1.

1 General
A fuller use of land and water resources by the development of irrigation facilities could lead to substantial increases in food production in many parts of the world. The process whereby the suitability of land for specific uses such as irrigated agriculture is assessed is called land evaluation. Land evaluation provides information and recommendations for deciding 'Which crops to grow where' and related questions. Land evaluation is the selection of suitable land, and suitable cropping, irrigation and management alternatives that are physically and financially practicable and economically viable. The main product of land evaluation investigations is a land classification that indicates the suitability of various kinds of land for specific land uses, usually depicted on maps with accompanying reports. The evaluation and suitability classification system described in this bulletin is based on 'A Framework for Land Evaluation' (FAO 1976a). The structure of the FAO Framework classification is given in Table 1 with details in Appendix 1. Table 1 STRUCTURE OF THE SUITABILITY CLASSIFICATION
ORDER S Suitable CATEGORIES CLASS SUBCLASS S1 S2 S2t S2d S2td etc. S3 N1 N Not suitable N2 N1y N1z etc

Legend: S1 Highly Suitable S2 Moderately Suitable S3 Marginally Suitable N1 Marginally Not Suitable N2 Permanently Not Suitable Lower case letters in a Subclass indicate the nature of a requirement of limitation (e.g. t and d for topography and drainage). See list of Subclass symbols in Table 17. Land suitability units (subdivisions of Subclasses) may also be used to indicate minor differences in management.

1.2 From project identification to project implementation

In the early stages of land resources investigations, land evaluation studies indicate in a preliminary way, the suitability of land for alternative crops and irrigation methods and the land improvements that may be worthwhile. With further field studies, projects are identified and a plan of irrigation development is worked out. Individual projects are ranked in order of priority. The priority projects are planned in more detail and each

project plan is progressively refined. The proposed crops, methods of irrigation, inputs and land improvements are progressively adjusted until a satisfactory project plan is produced. Various criteria are used to decide whether a project plan is satisfactory. Apart from social and political objectives, which in practice are often paramount, a satisfactory plan is one that leaves the farmers, the community and the national economy better off. In other words, it results in the largest practicable increment in net benefits in an economic comparison of 'without project' and 'with project' situations. Such a plan will generally utilize limited resources of land, water or inputs for the most productive use. A satisfactory plan is one which is practicable and likely to work out under actual field conditions, not necessarily the most economically attractive on paper. Land evaluation reports, maps and data continue to be useful after the planning stage during design and implementation, and for monitoring the project.' The detailed design of engineering works may depend on information collected earlier during the evaluation study. During the implementation and later management of the irrigation project, the land evaluation study provides a basis for monitoring changes in physical, social and economic conditions. In response to such changes, the recommendations may need modification and updating from time to time. Currently, the rehabilitation of existing irrigation projects is an important aspect of land evaluation work. This highlights the need for thorough evaluation of land and water resources in the preparation of irrigation projects from the start; obviating the need for later rehabilitation.

1.3 Levels of intensity of investigations

The study of land and water resources and the production of irrigation development proposals may be conducted at national level, at the level of a river basin or hydrogeological basin, at project development level, or at village, farm or field level (Horning 1979). The types of studies undertaken at these different levels are indicated in Table 2. Table 2 LEVELS OF INTENSITY OF INVESTIGATIONS
LEVELS National Basin Project TYPES OF STUDY TYPES OF SURVEY Project identification Reconnaissance Pre-feasibility Feasibility Village, farm or field Detailed design Semi-detailed Detailed Very detailed

Project identification at a national and basin level leads to a need for prefeasibility and feasibility studies. These are followed by detailed design studies of water supply systems and field layouts. These various studies are served by different scales of survey. At the national level, investigations are required to provide a Master Plan for land and water resources development including an assessment of the priorities accorded to respective regions and areas within the country. At the level of individual river basins or hydrogeological basins, investigations provide the basis for water development, water control for different uses and for land use planning (e.g. catchment projection,

flood zoning, potential areas for irrigation, reclamation of delta and swamp and tidal zones, etc.). At the irrigation development project level, a plan is- formulated for investment in irrigation, drainage and flood protection. At the village, farm or field level, investigations provide information for farm water management and improvements or rehabilitation. Reconnaissance surveys on a small scale i.e. 1:100 000 to 1:250 000 (Table 3) are useful for broad resource inventory (see Chapter 5), the identification of promising areas for development, and to provide a basis for more detailed study. Mapping units are usually compound and provide only estimates of the proportions of the conditions for the various land suitability categories. The 'land system' method of survey (Christian and Stewart 1968) is often used and it may suffice to broadly distinguish land which is promising for specific kinds of irrigated agriculture from land which is not. Economic studies at this, stage broadly indicate levels of production and income. Semi-detailed surveys in pre-feasibility and feasibility studies are typically at scales from 1:25 000 to 1:50 000. Soil mapping units consist of a mixture of homogenous units (soil series) and compound units (e.g. soil associations). With sufficiently intense sampling, such surveys can be used for planning some developments up to the design stage. Table 3 SURVEY INTENSITY, MAPPING SCALE AND KIND OF MAPS
KIND OF SURVEY Very High Intensity (very detailed) RANGE OF SCALES Larger than 1:10 000 Soil maps showing special features or phases of soil series and occasionally soil complexes; detailed topographic maps with spot heights; cadastral maps; groundwater maps; present crops and vegetation etc. Soil maps showing phases of soil series and soil complexes; detailed topographic maps, groundwater maps, present land use, etc. Soil maps showing series or associations of series; land system maps, physiographic units, topographic contour maps, present land use maps, etc.

High Intensity (detailed) Medium Intensity (semi-detailed) Low Intensity (reconnaissance) Exploratory Syntheses

1:10 000 to 1:25 000 1:25 000 to 1:100 000

1:100 000 to Soil maps with associations and phases of Great Groups or 1:250 000 Subgroups; land system maps, physiographic or contour maps, present land use, climatic zones, etc. 1:250 000 to Land units of various kinds. 1:1 000 000 Smaller than Climatic maps, soil taxonomic maps, vegetation and land 1:1 000 000 use, physiographic and geomorphological maps, agroecological zones, etc.

Detailed surveys may be required separately for soils and topography. Soil surveys, typically at scales of 1:10 000 to 1:25 000, with soils series and phases as the main soil mapping units, are used for project planning and implementation and for some surveys at village or catchment level, including layout of farms and irrigation systems. If topography is an important consideration in delineating land to be brought under command by gravity irrigation, a more intensive survey (e.g. at 1:5 000) may be required for land levelling and engineering applications.

Very detailed surveys, at scales of 1:5 000 or larger, are necessary where small contour intervals must be mapped in order to determine slope classes, or align irrigation and drainage channels.

1.4 Planning a land evaluation investigation

Land evaluation investigations may be carried out by a government department or private company with or without external help. Large irrigation projects often involve a client, a funding agency and a consultant organization. Prior to field work, initial discussions will take place to decide the objectives of the evaluation, and the data and assumptions on which it is to be based. The extent and boundaries of the area to be evaluated, and the kinds of land use or irrigation systems may either be prescribed in the terms of reference, or may be part of the evaluation. Appropriate physical or economic measures of suitability must be decided (see Section 2.4). The intensity and scales of the required surveys, and the phasing of activities should be agreed prior to the start of field work. The administrative, logistical and financial implications of the work being undertaken should also be agreed. During initial discussions the requirements for reports and maps at various stages during the study should be decided. The regular production of progress reports and maps is a feature of all efficiently organized irrigation development investigations. These are essential as a basis for making major policy decisions at crucial stages of the study. It is also customary to produce interim reports in order to facilitate discussions and amendments before producing the final reports and maps. This introductory chapter has indicated how the physical and economic aspects of land evaluation for irrigated agriculture become more detailed and refined as the land evaluation progresses from reconnaissance and project identification, to the detailed planning of irrigation projects. Chapter 2 describes the principles, terminology and outlines the FAO land evaluation procedures as applied to irrigated agriculture.

2.1 Basic principles

Certain concepts and principles are fundamental to successful land evaluation for irrigated agriculture. The basic principles advocated by the Framework for Land Evaluation (FAO 1976a), on which the methods described in this bulletin are based, are complementary to the principles of the US Bureau of Reclamation (see Chapter 10) which are specifically for irrigation. i. The FAO Framework indicates that it is necessary to evaluate land and not just soils. The suitability of soils for irrigated crops is useful information but it is inadequate for making decisions about land use development. Therefore all relevant land characteristics including soils, climate, topography, water resources, vegetation etc. and also socio-economic conditions and infrastructure need to be considered. ii. The main objective of land evaluation for irrigated agriculture is to predict future conditions after development has taken place. It is necessary to forecast the benefits to farmers and the national economy and whether these will be sustained without damage to the environment. Essentially a classification of potential suitability is required which takes account of future interactions between soils, water, crops and economic, social and political conditions.

iii. Some factors that affect land suitability are permanent and others are changeable at a cost. The costs of necessary improvements may be determined, so that economic and environmental consequences of development can be predicted. Typical examples of permanent features are temperature, soil texture, depth to bedrock and macrotopography. Changeable characteristics which may be altered deliberately or inadvertently, typically may include vegetation, salinity, depth to groundwater, microrelief, and some social and economic conditions (e.g. land tenure, accessibility). iv. Land suitability must therefore be assessed and classified with respect to specified kinds of land use i.e. cropping, irrigation and management systems. It is obvious that the requirements of crops and irrigation and management methods differ, so the suitability of any land unit may be classed differently for various uses. It can be useless or misleading to indicate suitability for irrigated agriculture in general if the land developer needs to know about its potential for a specific irrigated crop or irrigation method. v. Land evaluation requires a comparison of the outputs obtained with the inputs needed to generate these outputs, on different kinds of land. In other words, land suitability evaluation is essentially an economic concept, although formal economic analysis may not be necessary for simple surveys. Assessment of physical factors alone does not permit prediction of the results of irrigation; they must be translated into economic terms. It is most important to achieve a land classification that reflects differences in the long-term productivity and profitability of the land under irrigation rather than one that focuses only on physical differences without regard to their economic implications. vi. The evaluation must take account of the local physical, political, economic and social conditions. The success of irrigation when it is introduced may depend as much on factors such as pricing policies for crops, labour supply, markets, accessibility, land tenure, etc. as on climate and soils. To avoid any misunderstanding all the factors which are relevant in the local situation should be explicitly stated rather than assumed. However, not all conditions need to be considered: only those that can usefully be taken into account in classifying land. vii. The land suitability must be for sustained use, that is, permanently productive under the anticipated irrigation regime. Either there should be no land degradation anticipated or the cost of prevention or remedial action to control erosion, waterlogging, salinization etc. should be included in the comparison of inputs and outputs. viii. The evaluation, where more than one apparently viable alternative exists, should compare more than one kind of use. Comparison may be, for example, between the present use and the proposed uses, or between different crops and irrigation methods. The reliability of the evaluation is enhanced by comparing inputs and outputs for several alternatives to ensure that the land use selected is not only suitable but the best of suitable alternatives. ix. It is evident that an interdisciplinary approach is required, because no one discipline can cover all aspects of land suitability evaluation. Land evaluation can be carried out using general economic considerations to establish a context for selecting appropriate crops and management, and to establish the criteria for boundaries between suitable and unsuitable land. To make a quantitative evaluation at project or farm level, however, requires formal analysis in financial and economic terms.

x. Finally, as emphasized in Chapter 1, land evaluation is an iterative process leading to successive refinements and the need for surveys and investigations that are appropriate in scale and intensity during the different stages from reconnaissance to detailed project planning, and thereafter in successive phases of project implementation.

2.2 Terminology
Full definitions of the FAO Framework terminology are given in the Glossary at the end of this bulletin and in the appropriate Chapters. The most important terms are explained here prior to outlining the evaluation procedures. i. LAND: An area of land within boundaries, with specified land qualities or land characteristics is known as a land unit. Land units can be mapped and serially numbered (e.g. land unit 1, land unit 2, land unit 3, etc.). The size of an individual land unit can be varied to suit the intensity of the investigation and should be the smallest area of land that it is necessary to evaluate and classify. ii. LAND USE: A major kind of land use is a subdivision of rural land use. Examples are extensive agriculture, intensive agriculture, forestry, recreation, etc. A land utilization type (LUT), is a subdivision of a major kind of land use describing the cropping, irrigation and management (i.e. farming system), the social and economic context, and other relevant details given in Table 11. Simplified examples of land utilization types (LUTs) LUT A: Sprinkler irrigated maize on State farms; LUT B: Double cropped rice on surface irrigated small farms; LUT C: Spate irrigated sorghum on tenanted small farms. Guidelines for the description of LUTs are given in Chapter 4. iii. LAND SUITABILITY: The FAO Framework land suitability categories are Orders (Suitable or Not Suitable), Classes, and Subclasses, as shown in Table 1. The land suitability classes are Highly Suitable (S1), Moderately Suitable (S2), Marginally Suitable (S3), Marginally Not Suitable (N1) and Permanently Not Suitable (N2). A greater or smaller number of Classes can be used as required. A lower case letter is used to designate Subclass, indicating the reason for downgrading the land from S1 (no Subclasses) to a lower class (symbols given in Table 17). Example: Land Unit 1 is Highly Suitable (S1) for single cropped rice (LUT D) but is Marginally Not Suitable (N1z) for double cropped rice (LUT B), in a classification for potential suitability. The FAO Framework distinguishes between classifications for the present suitability of land for a specific use (under existing conditions) and the potential suitability after specified major land improvements (e.g. the rehabilitation of degraded land, irrigation, drainage, etc.). Two further subdivisions of potential suitability are introduced in this bulletin. These are comparable, but not identical, to the US Bureau of Reclamation's 'arable' land and 'irrigable' land (see Chapter 10). They are defined as follows:

Provisionally-irrigable land: This is land that is classified provisionally, on the assumption that water can be supplied to it, but in the absence of full knowledge about the water supply or the project and land development costs. (Net farm income is a useful measure of the suitability of 'provisionally-irrigable' land, see Section 2.4). Irrigable land: This is land that is Suitable for irrigation under a 'provisionally-irrigable' classification, that can receive water, and that has been classified according to an economic evaluation of its suitability for specified LUTs, taking into account the water supply, the incremental area-specific development costs, common project costs, and benefits. (Net irrigation incremental benefit or NIIB, may be used to measure the suitability of 'irrigable' land). One of the merits of the 'provisionally-irrigable' classification is that it contributes to the formulation of the project plan early during the study by eliminating land that is permanently not suitable for reasons other than the water supply. This classification also provides a good basis for updating an evaluation in the event of large price shifts or other major changes at a future date. However, only an 'irrigable' classification meets the needs of a feasibility grade study. iv. CLASS-DETERMINING FACTORS: These are variables that affect the performance of a land utilization type (LUT) on a land unit and which serve as a basis for classifying the suitability of land for a given use. Many factors affect the performance of a LUT on a given land unit; in suitability classification some are 'class-determining' and others are not. Some factors affect a crop, its irrigation and management, rather uniformily across all land units in the study area, or cause unimportant variations. In contrast, 'classdetermining' factors lead to major differences in physical land productivity or benefits and costs on different land units for a given LUT. In land evaluation, only the most important factors (i.e. those that are prospective class-determining ones) need be assessed and these can usually be progressively short-listed or aggregated into estimates of yields, benefits or costs to evaluate the land suitability classes. Individual factors, that may or may not be selected as 'class-determining' in any given evaluation, can be grouped according to how they affect: a. Crop yields or production (i.e. agronomic factors) b. Management c. Land development or land improvement d. Conservation and the environment e. Social and economic conditions These five broad groupings are subdivided to give a list of 32 factors that may be 'class-determining', in Table 12, Chapter 4. Each factor, and their interactions are discussed in detail in Part Two of this bulletin. Many factors may be represented in terms of the requirements or limitations of the cropping, management and irrigation systems, and are influenced, for better or worse, by land characteristics. Some land use requirements and limitations, such as fertilizer requirements or drainage requirements are represented as inputs or land improvements, rather than as land characteristics. Thus, land characteristics and land qualities are attributes of the land. Land use requirements and limitations (more strictly, requirements and limitations of the LUT) are attributes of the land use. Many social and economic factors and some economic considerations (e.g. farmers'

attitudes) are neither attributes of the land use nor the land, but none-the-less may be 'class-determining'. v. LAND USE REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITATIONS: These are factors that may or may not be 'class-determining' and that are required for, or limit, the performance of a LUT on a land unit (Subsection 4.2.2, Table 12). Land characteristics, inputs and land improvements interact to satisfy or influence the requirement or limitation. Examples: Water requirements of a crop, land levelling requirement of an irrigation method, erosion limitation (see list in Table 12). vi. LAND CHARACTERISTICS: These are any measurable features of land that can be used to characterize a land unit. Examples: Mean annual rainfall, slope class, soil texture, etc. vii. LAND QUALITIES: These are descriptors of land in relation to land use. For example, water availability or water deficiency imply a relationship between water supply and water requirement but as an attribute of the land. Land qualities represent complex hierarchical interactions ranging from water availability, nutrient availability, to crop yielding ability, drainability, erodibility, etc. In general, land qualities are the interactions affecting the performance of a LUT. Note that land qualities are land conditions that affect the LUT, whereas corresponding land use requirements and limitations are the conditions, inputs and land improvements required for, or limiting the cropping, irrigation or management system. viii. SPECIFICATIONS OF THE LUT: The conditions required for the satisfactory performance of a cropping, irrigation and management system should be specified prior to land survey. These specifications comprise critical ranges, bounded by critical limits, and specify for individual class-determining factors, the land use requirements and limitations at different levels of suitability. ix. CRITICAL LIMITS: The critical limits of a class-determining factor mark boundaries between s1, s2, s3, n1 and n2 levels of suitability for individual factors, or a single group of factors, in the evaluation of the suitability of a land unit for a LUT. They can be set using the guidelines given in Part Two of this bulletin. x. FACTOR RATINGS: Factor ratings, namely, s1, s2, s3, n1 and n2, indicate, in terms of a single factor, or a single interaction of a group of factors, whether the land is highly suited, moderately suited, marginally suited, marginally not suited, or permanently not suited, respectively, for a given LUT. (Note that lower case letters are used to avoid confusion with land suitability classes mentioned in iii.) xi. MATCHING: This term is used in two senses. In its broadest sense 'matching' is the adjustment of the land by inputs and improvements to match the requirements and limitations of the LUT. Conversely, it is the adjustment of the LUT to match more closely the conditions of the land. In a more restricted sense, matching is the comparison between the land conditions (land qualities or land characteristics), and the requirements or limitations of the LUT, to give factor ratings. Thus, factor by factor, each class-determining factor is given a factor rating, s1, s2, s3, n1 and n2.

Example: Assume critical limits corresponding to s3 for the factor 'Rooting' are a soil depth range limited by 50-100 cm under LUT A. Land unit 1 has a soil depth of, say, 75 cm. This falls within these critical limits, therefore, the factor rating for land unit 1 with LUT A = s3 (see Chapter 6, Example 1). xii. FACTOR SIGNIFICANCE: This indicates whether an individual factor, or interaction, is Very Important (VI), Moderately Important (MI), Less Important (LI), or Not Important (NI) in deciding the land suitability class from factor ratings (see Section 6.3). xiii. MEASURES OF SUITABILITY: The land suitability classes can be defined in terms of various physical, financial or economic indicators. A land productivity index based on relative yields is described as an example of a physical measure of land class in Section 2.4. Net farm income, and net incremental irrigation benefit are also defined in Section 2.4 and may be used as economic measures of land suitability class.

2.3 Main procedures in land evaluation and classification

2.3.1 Need for preliminary studies 2.3.2 Identification of relevant land utilization types 2.3.3 Inventory of land resources 2.3.4 Selection of class-determining factors 2.3.5 Classification of 'provisionally-irrigable' land and 'irrigable' land

The main procedures for evaluating and classifying land should comprise: i. The study of relevant existing information and, wherever practicable, field appraisals of land conditions and experiences in a fully developed area having physical, climatic and socio-economic conditions similar to the area under investigation. ii. The selection of cropping, irrigation and management alternatives and the description of prospective land utilization types (LUTs) for evaluation (Chapter 4). iii. The selection of types of data required for the evaluation and the preparation of a land resource inventory (Chapter 5). iv. The selection of class-determining factors having significance from a physical and economic standpoint, and the specification of critical limits to designate factor ratings and land suitability categories (see Step-by-Step Guide, Chapter 3, also Chapter 6, and Part Two). v. The classification and mapping of 'provisionally-irrigable' land (see Sections 2.2 and 2.3.5, also Chapters 6 and 7). vi. Modification of the 'provisionally-irrigable' classification as additional pertinent physical, engineering, hydrologic and economic information is obtained assisted where necessary by updated class-determining factors and critical limits.

vii. The classification and mapping of the 'irrigable' land delineating the location of the specific lands found to be suitable for irrigation development under a project plan. Some of the above aspects are now discussed. 2.3.1 Need for preliminary studies Wherever possible, preliminary studies should be undertaken to reduce the guesswork in land evaluation investigations. The most reliable guide to crop performance and future management problems is often experience in a locality with similar physical, climatic and socio-economic conditions to those of the area to be developed. If there is little or no previous experience of the proposed cropping or irrigation practices in the locality, two approaches are possible: first, comparative studies, recognizing relevant similarities and differences on a worldwide basis (Higgins and Kassam 1981), and second, a programme of agronomic work on representative land units, together with soil, topographic and drainage studies including laboratory tests and analyses. Experimental work started early in an irrigation development programme often proves of value during the later operation and management of the irrigation project, as well as during the later stages of land evaluation. 2.3.2 Identification of relevant land utilization types In reconnaissance and project preparation studies there may be many land use alternatives. Major kinds of land (e.g. extensive agriculture, intensive agriculture) may be later subdivided to identify LUTs, first at a general level and later, during semidetailed survey, in more detail. A checklist to assist in the description of LUTs is given in Chapter 4, Table 10. In some evaluations the choice of LUTs, that is of cropping, irrigation and management systems, is a major product of the study. In other evaluations the LUTs may be obvious from the outset (e.g. irrigated rice, irrigated sugarcane, irrigated tree crops), or only irrigation methods may have to be decided (e.g. surface, sprinkler or drip). 2.3.3 Inventory of land resources Checklists are given in Chapter 5 of data necessary; for a general characterization of the project area including inventories from surveys of topography, soils, climate, water resources, drainage, vegetation and fauna, present land use, and socio-economic conditions. Guidelines on how to carry out the inventory are provided in other publications (see references in the appropriate sections). Three sets of information are obtained from surveys of land resources: i. definitions and descriptions of land units; ii. maps showing the distribution of these land units; iii. values of land characteristics of the land units. The land units may be soil series or phases on specified slope categories in detailed surveys or land systems and land facets in less detailed surveys. They are described in terms of climate, relief, soils, vegetation and present land use. The results of water resources studies at national, basin, project or village, farm or field level (see Table 2) may include data on hydrology, hydrogeology, and irrigation water supply or requirement. These data will be progressively refined and developed during the course of the evaluation.

2.3.4 Selection of class-determining factors The agronomic, management, land development, conservation and socio-economic factors that may affect the production or cost of crop production of LUTs on the land units, may be selected from the list given in Table 12, Chapter 4. In the early stages of evaluation, it is usual to consider a large number of factors, but during the study it will be apparent that many factors affecting the cropping, irrigation and management systems, do so relatively uniformly or without important variations across all the land units under study. Other factors will be short-listed because they may be 'classdetermining' and their critical limits for factor ratings in the matching of a land unit in terms of its suitability for a LUT will need to be decided (see Chapters 3, 6 and Part Two). 2.3.5 Classification of 'provisionally-irrigable' land and 'irrigable' land These two types of classification have been defined in Section 2.2 (iii). Separate classifications, first of 'provisionally-irrigable' land and later of 'irrigable' land may be required at successive stages of the evaluation. In the early stages of irrigation investigations, the amount of water available for irrigation and the exact locations to which water can be economically transported are often uncertain. The suitability of the land must therefore be classified on condition that water can be supplied to it. Only later, when the studies of water supply systems and economics are completed will it be certain whether the land can be irrigated or not. In this publication, land for which the supply is not yet assured and for which land development costs and benefits are unclear, is classified as 'provisionally-irrigable', and land that could be supplied with water under a project plan is 'irrigable'. The appropriate measures of suitability for each classification are explained in Section 2.4 and Chapter 7. The above distinction between 'provisionally-irrigable' and 'irrigable' are similar to the USBR's use of 'arable' and 'irrigable' land (Chapter 10 and Glossary). However, it should be noted that the USBR does not normally use the water supply as a classdetermining factor (except for its quality). The FAO Framework includes water supply (water quantity, quality, and seasonality) among the resources of the land, and the land evaluator may or may not choose to classify land suitability according to whether the volume of water is sufficient, the period of year during which it is available, and the cost of conveying water to the different tracts of land. One of the main advantages of the 'provisionally-irrigable' classification is that it contributes, early in the study, to the formulation of the project plan, and to the separation of land that is suitable for irrigation, from land that is not. The delineation of an 'irrigable' area from land already classified as Suitable under a 'provisionallyirrigable' classification leads to reductions in land area under the plan of development. Typical adjustments include: i. elimination of uneconomic increments of land such as those that are too costly to serve, drain or provide with distribution works; ii. adjustment of land areas to the available water supply; iii. elimination of tracts of land located above water surface delivery elevations, or elevations which cannot be feasibly irrigated by lift;

iv. exclusion of isolated segments, odd-shaped tracts, and severed areas that cannot be efficiently fitted into a farm unit; v. deletion of proposed public rights-of-way; vi. elimination of areas unable to meet minimal criteria for economic returns under the plan; vii. elimination of land for socio-economic reasons including land tenure, water rights, etc. In establishing land suitability classes, the physical and economic standard defining the lowest quality land that can be considered as Suitable under a 'provisionally-irrigable' classification should be specified as early as possible in the investigations. This boundary (or cut-off) between Suitable and Not Suitable is progressively revised eliminating marginal lands as new data on water supply and project investment costs become available until the 'irrigable' lands are defined.

2.4 Land productivity index and economic measures of suitability

Land suitability classes (i.e. S1, S2, S3, N1, N2) can be defined by various physical or economic indices or measures of suitability. Three convenient measures of suitability which lend themselves to progressive application as data become more readily available are suggested below: i) land productivity index, ii) net farm income, and iii) net incremental irrigation benefit. i. Land Productivity Index: In this bulletin, this is defined as the physical productivity of land for a specific land use, relative to that of the best land. Relative yield can be a convenient land productivity index. This is the yield per hectare relative to that of the best land as a percentage or fraction. Thus the top yields of Class S1 land for a given LUT may be taken as 100% or 1.0, the top of s2 as a fraction of S1 (e.g. 80% or 0.8), S3 as 0.6, etc. as appropriate. Other standards such as absolute yields or relative production can be used as alternative measures of physical productivity. Productivity may be for a present or potential suitability classification. It would normally be necessary to use a physical land productivity index in reconnaissance studies and as a necessary preliminary to economic evaluation. ii. Net farm income: This is a convenient measure of land suitability class for 'provisionally-irrigable' land. Net farm income is defined as the value obtained by subtracting both the variable and fixed costs from the gross value of production. At the 'provisionally-irrigable' stage of the investigations the common project costs are generally not known and are not taken into account in estimating net farm income. Net farm income may be calculated for 'without project' and 'with project' situations. At the 'provisionally-irrigable' stage it will often suffice to base the classification on the 'with project' net farm income. However, this lacks the refinement necessary for detailed project planning and analysis and 'provisionally-irrigable' land may include marginally suitable land that can be eliminated by further project economic analysis and land classification mapping during the final classification of 'irrigable' land. To ensure maximum consistency with the final classification it is convenient to express net farm income in 'economic' rather than 'financial' terms (see Chapter 7).

iii. Net Incremental Irrigation Benefit (NIIB): This is the standard required for measuring the suitability of 'irrigable' land in the final classification. NIIB is a measure of the potential increase in productivity of a unit area of land when developed under a project plan, expressed in economic terms, such as an Annual Equivalent Value. It is derived by estimating the difference in net benefit accruing to a unit area of land under 'with' and 'without' project situations taking into account: a. farm investment and operating costs, and returns ordinarily accruing from the agricultural use of the land; b. all project investment, operating and maintenance costs (including a share of common project costs and area-specific land development costs, whether or not these are paid for by the farmer). Further explanatory details are given in Chapter 7. Land evaluation using the above three measures of suitability becomes progressively refined and more detailed as the investigations move from reconnaissance through to the proposing of a specific plan of development. However, it is important to understand that the classes into which given land unit-LUT combinations fall, may differ abruptly according to the index used. The land productivity index does not take into account prices or costs of production, and net farm income does not take account of the increase or increment in moving from a 'without' to a 'with' project situation. Generally there will be a progressive elimination of the marginally suitable lands as the investigations intensify until the 'irrigable' lands are delineated. Examples of the implications of the above are given as follows. Consider, for example, two LUTs A & B based respectively on a high and low value crop, e.g. vegetables and grain. In terms of a land productivity index a land unit may, say, be classed S1 for both crops. The S1 for LUT A may indicate that the vegetables would yield 20 t/ha on this land unit. The S1 for LUT B may indicate that the grain would yield 3 t/ha. (It is also conceivable that this land unit with a third LUT C, e.g. irrigated rice, might fall into class N1; illustrating incidentally, that the land suitability class must relate to a specified land use.) If monetary values are introduced in the above example, there is a common basis for comparing the LUTs on a land unit, one with another. The high value vegetables (LUT A) might, say, remain classified as S1 using net farm income. The low value grain crop (LUT B) might fall into a lower class, say, N1 on the basis of net farm income, even though the grain crop is S1 in physical terms on this particular land unit. Such consequences must be anticipated where net farm income is used as a standard instead of physical productivity. In classifying 'irrigable' land, the existing agriculture, the project costs (common project costs and area-specific land development costs) must be taken into account to arrive at NIIB as defined in paragraph iii. If the land unit already produces, say, vegetables without irrigation, it may have an existing high net farm income per hectare for the 'without' project situation. Thus, although LUT A based on irrigated vegetables may be S1 on both the above two criteria (a land productivity index and net farm income), the increment in net farm income from investment in irrigation may be small and the additional project costs may not be worthwhile. The land may be downgraded using NIIB, for example, to S3, or even to N1. The land unit for LUT A (irrigated vegetables) may be highly suitable in physical terms or in terms of net farm income, but the

proposed development is not viable because of the limited or negligible incremental net benefit. The land productivity and economic measures of suitability described above are usually expressed as production or value per hectare. However, it is also possible to evaluate the suitability of land on the basis of a value per volume of water. This may be appropriate where the water supply systems are proposed as additional in a rehabilitation project. Rather than expressing NIIB as a value per hectare it could be expressed as a value per cubic meter of water delivered to each hectare. (In many places water is priced volumetrically.) In using the value per volume of water method of attributing benefits, the land can be classified as if it were receiving a full supply of irrigation water, with the land classification expressing values equivalent to a full water supply project. Further details of the economic evaluation of land suitability are given in Chapter 7. Economic considerations need to be introduced from the very outset of the land suitability classification with increasing degrees of refinement in successive iterations as suggested above.

3. A step-by-step guide to the procedures

3.1 List of main steps

The main steps in land evaluation are summarized below as a guide to field work and classification. The principles, terminology and outline procedures have already been described in Chapters 1 and 2. Details of each of the following steps are elaborated in later Chapters as indicated for each step. Data record sheets (Formats) that can be filled in during the evaluation are given in Tables 4-9 (Formats 1-5) and these can be modified, enlarged, simplified or copied for field work. A progression from a 'provisionally-irrigable' to an 'irrigable' classification is assumed in the following steps. The steps can be readily modified if an alternative approach is used. The appropriate type of classification, and the measure of suitability to be used (i.e. land productivity index, net farm income or net incremental irrigation benefit) must be decided prior to each evaluation.

3.1 List of main steps

i. Deciding the land utilization types (LUTs) to evaluate (explained in Section 4.1). Step 1: Land is evaluated with respect to its suitability for a given land use. Decide the alternative land uses (i.e. LUTs or farming systems) of interest and prepare to evaluate each of these separately. Step 2: Describe the LUTs. For each LUT, complete a description based on headings given in Table 10. ii. Developing the land suitability class specification (explained in Section 4.2).

Step 3: From the list of agronomic, management, land development, conservation, environmental and socio-economic factors given in Table 12, select the relevant 'classdetermining' factors that can be expected to have some influence on the suitability of land for the given LUT and that may vary from land unit to land unit. Step 4: For each selected 'class-determining' factor, enter the appropriate land use requirement or limitation on Format 1. Step 5: Quantify 'critical limits' corresponding to s1, s2, s3, n1 and n2 levels of suitability for individual land use requirements and limitations. These are the specifications for each factor in terms of the requirements and limitations of the LUT. These specifications may be represented by appropriate land qualities, or their representative land characteristics, together with the inputs and land improvements that influence productivity index, net farm income or NIIB. Enter the 'critical limits' on Format 1 thus separating the suitability levels for each individual factor. iii. Field survey and mapping of 'provisionally-irrigable' classes and subclasses (see Chapters 5-7) Step 6: Survey, delineate and describe the land units. Prepare a map of the land units, with a legend numbering the land units which can also accommodate the symbols for the land suitability classes. Step 7: For each land unit, decide which land qualities and land characteristics are 'class-determining' with respect to the requirements and limitations of the LUT(s). For each land unit, complete Format 2 entering the appropriate values of the land qualities and land characteristics (see Procedures for Land Resource Inventory, Chapter 5). Step 8: Match 'critical limits' of each land use requirement or limitation (i.e. from the specifications on Format 1), with the conditions found in the land unit (i.e. Format 2) to obtain a factor rating of s1, s2, s3, n1 or n2 for each combination of LUT and land unit. Enter the factor rating on Format 3. Assumptions about inputs, land improvements and their benefits and costs should also be indicated (see Example 2 in Section 6.5). Step 9: Decide the relative 'Significance' of each 'class-determining' factor (or of a group of interacting factors) by entering Very Important, Moderately Important, Less Important or Not Important, as appropriate, in the column headed 'Significance' (Format 3) (see Section 6.3). Step 10: Combine individual 'class-determining' factor ratings to obtain a tentative land suitability classification for each LUT on each land unit. Interactions between factors (Section 6.2) and 'Significance' (Section 6.3) must be taken into account in this step. Estimates of crop yield and economic benefit/costs, according to the guidelines in Chapter 7, may be needed to assign the classes and subclasses. Enter the tentative land suitability class and subclass (S1, S2, S3, N1 or N2 etc.) at the bottom of Format 3 or on the map. Step 11: Where necessary, adjust the LUT description, or introduce inputs or land improvements, and repeat steps 1-10 until the most practicable cropping, irrigation and management farming system is obtained (the need for such iteration can be entered on Format 3). iv. Presentation of the results of the 'provisionally-irrigable' classification

Step 12: Take the final set of 'provisionally-irrigable' classes and subclasses in Step 11 and present them for all the combinations of LUTs with land units on Format 4a or 4b (Tables 7 and 8). (Note that Format 4 can be presented in two ways, to show either the classes of all the land units for a single LUT or, alternatively, the suitability of a single land unit for all the LUTs.) - describe each LUT in terms of cropping, irrigation and management systems and using descriptors given in Table 10; - provide maps of 'provisionally-irrigable' land with legends as indicated on Format 5 (Table 9); - indicate land development, inputs and management recommendations for each combination of LUT-land unit; - present the results from basic surveys including maps and descriptions of land units; - write a summary of the recommendations. v. Determination and mapping of 'irrigable' land Step 13: Revise the cropping, irrigation and management in an updated description of the LUT for specific land units. Revise the specifications and critical limits in the light of new information on water supply and economic data. Proceed to revise the classification to determine which areas of the 'provisionally-irrigable' land can actually be irrigated under an economically and financially viable project plan (see Chapter 7). Step 14: Repeat mapping as in Step 6, with additional field survey as necessary, changing land unit boundaries and earlier mapped symbols as necessary. Step 15: Complete the mapping, tabulations and present the results of the classification of 'irrigable' land. Step 16: Based on the recommendations in Step 15, participate with other technicians in the project investigation to establish patterns of land use for the project reflecting the likely situation with the project at full development. With land use options thus reduced to a recommended and likely single LUT on each land unit for the 'with' project situation, prepare maps and tabulations of the 'irrigable' land classification for the project. The predicted economic results of each LUT can be incorporated in the overall economic analysis for the project. Step 17: Prepare reports for investment and management such as are necessary. The following data record sheets (Formats 1-5) are given in the succeeding pages: Format 1: Specifications of Land Use Requirements and Limitations. Format 2: Land Qualities and Land Characteristics Describing a Land Unit. Format 3: Factor Ratings to Match a LUT and a Land unit. Format 4: Grouped Factor Ratings for LUTs on a Specified Land Unit.

Format 5: Land Areas by Suitability Classes for Specified LUTs (for adaptation). Formats 1-3 are those that prove most important in carrying out the evaluation in the field. Formats 4a and 4b present the same data in alternative ways and are not essential. Format 5 can be adapted appropriately to present the results of reconnaissance, provisionally-irrigable, or irrigable classifications. Table 4 FORMAT 1: SPECIFICATIONS OF LAND USE REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITATIONS
LUT Name: LUT Description

CLASSCRITICAL DETERMINING REVELANT LAND LIMITS OR REQUIREMENTS RANGES QUALITY OR INPUTS AND OR LIMITATIONS LAND s1 s2 s3 n1 n2 LAND UNIT OF (Delete factors CHARACTERISTIC IMPROVEMENTS MEASUREMENT that are not REQUIRED selected as classdetermining) A. Crop (agronomic) requirements or limitations 1. Growing period requirement 2. Radiation requirement 3. Temperature requirement 4. Rooting requirement 5. Aeration requirement 6. Water requirement 7. Nutritional requirements (NPK) 8. Water quality limitation 9. Salinity limitation 10. Sodicity limitation 11. pH, micronutrients and toxicities 12. Pest, disease, weed limitations

13. Flood, storm, wind, frost, hail limitations B. Management requirements and limitations 14. Location 15. Water application management requirements 16. Pre-harvest farm management requirements 17. Harvest and post-harvest requirements 18. Requirements for mechanization C. Land development or improvement requirements or limitations 19. Land clearing requirements 20. Flood protection requirements 21. Drainage requirements 22. Land grading requirements 23. Physical, chemical, organic aids and amendments 24. Leaching requirements 25. Reclamation period 26. Irrigation engineering needs D. Conservation and environmental requirements and limitations 27. Long-term salinity, sodicity hazard 28. Ground or surface water

hazard 29. Long-term erosion hazard 30. Environmental hazard E. Socioeconomic requirements or limitations 31. Farmers' attitudes to irrigation 32. Others that are classdetermining

Note: s1, s2, s3, n1 and n2 denote decreasing suitability levels for single factors or their interactions. See Table 12 and Section 6.5 Example 2. Table 5 FORMAT 2: LAND QUALITIES AND LAND CHARACTERISTICS DESCRIBING A LAND UNIT WITH AN ASSESSMENT OF INPUTS AND LAND IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED
CLASS LAND CHARACTERISTIC DETERMINING OR QUALITY VALUE INPUTS AND FACTORS: - land UNIT OF IMPROVEMENTS PRESENT FUTURE quality or MEASUREMENT ASSUMED FOR LUT UNDER characteristic - inputs A, B, C etc. IRRIGATION or improvements e.g. 7. NUTRITION (NPK) - Total N depth 0-25 cm - Available P (Olsen) - Exchangeable K Fertilizer requirement N P K % mg/l me/100 g kg/ha 200 kg/ha nil nil 0.05 10 0.6 0.5

For further example of the use of this format see Section 6.5, Example 2. Table 6 FORMAT 3: FACTOR RATINGS TO MATCH A LUT AND A LAND UNIT
FORMAT 3: Factor ratings Name of evaluator: LUT name: Land unit no.

CLASSLAND CHARACTERISTICS, FACTOR SIGNIFICANCE COMMENTS DETERMINING INPUTS AND RATING FACTORS (Delete IMPROVEMENTS others) ASSUMED A. Crop (agronomic)

1. Growing period 2. Radiation 3. Temperature 4. Rooting 5. Aeration 6. Water quantity 7. Nutrition (NPK) 8. Water quality 9. Salinity 10. Sodicity 11. pH, micronutrients and toxicities 12. Pest, disease, weed 13. Flood, storm, wind, frost B. Management 14. Location 15. Water application management 16. Pre-harvest farm management 17. Harvest and post - harvest 18. Mechanization C. Land development 19. Land clearing 20. Flood protection 21. Drainage 22. Land grading 23. Physical, chemical, organic aids and amendments 24. Leaching 25. Reclamation period 26. Irrigation engineering D. Conservation and environment 27. Long-term salinity, sodicity 28. Ground or surface water

hazard 29. Long-term erosion hazard 30. Environmental hazard E. Socio-economic 31. Farmers' attitudes to irrigation 32. Others that are class-determining TENTATIVE LAND SUITABILITY CLASS AND SUBCLASS: FINAL LAND SUITABILITY CLASS AND SUBCLASS: s1, s2, s3, n1 and n2 denote decreasing suitability levels for single factors or for specified interactions. Significance is given as Very Important, Moderately Important, Less Important and Not Important in aggregating the factor ratings to give the land suitability class. For example see Section 6.5, Example 2. NEED FOR ITERATION: CLASSIFICATION TYPE:

Table 7 FORMAT 4a: GROUPED FACTOR RATINGS FOR LUTs ON A SPECIFIED LAND UNIT
FORMAT 4a: Land unit no: Description of land unit: CLASS-DETERMINING FACTORS LUT A A. Crop (agronomic) 1. Growing period 2. Radiation 3. Temperature 4. Rooting 5. Aeration 6. Water quantity 7. Nutrition (NPK) 8. Water quality 9. Salinity 10. Sodicity 11. pH, micronutrients and toxicities 12. Pest, disease, weed 13. Flood, storm, wind, frost B. Management 14. Location LUT B FACTOR RATINGS LUT C LUT D LUT E LUT F LUT G Name of evaluator:

15. Water application management 16. Pre-harvest farm management 17. Harvest and post-harvest 18. Mechanization C. Land development 19. Land clearing 20. Flood protection 21. Drainage 22. Land grading 23. Physical, chemical, organic aids and amendments 24. Leaching 25. Reclamation period 26. Irrigation engineering D. Conservation and environment 27. Long-term salinity, sodicity 28. Ground or surface water hazard 29. Long-term erosion hazard 30. Environmental hazard E. Socio-economic 31. Farmers' attitudes to irrigation 32. Others that are class-determining TENTATIVE LAND SUITABILITY CLASS AND SUBCLASS: FINAL LAND SUITABILITY CLASS AND SUBCLASS: Assumptions about inputs and land improvements:

Note that information from several Formats 3 can be assembled on this Format. Table 8 FORMAT 4b: GROUPED FACTOR RATINGS FOR LAND UNITS FOR A SPECIFIED LUT
FORMAT 4b: Name of LUT: Description of LUT: CLASS-DETERMINING FACTORS A. Crop (agronomic) 1. Growing period 2. Radiation 3. Temperature 4. Rooting 5. Aeration 6. Water quantity 7. Nutrition (NPK) 8. Water quality 9. Salinity FACTOR RATINGS LU 1 LU 2 LU 3 LU 4 LU 5 LU 6 LU 7 Name of evaluator:

10. Sodicity 11. pH, micronutrients and toxicities 12. Pest, disease, weed 13. Flood, storm, wind, frost B. Management 14. Location 15. Water application management 16. Pre-harvest farm management 17. Harvest and post - harvest 18. Mechanization C. Land development 19. Land clearing 20. Flood protection 21. Drainage 22. Land grading 23. Physical, chemical, organic aids and amendments 24. Leaching 25. Reclamation period 26. Irrigation engineering D. Conservation and environment 27. Long-term salinity, sodicity 28. Ground or surface water hazard 29. Long-term erosion hazard 30. Environmental hazard E. Socio-economic 31. Farmers' attitudes to irrigation 32. Others that are class-determining TENTATIVE LAND SUITABILITY CLASS AND SUBCLASS: FINAL LAND SUITABILITY CLASS AND SUBCLASS: Assumptions about inputs and land improvements:

Note that information from several Formats 3 can be assembled on this Format. Table 9 FORMAT 5: LAND AREAS BY SUITABILITY CLASSES FOR SPECIFIED LUTs (ha) (FOR ADAPTATION)
FORMAT 5: INTENSITIES OF RECONNAISSANCE INVESTIGATION 1/ MEASURES OF SUITABILITY Land suitability classes LAND PRODUCTIVITY INDEX S1 S2 S3 N1 N2 Relative yield 3/ 'PROVISIONALLYIRRIGABLE LAND' NET FARM INCOME S1 'IRRIGABLE' LAND VIABLE UNDER PROJECT NET INCREMENTAL IRRIGATION BENEFIT 2/

S2 S3 N1 N2 V1 V2 V3 N1 N2 NIIB $/ha

Net farm income $/ha

LUT land unit combinations

1.0 to 0.9 LU 1 LU 2 LU 3 LU 4 LU 5 LU 6 LU 7 LU 8 etc. Total Area

0.9 to 0.7

0.7 to 0.6

0.6 to 0.4

<0.4

AREA IN HECTARES LUT A " " " " " " " LUT A

AREA IN HECTARES LUT B " " " " " " " LUT B LU 1 LU 2 LU 3 LU 4 LU 5 LU 6 LU 7 LU 8 etc. Total Area

1/ Note that areas of land surveyed at increasing levels of intensity would normally diminish from reconnaissance to 'irrigable'. At reconnaissance level fewer land classes would normally suffice. 2/ V1, V2, V3, etc. denotes that the land and land use is economically viable under a plan of development, but S1, S2, S3 may be used if preferred. 3/ Relative yields indicated are examples only.

Deciding the land utilization types to evaluate and developing the land suitability class specifications
4.1 Deciding and describing the land utilization types to evaluate 4.2 Developing the land suitability class specifications

This Chapter covers Steps 1 to 5 of the guide to the procedures outlined in Chapter 3, and concerns the choice of alternative farming systems (LUTs) and the requirements and limitations of these LUTs.

4.1 Deciding and describing the land utilization types to evaluate

4.1.1 Examples of irrigated LUTs 4.1.2 Some problems in defining and describing LUTs

The first two steps elaborated in the first part of this Chapter have already been listed in Chapter 3, i.e.
Step 1: Land is evaluated with respect to its suitability for a given land use. Decide the alternative land uses (i.e. LUTs or farming systems) of interest and prepare to evaluate each of these separately. Step 2: Describe the LUTs. For each LUT, complete a description based on headings given in Table 10.

The activities in land evaluation that are specifically concerned with the choice and evaluation of cropping, irrigation and management systems (i.e. with land use) start with decisions about the alternative LUTs that will be separately evaluated. The FAO Framework recognizes two levels of detail at which land use is defined: - A major kind of land use represents a major subdivision of rural land use such as extensive agriculture, intensive agriculture, grassland, forestry, or recreation. - A land utilization type (LUT) is a kind of land use defined in more detail, according to a set of technical descriptors (see Table 10) in a given physical, economic and social setting. (Note the similarity between the terms 'LUT' and 'farming system' in an agricultural context.) Land utilization types (or farming systems) are described in as much detail and precision as the purpose requires. In low intensity studies their descriptions may be general and short, while later during more intensive studies the detail included in the description increases. The FAO Framework distinguishes between single, multiple and compound LUTs: - A single LUT specifies only one kind of use undertaken on an area of land (e.g. irrigated rice, or irrigated sugarcane, or irrigated tree crops). - A multiple LUT specifies more than one kind of use simultaneously undertaken on the same area of land, each use having its own inputs, requirements and produce. An example is irrigated rice grown under coconuts in parts of South-east Asia.

- A compound LUT specifies more than one kind of use sequentially undertaken on the same area of land. Examples are winter and summer cropping of wheat and cotton in irrigated areas of the Middle East; or wet season rice followed by other crops in the dry season, in South Asia. Table 10 CHECKLIST OF HEADINGS FOR DESCRIPTION OF LAND UTILIZATION TYPES
HEADINGS i. Cropping system DESCRIPTIONS Single, multiple or compound LUT. Crops grown, cultivars, cropping calendar, cropping intensity. Perennial cropping systems, cultivation factor, cropping index. (See Glossary) Subsistence, commercial or both, domestic or export, or both. Seasonal supply and quality.

ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii.

Markets Water supply

Irrigation method 1/ Gravity or lift, run-of-river or storage releases, surface, overhead, drip, etc. Capital intensity Labour intensity Value of capital investment and recurring costs per ha. Family and hired labour, man-months per ha, seasonal peak periods, festivities and holidays

Technical skills and Experience, response to innovation and change, literacy attitudes Extent of human, animal and tractor power impact on land preparation, harvesting, etc.

viii. Power ix. x. xi.

Mechanization and Which operations are mechanized or partly mechanized. farm operations Size and shape of farms Land tenure Farm size, size by LUTs, fragmentation of holdings, rainfed and irrigated areas. Freehold: family farm, corporately owned estate. Tenancy: cash rent tenancy,, labour tenancy, share cropping. Communal ownership: cooperative (collective) farming, village land with rights to cultivate, etc. State ownership: state farm, national park.

xii.

Water rights

State or private ownership, traditional purchases and sales of water. Local laws (e.g. FAO, 1978). Assumptions about processing facilities, storage depots, markets, access to farm inputs. Roads, housing, schools, medical facilities, electricity, domestic water supplies. Research and extension services and facilities. Assumptions about irrigation and drainage infrastructure and access to irrigated land. Prior assumptions about quantities and quality of inputs especially for seed, planting material, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, etc. Preparation of land for irrigation including clearing. Tillage operations (including duration for ploughing, levelling etc.) Fertilizer application (timing and methods), weeding, crop protection, harvesting and processing.

xiii. Infrastructure

xiv. Irrigation infrastructure xv. Material inputs

xvi. Cultivation practices

xvii. Livestock xviii. Associated rainfed

For traction, milk or meat, manure, forage requirements, including crop by-products, field grazing, zero grazing, stall-fed, etc. Influence of LUT of competing rainfed agriculture, forestry agriculture, shifting cultivation or agro-forestry, timber trade from land cleared for

irrigation. xix. Yields and production Yields per unit area on S1 land (ceiling values for relative yield). Yields per unit of water (per m 3) especially during periods of water shortage. (Specify mean yields with confidence limits, or ranges suitable for economic and financial sensitivity analyses.) Land equivalent ratio, income equivalent ratio. xx. Environmental impact Public health problems (i.e. bilharzia, malaria, river blindness, diseases transmitted by water). Downstream effects on water supply and quality, siltation, flooding, etc. Effects on wildlife conservation. xxi. Economic information Market prices, input costs and availabilities, subsidies, credit (see Section 5.9, Table 16).

