Arsenic contamination in cropping systems under

Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science

ISSN: 0365-0340 (Print) 1476-3567 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gags20

Arsenic contamination in cropping systems under varying irrigation sources in the deltaic plain of India Sanchita Mondal, Pintoo Bandopadhyay & Puspendu Dutta To cite this article: Sanchita Mondal, Pintoo Bandopadhyay & Puspendu Dutta (2018): Arsenic contamination in cropping systems under varying irrigation sources in the deltaic plain of India, Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, DOI: 10.1080/03650340.2018.1453132 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2018.1453132

Accepted author version posted online: 19 Mar 2018. Published online: 23 Mar 2018. Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gags20

ARCHIVES OF AGRONOMY AND SOIL SCIENCE, 2018 https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2018.1453132

SHORT COMMUNICATION

Arsenic contamination in cropping systems under varying irrigation sources in the deltaic plain of India Sanchita Mondala, Pintoo Bandopadhyaya and Puspendu Duttab a

Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Nadia, India; Department of Seed Science and Technology, Uttar Banga Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Cooch Behar, India

b

ABSTRACT

A field experiment was conducted in an arsenic endemic area of West Bengal, India (22°57ʹN, 89°33ʹE) in 2010–2012 to understand different prevalent cropping systems of the area as to nature of arsenic uptake by the crops and influence of different sources of irrigation water. The experiment was laid out in split plot design consisting two irrigation managements [I1: irrigation with shallow tube well (STW) and I2: irrigation from harvested pond water (PW)] in main plot and four cropping systems in sub plot were C1: pea- summer rice- cowpea, C2: potato- green gram- elephant foot yam (EFY), C3: wheat- jute- winter rice and C4: French bean- sesamewinter rice. Irrigation from PW recorded less arsenic uptake compared to STW. Arsenic uptake was minimum with French bean- sesame- winter rice (C4), followed by potato – green gram – EFY (C2). System equivalent yield was the highest with C2. The highest return was recorded with C2 and the return per dollar (USD) investment was the maximum with C1, followed by C2. Potato- green gram- EFY (C2) proved to be the better option for the farmers in arsenic contaminated area with greater yield potential, highest return per dollar investment and less arsenic uptake.

ARTICLE HISTORY

Received 28 July 2017 Accepted 12 March 2018 KEYWORDS

Arsenic; irrigation sources; cropping systems; economics; As uptake

Introduction Widespread chronic arsenic poisoning is a global concern due to the consumption of geogenically elevated arsenic contaminated drinking water, with the situation at its worst in the densely populated floodplains and deltas of South and Southeast Asia (Mukherjee et al. 2006; Brammer and Ravenscroft 2009). Ironically, while As contamination in drinking water has attracted much attention, arsenic contamination in food and water has become a menace. Related health hazards for millions and deaths have been reported by many researchers (Das et al. 1995; Mitra et al. 2002; Sanyal and Dhillon 2005). Arsenic uptake by crop plants grown in contaminated soils having the high concentration of arsenic has also been observed by Ghosh et al. (2004), ICAR (2005) and Jones (2007). The arsenic contamination essentially thought to be point source in drinking water (e.g., a tube well discharging contaminated water), may well serve as a diffuse source considering food crops produced in endemic areas support population beyond it. This is amply borne out by the observations, reporting higher than permissible level of arsenic in the urine samples of some people having no history of consuming arsenic contaminated drinking water (Sanyal and Dhillon 2005). The Ganges river delta houses a very high population density and millions of people are rendered vulnerable to arsenic contamination. Arsenic contaminations in individual crops have been reported earlier (Mondal et al. 2012a; Mondal and Bandopadhyay 2014; Mondal et al. 2015). CONTACT Sanchita Mondal [email protected] Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Mohanpur, Nadia, India © 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Bidhan Chandra

