The Deyland agriculture has to be improved with innovative research and technologies. The soil and water conservation structures need to established for higher productivity. The bore well recharge has to be done to increase the ground water table. Runoff farming need to be adopted to increase the water availability in off season crop cultivation

1. Recent Advances in Dryland Research
Gurunath Raddy
PALB 9044
University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK, Bengaluru
Ph.D. I Seminar

2. Introduction
1
Research advances
3
Why Dryland Agriculture matters? 2
Different areas of research 4
Flow of Presentation
Conclusion
5
Future Line of Work 6

3.  World- 1250 m ha dryland area (80.6%)- contributes 60 % crop production
 India- 73.3 m ha dryland area (52%)- 44 % food production
i. 40% of human population
ii. 60% of livestock population
 70% - rural population
 Yield gap is more due to resource constraints.
Introduction
Total arable
land
(m ha)
Dryland
area
(m ha)
% of
Dryland
area
World 1550.0 1250.0 80.6
Africa 247.0 234.0 94.5
America 391.0 342.0 87.5
Asia 574.0 362.0 63.1
Europe 295.0 272.0 92.3
Fig.1: Global Dryland area distribution
Table 1: Dryland area -continents
Rao and Gopinath, 2016

4. Food Security
Poverty
Food Production
Land
Resources
Ecosystems
Nutrition
Health
Food Systems
Population
Climate
Energy
Int. Trade
Water
Emerging Challenges
Existing Challenges

5. Why Dryland Agriculture matters ?
Net cultivated
area
(m ha)
Dryland
area
(m ha)
% of
Dryland
area
India 142.8 73.33 52
Rao and Gopinath, 2016
Contribution
99.9 % forest production
84-87 % coarse cereals & pulses
80 % of Horticulture
77 % Oilseeds
60 % Cotton
50 % Fine cereals
Fig. 2: India dryland regions

6. Dominance of Dryland area (52%) – 73.3 M
ha
44% country’s food requirements
supporting 40% of human and 60% of livestock
Highly Populated
324 person/km2
59% Agril. Dependence
115 M farm holders
80% small & Marginal
PATH TAKEN…..
Indian
Agriculture Net Cultivated Land
143 M ha

7. Crop loss, yield gap
Poor Post Harvest Management, No
premium price for produce
No monetary returns,
Debt
No adoption of new technology
Food production ??????????
Dryland areas
Erratic Rainfall, Floods, Droughts,
Inadequate
Irrigation Infrastructure
Land Degradation, Poor Soil Fertility
N
AT
U
R
A
L
Small Land Holdings,
Poor Farmers
Lower Credit off take
Poor Socio-Economic growth, Illiteracy,
Poverty
SO
C
I O
EC
O
N
O
M
I
C

8. Advances in
RESEARCH

9. RAINWATER
MANAGEMENT

10. Graded Bund
Contour Bund
Graded Border Strip Zingg terraces
Scooping
Grass Stabilized Bund
Compartment bund Tied ridges
Bench terraces

11. 11
Community water storage tanks
Sand bag farm pond
Farm pond
Jalkund

12. Impact of subsoiler for In-situ moisture conservation in Finger millet and groundnut based
intercropping system in Eastern Dry Zone of Karnataka
Treatment Details
 Main plot:
C1 : Finger millet + Pigeon pea
C2 : Groundnut + Pigeon pea
 Subplot:
S1: Subsoiling at 2 m interval
S2: Subsoiling at 4 m interval
S3: Subsoiling at 2 m interval + FYM
S4: Subsoiling at 4 m interval + FYM
S5: Control
Anon., 2020
AICRPDA, Bangalore

13. Table 2: Soil moisture content (%) at 0-15 cm and 15-30 cm depth as influenced by
subsoiler at different subsoiling spacing
Treatment
Soil moisture content (%)
15 DAS 60 DAS 90 DAS
15 cm 30 cm 15 cm 30 cm 15 cm 30 cm
Main plot: Cropping system
C1: FM + PP (8:2) 5.02 5.88 23.60 26.43 12.79 16.77
C2: GN + PP (8;2) 6.68 7.69 24.21 27.04 12.88 15.95
S.Em. ± 0.90 0.75 0.28 0.28 1.86 0.83
CD at 5 % NS NS NS NS NS NS
Sub plot: Subsoiling
S1 5.87 6.74 23.80 26.63 12.50 16.40
S2 4.86 5.48 23.02 25.85 11.42 14.92
S3 7.94 9.74 25.65 28.48 16.48 19.85
S4 6.33 8.45 24.68 27.52 14.37 17.60
S5 4.27 3.52 22.37 25.20 9.41 13.05
S.Em. ± 0.56 0.60 0.25 0.25 0.79 0.79
CD at 5 % 1.66 1.80 0.75 0.75 2.38 2.36
Interaction- NS
Anon., 2020
AICRPDA, Bangalore

14. Table 3: Influence of subsoiler on physical properties of finger millet and groundnut based
intercropping systems
Treatment
Bulk density
(g cc-1)
Pore space
(%)
Finger millet/
Groundnut Yield
(kg ha-1)
RWUE
(kg ha-mm-1)
Main plot: Cropping system
C1: FM + PP (8:2) 1.28 46.18 2398 3.02
C2: GN + PP (8;2) 1.31 47.11 1590 1.98
S.Em. ± 0.02 0.21 80.16
CD at 5 % NS 1.26 487.74
Sub plot: Subsoiling
S1 1.29 47.91 1891 2.39
S2 1.37 46.12 1836 2.31
S3 1.13 50.23 2413 3.04
S4 1.24 45.23 2205 2.78
S5 1.45 43.75 1626 1.91
S.Em. ± 0.03 0.28 77.27
CD at 5 % 0.09 0.85 231.66
Anon., 2020
AICRPDA, Bangalore

15. Table 4: Treatments means for SMC (%) of the root zone during after one day RF and
after 10 days of rainfall.
Treatment
Initial period SMC (%) Development period SMC (%) Mid period SMC (%)
After one day
of rainfall
After 10 days
of rainfall
After one day
of rainfall
After 10 days
of rainfall
After one day
of rainfall
After 10 days
of rainfall
Targa 54.09a 51.15a 58.90a 55.80a 54.00a 46.50a
Tie ridge 45.50a 43.00ab 54.20a 52.00a 50.00a 42.60a
Zai 42.32a 35.60ab 51.15a 23.20b 48.00a 31.93ab
Control 40.80a 35.18b 44.00a 2630b 45.00a 30.50b
CV (%) 16 16 19 16 19 18
LSD (0.05) 14 8 30 8 12 9
Naba et al., 2020
Arba Minch, Ethiopia
Effect of in-situ rainwater harvesting techniques on maize production