1/ For the characteristics of surface, overhead, drip and other irrigation systems see Part 2, Table B48. Sometimes the LUT is obvious from the outset of the evaluation (e.g. irrigated rice). In other projects the prospective alternative land uses are unclear at the start of the study and LUTs are first identified in a tentative and general way. As the survey proceeds and as new quantitative data are acquired, the LUTs are progressively defined in detail. The cropping, irrigation and management aspects of the LUT are modified with inputs and land improvements to obtain a satisfactory match between the requirements or limitations of the LUT, and the conditions of the land. The aim of irrigation development projects is to leave the nation, community and farmers better off, therefore it is also generally necessary to make a comparative evaluation of the existing and proposed farming systems (i.e. LUTs without and with the project). Table 10 gives a checklist of headings for the description of LUTs. Some of these descriptors may be common to groups of LUTs, while others are specific to an individual LUT. The number of aspects to be described, and the detail of descriptions under each heading, depends on the scale and objectives of the survey. In rapid reconnaissance surveys, some descriptors may be omitted or noted only briefly. Conversely, in intensive studies, the details under some headings may run to a page or more. 4.1.1 Examples of irrigated LUTs A few brief descriptions of LUTs are given as illustrative examples as follows: i. Irrigated rice (mapping symbol LUT-2R), two crops of 140-day short-strawed high yielding cultivars; gravity, run-of-river water supply, no seasonal or annual shortages of water. Smallholders with low capital reserves, using animal-drawn farm implements, high labour intensity, 50% freehold farms, 50% tenants, farms about 1-2 ha. Subsistence and domestic markets. Anticipated yields of 8 t/ha/yr of paddy rice on S1 land. ii. Irrigated rice (wet season) followed by soybeans (dry season), mapping symbol LUTRS. The soybeans are relay planted and are grown chiefly on residual moisture after irrigation supplies dry up. Yields are increased where supplementary groundwater is supplied from tubewells, but this is only possible at some locations, hence water supply

is 'class-determining' in the 'irrigable' evaluation. Company estates, 150 ha farms, capital intensive, labour shortages, mechanized tillage and harvest. Anticipated yields 3 t/ha paddy and 1.5 t/ha soybeans on S1 land. iii. Irrigated winter crops (wheat, beans, clover) followed by irrigated summer crops (cotton, maize, sorghum), mapping symbol LUT-WS. Cropping intensities anticipated of 175%. Smallholder farms of 2.5 ha on leased reclaimed saline desert in governmentowned communally managed estates. Water supply (EC = 1.5 dS/m) to be pumped to 10 m elevation. Water supplies are to be on a rotation at 7-day intervals. Mechanized land preparation but all other operations by hand, farm inputs available but no credit. Parts of area near centres of population can substitute vegetables in the rotation. Anticipated yields 50% of potential but could improve with time. Potential yields on S1 land could be given in an accompanying table. iv. Sprinkler irrigated sugarcane, mapping symbol LUT-SC. Nucleus estate of 4 000 ha (outgrowers sugarcane described under a separate LUT). Anticipated capital investment in years 1-3 of $6 000/ha, with annual recurrent costs of $500/ha from year 3. Three to four ratoons, anticipated yields on S1 land from 90 t/ha for the first crop and decreasing to 60 t/ha for the fourth ratoon. Private company in joint venture with government for the supply of sugar to meet domestic requirements. Pumped water to be supplied following harvest until wet season starts. Hand cutting, mechanized loading and transport, mechanized tillage. Factory milling and the economics of processing is of importance in the economic evaluation of the irrigation scheme. v. Drip-irrigated citrus on farms of 10-80 ha, supplemental irrigation with rainfall in farmers' fields expected to supply about one-third of the crop water requirement directly. Mapping symbol LUT-DC. In dry years water will be withheld from certain areas of land and water supply reliability is a 'class-determining' factor. Water quality varies from EC = 1.0 to 3.5 dS/m, and together with water supply affects yields which may vary from 7-50 t/ha for mature trees on land classed as Suitable (precise cut-off point between S and N to be determined in the evaluation). Orchard life 40 years, intercropping in the first four years with winter crops (beans, vegetables, etc.) on winter rainfall. Mechanized cultivation, labour shortages in the harvesting season, limited market expansion expected. vi. Spate irrigation of sorghum (mapping symbol LUT-SS). Rainfall 400 mm with a variation, i.e. standard deviation of 250 mm. Irregular, largely uncontrolled water supply, 8 000 ha can receive irrigation in a wet year, but generally very unreliable on about half the area. Competition for water between potential users. Traditional water rights have been abused resulting in disputes. Yields very dependant on soil water storage and residual water after irrigation, and range from 0-5 t grain/ha. Low capital investment, labour shortages, no mechanization. Resistance to change, elaborate tenurial system. Land evaluation in relation to improvements in the diversion structures. 4.1.2 Some problems in defining and describing LUTs The number of LUTs that can be separately evaluated in any investigation is limited. The investigator may be faced with a choice between the selection of many detailed LUTs, or fewer generalized LUTs. This can be illustrated by reference to Table 11 which lists a grouping of LUTs in terms of broadly defined major groups, and progressively detailed subgroups and sub-subgroups. The land evaluator has a choice between selecting the major headings, the subheadings, or the sub-subheadings as LUTs. In this particular case, the cropping pattern is closely linked to the available water supply at different times of the year. Land which can receive water all-the-year

round can support two crops of rice per year, whereas land which can receive water for only part of the year can support only one rice crop followed by another food crop, or with even less water, one crop of rice, only. The investigator has to choose, therefore, between evaluating the water supply as a class-determining factor or specifying the water supply as a descriptor of the LUT. The more general the LUT definition, the more important is the water supply in the determination of land suitability classes, in this particular example. A further problem in describing LUTs can arise in the choice between alternative irrigation methods, for example, between surface irrigation and sprinkler irrigation. Surface irrigation involves land development costs (land levelling, etc.) that are not incurred under sprinkler irrigation, but the latter involves capital costs including pipes, sprinklers and pumping costs. If the sprinkler investment costs are not set off against the land development costs for surface irrigation, because they are described as part of the LUT, a false economic comparison could result. Therefore, investment costs have to be considered as 'class-determining' alongside land development costs where comparisons of this importance must be evaluated. Table 11 LAND UTILIZATION TYPES IN BALI (IRRIGATED) 1/
1. IRRIGATED LANDS 1.1.1 Two crops of local 140-160 day varieties per year 2/ 1.1.2 Five crops of short duration 120 day varieties per two years 1.1.3 One crop of 140-160 day local variety followed by one crop of 120 day local or new variety per year (where dry season water is limited) 1.1.4 One irrigated rice crop (wet season) and land fallow in dry season (where soil is unsuitable for palawija crops and there is insufficient water for second rice crop) 1.2 Irrigated rice (wet season), irrigated or rainfed palawija (dry season) 3/ 1.2.1 Rice, rice, palawija per year 4/ Irrigation of palawija dependent on water availability; often grown on residual moisture, e.g. rice, rice, soybeans (relay planted) 1.2.2 Rice, palawija, palawija per year The palawija is usually irrigated. Many combinations of crop are planted, e.g. rice, maize, groundnuts Rice, groundnuts, red onion Rice, soybean, soybean Rice, soybean, green gram Rice, groundnut, groundnut Rice, tobacco, red onion Rice, soybean, cucumber 1.2.3 Rice followed by one relay-planted soybean crop per year The irrigation of the soybean crop depends on rainfall and availability of stream water. Land is only recultivated once each year 1.2.4 Rice followed by one palawija crop other than soybeans. Rice, melons Rice, cucumbers 1.3 Irrigated rice under coconuts 1.3.1 Rice (wet season), palawija or fallow (dry season) 1.3.2 Rice, rice per year 1.4 Irrigated palawija crops only Palawija crops rarely irrigated because of serious weed problems

1.1 Irrigated rice only

1.5 1.5.1 Pure stand citrus 1.5.2 Citrus under-planted with maize, groundnuts and red onions

1/ Eavis and Walker 1976. 2/ Rice is usually transplanted under groups 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 but direct - seeding is a possible future variant. Days refer to time from transplanting to harvest. 3/ Palawija is an Indonesian term that collectively refers to crops grown in rotation with rice, e.g. maize, groundnuts, green gram (mung), tobacco, red onion, soybeans, sweet potato, melon, cucumber etc. 4/ Generally relay-planted, i.e. sown in rice stubble or before rice is harvested, without any cultivation. In reconnaissance studies it may suffice to include inputs as a descriptor of the LUT rather than as class-determining factors (e.g. LUT A with high inputs vs. LUT B with low inputs, etc.). Further refinements in the evaluation of LUT A with high inputs, using net farm income or NIIB would almost certainly necessitate incorporating the inputs or land improvements as class-determining land use requirements and limitations (see Section 4.2). The land evaluator must define his LUTs so that within any one LUT there will be variations in physical productivity or in the economic measures of suitability of land, which can be designated into different classes. One LUT may not produce as much net farm income or net incremental irrigation benefit on a given land unit as another LUT, and may be downgraded on the basis of economic criteria (see Section 2.4 and Chapter 7) unless appropriately combined into a multiple or compound LUT.

4.2 Developing the land suitability class specifications

4.2.1 Steps in developing the land suitability class specifications 4.2.2 Class-determining factors (step 3) 4.2.3 Land use requirements and limitations 4.2.4 Critical limits of 'class-determining' land use requirements and limitations

The land suitability classes (S1, S2, S3, N1, or N2) which express the suitability of land for a specified use, can be evaluated in terms of a land productivity index based on physical production (e.g. t/ha) or in terms of economic returns. Regardless of which measure of suitability is used, the evaluation always involves decisions about the physical suitability of a land unit for a given LUT. If the physical conditions of the land are uniquely related to the performance of the land in terms of an economic index within any given project area, specifications can be set down for each land suitability class in terms of the land characteristics. Thus the US Bureau of Reclamation uses specifications of soils, topography and drainage characteristics corresponding to each land class on the assumption that these are uniquely correlated with estimated levels of net farm income or payment capacity.

In a worldwide context, the specification of land suitability classes in terms of a few universally applicable land characteristics is not sound. The land conditions that are suited for the production of crops vary from place to place. Different crops, irrigation methods and management systems have differing requirements. Even within a project area combinations of characteristics are often important (e.g. one soil type may be best at the top of a slope, and another soil type best at the bottom of a slope in terms of a given crop or management requirement or limitation). In developing class specifications, therefore, it is more appropriate in the first instance, to specify the land suitability classes in terms of land use requirements and limitations rather than directly in terms of land characteristics. The need for inputs and land improvements should also be taken into account. Later, if good correlations are proven between the land characteristics and the physical and economic indices of suitability, this process can be short-circuited. 4.2.1 Steps in developing the land suitability class specifications Following from Steps 1 and 2, given in Section 3.1, the next Steps 3-5 concern developing the specifications of the requirements and limitations of the cropping, irrigation and management systems of each LUT to be evaluated:
Step 3: From the list of agronomic, management, land development, conservation, environmental and socio-economic factors given in Table 12, select the relevant 'classdetermining' factors that can be expected to have some influence on the suitability of land for the given LUT, and that may vary across the land units under study. Step 4: For each selected 'class-determining' factor, enter the appropriate land use requirement or limitation on Format 1. Step 5: Quantify 'critical limits' corresponding to s1, s2, s3, n1 and n2 levels of suitability for individual land use requirements and limitations. These are the specifications for each factor in terms of the requirements or limitations of the LUT. These specifications can be represented by appropriate land qualities, or their representative land characteristics, together with the inputs and land improvements which influence productivity, net farm income or NIIB. Enter the 'critical limits' on Format 1, thus separating the suitability levels for each individual factor.

4.2.2 Class-determining factors (step 3) In setting up land suitability class specifications prior to an evaluation of land units for a LUT, the investigator must decide which factors are 'class-determining'. Classdetermining factors affect the performance of the LUT on the land units under study, i.e. yields, benefits and costs. Furthermore, they affect these differently on different land units, whereas a much larger number of factors will affect the LUT equally or with only unimportant variations across all the land units under study in a given evaluation. During an evaluation the number of factors that are class-determining will be shortlisted, and later their influence will be aggregated in a yield or economic index. Individual factors, that may or may not be selected as 'class-determining' in any given evaluation, can be grouped according to how they affect: a. crop yields or crop production (i.e. agronomic factors) b. management c. land development or land improvement d. conservation and the environment e. social and economic conditions

These broad groups may be further subdivided for convenience to give a list of 32 individual factors as shown in Table 12. 4.2.3 Land use requirements and limitations In the first instance, 'class-determining' factors can mostly be represented in terms of the requirements or limitations of the cropping, irrigation and management systems described in a LUT. The crops require light and suitable temperatures, a continuous supply of water and nutrients, a suitable environment for root growth, suitable conditions in a seedbed for germination, suitable land conditions for irrigation or for harvesting, mechanization, post-harvest ripening, etc. Conversely, crops are variously limited by their susceptibilities or tolerances to excess water, excess salts or toxicities, deficiencies, pests, frost, storms, etc. Similarly, irrigation methods such as surface, sprinkler, or drip have their different requirements and limitations, as do management systems (e.g. manual vs. mechanized). These are some of the land use requirements and limitations that may be 'class-determining'. The 'class-determining' land use requirements and limitations can be entered on Format 1. 4.2.4 Critical limits of 'class-determining' land use requirements and limitations The approach recommended is to indicate on Format 1, the critical ranges, bounded by critical limits, that specify for each individual class-determining factor, the land use requirements and limitations for different levels of suitability s1, s2, s3, n1 and n2. For example, the water requirements of the cropping system can be specified as the depth of water and its timing to meet evapotranspiration and other losses. If the requirement is not fully met, the crop yield will be affected in a way that can be predicted using production functions such as for example, are given in Part Two, Figure 11. Production functions describe the relationship between the agronomic requirements and limitations and crop yield or quality as further discussed in Part Two. Critical ranges for levels of suitability must be derived from such relationships. Experimentally, good relationships have been found between the supply of water, nutrients, light and heat to a crop and its growth and yield. However, the relationship between the performance of a crop and land characteristics such as soil texture, structure, cation exchange capacity, rainfall, slope class, drainage class, etc. are generally indirect and less clear. Nonetheless, many requirements and limitations of the cropping, irrigation and management systems will be influenced for better or worse by conditions of the land and can be specified as land qualities; these land qualities can be represented by relevant groups of land characteristics. The latter can be designated by the investigator as the feature of the land he can physically measure or assess to assign 'critical limits'. Guidance on how to select land qualities and land characteristics to represent the land use requirements and limitations is given in Part Two of this bulletin. The setting of critical limits in terms of each factor individually can be assisted by answering three questions: i. How do the conditions of the land (i.e. land qualities and land characteristics) relate to the land use requirements and limitations?

ii. Should inputs (e.g. fertilizer, labour, etc.) or land improvements (e.g. land levelling, etc.) be specified, and if so should these be included as part of the description of the LUT or as a 'class-determining' factor due to a variable benefit/cost? iii. What are the output:input relationships, first in physical terms (e.g. yield vs. water deficiency) and secondly, in economic terms? These questions are discussed in Part Two. A list of land use requirements and limitations and their corresponding land qualities is given in Table 12 and the relation between them will be immediately apparent. Some of the land characteristics, inputs, land improvements and other considerations that influence the suitability of a land unit for a given LUT, are also listed in Table 12. Table 13 indicates how class-determining factors should be rated by setting critical limits for s1, s2, s3, n1 and n2 levels of suitability. Table 12 LIST OF CLASS-DETERMINING FACTORS (i.e. AS LAND USE REQUIREMENTS OR LIMITATIONS OR AS LAND QUALITIES) WITH SOME LAND CHARACTERISTICS, INPUTS AND LAND IMPROVEMENTS FOR CONSIDERATION IN SETTING CRITICAL LIMITS
CLASS-DETERMINING FACTORS: 1/ - land use requirements or limitations - land qualities (where applicable) A. AGRONOMIC: - crop requirements or limitations - the crop environment 1. GROWING PERIODS: Growing cycle of crops. Dates and duration (days). - growing period requirement - growing periods RADIATION: - radiation requirements - radiation regime Day length, extra-terrestrial radiation; solar radiation (Rs); photo-synthetically active radiation (PAR); actual sunshine hours (n); possible number of sunshine hours (N); net shortwave radiation Rns; total net radiation (Rn) mm of evaporation (Rn = 1 cal/cm 2/min approximate equivalent to 1 mm water/hr). Temperature data. Heat units. Frost free periods. REPRESENTATIVE LAND CHARACTERISTICS, INPUTS, LAND IMPROVEMENTS AND OTHER RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS (see Part Two for full explanations)

2.

3.

TEMPERATURE: - temperature requirement - temperature regime ROOTING: - rooting requirement - rooting conditions AERATION: - oxygen & aeration requirement - oxygen supply and soil aeration WATER QUANTITY: - water requirement

4.

Effective soil depth for roots. Root room. Volume percent of stones. Penetration resistance or soil strength. Periods with or without adequate aeration during the growing period. (Depth and fluctuation of groundwater)

5.

6.

Water balance, water storage. Yield vs. evapotranspiration relationships; deficient periods. Run-off, run-on, seepage and

- water supply

percolation, groundwater contribution, effective precipitation. Stream flows, diversions, storage releases, aquifer safe yields. NPK uptake by crops and responses to NPK. Losses of NPK (leaching, volatilization, fixation, etc.). Nitrogen fixation. Soil nutrients and their retention, cation exchange capacity, etc. Fertilizer requirements and availability including manures, etc. Total salt concentration. Ionic composition. Electrical conductivity dS/m at 25 C. Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR). pH, carbonates and bicarbonates. Suspended solids, BOD, COD, etc. Plant salt tolerances, present and future soil salinity, inputs of salt through water supply, losses of salt by leaching, salt balance. Seasonal salt movement in profile, salt from groundwater. Predicted pH, ESP and or SAR of soil solution, predicted effects on soil structure, infiltration and permeabilities. Sodium toxicity. On non-rice cropland, pH effects and crop tolerances and susceptibilities to excesses or deficiencies of Ca, Mg, Zn, Fe, S, B, Cu, Mn, Mo, Al. On submerged soil effects of pH, salts, Fe, Si, Mo, Zn, Cu, H2S. Soil and plant composition, relevant inputs. Crop tolerances and susceptibilities. Wild animals, birds, arthropods etc. Fungal, bacterial, viral pathogens. Weeds. Pesticides, fencing, inputs.

7.

NUTRIENTS (NPK) - nutritional requirement - fertilizer requirement, etc. - nutrient supply - fertilizer supply WATER QUALITY: - crop tolerance to water quality - water quality SALINITY: - crop tolerance to salinity - salinity regime (salt balance)

8.

9.

10. SODICITY: - crop tolerance to sodicity - sodicity regime 11. pH, MICRONUTRIENTS AND TOXICITIES: - crop tolerances, susceptibilities - toxicity or micronutrient regimes 12. PEST, DISEASE, WEEDS: - crop tolerances, susceptibilities - pest, disease, weed hazard. 13. FLOOD, STORM, WIND, FROST: - crop tolerances, susceptibilities - flood, storm, wind, frost, hail hazard B. MANAGEMENT: - management requirements and limitations - conditions affecting management 14. LOCATION: - location requirements - location 15. WATER APPLICATION MANAGEMENT: - limitations of irrigation method - conditions affecting water application management 16. PRE-HARVEST FARM MANAGEMENT: - pre-harvest farm management requirements

Adaptations of rice to flooded conditions. Frequency and severity of flood, storm, wind, frost and hail.

Closeness to markets, processing units. Access to inputs and services. Access to water (gravity, pumped). Travel & transport problems & cost. Day-to-day management problems. Accessibility of machinery. Size, shape of management units. Labour requirement availability. Conditions affecting uniformity of water application, rate, frequency and duration of application.

Effects on timing of pre-harvest operations (e.g. of soil workability) including land preparation, nurseries, seeding, transplanting, fertilizer application, irrigation, weeding, spraying, etc.

and limitations - conditions affecting preharvest farm management 17. HARVEST AND POST HARVEST MANAGEMENT: - requirements or limitations - conditions affecting 18. MECHANIZATION: - requirements for mechanization - conditions affecting potential for mechanization and on-farm transportation C. LAND DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENTS - land development requirements - factors affecting cost of land development and improvement 19. LAND CLEARING: - land clearing requirements - conditions affecting cost of land clearing 20. FLOOD PROTECTION: - flood protection requirements - conditions affecting cost of flood protection 21. DRAINAGE: - drainage requirements - conditions affecting cost of drainage 22. LAND GRADING AND LEVELLING: - grading and levelling requirements - conditions affecting land grading and levelling costs 23. PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL AND ORGANIC AIDS AND AMENDMENTS: - requirements - conditions affecting costs Forest: underbrushing, felling, burning, stacking; costs, value of timber, charcoal; time period to development. Persistent weeds: mechanical cultivation, flooding, chemical control; costs, time period to development. Rocks and stones: removal costs. Earthmoving costs for embankments, costs of structures. Atmospheric wetness, dryness, wind. Soil wetness, dryness. Effects of soil or humidity on the quality of the crop produce.

Slope angle, rock hindrances, stoniness, soil depth, soil texture, shape and size of fields. Effects of soil compaction. On-farm transportation.

Watertable depth, depth to barrier of low permeability, vertical resistance to flow through soil and barrier, slope angle, need for salt removal; size, spacing, depth of surface or pipe-drainage and cost of drainage. Slope, microrelief, macrorelief, cover. Field size and shape, cut and fill, earthmoving costs.

Need for deep ploughing, subsoiling, profile inversion, sanding, marling; gypsum, lime, organic matter, costs.

24. RECLAMATION LEACHING: Primary or one-time reclamation leaching requirements mm - leaching requirement of water; continuous or intermittent, costs. - conditions affecting leaching 25. DURATION OF RECLAMATION PERIOD: - period required to reclaim by drainage and leaching, etc. - conditions affecting leaching periods Number of project years to full production, project year in which field drainage is installed, rate of rise in watertable.

26. IRRIGATION ENGINEERING: - irrigation engineering requirements - conditions affecting engineering works and costs D. CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL: - conservation and environmental requirements and limitations - conditions affecting conservation and the environment. 27. LONG-TERM PREVENTION OF SALINITY AND SODICITY: - requirements and limitations - conditions affecting longterm salinity and sodicity hazards

Earthwork and other structures for diversion, storage, conveyance, and regulation of water. Topography, substratum conditions, permeability of channels, access to construction sites, costs of engineering works.

Long-term inputs and outputs of salts, (see Fig. 18), water quality, ground-water depth, permeability, drainage, tidal swamp conditions, intrusion of saline water into an aquifer, control measures and their cost.

28. LONG-TERM CONTROL OF Protection of catchment areas, degradation of catchment, GROUND-WATER AND sedimentation of reservoirs, control of groundwater, and their SURFACE WATER: costs. - requirements and limitations - conditions affecting longterm control 29. EROSION HAZARD: Erosion control. Maximum acceptable soil loss and effects of - requirements and climate, soil, topography, land use factor, costs. limitations - conditions affecting erosion 30. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS: - environmental control requirement and limitations - conditions affecting longterm environmental risks E. SOCIO-ECONOMIC: - socio-economic requirements and limitations - socio-economic conditions 31. FARMERS' ATTITUDES TO Will the farmers utilize the irrigation facilities? IRRIGATION 32. OTHER SOCIO-ECONOMIC Water rights, tenurial and land-ownership complications, LIMITATIONS THAT MAY disincentives of taxation, fragmentation, etc. BE CLASS-DETERMINING Wildlife, water-borne human diseases, need for environmental control of vectors.

1/ Evaluate only selected factors i.e. those that are class-determining in a given evaluation. Table 13 RATINGS OF CLASS-DETERMINING FACTORS (FACTOR RATINGS)

FACTOR RATINGS s1 s2 s3 n1 n2

GUIDELINES FOR SETTING CRITICAL LIMITS The critical limits indicate that in terms of the given factor, the land is highly suitable for the specified land use. The critical limits indicate that in terms of the given factor, the land conditions are slightly adverse for the specified land use. The critical limits indicate that in terms of the given factor, the land is marginally suitable for the specified land use. The critical limits indicate that in terms of the given factor, the land is marginally not suitable for the specified land use (usually for adverse benefit/cost reasons). The critical limits indicate that in terms of the given factor, the land is permanently unsuitable for the specified land use.

Note: Critical limits to define factor ratings should reflect benefit/cost or other economic indices that indicate the influence of the factor on the value of production, costs of production, land development costs, etc.

5. Procedures for land resource inventory

5.1 General characterization of the project area 5.2 Topographic data 5.3 Soil survey data 5.4 Climatic and meteorological data 5.5 Water resources data 5.6 Drainage data 5.7 Present land use, vegetation and wildlife 5.8 Environmental health 5.9 Social and economic data

An evaluation of the suitability of land for alternative kinds of use requires a survey to define and map the land units (Step 6 in the Guide to Procedures) together with the collection of descriptive data of land characteristics and resources. This chapter outlines procedures for making a land resource inventory and contains checklists of thematic data that might be required in land evaluation. Details on survey methods are not given but are covered in publications cited in each section. Data collection is a time-consuming and costly activity, therefore, prior to field activities, members of a project team representing the different disciplines should meet to decide the responsibilities and cooperation needed in collecting and interpreting different kinds of data. The approach to data collection can be rationalized by posing a few simple questions i.e. What or which data are required? Why are they needed? Where or how can they be collected? Is the cost of their collection worthwhile? Two major categories of data and information can be defined as follows:

i. data that are available from existing, obtainable records; ii. data that must be collected during the course of the evaluation through surveys or investigations (including laboratory analysis of water and soil samples). Data obtainable from existing sources can save valuable time in unnecessary survey or field studies and some of the organizations that can be approached are: - government departments responsible for: agriculture, lands, irrigation, meteorology, water resources, survey, geological and hydro-geological survey, land titling, land reform, forestry, livestock, conservation, wildlife, botany or botanic gardens; government and quasi-government trading corporations, marketing boards, etc.; - international banks; - technical assistance agencies (multilateral and bilateral, e.g. FAO, ILRI, LRDC, ORSTOM, USBR etc.); - consultants; - universities, including departments of agriculture, engineering, geography, botany, education, rural development; - research stations, international and national. Publications can also be obtained through the retrieval services of major national and international libraries. The principal categories of data required are dealt with in the following sections under eight headings: general characterization of the project area, topography, soils, water resources, drainage, vegetation and fauna, social and economic data.

5.1 General characterization of the project area

In the initial stages of the evaluation some general data and assumptions about the project area itself should be assembled. The following are usually relevant: - location and accessibility; - potential water supplies within or outside the project area; - main climatic characteristics; - relief (landforms) and major soil features; - population and population growth rate; - standard of living and social values; - basis of present economy; - economic infrastructure (e.g. roads, services, markets); - government subsidies; - size of farms or other land holdings; - land tenure systems; - traditional water rights; - political system and policies.

A review of these preliminary data will pinpoint the requirements for more detailed inventory and help to identify priorities. Among the early steps to be taken is to reach agreement amongst representatives of various disciplines on the use of satellite imagery, aerial photographs, base maps and scales (see Table 2). Basic land survey procedures are rarely undertaken without the assistance of aerial photography and remote sensing imagery. It can be assumed that topographic and soil surveys will involve air photo interpretation and ground control, either on traverses or by free ground survey methods. The reader is referred to FAO Soils Bulletin No. 42 (1979b). The features which can usually be readily identified by stereoscopic examination of paired air photographs include: i. landforms (flood plains, terraces, residual uplands, dunes, etc.); ii. surface drainage patterns and systems; iii. erosional forms and eroded areas; iv. land use patterns and land use boundaries, sometimes including crop boundaries, and other evidence of human activity Such as roads, railways, habitations, quarries, etc.; v. major physiognomic types of natural vegetation; vi. wet areas, including lakes, lagoons and swamps (the latter are not always identifiable); vii. surface evidence of salt-affected soils; viii. rock outcrops; ix. tones (colour changes in colour photography) and patterns which may reflect soil differences and the probable position of soil boundaries. From this evidence, subject of course to ground checking, a broad understanding of the geomorphology, physiography, surface hydrology and, to some extent, geology of the survey area can be obtained, which is invaluable in developing a sound working legend for land mapping. In high and very high intensity survey work complete air photo coverage at two scales is very helpful. The first set, at a scale of about 1:40 000 is used for stereo interpretation and for obtaining a general appreciation of the area (a photo mosaic at this, or smaller scales can also be very helpful for the latter purpose). A second set at, or slightly larger than the probable final scale of soil mapping (e.g. at about 1:5 000) is used for some detailed stereo-interpretation but mainly as maps on which soil observations and boundaries can be precisely located in the field. Single photographs can be used for the latter purpose but even in the field more reliable results are achieved by the study of photo-pairs, using a pocket stereoscope. Air photo interpretation at high intensity levels needs to be checked by adequate ground control at successive levels of detail. This is especially essential where the area

is under forest and the maps are to be used for irrigation project design. The early surveys should give guidance on the probable distribution of major soil units, on the selection of areas best surveyed by free survey and/or the best direction and position of traverses, and on areas where more detailed stereo-interpretation of larger scale photographs is likely to be valuable. The emphasis is on ground methods for the remainder of the survey although major assistance in positioning sample points and in checking the likely positioning of boundaries can be obtained by the study of largescale air photographs in the field.

5.2 Topographic data

Topography is often a major factor in irrigation evaluation as it influences the choice of irrigation method, drainage, erosion, irrigation efficiency, costs of land development, size and shape of fields, labour requirements, range of possible crops, etc. Stable base maps are needed and can usually be obtained from earlier surveys. The ground truth and scale of base maps is particularly important and should be checked especially if the area is under forest cover or dense natural vegetation. Surface irrigation designs require contour intervals to determine slope that should normally be one metre or less, and an appropriate map scale is required. Very detailed topographic data are required for many irrigation structures, especially along routes of probable canals and drains. Four aspects of topography which have a special bearing on irrigation suitability are: slope, microrelief, macrorelief and position. i. Slope - Slope may affect the following factors: intended methods of irrigation, erodibility and erosivity, cropping pattern, mechanization problems, exposure to wind, etc. Slope limitations vary greatly from country to country. Critical limits suitable for gravity irrigation and different methods of irrigation are given as guidelines in FAO Soils Bulletin No. 42 (p. 39-43). These apply to situations in irrigated areas similar to those in the USA. In Asia and wet regions, wetland rice is typically grown on steeper sloping land where smaller terraced field sizes are appropriate. The reader is referred to FAO Conservation Guide No. 1 for terrace specifications (Sheng, p. 147, 1977). Contour bench terraces are usually satisfactory for irrigation on slopes up to 3% but on this and steeper land the stability of the terraces and the amount of land lost to bunds should be assessed. ii. Microrelief - This term applies to minor surface undulations and irregularities of the land surface, with differences in height between crest and trough ranging from 4-5 cm in flat lake plain areas to 4-5 m in areas of wind-blown sand. Estimates of grading and levelling requirements will depend on whether surface, overhead or drip irrigation techniques are used. This is discussed in Part Two C.22. The information required for an assessment of land grading costs includes: cut and fill, the total volume of earth moved, the depth of cut, distance of transport, soil conditions and desired precision of the final grading and type of equipment available. These factors should be related to whether a local contractor with simple equipment is to be used, or whether an international tender will invite contractors with modern sophisticated equipment to undertake the task. Topsoil depth and subsoil quality may limit the amount of grading that is advisable, or greatly increase the cost if it is necessary to conserve and later respread the topsoil. Some subsoils are unproductive at first, but gradually rehabilitate with irrigation and fertilizer or organic matter applications. In contrast, coarse sands, gravels or layers rich

in lime or gypsum (Mousli 1979; Yahia 1982) or exchangeable aluminium may never respond to irrigation after severe truncation. iii. Macrorelief - Permanent topographic features where slopes change frequently in gradient and direction may influence the choice of irrigation method, field sizes and shape, and land development costs. Field sizes and shape need to be evaluated, especially for gravity and surface irrigation and for mechanized farming. iv. Position in relation to command area and accessibility - The elevation and distance of the water source often affects the 'irrigable' land area in gravity schemes. The area commanded may be increased by pumping, or by constructing tunnels, inverted siphons and other structures through natural or man-made barriers, or by reservoir construction. Topographic data are often used in evaluating the infrastructural alternatives and their land development costs. Topographic data are also required in the case of flood hazard and the design of flood protection measures (see Section A.13, Part Two) and for the design of surface or subsurface drainage (see Section 5.6).

5.3 Soil survey data

Collection of soil survey data is dealt with in detail in FAO Soils Bulletin No. 42. Table 14 lists soil characteristics which are often required in the evaluation. Some characteristics may be 'class-determining' and should therefore be given special emphasis; others will be relatively unimportant. Land evaluation for irrigated crops relies on predictions of future soil conditions, therefore the changeable soil characteristics must be evaluated as well as permanent unchangeable characteristics. Special importance should be given to predicting the maintenance of water in wetland rice fields (see Part Two, A.6.6). Percolation and net irrigation water requirements commonly vary by more than three-fold depending on whether the soil can be effectively puddled. This is therefore an important class-determining factor in many rice areas (see Part Two, A.6). In drier areas it is important to predict changes in salinity (Part Two, A.8 and A.9), sodicity (A.10) and the watertable (D.28) with sustained irrigation, bearing in mind the other factors involved, e.g. water quality, drainage, rainfall, method of irrigation, crop, farm inputs, etc. The reader is referred to the references which deal with the various field and laboratory procedures and methods of analysis for determining the characteristics listed in Table 14.1/ Laboratory support for chemical and physical determinations of soils and water should be provided at an early stage. During the initial stages of the evaluation unnecessary analyses can be screened out in preliminary determinations and appropriate intensities of sampling can be decided (Peters 1979). There may be a need for detailed studies on the spatial variability in salinity and other important characteristics. 1/ In particular: Arens and Sivarajasingham 1979; FAO/IBRD 1970; FAO 1979a; Hesse 1971; Loveday 1974; Maas and Hoffmann 1977; Peters 1979; Ponnamperuma 1976; and USDA 1954.

5.4 Climatic and meteorological data

Table 15 lists some of the climatic data commonly required in land evaluation for irrigated agriculture and their uses. Mean monthly meteorological data are generally published for representative recording stations, but it is usually necessary to obtain the original daily data (e.g. of rainfall) over as long a period as possible at the locations of interest. For example, if the benefits of irrigation are to be evaluated, it may be necessary to analyse rainfall data for an existing rainfed situation in order to estimate the present variability in crop production and the influence of dry years and seasonal droughts (see Part Two, A.1). Dates corresponding to the 'start of the rains' and the 'end of the rains' for individual years of the rainfall record, and the occurrence of dry periods during growing periods are often required. Rainfall and other meteorological data are used by hydrologists, agronomists, irrigation and drainage engineers. A multiplication of effort can be avoided by a common approach.

5.5 Water resources data

Investigations of water resources should be considered an integral part of the land resources evaluation process. The activities of those involved (hydrologists, hydrogeologists, engineers, agriculturists and economists) should be appropriately scheduled. Costly water resources surveys in areas where the land later proves unsuitable for irrigation are wasteful; vice versa, detailed land and soil surveys for irrigated agriculture can be wasteful in areas where water supplies later prove inadequate. Table 14 INVENTORY OF SOILS DATA
DATA ITEM A. PHYSICAL 1. Effective soil depth Root room, water and nutrient retention; land levelling; drainage; aligning and design of irrigation and drainage channels. PURPOSES FOR WHICH MAY BE REQUIRED

2. 3. 4.

Presence of organic or histic Special problems or opportunities. horizons Grain size distribution (texture) Soil structure and porosity Bulk density. Pore space volume and distribution. Air-filled pore space at field capacity. Structure stability. Infiltration rate For establishing homogeneity of land units and for deriving many characteristics. Root environment, nutrient, water and soil management. Drainage and permeability especially of sodic soils. Leaching of excess salts. Tilth and workability for seedbed and land preparation. Ability to puddle riceland. Erodibility. Rainfall and irrigation intake or run-off. Selection of irrigation method. Furrow lengths or basin size. Sprinkler nozzle selection. Erodibility. Soil drainage, removal of excess water and salts. Soil water balance, residual water between and following irrigations. Choice of irrigation method and schedules. Indicative of mineralogy and physical behaviour. Mechanical strength for construction works; swelling and shrinking; root penetration. To identify very alkaline, sodic and acid sulphate soils;

5.

6. 7.

Hydraulic conductivity or permeability Available water capacity (field capacity and permanent wilting point) Plastic and liquid limits Soil strength, linear extensibility Soil reaction (pH)

8. 9.

B. CHEMICAL 1.

nutrient deficiencies and toxicities. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Carbon and nitrogen Gypsum and calcium carbonate Electrical conductivity of saturation extract (ECe) Organic matter content and management. Hardpans, gypsiferous layers liable to subside, gypsum requirements for sodic soils. Salinity hazard.

Soluble salts (Na, K, Ca, Mg, Interpretation of salinity hazard. Cl, SO4, CO3 and HCO3) Cation exchange capacity (CEC), total exchangeable bases (TEB) and base saturation % Nutrient retention and chemical fertility status.

7.

Exchangeable sodium Sodicity or alkalinity problems. percentage (ESP) or adjusted sodium adsorbtion ratio of saturation extract (adj. SAR) Exchangeable cations (Na, K, Ca, Mg) Available phosphorus Base saturation, ESP, potassium status. See Table 35, Part Two.

8. 9.

10. Total contents of P, K, Mg, Macro and micronutrient content. Toxic elements. Na, Cu, Mn, Zn, B, Fe, Al, As, Ni, Cr C. MINERALOGICAL 1. 2. Sand and silt fraction Clay fraction and iron and aluminium oxides Indicates parent material and degree of weathering. 1:1 clay minerals less sticky, swell and shrink less and have a smaller surface area (and less CEC) than 1:2 clay minerals. 1:1 clay minerals with Fe and Al oxides predominating may prove excessively well-drained for wetland rice, and often physically favourable but chemically less fertile for non-rice crops. Hardpans restricting rooting depths. Large amounts decrease nutrient retention and fertility; but soils with 60% CaCO3 can be successfully irrigated but with a restricted choice of crops. Deposition under saline conditions of fine grained material blocks pores and reduces permeability. Surface crusting interferes with seedling emergence and infiltration. Lime-induced nutrient deficiencies. Magnesium carbonate soils often very fertile. High exchangeable Mg leads to sodic-like impermeable profile. Gypsiferous hardpans restrict rooting and make installation of drains and channels difficult. Dissolution may lead to land subsidence after irrigation. Gypsum crystals in soil may offset sodicity tendency. If too high, causes nutrient problems due to unfavourable K/Ca, Mg/Ca ratios and extra costs in fertilizers and soil management.

3.

Calcium and magnesium carbonates

4.

Gypsum

Note: The characteristics in Table 14 should be evaluated in the context of morphological and geographical considerations. Table 15 INVENTORY OF CLIMATIC DATA
DATA ITEM PURPOSES FOR WHICH MAY BE REQUIRED

1. Climatic class 2. Radiation - extraterrestrial radiation - solar radiation (Rs) - PAR - net shortwave solar radiation - net longwave radiation - sunshine hours actual sunshine hours (n) daylength or maximum (N) sunshine hours 3. Temperature (air & ground) Monthly means of: - daily maximum - daily minimum - daily mean Actual monthly: - minimum and maximum Heat units (degree days) Wet and dry bulb temperatures a.m. and p.m. 4. Relative humidity Monthly means of: - daily a.m. vapour pressure - daily p.m. vapour pressure 5. Evapotranspiration Reference crop ETo - monthly, 10-day, weekly or daily values from climatic data Pan evaporation Actual crop evapotranspiration (e.g. from soil-water measurements, computations) 6. Precipitation and rainfall Daily precipitation for as long a period as possible. Annual mean and S.D. Monthly mean and S.D., etc. Rainfall intensity and erosivity Effective precipitation Snow, dew

Reconnaissance and choice of LUT alternatives. See Part Two, Table 30. See Part Two, A.2. Evaporation estimates. Definition of growing period. Crop growth in relation to radiation or light. The ratio n/N is used to estimate solar radiation if data for Rs is not available. Crop photoperiodicity.

See Part Two, A.3. Reference crop ET estimates. Limiting conditions for cold and frost susceptible crops; heat scorch. Definition of growing periods. Relative humidity and vapour pressure estimates (see below).

Estimates of evaporation. Disease prevalence. Ripening and maturation of crops. Drying and storage of crops.

See Part Two, A.6. Component of water balance estimates for the catchment and of irrigated land; estimates of irrigation water requirements; estimates of reduced crop yields with a deficient water supply.

Component of water balance estimates for the catchment and of irrigated land; growing periods; crop yields Estimates of erosion; crop damage; management problems; mechanization. Estimates of irrigation water requirements.

7. Wind speed and direction Estimates of reference crop ETo. Weekly means of daily wind speed Estimates of reference crop ETo, adjusted as described Daytime vs. nighttime ratios in FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 24. 8. Storm incidence Frequency and intensity Crop damage; erosion.

The volume of water obtainable for irrigation will depend on the outcome of hydrological studies of surface water, and hydrogeological studies of groundwater (subsurface water). These are the water supply aspects. The water demand aspects include studies and field work to estimate irrigation water requirements and crop water requirements. An important part of the evaluation is the matching of water supplies and water demand (requirement) by mutual adjustments involving cooperative work between water resources specialists, engineers and agriculturists (see Part Two, A. 6).

i. Hydrological studies: Studies may be carried out at national level, at river basin level, at the project development level, and at farm or field level (Horning 1979). Surface water resources may be progressively developed, first using diversion structures to regulate run-of-river stream flow, secondly, with the addition of storage, and later, to full control, including flood control. Existing data, and data collected during the investigations from stream measuring devices (e.g. stage posts, formula-calibrated weirs, current meters and velocity-area rated stations) can be used to estimate run-off and catchment yields, divertible volumes of water, amounts of water for storage, subsurface flows of water, flood peaks and volumes, etc. The reader is referred to standard texts, e.g. for hydrological models, their practical application and limitations e.g. Chow (1964), Clarke (1973). ii. Hydrogeological studies: Investigations of groundwater resources are generally carried out at the level of the whole hydrogeological basin or aquifer. The studies include observations of water levels and quality in existing open wells and tubewells, and specially drilled observation wells. Mathematical models are usually needed to evaluate the aquifer (e.g. a numerical model which simulates the non-steady state, twodimensional, groundwater flows). The model can be calibrated using all the available data pertaining to the aquifer in space and time. The input data requirements can be expressed in the form of a flow chart and a programme of work that would lead to a complete hydrogeological assessment including all aspects of the water balance in relation to the characteristics and geometry of the aquifer and the time scale. The output data includes the initial water levels, transmissivities (permeabilities), the specific or storage coefficient, percentage recharge from rainfall, river bed infiltration and the safe yield for irrigation. An example, of such a flow chart is given in Figure 1 (Jacovides 1982). Further surveys and studies are required to establish the precise location of production wells and their water yield for irrigation, the type of well (shallow hand-dug, shallow tubewell, hand-dug with tubewell, deep tubewell, spring or qanat), the depth of the well, borehole lithology and hydrogeological logs. Investigation wells are test pumped to give data including discharge, drawdown, transmissivity, specific capacity (l/s/m), and specific drawdown (m/l/s). The potential water discharge is expressed in litres per second (l/s) which may vary over time according to season or year. Standard texts that can be referred to are: Bouwer (1978); Todd (1959) and various supplements to Unesco's groundwater studies. iii. Irrigation water requirements: Meteorological data and field studies are usually necessary to estimate crop water requirement, effective precipitation, run-on, groundwater contribution, soil water storage, run-off, seepage and percolation, conveyance losses, and leaching requirements (see Part Two, A.6 and FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 24, 1977b). Irrigation water supplies and their control often determine water volumes used by farmers, therefore water management may be as important as physical factors in matching the available supply to the requirements. Irrigation efficiencies in different parts of the world are discussed in Bos and Nugteren (1974). In rice cultivation, the duration in days of the different operations in land preparation (soaking, seeding, ploughing, harrowing, puddling, transplanting), as well as the related water use for land preparation and transplanting, and the water balance components after transplanting (effective precipitation, evapo-transpiration, seepage and percolation), are the major data that must be specified (see Part Two, A.6).

For crops other than rice similar gains and losses of water need to be quantified together with the need for pre-planting wetting and allowances for the use of residual soil water as annual crops mature. Figure 1 Simplified flow chart of a groundwater model programme showing inputs and outputs

iv. Water quality data: Water quality for agricultural use can be evaluated using field and laboratory analyses of the properties listed in Part Two, Tables 37 and 38. Analytical procedures for these determinations are described in USDA Handbook 60 (1954), FAO Soils Bulletin No. 10 (1970), and Standard Methods of the American Water Works Association (1971). The electrical conductivity of, and other simple tests on, samples of irrigation water can be measured in the field using portable conductivity bridges, pH meters and testing kits. For example, having tools-of-the-trade for the testing of groundwater in wells obviates the need for transporting water samples. Local analyses of carbonate, bicarbonate and nitrate may be required where storage of samples may lead to chemical changes and inaccurate results. In arid and semi-arid areas it will be necessary to predict the salt balance and the water balance for a project area to evaluate leaching requirements, and the drainage needed to maintain the land in a productive condition. In rehabilitation projects, water samples may be analysed at different points of the network. The flow of water and salts in an irrigated area are illustrated in Figure 18 (see also Part Two, D.27). Special analyses will be required for recycled sewage where it is intended for irrigation. The biological oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), boron, heavy metals and other potentially toxic substances must be ascertained. Bacterial analysis may also be necessary. Routine analyses are normally part of the procedures of the water treatment plant. Sewage or activated sludge can be subjected to primary, secondary and tertiary treatment. Analyses of chemical constituents, suspended solids and dissolved organic substances are required to evaluate whether water from secondary or tertiary treatment can be used for irrigation, and the potential problems in handling such water. Water for drip irrigation and for other techniques where there is a potential clogging problem can be evaluated on the basis of measurements of the suspended solids and chemical or biological properties of the water (see Part Two, Table 38). Guidance on the interpretation of water analyses is given in FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 29 (1976c; Revision 1 in press) and other publications.

5.6 Drainage data

Conditions and requirements for surface drainage, subsurface (pipe) drainage, or both may need to be evaluated. In arid and semi-arid areas, where salinity and sodicity are possible problems, it will be essential to carry out field investigations. The soil scientist and drainage engineer should first agree on the types and scales of maps and photographs to be used and on the information that will be placed by each on these. Field hydraulic conductivity and other tests are required; the number of tests for a drainage survey is related to the soil variability in the project area (FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 38, 1980a). This variability is initially assessed from surveys in sample areas that cover 5-10 percent of the project area from representative major soil units. Local experience and sound judgement will often be needed to determine an average hydraulic conductivity value for the design of drain spacings, sizes and depths. This particularly applies to the drainage of heavy, poorly permeable soils under crops other than rice. Drainage investigations in arid and semi-arid areas will involve the logging and sampling of 3-5 m borings to identify barriers with a relatively low hydraulic conductivity compared to overlying soil or a high resistance to vertical flow (i.e. C = 250 or over constitutes a real barrier, whilst no barrier exists where C = 50 or less: C is the

hydraulic resistance and equals the thickness of the layer divided by its vertical hydraulic conductivity). Much data useful to the drainage study may be obtained in soil survey (e.g. reliable soil profile logs to 3-5 m; depth to watertable or visible indications of saturated conditions; water quality, soil salinity, sodicity and acidity). Soil survey information will make it possible to interpolate hydraulic conductivity measurements to intermediate soils. Therefore, where possible, the soils and drainage investigations should proceed concurrently. The soil scientist should bring areas of potentially poor drainage to the attention of the drainage engineer. These may include visibly wet areas, areas visibly saline or sodic, topographically low areas, areas with fine textured layers within a 5 m depth; slowly permeable layers within a 5 m depth; massive structure not usually associated with the identified texture; man-made barriers which could impede surface drainage or groundwater movement; potentially unstable materials, especially gypsiferous layers (the latter may lead to subsidence and irrigation and drainage construction problems with a high water table). It is usually the responsibility of the drainage engineer to determine the investigations required for estimating the cost of the surface and subsurface drainage systems and related flood control facilities. The estimated costs can be tabulated by areas and used in the evaluation of land suitability class and the delineation of the irrigable land. If the land cannot be physically drained because of low hydraulic conductivity, or because of barriers too close to the ground surface, it should be excluded at the 'provisionally-irrigable' stage. In the 'irrigable' land evaluation, physical drainage can be envisaged to meet the water table requirements, but land may still be excluded for economic reasons. Later, if the drainage areas are small in comparison to the rest of the area and a properly designed and located drainage system for the irrigable area cannot be installed without going through such lands, the classifier has the option of retaining these lands as suitable in the 'provisionally-irrigable' and 'irrigable' classifications. These considerations are important in determining the extent of the drainage investigations. Drainage requirements and costs for surface, subsurface, and related flood control should be made available by the drainage engineer for all 'provisionally-irrigable' lands but no subsurface drainage or flood control requirements and costs need normally be provided for lands! initially rated N1 or N2, for reasons other than drainage. The reader is referred to FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 38, (1980a) and the USBR Drainage Manual (1978). Part Two of this bulletin, sections C.20 and C.21, give further information on land evaluation for drainage and drainage system design.

5.7 Present land use, vegetation and wildlife

Many land evaluations will be carried out in areas which are partially covered with natural vegetation and partially farmed. The geographical extent of vegetation and the existing agriculture should be studied early in the evaluation mapping where necessary. Present land use surveys are generally required to determine the production which will be foregone when an irrigation project is implemented. Existing vegetation and present land use may be important because of: i. costs of clearing different kinds of vegetation (see Part Two, C.19); ii. potential value of the vegetation, e.g. for forest and grazing;

iii. presence of noxious weeds; iv. need to preserve vegetation for environmental, aesthetic reasons; v. value of present agricultural production; vi. preferences for continuing present production on certain lands. Needless removal of vegetation due to inadequate survey and beaconing often occurs. Areas of natural vegetation should be preserved wherever possible. Close liaison with departments responsible for environmental protection is generally essential to ensure that the boundaries of national parks and wildlife conservation zones are respected. The preservation of natural vegetation as windbreaks may prove important. Damage by wildlife in farmers' fields may necessitate costly measures such as fencing. Hippopotamus, warthog and bush pigs in African countries are fairly easily excluded but large game requires very costly fences. Monkeys and baboons are almost impossible to exclude leaving a choice between poisoning or shooting. Bush can also harbour tsetse, while the introduction of irrigated perennial crops, e.g. bananas, can promote the spread of tsetse. Irrigation can also be a barrier to seasonal animal movements. Information collected on potential problems from wild animals, including rodents, birds, crabs, etc. may dictate the choice of crops and LUTs. Rodents and crabs may bore holes in the banks of canals and the bunds of ricefields leading to excessive losses of water. Factor ratings under heading A.12, Part Two can be used to evaluate the potential damage to crops, stored products and infrastructure from wildlife.

5.8 Environmental health

Failure to consider the environment when evaluating irrigation development may result in an increased incidence of disease among the local human population, especially of vector-borne diseases such as malaria, schistosomiasis (bilharzia), onchocerciasis (river blindness) and yellow fever. The vectors are certain aquatic snails, flies and mosquitoes which host the disease-causing parasite and transfer it from the infected to the healthy individual. These agents need water to breed and multiply; thus the expansion of irrigation spreads the diseases through the irrigation networks, particularly in areas where the water is used for domestic purposes as well. The need for environmental control measures through the design of reservoirs and canals and the prevention of unnecessary vegetation or pools of stagnant water should be assessed. Further information is available from the joint WHO/FAO/UNEP Panel of Experts on Environmental Management for Vector Control (PEEM) and from FAO 1984. The general subject of the environmental health consequences of irrigation are discussed by Worthington (1977).

5.9 Social and economic data

5.9.1 Social and economic considerations 5.9.2 Checklist of socio-economic data

Social and economic evaluations depend on survey work which should usually start early in the land evaluation process. The objectives of the survey work are to identify and assess the social and economic features affecting the development potential of the

study area and to evaluate alternative proposals; to assemble financial and economic price and cost data of relevance in the assessment of LUTs and class-determining factors; and to meet the analytical and reporting requirements of the sponsor of the given study (e.g. World Bank etc.). The socio-economist may need survey data collected by agriculturists and vice versa (i.e. on present farming practices and production, land use, farm inputs etc.) and there can be some sharing of survey activities based on prior agreement. Present land use surveys are generally required to determine the production that will be foregone when an irrigation project is implemented. Trends in production, land use and yields need studies, particularly where rehabilitation of existing irrigation and drainage systems is being considered. Where there is a trend of rising or falling production this, rather than a static assessment of the present situation, should form the basis of predictions of the 'without' situation in the economic evaluation (see Chapter 7). 5.9.1 Social and economic considerations Some of the considerations that may prevent the full utilization of natural and human resources are listed below. These are often outside the control of the individuals affected by them and constitute many of the constraints to agricultural and social progress. i. Self-perpetuating poverty: Lack of venture capital, knowledge, and the will to adopt new technology is characteristic of subsistence level farming where meeting today's needs may be the practical limit of forward planning. ii. Tradition, attitudes and perceptions: Viewpoints of the possibility of change in order to control one's own destiny better may be entirely formed on extremely limited observations, those being the only ones known to an individual. The situation beyond could be so obscure as to have no effect upon the subject's aspirations for something better. iii. Disincentives: Crop production goals may be limited by quotas, and prices may be controlled at below the cost of production; under such circumstances little more than the level of output required for subsistence and local barter may be produced. iv. Tenure: Land ownership and tenurial rights together with water rights are often a major cause of maldistribution of income and wealth. Access to credit and production inputs may be linked to tenurial patterns. Unfavourable tenurial conditions may restrain the natural economic forces that normally determine efficient farm size, and crop selection. v. Food preferences: These limit the range of crops grown for local consumption, especially where a market outlet has not been developed. A degree of crop or livestock specialization may have developed around the local food preferences. vi. Labour supply: The existing labour supply and the seasonal labour peaks may limit the range of land use possibilities. The labour supply may be limited in its present technology because of failure by the younger generation to participate. A new technology could lead to their participation.

vii. Pricing systems: Controlled or artificial prices may constitute either a disincentive or an incentive. If a price is controlled to the point that the production is discouraged, one must look for a possibility that this could be changed if it is of importance to a project. If these types of unfavourable conditions exist, they could well prevail into the future and continue to influence strongly what farmers would do under an irrigated system of farming. Therefore, proposed changes to traditional farming systems require a full appreciation of the reasons why present agricultural patterns exist. Furthermore, a judgement is necessary on how rapidly and to what extent favourable changes could occur when irrigation is introduced. Forecasted changes ought to be not only economically favourable, but they must also be likely to occur and not just be speculative. Whilst it may be helpful to develop plans that appear economically optimal, in reality what will be achieved is nearly always short of the optimum. That which is likely to be achieved should be projected in the values assigned to future productivity. In-country and regional experiences on similar projects may prove to be the best key to this. These should be observed closely. Social and economic constraints can frequently be removed at a cost. Project cost estimates may include outlays for training, resettlement, infrastructure, markets and other items considered necessary to achieve the levels of productivity forecasted. Some activities that may be required with the introduction of irrigated farming may be incorporated in the project plan, at least during the gestation period or build-up to full development, for example: - inputs must be increased and made available; - research, extension and the dissemination of technical knowledge might need to be expanded; - transportation, storage and other infrastructure may need to be developed; fuel and power demands may increase and need to be satisfied; marketing facilities may be required; credit and financing needs, and protection against the risks of commercialized farming may have to be considered. Favourable features of prospective farmer groups might include a demonstrated capacity to accept new agricultural methods, community and cooperative endeavours aimed at social change, responses to financial incentives, initiatives and diversified farming enterprises, etc. Such information may be available from the experience of ongoing and past agricultural programmes. 5.9.2 Checklist of socio-economic data A comprehensive list of data that may need to be collected in social and economic survey work is given in Table 16 (adapted from IRRI 1975c). The reader is also referred to standard texts on procedures for social and economic survey work (Yang 1965) and to Chapter 7 on the economic aspects of land evaluation for irrigated agriculture. Table 16 CHECKLIST OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SURVEY DATA
DATA WHERE

OBTAINED A. PRESENT FARMING PRACTICES 1. Crops and varieties planted in the area List of present LUTs, include cultivars classed as high yielding, modern, improved local, or traditional; cropping calendar (pre- & postharvest) Farm practices Planting methods, fertilizer, organic manures, insecticides, herbicides, weeding; hand, animal or tractor power; land preparation, mechanization, changes in practices Existing irrigation and drainage Types of irrigation systems; periods of water availability, persons or authorities controlling water allocation; drainage adequacy; water use Input-output data Costs of all inputs, yields and value of produce whether used for subsistence, barter or cash sales; crop disposal Land tenure, farm sizes, land values, water rights Land tenure, leased and shared cropped land, titles to land and water, fragmentation, social contexts, land sales, land prices Credit and loans Amounts borrowed, who borrowed from whom, credit for personal or farming use, in cash or kind, duration of loan, terms of repayment or interest rate, level of indebtedness, future access to loans Household size and income Farm family size and age distribution, employment on and off the farm; sources of income; changes in income Farm labour and employment, farm power Family labour, hired labour, labour costs; influence of labour, power and water on land preparation, seasonal practices; peak labour requirements changes Production and marketing problems Obtaining seed, fertilizer or chemicals, credit, water (domestic, irrigation); pests and diseases, weeds, harvesting, threshing, drying, storage, selling, processing, others; markets National Regional District and Village levels District or Village levels

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

B. INFRASTRUCTURAL

1.

