Agricultural Water Management 229 (2020) 105835

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agricultural Water Management

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

Planning for groundwater sustainable use: A case study in Nishapur Plain, T

Iran
Ahmad Abrishamchia, Faezeh Khakbazan Fardb, Ali Taghavic,*
a
Dept. of Civil Engineering, UNESCO Chair in Water and Environment Management for Sustainable Cities, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
b
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
c
Woodard & Curran, Inc., CA, United States

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: In Iran, due to arid and semi-arid climate, groundwater resources play an essential role in food production, as
Sustainable yield well as domestic and industrial water supply. In recent years, increasing population, scarcity of surface water
Groundwater sustainable use resources, and effects of worldwide and regional climate change have resulted in over-exploitation and un-
Capture concept sustainability of these resources in the country. The present study aims to estimate groundwater sustainable
Groundwater modeling
yield, examine effects of spatial and temporal scale, and propose a plan for groundwater sustainable use in
Nishapur Plain
Nishapur Plain, in the north-east of Iran. In investigating the effects of spatial scale, the area of the plain is
divided into several zones, with estimation of groundwater recharge and discharge for each zone and the
temporal scale refers to the different time-scales used to estimate the average value of groundwater recharge and
discharge. The results of the transient groundwater model of Nishapur Plain, revealed that average annual
groundwater storage depletion is about 311 MCM1 during the 8-year period of 2005–2013 with the minimum,
average, and maximum water table decline of 0.6 m, 7.7 m and 11 m, respectively. The study results suggest that
sustainable yield is closely correlated to the spatial and temporal scales, and refinement of spatial and temporal
scales increases sustainable yield from 39 % to 59 % of the current pumping volume equal to about 100 MCM of
water (or 8000 ha of irrigated land). Furthermore, when the groundwater withdrawals are limited to sustainable
yield, increasing irrigation efficiency from 38 % (current efficiency) to about 60 %, can potentially result in
maintaining irrigated areas and minimize adverse social and economic impacts of limiting groundwater usage.
This is an achievable rate, based on data from the Iranian government organizations. The results of this study can
be extended to other semi-arid agricultural areas, which primarily depend on groundwater.

1. Introduction
Groundwater is the main source of water for many people around
the world and plays a fundamental role in irrigation of crop fields and
the protection of ecosystems. In recent decades, an increasing demand
of water on one hand and over-exploitation of groundwater resources
on the other hand has led to the unsustainability of these scarce re-
sources worldwide.(Wada et al., 2010)
In the last century, safe yield has being brought to scientists atten-
tion (Lee, 1915; Theis, 1940; Todd, 1959; Sophocleous, 1997). Lee
(1915) pioneered to describe the maximum value for regular and per-
manent withdrawal without endangering the storage reserve. In addi-
tion, the concept of safe yield has been further developed from different
aspects such as economic feasibility, groundwater quality protection,
existing water laws and water rights, as well as potential environmental
problems. Todd (1959) defined safe yield as the amount of water which
can be withdrawn from a groundwater basin annually without any
undesirable results. Sophocleous (1997) defined safe yield as main-
taining a long-term balance between the annual groundwater abstrac-
tion and recharge. However, this definition has been mainly criticized
due to a common misperception that the development of a groundwater
system is safe if the average annual rate of groundwater discharge does
not exceed the average rate of natural recharge through precipitation
and surface water seepage (Todd, 1959; Sophocleous, 2000). Actually,
the notion of safe yield ignores the fact that aquifer outflow in the form
of evapotranspiration and seepage into streams and springs is balanced
by recharge under natural conditions in the long term. Thus, if pumping
equals recharge, streams and springs may eventually dry up and the

Corresponding author.
⁎

E-mail addresses: abrisham@sharif.edu (A. Abrishamchi), faezeh.khakbazan9851@student.sharif.ir (F. Khakbazan Fard),

