Irrigation Management in Command Areas COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL

Irrigation Management in Command Areas COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING JNKVV Jabalpur

Irrigation Efficiency at Field level Sources of losses Seepage Evaporation Total Main canal and Branches 13. 6 3. 4 17. 0 Distributaries 6. 4 1. 6 8. 0 Field and Water Courses 16. 0 4. 0 20. 0 Field application losses 13. 2 3. 3 16. 5 Total 49. 2 12. 3 61. 5

Factors affecting Water Use Efficiency • Genetic factors – Water use efficiency of C 4 plant species such as maize, sorghum, sugarcane, pearl millet, finger miller etc is higher (3. 14 to 3. 44 mg dry weight/g of water) when compared to C 3 species (1. 49 to 1. 59 mg dry weight/g of water) such as pulses, oilseed crops, wheat, barley, oats etc. • Climatic factors • Crop management factors Challenges – projected demand of about 450 million tones food grains by 2050. Challenge is therefore to achieve higher food grain production with reduced availability of water.

How to Enhance Water Productivity in Irrigated Commands • Improving control over water delivery and its potential impact • Changes in input use and potential impacts on water productivity • Potential impacts of improving quality of irrigation and water allocation • Allocating water across regions and productivity gains at the basin level

Water Management Module 2 V for ADA/ADH and other officers 1. Surface irrigation methods 2. Drip irrigation method 3. Soil moisture measurement, scheduling of irrigation 4. Surface drainage 5. On farm reservoirs and water recycling 6. Participatory Irrigation Management 7. Watershed management 8. Canal distribution network

Extendable Technology Soybean : Ridge & Furrow system of sowing, Short duration variety Crop Basin Variety Technol ogy Demonst rated Yield (Q/ha) WUE(kg/m 3) Number FP IP % Increase Soybean Ken JS-97 -52, SPP 10 12. 80 18. 60 45. 31 1. 60 4. 13 158. 33 Soybean Ken JS-97 -52 R&F 10 13. 90 21. 10 51. 80 0. 56 4. 69 743. 33 Soybean Tons JS-93 -05 SSP 3 7. 00 12. 50 78. 57 0. 57 1. 45 153. 32 Soybean Tons JS-93 -05 R&F 2 7. 50 14. 00 86. 67 0. 69 1. 63 134. 42 Soybean Tons JS-93 -05 SDV 2 8. 00 13. 00 62. 50 0. 57 1. 20 110. 65 Soybean Betwa JS-93 -05 SPP, SDV 10 8. 10 14. 60 80. 25 0. 62 2. 43 290. 53 Max 13. 90 21. 10 86. 67 1. 60 4. 69 743. 33 Min 7. 00 12. 50 45. 31 0. 56 1. 20 110. 65 AVE 9. 78 15. 93 67. 14 0. 85 2. 68 305. 57 • • • Average yield of soybean is rising from 9. 8 to 15. 9 q/ha (67% increase) An average WUE change from 0. 85 to 2. 68 kg/cum. This is an increase of 110. 7 to 743 %. It was possible by adapting • • Scientific package of practices Ridge-furrow system of sowing, and Short duration variety of soybean. Maximum rise has been observed with ridge-furrow method of cultivation.

Ridge & Furrow system of sowing in Soybean

Rice: SRI Method, improved variety Crop Basin Variety Technol ogy Demon strated Yield (Q/ha) WUE(kg/m 3) Number FP IP % Increas e FP IP % Increase Rice Ken MR-219 SRI 10. 00 25. 00 42. 00 68. 00 0. 70 9. 47 255. 70 Rice Tons Pusa basmati-1 SRI 5. 00 17. 20 22. 50 30. 81 1. 19 1. 96 63. 80 Rice Tons Pusa basmati-1 RV 4. 00 15. 30 20. 50 33. 99 1. 28 2. 52 96. 84 Max 25. 00 42. 00 68. 00 1. 28 9. 47 255. 70 Min 15. 30 20. 50 30. 81 0. 70 1. 96 63. 80 AVE 19. 17 28. 33 44. 27 1. 06 4. 65 138. 78 • SRI method in Rice cultivation and change in local variety resulted in • 44 percent rise in average yields and • 139 percent in WUE.

SRI Method in Rice Transplanting of 12 days nursery Crop at maturity stage Crop at 35 days age

Wheat: Improved production technology with irrigation scheduling Crop Basin Variety Technology Demonstrated Yield (Q/ha) WUE(kg/m 3) Number FP IP % Increase Wheat Tons GW 273 SPP, NV 5. 00 20. 00 28. 00 40. 00 0. 81 1. 82 124. 00 Wheat Tons GW 273 SPP 5. 00 22. 00 30. 00 36. 36 0. 89 1. 47 64. 92 Wheat Ken JW- 366 IPT, IS 5. 00 27. 20 37. 60 38. 40 1. 16 1. 40 20. 63 Wheat Ken JW- 366 SPP 5. 00 26. 50 35. 80 35. 09 0. 91 1. 46 60. 49 min 20. 00 28. 00 35. 09 0. 81 1. 40 20. 63 max 27. 20 37. 60 40. 00 1. 16 1. 82 124. 00 AVE 23. 82 32. 83 37. 49 0. 96 1. 56 69. 11 • Wheat shows a gain of 37 percent in yield and 69 percent in WUE.

