Cong Nghe Tuoi Mat Ruong

Surface Irrigation
Luis S. Pereira, Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Lisbon, Portugal and José M. Gonçalves,

Instituto Politécnico de Coimbra
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.013.248
Published online: 26 February 2018
Summary
Surface irrigation is the oldest and most widely used irrigation method, more than 83% of
the world’s irrigated area. It comprises traditional systems, developed over millennia,
and modern systems with mechanized and often automated water application and
adopting precise land-leveling. It adapts well to non-sloping conditions, low to medium
soil infiltration characteristics, most crops, and crop mechanization as well as
environmental conditions. Modern methods provide for water and energy saving, control
of environmental impacts, labor saving, and cropping economic success, thus for
competing with pressurized irrigation methods. Surface irrigation refers to a variety of
gravity application of the irrigation water, which infiltrates into the soil while flowing
over the field surface. The ways and timings of how water flows over the field and
infiltrates the soil determine the irrigation phases—advance, maintenance or ponding,
depletion, and recession—which vary with the irrigation method, namely paddy basin,
leveled basin, border and furrow irrigation, generally used for field crops, and wild
flooding and water spreading from contour ditches, used for pasture lands. System
performance is commonly assessed using the distribution uniformity indicator, while
management performance is assessed with the application efficiency or the beneficial
water use fraction. The factors influencing system performance are multiple and
interacting—inflow rate, field length and shape, soil hydraulics roughness, field slope,
soil infiltration rate, and cutoff time—while management performance, in addition to
these factors, depends upon the soil water deficit at time of irrigation, thus on the way
farmers are able to manage irrigation. The process of surface irrigation is complex to
describe because it combines surface flow with infiltration into the soil profile. Numerous
mathematical computer models have therefore been developed for its simulation, aimed
at both design adopting a target performance and field evaluation of actual performance.
The use of models in design allows taking into consideration the factors referred to
before and, when adopting any type of decision support system or multicriteria analysis,
also taking into consideration economic and environmental constraints and issues.
There are various aspects favoring and limiting the adoption of surface irrigation.
Favorable aspects include the simplicity of its adoption at farm in flat lands with low
infiltration rates, namely when water conveyance and distribution are performed with
canal and/or low-pressure pipe systems, low capital investment, and low energy
consumption. Most significant limitations include high soil infiltration and high variability
of infiltration throughout the field, land leveling requirements, need for control of a
constant inflow rate, difficulties in matching irrigation time duration with soil water
deficit at time of irrigation, and difficult access to equipment for mechanized and
automated water application and distribution. The modernization of surface irrigation
Page 1 of 37
Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Environmental Science. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user
may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 26 May 2021
systems and design models, as well as models and tools usable to support surface
irrigation management, have significantly impacted water use and productivity, and thus
competitiveness of surface irrigation.
Keywords: design, economic environmental impacts, future issues, irrigation management,

models, performance, surface irrigation methods, sustainability issues, water use, water saving
Subjects: Sustainability and Solutions, Agriculture and the Environment
Introduction
Surface Irrigation Methods

Surface irrigation systems (SI), or gravity irrigation, are those systems that, unlike
pressurized systems, depend only upon gravity to convey, distribute, and apply water on the
land surface. They developed after millennia, through ancient civilizations like the Harappan
in the Indus basin (Ratnagar, 1986) and the Egyptian in the Nile basin (Butzer, 1976), as well
as the civilizations of China (Tan et al., 2005), Mesopotamia, and Near East (Bazza, 2007) and
the Pre-Colombian Americas (Martínez Saldaña et al., 2009). Surface irrigation largely
contributed to the development of hydraulics engineering (Viollet, 2007); related hydraulic
structures and field practices continue to be used at present (Zhang et al., 2013; Chipana-
Rivera et al., 2016). Ancient developments are the origin of a worldwide variety of surface
irrigation methods and systems in use at present, which are adapted well to a variety of crops
and crop systems. They have been modernized in several regions in Southern and West Asia,
the Mediterranean basin, and North and Central America, or are being replaced by
mechanized and often automated pressurized systems, which are less demanding in terms of
management and labor. However, surface irrigation is the most common worldwide with the
exception of Europe (Table 1).
Page 2 of 37
date: 26 May 2021
Table 1. Estimated Irrigated Areas by Irrigation Method and Respective Fraction Per Continent, Regions, and To
tal Area Equipped for Full Control Irrigation and Its Fraction of Total Cultivated Area
Continent Area of full control irrigation (Mha) Irrigation method fraction (%)
regions
Surface Sprinkler Micro- Total Surface Sprinkler Micro-
irrigation irrigation irrigation irrigation irrigation irrigation
EUROPE 29.93 63.31 6.76
Western & 3.69 6.69 0.95 11.33 32.56 59.04 8.41

