Multiple sequences of Cotton-Soybean, 6 rows of soybean bordered by a single row of cotton at either side (Rajni Sinha)

Supplemental Irrigation in a Legume-Cotton Production System (India)

Description

Supplemental Irrigation (SI) offers a solution for irregular rainfall, as it provides a limited amount of water to essentially rainfed crops consequently ensuring good plant growth. Furthermore, SI provides the opportunity for a more diverse production system such as a legume-cotton system in which chickpeas are cultivated as a winter crop, and soybean and cotton are inter-cropped in the summer.

The state of Madhya Pradesh (India) has an average annual rainfall of around 1170 mm. However, data shows a declining trend. It is characterized by a monsoon period from July to September. Winter is from December to January and the summer is from February to March. The rainfall is irregular, resulting in crop failures, land degradation, nutrient leaching and shortened growing seasons. This constrains the agricultural sector, upon which 74% of the population is either directly or indirectly dependent. 38% of the agricultural area is intensively/conventionally irrigated. The majority of the water is obtained from groundwater which has led to over-exploitation.
To sustainably improve the agricultural sector, the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) introduced Supplemental Irrigation (SI). This is a practice in which essentially rainfed crops are cultivated rather than more water demanding crops. SI ensures a sufficient amount of water as rainfall satisfies the majority of the crop water demand. Water availability is not sought in (fossil) groundwater extraction, thus avoiding over-exploitation, but rather through rainwater harvesting (RWH), using the rainfall optimally. In addition, SI prolongs the growing season and enables more diverse farming systems by crop rotation and inter-cropping.
In 2018, a reservoir was constructed, with a 900,000 litres capacity. Every rainy season groundwater rises to the surface, indicating that the soil is fully saturated. The reservoir is filled by pumping the surface water from shallow wells. This is considered sustainable RWH as it assumed the pumped water is solely rainwater. An additional benefit of this approach is that no large catchment area is required. The building of the reservoir consists of 1) excavating the soil; 2) stone pitching the excavation; 3) installing polysheet to avoid water losses through infiltration. The water from the reservoir is distributed over the field by a portable (wheeled) sprinkler irrigation system. Hence, pumping from the reservoir is required.
The water from the reservoir allows for crop rotation with a winter crop, namely chickpeas. This crop grows from November till March, outside of the rainy season. Without SI, chickpea yield is poor as farmers must wait until sufficient rain has fallen before sowing, limiting the growing period. SI can provide the necessary water for the chickpeas to germinate well, ensuring a sufficient growing period. The chickpeas are manually harvested in March. Besides increased income for the farmer, chickpeas also provide valuable soil improvement as the plant fixes atmospheric nitrogen in the soil.
In additional to crop rotation, SI and water harvesting allows for a more intensive cropping system in which cotton and soybean are intercropped. These crops are planted in June-July. The intercrop ratio is two rows of cotton and six rows of soybean. Soybean and cotton are respectively threshed and harvested in October. Consequently, the plants are grown mainly in the rainy season. Fertilizer (80 kg nitrogen, 100 kg phosphorus and 60 kg potassium per hectare) is applied directly after sowing, hence June-July. In the same period the field is manually weeded. Micro-Nutrients (a mixture of B, Zn, Mn) are applied if needed. On average, this corresponds to one kilogram per hectare. Mechanical pesticide application is done from July to August by a sprayer, consisting of herbicides, fungicides and insecticides.
The frequency and amount of irrigated water through SI is unpredictable as it compensates rainfall irregularity. Nevertheless, it is advised to irrigate less than the infiltration rate of the soil, to avoid deep percolation of water and nutrient leaching. That is, it is better to irrigate small doses multiple times. For this reason, sandy soils are unsuitable as they have relatively high infiltration rates and low water holding capacity. On average, one hectare of this particular production system is irrigated through sprinklers thrice by 250 cubic meters of harvested water.

