggs or meat: beef lamb, goat, wild game, fish, chicken, or other birds, liver, kidney, or other organ 5. meats? 3.57 53.57 28.57 0.00 14.29 Any dairy products- milk, cheese, 6. yogurt (not including butter)? 70.37 7.41 0.00 3.70 18.52 7. Any sugar or honey? 53.57 39.29 7.14 0.00 0.00 8. Any oil, fat, or butter 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.29 60.71 Overall response 24.13 15.15 11.34 10.93 38.45 The response to the questions are scored “0” (Never), “1” (Hardly at all: <1 time/week), “2” (Once in a while: 1-2 times/week), “3” (Pretty often: 3-6 times/week) and “4” (Always: every day).

57 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

66.67%, 60.71 and 37.04% vegetable, oil/fat/butter and pulses every day (Always), respectively. In support of never 70.37%, 65.52% and 53.57 % household gave their answer means that household within 30 days before survey not consumed any dairy product, any fruit and any sugar or honey in their daily diet, respectively. Food habit of most the family members were found non-vegetarian, but only 14.29% always consumed non-veg. food (Q no. 5), while 3.57% family advocated that they never consumed non veg. food within 30 days before survey (Table 82).

3.3.2.10 Access to Various Welfare Schemes (Food and Non-Food Related)

Among listed welfare schemes in table 83, 51.85% farmers family benefitted to pension scheme, followed by 37.04% farmer families through Indra Awas Yojana, 29.63% families through NREGS and 7.41% families through each NFSM/Antyodaya Yojana, Navojyoti and Biju Krushak Kalyan Yojana (health insurance). While interestingly 18.52% farmer families said they did not benefited to any Govt. welfare scheme till date.

Table 83: Status of Various Welfare Schemes (Food and Non-Food Related) facility Number of Per cent (%) Type of household benefit benefit received Schemes Name of schemes received household Housing Indra Awas Yojana 10 37.04 Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana 0 0.00 Mo Kudia/Biju Pucca Ghar Yojana 0 0.00 Nirman Shramik Pucca Ghar Yojana 0 0.00 Food security NFSM/Antyodaya Yojana 2 7.41 Annapurna Scheme 0 0.00 Employment NREGS 8 29.63 Biju Atma Nijukti Yojana 0 0.00 Health care Navojyoti 2 7.41 Reproductive Child Health cere 0 0.00 Biju Krushak Kalyan Yojana (health insurance) 2 7.41 Mamata Yojana 0 0.00 ICDS 0 0.00 Others Pension Schemes 14 51.85 No benefit Any no Govt. welfare received schemes received 5 18.52

58 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

Fig. 32

3.3.3 House hold food security survey: Chandwey, Kanke, Ranchi (Door to door contact to 41 household)

3.3.3.1 Category of land holding

Out of about 450 households in Chandwey, 41 households were randomly selected for Food security Survey. About 90.24% households were holding ≤1.0 ha (marginal) land followed by landless (<0.01 ha) and Small (≤2.0 ha) land holding (Table 84 & Fig. 33).

Table 84: Category of land holding in Chandwey village Category of land Per cent Landless (≤0.01 ha) 7.32 Marginal (>0.01-≤1.0 ha) 90.24 Small (>1.0-≤2.0 ha) 2.44 Semi Medium (>2.0-≤4.0 ha) 0.00 Medium (>4.0-≤10 ha) 0.00 Large (>10 ha) 0.00

Fig. 33

59 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

3.3.3.2 Status of income

For interpretation of survey collected data annual income of the house hold categorized in 6 groups from Rs. ≤50,000 to >5,00,000. Table 85 & Fig. 34 reflected that 53.66% household of the farmers having >50,000 to ≤1,50,000 annual income followed by major group 24.39% household annual income Rs. >1,50,000 to ≤2,50,000 and rest only about 22% farmers families were earned more than Rs. 2.50,000 per annum.

Table 85: Status of income (Rs.) as per target family in Chandwey village Category of Income (Rs.) Per cent ≤50,000 4.88 >50,000-≤1,50,000 53.66 >1,50,000-≤2,50,000 24.39 >2,50,000-≤3,50,000 9.76 >3,50,000-≤5,00,000 4.88 >5,00,000 2.44

Fig. 34

3.3.3.3 Status of occupation

Among total population of survey households, only 6.37% members were involved in Agriculture sector, while 19.52% member engaged in wages. A good result reflected in table that 35.46% members of surveyed households involved in study at School and college level. Only about 9.0% farmer’s families were adopted service (Govt.), business and private jobs. Interestingly a major group of total population 13.94% were senior citizen and child (<5 years) in Chandwey village, while 15.94 % women were house wife (Table 86 & Fig. 35).

3.3.3.4 Education level

About 43.82% member of farmer families were found literate followed by a major group of illiterate (16.33%) members. While 13.15, 5.18, 4.38 and 0.40% found passed matric, intermediate , graduate and post graduate degree, respectively and consequently rest 16.73% population were child (<5 years) (Table 87 & Fig. 36).

60 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

Table 86: Status of occupation in Chandwey village Category of occupation Per cent Agriculture 6.37 Wages 19.52 Study (School/College) 35.46 Service (Govt.) 1.20 Business 3.59 Private job 3.98 Senior citizen/Child (<5 years) 13.94 House wife 15.94

Table 87: Education level in Chandwey village Category of education Per cent Illitrate 16.33 Litrate 43.82 Matric 13.15 Intermediate 5.18 Graduate 4.38 Post Graduate 0.40 Child (<5 years) 16.73

Fig. 36

61 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

3.3.3.5 Status of Livestock

Among different species of livestock poultry/hen rearing were found more popular in 20 (48.78%) families, goat in 17 (41.46%) households. Cattle/ buffalo also kept by the farmers and 24.39 % family were engaged in rearing milch cattle/buffalo and 39.02% family dry cattle/buffalo in their house. Among 41 famer families, 9 (21.95%) families not involved in rearing of livestock in Chandwey village (Table 88 & Fig. 37).

Table 88: Per cent household of livestock in Chandwey village Category of livestock species No. of family Per cent Cattle/buffalo (Milch) 10 24.39 Cattle/buffalo (Dry) 16 39.02 Pig 0 0.00 Goat 17 41.46 Poultry/Hen 20 48.78 Duck 0 0.00 Cat 1 2.44 Any no available of livestock species 9 21.95

Fig. 37

3.3.3.6 Scenario of food availability

Milk and milk products 53.76% were found highest among enlisted food items in table 89, followed by 28.60% and 9.12% production of cereal and pulses in Chandwey village. Consumption of enlisted items varied from 29.31 % to 50.00%. So, farmers had to dependent on market to fulfill their daily requirements. Except milk and milk products no any food materials available in village for sell in the market (Table 89).

62 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

Table 89: Scenario of food availability in Chandwey village Production Consumption Purchased Market Item (%) (%) (%) surplus (%) Cereals 28.60 49.35 20.82 1.23 Pulses 0.00 50.00 50.00 0.00 Oilseeds 0.00 50.00 50.00 0.00 Vegetables 9.12 49.13 40.90 0.85 Milk & milk products 53.76 29.31 9.42 33.86 Meat/fish 0.00 50.00 50.00 0.00 Others (fruits) 0.00 50.00 50.00 0.00

Table 90: Measurement of Food Security through Household Food Insecurity and Access Scale (HFIAS). Indicate the appropriate response “If the question mentioned below with respect to the 30 days processing the survey Sl. Never Rarely Some times Often No. Questions (%) (%) (%) %) 1. Did You worry that your household 17.50 55.00 27.50 0.00 would not have enough food due to a lack of resources 2. Were you or any household member 20.00 62.50 17.50 0.00 not able to eat the kinds of foods you preferred because of a lack of resources 3. Did you or any household member 17.50 62.50 20.00 0.00 have to eat a limited variety of foods due to a lack of resources? 4. Did you or any household member 20.00 55.00 25.00 0.00 have to eat some foods that you really did not want to eat because of a lack of resources to obtain other types of food? 5. 30.00 65.00 5.00 0.00 Did you or any household member have to eat a smaller meal than you 6. Did you or any household member to 32.50 62.50 5.00 0.00 eat fever meals in a day because there was not enough food? 7. Was there ever no food at all in your 65.00 30.00 5.00 0.00 household because there were not resources to get more? 8. Did you or any household member go 80.00 17.50 2.50 0.00 to sleep at night hungry because there was not enough food? 9. Did you or any household member o a 77.50 17.50 5.00 0.00 whole day without eating because there was not enough food? N.B.: Response to be scored “0” if the answer is “never”, “1” if “rarely” (1-2 times), “2” if the “sometimes” (3-10 times) and “3” if the “often” (>10 times).

63 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

3.3.3.7 Measurement of FOOD SECURITY through Household Food Insecurity and Access Scale (HFIAS)

During survey programme nine questions that mentioned in table 90 were interacted to leader of house hold. Never answer more than 50% were came in favour of Q. no. 7, 8 and 9, while farmers response were more than 50% in favour of rarely (1-2 times) of Q. no. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Results reflected that farmers house hold members were suffered through crisis of food resources 1-2 times within 30 days before survey. Interestingly 27.50% farmer families said they worried 3 to 10 times (Some times) for enough food due to lack of resources followed by 25.00%, 20.00% and 17.50% farmer families answered they eat some food that they really did not want, they eat limited variety of food and they not able to eat the kind of food as prepared due to lack of food resources, respectively a limited no. of farmers family (2.50 to 5.00%) also responded in favour of some times (1-2 times before 30 days of survey) to others questions, reflected the crisis of food resource in Chandwey village of Kanke block, Ranchi (Table 90).

Table 91: Measurement of Food Security through Coping Strategies Index (CSI) Indicate the appropriate response “If there have been times in the past 30 days when you did not have enough food or enough money to buy food, has your household had to……….. Never Hardly Once in Pretty Always Sl (%) at all a while often (%) No. Questions (%) (%) %) Rely on less preferred or less 45.24 47.62 7.14 0.00 0.00 1. expensive food? Borrow food, or rely on help from 57.14 38.10 4.76 0.00 0.00 2. a relative? 3. Purchased food on credit? 85.71 14.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 Gather wild foods, gather “famine 88.10 11.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 foods", hunt, or harvest immature 4. Crops? Consume seed stock that will be 69.05 30.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 5. needed for next season? Send household members to eat 80.95 19.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 6. elsewhere? 7. Send household members to beg? 88.10 11.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 8. Limit portion size at mealtimes? 85.71 14.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 Restrict consumption by adults in 90.48 9.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 9. order for small children to eat? Reduce number of meals eaten in a 95.24 4.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 10. day? 11. Skip entire days without eating 95.24 4.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 The response to the questions are scored “0” (Never), “1” (Hardly at all: <1 time/week), “2” (Once in a while: 1-2 times/week), “3” (Pretty often: 3-6 times/week) and “4” (Always: every day).

64 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

Table 92: Measurement of Food Security through Food Consumption Score (FCS)/Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS). Indicate the appropriate response “in the past 30 days, how often have you eaten…………” Never Hardly Once Pretty Always (%) at all in a often (%) Sl (%) while %) No. Questions (%) 1. Cereal- based food materials (rice/roti/bread/biscuits made from grains- rice, wheat, millet, sorghum, maize) or any food made from tubers- potatoes, sweet potatoes, carrots, or other foods made from roots or tubers? (2) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 2. Any Pulses (Beans, Lentils, Peas)? 2.44 24.39 31.71 17.07 24.39 3. Any vegetables? 0.00 2.44 9.76 19.51 68.29 4. Any fruits? 65.85 34.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 Any eggs or meat: beef lamb, goat, 5. wild game, fish, chicken, or other birds, liver, kidney, or other organ meats? 2.44 56.10 36.59 2.44 2.44 Any dairy products- milk, cheese, 6. yogurt (not including butter)? 70.73 4.88 4.88 19.51 0.00 7. Any sugar or honey? 36.59 58.54 2.44 0.00 2.44 8. Any oil, fat, or butter? 0.00 2.44 2.44 4.88 90.24 The response to the questions are scored “0” (Never), “1” (Hardly at all: <1 time/week), “2” (Once in a while: 1-2 times/week), “3” (Pretty often: 3-6 times/week) and “4” (Always: every day).

3.3.3.8 Measurement of Food Security through Coping Strategies Index (CSI)

To explain more clearly the food availability and its used through cropping strategies index within 30 day before survey 11 questions were interacted to farmers and that summarized in table 91. In favour of never 45.24 to 95.24% answer given by farmer families. While 38.10% (Hardly at all <1 time/week) answer in favour of q. no. 2, reflected that for food requirement farmers had to barrowed or take help to his relatives. Farmer family also responded 47.62% in favour of Q no. 1 that reflected farmers rely for less preferred and less expensive food due to poor economical condition and low purchase capacity. In village 30.95% farmer families also said that they had to utilize seed stock that was stored for next year. In favour of other interacted questions, response of the farmers member varied from 4.76 to 19.05% in support of hardly at all (<1 times/week).

65 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

3.3.3.9 Measurement of Food Security through Food Consumption Score (FCS)/Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS)

All the food items that generally consumed or utilized by the farmers were grouped in 8 broad categories and summarized in table 92. Result reflected that main food was cereal in this village and farmers always /every day included that in their diet. While consumption scenario of others food items were totally dependent on availability, food habit and purchasing capacity of farmers. But 65.85% family members never consumed fruits within 30 days before survey, similarly 70.73 and 36.59% answer also came in favour of never for consumption of dairy product and sugar or honey. In response of different food items consumption, answer varied from 2.44 to 58.54 in favour of hardly at all (<1 times in a week), 2.44 to 36.59% in favour of once in a while (1-2 times in a week), 2.44 to 19.51 % in favour of pretty often (3-6 times in a week) and 2.44 to 90.24% in favour of always (every day) in Chandwey village.

3.3.3.10 Access to Various Welfare Schemes (Food & Non Food Related)

As Per Interaction to Farmers, they were totally unawared to Govt. Welfare Schemes in village. While they responded that 5, 30, 14, and 11 family were benefited through Indra Awas Yojana, NFSM/Antyodaya Yojona, NREGS and Pension Schemes, respectively. Among 41 surveyed house hold only seven families did not benefited through and Welfare Scheme of Govt. (Table 93 & Fig. 38).

Table 93: Access to Various Welfare Schemes (Food & Non Food Related) Benefits received Types of scheme Name of Scheme (family) Housing Indra Awas Yojana 5 Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana 0 Mo Kudia/Biju Pucca Ghar Yojana 0 Nirman Shramik Pucca Ghar Yojana 0 Food security NFSM/Antyodaya Yojana 30 Annapurna Scheme 0 Employment NREGS 14 Biju Atma Nijukti Yojana 0 Health care Navojyoti 0 Reproductive Child Health cere 0 Biju Krushak Kalyan Yojana (health insurance) 0 Mamata Yojana 0 ICDS 0 Others Pension Schemes 11 No benefits received 7

66 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

Fig. 38

3.3.4 House hold food security survey: Dubaliya, Kanke, Ranchi (Door to door contact to 30 household)

3.3.4.1 Category of land holding

Among 400 house hold in village Dubaliya, Kanke, Ranchi, 30 house hold covered under Food security survey programme of AICRP-MSPE. Land holding as per area in ha was grouped in to 6 major segments from ≤0.01ha (Landless) to >10 ha (Large). Survey report in table 94 reflected that 80.0% house hold having land in between >0.01 to ≤1 ha (Marginal) and rest 20% family came in the category of small (>1 to ≤2 ha) land holding (Table 94 & Fig. 39).

Table 94: Category of land holding in Dubaliya village Category of land Per cent Landless(≤0.01 ha) 0.00 Marginal (<0.01- ≤1) 80.00 Small (>1- ≤2 ha) 20.00 Semi Medium (>2 - ≤4 ha) 0.00 Medium (>4 - ≤10 ha) 0.00 Large (>10 ha) 0.00

Fig. 39

67 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

3.3.4.2 Status of Income (Rs.) as per target family

Annual income of house hold grouped in between ≤50,000 to 5,00,000 to interpret the collected information. Highest 53.33% house hold were earned Rs. >50,000 to ≤1,50,000 annual income, followed by 13.33% 10.00% and 6.67% house hold in income groups Rs. ≤50,000, >1,50,000/5,00,000 and >2,50,000 - ≤3,50,000/>3,50,000 to 5,00,000, respectively (Table 95 & Fig. 40).

Table 95: Status of Income (Rs.) as per target family in Dubaliya village Category of Income (Rs.) Per cent ≤50,000 13.33 >50,000 - ≤1,50,000 53.33 >1,50,000 - ≤2,50,000 10.00 >2,50,000 - ≤3,50,000 6.67 >3,50,000 - ≤5,00,000 6.67 >5,00,000 10.00

Fig. 40

3.3.4.3 Occupation

Among all total population of surveyed 30 house hold, maximum 34.59% were engaged in study at School and College level. While 19.50, 15.72 and 4.40% were involved in wages, Agriculture and private jobs, respectively. Very limiting no. of house hold engaged in Govt. service (2.52%) and business (1.87%). Equal percentage (10.69%) was found of Senior citizen and house wife in village Dubaliya (Table 96 & Fig. 41).

3.3.4.4 Education level

Highest population 33.96% were found literate followed by 27.01, 13.84, 8.18, 7.55 and 2.52% members of surveyed house hold found illiterate, intermediate, graduate, metric and post graduate, respectively while 6.92% members were less than 5 years (child) age group (Table 97 & Fig. 42).

68 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

Table 96: Occupation in Dubaliya village Category of Occupation Per cent Agriculture 15.72 Wages 19.50 Study (School/College) 34.59 Service (Govt.) 2.52 Business 1.89 Private job 4.40 Senior citizen/Child (<5 years) 10.69 House wife 10.69

Fig. 41

Table 97: Education level in Dubaliya village Category of Education Per cent Illiterate 27.04 Literate 33.96 Metric 7.55 Intermediate 13.84 Graduate 8.18 Post Graduate 2.52 Child (<5 year) 6.92

Fig. 42

69 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

3.3.4.5 Livestock

Livestock rearing was main occupation in rural area of Jharkhand state for livelihood security. Among surveyed household 38.89% house hold rearing poultry followed by 18.32, 16.67 and 12.96% house hold rearing goat, cattle/ buffalo (dry) and cattle/ buffalo (milch), respectively. On the other hand 12.96% households were not rearing any type of live stock (Table 98 & Fig. 43).

Table 98: Per cent households of livestock in Dubaliya Category of livestock Per cent family Cattle/buffalo (Milch) 12.96 Cattle/buffalo (Dry) 16.67 Pig 0.00 Goat 18.52 Poultry/Hen 38.89 Duck 0.00 Not available 12.96

Fig. 43

3.3.4.6 Scenario of food availability

Collected data of production, consumption, purchase and market surplus were much variable and clearly reflected that consumption (except cereal and milk) was more than production (Table 99). So, house hold dependent on market for fulfill their gap of daily requirement of food resource. Contrary to same household also supplied some items particularly in local market to fulfill their day to day requirement such as 18.00% cereal, 22.00% pulses, 6.0% vegetables, 24.0% milk and milk products and 50% fruits (Table 99).

70 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

Table 99: Scenario of food availability in Dubaliya village Production Consumption Purchased Market Item (%) (%) (%) surplus (%) Cereals 45.00 31.00 6.00 18.00 Pulses 25.00 28.00 25.00 22.00 Oilseeds 3.00 50.00 47.00 0.00 Vegetables 24.00 44.00 26.00 6.00 Milk & milk products 48.00 21.00 2.00 29.00 Meat/fish 2.00 50.00 48.00 0.00 Others (fruits) 50.00 0.00 0.00 50.00

Table 100: Measurement of Food Security through Household Food Insecurity and Access Scale (HFIAS). Indicate the appropriate response “If the question mentioned below with respect to the 30 days processing the survey Sl Never Rarely Some times Often No. Questions (%) (%) (%) %) 1. Did You worry that your household 43.33 26.67 0.00 would not have enough food due to a lack of resources 30.00 2. Were you or any household member not 53.33 13.33 3.33 able to eat the kinds of foods you preferred because of a lack of resources 30.00 3. Did you or any household member have 53.33 13.33 0.00 to eat a limited variety of foods due to a lack of resources? 33.33 4. Did you or any household member have 43.33 10.00 0.00 to eat some foods that you really did not want to eat because of a lack of resources to obtain other types of food? 46.67 5. Did you or any household member have 16.67 6.67 0.00 to eat a smaller meal than you 76.67 6. Did you or any household member to eat 10.00 3.33 0.00 fever meals in a day because there was not enough food? 86.67 7. Was there ever no food at all in your 13.33 3.33 0.00 household because there were not resources to get more? 83.33 8. Did you or any household member go to 6.67 6.67 0.00 sleep at night hungry because there was not enough food? 86.67 9. Did you or any household member o a 3.33 10.00 0.00 whole day without eating because there was not enough food? 86.67 N.B.: Response to be scored “0” if the answer is “never”, “1” if “rarely” (1-2 times), “2” if the “sometimes” (3-10 times) and “3” if the “often” (>10 times).

