agricultural water management 93 (2007) 109–122

available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat

Assessing basin irrigation and scheduling strategies for

saving irrigation water and controlling salinity in the
upper Yellow River Basin, China

L.S. Pereira a,*, J.M. Gonçalves a, B. Dong b, Z. Mao b, S.X. Fang c

a
Center for Agricultural Engineering Research, Institute of Agronomy, Technical University of Lisbon, Portugal
b
Department of Irrigation and Drainage, College of Water Resources and Hydropower, University of Wuhan, China
c
Ningxia Water Resources Bureau, Yinchuan, Ningxia, China

article info abstract

Article history: Water saving in irrigation is a key concern in the Yellow River basin. Excessive water
Received 16 March 2007 diversions for irrigation waste water and produce waterlogging problems during the crop
Accepted 12 July 2007 season and soil salinization in low lands. Supply control and inadequate functionality of the
Published on line 21 August 2007 drainage system were identified as main factors for poor water management at farm level.
Their improvement condition the adoption of water saving and salinity control practices.
Keywords: Focusing on the farm scale, studies to assess the potential for water savings included: (a)
Basin irrigation field evaluation of current basin irrigation practices and further use of the simulation
Irrigation scheduling models SRFR and SIRMOD to generate alternative improvements for the surface irrigation
Simulation modeling systems and (b) the use of the ISAREG model to simulate the present and improved irrigation
Percolation control scheduling alternatives taking into consideration salinity control. Models were used inter-
Salinity control actively to define alternatives for the irrigation systems and scheduling that would mini-
Wheat and maize mize percolation and produce water savings. Foreseen improvements refer to basin inflow
discharges, land leveling and irrigation scheduling that could result in water savings of 33%
relative to actual demand. These improvements would also reduce percolation and main-
tain water table depths below 1 m thereby reducing soil salinization.
# 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The Yellow River is the second largest river in China and the
main source of water in the Northwest and North China. It
flows across nine Provinces and supplies water to about 130
million people, mostly farmers and rural people (Cai et al.,
2003). The average water yield is about 58 billion m3/year, or
less than 500 m3 per capita, thus indicating extreme water
scarcity. Water scarcity is both anthropogenic and due to
climate variation as analysed by Wang et al. (2006). Irrigation is
required throughout the year in the arid Northwest and for the
winter crops in North China, thus irrigated agriculture is the
main water user in the basin. Irrigated areas within the basin
total more than 4 million ha, but nearly 2 million ha outside
the basin also rely on Yellow River water (Cai et al., 2003).
However, the demand is continuously increasing for domestic
and industrial uses, as well as for hydroelectricity. Forecasted
scenarios on water resources allocation and use in the basin
point out the need to reduce the irrigation demand (Xu et al.,
2002). In drought years, the demand largely exceeds the supply
and the river dries out in its lower reaches for large periods
before the monsoon rains. To face this water scarcity several
solutions are proposed all of which require reductions in
agricultural water demands (Yu, 2006).

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +351 21 3653480; fax: +351 21 3621575.

E-mail address: lspereira@isa.utl.pt (L.S. Pereira).
0378-3774/$ – see front matter # 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2007.07.004
110 agricultural water management 93 (2007) 109–122
The Yellow River suffers from both high floods and water
scarcity. The Yellow River Conservancy Commission (YRCC)
manages the water in the whole basin in close cooperation
with water management institutions of the nine Provinces and
is in charge of protection against floods in the North China
plain. The water allocation process results from complex
negotiations between the Provinces and the YRCC, and among
counties and irrigation districts in each Province. In periods
when water is scarce, priority is given to non-agricultural uses,
mainly municipal and industrial uses. Water conservation and
saving have to be implemented in response to the need for
sustainable use of water and land resources in the basin area,
including waterlogging and salinity due to poor water
management at irrigation district level (Fang and Chen, 2001).
With the objective of supporting further development of
water conservation and saving policies and developing
appropriate management tools, a research project has focused
two case-study irrigation districts in the basin (Pereira et al.,
2003b). One is located in the upper basin, the Huinong
Irrigation District (HID), in Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region,
the other in the low plain region, near the river delta, the Bojili
Irrigation District (BID), Shandong Province (Fig. 1).
Objectives of the case studies at the farm scale were to
reduce the irrigation demand, to promote the adoption of
practices leading to water conservation and savings and
controlling salinity, to control the environmental impacts of
irrigation at the farm, and hopefully to increase the yields and
income per unit of water used, i.e. the water productivity. This
paper presents an irrigation management study that was
conducted on the HID. The district’s conditions and practices
are representative of those in the upper Yellow River Basin.
The objectives of studies reported herein consist of assessing
the potential for water saving and salinity control for upland
crops – wheat, maize and wheat and maize intercropped –
resulting from improved basin irrigation and scheduling, as
well as to test and validate modeling approaches that could be
further used to assess related improvements in other irriga-
tion districts. Paddy rice improvements are dealt by Mao et al.
(2004). However, the improvement of the farm irrigation
systems is only a part of the modernization required for
adoption of management practices that would conserve
water. The results of these on-farm studies provide basic
Fig. 1 – The Yellow River Basin and location of the case-study areas, the Huinong Irrigation District (HID) and the Bojili
Irrigation District (BID).
inputs to design delivery and conveyance systems that would
achieve appropriate demand management at the irrigation
district level (Gonçalves et al., 2002, 2007; Roost, 2002; Roost
et al., 2003).
2. The case-study area
The HID services 74 400 ha and is part of the Qingtongxia
Irrigation District, which covers more than 330 000 ha. Main
crop systems are irrigated wheat and maize, generally
intercropped and paddy rice; the upland crops are often in
rotation with rice. Wheat is planted by mid-March and maize
by mid-April depending on soil temperatures; wheat is
harvested by early July and maize by mid-September. Basin
irrigation is used.
Water diversions are regulated by the Qingtongxia dam and
are available for the entire crop season. The diverted volumes
are extremely large, averaging 4460 million m3/year, i.e. about
6000 mm (Xie et al., 2003), much above crop irrigation
requirements, which average 1400 mm for rice (Mao et al.,
2004) and 600 mm for upland crops (Campos et al., 2003).
Excessive water diversion is due to poor regulation and control
of the conveyance and branch canals, which require that high
water levels be maintained in the canals for appropriate
functioning of the gates (Roost, 2002). Water not diverted into
branch and tertiary canals flows to the drainage channels and
ditches or to low lands, and seeps to the groundwater; only a
part returns directly to the Yellow River. The excessive water
diversion into the conveyance and distribution systems
produces the malfunctioning of the drainage system and
causes extensive waterlogging and salinity problems (Fang
and Chen, 2001; Hollanders et al., 2005).
Climate is arid, with an average 190 mm rainfall during
summer, hot summer and 5 months of dry and cold winter. The
monthly averages of main weather variables are shown in Fig. 2
relative to the Pingluo meteorological station (388550 N, 1068330 E,
and 1099 m elevation). However, data from other weather
stations in the area were also used (Campos et al., 2003).
Soils are silty alluviums derived from sediments trans-
ported by the Yellow River from the upstream loess areas.
They are naturally non-saline but induced salinity is observed
 agricultural water management 93 (2007) 109–122 111

Fig. 3 – Scenarios of groundwater table depths (Pingluo).

