Advertisement

Applied Water Science

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 569–580 | Cite as

An overview of impact of subsurface drainage project studies on salinity management in developing countries

  • Priyanka TiwariEmail author
  • Arun Goel
Open Access
Review Article

Abstract

Subsurface drainage has been used for more than a century to keep water table at a desired level of salinity and waterlogging control. This paper has been focused on the impact assessment of pilot studies in India and some other countries from 1969 to 2014 . This review article may prove quite useful in deciding the installation of subsurface drainage project depending on main design parameters, such as drain depth and drain spacing, installation area and type of used outlet. A number of pilot studies have been taken up in past to solve the problems of soil salinity and waterlogging in India. The general guidelines that arise on the behalf of this review paper are to adapt drain depth >1.2 m and spacing depending on soil texture classification, i.e., 100–150 m for light-textured soils, 50–100 m for medium-textured soils and 30–50 m heavy-textured soils, for better result obtained from the problem areas in Indian soil and climatic conditions. An attempt has been made in the manner of literature survey to highlight the salient features of these studies, and it is hopeful to go a long way in selecting design parameters for subsurface drainage problems in the future with similar soil, water table and climatic conditions.

Keywords

Subsurface drainage Salinity Waterlogging and groundwater table 

Introduction

Land and water are two basic natural resources. Due to rapid population growth and fast industrialization, these resources are facing immense pressure and are depleting day by day. According to the FAO land and plant nutrition management service (1994), over 6 % of the world’s land is affected by either salinity or sodicity. Much of the world’s land is not cultivated; however, a significant proportion of cultivated land is salt-affected, and of the current 230 million ha of irrigated land, 45 million ha is salt-affected (19.5 %), and of the 1500 million ha under dry land agriculture, 32 million ha is salt-affected to varying degrees, i.e., 2.1 % (Hefny et al. 2013). World’s large irrigated regions with serious salinity problems are Yellow River Plain in China, San Joaquin Valley in California, KaraKum Canal project in Turkmenistan, Indus Plain in Pakistan, Tigris–Euphrates Plain in Iraq, Murray–Murrumbidgee Area in Australia and lower Nile Valley in Egypt, which need a serious attention of researchers (Ghassemi et al. 1995).

Subsurface drainage is considered as a most suitable approach for groundwater balance and land and water management practices containing the groundwater table at a suitable level (Luthin 1978; Gates and Grismer 1989). Agricultural subsurface drainage is a process of removal of excess groundwater from the crop root zone system which promotes safe environment for efficient crop growth and for better health in rural and urban areas. Subsurface drainage lowers the high water tables, and the main causes of the rise in water table are precipitation, excess irrigation, leaching water, seeps from higher land or irrigation canal and ditches and groundwater under artesian pressure. This technique has gained international acceptance. Subsurface agricultural drainage provides agronomical and environmental benefits in terms of improved crop yield, improved soil trafficability, field operations and reduction in sediment and phosphorus losses from agricultural fields (Kornecki et al. 2001).

Subsurface drainage has been found to be the only solution for providing land reclamation on a long-term basis when salts are present in the soil and groundwater. Subsurface drainage has been provided in 75–80 % of irrigated area in Egypt and 25–30 % irrigated area in western USA Goel and Tiwari (2013). Comprehensive reclamation programs involving provision of subsurface drainage in irrigated areas have been embarked in a big way in Pakistan over the past 50 years, while these started much earlier in India during late 1920s (Thatte and Kulkarni 2000), and FAO (1999) reported that India has 2.5 million ha waterlogged land and 3.1 million ha salinity-affected area, while this hazard on the state level in India is extended, i.e., Uttar Pradesh has salinity-affected area over 1 million hectares, 1 million hectares in Gujarat, 0.5 million ha in Punjab, 0.2 million ha in Haryana and a smaller area in Rajasthan, and significant less proportionate area in Tamil Nadu in the south is also affected. At the time of nineties, subsurface drainage installed <10 % of the total irrigated area Zimmer et al. (2002). But currently <0.02 % irrigated area in India is provided with subsurface drainage Tiwari (2011), and Maharashtra state has minimum salt-affected area to the extent of 0.6 M ha (Sethi et al. 2010).Still India is facing varying degree of salinity problems such as saline soil, costal saline and alkalinity (Patel et al. 2002; Mandal and Sharma 2011).

Some past review papers and past remarkable studies on subsurface drainage and salinity management were discussed in this session. The purpose of this literature survey is that the findings and recommendations of these studies would be useful to take as guidelines to plan a new subsurface drainage system in an efficient, effective, economic and ecofriendly manner for future in India and other countries.

Gupta (2002, 2003) has summarized past 100-year Indian efforts to control salinity and waterlogging problems, which were conducted under the supervision of Central Soil Salinity Research Institute (CSSRI) from 1972 to 2002. He has covered several pre- and post-independence pilot studies and their salient findings from 1873 to 1975. He has provided general drainage design guidelines and operationalizes the subsurface drainage system for Indian conditions.

Kaledhonkar et al. (2009) have summarized preliminary studies conducted in India from 1980 to 2008. He has been enlightening on the 18 Haryana, 3 Gujarat, 2 Maharashtra, 2 Andhra Pradesh, 1 Karnataka and 1 Rajasthan pilot studies of their saline areas in the listed states, and he made efforts to focus the subsurface drainage operational and subsurface drainage effluent management problems. They discussed the drainage design parameters, crop production, cropping intensity and cost investment for the subsurface drainage installations but did not considered the maintenance of SSD.

Several researchers have suggested different strategies for salinity management in developing countries from 1969 to 2014. Special issues in SSD are discussed/highlighted, and specific methodologies for design of SSD are summarized in this paper. In the end, some of the general guidelines have been proposed which can be kept in mind while designing any SSD project in future.

