TMSD 13 (2) pp.

101–115 Intellect Limited 2014

International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development

Volume 13 Number 2
© 2014 Intellect Ltd Article. English language. doi: 10.1386/tmsd.13.2.101_1

U. Sukchan
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Production Sciences
Research & Development Center

M. Oda
Japan International Research Center of Agricultural Sciences

J. S. Caldwell, K. Taweekul and N. Suphanchaimat

Khon Kaen University

P. Chongpraditnun
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Production Sciences
Research & Development Office

A pond water use planning

tool for integrated farming
in an alternating wet–dry
season tropical climate

Abstract Keywords
A tool was developed for farmers to estimate water volume in farm ponds and plan cattle
pond water use for dry-season crop and animal production leaving adequate reserve diversification
water for rice at the start of the wet season. The tool is used to determine pond rainfed agriculture
water volume at the start of the planning cycle; to determine the quantity of pond soil texture
reserve water desired at the end of the planning cycle; to determine pond water evap- topographical position
oration during the planning period; to determine expected water consumption by vegetables

101
U. Sukchan | M. Oda | J. S. Caldwell | K. Taweekul …

desired crops and cattle; and to adjust water use if the remaining water predicted
by the tool is less than the desired reserve quantity. Water use based on plans made
with the tool by ten farmers was monitored from 29 December 2008 to 5 October
2009. The tool was more accurate in predicting reserve water when no rainfall
added water into farm ponds, and less accurate when rainfall added water to the
ponds. Prediction of reserve water in the upper paddy topographical position was
more accurate compared with lower paddy and upland positions. The tool is most
appropriate for dry-season diversification in upper paddy topographical positions
where many new ponds have been constructed during the past twenty years.

Introduction
In north-east Thailand, an area with alternating wet and dry seasons,
rainfed agriculture based on wet-season rice and dry-season sugar cane
and cassava production predominates. During the past two decades, many
farm ponds have been constructed by farmers, with or without govern-
ment support, but these ponds have not been effectively used for inte-
grated farming combining fruits, vegetables and livestock production (Ando
2004). Farmers have been reluctant to use pond water for integrated farm-
ing because they fear that there will not be enough water throughout the
growing season for these activities, and that not enough reserve water will
remain in the ponds at the end of the dry season for rice seedbed and paddy
establishment. Farmers have had no tool to estimate pond volume and the
amount of water needed for each activity for planning year-round water
use and to plan diversification activities, so that adequate reserve water will
remain for rice establishment.
The two objectives of the study were: (1) to develop a tool through a farm-
er-participatory process for farmers to estimate water volume in farm ponds
and plan water use for diversification of crop and animal production in a
climate with alternating wet and dry seasons; and (2) to assess the accuracy
of this tool in predicting reserve water at the end of the planning cycle when
used by farmers.
Reserve water at the start of the wet season after dry season pond water
use for diversification activities is the outcome measure most important to
farmers. This article describes the participatory process followed to develop
the tool; explains the design and use of the tool; presents the results of farmer
evaluation of tool usability; and assesses the accuracy of the tool’s predic-
tion of water reserve quantity remaining after water use for diversification in
farmer plans made using the tool.
The water use planning tool was developed with farmers in Nong Saeng
village, Khon Kaen Province, Thailand. This village is located 35 km south of
Khon Kaen City. The general topography is undulating, with the agricultural
land divided among lowland fields (35%) used for rainfed rice production in
the wet season, the upland fields generally planted in cassava or sugarcane
(57%), and land between lowland paddy and upland fields (18%). All farms
have farm ponds. The average land per farm household is 4 ha (24 rai). The
majority of farm households (75%) raise cattle, with an average of five heads
per farm household (Suphanchaimat et al. 2007).
A calendar of farm pond water use was developed during the course of
monitoring water use over two years (2005–2006) on three integrated farms –
one each on upland, intermediate and lowland topographical positions. All

102
 A pond water use planning tool for integrated farming …

Figure 1: Calendar of water use activities on three integrated farms in Nong Saeng
village, Khon Kaen Province, Thailand, 2005–2006.

three farms used pond water for ducks and fish throughout the year. Other
uses were seasonal, including rice at the start of the wet season, and cattle,
vegetables, custard apple and banana during the dry season from October
to July. The two activities that used the largest amounts of water were rice
seedling production in June and vegetable production from December to May.
Other activities used less water (Figure 1). The concept of the water use plan-
ning tool was created based on this calendar.

