water harvesting techniques and supplemental irrigation impact on sorghum production

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Water harvesting techniques and supplemental irrigation impact on

sorghum production

Abubaker,a* B. M. A, Yu Shuang-Ena, Panda, S. Nb, Shao Guang-Chenga

a Key Laboratory of Efficient Irrigation-Drainage and Agricultural Soil-Water Environment, College of Water Conservancy

and Hydropower, Hohai University, Nanjing, 210098, China; b Agricultural and Food Engineering Department. Indian

Institute of Technology (IIT). Kharagpur 721302, India

* Corresponding Author: E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract BACKGROUND: In general, rain-fed agriculture is practiced in many areas in Western Sudan.

Therefore, it is imperative to adopt appropriate rainwater harvesting and reuse technique (s) by

promoting soil and water management research to sustain crop productivity. Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor

L.) is a primary stable crop of Sudan. Extensive field experiments were conducted to study the effect of

water harvesting techniques (WHTs) and supplemental irrigation (SI) on infiltration rate (IR), soil

moisture content (SMC), growth and productivity of sorghum during two rainy seasons (2012 and 2013).

RESULTS: The results showed that the WHTs and SI affected the soil physical properties, growth and

productivity parameters of sorghum. The results indicated that the tied-ridging with SI (TRwSI)

produced the highest values of accumulative IR, SMC and sorghum productivity (115 mm, 13% and 4000

kg h-1, in season 2012, respectively. Whereas in season 2013 the values were 145 mm, 10% and 5000 kg h-

1, for accumulative IR, SMC and sorghum productivity, respectively. Basin with SI (BwSI) ranked

second, next to TRwSI in the both seasons.

CONCLUSION: Hence, water harvesting and SI are expected to play a significant role in terms of

sustainable agricultural and socio-economic development in Western Sudan and similar areas.

Keywords: Sorghum; water harvesting; supplemental irrigation; soil moisture; infiltration

Abbreviations: SI: supplemental irrigation; TRwSI: Tied ridging with supplemental irrigation, RwSI: Ridging with

supplemental irrigation, BwSI: Basin with supplemental irrigation, CwSI: Control with supplemental irrigation, TRoSI: Tied

ridging without supplemental irrigation, RoSI: Ridging without supplemental irrigation, BoSI: Basin without supplemental

irrigation, CoSI: Control without supplemental irrigation.

This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi: 10.1002/jsfa.7047


INTRODUCTION Sorghum is recognized as the fifth among most important cereal in the world.1,2 It is considered as staple food

for human and animal consumption, and plays a vital role in livelihood and food security. It is grown in an area

of approximately 15 million ha in different parts of Sudan. The area for cultivating this important cereal is

increasing annually due to its rising demand and high economic returns.3As in other arid and semi-arid regions

of the world, North Kordofan Province (NKP) of Western Sudan is facing serious problems such as growing

scarcity and misuse of water resources. Therefore, new techniques and strategies need to be adopted to reduce

the aforementioned problems. Rain Water Harvesting (RWH) is envisaged as feasible solutions against

desertification, erosion hazards, ground-water recharge and eventually leading to increased agricultural

production and environmental restoration.4 RWH has many definitions, however, the common factor among

these is the capture, divert and storage of rain-water for supplemental irrigation uses, in which water is made

available to meet crop requirements.5,6 The rapid increase in Water Harvesting Techniques (WHTs) and storage

that began in different parts of the world has contributed to the introduction of modern material for constructing

storage tanks, catchments and/or command area used for providing supplemental irrigation (SI), domestic uses,

and ground-water recharge.7 Spatiotemporal variability along with low magnitude of rainfall in NKP during the

cropping seasons suggests that rain-fed agriculture needs SI when there is water deficit during crop growth

stages so as to increase and stabilize yield. This is confirmed by Salkini and Perrier8 who reported that,

supplementing rainfall with irrigation water from any permanent source will considerably increase the efficiency

of utilized water for sustainable agricultural production. However, total crop production and productivity under

rain-fed agriculture is far behind its potential in Sudan which makes it unsustainable. This is attributed to

rainfall variability and loss of soil fertility.9 Rockström et al.10 attributed such decline in crop yield in Sub-

Saharan Africa as a result of mismanagement of rainwater. The benefits of RWH in Sudan are far beyond

agricultural production as it alleviates environmental degradation and ensure social stability. For example the

decline in rainfall leads to conflicts in Darfur region. Consequently, water harvesting is a key element for

Sudan’s future developmental projects and regional peace. The objective of this study is to develop an

appropriate technique of soil and rainwater conservation to be adopted by the local farmers of NKP, Western

Sudan. Investigations will also be undertaken for growing sorghum under rain-fed conditions, followed by

testing and evaluation of the impact of tied ridging, ridging, basin and SI on soil properties, plant growth, and

yield components.