Subsurface drainage pilot or project studies

India

The requirement of salinity management was firstly reported by Punjab Govt. in 1865 to Governor General. Mr. Robertson and started India’s first drainage project in 1873 to reclaim the land from waterlogging, and people cure from malaria disease. History of northwest India’s salinity has to reclaim through subsurface drainage installation and keep functioning it till achieving the aim of installation (Hanumanthaiah and Satyanarayana 2003). But they always worried about drain discharge disposal. Till few years ago, the drain discharge was disposed in canals. And also they tried to reuse the saline drain water in crop production, but the problem in those days was the pumping out of large quantity of drain discharge. So nowadays, the drainage installation is costly and seen more problematic in disposal point of view. A number of pilot scales subsurface drainage projects undertaken by CSSRI Karnal (Haryana), India, during 1980s have slowly paved the way for communication of large-scale mechanically installed drainage projects in Haryana, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Punjab, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Karnataka. India is divided into ten climatic zones which played very important role in SSD installation because any region is more affected by their weather conditions. On the basis of the climatic zones, experimental sites are through the India map (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1

Climatic zone wise distribution of SSD studies in India

About 35,000 ha waterlogged saline soils have been reclaimed in these states with significant improvement in crop intensity, yield, land value and farmers income. India’s major pilot studies literature survey has been discussed in Table 1. Here we are discussing the important factor of the drainage design criteria with their major outcomes. The following table (Table 1) have described about India’s 56 successful pilot studies with their study area, installation year, operational duration, necessary drainage design parameters and their major conclusions.
Table 1

Pilot studies on subsurface drainage in India

S.no.

References

Study area description for SSD Installation

Drainage design parameters

Major conclusion

Place and area (ha)

Year of installation

Drain depth (m)

Drain spacing (m)

Type of drain

Type of outlet and envelope material

 

Andhra Pradesh

1

Channabasiah (1972)

Siruguppa

1972

1.2

12

Open drain

Gravity

Significant increase in crop yield is observed

2

Devadattam and Chandra (1995)

Machilipatnam

1995

Tile drain

Increased rice crop yield

3

Joint completion report on IDNP (2007)

Nagarjuna Sagar Right Command and Krishna Western Delta

1

1.0–1.2

60

75

Pipe drain

Open drain

Pumped

Geo-textile

Paddy crop yields have increased around 50 % in 2-year duration

4

Srinivasulu et al. (2005)

Konanki village in Prakasam district (21.63 ha)

1998–1999

0.9 and 1.1, 1

100

30,

60

Open

Pipe

Pipe

Gravity

Geo-textile Nylon mesh

Late sowing kharif crop rice yield increase by 51 %

5

Ritzema et al. (2008)

Konanki and Uppugunduru (8 and 5 ha)

1999

0.90–1.75

45–150

Open drain

Pipe drains

Pumped

Geo-textile Nylon mesh

Water table has controlled and cropping intensity increased

Assam

6

Bhattacharya et al. (1996)

Mornai

1996

Tile drain

Controlled water table and increased yield of tea leaves are observed

Gujarat

7

Michael and Ojha (2013)

Saurashtra (22 km)

1972

1.2–1.8

Open drains

Land has reclaimed from salinity and waterlogging problems

8

Anonymous (1988)

Bidaj

1981

Open drains

Controlled salinity and waterlogging.

9

Ritzema (2009)

Segwa, Surat (5.6 ha, 2.6 ha, 5.7 ha and 4.6 ha)

1998–1999

0.9

1.0–1.2

1.2

1.2

45

30

45

60

Singular and Composite open pipe drains

Gravity

Water quality (EC reduced from 18.2 to 1.4 dS/m during 2001) has improved after one year and has used in irrigation

10

Sisodra, Surat (4.2 ha, 5.4 ha, 2 ha and 14 ha

2000

0.9

0.9

0.7

0.8

30

60

30

60

Singular and open pipe drains

Gravity

Cropping intensity has increased to 102 % after SSD installation

11

Kaledhonkar et al. (2009)

DabuoKheda (50 ha)

1987–1988

Water table has controlled, and this has given positive effect on crop production.

12

Muraj

Kheda (52 ha)

1990–1991

Water table has controlled

Haryana

13

Jaiswal and Dhruvanarayana (1972)

Karnal, Haryana

1972

1.5

10–30

Tile and open drains

Gravity

Pumped

Open drain has not been found suitable in alkaline soils

14

Kaledhonkar et al. (2009), Anonymous (1988)

Kailana khas (1.6 ha)

1980–1982

Open and Tile drains

Gravity

Groundwater table has been controlled

15

Rao et al. (1986), Kamra et al. (1991), Kaledonkar et al. (1998), Gupta (2002)

Sampla, Rohtak (1 ha, 10 ha, 27 ha, 13 ha)

1980–1981

1983–1984

1986–1987

1991–1992

1.5

1.5

1.75

20

50

25, 50, 75

Open drains

Tile drains

Pumped and gravel for deep drain system

Synthetic for shallow drain system

Wheat and barley crops yield was obtained 2.5–4.9 (t/ha) and 2.1–4.2(t/ha) at the zero production area

Cropping intensity has been increased up to 200 % after drainage installation

16

Hirekhanet al. (2007), Pali et al. (2014)

Mudlana, Sonepat (50 ha)

1984–1985

1.75 and 1.6

50, 67, and 84

PVC corrugated pipes

Pumped

Salinity has been controlled

17

Kelleners et al. (2000)

CIRB, HAU Hisar (75 ha)

1990–1991

1.5

24

Tile drain

Pumped

Water table has controlled and crop yield increased

18

Kaledhonkar et al. (2009)

