Soil survey of command area for planning of water management: A case study of an area in Hardoi district, U.P.

  • H. S. Iyer
  • Jitendra Prasad


Development of irrigation potential for increasing agricultural production is the main aim of Command Area Development. This involves interaction amongst various factors; the soil, the crop, the climate, the topograpny and others. Water management in Command Area requires careful planning, based upon adequate data regarding soils, land use and topography. It is essential to make the best possible use of the available water without creating waterlogging, salinity and alkalinity problems in the command area. The use of aerial photographs is a well recognized expedient, convenient and economical method of data collection, which appreciably suits the requirement of the survey of Command Areas. As large areas have to be surveyed for data collection, the best way to accomplish this is by taking up survey of command area in different levels: reconnaissance, semi-detailed and detailed. The reconnaissance and semi-detailed survey would enable us to identify problem areas. Detailed survey are needed in these areas for taking up reclamation measures.

A case study of soil survey carried out in the Sharda Sahayak Command Area of a part of Hardoi District is given as an example to illustrate the use of aerial photographs for planning of water management practices.


Soil Survey Water Capacity Command Area High Yielding Variety Reclamation Measure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abrol, I.P., B.K. Khosla and D.R. Bhumbla. 1968. Relationship of texture to some important soil moisture constants. Geoderma. 2:33–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Jamison, V.C. and E.M. Kroth. 1958. Available moisture storage capacity in relation to textural composition and organic matter content of several Missouri soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 22: 189–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Petersen, G.W., R.L. Cunningham, and R.P. Matelski. 1968. Moisture characteristics of Pennsylvania soils. II. Soil factors affecting moisture retention within a textural class-silt loam. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 32:866–870.Google Scholar
  4. Rivers, E.D. and R.F. Shipp. 1972. Available water capacity of sandy and gravelly North Dakota soils. Soil Sci. 113:74–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Shamacharya, K. and T.R. Srinivasan. 1972. Use of small scale aerial photographs for the preparation of small scale soil maps. Twelfth Congress of International Society of Photogrammetry, Ottawa.Google Scholar
  6. Singh, K.D. 1975. Characterisatioa of hydraulic properties of some soils. Ph. D. Thesis, submitted to Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India.Google Scholar
  7. Soil Survey Staff, 1975. Soil Taxonomy. A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. Soil Conservation Service U.S.D.A., Agriculture Handbook No. 436.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. S. Iyer
    • 1
  • Jitendra Prasad
    • 1
  1. 1.Indian Photo-Interpretation Institute (NRSA)Dehra Dun

Personalised recommendations