Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T21:37:03.846Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Soil and water conservation and improved crop management effects on watershed productivity in Andhra Pradesh, India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

K.P.R. Vittal ,
S.K. Das ,
J.C. Katyal ,
N. Munikrishnaiah  and
M. Rajender Reddy
K.P.R. Vittal
Affiliation:
Senior Scientist (Soil Science), Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Santoshnagar, Hyderabad 500059, Andhra Pradesh, India.
S.K. Das
Affiliation:
Project Coordinator (Research), Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Santoshnagar, Hyderabad 500059, Andhra Pradesh, India.
J.C. Katyal
Affiliation:
Director, Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Santoshnagar, Hyderabad 500059, Andhra Pradesh, India.
N. Munikrishnaiah
Affiliation:
Technical Officer (Soil and Water Conservation), Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Santoshnagar, Hyderabad 500059, Andhra Pradesh, India.
M. Rajender Reddy
Affiliation:
Technical Officer (Soil Science), Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Santoshnagar, Hyderabad 500059, Andhra Pradesh, India.
Get access

Abstract

Soil and water conservation and improved crop management programs were initiated in 1983 to increase the productivity of a dryland vertisol watershed in the state of Andhra Pradesh in the semi-arid tropical region of India. This was one of 47 model watersheds developed by the Government of India. The integrated program consisted of measures to conserve soil and water, such as a percolation tank, grading, checks, and deep tillage, on which were superimposed improved crop management practices (e.g., cultivars, fertilizers, and timeliness in operations), carried out with the farmers' cooperation and partial payment. All participants were surveyed in 1983, before starting the program, and 1988, after completing the program. The equilibrium water levels in open wells increased about 50 cm, which allowed sugarcane to be introduced. About 10% additional area was reclaimed and cultivated after construction of a diversion dam. Fodder supply improved because of the growth of natural grasses on terraces formed by stone checks in waterways. Soil and water conservation efforts reduced runoff about 26%. Ground cover increased by 38% because of increased cropping intensity, and income per capita grew by 67% per year. Thus, the integrated approach conserved natural resources and improved productivity.

Keywords

community participationon-farm researchwatershedvertisols
Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , March 1996 , pp. 2 - 6
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Cogle, A.L., and Rao, K.P.C.. 1994. Water conservation in soils of the semiarid tropics. In Virmani, S.M., Katyal, J.C., Eswaran, H., and Abrol, I.P. (eds). Stressed Ecosystems and Sustainable Agriculture. Oxford and IBH, New Delhi, pp. 241–252.Google Scholar
2.CRIDA. 1988. Improved Agronomic Practices for Dryland Crops in India. III Revised Edition. Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Hyderabad, India.Google Scholar
3.Government of Punjab. 1987. Soil and water conservation on watershed basis. An evaluation study. Cited in Soil and Fertiliser Abstracts, Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux. 1989, 52(7):8125.Google Scholar
4.ICAR. 1976. Crop life saving research. Proc. Travelling Seminar, ICAR (India) - IRDC (Canada), 1972–73. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi.Google Scholar
5.Kanitkar, N.V., Sirur, S.S., and Gokhale, D.H.. 1960. Dryfarming in India. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi.Google Scholar
6.Moldenhauer, W.C., and Hudson, N.W. (eds). 1988. Conservation Farming on Steep Lands. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, Iowa.Google Scholar
7.Munikrishnaiah, N. 1993. Performance evaluation of soil and water conservation structures in dryland watersheds. M.Tech. Thesis. Jawaharlal Nehru Technological Univ., Hyderabad, India.Google Scholar
8.Ooster, A.M. van, and Cahill, E.J.. 1986. Towards integrated soil conservation. Land Use Policy 3:127–140.Google Scholar
9.Padmanabhan, M.V. 1991. Monitoring and evaluation of soil and water conservation practices at Chevella watershed. In CRIDA Annual Report 1990–91. Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Hyderabad, India.Google Scholar
10.Padmanabhan, M.V., Rao, S.B.P., Srivastava, K.L., and Singh, Sardar. 1989. Evaluation of land treatments for vertisols and vertic soils. In CRIDA Annual Report 1988. Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Hyderabad, India.Google Scholar
11.Saliba, B.C. 1985. Comparative measures of effectiveness in farm level soil conservation. Soil Use and Management 1:106–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Singh, S.P. 1987. History of Indo-Canadian Dryland Research. Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Hyderabad, India.Google Scholar
13.Singh, R.P., Vittal, K.P.R., Das, S.K., and Sanghi, N.K.. 1989. Watershed technology stabilizes yields in Andhra Pradesh. Indian Farming 39(9):34–36.Google Scholar
14.Sivanappan, R.K., and Panchanathan, R.M.. 1985. Watershed based dryland farming. Land Use Policy 2:345–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar