JOURNAL OF THE DRYLANDS 3(2): 214-219, 2010 214-219, 2010

Land Suitability Assessment for Different Irrigation Methods in Korir Watershed,

Northern Ethiopia
Kassa Teka1, 2*, Van Rompaey, A.2 and Poesen, J.2
Kassa Teka, Van Rompaey, A. and Poesen, J. 2010. Land Suitability Assessment for
Different Irrigation Methods in
Korir Watershed, Northern Ethiopia. Journal of the Drylands 3(2): 214-219
In much of Korir watershed the surface irrigation system is a common practice ap
plied for maize, vegetables and fruit
trees to meet water needs. There are very few instances of drip irrigation on sm
all farms in the area. The aim of this
research was to evaluate and compare land suitability for surface and drip irrig
ation methods based on the parametric
evaluation systems. Suitability maps were generated for surface and drip irrigat
ion methods by means of Remote
Sensing Technique and Geographic Information System (GIS). Study results showed
that for surface irrigation, there
is no area classified as S1. Only 28.77% and 91.54% of the study area is with in
the suitable range for surface and drip
irrigation respectively. The mean capability index for surface irrigation was 45
.82 (marginally suitable) while for drip
irrigation 60.6 (moderately suitable). The results indicate that by applying dri
p irrigation instead of surface irrigation
methods, 62.77% can be improved from N1 to S3 and 6.19% and 22.58% from S3 and S
2 respectively to S1. The
comparison of the different types of irrigation revealed that the drip irrigatio
n was more effective and efficient than
the surface irrigation methods.
Key words: Surface, drip, suitability, watershed, irrigation, Korir
1Department of Land Resources Management and Environmental Protection, Mekelle U
niversity, P.O.Box 231,
Mekelle University
2Physical and Regional Geography Research Group, K.U.Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 200
E, BE-3001, Leuven, Belgium
*Corresponding author: kassateka@yahoo.com, Tel: +251-0914726677
Received August 10, 2010, Accepted November 25, 2010.
INTRODUCTION
The environmental situation in Africa, with
deforestation and soil degradation etc., is a very
worrying (Foty, 1993) and irrigated area per capita
is declining and irrigated lands now produce 40%
of the food supply (Hargreaves and Mekley, 1998).
Consequently, the available water resources may
not be able to meet various demands in near future
that will inevitably result in the irrigation of
additional lands in order to achieve a sustainable
global food security. To develop sustainable use;
one has to know the limitations and potentials of
the land. The best uses for land depend on soil
characteristics and their response to the use such as

texture, rooting depth, stoniness, rockiness, organic

matter content, nutrient status, structures, drainage
conditions, slope, etc.
Sys et al. (1991) suggested a parametric
evaluation system for irrigation methods which was
primarily based upon physical and chemical soil
properties. These factors influence the land
suitability in an irrigation practice including soil
properties and topography. Hired et al. (1996);
Bond (2002) and Briza et al. (2001) applied a
parametric system (Sys et al., 1991) to evaluate
land suitability for both surface1 and drip2 irrigation
1 With drip or trickle irrigation the water is applied into the soil through a
small sized opening directly on the soil surface or buried in the soil. By
applying water at a very slow rate, drip irrigation is capable of delivering
water to the roots of individual plants as often as desired and at a
relatively low cost (Sijali, 2001).
in Morocco, while no highly suitable areas were
found in the studied area. The largest part of the
agricultural areas was classified as marginally
suitable. However, a large difference between
applying the two different evaluations was obtained
(Bazzani and Incerti, 2002). The area not suitable
for surface irrigation was 29.22% of total surface
and 9% with the drip irrigation while the suitable
area was 19% versus 70%.
Land suitability evaluation for surface and drip
irrigation conducted (Bienvenue et al. 2003) in
Senegal, using the parametric evaluation system
showed no area classified as highly suitable (S1)
for surface irrigation. Only 20.24% of the study
area proved suitable (S2 7.73%) or slightly suitable
(S3 12.51%). Most of the study area (57.66%) was
classified as unsuitable (N2). For drip (localized)
irrigation, a good portion (45.25%) of the area was
suitable (S2) while 25.03% was classified as highly
suitable (S1) and only a small portion was currently
not suitable (N1, 5.83%) or unsuitable (N2,
5.83%). Mbodj et al. (2004) performed a land
suitability evaluation for two types of irrigation,
(surface irrigation and drip irrigation) in Tunisia
using the suggested parametric evaluation.
According to the results, the drip irrigation
suitability gave more irrigable areas compared to
2 The surface method of irrigation involves applying water over the soil
surface. The water is conveyed over the soil surface and infiltrates into
the soil at a rate determined by the infiltration capacity of the soil (Sijali,
2001).
Copyright Journal of the Drylands 2010
ISSN 1817-3322