HLRDC farm, Hisar

1989–1990

Tile drain

Pumped

Groundwater table has controlled and increased crop yield

19

Ujana, Sonepat (32 ha)

1986–1987

Tile drain

Pumped

20

Bhan Brahmana (105 ha)

1988–1990

Tile drain

Pumped

21

Kolekhan, Jind (41 ha)

1989–1990

Tile drain

Pumped

22

Ishapur Kher (58 ha)

1989–1990

1.0–1.2

Tile drain

Pumped

23

Rori, Sirsa (1500 ha)

2004–2005

Poly-pipes

Pumped

24

Joint Completion Report on IDNP (2007)

Gohana (1236 ha)

1979–1999

1.6

60–67

PVC corrugated pipes

Pumped

Synthetic

Salinity has decreased 35 % from the year of installation to 2000

25

Lal (2011)

Jhajjar (Beri, 800 ha)

2004–2005

1.75

60–67

Poly-pipes

Pumped

Land has been reclaimed from salinity hazard

26

Dadri, Bibhani (800 ha)

2004–2005

Poly-pipes

Pumped

Agricultural land removes salinity at a desired level

27

Kalyant (1000 ha)

2004–2005

Poly-pipes

Pumped

Cropping intensity has increased

28

Sonipat (1500 ha)

2004–2005

Poly-pipes

Pumped

Water table has controlled

Karnataka

29

Joint Completion Report on IDNP (2007)

Islampur, Karnataka (Upper Krishna Canal Command, 29.3 ha, 14.4 ha)

1998–1999

1998–1999-

1.0–1.1

1.0–1.1

50

50

PVC perforated corrugated Pipe

Open Drain

Pumped

Geo-textile

Cropping intensities have increased 27, 35 and 100 % in first three years

30

  

1.1–1.2

1.1–1.2

50

30

Pipe drain

Pipe drain

Pumped

Cropping intensities have increased 114 and 156 % in first two years

31

Datta et al. (2004)

Mudhol Taluk Karnataka Bagal kot (19.35 ha)

1995–1996

1

Gravity

Water logged area has reclaimed

32

Satyanarayana et al. (2002) Srinivasulu et al. (2014)

Uppugunduru

In Krishna Western Delta(7 and 5 ha)

1999

0.85–1.1

50

30

45

60

Open

Pipe

Pipe

Pipe

Pumped

Geo-textile

Nylon mesh

Water table has controlled and cropping intensities increased to 170 % after drainage installation

Kerala

33

Mathew et al. (1993)

karumady

1993

Tile drain

Increased rice yield

Madhya Pradesh

34

Yadav (1975), Anonymous (1988)

IARI, New Delhi

1975

1.0

32

Open drains

Gravity

Significant increase in sorghum and wheat yield

35

Yadav (1975), Anonymous (1988)

Indore, M.P.

1975

0.6–0.9

6.5–40

Tile drains

Gravity

Significant increase in crop yield and coarse sand filters are not suitable for alkaline vertisols

36

Sharma et al. (1995)

Barna, M.P.

1995

Open drain

Increased crop yield

37

Ramana et al. (2009)

CIAE Bhopal (M.P.)

0.60

2, 4 and 6

Tile drain and mole drain

Gravity

Water table has controlled

Maharashtra

38

Gupta (2002), Kaledhonkar et al. (2009)

Manjri

1920

1.5

combination of open and tile drains

Gravity

Crop yield has increased

39

Anonymous (1988)

Manjri

1941

Tile drains and open drain

Gravity

Crop yield has increased

40

Parbhani

1982

  

Tile drain

Gravity

Increased net profit

41

Kamble et al. (2006)

Dhudgan Sangli (1100 ha)

2.5

 

Corrugated perforated PVC pipes 

Gravity

Water table has controlled

42

Kaledhonkar et al. (2009)

Kasabe Digraj Sangli (1065 ha)

2004–2006

2.5

10.75

Tile drains

Gravity

Water table has controlled

43

Kolekar et al. (2014)

College of Agril Engg and Tech., Parbhani

2006–2008

2, 4 and 6

Mole drain

The total yield of groundnut has highest in 4 m mole spacing, i.e., 69.20 %

Punjab

44

Gupta (2002)Kaledhonkar et al. (2009)

Amritsar

1873

Stone, tile drains and 16-tube well (0.0425 m3/sec)

Gravity

Malaria disease has mitigated and land free from waterlogging problem

45

Chakanwal

1920

0.9

33–66

Open drain

Gravity

This has played a vital role in crop production

46

Anonymous (1988)

Ludhiana

1967

Tile drains and open drain

Gravity

Maize yield increased

47

Michael and Ojha (2013)

Ranbirpura, Patiala (800 h)

1959–1960, 1971

Open drain

This area has significantly free from salinity

48

Michael (1967), Michael and Ojha (2013)

Ludhiana

1966

1.2

Interceptor and combination of open and tile drains

Pumped

System was not much effective in rabi season

49

Shakya et al. (1995)

Golewala

1995

Multiple well one point system

Pumped

Permitted conjunctive use of groundwater

Rajasthan

50

Lovas (1972), Anonymous (1988)

Digod

1972

0.6–1.0

1.0–1.3

2–2.5

8–12

15–20

Mole, plastic asbestos pipes

Gravity

Mole drains have found to be cheaper and less time-consuming

51

Datta et al. (2004)

Chambal command area RAJAD (1420 ha, 12580 ha)

1992–1993

1993–1997

1–1.2

30, 60

Tile and open drains

Gravity

Cropping intensity has increased

52

Anonymous (1995)

Kota

1995

Tile and open drains

Gravity

Project benefit cost ratio 2.5

53

Shekhawat (2007)

Lakhuwali (15 ha, 60 ha)

2000

2001

1.2

100, 150, 200

Pipe Drain

Pumped

300–350

Microns geo-textile nonwoven

Kharif (paddy, cotton,) and Rabi (wheat barley, mustard) crops has obtained just double yield and cropping intensity has increased 160 %

Uttar Pradesh

54

Chauhan and Ram (1972)

Pant Nagar, U.P.