2

S. MONDAL ET AL.

Further, most apprehensive fact is that food crops grown on arsenic contaminated soils are potentially important route of human exposure to arsenic, especially for people with rice-based diets (Sinha and Bhattacharyya 2015). But choice of individual crops in the cropping system is expected to influence the arsenic in soil owing to presence of legume, cereal and tubers, along with the irrigation water requirement of the crops. The farmer has an inclination to follow choice of cropping systems which has varied considerations. Therefore, a study on arsenic contamination on cropping system basis and their comparison is very much warranted. Since more than 90% of the total groundwater in the affected belt of West Bengal is used to meet crop irrigation requirements only (Sanyal and Nasar 2002), the study becomes important. Rice ecosystems are extensive in the lower Gangetic plain and prevalent cropping systems in West Bengal, India are all rice based. Presence of summer rice in the system accounts for arsenic lifting (Mondal et al. 2012b) owing to groundwater supported irrigation and this has resulted in rice soils accumulating arsenic indiscriminately in the rhizosphere. Beyond the summer rice period the soils support other crops which are rendered vulnerable as to arsenic contamination. Cereals, legumes, tubers and vegetables exhibit different patterns of arsenic accumulation (Alam et al. 2003; Bhattacharya et al. 2010). The edible portion of the food crops may constitute leafy portion, stem, root, fruits and seeds. Enough review support exists to show the variable nature of arsenic uptake in the different plant parts (Sanyal and Nasar 2002; Huq et al. 2009). Irrigation support also enables for second crop like, wheat/potato, winter vegetables as pea or French bean and the crop taken by the farmer also has bearing to overall arsenic contamination of the system. Choice of harvested rain water or groundwater lifting may influence the contamination level considerably. Though information exists on arsenic contamination in individual crops, information on cropping systems are very scanty and it is of utmost importance considering the nature of diffused source of arsenic contamination through the pathway of food crops. So, the objective of this experiment were to assess the performance of the prevalent cropping systems of the arsenic affected belt of India and to explore the possibilities of reducing arsenic contamination using alternate source of irrigation water.

Materials and methods Study area The field experiment was conducted at farmer’s field at Nonaghata- Uttarpara village under Haringhata block in Nadia district of West Bengal, India during 2010–11 and 2011–12. The farm is located at 22°57ʹN latitude, 89°33ʹE longitude. The climate of the experimental area is broadly classified as subtropical humid. The soil is silty clay loam having the soil pH of 6.65 and total arsenic concentration of 16.52 mg kg−1. The arsenic content of irrigation water from STW was 0.122– 0.169 mg l−1 and pond water i.e. harvested rain water was also used for irrigation which contains arsenic to the extent of 0.014–0.056 mg l−1.

Treatment details The experiment was laid out in split plot design having two irrigation sources (I1: Irrigation from shallow tube well and I2: Irrigation from pond water) in main plot and four cropping systems (C1: pea- summer rice- cowpea, C2: potato- green gram- elephant foot yam, C3: wheat- jute- winter rice and C4: French bean- sesame- winter rice) in sub-plot, replicated five times and the standard package of practices was followed to raise the crops (Table 1). Plot size was 4 m × 3 m. Pea, French bean and cowpea were taken as vegetables.

Crops

Pea (Pisum sativum L.) Summer rice (Oryza sativa) Cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L)Walp.] C2: potato- green gram- Potato elephant foot yam (Solanum tuberosum) Green gram (Vigna radiata) Elephant foot yam (Amorphophallus paeoniifolius Dennst. Nicolson) C3: wheat- jute- winter Wheat rice (Triticum aestivum) Jute (Corchorusolitorius) winter rice (Oryza sativa) C4: French bean- sesame- French bean winter rice Sesame (Sesamum indicum) winter rice

Crops sequences C1: pea- summer ricecowpea

Spacing (cm×cm) 30 × 10 20 × 20 30 × 10 40 × 15 30 × 10 60 × 60 20 × 10 20 × 10 20 × 20 45 × 15 30 × 10 20 × 20

Sowing time 2nd week of November 4th week of December 2nd week of May 2nd week of November 3rd week of February 2nd week of May 2nd week of November 1st week of April 2nd week of July 2nd week of November 2nd week of March 2nd week of July

Variety used Karishma Satabdi (IET-4786) All Green Bangladesh KufriChandramukhi B-1 Bidhan Kusum UP-262 JRO-524 Lalat (IET-9947) Contender Tilottama Lalat

Table 1. Cropping systems and the production technologies adopted.