ataghavi@woodardcurran.com (A. Taghavi).
1
Million Cubic Meters

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2019.105835
Received 7 May 2018; Received in revised form 16 September 2019; Accepted 28 September 2019
0378-3774/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
A. Abrishamchi, et al.
aquifer may be depleted of groundwater as the result of continued
pumping in excess of recharge (Sophocleous, 2000). This misconception
has led to a shift in terminology from safe yield to sustainable yield,
defined as the development and use of groundwater resource in such a
way that can be maintained for an infinite time without any un-
acceptable environmental, economic, or social consequences (Alley
et al., 1999; Sophocleous, 2000; Custodio, 2002). Kalf and Woodlley
(2005) reviewed the gradual change from safe to sustainable yield and
discussed the method for estimating sustainable yield, based on the
water balance equation at the water basin scale.
In order to apply the concept of sustainability to water resources, it
is necessary to understand and quantify the effects of human activities
on the water resources and environment as far into the future as pos-
sible. In addition, the systems should be robust and flexible so that they
can be easily adapted to unexpected future changes. Therefore, defining
and measuring sustainability is a major challenge (UNESCO, 1999;
Loucks, 2000). Norton and Toman (1995) emphasized that the term
sustainability includes some conceptual ambiguities, which are difficult
to resolve such as the relation between sustainability and measures of
economic well-being and the problem of defining the physical scales of
sustainability evaluations in case of multiple stakeholder groups.
Practically, sustainable yield is often calculated as the percentage of the
long-term average recharge (Norton and Toman, 1995). However,
Bredehoeft (2002) argued that the changes in recharge and discharge
caused by abstraction, influence the sustainable yield. Zhou et al.
(2012) emphasized that sustainable yield cannot be simply calculated
as a single value by using the water balance. However, the dynamic
response of the groundwater levels to the groundwater abstraction
should be evaluated2, although it has been ignored in most of the stu-
dies conducted so far. In addition to these complexities, sustainable
groundwater yield varies with spatial and temporal scales.
Hugman et al. (2013) stated that defining sustainable yield based on
long-term averages or annual values of recharge can lead to over- or
under exploitation of groundwater. In their study, different time scales
were used to calculate groundwater recharge and extraction. These
time-scales included 1-day, 1-month, 3-month, 6-month and 1-year.
The study defines sustainable groundwater yield in South Portugal as a
percentage of groundwater recharge during a defined time period. They
concluded that reducing the time-scale of sustainable yield definition
allows for an increase in withdrawal volumes while maintaining the
sustainability of the system.
On the other hand, sustainable yield also depends on the definition
of spatial scale. One can argue that defining the sustainable yield over a
relatively large area with a fixed volume of extraction may lead to low
rates of withdrawal per unit area. Although, the total groundwater
extraction compared to the total recharge and discharge may show a
sustainable condition, it is misleading in the sense that it ignores the
local inverse effects of groundwater pumping, i.e. substantially influ-
ence a potential ecosystem. Therefore, sustainable yield should be de-
fined based on a reasonably small spatial scale to properly address
significant and important local effects, but reasonably large enough to
identify the ability of aquifer systems to adjust to pumping stresses
(Maimone, 2004).
The present study aims to estimate the maximum sustainable yield
of an aquifer by using the concept of capture, which refers to the sum of
the increase in recharge and decrease in discharge brought about by
pumping. This is performed for the Nishapur Plain in Iran using a
MODFLOW model. In addition, various temporal and spatial scales
were examined using the model for the purpose of planning for sus-
tainable groundwater management in the region. Spatial scale refers to
different groundwater zones over which groundwater recharge and
discharge are estimated, and temporal scale is the time step used to
2
Bidwell et al. (2007), Dogrul et al. (2016), Gao et al. (2016), and Sidle
(1986)
2
Agricultural Water Management 229 (2020) 105835
calculate the average groundwater recharge and discharge.
2. Description of study area
2.1. General information and water resources
Nishapur Plain, with an area of about 6000 Km2, is located in
Khorasan Razavi Province, in the north east of Iran and bordered by
Binalood Mountain in the north. The average annual precipitation in
the plain is 234 mm, compared to high potential annual evapo-
transpiration of 2300 mm.
The only surface water resources in Nishapur Plain is the main
branch of Kalshur River. Due to the limited availability of surface
water, groundwater is the main source of water supplying more than 90
% of water consumption in the plain. The available data shows that the
long-term average annual volume of groundwater pumpage in the plain
is about 509 MCM, of which more than 96 % is used in agriculture. In
addition, the total domestic and industrial demand in Nishapur Plain is
about 40 MCM, of which about 10 MCM is supplied from groundwater
wells.
Fig. 1 shows the location of Nishapur Plain in Iran and Kavir Mar-
kazi Basin and land use map of the plain. The Digital Elevation Model
(DEM) map of Nishapur Plain is also presented in Fig. 2.
The total irrigated area of Nishapur Plain is 54,245 ha which is di-
vided into traditional and modern irrigation area. Traditional irrigation
systems with low irrigation efficiency are used in about 63 % of total
irrigated area (equal to about 34,174 ha) which is defined as traditional
irrigation area. While modern irrigation methods such as pressure ir-
rigation systems and pipeline networks are mainly used in about
20,071 ha of the total irrigated area in Nishapur Plain (Sazab Co.,
2009). The irrigation efficiency of Nishapur Plain was estimated in the
study conducted by Sazab Co. (2009). This study concluded that irri-
gation efficiency of traditional and modern irrigation areas are 28 %
and 54 % respectively, resulting in the total basin irrigation efficiency
of approximately 38 %. This estimate was primarily based on weighted
average efficiency estimated for conveyance system, distribution
system, water application, and irrigation technology and management.
A significant portion of total extracted water in Nishapur Plain is
allocated to wheat (36.5 %) and sugar beet (31.6 %), both of which
benefit from a set price and pre-purchase by the government entities.
Wheat is one of the oldest crops grown in Nishapur Plain including 41
% of the total irrigated area. Barley, sugar beet, and cotton are regarded
as the other important products in the plain. Table 1 illustrates the
monthly net irrigation demand of major crops in Nishapur Plain which
is close to the worldwide averages3 and agricultural production in-
formation of the current crop pattern is shown in Table 2. As illustrated
in this table, due to the relatively low irrigation efficiency, the annual
gross irrigation water requirement of the current crop pattern is about
12,600 m3/ha using the weighted value of gross irrigation demand of
major crops (Sazab Co., 2009)
Fig. 3 shows the distribution of monthly gross irrigation demand.
According to this figure, gross irrigation demand in winter is almost
zero and the peak of demand occurs in April, May, and June. Gross
irrigation demand is less than 1250 m3/ha in March, July, and August
and less than 1000 m3/ha in autumn.
Based on the information derived from previous studies in Nishapur
Plain, about 170 MCM of agricultural demand is supplied by surface
water, aqueducts and springs. It is worth noting that as aqueducts are
located outside the boundary of Nishapur Plain aquifer, the effect of
extracted water from aqueducts is merely considered in the ground-
water recharge.
3
FAO Crop Water Needs
A. Abrishamchi, et al. Agricultural Water Management 229 (2020) 105835

2.2. The Aquifer of Nishapur Plain

Accordicing to the previous studies, the aquifer of Nishapur Plain is

unconfined (Sazab Co. and Izady, 2014). Fig. 4 shows the geologic map
of Nishapur Plain and two cross sections of the aquifer.
The physical properties of the aquifer including bedrock map and
aquifer thickness map and hydraulic properties including hydraulic
conductivity (K) and specific yield (Sy) were derived from the study
done by Izady (2014) and presented in Fig. 5 and 6 respectively.
According to the available data, there are 1690 pumping wells in
Nishapur Plain, which are mainly located near the eastern boundary of
the plain. Also, there are 50 observation wells in the plain which are
used in the calibration procedure. Fig. 7 shows the location of pumping
and observation wells in the plain.
Fig. 8 presents a hydrograph representing the regional groundwater
level trends based on the observed groundwater levels. This regional
hydrograph is developed using observation data from all the observa-
Fig. 1. Land use Map of Nishapur plain.
tion wells in the region, using a thiessen polygon method over the
whole area of the plain. Based on this regional hydrograph, the

Fig. 2. Digital Elevation Model (DEM) map of Nishapur Plain (masl).