A great advantage of SI is that it leads to a year-round income through a diversified production system with an additional winter crop. Farmers also value SI ensuring stable yields, thus making them less vulnerable to rainfall irregularities. Also, the diversified system protects the crops better against epidemics. And as there are legumes included in the system, the soil quality is improved, lowering the required amount of nitrogen fertilizer.
Nevertheless, SI has some weaknesses. For example, the implementation of SI is difficult for smallholder farmers as they lack the area for a reservoir. In addition, the initial costs are high, so adoption may be restrained by the lack of available funds, especially for smallholder farmer. This specific SI, by water harvesting (extracting shallow groundwater) is not suitable in areas of poor groundwater recharge. But the concept of SI can be applied. To conclude, where it is technically and financially feasible, SI allows for more intensive, diversified and stable production system under climate change induced risks, hence supplemental irrigation is an important technique to improve the livelihoods of farmers exposed to climate change.

Location

Location: Madhya Pradesh, Central India, India

No. of Technology sites analysed: single site

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 78.61962, 22.97527

Spread of the Technology: evenly spread over an area (approx. < 0.1 km2 (10 ha))

In a permanently protected area?: Nee

Date of implementation: 2018

Type of introduction
A picture showing the rows of soybean and cotton in a crop rotation system (Rajni Sinha)
A field of Chickpeas (Rajni Sinha)

Classification of the Technology

Main purpose
  • improve production
  • reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
  • conserve ecosystem
  • protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
  • preserve/ improve biodiversity
  • reduce risk of disasters
  • adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
  • mitigate climate change and its impacts
  • create beneficial economic impact
  • create beneficial social impact
Land use
Land use mixed within the same land unit: Nee

  • Cropland
    • Annual cropping: fibre crops - cotton, legumes and pulses - peas, legumes and pulses - soya
    Number of growing seasons per year: 2
    Is intercropping practiced? Ja
    Is crop rotation practiced? Ja
Water supply
  • rainfed
  • mixed rainfed-irrigated
  • full irrigation

Purpose related to land degradation
  • prevent land degradation
  • reduce land degradation
  • restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land
  • adapt to land degradation
  • not applicable
Degradation addressed
  • soil erosion by water - Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion
  • soil erosion by wind - Et: loss of topsoil
  • chemical soil deterioration - Cs: salinization/ alkalinization
  • physical soil deterioration - Pw: waterlogging
  • biological degradation - Bc: reduction of vegetation cover, Bq: quantity/ biomass decline
  • water degradation - Ha: aridification, Hs: change in quantity of surface water, Hg: change in groundwater/aquifer level
SLM group
  • rotational systems (crop rotation, fallows, shifting cultivation)
  • water harvesting
  • irrigation management (incl. water supply, drainage)
SLM measures
  • agronomic measures - A1: Vegetation/ soil cover, A3: Soil surface treatment (A 3.1: No tillage)
  • vegetative measures -
  • structural measures - S5: Dams, pans, ponds, S7: Water harvesting/ supply/ irrigation equipment
  • management measures - M2: Change of management/ intensity level

Technical drawing

Technical specifications
The dimensions are :
-A: 46 meter
-B: 35 meter
-C: 29 meter
-D: 140 degrees
-E: 9 meter
-F: 3.8 meter
-G: 3.2 meter

The reservoir has a capacity of 9 000 cubic meter water. It is lined with 2847 square meter of polysheet to avoid water losses through infiltration.
The dimension related to the Winter-crop Chickpeas (in cm):
Spacing between rows (A) = 30
Spacing between plants within rows (B) = 15
Author: Joren Verbist
The dimensions related to the Soybean Cotton intercropping (in cm):
Spacing between soybean within row (A) = 15
Spacing between rows of soybean (B) = 30
Spacing between a row of cotton and a row of soybean (C) = 60
Spacing between cotton within a row (D) = 60
Spacing between cotton and cotton = 90
Author: Joren Verbist