Materials and methods

The design of the pond water use planning tool was modelled after a ferti-
lizer mixing tool developed by the Department of Agriculture (Soil Science
Division 1999). An initial prototype pond water use planning tool was devel-
oped incorporating data from the following four sources:

1. Volumes of standard farm pond sizes, from the Land Development

Department (LDD) (Soil and Water Conservation Division 2001)
2. Evaporation at the Thapra weather station, Khon Kaen Province, from the
Thai Meteorological Department (TMD) (2007)
3. Water use of crops, from the Royal Irrigation Department (RID) (1994);
and
4. Cattle water consumption from on-farm monitoring in 2006 (Sukchan
et al. 2006).

The prototype tool was first presented in a farmer meeting in Nong Saeng
on 6 November 2007 and modified based on feedback from these farmers.
Farmers in this village formed farmer experimental groups and have devel-
oped experience in on-farm trials with vegetables since 2003 (Sukchan et al.
2010). The modified tool was then presented in farmers’ meetings in Nong
Saeng village and three other villages (Wang Wa, Wang Hin and Wang Peu)
in south-eastern Khon Kaen Province on 29 December 2008. Farmer groups
had been developed for scaling out of a farmer-to-farmer technology develop-
ment process in these villages from 2006 (Taweekul et al. 2009). Seven farm-
ers volunteered to make farm water use plans using the tool and participate
in monitoring water level and water use monthly from 16 November 2007 to
19 May 2008. The monitoring was done on four farms in Nong Saeng and

103
U. Sukchan | M. Oda | J. S. Caldwell | K. Taweekul …

on three farms in the scaling out villages (one farm per village) to assess the
accuracy of the tool. These farmers also assessed the usability of the tool at the
end of the monitoring period.
The tool was further improved based on a second cycle of testing its use by
ten farmers in the Nong Saeng village from 29 December 2008 to 5 October
2009. These farmers created water use plans for vegetables, fruits and cattle
production, and carried out production activities following water use plan. The
farmers then evaluated the improved version of the water use planning tool.

Results and discussion

Design and data structure of the tool
The pond water use planning tool consists of two pieces: a disk calculation
tool; and a pond water use planning chart on the cover of the envelope that
contains the disk. The calculation tool consists of three concentric disks: an
inner disk with data for different situations, and front and back outer disks
that can be turned to select calculation results that correspond to the user’s
pond characteristics and water use objectives. The front part of the calcula-
tion tool (Part 1) calculates pond water volume, and the back part of the tool
(Part 2) calculates pond water evaporation and water use for crop and cattle
production.
In Part 1, the front of the disk, pond volume is calculated based on three
factors: (1) soil texture and pond side slope; (2) pond dimensions; and (3)
water depth. In Nong Saeng and other villages in this region, two types of
soil texture – clayey soil and sandy loam soil – predominate. From LDD data,
if the pond is in clayey soil, the side slope is set at 1:1, while if the pond is in
sandy loam soil, the side slope set as 1:1.5. The front-revolving disk indicates
different pond dimensions and water levels. The tool shows pond volume
calculated by equation:

Pond Volume=½×[(W1×L1)+(W2×L2)]×d,

where,

W2=W1–2[d×(V:H)]
L2=L1–2[d×(V:H)]
W1=width of the pond surface
L1=length of the pond surface
W2=width of the pond bottom
L2=length of the pond bottom
d=depth of the pond
V:H=Vertical:Horizontal slope ratio (1:1 for clayey soil; 1:1.5 for sandy
loam soil)

Part 2, the back of the disk, is used to calculate evaporation and expected
water use for crop and cattle production. The back side of the inner disk is
divided into three colour-coded sections: monthly evaporation; expected crop
water use; and expected cattle water use.

