ISSN: 2378-315X BBIJ

Biometrics & Biostatistics International Journal
Research Article
Volume 4 Issue 2 - 2016
Relationship between Rainfall, Runoff, Soil Loss and Productivity in North Eastern Ghat Zone of Odisha
Subudhi CR1* and Senapati SC2
1Associate Professor, Department of SWCE, Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology, India
2Professor, Department of SWCE, Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology, India
Received:June 20, 2016 | Published: July 21, 2016
*Corresponding author: Subudhi CR, Associate Professor (SWCE), CAET, OUAT, BBSR-3, College of Agricultural Engineering and Technology, Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology, Bhubaneswar, 751003, India, Email:
Citation: Subudhi CR, Senapati SC (2016) Relationship between Rainfall, Runoff, Soil Loss and Productivity in North Eastern Ghat Zone of Odisha. Biom Biostat Int J 4(2): 00093. DOI: 10.15406/bbij.2016.04.00093

Abstract

A trial was conducted at All India Coordinated Research Project ,OUAT, Phulbani during the year 2007-09 with the objectives to quantify the runoff and soil loss under different cropping systems and develop relationship among them. The treatments tried were T1-Sole crop of rice, T2- Sole crop of pigeon pea. T3-Sole crop of groundnut,T4-Pigeonpea and rice in alternate strips, T5- Pigeon pea and groundnut in alternate strips, T6-Intercrop of rice and pigeon pea (5:2), T7- Intercrop of groundnut and pigeon pea (4:2),T8-Uncultivated fallow,T9-Cultivated fallow, All crops were planted across the contour. Intercrop of groundnut and pigeon pea (4:2) gave significantly higher rice equivalent yield compared to other sole crops. Mean rice equivalent yield was 38.62q/ha. Groundnut + pigeon pea (4:2) introduction increased the yield by 158% as 97% and 21% when compared with sole crop of rice, pigeon pea and groundnut respectively. Groundnut + pigeon pea (4:2) gave the lowest runoff of 309mm which is 23% less than the cultivated fallow (401mm).Groundnut + pigeon pea (4:2) gave the lowest soil loss (8.03t/ha) which is 47% lower than the cultivated fallow (with highest soil loss 15.19 t/ha).The Groundnut + pigeon pea (4:2) gave the lowest (24.2%) mean runoff of the rainfall compared to other treatments. The relationship among rainfall, runoff and soil loss was found out which can be used to predict the runoff and soil loss from rainfall for same type of soil condition and slope. The Thus it can be concluded that intercropping of groundnut with pigeon pea planted along contour may be practiced to increase crop yield and lowering the soil loss and runoff in the hilly tribal areas of Kandhamal district of Odisha.

Keywords: Relationship; Rainfall; Runoff; Soil loss; Productivity

Introduction

Strip and intercropping of cereal crops with pulses/oilseeds are approved practices of breaking long slopes, which prevent soil loss, reduce runoff and enhance productivity. Therefore, this experiment has been designed to know the effect of strip as well as intercrop of pigeonpea, rice and groundnut on runoff, soil loss and productivity on sloppy agricultural land. These intangible benefits have not been assessed properly. Hence the present experiment has been designed. Samra JS [1] reported that renovation of terrace and plantation of fruit plants, timber plants improved biomass production, net returns, growth of crop, productivity, reduction of runoff in the range of 1.5-10.8 times, peak flow rate by 20 times& soil loss in the range of 1.2 to 5.2 times ,as well as water table rise. Subudhi et al. [2] have reported that effect of vegetative barrier like Vetiver has increased the rice yield, decrease the soil loss and decrease the runoff compared to farmers practice. Arora et al. [3] reported that there is a growing need for rain water management since 96 m ha out of 142 m ha of net cultivated land of the country is rainfed. Scientific use of these resources will definitely increase the productivity &conservation of resources like soil & water. Kumar [4] reported that impact of different soil& water conservation techniques viz. contour bunding, terracing, land leveling, smoothening& gully plugging, sowing across the slope, vegetative barrier, increase the Kharif crops by 25-30 percent. Establishment of vegetative barrier with mechanical measures were more effective in controlling soil erosion(3.8 t ha-1) over conventional method(9.64 t ha-1)and runoff thereby making more moisture available for crop growth. Anonymous [5-7] reported that intercropping of groundnut with pigeonpea planted along contour gave the highest rice equivalent yield, lowest soil loss and runoff.