Transportation Roads and waterways; availability of buses, trucks, carts, boats, and other modes of transportation; railroads, quality of roads - paved or not; year-round use, etc. Storage, processing and marketing facilities Types that serve the villages in project area; driers, milling capacity, local weights and measures, milling outputs etc. Banks and other credit facilities Other government facilities for production Research and experimental stations; demonstration trials; extension services Schools, clinics, postal services and others Communications media Press, radio, and other forms of mass media, extent of news of direct relevance to farmers, markets news service

2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Electricity Domestic water supplies National Regional District and Village levels

C. THE ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

1.

Prices Prices of major produce, differences between cultivars, seasonal and annual variations; prices at nearest dealer or cooperative for fertilizer and other major inputs; data on price differentials between local and major markets Wages Wage rates; systems of wage payment; changes over time Interest Rates usually paid on loans from different sources; changes over time Rent Rates per season, year, and others; in cash or kind; fixed or shared; changes over time Taxes Types and totals; paid to village or other agency; changes over time Land prices Average, for major land types; changes over time Irrigation costs Government irrigation fees and normal collection rates; normal cost of private irrigation systems, if any Seed or planting material Availability, source, quality, and prices Power Typical farm power requirement and investment for land preparation, also rental rates for tractor and animal services National Regional District and Village levels

2. 3. 4.

5. 6. 7.

8. 9.

10. Incomes D. DEMOGRAPHIC AND LAND USE

1.

Village populations Total, and percentage changes in last 10 years; main sources of livelihood, farming and non-farming Other census data Religion, ethnic group, castes, and others Village settlement pattern Along road, with house gardens, cluster, isolated, etc. National Regional District and Village levels

2. 3.

E. INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS

1.

Farmers' organizations Cooperatives, farmer associations and similar bodies; other types of joint or group activities, changes over time Brief description of the way new crops, varieties and methods of management were introduced into the area Extension services, also credit, and other services Number of agencies that provide services; quantity and quality of services; main complaints of farmers Special government programmes

2. 3.

4.

Land reform, land consolidation, crash programmes, and others 5. Kinship Role in inheritance, cost of ceremonies, etc.; also factionalism, litigation, etc. Leadership in agriculturally relevant activities Attitudes and values affecting development Change in the size and cost of ceremonies; evaluation as to whether farming is a preferred occupation and similar assessments National Regional levels

6. 7.

F. THE NATIONAL POLICY FRAMEWORK 1. 2. Aims of national policy for crops and irrigation Policy measures Price policies - input and output; restrictions on input and output marketing, if any; package programmes, etc.; income and employment policies - income redistribution, access to land resources, etc. Importance of new crops and irrigation in the context of national goals

3.

6. Assigning the land suitability classes by matching

6.1 Determining the factor ratings 6.2 Interactions between the factors 6.3 Evaluating 'significance' in combining factor ratings 6.4 Symbols for summarizing land suitability class and subclasses 6.5 An example of the use of the formats 6.6 Incorporating crop yield data and costs

In preparation for this Chapter, the reader is reminded of Steps 3 to 5 already discussed in Chapter 4, namely, the selection of class-determining factors having significance from a physical and economic standpoint, and the specification of critical limits to designate levels of suitability s1, s2, s3, n1 or n2, on a factor by factor basis. These specifications entered on Format 1, including assumptions about the requirements for inputs and land improvements, are the basis for assigning the suitability class and subclasses to each LUT - land unit combination. The specifications guide the land evaluator as to the suitability of a land unit for a LUT, factor by factor, but with no regard for interactions or the relative importance of each factor. Checklists of land characteristics for describing the land units are given in Chapter 5. This present Chapter describes procedures for matching these land characteristics to the specifications of the LUT. The matching process can proceed through successive adjustments or iterations during both the 'provisionally-irrigable' and 'irrigable' evaluations, the objective being to produce the most practicable and likely project. Typical adjustments during matching could include (i) changes in the LUT (e.g. in cropping, irrigation method or management), (ii) adjustments to inputs (e.g. fertilizer, cultivars, water), and (iii) land improvements (e.g. drainage, land levelling, etc.). The specifications used in classifying 'provisionally-irrigable' land will normally differ from those used for the succeeding 'irrigable' classification. 'Provisionally-irrigable' land will usually be classified without firm knowledge of the water supply, the seasonal

availability of water, and the cost of delivering water to different parts of the project area. Later, at the time of the classification of 'irrigable' land, the evaluation Can be based on firm information about the water supply and land development costs. Recommendations on the economic criteria to use at these successive stages are given in Chapter 7. In the 'provisionally-irrigable' evaluation, a tentative matching and land classification should be achieved in the field while surveying the land units. Before carrying out the land survey, the land evaluator will have prepared the specifications for each LUT to be evaluated (Format 1) and he should have these with him during the survey. After mapping the land units the steps are:
Step 7: For each land unit, decide which land qualities and land characteristics are 'classdetermining' with respect to the requirements and limitations of. the LUT(s). For each land unit, complete Format 2 entering the appropriate values of the land qualities and land characteristics (see Procedures Land Resource Inventory, Chapter 5). Step 8: Match 'critical limits' of each land use requirement or limitation (i.e. from the specifications on Format 1), with the conditions found in the land unit (i.e. Format 2) to obtain a factor rating of s1, s2, s3, n1 or n2 for each combination of LUT and land unit. Enter the factor rating on Format 3. Assumptions about inputs, land improvements and their benefits and costs should also be indicated (see Example 2 in Section 6.5). Step 9: Decide the relative 'Significance' of each 'class-determining' factor (or of a group of interacting factors) by entering Very Important, Moderately Important, Less Important or Not Important, as appropriate, in the column headed 'Significance' (Format 3). This is explained later. Step 10: Combine individual 'class-determining' factor ratings to obtain a tentative land suitability classification for each LUT on each land unit. Interactions between factors (Section 6.2) and 'Significance' (Section 6.3) must be taken into account in this step. Estimates of crop yield and economic benefit/costs, according to the guidelines in Chapter 7, may be needed to assign the classes and subclasses. Enter the tentative land suitability class and subclasses (S1, S2, S3, N1 or N2 etc.) at the bottom of Format 3 or on the map. Step 11: Where necessary adjust the LUT description, or introduce inputs or land improvements, and repeat steps 1-10 until the most practicable cropping, irrigation and management farming system is obtained (the need for such iteration can be entered on Format 3). Step 12-16: Present the classes and subclasses of the 'provisionally-irrigable' or 'irrigable' classification on Formats 4 or 5 as set out in Chapter 3.

6.1 Determining the factor ratings

Each 'class-determining' factor is first matched individually. Critical limits entered on Format 1 indicate how suitable a land unit is for a given LUT in terms of that factor. For example, if one of the class-determining factors for the LUT 'Irrigated Maize on Small Farms' is 'Rooting' (i.e. the requirements or limitations for root development) and the critical limits are to be represented in terms of 'effective soil depth', the latter is given on Format 1 as ranges of depths corresponding to s1, s2, s3, n1 and n2 suitability levels. The effective soil depths recorded for each land unit will fall within one of these five depth ranges and the appropriate one is selected as the factor rating. This is illustrated for one factor in the following example:

Example 1
Land utilization type (LUT A): Class-determining factor: land use requirement land quality represented by the land characteristic(s) Critical limits effective soil depth (cm) (i.e. specifications of the LUT) over 200 100-200 50-100 25-50 0-25 s1 s2 s3 n1 n2 Irrigated maize on small farms Rooting requirements for rooting (maize) rooting conditions effective soil depth Factor ratings Land unit 8 effective soil depth (cm) 75

i.e. the factor rating for LUT A on land unit 8 is s3, which is entered on Table 6.

6.2 Interactions between the factors

In combining the factor ratings of several individual factors in order to decide the appropriate land suitability class to assign, the possibility of interactions should be taken into account. In a broad interpretation of the meaning of the word 'interaction' it can be readily appreciated that many factors interact in the resultant productivity index, or economic index which is the integral of their effects. However, the levels of some factors may reduce or accentuate the influence of given levels of other factors, and a straightforward addition or multiplication (even with weightings) may not satisfactorily resolve these interactions. Examples of two factor interactions where the levels of one factor modify the expression of given levels of the other are given below. SOME EXAMPLES OF INTERACTIONS i. The interaction between fertilizer and pesticides in increasing crop yield as found by experiment
With fertilizer With pesticides 1 t/ha increase Without fertilizer no yield increase

Without pesticides no yield increase no yield increase

In this hypothetical example, the crop responds if fertilizer and pesticides are used together, but does not respond to either singly, when used without the other. From this result it can be readily appreciated that a farmer would waste money applying fertilizer, if the crop will be destroyed by pests. Therefore the level of fertilizer and pesticides used should be jointly specified. i ii. The interaction between water and NPK in terms of crop yield as rated using factor ratings
Water supply relative to water

requirements NPK supply relative to NPK requirements s1 s3 s1 s1 s3 s3 s3 n1

(Note the parallel with i. above and see a more explicit example of this interaction for nitrogen in Part Two, Figure 14.) Although impracticable in the course of most land evaluations, the influence of interactions on crop yields, drainability, erodibility, etc. can only be determined quantitatively in the field, e.g. by using factorial experimental designs in which different levels of the various factors are systematically combined. Existing crop yield data that integrate the many influential factors should always be used where available, provided it is relevant for the physical and socio-economic conditions under review.

6.3 Evaluating 'significance' in combining factor ratings

Apart from interactions, some factors will be more important than others in their influence on land productivity, or benefit/cost. Therefore in Step 9, provision is made for grading factors for 'significance' on Format 3, entering Very Important (VI), Moderately Important (MI), Less Important (LI) or Not Important (NI) as appropriate. Whereas factor ratings rate a match in terms of a single factor (or a single interaction) the 'significance' rating indicates the relative importance of the factor in its influence on production or benefit/cost. Single factors are sometimes of over-riding importance, e.g. water quantity, drainage costs, etc. and these are given an appropriate weight using 'significance' levels in a tentative assigning of the land suitability classes, prior to a full economic evaluation. The 'significance' of individual factors often becomes apparent from the economic analyses described in Chapter 7. However, social, conservation and environmental considerations may not be pin-pointed as having economic relevance. 'Significance' levels remind the land evaluator of their possible importance and variation over the survey area. For example, the problems of a particular irrigation technique may be identified in social terms, or there may be problems of water rights in particular areas. A 'Very Important' rating of 'significance' may be of use in the reiteration of the Steps; this could lead to appropriate changes in the project plan including adjusted cropping, irrigation or management proposals and modified land development plans.

6.4 Symbols for summarizing land suitability class and subclasses

The FAO Framework symbols to indicate land suitability orders, classes and subclasses, are given in Table 1 and are explained in Appendix 1. For the purposes of mapping, the land evaluator may need to give additional explanatory information using his own notation, designed for a particular survey. Such notation should be consistent within any one survey and devised to avoid misinterpretation. An illustration of the type of symbolization that might be appropriate is as follows:

The FAO Framework symbols in the above are S3d, indicating that the land is only Marginally Suitable for LUT A because of a drainage requirement or limitation. The additional symbols given above are the LUT A below the line, and the accented d. The accented letter, e.g. d', may be used to indicate that a land development cost is involved in the assigning of land class S3. The magnitude of the land development cost could be indicated by using one, two or three accents as in d', d' ', or d' ' '. In Table 17, a list of letter suffixes indicating land suitability subclasses (i.e. denoting the major class-determining factor or factors) is suggested. In this list the land development cost factors are all accented as described above. Conservational and environmental factors may be given a different accent, i.e. . These may also be subclasses. The use of brackets with additional information should be used at the discretion of the land evaluator based on his own rules. In this illustration, the symbol () could indicate that a long-term erosion hazard should be borne in mind. The evaluator may require an additional symbol after mapping and classifying the 'irrigable' lands. The boundaries of aggregated land units may be defined and it may be necessary to indicate the economic viability of these using V1, V2, V3, N1 and N2 instead of the suitability class symbols used for the 'provisionally-irrigable' land and for reconnaissance evaluations. Table 17 LETTER SUFFIXES FOR INDICATING LAND SUITABILITY CLASSES AND SUBCLASSES
CLASS-DETERMINING FACTOR A. Crop (agronomic) factors 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Growing period Radiation Temperature Rooting Aeration Water quantity Nutrition (NPK) Water quality Salinity b j c r d m n q x y z p u l w v h k c' f' d' Letter Suffix

10. Sodicity 11. pH, micronutrients and toxicities. 12. Pest, disease, weeds 13. Flood, storm, wind, frost B. Management factors 14. Location 15. Water application management 16. Pre-harvest farm management 17. Harvest and post-harvest 18. Mechanization C. Land development cost factors 19. Land clearing 20. Flood protection 21. Drainage

22. Land grading and levelling (topography) 24. Leaching 25. Reclamation period 26. Irrigation engineering (construction) D. Conservation, environmental factors 27. Salinity/sodicity hazard 28. Ground or surface water hazard 29. Long-term erosion hazard 30. Environmental hazard E. Social and economic factors 31. Farmers' attitudes to irrigation 32. Others if class-determining

t' x' r' i'

23. Amendments (physical, chemical, organic) a'

6.5 An example of the use of the formats

An illustration of the use of the Formats for evaluating a land utilization type in a saline arid area, to be reclaimed, is given in Example 2. This illustrates the use of factor ratings where several factors are class-determining, the interactions to be considered, and the application of 'significance' in assigning the land suitability classes and subclasses. It also shows the need for refinements in successive iterations, and the importance of translating from physical into economic criteria, as further explained in Chapter 7. EXAMPLE 2
Land utilization type (LUT B): Winter cropping (wheat, beans, clover) Summer cropping (maize, sunflower) in an arid area to be reclaimed and farmed in 2.5 ha smallholdings Land productivity index = 1.0 for the top of s1 land

Class-determining factor 9: Salinity (control of) 1/ land use limitation: land quality: represented by land characteristics: Tolerance of the above crops to salinity Potential soil salinity hazard after reclamation and its effect on the land productivity index - soil permeability (0-75 cm depth) - depth to barrier (cm) - hydraulic resistance to vertical flow through barrier (C) - land elevation above mean sea level (m amsl) Drainage Drainage requirements (design) Drainability Cost of drainage (nil, low, medium, high or $/ha) Leaching requirements Leaching requirements (cm of water) for reclaiming the land

Class-determining factor 21: land use requirement: land quality: represented by: Class-determining factor 24: land use requirement:

land quality: represented by:

Conditions for leaching - present soil salinity (0-75 cm depth) EC of saturation extract (dS/m) - water depth in metres of water of quality EC 1-2 dS/m - cost of leaching ($/ha) Reclamation period Reclamation period (years) Not relevant Value of production foregone ($/ha)

Class-determining factor 25: land use requirement: land quality: represented by:

(Note the interdependence of factors, especially between salinity control and drainage.) 1/ The numbers refer to the list of factors in Format 1. These four factors would be given as 'specifications' of the LUT B (Format 1) using critical limits as in Example 2, Format 1. Example 2 FORMAT 1: SPECIFICATIONS FOR LUT B (Winter & Summer Cropping) 1/
CLASS-DETERMINING FACTOR REPRESENTED BY: LAND CHARACTERISTIC OR COST OF IMPROVEMENT CRITICAL LIMITS FOR: s1 s2 s3 0.5-0.1 3-2 100-200 n1 n2

9. Salinity control (i.e. - soil permeability (0-75 cm hazard remaining after depth) m/hr 2/ reclamation and effect on - depth to barrier (m) crop yields) - hydraulic resistance to vertical flow through barrier (C) 3/ - land elevation (m) 21. Drainage - drainage design requirements in terms of cost 4/ - actual costs ($/ha) 24. Leaching requirement - present soil salinity (0-75 cm depth) EC of saturation extract (dS/m) - water depth (m) (water quality EC 1-2 dS/m assumed) - cost of leaching 25. Reclamation period

>1.0 1.0-0.5 >5 5-3

0.1- <0.05 0.05 2-1 <1 200- >250 250 10-3 <3

<50 50-100

>20 20-15 nil

15-10

moderate moderate high very -high high to be determined

<10 10-30

30-60

6075

>75

<0.5 0.5-1

1-1.5

1.5- >2 2

nil

moderate moderate high very -high high 1-2 2-4 >4

- period to reduce salinity (0- <0.5 0.5-1 75 cm depth) to < 4 dS/m EC (sat. extr.) (years) 4/ - value of production foregone 4/ nil

moderate moderate high very -high high

1/ Note that this is only illustrative; the evaluator must produce his own specifications for each LUT (see guidelines in Part 2).

2/ Later on, where proved appropriate, a soil textural class may be substituted if this correlates satisfactorily with soil permeability. 3/ See Part Two, C.21. 4/ Special studies may be necessary to determine the drainage costs and value of production foregone during reclamation; these should be included in later reiterations. The land evaluator takes the above specifications for LOT B with him as he surveys and maps the land units in the field. On any given land unit he might record the following data for the land qualities or characteristics on Format 2: Example 2 FORMAT 2: LAND QUALITIES AND CHARACTERISTICS OF LAND UNIT NO WITH AN ASSESSMENT OF INPUTS AND LAND IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED
FORMAT 2: Land Unit 130 NAME OF EVALUATOR: T. Spade DESCRIPTION: Banypoh land system, Facet 1 CLASS DETERMINING FACTORS: - land qualities or characteristics, inputs or improvements 9. Salinity hazard after rehabilitation - soil texture (0-75 cm) - soil permeability (0-75 cm) - depth to barrier - hydraulic resistance to vertical flow through barrier - land elevation 21. Drainage - drainage design requirement - preliminary estimate of drainage cost - revised estimate of drainage cost 24. Leaching requirement during the reclamation period - present soil salinity (0-75 dS/m cm depth) EC of saturation extract - water depth needed to reclaim (water quality EC = 1-2 dS/m assumed) - preliminary cost of m variable from 4 10-30 1.2 m of water $/ha 500 m of 50 mm perforated pipe per ha at 1.5 m depth moderate not yet determined m/ha m C scl >1.0 2.5 75 scl >1.0 2.5 75 UNIT OF MEASUREMENT LAND CHARACTERISTIC OR QUALITY VALUE PRESENT INPUTS & IMPROVEMENTS ASSUMED FOR LUT FUTURE B

>20

>20

low

leaching - revised estimate of cost 25. Reclamation period - period to reduce salinity years (0-75 cm depth) to 4 dS/m EC (saturation extract) - value of production foregone $/ha <0.5 years $/ha not yet available

to be calculated

The above (Format 2) records: i. The observations of the land evaluator as he characterizes the land unit in the field. ii. His evaluation of the observed land characteristics' in terms of estimates of inputs and land improvements (i.e. drainage requirements, and reclamation leaching). Hence, for example, the soil will be leached after the drains are installed to reduce the soil salinity from its present level (10-30 dS/m) to an acceptable level (4 dS/m). iii. Cost estimates based on the drainage design (i.e. on the lengths, sizes, spacing and depths of pipe or channel) plus the cost of leaching, plus the value of production foregone while the land is being drained and leached. The period during which the land is being drained and leached may displace any existing agriculture, therefore the reclamation period must be stated together with the value of production foregone during this period. In the early field evaluation only rough indications of the costs (low, medium or high) need be provided; further refinements can he included on the format at a later date using actual costs. The land evaluator next proceeds to Step 8, the matching of the land characteristics plus inputs and land improvements (Format 2) against the specifications of LUT B (Format 1) for the selection of the appropriate factor ratings. These are entered on Format 3 as follows: Example 2 FORMAT 3: FACTOR RATINGS (LUT B with land unit 130)
Format 3: FACTOR RATINGS LUT B: Winter and summer cropping NAME OF LAND EVALUATOR: T. Spade LAND UNIT: 130 CLASS-DETERMING FACTORS 9. Salinity hazard after reclamation - soil permeability - depth to barrier - hydraulic resistance to vertical flow through barrier - land elevation 21. Drainage cost - preliminary estimate - revised estimate 24. Leaching requirement during reclamation period s2 n.a. Not Important s2 s1 Very Important s1 s3 FACTOR RATING s2 SIGNIFICANCE COMMENTS Very Important

- cost of leaching - revised estimate 25. Reclamation period - period to reduce salinity - value of production foregone TENTATIVE LAND SUITABILITY CLASS AND SUBCLASS FINAL LAND SUITABILITY CLASS AND SUBCLASS

s1 Less Important s1 n.a.

n.a. Not yet available It should be noted that a representative set of land units could first be studied in this detail, then the entries simplified. The tentative field assignment of the land suitability class and subclass is:

which indicates a salinity limitation after reclamation which is expected to reduce yields on land unit 130, and a drainage cost which is medium. The combination of the two lowers the class to S3, although each of the two limitations received a factor rating of only s2. The land is only marginally suitable, and further estimates of drainage and other costs will be required; these may confirm the class or may result in a downgrading to N1.

6.6 Incorporating crop yield data and costs

Physical data on crop yields and land improvements and inputs must be produced by the land evaluator for the economic evaluation, leading to a revision of land suitability classes if necessary. It is helpful to indicate the ceiling or highest expected yields on the S1 land in the descriptions of LUTs. Yields relative to this ceiling can then be set for each land suitability class as a land productivity index (e.g. s1 = 1.0-0.8, s2 = 0.8-0.7, s3 = 0.70.6, etc. but not necessarily these values). Note that factor ratings may be used for relative yields where further economic evaluation is required to translate these into economic terms. In Example 2, the only 'class-determining' factor listed that would affect yield is the salinity of the land after reclamation (the other factors listed are all limitations because of costs). Some land units are expected to have patches of salinity, or to prove more difficult to manage for salinity control than others. Their future yields are therefore expected to be depressed relative to other land units. In the Format 3 example above, a factor rating of s2 for the factor 'Salinity' might, say, be taken as 75% of the yield anticipated for the ceiling of s1. Ceiling s1 yields for each of the crops (wheat, beans, clover, maize, sunflower) of LUT B would be listed in a table. Similarly, the physical inputs (fertilizer, pesticides, etc.) and land development costs (engineering costs for area-specific development) should be first described in physical terms and then costed. This process produces the information necessary for the

economic evaluation of land suitability, first for 'provisionally-irrigable' land and later, for 'irrigable' land, as is elaborated in the next Chapter.

7. Economic evaluation of land suitability for irrigation

7.1 Terminology 7.2 Budgeting for comparisons of returns 7.3 Use of costs and benefits in determining land suitability class 7.4 Final selection of LUTs for the 'irrigable' land 7.5 Confirming financial viability from the farmers' viewpoint

As explained in Chapter 1, land suitability evaluation is essentially an economic concept. Suitability classes are applied according to economic measures rather than simply on the basis of assessments of physical productivity. The application of any formal economic analysis is, of course, seldom possible in the earlier stages of a land evaluation exercise when only rough estimates of development costs and of potential levels of productivity are usually available. This is not to imply, however, that economic considerations should be disregarded at the outset of studies, when even 'back-of-the-envelope' calculations may help in distinguishing between land which is provisionally 'irrigable' and that which is not. Such initial calculations may also help identify alternative LUTs, including possible cropping, irrigation and management systems, and the approximate amount which can be invested in land development. This chapter explains, with reference to examples, how economic considerations are introduced into the selection of LUTs and land suitability classes. Because a major concern for most countries which embark on the development or rehabilitation of irrigation systems is the impact that the required investments will have on the economy as a whole, it is appropriate to apply economic rather than financial methods of analysis in the final classification of land suitability for irrigation 1/. This approach contrasts with that adopted by the USBR which classifies land according to its 'payment capacity'; this is essentially a measurement of financial impact of irrigation development on the income of the typical farmer (see Chapter 10). The FAO methodology employs financial analyses, using farm budgets, as explained later in this chapter, to confirm that, under current or expected market conditions, there are financial incentives for farmers to participate in a proposed irrigation development programme on a particular land area. 1/ For a description of the distinction between economic and financial analysis, see Gittinger (1982): excerpt is reprinted in Appendix 3. Advantages of adopting 'economic' rather than 'financial' analyses in land evaluation include: i. bringing the methodology for land classification into line with that conventionally applied in project evaluation, especially by international lending institutions;

ii. avoiding anomalies in classification caused by variations in cost recovery policy and law and in the extent of farmers' liability for land development costs; iii. setting aside any distortions in values introduced by official intervention, such as subsidies, controls and quotas; first, because these obscure 'real' prices and second, because of their temporary and variable nature.

7.1 Terminology
i. Measures of Suitability Three alternative measures of land suitability class have already been defined in Chapter 2, namely: - Land Productivity Index defining the physical productivity of land relative to the best land (see Section 2.4); - Net Farm Income, i.e. the value obtained by subtracting both the variable and fixed costs from the gross value of production on a given unit of land (Section 2.4); - Net Incremental Irrigation Benefit (NIIB), a measure of the potential increase in productivity of a unit area of land when developed under a specified plan, expressed in economic terms as an Annual Equivalent Value (see later in this Chapter). The land evaluation team must decide which of these measures of suitability is most appropriate for a given evaluation. In general, a physical measure of productivity will be appropriate in reconnaissance low intensity studies. Net farm income may be a sufficient measure for a classification of 'provisionally-irrigable' land, before reliable estimates of common project costs and land development costs are available. However, future revisions and adjustments can be reduced significantly by making early estimates of incremental net farm income and cut-off values between 'Suitable' and 'Not Suitable' land. In the final classification of 'irrigable' land under a specific project plan, NIIB is the appropriate measure of suitability class as explained in Section 2.4, and more fully in this chapter. ii. Interest and Discounting Calculations Explanations of interest and discounting calculations whereby monetary values are manipulated into various time-formats are given in standard economic textbooks. Streams of periodically occurring values can be converted to a lump sum present value, or to an end-of-period value. Conversely, a single value can be spread (amortized) over a period of time. The interest rate used in these calculations may be either the opportunity cost of capital, or a rate which is satisfactory to the client or sponsor of the investigation. In special cases, a social rate of discount may be appropriate in lieu of a discount rate related to the opportunity cost of capital. The required procedures are limited to a few standard practices which are illustrated in Appendix 2.

7.2 Budgeting for comparisons of returns

In order to attribute net values to the production of each LUT, it is necessary to prepare full or partial crop or farm budgets. References in the bibliography (Brown 1982; Gittinger 1982; Yang 1965) provide guidance on preparing farm budgets and enterprise

analyses for crops or livestock production. Budgets are usually prepared in detail to show the net income for a farm, a unit of area, or an enterprise. Supporting data elaborating on methodology and assumptions can be filed and retained for future reference. After eliminating the obviously less promising LUTs from the initial listing, the remainder can be analysed by farm budgets to obtain net farm income expressed in economic prices. For any one land unit or grouping, one or more alternative LUTs may be recommended. Where appropriate, variations in output and input levels can be tested by means of partial budgets. Budgets are generally needed to represent: i. the present situation 'without' the project; ii. the future situation 'without' the project; iii. the future situation 'with' the project. The first two of these budgets for the 'without' project situation are usually alike except when trends are judged likely to make the future setting different from the present. In some cases (e.g. where salinity is projected to increase in the absence of the project), deteriorating conditions need to be recognized in the sense that the budget for the 'without' situation represents a worse state than that of the present situation. On many rainfed areas, the future situation without the project can be represented by a single budget (or a limited few) if the present situation is fairly uniform and stable throughout. Budgets representing the future situation 'with' the project will be required for whatever number of LUTs it is desired to examine for a land unit. A few full-farm budgets representing the modal tendency can serve as a basis for related partial budgets which subsequently examine the effects of variations such as technology and management levels, size of farm, levels of outputs and inputs, different crop yield assumptions, water supply variations, etc., depending on the level of detail needed. To begin the process of eliminating less promising LUTs, array the LUTs by land productivity index, net farm income, or NIIB, depending on which indicator is appropriate for the stage of the evaluation. Economic comparisons will assist the selection of 'class-determining' requirements and limitations for each LUT. In making analyses at the farm level to choose the composition of enterprises or to test the feasibility of different kinds or levels of inputs or outputs, a shortened form of budget need only deal with the pertinent changes. Table 18 illustrates how three optional choices can be tested in terms of farm income. Two options for investment in irrigation improvements on the farm are compared with the option of no improvements. Many other applications will be found for the shortened form of budgeting. Table 19 provides an illustration of a full farm budget, typical of the kind which is useful for analysing LUTs to obtain net farm income. Accompanying schedule C (Table 20) gives crop production costs per hectare and Schedule L (Table 21) gives labour requirements per hectare. Other similar supporting data could include schedules of the monthly and seasonal pattern of labour requirements, agrochemical usage and costs, etc. A variation of LUT A (Table 22) that lends itself as an example of partial budgeting (i.e. shortened form of budgeting) could consist of a reduction of the land productivity index

from, say 100% (i.e. 1.0) to 75% (i.e. 0.75) because of differences in the land. For the sake of illustration, assume that the crop yield is depressed because of a coarser textured soil and excessive permeability. Excessive percolation losses put a paddy rice crop on this land under more water stress resulting in yield depression. Table 22 is a partial budget that shows the changes in variable costs and returns for such a situation, and derives the net farm income. Table 18 PARTIAL BUDGETS TO COMPARE THE PROSPECTIVE GROSS INCOME GAINS FROM ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENTS IN TOPOGRAPHIC LAND LEVELLING AND SPRINKLER IRRIGATION (One Hectare) A comparison is made using three farmer-financed options for area-specific land development costs (unimproved furrow irrigation, land levelling, sprinkler irrigation). This land can be farmed under irrigation in the natural condition in spite of the undulating topography. However, the yield level is not up to full potential. The present conditions have the following disadvantages which are evaluated in terms of yield depression, inefficient irrigation application, higher labour requirements, loss of fertilizer due to uneven water distribution, and higher costs for some field work. The capital requirement for land levelling is estimated to be $1 000 per hectare. For the sprinkler system the investment would be $1 500 a hectare, with a useful life of 20 years. The interest rate is 8% p.a. Case 1 - Testing the investment in land levelling as compared to (furrow) irrigating the unimproved land
Losses: Extra costs: Interest and amortization of the land levelling cost Taxes on increased investment Annual maintenance and repair Costs saved: $102 Difference in land preparation 15 10 Extra labour for field irrigation Lower interest on operating capital Value of fertilizer wasted Difference in cultivation Revenues foregone: None Total $127 Extra revenue: Value of increased crop yield 210 $280 $2 24 4 20 20 Gains:

Extra profit from land levelling for furrow irrigating the unimproved land: $280 minus $127 equals $153 per hectare. Case 2 - Testing the installation of a sprinkler system in comparison with furrow irrigating the unimproved land
Losses: Extra costs: Interest and amortization of the sprinkler system investment Taxes on the increased investment Annual maintenance and repair Costs saved: $152 Difference in land preparation 20 150 Difference in cultivation Value of fertilizer wasted $10 20 20 Gains:

Fuel costs for engine Interest on extra operating capital Revenues foregone: None

50 9

Extra labour for field irrigation Extra revenue: Value of increased crop yield

42

300

Total $381

Total $392

Extra profit from sprinkler vs furrow irrigation: $392 minus $381 equals $11 per hectare. Table 19 FULL FARM BUDGET FOR LUT A (1.0) ON THE BEST LAND 1/ PADDY RICE FARM - 2.0 HECTARES WITH AND WITHOUT SUPPLEMENTAL IRRIGATION - Indonesia Land Productivity Index Level 1.0
ITEM Wet Season Crops: Rainfed rice yielding 2.0 t/ha Irrigated rice yielding 4.2 t/ha Dry Season Crops: Irrigated soybeans yielding 0.6 t/ha Irrigated rice yielding 4.0 t/ha Production: Rice Soybeans Value of Production Rice @ Rp 100 000/t Soybeans @ Rp 195 000/t Total Variable Costs (from schedule C, see Table 20 for details): Rainfed rice (1.0 ha) Irrigated rice (1.0 ha) Wet season (2.0 ha) Dry season (1.6 ha) Soybeans (0.4 ha) Total Fixed Costs Total Costs Net Farm Income, per farm Net Farm Income, per hectare 182.0 10.0 192.0 428.0 214.0 69.0 113.0 238.0 184.0 18.0 440.2 12.0 452.2 1 074.6 537.3 620.0 620.0 6.2 t 14.8 t .24 t Rp values x 1 000 1 480.0 46.8 1 526.8 0.4 ha 1.6 ha 1.0 ha 1.0 ha 2.00 ha WITHOUT PROJECT WITH PROJECT

Note: This table is prepared using economic analysis criteria (see Appendix 3). 1/ Land Productivity Index Level (1.0) represents the best quality land.

Table 20 SUPPORTING DATA SCHEDULE C FOR TABLE 19 - Cost of production on one hectare - Indonesia Land Productivity Index Level 1.0 (Rp values x 1 000)
Rainfed Rice Irrigated Rice WITHOUT PROJECT Land preparation 15.0 Seed Fertilizer Pest control Harvesting Labour Other Total Land preparation Seed Fertilizer Pest control Harvesting Labour Other Total 4.7 6.6 2.1 6.0 32.0 2.6 69.0 15.0 4.0 33.1 8.5 11.4 38.0 3.0 113.0 WITH PROJECT 15.0 4.0 33.1 8.5 12.6 42.0 3.8 119.0 15.0 4.0 33.1 8.5 11.0 40.0 3.5 115.1 3.0 6.6 3.1 6.2 1.0 22.0 3.1 45.0 Soybeans

Wet Season Wet Season Dry Season Dry Season

Note: This table is prepared using criteria for economic analysis. Table 21 SUPPORTING DATA SCHEDULE L FOR TABLE 19 - Labour inputs per hectare, - Indonesia Land Productivity Index Level 1.0 (days)
Rainfed Rice Irrigated Rice WITHOUT PROJECT Land preparation 40 Planting Care of crop Harvesting Total Land preparation Planting Care of crop 35 50 35 160 40 35 55 60 190 WITH PROJECT 40 35 75 40 35 75 25 20 30 Soybeans

Wet Season Wet Season Dry Season Dry Season

Harvesting Total

60 210

50 200

35 110

Note: In the economic analysis all labour, both hired and that supplied by the farm family, is considered as an expense. Table 22 PARTIAL FARM BUDGET FOR LUT A (0.75) FOR LAND 1/ WITH AN INDEX OF 75% RELATIVE TO THE BEST LAND PADDY RICE FARM - 2.0 HECTARES WITH AND WITHOUT SUPPLEMENTAL IRRIGATION - Indonesia Land Productivity Index Level 0.75 (Rp values x 1 000)
ITEM Reduced crop value 2/ Reduced expenses: Variable costs Reduced harvesting Rainfed rice (1.0 ha) Irrigated rice (1.0 ha) Wet season (2.0 ha) Dry season (1.6 ha) Soybeans (0.4 ha) Other variable costs - no change Fixed costs - no change Net reduction in income Net farm income from LUT A (1.0) per farm per hectare per hectare 151.8 428.0 214.0 138.1 374.3 1 074.6 537.3 700.0 350.15 0.9 2.3 3.8 3.5 0.1 WITHOUT PROJECT WITH PROJECT 155.0 381.7

Net farm income from LUT A (0.75) per farm 276.2

1/ Relative to LUT A (1.0) in Table 19. 2/ Soil deficiency evaluated as having the same effect on crop production without and with the project. Such may not be the case where the land use is to be changed appreciably by the project.

7.3 Use of costs and benefits in determining land suitability class

7.3.1 Establishing the cut-off between suitable and not suitable land 7.3.2 Establishing the range of permissible area-specific land development costs 7.3.3 Nomograph for quick determination of NIIB

The full or partial budgets described above provide an estimate of the net farm income per hectare attributable to a given farming system or LUT at various productivity levels under 'without' and 'with' project situations. To determine land suitability classes, it is necessary to take account also of: - common project costs, and - area-specific land development costs. These benefits and costs may be integrated for classification purposes into a value termed the Net Incremental Irrigation Benefit (NIIB). The NIIB may be calculated as follows: (A) Net Incremental Farm Income (i.e. net farm income 'with' project minus net farm income 'without' project derived from the budgets); normally assessed for the year of full development; Minus (B) Annual Equivalent Value of Common Costs; Minus (C) Annual Equivalent Value of Area-specific Land Development Costs. It follows from this that if (A) minus (C) is less than (B), the land in question is 'Not Suitable' for irrigation development and can be classified as N1 or N2. The Annual Equivalent Value of Common Costs (B) thus represents the cut-off value for required net incremental farm income (after payment of area-specific development costs). It must also be evident that (A) minus (B) is equivalent to the maximum permissible amount which can be spent on Area-specific Land Development (C), expressed in annual equivalent values. To set the boundaries of 'Suitable' classes (i.e. between S1, S2 and S3), the range of NIIB between the cut-off point (NIIB = 0) and the maximum obtainable in a project area may be divided into three equal or unequal segments. The use of a nomograph simplifies the attribution of classes (see Subsection 7.3.3 and Figure 2). Examples of the calculation of cut-off values, permissible development costs and NIIB, and of the translation of NIIB into land suitability classes are given below. 7.3.1 Establishing the cut-off between suitable and not suitable land The economic consequences of changes in physical productivity and costs of production will demarcate a boundary or cut-off point between land which is suitable for irrigation and land which is not. The poorest land to be classed as 'Suitable' must be able to carry its share of the common project costs, otherwise it should be classified as 'Not Suitable'. The cut-off in an 'irrigable' classification is represented by the annual equivalent of the development, operating and maintenance cost of the project, less any area-specific development costs. Land that cannot generate a net incremental value of production equivalent to or greater than the cut-off value would normally be classified as 'Not Suitable'. The cut-off value is calculated by dividing the investment in common project facilities by the number of hectares in the project, converting to an annual equivalent cost, and adding the project's annual operation and maintenance costs (replacement costs are

most readily represented as an annual equivalent in the operation and maintenance costs, OM & R). The conversion of investment values to annual equivalent costs (and any other discounting processes required) will utilize the investment rate of interest or opportunity costs of capital specified by the project sponsor. (In illustrations that follow a hypothetical rate of 12% and a project life of 50 years is assumed.) Appendix 2 shows how the discounting is performed. Common project costs do not include costs of land improvements or land development (e.g. for land clearing, drainage, levelling, etc.). The latter are area-specific costs and are land class-determining. Table 23 illustrates how the cut-off value might be calculated for a hypothetical project. Table 23 CALCULATION OF AN ECONOMIC CUT-OFF VALUE - 2 500 hectare irrigation project - Indonesia (Rp values x 1 000)
ITEM Investment in common project facilities Annual equivalent cost (at 12% over 50 years) Annual OM & R Annual common project costs Cut-off value, per hectare (or required net incremental farm income after attribution of area-specific development costs) TOTAL PROJECT 5 000 000 602 000 25 000 627 000 PER HECTARE 2 000 240 10 250 250

7.3.2 Establishing the range of permissible area-specific land development costs The cut-off value described above sets the lower boundary for the range of permissible land development costs. In the context of economic analysis any expenditure must be justified, on the grounds that benefits exceed costs, and enable the resultant productivity of the land (after the expenditure) to remain above the cut-off value. The upper boundary for the economic range of suitable land is based on the NIIB for the most productive land on the project (not simply the best land in a LUT). For example, if the cut-off value were, say, Rp 250 000 per hectare and the best land would produce incremental benefits of Rp 323 000, the NIIB range for suitable land would be Rp 1 to 73 000 (annual), if the land in question had no area-specific land development costs. If the figure Rp 73 000 (Table 24) is the NIIB for LUT A (1.0) (from Tables 19-21) for land classified as S1 in an 'irrigable' classification and if the NIIB is capitalized (12%, 50 years), an investment limit of Rp 606 200 for an area-specific land development cost applies on the best land in the project. Land with lower productivity would bear proportionately lower investment costs. Table 24 CALCULATION OF THE NET INCREMENTAL IRRIGATION BENEFIT - 2 500 hectare irrigation project - Indonesia

Land Utilization Type A (Rp values x 1 000)

Land Productivity Index Levels 1.0 0.75 Irrigation Benefits (per hectare): Net farm income with project Net farm income without project Incremental irrigation benefit Net of common project costs: Project cost (2 500 ha) Cost per hectare Amortized (12%, 50 years) Annual OM & R Annual common project cost (per ha) 5 000 000 2 000 240 10 250 250 -37 (Land Unit 10) 537 -214 323 (Land Unit 16) 350 -138 212

Maximum permissible area-specific land development cost 73 on LUT A Estimated development cost, this land unit NET INCREMENTAL IRRIGATION BENEFIT (the excess of benefits over costs 0 73)

If such a range of NIIB values were to be divided into three more or less equal classes, land generating a NIIB of Rp 50 000 - 73 000 per ha would be classified as S1, Rp 25 000 - 50 000 as S2 and Rp 0 - 25 000 as S3. In some cases, it will be appropriate to establish unequal ranges corresponding to prominent land characteristics and associated land improvements such as land levelling or drainage. 7.3.3 Nomograph for quick determination of NIIB The nomograph in Figure 2 illustrates how Incremental Net Farm Income minus the Annual Equivalent Values of Common Costs and Area-Specific Land Development Costs can be conveniently represented to facilitate the calculation of NIIB. Example 1 shown on the nomograph represents an area that will become top producing land (Incremental Net Farm Income Rp 325 000) following an area-specific development cost expenditure of, say, Rp 200 000. The annual equivalent value of this investment is Rp 25 000 at an interest rate of 12% over 50 years. The broken line across the nomograph extends between the top of the net incremental farm income scale (representing the top productivity), to the point on the development cost scale that reads Rp 200 000 investment (Rp 25 000 annual). With a NIIB of Rp 50 000 the land is on the boundary between S1 and S2. Figure 2 Nomograph for correlating incremental net farm income, net incremental irrigation benefit and area-specific development cost (Rupiahs)

Example 2, in Figure 2 shows how land requiring the same investment cost in land development can only produce a net incremental farm income of Rp 280 000. Note that the broken line on the nomograph intersects the NIIB scale at Rp 5 000 corresponding to a land suitability class of S3. The nomograph does not reveal anything that could not be calculated directly, but serves as a convenient tool for demonstrating the interactions visually. The construction of a nomograph is quite simple. Using graph paper, the vertical scales are positioned equidistant from each other. The two outside scales are each of the same length, and are sized to fit the subdivisions of the graph paper and provide an easy read-out. The NIIB scale at the centre is half the length of the two outside scales. Values used for the nomograph are generated by determining the cut-off value, the net farm income values in farm budgets, and the range of permissible area-specific land development costs. The permissible area land development costs for any given land suitability class can be calculated using the value at the bottom of each class as a cut-off. If the land development costs exceed the calculated amount for the class, the land should be

downgraded. For example, in the case where the per hectare ranges for 'Suitable' are established as follows:
Class S1 incremental benefits Rp 325 000 ha/yr Cut-off value Range of NIIB Rp 250 000 ha/yr Rp 75 000 ha/yr,

the permissible area-specific land development costs for any given land suitability class can be calculated, using the value at the bottom of each class as a cut-off, as illustrated in Table 25. Highly productive land will, of course, bear greater investment costs than marginally productive land. In Table 25 it will be readily appreciated that land with a physical productivity factor rating of s3 would not tolerate the annual equivalent value of development costs of Rp 35 000? however, land with factor ratings of s1 and s2 would tolerate this cost but their final classifications might be downgraded to S2 and S3 because of such costs. Table 25 PERMISSIBLE AREA-SPECIFIC LAND DEVELOPMENT COSTS
FACTOR RATINGS FOR RELATIVE YIELD s3 Potential relative yield ranges Permissible development costs (annual equivalent) Rp Actual development costs, annual equivalent cost, say, Rp NIIB (net incremental irrigation benefit) Rp Final classification 0.85-0.90 25 000 35 000 -10 000 N1 s2 0.90-0.95 50 000 s1 0.95-1.00 75 000

7.4 Final selection of LUTs for the 'irrigable' land

At the 'provisionally-irrigable' stage of the evaluation, each unit or group of land units may be classified for one or several LUTs. The classification of 'irrigable' land is more precise and should generally result in a determination of the number of hectares, by land suitability classes and subclasses, comprising a recommended irrigation service area under a project plan. Alternatives must be resolved into specific cropping, irrigation and management systems proposals that are realistic, practicable and likely to occur. Thus, a likely land use pattern for the project area as a whole will emerge. This land use pattern will serve as the basis for locating the project's major water supply and drainage systems, and for calculating irrigation benefits. Each land unit-LUT combination is finalized (i.e. as S1, S2, etc.) in a classification of 'irrigable' land. Table 26 summarizes a classification of 'irrigable' land for a hypothetical project. It will be noted that within any land suitability class, more than one LUT may be represented. Note in this example, the apportionment of class S1 lands between LUT A and LUT B, for reasons other than land suitability, e.g. for market needs, to even out labour peaks, to improve seasonal cash flow, or to lessen overdependence on a given crop, etc. Table 26 SUMMARY OF IRRIGABLE LAND CLASSES AND PROJECT AREA HYPOTHETICAL PROJECT - INDONESIA (Net Farm Income Rp/ha x 1 000)

Land Class & Hectares Land Unit No.

LUT A Vegetables ha 400 1/

LUT B Rice ha 152

Land Productivity Index 0.95-1.0

Net Farm Income Rp/ha x 1000 300-352

NIIB Range Rp/ha x 1000 50-75

Class S1 552 Land units: 7, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17 Class S2 1 500 Land units: 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 14, 19, 20, 21, 22 Class S3 398 Land units: 2, 5, 11 Total irrigable Class N1 Land units: 12, 16, 18 2 500 505

1 550

0.90-0.95

275-300

25-50

398

0.85-0.90

250-275

0-25

400

2 100

1/ Apportionment of area in irrigable class S1 between LUT A and LUT B is made to facilitate the estimation of benefits from the project. It is based on the limited market demand for local vegetable production. No particular land unit or hectare is designated for this land use, but the ceiling on the extent of LUT A results from practical considerations. The procedure described enables a determination of irrigation benefits, but avoids dictating the precise land use pattern to the farmer. Other considerations might apply where it would be desirable to specify ranges of land use, as appropriate, for the envisaged degree of control over land use. It is often desirable to examine more than one overall land use pattern for the project area. After consultation among appropriate personnel, a likely pattern of land use should evolve which meets the project objectives and the approval of the authorities, and produces sufficient benefits to justify the project in economic terms. However, there is a practical limit to the number of plans that can be analysed when deadlines must be met. Other members of a project planning team will expect the land evaluation to be presented without undue delay and in reasonably final form so that the hydrology, engineering and other parts of the project's investigations can be completed on schedule. The form for tabulating the results of the land evaluation could vary widely, depending on what details are needed. If the table is extensive and deals with subclasses and several LUTs, it may not be useful to try to include the columns showing the land productivity index, net farm income and NUB ranges. Furthermore, the land suitability classes obtained using these three measures may differ, as explained in Section 2.4, for any given land unit or LUT combination.

7.5 Confirming financial viability from the farmers' viewpoint

The foregoing economic analyses for the 'irrigable' classification concerned the project as a whole. If the project plan is to be sustained, it must also be financially remunerative to individual farmers. An analysis using financial data prices and criteria, rather than economic ones (see Gittinger 1982 and Appendix 3) is needed to confirm the financial attractiveness of the proposal from the typical farmers' viewpoint.

For this purpose, full farm budgets for the representative types and sizes of farms are required. In these budgets: i. all the increased production costs must be met (including water charges where relevant); ii. increased investment costs charged to the farmer must be covered; iii. imputed returns are calculated for equity capital, farm family management and labour input, prices or other contingencies (other items may be included); iv. the net income is found by deducting all the costs and allowances from the value of farm sales and products consumed at the farm. The above determinations are made for situations without and with the project in order to make proper allowance for project earnings and thus arrive at incremental income due to the project. Costs attributable to the farm must be distinguished from those which are rightfully attributable to the project as a whole. Farm budget calculations are carried out using production or relative yield levels corresponding to the economic cut-off boundary between 'Suitable' and 'Not Suitable'; and also using ceiling values for the most productive land. For both these, the incremental net income is calculated as the difference between the values found for the 'without' and 'with' situations. It is from this net income that repayment obligations must be met including, if any, costs for area-specific land development performed by the farmer or by the project and assigned to the farmer for repayment. Table 27 illustrates a case in which the values for the cut-off and the range of permissible development costs are determined using economic criteria pertinent to the project (as described in Section 7.3). Table 28 illustrates the financial verification using financial criteria pertinent to the farm. (The assumptions about water charges will, of course, vary widely from project to project.) The economic analyses were concerned with the cut-off value and NIIB ranges. In the financial farm budgets, the bottom line (Table 28), shows a residual value available to the farmer to cover area-specific land development costs. If the financial residual, after water and operation and maintenance charges are paid out, remains more than the cost of area-specific development costs to be borne by the farmer, the farm's financial viability at the cut-off point is confirmed. If the results of this check prove unfavourable, it is necessary to review and test all assumptions in the analysis. An unfavourable outcome might result from any of the following: a. the level of assumed charges levied against the farmer may be unrealistic in terms of his repayment capacity; b. the assumptions used in farm budgets may be incorrect, unrealistic, or both; this could apply to economic and financial budgets, or both; c. financial prices or other factors subject to official intervention may be inappropriate;

d. inequities may prevail, for example, due to institutional factors such as tenure, farm size, rents, taxes, etc. Some of the adverse factors that bear on the farm financial viability might be changed by project financing and as a result of negotiations between the client government and the financing institution. After thorough review, a decision must be made on whether to revise the land classification and economic analyses. Table 27 FARM BUDGETS ESTABLISHING NIIB RANGE FOR IRRIGABLE LAND (ECONOMIC ANALYSIS) - 15 hectare farm
Fixed cost or variable Receipts: Sales Home use Income Expenses: Taxes 1/ Depreciation 2/ Operating loan 3/ Operating expenses (excl. labour) Hired labour 4/ Family labour 5/ Expenses Net Farm Income Incremental Net Farm Income per farm Incremental Net Farm Income per hectare Less: Annual equivalent of common project investment Annual operation, maintenance and replacement Sum of common project costs Net Incremental Irrigation Benefit (NIIB) 6/ F F V V 4 70 6 180 2 110 4 85 6 226 2 141 630 84 714 2 520 100 2 620 1 890 16 1 906 900 120 1 020 3 600 144 3 744 2 700 24 2 724 LAND PRODUCTIVITY INDEX 0.70 LAND PRODUCTIVITY INDEX 1.00

Without With Difference Without With Difference project project project project

V V

0 60 134 580

60 220 466 2 154

60 160 332 1 574 1 574

0 68 157 863

75 250 557 3 187

75 182 400 2 324 2 324

104.93

154.93

100.00

100.00

5.00

5.00

105.00 -0.07

105.00 49.93

Note: This Table is prepared using economic analysis criteria.

1/ Not applicable in economic analysis 2/ On machinery and capital items having limited lives. 3/ Not applicable in economic analysis. 4/ At market wage rate. 5/ Shadow-priced at half the market wage rate. 6/ Establishes the maximum permissible area-specific land development cost. Table 28 FARM BUDGETS ESTABLISHING FARMER'S FINANCIAL VIABILITY UNDER IRRIGATION (FINANCIAL ANALYSIS) - 15 hectare farm
Fixed LAND PRODUCTIVITY LAND PRODUCTIVITY cost or INDEX 0.70 INDEX 1.00 variable Without With Difference Without With Difference project project project project Receipts: Sales Home use Income Expenses: Taxes Depreciation 1/ Operating loan Operating expenses Hired labour Family labour 2/ Expenses Net Farm Income Less Imputed Costs: Interest on equity capital Family labour input 3/ Other 4/ Contingency/Risk 5/ Equals Rent/Surplus Incremental Rent/Surplus per farm Incremental Rent/Surplus per hectare Less annual project operation and maintenance cost Less annual charges for water (towards repayments) Financial Residual 20 120 7 11 (158) 364 100 440 26 13 (579) 1 341 80 320 19 2 (421) 977 977 65.13 20 136 8 13 (177) 589 100 500 31 16 (647) 2 162 80 364 23 3 (470) 1 573 1 573 104.87 F F V V V V 5 4 0 64 0 73 522 10 6 18 170 60 264 1 920 5 2 18 106 60 191 1 398 5 4 0 75 0 84 766 10 6 20 200 75 311 2 809 5 2 20 125 75 227 2 043 525 70 595 2 100 84 2 184 1 575 14 1 589 750 100 850 3 000 120 3 120 2 250 20 2 270

5.00

5.00

12.00

12.00

53.13

92.87

Note: This Table is prepared using financial analysis criteria 1/ On machinery and capital items having limited lives. 2/ Priced in the imputed costs. 3/ At market wage rate. 4/At 10% of cash expenses. 5/ At 15% of cash expenses for without project and 5% of cash expenses for with project.

8. Presentation of the results

8.1 Reconnaissance level studies 8.2 Pre-feasibility and feasibility studies

The main purpose of land evaluation is to provide information on which to base planning and investment decisions. Decisions are made at various stages of development from reconnaissance through to detailed project planning and implementation. At each stage, the products of the land evaluation include reports and maps at intensities and scales outlined in Table 3 (Chapter 1). In the case of project development reports, it is usual to produce a detailed technical Main Report with supporting Annexes and an Executive Summary. Apart from the final reports, it may also be necessary to produce regular progress reports and interim reports. These are the basis for discussions between the investor, client and consultant which lead to the major policy decisions. Some illustrations of the types of presentation which are relevant at various stages of the investigations from reconnaissance through to project planning are given in the following paragraphs.

