FAO 1985 Guidelines For Irrigatin Agriculture

Guidelines: Land evaluation for irrigated agriculture - FAO
soils bulletin 55
Soils Resources, Management and Conservation Service

FAO Land and Water Development Division
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Rome, 1985
M-50
ISBN 92-5-102243-7
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise,
without the prior permission of the copyright owner. Applications for such permission, with a
statement of the purpose and extent of the reproduction, should be addressed to the Director,
Publications Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Via delle Terme
di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy.
© FAO 1985
This electronic document has been scanned using optical character recognition (OCR) software
and careful manual recorrection. Even if the quality of digitalisation is high, the FAO declines all
responsibility for any discrepancies that may exist between the present document and its
original printed version
1
Table of Contents
Preface
Summary
Part one - Procedures for evaluating land for irrigated agriculture
1. Introduction
1.1 General
1.2 From project identification to project implementation
1.3 Levels of intensity of investigations
1.4 Planning a land evaluation investigation
2. Evaluating and classifying land for irrigated agriculture
2.1 Basic principles

2.2 Terminology
2.3 Main procedures in land evaluation and classification
2.3.1 Need for preliminary studies

2.3.2 Identification of relevant land utilization types
2.3.3 Inventory of land resources
2.3.4 Selection of class-determining factors
2.3.5 Classification of 'provisionally-irrigable' land and 'irrigable' land
2.4 Land productivity index and economic measures of suitability
3. A step-by-step guide to the procedures
3.1 List of main steps
4. Deciding the land utilization types to evaluate and developing the land suitability class
specifications
4.1 Deciding and describing the land utilization types to evaluate
4.1.1 Examples of irrigated LUTs

4.1.2 Some problems in defining and describing LUTs
4.2 Developing the land suitability class specifications
4.2.1 Steps in developing the land suitability class specifications

4.2.2 Class-determining factors (step 3)
4.2.3 Land use requirements and limitations
4.2.4 Critical limits of 'class-determining' land use requirements and limitations
2
5. Procedures for land resource inventory
5.1 General characterization of the project area

5.2 Topographic data
5.3 Soil survey data
5.4 Climatic and meteorological data
5.5 Water resources data
5.6 Drainage data
5.7 Present land use, vegetation and wildlife
5.8 Environmental health
5.9 Social and economic data
5.9.1 Social and economic considerations

5.9.2 Checklist of socio-economic data
6. Assigning the land suitability classes by matching
6.1 Determining the factor ratings

6.2 Interactions between the factors
6.3 Evaluating 'significance' in combining factor ratings
6.4 Symbols for summarizing land suitability class and subclasses
6.5 An example of the use of the formats
6.6 Incorporating crop yield data and costs
7. Economic evaluation of land suitability for irrigation
7.1 Terminology
7.2 Budgeting for comparisons of returns
7.3 Use of costs and benefits in determining land suitability class
7.3.1 Establishing the cut-off between suitable and not suitable land
7.3.2 Establishing the range of permissible area-specific land development costs
7.3.3 Nomograph for quick determination of NIIB
7.4 Final selection of LUTs for the 'irrigable' land

7.5 Confirming financial viability from the farmers' viewpoint
8. Presentation of the results
8.1 Reconnaissance level studies

8.2 Pre-feasibility and feasibility studies
8.2.1 Form of report
9. The role of land evaluation in project appraisal and implementation
9.1 Feasibility appraisal

9.2 Project implementation and monitoring
3
10. The US bureau of reclamation land classification system
10.1 Principles
10.2 USBR terminology
10.3 Financial and economic considerations
10.4 Land classes and subclasses of the USBR system
10.5 the USBR mapping symbols
10.6 USBR land classification specifications
Part two - Developing the specifications and critical limits of class-determining factors
A. Agronomic factors
A.1 Growing cycle and growing period
A.1.1 Critical limits of growing period
A.2 Radiation
A.3 Temperature
A.4 Rooting
A.5 Aeration
A.6 Water quantity
A.6.1 The significance of water quantity as a class-determining factor

A.6.2 Water requirement in relation to water supplies
A.6.3 Crop yields and water stress
A.6.4 Estimating irrigation and crop water requirements
A.6.5 The contribution of rainfall to water requirements in farmers fields (effective rainfall)
A.6.6 Seepage and percolation in wetland rice
A.7 Nutrients (NPK)
A.7.1 Nitrogen
A.7.2 Phosphorus
A.7.3 Potassium
A.7.4 Factor rating 'NPK nutrition'
A.8 Water quality

A.9 Salinity
A.10 Sodicity
A.11 pH, micronutrients and toxicities
A.11.1 pH, micronutrient deficiencies and toxicities on non-rice cropland

A.11.2 Chemical characteristics of submerged rice soils (based on Ponnamperuma 1976)
A.11.3 Acid sulphate soils
A.12 Pests, diseases and weeds

A.13 Flood, storm, wind and frost
4
A.13.1 Flooding in rice cultivation
A.13.2 Flood hazard
A.13.3 Storm, hail and wind hazard
A.13.4 Frost hazard
B. Management
B.14 Location
B.15 Water application management
B.16 Pre-harvest farm management
B.17 Harvest and post-harvest conditions
B.18 Mechanization
C. Land development and land improvements
C.19 Land clearing
C.19.1 Forested areas

C.19.2 Areas of persistent weeds
C.19.3 Removal of rocks and stones
C.20 Flood protection

C.21 Drainage
C.22 Land grading
C.23 Physical, chemical and organic aids and amendments
C.23.1 Physical aids to reclamation such aids include:

C.23.2 Chemical and organic amendments
C.24 Reclamation leaching

C.25 Duration of the reclamation period
C.26 Irrigation engineering requirements
D. Conservation and the environment
D.27 Long-term prevention of salinity and sodicity hazards

D.28 Control of groundwater and surface water
D.29 Long-term erosion hazard
D.30 Other environmental hazards
E. Socio-economic factors
E.31 Farmers' attitudes to irrigation

E.32 Other socio-economic factors
Appendix 1 - The structure of the FAO framework classification
Appendix 2 - Discounted present value 1/
5
Appendix 3 - Comparison of criteria for investment analysis: Farm financial analysis vs
project economic analysis
Glossary
References
FAO soils bulletins
1. Introduction
1.1 General
1.1 General
A fuller use of land and water resources by the development of irrigation facilities could lead to
substantial increases in food production in many parts of the world. The process whereby the
suitability of land for specific uses such as irrigated agriculture is assessed is called land
evaluation.
Land evaluation provides information and recommendations for deciding 'Which crops to grow
where' and related questions. Land evaluation is the selection of suitable land, and suitable
cropping, irrigation and management alternatives that are physically and financially practicable
and economically viable. The main product of land evaluation investigations is a land
classification that indicates the suitability of various kinds of land for specific land uses, usually
depicted on maps with accompanying reports.
The evaluation and suitability classification system described in this bulletin is based on 'A
Framework for Land Evaluation' (FAO 1976a). The structure of the FAO Framework
classification is given in Table 1 with details in Appendix 1.
Table 1 STRUCTURE OF THE SUITABILITY CLASSIFICATION
ORDER CATEGORIES CLASS SUBCLASS

S Suitable S1
S2 S2t
6
S2d
S2td
etc.
S3
N1y
N1
N1z
N Not suitable
etc
N2
Legend:
S1 Highly Suitable
S2 Moderately Suitable
S3 Marginally Suitable
N1 Marginally Not Suitable
N2 Permanently Not Suitable
Lower case letters in a Subclass indicate the nature of a requirement of limitation (e.g. t and d
for topography and drainage). See list of Subclass symbols in Table 17. Land suitability units
(subdivisions of Subclasses) may also be used to indicate minor differences in management.

In the early stages of land resources investigations, land evaluation studies indicate in a
preliminary way, the suitability of land for alternative crops and irrigation methods and the land
improvements that may be worthwhile. With further field studies, projects are identified and a
plan of irrigation development is worked out. Individual projects are ranked in order of priority.
The priority projects are planned in more detail and each project plan is progressively refined.
The proposed crops, methods of irrigation, inputs and land improvements are progressively
adjusted until a satisfactory project plan is produced.
Various criteria are used to decide whether a project plan is satisfactory. Apart from social and
political objectives, which in practice are often paramount, a satisfactory plan is one that leaves
the farmers, the community and the national economy better off. In other words, it results in the
largest practicable increment in net benefits in an economic comparison of 'without project' and
'with project' situations. Such a plan will generally utilize limited resources of land, water or
inputs for the most productive use. A satisfactory plan is one which is practicable and likely to
work out under actual field conditions, not necessarily the most economically attractive on
paper.
Land evaluation reports, maps and data continue to be useful after the planning stage during
design and implementation, and for monitoring the project.' The detailed design of engineering
works may depend on information collected earlier during the evaluation study. During the
implementation and later management of the irrigation project, the land evaluation study
provides a basis for monitoring changes in physical, social and economic conditions. In
response to such changes, the recommendations may need modification and updating from
time to time.
Currently, the rehabilitation of existing irrigation projects is an important aspect of land

evaluation work. This highlights the need for thorough evaluation of land and water resources in
the preparation of irrigation projects from the start; obviating the need for later rehabilitation.
7
The study of land and water resources and the production of irrigation development proposals
may be conducted at national level, at the level of a river basin or hydrogeological basin, at
project development level, or at village, farm or field level (Horning 1979). The types of studies
undertaken at these different levels are indicated in Table 2.
Table 2 LEVELS OF INTENSITY OF INVESTIGATIONS
LEVELS TYPES OF STUDY TYPES OF SURVEY

National Basin Project identification Reconnaissance
Project Pre-feasibility Semi-detailed
Feasibility Detailed
Village, farm or field Detailed design Very detailed
Project identification at a national and basin level leads to a need for prefeasibility and feasibility
studies. These are followed by detailed design studies of water supply systems and field
layouts. These various studies are served by different scales of survey.
At the national level, investigations are required to provide a Master Plan for land and water
resources development including an assessment of the priorities accorded to respective regions
and areas within the country. At the level of individual river basins or hydrogeological basins,
investigations provide the basis for water development, water control for different uses and for
land use planning (e.g. catchment projection, flood zoning, potential areas for irrigation,
reclamation of delta and swamp and tidal zones, etc.). At the irrigation
development project level, a plan is- formulated for investment in irrigation, drainage and flood
protection. At the village, farm or field level, investigations provide information for farm water
management and improvements or rehabilitation.
Reconnaissance surveys on a small scale i.e. 1:100 000 to 1:250 000 (Table 3) are useful for
broad resource inventory (see Chapter 5), the identification of promising areas for development,
and to provide a basis for more detailed study. Mapping units are usually compound and
provide only estimates of the proportions of the conditions for the various land suitability
categories. The 'land system' method of survey (Christian and Stewart 1968) is often used and it
may suffice to broadly distinguish land which is promising for specific kinds of irrigated
agriculture from land which is not. Economic studies at this, stage broadly indicate levels of
production and income.
Semi-detailed surveys in pre-feasibility and feasibility studies are typically at scales from 1:25
000 to 1:50 000. Soil mapping units consist of a mixture of homogenous units (soil series) and
compound units (e.g. soil associations). With sufficiently intense sampling, such surveys can be
used for planning some developments up to the design stage.
Table 3 SURVEY INTENSITY, MAPPING SCALE AND KIND OF MAPS
KIND OF SURVEY RANGE OF

SCALES
8
Very High Intensity Larger than Soil maps showing special features or phases of soil series and
(very detailed) 1:10 000 occasionally soil complexes; detailed topographic maps with spot
heights; cadastral maps; groundwater maps; present crops and
vegetation etc.
High Intensity 1:10 000 to Soil maps showing phases of soil series and soil complexes;
(detailed) 1:25 000 detailed topographic maps, groundwater maps, present land use,
etc.
Medium Intensity 1:25 000 to Soil maps showing series or associations of series; land system
(semi-detailed) 1:100 000 maps, physiographic units, topographic contour maps, present land
use maps, etc.
Low Intensity 1:100 000 to Soil maps with associations and phases of Great Groups or
(reconnaissance) 1:250 000 Subgroups; land system maps, physiographic or contour maps,
present land use, climatic zones, etc.
Exploratory 1:250 000 to Land units of various kinds.
1:1 000 000
Syntheses Smaller than Climatic maps, soil taxonomic maps, vegetation and land use,
1:1 000 000 physiographic and geomorphological maps, agro-ecological zones,
etc.
Detailed surveys may be required separately for soils and topography. Soil surveys, typically at
scales of 1:10 000 to 1:25 000, with soils series and phases as the main soil mapping units, are
used for project planning and implementation and for some surveys at village or catchment
level, including layout of farms and irrigation systems. If topography is an important
consideration in delineating land to be brought under command by gravity irrigation, a more
intensive survey (e.g. at 1:5 000) may be required for land levelling and engineering
applications.
Very detailed surveys, at scales of 1:5 000 or larger, are necessary where small contour
intervals must be mapped in order to determine slope classes, or align irrigation and drainage
channels.

Land evaluation investigations may be carried out by a government department or private
company with or without external help. Large irrigation projects often involve a client, a funding
agency and a consultant organization. Prior to field work, initial discussions will take place to
decide the objectives of the evaluation, and the data and assumptions on which it is to be
based. The extent and boundaries of the area to be evaluated, and the kinds of land use or
irrigation systems may either be prescribed in the terms of reference, or may be part of the
evaluation. Appropriate physical or economic measures of suitability must be decided (see
Section 2.4). The intensity and scales of the required surveys, and the phasing of activities
should be agreed prior to the start of field work. The administrative, logistical and financial
implications of the work being undertaken should also be agreed.
During initial discussions the requirements for reports and maps at various stages during the
study should be decided. The regular production of progress reports and maps is a feature of all
efficiently organized irrigation development investigations. These are essential as a basis for
making major policy decisions at crucial stages of the study. It is also customary to produce
interim reports in order to facilitate discussions and amendments before producing the final
reports and maps.
9
This introductory chapter has indicated how the physical and economic aspects of land
evaluation for irrigated agriculture become more detailed and refined as the land evaluation
progresses from reconnaissance and project identification, to the detailed planning of irrigation
projects. Chapter 2 describes the principles, terminology and outlines the FAO land evaluation
procedures as applied to irrigated agriculture.
2. Evaluating and classifying land for irrigated agriculture

2.2 Terminology

Certain concepts and principles are fundamental to successful land evaluation for irrigated
agriculture. The basic principles advocated by the Framework for Land Evaluation (FAO 1976a),
on which the methods described in this bulletin are based, are complementary to the principles
of the US Bureau of Reclamation (see Chapter 10) which are specifically for irrigation.
i. The FAO Framework indicates that it is necessary to evaluate land and not just soils. The
suitability of soils for irrigated crops is useful information but it is inadequate for making
decisions about land use development. Therefore all relevant land characteristics including
soils, climate, topography, water resources, vegetation etc. and also socio-economic conditions
and infrastructure need to be considered.
ii. The main objective of land evaluation for irrigated agriculture is to predict future conditions
after development has taken place. It is necessary to forecast the benefits to farmers and the
national economy and whether these will be sustained without damage to the environment.
Essentially a classification of potential suitability is required which takes account of future
interactions between soils, water, crops and economic, social and political conditions.
iii. Some factors that affect land suitability are permanent and others are changeable at a cost.
The costs of necessary improvements may be determined, so that economic and environmental
consequences of development can be predicted. Typical examples of permanent features are
temperature, soil texture, depth to bedrock and macro-topography. Changeable characteristics
which may be altered deliberately or inadvertently, typically may include vegetation, salinity,
depth to groundwater, microrelief, and some social and economic conditions (e.g. land tenure,
accessibility).
iv. Land suitability must therefore be assessed and classified with respect to specified kinds of
land use i.e. cropping, irrigation and management systems. It is obvious that the requirements
of crops and irrigation and management methods differ, so the suitability of any land unit may
10
be classed differently for various uses. It can be useless or misleading to indicate suitability for
irrigated agriculture in general if the land developer needs to know about its potential for a
specific irrigated crop or irrigation method.
v. Land evaluation requires a comparison of the outputs obtained with the inputs needed to
generate these outputs, on different kinds of land. In other words, land suitability evaluation is
essentially an economic concept, although formal economic analysis may not be necessary for
simple surveys. Assessment of physical factors alone does not permit prediction of the results of
irrigation; they must be translated into economic terms. It is most important to achieve a land
classification that reflects differences in the long-term productivity and profitability of the land
under irrigation rather than one that focuses only on physical differences without regard to their
economic implications.
vi. The evaluation must take account of the local physical, political, economic and social
conditions. The success of irrigation when it is introduced may depend as much on factors such
as pricing policies for crops, labour supply, markets, accessibility, land tenure, etc. as on climate
and soils. To avoid any misunderstanding all the factors which are relevant in the local situation
should be explicitly stated rather than assumed. However, not all conditions need to be
considered: only those that can usefully be taken into account in classifying land.
vii. The land suitability must be for sustained use, that is, permanently productive under the
anticipated irrigation regime. Either there should be no land degradation anticipated or the cost
of prevention or remedial action to control erosion, waterlogging, salinization etc. should be
included in the comparison of inputs and outputs.
viii. The evaluation, where more than one apparently viable alternative exists, should compare
more than one kind of use. Comparison may be, for example, between the present use and the
proposed uses, or between different crops and irrigation methods. The reliability of the
evaluation is enhanced by comparing inputs and outputs for several alternatives to ensure that
the land use selected is not only suitable but the best of suitable alternatives.
ix. It is evident that an interdisciplinary approach is required, because no one discipline can
cover all aspects of land suitability evaluation. Land evaluation can be carried out using general
economic considerations to establish a context for selecting appropriate crops and
management, and to establish the criteria for boundaries between suitable and unsuitable land.
To make a quantitative evaluation at project or farm level, however, requires formal analysis in
financial and economic terms.
x. Finally, as emphasized in Chapter 1, land evaluation is an iterative process leading to

successive refinements and the need for surveys and investigations that are appropriate in
scale and intensity during the different stages from reconnaissance to detailed project planning,
and thereafter in successive phases of project implementation.
2.2 Terminology
Full definitions of the FAO Framework terminology are given in the Glossary at the end of this
bulletin and in the appropriate Chapters. The most important terms are explained here prior to
outlining the evaluation procedures.
11
i. LAND: An area of land within boundaries, with specified land qualities or land
characteristics is known as a land unit. Land units can be mapped and serially numbered
(e.g. land unit 1, land unit 2, land unit 3, etc.). The size of an individual land unit can be varied to
suit the intensity of the investigation and should be the smallest area of land that it is necessary
to evaluate and classify.
ii. LAND USE: A major kind of land use is a subdivision of rural land use. Examples are
extensive agriculture, intensive agriculture, forestry, recreation, etc. A land utilization type
(LUT), is a subdivision of a major kind of land use describing the cropping, irrigation and
management (i.e. farming system), the social and economic context, and other relevant details
given in Table 11.
Simplified examples of land utilization types (LUTs)
LUT A: Sprinkler irrigated maize on State farms;

LUT B: Double cropped rice on surface irrigated small farms;
LUT C: Spate irrigated sorghum on tenanted small farms.
Guidelines for the description of LUTs are given in Chapter 4.
iii. LAND SUITABILITY: The FAO Framework land suitability categories are Orders (Suitable or
Not Suitable), Classes, and Subclasses, as shown in Table 1. The land suitability classes are
Highly Suitable (S1), Moderately Suitable (S2), Marginally Suitable (S3), Marginally Not Suitable
(N1) and Permanently Not Suitable (N2). A greater or smaller number of Classes can be used
as required. A lower case letter is used to designate Subclass, indicating the reason for
downgrading the land from S1 (no Subclasses) to a lower class (symbols given in Table 17).
Example: Land Unit 1 is Highly Suitable (S1) for single cropped rice (LUT D) but is Marginally
Not Suitable (N1z) for double cropped rice (LUT B), in a classification for potential suitability.
The FAO Framework distinguishes between classifications for the present suitability of land for
a specific use (under existing conditions) and thepotential suitability after specified major land
improvements (e.g. the rehabilitation of degraded land, irrigation, drainage, etc.).
Two further subdivisions of potential suitability are introduced in this bulletin. These are
comparable, but not identical, to the US Bureau of Reclamation's 'arable' land and 'irrigable'
land (see Chapter 10). They are defined as follows:
Provisionally-irrigable land: This is land that is classified provisionally, on the assumption that
water can be supplied to it, but in the absence of full knowledge about the water supply or the
project and land development costs. (Net farm income is a useful measure of the suitability of
'provisionally-irrigable' land, see Section 2.4).
Irrigable land: This is land that is Suitable for irrigation under a 'provisionally-irrigable'
classification, that can receive water, and that has been classified according to an economic
evaluation of its suitability for specified LUTs, taking into account the water supply, the
incremental area-specific development costs, common project costs, and benefits. (Net
irrigation incremental benefit or NIIB, may be used to measure the suitability of 'irrigable'
land).
12
One of the merits of the 'provisionally-irrigable' classification is that it contributes to the
formulation of the project plan early during the study by eliminating land that is permanently not
suitable for reasons other than the water supply. This classification also provides a good basis
for updating an evaluation in the event of large price shifts or other major changes at a future
date. However, only an 'irrigable' classification meets the needs of a feasibility grade study.
iv. CLASS-DETERMINING FACTORS: These are variables that affect the performance of a
land utilization type (LUT) on a land unit and which serve as a basis for classifying the suitability
of land for a given use. Many factors affect the performance of a LUT on a given land unit; in
suitability classification some are 'class-determining' and others are not. Some factors affect a
crop, its irrigation and management, rather uniformily across all land units in the study area, or
cause unimportant variations. In contrast, 'class-determining' factors lead to major differences in
physical land productivity or benefits and costs on different land units for a given LUT. In land
evaluation, only the most important factors (i.e. those that are prospective class-determining
ones) need be assessed and these can usually be progressively short-listed or aggregated into
estimates of yields, benefits or costs to evaluate the land suitability classes.
Individual factors, that may or may not be selected as 'class-determining' in any given
evaluation, can be grouped according to how they affect:
a. Crop yields or production (i.e. agronomic factors)

b. Management
c. Land development or land improvement
d. Conservation and the environment
e. Social and economic conditions
These five broad groupings are subdivided to give a list of 32 factors that may be 'class-
determining', in Table 12, Chapter 4. Each factor, and their interactions are discussed in detail
in Part Two of this bulletin.
Many factors may be represented in terms of the requirements or limitations of the cropping,
management and irrigation systems, and are influenced, for better or worse, by land
characteristics. Some land use requirements and limitations, such as fertilizer requirements or
drainage requirements are represented as inputs or land improvements, rather than as land
characteristics. Thus, land characteristics and land qualities are attributes of the land.Land
use requirements and limitations (more strictly, requirements and limitations of the LUT) are
attributes of the land use. Many social and economic factors and some economic considerations
(e.g. farmers' attitudes) are neither attributes of the land use nor the land, but none-the-less
may be 'class-determining'.
v. LAND USE REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITATIONS: These are factors that may or may not be
'class-determining' and that are required for, or limit, the performance of a LUT on a land unit
(Subsection 4.2.2, Table 12). Land characteristics, inputs and land improvements interact to
satisfy or influence the requirement or limitation.
Examples: Water requirements of a crop, land levelling requirement of an irrigation method,

erosion limitation (see list in Table 12).
vi. LAND CHARACTERISTICS: These are any measurable features of land that can be used to
characterize a land unit.
13
Examples: Mean annual rainfall, slope class, soil texture, etc.
vii. LAND QUALITIES: These are descriptors of land in relation to land use. For example, water
availability or water deficiency imply a relationship between water supply and water requirement
but as an attribute of the land. Land qualities represent complex hierarchical interactions
ranging from water availability, nutrient availability, to crop yielding ability, drainability, erodibility,
etc. In general, land qualities are the interactions affecting the performance of a LUT.
Note that land qualities are land conditions that affect the LUT, whereas corresponding land
use requirements and limitations are the conditions, inputs and land improvements required
for, or limiting the cropping, irrigation or management system.
viii. SPECIFICATIONS OF THE LUT: The conditions required for the satisfactory performance
of a cropping, irrigation and management system should be specified prior to land survey.
These specifications comprise critical ranges, bounded by critical limits, and specify for
individual class-determining factors, the land use requirements and limitations at different levels
of suitability.
ix. CRITICAL LIMITS: The critical limits of a class-determining factor mark boundaries between
s1, s2, s3, n1 and n2 levels of suitability for individualfactors, or a single group of factors, in
the evaluation of the suitability of a land unit for a LUT. They can be set using the guidelines
given in Part Two of this bulletin.
x. FACTOR RATINGS: Factor ratings, namely, s1, s2, s3, n1 and n2, indicate, in terms of a
single factor, or a single interaction of a group of factors, whether the land is highly suited,
moderately suited, marginally suited, marginally not suited, or permanently not suited,
respectively, for a given LUT. (Note that lower case letters are used to avoid confusion with land
suitability classes mentioned in iii.)
xi. MATCHING: This term is used in two senses. In its broadest sense 'matching' is the
adjustment of the land by inputs and improvements to match the requirements and limitations of
the LUT. Conversely, it is the adjustment of the LUT to match more closely the conditions of the
land.
In a more restricted sense, matching is the comparison between the land conditions (land
qualities or land characteristics), and the requirements or limitations of the LUT, to give factor
ratings. Thus, factor by factor, each class-determining factor is given a factor rating, s1, s2, s3,
n1 and n2.
Example: Assume critical limits corresponding to s3 for the factor 'Rooting' are a soil depth
range limited by 50-100 cm under LUT A. Land unit 1 has a soil depth of, say, 75 cm. This falls
within these critical limits, therefore, the factor rating for land unit 1 with LUT A = s3 (see
Chapter 6, Example 1).
xii. FACTOR SIGNIFICANCE: This indicates whether an individual factor, or interaction, is Very
Important (VI), Moderately Important (MI), Less Important (LI), or Not Important (NI) in deciding
the land suitability class from factor ratings (see Section 6.3).
xiii. MEASURES OF SUITABILITY: The land suitability classes can be defined in terms of
various physical, financial or economic indicators. A land productivity index based on relative
14
yields is described as an example of a physical measure of land class in Section 2.4. Net farm
income, and net incremental irrigation benefit are also defined in Section 2.4 and may be
used as economic measures of land suitability class.

The main procedures for evaluating and classifying land should comprise:
i. The study of relevant existing information and, wherever practicable, field appraisals of land
conditions and experiences in a fully developed area having physical, climatic and socio-
economic conditions similar to the area under investigation.
ii. The selection of cropping, irrigation and management alternatives and the description of
prospective land utilization types (LUTs) for evaluation (Chapter 4).
iii. The selection of types of data required for the evaluation and the preparation of a land
resource inventory (Chapter 5).
iv. The selection of class-determining factors having significance from a physical and economic
standpoint, and the specification of critical limits to designate factor ratings and land suitability
categories (see Step-by-Step Guide, Chapter 3, also Chapter 6, and Part Two).
v. The classification and mapping of 'provisionally-irrigable' land (see Sections 2.2 and 2.3.5,
also Chapters 6 and 7).
vi. Modification of the 'provisionally-irrigable' classification as additional pertinent physical,

engineering, hydrologic and economic information is obtained assisted where necessary by
updated class-determining factors and critical limits.
vii. The classification and mapping of the 'irrigable' land delineating the location of the specific
lands found to be suitable for irrigation development under a project plan.
Some of the above aspects are now discussed.
Wherever possible, preliminary studies should be undertaken to reduce the guesswork in land
evaluation investigations. The most reliable guide to crop performance and future management
15
problems is often experience in a locality with similar physical, climatic and socio-economic
conditions to those of the area to be developed. If there is little or no previous experience of the
proposed cropping or irrigation practices in the locality, two approaches are possible: first,
comparative studies, recognizing relevant similarities and differences on a worldwide basis
(Higgins and Kassam 1981), and second, a programme of agronomic work on representative
land units, together with soil, topographic and drainage studies including laboratory tests and
analyses. Experimental work started early in an irrigation development programme often proves
of value during the later operation and management of the irrigation project, as well as during
the later stages of land evaluation.
In reconnaissance and project preparation studies there may be many land use alternatives.
Major kinds of land (e.g. extensive agriculture, intensive agriculture) may be later subdivided to
identify LUTs, first at a general level and later, during semi-detailed survey, in more detail. A
checklist to assist in the description of LUTs is given in Chapter 4, Table 10. In some
evaluations the choice of LUTs, that is of cropping, irrigation and management systems, is a
major product of the study. In other evaluations the LUTs may be obvious from the outset (e.g.
irrigated rice, irrigated sugarcane, irrigated tree crops), or only irrigation methods may have to
be decided (e.g. surface, sprinkler or drip).
Checklists are given in Chapter 5 of data necessary; for a general characterization of the project
area including inventories from surveys of topography, soils, climate, water resources, drainage,
vegetation and fauna, present land use, and socio-economic conditions. Guidelines on how to
carry out the inventory are provided in other publications (see references in the appropriate
sections).
Three sets of information are obtained from surveys of land resources:
i. definitions and descriptions of land units;

ii. maps showing the distribution of these land units;
iii. values of land characteristics of the land units.
The land units may be soil series or phases on specified slope categories in detailed surveys or
land systems and land facets in less detailed surveys. They are described in terms of climate,
relief, soils, vegetation and present land use. The results of water resources studies at national,
basin, project or village, farm or field level (see Table 2) may include data on hydrology,
hydrogeology, and irrigation water supply or requirement. These data will be progressively
refined and developed during the course of the evaluation.
The agronomic, management, land development, conservation and socio-economic factors that
may affect the production or cost of crop production of LUTs on the land units, may be selected
from the list given in Table 12, Chapter 4. In the early stages of evaluation, it is usual to
consider a large number of factors, but during the study it will be apparent that many factors
affecting the cropping, irrigation and management systems, do so relatively uniformly or without
16
important variations across all the land units under study. Other factors will be short-listed
because they may be 'class-determining' and their critical limits for factor ratings in the matching
of a land unit in terms of its suitability for a LUT will need to be decided (see Chapters 3, 6 and
Part Two).
These two types of classification have been defined in Section 2.2 (iii). Separate classifications,
first of 'provisionally-irrigable' land and later of 'irrigable' land may be required at successive
stages of the evaluation. In the early stages of irrigation investigations, the amount of water
available for irrigation and the exact locations to which water can be economically transported
are often uncertain. The suitability of the land must therefore be classified on condition that
water can be supplied to it. Only later, when the studies of water supply systems and economics
are completed will it be certain whether the land can be irrigated or not. In this publication, land
for which the supply is not yet assured and for which land development costs and benefits are
unclear, is classified as 'provisionally-irrigable', and land that could be supplied with water under
a project plan is 'irrigable'. The appropriate measures of suitability for each classification are
explained in Section 2.4 and Chapter 7.
The above distinction between 'provisionally-irrigable' and 'irrigable' are similar to the USBR's
use of 'arable' and 'irrigable' land (Chapter 10 and Glossary). However, it should be noted that
the USBR does not normally use the water supply as a class-determining factor (except for its
quality). The FAO Framework includes water supply (water quantity, quality, and seasonality)
among the resources of the land, and the land evaluator may or may not choose to classify land
suitability according to whether the volume of water is sufficient, the period of year during which
it is available, and the cost of conveying water to the different tracts of land.
One of the main advantages of the 'provisionally-irrigable' classification is that it contributes,

early in the study, to the formulation of the project plan, and to the separation of land that is
suitable for irrigation, from land that is not. The delineation of an 'irrigable' area from land
already classified as Suitable under a 'provisionally-irrigable' classification leads to reductions in
land area under the plan of development. Typical adjustments include:
i. elimination of uneconomic increments of land such as those that are too costly to serve, drain
or provide with distribution works;
ii. adjustment of land areas to the available water supply;
iii. elimination of tracts of land located above water surface delivery elevations, or elevations
which cannot be feasibly irrigated by lift;
iv. exclusion of isolated segments, odd-shaped tracts, and severed areas that cannot be
efficiently fitted into a farm unit;
v. deletion of proposed public rights-of-way;
vi. elimination of areas unable to meet minimal criteria for economic returns under the plan;
vii. elimination of land for socio-economic reasons including land tenure, water rights, etc.
17
In establishing land suitability classes, the physical and economic standard defining the lowest
quality land that can be considered as Suitable under a 'provisionally-irrigable' classification
should be specified as early as possible in the investigations. This boundary (or cut-off) between
Suitable and Not Suitable is progressively revised eliminating marginal lands as new data on
water supply and project investment costs become available until the 'irrigable' lands are
defined.

Land suitability classes (i.e. S1, S2, S3, N1, N2) can be defined by various physical or economic
indices or measures of suitability. Three convenient measures of suitability which lend
themselves to progressive application as data become more readily available are suggested
below: i) land productivity index, ii) net farm income, and iii) net incremental irrigation benefit.
i. Land Productivity Index: In this bulletin, this is defined as the physical productivity of land for a
specific land use, relative to that of the best land.Relative yield can be a convenient land
productivity index. This is the yield per hectare relative to that of the best land as a percentage
or fraction. Thus the top yields of Class S1 land for a given LUT may be taken as 100% or 1.0,
the top of s2 as a fraction of S1 (e.g. 80% or 0.8), S3 as 0.6, etc. as appropriate. Other
standards such as absolute yields or relative production can be used as alternative measures of
physical productivity. Productivity may be for a present or potential suitability classification. It
would normally be necessary to use a physical land productivity index in reconnaissance
studies and as a necessary preliminary to economic evaluation.
ii. Net farm income: This is a convenient measure of land suitability class for 'provisionally-
irrigable' land. Net farm income is defined as the value obtained by subtracting both the variable
and fixed costs from the gross value of production. At the 'provisionally-irrigable' stage of the
investigations the commonproject costs are generally not known and are not taken into
account in estimating net farm income. Net farm income may be calculated for 'without project'
and 'with project' situations. At the 'provisionally-irrigable' stage it will often suffice to base the
classification on the 'with project' net farm income. However, this lacks the refinement
necessary for detailed project planning and analysis and 'provisionally-irrigable' land may
include marginally suitable land that can be eliminated by further project economic analysis and
land classification mapping during the final classification of 'irrigable' land. To ensure maximum
consistency with the final classification it is convenient to express net farm income in 'economic'
rather than 'financial' terms (see Chapter 7).
iii. Net Incremental Irrigation Benefit (NIIB): This is the standard required for measuring the
suitability of 'irrigable' land in the final classification. NIIB is a measure of the
potential increase in productivity of a unit area of land when developed under a project plan,
expressed in economic terms, such as an Annual Equivalent Value. It is derived by estimating
the difference in net benefit accruing to a unit area of land under 'with' and 'without' project
situations taking into account:
a. farm investment and operating costs, and returns ordinarily accruing from the agricultural use
of the land;
b. all project investment, operating and maintenance costs (including a share of common project
costs and area-specific land development costs, whether or not these are paid for by the
farmer).
18
Further explanatory details are given in Chapter 7.
Land evaluation using the above three measures of suitability becomes progressively refined
and more detailed as the investigations move from reconnaissance through to the proposing of
a specific plan of development. However, it is important to understand that the classes into
which given land unit-LUT combinations fall, may differ abruptly according to the index used.
The land productivity index does not take into account prices or costs of production, and net
farm income does not take account of the increase or increment in moving from a 'without' to a
'with' project situation. Generally there will be a progressive elimination of the marginally
suitable lands as the investigations intensify until the 'irrigable' lands are delineated. Examples
of the implications of the above are given as follows.
Consider, for example, two LUTs A & B based respectively on a high and low value crop, e.g.
vegetables and grain. In terms of a land productivity index a land unit may, say, be classed S1
for both crops. The S1 for LUT A may indicate that the vegetables would yield 20 t/ha on this
land unit. The S1 for LUT B may indicate that the grain would yield 3 t/ha. (It is also conceivable
that this land unit with a third LUT C, e.g. irrigated rice, might fall into class N1; illustrating
incidentally, that the land suitability class must relate to a specified land use.)
If monetary values are introduced in the above example, there is a common basis for comparing
the LUTs on a land unit, one with another. The high value vegetables (LUT A) might, say,
remain classified as S1 using net farm income. The low value grain crop (LUT B) might fall into
a lower class, say, N1 on the basis of net farm income, even though the grain crop is S1 in
physical terms on this particular land unit. Such consequences must be anticipated where net
farm income is used as a standard instead of physical productivity.
In classifying 'irrigable' land, the existing agriculture, the project costs (common project costs
and area-specific land development costs) must be taken into account to arrive at NIIB as
defined in paragraph iii. If the land unit already produces, say, vegetables without irrigation, it
may have an existing high net farm income per hectare for the 'without' project situation. Thus,
although LUT A based on irrigated vegetables may be S1 on both the above two criteria (a land
productivity index and net farm income), the increment in net farm income from investment in
irrigation may be small and the additional project costs may not be worthwhile. The land may be
downgraded using NIIB, for example, to S3, or even to N1. The land unit for LUT A (irrigated
vegetables) may be highly suitable in physical terms or in terms of net farm income, but the
proposed development is not viable because of the limited or negligible incremental net benefit.
The land productivity and economic measures of suitability described above are usually
expressed as production or value per hectare. However, it is also possible to evaluate the
suitability of land on the basis of a value per volume of water. This may be appropriate where
the water supply systems are proposed as additional in a rehabilitation project. Rather than
expressing NIIB as a value per hectare it could be expressed as a value per cubic meter of
water delivered to each hectare. (In many places water is priced volumetrically.) In using the
value per volume of water method of attributing benefits, the land can be classified as if it were
receiving a full supply of irrigation water, with the land classification expressing values
equivalent to a full water supply project.
Further details of the economic evaluation of land suitability are given in Chapter 7. Economic
considerations need to be introduced from the very outset of the land suitability classification
with increasing degrees of refinement in successive iterations as suggested above.
19
3. A step-by-step guide to the procedures
The main steps in land evaluation are summarized below as a guide to field work and
classification. The principles, terminology and outline procedures have already been described
in Chapters 1 and 2. Details of each of the following steps are elaborated in later Chapters as
indicated for each step. Data record sheets (Formats) that can be filled in during the evaluation
are given in Tables 4-9 (Formats 1-5) and these can be modified, enlarged, simplified or copied
for field work.
A progression from a 'provisionally-irrigable' to an 'irrigable' classification is assumed in the

following steps. The steps can be readily modified if an alternative approach is used. The
appropriate type of classification, and the measure of suitability to be used (i.e. land productivity
index, net farm income or net incremental irrigation benefit) must be decided prior to each
evaluation.

i. Deciding the land utilization types (LUTs) to evaluate (explained in Section 4.1).
Step 1: Land is evaluated with respect to its suitability for a given land use. Decide the
alternative land uses (i.e. LUTs or farming systems) of interest and prepare to evaluate each of
these separately.
Step 2: Describe the LUTs. For each LUT, complete a description based on headings given in
Table 10.
ii. Developing the land suitability class specification (explained in Section 4.2).
Step 3: From the list of agronomic, management, land development, conservation,

environmental and socio-economic factors given in Table 12, select the relevant 'class-
determining' factors that can be expected to have some influence on the suitability of land for
the given LUT and that may vary from land unit to land unit.
Step 4: For each selected 'class-determining' factor, enter the appropriate land use requirement
or limitation on Format 1.
Step 5: Quantify 'critical limits' corresponding to s1, s2, s3, n1 and n2 levels of suitability for
individual land use requirements and limitations. These are the specifications for each factor in
terms of the requirements and limitations of the LUT. These specifications may be represented
by appropriate land qualities, or their representative land characteristics, together with the inputs
and land improvements that influence productivity index, net farm income or NIIB. Enter the
'critical limits' on Format 1 thus separating the suitability levels for each individual factor.
20
iii. Field survey and mapping of 'provisionally-irrigable' classes and subclasses (see Chapters 5-
7)
Step 6: Survey, delineate and describe the land units. Prepare a map of the land units, with a
legend numbering the land units which can also accommodate the symbols for the land
suitability classes.
Step 7: For each land unit, decide which land qualities and land characteristics are 'class-
determining' with respect to the requirements and limitations of the LUT(s). For each land unit,
complete Format 2 entering the appropriate values of the land qualities and land characteristics
(see Procedures for Land Resource Inventory, Chapter 5).
Step 8: Match 'critical limits' of each land use requirement or limitation (i.e. from the
specifications on Format 1), with the conditions found in the land unit (i.e. Format 2) to obtain a
factor rating of s1, s2, s3, n1 or n2 for each combination of LUT and land unit. Enter the factor
rating on Format 3. Assumptions about inputs, land improvements and their benefits and costs
should also be indicated (see Example 2 in Section 6.5).
Step 9: Decide the relative 'Significance' of each 'class-determining' factor (or of a group of
interacting factors) by entering Very Important, Moderately Important, Less Important or Not
Important, as appropriate, in the column headed 'Significance' (Format 3) (see Section 6.3).
Step 10: Combine individual 'class-determining' factor ratings to obtain a tentative land
suitability classification for each LUT on each land unit. Interactions between factors (Section
6.2) and 'Significance' (Section 6.3) must be taken into account in this step. Estimates of crop
yield and economic benefit/costs, according to the guidelines in Chapter 7, may be needed to
assign the classes and subclasses. Enter the tentative land suitability class and subclass (S1,
S2, S3, N1 or N2 etc.) at the bottom of Format 3 or on the map.
Step 11: Where necessary, adjust the LUT description, or introduce inputs or land
improvements, and repeat steps 1-10 until the most practicable cropping, irrigation and
management farming system is obtained (the need for such iteration can be entered on Format
3).
iv. Presentation of the results of the 'provisionally-irrigable' classification
Step 12: Take the final set of 'provisionally-irrigable' classes and subclasses in Step 11 and
present them for all the combinations of LUTs with land units on Format 4a or 4b (Tables 7 and
8). (Note that Format 4 can be presented in two ways, to show either the classes of all the land
units for a single LUT or, alternatively, the suitability of a single land unit for all the LUTs.)
- describe each LUT in terms of cropping, irrigation and management systems and using
descriptors given in Table 10;
- provide maps of 'provisionally-irrigable' land with legends as indicated on Format 5 (Table 9);
- indicate land development, inputs and management recommendations for each combination of
LUT-land unit;
- present the results from basic surveys including maps and descriptions of land units;
21
- write a summary of the recommendations.
v. Determination and mapping of 'irrigable' land
Step 13: Revise the cropping, irrigation and management in an updated description of the LUT
for specific land units. Revise the specifications and critical limits in the light of new information
on water supply and economic data. Proceed to revise the classification to determine which
areas of the 'provisionally-irrigable' land can actually be irrigated under an economically and
financially viable project plan (see Chapter 7).
Step 14: Repeat mapping as in Step 6, with additional field survey as necessary, changing land
unit boundaries and earlier mapped symbols as necessary.
Step 15: Complete the mapping, tabulations and present the results of the classification of
'irrigable' land.
Step 16: Based on the recommendations in Step 15, participate with other technicians in the
project investigation to establish patterns of land use for the project reflecting the likely situation
with the project at full development. With land use options thus reduced to a recommended and
likely single LUT on each land unit for the 'with' project situation, prepare maps and tabulations
of the 'irrigable' land classification for the project. The predicted economic results of each LUT
can be incorporated in the overall economic analysis for the project.
Step 17: Prepare reports for investment and management such as are necessary.
The following data record sheets (Formats 1-5) are given in the succeeding pages:
Format 1: Specifications of Land Use Requirements and Limitations.
Format 2: Land Qualities and Land Characteristics Describing a Land Unit.
Format 3: Factor Ratings to Match a LUT and a Land unit. Format 4: Grouped Factor Ratings
for LUTs on a Specified Land Unit.
Format 5: Land Areas by Suitability Classes for Specified LUTs (for adaptation).
Formats 1-3 are those that prove most important in carrying out the evaluation in the field.
Formats 4a and 4b present the same data in alternative ways and are not essential.
Format 5 can be adapted appropriately to present the results of reconnaissance, provisionally-

irrigable, or irrigable classifications.
Table 4 FORMAT 1: SPECIFICATIONS OF LAND USE REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITATIONS
LUT Name: LUT Description

CLASS-DETERMINING REVELANT LAND INPUTS AND CRITICAL
REQUIREMENTS OR QUALITY OR LAND LAND UNIT OF LIMITS OR
LIMITATIONS (Delete CHARACTERISTIC IMPROVEMENTS MEASUREMENT RANGES
factors that are not REQUIRED s1 s2 s3 n1 n2
22
selected as class-
determining)
A. Crop (agronomic)
requirements or
limitations
1. Growing period
requirement
2. Radiation
requirement
3. Temperature
requirement
4. Rooting requirement
5. Aeration requirement
6. Water requirement
7. Nutritional
requirements (NPK)
8. Water quality
limitation
9. Salinity limitation
10. Sodicity limitation
11. pH, micronutrients
and toxicities
12. Pest, disease, weed
limitations
13. Flood, storm, wind,
frost, hail limitations
B. Management
requirements and
limitations
14. Location
15. Water application
management
requirements
16. Pre-harvest farm
management
requirements
17. Harvest and post-
harvest requirements
18. Requirements for
mechanization
C. Land development or
improvement
requirements or
limitations
19. Land clearing
requirements
20. Flood protection
requirements
23
21. Drainage
requirements
22. Land grading
requirements
23. Physical, chemical,
organic aids and
amendments
24. Leaching
requirements
25. Reclamation period
26. Irrigation
engineering needs
D. Conservation and
environmental
requirements and
limitations
27. Long-term salinity,
sodicity hazard
28. Ground or surface
water hazard
29. Long-term erosion
hazard
30. Environmental
hazard
E. Socio-economic
requirements or
limitations
31. Farmers' attitudes to
irrigation
32. Others that are
class-determining
Note: s1, s2, s3, n1 and n2 denote decreasing suitability levels for single factors or their
interactions. See Table 12 and Section 6.5 Example 2.
Table 5 FORMAT 2: LAND QUALITIES AND LAND CHARACTERISTICS DESCRIBING A

LAND UNIT WITH AN ASSESSMENT OF INPUTS AND LAND IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED
LAND CHARACTERISTIC
CLASS DETERMINING OR QUALITY VALUE INPUTS AND
FACTORS: - land quality UNIT OF IMPROVEMENTS
or characteristic - inputs MEASUREMENT FUTURE ASSUMED FOR LUT A,
or improvements PRESENT UNDER B, C etc.
IRRIGATION
e.g.
7. NUTRITION (NPK)
- Total N depth 0-25 cm % 0.05 0.5
- Available P (Olsen) mg/l 10
- Exchangeable K me/100 g 0.6
Fertilizer requirement kg/ha
N 200 kg/ha
24
P nil
K nil
For further example of the use of this format see Section 6.5, Example 2.
Table 6 FORMAT 3: FACTOR RATINGS TO MATCH A LUT AND A LAND UNIT
FORMAT 3: Factor LUT name:

ratings
Name of evaluator: Land unit no.
CLASS-DETERMINING LAND CHARACTERISTICS, FACTOR SIGNIFICANCE COMMENTS
FACTORS (Delete INPUTS AND IMPROVEMENTS RATING
others) ASSUMED
A. Crop (agronomic)
1. Growing period
2. Radiation
3. Temperature
4. Rooting
5. Aeration
6. Water quantity
7. Nutrition (NPK)
8. Water quality
9. Salinity
10. Sodicity
11. pH, micronutrients
and toxicities
13. Flood, storm, wind,
frost
B. Management
14. Location
15. Water application
management
16. Pre-harvest farm
management
17. Harvest and post -
harvest
18. Mechanization
C. Land development
19. Land clearing
21. Drainage
22. Land grading
23. Physical, chemical,
organic aids and
amendments
24. Leaching
25
26. Irrigation
engineering
D. Conservation and
environment
27. Long-term salinity,
sodicity
28. Ground or surface
water hazard
29. Long-term erosion
hazard
30. Environmental
hazard
E. Socio-economic
31. Farmers' attitudes to
irrigation
32. Others that are
class-determining
TENTATIVE LAND CLASSIFICATION TYPE:
SUITABILITY
CLASS AND
SUBCLASS:
FINAL LAND NEED FOR ITERATION:
SUITABILITY
CLASS AND
SUBCLASS:
s1, s2, s3, n1 and n2 denote decreasing suitability levels for single factors or for specified interactions.
Significance is given as Very Important, Moderately Important, Less Important and Not Important in
aggregating the factor ratings to give the land suitability class. For example see Section 6.5, Example 2.
Table 7 FORMAT 4a: GROUPED FACTOR RATINGS FOR LUTs ON A SPECIFIED LAND
UNIT
FORMAT 4a: Land unit no: Name of evaluator:

Description of land unit:
FACTOR RATINGS
CLASS-DETERMINING FACTORS LUT LUT LUT LUT LUT LUT LUT
A B C D E F G
A. Crop (agronomic)
1. Growing period
2. Radiation
3. Temperature
4. Rooting
5. Aeration
6. Water quantity
7. Nutrition (NPK)
8. Water quality
9. Salinity
26
10. Sodicity
11. pH, micronutrients and toxicities
13. Flood, storm, wind, frost
B. Management
14. Location
15. Water application management
16. Pre-harvest farm management
17. Harvest and post-harvest
18. Mechanization
C. Land development
19. Land clearing
21. Drainage
22. Land grading
23. Physical, chemical, organic aids and
amendments
24. Leaching
26. Irrigation engineering
D. Conservation and environment
27. Long-term salinity, sodicity
28. Ground or surface water hazard
29. Long-term erosion hazard
30. Environmental hazard
E. Socio-economic
31. Farmers' attitudes to irrigation
32. Others that are class-determining
TENTATIVE LAND SUITABILITY CLASS AND SUBCLASS:
FINAL LAND SUITABILITY CLASS AND SUBCLASS:
Assumptions about inputs and land improvements:
Note that information from several Formats 3 can be assembled on this Format.
Table 8 FORMAT 4b: GROUPED FACTOR RATINGS FOR LAND UNITS FOR A SPECIFIED
LUT
FORMAT 4b: Name of LUT: Name of evaluator:

Description of LUT:
FACTOR RATINGS
CLASS-DETERMINING FACTORS
LU 1 LU 2 LU 3 LU 4 LU 5 LU 6 LU 7
A. Crop (agronomic)
1. Growing period
2. Radiation
3. Temperature
4. Rooting
27
5. Aeration
6. Water quantity
7. Nutrition (NPK)
8. Water quality
9. Salinity
10. Sodicity
11. pH, micronutrients and toxicities
13. Flood, storm, wind, frost
B. Management
14. Location
15. Water application management
16. Pre-harvest farm management
17. Harvest and post - harvest
18. Mechanization
C. Land development
19. Land clearing
21. Drainage
22. Land grading
23. Physical, chemical, organic aids and amendments
24. Leaching
26. Irrigation engineering
D. Conservation and environment
27. Long-term salinity, sodicity
28. Ground or surface water hazard
29. Long-term erosion hazard
30. Environmental hazard
E. Socio-economic
31. Farmers' attitudes to irrigation
32. Others that are class-determining
TENTATIVE LAND SUITABILITY CLASS AND SUBCLASS:
FINAL LAND SUITABILITY CLASS AND SUBCLASS:
Assumptions about inputs and land improvements:
Note that information from several Formats 3 can be assembled on this Format.
Table 9 FORMAT 5: LAND AREAS BY SUITABILITY CLASSES FOR SPECIFIED LUTs (ha)
(FOR ADAPTATION)
FORMAT 5:
INTENSITIES OF RECONNAISSANCE 'PROVISIONALLY- 'IRRIGABLE' LAND VIABLE
INVESTIGATION 1/ IRRIGABLE LAND' UNDER PROJECT
MEASURES OF LAND PRODUCTIVITY NET FARM INCOME NET INCREMENTAL
SUITABILITY INDEX IRRIGATION BENEFIT 2/
28
Land suitability S1 S2 S3 N1 N2 S1 S2 S3 N1 N2 V1 V2 V3 N1 N2
classes Relative yield 3/ Net farm income $/ha NIIB $/ha
LUT land unit 1.0 to 0.9 to 0.7 to 0.6 <0.4
combinations 0.9 0.7 0.6 to
0.4
AREA IN HECTARES
LUT A LU 1
" LU 2
" LU 3
" LU 4
" LU 5
" LU 6
" LU 7
" LU 8
etc.
LUT A Total
Area
AREA IN HECTARES
LUT B LU 1
" LU 2
" LU 3
" LU 4
" LU 5
" LU 6
" LU 7
" LU 8
etc.
LUT B Total
Area
1/ Note that areas of land surveyed at increasing levels of intensity would normally diminish
from reconnaissance to 'irrigable'. At reconnaissance level fewer land classes would normally
suffice.
2/ V1, V2, V3, etc. denotes that the land and land use is economically viable under a plan of
development, but S1, S2, S3 may be used if preferred.
3/ Relative yields indicated are examples only.
4. Deciding the land utilization types to evaluate and

developing the land suitability class specifications

29
This Chapter covers Steps 1 to 5 of the guide to the procedures outlined in Chapter 3, and
concerns the choice of alternative farming systems (LUTs) and the requirements and limitations
of these LUTs.