considering the respective sensitivity to salinity are shown in

Fig. 2 – (a) Average minimum (*) and maximum
temperature (&) and relative humidity (~); (b) wind speed
(*) and reference evapotranspiration (+) at Pingluo (1988–
1999).
Table 1 – Soil classes relative to the available soil water
Classes uFC (vol.%) uWP (vol.%) TAW (mm/m)
1 42.60 10.19 324
2 37.51 9.37 281
3 32.42 8.55 239
in large areas where water management is poor. A survey was
conducted to characterize the soil hydraulic properties,
mainly field capacity and wilting point, at a large number of
locations and at different depths. Results of measurements
(data not shown) indicate that the soil hydraulic properties
have a small variation among all samples collected in the HID.
Comparing the results obtained for the total available water
(TAW), it was assumed that the soil water reservoir could be
characterised uniformly down to a depth of 1.0 m. Available
soil water data were used to conduct sensitivity analyses with
the scheduling and water balance model ISAREG (Teixeira and
Pereira, 1992; Liu et al., 1998; Pereira et al., 2003c); the results of
those analyses were used to classify the soil in three TAW
categories (Table 1).
The soil survey also included salinity assessment. The soil
salinity classes and the crops allocated for these classes
Table 2.
Groundwater depths (GWD) are currently monitored by
the HID staff. They vary in time and space in relation to
irrigation practice and drainage conditions. Winter irrigation
is generally applied by November, before soil freezes, and the
crop season irrigation starts by April and ends early
September. GWD are very shallow in paddy areas, in lowlands
near the river and in depressions. GWD are deeper during
winter and rise when water starts to be diverted for irrigation
by early spring; the water table remains high until September,
when it lowers until the winter irrigation rises GWD again for
a short period. The typical yearly variation in groundwater
depths is illustrated in Fig. 3. These values were measured
near Pingluo where groundwater and drainage studies were
carried out (Wang et al., 2004; Hollanders et al., 2005). Related
studies on the dynamics of the groundwater and simulations
with the water balance ISAREG model allowed establishing a
target GWD, also shown in Fig. 3. Results of this drainage
study are confirmed by another study developed in the
YinNan Irrigation District, also located in Ningxia, upstream
of the study area, but where problems are less acute (Jia et al.,
2006).
At present, the GWD rises to near the surface when water
diversions for irrigation start, and the watertable remains high
during the crop season. Consequently, a root depth of 0.5 m
was considered for simulation purposes. When diversions for
irrigation would be controlled and drainage would be working
properly, GWD may not exceed a maximum depth of 1 m
(Wang et al., 2004; Hollanders et al., 2005), and a root depth of
0.9 m is considered. Therefore, two GWD scenarios were
assumed for farm irrigation studies (Fig. 3):
 Present: for the currently high water table conditions;
 Target: relative to foreseen groundwater controlled condi-
tions.

Table 2 – Soil salinity classes and crops allocated

Soil salinity classes Crops allocated to the classes
1
ECe (dS m ) Classification

0–2 Very low salinity Wheat Maize Wheat  maize Rice

2–6 Low salinity Wheat Maize Wheat  maize Rice
6–10 Moderate salinity Wheat – – Rice
10–14 High salinity Wheat – – –
>14 Very high salinity Wheat – – –
112 agricultural water management 93 (2007) 109–122
3. Assessment approaches
3.1. Basin irrigation
Basin irrigation is the irrigation method used in HID. Basins
were designed as paddies and are generally wide and short,
and are used for a long rotation including rice and upland
crops. Fields were initially flat but after cultivation they have a
near-zero slope. Surface drainage is generally available. Basin
dikes are small and paddies are often over-flooded resulting in
tail-end runoff (Mao et al., 2004). Inflow rates available are not
large enough and produce high advance times. Because
farmers cut-off irrigation when advance is completed, irriga-
tion depths applied generally by far exceed the required
application depths and over-irrigation is practiced.
Modern basin irrigation is widely analyzed in literature.
Most papers deal with design issues (Clemmens, 1998;
Strelkoff et al., 2000; Clyma and Reddy, 2000) and few to
research oriented to improve field practices (Clyma and
Clemmens, 2000). Clemmens (2000) reviewed the positive
impacts of level basin improvements on water saving and
water productivity. Few studies have been conducted outside
of USA, where level basin irrigation was developed. Precision
leveling is known to play a main role in achieving high
performance in basin irrigation. The importance of precision
leveling has been reviewed by several authors (e.g. Playan
et al., 1996; Fangmeier et al., 1999; Zapata and Playan, 2000),
and was evident in a former research study conducted in the
North China Plain (Li and Calejo, 1998; Pereira et al., 2003a).
Zairi et al. (1998) demonstrated the difficulties in improving
the performance of border irrigation systems having slopes
similar to those of the basins evaluated in China when water is
scarce. However, their results are relative to cracking soils,
which have a peculiar behaviour. A study developed by the
same time in Egypt (Clemmens et al., 1999) demonstrated the
potential for modern basin irrigation, particularly for long
basins, and evidenced that irrigation performance is affected
by cultural practices (El-Haddad et al., 2001).
In the North China Plain study (Li and Calejo, 1998), level
basin irrigation was proposed as one main approach to
implement water saving and increase water productivity.
This study also demonstrated that benefits could only be
achieved if improvements in surface irrigation and irrigation
scheduling would be implemented together, preferably if soil
management would also be improved (Pereira et al., 2003a).
Many papers dealing with water saving, or water productivity,
propose to change from surface irrigation to pressurized
irrigation, sprinkler and trickle (e.g. Deng et al., 2006; Xu et al.,
2002). However there proposals often are not based on field
evaluations of farmers practices and do not consider the
investment and energy costs associated with these methods.
Recognizing the benefits of modern basin irrigation, we used
field evaluations and modeling to assess the potential for
water saving that could result from improving the existing
systems.
3.2. Irrigation requirements and scheduling
Irrigation scheduling studies were developed in combination
with those aimed at improving the hydraulic performance of
basin irrigation due to the interaction of both approaches as
demonstrated in former studies that focused on improvement
of farm irrigation in the North China Plain (Fernando et al.,
1998; Liu et al., 2000). Nevertheless, studies conducted on
irrigation demand management often focused on only irriga-
tion scheduling (e.g. Endale and Fipps, 2001), and paid little
attention to the irrigation methods; similarly, research on crop
responses to irrigation and water productivity conducted in
China often did not consider the constraints relative to the
irrigation method (e.g. Huang, 2000; Liu et al., 2002; Wang et al.,
2001). A combined approach is required (Pereira, 1999; Pereira
et al., 2002).
Irrigation scheduling (Heermann, 1996) requires knowledge
on (a) the crop water requirements and yield responses to
water (e.g. Allen et al., 1998; Kang et al., 2003), (b) the
constraints specific to each irrigation method and irrigation
equipment (e.g. Liu et al., 2000; Pereira et al., 2003a), (c) the crop
sensitivity to salinity when water of inferior quality is used
(e.g. Rhoades et al., 1992; Minhas, 1996), (d) the limitations
imposed by the water supply and delivery system (e.g.
Goussard, 1996; Hatcho, 1998) and (e) the financial and
economic implications of the irrigation practice (e.g. El-
Amami et al., 2001). Therefore, the improvement of the
irrigation scheduling at the irrigation district level requires the
consideration of several factors, including those relative to
improving the irrigation method. When in presence of shallow
water tables as for HID, an integrated management of the
irrigation and drainage system (Ayars et al., 1999) is required.
Therefore, the integrated approach used in this study to assess
potential methods to improve irrigation on the field scale
facilitated the assessment of impacts of adopting these
methods at the regional scale.
In conditions where land availability is very limited, as it is
the case for the very densely populated Yellow River Basin, the
general practice in irrigated agriculture is to maximize crop
yield per unit land by applying full crop irrigation require-
ments and often over-irrigating. In former studies for the
North China Plain the approach has been to maximize yields
and the irrigation performance by adopting the best irrigation
scheduling and improving the farm irrigation systems, which
results in improving both the land and the water productivity
(Fernando et al., 1998; Liu et al., 2000). This strategy was also
adopted in this research. However, deficit irrigation is
commonly pointed out as the best solution to deal with water
scarcity and increasing water productivity, namely for the arid
regions of China (e.g. Deng et al., 2006). Deficit irrigation is an
optimizing strategy under which crops are deliberately
allowed to sustain some degree of water deficit and yield
reduction (English and Raja, 1996). Hence, the adoption of
deficit irrigation implies appropriate knowledge of crop ET,
crop responses to water deficits, including the identification of
critical crop growth periods, impacts on soil salinity and the
economic impacts of yield reduction strategies. The case for
winter wheat is well studied in China (e.g. Kang et al., 2002) but
there is insufficient information on the salinity effects of
underirrigating and on the economic impacts of deficit
irrigation in Chinese agriculture, where farmers have limited
land and economic resources. The farmers’ incomes in HID
average only 315 USD (Xu and Tian, 2003), which makes
extremely difficult that farmers adopt an irrigation strategy
 agricultural water management 93 (2007) 109–122
that do not maximize yields. Nevertheless, in addition to
irrigation strategies for maximizing yields, strategies of limited
deficit irrigation were also considered but where salinity could
be controlled through leaching in the winter irrigation. This
irrigation event applies quite large water depths and effectively
control salts in the root zone as demonstrated in the Inner
Mongolia Hetao area (Feng et al., 2005).
4. Modeling and field evaluations
4.1. Basin irrigation: methodology, main characteristics
and model parameterization
The improvement of basin irrigation systems requires that
appropriate field data be collected to characterise the farm
systems and the respective performance. Field evaluations of
actual irrigation events were performed following the meth-
odology proposed by Walker and Skogerboe (1987), that was
previously tested in China (Li and Calejo, 1998). When these
field evaluation data are available, simulation models can be
used to obtain the optimal estimates of the hydraulic rough-
ness and infiltration parameters and later to design the
improved system. Hence, the surface irrigation simulation
model SRFR (Strelkoff, 1993) was used interactively to optimise
the infiltration and roughness parameters using data from
both infiltrometer tests and field evaluation of irrigation
events in farmers fields in Pingluo area. The related metho-
dology is that proposed by Katopodes et al. (1990) and
Clemmens (1991), previously tested and adapted in North
China Plain studies by Li and Calejo (1998).
Field evaluations were performed in the Pingluo area on
irrigated fields planted with wheat, maize and wheat inter-
cropped with maize. Measured field geometry variables
include the basin length, width and micro-topography. The
micro-topography is described by the average slope, S0
(m m1), and by the relative unevenness indicator Dy
(m m1), which describes the uneven surface conditions along
the field:
PN
100 jyi  ŷi j
i¼1
Dy ¼ (1)
NL
where yi is the observed elevation (m), ŷi the desirable eleva-
tion (m) when the slope would be uniform, N the number of
observations (i = 1, . . ., N) and L is the length of the basin (m).
Field geometry characteristics are summarised in Table 3.
Basins are wide, rectangular, have a near-zero slope and are
reasonably uniform, thus precise land leveling only requires
moderate investment.
Table 3 – Observed basin lengths, widths, slopes and
non-uniformity (Dy)
Length (m) Width (m) S0 (%) Dy (%)
Average 37.9 29.0 0.9 0.039
Maximum 46.5 31.9 2.5 0.077
Minimum 24.7 22.6 0.2 0.018
S.D. 7.3 2.9 0.7 0.024
113
Inflow rates were measured with small cutthroat flumes
(Walker and Skogerboe, 1987), which were found to work well
for water that contained a large amount of sediment. Observed
inflow rates are generally small, ranging from 0.4 to
2.2 l s1 m1 and averaging 1.2 l s1 m1. This fact, considering
that basin widths are relatively large (Table 3), causes long
advance times and, because farmers cut-off water application
when the advance is completed, largely contributes to
excessive supply times and over-irrigation. Advance and
recession times were measured along 1 or 2 longitudinal
transepts of the basins at each 10 m.
Field tests using a basin infiltrometer (Walker and
Skogerboe, 1987) were performed to produce a first estimation
of the parameters K and a of the Kostiakov infiltration
equation, which is used in the surface irrigation simulation
models SRFR (Strelkoff, 1993) and SIRMOD (Walker, 1998).
These initial parameters were used with the SRFR simulation
model in the inverse solution of the surface irrigation problem
to search for the optimal parameters, using advance and
recession observation data (Katopodes et al., 1990).
An iterative approach was selected, where the hydraulic
roughness parameter n is fixed and the infiltration parameters
a and K vary from one iteration to the next. The hydraulic
roughness coefficients n were selected on the basis of former
field and modeling studies, using the same parameters
estimation methodology (Li and Calejo, 1998). Those values
for n are shown in Table 4.
The inverse solution of the surface irrigation problem to
estimate the infiltration parameters was performed in two
steps. First, the inverse solution of the surface irrigation
problem was used to search the parameters using advance
data only, i.e. performing the advance optimisation. In this
optimisation none of the infiltration parameters are fixed.
Then, the inverse solution procedure was used to search the
optimal parameters using advance and recession observed
data, i.e. performing advance and recession optimisation. In
this search, the parameter K obtained from the advance
optimisation is kept constant and only a is searched. This
procedure was developed in order to adequately simulate
recession (Fig. 4).
The infiltration parameters estimated using the advance
and recession optimisation correspond to the present
groundwater table condition, where recession is very slow
due to the high position of the groundwater table (Fig. 3), that
can reach 0.5 m depth. On the contrary, during the advance
phase influence of the water table is small. Improved
infiltration conditions are expected when the water table is
lowered. Therefore, different infiltration parameters are
Table 4 – The Manning’s hydraulics roughness, n (mS1/3 s)
Wheat Intercrop Maize
Winter irrigation 0.12 0.12 0.12
First irrigation 0.15 0.13 –
Second irrigation 0.16 0.15 0.14
Third irrigation 0.16 0.16 0.15
Fourth irrigation 0.14 0.16 0.18
Fifth irrigation – 0.20 0.20
Sixth irrigation – 0.20 0.22
114 agricultural water management 93 (2007) 109–122