MATERIAL AND METHODS Study area and field conditions A field experiment was conducted during two consecutive rainy seasons in 2012 and 2013 at Elobeid NKP,

Western Sudan (latitude 12º 13' N and longitude 29° 30' E).The climate of the study area is arid and semi-arid,

characterized by a short rainy season (July-October) and high evaporation. The meteorological data at the

experimental site includes mean monthly relative humidity, temperature, and rainfall recorded during two rainy

seasons (Fig. 1). The physio-chemical properties of sandy clay loam soil at the experimental site with a low

percentage of organic matter of 1.2 (Table 1).

Table 1.

Figure 1. Mean monthly relative humidity, temperature and rainfall of the study area

Field experimental layout A study area of 4684 m2 was selected with its natural slope and uniformity of soil texture. A spilt- plot

experimental design with four replications was followed in the present study. Each replication consisted of eight

plots (4 m across by 9 m long the slope). The supplemental irrigation (SI) treatments (with and without SI) were

assigned to the main plots and the WHT treatments (tied-ridging TR, ridging R basin B and control C) to

subplots. Spacing of 3 m between the experimental units (within one replication) and 4 m between different

replication were kept as buffer areas for waterways and to limit inter plot interference.

Water harvesting techniques and supplemental irrigation treatments Three water harvesting techniques were tested as follows:

Ridging (R): Hand tools, such as hoes and shovels, were used to construct small earthen bunds/dikes parallel, to

the contours. Ridges were raised 0.2 m with base width of 0.3 m and 1.3 m apart. Water accumulates between

them and infiltrate into the soil. Tied-ridging (TR): Lower ridge (cross-ties) 0.15 m high, 0.3 m at the base and

1.5 m apart were constructed with hoes across the aforementioned ridges thus creating mini-basins. Basin (B):

Each 3 4 m plot was divided into three equal basins with, 0.2 m of ridge height. Control (C): These plots were

left flat to represent the conventional field practice as adopted by the local farmers. In SI treatments, each

replication was divided into two sections; one section was only rain-fed while the other was supplemented with

a predetermined amount of irrigation water from a raised water tank. The water tank was fitted with a 0.038 m

PVC hose for water delivery while it, was filled by pumping from a deep bore well. The pipe hose discharge

was calibrated volumetrically by using a plastic container of 0.016 m3 capacity and stop watch. This

measurement was done 15 times and the mean was taken to represent the hose discharge. The depth of SI was


calculated by subtracting the effective rainfall (0.70 of rainfall) from the crop evapotranspiration and applied to

each plot at an irrigation interval of eight days as outlined by Allen et al.11

Crop Water Requirement (CWR) Reference evapotranspiration (ETo) was calculated using FAO Penman- Monteith method11 and the

meteorological data was obtained from the Khartoum meteorological station for the period 1971-2005.

CROPWAT software computes ETo (mm day-1) for each month of the growing season upon entry of the required

meteorological data. Crop evapotranspiration was calculated my multiplying ETo by crop coefficients (Kc). Kc

was taken for two seasons as 0.4, 1.1, and 0.7 for initial, development and late season stages, respectively as

suggested by Doorenbos et al.12. The volume of water applied to each plot per irrigation is calculated by

multiplying the depth of supplemental irrigation with the plot area and finally divided by the overall irrigation

system efficiency taken as 60 %.14.

Plant material and cultural practices

The soil was prepared by disc plough followed by chisel plough and leveler. Arfaa Gadamak known as local

cultivar (Sorghum bicolor L.) recommended by Agricultural Research Corporation, Sudan as a drought tolerant

cultivar suited to the low rainfall environment, was planted on7th July in two cropping seasons of 2012 and 2013.

The crop was planted flat on rows and hills at a seed rate of 60 kg ha-1, with 7- 8 seeds/holes, thinned to five

plants/hole three weeks after the sowing. The rows were arranged along the slope and spaced 0.8 m apart and

holes were spaced 0.1 m within the row. Nitrogen fertilizer was applied to the plots at a rate of 200 kg ha-1 at

sowing and mid-season.

Soil moisture content (SMC %)

Soil samples were taken from a top layer at three locations per plot. It was taken at three crop periods, i.e.,

before sowing, mid-season, and after harvesting during two cropping seasons of 2012 and 2013 (Table 3 and

Fig. 3). The effective root zone depth of sorghum in sandy loam soil is assumed as 0.4 m. The SMC expressed

by percentage on dry basis was determined by gravimetric method.15

Infiltration rate (mm hr-1)

Soil infiltration rate16 was measured at three random locations per plot before sowing, at mid-season, and

immediately after crop harvest. In order to evaluate the infiltration characteristics of the soil, a functional

relationship between accumulated infiltration (y) and elapsed time (t), was determined as follows:

y at∝ b (1)


where: : accumulated infiltration in time t (mm); : elapsed time (min) and , ∝, are characteristic constants

with values usually range between 0 and 1.17 The infiltration rate at any time (t) was obtained by differentiating

(Eqn 1.) as follows:

a ∝ t∝ (2)

Plant growth parameters and yield components

The effect of the WHTs and SI on plant growth parameters and yield components was evaluated by measuring

the following variables:

Fifteen plants from each plot were randomly selected, tagged and labeled for plant height (mm) measurement at

15, 30, 45, and 60 days from sowing at both the seasons. Using a 2 m long rod, measurements were taken from

ground level to the tip of the main stem. Plant population was counted at the middle of both the growing seasons

and the number of plants was recorded from three randomly selected areas (1m 1m) per plot. The average of

the three counts/samples was determined. Fifteen plants were selected randomly from each plot for measuring

the stem diameter (mm) by a vernier at the end of both seasons, and their averages were determined. The same

samples were also used for the determination of number of leaves. The grains were threshed and weighed to

record grain yield (kg ha-1).