16. Table 5: Effect of moisture conservation structures on growth parameters and B:c
ratio of maize
Treatment
Plant height
(cm)
Cob length (cm)
Biomass Dry
matter
(t ha-1)
Grain yield
(t ha-1)
B:C ratio
Targa 208a 39.36a 8.23a 7.15a 1.93
Tie ridge 202a 35.26b 7.8ab 6.19a 1.81
Zai 201a 37.30ab 5.76c 4.50b 1.02
Control 196a 35.50b 6.15bc 4.90b 1.69
CV (%) 3.90 2.96 13.00 9.40 -
LSD (0.05) 15.80 2.18 1.90 1.00 -
Naba et al., 2020
Arba Minch, Ethiopia

17. Save irrigation water
& nutrients up to 40
to 60%
Improve soil fertility
and WUE
Perform @ soil
temperature of 50-60
0C
20% increase in
performance due to
better germination
Reduces irrigation
frequency
40% better crop
growth and
development
10-30%
increase in yield
Hydrophilic
polymers
17
Source: IARI, New Delhi

18. Table 6: Effect of in-situ moisture conservation and stress management practices dry matter production,
sympodial/plant and bolls/plant of rainfed cotton
Treatments
Dry matter production (kg/ha) Sympodial/plant Bolls /plant
I1 I2 I3 Mean I1 I2 I3 Mean I1 I2 I3 Mean
S1
5111 4646 4180 4646 12.4 11.2 10.3 11.3 16.1 13.7 11.2 13.7
S2
5616 5313 4992 5307 13.6 12.4 11.3 12.4 20.9 19.0 17.2 19.0
S3
5406 5149 4896 5150 13.5 12.1 10.9 12.2 17.5 16.7 15.8 16.7
S4
5848 5500 5153 5500 14.9 13.2 11.5 13.2 23.8 20.8 17.7 20.8
S5
5402 4923 4386 4904 12.9 12.0 11.2 12.0 18.3 15.2 12.0 15.2
S6
4734 4372 4010 4372 10.6 10.2 9.9 10.2 11.9 9.1 7.3 9.4
Mean 5353 4984 4603 13.0 11.9 10.9 18.1 15.8 13.5
I S I at S S at I I S I at S S at I I S I at S S at I
S.Ed 103 89 156 126 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 1.1 1.0
CD(P<0.05) 309 184 473 260 0.5 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.6 1.2 3.7 2.1
S1: Pusa hydrogel @5 kg ha-1 S2: S1+ Foliar spray of 1% KCl, S3: S1+ Foliar spray of 5% Kaolin, S4: S1+ Foliar
spray of PPFM @500 ml ha-1, S5:S1+ Foliar spray of 100 ppm salicylic acid, S6: Control and I1: BBF, I2: Ridges and
furrows, I3: Compartmental bunding
Ashraf and Ragavan, 2019
TNAU, Tamilnadu

19. Table 7: Effect of in-situ moisture conservation and stress management practices Bolls/plant and boll
weight of rainfed cotton
Treatments
boll weight (g/boll) Seed cotton yield (kg ha-1)
I1 I2 I3 Mean I1 I2 I3 Mean
S1 3.63 3.39 3.25 3.42 1457 1373 1299 1376
S2 3.96 3.70 3.47 3.71 1656 1579 1475 1580
S3 3.77 3.47 3.27 3.50 1582 1484 1389 1485
S4 4.07 3.84 3.63 3.85 1943 1785 1631 1786
S5 3.65 3.47 3.33 3.48 1544 1472 1411 1476
S6 3.46 3.28 3.20 3.31 1328 1107 893 1109
Mean 3.76 3.53 3.36 1590 1467 1350
I S I at S S at I I S I at S S at I
S.Ed 0.10 0.11 0.20 0.18 32 48 71 68
CD(P<0.05) 0.24 0.16 NS NS 117 100 178 141
S1: Pusa hydrogel @5 kg ha-1 S2: S1+ Foliar spray of 1% KCl, S3: S1+ Foliar spray of 5% Kaolin, S4: S1+ Foliar
spray of PPFM @500 ml ha-1, S5:S1+ Foliar spray of 100 ppm salicylic acid, S6: Control and I1: BBF, I2: Ridges and
furrows, I3: Compartmental bunding
Ashraf and Ragavan, 2019
TNAU, Tamilnadu

20. Treatments
Grain Yield
(kg ha-1)
Straw yield
(kg ha-1)
Gross returns
(₹ ha-1)
Net returns
(₹ ha-1)
B:C ratio
RWUE
(kg ha- mm-1)
Khus grass
Upper 2530 3541 55913 30288 2.18 4.04
Lower 2620 3799 58099 32474 2.27 4.19
Mean 2575 3671 57006 31381 2.22 4.11
Nase grass
Upper 2810 3746 61820 36195 2.41 4.49
Lower 3640 4186 79079 53454 3.09 5.81
Mean 3225 3966 70449 44824 2.75 5.15
Control 2100 2662 45994 20369 1.79 3.35
Table 8: Effect of vegetative barrier on Grain, straw yield and economics of finger millet
Anon., 2017
Bengaluru

21. Table 9: Effect of Ridge and furrow method of dibbling on yield and economics of
pigeon pea during early season drought
Particulars
Ridge and furrow method of
dibbling
Farmers practice
Plant height (cm) 187.2 175.8
Root length (cm) 16.4 9.7
Depth of moisture (cm) 13.7 7.3
Pods /plant 263 187
Seed / pod 4.1 3.6
100 seed weight 10.4 9.1
Field emergence (%) 92 83
Seed yield (q/ha) 13.2 11.4
Intervention
Yield
(kg ha-1)
Gross cost
(Rs. ha-1)
Gross returns
(Rs. ha-1)
Net returns
(Rs. ha-1)
B:C ratio
Ridge and furrow 13.2 22,000 71,280 49,280 3.2
Normal sowing 11.4 20,800 61,560 4,760 2.9
Anon., 2019
NICRA, Kalaburagi

22. Table 10: Influence of conservation furrow on finger millet and groundnut based
intercropping system
Cropping system
Equivalent yield
(kg/ha)
Net returns
(Rs./ha)
B: C
Ratio
RWUE
(kg/ha-mm)
Finger millet based
Finger millet + pigeonpea (8:2) 3774 44940 2.56 5.79
Finger millet 1869 23618 1.68 3.50
Groundnut based
Groundnut + pigeonpea (8:2) 1623 56338 2.70 2.85
Sole groundnut 574 7189 1.31 1.05
AICRPDA, Bengaluru Ramachandrappa et al., 2016