35

60 4

35

5

100

6000

20

2000

25

40

Seed rate (kg ha−1) 80

60: 30: 30

60: 80: 90 50: 25: 25

60: 30: 30

50: 25: 25

120: 60: 60

200:120:140

Residual

250:150:150

20: 60

80: 40: 40

Fertiliser dose (kg ha−1) N, P, K 60: 80: 90

2nd week of November

2nd week of November 1st week of March th 4 week of May

1st week of July

3rd week of March

4th week of October

4th week of April

2nd week of February

1st week of August

3rd week of April

Harvesting time 3rd week of January

ARCHIVES OF AGRONOMY AND SOIL SCIENCE 3

4

S. MONDAL ET AL.

Rice equivalent yield and economics Since all the sequences studied are rice based, for better comparison of the final produce the economic yield of all crops was converted into rice equivalent yield (REY). REY values help comparison of crops as to choice of farmers where both the economic advantage and yield is compounded together. REY was calculated as equation used by (Gangwar et al. 1999). 

n

REY ¼ai ðYi  eiÞ: Y = Economic yield of 1 to ‘n’ number of crops (t ha−1), e = Rice equivalent factor which can be calculated as Pe/Pc where, Pe = price of a unit weight of concerned crop, Pc = price of unit weight of intercrops, i = 1 to ‘n’ number of crops. Sale price of crop commodities for calculating equivalent yield were: Summer Rice = $ 163.50 t−1; Green gram = $ 716.30 t−1; Sesame = $ 319.20 t−1; Jute = $ 256.90 t−1; Potato = $ 116.80 t−1; Pea = $ 428.20 t−1; French Bean = $ 272.50 t−1; Wheat = $ 186.85 t−1; Winter rice = $ 116.80 t−1; Cowpea = $ 179.00 t−1 and Elephant Foot Yam = $ 132.35 t−1. The net return and benefit: cost ratios were calculated based on the local market price of the product after harvest in USD ($).

Sample collection The plant samples were collected from different plots at their specific harvesting times and they were separated into roots, stems and leaves. Rice samples at harvest were separated into straws and grains. The samples were dried at 52°C for 72 h.

Sample digestion and analysis The collected plant samples were digested and analysed following the procedure by (Sparks et al. 2006). Dried, ground plant samples (1 g) were digested separately with tri-acid mixture (HNO3: H2SO4: HClO4: 10:1:4, v/v) until a clear solution was obtained. After cooling, the digested samples were filtered with Whatman No. 42 filter paper and the filtrate was diluted to a volume of 50 ml and finally kept in polyethylene bottles until analysis was done. From the filtrate of each sample 10 ml was taken, and then 5 ml concentrated HCl and 2 ml 10% KI-ascorbic acid solution were added. The total arsenic content in the solution was determined by using Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (Perkin Elmer Analyst 200) coupled with FIAS 400 and arsenic uptake by different crops was expressed as g ha−1.

Statistical analysis All statistical analyses were carried out by using SPSS Statistics 17.0 and analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed to examine statistical significance of differences in mean arsenic uptake and economics of different crops. Comparisons among two independent treatment groups for each variable were made with a split plot analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Fisher’s least significant difference (LSD) test at the significance level P < 0.05.

Results and discussion Rice equivalent yield Effect of irrigation sources on REY was statistically not significant, variation was recorded between the irrigation source treatments. sequences, potato- green gram- elephant foot yam recorded the 72.16 t ha−1 in the successive years (Table 2) due to the inclusion of

that means, no significant Among the four cropping highest REY of 72.25 and high biomass accumulation

ARCHIVES OF AGRONOMY AND SOIL SCIENCE

5

Table 2. Rice equivalent yield (t ha−1) of different systems. 1st crop Systems Irrigation Sources (I) I1 I2 SEm (±) L.S.D. (P < 0.05) Cropping Systems (C) C1 C2 C3 C4 SEm (±) L.S.D. (P < 0.05) IXC C1 I1 C1 I2 C2 I1 C2 I2 C3 I1 C3 I2 C4 I1 C4 I2 SEm (±) L.S.D. (P < 0.05)