71 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

3.3.4.7 Measurement of Food Security through Household Food Insecurity and Access Scale (HFIAS)

To find out the real fact about household food insecurity and Access Scale (HFIAS) nine questions were interacted to farmers and answer was segmented in four categorized i.e., never, rarely, some times and often. Never answer was highest (86.67%) in favour of question no. 9, 8, and 6 followed by 76.67, 48.67, 33.33 and 30.00% in favour of question no. 5, 4, 3 and 2, respectively. Responses of the surveyed farmers also came in favour of rarely, some times and often that reflected the crisis of food resources in village and farmers facing various problems (Q. no. 1 to 9) in respect to food security (Table 100).

Table 101: Measurement of Food Security through Coping Strategies Index (CSI) Indicate the appropriate response “If there have been times in the past 30 days when you did not have enough food or enough money to buy food, has your household had to……….. Never Hardly Once Pretty Always (%) at all in a often (%) Sl (%) while %) No. Questions (%) Rely on less preferred or less expensive 33.33 66.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 1. food? 2. Borrow food, or rely on help from a 40.00 60.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 relative? 3. Purchased food on credit? 63.33 36.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Gather wild foods, gather “famine foods", hunt, or harvest immature 93.33 6.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crops? 5. Consume seed stock that will be needed 96.67 3.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 for next season? 6. Send household members to eat 3.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 elsewhere? 96.67 7. Send household members to beg? 93.33 6.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 8. Limit portion size at mealtimes? 93.33 6.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 9. Restrict consumption by adults in order 90.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 for small children to eat? 10. Reduce number of meals eaten in a day? 96.67 3.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 11. Skip entire days without eating 96.67 3.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 The response to the questions are scored “0” (Never), “1” (Hardly at all: <1 time/week), “2” (Once in a while: 1-2 times/week), “3” (Pretty often: 3-6 times/week) and “4” (Always: every day).

3.3.4.8 Measurement of Food Security through Coping Strategies Index (CSI)

In continuation of above discussed questions eleven questions also were interacted to each household to find out the fact of enough food, enough money etc. (Table 101). Response of the house hold in support of never >90% in question no. 4 to 11 (Enlisted in Table 101),

72 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

while only 63.33% households said they never purchased food on credit , 40.0% farmers said they never borrowed or rely on help from a relative and 33.33% house hold said that they never rely on less preferred or less expensive food. On the contrary answers of eleven interacted questions was hardly at all means they suffering in food crisis <1 times in a week (Table 101).

3.3.4.9 Measurement of Food Security through Food Consumption Score (FCS)/Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS)

From surveyed house hold 100% response was came in favour of always for consumption or including their daily diet (Q. no. 1). While 70.67% and 90.0% members did not take fruits and milk in their diet. In favour of utilizing various food items that enlisted in table 102, farmers answer varied from 3.33 to 70.0%, 6.67 to 53.33%, 6.67 to 20% and 10 to 100 % hardly at all (<1 times/week), pretty often (3-6 times/week) and always (every day), respectively.

Table 102: Measurement of FOOD SECURITY through Food Consumption Score (FCS)/Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) Indicate the appropriate response “in the past 30 days, how often have you eaten…………” Sl Questions Never Hardly Once Pretty Always No. (%) at all in a often (%) (%) while %) (%) Cereal- based food materials (rice/roti/bread/biscuits made from 1. grains- rice, wheat, millet, sorghum, maize) or any food made from tubers- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 potatoes, sweet potatoes, carrots, or other foods made from roots or tubers? (2) 2. Any pulses (Beans, Lentils, Peas)? 0.00 23.33 53.33 10.00 13.33 3. Any vegetables? 0.00 3.33 6.67 20.00 70.00 4. Any fruits? 76.67 16.67 6.67 0.00 0.00 Any eggs or meat: beef lamb, goat, wild game, fish, chicken, or other birds, 0.00 36.67 56.67 6.67 0.00 5. liver, kidney, or other organ meats? Any dairy products- milk, cheese, 90.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6. yogurt (not including butter)? 7. Any sugar or honey? 0.00 70.00 30.00 0.00 0.00 8. Any oil, fat, or butter 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 The response to the questions are scored “0” (Never), “1” (Hardly at all: <1 time/week), “2” (Once in a while: 1-2 times/week), “3” (Pretty often: 3-6 times/week) and “4” (Always: every day).

73 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

3.3.4.10 Access to Various Welfare Schemes (Food and Non-Food Related)

Among surveyed house hold only 5, 1, 26, 15, 1 and 12 family were benefited to Indra Awas Yojana, Nirman Shramik Pucca Ghar Yojana, NFSM/Antyodaya Yojana, NREGS, Reproductive Child Health care and Pension Schemes, respectively while 2 house hold did not received any benefit through Govt. Welfare Schemes (Table 103 & Fig. 44).

Table 103: Access to Various Welfare Schemes (Food and Non-Food Related) Type of Scheme Name of scheme Benefits received (family) Housing Indra Awas Yojana 5 Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana 0 Mo Kudia/Biju Pucca Ghar Yojana 0 Nirman Shramik Pucca Ghar Yojana 1 Food security NFSM/Antyodaya Yojana 26 Annapurna Scheme 0 Employment NREGS 15 Biju Atma Nijukti Yojana 0 Health care Navojyoti 0 Reproductive Child Health care 1 Biju Krushak Kalyan Yojana (health insurance) 0 Mamata Yojana 0 ICDS 0 Others Pension Schemes 12 No facility received 2

Fig. 44

3.3.5 House hold food security survey in Hisri village, Ratu Block, Ranchi

3.3.5.1 Land holding

In Hisri village of Ratu block 8 families were selected randomly as per their interest to participate in interaction programme. Among surveyed households 62.5 per cent families

74 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

came ≤ 1.0 ha (Marginal) land holding followed by 25% ≤ 2.0 ha (Small) and 12.50% ≤ 4.0 ha (Semi-marginal) land holding (Table 104 & Fig. 45).

Table 104: Land holding status in Hisri village Category of Land Per cent household Landless (≤0.01 ha) 0.00 Marginal (>0.01-≤1.0 ha) 62.50 Small (>1.0-≤2.0 ha) 25.00 Semi Medium (>2.0-≤4.0 ha) 12.50 Medium (>4.0-≤10 ha) 0.00 Large (>10 ha) 0.00

Fig. 45

3.3.5.2 Status of Income

Annual income was categorized in between Rs. ≤50,000 to 5,00,00 per household. As per reflected data in table 105, 37.50% families annual income was in between Rs.>50,000 to ≤1,50,000 followed by 25% families income in between Rs. >1,50,000 to ≤ 2,50,000 and rest family income were found Rs.>2,50,000 per annum. While only 3.3% family income was noted Rs. <50,000 per annum (Table 105 & Fig. 46).

Table 105: Status of income in Hisri village Category of income (Rs.) Per cent household ≤50,000 3.13 >50,000-≤1,50,000 37.50 >1,50,000-≤2,50,000 25.00 >2,50,000-≤3,50,000 18.75 >3,50,000-≤5,00,000 12.50 >5,00,000 3.13

Fig. 46

75 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

3.3.5.3 Occupation Scenario

Among all family members of surveyed families, 28.57% population were engaged in study at School and College level, while 24.29 and 14.29 % population activity engaged respectively in agriculture sector and for wages for their family livelihood security. Rest 32.25% population was engaged in various activities in village such as Govt. service (2.86%), business (2.86%) and private jobs (7.14%). senior citizen and child (<5.0 years) were found 8.57% and women 11.43% that engaged in their own house as house wife (Table 106 & Fig. 47).

Table 106: Status of occupation in Hisri village Category of occupation Per cent Agriculture 24.29 Wages 14.29 Study (School/College) 28.57 Service (Govt.) 2.86 Business 2.86 Private job 7.14 Senior citizen/Child (<5 years) 8.57 House wife 11.43

Fig. 47

3.3.5.4 Status of Education

Among total surveyed population of Hisri village 48.21% peoples were literate followed by 14.29, 12.50, 3.57 and 1.79 per cent intermediate, matric/illiterate, graduate and post graduate, respectively while 7.14% children (<5 years) were found in surveyed village (Table 107 & Fig. 48).

Table 107: Status of education in Hisri village Category of education level Per cent Illiterate 12.50 Literate 48.21 Metric 12.50 Intermediate 14.29 Graduation 3.57 Post graduation 1.79 Child (<5 years) 7.14

76 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

Fig. 48

3.3.5.5 Status of Livestock

In table 108 & Fig. 49, reflected that goat rearing was very population in village and found goat in 46.15% household followed by Cattle/buffalo (Milch) 23.08%, Cattle/buffalo (Dry) 15.38% and poultry/hen and dog equally in 7.69% household of village. Interesting result also found that 23.08 families among surveyed families not involved in livestock rearing enterprise in Hisri village, Ratu, Ranchi.

Table 108: Per cent household of livestock in Hisri Category of livestock Per cent household Cattle/buffalo (Milch) 23.08 Cattle/buffalo (Dry) 15.38 Pig 0.00 Goat 46.15 Poultry/Hen 7.69 Dog 7.69 Not available 23.08

Fig. 49

3.3.5.6 Scenario of food availability

Among total product enlisted in table 109 milk and milk products production was highest 48.00% followed by cereals (47.00%), vegetable (43.00%), oil seed (25.00%), pulses (0.00%), fish (0.00%) and fruits (0.00%). Consumption of different food product varied from 20.00 to 50.00 per cent, so that due to high consumption and low production of the same, farmers had to dependent on market for pulses and oilseeds requirements in daily diet. While some food production also reached to market and support livelihood to farmers through economical gain.

77 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

Table 109: status of Production, Consumption and Market surplus of agricultural produce in Hisri village Production Consumption Purchased Market Item (%) (%) (%) surplus (%) Cereals 47.00 27.00 3.00 23.00 Pulses 0.00 50.00 50.00 0.00 Oilseeds 25.00 50.00 25.00 0.00 Vegetables 43.00 22.00 7.00 28.00 Milk & milk products 48.00 20.00 2.00 30.00 Meat/fish 0.00 50.00 50.00 0.00 Others (fruits) 0.00 50.00 50.00 0.00

3.3.5.7 Measurement of Food Security through Household Food Insecurity and Access Scale (HFIAS)

To observed the real fact about food security in village Hisri nine questions were asked to leader of family with the reply in statements i.e., never, really, some time and often (Table 110). From the reply of Q. No. 7, 8 and 9 was reflected that in all families sufficient food available and 100% family members given their reply ‘never’. While reply of others questions (No. 1 & 6) varied in favour of never 37.50 to 75.00%, simultaneously in favor of ‘rarely’ 12.50 to 62.50 %. On the other hand 12.5% population of surveyed families had to take smaller and fever meal in a day due to unavailability of sufficient food. To critical analysis of farmers response it was reflected that farmers having food grain in their house hold but due to the various socio-economical reasons and food habits they did not take regularly or healthy diet.

3.3.5.8 Measurement of Food Security through Coping Strategies Index (CSI)

In continuation of household food insecurity and assess scale (HFIAS), Coping Strategies Index (CSI) were tried to find out with interaction to head of the family members on basic of 11 question enlisted in table 111. In favour of Q. no. 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11 farmers statement were ‘never’, While responses were noted for Q. no. 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 in favour of ‘never’ 87.50% and in hardly at all 12.50%. Results reflected that only 12.50% of surveyed population once a week facing problems for food security in Hisri village of Ratu block (Table 111).

3.3.5.9 Measurement of Food Security through Food Consumption Score (FCS)/Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS)

Among surveyed families, 100% family members always/every day used cereal based food in their diet. While only 25.00% family members included pulses in their diet every day. On the other hand pulses used 3 to 6 times in a week by 25.00% family members, 1 to 2 times in week by 37.50% family members, once in a week by 12.50% family members. Vegetables always/ every day used by the farmers, while 12.50, 50.00 and 37.50 % farmers family used fruits never, <1 times in a week and 1-2 times in a week, respectively. Egg and meat were most favoured food in village, while due to its unavailability, 100% farmers family included

78 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

non vegetarian food in their diet <1 time in a week. Response to used dairy product reflected a different scenario to other food products and as per survey report 50% family members not taken any dairy product every day, while 37.50 and 12.50 family members never and <1 time in a week included dairy product in their diet, respectively. In very less amount of sugar and honey used by the family members and response of the asked questions was 12.50, 50.00 and 37.50 % in favour of never, <1 times in a week and 1-2 time in a week respectively, while 100% family member were used oil every day (Table 112).

Table 110: Measurement of Food Security through Household Food Insecurity and Access Scale (HFIAS).Indicate the appropriate response “If the question mentioned below with respect to the 30 days processing the survey Never Rarely Some Often Sl. (%) (%) times %) No. Questions (%) 1. Did You worry that your household would not have enough food due to a lack of resources 37.50 62.50 0.00 0.00 were you or any household member 2. not able to eat the kinds of foods you preferred because of a lack of resources 50.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 3. Did you or any household member have to eat a limited variety of foods due to a lack of resources? 50.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 Did you or any household member 4. have to eat some foods that you really did not want to eat because of a lack of resources to obtain other types of food? 50.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 5. Did you or any household member have to eat a smaller meal than you 62.50 25.00 12.50 0.00 6. Did you or any household member to eat fever meals in a day because there was not enough food? 75.00 12.50 12.50 0.00 7. Was there ever no food at all in your household because there were not resources to get more? 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8. Did you or any household member go to sleep at night hungry because there was not enough food? 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9. Did you or any household member o a whole day without eating because there was not enough food? 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Overall response 69.44 27.78 2.78 0.00 N.B.: Response to be scored “0” if the answer is “never”, “1” if “rarely” (1-2 times), “2” if the “sometimes” (3-10 times) and “3” if the “often” (>10 times).

79 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

Table 111: Measurement of Food Security through Coping Strategies Index (CSI) Indicate the appropriate response “If there have been times in the past 30 days when you did not have enough food or enough money to buy food, has your household had to……….. Questions Never Hardly Once Pretty Always (%) at all in a often (%) Sl. (%) while %) No. (%) Rely on less preferred or less 1. expensive food? 87.50 12.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 2. Borrow food, or rely on help from a relative? 87.50 12.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Purchased food on credit? 87.50 12.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Gather wild foods, gather “famine foods", hunt, or harvest immature Crops? 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5. Consume seed stock that will be needed for next season? 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6. Send household members to eat elsewhere? 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7. Send household members to beg? 87.50 12.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 8. Limit portion size at mealtimes? 87.50 12.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 9. Restrict consumption by adults in order for small children to eat? 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduce number of meals eaten in a 10. day? 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11. Skip entire days without eating 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Overall response 94.32 5.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 The response to the questions are scored “0” (Never), “1” (Hardly at all: <1 time/week), “2” (Once in a while: 1-2 times/week), “3” (Pretty often: 3-6 times/week) and “4” (Always: every day).

80 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

Table 112: Measurement of Food Security through Food Consumption Score (FCS)/Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) Indicate the appropriate response “in the past 30 days, how often have you eaten…………” Never Hardly Once Pretty Always (%) at all in a often (%) Sl (%) while %) No. Questions (%) Cereal- based food materials (rice/roti/bread/biscuits made from 1. grains- rice, wheat, millet, sorghum, maize) or any food made from tubers- potatoes, sweet potatoes, carrots, or other foods made from roots or tubers? (2) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 2. Any pulses (Beans, Lentils, Peas)? 0.00 12.50 37.50 25.00 25.00 3. Any vegetables? 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 4. Any fruits? 12.50 50.00 37.50 0.00 0.00 Any eggs or meat: beef lamb, goat, wild game, fish, chicken, or other birds, liver, kidney, or other organ 5. meats? 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Any dairy products- milk, cheese, 6. yogurt (not including butter)? 37.50 12.50 0.00 0.00 50.00 7. Any sugar or honey? 12.50 50.00 37.50 0.00 0.00 8. Any oil, fat, or butter 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Overall response 7.81 28.13 14.06 3.13 46.88 The response to the questions are scored “0” (Never), “1” (Hardly at all: <1 time/week), “2” (Once in a while: 1-2 times/week), “3” (Pretty often: 3-6 times/week) and “4” (Always: every day).

3.3.5.10 Access to Various Welfare Schemes (Food and Non-Food Related) in village

Among surveyed family only 12.50%, 50.00%, 37.50% and 12.50% family were benefited through Indra Awas Yojana, NFSM/Antyodaya Yojana, NREGS and Pension Schemes, respectively while in this village 25.00% family did not benefited to any Govt. Welfare Schemes (Table 113 & Fig. 50).

81 Annual Report, AICRP-MSPE (ICAR), Ranchi Centre 2017-2018

Table 113: Status of Various Welfare Schemes (Food and Non-Food Related) facility Per cent (%) benefit Type of Schemes Name of schemes received household Housing Indra Awas Yojana 12.50 Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana 0.00 Mo Kudia/Biju Pucca Ghar Yojana 0.00 Nirman Shramik Pucca Ghar Yojana 0.00 Food security NFSM/Antyodaya Yojana 50.00 Annapurna Scheme 0.00 Employment NREGS 37.50 Biju Atma Nijukti Yojana 0.00 Health care Navojyoti 0.00 Reproductive Child Health cere 0.00 Biju Krushak Kalyan Yojana (health insurance) 0.00 Mamata Yojana 0.00 ICDS 0.00 Others Pension Schemes 12.50 No benefit received Any no Govt. welfare schemes received 25.00

Fig. 50

82

APPENDIX

Students Research guided

P.G. and Ph.D. research work through supported by AICRP-MSPE project Name of Degree Thesis title Remark student Shubham M. Sc. (Ag.) Assessment of micronutrients and heavy Thesis Priya Tiu metals content in soil and plant of Sahibganj Submitted District in Jharkhand ( 2018) Prem Ranjan M. Sc. (Ag.) GPS enabled study on micro & Secondary Continue Kumar nutrient status in intensive cropped areas of Ranchi District Pranshu M. Sc. (Ag.) Trace Metal Accumulation in Wheat as Continued Arunima Affected Under Long Term Fertilizer Experiment in a Red and Lateritic Soil of Jharkhand Note: Analysis of micronutrients and heavy metals in all curricular research programme running under different faculty of University (Agriculture, Veterinary and Forestry) also done in MSPE Lab.

Published Research Papers

1. Arvind Kumar, Manas Denre and Ruplal Prasad (2017). Concentration of trace metals and potential health risk assessment via consumption of food crops in the South Chotanagpur of Jharkhand, India Concentration of trace metals and potential health risk assessment via consumption of food crops in the South Chotanagpur of Jharkhand, India. The Pharma Innovation Journal 6(9): 164-167. 2. Arvind Kumar, Manas Denre and Ruplal Prasad (2017). Appraisal of quality of irrigation water around Khunti district of Jharkhand, India. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry 6(6): 442-447. 3. Arvind Kumar, Manas Denre, Ruplal Prasad, D.K. Shahi, B.K. Agarwal (2017). Effect of zinc application on biological yields of hybrid rice (Oryza sativa L.) under low land situation in Jharkhand, India. Research Journal of Chemical and Environmental Sciences 5 (5): 40-43. 4. Arvind Kumar, Manas Denre and Ruplal Prasad (2018). Assessing the status of available Micro, Secondary and Pollutant Elements in Soil of Khunti District, Jharkhand, India. International Journal of Ecology and Environmental Sciences 44(1): 59-66. 5. Jai Prakash Kumar, B. K. Agarwal, Arvind Kumar, D. K. Shahi and Manas Denre (2018). Assessing the Status of Available Micro, Secondary and Pollutant Elements in soil of Dumka District, Jharkhand, India. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences 7: 561-568. 6. Jai Prakash Kumar, B. K. Agarwal, Arvind Kumar, S. B. Kumar and Ruplal Prasad (2018). Appraisal of Quality of Irrigation Water around Dumka District of Jharkhand, India. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences 7: 569-575.

I 7. Arvind Kumar, Manas Denre and Ruplal Prasad (2018). Assessing the Status of Available Micro, Secondary and Pollutant Elements in Soil of Khunti District, Jharkhand, India. International Journal of Ecology and Environmental Sciences 44 (1): 59-66.

Book Chapter

1. Sahoo, A.K., Singh, S.K., Nayak, D.C, Mukhopadhyay, S., Banerjee, T., Sarkar, D., Sarkar, A.K., Agarwal, B.K., Shahi, D.K. and Arvind Kumar (2017). Soil acidity and poor nutrient status emerging issues for agricultural land use planning in Jamtara district of Jharkhand. Book: Sustainable management of land resources (Reddy GPO, Patil NG, Chaturvedi A). Apple Academic Press. ISBN: 978-1-315-36556-5, pp. 485-510. 2. Sarkar, A.K., Arvind Kumar, P. Mahapatra (2017), Long-term vision on management of acid soils. 82nd Annual convention of Indian Society of Soil Science, Kolkata chapter, Souvenir pp. 45-60.

Abstract in seminar and symposium

1. Participated in National Seminar on “Nutrients and pollutants in soil-plant-human continuum for sustaining soil, food and nutritional security-way forward” at BCKV, Kalyani, West Bengal, from 9th to 10th June, 2017 and presented following papers: ➢ Oral: Appraisal of Quality of Irrigation Water around Khunti District of Jharkhand, India. ➢ Poster: Assessing the Status of Available Micro, Secondary and Pollutant Elements in Soil of Khunti District, Jharkhand 2. Participated in 82nd annual convention of ISSS from 11-14 Dec. 2017 at Kolkata and presented following paper ➢ Oral: Special evaluation of water quality for irrigation in Dumka district of Jharkhand, India. 3. Participated in QRT meeting of ICAR at OUAT, Bhubaneshwar, Odisha from 6-9 March, 2018 and presented following Report:

Extension

➢ Visited Garhwa district to investigate pollutant land in Kabisha village of Ramana block as a member in constituted committee by Hon’ble Vice-Chancellor, BAU under Chairmanship of Dr. B.K. Agarwal, Chief Scientist, Dept. of Soil Science. ➢ Attended in programme on Soil World Day (5.12.2017) at Auditorium hall, BAU, Kanke, Ranchi. ➢ Attended in an Awareness programme on Soil World Day in Nagri village, Kanke on 6.12.217 that organized by dept. of SSAC, BAU, Ranchi. ➢ Attended IPNI Scholar Award ceremony in Board room of BAU, Ranchi on dated 8th Feb. 2018.

II Farmers’ Day/ Field Day/ On Spot Advice/ Krishi Melas conducted in Tribal areas to increase the awareness regarding the use of micro- and secondary nutrients for enhancing crop productivity.

State/ Centre No. of Programmes & No. of Beneficiaries Location Ranchi Centre, Jharkhand On Spot Advice at 75 150 Locations in different blocks of and Bokaro districts of Jharkhand during delineation programme

III References

Chesnin, L. and Yien, C.H. (1951). Turbimetric determination of available sulphate in soils. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings, 15: 149-151. Cui, Y.J., Zhu, Y.G., Zhai, R.H., Chen, D.Y., Huang, Z.H., Qiu, Y. (2004). Transfer of metals from soil to vegetables in an area near a smelter in Nanning, China. Environmental Int. 30: 785-791. Datta et al., 2017. Published in Souvenir, 82nd Annual convention of Indian Society of Soil Science, Kolkata chapter. Datta, S..P, Bhadoria, P.B.S. and Ker, S. (1998). Availability of extractable boron in some acid soils, West Bengal, India. Communications in soil science and plant analysis, 29: 2285-2306. Food and Nutrition Board (2004). Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs): Recommended Intakes for Individuals. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, USA. Gupta, U. C. 1967.A simplified method for determining hot water-soluble boron in podzol soils. Soil Sci. 103:424–428. Jackson, M.L. (1967). Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice Hall India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Jackson, M.L. (1973). Soil Chemical Analysis. Pratice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Kabata-Pendias, A. (2011) Trace elements in soils and plants, 4th ed. Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton London New York. Lindsay, W.L. and Norvell, W.A. (1978). Development of a DTPA soil test for Zn, Fe, Mn and Cu. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 42: 421-428. Nelson, D.W. and Sommer, L.E. (1982). Total carbon, organic carbon and organic matter. In Methods of Soil Analysis. Part II Chemical and Microbiological Properties (A.L. Page, R.H. Miller and D.R. Keeney, Eds.) 2nd edition, ASA-SSSA, Madison, USA, pp. 539-579. Page, A.L., Miller, R.H. and Keeney, D.R. (1982). Methods of Soil Analysis. Part II Chemical and Microbiological Properties. 2nd Edition. ASA-SSSA, Madison, USA. Rowe, D.R. and Abdel-Magid, I. M. (1995). Handbook of Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, London, New York, Washington, D.C., CRC Press LLC, 576 Pages, ISBN 0-87371-671-X. Singh, A., Sharma, R.K., Agrawal, M. and Marshall, F.M. (2010). Health risk assessment of heavy metals via dietary intake of foodstuffs from the wastewater irrigated site of a dry tropical area of India. Food Chem. Toxicol, 48: 612 2010. Trivedi, R.K. and Goel, P.K. (1984). Chemical and biological methods for water pollution studies environmental publication, Karad, India. Tsafe, I., Hassan, L.G., Sahabi, D.M., Alhassan, Y., Bala, B.M. (2012). Evaluation of heavy metals uptake and risk assessment of vegetables grown in Yargalma of North Nigeria. J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res., 2: 6708-6714. USEPA (United State Environmental Protection Agency) (2011). USEPA Regional Screening Level (RSL) Summary table: November 2011. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/regshwmd/risk/human/index.htm,last update: 20th January, 2014. USEPA (United State Environmental Protection Agency) (2012). EPA Region III Risk- Based Concentration (RBC) table 2008 Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

IV Walkley, A. and Black, I. (1934). An examination of the Degtejareff method for determining soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Science 37, 29-38. WHO (World Health Organization). Evaluation of certain food additives and contaminants. 41st report of the joint FAO/WHO expert committee on food additives. Technical report series. Geneva: WHO; 1993. Williams, C.H. and Steinbergs, A. 1959. Soil sulphur fractions and chemical indices of available sulphur in some Eastern Australian soils. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 10: 340-352.

V

Physicochemical properties of soils in Koderma district Sl. Name of Land GPS reading pH EC OC Micronutrients (mg kg-1) S Heavy metals No. Blocks Situation (dS m-1) (g kg-1) (mg (mg kg-1) Latitude Longitude Alt. (m) Fe Mn Zn Cu B kg-1) Pb Ni Co 1 Satgawan Upland N24º39′39.3″ E 85º46′51.8″ 165 6.98 0.19 9.49 36.40 23.60 0.48 1.66 0.58 6.17 1.34 1.50 1.12 2 Satgawan Medium land N24º39′37.3″ E 85º46′51.0″ 161 7.73 0.31 0.92 25.00 15.06 0.54 1.20 0.58 7.2 1.12 0.82 1.12 3 Satgawan Medium land N24º39′35.9″ E 85º46′51.3″ 160 6.93 0.26 5.2 29.60 29.40 0.74 1.92 0.35 4.8 1.12 1.38 0.78 4 Satgawan Low land N24º39′45.3″ E 85º47′22.9″ 152 8.23 0.29 8.72 27.60 16.70 0.48 2.04 0.55 9.26 2.62 1.02 0.88 5 Satgawan Medium land N24º40′30.8″ E 85º47′18.0″ 147 6.76 0.11 7.5 33.00 24.40 0.50 1.54 0.34 3.43 1.70 1.42 1.22 6 Satgawan Upland N24º41′07.3″ E 85º47′23.3″ 150 6.83 0.22 4.9 15.90 16.28 0.36 0.92 0.42 4.46 0.94 1.16 1.28 7 Satgawan Medium land N24º41′35.3″ E 85º47′36.5″ 149 7.43 0.23 7.04 19.70 13.38 0.32 1.52 0.54 9.26 2.14 1.04 1.36 8 Satgawan Medium land N24º41′57.0″ E 85º47′42.0″ 153 5.97 0.12 9.64 41.40 21.00 0.62 1.44 0.34 4.11 2.64 1.60 1.70 9 Satgawan Upland N24º42′20.8″ E 85º47′44.0″ 137 7.80 0.50 5.66 13.92 15.96 0.52 0.96 0.54 5.83 1.44 0.72 0.58 10 Satgawan Upland N24º42′42.0″ E 85º47′40.7″ 134 6.50 0.25 3.06 13.02 22.40 0.44 1.00 0.75 6.17 0.94 1.04 1.26 11 Satgawan Upland N24º42′56.0″ E 85º47′41.2″ 135 6.71 0.29 10.1 43.60 29.20 1.58 2.18 0.78 15.08 1.14 2.12 1.22 12 Satgawan Medium land N24º43′17.2″ E 85º47′45.2″ 130 5.94 0.07 5.66 23.40 22.60 0.52 0.96 0.83 3.77 0.92 1.64 1.22 13 Satgawan Medium land N24º43′36.4″ E 85º47′51.1″ 130 8.03 0.38 3.21 8.34 9.86 0.98 0.90 0.64 6.17 0.84 1.16 1.20 14 Satgawan Medium land N24º42′45.5″ E 85º47′37.7″ 134 7.79 0.47 5.97 19.14 11.50 0.58 1.44 0.79 7.54 1.06 0.76 0.80 15 Satgawan Upland N24º43′18.7″ E 85º47′42.8″ 132 8.17 0.44 5.82 3.84 9.34 0.94 0.64 0.69 6.86 1.10 0.84 1.22 16 Satgawan Medium land N24º44′19.7″ E 85º47′18.1″ 126 7.12 0.28 6.7 32.20 26.00 0.58 1.62 0.46 11.31 1.16 0.56 1.52 17 Satgawan Medium land N24º44′26.9″ E 85º47′06.0″ 126 7.54 0.44 5.85 8.06 15.38 1.38 0.94 1.00 6.51 0.84 0.14 0.82 18 Satgawan Medium land N24º45′41.3″ E 85º46′37.2″ 117 7.78 0.52 7.19 19.96 12.10 0.70 1.86 0.56 15.77 1.58 0.36 1.18 19 Satgawan Medium land N24º46′22.6″ E 85º45′24.5″ 120 8.44 0.48 7.5 23.60 12.46 0.70 1.80 0.61 15.08 0.78 0.68 1.38 20 Satgawan Medium land N24º46′18.8″ E 85º45′46.9″ 121 8.12 0.57 8.11 19.92 14.46 0.68 1.56 0.88 18.85 1.10 0.72 1.08 21 Satgawan Medium land N24º44′32.8″ E 85º47′07.4″ 126 8.08 0.86 10.41 30.40 17.50 1.52 2.00 1.57 42.32 1.48 0.98 1.42 22 Satgawan Medium land N24º45′32.9″ E 85º46′53.5″ 122 7.40 0.33 4.74 26.20 17.40 0.98 1.48 0.64 13.37 2.16 0.86 1.00 23 Satgawan Medium land N24º44′33.8″ E 85º47′10.7″ 129 5.91 0.10 7.19 25.20 23.40 0.82 1.56 0.49 5.14 2.64 1.32 1.62 24 Satgawan Medium land N24º44′51.7″ E 85º47′05.9″ 125 6.80 0.29 6.73 19.48 23.00 1.20 1.80 0.71 13.37 0.96 1.74 1.06 25 Satgawan Medium land N24º45′37.9″ E 85º47′10.2″ 120 7.72 0.42 7.35 33.80 15.80 1.14 1.90 0.56 22.97 1.68 0.88 0.86 26 Satgawan Medium land N24º45′58.5″ E 85º46′25.4″ 120 7.36 0.62 9.34 25.60 17.82 2.30 1.52 1.27 39.76 1.64 1.30 0.44 27 Satgawan Medium land N24º46′07.9″ E 85º46′20.7″ 122 8.16 0.22 5.66 24.80 9.20 1.08 1.50 0.74 6.86 0.40 0.60 0.86 28 Satgawan Upland N24º46′14.5″ E 85º46′00.9″ 119 5.74 0.02 4.13 36.60 10.70 0.58 0.88 0.30 6.17 2.84 0.38 1.04 29 Satgawan Medium land N24º45′43.3″ E 85º44′06.2″ 134 5.14 0.03 2.91 32.40 33.00 0.38 1.58 0.40 4.8 1.88 0.84 0.68 30 Satgawan Medium land N24º45′30.4″ E 85º44′29.8″ 130 7.41 0.10 1.22 20.80 14.84 0.54 1.64 0.25 9.6 1.10 0.30 0.84 31 Satgawan Medium land N24º44′35.8″ E 85º46′51.2″ 130 7.17 0.26 7.29 18.02 14.78 0.46 1.78 0.43 19.2 2.16 0.84 1.56 32 Satgawan Medium land N24º43′48.9″ E 85º47′47.7″ 133 7.33 0.19 4.07 29.40 17.16 0.64 2.16 0.26 12.34 2.08 0.82 1.04 i

33 Satgawan Medium land N24º43′30.4″ E 85º48′00.0″ 136 6.99 0.35 7.99 26.60 19.28 0.60 2.06 0.67 16.8 1.98 0.76 1.20 34 Satgawan Medium land N24º43′08.3″ E 85º48′22.9″ 133 7.12 0.26 5.89 28.00 22.80 0.52 2.24 0.50 15.08 2.00 0.92 1.10 35 Satgawan Medium land N24º43′08.3″ E 85º48′22.9″ 136 7.34 0.25 8.13 21.20 13.08 0.82 2.10 0.43 7.2 2.90 0.68 1.08 36 Satgawan Low Land N24º43′14.6″ E 85º48′10.9″ 134 5.52 0.04 5.89 37.40 21.40 0.38 2.06 0.41 4.8 3.48 0.82 0.98 37 Satgawan Low Land N24º39′33.8″ E 85º46′35.1″ 176 5.38 0.03 4.63 28.80 13.14 0.44 0.78 0.25 4.8 1.62 0.56 1.20 38 Satgawan Medium land N24º39′54.1″ E 85º47′04.4″ 165 4.75 0.06 4.91 37.40 21.80 0.64 2.08 0.23 4.46 3.52 0.80 1.10 39 Satgawan Medium land N24º43′27.8″ E 85º47′50.1″ 133 6.61 0.29 5.19 25.20 14.20 0.84 1.70 0.60 7.88 2.10 1.12 1.02 40 Satgawan Medium land N24º40′38.5″ E 85º47′20.1″ 157 6.64 0.32 4.77 29.80 11.94 0.52 1.86 0.30 9.6 1.62 0.86 0.80 41 Domchanch Upland N24º30′20.1″ E 85º43′29.4″ 383 5.21 0.17 13.18 26.80 23.80 2.80 0.84 1.07 8.23 1.82 0.86 1.04 42 Domchanch Medium land N24º29′42.6″ E 85º43′03.7″ 390 5.40 0.10 4.77 24.80 22.40 0.72 0.68 0.44 7.2 1.60 0.90 0.82 43 Domchanch Medium land N24º29′31.1″ E 85º42′54.9″ 374 4.74 0.09 5.89 40.00 29.60 0.16 1.20 0.60 37.71 1.38 0.92 1.12 44 Domchanch Medium land N24º29′13.8″ E 85º42′35.0″ 383 5.29 0.12 8.41 44.60 33.20 0.38 2.36 0.41 9.26 3.00 1.30 1.38 45 Domchanch Low land N24º30′20.8″ E 85º43′21.2″ 384 5.28 0.09 4.49 36.00 39.20 0.44 1.70 0.22 2.74 3.10 1.02 1.78 46 Domchanch Low land N24º28′55.9″ E 85º42′23.3″ 378 7.06 0.75 7.14 47.00 28.80 0.36 2.28 0.27 4.46 2.82 1.06 1.56 47 Domchanch Medium land N24º28′28.6″ E 85º42′16.8″ 366 4.25 0.43 3.35 19.94 25.40 0.28 1.38 0.88 17.48 1.42 0.80 1.64 48 Domchanch Medium land N24º28′12.3″ E 85º42′19.2″ 371 4.84 0.19 10.78 46.00 27.40 0.52 2.74 0.51 11.31 2.62 0.80 1.22 49 Domchanch Low land N24º28′08.2″ E 85º42′01.1″ 375 4.30 0.06 7.72 52.40 23.40 0.76 2.46 0.21 4.46 3.06 0.88 1.08 50 Domchanch Upland N24º28′11.2″ E 85º41′02.8″ 385 4.56 0.23 11.07 51.20 16.12 0.40 2.34 0.42 28.11 2.68 0.80 1.04 51 Domchanch Upland N24º28′04.5″ E 85º40′59.7″ 383 4.49 0.11 7.28 46.40 14.32 0.52 2.24 0.65 10.97 1.90 1.10 0.92 52 Domchanch Low land N24º28′29.0″ E 85º42′15.9″ 364 6.52 0.62 8.3 42.80 31.00 0.76 1.76 0.27 52.45 2.36 1.14 1.20 53 Domchanch Low land N24º28′29.1″ E 85º42′13.6″ 365 6.61 0.59 5.83 50.60 10.82 0.74 2.48 0.36 24.68 2.42 0.84 1.02 54 Domchanch Medium land N24º27′57.5″ E 85º41′01.5″ 380 5.88 0.71 12.96 50.60 11.00 0.50 2.28 0.42 44.56 2.58 1.06 0.62 55 Domchanch Medium land N24º27′51.6″ E 85º40′57.4″ 378 5.34 0.32 5.53 45.00 11.98 0.40 2.28 0.15 12.68 1.36 1.14 0.76 56 Domchanch Low land N24º28′23.1″ E 85º42′22.5″ 364 4.59 0.06 10.63 51.60 13.80 0.58 2.46 0.70 53.82 1.50 1.14 0.92 57 Domchanch Low land N24º27′39.0″ E 85º40′48.8″ 390 5.12 0.49 10.05 38.20 19.36 0.82 1.82 0.54 37.36 1.52 0.82 0.86 58 Domchanch Low land N24º27′51.7″ E 85º43′16.3″ 365 6.48 0.80 10.34 55.60 27.20 1.00 2.76 0.46 49.47 1.54 0.70 0.94 59 Domchanch Medium land N24º27′48.9″ E 85º42′56.3″ 370 6.41 0.33 7.86 40.80 8.14 0.58 1.74 0.46 20.22 0.60 1.14 1.12 60 Domchanch Upland N24º27′53.2″ E 85º42′45.0″ 372 5.34 0.04 6.99 41.00 5.96 0.74 1.82 0.62 4.8 1.06 0.82 0.76 61 Koderma Low land N24º28′25.3″ E 85º38′27.7″ 385 7.59 0.37 12.45 32.00 31.20 0.72 1.54 0.86 26.39 1.46 0.94 1.06 62 Koderma Low land N24º28′27.8″ E 85º38′26.9″ 385 7.33 0.38 10.69 14.64 20.80 0.42 0.70 0.42 56.9 0.64 1.16 0.86 63 Koderma Low land N24º28′30.6″ E 85º38′26.8″ 385 7.08 0.41 6.84 57.20 10.50 0.88 2.92 0.58 32.91 1.20 0.88 0.64 64 Koderma Medium land N24º28′25.8″ E 85º37′28.9″ 389 8.15 0.35 7.33 54.60 34.60 1.24 3.44 0.58 13.37 1.90 1.34 1.18 65 Koderma Medium land N24º28′24.9″ E 85º37′23.5″ 389 5.37 0.09 9.68 47.80 29.20 1.04 3.36 0.29 7.2 1.32 1.70 0.26 66 Markacho Medium land N24º19′20.8″ E 85º46′24.6″ 302 5.04 0.10 7.22 49.60 14.36 1.04 2.52 0.33 4.11 1.92 1.88 0.58 67 Markacho Medium land N24º19′21.2″ E 85º47′16.8″ 333 5.35 0.17 4.14 57.60 32.00 0.74 3.26 0.30 6.86 1.38 1.10 0.56 68 Markacho Low Land N24º19′25.3″ E 85º46′26.5″ 301 6.41 0.27 17.62 38.40 27.60 0.72 2.26 0.46 16.45 1.28 1.36 0.82 ii