Objectives

To quantify the runoff and soil loss under different cropping systems and develop relationship among them.

Materials and Methods

A trial was conducted at All India Coordinated Research Project, OUAT, Phulbani during the year 2007-09. The experiment was laid out on 2% land slope. Multi slot division box and drums were put to measure the runoff and soil loss daily after each rainfall. The treatments tried were T1-Sole crop of rice, T2- Sole crop of pigeon pea. T3-Sole crop of groundnut, T4-Pigeonpea and rice in alternate strips, T5- Pigeon pea and groundnut in alternate strips, T6-Intercrop of rice and pigeon pea (5:2), T7- Intercrop of groundnut and pigeon pea (4:2), T8-Uncultivated fallow, T9-Cultivated fallow, All crops were planted across the contour. Different crops and their varieties are, Rice- ZHU-11-26; Pigeon pea - UPAS-120; Groundnut- Smruti (OG-52-1). The experiment design was Randomized Block Design and numbers of replications were three. Plot size was 25mX2m. Seed rate were, Rice-75kg/ha; Pigeon pea-25kg/ha; Groundnut-150kg/ha (pod). Fertilizer applied was;

Basal: Rice-30:30:30kg N-P2O5-K2O/ha; Pigeon pea-20:40:20kg N-P2O5-K2O/haGroundnut-20: 40:40 kg N-P2O5-K2O/ha.

Top dressing: Rice- 30kg N in two splits.

The runoff collected daily at 8 AM was measured from the drum and 1 lit of runoff from each drum were collected for silt analysis, so soil loss can be measured from the silt sample collected after evaporating the sample in the heater. The rainfall was also measured. Thus the relation between rainfall (mm)-runoff (mm), rainfall (mm)-soil loss (t/ha) and runoff (mm)-soil loss (t/ha) were calculated and coefficient of determination was also calculated.

Result and Discussion

Rainfall, runoff and soil loss: During 2009 Pigeon pea received the highest amount of rainfall (1544.8mm) this cropping treatment received the highest amount of runoff (516mm) In addition, Groundnut + pigeon pea (4:2) gave the lowest runoff of 309mm which is 23 % less than the cultivated fallow (401mm).Groundnut + pigeon pea (4:2) gave the lowest soil loss (8.03t/ha) (Table 1) which is 47 % lower than the cultivated fallow (with highest soil loss 15.19 t/ha). The Groundnut + pigeon pea (4:2) gave the lowest (24.2 %) mean runoff of the rainfall compared to other treatments. The poor and marginal farmers having lands in upland ecosystem may go for this technology Figures 1-6.

Treatments

Run Off (mm)

Soil Loss(t/ha)

Run Off (% of Rainfall)

2007

8

9

Mean

2007

8

9

Mean

2007

2008

2009

Mean

T1 – Rc Sole

221.268

295.34

514

344

6.72

10.01

12.6

9.78

21.7

25.3

33.3

26.8

T2- Pp Sole

226.92

296.43

516

347

7.116

10.06

12.65

9.94

22.26

25.4

33.4

27

T3-Gn Sole

221.943

284.03

508

338

6.49

9.35

12.43

9.42

21.77

24.3

32.9

26.3

T4-Pp & Rc strip cropping

221.1

279.48

487

329

6.47

9.59

11.84

9.3

21.68

23.9

31.5

25.7

T5- Pp & Gn strip cropping

220.003

275.85

482

326

6.708

9.47

11.75

9.31

21.58

23.6

31.2

25.5

T6-Rc + Pp (5:2)intercropping

217.725

270.03

471

320

6.358

9.32

9.81

8.5

21.35

23.1

30.5

25

T7-Gn+ Pp (4:2)intercropping

213.376

258.39

456

309

6.231

8.61

9.25

8.03

20.96

22.1

29.5

24.2

T8- Uncultivated fallow

234.175

347.72

555

379

7.395

11.92

17.84

12.39

22.97

29.8

35.9

29.6

T9- Cultivated fallow

250.119

364.68

588

401

9.772

15.99

19.82

15.19

24.53

31.2

38.1

31.3

Mean

225.214

296.88

509

344

7.029

10.48

13.11

10.21

22.09

25.4

32.9

26.8

Table 1: Runoff and soil loss under different cropping systems during 2007 to 2009 (3 years).