Establishment and maintenance: activities, inputs and costs

Calculation of inputs and costs
  • Costs are calculated: per Technology area (size and area unit: 6.4 hectares)
  • Currency used for cost calculation: INR
  • Exchange rate (to USD): 1 USD = 73.52 INR
  • Average wage cost of hired labour per day: 37.5
Most important factors affecting the costs
The most important factor that affects the cost is the establishment of the reservoir. However, this reservoir is able to irrigate 6.4 hectares.
Establishment activities
  1. Earth Work (Timing/ frequency: Summer Season (May))
  2. Pitching (Timing/ frequency: Summer Season (May))
  3. Polysheet Installation (Timing/ frequency: Summer Season (May))
  4. Filling water (Timing/ frequency: Rainy Season)
  5. Installing Irrigation System (Timing/ frequency: At time of irrigation (as it is portable))
Establishment inputs and costs (per 6.4 hectares)
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (INR) Total costs per input (INR) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
Pond Excavation m2 53.0 4000.0 212000.0 100.0
Sprinker Operation Person Hour 1.0 37.5 37.5 100.0
Equipment
Zero Tillage Seed Drill Machine 1.0 55000.0 55000.0 100.0
Sprinkler System (portable) System 1.0 28300.0 28300.0 100.0
Construction material
Micron-Geo-Membrane m2 2857.0 105.0 299985.0 100.0
Other
Tax (18%) Total 1.0 38160.0 38160.0 100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 633'482.5
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 8'616.46
Maintenance activities
  1. Sowing Chickpeas (Timing/ frequency: November)
  2. Sowing Cotton and Soybean (Timing/ frequency: June-July)
  3. Weeding (Timing/ frequency: July-August)
  4. Fertilizer Application (Timing/ frequency: June-July)
  5. Micro-Nutrient Application (Timing/ frequency: Upon Inspection (June))
  6. Irrigation (Timing/ frequency: If needed (throughout growing season))
  7. Pesticide Application (Timing/ frequency: July-August)
  8. Harvesting Chickpeas (Timing/ frequency: March)
  9. Picking Cotton (Timing/ frequency: October)
  10. Threshing Soybean (Timing/ frequency: October)
Maintenance inputs and costs (per 6.4 hectares)
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (INR) Total costs per input (INR) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
Total Labour (inc sowing, fertilizer, irrigation, threshing, etc) Peron-Hours 640.0 37.5 24000.0 100.0
Equipment
Sowing (Zero-Tillage Seeder) Machine-Hours 57.0 500.0 28500.0 100.0
Threshing Soybean (Thresher) Machine-Hours 51.0 300.0 15300.0 100.0
Sprayer (weeding) Machine-Hours 51.0 300.0 15300.0 100.0
Plant material
Chickpeas Seeds Kilogram 448.0 450.0 201600.0 100.0
Cotton Seeds Kilogram 10.0 1400.0 14000.0 100.0
Soybean Seeds Kilogram 256.0 150.0 38400.0 100.0
Fertilizers and biocides
Micro-Nutrients (mixture of B, Zn, Mn) Kilogram 6.4 900.0 5760.0 100.0
Nitrogen (Urea) Kilogram 510.0 6.0 3060.0 100.0
Phosphorus (DAP) Kilogram 640.0 25.4 16256.0 100.0
Potassium (MOP) Kilogram 380.0 36.0 13680.0 100.0
Herbicide Liter 6.4 470.0 3008.0 100.0
Fungicide Liter 3.2 570.0 1824.0 100.0
Insecticide Liter 3.2 580.0 1856.0 100.0
Other
Cost Irrigation Total 6.4 250.0 1600.0 100.0
Irrigation Events Event 19.0 100.0
Water (depth) per irrigation event mm 300.0 100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 384'144.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD 5'225.03

