International Journal of Agriculture Sciences ISSN: 0975-3710&E-ISSN: 0975-9107, Volume 8, Issue 49, 2016, pp.-2090-2095. Available online at http://www.bioinfopublication.org/jouarchive.php?opt=&jouid=BPJ0000217

Research Article QUALITY OF IRRIGATION WATER FROM CHAKUR TEHSIL OF DISTRICT,

GHODKE S.K.*, HIREY O.Y. AND GAJARE A.S. Department of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, College of Agriculture, Latur, Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, Parbhani, Maharashtra *Corresponding Author: [email protected]

Received: July 04, 2016; Revised: July 15, 2016; Accepted: July 16, 2016; Published: October 21, 2016

Abstract- Quality of irrigation water from Chakur tahsil of , Maharashtra, during year 2008-2009. Total 300 ground water samples (180 well and 120 bore well) were collected randomly from 30 villages of periodically in two seasons i.e. monsoon season (July, 2008) and winter season (January, 2009). Similarly, representative 300 soil samples were also collected from same villages of Chakur tahsil in monsoon and winter season. The ground water samples were analyzed for quality parameters viz., pH, Electrical conductivity, cations, anions, boron. The Sodium Adsorption Ratio and Residual Sodium Carbonate were also calculated for these ground water samples. Soil samples were also analyzed for its pH and EC. The result found that all ground water samples from Chakur tahsil were alkaline in reaction and having pH 7.87 and 8.02 in monsoon and winter seasons, respectively. EC of these waters were 0.72 and 0.91 dS m-1 in monsoon and winter seasons, respectively. Among 300 water samples as per boron concentration, 54 and 40 per cent water samples were categorized in class C3 and C2, respectively. The EC values of ground waters were low in monsoon season as compared to winter season. Among all the cations in ground water sodium was dominant followed by magnesium, calcium and potassium. The relative proportions of anions in ground waters were in sequence of sulphate, carbonate, bicarbonate and chlorine. The boron concentration of ground water was ranged from 0.77 to 1.17 ppm which was moderately safe (C2) for irrigation. According to sodicity classes, i.e. SAR and RSC of ground waters were 90 and 82 per cent, respectively, which were safe and suitable for irrigation. Due to irrigation with ground water the pH and EC of soils were changed from 7.93 to 8.05 and 0.73 to 0.84 dSm-1, respectively. The positive and significant correlation was observed in between soil pH, Electrical conductivity and water quality parameters studied. Keywords- Boron, Cation and Anion concentration, Electrical Conductivity, RSC, SAR, Water Citation Ghodke S.K., et al., (2016) Quality of Irrigation Water from Chakur Tehsil of Latur District, Maharashtra. International Journal of Agriculture Sciences, ISSN: 0975- 3710 & E-ISSN: 0975-9107, Volume 8, Issue 49, pp.-2090-2095. Copyright: Copyright©2016 Ghodke S.K., et al., This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Academic Editor / Reviewer: Indranil Das, B. M. Kamble