Central
Europe
Eastern 0.59 2.37 0.02 2.98 19.93 79.57 0.50

Europe
AFRICA 65.27 20.27 14.47
Northern 4.65 0.92 1.13 6.70 69.36 13.74 16.90

Africa
Sub- 2.30 1.24 0.41 3.95 58.32 31.35 10.33

Saharan
Africa
AMERICAS 58.09 35.72 6.19
Northern 17.25 13.77 2.00 33.02 52.23 41.71 6.05

America
Central 1.28 0.26 0.09 1.63 78.99 15.73 5.27

America &
Caribbean
Southern 9.80 3.39 0.94 14.13 69.37 24.00 6.63

America
ASIA 95.13 3.53 1.33
Middle 15.93 2.49 1.36 19.79 80.53 12.58 6.89

East
Central 9.19 0.14 0.02 9.35 98.29 1.54 0.16

Asia
Page 3 of 37
date: 26 May 2021
Continent Area of full control irrigation (Mha) Irrigation method fraction (%)
regions
Surface Sprinkler Micro- Total Surface Sprinkler Micro-
irrigation irrigation irrigation irrigation irrigation irrigation
Southern 174.17 4.77 1.41 180.35 96.57 2.64 0.78

and
Eastern
Asia
OCEANIA 1.94 1.02 0.23 3.19 60.88 31.83 7.29
Source: FAO AQUASTAT <http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/data/query/results.html>.
Page 4 of 37
date: 26 May 2021
The methods of surface irrigation are identified by the processes how water is applied, flows
over to the soil surface, and infiltrates, as well as the shape and slope of the fields and the
duration of the irrigation phases:
(i) Flooding methods—water is applied to flood the irrigated field, so the water is stored
above the soil until infiltration is complete. These methods are the most ancient and
continue to be the most used. They comprise paddy basins for rice cropping, where
water ponding is maintained on the soil surface (Figure 1a) or, in modern times, the soil
water is just kept wetted, and non-rice basins, flat or furrowed (Figure 1b), when they
are flooded temporarily with a large time interval between successive irrigation events.
The basin fields have very low or null slopes, are diked all around, and the surface may
be flat or furrowed in case of row crops. Because the literature reports more often on
borders and furrows than on basins, the latter are often called closed borders, while
furrowed basins may be called furrow systems; however, distinctions are easy when
observing the respective phases.
Figure 1. Flooding irrigation: (a) flooded rice paddies at early crop stages; (b)
furrowed level-basin by the end of the ponding phase
Source: (photos by L. S. Pereira).
(ii) Infiltration methods—water is applied to gently sloping fields to favor infiltration while
flowing to the downstream end, which is generally open, and non-infiltrated water flows
into drainage ditches, from where it may be reused. The infiltration methods comprise
border and furrow irrigation. Borders consist of sloping strips of land separated by
border dikes that follow the contours when plantations follow the slopes (Figure 2a).
They have a flat soil surface where a longitudinal slope favors water slowly flowing over
the field while infiltrating. In furrow irrigation, water is applied to small longitudinal
channels which slope and inflow discharges are set to favor infiltration while water
slowly flows to the downstream end (Figure 2b). Both borders and furrows are
commonly open at the downstream end.
Page 5 of 37
date: 26 May 2021
Figure 2. Infiltration methods: (a) strip borders irrigating a vineyard, (b) furrow
irrigation with supply with siphons placed in a water level controlled canal
Source: (photos by L. S. Pereira).
(iii) Surface runoff methods—water is spread from small upstream ditches and flows
unconstrainedly over the land surface, generally pastures, and infiltrates the soil; the
non-infiltrated water flows into downstream ditches or natural streams (Fig. 3). At
present, these methods are more often used in pastoral mountain landscapes (Pôças et
al., 2009, 2013).
Figure 3. Surface runoff irrigation