2nd crop

3rd crop

System

2010–11

2011–12

2010–11

2011–12

2010–11

2011–12

2010–11

2011–12

19.15 19.19 0.354 NS

19.06 19.07 0.276 NS

4.20 4.33 0.035 NS

4.17 4.37 0.052 NS

14.38 14.55 0.032 NS

14.30 14.61 0.360 NS

37.73 38.06 0.347 NS

37.53 38.04 0.525 NS

25.44 31.29 3.51 16.45 0.084 0.244

25.14 31.24 3.53 16.36 0.142 NS

6.37 2.81 5.92 1.98 0.049 NS

6.42 2.81 5.84 2.01 0.032 0.093

12.23 38.16 3.92 3.54 0.068 NS

12.22 38.12 3.92 3.57 0.061 NS

44.02 72.25 13.35 21.96 0.141 0.410

43.76 72.16 13.29 21.94 0.114 0.332

26.11 24.76 30.7 31.87 3.54 3.48 16.25 16.64 0.501 NS

25.9 24.37 30.53 31.94 3.59 3.47 16.22 16.49 0.391 NS

6.17 6.56 2.72 2.9 5.99 5.84 1.93 2.02 0.050 NS

6.18 6.65 2.64 2.98 5.9 5.78 1.97 2.05 0.074 NS

12.14 12.31 38.13 38.18 3.87 3.97 3.36 3.72 0.045 NS

12.1 12.34 37.92 38.32 3.8 4.04 3.39 3.75 0.509 NS

44.41 43.63 71.55 72.95 13.4 13.29 21.54 22.37 0.491 NS

44.17 43.35 71.08 73.24 13.29 13.28 21.58 22.29 0.742 NS

C1 = pea- boro rice- cowpea, C2 = potato- green gram- EFY, C3 = wheat- jute- rice, C4 = French bean- sesame- rice, I1 = irrigation from STW, I2 = irrigation from pond.

in the tubers of potato and elephant foot yam. The results are in conformity of the findings of Mondal et al. (2012a) and Mondal and Bandopadhyay (2014). This was followed by pea – summer rice- cowpea and French bean – sesame- winter rice. The lowest REY was obtained with wheatjute- winter rice.

Arsenic uptake The results clearly indicate that among the irrigation sources, the lowest arsenic uptake was recorded with irrigation from harvested water i.e. pond water irrespective of the crops and the systems (Table 3). It might be due to the deposition of arsenic in harvested water whether shallow tube well water containing high level of arsenic resulted in more arsenic uptake in crops as well as systems. The nature of arsenic uptake of the prevalent cropping systems depends on the nature of arsenic accumulation of the individual crop as well as the biomass production of the crops. Among all the crop types, leguminous crops showed lowest uptake. The minimum arsenic uptake was recorded in green gram (0.04–0.05 g ha−1), followed by French bean and cowpea. Among the legumes, the maximum arsenic uptake was in pea (3.87 g ha−1). This might be due to the effect that pea is a dry season crop and mainly dependant on irrigation with arsenic contaminated groundwater. Sesame, being a low yielder also recorded lower arsenic uptake (0.83 g ha−1 and 0.84 g ha−1). It can also be observed from Table 3 that jute uptake comparatively less arsenic (1.41 g ha−1 and 1.38 g ha−1). Though REY of elephant foot yam (38.16 kg ha−1 and 38.12 kg ha−1) was more than potato (31.29 kg ha−1 and 31.23 kg ha−1), elephant foot yam recorded relatively less arsenic uptake (3.26 g ha−1 and 3.14 g ha−1) as elephant foot yam is reported to be less arsenic accumulating in nature (Mondal et al. 2012a). In case of rice, summer rice, dependant mainly on irrigation, showed maximum arsenic uptake (6.58 g ha−1 and 6.53 g ha−1) whereas winter rice, cultivated in rainfed condition recorded less arsenic uptake (2.80–3.00 g ha−1). Rice plants efficiently

6

S. MONDAL ET AL.

Table 3. Arsenic uptake (g ha−1) in economic produce of different crops and systems. 1st crop Treatments Irrigation Sources (I) I1 I2 SEm (±) L.S.D. (P < 0.05) Cropping Systems (C) C1 C2 C3 C4 SEm (±) L.S.D. (P < 0.05) IXC C1 I1 C1 I2 C2 I1 C2 I2 C3 I1 C3 I2 C4 I1 C4 I2 SEm (±) L.S.D. (P < 0.05)

