SOILS
LAND SUITABILITY
OF
GADULA AREA
0^
? *»-
”lL- /
V ■*<’
7'.
♦*
*'E, *
’C
J
•; -.•.&/? v
V l’W:i
wRDA
w
!
ADDIS ABABA
✓'*’ ...SOIL AND LAND SUITABILITY OF THE BALE GADULLA AREA
BALE REGION
GIRUM ASFAW WRDA SOIL LABORATORY
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ADDIS ABABASURVEY TEAM
1) ATO GIRUM ASFAW SOIL CHEMIST
2) ATO AMHA GETACHEW SENIOR SOIL TECH
3) ATO ALI MOHAMED SEBAN SENIOR SOIL TECH
4) ATO TEFERA AMARE DRIVERTABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 2
ENVIROMENT ............................................................................................................... 3
3.1 Location, Communication, Population .......................... ..................................... 3
3.2 Climate ................................................................................................................. 3
3.2 A Temprature ..................................................................................................... 5
3.2 B Sunshine duration ........................................................................................... 5
3.2 C Wind ............................................................................................................... 5
3.2 D Rain fall .......................................................................................................... 5
3.3 Physiography and Geomorphology ..................................................................... ft 3.4 Water Quality for Irrigation ................................................................................. 6
3.5 Soils, Summerized ............................................................................................... 8
3.6 Land Use and vegetation ...................................................................................... 9
SOIL CHARACTERSTICS & LAND QUALITIES .................................................... 10
4.1 Soil chemical aspect ........................................................................................... 10
4.2 Salinity and Sodicity .......................................................................................... 11
4.3 Lime .................................................................................................................... 11
4.4 Organic Matter ................................................................................................... 11
4.5 Soil Fertility Aspect ........................................................................................... 11
4.6 Workability ......................................................................................................... 12
4.7 Rooting Space ................................................................................................... 12
4.8 Oxygen Availability ............................................................................................ 13
4.9 Erosional Hazard ................................................................................................ 13
4.10 Climatic Hazard .................................................................................................. 13
4.11 Flooding Hazard ................................................................................................. 13
LAND EVALUATION .................................................................................................. 14
5.1 Land Suitability Class ........................................................................................ 14
5.2 Suitability for Irrigated Agriculture ................................................................... 15
5.3 Recomended Crops ............................................................................ .............. 16
DISCRIPTION OF THE SOIL MAPPING UNITS ..................................................... 32
6.1 Soils of the Gently Dissecated Soil Complex ......................................... 32
6.2 Soils of the Alluvial Plain (Valley Bottom) ........................................... 36
6.3 Soils of the Steeply Dissecated soil Complex ........................................ 41TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 Mean Monthly Evaporation and Temprature for
PAGE
Bale Gadula ........................................................................................................ 5
2 Guide Line for Interpretation of WaterQuality
7
3 Laboratory Determination of Weib River .................................. 7
4 Description of Lime in the Field
5 Footing Space, Temprature Preference of
................................................ 12
Some Crops 17
6 Irrigated Banana
Land Suitability .................................... 18
7 Irrigated Beans Land Suitability .......................................................... 19
8 Irrigated Ground Nut land Suitability .................................................. 20
9 Irrigated Maize Land Suitability .......................................................... 21
10 Irrigated Onion Land Suitability .......................................................... 22
11 Irrigated Pepper
Land Suitability ........................................ 23
12 Irrigated - Potato Land Suitability ................................................................. 24
13 Irrigated Sorghum Land Suitability ......................................... 25
14 Irrigated Tomatto Land Suitability ......................................... 26
15 Irrigated Wheat Land Suitability .................................................................. , . 27
16 Irrigated Sur Flower Land Suitability ................................................................ 28
17 Irrigated Barely Land Suitability ............................................................ 29
18 Irrigated Cotton Land Suitability ............................................................. 30
19 Irrigated Crops Over all Land Suitability ............................................... 31
20 Kinds and Number of Activities Completed ................................................. 48
21 Results of Hydraulic Conductivity ............................................................... 51
22 Minimum Temprature (°C) ............................................................................... 55
2-3 m Temprature (°C) ............................................................................... 55
2*4 Mean Temprature (°C) .......................................................................................... 55
2*5 Monthly Mean Sun Shine (Hours) 2‘6 Average Wnid Speed (m/s) at 2 meter
56
56TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
APPENDIX - 1 INTRPRETATION OF ANALYTICAL DATA................................. 44
APPENDIX - 2 METHODOLOGY............................................................................... 47
2A-i Orientation ...................................................................................... 47
2A-ii Kind of Observation ....................................................................... 47
APPENDIX - 3 PHYSICAL MEASURMENTS ........................................................... 49
3A-i Hydraulic Conductivity ................................................................... 50
3A-ii Procedure ........................................................................................ 50
3A-iii Result ............................................................................................. 51
3B-i Infiltration Measurment ................................................................... 52
3B-ii Procedure ........................................................................................ 52
APPENDIX - 4 CLIMATICAL DATA ..................................... ........................... 55 & 56
APPENDIX - 5 SHORT LABORATORY PROCEDURES ................................. 58 & 59
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 60
(
i1. INTRODUCTION
OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
The Water Resources Development Authority in association with the Korean design team under took detail Soil Survey Investigation
in Bale-Gadulla Valley for the benefit of a planned irrigation
scheme.
A soil survey of Bale Gadulla are resulting in the delination of land capability units for irrigation development on a level of
detail. Under the agreed terms, the following additional information was to be provided for the project area.
i) A soil map indicating the variations and distribution
of different kinds of soils.
ii) Laboratory analytical data and moisture characterstics of the important kinds of soils.
iii) List of crops adopted to the climate and soils of the area.
The terminology used for soil description and land suitability classification in this report is explained in the FAO (1976), FAO (1977), FAO (1979), FAO (1985) and FAO (1988).2
2. SUMMARY
The report presents the findings of a detailed soil survey
covering an area of 4500 hectars North-west part of Bale admini
strative region. The objective of the soil survey was to identify
the potential, with soils that are suitable for irrigation development.
The whole findings are based on an array of field and Laboratory tests
with over all field observation density of 1:6 hectars.
Three main physiographic unit have been distingushed according
to the nature of the slopes.
1. The Gently dissecated complexes (Kubsa platue) (straight
slopes 1.5 - 3Z) with well drained, very deep clay soils,
very strong calcareous.
2. An alluvial plan or valley bottom with slopes of 0.5 -1%, that has moderately well to imperfectly drained very deep soils of clay and silty clay texture.
3. The steeply dissecated complex (Erosional Convex slopes 2-5Z) that have shallow, deep gullies and stony which are affected, by flood and erosional Hazard soils of the gently dissecated complex and soils of the alluvial plain are deep, well structured and other physical and chemical properties are suitabile for irrigation development.
Land suitability assessment and possible crops selection are included in this report with the assumption that sufficient irrigation water of good quality will be available and that the future farmers will master the anticipated required management skills.3
3. ENVIRONMENT
•i
3.1
LOCATION COMMUNICATION POPULATION
The survey area is part of the Welb river valley. It
is located Four hundred fifteen (415 km) kilometer to the
South-east of Addis Ababa, in North-western part of Bale
Administrative region, tewenty three kilometer from Goro
Awaraja. It comprises about 4500 hectars.
The command area is situated within two districts or Awarajas,
the upper platues of Kubsa Village is within Sinana Awaraga while
the rest Villages namely, Solenamita, Alemkerem, Doreni and
Gadulla are under Goro Awaraja. The boundary of the Survey
area are bounded along the following feautures:-
- To the North and to the east the area boundary concides
with lower part of colluvial foot slopes of the mountain.
- To the North-west the area bounded by Che contour line
of 1940 and to the South by Weib river.
- The approximate Geographical cordinates of the centre
of the project area are 40°.16’ - 40°.37’ Northern latitude
and 7°.6’ - 7°.9’ Eastern latitudes.
According to the ministry of Agriculture, the peoples
that cultivate the land in the survey area are members of the
Oromo tribes. At the time of survey work the population density
of the area was three thousand eight hundred eighty. Four
elementary schools, five clinics serve for the association.
Goro and Ginir the nearest townships are located about twenty-three kilometer west and east respectively. Accessibility to the project area is facilitated by dry weather ground road which connects
Goro town with Ginir. Upto the dam axis the short grass vegetation and the relatively sparse cultivated fields makes off-road
driving, easy.i
LOCATION MAP
LEGEND
ia
_
16
n
1 ERITREA
i . -I-
I
>—<’>-<• Infernofkxioi Boundary
i
Administrative
-------------Region Boundary
All Weather Road
BALE “
K
AtySA
_k;_ NCH \ DAMO
z
4
SOMA
KENYA
BALE
I
3'
Toxicity (Specific) Na+ (Sodium) (Adj SAR) Cl“ (Chloride) meqle
B (Boron) mgle
<3
<4
< 0.75
39
-
4 - io|j.
0.75
>9
> 10
>2
Miscellaneous effects
NO3” (Nitrate) mgle HCO^- (bi-carbonate) meqle
<5
< 1.5
‘ik’i ;•
5-30
1.5 - 8.5
> 30
> 8.5
PH
[ Normal range 6.5 - 8. 4
Result
Laboratory determination of Weib river@ Table - 3
Lab determination
Reporting
Symbols
Values
Reporting
Units
Electrical Conductivity
at 25°C
PH
Sodium
Potassium
Calcium
Magnesium
Chloride
Ni trate
Bicarbonate
Boron
Sulfate
E
cw
pH
Na+
K+
Ca++
Mg++
Cl-
NO?”