Introduction Irrigation in India helps improve food security, reduce dependence on monsoons, serious damage to soils and crops, if necessary precautions are not taken in improve agricultural productivity and create rural job opportunities. Irrigation is a irrigation and soil management [12]. However, only few studies has carried out in key factor that boosts agricultural production. In arid and semi-arid region of India, determining the quality of well and tube well water. It is therefore felt necessary to availability of water for irrigation has been always a constraint in crop production. carry out on quality of irrigation water from Chakur tahsil of Latur district with the In India 54 per cent of irrigation is by well out of the total irrigation potential. In objective of determination of salinity, cations and anions concentration of irrigation Maharashtra irrigation by well is about 63 per cent, canal is about 29 per cent and water, suitability of water for irrigation purpose and categorization of irrigation other is 8 per cent. Maharashtra is the third largest state in the country with total water bases on quality. geographical area of 30.8 M ha and cultivable area of 24.6 M ha of which hardly 16.2 per cent is presently irrigated by canal, lifts or wells [1]. States like Rajasthan, Materials and Methods Karnataka, Gujarat and Maharashtra have limited water resources in comparison The Latur district is located between 180 05' to 180 75' North altitude and 760 25’ with other states. Water is going to be a crucial limiting resource for farm to 770 25’ East latitude. The geographical area of the district is 7166 sq. km with production in the future especially, in the state of Maharashtra. Presently in annual rainfall 787mm. Maximum and minimum temperatures of this tahsil are Chakur tahsil total open wells are 393 and tube wells are 1700. The total irrigated 41.20C and 8.70C, respectively. The elevation is 725-750 m from mean sea level area is 2330 ha. Major crops grown in this region are pigeon pea, gram, which comes under Central Marathwada Plateau Agro-Climatic Zone and semi groundnut, sorghum, bajara, soybean, sunflower and some horticultural crops. arid region. The rainfall during monsoon will occur during the month of June to The poor quality is available mainly in canal region or in command of big irrigation September and maximum precipitation occurs in the month of July and August. projects. The well quality is also affected predominantly by canal, seepage, The total rainfall occurred during present study was 856 mm in 28 rainy days. leaching of rain water and excess use of irrigation water etc. [2]. Assured supply of From Chakur tahsil of Latur district thirty villages were selected randomly to study good quality irrigation water is one of the important factors for increasing water quality and soil parameters. The villages are viz., Ashta, Mohdal, Gharani, agricultural production. The quality of water is an important consideration in an Gajur, Nandgaon, Bhatsavangi, Mahalangra, Ambulga, Tivgyal, Latur road, irrigated area. There are many places where use of doubtful quality water causes Kadmuli, Vadval naganath, Anjansoda (bu), Sugaon, Nageshwari, Murabi,

International Journal of Agriculture Sciences ISSN: 0975-3710&E-ISSN: 0975-9107, Volume 8, Issue 49, 2016 || Bioinfo Publications || 2090 Quality of Irrigation Water from Chakur Tehsil of Latur District, Maharashtra

Devangra, Nalegaon, Shivankhed, Hatkarwadi, Gharala, Jagalpur, Hali (Khu), The soil pH ranged from 7.10 to 8.98 with an average value of 7.93 and 7.12 to Alagarwadi, Tirthwadi, Ujalba, Bavalga, Chabarga, Raywadi, Bothi were identified 8.69 with an average value 8.05 in monsoon and winter season, respectively. and selected for collection of water and soil samples. Further data revealed that the pH of winter season samples was higher than The water samples were collected for two times, i.e. in the month of July 2008 monsoon season samples [Fig-1]. This increase in pH of winter season water (Monsoon season) and in the month of January, 2009 (winter season). The total samples might be due to increase in water pH in winter season i.e. increase in thirty villages were selected from Chakur tahsil and five underground water sodium content of water in winter season and accumulation of these sodium in soil samples (three from open well and two from tube well i.e. total 90 open well and [4]. studied that the pH of salt-affected swell-shrink soils of central research farm, 60 tube well samples from each season) were collected from each village. Total MPKV, Rahuri (Ahmednagar district) varied from 7.7 to 8.9. Similar result also was three hundred water samples were collected in two seasons (150 from monsoon observed by [14]. and 150 from winter season) by using standard procedure [16] in clean plastic bottles of one liter capacity and tightly screwed and brought to the laboratory for Electrical conductivity (EC) of water further analysis. Similarly, along with water samples total three hundred The EC of ground water were ranged from 0.10 to 1.69 dSm-1 with an average representative soil samples were also collected in two seasons from the farmer’s value 0.72 and 0.14 to 1.83 dSm-1 with the average value 0.91 dSm-1 in monsoon field. The collected water samples were brought to the laboratory on same day and winter seasons, respectively. The EC of winter season was higher as and proper labeling were carried out for each sample and stored in refrigerator compare to monsoon season [Fig-1]. Out of 300 water samples 161 samples were and analysis was carried out on the next day. The pH and EC of water and soil having high salinity and grouped under C3 class while 122 and 17 water samples sample were determined by using glass electrode pH and EC meter [10]. The soil were having salinity medium (C2) and low (C1), respectively [Table-3]. Further data and water ratio (1:2.5) was used for determining soil pH and EC. The cations like revealed that 53.66 per cent water samples were fairly suitable and can not be calcium and magnesium were determined by versenate (EDTA) titration method used on soils with restricted drainage while 40.66 per cent water samples were given by [16] and sodium and potassium were determined by using flame safe for irrigation but needs moderate leaching. Similar results were also recorded photometer [10]. The soluble anions like carbonates, bicarbonates, were by [11]. determined by titrimetric method given by [16] and chlorides and sulphates were determined by the Mohrs titration method [16]. The boron was estimated calorimetrically by using curcumin solution at 420 nm [3]. The correlation between water quality parameter and soil properties were worked out as per the standard method given by [15]. The Residual Sodium Carbonate was calculated by formula given by [7] as RSC (me L-1) = (CO3-- +HCO3-) - (Ca++ +Mg++) and Sodium Adsorption Ratio was computed by using formula [16].