Fig. 4 – Field B1, first irrigation: results of the simulated vs. observed advance and recession for: advance optimisation (left)
and advance and recession optimisation (right).

considered for the two groundwater depth scenarios con-
sidered: for the present high water table, the Kostiakov
infiltration parameters are the ones obtained when both
advance and recession are optimised; for the target GWD, to
be controlled at 1.0 m depth, they are those resulting from the
advance optimisation only.
Based on the evaluations performed and on the soil water
properties in the HID area, three types of soil infiltration
conditions were considered. Table 5 shows the estimated
Kostiakov infiltration parameters for these three types of soils
having average, low and high infiltration, and for both water
table scenarios. Data in Table 5 show that successive
irrigations with sediment laden water induce a progressive
decrease of the soil intake rate during the season.
Yellow River Basin (Liu et al., 1998, 2005). Crop evapotran-
spiration (ETc) is computed from the reference evapotran-
spiration (ETo), computed with the FAO-PM method (Allen
et al., 1998) using daily weather data, and time averaged crop
coefficients (Kc), thus ETc = Kc ETo.
The crop evapotranspiration methodology proposed by
FAO (Allen et al., 1998) was tested for North China, where Kc
and soil water depletion fractions for no stress ( p) for maize
and wheat were derived from field studies (Liu and Fernando,
1998; Liu and Pereira, 2000; Pereira et al., 2003a). These values
were used in this study after correction for climate. The crop
coefficients for wheat intercropped with maize, Kc (inter), were
computed by weighing those for wheat and maize, respec-
tively Kc (wheat) and Kc (maize) as

4.2. Water balance modeling
The computation of irrigation requirements for wheat, maize
and wheat intercropped with maize was performed using the
ISAREG model (Teixeira and Pereira, 1992; Pereira et al., 2003c),
which was previously validated for the wheat and maize crops
growing in silty soils in the North China Plain and in the lower
f ðwheatÞ hðwheatÞ KcðwheatÞ þ f ðmaizeÞ hðmaizeÞ KcðmaizeÞ
KcðinterÞ ¼ (2)
f ðwheatÞ hðwheatÞ þ f ðmaizeÞ hðmaizeÞ
where h is the crop height and f is the fraction of soil surface
cropped with each of the crops; typically f(wheat) = 0.6, and
f(maize) = 0.4. A similar weighing procedure was used to com-
pute the soil water depletion fractions ( p). The Kc curves for