1972

1.0

15–35

Tile drains

Gravity

More water storage has taken place in the profile and less runoff from draining lands

West Bengal

55

Maity et al. (1996)

Midnapur

1996

Open drain

Increase in observed crop yield

56

Bhattacharya (1999)

Dankuni Basin

1999

Raised bed pond

Salvaged waterlogged land for agriculture activities

On the basis of the Table 1, the pilot studies following guidelines are framed which would be helpful in drainage design subsurface drainage system in India. It is expected that these salient points would be useful in new wherein similar soil, water table and climatic conditions existing in India.

Basic guidelines for Indian subsurface drainage design

Although Drainage manual (1978) and Drainage design factors (1986) have recommended general guidelines for installation procedure and drainage design parameters for more effective performance yet on the basis of pilot studies undertaken in the past 50 years in India, few more guidelines have emerged which are mentioned below.
  1. 1.

    Before subjecting any drainage project into a problematic area, the primary data (technical, socioeconomic, geo-hydrological climate) and secondary (water quality) have to be collected, which are relevant to the particular area.

     
  2. 2.

    In past, cement concrete pipes were very popular in alkaline and saline areas because these pipes have not given any complaints up to 20 years in alkaline areas and 8 years in saline zones after installation. But nowadays PVC pipes are more popular than others due to its portability and light in weight.

     
  3. 3.

    Drainage depth is an issue of increase or decrease in cost of installation and also availability of machineries and labor. But it is depending on position of groundwater table, soil type and hydraulic characteristics. For agricultural drainage, recommended depth of the lateral is >1.2 m because agricultural activities may damage the laterals.

     
  4. 4.

    Drain spacing is classified on the basis of the texture of the soil. The lateral spacing, size and grade (in %) for light-textured soils are ranging between 100 and 150 m, 100 mm and 0.10 %, respectively, 50 and 100 m, 125 mm and 0.075 % for medium-textured soil and 30 and 50 m, 150 mm and 0.05 % for heavy-textured soils.

     
  5. 5.

    On the basis of climatic conditions, drainage coefficient has an optimum value which lies between 1 and 3 mm/day (i.e., arid region is a 1 mm/day, semiarid region is a 2 mm/day, and subhumid region is 3 mm/day).

     
  6. 6.

    Continuous movement of water in the pipe and aquifer system collects sediment in the pipes which may affect the performance of the drainage system. For resolving the problem, the provision of filters and envelopes on the drain pipes has to be adopted. Filter/envelope material is used to filter that surrounds drain pipe, and these are commonly used along with drain pipes (geo-textile, polypropylene, coconut fiber, polystyrene and foam plastic). The traditional filter material is a combination of gravel and coarse sand.

     
  7. 7.

    Normally the drain effluent is disposed in the canal, salt-making ponds, fishpond, or it can be reused in crop production. The several methods have been suggested by researchers for effluent reuse in irrigation such as blending and mixing.

     

Subsurface drainage pilot studies in Pakistan

As a consequence, waterlogging and salinity now are serious threats to irrigated agriculture of the 16.7 million hectare in the Indus Basin; about 2 million hectare is waterlogged, and 6 million hectare is salt-affected (Nijland et al. 2005).

Pakistan made an effort for salinity control by starting a series of salinity control and reclamation projects in 1959, and results show a very good agreement to reduce salinity level in the surface and soil profile salinity. The salinity in percentage has been compared for 17-year variation (between the initial salinity year 1960 and 1977–1979) after installation of drainage, and this is also indicated that the salt-free areas increased up to 20 % in surface and profile salinity from past decades (Bhutta 2007).

The subsurface drainage installations in Pakistan are still <1 % of the total cultivable commanded areas so it needs to be increased (Ghumman et al. 2012; Azhar et al. 2004). Bhutta (2007) has discussed salient findings of drainage research and its benefits in Pakistan. Pakistan has world’s largest irrigation system, namely the Indus Basin Irrigation System that commands about 14.2 M ha canal irrigated area (Niazi 2008). Due to poor maintenance and neglecting behavior of academician of Pakistan, most of the parts of canal are still unlined and result in the basic cause of waterlogging problem, which directly covered major part of agricultural lands of Pakistan. Niazi (2008) and Ghumman et al. (2010) reported that Government of Pakistan has made effort to save major fertile land of agriculture by the installation of major subsurface drainage projects from past few decades. Various methodologies have been used to protect agricultural lands of Pakistan from the salinity, but most of the subsurface drainage project had not proved informative and beneficial to solve the problem (Smedema 1990; Sarwar 2000; Kahlown and Khan 2004). So many approaches like surface drainage, subsurface pipe drainage and tube wells had been installed for reclamations of fertile lands of Pakistan, but subsurface pipe drainage was proved more beneficial than other two methods (Azhar et al. 2010). Four decades ago, Pakistan government was more concerned about the protection of the productive agricultural lands, and they passed eight subsurface pipe drain projects, but Sarwar and Feddes (2000) and Azhar et al. (2004) have reported that the installed drainage projects had not proved beneficial as per the expectation because these projects have not been technically sound and designed in that particular decade. After that Pakistan’s irrigation and drainage engineers and scientists continuously worked on the drainage design parameters such as drainage coefficient, drain spacing Naz et al.2009) and drain depth. Kahlown et al. (2007) and Azhar and Latif (2011)have been worked on three experimental sites NIA, Bughio and Nawazabad farms in Pakistan in order to find the drainage coefficient for the efficient performance of futuristic projects and problems. History of Pakistan’s irrigation and drainage researches are mainly explained by existence of nine different subsurface drainage projects (Azhar et al. 2005) as presented in Table 2.
Table 2