Natural environment

Average annual rainfall
  • < 250 mm
  • 251-500 mm
  • 501-750 mm
  • 751-1,000 mm
  • 1,001-1,500 mm
  • 1,501-2,000 mm
  • 2,001-3,000 mm
  • 3,001-4,000 mm
  • > 4,000 mm
Agro-climatic zone
  • humid
  • sub-humid
  • semi-arid
  • arid
Specifications on climate
The is a decreasing trend of annual rainfall but some parts have an increasing trend of monsoon rainfall.
Slope
  • flat (0-2%)
  • gentle (3-5%)
  • moderate (6-10%)
  • rolling (11-15%)
  • hilly (16-30%)
  • steep (31-60%)
  • very steep (>60%)
Landforms
  • plateau/plains
  • ridges
  • mountain slopes
  • hill slopes
  • footslopes
  • valley floors
Altitude
  • 0-100 m a.s.l.
  • 101-500 m a.s.l.
  • 501-1,000 m a.s.l.
  • 1,001-1,500 m a.s.l.
  • 1,501-2,000 m a.s.l.
  • 2,001-2,500 m a.s.l.
  • 2,501-3,000 m a.s.l.
  • 3,001-4,000 m a.s.l.
  • > 4,000 m a.s.l.
Technology is applied in
  • convex situations
  • concave situations
  • not relevant
Soil depth
  • very shallow (0-20 cm)
  • shallow (21-50 cm)
  • moderately deep (51-80 cm)
  • deep (81-120 cm)
  • very deep (> 120 cm)
Soil texture (topsoil)
  • coarse/ light (sandy)
  • medium (loamy, silty)
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface)
  • coarse/ light (sandy)
  • medium (loamy, silty)
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Topsoil organic matter content
  • high (>3%)
  • medium (1-3%)
  • low (<1%)
Groundwater table
  • on surface
  • < 5 m
  • 5-50 m
  • > 50 m
Availability of surface water
  • excess
  • good
  • medium
  • poor/ none
Water quality (untreated)
  • good drinking water
  • poor drinking water (treatment required)
  • for agricultural use only (irrigation)
  • unusable
Water quality refers to: surface water
Is salinity a problem?
  • Ja
  • Nee

Occurrence of flooding
  • Ja
  • Nee
Species diversity
  • high
  • medium
  • low
Habitat diversity
  • high
  • medium
  • low

Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Market orientation
  • subsistence (self-supply)
  • mixed (subsistence/ commercial)
  • commercial/ market
Off-farm income
  • less than 10% of all income
  • 10-50% of all income
  • > 50% of all income
Relative level of wealth
  • very poor
  • poor
  • average
  • rich
  • very rich
Level of mechanization
  • manual work
  • animal traction
  • mechanized/ motorized
Sedentary or nomadic
  • Sedentary
  • Semi-nomadic
  • Nomadic
Individuals or groups
  • individual/ household
  • groups/ community
  • cooperative
  • employee (company, government)
Gender
  • women
  • men
Age
  • children
  • youth
  • middle-aged
  • elderly
Area used per household
  • < 0.5 ha
  • 0.5-1 ha
  • 1-2 ha
  • 2-5 ha
  • 5-15 ha
  • 15-50 ha
  • 50-100 ha
  • 100-500 ha
  • 500-1,000 ha
  • 1,000-10,000 ha
  • > 10,000 ha
Scale
  • small-scale
  • medium-scale
  • large-scale
Land ownership
  • state
  • company
  • communal/ village
  • group
  • individual, not titled
  • individual, titled
Land use rights
  • open access (unorganized)
  • communal (organized)
  • leased
  • individual
Water use rights
  • open access (unorganized)
  • communal (organized)
  • leased
  • individual
Access to services and infrastructure
health

poor
x
good
education

poor
x
good
technical assistance

poor
x
good
employment (e.g. off-farm)

