South irrigation project land evaluation report

SOUTH NATIONS, NATIONALITIES AND PEOPLES REGIONAL
STATE BUREAU OF WATER AND IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT,

IRRIGATION CONSTRUCTION & SCHEME ADMINISTRATION
AGENCY
BISARE SMALL SCALE IRRIGATION PROJECT
Land Evaluation Study Final Report

JUNE /2017
Originator: AterefeTamirat
SOUTHDESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND SUPERVISION ENTERPRISE
P.O.Box- 116, Hawassa / ETHIOPIA
South design, construction and supervision Enterprise SDCSE
LAND SUITABILITY EVALUATION STUDY
LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………………IV
LIST OF APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………..IV
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………………………………V
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY…………………………………………………………………
ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
1 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………1
1.1.General……………………………………………………………………………………..1
1.2 OBJECTIVES………………………………………………………………………………...2
1.3 Scope of the Work………………………………………………………………………….2
2. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA………………………………..4
2.1 LOCATION AND EXTENT…………………………………………………………………….4
2.2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS……………………………………………………………..5
2.3 LAND CHARACTERSTICS OF THE COMMAND AREA……………………………….5
2.3.1. Land Use System………………………………………………………………… ..5
2.3.2 Major Land Covers Types…………………………………………………………...5
2.4 GEOMORPHOLOGY OF THE AREA …………………………………………………………...8
iBisaresmall scale irrigation Project Land suitability evaluationFinal Report

2.4.1 LANDFORM AND TOPOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………8

2.4.2 Slope gradient………………………………………………………………...……..…9
2.4.3 SURFACE ROCK FRAGMENTS AND EROSION STATUS……………………………………9
2.5. HYDROLOGY……………………………………………………………………………..9
2.6. GEOLOGY…………………………………………………………………………………10
2.7..CLIMATE…………………………………………………………………………………10
3. LAND EVALUATION METHODOLOGY………………………………………………12
3.1 General……………………………………………………………………………………12
3.2 Definition of Key terms/Phrases………………………………………………………….12
Land………………………………………………………………………………………….12
Land Evaluation……………………………………………………………………………...12
Land characteristics…………………………………………………………………………...13
Land qualities………………………………………………………………………………....13
Land Utilization Types………………………………………………………………………..13
Land use requirements………………………………………………………………………...13
3.3. FAO Land Suitability level of classification………………………………………………..14
Class determining factors……………………………………………………………………15
3.4 Levels of Development……………………………………………………………………...19
3.5 Data sources for the Land Evaluation……………………………………………………….19
4. LAND QUALITIES/CHARACTERISTICS……………………………………………..21
4.1. General……………………………………………………………………………………...21
4.2. Land Mapping Units………………………………………………………………………..21
5.LAND UTILIZATION TYPES & LAND USE REQUIREMENT……………………...23
5.1 Land Utilization Types………………………………………………………………………23
5.2. Land Use Requirement……………………………………………………………………..24
5.3. Description of Land Use
Requirements…………………………………………………….Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.3.1 Land Use Requirement for Surface Irrigation……………………………………………..25
5.3.2 Land Use Requirement for Surface Irrigated pepper……………………………………..27
5.3.3 Land Use Requirement for Surface Irrigated Onion cultivation…………………………28
5.3.4 Land Use Requirement for Surface Irrigated maizecultivation……………………………29
5.3.5 Land Use Requirement for Surface Irrigated Haricot bean
cultivation……………………...Error! Bookmark not defined.
6. LAND SUITABILITY CLASSIFICATION...........................................................................23
6.1. GENERAL........................................................................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
6.2. LAND MAPPING UNITS...................................................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
6.3 LAND SUITABILITY EVALUATION BY LAND UTILIZATION TYPES..ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT
DEFINED.
6.4. LAND SUITABILITY EVALUATION BY LAND MAPPING UNITS......................................……32
6.4.1 Suitability Level of LMU1……………………………………………………………..32
6.4.2 Suitability Level of LMU2……………………………………………………………...Error!
Bookmark not defined.
6.4.3 Suitability Level of Miscellaneous land Units…………………………………………Error!
Bookmark not defined.
6.5. SUMMARY OF ACTUAL LAND SUITABILITY..........................................................................33
6.6 POTENTIAL LAND SUITABILITY.......................................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
6.7 LAND SUITABILITY MAP........................................................................................................36
iiBisaresmall scale irrigation Project Land suitability evaluationFinal Report

7. SOIL AND LAND MANAGEMENT......................................................................................37

7.1. GENERAL...............................................................................................................................37
7.2 SOIL FERTILITY......................................................................................................................37
7.3 Soil Cultivation..........................................................................................................................39
7.4 SOIL EROSION CONTROL.................................................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
7.5 LAND LEVELING..............................................................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
7.6 LAND CLEARING.............................................................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
7.7 FLOOD MANAGEMENT AND DRAINAGE..........................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
8. CONCLUSSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS......ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
8.1 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
8.2 RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
9. REFERENCES.........................................................................................................................45
10. APPENDICES.........................................................................................................................46
iiiBisaresmall scale irrigation Project Land suitability evaluationFinal Report

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Location Map of Bisare small scale irrigation project Command Area………………..4
Figure 2: different land use and land cover of Bisare command area……………………..……..7
Figure 3: Land suitablity map forBisarecommand area………….……………………………36
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 2. 1: EXISTING Land use/cover of the BisareSSIP command area………………..............6
Table 2.2: Slope class and area coverage of BisareSSIP…………………………….…………...9
Table 2.3 : Meteorology Data Adopted for BisareIrrigation Project……………………………11
Table: 3 .1 FAO Land Suitability Classification Levels (FAO, 1983) …………………….........16
Table: 3. 2 Land Suitability Limitations (Sub–Classes)
………………………………………….Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table:4.1.Major Land Characteristics of the Bisare command area……......................................22
Table: 5.1. Land Uses Requirement and Land Quality Criteria for Surface Irrigation……….... 26
Table: 6. 1. Actual Land Suitability by LMU &LUT………………………...…………………32
Table: 6. 2. Summary of Actual Land Suitability of Bisare Area………………………………..34

Table: 6. 3. Summary of Potential Land Suitability ofBisare Area…………………………….35
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix: 1.1. Land Use Requirements for Surface Irrigated pepper Cultivation........................47
Appendix: 1.2. Land Use Requirements for Surface Irrigated onion Cultivation,..........................49
Appendix: 1.3. Land Use Requirements for Surface Irrigated Maize cultivation,..........................51
Appendix: 1. 4. Land Use Requirements for Surface Irrigated Haricot-bean Cultivation,
Appendix :2. 1- Land Suitability for surface Irrigated Maize Cultivation....Error! Bookmark not
defined.
Appendix: 2.2- Land Suitability for surface Irrigated Onion Cultivation.......................................57
Appendix: 2. 3. Land Suitability for surface Irrigated Pepper Cultivation.....................................58
ivBisaresmall scale irrigation Project Land suitability evaluationFinal Report

Appendix: 2.4- Land Suitability for surface IrrigatedHaricot -bean Cultivation............................59
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
% - Percent
0
C - Degree Celsius
AWC - Available Water Capacity
Ca - Calcium
CaCO3 - Calcium Carbonate
CEC - Cation Exchange Capacity
cm - centimeters
cm/hr - centimeters per hour
dS/m - deci Siemens per meter
ECe - Electrical Conductivity of saturated paste extract
ESP - Exchangeable Sodium Percentage
FAO - Food and Agriculture Organization
FC - Field Capacity
Fe - Ferrous
g - gram
g/cm3 - gram per cubic centimeter
GIS - Geographic Information System
GWT - Ground Water Table
ha - hectare
HC - Hydraulic Conductivity
hr - Hour
IR - Infiltration Rate
K2O - Potassium Oxide
kg/ha - kilo gram per hectare
LCs - Land Characteristics
LMU - Land Mapping Unit
vBisaresmall scale irrigation Project Land suitability evaluationFinal Report

LQ - Land Quality
LUR - Land Use Requirement
LUT - Land Utilization Types
m/s - meter per Second
masl - meters above sea level
meq/100gm - mili equivalent per100g of soil
Mg - Magnesium
mm - millimeters
mm/m - millimeter per meter
mm/yr - millimeter per year
Mn - Manganese
MoWR - Ministry of Water Resources
NIA - Net Irrigable Area
No - number
NRCS - Natural Resources Conservation Service
OC - Organic Carbon
P2O5 - Phosphorus per Oxide
PBS - Percent Base Saturation
pH - Soil reaction (log10H+ ions, acidity& basicity)
ppm - parts per million
PWP - Permanent Wilting Point
qt/ha - quintal per hectare
SNNPR - Southern Nations, Nationalities and People’s Region
SOM - Soil Organic Matter
ton/ha - ton per hectare
ToR - Term of Reference
UN - United Nation
viBisaresmall scale irrigation Project Land suitability evaluationFinal Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Bisare land suitability evaluation is part of the feasibility study and design ofBisare small scale
irrigation project .The Bisare small scale irrigation project area is located in the
Sodozuriyaworeda, Wolayitaadministrative zone of SNNP Regional State. The gross project area
is 117 hectares. The present study has been undertaken to check the extent of available suitable
land for each LUT. Based on the result of detailed soil survey, land suitability evaluation at
feasibility study level has been carried out in the present study. The land suitability maps at
1:10,000 scales have been prepared for the LUTs considered in this project.
The feasibility study of the Bisaresmall scale Irrigation Project command area demands an
investigation of the land/soil resources and a feasibility study report of the land suitability
evaluation of the project command area. This report, therefore, is the report of the land suitability
classification of the command area of the project for surface irrigation agriculture. The report is
developed with the basic aim to support decision makers and implementers for policy formulation
and irrigation agriculture application, for the development of proper and workable land use
planning and environmental management issues on the command area.
The predominant land use system in the Bisare command area is found to be crop cultivation
followed by animal husbandry. During the field study the command area was covered by grass
land, wood lots and cultivated land covered with annual (maize, haricot bean, Boyina, onion, and
pepper) at field and perennial crops (sugar cane banana, papaya, mango, avocado) at their
homestead which they use it as cash crop supplying to the local and woreda market.
The command area land of the Bisareproject is mainly evaluated with FAO basic procedures and
the land is evaluated with respect to its suitability for a given land use, and the alternative land
uses (i.e. LUTs) were evaluated separately. The relevant 'class-determining' factors that were
expected to have influence on the suitability of land for the given LUT and that may vary from
land unit, to land unit were selected based on their impacts on the suitability of the area.
The suitability assessment procedure consisted of comparing the land qualities of each mapping
unit with the crop requirements of all relevant LUTs (the identified LUTs were vegetables (onion
and tomato), maize, haricot bean and ground nut. In the evaluation process an area of 117 ha land
was evaluated. Suitability rating was made sequentially on the basis of climate suitability, soil
suitability and ease of management. Matching (i.e. suitability assessment) for each land-mapping
viiBisaresmall scale irrigation Project Land suitability evaluationFinal Report

unit was made, taking into consideration the physiological requirements of a specific crop and the
existing biophysical land conditions (e.g. climate, soils and landform) and chemical soil
conditions. The output of this assessment was a ranking given to each LUT based on the expected
best suitability of the land.
According to the evaluation an area of 108.4 ha, 108.4ha, 108.4ha, and 108.4 ha, of land in the
command area were marginally suitable (S3) for maize, onion, pepper and haricot bean,
cultivation respectively. At the same time 8.6ha of land of the command area were permanently
unsuitable (N2) for all selected crops.
As far as potential suitability is placed, no land has been rated as unsuitable and about 114.1 ha
area was found potentially moderately suitable for each selected crops. Within the command area
some 2.9 ha area were found potentially marginally suitable for the selected crops.
It should be noted that these land areas (the evaluated and found suitable areas) include land that will
eventually be lost to infrastructure and the land under settlement is not considered (not reduced).
Therefore, for the NIA (net irrigable area) computation, these figures could be lowered by some
amount that might be computed based on the infrastructures required to develop (during the
irrigation detailed design stage as the land may be used for irrigation canals and other
viiiBisaresmall scale irrigation Project Land suitability evaluationFinal Report