HCO3-
B
SO/.-
0.08
7.11
C.24
C.04
0.36
0.16
0.08
5.77
0.56
-
(^/mho/ cm
-
Meqle*
Meqle
Meqle
Meqle
Meqle
Mgle **
Meqle
Mgle
Meqle
Mequle* - Milliequivalent per liter
Mgle** - Milligram per liter
@ - Water analysis carried out at water resources development water laboratory service.8
Conclusion
The Weib river has low soluble salts, so no salinity problem, pH reading falls in the normal range. The toxic element, namely, Chloride, Sodium, and Boron are too small and cause no problem for irrigated crops. Generally from the laboratory determination Weib river has a good quality for irrigation.
3.5 SOILS. SUMMERIZED.
Almost all soils are very clayey textured with a good structure and sufficent porosity upto 50 - 60 cm depth but
a relatively poor structure and very unstable porosity below.
Except the reddish brownish latosols the rest mapping unit
have a strongly calcareous substratum containing abundant lime concreations and powdery lime. The top soils have 2 - 3Z Organic matter 1-2% for the sub soils with a high base saturation > 90%, Regarding of chemical fertility High cation exchange capacity, generally greater than 80.00 meg/100 gram of soil pH value between 7.00 - 9.00 due to the presence of lime concereations. No pronounced reading of salinity through out the project area, generally less than 1.00 milli mhos per centimeter. Their
top soil tends to shatter in the form of fine blocky peds up
on drying, which facillitates their tillage even in relatively
dry conditions, as well as provides a natural mulce for the soil moisture. A few hydraulic conductivity /permeability/ tests
and double ring infiltrometer tests were excuted near the representative pits. The infiltration tests results vary from
0.4 -3.1 cmipe.r hour.
Under Natural condition of alternate wetting and drying, these soils form wide and deep cracks as well as get their
I
surface level disturbed due to the formation of small basins which creats additional management problems.
Generally, the upper about 50 centimeter layer of almost all soils has relatively favourable physical and chemical characterstics for plant growth.
' *• * j i(9
The alluvial plain or Che valley bottom soils have developed that differ morphologically not much from those genetly dissecated complex soils.
Some of the mapping units need minor comprovement
i.e., clearing of surface stones from the field. Complete
descreption of the soil mapping units are given in Appendix -1.
3.6 LAND USE AND VEGETATION
The main activity of the local people is principally centered on farming and animal husbandary. Almost 50Z of the total area
is uncultivated, covered by dense and scattered accasia and
other short and tall trees. The large uncultivated are presently
used for grazing. Rain fed agricalture is the; dominant kind of
land use in the project area. . Farming practices are mainly traditional,
11»• .* •
i P.. j ■ ■! ? •
ploughing by ox. The main rainfed crops grown by !the local population
t ”:.*H h are Maize, Barley, Wheat, Sorghum and d^ffrent spices. The farmers
in the project area planted spices even more than the other crops
/ear
due to the afraid of different wild animals such as Swine, Pig Monkey etc.
There are considerable live stock and polutary(numbe^ in the survey area, livestock is probably mostly fed with crop residue. Livestock consists of cattle and goats. More over*
the producers cooperatives also have ailary farm with the help of Ministry of Agricalture near the project area.
i1 I I,
10 - !
*
i
4. SOIL CHARACTERSITICS AND LAND QUALITIES
•,
As mentioned earlier, a full description is given of the soil
mapping units where all available information on each’ Unit is mentioned.
This chapter summerizes that basic field information to the discussion
on the limitations to irrigated agriculture and the determination of
the suitability levels for the land use envisaged.
The general aspect of the profile is a massive clay structured,
sub-soil and the overlying topsoil well structured, friable, silty
clay to clay soil, low lime concentration compairing with the deeper
sub-soils. The defference between the well drained soils of the
gently disscated and the moderately well to imperfectly* drained
soils of the alluvial valley bottom is only gradual,iin the later
some cracks and slicken sides are more strongly developed.
i i'.l h •
i Wl
In general in the soil profile morphology of aljl, the deeper
• rIi<1 l '
v
If*
soils no characteristics have been observed that are unfavourable
to root development, such us abrupt textural changes, hard pans
or stony layers.
4.1 SOIL CHEMICAL ASPECT
The soils have high pH values for the top soils 7.00 - 8.50
and moderately high with increasing soil depth. For the valley
bottom especially for the reddish brown latosols the pH value
i
falls between 6.00 — 7.00 due to the absence of lime concreation
at any form. The above high pH reading for the most of soil
unit is due to the lime content of the soil profile. In all
soil types no (jjalinity problem encountered. Figures for
electrical conductivity are less than < 1.00 millmhc.s per
centimeter.
'[ ,•%]
i **
The soils have high cation exchange capacity (refers the capacity fo a soil to, sorb cations) compared to the clay content with a high Base saturation. Organic matter also moderate to high for the top soils and moderate to the upper and deeper subsoils. Calcium and magnesium are the dominant cations. All these figuers suggest quite fertile soils. No nutrient
is found to be of extreme low value. But the excess of calcium and high pH reading could imply nutrient imbalance due to which some nutrients m^ight not be readily available to the crops.11
4.2 SALINITY AND SQDICITY
Presence of salinity have been checked by means of Electrical Conductivity measurements: Electrical Conducti
vity readings on the soil samples reveal salinity effects
to be mostly negligible. Almost all electrical conducitivity readings are less than 1.00 mill! mhos per centimeter. Therefore, salinity does not seem to be of a problem, so the low salinity
pose any harmful effects to most crops.
levels
In rare deep soils a relatively high sodium content percent age in the exchange complexes observed. This may contribute to
an instability of the soil structure.
4.3 LIME
Most of the soils of the survey area are moderately to strongly calcareous through out with an average lime content
5 - 20Z. The content of lime increases with increasing soil
depth. The nature of lime found is in the form of powder or
nodule concretion. In some cases the lime is undistingushable
by the naked eyes, and 10Z diluted Hydro-chloric acid reaction ' ‘reveals the effervesence'of.the lime.* In some of 6oll types
concretion of lime observed. Field description were used for detection of lime content is as follows.
4.4 ORGANIC MATTER
Eventhough, by means of the soil colour it is usually
very difficult to distinguish an organic matter accumulation (Horizon- A]) from the Laboratory data except the deeply dissecated soil complex the rest top soils centain 2 - 32 organic carbon.
4.5 SOIL FERTILITY ASPECTS
Present level of nitrogen and phosphrous are low to moderate for all soil types. Exchangable potassium is adequate for growing any kind of crop. Present level of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium are likely to reduce under future intensive irrigated cultivation .shortages may occur during double cropping situation over come by applying fertilizer application.
If/ ’ I il. :
»12
Table - 4
Field discription
Auditory effect
Useble effect
Non-calcareous (less than 0.52)
z
None
None
■•\
Very slighlty
calcareous
(0.5 - 1.0)
faintly audible
increasing to
slightly
Slightly
faintly audible
slightly more
calcareous
increasing to
general, visible
(1 - 57.)
moderatly
on close
inspection
Calcareous
(5 - 102)
easily audible
moderate effect
easily’visible
bubble to 3 mm
diameter
Highly caleareous
(102 <)
easily audible
general strong
effect bubbles
to 7 mm diameter easily visible
4.6 WORKABILITY
Workability is a function of stoniness, soil texture and structure. It is considered for use of heavy machineries,
minor land improvement such as removal of surface stones is assumed to be carried out whenever necessary. In the gently dissecated soil complex soil compaction and structure degradation is for seen when too frequent use will be made if heavy machinary.
4.7 ROOTING SPACE
Rooting space is a function of effective rooting depth. In swelling and shrinking clays the rooting depth is slightly reduced. Rooting depth for the alluvial plain have no problem but limitation to agriculture due to restricted rooting space are found on the shallow of the erosional areas (steeply dis secated soil complex)•13
4.8 OXYGEN AVAILABILITY
Oxygen availability is considered to be mainly a function of drainage class on all well and moderatly well drained soils
no yield decrease is expected in view of restrictions to oxygen availability.
4.9 EROSION HAZARD
Erosion hazard is a function of slope angle and infiltration rate. Water and wind erosion are the two types of active erosion in the area. Erosion hazard may be reduced by construction
of bunds. The shallower soils are associated with the steepest slopes in the area. (§hese steepest slopes will not be used
any way due to their rockey soil cover. Irrigation fields
should be kept clear from these deeply dissicated;stream courses and gullies.
4.10 CLIMATING HAZARDS
Climatic hazard is the function of the presence of hail and frost that affects crop growth. Hail is known to occer
rarely in the survey area and the degree of damage to crops is not known yet. But no frost occu^red/observed at all with
in or around the project area.
4.11 FLOODING HAZARD
Flooding risk is the function of the destructive action of running water. In the dessicated soil complex land units flooding hazard is serious and good dist/ance should be selected from the flooding area.
!.
’I-
/1*
..
* %: • •
• *. i r<•
Minor land improvement required to protect flooding hazard along small streams when ever necessary.14
5. LAND EVALUATION
A full analysis of the farming systems with crops and crop rotations envisaged, is beyond the scope of this report. The
evaluation of soil mapping units will be geared towards the following land use alternative medium scale farming improved technology under central management.