SAR (me L-1) == Na+ Ca+++ Mg++ 2

Results and Discussion The data regarding pH, EC, SAR, RSC of ground water and pH and EC of soil are presented in [Table-1].

Water pH: The pH of ground water ranged from 7.01 to 8.61 with an average value of 7.87 Fig-1 Water parameters influenced by different season and 7.11 to 8.98 with an average value 8.02 in monsoon and winter season, respectively. Overall data indicates pH of water was alkaline in both the season. Electrical conductivity (EC) of soil -1 Further data revealed that the pH of winter season was higher than monsoon The soil EC was ranged from 0.16 to 1.85 dSm with an average value 0.73 and -1 -1 season [Fig-1]. Overall data indicates that the pH of these water samples was 0.46 to 1.99 dSm with the average value 0.84 dSm in monsoon and winter alkaline in both the season. This increase in pH of winter season water might be seasons, respectively. The EC of winter season was higher as compare to due to increase in concentration of sodium in winter season samples due to more monsoon season [Fig-1]. This increase in EC of winter season samples might be removal of ground water as compare to monsoon season samples. Similar results due to accumulation salt in soil. [5] Studied that the EC of soils of Jayakwadi -1 were also reported by [13, 24]. command area were ranged between 0.11 to 8.9 dS m . Similar results were also recorded by [14, 25]. Soil pH:

Table-1 Chemical parameters of water and soil Chakur Water parameters Soil parameters tehsil (300) Monsoon season Winter season Monsoon season Winter season Monsoon season Winter season pH EC pH EC SAR RSC Boron (ppm) SAR RSC Boron pH EC pH EC (dSm-1) (dSm-1) (meL-1) (meL-1) (ppm) (dSm-1) (dSm-1) Maximum 8.61 1.69 8.98 1.83 10.52 2.50 1.50 11.99 2.50 1.90 8.98 1.85 8.99 1.99 Minimum 7.01 0.10 7.11 0.14 2.14 0.00 0.10 4.28 0.00 0.40 7.10 0.16 7.12 0.46 Mean 7.87 0.72 8.02 0.91 7.44 0.85 0.77 8.00 0.86 1.17 7.93 0.73 8.05 0.84 S.D. 0.37 0.34 0.35 0.37 1.84 0.59 0.25 1.61 0.67 0.40 0.31 0.35 0.25 0.35 C.V. 4.73 47.26 71.87 37.22 24.79 69.32 32.26 20.12 78.91 34.10 3.94 48.81 3.13 41.19

Total Cations concentration 14.21 meL-1 and 8.24 to 24.98 meL-1 with an average value of 18.20 meL-1 in The results on cations concentration are presented in [Table-2]. The Na+ content monsoon and winter season, respectively. The K+ content in ground water [Table- of ground water were ranged from 3.30 to 21.80 meL-1 with an average value of 2] were ranged from 1.02 to 3.40 meL-1 with an average value of 2.14 meL-1 and

International Journal of Agriculture Sciences ISSN: 0975-3710&E-ISSN: 0975-9107, Volume 8, Issue 49, 2016 || Bioinfo Publications || 2091 Ghodke S.K., Hirey O.Y. and Gajare A.S.