69 Markacho Low Land N24º19′18.0″ E 85º48′05.1″ 321 6.30 0.38 12 46.60 32.60 0.96 3.58 0.30 50.39 2.88 1.54 0.40 70 Markacho Upland N24º19′24.7″ E 85º46′30.6″ 308 4.71 0.06 4.33 40.60 13.88 0.68 3.16 0.28 4.46 3.28 1.26 0.08 71 Markacho Upland N24º19′19.1″ E 85º48′55.3″ 314 5.80 0.08 1.25 36.20 17.54 0.64 2.70 0.28 0.69 4.08 0.90 0.68 72 Markacho Low land N24º19′21.4″ E 85º49′09.5″ 321 5.29 0.17 6 47.80 34.40 0.72 2.54 0.36 5.83 4.34 0.82 0.54 73 Markacho Low land N24º19′27.2″ E 85º46′36.5″ 309 6.05 0.12 9.04 49.20 24.20 0.88 3.08 0.30 6.86 2.34 1.64 0.02 74 Markacho Medium land N24º19′23.3″ E 85º47′36.1″ 329 5.36 0.13 8.08 53.60 28.60 0.72 2.96 0.43 4.8 2.46 0.94 0.58 75 Markacho Upland N24º19′18.5″ E 85º48′12.6″ 320 5.05 0.04 0.82 51.80 35.80 0.66 2.58 0.43 2.06 2.08 1.48 0.60 76 Markacho Upland N24º20′02.2″ E 85º50′23.9″ 334 4.77 0.06 1.85 37.60 30.00 0.68 2.36 0.67 9.94 3.16 1.50 0.86 77 Markacho Upland N24º20′48.7″ E 85º49′39.3″ 344 4.69 0.02 0.96 31.40 22.80 0.52 1.32 0.49 7.54 1.96 1.14 1.66 78 Markacho Medium land N24º20′57.6″ E 85º49′35.8″ 342 4.98 0.06 4.31 14.70 16.62 0.86 1.94 0.50 7.2 2.40 1.20 0.84 79 Markacho Medium land N24º21′20.6″ E 85º49′21.7″ 360 5.02 0.04 2.82 53.80 9.14 1.24 2.32 0.42 6.51 3.30 1.10 0.16 80 Markacho Low land N24º21′28.9″ E 85º49′19.1″ 364 5.69 0.08 6.41 36.00 25.00 1.28 2.24 0.37 9.94 2.52 1.74 1.20 81 Markacho Low land N24º20′01.4″ E 85º50′30.6″ 331 6.61 0.18 5.53 27.00 30.80 2.14 1.78 0.57 17.82 1.72 1.18 0.86 82 Markacho Upland N24º20′10.6″ E 85º50′05.3″ 344 4.63 0.09 4.49 25.40 24.60 1.48 1.92 0.51 7.54 1.68 1.10 1.00 83 Markacho Medium land N24º21′45.9″ E 85º49′16.9″ 373 6.37 0.28 6.47 22.00 19.40 1.92 0.80 0.55 29.48 0.66 1.42 0.72 84 Markacho Medium land N24º21′55.6″ E 85º49′18.2″ 365 6.31 0.23 0.87 34.20 25.60 0.94 1.46 0.48 12.68 0.44 1.68 0.32 85 Markacho Medium land N24º22′03.6″ E 85º49′21.6″ 375 5.47 0.10 8.25 49.20 8.00 1.12 1.70 0.51 10.28 1.36 1.14 0.80 86 Markacho Low land N24º20′43.1″ E 85º49′33.7″ 339 6.26 0.27 8.2 48.60 26.00 2.62 2.42 0.44 16.45 2.12 1.38 0.26 87 Markacho Low land N24º22′13.9″ E 85º49′26.5″ 377 6.40 0.12 5.89 54.00 40.00 1.40 2.88 0.61 10.28 1.62 2.08 0.32 88 Markacho Upland N24º22′24.0″ E 85º49′25.3″ 372 5.15 0.09 0.87 39.80 21.00 0.76 1.96 0.48 8.91 1.06 1.38 0.44 89 Markacho Low land N24º22′38.5″ E 85º49′19.2″ 374 6.34 0.23 8.92 23.80 18.48 0.76 1.80 0.69 15.08 1.40 1.10 0.20 90 Markacho Low land N24º22′58.8″ E 85º48′56.9″ 383 6.99 0.27 6.6 38.60 19.84 0.96 4.02 0.68 18.85 3.26 0.88 0.64 91 Markacho Medium land N24º23′20.2″ E 85º48′46.3″ 380 5.15 0.17 5.88 40.20 21.20 0.82 2.22 0.61 8.91 1.98 1.26 0.30 92 Markacho Medium land N24º23′26.6″ E 85º48′46.3″ 384 5.45 0.16 3.61 35.80 18.24 0.48 1.44 0.64 12.34 1.44 1.16 0.52 93 Markacho Upland N24º21′01.6″ E 85º49′30.4″ 349 5.07 0.05 4.53 14.24 20.40 0.60 0.64 0.43 6.51 0.82 1.08 0.50 94 Markacho Medium land N24º23′41.3″ E 85º48′46.0″ 379 4.44 0.03 7.7 41.00 32.60 1.06 4.12 0.61 6.17 2.14 1.18 1.22 95 Markacho Medium land N24º23′56.2″ E 85º48′43.5″ 382 4.51 0.02 6.56 44.20 27.40 0.94 2.80 0.56 7.2 1.64 1.18 0.62 96 Markacho Medium land N24º23′58.9″ E 85º48′41.7″ 383 5.32 0.07 7.51 48.60 28.40 0.92 3.10 0.62 13.03 1.68 1.26 0.70 97 Markacho Low land N24º21′55.9″ E 85º49′23.0″ 366 5.44 0.08 7.18 45.20 24.60 0.60 2.30 0.89 22.62 1.14 1.32 0.50 98 Markacho Low land N24º24′23.5″ E 85º48′36.8″ 380 5.14 0.14 6.56 53.40 25.20 0.78 2.66 0.67 18.51 1.58 1.54 0.32 99 Markacho Upland N24º21′56.5″ E 85º49′25.1″ 368 4.71 0.13 6.63 37.40 35.20 0.76 2.44 0.65 7.54 1.82 1.52 1.00 100 Markacho Badiland N24º21′57.0″ E 85º49′23.6″ 370 5.19 0.39 9.66 33.00 31.20 1.36 2.72 1.33 17.14 1.62 1.10 0.72 101 Markacho Badiland N24º24′44.6″ E 85º48′38.9″ 380 5.41 0.21 6.39 28.40 30.80 1.08 2.22 0.56 21.94 0.82 0.64 0.82 102 Markacho Upland N24º26′18.2″ E 85º49′14.5″ 392 6.47 0.14 3.84 30.00 22.00 0.54 1.70 0.95 9.94 0.98 0.88 0.44 103 Markacho Medium land N24º26′22.6″ E 85º49′15.3″ 382 6.34 0.17 5.93 42.60 20.20 0.38 2.06 0.39 12.68 1.04 1.06 0.12 104 Markacho Low land N24º26′35.9″ E 85º49′19.9″ 387 5.77 0.14 6.41 43.80 21.00 0.50 2.32 0.46 13.37 2.16 1.02 0.62 iii

105 Markacho Upland N24º26′39.3″ E 85º49′15.7″ 390 5.89 0.07 5.42 28.00 32.60 0.62 2.06 0.50 6.17 1.40 0.90 0.68 106 Markacho Medium land N24º26′39.1″ E 85º49′08.5″ 388 5.83 0.21 5.57 39.80 26.00 0.46 1.88 0.36 9.94 1.72 0.60 0.44 107 Markacho Low Land N24º26′40.0″ E 85º48′58.0″ 385 6.00 0.24 9.04 49.00 25.60 0.50 2.76 1.03 20.57 1.54 0.58 0.62 108 Domchanch Low Land N24º25′58.9″ E 85º46′52.6″ 368 7.77 0.40 6.16 35.60 10.94 0.66 2.02 0.68 18.85 0.88 0.64 0.72 109 Domchanch Low Land N24º25′50.5″ E 85º46′34.2″ 365 4.58 0.38 7.43 30.80 9.66 0.92 2.78 0.46 18.51 1.68 0.92 0.44 110 Domchanch Low land N24º25′53.8″ E 85º46′12.5″ 368 7.08 0.37 6.43 34.40 17.36 0.74 2.70 0.71 31.19 1.36 1.14 0.80 111 Domchanch Upland N24º26′00.8″ E 85º46′03.4″ 365 5.39 0.09 7.18 31.40 9.30 0.98 2.04 0.43 7.54 1.80 0.68 0.62 112 Domchanch Medium land N24º26′22.7″ E 85º45′38.1″ 372 6.26 0.28 6.2 41.60 9.94 0.82 1.90 0.56 37.71 1.46 1.12 0.44 113 Domchanch Upland N24º26′52.9″ E 85º45′31.9″ 368 6.76 0.28 8.59 40.00 27.40 1.60 2.96 0.69 26.05 1.34 1.24 0.24 114 Domchanch Medium land N24º26′57.6″ E 85º45′22.2″ 370 6.90 0.22 5.96 28.80 16.46 1.04 2.60 0.58 15.43 1.80 1.00 0.04 115 Domchanch Low land N24º26′50.6″ E 85º45′32.1″ 368 6.09 0.59 8.56 46.80 19.40 1.88 3.16 0.47 56.13 1.80 1.18 0.44 116 Domchanch Medium land N24º27′10.8″ E 85º44′52.9″ 355 5.20 0.21 8.12 36.40 19.26 1.08 2.14 0.77 8.91 1.34 1.38 0.38 117 Domchanch Upland N24º27′10.6″ E 85º44′49.4″ 355 6.00 0.11 7.96 25.00 21.60 0.88 1.46 0.56 5.83 1.54 1.22 0.62 118 Domchanch Medium land N24º27′19.8″ E 85º44′49.6″ 358 6.44 0.44 4.98 26.60 22.80 1.08 1.86 0.61 12.68 0.72 1.46 0.06 119 Domchanch Medium land N24º27′37.5″ E 85º44′28.8″ 357 5.98 0.22 5.65 27.00 25.40 0.98 2.78 0.75 8.23 1.42 0.94 0.14 120 Domchanch Medium land N24º27′57.7″ E 85º44′08.3″ 362 5.96 0.22 6.45 32.40 32.60 1.10 2.64 0.57 10.97 1.78 1.34 0.46 121 Domchanch Medium land N24º27′58.6″ E 85º44′00.3″ 362 6.99 0.28 10.05 35.60 21.20 0.88 2.24 0.71 10.28 1.38 1.16 0.26 122 Domchanch Badiland N24º27′46.5″ E 85º44′31.4″ 360 6.00 0.21 12.87 33.20 14.86 1.96 1.30 1.22 8.23 1.22 0.74 0.22 123 Domchanch Medium land N24º27′55.4″ E 85º43′46.1″ 355 5.13 0.24 7.68 45.60 16.24 1.26 2.04 0.72 16.45 1.18 0.80 0.30 124 Domchanch Badiland N24º27′40.9″ E 85º44′22.9″ 361 5.72 0.25 9.14 41.80 16.40 2.26 1.40 1.00 7.54 0.76 0.78 0.04 125 Domchanch Badiland N24º27′59.8″ E 85º42′26.7″ 372 6.60 0.40 8.81 17.74 19.32 2.94 1.02 1.24 30.85 1.02 0.98 0.58 126 Domchanch Badiland N24º27′40.8″ E 85º44′17.6″ 362 5.31 0.19 8.06 30.20 19.46 1.46 1.20 1.10 12 1.36 0.70 0.06 127 Domchanch Upland N24º28′06.3″ E 85º42′14.5″ 370 5.99 0.11 5.45 26.20 23.00 0.74 1.00 0.43 9.26 1.34 0.48 0.56 128 Domchanch Medium land N24º28′08.8″ E 85º42′01.1″ 371 5.03 0.05 6.5 16.78 10.22 0.78 1.84 0.98 8.91 2.22 1.04 0.50 129 Domchanch Medium land N24º28′11.6″ E 85º41′53.9″ 372 5.61 0.09 4.71 39.80 17.90 0.68 2.10 0.50 11.31 1.90 0.94 0.56 130 Domchanch Badiland N24º28′05.1″ E 85º42′14.2″ 373 5.31 0.19 6.12 37.60 24.40 3.18 1.66 0.90 10.97 0.92 1.32 0.74 131 Domchanch Medium land N24º28′06.5″ E 85º42′09.6″ 370 5.53 0.02 4.56 27.40 19.84 2.04 1.46 0.70 9.94 0.40 0.56 0.74 132 Domchanch Medium land N24º28′13.9″ E 85º41′54.6″ 373 7.13 0.46 2.72 16.34 12.00 2.00 0.66 0.88 18.51 0.44 0.40 0.86 133 Domchanch Medium land N24º28′16.5″ E 85º41′39.9″ 378 6.78 0.42 7.96 17.20 21.00 0.52 2.16 0.81 20.22 0.76 0.72 1.30 134 Domchanch Medium land N24º28′17.8″ E 85º41′24.3″ 385 6.57 0.58 10.72 32.00 26.20 0.62 2.94 1.36 34.28 1.58 1.18 1.34 135 Domchanch Medium land N24º28′29.0″ E 85º41′32.5″ 380 6.42 0.57 6.77 40.60 21.60 0.66 2.56 1.02 23.99 1.32 1.02 0.22 136 Domchanch Medium land N24º28′30.6″ E 85º41′38.2″ 382 5.92 0.60 9.01 52.80 29.60 0.80 3.66 0.98 21.94 1.86 1.02 0.96 137 Domchanch Medium land N24º28′23.1″ E 85º40′45.3″ 390 5.79 0.17 6.86 46.40 31.00 0.82 3.28 0.91 17.14 1.52 0.72 0.96 138 Domchanch Low land N24º28′15.6″ E 85º41′45.3″ 372 6.06 0.48 6.99 39.60 28.00 1.10 3.36 1.00 20.22 1.86 1.00 0.64 139 Koderma Medium land N24º25′22.1″ E 85º30′29.6″ 373 7.18 0.37 6.45 40.00 30.00 1.04 3.26 1.29 17.14 2.00 1.10 0.76 140 Koderma Medium land N24º25′11.3″ E 85º30′24.1″ 364 6.37 0.24 5.13 32.60 29.40 0.84 2.58 0.96 9.94 1.72 1.02 0.60 iv

141 Koderma Medium land N24º25′06.9″ E 85º30′17.6″ 380 6.72 0.34 7.81 42.80 25.80 1.14 3.12 0.62 16.8 1.64 1.12 0.76 142 Koderma Low land N24º24′54.0″ E 85º30′00.7″ 370 6.40 0.39 8.15 53.20 31.60 1.08 3.18 1.29 17.48 1.84 1.46 1.16 143 Koderma Low land N24º24′40.3″ E 85º30′18.6″ 368 6.60 0.37 5.57 60.00 24.20 0.94 3.08 0.83 27.42 1.04 1.10 0.62 144 Koderma Upland N24º24′26.6″ E 85º30′27.7″ 373 5.07 0.10 1.33 44.40 36.80 0.82 2.14 0.63 8.91 1.30 0.98 0.64 145 Koderma Medium land N24º24′25.4″ E 85º30′19.0″ 368 5.23 0.23 6.61 61.60 34.40 3.34 5.40 0.76 20.57 1.20 2.18 1.20 146 Koderma Medium land N24º24′16.9″ E 85º30′15.0″ 367 4.90 0.05 4.22 55.40 21.00 1.56 3.64 0.82 7.2 1.60 0.84 1.30 147 Koderma Medium land N24º24′18.0″ E 85º30′12.1″ 370 6.28 0.46 2.65 31.40 23.80 0.66 1.74 0.54 9.94 1.76 0.54 0.74 148 Koderma Badiland N24º24′19.7″ E 85º30′09.1″ 365 5.98 0.22 4.79 21.80 25.40 0.98 1.36 0.98 9.94 1.20 0.94 0.16 149 Koderma Medium land N24º24′21.4″ E 85º30′00.5″ 368 6.33 0.31 7.74 36.20 23.00 1.04 2.34 0.60 9.6 1.78 1.00 0.58 150 Koderma Medium land N24º24′31.0″ E 85º30′02.7″ 373 5.50 0.17 8.54 48.00 34.20 1.00 2.54 0.67 8.57 3.36 1.22 0.06 151 Koderma Medium land N24º24′36.7″ E 85º30′04.6″ 377 5.26 0.54 8.79 34.20 31.60 0.80 2.00 0.70 7.88 2.16 0.90 0.48 152 Koderma Medium land N24º24′40.3″ E 85º29′13.2″ 379 5.47 0.48 8.15 38.00 23.60 3.04 1.64 0.71 13.37 1.22 0.58 0.58 153 Koderma Medium land N24º27′02.1″ E 85º34′11.0″ 377 5.33 0.45 7.68 36.40 21.80 2.92 1.72 0.74 12.34 0.84 0.60 0.24 154 Koderma Medium land N24º24′56.8″ E 85º29′38.9″ 385 6.38 0.38 9.19 41.60 21.00 1.92 1.90 1.53 47.4 1.12 0.96 0.54 155 Koderma Medium land N24º25′03.4″ E 85º30′03.1″ 385 5.58 0.50 8.22 39.40 23.40 4.66 1.90 1.23 14.74 1.24 1.12 0.54 156 Koderma Medium land N24º25′08.2″ E 85º30′24.8″ 375 6.27 0.39 8.31 41.40 23.40 2.22 1.88 0.91 14.74 1.70 1.14 0.34 157 Koderma Low land N24º26′40.0″ E 85º31′27.6″ 388 7.88 0.84 10.73 39.60 15.92 2.00 3.54 0.67 33.24 1.64 1.32 0.36 158 Koderma Medium land N24º26′58.3″ E 85º31′34.3″ 392 8.10 0.32 8.6 41.40 15.68 1.34 2.58 0.84 12 1.86 0.76 0.58 159 Koderma Medium land N24º26′40.0″ E 85º31′44.1″ 385 5.48 0.36 3.18 39.00 31.00 1.22 2.72 0.76 20.57 2.06 1.20 0.52 160 Koderma Medium land N24º27′05.5″ E 85º34′09.1″ 379 7.30 0.52 6.24 34.60 18.26 1.16 3.18 1.26 36.68 1.92 1.08 0.24 161 Koderma Low Land N24º27′01.9″ E 85º34′12.5″ 377 7.50 0.37 5.44 34.60 23.20 0.94 3.44 0.65 45.59 1.58 1.02 0.70 162 Koderma Upland N24º27′01.9″ E 85º34′12.5″ 377 5.40 0.21 3.34 35.80 33.40 0.84 2.44 0.69 9.94 1.78 1.44 0.26 163 Koderma Medium land N24º28′50.3″ E 85º36′51.5″ 389 5.83 0.30 5.36 39.60 32.00 1.04 2.86 0.76 19.2 2.04 1.68 0.46 164 Koderma Medium land N24º28′43.8″ E 85º36′49.8″ 385 7.15 0.41 6.98 42.60 22.80 1.46 3.20 1.59 15.08 2.48 1.64 0.48 165 Koderma Medium land N24º28′23.3″ E 85º36′59.6″ 388 8.11 0.54 6.67 27.60 11.02 0.96 1.70 0.78 14.4 1.66 0.58 0.22 166 Koderma Medium land N24º28′22.2″ E 85º36′38.7″ 385 8.06 0.59 4.13 15.52 5.92 0.52 1.26 0.70 11.65 1.38 0.62 0.24 167 Koderma Low land N24º28′41.5″ E 85º36′49.0″ 384 7.48 0.57 10.24 22.20 9.92 0.74 2.60 0.84 14.74 2.06 0.92 0.24 168 Koderma Low land N24º28′45.2″ E 85º37′05.9″ 388 7.91 0.54 12.93 31.80 9.90 0.76 2.74 1.75 14.05 2.24 0.74 0.30 169 Koderma Upland N24º28′41.4″ E 85º36′46.3″ 384 6.89 0.29 8.62 27.60 25.60 0.82 2.42 0.99 12.34 1.68 1.18 0.92 170 Koderma Upland N24º28′30.6″ E 85º37′13.9″ 388 6.00 0.16 6.83 19.64 24.60 0.76 0.46 0.57 8.91 1.02 0.86 0.64 171 Koderma Medium land N24º27′22.8″ E 85º36′09.3″ 370 6.76 0.52 7.4 28.60 22.60 0.66 2.48 0.95 13.37 1.86 0.98 0.48 172 Koderma Medium land N24º27′16.4″ E 85º36′10.2″ 372 5.92 0.33 8.68 49.20 33.20 0.86 2.86 0.71 15.77 2.24 1.32 1.08 173 Koderma Upland N24º26′45.8″ E 85º36′05.7″ 375 4.53 0.07 4.44 36.80 29.40 0.88 1.98 0.47 7.54 1.70 1.06 0.16 174 Koderma Medium land N24º26′16.2″ E 85º35′57.8″ 370 6.23 0.21 3.38 23.00 30.00 0.60 1.60 0.69 7.88 1.72 1.02 0.64 175 Koderma Low land N24º26′11.2″ E 85º36′10.1″ 368 5.32 0.12 4.7 52.40 36.60 0.72 2.60 0.55 12.68 2.06 1.04 0.58 176 Koderma Upland N24º26′06.2″ E 85º36′10.2″ 364 7.90 0.42 0.69 19.40 16.82 0.44 1.08 0.57 8.91 1.18 0.78 1.06 v

177 Koderma Low land N24º26′01.6″ E 85º36′12.5″ 360 5.62 0.20 17.28 45.80 33.40 0.78 3.02 0.58 13.37 2.30 1.48 0.50 178 Jainagar Medium land N24º25′54.7″ E 85º36′21.0″ 362 6.89 0.37 7.23 27.80 30.80 0.74 2.12 0.82 9.94 1.46 1.12 0.66 179 Jainagar Upland N24º25′34.7″ E 85º36′39.8″ 368 5.25 0.16 5 34.40 36.00 0.76 2.04 0.77 9.6 0.88 1.28 0.14 180 Jainagar Medium land N24º25′33.7″ E 85º36′46.5″ 370 6.77 0.37 3.86 41.20 31.40 0.80 2.42 0.65 13.03 0.98 1.02 0.70 181 Jainagar Upland N24º25′28.1″ E 85º37′01.2″ 365 6.73 0.25 4.26 49.60 40.00 0.92 2.62 0.42 10.63 1.38 1.96 1.10 182 Jainagar Medium land N24º25′14.9″ E 85º37′12.4″ 368 5.07 0.10 6.14 62.00 36.40 1.64 4.00 0.83 9.94 0.98 1.36 0.46 183 Jainagar Medium land N24º25′06.4″ E 85º37′18.1″ 365 5.80 0.07 3.33 49.60 35.20 1.02 2.02 0.48 6.51 0.82 0.90 0.18 184 Jainagar Badiland N24º25′02.4″ E 85º37′18.3″ 370 5.07 0.21 6.91 43.40 36.80 2.50 2.32 0.91 8.91 1.34 0.86 1.50 185 Jainagar Upland N24º24′50.0″ E 85º37′21.1″ 369 5.31 0.23 6.69 38.20 39.20 2.40 1.54 0.79 5.83 0.98 0.86 0.44 186 Jainagar Upland N24º24′43.1″ E 85º37′22.4″ 365 5.77 0.10 2.22 27.00 31.20 0.90 1.34 0.40 5.48 0.76 0.86 1.10 187 Jainagar Low land N24º24′33.9″ E 85º37′31.6″ 358 5.53 0.21 11.72 51.00 35.40 2.72 2.98 1.48 7.88 1.14 1.32 1.74 188 Jainagar Low land N24º24′11.7″ E 85º24′43.1″ 352 6.44 0.34 6.83 58.00 35.00 1.16 2.66 0.62 31.54 0.92 1.06 0.80 189 Jainagar Medium land N24º22′09.4″ E 85º39′13.7″ 382 6.63 0.22 6.28 50.40 35.00 0.94 2.72 0.60 14.74 1.22 1.26 1.08 190 Jainagar Medium land N24º22′07.1″ E 85º39′26.2″ 370 6.79 0.24 5.77 45.60 38.00 0.62 2.70 0.74 8.23 1.50 1.22 0.40 191 Jainagar Medium land N24º22′05.3″ E 85º39′36.2″ 375 6.69 0.31 7.93 48.60 38.20 0.92 3.24 1.07 11.65 1.06 1.58 1.08 192 Jainagar Medium land N24º21′48.4″ E 85º40′18.7″ 378 6.70 0.23 6.52 45.00 34.60 1.02 2.70 0.70 14.74 1.34 1.32 1.16 193 Jainagar Medium land N24º21′41.0″ E 85º40′43.8″ 368 5.07 0.19 6.72 47.80 27.80 1.08 2.96 0.85 15.08 1.88 1.30 1.06 194 Jainagar Medium land N24º21′37.3″ E 85º40′57.4″ 363 4.73 0.17 6.52 55.80 28.80 1.00 2.92 0.98 13.03 2.16 1.42 1.46 195 Jainagar Medium land N24º21′34.8″ E 85º41′09.1″ 355 6.38 0.14 2.11 51.00 36.60 0.98 2.44 0.58 7.88 0.98 1.94 1.86 196 Jainagar Medium land N24º20′48.6″ E 85º42′38.8″ 364 7.22 0.36 7.86 36.60 37.20 0.96 1.78 0.82 10.28 0.70 1.64 1.34 197 Jainagar Medium land N24º21′11.5″ E 85º41′59.9″ 362 6.05 0.19 8.51 33.60 37.40 0.82 2.06 0.42 50.61 0.54 1.86 1.88 198 Jainagar Medium land N24º21′36.6″ E 85º41′08.6″ 358 5.48 0.17 7.62 40.00 37.40 1.16 2.70 0.83 8.91 0.54 1.82 1.12 199 Jainagar Upland N24º21′37.7″ E 85º41′08.5″ 359 5.50 0.32 8.39 50.80 36.20 1.50 2.64 0.98 16.45 1.58 1.38 1.74 200 Jainagar Medium land N24º21′37.7″ E 85º41′08.5″ 360 7.79 0.25 1.7 44.60 36.20 0.92 1.64 0.57 12.68 0.74 0.82 1.22 201 Jainagar Medium land N24º21′37.7″ E 85º41′08.5″ 360 5.45 0.09 7.61 24.00 36.20 0.76 2.46 0.33 6.17 1.44 1.54 1.22 202 Jainagar Low land N24º21′33.8″ E 85º41′07.8″ 355 6.41 0.44 10.17 49.80 36.20 1.14 3.40 0.72 33.94 0.54 2.30 2.04 203 Jainagar Medium land N24º21′21.0″ E 85º41′39.3″ 365 6.90 0.29 7.14 40.60 35.60 0.48 1.96 0.69 31.88 1.28 1.34 1.04 204 Jainagar Medium land N24º20′14.2″ E 85º43′48.1″ 348 7.34 0.26 8.76 47.40 36.80 0.40 2.70 0.60 12 0.94 1.48 1.92 205 Jainagar Medium land N24º18′38.0″ E 85º45′00.2″ 328 4.98 0.15 7.13 54.20 35.60 1.32 2.74 0.64 7.88 1.02 1.18 1.26 206 Jainagar Medium land N24º18′51.3″ E 85º45′07.2″ 329 5.88 0.27 6.07 56.80 35.20 0.88 2.48 0.62 11.65 1.18 1.42 0.86 207 Jainagar Medium land N24º20′16.7″ E 85º43′49.7″ 349 5.74 0.24 8.65 49.00 38.00 1.12 3.68 0.71 18.85 1.44 1.96 1.74 208 Jainagar Medium land N24º20′04.6″ E 85º44′27.6″ 340 7.31 0.30 3.5 45.00 35.00 0.60 1.60 0.44 11.65 1.32 1.60 1.10 209 Jainagar Medium land N24º20′00.4″ E 85º44′35.3″ 338 5.30 0.11 6.66 37.20 35.60 0.58 2.50 0.54 65.13 1.48 1.60 1.38 210 Jainagar Medium land N24º20′15.8″ E 85º43′51.3″ 348 4.50 0.07 6.66 54.40 32.80 1.42 3.08 0.53 7.88 2.02 1.80 2.36 211 Jainagar Medium land N24º20′15.8″ E 85º43′51.3″ 351 6.00 0.18 7.68 55.00 30.20 0.58 1.94 0.67 10.28 0.92 1.42 1.00 212 Jainagar Medium land N24º20′11.1″ E 85º44′07.7″ 345 6.73 0.21 5.2 38.00 27.80 0.30 1.56 0.46 9.94 0.92 1.16 0.92 vi

213 Jainagar Upland N24º20′13.2″ E 85º43′52.0″ 346 5.73 0.14 5.74 37.80 28.40 0.44 1.56 0.65 7.88 0.92 1.64 1.32 214 Jainagar Badiland N24º19′59.2″ E 85º44′34.1″ 340 5.53 0.23 8.18 42.40 33.80 0.50 2.14 0.67 11.65 1.04 1.48 1.34 215 Jainagar Badiland N24º19′00.0″ E 85º45′15.9″ 315 5.69 0.35 7.26 39.80 26.20 0.58 2.16 0.47 16.45 1.38 1.30 1.30 216 Jainagar Upland N24º19′55.9″ E 85º44′34.9″ 338 6.57 0.46 7.7 38.80 29.60 0.64 2.26 0.57 16.45 1.24 0.84 0.98 217 Jainagar Medium land N24º19′53.8″ E 85º44′37.6″ 337 6.20 0.33 3.32 25.60 19.30 0.42 1.48 0.39 15.08 0.50 1.22 0.78 218 Jainagar Medium land N24º19′56.1″ E 85º44′49.5″ 334 4.39 0.15 4.29 20.80 20.80 0.38 0.74 0.34 11.31 0.58 1.04 0.82 219 Jainagar Medium land N24º19′46.9″ E 85º45′13.7″ 333 5.22 0.13 6.88 21.20 28.80 0.50 2.04 0.63 12.68 1.28 1.18 1.12 220 Jainagar Medium land N24º19′57.8″ E 85º44′37.3″ 337 7.77 0.33 4.83 28.00 24.00 0.62 1.66 0.55 20.57 1.00 1.24 0.68 221 Jainagar Low land N24º19′38.0″ E 85º45′25.8″ 331 6.34 0.25 7.21 15.08 19.22 0.38 0.70 0.57 15.08 0.00 0.94 1.00 222 Jainagar Medium land N24º19′28.0″ E 85º45′24.6″ 336 5.29 0.29 5.13 13.00 24.40 0.50 0.72 0.51 13.37 0.02 1.16 1.18 223 Jainagar Upland N24º19′16.3″ E 85º45′23.3″ 325 5.89 0.10 5.85 18.80 18.44 0.38 1.14 0.70 12.68 0.64 1.38 0.58 224 Jainagar Medium land N24º19′35.1″ E 85º45′45.2″ 322 5.13 0.30 2.7 25.00 20.20 0.50 0.84 0.47 14.74 0.18 0.80 0.74 225 Jainagar Medium land N24º19′31.9″ E 85º45′56.2″ 320 7.62 0.56 8.48 34.60 15.98 0.72 2.46 0.78 26.74 1.34 1.84 0.78 226 Jainagar Badiland N24º19′27.3″ E 85º46′07.3″ 318 5.49 0.09 2.95 25.20 9.14 0.36 0.50 0.58 7.54 0.18 0.40 0.52 227 Jainagar Medium land N24º19′26.4″ E 85º46′09.7″ 218 4.82 0.19 2.56 11.90 19.20 0.42 0.84 0.46 7.2 0.28 0.88 0.36 228 Jainagar Badiland N24º19′29.4″ E 85º46′02.0″ 320 5.66 0.06 1.85 37.40 12.26 0.44 1.64 0.98 5.83 1.02 1.36 0.42 229 Jainagar Medium land N24º19′32.9″ E 85º45′52.2″ 319 4.92 0.41 5.14 40.60 23.60 0.72 2.10 0.63 12 1.04 1.24 0.64 230 Chandwara Low land N24º23′51.1″ E 85º30′09.4″ 370 6.39 0.30 6.62 37.00 14.80 0.44 1.62 0.58 24.34 0.74 1.06 0.22 231 Chandwara Medium land N24º23′24.5″ E 85º29′57.8″ 362 4.56 0.10 7.92 38.20 27.20 0.78 2.48 0.55 7.54 1.26 0.04 0.60 232 Chandwara Upland N24º23′49.9″ E 85º30′12.6″ 372 5.90 0.24 8.2 25.40 18.60 1.10 1.32 0.58 8.91 0.18 0.38 0.40 233 Chandwara Upland N24º23′38.2″ E 85º29′27.0″ 378 4.71 0.11 5.31 31.40 23.20 0.54 1.72 0.32 4.8 0.36 0.40 1.20 234 Chandwara Low land N24º23′41.2″ E 85º29′20.0″ 377 7.04 0.25 7.01 28.60 18.28 0.40 1.64 0.46 13.71 1.00 0.50 0.66 235 Chandwara Low land N24º23′47.8″ E 85º30′06.5″ 371 5.57 0.11 3.82 38.80 27.40 0.34 1.70 0.35 17.14 0.92 0.70 0.86 236 Chandwara Medium land N24º23′33.5″ E 85º29′04.2″ 370 5.46 0.09 4.26 35.40 25.00 0.44 1.80 0.37 7.88 1.18 0.66 1.08 237 Chandwara Medium land N24º22′53.4″ E 85º28′44.0″ 360 5.51 0.15 4.02 33.60 13.04 0.60 1.58 0.60 9.94 0.84 0.38 0.50 238 Chandwara Medium land N24º23′22.9″ E 85º29′54.9″ 363 5.06 0.17 2.58 36.60 6.86 0.32 0.42 0.70 7.88 0.20 0.04 0.90 239 Chandwara Upland N24º23′50.3″ E 85º30′05.7″ 372 5.02 0.09 5.22 12.88 7.06 0.60 1.62 0.39 8.23 0.98 0.34 0.34 240 Chandwara Upland N24º22′42.0″ E 85º27′09.0″ 370 6.80 0.35 4.82 36.20 17.28 0.52 0.80 0.44 10.28 0.58 0.74 0.86 241 Chandwara Low land N24º22′43.4″ E 85º26′57.3″ 372 8.40 0.52 2.31 17.20 7.60 0.44 1.78 0.53 15.08 1.60 0.34 0.02 242 Chandwara Medium land N24º22′45.5″ E 85º26′43.6″ 378 8.29 0.45 4.66 13.26 10.36 0.40 0.76 0.93 8.91 1.04 0.66 0.60 243 Chandwara Medium land N24º22′38.7″ E 85º27′22.6″ 372 8.31 0.50 3.18 7.82 9.70 0.42 0.72 0.90 7.2 0.62 0.82 0.82 244 Chandwara Medium land N24º22′35.0″ E 85º27′51.3″ 362 6.57 0.17 3.43 40.40 25.60 0.68 1.84 0.78 13.37 1.08 0.84 0.68 245 Chandwara Low land N24º22′44.0″ E 85º28′28.5″ 358 8.57 0.59 1.6 21.20 12.32 0.42 1.50 0.68 65.07 1.24 0.78 0.50 246 Chandwara Medium land N24º22′38.9″ E 85º28′20.7″ 355 7.20 0.29 6.12 19.36 28.20 1.02 1.88 0.82 13.37 0.72 1.18 0.34 247 Chandwara Medium land N24º22′35.2″ E 85º28′18.7″ 354 6.10 0.21 7.43 42.80 31.60 1.00 2.54 0.88 15.08 1.04 1.38 0.76 248 Chandwara Medium land N24º22′29.5″ E 85º28′08.2″ 360 5.62 0.17 6.59 43.80 30.40 0.76 2.30 0.65 10.97 1.52 1.34 0.50 vii

249 Chandwara Medium land N24º22′31.6″ E 85º28′15.7″ 355 6.25 0.19 4.1 40.80 31.20 0.60 1.56 0.63 14.74 1.08 1.32 0.76 250 Chandwara Badiland N24º22′36.6″ E 85º27′53.9″ 363 6.80 0.12 2.13 23.80 24.40 0.98 0.72 0.72 9.94 0.80 1.28 0.30 251 Chandwara Badiland N24º22′37.1″ E 85º27′31.0″ 370 6.03 0.11 2.36 21.00 20.60 0.74 0.60 0.64 11.31 0.56 0.82 0.78 252 Chandwara Upland N24º22′42.0″ E 85º27′08.9″ 372 5.24 0.01 3.59 17.52 21.20 0.78 0.80 0.64 10.28 0.44 0.72 0.72 253 Chandwara Medium land N24º22′54.9″ E 85º26′03.1″ 385 5.33 0.10 4.35 29.80 26.40 0.60 2.12 0.50 8.91 1.00 1.72 1.00 254 Chandwara Upland N24º22′57.2″ E 85º25′32.3″ 390 5.99 0.16 4.54 43.80 30.00 0.84 1.90 0.60 10.28 1.58 1.52 0.68 255 Chandwara Medium land N24º22′49.5″ E 85º25′14.6″ 392 7.28 0.27 0.09 25.00 19.98 0.70 1.54 0.32 6.51 1.22 0.56 0.44 256 Chandwara Upland N24º22′51.1″ E 85º28′32.6″ 367 6.56 0.44 9.98 20.00 17.72 1.56 2.44 1.37 8.57 0.82 1.48 0.66 257 Chandwara Upland N24º22′52.9″ E 85º28′34.9″ 361 7.04 0.39 5.27 29.00 22.40 1.14 1.92 0.69 18.17 1.44 0.88 0.10 258 Chandwara Upland N24º22′51.4″ E 85º28′36.1″ 367 7.47 0.60 6.49 18.94 16.32 0.92 2.60 1.15 16.11 1.06 1.00 0.44 259 Chandwara Low land N24º22′51.4″ E 85º28′36.1″ 375 9.28 0.71 6.01 20.00 9.48 0.68 2.64 0.79 29.14 1.74 0.60 0.38 260 Chandwara Upland N24º22′49.6″ E 85º28′40.1″ 365 7.03 0.12 4.8 17.86 9.72 0.70 2.30 0.75 41.48 1.68 0.70 0.12 261 Chandwara Upland N24º22′19.2″ E 85º29′01.5″ 360 7.41 0.38 4.38 16.34 13.56 1.06 1.34 0.95 15.43 1.38 0.82 0.30 262 Chandwara Medium land N24º22′11.2″ E 85º28′58.5″ 360 5.83 0.18 6.51 16.52 21.40 1.94 2.92 0.81 16.11 1.14 2.48 0.72 263 Chandwara Medium land N24º22′01.1″ E 85º28′55.9″ 355 7.38 0.39 6.79 39.00 23.20 1.36 2.62 1.17 20.57 1.04 0.88 1.26 264 Chandwara Medium land N24º21′50.9″ E 85º28′51.8″ 356 6.47 0.17 1.45 32.60 22.40 0.70 2.14 0.90 10.28 1.58 1.06 0.60 265 Chandwara Medium land N24º21′39.0″ E 85º28′44.1″ 352 5.57 0.15 5.32 32.00 28.20 1.18 2.46 0.91 11.31 1.70 1.12 1.28 266 Chandwara Upland N24º21′19.5″ E 85º28′32.6″ 356 6.17 0.12 5.05 35.20 27.40 1.22 2.10 0.85 12 1.98 0.60 0.80 267 Chandwara Medium land N24º21′16.0″ E 85º28′37.1″ 355 6.99 0.27 4.88 26.00 23.00 0.90 1.98 0.68 18.85 1.38 0.74 0.88 268 Chandwara Low land N24º22′16.0″ E 85º29′02.9″ 360 7.43 0.44 12.28 23.40 18.66 1.46 2.38 0.77 22.97 1.24 0.48 0.70 269 Chandwara Badiland N24º21′08.5″ E 85º28′46.1″ 357 7.49 0.57 3.95 21.20 12.70 2.16 1.26 0.97 20.22 1.38 0.34 1.40 270 Chandwara Badiland N24º20′59.1″ E 85º29′12.3″ 360 8.15 0.52 5.96 8.60 6.58 1.12 1.24 0.84 8.57 1.14 0.32 0.56

viii

Physicochemical properties of soils in Bokaro district Sl. Name of Land GPS reading pH EC OC Micronutrients (mg kg-1) S Heavy metals No. Blocks Situation (dS m-1) (g kg-1) (mg (mg kg-1) Latitude Longitude Alt. Fe Mn Zn Cu B kg-1) Pb Ni Co Cd (m) 1 Chandrapura Medium land N 23º46'03.9" E 86º08'03.6" 238 5.43 0.14 4.37 36.40 24.80 0.94 1.76 0.60 13.82 2.58 1.16 0.16 0.02 2 Chandrapura lowland N 23º46'01.4" E 86º08'09.0" 235 4.01 0.08 9.08 51.00 14.28 0.68 1.76 0.69 10.04 3.08 1.64 0.66 0.06 3 Chandrapura Upland N 23º46'09.1" E 86º08'19.2" 229 4.54 0.08 6.12 35.00 11.34 0.06 2.30 0.57 10.91 4.88 1.30 0.54 0.14 4 Chandrapura Medium land N 23º46'16.2" E 86º08'19.7" 230 4.46 0.06 5.35 42.20 8.70 0.02 2.16 0.69 12.36 3.06 1.42 0.68 0.06 5 Chandrapura Badi land N 23º46'17.0" E 86º08'13.0" 228 5.50 0.20 6.38 55.40 15.96 6.14 2.38 1.63 17.60 1.44 1.82 0.42 0.10 6 Chandrapura Medium land N 23º46'29.4" E 86º07'39.0" 245 5.47 0.06 4.44 46.20 24.40 0.94 1.24 1.63 10.91 1.40 1.52 0.52 0.20 7 Chandrapura Badi land N 23º46'28.5" E 86º27'16.9" 248 5.18 0.14 5.19 58.20 11.94 1.94 1.72 1.30 11.49 1.04 1.58 0.70 0.22 8 Chandrapura Badi land N 23º46'45.5" E 86º07'01.3" 247 5.74 0.19 5.88 52.60 16.30 3.84 3.22 2.21 16.44 0.48 1.48 0.58 0.24 9 Chandrapura Badi land N 23º46'47.3" E 86º07'03.6" 245 5.25 0.17 4.88 55.80 8.76 2.86 2.22 1.24 16.44 0.92 1.44 0.48 0.06 10 Chandrapura Medium land N 23º46'48.0" E 86º06'59.5" 247 4.67 0.23 8.83 47.80 46.60 1.86 1.86 0.90 10.04 3.26 1.34 0.92 0.22 11 Chandrapura Medium land N 23º46'50.8" E 86º07'10.8" 242 6.11 0.20 2.39 28.20 36.60 0.44 2.14 0.85 10.62 1.58 1.92 0.72 0.24 12 Chandrapura Badi land N 23º47'13.5" E 86º07'01.8" 238 6.02 0.13 6.39 44.00 20.60 4.06 1.20 3.96 17.60 0.46 1.64 0.50 0.26 13 Chandrapura Badi land N 23º47'52.7" E 86º06'57.9" 248 5.79 0.51 3.89 35.60 23.20 3.82 2.38 1.57 71.42 3.38 1.72 0.52 0.26 14 Chandrapura Badi land N 23º47'24.3" E 86º07'08.9" 236 6.70 0.11 3.53 30.60 23.60 7.80 1.32 2.63 13.53 1.08 1.56 0.48 0.22 15 Chandrapura Medium land N 23º47'39.3" E 86º06'58.3" 232 4.69 0.27 5.03 53.80 12.94 3.16 2.44 0.18 21.67 4.28 1.62 0.96 0.22 16 Chandrapura Badi land N 23º47'44.6" E 86º07'02.0" 232 5.56 0.32 6.07 42.80 23.40 6.90 1.76 3.99 33.02 1.08 2.36 0.36 0.14 17 Chandrapura lowland N 23º47'49.1" E 86º06'59.7" 231 4.84 0.25 3.63 46.00 26.60 1.42 1.92 4.87 24.29 1.28 1.32 0.78 0.24 18 Chandrapura Medium land N 23º47'52.0" E 86º07'07.2" 235 5.12 0.36 4.45 35.40 16.62 0.70 1.86 2.93 53.96 1.64 0.68 0.88 0.16 19 Chandrapura Upland N 23º47'47.2" E 86º07'07.2" 235 5.33 0.11 4.64 38.40 18.80 0.78 1.60 1.39 13.24 2.62 0.48 0.66 0.20 20 Chandrapura Medium land N 23º47'47.5" E 86º06'41.5" 237 5.62 0.30 5.62 33.80 20.80 1.16 1.32 1.81 18.74 2.24 1.16 0.62 0.12 21 Chandrapura Medium land N 23º47'47.5" E 86º06'41.4" 236 5.19 0.10 5.15 33.00 12.64 0.86 1.86 2.18 16.14 2.66 1.30 0.78 0.16 22 Chandrapura Medium land N 23º48'30.2" E 86º06'47.0" 228 5.43 0.17 4.37 35.20 25.80 0.62 2.08 2.12 14.69 1.32 2.06 0.86 0.14 23 Nawadih Medium land N 23º49'15.5" E 86º06'52.2" 250 5.66 0.29 4.55 35.80 34.00 0.96 3.12 2.12 26.45 0.24 1.82 1.18 0.10 24 Nawadih Medium land N 23º49'32.6" E 86º05'53.2" 250 5.55 0.36 3.77 40.40 32.00 0.90 3.80 1.75 31.86 1.44 3.48 1.34 0.14 25 Nawadih Medium land N 23º49'31.9" E 86º05'45.6" 250 6.35 0.71 5.94 39.80 17.04 0.88 3.50 3.21 51.13 1.26 2.64 0.84 0.14 26 Nawadih Upland N 23º49'36.2" E 86º04'33.5" 263 4.81 0.04 5.31 40.00 12.24 0.70 1.48 2.62 24.00 1.54 1.88 0.68 0.14 27 Nawadih Upland N 23º49'37.2" E 86º04'23.6" 264 5.04 0.36 6.4 35.20 13.22 0.32 1.34 4.91 26.91 1.74 0.90 0.58 0.16 28 Nawadih Medium land N 23º49'41.6" E 86º04'12.0" 263 4.77 0.20 3.27 33.00 13.34 0.30 1.18 2.53 22.54 2.42 1.56 0.28 0.14 29 Nawadih Medium land N 23º49'29.5" E 86º04'09.5" 270 4.82 0.06 1.4 39.60 11.10 0.68 1.56 3.64 24.87 1.74 1.64 0.36 0.20 30 Nawadih Medium land N 23º47'34.4" E 86º03'52.0" 277 4.83 0.07 3.12 35.40 9.20 0.56 1.42 2.68 21.09 2.64 1.10 0.62 0.16 31 Nawadih Upland N 23º49'21.3" E 86º04'16.9" 263 5.75 0.31 2.31 42.60 38.20 2.00 2.30 1.27 46.69 2.38 1.74 0.94 0.16 ix