Table 1
Monthly net irrigation demand of major crops in Nishapur Plain (millimeter) (Sazab CO., 2009).
Crop Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Annual

Wheat 60 116 157 53 0 0 34 11 6 3 1 9 450

Barley 64 116 93 0 0 0 39 13 7 4 2 11 349
Sugar Beet 41 55 107 176 174 136 69 20 0 0 0 0 778
Cotton 32 43 96 190 181 110 20 0 0 0 0 0 672

3
A. Abrishamchi, et al. Agricultural Water Management 229 (2020) 105835

Table 2
Agricultural production information of the current crop pattern in Nishapur plain (Sazab CO., 2009).
Crop Irrigated Area Percent of Irrigated Area Gross Irrigation demand Gross Irrigation demand Agricultural Productivity Total Production (Ton)
(ha) (%) (MCM) (m3/ha) (Kg/ha)

Wheat 22420 41.3 251 11201 2450 54929

Barley 14497 26.7 126 8686 2650 38417
Sugar Beet 11091 20.4 215 19366 34600 383749
Cotton 3541 6.5 59 16727 2430 8605
Other Crops 2696 5.0 32 11852 – –
Sum 54245 100.0 683.0 12591 – –

(LT−1) is regarded as the change in discharge caused by pumping. The

value of SΔh/Δt describes the rate of change in storage in which S is
specific yield and Δh (L) and Δt (T) are change in groundwater level and
time interval respectively. The right side of the Eq. 1 shows the total
recharge and the left side indicates the total discharge of the aquifer
after pumping.
Based on the capture equation, it is evident that R=D and S Δh/
Δt = 0 under the natural condition. Thus, the following equations are
obtained when the pumpage is introduced and equilibrium conditions
are obtained:

ΔR = ΔD + Q or Q = ΔR – ΔD (2)

ΔR and ΔD are calculated according to the pumping time step

(Seward et al., 2006).
In the present study, capture principle, defined by Eq. 2, was used to
estimate the groundwater sustainable yield.

Fig. 3. Monthly gross irrigation demand in Nishapur Plain (Sazab CO., 2009). 3.2. Numerical model

groundwater levels have experienced a declining condition, which is
reflective of the condition that the long-term amount of recharge has
beenless than groundwater withdrawals. The regional hydrograph in-
dicates that during wet hydrologic conditions, there are short-term re-
coveries in the groundwater levels.
In recent decades, groundwater depletion in Nishapur Plain resulted
from uncontrolled withdrawal, causes considerable decline in ground-
water levels and land subsidence, as well as the degradation of
groundwater quality. The results of the previous studies showed that
the average annual land subsidence in Nishapur Plain is about 10 cm
(IWRM4 Co. 2015, Sazab Co., 2009). Some of the consequences of land
subsidence in Nishapur Plain are damage to roads, oil and gas trans-
mission lines, and potential damage to Mashhad-Nishapur railways.
3. Materials and method
3.1. Concept of capture
Capture refers to the increase in recharge and decrease in discharge
(Lohman et al., 1972) and equilibrium is obtained when pumping
equals to capture. The relationship between change in storage, de-
creased outflow, and increased inflow, as a result of groundwater
withdrawal is presented in Fig. 9. (Seward et al., 2006). As shown in
this figure change in storage equals zero when pumping equals sum of
the increased recharge and decreased discharge (capture).
According to Lohman et al. (1972), capture is described by a simple
water balance equation:
R + ΔR = D + ΔD + Q + S Δh/Δt,
−1
Where Q (LT ) is the rate of groundwater pumpage, R (LT ) re-
presents natural recharge, ΔR (LT−1) indicates the change in the re-
charge caused by pumping, D (LT−1) shows natural discharge, ΔD
4
Iran Water Resource Management Company
In the present study, a MODFLOW-2005 groundwater flow model
was used to simulate groundwater dynamics in Nishapur Plain aquifer.
The groundwater basin was discretized into grid of cells with a size of
500 m. The model includes one unconfined layer and uses a monthly
stress period and time step for simulation. The eastern and a small
portion of the southern boundary of the groundwater basin were de-
fined as constant inflow boundary and a small portion of the western
boundary was defined as constant outflow boundary. Other boundaries
were determined as no-flow boundary. Fig. 10 illustartes a schematic
map in which the network of cells, boundary conditions of the
groundwater model of Nishapur Plain, and the location of pumping
wells are presented. In order to use capture concept, groundwater re-
charge and discharge in natural and post-development condition (i.e.
after abstracting groundwater) were determined using this groundwater
model.
The model was calibrated by the automated PEST calibration
method. Aquifer properties including hydraulic conductivity and spe-
cific yield, rainfall infiltration factor, recharge from surface water, and
recharge from return flow of irrigation water were modified during the
calibration process. The calibration target was set so that Root Mean
Square Error (RMSE) of simulated and observed hydraulic head would
be less than 1.5 m.
In order to calibrate hydraulic conductivity and specific yield, some
control points were defined over the whole area of the plain. Fig. 11
presents the location of these control points in the plain.
According to the results of the previous studies and based on the
topography of the plain, soil type, and expert experiences, the rainfall
infiltration factor was assumed to be 0–5 % of the long term average
(1) rainfall. In addition recharge from surface water (main branches of
−1 Kalshur River) was considered to be 10–15 % of the long term average
river discharge and recharge from return flow of irrigation water was
considered to be 15–25 % of the annual groundwater withdrawal
(Sazab Co., 2009; Izady, 2014). The values of these factors were de-
termined in the model calibration.
In this study, the development and calibration of groundwater

4
A. Abrishamchi, et al. Agricultural Water Management 229 (2020) 105835

Fig. 4. Geologic map of Nishapur Plain and A-A and B-B cross sections of the aquifer.