8.1 Reconnaissance level studies

The results of reconnaissance surveys are usually presented on maps at scales of 1:100 000 to 1:250 000. They may be concerned with the preparation of a Master Plan for land and water resources development including the selection of priorities. At the level of individual river basins, maps should define areas for catchment protection, flood zoning, reclamation, swamp and tidal areas, and areas with potential for irrigation development. The report should list the possible development options and their respective merits and give recommendations and terms of reference for further, prefeasibility or feasibility studies of each of the priority projects identified. Land suitability categories at reconnaissance level will often include fewer classes than for more intensive studies (e.g. S1, S2 and N). LUTs will generally be broadly defined and the economic evaluation will indicate production and income potential at a macro level. Land systems will be delineated to distinguish broadly land which is promising for specific kinds of irrigation and rainfed agriculture, from land which is not. The requirements and limitations of the LUTs are less precise than is needed in planning a particular project. For example, Table 29 indicates the major climatic and soil characteristics required for lowland rice in Indonesia (Bunting 1981) and is an

illustration of the type of information needed for Format 1 at a reconnaissance survey level. To illustrate the type of map that might be presented as a result of a reconnaissance study, Figure 3 shows the result of a large river basin planning study in Sri Lanka. The original FAO (1968b) study envisaged a development programme of 30 years to develop the land and water resources of the Mahaweli river. The results of the study indicated the possibility of irrigating 237 000 ha of new rice land and the provision of additional water seasonally to 104 000 ha of existing single crop rice land. The proposals were for a phased programme to develop a series of irrigation schemes, some in the river basin of the Mahaweli itself, and others in adjacent river basins with supplemental water from the Mahaweli river via tunnels, transbasin canals or diversion structures. The development programme included power generating headworks, together with storage dams and reservoirs to provide water in the dry season. Figure 3 shows the areas that were designated for phased development as a result of this evaluation. Feasibility studies of several of these individual areas were later commissioned leading to project implementation. Figure 3 Result of a reconnaissance study for developing the irrigation potential of the Mahaweli river and adjacent catchments in Sri Lanka (FAO 1968) Table 29 FACTORS THAT MAY DETERMINE LAND SUITABILITY CLASS FOR LOWLAND RICE IN INDONESIA 1/
DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND USE TYPE: Crop: Lowland rice Land Characteristic or Land Quality Length of growing period Average temperature over the growing period Water requirements (rainfall and irrigation) Soil drainage class 2/ Soil texture 3/ Units s1 days C 120 CRITICAL LIMITS s2 105-120 s3 95-105 95 n

24-26 26-28 22-24 28-30 20-22 30 20 1 300-1 600 1 000-1 300 <1 000 3, 4 6, 7 12, 13 14, 15 25 6.5-7.5 5.05.4 3-5 110 24 170 5 5 16, 17 25 7.6-8.2 4.54.9 5.1-6.5 75 18 110 1,2,3,4 18 25 8.24.5 6.6-8 48 (30) 14 (9) 60 (10)

mm/yr >1 600 1, 2 8, 9 10, 11 cm 25 5.56.5 dS/m 3 160 32 250

Rooting depth Soil pH Soil salinity Nutrient uptake/(nutrient removal in brackets)

N kg/ha P K

Adapted from Bunting 1981. 1/ Note that not all the above land characteristics would be class-deter-mining. Land suitability class is based on those that are, taking into account their 'Interactions' (Section 6.2) and 'Significance' (see Section 6.3).

2/ Key to drainage classes: 1 = very poorly drained, 2 = poorly drained, 3 = imperfectly drained, 4 = moderately well drained, 5 = well drained, 6 = somewhat excessively drained, 7 = excessively drained. 3/ Key to texture classes: 1 = gravel, 2 = coarse sand, 3 = medium sand, 4 = fine sand, 5 = loamy sand, 6 = sandy clay loam, 7 = loam, 8 = sandy clay loam, 9 = silt loam, 10 = silt, 11 = clay loam, 12 = silty clay loam, 13 = sandy clay, 14 = kaolinitic clay, 15 = silty clay, 16 = mixed clays, 17 = structured montmorillonitic clay, 18 = massive montmorillonitic clay.

8.2 Pre-feasibility and feasibility studies

8.2.1 Form of report

The maps presented in pre-feasibility and feasibility studies are typically at scales from 1:25 000 to 1:50 000 with smaller scale supporting maps as appropriate for the executive summary. In the absence of full knowledge of the water supply and the development costs, land suitability may be classified on the basis of net farm income. An 'irrigable' area can later be delineated from within the 'provisionally-irrigable' area using NIIB as an economic measure of suitability. Figures 4a and 4b are small-scale maps depicting 'provisionally-irrigable' and 'irrigable' land at successive stages for the Southern Conveyor Project in Cyprus (Water Development Department, Cyprus and LRDC, 1982). At the 'provisionally-irrigable' level, several: land- use alternatives will usually be presented with a classification of their respective suitabilities on different areas of land, and with subclasses indicating some of the land development requirements (e.g. drainage) for contiguous areas amalgamating the individual mapped land units. Land suitability maps may be presented for each LUT, or a single map with a tabular legend indicating the alternative LUTs and their suitability classes and subclasses can be presented, using appropriate adaptations of Format 5 (Table 9,.Chapter 2). The maps may be used independently of the report and should therefore be self-explanatory. Ah example of a legend that illustrates the classification of the land units for some of the LUTs outlined in Table 11 (for Bali, Indonesia, see Section 4.1.2) is given in Table 30. Table 30 LAND SUITABILITY CLASSES AND SUBCLASSES FOR LAND UNITS AND LUT COMBINATIONS IN AN IRRIGABLE CLASSIFICATION ILLUSTRATING A MAP LEGEND
Land IRRIGATED RICE LAND Utilization Two rice Rice and Rice and One Types crops/year two soybean/year rice/fallow Irrigated Coconuts Rainfed citrus (rainfed) food palawija crops crops/year Land units on map and area ha LUT 1.1.1 LUT 1.2.2 LUT 1.2.3 LUT 1.1.4 LUT 1.5 LUT 2.1 LUT 2.2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 etc.

10 15 6 34 25 18 20

N1m N1m N1m N1m S1 S2m N2

S3m S3m N1m N1m S1 S2m N2

S2m S2m S2t N1m S1 S1 N2

S1 S1 S2t N1m S1 S1 N2

S3rm S3rm S3rm S2d S2r N1d N2

S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 S1 N2

S1 S1 S2p S1 S1 S1 N2

1/ LUT numbers refer to Table 11. 8.2.1 Form of report Land evaluation will be only one of the aspects covered in a pre-feasibility or feasibility report. The form of the report required has been outlined in Guidelines for the Preparation of Irrigation and Drainage Projects, (FAO 1983). It is necessary to bear in mind the different categories of readers who will use the report, ranging from the general reader who wants the whole picture in a few pages, to the specialist who will scrutinize the detailed aspects of his speciality. There are no hard and fast rules as to the form that a project preparation report must take, but most major external financing agencies prefer to receive a relatively short Main Report of about 40 pages on a project, which is supported liberally by annexes containing relevant data, detailed descriptive material, land evaluation reports and maps, preliminary designs, specifications and cost estimates, and other background material. The Main Report should begin with a short executive summary of the project's salient features for administrators and politicians without the inclination or time to read the following chapters. Alternatively, an Executive Summary can be presented as a separate document including summary maps showing the 'provisionally-irrigable' or 'irrigable' areas and the irrigation and drainage layout. A suggested sequence of chapters in a Main Report is as follows. The chapter contents are indicated in Table 31. Summary and Conclusions I. Introduction II. Background III. Project Rationale IV. The Project Area V. Project Design Considerations VI. The Project VII. Organization and Management VIII. Agricultural Development and Production IX. Markets, Prices and Financial Results X. Benefits and Environmental Impact XI. Outstanding. Issues and Follow-up A typical set of Annexes to accompany a Main Report is presented below although the number of volumes and their titles will vary from project to project.

1. Surface Water Resources 2. Groundwater Resources 3. Land Evaluation Report and Maps 4. Irrigated Agricultural Development 5. Engineering (Dam and Diversions) 6. Engineering (Conveyance System) 7. Capital and Recurrent Costs 8. Project Institutions 9. Marketing and Prices 10. Financial Results 11. Economic Analysis The nature and extent of annexes should be such that they anticipate and answer questions likely to be asked by both the appraisal team and the implementing agency. These aspects are further discussed in Chapter 9. Table 31 TYPICAL CHAPTERS AND CONTENTS LIST FOR A MAIN IRRIGATION PROJECT REPORT
Summary and Conclusions I. INTRODUCTION Origins of the project Agencies involved Context of the project BACKGROUND National setting Agricultural sector Irrigation subsector Previous related projects PROJECT RATIONALE Development opportunities Development constraints Selection of priorities Project concept THE PROJECT AREA General characterization Physical characteristics Present land use and agriculture The local economy Social features Institutions PROJECT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Land evaluation and classification Water supply engineering THE PROJECT Project description Proposed works and other project components Water supply and demand Project implementation and schedule Cost estimates Financing Procurement

II.

III.

IV.

V.

VI.

VII. ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

The irrigation authority Agricultural supporting services Project design and construction Monitoring and evaluation Operation and maintenance Training VIII. AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION Strategy for future agricultural development Acceptibility of proposed techniques Inputs Crop yields and production IX. MARKETS, PRICES AND FINANCIAL RESULTS Markets and prices Financial results (farm level) Financial analysis (enterprise level) Cost recovery BENEFITS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Economic benefits and risks Social benefits and risks Environmental impact ISSUES AND FOLLOW-UP Outstanding issues Measures to be taken before appraisal

X.

XI.

9. The role of land evaluation in project appraisal and implementation

9.1 Feasibility appraisal 9.2 Project implementation and monitoring

9.1 Feasibility appraisal

Most major investment agencies require that the completed feasibility study be subject to a review by an Appraisal Mission. Following completion and submission of the project proposals, a review carried out by the Appraisal Mission leads to the final decisions as to whether the project should be implemented, modified or rejected. The main purpose of the Appraisal is to confirm that the project is: - in conformity with the country's development objectives and immediate priorities; - technically sound, and the best of the available alternatives under existing technical and other constraints; - administratively workable; - unlikely to affect the environment adversely.

The Appraisal Mission prepares a report that provides technical, economic and financial justification of the proposed and revised project, for review by the donor agency management and for loan negotiations with the borrower. Commonly, modifications and 'conditions' are agreed at this stage, prior to funding and implementation. The report of the Appraisal Mission is a comprehensive, concise document that deals with the following aspects of the feasibility study: i. the government's policies for agricultural development and particularly for irrigation development, insofar as they are relevant to the delineation of the area to be irrigated; ii. the physical resource base as reported in the land evaluation studies and the cropping, irrigation and management proposals; iii. the socio-economic examination of the people in the project area to ensure that the proposed development is appropriate to their attitudes and abilities, and that the facilities will be utilized; iv. the engineering options for irrigating and draining the project land, and of their phasing, in order to ensure that the most economical but realistic solution is selected; v. the preliminary design of, and a construction schedule for both civil and on-farm works, in order to demonstrate their suitability and to estimate their costs (and the phasing of those costs) and operational characteristics; vi. the scheduling of the land use changes in agriculture (size and type of farm enterprise, land use, changes in crops and their yields) on the basis of physical and human resources, marketing possibilities and forecast prices; vii. the phasing of the various measures and inputs necessary to achieve the agricultural plan; viii. the management and organization necessary to construct, commission, operate and manage the project, within the projected time schedule; xi. the financial returns to the farmers and to the operating authority; the extent of cost recovery by the government; the economic benefit to the country and the environmental impact of the project. The scrutiny of the land evaluation reports and maps and the Appraisal Mission's findings on how the results of the land evaluation were used in the formulation of the project plan, are important aspects of its work. In general, the Appraisal Mission examines: a. the data base on which the land evaluation is founded; b. the description of alternative LUTs and the reasons for the choice of cropping, irrigation and management systems; c. the selection of class-determining factors and the specification of land use requirements and limitations;

d. the relative importance or 'Significance' accorded to the class-determining factors in the choice of land suitability classes and subclasses; e. the consistency of mapping the 'provisionally-irrigable' area and the considerations that were decisive in delineating the suitable land; f. the revision of the land suitability maps to delineate the 'irrigable' area, the incorporation of the results of drainage and other studies, and the revision of the boundaries of land units on the basis of water supply considerations and NIIB; g. the liaison between engineers, economists, agronomists, social scientists, and other disciplines in reaching decisions on the proposals. The Appraisal report is an independant assessment of the project with necessary revisions of the feasibility study proposals. It is an essential preliminary prior to funding the detailed design and implementation.

9.2 Project implementation and monitoring

Land evaluation reports and maps are used during the detailed design of engineering works and in the layout of farms and fields. During the implementation of a project, Supervision Missions representing the investor, normally review progress periodically and provide the authority for changes in the execution of the project, where necessary. The principal role of the Supervision Mission is to ascertain that the project is executed and operated as set forth in the loan documents, but revisions may be required as a result of unforeseen circumstances. Essentially, development is a process of learning from experience and it is necessary to adapt and update land evaluation reports, maps and the plans based on them from time to time. Irrigation projects always need to be monitored to ensure their continued success. Feasibility studies and Appraisal Reports will contain recommendations for monitoring and some of these will be derived from the land evaluation studies. Monitoring of the groundwater table, soil salinity and sodicity, water supply and use, and other changeable land characteristics are cautionary measures that serve to warn of adverse changes in the dynamic environment. If unfavourable trends become apparent, remedial action through management or other changes can be implemented. In the event of major changes in cropping, irrigation or management because of changed economic circumstances or government policies, the land evaluation process can be reinitiated using the existing inventories of land resources. The rehabilitation of irrigation projects that have declined because of poor management, social or economic changes, or environmental degradation, should likewise be preceded by a re-evaluation of the land suitability, to ensure that the rehabilitation measures are well suited to the physical, social and economic conditions prevailing.

10. The US bureau of reclamation land classification system

10.1 Principles 10.2 USBR terminology

10.3 Financial and economic considerations 10.4 Land classes and subclasses of the USBR system 10.5 the USBR mapping symbols 10.6 USBR land classification specifications

Sophisticated methods of land classification for irrigated agriculture were first evolved by the United States Bureau of Reclamation in the 1920s and 1930s. Many of the principles underlying the USBR system have been incorporated in the FAO Framework for Land Evaluation and in this bulletin. The purpose of this Chapter is to summarize the main features of the USBR system and highlight where this differs from the FAO system. The USBR classification system for irrigated land is carried out in the context of a project plan and with respect to the land uses defined under the project plan, which may be broadly or narrowly defined. There is no formal system for defining land utilization types as in the FAO Framework; instead these are implied in the plan formulation. The USBR classification system incorporates broad economic considerations from the start, as is also recommended in this publication. This is important because irrigation projects generally involve costly inputs and improvements such as engineering works, irrigation and drainage networks, land clearing and levelling, and others.

10.1 Principles
The USBR Reclamation Manual (1951) and subsequent Reclamation Instructions lists the following principles of the USBR classification system: i. Prediction: The classification should reflect future conditions as they will exist after the project is implemented. This recognizes that changes will occur in relationships between soils, water and crops as a result of irrigation and land improvements and that the classifier should use the classes to indicate whether these changes are likely to be favourable or unfavourable. ii. Economic correlation: This assumes that a unique relationship can be established during a classification, between physical conditions of the land such as soils, topography and drainage and an economic measure of the class ranges. The measure used is payment capacity, i.e. the residual available to defray the cost of water after all other costs have been met by the farmers. iii. Permanent and changeable factors: The classifier must distinguish between permanent factors, such as soil texture, soil depth, macrorelief, etc., and changeable factors, such as salinity, ESP, pH, microrelief, nutrient status, water table levels, etc. Thus the survey and classification are directed to determining which inputs and improvements to changeable factors are cost effective. iv. Arability-irrigability: Land which is physically and economically capable of providing a farmer with an adequate standard of living, should water be available for irrigation, is first classified. Such land is called 'arable' (connoting a different meaning of the word to that in common usage). Arable lands constitute areas that warrant consideration for inclusion in a plan of development. Lands which are selected for inclusion in the plan of

development are called 'irrigable' lands. This dual-stage procedure is copied in this publication in the successive classification of 'provisionally-irrigable' and 'irrigable' land.

10.2 USBR terminology

Precise meanings are attached to the use of the following terms in the USBR classification system: Arable land is land which, in adequately sized units and properly provided with the essential improvements of levelling, drainage, irrigation facilities, and the like, would have a productive capacity, under sustained irrigation, sufficient to: i. meet all production expenses, including irrigation operation and maintenance costs, and provide a reasonable return on the farm investment; ii. provide a reasonable repayment contribution toward the cost of project facilities; iii. provide a satisfactory standard of living for the farm family. Irrigable land is land initially classified as arable (potentially irrigable) that is subsequently found to be economically justified (benefits exceed costs) under a specific plan of development which includes the water and other facilities necessary for sustained irrigation. Productive land is the maximum hectarage of irrigable land subject to cropping; a measure that provides a basis for the determination of water requirements, canal capacities and payment capacities. For conditions in Western USA the productive area is about 3 to 6% less than the irrigable area because of non-productive land uses such as farm roads, farm laterals and drains, irrigation structures, fences, buildings, and feed lots. Full irrigation service land is irrigable land which will receive its full water supply from one source. Supplementary irrigation service land is irrigable land now receiving, or to receive, an additional or regulated supply of water through new facilities. Gross classification area is the area mapped and classified in a given survey. Land class is a category of land that produces a standard payment capacity in financial rather than economic terms. This is the definition used in practice in the USA. Arrangements for on-farm development costs and project repayment vary substantially among developing nations and, in contrast to the USA, are often not firmly established prior to project investigations. Therefore, since the ultimate classification of irrigable lands under an economically justified plan of development would be the same for the classes retained in the plan, whether the initial classification is based on farm financial analysis (farmer's repayment ability) or an economic analysis (irrigation benefits), it could be time-saving and appropriate for international situations to employ a uniform economic evaluation approach to land classification studies at the outset of investigations. Farm financial and project repayment considerations can be evaluated and arranged as may be necessary after an economically justified project plan has been formulated. This approach would simply reverse the order of accommodating the two principal concerns of irrigation suitability investigations, 'financial viability' and

'economic justification', from that employed by the US Bureau of Reclamation. In the end, essentially the same classification of 'irrigable' land should result from either approach. Land subclass is a category within the class identifying a deficiency or deficiencies, and is indicated by a letter (i.e. s for soil, t for topography, and d for drainage). Informative appraisals are investigations of selected physical factors to provide needed information for the planning, development and operation of irrigation projects. The investigations may be of present land use, productivity, existing land development, farm water requirements, etc. or informative appraisals of drainability and topography.

10.3 Financial and economic considerations

Great importance is given in the USBR classification system to farm budget studies and the concept of payment capacity in the determination of arable lands. The land of lowest quality that can be classified as 'arable' is specified as early in the investigations as possible. In the USA the minimum is prescribed by a law which states that irrigable lands shall be classified with respect to their power under a proper agricultural programme to support a farm family and pay water charges (Reclamation Law, 1924). Accordingly, the minimal quality lands have been defined as those capable of supporting a farm family and paying at least the annual operation, maintenance and replacement costs expected to prevail when the project comes into operation. Hence, in the initial arability classification land classes are an expression of relative differences in payment capacity - a financial rather than an economic measure. The selection of lands for irrigation is phased into two parts: - the selection of arable land on the basis of farm production financial considerations; - selection of the irrigable area on the basis of the economics of the project plan, wherein irrigation benefits determined by economic evaluation equal or exceed project irrigation costs. Satisfactory farm production finance is clearly essential for sustained irrigated agriculture. The application of economics to the project as a whole facilitates the principles of optimum design or scale, and net benefit maximization. In the case of multipurpose projects, the project plan may be formulated to allocate water to irrigation, hydroelectric power, municipal and industrial water supplies, and other purposes. The irrigable area is thus selected in relation to the water allocated to irrigation and to the size and location of the distribution and drainage systems. The application of project plan formulation criteria generally leads to successive reductions of 'arable' land from the plan of development. Typical adjustments include: i. the elimination of uneconomic increments such as those that are too costly to serve, drain or provide with distribution works; ii. the adjustment of land areas to the available water supply and the elimination of tracts located above the water delivery elevations or elevations that can be irrigated economically by lift;

iii. exclusion of isolated segments, odd-shaped tracts, severed areas and public rightsof-way; iv. elimination of areas unable to meet minimal criteria for economic returns under the plan. The selection of lands is thus fundamentally guided by criteria requiring the selected lands to: a. be included in a plan having a favourable benefit/cost relationship; b. have sufficient amortization capacity to pay assigned construction charges; c. have ability to meet anticipated annual operation, maintenance and replacement charges. Based on farm budget studies and a knowledge of the estimated annual operation, maintenance and replacement (OM & R) charges for water to the farm, an estimate can be made of the maximum amount of money that should be spent in developing land for irrigation (permissible land development costs). For example, assume that a farm budget showed a payment capacity of $20 per acre for the best Class 1 land in the project area. Also assume that the annual OM & R charges are estimated to be $7.50. The latter charge is used as the minimal payment capacity for any land to be included in the irrigation project. The difference in payment capacity between the best land and the minimal quality land ($20.00 - $7.50 = $12.50) is the permissible land development cost. At 6% interest the $12.50 difference in payment capacity would be equal to the annual interest on approximately $208. Thus, if the productivity of unlevel terrain once levelled would equal that of the Class 1 land, up to $208 per acre could be expended for land development work before the land would no longer be regarded as financially suited for irrigation development. Such lands requiring development costs in excess of average Class 1 development costs, but within the additional $208 per acre limit would be downgraded to a lower arable class in relation to development cost ranges determined from the payment classes illustrated below. Any lands may be included in the arable category as long as the resulting payment capacity equals or exceeds $7.50 in this particular example. Class ranges might be set at unequal or equal ranges of payment capacity e.g.
Class 1: $20.00 - $15.84 Class 2: $15.83 - $11.67 Class 3: $11.66 - $ 7.50

10.4 Land classes and subclasses of the USBR system

Six land classes based on production economics are normally recognized. Brief descriptions are as follows: Class 1 - Arable: Lands that are highly suitable for irrigated farming, being capable of sustained and relatively high yield of climatically adapted crops at reasonable cost. These lands have a relatively high payment capacity. Class 2 - Arable: Lands that have a moderate suitability for irrigated farming. These are either adaptable to a narrower range of crops, more expensive to develop for irrigation, or less productive than Class 1. Potentially these lands have intermediate payment capacity.

Class 3 - Arable: Lands that have a marginal suitability for irrigated farming. They are less suitable than Class 2 lands and usually have either a serious single deficiency or a combination of several moderate deficiencies in soil, topography, or drainage properties. Although greater risk may be involved in farming these lands than those of Class 1 and 2, under proper management they are expected to have adequate payment capacity. Class 4 - Special use lands: Lands which in the USA are only suited to certain special uses (e.g. rice, pasture, or fruit) are classified 1, 2 or 3 (to reflect relative payment capacity) along with the appropriate letter designating the land use (crop). Class 5 - Non-arable: This land is temporarily considered as non-arable because of some specific deficiency such as excessive salinity, questionable drainage, flooding, or other deficiency which requires further studies to resolve. The deficiency or deficiencies are of such a nature and magnitude that special agronomic, economic, or engineering studies are required to resolve the costs or effect on the land. Class 5 designation is tentative and should be changed to either Class 6 or an arable classification during formulation of the recommended plan of development. Class 6 - Non-arable: Land that is non-arable under the existing or project economic conditions associated with the proposed project development. Generally, Class 6 comprises steep, rough, broken, rocky, or badly eroded lands, or lands with inadequate drainage, or other deficiencies. In some instances lands considered to be Class 6 in one area may be arable in another area because of different economic conditions. In addition to various physical-type deficiencies that result in a non-arable classification, lands initially classified as arable (potentially irrigable) on the basis of payment capacity (farm financial analysis) may be found non-arable if subsequent economic analysis (benefit analysis) indicates that benefits from such lands are less than their costs in a plan of development. Thus, the lower arable class(es) of lands would be considered non-arable and, of course, non-irrigable for economic reasons. Subclasses are indicated by lower case letters that indicate the reason for the land being downgraded to a lower class. Thus, Class 1 land does not have subclasses, but other classes may be appended with the letters 's', 't', and 'd', singly or in combination to show whether the deficiency is in 'soils', 'topography' or 'farm drainage'. The basic subclasses of the land classes are s, t, d, st, sd, td and std. A comparison of the FAO Framework and the USBR classification described above, is given in Appendix 1, Figure A.1.

10.5 the USBR mapping symbols

Typically, the mapping symbols employed by the USBR take the form given in Figure 5. The class and subclass symbols on the top of the line have already been described. The other symbols may be used as required but the rules for their use are set up for each individual classification study; however, the rules must be consistently obeyed throughout any one study. Land use codes, such as: C - irrigated cultivated, L - unirrigated cultivated, P irrigated permanent grassland, W - wasteland, etc. can be used, or a symbol may be used to specify a crop.

Productivity and land development codes: Productivity connotes the interaction of the economic factors of productive capacity and costs of production, but excludes land development costs. Thus, in the example given, Class 2 relative productivity and Class 2 land development cost (symbol 22 in the denominator) results in an overall land class 3 in the numerator. Farm water requirement code: The symbols A, B and C may indicate whether the soil, topographic and drainage conditions, land use, method of irrigation, etc. from informative appraisal, are low, medium or high, respectively, in farm water requirement relative to the average for the surrounding area. Land drainability code: This normally relates to conditions below a depth of 5 ft (150 cms): X - good drainability, Y - restricted drainability, and Z - poor or negligible drainability. Figure 5 Example of standard mapping symbol used by USBR Additional symbols may be added as in the example to indicate special conditions where data are required for farm unit planning and land development. They can be further qualified with subscript numerals to indicate a range in character; e.g. k1, k2, k3 might indicate ranges of depth to gravel.

10.6 USBR land classification specifications

Seven examples of land class specifications prepared by the USBR are given in FAO Soils Bulletin No. 42. Land class specifications express the anticipated influence of various mappable physical factors on the projected productivity level, cost of production and cost of land development. Parameters established within land classes for the pertinent soil, topographic, or drainage factors should represent approximately the same range of influence in evaluating irrigation suitability. Thus the range of slope or amount of levelling selected for Class 1 land should represent about the same influence on suitability for irrigation as the range of soil depth or farm drainage requirement permitted in this class. In the USA, correlation of the study area with nearby irrigated farms is nearly always possible and provides the best means of relating various physical parameters to measured production levels if soil and other environmental and management conditions are similar. Relative yield levels are first established and physical specifications thought to be correlated with these yield levels are developed. Farm budgets are used to evaluate the relative impact of each selected physical characteristic on net income and as a basis for calculating the maximum permissible development cost for each of the arable land classes, as earlier described. Farm budgets are usually first developed for the best soil, topographic and drainage conditions on the proposed project area, and the relative yield is taken to be 100%. Costs used for land development on this land include a nominal amount for ditches, diversion structures, farm drains, and smoothing; these costs are budgeted for all land classes. All other development cost estimates should reflect costs above the amount needed for the best quality land. As discussed in Section 10.3, the lower limit is also established. This varies among projects because OM & R charges vary due to

differences in the lengths of project distribution and drainage systems, required lifts, power, seasonal water demand, and for other reasons. A preliminary estimate of water costs is normally essential in establishing a lower cutoff point for arable land in monetary terms before deciding the lowest acceptable productivity level for the least productive soil. For example, the lower limit of arability in one project may be only half of the productivity required in another project due to lower water costs. Different physical specifications of Class 3 lands are then developed. Thus lower quality soil and rougher topography can be profitably used in areas having low cost water or where high value crops are to be grown. Figure 4a Map of the Southern Conveyor Project, Cyprus, showing the "provisionallyirrigable" land in the study area - Carte du Projet de collecteur dans la partie mridionale de Chypre, indiquant les terres "conditionnellement irrigables" dans la zone tudie Mapa del Proyecto del Colector Sur, en Chipre, con indicacin de las tierras "potencialmente regables" en la zona del estudio Figure 4b The same map showing the "irrigable" land - Mme carte indiquant les terres "irrigables - El mismo mapa con indicacin de las tierras "regables"

Part two - Developing the specifications and critical limits of classdetermining factors
The factors that determine how suitable a land unit is for a given LUT or farming system, are called 'class-determining' factors. Table 12, in Chapter 4 lists individual factors that may be selected as 'class-determining' according to whether they affect: A. The crop (i.e. agronomic factors effecting yields or production) B. Management C. Land development or land improvements D. Conservation and the environment E. Socio-economic conditions Each of the 32 factors listed in Table 12, and their interactions, are discussed serially in Part Two, in five sections headed alphabetically with the titles as above. The 32 factors retain their alphabetical prefix as in Table 12, e.g. B begins with number 14, and C with 19, etc. Part Two is intended to help in decisions needed for Steps 3 - 5 of the Guide to Procedures (Chapter 3), namely; i. Which factors are 'class-determining'? ii. What critical limits best specify, for individual class-determining factors, the requirements and limitations of a LUT, for s1, s2, s3, n1 and n2 levels of suitability? These critical limits are the specifications entered on Format 1 as described in Steps 4 and 5. It is recommended that critical limits are first specified factor by factor. The number of class-determining factors under review will be progressively shortened during the evaluation; or their influences will be aggregated into estimates of crop yields,

production, or as costs and benefits. As explained in Chapter 6, it is essential, after establishing factor ratings for individual factors or groups of factors, to estimate the interactions (see Section 6.2), and the 'significance' (Section 6.3) of each factor or interaction. These should always contribute to a decision on which land suitability class (S1, S2, S3, N1 or N2) is appropriate for a given land unit - LUT combination. Hence the critical limits of all previously listed class-determining factors do not necessarily constitute the specifications of land suitability classes. Some factors may prove of overriding importance, and others can be relegated to the status of not being 'classdetermining'. Thus S1 land should have factor ratings of s1 for the most important factor(s), but it can include lower factor ratings (s2, s3 or even n1) if these factors are deemed as not being 'class-determining' in the final stage of the evaluation. In the early stages of the evaluation, it is important that critical limits are thought out in terms of the requirements and limitations of the cropping, irrigation and management systems under consideration. Crops require radiation, suitable temperatures, a continuous supply of water and nutrients, a suitable environment for root growth, suitable conditions for irrigation or for harvesting, mechanization, post-harvest ripening, etc. Conversely, crops are variously limited by their susceptibilities or tolerances to excess water, excess salts or toxicities, deficiencies, pests, frost, storms, etc. Similarly, irrigation methods, such as surface, sprinkler or drip, have their different requirements and limitations, as do management systems (e.g. manual vs. mechanized). It is important to decide which of the land use requirements and limitations are 'classdetermining'. An approach via requirements and limitations will encourage the land evaluator to think about land characteristics and the need for inputs or land improvements with a view to achieving the best match between the conditions of the land and the land use. The most relevant and influential land characteristics, inputs and land improvements can then be pinpointed in terms of their impact on the land use requirements and limitations. For simplicity, the process can later be short-circuited by listing Class specifications which are both rational and practicable in terms of the physical or economic measure of land suitability class. In developing critical limits of each factor leading to Class specifications, it is important to bear in mind the implications of translating physical productivity, inputs and land improvements into economic terms. Thus, where possible, benefits and costs associated with individual factors should be worked out in detail. In practice, during the early stages of an evaluation, factor ratings s1, s2, s3, n1 and n2 may be used to indicate levels of production and development benefits and costs. These may be improved as quantitative data becomes available during the course of the investigations. Note the definitions of the terms s1, s2, s3, n1 and n2 given in Table 13. The list of 32 factors discussed hereunder, while comprehensive, is not intended to be exclusive, and the land evaluator should feel free to modify or regroup the factors as is convenient for any given evaluation. Care should be taken in so doing, not to double count the same aspect twice under different headings. The divisions and grouping of factors in Part Two are for convenience only and, in practice, interactions may prove of great importance. These should be recognized and handled appropriately for the given evaluation.

A. Agronomic factors
A.1 Growing cycle and growing period A.2 Radiation A.3 Temperature A.4 Rooting A.5 Aeration A.6 Water quantity A.7 Nutrients (NPK) A.8 Water quality A.9 Salinity A.10 Sodicity A.11 pH, micronutrients and toxicities A.12 Pests, diseases and weeds A.13 Flood, storm, wind and frost

Crop Requirements and Limitations The Crop Environment Factors that are principally agronomic are discussed under thirteen headings in this section; these are: growing cycle and growing period; radiation; temperature; rooting; aeration; water quantity; nutrients (NPK); water quality; salinity; sodicity, boron and chloride toxicities; pH, micronutrients and other toxicities; pests, diseases and weeds; flood, storm, wind and frost. Some aspects impinging on management are inevitably included; in such cases these management considerations are excluded from Section B (Management).

A.1 Growing cycle and growing period

A.1.1 Critical limits of growing period

The growing cycle is the period required for an annual crop to complete its annual cycle of establishment, growth and production of harvested part. Perennial crops have growing cycles of more than one year. The growing period for annual crops is the duration of the year when temperature, soil. water supply and other factors permit crop growth and development. Thus, a growing cycle is a property of the crop (i.e. a crop requirement) whereas a growing period is a condition of the land (i.e. a land quality or land characteristic). The growing period is a major determinant of land suitability for crops and cultivars on a worldwide and continental scale as described in FAO, 1978a. Tables 32 and 33

illustrate the concept. Within a project development area, growing periods often vary due to variable temperature, water supply and rainfall characteristics. In subtropical and temperate climates, there are winter and summer growing periods due to seasonal temperature changes. For example, in lower Egypt, temperate crops such as berseem clover, wheat, barley and beans are grown in the winter and crops with higher temperature requirements such as cotton, rice and maize are grown during the summer. Normally, these seasonal temperature variations will not be classdetermining. Thus LUTs can be described for the rotational cropping system spanning the winter and summer growing periods. In hilly areas where temperatures vary with altitude, or where frost occurs in valley bottoms, the growing period may be considered 'class-determining', also where water supplies vary from place to place. The period during which irrigation water supplies are available determines the growing period in many countries. Irrigation projects in south east Asia, or in Middle Eastern countries relying on run-of-river or spate storm flows can include land on which the growing period and the period of irrigation may vary from 12 months of the year to a few months a year. Such variations may be 'class-determining' where they exist within one project area. Growing periods can be constrained by wet or humid conditions that limit opportunities for ripening and drying the crop, or which lead to problems of quality (e.g. reduced sugar content of sugarcane, staining of cotton, blemishes on fruits, etc.). Table 32 MAJOR CLIMATES Compare Table 33
Major climates during growing period No. Tropics All months with monthly mean temperatures, corrected to sea level, above 18C 1 2 3 4 Subtropics 5 One or more months with monthly mean temperatures, corrected 6 to sea level, below 18C but all months above 5C 7 8 Descriptive name Warm tropics Moderately cool tropics Cool tropics Cold tropics Warm/moderately cool subtropics (summer rainfall) Warm/moderately cool subtropics (summer rainfall) Warm subtropics (summer rainfall) Moderately cool subtropics (summer rainfall) Cool subtropics (summer rainfall) 24 hr mean (daily) Suitable for temperature (C) consideration for regime during the crop group (Table growing period 33) More than 20 15-20 5/10 - 15 Less than 5 More than 20 II and III I and IV I Not suitable II and III

Climate

15 - 20

I and IV

More than 20 15 - 20

II and III I and IV

5/10 - 20 Less than 5

I Not suitable

10 Cold subtropics (summer rainfall)

11 Cool subtropics (winter rainfall) 12 Cold subtropics (winter rainfall) Temperate 13 Cool temperate One or more months with 14 Cold temperate monthly mean temperatures, corrected to sea level, below 5 C

5/10 - 20 Less than 5 5/10 - 20 Less than 5

I Not suitable I Not suitable

Source: FAO 1980c, p. 355; Higgins and Kassam 1981. Table 33 CROP ADAPTABILITY GROUPS, BASED ON PHOTOSYNTHETIC PATHWAY AND RESPONSE TO RADIATION AND TEMPERATURE Compare Table 32
Crop adaptability group Photo-synthetic pathway Optimum temperature for photosynthesis (C) I C3 15-20 Sugarbeet Phaseolus Wheat Barley Oats Potato Bean (TE) Chickpea II C3 25-30 Soybean (TR) Phaseolus Rice Cassava Sweet Potato Yams Bean (TR) Groundnut Cotton Tobacco Banana Coconut Rubber Oil palm III C4 30-35 Sorghum (TR) Maize (TR) Pearl millet Panicum Millet (TR) Finger millet Setaria Sugarcane IV C4 20-30 Panicum Millet (TE, TH) Sorghum (TE, TH) Maize (TE, TH) Setaria V CAM 25-35 Sisal Pineapple

TE = Temperate cultivars; TR = Tropical (lowland) cultivars; TH = Tropical (highland) cultivars. Source: Based on information extracted from FAO 1978a and FAO 1980c. A.1.1 Critical limits of growing period Method 1: General Method (FAO 1978a) This approach is useful in reconnaissance studies or low intensity investigations especially where the need for irrigation is to be evaluated. It is based on mean daily temperature (T), precipitation (P), and the potential evapotranspiration (PET) to produce data such as is illustrated in Figure 6. Data for 10-day periods or months can be used, or monthly data can be converted into data for 10-day periods. The procedure is:

i. Temperature constraint: The growing period is confined to 10-day periods in which mean daily temperature equals or exceeds a minimum temperature (e.g. 5C). ii. Beginning of the growing period: Under rainfed conditions this is taken as the time at which precipitation equals or exceeds half the potential evapotranspiration. iii. Humid period: Under rainfed conditions a normal growing period must include at least one 10-day humid period defined as a period in which rainfall exceeds potential evapotranspiration. iv. End of the rains: This can be taken as the time at which precipitation falls below half the potential evapotranspiration. v. End of growing period: The growing period ends when the reserve of water stored in the soil following the cessation of rainfall and irrigation is depleted. Figure 6 Examples of four types of growing period (under rainfed conditions which might be modified by irrigation) - Normal

Figure 6 Examples of four types of growing period (under rainfed conditions which might be modified by irrigation) - Intermediate

Figure 6 Examples of four types of growing period (under rainfed conditions which might be modified by irrigation) - All year round humid

Figure 6 Examples of four types of growing period (under rainfed conditions which might be modified by irrigation) - All year round dry

a - Beginning of rains and growing period b1 and b2 - Start and end of humid period respectively c - End of rains and rainy season d - End of growing period P - Precipitation PET - Potential evapotranspiration (after FAO 1978a) Isolines for growing periods on a continental scale are published in the results of the Agro-ecological Zones Project (FAO 1978/80/81). These are generalized to meet the constraints of the scale of publication. For more intensive studies, isolines of growing period may be drawn at 75-day, 90-day and then at 30-day intervals up to 365 days. These can be drawn for the existing agriculture and for the agriculture anticipated after supplemental irrigation. The growing periods may indicate the need for one or two crops in succession, or for different cultivars of the same crop. Method 2: Rainfall Related Events (Stern and Coe 1982) This approach is useful if the growing period depends on seasonal and year-to-year variations in rainfall.

This method relies on an analysis of daily rainfall for individual years of the rainfall record. The distinctive feature of the method is that each year provides one number for any event or characteristic of interest. The event is defined by the user, i.e. as a set of rainfall characteristics that could, for example, define a dry period, the start of the rains, the end of the rains, the length of the growing period between the start and end of the rains, or the distribution of rainfall amounts throughout the year. Each event in each year is listed (e.g. as the day or period of occurrence). An estimate of the probability of an event occurring can then be made directly from its relative frequency of occurrence or, alternatively, a distribution (such as the normal) can be fitted. A further development of this method is to compute a daily soil water balance sheet on the best obtainable information. This balance sheet can show the soil water content between a defined field capacity water content (upper boundary) and permanent wilting point (lower boundary) according to the daily gains and losses of water. Figure 7 illustrates the output of such a method for a permeable soil showing that growing periods under rainfed conditions vary from season to season and year to year. The use of this method is facilitated by computer technology but the data can be processed equally well by hand (Stern and Coe 1982) if computers are not available. One of the main advantages over more general methods is that conditions in individual extreme years can be identified from the historical rainfall record. Figure 7 Computed available soil water for 1965-78, based on daily rainfall, field capacity and permanent wilting point of Kilinochchi chromic luvisol, with 304 mm (12 inches) of available water in 250 cm rooting depth, and an evapotranspiration of 5 mm (0.2 inches) per day

Source: Robertson and Eavis 1983

A.2 Radiation
Three relevant aspects of radiation are (i) daylength, (ii) its influence on photosynthesis and dry matter accumulation in crops, and (iii) its effects on evapotranspiration. Radiation levels may also be important in the drying and ripening of crops, but this is evaluated under heading B.17. Daylength may be a relevant class-determining factor in evaluations carried out at low intensity across different latitudes as already discussed under 'Growing Period' (Tables 32 and 33). Daylength affects photoperiod-sensitive cultivars of crops such as rice, influencing floral initiation and the onset or length of vegetative and reproductive phases of growth and development. The interaction of daylength with water availability or temperature can sometimes prove 'class-determining' at project level (e.g. in influencing the flowering of sugarcane, flowering and fruiting of mangoes, and in the bulbing and ripening of onions, etc.).

The influence of radiation on photosynthesis and dry matter accumulation in crops has been reviewed by Monteith (1972). The relationships for C3 and C4 crops differ as indicated in Table 33. The components of the radiation balance that may be used to define critical limits are shown in Figure 8, and as follows: Figure 8 Illustration of the radiation balance

Source: FAO 1977b i. Extraterrestrial radiation (Ra) received at the top of the atmosphere. This is dependent on latitude and time of year. ii. Solar radiation (Rs) is that part of the extraterrestrial radiation which is not absorbed and scattered when passing through the atmosphere, together with some of the scattered radiation that also reaches the earth's surface. A proportion of this radiation (about 50%) is photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) (Szeicz 1974). Values of solar radiation can be obtained from direct measurements or approximated by using: Rs = (0.25 + 0.05 n/N) Ra, where n is the actual bright sunshine hours (e.g. measured with a Campbell Stokes solarimeter) and M is the maximum possible sunshine hours for a given month and latitude (given in standard tables, e.g. see FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 24, 1977b). iii. Net shortwave solar radiation (Rns): Part of the solar radiation (Rs) is reflected back directly by the soil and crop and is lost to the atmosphere. Reflection depends on the nature of the surface cover and is approximately 5% for water and 20-25% for many

green-leafed crops. That which remains after losses by reflection is the net shortwave radiation, Rns. To obtain the net shortwave radiation, the solar radiation must be corrected for the reflectivity of the crop surface with: Rns = (1 - ) Rs For example, for green crops covering the ground, the value of a is taken as 0.25 and Rns is 75% of the solar radiation. iv. Net longwave radiation (Rnl,) is the difference between outgoing and incoming longwave radiation. Outgoing radiation is usually greater than incoming longwave radiation so that additional losses at the earth's surface occur because of longwave radiation; thus net longwave radiation represents an energy loss. This can be determined from temperature, vapour pressure (ed), and the ratio n/N (actual to possible hours of bright sunshine). Values for the functions f(t), f(ed), and f(n/N) are given in FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 24, Tables 15, 16 and 17. v. Total net radiation (Rn) is equal to the difference between net shortwave radiation and net longwave radiation so that: Rn = Rns - Rnl Total net radiation is used in estimating losses of water by evaporation. The unit of Rn =1 cal/cm2/min is approximately equivalent to the energy required to evaporate 1 mm of water per hour. Radiation in S1 units is given as mW/m2 and 1 mW/m2 is required to evaporate 830 nun/day. The vegetative growth of most plants increases linearly with solar radiation up to a limit beyond which no further increase occurs. In many tropical areas, water shortages rather than radiation limit growth and the radiation-limited potential is not attained. However, marked seasonal effects on yields may be evident (e.g. in the Philippines and other south east Asian countries, irrigated modern rice varieties plentifully supplied with water, yield more in the dry season than in the overcast wet season). In temperate countries, radiation is one of the most dominant growth-limiting factors in winter months and land characteristics such as aspect may be used to define critical limits, as appropriate. Tables for relating radiation data and sunshine hours to dry matter production rate of a 'standard' crop are given by FAO (1978, 1980, 1981) and Doorenbos and Kassam (in FAO 1979a). These figures, together with temperature and crop phenological data, can be used as a basis for calculating biomass converted to crop yields with respect to radiation for given areas.

A.3 Temperature
Temperature has already been discussed under A.1 Growing Cycle and Growing Period. The growth of most crops ceases below a critical low temperature and very high temperatures (usually above 30 - 35 C) have adverse effects. Crops are divided into five adaptability groups on the basis of their photosynthetic carbon assimilation pathways (C3, C4 or CAM) and according to the effects of radiation and temperature on photosynthesis (see Table 33). Between the minimum temperature for growth and

the optimum temperature for photosynthesis, the rate of growth increases more or less linearly with temperature; the growth rate then reaches a plateau within the optimum temperature range before falling off at higher temperatures, Temperature interacts with radiation; the highest potential for growth is achieved with both radiation and temperatures in the optimal range. In many temperate climates and at high altitudes in tropical countries, the temperature for growth is below optimum during part of the growing season. Critical limits to define s1, s2, s3, n1 and n2 levels of suitability can be specified in terms of ranges of temperature in C, or other units. For example, heat units are sometimes used to indicate seasonal conditions for certain crops, such as cotton, in units of day-degrees accumulated over a growing season.

A.4 Rooting
Plants require water and nutrients, which are conveyed from the soil to the productive parts of the plant through roots. If root growth, or the development or function of a root system is impaired by adverse land characteristics, the growth and yield of the crop may likewise be impaired from lack of water or nutrients. The growth and distribution of roots in the soil may be affected by; i. the supply of assimilates (sugars, etc.) from the shoots and leaves to the roots; ii. soil temperatures; iii. soil water; iv. soil nutrients and the chemical environment including salinity, sodicity, pH, micronutrient deficiencies and toxicities; v. the supply of oxygen to meet oxygen requirements for respiring root tissues: vi. mechanical impedance to root penetration; vii. pests and diseases of the root system. Because of their separate importance in land evaluation, it is convenient to evaluate some of these factors under different headings. Therefore, soil aeration is discussed under A.5, water under A.6, salinity under A.9, sodicity under A.10, pH, micronutrient deficiencies and toxicities under A.11, pests and diseases under A.12, etc. All these factors may affect root growth and root system development or function, as well as the growth of the whole crop. Under the present heading A.4, 'rooting' will signify root room and mechanical impedance. Root room is the space for root development. It can be represented by critical limits of (i) effective soil depth, (ii) volume percent occupied (or not occupied) by stones, or (iii) the impenetrable (or penetrable) soil volume, as appropriate. Root-occupied soil volume varies with time in the case of annual crops developing root systems from

seedling establishment to plant maturity and this process can be slowed by mechanical impedance. Mechanical impedance to root penetration is the force that roots must exert or resistance they must overcome to penetrate the soil. This depends on the soil strength. Root room and mechanical impedance may be 'class-determining' where they vary sufficiently from one land unit to another to produce differences in water and nutrient uptake by crops that affect final yields, production or quality. Effective soil depth and the volume percent of stones are estimated by standard soil survey techniques. The effective soil depth for rooting may be limited by (i) induced hardpans arising as a result of management practices (e.g. heavy traffic or continued soil submergence), (ii) by genetic hardpans such as claypans, siltpans, fragipans, cemented and indurated hardpans, gypsiferous and calcareous hardpans, etc., (iii) by restrictive C or D horizons, (iv) by horizons of low or high pH, with toxic accumulations of aluminium, iron, manganese or sulphidic compounds (low pH), or sodium with carbonates and bicarbonates (high pH). Soil strength and mechanical impedance to root penetration vary with (i) soil texture or grain size distribution, (ii) soil structure or consistency, and (iii) soil water content. Soil strength and resistance to penetration increase as the soil bulk density is increased by compaction, and as the soil becomes drier. For examples of these effects in sands of different grain size and a sandy loam see Eavis (1972a) and Warnaars and Eavis (1972). Mechanical impedance can be estimated with a penetrometer or may be inferred from soil strength measurements or by observations of root systems in soil profile pits (swollen root tips, limited distribution etc.). Triaxial apparatus used in soil mechanics can measure soil strength. A simpler and satisfactory approach is to apply a 'normal' load via a plate to the top of an unconfined soil core placed on the pan of a top-loading balance. The reading of the balance when the soil core fractures is the unconfined soil strength. Alternatively, a small penetrometer made from an inverted pin can be inserted into the soil core, registering the forces resisting penetration as observed on the scale of the top-loading balance. Soil strength and penetrometer measurements must be made at appropriate soil water contents as they are much affected by the wetness of soil. The soil water contents selected should reflect the conditions that plants experience in the field. Soil strength and penetrometer measurements should not be used uncritically. Roots may proliferate through cracks, termite or worm passages and old root channels etc. However, the size of pores that retain water in unsaturated soils are always too small to accommodate roots. Therefore, roots must generally deform the soil in order to penetrate. Critical limits for 'Rooting' using characteristics such as effective soil depth, volume percent of stones, and soil strength, can be established in terms of the requirements of particular crops or cropping systems, using the s1, s2, s3, n1 and n2 levels of suitability with the help of the above suggestions.

A.5 Aeration
Respiring plant roots consume large quantities of oxygen and, on average, at 25C they consume about nine times their volume of oxygen gas each day. The roots of plants that grow under submerged conditions can get little oxygen from the surrounding

soil and water. Flooded rice and some bog plants can obtain their supplies of oxygen mostly by transport through air passages from the aerial parts to the roots (Greenwood 1968). Plants, other than rice and bog plants, must obtain their oxygen mainly through the soil. Thus an adequate supply of oxygen through the soil throughout the growing season is a requirement for many crops. Micro-organisms in the soil also consume large quantities of oxygen, and under anaerobic conditions may produce stimulatory or inhibitory levels of ethylene gas, a plant hormone. In order to reach roots, oxygen diffuses via gas-filled pores and from thence through water films and through the respiring root tissues themselves. Oxygen diffuses 10 000 times more quickly through the gas than through the liquid phase, so that the oxygen concentration at different points throughout the interconnecting network of gas-filled pores is generally fairly uniform. In contrast, concentration gradients of oxygen across the water films and root tissues are large. For this reason, the water content of soils and the thickness of water barriers to oxygen movement around the roots greatly influence oxygen availability. Although deficient aeration can be readily detected in soils from standard soil survey observations such as gley colours, there is no easily measurable property of soil, or reliable instrument, for determining soil aeration status. Gas-filled pore space in field soils changes inversely with soil water content, therefore, computer simulations similar to that described in Figure 7 might be modified to indicate the variable risks of deficient aeration. The duration of periods of saturation may be deduced by computing a daily soil water balance and the periods of heavy rainfall when the soil exceeds field capacity, due to insufficiently rapid drainage. Thus an important characteristic may be soil permeability or the readiness with which the soil transmits water to drainage. This may be affected by either a water table or by a barrier layer with a relatively low permeability or hydraulic conductivity compared with the overlying soil. The resistance to vertical flow (C) through a barrier equals the thickness of the layer divided by its vertical hydraulic conductivity. Critical limits of C can be set between C = 50 or less representing s1 or virtually no barrier, to C = 250 or over which constitutes a real barrier to flow (FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 38, 1980a). The importance of drainage in removing excess water and salts is further discussed in C.21. Sometimes it is important to recognize that adverse effects due to poor aeration in a wet period may be offset by additional growth in a subsequent dry period. This additional growth may result from additional water stored in the soil prior to the drought. In other words, benefits due to additional residual soil water for growth, following the end of a period of waterlogging or soil saturation, compensate for the effects of poor aeration (Eavis 1971). If it is found necessary to investigate possible soil aeration problems for a particular soil, a bio-assay technique suitable for soil cores maintained in the laboratory at a range of the field water contents can be used with pea or other seedlings as a test plant (Eavis 1972). An 'aeration deficiency index' can be established by deviations from the relationship between root extension rate and penetrometer resistance. This can sometimes establish whether deficient aeration or some other factor is responsible for poor growth or suboptimal yields on a particular soil.

Although lack of oxygen is often the principal reason for the adverse effects of poor aeration on crop growth, there may be other equally important influences, which include root and foot rots caused by fungal or bacterial pathogens. These can be 'class-determining' for particular crops; for example, citrus and other fruit trees may be prone to gummosis and other diseases on soils subject to periods of poor aeration. Poor aeration may lead to inefficient use of nitrogen applied in manures and fertilizers. Losses of nitrogen may occur from denitrification and leaching. In evaluating the factor 'Aeration', the management practices and land development requirements for minimizing adverse effects should be considered. Costs of permanent field drains should be evaluated under heading C.21, and the costs of temporary field drains under B.16.

