Master Theses in

“Land and Water Resources Management:

Irrigated Agriculture”

Surface irrigation for cotton and wheat

at Ras El Ain: assessment and issues
for improvement

Hanaa Darouich
(Syria)

Supervisors:
Prof. Luis Santos Pereira
Prof. Nicola Lamaddalena

Co-supervisor:
Prof. José Manuel Gonçalves

October, 2006
Acknowledgements

First my deepest thanks for my supervisors, professors Luis Santos Pereira and
Nicola Lamaddalena for the splendid guidance during this year, and to
Professor Jose Manuel Gonçalves for the great help and useful advices during
the year. No-words can express my gratitude for him and his family, and his
colleagues Fatima and Kiril, for receiving me in Coimbra, that made me to
deeply appreciate the time I spent there, and his interest in guiding the theses.

Thanks go to the Ministry of the Agriculture of Syria for giving me the

opportunity to study in Bari; particular thanks go to Dr. Majad Jamal.

I also deeply thank the directors of the Cooperative Italian Project in Syria Mr.
Biago De Terlizzi, Ms Chiara Morini and Professor Lamddalena for giving me
the chance to study in this interesting project, and main thanks to the Project
Director Mr Luigi Cavestro for the help and the facilities that he offered to me;
thanks also go for Mr. Farid, head of the Syrian counterpart.

I would like to thank the PMU staff of the Project, namely those going with me to
the field and providing me the required information: Jak, Toudour, Dr. Saleh,
Linda, Jan, Basel, Eissa, Mohamad, Gorag, Daniele, Jan Luka, Mais,
Shamsa.Ruba, Mieada. Many thanks to the farmer Razuk and his brother to
help me in Bab El Faraj. And especial thanks for Mr.Amin Arafat for every
things, and for Prof. Lebdi Fethi for the useful advices. Thanks a lot to Silvia
sharing with me the good and the bad things in Al Hassakeh.

I would like also to thank the wonderful staff in Lisbon, that gave me help for the
thesis: Paula, João Rolim, Vanda, Maria, Teodoro.

Many thanks to the IAM administration staff, Mrs Olyimpia Antonelli, Mrs
Mimosa Myrta, and Ms Maria Carla Martelli.

My great gratefulness goes to Director, Mr. Cosimo Lacirignola, and Vice-

Director, Mr. Maurizio Raeli for giving a unique pleasure and opportunity to
study in this institute.

Hanaa

I
Abstract:

Ras Al Ein irrigation district is located in north of Syria, an area with serious
problems of water scarcity and agriculture sustainability. The actual irrigation
practices have a very low application efficiency and high labour consume.
Farmers apply less appropriate irrigation schedules, creating water losses and
crop water stress. To contribute to improve irrigated agriculture, field
experimentation and modelling was carried out. Field evaluation of furrow
irrigation with different conditions and irrigation scheduling modelling proved
that surface irrigation has a high water saving potential and allows farmer
income increasing. The application of a decision support system to build up and
select improved solutions shows that, for cotton irrigation, furrow and border
methods have the best results with the combinations slope - length of 0.5% -
50m and 0.8% - 100m, for flat area, or 150-200m, for sloped areas. For wheat
irrigation, several options are feasible, being the level furrowed basin the best
performing system for flat fields, being also the flat level basin an acceptable
solution, and the graded borders, with 0.5 and 0.8% slope, for sloping fields.

Key words: Ras Al Ein, irrigation schedule strategies, furrow irrigation,

multicriteria analysis, decision support system (DSS)

Résume

Ras AI Ein arrosage district est localisé au Nord de la Syrie, une area avec des
grands problèmes au niveau de la sècheresse et de la sustentabilité de
l’agriculture. Les techniques actuelles d’arrosage ont une efficience très baisse
et utilisent un grand nombre de heures de travail. Les agriculteurs utilisent des
techniques d’arrosage qui conduisent à perte d’eau et au stress des cultures.
Pour montrer l’importance de l’arrosage en agriculture, des essais sur terrain
ont été mis en place. Les observations faites en différents conditions d’arrosage
ainsi que les techniques d’irrigation testées, ont permit montrer que la irrigation
de surface a un grand potentiel pour économiser de l’eau et pour la production
agricole. L’application d’un system de l’aide à décision pour choisir les meilleurs
solutions a montré que pour l’arrosage du coton avec sillon et bandage, les
meilleurs résultats ont été obtenus avec la combinaison déclive – longueur de
0.5% - 50m et 0.8% - 100m sur les areas plaines et 150-200m, sur les areas de
pendent accentuée. Pour l’arrosage du blé plusieurs options sont possibles. La
meilleure solution pour les situations plaines est le bassin avec sillon et de
bandage avec a déclive 0.5% - 0.8% pour les zones à pendent.

Clé mot: Ras Al Ein, programmation des arrosages, irrigation par sillon,
multiple critère analyse, system de l’aide à décision

II
Table of the contents

Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………………………I

Abstract ……………………………………… ……………………………………….II

Table of the contents ………………………………………………………………...III

List of figures ……………………………………………………………………….....V

List of tables …………………………………………………………………......VIII

1- Introduction……………………………………………………………………1

1.1. Statement of the problem…………………………… ……………….1

1.2. Objective……………………………………………………… ……….2

2- Ras-El-Ain Irrigation district……………………………………………….……...3

2.1. General Information………………………………………………...…3

2.2. Water resources……………………………………………………….4

2.3. Climatic and soil characteristics……………………………………..4

2.4. Agriculture and land use……………………………………………...6

2.5. Irrigation system ………………………………………………………7

3- Material and Methods …………………………………………………………....9

3.1. Experimental sites: Arnan and Bab Al Faraj………………………..9

3.2. Irrigation scheduling: the ISAREG model ……………….......... …12

3.2.1. Model description …………………………………………...12

3.2.2 Input data………………………………………………………14

3.2.2.1 Climatic and Soil data ………………………………..14

3.2.2.2 Crop data for wheat and cotton ……………………..15

3.3. Surface Irrigation assessments and modeling……………………..16

3.3.1 Field evaluation ……………………………………………….16

3.3.1.1 Infiltration tests………………………………………...16

III
 3.3.1.2. Field evaluation of surface irrigation……………….18

3.3.2. Performance indicators ……………………………………...22

3.3.3. The SIRMOD model for surface irrigation simulation…….23

3.4. The Decision Support System (DSS) SADREG ……………………24

3.4.1. Model description …………………………………………….24

3.4.2. Performance Indicators, criteria and ranking with

SADREG…………………………………………………….31

4- Results and Discussion ………………………………………………………….33

4.1. Irrigation scheduling of wheat and cotton……………………. ……33

4.2. Field Irrigation Assessments…………………………………………37

4.2.1. Irrigation and hydraulic parameter …………………………37

4.2.2. Irrigation performance ……………………………………….39

4.3. Alternatives for improving surface irrigation. SADREG

application…………………………………………………………..47

4.3.1. Projects: build up improved irrigation scenarios…………..47

4.3.2. Alternatives, selection and ranking ………………………...51

4.3.3. Projects comparison and discussion……………………….53

4.3.4. Conclusive remarks………………………………………….60

5- Conclusions ……………………………………………………………………….61

6- References ………………………………………………………………………..65

IV
List of the Figures

Figure 2.1. Location map of Ras Al Ein Irrigation District………………………...3

Figure 2.2. Average precipitation, reference evapotranspiration and minimum

and maximum temperatures ………………………………………………………. .5

Figure 2.3. Average and minimum monthly humidity with wind speed …………5

Figure.3.1.Arnan experimental farm………………………………………………...9

Figure.3.2. The soil water content in 90 cm soil depth of Arnan experimental

farm…………………………………………………………………………………….11

Figure.3.3. Simplified flow-chart of ISAREG model (Teixeira &

Pereira,1992)………………………………………………………………………...12

Figure 3.4. Infiltration curves obtained with the double ring test at Arnan
farm…………………………………………………………………………………....17

Figure 3.5. The inflow rate in 0/4 and 2/4 station (Bab Al Faraj)…….…………20

Figure 3.6. Typical furrow cross sections before irrigation……..……………….22

Figure 3.7. Conceptual structure of SADREG (Gonçalves et al., 2005a, b)…. 25

Figure 3.8. Modular components of SADREG (Gonçalves et al., 2005a, b) ….26

Figure 3.9. Land levelling module flowchart (Gonçalves et al., 2005a, b)……..27

Figure 3.10. Flowchart relative to the execution of the SIRMOD application

procedure (Gonçalves et al., 2005a, b)……… ……………..…………………….27

Figure 3.11. SADREG data structure elements………..…………………………29

Figure 3.12. Design variables for the alternatives generation procedure……...29

Figure 3.13. Flowchart of the alternatives generator module (Gonçalves et al.,

2005a, b)……………………………………………………………………………...30

Figure 3.14. Irrigation water-yield function (Gonçalves et al., 2005a, b)……....32

Figure 4.1.Simulated soil water dynamics for Alternative A and the current water
saving schedule ……………………………………………………………………..34

Figure 4.2. Comparing ETa and the ETa/ETm ratio for the strategy A (a) and for
the rainfed crop (b). …………………………………………………………………35

V
Figure 4.3. Comparing the total net water applications and relative yield
reductions for the simulated strategies with the rainfed
crop……………………………………………………………………..……………..35

Figure 4.4. The simulated soil water dynamics when MAD=100% Өp and
variable irrigation depths are adopted (MaxY)………………………..…. …...…36

Figure 4.5. Time evolution of daily Eta, and Eta/ETm ratio during the cotton
season for the case MaxY. …………….………………………………………...…36

Figure 4.6. Comparing consumptive water use and relative yield losses for
cotton relative to several simulated strategies………………….…………………37

Figure 4.7. Infiltration curves observed at Arnan (2005-2006) and those from the
SADREG database ………………………………………………………………….38

Figure 4.8. Infiltration curves observed at Bab Al Faraj (2005-2006) and those
from the SADREG database………………………………………..………………39

Figure 4.9. Observed & simulated advance and recession times for treatments
B1.1 (a) and B3.1 (b)………………………………………………………………...39

Figure 4.10. Observed and simulated advance and recession time for treatment
B1.2 and B3.2………………………………………………………………………...40

Figure 4.11.The characteristics of the first irrigation for furrows 100 m long…..41

Figure 4.12.The performance of the first irrigation for furrows 100 m long…….42

Figure 4.13.the characteristics and the performance indicators for B3.2, C3, D3.
…………………………………………………………………………………………42

Figure 4.14 Furrow E1, second irrigation: a) Observed advance and recession
time, and required and infiltrated depths; b) simulated advance and recession
time, and infiltrated depth considering advance and recession or only advance
data……………………………………………………………………………………44

Figure 4.15. The advance and recession time, and required and infiltrated
depths for the zigzag furrow………………………………………………………...44

Figure 4.16. Characteristics and performance for Bab Al Faraj irrigations…….45

Figure 4.17. Simulated characteristics and application efficiency for 100 m in

Bab Al Faraj for 0.01 m/m and zero slope as a function of the inflow rate…….46

Figure 4.18 – SADREG window for field size, slopes (a) and infiltration curves
(b)……………………………………………………………………………………...49

Figure 4.19 – SADREG window for input of used crop data on cotton and
wheat……………………………………………………………………………….….50

VI
Figure 4.20 – SADREG window showing the used unitary cost and financial
data…………………………………………………………………………………….50

Figure 4.21 - Tasks duration data; a) irrigation; b) land leveling maintenance…

……………..…………………………………………………………………………..51

Figure 4.22 – SADREG Window showing the tree to explore alternatives…….53

Figure 4.23 Utilities of cotton irrigation projects, in Arnan……………………….55

Figure 4.24 Utilities of cotton irrigation projects, in Bab Al Faraj……………….55

Figure.4.25 Utilities of wheat irrigation projects, in Arnan……………………….56

Figure 4.26 – Performance indicators for graded furrows and borders for cotton
irrigation in Arnan…………………………………………………………………….57

Figure 4.27 - Performance indicators for graded furrows for cotton irrigation in
Bab Al Faraj…………………………………………………………………………..58

Figure 4.28 – Performances of basin and borders for wheat irrigation, Arnan
………………………………………………………………………………………….59

VII
List of Tables

Table 2.1 Cultivated area and the yields for wheat and cotton in Al
Hassakeh……………………………………………………………………………….6

Table 2.2 Characteristics of irrigation systems applied for the cotton crop
(source: Hassakeh research center, Ministry of Agriculture)……………………..7

Table.3.1. The cropped fields in the Arnan experimental farm, 2005/2006 …...10

Table.3.2. Physical soil properties of Arnan experimental farm………………...10

Table 3.3. Chemical soil properties of Arnan experimental farm…………….....10

Table.3.4. Physical soil properties of Arnan experimental farm as measured in

the ICARDA Lab ……………………………………………………………………..11

Table.3.5. Chemical water properties (Arnan) ……………………………………11

Table 3.6, Meteorological data from Arnan station (completed with those for Ras
El Ain), 2005-2006…………………………………………………………………...15

Table.3.7. Average crop parameters for wheat and cotton……………………...16

Table 3.8. Field treatments in Arnan and Bab Al Faraj…………………………..19

Table 3.9. Topographic characteristics of field E2, Arnan………………………19

Table 3.10. Design variables………………………………………………………..31

Table 4.1. Wheat irrigation scheduling simulations compared with the current
wheat irrigation (assuming Ea=60%)……………………………………………....33

Table 4.2. Cotton irrigation schedule simulation for surface irrigation………….35

Table 4.3. Infiltration and hydraulic roughness parameters observed at Arnan

and Bab Al Faraj……………………………………………………………………...38

Table 4.4.a). Characteristics and performance of the first irrigation for long
furrows (100-150m)…………………………………………………………………..40

Table 4.4.b. Characteristics and performance of the first irrigation for short
furrows, 50-36m………………………………………………………………………41

Table.4.5.Characteristics and performance of the second irrigation and

traditional irrigation (zigzag basin) for the first irrigation…………………………43

Table 4.6.Characteristics and performance in Bab Al Faraj……………………..45

VIII
Table 4.7 - Project characteristics for improved systems………………………..47

Table 4.8 - Workspaces characteristics and applied projects…………………...48

Table 4.9 - Example of a project alternative layout……………………………….52

Table 4.10 - Criteria and weights for alternative selection……………………….53

Table 4.11 - Indicators applied for projects’ comparison………………………...54

IX
Charter 1

1- Introduction

1.1 Statement of the problem

Water security is an important issue in several countries that are suffering

from gradual but important reduction in water resources availability,
particularly the ground water. Syria is one of these countries, where some
regions are semi-arid and respective water resources became very scarce in
a short period of time. Therefore research is required and several projects
are now running in the country intending to study the reasons of this
phenomenon and to find appropriate issues to control related problems.
The Ras El Ain area is considered one of the most critical regions in Syria
because it is heavily affected by water scarcity and the drawdown of the
ground water table. This phenomenon is influenced by several factors related
to climate aridity, heavy use of available resources and decrease of flow in
most of the rivers due to the construction of dams in the upper parts of the
basins inside Turkey. This situation led to set up a group of wells to fed the Al
Kabour river in the Ras El Ain area, high ground water use for agriculture,
irrigation in particular, Traditional irrigation methods are applied, which have
relatively low performance, while population and farmers have not high
awareness about the value of water and the need for water conservation and
saving.
Ras El Ain area is an ancient arable and fertile land where the farmers plant
cotton and wheat since long time. The Syrian Government considers these
crops as strategic ones, and supports the farmers with soft loans and various
facilities in order to keep planting these crops. However, cotton requires quite
large amounts of water, that was plenty available until the last five or seven
years ago. Surface irrigation prevails there; Basin and border irrigation are
adopted using earthen ditches with poor distribution management. This
caused water wasting and salinity is building up in the water table.
Farmers start to feel the problem created by lowering the water table
because costs to pump the water from deeper depths increase. Farmers that
depend upon the river to irrigate start to use conveyance pipes to achieve
more efficient water use and reducing wastages.
Water management to cope with water scarcity requires measures and
policies aimed at reducing the demand and make water use more efficient
(Pereira et al., 2002a, b) and demand management for irrigation under water
scarcity includes practices and management decisions of agronomic,
economic, and technical nature. Therefore, this study concentrates on
demand management in order to save water through better irrigation
scheduling and improved surface irrigation systems.
To assist the development of irrigation scheduling strategies for coping with
water scarcity, the simulation model ISAREG is used to evaluate the current
irrigation scheduling for wheat and cotton, and to produce appropriate
irrigation schedules for both crops. In fact that irrigation scheduling plays an

1
important role in achieving water saving, higher irrigation performances, and
controlling the percolation (Smith et al., 1996; Pereira et al., 2002a, b). By the
time the farmer is looking the highest and the maximum yields, for several
crops maximizing yield is at the account of the water productivity, i.e. the
harvestable yield per unit volume of water used. For small grain cereals,
water productivity drops at high yield levels under full irrigation (Zhang and
Oweis, 1999). Maximizing water productivity may be more profitable to the
farmer than maximizing crop yield. This occurs when the water saved by
adopting deficit irrigation can be used to irrigate additional land. To achieve
effective water conservation and saving, improving water productivity and
increasing farmers Incomes are also required.
Formulating improved irrigation scheduling scenarios needs to be combined
with higher performance of surface irrigation systems, which highly depends
upon the design process, including decisions on land levelling, field shape
and dimensions, and inflow discharge. In addition, it depends on farmer
decisions such as for land levelling maintenance and timeliness and duration
of irrigation events. Studies aimed at improving furrowed basin and border
irrigation were extensively used to build the demand scenarios for selected
years using an irrigation demand and delivery decision support system (DSS)
focusing on the farm scale, the SADREG model, where scenarios for the
farm application and distribution systems are evaluated using multicriteria
analysis (Gonçalves et al., 2001, 2004, 2005a, 2005b, 2006a, 2006b). The
model helps the selection of the best decisions to achieve the sustainable
use of the water in irrigated agriculture taking in account the environmental,
economical and technical impacts relative to reducing the water use.
The study is part of the Project “Rationalization of Ras EL Ain Irrigation
System Project” and data were collected in the framework of this project.