The topographic and hydrological as well as the soils and climatic characterstics are integrated in the form of land characterstics
and matched with the requirments of the land use to arrive at land suitability classes which are determined by the extent to which
the requirements up the land use are satisfied and by the severity
of limitations posed, if any to land use.
The various land suitability class sympols used' for this report are defined as follows.
5.1 LAND SUITABILITY CLASS
S^= Highly Suitable Land - Land class with the expected produ ctivity under a certain inputs level remaining above about 60% of that achieved from an idealy suitable land under the same i inputs level.
ii
Hl»'
' •» • ...
I jf;!
• T
f. ’•
S2= Moderately Suitable Land - Class with the expected productivity under a certain inputs level remaining between about 40 - 60% of that achieved from an iedaly suitable land under the same inputs level.
S3= Land class with the expected productivity under a certain inputs level remaining below about 40% of that achieved from
an idealy suitable land crop failures may be expected.
N = Permenantly not suitable land - Land class which can not
be economically improved for the envisaged used in any conceivable future time.r • '7
15
5.2 SUITABILITY FOR IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE
The land characterstics are set againest the requirement
of the crops. The temprature regimes for the two growing seasons
are 17°C - ±9.8°C has been used for both seasons. These growing
seasons include a dry period both at the beggining and end of
each growing period to allow seed bed preparation respectively.
Ripening and harvesting the two growing seasons cover the periods from Feburary till June and from August till December.
D
For each irrigated
crop one table is presented. The major
kinds of limitation affecting the productivity is indicated
by the subclasses by class symbol.
using lower case letter suffix with the
e - Limitation
w - limitation
to
to
to
to
to
erosional hazard workability
r - Limitation
inadiquate soil depth
t - Limitation
temprature regime
i
o - Limitation
Oxygen availability.
Assumptions
The land suitability is assessed under the
general assumptions
i) lhe crops Co be grown wiould be.these* desciribed as climatically suitable.
ii) The crops will be grown during the proper season i.e. according to the cropping calender described.
iii) The availability and quality of irrigation water
following
;
will not be a limitation and the water will be applied through surface irrigation method, etc.16
5.3 RECOMMENDED CROPS
Refering the irrigated crops over all land suitability (Table - 19) final rating of
S| = Suitable
S2 = Moderately suitable are recommended.
Soil Mapping Unit Kll Total area - 160 ha moderately suitable for irrigation development i.e. moderately suitable for eleven of the irrigated crops.
Soil Mapping Unit K22
Total area - 620.8 ha highly suitable for
five of irrigated crops namely, beans, onion, potato, wheat, and barley and moderately suitable for six of the irrigated crops
i.e., Ground nut, maize, pepper, sorghum, tomatto and sunflower.
Soil Mapping Unit Al Total area - 1200 ha highly suitable
for two irrigated crops and moderately suitable for nine
irrigated crops.
Soil Mapping A2 Total area - 2008 ha same suitability class with soil mapping Al.
Soil Mapping A3 Total area - 478 ha highly suitable for five irrigated crops and moderately suitable for six irrigated crops.
Soil Mapping EDl : — Total area — 341.6 ha not recommended for irrigated agriculture.
Soil mapping ED2 Total area - 483.2 ha not recommended as arable land.17
Table - 5
Rooting space, Evapotranspiration Needs and Temprature Preference of Some Crops
Crop
Roating (cm)
depth
ET Crop
mm
Optimum mean
Sensitivity to
limitation in
Ox. av.
Banana Musa'spp.
Beans Phaseolus vulgans 50 - 70 Ground Nut (Arachis hypogaea) 50 - 100
Maize (Zea Mays)
Onion Allium cepa
Pepper Capsicum annum
100 - 170
30 - 50
50 - 100
Potato Solanum tuberosum 40 - 60 Sorghum Sorhum bicolor 100 - 200 Tomatto Lycopersicon escu 70 - 150
Wheat Tt aestivum
100 - 150
Sun flower Lelianthus annus 50 - 100
Barley
50 - 100
i Cotton Gossypium hiresutum 100 - 170
250 - 500
300 - 600
400 - 750
350 - 600
600 - 900
350 - 625
300 - 650
300 - 600
450 - 650
-
-
550 - 950
23 - 28
15 - 20
22 - 28
16 - 26 15 - 20 18 - 23 15 - 20 17 - 30 18 - 25 15 - 20 18 - 25 15 - 20
20 - 29
Moderatly tolerant Moderately senstive
Sensetive
Sensetive
Moderately sensetive Moderately Sensetive Moderately if Moderately tolarant Moderately sensetive Moderately sensetive Moderately sensetive Moderately sensetive Moderately tolerant.18
Irrigated - Banana Land Suitability
Mapping Unit
KU
K22
Al
A2
A3
EDl
ED 2
Temprature
Oxygen Av.
Rooting depth
Workability Erosion Hazard
S3
SI
SI
S2
SI
S3
SI
SL
SI
SI
S3
SI
SI
SI
SI
S3
SI
SI
SI
SI
S3
SI
SI
.1 :
si
i t.■
■
S3
SI
S3
S3
jji S3
S3
Si
N
N
N
Ovgr. .all
Land Suitability
S3t
S3t
S3t
S3t
i 1 . •0 S3t
S3re
(N)
N19
Table 7
Irrigated - Beans Land Suitability
Mapping Unit
Kll
k 22
Al
A2
a3
EDt
ed2
Temprature
Oxygen avail. Rooting depth
Workability
Erosion Hazard
SI
SI
SI
S2
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
S2
SI
SI
SI
SI;,];
’I
Si'll
siJfj
si. J
SI
si
1 1
ll. si
ft 4
h?3
S3
S3
SI
SI
N
N
N
1
Over all
Land Suitability
S2w
•
SI
SI
SI
SI
S3rwe
(N)
N20
Table 8
Irrigated - Ground Nut Land suitability
Mapping Unit
K 11
k
22
Al
a2
A3
EDi
ED 2
Temprature
Oxygen av.
Rooting depth
Work ability
Erosion Hazard
S2
SI
SI
S2
SI
S2
SI
SI
SI
SI
S2
SI
SI
SI
SL
S2
SI
SI
SI
SI
*
1 i i!
• S2
||
• i! Ji si L •j.’;
81
SI
SI
S2
SL
S3
S3
S3
S2
SL
N
N
N
Overall -
Land Suitability
S2tw
S2t
S2t
St2
S2t
S3rwe
(N)
■N21
Table - 9
Irrigated - Maize
Land Suitability
Mapping Unit
*11
K 22
Al
a2
a3
EDi
ED 2
Temprature
Oxygen Av.
Rooting Depth
workability
Erosion Hazard
S2
SI
SI
S2
SI
S2
SI
SI
SI
SI
S2
SI
SI
SI
SI
S2
SI
SI
SI
SI
d s2
■ i 1 si
: «l J
SI
S2
SI
S3
S3
S3
S2
SL
N
N
N
Overall
Land Suitability
S2tw
S2t
S2t
S2t
S2t
S3rwe
N
/22
Table - 10
Irrigated - Onion
Land Suitability
Mapping Unit
K 11
' K22
A1
A2
a 3 ;»
*■ I
1
edl
ed2
Temprature
Oxygen Av.
Rooting Depth
Workability
Erosion Hazard
SI
SI
SI
S2
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
Si
SI
SI
SI
I* i
•I
sr i •
i.
si
SI
SI
SI
)f
SI
SI
S3
S3
S3
SI
SI
N
N
N
Overall
Land Suitability
S2w
SI
SI
SI
SI
S3rwe
(N)
N
• , *» s* I
».
I
.t
i23
Table - ip
Irrigated - Pepper Land Sutability
Mapping Unit
- *11
*22
Al
a2
a3
edl
ED 2
Temprature
Oxygen Av.
Rooting depth
Workability
Erosion Hazard
S2
SI
SI
S2
SI
S2
SL
SI
SI
SI
S2
SI
SI
SI
SI
S2
S2
SI
SI
SI
S2
SI
SI
Si'.
SI
S2
SI
S3
S3
S3
/
S2
SI
N
N
N
Overall
Land Suitability
S2tw
S2t
S2t
S2t
S2t
S3rwe
(N)
N
■ 'l I'l: '•
■J. !: I:- 7'-
• I? .
•1
>c 1* .2^i
Table 12
f
I
Irrigated - Potato Land Suitability
Mapping Unit
K 11
K 22
A1
A2
A3
ED 1
ED 2
Temprature
Oxygen Av.
Rooting depth
Workability
Erosion Hazard
SI
SI
SI
S2
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
S2
SI
SI
SI
SI
S2
SI
SI
SI
1
<;
•<
:1
j SI
!|S1
d
SI
SL
SI
SI
S3
S3
S3
SI
SI
N
N.
N
Overall
Land Suitability
S2w
SI
S20
S20
S10
S3rwe
(N)
N
f
I
i
i25
Table 13
Irrigated - Sorghum
Land Suitability
Mapping Unit
K 11
K 22
A1
A2
A3
“l
ED 2
Temprature
Oxygen Av.