Vegetables: Improved variety Crop Basin Variety Yield (Q/ha) Number FP IP 10. 00 137. 80 194. 70 WUE(kg/m 3) % FP IP % 41. 29 3. 74 18. 72 399. 96 Tomato Ken Nirmal- 960 (Hybrid ) STK Okra Ken Nirmal -15(Hybrid ) IY 3. 00 125. 00 175. 00 40. 00 4. 87 5. 72 17. 35 Okra Tons F-1 Hybrid (Varsa) SPP 8. 00 65. 00 98. 00 50. 77 2. 32 4. 90 111. 20 Tomato Tons F-1 Hybrid (Nunhems 5005) SPP, HV 9. 00 168. 00 290. 00 72. 62 2. 55 9. 67 279. 76 Nishi-52 SPP, HV 8. 00 220. 00 29. 41 4. 25 11. 00 158. 82 SPP, HV 9. 00 95. 00 58. 33 1. 25 4. 75 280. 00 SPP, RDF 10. 00 40. 00 73. 91 1. 28 2. 22 73. 91 13. 00 F-1 Hybrid (Varsa) SPP, HYV 160. 00 52. 38 3. 41 8. 66 153. 97 Nasik Red IPT 90. 00 134. 00 48. 89 0. 61 1. 31 114. 21 min 90. 00 134. 00 48. 89 0. 61 1. 31 114. 21 max 170. 00 290. 00 73. 91 4. 87 18. 72 399. 96 AVE 109. 44 166. 43 53. 67 2. 71 7. 91 191. 21 Brinjal Chilly Okra Tons Betwa Okra VNR-22 (Hybrid) Sungro S-51 Tons Onion • Ken 4. 00 170. 00 60. 00 23. 00 105. 00 Due to change in local variety by improved variety the mean yields of vegetables • • Yield increases by 55 percent WUE increases by 191 percent.

Comparative Performance of Water User Association • Three WUAs Bijori, Bauchar and Govindgarh of Jabalpur, Narsinghpur and Rewa district • The aim was to find out the factors responsible for the functioning of Water User Association and its performance • To find out the factors responsible for project performance Particulars BIJOREE WUA GOVINDGARH WUA BAUCHHAR WUA Location Jabalpur Rewa Narsinghpur 9 8 6 GCA, ha 2082 1840 1531 CCA, ha 1033 1482 200 No. of Minors

Variation of wheat yields with reach wise water utilization

Water productivity at head reach in different WUA's WUA Name Bijori WUA Govindgarh WUA Bauchhar WUA Farmer Category Water Productivity (kg/m 3) Wheat Gram Pea Marginal 0. 31 - - Small 0. 38 0. 97 - Medium 0. 59 1. 88 - Large 0. 52 1. 83 0. 36 Marginal 0. 55 - - Small 0. 99 1. 11 - Medium 1. 14 1. 39 - Large 0. 81 1. 37 - Marginal 0. 31 - - Small 0. 57 0. 64 - Medium 0. 56 0. 70 - Large 0. 51 0. 74 0. 12

Water productivity at middle reach in different WUA's WUA Name Bijori WUA Govindgarh WUA Farmer Category Wheat Gram Pea Marginal 0. 45 - - Small 0. 50 - - Medium 0. 64 1. 22 0. 14 Large 0. 44 2. 23 0. 29 Marginal - - 1. 16 - 0. 83 - Large 0. 83 1. 41 1. 04 1. 30 1. 31 - Marginal 0. 49 - - Small 0. 98 - - Medium 1. 20 0. 98 - Large 1. 06 1 0. 11 Small Medium Bauchhar WUA Water Productivity (kg/m 3)

Water productivity at tail reach in different WUA's WUA Name Bijori WUA Govindgarh WUA Wheat Gram Pea Marginal 0. 46 - - Small 0. 58 0. 62 - Medium 0. 52 1. 62 0. 54 Large 0. 39 4. 18 0. 49 Marginal - - 1. 86 - 2. 11 - Large 0. 63 1. 07 1. 93 1. 79 2. 22 - Marginal 1 - - Small 0. 83 0. 59 - Medium 1. 32 - 0. 11 Large 1. 35 1. 20 0. 13 Small Medium Bauchhar WUA Water Productivity (kg/m 3) Farmer Category

Causes of Variation in Water Productivity • Evaluation of Project Performance through indicators on § Delivery § Maintenance § Financial § Sustainability • Evaluation of WUA Functions ü ü ü Level of participation Operation and management Water management Financial management Organizational

Significant findings • Water productivity is highest 1. 37 kg/m 3 in WUA 3 at Govindgarh. due to participation of water users in management • The tail-end supply ratio ( 0. 67) is also highest • Medium farmers normally have GW source and hence apply water at appropriate time thus depicts higher WP • WP is lowest in head reach due to over irrigation.

Water Productivity of Wheat Under Drip Irrigation • Water productivity of drip irrigated wheat was 44. 52% more than the flood irrigation • Water productivity was found maximum with one lateral in three rows with dripper placed at 30 cm.

Thanking You for the cause of water