104
 A pond water use planning tool for integrated farming …

Crop Water use Days Crop Water use Days

(m3/ha) (m3/ha)

Custard apple 15,000 365 Shallot 2463 65

Mangoes 15,000 365 Long bean 3038 80
Asparagus 16,162 365 Turnips 1968 45
Rice 6584 100 Kale 1750 55
Sweet corn 2901 75 Cauliflower 2088 45
Tomato 3750 110 Cucumber 2188 40
Chili 4060 150 Morning glory 1250 25
Egg plant 3438 85 Ruzi (pasture) 8000 90
Coriander 2188 65

Table 1: Water use by crops during one production cycle.

Kind of cattle Water consumption (m3)

1 month 6 months 12 months

Cow + Calf 0.6 3.5 7.0

Heifer (pregnancy) 0.5 3.0 6.0
Heifer 0.5 3.0 6.0
Bull 0.4 2.5 5.0
Young Male 0.4 2.5 5.0

Table 2: Water consumption by cattle.

The evaporation (m3) section is divided into twelve segments, one for each
month. Evaporation is calculated by the equation:

ME=(Epan×D×WS)/1000

where ME=monthly evaporation (m3)

Epan=evaporation from a pan (mm/day)
D=number of days/month (days)
WS=water surface (m2)

The values for expected crop water use are shown in Table 1, based on RID
(1994), Phatcharee (1997) and Direak et al. (2000). The values for expected
cattle water consumption are based on on-farm monitoring of cattle on six
farms in 2005 (Table 2) (Sukchan et al. 2006).

Farmer evaluation of prototype tool and modifications made

Fourteen farmers participated in the meeting on 6 November 2007 to evaluate
the usability of the prototype calculation tool and pond water use planning
chart (Figure 2). More than 90% of the farmers ranked high the general form,
design and colours, while 72% of the farmers ranked high the text and size.

105
U. Sukchan | M. Oda | J. S. Caldwell | K. Taweekul …

Figure 2: Farmer meeting for evaluation of prototype tool, 6 November 2007.

Characteristic evaluated Farmers (%) giving ranking level

High Medium Low Total

General form 91 9 0 100

Design and colours 93 7 0 100
Text and size 72 28 0 100
Ease of use of the method 64 36 0 100
Ease of understanding how to read 40 60 0 100
Appropriateness for use 84 16 0 100

Table 3: Farmer evaluation of the prototype calculation tool and pond water use
planning chart.

However, the percentage of farmers giving a high ranking for ease of use of
the tool for calculating water use was lower, 64%. On the other hand, 84% of
the farmers ranked high the appropriateness of the tool. More farmers, 60%,
ranked medium ease of reading water use from the calculation tool and pond
guideline chart (Table 3), because this was the first time to use it. Some farmers
also commented that the dark colour tone was difficult to read. Others wanted a
wheel made from stronger material than paper, and inclusion of more kinds of
vegetables.
Based on the above farmer evaluation, the calculation tool and pond water
use planning chart were improved in the following three ways:

1. Change of the tool colour pattern by grouping types of data with the same
colour to make it easier to understand (compare Figures 3a and 3b)

106
 A pond water use planning tool for integrated farming …

Figure 3a: Initial water use calculation tool prototype developed in 2007.

Figure 3b: Improved calculation tool as modified in 2008: front (left) for pond
surface and volume for sandy loam soil (green) and clay (blue) soils; back (right)
for evaporation (blue), crop water use (green), and cattle water use (pink).

2. Increase in the number of crops from eleven in 2007 to seventeen in 2008

3. Addition of a cover for the tool, with an explanation of the method of use on
the front of the cover and the water use planning chart on the back of the
cover, which farmers can copy for their own planning each time (Figure 4).

Method of use
A five-step procedure is followed in using the tool:

1. Pond volume at the start of the planning period: the user determines pond
volume at the start of the planning period based on the five factors of soil
type, pond depth, length, width of pond and water depth. The user begins
by selecting the appropriate half of the front disk corresponding to the
pond’s soil texture: the green half, if sandy loam texture; the blue half, if
clayey texture. The user then turns the front-revolving disk to the appro-
priate pond depth segment, 2.0, 2.5 or 3.0 m (Figure 3b left).