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
Land evaluation is concerned with the assessment of land performance when used for specified
purposes. It involves the execution and interpretation of basic surveys of climate, soils, vegetation
and other aspects of land in terms of the requirements of alternative forms of land use. To be of
value in planning, the range of land uses considered has to be limited to those which are relevant
within the physical, economic and social context of the area considered, and the comparisons
must incorporate economic considerations.
This report is the report of the study findings of the land suitability classification procedures and
the suitability levels of theBisare Irrigation Project command area for different crops. Land
suitability is defined (FAO, 1976) as the fitness of a specific area of land for specified kind of use
a so-called land utilization type (LUT), under a stated system of management. It means to what
extent is the land in question able to support the land utilization types under consideration. And
the process of assessing the land to test its fitness for an intended use is termed as land suitability
evaluation.
The methodology followed for the evaluation process of the BisareSurface Irrigation Project
command area was entirely the FAO land suitability evaluation system and each mapping unit
identified in the soil survey report was employed and the command area was evaluated for land
utilization types different crops such as vegetables (onion and pepper), maize and haricot bean.
The major land characters, as identified in the routine soil survey work and detailed in the soil
report as well as agronomy and hydrology reports, were employed to rate the land qualities. The
land units were evaluated at class, subclass and order levels. Different crops as identified based on
some defined criterion are evaluated and the suitability rating is made based on FAO systems. The
land suitability maps for surface irrigation are prepared and presented as figures.
This report describes the land suitability evaluation of the study area. However, the report can
better be employed and consulted in combination with other reports like the Soil Survey Report,
Agronomy, Socio-economic studies, hydrology, Geology & etc. The report is produced by
reviewing the existing previous and currently produced sectoral studies documents, interpretation
and analysis of field investigation results. The report and the map production are made basically
based on the actual field observation results of the current surveys.
1Bisaresmall scale irrigation Project Land suitability evaluation Final Report

The reader is invited to be aware of that the units of measurements used in the report are in metric
systems unless otherwise remarked. Despite the report’s apparent length, the description of Land
Use Requirements of each selected LUT and the Suitability Ratings of Each LUT against the land
qualities/characteristics for each land mapping unit are presented here as appendices. The author
urges users/readers to review the more comprehensive information in the appendix, attached as
into the report.
1.2 Objectives
The general objective of the present work is to evaluate the suitability of the command area for
the production of different crops so that the client can select among the many and cultivate and
produce productive and profitable crops.
The specific objectives of the land suitability classification were:-
 To identify area of land suitable for irrigated agricultural development that is

simultaneously confirmed to be technically feasible, economically viable, environmentally
friendly and socially acceptable.
 To avoid the risk of farmer’s crop failures due to shortage of rainfall, by helping the
farmers to develop irrigated agriculture in the area in view of prevailing soil and land
characteristics.
 To produce land suitability maps of the identified LUTs based on the LQs/LCs, thereby
irrigation and drainage designing and planning could be possible.
1.3 Scope of the Work

The scopes of the present study are: -
 To compare the major land quality (actual conditions) of the study area with land
use/environmental requirement of LUTs considered.
 To make detailed land suitability assessment of the study area for irrigated agriculture
development (based on LUTs considered).
 To prepare land suitability maps at 1:10,000 scales for the LUTs considered.

The result will encompass the following, but not limited to:
 Standard land suitability classification report.
 Detailed description of each rating per land unit and LUT and, summary tables showing
suitability ratings and extent of each mapping units.
 Aspects of major soils and land management discussed and recommendations given.
The Land evaluation was conducted employing the following procedures:
 Formulation of land map unit based on the result of soil survey and other data under the
GIS environment,
 Translation of the land characteristics of each land-mapping unit into land qualities,
 Selection of crops or land utilization types (LUTs) based on the state of the environment
(ecology, hydrology, soils, etc) and up on consultation with agronomists,
 Determination of the land use requirements of each of the selected LUTs,
 Match the requirements of each LUT with the land qualities/characteristics of each of the
land mapping units,
 Classification of each mapping unit for each LUT,
 Presentation of the results on narration and as maps.

2. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA
2.1 Location and Extent

Bisare small scale irrigation is found in Gilo -Bisarekebele, SodoZuriya woreda, Wolayita
administrative zone of SNNP Regional state. The geographical coordinate of the headwork site
lies 0756184 N and 0373354 E.BisareRiver which is originated from Chincha and Boreda woreda
high lands and drains to Omo –Gibe basins.The project area is located 15km far from
WolayitaSodo zonal town of wolayita. The distance from Hawassa to the project site is about
175km. The gross command area of the study site is 117 ha. The altitude at the headwork is 1746
masl. The dominant soil type of the area is Calaricfluvisols andchromicvertisols.
Figure 2.1: Location Map of Bisare small scale irrigation project

2.2 Socio-economic conditions

In the socio-economic conditions part of the report the major aspects discussed include population
and circumscribedkebelles, land use and land cover condition and related aspects of the command
area. The site contains relatively level to almost flat topography with a plain land form. The
command area falls in parts of GiloBisare Keble of the Woreda.
According to the data obtained from Gilo-Bisarekebelle the total number of population found in
the command area is 6051 and out of this male and female population are 3,001 and 3,050
representing 49.59 and 50.41 percents respectively.
2. 3 Land characteristics of the command area
2.3.1 Land Use System
The predominant land use system in the Bisare command area is found to be crop cultivation
followed by animal husbandry. During the field study the command area was covered by grass
land, wood lots and cultivated land covered with annual (maize, wheat, haricot bean, Boyina,
sweet potato and pepper) at field and perennial crops (sugar cane banana, papaya, mango,
avocado) at their homestead which they use it as cash crop supplying to the local and woreda
market.
Ground truthing (i.e. systematically recorded land use data from all auger and profile sites)
indicates that of the agricultural land some 44.6% is cropped. The most common annual crops are
Maize (38 % of sites), Wheat (13%) Boyina (11%), sweet potato (3%) and Haricot bean (12%).
Other commonly grown perennial crops are Banana (14 %%), Mango (4%), coffee (2%),and
Avocado (0.6%). Apart from these there is a wide range of other crops grown in small amounts,
namely, cabbage, tomato, peppers, onion, vegetables and etc. Frequently, several crops are grown
in close proximity.
2.3.2 Major Land Covers Types
The command area is dominated by intensively cultivated land for cereal crops and non-
cultivated, grassland and wood lots land. The cultivated land and grazing land is the dominant
land covers types of the area which cover 74.6% and 18.6% of the gross command area
respectively. Other non-cropped land comprises river channels, gullies and eroded areas but even
within these areas there is piecemeal cultivation and considerable grazing. Eucalyptus wood lots
tree are also observed covering part of the command area.

Most of the fruit trees are common around homes and at the boundaries of the parcels and found
in patches.Based on annual geomorphology units, precipitation, slope, aspects, types of soil,
different vegetation are occurred in the command area. The common trees found in the command
area are,Cordiaafricana, Moringaoleifera,,Accaciamelifera, Croton
macrostachyus,Perseaamericana,Mangiferaindica,Vernoniaamygdalina, ,Ficus species and etc.
Therefore in term of land use and vegetation cover, different land cover and use were observed in
the proposed project area. The major classes of the land cover in the project area is cultivated land
the detail of land cover type and the current land use activities of the project study area are list
detail in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1: Existing Land use/cover of Bisare SSI project area
Descriptions Area
hectare %
Settlement 4.5 3.74
Rain fed cultivate 74.6 64.17
Grazing 18.6 15.60
Wet and flooded land 16.4 14.02
access road 0.5 0.43
Gully 2.1 1.79
river banks 0.2 0.17
stoniness and rock out crop 0.1 0.08
Gross area 117.0 100.00

Figure 2.2:Different land use and land cover of Bisare command area

2 .4. Geomorphology of the command area

The command area as described in surface morphometric properties such as elevation, slope
aspect, slope gradient , slope complexity, slope shape, in affecting the soil morphogenesis, is
proved to have mostly flat plain geomorphic component.
Geomorphic units
Plain (P): This land covers a large portion of the command area, almost can be categorized as flat
land, and unconfined in any direction low-lying land portion with low relief energy (mostly less
than 6 m altitude difference). The unit is located on gentle slopes (generally less than 3%), with
many dry dendritic drainage system crossing and emptying to flood plains.
Floodplain (PF): The land in this unit are very similar to the plain unit with the exception to this
category that flooding in most of the years is common due to the very flat topography slope class
of flat to almost flat slopes (generally less than 5%). The flood plains are known cause alluvial
deposits on most parts of this unit.
2.4.1 Landform and Topography
Landform refers to any physical feature on the earth's surface that has been formed by natural
processes and has distinct shape. The command area has uniform land form. Land form described
foremost by their morphology and not by their genetic origin or processes responsible for their
shape (FAO, 2006) .The dominant slope is the most important differentiating criterion, followed
by relief intensity. Topography refers to the configuration of the land surface. The topography or
surface configuration of the area is the most important landform characteristic considered in
estimating the land development costs and the suitability of land for certain purposes. Topography
can be described in four categories
 The major land form, which refers to the morphology of the whole landscape
 The position of the site writhen the landscape
 The slope form and the slope angle

2.4.2 Slope gradient
The slope gradient refers to the slope of the land immediately surrounding the site. It is measured
using a clinometers aimed in direction of the steepest slope. The proper recording of minor
slopegradient variation is important, especially for erosion, irrigation and drainage. According to
the (FAO, 2006) slope class of the study area is categorized and described below Table 2. 2.
Table 2.2: Slope classes forBisare SSIP command area
Slope percentage Description Area Remarks
Ha %
0-1% Flat plain 6.40 5.47
1-2% Flat or almost flat plain or plateau 45.31 38.72
2-5% Gently undulating plain 54.91 46.93
5-8% Undulating plain 10.38 8.88
Total Gross command area(GCA) 117.0 100
2.4.3 Surface rock fragments and erosion status
The major soils of the project area are free of stones and stoniness. However, very few to few
presence of stoniness and very few rock out crops were observed at the command area which
could be limitation for irrigation development. Rill and gully erosion was observed on the
command area. The major causes of soil erosion are known to be rainfall, poor farming system
and the sloppiness.
2.5. Hydrology
The Water resource input of the Bisareirrigation project command area is proposed from the
BisareRiver. The river, originating from Sodo high lands, perhaps it is one of the highest rainfall
zones of the area and drains to Abaya lake basins. It shows abrupt changes like extended rainfall,
sharp fall in the slope, very sharp elevation decrease and increase in the potential evapo-
transpiration over its small length.

2.6. Geology
Geologically the majority of the far-off western and south-western and also the few south eastern
sides of the river are covered by light gray sticky soil. From north-west to south east direction
along the river, the adjacent nearby sides of the Bisare River are covered mainly by alluvial soil.
The north eastern sides of the river are exposed with dark –brown silty clay texture. The ridge
along the north-eastern edge of the command area is covered by slightly weathered ignimbrite
rock.
2.7 Climate
Climatic parameters and conditions of Bisaresmall scale irrigation project area was analyzed and
presented under Table 2.1. According to the metrological date the climates of SodoZuriyaworeda
and the project area are most favorable for the cultivation of a wide variety of crops like maize,
haricot bean, onion and pepper. The nearest Meteorological station to the study area is
SodoMeteorology station.
Rainfall distribution over the area is bimodal. The rains extend from mid-April to September-
while, short rain occurs in November to April. The area receives highest rain fall intensity in July,
August, September, and October. According to the analysis results of the project irrigation
agronomy study, the average total annual rainfall of the study area is 1333mm.
As shown in table 2.1, the mean annual temperature, mean maximum temperature, and mean
minimum temperature of the study area are 19.5°C, 29.7°C, and 12.2°C respectively.Considering
the area daily and seasonal temperature variation and rates of evapo-transpiration, the study area
can be characterized under woine- dega agro climatic regions. Such agro-climates are among the
suitable agro climate for the production of irrigation based fruit and cash crop production.
The mean monthly relative humidity (RH) is 71%;the highest relative humidity occurs in
September (81%). The minimum value of relative humid is 58% in December.
The meteorological data of evapo-transpiration measurement is carried out using class A pan
records for a period of time. The average monthly pan evaporation is 3.84 mm/day. The
maximum monthly evaporation is 4.82 mm/day in March while minimum evaporation is 3.06
mm/day in August.

