LAND RESOURCE INVENTORY AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS OF FARM HOUSEHOLDS FOR WATERSHED PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT HONGAHALLI-4 (4B3E2A2d) MICRO WATERSHED Gundlupet Taluk, Chamarajanagara District, Karnataka

Abstract

The land resource inventory of Hongahalli-4 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 microwatershed. The present study covers an area of 624 ha in Gundlupet taluk of Chamarajanagara district, Karnataka. The climate is semiarid and categorized as drought-prone with an average annual rainfall of 734 mm, of which about 254 mm is received during south-west monsoon, 268 mm during north-east and the remaining 212 mm during the rest of the year. An area of 611 ha in the microwatershed is covered by soils, 6 ha area under reserve forest and about 14 ha by others (habitation and water bodies). The salient findings from the land resource inventory are summarized briefly below.  The soils belong to 11 soil series and 33 soil phases (management units) and 8 land use class.  The length of crop growing period is about 150 days starting from 3rdweek of June to 3rd week of October.  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 27 major agricultural and horticultural crops was assessed and maps showing the degree of suitability along with constraints were generated.  Entire area in the microwatershed is suitable for agriculture.  About 55 per cent area of the microwatershed has soils that are moderately deep to very deep (75 - >150 cm) and 41 per cent soils are shallow to moderately shallow (25-75 cm).  About 7 per cent area in the microwatershed has sandy soils, 46 per cent of loamy soils and 44 per cent clayey soils at the surface.  About 17 per cent area is non gravelly (<15%), 48 per cent is gravelly (15-35%) and 32 per cent is very gravelly (35-60%).  About 41 per cent area of the microwatershed is very high (>200 mm/m) in available water capacity, 22 per cent area low (51-100 mm/m) and 34 per cent area very low (<50 mm/m) in available water capacity.  About 70 per cent area of the microwatershed has very gently sloping (1-3% slope) lands and 26 per cent area is gently (3-5% slope) to moderately sloping (5-10% slope) lands.  An area of about 31 per cent has soils that are slightly eroded (e1), 63 per cent area is moderately (e2) eroded and 3 per cent area is severely (e3) eroded.  An area of about 31 per cent soils are moderately to slightly acid (pH 5.5-6.5), 34 per cent soils are neutral (pH 6.5-7.3) in soil reaction and 31 per cent soil are slightly to moderately alkaline (pH 7.3-8.4).  The Electrical Conductivity (EC) of the soils in the entire area of the microwatershed is dominantly <2 dsm-1indicating that the soils are non-saline.  About 15 per cent of the soils are low (<0.5%) in organic carbon, 62 per cent medium (0.5-0.75%) and 20 per cent high (>0.75).  About 73 per cent of the area is medium (23-57 kg/ha) in available phosphorus and 24 per cent is high (>57 kg/ha).  About 7 per cent is low (145 kg/ha) is low in available potassium, 72 per cent medium (145-337 kg/ha) and 18 per cent is high (>337 kcg/ha).  Available sulphur is low (<10 ppm) in an area of about 78 per cent and medium (10 - 20 ppm) in 18 per cent area of the microwatershed.  Available boron is low (0.5 ppm) in an area of about 10 per cent and medium (0.5-1.0 ppm) in 87 per cent.  Available iron is sufficient (>4.5 ppm) in 90 per cent area and deficient (<4.5 ppm) in 7 per cent area of the microwatershed.  Available manganese and copper are sufficient in all the soils of the microwatershed.  Available zinc is deficient (<0.6 ppm) in 82 per cent and sufficient (>0.6 ppm) in 15 per cent of the soils in the microwatershed.  