The first two steps elaborated in the first part of this Chapter have already been listed in Chapter
3, i.e.
Step 1: Land is evaluated with respect to its suitability for a given land use. Decide the alternative land
uses (i.e. LUTs or farming systems) of interest and prepare to evaluate each of these separately.
Step 2: Describe the LUTs. For each LUT, complete a description based on headings given in Table 10.
The activities in land evaluation that are specifically concerned with the choice and evaluation of
cropping, irrigation and management systems (i.e. with land use) start with decisions about the
alternative LUTs that will be separately evaluated.
The FAO Framework recognizes two levels of detail at which land use is defined:
- A major kind of land use represents a major subdivision of rural land use such as extensive
agriculture, intensive agriculture, grassland, forestry, or recreation.
- A land utilization type (LUT) is a kind of land use defined in more detail, according to a set of
technical descriptors (see Table 10) in a given physical, economic and social setting. (Note the
similarity between the terms 'LUT' and 'farming system' in an agricultural context.)
Land utilization types (or farming systems) are described in as much detail and precision as the
purpose requires. In low intensity studies their descriptions may be general and short, while
later during more intensive studies the detail included in the description increases.
The FAO Framework distinguishes between single, multiple and compound LUTs:
- A single LUT specifies only one kind of use undertaken on an area of land (e.g. irrigated rice,
or irrigated sugarcane, or irrigated tree crops).
- A multiple LUT specifies more than one kind of use simultaneously undertaken on the same
area of land, each use having its own inputs, requirements and produce. An example is irrigated
rice grown under coconuts in parts of South-east Asia.
30
- A compound LUT specifies more than one kind of use sequentially undertaken on the same
area of land. Examples are winter and summer cropping of wheat and cotton in irrigated areas
of the Middle East; or wet season rice followed by other crops in the dry season, in South Asia.
Table 10 CHECKLIST OF HEADINGS FOR DESCRIPTION OF LAND UTILIZATION TYPES
HEADINGS DESCRIPTIONS
i. Cropping system Single, multiple or compound LUT. Crops grown, cultivars, cropping calendar,
cropping intensity. Perennial cropping systems, cultivation factor, cropping
index. (See Glossary)
ii. Markets Subsistence, commercial or both, domestic or export, or both.
iii. Water supply Seasonal supply and quality.
iv. Irrigation method 1/ Gravity or lift, run-of-river or storage releases, surface, overhead, drip, etc.
v. Capital intensity Value of capital investment and recurring costs per ha.
vi. Labour intensity Family and hired labour, man-months per ha, seasonal peak periods,
festivities and holidays
vii. Technical skills and Experience, response to innovation and change, literacy
attitudes
viii. Power Extent of human, animal and tractor power impact on land preparation,
harvesting, etc.
ix. Mechanization and Which operations are mechanized or partly mechanized.
farm operations
x. Size and shape of Farm size, size by LUTs, fragmentation of holdings, rainfed and irrigated
farms areas.
xi. Land tenure Freehold: family farm, corporately owned estate.
Tenancy: cash rent tenancy,, labour tenancy, share cropping.
Communal ownership: cooperative (collective) farming, village land with rights
to cultivate, etc.
State ownership: state farm, national park.
xii. Water rights State or private ownership, traditional purchases and sales of water. Local
laws (e.g. FAO, 1978).
xiii. Infrastructure Assumptions about processing facilities, storage depots, markets, access to
farm inputs. Roads, housing, schools, medical facilities, electricity, domestic
water supplies. Research and extension services and facilities.
xiv. Irrigation Assumptions about irrigation and drainage infrastructure and access to
infrastructure irrigated land.
xv. Material inputs Prior assumptions about quantities and quality of inputs especially for seed,
planting material, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, etc.
xvi. Cultivation practices Preparation of land for irrigation including clearing.
Tillage operations (including duration for ploughing, levelling etc.)
Fertilizer application (timing and methods), weeding, crop protection,
harvesting and processing.
xvii. Livestock For traction, milk or meat, manure, forage requirements, including crop by-
products, field grazing, zero grazing, stall-fed, etc.
xviii. Associated rainfed Influence of LUT of competing rainfed agriculture, forestry agriculture, shifting
cultivation or agro-forestry, timber trade from land cleared for irrigation.
xix. Yields and Yields per unit area on S1 land (ceiling values for relative yield).
production Yields per unit of water (per m 3) especially during periods of water shortage.
31
(Specify mean yields with confidence limits, or ranges suitable for economic
and financial sensitivity analyses.)
Land equivalent ratio, income equivalent ratio.
xx. Environmental Public health problems (i.e. bilharzia, malaria, river blindness, diseases
impact transmitted by water).
Downstream effects on water supply and quality, siltation, flooding, etc.
Effects on wildlife conservation.
xxi. Economic Market prices, input costs and availabilities, subsidies, credit (see Section 5.9,
information Table 16).
1/ For the characteristics of surface, overhead, drip and other irrigation systems see Part 2,
Table B48.
Sometimes the LUT is obvious from the outset of the evaluation (e.g. irrigated rice). In other
projects the prospective alternative land uses are unclear at the start of the study and LUTs are
first identified in a tentative and general way. As the survey proceeds and as new quantitative
data are acquired, the LUTs are progressively defined in detail. The cropping, irrigation and
management aspects of the LUT are modified with inputs and land improvements to obtain a
satisfactory match between the requirements or limitations of the LUT, and the conditions of the
land. The aim of irrigation development projects is to leave the nation, community and farmers
better off, therefore it is also generally necessary to make a comparative evaluation of the
existing and proposed farming systems (i.e. LUTs without and with the project).
Table 10 gives a checklist of headings for the description of LUTs. Some of these descriptors
may be common to groups of LUTs, while others are specific to an individual LUT. The number
of aspects to be described, and the detail of descriptions under each heading, depends on the
scale and objectives of the survey. In rapid reconnaissance surveys, some descriptors may be
omitted or noted only briefly. Conversely, in intensive studies, the details under some headings
may run to a page or more.
A few brief descriptions of LUTs are given as illustrative examples as follows:
i. Irrigated rice (mapping symbol LUT-2R), two crops of 140-day short-strawed high yielding
cultivars; gravity, run-of-river water supply, no seasonal or annual shortages of water.
Smallholders with low capital reserves, using animal-drawn farm implements, high labour
intensity, 50% freehold farms, 50% tenants, farms about 1-2 ha. Subsistence and domestic
markets. Anticipated yields of 8 t/ha/yr of paddy rice on S1 land.
ii. Irrigated rice (wet season) followed by soybeans (dry season), mapping symbol LUT-RS. The
soybeans are relay planted and are grown chiefly on residual moisture after irrigation supplies
dry up. Yields are increased where supplementary groundwater is supplied from tubewells, but
this is only possible at some locations, hence water supply is 'class-determining' in the 'irrigable'
evaluation. Company estates, 150 ha farms, capital intensive, labour shortages, mechanized
tillage and harvest. Anticipated yields 3 t/ha paddy and 1.5 t/ha soybeans on S1 land.
iii. Irrigated winter crops (wheat, beans, clover) followed by irrigated summer crops (cotton,
maize, sorghum), mapping symbol LUT-WS. Cropping intensities anticipated of 175%.
Smallholder farms of 2.5 ha on leased reclaimed saline desert in government-owned
32
communally managed estates. Water supply (EC = 1.5 dS/m) to be pumped to 10 m elevation.
Water supplies are to be on a rotation at 7-day intervals. Mechanized land preparation but all
other operations by hand, farm inputs available but no credit. Parts of area near centres of
population can substitute vegetables in the rotation. Anticipated yields 50% of potential but
could improve with time. Potential yields on S1 land could be given in an accompanying table.
iv. Sprinkler irrigated sugarcane, mapping symbol LUT-SC. Nucleus estate of 4 000 ha
(outgrowers sugarcane described under a separate LUT). Anticipated capital investment in
years 1-3 of $6 000/ha, with annual recurrent costs of $500/ha from year 3. Three to four
ratoons, anticipated yields on S1 land from 90 t/ha for the first crop and decreasing to 60 t/ha for
the fourth ratoon. Private company in joint venture with government for the supply of sugar to
meet domestic requirements. Pumped water to be supplied following harvest until wet season
starts. Hand cutting, mechanized loading and transport, mechanized tillage. Factory milling and
the economics of processing is of importance in the economic evaluation of the irrigation
scheme.
v. Drip-irrigated citrus on farms of 10-80 ha, supplemental irrigation with rainfall in farmers' fields
expected to supply about one-third of the crop water requirement directly. Mapping symbol LUT-
DC. In dry years water will be withheld from certain areas of land and water supply reliability is a
'class-determining' factor. Water quality varies from EC = 1.0 to 3.5 dS/m, and together with
water supply affects yields which may vary from 7-50 t/ha for mature trees on land classed as
Suitable (precise cut-off point between S and N to be determined in the evaluation). Orchard life
40 years, intercropping in the first four years with winter crops (beans, vegetables, etc.) on
winter rainfall. Mechanized cultivation, labour shortages in the harvesting season, limited market
expansion expected.
vi. Spate irrigation of sorghum (mapping symbol LUT-SS). Rainfall 400 mm with a variation, i.e.
standard deviation of 250 mm. Irregular, largely uncontrolled water supply, 8 000 ha can receive
irrigation in a wet year, but generally very unreliable on about half the area. Competition for
water between potential users. Traditional water rights have been abused resulting in disputes.
Yields very dependant on soil water storage and residual water after irrigation, and range from
0-5 t grain/ha. Low capital investment, labour shortages, no mechanization. Resistance to
change, elaborate tenurial system. Land evaluation in relation to improvements in the diversion
structures.
The number of LUTs that can be separately evaluated in any investigation is limited. The
investigator may be faced with a choice between the selection of many detailed LUTs, or fewer
generalized LUTs. This can be illustrated by reference to Table 11 which lists a grouping of
LUTs in terms of broadly defined major groups, and progressively detailed subgroups and sub-
subgroups. The land evaluator has a choice between selecting the major headings, the
subheadings, or the sub-subheadings as LUTs. In this particular case, the cropping pattern is
closely linked to the available water supply at different times of the year. Land which can receive
water all-the-year round can support two crops of rice per year, whereas land which can receive
water for only part of the year can support only one rice crop followed by another food crop, or
with even less water, one crop of rice, only. The investigator has to choose, therefore, between
evaluating the water supply as a class-determining factor or specifying the water supply as a
descriptor of the LUT. The more general the LUT definition, the more important is the water
supply in the determination of land suitability classes, in this particular example.
33
A further problem in describing LUTs can arise in the choice between alternative irrigation
methods, for example, between surface irrigation and sprinkler irrigation. Surface irrigation
involves land development costs (land levelling, etc.) that are not incurred under sprinkler
irrigation, but the latter involves capital costs including pipes, sprinklers and pumping costs. If
the sprinkler investment costs are not set off against the land development costs for surface
irrigation, because they are described as part of the LUT, a false economic comparison could
result. Therefore, investment costs have to be considered as 'class-determining' alongside land
development costs where comparisons of this importance must be evaluated.
Table 11 LAND UTILIZATION TYPES IN BALI (IRRIGATED) 1/
1. IRRIGATED LANDS
1.1 Irrigated rice only
1.1.1 Two crops of local 140-160 day varieties per year 2/
1.1.2 Five crops of short duration 120 day varieties per two years
1.1.3 One crop of 140-160 day local variety followed by one crop of 120 day local or new variety per
year (where dry season water is limited)
1.1.4 One irrigated rice crop (wet season) and land fallow in dry season (where soil is unsuitable for
palawija crops and there is insufficient water for second rice crop)
1.2 Irrigated rice (wet season), irrigated or rainfed palawija (dry season) 3/
1.2.1 Rice, rice, palawija per year 4/
Irrigation of palawija dependent on water availability; often grown on residual moisture, e.g. rice,
rice, soybeans (relay planted)
1.2.2 Rice, palawija, palawija per year
The palawija is usually irrigated. Many combinations of crop are planted, e.g. rice, maize,
groundnuts
Rice, groundnuts, red onion
Rice, soybean, soybean
Rice, soybean, green gram
Rice, groundnut, groundnut
Rice, tobacco, red onion
Rice, soybean, cucumber
1.2.3 Rice followed by one relay-planted soybean crop per year
The irrigation of the soybean crop depends on rainfall and availability of stream water. Land is only
recultivated once each year
1.2.4 Rice followed by one palawija crop other than soybeans.
Rice, melons
Rice, cucumbers
1.3 Irrigated rice under coconuts
1.3.1 Rice (wet season), palawija or fallow (dry season)
1.3.2 Rice, rice per year
1.4 Irrigated palawija crops only Palawija crops rarely irrigated because of serious weed problems
1.5 1.5.1 Pure stand citrus
1.5.2 Citrus under-planted with maize, groundnuts and red onions
1/ Eavis and Walker 1976.
2/ Rice is usually transplanted under groups 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 but direct - seeding is a possible
future variant. Days refer to time from transplanting to harvest.
34
3/ Palawija is an Indonesian term that collectively refers to crops grown in rotation with rice, e.g.
maize, groundnuts, green gram (mung), tobacco, red onion, soybeans, sweet potato, melon,
cucumber etc.
4/ Generally relay-planted, i.e. sown in rice stubble or before rice is harvested, without any
cultivation.
In reconnaissance studies it may suffice to include inputs as a descriptor of the LUT rather than
as class-determining factors (e.g. LUT A with high inputs vs. LUT B with low inputs, etc.).
Further refinements in the evaluation of LUT A with high inputs, using net farm income or NIIB
would almost certainly necessitate incorporating the inputs or land improvements as class-
determining land use requirements and limitations (see Section 4.2).
The land evaluator must define his LUTs so that within any one LUT there will be variations in
physical productivity or in the economic measures of suitability of land, which can be designated
into different classes. One LUT may not produce as much net farm income or net incremental
irrigation benefit on a given land unit as another LUT, and may be downgraded on the basis of
economic criteria (see Section 2.4 and Chapter 7) unless appropriately combined into a multiple
or compound LUT.

4.2.4 Critical limits of 'class-determining' land use requirements and limitations
The land suitability classes (S1, S2, S3, N1, or N2) which express the suitability of land for a
specified use, can be evaluated in terms of a land productivity index based on physical
production (e.g. t/ha) or in terms of economic returns. Regardless of which measure of suitability
is used, the evaluation always involves decisions about the physical suitability of a land unit for
a given LUT. If the physical conditions of the land are uniquely related to the performance of
the land in terms of an economic index within any given project area, specifications can be set
down for each land suitability class in terms of the land characteristics. Thus the US Bureau of
Reclamation uses specifications of soils, topography and drainage characteristics
corresponding to each land class on the assumption that these are uniquely correlated with
estimated levels of net farm income or payment capacity.
In a worldwide context, the specification of land suitability classes in terms of a few universally
applicable land characteristics is not sound. The land conditions that are suited for the
production of crops vary from place to place. Different crops, irrigation methods and
management systems have differing requirements. Even within a project area combinations of
characteristics are often important (e.g. one soil type may be best at the top of a slope, and
another soil type best at the bottom of a slope in terms of a given crop or management
requirement or limitation). In developing class specifications, therefore, it is more appropriate in
35
the first instance, to specify the land suitability classes in terms of land use requirements and
limitations rather than directly in terms of land characteristics. The need for inputs and land
improvements should also be taken into account. Later, if good correlations are proven between
the land characteristics and the physical and economic indices of suitability, this process can be
short-circuited.
Following from Steps 1 and 2, given in Section 3.1, the next Steps 3-5 concern developing the
specifications of the requirements and limitations of the cropping, irrigation and management
systems of each LUT to be evaluated:
Step 3: From the list of agronomic, management, land development, conservation, environmental and
socio-economic factors given in Table 12, select the relevant 'class-determining' factors that can be
expected to have some influence on the suitability of land for the given LUT, and that may vary across
the land units under study.
Step 4: For each selected 'class-determining' factor, enter the appropriate land use requirement or
limitation on Format 1.
Step 5: Quantify 'critical limits' corresponding to s1, s2, s3, n1 and n2 levels of suitability for individual
land use requirements and limitations. These are the specifications for each factor in terms of the
requirements or limitations of the LUT. These specifications can be represented by appropriate land
qualities, or their representative land characteristics, together with the inputs and land improvements
which influence productivity, net farm income or NIIB. Enter the 'critical limits' on Format 1, thus
separating the suitability levels for each individual factor.
In setting up land suitability class specifications prior to an evaluation of land units for a LUT, the
investigator must decide which factors are 'class-determining'. Class-determining factors affect
the performance of the LUT on the land units under study, i.e. yields, benefits and costs.
Furthermore, they affect these differently on different land units, whereas a much larger number
of factors will affect the LUT equally or with only unimportant variations across all the land units
under study in a given evaluation. During an evaluation the number of factors that are class-
determining will be shortlisted, and later their influence will be aggregated in a yield or economic
index.
Individual factors, that may or may not be selected as 'class-determining' in any given
evaluation, can be grouped according to how they affect:
a. crop yields or crop production (i.e. agronomic factors)

b. management
c. land development or land improvement
d. conservation and the environment
e. social and economic conditions
These broad groups may be further subdivided for convenience to give a list of 32 individual
factors as shown in Table 12.
36
In the first instance, 'class-determining' factors can mostly be represented in terms of the
requirements or limitations of the cropping, irrigation and management systems described in a
LUT. The crops require light and suitable temperatures, a continuous supply of water and
nutrients, a suitable environment for root growth, suitable conditions in a seedbed for
germination, suitable land conditions for irrigation or for harvesting, mechanization, post-harvest
ripening, etc. Conversely, crops are variously limited by their susceptibilities or tolerances to
excess water, excess salts or toxicities, deficiencies, pests, frost, storms, etc. Similarly, irrigation
methods such as surface, sprinkler, or drip have their different requirements and limitations, as
do management systems (e.g. manual vs. mechanized). These are some of the land use
requirements and limitations that may be 'class-determining'.
The 'class-determining' land use requirements and limitations can be entered on Format 1.
4.2.4 Critical limits of 'class-determining' land use requirements and

limitations
The approach recommended is to indicate on Format 1, the critical ranges, bounded by critical
limits, that specify for each individual class-determining factor, the land use requirements and
limitations for different levels of suitability s1, s2, s3, n1 and n2. For example, the water
requirements of the cropping system can be specified as the depth of water and its timing to
meet evapotranspiration and other losses. If the requirement is not fully met, the crop yield will
be affected in a way that can be predicted using production functions such as for example, are
given in Part Two, Figure 11. Production functions describe the relationship between the
agronomic requirements and limitations and crop yield or quality as further discussed in Part
Two. Critical ranges for levels of suitability must be derived from such relationships.
Experimentally, good relationships have been found between the supply of water, nutrients, light
and heat to a crop and its growth and yield. However, the relationship between the performance
of a crop and land characteristics such as soil texture, structure, cation exchange capacity,
rainfall, slope class, drainage class, etc. are generally indirect and less clear. Nonetheless,
many requirements and limitations of the cropping, irrigation and management systems will be
influenced for better or worse by conditions of the land and can be specified as land qualities;
these land qualities can be represented by relevant groups of land characteristics. The latter
can be designated by the investigator as the feature of the land he can physically measure or
assess to assign 'critical limits'. Guidance on how to select land qualities and land
characteristics to represent the land use requirements and limitations is given in Part Two of this
bulletin.
The setting of critical limits in terms of each factor individually can be assisted by answering
three questions:
i. How do the conditions of the land (i.e. land qualities and land characteristics) relate to the land
use requirements and limitations?
ii. Should inputs (e.g. fertilizer, labour, etc.) or land improvements (e.g. land levelling, etc.) be
specified, and if so should these be included as part of the description of the LUT or as a 'class-
determining' factor due to a variable benefit/cost?
37
iii. What are the output:input relationships, first in physical terms (e.g. yield vs. water deficiency)
and secondly, in economic terms?
These questions are discussed in Part Two.
A list of land use requirements and limitations and their corresponding land qualities is given in
Table 12 and the relation between them will be immediately apparent. Some of the land
characteristics, inputs, land improvements and other considerations that influence the suitability
of a land unit for a given LUT, are also listed in Table 12.
Table 13 indicates how class-determining factors should be rated by setting critical limits for s1,
s2, s3, n1 and n2 levels of suitability.
Table 12 LIST OF CLASS-DETERMINING FACTORS (i.e. AS LAND USE REQUIREMENTS

OR LIMITATIONS OR AS LAND QUALITIES) WITH SOME LAND CHARACTERISTICS,
INPUTS AND LAND IMPROVEMENTS FOR CONSIDERATION IN SETTING CRITICAL
LIMITS
CLASS-DETERMINING REPRESENTATIVE LAND CHARACTERISTICS, INPUTS, LAND

FACTORS: 1/ IMPROVEMENTS AND OTHER RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS
- land use requirements or (see Part Two for full explanations)
limitations
- land qualities (where
applicable)
A. AGRONOMIC:
- crop requirements or
limitations
- the crop environment
1. GROWING PERIODS: Growing cycle of crops. Dates and duration (days).
- growing period requirement
- growing periods
2. RADIATION: Day length, extra-terrestrial radiation; solar radiation (Rs); photo-
- radiation requirements synthetically active radiation (PAR); actual sunshine hours (n);
- radiation regime possible number of sunshine hours (N); net shortwave radiation Rns;
total net radiation (Rn) mm of evaporation (Rn = 1 cal/cm 2/min
approximate equivalent to 1 mm water/hr).
3. TEMPERATURE: Temperature data. Heat units. Frost free periods.
- temperature requirement
- temperature regime
4. ROOTING: Effective soil depth for roots. Root room. Volume percent of stones.
- rooting requirement Penetration resistance or soil strength.
- rooting conditions
5. AERATION: Periods with or without adequate aeration during the growing period.
- oxygen & aeration (Depth and fluctuation of groundwater)
requirement
- oxygen supply and soil
aeration
6. WATER QUANTITY: Water balance, water storage. Yield vs. evapotranspiration
- water requirement relationships; deficient periods. Run-off, run-on, seepage and
- water supply percolation, groundwater contribution, effective precipitation. Stream
flows, diversions, storage releases, aquifer safe yields.
38
7. NUTRIENTS (NPK) NPK uptake by crops and responses to NPK. Losses of NPK
- nutritional requirement (leaching, volatilization, fixation, etc.). Nitrogen fixation. Soil nutrients
- fertilizer requirement, etc. and their retention, cation exchange capacity, etc. Fertilizer
- nutrient supply requirements and availability including manures, etc.
- fertilizer supply
8. WATER QUALITY: Total salt concentration. Ionic composition. Electrical conductivity
- crop tolerance to water dS/m at 25 °C. Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR). pH, carbonates and
quality bicarbonates. Suspended solids, BOD, COD, etc.
- water quality
9. SALINITY: Plant salt tolerances, present and future soil salinity, inputs of salt
- crop tolerance to salinity through water supply, losses of salt by leaching, salt balance.
- salinity regime (salt balance) Seasonal salt movement in profile, salt from groundwater.
10. SODICITY: Predicted pH, ESP and or SAR of soil solution, predicted effects on
- crop tolerance to sodicity soil structure, infiltration and permeabilities. Sodium toxicity.
- sodicity regime
11. pH, MICRONUTRIENTS AND On non-rice cropland, pH effects and crop tolerances and
TOXICITIES: susceptibilities to excesses or deficiencies of Ca, Mg, Zn, Fe, S, B,
- crop tolerances, Cu, Mn, Mo, Al. On submerged soil effects of pH, salts, Fe, Si, Mo,
susceptibilities Zn, Cu, H2S. Soil and plant composition, relevant inputs.
- toxicity or micronutrient
regimes
12. PEST, DISEASE, WEEDS: Crop tolerances and susceptibilities. Wild animals, birds, arthropods
- crop tolerances, etc. Fungal, bacterial, viral pathogens. Weeds. Pesticides, fencing,
susceptibilities inputs.
- pest, disease, weed hazard.
13. FLOOD, STORM, WIND, Adaptations of rice to flooded conditions. Frequency and severity of
FROST: flood, storm, wind, frost and hail.
- crop tolerances,
susceptibilities
- flood, storm, wind, frost, hail
hazard
B. MANAGEMENT:
- management requirements
and limitations
- conditions affecting
management
14. LOCATION: Closeness to markets, processing units. Access to inputs and
- location requirements services. Access to water (gravity, pumped). Travel & transport
- location problems & cost. Day-to-day management problems. Accessibility of
machinery.
15. WATER APPLICATION Size, shape of management units. Labour requirement availability.
MANAGEMENT: Conditions affecting uniformity of water application, rate, frequency
- limitations of irrigation and duration of application.
method
- conditions affecting water
application management
16. PRE-HARVEST FARM Effects on timing of pre-harvest operations (e.g. of soil workability)
MANAGEMENT: including land preparation, nurseries, seeding, transplanting, fertilizer
- pre-harvest farm application, irrigation, weeding, spraying, etc.
management requirements
and limitations
- conditions affecting pre-
harvest farm management
39
17. HARVEST AND POST Atmospheric wetness, dryness, wind. Soil wetness, dryness. Effects
HARVEST MANAGEMENT: of soil or humidity on the quality of the crop produce.
- requirements or limitations
18. MECHANIZATION: Slope angle, rock hindrances, stoniness, soil depth, soil texture,
- requirements for shape and size of fields. Effects of soil compaction. On-farm
mechanization transportation.
- conditions affecting potential
for mechanization and on-farm
transportation
C. LAND DEVELOPMENT AND
IMPROVEMENTS
- land development
requirements
- factors affecting cost of
land development and
improvement
19. LAND CLEARING: Forest: underbrushing, felling, burning, stacking; costs, value of
- land clearing requirements timber, charcoal; time period to development. Persistent weeds:
- conditions affecting cost of mechanical cultivation, flooding, chemical control; costs, time period
land clearing to development. Rocks and stones: removal costs.
20. FLOOD PROTECTION: Earthmoving costs for embankments, costs of structures.
- flood protection requirements
- conditions affecting cost of
flood protection
21. DRAINAGE: Watertable depth, depth to barrier of low permeability, vertical
- drainage requirements resistance to flow through soil and barrier, slope angle, need for salt
- conditions affecting cost of removal; size, spacing, depth of surface or pipe-drainage and cost of
drainage drainage.
22. LAND GRADING AND Slope, microrelief, macrorelief, cover. Field size and shape, cut and
LEVELLING: fill, earthmoving costs.
- grading and levelling
requirements
- conditions affecting land
grading and levelling costs
23. PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL AND Need for deep ploughing, subsoiling, profile inversion, sanding,
ORGANIC AIDS AND marling; gypsum, lime, organic matter, costs.
AMENDMENTS:
- requirements
- conditions affecting costs
24. RECLAMATION LEACHING: Primary or one-time reclamation leaching requirements mm of water;
- leaching requirement continuous or intermittent, costs.
- conditions affecting leaching
25. DURATION OF Number of project years to full production, project year in which field
RECLAMATION PERIOD: drainage is installed, rate of rise in watertable.
- period required to reclaim by
drainage and leaching, etc.
- conditions affecting leaching
periods
26. IRRIGATION ENGINEERING: Earthwork and other structures for diversion, storage, conveyance,
- irrigation engineering and regulation of water. Topography, substratum conditions,
requirements permeability of channels, access to construction sites, costs of
engineering works.
40
engineering works and costs
D. CONSERVATION AND
ENVIRONMENTAL:
- conservation and
environmental requirements
and limitations
conservation and the
environment.
27. LONG-TERM PREVENTION Long-term inputs and outputs of salts, (see Fig. 18), water quality,
OF SALINITY AND SODICITY: ground-water depth, permeability, drainage, tidal swamp conditions,
- requirements and limitations intrusion of saline water into an aquifer, control measures and their
- conditions affecting long-term cost.
salinity and sodicity hazards
28. LONG-TERM CONTROL OF Protection of catchment areas, degradation of catchment,
GROUND-WATER AND sedimentation of reservoirs, control of groundwater, and their costs.
SURFACE WATER:
- requirements and limitations
- conditions affecting long-term
control
29. EROSION HAZARD: Erosion control. Maximum acceptable soil loss and effects of climate,
- requirements and limitations soil, topography, land use factor, costs.
- conditions affecting erosion
30. ENVIRONMENTAL Wildlife, water-borne human diseases, need for environmental
HAZARDS: control of vectors.
- environmental control
requirement and limitations
- conditions affecting long-term
environmental risks
E. SOCIO-ECONOMIC:
- socio-economic
requirements and limitations
- socio-economic conditions
31. FARMERS' ATTITUDES TO Will the farmers utilize the irrigation facilities?
IRRIGATION
32. OTHER SOCIO-ECONOMIC Water rights, tenurial and land-ownership complications,
LIMITATIONS THAT MAY BE disincentives of taxation, fragmentation, etc.
CLASS-DETERMINING
1/ Evaluate only selected factors i.e. those that are class-determining in a given evaluation.
Table 13 RATINGS OF CLASS-DETERMINING FACTORS (FACTOR RATINGS)
FACTOR GUIDELINES FOR SETTING CRITICAL LIMITS

RATINGS
s1 The critical limits indicate that in terms of the given factor, the land is highly suitable for
the specified land use.
s2 The critical limits indicate that in terms of the given factor, the land conditions are slightly
adverse for the specified land use.
s3 The critical limits indicate that in terms of the given factor, the land is marginally suitable
for the specified land use.
41
n1 The critical limits indicate that in terms of the given factor, the land is marginally not
suitable for the specified land use (usually for adverse benefit/cost reasons).
n2 The critical limits indicate that in terms of the given factor, the land is permanently
unsuitable for the specified land use.
Note: Critical limits to define factor ratings should reflect benefit/cost or other economic indices
that indicate the influence of the factor on the value of production, costs of production, land
development costs, etc.
5. Procedures for land resource inventory

5.6 Drainage data
An evaluation of the suitability of land for alternative kinds of use requires a survey to define and
map the land units (Step 6 in the Guide to Procedures) together with the collection of descriptive
data of land characteristics and resources. This chapter outlines procedures for making a land
resource inventory and contains checklists of thematic data that might be required in land
evaluation. Details on survey methods are not given but are covered in publications cited in
each section.
Data collection is a time-consuming and costly activity, therefore, prior to field activities,
members of a project team representing the different disciplines should meet to decide the
responsibilities and cooperation needed in collecting and interpreting different kinds of data.
The approach to data collection can be rationalized by posing a few simple questions i.e. What
or which data are required? Why are they needed? Where or how can they be collected? Is the
cost of their collection worthwhile?
Two major categories of data and information can be defined as follows:
i. data that are available from existing, obtainable records;

ii. data that must be collected during the course of the evaluation through surveys or
investigations (including laboratory analysis of water and soil samples).
Data obtainable from existing sources can save valuable time in unnecessary survey or field
studies and some of the organizations that can be approached are:
42
- government departments responsible for: agriculture, lands, irrigation, meteorology, water
resources, survey, geological and hydro-geological survey, land titling, land reform, forestry,
livestock, conservation, wildlife, botany or botanic gardens; government and quasi-government
trading corporations, marketing boards, etc.;
- international banks;
- technical assistance agencies (multilateral and bilateral, e.g. FAO, ILRI, LRDC, ORSTOM,
USBR etc.);
- consultants;
- universities, including departments of agriculture, engineering, geography, botany, education,

rural development;
- research stations, international and national.
Publications can also be obtained through the retrieval services of major national and
international libraries.
The principal categories of data required are dealt with in the following sections under eight
headings: general characterization of the project area, topography, soils, water resources,
drainage, vegetation and fauna, social and economic data.

In the initial stages of the evaluation some general data and assumptions about the project area
itself should be assembled. The following are usually relevant:
- location and accessibility;

- potential water supplies within or outside the project area;
- main climatic characteristics;
- relief (landforms) and major soil features;
- population and population growth rate;
- standard of living and social values;
- basis of present economy;
- economic infrastructure (e.g. roads, services, markets);
- government subsidies;
- size of farms or other land holdings;
- land tenure systems;
- traditional water rights;
- political system and policies.
A review of these preliminary data will pinpoint the requirements for more detailed inventory and
help to identify priorities.
Among the early steps to be taken is to reach agreement amongst representatives of various
disciplines on the use of satellite imagery, aerial photographs, base maps and scales (see Table
2). Basic land survey procedures are rarely undertaken without the assistance of aerial
43
photography and remote sensing imagery. It can be assumed that topographic and soil surveys
will involve air photo interpretation and ground control, either on traverses or by free ground
survey methods. The reader is referred to FAO Soils Bulletin No. 42 (1979b).
The features which can usually be readily identified by stereoscopic examination of paired air
photographs include:
i. landforms (flood plains, terraces, residual uplands, dunes, etc.);
ii. surface drainage patterns and systems;
iii. erosional forms and eroded areas;
iv. land use patterns and land use boundaries, sometimes including crop boundaries, and other
evidence of human activity Such as roads, railways, habitations, quarries, etc.;
v. major physiognomic types of natural vegetation;
vi. wet areas, including lakes, lagoons and swamps (the latter are not always identifiable);
vii. surface evidence of salt-affected soils;
viii. rock outcrops;
ix. tones (colour changes in colour photography) and patterns which may reflect soil differences
and the probable position of soil boundaries.
From this evidence, subject of course to ground checking, a broad understanding of the
geomorphology, physiography, surface hydrology and, to some extent, geology of the survey
area can be obtained, which is invaluable in developing a sound working legend for land
mapping.
In high and very high intensity survey work complete air photo coverage at two scales is very
helpful. The first set, at a scale of about 1:40 000 is used for stereo interpretation and for
obtaining a general appreciation of the area (a photo mosaic at this, or smaller scales can also
be very helpful for the latter purpose). A second set at, or slightly larger than the probable final
scale of soil mapping (e.g. at about 1:5 000) is used for some detailed stereo-interpretation but
mainly as maps on which soil observations and boundaries can be precisely located in the field.
Single photographs can be used for the latter purpose but even in the field more reliable results
are achieved by the study of photo-pairs, using a pocket stereoscope.
Air photo interpretation at high intensity levels needs to be checked by adequate ground control
at successive levels of detail. This is especially essential where the area is under forest and the
maps are to be used for irrigation project design. The early surveys should give guidance on the
probable distribution of major soil units, on the selection of areas best surveyed by free survey
and/or the best direction and position of traverses, and on areas where more detailed stereo-
interpretation of larger scale photographs is likely to be valuable. The emphasis is on ground
methods for the remainder of the survey although major assistance in positioning sample points
44
and in checking the likely positioning of boundaries can be obtained by the study of large-scale
air photographs in the field.

Topography is often a major factor in irrigation evaluation as it influences the choice of irrigation
method, drainage, erosion, irrigation efficiency, costs of land development, size and shape of
fields, labour requirements, range of possible crops, etc. Stable base maps are needed and can
usually be obtained from earlier surveys. The ground truth and scale of base maps is
particularly important and should be checked especially if the area is under forest cover or
dense natural vegetation. Surface irrigation designs require contour intervals to determine slope
that should normally be one metre or less, and an appropriate map scale is required. Very
detailed topographic data are required for many irrigation structures, especially along routes of
probable canals and drains.
Four aspects of topography which have a special bearing on irrigation suitability are: slope,
microrelief, macrorelief and position.
i. Slope - Slope may affect the following factors: intended methods of irrigation, erodibility and
erosivity, cropping pattern, mechanization problems, exposure to wind, etc. Slope limitations
vary greatly from country to country. Critical limits suitable for gravity irrigation and different
methods of irrigation are given as guidelines in FAO Soils Bulletin No. 42 (p. 39-43). These
apply to situations in irrigated areas similar to those in the USA. In Asia and wet regions,
wetland rice is typically grown on steeper sloping land where smaller terraced field sizes are
appropriate. The reader is referred to FAO Conservation Guide No. 1 for terrace specifications
(Sheng, p. 147, 1977). Contour bench terraces are usually satisfactory for irrigation on slopes
up to 3% but on this and steeper land the stability of the terraces and the amount of land lost to
bunds should be assessed.
ii. Microrelief - This term applies to minor surface undulations and irregularities of the land
surface, with differences in height between crest and trough ranging from 4-5 cm in flat lake
plain areas to 4-5 m in areas of wind-blown sand. Estimates of grading and levelling
requirements will depend on whether surface, overhead or drip irrigation techniques are used.
This is discussed in Part Two C.22. The information required for an assessment of land grading
costs includes: cut and fill, the total volume of earth moved, the depth of cut, distance of
transport, soil conditions and desired precision of the final grading and type of equipment
available. These factors should be related to whether a local contractor with simple equipment is
to be used, or whether an international tender will invite contractors with modern sophisticated
equipment to undertake the task.
Topsoil depth and subsoil quality may limit the amount of grading that is advisable, or greatly
increase the cost if it is necessary to conserve and later respread the topsoil. Some subsoils are
unproductive at first, but gradually rehabilitate with irrigation and fertilizer or organic matter
applications. In contrast, coarse sands, gravels or layers rich in lime or gypsum (Mousli 1979;
Yahia 1982) or exchangeable aluminium may never respond to irrigation after severe truncation.
iii. Macrorelief - Permanent topographic features where slopes change frequently in gradient
and direction may influence the choice of irrigation method, field sizes and shape, and land
development costs. Field sizes and shape need to be evaluated, especially for gravity and
surface irrigation and for mechanized farming.
45
iv. Position in relation to command area and accessibility - The elevation and distance of the
water source often affects the 'irrigable' land area in gravity schemes. The area commanded
may be increased by pumping, or by constructing tunnels, inverted siphons and other structures
through natural or man-made barriers, or by reservoir construction. Topographic data are often
used in evaluating the infrastructural alternatives and their land development costs.
Topographic data are also required in the case of flood hazard and the design of flood
protection measures (see Section A.13, Part Two) and for the design of surface or subsurface
drainage (see Section 5.6).

Collection of soil survey data is dealt with in detail in FAO Soils Bulletin No. 42. Table 14 lists
soil characteristics which are often required in the evaluation. Some characteristics may be
'class-determining' and should therefore be given special emphasis; others will be relatively
unimportant. Land evaluation for irrigated crops relies on predictions of future soil conditions,
therefore the changeable soil characteristics must be evaluated as well as permanent
unchangeable characteristics.
Special importance should be given to predicting the maintenance of water in wetland rice fields
(see Part Two, A.6.6). Percolation and net irrigation water requirements commonly vary by more
than three-fold depending on whether the soil can be effectively puddled. This is therefore an
important class-determining factor in many rice areas (see Part Two, A.6).
In drier areas it is important to predict changes in salinity (Part Two, A.8 and A.9), sodicity
(A.10) and the watertable (D.28) with sustained irrigation, bearing in mind the other factors
involved, e.g. water quality, drainage, rainfall, method of irrigation, crop, farm inputs, etc.
The reader is referred to the references which deal with the various field and laboratory
procedures and methods of analysis for determining the characteristics listed in Table 14.1/
Laboratory support for chemical and physical determinations of soils and water should be
provided at an early stage. During the initial stages of the evaluation unnecessary analyses can
be screened out in preliminary determinations and appropriate intensities of sampling can be
decided (Peters 1979). There may be a need for detailed studies on the spatial variability in
salinity and other important characteristics.
1/ In particular: Arens and Sivarajasingham 1979; FAO/IBRD 1970; FAO 1979a; Hesse 1971;
Loveday 1974; Maas and Hoffmann 1977; Peters 1979; Ponnamperuma 1976; and USDA 1954.

Table 15 lists some of the climatic data commonly required in land evaluation for irrigated
agriculture and their uses. Mean monthly meteorological data are generally published for
representative recording stations, but it is usually necessary to obtain the original daily data
(e.g. of rainfall) over as long a period as possible at the locations of interest. For example, if the
benefits of irrigation are to be evaluated, it may be necessary to analyse rainfall data for an
existing rainfed situation in order to estimate the present variability in crop production and the
influence of dry years and seasonal droughts (see Part Two, A.1). Dates corresponding to the
'start of the rains' and the 'end of the rains' for individual years of the rainfall record, and the
46
occurrence of dry periods during growing periods are often required. Rainfall and other
meteorological data are used by hydrologists, agronomists, irrigation and drainage engineers. A
multiplication of effort can be avoided by a common approach.

Investigations of water resources should be considered an integral part of the land resources
evaluation process. The activities of those involved (hydrologists, hydrogeologists, engineers,
agriculturists and economists) should be appropriately scheduled. Costly water resources
surveys in areas where the land later proves unsuitable for irrigation are wasteful; vice versa,
detailed land and soil surveys for irrigated agriculture can be wasteful in areas where water
supplies later prove inadequate.
Table 14 INVENTORY OF SOILS DATA
DATA ITEM PURPOSES FOR WHICH MAY BE REQUIRED

A. PHYSICAL
1. Effective soil depth Root room, water and nutrient retention; land levelling; drainage;
aligning and design of irrigation and drainage channels.
2. Presence of organic or histic Special problems or opportunities.
horizons
3. Grain size distribution For establishing homogeneity of land units and for deriving many
(texture) characteristics.
4. Soil structure and porosity Root environment, nutrient, water and soil management. Drainage
Bulk density. Pore space volume and permeability especially of sodic soils. Leaching of excess
and distribution. salts. Tilth and workability for seedbed and land preparation.
Air-filled pore space at field Ability to puddle riceland. Erodibility.
capacity. Structure stability.
5. Infiltration rate Rainfall and irrigation intake or run-off. Selection of irrigation
method. Furrow lengths or basin size. Sprinkler nozzle selection.
Erodibility.
6. Hydraulic conductivity or Soil drainage, removal of excess water and salts.
permeability
7. Available water capacity (field Soil water balance, residual water between and following
capacity and permanent irrigations. Choice of irrigation method and schedules.
wilting point)
8. Plastic and liquid limits Indicative of mineralogy and physical behaviour.
9. Soil strength, linear Mechanical strength for construction works; swelling and shrinking;
extensibility root penetration.
B. CHEMICAL
1. Soil reaction (pH) To identify very alkaline, sodic and acid sulphate soils; nutrient
deficiencies and toxicities.
2. Carbon and nitrogen Organic matter content and management.
3. Gypsum and calcium Hardpans, gypsiferous layers liable to subside, gypsum
carbonate requirements for sodic soils.
4. Electrical conductivity of Salinity hazard.
saturation extract (ECe)
5. Soluble salts (Na, K, Ca, Mg, Interpretation of salinity hazard.
Cl, SO4, CO3 and HCO3)
47
6. Cation exchange capacity Nutrient retention and chemical fertility status.
(CEC), total exchangeable
bases (TEB) and base
saturation %
7. Exchangeable sodium Sodicity or alkalinity problems.
percentage (ESP) or adjusted
sodium adsorbtion ratio of
saturation extract (adj. SAR)
8. Exchangeable cations (Na, K, Base saturation, ESP, potassium status.
Ca, Mg)
9. Available phosphorus See Table 35, Part Two.
10. Total contents of P, K, Mg, Na, Macro and micronutrient content. Toxic elements.
Cu, Mn, Zn, B, Fe, Al, As, Ni, Cr
C. MINERALOGICAL
1. Sand and silt fraction Indicates parent material and degree of weathering.
2. Clay fraction and iron and 1:1 clay minerals less sticky, swell and shrink less and have a
aluminium oxides smaller surface area (and less CEC) than 1:2 clay minerals. 1:1
clay minerals with Fe and Al oxides predominating may prove
excessively well-drained for wetland rice, and often physically
favourable but chemically less fertile for non-rice crops.
3. Calcium and magnesium Hardpans restricting rooting depths. Large amounts decrease
carbonates nutrient retention and fertility; but soils with 60% CaCO 3 can be
successfully irrigated but with a restricted choice of crops.
Deposition under saline conditions of fine grained material blocks
pores and reduces permeability. Surface crusting interferes with
seedling emergence and infiltration. Lime-induced nutrient
deficiencies. Magnesium carbonate soils often very fertile. High
exchangeable Mg leads to sodic-like impermeable profile.
4. Gypsum Gypsiferous hardpans restrict rooting and make installation of
drains and channels difficult. Dissolution may lead to land
subsidence after irrigation. Gypsum crystals in soil may offset
sodicity tendency. If too high, causes nutrient problems due to
unfavourable K/Ca, Mg/Ca ratios and extra costs in fertilizers and
soil management.
Note: The characteristics in Table 14 should be evaluated in the context of morphological and
geographical considerations.
Table 15 INVENTORY OF CLIMATIC DATA
DATA ITEM PURPOSES FOR WHICH MAY BE REQUIRED

1. Climatic class Reconnaissance and choice of LUT alternatives. See Part
Two, Table 30.
2. Radiation See Part Two, A.2. Evaporation estimates. Definition of
- extraterrestrial radiation growing period. Crop growth in relation to radiation or light.
- solar radiation (Rs) The ratio n/N is used to estimate solar radiation if data for Rs is
- PAR not available.
- net shortwave solar radiation Crop photoperiodicity.
- net longwave radiation
- sunshine hours actual sunshine
hours (n) daylength or maximum (N)
sunshine hours
48
3. Temperature (air & ground) Monthly See Part Two, A.3.
means of: Reference crop ET estimates. Limiting conditions for cold and
- daily maximum frost susceptible crops; heat scorch. Definition of growing
- daily minimum periods. Relative humidity and vapour pressure estimates (see
- daily mean below).
Actual monthly:
- minimum and maximum
Heat units (degree days)
Wet and dry bulb temperatures a.m.
and p.m.
4. Relative humidity Estimates of evaporation. Disease prevalence. Ripening and
Monthly means of: maturation of crops. Drying and storage of crops.
- daily a.m. vapour pressure
- daily p.m. vapour pressure
5. Evapotranspiration See Part Two, A.6.
Reference crop ETo Component of water balance estimates for the catchment and
- monthly, 10-day, weekly or daily of irrigated land; estimates of irrigation water requirements;
values from climatic data estimates of reduced crop yields with a deficient water supply.
Pan evaporation
Actual crop evapotranspiration (e.g.
from soil-water measurements,
computations)
6. Precipitation and rainfall Component of water balance estimates for the catchment and
Daily precipitation for as long a period of irrigated land; growing periods; crop yields
as possible. Estimates of erosion; crop damage; management problems;
Annual mean and S.D. mechanization. Estimates of irrigation water requirements.
Monthly mean and S.D., etc.
Rainfall intensity and erosivity
Effective precipitation
Snow, dew
7. Wind speed and direction Estimates of reference crop ETo.
Weekly means of daily wind speed Estimates of reference crop ETo, adjusted as described in FAO
Daytime vs. nighttime ratios Irrigation and Drainage Paper 24.
8. Storm incidence Crop damage; erosion.
Frequency and intensity
The volume of water obtainable for irrigation will depend on the outcome of hydrological studies
of surface water, and hydrogeological studies of groundwater (subsurface water). These are the
water supply aspects. The water demand aspects include studies and field work to estimate
irrigation water requirements and crop water requirements. An important part of the evaluation is
the matching of water supplies and water demand (requirement) by mutual adjustments
involving cooperative work between water resources specialists, engineers and agriculturists
(see Part Two, A. 6).
i. Hydrological studies: Studies may be carried out at national level, at river basin level, at the
project development level, and at farm or field level (Horning 1979). Surface water resources
may be progressively developed, first using diversion structures to regulate run-of-river stream
flow, secondly, with the addition of storage, and later, to full control, including flood control.
Existing data, and data collected during the investigations from stream measuring devices (e.g.
stage posts, formula-calibrated weirs, current meters and velocity-area rated stations) can be
used to estimate run-off and catchment yields, divertible volumes of water, amounts of water for
storage, subsurface flows of water, flood peaks and volumes, etc. The reader is referred to
49
standard texts, e.g. for hydrological models, their practical application and limitations e.g. Chow
(1964), Clarke (1973).
ii. Hydrogeological studies: Investigations of groundwater resources are generally carried out at
the level of the whole hydrogeological basin or aquifer. The studies include observations of
water levels and quality in existing open wells and tubewells, and specially drilled observation
wells. Mathematical models are usually needed to evaluate the aquifer (e.g. a numerical model
which simulates the non-steady state, two-dimensional, groundwater flows). The model can be
calibrated using all the available data pertaining to the aquifer in space and time. The input data
requirements can be expressed in the form of a flow chart and a programme of work that would
lead to a complete hydrogeological assessment including all aspects of the water balance in
relation to the characteristics and geometry of the aquifer and the time scale. The output data
includes the initial water levels, transmissivities (permeabilities), the specific or storage
coefficient, percentage recharge from rainfall, river bed infiltration and the safe yield for
irrigation. An example, of such a flow chart is given in Figure 1 (Jacovides 1982). Further
surveys and studies are required to establish the precise location of production wells and their
water yield for irrigation, the type of well (shallow hand-dug, shallow tubewell, hand-dug with
tubewell, deep tubewell, spring or qanat), the depth of the well, borehole lithology and
hydrogeological logs. Investigation wells are test pumped to give data including discharge,
drawdown, transmissivity, specific capacity (l/s/m), and specific drawdown (m/l/s). The potential
water discharge is expressed in litres per second (l/s) which may vary over time according to
season or year.
Standard texts that can be referred to are: Bouwer (1978); Todd (1959) and various
supplements to Unesco's groundwater studies.
iii. Irrigation water requirements: Meteorological data and field studies are usually necessary to
estimate crop water requirement, effective precipitation, run-on, groundwater contribution, soil
water storage, run-off, seepage and percolation, conveyance losses, and leaching requirements
(see Part Two, A.6 and FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 24, 1977b). Irrigation water
supplies and their control often determine water volumes used by farmers, therefore water
management may be as important as physical factors in matching the available supply to the
requirements. Irrigation efficiencies in different parts of the world are discussed in Bos and
Nugteren (1974).
In rice cultivation, the duration in days of the different operations in land preparation (soaking,
seeding, ploughing, harrowing, puddling, transplanting), as well as the related water use for land
preparation and transplanting, and the water balance components after transplanting (effective
precipitation, evapo-transpiration, seepage and percolation), are the major data that must be
specified (see Part Two, A.6).
For crops other than rice similar gains and losses of water need to be quantified together with
the need for pre-planting wetting and allowances for the use of residual soil water as annual
crops mature.
Figure 1 Simplified flow chart of a groundwater model programme showing inputs and
outputs
50
iv. Water quality data: Water quality for agricultural use can be evaluated using field and
laboratory analyses of the properties listed in Part Two, Tables 37 and 38. Analytical procedures
for these determinations are described in USDA Handbook 60 (1954), FAO Soils Bulletin No. 10
(1970), and Standard Methods of the American Water Works Association (1971). The electrical
conductivity of, and other simple tests on, samples of irrigation water can be measured in the
field using portable conductivity bridges, pH meters and testing kits. For example, having tools-
of-the-trade for the testing of groundwater in wells obviates the need for transporting water
samples. Local analyses of carbonate, bicarbonate and nitrate may be required where storage
of samples may lead to chemical changes and inaccurate results.
In arid and semi-arid areas it will be necessary to predict the salt balance and the water balance
for a project area to evaluate leaching requirements, and the drainage needed to maintain the
land in a productive condition. In rehabilitation projects, water samples may be analysed at
different points of the network. The flow of water and salts in an irrigated area are illustrated in
Figure 18 (see also Part Two, D.27). Special analyses will be required for recycled sewage
where it is intended for irrigation. The biological oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen
demand (COD), boron, heavy metals and other potentially toxic substances must be
ascertained. Bacterial analysis may also be necessary. Routine analyses are normally part of
the procedures of the water treatment plant. Sewage or activated sludge can be subjected to
primary, secondary and tertiary treatment. Analyses of chemical constituents, suspended solids
and dissolved organic substances are required to evaluate whether water from secondary or
tertiary treatment can be used for irrigation, and the potential problems in handling such water.
Water for drip irrigation and for other techniques where there is a potential clogging problem can
be evaluated on the basis of measurements of the suspended solids and chemical or biological
properties of the water (see Part Two, Table 38).
Guidance on the interpretation of water analyses is given in FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper
No. 29 (1976c; Revision 1 in press) and other publications.
5.6 Drainage data

Conditions and requirements for surface drainage, subsurface (pipe) drainage, or both may
need to be evaluated. In arid and semi-arid areas, where salinity and sodicity are possible
problems, it will be essential to carry out field investigations. The soil scientist and drainage
engineer should first agree on the types and scales of maps and photographs to be used and on
the information that will be placed by each on these. Field hydraulic conductivity and other tests
are required; the number of tests for a drainage survey is related to the soil variability in the
project area (FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 38, 1980a). This variability is initially
assessed from surveys in sample areas that cover 5-10 percent of the project area from
representative major soil units. Local experience and sound judgement will often be needed to
determine an average hydraulic conductivity value for the design of drain spacings, sizes and
depths. This particularly applies to the drainage of heavy, poorly permeable soils under crops
other than rice.
Drainage investigations in arid and semi-arid areas will involve the logging and sampling of 3-5
m borings to identify barriers with a relatively low hydraulic conductivity compared to overlying
soil or a high resistance to vertical flow (i.e. C = 250 or over constitutes a real barrier, whilst no
barrier exists where C = 50 or less: C is the hydraulic resistance and equals the thickness of the
layer divided by its vertical hydraulic conductivity).
51
Much data useful to the drainage study may be obtained in soil survey (e.g. reliable soil profile
logs to 3-5 m; depth to watertable or visible indications of saturated conditions; water quality,
soil salinity, sodicity and acidity). Soil survey information will make it possible to interpolate
hydraulic conductivity measurements to intermediate soils. Therefore, where possible, the soils
and drainage investigations should proceed concurrently. The soil scientist should bring areas
of potentially poor drainage to the attention of the drainage engineer. These may include visibly
wet areas, areas visibly saline or sodic, topographically low areas, areas with fine textured
layers within a 5 m depth; slowly permeable layers within a 5 m depth; massive structure not
usually associated with the identified texture; man-made barriers which could impede surface
drainage or groundwater movement; potentially unstable materials, especially gypsiferous
layers (the latter may lead to subsidence and irrigation and drainage construction problems with
a high water table). It is usually the responsibility of the drainage engineer to determine the
investigations required for estimating the cost of the surface and subsurface drainage systems
and related flood control facilities. The estimated costs can be tabulated by areas and used in
the evaluation of land suitability class and the delineation of the irrigable land.
If the land cannot be physically drained because of low hydraulic conductivity, or because of
barriers too close to the ground surface, it should be excluded at the 'provisionally-irrigable'
stage. In the 'irrigable' land evaluation, physical drainage can be envisaged to meet the water
table requirements, but land may still be excluded for economic reasons. Later, if the drainage
areas are small in comparison to the rest of the area and a properly designed and located
drainage system for the irrigable area cannot be installed without going through such lands, the
classifier has the option of retaining these lands as suitable in the 'provisionally-irrigable' and
'irrigable' classifications. These considerations are important in determining the extent of the
drainage investigations.
Drainage requirements and costs for surface, subsurface, and related flood control should be
made available by the drainage engineer for all 'provisionally-irrigable' lands but no subsurface
drainage or flood control requirements and costs need normally be provided for lands! initially
rated N1 or N2, for reasons other than drainage.
The reader is referred to FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 38, (1980a) and the USBR
Drainage Manual (1978). Part Two of this bulletin, sections C.20 and C.21, give further
information on land evaluation for drainage and drainage system design.

Many land evaluations will be carried out in areas which are partially covered with natural
vegetation and partially farmed. The geographical extent of vegetation and the existing
agriculture should be studied early in the evaluation mapping where necessary. Present land
use surveys are generally required to determine the production which will be foregone when an
irrigation project is implemented.
Existing vegetation and present land use may be important because of:
i. costs of clearing different kinds of vegetation (see Part Two, C.19);

ii. potential value of the vegetation, e.g. for forest and grazing;
iii. presence of noxious weeds;
iv. need to preserve vegetation for environmental, aesthetic reasons;
52
v. value of present agricultural production;
vi. preferences for continuing present production on certain lands.
Needless removal of vegetation due to inadequate survey and beaconing often occurs. Areas of
natural vegetation should be preserved wherever possible.
Close liaison with departments responsible for environmental protection is generally essential to
ensure that the boundaries of national parks and wildlife conservation zones are respected. The
preservation of natural vegetation as windbreaks may prove important. Damage by wildlife in
farmers' fields may necessitate costly measures such as fencing. Hippopotamus, warthog and
bush pigs in African countries are fairly easily excluded but large game requires very costly
fences. Monkeys and baboons are almost impossible to exclude leaving a choice between
poisoning or shooting. Bush can also harbour tsetse, while the introduction of irrigated perennial
crops, e.g. bananas, can promote the spread of tsetse. Irrigation can also be a barrier to
seasonal animal movements. Information collected on potential problems from wild animals,
including rodents, birds, crabs, etc. may dictate the choice of crops and LUTs. Rodents and
crabs may bore holes in the banks of canals and the bunds of ricefields leading to excessive
losses of water. Factor ratings under heading A.12, Part Two can be used to evaluate the
potential damage to crops, stored products and infrastructure from wildlife.

Failure to consider the environment when evaluating irrigation development may result in an
increased incidence of disease among the local human population, especially of vector-borne
diseases such as malaria, schistosomiasis (bilharzia), onchocerciasis (river blindness) and
yellow fever. The vectors are certain aquatic snails, flies and mosquitoes which host the
disease-causing parasite and transfer it from the infected to the healthy individual. These agents
need water to breed and multiply; thus the expansion of irrigation spreads the diseases through
the irrigation networks, particularly in areas where the water is used for domestic purposes as
well. The need for environmental control measures through the design of reservoirs and canals
and the prevention of unnecessary vegetation or pools of stagnant water should be assessed.
Further information is available from the joint WHO/FAO/UNEP Panel of Experts on
Environmental Management for Vector Control (PEEM) and from FAO 1984. The general
subject of the environmental health consequences of irrigation are discussed by Worthington
(1977).

