TECHNOFAME- A Journal of Multidisciplinary Advance Research

Vol.5 No. 2, 95-98 (2016) Received: March, 2016; Accepted: August, 2016

Quality of Under Ground Irrigation Waters of District ,

Varsha Pateriya and Vipin Kumar1 Department of Agriculture Chemistry and Soil Science R. B. S. College, Bichpuri, Agra-283105 1Principal, S. R. K. College, Firozabad (U.P.)

Abstract A water quality survey was conducted during 2008-10 in four tehsils of district Etah and found that the average EC values in the irrigation waters of Aliganj, Etah, and Patiali, tehsils were 1.97, 2.10, 2.20 -1 + ++ ++ – and 1.82 dSm , respectively. The waters were Na – Mg – Ca and Cl – – – type regarding cationic and anionic composition, respectively. The average values of boron were 0.58, 0.45, 0.44 and 0.39 ppm and that of fluoride as 1.87, 1.55, 1.72 and 1.54 ppm in waters of Aliganj, Etah, Jalesar and Patiali tehsils, respectively. The average RSC values were negative and SAR ranged from 1.78 to 43.04 in waters of the district. Key words: Irrigation waters, composition, correlations.

Introduction Results and Discussion The success of agriculture in any area A perusal of data given is Table 1 depends primarily upon the availability of indicates that there was not much variation in good quality water for irrigation. The quality the average pH values of waters of different of waters of walls and tube wells has been tehsils of district Etah as average pH values reported questionable in many areas of the ranged from 8.25 to 8.50 only. The average country [6]. If such waters are used for EC values in Aliganj, Etah, Jalesar and Patiali irrigation, land tends to develop salinity and tehsils were 1.97, 2.10, 2.20 and 1.82 dSm–1, sodicity problems thus responsible for an respectively, showing higher values in waters adverse effect on soil characteristics and plant of Jalesar tehsil. The waters of Etah distirct, growth. Therefore, the evaluation of quality of thus are similar to those of Punjab [1]. The underground irrigation water of a particular cationic composition of these waters is Na+– area is essential. [7]. Mg++ – Ca++– type indicating divalent to Material and Methods monovalent cationic ratios as 1:1.7 for Underground irrigation waters were Aliganj, 1: 1.5 for Etah, 1: 1.5 for Jalesar and collected from of Uttar Pradesh 1: 1.5 for Patiali tehsils. The predomance of comprising of Aliganj, Etah, Jalesar and movovalent cations in irrigation waters Patiali tehsils. From each tehsil 40 water resembled with those of Punjab [1], Rajasthan [6] [4]. samples were collected randomly from and district of Uttar Pradesh tubewells. In all 160 water samples were The anionic composition of waters of Etah – – – – – – analysed for physio-chemical characters using district is Cl – SO4 – HO3 – CO3 type standard methods and available data were resembling with those of Rajasthan [6]. The processed statistically to derive valid concentration of potassium in irrigation waters –1 information. of Etah district ranged from 0.10 to 3.45 mel

95

TECHNOFAME- A Journal of Multidisciplinary Advance Research with an average value of 0.47 mel–1. The and Patiali tehsils were 1.0 to 4.65 (1.87), 0.15 maximum average potassium concentration to 4.60 (1.55), 0.10 to 4.65 (1.87), 0.15 to 4.60 was noted in the waters of Aliganj tehsil. Such (1.55), 0.10 to 4.65 (1.72) and 0.30 to 4.35 variation in potassium concentration was also (1.54) ppm, respectively. The average values reported in the waters of [3]. A of RSC of irrigation water were negative in all study of Table 2 reveals that the boron tehsils of district Etah except few locations. concentration in the waters of Aliganj, Etah, Similarly, average SAR values were also not Jalesar and Patiali tehsils ranged from 0.10 to problematic, however the same ranged from 1.45, 0.10 to 1.50, 0.05 to 1.45 and 0.10 to 1.78 to 43.04 in the waters of the district. 1.00 ppm, respectively with corresponding Hence waters of Etah district appear to be safe respective average values of 0.58, 0.45, 0.44 like that of Punjab [1] and some parts of Uttar and 0.39 ppm. The range and average values Pradesh [3]. of fluoride is waters of Aliganj, Etah, Jalesar