1.2. Objectives:

The general thesis objective is to contribute to improve the water

management on irrigated agriculture in Ras-al-Ain region, Syria, aimed at to
solve the actual problems related with water scarcity and agriculture
sustainability.
The specific objectives are:
1) The field assessment of actual irrigation systems and scheduling, to
better understanding the problems, making a diagnostic analysis, and
recognizing main constraints;
2) Determination of representative parameters for modelling the irrigation
process, based on field observation and trials; it includes crop and soil
observations and the assessment of surface irrigation practices;
3) To carry out field experimentation of improved surface irrigation
systems, and to test the effectiveness of improved techniques;
4) To analyse the irrigation scheduling strategies for wheat and cotton in
combination with improvements of surface irrigation systems;
5) To apply a decision support system to select improved solutions for
on-farm surface irrigation and ranking alternative approaches using a
multicritera methodology.

2
Chapter 2

2- Ras El Ain Irrigation District

2.1- General information:

The Ras Al Ein Irrigation District is located in the northeast of Syria, and has
an irrigated area of 42,220 ha, which represents about 20% of the total
farming area. The Ras Al Ein area is within the governorate of Al-Hassakeh
that border Iraq from the east and south, Turkey from the north, the Der El-
Zor governorate from the southwest and the district of Rakka from the west.
Ras El Ain area is classified as the second settlement in the Governorate.
The Al-Hassakeh governorate is located on 35 – 37° latitude and 39 – 42°
longitude east. The total area is 23,359 square kilometers and is crossed by
the Khabour and jakjak rivers,

Ras Al Ein Irrigation District is located in the Euphrates basin, with an

elevation range from 165 to 325 m over the sea level, with an annual rainfall
of 200-250mm and an annual potential evaporation of 1,600-2,800 mm

Figure 2.1. Location map of Ras Al Ein Irrigation District

3
2.2. Water resources

The springs of Ras el Ain Irrigation District are situated near the border with
Turkey. They still represent the main source of water supply for irrigation.

The main rivers cross in the region are: (i) Al-Khabour River and its
branches: it is 402 km long, the actual discharge is around 6.6 m3/s, and in
the previous years (until 1995) it was around 21.5 m3/s. In summer, its
discharge might become around 3 m3/s; (ii) Al-Gakgak River: it is 100 km
long; the actual discharge is equal to 2.1 m3/s while the previous discharge
was around 18 m3/s. It is possible to utilize this river just during winter and
spring because during summer it is blocked from the Turkish side. Note that
data above provided by the Irrigation Ministry for 2004 is overestimated
because recently much less discharges are observed.

The artificial reservoirs are: (i) Al-Hassakeh western dam, with a maximum
storage capacity of 91 million m3; (ii) Al-Hassakeh eastern dam, with a
maximum storage capacity of 234 million m3, with a channel linking them.
However, the farmers in the project area depend upon the ground water table
and the Khabour River.

A channel feeds both dams from pumping from the Ras-El-Ain groundwater
since the Khabour River has not enough water after the construction of dams
in the Turkish upper basin. This is one of the reasons for the progressive
depletion of the ground water table. Pumping amounts now 20 m3/s, and the
ground water table is decreasing by 1.02 m/year. In addition there are
numerous illegal wells explored by the farmers because they have no more
access to the river water.

Considering the situation in the Ras_Al_Ein area, the cooperative Italian

project “Rationalization of Ras El Ain Irrigation System” was established to
help solving the problem of the scarce water resources in the project area of
Ras el Ain, around the springs of Al Khabour, associated with the improper
use of traditional irrigation techniques. The main objective of this project is
Food and income security through (i) increase in yield of strategic crops in
the province; and (ii) increase in farmers’ income. The specific purpose is to
reduce the use of groundwater resources in the project area through
development and adoption of more efficient irrigation methods by farmers.

2.3. Climate and Soils

The annual rainfall range from 250 to 350 mm Based on the average of nine
year of climatic data (1993-2002) from Al Hassakeh research station, the
main characteristics of the climate are presented in Figs 2.2 and 2.3, the
coldest month is January and the hottest one is July or August. The air
humidity is highest during the winter months and lowest during the summer
time. The predominant wind blows from the west, and the wind velocity rises
during the summer. The Fig. 2.2. shows that arid conditions prevail after mid

4
April, thus increasing the crop water demand during the critical growth stage
of wheat and the full growth season of cotton. Rainfall is erratic in both
volume and distribution; the maximum rainfall occurs during January and is
insufficient during the wheat and cotton seasons (Fig. 2.2). A significant
water deficit occurs then due to the high evapotranspiration and low
precipitation.

300 45
40
250
35
200 30
ET0, P mm

25

T C°
150
20
100 15
10
50
5
0 0
ov
n

ec
ug

ep
l
pr
b
ar

ay

ct
Ju
Ja

Ju
Fe

O
A
M

N
D
A

S
M

months
Rainfall mm Eto mm Max T C° Min T C°

Figure 2.2. Average precipitation, reference evapotranspiration and minimum

and maximum temperatures

90 4
3.5
80
3
wind speed m/s

70
2.5
hum %

60 2
1.5
50
1
40
0.5
30 0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

min hum % Humidity % wind speed m/s

Figure 2.3. Average and minimum monthly humidity with wind speed

5
The land in Al Hassakeh area is almost flat with smooth topography, except
for the mountains around the governorate. The soil classification in Al
Hassakeh area has the following distribution (i) 45% Cennamonic soil; (ii)
31% Gypsiferous soil; (iii) 19% Ggrumusol ; (iv) 5% alluvial (Irrigation
Ministry).

The main soil classification according the survey carried out in 1984 by
Agrocomplect, an Engineering Economic Organization, is as the following: (i)
Brown soil (thick and medium thick); (ii) Light brown soil (thick and medium
thick and shallow); (iii) Meadow dark brown soil (thick); (iv) Meadow brown
soil (thick);(v) Undeveloped soil with gypsum bulges; (vi) Complex of brown
and light brown soil. The soil in the study area is classified as thick brown
soil.

2.4. Agriculture and Land Use

The most important crops cultivated in Hassakeh province are wheat and
cotton, followed by vegetables, fruits and fodder crops. Out of the total
cropped area, wheat accounts for 31% (of which 40% under irrigation), and
28 % barley, that is mostly rainfed. Cotton is the most profitable crop, but
also the most water demanding and is only cultivated under irrigated
conditions. Table 2.1 shows the wheat and cotton yields (1999) for the Al
Hassakeh province, and how important these crops are compared with the
production of the whole country.

The wheat is cultivated in winter-spring seasons, it is drought tolerant and

needs a minimum of 300 mm of rain (under rain fed conditions). It is sown in
December and harvested by June. Local improved varieties produced by
MAAR or in collaboration with ICARDA are usually utilised. With the current
irrigation system, about 6000-7000 m3/ha of water per season are required,
that is supplied in 4-5 water applications. The wheat crop is fairly resistant to
soil salinity, and the yields can reach as much as 4000-5000 kg/ha under
traditional irrigation systems.

Table 2.1 Cultivated area and the yields for wheat and cotton in Al Hassakeh.
CULTIVATED AREA PRODUCTION (t)
(ha)
Irrigated wheat 282,518 833,750
Rain-fed wheat 400,410 110,778
944,538 (35% of the total
wheat (total) 682,928
national production)
357,808 (39% of the total
cotton (irrigated) 85,536
national production)

The cotton crop performs best in hot and dry climate, with a quite high water
requirement. It is one of the most salt resistant crops in the area. Cotton is
grown in summer, sown in April and harvested by October - November, with
a growing season of about 180-190 days. The traditional water requirement

6
with the current furrow irrigation system is about 16-18,000 m3/ha in 10-12
water applications; the yield is very good, reaching 4000-4500 kg of cotton
seed. The cotton is very sensitive to the water stress and the soil water is the
most important environmental factor affecting water content of cotton leaves
(Namken, 1964). The most sensitive period for the cotton is from the
appearance of the first flowers to peak flowering (Bruce and Ship,1962).
when should be supplied about 30-35% from the total water used (Bielorai
and Shimshi,1963), Otherwise the water deficit will cause yield reduction
greater than that imposed at any others stages Miller and Dickens (1970).

2.5. Irrigation Systems

The total irrigated area in Hassakeh according to estimation of Agriculture

Ministry is 420,872 ha, of which only 1030 Ha regard fruit trees and grapes.
This estimation probably is under evaluated because only 65% of wells are
legally built. Most of land is irrigated through surface irrigation while only
23,301 ha are sprinkler irrigated and 1,690 ha are irrigated by drip systems.
About 80% from the farmers use traditional irrigation systems and 20% adopt
some improved systems (project Baseline Survey 2005). Table 2.2 shows the
main characteristics of different irrigation systems applied for cotton.

Table 2.2 Characteristics of irrigation systems applied for the cotton crop
(source: Hassakeh research center, Ministry of Agriculture)

Irrigation System
Traditional Sprinkler Trickle
3
Water use (m /ha) 14500-16000 10000-10600 7800-8700
Saving (%) 0 32 46
Production (kg/ha) 3750 4450 4650
Yield per water unit (kg/m3) 0.23-0.25 0.42-0.44 0.563
Application efficiency (%) 45-55 70-75 80-85

The wheat that is irrigated from wells requires usually five irrigations with a
total water use of 7,000 – 8,000 m3/ha, while the wheat irrigated by the
government water resources are given 2-3 irrigations according to the
available water in the dams. Often the last irrigation is made in the second
half of May. Sometimes the farmers make irrigation before the tillage to reach
the field capacity of the soil and to better prepare the land.

The land is divided as furrowed basins and small borders. The size of the
basins or borders relate to the topography of the land. The water is conveyed
through a main earth canal and divided into distributors in the field. These
systems produce a loss of the cultivated surface.

For cotton irrigated by wells around 10 - 12 irrigations are given totalizing up

to 16,000 – 18,000 m3/ha with low efficiency. The first cotton irrigation usually
is up to 200 mm at planting; the second is made after one month. Than all

7
others irrigations are applied regularly every 7 - 10 days with 130 – 150 mm
each. The most common system is zigzag furrow with basin spacing usually
of 90 cm. sowing is done on the both sides of the furrow.

The irrigation efficiency is estimated to be very low: for cotton (furrow

irrigation), near 50% (including conveyance and effective distribution losses),
whereas for wheat (basin and furrow irrigation) it can reach 60%. Recently, to
avoid conveyance losses, wells are provided with mobile polyethylene pipes
(diameter of 5-6”), long enough to convey water directly to the borders of the
plot under irrigation (Project repot 2003).

Sprinklers and drip irrigation are not common because pf their costs.
Sprinklers could be used for both wheat and cotton while adopting drip for
cotton the farmer should keep surface irrigation for wheat; by the time the
farmers have two crops in rotation, they should adopt only one irrigation
system as for the improved surface that is applied by some farmers, as in
Bab Al Faraj, but this is not common (Pereira, 2006).

8
Chapter 3

3- Material and Methods

3.1 Experimental sites: Arnan and Bab Al Faraj

The field trials were developed in two sites, Arnan and Bab Al Faraj, located
in representative parts of Ras El Ain irrigation District (Figure 2.1).

The experimental farm of Arnan is located in the southern west of Ras El Ain
town, and is managed by the Syrian Ministry of Agriculture and the
cooperative Italian project. The total cultivated surface area is 32, 62 ha and
is divided into many fields for the 2005-2006 season (Fig. 3.1, Table 3.1).

Figure.3.1.Arnan experimental farm.

Fields D1 and part of D2, about 1, 9222 ha, were planted with: (i) winter
crops (fababeans, chick pea and lentil); and (ii) summer crops (maize,
soybean, and peanut). Both traditional and sprinklers irrigation systems are
used.

9
Table.3.1. The cropped fields in the Arnan experimental farm, 2005/2006
Field Crop Irrigation System area (ha)
A wheat sprinklers 2,0869
B wheat Improved surface irrigation 5,1243
C1 wheat Improved surface irrigation 3,9595
C 2 + C 3+ C 4 wheat Traditional 11,0461
*D1 wheat sprinklers 1,8324
*D2 wheat Traditional 2,0986
D1 cotton sprinklers 1,2000
D2 cotton Traditional 1,5000
E1 cotton Drip 1,5000
E2 cotton Improved surface irrigation 1,5500
E3 cotton Traditional 1,5000

The map of Arnan (Fig. 3.1) shows the variation in elevation for each field.
The fields irrigated by traditional and improved irrigation system have the
following slopes S: (i) field C1 with improved S = 0.007 m/m; (ii) field B, that
was divided to five parts, with S ranging from 0.007 to 0.009 m/m; (iii) field
D2 with slope = 0.009 m/m; (iv) field E2 and E3, with improved surface
irrigation, were divided into three parts with S from 0.0065 to 0.01 m/m. In
field E land levelling has been performed but keeping the slope, thus just
smoothing the land topography.

The physical and chemical soil characteristics are shown in Table 3.2 and
3.3. Analyses were performed by the Soil and Water Laboratory of the Al
Hassakeh Research Center.

Table.3.2. Physical soil properties of Arnan experimental farm

FC WP FC WP
Bulk TWA Sand Silt Clay soil texture
weight weight volume volume
Density mm/ m % % % classification
% % % %
A 1.37 26.74 17.88 36.78 24.55 122.35 30 27 43 Clay

B 1.37 28.23 17.96 38.76 24.66 141.09 30 29 41 Clay

C 1.33 27.97 17.46 37.13 23.21 139.27 31 31 39 Clay Loam

D 1.36 29.12 18.86 39.46 25.56 139.02 23 31 46 Clay

Table 3.3. Chemical soil properties of Arnan experimental farm

Ec m ORGANIC CACO3
field pH P p.p.m K p.p.m
mhos/cm % %
A 7,14 2,3 1,47 23,5 14 100
B 7,59 0,88 1,34 25,9 10,7 125
C 7,62 1,39 1,32 24,4 5,65 87,9

10
The physical soil properties for the fields C and D, whose samples were
taken at three depths in each 30 cm, were also analysed at the ICARDA Lab.
Results averaged for 90 cm soil depth are shown in Table 3.4 and Fig. 3.2.