23. Crop
Yield (kg ha-1) % increase over farmers
practice
Gravel sand mulching Farmers practice
Greengram 800-1400 200-300 300-366
Rabi Sorghum 1400-2200 600-700 133-214
Sunflower 1200-2000 400-500 200-300
Chickpea 1200-1500 300-400 275-300
Groundnut 1500-1800 700-800 114-125
Table 11 : Yield of crops as influenced by Gravel sand mulching in black soils
Surakoda et al., 2014
AICRPDA, Vijayapura
Table 12: Effect of trench cum bunding (TCB) on yield and economics different crops
Anon., 2019
Davanagere
Treatment Seed yield(q/ha) Gross returns(₹/ha)
Net returns
(₹/ha)
B:C ratio
TCB of Maize + pigeonpea (BRG-2) 62.37 87,318 44,718 2.04
Without TCB of Maize + pigeonpea
(Local)
47.02 65,828 24,628 1.59
TCB of of Finger millet (ML-365) 2450 60,640 36,540 2.51
Without TCB of Finger millet (GPU-28) 1950 47,950 24,450 2.04

24. Crop
Yield (kg ha-1)
% increase over
farmers practice
Set furrow
cultivation
Farmers practice
Pearl millet (Kharif) 1092 749 69
Sunflower (Rabi) 457 295 65
Pigeonpea 1112 732 52
Table 13: Yield of crops as influenced by set row cultivation
Ramachandrappa et al., 2014
AICRPDA, Bangalore
Variety DOT
Dry fruit yield
(kg ha-1)
% increase
in
yield
RWUE
(kg ha-mm-1)
Net
returns
(Rs.ha-1)
B: C
ratio
With
mulch
Without
mulch
Samrudhi 24th Aug 1359 960 42 2.12 132049 5.26
Chikkaballapur
local
24th Aug 1104 776 42 1.72 101449 4.27
Table 14: In-situ moisture conservation through tied ridges and mulching in chilli varieties

25. Farm pond and its multiple uses
Protective irrigation
 surface method- 1/3rd of
the farm
 sprinkler method 2.5 cm
for entire catchment.
Double cropping
With bimodal rainfall distribution:
 Fodder crops/cowpea/sesame (May-
june)
 Chickpea/baby corn/ chilli
transplanting (Sep-Oct) with protective
irrigation during flowering/ maturity
 Net income of Rs. 10,244 to 64,168 ha-1
Nourishing fruit trees
and/plantations
During rabi/summer
nourishing with stored water
helps
Pisciculture
 Fish fingerlings @1 m2 with
water stored for 6-8 months
 Additional income-Rs. 3000-
5000
Nutritional/ Kitchen garden:
 Vegetables, fruits, spices,
flower crops
 Income of Rs. 591 to 2000
Ramachandrappa et al., 2015
AICRPDA, Bangalore
Azolla cultivation
 Reduce evaporation
 Fodder for animals

26. Crop
Yield
(Kg/ha)
Stover yield
(Kg/ha)
RWUE
(Kg/ha)
Cost of
cultivation
(Rs/ha)
Gross
return
(Rs/ha)
Net Return
(Rs/ha)
B:C Ratio
Pigeonpea 897.4 1825.5 2.8 15000 49359 34359 3.3
Chickpea+
Sorghum (4:2)
846.2
250(Chickpea)
755(Sorghum)
61.23 9000 21154 12154 2.4
Sorghum 576.9 1092 41.81 7000 14424 7423 2.1
Sapota+
Safflower
400 670.2 28.9 8000 10400 2400 1.3
Table 15: Yield, RWUE and net returns of different Cropping systems under farm
pond plot during 2016-17
Anon., 2017
RARS, Vijayapura

27. Hydroponic fodder
production

28. Production of low cost hydroponic maize fodder to mitigate fodder shortage for
livestock during drought conditions
Farmer name : Mr. K. Senthil Kumar
Contact information : P. Kosavapattti, Vada Madurai, Dindugal
Method : Low cost hydroponic production in an area
of 8 x 8 feet: shade net as walls, metal
sheets as roofing material, wooden racks in
tier system, plastic trays for fodder
cultivation and automatic sprinkler device
Seed utilized : Maize
Biomass yield : 4.40 – 5.10 kg fodder/kg of maize seed
Daily fodder
production
: 20 kg of hydroponic maize fodder
Cost of production : Rs. 3.75 per kg fodder production
Experience on
feeding hydroponic
maize fodder to
dairy cows
: Can able to sustain milk production and its
composition on partial replacement of
paddy straw and conventional green
fodders.
Gunasekharan et al., 2017
Kattupakkam, Tamilnadu

29. 1. Mosquito mesh surrounded the casing pipe 3. 40 and 20 mm jelly
4. Spreading of Mosquito mesh
2. Big size boulders
6. Spreading of sand
5. Spreading of charcoal
Ground water recharge

30. Months
2013 2014 Mean (2 years)
Bore well No.2 Bore well No.2 Bore well No.2
Rainfall
(mm)
Discharge (lpm)
Rainfall
(mm)
Discharge (lpm) Rainfall (mm) Discharge (lpm)
Jan 0 7.6
Summer season
7.1 lpm
0 7.5
Summer season
7.9 lpm
0 7.6
Feb 0 7.9 0 7.8 0 7.9
Mar 8.0 5.8 10.0 8.3 9 7.1
Apr 29.0 7.6 25.5 7.8 27.25 7.7
May 81.0 6.6 81.4 8.1 81.2 7.4
Jun 110.0 15.1
Rainy season
11.9 lpm
92.0 8.1
Rainy season
10.7 lpm
101 11.6
Jul 97.0 9.7 80.8 9.5 88.9 9.6
Aug 73.0 12.4 116.4 10.4 94.7 11.4
Sept 162.0 14.9 128.4 11.2 95.2 13.1
Oct 56.0 * 428.2 12.4 242.1 12.4
Nov 35.0 11.2 28.6 12.3 31.8 11.8
Dec 0 8.0 1.0 11.2 0.5 9.6
Mean 9.7 Mean 9.5 Mean 9.7
Table 16: Yield of Bore well (with filter bed) after recharging in NICRA Project, Nelamangala
Anon, 2015
Nelamangala