34 4
3
4

Very low Low Medium High Very high

EC (dS/m) 0 -2 2 -4 4 -8 8 -16 > 16
CEC (cmol(+)/kg 0 -3 3 -7 7 -15 15 -30 >30
Ntot (g/100g) 0
0.1 0.1
0.2 0.2
0.3 0.3
0.4 > 0.4
Ctot (g/100g) 0 0.6 0.6
1.2 1.2
3.0 3
8.7 > 8.7
pH (H2O) 5 -6 6 -7 7 -8 8 -9 9 -10
Moderately acid Slightly acid Slightly alkaline Moderately alkaline Strongly alk
aline
CaCO3 (g/100g) 0 0.5 0.5
2.0 2.0
5.0 5.0 -15 > 15
Pav (g/100g) 0 0.4 0.4
1.3 1.3
2.6 2.6
5.3 > 5.3
Capability Index Class Definition Symbol
>80 I Highly suitable S1
60-80 II Moderately suitable S2
45-60 III Marginally suitable S3
30-45 IV Currently not suitable N1
<30 V Permanently not N2
suitable

Land units Ci Suitability class

1 61.75 S2
2 44.5 N1
3 58.21 S3
4 18.8 N2
Land units Ci Suitability class
1 80.75 S1
2 57.6 S3
3 80.75 S1
4 23.3 N2

achieve 90
95% efficiency. Table 5 gives
comparative irrigation requirements for meeting
crop demand with the different irrigation methods
(adapted from Sijali, 2001). Moreover, this author
suggested that losses to runoff, deep percolation
and evaporation are minimal (most of the irrigation
water is taken up by the plant) when drip irrigation
method is used.
eve 90 95% efficiency. Table 5 gives
comparative irrigation requirements for meeting
crop demand with the different irrigation methods
(adapted from Sijali, 2001). Moreover, this author
suggested that losses to runoff, deep percolation
and evaporation are minimal (most of the irrigation
water is taken up by the plant) when drip irrigation
method is used.
Table 5. Comparison of typical irrigation requirements
under well-designed and managed drip and furrow
irrigation systems (mm/day)
Net crop water Irrigation Irrigation
demand requirement (drip requirement
method) (furrow method)
3.0 3.3 5.0
3.5 3.9 5.8
4.0 4.4 6.7
4.5 5.0 7.5
5.0 5.6 8.3
5.5 6.1 9.2
6.0 6.7 10.0
Because of the insufficiency of surface water, and
the aridity of the climate, only the drip irrigation is
recommended for a sustainable use of this natural
resource. According to Sijali (2001), drip irrigation
is often the favored method of irrigation, for
example on steep and undulating slopes, for porous
soils, for shallow soils, field having various soils,
where water is scarce, where water is expensive,
and where water is of poor quality. However, the
main limiting factors in using surface irrigation
methods in this area are soil texture, soil depth and
slope. This corresponds with the results of Sijali
(2001) in which, surface irrigation may not be
appropriate for porous soils (final infiltration rates
>7 cm/h) such as sandy soils, or soils with final
infiltration rates that are too low (<0.3 cm/h). The
main limiting factors in using drip irrigation
methods in this area are soil calcium carbonate
content and soil texture. Soil texture provides a
measure for permeability, and to some extent, for
water retention capacity (Wayne et al., 2007). Soils
with potentially high percolation losses and soils
with low water retention capacity and all soils with
coarse textures have been considered not suited for
surface irrigation. Irrigation of dry land crops
require well drained soils to assure aeration and to
avoid the danger of secondary salinization. Under

irrigated conditions, soil depth affects drainage,

aeration, and water retention properties. Calcium
carbonate in the soil profile affects soil structure
and interferes with infiltration and
evapotranspiration processes. It influences both the
soil moisture regime and availability of nutrients
(Albaji et al., 2007).
CONCLUSIONS
Details are given for the analysis of the field data to
compare the suitability of different irrigation
systems. The analyzed parameters included soil and
land characteristics. The results showed that drip
irrigation is more suitable than surface irrigation
methods for most of the study area. The major
limiting factor for the drip irrigation methods were
soil calcium carbonate and soil texture. However,
for surface irrigation methods soil texture, soil
depth and slope were the restricting factors. Drip
irrigations can obviously be a way to improve the
practice on light soil textures. On the other hand,
because of insufficiency of water in arid and semi
arid climate, maximizing water use efficiency is
necessary to produce more crops per drop and to
help solve the water shortage crisis in the
agricultural sector. The shift from surface irrigation
to high-tech irrigation technologies, therefore,
offers significant water-saving potentials. Finally,
since drip irrigation systems typically apply small
amount of water on a frequent basis to maintain
soil water near field capacity, it would be more
beneficial to use drip irrigation methods in this
area.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Our particular gratitude goes to the Mekelle
University NORAD II Project for their financial
and logistics support. We feel great pleasure to
express my special gratitude to Mr. Mulu Haftu,
Mr. Kalayu Berhe, Mr. Aregawi Teka, Mr. Kahsay
Tadelle, Mr. Yirgalem Gebre, and Mr. Eskindir
Gidey for their technical support during the field
work. We would also like to thank the farmers,
development workers and experts from the Office
of Agriculture and Rural Development (OoARD)
and Tabia5 administration of the study site for
providing me with valuable information and for
their guidance.
REFERENCES
Albaji, M., Boroomand Nasab, S., Kashkoli, H. and
Naseri, A.A. 2007. Comparison of different
irrigation methods based on the parametric