Major four pilot studies of Pakistan

S. no.

References

Site information

Main design parameters

Shortcomings

Drain depth (m)

Drain spacing (m)

Design discharge (mm/day)

Design DW.T. (m)

Type of drainage

Outlet and sump

1

Ghumman et al. (2012)

Khushab SCARP, Pakistan (42,000,000 ha)

1.68–1.98, 2.1

150–300

1.8

1.2

Pipe drainage

Pumped

In Khushab, the water salinity measured in terms of dS/m was reduced by 33 %, respectively, in 12 years

2

FDP (Fourth Drainage Project, Faisalabad), Pakistan (30,351 ha)

1.68–1.98

500–600

2.44

1.2

Pipe drainage

Pumped

In Faisalabad, the water salinity measured in terms of dS/m was reduced by 25 %, respectively, in 12 years

3

Azhar and Latif (2011), Ghumman et al. (2012)

Mardan SCARP Project (MSP) Pakistan (29,542 ha)

2.4

150–200

3

1.05

Pipe drainage

Pumped

Increase in rice, sugarcane, kharif fodder, wheat, sugar beet and tobacco yield was 46, 49, 50, 56,43 and 23 %, respectively

4

Mirpukhas Tile Drainage Project Pakistan (24,281 ha)

1.8–2.4

0.95

 

Pipe drainage

Pumped

Crop yield had increased by the use of saline drain water

5

Ritzema (2007)

East Khaipur Tile Drainage

1.95

2.5–3.5

1.0

Pipe drain

Pumped

Crop yield had increased

6

Sarwar and Muhammad (2008)

Swabi SCARP

1.8–2

100–150

2

1.0

Pipe Drain

Pumped

Yields of sugarcane, rice and wheat were increased by 16, 24 and 37 %, respectively

7

Asian Development Bank (1984)

Chashma

Command Area Development (18160 ha)

2.10

1.8–2.7

1.2–2.6

1.4

Interceptor drain,

PVC pipe drain

Pumped

Cropping intensities increased 105 to 135 % after installation of SSD

8

Ritzema (2007)

DC Khan

SCARP

1.88

Pipe drain

Pumped

Crop yield has increased and water table is controlled

9

Ritzema (2007)

Fordwah

Eastern Sadiqia (South)

2.1

 

1.5

1.2

Pipe drain

Pumped

Crop yield has increased

Pakistan drainage design guideline

In Pakistan, in drained areas where a deep water table is maintained, farmers sometimes complain about the increased need of irrigation water (Qureshi et al. 1997). A shallow water table, especially in the fine soils of the Indus plains, is capable of water delivery to the crops through capillary rise. In areas with an ‘acceptable’ groundwater quality, there is no need to maintain a deep water table. The following guideline arises from the studies of the different research works. On the bases of the pilot studies, following steps are recommended.
  1. 1.

    In Pakistan, drainage design depth of the subsurface drainage systems should be in between 1.8 and 2.4 m while collector depth >3 m.

     
  2. 2.

    SSD drain discharge has to be designed as 0.95–3.5 mm/day.

     
  3. 3.

    PVC pipes are generally popular in field drains with fixed dimensions, i.e., diameters 100–200 mm and length up to 800 m.

     
  4. 4.

    In collector drains, PVC and PE pipes are used with fixed dimensions of 200–380 mm in diameter and length >4 km.

     
  5. 5.

    Gravel filters are more popular in Pakistan subsurface drainage installation.

     

© Iraq and Egypt

In Iraq, for example, more than 50 % of the lower Rafidain Plains faces a stern salinity and waterlogging problems (El-Hinnawi 1993). Similarly, salinity and waterlogging have been an inevitable problem in Egypt. These problems have existed during the pre- and post-Aswan High Dam periods (Ritzema 2009; IPTRID Secretariat 2007). To overcome this twin problem, subsurface drainage projects were commissioned in 1942. About 55 % of agricultural land was reported as saline in Iran (FAO 1994). Waterlogging and drainage problems occur in the central and southern parts of the Saudi Arabia. In some projects, like Al-Hassa irrigation project, the agricultural drainage water is mixed with fresh groundwater and reused for irrigation. So, due to the poor quality of irrigation water, soil salinity problem is increasing (AQUASTAT 2008). Multi-level subsurface drainage has also proved beneficial (Hornbuckle et al. 2012). Hirekhan et al. (2007) have suggested that field observation must be taken before and after the installations of SSD in a semiarid climate area and have stressed on rigorous analysis before adopting a subsurface drainage technique. Chahar and Vadodaria (2010) and Chahar and Vadodaria (2012) investigated the optimal spacing in an array of fully penetrating ditches for subsurface drainage. They developed an explicit equation for computing the optimal spacing between the ditches. Eldeiry and Garcia (2010) have compared ordinary kriging, regression kriging and co-kriging techniques to estimate the soil salinity using various images. The best combinations have evaluated to estimate soil salinity with different crop types. Gammal El and Ali (2010) reported that subsurface drainage water has proved very beneficial for crop production in Egypt. Salinity and waterlogging problems affected countries are trying to reclaim their waste land, which are severely affected from these hazardous reasons presented in Table 3.
Table 3

Pilot studies on desalinization and waterlogging

S. no.

References

Location states and countries

Spacing(m) and depth (m)

Type of drains and type of outlet

Major conclusions

1

Kale 2011

Konya–C¸ umra Plain, Turkey

Pumped

Water table, soil salinity have been controlled, and wheat crop yield also increased

2.