Table 5 – Parameters of the Kostiakov infiltration equation

Irrigations Water table Parameter K Parameter a for the three infiltration soil types
depth (mm mina)
Average Low High

First Present 8.00 0.435 0.326 0.544

Target 8.00 0.560 0.420 0.700

Second Present 5.00 0.470 0.353 0.588

Target 5.00 0.620 0.465 0.775

Third Present 3.42 0.40 0.368 0.613

Target 3.42 0.680 0.510 0.850

Fourth Present 3.20 0.490 0.368 0.613

Target 3.20 0.680 0.510 0.850

Fifth and sixth Present 3.00 0.500 0.375 0.625

Target 3.00 0.690 0.518 0.863
 agricultural water management 93 (2007) 109–122
Fig. 5 – The Kc curves for wheat, maize and wheat
intercropped with maize.
wheat, maize and wheat intercropped with maize crops are
presented in Fig. 5.
The ISAREG model computes the capillary rise from a
water table and the percolation of excess water through the
bottom of the root zone through parametric equations
described in detail by Liu et al. (2006). The capillary rise is a
function of the water table depth, the water storage in the
root zone, the potential water extraction by the crop roots
and the soil characteristics influencing capillarity. Percola-
tion is computed with a time-dependent decay function
where parameters are the soil water storage after water
application and the decay rate is given by a soil-dependent
parameter. These parametric functions were developed and
tested for wheat and maize cropped in a silty loam soil in
North China Plain also derived from the same kind of
sediments as for HID soils and whose hydraulic properties
are similar to those of soils in the HID area. Therefore, the
application to this study was done using the locally observed
variables and the parameters for silty soils proposed by Liu
et al. (2006).
To appropriately simulate the dynamic of salts in an
irrigated soil, a mechanistic model would be required (Minhas
et al., 2006). Other studies for the same area relative to the
dynamics of the water table and salts (Hollanders et al., 2005)
constitute a base source of information for salts balance. For
irrigation scheduling purposes it may be sufficient to consider
the effects of salts on the soil water availability and yields.
Therefore an optional subroutine was developed for ISAREG
aimed at predicting impacts of soil salinity on evapotranspira-
tion and crop yields (Pereira et al., 2003c).
The effects of the salinity on yields are estimated through
the equation proposed by Ayers and Westcot (1985):
Ya b
¼ 1  ðECe  ECe threshold Þ
Ym 100
where Ya and Ym are the actual and potential crops yields
(kg ha1), when the crop techniques are appropriate to the
local environmental conditions and no water stress affects the
crop, b a crop specific parameter which describes the rate of
yield decrease per unit of excess salts (%/dS m1), and ECe and
ECe threshold are, respectively, the actual electrical conductivity
of the soil saturation extract and the crop specific ECe thresh-
old above which the crop is affected by salinity. The para-
meters b and ECe threshold are tabled by Allen et al. (1998) for
main crops.
115
Water stress impacts on yields are described by a linear
relation between the relative yield loss (RYL = 1  Ya/Ym) and
the relative evapotranspiration deficit (RED = 1  ETa/ETm) as
proposed by Stewart et al. (1977):
 
Ya ETa
1 ¼ Ky 1  (4)
Ym ETm
where ETa and ETm are the seasonal crop ET (mm) for yielding,
respectively and Ya and Ym, and Ky is the crop yield response
factor, also tabled by Allen et al. (1998). When both the salinity
and a water deficit affect a crop, then Eqs. (3) and (4) combine
to produce (Allen et al., 1998):
   
Ya b ETa
1 ¼ ðECe  ECe threshold Þ Ky 1  (5)
Ym 100 ETm
The parameter Ky can be used to adjust the (potential) crop
evapotranspiration (ETc) relative to optimal crop growth
during the full crop season for the conditions were stress
occurs (Allen et al., 1998). Thus, rewriting Eq. (4) to take in
consideration the impacts of water stress and/or salinity, the
adjusted crop evapotranspiration ETc adj is
 
RYL
ETc adj ¼ 1 ETm (6)
Ky
Eq. (6) allows estimating the cumulative crop ET for the season
(mm) when the yield reduction is known. ISAREG computes
the water balance on a daily basis and assumes an exponential
decrease for ETc when the soil water depletion fraction
exceeds the depletion fraction p, which is crop specific and
decreases when the climate demand increases. Thus, the
factor p should be corrected, becoming smaller when ECe is
larger then ECe threshold, and depending upon the crop sensi-
tivity to salinity through the parameter b of Eq. (3). The fraction
p corrected for salinity ( pcor) is then estimated from
pcor ¼ p  ½bðECe  ECe threshold Þ p (7)
Eq. (7) indicates that p decreases with increasing salinity and
with increasing crop sensitivity to salts. Decreasing p means
that a smaller soil water depletion is required for the crop to
evapotranspire at a rate ETa < ETm at higher soil water contents
than without salinity effects. The limit p  0.1 proposed by Allen
et al. (1998) is kept since soil evaporation is not affected.
Salinity increases the soil water content at the wilting point
because crop roots have to overcome the combined matric
potential and increased osmotic potential (Beltrão and Ben
Asher, 1997). When salts are present the value for uWP is
(3) corrected through
 
ECe  ECe threshold
uWP salt ¼ uWP þ b ðuFC  uWP Þ (8)
10
where uWP is the soil water content at wilting point under non-
saline conditions, uFC the soil water content at field capacity
(mm/mm), and uWP salt is the soil water content at wilting point
(mm/mm) for saline conditions. Following this approach, the
total available soil water (TAW) is corrected for salinity effects
by
TAWsalt ¼ ðuFC  uWP salt Þ  10Zr (9)
116 agricultural water management 93 (2007) 109–122

Table 6 – Average observed (D) and required (Zreq)

application depths
Irrigation no. D (mm) Zreq (mm)

First 109 92
Second 108 30
Third 95 51
Fourth 111 17
Fifth 92 40
Sixth 116 14

results are given by Campos et al. (2003). Results show that

Fig. 6 – Relative yields for maize, wheat and rice as
influenced by soil salinity.
where TAWsalt is the corrected value of the total available soil
water (mm) and Zr is the root depth (m).
Eqs. (6)–(9) are used only when RYL (Eqs. (4) and (5)) do not
exceed 50% because this value is generally assumed as the
limit for the validity of the yield-water equation (4) (Doorenbos
and Kassam, 1979). It is assumed that a crop would not be
grown on a saline soil that would produce a relative yield Ya/
Ym < 0.50. Results for the ratio Ya/Ym for the main crops in HID
are presented in Fig. 6; the wheat intercropped with maize is
limited as for the maize crop.
5. Assessing present irrigation scheduling
and performance
5.1. Basin irrigation performance
Actual irrigation performance was analysed using field
evaluation data. Simulations presented herein refer to average
infiltration conditions (Table 5), irrigations depths as observed
in farmer’s fields, and required infiltration depths, Zreq (mm),
computed with the ISAREG model for wheat and maize
intercropped (Table 6).
The values for Zreq are compared in Table 6 with the
average depths applied D (mm). Large differences between Zreq
and D evidence the impact of the very high water table and
indicate that over-irrigation is presently the rule.
Table 7 summarizes the irrigation performance computed
for wheat intercropped with maize. Performance measures
include distribution uniformity DUlq (%), the application
efficiency Ea (as generally computed by the SRFR model), the
application efficiency of low quarter, AElq (%), as defined by
Pereira (1999), and the percolation depths. More detailed
AElq values are very low due to the negative impacts of the
high water table, as explained by data in Fig. 3 and Table 6
which show that the stored soil water is too high when water is
applied. Then a large fraction of the applied depths cannot be
stored in the root zone and the AElq decreases. An exception is
the first irrigation because then the water table is still low. The
worst results are for the last irrigation, which could be
eliminated according to our irrigation scheduling analysis. In
contrast, DUlq values are generally high, suggesting a good
potential for improving the irrigation performance since a
high DUlq, means that basin systems do not require very heavy
improvements. Also in agreement with water balance data,
percolation to the groundwater is high, which contributes to
maintain the existing unfavourable conditions.
To illustrate the impacts of the water table on the irrigation
performance, all irrigation events evaluated were simulated
changing the position of the water table and the infiltration
conditions, and assuming the ideal land grading with zero
slope, which also is the target slope for paddy rice irrigation.
Simulated application efficiency ranged from 66 to 97% for all
events. We may conclude from these results that farmers are
doing their best but are definitely limited by the constraints
imposed by the poor drainage and supply conditions, with
water diversions more than doubling the requirements. Thus,
when building improved scenarios, an essential pre-condition
is assuming that improved control of the water table and
supply conditions are implemented.
5.2. Present irrigation scheduling
Simulations for wheat, maize and wheat intercropped with
maize (hereafter named intercrop) were performed with the
ISAREG model for several locations using daily weather data
(1999) for both the present and target water table depth
scenarios and all soil TAW classes. Results for the soil class 2
(TAW = 281 mm) and Pingluo are shown in Table 8. Irrigation
depths and frequency are similar to the ones actually applied,
as observed in farmers’ fields. The winter irrigation, com-

