Sunita K Meena

Ms. Sunita K Meena

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

13Years (2014-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 January 2016
Verified
Book Chapter
Closed access
PDF file
VIJAY Singh MEENAVIJAY Singh MEENA
VIJAY Singh MEENA
BMB. R. Maurya
B. R. Maurya
SMSunita K Meena
Sunita K Meena
RMRajesh Kumar Meena
Rajesh Kumar Meena
AKAshok Kumar
Ashok Kumar
NSN. P. Singh
N. P. Singh

1 November 2018 in Scientia Horticulturae
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
RYRanjeet Singh Yadav
Ranjeet Singh Yadav
VSVivek Singh
Vivek Singh
SPSumita Pal
Sumita Pal
SMSunita K Meena
Sunita K Meena
VIJAY Singh MEENAVIJAY Singh MEENA
VIJAY Singh MEENA
Amitava RakshitAmitava Rakshit
Amitava Rakshit

28 October 2018 in Environmental Science and Pollution Research
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
VIJAY Singh MEENAVIJAY Singh MEENA
VIJAY Singh MEENA
ABBU ZAIDABBU ZAID
ABBU ZAID
BMBihari Ram Maurya
Bihari Ram Maurya
SMSunita K Meena
Sunita K Meena
IBIndra Bahadur
Indra Bahadur
SHABIR WANISHABIR WANI
SHABIR WANI

16 December 2020 in Land Degradation & Development
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
VIJAY Singh MEENAVIJAY Singh MEENA
VIJAY Singh MEENA
BGBirendra Nath Ghosh
Birendra Nath Ghosh
RSRaman Jeet Singh
Raman Jeet Singh
RBRanjan Bhattacharyya
Ranjan Bhattacharyya
NSN. K. Sharma
N. K. Sharma
PMP. K. Mishra
P. K. Mishra

6 December 2014
Verified
Book Chapter
Closed access
PDF file
Amitava RakshitAmitava Rakshit
Amitava Rakshit
SMSunita K Meena
Sunita K Meena
SPSumita Pal
Sumita Pal
ASAkanksha Singh
Akanksha Singh
HSHarikesh Bahadur Singh
Harikesh Bahadur Singh

2 June 2022 in Land
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
NANurnabi Meherul Alam
Nurnabi Meherul Alam
CJChayna Jana
Chayna Jana
DMDebashis Mandal
Debashis Mandal
SMSunita K Meena
Sunita K Meena
SSShashi Shekhar Shrimali
Shashi Shekhar Shrimali
GKGouranga Kar
Gouranga Kar
Despite the growing importance of soil and water conservation and watershed development projects as an approach to rural development and natural resource management, there has been relatively little research on devising site-specific best management practice (BMP) to check the soil erosion losses within permissible limits, especially in hilly regions. For a sustainable watershed management programme and implementation, site specific BMPs assume importance and hold the promise of making conservation planning and watershed management simpler and more effective. The study was attempted to develop a methodology to obtain BMPs, aiming to reduce the erosion losses in erosion risk areas of the northwestern Himalayas by employing Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The AHP technique was employed to prioritise the potential technologies and select the BMP suitable for a particular land area. The prioritization of technologies was performed with four criteria viz. soil erosion resistance, cost, benefit, maintenance and environment friendliness of conservation measures. The soil erosion scenario of the study area located in the northwestern Himalayas was generated with each selected measure in a SWAT model using DEM, land use maps, a soil map and climate data of the study area. Then, the resultant erosion scenario of the conservation measures was compared and used for the AHP analysis. However, other criteria were assessed based on the judgement of a group of experts as well as farmers. In this study, four conservation measures, viz. Bench Terraces (BT), Vegetative Barrier (VB), Contour Farming (CF) and Zero Tillage + Live Mulch (ZL), were considered for BMP selection. Three scenarios, viz. experts’ judgement, farmers’ opinions and combined expert and farmer opinion, were analyzed to uncover the BMP for the different zones. The result revealed that experts and farmers unanimously preferred ZL as a BMP because of its low-cost implementation value and lower maintenance requirement while significantly controlling the erosion level as well as being environment friendly. The BT was the second most preferred technology for the study area. However, BMP was recommended for different zones having high to very severe erosion (soil loss > 10 t/ha/yr). Therefore, ZL was recommended for the areas with low altitude, whereas BT was recommended for the areas having high slopes because of its high capability for erosion control in the high slopping area. The methodology will act as a useful strategy for decision makers to prioritize the technology and recommend the best management for any region after considering suitable criteria. Future work may consider more criteria for inclusion to thus recommend the technology for a region in a more realistic way.