107
U. Sukchan | M. Oda | J. S. Caldwell | K. Taweekul …

Figure 4: Cover for tool with explanation of the method of use on the front (right)
and water use planning chart on the back (left).

  The user finds pond surface area and volume based on the dimensions
of the pond. The upper three lines of each pond depth segment are sub-
divided into five to six different combinations of pond lengths and widths
that result in similar surface areas. The user chooses the combination of
length and width in the upper part of the clear window that approximates
the dimensions of the farm pond and reads the water surface for that
combination. The user notes this value for use in step 3.
  Finally, the user finds the water level of the pond measured from the
bottom of the pond on the disk. The revolving disk shows six different
water levels from 0.5 to 3.0 m. The user reads the water volume for the
pond’s actual water level. The user writes this value on line 1 of the plan-
ning chart (Figure 4, right).
2. Volume of water reserve desired at the end of the dry season or planning period:
the user decides the depth of water desired at the end of the dry season
or planning period. With the revolving disk in the same location as in
step 1, the user reads the volume corresponding to that depth (Figure 3b,
left). The user writes this value on line 2 of the planning chart (Figure 4,
right).
3. Evaporation and available pond water volume: the user determines the
volume of water lost by evaporation from the pond during the planning
period based on water surface area and length of the planning period.
  For this purpose, the user turns the tool to the back side (Figure 3b,
right). The back of the inner disk is divided into three colour-coded
sections: monthly evaporation (blue); crop water use (green); and cattle
water use (pink). The back-revolving disk is divided into the same three
colour-coded sections. Each section of the revolving disk has its own set of
indicators and its own clear window.
  The user aligns the revolving disk so that blue indicators are just to the
left of the start of the blue segment of the inner disk. The blue section is
divided into twelve sub-sections, one for each month. Lines indicate pond

108
 A pond water use planning tool for integrated farming …

surface areas between 550 and 850m2, in six increments of 50m2 each. The
user turns the revolving disk to first month of the planning period to find
the evaporation value for the pond surface calculated on the front disk in
step 1. The user writes down that amount of water on a separate note pad.
The user then turns the revolving disk to the next month at the right, reads
its evaporation volume, and writes it on the note pad. The user continues
this way until the last month in the planning period, corresponding to
the end of the last cropping period. The user adds up all the evaporation
volumes written on the note pad and writes the sum on line 3 of the plan-
ning chart (Figure 4, right).
  The user then subtracts the volume desired at the end of the plan-
ning period (line 2) and evaporation expected during the planning period
(line 3) from present pond water volume (line 1), to determine pond water
volume available for crops and cattle during the planning period. The user
writes this value on line 4 of the planning chart.
4. Crop and cattle water use: the user determines the volume of water to be
used by crops and cattle based on three factors for crops (kind of crop, length
of the production period and crop area) and two factors for cattle (kind and
number of cattle).
  First, the user turns the back side of the revolving disk so that the indi-
cators on the green part are just to the left of the green part of the inner
disk (Figure 3, right). The top line of the planning chart indicates the crop
type. The user turns the revolving disk to the right until the desired crop
appears in the clear window. The second line indicates the number of days
of the cropping period. The rest of the lines indicate four areas, from 400
to 1600m2 in 400m2 increments. The user selects the area that corresponds
to the area to be cropped and reads the volume of water needed. The user
writes the name of the first crop and its volume of water on line 5 of the
planning chart. Water volumes for intermediate areas can be calculated by
interpolation between the upper and lower values. Water values for areas
larger than 1600m2 can be calculated by adding up volumes for multiple
areas of 400–1600m2.
  The user next finds the second desired crop, repeats the above process, and
writes the name of the second crop and its volume of water on line 6 of the
planning chart. The reader repeats this until all crops have been entered. The
planning chart has lines for six activities, but additional lines can be added if
a greater number of activities are desired.
  For cattle, the user turns the back side revolving disk so that the indi-
cators on the pink part are just to the left of the pink part of the inner
disk (Figure 3b, right). The top line of the chart indicates the length of
time – one, six or twelve months – the type of cattle will be raised. The
user turns the revolving disk to the right for the desired time period in
the clear window. The rest of the lines indicate types of animals (cow
with unweaned calf, pregnant cow, cow or heifer not pregnant, adult bull,
young male). On a separate note pad, the user writes down the number
of cattle of each type and the volume of water consumed by each type,
and then multiplies these two values to obtain the total volume of water
consumed by animals of each type. The user then adds up the volumes for
all types to obtain the total volume of water for all cattle. If the length of
raising cattle of a certain type is between two and five months, the user
calculates this total volume for one month and multiplies the total volume
by the number of months. The user then writes the final total value on the

