Research Report-3 2003

WATER MANAGEMENT FOR EFFICIENT USE OF IRRIGATION

WATER AND OPTIMUM CROP PRODUCTION

Dr Muhammad Akram Kahlown

Dr Muhammad Ashraf
Muhammad Yasin

Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources

P O Box 1849, Islamabad
2003

The Authors
Dr Muhammad Akram Kahlown is Chairman, Pakistan Council of Research in Water
Resources, Islamabad
Dr Muhammad Ashraf is Director, Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources,
Islamabad
Mr. Muhammad Yasin, Director, Drainage Research Centre, PCRWR, Tando Jam.

ISBN 969-8469-09-5

Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Mr. Naheed Ajaz and Mr. Javed Akhter for providing help in
editing and formatting the report.

PCRWR 2003
H/No.3, Street 17, F-6/2, Islamabad Pakistan
Email: pcrwr@isb.comsats.net.pk

STAFF ASSOCIATED

1. Mr. Rashid Ahmed

Director Incharge, DRC

2. Mr. Muhammad Yasin

Director

3. Mr. Muhammad Ishtiaque

Deputy Director

4. Mr. Azizullah Mehar

Assistant Director

5. Mr. Zafarullah Memon

Assistant Director

6. Mr. Abdul Majeed Rais

Assistant Scientific Officer

7. Mr. Rajab Ali Samo

Assistant Scientific Officer

8. Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Chandio

Assistant Scientific Officer

CONTENTS
Table of Contents................................................................................................. i
List of Figures .................................................................................................... iv
List of Tables ..................................................................................................... iv
Summary ..............................................................................................................v
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................1

1.1 PCRWR Organization and its Mandate .................................... 1

1.2 Background .......................................................... 1
1.2.1 ......................... Water Resources and Problems 1
1.2.2 ..................................... Water Use and Shortage 2
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW .....................................................................................5

2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4

.......................................... 5
Irrigation Methods, Water Application and Water Use Efficiency ............ 6
Water Consumptive Use and Irrigation Scheduling..................................... 7
Irrigation Water Quality and Use

Water-Fertilizer Use ......................................................................................... 8

CHAPTER 3
OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................................9

3.1 Rationale for Water Management Research .....9

3.2 Objectives..............................................................9
3.3 Present Report....................................................10
CHAPTER 4
METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................11

4.1 Effect of Marginal Quality Groundwater on

Crop Yield & Soil Salinity .................................11
4.2 Effect of Alternate Skipping from Irrigation Schedule
and

at Critical Growth Stages on the Yield of Wheat and

Cotton ..................................................................11
4.3 Effect of Different Irrigation Levels and Fertilizer
Doses,
on the Yield of Wheat, Cotton and Soil Salinity12
4.4 Effect of Different Irrigation Methods on Cotton Yield
..............................................................................12
4.5 Consumptive Use of Water and Irrigation Scheduling
for
Wheat, Cotton and Sugarcane Crops...............13
4.6 Effect of Cropping and Fallowing on Crop Yield and
Soil Salinity .........................................................14
CHAPTER 5
RESULTS AND DISSCUSSIONS ....................................................................15

5.1 Effect of Marginal Quality Groundwater on Crop

Yield and
Soil Salinity ......................................................... 15
5.1.1 ............................................Effect on Crop Yield 15
5.1.2 ................ Water Use and Water Use Efficiency 15
5.1.3 .......................................... Effect on Soil Salinity 15
5.2 Effect of Alternate Skipping from Irrigation Schedule
and at
Critical Growth Stages on the Yield of Wheat and
Cotton.................................................................. 17
5.2.1 ......................................... Effect on Wheat Yield 17
5.2.2 .........................................Effect on Cotton Yield 19
5.2.3 .......................................... Effect on Soil Salinity 22
5.3 Effect of Different Irrigation Levels and Fertilizer
Dose
on the Yield of Wheat, Cotton and Soil Salinity23
5.3.1 ......................................... Effect on Wheat Yield 23
5

5.3.2 .........................................Effect on Cotton Yield 23

5.3.3 .......................................... Effect on Soil Salinity 23
5.4 Effect of Different Irrigation Methods on Cotton Yield
............................................................................. 26
5.5 Consumptive Use of Water and Irrigation Scheduling
for
Wheat, Cotton and Sugarcane Crops............... 27
5.5.1 ......................Effect on Yield and Water Saving 28
5.5.2 ..........................Developed Irrigation Schedules 28
5.5.3Verification of Developed Irrigation Scheduling 28
5.6 Effect of Cropping and Fallowing on Crop Yield and
Soil Salinity ......................................................... 30
5.6.1 ..................... Effect on Wheat and Cotton Yield 30
5.6.2 .......................................... Effect on Soil Salinity 31
CHAPTER 6
MAIN FINDINGS ..............................................................................................33

6.1 Effect of Marginal Quality Groundwater on Crop

Yield and
Soil Salinity ......................................................... 33
6.2 Effect of Alternate Skipping Irrigation from
Irrigation Schedule
and at Critical Stages on the Yields of Wheat and
Cotton ................................................................. 33
6.3 Effect of Different Irrigation Levels and Fertilizer
Dose on
the Yield of Wheat, Cotton and Soil Salinity... 34
6.4 Effect of Different Irrigation Method on Cotton Yield
............................................................................. 34
6.5 Consumptive Use of Water and Irrigation Scheduling
for
Wheat, Cotton and Sugarcane Crops .............. 35
6

6.6 Effect of Cropping and Fallowing on Crop Yield and

Soil Salinity ......................................................... 35
CHAPTER 7
RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................37
CHAPTER 8
FUTURE AREAS OF WATER MANAGEMENT RESEARCH......................39

8.1 On Going Research Studies...............................39

8.2 Future Research Study ......................................39
REFERENCES ........................................................... 41

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: A View of Wheat Crop Grown at DRC Research Farm ...............................18
Figure 2: Cotton Crop Grown at the DRC Research Farm .........................................20
Figure 3: A View of Lysimeter at the DRC Research Farm.........................................27

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Change in Wheat and Cotton Yields............................................................16
Table 2: Water Use and Water Use Efficiency ..........................................................16
Table 3: Soil ECe, pH, SAR and ESP before and after Completion of Study.............17
Table 4: Wheat Yield, Water Use Efficiency and Water Saving (First Phase) ..........18
Table 5: Wheat Yield, Water Use Efficiency and Water Saving (Second Phase). .....19
Table 6: Cotton Yield, Water Use Efficiency and Water Saving (First Phase) .........20
Table 7: Wheat Yield, Water Use Efficiency and Water Saving (Second Phase) ......21
Table 8: Soil ECe, pH, SAR and ESP before and after Completion of Study.............22
Table 9: Wheat, Cotton Yield, and Water Use Efficiency ..........................................24
Table 10: Soil Salinity before and after Completion of Experiment............................25
Table 11: Cotton Yield, Water Used, Water Use Efficiency and Water Saving
Under Farmers Practices...........................................................................26
Table 12: Crop Yield, Water Used and Water Use Efficiency.....................................27
Table 13: Yields of Crops, Water Use Efficiency and Water Saving ..........................29
Table 14: Wheat and Cotton Yields with Different Rotations of Crops.......................30
Table 15: Soil Salinity before and after Completion of Experiment............................31

SUMMARY

In Pakistan, consumption of water by the agriculture sector continues to dominate the overall
water requirements. The availability of water for irrigated agriculture exclusively depends on
Indus Basin River flow. These flows are highly seasonal and cause an inadequacy of irrigation
water at the time of need. Historical trend (1991-2001), indicates the dwindled water supply (at
canal head), under the extensive network of Indus Basin Irrigation System (IBIS).
Besides the low delivery efficiency (30-40%) of IBIS, water scarcity is aggravated by its
inefficient use and lack of management at farm level. As estimated by Global Water Partnership,
the present shortage of water which is about 49.0 billion cubic metres would increase to 110.0
billion cubic meters by the year 2010 in the country.
In view of the relative importance of improved management and the efficient use of
irrigation water to achieve optimal crop yield, Drainage Research Centre, Tando Jam, PCRWR
has started a programme of on-farm water management research. The overall objective of this
programme is to determine the effect of efficient use of water, improved irrigation methods on
crop yield, water savings and soil salinity etc. Six research studies have been completed while
eight studies are in progress. The main findings and recommendations derived from the results of
completed research studies are summarized in the proceeding paragraphs.
Surface water shortage may be alleviated specifically, in marginal quality groundwater
areas, with the alternate irrigations from canal and tubewell water to wheat and cotton crops. The
approach did not decrease the yield considerably. Averagely, there was 10 and 5 percent
decrease in the yields of wheat and cotton, respectively. However, to avoid the risk of soil
deterioration due to marginal groundwater quality, it should not be used continuously over longer
period of time.
The optimum yield of wheat and cotton may be achieved if the required irrigation are not
skipped from the recommended scheduling, and at critical growth stages. Due to skipped
irrigations, the yield of the above crops, tends to decrease by about 30 to 40 percent. The higher
yield of wheat and cotton can be achieved with the irrigation of 75 percent water consumptive
use combined with 125 percent of recommended dose of NPK fertilizers. This method gave
average yield of 4260 kg/ha and 3350 kg/ha for wheat and cotton, respectively.
The improved yield level of cotton and higher water saving (33%) can be achieved by
sowing of cotton on 60 cm wide ridges/furrows with irrigation at 75 percent water consumptive
use. The better yield of wheat, cotton and sugarcane can be achieved by using 375, 550 and 2100
mm of water, respectively.
The crop rotation of wheat-berseem-cotton and cotton-fallow-cotton, showed
considerably higher yield of wheat (4500 kg/ha) and cotton (3800 kg/ha). These rotations are the
better choices to be promulgated.
In the areas underlain by water-table depth of 240 to 300 cm, the farm land should not be
kept fallow beyond one crop season. For the soil sustainability such land may be kept under
continuous cropping.

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 PCRWR Organization and its Mandate
The Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources (PCRWR) is a national organization
engaged in conducting and promoting the research, development and management activities
related to all areas of water resources in the country. The PCRWR is headed by a Chairman with
financial control under Government of Pakistan procedures. The organization was established in
1964 as Irrigation Drainage and Flood Control Research Council (IDFCRC) under the
administrative control of Ministry of Natural Resources. The IDFCRC was transferred in 1970 to
the Ministry of Science and Technology and renamed as PCRWR in 1985. In addition to its
headquarters set up (Islamabad), PCRWR has six Water Resources Research Centres
(WRRCs)/Regional Offices, located at Islamabad, Peshawar, Lahore, Bahawalpur, Tandojam
and Quetta. The Regional Office, Tandojam, is commonly known as Drainage Research Centre
(DRC).
Recently, the mandate of PCRWR has been modified and elaborated in the context of
firstly, the optimal use of land and water resources and secondly, evolving the collaboration of
end users of related research outcomes. Particularly, this collaboration in the PCRWRs research
and development (R&D) endeavours and activities, has been carried out to evolve and find out
the objectives oriented, workable, economically viable and sustainable solutions to various
problems of land and water resources. The ultimate aim is to enhance the agriculture productivity
in a more sustainable way, for the overall amelioration of the economic development of the
country. In that terms, the conceptual framework under the modified mandate of PCRWR,
concentrates that: (i) research should be end user oriented; (ii) research objectives should be
clearly defined and attainable; and (iii) R & D activities and projects should be competitive and
tailored in conformity with the overall priorities of the country.
The above mentioned fundamental concepts serve as guiding principles for designing,
planning and executing the varying R & D activities and projects undertaken and/or to be
undertaken by the WRRCs/Regional Offices of PCRWR. To an extent, these sub-offices have
distinctly varying mandates/objectives. However, the respective well defined objectives reflect
the necessity of the various R & D activities, in conformity with the problems and issues of water
sector and related sub-sectors in the provincial areas where these sub-offices of PCRWR are
located and functioning.
1.2

Background

1.2.1

Water Resources and Problems

The natural water resources of Pakistan are significant but these are inadequate for the
agricultural production on the available land. The climate is arid to semi-arid and annual rainfall
is low (150 mm) and uneven while evaporation is high (1250 to 2800 mm). The non-irrigated
agriculture, therefore, becomes impossible in such an environment.