The land suitability for 27 major crops grown in the microwatershed were assessed and the areas that are highly suitable (S1) and moderately suitable (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 85(14) 287(46) Guava 97(16) 18(3) Maize 116 (19) 218(35) Mango 97(16) 27(4) Redgram 97(16) 320(51) Sapota 97(16) 27(4) Horsegram 97(16) 341(55) Jackfruit 86(14) 38(6) Sunflower 47(8) 209(33) Jamun 76(12) 131(21) Cotton 85(14) 218(35) Musambi 97(16) 158(25) Beans 97 (16) 227(36) Lime 97(16) 158(25) Field beans 97(16) 273(44) Cashew 97(16) 68(11) Onion 97(16) 295(47) Custard apple 97(16) 386(62) Beetroot 97(16) 258(41) Amla 97(16) 364(59) Groundnut - 401(64) Tamarind 97(16) 158(25) Banana 97(16) 248(40) Marigold 97(16) 341(55) Potato 97(16) 258(41) Chrysanthemum 97(16) 273(44) Turmeric 97(16) 258(41) Apart from the individual crop suitability, a proposed crop plan has been prepared for the identified LUCs by considering only the highly and moderately suitable lands for different crops and cropping systems with food, fodder, fiber 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. This would help in not only supplementing the farm income but also provide fodder and fuel and generate lot of biomass which would help in maintaining an ecological balance and also contribute 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: Hongahalli-4 micro-watershed (Hongahalli sub-watershed, Gundlupet taluk, Chamarajanagar district) is located in between 11047’ – 11049’ North latitudes and 76034’ – 76037’ East longitudes, covering an area of about 624 ha, bounded by Baragi, Mukahalli, Hongahalli, Bhimanabid and Kannagal villages with 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 eco system services were quantified. Results: The socio-economic outputs for the Hongahalli-4 micro-watershed (Hongahalli sub-watershed, Gundlupet taluk, Chamarajanagar district) are presented here. Social Indicators;  Male and female ratio is 54.3 to 45.7 per cent to the total sample population.  Younger age 18 to 50 years group of population is around 54.3 per cent to the total population.  Literacy population is around 80 per cent.  Social groups belong to scheduled caste (SC) is around 10 per cent.  Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) is the source of energy for a cooking among 90 per cent.  About 60 per cent of households have a yashaswini health card.  Majority of farm households (10%) are having MGNREGA card for rural employment.  Dependence on ration cards for food grains through public distribution system is around 90 per cent.  Swach bharath program providing closed toilet facilities around 70 per cent of sample households.  Institutional participation is only 5.7 per cent of sample households.  Women participation in decisions making are around 70 per cent of households. 2 Economic Indicators;  The average land holding is 0.35 ha indicates that majority of farm households are belong to marginal and small farmers. The dry land account for 83.7 per cent and irrigated land 16.3 per cent of total cultivated area among the sample farmers.  Agriculture is the main occupation among 71.5 per cent and agriculture is the main and agriculture labour is subsidiary occupation for 25.7 per cent of sample households.  The average value of domestic assets is around Rs. 11091 per household. Mobile and television are popular media mass communication.  The average farm assets value is around Rs. 129881 per household, about 60.0 per cent of sample farmers having plough and sprayer (38.1%).  The average livestock value is around Rs. 17800 per household; about 61.5 per cent of household are having livestock.  The average per capita food consumption is around 644.2 grams (1600.3 kilo calories) against national institute of nutrition (NIN) recommendation at 827 gram. Around 80.0 per cent of sample households are consuming less than the NIN recommendation.  The annual average income is around Rs. 39063 per household. About 70.0 per cent of farm households are below poverty line.  The per capita average monthly expenditure is around Rs.911. 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. 900 per ha/year. The total cost of annual soil nutrients is around Rs. 505064 per year for the total area of 623.97 ha.  