5
A. Abrishamchi, et al.
Fig. 5. Physical properties of the aquifer: (a) Bedrock Depth Map (masl) and (b) Aquifer Thickness Map (m) (Izady, 2014).
Fig. 6. Hydraulic properties of the aquifer: (a) Hydraulic Conductivity Map (m/s) and (b) Specific Yield (%).
model was done in two steps. In the first step, the steady state model
was developed and calibrated using the 8-year (2005–2013) average
values of the groundwater recharge and discharge. After the calibration
of this model, the value of rainfall infiltration factor, the share of river
discharge and return flow of irrigation water that infilltrates the
aquifer, and the value of hydraulic conductivity and specific yield in the
defined control points were determined.
The calibrated steady state model was used to construct pre-devel-
opment or natural groundwater model in which groundwater with-
drawal equals zero. Next, natural groundwater recharge and discharge
were estimated using this model. Natural groundwater recharge was
calculated by summing the recharge from rainfall infiltration and
Kalshur River seepage and groundwater inflow from adjacent aquifers
in the east and south of the aquifer. In addition, natural discharge
equals the sum of groundwater outflow to natural drainage and ad-
jacent aquifer in the west of the aquifer.
In the second step, under post-development condition, the transient
groundwater model of Nishapur Plain with 84 monthly stress periods
and one time step in each stress period was developed and calibrated
during the 7-year period of 2005-2012. In this step, the initial value of
6
Agricultural Water Management 229 (2020) 105835
the calibration parameters were derived from the results of first step
and adjusted at the end of this step. Then the developed model was
validated in the period of 2012–2013.
Next, in the transient groundwater model, monthly areal recharge
rate was estimated as the sum of the rainfall infiltration, return flow of
irrigation water and Kalshur River seepage and groundwater inflow
from adjacent aquifers in the east and south of the aquifer. In this
condition, groundwater discharge was equal to outflow to adjacent
aquifers in the west of the aquifer. It is worth noting that the results of
the groundwater model shows that the groundwater outflow to natural
drainage equals zero in the developed condition. This occurs due to the
low groundwater table after groundwater abstraction.
Then, increase in recharge (ΔR) and decrease in discharge (ΔD) as a
results of abstracting groundwater were estimated by subtracting
groundwater recharge and discharge in the natural condition from
value of these parameters in the developed condition. Afterward, based
on the capture concept, groundwater sustainable yield of Nishapur
Plain was estimated using the values of ΔR and ΔD and Eq. 2. It should
be noted that according to this equation, by limiting the groundwater
withdrawal to the estimated sustainable yield, change in the
A. Abrishamchi, et al.
Fig. 7. Location of pumping and observation wells in Nishapur Plain.
Fig. 8. Nishapur plain aquifer unit hydrograph.
groundwater storage and as a result change in the groundwater level
will be almost zero and the groundwater will reach a new equilibrium.
3.3. Simulation scenarios
In order to examine the effect of spatial and temporal scale on the
groundwater sustainability, the sustainable yield of Nishapur Plain was
estimated based on the results of the calibrated transient groundwater
model and capture concept. This part of the study was divided into two
steps. The first step involved different scenarios in which the effect of
spatial scale on the sustainable yield was evaluated. In the second step,
7
Agricultural Water Management 229 (2020) 105835
Fig. 9. Effect of pumping on inflow, outflow and storage (Seward 2006).
four scenarios were defined to examine the effect of temporal scale by
using the spatial scale which maximizes sustainable yield, derived from
the results of the first step.
In the first scenario of the first step, the sustainable yield was de-
fined over the whole area of the plain as a large scale. In the second
scenario, the area of the plain was divided into different groundwater
zones based on the location of the pumping wells and sustainable yield
was estimated in each zone. The sustainable yield of the plain equals
the sum of the estimated sustainable yield of these zones. Using the
results of the second scenario, other scenarios were defined in a trial
and error procedure. According to the sustainability status of the
groundwater zones in the previous scenario, sustainable groundwater
zones were combined with each other and unsustainable zones divided
into smaller zones in each scenario. The procedure was continued until
the change in the sustainable yield in two consecutive scenarios was
A. Abrishamchi, et al.
Fig. 10. Network of cells, boundary conditions, and location of pumping wells.
negligible and the maximum sustainable yield was reached.
It is possible to use different time-scale to calculate groundwater
recharge and discharge. Therefore, duirng the second step, four dif-
ferent scenarios were defined to examine the effect of temporal scale on
the groundwater sustainable yield of Nishapur Plain. In the first two
scenarios, sustainable yield was calculated by using 1-year and 6-month
average values of the groundwater recharge and discharge. Then, two
other scenarios were defined to assess the effect of seasonal and
monthly time-scale on the groundwater sustainable yield. Fig. 12 Shows
the flowchart of the simulation scenarios in this part of the study.
The results of the previous studies indicated that reaching a new
equilibrium takes a long period of time after limiting the groundwater
withdrawal with a specific value such as sustainable yield (Kalf and
Woolley, 2005; Hu et al., 2010; Gleeson et al., 2012). However, de-
termining the sustainable yield results in reaching a new equilibrium
during a short period of time is important from the perspective of
planning for sustainable management of groundwater resources.
Therefore in each of the scenarios in the present study, the groundwater
sustainable yield was determined in a long planning horizon (more than
75 years) and a short planning horizon, which was assumed to be equal
to the simulation period (8 years in this study). In this study, the short
planning horizon was selected based on the maximum continuous
period of the available data.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Natural (pre-development) condition
Natural (pre-development) condition was simulated to estimate the
natural groundwater recharge and discharge in Nishapur Plain using
8
Agricultural Water Management 229 (2020) 105835
the calibrated steady state model. According to the results of steady
state model calibration, the MR,5 MAR,6 and RMSE of simulated hy-
draulic head in the steady state condition was about 0.21, 0.94 and
1.32 m respectively and the calibrated value of rainfall infiltrtion factor,
recharge from Kalsur River discharge, and recharge from return flow of
irrigation water was determined to be 5 %, 15 % and 20 % respectively.
The hydraulic conductivity and specific yield maps were also modified.
Therefore, in the steady state groundwater model, areal recharge rate
equals sum of the 5 % of the 42-year period of 1971–2013 average
rainfall, 15 % of the 41-year period of 1971–2012 average Kalshur
River discharge, and 20 % of average annual groundwater withdrawal.
Then in the calibrated steady state model, the groundwater with-
drawal was set to zero to develop natural groundwater model. In the
pre-development or natural condition, the aquifer is in equilibrium, the
change in the storage equals zero, and the natural recharge equals
natural discharge. Table 3 shows the water balance components of
Nishapur plain in the natural condition. As shown in this table, both
natural recharge and discharge of Nishapur Plain equals 69 MCM.
4.2. Developed condition
The transient groundwater model of Nishapur Plain was developed
and calibrated in the 7-year period (2005–2012). After the calibration
process, the value of calibration parameters7 which were derived from
5
Mean Residual
6
Mean Absolute Residual
7
rainfall infiltration factor, the share of Kalshur River discharge and return
flow of irrigated area that infiltrates the groundwater, hydralic conductivity,
and specific yield
A. Abrishamchi, et al.
Fig. 11. Location of control points in the calibration of hydraulic conductivity and specific yield of the aquifer.
calibration of the steady states model, has been adjused. The results of
the calibration of model indicated that MR, MAR, and RMSE of simu-
lated hydraulic head was 0.17, 0.87 and 1.15 m respectively. Then
validation of the groundwater model was done in 2012–2013 and the
results illustrates that MR, MAR, and RMSE of the simulated hydraulic
head in the validation prosecc was 0.18, 0.9 and 1.23 m which show the
accuracy of the groundwater model.
Based on the results of the transient groundwater model, the
average annual groundwater storage depletion in the 8-year period of
2005–2013 is about 311 MCM (Table 4). It should be noted that the
values of recharge from rainfall, surface water, and return flow of ir-
rigation water in this table water were the input of the model.
The distribution map of the groundwater level in the end of the
simulation period is presented in Fig.13.
The results indicated that the maximum groundwater table decline,
occurred in the north-east of the plain, is about 11 m. In addition,
maximum groundwater table rise, observed in the north-west of the
plain, is 0.5 m. In general, a significant groundwater table decline oc-
cured in the north and south of the plain due to the excessive with-
drawal in spite of the considerable recharge in these regions as a result
of the high hydraulic conductivity and hydraulic slope.
Fig.14 illustrates the variation of the simulated and observed
groundwater level and 95 % confidence interval upper and lower limit
in the developed condition and Fig.15 shows the variation of simualted
groudwater levels versus observed values for four different observation
wells as an example. The R-squared values of the simulated hydraulic
head in these observation wells were also presented in Fig. 15.
The transient groundwater model of Nishapur Plain is used to cal-
culate the groundwater recharge and discharge and change in the sto-
rage after abstracting groundwater. Then these values were used to
9
Agricultural Water Management 229 (2020) 105835
estimate sustainable yield using Eq. 2 and the results of the steady state
model.
4.3. Effect of spatial scale
In order to examine the effect of spatial scale on the sustainable
yield, the groundwater sustainable yield of Nishapur Plain was de-
termined by using capture concept in five different scenarios. Table 5
indcates the number of groundwater zones in these scenarios. In each
scenario, the first and second numbers represent the number of the
scenario and step, respecively.
In scenario 1.1, using the concept of Capture and results from
MODFLOW model, the sustainable yield was calculated based on the
annual average recharge and discharge derived from the whole area of
the plain. As shown in Table 4, the groundwater recharge and discharge
in the developed condition are 207 MCM and 9 MCM, respectively.
Thus, using the capture concept (Eq. 2) groundwater sustainable yield is
about 198 MCM by subtracting decrease in groundwater discharge
(ΔR=-59.8) from increase in groundwater recharge (ΔD=137.9) which
is equal to almost 40 % of the current groundwater abstraction. The
components of the capture concept in scenario 1.1 is presented in
Table 6.
Based on the simulation results, it takes about 100 years to reach a
new equilibrium by equating the groundwater withdrawal to the sus-
tainable yield. Fig. 16 illustrates the variation of the simulated
groundwater level for Piezo#1 as an example of limitting groundwater
abstraction with the sustainable yield determined in scenario 1.1. As
shown, after about 96 years, the groundwater level changes have been
stopped and the aquifer has reached a new equilibrium.
According to the results, in order to reach a new equilibrium in a
A. Abrishamchi, et al. Agricultural Water Management 229 (2020) 105835