Ozturk (2004)

Anatolia, Turkey

21.3

1.8–2.0

Tile drains

Gravity

Crop yield increased, and water table has been controlled

3.

El-Mowelhi et al. (1988)

Nile Delta Egypt

20, 75

1.5

Tile drains

Gravity

Crop yield increased

Conclusions

This paper briefly discussed the old to current state of art in subsurface drainage system, positive effects of drainage on crop production and also what the future hold for this technical approach. Pilot studies reviewed subsurface drainage investigations from 1969 to 2014 (India and abroad) with their outcomes. This study is to suggest the numeric value of drain depth which is kept greater than 1.2 m, i.e., >1.2–1.8 m and drain spacing depending on the soil texture classification, i.e., 100–150 m for light-textured soils, 50–100 m for medium-textured soils and 30–50 m for heavy-textured soils for Indian subsurface drainage installation in the problem area, and Pakistan subsurface drainage project studies show drain depth kept more than 1.8 m. With the help of this paper, researchers will be able to decide the drain depth, spacing, types of subsurface drainage and type of outlets.

References

  1. Anonymous (1988) Handbook for drainage of irrigated areas in India. Irrigation Management and Training Project: technical report no. 5. LBII/WAPCOS, Room 213, Ansal Chambers, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi, pp 12.3 & 12.5Google Scholar
  2. Anonymous (1995) Analysis of subsurface drainage design criteria. Rajasthan Agricultural Drainage Research Project, Chambal Command Area Development, Kota, Rajasthan, pp 7.3Google Scholar
  3. AQUASTAT (2008). Irrigation in the Middle East Regionc in figures. Water Report No 34, FAO. Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  4. Azhar AH, Latif M (2011) Subsurface drainage impact assessment on crop yield. J Anim Plant Sci 21(2):215–219Google Scholar
  5. Azhar AH, Alam MM, Rafiq M (2004). Impact of subsurface drainage systems on land and water conditions. IWASRI Publication 261, WAPDA, LahoreGoogle Scholar
  6. Azhar AH, Alam MM, Rafiq M (2005) Agricultural impact assessment of sub-surface drainage projects in Pakistan—crop yield analysis. Pak J Water Resour 9(1):1–8Google Scholar
  7. Azhar AH, Bhutt MN, Latif M (2010) Reclamation irrigated agriculture through tile drainage at Fourth Drainage Project, Faisalabad. J Anim Plant Sci 20(3):211–216Google Scholar
  8. Bhattacharya AK (1999) Drainage of agricultural lands. In: Singh GB, Sharma BR (eds) 50 Years of natural resource management research. Division of Natural Resource Management, ICAR, New Delhi, pp 347–362Google Scholar
  9. Bhattacharya AK, Ray SB, Sinha AK, Ghosh G (1996) Drainage in tea plantation. AICRP on Agricultural Drainage, Water Technology Centre, IARI, New Delhi, vol 23, p 4Google Scholar
  10. Bhutta MN (2007) Salient findings of drainage research and its benefits in Pakistan. Pak J Water Resour 11(1):31–38Google Scholar
  11. Chahar BR, Vadodaria GP (2010) Optimal spacing in an array of fully penetrating ditches for subsurface. J Irrig Drain Eng ASCE 136(1):63–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chahar BR, Vadodaria GP (2012) Steady subsurface drainage of ponded surface by an array of parallel ditches. J Hydrol Eng 17:895–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Channabasiah HSM (1972) Sub-surface drainage in salt affected medium to deep black soils in India. Lecture delivered at the Summer Institute on Saline and Alkali Soils and their Management at C.S.S.R.I., Karnal, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  14. Chauhan HS, Ram S (1972) Surface and sub-surface drainage hydrology. In: Proceedings symposium on waterlogging causes and measures for its prevention. CBIP. Publication, vol 118(1), pp 19–20Google Scholar
  15. Datta KK, Tewari L, Joshi PK (2004) Impact of subsurface drainage on improvement of crop production and farm income in north-west India. Irrig Drain Syst 18:43–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Devadattam DSK, Chandra RS (1995) Agricultural land drainage in coastal saline soils. AICRP on agricultural drainage, A.N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad, 40 pGoogle Scholar
  17. Drainage Design Factors (1986) Irrigation and drainage. Paper no. 38. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  18. Drainage manual (1978) U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  19. Eldeiry AA, Garcia LA (2010) Comparison of ordinary kriging, regression kriging, and cokriging techniques to estimate soil salinity using LANDSAT images. J Irrig Drain Eng ASCE 136(6):355–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. El-Hinnawi E (1993) Population, environment, and development in the Arab World. Paper presented to the Arab Population Conference, Amman, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA)Google Scholar
  21. El-Mowelhi N, El-Bershamgy A, Hoffman GJ, Chang AC (1988) Enhancement of crop yields from subsurface drains with various envelopes. Agric Water Manag 15(2):131–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. FAO (1994) Land degradation in south Asia: its severity, causes and effects upon the people. Food and Agriculture Organization of The United Nations, World Soil Resources Reports, RomeGoogle Scholar
  23. Gammal EL HAA, Ali HMM (2010) Commissioning of abandoned drainage water reuse systems in Egypt: a case study of upgrading the Umoum project, Nile Delta. Irrig Drain 60(1)115–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gates TK, Grismer ME (1989) Irrigation and drainage strategies in a salinity affected region. J Irrig Drain Eng 115(2):87–99 128(2) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ghassemi F, Jakeman AJ, Nix HA (1995) Salinization of land and water resources. University of New South Wales Press, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  26. Ghumman AR, Ghazaw YM, Niazi MF, Hashmi HN (2010) Impact assessment of subsurface drainage on waterlogged and saline lands. J Environ Monit Assess 172:189–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ghumman AR, Ghazaw YM, Hashmi HN, Kamal MA, Niazi MF (2012) Environmental and socio-economic impacts of pipe drainage in Pakistan. Environ Monit Assess 184:1671–1681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Goel A, Tiwari P (2013) Review of computer based software tools for salinity management in agricultural lands. J Indian Water Resour Soc 33(4):25–32Google Scholar