Mean monthly sunshine hour varies from a low value of 3.8 h/d during the month of July to as
high as 8.9h/d during the month of November. The average monthly sunshine hour during the
year is 6.7 h/d.
Table 2.1: Meteorology Data Adopted forBisare Irrigation Project.
Temperatures (°C) Relati Sunshi Rad

Wind
Rainf ve n ETo.
Speed
Month all Humi hours/ MJ/m²/ (mm/
(km/
(mm) Min Max Mean dity day day day)
day)
(%).
January 29.0 13.3 29.1 21.2 62 95 8.1 20.0 4.10
February 39.0 14.0 29.7 21.85 60 104 7.6 20.3 4.39
March 86.0 13.9 28.9 21.4 65 181 7.5 21.0 4.82
April 147.0 13.5 28.1 20.8 75 130 7.1 20.4 4.29
May 156.0 13.1 26.4 39.5 77 112 6.1 18.3 3.76
June 150.0 12.8 24.3 18.55 80 104 5.9 17.6 3.44
July 218.0 12.4 22.0 17.2 80 95 3.8 14.5 2.86
August 187.0 12.2 22.5 17.35 77 104 4.3 15.7 3.06
September 123.0 12.8 25.5 19.15 81 86 5.6 18.0 3.46
October 130.0 12.8 27.3 20.05 71 95 7.2 19.8 3.94
November 42.0 13.0 29.2 21.1 70 78 8.9 21.2 4.13
December 26.0 12.9 29.0 20.95 58 69 8.3 19.8 3.88
Average 13.1 26.8 19.95 71 104 6.7 18.9 3.84

3. LAND EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

3.1 General
Land evaluation refers to the assessment of suitability of land for a specific kind of use. Land
evaluation is generally presented in the form of land suitability classes.
The physical land suitability evaluation has been made for the Bisare Farm on the basis of the
FAO framework for land evaluation. This methodology is outlined in "soil bulletin no. 55, (FAO,
1985): guideline for land evaluation for irrigated agriculture" and in "soil bulletin no 32: a
framework for land evaluation". The approach in the evaluation process is identification and
description of land utilization types (LUTs) and specifications of class determining land use
requirements (LURs) for each selected LUT. Then match the LURs with the land qualities of each
soil mapping unit (SMU).
3.2 Definition of Key terms/Phrases

The FAO definition of key terms was employed in here as it appears. The entire land evaluation
methodology used, is the FAO (1976) methodology and all key terms define those used and
defined in the same source. The definitions of these terms are presented for the purpose of easy
accessibility for the users of the report.
Land
Land is defined as a delineable area of the earth’s terrestrial surface, encompassing all attributes
of the biosphere immediately above or below this surface including those of the near-surface
climate, the soil and terrain forms, the surface hydrology (including shallow lakes, rivers,
marshes, and swamps), the near-surface sedimentary layers and associated groundwater reserve,
the plant and animal populations, the human settlement pattern and physical results of past and
present human activity, such as terracing, water storage or drainage structures, infrastructure,
buildings (UN, 1995).
Land Evaluation
Land suitability is defined (FAO, 1976) as the fitness of a specific area of land for specified kind
of use a so-called land utilization type (LUT), under a stated system of management. It means to
what extent is the land in question able to support the land utilization types under consideration.

Land characteristics
Land Characteristic (LC): a simple attribute of the land that can be directly measured or estimated
in routine survey in any operational sense, including by remote sensing and census as well as by
natural resource inventory. Diagnostic land characteristics are the LCs that will be used to
evaluate the land quality (LQ). They need to be measurable at the appropriate scale, and well
related to the land quality (which is why they are called 'diagnostic').
Land qualities
Land Quality (LQ) is a complex attribute of land which acts in a manner distinct from the actions
of other land qualities in its influence on the suitability of land for a specified kind of use; the
ability of the land to fulfill specific requirements for a LUT. A land quality is a complex attribute
of land that has direct effect on land use, but cannot be measured directly. The moisture
availability is an example of a land quality. It cannot be measured directly, but it can be
calculated from three land characteristics: field capacity, wilting point and bulk density in 1-
meter depth of a soil.
Land Utilization Types

The definitions of the land utilization types (LUT) specified-in, thus refer strictly to factors which
relate to the biophysical suitability of the land use and which are assumed not to change
significantly with changes in farming systems, which can realistically be expected in the
foreseeable future.
Land use requirements

Land Use Requirement (LUR) is a condition of the land necessary for successful and sustained
implementation of a specific Land Utilization Type. Land use requirements may include crop
requirements, management requirements and conservation requirements (FAO, 1983). The land
use requirements are described by the land characteristics or land qualities needed for sustained
production.

3.3. FAO Land Suitability level of classification

Land suitability is a measure of how well the qualities and/or characteristics of a land unit match
with the requirements of a particular form of LUTs. The suitability of the land for specific use has
been defined by rating the land qualities of land units, which are relevant to specific land
utilization types.
The suitability of land for irrigated agriculture has been determined by rating land quality of each
soil-mapping unit, which is relevant to the land utilization type. In this way the limitation of each
land unit has been identified for the land use under consideration.
Land suitability is defined (FAO, 1976) as the fitness of a specific area of land for specified kind
of use a so-called land utilization type (LUT), under a stated system of management. It means to
what extent is the land in question able to support the land utilization types under consideration.
Thus, if the LUT appears profitable the land is deemed suitable for it. Each suitability class is
divided further into sub-classes to reflect the type of limitations that restrict the suitability of the
particular land unit. They can be used to distinguish land with significantly differing
managements or production potential. Each class is designated by suffixes (diagnostic factors) or
class determining factors that are defined. The first step in classifying suitability is to define each
suitability class. The limit for each relevant land characteristics or quality is then set for each
class.
The FAO Framework encompasses the following four levels of land suitability classes. At highest
level there are two suitability 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.
At second level the suitability orders are divided into three classes, these 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.
At third level there are a number of classes, which reflect the kind of limitation that restricts the
suitability of land for specific land use. Subclasses, reflecting a requirement or limitation are

denoted by a letter suffix, these are s, t or d indicating a soil, topographic or drainage deficiency
respectively.
The subclass codes are defined specifically for the 12 LUTs under consideration (based on
Pressurized systems of irrigated agricultural development medium to high input level). Table 3.1
and Table 3.2 give application and definition of these classes and sub-classes designation
respectively. The boundaries between suitability classes are subject to revision with time as
technologies develop or socio-economic and political changes occur. However, the not suitable
classes are physical and permanent.
Class determining factors

Limiting factor is defined as a land quality, or its expression as a diagnostic criterion, adversely
affecting the potential of land for a specified kind of use or service (FAO 1976). It is a variable
affecting agronomic, management, land development, conservation, the environment or socio-
economic conditions that has an 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. The major land qualities which are worth to best describe the area for making the suitability
evaluation and be considered as the major limiting factors or class determining factors are listed
as follows. Some of them are not at their affecting limits, but are put here to show their
significances.
The levels of classification of the suitability of the soils for each specific crop or land utilization is
based on the following FAO level of classification, in which each LUT can be rated to either of
the five levels.
Land suitability subclasses: These reflect the kinds of limitations, e.g. sodicity hazard, flooding
hazard- S3f, N2x. There are no subclasses within S1.
Land suitability units: these are subdivisions of a subclass, which differ in their response to
management. Units are significant at the farm level.

Table: 3.1. FAO Land Suitability Classification Levels FAO, 1983.
Order Class Name Definition
S Suitable The land can support the land use. Benefits justify inputs
without unacceptable risk of damage to land resources.
S1 Highly Suitable Land without significant limitations. The potential yield
level expected is 85% or more of optimum yield.
S2 Moderately Land having limitations that either reduce productivity or
Suitable increase the inputs needed to sustain productivity levels
compared with those needed on S1 land. The potential
yield level expected is 60-85% of the optimum yield.
S3 Marginally Land with limitations so severe that benefits are seriously
suitable reduced and/or the inputs required to sustain productivity
are such that this cost is only marginally justified. The
potential yield level expected is 40-60% of the unsuitable
optimum yield.
N Unsuitable Land that cannot support the land use sustainable, or land
on which benefits do not justify inputs
N1 Currently Land with limitations to sustained use that cannot be
unsuitable overcome at currently acceptable cost
N2 Permanently Land with limitations to sustained use that cannot be

unsuitable overcome

Table: 3. 2. Land Suitability Limitations (Sub–Classes)

Sub - class
Description of suffix designations
suffixes
Climate (Temperature): Land units having either very low or very high
temperatures below or above the critical temperatures, which may cease the
c plant growth and may have adverse effect on rate of plant growth, depending
on the type of plants and varieties to be grown. Thus, adaptable crops should
be carefully selected for evaluation.
Moisture availability: Land units having soil moisture deficiencies, there is a
need for an increased amount and frequency of irrigation and/or selection of
m
draught–resistant crop varieties. Pressurized irrigation may be more cost
effective.
Oxygen availability: Land units having soil drainage deficiencies, ascribed to
poor soil drainage that may be due to high ground water table, flooding, slow
infiltration, slow permeability, slow surface drainage (low physiographic
d
position) or some combination of these. Sub–soiling, diversion ditches and
under drainage may be required. Selection of more tolerant crops can be
another solution.
Nutrient retention: Land units having poor capacity of soil to retain added
nutrients as against losses caused by leaching, ascribed to low CEC, and these
n
by organic matter. Thus, additional input is required to conserve organic
matter, improve soil structure, and require fertilizer application.
Nutrient availability: Land having poor capacity to supply crop with nutrients,
z
ascribed to pH, nutrient availability is lower in pH <6.0 and >7.5 by fixation.
Rooting condition: Land units with limited effective soil depth (effective depth
is a depth to a limiting horizon having high amount of gravels, hard pan or
r toxic layers) and restrictive root penetration having massive, columnar or
coarse sized structure coupled with very firm consistence and high amount of
stones or gravels.
Workability:Land units with poor workability, ascribed to massive clays, poor
w organic matter content, very firm consistence and occurrence of high amount
of stones and gravels in the surface layers.
k Potential for mechanization: Land units having unfavorable slope steepness,

Sub - class
Description of suffix designations
suffixes
rock hindrances, presence of large amount of surface stones and plastic heavy
clays, which affects mechanized agricultural operations by any kind of
implements.
Land preparation and clearance: Land having topographic limitations ascribed
to unfavorable slope angel, micro–relief coupled with excess rock out crops
t and denser vegetation covers, which needs a higher initial land development
cost, requiring land leveling (or short channel lengths and drop structures),
grading, terracing, clearances of rock hindrances and vegetation clearances.
Drainage:Land having limitation caused by the extent of ground water level at,
d’ near or far from the surface of the land and worth impacting crop cultivation,
and land having limitation related to the permeability of the soil.
Flood hazard:Land having flooding problem and worth affecting the
f productivity of the land. There is a need for flood protection in the severely
flood affected areas.
Erosion hazard: Land having an increased water erosion risk under irrigation.
e
Conservation practices and surface drainage control are required.

3.4 Levels of Development

The evaluation is carried out assuming moderately high-to-high inputs and management levels.
Thus, the LUTs can be defined, as medium to high input level of fertilizer and herbicide,
moderate capital investment, medium to high labor intensity, with moderate and high
management level by using surface irrigation and improved agronomic cultural practices, for local
consumption and with commercial market orientation.
For the cultivation of annual fruits a high to very high level of development inputs and a normal
to high level of recurring inputs are assumed. Higher level of employment and small farm size
with medium to high technical knowledge is required for the fruit crops cultivation. For annual
industrial crops such as , for intensive and extensive labor requirement a high to very high
development input and normal to high recurring inputs are required and a medium to high
employment opportunity with medium to large farm size is required assuming medium to high
technical knowhow. At the same time for field crops a high to very high development input and
normal to high recurring inputs are required and a lower employment opportunity with medium to
large farm size is required assuming high technical knowhow.
3.5 Data sources for the Land Evaluation

The major data sources/information inputs for the current evaluation process are soil survey data,
metrological and agronomic data.
The soil resource was the most important and major data source for the land suitability evaluation
mission. As to the practical purpose of the field and laboratory levels, soil survey was made to
enable more numerous, more accurate and more useful predictions of the area for specific
purposes/LUTs in the current evaluation process. The resource exploration includes:-
 the pattern of the soil cover was determined and this pattern was divided into relatively
homogeneous units (mapping units),
 the distribution of these units was mapped, thereby prediction of the soil properties
over any area was possible,
 The mapped units were characterized and useful statements were made about their
land use potential and response to changes in management.