poor
x
good
markets

poor
x
good
energy

poor
x
good
roads and transport

poor
x
good
drinking water and sanitation

poor
x
good
financial services

poor
x
good

Impacts

Socio-economic impacts
Crop production
decreased
x
increased

crop quality
decreased
x
increased

risk of production failure
increased
x
decreased

product diversity
decreased
x
increased

irrigation water availability
decreased
x
increased

demand for irrigation water
increased
x
decreased

expenses on agricultural inputs
increased
x
decreased

farm income
decreased
x
increased

diversity of income sources
decreased
x
increased

Socio-cultural impacts
food security/ self-sufficiency
reduced
x
improved

Ecological impacts
water quantity
decreased
x
increased

harvesting/ collection of water (runoff, dew, snow, etc)
reduced
x
improved

evaporation
increased
x
decreased

soil moisture
decreased
x
increased

soil cover
reduced
x
improved

soil loss
increased
x
decreased

nutrient cycling/ recharge
decreased
x
increased

soil organic matter/ below ground C
decreased
x
increased

vegetation cover
decreased
x
increased

biomass/ above ground C
decreased
x
increased

pest/ disease control
decreased
x
increased

drought impacts
increased
x
decreased

Off-site impacts

Cost-benefit analysis

Benefits compared with establishment costs
Short-term returns
very negative
x
very positive

Long-term returns
very negative
x
very positive

Benefits compared with maintenance costs
Short-term returns
very negative
x
very positive

Long-term returns
very negative
x
very positive

Climate change

Gradual climate change
annual temperature increase

not well at all
x
very well
seasonal rainfall decrease

not well at all
x
very well
Season: dry season
Climate-related extremes (disasters)
drought

not well at all
x
very well
epidemic diseases

not well at all
x
very well

Adoption and adaptation

Percentage of land users in the area who have adopted the Technology
  • single cases/ experimental
  • 1-10%
  • 11-50%
  • > 50%
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have done so without receiving material incentives?
  • 0-10%
  • 11-50%
  • 51-90%
  • 91-100%
Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?
  • Ja
  • Nee
To which changing conditions?
  • climatic change/ extremes
  • changing markets
  • labour availability (e.g. due to migration)

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
  • Efficient utilization of available resources.
  • A profitable and sustainable system for rainfed areas.
  • Diversified system ensures round the year income.
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • Optimal use of rainwater, making it a sustainable practice.
  • Low risk of disaster or epidemic
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • The implementation of the technology is difficult to implement for smallholder farmers. As they might lack a suitable area for the reservoir and/or the necessary funds. They establishment or improvement of water boards. This social capital can disseminate knowledge about SI. Also, it allows farmers to corporate more easily, e.g. paying for the construction of a reservoir jointly.
  • The high initial costs for the construction of a reservoir and sprinkler installation. By granting subsidy for the technology. Or farmer may purchase the technology jointly, lowering the effective price per farmer.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • Problem in areas of poor groundwater recharge. → Water for the reservoir could be obtained by larger catchments instead of pumping up shallow ground water. However, there should be irrigated more frequently to ensure efficient water use.
  • The high initial costs for the construction of a reservoir and sprinkler installation. By granting subsidy for the technology or farmer may purchase the technology jointly, lowering the effective price per farmer.

References

Compiler
  • Joren Verbist
Editors
Reviewer
  • William Critchley
  • Rima Mekdaschi Studer
Date of documentation: Okt. 13, 2020
Last update: Mei 1, 2021
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
Links to relevant information which is available online
  • Vinay Nangia, Theib Oweis, Francis Kemeze, Julian Schnetzer. (1/3/2018). Supplemental Irrigation: A promising Climate-Smart Practice for Dryland Agriculture. Beirut, Lebanon: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA).: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/9003
  • Theib Oweis, Ahmed Hachum. (2/4/2012). Supplemental Irrigation: A Highly Efficient Water‐Use Practice. Beirut, Lebanon: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA).: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/7524
  • Vinay Nangia. (10/11/2020). Water for Food, Water for Life: The Drylands Challenge.: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/12017
  • Kumar Shalander, B. Venkateswarlu, Khem Chand, Murari Mohan Roy. (20/11/2013). Farm level rainwater harvesting for dryland agriculture in India: Performance assessment and institutional and policy needs. Harbin, China: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/5259
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International