32 Nawadih Medium land N 23º48'45.4" E 86º03'35.7" 280 5.69 0.05 4.31 49.40 29.00 0.72 2.54 0.99 22.84 2.58 1.54 1.10 0.20 33 Nawadih Medium land N 23º48'44.9" E 86º03'31.4" 285 5.56 0.21 3.83 49.20 22.40 0.52 2.76 0.93 31.06 3.48 2.08 0.90 0.20 34 Nawadih Medium land N 23º48'25.8" E 86º02'59.7" 292 5.29 0.14 7.5 53.40 26.80 1.14 2.40 1.05 30.40 2.66 1.94 1.02 0.20 35 Nawadih Upland N 23º48'42.0" E 86º03'11.5" 285 5.26 0.07 4.39 38.00 21.60 0.28 1.20 0.84 25.46 2.22 0.72 0.62 0.16 36 Nawadih Medium land N 23º47'32.2" E 86º04'06.9" 272 4.79 0.04 4.12 55.60 26.80 1.30 1.80 1.02 23.42 1.42 2.04 1.22 0.14 37 Nawadih lowland N 23º48'07.9" E 86º03'11.1" 280 4.63 0.11 4.48 53.80 33.00 1.28 1.66 1.15 21.09 0.74 2.52 1.70 0.16 38 Nawadih Medium land N 23º47'09.7" E 86º05'11.6" 267 4.92 0.13 3.47 48.00 30.80 0.88 2.14 0.87 24.87 2.64 3.82 1.46 0.16 39 Nawadih low land N 23º47'56.5" E 86º03'17.7" 282 4.84 0.21 6.32 54.40 42.40 1.16 2.16 1.15 35.34 0.74 3.24 1.80 0.18 40 Nawadih lowland N 23º47'02.1" E 86º05'34.7" 368 5.82 0.31 5.88 47.40 30.80 1.42 2.18 1.15 55.71 1.60 1.56 1.02 0.18 41 Nawadih lowland N 23º46'54.2" E 86º06'01.7" 255 5.47 0.68 5.74 51.20 36.60 1.68 2.34 1.36 55.78 0.88 1.02 0.74 0.16 42 Chandrapura Upland N 23º45'48.9" E 86º07'58.5" 230 5.21 0.06 5.29 45.60 9.26 1.98 1.62 2.26 24.58 3.18 0.74 0.64 0.16 43 Chandrapura Medium land N 23º45'44.8" E 86º08'30.3" 225 5.44 0.09 6.88 37.40 30.80 1.30 2.02 1.20 26.33 3.76 1.60 0.94 0.16 44 Chandrapura Medium land N 23º45'54.6" E 86º08'43.2" 220 5.58 0.08 3.78 25.40 26.20 0.44 1.52 0.96 26.33 2.92 1.18 0.70 0.16 45 Chandrapura Medium land N 23º45'54.3" E 86º09'02.1" 215 6.46 0.24 5.69 28.40 33.20 0.44 1.54 1.08 33.02 1.84 1.96 0.82 0.20 46 Chandrapura Medium land N 23º45'32.1" E 86º10'30.2" 190 6.78 0.45 2.59 32.00 23.40 0.56 1.52 1.57 62.40 0.96 1.34 0.66 0.16 47 Chandrapura Medium land N 23º45'38.7" E 86º18'21.7" 216 5.74 0.23 2.62 42.80 32.20 0.18 1.34 1.20 38.51 1.62 0.96 0.68 0.20 48 Chandrapura lowland N 23º45'38.9" E 86º08'21.4" 216 5.23 0.30 5.65 51.00 42.00 0.38 2.12 1.17 60.66 1.22 1.92 0.34 0.24 49 Chandrapura Medium land N 23º45'27.7" E 86º08'21.2" 218 6.47 0.22 5.43 41.00 28.20 0.46 1.50 1.11 28.94 0.56 0.86 0.68 0.20 50 Chandrapura Medium land N 23º45'04.8" E 86º08'10.0" 205 5.15 0.12 9.55 55.40 16.68 0.86 2.12 1.08 28.94 2.86 1.06 0.80 0.04 51 Chandrapura lowland N 23º45'02.5" E 86º08'07.4" 203 5.23 0.09 6.77 50.00 7.28 0.62 1.72 1.29 9.32 3.18 1.62 0.52 0.04 52 Chandrapura lowland N 23º44'51.7" E 86º08'07.7" 195 5.11 0.26 7.52 55.80 40.60 2.06 2.08 0.81 11.96 1.12 1.66 1.06 0.08 53 Chandrapura Medium land N 23º45'58.3" E 86º09'55.8" 188 6.54 0.21 6.01 35.20 15.66 4.62 2.82 1.29 22.50 3.38 1.20 0.70 0.10 54 Chandrapura Upland N 23º46'02.0" E 86º10'01.6" 188 5.66 0.07 10.48 45.60 37.60 2.42 3.32 0.60 5.36 3.74 3.40 1.12 0.06 55 Chandrapura Medium land N 23º46'06.5" E 86º10'36.6" 186 5.43 0.31 15.16 45.20 15.46 3.98 3.64 0.56 33.94 5.23 3.58 0.94 0.06 56 Chandrapura lowland N 23º45'58.1" E 86º09'59.7" 185 5.59 1.56 8.98 51.20 26.40 3.34 3.14 1.24 75.47 2.82 3.14 1.06 0.08 57 Chandrapura Medium land N 23º46'03.8" E 86º10'45.9" 185 6.80 0.76 11.03 35.40 10.08 2.28 3.08 1.81 77.67 3.04 1.70 0.60 0.08 58 Chandrapura Medium land N 23º46'07.8" E 86º10'36.0" 190 6.44 0.68 12.35 32.20 13.62 1.42 2.18 1.06 58.11 3.42 1.44 0.76 0.06 59 Chandrapura Medium land N 23º46'01.4" E 86º10'35.2" 189 6.96 0.56 6.54 22.60 17.20 0.96 2.06 0.74 43.38 2.72 1.24 0.66 0.04 60 Chandrapura lowland N 23º45'57.0" E 86º10'32.2" 185 5.83 0.68 10.61 44.40 28.20 1.66 2.94 0.95 58.55 4.14 2.54 1.00 0.04 61 Gomia Upland N 23º47'04.7" E 85º47'42.9" 247 5.29 0.10 0.08 39.00 39.60 1.72 1.86 0.56 8.44 2.64 0.98 0.88 0.08 62 Gomia Medium land N 23º47'01.4" E 85º47'40.5" 248 5.58 0.09 2.83 35.80 30.40 0.58 1.74 0.51 8.66 2.74 0.60 3.00 0.10 63 Gomia Medium land N 23º47'02.6" E 85º47'37.5" 246 6.30 0.53 9.94 47.00 29.60 1.08 2.76 0.95 46.24 0.48 1.02 0.72 0.08 64 Gomia lowland N 23º47'16.7" E 85º47'22.5" 253 6.81 0.45 5.5 43.80 21.20 1.02 2.72 1.08 42.29 2.08 1.74 1.00 0.06 65 Gomia lowland N 23º47'14.3" E 85º47'19.5" 255 6.92 0.30 5.5 44.20 20.20 0.88 2.30 0.63 26.46 1.66 0.80 0.56 0.14 66 Gomia Upland N 23º46'52.8" E 85º47'10.2" 270 5.37 0.25 5.97 49.20 40.20 1.00 3.20 0.85 16.13 2.22 1.48 1.06 0.06 67 Gomia Medium land N 23º46'48.6" E 85º47'06.2" 261 6.27 0.21 4.88 39.40 24.20 0.32 2.72 0.74 12.83 1.42 1.20 0.62 0.06 x

68 Gomia lowland N 23º46'50.2" E 85º47'03.7" 260 8.09 0.33 4.09 22.80 7.62 0.06 1.88 0.56 12.62 0.58 0.46 0.40 0.10 69 Gomia Medium land N 23º46'55.3" E 85º47'04.1" 273 6.76 0.26 2.4 22.80 22.60 0.16 2.52 1.04 12.62 0.74 1.16 0.32 0.04 70 Gomia Medium land N 23º46'59.2" E 85º46'57.8" 270 5.76 0.08 4.79 43.60 33.40 0.50 3.80 0.88 13.50 3.32 1.18 0.64 0.14 71 Gomia Upland N 23º46'48.1" E 85º45'35.5" 285 5.83 0.11 5.94 38.00 34.00 0.82 3.44 0.69 10.64 3.06 1.88 0.48 0.08 72 Gomia Medium land N 23º44'47.3" E 85º44'34.8" 285 6.04 0.27 7.82 35.80 30.60 0.88 3.50 0.67 13.27 2.12 0.78 0.68 0.10 73 Gomia Medium land N 23º44'47.0" E 85º44'29.4" 278 5.77 0.46 7.35 44.40 18.78 1.22 3.12 1.15 18.33 1.10 1.32 0.74 0.08 74 Gomia lowland N 23º44'43.1" E 85º44'02.0" 290 6.26 0.17 8.37 46.80 14.66 0.80 2.16 0.81 18.99 0.72 1.44 0.76 0.12 75 Gomia Medium land N 23º44'42.9" E 85º42'25.6" 305 6.83 0.06 6.43 31.60 10.14 0.70 2.56 1.36 34.26 3.28 1.20 0.42 0.14 76 Gomia lowland N 23º44'38.1" E 85º42'22.8" 303 6.07 0.07 5.98 49.80 31.80 1.00 2.48 0.62 20.09 1.28 2.00 0.66 0.06 77 Gomia lowland N 23º44'38.8" E 85º41'25.5" 325 5.17 0.19 3.68 41.40 21.80 1.74 1.36 0.66 8.66 2.16 1.58 0.60 0.08 78 Gomia Medium land N 23º44'38.8" E 85º41'36.6" 320 4.60 0.43 10.7 55.80 22.00 2.18 2.44 0.67 11.30 3.24 1.44 1.06 0.08 79 Gomia Medium land N 23º44'47.9" E 85º40'54.2" 338 4.66 0.23 9.16 47.20 32.40 1.58 1.90 0.51 25.06 1.12 1.48 0.90 0.10 80 Gomia Medium land N 23º44'56.4" E 85º40'23.4" 346 5.38 0.09 7.51 39.40 14.40 1.16 1.90 0.57 7.09 1.96 1.14 0.90 0.14 81 Gomia Medium land N 23º45'03.8" E 85º40'09.0" 358 4.78 0.10 11.34 44.40 33.20 1.48 1.98 0.79 9.25 3.92 0.94 1.22 0.12 82 Gomia Medium land N 23º45'12.6" E 85º39'51.1" 357 5.71 0.21 7.07 46.00 23.20 0.76 2.94 0.57 21.46 2.48 1.92 1.02 0.12 83 Gomia lowland N 23º45'19.6" E 85º39'35.3" 364 5.50 0.41 6.31 48.80 24.60 1.56 1.50 0.52 66.49 1.00 1.52 0.52 0.08 84 Gomia Medium land N 23º45'23.3" E 85º39'25.4" 364 5.34 0.11 2.75 36.00 14.82 1.68 1.04 0.67 15.71 1.72 1.60 0.46 0.08 85 Gomia Medium land N 23º45'22.7" E 85º39'20.9" 365 4.89 0.07 3.39 33.60 12.34 0.74 1.76 0.64 11.88 2.98 1.08 0.74 0.12 86 Gomia lowland N 23º45'16.6" E 85º39'41.2" 363 5.24 0.06 6.19 47.80 13.88 0.92 1.78 0.62 12.12 2.38 0.92 0.72 0.14 87 Gomia Medium land N 23º45'10.6" E 85º39'37.2" 362 5.31 0.14 9.27 42.80 22.60 1.02 2.46 0.69 17.15 3.54 1.38 0.88 0.14 88 Gomia Medium land N 23º45'04.0" E 85º39'33.9" 360 5.95 0.37 10.61 44.00 30.00 1.26 2.44 0.61 71.52 1.90 0.80 0.68 0.10 89 Gomia Medium land N 23º44'06.8" E 85º39'49.6" 354 6.32 0.19 7.07 40.00 26.40 0.74 1.88 0.59 18.58 1.84 0.16 0.76 0.06 90 Gomia Medium land N 23º44'19.6" E 85º39'58.8" 348 6.78 0.09 6.64 44.60 25.80 0.86 2.26 0.59 10.68 2.46 1.24 0.52 0.12 91 Gomia lowland N 23º44'07.9" E 85º39'56.4" 345 4.43 0.10 7.4 43.20 28.00 0.90 2.30 0.61 5.29 3.20 1.44 0.54 0.08 92 Gomia Badi land N 23º44'03.2" E 85º39'56.1" 343 4.89 0.09 6.13 33.60 34.40 0.84 1.64 0.74 3.10 2.14 1.38 0.48 0.06 93 Gomia Badi land N 23º43'56.0" E 85º39'55.9" 340 5.31 0.16 5.55 38.40 42.00 1.36 2.54 1.26 9.41 2.14 2.02 0.48 0.10 94 Gomia Badi land N 23º43'52.2" E 85º39'56.1" 343 6.12 0.09 5.21 22.40 29.00 1.36 0.88 1.11 11.34 0.96 1.70 0.32 0.08 95 Gomia lowland N 23º46'22.5" E 85º45'23.7" 266 5.50 0.42 7.37 35.00 21.60 1.52 2.02 0.91 51.34 1.30 1.02 1.26 0.10 96 Gomia Medium land N 23º46'43.7" E 85º45'10.1" 283 5.30 0.09 8.36 39.00 33.20 0.78 3.48 0.52 16.68 2.66 1.66 1.80 0.12 97 Gomia Medium land N 23º46'48.1" E 85º45'35.3" 284 5.39 0.09 8.07 34.60 28.00 0.74 2.80 0.86 11.10 3.84 1.10 1.88 0.16 98 Gomia Medium land N 23º46'53.4" E 85º46'37.4" 276 4.95 0.09 7.87 34.20 30.40 1.26 2.94 0.69 5.77 2.84 1.54 2.18 0.08 99 Gomia Upland N 23º46'40.6" E 85º47'47.3" 268 5.38 0.08 4.63 33.60 20.80 0.82 1.62 0.97 7.22 1.08 1.22 1.88 0.10 100 Gomia Medium land N 23º46'57.5" E 85º48'12.7" 260 5.64 0.08 5.5 27.20 27.60 0.58 1.50 0.77 7.46 1.76 1.28 1.96 0.10 101 Chandankiyari Medium land N 23º34'05.2" E 86º23'10.0" 149 5.29 0.10 9.36 37.60 15.84 0.62 2.44 0.67 17.41 4.50 0.66 2.00 0.02 102 Chandankiyari Medium land N 23º34'07.3" E 86º22'56.6" 155 5.57 0.14 9.67 35.40 15.38 0.72 2.08 0.56 9.41 3.84 1.80 1.08 0.04 103 Chandankiyari Medium land N 23º34'08.0" E 85º22'33.7" 164 5.59 0.13 11.03 40.00 14.82 0.90 2.20 0.59 10.62 3.42 1.32 1.06 0.08 xi

