LAND RESOURCE INVENTORY AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS OF FARM HOUSEHOLDS FOR WATERSHED PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SANABANAHALLI (4B3D3N1b) MICROWATERSHED Gubbi Taluk, Tumkur District, Karnataka

Abstract

The land resource inventory of Sanabanahalli Microwatershed was conducted using village cadastral maps and IRS satellite imagery on 1:7920 scale. The false colour composites of IRS imagery were interpreted for physiography and the physiographic delineations were used as base for mapping soils. The soils were studied in several transects and a soil map was prepared with phases of soil series as mapping units. Random checks were made all over the area outside the transects to confirm and validate the soil map unit boundaries. The soil map shows the geographic distribution and extent, characteristics, classification, behavior and use potentials of the soils in the microwartershed. The present study covers an area of 462 ha in Gubbi taluk of Tumakuru district, Karnataka. The climate is semiarid and categorized as drought- prone with an average annual rainfall of 813 mm, of which about 466 mm is received during south –west monsoon, 196 mm during north-east and the remaining 151 mm during the rest of the year. An area of about 97 per cent is covered by soils and three per cent by others. The salient findings from the land resource inventory are summarized briefly below.  The soils belong to 7 soil series and 13 soil phases (management units) and 3 land use classes.  The length of crop growing period is about 150 days starting from 3rd week of June to third week of November.  From the master soil map, several interpretative and thematic maps like land capability, soil depth, surface soil texture, soil gravelliness, available water capacity, soil slope and soil erosion were generated.  Soil fertility status maps for macro and micronutrients were generated based on the surface soil samples collected at every 250 m grid interval.  Land suitability for growing 34 major agricultural and horticultural crops were assessed and maps showing the degree of suitability along with constraints were generated.  About 97 per cent area is suitable for agriculture.  About 97 per cent of the soils are deep (100-150 cm) to very deep (>150 cm).  About 21 per cent of the area has clayey soils at the surface and 76 per cent loamy soils.  About 81 per cent of the area has non-gravelly soils and 16 per cent gravelly soils (15-35 % gravel).  About 42 per cent has soils that are low (51-100 mm/m) in available water capacity, 32 per cent medium (101-150 mm/m) and 24 per cent has very high (>200 mm/m) available water capacity.  About 89 per cent of the area has very gently sloping (1-3% slope) lands and 8 per cent area has nearly level (0-1%) lands.  An area of about 65 per cent has soils that are slightly eroded (e1) and 32 per cent moderately eroded (e2).  An area of about 39 per cent has soils that are slightly acid (pH 6.0-6.5), 31 per cent moderately acid (pH 5.5-6.0), 13 per cent strongly acid (pH 5.0-5.5) and 13 per cent area is neutral (pH 6.5-7.3).  The Electrical Conductivity (EC) of the soils are dominantly <2 dsm-1indicating that the soils are non-saline.  About 80 per cent of the soils are low (<0.5%) in organic carbon and 16 per cent soils are medium (0.5-0.75%).  Entire area in the microwatershed is high (>57 kg/ha) in available phosphorus.  About 14 per cent of the soils are low (<145 kg/ha) in available potassium and medium (145-337 kg/ha) in 83 per cent.  Available sulphur is low (<10 ppm) in about 7 per cent area and medium (10-20 ppm) in about 90 per cent area.  Available boron is low (0.5 ppm) in about 60 per cent area and medium (0.5-1.0 ppm) in 37 per cent area.  Available iron is sufficient (>4.5 ppm) in 86 per cent area and deficient (<4.5 ppm) in 11 per cent microwatershed area.  Available manganese and copper are sufficient in all the soils of the microwatershed.  Available zinc is deficient (<0.6 ppm) in 80 per cent and sufficient (>0.6 ppm) in 16 per cent of soils of the microwatershed.  The land suitability for 34 major crops grown in the microwatershed was assessed and the areas that are highly suitable (Class S1) and moderately suitable (Class S2) are given below. It is however to be noted that a given soil may be suitable for various crops but what specific crop to be grown may be decided by the farmer looking to his capacity to invest on various inputs, marketing infrastructure, market price and finally the demand and supply position. Land suitability for various crops in the Microwatershed Crop Suitability Area in ha (%) Crop Suitability Area in ha (%) Highly suitable (S1) Moderately suitable (S2) Highly suitable (S1) Moderately suitable (S2) Sorghum 205 (44) 85 (18) Guava 186 (40) 211 (46) Fodder Sorghum 