Figure 1: Rice equivalent yield in different years.

Figure 2: Runoff in different years.

Figure 3: Runoff % of rainfall.

Figure 4: Soil loss, t/ha in different years.

Figure 5: Rice Equivalent Yield (REY), Runoff and soil loss in different treatments.

Figure 6: Multi slot division box with runoff collection tank.

Moisture content: From Table 2 it is observed that the Gn+Pp (4:2) intercropping gave highest moisture content, plant height and other yield attributing characters compared to other treatments so moisture content might be the reason to increase the yield.

Treatments

Mean

Moisture

Content

T1 – Rc Sole

15.5

T2- Pp Sole

16.1

T3-Gn Sole

16

T4-Pp & Rc strip cropping

16.2

T5- Pp & Gn strip cropping

17.6

T6-Rc + Pp (5:2)intercropping

17.1

T7-Gn+ Pp (4:2)intercropping

17.8

T8- Uncultivated fallow

15.6

T9- Cultivated fallow

15.2

SE (m)+

0.251

CD(0.05)

0.903

Mean

16.3

Table 2: Mean moisture content and yield attributing characteristics during 2007-09.

Nutrient loss: Nutrient loss in different treatments were shown in Table 3, it is observed that total nutrient loss was highest in treatment 9 i.e. Cultivated fallow may be due to the reason that soil surface was exposed without any crop and cultivated and also soil loss was more in this treatment compared to other treatments. Lowest nutrient loss was in T7 (42.21kg/ha) i.e. -Gn+ Pp (4:2) intercropping.

Treatments

Nutrient loss from different Treatments, Kg/ha

Total Nutrient Loss, kg/ha

N

P2O5

K2O

T1 – Rc Sole

11.5

10.14

29.7

51.34

T2- Pp Sole

11.5

13.24

35.62

60.36

T3-Gn Sole

13.13

12

28.76

53.89

T4-Pp & Rc strip cropping

11.13

9.69

23.52

44.34

T5- Pp & Gn strip cropping

11.5

7.16

27.42

46.08

T6-Rc + Pp (5:2)intercropping

10.38

6.14

25.94

42.46

T7-Gn+ Pp (4:2)intercropping

12.25

4.62

25.34

42.21

T8- Uncultivated fallow

11.5

4.17

36.02

51.69

T9- Cultivated fallow

16.25

2.82

45.43

64.5

Table 3: Nutrient lost from soil sample collected from runoff from different treatments.

Yield attributing characteristics: The biometric characteristics of different crops under different treatments is given in Table 4 it is observed that the Gn+Pp (4:2) intercropping gave highest plant height and other yield attributing characters compared to other treatments.

Treatments

Rice

Pigeonpea

Groundnut

Plant Height, Cm

Penicle Length, Cm

No of Tillers /M Run

Plant Height, Cm

Spread, Cm

No of Branches

Plant Height, Cm

No of Branches

No of Pods Per Plant

T1 – Rc Sole

71.4

17

51.5

T2- Pp Sole

186.6

93.2

22.1

T3-Gn Sole

65.4

8

35.2

T4-Pp & Rc strip cropping

74.6

17.4

53.8

191.6

99.4

22.2

T5- Pp & Gn strip cropping

198

106

23.1

74.5

8.6

37.9

T6-Rc + Pp (5:2)inter cropping

78.1

18.2

61.2

201.7

97.9

21.9

T7-Gn+ Pp (4:2)inter cropping

209.6

106.8

23.1

76

9

42.1

Mean

74.7

17.5

55.5

197.5

100.7

22.5

72

8.5

38.4

Table 4: Mean yield attributing characteristics during 2007-09.

Yield: Intercrop of groundnut and pigeonpea (4:2) gave significantly higher rice equivalent yield compared to other sole crops. Mean rice equivalent yield was 38.62 q/ha. Groundnut + pigeonpea (4:2) introduction increased the yield by 158 % as 97% and 21% when compared with sole crop of rice, pigeonpea and groundnut respectively (Table 5).

