SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research / 2026 / Volume: 7 Issue: 1

Enhancing Groundwater Recharge and Sustainable Agriculture in the High-Relief Himalayan Micro-Watersheds of Bandipora, J&K

Nasir Rasheed(CSIR–Indian Institute of Integrative Medicine (IIIM))0000-0003-3151-1594
Sheikh Aadil Mushtaq(Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences & Technology of Jammu)0009-0002-4790-5707
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-06-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings establish that integrated, spatially informed, and community-driven watershed management can substantially enhance water security, agricultural resilience, and ecosystem stability in fragile Himalayan landscapes, providing evidence for climate-resilient rural development strategies in mountainous regions

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Watershed management is a critical strategy for addressing soil erosion, water scarcity, and declining agricultural productivity in high-relief Himalayan regions.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study evaluates the hydrological, agricultural, and spatial impacts of the Integrated Watershed Management Programme (IWMP) implemented across five micro-watersheds in Bandipora district, Jammu & Kashmir, India.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings establish that integrated, spatially informed, and community-driven watershed management can substantially enhance water security, agricultural resilience, and ecosystem stability in fragile Himalayan landscapes, providing evidence for climate-resilient rural development strategies in mountainous regions
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Watershed Management · IWMP · Soil conservation

Abstract

Watershed management is a critical strategy for addressing soil erosion, water scarcity, and declining agricultural productivity in high-relief Himalayan regions. This study evaluates the hydrological, agricultural, and spatial impacts of the Integrated Watershed Management Programme (IWMP) implemented across five micro-watersheds in Bandipora district, Jammu & Kashmir, India. The study adopted a ridge-to-valley planning framework integrating GIS-based spatial analysis, remote sensing, Google Earth imagery, cadastral mapping, and Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) for micro-watershed delineation and intervention prioritization. Major interventions included recharge pits, check dams, farm ponds, water harvesting tanks, and multifunctional community infrastructure. Hydrological monitoring, household surveys, and combined multi-location statistical analyses were conducted to assess pre- and post-intervention outcomes. A two-factor analytical framework was employed to evaluate temporal changes, spatial heterogeneity, and interaction effects across study locations. The interventions produced statistically significant improvements in hydrological performance and agricultural productivity across all five micro-watersheds. Results revealed significant improvements in hydrological indicators, with groundwater rise increasing by 214%, alongside reductions in surface runoff (35%) and sediment load (36%), and enhancement in soil moisture (32%) (p < 0.05). These percentage changes were calculated from combined mean values across the five study micro-watersheds, based on pre- and post-intervention monitoring datasets. Agricultural benefits included a 55% expansion in irrigated area, a 24% increase in crop productivity, and improved cropping intensity across study locations (p < 0.01). Significant location and Time × Location interaction effects confirmed that intervention responses varied among micro-watersheds, reflecting differences in topography, land use, and baseline resource conditions. Regression analysis further demonstrated strong relationships between intervention density and hydrological as well as agricultural outcomes (R² = 0.54–0.62). The findings establish that integrated, spatially informed, and community-driven watershed management can substantially enhance water security, agricultural resilience, and ecosystem stability in fragile Himalayan landscapes, providing evidence for climate-resilient rural development strategies in mountainous regions

🔖

Cite This Article

Rasheed, N., Mushtaq, S. A. (2026). Enhancing Groundwater Recharge and Sustainable Agriculture in the High-Relief Himalayan Micro-Watersheds of Bandipora, J&K. Turkish Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, Volume: 7 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.46592/turkager.1903544

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (24)