10

Indus Basin (covering 70% of the country area) is the major source of water in the
country. The worlds largest integrated irrigation network of Indus Basin Irrigation System
(IBIS) is the mainstay of the irrigated agriculture. The canal commands under IBIS have a gross
area of 16.8 million hectare (Mha), of which 14 Mha are culturable command. On the average
(up to 1993), out of total annual rivers inflow of about 181 billion cubic meter (Bcm) to the
Indus Basin, the diversion to IBIS (at canal heads) is about 131.0 Bcm (72%) annually. The
outflow to sea is about 40.0 Bcm (22%) while the net system loss is about 11.0 Bcm (6%). In
other terms, the average annual canal withdrawal under the IBIS, is 106 million acre feet (MAF).
The availability of water for irrigated agriculture exclusively depends on the Indus Basin
River flow, whereas these flows are highly seasonal. According to an estimate, about 85 percent
of annual flows are in Kharif season and only 15 percent in Rabi season but the country has no
enough reservoir capacity in its irrigation system to store seasonal water. The inadequate water
availability in winter and at the beginning and end of summer, results in low cropping intensity.
Particularly, canal supply during the last four years has dwindled due to the drought-like
conditions in the country.
The water scarcity is aggravated due to the inefficient management of irrigation systems,
including low delivery efficiency, inequitable distribution and supply based delivery of water.
The average delivery efficiency is 35 to 40 percent from the canal head to the root zone. Most of
the water losses are observed in the watercourses and fields due to an inefficient use and lack of
irrigation water management. This high magnitude of surface water loss not only results in
shortage of water for crops but also contributes to waterlogging/salinity problems.
Use of groundwater for irrigation is a significant factor in raising agricultural production
in the country. It also provides flexibility to match the surface water supplies with crop
requirements. As per an estimation, about 48.0 Bcm of water is pumped annually from
groundwater for use in agriculture. The highly accelerated development of private tubewells
particularly in fresh groundwater areas probably pose a danger of excessive lowering of water
table and intrusion of saline water into fresh water aquifers. The excessive pumpage in certain
areas of marginal water quality, (in the absence of adequate leaching and ineffective conjunctive
use of surface and groundwater), has caused salinity in the root zone.
Besides the IBIS commands, there are about 2.22 Mha of irrigated land. This land is
widely dispersed in the country and receives water supply from various sources such as open
wells, small capacity tubewells, lift pumps, karazes and small water diversion schemes. Most of
these water resources are located in NWFP and Balochistan with varying command areas.
However, water availability from such sources varies extremely by location and season in
addition to many factors and compounded problems.
Rainfed agriculture in the country, is characterized with many water related issues and
constraints. Particularly, the rainfed areas of NWFP and Northern Punjab, where the land is
extensively used for cultivation, have the intensive problem of water erosion. Lack of rainwater
and land management in rainfed areas is affecting watersheds in the upper Indus River and its
tributaries.
1.2.2 Water Use and Shortage
The consumption of water by the agriculture sector continues to dominate water requirements.
Direct rainfall contributes less than 15 percent of the water supplied to the crops. It has been
estimated that the present water shortage of about 49.0 Bcm would increase to 110.0 Bcm by the
year 2010 in the country (PWP, 2000). The per capita availability of water which was about 5600
11

cubic meters in 1951, would decrease to about 1100 cubic meters by 2010. As noted earlier, the
available water at present is 131.0 Bcm from IBIS and 48.0 Bcm from groundwater pumping.
The total water requirements for urban and rural domestic, commercial, industrial and livestock
use are estimated at 12.6 Bcm by the year 2010 and 19.6 Bcm by 2020. The pertinent estimates,
however, indicate that about 80 percent of the domestic municipal and industrial diversion,
usually return back to the system with degraded quality.
Therefore, the efficient and effective management of water resources is essential due to:
(i) dependence of countrys agriculture on irrigation; and (ii) the relative low levels of irrigated
agriculture productivity and its overall unsustainability. There is a dire need to explore and
evolve the workable and economical methods and approaches through objective oriented farm
level irrigation water management research. The DRC, Tandojam, has recently completed some
research studies for efficient water management. This report presents the outline of these studies.

12

13

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Irrigation Water Quality and Use
Thomas et al. (1981) concluded that alternate use of saline and fresh water reduced the salinity
effects on sugarcane yield. Ahmad and Ahmad (1987) reported that the cropping intensity (60%)
can be increased by two times with conjunctive use of surface water and saline groundwater.
IWASRI (1988) reported the use of poor quality groundwater to augment the inadequate
supply of canal water, for saving the crops from soil moisture stress. However, its indiscriminate
use can deteriorate soil characteristics and affect crop yield as well whereas Choudhry and
Choudhry (1990) stated that the use of saline water [EC 3.2 to 4.7 dS m-1, SAR 17.9 to 23.7 and
RSC 3.2 to 5.0 meq/l] as alternative irrigations to canal water on slightly saline silty clay loam
soil, did not effect the yield of wheat without increase in soil salinity/sodicity. Gupta (1990)
concluded that with the continuous use of poor quality water, the salinity effects can be
minimized with cyclic use of good quality surface water. Javaid and Channa (1990) reported that
wheat can be irrigated with brackish water (EC 4 dS m-1) under improved soil and water
management without much loss in yield, on short term basis. However, it could not hold good in
case of cotton.
Hussain et al. (1991) found that poor quality water could be used successfully under good
drainage conditions and better soil water management practices. Wheat grown on normal soils
using saline water (EC 1.3 to 4.1 dS m-1), showed no significant decrease in yield. However,
yield of seed cotton decreased significantly as compared with canal water used for irrigation.
Ahmad (1993) stated that drainage effluent of good water quality can be used for crop
production. However, the marginal water quality would need the mixing with fresh water. Sidhu
et al. (1996) recommended that during short water supply period i.e. Rabi season, brackish water
can be used for growing wheat crop. However, during monsoon i.e. Kharif season) the fresh
water can be used for rice or other seasonal crops and possibly flushing down the salts in the
lower layers.
Chang et al. (1997) based on a study of saline drainage effluent use in Khairpur found
that groundwater having EC up to 3.0 dS m-1 could be used for growing wheat and cotton crops,
without decrease in yield and soil deterioration. However, a 15 present leaching fraction of canal
water should be applied under good drainage conditions whereas Chaudhry et al. (1997)
recommended that to maintain soil productivity, tubewell water of EC 2.1 to 8.5 dS m-1 and SAR
6.2 to 20.9 preferably be used in conjunction with canal water. For improved production,
however, this quality water should be amended with gypsum.
Khalid et al. (1999) concluded that there was no limitation for use of good quality
groundwater for irrigation. However, saline tubewell water (EC 2.32 dS m-1, SAR 9.12 and RSC
3.9 meq/l) can be used to raise general crops without any loss of yield by alternating two canal
with one tubewell irrigation while saving 1/3rd of canal water. However, the prolonged use of
brackish water for irrigation caused salinity/sodicity problems.
14

Ahmad et al. (2001) reported that marginal quality water can be used successfully to
produce crops with improved management practices (crop selection, irrigation method/
application and soil management).
2.2 Irrigation Methods, Water Application and Water Use Efficiency
Ahmad and Khan (1977) found that wheat, maize and cotton (Punjab/Sindh), can be grown
successfully, with the use of about 370, 350 and 620 mm of water respectively, with maximum
water use efficiency.
Iqbal and Siddiqui (1977) on the basis of an experiment on wheat concluded that,
irrigation application of 100 mm as soaking dose and two subsequent irrigations of 750 mm each
at the time of tillering and heading produced nearly the same wheat yield as that obtained with
the use of 450 mm of water with higher number of irrigations.
Leghari et al. (1977) reported that the maximum yield of wheat i.e. 3.24 ton/ha was
obtained when the crop was irrigated at 50 percent moisture depletion with NPK level of 100-5030 kg/ha. However, the highest wheat yield of 3.48 ton/ha was recorded when the crop was
irrigated at 70 percent moisture depletion with NPK level of 120-60-30 kg/ha.
Manzoorullah (1977) reported that beyond three irrigations, coupled with unbalanced
fertilizer application, there was a decrease in wheat yield. It was suggested that three irrigations
to wheat remain adequate for acceptable yield.
Javaid and Khoso (1988) found an increase of 15.44 percent in cotton yield and 26
percent water saving by planting the crops on beds (75 cm accommodating two rows) over that
with flat basin.
Shaikh et al. (1988) during a study of comparison between the scientific and traditional
irrigation practices in relation to wheat production, achieved a higher yield of wheat and higher
water use efficiency while applying irrigation at 60 percent available soil moisture depletion.
Mahar et al. (1990) reported that under field conditions, consumptive use of water of
375 mm for wheat and 550 mm for cotton gave higher yields and higher water use efficiency.
Chaudhry and Qureshi (1991) concluded from a five years research work, that about 12
percent less water was applied under furrow-ridge method of irrigation against the flat bed
method. In furrow-ridge irrigation method the grain yield of corn was 2.3 percent higher with 30
percent water saving.
PARC (1982) determined water requirements of about 17 crops based on soil moisture
depletion in combination with different doses of NPK fertilizers. However, during this
experimentation (at selected locations in the country), the effect of water table depths and
salinity on the yield was not taken into account.
Iqbal and Iqbal (1997) reported that 41 to 46 percent less water was applied to alternate
furrow irrigation method and 44.4 kg/ha more yield of cotton was obtained as compared to every
furrow irrigation method.
Mahmood et al. (1999) recommended that to ensure high yield of wheat and better water
use efficiency, 80 percent of depleted water should be applied during each irrigation. Moreover
cotton should be irrigated using furrow-bed method of irrigation to obtain higher water use
efficiency and saving of water. However, in terms of water saving and crop yield, irrigation to
alternate furrow was more beneficial than irrigation in every furrow.
15

Memon et al. (1999) found that early growing period of wheat (crown root initiation and
tillering stage) was the most sensitive to water stress followed by milky and booting stages. The
least sensitive to water stress was the heading stage. They further observed that water stress
imposed at grain maturity stage did not affect the wheat yield.
Soomro et al. (1999) showed that irrigation applied to cotton at 14 days interval resulted
in higher yield and higher water use efficiency against that of 7 days and 21 days irrigation
intervals. About 22.4 percent water was also saved in 14 days irrigation interval over 7 days and
21 days interval.
Ashraf et al. (2001a) evaluated regular and alternate furrows for maize crop production
and found that water use efficiency for alternate furrows was higher than for regular furrow. The
soil salinity buildup was also less in case of alternate furrows.
Ashraf et al. (2001b) applied 34, 31, 38 cm water to bed and furrow, zero tillage, and
basin fields, respectively based on 40% moisture depletion. The WUE of bed and furrow, zerotillage and basin fields were 12.2, 14.1 and 10.9 kg/ha-mm, respectively with almost the same
net income. The farmer applied almost double than water applied under the scheduled fields that
reduced WUE to 0.63 kg/ha-mm. They attributed low WUE under farmers fields to: (i) lack of
proper knowledge about irrigation scheduling; and (ii) farmerss intention that more water will
produce more yield. However, more water applications result in low WUE and net income.
Moreover, over irrigation leaches the nutrients out of the root zone and decreases the crop yield.
2.3 Water Consumptive Use and Irrigation Scheduling
Robinson et al. (1967) found that the heading stage was the most critical period for irrigation to
wheat. However, Day and Intalap (1970) reported that irrigation at tillering stage normally,
stored enough water as extracted by the roots. During this period, root system develops rapidly
and extracts significant quantity of water from the lower depth of the soil, though later on surface
layers become dry. Sarwar (1994) reported that wheat was more sensitive to moisture stress from
head development to flowering stage.
John (1977) concluded that critical stage irrigation at various stages usually did not result
in uniform stress due to differences in rate of utilization at various growth stages. He added that
different research results of irrigation schedules can be very useful in designing cropping
systems for the efficient use of our scarce water resources.
Qureshi et al. (1975) found with 177 mm of water in three split irrigations. Whereas, with
the application of 231 mm of water in five split irrigations, 3119 kg/ha of wheat yield was
obtained.
Soomro et al. (1987) determined consumptive use of water for wheat and cotton under
different water-table depths in lysimeters. Crop coefficients were established for these crops,
using Modified Penman and Blaney Criddle Methods. The average consumptive use of water
was 458 mm and 713 mm for wheat and cotton, respectively.
Azhar et al. (1995) showed that the maximum wheat yield can be achieved with the
application of six irrigations of 6, 5, 5, 5, 5 and 5 cm depth (excluding rainfall). The first
irrigation (6 cm depth) was scheduled at 50 percent depletion of available moisture and the
remaining irrigations were scheduled at 40 percent depletion level with maximum depletion of
60 percent in upper 30 cm layer of the root zone.