104 Chandankiyari Medium land N 23º34'02.6" E 86º23'05.6" 154 6.29 0.36 11.89 33.40 21.00 1.14 2.12 0.54 10.86 2.74 1.54 1.08 0.08 105 Chandankiyari lowland N 23º34'10.5" E 86º22'58.6" 156 5.47 0.16 10.68 53.40 30.20 1.46 2.08 0.51 13.29 0.78 1.18 1.44 0.20 106 Chandankiyari Badi land N 23º34'08.1" E 86º22'29.2" 165 5.23 0.43 12.35 37.20 45.20 1.28 2.12 0.49 25.41 3.22 1.98 1.36 0.20 107 Chandankiyari Badi land N 23º34'06.0" E 86º22'11.9" 166 5.37 0.49 10.63 38.00 37.20 1.54 1.90 0.96 53.89 2.00 1.72 0.94 0.06 108 Chandankiyari Medium land N 23º34'48.2" E 86º21'46.7" 160 5.82 0.16 6.53 40.40 30.20 2.08 3.20 0.44 13.77 4.00 2.82 1.60 0.08 109 Chandankiyari Badi land N 23º34'59.6" E 86º21'56.4" 160 6.06 0.15 9.32 24.80 31.80 2.70 1.84 0.52 7.22 0.60 1.78 1.18 0.14 110 Chandankiyari Upland N 23º35'24.5" E 86º22'13.0" 175 5.82 0.18 9.04 30.20 24.60 1.70 3.00 0.71 9.16 3.66 1.68 1.48 0.20 111 Chandankiyari lowland N 23º35'39.5" E 86º22'17.1" 179 5.91 0.30 9.82 46.80 36.20 2.88 3.64 0.56 21.04 0.98 3.36 1.58 0.18 112 Chandankiyari Upland N 23º36'51.9" E 86º23'15.6" 164 5.41 0.22 8.34 51.40 21.80 1.14 2.76 0.46 12.56 1.54 1.82 1.40 0.14 113 Chandankiyari Medium land N 23º36'58.3" E 86º23'16.6" 160 6.21 0.33 10.73 50.80 19.94 0.96 3.40 0.67 14.50 2.92 1.66 1.00 0.20 114 Chandankiyari lowland N 23º36'51.3" E 86º23'20.3" 162 6.43 0.62 12.82 49.60 28.40 1.48 3.58 0.59 54.07 2.26 2.04 1.06 0.22 115 Chandankiyari lowland N 23º37'02.9" E 86º23'21.0" 160 7.08 0.50 11.78 42.80 11.84 0.88 3.12 0.54 76.07 1.54 2.08 0.96 0.20 116 Chandankiyari Medium land N 23º37'11.6" E 86º23'27.3" 160 7.20 0.38 12.06 41.00 12.34 3.72 3.26 0.84 30.02 1.86 0.68 0.56 0.24 117 Chandankiyari Upland N 23º38'57.8" E 86º24'31.9" 163 5.53 0.08 8.32 38.40 17.72 0.98 1.46 0.39 14.50 2.18 1.14 0.90 0.18 118 Chandankiyari Medium land N 23º38'45.6" E 86º24'45.0" 162 5.63 0.06 8.19 34.20 6.00 0.48 1.20 0.42 13.53 0.86 1.08 0.88 0.18 119 Chandankiyari Medium land N 23º38'39.1" E 86º24'18.1" 160 5.57 0.07 11.19 43.20 7.00 0.72 1.64 0.51 11.10 1.90 1.04 0.90 0.22 120 Chandankiyari Medium land N 23º37'51.9" E 86º27'41.5" 132 5.74 0.11 8.89 43.00 11.04 1.64 1.74 0.46 13.77 2.26 1.02 0.72 0.24 121 Chandankiyari Medium land N 23º38'44.5" E 86º24'47.0" 165 5.42 0.09 7.02 43.00 7.96 0.74 1.50 0.66 10.38 1.38 1.18 0.84 0.20 122 Chandankiyari Medium land N 23º38'47.5" E 86º24'42.1" 170 4.83 0.09 9.33 46.60 5.80 0.74 1.68 0.99 10.62 1.66 0.86 0.90 0.22 123 Chandankiyari Medium land N 23º38'50.2" E 86º24'34.4" 178 5.25 0.12 8.69 41.40 6.10 0.40 1.14 0.49 15.95 0.44 0.98 0.54 0.20 124 Chandankiyari Medium land N 23º38'54.3" E 86º24'02.3" 172 5.64 0.09 10.44 50.80 4.48 0.74 1.60 0.66 11.10 2.16 1.44 0.90 0.24 125 Chandankiyari Medium land N 23º39'08.0" E 86º23'11.7" 160 5.38 0.24 6.83 29.80 10.10 0.54 1.08 0.39 14.50 0.76 1.04 0.90 0.28 126 Chandankiyari Medium land N 23º39'20.1" E 86º22'12.0" 168 5.92 0.25 12.22 53.00 31.20 0.64 2.64 0.36 25.41 2.02 1.36 1.04 0.22 127 Chandankiyari Medium land N 23º39'31.9" E 86º21'37.0" 178 5.16 0.24 9.91 36.20 18.08 0.20 1.86 0.25 24.92 1.58 1.40 0.96 0.24 128 Chandankiyari Medium land N 23º39'26.4" E 86º21'53.3" 168 5.87 0.39 11.77 49.20 22.20 0.30 2.26 0.33 55.22 2.34 1.42 0.84 0.24 129 Chandankiyari lowland N 23º39'23.5" E 86º21'59.1" 162 5.23 0.63 11.74 48.00 24.80 0.50 3.12 0.21 54.50 1.76 1.94 0.90 0.28 130 Chandankiyari lowland N 23º39'21.7" E 86º22'02.3" 164 5.68 0.70 14.82 51.60 34.60 0.94 3.16 0.30 63.71 1.20 1.88 1.20 0.26 131 Chandankiyari Upland N 23º39'40.4" E 86º21'18.9" 182 5.53 0.18 4.53 51.40 18.12 0.40 1.84 0.28 27.58 1.94 1.60 1.00 0.22 132 Chandankiyari Medium land N 23º39'44.0" E 86º21'09.9" 185 5.42 0.14 4.63 46.80 14.64 0.58 2.12 0.19 19.34 1.26 0.38 0.84 0.22 133 Chandankiyari lowland N 23º39'47.5" E 86º21'04.2" 190 5.16 0.15 5 49.20 13.52 0.48 1.94 0.30 19.10 3.12 0.26 0.92 0.20 134 Chandankiyari Upland N 23º39'47.5" E 86º21'04.2" 191 5.42 0.15 4.2 38.80 27.80 0.92 1.90 0.24 16.68 1.50 1.14 1.02 0.24 135 Chandankiyari Medium land N 23º40'41.1" E 86º18'59.6" 178 5.48 0.20 6.63 53.60 26.80 1.26 2.88 0.31 28.07 2.58 1.88 0.96 0.24 136 Chandankiyari Medium land N 23º40'39.0" E 86º18'49.4" 175 5.69 0.20 4.39 52.00 28.80 0.60 2.50 0.29 33.16 2.68 1.28 0.96 0.26 137 Chandankiyari Medium land N 23º40'35.3" E 86º18'36.4" 176 5.15 0.24 5.76 51.20 12.90 0.40 1.90 0.32 37.29 1.16 0.92 0.70 0.28 138 Chandankiyari Medium land N 23º40'37.2" E 86º18'54.5" 176 5.15 0.48 8.04 56.20 21.20 1.02 2.52 0.42 76.80 0.64 1.24 0.96 0.24 139 Chandankiyari Medium land N 23º40'30.5" E 86º18'20.4" 182 5.95 0.18 6.51 60.60 18.90 0.88 3.34 0.37 19.58 1.52 2.18 2.30 0.26 xii

140 Chandankiyari lowland N 23º40'26.8" E 86º18'09.0" 184 4.72 0.25 5.41 50.80 28.00 0.62 2.36 0.27 24.92 0.24 0.96 2.22 0.22 141 Chas Upland N 23º39'30.9" E 86º13'46.9" 200 5.43 0.39 8.06 60.80 24.60 1.26 3.66 0.41 47.71 2.82 1.66 2.44 0.26 142 Chas Medium land N 23º39'26.5" E 86º13'37.5" 208 5.19 0.16 5.18 56.80 20.80 0.76 2.78 0.26 19.83 1.02 1.88 2.44 0.28 143 Chas Medium land N 23º39'25.3" E 86º13'26.5" 205 5.53 0.27 8.14 58.60 22.80 0.94 3.06 0.40 29.53 1.58 1.80 2.58 0.26 144 Chas Medium land N 23º39'20.9" E 86º13'16.1" 206 5.45 0.24 4.57 53.40 16.12 0.50 2.38 0.19 22.50 1.14 1.24 2.28 0.24 145 Chas lowland N 23º39'9.9" E 86º12'50.9" 216 6.33 0.51 8.16 51.00 16.64 0.94 2.78 0.56 46.26 0.94 1.34 2.28 0.24 146 Chas lowland N 23º38'51.3" E 86º12'50.2" 213 6.61 0.44 7.51 55.80 23.80 1.86 2.66 0.21 61.77 1.44 1.88 2.38 0.26 147 Chas lowland N 23º38'40.3" E 86º11'55.7" 210 5.50 0.43 8.07 59.40 18.42 2.08 3.60 0.27 55.04 2.26 2.16 2.98 0.26 148 Chas Medium land N 23º38'28.9" E 86º11'41.9" 218 5.05 0.18 4.1 50.00 18.90 1.52 3.16 0.25 20.31 3.06 1.04 2.98 0.26 149 Chas lowland N 23º38'28.9" E 86º11'41.9" 210 5.41 0.15 2.31 60.20 31.60 1.60 2.72 0.22 15.95 1.48 2.52 3.96 0.26 150 Chas Medium land N 23º38'12.0" E 86º11'26.6" 214 5.23 0.16 5.16 58.40 17.88 1.54 3.16 0.27 23.71 2.18 2.54 2.80 0.26 151 Chas Medium land N 23º37'04.5" E 86º11'55.6" 209 5.41 0.25 5.86 50.00 35.40 1.34 2.72 0.32 5.68 1.08 2.56 2.76 0.28 152 Chas Medium land N 23º36'57.2" E 86º12'13.3" 208 5.46 0.20 5.45 45.00 32.00 1.24 2.92 0.14 0.78 1.00 2.38 2.50 0.24 153 Chas Medium land N 23º36'52.7" E 86º12'21.5" 207 7.13 0.32 4.04 30.80 20.80 0.68 2.08 0.26 7.22 1.06 1.74 0.62 0.28 154 Chas lowland N 23º36'51.8" E 86º12'29.3" 205 8.66 0.42 5.01 27.20 9.64 0.40 2.36 0.23 20.90 1.80 1.28 0.58 0.26 155 Chas lowland N 23º36'51.6" E 86º12'37.9" 204 8.66 0.40 6.56 25.60 8.64 0.62 2.64 0.36 20.65 1.40 1.06 0.56 0.24 156 Chas lowland N 23º36'48.1" E 86º12'53.3" 200 7.09 0.50 7.55 49.60 25.20 1.24 2.86 0.59 57.55 0.42 2.16 0.78 0.26 157 Chas Upland N 23º36'48.1" E86º12'59.14" 200 6.44 0.33 4.85 41.20 24.40 0.62 2.14 0.21 7.74 0.48 1.92 0.82 0.30 158 Chas Medium land N 23º36'50.2" E 86º12'58.4" 200 7.49 0.48 4.47 29.00 12.64 0.42 1.64 0.50 8.78 0.24 1.20 0.66 0.34 159 Chas Medium land N 23º36'52.0" E 86º13'02.0" 198 7.85 0.28 5.63 32.80 14.40 0.44 1.92 0.56 1.03 1.22 0.98 0.68 0.30 160 Chas lowland N 23º36'51.3" E 86º13'04.2" 197 7.49 0.41 6.16 44.40 20.00 1.08 2.86 0.31 45.94 1.62 1.60 0.74 0.26 161 Chas Medium land N 23º36'48.1" E 86º13'48.0" 203 5.99 0.24 9.46 50.00 20.40 0.84 3.04 0.28 4.65 2.40 1.44 0.74 0.26 162 Chas Medium land N 23º36'48.0" E 86º13'19.3" 195 8.09 0.43 9.55 29.00 7.42 1.02 2.32 0.36 10.06 1.72 1.08 0.78 0.28 163 Chas Medium land N 23º36'45.7" E 86º13'30.0" 192 7.37 0.31 10.07 36.00 12.28 0.64 2.76 0.50 4.13 1.42 0.84 0.90 0.34 164 Chas Medium land N 23º36'43.6" E 86º13'38.8" 190 7.04 0.40 10.06 45.00 14.86 1.06 3.04 0.53 13.94 1.50 0.62 0.82 0.28 165 Chas Medium land N 23º36'46.1" E 86º13'39.4" 192 7.90 0.47 9.31 27.60 11.06 0.72 2.70 0.45 6.97 2.06 0.68 0.70 0.32 166 Chas Medium land N 23º36'48.9" E 86º13'42.6" 191 5.19 0.16 10.38 49.00 24.20 1.18 2.86 0.24 8.00 1.32 2.14 1.04 0.24 167 Chas Medium land N 23º36'43.0" E 86º13'54.2" 192 5.48 0.14 6.92 41.80 21.40 0.92 2.52 0.41 5.16 1.04 1.18 0.80 0.28 168 Chas Medium land N 23º36'45.4" E 86º14'03.2" 190 5.93 0.19 8.08 42.00 20.20 0.60 2.52 0.29 8.78 1.04 1.56 0.62 0.22 169 Chas Upland N 23º36'52.7" E 86º14'08.7" 189 5.48 0.22 9.11 49.20 23.40 1.24 3.08 0.41 12.65 2.70 1.70 0.88 0.22 170 Chas Medium land N 23º36'55.9" E 86º14'10.6" 192 7.42 0.26 8.08 33.40 19.90 0.74 2.28 0.31 11.35 1.74 1.32 0.74 0.32 171 Chas Medium land N 23º37'06.8" E 86º14'27.6" 190 6.06 0.17 8.1 35.00 25.20 0.72 1.96 0.31 10.58 0.92 1.96 0.96 0.26 172 Chas Upland N 23º37'12.2" E 86º14'30.4" 188 5.37 0.09 6.67 46.40 17.06 0.78 2.18 0.17 4.13 1.90 1.52 0.70 0.24 173 Chas Upland N 23º37'19.0" E 86º14'34.1" 187 5.07 0.07 7.79 50.20 11.32 0.74 2.48 0.38 3.35 2.26 1.66 0.62 0.26 174 Chas Upland N 23º37'09.9" E 86º14'41.2" 188 6.43 0.14 11 59.80 22.40 3.50 1.94 0.69 13.68 0.24 1.18 0.42 0.28 175 Chas Medium land N 23º37'07.0" E 86º14'37.2" 190 5.31 0.11 7.79 50.00 15.62 1.18 2.60 0.15 6.71 2.12 1.92 0.84 0.24 xiii

176 Chas Medium land N 23º37'04.3" E 86º14'29.0" 188 5.14 0.07 6.37 49.60 10.14 0.72 2.62 0.47 0.52 2.20 1.68 0.56 0.26 177 Chas Medium land N 23º37'03.2" E 86º14'25.4" 187 5.13 0.14 7.92 43.40 19.82 1.00 2.84 0.50 4.13 2.08 1.66 0.80 0.24 178 Chas Medium land N 23º36'55.2" E 86º14'10.0" 192 5.64 0.14 8.16 42.60 18.36 0.96 2.58 0.53 7.48 1.98 1.00 0.66 0.24 179 Chas Upland N 23º36'45.2" E 86º14'03.3" 192 5.44 0.13 7.79 40.80 19.90 0.72 2.54 0.57 5.42 1.94 1.58 0.80 0.22 180 Chas Upland N 23º37'20.5" E 86º14'36.5" 189 5.26 0.10 6.85 43.40 19.92 0.96 2.26 0.52 2.84 1.76 0.68 0.72 0.24 181 Chas Upland N 23º37'19.9" E 86º14'38.7" 188 5.58 0.14 7.47 46.40 17.14 1.24 2.38 0.50 7.22 0.84 0.66 0.62 0.24 182 Kasmar Upland N 23º38'33.3" E 85º56'31.4" 320 5.22 0.08 9.08 43.40 33.40 1.46 3.22 0.49 1.03 1.96 1.16 1.16 0.26 183 Kasmar Upland N 23º37'58.5" E 85º56'09.1" 319 5.36 0.15 7.55 52.80 36.80 2.04 3.76 0.42 5.16 2.62 2.86 1.58 0.22 184 Kasmar Medium land N 23º37'54.7" E 85º56'05.1" 338 7.09 0.26 9.14 43.80 23.40 1.04 2.86 0.51 34.84 1.64 1.98 0.94 0.24 185 Kasmar lowland N 23º37'55.5" E 85º56'11.3" 324 6.58 0.18 6.65 56.40 19.76 0.96 3.38 0.38 21.94 2.48 1.70 0.94 0.20 186 Kasmar lowland N 23º37'45.0" E 85º56'11.4" 335 5.18 0.22 7.25 63.60 30.20 2.32 4.66 0.42 35.62 2.58 2.60 1.64 0.28 187 Kasmar Medium land N 23º37'59.8" E 85º56'22.3" 340 6.49 0.27 12.06 46.80 27.00 1.64 3.20 0.50 22.71 1.62 0.62 1.26 0.24 188 Kasmar lowland N 23º37'19.5" E 85º56'15.2" 341 6.28 0.22 9.74 48.40 24.40 1.48 3.34 0.36 18.58 1.64 0.98 1.48 0.26 189 Kasmar lowland N 23º37'11.1" E 85º56'16.0" 340 6.86 0.21 10.67 43.40 19.44 1.20 3.30 0.35 16.00 0.90 2.16 1.08 0.24 190 Kasmar Medium land N 23º36'56.5" E 85º56'12.8" 346 5.45 0.09 8.35 48.80 23.20 1.28 3.70 0.45 0.52 2.18 1.98 1.24 0.26 191 Kasmar Upland N 23º36'39.5" E 85º56'06.9" 347 5.36 0.14 7.92 48.00 33.80 1.64 3.30 0.38 21.94 1.96 1.36 1.48 0.22 192 Kasmar Medium land N 23º35'54.9" E 85º56'10.0" 351 5.35 0.07 5.37 42.00 14.90 0.90 1.86 0.34 1.81 1.56 0.56 0.62 0.26 193 Kasmar Medium land N 23º35'44.2" E 85º56'06.3" 353 5.30 0.05 4.07 43.20 13.72 0.80 1.84 0.33 11.87 1.64 1.34 0.48 0.22 194 Kasmar Upland N 23º35'35.0" E 85º56'05.5" 355 5.17 0.06 6.99 48.20 17.74 0.76 1.96 0.43 9.03 1.90 1.74 0.68 0.26 195 Kasmar Medium land N 23º35'17.7" E 85º56'15.2" 355 4.92 0.13 7.79 59.60 12.78 1.24 2.44 0.57 21.16 2.70 1.66 0.40 0.22 196 Kasmar Medium land N 23º35'09.6" E 85º56'22.4" 363 5.10 0.15 5.69 58.40 17.88 0.82 2.40 0.38 28.38 2.64 1.80 0.82 0.22 197 Kasmar Medium land N 23º35'12.6" E 85º56'07.9" 356 4.89 0.16 6.16 57.20 18.40 0.90 2.12 0.40 30.19 2.32 1.38 0.60 0.22 198 Kasmar Medium land N 23º34'56.7" E 85º56'30.4" 366 5.09 0.09 6.57 45.00 12.54 0.72 1.88 0.37 10.58 3.04 1.32 0.86 0.26 199 Kasmar Medium land N 23º34'42.3" E 85º56'52.2" 376 5.11 0.14 7.2 51.00 16.08 0.76 2.76 0.37 13.42 3.46 2.12 0.82 0.28 200 Kasmar lowland N 23º34'24.0" E 85º56'55.3" 367 4.63 0.20 6.81 58.60 27.60 1.12 2.60 0.55 49.29 2.20 2.48 1.60 0.12 201 Kasmar Medium land N 23º34'11.5" E 85º56'58.4" 373 5.20 0.21 5.1 52.20 24.80 0.58 2.48 0.64 13.54 2.66 1.76 0.90 0.22 202 Kasmar Medium land N 23º33'58.6" E 85º56'45.3" 369 6.25 0.26 2.77 28.20 27.40 0.36 1.76 0.57 11.94 2.00 0.06 2.42 0.08 203 Kasmar Upland N 23º34'16.9" E 85º56'48.7" 366 6.22 0.27 6.93 38.80 33.20 1.04 2.00 0.67 13.77 1.14 0.44 2.36 0.08 204 Kasmar Medium land N 23º34'03.1" E 85º56'28.5" 370 4.18 0.14 6.77 51.80 25.00 1.14 2.54 0.55 11.26 2.98 1.44 2.78 0.08 205 Kasmar Medium land N 23º33'56.0" E 85º56'16.9" 374 4.55 0.06 6.12 60.20 10.20 1.56 2.88 0.78 9.66 2.80 1.16 2.60 0.06 206 Kasmar Medium land N 23º33'54.2" E 85º56'09.2" 381 4.89 0.05 7.25 55.40 11.72 1.40 2.80 0.78 6.47 4.04 0.88 2.30 0.04 207 Kasmar Medium land N 23º33'41.7" E 85º56'04.4" 384 4.93 0.05 6.3 48.00 13.88 0.78 1.88 0.58 6.47 2.68 0.06 1.98 0.02 208 Kasmar Upland N 23º33'3.2" E 85º56'13.7" 384 5.21 0.04 3.56 40.60 14.08 0.60 1.56 0.51 3.97 3.18 0.22 1.96 0.02 209 Kasmar Medium land N 23º33'29.4" E 85º56'29.9" 275 5.29 0.09 7.04 45.40 23.20 0.74 2.42 0.60 5.34 2.82 0.54 2.16 0.02 210 Kasmar Medium land N 23º33'32.6" E 85º56'50.3" 374 6.67 0.29 4.58 29.00 32.20 0.56 2.04 0.73 13.31 1.78 1.20 2.36 0.02 211 Kasmar Medium land N 23º33'24.9" E 85º57'00.0" 384 6.10 0.28 6.43 54.40 27.60 1.10 2.64 0.81 34.74 1.66 1.32 2.30 0.02 xiv