Table.3.4. Physical soil properties of Arnan experimental farm as measured

in the ICARDA Lab

FC WP FC WP TWA
Sand Silt Clay soil texture
weight weight volume volume mm/
% % % classification
% % % % m
C 26,2 16,2 34,8 21,5 132,6 27,9 30,8 41,3 Clay
D 26,4 16,7 35,9 22,7 131,9 23,4 31,5 45,1 Clay

0
-10 0 10 20 30 40
-20
soil depth cm

-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
-100
wate r soil conte nt v olum %
PWP FC

Figure.3.2. the soil water content in 90 cm soil depth of Arnan experimental

farm.

Water is obtained from two wells (W 45 and W 2) that have an average

discharge of 45 l/s and 25 l/s, respectively; discharges have a little variation
during the year. The chemical water properties were measured at the Soil
and Water Laboratory of the Al Hassakeh Research Center and are shown in
Table 3.5.

Table.3.5. Chemical water properties (Arnan)

Well n pH Ec m mg /L NO3
mhos/cm Ca Mg Na K Cl HCO3 p.p.m
Well45 7,7 0,7 8,25 1,65 2 0,019 1,92 1,8 5,59
Well2 7,6 1,37 11,52 6,05 2,6 0,025 3,84 3,6 9,15

The Bab Al Faraj experimental site Is located in the eastern side of Ras El
Ain town, about 35 km faraway. One farmer there, Ammar Jebraiel, has a
large farm and adopted an improved surface irrigation system for cotton
designed as graded furrows, with long and short lengths, with medium and
quite large slope. The water is distributed through a ditch with small pipes
across the ditch wall; the discharge is controlled by the water head in the
supply ditch and by the diameter of the pipes (Pereira and Gonçalves, 2005).

11
The sowing is done by a seeding machine The preparation of the land for the
cotton crop is made by creating small furrows that supply the water in the first
irrigation with a very small discharge; the furrow spacing is 0.7 m and the
planting is on the top of the bed, Then, before the second irrigation, they
enlarge the furrow using another machine.

A topography survey was done for three different field parts: (i) R1.1
representing the long field, with length L = 224 m and slope S = 0.019 m/m;
(ii) R1.2 represents the short one, with L = 90 m and S = 0.0096 m/m; and
(iii) R1.3 represent another field with L = 100 m and S = 0.007 m/m.

3.2. Irrigation scheduling: the ISAREG model

3.2.1 Model description

An appropriated irrigation scheduling plays an important role in achieving

water saving, higher irrigation performances, and controlling the percolation
(Smith et al., 1996; Pereira et al., 2002b). Computer models are an easy
approach for developing and evaluating alternative strategies for irrigation,
and a large number of models are available for computing the soil water
balance and generating improved irrigation schedules. This is the case of the
ISAREG model (Pereira et al., 2003) that was widely successfully applied in
several countries. In Central Asia (Сholpankulov et al., 2005) it contributed to
control soil salinity and to decrease water use, so to combat desertification
problems in the Aral Sea basin, where it is also operational in a GIS
environment (Fortes et al., 2005), In the north of Syria it was applied in the
ICARDA’s Tel Hadya research farm, to develop supplemental irrigation
strategies for coping with droughts and water scarcity (Oweis et al., 2003).

The ISAREG model performs the soil water balance for a multilayered soil
using different options to define and evaluate the irrigation schedules, as
described by Pereira et al. (2003). Input data (Fig. 3.3) include precipitation,
reference evapotranspiration, total and readily available soil water, soil water
content at planting, parameters characterizing conditions for groundwater
contribution, crop coefficients and soil water depletion fractions p for no
stress relative to crop growth stages, root depths and the water-yield
response factor. Depending on weather data availability, various time step
computations can be used, daily, decennial or monthly.

The reference evapotranspiration ETo (mm) is computed with the FAO-

Penman-Monteith method (Allen et al., 1998) using the program EVAP56.
The crop data parameters are determined with the KCISA program
(Rodrigues et al., 2000), using the methodology proposed by FAO (Allen et
al., 1998). The crop evapotranspiration ETc (mm) is computed as the product
of ETo by the crop coefficient Kc.

12
METEOROLOGICAL IRRIGATION AGRICULTURAL
DATA MODES DATA
Crops:
Reference Irrigation - crop stages
Evapotranspiration Options - crop coefficients
- root depth
Water Supply - yield response factor
Restrictions - soil water depletion
Effective factor
Precipitation Potential Ground
Water Contribution Soils:
- soil layers depth
- type of soil - field capacity
- water table depth - wilting point

SOIL WATER BALANCE

Yield reduction

OPTIMIZED IRRIGATION REQUIREMENTS EVALUATION OF A

IRRIGATION - decaday GIVEN IRRIGATION
SCHEDULING - month SCHEDULE
- season

Figure.3.3. Simplified flow-chart of ISAREG model (Teixeira & Pereira, 1992)

The crop coefficients (Kc) and the soil water depletion fraction for no stress
(p) were adjusted to the Ras El Ain climatic conditions. Kcmid and Kcend were
adjusted with equation [1] and p with equation [2]:
h
Kc mid = Kc mid ( tab ) + [0.04(U 2 − 2) − 0.004(RHmin − 45)]( )0..3 [1]
3

padj = ptable + 0.04(5 − ETc ) [2]

where Kcmid(tab) is from the FAO table, U2 is the wind speed (m/s), RHmin is the
minimum relative humidity (%) and h is the height of the plants (m) at the mid
season stage.

The ISAREG model computes the irrigation water requirements through the
soil water balance that is calculated for the effective root depth as:

θ i =θ i −1 +
(P − RO )+ I
i i wi − ETa i − DPi + GWi
[3]
1000 z r i

13
where θi and θi-1 are soil water content in the root zone (mm mm-1), in the
days i and i-1, Pi is the precipitation (mm), RO i is the runoff (mm), Iri is the
net irrigation depth (mm) that infiltrates in the soil, ETci (mm) is the crop
evapotranspiration (mm), DPi is deep percolation (mm), GWi is the
groundwater contribution (mm), and zr i is the rooting depth (m) in day i. GW
and DP are estimated from soil hydraulic properties and the water table
depth as described by Liu et al. (2006) after appropriate parameterization of
the respective functions as referred by Сholpankulov et al. (2005).

When water availability is non-limiting, the frequency of irrigation is not

restricted and varies along the crop season according to the crop demand,
the irrigation depth and the dates due to different objectives are computed
according to the water depth limits and water soil threshold defined by the
user. If the irrigation threshold is defined by the depletion fraction for no stress
the irrigation is scheduled when the soil water is

θ p = (1−p ) (θ FC −θ WP ) + θ WP [4]

The corresponding net irrigation depth is

I n i =1000 z r i (θ FC −θ p ) [5]

In case of allowed stress, where the management allowed deficit MAD<p

(Martin et al, 1990), the irrigation are scheduled for :

θi = θ MAD = (1 − MAD)(θ FC − θWP ) + θWP [6]

The applied depth is either a user selected fixed quantity D (mm), or a

variable quantity D = θFC - θi.

The water stress impact on the crop yield is evaluated through the model
proposed by Stewart et al. (1977) where relative yield losses depend upon
the relative evapotranspiration deficit

 Yd   ET 
1 −  = K y 1 − d  [7]
 Yc   ETc 

where ETd and ETc are respectively the seasonal actual and potential crop
evapotranspiration (mm) and Yd and Yc are the corresponding achieved
yields and Ky is the water-yield response factor.

3.2.2. Input data:

3.2.2.1 Climatic and soil data

Climatic data was observed by the meteorological stations in Arnan and Ras
El Ain, the last one located about 8 km far from the experimental farm. Both

14
meteorological stations are installed and managed by the Italian Project and
the Agriculture Ministry, In case of missing data from one station due to any
technical problem, they could be replaced from those of the other one.

The Arnan meteorological station is located at 36.404° latitude and 330m

altitude. Table 3.6 shows the climatic data used with ISAREG for both crops
wheat and cotton. Data for December until July relate to the year 2006 and
from August until October are for 2005. The ETo data were calculated with
the available climatic data, with the vapour pressure deficit computed from air
temperature.

Table 3.6, Meteorological data from Arnan station (completed with those for
Ras El Ain), 2005-2006

Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Temperature
16.1 9.2 14.0 20.4 23.9 32.9 40.5 41.4 39.5 35.6 28.6 19.6
[ºC] Max
Temperature
3.7 0.8 2.6 4.1 10.1 11.9 17.8 23.7 23.8 14.4 8.0 3.1
[ºC] Min
Relative
75.1 85.0 78.5 68.6 78.0 54.9 31.4 33.7 37.8 42.7 46.9 60
humidity [%]
Wind speed
-1 0.90 1.64 1.66 1.69 1.51 1.20 2.39 2.64 2.14 2.70 1.18 1.06
[m s ]
-1
ETo[mm d ]
2.24 0.95 1.63 3.15 3.92 6.19 8.98 8.19 6.67 6.54 2.34 2.1
Tmin
Precipitation
45.0 73.7 124.2 5.9 82.3 3.7 0.0 0.0 11.9 7.7 4.1 19
[mm]

The hydraulic proprieties of the soil were averaged for one single layer with
FC = 35.5% and WP = 22% (volume ratio). The total available soil water is

TAW = (FC − WP ) × 10z [8]

Thus, for a homogeneous soil and 1 m depth it results TAW = 135 mm/m.

A soil electrical conductivity Ec =1.4 mmhos/cm was considered.

3.2.2.2 Crop data for wheat and cotton

The crop data include the phenological plant stages, crop coefficient Kc, root
depth during the season of the crop, soil water depletion fraction p, and yield
response factor Ky. The phenological stages of the wheat and cotton for
Arnan experimental farm were observed during 2005-2006 season (Table
3.7).

The Kc and p in Allen et al. (1999) and Pereira et al. (1999) were adjusted
with equations 1 and 2. The minimum and maximum effective root depths
were taken from Allen et al. (1999) and Pereira et al. (1999): for wheat the

15
depth of 75 cm was considered for the whole season, whereas for cotton 100
cm were estimated.

Table.3.7. Average crop parameters for wheat and cotton

Parameters Crop development stages
crop Mid End
Initial Development
season season
Period length
1/1 - 1/2 2/2 - 30/4 30/4- 26/5 27/5 - 15/6
(dates)
Crop
0.54 0.54 – 1.10 1.10 1.10 - 0.32
Wheat coefficients, Kc
Depletion
0.72 - 0.70 0.70 - 0.60 0.60 - 0.59 0.59 - 0.62
fraction, p
Root depth cm 75 75 75 75
Period length
07/5 - 6/6 7/6 - 7/7 8/7 - 8/9 8/9 - 11/10
(dates)
Crop
0.30 0.30 – 1.13 1.13 1.13 - 0.61
Cotton coefficients, Kc
Depletion
0.75 - 0.59 0.59 - 0.50 0.50 - 0.62 0.62 - 0.74
fraction, p
Root depth cm 100 100 100 100

The yield response factors Ky proposed by Stewart et al. (1977) were

adopted: for cotton is Ky = 0.85 and for wheat is Ky =1.05.

The initial soil water content for wheat was estimated for the seeding layers
as 40% from the TAW and 30% for the layers below it, and for cotton 20%
and 40% respectively.

3.3. Surface Irrigation assessment and modelling

3.3.1 Field evaluation

3.3.1.1 Infiltration tests

Infiltration is one of most crucial factors affecting surface irrigation. It controls

not only the amount of the water entering the soil, but also the advance rate
of the overland flow. The empirical Kostiakov function is usually applied to
model the infiltration process in surface irrigation conditions:

I = aKτ a −1 + f 0 [9]
Z = k ⋅τ + f o ⋅τ
a
[10]

where I is the infiltration rate (mm/h), Z is the cumulative infiltrated depth

(m3/m), a and K are empirical parameters and f0 is the final infiltration rate
and τ is the intake opportunity time (h).

16
The double ring infiltrometer is one of the methods used to determine the
permeability of the soil (infiltration rate), but is affected by three main factors
(i) presence of a compacted layer; (ii) the bulk density; (iii) the porosity that
refer to tillage, crop residue and root development, for example. This
instrument consists of two metal rings with diameter 24” and 12”, designed to
prevent divergent flow in the soil layers; the outer ring acts as a barrier to
encourage only vertical flow from the inner one, when both of them are filled
partially of the water that is controlled to the limited level by a Mariotte tube,
depending on the type of the soil and the permeability level (Walker and
Skogerboe, 1987).

The procedure utilized is the following: (i) Place the ring (outer and inner)
onto the soil, the inner is in the middle of the outer one; (ii) Forcing the rings
to the ground by the hummer, until 3” of the ring stick in of the ground with
keeping the ring level horizontal; (iii) put a plastic sheet inside both of the
rings in order not to allowed any leaking through it into the soil; (iv) fill slowly
the cylinder infiltrometer with a known volume of the water ( to a depth of
about 10 cm) so that the initial depth at the time can be calculated as a zero;
(iv) set the time, and gently pull the sheet out; as the water hit the soil start
the time; (v) record the time with level of the water in the inner ring every
second for the first inch then increase the interval observation time recorded
during the test until the stable infiltration rate, keeping refilling the water with
correcting the reading of the gage. The measurement should usually be
continued until 4 hours elapsed time.

Data as recorded in the field are presented in Annex (1). Fig. 3.4 shows an
example of observed data and respective fitting with eq. 9 and 10, i.e. the
infiltration rate I (mm/h) curve and the cumulative infiltrated depth Z (m3/m)
curve, the latter corresponding to the equation

Z = 11.797τ 0.3227 [11]

100 14,000
90
12,000
80
70 10,000
infiltration (mm)

60 y = 11,797x0,3227
8,000
R2 = 0,9601
50
40 6,000

30 4,000
20 y = 11,797x-0,6773
R2 = 0,9906 2,000
10
0 0,000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
time (min)

Fig. 3.4. Infiltration curves obtained with the double ring test at Arnan farm.

17
Another infiltration field method used in this study uses furrow advance data
observed in furrow evaluation to predict the infiltration parameters. In this
field evaluation procedure: (i) divide the furrow in four parts limited by
stations at 0/4, 1/4, 2/4, 3/4, 4/4 of field length; (ii) place a steak with the
number of the station along the furrow; (iii) place a flume in the station that
wanted to measure the inflow rate through it; (iv) numbering the treatments in
the field with target discharge in order to adjust it through the valves in the
pipes for each treatment except the present one; (v) make three repetitions
for each treatment to get the average. In this study some of the treatments
had a repetition especially in Bab Al Faraj.

The final infiltration rate fo is calculated from inflow & outflow hydrographs
analysis, after the stabilization of discharge:
Qin − Qout
fo = [12]
L
The parameters a and k were determined using the ‘‘two-point’’ method lying
an advance phase water balance proposed by Elliott and Walker (Walker and
Skogerboe, 1987), with making small adjustments for k parameter for some
of the treatments in order to have right water balance.

ln( V L / V 0 . 5 L ) [13]
a =
ln( t L / t 0 . 5 L )
Q 0tL f 0tL [14]
V = − σ y A0 −
1 + r
L
L
2 Q 0 t 0 .5 L f 0 t 0 .5 L [15]
V 0 .5 L = − σ y A0 −
L 1 + r
a + r (1 − a ) + 1 [16]
σ z =
( 1 + a )( 1 + r )
[17]
x = p ⋅ ( t ad ) rx
V [18]
k = L
σ z t La

3.3.1.2 Field evaluation of surface irrigation

The methodology used for the evaluation of the furrow irrigation follow that
proposed by Merrian and Keller (1978) as adapted by Calejo et al. (1998).
Measurements were carried out in Arnan (field E2) and Bab El Faraj; they
included observations of the land level condition, furrowed cross section,
advance time, recession time, roughness and the applied water depth.

Table 3.8 shows the treatments adopted for the 1st and 2nd irrigations, with
different length, slope and discharge.