109
U. Sukchan | M. Oda | J. S. Caldwell | K. Taweekul …

next line after the last crop on the planning chart (e.g., if there are two
crops on lines 5–6, the volume of water for cattle will be on line 7).
5. Determination of total volume of water needed and adjustment of water use plan-
ning if remaining water is less than the volume of reserve water desired: the user
adds up the water volumes on lines 5–10 to obtain the total volume of water
needed for all crop and cattle production activities and writes this value on
line 11 of the planning chart. The user then subtracts this value from line 3 to
obtain the volume of water expected at the end of the dry season or planning
period. The user writes this value on line 12.
  If the value on line 12 is less than the value shown on line 4 (desired
reserve minus evaporation), the user notes the difference. The user then
compares this with the volumes of individual activities on lines 5–10 and
decides which activities to reduce or eliminate to save more water for the
reserve period. If the user reduces the area of a crop or the number of
cattle, the user finds the new, reduced water volume following the same
procedures of step 4. The new values can be written in the second column
on the planning chart, and step 5 repeated to confirm that the changes
result in a total water use volume that leaves adequate water at the end of
the dry season or planning period.

Testing the accuracy of the calculation tool

Nine farms provided complete water use data, each representing one of
three topographical positions: upland (four farms), upper paddy (two farms)
and lower paddy (three farms). The data are shown in two sets. Set 1, from
16 November 2007 to 19 February 2008, represented water use in the dry
season without rainfall (no events>5 mm) on three farms. Set 2, from 20
February to 14 May 2008, represented water use with rainfall of 220.8 mm on
all nine farms (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Daily rainfall (mm.), 16 November 2007–14 May 2008, Nong Saeng
village, Khon Kaen Province, Thailand.

110
 A pond water use planning tool for integrated farming …

Water volume (m3)

Topographical position Entire period (sets 1+2)1 No rainfall (set 1)1 Rainfall (set 2)1
and period; statistical
parameter Pred Obs Pred Obs Pred Obs

Upland (no rainfall)2 493 633 493 633 - -

Upper paddy (no rainfall)2 4456 4078 4456 4078 - -
Lower paddy (no rainfall)2 973 1134 973 1134 - -
Upland1 (rainfall)3 171 330 - - 171 330
Upland2 (rainfall)3 233 555 233 555
Upland3 (rainfall)3 16 224 16 224
Upland4 (rainfall)3 455 473 455 473
Upper paddy1 (rainfall)3 3118 2897 - - 3118 2897
Upper paddy2 (rainfall)3 667 1170 667 1170
Lower paddy1 (rainfall)3 584 954 - - 584 954
Lower paddy2 (rainfall)3 305 371 305 371
Lower paddy3 (rainfall)3 1137 2153 1137 2153

Sum 12,610 14,972 5922 5845 6688 9127

Difference[Pred-Obs] −2362 78 −2439

Correlation −0.10 0.01 −0.27
1
Set 1: 16 Nov. 2007 -19 Feb. 2008; Set 2: 20 Feb.–14 May 2008
2
Measured 19 February, 2008; on 1 farm for each topographical position.
3
Measured 14 May, 2008, on 4 upland, 2 upper paddy, and 3 lower paddy farms, respectively.

Table 4: Amounts of reserve water remaining in ponds at the end of farmers’ planning cycles as predicted by
the tool (Pred) and observed (Obs) with and without rainfall.