Social and economic evaluations depend on survey work which should usually start early in the
land evaluation process. The objectives of the survey work are to identify and assess the social
and economic features affecting the development potential of the study area and to evaluate
alternative proposals; to assemble financial and economic price and cost data of relevance in
53
the assessment of LUTs and class-determining factors; and to meet the analytical and reporting
requirements of the sponsor of the given study (e.g. World Bank etc.).
The socio-economist may need survey data collected by agriculturists and vice versa (i.e. on
present farming practices and production, land use, farm inputs etc.) and there can be some
sharing of survey activities based on prior agreement. Present land use surveys are generally
required to determine the production that will be foregone when an irrigation project is
implemented. Trends in production, land use and yields need studies, particularly where
rehabilitation of existing irrigation and drainage systems is being considered. Where there is a
trend of rising or falling production this, rather than a static assessment of the present situation,
should form the basis of predictions of the 'without' situation in the economic evaluation (see
Chapter 7).
Some of the considerations that may prevent the full utilization of natural and human resources
are listed below. These are often outside the control of the individuals affected by them and
constitute many of the constraints to agricultural and social progress.
i. Self-perpetuating poverty: Lack of venture capital, knowledge, and the will to adopt new
technology is characteristic of subsistence level farming where meeting today's needs may be
the practical limit of forward planning.
ii. Tradition, attitudes and perceptions: Viewpoints of the possibility of change in order to control
one's own destiny better may be entirely formed on extremely limited observations, those being
the only ones known to an individual. The situation beyond could be so obscure as to have no
effect upon the subject's aspirations for something better.
iii. Disincentives: Crop production goals may be limited by quotas, and prices may be controlled
at below the cost of production; under such circumstances little more than the level of output
required for subsistence and local barter may be produced.
iv. Tenure: Land ownership and tenurial rights together with water rights are often a major cause
of maldistribution of income and wealth. Access to credit and production inputs may be linked to
tenurial patterns. Unfavourable tenurial conditions may restrain the natural economic forces that
normally determine efficient farm size, and crop selection.
v. Food preferences: These limit the range of crops grown for local consumption, especially
where a market outlet has not been developed. A degree of crop or livestock specialization may
have developed around the local food preferences.
vi. Labour supply: The existing labour supply and the seasonal labour peaks may limit the range
of land use possibilities. The labour supply may be limited in its present technology because of
failure by the younger generation to participate. A new technology could lead to their
participation.
vii. Pricing systems: Controlled or artificial prices may constitute either a disincentive or an
incentive. If a price is controlled to the point that the production is discouraged, one must look
for a possibility that this could be changed if it is of importance to a project.
54
If these types of unfavourable conditions exist, they could well prevail into the future and
continue to influence strongly what farmers would do under an irrigated system of farming.
Therefore, proposed changes to traditional farming systems require a full appreciation of the
reasons why present agricultural patterns exist.
Furthermore, a judgement is necessary on how rapidly and to what extent favourable changes
could occur when irrigation is introduced. Forecasted changes ought to be not only
economically favourable, but they must also be likely to occur and not just be speculative. Whilst
it may be helpful to develop plans that appear economically optimal, in reality what will be
achieved is nearly always short of the optimum. That which is likely to be achieved should be
projected in the values assigned to future productivity. In-country and regional experiences on
similar projects may prove to be the best key to this. These should be observed closely.
Social and economic constraints can frequently be removed at a cost. Project cost estimates
may include outlays for training, resettlement, infrastructure, markets and other items
considered necessary to achieve the levels of productivity forecasted.
Some activities that may be required with the introduction of irrigated farming may be
incorporated in the project plan, at least during the gestation period or build-up to full
development, for example:
- inputs must be increased and made available;
- research, extension and the dissemination of technical knowledge might need to be expanded;
- transportation, storage and other infrastructure may need to be developed; fuel and power
demands may increase and need to be satisfied; marketing facilities may be required; credit and
financing needs, and protection against the risks of commercialized farming may have to be
considered.
Favourable features of prospective farmer groups might include a demonstrated capacity to

accept new agricultural methods, community and cooperative endeavours aimed at social
change, responses to financial incentives, initiatives and diversified farming enterprises, etc.
Such information may be available from the experience of ongoing and past agricultural
programmes.
A comprehensive list of data that may need to be collected in social and economic survey work
is given in Table 16 (adapted from IRRI 1975c). The reader is also referred to standard texts on
procedures for social and economic survey work (Yang 1965) and to Chapter 7 on the economic
aspects of land evaluation for irrigated agriculture.
Table 16 CHECKLIST OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SURVEY DATA
DATA WHERE OBTAINED

A. PRESENT FARMING PRACTICES District or Village
levels
55
1. Crops and varieties planted in the area
List of present LUTs, include cultivars classed as high yielding, modern,
improved local, or traditional; cropping calendar (pre- & post-harvest)
2. Farm practices
Planting methods, fertilizer, organic manures, insecticides, herbicides,
weeding; hand, animal or tractor power; land preparation, mechanization,
changes in practices
3. Existing irrigation and drainage
Types of irrigation systems; periods of water availability, persons or authorities
controlling water allocation; drainage adequacy; water use
4. Input-output data
Costs of all inputs, yields and value of produce whether used for subsistence,
barter or cash sales; crop disposal
5. Land tenure, farm sizes, land values, water rights
Land tenure, leased and shared cropped land, titles to land and water,
fragmentation, social contexts, land sales, land prices
6. Credit and loans
Amounts borrowed, who borrowed from whom, credit for personal or farming
use, in cash or kind, duration of loan, terms of repayment or interest rate, level
of indebtedness, future access to loans
7. Household size and income
Farm family size and age distribution, employment on and off the farm; sources
of income; changes in income
8. Farm labour and employment, farm power
Family labour, hired labour, labour costs; influence of labour, power and water
on land preparation, seasonal practices; peak labour requirements changes
9. Production and marketing problems
Obtaining seed, fertilizer or chemicals, credit, water (domestic, irrigation); pests
and diseases, weeds, harvesting, threshing, drying, storage, selling,
processing, others; markets
B. INFRASTRUCTURAL National Regional
District and Village
levels
1. Transportation
Roads and waterways; availability of buses, trucks, carts, boats, and other
modes of transportation; railroads, quality of roads - paved or not; year-round
use, etc.
2. Storage, processing and marketing facilities
Types that serve the villages in project area; driers, milling capacity, local
weights and measures, milling outputs etc.
3. Banks and other credit facilities
4. Other government facilities for production
Research and experimental stations; demonstration trials; extension services
5. Schools, clinics, postal services and others
6. Communications media
Press, radio, and other forms of mass media, extent of news of direct
relevance to farmers, markets news service
7. Electricity
8. Domestic water supplies
56
C. THE ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT National Regional
levels
1. Prices
Prices of major produce, differences between cultivars, seasonal and annual
variations; prices at nearest dealer or cooperative for fertilizer and other major
inputs; data on price differentials between local and major markets
2. Wages
Wage rates; systems of wage payment; changes over time
3. Interest
Rates usually paid on loans from different sources; changes over time
4. Rent
Rates per season, year, and others; in cash or kind; fixed or shared; changes
over time
5. Taxes
Types and totals; paid to village or other agency; changes over time
6. Land prices
Average, for major land types; changes over time
7. Irrigation costs
Government irrigation fees and normal collection rates; normal cost of private
irrigation systems, if any
8. Seed or planting material
Availability, source, quality, and prices
9. Power
Typical farm power requirement and investment for land preparation, also
rental rates for tractor and animal services
10. Incomes
D. DEMOGRAPHIC AND LAND USE National Regional
levels
1. Village populations
Total, and percentage changes in last 10 years; main sources of livelihood,
farming and non-farming
2. Other census data
Religion, ethnic group, castes, and others
3. Village settlement pattern
Along road, with house gardens, cluster, isolated, etc.
E. INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS National Regional
levels
1. Farmers' organizations
Cooperatives, farmer associations and similar bodies; other types of joint or
group activities, changes over time
2. Brief description of the way new crops, varieties and methods of management
were introduced into the area
3. Extension services, also credit, and other services
Number of agencies that provide services; quantity and quality of services;
main complaints of farmers
4. Special government programmes
Land reform, land consolidation, crash programmes, and others
57
5. Kinship
Role in inheritance, cost of ceremonies, etc.; also factionalism, litigation, etc.
6. Leadership in agriculturally relevant activities
7. Attitudes and values affecting development
Change in the size and cost of ceremonies; evaluation as to whether farming is
a preferred occupation and similar assessments
F. THE NATIONAL POLICY FRAMEWORK National Regional
levels
1. Aims of national policy for crops and irrigation
2. Policy measures
Price policies - input and output; restrictions on input and output marketing, if
any; package programmes, etc.; income and employment policies - income
redistribution, access to land resources, etc.
3. Importance of new crops and irrigation in the context of national goals
6. Assigning the land suitability classes by matching

In preparation for this Chapter, the reader is reminded of Steps 3 to 5 already discussed in
Chapter 4, namely, the selection of class-determining factors having significance from a
physical and economic standpoint, and the specification of critical limits to designate levels of
suitability s1, s2, s3, n1 or n2, on a factor by factor basis. These specifications entered on
Format 1, including assumptions about the requirements for inputs and land improvements, are
the basis for assigning the suitability class and subclasses to each LUT - land unit combination.
The specifications guide the land evaluator as to the suitability of a land unit for a LUT, factor by
factor, but with no regard for interactions or the relative importance of each factor.
Checklists of land characteristics for describing the land units are given in Chapter 5. This
present Chapter describes procedures for matching these land characteristics to the
specifications of the LUT. The matching process can proceed through successive adjustments
or iterations during both the 'provisionally-irrigable' and 'irrigable' evaluations, the objective
being to produce the most practicable and likely project. Typical adjustments during matching
could include (i) changes in the LUT (e.g. in cropping, irrigation method or management), (ii)
adjustments to inputs (e.g. fertilizer, cultivars, water), and (iii) land improvements (e.g. drainage,
land levelling, etc.).
58
The specifications used in classifying 'provisionally-irrigable' land will normally differ from those
used for the succeeding 'irrigable' classification. 'Provisionally-irrigable' land will usually be
classified without firm knowledge of the water supply, the seasonal availability of water, and the
cost of delivering water to different parts of the project area. Later, at the time of the
classification of 'irrigable' land, the evaluation Can be based on firm information about the water
supply and land development costs. Recommendations on the economic criteria to use at these
successive stages are given in Chapter 7.
In the 'provisionally-irrigable' evaluation, a tentative matching and land classification should be

achieved in the field while surveying the land units. Before carrying out the land survey, the land
evaluator will have prepared the specifications for each LUT to be evaluated (Format 1) and he
should have these with him during the survey. After mapping the land units the steps are:
Step 7: For each land unit, decide which land qualities and land characteristics are 'class-determining'
with respect to the requirements and limitations of. the LUT(s). For each land unit, complete Format 2
entering the appropriate values of the land qualities and land characteristics (see Procedures Land
Resource Inventory, Chapter 5).
Step 8: Match 'critical limits' of each land use requirement or limitation (i.e. from the specifications on
Format 1), with the conditions found in the land unit (i.e. Format 2) to obtain a factor rating of s1, s2, s3,
n1 or n2 for each combination of LUT and land unit. Enter the factor rating on Format 3. Assumptions
about inputs, land improvements and their benefits and costs should also be indicated (see Example 2 in
Section 6.5).
Step 9: Decide the relative 'Significance' of each 'class-determining' factor (or of a group of interacting
factors) by entering Very Important, Moderately Important, Less Important or Not Important, as
appropriate, in the column headed 'Significance' (Format 3). This is explained later.
Step 10: Combine individual 'class-determining' factor ratings to obtain a tentative land suitability
classification for each LUT on each land unit. Interactions between factors (Section 6.2) and
'Significance' (Section 6.3) must be taken into account in this step. Estimates of crop yield and economic
benefit/costs, according to the guidelines in Chapter 7, may be needed to assign the classes and
subclasses. Enter the tentative land suitability class and subclasses (S1, S2, S3, N1 or N2 etc.) at the
bottom of Format 3 or on the map.
Step 11: Where necessary adjust the LUT description, or introduce inputs or land improvements, and
repeat steps 1-10 until the most practicable cropping, irrigation and management farming system is
obtained (the need for such iteration can be entered on Format 3).
Step 12-16: Present the classes and subclasses of the 'provisionally-irrigable' or 'irrigable' classification
on Formats 4 or 5 as set out in Chapter 3.

Each 'class-determining' factor is first matched individually. Critical limits entered on Format 1
indicate how suitable a land unit is for a given LUT in terms of that factor. For example, if one of
the class-determining factors for the LUT 'Irrigated Maize on Small Farms' is 'Rooting' (i.e. the
requirements or limitations for root development) and the critical limits are to be represented in
terms of 'effective soil depth', the latter is given on Format 1 as ranges of depths corresponding
to s1, s2, s3, n1 and n2 suitability levels. The effective soil depths recorded for each land unit
59
will fall within one of these five depth ranges and the appropriate one is selected as the factor
rating.
This is illustrated for one factor in the following example:
Example 1
Land utilization type (LUT A): Irrigated maize on small farms

Class-determining factor: Rooting
land use requirement requirements for rooting (maize)
land quality represented by the land characteristic(s) rooting conditions effective soil depth
Critical limits effective soil depth (cm) Factor ratings Land unit 8 effective soil depth (cm)
(i.e. specifications of the LUT)
over 200 s1
100-200 s2
50-100 s3 75
25-50 n1
0-25 n2
i.e. the factor rating for LUT A on land unit 8 is s3, which is entered on Table 6.

In combining the factor ratings of several individual factors in order to decide the appropriate
land suitability class to assign, the possibility of interactions should be taken into account. In a
broad interpretation of the meaning of the word 'interaction' it can be readily appreciated that
many factors interact in the resultant productivity index, or economic index which is the integral
of their effects. However, the levels of some factors may reduce or accentuate the influence of
given levels of other factors, and a straightforward addition or multiplication (even with
weightings) may not satisfactorily resolve these interactions.
Examples of two factor interactions where the levels of one factor modify the expression of
given levels of the other are given below.
SOME EXAMPLES OF INTERACTIONS
i. The interaction between fertilizer and pesticides in increasing crop yield as found by
experiment
With fertilizer Without fertilizer

With pesticides 1 t/ha increase no yield increase
Without pesticides no yield increase no yield increase
In this hypothetical example, the crop responds if fertilizer and pesticides are used together, but
does not respond to either singly, when used without the other. From this result it can be readily
appreciated that a farmer would waste money applying fertilizer, if the crop will be destroyed by
pests. Therefore the level of fertilizer and pesticides used should be jointly specified. i
60
ii. The interaction between water and NPK in terms of crop yield as rated using factor ratings
Water supply relative to water requirements

s1 s3
NPK supply relative to NPK requirements s1 s1 s3
s3 s3 n1
(Note the parallel with i. above and see a more explicit example of this interaction for nitrogen in
Part Two, Figure 14.)
Although impracticable in the course of most land evaluations, the influence of interactions on
crop yields, drainability, erodibility, etc. can only be determined quantitatively in the field, e.g. by
using factorial experimental designs in which different levels of the various factors are
systematically combined. Existing crop yield data that integrate the many influential factors
should always be used where available, provided it is relevant for the physical and socio-
economic conditions under review.

Apart from interactions, some factors will be more important than others in their influence on
land productivity, or benefit/cost. Therefore in Step 9, provision is made for grading factors for
'significance' on Format 3, entering Very Important (VI), Moderately Important (MI), Less
Important (LI) or Not Important (NI) as appropriate. Whereas factor ratings rate a match in terms
of a single factor (or a single interaction) the 'significance' rating indicates the relative
importance of the factor in its influence on production or benefit/cost. Single factors are
sometimes of over-riding importance, e.g. water quantity, drainage costs, etc. and these are
given an appropriate weight using 'significance' levels in a tentative assigning of the land
suitability classes, prior to a full economic evaluation.
The 'significance' of individual factors often becomes apparent from the economic analyses
described in Chapter 7. However, social, conservation and environmental considerations may
not be pin-pointed as having economic relevance. 'Significance' levels remind the land evaluator
of their possible importance and variation over the survey area. For example, the problems of a
particular irrigation technique may be identified in social terms, or there may be problems of
water rights in particular areas. A 'Very Important' rating of 'significance' may be of use in the
reiteration of the Steps; this could lead to appropriate changes in the project plan including
adjusted cropping, irrigation or management proposals and modified land development plans.

The FAO Framework symbols to indicate land suitability orders, classes and subclasses, are
given in Table 1 and are explained in Appendix 1. For the purposes of mapping, the land
evaluator may need to give additional explanatory information using his own notation, designed
for a particular survey. Such notation should be consistent within any one survey and devised to
avoid misinterpretation. An illustration of the type of symbolization that might be appropriate is
as follows:
The FAO Framework symbols in the above are S3d, indicating that the land is only Marginally
Suitable for LUT A because of a drainage requirement or limitation. The additional symbols
61
given above are the LUT A below the line, and the accented d. The accented letter, e.g. d', may
be used to indicate that a land development cost is involved in the assigning of land class S3. The
magnitude of the land development cost could be indicated by using one, two or three accents as
in d', d' ', or d' ' '. In Table 17, a list of letter suffixes indicating land suitability subclasses (i.e.
denoting the major class-determining factor or factors) is suggested. In this list the land
development cost factors are all accented as described above. Conservational and environmental
factors may be given a different accent, i.e. ê. These may also be subclasses. The use of brackets
with additional information should be used at the discretion of the land evaluator based on his
own rules. In this illustration, the symbol (ê) could indicate that a long-term erosion hazard
should be borne in mind.
The evaluator may require an additional symbol after mapping and classifying the 'irrigable'
lands. The boundaries of aggregated land units may be defined and it may be necessary to
indicate the economic viability of these using V1, V2, V3, N1 and N2 instead of the suitability
class symbols used for the 'provisionally-irrigable' land and for reconnaissance evaluations.
Table 17 LETTER SUFFIXES FOR INDICATING LAND SUITABILITY CLASSES AND

SUBCLASSES
CLASS-DETERMINING FACTOR Letter Suffix

A. Crop (agronomic) factors
1. Growing period b
2. Radiation j
3. Temperature c
4. Rooting r
5. Aeration d
6. Water quantity m
7. Nutrition (NPK) n
8. Water quality q
9. Salinity x
10. Sodicity y
11. pH, micronutrients and toxicities. z
12. Pest, disease, weeds p
13. Flood, storm, wind, frost u
B. Management factors
14. Location l
15. Water application management w
16. Pre-harvest farm management v
17. Harvest and post-harvest h
18. Mechanization k
C. Land development cost factors
19. Land clearing c'
20. Flood protection f'
21. Drainage d'
22. Land grading and levelling (topography) t'
62
23. Amendments (physical, chemical, organic) a'
24. Leaching x'
25. Reclamation period r'
26. Irrigation engineering (construction) i'
D. Conservation, environmental factors
27. Salinity/sodicity hazard
28 Ground or surface water hazard

29 Long-term erosion hazard
30 Environmental hazard
E Social and economic factors
31 Farmers' attitudes to irrigation
32 Others if class-determining

An illustration of the use of the Formats for evaluating a land utilization type in a saline arid
area, to be reclaimed, is given in Example 2. This illustrates the use of factor ratings where
several factors are class-determining, the interactions to be considered, and the application of
'significance' in assigning the land suitability classes and subclasses. It also shows the need for
refinements in successive iterations, and the importance of translating from physical into
economic criteria, as further explained in Chapter 7.
EXAMPLE 2
Land utilization type (LUT Winter cropping (wheat, beans, clover)

B): Summer cropping (maize, sunflower) in an arid area to be reclaimed and
farmed in 2.5 ha smallholdings
Land productivity index = 1.0 for the top of s1 land
Class-determining factor Salinity (control of)
9: 1/
land use limitation: Tolerance of the above crops to salinity
land quality: Potential soil salinity hazard after reclamation and its effect on the land
productivity index
represented by land - soil permeability (0-75 cm depth)
characteristics: - depth to barrier (cm)
- hydraulic resistance to vertical flow through barrier (C)
- land elevation above mean sea level (m amsl)
Class-determining factor 21: Drainage
land use requirement: Drainage requirements (design)
land quality: Drainability
represented by: Cost of drainage (nil, low, medium, high or $/ha)
Class-determining factor 24: Leaching requirements
land use requirement: Leaching requirements (cm of water) for reclaiming the land
land quality: Conditions for leaching
63
represented by: - present soil salinity (0-75 cm depth) EC of saturation extract (dS/m)
- water depth in metres of water of quality EC 1-2 dS/m
- cost of leaching ($/ha)
Class-determining factor 25: Reclamation period
land use requirement: Reclamation period (years)
land quality: Not relevant
represented by: Value of production foregone ($/ha)
(Note the interdependence of factors, especially between salinity control and drainage.)
1/ The numbers refer to the list of factors in Format 1.
These four factors would be given as 'specifications' of the LUT B (Format 1) using critical limits
as in Example 2, Format 1.
Example 2 FORMAT 1: SPECIFICATIONS FOR LUT B (Winter & Summer Cropping) 1/
REPRESENTED BY: LAND CRITICAL LIMITS FOR:

CLASS-DETERMINING
CHARACTERISTIC OR COST s1 s2 s3 n1 n2
FACTOR
OF IMPROVEMENT
9. Salinity control (i.e. hazard - soil permeability (0-75 cm >1.0 1.0-0.5 0.5-0.1 0.1- <0.05
remaining after reclamation depth) m/hr 2/ 0.05
and effect on crop yields) - depth to barrier (m) >5 5-3 3-2 2-1 <1
- hydraulic resistance to vertical <50 50-100 100-200 200- >250
flow through barrier (C) 3/ 250
- land elevation (m) >20 20-15 15-10 10-3 <3
21. Drainage - drainage design requirements nil moderate moderate high very
in terms of cost 4/ -high high
- actual costs ($/ha) to be determined
24. Leaching requirement - present soil salinity (0-75 cm <10 10-30 30-60 60- >75
depth) EC of saturation extract 75
(dS/m)
- water depth (m) (water quality <0.5 0.5-1 1-1.5 1.5-2 >2
EC 1-2 dS/m assumed)
- cost of leaching nil moderate moderate high very
-high high
25. Reclamation period - period to reduce salinity (0-75 <0.5 0.5-1 1-2 2-4 >4
cm depth) to < 4 dS/m EC (sat.
extr.) (years) 4/
- value of production foregone 4/ nil moderate moderate high very
-high high
1/ Note that this is only illustrative; the evaluator must produce his own specifications for each
LUT (see guidelines in Part 2).
2/ Later on, where proved appropriate, a soil textural class may be substituted if this correlates
satisfactorily with soil permeability.
3/ See Part Two, C.21.
64
4/ Special studies may be necessary to determine the drainage costs and value of production
foregone during reclamation; these should be included in later reiterations.
The land evaluator takes the above specifications for LOT B with him as he surveys and maps
the land units in the field. On any given land unit he might record the following data for the land
qualities or characteristics on Format 2:
Example 2 FORMAT 2: LAND QUALITIES AND CHARACTERISTICS OF LAND UNIT NO

WITH AN ASSESSMENT OF INPUTS AND LAND IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED
FORMAT 2: Land Unit 130

NAME OF EVALUATOR: T. Spade
DESCRIPTION: Banypoh land system, Facet 1
CLASS DETERMINING LAND
CHARACTERISTIC OR INPUTS &
FACTORS: - land qualities or UNIT OF
QUALITY VALUE IMPROVEMENTS
characteristics, inputs or MEASUREMENT
ASSUMED FOR LUT B
improvements PRESENT FUTURE
9. Salinity hazard after
rehabilitation
- soil texture (0-75 cm) scl scl
- soil permeability (0-75 cm) m/ha >1.0 >1.0
- depth to barrier m 2.5 2.5
- hydraulic resistance to vertical C 75 75
flow through barrier
- land elevation m >20 >20
21. Drainage
- drainage design requirement 500 m of 50 mm
perforated pipe per ha at
1.5 m depth
- preliminary estimate of moderate
drainage cost
- revised estimate of drainage $/ha not yet determined
cost
24. Leaching requirement
during the reclamation period
- present soil salinity (0-75 cm dS/m variable from 4
depth) EC of saturation extract 10-30
- water depth needed to reclaim m 1.2 m of water
(water quality EC = 1-2 dS/m
assumed)
- preliminary cost of leaching low
- revised estimate of cost $/ha not yet available
- period to reduce salinity (0-75 years <0.5 years
cm depth) to 4 dS/m EC
(saturation extract)
- value of production foregone $/ha to be calculated
The above (Format 2) records:
65
i. The observations of the land evaluator as he characterizes the land unit in the field.
ii. His evaluation of the observed land characteristics' in terms of estimates of inputs and land
improvements (i.e. drainage requirements, and reclamation leaching). Hence, for example, the
soil will be leached after the drains are installed to reduce the soil salinity from its present level
(10-30 dS/m) to an acceptable level (4 dS/m).
iii. Cost estimates based on the drainage design (i.e. on the lengths, sizes, spacing and depths
of pipe or channel) plus the cost of leaching, plus the value of production foregone while the
land is being drained and leached. The period during which the land is being drained and
leached may displace any existing agriculture, therefore the reclamation period must be stated
together with the value of production foregone during this period. In the early field evaluation
only rough indications of the costs (low, medium or high) need be provided; further refinements
can he included on the format at a later date using actual costs.
The land evaluator next proceeds to Step 8, the matching of the land characteristics plus inputs
and land improvements (Format 2) against the specifications of LUT B (Format 1) for the
selection of the appropriate factor ratings. These are entered on Format 3 as follows:
Example 2 FORMAT 3: FACTOR RATINGS (LUT B with land unit 130)
Format 3: FACTOR RATINGS LUT B: Winter and summer cropping

NAME OF LAND EVALUATOR: T. Spade LAND UNIT: 130
CLASS-DETERMING FACTORS FACTOR SIGNIFICANCE COMMENTS
RATING
9. Salinity hazard after reclamation s1 Very Important
- soil permeability s3
- depth to barrier s2
- hydraulic resistance to vertical flow through barrier s2
- land elevation s1
21. Drainage cost Very Important
- preliminary estimate s2
- revised estimate n.a.
24. Leaching requirement Not Important
during reclamation period
- cost of leaching s1
- revised estimate
25. Reclamation period Less Important
- period to reduce salinity s1
- value of production foregone n.a.
TENTATIVE LAND SUITABILITY CLASS AND
SUBCLASS
FINAL LAND SUITABILITY CLASS AND SUBCLASS
n.a. Not yet available
It should be noted that a representative set of land units could first be studied in this detail, then
the entries simplified.
66
The tentative field assignment of the land suitability class and subclass is:
which indicates a salinity limitation after reclamation which is expected to reduce yields on land
unit 130, and a drainage cost which is medium. The combination of the two lowers the class to
S3, although each of the two limitations received a factor rating of only s2. The land is only
marginally suitable, and further estimates of drainage and other costs will be required; these
may confirm the class or may result in a downgrading to N1.

Physical data on crop yields and land improvements and inputs must be produced by the land
evaluator for the economic evaluation, leading to a revision of land suitability classes if
necessary.
It is helpful to indicate the ceiling or highest expected yields on the S1 land in the descriptions of
LUTs. Yields relative to this ceiling can then be set for each land suitability class as a land
productivity index (e.g. s1 = 1.0-0.8, s2 = 0.8-0.7, s3 = 0.7-0.6, etc. but not necessarily these
values). Note that factor ratings may be used for relative yields where further economic
evaluation is required to translate these into economic terms.
In Example 2, the only 'class-determining' factor listed that would affect yield is the salinity of the
land after reclamation (the other factors listed are all limitations because of costs). Some land
units are expected to have patches of salinity, or to prove more difficult to manage for salinity
control than others. Their future yields are therefore expected to be depressed relative to other
land units. In the Format 3 example above, a factor rating of s2 for the factor 'Salinity' might,
say, be taken as 75% of the yield anticipated for the ceiling of s1. Ceiling s1 yields for each of
the crops (wheat, beans, clover, maize, sunflower) of LUT B would be listed in a table.
Similarly, the physical inputs (fertilizer, pesticides, etc.) and land development costs
(engineering costs for area-specific development) should be first described in physical terms
and then costed. This process produces the information necessary for the economic evaluation
of land suitability, first for 'provisionally-irrigable' land and later, for 'irrigable' land, as is
elaborated in the next Chapter.
7. Economic evaluation of land suitability for irrigation
7.1 Terminology
67
As explained in Chapter 1, land suitability evaluation is essentially an economic concept.
Suitability classes are applied according to economic measures rather than simply on the basis
of assessments of physical productivity.
The application of any formal economic analysis is, of course, seldom possible in the earlier
stages of a land evaluation exercise when only rough estimates of development costs and of
potential levels of productivity are usually available. This is not to imply, however, that economic
considerations should be disregarded at the outset of studies, when even 'back-of-the-envelope'
calculations may help in distinguishing between land which is provisionally 'irrigable' and that
which is not. Such initial calculations may also help identify alternative LUTs, including possible
cropping, irrigation and management systems, and the approximate amount which can be
invested in land development.
This chapter explains, with reference to examples, how economic considerations are introduced
into the selection of LUTs and land suitability classes.
Because a major concern for most countries which embark on the development or rehabilitation
of irrigation systems is the impact that the required investments will have on the economy as a
whole, it is appropriate to apply economic rather than financial methods of analysis in the final
classification of land suitability for irrigation 1/. This approach contrasts with that adopted by the
USBR which classifies land according to its 'payment capacity'; this is essentially a
measurement of financial impact of irrigation development on the income of the typical farmer
(see Chapter 10). The FAO methodology employs financial analyses, using farm budgets, as
explained later in this chapter, to confirm that, under current or expected market conditions,
there are financial incentives for farmers to participate in a proposed irrigation development
programme on a particular land area.
1/ For a description of the distinction between economic and financial analysis, see Gittinger
(1982): excerpt is reprinted in Appendix 3.
Advantages of adopting 'economic' rather than 'financial' analyses in land evaluation include:
i. bringing the methodology for land classification into line with that conventionally applied in
project evaluation, especially by international lending institutions;
ii. avoiding anomalies in classification caused by variations in cost recovery policy and law and
in the extent of farmers' liability for land development costs;
iii. setting aside any distortions in values introduced by official intervention, such as subsidies,
controls and quotas; first, because these obscure 'real' prices and second, because of their
temporary and variable nature.
7.1 Terminology
i. Measures of Suitability
Three alternative measures of land suitability class have already been defined in Chapter 2,
namely:
68
- Land Productivity Index defining the physical productivity of land relative to the best land (see
Section 2.4);
- Net Farm Income, i.e. the value obtained by subtracting both the variable and fixed costs from
the gross value of production on a given unit of land (Section 2.4);
- Net Incremental Irrigation Benefit (NIIB), a measure of the potential increase in productivity of
a unit area of land when developed under a specified plan, expressed in economic terms as an
Annual Equivalent Value (see later in this Chapter).
The land evaluation team must decide which of these measures of suitability is most appropriate
for a given evaluation. In general, a physical measure of productivity will be appropriate in
reconnaissance low intensity studies. Net farm income may be a sufficient measure for a
classification of 'provisionally-irrigable' land, before reliable estimates of common project costs
and land development costs are available. However, future revisions and adjustments can be
reduced significantly by making early estimates of incremental net farm income and cut-off
values between 'Suitable' and 'Not Suitable' land. In the final classification of 'irrigable' land
under a specific project plan, NIIB is the appropriate measure of suitability class as explained in
Section 2.4, and more fully in this chapter.
ii. Interest and Discounting Calculations
Explanations of interest and discounting calculations whereby monetary values are manipulated
into various time-formats are given in standard economic textbooks. Streams of periodically
occurring values can be converted to a lump sum present value, or to an end-of-period value.
Conversely, a single value can be spread (amortized) over a period of time. The interest rate
used in these calculations may be either the opportunity cost of capital, or a rate which is
satisfactory to the client or sponsor of the investigation. In special cases, a social rate of
discount may be appropriate in lieu of a discount rate related to the opportunity cost of capital.
The required procedures are limited to a few standard practices which are illustrated in
Appendix 2.

In order to attribute net values to the production of each LUT, it is necessary to prepare full or
partial crop or farm budgets. References in the bibliography (Brown 1982; Gittinger 1982; Yang
1965) provide guidance on preparing farm budgets and enterprise analyses for crops or
livestock production. Budgets are usually prepared in detail to show the net income for a farm, a
unit of area, or an enterprise. Supporting data elaborating on methodology and assumptions can
be filed and retained for future reference.
After eliminating the obviously less promising LUTs from the initial listing, the remainder can be
analysed by farm budgets to obtain net farm income expressed in economic prices. For any one
land unit or grouping, one or more alternative LUTs may be recommended. Where appropriate,
variations in output and input levels can be tested by means of partial budgets.
Budgets are generally needed to represent:
69
i. the present situation 'without' the project;
ii. the future situation 'without' the project;
iii. the future situation 'with' the project.
The first two of these budgets for the 'without' project situation are usually alike except when
trends are judged likely to make the future setting different from the present. In some cases
(e.g. where salinity is projected to increase in the absence of the project), deteriorating
conditions need to be recognized in the sense that the budget for the 'without' situation
represents a worse state than that of the present situation. On many rainfed areas, the future
situation without the project can be represented by a single budget (or a limited few) if the
present situation is fairly uniform and stable throughout.
Budgets representing the future situation 'with' the project will be required for whatever number
of LUTs it is desired to examine for a land unit. A few full-farm budgets representing the modal
tendency can serve as a basis for related partial budgets which subsequently examine the
effects of variations such as technology and management levels, size of farm, levels of outputs
and inputs, different crop yield assumptions, water supply variations, etc., depending on the
level of detail needed.
To begin the process of eliminating less promising LUTs, array the LUTs by land productivity
index, net farm income, or NIIB, depending on which indicator is appropriate for the stage of the
evaluation. Economic comparisons will assist the selection of 'class-determining' requirements
and limitations for each LUT.
In making analyses at the farm level to choose the composition of enterprises or to test the
feasibility of different kinds or levels of inputs or outputs, a shortened form of budget need only
deal with the pertinent changes. Table 18 illustrates how three optional choices can be tested in
terms of farm income. Two options for investment in irrigation improvements on the farm are
compared with the option of no improvements. Many other applications will be found for the
shortened form of budgeting.
Table 19 provides an illustration of a full farm budget, typical of the kind which is useful for
analysing LUTs to obtain net farm income. Accompanying schedule C (Table 20) gives crop
production costs per hectare and Schedule L (Table 21) gives labour requirements per hectare.
Other similar supporting data could include schedules of the monthly and seasonal pattern of
labour requirements, agrochemical usage and costs, etc.
A variation of LUT A (Table 22) that lends itself as an example of partial budgeting (i.e.
shortened form of budgeting) could consist of a reduction of the land productivity index from,
say 100% (i.e. 1.0) to 75% (i.e. 0.75) because of differences in the land. For the sake of
illustration, assume that the crop yield is depressed because of a coarser textured soil and
excessive permeability. Excessive percolation losses put a paddy rice crop on this land under
more water stress resulting in yield depression. Table 22 is a partial budget that shows the
changes in variable costs and returns for such a situation, and derives the net farm income.
Table 18 PARTIAL BUDGETS TO COMPARE THE PROSPECTIVE GROSS INCOME GAINS

FROM ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENTS IN TOPOGRAPHIC LAND LEVELLING AND
SPRINKLER IRRIGATION (One Hectare)
70
A comparison is made using three farmer-financed options for area-specific land development
costs (unimproved furrow irrigation, land levelling, sprinkler irrigation). This land can be farmed
under irrigation in the natural condition in spite of the undulating topography. However, the yield
level is not up to full potential. The present conditions have the following disadvantages which
are evaluated in terms of yield depression, inefficient irrigation application, higher labour
requirements, loss of fertilizer due to uneven water distribution, and higher costs for some field
work. The capital requirement for land levelling is estimated to be $1 000 per hectare. For the
sprinkler system the investment would be $1 500 a hectare, with a useful life of 20 years. The
interest rate is 8% p.a.
Case 1 - Testing the investment in land levelling as compared to (furrow) irrigating the
unimproved land
Losses: Gains:
Extra costs: Costs saved:
Interest and amortization of the land levelling cost $102 Difference in land preparation $2
Taxes on increased investment 15 Extra labour for field irrigation 24
Annual maintenance and repair 10 Lower interest on operating capital 4
Value of fertilizer wasted 20
Difference in cultivation 20
Revenues foregone: Extra revenue:
None Value of increased crop yield 210
Total $127 $280
Extra profit from land levelling for furrow irrigating the unimproved land: $280 minus $127
equals $153 per hectare.
Case 2 - Testing the installation of a sprinkler system in comparison with furrow

irrigating the unimproved land
Losses: Gains:
Extra costs: Costs saved:
Interest and amortization of the sprinkler system investment $152 Difference in land preparation $10
Taxes on the increased investment 20 Difference in cultivation 20
Annual maintenance and repair 150 Value of fertilizer wasted 20
Fuel costs for engine 50 Extra labour for field irrigation 42
Interest on extra operating capital 9 Extra revenue:
Revenues foregone: Value of increased crop yield 300
None
Total $381 Total $392
Extra profit from sprinkler vs furrow irrigation: $392 minus $381 equals $11 per hectare.
Table 19 FULL FARM BUDGET FOR LUT A (1.0) ON THE BEST LAND 1/
PADDY RICE FARM - 2.0 HECTARES WITH AND WITHOUT SUPPLEMENTAL IRRIGATION
- Indonesia
71
Land Productivity Index Level 1.0
ITEM WITHOUT PROJECT WITH PROJECT

Wet Season Crops:
Rainfed rice yielding 2.0 t/ha 1.0 ha
Irrigated rice yielding 4.2 t/ha 1.0 ha 2.00 ha
Dry Season Crops:
Irrigated soybeans yielding 0.6 t/ha 0.4 ha
Irrigated rice yielding 4.0 t/ha 1.6 ha
Production:
Rice 6.2 t 14.8 t
Soybeans .24 t
Value of Production Rp values x 1 000
Rice @ Rp 100 000/t 620.0 1 480.0
Soybeans @ Rp 195 000/t 46.8
Total 620.0 1 526.8
Variable Costs (from schedule C, see Table 20 for details):
Rainfed rice (1.0 ha) 69.0
Irrigated rice (1.0 ha) 113.0
Wet season (2.0 ha) 238.0
Dry season (1.6 ha) 184.0
Soybeans (0.4 ha) 18.0
Total 182.0 440.2
Fixed Costs 10.0 12.0
Total Costs 192.0 452.2
Net Farm Income, per farm 428.0 1 074.6
Net Farm Income, per hectare 214.0 537.3
Note: This table is prepared using economic analysis criteria (see Appendix 3).
1/ Land Productivity Index Level (1.0) represents the best quality land.
Table 20 SUPPORTING DATA SCHEDULE C FOR TABLE 19 - Cost of production on one

hectare - Indonesia
Land Productivity Index Level 1.0 (Rp values x 1 000)
Rainfed Rice Irrigated Rice Soybeans

Wet Season Wet Season Dry Season Dry Season
WITHOUT PROJECT
Land preparation 15.0 15.0
Seed 4.7 4.0
Fertilizer 6.6 33.1
Pest control 2.1 8.5
Harvesting 6.0 11.4
Labour 32.0 38.0
72
Other 2.6 3.0
Total 69.0 113.0
WITH PROJECT
Land preparation 15.0 15.0 3.0
Seed 4.0 4.0 6.6
Fertilizer 33.1 33.1 3.1
Pest control 8.5 8.5 6.2
Harvesting 12.6 11.0 1.0
Labour 42.0 40.0 22.0
Other 3.8 3.5 3.1
Total 119.0 115.1 45.0
Note: This table is prepared using criteria for economic analysis.
Table 21 SUPPORTING DATA SCHEDULE L FOR TABLE 19 - Labour inputs per hectare, -
Indonesia
Land Productivity Index Level 1.0 (days)
Rainfed Rice Irrigated Rice Soybeans

Wet Season Wet Season Dry Season Dry Season
WITHOUT PROJECT
Land preparation 40 40
Planting 35 35
Care of crop 50 55
Harvesting 35 60
Total 160 190
WITH PROJECT
Land preparation 40 40 25
Planting 35 35 20
Care of crop 75 75 30
Harvesting 60 50 35
Total 210 200 110
Note: In the economic analysis all labour, both hired and that supplied by the farm family, is
considered as an expense.
Table 22 PARTIAL FARM BUDGET FOR LUT A (0.75) FOR LAND 1/ WITH AN INDEX OF
75% RELATIVE TO THE BEST LAND
PADDY RICE FARM - 2.0 HECTARES WITH AND WITHOUT SUPPLEMENTAL IRRIGATION
- Indonesia
Land Productivity Index Level 0.75 (Rp values x 1 000)
ITEM WITHOUT PROJECT WITH PROJECT

Reduced crop value 2/ 155.0 381.7
Reduced expenses:
73
Variable costs
Reduced harvesting
Rainfed rice (1.0 ha) 0.9
Irrigated rice (1.0 ha) 2.3
Wet season (2.0 ha) 3.8
Dry season (1.6 ha) 3.5
Soybeans (0.4 ha) 0.1
Other variable costs - no change
Fixed costs - no change
Net reduction in income 151.8 374.3
Net farm income from LUT A (1.0) per farm 428.0 1 074.6
per hectare 214.0 537.3
Net farm income from LUT A (0.75) per farm 276.2 700.0
per hectare 138.1 350.15
1/ Relative to LUT A (1.0) in Table 19.
2/ Soil deficiency evaluated as having the same effect on crop production without and with the
project. Such may not be the case where the land use is to be changed appreciably by the
project.
7.3.2 Establishing the range of permissible area-specific land development costs
The full or partial budgets described above provide an estimate of the net farm income per
hectare attributable to a given farming system or LUT at various productivity levels under
'without' and 'with' project situations. To determine land suitability classes, it is necessary to take
account also of:
- common project costs, and

- area-specific land development costs.
These benefits and costs may be integrated for classification purposes into a value termed the
Net Incremental Irrigation Benefit (NIIB). The NIIB may be calculated as follows:
(A) Net Incremental Farm Income (i.e. net farm income 'with' project minus net farm income
'without' project derived from the budgets); normally assessed for the year of full development;
Minus (B) Annual Equivalent Value of Common Costs;
Minus (C) Annual Equivalent Value of Area-specific Land Development Costs.
74
It follows from this that if (A) minus (C) is less than (B), the land in question is 'Not Suitable' for
irrigation development and can be classified as N1 or N2. The Annual Equivalent Value of
Common Costs (B) thus represents the cut-off value for required net incremental farm income
(after payment of area-specific development costs).
It must also be evident that (A) minus (B) is equivalent to the maximum permissible amount
which can be spent on Area-specific Land Development (C), expressed in annual equivalent
values.
To set the boundaries of 'Suitable' classes (i.e. between S1, S2 and S3), the range of NIIB
between the cut-off point (NIIB = 0) and the maximum obtainable in a project area may be
divided into three equal or unequal segments. The use of a nomograph simplifies the attribution
of classes (see Subsection 7.3.3 and Figure 2).
Examples of the calculation of cut-off values, permissible development costs and NIIB, and of
the translation of NIIB into land suitability classes are given below.
The economic consequences of changes in physical productivity and costs of production will
demarcate a boundary or cut-off point between land which is suitable for irrigation and land
which is not. The poorest land to be classed as 'Suitable' must be able to carry its share of the
common project costs, otherwise it should be classified as 'Not Suitable'. The cut-off in an
'irrigable' classification is represented by the annual equivalent of the development, operating
and maintenance cost of the project, less any area-specific development costs. Land that
cannot generate a net incremental value of production equivalent to or greater than the cut-off
value would normally be classified as 'Not Suitable'.
The cut-off value is calculated by dividing the investment in common project facilities by the
number of hectares in the project, converting to an annual equivalent cost, and adding the
project's annual operation and maintenance costs (replacement costs are most readily
represented as an annual equivalent in the operation and maintenance costs, OM & R).
The conversion of investment values to annual equivalent costs (and any other discounting
processes required) will utilize the investment rate of interest or opportunity costs of capital
specified by the project sponsor. (In illustrations that follow a hypothetical rate of 12% and a
project life of 50 years is assumed.) Appendix 2 shows how the discounting is performed.
Common project costs do not include costs of land improvements or land development (e.g. for
land clearing, drainage, levelling, etc.). The latter are area-specific costs and are land class-
determining.
Table 23 illustrates how the cut-off value might be calculated for a hypothetical project.
Table 23 CALCULATION OF AN ECONOMIC CUT-OFF VALUE - 2 500 hectare irrigation

project - Indonesia
(Rp values x 1 000)
75
ITEM TOTAL PER
PROJECT HECTARE
Investment in common project facilities 5 000 000 2 000
Annual equivalent cost (at 12% over 50 years) 602 000 240
Annual OM & R 25 000 10
Annual common project costs 627 000 250
Cut-off value, per hectare (or required net incremental farm income after 250
attribution of area-specific development costs)
7.3.2 Establishing the range of permissible area-specific land development

costs
The cut-off value described above sets the lower boundary for the range of permissible land
development costs. In the context of economic analysis any expenditure must be justified, on
the grounds that benefits exceed costs, and enable the resultant productivity of the land (after
the expenditure) to remain above the cut-off value. The upper boundary for the economic range
of suitable land is based on the NIIB for the most productive land on the project (not simply the
best land in a LUT).
For example, if the cut-off value were, say, Rp 250 000 per hectare and the best land would
produce incremental benefits of Rp 323 000, the NIIB range for suitable land would be Rp 1 to
73 000 (annual), if the land in question had no area-specific land development costs.
If the figure Rp 73 000 (Table 24) is the NIIB for LUT A (1.0) (from Tables 19-21) for land
classified as S1 in an 'irrigable' classification and if the NIIB is capitalized (12%, 50 years), an
investment limit of Rp 606 200 for an area-specific land development cost applies on the best
land in the project. Land with lower productivity would bear proportionately lower investment
costs.
Table 24 CALCULATION OF THE NET INCREMENTAL IRRIGATION BENEFIT - 2 500

hectare irrigation project - Indonesia
Land Utilization Type A (Rp values x 1 000)
Land Productivity Index Levels

1.0 0.75
Irrigation Benefits (per hectare): (Land Unit 10) (Land Unit 16)
Net farm income with project 537 350
Net farm income without project -214 -138
Incremental irrigation benefit 323 212
Net of common project costs:
Project cost (2 500 ha) 5 000 000
Cost per hectare 2 000
Amortized (12%, 50 years) 240
Annual OM & R 10
Annual common project cost (per ha) 250 250
76
Maximum permissible area-specific land development cost on 73 -37
LUT A
Estimated development cost, this land unit 0
NET INCREMENTAL IRRIGATION BENEFIT (the excess of 73)
benefits over costs
If such a range of NIIB values were to be divided into three more or less equal classes, land
generating a NIIB of Rp 50 000 - 73 000 per ha would be classified as S1, Rp 25 000 - 50 000
as S2 and Rp 0 - 25 000 as S3. In some cases, it will be appropriate to establish unequal
ranges corresponding to prominent land characteristics and associated land improvements such
as land levelling or drainage.
The nomograph in Figure 2 illustrates how Incremental Net Farm Income minus the Annual
Equivalent Values of Common Costs and Area-Specific Land Development Costs can be
conveniently represented to facilitate the calculation of NIIB. Example 1 shown on the
nomograph represents an area that will become top producing land (Incremental Net Farm
Income Rp 325 000) following an area-specific development cost expenditure of, say, Rp 200
000. The annual equivalent value of this investment is Rp 25 000 at an interest rate of 12% over
50 years. The broken line across the nomograph extends between the top of the net
incremental farm income scale (representing the top productivity), to the point on the
development cost scale that reads Rp 200 000 investment (Rp 25 000 annual). With a NIIB of
Rp 50 000 the land is on the boundary between S1 and S2.
Figure 2 Nomograph for correlating incremental net farm income, net incremental
irrigation benefit and area-specific development cost (Rupiahs)
77
Example 2, in Figure 2 shows how land requiring the same investment cost in land development
can only produce a net incremental farm income of Rp 280 000. Note that the broken line on the
nomograph intersects the NIIB scale at Rp 5 000 corresponding to a land suitability class of S3.
The nomograph does not reveal anything that could not be calculated directly, but serves as a
convenient tool for demonstrating the interactions visually. The construction of a nomograph is
quite simple. Using graph paper, the vertical scales are positioned equidistant from each other.
The two outside scales are each of the same length, and are sized to fit the subdivisions of the
graph paper and provide an easy read-out. The NIIB scale at the centre is half the length of the
two outside scales.
Values used for the nomograph are generated by determining the cut-off value, the net farm
income values in farm budgets, and the range of permissible area-specific land development
costs.
78
The permissible area land development costs for any given land suitability class can be
calculated using the value at the bottom of each class as a cut-off. If the land development costs
exceed the calculated amount for the class, the land should be downgraded. For example, in
the case where the per hectare ranges for 'Suitable' are established as follows:
Class S1 incremental benefits Rp 325 000 ha/yr

Cut-off value Rp 250 000 ha/yr
Range of NIIB Rp 75 000 ha/yr,
the permissible area-specific land development costs for any given land suitability class can be
calculated, using the value at the bottom of each class as a cut-off, as illustrated in Table 25.
Highly productive land will, of course, bear greater investment costs than marginally productive
land. In Table 25 it will be readily appreciated that land with a physical productivity factor rating
of s3 would not tolerate the annual equivalent value of development costs of Rp 35 000?
however, land with factor ratings of s1 and s2 would tolerate this cost but their final
classifications might be downgraded to S2 and S3 because of such costs.
Table 25 PERMISSIBLE AREA-SPECIFIC LAND DEVELOPMENT COSTS
FACTOR RATINGS FOR RELATIVE YIELD

s3 s2 s1
Potential relative yield ranges 0.85-0.90 0.90-0.95 0.95-1.00
Permissible development costs (annual equivalent) Rp 25 000 50 000 75 000
Actual development costs, annual equivalent cost, say, Rp 35 000
NIIB (net incremental irrigation benefit) Rp -10 000
Final classification N1

At the 'provisionally-irrigable' stage of the evaluation, each unit or group of land units may be
classified for one or several LUTs. The classification of 'irrigable' land is more precise and
should generally result in a determination of the number of hectares, by land suitability classes
and subclasses, comprising a recommended irrigation service area under a project plan.
Alternatives must be resolved into specific cropping, irrigation and management systems
proposals that are realistic, practicable and likely to occur. Thus, a likely land use pattern for the
project area as a whole will emerge.
This land use pattern will serve as the basis for locating the project's major water supply and
drainage systems, and for calculating irrigation benefits. Each land unit-LUT combination is
finalized (i.e. as S1, S2, etc.) in a classification of 'irrigable' land.
Table 26 summarizes a classification of 'irrigable' land for a hypothetical project. It will be noted
that within any land suitability class, more than one LUT may be represented. Note in this
example, the apportionment of class S1 lands between LUT A and LUT B, for reasons other
than land suitability, e.g. for market needs, to even out labour peaks, to improve seasonal cash
flow, or to lessen overdependence on a given crop, etc.
79
Table 26 SUMMARY OF IRRIGABLE LAND CLASSES AND PROJECT AREA
HYPOTHETICAL PROJECT - INDONESIA (Net Farm Income Rp/ha x 1 000)
Land Class & Hectares LUT A LUT B Land Net Farm NIIB Range
Land Unit No. Vegetables ha Rice ha Productivity Income Rp/ha Rp/ha x
Index x 1000 1000
Class S1 552 400 1/ 152 0.95-1.0 300-352 50-75
Land units: 7, 9, 10,
13, 15, 17
Class S2 1 500 1 550 0.90-0.95 275-300 25-50
Land units: 1, 3, 4,
6, 8, 14, 19, 20, 21,
22
Class S3 398 398 0.85-0.90 250-275 0-25
Land units: 2, 5, 11
Total irrigable 2 500 400 2 100
Class N1 505
Land units: 12, 16,
18
1/ Apportionment of area in irrigable class S1 between LUT A and LUT B is made to facilitate
the estimation of benefits from the project. It is based on the limited market demand for local
vegetable production. No particular land unit or hectare is designated for this land use, but the
ceiling on the extent of LUT A results from practical considerations.
The procedure described enables a determination of irrigation benefits, but avoids dictating the
precise land use pattern to the farmer. Other considerations might apply where it would be
desirable to specify ranges of land use, as appropriate, for the envisaged degree of control over
land use. It is often desirable to examine more than one overall land use pattern for the project
area. After consultation among appropriate personnel, a likely pattern of land use should evolve
which meets the project objectives and the approval of the authorities, and produces sufficient
benefits to justify the project in economic terms. However, there is a practical limit to the number
of plans that can be analysed when deadlines must be met. Other members of a project
planning team will expect the land evaluation to be presented without undue delay and in
reasonably final form so that the hydrology, engineering and other parts of the project's
investigations can be completed on schedule.
The form for tabulating the results of the land evaluation could vary widely, depending on what
details are needed. If the table is extensive and deals with subclasses and several LUTs, it may
not be useful to try to include the columns showing the land productivity index, net farm income
and NUB ranges. Furthermore, the land suitability classes obtained using these three measures
may differ, as explained in Section 2.4, for any given land unit or LUT combination.

The foregoing economic analyses for the 'irrigable' classification concerned the project as a
whole. If the project plan is to be sustained, it must also be financially remunerative to individual
farmers. An analysis using financial data prices and criteria, rather than economic ones (see
Gittinger 1982 and Appendix 3) is needed to confirm the financial attractiveness of the proposal
from the typical farmers' viewpoint.
80
For this purpose, full farm budgets for the representative types and sizes of farms are required.
In these budgets:
i. all the increased production costs must be met (including water charges where relevant);
ii. increased investment costs charged to the farmer must be covered;
iii. imputed returns are calculated for equity capital, farm family management and labour input,
prices or other contingencies (other items may be included);
iv. the net income is found by deducting all the costs and allowances from the value of farm
sales and products consumed at the farm.
The above determinations are made for situations without and with the project in order to make
proper allowance for project earnings and thus arrive at incremental income due to the project.
Costs attributable to the farm must be distinguished from those which are rightfully attributable
to the project as a whole.
Farm budget calculations are carried out using production or relative yield levels corresponding
to the economic cut-off boundary between 'Suitable' and 'Not Suitable'; and also using ceiling
values for the most productive land. For both these, the incremental net income is calculated as
the difference between the values found for the 'without' and 'with' situations. It is from this net
income that repayment obligations must be met including, if any, costs for area-specific land
development performed by the farmer or by the project and assigned to the farmer for
repayment.
Table 27 illustrates a case in which the values for the cut-off and the range of permissible
development costs are determined using economic criteria pertinent to the project (as described
in Section 7.3). Table 28 illustrates the financial verification using financial criteria pertinent to
the farm. (The assumptions about water charges will, of course, vary widely from project to
project.)
The economic analyses were concerned with the cut-off value and NIIB ranges. In the financial
farm budgets, the bottom line (Table 28), shows a residual value available to the farmer to cover
area-specific land development costs. If the financial residual, after water and operation and
maintenance charges are paid out, remains more than the cost of area-specific development
costs to be borne by the farmer, the farm's financial viability at the cut-off point is confirmed.
If the results of this check prove unfavourable, it is necessary to review and test all assumptions
in the analysis. An unfavourable outcome might result from any of the following:
a. the level of assumed charges levied against the farmer may be unrealistic in terms of his
repayment capacity;
b. the assumptions used in farm budgets may be incorrect, unrealistic, or both; this could apply
to economic and financial budgets, or both;
c. financial prices or other factors subject to official intervention may be inappropriate;
81
d. inequities may prevail, for example, due to institutional factors such as tenure, farm size,
rents, taxes, etc.
Some of the adverse factors that bear on the farm financial viability might be changed by project
financing and as a result of negotiations between the client government and the financing
institution. After thorough review, a decision must be made on whether to revise the land
classification and economic analyses.
Table 27 FARM BUDGETS ESTABLISHING NIIB RANGE FOR IRRIGABLE LAND

(ECONOMIC ANALYSIS) - 15 hectare farm
LAND PRODUCTIVITY INDEX LAND PRODUCTIVITY INDEX

Fixed cost 0.70 1.00
or variable Without With Difference Without With Difference
project project project project
Receipts:
Sales 630 2 520 1 890 900 3 600 2 700
Home use 84 100 16 120 144 24
Income 714 2 620 1 906 1 020 3 744 2 724
Expenses:
Taxes 1/ F - - - - - -
Depreciation 2/ F 4 6 2 4 6 2
Operating loan 3/ V - - - - - -
Operating expenses V 70 180 110 85 226 141
(excl. labour)
Hired labour 4/ V 0 60 60 0 75 75
Family labour 5/ V 60 220 160 68 250 182
Expenses 134 466 332 157 557 400
Net Farm Income 580 2 154 1 574 863 3 187 2 324
Incremental Net Farm 1 574 2 324
Income per farm
Incremental Net Farm 104.93 154.93
Income per hectare
Less: Annual equivalent 100.00 100.00
of common project
investment
Annual operation, 5.00 5.00
maintenance and
replacement
Sum of common project 105.00 105.00
costs
Net Incremental Irrigation -0.07 49.93
Benefit (NIIB) 6/
Note: This Table is prepared using economic analysis criteria.
1/ Not applicable in economic analysis

2/ On machinery and capital items having limited lives.
3/ Not applicable in economic analysis.
82
4/ At market wage rate.
5/ Shadow-priced at half the market wage rate.
6/ Establishes the maximum permissible area-specific land development cost.
Table 28 FARM BUDGETS ESTABLISHING FARMER'S FINANCIAL VIABILITY UNDER

IRRIGATION (FINANCIAL ANALYSIS) - 15 hectare farm
LAND PRODUCTIVITY INDEX LAND PRODUCTIVITY INDEX

Fixed cost 0.70 1.00
or variable Without With Difference Without With Difference
project project project project
Receipts:
Sales 525 2 100 1 575 750 3 000 2 250
Home use 70 84 14 100 120 20
Income 595 2 184 1 589 850 3 120 2 270
Expenses:
Taxes F 5 10 5 5 10 5
Depreciation 1/ F 4 6 2 4 6 2
Operating loan V 0 18 18 0 20 20
Operating expenses V 64 170 106 75 200 125
Hired labour V 0 60 60 0 75 75
Family labour 2/ V - - - - - -
Expenses 73 264 191 84 311 227
Net Farm Income 522 1 920 1 398 766 2 809 2 043
Less Imputed Costs:
Interest on equity capital 20 100 80 20 100 80
Family labour input 3/ 120 440 320 136 500 364
Other 4/ 7 26 19 8 31 23
Contingency/Risk 5/ 11 13 2 13 16 3
(158) (579) (421) (177) (647) (470)
Equals Rent/Surplus 364 1 341 977 589 2 162 1 573
Incremental Rent/Surplus 977 1 573
per farm
Incremental Rent/Surplus 65.13 104.87
per hectare
Less annual project 5.00 5.00
operation and maintenance
cost
Less annual charges for 12.00 12.00
water (towards
repayments)
Financial Residual 53.13 92.87
Note: This Table is prepared using financial analysis criteria
1/ On machinery and capital items having limited lives.

2/ Priced in the imputed costs.
3/ At market wage rate.
83
4/At 10% of cash expenses.
5/ At 15% of cash expenses for without project and 5% of cash expenses for with project.
8. Presentation of the results

The main purpose of land evaluation is to provide information on which to base planning and
investment decisions. Decisions are made at various stages of development from
reconnaissance through to detailed project planning and implementation. At each stage, the
products of the land evaluation include reports and maps at intensities and scales outlined in
Table 3 (Chapter 1). In the case of project development reports, it is usual to produce a detailed
technical Main Report with supporting Annexes and an Executive Summary. Apart from the final
reports, it may also be necessary to produce regular progress reports and interim reports.
These are the basis for discussions between the investor, client and consultant which lead to
the major policy decisions.
Some illustrations of the types of presentation which are relevant at various stages of the
investigations from reconnaissance through to project planning are given in the following
paragraphs.

