Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Management of Large Irrigation Systems f E h i W t P d ti itfor Enhancing Water Productivity
S K A b tS.K. [email protected]
ICAR-Indian Institute of Water Management gBhubaneswar - 751023, Odisha (India)
Introduction World over about 18% of the cultivated land is irrigated World over about 18% of the cultivated land is irrigated
that contributes nearly 40% of the global food production
WRD hi l f l d ti t t d i d WRD as vehicle for planned time targeted progress raisedirrigation potential (20.9 in 1951 to 123.3 M ha in 2012)
Enormous irrigation potential has been created at hugecost (about Rs 16 billion/annum), the gap between createdpotential and utilization is significant (32.2 M ha; 26%)potential and utilization is significant (32.2 M ha; 26%)
Low conveyance (65-70%) and application (45-50%)ffi i i lti l i i ti ffi i (35 40%)efficiencies resulting low irrigation efficiency (35-40%)
Sustainability of irrigated agriculture is severely impairedSustainability of irrigated agriculture is severely impaireddue to waterlogging and salinity in arid & semi-arid regions
8.4 M ha land (10 M ha by 2025) affected with soil salinity/alkalinity. About 5.5 M ha land is in irrigation commandsalkalinity. About 5.5 M ha land is in irrigation commands
Lack of systematic information on crop water productivityd l i f ti t t l t d ti itand nearly no information on total water productivity
Benchmarking WP at field, system and basin scale, wouldg , y ,help to evaluate improvement options
I i it f t & l d d d ti i i i t d Increasing scarcity of water & land degradation in irrigatedareas may pose serious challenge to food security
Substantial increase in output of water used particularly inagriculture is essential to meet the goals of national food
d i t l itand environmental security
Water and Food Security: Challenges By 205020 Agro-Ecological Regions
Rainwater Management Application
Efficiency
g g g
y
(+111 M t)(-324 BCM)Canal Water
Water Productivity
( 3 C )
National Food
Security
ManagementWater
Resource Development Productivity y
2050
(+20% IE)(+46% WP)
Groundwater Management
and Management
( )
SustainabilityWastewater Management
Climate Change
Marginal / Poor Quality Groundwater
Aquifers surveyed in different states in semi-arid regions indicatedabout 32-84% of the ground water as poor quality in nature
Crop Water Productivity in India
Region/crops
Land Productivity#
(Kg/m2) Avg. Exp.
Water Productivity (Kg/m3)
Avg. Exp.
Reference
RiceRice Punjab Haryana Uttar Pradesh Chhattisgarh
0.35 0.66 0.27 0.64 0.21 0.46 0 14 0 70
- 0.34 - 0.44 - 0.38 - 0 46
Hira et al. (2004) Tyagi et al. (2000) * CSSRI (2005) Mukherjee (1990)Chhattisgarh
Orissa West Bengal Karnataka
0.14 0.700.16 0.17 0.25 0.42
0.22 -
0.46- 0.21 - 0.36 - 0.61
Mukherjee (1990)Kar et al. (2004) Ambast et al. (1998) Manjunatha (2004)
WheatWheat Punjab Haryana Uttaranchal Uttar Pradesh
0.45 0.54 0.41 0.49 0.19 0.50 0.28 0.43
- 1.40 - 1.44 - 1.00 - 1.11
Hira et al. (2004) Tyagi et al. (2000) Mishra et al. (1995) CSSRI (2005)
Crop water productivity (Kg/m3) = Yield (Kg/ha)/Water consumed in ET+ Losses (m3/ha)# Average land productivity based on Statistical Abstract of India, 2003* Authors reported water use efficiency as 1 1 kg/m3 on the basis of actual ET
West Bengal 0.22 0.30 - 1.15 Ambast et al. (1998)
Authors reported water use efficiency as 1.1 kg/m on the basis of actual ET
Irrigation System
POLITICO ECONOMIC SYSTEM
6
RURAL ECONOMIC SYSTEM
5
AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC SYSTEM
4
IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE SYSTEM
2
3
IRRIGATION SYSTEM
2
1.Operation of irrigation facilities 3.Agricultural production 5.Rural development2.Supply of water to crops 4.Incomes in rural sector 6.National development
1Other Inputs Other Inputs
BasinLevel
Surface & subsurface inflows and precipitation
Hydrologistand Economist
Rs/m3
System Level
Reservoir Storage losses
Inter-sectoral allocation Sinks
Irri. Engineers
d S i l
A comprehensive
Conveyance losses
Water released
and Social Scientist
Kg/m3, Rs/m3