Rooting depth
Workability
Erosion Hazard
S2
SI
SI
S2
SI
S2
SI
SI
SI
SI
S2
SI
SI
SI
SI
S2
SI
SI
SI
SI
S2
SI
SI
SI
SI
S2
SI
S3
S3
S3
S2
SI
N
N
N
Overall
Land Suitability
S2tw
S2t
S2t
S2t
S2t
S3rwt
(N)
NTable 14
Irrigated - Tomatto
Land Suitability
Mapping Unit
K 1I
K 22
A1
A2
A3
ED 1
ed2
Temprature
Oxygen Av.
Rooting depth
Workability
Erosion Hazard
S2
SI
SI
S2
SI
S2
SI
SI
SI
SI
S2
S2
SI
SI
SI
S2
S2
SI
SI
SI
■ .h'i. • 1 • ' 1
s iir
*!:
SL' -•
fe1’
sl
l
SI
SI
•
S2
• SI
S3
S3
S3
S2
SI
N
N
N
Overall
Land Suitability
S2tw
S2t
S2Ot
S20t
S2t
S3rwe
(N)
N27
/
Table 15
Irrigated - Wheat Land Suitability
Mapping Unit
Ku
K 22
A1
A2
A3
ED 1
ED 2
Temprature
Oxygen Av.
Rooting depth
Wrokability
Erosion Hazard
SI
SI
SI
S2
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
S2
SI
SI
SI
SI
S2
SI
SL
SI
■i< ,'■> |'v ’si$
' Hii
s
* • ■*
SI
SI
SI
SI
S3
S3
S3
SI
SI
N
N•
N.
Overall
Land Suitability
S2w
SI
S20
S20
SI
S3rwe
(N)
N28
Table 16
Irrigated Sun flower
Land Suitability
Mapping Unit
Kll
*22
Al
a2
a3
1
EDX
ed2
Teirprature
Oxygen Av.
Rooting depth Workability Erosion Hazard
S2
SI
SI
S2
SI
S2
SI
SI
SI
SI
S2
S2
SI
SI
SI
S2
S2
SL
SI
SI
S2
SI
SI
SI
SI
S2
SL
S3
S3
S3
S2
Ir"
;isi
j ■
•»N
N
N
Over all Land Suitability
S2tw
S2t
S2ot
S2ot
S2t
S2wre
N29
Table 17
Irrigated - Barley
Land Suitability
Mapping Unit
Kll
k
22
Al
a2
a3
k i!
’’• ill’’■1;
ed2
Temprature
Oxygen Av- Rooting depth Workability Erosion Hazard
SI
SI
SL
S2
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
S2
SI
SI
SI
SI
S2
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
)« jl -
SI
i
SI
S3
S3
S3
SI
SI
N
N
N
Over all Land
Suitability
S2w
SI
S2o
S2o
SI
S3rwe
N30
Table 18
Irrigated - Cotton Land Suitability
Mapping Unit
KU
k 22
A 1 .
a2
a3
ED!
ed2
Temprature
Oxygen Av. Rooting depth Workability Erosion Hazard
S3
SI
SI
S2
SI
S3
SI
SI
SI
SI
S3
SI
SI
SI
SI
S3
SI
SI
SI
SI
S3
SI
SI
SI
SI
S3 .
? i'
si 1
* 'H
S3 J
S3
S3
S3
SI
N
N
N
Over all Land
suitability
S3t
S3t
S3t
S3c
S3t
S3twer
(N)
N31
Table 19
Irrigated Crops
Over all Land Suitability
Mapping Unit
Crops
Kll
k 22
A1
a2
a3
EDj
ED 2
Banana
Beans S’
Ground nuts/
Maize x/
Onion/
Pepper
Potato /
Sorghum
Tomatto
Wheat 7
Sunflower J
Barley 7
Cotton
S3t
S2w
S2tw
S2tw
S2w
S2tw
S2w
S2tw
S2tw
S2w
S2tw
S2w
S3t
S3t
SI
S2t
S2t
SI
S2t
SI
S2t
S2t
SI
S2t
SI
S3t
S3t
SI
S2t
S2t
SI
S2t
S2o
S2t
S2ot
S2o
S2ot
S2o
S3t
S3t
SI
S2t
S2t
Si
S2t
S2o
S2t
S2ot
S2o
S2ot
S2o
S3t
S3t
SI
S2t
S2t
SI
S2t
SI
S2t
S2t
SI
S2t
SI
S3t
N
N
N
17
Ni '
i* -
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
li
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Explanation of Symbols t - Limitation due to Temprature
o - Limitation in Oxygen availability r - Limitation in rooting depth
w - Limitation in workability
e - Limitation due to erosion hazardDESCRIPTION OF SOIL MAPPING UNITS
6.1 SOILS DEVELOPED ON GENTLY DISSECATED COMPLEX
This soil complex embrace soils of the Kubsa Platue and soils of the transition to the alluvial (valley bottom) soils.
Soils on the gently dissec^ted slopes can be generally characterized as well drained dark, friable strongly calcareous, slightly
cracking clays weakly to well developed sticken sides, massive and compact sub and deeper sub soil. On the soil map a separate
has been indicated between mapping unit
and mapping unit K22
which in the down slope postion contains less of surface stones and moderately drained soils.
•j
SoiJ n.rq ping unit Surface area -
- 160 ha
No of observation - 13 Augering
- 5 Profile pits and detail surface soil observation.
Parent material
- Basalt
Topography
- Colluvial slopes 1.5-3%
Drainage Condition
- Well drained
Land use/ vegetation - Short grass, scattered accasia, thorn
bush, and cultivated different cereals such as, maize, barely, wheat.
Permeability Surface feature
Brief soil Descri ption
- Slow
- 3 - 10 cm diameter of surface stone 5 - 15%
2
- Well drained very deep Black, 5Y , topsoil friable to firm sub and deeper sub soil, strongly calcareous, increase with depth, randamly, surface cracking, non saline, and no noduels, no rocks in the deeper sub soils, well distrubted roots on the top soil.Typical profiL Location Elevation Profile
0 - 20 cm
20 - 50 cm
50 - 100 cm
100 - 150 cm
33
characters tics
- Observation site No. G[ near Bench mark 10
- 1936 mts
- Black 5Y2/1 moist fine and medium granuler,
sutangular blocky friable strongly calcareous,
with diffuse boundary. Consistence, is soft
to slightly hard when dry, friable when most
steeky and plastic when wet, well distributed
fine to medium roots, non saline Electrical
Conductivity and pH (1:2.5 soil water suspension) 0.35 Mmho/cm and 7.70 respectively.
- 5Y2/1 moist 10YR3/l dry, modrate, medium
and coarse angular Blocky very sticky and
plastic when wet, slightly hard to hard when
dry, friable to firm when moist, weakly
developed slicken sides dear boundary,
common roots, strongly calcareous with pH
value 8.10 and 0.18 Mmho/cm electrical con
ductivity reading (1:2.5%, t-oil-water) .
- Dark reddish brown (5YR /2) angular blocky-*
massive structure few fine roots. Common
white spots of lime, very strongly calcareous
gradual boundary, consistence, hard when dry
firm when moist very sticky and very plastic
when wet 0.22 Mmho/cm and 8.4 pH value (1:2.5%
soil/water ratio).
- Dark reddish Brown moist, sub angular blocky, very few roots strongly calcareous sticky and plastic when wet, friable to firm when moist, gradual boundary, Ec value 0.24 Mmho/cm
and pH value 8.7.
2Typical Profile Location Profile
0.20 cm
20 - 60 cm
34 -
Characters tics
- Observation site No G2
- Moist, fine sub angular blocky very strongly
22
calcareous, Black (5Y /1 - 5Y /2), with clear boundary many roots, consistence,
is soft to slightly hard when dry friable when moist, sticky and plastic when wet, no rodules and rockes, some scattered lime powder non saline, Ec and pH values are 0.28 Mmho/cm and 8.2 respectively 1:2.5 water suspension).
- Ccarse, angular Blocky, few fine roots,
4
well developed slickensides very strongly calcareous, consistence firm when moist hard to very hard when dry. Very sticky and plastic when wet, diffuse boundary, soft lime concreation dark reddish brown 15YK /2) few vertically cracking, with pH
value 8.50 and 0.45 Mmho/cm Ec value.
2
60 - 100 cm
- Dark reddish Brown (5YR*/2) massive, angular blocky few fine roots common lime concreation. Consistence, firin to very firm when moist very sticky and very plastic when wet, hard to very hard when dry. Well developed pressure faces. No noltting, no nodules, no rocks progressive boundary with 8.8 and 0.80 Mmho/cm pH and Ec readings respectively (1:2.5 soil-water suspension)35
Soil Mapping Unit K22 Surface area
- 620.8 ha
No. of observation - 12 Augering and .5- profile pits and detail surface soilr observation.
Parent material Topography Drainage
Land use, vege tation
Permeability Surface features
- Basalt
- Colluvial slopes 1.5 - 3%
- Moderate - well
- Short grass, short thorn bush cultivated,
;
different cereals.
- Slow
- Few, scattered, stones
Typical profile characterstics
Location Profile
0 - 30 cm
30 - 60 cm
60 - X10+ cm
- Site observation G6, GIO, •
- Moist coarse granular, friagle strongly
i
calcareous, many well distributed roots
clay, hard when dry, friable to frim
when moist sticky and plastic when wet, gradual boundary, pH - 8.3 an Ec - 0.3 Mmho/cm
2 2/2) dark reddish brown sticky and plastic, firm, hard, very
fine common roots gradual boundary,
pH = 8.5 Ec »« 0.41 Mmho/cm strongly calcareous.