Treatments

REY(q/ha)

2007

8

9

Mean

T1 – Rc Sole

21.047

21.17

22.38

21.53

T2- Pp Sole

33.393

25.436

25.85

28.23

T3-Gn Sole

54.179

41.307

41.87

45.79

T4-Pp & Rc strip cropping

37.528

32.584

33.7

34.6

T5- Pp & Gn strip cropping

53.784

42.448

44.25

46.83

T6-Rc + Pp (5:2)intercropping

40.429

35.843

37.08

37.78

T7-Gn+ Pp (4:2)intercropping

65.996

49.043

51.68

55.57

T8- Uncultivated fallow

T9- Cultivated fallow

SE (m)+

0.961

0.612

0.601

0.586

CD(0.05)

2.914

1.885

1.823

1.778

Mean

43.78

35.404

36.69

38.62

Table 5: Rice equivalent yield, under different cropping systems during 2007 to 2009 (3 years).

Economics: From Table 6 it is observed that the Gn+Pp (4:2) intercropping gave highest mean B:C ratio i.e. 2.06 compared to all other treatments among all the cropping system treatments.

Treatments

Cost of Cultivation (Rs/ha)

Gross Income (Rs/ha)

Net Income (Rs/ha)

B:C Ratio

Rain Water Use Efficiency (Kg/ha/mm)

T1 – Rc Sole

14,000

17,933

3,933

1.28

1.62

T2- Pp Sole

14,200

23,391

9,191

1.65

1.67

T3-Gn Sole

21,721

39,582

17,861

1.82

2.91

T4-Pp & Rc strip cropping

17,861

28,866

11,005

1.62

2.18

T5- Pp & Gn strip cropping

19,294

38,839

19,545

2.01

2.86

T6-Rc + Pp (5:2)intercropping

19,166

32,222

13,056

1.68

2.4

T7-Gn+ Pp (4:2)intercropping

22,577

46,411

23,834

2.06

3.35

Table 6: Economics and Rain water use efficiency during 2007-09 as affected by different in-situ conservation practices.

The relationship between rainfall (mm), runoff (mm) and soil loss t/ha was presented in Table 7-9. The correlation coefficient was also found out. The relationship among rainfall, runoff and soil loss was found out which can be used to predict the runoff and soil loss from rainfall for same type of soil condition and slope.

Treatments

Relations

Rainfall(X) mm & Runoff(Y)mm (Co.det.)

Rainfall(X)mm & Soil loss(Z) t/ha (Co.det)

Runoff(Y)mm & Soil loss(Z)t/ha (Co.det)

T1 – Rc Sole

Y=0.36-0.011X+0.004X2 (0.969)

Z= 0.03-0.006X+0.0002X2 (0.96)

Z= -0.101+0.043Y(0.976)

T2- Pp Sole

Y=0.49-0.015X+0.004X2 (0.966)

Z=0.033-0.007X+0.0002X2 (0.957)

Z= -0.102+0.044Y(0.983)

T3-Gn Sole

Y=0.426-0.004X+0.004X2 (0.968)

Z=0.023-0.004X+0.0002X2 (0.965)

Z= -0.079+0.039Y(0.988)

T4-Pp & Rc strip cropping

Y= 0.427-0.005X+0.004X2 (0.968)

Z= 0.023-0.004X+0.0002X2 (0.965)

Z= -0.079+0.039Y(0.988)

T5- Pp & Gn strip cropping

Y= 0.401-0.0003X+0.004X2 (0.969)

Z= 0.032-0.006X+0.0002X2 (0.958)

Z= -0.1+0.043Y(0.976)

T6-Rc+Pp (5:2) intercropping

Y= 0.383-0.002X+0.004X2 (0.969)

Z= 0.021-0.004X+0.0002X2 (0.967)

Z= -0.078+0.039Y(0.988)

T7-Gn+Pp (4:2)intercropping

Y= 0.346-0.008X+0.004X2 (0.970)

Z= 0.02-0.004X+0.0002X2 (0.969)

Z= -0.076+0.039Y(0.987)

T8-Uncultivated fallow

Y= 0.65-0.045X+0.005X2 (0.963)

Z=0.04-0.008X+0.0003X2 (0.952)

Z= -0.104+0.044Y(0.984)

T9-Cultivated fallow

Y= 0.97-0.104X+0.006X2 (0.955)

Z=0.052 –0.01X+0.0003X2 (0.951)

Z= -0.098+0.05Y(0.996)

Table 7: Relation between Rainfall (X)mm, Runoff(Y)mm and Soil loss (Z) t/ha in different treatments along with co-efficient of determination (2007-08).