Statistical analyses

Factorial design technique was adopted for statistical analysis. The data was analyzed by ANOVA using SPSS

software version 16.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Differences between means were considered significant at

P 0.05, while the treatment means were compared by Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT).

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Infiltration rate (IR)

Infiltration rate (IR) was measured prior to experimentation before sowing, at mid-season and after crop

harvesting during both the growing seasons. The results showed no significant difference in two infiltration

parameters (i.e. cumulative infiltration and basic infiltration rate) with respect to SI and their interaction with

WHTs during both the seasons (Table 2). This may be due to swelling nature of soil during wetting phase

thereby closing soil pores that greatly reduces and impede infiltration.18 The results also showed that the impact

of WHTs on cumulative infiltration have no significant effect before sowing in the first season; significant effect

(P ≤0.05) at mid-season in both the seasons and at after harvesting in the second season; and highly significant

effect (P ≤0.01) at after harvesting and before sowing in both the seasons. These results may be attributed to the


fact that; WHTs have significantly influenced their variation in depth of cracks and infiltration rate. Hence, this

variation can be observed during both growing seasons at three measurement periods (before sowing, mid-

season, and after harvesting). These results illustrated by Fabrizzi, 20.

Table 2.

Cumulative and basic infiltration rates are influenced by WHTs and SI during both the growing seasons at three

measurement periods (before sowing, mid-season, and after harvesting) are shown in Table 3 and 4,

respectively. TRwSI obtained the highest values of cumulative infiltration (145 mm) and basic infiltration rate

(119 mm hr-1) at before sowing in the second season. This can be attributed to the positive effect of TRwSI on

the soil physical status which in turn improves soil structure, infiltration and water retention and helps prevent

soil erosion.21There were no significant difference in cumulative infiltration and basic infiltration rate between

TRwSI and BwSI and between RoSI and CoSI in two seasons. However, the minimum cumulative infiltration

obtained for CoSI was 62 mm and the basic infiltration rate was 45 mm hr-1, at after harvesting in the second

season. For all treatments, the initial infiltration values were higher at the initial stages of the measurement and

continually decreased gradually for more than half an hour before reaching a relatively steady-state condition as

described by Walker.22 The initial IR of the soil under investigation was high in all water harvesting treatments

with overall average of 162, 160 and 146 mm hr-1 at before sowing, mid-season, and after harvesting,

respectively (Fig. 2). The high initial IR in almost all treatments during the growing seasons could be attributed

to the low initial soil moisture content. Hatibu and Mahoo, 23 revealed that lower initial soil moisture content

leads to higher IR. Subramanyam and Kar, 24 also found a linear relationship between SMC and initial

infiltration rate of a sandy loam soil. This perception is supported by Abiyo, 25 who stated that infiltration rates

were inversely proportional to soil moisture levels.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Figure 2. Infiltration rate and cumulative infiltration versus elapsed time before sowing, mid-season, and after

harvesting periods

Soil Moisture Content (SMC)

Results of SMC in the cropping season of 2012 and 2013 are shown in Table 5. In 2012, there were no

significant difference between before sowing treatments, but there was a major difference (P ≤0.05) between SI


and a highly significant difference (P ≤0.01) between WHTs at mid-season. There was no influential difference

in the interaction between SI and WHTs. Results of after harvesting showed that there was no significant

difference between the SI and the interaction between the SI and the WHTs. However, there was a highly

significant difference (P ≤0.01) between the WHTs. These results are in agreement with Li et al.26 and Mchugh

et al.19 In season 2013, there was no significant difference between the SI and WHTs at before sowing.

However, there was significant difference (P ≤0.05) between the WHTs. For mid-season, there was a significant

difference (P ≤ 0.05) between SI and a highly significant difference (P ≤ 0.05) between the WHTs and, the

interaction between SI and the WHTs. For after harvesting, there was a significant difference (P ≤0.05) between

SI and a highly significant difference between the WHTs (P ≤0.05). There was also no significant difference in

the interaction between SI and WHTs. High and improved yield components of rain-fed sorghum are usually

constrained by conservation of soil moisture in crop root zone depth. Figure 3 shows the average SMC in three

measurement periods during cropping season in 2012 and 2013. Before sowing showed SMC of 1 and 2 % in

the first and second seasons, respectively, and its corresponding values in case of mid-season are 13 and 10 %.