- Massive, moist 5YR /1 dark reddish brown strongly calcareous, crushed fine roots, well developed slickensides, consistence, hard when dry firm when moist very sticky and very plastic when wet water progressive boundary.
- Moist, (5YR /1 -
236
6.2 THE ALLUVIAL PLAIN (VALLEY BOTTOM) SOIL COMPLEX
These soils developed in the center and near the foot slopes of the mountain, covers almost half of the project area.
, The general characters tics of the soil complex is flat (0.5 - 1Z)
moderate to well drained soils, few cracks, silty clay to clay,
a
light texture compairing with gently dissciated soil complex.
Non saline with some surface stones.
Three mapping units are embraced within this soil complex^ Drainage condition and lime content are used for the separation of the soil complex.
- Soil mapping unit A} - Dark reddish brown clay flat with few
surface cracks, poor to moderately drained strongly calcareous.
- Soil mapping unit A - Friable moderate to well drained light
2
texture, silty clay, silty clay loam, moderatly calcareous.
- Soil mapping unit A3 - We?1 drained light texture, reddish brown, non calcareous with surface stones.
/31
Soil Mapping Unit A^ Surface area
- 1200 ha
No. of observation - 30 Augering and 8 profile pits and detail surface soil observation.
Parent material Topography
- Alluvium.
- Flat, 0.5 - 1.00Z.
Drainage condition - Poorly to moderate.
Land use/ vegetation
Permeability Surface features
- Cultivated different crops such as, maize, barley, different spices, short grass scattered accasia, thorn bush.
- Slow to moderate.
- Scattered few surface stones
Typical Profile Characterstics
Location
Elvation Profile
0 - 20 cm
- Observation site No. G-L7 , G-l8> G-39 Near bench mark 26
2
20 - 55 cm
-
- Moist, 5YR /1 medium and coarse subangular blocky many roots consistency freable to firm when moist slightly hard to hard when dry, strongly calcareous clear boundary Ec and pH readings are 0.14 Mmho/cm and 8.2
- Moist 5YR2/2 - 2/l dark reddish brown massive very sticky and very plastic when wet firm when moist and hard to very hard when dry, well developed stickensedes, very strongly calcareous, soft lime concretion
s few fine roots, 8.5 pH and 0.38 Mmho/cm Ec ireasurment55 - 100 cm
2
10C - 160 cm
38
- Black, 5Y /1 compact coarse angular blocky few fine roots, well developed slickensides strongly calcareous, firm hard sticky and and plastic, no roduels, no rocks 8.9 pH
and 0.28 Mmho/cm Ec value
- 5YR /2 dark reddish brown, moist, no roots very strongly calcareous, common soft and hard lime concretions, progressive boundary, very sticky and very plastic, very firm,
very hard well developed pressure faces,
2
8.7 and 1.67 Mmho/cm pH and Ec measurements respectively.
•>
. i
.5
. V. - ’39
Soil Mapping Unit A£ Surface area
No of observation
Parent material Topography
- 2008 ha
- 38 Augering and 9 profile pits and detail surface soil observation
- Alluvium
- Flat 1.00
Drainage condition - Moderate to well
Vegetation/ canduse
Permeability Surface features
- Uncultivated, covered byliishort thorn
|‘;i •’? • bushes scatered accasia and different
U
trees.
- Moderate
- Few scattered surface stones
Typical Profile Characterstics
Location Profile
0 - 30 cm
30 - 60 cm
60 - 90 cm
- Observation site No G-27, G-26, G-18
- 5YR2/2 moist medium subangular blocky friable, sticky and plastic, common roots moderatly calcareous, clear boundary,
pH 8.6 and 0.13 Ec value
- Coarse subangular blocky, firm when moist slightly hard to hard when dry, sticky
and plastic when wet, common roots calcareous 5Y /1 Black, 8.9 pH and Ec = 0.68 Mmho/cm
- 5Y /1 Black, diffuse boundary, few fine roots
2 2
some soft lime concretion,? sticky and firm, slightly hard, weakly developed
sides no nouduels, no rocks, pH = 8.9
plastic sticken and
t! % *; > l.
Ec - 1.0 Mmho/cm
’.' Ja
'.i j
90 - 150+ cm
- Medium and coarse sub-angular blocky, massive
few fine crushed roots, pressure faces between peds very few white spots, progressive boundary pH =• 8.7 and Ec = 0.99 Mmho/cm40
Soil Mapping Unit A3 Surface area
No of observation
- 478 ha
- 13 Augering and 3 profile pits and detail
surface observation.
- Alluvium.
'I. •
Parent material Topography
j’.;
»
. * *
- Flat.
I
Drainage condition Vegetation/ landuse
Surface features
Typical Profile Characters tics Location
0 - 20 cm
20 - 70 cm
- Moderate to well drained.
- Uncultivated area covered by short
thorn bush and few cultivated area,
mainly maize and different spcies,
such as a bish.
- Scattered surface stones.
- Observation site No. G15, G19 and G25.
- 5YR3/3 dark reddish brown, slightly
moist, medium fine sub angular blocky,
friable, many roots, silty clay, consistence,
slightly sicky and slightly plastic when
wet, friable when moist, loose to slightly
hard when dry diffuse boundary. pH and
Ec values are 7.20 and 0.12 Mmho/cm respectively
- 5YR /3, dark reddish brown fine sub
angular blockym weakly calcareous, moist
silty loam, non slticky and not plastic
firm when moist hard when dryclear boundary pH 7.5 and 0.17 Mmho/cm Ec reading.
" b* 1 ii
k* I ‘ii
- Fine and medium sub angular, blocky very friable slightly moist,'5YR /3 dark reedish brown progressive boundary slightly sticky
i *q
C/K
c'oy %
55
65
68
75
P (ppm)
sill /day
CEC (meq/IOOg soil)
lexlure doss
c
C
C
C
NH4 OAc-exTr.
75.0
68.0
62.6
67.8
KNOj - exlr.
BULK DENSITY
EXCHANGEABLE CATIONS (meq/IOOg soil)
MOISTURE % W/V
exch. Co
o! pF 0
64.4 56.0
48.0
42.6
exch. Mg
pF 1.
6.0
2.0
9.4
8.4
exch. K
pF 2.
2.4
1.4
0.9
1.2
exch. No
pF 2.
0.38
0.32
0 44
1 1
pF 2.
Sum Cotions
73.18
59.72
58.74
53.3
• pF 3.
% Bose Sot. (sum cat J
pF 3.
% Base &F (CECJ
97.6
87.8
93.8
78.6
pF 4.2
-
ESP (sum-Cd. )
• <
AWC (FIELD)
ESP (CEC) J
FC rep, 1
CEC (cloy froc.) 1
FC rep. 2
FC rep. 3 '
AWC (mm/m)
AWC(Lob)
SZ TUR A TION EXTRA C T pH -poste
ECe (mS/cm) Soluble salts (meg/t)
/
AWC(corrected for
coorse fragm)
INFILTRATION (rote in cm. h-l)
Utveroge~ij
equation
Sum cottons
I
I
I
I
I
I
Co’*
Mg"
max. infiltration rote:
COf"
cveroge infiHrofion rote «___________________
HCOy-
insfontonecus infillrolion rote offer 00-200
I
I
I
OThER FIELD TEST DATA
I■
G2
LABORATORY AND FIELD TEST DATA
| LABORATORY N?.
0-35
35-80
80-120
PH-H2O(t v/v)
8.2
8.9
9.3
COARSE FRAG(%)
-
PH- CoC!?
J TEXTURE
EC (mS/in)
| Coors e sond %
0.3
0.5
0.8
■ medium sond °/o
CoCOj (%)
11.0
19.0
29.0
fine sond %
CaSO4 (7o)
1 tote! sond %
0C(%)
17
12
2.7
1.4
10
1.4
N(%)
Q.3
0. 1
n.04
|%
1 doy %
20
24
77
C/N
63
64
68
P (ppm)
| silt / day
CEC (meq/!OOg soil)
J texture c/oss
C
C
C
NH4 OAc-extr.
74.7
66.1
66.1
1 BULK DENSITY
XNOj — extr.
EXCHANGEABLE CATIONS (meq/iOOg soil)
[ MOISTURE % W/V
I Ot pF o
exch. Co
54.0
44.2
42.6
exch. Mg
$ pF 1.
8.2
7.2
8-2
exch. K
! pF 2.
1.6
Lfi
16
I? pF 2.
exch. Na
1.1
8.2
10.8
Sum Cations
■. pF 2.
64.9
61.2
63.2
i • pF 3.
% Bose Sot. (sum cot J
I PF 3
7o Bsse S& (CEC)
36.9
92.6
95.6
| PF 4-2
ESP (sum- Cot. )
,,5 i'
J AWC (FIELD)
ESP (CEC)
j FC rep. 1
CEC (cloy froc.)
a
a
a
FC rep. 2 FC rep. 3 AWC (mm/m)
AWC(Lob)
SA TUR A TION EXTRA C T pH -paste
ECe (mS/cm) Soluble softs (meg/t)
AWC(corrected for coarse frcrgm)
5
a
a
INFILTRATION (role in cm. h-i)
.Average ~
equotion
max. infiltration rote-
averoge infill rotion rote •____________________ instontonecus inf ill rot ion rote offer 4h ■
Re pH cote
Accumulated intake (cm) after
a
I
Co**
Mg**
Sum cations CO J- hoot
a
Sum cnicns Adj. SAR other Boron (ppm)
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (AUGER HOLE)
a
a
K( cm.h-t)
Depth of lest (cm)
0-/00
100-200
OTHER FIELD TEST DATA
«
ILABORATORY AND FIELD TEST DATA
g| LABORATORY K9.