The volume of water remaining in farm ponds on 14 May 2008 as predicted

by the tool was compared with the volume measured at each of the three topo-
graphical positions for both sets with and without rainfall, and for the two sets
combined. The average difference between the predicted and observed values
with and without rainfall was a negative 2362 m3, meaning that the volume of
water remaining in the ponds predicted by the tool was less than the volume
actually observed. The difference between predicted and observed values was
negligible without rainfall, only 78 m3, whereas the difference with rainfall was
a negative 2439 m3. The correlation between predicted and observed values
was lower (r=0.01) without rainfall adding water to the farm pond, and higher
(r=−0.27) when rainfall was added water to the farm pond. The tool was more
accurate when no rainfall added water into farm pond, and less accurate when
rainfall added water (Table 4).
Prediction of the amount of reserve water remaining in the farm pond
in the upper paddy topographical position had the best accuracy (r=0.01),
compared with lower paddy (r=−0.35) and upland (r=−0.38) topographi-
cal positions. When there is rainfall, water will flow from the uplands to the
lowlands both on the soil surface and underground. The soil texture of the
upland farm pond was loamy sandy soil, which has very good runoff and
infiltration, so this reduced the accuracy of the predicted values relative to

111
U. Sukchan | M. Oda | J. S. Caldwell | K. Taweekul …

Water volume (m3)

Upland Upper paddy Lower paddy

Topographical position and
period; statistical parameter Pred Obs Pred Obs Pred Obs

Upland (no rainfall)1 493 633

Upland1 (rainfall)2 171 330
Upland2 (rainfall)2 233 555
Upland3 (rainfall)2 16 224
Upland4 (rainfall)2 455 473
Upper paddy (no rainfall)1 4456 4078
Upper paddy1 (rainfall)2 3118 2897
Upper paddy2 (rainfall)2 667 1170
Lower paddy (no rainfall)1 973 1134
Lower paddy1 (rainfall)2 584 954
Lower paddy2 (rainfall)2 305 371
Lower paddy3 (rainfall)2 1137 2153

Sum 1369 2214 8242 8146 2999 4612

Difference [Pred-Obs] −845 96 −1613
Correlation −0.38 0.01 −0.35
1
Measured 19 February, 2008; on 1 farm for each topographical position.
2
Measured 14 May, 2008, on 4 upland, 2 upper paddy, and 3 lower paddy farms, respectively

Table 5: Amounts of water in ponds predicted by the tool (Pred) and observed (Obs) in three topographical
positions.

the upper paddy position. The lower paddy position is the water collecting
zone, so it had the greatest difference between predicted and observed values
(Table 5).

Future modifications of the water use planning tool based on

2009 monitoring
Several practical problems emerged through use of the tool in 2009. Pond
sizes and shapes are sometimes irregular. An explanation of how to divide the
irregularly shaped ponds into segments corresponding to the tool choices is
needed. Farmers can then add water volumes from segments to estimate their
pond size. Water depth is difficult to estimate without a gradated depth rod.
Farmers who do not have a depth rod will need to install a gradated rod in
the pond.
Crop water use is currently shown for only four sizes of crop area (400,
800, 1200 and 1600m2 per crop), but in reality most farmers have smaller size
areas in each crop. In the next version of the tool, the crop calculation method
will be changed to 1 square metre per day for each month. Farmers will then
be able estimate water volume for any size plot and any length of cropping.
The tool is most appropriate for use by farmers in the dry season in the
upper paddy topographical positions. The dry season is the season when fruit

112
 A pond water use planning tool for integrated farming …

and vegetable production is most limited by inadequate water, so the tool

can be particularly useful for farmers considering diversification in the dry
season. Many of the new ponds constructed during the past twenty years are
in the upper paddy position, so the tool can help farmers gain more economic
benefit from those ponds. However, traditionally, farm ponds in north-east
Thailand have been located in the lower paddy position, and there are also
many ponds in the lower paddy position. The tool predicts less water than
observed in these sites, which means that farmers end up with more reserve
water than expected. Underground water flow augments pond water and
increases soil moisture in crop plots in lower paddy positions. Taking under-
ground water into account could enable farmers to plan for greater water use
from lower paddy ponds in the dry season. Further testing and monitoring
of water use are needed to develop appropriate adjustment factors for lower
paddy ponds, to enable farmers to increase water use for diversification from
traditional ponds.