Source: (photo by I. Pôças).
Page 6 of 37
date: 26 May 2021
(iv) Rainwater harvesting and spate irrigation—consisting, respectively, in using rainwater
collected from upstream non-cropped land (Fig. 4a), or adopting land forms that favor
runoff and its infiltration where the crop develops (Fig. 4b) (Oweis et al., 2012), and in
diverting flood water from rivers or streams into the fields, with non-infiltrated water
returning to the river or the stream network (van Steenbergen et al., 2010). Both
methods are aimed at favoring water collection when rain occurs in dry areas, the first
at a small scale of application, the second at larger areas where land is divided into
basins.
Figure 4. Water harvesting: (a) sequence of “meskats,” in southern Tunisia, collecting

runoff from the slopes and providing for its infiltration in small basins where palm trees
and olive trees are cropped; (b) contour ridges, with harvested water infiltrating near
the ridges where crops are planted (photos by L. S. Pereira).
Performance Indicators
The performance indicators usually considered in SI studies consist of the distribution

uniformity (DU, %) and the application efficiency of the low quarter (ea, %), the latter
characterizing the beneficial water use fraction (Pereira et al., 2012). Following the
approaches of Burt et al. (1997), and Pereira and Trout (1999), they are defined as follows:
(1)
where Zlq is the average low quarter depth of water infiltrated (mm) and Zavg is the average
depth of water infiltrated in the whole irrigated field (mm). Two equations are used for ea to
distinguish the cases of over-irrigation (Zlq>Zreq) and under-irrigation (Zlq<Zreq):
Page 7 of 37
date: 26 May 2021
(2)
where Zreq is the average depth (mm) required to refill the root zone in the quarter of the
field having higher soil water deficit and D is the average water depth (mm) applied to the
field. Zreq is estimated from measurements or simulations of the soil water content before the
irrigation, which is used to estimate the soil water deficit in the root zone (SWD, mm). Zlq and
Zavg are estimated from computing the depth of water infiltrated during the irrigation
process. D equals the product of the cutoff time, tco, by the average inflow rate, Qin:
(3)
D = Zavg in case of basin irrigation, where all applied water infiltrates because full basin
diking impedes drainage runoff to occur, and D > Zavg in case of furrows and borders open at
the downstream end, therefore where drainage runoff occurs. Observing (1) and (2), it may be
noted that ea cannot exceed DU. Their potential values are attained when Zlq approaches Zavg
and this one equals Zreq, so DU is at its potential when the field characteristics, particularly
length, slope, inflow rate, and surface leveling, provide for optimal and quasi-uniform
infiltration. DU can be functionally described by:
(4)
where Qin is the inflow rate (per unit width of the basin or border or per furrow), L is the
length of irrigated field, n is the hydraulic roughness, So is the longitudinal slope of the field,
Ic represents the intake characteristics of the soil, Fa represents the cross-sectional
characteristics of the furrow, border, or basin, and tco is the cutoff time. The water application
efficiency can be described by the factors of (4) together with the soil water deficit (SWD)
when irrigation starts:
(5)
DU primarily depends upon the adequateness of the designed basin, border or furrow—L, n,
So, Ic, Fa in agreement with selected Qin and tco—to achieve an optimal combination of flow
and infiltration into the irrigated field. Differently, the efficiency ea largely depends upon the
appropriateness of the irrigation scheduling decision, that is, the irrigation timing and depth
relative to the actual SWD. Therefore, DU is an indicator of the SI system performance,
however influenced by the actual decisions on Qin and tco, while ea is an indicator of the
Page 8 of 37
date: 26 May 2021
adequateness of the irrigation scheduling applied (Pereira & Trout, 1999). In other words, the
efficiency ea does not characterize the SI system but its management, which depends on both
farmer decisions and constraints of the supply and delivery management (Pereira et al., 2012).
Improving the performance of SI systems requires a variety of measures and practices which
provide for reducing water applied and higher land and water productivity but require
appropriate combination with irrigation scheduling (Pereira et al., 2002, 2007).
−1
The yield productivity per unit of land surface (Ya, kg ha ) and water productivity (WP, kg
−3
m ), often called water use efficiency, are also used as performance indicators. WP is the
3
ratio of Ya to the water used (WU, m ) to achieve that yield. WU may refer to the total water
used, the irrigation water, or the consumptive use, evapotranspiration. Both Ya and WP mainly
depend upon crop and irrigation management, but they are also dependent on DU, since a low
DU indicates that a large fraction of the field is under-irrigated while the other fraction is
over-irrigated, which necessarily affects crop growth and yield.
Irrigation Phases and Related Performance Improvements
The irrigation phases and respective time durations are essential to characterize the irrigation
methods (Pereira & Trout, 1999). Irrigation phases (Figs. 5 and 6) differ among irrigation
methods because water flow and infiltration processes are diverse. Phases are the following:
(i) Advance, characterized by the advance time (tadv), the time after irrigation starts until
the wetting front reaches the downstream end of the field; during this phase, the
process of water flow over the soil surface is dominant over infiltration.
(ii) Ponding or wetting, characterized by the ponding time (tpond), the time after advance is
completed until cutoff, when water application ends (cutoff time, tco), thus
tpond=tco−tadv. During this phase, water application aims to complete storage over the
field or to provide for maintaining infiltration.
(iii) Depletion, essentially refers to the infiltration process and its time duration (tdep)
develops from cutoff until water starts to disappear from the soil surface due to
infiltration and runoff drainage.
(iv) Recession, where infiltration progressively ends over the field, has a time duration
(trec) that develops after depletion until all water disappears from the soil surface and
infiltration is completed.
Page 9 of 37
date: 26 May 2021
Figure 5. Irrigation phases of a modern level basin.
Source: adapted from Pereira & Trout, 1999.
Searching for improved DU implies making infiltration as uniform as possible, thus equalizing
the time opportunity for infiltration (τ) throughout the field (Fig. 5). This is achieved
differently for the various SI methods.
In basin irrigation, it is essential to reduce the advance time (Fig. 5), which requires precise
−1 −1
land-leveling, large but non-erosive Qin (1 to 5 l s m ), and not very large basin lengths (up
to 100 m in general). A very small slope also reduces tadv and is important when land-leveling
is less precise. The ponding time may be short or long depending upon whether the irrigation
depth applied is small or large. The depletion time varies with the intake rate of the soil and
with the amount of ponded water. Finally, the recession time is short, depending on the
uniformity of the surface micro-topography. Despite τ uniformity increasing with tpond and
tdep, it is more dependable to shorten tadv as proposed above.
Water velocity in furrows has to be small to favor infiltration when water is flowing. Therefore
(Fig. 6), tadv tends to be large because Qin and slope So have to be small, nevertheless
depending upon the soil intake rate and the furrow length (commonly 200 to 400 m). The
Page 10 of 37
date: 26 May 2021
−1
wetting phase is large because Qin is small (0.3 to 1.5 l s per furrow), thus requiring a large
tco for the application of the irrigation depth D. Unlike for basins, the depletion phase is quite
short, since water normally starts to disappear from the furrow bottom shortly after cutoff.
Finally, the recession phase is also short depending on Ic and L. DU is therefore improved by
shortening tadv and lengthening the wetting phase, so using large D or reducing Qin when the
furrows intake rate reduces after progressive sealing.
Figure 6. Irrigation phases of a furrow irrigated field.