PMn
30/70
70/1 or
PH-H^OU- y/v>
3.2
_
" COARSE FRAG(%)
PH- CoCI2
I TEXTURE
EC (mS/tm)
3.31
0.22
0.21
| Coorse sand %
•. medium sand %
Co CO, (%)
14.7
16.9
16.7
CoSO, (%)
fine sond %
OC(%) '
3.4
1.7
| total sond %
1.5
15
10
15
N (%)
3.14
0.03
0.0T
1 Si" %
15
10
8.0
C/N
J Cloy %
70
80
85
P (ppm)
| 5/7/ / day
CEC (meq/ lOOg soil)
J
texture doss
NH4 OAc-exfr.
1 BULK DENSITY
c
r
r
KN03 - extr.
1.75
1.88
73.2
K74
ao
aj
EXCHANGEABLE CATIONS (meq/tOOg sot!)
1
| MOISTURE % W/V
exch. Co
■' o' PF 0
64.6
58
5ft
•
exch. Ng
1 pr 1.
8.4
3.8
3.0
exch. K
pF 2
1.8
0.64
0.64
exch. No
| pF Z.
0.32
0.41
0.51
J pF 2
Sum Cations
• pF 3.
°/o Bose So!. (sum cot.)
a
* pF 3.
% Bose So- (CEC)
• I
" pF A 2
ESP (sum- Cot. )
AWC (FIELD)
ESP (CEC)
•
FC rep, f
CEC (ctoy froc.)
•
FC rep. 2
SATURATION EXTRACT .
|
| FC rep. J
pH -paste
J AWC (mm/m)
ECe (mS/cm)
AWC (Lob)
Soluble soils (meg/t)
Nd
'1
| AW C(corrected for
■ coorse fragm)
K*
|
Co**
I Average ■■ ■
equotion
5 max. infiltration rote:
■ averoge inf it!rotion rote ■
| INFILTRATION (rote in cm. h-l)
Mg**
Sum cations
CO,*-
HCO± *
insfonlonecus infiltration rote offer 4h •
C7~
| Replicate
Accumulated intake (cm) offer
SO, *■
th
2h
3h
)
3.0
2.4
2.3
20.
22 22
N (%)
n 7
0 13
n i
2a 22 22
C/N
P (ppm)
1
I
day
%
50
52 55
sin / doy
CEC (mcq/IOOg soil)
texture doss
C
NH4 OAc- extr.
85
81
80
76
BULK DENSITY
KNO3 - extr.
EXCHANGEABLE CATIONS (meq/lOOg soil)
w.
I
MOISTURE % W/V
exch. Co
ot pF O
pF <•
72
63
64
60
I
ex ch. Mg
8
9.8
7.0
6.0
exch. K
pF
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.7
exch. No
I
pF *
1.3
5.8
3.2
0.7
Sum Cotions
PE 2.
81.8
79.1
74.7
67.4
• pF 3.
°/o Bose Sot. (sum cot J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
pF 3.
_______ pF 4.2
AWC (FIELD)
FC rep, 1
FC rep. 2
FC rep. J
AWC (mm/m)
AWC (Lob)
AWC(corrected for
coarse froqm)
INFILTRATION (rote in cm. h-t) Artroqe
equation
max. infiltration rote: averoge infill rotion rote
% Bose Sa: (CEC)
96.2
97.7
93 4
88.7
ESP (sum- Cat. )
ESP (CEC)
CEC (doy frac.)
SA TUR A T/ON EXTRA C T
pH -pos te
ECe (mS/cm)
Soluble salts (meg/t)
Nd
/
✓|
td
Co**
1
Mg *
Sum cotions
CO.1'
HCQ”
instonfonecus inf ill rot ion rote offer 4h :
Ct”
Replicole
Accumuloti th
>d intake
2h
(cm) offer
3h
SO4*-
4h
Sum anions
1
2
3
Ad J. SAR
!
OTHER
Boron (ppm)
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (AUGER HOLE)
4 K( cm. h-t)
Depth of test (cm) 100-200
OTHER FIELD TEST DATAG19
laboratory and field test data
a
a
LA BORA TORY N*.
0/15
15/70
70/140
PH-H20(! v/v)
:
6.4 .
h.8
7.3
COARSE FRAG(%)
PH- CoCI2
TEXTURE
EC (mS/cm)
).13
0.07
0.1
Coorse sond %
medium sond %
COCO, (%)
(
).39
0.48
0.39
Co SO. (°/o)
fine sond %
OC(%)
7
toto! sond °/o
’.16
1.2
0.9
20
25
23
N(°/o)
0.2
0.2
0-1
J/// %
45
40
C/N
6<
a
a
40
cto/ %
35
35
.
P (ppm)
i
sill / cloy
CEC (meq/!OOg soil)
texture doss
NH4 OAc'Cxrr.
45.2
41.7
38.3
BJLK DENSITY
KN03 - er/r.
EXCHANGEABLE CATIONS (meq/tOOg soil)
A
MOISTURE % W/V
exch. Co
of pF 0
29.2
28.6
34.4
exch. Ng
pF 1.
11
7.4
7.6
exch. K
1.1
0.8
0.7
a
a
a
a
il
a
pF 2.
exch. No
pF 2.
0.3
0.3
0.3
Sum Cotions
pF 2.
41.6
37.1
43.0
• pF 3.
°/o Bose Sol. (sum cot J
pF 3.
% Bose Sat (CEC)
92.0
89.0
Llq.q
.
pF 4.2
ESP (sum- Cat. )
AWC (FIELD)
ESP (CEC)
FC rep. f
CEC (c/oy frac.)
FC rep. 2
SA TUR A TtON EXTRA C T
FC rep. 3
pH-poste
AWC (mm/m)
ECe (mS/cm)
AWC(Lab)
AWC( corrected for course fruym)
Soluble softs (meg/t)
No*
/
K*
Co’*
C
IN ILTRATION (rote in cm. h-l)
Mg**
a
Sum cot ions
I
i
i
i
i
I
Average ~ ■
equation
max. infiltration rate'
averooe inf ill ration rote •
CO.*-
hcq~
insfonfonecus infiltrofion role offer 4h •
Cl'
Replicate
Accumulated intake (cm) after
!h 2h 3h 4h
SO.*-
Sum anions
1
2
3
Ad J. SAP
_____
OTHER
Boron (ppm)
1
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (AUGER HOLE)
K( cm. h-l)
Depth if test (cm)
O-IOO 100-200
Rep. 1
2
3
4 *1 . 1
1
■ !’i;
»
OTHER FIELD TEST DATA
•1
I
■
■
G20
LABORATORY AND FICLD TEST DATA
LABORATORY N?.
0/20
20/65
65/121
PH-H20(F v/v )
8.3
9.0
COARSE FRAG(%)
PH- CoCI2
TEXTURE
EC (mS/cm)
Coorse sond %
03
.
6.8
05
10
medium sond %
CoCOi (%)
.
9.2
.
13.3
fine sond %
CoSO„ (%)
toto! sond %
20
OC(%) 2.3
1.9
1.6
15
10
N(%)
n ?
n ?
n or
sM %
15
18
20
C/N
S
M
w
doy %
65
67
7Q
P (ppm)
silt / day
CEC (meq/lOOg soil)
texture doss
NH4 OAc- extr.
■
c
C
C
51.2
62.0
68.7
KNO^ — extr.
BULK DENSITY
rvrnir.Mr.rADi r rATirujc fr*»r,/ir)n mil)
' i
n
>
MOISTURE % W/V
exch. Co
■
ot pF o
48
35.2
39.8
exch. Mg
pF 1.
8.0
5.4
4.4
exch. K
pF 2.
0.8
0.8
n s
exch. No
■I
pF 2
0.52
10.00
16.0
Sum Cations
pF 2.
57.5
51.2
60.7
• pF 3.
% Bose Sot. (sum cot J
H
pF 3.
% Bose Sa! (CEC)
100
82.8
.8.9 ^.3,
pF 4.2
ESP (sum- Cot. )
AWC (FIELD)
ESP (CEC)
CEC (cloy froc.)
■
I
FC rep, 1
FC rep. 2
SATURATION EXTRACT
FC rep. 3
pH -poste
AWC (mm/m)
ECe (mS/cm)
AWC (Lob)
Lf
I J
■1
g
1
n1
1
1
/
A WC(corrected for coarse frogm)
Soluble salts (meg/t)
Nc*
/r*
CoJ*
INFILTRATION (rote in cm. h-l)
Average c_-
equation
max. in filtration rote; '
averoqe tniurruiton rote ■
Mg*>
Sum cations
CO.*’
HCO$~
insfontonecus infHtrot ion rote of ter 4h
Ct "
Replicate
s°<*
Ih 2h 3h 4h
Sum onions
1
2
3
Adj. SAR
OTHER
Boron (ppm)
i .* r
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (AUGER HOLE)
K( cm.h-t)
Depth ot
C1-tOO
led (cm)
100-200
F
mt
1
1
i •--------------------------- Rep. f
2
3
I•
U
:>p'.