Fig. 12. The flowchart of the simulation scenarios.

Table 3 Table 7 indicates the results of the groundwater sustainable yield in

Water balance component in the natural (pre-development) condition. Nishapur Plain in the long and short planning horizon. As illustrated in
Water Balance Component Annual Rate (MCM)
this table, different spatial scale results in achieving different ground-
water sustainable yields. In this study, minimum suatainable yeild was
Recharge Inflow from adjacent aquifers 22.9 achieved in scenario 1.1, in which the spatial scale equals to the whole
Recharge from rainfall 27.7 area of the plain in oreder to evaluate the effect of large spatial scale on
Recharge from surface water 18.4
the sustainable yield. Thus, large spatial scales could result in under-
Total 69.0
Discharge Outflow to Drain 52.0 estimating the groundwater sustainble yield of the palin.
Outflow to adjacent aquifers 17.0 According to the results presented in Table 7, the maximum sus-
Total 69.0 tainable yield was achieved in scenario 5.1, which is equal to about 295
Change of Storage 0.0
and 189 MCM in a long and short planning horizon, respectively. In this
scenario, the sustainable yield is about 58 % of the current pumpage in
a long planning horizon while the current groundwater pumpage
short period of time (8 years in this study), the sustainable yield should
should be reduced about 63 % to be sustainable in the short planning
be reduced to about 100 MCM (20 % of the current pumpage).
horizon. Thus, sustainable yield in scenario 5.1 is almost 97 and 89
In scenario 2.1, the area of the plain was divided into 32 zones
MCM more than scenario 1.1 in the long and short planning horizon,
based on the location of the pumping wells. Using the results of scenario
respectively. This amount of water is about 20 % of the current
2.1, scenarios 3.1, 4.1, and 5.1 were defined in a trial and error pro-
groundwater consumption in Nishapr Plain. In other words, in scenario
cedure. The number of zones in scenario 3.1, 4.1, and 5.1 was 23, 29
5.1, it is possible to irrigate nearly 8000 ha of land more than that of
and 31, respectively. Fig. 17 illustrates the groundwater zones in
scenario 1.1. Therefore, spatial scale can significantly affect on de-
Nishapour plain in scenario 2.1 as an example. Based on the results,
termination of sustainable yield and planning for sustainable ground-
maximum sustainble yield was achieved in the scenario 5.1. Therefore,
water management. The results show that decreasing trend in the
defining another scenario is not necessary in this regard.
groundwater level was stopped in all of the studied scenarios as a result