The average value of ecosystem service for food grain production is around Rs. 17634/ ha/year. per hectare food grain production services is maximum in onion (Rs. 120823) followed by beans (Rs. 18414), tomato (Rs. 18090), ragi (Rs. 16396), groundnut (Rs. 7604), beetroot (Rs. 4803), sunflower (Rs. 3973), cotton (Rs. 16407), horse gram (Rs. 457), maize and sorghum is negative return.  The average value of ecosystem service for fodder production is around Rs. 10209/ ha/year. Per hectare fodder production services is maximum in maize (Rs. 20150), followed by sorghum (Rs. 17290), ragi (Rs. 5200), horse gram (Rs. 4940) and groundnut (Rs. 3467).  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 beans (Rs. 601445) followed by maize (Rs. 69501), cotton (Rs. 54585), sorghum (Rs. 43020), sunflower (Rs 3 33256), horse gram (Rs. 25342), groundnut (Rs. 24111), tomato (Rs 21143), onion (Rs. 20155) and ragi (Rs. 18534). Economic Land Evaluation;  The major cropping pattern are maize (23.5 %) followed by cotton (21.3 %), sorghum (7.0 %), horse gram (15.1 %) groundnut (6.6 %), sunflower (5.8 %), onion (5.8 %), ragi (6.6 %), tomato (5.8 %), beans (1.4 %) and beetroot (1.0 %).  In Honganahalli-4 micro-watershed, major soil are soil of alluvial landscape of Berambadi (BMD) soil are shallow soil depth well drained covered around 8.4 per cent of areas; crops are groundnut (23.3 %), horse gram (4.1 %), onion (20.4 %), ragi (23.3 %), sorghum (8.6 %) and tomato (20.4 %). Magoonahalli (MGH) soil is moderately shallow soil depth cover around 3.9 per cent of areas, crops is cotton (50%) and horse gram (50 %). Kannigala (KNG) soil is moderately deep soil depth cover around 10.9 per cent of areas; the major crops are beans (16.2 %), maize (16.2 %) and sunflower (67.6 %). Beemanabeedu (BMB) soil is very deep soil depth cover around 6.0 % of areas; the crops are horse gram (50 %) and sorghum (50 %). Honnegaudanahalli (HGH) soil series are very deep soil depth cover around 11 per cent of area; crops are cotton (86.6 %) and maize (13.4 %). Bargi (BRG) soil is very deep soil depth cover around 15.1 % of area crops is beetroot.  The total cost of cultivation and benefit cost ratio (BCR) in study area for groundnut cultivation in BDM soil Rs.44396/ha (with BCR of 1.25).  In maize the cost of cultivation range between in HGH soil Rs. 75392/ha (with BCR of 0.95) and Rs.11452/ha in KNG soil (with BCR of 1.01).  In horse gram the cost of cultivation range between is Rs. 43608/ha in BMD soil (with of 1.67) and Rs. 13237/ha in BMB soil (with BCR of 2.1.46).  In sorghum the cost of cultivation in between Rs. 40260/ha in BMB soil (with BCR of 1.10) and Rs. 38385/ha in BMD soil (with BCR of 1.15).  In cotton the cost of cultivation between Rs. 54700/ha in HGH soil (with BCR of 1.43) and Rs. 44599/ha in MGH soil (with BCR of 1.38).  In sunflower the cost of cultivation in KNG soil is Rs.35547/ha (with BCR of 1.11).  In ragi the cost of cultivation in BMD soil Rs. 22604/ha (with BCR of 1.80).  In tomato the cost of cultivation in BDM soil Rs. 70830/ha (with BCR of 1.26).  In onion the cost of cultivation in BMD soil is Rs. 108887/ha (with BCR of 2.11).  In beetroot the cost of cultivation in BRG soil is Rs.73414/ha (with BCR of 1.07).  In beans the cost of cultivation in KNG soil is Rs. 123611/ha (with BCR of 1.15) and sunflower cultivation in KNG soil is Rs. 40260/ha (with BCR of 1.11).  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 livestock limiting application of FYM. 4  It was observed soil quality influences on the type and intensity of land use. More fertilizer applications are 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.  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 groundnut (49.3%), horse gram(15.7 to 57.8%), onion (69.6 %) ragi (57.4 %) sorghum (41.3 to 58.1 %) tomato(80.7%), cotton (17.5 to 27.7 %), maize (25.6 to 37.6 % ), sunflower (39.3 %) and beetroot (90.6 %).