Lr
OTHER FIELD TEST DATA
•
•
•
•
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IAi>’i/44
INTERPRETATION OF SOIL ANALYTICAL DATA INTRODUCTION
In the course of the detailed soil survey a total of one hundred
twenty two samples were collected and analyzed at water resources deve lopment soil laboratory service, where the following determination were made.
- Texture (Silt, Clay, Total sand)
- pH (1:2.5 Soil-water Suspension)
- Total Nitrogen
- Organic Carbon
- Av. Phosphrous
- Electrical Conductivity
- Calcium Carbonate
- Cation exchange capacity
- Individual Cations (Ca, Mg Na, K)
- Bulk density from disturbed samples.
The base saturation is determined later from the cation exchange capacity and from the sum of the individual caltions.
SUMMARY
Soil Reaction The soil reaction is indicated by the measurement
of pH value. All soil mapping units except mapping unit A3 the value of pH is between 8-9 the high value of the pH is due to the presence of soft
and hard free lime concreations in the soil profile. There may be risk
of nutrient imbalance and reduced availability of phosphorus and micro nutrients.
Organic Carbon Organic matter levels are moderate to high for the gently dissecated and for the alluvial (valley bottom) soil complexes.
Total Nitrogen Total nitrogen are slow to moderate the optimum application rates can not be obtained from the laboratory data and need to be derived from field experiments.I
I
I
Apl/45
Salinity The Laboratory data confirm that the soils of the
survey area are all non-saline. Ibe highest recorded electrical condu- tivity of the suspension is less than 2 mill mho/cm. No yield reduction is anticipated due to the low value of Ec measurments.
Line All mapping units are moderate to strongly calcareous except
I
I
I
the reddish brown soils of the mapping unit A3.
Cation Exchange capacity & Indvidual Cations
The content of exchangable bases bound on the clay fraction is moderate
to high values. Calcium and magnesium are the dominant ion on the exchange
complex. Exchangable sodium and potassium levels are enough for plant
growth. The cation exchange capacity for the dissecated and for the
I
alluvial plain are high. All these fegures suggests that the soils
are quite fertile. Base saturation is 90 - 100Z.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i46
i
i *
APPENDIX -
2
METHODOLOGYAP2/47
ORIENTATION AND DENSITY OF OBSERVATION
During the actual survey work in the field no aerial photographs
of adequate scale were available. A topo survey had been carried out resulting in 1:2000 scale 1 meter interval contour line map, with every
200 meters cross sections, that presently serves is a bese for all maps
in this report. The cross section at interval of 200 meters were used
as a starting points for soil traverses.
Along these grid lines, profile pits augerings and detailed soil
surface observation the cross section and initially chosen 400 mts apart
in order to obtain an over all coverage of the area at a density of
1:6,000 hectars. In the large homogenious or transitional areas, were supplemented with augering upto a 1:1.5 hectar.
Kinds of Observation
Along the sections augering were performed to a depth of 1.5 m to
2 mts according to the nature of the soil. More over detail surface
soil observation also carried out. Surface soil observation includes, texture by field method, lime content using 16% Hcl, color, munsel colour
Recording of soils nature were as follows
- Colour - munsel soil colour chart
- Texture - Field method
- Calcareous ness - 10% dilute Hcl.
and other characterstics along with drainage condition, land use, surface
*
and land form features, were noted on _wRDA sojil profile description form.
e
d
Field investigations ineach land type by exposing soil profiles through deep pits and augering on representative sites. Collection
of soil samples for laboratory analysis and of water samples to assess its suitability for irrigation. Correlation of soil survey data with specific features of different land types, preparation of soil map done.
Also analysis of climatic data and listing of
the adopted crops
according to their suitability made and integration of soils and climatic data and matching with the crop requirments for assessment of'land suitabi lity for the selected crops were made.A total of therty-nine profil pits and augering were excuted Table -20
Kind and number of activities completed
No Activities
Description
1 auger hole observation
- selective observation
- detailed surface observation
2 Soil profile pits
degging and description
39 pits, Appx. 1.5 Dmts
123 samples collected
for routine analysis
3 Infiltration tests
for each soil type and along
the canal
4 Hydraulic conductivity
(Inversed auger hole method)
for each soil mappint unitAPPENDIX- 3 PHYSICAL MEASUREMENTSHYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY
INTRODUCTION
■ ” >
Inorder to determine the Hydraulic Conductivity, permeability tests
were performed in most of the distinguished soil units.
The test were executed according to the inversed Auger hole method
as described in "Drainage principle and applications Volume III, Surveys
and Investigations". The principle is similar to the auger hole method
with this dif^rence that in the inversed auger hole method the rate
of fall of the water level in the hole is measured instead of the rise. PROCEDURES
Almost all test locations were situated near the representative
soil pits. This gave the advantage that the locations and consequently
the soil units and the textural sequence of the soils to be tested were known.
Two or three augerings for light textures were made near the representative profile pits up to one meter depth. After augering the holes were filled
with water and the profile described. The first filling was done to
reach a wet condition in the profile as under irrigation. The water
filling was done from a jerican so carefully inorder not to disturb
the wall of the hole by a flow of water. After the water of the first
fill drained away the actual width and depth of the auger hole were measured. In some profiles it was observed that during the first fill
the wall of the auger hole collapsed causing a wider and less deeper
auger hole.
For measuring the rate of fall of the water level a float and a
A
measuring tape installed on a standard’were used. After installation
of this equipment the hole was filled for the second time.! The rate
of fall was measured after 0 sec., 15 sec., 30 sec.,, 60 sec.,
120 sec., 180 sec., 240 sec.,* 360 sec., and 540 sec.
The reading interval was changed according to the nature oi; the textural *-
sequences, meaning , _In highly permeable soils and shallow auger holes the measuring time was shortened.
1 iRESULT
At the time of survey it was observed that the cracking clay soils and cavities in the sub-soils, which were visible during augering, were impossible to examine because of the water flowing away through the cracks and the cavities. A complete list of soil units test results
and the calssification is given in the next page. The procedure used
for the excution of permeability test can be limited or influnced by the presence of soil cracks , holes created by roots, worms or larger animals and the presence of thin sand lenses may give unreliable figuers
The test results are presented in cm/hr for auger holes upto 50 cm depth and upto one' meter depth respectively. the classification of
the Hydraulic Conductivity is based on the folliwing description
Moderatly rapid
0.4 - 0.8 m/day
Rapid
0.8 - 1.6 m/day
Very Rapid
1.6 - 3.2 m/day
Extermely Rapid
3.2 - 6.4 m/day
Immeasurable Rapid
above 6.4 m/day
Source:- Soil conservation service, US Department of Agric. 1968.
Results of Hydraulic Conductivity tests Table -21
Soil mapping
Unit
Near
soi 1
Test results
(m/day)
Classification
D 50 cm D
100 cm
Kll
G-l
0.07
0.06
Very slow
KU
G-2
0.05
0.04
Very slow
KU
G-3
0.08
0.07
Slow
K22
G-6
0.10
0.08
Slow
K22
G-10
0.09
0.07
Slow
Al
G-l 7
0.15
0.13
Moderate
Al
G-39
0.23
0.19
Moderate
a2
G-26
0.60
0.49
Moderate rapid
a2
G-l 8
0.77
0.70
Moderate rapid
a3
G-15
0.98
0.78
Moderate rapid
a3
G-19
0.80
0.65
Moderate rapiduiNFLTRATION MEASURMENTS INTRODUCTION
The infiltration capacity refers to the Vertical ent^ry fo water in to the soil surface, for these measurments the double ring inriltro- ineter has been used. In here the initial intake rate (in the first
hour)
after
and the equilibrum of the several hours are the two
basic intake rate has
become constant
The rate of infiltration is measured by observing the fall of water within two concentric cylinders driven in to the soil surface. The
use of a double ring with measurment confined to the inner ring, minimizes errors due to flow divergence in directions other than the vertical.
To avoid unreleable results, water of the same quality as will be used for irrigation should preferably used for the test. The test should
be run for atleast six hours. It does not work very well on cracked clays as the water disappears too fast and results are too variable
but they indicate important aspects of soil physical properties. Evaporation rates are usually too low to be significant, but if
fib
the infiltration rate is very low and the wether is hot and dry it is necessary to correct for evaporation. It is often convenient to carry
out the test close to a sampled profile so that complete on the soil
is obtained.
PROCEDURE
Near the representative of soil to be tested the pairs of cylinders should be installed 3-10 meters apart. Drive the cylinders in to
the soil to a depth of approximately 10 - 15 centimeter. Place plastic or your hand over the soil to dissipiate the force of the water inorder to reduce turbidity. Prepared everything ready for all replicates before st a r ting the test.
Fill
both
cylinders
to
a
depth
of
about
10 cm
and
record
the
time
and
the
height
of
the
water
in
the
inner
cylinder
using
ruler
or
hook
gauge. Do the same for the replicates, repeat the measurment after, 15 minutes, 30 minutes 45 minutes 60 minutes, 90 minutes and 120 minutes and each hour for the remainder of the test.The infiltration rate can be measured either by measuring the distance
of the water surface from the top of the cylinder before, and after topping up or by measuring the amount of water (using a graduated cylinder) required for topping upto a fixed hook gauge. The former method is
simpler when diffrent diameter cylinders are used. The outer cylinder should be kept at approximatly the same level as the inner one.