Table-2 Cation and Anion concentration (meL-1) of ground water samples. Chakur tehsil (300) Monsoon season Winter season Monsoon season Winter season

+ + ++ ++ + + ++ ++ ------Na K Ca Mg Na K Ca Mg CO3 HCO3 Cl SO4 CO3 HCO3 Cl SO4 Maximum 21.75 3.40 4.40 6.40 24.98 3.99 6.80 7.80 3.80 9.10 8.90 29.80 3.80 11.80 12.10 22.10 Minimum 3.25 1.02 2.00 2.60 8.24 1.38 3.20 3.80 1.00 4.00 5.10 8.20 1.00 5.40 6.40 9.20 Mean 14.21 2.14 3.05 4.23 18.20 2.98 4.60 5.82 1.93 6.23 7.25 15.28 2.58 8.65 8.47 16.74 S.D. 3.69 0.56 0.58 0.78 4.02 0.70 0.67 0.75 0.51 1.04 0.77 3.50 0.64 1.16 1.00 2.95 C.V. 25.96 25.96 18.90 18.53 22.07 23.41 14.62 12.89 26.55 16.64 10.66 22.89 24.96 13.38 11.77 17.59

Table-7 Correlation studies among water quality parameters.

Water — - - — + + ++ ++ EC CO3 HCO3 Cl SO4 Na K Ca Mg B RSC parameter SAR (dSm-1) (meL-1) (meL-1) (meL-1) (meL-1) (meL-1) (meL-1) (meL-1) (meL-1) (ppm) (meL-1) s Mn Wn Mn Wn Mn Wn Mn Wn Mn Wn Mn Wn Mn Wn Mn Wn Mn Wn Mn Wn Mn Wn Mn Wn

pH 0.967** 0.989** -0.067 -0.072 0.265** 0.287** 0.551** 0.544** 0.320** 0.357** 0.551** 0.351** 0.195* 0.117 0.205* 0.199* 0.541** 0.754** 0.590** 0.682** 0.458** 0.362** 0.418** 0.568**

EC 1 1 -0.051 -0.057 0.292** 0.299** 0.533** 0.524** 0.394** 0.401** 0.551** 0.457** 0.238** 0.201** 0.280** 0.174** 0.558** 0.652** 0.577** 0.634** 0.251** 0.241** 0.661** 0.781** (dSm-1) — CO3 1 1 0.524** 0.567** 0.365** 0.327** 0.357** 0.427** 0.257** 0.187* 0.294** 0.221** 0.217** 0.194* 0.250** 0.354** 0.352** 0.457** 0.451** 0.362** 0.395** 0.451** (meL-1) - HCO3 1 1 0.527** 0.514** 0.351** 0.571** 0.356** 0.267** 0.457** 0.257** 0.395** 0.283** 0.441** 0.547** 0.489** 0.497** 0.367** 0.320** 0.537** 0.624** (meL-1) Cl- 1 1 0.652** 0.791** 0.258** 0.197* 0.357** 0.304** 0.652** 0.575** 0.539** 0.635** 0.547** 0.625** 0.420** 0.357** 0.401** 0.534** (meL-1) SO4— 1 1 0.389** 0.289** 0.312** 0.258** 0.367** 0.272** 0.457** 0.598** 0.428** 0.587** 0.365** 0.328** 0.364** 0.398** (meL-1) Na+ 1 1 0.584** 0.394** 0.418** 0.367** 0.257** 0.367** 0.361** 0.567** 0.453** 0.398** 0.367** 0.387** (meL-1) K+ 1 1 0.527** 0.427** 0.456** 0.587** 0.417** 0.684** 0.429** 0.402** 0.361** 0.401** (meL-1) Ca++ 1 1 0.602** 0.781** 0.507** 0.698** 0.547** 0.451** 0.357** 0.444** (meL-1) Mg++ 1 1 0.657** 0.782** 0.684** 0.561** 0.257** 0.351** (meL-1) B (ppm) 1 1 0.627** 0.498** 0.227** 0.267** SAR 1 1 0.229** 0.298** RSC 1 1 (meL-1) Mn: Monsoon * Significant at 5% level - 0.160 Wn: Winter ** Significant at 1% level - 0.2