16

2.4 Water-Fertilizer Use

Qureshi et al. (1975) recommended one bag of Di-ammonium Phosphate (DAP) and one bag of
urea per acre for obtaining the optimum yield of wheat with 3-4 irrigations.
Iqbal (1991) reported that 75 kg nitrogen per hectare (N/ha) for cotton and 150 kg N/ha
for sugarcane, were quite adequate doses for obtaining their high yields.
Iqbal and Choudhry (1991) concluded that the rate of 150 kg nitrogen per hectare (N/ha)
(ammonium sulphate, urea and ammonium nitrate with constant phosphate and potash), with 3-4
irrigations to wheat, gave higher grain yield.
Khoso (1994) recorded the maximum yield of 3060, 3220 and 3437 kg/ha when NPK at
the rate of 150, 75 and 50 kg/ha were applied alongwith 3, 4, and 5 irrigations (including soaking
dose), at water-table depths of 1.0 m, 1-2 m and 2-3 m, respectively.

17

CHAPTER 3
OBJECTIVES
3.1 Rationale for Water Management Research
The improved water management is indispensable to productive and sustainable agriculture. The
present situation of water scarcity coupled with the need to increase agricultural production
demands the optimum use of available water resources through the integrated management of all
components (surface and groundwater, storage, watershed, delivery, on farm use etc). However,
management of water is complicated and complex and needs to be objectively addressed
investigated and promulgated for sustainable production. Doubtlessly, a committed research in
the relevant areas is an essential mechanism for increasing the effective use of water. However,
modern production practices and technologies are quite sensitive to all inputs and their good
management leads to high economic returns. But at the same time, it is also true that the
promised benefits of new practices are decreased or lost with poor management of any of the
required inputs especially the water.
3.2 Objectives
In view of the relative importance of water management, the DRC in 1986, designed and
initiated a programme of on-farm water management research with the following objectives:

Obtain increased crop yields with minimum use of water;

Assess yield and water use efficiency for different crops in relation to varying
irrigation methods;
Observe soil salinity status under different irrigation levels;
Determine consumptive use of water for crops under different field conditions; and
Establish irrigation scheduling of major crops (in lower Sindh) based on the rotational
delivery system of irrigation.

Under the research programme six studies have been accomplished. These studies have
been conducted at DRC research farm and are listed below:

Effect of marginal quality groundwater on crop yield and soil salinity status;
Effect of alternative skipping irrigation from irrigation schedule and at critical growth
stages on the yield of wheat and cotton;
Effect of different irrigation levels and fertilizer doses on the yield of wheat and
cotton and salinity status;
Effect of different irrigation methods on the yield of cotton;
Consumptive use of water and irrigation scheduling of wheat, cotton and sugarcane
crops; and
Effect of cropping and fallowing on crop yield and soil salinity status.
18

3.4 Present Report

This report of water management research has been structured firstly, to present the synthesized
and summed up descriptions, particularly, the salient outcomes of the accomplished studies.
Secondly, the report embodies the detailed descriptions regarding each study to orientate and
promulgate the carried out research work amongst the relevant and interested researchers and the
farming community. For this purpose, the present report has mainly been formatted and
organized.

19

CHAPTER 4
METHODOLOGY
This chapter deals with the summarized resume of the methodologies adopted for each study.
The format of the chapter gives the title of study followed by the methodology deployed to
conduct it.

4.1 Effect of Marginal Quality Groundwater on Crop Yield and Soil Salinity
The study was conducted with wheat and cotton crops for four years (1997-2001) involving four
crop seasons for each crop. The total area of 0.167 hectare was divided into 12 plots (each of
size, 9.15 m x 15.24 m) with randomized block design. The soil was non-saline, non-sodic,
calcareous in nature; well drained and silt loam in texture.
Three irrigation treatments viz. T1 control (canal water irrigation), T2 (tubewell water
irrigation) and T3 (canal and tubewell alternate irrigation). Before each irrigation, the canal and
tubewell water samples were analysed. The canal water quality varied from 0.35 to 0.42 dS m-1,
pH 7.2 to 7.3, SAR 0.9 to 1.9 and RSC nil. The tubewell water quality varied from 1.6 to 1.82 dS
m-1, pH 7.5 to 7.8, SAR 2.92 to 3.51 and RSC nil. A soaking dose of 75 mm with four
subsequent irrigations (at 3, 6, 11 & 15 weeks after sowing) of 75 mm each was applied to wheat
(375 mm total). In case of cotton, the soaking dose was 100 mm and six subsequent irrigations
(at 4, 7, 10, 13, 15 & 18 weeks after sowing), 75 mm each were applied (total water applied 550
mm). Water was measured by using a cutthroat flume and time of water application was
calculated by the formula t = Ad/Q. In addition, the effective rainfall during the crop seasons was
accounted for the water used in each treatment.
The soil samples at varying depths (0-15, 16-30, 31-60, 61-90 and 91-120 cm) were
analyzed before and after the study for ECe, pH, SAR and ESP.
4.2 Effect of Alternate Skipping from Irrigation Schedule and at Critical Stages on the
Yields of Wheat and Cotton
This study was conducted in two phases for wheat and cotton crops. Under randomized block
design, the plot size was the same (9.15 m x 12.2 m) for the two crops. The soil characteristics
were the same as in the case of first study. The first phase (1990-1993) of alternate skipping
irrigation, elaborated five treatments for wheat, viz. T1 (control) including all irrigations
according to schedule (soaking dose 75 mm and four subsequent irrigations each of 75 mm, after
3, 6, 11 and 15 weeks, respectively. T2, T3, T4 and T5 accounted for 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th irrigation
skipped, respectively. For cotton, T1 (control) defined the irrigations according to the schedule
(soaking dose 100 mm and then six subsequent irrigations each 75 mm, after 4, 7, 10, 13, 15 and
18 weeks, respectively). T2, T3, T4, T5, T6 and T7 were 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th skipped
irrigation, respectively.

20

As regards the second phase (1997-2001), the treatments for wheat, T1 (control) included
irrigation at all growth stages i.e. 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th respectively, at crown root initiation,
tillering, flowering and milky stages. The treatment of T2, T3, T4, and T5 were as 1st, 2nd, 3rd and
4th skipped stages, respectively. The treatments for cotton included T1 (control) i.e. irrigation at
all the growth stage elaborated as 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th respectively, at plant development,
flowering, boll formation and boll opening stages. The treatments denoted as T2, T3, T4, and T5
were skipping of irrigation at 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th stage, respectively.
In general, canal water was used for irrigation. However, tubewell water of usable quality
was also applied when needed. The water measurements, time of water application, rainfall
contribution, soil analysis, cultural operations etc. were undertaken through the same procedures
described herein before. In addition, the water use efficiency (WUE) based on the yield and total
amount of water used under each treatment was measured.
4.3 Effect of Different Irrigation Levels and Fertilizer Doses, on the Yields of Wheat and
Cotton and Soil Salinity
This study spanned over a period of three years (1993-1996), was intended to examine the causeeffect relationship between irrigation levels combined with recommended doses of fertilizers and
the improved yield of wheat and cotton. The experiment was conducted on 27 plots with each
plot size of 19.5 x 13.0 m. The soil was slightly saline, medium silt loam texture and well
drained.
The study involved nine treatments, each with three replications i.e. T1 to T3, of 75
percent water consumptive use and 75, 100 and 125 percent of recommended fertilizers doses,
respectively. T4 to T6, of 100 percent consumptive use and T7 to T9, of 125 percent consumptive
use combined with the above mentioned recommended fertilizer doses, (in the same order with
respect to the treatments). The recommended fertilizer dose applied per hectare in terms of NPK,
for wheat was nitrogen (N) 172, phosphorus (P) 75 and potash (K) 177 kg/ha. In case of cotton,
these nutrients were: N 122, P 45 and K 90 kg/ha. The amount of water applied was worked out
based on water consumptive use while using crop coefficient (Kc) curves for both the crops.
The seasonal yield of the two crops (each for two season), was recorded on plot basis of
each treatment (average of three replications), with respect to each crop season. However, these
yield levels were expressed by yearly averages. Water use efficiency (kg/ha-mm), of each crop
was determined as the ratio of yield to water applied.

4.4 Effect of Different Irrigation Methods on Cotton Yield

To evaluate the effect of various irrigation methods on yield of cotton, the study was conducted
for three years (1991-1993), with 18 experimental plots (each of size 11.5 x 10.97 m). The soil of
the experiment site was non-saline, non-sodic, calcareous, silt loam texture and well drained in
nature.
Six treatments with three replications were used. The treatment T1 was defined as flood
irrigation (generally practised by farmers), T2 and T3 were irrigations to every furrow (60 cm
wide ridge furrow), using consumptive use of 75 and 100 percent respectively. The treatments T4
and T5 were irrigations to broad ridge (90 cm wide ridge/furrow), using 75 and 100 percent
consumptive use respectively, while T6 was flood irrigation with 100 percent consumptive use.
The irrigation was applied on the basis of 550 mm consumptive use including soaking dose of
100 mm. However, under farmers conditions, the applied soaking dose was 100 mm and
21

afterwards, each of the seven subsequent irrigation was 75 mm. Canal water was used for
irrigation and was measured by using a cut throat flume.
The yield was worked out on whole plot basis and the water use efficiency was estimated.
In addition, information on necessary cultural operations including fertilization, interculturing,
weeding and plant protection measures were also recorded.
4.5 Consumptive Use of Water and Irrigation Scheduling for Wheat, Cotton and
Sugarcane Crops
This study was conducted for seven years (1986-1993) in three phases for wheat, cotton and
sugarcane. In the first phase, the consumptive use was determined, in drainage type lysimeters
each of 3 m x 3 m x 5 m in dimension). In the second phase, the lysimeteric results were
replicated under field conditions. In the third phase, the irrigation schedulings were developed
based on the rotational water delivery system (warabandi). The experiment plot size under each
crop was 9.15 m x 12.20 m. The experimented soil represented the soil properties of DRC
research farm, in general.
For wheat, there were three water-table depths (treatments) of 1.25, 2.25 and 2.75 m from
soil surface. In case of cotton and sugarcane the water-table depths were 1.5, 2.25 and 2.75 m,
with four replications. The water-table depths were maintained through Mariotte bottles. To
avoid stress to plants, the surface water 75 mm was applied on weekly basis.
The consumptive use of water was determined using the equation:
CU = Si + Subi + R D Sdm,
where:
Si is surface irrigation (mm), Subi is sub-surface irrigation (mm), R is rainfall (mm), D is
drainage surplus and Sdm is difference in soil moisture.
Potential or reference evapotranspiration (ETp) was computed on daily basis using the
expression:
ETp = (R.Rn) + (1-w). f(u). (ea-ed)
where:
Rn is radiation equivalent to evaporation (mm/ day);
w is temperature related weighting factor;
f(u) is wind function;
ea is saturation vapour pressure in millibars at mean air temperature; and
ed is mean actual vapour pressure in millibars.
Crop coefficient (Kc) was estimated on monthly basis using the expression Kc = CU/
ETp and accordingly, the coefficient curves were developed for three crops under study.
As noted earlier, in phase two of the study, water consumptive use of three crops arrived
at lysimeters was replicated. There were common treatments of 0.75, 1.00 and 1.25 consumptive
use for wheat, cotton and sugarcane, respectively. Mainly, canal water was used for irrigation
except during the canal closure period when tubewell water (EC 1.2-1.5 dS m-1) was used. The
quantity of water applied under each treatment was based on the crops Kc curves and daily ETp.
Soil moisture was (cautiously) replenished at 80 percent depletion to avoid stress to the plants.
22

4.6 Effect of Cropping and Fallowing on Crop Yield and Soil Salinity
The period of this study was three years (1993-1996). The main features of the study were: (i)
total area of 0.56 hectare divided into equal size (25.6 m x 18.25 m); (ii) water-table depth 245 to
300 cm; (iii) groundwater EC 1.3 to 1.6 dS m-1; and (iv) same soil properties generally presented
by the DRC farm. The seasonal crops rotated were wheat, cotton and fodder (berseem), in
addition to fallow area.
Four treatments with three replications were used. These were T1 = permanent fallow
during three years, T2 = wheat-cotton in 1993-94, berseem-cotton in 1994-95 and wheat-fallow
in 1995-96. T3 = fallow-cotton, wheat-fallow and wheat-cotton, respectively in the three years.
T4 = berseem-cotton in the first, wheat-cotton in the second and berseem-cotton in the third year
of the study. The irrigation to wheat and cotton was according to the established schedulings as
mentioned in the previous study. However, berseem was irrigated fortnightly. The procedures
for water measurement and soil salinity assessment were the same as adopted generally, in the
studies mentioned earlier.