The results of reconnaissance surveys are usually presented on maps at scales of 1:100 000 to
1:250 000. They may be concerned with the preparation of a Master Plan for land and water
resources development including the selection of priorities. At the level of individual river basins,
maps should define areas for catchment protection, flood zoning, reclamation, swamp and tidal
areas, and areas with potential for irrigation development. The report should list the possible
development options and their respective merits and give recommendations and terms of
reference for further, pre-feasibility or feasibility studies of each of the priority projects identified.
Land suitability categories at reconnaissance level will often include fewer classes than for more
intensive studies (e.g. S1, S2 and N). LUTs will generally be broadly defined and the economic
evaluation will indicate production and income potential at a macro level. Land systems will be
delineated to distinguish broadly land which is promising for specific kinds of irrigation and
rainfed agriculture, from land which is not. The requirements and limitations of the LUTs are less
precise than is needed in planning a particular project. For example, Table 29 indicates the
major climatic and soil characteristics required for lowland rice in Indonesia (Bunting 1981) and
is an illustration of the type of information needed for Format 1 at a reconnaissance survey
level.
To illustrate the type of map that might be presented as a result of a reconnaissance study,
Figure 3 shows the result of a large river basin planning study in Sri Lanka. The original FAO
(1968b) study envisaged a development programme of 30 years to develop the land and water
84
resources of the Mahaweli river. The results of the study indicated the possibility of irrigating
237 000 ha of new rice land and the provision of additional water seasonally to 104 000 ha of
existing single crop rice land. The proposals were for a phased programme to develop a series
of irrigation schemes, some in the river basin of the Mahaweli itself, and others in adjacent river
basins with supplemental water from the Mahaweli river via tunnels, transbasin canals or
diversion structures. The development programme included power generating headworks,
together with storage dams and reservoirs to provide water in the dry season. Figure 3 shows
the areas that were designated for phased development as a result of this evaluation. Feasibility
studies of several of these individual areas were later commissioned leading to project
implementation.
Figure 3 Result of a reconnaissance study for developing the irrigation potential of the
Mahaweli river and adjacent catchments in Sri Lanka (FAO 1968)
Table 29 FACTORS THAT MAY DETERMINE LAND SUITABILITY CLASS FOR LOWLAND
RICE IN INDONESIA 1/
DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND USE TYPE:

Crop: Lowland rice
Land Characteristic or Land Quality Units CRITICAL LIMITS
s1 s2 s3 n
Length of growing period days 120 105-120 95-105 95
Average temperature over the growing period °C 24-26 26-28 22-24 28-30 20-22 30 20
Water requirements (rainfall and irrigation) mm/yr >1 1 300-1 600 1 000-1 300 <1 000
600
Soil drainage class 2/ 1, 2 3, 4 5
Soil texture 3/ 8, 9 6, 7 5 1,2,3,4
10, 11 12, 13 16, 17 18
14, 15
Rooting depth cm 25 25 25 25
Soil pH 5.5- 6.5-7.5 5.0-5.4 7.6-8.2 4.5-4.9 8.24.5
6.5
Soil salinity dS/m 3 3-5 5.1-6.5 6.6-8
Nutrient uptake/(nutrient removal in brackets) N kg/ha 160 110 75 48 (30)
P 32 24 18 14 (9)
K 250 170 110 60 (10)
Adapted from Bunting 1981.
1/ Note that not all the above land characteristics would be class-deter-mining. Land suitability
class is based on those that are, taking into account their 'Interactions' (Section 6.2) and
'Significance' (see Section 6.3).
2/ Key to drainage classes: 1 = very poorly drained, 2 = poorly drained, 3 = imperfectly drained,
4 = moderately well drained, 5 = well drained, 6 = somewhat excessively drained, 7 =
excessively drained.
3/ Key to texture classes: 1 = gravel, 2 = coarse sand, 3 = medium sand, 4 = fine sand, 5 =
loamy sand, 6 = sandy clay loam, 7 = loam, 8 = sandy clay loam, 9 = silt loam, 10 = silt, 11 =
85
clay loam, 12 = silty clay loam, 13 = sandy clay, 14 = kaolinitic clay, 15 = silty clay, 16 = mixed
clays, 17 = structured montmorillonitic clay, 18 = massive montmorillonitic clay.
The maps presented in pre-feasibility and feasibility studies are typically at scales from 1:25 000
to 1:50 000 with smaller scale supporting maps as appropriate for the executive summary. In
the absence of full knowledge of the water supply and the development costs, land suitability
may be classified on the basis of net farm income. An 'irrigable' area can later be delineated
from within the 'provisionally-irrigable' area using NIIB as an economic measure of suitability.
Figures 4a and 4b are small-scale maps depicting 'provisionally-irrigable' and 'irrigable' land at
successive stages for the Southern Conveyor Project in Cyprus (Water Development
Department, Cyprus and LRDC, 1982).
At the 'provisionally-irrigable' level, several: land- use alternatives will usually be presented with
a classification of their respective suitabilities on different areas of land, and with subclasses
indicating some of the land development requirements (e.g. drainage) for contiguous areas
amalgamating the individual mapped land units. Land suitability maps may be presented for
each LUT, or a single map with a tabular legend indicating the alternative LUTs and their
suitability classes and subclasses can be presented, using appropriate adaptations of Format 5
(Table 9,.Chapter 2). The maps may be used independently of the report and should therefore
be self-explanatory. Ah example of a legend that illustrates the classification of the land units for
some of the LUTs outlined in Table 11 (for Bali, Indonesia, see Section 4.1.2) is given in Table
30.
Table 30 LAND SUITABILITY CLASSES AND SUBCLASSES FOR LAND UNITS AND LUT
COMBINATIONS IN AN IRRIGABLE CLASSIFICATION ILLUSTRATING A MAP LEGEND
Land IRRIGATED RICE LAND

Utilization Two rice Rice and two Rice and One
Types crops/year palawija soybean/year rice/fallow Irrigated Coconuts Rainfed
crops/year citrus (rainfed) food
crops
Land units LUT 1.1.1 LUT 1.2.2 LUT 1.2.3 LUT 1.1.4 LUT 1.5 LUT 2.1 LUT 2.2
on map and
area
ha
1 10 N1m S3m S2m S1 S3rm S1 S1
2 15 N1m S3m S2m S1 S3rm S1 S1
3 6 N1m N1m S2t S2t S3rm S1 S2p
4 34 N1m N1m N1m N1m S2d S1 S1
5 25 S1 S1 S1 S1 S2r S1 S1
86
6 18 S2m S2m S1 S1 N1d S1 S1
7 20 N2 N2 N2 N2 N2 N2 N2
etc.
1/ LUT numbers refer to Table 11.
Land evaluation will be only one of the aspects covered in a pre-feasibility or feasibility report.
The form of the report required has been outlined in Guidelines for the Preparation of Irrigation
and Drainage Projects, (FAO 1983).
It is necessary to bear in mind the different categories of readers who will use the report,
ranging from the general reader who wants the whole picture in a few pages, to the specialist
who will scrutinize the detailed aspects of his speciality. There are no hard and fast rules as to
the form that a project preparation report must take, but most major external financing agencies
prefer to receive a relatively short Main Report of about 40 pages on a project, which is
supported liberally by annexes containing relevant data, detailed descriptive material, land
evaluation reports and maps, preliminary designs, specifications and cost estimates, and other
background material.
The Main Report should begin with a short executive summary of the project's salient features
for administrators and politicians without the inclination or time to read the following chapters.
Alternatively, an Executive Summary can be presented as a separate document including
summary maps showing the 'provisionally-irrigable' or 'irrigable' areas and the irrigation and
drainage layout.
A suggested sequence of chapters in a Main Report is as follows. The chapter contents are
indicated in Table 31.
Summary and Conclusions
I. Introduction
II. Background
III. Project Rationale
IV. The Project Area
V. Project Design Considerations
VI. The Project
VII. Organization and Management
VIII. Agricultural Development and Production
IX. Markets, Prices and Financial Results
X. Benefits and Environmental Impact
XI. Outstanding. Issues and Follow-up
A typical set of Annexes to accompany a Main Report is presented below although the number
of volumes and their titles will vary from project to project.
1. Surface Water Resources

2. Groundwater Resources
3. Land Evaluation Report and Maps
87
4. Irrigated Agricultural Development
5. Engineering (Dam and Diversions)
6. Engineering (Conveyance System)
7. Capital and Recurrent Costs
8. Project Institutions
9. Marketing and Prices
10. Financial Results
11. Economic Analysis
The nature and extent of annexes should be such that they anticipate and answer questions
likely to be asked by both the appraisal team and the implementing agency. These aspects are
further discussed in Chapter 9.
Table 31 TYPICAL CHAPTERS AND CONTENTS LIST FOR A MAIN IRRIGATION PROJECT
REPORT
Summary and Conclusions

I. INTRODUCTION
Origins of the project
Agencies involved
Context of the project
II. BACKGROUND
National setting
Agricultural sector
Irrigation subsector
Previous related projects
III. PROJECT RATIONALE
Development opportunities
Development constraints
Selection of priorities
Project concept
IV. THE PROJECT AREA
General characterization
Physical characteristics
Present land use and agriculture
The local economy
Social features
Institutions
V. PROJECT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Land evaluation and classification
Water supply engineering
VI. THE PROJECT
Project description
Proposed works and other project components
Water supply and demand
Project implementation and schedule
Cost estimates
Financing
Procurement
VII. ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
The irrigation authority
Agricultural supporting services
88
Project design and construction
Monitoring and evaluation
Operation and maintenance
Training
VIII. AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION
Strategy for future agricultural development
Acceptibility of proposed techniques
Inputs
Crop yields and production
IX. MARKETS, PRICES AND FINANCIAL RESULTS
Markets and prices
Financial results (farm level)
Financial analysis (enterprise level)
Cost recovery
X. BENEFITS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Economic benefits and risks
Social benefits and risks
Environmental impact
XI. ISSUES AND FOLLOW-UP
Outstanding issues
Measures to be taken before appraisal
9. The role of land evaluation in project appraisal and

implementation


Most major investment agencies require that the completed feasibility study be subject to a
review by an Appraisal Mission. Following completion and submission of the project proposals,
a review carried out by the Appraisal Mission leads to the final decisions as to whether the
project should be implemented, modified or rejected.
The main purpose of the Appraisal is to confirm that the project is:
- in conformity with the country's development objectives and immediate priorities;
- technically sound, and the best of the available alternatives under existing technical and other
constraints;
- administratively workable;
- unlikely to affect the environment adversely.
89
The Appraisal Mission prepares a report that provides technical, economic and financial
justification of the proposed and revised project, for review by the donor agency management
and for loan negotiations with the borrower. Commonly, modifications and 'conditions' are
agreed at this stage, prior to funding and implementation.
The report of the Appraisal Mission is a comprehensive, concise document that deals with the
following aspects of the feasibility study:
i. the government's policies for agricultural development and particularly for irrigation
development, insofar as they are relevant to the delineation of the area to be irrigated;
ii. the physical resource base as reported in the land evaluation studies and the cropping,
irrigation and management proposals;
iii. the socio-economic examination of the people in the project area to ensure that the proposed
development is appropriate to their attitudes and abilities, and that the facilities will be utilized;
iv. the engineering options for irrigating and draining the project land, and of their phasing, in
order to ensure that the most economical but realistic solution is selected;
v. the preliminary design of, and a construction schedule for both civil and on-farm works, in
order to demonstrate their suitability and to estimate their costs (and the phasing of those costs)
and operational characteristics;
vi. the scheduling of the land use changes in agriculture (size and type of farm enterprise, land
use, changes in crops and their yields) on the basis of physical and human resources,
marketing possibilities and forecast prices;
vii. the phasing of the various measures and inputs necessary to achieve the agricultural plan;
viii. the management and organization necessary to construct, commission, operate and
manage the project, within the projected time schedule;
xi. the financial returns to the farmers and to the operating authority; the extent of cost recovery
by the government; the economic benefit to the country and the environmental impact of the
project.
The scrutiny of the land evaluation reports and maps and the Appraisal Mission's findings on
how the results of the land evaluation were used in the formulation of the project plan, are
important aspects of its work. In general, the Appraisal Mission examines:
a. the data base on which the land evaluation is founded;
b. the description of alternative LUTs and the reasons for the choice of cropping, irrigation and
management systems;
c. the selection of class-determining factors and the specification of land use requirements and
limitations;
90
d. the relative importance or 'Significance' accorded to the class-determining factors in the
choice of land suitability classes and subclasses;
e. the consistency of mapping the 'provisionally-irrigable' area and the considerations that were
decisive in delineating the suitable land;
f. the revision of the land suitability maps to delineate the 'irrigable' area, the incorporation of the
results of drainage and other studies, and the revision of the boundaries of land units on the
basis of water supply considerations and NIIB;
g. the liaison between engineers, economists, agronomists, social scientists, and other
disciplines in reaching decisions on the proposals.
The Appraisal report is an independant assessment of the project with necessary revisions of
the feasibility study proposals. It is an essential preliminary prior to funding the detailed design
and implementation.

Land evaluation reports and maps are used during the detailed design of engineering works and
in the layout of farms and fields. During the implementation of a project, Supervision
Missions representing the investor, normally review progress periodically and provide the
authority for changes in the execution of the project, where necessary. The principal role of the
Supervision Mission is to ascertain that the project is executed and operated as set forth in the
loan documents, but revisions may be required as a result of unforeseen circumstances.
Essentially, development is a process of learning from experience and it is necessary to adapt
and update land evaluation reports, maps and the plans based on them from time to time.
Irrigation projects always need to be monitored to ensure their continued success. Feasibility
studies and Appraisal Reports will contain recommendations for monitoring and some of these
will be derived from the land evaluation studies. Monitoring of the groundwater table, soil salinity
and sodicity, water supply and use, and other changeable land characteristics are cautionary
measures that serve to warn of adverse changes in the dynamic environment. If unfavourable
trends become apparent, remedial action through management or other changes can be
implemented.
In the event of major changes in cropping, irrigation or management because of changed

economic circumstances or government policies, the land evaluation process can be reinitiated
using the existing inventories of land resources.
The rehabilitation of irrigation projects that have declined because of poor management, social
or economic changes, or environmental degradation, should likewise be preceded by a re-
evaluation of the land suitability, to ensure that the rehabilitation measures are well suited to the
physical, social and economic conditions prevailing.
10. The US bureau of reclamation land classification system
91
10.1 Principles
Sophisticated methods of land classification for irrigated agriculture were first evolved by the
United States Bureau of Reclamation in the 1920s and 1930s. Many of the principles underlying
the USBR system have been incorporated in the FAO Framework for Land Evaluation and in
this bulletin. The purpose of this Chapter is to summarize the main features of the USBR system
and highlight where this differs from the FAO system.
The USBR classification system for irrigated land is carried out in the context of a project plan
and with respect to the land uses defined under the project plan, which may be broadly or
narrowly defined. There is no formal system for defining land utilization types as in the FAO
Framework; instead these are implied in the plan formulation.
The USBR classification system incorporates broad economic considerations from the start, as
is also recommended in this publication. This is important because irrigation projects generally
involve costly inputs and improvements such as engineering works, irrigation and drainage
networks, land clearing and levelling, and others.
10.1 Principles
The USBR Reclamation Manual (1951) and subsequent Reclamation Instructions lists the
following principles of the USBR classification system:
i. Prediction: The classification should reflect future conditions as they will exist after the project
is implemented. This recognizes that changes will occur in relationships between soils, water
and crops as a result of irrigation and land improvements and that the classifier should use the
classes to indicate whether these changes are likely to be favourable or unfavourable.
ii. Economic correlation: This assumes that a unique relationship can be established during a
classification, between physical conditions of the land such as soils, topography and drainage
and an economic measure of the class ranges. The measure used is payment capacity, i.e. the
residual available to defray the cost of water after all other costs have been met by the farmers.
iii. Permanent and changeable factors: The classifier must distinguish between permanent
factors, such as soil texture, soil depth, macrorelief, etc., and changeable factors, such as
salinity, ESP, pH, microrelief, nutrient status, water table levels, etc. Thus the survey and
classification are directed to determining which inputs and improvements to changeable factors
are cost effective.
92
iv. Arability-irrigability: Land which is physically and economically capable of providing a farmer
with an adequate standard of living, should water be available for irrigation, is first classified.
Such land is called 'arable' (connoting a different meaning of the word to that in common
usage). Arable lands constitute areas that warrant consideration for inclusion in a plan of
development. Lands which are selected for inclusion in the plan of development are called
'irrigable' lands. This dual-stage procedure is copied in this publication in the successive
classification of 'provisionally-irrigable' and 'irrigable' land.

Precise meanings are attached to the use of the following terms in the USBR classification
system:
Arable land is land which, in adequately sized units and properly provided with the essential
improvements of levelling, drainage, irrigation facilities, and the like, would have a productive
capacity, under sustained irrigation, sufficient to:
i. meet all production expenses, including irrigation operation and maintenance costs, and
provide a reasonable return on the farm investment;
ii. provide a reasonable repayment contribution toward the cost of project facilities;
iii. provide a satisfactory standard of living for the farm family.
Irrigable land is land initially classified as arable (potentially irrigable) that is subsequently
found to be economically justified (benefits exceed costs) under a specific plan of development
which includes the water and other facilities necessary for sustained irrigation.
Productive land is the maximum hectarage of irrigable land subject to cropping; a measure that
provides a basis for the determination of water requirements, canal capacities and payment
capacities. For conditions in Western USA the productive area is about 3 to 6% less than the
irrigable area because of non-productive land uses such as farm roads, farm laterals and drains,
irrigation structures, fences, buildings, and feed lots.
Full irrigation service land is irrigable land which will receive its full water supply from one
source.
Supplementary irrigation service land is irrigable land now receiving, or to receive, an

additional or regulated supply of water through new facilities.
Gross classification area is the area mapped and classified in a given survey.
Land class is a category of land that produces a standard payment capacity in financial rather
than economic terms. This is the definition used in practice in the USA. Arrangements for on-
farm development costs and project repayment vary substantially among developing nations
and, in contrast to the USA, are often not firmly established prior to project investigations.
Therefore, since the ultimate classification of irrigable lands under an economically justified plan
of development would be the same for the classes retained in the plan, whether the initial
classification is based on farm financial analysis (farmer's repayment ability) or an economic
93
analysis (irrigation benefits), it could be time-saving and appropriate for international situations
to employ a uniform economic evaluation approach to land classification studies at the outset of
investigations. Farm financial and project repayment considerations can be evaluated and
arranged as may be necessary after an economically justified project plan has been formulated.
This approach would simply reverse the order of accommodating the two principal concerns of
irrigation suitability investigations, 'financial viability' and 'economic justification', from that
employed by the US Bureau of Reclamation. In the end, essentially the same classification of
'irrigable' land should result from either approach.
Land subclass is a category within the class identifying a deficiency or deficiencies, and is
indicated by a letter (i.e. s for soil, t for topography, and d for drainage).
Informative appraisals are investigations of selected physical factors to provide needed

information for the planning, development and operation of irrigation projects. The investigations
may be of present land use, productivity, existing land development, farm water requirements,
etc. or informative appraisals of drainability and topography.

Great importance is given in the USBR classification system to farm budget studies and the
concept of payment capacity in the determination of arable lands. The land of lowest quality that
can be classified as 'arable' is specified as early in the investigations as possible. In the USA
the minimum is prescribed by a law which states that irrigable lands shall be classified with
respect to their power under a proper agricultural programme to support a farm family and pay
water charges (Reclamation Law, 1924). Accordingly, the minimal quality lands have been
defined as those capable of supporting a farm family and paying at least the annual operation,
maintenance and replacement costs expected to prevail when the project comes into operation.
Hence, in the initial arability classification land classes are an expression of relative differences
in payment capacity - a financial rather than an economic measure.
The selection of lands for irrigation is phased into two parts:
- the selection of arable land on the basis of farm production financial considerations;
- selection of the irrigable area on the basis of the economics of the project plan, wherein
irrigation benefits determined by economic evaluation equal or exceed project irrigation costs.
Satisfactory farm production finance is clearly essential for sustained irrigated agriculture. The
application of economics to the project as a whole facilitates the principles of optimum design or
scale, and net benefit maximization. In the case of multipurpose projects, the project plan may
be formulated to allocate water to irrigation, hydroelectric power, municipal and industrial water
supplies, and other purposes. The irrigable area is thus selected in relation to the water
allocated to irrigation and to the size and location of the distribution and drainage systems.
The application of project plan formulation criteria generally leads to successive reductions of
'arable' land from the plan of development. Typical adjustments include:
i. the elimination of uneconomic increments such as those that are too costly to serve, drain or
provide with distribution works;
94
ii. the adjustment of land areas to the available water supply and the elimination of tracts located
above the water delivery elevations or elevations that can be irrigated economically by lift;
iii. exclusion of isolated segments, odd-shaped tracts, severed areas and public rights-of-way;
iv. elimination of areas unable to meet minimal criteria for economic returns under the plan.
The selection of lands is thus fundamentally guided by criteria requiring the selected lands to:
a. be included in a plan having a favourable benefit/cost relationship;

b. have sufficient amortization capacity to pay assigned construction charges;
c. have ability to meet anticipated annual operation, maintenance and replacement charges.
Based on farm budget studies and a knowledge of the estimated annual operation, maintenance
and replacement (OM & R) charges for water to the farm, an estimate can be made of the
maximum amount of money that should be spent in developing land for irrigation (permissible
land development costs). For example, assume that a farm budget showed a payment capacity
of $20 per acre for the best Class 1 land in the project area. Also assume that the annual OM &
R charges are estimated to be $7.50. The latter charge is used as the minimal payment capacity
for any land to be included in the irrigation project. The difference in payment capacity between
the best land and the minimal quality land ($20.00 - $7.50 = $12.50) is the permissible land
development cost. At 6% interest the $12.50 difference in payment capacity would be equal to
the annual interest on approximately $208. Thus, if the productivity of unlevel terrain once
levelled would equal that of the Class 1 land, up to $208 per acre could be expended for land
development work before the land would no longer be regarded as financially suited for
irrigation development. Such lands requiring development costs in excess of average Class 1
development costs, but within the additional $208 per acre limit would be downgraded to a lower
arable class in relation to development cost ranges determined from the payment classes
illustrated below. Any lands may be included in the arable category as long as the resulting
payment capacity equals or exceeds $7.50 in this particular example. Class ranges might be set
at unequal or equal ranges of payment capacity e.g.
Class 1: $20.00 - $15.84

Class 2: $15.83 - $11.67
Class 3: $11.66 - $ 7.50

Six land classes based on production economics are normally recognized. Brief descriptions are
as follows:
Class 1 - Arable: Lands that are highly suitable for irrigated farming, being capable of sustained
and relatively high yield of climatically adapted crops at reasonable cost. These lands have a
relatively high payment capacity.
Class 2 - Arable: Lands that have a moderate suitability for irrigated farming. These are either
adaptable to a narrower range of crops, more expensive to develop for irrigation, or less
productive than Class 1. Potentially these lands have intermediate payment capacity.
95
Class 3 - Arable: Lands that have a marginal suitability for irrigated farming. They are less
suitable than Class 2 lands and usually have either a serious single deficiency or a combination
of several moderate deficiencies in soil, topography, or drainage properties. Although greater
risk may be involved in farming these lands than those of Class 1 and 2, under proper
management they are expected to have adequate payment capacity.
Class 4 - Special use lands: Lands which in the USA are only suited to certain special uses
(e.g. rice, pasture, or fruit) are classified 1, 2 or 3 (to reflect relative payment capacity) along
with the appropriate letter designating the land use (crop).
Class 5 - Non-arable: This land is temporarily considered as non-arable because of some

specific deficiency such as excessive salinity, questionable drainage, flooding, or other
deficiency which requires further studies to resolve. The deficiency or deficiencies are of such a
nature and magnitude that special agronomic, economic, or engineering studies are required to
resolve the costs or effect on the land. Class 5 designation is tentative and should be changed
to either Class 6 or an arable classification during formulation of the recommended plan of
development.
Class 6 - Non-arable: Land that is non-arable under the existing or project economic conditions
associated with the proposed project development. Generally, Class 6 comprises steep, rough,
broken, rocky, or badly eroded lands, or lands with inadequate drainage, or other deficiencies.
In some instances lands considered to be Class 6 in one area may be arable in another area
because of different economic conditions. In addition to various physical-type deficiencies that
result in a non-arable classification, lands initially classified as arable (potentially irrigable) on
the basis of payment capacity (farm financial analysis) may be found non-arable if subsequent
economic analysis (benefit analysis) indicates that benefits from such lands are less than their
costs in a plan of development. Thus, the lower arable class(es) of lands would be considered
non-arable and, of course, non-irrigable for economic reasons.
Subclasses are indicated by lower case letters that indicate the reason for the land being
downgraded to a lower class. Thus, Class 1 land does not have subclasses, but other classes
may be appended with the letters 's', 't', and 'd', singly or in combination to show whether the
deficiency is in 'soils', 'topography' or 'farm drainage'. The basic subclasses of the land classes
are s, t, d, st, sd, td and std.
A comparison of the FAO Framework and the USBR classification described above, is given in
Appendix 1, Figure A.1.

Typically, the mapping symbols employed by the USBR take the form given in Figure 5.
The class and subclass symbols on the top of the line have already been described. The other
symbols may be used as required but the rules for their use are set up for each individual
classification study; however, the rules must be consistently obeyed throughout any one study.
Land use codes, such as: C - irrigated cultivated, L - unirrigated cultivated, P - irrigated
permanent grassland, W - wasteland, etc. can be used, or a symbol may be used to specify a
crop.
96
Productivity and land development codes: Productivity connotes the interaction of the
economic factors of productive capacity and costs of production, but excludes land development
costs. Thus, in the example given, Class 2 relative productivity and Class 2 land development
cost (symbol 22 in the denominator) results in an overall land class 3 in the numerator.
Farm water requirement code: The symbols A, B and C may indicate whether the soil,
topographic and drainage conditions, land use, method of irrigation, etc. from informative
appraisal, are low, medium or high, respectively, in farm water requirement relative to the
average for the surrounding area.
Land drainability code: This normally relates to conditions below a depth of 5 ft (150 cms): X -
good drainability, Y - restricted drainability, and Z - poor or negligible drainability.
Figure 5 Example of standard mapping symbol used by USBR
Additional symbols may be added as in the example to indicate special conditions where data
are required for farm unit planning and land development. They can be further qualified with
subscript numerals to indicate a range in character; e.g. k1, k2, k3 might indicate ranges of
depth to gravel.

Seven examples of land class specifications prepared by the USBR are given in FAO Soils
Bulletin No. 42.
Land class specifications express the anticipated influence of various mappable physical factors
on the projected productivity level, cost of production and cost of land development. Parameters
established within land classes for the pertinent soil, topographic, or drainage factors should
represent approximately the same range of influence in evaluating irrigation suitability. Thus the
range of slope or amount of levelling selected for Class 1 land should represent about the same
influence on suitability for irrigation as the range of soil depth or farm drainage requirement
permitted in this class.
In the USA, correlation of the study area with nearby irrigated farms is nearly always possible
and provides the best means of relating various physical parameters to measured production
levels if soil and other environmental and management conditions are similar.
Relative yield levels are first established and physical specifications thought to be correlated
with these yield levels are developed. Farm budgets are used to evaluate the relative impact of
each selected physical characteristic on net income and as a basis for calculating the maximum
permissible development cost for each of the arable land classes, as earlier described.
Farm budgets are usually first developed for the best soil, topographic and drainage conditions
on the proposed project area, and the relative yield is taken to be 100%. Costs used for land
development on this land include a nominal amount for ditches, diversion structures, farm
drains, and smoothing; these costs are budgeted for all land classes. All other development cost
estimates should reflect costs above the amount needed for the best quality land. As discussed
in Section 10.3, the lower limit is also established. This varies among projects because OM & R
97
charges vary due to differences in the lengths of project distribution and drainage systems,
required lifts, power, seasonal water demand, and for other reasons.
A preliminary estimate of water costs is normally essential in establishing a lower cut-off point
for arable land in monetary terms before deciding the lowest acceptable productivity level for the
least productive soil. For example, the lower limit of arability in one project may be only half of
the productivity required in another project due to lower water costs. Different physical
specifications of Class 3 lands are then developed. Thus lower quality soil and rougher
topography can be profitably used in areas having low cost water or where high value crops are
to be grown.
Figure 4a Map of the Southern Conveyor Project, Cyprus, showing the "provisionally-
irrigable" land in the study area - Carte du Projet de collecteur dans la partie méridionale
de Chypre, indiquant les terres "conditionnellement irrigables" dans la zone étudiée -
Mapa del Proyecto del Colector Sur, en Chipre, con indicación de las tierras
"potencialmente regables" en la zona del estudio
Figure 4b The same map showing the "irrigable" land - Même carte indiquant les terres
"irrigables - El mismo mapa con indicación de las tierras "regables"
Part two - Developing the specifications and critical limits of

class-determining factors
The factors that determine how suitable a land unit is for a given LUT or farming system, are
called 'class-determining' factors. Table 12, in Chapter 4 lists individual factors that may be
selected as 'class-determining' according to whether they affect:
A. The crop (i.e. agronomic factors effecting yields or production)

B. Management
C. Land development or land improvements
E. Socio-economic conditions
Each of the 32 factors listed in Table 12, and their interactions, are discussed serially in Part
Two, in five sections headed alphabetically with the titles as above. The 32 factors retain their
alphabetical prefix as in Table 12, e.g. B begins with number 14, and C with 19, etc.
Part Two is intended to help in decisions needed for Steps 3 - 5 of the Guide to Procedures
(Chapter 3), namely;
i. Which factors are 'class-determining'?
ii. What critical limits best specify, for individual class-determining factors, the requirements and
limitations of a LUT, for s1, s2, s3, n1 and n2 levels of suitability? These critical limits are the
specifications entered on Format 1 as described in Steps 4 and 5.
It is recommended that critical limits are first specified factor by factor. The number of class-
determining factors under review will be progressively shortened during the evaluation; or their
influences will be aggregated into estimates of crop yields, production, or as costs and benefits.
98
As explained in Chapter 6, it is essential, after establishing factor ratings for individual factors or
groups of factors, to estimate the interactions (see Section 6.2), and
the 'significance' (Section 6.3) of each factor or interaction. These should always contribute to
a decision on which land suitability class (S1, S2, S3, N1 or N2) is appropriate for a given land
unit - LUT combination. Hence the critical limits of all previously listed class-determining factors
do not necessarily constitute the specifications of land suitability classes. Some factors may
prove of over-riding importance, and others can be relegated to the status of not being 'class-
determining'. Thus S1 land should have factor ratings of s1 for the most important factor(s), but
it can include lower factor ratings (s2, s3 or even n1) if these factors are deemed as not being
'class-determining' in the final stage of the evaluation.
In the early stages of the evaluation, it is important that critical limits are thought out in terms of
the requirements and limitations of the cropping, irrigation and management systems under
consideration. Crops require radiation, suitable temperatures, a continuous supply of water and
nutrients, a suitable environment for root growth, suitable conditions for irrigation or for
harvesting, mechanization, post-harvest ripening, etc. Conversely, crops are
variously limited by their susceptibilities or tolerances to excess water, excess salts or
toxicities, deficiencies, pests, frost, storms, etc. Similarly, irrigation methods, such as surface,
sprinkler or drip, have their different requirements and limitations, as do management systems
(e.g. manual vs. mechanized). It is important to decide which of the land use requirements and
limitations are 'class-determining'.
An approach via requirements and limitations will encourage the land evaluator to think about
land characteristics and the need for inputs or land improvements with a view to achieving the
best match between the conditions of the land and the land use. The most relevant and
influential land characteristics, inputs and land improvements can then be pinpointed in terms of
their impact on the land use requirements and limitations. For simplicity, the process can later
be short-circuited by listing Class specifications which are both rational and practicable in terms
of the physical or economic measure of land suitability class.
In developing critical limits of each factor leading to Class specifications, it is important to bear
in mind the implications of translating physical productivity, inputs and land improvements into
economic terms. Thus, where possible, benefits and costs associated with individual factors
should be worked out in detail. In practice, during the early stages of an evaluation, factor
ratings s1, s2, s3, n1 and n2 may be used to indicate levels of production and development
benefits and costs. These may be improved as quantitative data becomes available during the
course of the investigations.
Note the definitions of the terms s1, s2, s3, n1 and n2 given in Table 13.
The list of 32 factors discussed hereunder, while comprehensive, is not intended to be

exclusive, and the land evaluator should feel free to modify or regroup the factors as is
convenient for any given evaluation. Care should be taken in so doing, not to double count the
same aspect twice under different headings. The divisions and grouping of factors in Part Two
are for convenience only and, in practice, interactions may prove of great importance. These
should be recognized and handled appropriately for the given evaluation.
A. Agronomic factors
99
A.2 Radiation
A.3 Temperature
A.4 Rooting
A.5 Aeration
A.6 Water quantity
A.7 Nutrients (NPK)
A.8 Water quality
A.9 Salinity
A.10 Sodicity
Crop Requirements and Limitations
The Crop Environment
Factors that are principally agronomic are discussed under thirteen headings in this section;
these are: growing cycle and growing period; radiation; temperature; rooting; aeration; water
quantity; nutrients (NPK); water quality; salinity; sodicity, boron and chloride toxicities; pH,
micronutrients and other toxicities; pests, diseases and weeds; flood, storm, wind and frost.
Some aspects impinging on management are inevitably included; in such cases these
management considerations are excluded from Section B (Management).
The growing cycle is the period required for an annual crop to complete its annual cycle of
establishment, growth and production of harvested part. Perennial crops have growing cycles of
more than one year.
The growing period for annual crops is the duration of the year when temperature, soil. water
supply and other factors permit crop growth and development.
Thus, a growing cycle is a property of the crop (i.e. a crop requirement) whereas a growing
period is a condition of the land (i.e. a land quality or land characteristic).
The growing period is a major determinant of land suitability for crops and cultivars on a
worldwide and continental scale as described in FAO, 1978a. Tables 32 and 33 illustrate the
100
concept. Within a project development area, growing periods often vary due to variable
temperature, water supply and rainfall characteristics.
In subtropical and temperate climates, there are winter and summer growing periods due to
seasonal temperature changes. For example, in lower Egypt, temperate crops such as berseem
clover, wheat, barley and beans are grown in the winter and crops with higher temperature
requirements such as cotton, rice and maize are grown during the summer. Normally, these
seasonal temperature variations will not be class-determining. Thus LUTs can be described for
the rotational cropping system spanning the winter and summer growing periods. In hilly areas
where temperatures vary with altitude, or where frost occurs in valley bottoms, the growing
period may be considered 'class-determining', also where water supplies vary from place to
place.
The period during which irrigation water supplies are available determines the growing period in
many countries. Irrigation projects in south east Asia, or in Middle Eastern countries relying on
run-of-river or spate storm flows can include land on which the growing period and the period of
irrigation may vary from 12 months of the year to a few months a year. Such variations may be
'class-determining' where they exist within one project area.
Growing periods can be constrained by wet or humid conditions that limit opportunities for
ripening and drying the crop, or which lead to problems of quality (e.g. reduced sugar content of
sugarcane, staining of cotton, blemishes on fruits, etc.).
Table 32 MAJOR CLIMATES
Compare Table 33
Major climates 24 hr mean (daily) Suitable for

during growing temperature (C) consideration for
Climate period regime during the crop group (Table
No. Descriptive name growing period 33)
Tropics 1 Warm tropics More than 20 II and III
All months with monthly mean 2 Moderately cool tropics 15-20 I and IV
temperatures, corrected to
3 Cool tropics 5/10 - 15 I
sea level, above 18°C
4 Cold tropics Less than 5 Not suitable
Subtropics 5 Warm/moderately cool More than 20 II and III
One or more months with subtropics (summer
monthly mean temperatures, rainfall)
corrected to sea level, below 6 Warm/moderately cool 15 - 20 I and IV
18°C but all months above subtropics (summer
5°C rainfall)
7 Warm subtropics More than 20 II and III
(summer rainfall)
8 Moderately cool 15 - 20 I and IV
subtropics (summer
rainfall)
9 Cool subtropics 5/10 - 20 I
(summer rainfall)
101
10 Cold subtropics Less than 5 Not suitable
(summer rainfall)
11 Cool subtropics (winter 5/10 - 20 I
rainfall)
12 Cold subtropics (winter Less than 5 Not suitable
rainfall)
Temperate 13 Cool temperate 5/10 - 20 I
One or more months with 14 Cold temperate Less than 5 Not suitable
monthly mean temperatures,
corrected to sea level, below 5
C
Source: FAO 1980c, p. 355; Higgins and Kassam 1981.
Table 33 CROP ADAPTABILITY GROUPS, BASED ON PHOTOSYNTHETIC PATHWAY AND

RESPONSE TO RADIATION AND TEMPERATURE
Compare Table 32
Crop adaptability group I II III IV V

Photo-synthetic pathway C3 C3 C4 C4 CAM
Optimum temperature for 15-20 25-30 30-35 20-30 25-35
photosynthesis (°C)
Sugarbeet Soybean Sorghum Panicum Sisal
Phaseolus (TR) (TR) Millet (TE, TH) Pineapple
Wheat Phaseolus Maize (TR) Sorghum (TE,
Barley Rice Pearl millet TH)
Oats Cassava Panicum Maize (TE, TH)
Potato Sweet Millet (TR) Setaria
Bean (TE) Potato Finger millet
Chickpea Yams Setaria
Bean (TR) Sugarcane
Groundnut
Cotton
Tobacco
Banana
Coconut
Rubber
Oil palm
TE = Temperate cultivars; TR = Tropical (lowland) cultivars; TH = Tropical (highland) cultivars.
Source: Based on information extracted from FAO 1978a and FAO 1980c.
Method 1: General Method (FAO 1978a)
This approach is useful in reconnaissance studies or low intensity investigations especially

where the need for irrigation is to be evaluated. It is based on mean daily temperature (T),
precipitation (P), and the potential evapotranspiration (PET) to produce data such as is
illustrated in Figure 6. Data for 10-day periods or months can be used, or monthly data can be
converted into data for 10-day periods. The procedure is:
102
i. Temperature constraint: The growing period is confined to 10-day periods in which mean daily
temperature equals or exceeds a minimum temperature (e.g. 5°C).
ii. Beginning of the growing period: Under rainfed conditions this is taken as the time at which
precipitation equals or exceeds half the potential evapotranspiration.
iii. Humid period: Under rainfed conditions a normal growing period must include at least one
10-day humid period defined as a period in which rainfall exceeds potential evapotranspiration.
iv. End of the rains: This can be taken as the time at which precipitation falls below half the
potential evapotranspiration.
v. End of growing period: The growing period ends when the reserve of water stored in the soil
following the cessation of rainfall and irrigation is depleted.
Figure 6 Examples of four types of growing period (under rainfed conditions which might
be modified by irrigation) - Normal
be modified by irrigation) - Intermediate
103
be modified by irrigation) - All year round humid
be modified by irrigation) - All year round dry
a - Beginning of rains and growing period

b1 and b2 - Start and end of humid period respectively
c - End of rains and rainy season
d - End of growing period
P - Precipitation
PET - Potential evapotranspiration
(after FAO 1978a)
Isolines for growing periods on a continental scale are published in the results of the Agro-
ecological Zones Project (FAO 1978/80/81). These are generalized to meet the constraints of
the scale of publication. For more intensive studies, isolines of growing period may be drawn at
75-day, 90-day and then at 30-day intervals up to 365 days. These can be drawn for the existing
agriculture and for the agriculture anticipated after supplemental irrigation. The growing periods
104
may indicate the need for one or two crops in succession, or for different cultivars of the same
crop.
Method 2: Rainfall Related Events (Stern and Coe 1982)
This approach is useful if the growing period depends on seasonal and year-to-year variations
in rainfall.
This method relies on an analysis of daily rainfall for individual years of the rainfall record. The
distinctive feature of the method is that each year provides one number for any event or
characteristic of interest. The event is defined by the user, i.e. as a set of rainfall characteristics
that could, for example, define a dry period, the start of the rains, the end of the rains, the length
of the growing period between the start and end of the rains, or the distribution of rainfall
amounts throughout the year. Each event in each year is listed (e.g. as the day or period of
occurrence). An estimate of the probability of an event occurring can then be made directly from
its relative frequency of occurrence or, alternatively, a distribution (such as the normal) can be
fitted.
A further development of this method is to compute a daily soil water balance sheet on the best
obtainable information. This balance sheet can show the soil water content between a defined
field capacity water content (upper boundary) and permanent wilting point (lower boundary)
according to the daily gains and losses of water. Figure 7 illustrates the output of such a method
for a permeable soil showing that growing periods under rainfed conditions vary from season to
season and year to year.
The use of this method is facilitated by computer technology but the data can be processed
equally well by hand (Stern and Coe 1982) if computers are not available. One of the main
advantages over more general methods is that conditions in individual extreme years can be
identified from the historical rainfall record.
Figure 7 Computed available soil water for 1965-78, based on daily rainfall, field capacity
and permanent wilting point of Kilinochchi chromic luvisol, with 304 mm (12 inches) of
available water in 250 cm rooting depth, and an evapotranspiration of 5 mm (0.2 inches)
per day
105
Source: Robertson and Eavis 1983
A.2 Radiation
Three relevant aspects of radiation are (i) daylength, (ii) its influence on photosynthesis and dry
matter accumulation in crops, and (iii) its effects on evapotranspiration. Radiation levels may
also be important in the drying and ripening of crops, but this is evaluated under heading B.17.
Daylength may be a relevant class-determining factor in evaluations carried out at low intensity
across different latitudes as already discussed under 'Growing Period' (Tables 32 and 33).
Daylength affects photoperiod-sensitive cultivars of crops such as rice, influencing floral
initiation and the onset or length of vegetative and reproductive phases of growth and
development. The interaction of daylength with water availability or temperature can sometimes
106
prove 'class-determining' at project level (e.g. in influencing the flowering of sugarcane,
flowering and fruiting of mangoes, and in the bulbing and ripening of onions, etc.).
The influence of radiation on photosynthesis and dry matter accumulation in crops has been
reviewed by Monteith (1972). The relationships for C3 and C4 crops differ as indicated in Table
33.
The components of the radiation balance that may be used to define critical limits are shown in
Figure 8, and as follows:
Figure 8 Illustration of the radiation balance
Source: FAO 1977b
i. Extraterrestrial radiation (Ra) received at the top of the atmosphere. This is dependent on
latitude and time of year.
ii. Solar radiation (Rs) is that part of the extraterrestrial radiation which is not absorbed and
scattered when passing through the atmosphere, together with some of the scattered radiation
that also reaches the earth's surface. A proportion of this radiation (about 50%)
is photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) (Szeicz 1974). Values of solar radiation can be
obtained from direct measurements or approximated by using:
Rs = (0.25 + 0.05 n/N) Ra,
107
where n is the actual bright sunshine hours (e.g. measured with a Campbell Stokes solarimeter)
and M is the maximum possible sunshine hours for a given month and latitude (given in
standard tables, e.g. see FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 24, 1977b).
iii. Net shortwave solar radiation (Rns): Part of the solar radiation (Rs) is reflected back directly by
the soil and crop and is lost to the atmosphere. Reflection depends on the nature of the surface
cover and is approximately 5% for water and 20-25% for many green-leafed crops. That which
remains after losses by reflection is the net shortwave radiation, Rns.
To obtain the net shortwave radiation, the solar radiation must be corrected for the reflectivity of
the crop surface with:
Rns = (1 - ) Rs
For example, for green crops covering the ground, the value of a is taken as 0.25 and Rns is
75% of the solar radiation.
iv. Net longwave radiation (Rnl,) is the difference between outgoing and incoming longwave
radiation. Outgoing radiation is usually greater than incoming longwave radiation so that
additional losses at the earth's surface occur because of longwave radiation; thus net longwave
radiation represents an energy loss. This can be determined from temperature, vapour pressure
(ed), and the ratio n/N (actual to possible hours of bright sunshine). Values for the functions f(t),
f(ed), and f(n/N) are given in FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 24, Tables 15, 16 and 17.
v. Total net radiation (Rn) is equal to the difference between net shortwave radiation and net
longwave radiation so that:
Rn = Rns - Rnl
Total net radiation is used in estimating losses of water by evaporation. The unit of Rn =1
cal/cm2/min is approximately equivalent to the energy required to evaporate 1 mm of water per
hour. Radiation in S1 units is given as mW/m2 and 1 mW/m2 is required to evaporate 830
nun/day.
The vegetative growth of most plants increases linearly with solar radiation up to a limit beyond
which no further increase occurs. In many tropical areas, water shortages rather than radiation
limit growth and the radiation-limited potential is not attained. However, marked seasonal effects
on yields may be evident (e.g. in the Philippines and other south east Asian countries, irrigated
modern rice varieties plentifully supplied with water, yield more in the dry season than in the
overcast wet season). In temperate countries, radiation is one of the most dominant growth-
limiting factors in winter months and land characteristics such as aspect may be used to define
critical limits, as appropriate.
Tables for relating radiation data and sunshine hours to dry matter production rate of a
'standard' crop are given by FAO (1978, 1980, 1981) and Doorenbos and Kassam (in FAO
1979a). These figures, together with temperature and crop phenological data, can be used as a
basis for calculating biomass converted to crop yields with respect to radiation for given areas.
A.3 Temperature
108
Temperature has already been discussed under A.1 Growing Cycle and Growing Period. The
growth of most crops ceases below a critical low temperature and very high temperatures
(usually above 30 - 35 C) have adverse effects. Crops are divided into five adaptability groups
on the basis of their photosynthetic carbon assimilation pathways (C3, C4 or CAM) and
according to the effects of radiation and temperature on photosynthesis (see Table 33).
Between the minimum temperature for growth and the optimum temperature for photosynthesis,
the rate of growth increases more or less linearly with temperature; the growth rate then
reaches a plateau within the optimum temperature range before falling off at higher
temperatures, Temperature interacts with radiation; the highest potential for growth is achieved
with both radiation and temperatures in the optimal range.
In many temperate climates and at high altitudes in tropical countries, the temperature for
growth is below optimum during part of the growing season.
Critical limits to define s1, s2, s3, n1 and n2 levels of suitability can be specified in terms of
ranges of temperature in C, or other units. For example, heat units are sometimes used to
indicate seasonal conditions for certain crops, such as cotton, in units of day-degrees
accumulated over a growing season.
A.4 Rooting
Plants require water and nutrients, which are conveyed from the soil to the productive parts of
the plant through roots. If root growth, or the development or function of a root system is
impaired by adverse land characteristics, the growth and yield of the crop may likewise be
impaired from lack of water or nutrients.
The growth and distribution of roots in the soil may be affected by;
i. the supply of assimilates (sugars, etc.) from the shoots and leaves to the roots;
ii. soil temperatures;
iii. soil water;
iv. soil nutrients and the chemical environment including salinity, sodicity, pH, micronutrient
deficiencies and toxicities;
v. the supply of oxygen to meet oxygen requirements for respiring root tissues:
vi. mechanical impedance to root penetration;
vii. pests and diseases of the root system.
Because of their separate importance in land evaluation, it is convenient to evaluate some of

these factors under different headings. Therefore, soil aeration is discussed under A.5, water
under A.6, salinity under A.9, sodicity under A.10, pH, micronutrient deficiencies and toxicities
under A.11, pests and diseases under A.12, etc. All these factors may affect root growth and
root system development or function, as well as the growth of the whole crop.
109
Under the present heading A.4, 'rooting' will signify root room and mechanical impedance.
Root room is the space for root development. It can be represented by critical limits of (i)
effective soil depth, (ii) volume percent occupied (or not occupied) by stones, or (iii) the
impenetrable (or penetrable) soil volume, as appropriate. Root-occupied soil volume varies with
time in the case of annual crops developing root systems from seedling establishment to plant
maturity and this process can be slowed by mechanical impedance.
Mechanical impedance to root penetration is the force that roots must exert or resistance they
must overcome to penetrate the soil. This depends on the soil strength.
Root room and mechanical impedance may be 'class-determining' where they vary sufficiently
from one land unit to another to produce differences in water and nutrient uptake by crops that
affect final yields, production or quality.
Effective soil depth and the volume percent of stones are estimated by standard soil survey
techniques. The effective soil depth for rooting may be limited by (i) induced hardpans arising as
a result of management practices (e.g. heavy traffic or continued soil submergence), (ii) by
genetic hardpans such as claypans, siltpans, fragipans, cemented and indurated hardpans,
gypsiferous and calcareous hardpans, etc., (iii) by restrictive C or D horizons, (iv) by horizons of
low or high pH, with toxic accumulations of aluminium, iron, manganese or sulphidic compounds
(low pH), or sodium with carbonates and bicarbonates (high pH).
Soil strength and mechanical impedance to root penetration vary with (i) soil texture or grain
size distribution, (ii) soil structure or consistency, and (iii) soil water content. Soil strength and
resistance to penetration increase as the soil bulk density is increased by compaction, and as
the soil becomes drier. For examples of these effects in sands of different grain size and a
sandy loam see Eavis (1972a) and Warnaars and Eavis (1972). Mechanical impedance can be
estimated with a penetrometer or may be inferred from soil strength measurements or by
observations of root systems in soil profile pits (swollen root tips, limited distribution etc.).
Triaxial apparatus used in soil mechanics can measure soil strength. A simpler and satisfactory
approach is to apply a 'normal' load via a plate to the top of an unconfined soil core placed on
the pan of a top-loading balance. The reading of the balance when the soil core fractures is the
unconfined soil strength. Alternatively, a small penetrometer made from an inverted pin can be
inserted into the soil core, registering the forces resisting penetration as observed on the scale
of the top-loading balance.
Soil strength and penetrometer measurements must be made at appropriate soil water contents
as they are much affected by the wetness of soil. The soil water contents selected should reflect
the conditions that plants experience in the field.
Soil strength and penetrometer measurements should not be used uncritically. Roots may
proliferate through cracks, termite or worm passages and old root channels etc. However, the
size of pores that retain water in unsaturated soils are always too small to accommodate roots.
Therefore, roots must generally deform the soil in order to penetrate.
Critical limits for 'Rooting' using characteristics such as effective soil depth, volume percent of
stones, and soil strength, can be established in terms of the requirements of particular crops or
cropping systems, using the s1, s2, s3, n1 and n2 levels of suitability with the help of the above
suggestions.
110
A.5 Aeration
Respiring plant roots consume large quantities of oxygen and, on average, at 25°C they
consume about nine times their volume of oxygen gas each day. The roots of plants that grow
under submerged conditions can get little oxygen from the surrounding soil and water. Flooded
rice and some bog plants can obtain their supplies of oxygen mostly by transport through air
passages from the aerial parts to the roots (Greenwood 1968).
Plants, other than rice and bog plants, must obtain their oxygen mainly through the soil. Thus an
adequate supply of oxygen through the soil throughout the growing season is a requirement for
many crops. Micro-organisms in the soil also consume large quantities of oxygen, and under
anaerobic conditions may produce stimulatory or inhibitory levels of ethylene gas, a plant
hormone.
In order to reach roots, oxygen diffuses via gas-filled pores and from thence through water films
and through the respiring root tissues themselves. Oxygen diffuses 10 000 times more quickly
through the gas than through the liquid phase, so that the oxygen concentration at different
points throughout the interconnecting network of gas-filled pores is generally fairly uniform. In
contrast, concentration gradients of oxygen across the water films and root tissues are large.
For this reason, the water content of soils and the thickness of water barriers to oxygen
movement around the roots greatly influence oxygen availability.
Although deficient aeration can be readily detected in soils from standard soil survey
observations such as gley colours, there is no easily measurable property of soil, or reliable
instrument, for determining soil aeration status. Gas-filled pore space in field soils changes
inversely with soil water content, therefore, computer simulations similar to that described in
Figure 7 might be modified to indicate the variable risks of deficient aeration. The duration of
periods of saturation may be deduced by computing a daily soil water balance and the periods
of heavy rainfall when the soil exceeds field capacity, due to insufficiently rapid drainage. Thus
an important characteristic may be soil permeability or the readiness with which the soil
transmits water to drainage. This may be affected by either a water table or by a barrier layer
with a relatively low permeability or hydraulic conductivity compared with the overlying soil. The
resistance to vertical flow (C) through a barrier equals the thickness of the layer divided by its
vertical hydraulic conductivity. Critical limits of C can be set between C = 50 or less representing
s1 or virtually no barrier, to C = 250 or over which constitutes a real barrier to flow (FAO
Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 38, 1980a).
The importance of drainage in removing excess water and salts is further discussed in C.21.
Sometimes it is important to recognize that adverse effects due to poor aeration in a wet period
may be offset by additional growth in a subsequent dry period. This additional growth may result
from additional water stored in the soil prior to the drought. In other words, benefits due to
additional residual soil water for growth, following the end of a period of waterlogging or soil
saturation, compensate for the effects of poor aeration (Eavis 1971).
If it is found necessary to investigate possible soil aeration problems for a particular soil, a bio-
assay technique suitable for soil cores maintained in the laboratory at a range of the field water
contents can be used with pea or other seedlings as a test plant (Eavis 1972). An 'aeration
deficiency index' can be established by deviations from the relationship between root extension
111
rate and penetrometer resistance. This can sometimes establish whether deficient aeration or
some other factor is responsible for poor growth or suboptimal yields on a particular soil.
Although lack of oxygen is often the principal reason for the adverse effects of poor aeration on
crop growth, there may be other equally important influences, which include root and foot rots
caused by fungal or bacterial pathogens. These can be 'class-determining' for particular crops;
for example, citrus and other fruit trees may be prone to gummosis and other diseases on soils
subject to periods of poor aeration.
Poor aeration may lead to inefficient use of nitrogen applied in manures and fertilizers. Losses
of nitrogen may occur from denitrification and leaching.
In evaluating the factor 'Aeration', the management practices and land development
requirements for minimizing adverse effects should be considered. Costs of permanent field
drains should be evaluated under heading C.21, and the costs of temporary field drains under
B.16.
A.6 Water quantity