10
A. Abrishamchi, et al. Agricultural Water Management 229 (2020) 105835

Table 4 planning horizon.

Water balance component in the developed condition. Based on the results in Table 8, no significant difference was ob-
Water Balance Component Annual Rate (MCM) served in the sustainable yields obtained in the scenario 5.1 and 1.2
because the annual changes in the groundwater recharge and discharge
Recharge Inflow from adjacent aquifers 59.8 in Nishapur Plain are negligible. Calculating the groundwater recharge
Recharge from rainfall 26.0 and discharge based on the 6-month average values in the scenario 2.2
Recharge from surface water 19.3
Recharge from return flow of irrigation 101.8
results in determining the sustainable yield in the autumn and spring
water less than what is actually sustainable since the agricultural water de-
Total 206.9 mand in the summer is less than that of spring and equals to zero in the
Discharge Groundwater withdrawal 508.9 winter in almost all the cultivated area in Nishapur Plain. Therefore,
Outflow to adjacent aquifers 9.2
using a 6-month time-scale results in underestimating the groundwater
Total 518.1
Change of Storage −311.2 sustainable yield. Based on the results, maximum sustainable yield was
achieved in the scenario 4.2, which is almost 5 and 10 MCM more than
the amount in the scenario 5.1 in the long and short planning horizon,
of limitting groundwater abstraction with sustainable yield determined respectively. Due to the absence of seasonal variation in the ground-
in each scenario and the maximum groundwater level was achieved in water recharge and discharge, the amount of groundwater sustainable
scenario 5.1. Hence, defining appropriate spatial scale can influecne yield in the scenario 3.2 is very close to that of the scenario 4.2.
groundwater sustainbale yield, resulting in producing higher sustain- The results illustrate that he maximum simulated groundwater level
able groundwater table. was achieved in scenario 4.2. Thus, temporal scale can influence sus-
tainable yield and defining a proper temporal scale based on the nature
4.4. Effect of temporal scale of the temporal variation in each groundwater system could result in
achieving maximum sustainable yield and groundwater table.
During the second step, the groundwater sustainable yield of As a general conclusion for the step 1 and 2, the simultaneous effect
Nishapur Plain was determined in four different scenarios in order to of spacial and temporal scale on the groundwater sustainable yield in
examine the effect of temporal scale on the groundwater sustainable Nishapur Plain leads to about 100 MCM increase in the sustainable
yield using the spatial scale defined in the scenario 5.1. Each scenario yield, compared to the scenario 1.1 which is of great economic and
was simulated in two different planning horizons. The results of the social significance. Further, it is concluded that the maximum
simulated scenarios in this step were compared with those in the sce- groundwater sustainable yield in Nishapur Plain is about 300 and 200
nario 5.1. MCM in the long and short planning horizon, respectively.
Tables 8 indicates the results of the groundwater sustainable yield of
Nishapur Plain in the scenarios under study during the long and short

Fig. 13. The distribution map of the groundwater level in the end of the simulation period (masl).

11
A. Abrishamchi, et al.
Fig. 14. Simulated and observed groundwater level and 95 % confidence interval upper and lower limit in the developed condition- (a) Piezo#1, (b) Piezo#2, (c)
Piezo#3, and (d) Piezo#4.
4.5. Planning for groundwater sustainable use
The reduction of irrigated area and an increase in irrigation effi-
ciency are considered as two strategies for groundwater sustainable use
in Nishapur Plain. It is worth noting that about 170 MCM of water
derived from other resources is used in supplying irrigation demand in
Nishapur Plain in addition to the groundwater resources. Therefore, the
total irrigable area is calculated by using groundwater sustainable yield
in different scenarios and 170 MCM of water derived from other re-
sources in each related strategy.
4.5.1. Irrigation area curtalge strategy
In the area curtalge sterategy, it is assumed that the total irrigation
efficiency equals to 38 % (the irrigation efficiency in the current con-
dition). Therefore, the irrigated area should be decreased in order to
meet irrigation demand with acceptable criteria in the condition of
limiting the groundwater withdarawal by sustainable yield which is
estimated in the long and short planning horizon in the simulated
scenarios in Section 4.3 and 4.4.
The results indicates that by applying this strategy, the total current
area of wheat and sugar beet can be irrigated in all of the scenarios
except in the scenario 1.1 during the long planning horizon. The area of
barley equals to zero in the scenario 1.1 with minimum sustainable
yield and should be decreased to about 21 % of the current irrigated
area in the scenario 4.2 in which maximum sustainable yield was
reached. In addition, it is not possible to cultivate cotton during the
long planning horizon in this condition.
Regarding the short planning horizon, the total current area of
12
Agricultural Water Management 229 (2020) 105835
wheat could be irrigated except in the scenario 1.1 and a maximum of
55 % of the current area of sugar beet can be irrigated in the scenario
4.2. Thus, irrigating barley and cotton is impossible. It is worth noting
that curtailing the irrigation area has many social and economic con-
sequences. Therefore, this strategy could endanger the social and eco-
nomic balance of the region and requires more extensive social and
economic studies.
4.5.2. Efficiency increase strategy
The irrigation system in about 63 % of the irrigated area of Nishapur
Plain is mainly flood irrigation methods (basin, border and furrow).
Therefore, the irrigation efficieny is very low in Nishapur Plain and
according to previous studies it is about 38 %. Regarding the crop
pattern and agricultural conditions, a variety of irrigation method such
as surface and sprinkler irrigation can be used in Nishapur plain in
order to increase the irrigation efficiency. Based on this strategy, it is
assumed that the irrigation efficiency could be increased to about 60 %
due to improving the irrigation system. This is an achievable rate, based
on data from the Iranian government organizations.
According to the results, in this strategy the total current irrigated
area in Nishapur Plain could be irrigted except in the the long-term
scnarios 1.1 and 1.2.. Thus, increasing efficiency makes the ground-
water resources of Nishapur Plain sustainable in the long planning
horizon and makes it possible to irrigate the total irrigated area of the
plain.
Also the results show that the total current area of wheat and sugar
beet can be irrigated in the short planning horizon. In this condition, a
maximum of 80 % of the current area of barley can be irrigated in the
A. Abrishamchi, et al. Agricultural Water Management 229 (2020) 105835