18
Table 3.8. Field treatments in Arnan and Bab Al Faraj.
Location Irrigat. Irrigation Length Slope Inflow Furrow Irrigation
Nr. treatment (m) (%) (l/s) Spacing Management
(m)
Arnan 1st A0 50 0.9 4.78 0.9 Zigzag Basin

Arnan 1st A 150 0.95 0.53 0.7 EF - Open Furrow

B1.1 100 0.97 0.71 0.7 EF - Open Furrow
B1.2 100 0.97 0.77 0.7 EF - Diked Furrow
B2 100 0.97 0.52 0.7 EF - Diked Furrow
B3 100 0.97 0.35 0.7 EF - Diked Furrow
C1 50 0.8 0.78 0.7 EF - Diked Furrow
C2 50 0.8 0.52 0.7 EF - Diked Furrow
C3 50 0.8 0.35 0.7 EF - Diked Furrow
D1 36 0.8 0.75 0.7 EF - Diked Furrow
D2 36 0.8 0.50 0.7 EF - Diked Furrow
D3 36 0.8 0.32 0.7 EF - Diked Furrow
2sd E1 100 0.97 0.74 0.7 EF - Diked Furrow
E3 100 0.97 0.37 0.7 EF - Diked Furrow
F 100 0.97 0.36 1.4 AF - Diked Furrow
Bab-Al- 1st G 224 1.9 1.3 0.7 EF - Diked Furrow
Faraj H 90 0.95 0.52 0.7 EF - Diked Furrow
I 100 0.7 0.36 0.7 EF - Diked Furrow
ET - Irrigation every furrow
AF - Irrigation of alternate furrows

In the field E, a topography survey was made by a team of the Irrigation

Ministry, and the spacing between the contour lines in the field corresponding
to the map is 0.1 m/m (Annex 1). The field size and slopes are in Tab.3.9.
The field width is W = 50 m.

Table 3.9. Topographic characteristics of field E2, Arnan.

Field E (300x50) Length m Longitude slope m/m Cross slope m/m
First part 0-100 0.01 0.007
Second part 100-200 0.0064 0.005
Third part 200-300 0.0076 0.005

The irrigation schedule in the field was analyzed with ISAREG model,
assuming MAD = p. The net irrigation depth per irrigation was In = 80mm.

The discharge in each furrow was measured at the upstream, middle and
downstream sections by volumetric methods with a 2.7 liter bucket and two
kinds of portable flumes. With a small 60° V-notch flume the discharge was
calculated according to the following equation (Trout, 1983):

Q = 0.249 * (hu − 0.15) 2.61 [19]

where Q is the discharge (l/min), hu is the gage reading (cm) and the 0.15
cm is the correction for meniscus distortion.

19
The second fume is the modified trapezoidal broader-crested weir (Walker
and Skogerboe, 1987). The average discharge is computed by the time
weight Qavg (l/min):

∑
n
Aqi
Qavg = i =1
[20]
t ap

where Aqi are the inflow volumes (l) during the time intervals from ti to ti-1
computed as

Aqi = 30(Qi − Qi −1 )(t i − t i −1 ) [21]

and ti and ti-1 are the times of two successive inflow rate measurements
(min), which start at the moment when the irrigation has started; Qi and Qi-1
are the recorded furrow flow rates (l/s) at those times ti and ti-1; n is the
number of flow rate measurements; and tap is the total time of water
application (min)

For the first treatment A0 (Table 3.8, traditional irrigation system where the
water is supplied to a zigzag furrowed basin) the width of the basin varies
from 3.5 m to 6 m according to the machine that is used and size of the farm,
while the length depends on the field and influences the water volume in
relation to the mean discharge, slope and the application time. In this
treatment A0 the length of the basin was L = 50 m, the width of the basin was
W = 5 m, and the furrow spacing was FS = 0.9 m. Planting was done on both
sides of the furrow.

The observation stations along the basin were set up on the 0/4, 1/4, 2/4, 3/4,
4/4 of basin length as in the furrow. These stations were used to record the
advance and recession times, which identify the opportunity time for the
infiltration τ = trec - tadv, The inflow rate was measured upstream of the furrow
by a portable flume.

Recession times were recorded at the times when water fully infiltrated the
soil at the observation sections; however, when unevenness of the furrow
bed caused the water to pond for long time, trec were recorded when water
disappeared from the furrow bed in the areas nearby the measurement
section. It resulted that advance time measurements were more accurate
than recession ones.

The inflow rates in the 0/4 and 2/4 stations are shown in Fig. 3.5. The
example refers to a 90 m long furrow.

20
 inflow rate l/s
0,70

0,60

0,50
discharge l/s

0,40

0,30

0,20

0,10

0,00
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390
time min
upstream inflow rate l/s infow rate in the 2nd sta l/s

Fig.3.5. The inflow rate in 0/4 and 2/4 station (Bab Al Faraj)

The Manning’s roughness coefficient n (m-1/3 s) was calculated from

observations of the furrow cross-sectional area, flow rates, flow water depths
and water surface width with the equation
AR 2 / 3S1 / 2
n= [22]
Q
where Q is the inflow rate to the furrow (m3/s); A is the cross-sectional area
of the furrow flow or wetted area (m2) eq (5); S is the hydraulic gradient,
which was assumed to equal the furrow slope (m/m), R is the hydraulic
radius (m) defined as R = A / W ; and W is the wetted perimeter (m).

The Kostiakov infiltration equation, which is adopted in the model SIRMOD

(ISED,1989), was used in this study as mention above:
Z i (τ ) = k ⋅τ a + f o ⋅τ [23]
The infiltration parameters were estimated using the inverse method
(Katopodes et al., 1990) in which observed advance and recession data are
compared with those computed with the simulation model SIRMOD. The best
parameter values were obtained after several iterations aiming at minimizing
the sum of the squares of the deviations between observed and simulated
advance and recession times. The need for using both advance and
recession observations when searching the infiltration parameters (Calejo et
al., 1998) was confirmed in this study.

The furrow shape parameters W and A may be described with equations 19

and 20:
w − T0 2
W = 2( h 2 + ( ) ) + T0 [24]
2
w + T0
A=( )h [25]
2
where h is the observed water depth in the furrow, To is the width of the
furrow bottom, w is the observed water width.

21
The total infiltration volume was computed from the equation
L
VZ = ( Z 0 + 2Z1 + 2Z 2 + L + Z n ) [26]
2n
where L = the total length of the furrow, n is the number of stations along the
furrow and Z is the cumulative infiltrated depth in each station.

The furrow cross sections before and after irrigation were measured using a
piece of wood with 16 holes 5 cm apart and 16 recording wood steaks. An
example is in Fig. 3.6. Observation after three irrigations for the cross section
show that shapes change from triangular to near rectangular as a
consequence of in-furrow erosion and deposition.
X(mm)
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400
0

20

40

60
Y(mm)

80

100

120

140

160

180
in 1 st irri

Fig. 3.6. Typical furrow cross sections before irrigation

3.3.2. Performance indicators

The performance indicators considered in this study are the application

efficiency, Ea (%), and the distribution uniformity, DU (%). DU characterizes
the irrigation system and Ea is a management performance indicator (Pereira
and Trout, 1999; Pereira et al., 2002b). They are described by the following
relationships:

Z req
Ea = × 100 If Z lq > Z req [26]
D

Z lq
Ea = × 100 If Z lq < Z req [27]
D

Z lq
DU = × 100 [28]
Z avg
where Zreq is the average depth (mm) required to refill the root zone in the
quarter of the field having higher soil water deficit; D is the average water

22
depth (mm) applied to the irrigated area; Zlq is the average low quarter depth
of water infiltrated in the field (mm); Zavg is the average depth of water
infiltrated in the whole irrigated area (mm). Zreq were estimated from field
measurements of the soil water content before the irrigation, which were
used to compute the soil moisture deficit, SMD (mm), in the root zone.
Measurements were carried out for the fifth stations along the furrow. The
maximum SMD observed were assumed as the best estimates of Zreq.

For all irrigation events, the root zone depth was assumed equal to 0.1 m
based on the maximum development of cotton root masses. Zavg was
estimated from computing the depth of water infiltrated during the intake
opportunity time relative to each location i, at each 10 or 20 m for short and
long furrows, respectively. The Kostiakov equation was used with this
purpose with the estimated infiltration parameters as referred above:
Z = k [(t r )i − (t a )i ] + f 0 [(t r )i − (t a )i ]
a
[30]
where k, a and f0 are the infiltration parameters characterizing each irrigation;
(tr)i and (ta)i are the, respectively, times of advance and recession relative to
the location i (min). Zlq was estimated from the average relative to the quarter
of the furrow where infiltration was smaller.

The average depth of the water applied D (mm), was computed from:

q avf × 60 × t co
D= [31]
L× s

where qavf is the average furrow inflow rate (l/s) during an irrigation event, tco
the cut-off time or duration of the inflow (min), and s is the spacing between
furrows (m).

Similarly, the average outflow depth at the tail end of the furrow for some of
treatments, Vout (mm), was calculated from:

q out × 60 × t out
Vout = [32]
L× s

where qout is the average discharge rate at the end of the trail of the furrow
(l/s) during the runoff time tout (min).

3.3.3. The SIRMOD model for surface irrigation simulation

The process of surface irrigation combines the hydraulics of surface flow over
the irrigated land with the infiltration of water into the soil profile. The
equations describing the hydraulics of surface irrigation are the continuity and
momentum equations (Walker and Skogerboe, 1987; Pereira and Trout,
1999). The SRFR (Strelkoff, 1993) and SIRMOD (ISED, 1989) are the most
worldwide used software packages incorporating the solutions for those

23
equations. Both models can be used for irrigation design and evaluation and
adopt the Kostiakov infiltration equation (9).

The model SRFR solves the non-linear algebraic equations adopting time-
space cells with variable time and space steps and also includes a full
hydrodynamic model. The model requires as inputs the following data: (a) the
longitudinal and cross sectional characteristics of the fields, like field geometry
and slope, (b) the infiltration parameters of the Kostiakov equation (obtained
from field observations and optimized using the inverse solution of the model
where advance and recession are input data), (c) the hydraulic roughness
coefficient, (d) the inflow rate or the inflow hydrograph when that is varied in
time, (e) the target infiltration depth, and (f) the time to cut off. The model
allows that slope; roughness coefficient and infiltration parameters vary along
the field. The SIRMOD model requires an input similar to the SRFR and solves
the continuity and momentum equations using the Eulerian integration
method (Walker and Skogerboe, 1987). As output, the model produces
several performance indicators such as the application efficiency (Ea) based
on the stated target infiltration depth, and the distribution uniformity based on
the low quarter depth infiltration (DUlq) as referred above (eq. 26 through 28).
Once validated, the models may be used to generate alternative
improvements concerning inflow rates, basin sizes, and land leveling
impacts.

3.4 The Decision Support System (DSS) SADREG

3.4.1 Model description

The performance of surface irrigation systems highly depends upon the

design process, including decisions on land levelling, field shape and
dimensions, and inflow discharge. In addition, it depends on farmer decisions
such as land levelling maintenance and timeliness and duration of irrigation
events. The variety of aspects influencing irrigation performances makes the
decision process quite complex and often out of the farmers experience and
empirical knowledge. The improvement of farm irrigation systems in large
surface irrigation projects can be well supported by DSS tools such as
SADREG (Gonçalves and Pereira, 1999, Gonçalves et al., 2001, 2004). Its
application may be performed at field level or at sector level when linked with
a GIS (Gonçalves et al., 2005 a and b; 2006a and b). SADREG is a DSS
aimed to assist designers and managers in the process of design and
planning improvements in farm surface irrigation systems. SADREG includes
a database, simulation models and user-friendly interfaces; and allows for
ranking and selection of design alternatives through a multicriteria decision
process, to aid selecting the best decisions.

The SADREG application scope comprises: (a) a single field analysis relative
to alternative design options for furrow, basin or border irrigation considering
several decision variables such as field slopes, water delivery methods and

24
equipments, as well as reuse options; (b) an irrigation sector analysis, when
a spatially distributed database relative to the farm systems is available
through GIS, and where improvement alternatives are assessed jointly with
modernization options relative to the conveyance and distribution network
(Gonçalves et al., 2005b).

SADREG is helpful to search and analyze modernization solutions for

surface irrigation because designing surface irrigation systems imply the
selection among a large number of combinations of main factors such as soil
infiltration and water holding capacity; field sizes, slopes and topography;
crop irrigation requirements, and inflow rates, which become easier to
manipulate and ranking through a DSS tool. When several fields within an
irrigation district are considered, then the task becomes only feasible if a
spatially distributed database is also available. In addition, SADREG is
conceived in such a manner that the user may learn through the application
process.

SADREG comprises two components: design and selection (Fig.3.7). The

first one applies database information and produces a set of alternative
designs, which characterization data is used for ranking and selection. The
selection component is based on a multicriteria analysis in which the project
alternatives are ranking allowing the decision-maker to select the best
alternative. The decision-maker participates in all decision process through
interface dialog structures, expressing its preferences and priorities required
for ranking and selection of alternatives.

DSS

Design
component Basic Data

Design Models: Interface

- Irrigation simulation
-Impacts analysis Dialog structure

(Planner)
User
(Manager)
Selection
component Alternatives

Models of Interface
multicriteria
analysis Dialog structure

Project Selected

Fig.3.7. Conceptual structure of SADREG (Gonçalves et al., 2005a, b).

25
The modular components of SADREG include a database, simulation models
and the multicriteria analysis model (Fig.3.8). The database concerns field
sizes and topography, soil intake rates, soil water holding capacity, economic
data, crop data, and irrigation management data created through interactive
simulations with the ISAREG model (described in Section 3.2).

Fig.3.8. Modular components of SADREG (Gonçalves et al., 2005a, b).

SADREG is applied to a field assumed with rectangular shape, uniform soil

intake characteristics and cultivated with a single crop. The water is supplied
from a collective conveyance system or any other source that delivers the
water from a given hydrant, which has specific hydraulic characteristics, like
the maximum discharge and head. These data may be referring to an
existing system, or user may select values. The surface irrigation models
include a land levelling module, that applies an iterative optimization of
landforms with minimal soil movement (Fig.3.9), and the SIRMOD simulation
model (ISED, 1989) for surface irrigation design (Fig.3.10).

The farm surface irrigation systems refer to basin, border and furrow
irrigation. The later concerns continuous and surge-flow, automatic or
manually controlled. Farm distribution systems refer to layflat tubing with
gates, gated pipes, concrete canal with lateral holes, and unlined canals with
or without siphons. The user may consider several design options, including
relative to runoff water reuse and field length adjustments. The option of
length adjustment could be interesting for long fields by comparing gains in
the application efficiency against increased labour and operation costs. The
evaluation analysis refers to cost and benefits as well as to environmental
and performance indicators.

26
 Windows interface

List of land levelling Land Levelling TopoSurvey file

options

irrigation method
option

level basins graded graded

basins/borders furrows

insert new
option select slopes

execute Field file

update slopes

if user accept output

Fig. 3.9. Land levelling module flowchart (Gonçalves et al., 2005a, b).

Length
infiltration
roughness
input data
Zreq
tail end
inflow manag.
q=qmin

exit No q ≤ qmax q=q+∆q

SIRMOD
recover(mod)
control by dose
mod=mod+1

diverges? mod=modmax? simulation not

irrigation simulation Yes Yes
(control by dose) succefull

No

applied depth adjustment

SIRMOD save results

ez=100%? simulation on SIMDB
Yes
control by time succefull file

tap=tap+ ∆t

Fig.3.10. Flowchart relative to the execution of the SIRMOD application

procedure (Gonçalves et al., 2005a, b).

27
The main steps on a SADREG application are:
(i) Identification of field characteristics;
(ii) Scenario development relative to decision variables such as field
water supply, crop irrigation, furrow spacing, management allowed
depletion (MAD), and furrows inflow regime (continuous vs. surge
irrigation);
(iii) Data input referring to soil water data, infiltration and roughness
parameters based on field experiments and/or databases, crop data,
operation and equipment costs, labour and machine time durations,
and water supply characteristics, such as the hydraulic head and
number and discharge of field outlets;
(iv) Design procedure to create alternatives using both design models
referred above (Fig.3.8) relative to the considered scenarios (item ii
above); and
(v) Ranking and selection of alternative designs using multicriteria
analysis where weights are defined according the user priorities.