The soil map and mapping unit legends by themselves were not the aim of the soil survey;
instead, it was entirely employed for the evaluation purpose, in which the suitability evaluation
was made (based on soil/land characteristics).
The other most important information for the land evaluation exercise in the evaluation of the
current study area of land is the climatic information the metrological data includes temperature
and relative humidity.

4. LAND QUALITIES/CHARACTERISTICS
4.1. General
Land qualities and characteristics are properties of land units and in this case the land unit map will
be used to distinguish land units of differing suitability. The assessment of land suitability for
irrigated agriculture is done based on land qualities, inferred from measured land characteristics.
4.2. Land Mapping Units

Land mapping units are areas with land qualities that differ sufficiently from other land units to
affect their suitability for different land uses. Land units are areas of land with specific
characteristics. They are normally represented within a boundary on a map in order to create a
visual geographical framework.
The core land resources data of paramount importance for land evaluation are soils, climate,
present land use and land cover. The purpose of identifying land units is to provide a mapped
basis of relatively homogeneous areas (land unit map) to be used as building blocks for land
evaluation. Land units are described in terms of their characteristics and qualities. A land
characteristic is a fairly simple attribute that can be measured or estimated, such as soil texture,
effective soil depth, drainage, topography and ability of soil to retain nutrient.
Land Qualityis an attribute of land which acts in a distinct manner in its influence on the
suitability of the land for the LUTs under consideration. In the present study land qualities
comprise water availability, soil depth, hydraulic conductivity, drainage, soil workability,
susceptibility to erosion and water-logging.
Land units are described by their main characteristics, which are the properties of the land that can
be measured or estimated. In this study the main land characteristics considered, are slope and soil
drainage classes and soil depth. Based on land characteristics 3 land mapping units have been
identified. The summary of land characteristics of the soil mapping units are presented in Table
4.1 below.

Table 4.1: Physical and Chemical Characteristics soil mapping unit of Bisare command area
Soil Area
PBS( %) of top soil

CEC meq/100g top
Sur. Stoniness (%)

Ave. HC, (m/day)
OC(%) of top soil

Texture top 20cm
Average ESP(%)
Mapping.
Ave. EC, mS/cm

Ave.IR (cm/hr)
Drainage, class
Erosion, status
pHof top soil
Bulk density
Depth (Cm)
Unit (H %
CaCO3(%)
Temp.(0C)
P2O5ppm
GWT (m)
Flooding
A
TNT(%)
Slope %
Relative
SMU1 88. 75. 19. 71 >20 0-3 C W S >3 0.5 5.9 1.3 0.2 5.6 26.1 82.2 0.7 0.4 0.18 18.9 2.4 N N
6 7 9 0 7 8 1 0 5 1 2 8 1 3
SMU2 19. 16. 19. 71 <13 0.5- CL M N <1.3 0.3 5.5 1.2 0.2 3.8 45.6 87.7 0.4 1.8 0.49 18.4 Nill N Slight
8 9 9 5 5 5 5 0 3 1 3 6 5
Miscellan
eous land
Gully cut,
degraded
lands
Wetand 8.6 7.4

flooded
land
Total 117 100

Study
Area:

5. LAND UTILIZATION TYPES & LAND USE REQUIREMENTS

5.1 Land Utilization Types
The main objective of this land evaluation study is to select an optimum land use type for each
land unit identified in the study area. Land evaluation defines the suitability of a specific area of
land (land unit) for a specific LUT under the stated management system and input level.
The existing major land utilization type in the survey area is cultivation followed by animal
husbandry. The LUTs to be selected for land evaluation of the area should create more
employment, market oriented, provide subsistence food and cash income and create a possibility
to grow 2 - 3 crops per year on a given land by increasing the cropping intensity of 200 - 300%.
Surface irrigation of crops is, thus, the main land use type to be considered. A number of surface
irrigation LUTs have thus, been identified and defined in terms of their production.
The definitions of the LUTs specified for Bisare irrigated agriculture strictly refer to factors which
relate to the biophysical suitability of the land use and which are assumed not to change
significantly with changes in land systems that can realistically be expected in the foreseeable
future. Examples of such “stable” factors are capital intensity and the level of mechanization.
Other factors, such as the use of improved seeds, fertilizers and degree of market orientation may
change over a relatively short period of time, because of changes in the local production
environment (e.g. due to the construction of feeder road, subsidizing of inputs). These factors will
affect the economic suitability of the land, but within the parameters defined above will not
significantly change the biophysical suitability of the land for that particular land use.
The choice of appropriate LUTs was done by considering the physical conditions such as climate,
soil and topography, agronomic conditions of the study area, available agronomic information and
market availability. The Government of Ethiopia pays attention to the development of the
agricultural sector, to improve food self-sufficiency and sustain food security at the household
level and develop an agriculture-based industrial development in the long run. It has also a
concern for farmers to produce cash crops, as a strategy of providing economic household
security.
The evaluation was carried out assuming moderate to high input management levels, moderate to
high capital investment and high labor intensity. Thus, the LUTs can be defined as high input
level of fertilizers and herbicides, moderate capital investment, high labor intensity, 100% private

property, with moderate and high management level, by using surface irrigation and improved
agronomic practices for local consumption and with commercial market orientation. Thus, maize,
onion, pepper and haricot bean LUTs to be evaluated.
5.2. Land Use Requirement

It is usually sufficient to select a small subset (FAO, 1976) of the many land use requirements and
therefore, in the current evaluation attempt was made to select some critical/limiting land
characteristics which are worth to limit the suitability of the Bisare irrigation area of land for the
intended purpose. Three criteria were employed for the purpose of selecting the LURs. These are:
(1) importance for the use; (2) existence of critical values, and (3) availability of data with which
to evaluate the corresponding land qualities. About 12 LQs/factor ratings were selected and
matched to each LCs to evaluate each land mapping unit (LMU) against the identified LUTs.
Different crops (LUTs) and different management systems have different

ecological/environmental requirements. After considering various factors, namely agronomic,
land development, management, conservation and environmental, the relevant class determining
factors were defined as variables that affect the performance of LUTs on a land unit. The
suitability of land for a specific use was established by taking each land unit map and rating, land
qualities or land characteristics relevant to that LUT.
The crop requirements of all the selected crops are presented as mainly taken from Sys, et al.
(1993): Land Evaluation: Part III – Crop Requirements; FAO (1984): Land Evaluation: Part two –
Land Utilization Types for Ethiopia & Part three – Crop environmental Requirements for
Ethiopia, and Reddy (2004): Agronomy of Field Crops. However, basic research results still
should better be required to update and supplement the already prepared crop requirements to fit
into the existing condition of the study area. The Land use requirements are described by the land
characteristics grouped to land qualities needed for the required sustained irrigated agricultural
production as described below.
5.3. Description of Land Use Requirements

Different crops require a land area of different climatic and soil properties. For example, the land,
water and climatic requirement of vegetable crops greatly vary from those which are needed by
field crops. Accordingly, the land use requirements of the different crops to be grown in the
BisareIrrigation project command area are all identified as presented in the following subsections.
The crop requirements of all the selected crops are presented as they appear in the Sys, et al.

(1993): Land Evaluation: Part III – Crop Requirements, FAO (1984): Land Evaluation: Part two –
Land Utilization Types for Ethiopia & Part three – Crop environmental Requirements for Ethiopia,
and Reddy (2004): Agronomy of Field Crops. The crop requirements are set at the surface
irrigation level. The environmental requirements/crop requirements for each land utilization type
are tabulated in the appendix part.
5.3.1 Land Use Requirement for Surface Irrigation

Surface irrigation is the most common method of irrigation and accounts for 95% of irrigation in
the world. Surface irrigation method is well suited for use on both small and large schemes.
Basin, border, and furrow are all surface irrigation methods. Surface irrigation often selected
because they are considered to simple methods convenient for farmers with little and no
knowledge of irrigation. The selection of surface irrigation for Bisarecommand area must be
viewed in this context. Surface irrigation should never be described as simple if at the same time
there is a need to use water efficiency. The method places too much responsibility for achieving
good result in the hands of the farmer and the technology provides little in the way of support. In
contrast to its management the design of surface irrigation layouts and their construction is
relatively simple and no special materials are needed. Potentially surface can be very efficient if
all factors involved are under the careful control of a skilled and experience farmer. Soils with
high infiltration rate are commonly not suitable to surface irrigation, because even distribution of
irrigation water is difficult to maintain without short furrows. As a result the loamy soils may be
considered as marginally suitable, despite the potential optimum nutrient and moisture holding
capacity.
The choice of surface irrigation method depends on land slope, soil type (infiltration rate), field
shape, crops and labor requirements. These key characteristics summarizes as follows:

Table: 5.1. Land Uses Requirement and Land Quality Criteria for Surface Irrigation
Suitability Classes
Land Uni S1 S2 S3 N1 N2
Quality t
2
Slope % 0-2 2-4 4-6 >6
Drainage
Well, v.
Paddy rice under excessive,
Poor, very poor Imperfect Modern., well, poor
natural floods poor
well Mod. , well imperfect Excessive
Other crops
depth cm >200 120-200 60-120 30-60 <30
Loamy
silty loam & clay loamy sand, coarse
soil texture clay, sandy
loam, silt, sandy heavy clay, sand, fine
clay loam
clay sandy loam sand, sand,
coarse sand
Salinity ms/cm Crop specific

CEC meq/ >20 5-20 <5
100g
OC % >2 0.4-2 <0.4
pH 5.6 – 7.2 7.2 – 8.5 7-8 < 4.5 or >
8.5
structure sab sab platy massive
consistence slightly sticky, sticky, plastic very sticky, very sticky,
Slightly plastic very plastic very plastic
Erosion status none medium/slight severe very severe
infiltration rate
permeability
ESP % Crop specific
CaCO3 % Crop specific
Gypsum % Crop specific
Surface stoniness % <2 2-15 15-40 >40
Gravel & stones % <2 2-15 15-40 >40
with in the profile
vegetation No clearing scattered forest dense forest dense
requirement forest
Micro relief even slight uneven broken
Flooding
Paddy rice To be defined Local F1
Other crops None knowledge Frequent frequent
Rarely