Acknowledgement
This work was carried out as part of the Rainfed Agriculture Project, a collab-
orative effort of the Japan International Research Center for Agricultural
Sciences (JIRCAS), the Ministry of Agriculture & Cooperatives, Thailand,
and Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand. We thank the Rainfed
Agriculture Project of JIRCAS for financial support, and many farmer and
researcher collaborators who contributed to this work. An oral version of this
article was presented at the 107th Symposium of the Japan Society for Tropical
Agriculture, 27 March 2010, Kashiwa, Japan.

References
Ando, M. (2004), Integrated Farming with Farm Pond Irrigation in Northeast
Thailand: Identification of Socio–economic Factors and Conditions for
Sustainable Farm Management in Northeast Thailand, Tsukuba, Japan: Japan
International Research Center for Agricultural Science (JIRCAS).
Direak, T., Tangkosakul, W., Chirachevee, N. and Nunthakig, I. (2000), Plant
Watering Technology and Design, Bangkok, Thailand: Ministry of Agriculture
and Cooperatives, p. 428.
Phatcharee, S. (1997), Irrigated Agriculture, Khon Kaen, Thailand: Soil Science
Division, Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University.
Royal Irrigation Department (RID) (1994), Crop Evapotranspiration in Northeast
Thailand, Bangkok, Thailand: Planning & Crop Irrigation Research Section,
Agricultural Irrigation Sub-Division, Water Distribution & Maintenance
Division, Royal Irrigation Department, Ministry of Agriculture.
Soil and Water Conservation Division (2001), Soil and Water Conservation
Manual, Bangkok, Thailand: Land Development Department, Ministry of
Agriculture and Cooperatives (in Thai).
Soil Science Division (1999), Tool for the Mixing of Fertilizers, Bangkok, Thailand:
Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives.
Sukchan, U., Caldwell, J., Oda, M., Phaowphaisal, I., Suphanchaimat, N. and
Verakronphanich, P. (2006), ‘Assessment of economic viability, environ-
mental benefits, and acceptability through on-farm testing of technologies
for integrated farming (Year 2 Results)’, in I. Ito (ed.), Increasing Economic
Options in Rainfed in Indochina through Efficient Use of water Resources,

113
U. Sukchan | M. Oda | J. S. Caldwell | K. Taweekul …

Tsukuba, Japan: Japan International Research Center for Agricultural

Sciences (JIRCAS), pp. 88–101.
Sukchan, U., Caldwell, J. S., Oda, M., Suphanchaimat, N., Taweekul, K.,
Phaowphaisal, I. and Sukchan, S. (2010), ‘Process and results of integrated
farming development by a farmer experimental group in rainfed Northeast
Thailand’, International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable
Development, 9: 3, pp. 213–36.
Suphanchaimat, N., Oda, M., Iamlaor, J., Suriya, P. and Sriwaranunt, Y.,
(2007), ‘Determining factors on the use of farm pond in dry season: Case
study Nong Saeng village, Ban Haed District, Khon Kaen Province’, In
W.Saksirirat, Taweekul, K., Wachirapakorn, C., Chosittayangkoon, D.,
Choloktanrat, P., Rambo, P., Tammabenjaphon, P., Srisakoonteao, P.,
Pakdee, P., Duangjinda, M., Sirimangkhararat, S., Jokloy, S., Issarangkool
na Ayuttaya, S., Pimsanam, S., and Wongchareun, O. (eds.), In Abstracts
of KKU Annual Agriculture Seminar for Year 2007, Khon Kaen, Thailand:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen
University, pp. 35–37.
Taweekul, K., Yamada, R., Caldwell, J. and Fujimoto, A. (2009), ‘Assessment
of the impact of farmer-to- farmer learning scaling out of participatory
technology development on productivity of diversification activities’,
International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development,
8: 2, pp. 129–44.
Thai Meteorological Department (TMD) (2007), 10 years Average Khon Kaen
Province Evaporation Data, Bangkok, Thailand: Ministry of Transport (CD).