23

CHAPTER 5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter deals with a summarized resume of the results and discussion regarding each of the
research studies completed under the water management research program of DRC. By format,
the chapter presents the respective results and discussions under each individual study.
5.1 Effect of Marginal Quality Groundwater on Crop Yields and Soil Salinity
5.1.1 Effect on Crop Yield
The yield of wheat and cotton crops, is given in Table 1. Apparently, a higher yield of wheat
(four crop seasons) was achieved under the treatment T1 (canal water) than that from the other
two treatments of tubewell water (T2) and the alternate irrigation with canal and tubewell water
(T3). By crop season, the net decrease in wheat yield varied from about 13 to 25 percent under T2
while from 8 to 11 percent under T3. It means that the said decrease in yield was relatively more
with the use of tubewell water. However, these changes (decreases under T2 and T3), based on
mean yield, were not statistically significant (5% and 1% significance levels). This suggests the
safe use of marginal water quality under the alternate irrigation from canal and tubewell water.
These results are in agreement with those reported by Javaid et al. (1990), Hussain et al. (1991),
Khalid et al. (1999) and Ahmad et al. (2001).
The yield of cotton under the treatment T2, was the lowest amongst the treatments. Under
T2 the net decrease in yield of cotton varied from 4 to 11 percent over T1 during the four seasons.
Under T3, the decrease of cotton yield was however, small as it fluctuated between 2 and 6
percent by crop seasons. These results are in general conformity with these reported by Ahmad
and Ahmad (1987), Hussain et al. (1991) and Ahmad et al. (2001). Statistically, there was no
significant difference of mean yield between the treatments and the crop seasons (at the above
said significance levels). Therefore, it may be concluded that the marginal quality groundwater
may be used for cotton without any significant decrease in yield.
5.1.2 Water Use and Water Use Efficiency
The results regarding amount of water used and water use efficiency (WUE), reveal that a
slightly higher water use efficiency was achieved under T1 (canal water) in case of wheat.
Eventually, for cotton, there was no change of the WUE between the three treatments (Table 2).
5.1.3 Effect on Soil Salinity
The soil analysis was carried out before the experiment and after four years at the completion of
the study. The results given in Table 3, reveal that at the end of experiment under T2 (tubewell
water), there was a slight increase in all the salinity parameters except pH. Eventually, there was
no change of soil properties under T1 (canal water) and T3 (alternate use of canal and tubewell
water). Overall, the soil remained as non-saline and non-sodic. It was apparent that the
24

continuous use of marginal quality of groundwater over longer period of time can deteriorate the
soil. The alternate use of fresh water and marginal quality groundwater could safely be applied to
crops without damage to soil under improved drainage and water management. These results are
in general agreement with those reported by Thomas et al. (1981), IWASRI (1980) and Gupta
(1990).
Table 1: Change in Wheat and Cotton Yield
Wheat
Net Change over T1
(Percent)

Treatment

Yield
(kg/ha)

T1
T2
T3

3150
2750
2860

T1
T2
T3

4480
3370
3980

T1
T2
T3

4600
3750
4100

T1
T2
T3

4840
4050
4440

-16.3
-8.3

T1
T2
T3

4260
3480
3840

-18.3
-9.8

Cotton
Net Change Over T1
(Percent)

Yield
(kg/ha)

Rabi 1978-98

Kharif 1998
2620
2510
2530

-12.7
-9.2

-4.2
-3.4

Rabi 1988-99

Kharif 1999
2670
2490
2520

-24.8
-11.2

-6.7
-5.6

Rabi 1999-2000

Kharif 2000
2790
2490
2580

-18.5
-10.9

-10.7
-7.5

Rabi 2000-2001

Kharif 2001

Overall Average

2340
2020
2290

-13.6
-2.1

2600
2370
2480

-8.8
-4.6

Table 2: Water Used and Water Use Efficiency

Treatment

Wheat
Water Used
(mm)

Cotton
WUE
(kg/ha-mm)

Water Used
(mm)

Rabi 1997-98
T1
T2
T3

388
388
388

T1
T2
T3

387
387
387

T1
T2
T3

375
375
375

Kharif 1998
8.1
7.1
7.4

596
596
596

11.6
8.7
10.3

606
606
606

12.3
10.0
10.9

572
572
572

375
375
375

12.9
10.8
11.8

634
634
634

3.7
3.2
3.6

381
381
381

11.2
9.1
10.1

602
602
602

4.3
4.9
4.1

Rabi 1998-99

4.4
4.2
4.2
Kharif 1999

Rabi 1999-2000

4.4
4.1
4.2
Kharif 2000

Rabi 2000-2001
T1
T2
T3
Overall Average
T1
T2
T3

WUE
(kg/ha-mm)

4.9
4.3
4.1
Kharif 2001

25

Table 3: The Soil ECe, pH, SAR and ESP before and after Completion of Study
Treatment

Sampling
Depth (cm)

ECe
(dS m-1)
B
A

pH
B

SAR
(m mole-1)1/2
B
A

ESP
B

T1

0-15
16-30
31-60
61-90
91-120

1.60
1.16
1.92
1.98
2.86

1.13
1.12
2.10
1.91
2.83

7.3
7.3
7.4
7.1
7.2

7.2
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.2

1.60
1.49
1.41
2.26
2.49

1.80
1.69
1.61
2.20
2.08

1.08
0.93
1.90
2.02
2.35

1.13
1.20
1.81
1.92
2.00

T2

0-15
16-30
31-60
61-90
91-120

1.27
1.25
1.34
1.71
1.84

2.56
2.86
2.60
2.50
2.84

7.3
7.4
7.4
7.2
7.2

7.3
7.5
7.5
7.4
7.4

1.56
2.06
2.68
3.20
2.70

4.26
3.89
3.01
4.53
3.98

1.13
1.93
2.61
2.92
1.79

2.97
2.50
3.31
3.40
2.15

T3

0-15
16-30
31-60
61-90
91-120

1.45
2.15
1.57
1.49
2.31

1.96
2.24
1.80
1.30
2.42

7.4
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.2

7.3
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.1

3.45
3.82
2.59
3.78
3.60

3.34
3.92
3.12
3.70
3.43

3.63
4.15
2.35
4.13
3.66

3.19
3.79
2.31
3.93
3.60

Note: B and A denote before and after the study, respectively.

5.2

Effect of Alternate Skipping Irrigation from Irrigation Schedule and

at Critical Growth Stages on the Yield of Wheat and Cotton

As noted earlier, the study was undertaken in two phases i.e. first to determine the effects on
yield of wheat and cotton under the defined treatments of the alternate skipped irrigation from
the schedule and the second, for the same effect with the use of treatments of skipping irrigation
at critical growth stages. The results are discussed as follows:
5.2.1 Effect on Wheat Yield
In relation to first phase of the study, the treatment T1 (all irrigations according to the irrigation
schedule), gave the highest yield of wheat. In relative terms, the yield levels were lower by about
27 to 39 percent for the remaining four treatments (T2 to T5) than T1. However, the water saving
under the treatments was higher by about 19 to 20 percent than that under T1. The detailed
information is given in Table 4. It may be concluded that for wheat every skipped subsequent
irrigation from the irrigation schedule, caused a decrease in its yield though a notable water
saving was achieved. The average yield decreased by the skipped irrigation treatments were
statistically significant.

26

Table 4: Wheat Yield, Water Use Efficiency and Water Saving (First Phase)
Treatment

Yield
(kg/ha)

Water Used
(mm)

WUE
(kg/ha-mm)

Water Saving
Over T1
(Percent)

Net Change in
Yield Over T1
(percent)

Rabi 1990-91
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5

4960
3150
3320
3380
3130

383
308
308
308
308

13.0
10.2
10.8
11.0
10.2

19.6
19.6
19.6
19.6

-36.5
-33.1
-31.9
-36.9

4350
3040
3020
3160
3190

375
300
300
300
300

11.6
10.1
10.1
10.5
10.6

20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0

-30.1
-30.6
-27.4
-26.7

4940
3500
3610
3000
3340

403
328
328
328
328

12.3
10.7
11.0
9.1
10.2

18.6
18.6
18.6
18.6

-29.1
-26.9
-39.3
-32.4

4750
3230
3320
3180
3220

387
312
312
312
312

12.3
10.3
10.6
10.2
10.3

19.4
19.4
19.4
19.4

-32.0
-30.1
-33.1
-32.2

Rabi 1991-92
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5

Rabi 1992-93
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5

Overall Average
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5

Under the second phase of the study, the applied treatment of irrigation at all growth
stages (T1) gave the highest yield of wheat during the four crops seasons (Table 5). Relatively,
these yields were higher by about 27 to 41 percent than that achieved with the use of other
treatments. However, these significantly, lower yield rates were characterized with the higher
water savings of 19 to 20 percent than that under T1. It may be inferred that a skipped irrigation
at any growth stage of wheat though saved water but it resulted in declined yield.

Figure 1: A View of Wheat Crop Grown at DRC Research Farm

27

Table 5: Wheat Yield, Water Use Efficiency and Water Saving (Second Phase)
Treatment

Yield
(kg/ha)

Water Used
(mm)

WUE
(kg/ha-mm)

Water Saving
Over T1
(Percent)

Net Change in
Yield Over T1
(percent)

Year 1997-98
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5

3260
2180
2160
2170
2000

388
313
313
313
313

8.4
7.0
6.9
6.9
6.4

19.3
19.3
19.3
19.3

-33.1
-33.7
-33.4
-38.6

4800
3510
3330
3180
3210

375
300
300
300
300

12.8
11.7
11.1
10.6
10.7

20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0

-26.9
-30.6
-33.7
-33.1

4650
3250
3000
3120
3020

375
300
300
300
300

12.4
10.8
10.0
10.4
10.1

20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0

-30.1
-35.5
-32.9
-35.0

3590
2380
2340
2290
2110

375
300
300
300
300

9.6
7.9
7.8
7.6
7.0

20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0

-33.7
-34.8
-36.2
-41.2

4070
2830
2700
2690
2580

378
303
303
303
303

10.8
9.3
3.9
8.9
8.5

19.8
19.8
19.8
19.8

-30.5
-33.4
-33.9
-36.6

Year 1998-99
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
Year 1999-2000
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
Year 2000-2001
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
Overall Average
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5

5.2.2 Effect on Cotton Yield

Table 6 shows that under the set of treatments during the first phase (skipping irrigation from the
irrigation schedule), the higher yields of cotton were achieved when all the irrigations were given
according to the schedule (T1). Relatively, the high yields were more prominent and consistent
for the first crop season (Kharif 1991) with T1. The yield resulted from the other treatments, were
lower by about 37 to 49 percent. On the overall average basis, the yields of the other six
treatments (T2 to T7) were lower by 33 to 48 percent than the yield achieved from T1. The
variable of water saving was however, higher by about 13 to 14 percent for the six treatments
than T1. It may be concluded that any skipped irrigation from the schedule for cotton though save
considerable water but decrease crop yield significantly. These results are in general agreement
with those reported by PARC (1982) and Mahar et al. (1990).