TRwSI showed the highest values of SMC in both the seasons while CoSI showed lowest values. This may be

attributed to reduced runoff by the TRwSI and consequently leading to greater soil water storage.27,28 The low

value of SMC obtained by the CoSI treatment may be attributed to high runoff and reduced infiltration due to

the formation of soil sealing. This result was observed by Oweis and Hachum29 and Hulugalle et al.30 which

supports our hypothesis.

Crop Water Requirement (CWR)

Using the FAO- Penman-Monteith formula and the CROPWAT31 software, the reference crop

evapotranspiration (ETo) were 8.5, 7.8, 7.9 and 7.7 mm day-1 for July, August, September and October,

respectively. The sorghum CWR are given in Table 6. The results revealed that the CWR of sorghum increased

gradually with the plant development, reaching peak at mid-season by increasing from 3 mm day-1 at the initial

stage to a maximum of 9 mm day-1 at mid- season and then decreased to 6 mm day at the late growing stages.

This result may be attributed to the crop coefficient value (Kc) which varied with the crop growth stages. The

calculated seasonal CWR for sorghum is 397 mm (Table 6) and it agrees with the results of Doorenbos and

Pruitt32 who reported a range of 300- 650 mm. Similar result was obtained by Adil et al.33 who found that the

seasonal CWR of rain-fed sorghum is within 511.4 and 542.4 mm.


Supplemental Irrigation (SI)

The amount of SI applied (mm/irrigation) is shown in (Table 7) for seasons 2012 and 2013. The total amount of

SI water applied was 493 and 522 mm for season 2012 and 2013, respectively. The amount of SI applied in

season 2013 was higher than 2012 due to higher contribution of rainfall in 2012 than in 2013. Table 8 shows the

amount of SI per irrigation in m3 ha-1 for the two seasons of 2012 and 2013. The result showed that the highest

amount of water applied was 992 m3 ha-1 in the sixth and seventh irrigations. This highest amount of water

applied to irrigate sorghum against highest CWR during that crop growth stage attributes to climatic factors,

such as low and erratic rainfall, low humidity and high temperature.34

Table 5.

Table 6.

Table 7.

Table 8.

Figure 3. Soil moisture content (SMC) as affected by cropping season in 2012 and 2013: TRwSI: Tied

ridging with supplemental irrigation, RwSI: Ridging with supplemental irrigation, BwSI: Basin with

supplemental irrigation, CwSI: Control with supplemental irrigation, TRoSI: Tied ridging without supplemental

irrigation, RoSI: Ridging without supplemental irrigation, BoSI: Basin without supplemental irrigation, CoSI:

Control without supplemental irrigation.

Plant growth parameters and productivity

Plant height

Figure 4 shows the effect of SI and WHTs on plant height at 15, 30, 45 and 60 days during two cropping

seasons of 2012 and 2013. The plants were taller in second season than first season. TRwSI result in tallest

plants produced significant difference (P ≤0.05) in first season and high significant difference in the second

season (P ≤ 0.01). These are 1279 and 1934 mm in first and second seasons, respectively, which showed

significant difference from BwSI throughout the measurement periods at 15 days. On the other hand, the CoSI

produced the shortest plants of 44 and 148 mm in two seasons of 2012 and 2013, respectively. In first season

there were significant differences (P ≤0.05) between CoSI and RoSI at 45 and 60 days; and in second season

there were also significant differences between them at all measurement periods except at 15 days. This result

may be attributed to the fact that the tied ridging-increased the amount of water stored in the root zone, which

resulted in increased vegetative growth resulting in taller plants. The result of the lowest values of plant height


obtained by CoSI may be attributed to water deficits occurred during the growing season; which agrees with the

results of Mchugh et al.19 who reported that less frequent irrigation resulted in vegetative growth reduction and

gave shorter plants.

Figure 4. Effect of water harvesting techniques and supplemental irrigation on plant height: TRwSI: Tied

ridging with supplemental irrigation, RwSI: Ridging with supplemental irrigation, BwSI: Basin with

supplemental irrigation, CwSI: Control with supplemental irrigation, TRoSI: Tied ridging without supplemental

irrigation, RoSI: Ridging without supplemental irrigation, BoSI: Basin without supplemental irrigation, CoSI:

Control without supplemental irrigation.

Plant population

Figure 5A shows the effects of SI and WHTs on plant population. The plant population was higher in the first

season than the second season. The plant population ranged between 50 and 71 plants m-2 in the first season and

between 37 and 56 plants m-2 plants in the second season. TRwSI recorded the highest values of plant

population of 71 and 56 plants m-2 in the first and the second seasons respectively. CoSI gave the lowest values

of 50 and 37 plants m-2 in the first and second seasons, respectively. There were significant differences (P ≤

0.05) between TRwSI and BwSI in both the seasons and no significant differences (P ≥0.05) between RwSI,

CwSI, TRoSI and BoSI in the second season. This could possibly be due to low soil moisture content, formation

of soil crusts and inaccurate seeding depth which may adversely affect seeds germination and seedlings

emergence that reduce plant population. That is because TRwSI conserves more moisture within the root zone

and also assists in even distribution of retained rain water. These results agree with Tabo et al.35 and Mohamed

et al.36 findings.