Table 7 – Ranges of irrigation performances evaluated in farmer’s fields at Pingluo

Irrigation no. Inflow rate, Application Distribution Percolation
q (l s1 m1) efficiency, AElq (%) uniformity, DUlq (%) (mm)

First 1.0–1.4 61–86 61–91 15–24

Second 0.6–2.2 22–53 57–98 27–106
Third 0.4–3.2 41–67 83–98 26–73
Fifth 0.4–1.2 26–43 53–96 12–94
Sixth 0.7–0.9 10–15 88–94 83–127
 agricultural water management 93 (2007) 109–122 117

Table 8 – ISAREG simulation for wheat intercropped with 6. Improved farm irrigation scenarios
maize, wheat and maize, at Pingluo
Intercrop Wheat Maize 6.1. Scenarios for basin irrigation performance
Season irrigation (mm) 630 422 521
Season rainfall (mm) 168 79 168
The simulation analysis was first developed for the actual field
ASW at planting (mm) 91 91 35 conditions and current field slopes. The target application
ASW at harvesting (mm) 163 130 94 depths Zreq were computed with ISAREG assuming that the
Percolation (mm) 386 213 266 groundwater depth would be lowered to 1.0 m. Simulations
Capillary rise (mm) 471 297 383 were performed for the most common soil types, and for
ETc adj (mm) 811 546 747
leaching fractions of about 5–10% of the irrigation depths
ETc (mm) 816 554 780
(Campos et al., 2003). Only four irrigations were applied for the
intercrop simulations instead of the present six. An example is
monly practiced by November, is not referred because the soil given in Table 9, referring to basin B1 whose evaluations
water balance is performed starting immediately after this produced the lowest values for DUlq, varying between 53 and
irrigation and therefore the water applied is considered in the 61% and whose efficiencies ranged from 30 to 61%.
computed available soil water at planting. Results in Table 9 show that improving the irrigation
Results (Table 8) show that, at present, the average scheduling also improves DUlq and AElq relative to actual
irrigation depths are excessive, producing deep percolation observed values but percolation is still excessive, particularly
ranging from more than 200 mm for wheat to near 400 mm for non-saline soils, and AElq is low relatively to potential.
for the intercrop. They also show that crops use a large Changing the inflow rates per unit width of the basin only
amount of water due to capillary rise, exceeding percolation, changes the application time Tap and has no impacts on the
i.e. irrigation contributes to the high water table level, which uniformity DUlq, application efficiency AElq and percolation
in turn contributes to ET. Despite the accuracy of simulations indicators. This means that no water savings are achievable by
with the water balance model ISAREG when the parametric maintaining the current leveling conditions. Because basins
functions for capillary rise and percolation are used (Liu are used for both upland crops and paddy rice, their forms
et al., 2006), some uncertainty remains; however, computed shall not change and zero leveling needs to be considered in
values are similar to those observed when field evaluations agreement with requirements for paddy irrigation. Results for
were performed. Due to the high water table, the soil water at other basins were similar.
the time of irrigation may be higher than 80% of TAW, so These results are explained when observing the infiltrated
causing over-irrigation. This problem cannot be solved by depth curves in Fig. 7: at present (Fig. 7a), the very high water
changing the irrigation timings and/or the frequency table (0.5 m depth) makes Zreq very small and a very large
because the water table elevation is not produced locally fraction of the applied depth percolates to the water table;
but at regional level. when the latter is lowered to 1.0 m depth, Zreq becomes much
When the same irrigation schedules are simulated for the higher but excess infiltration water still occurs due to the
target water table it becomes apparent that, though deep uneven slope of the field (Fig. 7b). Due to surface conditions,
percolation could be controlled, the applied depths are in the basin performance indicators are insensitive to variations
excess and the last irrigation could be eliminated because the in the inflow rates, which was observed for all basins and
estimated available soil water at harvesting (232, 241 and irrigation events.
237 mm, respectively for the intercrop, wheat and maize) are In contrast, if the field is precisely graded to zero-slope, the
close to TAW, thus indicating that excess water is applied. irrigation advance time becomes highly sensitive to the inflow
Improving irrigation dates and depths is therefore required. rates (Fig. 8) and the infiltrated depth curves change the form

Table 9 – Simulated irrigation performances for field B1 for various inflow rates with the actual field topography and
adopting an improved irrigation scheduling
Irrigation after Zreq Field length q (l s1 m1) Tap D AElq DUlq Percolation
planting (mm) (m) (min) (mm) (%) (%) (mm)

First 110 50 1.4 100.0 168 65.4 77 57.8

2.0 71.4 171 64.1 76 61.2
3.0 48.0 173 63.5 76 62.7

Second 110 50 1.3 109.5 171 64.5 76 60.7

2.0 71.8 172 63.8 76 62.3
3.0 48.1 173 63.5 75 63.1

Third 110 50 1.0 142.0 170 64.7 77 60.0

2.0 72.0 173 63.6 76 63.0
3.0 49.0 175 63.0 75 65.0

Fourth 110 50 1.0 142.5 171 64.3 77 60.8

2.0 72.5 174 63.5 76 64.0
3.0 48.5 175 63.0 75 64.6
118 agricultural water management 93 (2007) 109–122

Fig. 8 – Advance curves for field B1: (a) actual conditions in,
with average slope 0.025%; (b) simulated for a precision
zero-leveled basin with inflow rates ranging from 1 to
3.5 l sS1 mS1.

6.2. Improved irrigation scheduling

Improved irrigation schedules were designed with three main

objectives: water saving, control of percolation and applica-
Fig. 7 – Infiltrated depth curves for basin B1: (a) actual
tion of a leaching fraction according to soil salinity. To develop
second irrigation; (b) adopting an improved schedule and
the new irrigation schedules, simulations were performed
the target water table depth for several inflow rates q.
interactively with the models ISAREG and SRFR. Both models
were used in combination to define appropriate irrigation
timings and depths that satisfy the constraints of the
and also become responsive to the inflow rates (Fig. 9). When irrigation method relative to complete the advance and obtain
the land is precise zero leveled, the inflow rates play a role in the most uniform percolation when a leaching fraction is
improving DUlq and AElq, as well as in controlling deep considered for saline soils. Given the results obtained relative
percolation because higher inflow rates produce shorter to the improvement of the irrigation systems analysed above,
advance times (Fig. 9), which lead to more uniform infiltration. simulations for wheat, maize and wheat intercropped with
In fact shorter advance times favour an increase of infiltrated maize were performed assuming precise zero-leveled basins
depths in the lower quarter of the field, Zlq, as shown in Fig. 9. and that the target water table depth would be implemented to
Simulations performed for precision zero leveling in the allow a 0.9 m root zone depth. The computation of the
same basin B1, keeping infiltration conditions unchanged, available soil water before soil freezing, after the winter
lead to much higher performance (Table 10). These simula- irrigation, and at planting, is also changed to consider that
tions assume Zreq  D, thus they aim to minimize percolation deeper root zone.
and to meet leaching requirements with the winter irrigation
only, as it is the case for non-saline soils. Results in Table 10
show very high distribution uniformity DUlq and application
efficiency (Ea). Percolation is small, mainly in the downstream
parts of the field. If higher inflow rates are applied, the
percolation depths become smaller and the infiltration is more
uniform along the field. When dealing with saline soils, for
which the irrigation requirements include a leaching fraction,
leaching would be increasingly uniform with increasing inflow
rates, up to 3 l s1 m1.
Results as those discussed above were found for all the
simulated basins and show that precision zero-leveled basins
are the most appropriate for water saving, controlling
percolation, thus the water table depth, and in the case of
saline soils, for application of controlled leaching fractions. Fig. 9 – Infiltration depth curves for field B1 simulated for a
Promoting the adoption of this practice requires appropriate precision zero-leveled basin with inflow rates ranging
support to the farmers. from 1 to 3 l sS1 mS1.
 agricultural water management 93 (2007) 109–122 119