Farm
pframework for water productivity at different scales
Water deliveredat farm gate
Total water available at farm
Return flow, Water-table, Groundwater
Rainfall
Ag. Engineersand Ag. Economist
Farm Levelat different scales
(Ambast, 2005)
Water appliedto field
Application losses
Sinks
Crop scientist
and
Field Level
Water consumed
by crop
Water retained in soil
and Soil scientist
Kg/m3
y p
Crop production
Breedersand Physiologist
Estimation of System Performancein Large Irrigated Commandsg g
Water Productivity at Field Scale
Kaithal Irrigation Circle216 farmers in
6 watercourses6 watercourses
Crops Head reach Tail reachRice (Kg/m3) 0 47 0 37Rice (Kg/m ) 0.47 0.37
Wheat (Kg/m3) 1.90 1.50
Up-scaling Water Productivity to System Level
Branch canal commandBranch canal command
Distributary canal command
ETa (mm/d) on 31 Jan
Yield & Evapotranspiration at System Scale
Wheat crop yield
Crop Water Productivity in the SLLC System
At di t ib t3 00 At distributary level
1 50
2.00
2.50
3.00
Yiel
d / W
UE-
S
Evp fract(-)Yield(Kg/ha)WUE(Kg/m3)
0 00
0.50
1.00
1.50
Evp
frac
t / Y
(Source: Ambast 2001)
0.00X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 X11 X12 X13 X14 X15
Distributary ID (Buxar Canal)
2.00
2.50
3.00
d / W
UE-
S
Evp fract (-)Yield (Kg/ha)WUE (Kg/m3)
0.50
1.00
1.50
vp fr
act /
Yie
ld
At branch canal level
0.00
0.50
P A B D X C G W1 W2Canal ID
Ev
Monitoring of Waterlogged & Salt Affected Crops
ConceptConcept
Bhalaut Canal Command (Haryana)Total Area : 80,000 haProduction Loss : 62000 tonsEconomic loss : 37 m INR
WASAC-SRS
Economic loss : 37 m INRLoss (% to potential) : 18%(1 INR = 0.023 US$)
(Ambast et al., 1999)
Technological Options for Improving g p p gWater Productivity in Irrigated Environment
Spatial Decision Support System for Conjunctive Use of Waters
Canal Network, Design Discharge
Soil & Groundwater Salinity Information
Cropping Pattern
Farmers P ti
Spatial Database Management SystemE i M d lPractices Economic Model
Regression Models/ ANN
SWAP/CROPWAT
Farmers Decision & Economics
Scientific Decision & Economics
Comparison of DecisionsEconomics Economics Decisions
(Ambast et al., 2004)
Farmers’ Decision-making and Yield Variation35.0
40.0
)
Ground waterCanal water
18.3 22.2 25.521.8 30.1 32.2
1 0
20.025.0
30.0
pplic
atio
n (c
m) Canal water
Irrigation application by different sources
9.3 9.0 7.0 5.81.5 1.3
30.1
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
Wat
er a
p
BH BM BT RH RM RT
Watercourse
Location of Wheat yield (t ha-1) Rice yield (t ha-1)Location offields in watercoursecommand
Wheat yield (t ha ) Rice yield (t ha ) ______________________ _______________________ Watercourse at Watercourse at Head Middle Tail Head Middle Tail
Head 4.8 4.7 4.4 5.0 4.1 3.0Head 4.8 4.7 4.4 5.0 4.1 3.0
Middle 4.6 4.4 4.2 4.6 3.5 NR
Tail 4 4 4 3 3 7 4 5 3 4 NRTail 4.4 4.3 3.7 4.5 3.4 NR
Average 4.6 4.5 4.1 4.7 3.6 3.0 Yield variation in Batta minor
37 5
40
Conjunctive Use of Canal and Groundwater
Effect on relative wheat yield
32.5
35
37.5
m)
Ryect o e at e eat y e d
25
27.5
30
Depth o
f applic
ation (c
m
17.5
20
22.5
35
36
37
38
39
40
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Irrigation water quality (dS/m)
15
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
applicati
on (cm)
ECe
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Depth o
f water
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12EC of Irrigation Water (dS/m)
15
16
17
18
19
20
Effect on soil salinity at wheat harvest (initial ECe 5.5 dS/m)
Precision Land Levelling for Improving WP Conventional
LevellingLaser LevellingLevelling Levelling
Levelling index (cm)
> 1.5 <1.5
Irrigation depth (cm) Paddy Wh t
110-115
30 35
90-95 20 25Wheat 30-35 20-25
Pumping req.(hr/ha/irri) Paddy Wheat
25-27 15-17
20-22 9-11
Water prod. (kg/m3)
Laser land levellerPaddyWheat
0.371.50
0.472.44
Profit Gains (INR/ha) 1st year 2nd year
- -
1000-12004000-5000
Crop performance2 year 4000 5000
Precision levelling (LI<1.5cm) notonly reduces application of water,energy consumption and croplosses, but also enhances waterproductivity and economic returns.