28

Figure 2: Cotton Crop Grown at the DRC Research Farm

Table 6: Cotton Yield, Water Use Efficiency and Water Saving (First Phase)
Treatment
Kharif Year 1991
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
Kharif Year 1992
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
Kharif Year 1993
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
Overall Average
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7

Yield
(kg/ha)

Water Used
(mm)

WUE
(kg/ha-mm)

Water Saving
Over T1
(Percent)

Net Change in
Yield Over T1
(percent)

3000
1900
1520
1720
1600
1690
1780

556
481
481
481
481
481
481

5.4
3.9
3.2
3.6
3.3
3.5
3.7

13.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.5

-36.7
-49.3
-42.7
-46.7
-43.7
-40.7

1580
1210
1230
780
960
1070
1050

550
475
475
475
475
475
475

2.9
2.5
2.6
1.6
2.0
2.2
2.2

13.6
13.6
13.6
13.6
13.6
13.6

-23.4
-22.2
-50.6
-39.2
-32.2
-33.5

1420
1250
1090
880
1290
1200
1040

560
485
485
485
485
485
485

3.4
2.6
2.2
1.8
2.7
2.5
2.1

13.4
13.4
13.4
13.4
13.4
13.4

-12.0
-23.2
-38.0
-9.2
-15.5
-26.8

2170
1450
1280
1130
1280
1320
1290

555
480
480
480
480
480
480

3.9
3.0
2.7
2.3
2.7
2.7
2.7

13.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.5

-33.2
-41.0
-47.9
-41.0
-39.2
-40.6

29

Table 7 gives the results on cotton, in relation to second phase (skipping of irrigation at
any of the critical growth stages). Amongst the four crop seasons, the yield of cotton was more
declined in Kharif 2000 (34 to 52 percent), under the defined treatments (T2 to T7) of irrigation
skipping at critical growth stages. Averagely, the yield decreased about 28 to 36 percent by
skipped irrigation. However, the highest water saving was between 15 and 17 percent.
Table 7: Cotton Yield, Water Use Efficiency and Water Saving (Second Phase)
Treatment

Yield
(kg/ha)

Water Used
(mm)

WUE
(kg/ha-mm)

Water Saving
Over T1
(Percent)

Net Change in
Yield Over T1
(percent)

Kharif Year 1998

T1
T2
T3
T4
T5

2650
1800
1860
1750
1730

446
371
371
371
371

5.9
4.8
5.0
4.7
4.7

16.8
16.8
16.8
16.8

-32
-30
-34
-35

Kharif Year 1999

T1
T2
T3
T4
T5

3550
2770
2600
2560
2410

422
347
347
347
347

8.4
8.0
7.5
7.4
6.5

17.8
17.8
17.8
17.8

-22
-27
-28
-32

Kharif Year 2000

T1
T2
T3
T4
T5

1970
1170
1150
1300
950

456
381
381
381
381

4.3
3.1
3.0
3.4
2.5

16.4
16.4
16.4
16.4

-41
-42
-34
-52

Kharif Year 2001

T1
T2
T3
T4
T5

2170
1730
1670
1610
1580

484
409
409
409
409

4.5
4.2
4.1
3.9
3.9

15.5
15.5
15.5
15.5

-20
-23
-26
-27

Overall Average
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5

2580
1860
1820
1800
1660

452
377
377
377
377

5.7
4.9
4.8
4.8
4.4

16.6
16.6
16.6
16.6

-27.9
-29.5
-30.2
-35.6

Results for both wheat and cotton crops showed that any irrigation skipped either from
irrigation schedule or at any critical growth stage of the crops resulted in water saving however,
skipping irrigations caused a significant decrease in yield and resulted in decreased water use
efficiency. These results are in agreement with those reported by Robinson et al. (1967), Day and
Intalap (1970), John (1977) and Sarwar (1994).

30

5.2.3 Effect on Soil Salinity

To determine the effect on soil salinity under different treatments of irrigation, the soil samples
taken up to a depth of 120 cm were analysed. The ECe, pH, SAR and ESP before and after
completion of the two phases of the study are given in Table 8.
Table 8: Soil ECe, pH, SAR and ESP before and after Completion of Study
Treatment

T1

T2

T3

T4

T5

Sampling
Depth (cm)

ECe (dS m-1)

B

0-15
16-30
31-60
61-90
91-120
0-15
16-30
31-60
61-90
91-120

2.20
2.35
3.66
3.70
3.69
2.26
1.94
1.37
1.85
1.55

0-15
16-30
31-60
61-90
91-120
0-15
16-30
31-60
61-90
91-120

1.45
1.46
2.67
3.48
3.31
3.66
0.79
1.06
1.27
1.60

0-15
16-30
31-60
61-90
91-120

4.20
4.12
1.77
3.88
3.20

Note: All data are average of 3 replications.

pH

SAR
(m mole-1)1/2
B
A

3.85
4.00
4.00
5.50
4.35
4.15
5.45
4.10

7.2
7.2
7.1
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.3
7.4

7.2
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.2
7.5
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.6

2.20
2.76
4.76
4.63
3.41
1.84
2.19
2.02
2.70
3.10

7.4
7.4

4.79
4.73
4.13
3.30

7.2
7.3
7.5
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.6
7.3
7.3
7.2

7.4
7.5
7.4

2.35
2.27
4.05
3.13
2.78
4.81
2.04
2.70
3.71
2.98

4.35
5.15
5.00

7.3
7.2
7.3
7.1
7.2

7.4
7.4
7.5
7.3
7.3

4.94
4.59
3.22
2.99
4.61

4.05
5.50
4.40
3.85
3.75

7.5
7.4

ESP
B

2.28
2.85
4.89
5.00
3.13
5.63
5.34
5.80
6.64
6.83

1.82
2.73
4.57
5.22
3.61
1.59
2.32
1.68
2.65
3.20

1.31
2.28
3.37
5.17
3.95
6.74
6.66
3.07
5.28
6.75

5.95
5.19
4.60
3.82
3.41
4.92
4.38
3.95
4.85

5.56
5.69
4.56 5.39
3.29 4.14
2.74 3.59
5.49
1.69 5.63
2.64 7.01
4.04 4.33
3.03 4.36

3.99
3.96
5.15

5.54
2.47
3.34
3.34
4.03

5.00
4.38
4.95
6.44

B and A denote before and after the study, respectively.

Table 8 reveals that after completion of the study, the ECe of the soil was considerably
increased under the skipping irrigations treatments (T2 to T5) almost at every depth. While there
was a slight increase in the ECe value for the treatment T1 (no skip irrigation), particularly at the
depths beyond 30 cm. Considering the median values of ECe for each of the treatments, the net
increase in this parameter were about 5 percent (T1), 57 percent (T2), 34 percent (T3), 69 percent
(T4) and 59 percent (T5). The notable increase in ECe under the treatments of T2 to T5, were
attributed to under-irrigation (deficit irrigation) that caused salts deposition in the soil profile.
Under these four treatments, the amount of water used per crop season was 300 mm for wheat
and 325 mm for cotton. The insufficient applied water could not meet the crop water requirement
and leaching requirement of the soil.
The pH value after completion of the study was also increased under all the treatments
excluding T1. However, these values remained within the safe limit. The increase in pH under the
treatments (T2 to T5) was attributed to the relative increase of SAR and ESP values. The SAR
31

value also indicated the same trend. This value was notably increased under all the treatments,
but there was no prominent change under the treatment T1. The SAR value was within the safe
limit (less than 7.5).
The ESP parameter in T2 to T5 treatments increased after completion of the study but it
remained within the safe limit (less than 15). As noted above, the sufficient amount of water
applied under the treatment T1 helped continuous leaching of salts. On contrary, the water
applied under T2 to T5 treatments was insufficient for leaching salts down the soil profile. As a
result, the ECe of the soil was increased that contributed to aggravate the pH, SAR and ESP
values.
5.3

Effect of Different Irrigation Levels and Fertilizer Dose on the Yield of Wheat and
Cotton, and Soil Salinity

5.3.1 Effect on Wheat Yield

The yield and other relevant variables such as quantity of the water used and water use
efficiency, are presented in Table 9. The T3 defined as irrigation level at 75 percent consumptive
use (CU) combined with a fertilizer level of 125 percent of the recommended doses, resulted in a
higher yield of wheat (4260 kg/ha) with WUE of 11.73 kg/ha-mm. In three crop seasons, this
treatment gave significant higher yields of 4320, 4730 and 4410 kg/ha as compared to other
treatments.
5.3.2 Effect on Cotton Yield
As in the case of wheat, T3 also gave the higher yield of cotton than that under the other
treatment. The highest average yield was 3350 kg/ha. By crop season, though this treatment
produced statistically significant higher yield rate in Kharif 1994 (3137 kg/ha) and in Kharif
1995 (3157 kg/ha) but it decreased in Kharif 1996 (3757 kg/ha). Under the treatment T3,
comparatively high WUE was achieved. By crop season, the higher WUE varies from 7.10
kg/ha-mm (Kharif 1994) to 7.65 kg/ha-mm (Kharif 1996), with an overall average of 7.38 kg/hamm. It is concluded that the high yield of cotton can be achieved through irrigation at 75 percent
CU (550 mm water) and using NPK fertilizers at the rate of 152.5, 56.25 and 112.5 kg/ha. The
results derived from the study for wheat and cotton almost agree with those reported by PARC,
1982; Mahar, 1990; Iqbal and Chudhry, 1991.
5.3.3 Effect on Soil Salinity
Table 10 gives the soil salinity analysis before and after the study. The data reveal that the soil
was slightly saline (ECe 4-8 dS m-1) at all the depths before the study. It was changed to nonsaline (ECe, less than 4.0 dS m-1), under all the treatments at the end of study. This change was
attributed to the continuous cropping with wheat-cotton rotation during three years of the study.
The continuous cropping helped leach the solvable salts from the soil profile thereby, decreasing
the ECe in varying soil depths.
The pH did not indicate any change before and after the experiments. Apparently, it
remained within the safe limit throughout the study period.
The high value of SAR 6.9 - 29.6 before the experiment decreased notably and varied
from 1.4 to 3.6 under all the applied treatments. The decrease in SAR might be due to regular use
of single super phosphate fertilizer for the crops. This fertilizer containing P2O5 also has a good
amount of fine grade gypsum and sulpher and that acted as reclaiment and removed sodium ions
from clay complex. Accordingly, the SAR decreased considerably. Therefore, the saline-sodic
soil could be reclaimed by using the fertilizer containing gypsum and sulpher.
32

Table 9: Wheat, Cotton Yield and Water Use Efficiency

Treatment

T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9

Yield
(kg/ha)

3013
2997
4320
3392
3197
3357
3480
3403
3777

Wheat
Water Used
(mm)
Rabi 1993-94
350
350
350
467
467
467
584
584
584

WUE
(kg/ha-mm)

Yield
(kg/ha)

8.61
8.56
12.34
7.26
6.85
7.19
5.96
5.83
6.47

1840
2247
3137
1960
2210
2457
1597
2297
2537

Rabi 1994-95
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9

4050
4407
4733
4732
4217
3977
4730
4503
4607

363
363
363
484
484
484
605
605
605

Kharif 1994
442
442
442
605
605
605
727
727
727

WUE
(kg/ha-mm)

4.16
5.08
7.10
3.24
3.65
4.06
2.20
3.16
3.49

Kharif 1995
11.16
12.14
13.04
9.78
8.71
8.22
7.82
7.44
7.61

2440
2477
3157
2680
2720
2947
2047
2397
2437

Rabi 1995-96
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9

Cotton
Water Used
(mm)

430
430
430
535
535
535
730
730
730

5.67
5.76
7.34
5.01
5.08
5.51
2.80
3.28
3.34

Kharif 1996

3503
3547
4410
3605
3777
4217
4000
3884
4097

375
375
375
500
500
500
625
625
625

9.34
9.46
11.76
7.21
7.55
8.43
6.40
6.21
6.55

3700
3617
3757
4060
4730
4377
4727
4517
4117

491
491
491
674
674
674
812
812
812

7.54
3.37
7.65
6.02
7.02
6.49
5.82
5.56
5.07

3750
3650
4260
3910
3730
3850
4070
3930
4160

363
363
363
484
484
484
605
605
605

10.33
10.00
11.73
8.08
7.71
9.54
6.73
6.50
6.88

2660
2780
3350
2900
3220
3260
2790
3070
3030

454
454
454
605
605
605
756
756
756

5.86
6.12
7.38
4.79
5.32
5.39
3.69
4.06
4.01

Overall Average
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9

33

Table 10: Soil Salinity before and after Completion of Experiment

Treatment

Sampling
Depth (cm)