A.6 Water quantity

A.6.1 The significance of water quantity as a class-determining factor A.6.2 Water requirement in relation to water supplies A.6.3 Crop yields and water stress A.6.4 Estimating irrigation and crop water requirements A.6.5 The contribution of rainfall to water requirements in farmers fields (effective rainfall) A.6.6 Seepage and percolation in wetland rice

In quantifying how much water is required for irrigation, it is necessary to distinguish between crop water requirement, net irrigation water requirement, gross irrigation water requirement, and their components as listed below. Water requirements can be expressed in terms of depth of water (mm) or volume (m3), One mm of water depth on one hectare of land equals a volume of 10 m3/ha (i.e. to convert data in mm to m3/ha, multiply by 10). Water quality is discussed under heading A8. Key factors in determining the supply of water to an irrigated crop are shown in Figure 9. Figure 9 Flow diagram of key factors determining the supply of water to an irrigated crop

Source: CSIRO Annual Report 1978/80 i. Crop water requirement is defined as the water necessary to meet the maximum evapotranspiration rate of the crop when soil water is not limiting. ii. Net irrigation water requirement is defined as the water required to meet the crop water requirement, minus contributions in the field by precipitation, run-on, groundwater and stored soil water, plus field losses due to run-off, seepage and percolation.

iii. Gross irrigation water requirement is defined as the net irrigation water requirement, plus conveyance losses between the source of the water and the field, plus any additional water for leaching over and above percolation. iv. Evapotranspiration is the rate of water loss through transpiration from vegetation, plus evaporation from the soil surface or from standing water on the soil surface. The terms reference crop evapotranspiration (ETo), maximum evapotranspiration rate of the crop (ETm or ETcrop), and actual crop evapotranspiration rate of the crop (ETa), are defined in the Glossary. v. Effective precipitation (or effective rainfall) is the part of the precipitation that contributes to crop water requirement, net irrigation water requirement or both. vi. Run-on refers to the contribution of surface water from adjacent land, and run-off the losses to adjacent land. vii. Groundwater refers to the contribution of water from depth. viii. Soil water is water stored in the soil. ix- Seepage (following IRRI) refers to losses of water from the field by lateral, surface flow through the bunds (earthen banks) of rice fields. x. Percolation refers to the losses of water from the field by vertical flow through the soil profile. xi. S & P denotes seepage and percolation (in wetland rice). xii. Conveyance losses are losses due to evaporation, percolation or breaches in the network of irrigation canals between the source of water and field. xiii. Leaching requirement is the water required to drain through the root zone to control soil salinity (sometimes expressed as a fraction of the net irrigation water requirement or leaching fraction). A.6.1 The significance of water quantity as a class-determining factor In some countries and project areas, the supply of water does not limit crop production and is tailored to meet the full requirement. In others, the abundance of water varies markedly through the year and from year to year. Water supplies can modify the length of the growing period as already discussed under heading A.1. A.6.2 Water requirement in relation to water supplies The degree of regulation of water supply in a river valley can vary enormously from little control to full control. Spate irrigation and run-of-river gravity irrigation regulated by diversion structures without storage may result in a very variable water supply. In the absence of sufficient storage within the irrigation network to transfer water from the wet to the dry season, situations arise during the year which are best described as 'landlimited' and 'water-limited'. In 'land-limited' months of the year, there are abundant supplies of water and insufficient land on which to apply it. In 'water-limited' months, the irrigable area is constrained by water supplies, not land area; certain areas of land may then receive more water than other areas. The area which can be irrigated is, in fact, constrained by the amount of water available in the month or period of limited water (Eavis, Socratous and Makin 1979; Hazlewood

and Livingstone 1978: Livingstone and Hazlewood 1979). In the months of abundant water surplus, water that cannot be stored can be spilled, or can be used by the farmer to assist in land preparation (i.e. softening the land) or weed control (i.e. deep standing water in rice fields). It follows that for many gravity-fed run-of-river networks (and also for many schemes with limited storage), the critical limits for defining levels of suitability (s1, s2, s3, n1, n2) must be concerned with the 'water-limited' period and not necessarily with the overall water quantity available for use throughout the year. An important part of any evaluation of water supply and water requirements, where water is a scarce commodity and seasonally variable, is to match the water supply and water requirement (demand) profiles as closely as possible. For example, cropping systems, and areas occupied by various crops, can be manipulated to accommodate a diminishing water supply towards the end of a rainy season. Also, land preparation and dates of planting can be staggered to smooth away peak water demand where it exceeds the water supply in certain months. Figure 10 illustrates how irrigation scheduling affects the matching of water supply and requirements. If the irrigation project is planned to supply water on a constant amount-constant frequency schedule, the matching of supply and requirements may be poor. Nevertheless, many irrigation projects have to be planned on such a basis to simplify administrative arrangements for issuing water- The matching of supply-demand profiles can be improved by varying the quantity or frequency of water application, or both, as illustrated in Figure 10. Year to year variations in water supplies are often as important in land evaluation as seasonal variations. Decisions on the size of the 'irrigable' land area are based on matching water requirements and supply; in situations where there are unreliable and erratic supplies, the 'irrigable' area should be calculated at an acceptable level of risk. One must choose between providing water reliably to a small area of land and providing it less reliably to a large area of land; the latter may utilize the available water supply better than the former in wetter years. The compromise should aim to maximize net benefits per project or per unit of water, rather than be certain to achieve high yields on a smaller land area (Eavis, Socratous and Makin 1978). If water supplies are limited by annual variations, high yields per unit of land can only be achieved regularly by foregoing the opportunity to irrigate a larger area in wetter years, unless adequate storage is possible. Broadly, there are two ways in which water requirements can be reduced to match a scarce water supply in dry periods. Either the land area irrigated can be reduced temporarily during the period of shortage by completely cutting off supplies to certain areas, or the water supplies can be reduced to less than the optimum requirement with the consequence that crop yields are reduced. Clearly, areas of land that will receive water in some years or seasons, but not during periods of shortage must be given a lower level of suitability than those which have more reliable water supplies. Crops that tolerate drought, yet respond when water is plentiful, can sometimes be grown on such land, or short duration crops can be dropped from the cropping system during the dry period. Critical limits than define s1, s2, s3, n1 and n2 levels of suitability for a LUT can be set from the above considerations. Figure 10a Effect of irrigation scheduling on the matching of water supply and water requirements - Constant amount-constant frequency (rotational) schedule

Figure 10b Effect of irrigation scheduling on the matching of water supply and water requirements - Constant amount-variable frequency schedule (variable frequency rotation)

Figure 10c Effect of irrigation scheduling on the matching of water supply and water requirements - Varied amount-constant frequency schedule (varied amount rotation)

Source: Replogle and Merriam 1980 A.6.3 Crop yields and water stress The effects of water deficit on the yields of many crops have been described in FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 33 (FAO 1979c). Experimentally, crop yield and transpiration are often reported to be directly proportional and for many practical purposes a linear relationship between crop yield and the actual crop evapotranspiration (ETa) is a good approximation (at least over the marketable yield range)- Some crops suffer from lack of water more at some stages of development than others and this can be taken into account. The type of production function often found experimentally is illustrated in Figure 11. Yield and evapotranspiration are plotted as ratios of the maximum yield (Ym) and the maximum evapotranspiration (ETm or ETcrop). Subtracting these ratios from unity (1), transforms the scales so that they indicate relative yield decrease (1 - Ya/Ym) and relative evapotranspiration deficit (1 - ETa/ETm). Critical limits may be set as illustrated in Figure 11 for appropriate ranges of yield. If the water supply varies from year to year, the percentage of years in which an 'n' rating occurs can be the basis for selecting critical limits (see Eavis, Socratous and Makin 1979). A.6.4 Estimating irrigation and crop water requirements Methods for estimating water requirements are described in FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 24. The main steps generally necessary are listed below. A more sophisticated procedure based on water balance models, that takes into account variations of daily rainfall in farmers' fields, the soil as a reservoir, and water shortages, is described by Eavis, Socratous and Makin (1979). Figure 11 Relationship between crop evapotranspiration and yield for potatoes, based on irrigation experiments in Cyprus, showing how critical limits were defined. (The proportion of years in which water supply and relative yields fell to n1 [N1 on the figure] was the basis for sizing the irrigable area)

The main steps in estimating crop water and irrigation requirements are as follows: i. set out a cropping calendar of 10-day or weekly periods for land preparation, planting, (draining the wetland rice field), harvesting, etc.; ii. calculate 'reference crop evapotranspiration' (ETo) for each 10-day or weekly period. Use climatic data or records of pan evaporation by the methods described in FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 24; iii. select crop coefficients (kc) according to instructions in FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 24 (kc = ETm/ETo for different stages of crop development); iv. obtain the maximum crop evapotranspiration (ETm) by multiplying ii. and iii- (ETm = ETo.kc) for different stages of crop development. This assumes no water shortages occur; v. add in water requirements for wetting the soil initially if it is dry, and for land preparation; also that for draining rice fields for weeding, etc.; vi. subtract water requirements supplied by residual soil moisture towards the end of the growing season (if appropriate); vii. add in estimates of losses from run-off, seepage and percolation, or gains from runon or groundwater; viii. calculate the leaching requirement (see Figure 16). If the expected percolation is insufficient to keep soil salinity within the required range, add the appropriate amount to the water requirement; ix. deduct the contribution from precipitation or rainfall in farmers' fields (effective rainfall) from the irrigation water requirement; x. convert the above requirements in mm, into volumes of water per irrigated area (i.e. mm x 10 x ha = m3; xi. add on the conveyance losses between source of water and the field; xii. on the basis of the irrigation application technique, decide on irrigation schedules (e.g. see Figure 10) in terms of frequency, rate and duration of water application; xiii. determine peak water requirements in terms of flow rates (litres per sec per ha, l/s/ha); xiv. match supply and requirement profiles by review and iteration. A detailed description of the above procedures is beyond the scope of this publication. Figure 12 with its accompanying Table 34 illustrates by example some estimates of irrigation water requirements for double cropped rice in Bali, Indonesia (Eavis and Walker 1976). The range of irrigation water requirements for different land units in the project area of this example differed mainly because of the variation in field losses from seepage and percolation (see Section A.6.6).

Table 34 GROSS ANNUAL IRRIGATION WATER REQUIREMENTS FOR LOCAL 140-DAY RICE FOLLOWED BY HYV 120-DAY RICE (to accompany Figure 12)
Rice 1 crop (140 day) 1 352 2 146 3 096 Rice 2 crop (120 day) 1 901 2 744 3 701

Seepage and percolation losses mm/day 1 2 3 5.0 10.0 15.0

Gross annual irrigation water Peak demand requirements rate mm/year 1/ l/sec/ha 3 253 4 890 6 797
3

mm/crop 2.15 3.26 3.59

1/ mm/year x 10 = the gross irrigation water required in m /ha/yr. Figure 12 Irrigation water requirements of local rice followed by HYV rice, north coast of Bali, Indonesia Assumptions: a) Seepage and percolation losses were taken as 5 mm/day, 10 mm/day and 15 mm/day to meet the range of conditions in the different land units 1, 2 and 3 (shaded areas). b) Planting spread over 60 days. c) Local variety (traditional) 140 days' duration; HYV 120 days. d) Pre-saturation 250 mm for first crop and 100 mm for second crop. e) Losses in conveyance 15% gross supply plus 5% due to administrative wastage: total loss up to field gate = 20% gross supply. f) 80% probability rainfall was the figure used to approximate the effective rainfall. A.6.5 The contribution of rainfall to water requirements in farmers fields (effective rainfall) In humid areas, crop water requirement may be partially provided by rain falling directly on the farmers' fields. The respective proportions of the irrigation water requirement provided (i) from rainfall or precipitation, and (ii) from irrigation, may differ from year to year and season to season. Not all the rain received in the field directly is effective. Part is lost by run-off, deep percolation, or by evaporation of rain intercepted by the plant foliage. Where run-off is not important, the best method for estimating the direct contribution of rainfall to water requirements, is to construct a daily soil water balance using historical daily rainfall (Stern and Coe 1982). Simpler approximations have often been used (e.g. the 80% probability rainfall), sometimes with misleading results. Older methods for computing rainfall probabilities and effective rainfall are given in FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 24.

Land characteristics such as slope, relief, infiltration rate, cracking, permeability and soil management may all 'influence the utilization of rainfall and critical limits of the important ones can be used in land evaluation. In wetland rice, particularly, the contribution of effective rainfall depends on water conservation practices. Continuous flow of water by gravity in many rice areas keeps the paddy fields full of water. Rainfall on a full paddy overspills and may not be effectively utilized further downstream. To improve the use of direct rainfall, farmers should block off the through flow and allow the standing water levels in the fields to decline. This partially empties the paddy field and presents an opportunity for the temporary storage of rainfall: it also reduces seepage and percolation losses (see below). Generally, the proportion of the total rainfall which is effective is greater in dry periods than in wet periods. Snow melt, and run-on from adjacent areas are of great importance in some areas. A.6.6 Seepage and percolation in wetland rice In many rice areas, water losses by seepage and percolation (S & P) greatly exceed evapotranspiration. If water quantity is limiting, S & P and the land characteristics affecting them, are important candidates for evaluation. Seepage is the lateral movement of water through the soil and through levees, embankments or bunds around fields. Percolation is the vertical movement downward towards a water table. Seepage and percolation cannot always be clearly differentiated under field conditions and therefore are often considered together. In relatively flat areas with few drains and a high water table, seepage and percolation depend on the total outflow in response to differential water heads and the resistance to flow through bunds and the soil. In a series of paddies on a slope, seepage from one paddy to the next is offset by seepage from higher paddies and net losses can be measured from the last paddy of the system, which is usually located along a drain or unplanted area acting as a sink for the entire system. Percolation rates are governed by the water head (pressure) and the resistance to water movement through the soil profile. The depth of standing water in paddy fields, due to increased head, has a marked influence on percolation rates through the floor of the field and through the bunds, on permeable soils. Soil permeability is affected by soil structure, texture and the interfaces between horizons, including the presence of claypans or hardpans which may give rise to a perched water table distinct from and above the true water table. In many rice areas the water table itself controls percolation losses of water. On sloping land where the water table is below the 25-30 cm rooting depth of rice, S & P are related to how watertight the terraced paddies can be made by puddling the floor of the field, and by blocking off leakage through the bunds. Puddling breaks down the soil structure and helps sealing against water losses. The effectiveness of puddling depends on characteristics such as texture, the clay minerals predominating, swelling and shrinking, salinity, organic matter content and water control. The effectiveness of puddling is often a prime consideration in evaluating water losses by S & P. Newly created riceland may not puddle effectively and it is common for the effectiveness of puddling to improve over the first five to ten years.

Losses of water to a water table not only occur through the floor of the field, but also through the bunds. In many rice areas, permanent bunds have well-structured permeable soils permitting leakages which increase with the depth of standing water in the field (Walker and Rushton 1984); these losses may be the principal concern. If the bunds are permanent terrace structures the difficulty of preventing such losses is likely to be greater than where bunds are destroyed after each rice crop, and then reformed and compacted during land preparation. Soil texture, the percentage of clay and the clay mineralogy may all contribute to an evaluation of S & P water losses. Net irrigation water requirements for rice on sandy soils are likely to be greater than on clay soils. Chin and Lee (1961) reported 7, 9, 10 and 12 mm/day for Taiwan soils having 25-30%, 15-25%, 10-15%, 5-10% clay content respectively. Gupta and Bhattacharya (1969) reported decreasing percolation losses successively for sandy soils, sandloams, fine sandy loams and heavy clays. But Achar and Dastane (1971) reported percolation losses as high as 19 mm/day from heavy black vertisols with as much as 50% clay. The type of clay mineral and salt content of the soil and water are important factors to consider. Salts lead to the aggregation of montmorillonitic and other clays and aggravate S & P losses. Kaolinitic clays swell relatively little and puddle less effectively than montmorillonitic clays. S & P will often dictate the limit of wetland rice irrigation on catenary topographic sequences- In valley bottoms, S & P are less than further up-slope, partly due to soil texture and structure changes. Hence S & P will often be important in deciding the size of the irrigable area. A range in S & P between 2 and 15 mm/day in the example given in Figure 12 corresponded to a threefold increase in net irrigation water requirement per year, and a similar increase in peak demand rate of supply. Guidelines for critical limits of seepage and percolation for wetland rice are suggested as follows but these must be modified to reflect the significance of water supplies under local conditions as already explained in A.6.1:
s1 0-2 mm/day s2 2-5 mm/day s3 5-15 mm/day n1 more than 15 mm/day

Approximate values for S & P may be obtained from observations of the recession of standing water in existing rice paddies on soils similar to those of interest. In the sloping gauge technique, an inclined metre stick (slope 1:5) is installed in the representative paddies. The decrease in water level is measured on the gauge and represents the combined losses from evapotranspiration, inflow (irrigation + rainfall), and S & P. If no water is added or drained from the paddy, then the total water used (indicated by change in depth) is simply evapotranspiration plus S & P. Over small areas the evapotranspiration is approximately the same and differences between locations can be assumed to be differences in seepage and percolation.

A.7 Nutrients (NPK)

A.7.1 Nitrogen A.7.2 Phosphorus

A.7.3 Potassium A.7.4 Factor rating 'NPK nutrition'

The discussion of crop nutrition in this section is mainly restricted to nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K), the three major nutrients commonly supplied as fertilizers. Other major and micro-nutrients and the effects of pH and toxicities are discussed under heading A.11. A distinction must first be drawn between: - crop nutrient requirements based on the nutrient content of the crop, - requirements for fertilizers and manures. The mineral composition of plant dry matter as a measure of crop nutrient requirements necessitates serial sampling during the life of the crop for accurate results; however crop nutrient uptake is usually taken as the nutrient content of the harvested crops. This gives a guide as to the nutrients required to maintain soil fertility at about the existing level. Supplies of plant nutrients to replace those removed at harvest may come from: i. soil mineralization (i.e. the transformation of soil minerals or organic matter from nonavailable into available nutrients); ii. manures and fertilizers, or iii. fixation from the air, in the case of some of the nitrogen. Losses also occur from leaching, fixation in unavailable forms and demineralization, etc. Fertilizer and manurial requirements depend on all these considerations and are usually determined empirically by experiment. A.7.1 Nitrogen Nitrogen is second only to water in importance as a factor affecting the yields of most irrigated crops. The nitrogen cycle is illustrated in Figure 13. Nitrogen fertilizers give fairly predictable yields where lack of nitrogen is the principal factor limiting yields. The main considerations in deciding how much nitrogen should be applied to obtain a given yield are: i. the amounts of nitrogen removed by the crop; ii. the initial nitrogen content of the soil; iii. the contribution from nitrogen fixation; iv. the losses of nitrogen from leaching, denitrification, etc. Figure 13 Transformations of nitrogen in the rhizosphere Source: FAO 1980d A further consideration, where high yields of short duration leafy crops are required, is the need for temporarily high concentrations of nitrate or ammonium nitrogen in the soil

to stimulate uptake at critical stages of growth; such applications often lead to additional losses by leaching, and hence the amount of nitrogen applied in intensive cultivation may be considerably greater than the nitrogen removed by the crop. On the other hand, contributions may come from the air or from mineralization of organic matter. Traditional rice varieties have been grown for centuries in many parts of Asia without the use of nitrogenous manures or fertilizers, owing to the atmospheric fixation of nitrogen by micro-organisms and algae. Both flooded rice and leguminous crops can contribute in the order of 30-75 kg N/ha during favourable conditions over a three to four month period, though usually not enough for optimum or maximum yields with modern varieties. If factors other than water and nutrients are not limiting, then the interaction between nitrogen fertilizer and water application is frequently highly significant. Recently reclaimed soils in arid and semi-arid areas are often inherently very low in organic matter and nitrogen content, yet very suitable for irrigation. On such soils the type of response and interaction to water and nitrogen fertilizers illustrated in Figure 14 is obtained; a bigger response to nitrogen is obtained if water is not scarce. The variable performance of land units can be evaluated in terms of such a response surface. Alternatively, critical limits may be defined as the cost of fertilizer inputs on different land units. Figure 14 An example of the yield response to fertilizer and water for a soil low in available nitrogen

The cost of applying fertilizer nitrogen may vary from land unit to land unit. Soils requiring high nitrogen inputs may be initially low in nitrogen, or may utilize nitrogen applications inefficiently due to leaching or other losses. In practice, however, farmers often use the same amounts of fertilizer on all their land and yields may then vary on account of different efficiencies of utilization.

Nitrogen deficiency is especially common on sandy and well-weathered soils in areas of high rainfall and on soils low in organic matter. Total nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen contents of soils give some indication of severe deficiency but, in intermediate ranges and because of seasonal changes, are of little help in determining immediate fertilizer requirements. Arable soils have a variable nitrate content ranging from less than 2 to 60 mg/l of nitrogen as nitrate. High levels of nitrate nitrogen may indicate that little or no nitrogen need be applied. Total soil nitrogen is low if it is less than 0.1% and high if it is more than 0.3% of the oven dry soil. Tissue analyses of plant leaves give a range in total nitrogen from about 1.5% (low) to 3.5% (high), depending on the crop and age of the leaf, etc. (Chapman 1973). A.7.2 Phosphorus Much attention has been given to the development of chemical methods for determining the available phosphorus in a soil, where availability is defined as the amount a crop will take up from the soil or, alternatively, where it is used as a measure of the ability of soil to supply the amounts needed for maximum crop yield under the system of agriculture being practised (Russell 1973), The soil analyses can generally detect gross deficiency but do not have much general predictive value in deciding phosphorus fertilizer requirements to achieve various yields unless first proved suited to a particular area. The uptake of available soil phosphorus by crops depends on many factors including: i. how fast the unavailable forms of phosphorus are transformed into exchangeable forms and vice versa; ii. the rate at which the available and exchangeable forms are released into the soil solution; iii. the soil water content and solution concentrations during the period of growth; iv. the crop requirement for phosphorus; v. how effectively the root system explores the soil volume and absorbs and utilizes the phosphorus present. Phosphorus deficiency most commonly occurs on highly weathered tropical soils, calcareous soils, and peat and muck soils but there is a response to fertilizer phosphorus on a very wide range of soils. Highly weathered tropical acid soils include some that absorb phosphate so strongly that its concentration in the soil solution remains too low for the crop to benefit from it without massive applications. Yet some crops (e.g. cassava) can utilize the phosphate on such soils. In land evaluation it is particularly important to identify soils that strongly absorb phosphorus - In the tropics these soils are often oxisols or ultisols. Russell (1973) suggests that they could be identified by a laboratory determination of the amount of phosphorus a soil sample must absorb to come into equilibrium with a solution of phosphorus of the same strength as is required for active phosphorus uptake by most crops (e.g. 10-5 M, but less or more depending on the crop).

Acid soils usually require more added phosphorus than neutral and calcareous soils, and rock phosphate is effective on acid soils. Excess phosphorus in species such as citrus that are sensitive to phosphorus excess may induce both copper and zinc deficiency symptoms on calcareous soils. Phosphorus in tropical soils is commonly mineralized from organic matter at the start of the rains or irrigation, following a dry period. The availability of phosphorus, whether judged by chemical methods or by plant uptake, increases on submerging a soil. The increase in the availability of phosphorus and other elements is often cited as one of the benefits of flooding rice soils (Ponnamperuma 1976). Nonetheless, the increase in the solubility of phosphorus on flooding is low in ultisols and oxisols. Table 35 EXTRACTANTS USED TO ESTIMATE 'PLANT AVAILABLE' PHOSPHORUS IN SOILS
mg P/l OF DRY SOIL EXTRACTANT SOILS RESPONSE RESPONSE EXPECTED PROBABLE <5 6-15 RESPONSE UNLIKELY >15

1. Acetate-acetic acid (Morgan) Acid soils 1/ 0.0125 with respect to sodium 0.16N with respect to acetate pH 4.8 to 5.0 2. Hydrochloric-sulphuric acidsoluble phosphorus method (Mehlich) 5 g of soil shaken for 5 minutes with 20 ml of 0.05N HCl-0.25N H2SO4 solution. Filter. Non calcareous acid soils that have not recently been treated with rock phosphate

<10

11-31

>31

3. Hydrochloric acidNon calcareous ammonium fluoride-soluble soils phosphorus test (Bray No.1) Shake 1 part of soil for 1 minute with 7 parts of 0.025N HCl-0.03N ammonium fluoride. Filter. 4. Sodium bicarbonate-soluble phosphorus test (Olsen) Add 100 ml of 0.5M sodium bicarbonate adjusted to pH 8.5 to 5 g of soil. Add one teaspoon of phosphorus-free carbon black, shake for 30 minutes. Filter and determine P on 5 ml per 25 ml final volume. 5. Carbonic acid (McGeorge) 50 g of soil placed in a cylinder with 250 ml of distilled water. CO2 passed through the suspension for 15 minutes before filtering. Neutral, calcareous and acid soils. Not for sodic soils high in organic matter

<7

7-20

>20

<5

6-10

>11

Calcareous soils. <3 Rapid routine standardized testing not always possible <1 or <0.13 in water extract

6-10

>10

6. Water soluble phosphorus All soils method (Bingham) 10 g of soil shaken 15 minutes with 100 ml distilled water and

1-2

>2 or >0.13 in water extract

filtered.

1/ In the Morgan test, ratios and extractant times vary widely, e.g. 1:2 soil: extract shaking time 1 minute, compared with 1:5 and shaking time 30 minutes. In general, the phosphorus fertilizer or manurial requirement for rice is less than for other cereals. Grasses and cereals usually have a lower requirement than crops such as potato, sugarbeet, and leafy vegetable crops which may respond to two or three times more than the application rate for the former (Bingham 1973). Wherever possible, such generalizations should be confirmed by experiments which also examine the optimal sources and inputs of phosphorus fertilizers in their various forms as rock phosphate, superphosphate, triple superphosphate, etc. Many chemical techniques for measuring 'plant available' soil phosphorus are in current use and these are summarized (Table 35) in terms of the responses that are anticipated in the area where they are used (Bingham 1973). Total phosphorus content in plant tissues ranges from 0.05% to 0.5%, depending upon the state of nutrition, plant species, season and tissue sampled. Leaf values from tree crops are usually lower than those for most annuals, ranging from 0.05% to 0.10% total phosphorus for deficiency, and 0.2% to 0.4% in the satisfactory range. Excess is not readily detected by tissue analysis, but if values greater than 0.5% are encountered in trees, further examination may be advisable (Bingham 1973). A.7.3 Potassium Potassium deficiency, as indicated by low exchangeable potassium (Ulrich and Ohki 1973), commonly occurs on: i. sandy soils that leach excessively; ii. acid sandy soils; iii. organic soils; iv. soils that have been heavily cropped, leached or eroded; v. highly leached ferralsols. In contrast, soils in many arid and semi-arid areas have more than sufficient plant available potassium to meet the nutritional requirements of irrigated crops. This is because of the relatively small impact of weathering and leaching on dry-region soils. Exceptions on such soils can readily be detected from exchangeable potassium determinations, extracting the potassium with normal ammonium acetate or 0.5 normal sodium bicarbonate. Soils with less than 100 kg/ha of exchangeable potassium in the root zone are often responsive to potassium fertilizer. If the soil contains more than 300 kg/ha of exchangeable potassium, very few crops are likely to respond (Ulrich and Ohki 1973). The potassium content of leaves used for tissue analysis ranges from about 0.7 to 1.5% on a dry weight basis, for most plants. A few plant species (e.g. potato) require much higher concentrations in their tissues for normal growth: up to 5% potassium may be beneficial in intensive, early season temperate crops.

A.7.4 Factor rating 'NPK nutrition' The selection of appropriate factor ratings for 'NPK Nutrition' requires an appreciation of likely yield response curves for crops on the land units being evaluated. For example. Figure 14 illustrates a family of yield response curves to nitrogen fertilizer (corresponding to different evapotranspiration levels). The physical responses to various levels of fertilizer can be translated into financial benefit/cost ratios. Factor ratings for 'NPK Nutrition' can be used to approximate benefit/costs; for example, if a land unit produced excellent yields without any fertilizer it would receive a factor rating of s1. A benefit/cost of less than one, which implies that costs of fertilizers exceed the financial value of the yield increment, would lead to a factor rating of n1 or n2. N, P and K can each be evaluated separately, and then be combined to give an overall factor rating for NPK Nutrition, for example as in Table 36. The 'significance' of this factor rating can then be judged relative to others listed on Format 3. Table 36 FACTOR RATING OF 'NPK NUTRITION' IN TERMS OF FERTILIZER REQUIREMENTS FOR A SPECIFIC LAND UNIT AND LAND UTILIZATION TYPE
LUT: Crop or crops: Land Unit No(s): Factor Ratings s1 >3 Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium 2-3 s2 1-2 s3 0.5-1 n1 < 0.5 s3 s1 s1 n2 Benefit/cost index 1/ Selected rating

Factor Rating for 'NPK Nutrition' (i.e. relatively high costs of nitrogen s3 fertilizer are implied to obtain acceptable yields) Conclusion: Enter s3 on Format 3 for 'NPK Nutrition'

1/ Benefit/costs given are examples only.

A.8 Water quality

Guidelines for evaluating the suitability of water for irrigation are described in FAO 1976c, Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 29 (Revision 1 is in press and will be issued in 1985). Values are suggested (Table 37) which relate to the general irrigation problems of salinity, infiltration and specific ion toxicity. The suitability of water depends on i) how it is managed, ii) the nature of the soil, and iii) crop tolerance to salinity of various types of irrigation water. Water quality criteria must be interpreted in the context of overall salt balances and toxicities and the effects on soil. The problems that result from using poor quality water vary both in kind and degree but the most common are: Table 37 GUIDELINES FOR INTERPRETATION OF WATER QUALITY FOR IRRIGATION 1/
Potential Irrigation Problem Restriction on Use Units None Slight to Moderate Severe

Salinity (affects crop water availability) 2/ ECw (or) TDS Infiltration (affects infiltration rate of water into the soil. Evaluate using ECw and SAR together) 3/ SAR =0-3 and ECw = =3-6= = 6 - 12 = = 12 - 20 = = 20 - 40 = Specific Ion Toxicity (affects sensitive crops) Sodium (Na) 4/ surface irrigation sprinkler irrigation Chloride (Cl) V surface irrigation sprinkler irrigation Boron (B) 5/ Trace Elements (see FAO 1985)* Miscellaneous Effects (affects susceptible crops) Nitrogen (NO3-N) 6/ Bicarbonate (HCO3) (overhead sprinkling only) pH mg/l me/l <5 5 - 30 >30 >8.5 <1.5 1.5 - 8.5 me/l me/l mg/l <4 <3 4 - 10 >3 >3.0 >10 SAR <3 me/l <3 3-9 >3 >9 >0.7 0.7 - 0.2 >1.2 1.2 - 0.3 >1.9 1.9 - 0.5 >2.9 2.9 - 1.3 >5.0 5.0 - 2.9 <0.2 <0.3 <0.5 <1.3 <2.9 dS/m <0.7 0.7 - 3.0 mg/l <450 450 - 2 000 >3.0 >2 000

<0.7 0.7 - 3.0

(Normal Range 6.5 - 8.4)

1/ Adapted from University of California Committee of Consultants, 1974. 2/ ECw means electrical conductivity, a measure of the water salinity, reported in deciSemens per metre at 25C (dS/m) or as previously reported in millimhos per centimetre at 25C (mmho/cm); they are numerically equivalent. TDS means total dissolved solids, reported in milligrams per litre (mg/l). 3/ SAR means sodium adsorption ratio. SAR is sometimes reported by the symbol Tte. See Glossary for the SAR calculation procedure. At a given SAR, infiltration rate increases as water salinity increases. Evaluate the potential infiltration problem by SAR as modified by EC. Adapted from Rhoades 1977; and Oster and Schroer 1979. 4/ Values for sodium and chloride applicable to sensitive tree and woody plants with surface irrigation; many annual crops are less sensitive to these specifications. With overhead irrigation and low humidity (<30 percent), sodium and chloride absorbed through the leaves of sensitive crops can cause damage. 5/ For boron tolerances, see Table 42. 6/ NO3-N means nitrate nitrogen reported in terms of elemental nitrogen. (NH4-N and Organic-N should be included when wastewater is being tested). * See revised FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 29 (1985) for trace elements and for new method to calculate adjusted SAR (adj. RNa).

i. Salinity: A salinity problem can occur if the total quantity of salts in the irrigation water is high enough for the salts to accumulate in the crop root zone to the extent that yields are affected. Excessive soluble salts in the root zone inhibit water uptake by plants. The plants suffer from salt-induced drought. Plants respond more critically to salinity in the upper part of the soil profile than to the salinity levels at depth. Thus, managing this critical upper root zone may be as important as providing adequate leaching to prevent salt accumulation in the total root zone. ii. Infiltration: An infiltration problem related to water quality occurs when the rate of water infiltration into and through the soil is reduced (because of this water quality) to such an extent that the crop is not adequately supplied with water and yield is reduced. The poor soil infiltration makes it more difficult to supply the crop with adequate water and may greatly add to cropping difficulties through crusting of seed beds, waterlogging of surface soil and accompanying disease, salinity, weed, oxygen and nutritional problems. It is evaluated, first, for total salts in the water because low salt water can result in poor soil infiltration due to the tremendous capacity of pure water to dissolve and remove calcium and other solubles in the soil; secondly, from a comparison of the relative content of sodium to calcium and magnesium in the water or SAR (sodium adsorption ratio). Thirdly, carbonates and bicarbonates can also affect infiltration and must be evaluated. These three factors interact in determining the long-term influence of a water on the soil infiltration rate. iii. Toxicity: A toxicity problem occurs when certain constituents in the water are taken up by the crop and accumulate in amounts that result in a reduced yield. In arid and semi-arid areas this is usually related to one or more specific ions in the water, namely, boron, chloride and sodium. iv. Miscellaneous: Various other problems may occur, e.g. from excessive nitrogen in the water supply, white deposits on fruit due to high bicarbonate in sprinkler applied water, and suspected abnormalities indicated by water with an unusual pH. The guidelines presented in Table 37 should allow a determination that water of a given salinity, SAR and specific ion composition does or does not have a potential to limit crop production. Where limitations are indicated, the water may still be usable providing certain management steps are taken to alleviate the problem. The guidelines in Table 37 were drawn up on the assumption that the area under consideration is semi-arid or arid, with low rainfall, good drainage, no uncontrolled shallow water table and that surface or sprinkler applications of water were used with 15% of the water percolating through the root zone. The guidelines are possibly too strict for drip irrigation on highly permeable soils, but elsewhere the user must constantly guard against drawing unwarranted conclusions based strictly on laboratory results alone. Further discussion of salinity limitations continues in heading A.9. The quality of water for localized irrigation techniques is an important management criteria that can be conveniently introduced here. Critical limits have been suggested by Bucks and Nakayama (see Howell, Bucks and Chesness 1980) as set out in Table 38. Table 38 CRITICAL LIMITS FOR CLASSIFYING POTENTIAL CLOGGING HAZARD OF IRRIGATION WATER TO BE USED IN TRICKLE SYSTEMS
Factor Slight Physical Suspended solids (Max. ppm) 1/ < 50 Clogging Hazard Moderate 50-100 Severe > 10

Chemical pH Total Dissolved Solids (Max. ppm) 1/ Manganese (Max. ppm) 1/ Iron (Max. ppm) 1/ Hydrogen sulphide (Max. ppm) 1/ Biological Bacteria populations (Max. no/ml) 2/ < 10 000 10 000-50 000 > 50 000 < 0.7 < 500 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.5 7.0-8.0 500-2 000 0.1-1.5 0.1-1.5 0.5-2.0 > 8.0 > 2 000 > 1.5 > 1.5 > 2.0

1/ Maximum measured concentration from a representative number of water samples using standard procedures for analysis. 2/ Maximum number of bacteria per millilitre can be obtained from portable field samplers and laboratory analysis. Source: Bucks and Nakayama from Howell et al. 1980.

A.9 Salinity
The adverse effects of soil salinity on plant growth vary with the crop being grown. The presence of salinity in the soil solution resulting from either indigenous salt in the soil, or from salt added by irrigation water can affect growth (i) by reducing water available to the crop (the osmotic effect) and (ii) by increasing the concentration of certain ions that have a toxic effect on plant metabolism (the specific ion effect). There is an approximate tenfold range in salt tolerance of agricultural crops. This wide choice of crops greatly expands the usable range of water salinity for irrigation and emphasizes the fact that water quality and soil salinity are specific for the intended use. Many plants, for example, barley, wheat and maize, are sensitive to the osmotic effect during germination and the early seedling stages, but have greater tolerances at later stages (USDA 1954). Salt damage is aggravated by hot, dry conditions and may be less severe in cool humid conditions. Salt tolerance data for any given crop cannot be considered as fixed values, but should be used as guidelines. The evaluation of plant salt-tolerance data by Maas and Hoffman (1977) suggests that for each crop a certain threshold value exists beyond which crop yields decrease linearly with increasing salinity. When the soil saturation extract ECe value is less than some prescribed threshold value, crop yields are unaffected and represent 100% relative yield. Salinity tolerances for various crops are given in Figure 15 which also indicates approximate yield reductions in relationship to increasing salinity of the soil saturation extract ECe. Figure 15 Salt tolerances of various crops to salinity as measured in the saturation extract ECe. Vegetable crops.

Figure 15 Salt tolerances of various crops to salinity as measured in the saturation extract ECe. Field crops.

Figure 15 Salt tolerances of various crops to salinity as measured in the saturation extract ECe. Fruit crops.

Figure 15 Salt tolerances of various crops to salinity as measured in the saturation extract ECe. Forage crops.

Source: Maas and Hoffmann 1977; James et al 1982. The relation between the conductivity of saturated extract ECe and that of the irrigation water, ECw, can be approximated by assuming that the irrigation water concentrates three times as it becomes soil water and that the salinity of the saturation extract is half that of the soil water (i.e. ECe = 3/2 ECw). For example, the yield of sugarbeets is reduced 10% when the ECe reaches 8.6 dS/m (at 25C). This corresponds to ECw = 5.7 which is the ECw of the irrigation water that would result in a 10% yield decrement if the assumptions are valid. This calculation also assumes that all the salinity is derived from the irrigation water and none from the soil; it may frequently be necessary to take the latter into account. The leaching requirement using irrigation water of different salinities and for crops of different salt tolerances can be readily obtained from the graphical solution given in Figure 16. Thus if the conductivity of the irrigation water is 2 dS/m and the crop salt tolerance threshold is 4, the leaching requirement is about 0.10, or 10% of the applied water should leach through the soil. Figure 16 Graphical solution for the leaching requirement (L), the minimum leaching fraction that prevents yield reduction, as a function of the salinity of the applied water and the salt tolerance threshold value for the crop

Source: Hoffmann and van Genuchten 1980 Additional water will be required to reduce an initially high salt content to an acceptable value (see C.24 Reclamation Leaching).

A.10 Sodicity
The detrimental effect associated with sodium accumulation in soil can be divided into two categories: i) deterioration of the physical condition of the soil; and ii) sodium toxicity. i. physical effects of sodicity The presence of excessive amounts of exchangeable sodium in soil promotes the dispersion and swelling of clay minerals. The soil becomes impermeable to both air and water. The infiltration and hydraulic conductivity decrease to the extent that little or no water movement occurs. The soil is plastic when wet and becomes hard (brick-like) when dry. Tillage becomes difficult and soil crusting occurs. Recent research (Frenkel et al. 1978) has indicated that dispersion blocks soil pores, whereas swelling reduces pore sizes. The effect is most pronounced on soils containing clays which swell and shrink. Soils containing non-expanding clays such as kaolinite and sesquioxides are

relatively insensitive to the physical effects of exchangeable sodium. However, heavy cracking clays may be so impermeable when wet that the decreased permeability associated with a high sodium content may not matter. Sodicity is determined as the exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP). In rating sodicity one should take into account the changes in ESP which will take place after the land is irrigated. The actual sodicity which can be maintained in the soil with the anticipated soil and water management practices should be rated according to the overall effect on crop production. As the root systems of most crops develop best in the upper 30 cm of the soil, more attention may be given to the surface soil, except in the case of tree crops, or where sodicity in the subsoil is an important factor in drainage. Both laboratory and field methods can be used to determine salinity and sodicity. Laboratory studies can be used to determine critical limits for the influence of exchangeable sodium on the physical characteristics (e.g. permeability) of individual soils. In past surveys, sodicity phases of soils were often distinguished on the basis of a high pH measured in the field. However, pH is not only a function of sodicity but of salinity as well, and should not be used alone for the rating of sodicity. In case ESP is not determined, or only for a limited number of profiles, it may be estimated from pH-ESPEC relationships that have been worked out for a number of areas. These relationships may not always hold, especially when gypsum is present. The SAR of the irrigation water will influence the ESP of the soil, but the relation between the two may not be straightforward, because the ESP of the soil is conditioned by the SAR of the soil solution, and this is constantly changing. After irrigation, the soil solution slowly becomes more concentrated as the crop transpires water, so its SAR rises, and if the effect of concentration is to cause some calcium or magnesium to precipitate out as the carbonate, this will also cause it to rise still further. The higher the total salt content of the irrigation water, the lower must be its SAR if the ESP of soil is to remain below a given level (Table 37). Before leaching, saline-alkali soils often have a high ESP associated with the high salinity. The ESP values of soils before leaching may give a misleading impression of the potential sodicity hazard. The ESP values should be determined after leaching tests have been carried out with water of similar quality to that to be used for irrigation. On some cracking clays (i.e. black clays high in montmorillonite in the Gezira, Sudan), which crack on drying, but which are otherwise impermeable, good crop yields can be obtained even though they have a high ESP (up to 40%) and an unstable structure. These clays may contain aluminium hydroxide films which probably help to stabilize the cracks to some extent. In Table 39, based on work in the Sudan (Purnell, pers. comm.), critical limits are given for sodicity, using values for the ESP and SAR of the soil solution after leaching. The ratings s1, s2, s3 and n reflect nonsodic, slightly sodic, moderately sodic and strongly sodic soils respectively. This data may not be satisfactory for a proper evaluation on its own. Other factors, including the internal drainage of the soil, the properties of the clay minerals present, the calcium and gypsum content, the particle size of carbonate fractions, and the salt and SAR of the irrigation water are all important.

Table 39 CRITICAL LIMITS FOR SODICITY TOLERANCE

Factor Ratings 1/ s1 s2 s3 n ESP % <10 10 - 20 20 - 35 >35 ESP % SAR 3/ <20 20 - 35 35 - 50 >50 <8 8-18 >38 SAR <18 18 - 38 >68

(0 - 30) 2/ (30 - 90) (0 - 30) (30 - 90)

18 - 38 38 - 68

1/ Ratings may be raised one level if permeability is more than 2 cm/hr (e.g. as in loamy and sandy soils). 2/ Soil depth ranges in cm. 3/SAR may be used if ESP figures seem unreliable. ii. Sodium toxicity Plants vary considerably in their ability to tolerate sodium ions. Most tree crops and other woody-type perennials are particularly sensitive to low concentrations of sodium. Most annual crops are less sensitive, but may be affected by higher concentrations. Sodium toxicity is often modified and reduced if calcium is also present, therefore a reasonable evaluation of the potential toxicity is possible using the SAR for the soil water extract and the SAR of the irrigation water. Symptoms of sodium toxicity may appear only after a period of time during which toxic concentrations accumulate in the plant: the symptoms appear as a burn or drying of tissues first appearing at the outer edges of leaves. Table |40 can be used to evaluate the sodium hazard for representative crops. iii. Chloride and boron toxicities Critical values for tolerance for chloride and boron for various crops are given in Tables 41 and 42.

A.11 pH, micronutrients and toxicities

A.11.1 pH, micronutrient deficiencies and toxicities on non-rice cropland A.11.2 Chemical characteristics of submerged rice soils (based on Ponnamperuma 1976) A.11.3 Acid sulphate soils

Apart from NPK, discussed in A.7 and the toxicities caused by excess sodium, boron and chloride discussed in A.10, there remain limitations of pH, micronutrient deficiencies, and other toxicities. These are discussed for non-rice cropland, for submerged riceland, and for acid sulphate conditions in the three following sections A.11.1, A.11.2 and A.11.3. Table 40 TOLERANCE OF VARIOUS CROPS TO EXCHANGEABLE SODIUM (ESP) UNDER NONSALINE CONDITIONS

Tolerance to ESP and range at which affected Extremely sensitive (ESP = 2-10)

Crop

Growth response under field conditions Sodium toxicity symptoms even at low ESP values

Deciduous fruits Nuts Citrus (Citrus spp.) Avocado (Persea americana Mill.)

Sensitive (ESP = 10-20) Moderately tolerant (ESP = 20-40)

Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris. Stunted growth at these ESP values L) even though the physical condition of the soil may be good Clover (Trifolium spp.) Oats (Avena sativa L.) Tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea Schreb.) Rice (Oryza sativa L.) Dallis grass (Paspalum dilatum Poir.) Stunted growth due to both nutritional factors and adverse soil conditions

Tolerant (ESP = 40-60)

Wheat (Triticum aestivum Stunted growth usually due to adverse L.) physical conditions of soil Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) Tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) Beets (Beta vulgaris L.) Crested and Fairway Stunted growth usually due to adverse wheatgrass (Agropyron physical conditions of soil spp.) Tall wheatgrass (Agropyron elongatum (Host) Beau.) Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana Kunth)

Most tolerant (ESP = more than 60)

Note- Estimates of the equilibrium ESP can be made from the irrigation water or more preferably from the SAR of the soil saturation extract using the nomogram in Appendix B of FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 29. This estimation method is not applicable where soil gypsum is present. Effectiveness of any planned corrective action should be field tested before being applied on a large scale. Soils at ESP = 20-40 and above will usually have too poor physical structure for good crop production. The research results given above were obtained with soils whose structure was stabilized with Krilium. Source: Pearson 1960. For updated information see revised FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 29. Table 41 CHLORIDE TOLERANCES IN THE SATURATION EXTRACT OF SOIL FOR FRUIT CROP ROOTSTOCKS AND VARIETIES IF LEAF INJURY IS TO BE AVOIDED
Crop Rootstock or variety Rootstocks Maximum permissible C1 in saturation extract me/l

Citrus (Citrus spp.)

Rangpur lime, Cleopatra mandarin Rough lemon, tangelo, sour orange Sweet orange, citrange

25 15 10 25 10 7 8

Stone fruit (Prunus spp.)

Marianna Lovell, Shalil Yunnan West Indian Mexican

Avocado (Persea americana Mill.) Grape (Vitis spp.)

Salt Creek, 1613-3 Dog Ridge Varieties Thompson Seedless, Perlette Cardinal, Black rose Boysenberry Olallie blackberry Indian Summer raspberry Lassen Shasta

40 30 25 10 10 10 5 8 5

Grape (Vitis spp.) Berries 1/ (Rubus spp.)

Strawberry (Fragaria spp.)

1/ Data available for single variety of each crop only. Source: Bernstein 1965. For updated information see revised FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 29. Table 42 RELATIVE TOLERANCE OF CROPS AND ORNAMENTALS TO BORON 1/ Tolerance decreases in descending order in each column
Tolerant 4.0 mg/l of boron Athel (Tamarix aphylla) Asparagus (Asparagus officinalis L.) Palm (Phoenix canariensis) Date palm (P. dactylifera L.) Sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.) Mangel (Beta vulgaris L.) Semi-tolerant 2.0 mg/l of boron Sunflower, native (Helianthus annuus L.) Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) Cotton, Acala and Pima (Gossypium sp.) Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) Sweetpea (Lathyrus odoratus L.) Radish (Raphanus sativus L.) Sensitive 1.0 mg/l of boron Pecan (Carya illinoensis (Wang.) K. Koch) Walnut, black and Persian or English (Juglans spp.) Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) Navy bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) American elm (Ulmus americana L.) Plum (Prunus domestica L.)

Garden beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) Gladiolus (Gladiolus sp.) Broadbean (Vicia faba L.) Onion (Allium cepa L.) Turnip (Brassica rapa L.) Cabbage (Brassica oleracea var. capitata L.) Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) Carrot (Daucus carota L.)

Field pea (Pisum sativum L.) Rose (Rosa sp.) Olive (Olea europaea L.) Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Corn (Maize) (Zea mays L.) Milo (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) Oat (Avena sativa L.) Zinnia (Zinnia elegans Jacq.) Pumpkin (Cucurbita spp.) Bell pepper (Capsicum annuum L.)

Pear (Pyrus communis L.) Apple (Malus sylvestris Mill.) Grape (Sultanina and Malaga) (Vitis sp.) Kadota fig (Ficus carica L.) Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana L.) Cherry (Prunus sp.) Apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) Thornless blackberry (Rubus sp.) Orange (Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck) Avocado (Persea americana Mill.) Grapefruit (Citrus paradisi Macfad.)

Sweet potato Lemon (Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.) (Citrus limon (L.) Burm. f.) Lima bean (Phaseolus lunatus L.) 2.0 mg/l of boron 1.0 mg/l of boron 0.3 mg/l of boron

1/ Relative tolerance is based on boron in irrigation water at which boron toxicity symptoms were observed when plants were grown in sand culture. Does not necessarily indicate a reduction in yield. Source: Wilcox 1960 Figure 17a General trend of the influence of reaction (pH) on the availability of plant nutrients (widest part of the bar indicates maximum availability) - Relative availability of common elements in mineral soils with pH (after Truog 1948) Figure 17b General trend of the influence of reaction (pH) on the availability of plant nutrients (widest part of the bar indicates maximum availability) - Organic soils (after Lucas and Davis 1961)

A.11.1 pH, micronutrient deficiencies and toxicities on non-rice cropland i. pH (General) Crops vary in their response to pH; calcifuge plants dislike lime while calciphilous plants are lime-loving. There are very few crops that grow well in calcareous soils that do not grow equally well at a pH above 6 under lime-free conditions. Several crops, such as tea, require acid conditions. Many crops are affected by micro-nutrient deficiencies or toxicities at certain pH levels. The availability of various macro and micronutrients over the pH scale is illustrated in Figure 17; however, this availability varies from crop to crop.

The pH of soil suspensions varies according to whether the soil is shaken with water, or with an electrolyte such as normal potassium chloride. The pH of the latter may be a whole pH unit lower than that measured by shaking with water, but closer to the real pH on the soil particles themselves. It is best to use an electrolyte where the pH of saline soils is to be measured, especially when comparisons are necessary with nonsaline pHs. In soil/water suspensions the pH may vary with the soil to water ratio. In the field, as the soil gets drier, the concentration of salts in the soil solution may rise, causing a fall in pH. If the soils contain substances susceptible to oxidation and reduction, the pH will fall or rise accordingly. Thus the pH of waterlogged soils containing sulphides will fall from pH 7 to below pH 4 if drained and aerated (see A.11.3). The pH of a soil is also influenced by the carbon dioxide concentration of the soil air; the higher this concentration the lower the pH, the effect being greater the higher the soil's pH. Because the pH of soil samples collected from the field depends on the conditions of measurement, collection and measurement should be standardized in any study. i ii. Calcium and lime requirement The amount of liming material required to neutralize soil acidity, and the final pH it is desirable to achieve, must generally be worked out under local conditions in field trials. In the laboratory, the amount of lime needed to bring the soil to a selected pH can be determined either by titrating the soil with lime to this pH or, more conveniently, by shaking the soil with a calcium solution buffered at this pHIn many acid tropical soils, the object of applying lime is to neutralize exchangeable aluminium, not to achieve a particular pH and this seems to overcome the problems associated with over-liming. On some acid soils, over-liming may induce micronutrient deficiencies and the lime must be given in small, frequent dressings, keeping a check on pH and crop performance whenever additional dressings of lime are given. Liming materials include calcium oxide (burnt or quick lime), calcium hydroxide (hydrated or slaked lime), finely-ground limestone, and chalk. In wet climates calcium bicarbonate is continually leached out of the soil; in the United Kingdom, for example, this is equivalent to about 200-400 kg of calcium carbonate per hectare per year (Russell 1973). Calcium deficiency, particularly in fruit and vegetable crops, can occur on some acid soils although the harmful effects of acid soils are more usually caused by aluminium, iron, manganese or sulphur toxicities. iii. Magnesium Magnesium deficiency commonly occurs on acid, sandy soils in areas of moderate to high rainfall. Magnesium deficiency may be induced by applying too much potassium fertilizer, and occasionally even by mulching with grasses rich in potassium. The application of nitrogen tends to promote the uptake of magnesium. In sandy soils subject to leaching, soils with equal amounts of available magnesium may be more subject to magnesium deficiency at a low pH than at a higher pH (Chapman 1973). Soils with high exchangeable magnesium and exhibiting the morphology and problems of sodic soils occur in western Canada, USA and Middle Eastern arid and semi-arid areas. Low permeability and intractable working conditions are more important than excess magnesium on these soils.

iv. Zinc Zinc deficiency is very widespread in neutral to alkaline soils. Excessive soil phosphorus aggravates zinc deficiency. Some crops are affected more than others. For example, phaseolus beans, maize, potato, onion, citrus, cherry and peach are susceptible, whereas alfalfa, wheat, barley and grasses are rarely affected. A good prediction of zinc deficiency can be obtained using DTPA-extractable zinc which, if below 0.8 ppm on a dry soil basis, indicates the need for zinc applications to susceptible non-rice crops (see A.11.2 for rice). For field crops in arid and semi-arid areas, 10 kg zinc per hectare broadcast and incorporated into the soil will control zinc deficiency for three or four years. Foliar applications of 1-2 kg Zn/ha/yr to tree crops are very effective. v. Iron Iron deficiency, or lime-induced chlorosis, on calcareous soils is a very complex problem influenced by many physical, chemical and biological factors. Iron is absorbed by plants as Fe (II) which is relatively soluble, but in the pH range of neutral to alkaline soils this is rapidly converted to Fe (III) which is very insoluble. Foliar deficiency symptoms are quite specific for iron. Diagnostic soil tests for available iron have been generally unsuccessful and often are of little use as the condition is difficult to correct. However, Lindsay and Norvell (1978) in the USA and Stewart-Jones (1979) in Saudi Arabia have used DTPA extraction with some success. Additions of ferrous sulphate to soils which are grossly deficient in iron can sometimes produce substantial increases in yields; the response is dependent on microbial activity and the presence of organic matter. Lime-induced chlorosis within land units is generally very variable and unpredictable, but many soils will produce good overall production and yields, despite lower yields in affected patches of fields. Some crops have 'iron efficient' and 'iron inefficient' cultivars and with tree crops, the chlorosis often varies markedly from tree to tree. Tissue analysis does not identify this problem satisfactorily, but it is readily evident from leaf chlorosis. vi. Sulphur Sulphur deficiency occurs on old deeply weathered land surfaces where the soils have been strongly leached for a long period of time, and is only rarely found in arid areas. The sulphur supplying power of a soil can be estimated from the amount of water-soluble and absorbed sulphate in the root zone, for crops can use this absorbed sulphate quite readily. Less than 3 ppm SO4-S in soil extracted with lithium chloride solution was well correlated with the yield of alfalfa in S-deficient soils of southern Idaho. Sulphur deficiency is readily corrected by sulphate containing fertilizers (e.g. superphosphate or sulphate of ammonia) or gypsum. Sulphur toxicity occurs on acid-sulphate soils as discussed in A.11.3. vii. Boron Boron deficiency does not usually occur on arid and semi-arid land where boron toxicity is a much more probable occurrence as already discussed under A.10 and Table 42. Boron deficiency frequently occurs on calcareous soils, or on acid soils that have been limed, particularly when plants such as sugarbeet are under water stress in dry periods. Deficiency often occurs when hot water soluble boron of the soil is less than 0.3 to 1.0 ppm but the predictive value of this test is not always satisfactory. Plant tissue analysis is very reliable for confirming boron deficiency in plants. Note that,

whereas boron deficiency is usually determined using the hot water extraction process, boron toxicity is generally identified from boron in the saturation extract of soils. viii. Copper Copper deficiency occurs on many ancient strongly-weathered soils (e.g. in Australia) which are low in copper, and on some sandy soils, especially calcareous sands and peats. ix. Manganese Manganese deficiency in neutral to alkaline soils is often associated with deficiencies of iron and zinc but rarely, if ever, both. Manganese deficiency, either alone or in combination with other elements occurs much less often than zinc and iron deficiencies. It is rarely found in field or vegetable crops in irrigated regions but is commonly a limitation in citrus and deciduous tree crops. x. Molybdenum Molybdenum deficiency is usually found only on acid soils and it can often be cured by liming or, more cheaply, by applications of sodium or ammonium molybdate to the soil, crop or seed. Poor nitrogen fixation by legume crops is associated with molybdenum deficiency. xi. Aluminium Aluminium toxicity accompanied by manganese and iron toxicity occurs on acid soils over large areas of oxisols and ultisols subject to seasonal wetting and drying in the humid tropics. Aluminium toxicity at pH values of less than 5 is one of the main causes of limited root penetration of annual crops, such as cotton, below certain soil depths (Pearson 1974). (For acid sulphate soils see A.11.3.) In Table 43 international ranges of soil and plant analyses are tabulated, using data obtained by Sillanp and as reported in Soils Table 43 INTERNATIONAL AVERAGES AND RANGES OF SOME SOIL AND PLANT (MAIZE) ANALYSES 1/ (Number of samples = 1 976 from 25 countries, depth of sampling 0-20 cm)
Units General Soil Properties Particle size distribution <.002 .002 -.06 .06-2 > 2 mm Texture index Cation exchange capacity (unbuffered CEC) pH (H2O) % % % % 28 36 35 1 42 me/100 27.0 g 6.92 18 20 26 5 17 15.4 1.05 1 1 0 0 9 2 4.00 87 87 97 56 91 99.7 8.95 Mean Standard deviation Minimum Maximum

pH (CaCl2) Electrical conductivity (1:2.5 soil:water) dS/m CaCO3 equivalent Organic C N (total) Bulk density (disturbed, air-dried) Soil Macronutrients 2/ N (total) Extractable K (1M ammonium acetate, pH 7) 3/ Extractable Ca (ditto) Extractable Mg (ditto) Extractable Na (ditto) Soil Micronutrients 2/ B (hot water extraction) 4/ Cu (AAAc-EDTA extraction) 5/ Fe (AAAc-EDTA) Mn (DTPA extraction 6/ Mo (AO-OA extraction) 6/ Zn (DTPA extraction) Maize Plant Nutrient Contents 7/ (grown on the above soils) N P K Ca Mg B Cu Fe 8/ Mn Mo Zn ppm ppm ppm % % % % % ppm ppm mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l % % % g/cm
3

6.40 2.1 2.8 1.3 .135 1.2

1.11 3.2 7.1 1.3 .088 .14

3.62 .1 0 .1 .008 .47 97 .1 18 10 2 0 .05 .1 14 .9 .010 .09

8.55 73.0 67.1 39.1 1.657 1.77 14 729 656.0 5 598 17 995 6 490 4 058 10.02 99.7 2 275 378.4 3.560 185.20

1 547 793 22.5 330 33.0 356

P (0.5M Na bicarbonate, pH 8.5, Olsen) mg/l

3 450 2 815 446 86 .65 6.0 160 43.2 .212 2.14 462 260 .71 7.9 139 38.4 .273 6.49

3.14 .330 3.13 .470 .251 9.24 11.6 77.6 .86 35.7

.87 .104 .96 .205 .119 8.00 4.2 47.8 1.35 47.2

.88 .050 .58 .091 .036 1.88 2.0 8.3 .01 6.2

6.51 1.038 6.71 1.880 1.125 100.04 99.6 517.1 21.03 915.6

Footnotes for Table 43 1/ Source: Sillanp, FAO Soils Bulletin 48, p. 433. This publication provides details of analytical methods and results from the study in which soil and plant samples were obtained from the 25 countries. Approximately two-thirds of the samples fall within the range represented by the mean plus or minus the standard deviation. See Sillanp, p. 441 for a breakdown of results by FAO-Unesco soil units. 2/ Results reported here as mg/l are on a volume basis. They may be converted to a weight basis, i.e. to obtain extractable cations in traditional units of milli-equivalents per 100 g dry soil, divide the value in mg/l by the product (equivalent weight x bulk density x 10).