5.3.1 Land Use Requirement for Surface Irrigated Pepper cultivation
Peppercultivation: These vegetable have more or less similar soil requirement. These vegetables
prefer medium texture and well drained and well-structured soils. They have shallow rooting
depth of less than 60 cm and require high nutrient. They grow in the pH range of 6.0 to 7.5.
Climate: During the early growth stage of tomato cool conditions with adequate moisture supply
is most suitable but warm and drier conditions are required at maturation, harvesting and curing
stages. The optimum temperatures for germination of tomato crop ranges from 10 - 25 0C, where
early maturity and low yields occur at temperatures > 22 0C. The optimum precipitation for this
crop is 350 to 600 mm in a given growth cycle and low air humidity and low temperatures lead to
flowering.
Soil: Well aerated, Fertile and loamy textured and friable soils are suited for tomato growing as
long as sufficient water can be retained. The maximum rooting depth of the crop is 50 cm and
tomato can be successfully grown on peat soils.
Salinity &sodicity: The optimum pH range of the soils for this crop is 6.0 to 7.8 and a 50% yield
reduction is observed at an ESP of 35%. No yield reduction has been experienced at an EC of
<1.2 dS/m.
These crops can yield 160 to 240 Qt/ha on rain-fed good commercial management and 350 to 450
qt/ha in irrigated but the same management. The production of the crop in irrigated average
farmer level management is 100 to 200 qt/ha.
5.3.2 Land Use Requirement for Surface Irrigated Onions cultivation
Onions(Alliumcepa): These vegetable have more or less similar soil requirement. These
vegetables prefer medium texture and well drained and well-structured soils. They have shallow
rooting depth of less than 60 cm and require high nutrient. They grow in the pH range of 6.0 to
7.5.
Climate: During the early growth stage of onion cool conditions with adequate moisture supply is
most suitable but warm and drier conditions are required at maturation, harvesting and curing
stages. The optimum temperatures for germination of onion crop ranges from 10 - 25 0C, where
early maturity and low yields occur at temperatures > 22 0C. The optimum precipitation for this

crop is 350 to 600 mm in a given growth cycle and low air humidity and low temperatures lead to
flowering.
Soil: Well aerated, Fertile and loamy textured and friable soils are suited for onion growing as
long as sufficient water can be retained. The maximum rooting depth of the crop is 50 cm and
onion can be successfully grown on peat soils.
Salinity &sodicity: The optimum pH range of the soils for this crop is 6.0 to 7.8 and a 50% yield
reduction is observed at an ESP of 35%. No yield reduction has been experienced at an EC of
<1.2 dS/m.
These crops can yield 140 to 200 Qt/ha on rain-fed good commercial management and 350 to 450
qt/ha in irrigated but the same management. The production of the crop in irrigated average
farmer level management is 100 to 200 qt/ha.
5.3.3 Land Use Requirement for Surface Irrigated Maize (Zeamais)
Climate: Maize shows tolerance to a wide range of environmental condition, except frost during
the growing season. It grows in the temperature range of 14 to 40 0C with optimal growth
temperature of 18 to 320C; and in areas having a total annual precipitation of 500-5000 mm.
Excessive air humidity is not good for the crop.
Soil: Well-drained, well-aerated, deep loam and silt loam soils with adequate organic matter are
most suited for maize cropping. The maximum rooting depth of the crop is 200 cm, and the water
table must occur below 75 cm from the surface. Water-logging specially during the first 5 weeks
from sowing may entirely damage the crop and even after the fifth week there should not be any
water logged for one or two days. Lower plant density is recommended in soils with low moisture
retention capacity or in areas of low rainfall.
Sodicity& Salinity: The optimum pH of the soil need be between 5.8 and 7.8, and50% yield
reduction is observed at an ESP of 15%. No yield reduction is expected at an electrical
conductivity of <1.7 dS/m.
Nitrogen is the most important nutrient and young maize has difficulty in taking up P from the
less available phosphate forms. As far as yield is concerned about 6.0 to 9.0 ton grain/ha and 33.0-
ton fodder/ha is expected in well-managed commercial farm and about 0.5 to 1.5 ton grain/ha is

produced in traditional smallholder farms. On irrigated well-managed commercial farms, about

6.0 to 9.0 ton/ha grain and 80.0 ton/ha fodder can be produced.
5.3.4 Land Use Requirement for Surface Irrigated Haricot bean cultivation
Climate: The mean temperature range for a proper growth of Haricot is 15 - 40 0C, the optimum
temperature range being 20 – 300C. The required mean minimum temperature in the growing
season is 12 to 240C. The crop is only slightly resistant to frost. The optimum precipitation
required in the growing season ranges from 350 to 1100 mm. The crop is sensitive to dry wind.
Soil: Haricot beans can be produced on a wide variety of soils. Flooding of the land is not
permitted. The optimum pH ranges from 5.5 to 7.5. About 1.5 to 2.5 tons of seeds per ha can be
produced at good commercial management under rain fed and 0.8 to 1.3 ton seeds per hectare is
obtained at traditional smallholder management from rain fed cropping and 2.5 to 3.5 ton seeds
under good commercial management and 1.5 to 2 tons seeds per hectare with average farmer
management can be produced in irrigated cultivation.
Salinity &Sodicity: No yield reduction is observed at an EC of <5 dS/m and a 50% yield
reduction occurs at an ESP of 20%

6. LAND SUITABILITY CLASSIFICATION

6.1. General
Land can be evaluated for its current/actual suitability and its potential suitability. An actual
suitability does not take in to account any improvements that will be made. In essence, it is a
statement of the suitability of the land at the current state (Sogreah, 1982). Potential suitability
refers to the situation of a land once specified measures have been taken to overcome major
problems. The surface irrigation project area is evaluated at the current condition and its potential
suitability for the surface irrigation system. The command area land is mainly evaluated with the
FAO basic procedures and the land is evaluated with respect to its suitability for a given land use
and the alternative land uses (i.e. LUTs) of interest were evaluated and decided separately.
The definitions of the land utilization types specified-in, thus refer strictly to factors which relate
to the biophysical suitability of the land use and which are assumed not to change significantly
with changes in farming systems, which can realistically be expected in the foreseeable future.
Other factors, such as the use of improved seeds, fertilizers and degree of market orientation may
change over a relatively short period, because of changes in the local production environment
(e.g. due to the construction of feeder road, subsidizing of inputs). These factors will affect the
economic suitability of the land, but within the parameters defined above will not change the
biophysical suitability of the land for that particular land use significantly.
The land use reflects the current land use practices that are not expected to change significantly in
the near future without major interventions. The present land evaluation thus provides a
systematic overview of the physical limitations of these land uses. This in turn provides a useful
indication on opportunity, and type of improvements required to improve the systems.
During the evaluation the entire land area, which was surveyed with all soil and land
characteristics, was considered without reducing the settlement area. Under irrigation designing,
the issue of existing settlement and infrastructures should better be taken in to account. The
relevant ‘class-determining’ factors that are expected to have influence on the suitability of land
for the given LUT and that may vary from land unit to land unit were selected based on their
impacts on its suitability.

As discussed in the methodology, for each selected class-determining factor, the appropriate land
use requirement or limitations were entered into a tabular description form. For each mapping
unit, land qualities and land characteristics, which are ‘class-determining’ with respect to the
requirements and limitations of the LUT, were decided. For each land unit (identified and
explained in the soil report), the appropriate values of the land qualities and land characteristics
were compared. Critical limits of each land use requirement or limitation were matched with the
selected land qualities/diagnostic land characteristics, to obtain a factor rating of S 1, S2, S3, N1 or
N2 for each combination of LUT and land unit. The factor ratings with the major limiting factors
were presented to represent the suitability level of the mapping unit.
6.2. Land Mapping Units
Land unit is defined as an area of land defined in terms of land qualities and characteristics that
may be demarcated on a map. Land mapping unit is defined as an area of land demarcated on a
map and possessing specified land characteristics or qualities (FAO 1976). Land mapping units
are conventionally constructed based on the physical characteristics of the area including agro-
ecological and soil mapping units. In the Bisare command area the agro-ecological mapping units
are entirely of one unit and the significance of differentiating the area in different agro-ecological
units is not worthy, and therefore, the area is rated as one unit in this regard. Following this fact
the soil mapping units are entirely taken for the land mapping units as they appear in the soil
survey study. These soil mapping units, now land mapping units are 3 in number, all on a similar
agro-ecological unit. The Mapping units are SMU1, SMU2 and Miscellaneous land units all on
alluvial plain soils.
6.3 Land Suitability Evaluation by Land Utilization Types
The suitability of a land area could and is evaluated at two levels: the first at the major kind of land
use and the second level at specific kind of land use. In most cases feasibility and detailed level
studies have been evaluated for the suitability of the land at the specific kind of land use suitability
evaluation level. This is triggered to the reason that the land is hoped to be studied earlier than this
level at major kind of land use. In regard to the Bisare Irrigation Project, the area has been
identified as likely suitable for surface irrigation and therefore, major emphasis has been given for
the evaluation of the specific kind of land use. The details are discussed as below in section 6.1 and
6.2.

Table: 6. 1. Actual Land Suitability by LMU & LUT

Area Land Utilization Types (LUTs)
Haricot
Soil Mapping Ha % Maize Onion Pepper
Bean
Unit
SMU 1 88.6 75.7 S3e/n/r S3n/r/w S3n/r/w S3n/r/w
SMU 2 19.8 16.9 S3d/f/z S3z S3z S3z

Miscellaneou
s Land units 8.6 7.4 N2e/f N2e/f N2e/f N2e/f
Total 117.0 100
6.4. Land Suitability Evaluation by Soil Mapping Units
The land of the Bisare command area was divided in to 3 land mapping units based on slope, soil
texture, geomorphic units /slope and phases like crevasse, erosion etc.. These units are evaluated
for their suitability for different land utilization types for surface irrigation based agricultural
production. In the evaluation process an area of 117.0 ha land was evaluated. Suitability rating
was made sequentially on the basis of climate suitability, soil suitability and ease of management.
Matching (i.e. suitability assessment) for each land-mapping unit was made, taking into
consideration the physiological requirements of a specific crop and the existing biophysical land
conditions (e.g. climate, soils and landform) and chemical soil conditions. The output of this
assessment was a ranking given to each LUT based on the expected best suitability of the land.
6.4.1. Soil Mapping Unit -1

It covers 88.6ha of an area and constitutes 75.7% out of the total area. The major limitations of
this land unit are nutrient retention, rooting condition, land development and clearance, erosion
hazard and workability conditions. As consequence it is downgraded to marginally suitable for
surface irrigated maize, onion, pepper and H.bean (S3e/n/r/w) due to small amount of organic
carbon, erosion hazard and soil and land characteristic limitation.
6.4.2. Soil Mapping Unit-2

This land unit occupies some 19.8ha, which forms 16.9% of out of the total command area. The
major limitations of this land unit are nutrient availability, oxygen availability, land development
and clearance and flood hazard. As consequence it is downgraded to marginally suitable for
surface irrigated maize, onion, pepper and H.bean (S3d/f/z) due to flooding hazard, soil reaction
and soil and land characteristic limitation.
6.4.3. Miscellaneous soil mapping unit

This mapping unit covers around 8.6ha, which makes 7.4% of the command area. This land unit is
downgraded in to permanently unsuitable (N2) for surface irrigated maize, onion, pepper and
H.bean (N2e/f) due to abundant stoniness and severe erosion and gully cut unfavorable for surface
irrigation.
6.5. Summary of Actual Land Suitability
command area were marginally suitable (S3) for maize, onion, pepper and haricot bean,
The evaluation showed that those areas, which fall under moderately suitable, are known to have
some minor limitations such as moisture availability, nutrient availability, oxygen availability,
rooting condition, and drainage and flood hazard. These moderately suitable lands, in aggregate,
will reduce productivity or benefits and increase required inputs that the advantage to be gained
from the land use, although still attractive, will be less than the more suitable ones.
The evaluation results are presented in the previous sections in reference to their actual suitability
to the evaluated different LUTs or crop types. For ease of simple accessibility and understanding
of each land units, the actual suitability results for each land utilization type are presented as
below in Table 6.2:
Table: 6. 2. Summary of Actual Land Suitability of Bisare Area

Area coverage in ha
S2 S3
LUTs S1 (Highly Sub Sub Grand
(Moderately (Marginally N1 N2
Suitable) Total Total Total
Suitable) Suitable)
Maize - - 108.4 108.4 - 8.6 8.6 117.0
Onion - - 108.4 108.4 - 8.6 8.6 117.0
- 108.4 108.4 8.6 8.6 117.0

Pepper - -
Haricot - 108.4 108.4 8.6 8.6 117.0

- -
Bean
6.6 Potential Land Suitability
Suitability ratings of a given land-mapping unit may change over time as a consequence of
improvements. Land improvements can modify existing land qualities (a minor improvement is
temporary in nature and lies within the technical capacity of an individual land user e.g. fertilizer
application). A major improvement is a large, non-recurrent input which causes a permanent
change in the land qualities and which lie usually outside the technical capacity of an individual
farmer (e.g. a regional drainage scheme) (FAO, 1983) or as a consequence to changes in one or
more of the underlying assumptions (e.g. a change in input level).
The Bisare small scale irrigation project area is evaluated at the current condition and its potential
suitability for the specified irrigation system. The major limiting factors for each mapping unit are
rated for their suitability for future use but it could be possible by improving fertile characters and
avoiding harsh characters of the limiting factors. In the mean time the area was found potentially
suitable for all selected crops provided that soil reclamation measures are implemented. Hence,
the summaries of potential suitability of the selected crops are presented in the following Table

6.3Table: 6. 3. Summary of Potential Land Suitability of Bisare Area
Area coverage in ha
S1 S2 S3 N1 N2 Sub Gran
(Highly (Moderatel (Marginall Sub (Currently (Permanently Tota d
LUTs Suitable) y Suitable) y Suitable) Total Unsuitable Unsuitable) l Total
-
Maize - 114.1 2.9 117 - - 117
114.1 2.9 117 - 117
Onion - - -
- 114.1 2.9 117 - 117
Pepper - -
Haricot - 114.1 2.9 117 - 117
Bean - -

6.7 Land Suitability Maps

The following Land Suitability Maps have been prepared for cultivation of important potential
crops and for development of irrigated separately with surface irrigation systems, which are
available in the report at the figures indicated against them. The current Land Suitability Maps
have been prepared.