0.9
1EC = 1 dS/mEC = 3 dS/m
Irrigation Schedulling
Conventional Land levelling
0.6
0.7
0.8
yiel
d, (%
)
EC = 5 dS/mEC = 7 dS/mEC = 9 dS/mEC = 11 dS/m
Co e t o a a d e e g
0.3
0.4
0.5
Rel
ativ
e y
0.1
0.2
1 2 3 4 5 6Number of irrigations
7
80.90
1.00EC = 1 dS/mEC=3dS/m
5
6
050
0.60
0.70
0.80
yiel
d, (%
)
EC 3 dS/mEC = 5 dS/mEC = 7 dS/mEC = 9 dS/mEC = 11 dS/m
12
3
4
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
Rel
ativ
e y
0.00
0.10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Number of irrigations
Precision Land Levelling
Alternate Cropping Pattern for WP Improvement
Deficit Irrigation/Alternate Cropping Pattern for Improving WP
Crop Area (%)
Prod Loss(%)
Prod. (kg)
WUE Kg/m3)
CP1 Wheat I 35 0 0 1575 0 98Wheat-I 35 0.0 1575 0.98Wheat-II 20 1.5 887 0.96 Pulses+OS 15+5 2.8 194 0.47 Vegetable 3 2 5 585 5 11Alternate cropping Vegetable 3 2.5 585 5.11Scane 2 0.0 1000 - CP4 Wheat-I 50 4.3 2153 1.27
Alternate cropping pattern and deficit irrigation increased
Wheat-II 35 12.0 1386 1.17Pulses+OS 5+5 7.2 93 1.28 Vegetable 3 2.5 585 5.11 Scane 2 0 0 1000
gwater productivity and net benefit
Scane 2 0.0 1000 -CP5 Wheat-I 60 4.3 2584 1.27 Wheat-II 40 12.0 1584 1.17
Net Profit(INR/ha): CP1-6050; CP4-8120; CP5-8750
18.6.
98
20.7.
98
06.8.
98
20.8.
98
04.9.
98
17.9.
98
07.10
.98
Artificial Groundwater Recharge through Tabewell
12
-8
-4
1 2 06 2 04 1 0
to w
ater
tabl
e (m
)
(a)
-16
-12
Time (day)
Dep
th t
with recharge tubewell
without recharge
6 98 7 98 8 98 8 98 9 98 9 98 10.98
-8
-418
.6.9
20.7.
9
06.8.
9
20.8.
9
04.9.
9
17.9.
9
07.10
wat
erta
ble
(m)
(b)
-16
-12
Time (day)
Dep
th to
w
with recharge tubewell
without recharge
8
-8
-4
18.6.
98
20.7.
98
06.8.
98
20.8.
98
04.9.
98
17.9.
98
07.10
.98
ater
tabl
e (m
)
(c)
-16
-12
Time (day)
Dep
th to
wa
with recharge tubewell
without recharge
Recommended Design and Economics
Particulars
Quantity Unit Cost (Rs.)