Treatments

Relations

Rainfall(X) mm & Runoff(Y)mm (Co.det.)

Rainfall(X)mm & Soil loss(Z) t/ha (Co.det)

Runoff(Y)mm & Soil loss(Z)t/ha (Co.det)

T1 – Rc Sole

Y=-0.5+0.156X+0.002X2 (0.975)

Z= -0.019+0.003X+0.0001X2 (0.973)

Z= -0.075+0.041Y(0.993)

T2- Pp Sole

Y=-0.432+0.152X+0.002X2 (0.975)

Z= -0.019+0.003X+0.0001X2 (0.974)

Z= -0.077+0.042Y(0.994)

T3-Gn Sole

Y=-0.414+0.14X+0.002X2 (0.975)

Z= -0.017+0.003X+0.0001X2 (0.967)

Z= -0.078+0.041Y(0.991)

T4-Pp & Rc strip cropping

Y= -0.532+0.15X+0.002X2 (0.977)

Z= -0.01+0.002X+0.0001X2 (0.976)

Z= -0.075+0.042Y(0.993)

T5- Pp & Gn strip cropping

Y= -0.531+0.15X+0.002X2 (0.977)

Z= -0.018+0.003X+0.0001X2 (0.976)

Z= -0.075+0.042Y(0.993)

T6-Rc+Pp (5:2) intercropping

Y= -0.571+0.15X+0.002X2 (0.974)

Z= -0.018+0.003X+0.0001X2 (0.973)

Z= -0.074+0.042Y(0.993)

T7-Gn+Pp (4:2)intercropping

Y= -0.513+0.136X+0.002X2 (0.972)

Z= -0.018+0.003X+0.0001X2 (0.961)

Z= -0.081+0.041Y(0.99)

T8-Uncultivated fallow

Y= -0.1+0.14X+0.004X2 (0.976)

Z= -0.018+0.003X+0.0001X2 (0.974)

Z= -0.083+0.042Y(0.996)

T9-Cultivated fallow

Y= -0.2+0.14X+0.003X2 (0.967)

Z= -0.018+0.003X+0.0001X2 (0.693)

Z= -0.097+0.052Y(0.997)

Table 8: Relation between Rainfall (X)mm, Runoff(Y)mm and Soil loss (Z) t/ha in different treatments along with co-efficient of determination (2008-09).

Treatments

Relations

Rainfall(X) mm & Runoff(Y)mm (Co.det.)

Rainfall(X)mm & Soil loss(Z) t/ha (Co.det)

Runoff(Y)mm & Soil loss(Z)t/ha (Co.det)

T1 – Rc Sole

Y=-1.33+0.384X+0.00004X2 (0.982)

Z= -0.036+0.007X+0.00004X2 (0.985)

Z= -0.082+0.031Y(0.979)

T2- Pp Sole

Y=-1.35+0.387X+0.00003X2 (0.984)

Z= -0.036+0.007X+0.00004X2 (0.987)

Z= -0.082+0.031Y(0.98)

T3-Gn Sole

Y=-1.39+0.391X-0.00008X2 (0.981)

Z= -0.037+0.007X+0.00003X2 (0.984)

Z= -0.085+0.031Y(0.979)

T4-Pp & Rc strip cropping

Y= -1.47+0.392X-0.0002X2 (0.973)

Z= -0.41+0.007X+0.00003X2 (0.975)

Z= -0.092+0.031Y(0.979)

T5- Pp & Gn strip cropping

Y= -1.53+0.391X-0.0002X2 (0.975)

Z= -0.041+0.007X+0.00003X2 (0.978)

Z= -0.075+0.03Y(0.976)

T6-Rc+Pp (5:2) intercropping

Y= -1.57+0.394X-0.0004X2 (0.974)

Z= -0.045+0.008X+0.0000001X2 (0.907)

Z= -0.041+0.024Y(0.921)