2092 Quality of Irrigation Water from Chakur Tehsil of Latur District, Maharashtra

1.38 to 3.99 meL-1 with an average value of 2.98 meL-1 monsoon and winter the CO3-- content of ground water ranged from 1.93 to 3.80 meL-1 with an average season, respectively. value of 1.93 meL-1 and 1.00 to 3.80 meL-1 with an average value of 2.58 meL-1 in The Ca++ content of ground water [Table-2] were ranged from 2.00 to 4.40 meL-1 monsoon and winter season, respectively. The HCO3- concentration in ground with an average value of 3.05 meL-1 and 3.20 to 6.80 meL-1 with an average value water ranged from 4.00 to 3.10 meL-1 with an average value of 6.23 meL-1 during of 4.60 meL-1, monsoon and winter season, respectively. The Mg++ content of and 5.40 to 11.80 meL-1 with an average value of 11.65 meL-1 in monsoon and ground water [Table-2] were ranges from 2.60 to 6.40 meL-1 with an average value winter season, respectively. The Cl- content in water was ranged from 5.10 to 8.90 of 4.23 meL-1 and 3.80 to 7.80 meL-1 with an average value of 5.82 meL-1 meL-1 with an average value of 7.25 meL-1 and 6.40 to 12.10 meL-1 with an monsoon and winter season, respectively. average value of 8.47 meL-1, monsoon and winter season, respectively. The SO4- Further data revealed that the Na+, K+, Ca+ and Mg+ concentration of winter content in water was ranged from 8.20 to 29.80 meL-1 with an average value of season samples was higher than the monsoon season samples [Fig-1]. The 15.28 meL-1 and 9.20 to 22.10 meL-1 with an average value of 16.74 meL-1 in increase in cations concentration of winter season samples might be due to monsoon and winter season, respectively. . pumping of ground water for irrigation and domestic uses are more in winter Further data revealed that the CO3-- , HCO3-, Cl- and SO4-- concentration of winter season as compare to rainy season. This increases the depth of ground water and season samples was higher than the monsoon season sample [Fig-1]. The concentration of cations in ground water increases. These results were in increase in concentration of anions in winter season might be due to increased accordance with results reported by [9, 19]. rain water volume of ground water and by dilution effect, anions concentration in monsoon season decreased as compare to winter season. Such results were Total anions concentration also given by [9, 19]. The data on anions contents are presented in [Table-2]. The data revealed that

Table-3 Categorization of water samples according to salinity classes. Parameters Value Salinity classes (EC dSm-1)

Low salinity water (C1) Medium salinity water (C2) High salinity water (C3) Very high salinity water (C4) (0.1 to 0.250) (0.25 to 0.75) (0.75 to 2.25) (>2.25). Number of sample 300 17 122 161 Nil

Percent distribution 100 5.66% 40.66% 53.66% Nil Suitability of irrigation water Safe for irrigation Safe for irrigation but need Can not be used on soils with Unsuitable under ordinary moderate leaching restricted drainage condition

Table-4 Categorization of ground water samples based on SAR values. Water quality Range of SAR Suitability for irrigation Per cent of ground water samples No. of ground water samples Class (meL-1) S1 <10 Safe 90 270

S2 10 to 18 Moderately Safe 10 30

S3 18 to 26 Moderately unsafe Nil Nil

S4 >26 Unsafe Nil Nil

Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) The SAR of ground water were ranged from 2.14 to 10.52 meL-1 with an average Residual sodium carbonate (RSC) value 7.44 meL-1 and 4.28 to 11.99 meL-1 with an average value 8.00 meL-1 in The RSC of ground water were ranged from Nil to 2.50 meL-1 with an average monsoon and winter seasons, respectively [Table-1]. It was observed from the value 0.85 meL-1 and Nil to 2.50 meL-1 with an average value 0.86 meL-1 in data that the SAR of winter season samples was higher as compare to monsoon monsoon and winter seasons, respectively [Table-1]. It was observed from the season samples [Fig-1]. This increase in SAR of winter season samples might be data that the RSC of winter season samples was higher as compare to monsoon due to increase in sodium content of water samples. [20] Reported that SAR season samples [Fig-1]. This increase in RSC of winter season sample might be content of Malouit block of Mukstar district of Punjab varied from 0.55 to 24.0 due to increase in concentration of CO3-- and HCO3-- in winter season. Out of 300 2093 values. According to sodicity (SAR) out of 300 water samples collected from water samples collected from Chakur tehsil 246 and 54 water samples were Chakur tehsil 270 and 30 water samples were categorized in S1 (safe for irrigation) categorized in I and II class, respectively. Further data revealed that majority of and S2 (Moderately safe for irrigation) class, respectively. Further data revealed ground water samples (82.00 per cent) were suitable for irrigation and categorized that majority of ground water samples (90 per cent) were safe for irrigation and in I class (<1.25 meL-1) while non sample was unsuitable for irrigation and categorized in S1 class (<10 me L-1) while not a single sample was found unsafe categorized in III class [Table-5]. or irrigation and categorized in S3 and S4 category [Table-4].