To carry out this sequence of operations it is necessary to understand the

main concepts and the hierarchy of the elements that compose the SADREG
data structure:
(i) Field - is an rectangular shape on-farm land parcel, with a well known
geographical location, with an uniform soil intake characteristics and a
water supply hydrant; it is an element of a farm enterprise and
belonging to a Water Use Association area;
(ii) Hydrant - is a gate on the network delivery system that supply the
field; and
(iii) Outlet - is a discharge point, inside the field, connected to the field
distribution system (a field can have one or more outlets).

The SADREG data structure can be described as follows (Fig.3.11):

(i) Workspace - is the basic element of SADREG data structure;
corresponds to an individual Field and include all its data files. The
information for each Field include: location; dimension; agronomic
data; topographic survey, etc;
(ii) Project - each Project is a Field Scenario to develop a design for the
selected field. Several projects can be created for each Workspace
receiving different names;
(iii) Alternative - is a complete design solution for the selected field;
(iv) Group of alternatives - a cluster that are differentiated by structural
decision variables (e.g. land levelling, irrigation method, equipments);
within a group, the alternatives are differentiated by the operative
values (unitary inflow rate and application time) and the number of
sub-units;
(v) Unit – it is a field subdivision irrigated by a single outlet; it is assumed
that all units of a field are similar; and
(vi) Sub-unit – it is the fraction of a unit that is irrigated at the same time.

28
 WORKSPACE
Field Data:
data:
soil TAW
soil infiltration
length PROJECT
width waterGROUP
supply
area soilroughness
Soil roughness
irrigation method
crop distribution system
topography GROUP
tail end manag .
irrigation method
ALTERNATIVE
distributionsystem
distribution system
unitary inflow rate
tail end manag
number -
of sub -units
ALTERNATIVE
unitary inflow rate
number of sub units

performance attributes

performance
performance
operative attributes
variables

operative variables

Fig.3.11. SADREG data structure elements.

To construct the different alternatives of one project is necessary to have in

mind the existing relations between the several irrigation design options
(Fig.3.12.).

Land levelling option

irrigation method level basins graded basins/borders graded furrows

inflow regime continuous continuous continuous surge

irrigation method diked open without reuse gravity reuse pumping reuse

upstream head side side X side Y

irrigation method full length half length 1/3 length

distribution system unlined canal lined canal layflat tubing PVC gated pipe

sub-units
Group of alternative generation 0,5 lps < unitary inflowrate < 4 lps

Fig.3.12. Design variables for the alternatives generation procedure.

The generation of alternatives has to be made as described in the following:

(i) To select the irrigation method: flat level basin, graded basins or
border, or graded furrows;

29
 (ii) To choose the inflow supply regime, that for basins and borders is
continuous constant flow, while for graded furrows it can be surge-
flow;
(iii) To select the water distribution system among rigid pipe, lay-flat pipe,
earth canal, or lined canal; if the surge-flow is chosen, then the control
system is also to be selected between manual or automated control;
and
(iv) To select the tail water management: for basins the option is diked,
while for borders and furrows it may be diked, open without reuse,
reuse with pumping, and gravity reuse.

Once the design options are selected, the programme generates the design
alternatives as indicated in Fig.3.13.

Windows interface

List of land levelling Generate alternatives Field data Database

options
(file levelling.txt) Design options

irrigation method
distribution system
inflow nad tailwater

Execute

SIMDB
List of groups if SIMDB is
and alternatives not complete Load simdb

Insert Save Execute sirmod

alternatives

Return

Fig. 3.13. Flowchart of the alternatives generator module (Gonçalves et al.,

2005a, b).

The user design options to generate alternatives for furrow irrigation are
described as follows:

(i) Field outlets or hydrants: number per field and respective discharge
and head; it is assumed that all outlets are identical and each one
irrigates the same area, named unit;
(ii) Upstream supply side: side X or Y or both;
(iii) Land levelling: cross and longitudinal field slopes;
(iv) Length adjustment: full, 1/2 or 1/3, i.e. not adjusting or reducing the
length to the half or the third of the actual length (not used in this
application);
(v) Distribution system: rigid pipe, lay-flat pipe, earth canal, or lined canal;
(vi) Inflow supply regime: continuous or surge-flow; operated by an
automatic or a manual valve;

30
 (vii) Tail-end flow management: diked, free drainage, or water reuse by
pumping or gravity to downstream fields; and
(viii) Crops irrigation scheduling, with every furrow or alternate furrow
irrigation.

The design variables are described in Table 3.10.

Table 3.10. Design variables

- distribution side (OX or OY)

Topography
(land levelling options)
Supply system
Distribution system
Tail water management
Operative
- field length (L)
- transversal slope (SoT)
- longitudinal slope (SoL)
- number of outlets (No)
- number of units (Nu)
- total field supply discharge (QF)
- outlet discharge (Qo) and head (Ho)
- field delivery time (tF)
- continuous or surge flow
- canal, layflat tubing or rigid gated pipe
- automatic or manual surge valves
- no reuse
- reuse by pumping
- gravity reuse on other fields
- application time, per sub-unit (tap)
- unit inflow rate (q)
- number of sub-units per unit

3.4.2 Performance indicators, criteria and ranking with SADREG

To analyze the results the following performance indicators are considered

(Gonçalves et al., 2005a, b):
(i) Land productivity (LP) - it is the amount of yield (cotton crop) per unit
area (kg ha-1);
(ii) Land economic productivity (LEP) (€/ha);
(iii) Water productivity (WP) - expresses the yield per unit volume of
irrigation water (kg m-3) to qualify the irrigation performance relative
to water when this factor is scarce and expansive;
(iv) Water economic productivity (WEP) (€/m3);
(v) Total water cost (TWC) - is the total cost relative to irrigation (€ ha-1);
(vi) Total water use (TWU) - it is the annual amount of irrigation water
applied per unit area (mm; m3 ha-1year-1);
(vii) Salinization risk (SR) - it is the volume of water that deep percolates
(mm), meaning the potential for transporting salts to the groundwater;
(viii) Beneficial water use ratio (BWUR) – ratio between the beneficial
water used and the total water use;
(ix) Yield to cost ratio (kg/€);
(x) Total cost to water use ratio (€/m3);
(xi) Fixed cost to water use ratio (€/m3);

31
 (xii) Variable cost to water use ratio (€/m3);
(xiii) Runoff ratio;
(xiv) Soil impacts of land levelling (excavation average depth, cm);
(xv) Soil erosion index;
(xvi) Global Utility (U) - it is the aggregated utility characteristic of
alternatives, being dependent of irrigation performance, criteria
weights and utility functions;
(xvii) Distribution uniformity (DU) – defined in eq. (28); and
(xviii) Application efficiency (Ea) – defined in eq. (26 and 27).

The impact analysis includes the crop yield estimation based upon the total
water use during the irrigation season and adopting an user selected yield
function relating the relative yield with the relative water application
(Fig.3.14). Three functions are available: the quadratic one, with an adjusted
decreasing branch where the user selects the parameter dw relative to the
deviation relative to the quadratic function, and a fitting function where the
user provides the decreasing branch through a table.

1
relative yield (Y/Yopt)

0.8

0.6

0.4
+dw
0.2

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
relative supplied water (W/Wopt)

Quadratic function Adjusted decreasing branch Table function

Fig.3.14. Irrigation water-yield function (Gonçalves et al., 2005a, b).

The multicriteria analysis applies linear utility functions for benefits, costs and
environmental criteria; the weights for every criterion are user defined and
the global utility value to rank alternatives is computed by a linear weighing
method. The programme generates a large number of alternatives in
consequence of combination of design variables; however, it is very difficult
for user to view and analyzes, one by one, the existing alternatives on
database. Thus, the multicriteria analysis module has a very important role
on automatic management of large amount of data. It screens the
alternatives, removing the not satisfactory and dominated alternatives, and
selecting the most adequate one, by groups and by projects.

32
Chapter 4

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Irrigation scheduling for wheat and cotton

Two irrigation strategies have been simulated using the ISAREG model:
(i) Irrigation to maximize yields avoiding water stress except for the
end crop period: the irrigation are applied when the average soil
water content equals θ p (eq. 3.4) and the irrigation depths are
those required to refill the soil moisture to the field capacity;
(ii) deficit irrigation: irrigation schedules were simulated by
progressively lowering the threshold θMAD < θp as referred by
Pereira et al. (2003).
(iii) Computations were done by imposing restrictions on the irrigation
period and the available water for irrigation (net season irrigation
depth) and allowing a limited water stress, i.e.

The results for the simulation of wheat irrigation scheduling are presented in
Table 4.1. It was considered an application efficiency of Ea = 60%, a typical
value for Arnan experimental farm under traditional irrigation.

Table 4.1. Wheat irrigation scheduling simulations compared with the current
wheat irrigation (assuming Ea=60%)

Available Water for

Irrigation mm
Strategies Total Total Not used ETa RYD**
Jan - Mar April - June Irrigation rainfall rainfall (mm)* %
water (mm) (mm) (mm)
A Variable 71.7 200.6 272.3 289.8 134 466.6 11.4
depths &
avoid stress
B*** 100% Өp 60 240 300 289.8 122 499 4.9
C*** 70% Өp 60 180 240 289.8 124.6 444.8 15.8
D*** 45% Өp 0 180 180 289.8 90.1 408.6 23.1
Curr current 65 160 225 289.8 111 409 23
irrigation
NI Non irrigated 0 0 0 289.8 90 232 58.5

* ETm=523.6 mm;
** RYD = relative yield decrease (%) corresponding to Ky = 1.05
*** Constant net water depth In= 60 mm

33
In this table, for 2005-2006 weather conditions, the wheat water requirement
is 524 mm for no stress and maximum yield in the Ras Al Ein. Adopting
supplemental irrigation this is easy to achieve with a total rainfall 289.8 mm.
The soil water dynamics relative to alternative strategies simulated with
ISAREG and referred in Table 4.1 model are in Figs.4.1, with the current
water saving schedule in Fig. 4.1 b.
31
29
29
27
27
25
25

23 23

21 21

19
19

17
17
15
15
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101 111 121 131 141 151 161 171 181
WP(%) Soil Moisture OYT(%) FC(%)
WP(%) Soil Moist ure OYT(%) FC(%)

Figure 4.1.Simulated soil water dynamics for Alternative A and the current
water saving schedule

For the first strategy (Fig.4.1 a), not allowing stress except by the final stage
of the crop, requires 4 applications with a total net depth of 272 mm but the
relative yield decrease (RYD) is about 11.4%. Better results could be
achieved with 5 irrigations (strategy B) with constant In=60 mm, totalling 300
mm, which reduces stress by the end stage and causes only about 5% RYD.
Comparing with the current irrigation for water saving at Arnan it used 225
mm (net) producing a RYD of 23%. The difference in RYD highly relates to
the fact that applications for the latter are delayed, so inducing stress.

For the strategies with imposing restriction on the irrigation period, if 4

irrigations are applied (alternative C) it results a RYD of 15.8%, whereas with
larger stress (alternative D) RYD = 23%, i.e. the same as for the current
schedule that uses 225 mm. Large reduction of the yield, about 59%, was
obtained for the rainfed crop.

A comparison of ETa and the ETa/Etm ratio for the strategy A and for the
rainfed conditions is presented in Fig.4.2. it shows that the crop length period
is shorter for the rainfed one due to adopting early harvesting since the water
stress induces early maturation.

A summary of water consumptive use and relative yield deficits is shown in

Fig. 4.3, shoeing that yields are reducing when consumptive use decreases.

34
 10 6
9
8 5
7
4
6
5 3
4
3 2

2
1
1
0 0
1 12 23 34 45 56 67 78 89 100 111 122 133 144 155 166 177 188 1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101 111 121 131 141 151 161 171
Eta Eta/Etm Eta Eta/Etm

(a) (b)

Figure 4.2. Comparing ETa and the ETa/ETm ratio for the strategy A (a) and
for the rainfed crop (b).

350 0,7

300 0,6
irrigation depth mm

250 0,5

Yield loss
200 0,4

150 0,3

100 0,2

50 0,1

0 0
Max Y 100%Өp 70%Өp 45%Өp Present No irri
TW yield loss

Fig 4.3. Comparing the total net water applications and relative yield
reductions for the simulated strategies with the rainfed crop

Main results for the simulation of cotton irrigation scheduling are given in
Table 4.2 concerning irrigations for maximum and deficit irrigation for ӨMAD =
0.7 Өp. A fixed net irrigation depth In =80mm is adopted.

Table 4.2. Cotton irrigation schedule simulation for surface irrigation

Surface Irrigation for the cotton In= 80 mm , ETm= 922.3 mm
Irrigation water amount mm Total RYL N of the
Irrigation ETa % irrigatio
May June July Aug Sep water mm n

Max Y 109.1 163.8 299.5 243.7 94.5 910.6 922 0 11

100%
80 280 240 240 160 960 921.9 0 12
Өp
70% Өp 80 160 320 160 160 880 881.3 3.8 11

35
The total water requirement for cotton is 922 mm. In the strategy MaxY
variable depths are adopted which are close to 80 mm except for the first and
the last irrigation, with a time interval between irrigations averaging 7.6 days
(Fig.4.4). The actual evapotranspiration attains its maximum by the end of
July (Fig .4.5).

31

29

27

25

23

21

19

17

15
1 10 19 28 37 46 55 64 73 82 91 100 109 118 127 136 145 154 163 172
WP(%) Soil Moisture OYT(%) FC(%)

Fig 4.4. The simulated soil water dynamics when MAD=100% Өp and
variable irrigation depths are adopted (MaxY)

14

12

10

0
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101 111 121 131 141 151 161 171
Eta Eta/Etm

Fig 4.5. Time evolution of daily Eta, and Eta/ETm ratio during the cotton
season for the case MaxY.

For cotton the farmer applied 10 irrigation with more than 200 mm per each
one, whereas in the schedules analysed much less are required (Fig. 4.6). In
the simulations the net depth was 80 mm which corresponds to a gross depth
of 115 mm assuming an application efficiency of 70%, which is achievable as
indicated by results in Section 4.3, then avoiding water wastes as deep
percolation. Improved schedules could be selected early in the crop season,
proposed to farmers planning irrigation in advance, and then periodically

36
adjusted to the actual climate conditions. This option could lead to
appreciable water savings.

1200 0,18
0,16
1000
0,14
Irri depth mm

800 0,12

yield loss
0,1
600
0,08
400 0,06
0,04
200
0,02
0 0
Max Y 100%Өp_80 70%Өp_80 100%Өp_25 70%Өp_25
TW yield loss

Fig.4.6. Comparing consumptive water use and relative yield losses for
cotton relative to several simulated strategies

4.2. Field Irrigation Evaluations

4.2.1 Infiltration and hydraulic parameters

Main results or the infiltration parameters and the hydraulics roughness

parameter n are presented in Table 4.3. For Arnan, n varies from 0.033 m-1/3s
as an average in the first irrigation to 0.073 m-1/3 s for the second irrigation.
This variation is related to the weeding operation performed one day before
the second irrigation. For Bab Al Faraj it ranged from 0.011 m-1/3s (curve
B1.3) for long graded furrows to increase to 0.022 m-1/3s for less slope and
shorter furrows (curve B1.3).

A great variability of infiltration parameters have been observed from field

measurements based on the advance and recession times. Groups (families)
of infiltration cumulative curves (Table.4.3) were created relative to each of
the two irrigations for different sites representing low, medium and high soil
infiltration rates. The corresponding infiltration parameters were later used for
the simulations with SIRMOD to evaluate the irrigation systems performance
for each treatment, and then to use the average of each irrigation event for
design improved solutions.

The variability of the average values of the parameters k and a is small for
the 1st and 2nd irrigation in Arnan 2006. Taking curves R3.1 and R3.2 in Table
4.3 it shows that the permeability is higher for the first irrigation than for the
second one, but both curves represent medium infiltration rate soils. The
cumulated infiltration curves obtained for Arnan and Bab el Faraj are shown
in Fig.4.7 and 4.8 respectively together with others existing in the database of
SADREG.