  29. Gupta SK (2002) A century of subsurface drainage research in India. Irrig Drain Syst 16:69–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gupta SK (2003) A historical perspective of subsurface drainage research in India. Asian Agric Hist 7(1):45–54Google Scholar
  31. Hanumanthaiah CV, Satyanarayana TV (2003) Cost effectiveness of subsurface drainage technology under Indian conditions—a boon to farming community in the areas of saline soils, paper no 118. Presented at the 9th international drainage workshop, Utrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  32. Hefny MM, Mohamed E, Metwali R, Mohamed AI (2013) Assessment of genetic diversity of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) genotypes under saline irrigation water based on some selection indices. Australian J Crop Sci (AJCS) 7(12):1935–1945Google Scholar
  33. Hirekhan M, Gupta SK, Mishra KL (2007) Application of Wasim to assess performance of a subsurface drainage system under semiarid monsoon climate. J Agric Water Manag 88:224–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hornbuckle JW, Christen EW, Faulkner RD (2012) Analytical solution for drainflows from bilevel multiple-drain subsurface drainage systems. J Irrig Drain Eng 138:642–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. IPTRID SECRETARIAT (2007) Egypt’s experience in irrigation and drainage research uptake, final report. Electronic Publishing Policy and Support Branch, Information Division, Food and Agriculture Organization, FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153, Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  36. Jaiswal SR, Dhruva Narayana VV (1972) Design of a sub-surface drainage system. In: Proceedings symposium on waterlogging causes and its prevention CBIP, vol 110(1), pp 91–100Google Scholar
  37. Joint Completion Report on IDNP Result (2007) Recommendation on waterlogging and salinity control based on pilot area drainage research, p 90Google Scholar
  38. Kahlown MA, Khan AD (2004) Tile drainage manual, Pakistan Council of Engineering in Water Resources (PCRWR), Islamabad, Pakistan, ISSB 969-8469-13-3, PCRWR Press, IslamabadGoogle Scholar
  39. Kahlown MA, Marri MK, Azam M (2007) Design, construction and performance evaluation of small tile drainage systems in the Indus Basin. J Irrig Drain ICID 56(1):217–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kale S (2011) Field-evaluation of DRAINMOD-S for predicting soil and drainage water salinity under semiarid conditions in Turkey. Spanish J Agric Res 9(4):1142–1155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kaledhonkar MJ, Gupta SK, Singh G.(2009) An overview of research, development, opportunities and challenges for subsurface drainage in India. In: 60th international executive council meeting & 5th Asian regional conference, New Delhi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  42. Kaledhonkar MJ, Kamra SK, Sharma DP (1998) Drainage measures for control of waterlogging in semi-arid regions. In: Proceedings 9th National Symposium on Hydrology, Amritsar, 26-27th Nov. Amritsar, pp 97–104Google Scholar
  43. Kamble BM, Chougule BA, Rathod SD, Rathod PK (2006) Improvement of salt affected-water logged soils in western Maharashtra through subsurface drainage (Ssd) system. Asian J Biol Sci 1(2):64–67Google Scholar
  44. Kamra SK, Singh SR, Rao KVGK, van Genuchten MTh (1991) A semi-discrete model for water and solute movement in tile-drained soils 1. Governing equations and solution. Water Resour Res 27:2439–2447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kelleners TJ, Kamra SK, Jhorar RK (2000) Modeling of drainage water salinity of pipe drains. J Hydrol 234:249–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kolekar OL, Patil SB, Rathod SD (2014) Effects of different mole drain spacings on the yield of summer groundnut. Int J Res Eng Technol 3(4):2321–7308Google Scholar
  47. Kornecki TS, Fouss JL, Grigg BC, Southwick LM (2001) Drainage research to improve runoff water quality and soil trafficability. Land Water Mag 45(3):10–13Google Scholar
  48. Lal M (2011) Impact of subsurface drainage on land quality, ground water quality and crops yields in Haryana. PhD, Thesis, National Institute of Technology Kurukshetra, Haryana, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  49. Lovas L (1972) Salinity control trials by sub-soil drainage at Digod. In: Proceedings All India symposium on soil salinity held at Kanpur, pp 156–160Google Scholar
  50. Luthin JN (1978) Drainage Engineering. R. E. Krieger Publishing Co., HuntingtonGoogle Scholar
  51. Maity SP, Ghosh RK, Das NC, Patra SK (1996) Drainage and Crop Productivity in Saline Waterlogged Soil. AICRP on agricultural drainage. Bidhan Chandra Krishi Vishwavidyalaya. Kalyani, West Bengal, vol. 55, p 11Google Scholar
  52. Mandal AK, Sharma RC (2011) Delineation and characterization of waterlogged salt affected soils in IGNP using remote sensing and GIS. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 39(1):39–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mathew EK, Nair M, Raju TD (1993) Drainage and Rice Productivity. AICRP on Agricultural Drainage. Kerala Agricultural University, Karumady, p 27Google Scholar
  54. Michael AM (1967) Drainage research scheme. Annual report. College of Agricultural Engineering Punjab. Agricultural University, Ludhiana. p 108Google Scholar
  55. Michael AM, Ojha TP (2013) Principles of Agricultural Engineering. Jain Brothers (New Delhi) 2(4):383–395Google Scholar