Fig. 15. Simulated groundwater level versus and observed values - (a) Piezo#1, (b) Piezo#2, (c) Piezo#3, and (d) Piezo#4.

Table 5
The definition of the scenarios in the first step.
Scenario Number of groundwater zones

1.1 1
2.1 32
3.1 23
4.1 29
5.1 31

Table 6
The components of the capture concept in scenario 1.1.
Component of Capture Concept Annual Rate (MCM)

Natural recharge 69.0

Groundwater rechrage in the developed condition 206.9
Increased recharge 137.9
Natural discharge 69
Groundwater dischrage in the developed condition 9.2 Fig. 16. Simulated groundwater level for Piezo#1 in Scenario 1.1 in the long
Decreased discharge −59.8 planning horizon.
Sustainable yield 197.7

withdrawal have resulted in groundwater depletion, which underlines

scenario 4.2 and the total irrigable area of cotton and other crops be-
comes zero.
5. Summary and conclusions
In Arid and semi-arid areas, groundwater resources play an im-
portant role in supplying demands due to limitations in runoff and
availability of surface water resources. Excessive goundwater
the necessity and importance of sustainable groundwater management.
Groundwater is the main source of water supply in Nishapur Plain,
located in Khorasan Razavi Province in the northeast of Iran. In
Nishapur Plain, the long-term annual average groundwater abstraction
is about 509 MCM, of which more than 96 % is used in agriculture.
In the present study, MODFLOW-2005 was employed to develop and
calibrate a single-layer groundwater model in Nishapur Plain. Based on
the results of the transient groundwater model, average annual

13
A. Abrishamchi, et al. Agricultural Water Management 229 (2020) 105835

Fig. 17. Groundwater zones in scenarios 2.1 in Nishapur Plain.

groundwater storage depletion is about 311 MCM during the 8-year
period of 2005–2013. Therefore, planning for sustainable groundwater
management in Nishapur Plain plays an important role in satisfying
ever-increasing water demand.
In this study the effect of spatial and temporal scale on the
groundwater sustainable yield caculalation in Nishapur Plain was ex-
amined using capture concept in two steps. The first step involved five
scenarios in which the effect of spatial scale on the sustainable yield
was evaluated. During the second step, four scenarios (yearly, 6-month,
seasonal and monthly) were defined to examine the effect of temporal
scale using the spatial scale which maximizes sustainable yield. In each
of these scenarios, groundwater sustainable yield was determined in
two different planning horizon; a long planning horizon (75 years) and
a short planning horizon (equal to simulation period of 8 years long).
Based on the results of the step 1 and 2, defining an appropriate spatial
and temporal scale could result in achieving maximum sustainable yield
with highest groundwater level. The results indicated that the
maximum groundwater sustainable yield to reach a new equilibrium
was about 300 and 200 MCM in the short and long planning horizon,
respectively. Accordingly, the sustainable yield was about 59 % and 39
% of the current groundwater withdrawals in the short and long plan-
ning horizon, respectively.
Next, two different strategies of cultivated area curtilage and irri-
gation efficiency increase were proposed in order to suggest a sustain-
able groundwater use in the plain. For this purpose, the total irrigable
area of four majour crops in Nishapur Plain including wheat, sugar
beet, barley and cotton was determined for all the simulated scenarios
in the section 4.3 and 4.4 in each strategy.
In the cultivated area curtilage strategy, it is assumed that irrigatin
efficiency equals to 38 % (current efficiency). Based on this strategy,
the total current hectarage of wheat and sugar beet can be irrigated in
all of the scenarios except in the scenario 1.1 during the long planning
horizon. In this condition, the minimum and maximum irrigable area of
barley equals to 0 % and 21 % of the current irrigated area,

Table 7
Groundwater sustainable yield in Nishapur Plain in the long and short planning horizon: Effect of spatial scale.
Scenario NO. Long planning horizon Short planning horizon

Groudwater Percent of the Groudwater Sustainable Yield Groudwater Percent of the Groudwater Sustainable Yield
Sustainable Yield Current Pumpage Compared to Scen. 1.1 (MCM) Sustainable Yield Current Pumpage Compared to Scen. 1.1 (MCM)
(MCM) (%) (MCM) (%)

1.1 198.0 39 – 100.0 20 –

2.1 263.5 52 65.5 152.7 30 52.7
3.1 279.5 55 81.5 179.6 35 79.6
4.1 289.8 57 91.8 180.9 36 80.9
5.1 295.1 58 97.1 189.4 37 89.4