Stem diameter

The data on stem diameter was affected by WHTs and SI (Fig. 5B). The stem diameter ranged between 17 and

12 mm in the first season and between 12 and 5 mm in the second season. TRwSI showed the highest value of

the stem diameter in the first (17) and the second (12) seasons. The results are not significantly different from

BwSI, RwSI and CwSI in the first season, however, significantly differed in the second season. In both the

seasons the stem diameter showed no significant differences (P ≥0.05) in BwSI, RwSI and CwSI. CoSI showed

the lowest value of stem diameter in the first (12 mm) and the second season (5 mm). CoSI results were not

significantly different from RoSI in two seasons. The lowest values of the stem diameter recorded by CoSI

treatment may be attributed to the fact that the crop was subjected to water stress throughout the growth season.

Similar results were also obtained by, Adil et al.33


Leave number per plant

The number of leaves plant-1 was affected by WHT and SI are shown in Fig. 5C. In the first season, the number

of leaves per plant ranged between 6 and 10, while in the second season ranged between 6 and 11. TRwSI was

superior in number of leaves plant-1 in the first (10) and the second (11) seasons, which was significantly

different from other treatments. CoSI produced the lowest number of leaves plant-1 (6) in the first and the second

seasons. No significant differences were noticed for RoSI in the first season and from RoSI and BoSI in the

second season. The highest number of leaves plant-1 which was recorded by TRwSI may be attributed to the

increase amount of water available in the root zone, while the lowest number of leaves recorded by CoSI may be

attributed to root zone water deficit. These results also confirmed by Tayel et al.37 and Ahmed et al.38

Figure 5. Effected of water harvesting techniques and supplemental irrigation on plant population, steam

diameter and leave number: TRwSI: Tied ridging with supplemental irrigation, RwSI: Ridging with

supplemental irrigation, BwSI: Basin with supplemental irrigation, CwSI: Control with supplemental irrigation,

TRoSI: Tied ridging without supplemental irrigation, RoSI: Ridging without supplemental irrigation, BoSI:

Basin without supplemental irrigation, CoSI: Control without supplemental irrigation.

Sorghum grain productivity

Average grain productivity of sorghum was affected by SI and WHTs was shown in Fig. 6 for the two seasons.

The highest productivity of 4000 and 5000 kg h-1 was obtained by TRwSI for first and second seasons,

respectively. No significant difference (P ≥0.05) was observed between TRwSI and BwSI in the first season,

however, significant difference (P ≤0.05) was observed in the second season. The lowest productivity of 840

and 960 kg h-1 was obtained by CoSI in first and second seasons, respectively. There was no significant

difference between RoSI and BoSI in the first season but showed significant difference in the second season.

This result could be attributed to the fact that the TRwSI gave the highest plant population by the concentrated

organic matter and fertilizer present near the soil surface in the tied-ridge, which was found to be 0.54 and 1.2 %

for the first and second season, respectively, which was clearly reflected in increasing the grain productivity of

sorghum.40,35

Figure 6. Effect of water harvesting technique and supplemental irrigation on sorghum grain productivity:

TRwSI: Tied ridging with supplemental irrigation, RwSI: Ridging with supplemental irrigation, BwSI: Basin

with supplemental irrigation, CwSI: Control with supplemental irrigation, TRoSI: Tied ridging without

supplemental irrigation, RoSI: Ridging without supplemental irrigation, BoSI: Basin without supplemental

irrigation, CoSI: Control without supplemental irrigation.


Note: Figures 4, 5 and 6 any two means having the same letters are not significantly different at 5 % level of

significant using DMRT.

CONCLUSIONS

The soil physical properties i.e. infiltration rate and moisture content and sorghum growth parameters are

significantly affected by water harvesting techniques combined with supplemental irrigation practices. Better

performance of soil moisture can be achieved in the respective order of tied-ridging, basin, and ridging. Water

harvesting techniques coupled with supplemental irrigation increase the productivity of sorghum. This effect is

clearly demonstrated during the drier season of the region. As experimentally evident, compared to other water

harvesting techniques, tied-ridging technique with supplemental irrigation contributed to highest yield and yield

components of sorghum. Tied-ridging technique is recommended to be applied in the cultivation of sorghum by

the local farmers in North Kordofan area, Sudan and other similar agro-ecological regions of Africa.

REFERENCES

1 Sato S, Clemente T and Dweikat I, Identification of an elite sorghum genotype with high in vitro performance capacity.

In Vitro Cel Dev-Pl 40:57-60 (2004).

2 Khalil IA, Dry farming in crops and cropping in Pakistan. Higher Education Commission, Islamabad, Pakistan (2008).

3 FAO/WFP, crop and food supply assessment mission to Sudan. Special Report: Sudan, January, (2000).

4 Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Water Harvesting for Improved Agricultural Production.

Proceedings of the FAO Expert Consultation, Cairo, Egypt, 21-25 November 1993. Water Report No. 3. FAO, Rome

(1994).

5 Oweis T, Prinz D, Hachum A, Water harvesting-indigenous Knowledge for the Future of the Drier Environments,

International Center for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas (ICARDA), Aleppo, Syria (2001).