Table 10 – Simulated irrigation performances for a basin with length 48 m adopting precision zero leveling
Irrigation no. q (l s1 m1) D (mm) Zlq (mm) Eaa (%) DUlq (%) Percolation (mm)

First 1 130 112.0 84.3 75 20.4

2 118 109.5 93.3 90 7.7
3 113 106.9 97.0 93 3.2

Second 1 123 110.3 89.5 85 12.9

2 115 109.1 95.4 93 5.2
3 113 108.3 97.4 95 2.9

Third 1 119 108.2 92.1 88 9.3

2 115 109.7 95.4 94 5.1
3 111 106.7 98.5 95 1.5

Fourth 1 119 109.7 92.3 93 9.0

2 114 109.0 96.4 96 4.0
3 113 109.0 97.5 97 2.7
a
If AElq would be used instead of Ea values would be lower than those for DUlq.

For soils with low salinity, the need to avoid percolation
through the root zone boundary is considered. Therefore, the
irrigation scheduling was modified by reducing the number of
irrigations and volumes applied. Leaching for these soils is
assumed to be applied with the winter irrigation only, which
is confirmed with results obtained in the Inner Mongolia
Hetao, where edafic conditions are similar to those of HID
(Feng et al., 2005). In Table 11 is presented an example of an
improved irrigation schedule applied to the most frequent
soil class (TAW = 281 mm) aimed at avoiding water stress, i.e.
ETc adj = ETc; results for other soil classes are presented by
Campos et al. (2003).
Results in Table 11 show that with appropriately selected
irrigation depths and timings and level basins, one or two
irrigations could be avoided and reduce irrigation over the
entire season relative to present practices. The potential water
savings are 190, 119 and 111 mm, respectively for the
intercrop, wheat and maize, i.e. 30, 28 and 21%. Deep
percolation is reduced to only that occurring in the parts of
the fields where more infiltration occurs, i.e. averaging zero in
theory. The groundwater contribution is smaller than at
present but still contributes to the crop water requirements
with more than 100 mm in the case of the intercrop.
When saline soils are considered, a leaching fraction
close to 8% is required with each irrigation event in addition
to leaching with the winter irrigation. Two different
scenarios are considered: (1) assuming a soil with
ECe = 3 dS m1, i.e. with ECe > ECe threshold for the maize
crop, causing a yield decrease of about 20%; (2) considering a
saline soil, with ECe = 11 dS m1, which produces an average
wheat yield decrease of 20%; maize is not grown on this soil
(see Table 2). Adopting zero-leveled basins and irrigating to
attain ETc adj = ETc, results (Table 12) show that the number
of irrigations and the season’s total application depth can be
reduced relatively to the present by 22, 15 and 8%,
respectively for the intercrop, wheat and maize (cf.
Table 8) despite including a leaching fraction at every
irrigation event.
Further reductions in irrigation depths and number of
irrigation events are possible, with water savings from 25 to
40% but causing a decrease in crop ET and yields of the same
order of magnitude. Knowing that farmers’ incomes are less
then 1 USD per day, this approach is not practical.
The examples above show that important water savings in
irrigation could be achieved through improving irrigation
scheduling but under condition that: (1) upstream water
diversions are significantly reduced to allow the drainage
system to appropriately functioning; (2) the drainage system is
upgraded to effectively lower the water table depth; (3) precise
land leveling and higher inflow rates are adopted to improve