205 (44) 85 (18) Pomegranate 205 (44) 85 (18) Maize 77(17) 164 (35) Banana 205 (44) 85 (18) Upland paddy 205 (44) 85 (18) Jackfruit 205 (44) 36(8) Finger millet 205 (44) 36(8) Jamun 199(43) 91 (20) Red gram 205 (44) 85 (18) Musambi 205 (44) 85 (18) Horse gram 205 (44) 241 (52) Lime 205 (44) 85 (18) Field bean 205 (44) 85 (18) Cashew 186 (15) 55 (12) Cowpea 205 (44) 85 (18) Custard apple 205 (44) 241(52) Groundnut 6 (1) 373 (81) Amla 205 (44) 241(52) Sunflower 205 (44) 85 (18) Tamarind 199(43) 91 (20) Onion 97 (21) 194 (42) Marigold 205 (44) 85 (18) Chilli 205 (44) 85 (18) Chrysanthemum 205 (44) 85 (18) Brinjal 205 (44) 85 (18) Jasmine 205 (44) 85 (18) Tomato 205 (44) 85 (18) Coconut 186 (40) 55 (12) Mango 199(43) 42 (9) Arecanut 186 (40) 55 (12) Sapota 205 (44) 36(8) Mulbery 6 (1) (2832) Apart from the individual crop suitability, a proposed crop plan has been prepared for the 3 identified LUCs by considering only the highly and moderately suitable lands for different crops and cropping systems with food, fodder, fibre and horticulture crops.  Maintaining soil-health is vital to crop production and conserve soil and land resource base for maintaining ecological balance and to mitigate climate change. For this, several ameliorative measures have been suggested to these problematic soils like saline/alkali, highly eroded, sandy soils etc.,  Soil and water conservation treatment plan has been prepared that would help in identifying the sites to be treated and also the type of structures required.  As part of the greening programme, several tree species have been suggested to be planted in marginal and submarginal lands, field bunds and also in the hillocks, mounds and ridges that would help in supplementing the farm income, provide fodder and fuel and generate lot of biomass. This would help in maintaining an ecological balance and also contributes to mitigating the climate change. Baseline socioeconomic characterisation is prerequisite to prepare action plan for program implementation and to assess the project performance before making any changes in the watershed development program. The baseline provides appropriate policy direction for enhancing productivity and sustainability in agriculture. Methodology: Sanabanahalli microwatershed (Bangihalli sub-watershed, Gubbi taluk, Tumkur district) is located in between 13027’ – 13028’ North latitudes and 051’76054’ East longitudes, covering an area of about 604.37 ha, bounded by Anthapura, Gadi Ankanahalli, Madhenahalli, Sanabanahalli and Thalekoppa villages with an length of growing period (LGP) 120-150 days. We used soil resource map as basis for sampling farm households to test the hypothesis that soil quality influence crop selection, and conservation investment of farm households. The level of technology adoption and productivity gaps and livelihood patterns were analyses. The cost of soil degradation and ecosystem services were quantified. Results: The socio-economic outputs for the Sanabanahalli micro-watershed (Bangihalli sub-watershed, Gubbi taluk, Tumkur district) presented here. Social Indicators;  Male and female ratio is 40.3 to 59.7 per cent to the total sample population.  Younger age 18 to 50 years group of population is around 52 per cent to the total population.  Literacy population is around 57.6 per cent.  Social groups belong to other backward castes (OBC) is around 45.5 per cent.  Wood is the source of energy for a cooking among 27.3 per cent.  About 27.3 per cent of households have a yashaswini health card.  Majority of farm households 45.5% per cent are having MGNREGA card for rural employment.  Dependence on ration cards for food grains through public distribution system is around 72.7 per cent.  Swach bharath program providing closed toilet facilities around 72.7 per cent of sample households.  Institutional participation is only 1.92 per cent of sample households. Economic Indicator:  The average land holding is 0.5 ha indicates that majority of farm households are belongs to marginal and small farmers. The accounted for dry land of 54.7 per cent and irrigated land of 45.3 per cent to total cultivated land among sample households. 2  Agriculture is the main occupation among 10.5 per cent and agriculture is the main and non agriculture labour is subsidiary occupation for 86.8 per cent of sample households.  The average value of domestic assets is around Rs. 67494 per household. Mobile and television are popular media mass communication.  The average value of livestock is around Rs. 27500 per household; about 66.7 per cent of household are having livestock.  The average per capita food consumption is around 731.6 grams (1605.1 kilo calories) against national institute of nutrition (NIN) recommendation at 827 gram. Around 72.7 per cent of sample households are consuming less than the NIN recommendation.  