SAR

(m mole-1)
B
A

ECe (dS m-1)

pH

T1

0-15
16-30
31-60
61-90
91-120

3.3
3.5
5.2
5.3
4.6

2.8
2.6
3.6
4.6
3.2

7.6
7.9
7.8
7.7
7.6

7.8
7.8
7.8
7.6
7.7

14.4
14.3
16.0
15.0
12.4

2.2
3.2
2.1
2.0
1.7

T2

0-15
16-30
31-60
61-90
91-120

7.3
5.1
7.7
7.8
7.3

3.2
3.5
2.5
2.3
2.6

7.4
7.4
7.6
7.7
7.5

7.5
7.6
7.7
7.4
7.4

25.5
25.8
27.6
26.9
26.0

2.3
2.0
1.6
2.0
2.2

T3

0-15
16-30
31-60
61-90
91-120

3.0
3.2
4.1
3.9
4.0

3.0
3.1
3.7
3.7
2.6

7.8
7.7
7.3
7.4
7.5

7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6

14.9
7.1
9.5
9.4
10.3

1.8
1.4
2.1
1.5
2.2

T4

0-15
16-30
31-60
61-90
91-120

7.3
3.8
6.4
5.6
6.2

1.2
1.1
1.2
1.4
1.5

7.5
7.6
7.4
7.5
7.4

7.7
7.7
7.7
7.6
7.6

27.6
12.7
29.2
19.5
23.4

3.1
2.7
2.7
2.0
1.8

T5

0-15
16-30
31-60
61-90
91-120

3.2
3.4
3.9
3.7
3.2

2.8
1.8
3.3
2.8
2.0

7.6
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6

7.6
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7

4.6
4.8
5.9
5.6
4.3

3.1
2.5
2.0
3.6
2.0

T6

0-15
16-30
31-60
61-90
91-120

2.4
3.5
6.4
6.3
6.2

2.0
1.6
2.0
1.7
1.5

7.3
7.4
7.2
7.5
7.4

7.7
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.7

11.9
6.9
18.1
17.1
21.1

2.1
2.5
2.2
2.2
2.3

T7

0-15
16-30
31-60
61-90
91-120

5.2
6.0
6.0
4.8
4.6

1.7
1.8
2.2
2.2
2.0

7.4
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.5

7.9
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.9

15.7
16.5
17.3
13.7
12.2

1.7
1.3
2.0
2.6
1.9

T8

0-15
16-30
31-60
61-90
91-120

3.4
3.8
3.8
3.9
4.1

2.3
2.8
2.3
2.3
1.8

7.6
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.5

7.5
7.5
7.6
7.8
7.7

8.9
12.5
14.5
13.6
11.6

2.0
2.3
1.8
1.6
2.4

T9

0-15
16-30
31-60
61-90
91-120

6.7
7.2
6.9
7.0
6.4

3.4
2.9
2.5
2.7
3.1

7.4
7.4
7.5
7.8
7.6

7.6
7.6
7.7
7.6
7.6

22.6
24.0
22.1
29.6
29.2

1.5
2.6
2.8
1.5
2.2

Note: B and A denote before and after study, respectively.

34

5.4 Effect of Different Irrigation Methods on the Yield of Cotton

The results regarding cotton yield over three crop seasons are given in Table 11. On the overall
average basis (three crop seasons), T2 (irrigation to every furrow of 60 cm wide ridge, with 75%
CU), gave relatively higher yield (1983 kg/ha) than that under other treatments. By crop season,
there was also a trend of high yield (1932 to 2019 kg/ha) in T2 particularly in the first two crop
seasons. However, the statistical analysis showed no significant difference between the mean
yield achieved under the different applied irrigation methods. Likewise yield, the higher water
saving (33 to 34%) was also found under T2 than that under the other treatments. The T4 (broad
ridge/furrow of 90 cm wide, using 75% CU) resulted in high water saving nearly of the same
order but with lower yield. Iqbal and Iqbal (1997); Mahmood et al. (1999); Chaudhry and
Qureshi (1991) and Javaid and Khoso (1988) also reported similar results.
Table 11: Cotton Yield, Water Used, Water Use Efficiency and Water Saving
Under Farmers Practices
Treatment

Yield
(kg/ha)

Water Used
(mm)
Kharif 1991
631
419
559
419
559
559

WUE
(kg/ha-mm)

Water Saving
(percent)

2.98
4.77
3.38
4.47
3.26
3.45

33.61
11.41
33.61
11.41
11.41

T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6

1982
1998
1887
1873
1820
1927

T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6

1910
1932
1897
1750
1802
1895

Kharif 1992
625
413
550
413
550
550

3.06
4.68
3.45
4.24
3.28
3.45

33.92
12.00
33.92
12.00
33.92

T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6

2007
2019
2011
1918
2014
2030

Kharif 1993
635
423
560
423
560
560

3.16
4.77
3.59
4.53
3.59
3.62

33.38
11.81
33.38
11.81
11.81

Overall Average
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6

1933
1983
1932
1847
1879
1911

630
418
556
418
556
556

3.07
4.74
3.47
4.41
3.38
3.43

33.63
11.74
33.63
11.74
11.74

35

5.5

Consumptive Use of Water and Irrigation Scheduling for Wheat, Cotton and
Sugarcane Crops

As mentioned in the methodology, three areas under irrigation to crops were addressed i.e.(i)
determination of CU (replicating the earlier lysimeters results); (ii) CU determination under field
conditions; and (iii) development of irrigation scheduling on the basis of the existing warabandi.
It may be mentioned that lysimeteric and field results were combined to compute the actual
water requirement to evolve crop coefficient curves and to establish irrigation schedule for the
three experimental crops (wheat, cotton and sugarcane). On the basis of lysimeters, the average
CU under stress free condition was 458 mm for wheat, 713 mm for cotton and 2100 mm for
sugarcane. Accordingly, there were three levels (as treatments) of CU i.e. 0.75 CU, 1.00 CU and
1.25 CU. The results based on these CU are given in Table 12.

Figure 3: A View of Lysimeter at DRC Research Farm

Table 12: Crop Yield, Water Used and Water Use Efficiency
Treatment

Yield
(kg/ha)

Water Used
(mm)

Water Use Efficiency

(kg/ha-mm)

0.75CU (T1)
1.00CU (T2)
1.25CU (T3)

3580
4090
4306

Wheat
382
458
523

0.75CU (T1)
1.00CU (T2)
1.25CU (T3)

3020
2950
2870

550
713
880

5.49
4.13
3.26

0.75CU (T1)
1.00CU (T2)
1.25CU (T3)

100500
154700
108130

Sugarcane
1600
2100
2625

62.81
73.67
41.19

9.73
8.93
8.23

Cotton

36

5.5.1 Effect on Yield and Water Saving

By treatments, the higher average yield (4305 kg/ha) of wheat was achieved using 1.25 CU but
the water efficiency was lower (8.23 %) as compared to the other two treatments. In relation to
the three crops, the higher water use efficiency was achieved under 0.75 CU of water. Keeping in
view a factor of the higher water use efficiency, the water requirement of wheat under field
conditions was determined 382 mm and was modified as 375 mm including soaking dose. The
results are found in agreement with those reported by PARC (1982).
Cotton yield was 3020 kg/ha in 0.75 CU with water use efficiency of 5.49 kg/ha-mm. The
low yield as well as the low water use efficiency was found under 1.25 CU of water. Based on
these results, the estimated CU for cotton under field conditions was 550 mm.
The higher average yield (154700 kg/ha) of sugarcane (BL-4 variety) was achieved under
the treatment of 1.00 CU of water, as compared to other treatments with the water use efficiency
of 73.67 kg/ha-mm. The estimated water requirement of sugarcane was the same (2100 mm) as
determined in the lysimeters.
5.5.2 Developed Irrigation Schedules
In accordance with the determined water requirements (from pre-sowing to the maturity of a
crop), the schedule of irrigation for wheat, cotton and sugarcane were developed. The amount of
water was applied in relation to irrigation interval, irrigation depth and field size. In developing
the irrigation schedules of the crops, the commutative net irrigation requirement was deducted
from the irrigation depth applied within root zone, allowing irrigation to the crop within the
weekly, fortnightly and tri-weekly schedule. The net irrigation was computed by subtracting the
effective rainfall from the crop water requirement, in addition to the precautions to avoid stress
conditions. The irrigation schedule by crops are summarized below:
For wheat after soaking dose, four subsequent irrigations each with 75 mm, are required
at the intervals of 21, 42, 77 and 105 days. Therefore, on the basis of 0.75 CU, the total water
requirement is 375 mm. For cotton the soaking dose is 100 mm and six subsequent irrigations
each of 75 mm are required at the interval of 28, 49, 70, 91, 105 and 126 days. Using 0.75 Cu,
the total water requirement is 550 mm.
The irrigation schedule for sugarcane with 100 mm of soaking dose requires 20
subsequent irrigations of 100 mm under 1.0 CU of water. Therefore, the total water requirement
comes out 2100 mm as determined in lysimetrs. The subsequent irrigations are required at the
interval of 7, 14, 35, 77, 131, 161, 182, 196, 210, 224, 238, 242, 252, 266, 273, 287, 301, 322,
343 and 357 days.
5.5.3 Verification of Developed Irrigation Scheduling
The developed irrigation scheduling of the experimental crops were tested under the field
conditions for the three seasons of each crop. The main variables under test were yield, water use
efficiency and water saving. The defined treatments were: T1 for all the irrigations according to
the developed scheduling to each crop; and T2 for irrigations according to the farmers practice.
The treatments were replicated four times for each plot size of 27 m x 20 m. The calculated
amount of water for each treatment/plot size was applied and the effective rainfall was included
in the water used. Other inputs, essential cultural practices and plant protection measures were
carried out as generally recommended by Agriculture Research Institute, (ARI), Tando Jam. The
crop yield and other water related variables are given in Table 13.
37

Table 13: Yield of Crops, Water Use Efficiency and Water Saving
Crop Season/
Treatment

Yield
(kg/ha)

Water Consumed
(mm)

Water Use
Efficiency
(kg/ha-mm)

Water Saving
over T2
(percent)

Wheat
Rabi, 1990-91
T1
T2

2930
2860

383
583

7.65
4.90

34.30

Rabi, 1991-92
T1
T2

4950
4760

375
525

13.20
9.07

28.60

Rabi, 1992-93
T1
T2

3740
3650

403
578

9.28
6.31

30.28

Overall Average
T1
T2

3873
3756

387
562

10.00
6.68

31.14

Cotton
Kharif, 1990-91
T1
T2

1280
1380

556
706

2.30
1.96

21.30

Kharif, 1992
T1
T2

1160
1210

550
750

2.11
1.61

26.70

Kharif, 1993
T1
T2

1250
1280

560
710

2.33
1.77

21.12

Overall Average
T1
T2

1250
1280

555
722

2.25
1.78

23.1

Sugarcane
1989-90
T1
T2

11470
10813

2150
2675

53.35
40.42

19.6

1990-91
T1
T2

12823
12260

2114
2639

60.66
46.46

19.9

Overall Average
T1
T2

12146
11536

2132
2657

56.97
43.42

19.8

Table 13 reveals that in all the crop seasons the relatively higher yield of wheat, higher
water use efficiency and appreciable water saving were achieved while irrigating according to
the developed irrigation scheduling. However, the net increase of wheat yield was only 2-3
percent showing no edge over that of farmers practices. The notable benefit was the saving of
water (29-34%), against the farmers practices of irrigation. Ashraf et al. (2001b) showed that
irrigation scheduling saved up to 50% water as compared to farmers practices.
In case of cotton, the effect of irrigation under the developed scheduling on the yield was
not significant. The results show a consistency of cotton yield under the two treatments during all
the crop seasons. The effect on water saving under the developed irrigation scheduling was quite
pronounced as varying from about 21 to 28 percent with an overall average of about 23 percent.