37
Table 4.3. Infiltration and hydraulic roughness parameters observed at Arnan
and Bab Al Faraj
Area Curve n° a K m/min^a f 0 m/min n
Arnan R1.1 0.191 0.0143 0.00026 0.059
Experimental R1.2 0.071 0.028 0.000226 0.0329
farm (field E) R1.3 0.081 0.0395 0.000162 0.038
R1.4 0.279 0.0059 0.0002 0.0023
R2.1 0.1556 0.011 0.000336 0.0338
R2.2 0.1637 0.02285 0.000103 0.0875
R2.3 0.3078 0.0046 0.00024 0.097
R1 average 0.3302 0.017 0.00015 non
2005
R3.1 average 0.1175 0.0299 0.00021 0.033
st
1 irrigation
2006
R3.2 average 0.1588 0.0132 0.000225 0.0728
nd
2 irrigation
2006
R double ring 0.3223 0.011797 0 non
2006
Bab Al Faraj B1 0.3178 0.01015 0.00037 0.011
B2 0.2352 0.0163 0.00028 0.0233
B3 0.2411 0.0136 0.00013 0.0222
R2 average 0.4304 0.0071 0.0001 non
2005
R4 average 0.273 0.015 0.00026 0.0188
2006

Arnan infiltration curves 2005-2006

0,4

0,35

0,3

0,25
infiltration (m)

0,2

0,15

0,1

0,05

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
time (min)

SCS-CN field B (double ring)2006 avarage 1(R3) doubl ring 2005 avarage 2 mean 2005(R1)

Fig 4.7. Infiltration curves observed at Arnan (2005-2006) and those from the
SADREG database

38
 Bab_Al_Faraj infiltration curves 2005-2006
0,4

0,35

0,3

0,25
infiltration (m)

0,2

0,15

0,1

0,05

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

SCS-CN Avarage 2005(R2) B1.1 time (min) B1.2 B1.3 Avarage 2006

Fig 4.8. Infiltration curves observed at Bab Al Faraj (2005-2006) and those
from the SADREG database

4.2.1 Irrigation performances

Observed advance and recession times differ among treatments as a

function of discharge, furrow length and slope; these treatments were
simulated with SIRMOD model to match simulations with the observed
values in order to evaluate the application of the SIRMOD model in the field
to improve the irrigation performance and to select the appropriated solution.
For example, for the treatments B1.1 and B3.1 having the same length and
slope but different discharges 0.69 and 0.35 l/s respectively, the advance
time for the first irrigation is 130 min for B1.1 and 274 min for B3.1. The
recession time for both is nearly liner (Fig.4.9 a, b).

th adv & rec time observed and simulated one treatment B1,1 th adv & rec time observed and simulated one
300
350

250 300

250
200
Time (minutes)

time min

200
150
150
100
100

50 50

0
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Distance along the furrow (m) Distance along the furrow (m)

obs adv time simulted adv time t res obs siumlated res time simulted data observed data res observed rec simulited

(a) (b)
Fig. 4.9. Observed & simulated advance and recession times for treatments
B1.1 (a) and B3.1 (b)

39
Results in Fig. 4.9. show therefore a better performance for B1.1 than for
B3.1. because the infiltration opportunity time for the second is much small
by the end of the second than for the first. Worst results are shown in Fig
4.10 where for B1.2 recession is affected by ponding and in B3.2 where
advance is not completed.

Adv & Rec time B1.2 th adv & rec time observed and simulated one B3.2
350 450

300 400

350
250
300
time min

200

Tim e (m in
250

150
200

100 150

100
50
50
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
adv time min rec time min simulated Adv time simulted rec time
simulted data observed data res observed rec simulited

(a) (b)
Fig 4.10. Observed and simulated advance and recession time for treatment
B1.2 and B3.2

The characteristics and performances of the first irrigation for are presented
in Table.4.4 a) for long furrows (100 – 150 m) and Table 4.4 b) for short
furrows (50, 36 m) with different discharges for each length. The infiltration
depths were calculated with an infiltration function whose parameters were
obtained from advance data. To allow that the measured inflow volume be
equal to intake and runoff, the coefficient K was adjusted by a trial and error
procedure.

Table 4.4.a). Characteristics and performance of the first irrigation for long
furrows (100-150m)
Furrow length 100 m F.L 150m
Inflow rate (l/s)
~ 0.7 0.5-0.6 0.3-0.4 0.53
T. IP B1.1 B1.2 B2.2 B2.1 B3.1 B3.2 A
qin (l/s) 0.7 0.77 0.75 0.58 0.52 0.35 0.32 0.53
qout (l/s) 0.3 0 0 0 0.134 0.1 0 0.06
tco (min) 212 180 180 185 294 293 400 381.2
3
Tot V (m ) 8.9 8.32 8.06 6.4 8.59 6.15 7.7 11.73
3
Vin (m ) 7.62 8.32 8.06 6.4 8.64 5.96 7.7 11.5
Zreq (mm) 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80
D (mm) 126.7 118 115 91 131 87.9 107 114.8
Zlq(mm) 76.4 95.5 89 65.7 74.4 43 18.7 45
Zavg (mm) 106.9 118 115 91 121.2 59 107 106.3
Ea (%) 60 80.9 77.4 72.2 57 55.5 17.5 39
DU (%) 71 80.9 77.4 72.2 61.3 58.1 17.5 42.21
R1.4
Inf. Curve R1.1 Average1 Average1 Average1 R1.2 R1.3 R1.4
adopt

40
Table 4.4.b. Characteristics and performance of the first irrigation for short
furrows, 50-36m
Furrow length 50 m 36 m
F n° C1 C2 C3 D1 D2 D3
qin (l/s) 0.78 0.52 0.35 0.75 0.5 0.32
qout (l/s) 0 0 0 0 0 0
tco (min) 102 204 195 30 92 139
Total V (m3) 4.77 6.36 4.1 1.38 2.76 2.7
Vin (m3) 4.77 6.36 4.1 1.38 2.76 2.7
Zreq (mm) 80 80 80 80 80 80
D (mm) 136 181 117 55 110 106
Zlq(mm) 130 162.6 96 51 102 102
Zavg(mm) 136 181 117 55 110 106
Ea (%) 59 44 68.4 92.7 72.7 75.45
DU (%) 95.5 90 82 92.7 93 96.5
Infilt. curve Average1 Average1 Average1 Average1 Average1 Average1
Note Overirrig. Overirrig - Deficit irrig - -

In the first table are included open and diked furrow for 100m length, with
some of of them having deficit irrigation in the last quarter of the field, i.e.
Zlq < Zreq. The indicators show that diked furrows have better irrigation
performance than the open ones, with Ea and DU > 77% (Fig.4.12). Open
furrows also have runoff 18% as B1.1, and in the B2.2, B3.2 with different
discharge 0.58 and 0.32 l/s respectively, by applying less amount of the
water B2.2 than B3.2, the result indict for extremely different in the Ea and
DU 72% for B2.2 to be about 17 % in D3.2 (Fig.4.12) these Ea and DU would
be higher by increase the cutoff time but the different in the performance
between the treatment will be the same.

140 10
9
120
8
100
volume m3/furrow

7
depth mm

6
80
5
60
4

40 3
2
20
1
0 0
B1.2 B1.2 B1.1 B2.1 B2.2 B3.2 B3.1
Zr mm D mm Zlq Zavg Total V

Figure 4.11.The characteristics of the first irrigation for furrows 100 m long.

41
 90
80
70
60
50
%
40
30
20
10
0
B1.2 B1.2 B1.1 B2.1 B2.2 B3.2 B3.1
Ea DU

Figure 4.12.The performance of the first irrigation for furrows 100 m long.
As for the characteristics in Table.4.4 b, the treatments C1 and C2 were
over-irrigated with water logging at the end of the furrow. D1 was in deficit
irrigation, so Zavg < Zreq, due to the large discharge and short length even
thought it has the highest Ea and DU but with storage efficiency < 70%.
The table indicates that treatments D2 and D3 have about the same result
(Table.4.4 b) with higher application time in D3, 139 min, compared with D2,
92 min. When comparing the treatments B3.2, D3, and C3 (Fig.4.13), which
have different lengths, respectively 100, 50 and 36 m and about the same q
of 0.32-0.35 l/s, where nearly the same water amount and application times
per unit distance was applied, the poorest irrigation performance is for B3.2,
and D3 has very high Ea and DU > 96%.

140 120

120
100

100
80
%

80
mm

60
60
40
40

20
20

0 0
B3.2 C3 D3
Zr mm D mm Zlq Ea DU

Figure 4.13.the characteristics and the performance indicators for B3.2, C3,
D3.

42
The characteristics and performances of the second irrigation for 100m, and
alternate furrow F for 89 m are shown in Table.4.5. The Table.4.5 shows that
treatment E1, with the same length as E3 but high discharge and small tco,
has the best performance, much better than F (alternate furrows). Treatment
E3 with q=0.37 l/s has also good Ea and DU but Zavg > Zreq because it uses a
higher water amount.

Table.4.5.Characteristics and performance of the second irrigation and

traditional irrigation (zigzag basin) for the first irrigation
Furrow length 100 m, FS=0.7m 89 m, FS=1.4m Zigzag basin L=265,
st
FS=0.9m(1 irri)
F n° E1 E3 F A0
qin 0.74 0.37 0.36 4.78
qout 0 0 0 0
tco 124 400 527 214
Total V 5.51 8.83 11.4 63.56
Vin 5.51 8.83 11.4 63.56
Zreq mm 80 80 80 150
D mm 79 126 91 260
Zlq 60 93.3 19 198
Zavg 79 126 91 260
Ea 76 63.5 21 58
DU 76 74.1 21 75.3
Inf. Curve R2.1 R2.2 R2.3 Rz

Characteristics of E1 are shown in Fig.4.14 and refer to observations (a) and

to simulations when using advance and recession or advance data only (b).
results show that much better simulation results are obtained advance and
recession data are used, which allows to take into consideration the
irregularity of the slope.

The case for the traditional zigzag furrow within a basin 50 m long and 5 m
wide where it was applied a large inflow rate of 4.78 l/s provided a good
advance time; the farmer was looking for 150 mm required depth. With this
application the system produced very high deep percolation and Ea < 60%
(Fig.4.15); the infiltrated depth is 300mm at the upstream end, which denotes
a very much non-uniform condition and a cause for low application efficiency.

43
 250

200

150
Time (min)

100

50

0
depth mm

0 20 40 60 80 100
-50

-100

-150
Advance time rec time min infilatrated depth required depth
a)
400

300
time min

200

100

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
depth mm

-100

-200
adv time min rec time min simulated Adv time simulted rec time

simu infli depth requier depth mm simu Z

b)
Figure 4.14 Furrow E1, second irrigation: a) Observed advance and
recession time, and required and infiltrated depths; b) simulated advance and
recession time, and infiltrated depth considering advance and recession or
only advance data

400

300
Tim e (m inutes )

200

100

0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300
-100
depth m m

-200

-300

-400
Zigzag length (m)
adv_time(min) rec_time(min) Zapplied Zreq

Figure 4.15. The advance and recession time, and required and infiltrated
depths for the zigzag furrow

44
The irrigation in Bab Al Faraj was evaluated in several locations having
different lengths and slopes. The discharge is controlled by the water head in
the supply ditch and the diameter of the pipes. The actual performance is
shown in Table 4.6. Cutoff is applied when the advance time is complete, so
because furrows are very long it is also much longer than usual. Discharges
are also high. Treatments with small discharge have higher Ea and DU
(Figure 4.16).

Table 4.6.Characteristics and performance in Bab Al Faraj

Furrow length L= 224 m, FS=0.7m 90 m, FS=0.7m 100 m, FS=0.7m
Slope=1.9% Slope=0.97% Slope=0.7%
F n° G H I
qin 1.3 0.52 0.36
tco 411 347 268
Total V 33.2 11.45 5.9
Vin 33.2 11.45 5.9
Zreq mm 100 100 100
D mm 205 170 84
Zlq 63 60.4 57.6
Zavg 205 170 84
Ea 31.1 35.5 68.5
DU 31.1 35.5 68.5
Infilt. Curve B1 B1 B1

250 80

70
200
60

50
depth mm

150
40
%

100 30

20
50
10

0 0
G H L
Zr mm D mm Zlq Ea

Figure 4.16. Characteristics and performance for Bab Al Faraj irrigations

This would be explain better by the simulation with SIRMOD model that was
done for 100 m length, zero and 0.01 m/m slope and different inflow rates
(0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 l/s) using the average infiltration parameters of the R2
curve (Fig.4.17). For the slope 0.01m/m it is difficult to apply > 0.6 l/s that has

45
better Ea and DU than with 0.4 l/s with less amount of water. For zero slope,
as the inflow rate increases until 1.2 l/s Ea also increases with gradually less
water application.

90 16

80 14

70
12

60
10 Ea S0
50
8 Ea S 0,01
40
6 TW S 0
30
TW S 0,01
4
20

10 2

0 0
0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2

Figure 4.17. Simulated characteristics and application efficiency for 100 m in

Bab Al Faraj for 0.01 m/m and zero slope as a function of the inflow rate.

Water saving may be achieved when irrigation performances such as the

distribution uniformity (DU) and the application efficiency (Ea) are improved.
DU and Ea depend upon a large number of factors such as the unit inflow
rate, the hydraulics roughness, the intake characteristics of the soil, the
cross-sectional characteristics of the furrow, cut off time and the longitudinal
slope of the furrows. In addition, Ea depends on the soil water deficit at time
of irrigation (Pereira, 1999; Pereira and Trout, 1999). However, attention
must be given to land levelling conditions since these play a major role for
achieving uniform (Pereira et al., 2002b). Therefore, the factors by which a
farmer may manage a system in order to improve the distribution uniformity
and the application efficiency may be expressed by simplified functional
relationships (Pereira and Trout, 1999) such as:

DU = f (qin , tco )

Ea = f (qin , t co , SMD )

For the actual zigzag furrow irrigation system, the available discharge is
divided into several strips that are irrigated simultaneously; the discharge
flowing in each strip is generally small, approaching 5 l/s. Because the land is
not leveled and the soils intake rate is low, the crop beds are made across
the width, thus obliging the water to follow a zigzag that slows down the
velocity and produces more time for infiltration, Irrigation cutoff is practiced
when the water arrives to the downstream end or to some 5-10m of it. The
system does not require intensive labour but only little manpower to deliver
the water into the strip basins, and later to cut it off and start the irrigation of

46
the next basin/border set by Pereira (2006). The system with small and large
discharge has low Ea and DU, wasting quite amount of the water as deep
percolation; it may be improved by reducing the basin size or adopting a new
approach to the basin or border with regular geometry and well levelled lands
(Pereira, 2006).

Based from the experiments and the simulation above, for Arnan it is
recommended to have diked furrowed basins with 100 m length and not more
than 0.75 l/s inflow rate for the first irrigation and between 0.6 and 0.4l/s for
the second irrigation. For Bab Al Faraj, because long furrows have very low
efficiency and some part of the field is water logged due to the irregularity of
the slope, based on favourable Ea and DU results for less long fields, it is
advisable to adopt 100 m length and relative small discharge up to 1.0 l/s.

4.3 Alternatives for improving surface irrigation. SADREG application

4.3.1 Projects: build up improved irrigation scenarios

The projects considered improving surface irrigation in are described in Table

4.7 and were built using the information obtained from field observations and
model analysis described in the preceding sections. Different irrigation
methods are compared: for cotton, graded furrows (P1) and graded borders
(P2) are considered, and for wheat, in addition to graded borders (P3) also
zero-level furrowed and flat basins (P4 and P5) are studied. For all projects
(P1 to P5) improved land preparation techniques are considered, including a
frequent land smoothing operation, according to the irrigation method.

Table 4.7 - Project characteristics for improved systems

project method crop soil surface condition Zreq Nbr.
(mm) irrigations
P1 graded furrow cotton furrows, with 0.70 m 80 12
spacing
P2 graded border cotton flat soil surface 80 12
P3 graded border wheat flat soil surface 60 5
P4 level furrowed wheat furrows, with 1.0 m spacing 60 5
basin
P5 level flat basin wheat flat soil surface 60 5

The projects were applied in several irrigated fields, defined according the
typical characteristics of Ras El Ain area, namely the dimensions, the
topography and the soil intake and water storage characteristics. The
workspaces considered and the correspondent projects are described in
Table 4.8. It is assumed that the actual field slopes are kept when an
improved scenario is considered for that field; thus, no slope changes are
required but only land smoothing to produce an uniform slope. This
assumption allow the comparison of several alternative projects without

47
including land leveling costs, which would be very significant, but only land
smoothing costs.