evaluation approach in West Shoush Plain,

Iran. Journal of the International
Commission on Irrigation and Drainage.
Bazzani, F. and Incerti, F. 2002. Land evaluation in
the province of Larache, Morocco. 22nd
Course Professional Master Geomatics
and Natural Resources Evaluation. 12 Nov
2001-21 June 2002. IAO, Florence, Italy.
Berry, Quirine Ketterings, Steve Antes, Steve Page,
Jonathan Russell-Anelli, Renuka Rao and
Steve DeGloria, 2007. Nutrient Management
Spear Program. Department of Crop and Soil
Sciences, College of Agriculture and Life
Sciences. Cornell University Cooperative
Extension.
Bienvenue, J.S., Ngardeta, M. and Mamadou, K.
2003. Land Evaluation in the Province of
5 Tabia is a sub-district of roughly five thousand residents. Regarded as
the lowest administrative unit.
Copyright Journal of the Drylands 2010
ISSN 1817-3322

Thies, Senegal. 23rd Course Professional

Master. Geomatics and Natural Resources
Evaluation. 8Senegal. 23rd Course Professional
Master. Geomatics and Natural Resources
Evaluation. 8th Nov 2002-20 June 2003. IAO,
Florence, Italy.
Bond, W. J. 2002. Assessing Site Suitability for an
Effluent Plantation in Mckenzie. Soil Physical
Measurement and Interpretation for Land
Evaluation. CSIRO Publishing, pp. 351 359.
Briza, Y., Dileonardo, F. and Spisni, A. 2001. Land
Evaluation in the Province of Ben Slimane,
Morocco. 21st Course Professional
Master.Remote Sensing and Natural Resource
Evaluation. 10 Nov2000 -22 June 2001.
IAO, Florence, Italy.
Dengiz, O. 2006. A Comparison of Different
Irrigation Methods Based on the Parametric
Evaluation Approach. Turk J. Agric. For.
30:21 29.
FAO, 1990. Guidelines for soil description. FAO
Rome, pp. 69.
FAO, 1998. World reference base for soil
resources. FAO Rome, pp. 88.
Foty k, 1993. Acacia, Quarterly-44 FF/N, Number
7. GJED-TOVE. BP110 KPALIMETOGO.
Hargreaves, H.G. and Mekley, G.P. 1998.
Irrigation fundamentals. Water Resource
Publication, LLC, 200 p.
Hired,
C., Thomson, A. and Beer, I. 1996.
Selection and Monitoring of Sites Intended for
Irrigation with Reclaimed Water in
Proceedings. Water TECH, Sydney. May
1996. Australian Water and
Wastewater Association, Sydney, Australia.
Hunting. 1976. Tigray Rural Development Report.
Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, UK:
Hunting Technical Service.
Mbodj, C., Mahjoub, I. and Sghaiev, N. 2004. Land
Evaluation in the Oud Rmel Catchment,
Tunisia. 24th Course Professional
Master. Geomatics and Natural Resources
Evaluation. 10th Nov 2003 23 rd Jun.
Naseri A., Rezania A.R., and Albaji M. 2009.
Investigation of Soil quality for different

irrigation systems in Lali Plain, Iran. Journal

of Food & Environment Vol.7 (3&4): 955
960. WFL Publisher. Science and Technology
SFPT, 2003. Draft Genfel Tabia Land Use Plan.
GFA-terra systems.
Sijali
IV, 2001. Drip Irrigation: Options for
Smallholder Farmers in Eastern and Southern
Africa. RELMA Technical Handbook Series
24. Nairobi, Kenya: Regional Land
Management Unit (RELMA), Swedish
International Development Cooperation
Agency (Sida). Pp 60.
Sys
I., Van Ranst E., and Debaveye J. (1991) Land
evaluation, part II. Methods in land
evaluation. Agriculture publications n.7,
General Administration for Development
Cooperation. Brussels, Belgium pp. 70-76.
Tesfai, M. 2002. Land suitability system for spate
irrigation schemes in Eritrea. Soil Use
Management 18:77-78.
Copyright Journal of the Drylands 2010
ISSN 1817-3322