38

The application of water to sugarcane, according to the developed irrigation scheduling,

also not produced any notable effect on its yield during the two years. The yield only showed a
net increase between 4 to 6 percent over that of farmers irrigation practices. However, the water
saving was nearly 20 percent under the developed irrigation scheduling for sugarcane.
Apparently, the developed irrigation scheduling for the three crops resulted in considerable
saving of water.
5.6 Effect of Cropping and Fallowing on Crop Yield and Salinity
The study was based on four treatments defined in terms of rotations of the seasonal crops
including wheat, cotton and berseem. Accordingly, the first treatment (T1) was the permanent
fallow land during the entire study period of three years. The second treatment (T2) was the
rotation of wheat-cotton (1993-94), berseem-cotton (1994-95) and wheat-fallow in (1995-96).
The third treatment (T3) was fallow-cotton, wheat-fallow and wheat-cotton, respectively during
three years. The fourth treatment (T4) was berseem-cotton in the first year, wheat-cotton in the
second and berseem-cotton in the third year. The plot-wise yield of wheat and cotton were
aggregated and averaged while berseem was used as green manuring.
5.6.1 Effect on Wheat and Cotton Yield
Under T1 the yield of wheat in the first year (2230 kg/ha) was increased considerably, in the third
year (4500 kg/ha). Under T3 wheat yield was 4230 and 4880 kg/ha, respectively in 1994-95 and
1995-96 from the fields that were kept fallow in the first year (1993-94). The yield of wheat
under T4, when it followed berseem, was 4580 kg/ha. It appears that when wheat followed
berseem, its yield was higher as compared to that when it followed the fallow land.
The cotton yield was higher (2110 kg/ha) under T2 in the year 1994-95 as compared with
that in the first year (1520 kg/ha). The T3 showed a considerable increase in cotton yield in 199596 (3860 kg/ha) when it followed the fallow land. When cotton was sown continuously for the
three crop seasons under T4, though its yield was also notably, high but showed no prominent
variation between the three seasons (2100 to 2550 kg/ha). It is therefore, concluded that wheat
cultivated after berseem gave high yield and the yield of cotton was considerably high when it
followed the fallow land.
Table 14: Wheat and Cotton Yield with Different Rotations of Crops
Duration

T1

Treatment
T3

T2

T4

1st Year (1993-94)

PF

Yield (kg/ha)

2230

1520

1710

2110

2nd Year (1994-95)

PF

Yield (kg/ha)

2110

4230

4580

2550

3rd Year (1995-96)

PF

Yield (kg/ha)

4500

4880

3860

2020

Note: PF = permanent fallow, W = wheat, C = cotton and F = berseem, respectively.

39

5.6.2 Effect on Soil Salinity

The soil salinity analysis before and after the study is given in Table 15. Before the study, the
soil under the four used treatments was in general, non-saline (ECe less than 4.0 dS m-1).
However, after the study the salinity status of the constant fallow land (T1) was changed to
moderately saline (ECe 4-8 dS m-1) at the depth of 0-15 cm and slightly saline (ECe 8-16 dS m-1)
at other soil depths. The groundwater from usable (EC up to 1.5 dS m-1) to marginal quality (EC
1.5 to 3.0 dS m-1) caused the salinization of the land kept permanently fallow. However, under
the other three treatments, there was no significant variation of the ECe at all depths. The pH and
ESP also did not show any variation under the treatments of T2 to T4. Under T1 however, the ESP
value showed its considerable increase at all depths.
Table 15: Soil Salinity before and after Completion of Experiment
Treatment

T1

T2

T3

T4

Sampling Depth
(cm)

ECe (dS m-1)

pH

ESP

0-15

2.3

9.1

7.3

8.3

10.6

20.1

16-30

2.9

7.6

7.2

7.5

8.4

11.4

31-60

3.2

8.1

7.2

7.8

7.6

17.2

61-90

2.1

7.8

7.2

8.4

6.9

21.4

91-120

3.0

7.9

7.2

7.9

9.7

15.2

0-15

2.7

2.5

7.3

7.2

8.3

7.3

16-30

4.3

2.5

7.3

7.3

8.1

7.8

31-60

4.0

3.7

7.3

7.2

7.6

8.1

61-90

3.3

3.8

7.2

7.2

9.2

8.5

91-120

2.5

3.1

7.2

7.2

8.1

8.4

0-15

2.2

2.5

7.3

7.1

5.8

6.2

16-30

2.2

2.3

7.2

7.3

7.8

7.5

31-60

2.3

7.3

7.2

7.3

7.5

61-90

2.2

2.1

7.2

7.2

9.1

8.6

91-120

1.8

2.3

7.2

7.2

6.8

7.1

0-15

3.6

3.2

7.2

7.2

8.3

8.1

16-30

2.1

3.1

7.2

7.3

7.8

8.3

31-60

2.3

2.1

7.2

7.3

9.1

8.4

61-90

2.3

2.4

7.3

7.2

7.8

7.3

91-120

1.9

1.7

7.1

7.2

7.1

6.8

1.9

Note: B and A denote before and after study, respectively.

40

41

CHAPTER 6
MAIN FINDINGS
The present Chapter delineates the salient findings derived from the research studies. The format
of this chapter is the same as adopted for the report i.e. each study is followed by its findings.
6.1 Effect of Marginal Quality Groundwater on Crop Yields and Soil Salinity
The findings are as follows:

The yield of two experimented crops remained higher under canal water irrigation;

The average net increase in wheat yield with canal water irrigation was about 18 percent
over that from tubewell water irrigation and about 10 percent over that from the alternate
irrigation with canal and tubewell water. The use of marginal groundwater, in alternate
irrigation with canal water, caused a small decrease in the crop yield.

The average net increase of cotton yield on account of canal water irrigation was
9 percent higher than that from tubewell water irrigation while 5 percent with alternative
use of water from the two sources. The use of marginal quality tubewell water, with the
alternate irrigation from canal water, caused a relatively less decrease in the crop yield as
compared with that for wheat;

With canal water use, the WUE for wheat was 11.2 kg/ha-mm whereas WUE 9.1 kg/hamm and 10.1 kg/ha-mm for tubewell water use and alternate irrigation with canal water,
respectively. Apparently, there appears no prominent difference of water use efficiency
between the modes of irrigation;

For cotton, the WUE did not show a notable variation in relation to the three treatments.
The water use efficiency ranged between 3.70 to 4.90 kg/ha-mm; and

Long term use of low quality groundwater for crop production may increase soil salinity.

6.2 Effect of Alternate Skipping Irrigation from Irrigation Schedule and at

Critical Growth Stages on the Yield of Wheat and Cotton
The study was completed in two phases i.e. effect of alternate skipping irrigation from the
irrigation schedule, in the first phase and skipping irrigation at critical growth stages, in the
second phase. The crops under experiment were wheat and cotton. The main conclusions are
given below:

Average yield of wheat was prominently high when all irrigations (1 soaking dose and 4
subsequents) were applied according to the irrigation schedule. The net increase in yield
was 30 to 33 percent more than that obtained through the skipped irrigations from the
schedule;

42

The net increase of average yield of cotton was between 33 and 48 percent with the
irrigations (1 soaking dose and 6 subsequent) as per schedule over that achieved with
skipped irrigation;

A net increase in the average yield of wheat from 30 to 37 percent was found under the
irrigation at critical stages (crown root initiation to milky) against that of skipped
irrigation;

For cotton the net increase in its average yield was between 28 and 36 percent under
irrigation at all growth stages (plant development to boll opening) against that of
irrigation with skipped stages;

For wheat the water saving of 19 percent was common between the skipped irrigations
and skipped stages. In case of cotton, the average saving of water was about 13 percent
for the skipped irrigations and more than 16 percent for the skipped stages; and

Due to skipping of irrigations from the schedules as well as at critical growth stages, the
soil salinity increased but remained within the safe limits during the period of study.
Effect of Different Irrigation Levels and Fertilizer Dose on the Yield of Wheat and
Cotton and Soil Salinity

6.3

The study was intended to determine water requirement coupled with the appropriate fertilizer
use to achieve the high yield of wheat and cotton. The treatments (nine) with replications were
defined in terms of varying water consumptive use and the recommended doses of NPK
fertilizers. The findings are outlined below:

Averagely, higher yield of wheat (4260 kg/ha) was found under 75 percent consumptive
use of water combined with the use of 125 percent of recommended dose of fertilizer.
This combination for wheat also provided high water use efficiency (11.73 kg/ha-mm);

125 percent consumptive use combined with 75 and 125 percent of recommended
fertilizer doses resulted in high wheat yield of 4070 and 4160 kg/ha respectively,
however, with low water use efficiency (6.73 to 6.88 kg/ha-mm);

The average high yield of cotton was found with 75 percent water consumptive use
coupled and 125 percent of recommended dose of fertilizers with water use efficiency of
7.38 kg/ha-mm;

Soil salinity decreased under all treatments possibly due to continuous cropping of wheat
followed by cotton causing leaching of solvable salts from the soil profile and use of SSP
fertilizers resulting in reclaiming the slightly saline-sodic soil.

6.4 Effect of Different Irrigation Methods on the Yield of Cotton

The study demonstrated the change in yield of cotton in relation to the traditional (flood), narrow
and broad ridge/furrow methods of irrigations under the varying water consumptive use.

A net increase of only 3 percent in the average yield of cotton grown on 60 cm wide
ridges/furrows with 75 percent water consumptive use could be achieved.

Comparatively, a high water use efficiency of (4.74 kg/ha-mm) was achieved under the
broad bed ridges against the flood irrigation method.

43

 There was a considerable water saving varying from 12 to 34 percent under the irrigation
methods of ridges/furrows over the traditional flooding irrigation without affecting crop
yield.
6.5 Consumptive Use of Water and Irrigation Scheduling for Wheat, Cotton and
Sugarcane Crops
The study focused firstly, on determining the consumptive use of water for three crops (wheat,
cotton & sugarcane) and secondly, on developing the irrigation scheduling for these crops. The
consumptive use of water was worked out in lysimeters for each crop and then these results were
replicated under field conditions. The irrigation scheduling with respect to each crop was
developed on the basis of existing warbandi (rotational water delivery at watercourse command
level). The main findings are given below:

The determined consumptive use of water under field conditions (replicating the
lysimeter results) was 375, 550 and 2100 mm for wheat, cotton and sugarcane,
respectively; and

Based on the consumptive use of water and warbandi, the established irrigation
scheduling are: (i) wheat: soaking dose of 75 mm followed by four subsequent
irrigations each 75 mm after 3, 6, 11 and 15 weeks of sowing (total water of 375 mm)
(ii) cotton: soaking dose of 100 mm and then six subsequent irrigations, each 75 mm
after 4, 7, 10, 13, 15 and 18 weeks of sowing (total water 550 mm) (iii) sugarcane:
the soaking dose of 100 mm followed by 20 subsequent irrigations after 1, 2, 5, 11,
19, 23, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 43, 46, 49 and 51 weeks of sowing with
2100 mm total water.

6.6 Effect of Cropping and Fallowing on Crop Yield and Soil Salinity
This study involved four treatments replicated for three years (1993-96). The main findings are
given below:

The increased yield of 2200 to 4500 kg/ha of wheat was achieved under the rotation
of wheat-berseem-wheat.

As regards cotton, a prominent increase (1700 to 3800 kg/ha) in its yield was found
by crop rotation of cotton-fallow-cotton. The highest yield of cotton was achieved
when the crop was cultivated after fallow; and

Under the above said rotations of crops, the soil analysis did not provide any evidence
of salinity build-up. However, soil salinity increased in the area kept fallow
throughout the study period.

44

45

CHAPTER 7
RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter gives a delineation of the recommendations however, summarized/outlined in the
same sequence of the completed studies as dealt within the preceded chapters.

To encounter surface-water shortage, the alternate irrigations of marginal quality

groundwater and canal water may be applied to wheat and cotton crops. As this
approach does not decrease the yield much (averagely by about 10% for wheat and
5% for cotton), therefore, it would facilitate to use the saved canal water for either to
increase the cropping intensity or to leach the salt from the salt affected areas.

Continuous use of marginal quality groundwater for irrigation over longer period
should be avoided as it tends to increase the soil salinity.