A.6.5 The contribution of rainfall to water requirements in farmers fields (effective rainfall)
In quantifying how much water is required for irrigation, it is necessary to distinguish between
crop water requirement, net irrigation water requirement, gross irrigation water requirement, and
their components as listed below.
Water requirements can be expressed in terms of depth of water (mm) or volume (m 3), One mm
of water depth on one hectare of land equals a volume of 10 m3/ha (i.e. to convert data in mm to
m3/ha, multiply by 10). Water quality is discussed under heading A8. Key factors in determining
the supply of water to an irrigated crop are shown in Figure 9.
Figure 9 Flow diagram of key factors determining the supply of water to an irrigated crop
112
Source: CSIRO Annual Report 1978/80
i. Crop water requirement is defined as the water necessary to meet the maximum
evapotranspiration rate of the crop when soil water is not limiting.
113
ii. Net irrigation water requirement is defined as the water required to meet the crop water
requirement, minus contributions in the field by precipitation, run-on, groundwater and stored
soil water, plus field losses due to run-off, seepage and percolation.
iii. Gross irrigation water requirement is defined as the net irrigation water requirement, plus
conveyance losses between the source of the water and the field, plus any additional water for
leaching over and above percolation.
iv. Evapotranspiration is the rate of water loss through transpiration from vegetation, plus
evaporation from the soil surface or from standing water on the soil surface. The
terms reference crop evapotranspiration (ETo), maximum evapotranspiration rate of the
crop (ETm or ETcrop), and actual crop evapotranspiration rate of the crop (ETa), are
defined in the Glossary.
v. Effective precipitation (or effective rainfall) is the part of the precipitation that contributes to
crop water requirement, net irrigation water requirement or both.
vi. Run-on refers to the contribution of surface water from adjacent land, and run-off the losses
to adjacent land.
vii. Groundwater refers to the contribution of water from depth.
viii. Soil water is water stored in the soil. ix- Seepage (following IRRI) refers to losses of water
from the field by lateral, surface flow through the bunds (earthen banks) of rice fields.
x. Percolation refers to the losses of water from the field by vertical flow through the soil profile.
xi. S & P denotes seepage and percolation (in wetland rice).
xii. Conveyance losses are losses due to evaporation, percolation or breaches in the network of
irrigation canals between the source of water and field.
xiii. Leaching requirement is the water required to drain through the root zone to control soil
salinity (sometimes expressed as a fraction of the net irrigation water requirement or leaching
fraction).
In some countries and project areas, the supply of water does not limit crop production and is
tailored to meet the full requirement. In others, the abundance of water varies markedly through
the year and from year to year. Water supplies can modify the length of the growing period as
already discussed under heading A.1.
The degree of regulation of water supply in a river valley can vary enormously from little control
to full control. Spate irrigation and run-of-river gravity irrigation regulated by diversion structures
without storage may result in a very variable water supply. In the absence of sufficient storage
within the irrigation network to transfer water from the wet to the dry season, situations arise
during the year which are best described as 'land-limited' and 'water-limited'. In 'land-limited'
114
months of the year, there are abundant supplies of water and insufficient land on which to apply
it. In 'water-limited' months, the irrigable area is constrained by water supplies, not land area;
certain areas of land may then receive more water than other areas.
The area which can be irrigated is, in fact, constrained by the amount of water available in the
month or period of limited water (Eavis, Socratous and Makin 1979; Hazlewood and Livingstone
1978: Livingstone and Hazlewood 1979). In the months of abundant water surplus, water that
cannot be stored can be spilled, or can be used by the farmer to assist in land preparation (i.e.
softening the land) or weed control (i.e. deep standing water in rice fields). It follows that for
many gravity-fed run-of-river networks (and also for many schemes with limited storage), the
critical limits for defining levels of suitability (s1, s2, s3, n1, n2) must be concerned with the
'water-limited' period and not necessarily with the overall water quantity available for use
throughout the year.
An important part of any evaluation of water supply and water requirements, where water is a
scarce commodity and seasonally variable, is to match the water supply and water requirement
(demand) profiles as closely as possible. For example, cropping systems, and areas occupied
by various crops, can be manipulated to accommodate a diminishing water supply towards the
end of a rainy season. Also, land preparation and dates of planting can be staggered to smooth
away peak water demand where it exceeds the water supply in certain months. Figure 10
illustrates how irrigation scheduling affects the matching of water supply and requirements. If
the irrigation project is planned to supply water on a constant amount-constant frequency
schedule, the matching of supply and requirements may be poor. Nevertheless, many irrigation
projects have to be planned on such a basis to simplify administrative arrangements for issuing
water- The matching of supply-demand profiles can be improved by varying the quantity or
frequency of water application, or both, as illustrated in Figure 10.
Year to year variations in water supplies are often as important in land evaluation as seasonal
variations. Decisions on the size of the 'irrigable' land area are based on matching water
requirements and supply; in situations where there are unreliable and erratic supplies, the
'irrigable' area should be calculated at an acceptable level of risk. One must choose between
providing water reliably to a small area of land and providing it less reliably to a large area of
land; the latter may utilize the available water supply better than the former in wetter years. The
compromise should aim to maximize net benefits per project or per unit of water, rather than be
certain to achieve high yields on a smaller land area (Eavis, Socratous and Makin 1978). If
water supplies are limited by annual variations, high yields per unit of land can only be achieved
regularly by foregoing the opportunity to irrigate a larger area in wetter years, unless adequate
storage is possible.
Broadly, there are two ways in which water requirements can be reduced to match a scarce
water supply in dry periods. Either the land area irrigated can be reduced temporarily during the
period of shortage by completely cutting off supplies to certain areas, or the water supplies can
be reduced to less than the optimum requirement with the consequence that crop yields are
reduced.
Clearly, areas of land that will receive water in some years or seasons, but not during periods of
shortage must be given a lower level of suitability than those which have more reliable water
supplies. Crops that tolerate drought, yet respond when water is plentiful, can sometimes be
grown on such land, or short duration crops can be dropped from the cropping system during
115
the dry period. Critical limits than define s1, s2, s3, n1 and n2 levels of suitability for a LUT can
be set from the above considerations.
Figure 10a Effect of irrigation scheduling on the matching of water supply and water
requirements - Constant amount-constant frequency (rotational) schedule
Figure 10b Effect of irrigation scheduling on the matching of water supply and water
requirements - Constant amount-variable frequency schedule (variable frequency
rotation)
116
Figure 10c Effect of irrigation scheduling on the matching of water supply and water
requirements - Varied amount-constant frequency schedule (varied amount rotation)
Source: Replogle and Merriam 1980
The effects of water deficit on the yields of many crops have been described in FAO Irrigation
and Drainage Paper No. 33 (FAO 1979c). Experimentally, crop yield and transpiration are often
reported to be directly proportional and for many practical purposes a linear relationship
between crop yield and the actual crop evapotranspiration (ETa) is a good approximation (at
least over the marketable yield range)- Some crops suffer from lack of water more at some
stages of development than others and this can be taken into account.
The type of production function often found experimentally is illustrated in Figure 11. Yield and
evapotranspiration are plotted as ratios of the maximum yield (Ym) and the maximum
evapotranspiration (ETm or ETcrop). Subtracting these ratios from unity (1), transforms the
scales so that they indicate relative yield decrease (1 - Ya/Ym) and relative evapotranspiration
deficit (1 - ETa/ETm). Critical limits may be set as illustrated in Figure 11 for appropriate ranges
of yield. If the water supply varies from year to year, the percentage of years in which an 'n'
rating occurs can be the basis for selecting critical limits (see Eavis, Socratous and Makin
1979).
Methods for estimating water requirements are described in FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper
No. 24. The main steps generally necessary are listed below. A more sophisticated procedure
based on water balance models, that takes into account variations of daily rainfall in farmers'
117
fields, the soil as a reservoir, and water shortages, is described by Eavis, Socratous and Makin
(1979).
Figure 11 Relationship between crop evapotranspiration and yield for potatoes, based on
irrigation experiments in Cyprus, showing how critical limits were defined. (The
proportion of years in which water supply and relative yields fell to n1 [N1 on the figure]
was the basis for sizing the irrigable area)
The main steps in estimating crop water and irrigation requirements are as follows:
i. set out a cropping calendar of 10-day or weekly periods for land preparation, planting,
(draining the wetland rice field), harvesting, etc.;
ii. calculate 'reference crop evapotranspiration' (ETo) for each 10-day or weekly period. Use
climatic data or records of pan evaporation by the methods described in FAO Irrigation and
Drainage Paper No. 24;
iii. select crop coefficients (kc) according to instructions in FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper
No. 24 (kc = ETm/ETo for different stages of crop development);
iv. obtain the maximum crop evapotranspiration (ETm) by multiplying ii. and iii- (ETm = ETo.kc)
for different stages of crop development. This assumes no water shortages occur;
v. add in water requirements for wetting the soil initially if it is dry, and for land preparation; also
that for draining rice fields for weeding, etc.;
vi. subtract water requirements supplied by residual soil moisture towards the end of the
growing season (if appropriate);
vii. add in estimates of losses from run-off, seepage and percolation, or gains from run-on or
groundwater;
viii. calculate the leaching requirement (see Figure 16). If the expected percolation is insufficient
to keep soil salinity within the required range, add the appropriate amount to the water
requirement;
ix. deduct the contribution from precipitation or rainfall in farmers' fields (effective rainfall) from
the irrigation water requirement;
x. convert the above requirements in mm, into volumes of water per irrigated area (i.e. mm x 10
x ha = m3;
xi. add on the conveyance losses between source of water and the field;
xii. on the basis of the irrigation application technique, decide on irrigation schedules (e.g. see
Figure 10) in terms of frequency, rate and duration of water application;
xiii. determine peak water requirements in terms of flow rates (litres per sec per ha, l/s/ha);
118
xiv. match supply and requirement profiles by review and iteration.
A detailed description of the above procedures is beyond the scope of this publication. Figure
12 with its accompanying Table 34 illustrates by example some estimates of irrigation water
requirements for double cropped rice in Bali, Indonesia (Eavis and Walker 1976). The range of
irrigation water requirements for different land units in the project area of this example differed
mainly because of the variation in field losses from seepage and percolation (see Section
A.6.6).
Table 34 GROSS ANNUAL IRRIGATION WATER REQUIREMENTS FOR LOCAL 140-DAY

RICE FOLLOWED BY HYV 120-DAY RICE (to accompany Figure 12)
Rice 1 Rice 2
Seepage and percolation crop crop Gross annual irrigation water Peak demand
losses (140 day) (120 day) requirements rate
mm/day mm/year 1/ l/sec/ha
mm/crop
1 5.0 1 352 1 901 3 253 2.15
2 10.0 2 146 2 744 4 890 3.26
3 15.0 3 096 3 701 6 797 3.59
1/ mm/year x 10 = the gross irrigation water required in m3/ha/yr.
Figure 12 Irrigation water requirements of local rice followed by HYV rice, north coast of
Bali, Indonesia
Assumptions:
a) Seepage and percolation losses were taken as 5 mm/day, 10 mm/day and 15 mm/day to
meet the range of conditions in the different land units 1, 2 and 3 (shaded areas).
b) Planting spread over 60 days.
c) Local variety (traditional) 140 days' duration; HYV 120 days.
d) Pre-saturation 250 mm for first crop and 100 mm for second crop.
e) Losses in conveyance 15% gross supply plus 5% due to administrative wastage: total loss up
to field gate = 20% gross supply.
f) 80% probability rainfall was the figure used to approximate the effective rainfall.
A.6.5 The contribution of rainfall to water requirements in farmers fields

(effective rainfall)
In humid areas, crop water requirement may be partially provided by rain falling directly on the
farmers' fields. The respective proportions of the irrigation water requirement provided (i) from
rainfall or precipitation, and (ii) from irrigation, may differ from year to year and season to
season.
119
Not all the rain received in the field directly is effective. Part is lost by run-off, deep percolation,
or by evaporation of rain intercepted by the plant foliage. Where run-off is not important, the
best method for estimating the direct contribution of rainfall to water requirements, is to
construct a daily soil water balance using historical daily rainfall (Stern and Coe 1982). Simpler
approximations have often been used (e.g. the 80% probability rainfall), sometimes with
misleading results. Older methods for computing rainfall probabilities and effective rainfall are
given in FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 24.
Land characteristics such as slope, relief, infiltration rate, cracking, permeability and soil
management may all 'influence the utilization of rainfall and critical limits of the important ones
can be used in land evaluation.
In wetland rice, particularly, the contribution of effective rainfall depends on water conservation
practices. Continuous flow of water by gravity in many rice areas keeps the paddy fields full of
water. Rainfall on a full paddy overspills and may not be effectively utilized further downstream.
To improve the use of direct rainfall, farmers should block off the through flow and allow the
standing water levels in the fields to decline. This partially empties the paddy field and presents
an opportunity for the temporary storage of rainfall: it also reduces seepage and percolation
losses (see below).
Generally, the proportion of the total rainfall which is effective is greater in dry periods than in
wet periods. Snow melt, and run-on from adjacent areas are of great importance in some areas.
In many rice areas, water losses by seepage and percolation (S & P) greatly exceed
evapotranspiration. If water quantity is limiting, S & P and the land characteristics affecting
them, are important candidates for evaluation.
Seepage is the lateral movement of water through the soil and through levees, embankments or
bunds around fields. Percolation is the vertical movement downward towards a water table.
Seepage and percolation cannot always be clearly differentiated under field conditions and
therefore are often considered together.
In relatively flat areas with few drains and a high water table, seepage and percolation depend
on the total outflow in response to differential water heads and the resistance to flow through
bunds and the soil. In a series of paddies on a slope, seepage from one paddy to the next is
offset by seepage from higher paddies and net losses can be measured from the last paddy of
the system, which is usually located along a drain or unplanted area acting as a sink for the
entire system.
Percolation rates are governed by the water head (pressure) and the resistance to water
movement through the soil profile. The depth of standing water in paddy fields, due to increased
head, has a marked influence on percolation rates through the floor of the field and through the
bunds, on permeable soils. Soil permeability is affected by soil structure, texture and the
interfaces between horizons, including the presence of claypans or hardpans which may give
rise to a perched water table distinct from and above the true water table. In many rice areas the
water table itself controls percolation losses of water.
120
On sloping land where the water table is below the 25-30 cm rooting depth of rice, S & P are
related to how watertight the terraced paddies can be made by puddling the floor of the field,
and by blocking off leakage through the bunds. Puddling breaks down the soil structure and
helps sealing against water losses. The effectiveness of puddling depends on characteristics
such as texture, the clay minerals predominating, swelling and shrinking, salinity, organic matter
content and water control. The effectiveness of puddling is often a prime consideration in
evaluating water losses by S & P. Newly created riceland may not puddle effectively and it is
common for the effectiveness of puddling to improve over the first five to ten years.
Losses of water to a water table not only occur through the floor of the field, but also through the
bunds. In many rice areas, permanent bunds have well-structured permeable soils permitting
leakages which increase with the depth of standing water in the field (Walker and Rushton
1984); these losses may be the principal concern. If the bunds are permanent terrace structures
the difficulty of preventing such losses is likely to be greater than where bunds are destroyed
after each rice crop, and then reformed and compacted during land preparation.
Soil texture, the percentage of clay and the clay mineralogy may all contribute to an evaluation
of S & P water losses. Net irrigation water requirements for rice on sandy soils are likely to be
greater than on clay soils. Chin and Lee (1961) reported 7, 9, 10 and 12 mm/day for Taiwan
soils having 25-30%, 15-25%, 10-15%, 5-10% clay content respectively. Gupta and
Bhattacharya (1969) reported decreasing percolation losses successively for sandy soils,
sandloams, fine sandy loams and heavy clays. But Achar and Dastane (1971) reported
percolation losses as high as 19 mm/day from heavy black vertisols with as much as 50% clay.
The type of clay mineral and salt content of the soil and water are important factors to consider.
Salts lead to the aggregation of montmorillonitic and other clays and aggravate S & P losses.
Kaolinitic clays swell relatively little and puddle less effectively than montmorillonitic clays.
S & P will often dictate the limit of wetland rice irrigation on catenary topographic sequences- In
valley bottoms, S & P are less than further up-slope, partly due to soil texture and structure
changes. Hence S & P will often be important in deciding the size of the irrigable area. A range
in S & P between 2 and 15 mm/day in the example given in Figure 12 corresponded to a
threefold increase in net irrigation water requirement per year, and a similar increase in peak
demand rate of supply.
Guidelines for critical limits of seepage and percolation for wetland rice are suggested as follows
but these must be modified to reflect the significance of water supplies under local conditions as
already explained in A.6.1:
s1 0-2 mm/day
s2 2-5 mm/day
s3 5-15 mm/day
n1 more than 15 mm/day
Approximate values for S & P may be obtained from observations of the recession of standing
water in existing rice paddies on soils similar to those of interest. In the sloping gauge
technique, an inclined metre stick (slope 1:5) is installed in the representative paddies. The
decrease in water level is measured on the gauge and represents the combined losses from
evapotranspiration, inflow (irrigation + rainfall), and S & P. If no water is added or drained from
the paddy, then the total water used (indicated by change in depth) is simply evapotranspiration
121
plus S & P. Over small areas the evapotranspiration is approximately the same and differences
between locations can be assumed to be differences in seepage and percolation.
A.7 Nutrients (NPK)
A.7.1 Nitrogen
A.7.2 Phosphorus
A.7.3 Potassium
The discussion of crop nutrition in this section is mainly restricted to nitrogen (N), phosphorus
(P) and potassium (K), the three major nutrients commonly supplied as fertilizers. Other major
and micro-nutrients and the effects of pH and toxicities are discussed under heading A.11.
A distinction must first be drawn between:
- crop nutrient requirements based on the nutrient content of the crop,

- requirements for fertilizers and manures.
The mineral composition of plant dry matter as a measure of crop nutrient requirements
necessitates serial sampling during the life of the crop for accurate results; however crop
nutrient uptake is usually taken as the nutrient content of the harvested crops. This gives a
guide as to the nutrients required to maintain soil fertility at about the existing level. Supplies of
plant nutrients to replace those removed at harvest may come from:
i. soil mineralization (i.e. the transformation of soil minerals or organic matter from non-available
into available nutrients);
ii. manures and fertilizers, or
iii. fixation from the air, in the case of some of the nitrogen.
Losses also occur from leaching, fixation in unavailable forms and demineralization,
etc. Fertilizer and manurial requirements depend on all these considerations and are usually
determined empirically by experiment.
A.7.1 Nitrogen
Nitrogen is second only to water in importance as a factor affecting the yields of most irrigated
crops. The nitrogen cycle is illustrated in Figure 13. Nitrogen fertilizers give fairly predictable
yields where lack of nitrogen is the principal factor limiting yields. The main considerations in
deciding how much nitrogen should be applied to obtain a given yield are:
122
i. the amounts of nitrogen removed by the crop;
ii. the initial nitrogen content of the soil;
iii. the contribution from nitrogen fixation;
iv. the losses of nitrogen from leaching, denitrification, etc.
Figure 13 Transformations of nitrogen in the rhizosphere
Source: FAO 1980d
A further consideration, where high yields of short duration leafy crops are required, is the need
for temporarily high concentrations of nitrate or ammonium nitrogen in the soil to stimulate
uptake at critical stages of growth; such applications often lead to additional losses by leaching,
and hence the amount of nitrogen applied in intensive cultivation may be considerably greater
than the nitrogen removed by the crop. On the other hand, contributions may come from the air
or from mineralization of organic matter. Traditional rice varieties have been grown for centuries
in many parts of Asia without the use of nitrogenous manures or fertilizers, owing to the
atmospheric fixation of nitrogen by micro-organisms and algae. Both flooded rice and
leguminous crops can contribute in the order of 30-75 kg N/ha during favourable conditions over
a three to four month period, though usually not enough for optimum or maximum yields with
modern varieties.
If factors other than water and nutrients are not limiting, then the interaction between nitrogen
fertilizer and water application is frequently highly significant. Recently reclaimed soils in arid
and semi-arid areas are often inherently very low in organic matter and nitrogen content, yet
very suitable for irrigation. On such soils the type of response and interaction to water and
nitrogen fertilizers illustrated in Figure 14 is obtained; a bigger response to nitrogen is obtained
if water is not scarce. The variable performance of land units can be evaluated in terms of such
a response surface. Alternatively, critical limits may be defined as the cost of fertilizer inputs on
different land units.
Figure 14 An example of the yield response to fertilizer and water for a soil low in
available nitrogen
123
The cost of applying fertilizer nitrogen may vary from land unit to land unit. Soils requiring high
nitrogen inputs may be initially low in nitrogen, or may utilize nitrogen applications inefficiently
due to leaching or other losses. In practice, however, farmers often use the same amounts of
fertilizer on all their land and yields may then vary on account of different efficiencies of
utilization.
Nitrogen deficiency is especially common on sandy and well-weathered soils in areas of high
rainfall and on soils low in organic matter. Total nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen contents of soils
give some indication of severe deficiency but, in intermediate ranges and because of seasonal
changes, are of little help in determining immediate fertilizer requirements.
Arable soils have a variable nitrate content ranging from less than 2 to 60 mg/l of nitrogen as
nitrate. High levels of nitrate nitrogen may indicate that little or no nitrogen need be applied.
Total soil nitrogen is low if it is less than 0.1% and high if it is more than 0.3% of the oven dry
soil.
Tissue analyses of plant leaves give a range in total nitrogen from about 1.5% (low) to 3.5%
(high), depending on the crop and age of the leaf, etc. (Chapman 1973).
A.7.2 Phosphorus
Much attention has been given to the development of chemical methods for determining the
available phosphorus in a soil, where availability is defined as the amount a crop will take up
from the soil or, alternatively, where it is used as a measure of the ability of soil to supply the
124
amounts needed for maximum crop yield under the system of agriculture being practised
(Russell 1973), The soil analyses can generally detect gross deficiency but do not have much
general predictive value in deciding phosphorus fertilizer requirements to achieve various yields
unless first proved suited to a particular area. The uptake of available soil phosphorus by crops
depends on many factors including:
i. how fast the unavailable forms of phosphorus are transformed into exchangeable forms
and vice versa;
ii. the rate at which the available and exchangeable forms are released into the soil solution;
iii. the soil water content and solution concentrations during the period of growth;
iv. the crop requirement for phosphorus;
v. how effectively the root system explores the soil volume and absorbs and utilizes the
phosphorus present.
Phosphorus deficiency most commonly occurs on highly weathered tropical soils, calcareous
soils, and peat and muck soils but there is a response to fertilizer phosphorus on a very wide
range of soils.
Highly weathered tropical acid soils include some that absorb phosphate so strongly that its
concentration in the soil solution remains too low for the crop to benefit from it without massive
applications. Yet some crops (e.g. cassava) can utilize the phosphate on such soils. In land
evaluation it is particularly important to identify soils that strongly absorb phosphorus - In the
tropics these soils are often oxisols or ultisols. Russell (1973) suggests that they could be
identified by a laboratory determination of the amount of phosphorus a soil sample must absorb
to come into equilibrium with a solution of phosphorus of the same strength as is required for
active phosphorus uptake by most crops (e.g. 10-5 M, but less or more depending on the crop).
Acid soils usually require more added phosphorus than neutral and calcareous soils, and rock
phosphate is effective on acid soils. Excess phosphorus in species such as citrus that are
sensitive to phosphorus excess may induce both copper and zinc deficiency symptoms on
calcareous soils.
Phosphorus in tropical soils is commonly mineralized from organic matter at the start of the
rains or irrigation, following a dry period. The availability of phosphorus, whether judged by
chemical methods or by plant uptake, increases on submerging a soil. The increase in the
availability of phosphorus and other elements is often cited as one of the benefits of flooding
rice soils (Ponnamperuma 1976). Nonetheless, the increase in the solubility of phosphorus on
flooding is low in ultisols and oxisols.
Table 35 EXTRACTANTS USED TO ESTIMATE 'PLANT AVAILABLE' PHOSPHORUS IN

SOILS
mg P/l OF DRY SOIL

RESPONSE RESPONSE RESPONSE
EXTRACTANT SOILS EXPECTED PROBABLE UNLIKELY
125
1. Acetate-acetic acid (Morgan) 1/ Acid soils <5 6-15 >15
0.0125 with respect to sodium 0.16N
with respect to acetate pH 4.8 to 5.0
2. Hydrochloric-sulphuric acid-soluble Non calcareous acid <10 11-31 >31
phosphorus method (Mehlich) soils that have not
5 g of soil shaken for 5 minutes with recently been
20 ml of 0.05N HCl-0.25N treated with rock
H2SO4 solution. Filter. phosphate
3. Hydrochloric acid-ammonium Non calcareous <7 7-20 >20
fluoride-soluble phosphorus test (Bray soils
No.1)
Shake 1 part of soil for 1 minute with 7
parts of 0.025N HCl-0.03N ammonium
fluoride. Filter.
4. Sodium bicarbonate-soluble Neutral, calcareous <5 6-10 >11
phosphorus test (Olsen) and acid soils. Not
Add 100 ml of 0.5M sodium for sodic soils high
bicarbonate adjusted to pH 8.5 to 5 g in organic matter
of soil. Add one teaspoon of
phosphorus-free carbon black, shake
for 30 minutes. Filter and determine P
on 5 ml per 25 ml final volume.
5. Carbonic acid (McGeorge) Calcareous soils. <3 6-10 >10
50 g of soil placed in a cylinder with Rapid routine
250 ml of distilled water. CO2 passed standardized testing
through the suspension for 15 minutes not always possible
before filtering.
6. Water soluble phosphorus All soils <1 or <0.13 in 1-2 >2 or >0.13 in
method (Bingham) water extract water extract
10 g of soil shaken 15 minutes with
100 ml distilled water and filtered.
1/ In the Morgan test, ratios and extractant times vary widely, e.g. 1:2 soil: extract shaking time
1 minute, compared with 1:5 and shaking time 30 minutes.
In general, the phosphorus fertilizer or manurial requirement for rice is less than for other
cereals. Grasses and cereals usually have a lower requirement than crops such as potato,
sugarbeet, and leafy vegetable crops which may respond to two or three times more than the
application rate for the former (Bingham 1973). Wherever possible, such generalizations should
be confirmed by experiments which also examine the optimal sources and inputs of phosphorus
fertilizers in their various forms as rock phosphate, superphosphate, triple superphosphate, etc.
Many chemical techniques for measuring 'plant available' soil phosphorus are in current use and
these are summarized (Table 35) in terms of the responses that are anticipated in the area
where they are used (Bingham 1973).
Total phosphorus content in plant tissues ranges from 0.05% to 0.5%, depending upon the state
of nutrition, plant species, season and tissue sampled. Leaf values from tree crops are usually
lower than those for most annuals, ranging from 0.05% to 0.10% total phosphorus for
deficiency, and 0.2% to 0.4% in the satisfactory range. Excess is not readily detected by tissue
analysis, but if values greater than 0.5% are encountered in trees, further examination may be
advisable (Bingham 1973).
126
A.7.3 Potassium
Potassium deficiency, as indicated by low exchangeable potassium (Ulrich and Ohki 1973),
commonly occurs on:
i. sandy soils that leach excessively;

ii. acid sandy soils;
iii. organic soils;
iv. soils that have been heavily cropped, leached or eroded;
v. highly leached ferralsols.
In contrast, soils in many arid and semi-arid areas have more than sufficient plant available
potassium to meet the nutritional requirements of irrigated crops. This is because of the
relatively small impact of weathering and leaching on dry-region soils. Exceptions on such soils
can readily be detected from exchangeable potassium determinations, extracting the potassium
with normal ammonium acetate or 0.5 normal sodium bicarbonate.
Soils with less than 100 kg/ha of exchangeable potassium in the root zone are often responsive
to potassium fertilizer. If the soil contains more than 300 kg/ha of exchangeable potassium, very
few crops are likely to respond (Ulrich and Ohki 1973).
The potassium content of leaves used for tissue analysis ranges from about 0.7 to 1.5% on a
dry weight basis, for most plants. A few plant species (e.g. potato) require much higher
concentrations in their tissues for normal growth: up to 5% potassium may be beneficial in
intensive, early season temperate crops.
The selection of appropriate factor ratings for 'NPK Nutrition' requires an appreciation of likely
yield response curves for crops on the land units being evaluated. For example. Figure 14
illustrates a family of yield response curves to nitrogen fertilizer (corresponding to different
evapotranspiration levels). The physical responses to various levels of fertilizer can be
translated into financial benefit/cost ratios. Factor ratings for 'NPK Nutrition' can be used to
approximate benefit/costs; for example, if a land unit produced excellent yields without any
fertilizer it would receive a factor rating of s1. A benefit/cost of less than one, which implies that
costs of fertilizers exceed the financial value of the yield increment, would lead to a factor rating
of n1 or n2. N, P and K can each be evaluated separately, and then be combined to give an
overall factor rating for NPK Nutrition, for example as in Table 36. The 'significance' of this factor
rating can then be judged relative to others listed on Format 3.
Table 36 FACTOR RATING OF 'NPK NUTRITION' IN TERMS OF FERTILIZER

REQUIREMENTS FOR A SPECIFIC LAND UNIT AND LAND UTILIZATION TYPE
LUT:
Crop or crops:
Land Unit No(s):
Factor Ratings Selected
s1 s2 s3 n1 n2 rating
Benefit/cost index 1/
127
>3 2-3 1-2 0.5-1 < 0.5
Nitrogen  s3
Phosphorus  s1
Potassium  s1
Factor Rating for 'NPK Nutrition' (i.e. relatively high costs of nitrogen fertilizer s3
are implied to obtain acceptable yields)
Conclusion: Enter s3 on Format 3 for 'NPK Nutrition'
1/ Benefit/costs given are examples only.
A.8 Water quality

Guidelines for evaluating the suitability of water for irrigation are described in FAO 1976c,
Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 29 (Revision 1 is in press and will be issued in 1985). Values
are suggested (Table 37) which relate to the general irrigation problems of salinity, infiltration
and specific ion toxicity. The suitability of water depends on i) how it is managed, ii) the nature
of the soil, and iii) crop tolerance to salinity of various types of irrigation water. Water quality
criteria must be interpreted in the context of overall salt balances and toxicities and the effects
on soil. The problems that result from using poor quality water vary both in kind and degree but
the most common are:
Table 37 GUIDELINES FOR INTERPRETATION OF WATER QUALITY FOR IRRIGATION 1/
Potential Irrigation Problem Restriction on Use

Units None Slight to Severe
Moderate
Salinity (affects crop water availability) 2/
ECw (or) dS/m <0.7 0.7 - 3.0 >3.0
TDS mg/l <450 450 - 2 000 >2 000
Infiltration (affects infiltration rate of water into the soil. Evaluate
using ECw and SAR together) 3/
SAR =0-3 and ECw = >0.7 0.7 - 0.2 <0.2
=3-6= >1.2 1.2 - 0.3 <0.3
= 6 - 12 = >1.9 1.9 - 0.5 <0.5
= 12 - 20 = >2.9 2.9 - 1.3 <1.3
= 20 - 40 = >5.0 5.0 - 2.9 <2.9
Specific Ion Toxicity (affects sensitive crops)
Sodium (Na) 4/
surface irrigation SAR <3 3-9 >9
sprinkler irrigation me/l <3 >3
Chloride (Cl) V
surface irrigation me/l <4 4 - 10 >10
sprinkler irrigation me/l <3 >3
Boron (B) 5/ mg/l <0.7 0.7 - 3.0 >3.0
Trace Elements (see FAO 1985)*
Miscellaneous Effects (affects susceptible crops)
Nitrogen (NO3-N) 6/ mg/l <5 5 - 30 >30
128
Bicarbonate (HCO3) (overhead sprinkling only) me/l <1.5 1.5 - 8.5 >8.5
pH (Normal Range 6.5 - 8.4)
1/ Adapted from University of California Committee of Consultants, 1974.
2/ ECw means electrical conductivity, a measure of the water salinity, reported in deciSemens
per metre at 25°C (dS/m) or as previously reported in millimhos per centimetre at 25°C
(mmho/cm); they are numerically equivalent. TDS means total dissolved solids, reported in
milligrams per litre (mg/l).
3/ SAR means sodium adsorption ratio. SAR is sometimes reported by the symbol Tte. See
Glossary for the SAR calculation procedure. At a given SAR, infiltration rate increases as water
salinity increases. Evaluate the potential infiltration problem by SAR as modified by EC.
Adapted from Rhoades 1977; and Oster and Schroer 1979.
4/ Values for sodium and chloride applicable to sensitive tree and woody plants with surface
irrigation; many annual crops are less sensitive to these specifications. With overhead irrigation
and low humidity (<30 percent), sodium and chloride absorbed through the leaves of sensitive
crops can cause damage.
5/ For boron tolerances, see Table 42.
6/ NO3-N means nitrate nitrogen reported in terms of elemental nitrogen. (NH4-N and Organic-N
should be included when wastewater is being tested).
* See revised FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 29 (1985) for trace elements and for new
method to calculate adjusted SAR (adj. RNa).
i. Salinity: A salinity problem can occur if the total quantity of salts in the irrigation water is high
enough for the salts to accumulate in the crop root zone to the extent that yields are affected.
Excessive soluble salts in the root zone inhibit water uptake by plants. The plants suffer from
salt-induced drought. Plants respond more critically to salinity in the upper part of the soil profile
than to the salinity levels at depth. Thus, managing this critical upper root zone may be as
important as providing adequate leaching to prevent salt accumulation in the total root zone.
ii. Infiltration: An infiltration problem related to water quality occurs when the rate of water
infiltration into and through the soil is reduced (because of this water quality) to such an extent
that the crop is not adequately supplied with water and yield is reduced. The poor soil infiltration
makes it more difficult to supply the crop with adequate water and may greatly add to cropping
difficulties through crusting of seed beds, waterlogging of surface soil and accompanying
disease, salinity, weed, oxygen and nutritional problems. It is evaluated, first, for total salts in
the water because low salt water can result in poor soil infiltration due to the tremendous
capacity of pure water to dissolve and remove calcium and other solubles in the soil; secondly,
from a comparison of the relative content of sodium to calcium and magnesium in the water
or SAR (sodium adsorption ratio). Thirdly, carbonates and bicarbonates can also affect
infiltration and must be evaluated. These three factors interact in determining the long-term
influence of a water on the soil infiltration rate.
129
iii. Toxicity: A toxicity problem occurs when certain constituents in the water are taken up by the
crop and accumulate in amounts that result in a reduced yield. In arid and semi-arid areas this is
usually related to one or more specific ions in the water, namely, boron, chloride and sodium.
iv. Miscellaneous: Various other problems may occur, e.g. from excessive nitrogen in the water
supply, white deposits on fruit due to high bicarbonate in sprinkler applied water, and suspected
abnormalities indicated by water with an unusual pH.
The guidelines presented in Table 37 should allow a determination that water of a given salinity,
SAR and specific ion composition does or does not have a potential to limit crop production.
Where limitations are indicated, the water may still be usable providing certain management
steps are taken to alleviate the problem. The guidelines in Table 37 were drawn up on the
assumption that the area under consideration is semi-arid or arid, with low rainfall, good
drainage, no uncontrolled shallow water table and that surface or sprinkler applications of water
were used with 15% of the water percolating through the root zone. The guidelines are possibly
too strict for drip irrigation on highly permeable soils, but elsewhere the user must constantly
guard against drawing unwarranted conclusions based strictly on laboratory results alone.
Further discussion of salinity limitations continues in heading A.9.
The quality of water for localized irrigation techniques is an important management criteria
that can be conveniently introduced here. Critical limits have been suggested by Bucks and
Nakayama (see Howell, Bucks and Chesness 1980) as set out in Table 38.
Table 38 CRITICAL LIMITS FOR CLASSIFYING POTENTIAL CLOGGING HAZARD OF

IRRIGATION WATER TO BE USED IN TRICKLE SYSTEMS
Factor Clogging Hazard

Slight Moderate Severe
Physical Suspended solids (Max. ppm) 1/ < 50 50-100 > 10
Chemical
pH < 0.7 7.0-8.0 > 8.0
Total Dissolved Solids (Max. ppm) 1/ < 500 500-2 000 > 2 000
Manganese (Max. ppm) 1/ < 0.1 0.1-1.5 > 1.5
Iron (Max. ppm) 1/ < 0.1 0.1-1.5 > 1.5
Hydrogen sulphide (Max. ppm) 1/ < 0.5 0.5-2.0 > 2.0
Biological
Bacteria populations (Max. no/ml) 2/ < 10 000 10 000-50 000 > 50 000
1/ Maximum measured concentration from a representative number of water samples using
standard procedures for analysis.
2/ Maximum number of bacteria per millilitre can be obtained from portable field samplers and
laboratory analysis.
Source: Bucks and Nakayama from Howell et al. 1980.
A.9 Salinity
130
The adverse effects of soil salinity on plant growth vary with the crop being grown. The
presence of salinity in the soil solution resulting from either indigenous salt in the soil, or from
salt added by irrigation water can affect growth (i) by reducing water available to the crop (the
osmotic effect) and (ii) by increasing the concentration of certain ions that have a toxic effect on
plant metabolism (the specific ion effect). There is an approximate tenfold range in salt
tolerance of agricultural crops. This wide choice of crops greatly expands the usable range of
water salinity for irrigation and emphasizes the fact that water quality and soil salinity are
specific for the intended use. Many plants, for example, barley, wheat and maize, are sensitive
to the osmotic effect during germination and the early seedling stages, but have greater
tolerances at later stages (USDA 1954). Salt damage is aggravated by hot, dry conditions and
may be less severe in cool humid conditions. Salt tolerance data for any given crop cannot be
considered as fixed values, but should be used as guidelines.
The evaluation of plant salt-tolerance data by Maas and Hoffman (1977) suggests that for each
crop a certain threshold value exists beyond which crop yields decrease linearly with increasing
salinity. When the soil saturation extract ECe value is less than some prescribed threshold
value, crop yields are unaffected and represent 100% relative yield.
Salinity tolerances for various crops are given in Figure 15 which also indicates approximate
yield reductions in relationship to increasing salinity of the soil saturation extract ECe.
Figure 15 Salt tolerances of various crops to salinity as measured in the saturation

extract ECe. Vegetable crops.
131
extract ECe. Field crops.
132
extract ECe. Fruit crops.
133
extract ECe. Forage crops.
134
Source: Maas and Hoffmann 1977; James et al 1982.
The relation between the conductivity of saturated extract ECe and that of the irrigation water,
ECw, can be approximated by assuming that the irrigation water concentrates three times as it
becomes soil water and that the salinity of the saturation extract is half that of the soil water (i.e.
ECe = 3/2 ECw). For example, the yield of sugarbeets is reduced 10% when the ECe reaches
8.6 dS/m (at 25°C). This corresponds to ECw = 5.7 which is the ECw of the irrigation water that
would result in a 10% yield decrement if the assumptions are valid. This calculation also
assumes that all the salinity is derived from the irrigation water and none from the soil; it may
frequently be necessary to take the latter into account.
The leaching requirement using irrigation water of different salinities and for crops of different
salt tolerances can be readily obtained from the graphical solution given in Figure 16. Thus if the
conductivity of the irrigation water is 2 dS/m and the crop salt tolerance threshold is 4, the
leaching requirement is about 0.10, or 10% of the applied water should leach through the soil.
135
Figure 16 Graphical solution for the leaching requirement (L), the minimum leaching
fraction that prevents yield reduction, as a function of the salinity of the applied water
and the salt tolerance threshold value for the crop
Source: Hoffmann and van Genuchten 1980
Additional water will be required to reduce an initially high salt content to an acceptable value
(see C.24 Reclamation Leaching).
A.10 Sodicity
The detrimental effect associated with sodium accumulation in soil can be divided into two
categories: i) deterioration of the physical condition of the soil; and ii) sodium toxicity.
i. physical effects of sodicity
136
The presence of excessive amounts of exchangeable sodium in soil promotes the dispersion
and swelling of clay minerals. The soil becomes impermeable to both air and water. The
infiltration and hydraulic conductivity decrease to the extent that little or no water movement
occurs. The soil is plastic when wet and becomes hard (brick-like) when dry. Tillage becomes
difficult and soil crusting occurs. Recent research (Frenkel et al. 1978) has indicated that
dispersion blocks soil pores, whereas swelling reduces pore sizes. The effect is most
pronounced on soils containing clays which swell and shrink. Soils containing non-expanding
clays such as kaolinite and sesquioxides are relatively insensitive to the physical effects of
exchangeable sodium. However, heavy cracking clays may be so impermeable when wet that
the decreased permeability associated with a high sodium content may not matter.
Sodicity is determined as the exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP). In rating sodicity one
should take into account the changes in ESP which will take place after the land is irrigated.
The actual sodicity which can be maintained in the soil with the anticipated soil and water
management practices should be rated according to the overall effect on crop production. As
the root systems of most crops develop best in the upper 30 cm of the soil, more attention may
be given to the surface soil, except in the case of tree crops, or where sodicity in the subsoil is
an important factor in drainage.
Both laboratory and field methods can be used to determine salinity and sodicity. Laboratory
studies can be used to determine critical limits for the influence of exchangeable sodium on the
physical characteristics (e.g. permeability) of individual soils.
In past surveys, sodicity phases of soils were often distinguished on the basis of a high pH
measured in the field. However, pH is not only a function of sodicity but of salinity as well, and
should not be used alone for the rating of sodicity. In case ESP is not determined, or only for a
limited number of profiles, it may be estimated from pH-ESP-EC relationships that have been
worked out for a number of areas. These relationships may not always hold, especially when
gypsum is present. The SAR of the irrigation water will influence the ESP of the soil, but the
relation between the two may not be straightforward, because the ESP of the soil is conditioned
by the SAR of the soil solution, and this is constantly changing. After irrigation, the soil solution
slowly becomes more concentrated as the crop transpires water, so its SAR rises, and if the
effect of concentration is to cause some calcium or magnesium to precipitate out as the
carbonate, this will also cause it to rise still further. The higher the total salt content of the
irrigation water, the lower must be its SAR if the ESP of soil is to remain below a given level
(Table 37).
Before leaching, saline-alkali soils often have a high ESP associated with the high salinity. The
ESP values of soils before leaching may give a misleading impression of the potential sodicity
hazard. The ESP values should be determined after leaching tests have been carried out with
water of similar quality to that to be used for irrigation.
On some cracking clays (i.e. black clays high in montmorillonite in the Gezira, Sudan), which
crack on drying, but which are otherwise impermeable, good crop yields can be obtained even
though they have a high ESP (up to 40%) and an unstable structure. These clays may contain
aluminium hydroxide films which probably help to stabilize the cracks to some extent.
In Table 39, based on work in the Sudan (Purnell, pers. comm.), critical limits are given for
sodicity, using values for the ESP and
137
SAR of the soil solution after leaching. The ratings s1, s2, s3 and n reflect nonsodic, slightly
sodic, moderately sodic and strongly sodic soils respectively. This data may not be satisfactory
for a proper evaluation on its own. Other factors, including the internal drainage of the soil, the
properties of the clay minerals present, the calcium and gypsum content, the particle size of
carbonate fractions, and the salt and SAR of the irrigation water are all important.
Table 39 CRITICAL LIMITS FOR SODICITY TOLERANCE
ESP % ESP % SAR 3/ SAR

Factor Ratings 1/
(0 - 30) 2/ (30 - 90) (0 - 30) (30 - 90)
s1 <10 <20 <8 <18
s2 10 - 20 20 - 35 8-18 18 - 38
s3 20 - 35 35 - 50 18 - 38 38 - 68
n >35 >50 >38 >68
1/ Ratings may be raised one level if permeability is more than 2 cm/hr (e.g. as in loamy and
sandy soils).
2/ Soil depth ranges in cm.
3/SAR may be used if ESP figures seem unreliable.
ii. Sodium toxicity
Plants vary considerably in their ability to tolerate sodium ions. Most tree crops and other
woody-type perennials are particularly sensitive to low concentrations of sodium. Most annual
crops are less sensitive, but may be affected by higher concentrations. Sodium toxicity is often
modified and reduced if calcium is also present, therefore a reasonable evaluation of the
potential toxicity is possible using the SAR for the soil water extract and the SAR of the irrigation
water. Symptoms of sodium toxicity may appear only after a period of time during which toxic
concentrations accumulate in the plant: the symptoms appear as a burn or drying of tissues first
appearing at the outer edges of leaves. Table |40 can be used to evaluate the sodium hazard
for representative crops.
iii. Chloride and boron toxicities
Critical values for tolerance for chloride and boron for various crops are given in Tables 41 and
42.

A.11.2 Chemical characteristics of submerged rice soils (based on Ponnamperuma 1976)
138
Apart from NPK, discussed in A.7 and the toxicities caused by excess sodium, boron and
chloride discussed in A.10, there remain limitations of pH, micronutrient deficiencies, and other
toxicities. These are discussed for non-rice cropland, for submerged riceland, and for acid
sulphate conditions in the three following sections A.11.1, A.11.2 and A.11.3.
Table 40 TOLERANCE OF VARIOUS CROPS TO EXCHANGEABLE SODIUM (ESP) UNDER

NONSALINE CONDITIONS
Tolerance to ESP and Crop Growth response under field conditions

range at which affected
Extremely sensitive Deciduous fruits Nuts Citrus Sodium toxicity symptoms even at low ESP
(ESP = 2-10) (Citrus spp.) values
Avocado (Persea
americana Mill.)
Sensitive Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris. L) Stunted growth at these ESP values even
(ESP = 10-20) though the physical condition of the soil
may be good
Moderately tolerant Clover (Trifolium spp.) Stunted growth due to both nutritional
(ESP = 20-40) Oats (Avena sativa L.) factors and adverse soil conditions
Tall fescue (Festuca
arundinacea Schreb.)
Rice (Oryza sativa L.)
Dallis grass (Paspalum
dilatum Poir.)
Tolerant Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Stunted growth usually due to adverse
(ESP = 40-60) Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) physical conditions of soil
Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.)
Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.)
Tomatoes (Lycopersicon
esculentum Mill.)
Beets (Beta vulgaris L.)
Most tolerant Crested and Fairway wheatgrass Stunted growth usually due to adverse
(ESP = more than 60) (Agropyronspp.) physical conditions of soil
Tall wheatgrass (Agropyron
elongatum (Host) Beau.)
Rhodes grass (Chloris
gayana Kunth)
Note- Estimates of the equilibrium ESP can be made from the irrigation water or more
preferably from the SAR of the soil saturation extract using the nomogram in Appendix B of FAO
Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 29. This estimation method is not applicable where soil
gypsum is present. Effectiveness of any planned corrective action should be field tested before
being applied on a large scale. Soils at ESP = 20-40 and above will usually have too poor
physical structure for good crop production. The research results given above were obtained
with soils whose structure was stabilized with Krilium.
Source: Pearson 1960. For updated information see revised FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper
No. 29.
Table 41 CHLORIDE TOLERANCES IN THE SATURATION EXTRACT OF SOIL FOR FRUIT

CROP ROOTSTOCKS AND VARIETIES IF LEAF INJURY IS TO BE AVOIDED
139
Crop Rootstock or variety Maximum permissible C1 in saturation
extract me/l
Rootstocks
Citrus Rangpur lime, Cleopatra 25
(Citrus spp.) mandarin
Rough lemon, tangelo, sour 15
orange
Sweet orange, citrange 10
Stone fruit Marianna 25
(Prunus spp.) Lovell, Shalil 10
Yunnan 7
Avocado West Indian Mexican 8
(Persea
americana Mill.)
Grape Salt Creek, 1613-3 40
(Vitis spp.) Dog Ridge 30
Varieties
Grape Thompson Seedless, Perlette 25
(Vitis spp.) Cardinal, Black rose 10
Berries 1/ Boysenberry 10
(Rubus spp.) Olallie blackberry 10
Indian Summer raspberry 5
Strawberry Lassen 8
(Fragaria spp.) Shasta 5
1/ Data available for single variety of each crop only.
Source: Bernstein 1965. For updated information see revised FAO Irrigation and Drainage
Paper No. 29.
Table 42 RELATIVE TOLERANCE OF CROPS AND ORNAMENTALS TO BORON 1/
Tolerance decreases in descending order in each column
Tolerant Semi-tolerant Sensitive

4.0 mg/l of boron 2.0 mg/l of boron 1.0 mg/l of boron
Athel Sunflower, native Pecan
(Tamarix aphylla) (Helianthus annuus L.) (Carya illinoensis (Wang.) K. Koch)
Asparagus Potato Walnut, black and Persian or
(Asparagus officinalis L.) (Solanum tuberosum L.) English
(Juglans spp.)
Palm Cotton, Acala and Pima Jerusalem artichoke
(Phoenix canariensis) (Gossypium sp.) (Helianthus tuberosus L.)
Date palm Tomato Navy bean
(P. dactylifera L.) (Lycopersicon (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)
esculentum Mill.)
Sugarbeet Sweetpea American elm
(Beta vulgaris L.) (Lathyrus odoratus L.) (Ulmus americana L.)
140
Mangel Radish Plum
(Beta vulgaris L.) (Raphanus sativus L.) (Prunus domestica L.)
Garden beet Field pea Pear
(Beta vulgaris L.) (Pisum sativum L.) (Pyrus communis L.)
Alfalfa Rose Apple
(Medicago sativa L.) (Rosa sp.) (Malus sylvestris Mill.)
Gladiolus Olive Grape
(Gladiolus sp.) (Olea europaea L.) (Sultanina and Malaga) (Vitis sp.)
Broadbean Barley Kadota fig
(Vicia faba L.) (Hordeum vulgare L.) (Ficus carica L.)
Onion Wheat Persimmon
(Allium cepa L.) (Triticum aestivum L.) (Diospyros virginiana L.)
Turnip Corn (Maize) Cherry
(Brassica rapa L.) (Zea mays L.) (Prunus sp.)
Cabbage Milo Apricot
(Brassica (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) (Prunus armeniaca L.)
oleracea var. capitata L.)
Lettuce Oat Thornless blackberry
(Lactuca sativa L.) (Avena sativa L.) (Rubus sp.)
Carrot Zinnia Orange
(Daucus carota L.) (Zinnia elegans Jacq.) (Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck)
Pumpkin Avocado
(Cucurbita spp.) (Persea americana Mill.)
Bell pepper Grapefruit
(Capsicum annuum L.) (Citrus paradisi Macfad.)
Sweet potato Lemon
(Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.) (Citrus limon (L.) Burm. f.)
Lima bean
(Phaseolus lunatus L.)
2.0 mg/l of boron 1.0 mg/l of boron 0.3 mg/l of boron
1/ Relative tolerance is based on boron in irrigation water at which boron toxicity symptoms
were observed when plants were grown in sand culture. Does not necessarily indicate a
reduction in yield.
Source: Wilcox 1960
Figure 17a General trend of the influence of reaction (pH) on the availability of plant
nutrients (widest part of the bar indicates maximum availability) - Relative availability of
common elements in mineral soils with pH (after Truog 1948)
Figure 17b General trend of the influence of reaction (pH) on the availability of plant
nutrients (widest part of the bar indicates maximum availability) - Organic soils (after
Lucas and Davis 1961)
141
i. pH (General)
Crops vary in their response to pH; calcifuge plants dislike lime while calciphilous plants are
lime-loving. There are very few crops that grow well in calcareous soils that do not grow equally
well at a pH above 6 under lime-free conditions. Several crops, such as tea, require acid
conditions. Many crops are affected by micro-nutrient deficiencies or toxicities at certain pH
142
levels. The availability of various macro and micronutrients over the pH scale is illustrated in
Figure 17; however, this availability varies from crop to crop.
The pH of soil suspensions varies according to whether the soil is shaken with water, or with an
electrolyte such as normal potassium chloride. The pH of the latter may be a whole pH unit
lower than that measured by shaking with water, but closer to the real pH on the soil particles
themselves. It is best to use an electrolyte where the pH of saline soils is to be measured,
especially when comparisons are necessary with nonsaline pHs.
In soil/water suspensions the pH may vary with the soil to water ratio. In the field, as the soil
gets drier, the concentration of salts in the soil solution may rise, causing a fall in pH. If the soils
contain substances susceptible to oxidation and reduction, the pH will fall or rise accordingly.
Thus the pH of waterlogged soils containing sulphides will fall from pH 7 to below pH 4 if
drained and aerated (see A.11.3). The pH of a soil is also influenced by the carbon dioxide
concentration of the soil air; the higher this concentration the lower the pH, the effect being
greater the higher the soil's pH. Because the pH of soil samples collected from the field
depends on the conditions of measurement, collection and measurement should be
standardized in any study. i
ii. Calcium and lime requirement
The amount of liming material required to neutralize soil acidity, and the final pH it is desirable to
achieve, must generally be worked out under local conditions in field trials. In the laboratory, the
amount of lime needed to bring the soil to a selected pH can be determined either by titrating
the soil with lime to this pH or, more conveniently, by shaking the soil with a calcium solution
buffered at this pH-
In many acid tropical soils, the object of applying lime is to neutralize exchangeable aluminium,
not to achieve a particular pH and this seems to overcome the problems associated with over-
liming. On some acid soils, over-liming may induce micronutrient deficiencies and the lime must
be given in small, frequent dressings, keeping a check on pH and crop performance whenever
additional dressings of lime are given.
Liming materials include calcium oxide (burnt or quick lime), calcium hydroxide (hydrated or
slaked lime), finely-ground limestone, and chalk. In wet climates calcium bicarbonate is
continually leached out of the soil; in the United Kingdom, for example, this is equivalent to
about 200-400 kg of calcium carbonate per hectare per year (Russell 1973).
Calcium deficiency, particularly in fruit and vegetable crops, can occur on some acid soils
although the harmful effects of acid soils are more usually caused by aluminium, iron,
manganese or sulphur toxicities.
iii. Magnesium
Magnesium deficiency commonly occurs on acid, sandy soils in areas of moderate to high
rainfall. Magnesium deficiency may be induced by applying too much potassium fertilizer, and
occasionally even by mulching with grasses rich in potassium. The application of nitrogen tends
to promote the uptake of magnesium. In sandy soils subject to leaching, soils with equal
amounts of available magnesium may be more subject to magnesium deficiency at a low pH
than at a higher pH (Chapman 1973).
143
Soils with high exchangeable magnesium and exhibiting the morphology and problems of sodic
soils occur in western Canada, USA and Middle Eastern arid and semi-arid areas. Low
permeability and intractable working conditions are more important than excess magnesium on
these soils.
iv. Zinc
Zinc deficiency is very widespread in neutral to alkaline soils. Excessive soil phosphorus
aggravates zinc deficiency. Some crops are affected more than others. For example, phaseolus
beans, maize, potato, onion, citrus, cherry and peach are susceptible, whereas alfalfa, wheat,
barley and grasses are rarely affected. A good prediction of zinc deficiency can be obtained
using DTPA-extractable zinc which, if below 0.8 ppm on a dry soil basis, indicates the need for
zinc applications to susceptible non-rice crops (see A.11.2 for rice). For field crops in arid and
semi-arid areas, 10 kg zinc per hectare broadcast and incorporated into the soil will control zinc
deficiency for three or four years. Foliar applications of 1-2 kg Zn/ha/yr to tree crops are very
effective.
v. Iron
Iron deficiency, or lime-induced chlorosis, on calcareous soils is a very complex problem

influenced by many physical, chemical and biological factors. Iron is absorbed by plants as Fe
(II) which is relatively soluble, but in the pH range of neutral to alkaline soils this is rapidly
converted to Fe (III) which is very insoluble. Foliar deficiency symptoms are quite specific for
iron. Diagnostic soil tests for available iron have been generally unsuccessful and often are of
little use as the condition is difficult to correct. However, Lindsay and Norvell (1978) in the USA
and Stewart-Jones (1979) in Saudi Arabia have used DTPA extraction with some success.
Additions of ferrous sulphate to soils which are grossly deficient in iron can sometimes produce
substantial increases in yields; the response is dependent on microbial activity and the
presence of organic matter. Lime-induced chlorosis within land units is generally very variable
and unpredictable, but many soils will produce good overall production and yields, despite lower
yields in affected patches of fields. Some crops have 'iron efficient' and 'iron inefficient' cultivars
and with tree crops, the chlorosis often varies markedly from tree to tree. Tissue analysis does
not identify this problem satisfactorily, but it is readily evident from leaf chlorosis.
vi. Sulphur
Sulphur deficiency occurs on old deeply weathered land surfaces where the soils have been
strongly leached for a long period of time, and is only rarely found in arid areas. The sulphur
supplying power of a soil can be estimated from the amount of water-soluble and absorbed
sulphate in the root zone, for crops can use this absorbed sulphate quite readily. Less than 3
ppm SO4-S in soil extracted with lithium chloride solution was well correlated with the yield of
alfalfa in S-deficient soils of southern Idaho. Sulphur deficiency is readily corrected by sulphate
containing fertilizers (e.g. superphosphate or sulphate of ammonia) or gypsum.
Sulphur toxicity occurs on acid-sulphate soils as discussed in A.11.3.
vii. Boron
Boron deficiency does not usually occur on arid and semi-arid land where boron toxicity is a
much more probable occurrence as already discussed under A.10 and Table 42. Boron
144
deficiency frequently occurs on calcareous soils, or on acid soils that have been limed,
particularly when plants such as sugarbeet are under water stress in dry periods. Deficiency
often occurs when hot water soluble boron of the soil is less than 0.3 to 1.0 ppm but the
predictive value of this test is not always satisfactory. Plant tissue analysis is very reliable for
confirming boron deficiency in plants. Note that, whereas boron deficiency is usually determined
using the hot water extraction process, boron toxicity is generally identified from boron in the
saturation extract of soils.
viii. Copper
Copper deficiency occurs on many ancient strongly-weathered soils (e.g. in Australia) which
are low in copper, and on some sandy soils, especially calcareous sands and peats.
ix. Manganese
Manganese deficiency in neutral to alkaline soils is often associated with deficiencies of iron
and zinc but rarely, if ever, both. Manganese deficiency, either alone or in combination with
other elements occurs much less often than zinc and iron deficiencies. It is rarely found in field
or vegetable crops in irrigated regions but is commonly a limitation in citrus and deciduous tree
crops.
x. Molybdenum
Molybdenum deficiency is usually found only on acid soils and it can often be cured by liming
or, more cheaply, by applications of sodium or ammonium molybdate to the soil, crop or seed.
Poor nitrogen fixation by legume crops is associated with molybdenum deficiency.
xi. Aluminium
Aluminium toxicity accompanied by manganese and iron toxicity occurs on acid soils over
large areas of oxisols and ultisols subject to seasonal wetting and drying in the humid tropics.
Aluminium toxicity at pH values of less than 5 is one of the main causes of limited root
penetration of annual crops, such as cotton, below certain soil depths (Pearson 1974). (For acid
sulphate soils see A.11.3.)
In Table 43 international ranges of soil and plant analyses are tabulated, using data obtained by
Sillanpää and as reported in Soils
Table 43 INTERNATIONAL AVERAGES AND RANGES OF SOME SOIL AND PLANT