Table-5 Categorization of ground water samples based on RSC values. Water quality class Range of RSC (meL-1) Suitability for irrigation Per cent of ground water samples No. of ground water samples I <1.25 Suitable 82.00 246 II 1.25 to 2.50 Marginal 18.00 54 III >2.50 Unsuitable Nil Nil

Boron: boron of winter season samples was higher as compare to monsoon season The boron of ground water were ranged from 0.10 to 1.50 ppm with an average samples [Fig-1]. Out of 300 water samples collected from Chakur tehsil 11 and value 0.77 ppm and 0.40 to 1.90 ppm with an average value 1.17 ppm in monsoon 289 water samples were categorized in C1 and C2 class, respectively. Further and winter seasons, respectively [Table-1]. It was observed from the data that the data revealed that majority of ground water samples (96.33 per cent) were

International Journal of Agriculture Sciences ISSN: 0975-3710&E-ISSN: 0975-9107, Volume 8, Issue 49, 2016 || Bioinfo Publications || 2093 Ghodke S.K., Hirey O.Y. and Gajare A.S.

moderately safe for irrigation and categorized in C2 class (0.5 to 2.0 ppm) while showed positive and significant correlation with all water parameters in both none sample was found unsafe for irrigation [Table-6]. seasons. But it was positive in case of potassium (0.117) in winter season. Further data revealed that the ground water pH and EC showed negative correlation with Correlation CO3- (-0.067) and (-0.051), respectively in monsoon season and also pH and EC Relationship among water quality parameter of ground water showed negative correlation with CO3- (-0.072) and (-0.057), It is seen from the data [Table-7] that the pH, EC, cations and anions respectively in winter season. The results are in conformity with results obtained concentration, boron, SAR and RSC of ground water samples of Chakur tehsil by [17, 18, 21, 22].

Table-6 Categorization of ground water samples as per boron concentration given by Ayer and Westcott (1976). Sr. No. Class Boron concentration (ppm) No. of ground water samples Percentage ground water samples

1. C1 <0.5 11 3.66

2. C2 0.5 to 2.0 289 96.33

3. C3 >2.0 Nil Nil

Relationship between water quality and soil parameters season. The cations, anions, boron, SAR and RSC of ground water showed The data regarding correlation [Table-8] revealed that the ground water pH positive and significant correlation with soil pH and EC during monsoon and winter showed positive correlation with soil pH (0.021) and EC (0.079) in winter season season. Similar findings were also observed to [4]. and EC of ground water shows positive correlation with soil pH (0.119) in winter

Table-8 Correlation studies between quality parameters of water and soil pH and EC pH EC (dSm-1) Soil Water Monsoon Winter Monsoon Winter pH 0.207* 0.021 0.163* 0.079 EC (dSm-1) 0.211** 0.119 0.261** 0.191*

-- -1 CO3 (meL ) 0.251** 0.563** 0.245** 0.401**

- -1 HCO3 (meL ) 0.445** 0.721** 0.269** 0.693** Cl- (meL-1) 0.629** 0.241** 0.244** 0.369**

-- -1 SO4 (meL ) 0.358** 0.905** 0.911** 0.863** Na+ (meL-1) 0.802** 0.850** 0.270** 0.819** K+ (meL-1) 0.716** 0.585** 0.264** 0.559** Ca++ (meL-1) 0.578** 0.542** 0.284** 0.581** Mg++ (meL-1) 0.357** 0.645** 0.281** 0.616** B (ppm) 0.361** 0.396** 0.212** 0.381** SAR 0.950** 0.971** 0.316** 0.923** RSC (meL-1) 0.658** 0.599** 0.368** 0.652** * Significant at 5% level - 0.160 ** Significant at 1% level - 0.208