To ensure the optimum yield of wheat and cotton and to protect the farm area from
salinity, the irrigations should not be skipped: (i) from the recommended scheduling;
and (ii) at any critical growth stage of the crops.

To achieve higher yield of wheat and cotton, the water consumptive use of 75 percent
combined with 125 percent of recommended dose of NPK fertilizers should be used.

To have a wide range of benefits such as improved yield, high water use efficiency
and more saving of water, cotton should be grown using bed and furrow technology.

To sustain the good production of wheat, cotton and sugarcane, the computed water
consumptive use of 375, 550 and 2100 mm, respectively and the established irrigation
schedulings of the crops are needed to be promulgated to the farming community.

The crop rotations of wheat-barseem-wheat and cotton-fallow-cotton, respectively,

give relatively better yield and therefore, may be propagated.

To avoid soil salinity/sodicity, particularly under shallow water table, the land
underlain by water-table depth of 240 to 300 cm, should not be left fallow.
Sustainable soil management requires that the land should be kept under continuous
cropping throughout the year.

46

47

CHAPTER 8

FUTURE AREAS OF WATER MANAGEMENT RESEARCH

The study on effect of alternate skipping irrigation from irrigation schedule and at critical
growth stage on the yield of wheat and cotton has been suggested to be extended in relation to
different soil textures and climatic conditions while using the various irrigation treatments for
other dominating crops. Similarly, the study for determining the effect of cropping and
fallowing on crop yield and soil salinity status has been thought for more research considering
other variables such as different soil texture and water-table depth with other seasonal crop
rotations.
8.1 On Going Research Studies
Beside the completed studies as dealt within the preceded chapters, DRC has already initiated
some studies under its overall water management research program. The studies under progress
at DRC research farm are listed below:

Effect of fallowing and cropping on soil salinization lysimeter study at 1.5 m watertable depth (lysimeter study);

Determination of consumptive use of water for canola and soybean (in mini
lysimeters);

Determination of water requirement of maize under field conditions;

Growing of orchard on trickle irrigation system for water saving and high water use
efficiency;

Determination of water requirement of rice (paddy) under field conditions;

Water saving assessment using different methods of irrigation for rice crop;

Rice cultivation under sprinkler irrigation system to optimize water use; and

Evaluation of terra cottem for efficient use of water for orchards.

8.2 Future Research Studies

The studies to be carried out by DRC in future are as follows:

Development/evaluation of appropriate technologies/practices allowing the use of

drainage effluent for crop production;

48

Development of computer models for irrigation/water scheduling at watercourse

command level;

Studies on the mechanism of groundwater abstraction and development of

framework of regulatory authority;

Studies on optimizing cropping patterns under various water availability scenarios;

Extension of bio-saline agriculture to field through coordinated efforts in using salt

tolerant varieties, conjunctive use of fresh and saline water, halophytes for fodder
production, etc.

Optimization of skimming well design and operational strategies for the safe
extraction of thin freshwater thickness.

49

REFERENCES
Ahmad Ch. N. and Ahmad N. (1987). Increase Crop Production through Conjunctive use of
Surface and Groundwater. Proceedings of International Symposium on Conjunctive Use
of Surface and Groundwater for Agriculture. Centre of Excellence in Water Resources
(CEWRE), University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore. (11):429-454.
Ahmad M.M., Ahmad S., Yasin M. and Shafiq M. (2001). Issues and Potential of Marginal
Quality Waters for Irrigation. Proceedings 2nd National Seminar on Drainage in
Pakistan, April 18-19, 2001. University of Agriculture, Faisalabad. pp.258-268.
Ahmad S. and Khan B.M. (1977). Water Use Efficiency for Major Crops in Pakistan under
Optimum Management Conditions. Proceedings of Water Management for Agriculture
Seminar. Vol.II. Exxon Chemical Pakistan, Karachi. pp.110-124.
Ahmed R. (1993). Disposal of Saline Drainage Effluent. DRIP Newsletter. Drainage and
Reclamation Institute of Pakistan, Tando Jam. (14):8.
Ashraf M., Asgher M.N. and Saeed M.N. (2001a). Evaluation of Alternate and Regular Furrows
under Skimmed Groundwater Application. Journal of Drainage and Water Management.
5(1):13-22.
Ashraf M., M. M. Saeed M. N. Asgher (2001b). Evaluation of Resource Conservation
Technologies under Skimmed Groundwater Applications. Journal of Drainage and
Water Management. 5(2): 1-10.
Azhar M., Iqbal M., Khaliq A. and Murty V.V.N. (1995). Simulation of Irrigation Scheduling for
Improving Wheat Yields in Canal Command Areas. Journal of Engineering Applied
Science. 109-116.
Change M.H., Shaikh M. and Leghari A.M. (1997). Crop Production with Saline Drainage
Effluent. Journal of Drainage and Water Management. 2(1):76-83.
Chaudhry M.R. and Qureshi, A.S. (1991). Irrigation Techniques to Improve Application
Efficiency and Crop Yield. Journal of Drainage and Reclamation. 3(1):14-18.
Chaudhry M.R., Hameed A., Chaudhry M.A. and Qasim M. (1997). Soil Properties and Crop
Yield as Affected by Drainage Water and Management. Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Water for the 21st Century, Demand, Supply, Development and SocioEnvironmental Issues. CEWRE. University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore.
403-409.
Chaudhry N.A. and Chaudhry A.R. (1990). Brackish Water Use for Field Crop Production.
Proceedings of ISM-R Symposium, Islamabad.
Day A.D. and Intalap (1970). Some Effects of Soil Moisture Stress on the Growth of Wheat
(Tritium Acstivum L. em Thall). Agronomy Journal, 62 : 27-29.
Gupta F.C. (1990). Management Practices, In Use of Saline Water in Agriculture, Oxford and
IBH. Pub. Col., New Delhi. 254p.

50

Hussain T., Akhtar, A.M., Gilani G. and Akram H. (1991). Management of Poor Quality
Drainage Waters for Crop Production under Cotton-wheat Cropping System. Journal of
Drainage and Reclamation. 3(2):14-19.
Iqbal (1991). Effect of Different Levels of NPK on Yields of Cotton and Sugarcane at different
Watertable Depths. Mona Reclamation Experimental Project, WAPDA, Publication
No.181.
Iqbal M. and Chaudhry, B.A. (1991). Irrigation and Nitrogen Management on Wheat and Maize,
Mona Reclamation Experimental Project, WAPDA, Publication No.183.
Iqbal M. and Iqbal J. (1997). Irrigation Water Saving under every other Furrow Irrigation.
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Water for the 21st Century, Demand,
Supply, Development and Socio-Environmental Issues. CEWRE, University of
Engineering and Technology, Lahore. Publication No.110. p.343-346.
Iqbal M.M. and Siddiqui H.S. (1977). Critical Growth Stages for Application of Irrigation and
Fertilizer to Wheat. Proceedings of Water Management for Agriculture Seminar.
November, 1977. Vol.1. Exxon Chemical Pakistan, Karachi. pp.218-227.
IWASRI (1988). Pakistan Register of Current Research on Waterlogging and Salinity.
International Waterloggig and Salinity Research Institute, Lahore. Report No.4. p.68.
Javaid M.A. and Channa M.Q. (1990). Brackish Groundwatr for Cotton and Wheat Production in
Lower Indus Basin. Proceedings of ISM-R Symposium, Islamabad.
Javaid M.A. and Khoso, A.K. (1988). Estimation of Water Use and Yield of Cotton under
Improved and Traditional Planting, Lower Indus Management (LIM)-Hyderabad
WAPDA, Publication No.3. 24p.
John R. (1977). Consumptive Use Requirements by Crops and Critical Stages for Irrigation.
Proceedings of Water Management for Agriculture Seminar. Vol.1. Exxon Chemical
Pakistan, Karachi. pp.178-193.
Khalid M., Nadeem M.Y., Ibrahim M. and Ali A. (1999). Use of Brackish Water for Irrigation
by Alternating it with Canal Water. Proceedings National Workshop on Water Resources
Achievements and Issues in 20th Century and Challenges for the Next Millennium. June
28-30, 1999, Islamabad. Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources, Islamabad.
pp.202-206.
Khoso A.A. (1994). Fertilizer Requirement of Crops under Shallow Watertable Conditions,
Lower Indus Management (LIM)-Hyderabad, WAPDA, Publication No.43.
Leghari M.M., Ansari A.S., and Kalwar G.N. (1977). Performance of Wheat as Affected by
Irrigation at Various Soil Moisture Regimes and Fertility Levels. Proceedings of Water
Management for Agriculture Seminar. Vol.1. Exxon Chemical Pakistan, Karachi. pp.228240.
Mahar A., Chandio B.A. and Zafarullah M. (1990). Irrigation Scheduling for Wheat and Cotton
under Rotational Delivery System. Journal of Drainage and Reclamation. 2(1):9-15.
Mahmood N., HussainK. and Saeed M. (1999). Irrigation Techniques for Efficient Use of
Irrigation Water in Wheat and Cotton. Proceedings of National Workshop on Water
Resources Achievements and Issues in 20th Century and Challenges for the Next
Millennium. June 28-30, 1999. Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources,
Islamabad. pp.212-216.

51

Manzoorullah (1977). Water and Fertilizer Management in Wheat Quality. Proceedings of Water
Management for Agriculture. Vol.1. Exxon Chemical Pakistan, Karachi. pp.276-282.
Memon N.A., Eusufzai S.U.K. Memon H.M. and Khemani K. (1999). Irrigation Scheduling of
Wheat Based on Soil Water Stress. Proceedings of National Workshop on Water
Resources Achievements and Issues in 29th Century and Challenges for the Next
Millennium. June 28-30, 1999. Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources.
pp.217-227.
PARC (1982). Consumptive Use of Water for Crops in Pakistan. Final Technical Report of the
Coordinated Research Programme. Pakistan Agriculture Research Council, Islamabad.
53p.
PWP (2000). The Framework for Action for Achieving the Pakistan Water Vision 2025. Pakistan
Water Partnership.
Qureshi S., Chaudhry A.N. and Eckert J.B. (1975). Water and Fertilizer Interaction in Wheat
Production. Seminar on the Optimum Use of Water in Agriculture. Lyallpur, March 3-5,
1975. p.128-138.
Robinson J.S., Musick J.T., Finforck D.C. and Rhoades H.F. (1967). Irrigation of Principal
Crops (grain and field crops). In Hagan, R.M., H.R. Haise and T.W. Edminster (eds).
Irrigation of Agricultural Lands. Agronomy Monograph. 11 : 622-639.
Sarwar A. (1994). Response of Wheat to Soil Moisture Stress at different Stages of Growth.
Journal of Drainage and Reclamation. 6(1&2) : 41-45.
Shaikh Z.I., Akram M. and Lone M.I. (1988). Comparison of Scientific and Traditional Irrigation
Practices for Wheat Yield, Paper Presented in International Seminar on Hydrological
Aspects of Drainage in Irrigated Areas, held in March 28-30, 1998 at Drainage and
Reclamation Institute of Pakistan, Tando Jam. 16p.
Sidhu M., Chaudhry M.R., Ihsanullah and Chaudhry M.A. (1996). Conjunctive Use of Fresh and
Saline Water for Irrigation. Internatioal Waterlogging and Salinity Research Institute
(IWASRI), Publication No.168. 58p.
Soomro A., Mirjat M.S., Soomro H. and Bukhari K.H. (1999). Effect of Different Irrigation
Frequencies on Water Use Efficiency, Growth and Cotton Yield. Pakistan Journal of
Agriculture Engineering and Veterinary Science. Sindh Agriculture University, Tando
Jam. 15(2):33-37.
Soomro G.M., Marri M.K. and Chang M.H. (1987). Role of Lysimeter in Effect Water
Management. Proceedings and Recommendations of One Day National Seminar on
Watertable and Salinity Control. April 19, 1987. Drainage and Reclamation Institute of
Pakistan, Tando Jam. pp.51-61.
Thomas J.R., Salin F.G. and Oxrther G.F. (1981). Use of Saline Water for Supplemental
Irrigation of Sugarcane. Journal of Agronomy. 73:1011-1017.

52