Table 12 – Irrigation schedules simulated for saline soils

Table 11 – Improved irrigation schedules simulated for a with TAW = 281 mm considering the target water table
non-saline soil with TAW = 281 mm/m considering the depth and zero-leveled basins
target water table depth and zero leveled-basins Maize Intercrop Wheat
Crop Intercrop Wheat Maize 1
ECe (dS m ) 3 3 11
Season rainfall (mm) 168 79 168 Irrigations after planting 4 4 3
Irrigations after planting 4 3 4 Season irrigation (mm) 480 490 360
Season irrigation (mm) 440 303 410 Season rainfall (mm) 168 168 79
ASW at soil freezing (mm) 248 248 248 ASW at soil freezing (mm) 244 244 244
ASW at planting (mm) 202 202 146 ASW at planting (mm) 142 198 197
ASW at harvesting (mm) 146 167 144 ASW at harvesting (mm) 139 133 163
Percolation (mm) 0 0 0 Percolation/leaching (mm) 41 39 31
Capillary rise (mm) 109 91 74 Capillary rise (mm) 43 88 65
ETc adj (mm) 817 554 755 ETc adj (mm) 755 817 554
ETc (mm) 817 554 755 ETc (mm) 755 817 554
120 agricultural water management 93 (2007) 109–122
basin irrigation systems; (4) delivery scheduling is adapted to
provide for improved irrigation timings and application
depths. Farmers, by themselves, presently have no means
to improve irrigation management without a large change in
the conveyance and delivery system as well as support for
improving the farm basin systems.
7. Conclusions
Several conclusions may be drawn from this study. Field
evaluations were essential to characterize the basin irrigation
systems and to parameterize simulation models of surface
irrigation and irrigation scheduling. After parameterization,
these models are important tools to identify the required
improvements for on-farm irrigation systems and manage-
ment, and to predict the performance of alternative strategies.
Moreover, data generated by the models are essential to assess
the demand at various scales.
The present irrigation practices in the Huinong Irrigation
District result in low application efficiency and high percola-
tion. Excessive water is diverted into the conveyance system.
Consequently, the capacity of the drainage system is exceeded
resulting in waterlogging and soil salinization. The existing
schedules are highly hampered by high watertable levels that
limit crop root development, and leads to excess percolation
water, which in turn is one of the reasons the watertable is
high. Therefore, controlling upstream water diversions and
lowering the water table are pre-conditions to improve farm
irrigation.
Maintaining the water table at a target level deeper than
1.0 m, requires combined improvements in irrigation schedul-
ing, and irrigation system design and operation. Adopting only
appropriate irrigation timings and depths would improve
irrigation performance, but the uniformity and application
efficiency would remain low, which hampers the control of
percolation and leaching. Therefore, the most effective
results, with minimal percolation for the low salinity soils
and with controlled leaching for the saline soils, require that
basins are precision zero leveled and an improved irrigation
scheduling is adopted. Significant water savings of 25–30%
would then be produced together with improved soil salinity.
However, much more significant water savings would result
from controlling upstream water diversions.
Acknowledgements
This study was performed as part of a research contract on
‘‘Water Saving Policies for the Yellow River Basin’’ funded by
the European Union, DG XII, Program STD-INCO, and the Swiss
Government.
references
Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D., Smith, M., 1998. Crop
Evapotranspiration. Guidelines for Computing Crop Water
Requirements. FAO Irrig. Drain. Pap. 56. FAO, Rome.
Ayars, J.E., Hutmacher, R.B., Schoneman, R.A., Soppe, W.G., Vail,
S.S., Dale, F., 1999. Realizing the potential of integrated
irrigation and drainage water management for meeting
crop water requirements in semi-arid and arid areas. Irrig.
Drain. Syst. 13 (4), 321–347.
Ayers, R.S., Westcot, D.W., 1985. Water Quality for Agriculture.
FAO Irrig. Drain. Pap. 29. FAO, Rome.
Beltrão, J., Ben Asher, J., 1997. The effect of salinity on corn yield
using the CERES-maize model. Irrig. Drain. Syst. 11, 15–28.
Cai, L.G., Mao, Z., Fang, S.X., Liu, H.S., 2003. The Yellow River
Basin and case study areas. In: Pereira, L.S., Cai, L.G., Musy,
A., Minhas, P.S. (Eds.), Water Savings in the Yellow River
Basin: Issues and Decision Support Tools in Irrigation.
China Agricultural Press, Beijing, pp. 13–34.
Campos, A.A., Pereira, L.S., Gonçalves, J.M., Fabião, M.S., Liu, Y.,
Li, Y.N., Mao, Z., Dong, B., 2003. Water saving in the Yellow
River Basin, China. 1. Irrigation demand scheduling. Agric.
Eng. Intern. V, , www.cigr-ejournal.tamu.edu.
Clemmens, A.J., 1991. Direct solution to surface irrigation
advance inverse problem. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 117 (4),
578–594.
Clemmens, A.J., 1998. Level basin design based on cutoff
criteria. Irrig. Drain. Syst. 12 (2), 85–113.
Clemmens, A.J., 2000. Level basin irrigation systems: adoption,
practices, and the resulting performance. In: Evans, R.G.,
Benham, B.L., Trooien, T.P. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth
Decennial National Irrigation Symposium, ASAE, St. Joseph,
MI, pp. 273–282.
Clemmens, A.J., El Haddad, Z., Strelkoff, T.S., 1999. Assessing
the potential for modern surface irrigation in Egypt. Trans.
ASAE 42 (4), 995–1008.
Clyma, W., Clemmens, A.J., 2000. Farmer management
strategies for level basin using advance distance criteria. In:
Evans, R.G., Benham, B.L., Trooien, T.P. (Eds.), Proceedings
of the Fourth Decennial National Irrigation Symposium,
ASAE, St. Joseph, MI, pp. 573–578.
Clyma, W., Reddy, J.M., 2000. Optimal design and management
of surface irrigation systems. In: Evans, R.G., Benham, B.L.,
Trooien, T.P. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth Decennial
National Irrigation Symposium, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI, pp.
298–303.
Deng, X.P., Shan, L., Zhang, H., Turner, N.C., 2006. Improving
agricultural water use efficiency in arid and semiarid areas
of China. Agric. Water Manage. 80, 23–40.
Doorenbos, J., Kassam, A.H., 1979. Yield Response to Water. FAO
Irrig. Drain. Pap. 33. FAO. Rome.
El-Amami, H., Zairi, A., Pereira, L.S., Machado, T., Slatni, A.,
Rodrigues, P.N., 2001. Deficit irrigation of cereals and
horticultural crops. 2. Economic analysis. Agric. Eng. Intern.
3 Manuscript LW 00 007b (www.agen.tamu.edu/cigr/).
El-Haddad, Z., Clemmens, A.J., El-Ansary, M., Awad, M., 2001.
Influence of cultural practices on the performance of long
level basins in Egypt. Irrig. Drain. Syst. 15 (4), 327–353.
Endale, D.M., Fipps, G., 2001. Simulation-based irrigation
scheduling as a water management tool in developing
countries. Irrig. Drain. 50 (3), 249–257.
English, M., Raja, S.N., 1996. Perspectives on deficit irrigation.
Agric. Water Manage. 32 (1), 1–14.
Fang, S., Chen, X., 2001. Rationally utilizing water resources to
control soil salinity in irrigation districts. In: Stott, D.E.,
Mohtar, R.H., Steinhardt, G.C. (Eds.), Sustaining the Global
Farm (Selected papers Int Meetting Purdue, 1999). Purdue
University, pp. 1134–1138.
Fangmeier, D.D., Clemmens, A.J., El-Ansary, M., Strelkoff, T.S.,
Osman, H.E., 1999. Influence of land leveling precision on
level-basin advance and performance. Trans. ASAE 42 (4),
1019–1025.
Feng, Z.Z., Wang, X.K., Feng, Z.W., 2005. Soil N and salinity
leaching after the autumn irrigation and its impact on
 agricultural water management 93 (2007) 109–122
groundwater in Hetao Irrigation District, China. Agric.
Water Manage. 71, 131–143.
Fernando, R.M., Pereira, L.S., Liu, Y., Li, Y.N., Cai, L.G., 1998.
Reduced demand irrigation scheduling under constraint of
the irrigation method. In: Pereira, L.S., Gowing, J.W. (Eds.),
Water and the Environment: Innovation Issues in Irrigation
and Drainage. E&FN Spon, London, pp. 407–414.
Gonçalves, J.M., Pereira, L.S., Campos, A.A., Fabião, M.S.,
Paredes, P., Fang, S.X., Mao, Z., Dong, B., 2002. Modeling
demand and distribution for environmental upgrading of
the Huinong irrigation system, upper Yellow River Basin: a
multi-criteria approach for DSS in the irrigation domain. In:
Proceedings of the 2002 ASAE Annual International
Meeting/CIGR XVth World Congress Paper 022211, Chicago,
IL, July 2002, ASAE.
Gonçalves, J.M., Pereira, L.S., Fang, S.X., Dong, B., 2007.
Modelling and multicriteria analysis of water saving
scenarios for an irrigation district in the upper Yellow River
Basin, Agric. Water Manage., in press.
Goussard, J., 1996. Interaction between water delivery and