  56. Naz BS, Ale S, Bowling LC (2009) Detecting subsurface drainage systems and estimating drain spacing in intensively managed agricultural landscapes. Agric Water Manag 96(4):627–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Niazi MFK (2008) Evaluating the impact of subsurface drainage on land and water. Ph.D. thesis, University of Engineering and technology, Taxila, PakistanGoogle Scholar
  58. Nijland HJ, Croon FW, Ritzema HP (2005) Subsurface drainage practices: guidelines for the implementation, operation and maintenance of subsurface pipe drainage systems. ILRI Publication 60, Wageningen, p 607Google Scholar
  59. Ozturk A (2004) Multi-objective drainage requirement of Harran Plain. Pak J Biol Sci 7(2):150–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pali AK, Katre P, Khalkho D (2014) An unsteady subsurface drainage equation incorporating variability of soil drainage properties. Water Resour Manag 28:2639–2653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Patel RM, Prasher SO, Bonnell RB, Broughton RS (2002) Development of comprehensive soil salinity index. J Irrig Drain Eng 128(3):185–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Qureshi AS, Iqbal M, Anwar NA, Aslam M, Ramzan MC (1997) Benefits of shallow drainage. In Proceedings of seminar on on-farm salinity, drainage, and reclamation. IWASRI Publication, p 179Google Scholar
  63. Ramana RKV, Kishore R, Singh R (2009) Mole drainage to enhance soybean production in waterlogged Vertisols. J Agric Eng 46(4):54–58Google Scholar
  64. Rao KVGK, Singh OP, Gupta RK, Kamra SK, Padey RS, KumbharePS, Abrol IP (1986) Drainage investigations for salinity control in Haryana. Bull. no. 10. CSSRI, Karnal, India. p 95Google Scholar
  65. Ritzema H (2007) Performance assessment of subsurface drainage systems case studies from Egypt and Pakistan. Alterra-ILRI Wageningen University and Research Centre Wageningen The Netherlands, p 137Google Scholar
  66. Ritzema PH (2009) Drain for gain, making water management worth its salt, subsurface drainage practices in irrigated agriculture in semi-arid and arid regions. Ph.D. Dissertation, Wageningen University and UNESCOIHE Institute for Water Education, Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  67. Ritzema HP, Satyanarayana TS, Raman S, Boonstra J (2008) Subsurface drainage to combat waterlogging and salinity in irrigated lands in India: lessons learned in farmers’ fields. Agric Water Manag 95:179–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sarwar A (2000) A transient model approach to improve on-farm irrigation and drainage in semi-arid zones. Ph.D. Dissertation, Wageningen University & Research Centre, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  69. Sarwar A, Feddes RA (2000) Evaluation drainage design parameters for the fourth drainage project, Pakistan by using SWAP model: Part ii-modeling result. Irrig Drain Syst 14:281–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sarwar T, Muhammad N (2008) Effect of enhanced water allowance on the performance of tile drainage system at Shabaz Ghari pilot project area Swabi SCARP. Sarhad J. Agric 24(1):59–68Google Scholar
  71. Satyanarayana TV, Lakshmi GV, Srinivasulu A, Hanumanthaiah CV, Ratnam M, Hemakumar HV (2002) Drainage and water management for salinity control in canal commands. A comprehensive report of research achievements of Bapatla Network Center, Indo-Dutch Network Operational Research Project, Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Bapatla, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  72. Sethi M, Bundela DS, Sethi M, Lal K, Kamra SK (2010) Remote sensing and geographic information system for appraisal of salt-affected soils in India. J Environ Qual 39(1):5–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Shakya SK, Gupta, PK Kumar D(1995) Innovative drainage techniques. AICRP on drainage. Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, Punjab. p 34Google Scholar
  74. Sharma RK, Yadav RD, Mourya BM, Kushwaha SS, Sharma AK (1995) Research on agricultural drainage in black soils of Barna command. AICRP on agricultural drainage. Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Powerkheda, Madhya Pradesh, India. p 35Google Scholar
  75. Shekhawat RS (2007) Economic analysis of sub-surface drainage under Indira Gandhi Nahar Priyojna command area—A case study. Agric Econ Res Rev 20:361–374Google Scholar
  76. Smedema LK(1990). Comparative study of the East Khairpur, Mardan and drainage-IV pipe drainage project. Project: PAK/83/022. Technical report no. 90/01, IWASRI Pub. No. 8, Lahore, PakistanGoogle Scholar
  77. Srinivasulu A, Satyanarayana TV, Kumar HVH (2005) Subsurface drainage in a pilot area in Nagarjuna Sagar right canal command, India. Irrig Drain Syst 19:61–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Srinivasulu M, Rao AR, Babu MR, Babu GR, Kumar HVH (2014) Performance of subsurface drainage system installed at Appikatla region of Andhra Pradesh. Int J Argric Eng 7(1):180–185Google Scholar
  79. Thatte CD, Kulkarni SA (2000) Status and strategy for prevention and reclamation of waterlogged and salt-affected lands from irrigated areas of India. 8th ICID international drainage workshop, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  80. Tiwari P (2011) Simulation of salt and water dynamics in subsurface drained land using hydrus. M.Tech. Dissertation, College of Agricultural Engineering, JNKVV Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh IndiaGoogle Scholar
  81. Yadav JSP (1975) Annual Report. All India coordinated scheme for research on water management and salinity (unpublished)Google Scholar
  82. Zimmer D, Bermond M, Melliand ML, Tato-Serrano S (2002) Global drainage status and needs, private communication, report will be published later by Cemagref/ICIDGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2015

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringNational Institute of Technology (Institute of National Importance)KurukshetraIndia

Personalised recommendations