2nd crop

3rd crop

System

2010–11

2011–12

2010–11

2011–12

2010–11

2011–12

2010–11

2011–12

3.41 2.86 0.024 0.070

3.41 2.83 0.008 0.023

2.37 2.06 0.008 0.023

2.35 2.05 0.009 0.026

2.63 2.38 0.033 0.096

2.62 2.22 0.044 0.128

8.41 7.29 0.046 0.134

8.38 7.10 0.047 0.137

3.88 4.57 4.00 0.10 0.066 0.192

3.86 4.56 3.98 0.10 0.067 0.195

6.58 0.05 1.41 0.83 0.096 0.279

6.54 0.05 1.38 0.84 0.094 0.274

0.83 3.26 3.00 2.94 0.037 NS

0.83 3.14 2.91 2.80 0.035 NS

11.28 7.87 8.41 3.86 0.098 0.285

11.22 7.74 8.26 3.73 0.100 0.291

4.13 3.62 5.17 3.96 4.21 3.78 0.11 0.08 0.032 0.093

4.13 3.59 5.17 3.94 4.24 3.71 0.11 0.08 0.011 0.032

7.01 6.15 0.04 0.05 1.61 1.21 0.83 0.83 0.012 0.035

6.96 6.11 0.04 0.05 1.57 1.19 0.84 0.84 0.013 0.038

1.06 0.6 3.29 3.23 3.2 2.79 2.98 2.89 0.047 0.137

1.07 0.59 3.25 3.03 3.15 2.67 3.01 2.58 0.062 0.180

12.2 10.36 8.5 7.23 9.03 7.78 3.92 3.8 0.066 0.192

12.15 10.29 8.46 7.02 8.95 7.57 3.95 3.5 0.066 0.192

C1 = pea- boro rice- cowpea, C2 = potato- green gram- EFY, C3 = wheat- jute- rice, C4 = French bean- sesame- rice, I1 = irrigation from STW, I2 = irrigation from pond.

accumulate arsenic from soil due to their greater requirement of contaminated irrigation water in addition to the involvement of very effective silicon transport pathway for arsenic translocation in this crop (Ma et al. 2008). Except French bean of C4, the first crops of all other cropping systems accumulated higher amount of arsenic than other crops of the respective cropping systems which might be attributed to their complete dependence on arsenic contaminated groundwater for irrigation during their growing season i.e. Rabi season. Whereas green gram showed meagre uptake (0.05 g ha−1 in both the years of experiment) and it might be due to its lesser exposure to the arsenic contaminated growing medium being a short duration crop. The variation in arsenic uptake by different crops might be due to the inherent physiological properties, and variability in water requirement by different crops as well as availability of arsenic depending on soil properties and contents of this toxic element (Norra et al. 2005; Dahal et al. 2008). Arsenic uptake which was depicted in Table 3 was minimum with French bean- sesamewinter rice system having values of 3.86 and 3.73 g ha−1 in the successive two years due to the less arsenic accumulating nature of leguminous French bean (Aracil et al. 2001); sesame being a low yielder the arsenic removal was consequently less; winter rice being a crop predominantly supported by rainwater, remains less contaminated. Due to high yielding in nature, the arsenic removal by the edible portions of potato- green gram- elephant foot yam system was significantly greater than the previous system discussed despite tubers having reports of low arsenic content (0.56–0.95 mg kg−1 and 0.27–0.42 mg kg−1 in elephant foot yam). Earlier works reported EFY to be resilient in arsenic accumulation per unit biomass (Mondal et al. 2012a) and potato also builds up less arsenic among input intensive crops (Mondal and Bandopadhyay 2014). It might be due to potato is highly tolerant to arsenic as reported by Macnair and Cumbers (1987) and the upward translocation of arsenic is less in arsenic tolerant plants (Aracil et al. 2001). But greater accumulations of arsenic in potato and EFY were in agreement with reports of higher accumulations of arsenic in underground

ARCHIVES OF AGRONOMY AND SOIL SCIENCE

7

Table 4. Net return ($ ha−1) of different crops and systems. 1st crop Systems Irrigation Sources (I) I1 I2 SEm (±) L.S.D. (P < 0.05) Cropping Systems (C) C1 C2 C3 C4 SEm (±) L.S.D. (P < 0.05) IXC C1 I1 C1 I2 C2 I1 C2 I2 C3 I1 C3 I2 C4 I1 C4 I2 SEm (±) L.S.D. (P < 0.05)