3/ 'Extractable' may be similar but not identical with 'exchangeable'; the importance of (i) the intensity of leaching with the extractant, (ii) presence of soluble cations not adsorbed on the exchange complex, and (iii) pH, should be appreciated if results are to be reported as 'exchangeable'. 4/ As an index of plant availability, soil B values may be corrected according to CEC (see Sillanp p.49). 5/ Acid ammonium acetate-EDTA extractant (Sillanp p.10). As an index of plant availability, soil Cu values may be corrected according to the organic C content (Sillanp p. 56). 6/ The Mn content of plants decreases with increasing pH. As an index of plant availability, soil Mn values may be corrected according to pH (Sillanp p.67). A pH correction factor may also be applied to soil Mo extracted with ammonium oxalateoxalic acid solution. 7/ Plant Nutrient Contents expressed on a dry matter (105C) basis. The results given are for field grown maize samples submitted with the soil samples. Pot-grown wheat plant analyses are also presented in Sillanp, Appendix 4. 8/ Results not reliable, possibly because of contamination with soil. Bulletin 48. About 2 000 soil and indicator plant samples were obtained by Sillanp from representative soils in 25 countries. In Table 43 approximately two-thirds of the samples fall within the range represented by the mean plus or minus the standard deviation. Minimum and maximum values in this population of samples are also tabulated. The values given in this table can be used as guidelines, and the reader is referred to Soils Bulletin 48 for more detailed explanation of the analytical methods used. A.11.2 Chemical characteristics of submerged rice soils (based on Ponnamperuma 1976) Flooded rice soils undergo chemical changes that differ from those that are relevant under dryland conditions. In many parts of the world, the newer rice varieties have given disappointing results because soil problems have affected these newer varieties; this had earlier gone undetected owing to the use of traditional rice varieties tolerant to the adverse soil conditions. Iron toxicity on acid soils, phosphorus deficiency on ultisols, oxisols, vertisols and andepts, zinc deficiency on sodic, calcareous and peat soils, and iron deficiency on soils of high pH are the main problems to be identified in evaluating the effects of submergence in the cultivation of rice. Acid sulphate conditions are also potentially important for rice if the soils dry out periodically. Important chemical changes (Ponnamperuma 1976) that have implications in land evaluation for wetland rice are given in the following eight paragraphs. i. Change in pH: Within a few weeks of submergence the pH of acid soils increases and the pH of sodic and calcareous soils decreases. Thus the submergence causes the pH values of most acid and alkaline soils to converge between 6 and 7. The rate and degree of the pH changes depend on soil properties and temperature. Soils that have an adequate amount of organic matter (>2%) and active iron (>1%) and that are low in acid reserves attain a pH of about 6.5 within a few weeks of submergence.

However, if acid soils are low in organic matter or in active iron, or are high in acid reserves, they may not attain a pH of more than 5 even after months of submergence. Thus, in evaluating land for rice production, the pH of the dry soil may not be as important as the factors that influence pH kinetics on soil submergence. ii. Changes in salinity: The electrical conductivity of the soil solution after submergence increases with time, reaches a peak, and then decreases. Most submerged soils, regardless of their initial conductivities, have values exceeding 2 dS/m during a good part of the growing season. Conductivities are highest in saline soils and lowest in leached ultisols and oxisols and the course of conductivity changes varies markedly with the soil. Changes are highly correlated with the concentration of iron and manganese in the soil solutions of acid soils and with the calcium and magnesium bicarbonate concentration in alkaline soils. The salinity hazard in flooded soils may be greater than the ECe values of the soil immediately after submergence may indicate. Soil reduction and the solvent action of carbon dioxide release large amounts of ions into the soil solution, but due to dilution it may be less than the ECe values may suggest. iii. Reduction of Fe (III) to Fe (II): The most dramatic change that occurs when a soil is submerged and undergoes reduction is that Fe (III) oxide hydrates are reduced to Fe (II) compounds. Consequently, the soil colour changes from brown to grey, and large amounts of Fe (II) enter the solution phase. The concentration of water-soluble iron, which at submergence rarely exceeds 0.1 mg/l, may rise to 600 mg/l within a few weeks after flooding, it then declines or reaches a plateau. In acid sulphate soils the peak values may be as high as 5 000 ppm. Iron toxicity may be a hazard for wetland rice on soils for which the main drawbacks for dryland crops are manganese and aluminium toxicities and a deficiency of macroelements. Thus iron toxicity is common in submerged ultisols, oxisols, and acid sulphate soils in the tropics. It may also occur in acid sandy soils and in peat soils low in active iron, as in Akiochi soils. Low temperatures (<20C), by bringing about late but high and persistent concentrations of water-soluble iron, may cause iron toxicity in soils in which, at 25-30C, high concentrations are short-lived. Characteristics for predicting iron toxicity hazard are: a. pH of the dry soil; b. amount of reserve acidity? c. reactivity and content of Fe (III) oxide hydrates; d. soil temperature; e. salt content; f. percolation rate; g. interflow from adjacent areas. iv. Increase in supply and availability of nitrogen: (see heading A.7.1). v. Increase in availability of phosphorus, silicon, molybdenum: The availability of phosphorus and silicon, whether judged by chemical methods or by plant uptake, increases on submerging a soil. The concentration of water-soluble molybdenum increases on flooding, presumably as a result of desorption following reduction of ferric oxides. This may benefit nitrogen-

fixing algae at the surface, anaerobic bacteria in the reduced soil, and aerobic bacteria on the roots. vi. Decrease in concentrations of water-soluble zinc and copper: A decrease in concentrations of water-soluble zinc and copper is one of the few disadvantages of flooding soils for rice. Since 1966, zinc deficiency has been recognized as a widespread nutritional disorder of rice on sodic and calcareous soils. Recent work suggests that zinc deficiency (and perhaps copper deficiency) is a serious obstacle to the growth of rice on continuously wet soils and peat soil (Ponnamperuma 1965 and 1972). These deficiencies may not be as acute for dryland crops grown on those soils after they are drained. Therefore, the possibility of zinc and copper deficiencies should always be considered in evaluating land for wetland rice. vii. Production of toxins: These include organic reduction products, organic acids, ethylene and hydrogen sulphide. Hydrogen sulphide is produced in submerged soils as a result of sulphate reduction and anaerobic decomposition of organic matter. In normal soils it is rendered harmless by precipitation as ferrous sulphide, but in soils high in sulphate and organic matter and low in iron, it may harm rice plants (see A.11.3). viii. Implications for land evaluation for wetland rice: The chemical changes brought about by soil submergence may drastically alter the category in which a soil is placed on the basis of characteristics for dryland soil. Some soils may shift from suitable to unsuitable and vice versa. The same chemical changes, along with inherent soil properties, complicate enormously the evaluation of problem soils. Table 44 lists some of the growth limiting factors likely to be important on various soils. A.11.3 Acid sulphate soils Acid sulphate conditions may be anticipated where it is intended to drain submerged soils high in sulphate and organic matter, e.g. in mangrove swamps. Aeration of these soils when drained can lead to the oxidation of sulphur compounds and acidification to a very low pH. This acidification is potentially a problem in many coastal areas subject to tidal influence from saline sea water, especially mangrove swamps that are to be drained and reclaimed. Many tens of thousands of hectares in the humid tropics could be brought under rice or oil palm cultivation provided the soils are prevented from drying by careful water control all the year round. To distinguish soils that are potentially hazardous from those that are not, the severity of acidification on drying can be measured in the field or laboratory from changes in pH. In the field, pH measurements can be made with 1:5 soil-water suspensions, as soon as possible after the time of sampling. This establishes the normal field values for the unreclaimed soil. To determine the effects of oxidation on these soils when they are drained, duplicate samples may be exposed to air by loosening the necks of polythene storage bags. Measurements are then made at intervals to monitor changes in pH. If the pH drops to less than 4 within 30 days, a level of soluble aluminium approaching 2 mg/l is possible which is harmful to rice. At a pH of 3.6 the soluble aluminium could be as high as 43 mg/l. Ferrous iron levels above 500 mg/l are also harmful to rice and other crops and in some acid sulphate soils can rise to 5 000 mg/l. Table 44 GROWTH LIMITING CONDITIONS FOR RICE ON SUBMERGED SOILS OF VARIOUS TYPES

KIND OF SOIL AND MAIN LIMITATIONS Saline soils Arid saline soils Acid coastal saline soils Neutral and alkaline coastal and saline soils Deltaic and estuarine acid sulphate soils Coastal histosols Acid sulphate soils Coastal soils Old inland soils Histosols Iron-toxic soils Acid sulphate soils Acid oxisols and ultisols Histosols

OTHER GROWTH LIMITING CONDITIONS

Alkalinity, Zn deficiency, N & P deficiencies Iron toxicity, P deficiency, deep water Zn deficiency, deep water Iron toxicity, P deficiency, deep water Nutrient deficiencies, H2S toxicity, toxicity of organic substances, deep water, Fe toxicity Salinity, Fe toxicity, N & P deficiencies, deep water N & P deficiencies Fe toxicity, H2S toxicity, nutrient deficiencies, deep water, salinity Salinity, N & P deficiencies, deep water P deficiency, low base status, low Si content H2S toxicity, toxicity of organic substances, macro-nutrient deficiencies, Zn and Cu deficiencies, deep water Strong acidity, iron toxicity, low nutrient status, base deficiency, salinity Iron toxicity, base deficiency Zinc deficiency, iron deficiency, salinity, alkalinity Salinity, N & P and Fe deficiencies P and Fe deficiencies, salinity, alkalinity K deficiency Cu deficiency N, P, K, Si, Cu, deficiencies; H2S toxicity, deep water

Phosphorus deficiency in wetland rice Acid sulphate soils Acid oxisols and ultisols Vertisols Zinc deficient soils Saline-sodic and sodic soils Vertisols Calcareous soils Wet soils Histosols

Source: after Ponnamperuma 1976. Where laboratory facilities exist, tests can be carried out on duplicate soil samples that have been maintained free of air. One set is oxidized with hydrogen peroxide in the laboratory before analysing and the other is not. Total pyrite (FeS) is determined from the difference between the analyses, and its concentration indicates if the soil is potentially acid sulphate. Potentially acid sulphate soils often have horizons with a soft buttery consistency, making the material difficult to extract with an auger. These soils are often conformable with Rhizophora mangrove and Nipah palm vegetation; there is often a smell of hydrogen disulphide in soil pits or auger holes, a low pH on drying, and a high sulphate content.

A.12 Pests, diseases and weeds

Insufficient regard for potential pest, disease and weed problems in land evaluation quite commonly results in the choice of unsuitable cropping systems and rotations leading to poor performance of irrigation projects. The categories of problem may be listed as due to (i) wild animals, (ii) arthropods including insects and mites, (iii) parasitic nematodes, (iv) fungal pathogens, (v) bacterial pathogens, and (vi) virus diseases. In reconnaissance studies these should be considered in selecting alternative LUTs. Pests, diseases and weeds may be 'class-determining' because of the variability from one land unit to another in exposure to wild animals, in microclimate or soils, or in other land characteristics. Insect problems, particularly in cotton, have led to the failure of large irrigation schemes (e.g. in Australia). Certain crops need protection by fencing against wild animals and theft. This could be considered as an investment and land development cost under Section C. Site and aspect affecting microclimate may cause increased incidence of many fungal and bacterial leaf diseases. Cool temperatures at the base of slopes may downgrade the land because of proneness to diseases- Humid sites may be more disease-prone since the number of hours during which the leaf surface is wet often encourages fungal and bacterial pathogens, and reduces the effectiveness of control measures. Poorly drained soils predispose certain crops to root and foot rots (see A.5). Nematode problems may be more severe on sandy soils than on clay soils. Weed problems are often under-evaluated. Tens of thousands of hectares of land have been abandoned due to the difficulty of controlling weeds on certain soils. The impracticability of weed control during periods of wet weather on heavy soils restricts the range of crops that can be grown on non-rice cropland. Weeds that are not a problem early in the life of a project may become so with time or vice versa. For a list and details of the world's worst 100 weeds see Holm et al. (1977) and for rice land weeds see Moody (1981). The cost of pesticides, herbicides and labour, etc. to control pests, diseases and weeds, including activities such as bird scaring, is an input to farm budgets, but initially can be scored using factor ratings. Long-term hazards of pest, disease and weed build-up for given rotations and management should, where possible, be based on comparable experience in the locality.

A.13 Flood, storm, wind and frost

A.13.1 Flooding in rice cultivation A.13.2 Flood hazard A.13.3 Storm, hail and wind hazard A.13.4 Frost hazard

The evaluation of these can be separated into sections concerned with floods and deep water in the cultivation of rice, flood hazard in general, storm and wind hazard and frost hazard as discussed in A.13.1, A.13.2, A.13.3 and A.13.4 respectively. A.13.1 Flooding in rice cultivation Twenty-five to thirty percent of the world's rice areas are subject to deep water flooding and grow traditional tall and floating rice varieties, and 25-30% are under shallow water (IRRI 1975b). Deep water rice land is mainly situated in densely populated valleys and the deltas of major rivers (e.g. Ganges, Brahmaputra, Godavari, Irrawaddy, Chao Phraya and Mekong), where low yielding indica varieties are grown. In the deepest areas (1-6 meters), floating rice varieties are grown. The stems of these varieties elongate as the water rises and the leaves float on the water. About 10% of the rice land in Asia and Africa is planted with floating rice; almost half of the total is planted with tall non-floating varieties adapted to medium-deep water. Land suitability depends on the varieties available and on the reliability of the flood. The speed of the rise or fall in water levels with respect to the varieties grown is very important. If the water recedes too quickly the varieties may lodge. Fast-moving water can flatten or uproot the crop or cover it with silt. Flooding by sea water causes additional damage by salts. Many rice varieties are tolerant to some submergence, or are able to grow through the deep water. Young seedlings are often more susceptible to flooding and submergence than older seedlings. Floating rice is generally planted at the beginning of the first monsoon rains, the seeds being broadcast on dry or moist soil. During the early period, the rice grows as an upland crop and may even need to be drought tolerant at the seedling stage, photoperiodicity (see Radiation) causes flowers to form after the water starts to recede but before the end of the rains. Harvesting is sometimes from boats or it may take place after the water completely recedes and the soil is dry. | Land and water suitability depend on the reliability and depth of flooding, the duration and depth of flooding required by particular varieties arid the speed of recession of the water. The velocity of water flow is also an important factor. It is possible that the variety of rice may be dictated by land characteristics, and if these varieties differ in yield potential, they affect land productivity and therefore the varietal requirement may be land class-determining- Five categories of rice varieties are recognized: irrigated wetland (lowland), shallow rainfed (lowland), intermediate-deep rainfed (lowland), deep water, and dry land. The varieties adapted to these various conditions have different yield potential, the greatest being for irrigated wetland and the lowest (usually) for dryland. An example from the south coast of Java can be cited, where areas were distinguished as 'not subject to flooding', 'subject to moderate flooding' and 'subject to prolonged flooding'. Two crops of high yielding modern rice varieties could be grown on the land not subject to flooding, and the benefit of this could be offset against the cost of protecting additional land from flood. Tall rice varieties (some improved) were suitable for land subject to temporary flash flooding. The important aspects to be evaluated were the risk associated with different dates of planting, and whether the use of improved shorter duration rices would allow two crops instead of one per year. Benefits would then be set off against flood control and irrigation costs. In the areas subject to prolonged seasonal flooding, only one dry season rice crop could be grown. The rice production, input-output and land development investment costs on the different land units were expressed in economic terms to define land suitability classes. Alternatively,

different LUTs could have been created but this would have led to too many combinations of LUTs and land units for evaluation. A.13.2 Flood hazard In shallow water rice areas and in areas producing other crops, spasmodic floods not only affect the crop, but also damage the soil and the infrastructure, e.g. rice-field bunds, pathways, temporary and permanent houses, roads and bridges etc. Flood damage is most likely to occur on river flood plains, alluvial and coastal plains, regions with large seasonal variations in rainfall and liable to intensive rain over hours or days. The detailed pattern of incidence is thus related to landforms. In setting critical limits for flood hazard, two criteria may be used: period of inundation, and flood frequency. The period of inundation is the average number of days during the cropping season or year when the land is covered by water. This may be obtained from records or estimated. The flood frequency is the probability of occurrence of damaging floods during the year. A damaging flood is one that destroys or causes severe damage to the crop, land or infrastructure. Where required, a damaging flood may be defined quantitatively in terms of period of inundation and/or speed of flow or volume of discharge of moving water. The following scale can be applied quantitatively where data are available, but will usually form the basis for subjective estimation. Frequency of damaging floods:
Very rare or never Less than 1 year in 20 or never known to occur Rare Infrequent Very frequent Less than 1 year in 5 Between 1 year in 5 and one per year More than 5 times per year

Particularly where rice is grown, it may be necessary to distinguish between floods with a low current, which may be beneficial, and floods with a strong current, which may damage field structures. An example of critical limits for floods of these two types in the Sudan is given in Table 45. Table 45 EXAMPLE OF CRITICAL RANGES FOR ASSESSMENT OF FLOODING HAZARD
Factor rating Frequency of Flooding Flooding with strong current during growing season s1 s2 s3 n Once every 10 years Once every 6-10 years Once every 3-5 years Every 1-2 years Flooding with low current None - 2 days 2 days - 3 weeks 3-20 years More than 20 weeks

A.13.3 Storm, hail and wind hazard The exposure of land to storm and wind and the susceptibility or tolerance to these for different crops often needs assessment in land evaluation. A judgement needs to be made of the economic impact which is probable for respective land units and crops.

Two aspects are the general prevalence of the hazard (e.g. wind) and the occurrence of special events such as high intensity rainfall, cyclones and hurricanes. The latter are considerations in the selection of LUTs, but the extent of the damage and the ability of the crop to survive and sustain production after the event may be aggravated at specific sites, which could be differentiated into factor ratings. Amongst crops there is a clear distinction between short-term crops and perennial crops. The survival of shortterm crops in the event of an infrequent storm hazard is of less consequence than for tree crops and orchards which might be completely destroyed. Bananas have the capability of regrowth from underground shoots if the above ground parts of the plant are destroyed; most tree crops do not have this capability. Hail can severely damage or destroy crops in many parts of the world and may have a bearing on the crops chosen. Hail damage is often very localized. The possibility of insurance against hail damage may also affect the choice of crops. A.13.4 Frost hazard Where it occurs, frost can be an important land class-determining factor. Frost pockets occur in valley floors owing to katabatic air movements. Frost can destroy the flowers of temperate fruit crops and consequently affect yields. Rare frosts are particularly important in the case of orchards (e.g. citrus) where trees of all ages may be destroyed. Damaging frosts can be defined in terms of temperatures, duration, and periods of the year during which damage may occur using data from climatic records. Local experience is often helpful in indicating the effect of landforms (i.e. the greater incidence in valley floors and the increase in incidence with altitude).

B. Management
B.14 Location B.15 Water application management B.16 Pre-harvest farm management B.17 Harvest and post-harvest conditions B.18 Mechanization

Management Requirements and Limitations Land Conditions affecting Management Some aspects of agronomy impinging on management have already been discussed in section A. In this section, the additional considerations are those associated with location, water application management, pre-harvest farm management, harvest and post-harvest conditions, and mechanization.

B.14 Location
The location of a land unit affects many aspects of the management as follows-

i. closeness to markets or processing facilities; ii. availability of inputs of fertilizers, pesticides, seeds and planting material; iii. services provided (roads, electricity, domestic water, etc.); iv. availability and supply of water for irrigation: v. time wasted in travel and cost of transport or both; vi. attention to day-to-day management of crops and irrigation; vii. accessibility of machinery for land preparation, harvesting, etc. These are now discussed in turn. i. Closeness to markets or processing facilities: Fresh vegetables and fruits are often produced on land close to centres of population. The presence of processing facilities, e.g. a rice mill, a sugarcane factory or cotton ginning facilities influences both the cost of transportation and the practicability of growing the crop at a particular location. Time, distance or cost of transportation can be used to define critical limits for factor ratings. ii. Availability of inputs of fertilizers, pesticides, seeds and planting materials, etc. If the land use depends on such inputs, they must be available at the time and in the amounts they are needed. If they are not available then the land must be classed 'Not Suitable' for this use. The reliability of supply and the timeliness of the supply of inputs may be a descriptor of a land utilization type, or a class-determining factor. iii. Services provided (roads, electricity, housing, schools, clinics, domestic water, etc.). Land productivity in isolated locations is often less than where close to villages or towns with the above services. In this case, different suitabilities must be given to the land units based on the probable effect in terms of output and costs. iv. Availability and supply of water for irrigation. Users at the head of irrigation canals generally get more water than tail-enders, to the point where the land values are sometimes very different. The suitabilities in terms of 'location' in the assessment of 'irrigable' lands may be very important. The ability of farmers to pay water charges and taxes are often based on land classes and therefore a careful assessment is important. To avoid double counting under different headings, either the water requirement or the location factor should be used but not both. The locational and related factors, which are important with regard to water supply, have been studied by Wickham et al. (1977) and IRRI (1974) for run-of-river lowland rice. These are: a. distance along lateral b. distance along sub-lateral c. distance of overland flow d. elevation of the canal relative to the paddy e. soil texture f. number of intervening farms along the overland distance of water movement g. farm ditch density The effects of these interact with how adequately the irrigation system services its areas with water, and management factors such as planting date, the control of water upstream from a particular land unit (e.g. the use of checks), the phasing of distribution and scheduling, and gate control. Thus, when water is in short supply, the build-up of

drought in certain parts of a system can be attributed to an unfavourable location within the system, and to competition within the system. Farmers nearer the water source are better placed than those further away. In the Philippines irrigation scheme studied by Wickham, the factors highly associated with the duration of crop stress and yields were distance of the farm from the beginning of the lateral, or from the sublateral, and the overland distance of the farm from the point where water was released from the canal system. The main reasons for the increased drought incidence further along major canals were the temporary checks that restricted the amount of water passing along the canals and the lack of control gates. The factors which were not important in Wickham's study were elevation of the canal relative to the paddy, soil texture, number of intervening farms (as distinct from distance of overland flow), or the farm ditch density. The weak association between soil texture and distance along the lateral was due to the fact that heavier soils with greater water-holding capacity were found in the farther reaches of the system, at greater distances overland, and thus tended to compensate. These locational factors are much more important if water is in short supply than if it is plentiful and this should be taken into account in choosing factor ratings or 'significance' levels for 'location'. Elevation and distance is of great importance in lift-irrigation schemes on account of the cost of pumping. In 'provisionally-irrigable' classifications this may be largely ignored, but it is a major consideration in the selection of 'irrigable' land. Within the irrigable area, once its extent has been determined, there are two main possibilities: a. If the farmer has to pay the full cost of the water delivered to his farm and this includes costs of pumping, the benefit/cost ratio and suitability of the site will be highly affected by the elevation and distance. This is often the case in groundwater and lift irrigation development. b. If the project as a whole or the government has responsibility for the cost of the water between the source and the elevated discharge points to farms, all farms may be equally charged for water or the costs may be recovered indirectly or not at all. In this case the elevation and distance need not be a factor in the evaluation once the extent of the irrigable land has been determined. It is important in determining the 'irrigable' area and project development costs. However, most funding agencies require that each land unit supports its own area-specific investment costs (see Chapter 7). v. Time wasted in travel and cost of travel and transport. The cost in terms of a farmer's time and in labour may be critical in evaluating the 'location'. Transportation costs (as distinct from transportation difficulties) following the construction of the irrigation scheme may significantly affect benefit/cost ratios at different locations. Critical limits may be expressed in relative terms (s1, s2, s3, n1 or n2) or in terms of relative benefit/costs using, for example, cost of transport per tonne/kilometre or per hour. The portrayal of access by the use of isochrons may be necessary to define 'irrigable' land. There are refined and specialized methods of assessing transport costs which would be used if transportation is a major factor that it is intended to study in detail. Transportation specialists will adopt more sophisticated methods of assessment than the following but the main concept is illustrated below for roads: a. Classify and map the existing roads; the following basis is suggested;

2 or 4-lane tarmac single lane tarmac gravel or improved earth, width >5.5 m earth, unimproved and/or width <5.5 m Each divided into: - level to gently sloping terrain, mean road gradients 1 in 10 - moderately to steeply sloping terrain, mean road gradients 1 in 10 b. Estimate a transport cost for each class of road, per t/km. c. Identify centres. By measurement from the map of classes of road, multiplied by the unit cost for each class, determine the transport cost to or from centres, per tonne, for intervals along the road systems. d. Estimate the distance from a road over which it is reasonable to assume that inputs and produce will be carried. Draw limits around the road network at this distance. Areas lying beyond these limits are regarded as inaccessible. e. For the area with access to roads, draw cost isolines. vi. Attention to day-to-day management of crops and irrigation: It may not be possible to grow specific crops at distant sites because of theft and crop security. The protection of crops from wild animals, birds, and other pests and diseases may be lacking and the management less than optimum. All these are commonly very important factors. The problem of security also applies to irrigation equipment (e.g. sprinkler pipes, brass nozzles, etc.) which can be stolen for making utensils, parts for motor vehicles, etc. The functioning of the irrigation system may be damaged maliciously. vii. Accessibility of machinery for land preparation, harvesting, etc. This is a major factor particularly for bulky crops (e.g. sugarcane, sugarbeet) where mechanical cultivation is important to achieve timely sowing or planting. Critical limits depend on the type of equipment to be used, on the rainfall and soil conditions, on topography particularly slope, and other factors. If the land is inaccessible or subject to conditions which hamper access such as wet roads, impassable drains, etc., the opportunities for timely and efficient operations vary according to the severity and location of these constraints. A combined evaluation of all these factors, taking care not to double count factors which will be considered under other heads can be facilitated with the assistance of Table 46. Table 46 FACTOR RATINGS FOR LOCATION FOR A SPECIFIED LAND UTILIZATION TYPE AND LAND UNIT
Land Unit No(s): Land Use Type(s) Factors Proximity of markets, Factor ratings 1/ s1 s2 s3 n Significance for this assessment Not important Factor rating selected e.g. s1

processing facilities Inputs availability Services, house and village proximity Effect of location on water supply and cost Transportation and labour costs Security and day-today management Accessibility to machinery Factor rating for: LOCATION (Enter n on Format 3) n Very important n

1/ Tick as appropriate.

B.15 Water application management

The land evaluator should assess the land characteristics of the land unit that will affect water application in the field after the land has been developed for irrigation, as discussed below. To avoid double counting the factors he should assume that the quantity of water specified in Section A.6 (and as affected by location as specified in Section A.14) will be supplied, and that it may or may not meet the full requirement, as appropriate. He should also assume a water application technique (surface, sprinkler or localized irrigation) as in the description of the land utilization type (but see Chapter 4.2.1). The remaining questions to be answered are: i. How do the land characteristics affect the operation of the specified water application technique? ii. Given the location, are there any specific advantages or limitations that will affect yields or costs of water application on the given land? For the irrigation technique under consideration, the land characteristics used to define critical limits and factor ratings are those that will affect either the cost of water application or the level of crop production on the land. Costs of water application may be affected by: a. the potential size of management units and subunits (e.g. the size and shape of the fields and farms); b. different labour requirements and labour availabilities (associated with the specific land area rather than with locational factors already considered); c. different opportunities and requirements for mechanizing or automating irrigation water application. The level of crop production may be affected by:

- uniformity of the water application in the field related to soils, topography or other land characteristics; - the factors concerned with rate, duration and frequency of application specific to the land. To avoid double counting, the assessment under this heading should not include aspects which have already been considered, nor those which will be considered under the later headings, that is: 1. exclude consideration of land characteristics affecting the water supply or requirements; 2. exclude locational aspects described in B.14; 3. exclude factors affecting land development costs (see Section C). The following approach can be adopted to select a factor rating for the heading 'Water Application Management' (Table 47). Table 47 FACTOR RATINGS FOR WATER APPLICATION MANAGEMENT
Land Unit No. Land Use Type Crops Water application technique: Land characteristics affecting the rating Example: 1. Size and shape of fields 2. Soil intake rate affecting uniformity, leaching 3. Costs of moving pipes past an obstruction Important Less important Important n s1 n n Factor ratings 1/ s1 s2 s3 n Significance Selected rating

Factor rating for: WATER APPLICATION MANAGEMENT (Enter n on Format 3)

1/ Tick as appropriate. The ways in which land characteristics might affect water application management in different land units where surface, sprinkler and localized irrigation techniques are to be used, are included amongst considerations listed in Table 48. This table describes all the features and requirements of irrigation application techniques, including both those affecting the choice of system and the suitability of the land. This is a comprehensive list and not all the features described are relevant to the assessment of water application management. Table 48 FEATURES OF IRRIGATION APPLICATION TECHNIQUES FOR EVALUATING CHOICE OF SYSTEM AND SUITABILITY OF LAND A. SURFACE APPLICATION TECHNIQUES
FEATURE SMALL BASINS (MEDIUM) 1/ LARGE BASINS BORDER STRIPS SHORT FURROWS (MEDIUM) 1/ LONG

FURROWS 1. Land development costs 2. Capital intensity (field equipment) 3. Labour intensity 4. Energy intensity Low Often high, precision grading required Low Low to Low medium depending on topography Low Low Often high, precision grading required Low

Low

High

Low

Medium

High

Low

Low (gravity) Low (gravity) Low (gravity) High (pumped) High (pumped) High (pumped)

Low (gravity) Low (gravity) High (pumped) High (pumped) Medium to large, regular shape Often critical both for graded and dead level furrows

5. Size and Very flexible, shape of fields often small and irregular 6. Topography Important but generally not critical

Large and Long, Very flexible, regular shaped rectangular, often small fields required can be narrow and irregular Often critical if Suitable slope Important but graded or level and absence generally not basin of cross critical slopes

7. Soils

Intake rates often critical for efficient use of water and uniformity of application; influences size of basins, lengths of furrows or border strips in relation to the rate of water delivery, slope and uniformity of microrelief. Suitable for small farmers in LDCs Sophisticated management required Suitable for middle level management Suitable for small farmers in LDCs Sophisticated management required Row crops, not those planted on the flat; mechanized Intermittent, by arrangement or fixed by water agency; delivery rate must match labour, cutbacks to flow important Uniformity of grade or level, rate and duration, cutbacks to stream flow, or use of return flows, variability None None

8. Management skills

9. Cropping Wide range of Suitable field limitations and crops, but not crops planted mechanization mechanized on the flat or ridges and mechanized 10. Scheduling by frequency, rate and duration of the water supply Continuous (rice); Intermittent, generally fixed by water agency; often 10-30 l/s, limited, fixed duration Topography, soils management, size and shape of fields, water supply, labour skills Usually intermittent, by arrangement or fixed by water agency; high delivery rates, short duration possible Levelling and grading of land, soils, management, size and slope of basin, infield variability

Suitable field Wide range of crops planted crops, but not on the flat and mechanized mechanized Intermittent, by arrangement or fixed by water agency; rate must be matched by labour, cutbacks to flow important Uniformity of grade, absence of cross slope, rate and duration, cutback stream size, labour skills None None Intermittent, by arrangement or fixed by water agency; often 10-30 l/s, limited, fixed duration

11. Factors affecting uniformity of application

Topography, soils, management, size and shape of fields, water supply, labour skills None None

12. Mechanical None problems 13. Security problems None

None None

14. Leaching and salts problems

Salty patches on underwatered high spots

No special problems

No special problems

Salt accumulation on ridges, salty patches on high spots If water in short supply distance from source is important Inherently low on permeable soil? minimum application is 50 mm per irrigation Poor uniformity of application, overwatering, land wasted in channels Easily administered water schedules at expense of efficient water use Good for third world farmers

Salt accumulation on ridges, otherwise no special problems No special problems

15. Location

If water in short supply distance from source is important

Usually adequately serviced

No special problems

16. Field water Inherently low use on permeable efficiencies soil; minimum application is 50 mm per irrigation 17. Main problems generally encountered Poor uniformity of application, overwatering, land wasted in bunds and channels Easily administered water schedules, at expense of efficient water use. Good for third world fanners

Can be very high in very accurately levelled basins

Very dependent on the water control, cross slope, can be high and low Poor uniformity of application, erosion, crop damage Suitable for medium sized farms not growing row crops, especially for forage

Very dependent on the water control, rate, duration, slope, high or low Poor uniformity of application, excessive runoff, erosion Suitable for large mechanized units where labour is skilled

Very high land levelling costs. Exposure of subsoils

18. General remarks

Suitable for large mechanized units where labour is costly and energy/water use efficiency is important

1/ This indicates that there are intermediate conditions to be considered. Table 48 FEATURES OF IRRIGATION APPLICATION TECHNIQUES FOR EVALUATING CHOICE OF SYSTEM AND SUITABILITY OF LAND B. SPRINKLER AND LOCALIZED IRRIGATION TECHNIQUES
ORIFICE AND LONG LOW MEDIUM HIGH MINIPATHWAY OUTPUT 1/ OUTPUT SPRINKLERS EMITTERS (ON-LINE OR IN-LINE) 1. Land development costs 2. Capital intensity (field equipment) 3. Labour intensity Low or nil Low or nil Low or nil Low or nil SPRINKLERS

BIWALL TUBING

Low or nil

High

High

High

High

High

Hand move systems, high labour need, mechanized and mobile systems low.

High need for labour in laying and removing tubing, low labour need during period of irrigation and/or automatic

High labour for installation, low for operating,

control of water supply 4. Energy intensity Medium-high water pressures required Medium to very high pressures Low pressures Low pressures (losses on (no advantage filtration) if pressure for filtration is high) Very adaptable; limited length of laterals Very adaptable; limited length of laterals

often ploughed in Low pressures but losses over filters Very adaptable; Limited length of laterals

5. Size and Not suitable for very small shape of fields fields. Hand move systems are flexible; and mobile, mechanized systems inflexible requiring large, regular shaped fields.

6. Topography Not suitable for very steep land. Very adaptable Very Some limitations for mobile and adaptable mechanized systems but less so than for surface irrigation systems 7. Soils Suitable for soils with high intake rates. Sometimes problems with low intake soils. Problems with high rate of application, mobile systems and rainguns Not suitable for farmers in the third world who cannot get spares or manage the operation effectively No intake problems. Some lateral water spreading Intermediate level of management but fairly simple Better for tree crops and widely spaced row crops; automated control possible Usually on demand. 1-3 day intervals. Low-medium rate, mediumlong duration No intake problems. Lateral spread is limited especially on sandy soils Sophisticated management to prevent malfunction Intensive high value crops; unsuited for seedbed irrigation, reelin systems, automation Usually on demand. 1-3 day intervals or continuous. Low rate, long duration

Very adaptable

No intake problems. Lateral spread is limited especially on sandy soils Sophisticated management to prevent malfunction Wide row crops, can be subsurface (e.g. sugarcane), mechanized laying Usually on demand. 1-3 day intervals or continuous. Low rate, long duration

8. Management skills

9. Cropping Apart from some tall crops and limitations and rice no problems. Highly mechanization mechanized wheel mounted laterals, centre pivots, cable systems, or permanent systems reduce labour requirements 10. Scheduling by frequency, rake or duration of the water supply Usually on demand. Intervals are days or weeks, medium to high rates, 315 mm per hour Usually on demand. Intervals are days or weeks, medium to high rates, 315 mm per hour

11. Factors affecting uniformity of application

Wind is the major problem of hand-mover sprinkler systems. Drop in pressures along lines, distances of throw and spacing between sprinklers

Not uniform when used as localized irrigation; pressure regulators can be used to improve uniformity Nozzle blockages

Not uniform when used as localized irrigation, variation along laterals is a design factor

Not uniform when used as localized irrigation, variation along laterals is a design factor

12. Mechanical Moving parts wear, nozzles problems may block, some filtration and servicing needs

Filtration critical aspect to stop clogging; a major limitation

13. Security problems

Not vandal proof; pipe and metal fittings must be removed from field at night in some countries Under-watering can be a problem on very impermeable soils; uniformity problems; scorch on wetted leaves especially important e.g. citrus Distance and elevation major cost factors in pressure head losses and requirements

Not very vulnerable to damage or theft. Needs attention No special problem. Low level avoids leaf scorch in tree crops Intermediate costs for pressurizing Very high

Not particularly vulnerable and equipment can be left operating in field for long periods unattended The major advantage is better yields with salty water due to the soil never drying out, frequent irrigations. Salt encrustations on soil surface Long duration irrigation results in smaller head losses but note pressure head loss across filters Very high Very high

14. Leaching and salt problems

15. Location

16. Field water Much affected by wind and use efficiency distribution uniformity, can be high or low 17. Main problems generally encountered Costly equipment, high pumping costs, operational difficulties, hand move problems on wetted land, application rates too high with moving systems, wind drift and uneven application

Excessive lengths of piping, especially for closely spaced crops. High labour for unblocking nozzles Low pressure requirements suitable for small to medium-scale farmers

Clogging, installation and removing long lengths of tubing. Weeding. High cost. No use for seedbeds Better yields and water use efficiency justifies high capital costs on unintensive farms

Clogging, installation, no use for seedbed irrigation and therefore may need sprinklers as well Better yields and water use efficiency can justify high capital costs

18. General remarks

Suitable for high intake soils and uneven topography for a wide range of crops and extensive fanning or intensive systems

1/ Indicates there are intermediate conditions to be considered.

B.16 Pre-harvest farm management

The most important factor to evaluate under this heading is the effect of land characteristics on the timing of farm activities. Timeliness is often a class-determining factor as affected by soil workability and other characteristics that vary from place to place. It can therefore have an important influence on overall farm production and on costs of production. The following farm activities may be helped along or hindered by specific land characteristics such as soil workability in association with labour, power and water availability: i. land preparation (starting date, duration in days or weeks); ii. nursery preparation and sowing (water availability); iii. direct seeding or transplanting in the field; iv. irrigation (timing of, hold-ups due to wet soil, etc.); v. weeding (rainy spells and intractable soil conditions); vi. top dressing of fertilizer applications (delays result in yield losses);

vii. spraying for pest and disease control, or weed control; viii. others (e.g. interrow cultivations) specific to certain crops. The suitability can be rated in terms of how the land characteristics affect farm operations. It is often necessary to take account of labour supply and peak requirements, on-farm power in the form of human, animal and tractor facilities, and the availability of water. For example, in wetland rice, the farm operations on a soil that is difficult to cultivate when dry by animal-drawn implements may produce less yield, because the farmer has to delay sowing or planting until sufficient water is available to soften it, than where tractor cultivation is possible. The delay in planting date may be more, or less, depending on the particular soil and might result in larger or smaller yields, or the growing of only one crop per year rather than two. Continuing with the examples, the same farmer may have land which is more easily weeded (e.g. sandy soil) than other land (e.g. clay). One area of rice may be readily drained for spraying and another may be impossible to drain with differences resulting in variations in pest and disease control and therefore yields. The choice of factor ratings for 'pre-harvest farm management' can be facilitated by the use of Table 49, or a modification of it. Table 49 FACTOR RATING FOR PRE-HARVEST FARM MANAGEMENT
Land Unit No. Land Use Type: Crops Other relevant descriptors: Land characteristics or factors Example: 1. Soil workability Land preparation Nursery Direct seeding Transplanting Fertilizer application Irrigation Weeding Spraying Other Date of planting Number of crops per year Yields () Activity that is affected Factor ratings 1/ Significance s1 s2 s3 n Selected ratings

2. Access to water for an early nursery

Factor rating for: PRE-HARVEST FARM MANAGEMENT (Enter () on Format 3)

1/Tick as appropriate.

B.17 Harvest and post-harvest conditions

This assessment concerns harvest and post-harvest conditions that affect:

i. the carrying out of harvest and post harvest operations in an efficient and timely manner; ii. the spoilage of the crop produce in the field or during later drying and processing. Land characteristics that might affect either of these are generally those associated with wetness, dryness or wind. It may be impossible to harvest a crop on time, or the land may be damaged by machinery compacting some soils more than others, or the quality of product may be better on some soils than others. For example, some crops, notably root crops and groundnuts are of better final quality if grown on non-adhesive soils rather than on adhesive soils and they are more difficult to harvest on the latter. The yield is affected because some of the crop is lost in the soil during harvest. Soil adhering to roots such as sugarbeet may lead to lower acceptability and prices, or penalties at the processing plant. Product quality is often affected by excessive air humidity or rainfall and this may lead to diseases and losses in storage. Produce from land that dries out well before harvest may be of better final quality than from that which does not. For example, the milling quality of sugarcane will produce more sugar per tonne of cane on land which has allowed the cane to ripen and concentrate the juice, than on wetter land. Red soil on potatoes so enhances the export prices from one particular country, that production of this crop is confined to soil of that colour. Wind may be a favourable or unfavourable factor, assisting in the drying of some crops (e.g. grain) and increasing the perishability of others (e.g. vegetables). For any given crop and land combination, the characteristics that are class-determining can be readily identified.

B.18 Mechanization
This assessment concerns conditions of the land that specifically affect mechanized agricultural operations, excluding those already discussed (e.g. soil workability for preharvest farm operations). The conditions which act as limitations to mechanization are slope angle, rock hindrances, stoniness or extreme shallowness of the soil, and the presence of heavy clays. Table 50 suggests some critical limits for certain of these limitations. This is an important assessment if heavy harvesting machinery has to be used in the field and if bulky harvest products have to be transported out of the field to some central point. Limitations to mechanization can arise from a number of different features of land that are not necessarily related. Table 50 CRITICAL LIMITS FOR MECHANIZATION AND ON-FARM TRANSPORTATION 1/
Critical limits s1 5 9 s2 10 18 4 18 32 10 s3 n1 35 70 25 n2 - 2/

Land characteristic Slope angle (degree) (percent)

Rock hindrances % (outcrops and boulders) 1

Stones, topsoil % Plastic heavy clay

15

40

absent absent present present present

1/ Values given are the maximum permitted at each suitability level. 2/ Must be specified for each individual case.

C. Land development and land improvements

C.19 Land clearing C.20 Flood protection C.21 Drainage C.22 Land grading C.23 Physical, chemical and organic aids and amendments C.24 Reclamation leaching C.25 Duration of the reclamation period C.26 Irrigation engineering requirements

Land Development Requirements and Limitations Land Conditions affecting Development Costs Area-specific investment costs may be incurred to develop land for irrigated agriculture. These are discussed in this section under eight headings: land clearing of vegetation and rocks; flood protection; drainage; land grading or levelling; physical, chemical and organic aids and amendments; reclamation leaching; duration of the reclamation period; and irrigation engineering. The suitability of land in terms of the measures required to develop it include both physical and economic evaluation as discussed below and in Chapter 7.

C.19 Land clearing

C.19.1 Forested areas C.19.2 Areas of persistent weeds C.19.3 Removal of rocks and stones

In both forested and rocky areas the factors to take into account in assessing land units for clearing are: i. the cost of clearing; ii. the value of timber or other products; iii. damage to the land as a result of the clearing operation, and subsequent effects on the land use.

C.19.1 Forested areas The destruction of the topsoil is most serious if it is very thin and contains most of the organic matter, and overlies nearly sterile subsoil. This topsoil contains most of the nutrients and should be protected; if mechanical clearing methods are used, the topsoil may be lost with the rootball leaving an unfavourable, infertile and often acid material for cultivation. In fertile river basins, the subsoils may be intractable clays. The mechanical clearing may compact the clay severely. The topsoil with its more favourable physical characteristics may be removed or mixed in. The land classifier should indicate areas of land that are particularly susceptible to damage and recommend where it may be possible to remove the topsoil for later replacement. This is seldom practicable, and he should point out the areas that might be cleared by hand and those that are less vulnerable and more suited to mechanical clearing. He may also recommend areas where careful supervision of windrowing is especially important, in order to ensure that it is on the contour and to avoid the common practice of blocking natural drainage lines by pushing the material into depressions. Wherever practical, he will advocate hand methods of clearing even though these are slower than mechanical methods. The rate of clearing in regions of the world where shifting cultivation is practised can often keep pace with the rate that an area can be physically settled, where vast areas are hastily cleared by heavy equipment ahead of settlement, secondary jungle often results and a repeat clearing operation is necessary. Removal costs depend on size and type of vegetation, local labour costs, equipment available and the area involved. Costs rise steeply as the size of individual bushes and trees and density of stand increases. Using modern equipment and in comparison with clearing costs for light brush (sage), a thick stand of pine 30-45 cm in trunk diameter could cost 40 times as much and dense jungle 120 times as much. For large tracts of land (over 2 000 ha) very heavy machinery can halve the cost of jungle clearing but the resulting damage must also be taken into account. Wherever possible, shearing blades should be used to avoid large holes and the extraction of rootballs (Clarke 1980). Sandy soils tend to cost less to clear than fine textured soils. Clearing large trees with bulldozers tends to leave large holes where the tree stood, and soil clinging to the roots is carried to the windrows in preparation for burning. Land grading is therefore usually necessary regardless of whether sprinkler or surface irrigation is to be employed. Hand methods of clearing can be greatly accelerated by the use of chainsaws. The cost of hand methods (plus the use of chainsaws) can be estimated by timing the following operations: i. Underbrushing - this is to cut, as close as is possible to ground level, all grasses, vines and small diameter trees (less than 10-15 cm), facilitate access for the chainsaw crews and also, once the dead material dries off, to provide a good dry base for the subsequent burning. ii. Felling - following underbrushing chainsaw gangs (normally one operator and two assistants) cut everything as close as possible to ground level; height of stump will vary depending upon buttress heights. If possible, all trees should be felled in the same direction to facilitate later operations, and should be felled clear of natural waterways.

iii. Burning - this is to remove all the leaves and as many of the branches as possible. The cut and felled vegetation should be left to dry before burning. This normally takes six to eight weeks depending on sunshine and humidity. Burning should not be delayed more than three months after felling because of re-growth when the green leaves will hinder burning. To increase the chances of drying and a good burn these operations are best carried out in the dry season. It is essential to have a good burn because relighting and subsequent operations are much more difficult in half-burnt vegetation. iv. Stacking - after burning all the remaining wood should be cut into pieces that can be handled by manpower. These pieces should be stacked on stumps and retired. In this way a large proportion of the stem itself is removed without leaving a big hole. Extremely large diameter pieces should be cut so that they may be rolled away to the boundaries of the plot where they are left to rot. The process of stacking and reburning may need to be carried out several times before a satisfactory result is achieved. | If there is commercially acceptable timber in the area to be cleared, a slightly modified procedure will have to be adopted so that this timber can be removed before general cutting and burning. Stacking may also have to be modified to take account of the levelling, grading or contouring of the land for irrigation, and to account for future firewood or charcoal needs. Land can sometimes be cleared in return for the wood on it. It is important for the land evaluator to understand the implications of the methods and dangers of clearing activities as he is usually in a unique position to advise on these matters, should different areas need different treatment. He may also have to estimate the costs of land clearing for evaluation purposes. Table 51 (A and B) gives two estimates of labour requirements based on conditions in Indonesia according to a survey by Gajah Mada university, and by M. Ross of the Transmigration Area Development. Table 51 LABOUR REQUIREMENTS FOR CLEARING VEGETATION IN SUMATRA A) GAJAH MADA UNIVERSITY SURVEY (Rimbobujang in Sumatra)
Land clearing requirements: Cutting trees (chainsaw) Cutting-off crown and branches First burning Cutting remaining branches Piling Second burning Cutting and piling Third burning Total: 2 6-8 1 3 60 2 100 2 186 Man-days/ha

Underbrushing all vegetation less than 10 cm diameter 10

B) TRANSMIGRATION AREA DEVELOPMENT (Ross) (Muara Marah)

Land clearing requirements: Underbrushing Man-days/ha 18

Felling: Chainsaw operators Assistants Burning First restacking Reburning Assistants Total:

3 3 2 18 3 2 51

Final clearing of rows: Chainsaw operators 2

These figures are for the following vegetation conditions at Muara Marah:
Stem diameter range in cm No. of stems (range) 0-15 5-29 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 greater than 60 not counted 76 - 107 16 - 45 14 - 34 16 - 19 22 - 27 Totals per ha 149 - 217 1/

1/ These totals do not correspond with the minimum and maximum number of stems given in this table. Source: Clarke 1980 C.19.2 Areas of persistent weeds The three main methods of destroying persistent weeds used in land reclamation are as follows and they may be used separately! or in combination: i. mechanical cultivation; ii. flooding; iii. chemical control. Many million of hectares in Asia with irrigation potential are covered with stands of alang-alang or ladang (Imperata cylindrica) and this must be destroyed as completely as possible before settlement. The land characteristics at particular locations may indicate which of the above three methods of control or their combinations are preferable. This particular weed, and other persistent weeds often have very deep (3040 cm) underground rhizomes. The areas are usually cultivated with heavy disc harrows but within a month or two after harrowing the cut rhizomes send up new shoots. The problem therefore tends to be multiplied, and in settlement areas, if the settlers do not arrive shortly after the fallowing, the infestation becomes worse. Where it is possible, flooding of the land in readiness for cultivation can help the farmer to keep the weed under control. Repeated cultivation is necessary to cut up the rhizomes so that they die eventually, but this is costly. Five or six well-timed cultivations may be efficacious. However, even if cutting is carried out successfully, some doubt will remain that sufficient depth has been achieved for complete control. Hence, chemical control methods may be necessary using either a systemic weedkiller that destroys the whole plant or repeated defoliation. The land classifier may have to advise on the terrain

conditions for applying the weedkiller by mechanical methods, if large areas are to be treated. At some sites, water availability for spraying may be a problem and ultra low volume spraying at 2 litres/ha may be tried. C.19.3 Removal of rocks and stones The land evaluator may be called on to estimate the cost of removal of rocks and stones and it may be a factor in determining whether land is suitable or not suitable in a 'provisionally-irrigable' classification. The methods of removal vary from hand, to mechanical removal, crushing, or blasting. The location of rocks or boulders may be an important aspect in the alignment of irrigation canals or pipelines in classifying 'irrigable land'. Field size and shape may be affected and result in a downgrading of the land suitability class. Stones (20-40 cm in diameter) and cobbles (7-20 cm in diameter) are usually removed from the tillage zone although some crops, e.g. pasture and orchard, suffer little loss of production from them. Removal costs should be a consideration in assigning land suitability classes. A method of estimating the cost of stone removal used by the US Bureau of Reclamation is to remove and pile all stones or cobbles from the surface and upper 20 cm depth from a 21 x 21 ft area (0.01 ac) and then to measure or estimate the volume of the stone heap. Thus each 10 inch diameter stone from this area is equivalent to 1 yd3/ac in the area as a whole. A metric equivalent of this method might use an area of 10 m x 10 m (0.01 ha) for excavation. Each 26.7 cm atone found within this area would then be approximately equivalent to 1.0 m3 of stones per hectare. About 2.3 man-hours per cubic metre are required for manual picking of stones. The cost of transporting the stone must also be taken into consideration.