31. CROPS and
CROPPING
SYSTEM

32. Treatments
Yield (kg ha-1) CEY
(kg ha-1)
RWUE
(kg ha-mm-1)
B:C ratio
SEY
Crop1 Crop 2 Crop 1 Crop 2 Crop 1 Crop 2
Main plot-Forage crops
South African maize (SA Tall) 36807 720 61662 216 6.52 2.66 1.52 0.681
Sweet sorghum (SSV-74) 23254 680 45940 198 7.43 2.82 1.73 0.461
Giant bajra 42459 865 71589 245 8.98 3.08 2.09 0.819
S.Em ± 423.0 17.5 470.3
C.D (P=0.05) 1662.0 68.7 1846.7
Sub plot- Chickpea varieties
Annigeri-1 725 58172 7.30 1.70 0.913
JG-11 786 61295 7.99 1.86 0.964
S.Em ± 6.9 598.9
C.D (P=0.05) 23.8 2072.5
Sub-Sub plots-Fertilizer levels
100% RDF 800 61433 8.02 1.63 1.017
75% RDF 71 58033 7.26 1.47 0.959
S.Em ± 8.3 725.7
C.D (P=0.05) 25.6 2236.2
Table 18: Performance of forage crops and chickpea under double cropping system
Ramachandrappa et al., 2019
AICRPDA, Bangalore

33. Location Crop Variety Duration
Varanasi Rice
Pigeon pea
Vadana
T-21
95
150-160
Phulbani Pigeon pea T-21, BRG-2 150-160
Arjia Maize Surya 70-75
Anantapur Groundnut Vemana 105-110
Indore Soybean JS-90-41 87-98
Rewa Rice Kalinga -3 110
Akola Cotton AKH-081 150-160
Bijapur Sunflower KBSH-1 90-95
Sholapur Sorghum Mauli 105-110
Hisar Pearl millet HHB-67 60-62
Bangalore Finger millet GPU-26, GPU-48 90-105
CRIDA, Hyderabad

34. Table 19: Effect of Improved cultivars over local on yield and economics
Treatments Seed yield
(q/hq)
% increase
in yield
Gross cost
(Rs. /ha)
Gross returns
(Rs. /ha)
Net returns
(Rs. /ha)
B: C
ratio
Improved practice Pigeonpea
BRG-2 12.2
28.42
22,500 50,020 27,520 2.2
Farmer’s practice Pigeonpea
local 9.5 21,600 38,950 17,350 1.8
Improved practice finger millet
ML-365 26.8
32.4
22,540 56,350 33,810 2.5
Farmer’s practice
finger millet local
19.5 22,130 39,834 17,704 1.8
Improved practice Aerobic
paddy MAS-26 32
30.7
19,150 38,400 19,250 2.0
Farmer’s practice Aerobic
paddy local variety 26 18,500 31,200 12,700 1.7
Anon., 2019
Hirehalli, Tumakuru

35. Table 20: Performance of drought resistant varieties in intercropping system.
Year Area
(ha)
Variety Crop stage experienced
dry spells
Yield
(q/ha)
B:C ratio Yield increase over
farmer’s practice (q/ha)
Pigeonpea 0.2 TS-3R Pod formation stage 14.5 3.34
5.5
Pigeonpea 0.2 Gulyal Pod formation stage 9 2.15
Impact of varietal demonstration of drought tolerant blackgram (DBGV-5)
Blackgram 0.4 DBGV-5
Flowering and pod
formation stage 10.95 2.99
2.80
Blackgram
(farmers
practice)
0.4 local
Flowering and pod
formation stage 8.15 2.27
Anon., 2019
NICRA, Kalaburagi

36. Table 23: Integration of livestock in the farming system and viability of dryland farming
system (2009-10 to 2013-14)
Summer Kharif Rabi
Crop
Area
(ha)
Crop
Area
(ha)
Crop Area (ha)
Anola 0.40 Anola 0.40 Anola 0.40
Fallow (0.40)
Pigeonpea +
Pearlmillet
(0.40) Fallow (0.40)
Fallow (0.30) Cowpea 0.30
Rabi
sorghum
0.30
Fallow (0.10) Fodder Maize 0.10
Fodder
Sorghum
0.10
Fallow (0.15) Fallow 0.15 Gram 0.15
Total 0.95 0.95 0.95
Bhosale et al., 2016
ZARS, Solapur.
55%
40%
3% 2%
Area (1 ha)
Crop production Horticulture
Livestock Border plantation
Livestock components
Dairy farming (1 milking buffalo)
Poultry farming (100 birds/batch)
Goat rearing (20 goats)

37. Table 24: Grain yield and fodder yield obtained from crop production component in IFS (Average
of 5 years data)
Crop/variety Area (ha) Grain yield (qt) Fodder yield (qt)
Pearlmillet (Shanti) 0.26 3.38 7.09
Pigeonpea (Vipula) 0.14 1.00 1.90
Cowpea (Phule pandhari) 0.30 1.42 12.90
Rabi Sorghum(Chitra) 0.30 1.46 6.45
Gram (Digvijay) 0.15 1.06 1.20
Fodder crops (Maize) 0.10 - 34.80
Fodder Sorghum (Phule Amruta) 0.10 - 19
Total 8.32 83.34
Bhosale et al., 2016
Zonal Agricultural research Station, Solapur.

38. Table 25: Economics of the IFS model during experiment period (Average of 5 years data)
Components Area
(ha)
Cost of
production (Rs)
Gross income
(Rs)
Net
income
(Rs)
B:C
ratio
Crop production 0.55 17476 29400 11924 1.68
Horticulture 0.40 1.68 5655 1432 1.34
Dairy farming 0.03 20650 32075 11425 1.55
Poultry farming 9427 16373 6946 1.73
Goat rearing 22520 31889 9369 1.41
Border plantation 0.02 1102 1940 838 1.76
Total 1.00 75398 117332 41934 1.55
Bhosale et al., 2016
Zonal Agricultural research Station, Solapur.

39. Table 27: Real time contingency plan in performance of varieties of finger millet
Anon., 2019
Bengaluru
Sowing time Variety Duration (Days)
Yield (kg ha-1)
RWUE
(kg ha-mm-1)
Net
returns
(₹ ha-1)
B: C ratio
Grain Straw
July first
fortnight
GPU-48 105-110 1950 2620 3.30 35607 2.24
GPU-28 110-120 2450 2930 4.15 51572 2.79
MR-1 120-130 2750 3450 4.65 61652 3.14
July second
fortnight
GPU-48 105-110 1950 2690 3.30 35712 2.24
GPU-28 110-120 2220 3320 3.76 45027 2.56
MR-1 120-130 2910 3860 4.92 67227 3.34
August first
fortnight
GPU-48 105-110 2200 3160 3.72 44167 2.54
GPU-28 110-120 2566 3410 4.34 55888 2.94
MR-1 120-130 2400 3120 4.06 50307 2.75
August second
fortnight
GPU-48 105-110 2350 3245 3.98 48944 2.70
GPU-28 110-120 2200 2841 3.72 43688 2.52
MR-1 120-130 2300 2955 3.89 46959 2.63