Suggested citation
Sukchan, U., Oda, M., Caldwell, J. S., Taweekul, k., Suphanchaimat, N. and
Chongpraditnun, P. (2014), ‘A pond water use planning tool for integrated
farming in an alternating wet–dry season tropical climate’, International
Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, 13: 2,
pp. 101–115, doi: 10.1386/tmsd.13.2.101_1

Contributor details
Ms Uchada Sukchan is Director of the Agricultural Production Science
Research and Development Center (APSRDC), Agricultural Production
Science Research and Development Office, Department of Agriculture (DOA),
Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. At the time of this work, she was an
agricultural researcher, senior professional level of APSRDC. She has experi-
ence in integrated farming system development through the farmer participa-
tory approach in Thailand.
Contact: Agricultural Production Science Research and Development Center,
117 Mittraparp Rd., Khon Kaen 40000, Thailand.
E-mail: uchada_au@yahoo.com

Dr Masato Oda is a crop scientist the Crop, Livestock & Environment Division
of the Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences (JIRCAS).
He has experience in technology development through the farmer participa-
tory approach in Thailand and Laos.
Contact: JIRCAS 1-1, Ohwashi, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8686, Japan.
E-mail: oda.masato@affrc.go.jp

114
 A pond water use planning tool for integrated farming …

Dr John S. Caldwell is a farming systems specialist who worked in the Japan

International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences (JIRCAS), Japan,
followed by work as a Visiting Scholar, Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen
University, at the time of this research. He has more than 30 years of experi-
ence in farming systems, extension and rural development in South East Asia,
West Africa, the United States and Japan.
Contact: Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand.
E-mail: caldweljoverseas@gmail.com

Mr Taweekul Krailert is an assistant professor in the Department of Agricultural

Extension at Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand. He has worked
in agricultural extension and rural development for the past eighteen years
with public institutions, NGOs, and farmer groups before joining the faculty
of Khon Kaen University.
Contact: Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand.
E-mail: tkrail@kku.ac.th

Ms Nongluck Suphanchaimat is an associate professor in Agricultural

Economics who has experience in farming systems research, especially under
rainfed conditions, and in evaluation.
Contact: Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand.
E-mail: nongluck@kku.ac.th

Dr Praphasri Chongpraditnun is Director of Soil Science Research Group,

Agricultural Production Science Research and Development Office (APSRDO),
Department of Agriculture (DOA), Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives.
At the time of this work, she was an agricultural researcher, senior profes-
sional level of APSRDO. She has about 32 years of experience in soil chemis-
try, plant nutrition, fertilizer technology and application in Thailand.
Contact: Soil Science Research Group, Agricultural Production Science
Research and Development Office, Department of Agriculture, Phaholyothin
Rd., Chatuchak, Bangkok 10900, Thailand.
E-mail: praphasric@gmail.com

Uchada Sukchan, Masato Oda, John S. Caldwell, Taweekul Krailert, Nongluck

Suphanchaimat and Praphasri Chongpraditnun have asserted their right
under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the
authors of this work in the format that was submitted to Intellect Ltd.

115
 r e e
FONLINE
ACCESS
FOR LESS DEVELOPED COUNTRIES

Intellect is delighted to offer FREE online access to

scholars in less economically developed countries who
may not otherwise be able to access our journals.

For more information please contact

Tim Mitchell at tim@intellectbooks.com

All educational institutions in the following countries are eligible for this offer:
Afghanistan Dijibouti Madagascar Senegal
Bangladesh Eritrea Malawi Sierra Leone
Benin Ethiopia Mali Solomon Islands
Bhutan Gambia, The Mauritania Somalia
Burkina Faso Ghana Mongolia South Sudan
Burundi Guinea Mozambique Sudan
Cambodia Guinea-Bissau Myanmar Tajikistan
Cameroon Haiti Nepal Tanzania
Central African Honduras Nicaragua Timor-Leste
Republic Iraq Niger Togo
Chad Kenya Palestine Uganda
Comoros Kyrgyz Republic Papua New Guinea Uzbekistan
Côte d’Ivoire Lao P.D.R Rwanda Yemen
Democratic Republic Lesotho São Tomé and Zambia
of the Congo Liberia Príncipe Zimbabwe

intellect | www.intellectbooks.com
Copyright of International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development is
the property of Intellect Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.