C.20 Flood protection

Overflow hazards from rivers or drainage ways often influence the use, management and development costs of affected portions of an irrigation project. Any lands located in areas susceptible to such damage should be evaluated in terms of the benefits and costs from flood protection measures. These might be simple measures such as the extra surface drainage construction of small earth embankments, or gabion boxes (wire boxes filled with stones), or more sophisticated structures. Often flood damage will be eliminated by upstream constructions which are part of the measures to make more water available for irrigation. Reduction or elimination of flooding is frequently a benefit of large-scale projects. Before classification, the land evaluator should liaise with the project hydrologist and engineer on the effect of proposed project works on future flooding. Lands subject to severe and frequent damaging floods are generally excluded from an irrigation project. Deep water rice and floating rice are possibilities if the extent and timing of the water rise and fall is predictable (see heading A.13). Sound evaluation of flood hazards and the associated land development costs are difficult because no two situations are exactly alike.

Run-off from adjacent hillsides is a common problem on lands lying at the base of hills. The problem is particularly serious in erosive areas subject to torrential and damaging rainfall during parts of the year. Under such conditions, soil, stones and vegetative debris from the hillside may overflow the crop land to be evaluated. Stones and cobbles on the surface of the soil and observable severe erosion on the hillside will be indications of existing or potential flood problems. Land subject to such damage is less suitable for irrigation development than land similar in other respects. If the condition is very severe, land subject to this type of run-off should be excluded from the 'provisionally-irrigable' area.

C.21 Drainage
The need to remove excess water and salts from an irrigated river basin (Figure 18) necessitates a network of surface or subsurface drains. Drainage is discussed in two FAO Irrigation and Drainage Papers particularly. No. 28 and No- 38, Drainage Design Factors (1980), also in the USBR Drainage Manual and in Luthin et al. (1957). Drainage costs are an important criteria in the classification of land, especially in arid and semi-arid areas where salinity and sodicity must be controlled. Initially, the evaluation is often carried out in advance of the detailed drainage studies and frequently the classifier does not have the necessary information on which to base the assessment at the time of the survey. Therefore, it is most important that the classification is modified at later stages on the basis of the drainage studies. Many problems have been caused by the land classifier determining the costs of drainage when, in fact, this should be done by a qualified drainage engineer. Drainage investigations are directed toward determining the prevailing depths, slopes and fluctuations in level of the groundwater surface; the presence or absence of confined water tables (i.e. water under pressure below a slowly permeable strata); and the thickness and permeability of soil and substrata layers which may retard water transmission. Figure 18 Flow diagram for water and salt circulation in an irrigated river basin Source: Westcot 1979 (in FAO 1979a) Soundly conducted drainage investigations require a network of cased observation wells of known elevation, or existing domestic wells; piezometer installations to detect water tables; numerous deep borings to determine the variability of substrata materials; and field tests for permeability. Three methods for obtaining in-place horizontal permeability data are commonly used. These are the auger-hole (or shallow well pumpout) test, the piezometer test, and the shallow well pump-in test. The 'permeameter' test is used to determine the vertical permeability of a narrow zone. In most drainage studies, knowledge of the horizontal permeability obtained by one of these tests is considered to be sufficient: it being assumed that vertical permeability will be adequate for water to reach the saturated zone from which it will be drained horizontally. If there is cause to suspect the presence of slowly permeable layers above the saturated zone, the 'ring-permeameter' test (described by Winger 1965 and in FAO 1984, Soils Bulletin No. 52) provides a method of determining the vertical permeability of these layers which, although complex and rather slow, gives uniformly dependable results at a reasonable cost. An important necessity for the proper conduct of this test is the installation of pairs of tensiometers and of piezometers to confirm the fulfillment of the requirements of Darcy's Law for the movement of liquids through saturated material, on which the subsequent calculation of permeability is based.

Several formulae have been developed to estimate required drain spacings from data on permeability and depth to barrier. The method used by the USBR (Dumm 1968) takes into account crop water requirements, irrigation efficiency, leaching requirements, desired water table depth, rainfall characteristics and specific yield. Because of the importance of drainage to the success of an irrigation project, shortened methods for estimation of drainage requirements should be avoided unless their validity in the particular area has been proven. Drainage within the field is of little benefit if the drainage network as a whole is neglected or the outlets are liable to blockage. The land evaluator in liaison with the drainage engineer will ensure that all existing drainage ways and areas which will require outlet surface drains are made a part of the development plan. The assessment of drainage requirements can be facilitated by the table of permeabilities in Table 52 for comparing and classifying permeability for different soils and substratum materials. For further guidance on drainage design see FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 38 and other publications. Also see Section C.25.

C.22 Land grading

Land grading and levelling requirements are based on an appraisal of topography and the need for modifications to suit the choice of irrigation technique specified in the land utilization type. There are four aspects of topography that have special bearing on land levelling and grading for surface irrigation: 1) slope, 2) microrelief, 3) macrorelief, and 4) cover. The land classifier must achieve competence in distinguishing and evaluating those topographic features that are significant. Considerable experience is required to achieve acceptable accuracy in estimating the costs of levelling from field observations. Topographic maps do not always give sufficient information for accurate assessments. Guidance and training may be provided by an experienced agricultural engineer engaged in detailed layout studies. Detailed farm layouts of representative areas showing the costs of land grading can provide the best guidelines. If done properly, evaluation of the topography based on experience and field layout studies is adequate for most planning studies. Table 52 COMPARISON AND CLASSIFICATION OF PERMEABILITY FOR DIFFERENT SOIL AND SUBSTRATUM MATERIALS
Textural Metres per day grades and/or substratum materials (1) 1/ Maximum Minimum Normal (2) (3) (4) Soil Classification of Normal Rates Survey (Indices and descriptive classes) Index 2/ No. (5) Key Drainability Survey Class (6) Index No. (7) Key Class (8) 1 1 2 2 Very slow 1 Very slow 1 Slow Slow 2 2 Very poor Very poor Poor Poor

Heavy clays Medium clays Silty clay Sandy clay

0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6

<0.001 0.002 0.002 0.007

0.01 0.02 0.04 0.05

Silty clay loam Clay loam Silts Silt loam Sandy clay loam Loam Fine sandy loam Sandy loam Coarse sandy loam Loamy fine sand Loamy sand Loamy coarse sand Fine sand and very fine sand Medium sand Coarse sand Gravelly clays to gravelly clay loams

0.7 1.2 0.6 3 3 3.5 3.5 4 5 4 5 6 12 60 120 1

0.005 0.02 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.4 2 0.1 2 6 <0.001

0.12 0.15 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.6 1 1 2 2 2.5 3 2 4 12 1

2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 7 2

Slow Slow Slow

3 3 3

Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Good Good Very good Very good Very good Very good Very good Very good Very good Fair

Mod. slow 3 Mod. slow 3 Mod. slow 4 Mod. rapid 4 Mod. rapid 4 Rapid Rapid Rapid Rapid Rapid 5 5 5 5 5

Very rapid 5 Excessive 5 Slow 3

Gravelly silts to 4 loams Gravelly fine 60 sandy loams to fine sands Very gravelly clays to very gravelly sandy loams Very gravelly silts to loams Very gravelly fine sandy loams to fine sands Mixed pea gravels and sands Pea gravels clean Gravel, cobble and sands (mixed) 12

0.005 2

1 6

4 6

Mod. rapid 4 Very rapid 5

Good Very good Very good

Rapid

60 120

3 6

6 12

6 7

Very rapid 5 Excessive 5

Very good Very good

60

1.5

12

Excessive 5

Very good Very good Very good

240 120

24 2

48 36

7 7

Excessive 5 Excessive 5

Clean gravels 1 200 Cobble and gravel 1 Cobble 2 "S" loose gravelly, "Gypsy" etc. 3/ "S" marly or limey, soft to semi-hard "S" marly or limey, semihard to hard 24 4 800 400

36 72 120

77 120 240

7 7 7

Excessive 5 Excessive 5 Excessive 5

Very good Very good Very good

1 0.05

12 0.5

7 4

Excessive 5 Moderate 3

Very good Pair

0.05

<0.005

0.03

Slow

Poor

"S" clayey to 0.05 limey, compact to very hard Lightly cemented gravels 77

<0.005

0.01

Very slow 1

Very poor Very good Very good Very good

0.1

12

Excessive 5

Any creviced or 77 fractured rock Porous rocks 77 including semihard & hard caliche Uniform bedrock few or no fractures or crevices Gypsum beds 0.005

0.005 0.005

6 6

6 6

Very rapid 5 Very rapid 5

<0.0001

>0.0005 1

Very slow 1

Very poor

Excessive 5

Very poor

1/ Textural grades are classified on the basis of normal structures and do not include highly dispersed - soils containing excess exchangeable sodium ions. Data are from all known sources. 2/ These indices compare rates of water transmittal only. Drainability of an area is influenced also by depth to impervious layers, stratification, thickness and position of aquifers, slope and the rate of water intake and storage capacity of soils. 3/ Includes a wide variety of commonly unconsolidated substratum and subsoil materials (sand, silts, clays and gravels) with various degrees of weathering, illuviation and cementation. Note: Table prepared by Ralph M. Parsons Co The degree of slope acceptable for irrigation development and therefore the cost of land levelling depends on i) the anticipated method of irrigation, ii) intensity and amount of rainfall, iii) susceptibility of the soil to erosion, and iv) planned cropping system. Slopes of 50% or more are commonly surface irrigated in traditional Asian terraced

systems; however, such land would generally not be considered- suitable for development today. In the USA, gravity irrigation on slopes greater than about 12% is seldom practised. With sprinkler or drip systems, limitations on slope due to an erosion hazard or the operation of farm machinery are important. Slopes of 20% are currently considered the maximum acceptable in the USA for cultivated crops irrigated by sprinklers. In areas that experience severe thunderstorms, the maximum usable slope may be less. Land devoted to dense cover crop or grass may permit irrigation of steeper slopes than for row or field crops. Although excessive slope is the most frequent problem, lack of slope may also be a limitation. Excessive flatness may result in higher grading costs to increase the slope and achieve the smooth uniform surface necessary for uniform distribution of irrigation water. Extremely gentle gradients may make irrigation of slowly permeable soils difficult because standing water induces scaling and waterlogging. Very permeable soils and extremely flat topography may prevent uniform irrigation without excessive deep percolation and water use. On the other hand, very flat land provides an opportunity to use really efficient surface irrigation methods such as basin and border strip, where soils are suitable. In estimating the cost of grading, the field boundaries and the type of surface irrigation (small basins, large basins, furrow and border strip lengths, etc.) must be determined. There is an interrelationship between the irrigation field size and the amount of land grading required. Where grading will cause damage by exposing subsurface horizons and hardpans, alternative development options should be considered. An estimate of the land grading requirements is an essential part of a land classification study if surface irrigation is to be used. If possible, the land classifier should know from discussions with economists the maximum allowable cost for land development before the field study begins. There are no specific methods or approaches that must be used. The intuition for estimating the required moving of earth is gained primarily through experience. Topographic maps and detailed farm layouts of representative areas are valuable for correlating estimates on similar areas. Average cut and fill needed within a field and its conversion to the estimated volume of material that must be moved is one method. The estimate of cut and fill can be made by evaluating the difference between the microrelief s highs and lows and averaging them for the field. This approach implies an average cut over half of an area with fill in the remaining portion. Tables can be developed to show the volume represented by the various differences- If topographic maps with the elevations recorded for each reading are available, they can provide a good guide to highs and lows. Depth of topsoil, subsoil quality, the presence of gypsiferous or other substratum must all be appraised. How smooth the surface should be for efficient irrigation may vary with gradient, the accepted gravity irrigation method, water quality, anticipated depth to the water table, and cropping. Less precise grading is usually needed as the gradient increases, and with less efficient irrigation methods such as used by small farmers with small basins and short furrows. There is a trade-off between the cost of land grading and the benefits of efficient water use. If water use efficiency will inevitably be low, there will be no point in achieving more than a smoothing of the land in the direction of the slope, except in rice basin systems where depth of standing water is critical. The volume of earth to be moved for construction of farm laterals, drains and farm structures should sometimes be included in estimates of the total land grading cost. Although land grading costs are based primarily on total volume of earth to be moved, other factors may influence the total cost. Unit costs for grading vary with the depth of

cuts, length of haul, how smooth the surface must be, soil texture (which affects plasticity and the range of moisture conditions under which they can be worked), and field size (where it is more difficult to manoeuvre large equipment). In mechanized systems of agriculture the grading costs are interrelated with the choice of field size and shape to minimize the costs of operating farm machinery once the land is developed. Field size and shape in this context are determined primarily by the land's macrorelief. Other factors are the limit of irrigation runs on soils with excessive infiltration rates, and the importance of length of slope in the control of erosion. In complex topography where slopes change frequently in both lateral and transverse directions surface irrigation for mechanized agriculture may be impracticable. As the field becomes smaller and irrigation runs shorter, labour requirements increase, a more complex farm irrigation system is needed, machinery operating costs increase, the proportion of unproductive land increases, and the irrigation efficiencies decrease. The minimum economic field size and length of run established in the specifications are based primarily on these factors. In these circumstances estimating the field size must precede the estimation of land grading costs. Field boundaries usually lie on the more prominent topographic features and the less prominent relief within may be graded to permit gravity flow of water. Other features, such as ownership boundaries, bodies of unarable land, boundaries of land in a use precluding irrigation, that might interrupt irrigation flow may also define field boundaries. Features that determine field size must be defined by observation. This requires considerable experience and judgement. In the more general land classification studies it is not practical to define each field. In such situations, an estimate of the field size is achieved by comparing the landform with similar areas where detailed farm layouts have been completed or with irrigated areas with similar topography. Appropriate field sizes can be associated with different land units. Table 53, as an example, shows an evaluation of field size and shape in relation to suitability for mechanized farming in the USA. Table 54 shows the amount of earth to be moved at various depths of cut and fill which, together with local unit costs, can be used to calculate grading costs. Table 53 EVALUATION OF IRRIGATED FIELD SIZE FOR MECHANIZED FARMING
Critical Limits s1 Field size, minimum (ha) Dimensions (m) 8.0 3.6 120 Length of run, minimum (m) 1/ 390 s2 2 100 s3 1 50 n

390 x 200 120 x 300 100 x 200 50 x 200

1/Consideration must be given to water intake rates when assessing the length appropriate for a given soil. Table 54 GRADING ESTIMATES IN TERMS OF CUT AND PILL
Type of Grading Earth moving (m /ha) (yd /ac)
3 3 3

Light Medium Heavy 15 750 400 30 1 500 800 375 200

Average cut and fill (cm) 7.5

Note: 100 yd /ac equivalent to 189 m/ha.

Finally, the effect of earthmoving on the physical productivity of the land must be evaluated. This may depend on depth of topsoil, the quality of the subsoil, presence of gypsiferous layers and other characteristics.

C.23 Physical, chemical and organic aids and amendments

C.23.1 Physical aids to reclamation such aids include: C.23.2 Chemical and organic amendments

The development of land may include the need for physical, chemical and organic amelioration treatments. Apart from leaching, which is described in the next section, the special land improvements that may be required can be divided under two headings. C.23.1 Physical aids to reclamation such aids include: i. deep ploughing, especially on stratified soils with permeable and impermeable layers, or on soils with gypsum layers within reach of the plough; ii. subsoiling, especially to break an indurated B-horizon or lime layer: iii. profile inversion, where the upper subsoil has undesirable properties (lower and upper subsoils are inverted and then the top soil is replaced); iv. sanding, involving the spreading and mixing of sand into the upper horizons of fine texture soils (not effective on heavy clay soils). C.23.2 Chemical and organic amendments Chemical amendments are very often necessary in the reclamation of saline-sodic and sodic soils to neutralize free sodium and to supply a cation that will replace sodium in the exchange complex. Gypsum is by far the most commonly used amendment. Phosphor gypsum, which is a by-product of superphosphate and is available relatively cheaply in countries with superphosphate manufacturing plants, can be effective even at low rates of application due to the small particle size of the material. Shainberg (personal communication) and others have shown that it produces very significant effects on the electrolytic properties of water repellant soils and produces rapid improvements in the physical condition of the silt/clay fraction. Other amendments that may be used are calcium chloride, calcium carbonate and waste lime from sugar mills (a mixture of alkaline calcium compounds). Acidifying materials such as sulphuric acid, sulphur and iron sulphate serve to reclaim sodic soils by neutralizing soda and reacting with lime in calcareous soils to produce gypsum which furnishes the desired soluble calcium. An alternative effective way of solubilizing CaCO3 in the soil itself is to build up the organic matter level by growing green manure crops or by adding organic manures. This lowers the pH by increasing the carbon dioxide concentration in the soil. The growing of a reclamation crop can often be the most effective way to improve salinesodic soils following leaching. Mulching such soils with organic materials can also have spectacular effects (Eavis and Cumberbatch 1977).

The land evaluator, when assessing the need for amendments, if these are chemical and related to the amount of sodium to be removed, can initially calculate the theoretical gypsum requirement:

'Initial ESP' is the measured value before reclamation. 'Final ESP' is the desired value which is often taken as 10, a level of exchangeable sodium at which no noticeable peptization results. For example, if initial ESP = 30, final ESP = 10 and CEC = 24:

Since 1 me of gypsum/100 g of soil is equivalent to 860 ppm of gypsum and since one hectare of soil to a depth of 20 cm may be taken to weigh 3.1 million kg, the amount of gypsum theoretically required to treat this depth of soil will be: Gypsum requirement/ha/20 cm = 860 x 106 x 3.106 x 4.8 = 12 400 kg. In practice, the gypsum is likely to be impure and a correction factor for percentage purity must be used. Furthermore, the efficiency of replacement of sodium by calcium is not 100%, partly because of the presence of free sodium in the soil. Therefore, it is recommended that the amount of gypsum to be applied be increased in accordance with the equivalents of free sodium carbonate and bicarbonate (FAO/Unesco 1973). USBR studies in Idaho (unpublished) have shown that, in general, gypsum is only 6075% efficient in replacing exchangeable sodium; a finding which can be used to adjust the calculated requirement. Table 55 shows the amount of other amendments that would be as effective as one tonne of pure gypsum, if they were locally more economic. The possibility of the improvement being achieved without the use of amendments by increasing the electrolyte content by use of water of moderate salinity levels should also be considered where the water available does not have a high SAR value. The importance of the SAR value will depend on the clay minerals present in the soil, with SAR generally less than 10 for 2:1 type minerals and somewhat higher for 1;1 type minerals. Saline water (5-8 dS/m) with additions of gypsum or calcium chloride to lower the SAR below the appropriate limiting value would usually be appropriate for the initial leaching of saline-sodic or sodic soils. Gypsiferous soils have special reclamation requirements as discussed by Mousli (1979). The soil may i) contain gypsiferous material throughout, ii) be a calcareous gypsic soil, iii) be a soil containing a layer of solid gypsum at a depth of less or more than 150 cm, iv) be a sandy gypsiferous soil, or v) be a stony gypsiferous soil. The high solubility of gypsum causes a high osmotic pressure that reduces water extraction by plants, though at higher EC values than for saline soils. The soil solution is saturated with calcium which results in the fixation of the trace elements (Fe, Mn, Cu and Zn) in less available forms. A hard pan or impervious layer prevents root and water penetration. The solution of gypsum and its leaching out from the soil during irrigation causes an increase in plasticity and a decrease in cohesion and structure of some soils. It may also cause collapse of imperfectly lined canals. Gypsiferous soils tend to be susceptible to erosion due to lack of cohesion and structure. To improve the soil profile of gypsiferous soils, the incorporation of organic materials, deep ploughing and the careful management of irrigation water are important.

Table 55 AMOUNTS OF CHEMICAL AMENDMENTS EQUIVALENT TO ONE TONNE OF GYPSUM

Amendment Gypsum (CaSO4, 2H2O) Calcium chloride (CaCl2.2H2O) Limestone (CaCO3) Sulphur Sulphuric acid Iron sulphate (FeSO4.7H2O) Aluminium sulphate (Al2 (SO4)3. 18H2O) Tons 1.00 0.85 0.58 0.19 0.57 1.62 129

Calcium polysulphide (CaSO4) 24% sulphur 0.77

Source: FAO/Unesco 1973 In evaluating the costs and benefits of physical, chemical and organic aids and amendments, the land evaluator should note the guidelines in Chapter 7.

C.24 Reclamation leaching

Some soils have such high concentrations of salts prior to irrigation that an initial leaching is required before agricultural production can begin. The amount of water that must be applied to reclaim a saline root zone by leaching depends primarily on the initial soil salinity levels and the technique of applying water. Typically, about 70% of the soluble salts initially present in a saline soil profile will be removed by leaching with a depth of water equivalent to the depth of soil to be reclaimed, if water is ponded continuously on the soil surface and drainage is adequate (Hoffman 1980). The relationship between the fraction of salt remaining in the profile, C/Co (where Co is the initial salt concentration and C is the salt concentration during reclamation), and the amount of water leaching through the soil profile by continuous ponding per unit depth of soil, d/d, (US Salinity Laboratory Staff, in preparation) can be approximated by:" (C/Co).(dw/ds) = 0.3 when dw/ds is greater than 0.3. The data for this relationship, illustrated in Figure 19, include soil types ranging from peat to sandy loam to clay. The |equation can be refined by taking the salt concentration of the applied water (Ci) into account. This is done by substituting (C Ci)/(Co - Ci) for C/Co. Such refinement improves the assessment of dw as Ci increases or as complete reclamation is approached (i.e. as C approaches Ci). Figure 19 Depth of water per unit depth of soil required to leach a saline soil by continuous or intermittent ponding or to leach a soil inherently high in boron (US Salinity Laboratory Staff, in preparation)

The amount of water required for leaching soluble salts can be reduced by intermittent applications of ponded water or by sprinkling. The differences in leaching efficiency among the leaching methods are caused primarily by differences in the effect of diffusion of salts to primary flow channels, or by the larger percentage of water flowing through the fine pores of the soil mass in the unsaturated case. The relationship between C/Co and dw/ds for intermittent ponding (US Salinity Laboratory staff, in preparation) illustrated in Figure 19, can be approximated by: C/Co. (dw/ds) = 0.1 when dw/ds exceeds 0.1. The relationship for intermittent ponding was derived from four field trials where the depth of water applied each cycle ranged from 50 to 150 mm with corresponding ponding intervals ranging from weekly to monthly. To remove about 70% of the soluble salts initially present by intermittent ponding, a depth of water equal to about one-third of the depth of soil to be reclaimed is required. This is only one-third of the amount required where continuous ponding was used. However, these are the results of trials under controlled experimental conditions and in field practice the required uniformity of application might not be achievable to make intermittent leaching a favourable practical proposition.

Leaching efficiency by sprinkling is similar to that for intermittent ponding. In some cases, efficiency may be improved further, particularly where low application rates are maintained or where sprinkling is intermittent. Sprinkling has the added advantage over ponding that precise land levelling is not required. A disadvantage of intermittent ponding and sprinkling is that a longer period is required and on low intake soils evaporation losses may approach or exceed infiltration. Great care is necessary to ensure uniformity of application of the water. If a salt tolerant crop is the first crop to be planted on the land, it may be possible to complete the primary reclamation leaching during the lifetime of that crop. Excess boron is generally more difficult to leach than soluble salts because it may be tightly sorbed to soil particles. The origin of the boron may determine the amount of water required for reclamation. Soils inherently high in boron seem to hold boron with more tenacity than soils where boron has been added in the irrigation water. The former require more leaching for initial reclamation and often require additional leaching periodically to remove boron released from the soil subsequently. As with soluble salts, the relationships between C/Co and dw/ds in leaching soils inherently high in boron (US Salinity Laboratory Staffs, in preparation), illustrated in Figure 19, can be approximated by (C/Co). (dw/ds) = 0.6 when dw/ds exceeds 0.6. Thus for soils inherently high in boron, the amount of water required to remove a given fraction of boron is about twice that required to remove soluble salts by continuous ponding. Boron leaching efficiency does not appear to be significantly influenced by the method of water application. It may be necessary for the land evaluator to cost the use of water to reclaim different areas. The characteristic appropriate in first approximations is the volume or depth of water required. A limiting salt concentration (ECe) for the initial soil condition may be established to divide land that it is worthwhile leaching and reclaiming, from that which is not.

C.25 Duration of the reclamation period

Lands that must be reclaimed by grading and leaching may not be immediately suitable for the desired final cropping and land use. In some cases it will be several years before the crop yields are optimal. The length of the reclamation period can greatly affect the feasibility of a project, and in general, the shorter the reclamation period the better. The uniformity of crop growth in the early years may be poor and it may be desirable to grow crops of lower value that add to the organic and nutrient contents of the soil. There may be subsidence problems due to the dissolution of gypsum and to insufficient compaction on land that has been filled in 'cut and fill' operations. One major factor of economic importance is the stage at which drainage is installed in the fields. In terms of Net Present Value it is very much more costly to install drainage early in the life of the project than later. Consequently, the temptation has been to delay the installation of field drains or, in many cases, to ignore drainage altogether. This has had disastrous consequences in irrigation projects in arid or semi-arid areas. Nevertheless, it may be bad economics to install drainage early in a project, if the water table is very deep. During the years after starting to irrigate, the water table often rises to the point where drainage is essential. For different areas of land, the classifier may have to decide in which year following project year 1, the drainage must be installed. This is assessed on the basis of the depth of the water table, and the expected rate in

its rise. In poorly permeable soils where there is likely to be a perched water table, the drainage may have to be installed from the start of irrigation. Sometimes there is a need for drainage while salts are being leached during reclamation, but normally it is not worth catering for the extra drainage in drainage design but rather to apply the water over a longer period of time. On relatively permeable rice land, seepage and percolation losses are often excessive in the first years after initial development. Usually a period of about seven years is required for the percolation rates to reduce as a result of the accumulation of finegrained material in the floor of the paddy fields, acting as a seal. Determination of the period of time over which the land improves to full productivity, the length of time to the installation of field drains, and accompanying effects on production and costs may be used as critical limits of the reclamation period.

C.26 Irrigation engineering requirements

The assessment of land suitability or limitations with regard to irrigation engineering may concern i) the development of new lands for irrigation; and ii) the rehabilitation of irrigation schemes. i. New lands A preliminary assessment of land suitability for the irrigation and drainage engineering works frequently has to be carried out by the land classifier in the early stages of a project as part of the general survey. Later the engineers may need to survey the possible routes of the irrigation and drainage networks in great detail, and make further topographic maps. The important considerations in the early surveys are: a. the topographic features of the land that influence the flow of water by gravity or the elevation and distance to which water must be pumped (see also B.14. Location); b. the depths of barriers that can act as obstructions to the constructing of canals, drains and other structures or affect grading and land levelling operations (i.e. aspects that have not been assessed under other headings); c. the presence of unstable subsurface materials that may lead to subsidence problems; d. the permeabilities of soils on which canals and drains will be constructed and the associated losses of water for unlined or lined channels; e. the substratum condition as it affects the installation of permanent structures such as diversion weirs, storage reservoirs, etc.; f. soil conditions for installing field and main drainage (i.e. depth to barrier, nature of barrier, etc.): g. conditions for access to sites for project construction;

h. the location of dugwells or tubewells in respect not only to water, but also to the land that will be irrigated, to obtain the best advantages in terms of energy-saving and topography; i. the size and shape of potential management units or fields (see also heading B.14); j. the positioning of bunds or levees according to topography and changes in soil texture or other land characteristics, thus improving the efficiency of water use and productivity; k. the assessment of basin sizes, furrow lengths etc. (Table 48) in relation to the earthmoving costs, and the acceptable slopes and microrelief after grading (see also heading B.15); l. the matching of water supply and demand and the scheduling of water in terms of frequency, rate and duration of application. The design of the canal or pipe networks to the field and the engineering costs depend on any one or all of these factors. Some of the above may be class-determining independently of the assessments already made under earlier heads. ii. Rehabilitation of irrigation schemes In rehabilitation schemes, quite different assessments may be required depending on, for example, whether the scheme is in an Asian rice area, or in an arid or semi-arid area subject to waterlogging and salinity problems. Other categories also occur in the intermediate rainfall zones. In the Asian rice land situation, rehabilitation often involves upgrading the primary, secondary and tertiary water supply networks or the installation of improved water control structures (diversion weirs, measuring devices, storage structures, etc.). The land evaluator may be called upon to evaluate land suitabilities relating to the improvement of these engineering works. In the rehabilitation of saline, sodic and waterlogged land in arid and semi-arid areas, surveys are generally required for the engineering works, especially topographic surveys and groundwater level surveys for the proper location of irrigation and drainage channels. If very high construction costs are implicated, the land suitability class of the associated land may be downgraded accordingly. The most important evaluations under this heading are those that exclude land from development because of excessive costs to develop it for irrigation or to drain it.

D. Conservation and the environment

D.27 Long-term prevention of salinity and sodicity hazards D.28 Control of groundwater and surface water D.29 Long-term erosion hazard D.30 Other environmental hazards

The long-term conservation and environmental risks of irrigated agriculture should never be neglected in view of the historical associations between irrigation, land degradation, human diseases and other adverse side effects. The standard of conservation and environmental protection achieved will depend on the cropping, management and irrigation alternatives initially selected for the project, and on the management of resources after project implementation. The latter depends on the social and economic context, and particularly on the determination of funding agencies and governments to provide finance and satisfactory control measures. Historically, land degradation due to soil erosion, salinity, sodicity and waterlogging has resulted in the decline and fall of civilizations from the time that they ceased to undertake the longterm conservation measures that were needed. Health hazards are also a feature of irrigation schemes as already discussed in Section 5.8. Four headings for evaluation are given in this section, namely, long-term salinity and sodicity hazard; control of groundwater; soil erosion- and the environment.

D.27 Long-term prevention of salinity and sodicity hazards

The measures required to prevent land degradation due to salinization and sodification should be recognized by the land evaluator who may make certain recommendations for prevention. The assessment under this heading is concerned with whether or not the necessary preventative measures will be implemented. The measures may be too sophisticated or too difficult or costly for farmers and existing government organizations to carry through, in which case it may be irresponsible to recommend the development of such land which should be classified as Not Suitable.

D.28 Control of groundwater and surface water

Water supplies and quality can be degraded by various factors including inadequate drainage, overpumping of aquifers and saline intrusion, or through deforestation and degradation of watersheds. The same criteria as discussed in the previous section apply to these risks. If the government agency or farmer is unlikely to implement conservation measures, it may be necessary to classify the land as Not Suitable. Problems of water table control can arise both in areas threatened by salinization and in areas that are not threatened. In the latter case, though there may be a favourable salt balance, the presence of excess water, even if only periodic, can sometimes lead to the abandonment of land by farmers. Even if only for short periods this can result in weed growth and other problems that make further farming unviable, and the land reverts to natural vegetation or extensive agriculture (e.g. livestock) without irrigation. Saline intrusion due to overpumping of aquifers frequently occurs in irrigation projects relying on groundwater. Wells must be monitored to ensure that the safe yield is not exceeded. The organizing authorities may need power to curb the use of water and to prevent the over-exploitation of the water resources. Without this power, the land may receive progressively more saline water until it has to be abandoned. Degradation of catchments or drainage basins may affect the quantity of water for irrigation. Deforestation and erosion can lead to changes in seasonal stream flow patterns, and sedimentation of storage reservoirs may occur. The conservation of vegetation and soil in the catchment is of great long-term importance in the viability of many irrigation schemes.

D.29 Long-term erosion hazard

Soil erosion in arid and semi-arid areas may occur from wind or water; in humid areas erosion due to water is usually the major hazard. Erosion due to water: Alternative methods for assessing erosion due to water are: i. the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLA); ii. the FAO Soil Degradation Assessment (FAOSDA) method; iii. the Soil Loss Estimator for Southern Africa (SLEMSA); iv. local methods based mainly on slope; v. observed present situation in similarly irrigated areas. All the above methods must be adjusted to take account of the additional hazard from gully erosion. Whichever method is used for calculating or estimating soil loss, the critical limits and factor ratings can be applied in a similar way, by means of the following steps: i. decide upon maximum acceptable limits of soil loss corresponding to each rating. These values form the critical limits for all crops or LUTs; ii. for each land unit, calculate the soil loss on the basis of climate, soil and topographic factors only, i.e. omitting the land use factor; iii. for each crop or LOT in turn, multiply the soil loss calculated in step ii. by a land use factor; iv. repeating steps ii. and iii. gives estimates of soil loss for each land unit - LOT combination. These estimates are compared with the values in step i. to give a factor rating with respect to erosion hazard. Wind erosion and dune formation: Strong winds, especially in arid and semi-arid areas, may necessitate the use of windbreaks. It may be essential to plant these several years ahead of the start of irrigated cropping. The erosion hazard must generally be rated on the basis of existing local experience, or from experience in similar situations. There have been cases of irrigation projects being completely debilitated by wind, the effects not only being soil loss but also dune formation and the filling of channels for water supply and drainage with soil.

D.30 Other environmental hazards

The possibility of adverse effects from irrigation projects on human health and wildlife has already been discussed in Sections 5.8 and 5.7 respectively.

E. Socio-economic factors

E.31 Farmers' attitudes to irrigation E.32 Other socio-economic factors

Socio-economic Requirements and Limitations Future Socio-Economic Conditions

E.31 Farmers' attitudes to irrigation

Farmers' attitudes to irrigation differ enormously between projects and can differ substantially even within a project area, making this 'class-determining'. The introduction of irrigation into areas that have a traditional pattern of agriculture necessitates social changes that are sometimes unacceptable to the local community. For example, in some West African countries women are generally responsible for cultivating rainfed rice in swamps. The introduction of controlled water irrigation necessitates that men be involved in the new technology with pumps and mechanization. This is successful in some villages but not in others-In some other countries, irrigation projects have been unsuccessful where farmers were able to obtain employment in industrial activities, or as migrant employees in neighbouring or overseas oil-rich countries. Competing employment opportunities that act as a disincentive to intensive irrigated agriculture may be 'class-determining' where this varies from place to place. Farm prices greatly influence farmers' attitudes. For example, the price of rice influences the productivity of land in many Asian countries. When rice prices are favourable, the farmers produce more than when the purchasing price is low; in the latter case, farmers may find it more profitable to grow upland crops on adjacent rainfed land, where there is such an opportunity.

E.32 Other socio-economic factors

Many other socio-economic considerations have already been discussed in Sections 5.9 and Chapter 7. These apply mostly to the selection of LUTs, but some may be selected as 'class-determining'. For example, land tenure and water rights differ from location to location and may be crucial in deciding whether the land is suitable for development. Labour supply profiles must match seasonal labour requirements of the proposed LUT; again, this could vary from place to place and be 'classdetermining'. The adverse side-effects of development due to factors such as the displacement of existing agriculture and culture, whether shifting cultivation or existing settlements on land to be flooded or redistributed, must be evaluated in terms of net benefits to the community as a whole.

Appendix 1 - The structure of the FAO framework classification

Four categories, namely. Orders, Classes, Subclasses and Units are recognized in the FAO Framework classification: I. Land Suitability Orders reflect kinds of suitability (i.e. Suitable and Not Suitable);

II. Land Suitability Classes reflect degrees of suitability within Orders (i.e. S1, S2, S3, N1 and N2); III. Land Suitability Subclasses reflect kinds of limitation or kinds of inputs and improvements required within Classes (i.e. S2d, etc.); IV. Land Suitability Units reflect minor differences in the required management within Subclasses (e.g. S2d-2, etc.). Each category retains its meaning with respect to any classification, whether of 'present' suitability, 'potential' suitability, the classification of 'provisionally-irrigable' land, or of 'irrigable' land. I. LAND SUITABILITY ORDERS There are two Orders: Suitable (S), and Not Suitable (N). Suitable land is land on which sustained use of the kind under consideration is expected to yield benefits which "justify the inputs and development costs, without unacceptable risk of damage to land resources. Not Suitable indicates that the land has qualities that appear to preclude sustained use of the kind under consideration. (Note that 'Suitable' in a 'provisionallyirrigable' classification can be used where information about the water supply and costs are uncertain, but in a classification of 'irrigable' land these uncertainties must be resolved.) II. LAND SUITABILITY CLASSES Within Orders, land suitability classes reflect degrees of suitability. The classes are given arabic numbers. The designations are: Class S1, Highly Suitable; Class S2, Moderately Suitable; Class S3, Marginally Suitable; Class N1, Marginally Not Suitable; and Class N2, Permanently Not Suitable. Fewer or more Classes can be designated as appropriate. Only classes with significant economic differences should be distinguished. Class S1 land has no significant limitations to sustained application of a given use. It may include minor limitations that will not reduce productivity, benefits or costs below the lower boundary set for the class. Class S2 land has limitations which in aggregate are moderately severe for sustained application of a given use. The limitations may reduce physical productivity, benefits or costs compared with S1 land to a lower limit set for the class. Class S3 land has limitations which in aggregate are severe for sustained application of a given use and will so reduce physical productivity, benefits or costs that the expenditure will only be marginally justified. Note: A Conditionally Suitable (Sc) class may be used in certain instances of uncertainty, or where factors relevant to suitability are not yet fully understood. However, this is discouraged, and in classifying 'provisionally-irrigable' land the uncertainty about water supply and costs are assumed to be unresolved. The use of class Sc may seem convenient to an evaluator, but in excess it would greatly complicate the understanding of the classification by users.

Class N1 indicates that the land is marginally not suitable and has limitations that may be surmountable in time but which cannot be corrected with the existing knowledge or under present social conditions to give acceptable physical productivity. It indicates the economic limit defining the boundary between 'Suitable' and 'Not Suitable'. Class N2 indicates that the land is permanently not suitable for the given use usually because of physical limitations. N2 land should be delineated early in the study to avoid unnecessary studies on land which will never be developed for the given use. In contrast, the boundary between the two Orders, S and N, may be variable over time due to changes in economic and social conditions. See Section 2.4 for further discussion on the measures of suitability used to define classes. They are a physical measure of productivity, namely, a land productivity index, and two economic measures, namely, net farm income and net incremental irrigation benefit. III. LAND SUITABILITY SUBCLASSES These reflect kinds of requirements or limitations and are indicated by lower case letters with mnemonic significance e.g. S2m, S3xy, etc. There are no subclasses in Class S1. The lower case letters used must be decided before any evaluation; there is no unique list. Table 17, Chapter 6 presents a listing for classifications of 'provisionallyirrigable' and 'irrigable' land. For example, m indicates that the factor 'Water Quantity' is the reason for downgrading from S1 to S2m. The letters x and y indicate limitations due to salinity and sodicity, respectively. The number of Subclasses recognized and the limitations chosen to distinguish them will differ in classifications for different purposes. IV. LAND SUITABILITY UNITS These are subdivisions of a Subclass. All the units within a subclass have the same degree of suitability at the class level and similar kinds of requirements or limitations at the subclass level. The units differ from each other in their production characteristics or in minor aspects of their management requirements (often definable as differences in detail of their limitations or their position in relation to irrigation canals, etc.). Their recognition permits detailed interpretation at the farm planning level. Suitability units are distinguished by arable numbers following a hyphen, e.g. S2e-l, S2e-2, etc. There is no limit to the number of units recognized within a subclass. Land suitability units should not be confused with land units. The former are a category of the classification structure and the latter represent an area of land. The FAO Framework classification structure is shown in Table A.1 with the US Bureau of Reclamation irrigation classification system appended for comparison. Table A.1 FAO FRAMEWORK LAND SUITABILITY CLASSIFICATION COMPARED WITH USBR SYSTEM
SUITABILITY CATEGORY ORDERS CLASSES FAO FRAMEWORK S Suitable N Not Suitable S1 Highly Suitable Class 1 USBR CLASSIFICATION

S2 Moderately Suitable S3 Marginally Suitable (Sc Conditionally Suitable)

Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Special Uses 4.1 4.2 4.3 Class 5 (requiring further study to determine whether suitable or not)

N1 Marginally Not Suitable N2 Permanently Not Suitable SUBCLASS Class S2 Subclass S2m S2d S3md etc. UNITS Subclass S2d Unit S2d S2d S2d etc.

Class 6 Class Class 2 Subclass 2s 2d 2sd etc. Special study areas (informative appraisal areas) (for which management and development recommendations are given)

Notes: (1) Subclasses, reflecting a requirement or limitation are denoted by a letter suffix (see Table 17)- in the USBR system these are s, t or d indicating a soil, topographic or drainage deficiency respectively; (2) See text for use of Sc (Conditionally Suitable) in the FAO system; (3) Special use lands (USBR Class 4) are classified 1, 2 and 3 to reflect relative payment capacity with a letter designating the land use (crop); and (4) Class 5 land (USBR) requires further study to determine whether it is suitable or not. Class N1 (FAO) is marginally not suitable at present.

Appendix 2 - Discounted present value 1/

1/Adapted from - Guidelines: land evaluation for rainfed agriculture. Soils Bulletin 52. FAO, Rome, 1984. In projects which require land improvements, it is necessary to incur capital expenditure in the first year or early years in return for benefits, in the form of increased production and profits, that will be received in future years. In irrigation schemes and many other agricultural projects, initial capital expenditure leads up to a steady state of increased production after a number of years. Cash flow discounting is a way of setting initial capital expenditure against future benefits or, more generally, of balancing costs incurred and benefits received at different periods in the future. Money invested in the present earns interest, and acquires a higher value in future years. If the interest rate is 10%, $100 invested this year becomes $110 in one year's time, $121 in two years, or in the general case, 100 x (1 + r)n in n year's time, where r is the interest rate expressed as a fraction, i.e. 10% as 0.1. Thus the money value of expenditure incurred now increases in the future because the capital spent on a land improvement could alternatively have been placed in some interest-earning investment.

It would be possible to compare expenditure and benefits at different periods by adding compound interest and bringing all the values to some common date in the future. However, because the decision to invest is made now, it is better to carry out the process in reverse and bring all costs and benefits to their equivalents at the present time, called their present value. Discounting can be regarded as the reverse of addition of interest. Taking a discount rate r of 0.1 (10%), expenditure or cost of $100 in one year's time has a present value of 100/(1 + 0.1) = $90.9. The present value of $100 spent or received two years hence is 100/(1 + 0.1)2 = $82.6; or another way of looking at this is to say that a foreseen expenditure of $100 in two years' time could be met by setting aside $82.6 now in an investment earning 10% compound interest. The discounting procedure is exactly the same whether dealing with a cost or a benefit. In the general case, a cost incurred or benefit received of $p in n year's time has a present value of:

The value 1/(1 + r)n is called the discount factor, used to multiply any actual cost or benefit to give its present value (Table B.1). After an initial period, maintenance costs and benefits often even out to a steady amount each year. A short cut to the calculations is possible using tables of cumulative discount factors. For example, at a discount rate of 10%, $100 received in years 1 to 5 inclusive has a present value of 90.9 + 82.6 + 75.1 + 68.3 + 62.1 = $379. The cumulative discount factor is thus 3.79. To calculate the present value of a cost or benefit in years 5 to 20 inclusive, take the multiplier for 20 years and subtract that for 5 years (Table B.2). The procedures are the same whether a commercial rate of interest (and thus discounting), currently of the order of 15% in many countries, is assumed or whether the calculation is done in terms of an assumed lower 'social' rate of interest. The factors in Table B.2, Calculation of the Present Value of a Future Constant Annual Cost or Benefit in Years 1 to n Inclusive can also be adapted to the purpose of amortizing (spreading) an investment. The uniform periodic payment required is calculated by dividing the sum to be amortized by the factor appropriate to the number of years and the interest rate. The uniform annual payment required to amortize $1 000 over 20 years at 10% interest is obtained by dividing 1 000 by the factor 8.51. The periodic payment is $117.51. DISCOUNT FACTORS Table B.1 CALCULATION OF THE PRESENT VALUE OF A FUTURE COST OR BENEFIT IN YEAR n
Year 1% 3% 5% 6% 8% 10% 12% 15% 20% 1 2 3 4 5 .990 .971 .952 .943 .926 .909 .893 .870 .833 .980 .943 .907 .890 .857 .826 .797 .756 .694 .971 .915 .864 .840 .794 .751 .712 .658 .579 .916 .888 .823 .763 .735 .683 .636 .572 .482 .951 .863 .784 .747 .681 .621 .567 .497 .402

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 20 30 40 50

.942 .837 .746 .705 .630 .564 .507 .432 .335 .933 .813 .711 .665 .583 .513 .452 .376 .279 .923 .789 .677 .627 .540 .467 .404 .327 .233 .914 .766 .645 .592 .500 .424 .361 .284 .194 .905 .744 .614 .558 .463 .386 .322 .247 .162 .896 .722 .585 .527 .429 .350 .287 .215 .135 .887 .701 .557 .497 .397 .319 .257 .187 .112 .879 .681 .530 .469 .368 .290 .229 .163 .093 .870 .661 .505 .442 .340 .263 .205 .141 .078 .861 .642 .481 .417 .315 .239 .183 .123 .065 .820 .554 .377 .312 ,215 .149 .104 .061 .026 .742 .412 .231 .174 .099 .057 .033 .015 .004 .672 .307 .142 .097 .046 .022 .011 .004 .001 .608 .228 .087 .054 .021 .009 .003 .001 .000

Table B.2 CALCULATION OF THE PRESENT VALUE OF A FUTURE CONSTANT ANNUAL COST OR BENEFIT IN YEARS 1 TO n INCLUSIVE
Year 1% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 15 20 30 40 50 0.99 1.97 2.94 3.90 4.85 5.80 6.73 7.65 8.57 9.47 3% 0.97 1.91 2.83 3.72 4.58 5.42 6.23 7.02 7.79 8.53 5% 0.95 1.86 2.72 3.54 4.33 5.08 5.79 6.46 7.11 7.72 8.86 6% 0.94 1.83 2.62 3.46 4.21 4.92 5.58 6.20 6.80 7.36 8.38 8% 10% 12% 15% 20% 0.93 1.78 2.58 3.31 3.99 4.62 5.21 5.75 6.25 6.71 7.54 8.56 0.91 0.89 0.87 0.83 1.74 1.69 1.63 1.53 2.49 2.40 2.28 2.11 3.17 3.04 2.85 2.59 3.79 3.61 3.35 2.99 4.36 4.11 3.78 3.33 4.87 4.56 4.16 3.60 5.33 4.97 4.49 3.84 5.76 5.33 4.77 4.03 6.14 5.65 5.02 4.19 6.81 6.19 5.42 4.44 7.61 6.81 5.85 4.68 8.51 7.47 6.26 4.87

11.26 9.95

13.87 11.94 10.38 9.71

18.05 14.88 12.46 11.47 9.82

25.81 19.60 15.37 13.76 11.26 9.43 8.06 6.57 4.98 32.84 23.12 17.16 15.05 11.92 9.78 8.24 6.64 5.00 39.20 25.73 18.26 15.76 12.23 9.91 8.30 6.66 5.00

Appendix 3 - Comparison of criteria for investment analysis: Farm financial analysis vs project economic analysis
There are important differences between the analytical criteria for farm financial and project economic investment analyses. Gittinger describes these differences: "The point of view taken in the economic analysis is that of society as a whole...... the financial analysis takes the viewpoint of the individual participants..... The methodology of comparing costs and benefits.... is the same for either an economic or financial

measurement of project worth, but what is defined as a cost and what is considered a benefit are different. There are three very important distinctions between the two that must be kept in mind." Further citing Gittinger:1/ 1/Gittinger, J. 2nd ed. 1982. Economic Analysis of Agricultural Projects. For IBRD. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore. "First, in economic analysis taxes and subsidies are treated as transfer payments. The new income generated by a project includes any taxes the project can bear during production and any sales taxes buyers are willing to pay when they purchase the project's product. These taxes, which are part of the total project benefit, are transferred to the government, which acts on behalf of the society as a whole, and are not treated as costs. Conversely, a government subsidy to the project is a cost to the society, since the subsidy is an expenditure of resources that the economy incurs to operate the project. In financial analysis such adjustments are normally unnecessary; taxes are usually treated as a cost and subsidies as a return. "Second, in financial analysis market prices are normally used. These take into account taxes and subsidies. From these prices come the data used in the economic analysis. In economic analysis, however, some market prices may be changed so that they more accurately reflect social or economic values. These adjusted prices are called 'shadow' or 'accounting' prices and in the analytical system recommended here are efficiency prices, as noted earlier. In both financial and economic analysis projected prices are used, so both rely to a substantial extent on what are, in effect, hypothetical prices. "Third, in economic analysis interest on capital is never separated and deducted from the gross return because it is part of the total return to the capital available to the society as a whole and because it is that total return, including interest, that economic analysis is designed to estimate. In financial analysis, interest paid to external suppliers of money may be deducted to derive the benefit stream available to the owners of capital. But interest imputed or 'paid' to the entity from whose point of view the financial analysis is being done is not treated as a cost because the interest is part of the total return to the equity capital contributed by the entity. Hence, it is a part of the financial return that entity receives." A tabular comparison to summarize these differences is given in the accompanying Table C.1 illustrating how the values are treated in farm budgets. Table C.1 VALUES APPLIED IN FARM BUDGETS FARM FINANCIAL ANALYSIS VS PROJECT ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 1/
ITEM Production: Sales Consumed Off-farm income Expenses: Land owned Land purchased Land rented Interest on equity Land development cost n/a Debt service cost Share or value paid 2/ Market price n/a Value product foregone Share or value paid n/a Market price FINANCIAL Farmgate market price ditto Valued as received ECONOMIC Shadow priced ditto Valued as received

Depreciation Debt service: interest amortization Taxes Water charges Hired labour Family labour Management Operating costs: Fuel, seed, fertilizer, custom [hired] work, etc

Market price At cost At cost At cost At cost, may include subsidy Market price 2/ 1/ Market price

Market price n/a n/a n/a Project economic cost Shadow priced Shadow wage n/a Full cost, without any subsidy

n/a - not applicable 1/ Gittinger, J.P. 2nd ed. 1982. Economic analysis of agricultural projects. (For IBRD.) Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore. Brown, M.L. 1979. Farm Budgets: from farm income analysis to agricultural project analysis. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore. 2/ Values are imputed in a USBR payment capacity analysis. These are based on opportunity cost for the resource.

Glossary
(F) = definition as in the 'Framework for land evaluation' (FAO 1976). cf. = compare q.v. = see term elsewhere in this Glossary. ACTUAL CROP EVAPOTRANSPIRATION RATE (ETa): the rate of evapotranspiration equal to or smaller than predicted ETm (syn. ET crop) as affected by the level of available soil water, salinity, field size or other causes; mm/day or m/day. AGROCLIMATIC ZONE: a land unit defined in terms of major climate (q.v.) and growing period (q.v.) which is climatically suitable for a certain range of crops and cultivars. AKIOCHI: soil with an imbalance of nutrients associated with hydrogen sulphide toxicity. ALKALI SOIL: a soil that contains sufficient exchangeable sodium to interfere with the growth of most crop plants, either with or without appreciable quantities of soluble salts. Same as a SODIC SOIL which is the preferred term. ALKALINE SOIL: a soil that has an alkaline reaction, i.e. a soil for which the pH reading of the saturated paste is higher than 7.0. AREA-SPECIFIC LAND DEVELOPMENT; improvements for irrigation or drainage specific to any land unit as opposed to improvements of general applicability on all land throughout the project.

AVAILABLE WATER CAPACITY: the volume or depth of water retained in the soil between the field capacity and permanent wilting percentage. BASIN IRRIGATION: a system of surface irrigation (q.v.) in which water is ponded within earthen bunds or banks on four sides. BENEFIT/COST RATIO: the present value of benefits divided by the present value of costs, with all values adjusted to a common time basis. BORDER STRIP IRRIGATION: a system of surface irrigation (q.v.) in which water flows and spreads over sloping strips of land between two earthen bunds. BULK DENSITY: the ratio of the mass of oven dried soil to its bulk volume. When expressed in g cm bulk density is numerically equal to apparent specific gravity or volume weight. CAM: Crassulacean Acid Metabolism (CAM). A metabolic pathway used by plants including sisal and pineapple. CATION EXCHANGE CAPACITY (CEC): the total quantity of cations which a soil can adsorb by cation exchange usually expressed in milliequivalents per 100 grams. Measured values of cation exchange capacity depend somewhat on the method used for the determination. CLASS DETERMINING FACTOR: a variable affecting agronomic, management, land development, conservation, the environment, or socio-economic conditions that has an influence on the outputs and inputs of a specified kind of land use, and which is used to assess the suitability class in which a land unit should be placed for that use. COMMON PROJECT COSTS: costs which relate, not to any particular land area, but to the service provided to the whole project. COMPOUND LAND UTILIZATION TYPE: a land utilization type consisting of more than one kind of use or purpose, either undertaken in regular succession on the same land, or simultaneously undertaken on separate areas of land which for purposes of evaluation are treated as a single unit (cf. multiple land utilization type). (F) CONDITIONALLY SUITABLE; a phase of the land suitability order Suitable, employed in circumstances where small areas of land within the survey are unsuitable or poorly suitable for a particular use under the management specified for that use, but suitable given that certain other land improvements or management practices are employed. (F) CONDUCTIVITY: see ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY and HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY. CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS: the land use requirements (q.v.) largely or entirely related to conservation and sustained use (q.v.). CONSUMPTIVE USE: see CROP WATER REQUIREMENTS. CONVEYANCE LOSSES: losses due to evaporation, percolation or breaches in the network of irrigation canals or pipes between the source of water and the field.