Table 4.8 - Workspaces characteristics and applied projects

Length Slope=0 Slope=0.5% Slope=0.8% Slope=1.0% Slope=1.5%
L=50m w1.0 w1.1 w1.2 w1.3 w1.4
Arnan Arnan Arnan Bab Al Faraj Bab Al Faraj
P4, P5 P1,P2,P3 P1,P2,P3 P1 P1
L=100m w2.0 w2.1 w2.2 w2.3 w2.4
Arnan Arnan Arnan Bab Al Faraj Bab Al Faraj
P4, P5 P1, P2,P3 P1, P2,P3 P1 P1
L=150m w3.3 w3.4
Bab Al Faraj Bab Al Faraj
P1 P1
L=200m w4.3 w4.4
Bab Al Faraj Bab Al Faraj
P1 P1
Note: w is for identification of workspaces and P for projects

The workspaces (w) in Table 4.8 allow the analysis of the following factors:
(i) The field length (50 and 100m) for level basins for wheat, in Arnan
area;
(ii) the longitudinal slope (0.5 and 0.8%) for graded furrows and
graded borders, for cotton and wheat, in Arnan area;
(iii) the field length (from 50 to 200m) for graded furrows, in cotton
irrigation, for Bab Al Faraj area,
(iv) the longitudinal slope (1 and 1.5%) for graded furrows in cotton
irrigation, for Bab Al Faraj area.

The input data were obtained from field observations and published data
relative to other study cases. The Infiltration curves used were obtained from
those analyzed in the precedent Section 4.2 and were obtained with the
double ring infiltrometer and with furrow and basin observations of advance
and recession, and parameters were optimized through using SIRMOD with
the reverse method, i.e. comparing the advance and recession curves
simulated with those observed in the field. (Katopodes et al., 1990; Calejo et
al., 1998). Thus, the average infiltration curve for Arnan, called raselain3, is

Z = 0.0229 ⋅ τ 0.1175 + 0.00021 ⋅ τ

and for Bab Al Faraj, called raselain2, is

Z = 0.0071 ⋅ τ 0.4304 + 0.00010 ⋅ τ .

where units for Z are m3/m and for τ are min.

The Figure 4.18 shows the input form relative to field forms, including the
size, slopes and infiltration curves. The Figure 4.19 refers to crop input data,
for cotton and wheat. It shows that a soil-water yield function was applied as

48
described in last item of Section 3. The Figure 4.20 refers to the unitary cost
sand financial data. The tasks duration data, for manpower calculation and
for land levelling maintenance are presented in Figure 4.21.

a)

b)
Figure 4.18 – SADREG window for field size, slopes (a) and infiltration
curves (b)

49
Figure 4.19 – SADREG window for input of used crop data on cotton and wheat

Figure 4.20 – SADREG window showing the used unitary cost and financial
data

50
 a)

b)
Figure 4.21 - Tasks duration data; a) irrigation; b) land leveling maintenance

4.3.2 Alternatives, selection and ranking

Each project, for any applied workspace, produces a set of alternatives,

which are organized by groups relative to the different farm water distribution
equipments and tail end management options previously considered. Table
4.9 shows an alternative layout, with a detailed description of alternative
characteristics and attributes. Figure 4.22 shows the "tree" structure to
access alternatives’ data.

51
Table 4.9 - Example of a project alternative layout
ALTERNATIVE IDENTIFICATION
number workspace project group Nr.sub-units
7 w2.1 P3 3 9
DELIVERY DATA
number_outlets outlet (lps) number_field_splitsoutlet_head(m)
1 10 1 1
irrigation_event Nr.sub-units app_time(full length)
App_eff. DeepPerc. Runoff
1 9 82.4 67.2 4.7 28.1
2 9 82.4 67.2 4.7 28.1
3 9 82.4 67.2 4.7 28.1
4 9 82.4 67.2 4.7 28.1
5 9 82.4 67.2 4.7 28.1
PERFORMANCE ATTRIBUTES
TWU (m^3/ha) LP (kg/ha) LEP (EUR/ha) WP (kg/m^3) WEP (EUR/m^3) BW (ratio) Y/TIC (ratio)
TIC/TWU (EUR/m^3)FIC/TWU (EUR/m^3)
VIC/TWU (EUR/m^3)
4448.48 5499.98 1188 1.23637 0.267057 0.672 3.43472 0.0777522 0.00862779 0.0691244
IRRIGATION METHOD
Supply Side irrigat.Method Inflow Regime Tail end manag.
X graded border continuous open,without reuse
FIELD UNIT CHARACTERISTICS
Unit Length (m) Unit Width (m) Longit.Slope (%) Cross Slope (%) furrow Spacing (m)
100 50 0.5 0 1
LAND LEVELLING
volumes operated(m^3) avg.cut(cm) avg.fill (cm) max.cut (cm) max.fill (cm) initial operation (h) maintenance (h)Initial (EUR) Maintenace(EUR)
0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 0 55.055
IRRIGATION SUB-UNIT DATA
irrigat.event Nr.sub-units inflow (lps/m) Field Appl. volume (m^3)
sub-unit width (m) manpower duration(h)
1 9 1.80 444.8 5.6 12.8
2 9 1.80 444.8 5.6 12.4
3 9 1.80 444.8 5.6 12.4
4 9 1.80 444.8 5.6 12.4
5 9 1.80 444.8 5.6 12.4
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (%)
irrigat.event App.Effic. DeepPerc. Runoff Dist.Unif.
1 67.2 4.7 28.1 93.4
2 67.2 4.7 28.1 93.4
3 67.2 4.7 28.1 93.4
4 67.2 4.7 28.1 93.4
5 67.2 4.7 28.1 93.4
IRRIGATION TIMES (min)
irrigat.event adv[1/4] adv[2/4] adv[3/4] adv[4/4] cutoff rec[1/4] rec[2/4] rec[3/4] rec[4/4]
1 12.4 28.6 47.2 68.2 82.3792 102.4 117.1 123.4 136.5
2 12.4 28.6 47.2 68.2 82.3792 102.4 117.1 123.4 136.5
3 12.4 28.6 47.2 68.2 82.3792 102.4 117.1 123.4 136.5
4 12.4 28.6 47.2 68.2 82.3792 102.4 117.1 123.4 136.5
5 12.4 28.6 47.2 68.2 82.3792 102.4 117.1 123.4 136.5
INFILTRATED DEPTHS (mm)
irrigat. events target depth (mm)Appl.Depth (mm) ARZS (mm) Z[0] Z[1/4] Z[2/4] Z[3/4] Z[4/4]
1 60 88.9695 59.7875 65.3 66.3 65.8 61.3 58.3
2 60 88.9695 59.7875 65.3 66.3 65.8 61.3 58.3
3 60 88.9695 59.7875 65.3 66.3 65.8 61.3 58.3
4 60 88.9695 59.7875 65.3 66.3 65.8 61.3 58.3
5 60 88.9695 59.7875 65.3 66.3 65.8 61.3 58.3
FIELD DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
Supply systemType
PVC gated pipe 160mm
FIELD REUSE SYSTEM
pumping reuse (m^3) pumping Cost (EUR)
0 0
INVESTMENT COST (present worth, EUR/field)
InitialDistribution
land levelingsystem (including 10% for equipment maintenance and repair)
0 141.5
ANNUAL COST (EUR/field/year)
Maintenance land leveling Water Labor Investment Operation Total
55.055 48.9332 49.7608 19.1903 153.749 172.939

52
Figure 4.22 – SADREG Window showing the tree to explore alternatives

The criteria applied for selection of alternatives are presented in Table 4.10.
The weights assigned to the various attributes in this Table represent a
balance on priorities for water saving, minimizing costs and maximizing
economical benefits.

Table 4.10 - Criteria and weights for alternative selection

Criteria Attributes Weights
Land Economic 15
Produtivity
Benefits Water Produtivity 15
Water Economic 15
Produtivity
Beneficial Water Use 15
ratio
Cost Fixed Cost per Water 10
Use
Variable Cost per Water 10
Use
Environmental impacts Total Water Use 20

4.3.3 Projects comparison and discussion

The alternatives produced for each project were ranked from multicriteria
analysis, and the best alternative for each project was adopted to represent
that project for comparison purposes. The utility concept is an integrative

53
score that expresses its global worth and is used to rank the alternatives and
the groups. The utility values allow the project comparison, when they apply
to the same crop. It must be clear that the cropping costs relative to non-
irrigation operations are not considered in this analysis because they are
invariant, the same, for all projects under comparison. A deeper analysis to
compare the different projects is based on the performance indicators shown
in Table 4.11.

Table 4.11 - Indicators applied for projects’ comparison

Indicator symbol unit
Total water use TWU m3/ha
Water productivity WP kg/m3
Beneficial water use BWU ratio
Yield/total irrigation cost Y/TIC ratio
Total irrigation cost / total water use TIC/TWU EUR/m3
Irrigation operation cost IOC EUR/ha

The cotton irrigation utility analysis relative to Arnan (Figure 4.23) let
conclude that furrow irrigation systems are quite sensitive to slope (0.5 and
0.8%) and length (50 and 100m) and that these two factors are inter-
dependent: when the slope increases the length must also increase.
Contrarily, for Bab Al Faraj (Figure 4.24), for furrow slopes 1.0% to 1.5%, we
conclude that furrow lengths do not influence significantly the system utility.
The graded border irrigation for cotton at Arnan has an utility close to furrow
systems; the best results are obtained with a length of 50m and a slope of
0.5%, or a length of 100m and a slope of 0.8% (Figure 4.23). This result is
very important because border irrigation enlarges the framework for improved
surface irrigation solutions and allows a system for cotton compatible with
wheat irrigation (Figure 4.25) relative to land preparation. Note that in this
analysis changing the actual field slopes was not considered but this cannot
be ignored when the system design takes place in a particular farmer field.

54
 1

0.95

0.9

0.85
0.75
0.8

0.68
0.75 0.71
0.75
0.68
0.7
0.72
0.65 0.68

0.6 0.67

0.55

0.5 L=100m

furrows S=0.5%
L=50m
furrows S=0.8%
border S=0.5%
border S=0.8%

Figure 4.23 Utilities of cotton irrigation projects, in Arnan

1

0.95

0.9

0.85

0.8

0.75 0.67
0.67 0.68
0.68
0.7

0.65 0.67
0.67 0.68
0.68
0.6

0.55

0.5 S=1.5%

L=50m
L=100m S=1.0%
L=150m
L=200m

Figure 4.24 Utilities of cotton irrigation projects, in Bab Al Faraj

55
 1

0.95
0.88

0.9
0.88
0.85

0.8
0.74
0.75 0.77 0.68 0.80 0.81 0.75

0.7

0.65

0.6

0.55

0.5 L=100m

Level furrowed
L=50m
basin Level flat basin
graded border
S=0.5% graded border
S=0.8%

Figure 4.25 Utilities of wheat irrigation projects, in Arnan

The indicators for graded furrows and borders for cotton irrigation in Arnan
(Figure 4.26) let to conclude that the projects applied allow achieving
acceptable scores on beneficial water use and irrigation cost indicators, thus
becoming potential solutions to improve Ras El Ain surface irrigation
systems. Higher performances are obtained when furrows or borders have a
combination slope/length of 0.5% - 50m or 0.8% - 100m. The operative cost
of border system is higher than furrows due to a major requirement of land
smoothing operation. An additional cost would be considered for border
systems if it would be necessary to adjust the cross-land slope to zero
through land leveling operation.

56
 TOTAL WATER USE (m3/ha) WATER PRODUCTIVITY (kg/m3)

16000 0.6

14000
0.5

12000

0.4
10000

8000 0.3

6000
0.2

4000
0.1
2000

0 L=100m
0 L=100m
furrows S=0.5%
furrows S=0.5% L=50m
L=50m furrows S=0.8%
furrows S=0.8%
border S=0.5%
border S=0.5%
border S=0.8%
border S=0.8%

Beneficial water ratio Yield / Total irrigation cost (ratio)

0.9 5

0.8 4.5

4
0.7
3.5
0.6
3
0.5
2.5
0.4
2

0.3
1.5

0.2 1

0.1 0.5

L=100m 0 L=100m
0

furrows S=0.5% furrows S=0.5%

L=50m L=50m
furrows S=0.8% furrows S=0.8%
border S=0.5% border S=0.5%
border S=0.8% border S=0.8%

Total irrigation cost / Total water use (EUR/m3) Irrigation Operation cost (EUR/ha)

0.07 800

0.06 700

600
0.05

500
0.04

400
0.03
300

0.02
200

0.01
100

0 L=100m 0 L=100m

furrows S=0.5% furrows S=0.5%

furrows S=0.8% L=50m L=50m
furrows S=0.8%
border S=0.5% border S=0.5%
border S=0.8% border S=0.8%

Figure 4.26 – Performance indicators for graded furrows and borders for
cotton irrigation in Arnan

For Bab Al Faraj, results in Figure 4.27 allow to conclude that for long furrows
(150-200m) the system performance increases when reducing the total water
use and global costs. On other hand, results are not sensitive to the slope in

57
 the range 1.0-1.5%. However long furrows would require a high investment
on land leveling but are highly compatible with crop mechanization.

Total water use (m3/ha) Water productivity (kg/m3)

14400 0.44

14300
0.435
14200

14100
0.43
14000

13900 0.425

13800
0.42
13700

13600
0.415
13500

13400 S=1.5% 0.41 S=1.5%

L=50m L=50m
L=100m S=1.0% L=100m S=1.0%
L=150m L=150m
L=200m L=200m

Beneficial water use ratio Yield / total irrigation cost (ratio)

0.695 4.3

0.69
4.2
0.685
4.1
0.68
4
0.675

0.67 3.9

0.665
3.8
0.66
3.7
0.655

0.65 3.6

0.645 S=1.5% 3.5 S=1.5%

L=50m L=50m
L=100m S=1.0% S=1.0%
L=100m
L=150m L=150m
L=200m L=200m

Total irrigation cost / total water use (EUR/m3) Irrigation operation cost (EUR/ha)

0.049 620

0.048 615

610
0.047

605
0.046
600
0.045
595

0.044
590

0.043 585

0.042 S=1.5% 580 S=1.5%

L=50m L=50m
L=100m S=1.0% L=100m S=1.0%
L=150m L=150m
L=200m L=200m

Figure 4.27 - Performance indicators for graded furrows for cotton irrigation in
Bab Al Faraj

58
 The indicators in Figure 4.28 let know that the furrowed level basins produce
the best beneficial water use ratio and the best water productivity but the
graded borders have a lower irrigation cost. The flat level basins have the
worst performances, however it is also an acceptable solution. It requires
more land smoothing cost but tillage practices are easier as it does not
require furrows.

Total water use (m3/ha) Water productivity (kg/m3)

6000 2

1.8
5000
1.6

4000 1.4

1.2

3000
1

0.8
2000
0.6

1000 0.4

0.2
0 L=100m
0 L=100m
Level furrowed
L=50m Level furrowed
basin Level flat basin L=50m
graded border basin Level flat basin
S=0.5% graded border graded border
S=0.8% S=0.5% graded border
S=0.8%

Water Beneficial ratio Yield / total irrigation cost (ratio)

1 3.5

0.9
3
0.8

0.7 2.5

0.6
2
0.5

0.4 1.5

0.3
1
0.2

0.1 0.5

0 L=100m
0 L=100m
Level furrowed
L=50m Level furrowed
basin Level flat basin L=50m
graded border basin Level flat basin
S=0.5% graded border graded border
S=0.8% S=0.5% graded border
S=0.8%

Total irrigation cost / total water use (EUR/m3) Irrigation operation cost (EUR/ha)

0.16 0.16

0.14 0.14

0.12 0.12

0.1 0.1

0.08 0.08

0.06 0.06

0.04
0.04

0.02
0.02

0 L=100m
0 L=100m
Level furrowed
Level furrowed L=50m
L=50m basin Level flat basin
basin Level flat basin graded border
graded border S=0.5% graded border
S=0.5% graded border S=0.8%
S=0.8%

Figure 4.28 – Performances of basin and borders for wheat irrigation, Arnan

59
The wheat irrigation utility analysis for Arnan (Figure 4.25) let conclude that
level furrowed basins show the best performance, while the level flat basin
has the worst result. Border irrigation, with 0.5 and 0.8% slope, shows an
interesting option, in particular for sloped fields, requiring a minimum land
leveling impact.