7.0 SOIL AND LAND MANAGEMENT

7.1. General
The soils investigated in the surveyed area areCalcaricFluvisols with well drainage and clay loam
texture, which has moderate drainage characteristics and Chromic Vertisols with well drainage.
The calcaricfluvisolsof the Bisare command area cover 29.5ha. The chromic Vertisols of the
Bisare area covers significant proportion of the command area (about 88.6ha). The serious
limitations of these soils are nutrient retention, oxygen availability, nutrient availability, rooting
condition, erosion hazard, workability, and flood hazard and low nutrient level in particular low
nitrogen content and low organic carbon content.Thus the main soil and land management
requirements are briefly described below.
7.2 Soil Fertility
The chemical laboratory analysis results were used for soil fertility rating. Soil nutrient status of
the project site is generally low to medium. Although the area is forest and cultivated land, the
content of organic matter is low. To improve organic carbon should be practiced mulching of
crop residues after harvesting with application of manure and compost. The use of plant species
that are capable of fixing atmospheric nitrogen can improve soil fertility and reduce dependency
on chemical fertilizer. In addition improved agriculture practices such as crop rotation, alley
cropping and the use of green manure provide accessory nutrient pool for plant growth. The
content of total nitrogen (N %) is varying from 0.18 to 0.49%, showing that nitrogen is at low
level. Thus, application of nitrogen fertilizer is highly required such as urea. The maintenance of
organic matter also improves the CEC of the soil.
The CEC value of soil types is very high, ranging from 26.1 to 45.6meq/100g soils with mean
value of 35.85meq/100g soil. The base saturation percentage is 84.5%. The content of phosphorus
is low in all soil-mapping units (18.4- 18.9 ppm) and supplementary phosphate will be required at
the beginning of the farming operation. The EC and ESP values of all mapping units are low and
thus salinity and sodicity effects are negligible. In the case of the current laboratory analysis the
content of Ca is very high varying, from 7.19 to 29.50meq/100 g soils. The content of
exchangeable Mg is very high (2.49- 11.35meq/100g soil).
The reserve of K is medium to high (0.24 - 4.06meq/100g soils). The magnesium level in the soil
is very high and this indicates the requirement to apply adequate potassium to maintain a
satisfactory K: Mg balance in the soil.

To maintain and to improve soil fertility, the best recommendations include the followings: -
Green manuring is recommended in the entire command area. Green manuring consists of
ploughing in green, where the plant materials can come from a crop that was grown after or
between the main crop, or from a weed that grow during a fallow period, or it can also come from
a shade plant or tree whose cuttings or fallen leaves are suitable for ploughing into the soil.
During their growth period green manures provide mulching and are named as living mulch.
Green manures can absorb nutrients thereby they reduce loss of nutrients due to leaching, during a
period in which no main crops are grown. Green manures also have positive effects on the soil
structure (because of the penetration of their roots), they add organic matter, and they stimulate
the growth of soil organic matter. Application of green manure increases utilization of phosphorus
by the crop not from the added fertilizers but also from the reserve supplies of soil phosphorus.
For example crotalaria is very effective to improve soil fertility in areas where cotton is growing.
For green manuring, it is important to choose a plant that quickly covers the ground and produces
a deep and extensive root system, so that the nutrient from the deep soil layers can be transported
to the surface.
Some simple and less costly, but high output land management practices such as plantation of
multipurpose tree species are recommended to plant in and around farm boundaries, so that soil
erosion could be reduced and soil fertility could be improved.
Chemical fertilizers are recommended to apply to boost the productivity of the selected crops.
Chemical fertilizers are known to add nutrients to the soil directly, even if it is not enough to
retain a sufficient level of soil fertility. If the organic matter in the soil decreases, crop yield also
decreases even if a chemical fertilizer is added. This is due to structural degradation of the soil,
lower capacity of the soil to retain nutrients and water and other impacts. These soils are in need
of application of chemical fertilizers with organic fertilizers.
The conventional ways of fertilizer application are broad casting and row application. These
methods especially suited for furrow irrigation by these methods will not be viable for surface
irrigation. Therefore, chemigation/fertigation is proposed as the best method for surface irrigation
water application systems the project. There is a need for application of NPK fertilizers in the
project area.

The application of nitrogen containing fertilizers for crops selected should be by split application
depending on the growth stage of the crop. The concentration of phosphorous for most of the soils
within the study area is found to be adequate and therefore, the soils would have moderate
response to the application of fertilizer containing phosphorous.
Crop rotation is important for the maintenance of soil fertility, for prevention of a build-up of soil
borne disease, pests and weeds and for the control of erosion. For instance it does well in rotation
with cereals and leguminous crops.
Intercropping is a farming system of inter-planting of different crops on the same of piece of land.
For example inter-planting annual crops with perennial crops. It is useful for maintaining soil
fertility, for suppress weeds, to use the land effectively and to control soil erosion.
7.3 Soil Cultivation

Cultivation is done to lose tight soil to give it a favorable soil structure for seed emergence. At the
same time, it eliminates weeds and thus it favors the growth of seedling. Sub soil compaction in
some sites could be a constraint in subsoil and as a consequence water will be overflow and create
sheet erosion. So it will be necessary to employ subsoiler in order to create and maintain an open
soil structure throughout the top 50 cm of soil to encourage vigorous root systems, to reduce sheet
erosion and to enhance infiltration of irrigation water. Soil cultivation mainly depends on soil
textural class. Hence, in the project area cultivation suggested to be carried out as follows:
Clayey Soils
In these soils tillage must be done rather frequently but with great care. The risk of compaction
and plough-pan formation is varying due to poor organic matter content. Ploghing can be done
any time. However, if heavy rain rained ploughing should be done after 7-14 days.
Clay Loam Soils
Clay Loams are soils with the best structure characteristics. These soils are drain quickly and
problems related to excessive soil moisture content are seldom met. Tillage must be done rather
deeply, as the organic matter is well distributed.

7.4 Soil Erosion Control

The soils of the studied area are susceptible to soil erosion. It has been noted that the occurrence
of sheet and gully erosion in most sites of the project area. Gully erosion is the prominent
constraint in the studied area that caused the crevasse and sink hole. Gully erosion is particularly
difficult and expensive to control and not always successful. Combinations of mechanical and
vegetative measures are usually required to control or prevent erosion.
Mechanical
Mechanical methods include the construction of banks, gully checks and terraces to direct runoff
away from the gully and deep ripping, chisel ploughing and other types of cultivation surrounding
and above the gully erosion to promote more even infiltration.
 Contour banks and drains to divert surface water from susceptible areas
 Deep ripping, chisel ploughing and cultivation of all areas adjacent and above the eroded
area
 Ripping and excavating of all tunnels to a depth of at least 15 cm below the gully base
 Ripping should be conducted in multiple directions finishing with ripping along the
contour
 Repacking excavated soil with stable clays.
Vegetation
With all earth works in gully affected areas, re-establishing vegetation is essential to not only bind
soils and provide a protective cover, but also to maximize uniform water use. In many cases
topsoil may have to be brought onto the site to produce a level finish and establish a rapid
vegetation cover. Resurfacing of the reclaimed area may also be required to ensure runoff is
evenly distributed across the site.
 Essential to bind soils, protect surface soils and maximize uniform water use
 Non dispersive topsoil may have to be brought in
 Resurfacing area to spread runoff
 Re-vegetate with grass within reclaimed areas
 Establish trees above and around reclaimed area to maximize water uptake.

7.5 Land Levelling

The studied areas has uneven and hummocky surface. The sink holes also common features.
Therefore, the land requires extensive grading and leveling. Land leveling (Land grading) is the
process of modifying the surface relief of a field to the required plane. Such process in turn used
to distribute irrigation water uniformly so as to optimize water resource and improve agricultural
yield. The work of land leveling involves intensive survey work and utilization of skill
manpower's and heavy-duty machineries. Land leveling is usually accomplished on a field-by-
field basis. It is extremely important, therefore, to study the entire farm before attempting any
leveling.
Land leveling is probably the most intensive practices that are applied to agricultural lands, and
much expense can be saved by carefully dividing the farm into areas that have about the same
slope and soil characteristics. These areas will provide a basis for selecting the proper field
arrangement. The development of uniform grade in the direction of irrigation and the removal of
slopes at right angles to it should be the aim of a high quality-leveling job. This is particularly
true for surface irrigation methods like border strip. A safe limit of longitudinal slope of in the
case of the project area is 0.2 – 0.4%.
7.6 Land Clearing

Prior to making the land leveling, it is advantageous to remove heavy vegetative growth from the
land. Land clearing consists of removing some or all of the trees, bush, vegetation, trash and
boulders from the area specified for land leveling. The operation also includes grubbing which is
the process of removing stumps, sunken stones, and borders and all roots over a minimum size
and up to a specified depth as may be required where the land to be leveled is covered with large
brush and timber. In deep soils in the case of the present study, cuts in to sub soil may not be
harmful, because organic matter and fertilizers can be added to build up its fertility quickly.
7.7 Flood Management and Drainage
The study area is known to be flooded some times by summer water from the BisareRiver during
high the rainy seasons of the upper Sodo high land catchment areas. This problem is known to
have a severe impact in the area. For the upcoming agricultural development, the area will be at
higher risk, if flood control measures are not placed in to the area to protect this hazard.

Flood hazards may occur on the recently deposited by streams and subject to frequent change
through the areaa. Included with this land type are minor areas of river wash. Though no torrential
erosive rains occur on the study area, the occurrence at the above catchment area, during the rainy
seasons is known to cause flooding on some land units. Such flooding will be difficult and is
expensive to control, though should be controlled, irrigation structures will be broken; farmlands
would be covered with debris, drainage channels would be filled with sediment and general
agricultural operations and maintenance costs would increase.
The laboratory results, in this study, revealed that the bulk density values are medium to higher.
The total porosity (TP) of the soils showed a significant level and generally indicates less degree
of compaction in most cases. Since the TP of the soils in the study area is relatively good the soils
are not liable to restrict root growth but clay soils are liable to root restriction and needs
application of soil structure improvement methods.
The infiltration rate values observed in the Bisare command area showed variable ranges, mostly
rapid class. The values between 0.35 & 0.57 cm/hr (which is observed in the Bisare area) could be
considered as mainly suitable range and those 5 below 0.cm/hr are marginally suitable (too slow
for most crops). The entire survey area is mostly moderately to marginally suitable for irrigation.
Artificial drainage is necessary to solve oxygen availability problems due to imperfect drainage
for some crops. By employing artificial drainage, the drainage problem of these soils can be
partially alleviated, but can’t be removed completely, since it is partly due to the nature of clay
minerals in the soils of poorly drained land units. The main media of deal in the study of land
suitability is the land with its components (like soil). The soil as a base for the land and its
characteristics is selected to deal on more in the management aspect of the Bisare irrigation
project study.