6 Helmreich B. and H Horn, Opportunities in rainwater harvesting. Desalination. 251: 118-124 (2010).

7 UNICEF, Report on Environmental Impact Assessment of UNICEF′s Hand pump and Sanitation program in Kordofan.

IES and University of Khartoum. Khartoum, Sudan, (1989).

8 Salkini A B and Perrier E, Supplemental Irrigation Project. From Research to Extension. Farm Resource management

Program. Annual Report 1991. International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA). Aleppo,

Syria. pp: 240-257 (1990).

9 Ayoub A, Land degradation, Rainfall variability and food production in the Sahelian zone of the Sudan. Land Deg. &

Dev. 10: 489-500 (1999).

10 Rockström J, Barron J and Fox P, Rainwater management for increased productivity among small-holder farmers in

drought prone environments. Phys. & Chem. Earth, parts A/B/C 27: 11-12 (2002).


11 Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D and Smith M, Crop evapotranspiration guidelines for computing crop water requirements.

FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 56. FAO, Rome (1998).

12 Doorenbos J, Kassam AH, Bentvelsen CLM, Branscheid V, Plusje′ JMGA, Vittenboganrd GO and Van Derwal HK,

Yield Response to Water. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 33. Food and Agriculture Organization of the

United Nation. Rome, Italy (1986).

13 Jensen M E, Burman RD and Allen G R, (ed), Evapotranspiration and Irrigation Water Requirements. ASCE Manuals

and Reports of Engineering Practices No. 70, Am. Soc. Civil Engrs, New York (1990).

14 Stern PH, Small Scale Irrigation: Manual of Low Water-Technology. Intermediate technology publications Ltd, and the

International irrigation information Center, London), Russell press, Nottingham (1979).

15 Michael AM, Irrigation: Theory and Practice. 1st ed. VIKAS Publishing house Ltd. New Delhi, India (1978).

16 Ankeny MD, Methods and theory for unconfined infiltration measurements. In: Topp G.C. (ed.): Advances in

Measurement of Soil Physical Properties: Bringing Theory into Practice. SSSA Special Publication No. 30. SSSA,

Madison. 123-141 (1992).

17 Majumdar DK, Irrigation Water Management Principles and Practice. 4th Edition. Prentice Hall of India, New Delhi,

India (2006).

18 Hassan IM, Adil BK, Haitham RE, Amir B S and Atif EI, Performance of soil moisture retention and conservation tillage

techniques as indicated by sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench.) yield and yield components. Global .J. of Plant

Ecophysiology. 1: 31-43 (2012).

19 Mchugh Oloro V, Tammo S Steenhuis, Abebe Berihun and Fernandes, Erick CM, Performance of in-situ rainwater

conservation tillage techniques on dry spell mitigation and erosion control in the drought prone North Wello zone of

the Ethiopian highlands. Soil & Till. Res. 97: 19-36 (2007).

20 Fabrizzi KP, Garcia FO, Costab JL and Picone LI, Soil water dynamics, physical properties and corn and wheat

responses to reduced and no-tillage systems in the southern Pampas of Argentina. Soil & Till. Res. 81: 57-69 (2005).

21 Pagliai M, N Vignozzi and S Pellegrini, Soil structure and the effect of management practices. Soil & Till. Res. 79: 131-

143 (2004).

22 Walker WR, Guidelines for Designing and Evaluating of Irrigation Systems. FAO irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 45.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy (1989).

23 Hatibu N and Mahoo H, Rainwater harvesting technologies for agricultural production: A case for Dodoma, Tanzania.

Conservation tillage with animal traction. A resource book of the Animal Traction Network for Eastern and Southern

Africa (ATNESA). Harare. Zimbabwe. 173p. A publication supported by French Cooperation, Namibia (1999).

24 Subramanyam JK and Kar S, Infiltration capacity of lateritic soil as affected by decreasing moisture content. J. Indian.

Soc. Soil sci. 24: 8-11 (1976).

25 Abiyo F, Effect of vegetative cover, tillage and planting system on runoff, soil erosion and other soil physical properties.

Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America. 2: 23-28 (1987).


26 Li XY, Gong JD and Wei X H, In-situ rainwater harvesting and gravel mulch combination for corn production in the dry

semi-arid region of China. Journal of Arid Environments. 46: 371-382 (2000).

27 Gardner,CMK, Laryea KB and Unger PW, Soil physical constraints to plant growth and crop production. Land and

Water Development Division, FAO, Rome, Pp: 96 (1999).

28 Walter M, David L and Steve T, Soil-water conservation and rainwater harvesting strategies in the semi-arid Mzingwane

Catchment, Limpopo Basin, Zimbabwe. Phys. Chem. Earth 31: 893-900 (2006).

29 Oweis T and Hachum A, Supplemental irrigation, a highlyefficient water-use practice. ICARDA, Aleppo, Syria. iv + 28

pp (2012).

30 Hulugalle NR, Koning JD and Malto PT, Effect of rock bunds and tied ridges on soil water content and properties in the

Sudan Savannah of Burkina Faso. Trop. Agric. (Trinidad). 67: 149-153 (1990).