It is important that it should never be filled up higher than the
inner cylinder or the measured water level may rise instead of fall.
The recordings should be entered on a form and the average hourly rates calculated. The curves of infiltrations versus time should be plotted
on graph paper and the cumulative amount of water infiltrated also plotted as a check. (there is ample time to do this in the field between measurements and it should be done at once so that errors can be rectified. If one
cylinder gives a widely different rate from the others it should be rejected in taking the averages.
After the test period the cylinders are removed and an excavation should be made through the center of the thrity centimeter cylinder site inorder to drow the outline of the wetted soil on graph paper.
From the graph the values of the maximum initial infiltration rate can be calculated.54
1
-
CLIMATICAL DATA
APPENDIX
4
tAp4/55
Table - 23
Minimum Temprature (°C)
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
-
9.1
10.3
8.4
6.4
12.5
12.1
12.1
-
10.9
11.6
11.1
6.5
13.9
13.2
13.2
-
13.1
11.7
12.3
8.4
12.6
J4.1
14.2
-
13.6
13.2
13.3
12.3
9.4
13.2
14.5
13.3
12.5
12.4
13.1
10.6
9.1
12.9
13.3
12.5
11.6
11.9
12.1
-
12.8
13.6
13.1
13.0
11.4
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.7
14.1
13.7
12.5
11.9
11.8
13.1
12.1
12.0
14.5
13.9
11.7
11.5
11.2
11.8
12.3
8.9
13.3
13.7
11.9
11.3
11.1
11.2
12.7
8.1
13.3
13.0
10.1
8.7
6.8
9.3
13.6
12.1
12.7
14.8
8.0
7.9
9.9
-
8.4
-
12.3
15.8
Table - 24
Maximum Temprature (°C)
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
-
28.7
26.7
26.5
27.5
27.4
-
27.4
-
27.6
27.3
26.3
28.6
26.5
-
27.8
-
24.1
28.3
29.3
28.8
25.4
28.1
27.2
-
23.3
23.9
26.3
26.1
24.1
24.2
24.8
25.0
23.9
23.9
25.3
24.8
27.3
24.0
25.0
25.8
24.4
24.1
25.3
-
24.6
24.1
24.1
25.0
23.8
24.6
25.7
24.9
23.9
24.9
24.6
26.1
25.1
25.7
25.3
26.9
25.9
25.5
26.2
26.4
24.5
26.6
25.0
27.4
28.4
25.7
26,3
24.8
23.7
23.9
23.7
24.8
24.0
24.7
-
26.1
25.1
23.8
25.0
23.2
26.9
25.7
-
27.4
26.0
23.7
26.7
-
Table - 2 5
Meai
i Temp1 rature
year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
July
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
-
18.9
19.5 17.5 17.0
20.0
- 19.8
-
19.3
19.5
18.7
17.6 20.2
- 20.5
- 18.6 20.0 20.8
18.6
19.0
21.1
20.7
-
18.9 18.6 19.8 19.2
16.8 18.7
19.7
19.2
18.2
18.2
19.2
17.7
16.6
18.5
19.2
19.2
18.0
18.0
18.7
-
18.7
18.9
18.9
19.0
17.6
18.1
19.1
18.7
18.3
19.5
19.2
19.3
18.5
18.8
19.2
19.5
19.0
20.0
20.1
19.1
18.0
18.9
18.4
19.9
18.7 19.5
20.0
18.4
■7.5
17.5
17.5
18.8
16.1
19.0
-
18.1
16.9
15.3
17.2
18.4
19.6
18.2
-
Dec
17.8
17.0
16.8
17.2
19.5
-Ap4/56
Table - 26
Monthly Mean Sun Shine (hours)
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Total
1980
-
-
-
8.6
7.9
8.1
8.7
6.3
6.5
8.9
10.8
65.8
1981
10.2
8.8
5.1
5.1
7.3
7.8
6.9
7.5
5.2
6.8
9.1
9.0
88.8
1982
8.0
8.0
9.3
5.3
6.6
7.8
7.1
6.9
6.5
4.6
6.2
7.0
83.0
1983
8.9
7.5
8.9
6.7
7.2
8.0
7.8
-
-
-
6.4
9.1
78.5
1984
10.3
10.3
-
-
6.6
7.8
7.6
8.0
6.1
7.1
8.5
9.3
81.6
1985
8.9
7.3
7.0
7.5
5.7
5.5
6.5
-
-
8,8
..8-9
-
67.4
1986
-
2.3
8.1
4.0
6.7
6.0
7.0
7.5
5.5
■/io;
i: ’
; 8. 5
9.1
71.7
1987
9.7
8.5
-
-
5.3
5.9
-
8.5
7.2
5.1
-
50.2
Table - 27
Average Wind Speed (m/s) at 2 meter
/
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
1982 1.8 2.5 2.8 2.3 2.2 3.4 4.5 3.8 2.5 1 7 1.3 1.6 30.4
1983
1.9
2.3
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.8
4.1
3.7
2.4
1.5
1.3
1.4
29.2
1984
1.9
2.3
2.9
2.6
2.8
4.2
4.2
3.2
2.4
-
1.5
1.6
29.6
1985
1.6
2.0
2.6
2.3
2.1
-
3.4
3.0
3.7
1.9
1.8
1.9
25.3
1986
2.1
2.3
2.7
2.5
2.2
-
-
-
2.7
1.7
1.5
1.7
19.4
1987
1.9
2.4
2.7
2.2
2.0
2.6
3.8
4.2
2.7
1.7
1.7
1.8
29.7
1988
2.0
2.4
2.7
2.6
2.8
3.6
3.9
2.5
2.5
1.6
1.5
1.8
30.9
•i
V
I57
APPENDIX -
SHORT LABORATORY PROCEDURES
5Ap5/58
DESCRIPTION METHOD
Texture
Hydrometer
PROCEDURE
Place 50 gm soil sample to the dispension cup and fill 2/3 with water and stir for
for 15 minutes.
.he •.’>
• ‘ i. • *
pour into the sedimentation cylinder and
3
make upto 1dm with water.
Mix the suspension very well. NoteThe time as soon as the cylinder is kept at rest. Take the temprature and the hydrometer reading at the end of 40 sec, 4 min, and 2 hours.
pH Water Ratio W/V (1:2.5)
Potentiometric Place 10 grams of soil sample in 100 ml
beaker and add 25 ml of distilled water. Shake for 30 minutes and let it over night.
Ec Water Ratio Conductime- Using pH meter and EC meter take the reading. w/v (1^53___________ txi£_______________________________________________________________________ L Calcium and EDTA - Titra- Take 25 ml of leachate in 100 ml beaker and
Magnesium Sodium and Potassium
Organic Carbon
tion
Flame Photo meter
Weakely and
Black Chromic
acid oxidation
add calcine indicators titrate with EDTA.
Prepare the corresponding standards and standardise the instrument and read the values
Weigh 1 gm or less than pass through 0.'3 mm sieve and add 10 ml potassimu dichromate solution and swire gently the flask to mix the reagent with the soil. Add 20 ml of
x
Cone. H2SO4. Swirl the flask and allow it to stand for about 30 minutes, add 200 ml of distilled water and place 10 ml of phophoric acid. Cool it. Using ostwalled pipet add two drops of dyphenyl amine indicator solution.
Titrate the excess eichromate with mohr's salt. Carry out the blank the same way with out the soil sample.AP5/59
DESCRIPTION
METHOD
PROCEDURE
Calcium Carbonate
i
Bernard’s Calcimeter
Exchangable base and cation excha nge capacity
Sodimu Acetate (Titration and
flame photo meter)
(Flame Photo meter)
Bulk density from Distu rbed samples
Paraffin Wax Method
Place 1 gm of soil in a conical flask and place 50% Hydrochloric acid in small test tube. Connect to the calcimeter. Pour the
HC1 to the soil.
Note the displaced volume. Do duplicate
0.1 gm of calcium carbonate as standard.
Take 10 gms of soil and leach the soil by Sodium acetate solution till the total
volume reaches 200 ml, keep this leachates
for determination of individual cations. Transfer to another 250 ml flask, wash the excess sodimu by 95% ethanol solution and leach with Ammonium acetate, till the total volume comes 250.
Weigh two clods and immerse into the paraffin was cover the whole. Surface as much as possible cool it. Weight again, place them
in the graduate cylinder known volume and note the displaced volume.
Calculate the bulk density.Doorenbos, 1979
Doorenbos, 1984
FAO
6G
REFERENCES
J, and A,K kassam: Yield response to water FAO, Irrigation and drainage paper No. 33 FAO, Rome
J, and W.O Pruitt: Crop water requirements, FAO irrigation and drainage paper No. 24 FAO, Rome
Irrigation practise and Water Management, FAO, Irrigation
1981 and drainage paper No. 1 FAO, Rome
FAO Guide lines; Land evalluation for Irrigated agriculture,
1985 Soils bulletin No. 55 FAO Rome
FAO Soil Survey Investigations for Irrigation Soils Bulletin
1979 No. 42 FAO, Rome
FAO Water quality for agriculture Irrigation and Drainage
1985 Paper No. 29, FAO, Rome
FAG A frame work for land evaluation soils bulletin
1976 No. 32, FAO, Rome
1985 NWRC, Guidelines for Soil Profile description. Skills
transfer and Training Hand book No. 1 WRDA, ADDIS ABABA
«• e ■
J