8.0 CONCLUSSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 Conclusions
The main objective of the land evaluation mission of the project site was to assess the potential of
the area for surface irrigation. The suitability evaluation results of the surveyed area showed that a
significant proportion of the area was found to be at least marginally suitable for the intended
irrigation purpose.
command area were moderately suitable (S3) for maize, onion, pepper and haricot bean,
All of the mapping units need some form of land management inputs and are all under such
treatments that they can be utilized in a sustainable way, i.e. without compromising the future use
of the land areas. The drainage problem and flooding hazard in the entire area of the soil
demanding serious attention, if otherwise, might restrict intensified agricultural productivity and
restrict crop selection.
8.2 Recommendations
The following recommendations are made based on the above results and the conclusions made in
section 8.1 above. Some of the recommendations are well known by many farmers, but in this
case they have to be applied to the best standards, and others might be new for practitioners
demanding trainings.
Therefore, it is recommended to take the following measures:
To control soil erosion, required proper and efficient measures such as mechanical and
biological measures as discussed in section 7.
Flood protection should be constructed to protect the command area from over flow flooding
of Bisare River.
Wind break should be employed in order to protect the farm from wind damage.

Appropriate land leveling/ grading should be employed.

In order to maintain soil fertility nutrients removed from the soil by crop must be restored by
the application of fertilizers and manure.

9. REFERENCES
FAO, 1976.A Framework for Land Evaluation, Soil Bulletin No. 32, FAO, Rome.
FAO, 1985. Guidelines: Land evaluation for irrigated agriculture. Soils Bulletin No. 55. FAO,
Rome.
Huitzing, H. 1992, Land Evaluation, Lecture Note for Land Evaluation specialization, ITC,
Entscede, The Netherlands
Ir. C. Sys et al., 1991. Part III: Crop Requirements in Land Evaluation, Brussels.
Landon, J.R., 1991. Booker Tropical soil manual, A hand book for soil survey and agricultural
land evaluation in the tropics and subtropics. Longman, Booker/Tate.
MoA (Ministry of Agriculture), 1998.Agro-ecological Zones of Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
OBAD (Omo Basin Agriculture Development), 1986. Study for Agricultural Development in the
Lower Omo-Basin. Ethio-Korea OBAD Joint Venture in 1986.
Reddy, S.H., 2004.Agronomy of Field Crops. New Delhi, India.
Richard Wood Roof, 1996.Omo-Gibe River Basin Integrated Master Plan Study: Semi-detailed
study of Soil Survey & Land Suitability Evaluation. Richard Wood Roof in
association with mascot Ltd, 1996.
SSS (Soil Survey Staff), 1999. Key to Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for
Making and Interpreting Soil Survey. Agricultural Handbook
436.USDA/NRCS, .Washington, DC, 2nd edition, 1999.
SSS (Soil Survey Staff), 2003.Soil Survey Manual.USDA/NRCS, New York.
UNDP & FAO, 1984. Assistance to Land Use Planning - Ethiopia: Land Evaluation Part two –
Land utilization types. Technical report 5, UNDP & FAO, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
WWDSE, 2007.Ratte Irrigation & Drainage Project: Soil Survey, Agronomy and Hydrology draft
reports of Ratte Irrigation & Drainage Project. Addis Ababa.
Yadav, J.S.P and F.I. Massoud, 1988.Salt-Affected Soils and Their Management.Soil Resources,
Management and Conservation Service FAO Land and Water Development
Division, FAO Soils Bulletin 39, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Rome.

APPENDICES
1. Land use requirements of the selected crop types/LUTs
2. Land Suitability of the selected LUTs
Appendix 1: Land use requirements of the selected crop types/LUTs

Appendix: 1.1. Land Use Requirements for Surface Irrigated Pepper Cultivation
Land use requirements Factor Ratings /Range of Suitability /level of yield
Land
Quality/diagno Unit S1 S2 S3 N1 N
Land
stic factors
Characteristic
Desc Sub
s
riptio class 100-85 60 40 25 0
n Suffix
Crop requirement
Climate c Mean air 22–23 23–25 – >25
temperature 16–22 16–13 13– 10 <10
0
C
for growing
cycle
Relative 80–90 <20 – –
humidity % 24–80 20–24 >90
Moistur
e
m AWC Mm/m >180 180–120 120–160 – <60
availabi
lity
Poor and Poor, but Poor not
Soil Drainage Class W, M. IP
Oxygen d aeric drainable drainable
availabi F1+
duration /
lity Flooding FO – -- –
depth
Nutrient n Organic % (25 > 1.2 1.2– 0.8 < 0.8 – –
retentio carbon cm)
n Meq/ – –
CEC 100g soil >16 <16 <16
(50cm)
Soil reaction pH 6.2–7.8 5.8 – 6 5.8 – 5.5 < 5.5 > 8.2
Nutrient z (25cm) 7.8 – 8.0 8.0 – 8.2
Availab L, SC,
ility C>60s,
SCL, SiCl,
Texture Class C<60v, fS, C>60v, S – Cm, SiCm,
Si, Co,
LS, LfS
C<60s,
Effective soil
Rooting depth Cm >50 50-30 30–20 <20
conditio r
n
Stones and
% <15 15–35 15–35 – >55
rocks
L, SC,
C>60s,
SCL, SiCl,
Si, Co,
LS, LfS
C<60s,
Compaction
g/cm <1.6 <1.6 <1.6 >1.6 >1.6
(Db)
Organic > 1.2 1.2– 0.8 < 0.8 – –

%
carbon

Execs
s Sodicity ESP 0–20 20–35 35–50 – >50
of salts
Land development and Management requirement
Workab w' Slope % 0–2 2-4 4-6 --- >6

ility
Stones &
Class <15 15–35 15–35 – >55
rocks
Organic % (25 > 1.2 1.2– 0.8 < 0.8 – –

carbon cm)
L, SC, C>60s,
Texture SCL, SiCl, C<60v,
Class C>60v, S – Cm, SiCm,
Si, Co, fS, LS,
C<60s, LfS
Potentia k Slope % 0–2 2-4 4-6 >6

l for
mechani Stones &
Class <15 15–35 15–35 – >55
zation rocks
and
L, SC, C>60s,
SCL, SiCl, C<60v,
Texture Class C>60v, S – Cm, SiCm,
Si, Co, fS, LS,
C<60s, LfS
Land t Stones &

Class <15 15–35 15–35 – >55
preparat rocks
ion
Texture Class L, SC, C>60s,
SCL, SiCl, C<60v,
C>60v, S – Cm, SiCm,
Si, Co, fS, LS,
C<60s, LfS
Slope % 0–2 2-4 4-6 >6
Drainag d’ Infiltration Cm/h 0.3–0.7 0.1–0.3 <0.1

0.7–6.5 –
e 6.5–12.5 12.5–25 >25
Depth to M <0.5
>3 1.5– 3 0.5–1.5
ground water
Hydraulic M/day <0.2
1.4–3 0.5–1.4 0.2–0.5 –
conductivity >3
Flood f Duration / F1+
Flooding FO – --- –
hazard depth
Conservation requirement
Erosi Sheet Class No Slight Moderate Strong
on e Slope % 0–2 2-4 4-6 >6
hazar Gully Class None None Slight – Moderate
d strong

Appendix: 1.1. Land Use Requirements for Surface Irrigated Onion Cultivation
Land use requirements Factor Ratings /Range of Suitability /level of yield
Land
Quality/diagno Unit S1 S2 S3 N1 N
Land
stic factors
Characteristic
Desc Sub
s
riptio class 100-85 60 40 25 0
n Suffix
Crop requirement
Climate c Mean air 22–23 23–25 – >25
temperature 16–22 16–13 13– 10 <10
0
C
for growing
cycle
Relative 80–90 <20 – –
humidity % 24–80 20–24 >90
Moistur
e
m AWC Mm/m >180 180–120 120–160 – <60
availabi
lity
Poor and Poor, but Poor not
Soil Drainage Class W, M. IP
Oxygen d aeric drainable drainable
availabi F1+
duration /
lity Flooding FO – -- –
depth
Nutrient n Organic % (25 > 1.2 1.2– 0.8 < 0.8 – –
retentio carbon cm)
n Meq/ – –
CEC 100g soil >16 <16 <16
(50cm)
Soil reaction pH 6.2–7.8 5.8 – 6 5.8 – 5.5 < 5.5 > 8.2
Nutrient z (25cm) 7.8 – 8.0 8.0 – 8.2
Availab L, SC,
ility C>60s,
SCL, SiCl,
Si, Co,
LS, LfS
C<60s,
Effective soil
Rooting depth Cm >50 50-30 30–20 <20
conditio r
n
Stones and
% <15 15–35 15–35 – >55
rocks
L, SC,
C>60s,
SCL, SiCl,
Si, Co,
LS, LfS
C<60s,
Compaction
g/cm <1.6 <1.6 <1.6 >1.6 >1.6
(Db)
Organic > 1.2 1.2– 0.8 < 0.8 – –

%
carbon
Execs
s Sodicity ESP 0–20 20–35 35–50 – >50
of salts

Workab w' Slope % 0–2 2-4 4-6 --- >6

ility
Stones &
Class <15 15–35 15–35 – >55
rocks
Organic % (25 > 1.2 1.2– 0.8 < 0.8 – –

carbon cm)
L, SC, C>60s,
Texture SCL, SiCl, C<60v,
Class C>60v, S – Cm, SiCm,
Si, Co, fS, LS,
C<60s, LfS
Potentia k Slope % 0–2 2-4 4-6 >6

l for
mechani Stones &
Class <15 15–35 15–35 – >55
zation rocks
and
L, SC, C>60s,
SCL, SiCl, C<60v,
Texture Class C>60v, S – Cm, SiCm,
Si, Co, fS, LS,
C<60s, LfS
Land t Stones &

Class <15 15–35 15–35 – >55
preparat rocks
ion
Texture Class L, SC, C>60s,
SCL, SiCl, C<60v,
C>60v, S – Cm, SiCm,
Si, Co, fS, LS,
C<60s, LfS
Slope % 0–2 2-4 4-6 >6
Drainag d’ Infiltration Cm/h 0.3–0.7 0.1–0.3 <0.1

0.7–6.5 –
e 6.5–12.5 12.5–25 >25
Depth to M <0.5
>3 1.5– 3 0.5–1.5
ground water
1.4–3 0.5–1.4 0.2–0.5 –
conductivity >3
Flood f Duration / F1+
Flooding FO – --- –
hazard depth
Erosi Sheet Class No Slight Moderate Strong
on e Slope % 0–2 2-4 4-6 >6
hazar Gully Class None None Slight – Moderate
d strong
Appendix: 1.2. Land Use Requirements for Surface Irrigated Maize Cultivation

Unit Factor Ratings /Range of Suitability /level of yield

Land
Quality/diagnostic S1 S2 S3 N1 N2
factors
Land Characteristics
Description Sub
class 100-85 60 40 25 0
Suffix
Crop requirement
16–18 14–16 – <14

Mean air temperature for C
0
18 – 32 32–35 35–40 >40
growing cycle
Climate c
20–24 <20
Relative humidity % 24–75 – –
75–90 >90
Moisture
m AWC Mm/m >180 120–180 60–120 – <60
availability
Poor, and Poor, not
Soil Drainage Class W–MW IP Poor and aeric
Oxygen drainable drainable
availability d
Duration
Flooding Fo – F1 -- F2+
/depth
Organic carbon % (25 cm) > 1.2 0.8 – 1.2 < 0.8 – –
n
Nutrient
retention Meq/ 100g
CEC >16 <16(-) <16(+) – –
soil (50cm)
Soil reaction 5.8 – 5.5 5.5 – 5.2 < 5.2

pH (25cm) 5.8 –7.8 >8.5
7.8 – 8.2 8.2 – 8.5
z C<60s, Co,
Nutrient
Availability SiC, SiCL, Si,
C>60v, SL, Cm, SiCm,
SiL, CL, fS, S, LcS ---
LfS, LS cS,
Texture/ Structure Class C<60v, SC,
C>60s, L, SCL
Effective soil depth Cm >75 75–50 50–20 – <20
Stones and rocks % <15 15–35 35-55 >55
C<60s, Co,
SiC, SiCL, Si,
Texture / Structure/ Class SiL, CL, fS, S, LcS ---
Rooting LfS, LS cS,
C<60v, SC,
condition C>60s, L, SCL
r
Compaction (Db) g/cc <1.6 <1.6 <1.6 >1.6 >1.6
Organic carbon % >1.2 1.2-0.8 <0.8 – –
Sodicity
Execs of
s ESP 0–15 15–20 20–25 – >25
salts
Toxicity
x CaCO3 % 0–15 15–25 25–35 – >35
Slope % 0–2 2–4 4–6 --- >6
Workabilit
w' Stones & rocks Class <15 15–35 35-55 >55
y
Organic carbon % (25 cm) >1.2 1.2-0.8 <0.8 – –