40. Table 26: Performance of Crops to Real Time Climate Resilient Agricultural Practices
Climate Resilient
Practices
Improved Practices Traditional Practice Increase in
Yield (%)
Finger millet planting
technique
Transplanting
Direct sowing
12.4
Modified bullock drawn seed drill Farmer’s practice
36.6
Drought mitigation
chemicals
Thiourea
Without foliar spray
45.0
2% KCl 35.0
Organic mulch in chilli
Mulching and tied ridging Without mulch
75.0
Ramachandrappa et al., 2016
AICRPDA, Bangalore

41. Table 22: Performance of improved foxtail millet variety over local variety
Year
Area
(ha)
Crop
Yield
(q/hq)
B:C
ratio
% increase
in yield over
control
2015-16 2
Local (Halanavane Var.) 13.5 1.54
24.44
Demonstration (DHFt-109-
3 variety)
16.8 1.86
2016-17 16
Local (Halanavane Var.) 10.64 1.32
24.43
Demonstration (DHFt-109-
3 variety)
13.24 1.53
Anon., 2019
Hulkoti, Gadag
Year
Yield (kg/ha)
Foxtail millet Little millet Kodo millet Proso millet
2011 729 986 2508 494
2012 486 972 368 226
2013 1579 1080 869 659
2014 970 739 1247 923
2015 933 923 1173 914
Average 939 940 1233 643
Table 21: Minor millets as contingency crops
Anon., 2013

42. Crop Foliar spray Performance
Maize Potassium solution at 2% and thiourea
at 250 g ha-1
Gave higher yield up to 24% compared to no foliar spray
Cotton Two foliar sprays of MgSO4 and
ZnSO4
Gave an additional yield of 300 kg ha-1 over farmers
practice.
Chickpea Application of urea, KCL, kaolin and
selenite
Gave higher yield 1215 kg ha-1 compared to no foliar spray
Anon., 2018
Hyderabad
Affected zone Intervention Impact
Southern zone of Tamil
Nadu
Supplemental irrigation (SI) to cotton Higher seed cotton yield
(1210 kg ha-1) compared to rainfed crop (1065
kg ha-1)
Northern Saurashtra
zone
SI (50 mm at pod development stage) to
groundnut
Yield increased by 40% with higher returns
(Rs. 27250 kg ha-1)
Central Maharashtra SI at pod development and seed filling stage
of soybean
Gave 72% higher yield
(768 kg ha-1)
42

43. Soil health
and
nutrient management

44. Table 30: Soil organic carbon, microbial biomass carbon and grain yield of finger millet as influenced by
tillage and nutrient management practices
Treatment Organic Carbon Microbial
biomass
carbon (µ g
soil-1)
Grain yield (t ha-1)
2014 2015 Poole
d
2014 2015 Pooled
Tillage practices
T1 0.46 0.47 0.46 318.7 3.20 2.88 3.04
T2 0.49 0.50 0.50 407.0 2.76 2.45 2.61
T3 0.55 0.57 0.56 557.5 2.30 1.87 2.09
CD @5% 0.05 0.05 0.03 43.6 0.30 0.31 0.18
Nutrient management practices
N1 0.45 0.46 0.45 342.0 2.48 2.16 2.32
N2 0.60 0.61 0.60 572.0 3.25 2.81 3.03
N3 0.46 0.47 0.47 387.7 2.79 2.42 2.61
N4 0.53 0.54 0.53 440.0 2.37 2.10 2.24
N5 0.47 0.48 0.48 396.9 2.88 2.52 2.70
CD @5% 0.03 0.03 0.02 32.6 0.19 0.25 0.15
Hatti et al., 2017
UAS, GKVK, Bangalore
T1 : CT(2 ploughings + 1 harrowing + 2
intercultivations at 25 and 50 days after
sowing) with drill sown finger millet,
T2 : MT (1 ploughing + 1 harrowing +
application of pre-emergence herbicide -
isoproturon at 565 g a.i. ha-1 ) - drill sown
finger millet and
T3 :ZT (glyphosate 41 SL at 10 ml l at 15
days before transplanting) with
transplanted finger millet at 25 days after
sowing (DAS)
N1 : 100% RDF-NPK (50:40:25 kg ha -1),
N2 : 100% RDF-NPK + 7.5 t FYM ha,
N3 : horsegram residue mulch + 100%
RDF -NPK,
N4 : horsegram residue mulch + 50%
RDF(NPK) + 25% N through FYM +
Azatobactor seed treatment and
N5 : horsegram residue mulch + fertilizers
based on soil test results

45. Table 34: Effect of site specific nutrient management on productivity in rainfed fingermillet + pigeonpea
intercropping system in Alfisols of south India
Treatment
Nutrient uptake
(kg ha-1)
Grain yield
(kg ha-1)
SYI Yield response (%) B:C ratio
N P K
T1 77.6 47.9 45.6 2367 0.458 0.00 2.04
T2 79.2 28.1 61.3 2647 0.532 11.85 2.19
T3 141.0 70.7 111.0 2840 0.583 20.00 2.38
T4 134.0 63.2 48.6 3164 0.668 33.70 2.34
T5 149.0 68.1 105.0 2936 0.608 24.07 2.43
T6 188.0 71.2 124.0 3217 0.682 35.94 2.38
T7 189.0 89.2 133.0 3794 0.834 60.32 2.73
T8 66.5 27.1 47.6 1681 0.277 -29.98 1.73
Ramachandrappa et al., 2015
AICRPDA, Bangalore
T1: 100 % N, P2O5 and K2O (50:40:25 kg ha-1), T2: T1 + ZnSO4 @12.5 kg ha-1 ,
T3: Recommended P2O5 + 125%of N, K2O , T4: T3 + ZnSO4 @12.5 kg ha-1 + lime (300 kg ha-1 ), T5: Recommended P2O5 + 150% N, K2O,
T6: T5 + ZnSO4 @12.5 kg ha-1 + lime (300 kg ha ), T7: SSNM for targeted yield of 4.0 t ha-1 (155:45:203 kg N, P2O5 and K2O ha-1 ), T8:
Control (No Fertilizers)

46. Table 35: Soil chemical and physical properties as influenced by continuous application of FYM
and NPK fertilizers under rotation and monocropping
Treatments
Finger millet monocropping Finger millet- groundnut rotation
OC (%)
IR
(cm/h)
BD (g/cc)
WHC
(%)
OC (%) IR (cm/h) BD (g/cc)
WHC
(%)
T1 0.28 18.40 1.40 27.94 0.33 10.80 1.31 30.64
T2 0.58 12.60 1.39 28.89 0.53 11.10 1.34 31.23
T3 0.61 8.75 1.43 26.53 0.54 12.40 1.31 32.55
T4 0.60 20.00 1.32 29.29 0.56 16.40 1.25 31.92
T5 0.40 20.50 1.30 30.17 0.42 22.40 1.28 31.11
S. Em. ± 0.02 1.69 0.06 2.05 0.02 1.03 0.03 1.33
C.D (P=0.05) 0.09 6.64 - - 0.09 4.06 - -
T1- Control, T2 -FYM (10 t/ha), T3- FYM (10 t/ha) + 50% N, P2O5& K2O, T4- FYM (10 t/ha) + 100% N, P2O5& K2O,
T5- Rec. N, P2O5& K2O
Satish et al., 2016
AICRPDA, Bangalore