(MAIZE) ANALYSES 1/
(Number of samples = 1 976 from 25 countries, depth of sampling 0-20 cm)
Units Mean ± Standard Minimum Maximum

deviation
General Soil Properties
Particle size distribution
<.002 % 28 18 1 87
.002 -.06 % 36 20 1 87
.06-2 % 35 26 0 97
145
> 2 mm % 1 5 0 56
Texture index 42 17 9 91
Cation exchange capacity (unbuffered CEC) me/100 27.0 15.4 2 99.7
g
pH (H2O) 6.92 1.05 4.00 8.95
pH (CaCl2) 6.40 1.11 3.62 8.55
Electrical conductivity (1:2.5 soil:water) dS/m 2.1 3.2 .1 73.0
CaCO3 equivalent % 2.8 7.1 0 67.1
Organic C % 1.3 1.3 .1 39.1
N (total) % .135 .088 .008 1.657
Bulk density (disturbed, air-dried) g/cm 3
1.2 .14 .47 1.77
Soil Macronutrients 2/
N (total) mg/l 1 547 793 97 14 729
P (0.5M Na bicarbonate, pH 8.5, Olsen) mg/l 22.5 33.0 .1 656.0
Extractable K (1M ammonium acetate, pH 7) 3/ mg/l 330 356 18 5 598
Extractable Ca (ditto) mg/l 3 450 2 815 10 17 995
Extractable Mg (ditto) mg/l 446 462 2 6 490
Extractable Na (ditto) mg/l 86 260 0 4 058
Soil Micronutrients 2/
B (hot water extraction) 4/ mg/l .65 .71 .05 10.02
Cu (AAAc-EDTA extraction) 5/ mg/l 6.0 7.9 .1 99.7
Fe (AAAc-EDTA) mg/l 160 139 14 2 275
Mn (DTPA extraction 6/ mg/l 43.2 38.4 .9 378.4
Mo (AO-OA extraction) 6/ mg/l .212 .273 .010 3.560
Zn (DTPA extraction) mg/l 2.14 6.49 .09 185.20
Maize Plant Nutrient Contents 7/ (grown on
the above soils)
N % 3.14 .87 .88 6.51
P % .330 .104 .050 1.038
K % 3.13 .96 .58 6.71
Ca % .470 .205 .091 1.880
Mg % .251 .119 .036 1.125
B ppm 9.24 8.00 1.88 100.04
Cu ppm 11.6 4.2 2.0 99.6
Fe 8/
Mn ppm 77.6 47.8 8.3 517.1
Mo ppm .86 1.35 .01 21.03
Zn ppm 35.7 47.2 6.2 915.6
Footnotes for Table 43
1/ Source: Sillanpää, FAO Soils Bulletin 48, p. 433. This publication provides details of
analytical methods and results from the study in which soil and plant samples were obtained
from the 25 countries. Approximately two-thirds of the samples fall within the range represented
by the mean plus or minus the standard deviation. See Sillanpää, p. 441 for a breakdown of
results by FAO-Unesco soil units.
146
2/ Results reported here as mg/l are on a volume basis. They may be converted to a weight
basis, i.e. to obtain extractable cations in traditional units of milli-equivalents per 100 g dry soil,
divide the value in mg/l by the product (equivalent weight x bulk density x 10).
3/ 'Extractable' may be similar but not identical with 'exchangeable'; the importance of (i) the
intensity of leaching with the extractant, (ii) presence of soluble cations not adsorbed on the
exchange complex, and (iii) pH, should be appreciated if results are to be reported as
'exchangeable'.
4/ As an index of plant availability, soil B values may be corrected according to CEC (see
Sillanpää p.49).
5/ Acid ammonium acetate-EDTA extractant (Sillanpää p.10). As an index of plant availability,

soil Cu values may be corrected according to the organic C content (Sillanpää p. 56).
6/ The Mn content of plants decreases with increasing pH. As an index of plant availability, soil
Mn values may be corrected according to pH (Sillanpää p.67). A pH correction factor may also
be applied to soil Mo extracted with ammonium oxalate-oxalic acid solution.
7/ Plant Nutrient Contents expressed on a dry matter (105°C) basis. The results given are for
field grown maize samples submitted with the soil samples. Pot-grown wheat plant analyses are
also presented in Sillanpää, Appendix 4.
8/ Results not reliable, possibly because of contamination with soil.
Bulletin 48. About 2 000 soil and indicator plant samples were obtained by Sillanpää from
representative soils in 25 countries. In Table 43 approximately two-thirds of the samples fall
within the range represented by the mean plus or minus the standard deviation. Minimum and
maximum values in this population of samples are also tabulated. The values given in this table
can be used as guidelines, and the reader is referred to Soils Bulletin 48 for more detailed
explanation of the analytical methods used.
A.11.2 Chemical characteristics of submerged rice soils (based on

Ponnamperuma 1976)
Flooded rice soils undergo chemical changes that differ from those that are relevant under
dryland conditions. In many parts of the world, the newer rice varieties have given disappointing
results because soil problems have affected these newer varieties; this had earlier gone
undetected owing to the use of traditional rice varieties tolerant to the adverse soil conditions.
Iron toxicity on acid soils, phosphorus deficiency on ultisols, oxisols, vertisols and andepts, zinc
deficiency on sodic, calcareous and peat soils, and iron deficiency on soils of high pH are the
main problems to be identified in evaluating the effects of submergence in the cultivation of rice.
Acid sulphate conditions are also potentially important for rice if the soils dry out periodically.
Important chemical changes (Ponnamperuma 1976) that have implications in land evaluation for
wetland rice are given in the following eight paragraphs.
i. Change in pH: Within a few weeks of submergence the pH of acid soils increases and the pH
of sodic and calcareous soils decreases. Thus the submergence causes the pH values of most
147
acid and alkaline soils to converge between 6 and 7. The rate and degree of the pH changes
depend on soil properties and temperature. Soils that have an adequate amount of organic
matter (>2%) and active iron (>1%) and that are low in acid reserves attain a pH of about 6.5
within a few weeks of submergence. However, if acid soils are low in organic matter or in active
iron, or are high in acid reserves, they may not attain a pH of more than 5 even after months of
submergence. Thus, in evaluating land for rice production, the pH of the dry soil may not be as
important as the factors that influence pH kinetics on soil submergence.
ii. Changes in salinity: The electrical conductivity of the soil solution after submergence
increases with time, reaches a peak, and then decreases. Most submerged soils, regardless of
their initial conductivities, have values exceeding 2 dS/m during a good part of the growing
season. Conductivities are highest in saline soils and lowest in leached ultisols and oxisols and
the course of conductivity changes varies markedly with the soil. Changes are highly correlated
with the concentration of iron and manganese in the soil solutions of acid soils and with the
calcium and magnesium bicarbonate concentration in alkaline soils.
The salinity hazard in flooded soils may be greater than the ECe values of the soil immediately
after submergence may indicate. Soil reduction and the solvent action of carbon dioxide release
large amounts of ions into the soil solution, but due to dilution it may be less than the ECe
values may suggest.
iii. Reduction of Fe (III) to Fe (II): The most dramatic change that occurs when a soil is
submerged and undergoes reduction is that Fe (III) oxide hydrates are reduced to Fe (II)
compounds. Consequently, the soil colour changes from brown to grey, and large amounts of
Fe (II) enter the solution phase. The concentration of water-soluble iron, which at submergence
rarely exceeds 0.1 mg/l, may rise to 600 mg/l within a few weeks after flooding, it then declines
or reaches a plateau. In acid sulphate soils the peak values may be as high as 5 000 ppm.
Iron toxicity may be a hazard for wetland rice on soils for which the main drawbacks for dryland
crops are manganese and aluminium toxicities and a deficiency of macro-elements. Thus iron
toxicity is common in submerged ultisols, oxisols, and acid sulphate soils in the tropics. It may
also occur in acid sandy soils and in peat soils low in active iron, as in Akiochi soils. Low
temperatures (<20°C), by bringing about late but high and persistent concentrations of water-
soluble iron, may cause iron toxicity in soils in which, at 25-30°C, high concentrations are short-
lived. Characteristics for predicting iron toxicity hazard are:
a. pH of the dry soil;

b. amount of reserve acidity?
c. reactivity and content of Fe (III) oxide hydrates;
d. soil temperature;
e. salt content;
f. percolation rate;
g. interflow from adjacent areas.
iv. Increase in supply and availability of nitrogen: (see heading A.7.1).
v. Increase in availability of phosphorus, silicon, molybdenum: The availability of phosphorus

and silicon, whether judged by chemical methods or by plant uptake, increases on submerging
a soil.
148
The concentration of water-soluble molybdenum increases on flooding, presumably as a result
of desorption following reduction of ferric oxides. This may benefit nitrogen-fixing algae at the
surface, anaerobic bacteria in the reduced soil, and aerobic bacteria on the roots.
vi. Decrease in concentrations of water-soluble zinc and copper: A decrease in concentrations

of water-soluble zinc and copper is one of the few disadvantages of flooding soils for rice. Since
1966, zinc deficiency has been recognized as a widespread nutritional disorder of rice on sodic
and calcareous soils. Recent work suggests that zinc deficiency (and perhaps copper
deficiency) is a serious obstacle to the growth of rice on continuously wet soils and peat soil
(Ponnamperuma 1965 and 1972). These deficiencies may not be as acute for dryland crops
grown on those soils after they are drained. Therefore, the possibility of zinc and copper
deficiencies should always be considered in evaluating land for wetland rice.
vii. Production of toxins: These include organic reduction products, organic acids, ethylene and
hydrogen sulphide. Hydrogen sulphide is produced in submerged soils as a result of sulphate
reduction and anaerobic decomposition of organic matter. In normal soils it is rendered
harmless by precipitation as ferrous sulphide, but in soils high in sulphate and organic matter
and low in iron, it may harm rice plants (see A.11.3).
viii. Implications for land evaluation for wetland rice: The chemical changes brought about by
soil submergence may drastically alter the category in which a soil is placed on the basis of
characteristics for dryland soil. Some soils may shift from suitable to unsuitable and vice versa.
The same chemical changes, along with inherent soil properties, complicate enormously the
evaluation of problem soils. Table 44 lists some of the growth limiting factors likely to be
important on various soils.
Acid sulphate conditions may be anticipated where it is intended to drain submerged soils high
in sulphate and organic matter, e.g. in mangrove swamps. Aeration of these soils when drained
can lead to the oxidation of sulphur compounds and acidification to a very low pH. This
acidification is potentially a problem in many coastal areas subject to tidal influence from saline
sea water, especially mangrove swamps that are to be drained and reclaimed. Many tens of
thousands of hectares in the humid tropics could be brought under rice or oil palm cultivation
provided the soils are prevented from drying by careful water control all the year round.
To distinguish soils that are potentially hazardous from those that are not, the severity of
acidification on drying can be measured in the field or laboratory from changes in pH. In the
field, pH measurements can be made with 1:5 soil-water suspensions, as soon as possible after
the time of sampling. This establishes the normal field values for the unreclaimed soil. To
determine the effects of oxidation on these soils when they are drained, duplicate samples may
be exposed to air by loosening the necks of polythene storage bags. Measurements are then
made at intervals to monitor changes in pH. If the pH drops to less than 4 within 30 days, a level
of soluble aluminium approaching 2 mg/l is possible which is harmful to rice. At a pH of 3.6 the
soluble aluminium could be as high as 43 mg/l. Ferrous iron levels above 500 mg/l are also
harmful to rice and other crops and in some acid sulphate soils can rise to 5 000 mg/l.
Table 44 GROWTH LIMITING CONDITIONS FOR RICE ON SUBMERGED SOILS OF

VARIOUS TYPES
149
KIND OF SOIL AND MAIN OTHER GROWTH LIMITING CONDITIONS
LIMITATIONS
Saline soils
Arid saline soils Alkalinity, Zn deficiency, N & P deficiencies
Acid coastal saline soils Iron toxicity, P deficiency, deep water
Neutral and alkaline coastal and Zn deficiency, deep water
saline soils
Deltaic and estuarine acid Iron toxicity, P deficiency, deep water
sulphate soils
Coastal histosols Nutrient deficiencies, H2S toxicity, toxicity of organic substances, deep
water, Fe toxicity
Acid sulphate soils
Coastal soils Salinity, Fe toxicity, N & P deficiencies, deep water
Old inland soils N & P deficiencies
Histosols Fe toxicity, H2S toxicity, nutrient deficiencies, deep water, salinity
Iron-toxic soils
Acid sulphate soils Salinity, N & P deficiencies, deep water
Acid oxisols and ultisols P deficiency, low base status, low Si content
Histosols H2S toxicity, toxicity of organic substances, macro-nutrient deficiencies,
Zn and Cu deficiencies, deep water
Phosphorus deficiency in wetland rice
Acid sulphate soils Strong acidity, iron toxicity, low nutrient status, base deficiency, salinity
Acid oxisols and ultisols Iron toxicity, base deficiency
Vertisols Zinc deficiency, iron deficiency, salinity, alkalinity
Zinc deficient soils
Saline-sodic and sodic soils Salinity, N & P and Fe deficiencies
Vertisols P and Fe deficiencies, salinity, alkalinity
Calcareous soils K deficiency
Wet soils Cu deficiency
Histosols N, P, K, Si, Cu, deficiencies; H2S toxicity, deep water
Source: after Ponnamperuma 1976.
Where laboratory facilities exist, tests can be carried out on duplicate soil samples that have
been maintained free of air. One set is oxidized with hydrogen peroxide in the laboratory before
analysing and the other is not. Total pyrite (FeS) is determined from the difference between the
analyses, and its concentration indicates if the soil is potentially acid sulphate.
Potentially acid sulphate soils often have horizons with a soft buttery consistency, making the
material difficult to extract with an auger. These soils are often conformable
with Rhizophora mangrove and Nipah palm vegetation; there is often a smell of hydrogen
disulphide in soil pits or auger holes, a low pH on drying, and a high sulphate content.

Insufficient regard for potential pest, disease and weed problems in land evaluation quite
commonly results in the choice of unsuitable cropping systems and rotations leading to poor
performance of irrigation projects.
150
The categories of problem may be listed as due to (i) wild animals, (ii) arthropods including
insects and mites, (iii) parasitic nematodes, (iv) fungal pathogens, (v) bacterial pathogens, and
(vi) virus diseases. In reconnaissance studies these should be considered in selecting
alternative LUTs.
Pests, diseases and weeds may be 'class-determining' because of the variability from one land
unit to another in exposure to wild animals, in microclimate or soils, or in other land
characteristics. Insect problems, particularly in cotton, have led to the failure of large irrigation
schemes (e.g. in Australia).
Certain crops need protection by fencing against wild animals and theft. This could be
considered as an investment and land development cost under Section C.Site and
aspect affecting microclimate may cause increased incidence of many fungal and bacterial leaf
diseases. Cool temperatures at the base of slopes may downgrade the land because of
proneness to diseases- Humid sites may be more disease-prone since the number of hours
during which the leaf surface is wet often encourages fungal and bacterial pathogens, and
reduces the effectiveness of control measures.
Poorly drained soils predispose certain crops to root and foot rots (see A.5). Nematode
problems may be more severe on sandy soils than on clay soils.
Weed problems are often under-evaluated. Tens of thousands of hectares of land have been
abandoned due to the difficulty of controlling weeds on certain soils. The impracticability of
weed control during periods of wet weather on heavy soils restricts the range of crops that can
be grown on non-rice cropland. Weeds that are not a problem early in the life of a project may
become so with time or vice versa. For a list and details of the world's worst 100 weeds see
Holm et al. (1977) and for rice land weeds see Moody (1981).
The cost of pesticides, herbicides and labour, etc. to control pests, diseases and weeds,
including activities such as bird scaring, is an input to farm budgets, but initially can be scored
using factor ratings.
Long-term hazards of pest, disease and weed build-up for given rotations and management
should, where possible, be based on comparable experience in the locality.

A.13.2 Flood hazard
A.13.4 Frost hazard
The evaluation of these can be separated into sections concerned with floods and deep water in
the cultivation of rice, flood hazard in general, storm and wind hazard and frost hazard as
discussed in A.13.1, A.13.2, A.13.3 and A.13.4 respectively.
151
Twenty-five to thirty percent of the world's rice areas are subject to deep water flooding and
grow traditional tall and floating rice varieties, and 25-30% are under shallow water (IRRI
1975b). Deep water rice land is mainly situated in densely populated valleys and the deltas of
major rivers (e.g. Ganges, Brahmaputra, Godavari, Irrawaddy, Chao Phraya and Mekong),
where low yielding indica varieties are grown. In the deepest areas (1-6 meters), floating rice
varieties are grown. The stems of these varieties elongate as the water rises and the leaves
float on the water. About 10% of the rice land in Asia and Africa is planted with floating rice;
almost half of the total is planted with tall non-floating varieties adapted to medium-deep water.
Land suitability depends on the varieties available and on the reliability of the flood. The speed
of the rise or fall in water levels with respect to the varieties grown is very important. If the water
recedes too quickly the varieties may lodge. Fast-moving water can flatten or uproot the crop or
cover it with silt. Flooding by sea water causes additional damage by salts. Many rice varieties
are tolerant to some submergence, or are able to grow through the deep water. Young
seedlings are often more susceptible to flooding and submergence than older seedlings.
Floating rice is generally planted at the beginning of the first monsoon rains, the seeds being
broadcast on dry or moist soil. During the early period, the rice grows as an upland crop and
may even need to be drought tolerant at the seedling stage, photoperiodicity (see Radiation)
causes flowers to form after the water starts to recede but before the end of the rains.
Harvesting is sometimes from boats or it may take place after the water completely recedes and
the soil is dry. | Land and water suitability depend on the reliability and depth of flooding, the
duration and depth of flooding required by particular varieties arid the speed of recession of the
water. The velocity of water flow is also an important factor.
It is possible that the variety of rice may be dictated by land characteristics, and if these
varieties differ in yield potential, they affect land productivity and therefore the varietal
requirement may be land class-determining- Five categories of rice varieties are recognized:
irrigated wetland (lowland), shallow rainfed (lowland), intermediate-deep rainfed (lowland), deep
water, and dry land. The varieties adapted to these various conditions have different yield
potential, the greatest being for irrigated wetland and the lowest (usually) for dryland.
An example from the south coast of Java can be cited, where areas were distinguished as 'not
subject to flooding', 'subject to moderate flooding' and 'subject to prolonged flooding'. Two crops
of high yielding modern rice varieties could be grown on the land not subject to flooding, and the
benefit of this could be offset against the cost of protecting additional land from flood. Tall rice
varieties (some improved) were suitable for land subject to temporary flash flooding. The
important aspects to be evaluated were the risk associated with different dates of planting, and
whether the use of improved shorter duration rices would allow two crops instead of one per
year. Benefits would then be set off against flood control and irrigation costs. In the areas
subject to prolonged seasonal flooding, only one dry season rice crop could be grown. The rice
production, input-output and land development investment costs on the different land units were
expressed in economic terms to define land suitability classes. Alternatively, different LUTs
could have been created but this would have led to too many combinations of LUTs and land
units for evaluation.
A.13.2 Flood hazard
152
In shallow water rice areas and in areas producing other crops, spasmodic floods not only affect
the crop, but also damage the soil and the infrastructure, e.g. rice-field bunds, pathways,
temporary and permanent houses, roads and bridges etc. Flood damage is most likely to occur
on river flood plains, alluvial and coastal plains, regions with large seasonal variations in rainfall
and liable to intensive rain over hours or days. The detailed pattern of incidence is thus related
to landforms.
In setting critical limits for flood hazard, two criteria may be used: period of inundation, and flood
frequency. The period of inundation is the average number of days during the cropping
season or year when the land is covered by water. This may be obtained from records or
estimated. The flood frequency is the probability of occurrence of damaging floods during the
year. A damaging flood is one that destroys or causes severe damage to the crop, land or
infrastructure. Where required, a damaging flood may be defined quantitatively in terms of
period of inundation and/or speed of flow or volume of discharge of moving water. The following
scale can be applied quantitatively where data are available, but will usually form the basis for
subjective estimation.
Frequency of damaging floods:
Very rare or never Less than 1 year in 20 or never known to occur

Rare Less than 1 year in 5
Infrequent Between 1 year in 5 and one per year
Very frequent More than 5 times per year
Particularly where rice is grown, it may be necessary to distinguish between floods with a low
current, which may be beneficial, and floods with a strong current, which may damage field
structures. An example of critical limits for floods of these two types in the Sudan is given in
Table 45.
Table 45 EXAMPLE OF CRITICAL RANGES FOR ASSESSMENT OF FLOODING HAZARD
Factor rating Frequency of Flooding

Flooding with strong current during growing season Flooding with low current
s1 Once every 10 years None - 2 days
s2 Once every 6-10 years 2 days - 3 weeks
s3 Once every 3-5 years 3-20 years
n Every 1-2 years More than 20 weeks
The exposure of land to storm and wind and the susceptibility or tolerance to these for different
crops often needs assessment in land evaluation. A judgement needs to be made of the
economic impact which is probable for respective land units and crops. Two aspects are the
general prevalence of the hazard (e.g. wind) and the occurrence of special events such as high
intensity rainfall, cyclones and hurricanes. The latter are considerations in the selection of LUTs,
but the extent of the damage and the ability of the crop to survive and sustain production after
the event may be aggravated at specific sites, which could be differentiated into factor ratings.
Amongst crops there is a clear distinction between short-term crops and perennial crops. The
153
survival of short-term crops in the event of an infrequent storm hazard is of less consequence
than for tree crops and orchards which might be completely destroyed. Bananas have the
capability of regrowth from underground shoots if the above ground parts of the plant are
destroyed; most tree crops do not have this capability.
Hail can severely damage or destroy crops in many parts of the world and may have a bearing
on the crops chosen. Hail damage is often very localized. The possibility of insurance against
hail damage may also affect the choice of crops.
A.13.4 Frost hazard
Where it occurs, frost can be an important land class-determining factor. Frost pockets occur in
valley floors owing to katabatic air movements. Frost can destroy the flowers of temperate fruit
crops and consequently affect yields. Rare frosts are particularly important in the case of
orchards (e.g. citrus) where trees of all ages may be destroyed. Damaging frosts can be defined
in terms of temperatures, duration, and periods of the year during which damage may occur
using data from climatic records. Local experience is often helpful in indicating the effect of
landforms (i.e. the greater incidence in valley floors and the increase in incidence with altitude).
B. Management
B.14 Location
B.18 Mechanization
Management Requirements and Limitations
Land Conditions affecting Management
Some aspects of agronomy impinging on management have already been discussed in section
A. In this section, the additional considerations are those associated with location, water
application management, pre-harvest farm management, harvest and post-harvest conditions,
and mechanization.
B.14 Location
The location of a land unit affects many aspects of the management as follows-
i. closeness to markets or processing facilities;

ii. availability of inputs of fertilizers, pesticides, seeds and planting material;
iii. services provided (roads, electricity, domestic water, etc.);
iv. availability and supply of water for irrigation:
154
v. time wasted in travel and cost of transport or both;
vi. attention to day-to-day management of crops and irrigation;
vii. accessibility of machinery for land preparation, harvesting, etc.
These are now discussed in turn.
i. Closeness to markets or processing facilities: Fresh vegetables and fruits are often produced
on land close to centres of population. The presence of processing facilities, e.g. a rice mill, a
sugarcane factory or cotton ginning facilities influences both the cost of transportation and the
practicability of growing the crop at a particular location. Time, distance or cost of transportation
can be used to define critical limits for factor ratings.
ii. Availability of inputs of fertilizers, pesticides, seeds and planting materials, etc. If the land use
depends on such inputs, they must be available at the time and in the amounts they are
needed. If they are not available then the land must be classed 'Not Suitable' for this use. The
reliability of supply and the timeliness of the supply of inputs may be a descriptor of a land
utilization type, or a class-determining factor.
iii. Services provided (roads, electricity, housing, schools, clinics, domestic water, etc.). Land
productivity in isolated locations is often less than where close to villages or towns with the
above services. In this case, different suitabilities must be given to the land units based on the
probable effect in terms of output and costs.
iv. Availability and supply of water for irrigation. Users at the head of irrigation canals generally
get more water than tail-enders, to the point where the land values are sometimes very different.
The suitabilities in terms of 'location' in the assessment of 'irrigable' lands may be very
important. The ability of farmers to pay water charges and taxes are often based on land
classes and therefore a careful assessment is important. To avoid double counting under
different headings, either the water requirement or the location factor should be used but not
both.
The locational and related factors, which are important with regard to water supply, have been
studied by Wickham et al. (1977) and IRRI (1974) for run-of-river lowland rice. These are:
a. distance along lateral

b. distance along sub-lateral
c. distance of overland flow
d. elevation of the canal relative to the paddy
e. soil texture
f. number of intervening farms along the overland distance of water movement
g. farm ditch density
The effects of these interact with how adequately the irrigation system services its areas with
water, and management factors such as planting date, the control of water upstream from a
particular land unit (e.g. the use of checks), the phasing of distribution and scheduling, and gate
control. Thus, when water is in short supply, the build-up of drought in certain parts of a system
can be attributed to an unfavourable location within the system, and to competition within the
system. Farmers nearer the water source are better placed than those further away. In the
Philippines irrigation scheme studied by Wickham, the factors highly associated with the
duration of crop stress and yields were distance of the farm from the beginning of the lateral, or
155
from the sublateral, and the overland distance of the farm from the point where water was
released from the canal system. The main reasons for the increased drought incidence further
along major canals were the temporary checks that restricted the amount of water passing
along the canals and the lack of control gates. The factors which were not important in
Wickham's study were elevation of the canal relative to the paddy, soil texture, number of
intervening farms (as distinct from distance of overland flow), or the farm ditch density. The
weak association between soil texture and distance along the lateral was due to the fact that
heavier soils with greater water-holding capacity were found in the farther reaches of the
system, at greater distances overland, and thus tended to compensate.
These locational factors are much more important if water is in short supply than if it is plentiful
and this should be taken into account in choosing factor ratings or 'significance' levels for
'location'.
Elevation and distance is of great importance in lift-irrigation schemes on account of the cost of
pumping. In 'provisionally-irrigable' classifications this may be largely ignored, but it is a major
consideration in the selection of 'irrigable' land. Within the irrigable area, once its extent has
been determined, there are two main possibilities:
a. If the farmer has to pay the full cost of the water delivered to his farm and this includes costs
of pumping, the benefit/cost ratio and suitability of the site will be highly affected by the elevation
and distance. This is often the case in groundwater and lift irrigation development.
b. If the project as a whole or the government has responsibility for the cost of the water
between the source and the elevated discharge points to farms, all farms may be equally
charged for water or the costs may be recovered indirectly or not at all. In this case the elevation
and distance need not be a factor in the evaluation once the extent of the irrigable land has
been determined. It is important in determining the 'irrigable' area and project development
costs. However, most funding agencies require that each land unit supports its own area-
specific investment costs (see Chapter 7).
v. Time wasted in travel and cost of travel and transport. The cost in terms of a farmer's time
and in labour may be critical in evaluating the 'location'. Transportation costs (as distinct from
transportation difficulties) following the construction of the irrigation scheme may significantly
affect benefit/cost ratios at different locations. Critical limits may be expressed in relative terms
(s1, s2, s3, n1 or n2) or in terms of relative benefit/costs using, for example, cost of transport
per tonne/kilometre or per hour. The portrayal of access by the use of isochrons may be
necessary to define 'irrigable' land.
There are refined and specialized methods of assessing transport costs which would be used if
transportation is a major factor that it is intended to study in detail. Transportation specialists will
adopt more sophisticated methods of assessment than the following but the main concept is
illustrated below for roads:
a. Classify and map the existing roads; the following basis is suggested;
2 or 4-lane tarmac
single lane tarmac
gravel or improved earth, width >5.5 m
earth, unimproved and/or width <5.5 m
156
Each divided into:
- level to gently sloping terrain, mean road gradients 1 in 10

- moderately to steeply sloping terrain, mean road gradients 1 in 10
b. Estimate a transport cost for each class of road, per t/km.
c. Identify centres. By measurement from the map of classes of road, multiplied by the unit cost
for each class, determine the transport cost to or from centres, per tonne, for intervals along the
road systems.
d. Estimate the distance from a road over which it is reasonable to assume that inputs and
produce will be carried. Draw limits around the road network at this distance. Areas lying
beyond these limits are regarded as inaccessible.
e. For the area with access to roads, draw cost isolines.
vi. Attention to day-to-day management of crops and irrigation: It may not be possible to grow
specific crops at distant sites because of theft and crop security. The protection of crops from
wild animals, birds, and other pests and diseases may be lacking and the management less
than optimum. All these are commonly very important factors. The problem of security also
applies to irrigation equipment (e.g. sprinkler pipes, brass nozzles, etc.) which can be stolen for
making utensils, parts for motor vehicles, etc. The functioning of the irrigation system may be
damaged maliciously.
vii. Accessibility of machinery for land preparation, harvesting, etc. This is a major factor
particularly for bulky crops (e.g. sugarcane, sugarbeet) where mechanical cultivation is
important to achieve timely sowing or planting. Critical limits depend on the type of equipment to
be used, on the rainfall and soil conditions, on topography particularly slope, and other factors. If
the land is inaccessible or subject to conditions which hamper access such as wet roads,
impassable drains, etc., the opportunities for timely and efficient operations vary according to
the severity and location of these constraints.
A combined evaluation of all these factors, taking care not to double count factors which will be
considered under other heads can be facilitated with the assistance of Table 46.
Table 46 FACTOR RATINGS FOR LOCATION FOR A SPECIFIED LAND UTILIZATION TYPE
AND LAND UNIT
Land Unit No(s):

Land Use Type(s)
Factor
ratings 1/ Significance for this Factor rating
Factors
assessment selected
s1 s2 s3 n
Proximity of markets, processing  Not important e.g. s1
facilities
Inputs availability
Services, house and village
proximity
157
Effect of location on water supply
and cost
Transportation and labour costs
Security and day-today  Very important n
management
Accessibility to machinery
Factor rating for: n
LOCATION
(Enter n on Format 3)
1/ Tick as appropriate.

The land evaluator should assess the land characteristics of the land unit that will affect water
application in the field after the land has been developed for irrigation, as discussed below.
To avoid double counting the factors he should assume that the quantity of water specified in
Section A.6 (and as affected by location as specified in Section A.14) will be supplied, and that it
may or may not meet the full requirement, as appropriate.
He should also assume a water application technique (surface, sprinkler or localized irrigation)
as in the description of the land utilization type (but see Chapter 4.2.1). The remaining questions
to be answered are:
i. How do the land characteristics affect the operation of the specified water application
technique?
ii. Given the location, are there any specific advantages or limitations that will affect yields or
costs of water application on the given land?
For the irrigation technique under consideration, the land characteristics used to define critical
limits and factor ratings are those that will affect either the cost of water application or the level
of crop production on the land. Costs of water application may be affected by:
a. the potential size of management units and subunits (e.g. the size and shape of the fields and
farms);
b. different labour requirements and labour availabilities (associated with the specific land area
rather than with locational factors already considered);
c. different opportunities and requirements for mechanizing or automating irrigation water

application.
The level of crop production may be affected by:
- uniformity of the water application in the field related to soils, topography or other land
characteristics;
- the factors concerned with rate, duration and frequency of application specific to the land.
158
To avoid double counting, the assessment under this heading should not include aspects which
have already been considered, nor those which will be considered under the later headings, that
is:
1. exclude consideration of land characteristics affecting the water supply or requirements;

2. exclude locational aspects described in B.14;
3. exclude factors affecting land development costs (see Section C).
The following approach can be adopted to select a factor rating for the heading 'Water
Application Management' (Table 47).
Table 47 FACTOR RATINGS FOR WATER APPLICATION MANAGEMENT
Land Unit No.

Land Use Type Crops
Water application technique:
Factor ratings 1/ Selected
Land characteristics affecting the rating Significance
s1 s2 s3 n rating
Example:
1. Size and shape of fields  Important n
2. Soil intake rate affecting uniformity,  Less important s1
leaching
3. Costs of moving pipes past an obstruction  Important n
Factor rating for: n
WATER APPLICATION
MANAGEMENT
(Enter n on Format 3)
1/ Tick as appropriate.
The ways in which land characteristics might affect water application management in different
land units where surface, sprinkler and localized irrigation techniques are to be used, are
included amongst considerations listed in Table 48. This table describes all the features and
requirements of irrigation application techniques, including both those affecting the choice of
system and the suitability of the land. This is a comprehensive list and not all the features
described are relevant to the assessment of water application management.
Table 48 FEATURES OF IRRIGATION APPLICATION TECHNIQUES FOR EVALUATING

CHOICE OF SYSTEM AND SUITABILITY OF LAND A. SURFACE APPLICATION
TECHNIQUES
FEATURE SMALL BASINS (MEDIUM) 1/ BORDER SHORT FURROWS (MEDIUM) 1/

LARGE BASINS STRIPS LONG FURROWS
1. Land Low Often high, Low to medium Low Often high,
development precision depending on precision
costs grading required topography grading required
2. Capital Low Low Low Low Low
intensity (field
equipment)
159
3. Labour High Low Medium High Low
intensity
4. Energy Low (gravity) Low (gravity) Low (gravity) Low (gravity) Low (gravity)
intensity High (pumped) High (pumped) High (pumped) High (pumped) High (pumped)
5. Size and Very flexible, Large and Long, Very flexible, Medium to large,
shape of fields often small and regular shaped rectangular, can often small and regular shape
irregular fields required be narrow irregular
6. Topography Important but Often critical if Suitable slope Important but Often critical
generally not graded or level and absence of generally not both for graded
critical basin cross slopes critical and dead level
furrows
7. Soils Intake rates often critical for efficient use of water and uniformity of application;
influences size of basins, lengths of furrows or border strips in relation to the rate of
water delivery, slope and uniformity of microrelief.
8. Management Suitable for Sophisticated Suitable for Suitable for Sophisticated
skills small farmers in management middle level small farmers in management
LDCs required management LDCs required
9. Cropping Wide range of Suitable field Suitable field Wide range of Row crops, not
limitations and crops, but not crops planted on crops planted on crops, but not those planted on
mechanization mechanized the flat or ridges the flat and mechanized the flat;
and mechanized mechanized mechanized
10. Scheduling Continuous Usually Intermittent, by Intermittent, by Intermittent, by
by frequency, (rice); intermittent, by arrangement or arrangement or arrangement or
rate and Intermittent, arrangement or fixed by water fixed by water fixed by water
duration of the generally fixed fixed by water agency; rate agency; often agency; delivery
water supply by water agency; high must be 10-30 l/s, rate must match
agency; often delivery rates, matched by limited, fixed labour, cutbacks
10-30 l/s, short duration labour, cutbacks duration to flow important
limited, fixed possible to flow important
duration
11. Factors Topography, Levelling and Uniformity of Topography, Uniformity of
affecting soils grading of land, grade, absence soils, grade or level,
uniformity of management, soils, of cross slope, management, rate and
application size and shape management, rate and size and shape duration,
of fields, water size and slope of duration, of fields, water cutbacks to
supply, labour basin, in-field cutback stream supply, labour stream flow, or
skills variability size, labour skills use of return
skills flows, variability
12. Mechanical None None None None None
problems
13. Security None None None None None
problems
14. Leaching Salty patches on No special No special Salt Salt
and salts underwatered problems problems accumulation on accumulation on
problems high spots ridges, salty ridges, otherwise
patches on high no special
spots problems
15. Location If water in short Usually No special If water in short No special
supply distance adequately problems supply distance problems
from source is serviced from source is
important important
160
16. Field water Inherently low Can be very high Very dependent Inherently low Very dependent
use efficiencies on permeable in very on the water on permeable on the water
soil; minimum accurately control, cross soil? minimum control, rate,
application is 50 levelled basins slope, can be application is 50 duration, slope,
mm per irrigation high and low mm per high or low
irrigation
17. Main Poor uniformity Very high land Poor uniformity Poor uniformity Poor uniformity
problems of application, levelling costs. of application, of application, of application,
generally overwatering, Exposure of erosion, crop overwatering, excessive run-
encountered land wasted in subsoils damage land wasted in off, erosion
bunds and channels
channels
18. General Easily Suitable for large Suitable for Easily Suitable for large
remarks administered mechanized medium sized administered mechanized
water schedules, units where farms not water schedules units where
at expense of labour is costly growing row at expense of labour is skilled
efficient water and crops, especially efficient water
use. Good for energy/water for forage use Good for
third world use efficiency is third world
fanners important farmers
1/ This indicates that there are intermediate conditions to be considered.
Table 48 FEATURES OF IRRIGATION APPLICATION TECHNIQUES FOR EVALUATING

CHOICE OF SYSTEM AND SUITABILITY OF LAND B. SPRINKLER AND LOCALIZED
IRRIGATION TECHNIQUES
SPRINKLERS ORIFICE AND

LOW MEDIUM 1/ HIGH LONG
OUTPUT OUTPUT MINI- PATHWAY BIWALL
SPRINKLERS EMITTERS TUBING
(ON-LINE OR
IN-LINE)
1. Land Low or nil Low or nil Low or nil Low or nil Low or nil
development
costs
2. Capital High High High High High
intensity (field
equipment)
3. Labour Hand move systems, high labour High need for labour in laying and High labour for
intensity need, mechanized and mobile removing tubing, low labour need installation, low
systems low. during period of irrigation and/or for operating,
automatic control of water supply often ploughed
in
4. Energy Medium-high Medium to very Low pressures Low pressures Low pressures
intensity water pressures high pressures (losses on (no advantage if but losses over
required filtration) pressure for filters
filtration is high)
5. Size and Not suitable for very small fields. Very adaptable; Very adaptable; Very adaptable;
shape of fields Hand move systems are flexible; limited length of limited length of Limited length
and mobile, mechanized systems laterals laterals of laterals
inflexible requiring large, regular
shaped fields.
161
6. Topography Not suitable for very steep land. Very adaptable Very adaptable Very adaptable
Some limitations for mobile and
mechanized systems but less so
than for surface irrigation systems
7. Soils Suitable for soils with high intake No intake No intake No intake
rates. Sometimes problems with low problems. Some problems. problems.
intake soils. Problems with high rate lateral water Lateral spread Lateral spread
of application, mobile systems and spreading is limited is limited
rainguns especially on especially on
sandy soils sandy soils
8. Management Not suitable for farmers in the third Intermediate Sophisticated Sophisticated
skills world who cannot get spares or level of management to management to
manage the operation effectively management but prevent prevent
fairly simple malfunction malfunction
9. Cropping Apart from some tall crops and rice Better for tree Intensive high Wide row
limitations and no problems. Highly mechanized crops and widely value crops; crops, can be
mechanization wheel mounted laterals, centre spaced row unsuited for subsurface
pivots, cable systems, or permanent crops; seedbed (e.g.
systems reduce labour automated irrigation, reel-in sugarcane),
requirements control possible systems, mechanized
automation laying
10. Scheduling Usually on Usually on Usually on Usually on Usually on
by frequency, demand. demand. demand. 1-3 day demand. 1-3 demand. 1-3
rake or duration Intervals are Intervals are intervals. Low- day intervals or day intervals or
of the water days or weeks, days or weeks, medium rate, continuous. continuous.
supply medium to high medium to high medium-long Low rate, long Low rate, long
rates, 3-15 mm rates, 3-15 mm duration duration duration
per hour per hour
11. Factors Wind is the major problem of hand- Not uniform Not uniform Not uniform
affecting mover sprinkler systems. Drop in when used as when used as when used as
uniformity of pressures along lines, distances of localized localized localized
application throw and spacing between irrigation; irrigation, irrigation,
sprinklers pressure variation along variation along
regulators can laterals is a laterals is a
be used to design factor design factor
improve
uniformity
12. Mechanical Moving parts wear, nozzles may Nozzle Filtration critical aspect to stop
problems block, some filtration and servicing blockages clogging; a major limitation
needs
13. Security Not vandal proof; pipe and metal Not very Not particularly vulnerable and
problems fittings must be removed from field vulnerable to equipment can be left operating
at night in some countries damage or theft. in field for long periods
Needs attention unattended
14. Leaching Under-watering can be a problem No special The major advantage is better
and salt on very impermeable soils; problem. Low yields with salty water due to the
problems uniformity problems; scorch on level avoids leaf soil never drying out, frequent
wetted leaves especially important scorch in tree irrigations. Salt encrustations on
e.g. citrus crops soil surface
15. Location Distance and elevation major cost Intermediate Long duration irrigation results in
factors in pressure head losses and costs for smaller head losses but note
requirements pressurizing pressure head loss across filters
162
16. Field water Much affected by wind and Very high Very high Very high
use efficiency distribution uniformity, can be high
or low
17. Main Costly equipment, high pumping Excessive Clogging, Clogging,
problems costs, operational difficulties, hand
lengths of piping, installation and installation, no
generally move problems on wetted land, especially for removing long use for
encountered application rates too high with closely spaced lengths of seedbed
moving systems, wind drift and crops. High tubing. irrigation and
uneven application labour for Weeding. High therefore may
unblocking cost. No use for need sprinklers
nozzles seedbeds as well
18. General Suitable for high intake soils and Low pressure Better yields Better yields
remarks uneven topography for a wide range requirements and water use and water use
of crops and extensive fanning or suitable for small efficiency efficiency can
intensive systems to medium-scale justifies high justify high
farmers capital costs on capital costs
unintensive
farms
1/ Indicates there are intermediate conditions to be considered.

The most important factor to evaluate under this heading is the effect of land characteristics on
the timing of farm activities. Timeliness is often a class-determining factor as affected by soil
workability and other characteristics that vary from place to place. It can therefore have an
important influence on overall farm production and on costs of production.
The following farm activities may be helped along or hindered by specific land characteristics
such as soil workability in association with labour, power and water availability:
i. land preparation (starting date, duration in days or weeks);

ii. nursery preparation and sowing (water availability);
iii. direct seeding or transplanting in the field;
iv. irrigation (timing of, hold-ups due to wet soil, etc.);
v. weeding (rainy spells and intractable soil conditions);
vi. top dressing of fertilizer applications (delays result in yield losses);
vii. spraying for pest and disease control, or weed control;
viii. others (e.g. interrow cultivations) specific to certain crops.
The suitability can be rated in terms of how the land characteristics affect farm operations. It is
often necessary to take account of labour supply and peak requirements, on-farm power in the
form of human, animal and tractor facilities, and the availability of water. For example, in
wetland rice, the farm operations on a soil that is difficult to cultivate when dry by animal-drawn
implements may produce less yield, because the farmer has to delay sowing or planting until
sufficient water is available to soften it, than where tractor cultivation is possible. The delay in
planting date may be more, or less, depending on the particular soil and might result in larger or
smaller yields, or the growing of only one crop per year rather than two.
Continuing with the examples, the same farmer may have land which is more easily weeded
(e.g. sandy soil) than other land (e.g. clay). One area of rice may be readily drained for spraying
163
and another may be impossible to drain with differences resulting in variations in pest and
disease control and therefore yields.
The choice of factor ratings for 'pre-harvest farm management' can be facilitated by the use of
Table 49, or a modification of it.
Table 49 FACTOR RATING FOR PRE-HARVEST FARM MANAGEMENT
Land Unit No.

Land Use Type: Crops
Other relevant descriptors:
Factor
Activity that is ratings 1/ Selected
Land characteristics or factors Significance
affected ratings
s1 s2 s3 n
Example:
1. Soil workability Land preparation
Nursery
Direct seeding
Transplanting
Fertilizer application
Irrigation
Weeding
Spraying
Other
2. Access to water for an early Date of planting
nursery Number of crops per
year
Yields
Factor rating for: PRE-HARVEST FARM MANAGEMENT (Enter () on Format 3) ()
1/Tick as appropriate.

This assessment concerns harvest and post-harvest conditions that affect:
i. the carrying out of harvest and post harvest operations in an efficient and timely manner;
ii. the spoilage of the crop produce in the field or during later drying and processing.
Land characteristics that might affect either of these are generally those associated with
wetness, dryness or wind. It may be impossible to harvest a crop on time, or the land may be
damaged by machinery compacting some soils more than others, or the quality of product may
be better on some soils than others. For example, some crops, notably root crops and
groundnuts are of better final quality if grown on non-adhesive soils rather than on adhesive
soils and they are more difficult to harvest on the latter. The yield is affected because some of
the crop is lost in the soil during harvest. Soil adhering to roots such as sugarbeet may lead to
lower acceptability and prices, or penalties at the processing plant.
Product quality is often affected by excessive air humidity or rainfall and this may lead to
diseases and losses in storage. Produce from land that dries out well before harvest may be of
better final quality than from that which does not. For example, the milling quality of sugarcane
164
will produce more sugar per tonne of cane on land which has allowed the cane to ripen and
concentrate the juice, than on wetter land.
Red soil on potatoes so enhances the export prices from one particular country, that production
of this crop is confined to soil of that colour.
Wind may be a favourable or unfavourable factor, assisting in the drying of some crops (e.g.
grain) and increasing the perishability of others (e.g. vegetables).
For any given crop and land combination, the characteristics that are class-determining can be
readily identified.
B.18 Mechanization
This assessment concerns conditions of the land that specifically affect mechanized agricultural
operations, excluding those already discussed (e.g. soil workability for pre-harvest farm
operations). The conditions which act as limitations to mechanization are slope angle, rock
hindrances, stoniness or extreme shallowness of the soil, and the presence of heavy clays.
Table 50 suggests some critical limits for certain of these limitations.
This is an important assessment if heavy harvesting machinery has to be used in the field and if
bulky harvest products have to be transported out of the field to some central point. Limitations
to mechanization can arise from a number of different features of land that are not necessarily
related.
Table 50 CRITICAL LIMITS FOR MECHANIZATION AND ON-FARM TRANSPORTATION 1/
Critical limits
Land characteristic
s1 s2 s3 n1 n2
Slope angle (degree) 5 10 18 35 - 2/
(percent) 9 18 32 70 -
Rock hindrances % (outcrops and boulders) 1 4 10 25
Stones, topsoil % 1 5 15 40 -
Plastic heavy clay absent absent present present present
1/ Values given are the maximum permitted at each suitability level.
2/ Must be specified for each individual case.
C. Land development and land improvements
C.19 Land clearing

C.21 Drainage
C.22 Land grading
165
Land Development Requirements and Limitations
Land Conditions affecting Development Costs
Area-specific investment costs may be incurred to develop land for irrigated agriculture. These
are discussed in this section under eight headings: land clearing of vegetation and rocks; flood
protection; drainage; land grading or levelling; physical, chemical and organic aids and
amendments; reclamation leaching; duration of the reclamation period; and irrigation
engineering. The suitability of land in terms of the measures required to develop it include both
physical and economic evaluation as discussed below and in Chapter 7.
C.19 Land clearing

In both forested and rocky areas the factors to take into account in assessing land units for
clearing are:
i. the cost of clearing;

ii. the value of timber or other products;
iii. damage to the land as a result of the clearing operation, and subsequent effects on the land
use.
The destruction of the topsoil is most serious if it is very thin and contains most of the organic
matter, and overlies nearly sterile subsoil. This topsoil contains most of the nutrients and should
be protected; if mechanical clearing methods are used, the topsoil may be lost with the rootball
leaving an unfavourable, infertile and often acid material for cultivation. In fertile river basins, the
subsoils may be intractable clays. The mechanical clearing may compact the clay severely. The
topsoil with its more favourable physical characteristics may be removed or mixed in.
The land classifier should indicate areas of land that are particularly susceptible to damage and
recommend where it may be possible to remove the topsoil for later replacement. This is seldom
practicable, and he should point out the areas that might be cleared by hand and those that are
less vulnerable and more suited to mechanical clearing. He may also recommend areas where
careful supervision of windrowing is especially important, in order to ensure that it is on the
166
contour and to avoid the common practice of blocking natural drainage lines by pushing the
material into depressions.
Wherever practical, he will advocate hand methods of clearing even though these are slower
than mechanical methods. The rate of clearing in regions of the world where shifting cultivation
is practised can often keep pace with the rate that an area can be physically settled, where vast
areas are hastily cleared by heavy equipment ahead of settlement, secondary jungle often
results and a repeat clearing operation is necessary.
Removal costs depend on size and type of vegetation, local labour costs, equipment available
and the area involved. Costs rise steeply as the size of individual bushes and trees and density
of stand increases. Using modern equipment and in comparison with clearing costs for light
brush (sage), a thick stand of pine 30-45 cm in trunk diameter could cost 40 times as much and
dense jungle 120 times as much. For large tracts of land (over 2 000 ha) very heavy machinery
can halve the cost of jungle clearing but the resulting damage must also be taken into account.
Wherever possible, shearing blades should be used to avoid large holes and the extraction of
rootballs (Clarke 1980).
Sandy soils tend to cost less to clear than fine textured soils. Clearing large trees with
bulldozers tends to leave large holes where the tree stood, and soil clinging to the roots is
carried to the windrows in preparation for burning. Land grading is therefore usually necessary
regardless of whether sprinkler or surface irrigation is to be employed.
Hand methods of clearing can be greatly accelerated by the use of chainsaws. The cost of hand
methods (plus the use of chainsaws) can be estimated by timing the following operations:
i. Underbrushing - this is to cut, as close as is possible to ground level, all grasses, vines and
small diameter trees (less than 10-15 cm), facilitate access for the chainsaw crews and also,
once the dead material dries off, to provide a good dry base for the subsequent burning.
ii. Felling - following underbrushing chainsaw gangs (normally one operator and two assistants)
cut everything as close as possible to ground level; height of stump will vary depending upon
buttress heights. If possible, all trees should be felled in the same direction to facilitate later
operations, and should be felled clear of natural waterways.
iii. Burning - this is to remove all the leaves and as many of the branches as possible. The cut
and felled vegetation should be left to dry before burning. This normally takes six to eight weeks
depending on sunshine and humidity. Burning should not be delayed more than three months
after felling because of re-growth when the green leaves will hinder burning. To increase the
chances of drying and a good burn these operations are best carried out in the dry season. It is
essential to have a good burn because re-lighting and subsequent operations are much more
difficult in half-burnt vegetation.
iv. Stacking - after burning all the remaining wood should be cut into pieces that can be handled
by manpower. These pieces should be stacked on stumps and retired. In this way a large
proportion of the stem itself is removed without leaving a big hole. Extremely large diameter
pieces should be cut so that they may be rolled away to the boundaries of the plot where they
are left to rot. The process of stacking and reburning may need to be carried out several times
before a satisfactory result is achieved. |
167
If there is commercially acceptable timber in the area to be cleared, a slightly modified
procedure will have to be adopted so that this timber can be removed before general cutting and
burning. Stacking may also have to be modified to take account of the levelling, grading or
contouring of the land for irrigation, and to account for future firewood or charcoal needs. Land
can sometimes be cleared in return for the wood on it.
It is important for the land evaluator to understand the implications of the methods and dangers
of clearing activities as he is usually in a unique position to advise on these matters, should
different areas need different treatment. He may also have to estimate the costs of land clearing
for evaluation purposes. Table 51 (A and B) gives two estimates of labour requirements based
on conditions in Indonesia according to a survey by Gajah Mada university, and by M. Ross of
the Transmigration Area Development.
Table 51 LABOUR REQUIREMENTS FOR CLEARING VEGETATION IN SUMATRA
A) GAJAH MADA UNIVERSITY SURVEY (Rimbobujang in Sumatra)
Land clearing requirements: Man-days/ha

Underbrushing all vegetation less than 10 cm diameter 10
Cutting trees (chainsaw) 2
Cutting-off crown and branches 6-8
First burning 1
Cutting remaining branches 3
Piling 60
Second burning 2
Cutting and piling 100
Third burning 2
Total: 186
B) TRANSMIGRATION AREA DEVELOPMENT (Ross) (Muara Marah)
Land clearing requirements: Man-days/ha

Underbrushing 18
Felling: Chainsaw operators 3
Assistants 3
Burning 2
First restacking 18
Reburning 3
Final clearing of rows: Chainsaw operators 2
Assistants 2
Total: 51
These figures are for the following vegetation conditions at Muara Marah:
Stem diameter range in cm No. of stems (range)

0-15 not counted
168
5-29 76 - 107
30 - 39 16 - 45
40 - 49 14 - 34
50 - 59 16 - 19
greater than 60 22 - 27
Totals per ha 149 - 217 1/
1/ These totals do not correspond with the minimum and maximum number of stems given in
this table.
Source: Clarke 1980
The three main methods of destroying persistent weeds used in land reclamation are as follows
and they may be used separately! or in combination:
i. mechanical cultivation;
ii. flooding;
iii. chemical control.
Many million of hectares in Asia with irrigation potential are covered with stands of alang-alang
or ladang (Imperata cylindrica) and this must be destroyed as completely as possible before
settlement. The land characteristics at particular locations may indicate which of the above three
methods of control or their combinations are preferable. This particular weed, and other
persistent weeds often have very deep (30-40 cm) underground rhizomes. The areas are
usually cultivated with heavy disc harrows but within a month or two after harrowing the cut
rhizomes send up new shoots. The problem therefore tends to be multiplied, and in settlement
areas, if the settlers do not arrive shortly after the fallowing, the infestation becomes worse.
Where it is possible, flooding of the land in readiness for cultivation can help the farmer to keep
the weed under control. Repeated cultivation is necessary to cut up the rhizomes so that they
die eventually, but this is costly. Five or six well-timed cultivations may be efficacious. However,
even if cutting is carried out successfully, some doubt will remain that sufficient depth has been
achieved for complete control. Hence, chemical control methods may be necessary using either
a systemic weedkiller that destroys the whole plant or repeated defoliation. The land classifier
may have to advise on the terrain conditions for applying the weedkiller by mechanical methods,
if large areas are to be treated. At some sites, water availability for spraying may be a problem
and ultra low volume spraying at 2 litres/ha may be tried.
The land evaluator may be called on to estimate the cost of removal of rocks and stones and it
may be a factor in determining whether land is suitable or not suitable in a 'provisionally-
irrigable' classification. The methods of removal vary from hand, to mechanical removal,
crushing, or blasting. The location of rocks or boulders may be an important aspect in the
alignment of irrigation canals or pipelines in classifying 'irrigable land'. Field size and shape may
be affected and result in a downgrading of the land suitability class.
169
Stones (20-40 cm in diameter) and cobbles (7-20 cm in diameter) are usually removed from the
tillage zone although some crops, e.g. pasture and orchard, suffer little loss of production from
them. Removal costs should be a consideration in assigning land suitability classes.
A method of estimating the cost of stone removal used by the US Bureau of Reclamation is to
remove and pile all stones or cobbles from the surface and upper 20 cm depth from a 21 x 21 ft
area (0.01 ac) and then to measure or estimate the volume of the stone heap. Thus each 10
inch diameter stone from this area is equivalent to 1 yd3/ac in the area as a whole. A metric
equivalent of this method might use an area of 10 m x 10 m (0.01 ha) for excavation. Each 26.7
cm atone found within this area would then be approximately equivalent to 1.0 m3 of stones per
hectare.
About 2.3 man-hours per cubic metre are required for manual picking of stones. The cost of
transporting the stone must also be taken into consideration.

