SIMULATION OF SOIL MOISTURE CONTENT FOR ESTIMATION OF CROP YIELD AND NET BENEFITS

P.B. JADHAV¹*, S.D. GORANTIWAR², S.A. KADAM^3
1Department of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, 413 722, Maharashtra, India
²Department of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, 413 722, Maharashtra, India
³Department of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, 413 722, Maharashtra, India
* Corresponding Author : jadhavpradnya12@gmail.com

Received : 30-10-2019     Accepted : 12-11-2019     Published : 15-11-2019
Volume : 11     Issue : 21       Pages : 9177 - 9181
Int J Agr Sci 11.21 (2019):9177-9181

Keywords : Farm level, Irrigation water management, Decision support, Soil water balance module, Crop evapotranspiration
Academic Editor : Dr Ajay Haldar, Dr H. V. Pandya, Darshan Dharajiya, Kishor Dhanpal Gharde
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Authors are thankful to Department of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, 413 722, Maharashtra, India
Author Contribution : All authors equally contributed

Simulation model developed in this study is based on Soil Water Balance Crop Yield and Net Benefits (SWAB-CRYB) model. The simulation model considers the heterogeneity with respect to crop, soil, climate and irrigation strategies and found useful for evaluation of net benefits. The simulation model provides the detailed output of daily values of reference crop evapotranspiration, maximum crop evapotranspiration, actual crop evapotranspiration, crop coefficient, root zone depth, moisture content in soil root zone by simulating the different processes responsible for soil water balance in the root zone. After application of developed simulation model, it was observed that the soil moisture content in the root zone always remains above the allowable soil moisture content for all the combinations of deficit factors when irrigation interval was small. There was no stress and no reduction in yields. Therefore, the developed model enables the user to take decisions on selecting suitable irrigation strategy for maximum yield and net benefits by screening several irrigation strategies.

1. Gorantiwar S.D., Smout I.K. (2006) Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Systems, 20, 345-360.
2. Gorantiwar S.D. (1995) An unpublished Ph.D. thesis submitted to Loughbourgh University of Technology, Loughbourgh, UK,483.
3. Gorantiwar S.D., Smout I.K. (2003) Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 129(3), 155-163.
4. Kadam S.A., Tamboli M.A., Gorantiwar S.D., Jayapal P.C. (2016) International Journal of Innovations in Engineering Research and Technology, 3(1), 1-8.
5. Stewart J.I., Hagan R.M., Pruitt W.O. (1976) Production functions and predicted irrigation program for principle crops required for water resources planning and increased water use efficiency. U. S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Washington, D. C., USA.
6. Allen R.G., Periera L.S., Raes D., Smith M. (1998) FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 56. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 293.
7. Doorenbos J., Pruitt W.O. (1984) FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 24. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy,193.
8. Doorenbos J., Kassam A.H. (1986) FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 33. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy,193.
9. Dastane N.G. (1974) FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 25. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
10. Brog H., Grime, D.W. (1986) Transactions of the ASAE, 29,194-197.
11. Fereres E., Goldfien R.E., Pruitt W.O., Henderson D.W., Hagan R.M. (1981) Proceedings of the ASAE, Irrigation Scheduling Conference, St. Joseph, Michigan, USA, 202-207.