47. Table 36: Influence of long-term FYM and manufactured fertilizer applications on yield of
finger millet under rotation and monocropping
Treatments
Finger millet monocropping Finger millet- groundnut rotation
Increase in
yield (%)
Yield
(kg/ha)
SYI SQI
Yield
(kg/ha)
SYI SQI
T1 356 -0.27 2.52 756 -0.13 3.70 144.66
T2 2637 0.41 4.49 3068 0.47 6.09 27.09
T3 3256 0.57 4.80 3633 0.61 675 24.97
T4 3754 0.63 4.88 3884 0.68 7.29 25.78
T5 2477 0.14 3.44 2517 0.33 4.53 60.32
S. Em. ± 156 - - - -
C.D (P=0.05) 612 - - - -
T1- Control, T2 -FYM (10 t/ha), T3- FYM (10 t/ha) + 50% N, P2O5& K2O, T4- FYM (10 t/ha) + 100% N, P2O5& K2O,
T5- Rec. N, P2O5& K2O
Satish et al., 2016
AICRPDA, Bangalore

48. Table 31: Yield of fingermillet with horse gram in-situ green manuring
Year Crop yield (kg ha-1)
Fingermillet Straw State average % increase
2008-2009 2682 6300 1466 82.95
2009-2010 3958 2521 1565 57.00
2011-2012 4482 - 2015 122
2012-2013 3000 3300 1871 60.34
2013-2014 3000 3000 1988 50.90
Average 3424 3780 1781 92.25
Table 32: Yield of fingermillet with horse gram ex-situ green manuring of glyricidia
Year Crop yield (kg ha-1)
Fingermillet Straw State average % increase
2011-2012 4192 - 2015 124.05
2012-2013 4000 6500 1871 113.79
2013-2014 3000 4000 1988 50.91
Average 3731 5250 1958 90.55
Ramachandrapp et al., 2015
AICRPDA, Bangalore

49. Fig. 4: Carbon assimilated in the nutrient management systems and C input (ex situ + in situ) into the soil.
O = no fertilizer, F = 100% inorganic fertilizers, LE = opportunity legume crop (Vigna radiata),
GM = green manuring, FYM = farmyard manure, WS = wheat stubble, RS = rice stubble.
Bhardwaj et al., 2019
CSSRI, Karnal

50. Fig. 5: Carbon sequestration potential (CSP) and soil C stock under different nutrient management
after 10 years of initiation (2005–2015). O = no fertilizer, F = 100% inorganic fertilizers,
LE = opportunity legume crop (Vigna radiata), GM = green manuring, FYM = farmyard manure,
WS = wheat stubble, RS = rice stubble, OC = organic carbon, CSP = carbon sequestration potential.
Bhardwaj et al., 2019
CSSRI, Karnal

51.  Capable to increase I. Rate of soil carbon sequestration and
II. Improves the soil fertility and crop yield.
Biochar production:
Thermo-chemical conversion process at low temperatures (~350–600 OC) in an environment with little
or no oxygen.
• Simple process also called pyrolysis or gasification.
 Low cost biochar kiln fabricated at CRIDA.
Biochar production - Strategy for recycling bio-residues
Hyderbad Rao et al., 2015

52. Dryland Agricultural Research station, Karaikudi, Tamil Nadu Alfisols Pandian et al., 2016
Table 37: Effect of biochar application rates on growth and yield of groundnut
Treatments pH CEC
(cmol+ kg-1)
Available nutrients (kg ha-1) Dry matter
(kg/ha)
Pod yield
(kg/ha)
Shelling
(%)
N P K
Control 5.72 5.6 158 23 179 1659 1281 60
CCP 6.23 6.5 179 28 198 2040 1599 66
EFYM 5.99 6.0 168 26 188 1838 1425 63
MSB 2.5 t ha 6.08 6.0 166 28 191 1970 1528 64
MSB 5 t/ha 6.31 6.4 172 32 195 2137 1644 67
CSB 2.5 t/ha 6.14 6.0 168 25 190 1843 1536 64
CSB 5 t/ha 6.30 6.4 174 29 196 2119 1598 66
RSB 2.5 t/ha 6.19 6.0 166 28 192 1891 1568 6
RSB 5 t/ha 6.28 6.5 178 31 197 2202 1661 68
PB 2.5 t/ha 6.23 6.1 160 26 188 1812 1498 63
PB 5 t/ha 6.33 6.4 168 27 193 2008 1588 64
S.Em.± 0.1 0.2 3 1.5 3 80.0 47 0.6
C.D.(p<0.05) 0.4 0.5 8 4.3 9 237.0 140 2.0
Control (NPK alone – 10:10:45 kg ha-1) , CSB – Cotton stalk biochar, RSB – Redgram stalk biochar , CCP – Composted coir pith, PB –
Prosopis biochar, EFYM – Enriched farmyard manure, MSB – Maize stalk biochar

53. Land use diversification systems
• Efficient utilization of different categories of lands through capability based
• Resource planning and
• Generation of food, fodder and fuel,
• Promotion of tree borne oilseeds for non-arable lands,
• Horticulture and livestock based production system

54. AEY- Amla Equivalent Yield; RWUE-Rain Water Use Efficiency
Table 38: Alternate land use - Amla based Agri-horti System, Bangalore
Treatment
AEY (kg ha-1) RWUE (kg ha-1 mm-1)
2012 2013 Mean 2012 2013 Mean
T1: Amla + Finger millet 1843 1849 1846 5.45 3.74 4.60
T2: Amla + Cowpea 737 1903 1320 2.25 4.16 3.21
T3: Amla + Horse gram 587 1264 926 1.74 2.56 2.15
T4: Amla+ Field bean 725 1255 990 4.18 2.54 3.36
T5: Amla+ Fodder maize 12332 858 6595 42.60 1.87 22.24
T6:Amla+Grain amaranth 1106 825 966 3.59 1.67 2.63
T7: Finger millet 1872 1616 1744 5.53 4.91 5.22
T8: Cowpea 795 1540 1168 2.43 2.02 2.23
T9: Horse gram 615 1030 823 1.82 2.09 1.96
T10: Field bean 769 808 789 4.43 1.96 3.20
T11: Fodder maize 13846 538 7192 47.83 23.5 35.67
T12: Grain amaranth 1295 576 936 4.20 2.33 3.27
T13: Amla - 493 493 - - -
S. Em. ± - 51.88 - - - -
C. D. (p=0.05) - 151 - - - -
Higher Amla equivalent yield was obtained with Fodder maize followed by finger millet and Cowpea