Overflow hazards from rivers or drainage ways often influence the use, management and
development costs of affected portions of an irrigation project. Any lands located in areas
susceptible to such damage should be evaluated in terms of the benefits and costs from flood
protection measures. These might be simple measures such as the extra surface drainage
construction of small earth embankments, or gabion boxes (wire boxes filled with stones), or
more sophisticated structures. Often flood damage will be eliminated by upstream constructions
which are part of the measures to make more water available for irrigation. Reduction or
elimination of flooding is frequently a benefit of large-scale projects.
Before classification, the land evaluator should liaise with the project hydrologist and engineer
on the effect of proposed project works on future flooding.
Lands subject to severe and frequent damaging floods are generally excluded from an irrigation
project. Deep water rice and floating rice are possibilities if the extent and timing of the water
rise and fall is predictable (see heading A.13).
Sound evaluation of flood hazards and the associated land development costs are difficult
because no two situations are exactly alike.
Run-off from adjacent hillsides is a common problem on lands lying at the base of hills. The
problem is particularly serious in erosive areas subject to torrential and damaging rainfall during
parts of the year. Under such conditions, soil, stones and vegetative debris from the hillside may
overflow the crop land to be evaluated. Stones and cobbles on the surface of the soil and
observable severe erosion on the hillside will be indications of existing or potential flood
problems. Land subject to such damage is less suitable for irrigation development than land
similar in other respects. If the condition is very severe, land subject to this type of run-off
should be excluded from the 'provisionally-irrigable' area.
C.21 Drainage
The need to remove excess water and salts from an irrigated river basin (Figure 18)
necessitates a network of surface or subsurface drains. Drainage is discussed in two FAO
170
Irrigation and Drainage Papers particularly. No. 28 and No- 38, Drainage Design Factors (1980),
also in the USBR Drainage Manual and in Luthin et al. (1957).
Drainage costs are an important criteria in the classification of land, especially in arid and semi-
arid areas where salinity and sodicity must be controlled. Initially, the evaluation is often carried
out in advance of the detailed drainage studies and frequently the classifier does not have the
necessary information on which to base the assessment at the time of the survey. Therefore, it
is most important that the classification is modified at later stages on the basis of the drainage
studies. Many problems have been caused by the land classifier determining the costs of
drainage when, in fact, this should be done by a qualified drainage engineer.
Drainage investigations are directed toward determining the prevailing depths, slopes and
fluctuations in level of the groundwater surface; the presence or absence of confined water
tables (i.e. water under pressure below a slowly permeable strata); and the thickness and
permeability of soil and substrata layers which may retard water transmission.
Figure 18 Flow diagram for water and salt circulation in an irrigated river basin
Source: Westcot 1979 (in FAO 1979a)
Soundly conducted drainage investigations require a network of cased observation wells of

known elevation, or existing domestic wells; piezometer installations to detect water tables;
numerous deep borings to determine the variability of substrata materials; and field tests for
permeability. Three methods for obtaining in-placehorizontal permeability data are commonly
used. These are the auger-hole (or shallow well pump-out) test, the piezometer test, and the
shallow well pump-in test. The 'permeameter' test is used to determine the vertical permeability
of a narrow zone. In most drainage studies, knowledge of the horizontal permeability obtained
by one of these tests is considered to be sufficient: it being assumed that vertical permeability
will be adequate for water to reach the saturated zone from which it will be drained horizontally.
If there is cause to suspect the presence of slowly permeable layers above the saturated zone,
the 'ring-permeameter' test (described by Winger 1965 and in FAO 1984, Soils Bulletin No. 52)
provides a method of determining the vertical permeability of these layers which, although
complex and rather slow, gives uniformly dependable results at a reasonable cost. An important
necessity for the proper conduct of this test is the installation of pairs of tensiometers and of
piezometers to confirm the fulfillment of the requirements of Darcy's Law for the movement of
liquids through saturated material, on which the subsequent calculation of permeability is based.
Several formulae have been developed to estimate required drain spacings from data on
permeability and depth to barrier. The method used by the USBR (Dumm 1968) takes into
account crop water requirements, irrigation efficiency, leaching requirements, desired water
table depth, rainfall characteristics and specific yield. Because of the importance of drainage to
the success of an irrigation project, shortened methods for estimation of drainage requirements
should be avoided unless their validity in the particular area has been proven.
Drainage within the field is of little benefit if the drainage network as a whole is neglected or the
outlets are liable to blockage. The land evaluator in liaison with the drainage engineer will
ensure that all existing drainage ways and areas which will require outlet surface drains are
made a part of the development plan.
171
The assessment of drainage requirements can be facilitated by the table of permeabilities in
Table 52 for comparing and classifying permeability for different soils and substratum materials.
For further guidance on drainage design see FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 38 and
other publications. Also see Section C.25.
C.22 Land grading

Land grading and levelling requirements are based on an appraisal of topography and the need
for modifications to suit the choice of irrigation technique specified in the land utilization type.
There are four aspects of topography that have special bearing on land levelling and grading for
surface irrigation: 1) slope, 2) microrelief, 3) macrorelief, and 4) cover. The land classifier must
achieve competence in distinguishing and evaluating those topographic features that are
significant. Considerable experience is required to achieve acceptable accuracy in estimating
the costs of levelling from field observations. Topographic maps do not always give sufficient
information for accurate assessments. Guidance and training may be provided by an
experienced agricultural engineer engaged in detailed layout studies. Detailed farm layouts of
representative areas showing the costs of land grading can provide the best guidelines. If done
properly, evaluation of the topography based on experience and field layout studies is adequate
for most planning studies.
Table 52 COMPARISON AND CLASSIFICATION OF PERMEABILITY FOR DIFFERENT

SOIL AND SUBSTRATUM MATERIALS
Textural grades Metres per day Soil Classification of Normal Rates

and/or substratum Survey (Indices and descriptive classes) 2/
materials (1) 1/ Maximum Minimum Normal Index No. Key Class Drainability Survey
(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Index No. (7) Key Class
(8)
Heavy clays 0.5 <0.001 0.01 1 Very slow 1 Very poor
Medium clays 0.6 0.002 0.02 1 Very slow 1 Very poor
Silty clay 0.6 0.002 0.04 2 Slow 2 Poor
Sandy clay 0.6 0.007 0.05 2 Slow 2 Poor
Silty clay loam 0.7 0.005 0.12 2 Slow 3 Fair
Clay loam 1.2 0.02 0.15 2 Slow 3 Fair
Silts 0.6 0.005 0.1 2 Slow 3 Fair
Silt loam 3 0.01 0.3 3 Mod. slow 3 Fair
Sandy clay loam 3 0.02 0.5 3 Mod. slow 3 Fair
Loam 3.5 0.05 0.6 3 Mod. slow 4 Good
Fine sandy loam 3.5 0.1 1 4 Mod. rapid 4 Good
Sandy loam 4 0.1 1 4 Mod. rapid 4 Good
Coarse sandy loam 5 0.3 2 5 Rapid 5 Very good
Loamy fine sand 4 0.3 2 5 Rapid 5 Very good
Loamy sand 5 0.4 2.5 5 Rapid 5 Very good
Loamy coarse sand 6 2 3 5 Rapid 5 Very good
Fine sand and very 12 0.1 2 5 Rapid 5 Very good
fine sand
172
Medium sand 60 2 4 6 Very rapid 5 Very good
Coarse sand 120 6 12 7 Excessive 5 Very good
Gravelly clays to 1 <0.001 1 2 Slow 3 Fair
gravelly clay loams
Gravelly silts to 4 0.005 1 4 Mod. rapid 4 Good
loams
Gravelly fine sandy 60 2 6 6 Very rapid 5 Very good
loams to fine sands
Very gravelly clays 12 1 3 5 Rapid 5 Very good
to very gravelly
sandy loams
Very gravelly silts to 60 3 6 6 Very rapid 5 Very good
loams
Very gravelly fine 120 6 12 7 Excessive 5 Very good
sandy loams to fine
sands
Mixed pea gravels 60 1.5 12 7 Excessive 5 Very good
and sands
Pea gravels clean 240 24 48 7 Excessive 5 Very good
Gravel, cobble and 120 2 36 7 Excessive 5 Very good
sands (mixed)
Clean gravels 1 200 36 77 7 Excessive 5 Very good
Cobble and gravel 1 800 72 120 7 Excessive 5 Very good
Cobble 2 400 120 240 7 Excessive 5 Very good
"S" loose gravelly,
"Gypsy" etc. 3/ 24 1 12 7 Excessive 5 Very good
"S" marly or limey, 4 0.05 0.5 4 Moderate 3 Pair
soft to semi-hard
"S" marly or limey, 0.05 <0.005 0.03 2 Slow 2 Poor
semi-hard to hard
"S" clayey to limey, 0.05 <0.005 0.01 1 Very slow 1 Very poor
compact to very
hard
Lightly cemented 77 0.1 12 7 Excessive 5 Very good
gravels
Any creviced or 77 0.005 6 6 Very rapid 5 Very good
fractured rock
Porous rocks 77 0.005 6 6 Very rapid 5 Very good
including semi-hard
& hard caliche
Uniform bedrock 0.005 <0.0001 >0.0005 1 Very slow 1 Very poor
few or no fractures
or crevices
Gypsum beds 1 Excessive 5 Very poor
1/ Textural grades are classified on the basis of normal structures and do not include highly
dispersed - soils containing excess exchangeable sodium ions. Data are from all known sources.
173
2/ These indices compare rates of water transmittal only. Drainability of an area is influenced
also by depth to impervious layers, stratification, thickness and position of aquifers, slope and
the rate of water intake and storage capacity of soils.
3/ Includes a wide variety of commonly unconsolidated substratum and subsoil materials (sand,
silts, clays and gravels) with various degrees of weathering, illuviation and cementation.
Note: Table prepared by Ralph M. Parsons Co
The degree of slope acceptable for irrigation development and therefore the cost of land
levelling depends on i) the anticipated method of irrigation, ii) intensity and amount of rainfall, iii)
susceptibility of the soil to erosion, and iv) planned cropping system. Slopes of 50% or more are
commonly surface irrigated in traditional Asian terraced systems; however, such land would
generally not be considered- suitable for development today. In the USA, gravity irrigation on
slopes greater than about 12% is seldom practised. With sprinkler or drip systems, limitations on
slope due to an erosion hazard or the operation of farm machinery are important. Slopes of 20%
are currently considered the maximum acceptable in the USA for cultivated crops irrigated by
sprinklers. In areas that experience severe thunderstorms, the maximum usable slope may be
less. Land devoted to dense cover crop or grass may permit irrigation of steeper slopes than for
row or field crops.
Although excessive slope is the most frequent problem, lack of slope may also be a limitation.
Excessive flatness may result in higher grading costs to increase the slope and achieve the
smooth uniform surface necessary for uniform distribution of irrigation water. Extremely gentle
gradients may make irrigation of slowly permeable soils difficult because standing water induces
scaling and waterlogging. Very permeable soils and extremely flat topography may prevent
uniform irrigation without excessive deep percolation and water use. On the other hand, very flat
land provides an opportunity to use really efficient surface irrigation methods such as basin and
border strip, where soils are suitable.
In estimating the cost of grading, the field boundaries and the type of surface irrigation (small
basins, large basins, furrow and border strip lengths, etc.) must be determined. There is an
interrelationship between the irrigation field size and the amount of land grading required.
Where grading will cause damage by exposing subsurface horizons and hardpans, alternative
development options should be considered.
An estimate of the land grading requirements is an essential part of a land classification study if
surface irrigation is to be used. If possible, the land classifier should know from discussions with
economists the maximum allowable cost for land development before the field study begins.
There are no specific methods or approaches that must be used. The intuition for estimating the
required moving of earth is gained primarily through experience. Topographic maps and
detailed farm layouts of representative areas are valuable for correlating estimates on similar
areas. Average cut and fill needed within a field and its conversion to the estimated volume of
material that must be moved is one method. The estimate of cut and fill can be made by
evaluating the difference between the microrelief s highs and lows and averaging them for the
field. This approach implies an average cut over half of an area with fill in the remaining portion.
Tables can be developed to show the volume represented by the various differences- If
topographic maps with the elevations recorded for each reading are available, they can provide
a good guide to highs and lows. Depth of topsoil, subsoil quality, the presence of gypsiferous or
other substratum must all be appraised.
174
How smooth the surface should be for efficient irrigation may vary with gradient, the accepted
gravity irrigation method, water quality, anticipated depth to the water table, and cropping. Less
precise grading is usually needed as the gradient increases, and with less efficient irrigation
methods such as used by small farmers with small basins and short furrows. There is a trade-off
between the cost of land grading and the benefits of efficient water use. If water use efficiency
will inevitably be low, there will be no point in achieving more than a smoothing of the land in the
direction of the slope, except in rice basin systems where depth of standing water is critical.
The volume of earth to be moved for construction of farm laterals, drains and farm structures
should sometimes be included in estimates of the total land grading cost. Although land grading
costs are based primarily on total volume of earth to be moved, other factors may influence the
total cost. Unit costs for grading vary with the depth of cuts, length of haul, how smooth the
surface must be, soil texture (which affects plasticity and the range of moisture conditions under
which they can be worked), and field size (where it is more difficult to manoeuvre large
equipment).
In mechanized systems of agriculture the grading costs are interrelated with the choice of
field size and shape to minimize the costs of operating farm machinery once the land is
developed. Field size and shape in this context are determined primarily by the land's
macrorelief. Other factors are the limit of irrigation runs on soils with excessive infiltration rates,
and the importance of length of slope in the control of erosion. In complex topography where
slopes change frequently in both lateral and transverse directions surface irrigation for
mechanized agriculture may be impracticable. As the field becomes smaller and irrigation runs
shorter, labour requirements increase, a more complex farm irrigation system is needed,
machinery operating costs increase, the proportion of unproductive land increases, and the
irrigation efficiencies decrease. The minimum economic field size and length of run established
in the specifications are based primarily on these factors. In these circumstances estimating the
field size must precede the estimation of land grading costs. Field boundaries usually lie on the
more prominent topographic features and the less prominent relief within may be graded to
permit gravity flow of water. Other features, such as ownership boundaries, bodies of unarable
land, boundaries of land in a use precluding irrigation, that might interrupt irrigation flow may
also define field boundaries. Features that determine field size must be defined by observation.
This requires considerable experience and judgement. In the more general land classification
studies it is not practical to define each field. In such situations, an estimate of the field size is
achieved by comparing the landform with similar areas where detailed farm layouts have been
completed or with irrigated areas with similar topography. Appropriate field sizes can be
associated with different land units.
Table 53, as an example, shows an evaluation of field size and shape in relation to suitability for
mechanized farming in the USA. Table 54 shows the amount of earth to be moved at various
depths of cut and fill which, together with local unit costs, can be used to calculate grading
costs.
Table 53 EVALUATION OF IRRIGATED FIELD SIZE FOR MECHANIZED FARMING
Critical Limits
s1 s2 s3 n
Field size, minimum (ha) 8.0 3.6 2 1
Length of run, minimum (m) 1/ 390 120 100 50
175
Dimensions (m) 390 x 200 120 x 300 100 x 200 50 x 200
1/Consideration must be given to water intake rates when assessing the length appropriate for a
given soil.
Table 54 GRADING ESTIMATES IN TERMS OF CUT AND PILL
Type of Grading Light Medium Heavy

Average cut and fill (cm) 7.5 15 30
Earth moving (m3/ha) 375 750 1 500
(yd3/ac) 200 400 800
Note: 100 yd3/ac equivalent to 189 m/ha.
Finally, the effect of earthmoving on the physical productivity of the land must be evaluated.
This may depend on depth of topsoil, the quality of the subsoil, presence of gypsiferous layers
and other characteristics.

The development of land may include the need for physical, chemical and organic amelioration
treatments. Apart from leaching, which is described in the next section, the special land
improvements that may be required can be divided under two headings.
i. deep ploughing, especially on stratified soils with permeable and impermeable layers, or on
soils with gypsum layers within reach of the plough;
ii. subsoiling, especially to break an indurated B-horizon or lime layer:
iii. profile inversion, where the upper subsoil has undesirable properties (lower and upper
subsoils are inverted and then the top soil is replaced);
iv. sanding, involving the spreading and mixing of sand into the upper horizons of fine texture
soils (not effective on heavy clay soils).
Chemical amendments are very often necessary in the reclamation of saline-sodic and sodic
soils to neutralize free sodium and to supply a cation that will replace sodium in the exchange
complex. Gypsum is by far the most commonly used amendment. Phosphor gypsum, which is a
176
by-product of superphosphate and is available relatively cheaply in countries with
superphosphate manufacturing plants, can be effective even at low rates of application due to
the small particle size of the material. Shainberg (personal communication) and others have
shown that it produces very significant effects on the electrolytic properties of water repellant
soils and produces rapid improvements in the physical condition of the silt/clay fraction. Other
amendments that may be used are calcium chloride, calcium carbonate and waste lime from
sugar mills (a mixture of alkaline calcium compounds). Acidifying materials such as sulphuric
acid, sulphur and iron sulphate serve to reclaim sodic soils by neutralizing soda and reacting
with lime in calcareous soils to produce gypsum which furnishes the desired soluble calcium. An
alternative effective way of solubilizing CaCO3 in the soil itself is to build up the organic matter
level by growing green manure crops or by adding organic manures. This lowers the pH by
increasing the carbon dioxide concentration in the soil. The growing of a reclamation crop can
often be the most effective way to improve saline-sodic soils following leaching. Mulching such
soils with organic materials can also have spectacular effects (Eavis and Cumberbatch 1977).
The land evaluator, when assessing the need for amendments, if these are chemical and
related to the amount of sodium to be removed, can initially calculate the theoretical gypsum
requirement:
'Initial ESP' is the measured value before reclamation. 'Final ESP' is the desired value which is
often taken as 10, a level of exchangeable sodium at which no noticeable peptization results.
For example, if initial ESP = 30, final ESP = 10 and CEC = 24:
Since 1 me of gypsum/100 g of soil is equivalent to 860 ppm of gypsum and since one hectare
of soil to a depth of 20 cm may be taken to weigh 3.1 million kg, the amount of gypsum
theoretically required to treat this depth of soil will be:
Gypsum requirement/ha/20 cm = 860 x 106 x 3.106 x 4.8 = 12 400 kg.
In practice, the gypsum is likely to be impure and a correction factor for percentage purity must
be used. Furthermore, the efficiency of replacement of sodium by calcium is not 100%, partly
because of the presence of free sodium in the soil. Therefore, it is recommended that the
amount of gypsum to be applied be increased in accordance with the equivalents of free sodium
carbonate and bicarbonate (FAO/Unesco 1973). USBR studies in Idaho (unpublished) have
shown that, in general, gypsum is only 60-75% efficient in replacing exchangeable sodium; a
finding which can be used to adjust the calculated requirement. Table 55 shows the amount of
other amendments that would be as effective as one tonne of pure gypsum, if they were locally
more economic. The possibility of the improvement being achieved without the use of
amendments by increasing the electrolyte content by use of water of moderate salinity levels
should also be considered where the water available does not have a high SAR value. The
importance of the SAR value will depend on the clay minerals present in the soil, with SAR
generally less than 10 for 2:1 type minerals and somewhat higher for 1;1 type minerals. Saline
water (5-8 dS/m) with additions of gypsum or calcium chloride to lower the SAR below the
177
appropriate limiting value would usually be appropriate for the initial leaching of saline-sodic or
sodic soils.
Gypsiferous soils have special reclamation requirements as discussed by Mousli (1979). The
soil may i) contain gypsiferous material throughout, ii) be a calcareous gypsic soil, iii) be a soil
containing a layer of solid gypsum at a depth of less or more than 150 cm, iv) be a sandy
gypsiferous soil, or v) be a stony gypsiferous soil. The high solubility of gypsum causes a high
osmotic pressure that reduces water extraction by plants, though at higher EC values than for
saline soils. The soil solution is saturated with calcium which results in the fixation of the trace
elements (Fe, Mn, Cu and Zn) in less available forms. A hard pan or impervious layer prevents
root and water penetration. The solution of gypsum and its leaching out from the soil during
irrigation causes an increase in plasticity and a decrease in cohesion and structure of some
soils. It may also cause collapse of imperfectly lined canals. Gypsiferous soils tend to be
susceptible to erosion due to lack of cohesion and structure. To improve the soil profile of
gypsiferous soils, the incorporation of organic materials, deep ploughing and the careful
management of irrigation water are important.
Table 55 AMOUNTS OF CHEMICAL AMENDMENTS EQUIVALENT TO ONE TONNE OF

GYPSUM
Amendment Tons
Gypsum (CaSO4, 2H2O) 1.00
Calcium chloride (CaCl2.2H2O) 0.85
Limestone (CaCO3) 0.58
Sulphur 0.19
Sulphuric acid 0.57
Iron sulphate (FeSO4.7H2O) 1.62
Aluminium sulphate (Al2 (SO4)3. 18H2O) 129
Calcium polysulphide (CaSO4) 24% sulphur 0.77
Source: FAO/Unesco 1973
In evaluating the costs and benefits of physical, chemical and organic aids and amendments,
the land evaluator should note the guidelines in Chapter 7.

Some soils have such high concentrations of salts prior to irrigation that an initial leaching is
required before agricultural production can begin. The amount of water that must be applied to
reclaim a saline root zone by leaching depends primarily on the initial soil salinity levels and the
technique of applying water. Typically, about 70% of the soluble salts initially present in a saline
soil profile will be removed by leaching with a depth of water equivalent to the depth of soil to be
reclaimed, if water is ponded continuously on the soil surface and drainage is adequate
(Hoffman 1980).
The relationship between the fraction of salt remaining in the profile, C/Co (where Co is the
initial salt concentration and C is the salt concentration during reclamation), and the amount of
water leaching through the soil profile by continuous ponding per unit depth of soil, d/d, (US
Salinity Laboratory Staff, in preparation) can be approximated by:"
178
(C/Co).(dw/ds) = 0.3 when dw/ds is greater than 0.3.
The data for this relationship, illustrated in Figure 19, include soil types ranging from peat to
sandy loam to clay. The |equation can be refined by taking the salt concentration of the applied
water (Ci) into account. This is done by substituting (C - Ci)/(Co - Ci) for C/Co. Such refinement
improves the assessment of dw as Ciincreases or as complete reclamation is approached (i.e.
as C approaches Ci).
Figure 19 Depth of water per unit depth of soil required to leach a saline soil by
continuous or intermittent ponding or to leach a soil inherently high in boron (US Salinity
Laboratory Staff, in preparation)
The amount of water required for leaching soluble salts can be reduced by intermittent
applications of ponded water or by sprinkling. The differences in leaching efficiency among the
leaching methods are caused primarily by differences in the effect of diffusion of salts to primary
flow channels, or by the larger percentage of water flowing through the fine pores of the soil
179
mass in the unsaturated case. The relationship between C/Co and dw/ds for intermittent ponding
(US Salinity Laboratory staff, in preparation) illustrated in Figure 19, can be approximated by:
C/Co. (dw/ds) = 0.1 when dw/ds exceeds 0.1.
The relationship for intermittent ponding was derived from four field trials where the depth of
water applied each cycle ranged from 50 to 150 mm with corresponding ponding intervals
ranging from weekly to monthly. To remove about 70% of the soluble salts initially present by
intermittent ponding, a depth of water equal to about one-third of the depth of soil to be
reclaimed is required. This is only one-third of the amount required where continuous ponding
was used. However, these are the results of trials under controlled experimental conditions and
in field practice the required uniformity of application might not be achievable to make
intermittent leaching a favourable practical proposition.
Leaching efficiency by sprinkling is similar to that for intermittent ponding. In some cases,
efficiency may be improved further, particularly where low application rates are maintained or
where sprinkling is intermittent. Sprinkling has the added advantage over ponding that precise
land levelling is not required. A disadvantage of intermittent ponding and sprinkling is that a
longer period is required and on low intake soils evaporation losses may approach or exceed
infiltration. Great care is necessary to ensure uniformity of application of the water. If a salt
tolerant crop is the first crop to be planted on the land, it may be possible to complete the
primary reclamation leaching during the lifetime of that crop.
Excess boron is generally more difficult to leach than soluble salts because it may be tightly
sorbed to soil particles. The origin of the boron may determine the amount of water required for
reclamation. Soils inherently high in boron seem to hold boron with more tenacity than soils
where boron has been added in the irrigation water. The former require more leaching for initial
reclamation and often require additional leaching periodically to remove boron released from the
soil subsequently. As with soluble salts, the relationships between C/Co and dw/ds in leaching
soils inherently high in boron (US Salinity Laboratory Staffs, in preparation), illustrated in Figure
19, can be approximated by
(C/Co). (dw/ds) = 0.6 when dw/ds exceeds 0.6.
Thus for soils inherently high in boron, the amount of water required to remove a given fraction
of boron is about twice that required to remove soluble salts by continuous ponding. Boron
leaching efficiency does not appear to be significantly influenced by the method of water
application.
It may be necessary for the land evaluator to cost the use of water to reclaim different areas.
The characteristic appropriate in first approximations is the volume or depth of water required. A
limiting salt concentration (ECe) for the initial soil condition may be established to divide land
that it is worthwhile leaching and reclaiming, from that which is not.

Lands that must be reclaimed by grading and leaching may not be immediately suitable for the
desired final cropping and land use. In some cases it will be several years before the crop yields
are optimal. The length of the reclamation period can greatly affect the feasibility of a project,
180
and in general, the shorter the reclamation period the better. The uniformity of crop growth in
the early years may be poor and it may be desirable to grow crops of lower value that add to the
organic and nutrient contents of the soil. There may be subsidence problems due to the
dissolution of gypsum and to insufficient compaction on land that has been filled in 'cut and fill'
operations.
One major factor of economic importance is the stage at which drainage is installed in the fields.
In terms of Net Present Value it is very much more costly to install drainage early in the life of
the project than later. Consequently, the temptation has been to delay the installation of field
drains or, in many cases, to ignore drainage altogether. This has had disastrous consequences
in irrigation projects in arid or semi-arid areas. Nevertheless, it may be bad economics to install
drainage early in a project, if the water table is very deep. During the years after starting to
irrigate, the water table often rises to the point where drainage is essential. For different areas of
land, the classifier may have to decide in which year following project year 1, the drainage must
be installed. This is assessed on the basis of the depth of the water table, and the expected rate
in its rise. In poorly permeable soils where there is likely to be a perched water table, the
drainage may have to be installed from the start of irrigation. Sometimes there is a need for
drainage while salts are being leached during reclamation, but normally it is not worth catering
for the extra drainage in drainage design but rather to apply the water over a longer period of
time.
On relatively permeable rice land, seepage and percolation losses are often excessive in the
first years after initial development. Usually a period of about seven years is required for the
percolation rates to reduce as a result of the accumulation of fine-grained material in the floor of
the paddy fields, acting as a seal.
Determination of the period of time over which the land improves to full productivity, the length
of time to the installation of field drains, and accompanying effects on production and costs may
be used as critical limits of the reclamation period.

The assessment of land suitability or limitations with regard to irrigation engineering may
concern i) the development of new lands for irrigation; and ii) the rehabilitation of irrigation
schemes.
i. New lands
A preliminary assessment of land suitability for the irrigation and drainage engineering works
frequently has to be carried out by the land classifier in the early stages of a project as part of
the general survey. Later the engineers may need to survey the possible routes of the irrigation
and drainage networks in great detail, and make further topographic maps.
The important considerations in the early surveys are:
a. the topographic features of the land that influence the flow of water by gravity or the elevation
and distance to which water must be pumped (see also B.14. Location);
181
b. the depths of barriers that can act as obstructions to the constructing of canals, drains and
other structures or affect grading and land levelling operations (i.e. aspects that have not been
assessed under other headings);
c. the presence of unstable subsurface materials that may lead to subsidence problems;
d. the permeabilities of soils on which canals and drains will be constructed and the associated
losses of water for unlined or lined channels;
e. the substratum condition as it affects the installation of permanent structures such as

diversion weirs, storage reservoirs, etc.;
f. soil conditions for installing field and main drainage (i.e. depth to barrier, nature of barrier,
etc.):
g. conditions for access to sites for project construction;
h. the location of dugwells or tubewells in respect not only to water, but also to the land that will
be irrigated, to obtain the best advantages in terms of energy-saving and topography;
i. the size and shape of potential management units or fields (see also heading B.14);
j. the positioning of bunds or levees according to topography and changes in soil texture or
other land characteristics, thus improving the efficiency of water use and productivity;
k. the assessment of basin sizes, furrow lengths etc. (Table 48) in relation to the earthmoving
costs, and the acceptable slopes and microrelief after grading (see also heading B.15);
l. the matching of water supply and demand and the scheduling of water in terms of frequency,
rate and duration of application. The design of the canal or pipe networks to the field and the
engineering costs depend on any one or all of these factors.
Some of the above may be class-determining independently of the assessments already made
under earlier heads.
ii. Rehabilitation of irrigation schemes
In rehabilitation schemes, quite different assessments may be required depending on, for
example, whether the scheme is in an Asian rice area, or in an arid or semi-arid area subject to
waterlogging and salinity problems. Other categories also occur in the intermediate rainfall
zones.
In the Asian rice land situation, rehabilitation often involves upgrading the primary, secondary
and tertiary water supply networks or the installation of improved water control structures
(diversion weirs, measuring devices, storage structures, etc.). The land evaluator may be called
upon to evaluate land suitabilities relating to the improvement of these engineering works.
In the rehabilitation of saline, sodic and waterlogged land in arid and semi-arid areas, surveys
are generally required for the engineering works, especially topographic surveys and
182
groundwater level surveys for the proper location of irrigation and drainage channels. If very
high construction costs are implicated, the land suitability class of the associated land may be
downgraded accordingly.
The most important evaluations under this heading are those that exclude land from
development because of excessive costs to develop it for irrigation or to drain it.

The long-term conservation and environmental risks of irrigated agriculture should never be
neglected in view of the historical associations between irrigation, land degradation, human
diseases and other adverse side effects. The standard of conservation and environmental
protection achieved will depend on the cropping, management and irrigation alternatives initially
selected for the project, and on the management of resources after project implementation. The
latter depends on the social and economic context, and particularly on the determination of
funding agencies and governments to provide finance and satisfactory control measures.
Historically, land degradation due to soil erosion, salinity, sodicity and waterlogging has resulted
in the decline and fall of civilizations from the time that they ceased to undertake the long-term
conservation measures that were needed. Health hazards are also a feature of irrigation
schemes as already discussed in Section 5.8.
Four headings for evaluation are given in this section, namely, long-term salinity and sodicity
hazard; control of groundwater; soil erosion- and the environment.

The measures required to prevent land degradation due to salinization and sodification should
be recognized by the land evaluator who may make certain recommendations for prevention.
The assessment under this heading is concerned with whether or not the necessary
preventative measures will be implemented. The measures may be too sophisticated or too
difficult or costly for farmers and existing government organizations to carry through, in which
case it may be irresponsible to recommend the development of such land which should be
classified as Not Suitable.

Water supplies and quality can be degraded by various factors including inadequate drainage,
overpumping of aquifers and saline intrusion, or through deforestation and degradation of
watersheds. The same criteria as discussed in the previous section apply to these risks. If the
183
government agency or farmer is unlikely to implement conservation measures, it may be
necessary to classify the land as Not Suitable.
Problems of water table control can arise both in areas threatened by salinization and in
areas that are not threatened. In the latter case, though there may be a favourable salt balance,
the presence of excess water, even if only periodic, can sometimes lead to the abandonment of
land by farmers. Even if only for short periods this can result in weed growth and other problems
that make further farming unviable, and the land reverts to natural vegetation or extensive
agriculture (e.g. livestock) without irrigation.
Saline intrusion due to overpumping of aquifers frequently occurs in irrigation projects relying
on groundwater. Wells must be monitored to ensure that the safe yield is not exceeded. The
organizing authorities may need power to curb the use of water and to prevent the over-
exploitation of the water resources. Without this power, the land may receive progressively more
saline water until it has to be abandoned.
Degradation of catchments or drainage basins may affect the quantity of water for irrigation.
Deforestation and erosion can lead to changes in seasonal stream flow patterns, and
sedimentation of storage reservoirs may occur. The conservation of vegetation and soil in the
catchment is of great long-term importance in the viability of many irrigation schemes.

Soil erosion in arid and semi-arid areas may occur from wind or water; in humid areas erosion
due to water is usually the major hazard.
Erosion due to water: Alternative methods for assessing erosion due to water are:
i. the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLA);
ii. the FAO Soil Degradation Assessment (FAOSDA) method;
iii. the Soil Loss Estimator for Southern Africa (SLEMSA);
iv. local methods based mainly on slope;
v. observed present situation in similarly irrigated areas.
All the above methods must be adjusted to take account of the additional hazard from gully
erosion.
Whichever method is used for calculating or estimating soil loss, the critical limits and factor
ratings can be applied in a similar way, by means of the following steps:
i. decide upon maximum acceptable limits of soil loss corresponding to each rating. These
values form the critical limits for all crops or LUTs;
ii. for each land unit, calculate the soil loss on the basis of climate, soil and topographic factors
only, i.e. omitting the land use factor;
184
iii. for each crop or LOT in turn, multiply the soil loss calculated in step ii. by a land use factor;
iv. repeating steps ii. and iii. gives estimates of soil loss for each land unit - LOT combination.
These estimates are compared with the values in step i. to give a factor rating with respect to
erosion hazard.
Wind erosion and dune formation: Strong winds, especially in arid and semi-arid areas, may
necessitate the use of windbreaks. It may be essential to plant these several years ahead of the
start of irrigated cropping. The erosion hazard must generally be rated on the basis of existing
local experience, or from experience in similar situations. There have been cases of irrigation
projects being completely debilitated by wind, the effects not only being soil loss but also dune
formation and the filling of channels for water supply and drainage with soil.

The possibility of adverse effects from irrigation projects on human health and wildlife has
already been discussed in Sections 5.8 and 5.7 respectively.
E. Socio-economic factors

Socio-economic Requirements and Limitations
Future Socio-Economic Conditions

Farmers' attitudes to irrigation differ enormously between projects and can differ substantially
even within a project area, making this 'class-determining'. The introduction of irrigation into
areas that have a traditional pattern of agriculture necessitates social changes that are
sometimes unacceptable to the local community. For example, in some West African countries
women are generally responsible for cultivating rainfed rice in swamps. The introduction of
controlled water irrigation necessitates that men be involved in the new technology with pumps
and mechanization. This is successful in some villages but not in others-In some other
countries, irrigation projects have been unsuccessful where farmers were able to obtain
employment in industrial activities, or as migrant employees in neighbouring or overseas oil-rich
countries.
Competing employment opportunities that act as a disincentive to intensive irrigated agriculture

may be 'class-determining' where this varies from place to place.
185
Farm prices greatly influence farmers' attitudes. For example, the price of rice influences the
productivity of land in many Asian countries. When rice prices are favourable, the farmers
produce more than when the purchasing price is low; in the latter case, farmers may find it more
profitable to grow upland crops on adjacent rainfed land, where there is such an opportunity.

Many other socio-economic considerations have already been discussed in Sections 5.9 and
Chapter 7. These apply mostly to the selection of LUTs, but some may be selected as 'class-
determining'. For example, land tenure and water rights differ from location to location and
may be crucial in deciding whether the land is suitable for development. Labour supply profiles
must match seasonal labour requirements of the proposed LUT; again, this could vary from
place to place and be 'class-determining'. The adverse side-effects of development due to
factors such as the displacement of existing agriculture and culture, whether shifting cultivation
or existing settlements on land to be flooded or redistributed, must be evaluated in terms of net
benefits to the community as a whole.
Appendix 1 - The structure of the FAO framework

classification
Four categories, namely. Orders, Classes, Subclasses and Units are recognized in the FAO
Framework classification:
I. Land Suitability Orders reflect kinds of suitability (i.e. Suitable and Not Suitable);
II. Land Suitability Classes reflect degrees of suitability within Orders (i.e. S1, S2, S3, N1 and
N2);
III. Land Suitability Subclasses reflect kinds of limitation or kinds of inputs and improvements
required within Classes (i.e. S2d, etc.);
IV. Land Suitability Units reflect minor differences in the required management within
Subclasses (e.g. S2d-2, etc.).
Each category retains its meaning with respect to any classification, whether of 'present'
suitability, 'potential' suitability, the classification of 'provisionally-irrigable' land, or of 'irrigable'
land.
I. LAND SUITABILITY ORDERS
There are two Orders: Suitable (S), and Not Suitable (N). Suitable land is land on which
sustained use of the kind under consideration is expected to yield benefits which "justify the
inputs and development costs, without unacceptable risk of damage to land resources. Not
Suitable indicates that the land has qualities that appear to preclude sustained use of the kind
under consideration. (Note that 'Suitable' in a 'provisionally-irrigable' classification can be used
where information about the water supply and costs are uncertain, but in a classification of
'irrigable' land these uncertainties must be resolved.)
186
II. LAND SUITABILITY CLASSES
Within Orders, land suitability classes reflect degrees of suitability. The classes are given arabic
numbers. The designations are:
Class S1, Highly Suitable; Class S2, Moderately Suitable; Class S3, Marginally Suitable; Class
N1, Marginally Not Suitable; and Class N2, Permanently Not Suitable. Fewer or more Classes
can be designated as appropriate. Only classes with significant economic differences should be
distinguished.
Class S1 land has no significant limitations to sustained application of a given use. It may
include minor limitations that will not reduce productivity, benefits or costs below the lower
boundary set for the class.
Class S2 land has limitations which in aggregate are moderately severe for sustained
application of a given use. The limitations may reduce physical productivity, benefits or costs
compared with S1 land to a lower limit set for the class.
Class S3 land has limitations which in aggregate are severe for sustained application of a given
use and will so reduce physical productivity, benefits or costs that the expenditure will only be
marginally justified.
Note: A Conditionally Suitable (Sc) class may be used in certain instances of uncertainty, or
where factors relevant to suitability are not yet fully understood. However, this is discouraged,
and in classifying 'provisionally-irrigable' land the uncertainty about water supply and costs are
assumed to be unresolved. The use of class Sc may seem convenient to an evaluator, but in
excess it would greatly complicate the understanding of the classification by users.
Class N1 indicates that the land is marginally not suitable and has limitations that may be
surmountable in time but which cannot be corrected with the existing knowledge or under
present social conditions to give acceptable physical productivity. It indicates the economic limit
defining the boundary between 'Suitable' and 'Not Suitable'.
Class N2 indicates that the land is permanently not suitable for the given use usually because of
physical limitations. N2 land should be delineated early in the study to avoid unnecessary
studies on land which will never be developed for the given use. In contrast, the boundary
between the two Orders, S and N, may be variable over time due to changes in economic and
social conditions.
See Section 2.4 for further discussion on the measures of suitability used to define classes.
They are a physical measure of productivity, namely, a land productivity index, and two
economic measures, namely, net farm income and net incremental irrigation benefit.
III. LAND SUITABILITY SUBCLASSES
These reflect kinds of requirements or limitations and are indicated by lower case letters with
mnemonic significance e.g. S2m, S3xy, etc. There are no subclasses in Class S1. The lower
case letters used must be decided before any evaluation; there is no unique list. Table 17,
Chapter 6 presents a listing for classifications of 'provisionally-irrigable' and 'irrigable' land. For
example, m indicates that the factor 'Water Quantity' is the reason for downgrading from S1 to
187
S2m. The letters x and y indicate limitations due to salinity and sodicity, respectively. The
number of Subclasses recognized and the limitations chosen to distinguish them will differ in
classifications for different purposes.
IV. LAND SUITABILITY UNITS
These are subdivisions of a Subclass. All the units within a subclass have the same degree of
suitability at the class level and similar kinds of requirements or limitations at the subclass level.
The units differ from each other in their production characteristics or in minor aspects of their
management requirements (often definable as differences in detail of their limitations or their
position in relation to irrigation canals, etc.). Their recognition permits detailed interpretation at
the farm planning level. Suitability units are distinguished by arable numbers following a hyphen,
e.g. S2e-l, S2e-2, etc. There is no limit to the number of units recognized within a subclass.
Land suitability units should not be confused with land units. The former are a category of the
classification structure and the latter represent an area of land.
The FAO Framework classification structure is shown in Table A.1 with the US Bureau of
Reclamation irrigation classification system appended for comparison.
Table A.1 FAO FRAMEWORK LAND SUITABILITY CLASSIFICATION COMPARED WITH

USBR SYSTEM
SUITABILITY FAO FRAMEWORK USBR CLASSIFICATION

CATEGORY
ORDERS S Suitable -
N Not Suitable -
CLASSES S1 Highly Suitable Class 1
S2 Moderately Suitable Class 2
S3 Marginally Suitable (Sc Class 3
Conditionally Suitable)
Class 4 Special Uses
4.1
4.2
4.3
Class 5 (requiring further study to determine whether
suitable or not)
N1 Marginally Not Suitable -
N2 Permanently Not Suitable Class 6
SUBCLASS Class Subclass Class Subclass
S2m Class 2 2s
S2 S2d 2d
S3md 2sd
etc. etc.
UNITS Subclass Unit
S2d Special study areas (informative appraisal areas) (for
S2d S2d which management and development
recommendations are given)
S2d
188
etc.
Notes: (1) Subclasses, reflecting a requirement or limitation are denoted by a letter suffix (see
Table 17)- in the USBR system these are s, t or d indicating a soil, topographic or drainage
deficiency respectively; (2) See text for use of Sc (Conditionally Suitable) in the FAO system; (3)
Special use lands (USBR Class 4) are classified 1, 2 and 3 to reflect relative payment capacity
with a letter designating the land use (crop); and (4) Class 5 land (USBR) requires further study
to determine whether it is suitable or not. Class N1 (FAO) is marginally not suitable at present.
Appendix 2 - Discounted present value 1/

1/Adapted from - Guidelines: land evaluation for rainfed agriculture. Soils Bulletin 52. FAO,
Rome, 1984.
In projects which require land improvements, it is necessary to incur capital expenditure in the
first year or early years in return for benefits, in the form of increased production and profits, that
will be received in future years. In irrigation schemes and many other agricultural projects, initial
capital expenditure leads up to a steady state of increased production after a number of years.
Cash flow discounting is a way of setting initial capital expenditure against future benefits or,
more generally, of balancing costs incurred and benefits received at different periods in the
future.
Money invested in the present earns interest, and acquires a higher value in future years. If the
interest rate is 10%, $100 invested this year becomes $110 in one year's time, $121 in two
years, or in the general case, 100 x (1 + r)n in n year's time, where r is the interest rate
expressed as a fraction, i.e. 10% as 0.1. Thus the money value of expenditure incurred now
increases in the future because the capital spent on a land improvement could alternatively
have been placed in some interest-earning investment.
It would be possible to compare expenditure and benefits at different periods by adding

compound interest and bringing all the values to some common date in the future. However,
because the decision to invest is made now, it is better to carry out the process in reverse and
bring all costs and benefits to their equivalents at the present time, called their present
value. Discounting can be regarded as the reverse of addition of interest. Taking a discount rate
r of 0.1 (10%), expenditure or cost of $100 in one year's time has a present value of 100/(1 +
0.1) = $90.9. The present value of $100 spent or received two years hence is 100/(1 + 0.1)2 =
$82.6; or another way of looking at this is to say that a foreseen expenditure of $100 in two
years' time could be met by setting aside $82.6 now in an investment earning 10% compound
interest. The discounting procedure is exactly the same whether dealing with a cost or a benefit.
In the general case, a cost incurred or benefit received of $p in n year's time has a present
value of:
The value 1/(1 + r)n is called the discount factor, used to multiply any actual cost or benefit to
give its present value (Table B.1).
After an initial period, maintenance costs and benefits often even out to a steady amount each
year. A short cut to the calculations is possible using tables of cumulative discount factors. For
189
example, at a discount rate of 10%, $100 received in years 1 to 5 inclusive has a present value
of 90.9 + 82.6 + 75.1 + 68.3 + 62.1 = $379. The cumulative discount factor is thus 3.79. To
calculate the present value of a cost or benefit in years 5 to 20 inclusive, take the multiplier for
20 years and subtract that for 5 years (Table B.2).
The procedures are the same whether a commercial rate of interest (and thus discounting),
currently of the order of 15% in many countries, is assumed or whether the calculation is done
in terms of an assumed lower 'social' rate of interest.
The factors in Table B.2, Calculation of the Present Value of a Future Constant Annual
Cost or Benefit in Years 1 to n Inclusive can also be adapted to the purpose of amortizing
(spreading) an investment. The uniform periodic payment required is calculated by dividing the
sum to be amortized by the factor appropriate to the number of years and the interest rate.
The uniform annual payment required to amortize $1 000 over 20 years at 10% interest is
obtained by dividing 1 000 by the factor 8.51. The periodic payment is $117.51.
DISCOUNT FACTORS
Table B.1 CALCULATION OF THE PRESENT VALUE OF A FUTURE COST OR BENEFIT IN

YEAR n
Year 1% 3% 5% 6% 8% 10% 12% 15% 20%

1 .990 .971 .952 .943 .926 .909 .893 .870 .833
2 .980 .943 .907 .890 .857 .826 .797 .756 .694
3 .971 .915 .864 .840 .794 .751 .712 .658 .579
4 .916 .888 .823 .763 .735 .683 .636 .572 .482
5 .951 .863 .784 .747 .681 .621 .567 .497 .402
6 .942 .837 .746 .705 .630 .564 .507 .432 .335
7 .933 .813 .711 .665 .583 .513 .452 .376 .279
8 .923 .789 .677 .627 .540 .467 .404 .327 .233
9 .914 .766 .645 .592 .500 .424 .361 .284 .194
10 .905 .744 .614 .558 .463 .386 .322 .247 .162
11 .896 .722 .585 .527 .429 .350 .287 .215 .135
12 .887 .701 .557 .497 .397 .319 .257 .187 .112
13 .879 .681 .530 .469 .368 .290 .229 .163 .093
14 .870 .661 .505 .442 .340 .263 .205 .141 .078
15 .861 .642 .481 .417 .315 .239 .183 .123 .065
20 .820 .554 .377 .312 ,215 .149 .104 .061 .026
30 .742 .412 .231 .174 .099 .057 .033 .015 .004
40 .672 .307 .142 .097 .046 .022 .011 .004 .001
50 .608 .228 .087 .054 .021 .009 .003 .001 .000
Table B.2 CALCULATION OF THE PRESENT VALUE OF A FUTURE CONSTANT ANNUAL

COST OR BENEFIT IN YEARS 1 TO n INCLUSIVE
Year 1% 3% 5% 6% 8% 10% 12% 15% 20%
190
1 0.99 0.97 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.91 0.89 0.87 0.83
2 1.97 1.91 1.86 1.83 1.78 1.74 1.69 1.63 1.53
3 2.94 2.83 2.72 2.62 2.58 2.49 2.40 2.28 2.11
4 3.90 3.72 3.54 3.46 3.31 3.17 3.04 2.85 2.59
5 4.85 4.58 4.33 4.21 3.99 3.79 3.61 3.35 2.99
6 5.80 5.42 5.08 4.92 4.62 4.36 4.11 3.78 3.33
7 6.73 6.23 5.79 5.58 5.21 4.87 4.56 4.16 3.60
8 7.65 7.02 6.46 6.20 5.75 5.33 4.97 4.49 3.84
9 8.57 7.79 7.11 6.80 6.25 5.76 5.33 4.77 4.03
10 9.47 8.53 7.72 7.36 6.71 6.14 5.65 5.02 4.19
12 11.26 9.95 8.86 8.38 7.54 6.81 6.19 5.42 4.44
15 13.87 11.94 10.38 9.71 8.56 7.61 6.81 5.85 4.68
20 18.05 14.88 12.46 11.47 9.82 8.51 7.47 6.26 4.87
30 25.81 19.60 15.37 13.76 11.26 9.43 8.06 6.57 4.98
40 32.84 23.12 17.16 15.05 11.92 9.78 8.24 6.64 5.00
50 39.20 25.73 18.26 15.76 12.23 9.91 8.30 6.66 5.00
Appendix 3 - Comparison of criteria for investment analysis:

Farm financial analysis vs project economic analysis
There are important differences between the analytical criteria for farm financial and project
economic investment analyses. Gittinger describes these differences: "The point of view taken
in the economic analysis is that of society as a whole...... the financial analysis takes the
viewpoint of the individual participants..... The methodology of comparing costs and benefits....
is the same for either an economic or financial measurement of project worth, but what is
defined as a cost and what is considered a benefit are different. There are three very important
distinctions between the two that must be kept in mind." Further citing Gittinger:1/
1/Gittinger, J. 2nd ed. 1982. Economic Analysis of Agricultural Projects. For IBRD. Johns
Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore.
"First, in economic analysis taxes and subsidies are treated as transfer payments. The new
income generated by a project includes any taxes the project can bear during production and
any sales taxes buyers are willing to pay when they purchase the project's product. These
taxes, which are part of the total project benefit, are transferred to the government, which acts
on behalf of the society as a whole, and are not treated as costs. Conversely, a government
subsidy to the project is a cost to the society, since the subsidy is an expenditure of resources
that the economy incurs to operate the project. In financial analysis such adjustments are
normally unnecessary; taxes are usually treated as a cost and subsidies as a return.
"Second, in financial analysis market prices are normally used. These take into account taxes
and subsidies. From these prices come the data used in the economic analysis. In economic
analysis, however, some market prices may be changed so that they more accurately reflect
social or economic values. These adjusted prices are called 'shadow' or 'accounting' prices and
in the analytical system recommended here are efficiency prices, as noted earlier. In both
191
financial and economic analysis projected prices are used, so both rely to a substantial extent
on what are, in effect, hypothetical prices.
"Third, in economic analysis interest on capital is never separated and deducted from the gross
return because it is part of the total return to the capital available to the society as a whole and
because it is that total return, including interest, that economic analysis is designed to estimate.
In financial analysis, interest paid to external suppliers of money may be deducted to derive the
benefit stream available to the owners of capital. But interest imputed or 'paid' to the entity from
whose point of view the financial analysis is being done is not treated as a cost because the
interest is part of the total return to the equity capital contributed by the entity. Hence, it is a part
of the financial return that entity receives."
A tabular comparison to summarize these differences is given in the accompanying Table C.1
illustrating how the values are treated in farm budgets.
Table C.1 VALUES APPLIED IN FARM BUDGETS FARM FINANCIAL ANALYSIS VS

PROJECT ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 1/
ITEM FINANCIAL ECONOMIC

Production: Sales Consumed Farmgate market price ditto Shadow priced ditto
Off-farm income Valued as received Valued as received
Expenses:
Land owned n/a n/a
Land purchased Debt service cost Value product foregone
Land rented Share or value paid Share or value paid
Interest on equity 2/ n/a
Land development cost Market price Market price
Depreciation Market price Market price
Debt service:
interest At cost n/a
amortization At cost n/a
Taxes At cost n/a
Water charges At cost, may include subsidy Project economic cost
Hired labour Market price Shadow priced
Family labour 2/ Shadow wage
Management 1/ n/a
Operating costs:
Fuel, seed, fertilizer, custom [hired] work, etc Market price Full cost, without any subsidy
n/a - not applicable
1/ Gittinger, J.P. 2nd ed. 1982. Economic analysis of agricultural projects. (For IBRD.) Johns
Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore. Brown, M.L. 1979. Farm Budgets: from farm income analysis to
agricultural project analysis. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore.
2/ Values are imputed in a USBR payment capacity analysis. These are based on opportunity
cost for the resource.
192
Glossary
(F) = definition as in the 'Framework for land evaluation' (FAO 1976). cf. = compare q.v. = see
term elsewhere in this Glossary.
ACTUAL CROP EVAPOTRANSPIRATION RATE (ETa): the rate of evapotranspiration equal to

or smaller than predicted ETm (syn. ET crop) as affected by the level of available soil water,
salinity, field size or other causes; mm/day or m/day.
AGROCLIMATIC ZONE: a land unit defined in terms of major climate (q.v.) and growing period
(q.v.) which is climatically suitable for a certain range of crops and cultivars.
AKIOCHI: soil with an imbalance of nutrients associated with hydrogen sulphide toxicity.
ALKALI SOIL: a soil that contains sufficient exchangeable sodium to interfere with the growth of
most crop plants, either with or without appreciable quantities of soluble salts. Same as a
SODIC SOIL which is the preferred term.
ALKALINE SOIL: a soil that has an alkaline reaction, i.e. a soil for which the pH reading of the
saturated paste is higher than 7.0.
AREA-SPECIFIC LAND DEVELOPMENT; improvements for irrigation or drainage specific to

any land unit as opposed to improvements of general applicability on all land throughout the
project.
AVAILABLE WATER CAPACITY: the volume or depth of water retained in the soil between the
field capacity and permanent wilting percentage.
BASIN IRRIGATION: a system of surface irrigation (q.v.) in which water is ponded within
earthen bunds or banks on four sides.
BENEFIT/COST RATIO: the present value of benefits divided by the present value of costs, with
all values adjusted to a common time basis.
BORDER STRIP IRRIGATION: a system of surface irrigation (q.v.) in which water flows and
spreads over sloping strips of land between two earthen bunds.
BULK DENSITY: the ratio of the mass of oven dried soil to its bulk volume. When expressed in
g cm bulk density is numerically equal to apparent specific gravity or volume weight.
CAM: Crassulacean Acid Metabolism (CAM). A metabolic pathway used by plants including
sisal and pineapple.
CATION EXCHANGE CAPACITY (CEC): the total quantity of cations which a soil can adsorb by
cation exchange usually expressed in milliequivalents per 100 grams. Measured values of
cation exchange capacity depend somewhat on the method used for the determination.
CLASS DETERMINING FACTOR: a variable affecting agronomic, management, land

development, conservation, the environment, or socio-economic conditions that has an
193
influence on the outputs and inputs of a specified kind of land use, and which is used to assess
the suitability class in which a land unit should be placed for that use.
COMMON PROJECT COSTS: costs which relate, not to any particular land area, but to the
service provided to the whole project.
COMPOUND LAND UTILIZATION TYPE: a land utilization type consisting of more than one
kind of use or purpose, either undertaken in regular succession on the same land, or
simultaneously undertaken on separate areas of land which for purposes of evaluation are
treated as a single unit (cf. multiple land utilization type). (F)
CONDITIONALLY SUITABLE; a phase of the land suitability order Suitable, employed in

circumstances where small areas of land within the survey are unsuitable or poorly suitable for a
particular use under the management specified for that use, but suitable given that certain other
land improvements or management practices are employed. (F)
CONDUCTIVITY: see ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY and HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY.
CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS: the land use requirements (q.v.) largely or entirely related
to conservation and sustained use (q.v.).
CONSUMPTIVE USE: see CROP WATER REQUIREMENTS.
CONVEYANCE LOSSES: losses due to evaporation, percolation or breaches in the network of

irrigation canals or pipes between the source of water and the field.
CONVEYANCE EFFICIENCY: ratio between water received at the inlet to a block of fields and
that released at the project's headworks; fraction.
CRITICAL LIMITS: the limits defining the boundaries between suitability categories of individual
class-determining land use requirements and limitations, land qualities or land characteristics.
Critical ranges are bounded by critical limits and both are expressed in terms of critical values.
CROPPING INDEX: the number of crops harvested in relation to the years in the cropping
cycle. Expressed as C, in percent-
CROPPING REQUIREMENTS OR LIMITATIONS- the land use requirements or limitations

specifically related to an individual crop.
CROP WATER REQUIREMENT: the depth or volume of water needed to meet the maximum
evapotranspiration rate of the crop when soil water is not limiting (ETcropor ETm). Note that
ETcrop and ETm have the same meaning; the latter is now preferred.
CULTIVATION FACTOR: the number of years under cultivation as a percentage of the total
cultivated and non-cultivated cycle. Expressed as R, in percent.
CURRENT LAND SUITABILITY CLASSIFICATION: a land suitability classification based on the

suitability of land for a specified use in its present condition, without major land improvements
(c.f. potential land suitability classification).
194
DEGREES OF LIMITATION: the scaling of a single factor (land use requirement, land quality or
land characteristic) according to its adverse effects on a specified land utilization type (cf. factor
rating).
DIAGNOSTIC CRITERION: a variable (land quality, land characteristic etc.) that has an
understood influence on the outputs and inputs of a specified kind of land use, and which serves
as a basis for assessing the suitability of the land for that use.
DISCOUNTING: the use of interest factors to adjust cash flows to a common time basis.
DOUBLE CROPPING: growing two crops a year in sequence.
DRIP IRRIGATION: a technique for achieving a low rate, high frequency or long duration water
delivery through pipes to drip nozzles located near the plants.
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS: assessment of an investment's profitability to a whole society or

economy regardless of who in the society contributes to the costs and receives the benefits,
conventionally measured in 'opportunity' rather than 'market' prices.
ECONOMIC RENT: the surplus remaining to a project beneficiary after he receives the rewards
necessary to attract physical inputs, labour, management and willingness to bear risk.
ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY OF THE SATURATION EXTRACT (q.v.), ECe: a measure

related to the salt concentration of the soil dS/m (at 25°C), formerly mmhos/cm.
ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY (EC): the reciprocal of the electrical resistivity. The resistance in
ohms of a conductor, metallic or electrolytic, which is 1 cm long and has a cross sectional area
of 1 cm2. Hence, electrical conductivity was formerly expressed in reciprocal ohms per cm or
mhos per cm and now in S1 units as dS/m.
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION: the rate of water loss through transpiration from vegetation plus
evaporation from the soil surface or from standing water on the soil surface - mm/day or m3/day.
EXCHANGEABLE SODIUM PERCENTAGE (ESP): the degree of saturation of the soil

exchange complex with sodium. It may be calculated by the formula:
FACTOR RATING: the suitability of a land unit for a land utilization type in terms of one, or a
single group, of class-determining factors as indicated by land characteristics, land qualities,
land use requirements, limitations or other indicators. 'The rating is denoted by s1, s2, s3, n1 or
n2 corresponding to critical values of the factor (see Table 13).
FARM FINANCIAL VIABILITY: using farm gate prices and actual cash flow, a determination
made to ascertain whether the farmer is sufficiently better-off with the project than without the
project.
195
FIELD APPLICATION EFFICIENCY: the ratio of water made directly available to the crop and
that received at the field inlet; fraction.
FIELD CANAL EFFICIENCY: the ratio between water received at the field inlet of a block of
fields and that at the head of the canal system; fraction.
FIELD CAPACITY: the moisture content of soil in the field after rapid drainage has ceased,
usually 2 to 3 days after a thorough wetting of the soil profile. Expressed as moisture
percentage on a volume weight basis. Often assumed to be approximately represented by soil
in equilibrium with 1/3 bar (or atmospheres) pressure equivalent to 330 cm of water suction or a
water potential of -33 kpa (S1 units).
FIELD SUPPLY SCHEDULE: the stream size, duration and interval of water supply to the
individual field or farm (volume, duration, rate).
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS: assessment of an investment's profitability to those people or entities

contributing capital and directly benefitting from the returns, conventionally measured in 'market'
prices (see Appendix 3).
FULL IRRIGATION SERVICE LAND: irrigable land which will receive its full water supply from
one source (USBR definition).
GENERAL PURPOSE LAND EVALUATION: a land evaluation in which the potential land
utilization types are not closely specified at the beginning of evaluations (cf. special purpose
land evaluation).
GROSS CLASSIFICATION AREA: the area mapped and classified in a given survey (USBR
definition).
GROSS IRRIGATION WATER REQUIREMENTS: the gross depth or volume of water

comprising the net irrigation water requirements, plus any additional leaching over and above
percolation.
GROSS MARGIN: the revenues from a farming enterprise (crop yields x prices) minus the
variable costs.
GROUNDWATER: water in land beneath the soil surface, usually under conditions where the
pressure in the water is equal to or greater than atmospheric pressure and the voids are filled
with water.
GROWTH CYCLE: the period required for an annual crop to complete its annual cycle of
establishment, growth and production of harvested part. Also see growing period.
GROWING PERIOD: the duration, in days, of the period when both temperature and soil
moisture permit crop growth (cf. growing season, growth cycle). Note: growing period relates to
the land, growth cycle to the crop.
GROWING SEASON: used in a general way, not as a technical term, to refer to the period of
the year when (most) crops are grown, e.g. the rainy season.
196
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY: the proportionality factor in the Darcy flow equation, which
states that effective flow velocity is proportional to the hydraulic gradient. Hydraulic conductivity,
therefore, is the effective flow velocity at unit hydraulic gradient and has the dimensions of
velocity (LT-1).
HYV; high yielding variety or cultivar of a crop, or MV - modern variety.
INFORMATIVE APPRAISAL: investigations of present land use, productivity, existing land

development, water requirements, drainability, topography, etc. to provide information for the
planning, development and operation of irrigation projects (USBR term).
INPUTS: the material inputs (e.g. seed, fertilizers, fuel, chemical sprays) and other inputs (e.g.
labour hours) applied to the use of land (cf. levels of inputs, outputs).
INTERCROPPING: growing two or more crops at the same time.
INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN: the rate of discounting at which the present value of benefits
becomes equal to the present value of costs.
IRRIGABLE LAND: land suitable for irrigation, that can receive irrigation water and which is
classified according to an economic assessment of its suitability for irrigated agriculture, taking
into consideration water supplies and the project development costs and benefits.
IRRIGATION: controlled applications of water to supplement the rainfall (note that flooded land
is not termed 'irrigated' unless the water is in some way controlled).
IRRIGATION INTERVAL: the time between the start of successive water applications on the
same field, days.
KIND OF LAND USE: this term refers to either a major kind of land use or a land utilization type
(q.v.), whichever is applicable; where the meaning is clear it may be abbreviated to 'kind of use'
or 'use'.
LAND: an area of the earth's surface, the characteristics of which embrace all reasonably
stable, or predictably cyclic, attributes of the biosphere vertically above and below this area
including those of the atmosphere, the soil and underlying geology, the hydrology, the plant and
animal populations, and the results of past and present human activity, to the extent that these
attributes exert a significant influence on present and future uses of the land by man. (F)
LAND AREA SPECIFIC COSTS AND BENEFITS: investments and benefits connected with
improvements on specific areas of land e.g. for correcting deficiencies in topography, drainage,
etc. (see Chapter 7).
LAND CHARACTERISTIC: an attribute of land that can be measured or estimated, and which
can be employed for distinguishing between land units of differing suitabilities for use and as a
means of describing land qualities.
197
LAND EQUIVALENT RATIO (LER): the ratio of the area under sole cropping to the area under
intercropping needed to give equal amounts of yield at the same management level. It is the
sum of the fractions of the intercropped yields divided by the sole-crop yields.
LAND EVALUATION: the process of assessment of land performance when used for specified
purposes, involving the execution and interpretation of surveys and studies of land forms, soils,
vegetation, climate and other aspects of land in order to identify and make a comparison of
promising kinds of land use in terms applicable to the objectives of the evaluation.
LAND FACET: a land unit (q.v.) with climate, landforms, soils and vegetation characteristics
which for most practicable purposes may be considered as uniform. A subdivision of a land
system (q.v.).
LAND IMPROVEMENT: an alteration in the qualities of land which improves its potential for land
use (cf. major land improvement, minor land improvement). (F)
LAND MAPPING UNIT: see Land Unit.
LAND SUITABILITY: the fitness of a given type of land for a specified kind of land use. (F)
LAND SUITABILITY CATEGORY: a level within a land suitability classification. Four categories
of land suitability are recognized:
Land suitability order: a grouping of land according to whether it is Suitable or Not Suitable for a
specified kind of use.
Land suitability class: a subdivision of a land suitability order serving to distinguish types of land
which differ in degree of suitability.
Land suitability subclass: a subdivision of a land suitability class serving to distinguish types of
land having the same degree of suitability but differing in the nature of the limitations which
determine the suitability class.
Land suitability unit: a subdivision of a land suitability subclass serving to distinguish types of
land having minor differences in production characteristics or management requirements.
LAND SUITABILITY CLASSIFICATION: an appraisal grouping, or the process of appraisal and

grouping, of specific types of land in terms of their absolute or relative suitability for a specified
kind of use - (F)
LAND SUITABILITY ORDER, CLASS, SUBCLASS, UNIT: categories in land suitability

classification; see definitions in text.
LAND SYSTEM: a land unit (q.v.) with relatively uniform climate and with a repeating pattern of
landforms, soils and vegetation. A land system may be divided into land facets (q.v.).
LAND UNIT: an area of land possessing specified land qualities and land characteristics, which
can be demarcated on a map. Note: in the Framework, this was termed a 'land mapping unit'.
198
LAND USE REQUIREMENT OR LIMITATION: the conditions of land necessary or desirable for
successful and sustained practice of a given land utilization type cf. crop (agronomic),
management, land development, conservation requirements or limitations.
LAND USE SYSTEM: a specified land utilization type practised on a given land unit and
associated with inputs, outputs, and possibly land improvements.
LAND USE TYPE: the same as land utilization type.
LAND UTILIZATION TYPE (LUT): a kind of land use described or defined in a degree of detail
greater than that of a major kind of land use (q.v.). (F) In the context of irrigated agriculture, a
land utilization type refers to a crop, crop combination or cropping system with specified
irrigation and management methods in a defined technical and socio-economic setting.
LEACHING: the process of removal of soluble material by passage of water through soil.
LEACHING REQUIREMENT: the fraction of irrigation water entering the soil that effectively
must flow through and beyond the root zone in order to prevent a build up of salinity due to the
addition of salt in the water. The value is the minimum value to control salts; fraction..
LIMITATION: see LAND USE REQUIREMENT OR LIMITATION. The term limitation is used for
conditions which by their presence adversely affect the land utilization type.
LOCALIZED IRRIGATION: an irrigation system using drip, trickle, spot, minisprinkler and other
techniques that localize the water application.
MAJOR CLIMATE: a broad climatic division, defined in terms of monthly temperatures,

seasonality of rainfall, and temperature regime.
MAJOR KIND OF LAND USE: a major subdivision of rural land use, such as rainfed agriculture,
annual crops, perennial crops, rice cultivation, irrigated agriculture, grassland, forestry,
recreation.
MAJOR LAND IMPROVEMENT: a large non-current input in land improvement which causes a
substantial and reasonably permanent (i.e. lasting in excess of about 10 years) change in the
suitability of the land, and which cannot normally be financed or executed by an individual
farmer or other land user (cf. minor land improvement). (F)
MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS: the land use requirements (q.v.) largely or entirely related to
management of a land utilization type.
MATCHING: this term is employed in two senses, (i) broader and (ii) restricted, (i) The process
of mutual adaptation and adjustment of the descriptions of land utilization types, inputs and land
improvements and the increasingly known conditions of the land to improve suitability, (ii) The
(specific) process of comparing land use requirements and limitations with the land units to
produce factor ratings.
199
MAXIMUM EVAPOTRANSPIRATION RATE OF THE CROP, ETm: the maximum rate of
evapotranspiration from a crop when soil water is not limited, also called the crop water
requirement, and ETcrop.
MILLIEQUIVALENT (me): one thousandth of an equivalent: atomic weight divided by valence/1