  1. Aher PD, Adinarayana J and Gorantiwar SD (2022). GIS-based watershed prioritization for soil and water conservation planning: A review. Environmental Earth Sciences, 81, 382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-022-10514-8
  2. Arabameri A, Roy J, Saha S, Blaschke T, Tien Bui D and Chen W (2024). Machine learning and GIS approaches for watershed management and environmental planning: A review. Science of the Total Environment, 912, 169210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.169210
  3. Chowdary VM, Chakraborthy D, Jeyaram A et al. (2013). Multi-criteria decision making approach for watershed prioritization using remote sensing and GIS. Water Resources Management, 27, 3555–3570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-013-0368-6
  4. Debele B, Srinivasan R and Gosain AK (2019). Comparison of process-based and data-driven approaches for watershed management. Science of the Total Environment, 673, 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.115
  5. Drusch M, Del Bello U, Carlier S, Colin O, Fernandez V, Gascon F, Hoersch B, Isola C, Laberinti P, Martimort P, Meygret A, Spoto F, Sy O, Marchese F and Bargellini P (2012). Sentinel-2: ESA's optical high-resolution mission for GMES operational services. Remote Sensing of Environment, 120, 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.11.026
  6. Farr TG, Rosen PA, Caro E, Crippen R, Duren R, Hensley S, Kobrick M, Paller M, Rodriguez E, Roth L, Seal D, Shaffer S, Shimada J, Umland J, Werner M, Oskin M, Burbank D and Alsdorf D (2007). The Shuttle Radar Topography Mission. Reviews of Geophysics, 45(2), RG2004. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005RG000183
  7. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2017). Watershed management in action: Lessons learned from FAO field projects. FAO, Rome, Italy.
  8. Jha MK, Chowdary VM and Chowdhury A (2010). Groundwater assessment in Salboni Block, India using remote sensing, GIS and multi-criteria decision analysis. Hydrogeology Journal, 18, 1713–1728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-010-0631-z
  9. Joshi PK, Jha AK, Wani SP, Joshi L and Shiyani RL (2005). Meta-analysis to assess impact of watershed program and people's participation. Comprehensive Assessment Research Report No. 8. International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Colombo, Sri Lanka.
  10. Joshi PK, Palanisami K, Rao CS, Wani SP and Shiferaw B (2017). Impact of watershed development programmes in India. Agricultural Economics Research Review, 30 (Conference Number), 15–28.
  11. Kerr J (2007). Watershed management: Lessons from common property theory. International Journal of the Commons, 1(1), 89–110. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.8
  12. Kerr J, Pangare G and Pangare VL (2002). Watershed Development Projects in India: An Evaluation. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC, USA.
  13. Mishra A, Kar S and Singh VP (2007). Prioritizing structural management by quantification of the effect of watershed management practices. Water Resources Management, 21, 1809–1825. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-006-9136-6
  14. Palanisami K and Kumar DS (2009). Impacts of watershed development programmes: Experiences and evidences from Tamil Nadu. Agricultural Economics Research Review, 22, 387–396.
  15. Pimentel D and Kounang N (1998). Ecology of soil erosion in ecosystems. Ecosystems, 1(5), 416–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s100219900035
  16. Pretty J and Ward H (2001). Social capital and the environment. World Development, 29(2), 209–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00098-X
  17. Rockström J, Karlberg L, Wani SP, Barron J, Hatibu N, Oweis T, Bruggeman A, Farahani J and Qiang Z (2010). Managing water in rainfed agriculture—The need for a paradigm shift. Agricultural Water Management, 97(4), 543–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2009.09.009
  18. Sahoo B, Madhu M and Mishra AK (2023). Watershed management interventions for sustainable agriculture and water security under changing climate. Environmental Challenges, 13, 100769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2023.100769
  19. Singh R, Pandey A, Chowdary VM and Jha MK (2022). Evaluation of watershed interventions on groundwater recharge and runoff reduction using hydrological assessment approaches. Water Resources Management, 36, 2387–2404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-022-03112-8
  20. Todd DK and Mays LW (2015). Groundwater Hydrology (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. Tomer MD and Locke MA (2011). The challenge of documenting water quality benefits of conservation practices: A review of USDA-ARS watershed studies. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 66(1), 30A–38A. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.66.1.30A
  21. Vohland K and Barry B (2009). A review of in situ rainwater harvesting (RWH) practices modifying landscape functions in African drylands. Agricultural Water Management, 86(1–2), 119–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2006.07.009
  22. Wani SP, Sreedevi TK, Rockström J and Ramakrishna YS (2008). Rainfed agriculture—Past trends and future prospects. In S. P. Wani, J. Rockström & T. Oweis (Eds.), Rainfed Agriculture: Unlocking the Potential (pp. 1–35). CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
  23. Wani SP, Garg KK, Singh AK and Anantha KH (2018). Enhancing agricultural resilience through integrated watershed management. Current Science, 115(10), 1839–1847.
  24. Wani SP, Garg KK, Wani OP and Pathak P (2021). Watershed development for improving livelihoods and resilience in rainfed regions of India. International Soil and Water Conservation Research, 9(3), 330–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2021.03.003