2nd crop

3rd crop

System

Net return

B:C

Net return

B:C

Net return

B:C

Net return

B:C

1709.20 1775.60 4.72 NS

4.24 4.83 0.01 NS

151.75 247.00 2.44 NS

1.56 2.08 0.01 NS

1091.67 1153.33 5.72 NS

2.77 3.14 0.02 NS

2936.92 3172.63 76.95 NS

1.87 2.38 0.02 NS

2597.68 2798.04 147.49 1426.41 7.31 21.30

8.33 4.30 1.59 3.93 0.02 0.06

238.71 196.90 289.10 72.75 3.98 11.60

1.52 2.56 1.74 1.47 0.01 0.03

1174.99 3061.27 148.26 105.48 5.87 17.10

5.78 3.21 1.48 1.35 0.01 NS

4011.37 6056.21 547.46 1604.06 26.54 77.20

3.66 2.55 0.61 1.68 0.03 0.09

2651.68 2543.66 2679.93 2916.15 116.19 178.79 1388.99 1463.81 11.3 NS

7.85 8.81 3.99 4.6 1.38 1.79 3.74 4.11 0.03 NS

121.11 356.31 163.34 230.46 266.24 311.94 56.29 89.19 3.08 NS

1.19 1.84 2.09 3.03 1.62 1.85 1.33 1.6 0.01 NS

1144.66 1205.31 3011.52 3111.01 132.25 164.26 78.23 132.73 4.69 NS

5.3 6.26 3.11 3.3 1.41 1.54 1.25 1.44 0.02 NS

3917.46 4105.26 5854.81 6257.61 453.29 641.62 1522.11 1686.02 108.8 NS

3.11 4.21 2.36 2.74 0.49 0.73 1.53 1.83 0.02 NS

C1 = pea- boro rice- cowpea, C2 = potato- green gram- EFY, C3 = wheat- jute- rice, C4 = French bean- sesame- rice, I1 = irrigation from STW, I2 = irrigation from pond.

economic produce of arum (Parvin et al. 2006). However, low arsenic loading particularly in legumes could be attributed to less water requirements during their growing periods, and as well as due to fact that economic produce of legumes was above ground parts, and as such the upward transport of arsenic from roots was inhibited by its high toxicity to the membranes of radicle (Barrachina et al. 1995).

Economics The net return was the highest with potato – green gram – EFY ($ 6056.21) due to the inclusion of high yielding and, high remunerative crops like, potato and elephant foot yam, followed by peasummer rice- cowpea ($ 4011.37) where both pea and cowpea were taken as remunerative vegetables (Table 4). Among the prevailing cropping systems, potato- green gram- EFY was found to have highest net return per unit of arsenic uptake. However, the presence of two vegetable legumes in pea- summer rice- cowpea gave the maximum return per rupee of investment (3.66) because legumes require low input costs comparatively. The system B: C of potato – green gram – EFY was second best with a value of 2.55.

Conclusion Among the existing cropping systems popular with the farmers, potato- green gram- EFY emerged as the safer choice for the farmers with lower arsenic uptake, greater yield potential (REY) and second highest return per rupee investment. It had a low arsenic uptake next to only French bean – sesame- winter rice system. Pea- summer rice- cowpea is also a remunerative cropping system with more yield, net returns and the highest return per dollar investment but rendered unsuitable for arsenic affected areas as it recorded the maximum level of arsenic uptake, due to summer rice.

8

S. MONDAL ET AL.

Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding This work was supported by ICAR Niche Area of Excellence Project on "Arsenic Management Options including Organic Agriculture Systems in West Bengal".