T7-Gn+Pp (4:2)intercropping

Y= -1.59+0.388X-0.0004X2 (0.968)

Z= -0.039+0.007X+0.000002X2 (0.900)

Z= -0.046+0.024Y(0.922)

T8-Uncultivated fallow

Y= -1.23+0.387X+0.0003X2 (0.983)

Z= -0.042+0.009X+0.00007X2 (0.985)

Z= -0.127+0.041Y(0.975)

T9-Cultivated fallow

Y= -1.23+0.414X+0.0003X2 (0.972)

Z= -0.054+0.011X+0.00006X2 (0.972)

Z= -0.116+0.041Y(0.986)

Table 9: Relation between Rainfall (X)mm, Runoff(Y)mm and Soil loss (Z) t/ha in different treatments along with co-efficient of determination (2009-10).

Conclusion

Thus it can be concluded that intercropping of groundnut with pigeon pea planted along contour may be practiced to increase crop yield and lowering the soil loss and runoff in the hilly tribal areas of Kandhamal district. The relationship among rainfall, runoff and soil loss was found out which can be used to predict the runoff and soil loss from rainfall for same type of soil condition and slope.

Acknowledgement

Author acknowledge the help of scientists of AICRPDA and staffs, Vice Chancellor, OUAT, Dean of Research, OUAT for time to time guidance. Author also acknowledge the help of P.C, AICRPDA, CRIDA, Hyderabad for all types of help.

References

  1. http://file.scirp.org/pdf/OJEpi20120200003_22690219.pdf.
  2. http://www.the-retiree.com.au/features/the-connection-between-diabetes-and-hearing-loss/.
  3. Wild S, Roglic G, Green A, Sicree R, King H (2004) Global prevalence of diabetes: estimates for the year 2000 and projections for 2030. Diabetes Care 27(5): 1047-1053.
  4. http://www.idf.org/diabetesatlas.
  5. http://shr.sagepub.com/content/2/7/55.short.
  6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3820049/.
  7. Al-Nozha MM, Al-Maatouq MA, Al-Mazrou YY, Al-Harthi SS, Arafah MR, et al. (2004) Diabetes mellitus in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Med J 25(11): 1603-1610.
  8. Swinburn B (2002) Sustaining dietary changes for preventing obesity and diabetes: lessons learned from the successes of other epidemic control programs. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr 11(Suppl 3): S598-S606.
  9. Hussain A, Claussen B, Ramachandran A, Williams R (2007) Prevention of type 2 diabetes: a review. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 76(3): 317-326.
  10. Lyssenko V, Jonsson A, Almgren P, Pulizzi N, Isomaa B, et al. (2008) Clinical risk factors, DNA variants, and the development of type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 359(21): 2220-2232.
  11. Sladek R, Rocheleau G, Rung J, Dina C, Shen L, et al. (2007) A genome-wide association study identifies novel risk loci for type 2 diabetes. Nature 445(7130): 881-885.
  12. Alberti KG, Zimmet P, Shaw J (2007) International Diabetes Federation: a consensus on Type 2 diabetes prevention. Diabet Med 24(5): 451-463.
  13. Van Dam RM, Rimm EB, Willett WC, Stampfer MJ, Hu FB (2002) Dietary patterns and risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus in U.S. men. Ann Intern Med 136(3): 201-209.
  14. Mokdad AH, Serdula MK, Dietz WH, Bowman BA, Marks JS, et al. (1999) The spread of the obesity epidemic in the United States, 1991-1998. JAMA 282(16): 1519-1522.
  15. Bener A, Zirie M, Janahi IM, Al-Hamaq AO, Musallam M, et al. (2009) Prevalence of diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetes mellitus and its risk factors in a population-based study of Qatar. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 84(1): 99-106.
  16. Chopra M, Galbraith S, Darnton-Hill I (2002) A global response to a global problem: the epidemic of overnutrition. Bull World Health Organ 80(12): 952-958.
  17. Tutz G (2011) Multinomial Response Models. Regression for Categorical Data 1-25.
© 2014-2016 MedCrave Group, All rights reserved. No part of this content may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means as per the standard guidelines of fair use.
Creative Commons License Open Access by MedCrave Group is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://medcraveonline.com
Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version | Opera |Privacy Policy