4.3.4 Conclusive remarks

The SADREG application demonstrates the usefulness of this DSS tool to

support the planning and design process of surface irrigation improvement. It
creates a friendly framework to build up improved irrigation scenarios,
considering the main factors that determine the system performance, and
decision-making selection of designed alternatives by application of
multicriteria methodology.

The DSS integrates different sources of knowledge applied to prepare the

input data, to build up the projects and to evaluate and alternative selection.
The parameterization of infiltration was carried out based on field
observations and optimization with SIRMOD model, which allows the
confidence on DSS results. However, a deeper survey of Ras El Ain soil
characteristics, including more observation sites and a sensitivity analysis for
infiltration data, is determinant to have results that are more consistent at a
large scale (regional level).

Regarding cotton irrigation in Arnan, results show that furrow and border
irrigation have high potential for improvement because they achieve good
beneficial water use ratio and acceptable irrigation costs. Furthermore, in
Bab Al Faraj the long graded furrow systems reveal a high potential to
improve irrigation performance in sloped areas. Wheat irrigation in Arnan has
several feasible options, having the level furrowed basin the best
performance for flat fields and the graded borders for sloping fields, being
also the flat level basin an acceptable solution.

A further DSS application would contribute to a deeper knowledge about the

surface irrigation in Ras El Ain relative to land leveling requirements to
prepare the fields for improved surface irrigation, the conditions to field water
supply, relatively to discharge, head and unitary cost, and the evaluation of
the economical feasibility of water runoff reuse techniques.

60
5. Conclusions
From the irrigation scheduling study for wheat and cotton applying the
ISAREG model and observed field data, it could be concluded that the
farmers apply less appropriate schedules:
(i) for cotton, they use excessive gross irrigation depths (160-200mm) much
above the soil water deficits at time of irrigation, thus leading to high
percolation; and
(ii) for wheat, they apply excessive water in the first irrigation and delay the
second and third applications causing crop water stress.

Therefore, the following schedules may be considered obtained:

(i) to maximize yields, 5 irrigation events of 60 mm (net irrigation depths,
NID) for wheat and 12 irrigation events for cotton with NID = 80 mm;
(ii) for deficit irrigation, allowing 30% depletion below the soil water threshold
θp for no stress, i.e. assuming θMAD = 70% θp, 4 irrigation events of NID =
60 mm for wheat and 11 irrigation events for cotton with NID = 80 mm;
and
(iii) for wheat, in case of high deficit irrigation, θMAD = 45% θp , thus 3
irrigation events of NID = 60 mm.

To better base improvements in irrigation scheduling advice it is required that

further characterization of soil water properties be performed in the next
future which could improved the adherence of model use to farming
practices.

The traditional zigzag furrowed basins were studied and it was concluded
that it is a method that allows the farmer to better manage the water
overcoming problems resulting from the irregularity of the slope and the lower
permeability of the soil; however the distribution uniformity and application
efficiency are low, labour consume is high, and it poses limits to
mechanization.

Several field evaluations provided for assessing the performance of furrow

irrigation with different slopes and lengths for the first and second irrigation,
including open and blocked furrows and over- and deficit irrigation. A variety
of results were obtained showing the need for adopting improved design
tools. Field evaluations produced data for parameterizing the models.

Infiltration tests with the double ring infiltrometer and with furrow and basin
observations of advance and recession led to define average infiltration
curves for Arnan and Bab Al Faraj. The respective parameters have been
selected using SIRMOD model in the reverse mode to optimize the matching
of observed and simulate advance and recession curves. This allowed
adequate parameterization for further using the DSS SADREG for design
and ranking of alternative solutions for surface irrigation improvement.

The SADREG application demonstrates the usefulness of this DSS tool to

support the planning and design process of surface irrigation improvement. It

61
creates a friendly framework to build up improved irrigation scenarios,
considering the main factors that determine the system performance and for
decision-making selection of design alternatives by application of multicriteria
methodology.

Relative to cotton irrigation in Arnan, results show that furrow and border
irrigation have high potential for improvement because they achieve good
beneficial water use ratio and acceptable irrigation costs. The best results
were obtained for the combinations slope - length of 0.5% - 50m and 0.8% -
100m. For cotton at Bab Al Faraj, the furrow irrigation performance is very
sensitive to furrow length, with the best result with 150-200m and a not
significant influence from slope 1.0 - 1.5% assuming adequate land
smoothing conditions.

For wheat irrigation in Arnan it was concluded that several options are
feasible, with the level furrowed basin as the best performing system for flat
fields, and the graded borders, with 0.5 and 0.8% slope, for sloping fields.
The furrowed level basin gets the best beneficial water use ratio and the best
water productivity and the graded border has the lower irrigation cost. The
flat level basin is also an acceptable solution.

A further DSS application would contribute to a deeper knowledge about the

surface irrigation in Ras El Ain relative to the following aspects: (i) land
leveling economic and environmental impacts, when changing field slopes is
required to apply an improved irrigation method, studying its impact, in
relation with actual topographic characteristics of fields; (ii) the water supply
conditions to the field, in particular the upstream discharge and head, to
determine the best condition to design the distribution system and to plan the
labor requirements for irrigation; and (iii) the evaluation of the economical
feasibility of water runoff reuse techniques, by field upstream pumping or by
gravity to other fields.

62
References

Allen R.G., Pereira L.S., Raes D., and Smith M. (1998) Crop Evapotranspiration. Guidelines
for Computing Crop Water Requirements. FAO Irrig. and Drain. Paper Nº56, FAO, Rome,
Bielorai, H. and Shimshi, D. (1963). The effect of various moisture regimes on water
requirements and yields of cotton (in Hebrew). Ktavim 13:223-231.
Bruce, R.R. and Shipp, C.D. (1962). Cotton fruiting as affected by soil moisture regime.
Agron. J. 54:15-18.
Calejo, M.J., Sousa, P.L., Pereira, L.S., 1998. Evaluation of performance of surface irrigation
systems: optimisation of infiltration and roughness parameters. In: Pereira, L.S., Gowing,
J.W. (Eds.), Water and the Environment: Innovation Issues in Irrigation and Drainage (1st
Inter-Regional Conference on Environment–Water, Lisbon). E&FN Spon, London, pp.
140–148.
Calejo, M.J., Sousa, P.L., Pereira, L.S., 1998. Evaluation of performance of surface irrigation
systems: optimisation of infiltration and roughness parameters. In: Pereira, L.S., Gowing,
J.W. (Eds.), Water and the Environment: Innovation Issues in Irrigation and Drainage (1st
Inter-Regional Conference on Environment–Water, Lisbon). E&FN Spon, London, pp.
140–148.
Сholpankulov E. D., O. P. Inchenkova, P. Paredes, L. S. Pereira, 2005. Testing the irrigation
scheduling simulation model ISAREG for cotton and winter wheat in Central Asia. In: L.S.
Pereira, V.A. Dukhovny, M.G. Horst (eds.). Irrigation Management for Combating
Desertification in the Aral Sea basin. Assessment and Tools. Vita Color Publ., Tashkent,
pp. 97-124.
Engineering Economic Organisation 1984, Sofia – Bulgaria Irrigation Project of Khabor River
Catchment Basin. Stage two,.Irrigation with ground water from the Eocene Aquifer.
Irrigation Ministry Department of The Land Reclamation.
Gonçalves, J.M., Pereira, L.S., 1999. Design of sustainable on-farm surface irrigation
systems with a decision support system. In: Musy, A., Pereira, L.S., Fritsch, M. (Eds.)
Emerging Technologies for Sustainable Land Use and Water Management, Presses
Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes, Lausanne: CD-ROM Paper 8.10.
Gonçalves JM, Pereira LS, Fang SX, Fabião MS, Campos AA, Mao Z, Paredes P, 2001. A
computer package for simulation and decision-making on surface irrigation improvements
for water savings. In: Zazueta FS and Xin JN (eds.) World Congress on Computers in
Agriculture and Natural Resources (Foz do Iguaçu, Brasil), ASAE, St. Joseph, MI, pp.
835-842.
Gonçalves J.M., Pereira L.S., Campos A.A., Fabião M.S., Li Y.N., Liu Y., Cai L.G., 2004.
Demand and delivery simulation and multicriteria analysis for water saving in the lower
Yellow River basin. In: GH Huang, LS Pereira (eds.) Land and Water Management:
Decision Tools and Practices (Proc. 7th Inter-Regional Conf. Environment and Water,
Beijing, Oct. 2004). China Agriculture Press, Beijing, Vol. 1, pp. 275-289.
Gonçalves J.M., Horst M.G., Pereira L.S., Rolim J., Muga A., 2005a. SADREG, a DSS for
Improving Surface Irrigation Systems. In: J. Boaventura Cunha and R. Morais (Eds.)
Proceedings of the EFITA/WCCA 2005 Joint Conference on Information Technologies in
Agriculture, Food and Environment and Computers in Agriculture and Natural Resources
rd
(5th EFITA Conference and 3 WCCA, Vila Real), Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e
Alto Douro, Vila Real, CD-ROM, pp. 160-165.
Gonçalves J. M., Horst M., Muga A., Rolim J., L.S. Pereira, 2005b. Impacts of soil infiltration
on alternative furrow irrigation scenarios and performance using the DSS SADREG. In: A.
Hamdy (ed.) Water, Land and Food Security in the Arid and Semi-Arid Regions (Proc. Int.
Conf. CIHEAM/MAIBari, September 6 – 11, 2005), IAM, Bari, CD-ROM.
Gonçalves J. M., Muga A., Pereira L. S., Rolim J., Horst M. G., 2006a. SADREG, a client-
server application DSS for design and management of surface irrigation. In: F. Zazueta,
J. Xin, S. Ninomiya, G. Schiefer (eds.) Computers in Agriculture and Natural Resources
th
(4 World Congress, Orlando, FL), ASABE, St. Joseph, MI, pp. 427-432.
Gonçalves J. M., A. Muga, L. S. Pereira, J. Rolim, M. G. Horst. 2006b. SADREG, a DSS for
design and management of farm surface irrigation systems. In: Proceedings of "2006

63
 World Congress of CIGR: Agricultural Engineering for a Better World", 4-7 September,
Bonn.
Grimes, D.W., Miller, R.J. and Dickens, L. (1970). Water stress during flowering of cotton.
Calif. Agric. 24:4-6.
Horst M.G., Shamutalov Sh.S., Pereira L.S., Gonçalves J.M., 2005. Field assessment of the
water saving potential with furrow irrigation in Fergana, Aral Sea Basin. Agric. Water
Manage. 77: 210-231.
Humpherys.A.S., Trout J.J and English M J.(1987) “Automation of border and basin” In
Irrigation System for 21st centery. Proceeding of a conference by the Irrigation &
Drainage Division of ASCE potland Oregon 293-301.
ISED, 1989. Surface Irrigation Simulation Software. User’s Guide. Irrigation Software
Engineering Div., Dep Agricultural and Irrigation Eng, Utah State Univ., Logan, USA.
Katopodes, N. D., J. H. Tang and A. J. Clemmens. 1990. Estimation of surface irrigation
parameters. J. Irrig. Drain. Engng., 116(5): 676-696.
Katopodes, N.D., Tang, J.H., Clemmens, A.J., 1990. Estimation of surface irrigation
parameters. J. Irrig. Drain.Eng. 116 (5), 676–696.
Liu Y., Pereira L. S., Fernando R. M., 2006. Fluxes through the bottom boundary of the root
zone in silty soils: Parametric approaches to estimate groundwater contribution and
percolation Agric. Water Manage. 84: 27-40.
Merriam, J.L., Keller, J., 1978. Farm Irrigation System Evaluation: AGuide for Management.
Utah St. University,Logan.
Namken, L.N. (1964). The influence of crop environment on internal water balance of cotton.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 28:12-15.
Oweis, T., P.N. Rodrigues, L.S. Pereira, 2003. Simulation of supplemental irrigation
strategies for wheat in Near East to cope with water scarcity. In: G. Rossi, A. Cancelliere,
L. S. Pereira, T. Oweis, M. Shatanawi, A. Zairi (Eds.) Tools for Drought Mitigation in
Mediterranean Regions. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 259-272.
Paredes P., E.D. Сholpankulov, O.P. Inchenkova, L.S. Pereira, 2006 Irrigation Scheduling
Strategies for Cotton to Cope with Water Scarcity. In: Proceedings of "2006 World
Congress of CIGR: Agricultural Engineering for a Better World", 4-7 September, Bonn.
Pereira L. S., 2006. Assessment of Farm Irrigation Systems and Perspectives for
Improvement in Ras Al Ain Area, Syria. CIHEAM/IAM Bari and “Cooperazione Italiana”
project on “Rationalisation of Ras El Ain Irrigation System”, Syria.
Pereira L.S., Gonçalves J.M., 2005. Assessment of Farm Irrigation Systems and
Perspectives for Improvement in Ras Al Ain Area, Syria. CIHEAM/IAM Bari and
“Cooperazione Italiana” project on “Rationalisation of Ras El Ain Irrigation System”, Syria.
Pereira, L. S. and T. J. Trout. 1999. Irrigation Methods. In: van Lier, H. N., L. S. Pereira and
F. R. Steiner (Eds.) CIGR Handbook of Agricultural Engineering, Vol. I: Land and Water
Engineering. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI, pp. 297-379.
Pereira, L.S., Cordery, I., Iacovides, I., 2002a. Coping with Water Scarcity. UNESCO IHP VI,
Technical Documents in Hydrology No. 58, UNESCO, Paris
(http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001278/127846e.pdf).
Pereira, L.S., Oweis, T., Zairi, A., 2002b. Irrigation management under water scarcity. Agric.
Water Manage. 57,175–206.
Pereira, L. S., P. R. Teodoro, P. N. Rodrigues, J. L. Teixeira, 2003. Irrigation scheduling
simulation: the model ISAREG. In: G. Rossi, A. Cancelliere, L. S. Pereira, T. Oweis, M.
Shatanawi, A. Zairi (Eds.) Tools for Drought Mitigation in Mediterranean Regions. Kluwer,
Dordrecht, pp. 161-180.
Rodrigues P.N., Pereira L. S. and Machado T. G. (2000) KCISA, a program to compute time
averaged crop coefficients. Application to field grown vegetable crops. In: M.I. Ferreira
and H.G. Jones (Eds.) Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Irrigation of
Horticultural Crops. ISHS, Acta Horticulturae Nr. 537, Leuven, vol. I, pp. 535-542.
Smith, M., Pereira, L.S., Berengena, J., Itier, B., Goussard, J., Ragab, R., Tollefson, L., Van
Hoffwegen, P., (Eds.) 1996. Irrigation Scheduling: From Theory to Practice. FAO Water
Report 8, FAO, Rome, 384 pp.
Stewart, J.L., Hagen, R.M. and Pruit, W.O. (1976) Water production functions and predicted
irrigation programs for principal crops as required for water resources planning and

64
 increased water use efficiency. University of California, Dept. Land, Air and Water
Resources, Davis, and USDI/Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO.
Strelkoff, T. 1993. SRFR, a Computer Program for Simulating Flow in Surface Irrigation
Furrows-Basins-Borders. USDA-ARS Water Conservation Lab., Phoenix.
Teixeira, J. L. and L. S. Pereira, 1992. ISAREG, an irrigation scheduling model. ICID
Bulletin, 41(2): 29-48.
Walker, W. R. and G. V. Skogerboe. 1987. Surface Irrigation. Theory and Practice. Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 386 p.
Zhang, H. and Oweis, T. (1999). Water-yield relations and optimal irrigation scheduling of
wheat in the Mediterranean region. Agric. Water Manag. 38, pp. 195-211.

65