000.
Me per 100 g soil = milligrams of a cation divided by its equivalent weight per 100 g soil.
MILLIEQUIVALENT PER LITRE: a milliequivalent of an ion or a compound in one litre of

solution.
MINOR LAND IMPROVEMENT: a land improvement which has relatively small effects on the
suitability of land, or is non-permanent, or which normally lies within the capacity of an individual
farmer or other land user (cf. major land improvement). (F)
MIXED INTERCROPPING: growing two or more crops simultaneously with no distinct row
arrangement.
MULTIPLE LAND UTILIZATION TYPE: a land utilization type consisting of more than one kind
of use or purpose simultaneously undertaken on the same land, each with its own inputs,
requirements and produce or other benefits. (F)
NET FARM INCOME: the combined gross margins (q.v.) from enterprises on a farm, minus the
fixed costs.
NET INCREMENTAL IRRIGATION BENEFIT: a measure of the potential net increase in

productivity of a unit area of land when developed for irrigation. It is expressed in economic
(rather than financial) terms either as a net present value or as an annual equivalent value.
NET IRRIGATION WATER REQUIREMENTS: the depth or volume of water to meet the crop
water requirements minus contributions in the field by precipitation, run-on, groundwater and
stored soil water and plus field losses due to run-off, seepage and percolation.
NET PRESENT VALUE: the present value of benefits minus the present value of costs.
NON-SALINE SODIC SOIL: (same as NON-SALINE ALKALI SOIL). A soil that contains
sufficient exchangeable sodium to interfere with the growth of most crop plants and does not
contain appreciable quantities of soluble salts. In the USDA definition, the exchangeable sodium
percentage is greater than 15 and electrical conductivity of the saturation extract is less than 4
dS/m (at 25°C). The pH reading of the saturated soil paste is usually greater than 8.5.
OPPORTUNITY COST OF CAPITAL: the opportunity cost of using investment resources in a

project, rather than in their next best alternative use, usually expressed in the form of an interest
rate.
OUTPUTS: the products (for rainfed agriculture, crops), services (e.g. water supply, recreational
facilities), or other benefits (e.g. wildlife conservation) resulting from the use of land. Note: in
200
the Framework, this was defined as 'produce'; the distinction between 'produce' and 'products'
has been found confusing, so the term 'outputs' is now substituted (cf. inputs).
PARALLEL APPROACH: a land evaluation methodology in which economic criteria are included
throughout the process of identifying land use requirements, and land suitability classification.
PEAK DEMAND RATE: the maximum volume or depth of water per unit time per unit area,
litres/sec/ha or l/s/ha.
PERCOLATION: the downward flow of water through soil especially in saturated or nearly
saturated soil at hydraulic gradients of one or less.
PERMANENT WILTING POINT: the soil moisture percentage, water content or water potential,
at which plants wilt and fail to recover turgidity. It is usually determined with dwarf sunflowers, or
assumed to be approximately represented by the 15 bar percentage (i.e. 15 atmospheres water
suction, pF 4.2 or a soil water potential of -1.5 MPa).
PERMEABILITY: 1. Qualitative: the quality or state of a porous medium relating to the readiness
with which such a medium conducts or transmits fluids. 2. Quantitative: the specific property
governing the rate or readiness with which a porous medium transmits fluids under standard
conditions. Also see hydraulic conductivity.
PET: potential evapotranspiration q.v. reference crop evapotranspiration.
POROSITY: the fraction of the soil volume not occupied by soil particles i.e. the ratio of the sum
of the volume of the liquid and gas phases to the sum of the volumes of the solid, liquid and gas
phases of soil. I
POTENTIAL LAND SUITABILITY CLASSIFICATION: a land suitability classification based on

the suitability of land for a given use after specified major land improvements (q.v.) have been
completed where specified.
PRECIPITATION: total amount of precipitation (rain, drizzle, snow, hail, fog, condensation, hoar
frost and rime) expressed in depth of water which would cover a horizontal plane if there is no
run-off, infiltration or evapotranspiration; mm/day.
PROJECT: the package of goods and services provided to accomplish specific purposes such
as the provision of irrigation, hydro-electric power, etc.
PROJECT FORMULATION: logical, stepwise incremental project justification analysis by adding

successive separable units to an already justified core project. Each added unit must meet the
specified project justification standard.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: analysis and testing by benefit/cost, net present value or internal
rate of return to determine whether a project meets an acceptable or pre-determined standard of
economic worth.
201
PROVISIONALLY-IRRIGABLE LAND: land classified as suitable for irrigation provided that
water can be supplied to it, in the absence of full knowledge about the water supply or the
project and land development costs.
QUADRUPLE CROPPING: growing four crops a year in sequence.
RATOON CROPPING: re-growth from root or crown of cut back or harvested plant.
RELAY INTERCROPPING: growing two or more crops simultaneously during part of each one's
cycle. A second crop is planted after the first crop has reached maturity.
REFERENCE CROP EVAPOTRANSPIRATION, ET: the rate of evapotranspiration from an

extended 8 to 15 cm tall, green grass cover of uniform height, actively growing, completely
shading the ground and not short of water; mm/day.
RETURN FLOW: drainage water that is returned to the irrigation supply system.
ROW INTERCROPPING: growing two or more crops simultaneously with one or more crops
planted in rows.
RUN-OFF: losses of water from the field by lateral surface flow.
RUN-ON: gains of water by the field lateral surface flow from adjacent land.
SALINE SODIC SOIL: a soil with sufficient exchangeable sodium to interfere with the growth of
most crop plants and containing appreciable quantities of soluble salts. In the USDA definition,
the exchangeable sodium percentage is greater than 15% and the electrical conductivity of the
saturation extract is greater than 4 dS/m (at 25°C). The pH reading of the saturated soil is
usually less than 8.5.
SALINE SOIL: a non-sodic soil containing soluble salts in such quantities that they interfere with
the growth of most plants. In the USDA definition, the electrical conductivity of the saturation
extract is greater than 4 dS/m (at 25°C), and the exchangeable sodium percentage is less than
15. The pH of the soil is usually less than 8.5.
SATURATION EXTRACT: the solution extracted from a soil at its saturation percentage.
SATURATED SOIL PASTE: a particular mixture of soil and water. At saturation the soil paste
glistens as it reflects light, flows slightly when the container is tipped and the paste slides freely
and cleanly from a spatula for all soils except those with a high clay content.
SEEPAGE: losses of water by lateral flow through the bunds of rice fields.
SEQUENTIAL CROPPING: growing two or more crops in sequence on the same field per year.
The succeeding crop is planted after the proceeding one has been harvested (no intercrop
competition).
SODIC SOIL; same as NON-SALINE SODIC SOIL and ALKALI SOIL.
202
SODICITY: used to describe the condition of a sodic (alkali) soil, e.g. in sodicity hazard or
sodicity problem.
SODIUM ADSORPTION RATIO (SAR or R): a ratio for soil extracts and irrigation water used to
express the relative activity of sodium ions in exchange reactions with soil:
where Na, Ca and Mg are expressed in milliequivalents per litre. See FAO 1985 for revised
method of calculating an adjusted SAR (adj. RNa).
SOIL WATER BALANCE (FIELD WATER BALANCE): the sum of all gains and losses of water
over a given period of time; mm/period.
SOIL WATER CONTENT: (same as SOIL MOISTURE CONTENT or PERCENTAGE). 1.

Weight of water lost from soil dried to a constant weight at a standard temperature, as a ratio. 2.
Volume basis: the volume of water from a soil dried to a constant weight at a standard
temperature expressed as a ratio of the soil volume before or after drying. 3. Depth basis: the
equivalent depth of free water per 100 units of depth of soil. Numerically the value approximates
the volume of water per 100 units of volume of soil.
SPATE IRRIGATION: irrigation from storm flows in rivers or wadis.
SPECIAL PURPOSE LAND EVALUATION: a land evaluation in which the potential forms of
land use are limited in number and are closely defined in the objectives of the evaluation (cf.
general purpose land evaluation).
SPRINKLER IRRIGATION: overhead irrigation using a piped water supply to various types of
sprinkler nozzle.
STORED SOIL WATER: depth of water stored in the root zone from earlier precipitation or
irrigation applications.
STRIP INTERCROPPING: growing two or more crops simultaneously in different strips wide
enough to permit independent cultivation but narrow enough for the crop to interact
agronomically.
SUITABILITY ORDER, CLASS, SUBCLASS, UNIT: abbreviations of land suitability order, class,
subclass, unit, see definitions.
SUPPLEMENTARY IRRIGATION: irrigation used to supplement the water requirements of

crops where partially supplied from rain falling direct in farmers' fields.
SURFACE IRRIGATION: irrigation where the water flows over the soil surface to reach its
destination.
203
SUSTAINED USE: continuing use of land without severe or permanent deterioration in the
resources of the land.
TRICKLE IRRIGATION: same as DRIP IRRIGATION. TRIPLE CROPPING: growing three crops
a year in sequence.
TWO STAGE APPROACH: a land evaluation methodology in which a first approximation of land
suitability is made on the basis of physical criteria, and in which economic and social analysis is
carried out as a second stage on the land use alternatives which appear most promising on the
basis of physical evaluation (cf. parallel approach).
VARIABLE COSTS: the farming costs which can be assigned to specific farm enterprises (cf.
fixed costs).
WATERLOGGING: the saturation of soil in the root zone of crops.
WATER TABLE: the upper boundary for groundwater. The upper surface of a locus of points at
which the pressure in the groundwater is equal to atmospheric pressure.
WILTING POINT: see PERMANENT WILTING POINT.
References
Achar H.P. and Dastane N.G. 1971 Percolation losses, effective rainfall, and consumptive use
of irrigated rice in black soils (Vertisols) by drum culture technique. Indian J. Agron. 16(3): 348-
350.
Allison F.E. n.d. Soil organic matter and its role in crop production. Development in Soil Science
3. Amsterdam; Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company.
Arens P.L. and Sivarajasingham S. 1979 Laboratory and field determination of importance for
irrigation. World Soil Resources Report No. 50: 85-90. FAO, Rome.
ASAE. 1980 Irrigation - Challenges of the 80's. Proc. American Society of Agricultural Engineers
Second National Irrigation Symposium. October 1980. 252 p. ASAE Publication 6-81, St.
Joseph, Michigan.
Badouin R. 1979 Economie et aménagement de l'espace rural. Presses Universitaires de

France. 234 p.
Beek K.J. 1980 From soil survey interpretation to land evaluation. In: Land reclamation and
water management - developments, problems and challenges. ILRI Publication No. 27.
Wageningen. 191 p.
Beltran J.M. 1978 Drainage and reclamation of salt-affected soils, Bardenas area, Spain. ILRI
Publication No. 24. Wageningen. 321 p.
Bergmann H. and Boussard J. 1976 Guide to the economic evaluation of irrigation projects.
OECD, Paris. 247 p.
204
Bergmann M. 1979 The economic use of physical land suitability criteria in irrigation projects.
World Soil Resources Report No. 50: 210-214. FAO, Rome.
Bernstein L. 1964 Salt tolerance of plants. USDA Agric. Inf. Bull. 283. 23 p.
Bernstein L. 1965 Salt tolerance of fruit crops. USDA Agric. Inf. Bull. 292. 8 p.
Bhattacharjee J.C. 1979 Land evaluation criteria for India. World Soil Resources Report No. 50:
38-52. FAO, Rome.
Bingham F.T. 1973 Phosphorus. Chapter 23. In: Diagnostic criteria for plants and soils.
Chapman, H.D. (ed) Dept. of Soils and Plant Nutrition, Riverside, California.
Black C.A. (ed.) 1982 Methods of soil analysis. Parts 1 and 2. Agronomy Monograph 9
(Revised). Amer. Soc. Agron. Madison, Wisconsin.
Booher L.J. 1974 Surface irrigation. Agricultural Development Paper No. 95. FAO, Rome.
Booker Agricultural International Ltd. 1979 Sugarcane as an irrigated crop. FAO World Soil
Resources Report No. 50, 103-113.
Bos M.G. and Nugteren J. 1974 On irrigation efficiencies. ILRI Publication 19. Wageningen. 140
p.
Bouwer H. 1978 Groundwater hydrology. McGraw Hill, New York. 480 p.
Boyko H. 1968 Saline irrigation for agriculture and forestry. Unesco Symposium. Junk, The
Hague.
Brown Maxwell L. 1979 Farm budgets: from farm income analysis to agricultural benefit
analysis. World Bank Staff Occasional Paper No. 29. Johns Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore. 136 p.
Brunt J. 1982 Principles and application of the 'double pot' technique for rapid soil testing.
Centre for Soil Research, Bogor, Indonesia. UNDP/FAO, AGOF/INS/78/006 Technical Note 14.
48 p.
Buijs J. 1982 Irrigation requirement of rice, return flows and their effect on the irrigation capacity
of a river. Papers International Symposium on Polders of the World, Lelystad, Netherlands, pp.
653-663 ILRI, Wageningen
Bunting E.S. 1981 Assessments of the effects on yield of variations in climate and soil
characteristics for twenty crop species. Centre for Soil Research. Bogor, Indonesia. UNDP/FAO,
AGOF/INS/78/006 Technical Note No. 12. 58 p.
Carpenter N.R. 1979 Farm management and land use economist requirements for land
evaluation. World Soil Resources Report No. 50: 207- 209 pp. FAO, Rome
205
Carruthers I. 1968 Irrigation development planning aspects of Pakistan experience. Wye
College Dept. of Economics, Ashford, Kent
Carruthers I. and Clark C. 1981 The economics of irrigation. Liverpool University Press.
Liverpool, U.K. 320 p.
Chapman H.D. 1973 Diagnostic criteria for plants and soils. Dept. of Soils and Plant Nutrition,
Riverside, California. 793 p.
Cheong Chup Lim. 1971 Integrated farm water management. Irrigation and Drainage Paper No.
10. FAO, Rome. 29 p.
Chin L.T. and Lee T.S. 1961 Water distribution system and planning for rotational irrigation.
Proc. Far East Reg. Irrigation Seminar, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China. 1-12 May. 369-378
pp.
Chow V.T. (ed.) 1964 Handbook of applied hydrology. McGraw Hill, New York.
Christian C.S. and Stewart G.A. 1968 Methodology of integrated surveys. Unesco Nat. Resour.
Rep. No. 6: 233-280. Unesco, Paris.
Clarke L.J. 1980 Report of land clearing for transmigration in the outer islands of Indonesia.
UNDP/FAO, INS/78/012 Working Paper. 60 p.
Clarke R.T. 1973 Mathematical models in hydrology. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 19.
FAO, Rome. 282 p. (reprinted 1984).
CSIRO. Annual Report 1978/80. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne.
Dastane N.G. 1967 A practical manual for water use research in agriculture. Indian Agricultural
Research Institute, New Delhi. (Navabharat Prakashans, 759 Deccan Gymkhana, Poona 4).
De Datta S.K., Gomez K.A., Herdt R.W. and Barker R. 1978 A handbook on the methodology
for integrated experiment-survey on rice yield constraints. IRRI, Los Baños, Philippines.
Dehan A. 1979 Sprinkler irrigation requirements. World Soil Resources Report No. 50: 95-100.
FAO, Rome.
Dent D. and Young A. 1981 Soil survey and land evaluation. Allen and Unwin, London. 278 p.
Dieleman P.J. 1979 Notes on drainage. World Soil Resources Report No. 50: 95-100.
Dieleman P.J. and Trafford B. 1976 Drainage testing. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No.
28. FAO, Rome. 172 p.
Dieleman P.J. 1980 Drainage design factors. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 38. FAO,
Rome. 52 p.
206
Diltz D.O. 1980 Methodology for quantitative economic land suitability evaluation for agriculture.
Land Resources Survey, Sierra Leone. Technical Report No. 9. 145 p.
Donnan W.W. 1976 An overview of drainage worldwide. Proc. ASAE Third National Drainage
Symposium Chicago, USA. pp. 6-9. Am. Soc. Ag. Eng. St. Joseph, Michigan.
Doorenbos J. 1976 Agro-meteorological field stations. FAO Irrigation and age Paper No. 27.
FAO, Rome. 94 p.
Dumm L.D. 1968 Subsurface drainage by transient flow theory. J. Irrig. and Drainage Div. Proc.
ASCE Dec. 1968. pp. 505-519.
Dunne T. and Leopold L.B. 1978 Water in environmental planning. W.H. Freeman. Oxford, U.K.
818 p.
Early A.C. et al. 1979 Land evaluation criteria for irrigated lowland rice. World Soil Resources
Report No. 50: 114-144. FAO, Rome.
Eavis B.W. and Payne D. 1968 Soil physical conditions and root growth. In: Root Growth, ed.
W.J. Whittington. Proc. 15th Easter School, University of Nottingham. Butterworth.
Eavis B.W., Ratliff L.F. and Taylor H.M. 1969 Use of a dead-load technique to determine axial
root growth pressures. Agron. J. 61: 640-634.
Eavis B.W. 1971 Effects of flooding on sugarcane growth. 2. Benefits during subsequent
drought. Proc. Internat. Soc. Sugar Cane Technologists 14th Congress, pp. 715-721.
Eavis B.W. 1972a Soil physical conditions affecting seedling root growth. 1. Mechanical
impedance, aeration and moisture availability as influenced by bulk density and moisture levels
in a sandy loam soil. Plant and Soil 36: 613-622.
Eavis B.W. 1972b Soil physical conditions affecting seedling root growth. 3. Comparison
between root growth in poorly aerated soil and at different oxygen partial pressures. Plant and
Soil 37: 151-158.
Eavis B.W. and Walker S.H. 1976 Irrigation water requirements. In: S.H. Walker et
al. Development of the water resources of Ball: a master plan. LRDC Project Report No. 20.
Surbiton, Surrey.
Eavis B.W. and Cumberbatch E.R. 1977 Sugarcane growth in response to mulch and fertilizer
on saline-alkali soils. Agron. J. 69: 839-842.
Eavis B.W., Socratous G. and Makin M.J. 1979 Guidelines for computing irrigation water
demand and the reduced crop production in years of water shortage. LRDC Project Report No.
80. Surbiton, Surrey. 80 p.
Eavis B.W. and Walker S.H. 1982 Strategies for water resources development with special
reference to Indonesia and Sri Lanka. Institute of British Geographers Conference Development
Areas Study Group, Cambridge, Nov. 1982. Unpublished.
207
El-Tom O.A. and Ali M.A. 1979 Criteria for irrigated vertisols in the Sudan. World Soil Resources
Report No. 50: 145-159. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 1968a Guidelines for soil description. FAO, Rome. 53 p.
FAO. 1968b Mahaweli Ganga Irrigation and Hydro-power Survey. Report FAO/SF:-
CEY/64/507. (Sri Lanka) FAO, Rome.
FAO. 1970 Physical and chemical methods of soil and water analysis. FAO Soils Bulletin No.
10. FAO, Rome. 275 p.
FAO. 1972a Drainage materials. Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 9. FAO, Rome. 122 p.
FAO. 1972b Sprinkler irrigation. FAO Agricultural Development Paper No. 88. 179 p.
FAO. 1973 Mathematical models in hydrology. R.T. Clarke. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper
No. 19. FAO, Rome. 282 p. (reprinted 1984).
FAO. 1976a A framework for land evaluation. FAO Soils Bulletin No. 32. 72 p. (Also ILRI 1977
Publication 22. 87 p.)
FAO. 1976b Drainage testing. P.J. Dieleman and B. Trafford. Irrigation and Drainage Paper No.
28. FAO, Rome. 172 p.
FAO. 1976c Water quality for agriculture. R.S. Ayers and D.W. Westcot. Irrigation and Drainage
Paper No. 29. FAO, Rome. 97 p. (Revised edition in press).
FAO. 1977a Control of waterlogging and salinity in the areas west of the Noubaria Canal.
Report of the technical project review mission. FAO/AGO/EGY/73/048 K 7687.
FAO. 1977b Crop water requirements. Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 24. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 1978a 1980/81 Report on the agro-ecological zones project. World Soil Resources Report
No. 48/1/2/3/4. FAO, Rome.
FAO. 1978b Water laws in Muslim countries. Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 20/2. 223 p.
FAO. 1979a Land evaluation criteria for irrigation. Report of an Expert Consultation, 27
February-2 March, 1979. World Soil Resources Report No. 50. FAO Rome. 219 p.
FAO. 1979b Soil survey investigations for irrigation. FAO Soils Bulletin No. 42. FAO, Rome. 188
p.
FAO. 1979c Yield response to water. J. Doorenbos and A.H. Kassam. Irrigation and Drainage
Paper No. 33. FAO, Rome. 95 p.
FAO. 1980a Drainage design factors. P.J. Dieleman. Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 38.
FAO, Rome. 52 p.
208
FAO. 1980b Land evaluation guidelines for rainfed agriculture. World Soil Resources Report No.
52. FAO, Rome. 118 p.
FAO. 1980c Land resources for populations of the future. Report on the Second FAO/UNFPA
Consultation. FAO, Rome. 369 p.
FAO. 1980d Maximizing the efficiency of fertilizer use by grain crops. Fertilizer Bulletin No. 3. 30
p.
FAO. 1982a Micronutrients and the nutrient status of soils: a global study. M. Sillanpää. FAO
Soils Bulletin No. 48. 444 p.
FAO. 1982b Organization, operation and maintenance of irrigation schemes. J.A. Sagardoy, A.
Bottrall and G.O. Uittenbogaard. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 40. 166 p.
FAO. 1983 Guidelines for the preparation of irrigation and drainage projects. Revised version.
April 1983. FAO/World Bank Cooperation Programme, FAO, Rome.
FAO. 1984 Guidelines: land evaluation for rainfed agriculture. FAO Soils Bulletin No. 52. FAO
Rome. 335 p.
FAO. 1984 Land evaluation for forestry. Forestry Paper No. 48. FAO Rome. 123p.
FAO/IBRD 1970 Cooperative Programme. Guideline for the preparation of feasibility studies for
irrigation and drainage projects. FAO, Rome. 25 p.
FAO/Unesco. 1973 Irrigation, drainage and salinity - an international source book. Hutchinson,
London.
FAO/UNDP. 1979 Production agro-economics. Annex 8. Reconnaissance Land Resources

Inventory for Agriculture. Philippines Bureau of Soils/FAO/UNDP Soil and Land Resources
Appraisal and Training Project, Agusan River Basin, Mindanao Island, Philippines.
Feinerman E., Knapp K.C. and Letey J. 1984 Salinity and uniformity of water infiltration as
factors in yield and economically optimal water application. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. 48(3): 477-481.
Flinn J.C. 1974 The simulation of crop-irrigation systems. In: Systems Analysis in Agricultural
Management. J.B. Dent and J.R. Anderson. Wiley, New York. 124-151 pp.
Frenkel H., Goertzen J.O. and Rhoades J.R. 1978 Effect of clay type and content,
exchangeable sodium percentage and electrolyte concentration on clay dispersion and soil
hydraulic conductivity. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 43:32-39.
Gil N. 1979 Watershed development with special reference to soil and water conservation. FAO
Soils Bulletin No. 44. 257 p.
Gittinger J.P. 1982 Economic analysis of agricultural projects. 2nd ed. (For IBRD) Johns
Hopkins, University Press, Baltimore.
209
Gomez K.A. and Gomez A.A. 1976 Statistical procedures for agricultural research with
emphasis on rice. IRRI, Los Baños, Philippines. 264 p.
Grant E.L. and Ireson W.G. 1974 Principles of engineering economy. Stanford University Press,
Palo Alto, CA. (Rev. ed) 640 p.
Greenwood D.J. 1968 Effect of oxygen distribution in the soil on plant growth. In: Root Growth,
ed. W.J. Whittington. Proc. 15th Easter School, University of Nottingham, pp. 202-223,
Butterworth.
Gupta S.N. and Bhattacharya A.P. 1969 Water management of rice. Proc. 36th Annual Meeting
Central Board of Irrigation and Power (India). In: Symposium on Optimum Requirements and
Utilization of Water for Irrigated Crops, pp. 5-14.
Hagan R.M., Haise H.R. and Edminster T.W. 1967 Irrigation of agricultural lands. Am. Soc.
Agron. Series Agron. No. 11. Madison, Wisconsin.
Hall J.M. 1982 The geography of planning decisions. Oxford University Press. 62 p.
Hamdi Y.A. 1982 Application of nitrogen-fixing systems in soil management. FAO Soils Bulletin
No. 49. FAO, Rome. 188 p.
Hansen V.E., Israelson O.W. and Stringham G.E. 1980 Irrigation principles and practices. 4th
Edition. Wiley. 430 p.
Hazlewood A. and Livingstone I. 1978 Complementarity and competitiveness of large and small
irrigated farming: a Tanzanian example. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics.
Hesse P.R. 1971 A Textbook of Soil Chemical Analysis. John Murray, London. 520 p.
Hiler B.A. 1976 Drainage requirements of crops. Proc. 3rd National Drainage Symp. Chicago.
Am. Soc. Ag. Eng.
Higgins G.M. and Kassam A.H. 1981 Regional assessments of land potential: A follow-up to the
FAO/Unesco Soil Map of the World. Nature and Resources XVII(4): 11-23. Unesco, Paris.
Hoffman G.J. 1980 Irrigation management and salinity control. In: Irrigation - Challenge of the
80s. 166-174 pp. Proc. ASAE Second National Irrigation Symposium, October 1980. St. Joseph,
Michigan.
Hoffman G.J. and van Genuchten M. Th. Efficient water management for salinity control. ASA
Monograph (in Press).
Holm L.G., Plucknett Q.L., Pancho J.V. and Herberger J.P. 1977 The world's worst weeds:
distribution and biology. Honolulu: Univ. Press of Hawaii. 609 p.
Horning H.M. 1979 Irrigation and drainage (concepts and problems). World Soil Resources
Report No. 50: 9-13.
210
Howell T.A., Bucks D.A. and Chesness J.L. 1980 Advances in trickle irrigation. In: Irrigation -
Challenges of the 80s. Proc. ASAE Second National Irrigation Symposium. St. Joseph,
Michigan.
International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage. 1973 Irrigated cotton. A worldwide survey.
ICID, Central Office, 48 Nyaya Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi 110021, India.
ILRI. 1974 Drainage principles and applications. 4 Volumes. Edited from lecture notes of the
International Course on Land Drainage. International Institute for Land Reclamation and
Improvement, P.O. Box 45, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
ILRI. 1980 Land reclamation and water management - developments, problems and challenges.
ILRI Publication No. 27. Wageningen. 190 p.
IRRI. (undated) Nitrogen and rice. Los Baños, Philippines. 825 p. IRRI. (undated) Climate and
rice. Los Baños, Philippines. 565 p.
IRRI. 1974 Irrigation water management. IRRI Annual Report, 1974. pp. 236-251. Los Baños,
Philippines
IRRI. 1975a Changes in rice farming in selected areas of Asia. IRRI Los Baños, Philippines. 377
p.
IRRI. 1975b Improved rice varieties needed for world's deep water regions. IRRI Reporter 3/75.
Los Baños, Philippines.
IRRI. 1975c Irrigation and water management. Annual Report, 1975. pp. 250-266.
Istituto Sperimentale per la Nutrizione delle Piante. 1982 Guida pratica per il rilevamento delle
caratteristiche pedoagronomiche dei terreni. Elementi di agroclimatologia e valutazione della
produttivita ambientale. ISNP, Rome.
Jacovides P. 1982 Supporting report: Hydrology. Southern Conveyor Project, Cyprus, 1981.
Water Development Dept. Cyprus and LRDC/ODA, London.
James B.W., Hanks R.J., Jurinar J.J. 1982 Modern irrigated soils. Wiley. 235 p.
Jassim H.F. 1982 Principles of regional soil survey, land evaluation and land use planning in
Iraq. D.Sc. Thesis, University of Ghent.
Katyal J.C. and Ponnamperuma P.O. 1974 Zinc deficiency: a widespread nutritional disorder of
rices in Agusan Del Norte, Philippines. Agric. 58 (3 and 4). pp 79-89.
Kheong Y.F. Contribution towards the development of a land cultivation 1982 system for Hevea
brasiliensis cultivation in peninsular Malaysia. D.Sc. Thesis, University of Ghent.
Kraatz D.B. 1971 Irrigation canal lining. Irrigation and Paper No. 2. Reissued as No. 1 Land and
Water Development Series, 1977. FAO Rome.
211
Lambrecht P.C. 1882 Crop-economic considerations. Centre for Soil Research, Indonesia
UNDP/FAO/AGOF/INS/78/006 Technical Note No. 25. 99 p.
Landon J.R. (ed). 1984 Booker Tropical Soil Manual. Longman, London. 450 p.
Lindsay W.L. and Norvell W.A. 1978 Development of a DTPA soil test for zinc, iron, manganese
and copper. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 42(3): 421-428.
Linsley R.K. and Franzini J.B. 1979 Water resources engineering. McGraw Hill, New York. 688
p.
Linsley R.K., Kohler M.A. and Paulhus L.H. 1982 Hydrology for engineers. 3rd ed. McGraw Hill,
New York. 512 p.
Livingstone I. and Hazlewood A. 1974 The analysis of risk in irrigation projects in developing
countries. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 41(1): 21-35.
Loveday J. (ed.) 1974 Methods for analysis of irrigated soils. Commonwealth Agricultural
Bureau. Soils Tech. Commun. 54.
Lucas R.E. and Davis J.F. 1961 Relationships between pH values of organic soils and
availability of 12 plant nutrients. Soil Sci. 92: 177-182. Michigan State University.
Luthin H.J. (ed.) 1957 Drainage of agricultural lands. Am. Soc. Agron. Monograph No. 7.
Madison. 611 p.
Maas E.V. and Hoffmann G.J. 1977 Crop salt-tolerance - current assessment. J. Irrig. and
Drainage Div. ASCE 103: 115-132.
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1974 Irrigation. Min. Agr. Bulletin 138, HMSO.
London. 141 p.
Maletic J.T. 1979 Principles involved in selecting lands for irrigation. Bureau of Reclamation US
Dept. of Interior, Denver, Colorado.
Maletic J.T. 1970 Land classification principles. Principles Lecture. August 1970. Soil Scientist
Training Institute, USBR (unpublished) 29 p.
Marr J.C. 1957 Grading for surface irrigation. State College of Washington, Extension Bulletin
526. 55 p.
Marr J.C. 1967 Furrow irrigation. University of California, Agricultural Extension Service. Manual
37. Univ. of California.
McMartin W. 1950 The economics of land classification for irrigation. The American Farm
Economic Assoc. Vol. XXXII (4): 553-570.
McRae S.G. and Burnham C.P. 1981 Land evaluation. Monographs on soil survey. Clarendon
Press, Oxford. 239 p.
212
Michael A.M. 1978 Irrigation: theory and practice. Water Technology Centre, IARI, New Delhi.
Vikas Publishing House, New Delhi.
Monteith J.L. 1972 Solar radiation and productivity in tropical agriculture. J. of Applied Ecology
9(3).
Moody K. 1981 Major weeds of rice in South and Southeast Asia. IRRI, Los Baños, Philippines.
79p.
Mousli O.F. 1979 Methods of evaluation and classification of gypsiferous soils, and the
suitability of these soils for irrigated agriculture. World Soil Resources Report No. 50: 160-183.
FAO, Rome.
Mustafa M.A. 1973 Appraisal of the water quality of the Blue and White Niles for irrigation use.
African Soils XVIII(2): 113-124.
Nachtergaele F.O.F. 1976 Studies of some saline and sodic soils in Sudan. Soil Survey
Administration, Tech. Bull. 24. FAO/UNDP Project, Wad Medani. 91 p.
Panabokke C.R. and Walgama, A. 1974 The application of rainfall confidence limits to crop
water requirements in dry zone agriculture in Sri Lanka. J. of National Science Council, Sri
Lanka. Vol. 2. pp. 95-113.
Pearson G.A. 1960 Tolerance of crops to exchangeable sodium. USDA Agric. Inf. Bull. No. 216,
4 p.
Pearson R.W. 1974 In: The plant root and its environment. (E.W. Carson, ed.) Univ. of Virginia
Press, Charlottesville, Virginia, pp. 247-270.
Peters W.B. 1979 Views on land selection for water and land development. World Soil
Resources Report No. 50: 185-199.
Ponnamperuma F.N. 1965 Dynamic aspects of flooded soils and the nutrition of the rice plant.
IRRI Symposium on Mineral Nutrition of the Rice Plant. IRRI, February 1964. Johns Hopkins
Press, Baltimore, Maryland, pp. 295-328.
Ponnamperuma F.N. 1972 The chemistry of submerged soils. Adv. Agron. 24: 29-96.
Ponnamperuma F.N. 1976 Specific soil chemical characteristics for rice production in Asia. IRRI
Research Paper Series No. 2. Los Baños, Philippines. 18 p.
Ponnamperuma F.N., Attanandana T. and Beye G. 1973 Amelioration of three acid sulphate
soils for lowland rice. In Proc. International Symposium on Acid Sulphate Soils, 13-20 August
1972. ILRI Publ. 18(2): 390-406. Wageningen.
Purnell M.F. 1979 The FAO approach to land evaluation and its application to land classification
for irrigation. World Soil Resources Report No. 50: 4-8.
213
Radcliffe D. 1979 Land evaluation for padi rice. In Land and Water Technical Newsletter. Dec.
1979. FAO, Rome.
Rafiq M. 1979 Criteria for land evaluation for irrigation in Pakistan. World Soil Resources Report
No. 50: 53-59.
Replogle J.A. and Merriam J.L. 1980 Scheduling and management of irrigation water delivery
systems. In: Irrigation - Challenges of the 80s. Proc. ASAE Second National Irrigation
Symposium. St. Joseph, Michigan.
Republic of Cyprus. Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources. 1982 Southern Conveyor
Project Feasibility Study. 19 Volumes.
Resler L.L. 1979 Irrigation suitability land classification: its application to land and water
resources planning. World Soil Resources Report No. 50: 21-37.
Rijks D.A. 1976 Water use by irrigated cotton in the Sudan. Water use, potential evaporation
and yield. J. Applied Ecology 13(2): 491-506.
Rhoades J.D. and van Schilfgaarde J. 1976 An electrical conductivity probe for determining soil
salinity. SSSA Journal 40: 647-651.
Robertson C.A. and Eavis B.W. 1983 Summary Report, North-west Land and Water Resources
Development Project, Sri Lanka. Published by Land Resources Development Centre, UK, for
Ministry of Lands and Land Development, Sri Lanka.
Russell E.W. 1973 Soil conditions and plant growth. 10th Edition. Longman, London.
Rydzewski J.R. 1968 Irrigation development in Africa south of the Sahara. Potential and
possibilities 1965-85. FAO Indicative World Plan for Agriculture Development. FAO, Rome.
Rydzewski J.R. (ed.) 1968 Irrigation development planning. Southampton University, U.K.
Seldon T.H. and Walker L.D. 1968 Economic evaluation and selection of lands for irrigation.
USBR Pa Mong and Mun-Chi-Yang Projects Investigation Team, Thailand. Paper presented at
Soil Survey Seminar. 28 p. USBR, Bangkok.
Sen L.N. and Wickham T. 1977 Determination of effective rainfall for lowland rice. IRRI
Saturday Seminar, 30 April 1977. Los Banos, Philippines.
Sewell W.R.D., Davis J. and Scott A.D. 1965 Guide to benefit cost analysis. Queen's Printer,
Ottawa, Canada. 49 p.
Sheng T.C. 1977 Protection of cultivated slopes: Terracing steep slopes in humid regions. FAO
Conservation Guide No. 1: 147-180.
Sillanpää M. 1982 Micronutrients and the nutrient status of soils: a global study. FAO Soils
Bulletin No. 48. 444 p.
214
Singh V.P., Corpuz I.T. and Wickham T. 1976 Improving the productivity of exposed subsoils in
Talavera, Nueva Ecija. IRRI Saturday Seminar, 4 September 1976. Los Baños, Philippines.
Smyth A.J., Eavis B.W. and Williams J.B. 1979 Diagnostic criteria for evaluating land for
irrigation. World Soil Resources Report No. 50: 14-20.
Stanhill G. 1973 Simplified agroclimatic procedures for assessing the effect of water supply.
Unesco Proceedings, Uppsala Symposium, 1970.
Stern R. and Coe R. 1982 The use of rainfall models in agricultural planning. Agri. Meteor 26(1):
35-50.
Stewart-Jones W. 1976 The use of ferrous sulphate for treatment of chlorosis in sorghum in
Saudi Arabia. UCNW/Saudi Publication No. 98.
Stewart-Jones W. and Kelso I. 1979 Research to develop techniques for identifying soils in
which lime-induced chlorosis can be cured by ferrous sulphate application. Univ. College of
Wales, Bangor, Project R3321.
Stutler R.K., James D.W., Fullerton T.M., Wells R.F. and Snipe E.R. 1981 Corn yield functions
of irrigation and nitrogen in Central America. Irrig. Sci. 2. pp. 70-88.
Sys C. 1979 Evaluation of the physical environment for irrigation in terms of land characteristics
and land qualities. World Soil Resources Report No. 50: 60-76.
Szeicz G. 1974 Solar radiation for plant growth. J. Applied Ecology II(2): 617-636.
Taylor J.A. 1969 The role of water in agriculture. Pergamon, Oxford.
Thomas P., Varley J.A. and Robinson J.E. 1979s The sulphidic and associated soils of the
Gambia estuary above the proposed barrage at Yelitenda. The Gambia LRDC Project Report
89. 95 p.
Todd D.K. 1959 Groundwater hydrology. Wiley, New York.
Truog E. 1948 Lime in relation to availability of plant nutrients. Soil Sci. 65: 1-7.
Ulrich A. and Ohki K. 1973 Potassium. Chapter 24. In: Diagnostic criteria for plants and soils.
Chapman, H.D. (ed.). Dept. of Soils and Plant Nutrition, Riverside, California.
Unesco/IASH/WHO. 1969 Floods and their computation. Proceedings of the Leningrad

Symposium. August 1967. 2 Vols. 985 p.
Unesco. 1969 Water in the unsaturated zone. Proceedings of the Wageningen Symposium, (set
of 2 volumes) Unesco, Paris. 995 p.
Unesco. Groundwater studies. An international guide for research and practice (various
supplements). Unesco, Paris.
215
USBR. 1951 Bureau of Reclamation Manual. Vol. V. Irrigated land use. Part 2. Land
classification. Bureau of Reclamation, Dept. of Interior, Denver Federal Center, Denver, Col.
80225, USA.
USBR. 1967 Instructions for the conduct of feasibility grade land classification surveys of the
Lam Nam Oon Project - Thailand. Office of Chief Engineer, Denver, Colorado, USA.
USBR. 1978 Drainage Manual. US Dept. of Interior. Bureau of Reclamation. Denver, Colorado.
USBR. 1981 Loan application guidelines. Small reclamation projects act (Public Law 84-948).
US Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado. 217 p.
USBR. 1982 Reclamation instructions. Series 110 Planning Part 115 Land Resources
Investigations. US Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. (Rev.) 72 p.
USDA. 1964 Soil Conservation Service. National Engineering Handbook: Section 15, Irrigation.
Chapter 12. Land levelling. USDA, Washington D.C.
USDA/ARS. 1960 Use of brackish water for irrigation in humid regions. Ag. Info. Bull. No. 213. 5
p.
USDA/ARS. 1962 Determining consumptive use and irrigation water requirements. Technical
Bulletin No. 276. 56 p.
US Government Water Resources Council. 1979 Principles and standards for planning water
and related land resources. Published in Federal Register Dec. 14, 1979. 13 p.
US Government Water Resources Council. 1979 Procedures for evaluation of national

economic development benefits and costs in water resources planning. Published in Federal
Register Dec. 14, 1979. 85 p.
US Salinity Laboratory Staff. 1954 Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils.
Agriculture Handbook No. 60, US Govt. Printing Office, Washington.
US Salinity Laboratory Staff. Salinity management in agriculture. (Given in Irrigation Challenges

of the 80s as in preparation in 1981).
USWPRS. 1980 Irrigation water use and management. US Water and Power Resources
Service. [USBR] Denver, Colorado.
US Water Resources Council. 1970 Principles for planning water and land resources. Report by
the special task force. W.R.C. Washington D.C. 25 p.
US Water Resources Council. 1970 Standards for planning water and land resources. Report by
the special task force. W.R.C. Washington D.C.
Van de Goor G.A.W. and Zijistra G. 1968 Irrigation requirements for double cropping of lowland
rice in Malaya. ILRI Publication 14. Wageningen.
216
Vink A.P.A. 1963 Planning of soil surveys in land development. Veenman en Zonen,
Wageningen.
Vink A.P.A. 1970 Report to the Government of Iraq on soils, land reclamation and pilot projects
based on the work of A.P.A. Vink. FAO/UNDP No. TA 2760. 38 p. FAO, Rome.
Walker S.H. and Rushton K.R. 1984 Verification of lateral percolation losses from irrigated rice
fields by a numerical model. J. Hydrology 71: 335-351.
Warnaars B.C. and Eavis B.W. 1972 Soil physical conditions affecting seedling root growth. 2.
Mechanical impedance, aeration and moisture availability as influenced by grain size distribution
and moisture content in silica sands. Plant and Soil 36: 623-634.
Water Development Department, Cyprus, and Land Resources Development Centre. 1982
Southern Conveyor Project Feasibility Study. WDD, Nicosia, and LRDC, Surbiton, Surrey.
Webster P.W.D. and Eavis B.W. 1972 Effects of flooding on sugarcane growth. 1. Stage of
growth and duration of flooding. Proc. Internal. Soc. Sugarcane Technologists, 14th Congress,
pp. 708-714.
Westcot D.W. 1979 Evaluation of water quality for irrigation development. World Soils
Resources Report No. 50: 77-84. FAO, Rome.
Wickham T., Valera A. and Pal Singh U. 1977 Practices and accountability for better water
management. National Workshop on Land Consolidation, Thailand, July 1977.
Wilcox L.V. 1960 Boron injury to plants. USDA Bull. 211. 7 p.
Winger R. 1965 In-place permeability tests used for subsurface drainage investigation.
Mimeograph. Division of Drainage and Groundwater Engineering, Office of Chief Eng., USBR,
Denver, Colorado.
Worthington E.B. 1977 Arid land irrigation in developing countries: environmental problems and
effects. Pergamon Press Int. Symp. 16-21 February 1976, Alexandria, Egypt.
Yahia H.M. 1982 Soils and soil conditions in sediments of the Ramadi Province, Iraq. Their
genesis, salinity, improvement and use potential. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Amsterdam, The
Netherlands.
Yang W.Y. 1965 Methods of farm management investigations. FAO Agricultural Development
Paper No. 80. (Rev.) FAO Rome. 285 p.
Yoshida T. and Anacajas R.R. 1971 Nitrogen fixing activity in upland and flooded rice fields. Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 37(1): 42-46.
Young R.A. 1980 The need for irrigation: an economist's view. In: Irrigation - Challenges of in
the 80s. Proc. ASAE Second National Irrigation Symposium, pp. 22-28. St. Joseph, Michigan.
FAO soils bulletins

217
1. Soils of the arid zones of Chile, 1965 (E**)
2. Survey of soil laboratories in 64 FAO member countries, 1965 (E**)
3. Guide on general and specialized equipment for soil laboratories, 1966 (E**)
4. Guide to 60 soil and water conservation practices, 1966 (E**)
5. Selection of soil for cocoa, 1966 (C* E** F** S**)
6. Aerial photo interpretation in soil survey, 1967 (E* F* S**)
7. A practical manual of soil microbiology laboratory methods, 1967 (E* *)
8. Soil survey interpretation and its use, 1967 (E*)
9. The preparation of soil survey reports, 1970 (E** F** S**)
10. Physical and chemical methods of soil and water analysis, 1970 (E* F* S*)
11. Soil fertility investigations on farmers' fields, 1970 (E* F* S*)
12. A study on the response of wheat to fertilizers, 1971 (E*)
13. Land degradation, 1971 (C* E*)
14. Improving soil fertility in Africa, 1971 (E* F*)
15. Legislative principles of soil conservation, 1971 (E**)
16. Effects of intensive fertilizer use on the human environment, 1972 (E*)
17. Trace elements in soils and agriculture, 1972 (E* F* S*)
18. Guide to the calibration of soil tests for fertilizer recommendations, 1973 (E* F* S*)
19. Soil survey interpretation for engineering purposes, 1973 (E* F* S*)
20. Fertilizer legislation, 1973 (E* S*)
21. Calcareous soils, 1973 (E * F*)
22. Approaches to land classification, 1974 (E**)
23. Management properties of ferralsols, 1974 (E*)
24. Shifting cultivation and soil conservation in Africa, 1974 (E* F* S*)
218
25. Sandy soils, 1975 (E*)
26. Planning and organization of fertilizer development in Africa, 1975 (E**)
27. Organic materials as fertilizers, 1975 (E* F* S*)
28. S.I. units and nomenclature in soil science, 1975 (E*)
29. Land evaluation in Europe, 1976 (E**)
30. Soil conservation in developing countries, 1976 (E* F* S*)
31. Prognosis of salinity and alkalinity, 1976 (E*)
32. A framework for land evaluation, 1976 (C* E* F* S*)
33. Soil conservation and management in developing countries, 1977 (E* F***)
34. Assessing soil degradation, 1977 (C* E*)
35. Organic materials and soil productivity, 1978 (C* E*)
36. Organic recycling in Asia, 1978 (C* E**)
37. Improved use of plant nutrients, 1978 (C* E*)
38/1. Soil and plant testing and analysis, 1980 (E*)
38/2. Soil and plant testing as a basis of fertilizer recommendations, 1980 (E* S*)
39. Guidelines for prognosis and monitoring of salinity and sodicity, 1978 (E*** F*** S***)
40. China: recycling of organic wastes in agriculture, 1978 (E* F* S*)
41. China: azolla propagation and small-scale biogas technology, 1979 (E* F* S*)
42. Soil survey investigations for irrigation, 1979 (C* E*)
43. Organic recycling in Africa, 1980 (E*)
44. Watershed development with special reference to soil and water conservation, 1979 (C* E*
F*** S***)
45. Organic materials and soil productivity in the Near East, 1982 (E* with Arabic summary)
46. Blue-green algae for rice production - a manual for its promotion, 1981 (E*)
47. Le recyclage des résidus agricoles organiques en Afrique, 1982 (F*)
219
48. Micronutrients and the nutrient status of soils: a global study, 1982 (E*)
49. Application of nitrogen-fixing systems in soil management, 1982 (E* F*** S***)
50. Keeping the land alive: soil erosion - its causes and cures, 1983 (E* F* S*)
51. El reciclaje de materias orgánicas en la agricultura de América Latina, 1983 (S*)
52. Guidelines for land evaluation for rainfed agriculture, 1983 (E* F*** S***)
53. Improved production system as an alternative to shifting cultivation, 1984 (E* F*** S***)
54. Tillage systems for soil and water conservation, 1984 (E*)
55. Guidelines: land evaluation for irrigated agriculture, 1985 (E*)
Availability: April 1985
C - Chinese
E - English
F - French
S - Spanish
* Available
** Out of print
*** In preparation
FAO Soils Bulletins are available through the authorized FAO Sales Agents or directly from
Distribution and Sales Section, FAO, Via delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy.
M-50
ISBN 92-5-102243-7
220

FAO 1985 Guidelines For Irrigatin Agriculture

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FAO 1985 Guidelines For Irrigatin Agriculture

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FAO 1985 Guidelines For Irrigatin Agriculture

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guidelines: Land evaluation for irrigated agriculture - FAO

Soils Resources, Management and Conservation Service

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Part one - Procedures for evaluating land for irrigated agriculture

2. Evaluating and classifying land for irrigated agriculture

2.1 Basic principles

2.3.1 Need for preliminary studies

2.4 Land productivity index and economic measures of suitability

3. A step-by-step guide to the procedures

3.1 List of main steps

4.1 Deciding and describing the land utilization types to evaluate

4.1.1 Examples of irrigated LUTs

4.2 Developing the land suitability class specifications

4.2.1 Steps in developing the land suitability class specifications

5.1 General characterization of the project area

5.9.1 Social and economic considerations

6. Assigning the land suitability classes by matching

6.1 Determining the factor ratings

7. Economic evaluation of land suitability for irrigation

7.4 Final selection of LUTs for the 'irrigable' land

8. Presentation of the results

8.1 Reconnaissance level studies

8.2.1 Form of report

9. The role of land evaluation in project appraisal and implementation

9.1 Feasibility appraisal

A.1 Growing cycle and growing period

A.1.1 Critical limits of growing period

A.6.1 The significance of water quantity as a class-determining factor

A.7 Nutrients (NPK)

A.8 Water quality

A.11.1 pH, micronutrient deficiencies and toxicities on non-rice cropland

A.12 Pests, diseases and weeds

C. Land development and land improvements

C.19 Land clearing

C.19.1 Forested areas

C.20 Flood protection

C.23.1 Physical aids to reclamation such aids include:

C.24 Reclamation leaching

D. Conservation and the environment

D.27 Long-term prevention of salinity and sodicity hazards

E.31 Farmers' attitudes to irrigation

Appendix 1 - The structure of the FAO framework classification

Appendix 2 - Discounted present value 1/

FAO soils bulletins

Table 1 STRUCTURE OF THE SUITABILITY CLASSIFICATION

ORDER CATEGORIES CLASS SUBCLASS

1.2 From project identification to project implementation

Currently, the rehabilitation of existing irrigation projects is an important aspect of land

Table 2 LEVELS OF INTENSITY OF INVESTIGATIONS

LEVELS TYPES OF STUDY TYPES OF SURVEY

Table 3 SURVEY INTENSITY, MAPPING SCALE AND KIND OF MAPS

KIND OF SURVEY RANGE OF

1.4 Planning a land evaluation investigation

2. Evaluating and classifying land for irrigated agriculture

2.1 Basic principles

2.1 Basic principles

x. Finally, as emphasized in Chapter 1, land evaluation is an iterative process leading to

Simplified examples of land utilization types (LUTs)

LUT A: Sprinkler irrigated maize on State farms;