CONVEYANCE EFFICIENCY: ratio between water received at the inlet to a block of fields and that released at the project's headworks; fraction. CRITICAL LIMITS: the limits defining the boundaries between suitability categories of individual class-determining land use requirements and limitations, land qualities or land characteristics. Critical ranges are bounded by critical limits and both are expressed in terms of critical values. CROPPING INDEX: the number of crops harvested in relation to the years in the cropping cycle. Expressed as C, in percentCROPPING REQUIREMENTS OR LIMITATIONS- the land use requirements or limitations specifically related to an individual crop. CROP WATER REQUIREMENT: the depth or volume of water needed to meet the maximum evapotranspiration rate of the crop when soil water is not limiting (ETcrop or ETm). Note that ETcrop and ETm have the same meaning; the latter is now preferred. CULTIVATION FACTOR: the number of years under cultivation as a percentage of the total cultivated and non-cultivated cycle. Expressed as R, in percent. CURRENT LAND SUITABILITY CLASSIFICATION: a land suitability classification based on the suitability of land for a specified use in its present condition, without major land improvements (c.f. potential land suitability classification). DEGREES OF LIMITATION: the scaling of a single factor (land use requirement, land quality or land characteristic) according to its adverse effects on a specified land utilization type (cf. factor rating). DIAGNOSTIC CRITERION: a variable (land quality, land characteristic etc.) that has an understood influence on the outputs and inputs of a specified kind of land use, and which serves as a basis for assessing the suitability of the land for that use. DISCOUNTING: the use of interest factors to adjust cash flows to a common time basis. DOUBLE CROPPING: growing two crops a year in sequence. DRIP IRRIGATION: a technique for achieving a low rate, high frequency or long duration water delivery through pipes to drip nozzles located near the plants. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS: assessment of an investment's profitability to a whole society or economy regardless of who in the society contributes to the costs and receives the benefits, conventionally measured in 'opportunity' rather than 'market' prices. ECONOMIC RENT: the surplus remaining to a project beneficiary after he receives the rewards necessary to attract physical inputs, labour, management and willingness to bear risk. ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY OF THE SATURATION EXTRACT (q.v.), ECe: a measure related to the salt concentration of the soil dS/m (at 25C), formerly mmhos/cm.

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY (EC): the reciprocal of the electrical resistivity. The resistance in ohms of a conductor, metallic or electrolytic, which is 1 cm long and has a cross sectional area of 1 cm2. Hence, electrical conductivity was formerly expressed in reciprocal ohms per cm or mhos per cm and now in S1 units as dS/m. EVAPOTRANSPIRATION: the rate of water loss through transpiration from vegetation plus evaporation from the soil surface or from standing water on the soil surface mm/day or m3/day. EXCHANGEABLE SODIUM PERCENTAGE (ESP): the degree of saturation of the soil exchange complex with sodium. It may be calculated by the formula:

FACTOR RATING: the suitability of a land unit for a land utilization type in terms of one, or a single group, of class-determining factors as indicated by land characteristics, land qualities, land use requirements, limitations or other indicators. 'The rating is denoted by s1, s2, s3, n1 or n2 corresponding to critical values of the factor (see Table 13). FARM FINANCIAL VIABILITY: using farm gate prices and actual cash flow, a determination made to ascertain whether the farmer is sufficiently better-off with the project than without the project. FIELD APPLICATION EFFICIENCY: the ratio of water made directly available to the crop and that received at the field inlet; fraction. FIELD CANAL EFFICIENCY: the ratio between water received at the field inlet of a block of fields and that at the head of the canal system; fraction. FIELD CAPACITY: the moisture content of soil in the field after rapid drainage has ceased, usually 2 to 3 days after a thorough wetting of the soil profile. Expressed as moisture percentage on a volume weight basis. Often assumed to be approximately represented by soil in equilibrium with 1/3 bar (or atmospheres) pressure equivalent to 330 cm of water suction or a water potential of -33 kpa (S1 units). FIELD SUPPLY SCHEDULE: the stream size, duration and interval of water supply to the individual field or farm (volume, duration, rate). FINANCIAL ANALYSIS: assessment of an investment's profitability to those people or entities contributing capital and directly benefitting from the returns, conventionally measured in 'market' prices (see Appendix 3). FULL IRRIGATION SERVICE LAND: irrigable land which will receive its full water supply from one source (USBR definition). GENERAL PURPOSE LAND EVALUATION: a land evaluation in which the potential land utilization types are not closely specified at the beginning of evaluations (cf. special purpose land evaluation). GROSS CLASSIFICATION AREA: the area mapped and classified in a given survey (USBR definition).

GROSS IRRIGATION WATER REQUIREMENTS: the gross depth or volume of water comprising the net irrigation water requirements, plus any additional leaching over and above percolation. GROSS MARGIN: the revenues from a farming enterprise (crop yields x prices) minus the variable costs. GROUNDWATER: water in land beneath the soil surface, usually under conditions where the pressure in the water is equal to or greater than atmospheric pressure and the voids are filled with water. GROWTH CYCLE: the period required for an annual crop to complete its annual cycle of establishment, growth and production of harvested part. Also see growing period. GROWING PERIOD: the duration, in days, of the period when both temperature and soil moisture permit crop growth (cf. growing season, growth cycle). Note: growing period relates to the land, growth cycle to the crop. GROWING SEASON: used in a general way, not as a technical term, to refer to the period of the year when (most) crops are grown, e.g. the rainy season. HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY: the proportionality factor in the Darcy flow equation, which states that effective flow velocity is proportional to the hydraulic gradient. Hydraulic conductivity, therefore, is the effective flow velocity at unit hydraulic gradient and has the dimensions of velocity (LT-1). HYV; high yielding variety or cultivar of a crop, or MV - modern variety. INFORMATIVE APPRAISAL: investigations of present land use, productivity, existing land development, water requirements, drainability, topography, etc. to provide information for the planning, development and operation of irrigation projects (USBR term). INPUTS: the material inputs (e.g. seed, fertilizers, fuel, chemical sprays) and other inputs (e.g. labour hours) applied to the use of land (cf. levels of inputs, outputs). INTERCROPPING: growing two or more crops at the same time. INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN: the rate of discounting at which the present value of benefits becomes equal to the present value of costs. IRRIGABLE LAND: land suitable for irrigation, that can receive irrigation water and which is classified according to an economic assessment of its suitability for irrigated agriculture, taking into consideration water supplies and the project development costs and benefits. IRRIGATION: controlled applications of water to supplement the rainfall (note that flooded land is not termed 'irrigated' unless the water is in some way controlled). IRRIGATION INTERVAL: the time between the start of successive water applications on the same field, days.

KIND OF LAND USE: this term refers to either a major kind of land use or a land utilization type (q.v.), whichever is applicable; where the meaning is clear it may be abbreviated to 'kind of use' or 'use'. LAND: an area of the earth's surface, the characteristics of which embrace all reasonably stable, or predictably cyclic, attributes of the biosphere vertically above and below this area including those of the atmosphere, the soil and underlying geology, the hydrology, the plant and animal populations, and the results of past and present human activity, to the extent that these attributes exert a significant influence on present and future uses of the land by man. (F) LAND AREA SPECIFIC COSTS AND BENEFITS: investments and benefits connected with improvements on specific areas of land e.g. for correcting deficiencies in topography, drainage, etc. (see Chapter 7). LAND CHARACTERISTIC: an attribute of land that can be measured or estimated, and which can be employed for distinguishing between land units of differing suitabilities for use and as a means of describing land qualities. LAND EQUIVALENT RATIO (LER): the ratio of the area under sole cropping to the area under intercropping needed to give equal amounts of yield at the same management level. It is the sum of the fractions of the intercropped yields divided by the sole-crop yields. LAND EVALUATION: the process of assessment of land performance when used for specified purposes, involving the execution and interpretation of surveys and studies of land forms, soils, vegetation, climate and other aspects of land in order to identify and make a comparison of promising kinds of land use in terms applicable to the objectives of the evaluation. LAND FACET: a land unit (q.v.) with climate, landforms, soils and vegetation characteristics which for most practicable purposes may be considered as uniform. A subdivision of a land system (q.v.). LAND IMPROVEMENT: an alteration in the qualities of land which improves its potential for land use (cf. major land improvement, minor land improvement). (F) LAND MAPPING UNIT: see Land Unit. LAND SUITABILITY: the fitness of a given type of land for a specified kind of land use. (F) LAND SUITABILITY CATEGORY: a level within a land suitability classification. Four categories of land suitability are recognized: Land suitability order: a grouping of land according to whether it is Suitable or Not Suitable for a specified kind of use. Land suitability class: a subdivision of a land suitability order serving to distinguish types of land which differ in degree of suitability.

Land suitability subclass: a subdivision of a land suitability class serving to distinguish types of land having the same degree of suitability but differing in the nature of the limitations which determine the suitability class. Land suitability unit: a subdivision of a land suitability subclass serving to distinguish types of land having minor differences in production characteristics or management requirements. LAND SUITABILITY CLASSIFICATION: an appraisal grouping, or the process of appraisal and grouping, of specific types of land in terms of their absolute or relative suitability for a specified kind of use - (F) LAND SUITABILITY ORDER, CLASS, SUBCLASS, UNIT: categories in land suitability classification; see definitions in text. LAND SYSTEM: a land unit (q.v.) with relatively uniform climate and with a repeating pattern of landforms, soils and vegetation. A land system may be divided into land facets (q.v.). LAND UNIT: an area of land possessing specified land qualities and land characteristics, which can be demarcated on a map. Note: in the Framework, this was termed a 'land mapping unit'. LAND USE REQUIREMENT OR LIMITATION: the conditions of land necessary or desirable for successful and sustained practice of a given land utilization type cf. crop (agronomic), management, land development, conservation requirements or limitations. LAND USE SYSTEM: a specified land utilization type practised on a given land unit and associated with inputs, outputs, and possibly land improvements. LAND USE TYPE: the same as land utilization type. LAND UTILIZATION TYPE (LUT): a kind of land use described or defined in a degree of detail greater than that of a major kind of land use (q.v.). (F) In the context of irrigated agriculture, a land utilization type refers to a crop, crop combination or cropping system with specified irrigation and management methods in a defined technical and socio-economic setting. LEACHING: the process of removal of soluble material by passage of water through soil. LEACHING REQUIREMENT: the fraction of irrigation water entering the soil that effectively must flow through and beyond the root zone in order to prevent a build up of salinity due to the addition of salt in the water. The value is the minimum value to control salts; fraction.. LIMITATION: see LAND USE REQUIREMENT OR LIMITATION. The term limitation is used for conditions which by their presence adversely affect the land utilization type. LOCALIZED IRRIGATION: an irrigation system using drip, trickle, spot, minisprinkler and other techniques that localize the water application.

MAJOR CLIMATE: a broad climatic division, defined in terms of monthly temperatures, seasonality of rainfall, and temperature regime. MAJOR KIND OF LAND USE: a major subdivision of rural land use, such as rainfed agriculture, annual crops, perennial crops, rice cultivation, irrigated agriculture, grassland, forestry, recreation. MAJOR LAND IMPROVEMENT: a large non-current input in land improvement which causes a substantial and reasonably permanent (i.e. lasting in excess of about 10 years) change in the suitability of the land, and which cannot normally be financed or executed by an individual farmer or other land user (cf. minor land improvement). (F) MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS: the land use requirements (q.v.) largely or entirely related to management of a land utilization type. MATCHING: this term is employed in two senses, (i) broader and (ii) restricted, (i) The process of mutual adaptation and adjustment of the descriptions of land utilization types, inputs and land improvements and the increasingly known conditions of the land to improve suitability, (ii) The (specific) process of comparing land use requirements and limitations with the land units to produce factor ratings. MAXIMUM EVAPOTRANSPIRATION RATE OF THE CROP, ETm: the maximum rate of evapotranspiration from a crop when soil water is not limited, also called the crop water requirement, and ETcrop. MILLIEQUIVALENT (me): one thousandth of an equivalent: atomic weight divided by valence/1 000. Me per 100 g soil = milligrams of a cation divided by its equivalent weight per 100 g soil. MILLIEQUIVALENT PER LITRE: a milliequivalent of an ion or a compound in one litre of solution. MINOR LAND IMPROVEMENT: a land improvement which has relatively small effects on the suitability of land, or is non-permanent, or which normally lies within the capacity of an individual farmer or other land user (cf. major land improvement). (F) MIXED INTERCROPPING: growing two or more crops simultaneously with no distinct row arrangement. MULTIPLE LAND UTILIZATION TYPE: a land utilization type consisting of more than one kind of use or purpose simultaneously undertaken on the same land, each with its own inputs, requirements and produce or other benefits. (F) NET FARM INCOME: the combined gross margins (q.v.) from enterprises on a farm, minus the fixed costs. NET INCREMENTAL IRRIGATION BENEFIT: a measure of the potential net increase in productivity of a unit area of land when developed for irrigation. It is expressed in economic (rather than financial) terms either as a net present value or as an annual equivalent value.

NET IRRIGATION WATER REQUIREMENTS: the depth or volume of water to meet the crop water requirements minus contributions in the field by precipitation, run-on, groundwater and stored soil water and plus field losses due to run-off, seepage and percolation. NET PRESENT VALUE: the present value of benefits minus the present value of costs. NON-SALINE SODIC SOIL: (same as NON-SALINE ALKALI SOIL). A soil that contains sufficient exchangeable sodium to interfere with the growth of most crop plants and does not contain appreciable quantities of soluble salts. In the USDA definition, the exchangeable sodium percentage is greater than 15 and electrical conductivity of the saturation extract is less than 4 dS/m (at 25C). The pH reading of the saturated soil paste is usually greater than 8.5. OPPORTUNITY COST OF CAPITAL: the opportunity cost of using investment resources in a project, rather than in their next best alternative use, usually expressed in the form of an interest rate. OUTPUTS: the products (for rainfed agriculture, crops), services (e.g. water supply, recreational facilities), or other benefits (e.g. wildlife conservation) resulting from the use of land. Note: in the Framework, this was defined as 'produce'; the distinction between 'produce' and 'products' has been found confusing, so the term 'outputs' is now substituted (cf. inputs). PARALLEL APPROACH: a land evaluation methodology in which economic criteria are included throughout the process of identifying land use requirements, and land suitability classification. PEAK DEMAND RATE: the maximum volume or depth of water per unit time per unit area, litres/sec/ha or l/s/ha. PERCOLATION: the downward flow of water through soil especially in saturated or nearly saturated soil at hydraulic gradients of one or less. PERMANENT WILTING POINT: the soil moisture percentage, water content or water potential, at which plants wilt and fail to recover turgidity. It is usually determined with dwarf sunflowers, or assumed to be approximately represented by the 15 bar percentage (i.e. 15 atmospheres water suction, pF 4.2 or a soil water potential of -1.5 MPa). PERMEABILITY: 1. Qualitative: the quality or state of a porous medium relating to the readiness with which such a medium conducts or transmits fluids. 2. Quantitative: the specific property governing the rate or readiness with which a porous medium transmits fluids under standard conditions. Also see hydraulic conductivity. PET: potential evapotranspiration q.v. reference crop evapotranspiration. POROSITY: the fraction of the soil volume not occupied by soil particles i.e. the ratio of the sum of the volume of the liquid and gas phases to the sum of the volumes of the solid, liquid and gas phases of soil. I POTENTIAL LAND SUITABILITY CLASSIFICATION: a land suitability classification based on the suitability of land for a given use after specified major land improvements (q.v.) have been completed where specified.

PRECIPITATION: total amount of precipitation (rain, drizzle, snow, hail, fog, condensation, hoar frost and rime) expressed in depth of water which would cover a horizontal plane if there is no run-off, infiltration or evapotranspiration; mm/day. PROJECT: the package of goods and services provided to accomplish specific purposes such as the provision of irrigation, hydro-electric power, etc. PROJECT FORMULATION: logical, stepwise incremental project justification analysis by adding successive separable units to an already justified core project. Each added unit must meet the specified project justification standard. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: analysis and testing by benefit/cost, net present value or internal rate of return to determine whether a project meets an acceptable or predetermined standard of economic worth. PROVISIONALLY-IRRIGABLE LAND: land classified as suitable for irrigation provided that water can be supplied to it, in the absence of full knowledge about the water supply or the project and land development costs. QUADRUPLE CROPPING: growing four crops a year in sequence. RATOON CROPPING: re-growth from root or crown of cut back or harvested plant. RELAY INTERCROPPING: growing two or more crops simultaneously during part of each one's cycle. A second crop is planted after the first crop has reached maturity. REFERENCE CROP EVAPOTRANSPIRATION, ET: the rate of evapotranspiration from an extended 8 to 15 cm tall, green grass cover of uniform height, actively growing, completely shading the ground and not short of water; mm/day. RETURN FLOW: drainage water that is returned to the irrigation supply system. ROW INTERCROPPING: growing two or more crops simultaneously with one or more crops planted in rows. RUN-OFF: losses of water from the field by lateral surface flow. RUN-ON: gains of water by the field lateral surface flow from adjacent land. SALINE SODIC SOIL: a soil with sufficient exchangeable sodium to interfere with the growth of most crop plants and containing appreciable quantities of soluble salts. In the USDA definition, the exchangeable sodium percentage is greater than 15% and the electrical conductivity of the saturation extract is greater than 4 dS/m (at 25C). The pH reading of the saturated soil is usually less than 8.5. SALINE SOIL: a non-sodic soil containing soluble salts in such quantities that they interfere with the growth of most plants. In the USDA definition, the electrical conductivity of the saturation extract is greater than 4 dS/m (at 25C), and the exchangeable sodium percentage is less than 15. The pH of the soil is usually less than 8.5. SATURATION EXTRACT: the solution extracted from a soil at its saturation percentage.

SATURATED SOIL PASTE: a particular mixture of soil and water. At saturation the soil paste glistens as it reflects light, flows slightly when the container is tipped and the paste slides freely and cleanly from a spatula for all soils except those with a high clay content. SEEPAGE: losses of water by lateral flow through the bunds of rice fields. SEQUENTIAL CROPPING: growing two or more crops in sequence on the same field per year. The succeeding crop is planted after the proceeding one has been harvested (no intercrop competition). SODIC SOIL; same as NON-SALINE SODIC SOIL and ALKALI SOIL. SODICITY: used to describe the condition of a sodic (alkali) soil, e.g. in sodicity hazard or sodicity problem. SODIUM ADSORPTION RATIO (SAR or R): a ratio for soil extracts and irrigation water used to express the relative activity of sodium ions in exchange reactions with soil:

where Na, Ca and Mg are expressed in milliequivalents per litre. See FAO 1985 for revised method of calculating an adjusted SAR (adj. RNa). SOIL WATER BALANCE (FIELD WATER BALANCE): the sum of all gains and losses of water over a given period of time; mm/period. SOIL WATER CONTENT: (same as SOIL MOISTURE CONTENT or PERCENTAGE). 1. Weight of water lost from soil dried to a constant weight at a standard temperature, as a ratio. 2. Volume basis: the volume of water from a soil dried to a constant weight at a standard temperature expressed as a ratio of the soil volume before or after drying. 3. Depth basis: the equivalent depth of free water per 100 units of depth of soil. Numerically the value approximates the volume of water per 100 units of volume of soil. SPATE IRRIGATION: irrigation from storm flows in rivers or wadis. SPECIAL PURPOSE LAND EVALUATION: a land evaluation in which the potential forms of land use are limited in number and are closely defined in the objectives of the evaluation (cf. general purpose land evaluation). SPRINKLER IRRIGATION: overhead irrigation using a piped water supply to various types of sprinkler nozzle. STORED SOIL WATER: depth of water stored in the root zone from earlier precipitation or irrigation applications. STRIP INTERCROPPING: growing two or more crops simultaneously in different strips wide enough to permit independent cultivation but narrow enough for the crop to interact agronomically.

SUITABILITY ORDER, CLASS, SUBCLASS, UNIT: abbreviations of land suitability order, class, subclass, unit, see definitions. SUPPLEMENTARY IRRIGATION: irrigation used to supplement the water requirements of crops where partially supplied from rain falling direct in farmers' fields. SURFACE IRRIGATION: irrigation where the water flows over the soil surface to reach its destination. SUSTAINED USE: continuing use of land without severe or permanent deterioration in the resources of the land. TRICKLE IRRIGATION: same as DRIP IRRIGATION. TRIPLE CROPPING: growing three crops a year in sequence. TWO STAGE APPROACH: a land evaluation methodology in which a first approximation of land suitability is made on the basis of physical criteria, and in which economic and social analysis is carried out as a second stage on the land use alternatives which appear most promising on the basis of physical evaluation (cf. parallel approach). VARIABLE COSTS: the farming costs which can be assigned to specific farm enterprises (cf. fixed costs). WATERLOGGING: the saturation of soil in the root zone of crops. WATER TABLE: the upper boundary for groundwater. The upper surface of a locus of points at which the pressure in the groundwater is equal to atmospheric pressure. WILTING POINT: see PERMANENT WILTING POINT.

References
Achar H.P. and Dastane N.G. 1971 Percolation losses, effective rainfall, and consumptive use of irrigated rice in black soils (Vertisols) by drum culture technique. Indian J. Agron. 16(3): 348-350. Allison F.E. n.d. Soil organic matter and its role in crop production. Development in Soil Science 3. Amsterdam; Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company. Arens P.L. and Sivarajasingham S. 1979 Laboratory and field determination of importance for irrigation. World Soil Resources Report No. 50: 85-90. FAO, Rome. ASAE. 1980 Irrigation - Challenges of the 80's. Proc. American Society of Agricultural Engineers Second National Irrigation Symposium. October 1980. 252 p. ASAE Publication 6-81, St. Joseph, Michigan. Badouin R. 1979 Economie et amnagement de l'espace rural. Presses Universitaires de France. 234 p.

Beek K.J. 1980 From soil survey interpretation to land evaluation. In: Land reclamation and water management - developments, problems and challenges. ILRI Publication No. 27. Wageningen. 191 p. Beltran J.M. 1978 Drainage and reclamation of salt-affected soils, Bardenas area, Spain. ILRI Publication No. 24. Wageningen. 321 p. Bergmann H. and Boussard J. 1976 Guide to the economic evaluation of irrigation projects. OECD, Paris. 247 p. Bergmann M. 1979 The economic use of physical land suitability criteria in irrigation projects. World Soil Resources Report No. 50: 210-214. FAO, Rome. Bernstein L. 1964 Salt tolerance of plants. USDA Agric. Inf. Bull. 283. 23 p. Bernstein L. 1965 Salt tolerance of fruit crops. USDA Agric. Inf. Bull. 292. 8 p. Bhattacharjee J.C. 1979 Land evaluation criteria for India. World Soil Resources Report No. 50: 38-52. FAO, Rome. Bingham F.T. 1973 Phosphorus. Chapter 23. In: Diagnostic criteria for plants and soils. Chapman, H.D. (ed) Dept. of Soils and Plant Nutrition, Riverside, California. Black C.A. (ed.) 1982 Methods of soil analysis. Parts 1 and 2. Agronomy Monograph 9 (Revised). Amer. Soc. Agron. Madison, Wisconsin. Booher L.J. 1974 Surface irrigation. Agricultural Development Paper No. 95. FAO, Rome. Booker Agricultural International Ltd. 1979 Sugarcane as an irrigated crop. FAO World Soil Resources Report No. 50, 103-113. Bos M.G. and Nugteren J. 1974 On irrigation efficiencies. ILRI Publication 19. Wageningen. 140 p. Bouwer H. 1978 Groundwater hydrology. McGraw Hill, New York. 480 p. Boyko H. 1968 Saline irrigation for agriculture and forestry. Unesco Symposium. Junk, The Hague. Brown Maxwell L. 1979 Farm budgets: from farm income analysis to agricultural benefit analysis. World Bank Staff Occasional Paper No. 29. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 136 p. Brunt J. 1982 Principles and application of the 'double pot' technique for rapid soil testing. Centre for Soil Research, Bogor, Indonesia. UNDP/FAO, AGOF/INS/78/006 Technical Note 14. 48 p. Buijs J. 1982 Irrigation requirement of rice, return flows and their effect on the irrigation capacity of a river. Papers International Symposium on Polders of the World, Lelystad, Netherlands, pp. 653-663 ILRI, Wageningen

Bunting E.S. 1981 Assessments of the effects on yield of variations in climate and soil characteristics for twenty crop species. Centre for Soil Research. Bogor, Indonesia. UNDP/FAO, AGOF/INS/78/006 Technical Note No. 12. 58 p. Carpenter N.R. 1979 Farm management and land use economist requirements for land evaluation. World Soil Resources Report No. 50: 207- 209 pp. FAO, Rome Carruthers I. 1968 Irrigation development planning aspects of Pakistan experience. Wye College Dept. of Economics, Ashford, Kent Carruthers I. and Clark C. 1981 The economics of irrigation. Liverpool University Press. Liverpool, U.K. 320 p. Chapman H.D. 1973 Diagnostic criteria for plants and soils. Dept. of Soils and Plant Nutrition, Riverside, California. 793 p. Cheong Chup Lim. 1971 Integrated farm water management. Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 10. FAO, Rome. 29 p. Chin L.T. and Lee T.S. 1961 Water distribution system and planning for rotational irrigation. Proc. Far East Reg. Irrigation Seminar, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China. 112 May. 369-378 pp. Chow V.T. (ed.) 1964 Handbook of applied hydrology. McGraw Hill, New York. Christian C.S. and Stewart G.A. 1968 Methodology of integrated surveys. Unesco Nat. Resour. Rep. No. 6: 233-280. Unesco, Paris. Clarke L.J. 1980 Report of land clearing for transmigration in the outer islands of Indonesia. UNDP/FAO, INS/78/012 Working Paper. 60 p. Clarke R.T. 1973 Mathematical models in hydrology. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 19. FAO, Rome. 282 p. (reprinted 1984). CSIRO. Annual Report 1978/80. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne. Dastane N.G. 1967 A practical manual for water use research in agriculture. Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi. (Navabharat Prakashans, 759 Deccan Gymkhana, Poona 4). De Datta S.K., Gomez K.A., Herdt R.W. and Barker R. 1978 A handbook on the methodology for integrated experiment-survey on rice yield constraints. IRRI, Los Baos, Philippines. Dehan A. 1979 Sprinkler irrigation requirements. World Soil Resources Report No. 50: 95-100. FAO, Rome. Dent D. and Young A. 1981 Soil survey and land evaluation. Allen and Unwin, London. 278 p. Dieleman P.J. 1979 Notes on drainage. World Soil Resources Report No. 50: 95-100.

Dieleman P.J. and Trafford B. 1976 Drainage testing. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 28. FAO, Rome. 172 p. Dieleman P.J. 1980 Drainage design factors. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 38. FAO, Rome. 52 p. Diltz D.O. 1980 Methodology for quantitative economic land suitability evaluation for agriculture. Land Resources Survey, Sierra Leone. Technical Report No. 9. 145 p. Donnan W.W. 1976 An overview of drainage worldwide. Proc. ASAE Third National Drainage Symposium Chicago, USA. pp. 6-9. Am. Soc. Ag. Eng. St. Joseph, Michigan. Doorenbos J. 1976 Agro-meteorological field stations. FAO Irrigation and age Paper No. 27. FAO, Rome. 94 p. Dumm L.D. 1968 Subsurface drainage by transient flow theory. J. Irrig. and Drainage Div. Proc. ASCE Dec. 1968. pp. 505-519. Dunne T. and Leopold L.B. 1978 Water in environmental planning. W.H. Freeman. Oxford, U.K. 818 p. Early A.C. et al. 1979 Land evaluation criteria for irrigated lowland rice. World Soil Resources Report No. 50: 114-144. FAO, Rome. Eavis B.W. and Payne D. 1968 Soil physical conditions and root growth. In: Root Growth, ed. W.J. Whittington. Proc. 15th Easter School, University of Nottingham. Butterworth. Eavis B.W., Ratliff L.F. and Taylor H.M. 1969 Use of a dead-load technique to determine axial root growth pressures. Agron. J. 61: 640-634. Eavis B.W. 1971 Effects of flooding on sugarcane growth. 2. Benefits during subsequent drought. Proc. Internat. Soc. Sugar Cane Technologists 14th Congress, pp. 715-721. Eavis B.W. 1972a Soil physical conditions affecting seedling root growth. 1. Mechanical impedance, aeration and moisture availability as influenced by bulk density and moisture levels in a sandy loam soil. Plant and Soil 36: 613-622. Eavis B.W. 1972b Soil physical conditions affecting seedling root growth. 3. Comparison between root growth in poorly aerated soil and at different oxygen partial pressures. Plant and Soil 37: 151-158. Eavis B.W. and Walker S.H. 1976 Irrigation water requirements. In: S.H. Walker et al. Development of the water resources of Ball: a master plan. LRDC Project Report No. 20. Surbiton, Surrey. Eavis B.W. and Cumberbatch E.R. 1977 Sugarcane growth in response to mulch and fertilizer on saline-alkali soils. Agron. J. 69: 839-842. Eavis B.W., Socratous G. and Makin M.J. 1979 Guidelines for computing irrigation water demand and the reduced crop production in years of water shortage. LRDC Project Report No. 80. Surbiton, Surrey. 80 p.

Eavis B.W. and Walker S.H. 1982 Strategies for water resources development with special reference to Indonesia and Sri Lanka. Institute of British Geographers Conference Development Areas Study Group, Cambridge, Nov. 1982. Unpublished. El-Tom O.A. and Ali M.A. 1979 Criteria for irrigated vertisols in the Sudan. World Soil Resources Report No. 50: 145-159. FAO, Rome. FAO. 1968a Guidelines for soil description. FAO, Rome. 53 p. FAO. 1968b Mahaweli Ganga Irrigation and Hydro-power Survey. Report FAO/SF:CEY/64/507. (Sri Lanka) FAO, Rome. FAO. 1970 Physical and chemical methods of soil and water analysis. FAO Soils Bulletin No. 10. FAO, Rome. 275 p. FAO. 1972a Drainage materials. Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 9. FAO, Rome. 122 p. FAO. 1972b Sprinkler irrigation. FAO Agricultural Development Paper No. 88. 179 p. FAO. 1973 Mathematical models in hydrology. R.T. Clarke. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 19. FAO, Rome. 282 p. (reprinted 1984). FAO. 1976a A framework for land evaluation. FAO Soils Bulletin No. 32. 72 p. (Also ILRI 1977 Publication 22. 87 p.) FAO. 1976b Drainage testing. P.J. Dieleman and B. Trafford. Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 28. FAO, Rome. 172 p. FAO. 1976c Water quality for agriculture. R.S. Ayers and D.W. Westcot. Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 29. FAO, Rome. 97 p. (Revised edition in press). FAO. 1977a Control of waterlogging and salinity in the areas west of the Noubaria Canal. Report of the technical project review mission. FAO/AGO/EGY/73/048 K 7687. FAO. 1977b Crop water requirements. Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 24. FAO, Rome. FAO. 1978a 1980/81 Report on the agro-ecological zones project. World Soil Resources Report No. 48/1/2/3/4. FAO, Rome. FAO. 1978b Water laws in Muslim countries. Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 20/2. 223 p. FAO. 1979a Land evaluation criteria for irrigation. Report of an Expert Consultation, 27 February-2 March, 1979. World Soil Resources Report No. 50. FAO Rome. 219 p. FAO. 1979b Soil survey investigations for irrigation. FAO Soils Bulletin No. 42. FAO, Rome. 188 p. FAO. 1979c Yield response to water. J. Doorenbos and A.H. Kassam. Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 33. FAO, Rome. 95 p.

FAO. 1980a Drainage design factors. P.J. Dieleman. Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 38. FAO, Rome. 52 p. FAO. 1980b Land evaluation guidelines for rainfed agriculture. World Soil Resources Report No. 52. FAO, Rome. 118 p. FAO. 1980c Land resources for populations of the future. Report on the Second FAO/UNFPA Consultation. FAO, Rome. 369 p. FAO. 1980d Maximizing the efficiency of fertilizer use by grain crops. Fertilizer Bulletin No. 3. 30 p. FAO. 1982a Micronutrients and the nutrient status of soils: a global study. M. Sillanp. FAO Soils Bulletin No. 48. 444 p. FAO. 1982b Organization, operation and maintenance of irrigation schemes. J.A. Sagardoy, A. Bottrall and G.O. Uittenbogaard. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 40. 166 p. FAO. 1983 Guidelines for the preparation of irrigation and drainage projects. Revised version. April 1983. FAO/World Bank Cooperation Programme, FAO, Rome. FAO. 1984 Guidelines: land evaluation for rainfed agriculture. FAO Soils Bulletin No. 52. FAO Rome. 335 p. FAO. 1984 Land evaluation for forestry. Forestry Paper No. 48. FAO Rome. 123p. FAO/IBRD 1970 Cooperative Programme. Guideline for the preparation of feasibility studies for irrigation and drainage projects. FAO, Rome. 25 p. FAO/Unesco. 1973 Irrigation, drainage and salinity - an international source book. Hutchinson, London. FAO/UNDP. 1979 Production agro-economics. Annex 8. Reconnaissance Land Resources Inventory for Agriculture. Philippines Bureau of Soils/FAO/UNDP Soil and Land Resources Appraisal and Training Project, Agusan River Basin, Mindanao Island, Philippines. Feinerman E., Knapp K.C. and Letey J. 1984 Salinity and uniformity of water infiltration as factors in yield and economically optimal water application. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. 48(3): 477-481. Flinn J.C. 1974 The simulation of crop-irrigation systems. In: Systems Analysis in Agricultural Management. J.B. Dent and J.R. Anderson. Wiley, New York. 124-151 pp. Frenkel H., Goertzen J.O. and Rhoades J.R. 1978 Effect of clay type and content, exchangeable sodium percentage and electrolyte concentration on clay dispersion and soil hydraulic conductivity. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 43:32-39. Gil N. 1979 Watershed development with special reference to soil and water conservation. FAO Soils Bulletin No. 44. 257 p.

Gittinger J.P. 1982 Economic analysis of agricultural projects. 2nd ed. (For IBRD) Johns Hopkins, University Press, Baltimore. Gomez K.A. and Gomez A.A. 1976 Statistical procedures for agricultural research with emphasis on rice. IRRI, Los Baos, Philippines. 264 p. Grant E.L. and Ireson W.G. 1974 Principles of engineering economy. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CA. (Rev. ed) 640 p. Greenwood D.J. 1968 Effect of oxygen distribution in the soil on plant growth. In: Root Growth, ed. W.J. Whittington. Proc. 15th Easter School, University of Nottingham, pp. 202-223, Butterworth. Gupta S.N. and Bhattacharya A.P. 1969 Water management of rice. Proc. 36th Annual Meeting Central Board of Irrigation and Power (India). In: Symposium on Optimum Requirements and Utilization of Water for Irrigated Crops, pp. 5-14. Hagan R.M., Haise H.R. and Edminster T.W. 1967 Irrigation of agricultural lands. Am. Soc. Agron. Series Agron. No. 11. Madison, Wisconsin. Hall J.M. 1982 The geography of planning decisions. Oxford University Press. 62 p. Hamdi Y.A. 1982 Application of nitrogen-fixing systems in soil management. FAO Soils Bulletin No. 49. FAO, Rome. 188 p. Hansen V.E., Israelson O.W. and Stringham G.E. 1980 Irrigation principles and practices. 4th Edition. Wiley. 430 p. Hazlewood A. and Livingstone I. 1978 Complementarity and competitiveness of large and small irrigated farming: a Tanzanian example. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. Hesse P.R. 1971 A Textbook of Soil Chemical Analysis. John Murray, London. 520 p. Hiler B.A. 1976 Drainage requirements of crops. Proc. 3rd National Drainage Symp. Chicago. Am. Soc. Ag. Eng. Higgins G.M. and Kassam A.H. 1981 Regional assessments of land potential: A followup to the FAO/Unesco Soil Map of the World. Nature and Resources XVII(4): 11-23. Unesco, Paris. Hoffman G.J. 1980 Irrigation management and salinity control. In: Irrigation - Challenge of the 80s. 166-174 pp. Proc. ASAE Second National Irrigation Symposium, October 1980. St. Joseph, Michigan. Hoffman G.J. and van Genuchten M. Th. Efficient water management for salinity control. ASA Monograph (in Press). Holm L.G., Plucknett Q.L., Pancho J.V. and Herberger J.P. 1977 The world's worst weeds: distribution and biology. Honolulu: Univ. Press of Hawaii. 609 p. Horning H.M. 1979 Irrigation and drainage (concepts and problems). World Soil Resources Report No. 50: 9-13.

Howell T.A., Bucks D.A. and Chesness J.L. 1980 Advances in trickle irrigation. In: Irrigation - Challenges of the 80s. Proc. ASAE Second National Irrigation Symposium. St. Joseph, Michigan. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage. 1973 Irrigated cotton. A worldwide survey. ICID, Central Office, 48 Nyaya Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi 110021, India. ILRI. 1974 Drainage principles and applications. 4 Volumes. Edited from lecture notes of the International Course on Land Drainage. International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement, P.O. Box 45, Wageningen, The Netherlands. ILRI. 1980 Land reclamation and water management - developments, problems and challenges. ILRI Publication No. 27. Wageningen. 190 p. IRRI. (undated) Nitrogen and rice. Los Baos, Philippines. 825 p. IRRI. (undated) Climate and rice. Los Baos, Philippines. 565 p. IRRI. 1974 Irrigation water management. IRRI Annual Report, 1974. pp. 236-251. Los Baos, Philippines IRRI. 1975a Changes in rice farming in selected areas of Asia. IRRI Los Baos, Philippines. 377 p. IRRI. 1975b Improved rice varieties needed for world's deep water regions. IRRI Reporter 3/75. Los Baos, Philippines. IRRI. 1975c Irrigation and water management. Annual Report, 1975. pp. 250-266. Istituto Sperimentale per la Nutrizione delle Piante. 1982 Guida pratica per il rilevamento delle caratteristiche pedoagronomiche dei terreni. Elementi di agroclimatologia e valutazione della produttivita ambientale. ISNP, Rome. Jacovides P. 1982 Supporting report: Hydrology. Southern Conveyor Project, Cyprus, 1981. Water Development Dept. Cyprus and LRDC/ODA, London. James B.W., Hanks R.J., Jurinar J.J. 1982 Modern irrigated soils. Wiley. 235 p. Jassim H.F. 1982 Principles of regional soil survey, land evaluation and land use planning in Iraq. D.Sc. Thesis, University of Ghent. Katyal J.C. and Ponnamperuma P.O. 1974 Zinc deficiency: a widespread nutritional disorder of rices in Agusan Del Norte, Philippines. Agric. 58 (3 and 4). pp 79-89. Kheong Y.F. Contribution towards the development of a land cultivation 1982 system for Hevea brasiliensis cultivation in peninsular Malaysia. D.Sc. Thesis, University of Ghent. Kraatz D.B. 1971 Irrigation canal lining. Irrigation and Paper No. 2. Reissued as No. 1 Land and Water Development Series, 1977. FAO Rome. Lambrecht P.C. 1882 Crop-economic considerations. Centre for Soil Research, Indonesia UNDP/FAO/AGOF/INS/78/006 Technical Note No. 25. 99 p.

Landon J.R. (ed). 1984 Booker Tropical Soil Manual. Longman, London. 450 p. Lindsay W.L. and Norvell W.A. 1978 Development of a DTPA soil test for zinc, iron, manganese and copper. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 42(3): 421-428. Linsley R.K. and Franzini J.B. 1979 Water resources engineering. McGraw Hill, New York. 688 p. Linsley R.K., Kohler M.A. and Paulhus L.H. 1982 Hydrology for engineers. 3rd ed. McGraw Hill, New York. 512 p. Livingstone I. and Hazlewood A. 1974 The analysis of risk in irrigation projects in developing countries. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 41(1): 21-35. Loveday J. (ed.) 1974 Methods for analysis of irrigated soils. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau. Soils Tech. Commun. 54. Lucas R.E. and Davis J.F. 1961 Relationships between pH values of organic soils and availability of 12 plant nutrients. Soil Sci. 92: 177-182. Michigan State University. Luthin H.J. (ed.) 1957 Drainage of agricultural lands. Am. Soc. Agron. Monograph No. 7. Madison. 611 p. Maas E.V. and Hoffmann G.J. 1977 Crop salt-tolerance - current assessment. J. Irrig. and Drainage Div. ASCE 103: 115-132. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1974 Irrigation. Min. Agr. Bulletin 138, HMSO. London. 141 p. Maletic J.T. 1979 Principles involved in selecting lands for irrigation. Bureau of Reclamation US Dept. of Interior, Denver, Colorado. Maletic J.T. 1970 Land classification principles. Principles Lecture. August 1970. Soil Scientist Training Institute, USBR (unpublished) 29 p. Marr J.C. 1957 Grading for surface irrigation. State College of Washington, Extension Bulletin 526. 55 p. Marr J.C. 1967 Furrow irrigation. University of California, Agricultural Extension Service. Manual 37. Univ. of California. McMartin W. 1950 The economics of land classification for irrigation. The American Farm Economic Assoc. Vol. XXXII (4): 553-570. McRae S.G. and Burnham C.P. 1981 Land evaluation. Monographs on soil survey. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 239 p. Michael A.M. 1978 Irrigation: theory and practice. Water Technology Centre, IARI, New Delhi. Vikas Publishing House, New Delhi. Monteith J.L. 1972 Solar radiation and productivity in tropical agriculture. J. of Applied Ecology 9(3).

Moody K. 1981 Major weeds of rice in South and Southeast Asia. IRRI, Los Baos, Philippines. 79p. Mousli O.F. 1979 Methods of evaluation and classification of gypsiferous soils, and the suitability of these soils for irrigated agriculture. World Soil Resources Report No. 50: 160-183. FAO, Rome. Mustafa M.A. 1973 Appraisal of the water quality of the Blue and White Niles for irrigation use. African Soils XVIII(2): 113-124. Nachtergaele F.O.F. 1976 Studies of some saline and sodic soils in Sudan. Soil Survey Administration, Tech. Bull. 24. FAO/UNDP Project, Wad Medani. 91 p. Panabokke C.R. and Walgama, A. 1974 The application of rainfall confidence limits to crop water requirements in dry zone agriculture in Sri Lanka. J. of National Science Council, Sri Lanka. Vol. 2. pp. 95-113. Pearson G.A. 1960 Tolerance of crops to exchangeable sodium. USDA Agric. Inf. Bull. No. 216, 4 p. Pearson R.W. 1974 In: The plant root and its environment. (E.W. Carson, ed.) Univ. of Virginia Press, Charlottesville, Virginia, pp. 247-270. Peters W.B. 1979 Views on land selection for water and land development. World Soil Resources Report No. 50: 185-199. Ponnamperuma F.N. 1965 Dynamic aspects of flooded soils and the nutrition of the rice plant. IRRI Symposium on Mineral Nutrition of the Rice Plant. IRRI, February 1964. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Maryland, pp. 295-328. Ponnamperuma F.N. 1972 The chemistry of submerged soils. Adv. Agron. 24: 29-96. Ponnamperuma F.N. 1976 Specific soil chemical characteristics for rice production in Asia. IRRI Research Paper Series No. 2. Los Baos, Philippines. 18 p. Ponnamperuma F.N., Attanandana T. and Beye G. 1973 Amelioration of three acid sulphate soils for lowland rice. In Proc. International Symposium on Acid Sulphate Soils, 13-20 August 1972. ILRI Publ. 18(2): 390-406. Wageningen. Purnell M.F. 1979 The FAO approach to land evaluation and its application to land classification for irrigation. World Soil Resources Report No. 50: 4-8. Radcliffe D. 1979 Land evaluation for padi rice. In Land and Water Technical Newsletter. Dec. 1979. FAO, Rome. Rafiq M. 1979 Criteria for land evaluation for irrigation in Pakistan. World Soil Resources Report No. 50: 53-59. Replogle J.A. and Merriam J.L. 1980 Scheduling and management of irrigation water delivery systems. In: Irrigation - Challenges of the 80s. Proc. ASAE Second National Irrigation Symposium. St. Joseph, Michigan.

Republic of Cyprus. Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources. 1982 Southern Conveyor Project Feasibility Study. 19 Volumes. Resler L.L. 1979 Irrigation suitability land classification: its application to land and water resources planning. World Soil Resources Report No. 50: 21-37. Rijks D.A. 1976 Water use by irrigated cotton in the Sudan. Water use, potential evaporation and yield. J. Applied Ecology 13(2): 491-506. Rhoades J.D. and van Schilfgaarde J. 1976 An electrical conductivity probe for determining soil salinity. SSSA Journal 40: 647-651. Robertson C.A. and Eavis B.W. 1983 Summary Report, North-west Land and Water Resources Development Project, Sri Lanka. Published by Land Resources Development Centre, UK, for Ministry of Lands and Land Development, Sri Lanka. Russell E.W. 1973 Soil conditions and plant growth. 10th Edition. Longman, London. Rydzewski J.R. 1968 Irrigation development in Africa south of the Sahara. Potential and possibilities 1965-85. FAO Indicative World Plan for Agriculture Development. FAO, Rome. Rydzewski J.R. (ed.) 1968 Irrigation development planning. Southampton University, U.K. Seldon T.H. and Walker L.D. 1968 Economic evaluation and selection of lands for irrigation. USBR Pa Mong and Mun-Chi-Yang Projects Investigation Team, Thailand. Paper presented at Soil Survey Seminar. 28 p. USBR, Bangkok. Sen L.N. and Wickham T. 1977 Determination of effective rainfall for lowland rice. IRRI Saturday Seminar, 30 April 1977. Los Banos, Philippines. Sewell W.R.D., Davis J. and Scott A.D. 1965 Guide to benefit cost analysis. Queen's Printer, Ottawa, Canada. 49 p. Sheng T.C. 1977 Protection of cultivated slopes: Terracing steep slopes in humid regions. FAO Conservation Guide No. 1: 147-180. Sillanp M. 1982 Micronutrients and the nutrient status of soils: a global study. FAO Soils Bulletin No. 48. 444 p. Singh V.P., Corpuz I.T. and Wickham T. 1976 Improving the productivity of exposed subsoils in Talavera, Nueva Ecija. IRRI Saturday Seminar, 4 September 1976. Los Baos, Philippines. Smyth A.J., Eavis B.W. and Williams J.B. 1979 Diagnostic criteria for evaluating land for irrigation. World Soil Resources Report No. 50: 14-20. Stanhill G. 1973 Simplified agroclimatic procedures for assessing the effect of water supply. Unesco Proceedings, Uppsala Symposium, 1970. Stern R. and Coe R. 1982 The use of rainfall models in agricultural planning. Agri. Meteor 26(1): 35-50.

Stewart-Jones W. 1976 The use of ferrous sulphate for treatment of chlorosis in sorghum in Saudi Arabia. UCNW/Saudi Publication No. 98. Stewart-Jones W. and Kelso I. 1979 Research to develop techniques for identifying soils in which lime-induced chlorosis can be cured by ferrous sulphate application. Univ. College of Wales, Bangor, Project R3321. Stutler R.K., James D.W., Fullerton T.M., Wells R.F. and Snipe E.R. 1981 Corn yield functions of irrigation and nitrogen in Central America. Irrig. Sci. 2. pp. 70-88. Sys C. 1979 Evaluation of the physical environment for irrigation in terms of land characteristics and land qualities. World Soil Resources Report No. 50: 60-76. Szeicz G. 1974 Solar radiation for plant growth. J. Applied Ecology II(2): 617-636. Taylor J.A. 1969 The role of water in agriculture. Pergamon, Oxford. Thomas P., Varley J.A. and Robinson J.E. 1979s The sulphidic and associated soils of the Gambia estuary above the proposed barrage at Yelitenda. The Gambia LRDC Project Report 89. 95 p. Todd D.K. 1959 Groundwater hydrology. Wiley, New York. Truog E. 1948 Lime in relation to availability of plant nutrients. Soil Sci. 65: 1-7. Ulrich A. and Ohki K. 1973 Potassium. Chapter 24. In: Diagnostic criteria for plants and soils. Chapman, H.D. (ed.). Dept. of Soils and Plant Nutrition, Riverside, California. Unesco/IASH/WHO. 1969 Floods and their computation. Proceedings of the Leningrad Symposium. August 1967. 2 Vols. 985 p. Unesco. 1969 Water in the unsaturated zone. Proceedings of the Wageningen Symposium, (set of 2 volumes) Unesco, Paris. 995 p. Unesco. Groundwater studies. An international guide for research and practice (various supplements). Unesco, Paris. USBR. 1951 Bureau of Reclamation Manual. Vol. V. Irrigated land use. Part 2. Land classification. Bureau of Reclamation, Dept. of Interior, Denver Federal Center, Denver, Col. 80225, USA. USBR. 1967 Instructions for the conduct of feasibility grade land classification surveys of the Lam Nam Oon Project - Thailand. Office of Chief Engineer, Denver, Colorado, USA. USBR. 1978 Drainage Manual. US Dept. of Interior. Bureau of Reclamation. Denver, Colorado. USBR. 1981 Loan application guidelines. Small reclamation projects act (Public Law 84-948). US Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado. 217 p. USBR. 1982 Reclamation instructions. Series 110 Planning Part 115 Land Resources Investigations. US Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. (Rev.) 72 p.

USDA. 1964 Soil Conservation Service. National Engineering Handbook: Section 15, Irrigation. Chapter 12. Land levelling. USDA, Washington D.C. USDA/ARS. 1960 Use of brackish water for irrigation in humid regions. Ag. Info. Bull. No. 213. 5 p. USDA/ARS. 1962 Determining consumptive use and irrigation water requirements. Technical Bulletin No. 276. 56 p. US Government Water Resources Council. 1979 Principles and standards for planning water and related land resources. Published in Federal Register Dec. 14, 1979. 13 p. US Government Water Resources Council. 1979 Procedures for evaluation of national economic development benefits and costs in water resources planning. Published in Federal Register Dec. 14, 1979. 85 p. US Salinity Laboratory Staff. 1954 Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils. Agriculture Handbook No. 60, US Govt. Printing Office, Washington. US Salinity Laboratory Staff. Salinity management in agriculture. (Given in Irrigation Challenges of the 80s as in preparation in 1981). USWPRS. 1980 Irrigation water use and management. US Water and Power Resources Service. [USBR] Denver, Colorado. US Water Resources Council. 1970 Principles for planning water and land resources. Report by the special task force. W.R.C. Washington D.C. 25 p. US Water Resources Council. 1970 Standards for planning water and land resources. Report by the special task force. W.R.C. Washington D.C. Van de Goor G.A.W. and Zijistra G. 1968 Irrigation requirements for double cropping of lowland rice in Malaya. ILRI Publication 14. Wageningen. Vink A.P.A. 1963 Planning of soil surveys in land development. Veenman en Zonen, Wageningen. Vink A.P.A. 1970 Report to the Government of Iraq on soils, land reclamation and pilot projects based on the work of A.P.A. Vink. FAO/UNDP No. TA 2760. 38 p. FAO, Rome. Walker S.H. and Rushton K.R. 1984 Verification of lateral percolation losses from irrigated rice fields by a numerical model. J. Hydrology 71: 335-351. Warnaars B.C. and Eavis B.W. 1972 Soil physical conditions affecting seedling root growth. 2. Mechanical impedance, aeration and moisture availability as influenced by grain size distribution and moisture content in silica sands. Plant and Soil 36: 623-634. Water Development Department, Cyprus, and Land Resources Development Centre. 1982 Southern Conveyor Project Feasibility Study. WDD, Nicosia, and LRDC, Surbiton, Surrey.

Webster P.W.D. and Eavis B.W. 1972 Effects of flooding on sugarcane growth. 1. Stage of growth and duration of flooding. Proc. Internal. Soc. Sugarcane Technologists, 14th Congress, pp. 708-714. Westcot D.W. 1979 Evaluation of water quality for irrigation development. World Soils Resources Report No. 50: 77-84. FAO, Rome. Wickham T., Valera A. and Pal Singh U. 1977 Practices and accountability for better water management. National Workshop on Land Consolidation, Thailand, July 1977. Wilcox L.V. 1960 Boron injury to plants. USDA Bull. 211. 7 p. Winger R. 1965 In-place permeability tests used for subsurface drainage investigation. Mimeograph. Division of Drainage and Groundwater Engineering, Office of Chief Eng., USBR, Denver, Colorado. Worthington E.B. 1977 Arid land irrigation in developing countries: environmental problems and effects. Pergamon Press Int. Symp. 16-21 February 1976, Alexandria, Egypt. Yahia H.M. 1982 Soils and soil conditions in sediments of the Ramadi Province, Iraq. Their genesis, salinity, improvement and use potential. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Yang W.Y. 1965 Methods of farm management investigations. FAO Agricultural Development Paper No. 80. (Rev.) FAO Rome. 285 p. Yoshida T. and Anacajas R.R. 1971 Nitrogen fixing activity in upland and flooded rice fields. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 37(1): 42-46. Young R.A. 1980 The need for irrigation: an economist's view. In: Irrigation Challenges of in the 80s. Proc. ASAE Second National Irrigation Symposium, pp. 2228. St. Joseph, Michigan.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/X5648E/x5648e0o.htm#TopOfPage