Total Cost*
(Rs.) 1. Installation of pipe with boring (6” dia. bore
and 4” dia PVC pipe with perforations 1 No. @ 8000 8000
and 4 dia. PVC pipe with perforations 2.Excavation & disposal of dug soil & refilling of pit with filter materials (3m*3m*3m). 3 P t f filt t i l
27.00 m3
4 95 3
@ 50/m3
@ 300/ 3
1350
14853. Procurement of filter material (a) Coarse sand (b) Gravel (c) Pebbles
4.95 m3
8.55 m3 13.50 m3
@ 300/m3
@ 350/m3 @ 400/m3
1485 2993 5400
Total Cost 19230 Total Cost 19230
Cost of recharge - Rs 10 /100m3Cost of recharge Rs 10 /100m3
(Ambast et al., 2006)
Demand Management for Arresting Watertable Decline
Fallow land during kharif seasong
0 2 4 6 8 10
Uncropped land (% of CCA)
15.4
15.6
15.8th (m
)
NR-0NW-0
NR-1NW-0
Reduced irrigations (NR-2, NW-1) and 10% fallow land
16.0
16.2
16 4er ta
ble
dept NR-0
NW-1
NR-2NW-0
NR 2NW-1) and 10% fallow land reverses WT decline by 25 cm/year in Guhla block
16.4
16.6
16.8
Wat
e NR-2NW-1
NR-1NW-1
Groundwater Dilution & Use in Crop Productionat Recharge Site (Odara, Bharatpur, Rajasthan)
Name O.R.P Yield t/ha Farmers yield (t/ha) % Increase
1. Mr. Jagan Singh 5.36 4.73 13.3
2. Mr.Mukesh Kumar 4.71 4.13 14.0
3. Mr.Birendra Singh 4.75 4.14 14.7
4. Mr Lal Hans 4.76 4.22 12.8
5. Mr Dinesh Chand 4.75 4.20 13.15. Mr Dinesh Chand 4.75 4.20 13.1
6. Mr Dhara Singh 5.01 4.35 15.2
7. Mr Ram Bharosi 4.50 3.90 15.4
8. Mr Roop Singh 4.80 4.10 17.1
25
8. Mr Roop Singh 4.80 4.10 17.1
9. Mr Hari Prasad 5.00 4.30 16.3
10
15
20
ECiw
(dS/
m)
Mr Hari PrasaMr Jagan SingMr Mukesh KMr Ram BharMr Lal HansMr Dinesh ChMr Dhara Sing
0
5
Initial ECiw Ist irri. IInd irri. IIIrd irri. IVth irri. Vth irr.
Iirrigations
Mr Dhara SingMr Birendra SMr Roop Sing
Crop Management: Saline Irrigation Water Crops Soil ECiw for relative yield
90% 75% 50%Wheat - pearl millet(Agra - 6 yrs)
Sandy loam 6.6 10.4 16.8
Wh t h S d l l 3 4 7 0 12 9Wheat - sorghum(Dharwad - 5 yrs)
Sandy clay loam 3.4 7.0 12.9
Wheat - maize(Indore – 8 yrs)
Clay loam 4.7 8.7 15.2(Indore 8 yrs)Mustard - cluster bean(Jobner - 2 yrs)
Loamy sand 6.6 13.5 -
Mustard - Sorghum Sandy loam 6.6 8.8 12.3(Agra – 6 yrs)Mustard - soybean(Indore - 5 yrs)
Sandy clay loam 3.8 7.9 14.7
• Crops vary in their tolerance to ECiw• Oilseed crop require less water, are more tolerant to high ECiw• Pulses are very sensitive to saltsPulses are very sensitive to salts• Higher salinity water could be used in coarse textured soils• In summer, crops show less tolerance to Eciw
Irrigation Management: Conju Use (Saline/Canal water)
Treat Seed Relative Water Wheat Relative WaterTreatments
Seed cotton
yield (t/ha)
Relative yield (%)
Water productivity
(kg/m3)
Wheat yield (t/ha)
Relative yield (%)
Water productivity
(kg/m3)IW TW IW TW
C 3.42 100 1 90 0 66 5.71 100.0 1.90 1.42C 100 1.90 0.66 5.71 100.0 1.90 1.421C: 1S 2.93 85.7 1.63 0.57 5.40 94.6 1.80 1.361S: 1C 2.80 81.9 1.56 0.55 5.22 91.4 1.74 1.322C:1S 3.32 97.1 1.84 0.64 5.58 97.8 1.86 1.40
2 032S:1C 2.03 59.4 1.13 0.40 4.16 73.0 1.39 1.06S: RTC 3.02 88.3 1.68 0.59 4.64 81.3 1.55 1.18C: RTS 2.79 81.6 1.55 0.55 4.74 83.1 1.58 1.21S 1.94 56 7 1 08 0 39 3.91 68.4 1.30 1.00S 56.7 1.08 0.39 3.91 68.4 1.30 1.00CD(5%) 0.21
(AICRP:2010-12)
Irrigation Management: Conju. Use (Alkali/Canal waters)
2500
40
45R
CW
1500
2000
20
25
30
35
nfall (mm)
SP
AW
Cyc(1YCW:2YAW)
Cyc(2YAW:1YCW)
Cyc(2YCW:1YAW)
500
1000
5
10
15 RainE
Cyc(1YAW:2YCW)
Cyc(AWp:CWs)
Blend(2CW:1AW)
Blend(1CW;2AW)00
2003‐04 2004‐05 2005‐06 2006‐07 2007‐08 2008‐09
Irrigation Management: Method & Frequency TreatmentsECiw levels (dS/m)
Capsicum (t/ha) Okra (t/ha)Drip Surface Drip Surface
Canal 16.74 12.78 11.19 10.794 11.92 8.84 5.27 2.748 10.19 7.68 2.93 0.01CD (5%) 2 37 1 37 1 26 1 14CD (5%) 2.37 1.37 1.26 1.14IW/CPE ratio0.75 13.02 10.03 4.58 4.501.00 13.61 9.87 6.79 4.581.25 12.22 9.21 8.03 4.43CD (5%) NS NS 1.26 NSEC x IW/CPE ratio NS NS 3.15 NS
Treatments
ECiw levels (dS/m)
Drip irrigation Surface irrigationWater use
(cm)Water prod (kg/ha-cm)
Water use (cm)
Water prod (kg/ha-cm)
Canal 46.9 240.4 64.9 166.74 47.7 116.0 64.3 44.38 43.6 71.0 64.0 0.2IW/CPE ratio0 75 35 9 127 5 50 5 89 30.75 35.9 127.5 50.5 89.31.00 47.8 143.4 64.7 71.51.25 57.6 139.4 78.4 57.7
(AICRP:2010-12)
M i d i ld f d t ith
Irrigation Management: Groundnut-Wheat under MI
Maximum pod yield of groundnut withBAW (EC 0.25dS/m), saline water (EC 4.6dS/m) and mixed waters (EC 1.56-3.24dS/m) obtained at water depth of 60 50dS/m) obtained at water depth of 60, 50and 55 cm respectively.