irrigation scheduling. In: Smith, M. Pereira, L.S., Berengena,
J., Itier, B., Goussard, J., Ragab, R., Tollefson, L., Van
Hoffwegen, P. (Eds.), Irrigation Scheduling: From Theory
to Practice. FAO Water Report 8. ICID and FAO, Rome, pp.
263–272.
Hatcho, N., 1998. Demand management by irrigation delivery
scheduling. In: Pereira, L.S., Gowing, J.W. (Eds.), Water and
the Environment: Innovation Issues in Irrigation and
Drainage. E & FN Spon, London, pp. 239–246.
Heermann, D.F., 1996. Irrigation scheduling. In: Pereira, L.S.,
Feddes, R.A., Gilley, J.R., Lesaffre, B. (Eds.) Sustainability of
Irrigated Agriculture, NATO ASI Series. Kluwer, Dordrecht,
pp. 233–245.
Hollanders, P., Schultz, B., Wang, S.L., Cai, L.G., 2005. Drainage
and salinity assessment in the Huinong Canal Irrigation
District, Ningxia. China Irrig. Drain. 54 (2), 155–173.
Huang, G.H. (Ed.), 2000. Theory and practice of water saving
agriculture.Proceedings of the International Workshop,
Beijing. Waterpub., Beijing.
Jia, Z.H., Luo, W., Fang, S.X., Wang, N.J., Wang, L., 2006.
Evaluating current drainage practices and feasibility of
controlled drainage in the YinNan Irrigation District, China.
Agric. Water Manage. 84, 20–26.
Kang, S., Zhang, F., Zhang, J., 2002. A simulation model of water
dynamics in winter wheat field and its application in a
semiarid region. Agric. Water Manage. 49 (2), 115–129.
Kang, S., Zhang, F., Liang, Y., Hu, X., Cai, H., Gu, B., 2003. Effects
of limited irrigation on yield and water use efficiency of
winter wheat in the Loess Plateau of China. Agric. Water
Manage. 55 (3), 203–216.
Katopodes, N.D., Tang, J.H., Clemmens, A.J., 1990. Estimation of
surface irrigation parameters. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 116 (5),
676–696.
Li, Y.N., Calejo, M.J., 1998. Surface irrigation. In: Pereira, L.S.,
Liang, R.J., Musy, A., Hann, M.J. (Eds.), Water and Soil
Management for Sustainable Agriculture in the North China
Plain. DER, ISA, Lisbon, 236–303.
Liu, Y., Fernando, R.M., 1998. Irrigation scheduling. In: Pereira,
L.S., Liang, R.J., Musy, A., Hann, M.J. (Eds.), Water and Soil
Management for Sustainable Agriculture in the North China
Plain. DER, ISA, Lisbon, pp. 167–235.
Liu, Y., Pereira, L.S., 2000. Validation of FAO methods for
estimating crop coefficients. Trans. CSAE 16 (5), 26–30 (in
Chinese).
Liu, Y., Teixeira, J.L., Zhang, H.J., Pereira, L.S., 1998. Model
validation and crop coefficients for irrigation scheduling in
the North China Plain. Agric. Water Manage. 36, 233–246.
Liu, Y, Cai, J.B, Cai, L.G., Fernando, R.M., Pereira, L.S., 2000.
Improved irrigation scheduling under constraints of the
121
irrigation technology. In: Huang, G.H. (Ed.), Theory and
Practice of Water-Saving Irrigation. Proceedings of the
International Workshop, Beijing. Waterpub, Beijing, pp.
168–181.
Liu, W.Z., Hunsaker, D.J., Li, Y.S., Xie, X.Q., Wall, C.W., 2002.
Interrelations of yield, evapotranspiration, and water use
efficiency from marginal analysis of water production
functions. Agric. Water Manage. 56 (2), 143–151.
Liu, Y., Cai, J.B., Cai, L.G., Pereira, L.S., 2005. Analysis of irrigation
scheduling and water balance for an irrigation district in the
lower reaches of the Yellow River. J. Hydraul. Eng. 36 (6),
701–708 (in Chinese).
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.
Mao, Z., Dong, B., Pereira, L.S., 2004. Assessment and water
saving issues for Ningxia paddies, upper Yellow River Basin.
Paddy Water Environ. 2 (2), 99–110.
Minhas, P.S., 1996. Saline water management for irrigation in
India. Agric. Water Manage. 38, 1–24.
Minhas, P.S., Tyagi, N.K., Gupta, S.K., Dong, K.L., Cai, L.G.,
Pereira, L.S., 2006. Assessing drainage water re-use options
in Bojili Irrigation District, Shandong. Irrig. Drain. 55, 1–15.
Pereira, L.S., 1999. Higher performances through combined
improvements in irrigation methods and scheduling: a
discussion. Agric. Water Manage. 40 (2), 153–169.
Pereira, L.S., Oweis, T., Zairi, A., 2002. Irrigation management
under water scarcity. Agric. Water Manage. 57, 175–206.
Pereira, L.S., Cai, L.G., Hann, M.J., 2003a. Farm water and soil
management for improved water use in the North China
Plain. Irrig. Drain. 52 (4), 299–317.
Pereira, L.S., Cai, L.G., Musy, A., Minhas, P.S. (Eds.), 2003b.
Water Savings in the Yellow River Basin: Issues and
Decision Support Tools in Irrigation. China Agricultural
Press, Beijing.
Pereira, L.S., Teodoro, P.R., Rodrigues, P.N., Teixeira, J.L., 2003c.
Irrigation scheduling simulation: the model ISAREG. In:
Rossi, G., Cancelliere, A., Pereira, L.S., Oweis, T., Shatanawi,
M., Zairi, A. (Eds.), Tools for Drought Mitigation in
Mediterranean Regions. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 161–180.
Playan, E., Faci, J.M., Serreta, A., 1996. Modelling
microtopography in basin irrigation. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 122
(6), 339–347.
Rhoades, J.D., Kandiah, A., Mashali, A.M., 1992. The Use of
Saline Waters for Crop Production. FAO Irrig. Drain. Pap. 48.
FAO, Rome.
Roost, N., 2002. Strategic options analysis in surface irrigation
systems: integrated modelling for efficient, productive and
equitable water use. PhD Thesis Ecole Polytechnique
Fédérale de Lausanne, CH.
Roost, N., Cui, Y.L., Xie, C.B., 2003. Water supply simulation for
improved allocation and management. In: Pereira, L.S., Cai,
L.G., Musy, A., Minhas, P.S. (Eds.), Water Savings in the
Yellow River Basin: Issues and Decision Support Tools in
Irrigation. China Agricultural Press, Beijing, pp. 345–363.
Stewart, J.L., Hanks, R.J., Danielson, R.E., Jackson, E.B., Pruitt,
W.O., Franklin, W.T., Riley, J.P., Hagan, R.M., 1977.
Optimizing Crop Production through Control of Water and
Salinity Levels in the Soil. Utah Water Res Lab Rep
PRWG151-1. Utah State University, Logan.
Strelkoff, T., 1993. SRFR, a Computer Program for Simulating
Flow in Surface Irrigation Furrows-Basins-Borders. USDA-
ARS Water Conservation Lab, Phoenix.
Strelkoff, T.S., Clemmens, A.J., Schmidt, B.V., 2000. ARS
software for simulation and design of surface irrigation. In:
Evans, R.G., Benham, B.L., Trooien, T.P. (Eds.), Proceedings
of the Fourth Decennial National Irrigation Symposium,
ASAE, St. Joseph, MI, pp. 290–297.
122 agricultural water management 93 (2007) 109–122
Teixeira, J.L., Pereira, L.S., 1992. ISAREG, an irrigation scheduling
simulation model. ICID Bull. 41 (2), 29–48.
Walker, W., 1998. SIRMOD–Surface Irrigation Modeling
Software. Utah State University, Logan.
Walker, W.R., Skogerboe, G.V., 1987. Surface Irrigation. Theory
and Practice. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Wang, H., Zhang, L., Dawes, W.R., Liu, C., 2001. Improving water
use efficiency of irrigated crops in the North China Plain.
Measurements and modelling. Agric. Water Manage. 48 (2),
151–167.
Wang, X.G., Hollanders, P.H.J., Wang, S.L., Fang, S.X., 2004. Effect
of field groundwater table control on water and salinity
balance and crop yield in the Qingtongxia Irrigation District,
China. Irrig. Drain. 53 (3), 263–275.
Wang, H., Yang, Z., Saito, Y., Liu, J.P., Sun, X., 2006. Interannual
and seasonal variation of the Huanghe (Yellow River) water
discharge over the past 50 years: connections to impacts
from ENSO events and dams. Global Planet. Change 50,
212–225.
Xie, C.B., Cui, Y.L., Lance, J.M., 2003. Water supply systems:
resource allocation, seepage and performance assessment.
In: Pereira, L.S., Cai, L.G., Musy, A., Minhas, P.S. (Eds.),
Water Savings in the Yellow River Basin: Issues and
Decision Support Tools in Irrigation. China Agricultural
Press, Beijing, pp. 63–86.
Xu, Z.F., Tian, J.C., 2003. Socio-economic assessment in Ningxia
irrigated agriculture. In: Pereira, L.S., Cai, L.G., Musy, A.,
Minhas, P.S. (Eds.), Water Savings in the Yellow River Basin:
Issues and Decision Support Tools in Irrigation. China
Agricultural Press, Beijing, pp. 211–226.
Xu, Z.X., Takeuchi, K., Ishidaira, H., Zhang, X.W., 2002.
Sustainability Analysis for Yellow River Water Resources
Using the System Dynamics Approach. Water Resour.
Manage. 16, 239–261.
Yu, L., 2006. The Huanghe (Yellow) River: recent changes and its
countermeasures. Cont. Shelf Res. 26, 2281–2298.
Zairi, A., Slatni, A., Mailhol, J.C., Achour, H., 1998. Surface
irrigation efficiency in cracking soils as influenced by
water restrictions. In: Pereira, L.S., Gowing, J.W. (Eds.),
Water and the Environment: Innovation Issues in
Irrigation and Drainage. E & FN Spon, London,
pp. 120–130.
Zapata, N., Playan, E., 2000. Simulation elevation and infiltration
in level-basin irrigation. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 126 (2), 78–84.