Table 1 Maximum, minimum and average chemical composition of irrigation waters of different tehsils of Etah district. EC Cationic (mel–1) Anions (mel–1) pH (dS/m) Ca Mg Na K CO3 HCO3 Cl SO4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Aliganj Tehsil Maximum 7.5 0.65 0.70 1.20 3.05 0.10 0.10 0.45 2.10 0.10 Maximum 9.0 5.00 6.55 13.10 43.70 3.45 1.00 10.15 30.15 33.10 Average 8.3 1.97 2.96 4.57 11.75 0.76 0.41 5.37 8.96 8.87 Etah Tehsil Maximum 7.6 0.64 0.80 1.20 2.70 0.10 Tr 1.30 0.50 0.05 Maximum 9.0 4.76 7.80 16.80 34.60 1.15 1.80 13.30 23.20 26.10 Average 8.34 2.10 3.27 5.23 12.71 0.35 0.52 6.07 8.88 8.64 Jalesar Tehsil Maximum 7.8 0.60 0.60 0.60 5.00 0.10 Tr 2.40 0.40 0.10 Maximum 9.0 6.60 8.70 25.80 35.00 2.12 2.00 12.10 38.80 18.80 Average 8.5 2.20 3.23 5.71 13.06 0.39 0.86 6.00 9.71 6.88 Patiali Tehsil Maximum 7.4 0.60 1.00 0.60 2.70 0.10 0.05 2.00 0.40 0.05 Maximum 9.0 4.20 7.50 20.00 25.90 2.00 2.80 12.50 24.00 18.80 Average 8.25 1.82 2.67 4.56 10.76 0.38 0.87 5.81 6.60 5.26 Etah district Whole Maximum 7.4 0.6 0.60 0.6 2.70 0.10 Tr 0.45 0.40 0.05 Maximum 9.0 6.60 8.70 25.80 43.70 3.45 2.80 13.30 38.80 33.10 Average 8.3 2.02 3.03 5.01 12.07 0.47 0.66 5.81 8.53 7.41

96

TECHNOFAME- A Journal of Multidisciplinary Advance Research Table 2 Maximum, minimum and average of B, F, RSC and SAR or Irrigation waters of different Tehsils of Etah district. B (ppm) F(ppm) RSC (mel–1) SAR Aliganj Tehsil Maximum 0.10 0.10 –10.85 1.85 Maximum 1.45 4.65 +6.65 20.71 Average 0.58 1.87 –1.81 5.98 Etah Tehsil Maximum 0.10 0.15 –18.20 1.78 Maximum 1.50 4.60 +9.00 4.04 Average 0.45 1.55 –1.23 7.55 Jalesar Tehsil Maximum 0.05 0.10 –23.70 2.24 Maximum 1.45 4.65 +9.50 13.00 Average 0.44 1.72 –1.23 6.33 Patiali Tehsil Maximum 0.10 0.30 –14.60 2.01 Maximum 1.00 4.35 +13.40 15.79 Average 0.39 1.54 –1.45 5.92 Etah district Whole Maximum 0.05 0.10 –23.70 1.78 Maximum 1.50 4.65 +13.40 43.04 Average 0.46 1.67 –1.43 6.44

Table 3 Correlations among different properties of underground irrigation waters of Etah district Water characteristics Correction coefficients EC Vs pH 0.37** EC Vs Ca 0.55** EC Vs Mg 0.34** EC Vs Na 0.85**

EC Vs HCO3 0.41** EC Vs CI– 0.82* - - EC Vs SO4 0.70** EC Vs SAR 0.57** EC Vs F- 0.40** EC Vs B 0.42** pH Vs B 0.09 Ph Vs F 0.07 pH Vs SAR 0.22* Na Vs F 0.58** Na Vs B 0.45** SAR Vs B 0.44** SAR Vs F 0.45** B Vs F 0.40** *Significant at 1% level **Significant at 5% level

97

TECHNOFAME- A Journal of Multidisciplinary Advance Research An examination of values of correlation co- 3. Narain, P., Singh, B. and Pal, B. (1976). efficients given in Table 3 indicates that Quality of underground irrigation water in electrical conductivity had positive and semi-arid tract of Agra district, Annals of significant correlation with pH, Ca, Mg, Na, Arid Zone, 15:8–15.

HCO3 , Cl, SO4 SAR, F and B in the irrigation 4. Pal, B. and Dubey, S.K. (1981). Extent waters of Etah district. The fluorine content and interrelationship of various water significantly corrected with Na and SAR quality characteristics in underground indicating that more fluorine will remain irrigation waters. Madras Agriculture soluble in excess of sodium because sodium in Journal, 3:196–199. excess of sodium fluoride is more soluble. 5. Paliwal, K.V., Mehta, K.K. and Gandhi, Similar relationship existed between B and Na A.P. (1969). Fluoride in irrigation waters and SAR as also observed by earlier of Bhilwara district of Rajasthan. Indian [2, 5] investigators . Journal of Agriculture Sciences, 39:1083– References 1087. 1. Bhumbla, D.R. (1969). Water quality and 6. Paliwal, K.V. (1972). Irrigation with use of saline water for crop production. saline water. I.A.R.I. Monograph No. 2 Paper presented at the symposium, soil (New Series). Water Technology Centre, and water management, Hissar 11–13 I.A.R.I, New Delhi. March, 1969. 7. Tripathi, B.R., Singh, R.M. and Dixit, S.P. 2. Manchanda, H.R. (1976). Quality of (1969). Quality of irrigation waters and its ground water of Haryana. Technical effects on soil characteristics in the semi- Bulletin, Haryana Agriculture University, desert tract of U.P. – I. water quality. Hissar, Page- 160. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 14:180–186.

98