For obtaining higher yield of wheat undersprinkler irrigation the depth of waterapplied is to be kept around 42, 33 and38 cm for BAW, saline and mixed water,
ti lrespectively.
Water Saving & Increase in Area by Drip Irrigation Centre & State Test Crops Soil type Water saving (%) Area Increase
(times)(times)Dapoli (MS) Brinjal Lateritic 38 1.6Navsari (Guj) Onion
TurmericClay 30
321.41.5Turmeric
Chilly3248
1.51.9
Bhawanisagar (TN) JasmineSugarcane
Sandy loam 5040
2.01 7Sugarcane
TomatoBanana
404248
1.71.71.9
Madurai (TN) Sugarcane Clay loam 21 1.3Red Gram 39 1.6
Kota (Raj) OnionGarlic
Clay loam 2322
1.31.3
Turmeric 23 1.3Faizabad(UP) Sugarcane
MarigoldCowpea
Silt loam 595561
2.42.22 6Cowpea 61 2.6
Palampur (HP) Broccoli cauliflower
Silty clay loam 4738
1.91.6
Increase in Yield by Drip Fertigation Centre & State Test Crop Soil type Yield (kg/ha) % Yield p yp ( g )
increaseConventional Fertigation
Dapoli (MS) Brinjal Lateritic 1876 3234 72Jorhat (Assam) Assam Lemon Sandy Loam 10100 14880 47( ) yPalampur (HP) Broccoli Siltyclayloam 7400 8440 14
Navsari (Guj) OnionTurmeric
ClayClay
2874013100
4569016800
5928Turmeric
Round melonSugarcaneTomato
ClayClayClayClay
131001200014000048000
168001530018300068000
28283142
Bhawanisagar(TN)
Coconut (Nuts)Sugarcane
Sandy loam 10974115300
16461171700
5049
Madurai (TN) Red Gram Clay loam 1108 1515 37Kota (Raj) Onion Cabbage
Garlic TurmericBitter Gourd
Clay loamClay loamClay loamClay loam
1635017756695314670
24960233731057527360
53325287Clay loam
Clay loam1467021226
2736030139
8742
Faizabad (UP) Marigold Silt loam 161 216 34
Conclusions
In the changing climate scenario, water will beincreasingly scarce, it is important to understand theconcept and utility of water productivity at field,concept and utility of water productivity at field,system and basin level.
Benchmark information on ater prod cti it ma be Benchmark information on water productivity may beuseful to assess the scope of water productivityimprovement by different improvement interventions.
Technological interventional i.e. conjunctive use ofwaters, precision land levelling, deficit irrigation,, p g, g ,alternate cropping system, diversified land use andmultiple use of water may help in improving waterproductivity in saline irrigated commands.productivity in saline irrigated commands.
Water Productivity - Policy Issues
How effective is water productivity estimation at farm How effective is water productivity estimation at farm,system and basin scale to assess the scope andmeasure for improvement?
Operation system research to evolve scientifically basedregion specific integrated farming system componentsregion specific integrated farming system components.
Assessing sustainability implications of long-term and Assessing sustainability implications of long term andlarge-scale implementation of multiple uses of rain/canaland saline ground waters in different sub-regions.
Trade-off between hydraulic means of improving waterproductivity and saved water worth in different regionsproductivity and saved water worth in different regions.
Thank you