14
A. Abrishamchi, et al.
Table 8
Nishapur plain groundwater sustainable yield in the long and short planning horizon: Effect of temporal scale.
Scenario NO. Long planning horizon
Groudwater Percent of the Groudwater Sustainable Yield
Sustainable Yield Current Pumpage Compared to Scen. 5.1 (MCM)
(MCM) (%)
5.1 295.1 58 – 189.4
1.2 295.7 58 0.6
2.2 298.3 59 3.2
3.2 299.8 59 4.7
4.2 300.2 59 5.1
respectively, and cultivating cotton is impossible. The total current area
of wheat could be irrigated except in the scenario 1.1 during the short
planning horizon. Further, the minimum and maximum irrigable area
of sugar beet was about 0 % and 55 % of the irrigated area of sugar beet
in the current condition. The irrigated area of barley and cotton was
zero in this condition.
Regarding the efficiency increase strategy, it was assumed that the
curretnt irrigation efficiency could increase to at least 60 % by using a
variety of surface irrigation and sprinkler irrigation methods. Based on
this strategy, it is possible to irrigate the total irrigated area of the plain
using the groundwater sustainable yield in all of the scenarios in the
long planning horizon. However, the total current area of wheat and
sugar beet could be irrigated during the short planning horizon and the
maximum irrigable area of barley was about 80 % in the scenario 4.2,
where the groundwater sustainable yield was maximum. Based on this
condition, the total irrigable area of cotton and other crops was zero.
The results of this study indicates that defining the appropriate
spatial and temporal scale regarding the aquifer physical and hydro-
logic conditions, makes it possible to maximize the estiamted ground-
water sustainable yield. Further, sustainable groundwater management
reduces negative economic and social impacts of groundwater resources
limitation and provides the possibility of using these scarce resources
for a longer time, especially in arid and semi-arid regions like Iran. In
addition estimating sustainable yield provides water managers with
valuable information, which helps them develop an appropriate plan to
reduce the effects of water crisis. It is worth noting that performing
economic and social assessments, play an important role in comparing
different scenarios and providing practical strategies for water re-
sources management. Also, using optimization methods can improve
the results. Therefore, it is suggested that in the future studies, the
optimal scenario for sustainable groundwater management will be se-
lected through economic and social assessments and using the con-
ventional optimization methods. In addition proposing cropping pat-
tern through agricultural studies and according to the groundwater
sustainable yield, will increase the success of the proposed sustainable
management strategies.
Declaration of Competing Interest
None.
15
Agricultural Water Management 229 (2020) 105835
Short planning horizon
Groudwater Percent of the Groudwater Sustainable Yield
Sustainable Yield Current Pumpage Compared to Scen. 5.1 (MCM)
(MCM) (%)
37 –
189.8 37 0.4
194.9 38 5.5
198.7 39 9.3
199.8 39 10.4
References
Alley, W.M., Reilly, T.E., Franke, O.L., 1999. Sustainability of groundwater resources.
U.S. Geol. Surv. Circ. 1186, 79pp Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado.
Bredehoeft, J.D., 2002. The water budget myth revisited: why hydro geologists’ model.
Groundwater. 42, 12–16.
Custodio, E., 2002. Aquifer overexploitation: what does it mean? J. Hydrol. (Amst) 10,
254–277.
Gleeson, T., Alley, W.M., Allen, Diana M., Sophocleous, M.A., Zhou, Y., Taniguchi, M.,
VanderSteen, J., 2012. Towards sustainable groundwater use: setting long-term
goals, backcasting, and managing adaptively. Ground Water 50, 19–26.
Hu, Y., Moiwo, J.P., Yang, Y., Han, S., Yang, Y., 2010. Agricultural water-saving and
sustainable groundwater management in Shijiazhuang Irrigation District, North
China plain. J. Hydrol. (Amst) 393, 219–232.
Hugman, R., Stigter, T.Y., Monteiro, J.P., 2013. The importance of temporal scale when
optimizing abstraction volumes for sustainable aquifer exploitation: a case study in
Semi-Arid South Portugal. J. Hydrol. (Amst) 490, 1–10.
Izady, A., 2014. Application and Assessment of a Developed Coupled-
Groundwater–Surface Water Model in the Nishapur Watershed, Iran. Ph.D.
Dissertation. Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Faculty of Agriculture.
Kalf, F.R.P., Woolley, D.R., 2005. Applicability and methodology of determining sus-
tainable yields in groundwater systems. J. Hydrol. (Amst) 13, 295–863.
Lee, C.H., 1915. The determination of safe yield of underground reservoir of the closed
basin type. Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers. 78, 148–151.
Lohman, S.W., et al., 1972. Definition of selected groundwater terms-revisions and con-
ceptual refinement. USGS Water-Supply Paper 1988. 21 pp.. .
Maimone, M., 2004. Defining and managing sustainable yield. Ground Water 42,
809–814.
Norton, B.G., Toman, M.A., 1995. Sustainable groundwater use, the capture principle,
and adaptive management. Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 95-34.
Sazab_e_Shargh Consulting Engineers Company, 2009. The integrated water resources of
Nishapur Plain, Irrigation and Drainage Report. Sazab_e_Shargh Consulting Engineers
Company, Mashhad, Iran.
Seward, P., Xu, Y., Brendonck, L., 2006. Sustainable groundwater use, the capture prin-
ciple, and adaptive management. Water Sa 32, 473–482.
Sophocleous, M., 1997. Managing water resources system: why safe yield is not sus-
tainable. Groundwater. 35, 561.
Sophocleous, M., 2000. From safe yield to sustainable development of water resources-
the Kansas experience. J. Hydrol. (Amst) 235, 27–43.
Theis, C.V., 1940. The source of water derived from wells: essential factors controlling the
response of an aquifer development. Civil Eng. 10, 277–280.
Todd, D.K., 1959. Groundwater Hydrology. John Wiley, New York.
UNESCO, 1999. Sustainability Criteria for Water Resource System. Working Group
M.IV., Press. Cambridge University, Cambridge, U.K.
Wada, Y., Beek, L.P.H., Kempen, C.M., Reckman, J.W.T.M., Vasak, S., Bierkens, M.F.P.,
2010. Global depletion of groundwater resources. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37, L20402.
Zhou, Y., Wang, L., Liu, J., Li, W., Zheng, Y., 2012. Options of Sustainable Groundwater
Development in Beijing Plain, China. Phys. Chem. Earth 47-48, 99–113.