Unit Factor Ratings /Range of Suitability /level of yield

Land
Quality/diagnostic S1 S2 S3 N1 N2
factors
Land Characteristics
Description Sub
class 100-85 60 40 25 0
Suffix
C<60s, Co,
SiC, SiCL, Si,
Texture / Structure Class SiL, CL, fS, S, LcS ---
LfS, LS cS,
C<60v, SC,
C>60s, L, SCL
Slope % 0–2 2–4 4–6 4–6 >16
Stones & rocks Class <15 15–35 35-55 >55

Potential
for
k C<60s, Co,
mechanizat
ion SiC, SiCL, Si,
Texture / Structure Class SiL, CL, fS, S, LcS ---
LfS, LS cS,
C<60v, SC,
C>60s, L, SCL
Stones & rocks Class <15 15–35 15–35 >35
Slope % 0–2 2–4 4–6 4–6 >16

Land
preparation
Vegetation
Vegetation clearance Open Light Medium Dense
cover/ha
Dense
Infiltration 0.3–0.7 0.1–0.3 <0.1

cm/h 0.7–3.5 –
3.5–6.5 6.5–12.5 >12.5
Drainage d’ Depth to ground water M >3 1.5– 3 0.5–1.5 <0.5
<0.2
Hydraulic conductivity M/day 1.4–3 0.5–1.4 0.2–0.5 –
>3
Flood Duration
f Flooding FO – – F1 F2+
hazard /depth
Sheet Class No Slight Moderate Strong
Erosion Slope % 0–2 2–4 4–6 --- >6

hazard
e
Moderate
Gully Class None None Slight –
strong
Appendix: 1. 3. Land Use Requirements for Surface Irrigated Haricot-bean Cultivation

Unit
Factor Ratings /Range of Suitability /level of yield
S1 S2 S3 N1 N2
Land
Quality/diagnostic Land Characteristics 100
factors
85 60 60 25 0
Crop requirement
Climate 0
c Mean air temperature 20-30 30-32 32-35 >35
for growing cycle 0
C 18-16
18-20 <16
Relative humidity 24-75 42-36 36-30

%
75-85 >85
Moisture m AWC mm/m >180 120-180 60-120 <60 <60

availabilit
y
Soil Drainage Class W-M IP P P P
Oxygen d F2+
availabilit
Duration
y Flooding F0 -- F1 -
/depth
Nutrient n Organic carbon % (25 cm) >1.2 1.2-0.8 <0.8 - -

retention
Meq/ 100g
CEC >16 <16(+)
soil (50cm) <16(-)
Soil reaction PH (25cm) 6.0-7.8 5.5-6.0 5.0-5.5 <5.0
Nutrient z 7.8-8.0 8-8.2 >8.2

Availabili
ty
C<60s, SiC, Co,
Texture Class C>60v, SL,
SiL, CL, Si, SiCL, LcS, S, fS - Cm, SiCm
LfS, LS
C<60v, SC, L, SCL
Effective soil depth Cm >75 75-50 50-20 - <20
Rooting Stones and rocks % <15 15-35 35-55 - >55

condition
r Compaction (Db) g/cm3 <1.6 <1.6 <1.6 >1.6 >1.6
Organic carbon % >1.2 1.2-0.8 <0.8 - -
Sodicity
ESP 0–15 15–20 20-25 – >25
Excess of
s
salts
Salinity ECe 0-6 6-7 7-8 8-10 >10
Toxicity
x CaCO3 % 0–15 15–35 35–55 – >55

Unit
Factor Ratings /Range of Suitability /level of yield
S1 S2 S3 N1 N2
Land
Quality/diagnostic Land Characteristics 100
factors
85 60 60 25 0
Workabili w' Slope % 0-2 2-4 4-6 - >6

ty
Stones & rocks Class <15 15-35 35-55 >55
Organic carbon % (25 cm) > 1.2 1.2-0.8 <0.8 - -
C<60s, SiC, Co,

C>60v, SL,
Texture/structure Class SiL, CL, Si, SiCL, LcS, S, fS - Cm, SiCm
LfS, LS
C<60v, SC, L, SCL
Potential k Slope % 0-2 2-4 4-6 - >6

for Stones & rocks Class <15 15-35 35-55 >55
mechaniz
C<60s, SiC, Co,
ation and C>60v, SL,
Texture/structure Class SiL, CL, Si, SiCL, LcS, S, fS - Cm, SiCm
LfS, LS
C<60v, SC, L, SCL
Drainage d’ Infiltration Cm/h 0.3-0.7 0.1-0.3 <0.1
0.7-6.5
65-12 12-25 >25
Depth to ground M <0.5

>3 1.5- 3 0.5-1.5
water

conductivity 1.4-3 0.5-1.4 0.2-0.5 -
>3
Flood f Duration F2+

Flooding F0 F1 -
hazard /depth
Erosion Sheet Class None Slight Moderate Severe

hazard
e Slope % 0-2 2-4 4-6 - >6
Gully - Strong
Class None None Moder
Slight
ate

Appendix-2:Land Suitability of the selected LUTs

Appendix 2.1Land Suitability for surface Irrigated Mize Cultivation
Land use requirements SMU1 SMU2 Miscellaneous

land
Land Land
Quality/diagnostic Characteristics
factors
Description Sub
Crop requirement class /
Suffix
Climate C Mean air S1 S1
temperature
% Relative humidity S1 S1
Moisture availability m AWC S2 S2

Oxygen availability d Soil Drainage S1 S1
Flooding S1 S3
Nutrient retention n Organic carbon S3 S1
CEC S1 S1
Nutrient Availability z Soil reaction S1 S3
Texture / Structure S1 S1
Effective soil depth S1 S1
Rooting condition Stones and rocks S1 S1
r Texture / Structure/ S1 S1
Compaction (Db) S2 S2
Organic carbon S3 S1
land development and Management requirement
Workability w' Slope S1 S1

Stones & rocks S1 S1
Drainage d’ Infiltration S2 S2
Depth to ground water S1 S1
Depth to impermeable S1 S1
layer
Hydraulic S2 S2
conductivity
Flood hazard f Flooding S1 S3
Erosion hazard Sheet S1 S1
e Slope S1 S1
Gully S3 S1
Final suitability class and sub class S3e/n/r/w S3d/f/z N2e/f

Appendix 2.2 Land Suitability for surface Irrigated Onion Cultivation
Land use SMU1 SMU2 Miscellan

requirements eous land
Land Land Characteristics
Quality/diagnostic
factors
Description Sub
Suffi
x
Climate c Mean air temperature S1 S1
Flooding S1 S2
CEC S1 S1
Nutrient Availability z Soil reaction(PH) S1 S3

layer
Hydraulic conductivity S2 S2

e Slope S1 S1
Gully S2 S1
Final suitability class and sub S3n/r/w S3z N2e/f
class

Appendix 2.3.Land Suitability for surface Irrigated Pepper Cultivation
Land use SMU1 SMU2 Miscellan

requirements eous land
Land Land Characteristics
Quality/diagnostic
factors
Description Sub
Suffi
x
Climate c Mean air temperature S1 S1
Flooding S1 S2
CEC S1 S1

layer
Hydraulic conductivity S2 S2

e Slope S1 S1
Gully S2 S1
Final suitability class and sub S3n/r/w S3/z N2e/f

class
Appendix 2.4. Land Suitability for surface IrrigatedHaricot bean Cultivation
Land use requirements SMU1 SMU2 Miscella

neous
Land Land Characteristics land
Quality/diagnostic
factors
Description Sub
Crop requirement class
/Suffix
Climate C Mean air temperature S2 S2
Moisture availability M AWC S2 S2
Flooding S1 S2
CEC S1 S1

layer
Hydraulic S2 S2
conductivity
e Slope S1 S1
Gully S2 S1

Final suitability class and sub class S3n/r/w S3/z N2e/f

South irrigation project land evaluation report

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

South irrigation project land evaluation report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SOUTH NATIONS, NATIONALITIES AND PEOPLES REGIONAL

STATE BUREAU OF WATER AND IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT,

BISARE SMALL SCALE IRRIGATION PROJECT

Land Evaluation Study Final Report

LAND SUITABILITY EVALUATION STUDY

iBisaresmall scale irrigation Project Land suitability evaluationFinal Report

2.4.1 LANDFORM AND TOPOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………8

iiBisaresmall scale irrigation Project Land suitability evaluationFinal Report

7. SOIL AND LAND MANAGEMENT......................................................................................37

iiiBisaresmall scale irrigation Project Land suitability evaluationFinal Report

Table:4.1.Major Land Characteristics of the Bisare command area……......................................22

Table: 6. 1. Actual Land Suitability by LMU &LUT………………………...…………………32

Table: 6. 2. Summary of Actual Land Suitability of Bisare Area………………………………..34

ivBisaresmall scale irrigation Project Land suitability evaluationFinal Report

Appendix: 2.4- Land Suitability for surface IrrigatedHaricot -bean Cultivation............................59

vBisaresmall scale irrigation Project Land suitability evaluationFinal Report

viBisaresmall scale irrigation Project Land suitability evaluationFinal Report

viiBisaresmall scale irrigation Project Land suitability evaluationFinal Report

viiiBisaresmall scale irrigation Project Land suitability evaluationFinal Report

1Bisaresmall scale irrigation Project Land suitability evaluation Final Report

The specific objectives of the land suitability classification were:-

 To identify area of land suitable for irrigated agricultural development that is

1.3 Scope of the Work

2Bisaresmall scale irrigation Project Land suitability evaluation Final Report

3Bisaresmall scale irrigation Project Land suitability evaluation Final Report

2. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA

2.1 Location and Extent

Figure 2.1: Location Map of Bisare small scale irrigation project

4Bisaresmall scale irrigation Project Land suitability evaluation Final Report

2.2 Socio-economic conditions

2. 3 Land characteristics of the command area

2.3.1 Land Use System

2.3.2 Major Land Covers Types

5Bisaresmall scale irrigation Project Land suitability evaluation Final Report

Table 2.1: Existing Land use/cover of Bisare SSI project area

Settlement 4.5 3.74

Rain fed cultivate 74.6 64.17

Grazing 18.6 15.60

Wet and flooded land 16.4 14.02

access road 0.5 0.43

Gully 2.1 1.79

river banks 0.2 0.17

stoniness and rock out crop 0.1 0.08

Gross area 117.0 100.00

6Bisaresmall scale irrigation Project Land suitability evaluation Final Report

7Bisaresmall scale irrigation Project Land suitability evaluation Final Report

2 .4. Geomorphology of the command area

2.4.1 Landform and Topography

8Bisaresmall scale irrigation Project Land suitability evaluation Final Report

2.4.2 Slope gradient

Table 2.2: Slope classes forBisare SSIP command area

Slope percentage Description Area Remarks

0-1% Flat plain 6.40 5.47

1-2% Flat or almost flat plain or plateau 45.31 38.72

2-5% Gently undulating plain 54.91 46.93

5-8% Undulating plain 10.38 8.88

Total Gross command area(GCA) 117.0 100

2.4.3 Surface rock fragments and erosion status

9Bisaresmall scale irrigation Project Land suitability evaluation Final Report

10Bisaresmall scale irrigation Project Land suitability evaluation Final Report

Table 2.1: Meteorology Data Adopted forBisare Irrigation Project.

Temperatures (°C) Relati Sunshi Rad

11Bisaresmall scale irrigation Project Land suitability evaluation Final Report