31 CropWat for Windows; User Guide, FAO, Guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO Irrigation and

Drainage Paper No 56. Rome, Italy. pp 300 (1998).

32 Doorenbos J and Pruitt WO, Guide lines for Prediction of Crop Water Requirements. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper

No. 24. FAO, Rome (1977).

33 Adil BK, Hassan IM, Haitham RE, Amir BS and Atif EI, Effects of some in-situ water harvesting techniques on soil

moisture and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.)Moench) production in Northern Gedaref State. Global .J. of Plant

Ecophysiology1: 54-66 (2012).

34 Botha JJ, Van Rensburg LD, Anderson JJ, Kundhlande G, Groenewald DC and Macheli M, Application of in-field

rainwater harvesting in rural villages in semi-arid areas of South Africa. Water Conservation Technologies for

Sustainable Dry land Agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa (WCT). Bloemfontein, South Africa (2003).

35 Tabo R, Olabanji OG, Ajawi O and Flower DJ, Effect of plant population density on the growth and yield of sorghum

varieties grown on a vertisol. African Crop Sci.J. 1: 31-38 (2002).

36 Mohamed E, El-Naim AM, Ebeadallah B. E and Khalid AIK, 2011, Effect of tillage and farm yard manure in yield and

yield components of sorghum under rainfed. International Journal of Current Research. 6: 389-392 (1978).

37 Tayel MY, HA Mansour and Sabreen Kh Pibars, Impact of bubbler irrigation system discharges and irrigation water

amounts on maize: 1-irrigation efficiency, growth, grain and biomass production. International Journal of Advanced

Research 1: 716-724 (2014).

38 Ahmed M El-Naim, Mkarem AM Baldu and Moayad MB Zaied, Effect of Tillage Depth and Pattern on Growth and

Yield of Grain Sorghum (Sorghumbicolor L. Moench) under Rain-fed. Journal of Novel Applied Sciences. 3: 68-73

(2012).

39 FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations, 2004. FAOSTAT. http//apps.fao.org.

40 Reddy B, Kumar AA, Ramesh S and Reddy PS, Breeding sorghum for coping with climate change. In: Yadav SS,

Redden B, Hatfi eld JL, Lotze-Campen H (eds) Crop adaptation to climate change. Wiley, Iowa, pp 326-339 (2011).


List of tables. Table 1. Soil physio-chemical

characteristics of the study area

Properties Average

Sand % 69

Silt % 11

Clay % 20

Bulk density g cm-3 1.5

Water holding capacity (mm m-1) 27

Hydraulic conductivity mm hr-1 4

Nitrogen (%) 0.05

Phosphorous (mg l-1) 3.4

Potassium (mmol+1 L-1) 0.11

Organic matter (%) 1.2

pH 7.04


Table 2. Analysis of variance for cumulative infiltration and the basic infiltration rate

Square mean

2012

Cumulative infiltration (mm) Basic infiltration rate mm hr-1

Measurement period Before sowing Mid-season After harvest Before sowing Mid-season After harvest

Source variation d.f

Replication 3 17NS 368NS 51NS 2NS 298NS 46NS

SI 1 16NS 121NS 20NS 7NS 123NS 16NS

Error (a) 3 11 79 12 12 748 8

WHT 3 15NS 97* 34** 2NS 96NS 32*

SI*WHT 3 5NS 7NS 5NS 6NS 5NS 8NS

Error (b) 18 21 22 7 9 35 7

Total 31

Square mean

2013

Cumulative infiltration (mm) Basic infiltration rate mm hr-1

Measurement period Before sowing Mid-season After harvest Before sowing Mid-season After harvest


Replication 3 12NS 472NS 55NS 387NS 13NS 33NS

SI 1 187NS 268NS 23NS 281NS 108NS 29NS

Error (a) 3 56 156 1762 165 56 169

WHT 3 284** 631* 193* 454NS 263** 142*

SI*WHT 3 1NS 154NS 1NS 14NS 3NS 3NS

Error (b) 18 33 146 44 181 28 37

Total 31

SI: supplemental irrigation, WHT: water harvesting technique, NS: not significant, *: significant at p ≤ 0.05, **: significant at p ≤

0.01.


Table 3. Average cumulative infiltration (mm) as influenced by water harvesting techniques and

supplemental irrigation

Treatment* CoSI RoSI BoSI TRoSI CwSI RwSI BwSI TRwSI

Season 2012

Before sowing 76a 76a 84a 82a 67a 76a 75a 81a

Mid-season 81c 85bc 91bc 109ab 92bc 99abc 110ab 115a

After harvest 66c 69bc 73abc 75abc 64c 74abc 81ab 84a

Season 2013

Before sowing 70b 84ab 98ab 126a 87ab 95ab 124ab 145a

Mid-season 62c 72bc 99ab 98ab 74bc 91ab 111a 116a

After harvest 66b 69b 78ab 101a 70b 76ab 84ab 105a

*CoSI: Control without supplemental irrigation, RoSI: Ridging without supplemental irrigation, BoSI: Basin without

supplemental irrigation, TRoSI: Tied ridging without supplemental irrigation, CwSI: Control with supplemental irrigation,

RwSI: Ridging with supplemental irrigation, BwSI: Basin with supplemental irrigation, TRwSI: Tied ridging with

supplemental irrigation, **Any two means under the same column having the same letters are not significantly different (p ≤

0.05) level of significant using DMRT.