Conclusion [7] Eaton F.M. (1950) Significance of carbonates in irrigation water. U.S. Dept. Ground water of Chakur tehsil were alkaline in reaction and with respect to salinity Agr. Tech. Bul. PP:123-135. most of ground water was fairly suitable for irrigation purpose. Among the different [8] Gopal et. al (2010) Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 14,1863–1880. cations and anions sodium and sulphate were predominant. According to sodicity [9] Gupta I.C. and Abhichandana C.T. (1967) J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci., 22(1), 2094 and RSC most ground water safe and suitable for irrigation. Overall indicated that 108-116. most of ground water of Chakur tahsil of Latur district was suitable for irrigation [10] Jackson M.L. (1973) Soil chemical analysis. Prentice Hall of India Ltd., New purpose. Delhi. [11] Lal P., Verma B.L., Singhania R.A. and Sharma Y. (1998) J. Indian Soc. Conflict of Interest: None declared Soil Sci., 46 (1), 119-123. [12] Marathe A.B., Kulkarni R.V., Patil A.P. and Ingavale M.T. (2006) Indian J. References Agric. Chem., 39 (2-3), 60-65. [1] Anonymous (2011) State wise geographical and irrigated area in India. [13] Mohandas S. and Marimuthu R. (2002) Madras Agric. J., 89(1-3), 22-25. WWW.GIA.com [14] Padole V.R. and Mahajan S.B. (2003) J. Maharashtra Agric. Univ., 28 (1), [2] Anonymous (2015) India - History of Irrigation FAO - United Nations. 3-7. [3] Berger K.L. and Truog K. (1939) Ind. Eng. Chem., II, 540-545. [15] Panse V.G. and Sukhatme P.N. (1967) Statistical Method for Agricultural [4] Bhalerao, V.P. and Pharande, A.L. (2003) J. Maharashtra Agric. Univ., 28 Workers, Z.A.R.Z. New Delhi: 145-156. (1), 17-21. [16] Richards L.A. (1954) Diagnosis and improvement of saline sodic soil. [5] Bharambe P.R. and Ghonsikar C.P. (1985) J. Maharashtra Agric. Univ., 10 USDA Handbook No. 60 Washinagton: 69-82. (3), 15-17. [17] Satyavan V., Phogat S., Kumar R.D. and Dahiya S.S. (2006) Indian J. [6] Bhosale (1994) Physic-chemical properties of Beed district. M.Sc.(Agri) Agric. Res., 40(1), 60-63. Thesis, submitted to MAU., Parbhani. [18] Savalia S.G., Gundalia J.D. and Mathukiya R.K. (2006) International, J.

International Journal of Agriculture Sciences ISSN: 0975-3710&E-ISSN: 0975-9107, Volume 8, Issue 49, 2016 || Bioinfo Publications || 2094 Quality of Irrigation Water from Chakur Tehsil of Latur District, Maharashtra

Tropical, Agric., 24 (1-2), 219-228. [19] Shridevi P.D. (2000) Environmental geology, 42(4), 414-423. [20] Singh B. and Bishoni S.R. (2004) J. Res. Punjab. Agric. Univ., 41(4), 442- 446. [21] Sood A., Verma V.K., Thomas A., Sharma P.K. and Brar J.S. (1998) J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci., 46 (3), 421-426. [22] Tanpure D.L., Barde N.K. and Ballal D.K. (1977) J. Maharashtra, Agric. Univ., 2, 94-100. [23] Thorne D.W. and Thorne J.D. (1951) Utah. Agric. Expt. Sta. Bull, 64-346. [24] Verma B.L., Sharma Y. and Singhania R.A. (2003) J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci., 51 (2), 214-216. [25] Waikar S.L., Malewar G.U. and More. S.D. (2004) J. Maharashtra Agric. Univ., 29(2), 127-129.

2095

International Journal of Agriculture Sciences ISSN: 0975-3710&E-ISSN: 0975-9107, Volume 8, Issue 49, 2016 || Bioinfo Publications || 2095