The annual average income is around Rs.40810 per household. About 18.1 per cent of farm households are below poverty line.  The per capita average monthly expenditure is around Rs.1194. Environmental Indicators-Ecosystem Services;  The value of ecosystem service helps to support investment to decision on soil and water conservation and in promoting sustainable land use.  The onsite cost of different soil nutrients lost due to soil erosion is around Rs. 463 per ha/year. The total cost of annual soil nutrients is around Rs. 207147 per year for the total area of 461.60 ha.  The average value of ecosystem service for food production is around Rs. 18763/ ha/year. Per hectare food production services is maximum in coconut (Rs. 78340) followed by mango (Rs. 76674), ragi (Rs.10415), horse gram (Rs. 8039), cowpea (Rs. 6799), greengram (Rs. 2496) maize (Rs. 353), bajra and sorghum is negative returns.  The average value of ecosystem service for fodder production is around Rs. 10074/ ha/year. Per hectare fodder production services is maximum in maize (Rs. 35568) followed by bajra (Rs. 6367), sorghum (Rs.5443), horse gram (Rs. 1547) and ragi (Rs. 1445).  The data on water requirement for producing one quintal of grain is considered for estimating the total value of water required for crop production. The per hectare value of water used and value of water was maximum in coconut (Rs. 256015) followed maize (Rs. 72440), green gram (Rs. 48736), mango (Rs. 48121), bajra (Rs. 46641), sorghum (Rs. 45171), horse gram (Rs. 21379), ragi (Rs. 12914) and cowpea (Rs. 9306). Economic Land Evaluation;  The major cropping pattern followed by bajra (1.0 %), coconut (12.7 %), cowpea (0.4 %), greengram (0.8 %), horse gram (16.9 %), maize (0.6 %), mango (12.6 %), ragi (35.0 %) and sorghum (20.1 %). 3  In Sanabanahalli Microwatershed, major soil is soil of Balapura (BPR) series is having deep soil depth cover around 33.9 % of area. On this soil farmers are presently growing horse gram (34.3 %) mango (31.2 %) ragi (34.3 %), Hallikere (HLK) are also having very deep depth cover 15.47 % of area, the crops are horse gram (26.7 %) mango (10.9 %), ragi (49.4 %), sorghum (12.8 %) and Kadagathur (KDT) soil series having very deep soil depth cover around 23.57 % of areas, crops are green gram (25.1 %) and maize (14.9 %) ragi (59.8 %). Thondigere (TDG) soil series having very deep soil depth cover around 10.66 % of area, crops are bajra, coconut, cowpea, horse gram, ragi and sorghum.  The total cost of cultivation and benefit cost ratio (BCR) in study area for mango ranges between Rs. 57315/ha in HLK soil (with BCR of 3.04) and Rs. 29944/ha in BPR soil (with BCR of 1.65).  In ragi the cost of cultivation range between Rs. 31318/ha in KDT soil (with BCR of 1.23) and Rs. 24711/ha in BPR soil (with BCR of 1.25).  In sorghum the cost of cultivation ranges between Rs. 38190/ha in TDG soil (with BCR of 1.11) and Rs. 22068/ha in HLK soil (with BCR of 1.23).  In horse gram the cost of cultivation range between is Rs.24611/ha in HLK soil (with BCR of 1.20) and Rs. 11655/ha in TDG soil (with BCR of 1.38).  In maize the cost of cultivation in KDT soil is Rs. 106350/ha (with BCR of 1.34).  In bajra the cost of cultivation in TDG soil is Rs.47903/ha (with BCR of 0.84)  In coconut the cost of cultivation in TDG soil is Rs.26467/ha (with BCR of 2.73) and green gram the cost of cultivation in KDT soil is Rs.34200/ha (with BCR of 1.07).  The land management practices reported by the farmers are crop rotation, tillage practices, fertilizer application and use of farm yard manure (FYM). Due to higher wages farmer are following labour saving strategies is not prating soil and water conservation measures. Less ownership of live stock limiting application of FYM.  It was observed soil quality influences on the type and intensity of land use. More fertilizer applications in deeper soil to maximize returns. Suggestions;  Involving farmers is watershed planning helps in strengthing institutional participation.  The per capita food consumption and monthly income is very low. Diversifying income generation activities from crop and livestock production in order to reduce risk related to drought and market prices.  Majority of farmers reported that they are not getting timely support/extension services from the concerned development departments. 4  By strengthing agricultural extension for providing timely advice improved technology there is scope to increase in net income of farm households.  By adopting recommended package of practices by following the soil test fertiliser recommendation there is scope to increase yield in mango (89.9 to 55.3 %), ragi (67.8 to 59.5 %), sorghum (56.0 to 42.8 %), hors egram (49.4 to 29.1 %), coconut (47.7 %) cowpea (39.3 %), bajra (28.8 %), maize (28.6 %) and greengram (17.4 %).