55. Treatment
Custard apple yield (kg ha-1) Intercrop yield (kg ha-1) CEY (kg ha-1)
2014 2015 Mean 2014 2015 Mean 2014 2015 Mean
T1: CA + Finger millet 699 1130 915 2479 2276 2378 1731 1965 1848
T2: CA + Fodder maize 759 1092 926 56871 38323 47597 1707 2050 1879
T3: CA + Field bean 887 1350 1119 668 547 608 1444 1851 1648
T4: CA + Niger 466 989 728 474 202 338 940 1192 1066
T5: CA + Green chilli 666 1116 891 2160 3346 2753 1386 1952 1669
T6: CA + Cow pea 687 1167 927 479 643 561 1087 1703 1395
T7: CA + Foxtail millet 652 1006 829 748 497 623 1027 1255 1141
T8: Custard apple (CA) 713 1141 927 - - - 713 1141 927
T9: Finger millet - - - 3285 2500 2893 1369 917 1143
T10: Fodder maize - - - 72869 41509 57189 1214 692 953
T11: Field bean - - - 1268 727 998 1057 666 862
T12: Niger - - - 502 345 424 502 345 424
T13: Green chilli - - - 5077 4767 4922 1692 1192 1442
T14: Cow pea - - - 726 865 796 605 721 663
T15: Foxtail millet - - - 1063 868 966 532 434 483
S. Em. ± 26.49 56.75 - - - - 48.1 69.0
C. D. (p=0.05) 80.35 172.14 - - - - 139.4 199.8
Table 39: Custard apple based Agri-horti system for rainfed condition in Alfisols
Anon., 2015
Bangalore

56. Farm energy management with emphasis on small farm
mechanization
• Development of low-cost seeding and inter-cultural devices,
• Solar and low lift pumps for lifting water from ponds
Socio-economic aspects
• Socio-economic and policy research studies,
• Knowledge management,
• Impact of research,
• Constraints and feedback,
• Transfer of technology

57. Mechanized sowing of major rainfed crops using precision
planter cum herbicide applicator
Fig. 7: CRIDA Six Row Planter Fig. 8: Precision Planter Cum Herbicide Applicator
Korwar et al., 2015
CRIDA, Hyderabad

58. Table 40: Performance of Selected Planters in Undulating Lands
Plante
r
Pigeonpea Castor Maize
Germi
nation
%
Deviat
ion in
spacin
g
Deviat
ion in
depth
Germi
nation
%
Deviat
ion in
spacin
g
Deviat
ion in
depth
Germi
nation
%
Deviat
ion in
spacin
g
Deviat
ion in
depth
CP 82.0 4.2 -2.1 87.5 3.7 -2.2 82.0 4.1 -1.7
5.1 -0.3 2.8 -2.4 3.2 -4.7
3.2 0.0 3.1 -1.5 2.2 -2.1
SD 3.01 1.55 2.59 1.81 2.73 1.01
PP 92.5 1.2 -0.8 94.6 0.0 0.7 94.0 1.2 0.7
0.9 0.6 1.8 0.4 -0.8 0.6
1.4 0.2 0.9 0.6 0.0 0.0
SD 1.03 0.61 0.99 0.41 0.92 0.79
Korwar et al., 2015
CRIDA, Hyderabad
Fig.9: Germination of Different Crops
with Conventional and Precision Planter
in Undulating Lands
Fig.10: Variation in Weeds with CP
method of Herbicide Application and
with PP Cum Herbicide Applicator

59. Application of solar energy in Dryland crop production
59

60. START
Enter the sowing distance
If digging Motor
Rotates
- 360 degrees
Start Digging Motor
If the sowing
distance – 30
cm
Stop digging motor
Start Seeding Motor
If
‘’1 seed”
Drops in the pit
Stop seeding motor Stop
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Fig. 11: Flow chart of solar seed sowing machine
Pune, India Anuja et al., 2017
Solar operated sowing machine
60

61. Solar fencing
• The Solar module generates the DC energy and charges the Battery.
• The output of the battery is connected to Energizer.
• The energizer will produce a short, high voltage pulse at regular rate of one pulse per second.
• The live wire of the energizer is connected to the fence wire and the earth system.
The basic building blocks of a power fence are:
1. Energizer
2. Earthing (Grounding System) and
3. Fence system
61

62. Fig. 12: Block diagram of solar operated sprayer
Maharashtra, India Pritam et al., 2016
62

63. Table 41: Comparison between Solar Photovoltaic operated knapsack sprayer and Hand lever
operated knapsack sprayer.
Parameters
SPV operated knapsack
sprayer
Hand lever operated
knapsack sprayer
Time for Spray (hr/ha) 12.6 21.50
Swath width (m) 0.51 0.46
Speed of operation (km/hr) 1.80 1.18
Theoretical field capacity (ha/hr) 0.092 0.054
Actual Field Capacity (ha/hr) 0.082 0.044
Field Efficiency (%) 89.42 80.39
Solution required (lit/ha) 498 512
Maharashtra Shubham et al., 2018
63

64. Solar insect traps
• Size - 8’’ X 8’’ X 8’’ box
• 2’’ size and a funnel made of glass or iron sheet.
• The solar light system includes a 12volt, 7.5 amp
battery, 10 watt power solar panel, solar charging unit,
12watt LED lamp (dc).
 The scientist from ZARS, Mohitnagar developed the solar light trap
 Found that as an alternate of chemical pesticide.
 This tool is eco-friendly nature and low cost involvement to both the farmers and agricultural experts.
 Found to be most effective IPM tool which provide better safeguard to the nature in comparison to the other
method of pest control.
Bera, 2015
64
West bengal

65. Solar pump
65
Suppose we have to run 2HP motor for irrigation.
 1.5 KW Energy required and with voltage of 240 V
1.5 KW=1500 watt
 Nearly 8 solar panels are required to generate 1500 Kw
(1 solar panel of 72 cells generates 200 W)
 2 batteries are required
(Rechargeable batteries of 120 V)
Component Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost ( Rs.)
Solar Panel (1.4m2) 24000 8 192000
Converter Circuit 400 1 400
Battery of 120V 8250 2 16500
Total cost 208900
Table 42: Cost analysis of 2HP solar pump for irrigation
Coimbatore, India Harishankar et al., 2014