References Alam MGM, Snow ET, Tanaka A. 2003. Arsenic and heavy metal contamination of vegetables grown in Samta village, Bangladesh. Sci Total Environ. 308:83–96. Aracil P, Burlo F, Lario Y, Martinez-Romero D, Valero D, Carbonell-Barrachina AA. 2001. Total arsenic accumulation in edible pods and seeds of Phaseolus vulgaris. J Environ Sci Health B. 36(6):849–861. Barrachina AC, Carbonell FB, Beneyto JM. 1995. Arsenic uptake, distribution and accumulation in tomato plants: effects of arsenic on plant growth and yield. J Plant Nutr. 18(6):1237–1250. Bhattacharya P, Samal AC, Majumdar J, Santra SC. 2010. Arsenic contamination in rice, wheat, pulses, and vegetables: a study in an arsenic affected area of West Bengal, India. Water Air Soil Pollut. 213:3–13. Brammer H, Ravenscroft P. 2009. Arsenic in groundwater: a threat to sustainable agriculture in South and South-east Asia. Environ Int. 35:647–654. Dahal BM, Fuerhacker M, Mentler A, Karki KB, Shrestha RR, Blum WEH. 2008. Arsenic contamination of soils and agricultural plants through irrigation water in Nepal. Environ Pollut. 155:157–163. Das D, Chatterjee A, Mandal BK, Samanta G, Chakraborti D. 1995. Arsenic in groundwater in six districts of West Bengal, India: the biggest arsenic calamity in the world. Analyst. 120:917–924. Gangwar B, Katyal V, Patel MM. 1999. Productivity, stability and land use efficiency of various crop sequences in arid ecosystem. J Farming Systems Res Dev. 5:1–9. Ghosh K, Das I, Saha S, Banik GC, Ghosh S, Maji NC, Sanyal SK. 2004. Arsenic chemistry in groundwater in the Bengal Delta Plain: implications in agricultural system. J Indian Chem Soc. 81(12):1063–1072. Huq SMI, Parvin K, Rahman S, Joardar JC. 2009. Response of cowpea (Vigna sinensis) to arsenic. Can J Pure Appl Sci. 3 (3):897–902. ICAR. 2005. Final Report: integrated management practices including phytoremediation for mitigation arsenic examination in soil-water-plant system. [Adhoc scheme being executed by Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Mohanpur, West Bengal; Principal Investigator – Sanyal, S. K.]. Jones FT. 2007. A broad view of arsenic. Poult Sci. 86:2–14. Ma JF, Yamaji M, Mitani N, Xu XY, Su YH, McGrath SP, Zhao FJ. 2008. Transporters of arsenite in rice and their role in arsenic accumulation in rice grain. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 105(29):9931–9935. Macnair MR, Cumbers Q. 1987. Evidence that arsenic tolerance in Hoclus lanatus L. is caused by an altered phosphate uptake system. New Phytol. 107:387–394. Mitra AK, Bose BK, Kabir H, Das BK, Hussain M. 2002. Arsenic related health problems among hospital patients in southern Bangladesh. J Health Popul Nutr. 20:198–204. Mondal S, Bandopadhyay P. 2014. An Irrigation and nutrient management model to reduce arsenic contamination in Potato (Solanum tuberosum). In: Jha P, editor. Biodiversity, conservation and sustainable development: issues and approaches (Vol. 1). New Delhi: New Academic Publishers; p. 92–100. Mondal S, Bandopadhyay P, Kundu R. 2015. Effect of irrigation sources and nutrient management on arsenic accumulation in Vegetable pea (Pisum sativum L.) in deltaic West Bengal, India. Leg Res. 38(5):635–638. Mondal S, Bandopadhyay P, Kundu R, Pal S. 2012a. Arsenic accumulation in elephant foot yam (Amorphophallus paeniifolius Dennst. Nicolson) in Deltaic West Bengal: effect of irrigation sources and nutrient management. J Root Crops. 38(1):46–50. Mondal S, Bandopadhyay P, Pal S. 2012b. Performance of green gram and dry season rice in arsenic uptake under different management options in West Bengal. Oryza. 49(2):112–116. Mukherjee A, Sengupta MK, Hossain MA, Ahamed S, Das B, Nayak B, Lodh D, Rahman MM, Chakraborti D. 2006. Arsenic contamination in groundwater: A global perspective with emphasis on the Asian scenario. J Health Popl Nutr. 24(2):142–163. Norra S, Berner ZA, Agarwala P, Wagner F, Chandrasekharam D, Stüben D. 2005. Impact of irrigation with arsenic rich groundwater on soil and crops: A geochemical case study in West Bengal delta plain, India. Appl Geochem. 20:1890–1906.

ARCHIVES OF AGRONOMY AND SOIL SCIENCE

9

Parvin S, Rashid MH, Joardar JC, Huq SMI. 2006. Response of arum (Colocasia antiquorum) to different levels of arsenic (As) treatments. Dhaka Univ J Biol Sci. 15(1):11–20. Sanyal SK, Dhillon KS 2005. Arsenic and selenium dynamics in water-soil-plant system: A threat to environmental quality. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Soil, Water and Environmental Quality: issues and Strategies, held in New Delhi, India. Sanyal SK, Nasar SKT 2002. Arsenic contamination of groundwater in West Bengal (India): build-up in soil-crop systems. In: International Conference on Water Related Disasters. Kolkata. 5th- 6th December. Sinha B, Bhattacharyya K. 2015. Arsenic toxicity in rice with special reference to speciation in Indian grain and its implication on human health. J Sci Food Agric. 95:1435–1444. Sparks DL, Page AL, Helmke PA, Leoppert RH, Solthanpour PN, Tabatabai MA, Johnston CT, Sumner ME. 2006. Methods of soil analysis, part 3. Madison (Wisconsin, USA): Chemical Methods Published by Soil Science Society of America, Inc.; p. 811–831.