212 Kasmar Medium land N 23º33'41.5" E 85º56'54.2" 377 5.32 0.24 6.68 46.60 26.40 0.68 2.68 0.56 20.60 3.02 0.38 2.26 0.08 213 Kasmar Medium land N 23º33'54.0" E 85º56'53.0" 371 5.20 0.22 6.77 58.60 29.00 0.80 2.66 0.57 22.20 2.52 0.92 2.26 0.08 214 Kasmar Medium land N 23º33'34.1" E 85º56'40.4" 371 5.01 0.26 9.43 53.80 31.00 0.90 2.84 0.80 14.22 3.10 1.26 2.44 0.14 215 Kasmar Medium land N 23º34'44.9" E 85º56'26.7" 374 4.74 0.13 10.42 48.00 22.60 1.46 2.76 0.68 6.25 3.96 1.00 2.64 0.20 216 Kasmar Upland N 23º37'40.9" E 85º56'14.8" 352 5.10 0.09 5.57 41.00 23.20 0.76 2.26 0.55 7.62 2.70 0.24 2.34 0.12 217 Kasmar Upland N 23º37'51.4" E 85º56'04.5" 348 5.30 0.10 7.62 48.00 12.44 0.98 2.42 0.85 9.43 2.14 1.02 2.14 0.14 218 Jassidih Medium land N 23º39'27.8" E 85º57'51.6" 317 5.36 0.08 6.59 44.20 23.00 1.18 2.56 0.56 7.62 2.62 0.78 2.62 0.16 219 Jassidih lowland N 23º39'32.7" E 85º57'50.1" 316 6.72 0.35 8.46 37.60 19.06 0.96 2.84 0.54 39.06 1.16 0.70 2.48 0.10 220 Jassidih lowland N 23º39'30.3" E 85º58'20.7" 316 7.37 0.26 6.97 38.40 12.60 1.02 2.98 0.58 29.50 0.24 0.44 2.56 0.20 221 Jassidih Medium land N 23º39'27.4" E 85º58'36.0" 311 7.10 0.29 6.39 37.80 10.82 0.62 2.56 0.61 22.66 1.18 0.62 2.32 0.20 222 Jassidih Medium land N 23º39'34.7" E 85º58'56.9" 310 6.11 0.10 6.08 34.20 15.98 0.54 1.58 0.60 5.10 0.76 0.48 2.20 0.16 223 Jassidih Medium land N 23º40'00.5" E 85º59'32.1" 304 6.40 0.16 5.77 38.20 17.08 0.72 1.62 0.52 16.27 0.90 0.34 2.44 0.16 224 Jassidih Upland N 23º40'39.2" E 85º00'29.9" 284 5.64 0.17 7.35 44.00 14.20 0.86 2.24 0.59 8.07 2.26 0.44 2.44 0.12 225 Jassidih lowland N 23º39'35.0" E 85º00'59.2" 283 5.13 0.22 7.81 49.00 20.20 1.04 2.12 0.67 42.03 1.32 0.88 2.84 0.14 226 Jassidih Medium land N 23º39'02.5" E 85º01'28.4" 273 5.19 0.10 5.82 49.40 17.24 1.04 1.98 0.77 6.02 2.40 0.74 2.12 0.10 227 Jassidih Medium land N 23º38'51.3" E 85º01'28.5" 272 5.16 0.08 5.24 39.80 18.26 0.92 2.04 0.69 6.47 2.34 0.14 1.90 0.18 228 Jassidih Medium land N 23º38'22.4" E 85º01'41.4" 271 5.05 0.09 6.91 47.40 18.48 0.96 2.62 0.80 6.70 2.04 0.04 2.16 0.08 229 Jassidih Medium land N 23º38'02.1" E 85º01'47.3" 264 5.16 0.09 5.17 42.00 17.40 0.92 2.46 0.69 4.65 2.46 0.32 2.24 0.10 230 Jassidih lowland N 23º37'53.6" E 85º02'23.6" 258 4.70 0.15 7.66 54.80 18.82 1.80 3.48 0.88 19.70 2.06 0.12 3.22 0.10 231 Jassidih Medium land N 23º40'12.8" E 85º00'55.9" 282 5.09 0.09 6.15 49.40 17.80 1.60 3.40 1.14 5.79 1.70 0.06 2.30 0.14 232 Jassidih Medium land N 23º40'08.9" E 86º00'49.5" 284 5.39 0.13 9.07 45.20 26.20 1.66 3.30 0.92 7.38 2.14 0.26 1.00 0.14 233 Jassidih Medium land N 23º40'05.5" E 86º00'43.7" 285 5.17 0.14 12.66 50.20 23.20 1.56 3.86 1.11 6.47 2.22 0.98 1.08 0.08 234 Jassidih Medium land N 23º39'56.9" E 86º00'33.6" 277 5.48 0.15 8.16 47.40 22.80 1.46 3.70 0.88 6.25 2.34 0.44 0.86 0.08 235 Jassidih lowland N 23º39'52.9" E 86º00'23.2" 280 6.88 0.22 8.47 35.60 21.80 1.10 2.76 0.79 15.14 0.90 0.78 0.64 0.08 236 Jassidih lowland N 23º39'50.3" E 86º00'16.3" 285 6.76 0.19 12.98 38.00 22.80 1.10 2.74 1.00 16.96 1.12 0.94 0.78 0.08 237 Jassidih Medium land N 23º39'56.2" E 85º59'38.9" 295 5.50 0.19 9.02 47.00 18.58 0.98 3.08 0.92 24.94 1.00 0.76 1.00 0.04 238 Jassidih lowland N 23º40'01.7" E 86º00'39.7" 284 7.29 0.33 10.86 35.40 7.66 0.38 2.92 0.80 54.34 0.58 0.66 0.58 0.08 239 Jassidih Medium land N 23º40'46.6" E 86º01'17.9" 290 5.16 0.11 7.64 49.60 35.60 1.00 2.18 0.83 14.45 2.30 1.40 1.04 0.08 240 Jassidih lowland N 23º40'56.6" E 86º01'28.1" 293 6.16 0.25 8.05 41.80 10.52 0.78 2.62 0.88 16.96 0.80 1.12 0.84 0.08 241 Jassidih Medium land N 23º41'13.4" E 86º01'39.6" 290 6.03 0.29 7.87 44.80 9.90 0.68 2.64 1.00 15.14 1.98 0.20 0.60 0.08 242 Jassidih lowland N 23º41'25.1" E 86º01'44.4" 280 6.70 0.24 6.19 42.60 11.36 1.02 2.60 0.90 17.64 0.82 0.62 0.74 0.04 243 Jassidih Upland N 23º41'55.3" E 85º59'38.2" 295 5.57 0.11 10.95 30.20 26.60 1.16 1.96 0.76 6.25 1.38 0.56 0.80 0.10 244 Jassidih Upland N 23º41'37.5" E 86º01'50.5" 275 5.43 0.16 11.01 47.80 18.96 1.30 3.02 1.08 7.62 1.42 0.12 1.02 0.06 245 Jassidih Medium land N 23º41'42.8" E 86º01'55.5" 270 6.30 0.30 10.5 45.00 21.20 1.16 2.50 0.94 19.70 1.02 0.22 1.06 0.06 246 Jassidih Medium land N 23º41'54.7" E 86º02'02.4" 269 5.57 0.12 7.25 46.00 12.82 0.66 2.86 2.16 8.07 1.42 1.04 0.86 0.06 247 Jassidih Medium land N 23º41'00.0" E 86º02'04.8" 262 5.86 0.24 7.95 50.00 15.56 0.98 4.36 0.79 15.36 0.24 1.76 1.28 0.08 xv

248 Jassidih Medium land N 23º42'04.1" E 86º02'07.2" 261 6.75 0.45 8.36 43.40 15.94 0.88 4.14 0.96 40.43 0.24 1.18 1.04 0.10 249 Jassidih lowland N 23º39'53.2" E 86º59'41.2" 289 5.11 0.57 12.12 53.40 23.60 1.12 4.64 0.99 65.19 0.44 2.30 0.44 0.20 250 Jassidih lowland N 23º39'59.0" E 86º59'42.0" 288 6.87 0.25 11.7 48.00 16.22 1.14 4.54 0.97 18.78 0.24 1.44 0.16 0.14 251 Bermo Upland N 23º42'06.0" E 86º02'19.9" 251 5.12 0.06 7.92 50.00 9.72 1.18 2.80 0.69 6.90 1.52 1.10 0.16 0.12 252 Bermo Upland N 23º42'15.2" E 86º02'20.8" 249 5.15 0.21 8.98 53.40 13.14 0.80 2.56 0.71 24.55 1.14 0.64 0.78 0.10 253 Bermo Upland N 23º42'19.0" E 86º02'29.9" 246 5.98 0.26 7.45 32.00 32.20 0.94 2.34 0.50 13.09 0.94 1.22 0.66 0.08 254 Bermo Medium land N 23º42'27.6" E 86º02'42.6" 242 4.65 0.25 10.58 51.20 13.18 1.00 3.16 0.77 24.55 1.06 1.58 1.02 0.16 255 Bermo Medium land N 23º42'32.1" E 86º02'33.3" 242 5.34 0.29 9.83 44.80 16.36 1.20 2.86 0.64 41.28 1.40 1.58 1.10 0.16 256 Bermo Medium land N 23º42'38.4" E 86º03'00.4" 240 4.61 0.19 10.2 49.00 17.52 1.44 3.20 0.60 14.23 1.32 1.82 0.70 0.22 257 Bermo Medium land N 23º42'50.2" E 86º03'06.4" 230 5.57 0.15 7.88 32.60 19.84 0.92 2.56 0.59 7.58 1.20 1.18 2.24 0.14 258 Bermo Medium land N 23º43'47.0" E 86º03'18.9" 223 5.35 0.17 7.57 25.60 16.42 0.72 2.08 0.64 7.36 1.44 0.06 1.68 0.18 259 Bermo lowland N 23º43'55.7" E 86º03'16.5" 217 5.60 0.27 5.99 43.40 16.12 1.20 2.70 0.62 34.47 1.40 0.76 2.04 0.12 260 Bermo lowland N 23º44'02.5" E 86º03'14.2" 219 5.37 0.36 0.53 45.00 15.92 1.40 2.68 0.81 53.43 1.52 0.90 1.88 0.12 261 Bermo Medium land N 23º44'12.2" E 86º02'56.3" 215 6.02 0.33 7.86 32.20 14.54 0.84 2.16 0.71 13.78 1.72 1.32 2.26 0.14 262 Bermo Medium land N 23º44'19.7" E 86º02'45.0" 202 5.53 0.27 6.4 43.80 13.10 1.28 1.72 0.69 24.78 1.34 1.66 2.28 0.16 263 Bermo Medium land N 23º44'30.9" E 86º02'25.8" 198 7.70 0.13 3.42 24.00 19.90 0.78 1.08 0.57 6.44 0.68 0.56 1.74 0.16 264 Bermo Medium land N 23º44'32.6" E 86º02'14.1" 200 5.59 0.14 7.66 32.60 22.40 0.66 2.16 0.50 9.42 3.68 1.44 1.78 0.16 265 Bermo Medium land N 23º44'41.1" E 86º02'04.8" 200 4.65 0.14 8.89 36.00 22.00 0.50 2.06 0.61 7.36 2.66 0.76 1.88 0.14 266 Bermo lowland N 23º44'49.1" E 86º01'58.4" 195 5.39 0.31 9.93 55.00 31.00 1.08 3.00 0.57 27.30 1.32 3.18 2.54 0.14 267 Bermo Medium land N 23º44'58.4" E 86º01'52.5" 203 5.34 0.40 10.8 43.80 26.40 1.12 2.60 0.74 18.82 2.96 1.28 2.02 0.10 268 Bermo Medium land N 23º45'05.7" E 86º01'24.4" 217 5.04 0.09 6.8 49.20 24.00 1.12 1.90 0.50 8.74 2.04 1.12 2.18 0.02 269 Bermo lowland N 23º45'24.7" E 86º01'05.9" 202 5.51 0.31 8.61 55.00 33.20 1.40 2.80 0.71 34.18 1.18 2.88 2.66 0.14 270 Nawadih lowland N 23º45'46.5" E 86º00'52.5" 265 6.26 0.12 11.01 58.20 19.10 2.92 3.30 0.46 7.58 3.20 1.54 2.48 0.12 271 Nawadih Upland N 23º47'53.1" E 86º00'51.6" 277 4.35 0.12 8.64 55.80 25.00 3.10 2.86 0.80 12.63 1.28 1.18 2.58 0.14 272 Nawadih Medium land N 23º49'16.1" E 86º00'57.4" 310 4.51 0.22 9.6 59.60 20.60 2.48 3.26 0.50 16.53 1.78 1.80 2.64 0.16 273 Nawadih Medium land N 23º49'30.2" E 86º01'42.6" 300 5.31 0.24 10.75 57.00 19.10 2.10 3.32 0.61 18.36 2.86 1.18 2.40 0.12 274 Nawadih lowland N 23º49'31.2" E 86º01'42.8" 295 5.79 0.51 11.21 55.20 28.20 1.50 2.56 0.74 56.42 0.72 1.80 2.26 0.14 275 Nawadih lowland N 23º47'38.4" E 86º00'54.2" 257 6.33 0.34 6.31 47.40 19.10 0.80 1.56 0.53 37.38 0.24 1.46 1.94 0.10 276 Nawadih Medium land N 23º49'34.5" E 86º02'08.1" 297 5.80 0.05 9.12 45.80 16.84 1.94 1.56 0.86 5.75 1.12 0.98 2.10 0.10 277 Nawadih Medium land N 23º49'46.8" E 86º02'25.0" 279 4.89 0.04 6.95 46.40 16.42 1.62 1.42 0.74 5.98 2.42 1.20 1.80 0.16 278 Nawadih Medium land N 23º50'02.7" E 86º02'28.9" 284 5.37 0.02 4.97 38.20 23.60 2.04 2.54 0.61 5.30 1.56 1.56 1.96 0.12 279 Nawadih lowland N 23º50'20.6" E 86º02'23.6" 280 5.56 0.34 10.41 36.60 24.80 1.98 2.62 0.58 36.24 1.08 1.40 2.24 0.14 280 Nawadih lowland N 23º51'31.9" E 86º02'38.5" 266 7.06 0.16 6.59 24.40 13.58 0.68 1.56 0.81 11.02 0.56 0.90 2.18 0.14 281 Nawadih Upland N 23º51'35.5" E 86º02'34.4" 266 5.53 0.12 1.72 27.20 18.52 0.94 1.58 0.57 6.90 1.80 0.88 2.24 0.08 282 Nawadih Medium land N 23º51'29.2" E 86º02'34.6" 272 4.65 0.09 4.08 40.80 12.24 1.32 2.04 0.52 6.22 2.92 1.48 2.12 0.06 283 Nawadih lowland N 23º51'21.4" E 86º02'27.8" 269 7.90 0.47 4.66 33.40 10.42 0.84 2.56 0.85 29.14 2.14 1.04 1.96 0.14 xvi

284 Nawadih Medium land N 23º51'16.7" E 86º02'27.1" 268 6.01 0.09 5.86 42.00 11.98 1.38 2.68 0.88 6.22 3.28 0.28 2.06 0.04 285 Nawadih lowland N 23º50'59.5" E 86º02'27.6" 277 6.56 0.45 9.25 41.20 18.46 0.90 2.34 0.98 45.64 2.46 1.44 2.14 0.10 286 Nawadih Medium land N 23º50'53.0" E 86º02'30.5" 276 5.97 0.17 5.63 32.40 21.40 0.66 1.66 0.55 3.69 2.48 1.28 2.20 0.08 287 Nawadih lowland N 23º50'41.1" E 86º02'26.6" 285 6.34 0.51 8.62 43.00 19.52 1.04 1.98 0.94 60.08 1.80 1.72 1.40 0.12 288 Petarwar Badi land N 23º38'37.5" E 85º52'46.6" 366 6.78 0.43 10.32 29.20 18.28 3.84 1.26 1.71 20.19 0.30 0.84 0.86 0.08 289 Petarwar Badi land N 23º38'31.0" E 85º52'41.5" 364 6.32 0.32 8.03 35.20 15.10 2.74 0.56 1.75 28.68 0.24 1.82 0.56 0.10 290 Petarwar lowland N 23º38'22.3" E 85º52'45.0" 361 4.88 0.16 5.29 47.60 11.38 0.46 0.70 0.95 9.88 0.58 1.08 0.90 0.08 291 Petarwar Medium land N 23º38'07.4" E 85º52'22.4" 373 5.28 0.05 4.68 27.80 11.82 0.80 0.28 0.65 5.98 0.24 0.90 0.70 0.04 292 Petarwar Badi land N 23º38'29.5" E 85º52'35.0" 365 6.36 0.34 8.95 37.40 21.00 2.64 0.92 0.96 13.09 0.74 0.72 0.86 0.08 293 Petarwar Badi land N 23º37'14.8" E 85º52'14.8" 374 6.64 0.12 7.65 34.20 16.40 3.00 0.70 1.03 7.58 2.42 1.22 0.86 0.04 294 Petarwar Medium land N 23º37'47.8" E 85º52'12.8" 380 5.44 0.35 8.49 46.20 21.60 1.88 0.80 0.67 13.78 0.48 1.04 1.12 0.18 295 Petarwar Badi land N 23º37'50.2" E 85º52'28.2" 375 4.82 0.25 9.98 64.60 23.80 3.96 1.06 1.27 11.02 0.24 1.04 0.80 0.14 296 Petarwar Medium land N 23º37'50.9" E 85º52'35.8" 377 5.84 0.10 5.17 48.40 17.80 1.06 1.20 0.71 6.90 0.28 1.68 1.18 0.10 297 Petarwar Medium land N 23º37'39.9" E 85º53'06.1" 368 5.59 0.07 6.58 37.40 25.00 0.78 2.72 0.61 5.98 2.58 1.58 1.06 0.16 298 Petarwar Medium land N 23º37'44.7" E 85º53'15.3" 370 5.54 0.06 6.2 34.60 20.60 0.90 2.44 0.60 4.84 3.22 0.80 1.10 0.16 299 Petarwar Badi land N 23º37'43.0" E 85º53'31.7" 373 6.44 0.18 5.69 20.60 19.68 1.58 1.10 0.80 10.34 0.24 0.90 1.00 0.10 300 Petarwar Badi land N 23º37'34.9" E 85º52'53.8" 372 7.65 0.53 6.23 13.28 16.40 1.72 0.90 1.06 26.15 0.24 1.14 1.22 0.18 301 Petarwar Medium land N 23º37'43.1" E 85º51'57.1" 384 5.10 0.05 4.58 45.20 25.00 1.18 1.38 0.77 8.61 2.02 0.82 1.14 0.12 302 Petarwar Medium land N 23º37'32.6" E 85º51'40.7" 383 4.82 0.06 5.03 39.00 27.20 6.00 1.38 0.52 8.24 1.90 0.94 1.28 0.06 303 Petarwar Medium land N 23º37'22.4" E 85º50'40.1" 370 4.59 0.03 2.85 37.20 17.50 1.02 1.26 0.58 6.04 0.66 0.88 1.08 0.14 304 Petarwar Medium land N 23º37'29.5" E 85º50'37.5" 371 4.91 0.10 8.33 58.40 9.50 1.52 1.72 0.77 13.01 1.94 2.30 1.20 0.18 305 Petarwar Medium land N 23º37'52.6" E 85º50'29.6" 371 5.48 0.15 7 56.00 28.60 1.82 1.88 0.54 10.07 0.24 2.90 1.12 0.22 306 Petarwar Medium land N 23º38'08.5" E 85º50'22.6" 372 4.70 0.26 7.88 54.20 32.20 1.50 1.92 0.75 10.99 0.24 2.58 1.42 0.14 307 Petarwar Medium land N 23º38'30.1" E 85º50'16.1" 366 4.32 0.27 10.79 55.20 37.40 2.16 1.92 0.98 13.74 0.24 3.40 1.98 0.08 308 Petarwar Medium land N 23º38'45.0" E 85º50'16.9" 354 4.78 0.11 5.59 54.00 30.40 1.64 1.84 0.78 11.18 0.98 2.62 1.52 0.12 309 Petarwar Medium land N 23º39'04.9" E 85º50'11.3" 354 4.47 0.11 8.49 56.20 26.40 2.54 2.24 0.94 7.14 0.54 3.26 1.50 0.10 310 Petarwar Medium land N 23º39'28.1" E 85º50'10.2" 354 4.68 0.06 7.18 52.00 24.80 2.66 2.36 0.88 10.99 1.86 2.40 0.76 0.12 311 Petarwar Medium land N 23º40'02.1" E 85º49'56.1" 348 5.03 0.20 7.17 54.20 29.00 2.22 2.22 0.78 8.79 0.56 2.68 1.12 0.14 312 Petarwar lowland N 23º40'28.4" E 85º49'50.5" 325 4.32 0.22 9.41 55.40 45.00 2.70 1.72 0.63 14.11 0.24 3.66 3.68 0.14 313 Petarwar lowland N 23º37'02.6" E 85º49'58.8" 367 4.77 0.09 6.27 51.40 31.00 1.76 1.72 0.71 10.99 1.16 2.40 1.10 0.06 314 Petarwar Medium land N 23º37'01.8" E 85º49'39.3" 368 4.88 0.09 8.1 47.80 21.60 1.42 1.58 0.58 7.14 0.92 2.40 0.80 0.14 315 Petarwar lowland N 23º37'01.3" E 85º49'39.9" 366 4.88 0.12 6.77 51.00 29.80 1.54 1.70 0.62 12.46 0.54 2.44 0.50 0.14 316 Petarwar Medium land N 23º35'36.7" E 85º48'25.8" 370 4.67 0.10 11.06 52.20 29.60 2.00 2.42 0.69 9.89 1.30 2.28 1.14 0.16 317 Petarwar lowland N 23º36'46.7" E 85º49'08.2" 349 4.76 0.11 5.9 50.20 27.00 1.52 1.66 0.61 6.95 1.10 1.76 0.86 0.10 318 Petarwar Medium land N 23º36'10.4" E 85º48'49.4" 357 5.11 0.24 7.6 43.80 33.40 1.56 2.30 0.71 12.82 2.20 3.06 1.28 0.16 319 Petarwar Badi land N 23º37'05.5" E 85º49'32.6" 360 6.33 0.14 6.42 30.60 24.60 3.30 0.70 1.04 11.18 0.58 1.18 0.46 0.12 xvii

320 Petarwar Badi land N 23º37'00.1" E 85º49'30.9" 361 4.88 0.19 6.17 43.60 31.60 3.54 1.00 0.84 18.33 1.20 2.32 0.38 0.14 321 Petarwar Badi land N 23º36'57.1" E 85º49'24.3" 360 6.02 0.46 6.83 25.40 30.00 6.54 0.78 0.96 16.31 1.72 1.66 2.14 0.14 322 Petarwar Badi land N 23º36'32.0" E 85º48'58.6" 358 5.81 0.18 3 28.00 18.62 3.26 0.94 2.84 17.60 1.54 1.60 1.80 0.16 323 Petarwar Badi land N 23º35'53.1" E 85º48'46.3" 358 5.75 0.10 7.36 22.80 16.58 1.70 0.68 1.00 12.09 1.62 1.44 1.60 0.18 324 Petarwar Upland N 23º36'32.0" E 85º48'58.6" 358 6.00 0.16 6.74 25.20 30.20 1.24 0.80 0.97 11.36 0.82 2.02 2.04 0.10 325 Petarwar Badi land N 23º36'40.0" E 85º49'00.4" 352 5.09 0.24 5.07 29.80 30.20 2.70 1.10 1.18 15.39 1.56 2.04 1.94 0.14

xvii

i