Table 4. Average basic infiltration rate (mm hr-1) as influenced by water harvesting techniques and

supplemental irrigation

Treatment* CoSI RoSI BoSI TRoSI CwSI RwSI BwSI TRwSI

Season 2012

Before sowing 59a 57a 60a 57a 51a 53a 56a 60a

Mid-season 60a 66a 71a 89a 74a 77a 90a 95a

After harvesting 48b 50b 54ab 56ab 44b 56ab 63a 63a

Season 2013

Before sowing 48a 60a 70.5a 104a 67a 70.5a 101a 119a

Mid-season 45c 54bc 80ab 77ab 53bc 66abc 90a 93a

After harvesting 67b 48b 57ab 75ab 48b 59ab 62ab 83a

*CoSI: Control without supplemental irrigation, BoSI: Basin without supplemental irrigation, RoSI: Ridging without

supplemental irrigation, TRoSI: Tied ridging without supplemental irrigation, CwSI: Control with supplemental irrigation, RwSI:

Ridging with supplemental irrigation, BwSI: Basin with supplemental irrigation, TRwSI: Tied ridging with supplemental

irrigation. **Any two means under the same column having the same letters are not significantly different (p ≤ 0.05) level of

significant using DMRT.


Table 5. Analysis of variance for soil moisture content as affected by water harvesting techniques and

supplemental irrigation at three measurement periods in the cropping season of 2012 and 2013

Mean Square

Season 2012 2013

Measurement period Before sowing Mid-season After harvesting Before sowing Mid-season After harvesting


Replication 3 0.89NS 7.66NS 3.80NS 1.83NS 1.99NS 1.66NS

SI 1 0.01NS 53.12* 5.23NS 2.95NS 48.02* 7.86*

Error (a) 3 0.69 2.3 0.77 0.46 3.39 0.43

WHT 3 0.03NS 31.30** 7.27** 1.08* 8.20** 2.69**

SI * WHT 3 0.28NS 1.13NS 1.02NS 0.14NS 2.37** 0.12NS

Error (b) 18 0.30 1.37 0.81 0.28 0.21 0.08

Total 31

SI: supplemental irrigation, WHT: water harvesting technique, Ns: Non significant, *: Significant at 5 % level, **: Significant at 1 % level.


Table 6. Crop water requirements (CWR) of sorghum

Irrigation No. Plant growth stage Irrigation interval (day) *Kc ETo CWR mm day-1 CWR per irrigation (mm)

1

Initial stage

8 0.4 8.5 4 27

2 8 0.4 7.8 3 25

3 8 0.4 7.8 3 25

4 8 0.4 7.8 3 25

5 Development stage 8 1.1 7.8 9 69

6 8 1.1 7.8 9 69

7 8 1.1 7.8 9 69

8 Late stage 8 0.7 7.8 6 44

9 8 0.7 7.8 6 44

Total 397

Table 7. Supplemental irrigation (mm) application in cropping season of 2012 and 2013

Year 2012

Irrigation No. *1 *2 3 4 5 6 *7 8 9 Total

CWR per irrigation *27 *25 25 25 69 69 *69 44 44 397

Effective rainfall (mm) 0 0 9 24 8 0 0 0 12 53

SI water needed (mm) 27 25 16 1 61 69 69 44 32 345

SI water applied (mm) 38 36 23 1 87 99 99 63 46 493

Year 2013

Irrigation No. *1 *2 3 4 5 6 *7 8 9 Total

CWR per irrigation *27 *25 25 69 69 69 *69 44 44 397

Effective rainfall (mm) 0 0 13 0 19 0 0 0 0 32

SI water needed (mm) 27 25 12 25 50 69 69 44 44 365

SI water applied (mm) 38 36 17 36 71 99 99 63 63 522

CWR: crop water requirement, SI: supplemental irrigation, Irrigation number 1, 2 and 7 given to all treatments;

Effective rainfall = 0.70 of rainfall; Irrigation efficiency = 0.60.


Table 8. Amount of crop water requirement (CWR) and supplemental irrigation (SI) applied in

two seasons of 2012 than 2013

Irrigation No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total

CWR per irrigation (m3 ha-1) 271 250 250 250 686 694 694 442 442 3979

SI applied in m3 ha-1 season 2012 388 357 228 9 872 992 992 631 460 4929

SI applied in m3 ha-1 season 2013 388 357 168 357 708 992 992 631 631 5226

List of figures.

Figure 1.


Figure 2.

Figure 3.


Figure 4.

Figure 5.


Figure 6.

water harvesting techniques and supplemental irrigation impact on sorghum production

Documents