66. Table 43: Number of fruit and fruit yield of Brinjal crop as influenced by
mono pump operated solar drip and furrow method of irrigation.
Treatments
Number of fruits per plot
(g)
Fruit yield per ha
(tonnes)
SPDI @75% irrigation 400.75 30.39
SPDI @100% irrigation 432.15 32.25
SPDI @125% irrigation 502.75 32.68
Ridge and furrow irrigation @75 %
irrigation
340.00 18.95
Ridge and furrow irrigation @100%
irrigation
406.00 26.51
Ridge and furrow irrigation @125%
irrigation
235.00 23.45
SEm 25.16 0.256
CD @ 5% 75.83 0.774
UAS, Bengaluru. Asundi et al., 2016
66
SPDI – Solar Powered Drip Irrigation

67.  Agriculture is highly sensitive to weather and its variability
 Minor weather variations have major impacts on farm output
 Agromet Advisory Services (AAS) provides climate and weather information along with
farm management options
 AAS empowers farmers to minimize weather risks and provides access to new technologies for
higher productivity and better livelihoods.
Real time agro-advisory services
agro-advisories Standing crop Harvested crop germinated due to continuous rainfall

68. Crops/ cropping system
AAS farmers Non AAs farmers Additional
income to
AAS
farmers
% gain in
income over
Non AAS
farmers
Yield
(kg/ha)
Returns
(Rs./ha)
B: C
ratio
Yield
(kg/ha)
Returns
(Rs./ha)
B: C
ratio
Transplanting of finger millet 2502 31633 2.53 2149 25961 2.30 5672 22
Finger millet + pigeonpea (8:2) 2961 38115 2.80 1921 21293 2.05 16822 79
Groundnut + pigeonpea (8:2) 1389 38724 3.00 648 7798 1.85 30926 397
Pigeonpea + cowpea (1:1) 1165 37777 2.72 684 17879 1.72 19898 111
Pigeonpea + field bean (1:1) 1278 47305 3.02 684 17879 1.72 29426 165
 AAS farmers registered higher yield and income than the non AAS farmers
Table 44: Impact of agro-advisory services on productivity and economics of
cropping systems (mean of 5 years)
Ramachandrappa et al., 2018
AICRPDA, Bengaluru

69. Productive and stress tolerant breeds of animals were introduced in NICRA villages adopted by
farmers.
Improved poultry breeds:
 Vanaraja and Gramapriya (Dimapur, Senapati, CoochBehar)
 Rajashree (Anantapur)
 Kalinga Brown (Cachar)
 Chabro (Jhansi)
 Kadaknath (Balaghat)
Improved breeds of goat :
 Sirohi (Ahmednagar, Augrangabad & Nandurbar)
 Jamunapari and Lalitpuri (Datia)
Sheep breed: Telichery and Nari Suvarna (Namakkal)
Introduction of stress tolerant breeds
Anon., 2017
NICRA

70. 4.2: Custom Hiring Centre (CHC)
 Committee is formed involving 9 Farmers and Scientists
 Equipments required were decided in a meeting
with farmers and scientists
 Indent and receipts have been maintained
 Bank account opened for each CHC.
 The hire charges collected from the CHC has been deposited in the joint account in the names of
three farmers in a co-operative bank
 Repair of implements are attended after having a meeting with committee members
Most Popular Implements
I. Zero till drill
II. Drum seeder &
Rotavator
III. Happy seeder
IV. Ridge & furrow
planter
V. Multi crop planter
VI. Multi crop thresher

71. Resource characterization
• Rainfall and soil characteristics,
• Length of growing season,
• Land capability-based potential and constraints,
• Climatic analysis,
• Crop weather modeling and
• Geographic information system.
Climate change vulnerability assessment and adaptation
• To understand the nature of climate change and its impacts on dryland agriculture.
• To evolve suitable adaptation and mitigation measures with special emphasis to small
and marginal landholders.

72. Table 45: Soil Morphological characteristics of Kalmali North-1 MWS
Soil series Mapping unit Soil texture
Slope
(%)
Physiography Erosion Drainage
Fatepur FTPmB2 Clay 1-3 Upland Moderate Mod. well
Gonala GNLmC3 Clay 3-5 Upland Moderate Mod. well
Kalmala KLMmB2 Clay 1-3 Upland Moderate Mod. well
Merchad MERmB2 Clay 1-3 Upland Moderate Mod. well
Raichur RCHmC2 Clay 3-5 Upland Moderate Mod. well
Venkatpur VKPmC3 Clay 3-5 Upland Moderate Mod. well
Rajesh et al., 2019
Raichur, Karnataka

73. Crop Yield levels before WDP(q/ha) Yield levels after WDP(q/ha) % increase (Y)
K G D G K G D G K G D G
Kharif
Cotton 8 10 16.1 15.4 12.1 19 21 20.2 51 90 30 31
Soyabean 20 22.1 11
Rice (I) 20.9 68.3 37.2 59.6 27.7 95 55 70.7 33 39 48 19
Sorguhm 10 14.7 47
Vegetables 15.1 18 14.3 20.1 25 18.7 33 39 31
Pigeonpea 9.7 16.8 73
Green gram 10.8 8.43 15.2 12.4 41 48
Blackgram 5.1 9.7 90
Maize 18.9 29.2 54
Rabi
Rice (I) 17.9 40.3 40.4 25.2 56.3 51 41 40 26
Wheat (I) 7 12.5 79
Chickpea 8.1 11.2 38
Table 46: Impact of watershed development on crop productivity increase
Osman et al., 2017
CRIDA, Hyderabad

74. Development and application of a new drought severity index for categorizing drought-prone
areas: a case study: Andhra Pradesh state, India
CRIDA Drought Severity Index= ((0.25 ∗ MIDF + 0.50 ∗ MODF + 0.75 ∗ SDF) ∗ 100)/NY
Fig. 12: Drought severity status in different mandals and districts in Andhra Pradesh, (a) frequency distribution of
all agricultural droughts (b) without considering the extent of irrigation (c)after considering the extent of irrigation
a b c
Kumar et al., 2019
CRIDA, Hyderabad

75. Conclusion
Future Line of Work
 Subsoiling at 2 m interval + FYM will help to conserve higher moisture (28.45 %) and produce
higher fingermillet yield (2413 kg ha-1).
 Giant bajra fodder sowing in May month followed by chickpea (JG-11) with 100 per cent
recommended dose of fertilizer provides better yield and sustainability.
 Legume (Vigna radiata) and green manure crop (Sesbania) based management gives high
biomass incorporation into the soil, because of high N and narrow C : N ratio.
 Agro advisory services on real time basis realized 22 to 379 per cent higher economic benefits
for adopting farmers compared to non-adopters.
 In depth study on the utilization of solar energy for different cultivation practices for
sustainable energy utilization.
 Need to evaluate use of harvested farm pond water to sustain the productivity of hydroponic
fodder production in dryland.