Source: adapted from Pereira & Trout, 1999.
The advance in borders is quite long, because So and Qin have to be small aiming at water
infiltrates while advancing over the field. Consequently, for long border strips it often happens
that tadv is larger than tco; then, the wetting phase does not exist. It results that the depletion
phase is somewhat large, as well as the recession phase, naturally depending upon the soil
Page 11 of 37
date: 26 May 2021
intake rate, L and So. It is therefore difficult to attain a short advance in borders, which is
constrained by Qin, So, L, and intake rate, thus making it difficult to achieve high DU in
borders except when So is very small.
As mentioned before, the efficiency ea highly depends upon DU in addition to irrigation

management and scheduling. Therefore, high ea is achieved when DU is high and
management is such that the applied water (Qin and tco) fits SWD at time of irrigating.
Performance indicators are not considered in surface water spreading over pastures and
grasslands, since these systems, in addition to irrigation, provide environmental benefices in
terms of landscapes and soil and water conservation (Pôças et al., 2009, 2013). They are also
not considered with rainwater harvesting and spate irrigation, because these systems
correspond to ingenious approaches to better use water in dry areas just when rain occurs,
not through controlled water application as for systems referred to before. However, yield and
flood-water benefices are considered when assessing these systems (Tubeileh et al., 2009;
Hamdi et al., 2016).
Modernization for Improved Water, Labor, and Yield Performance
The modernization of SI systems developed in the second half of the 20th century, when
irrigated areas were expanding and pressurized systems, sprinkler and micro-irrigation,
developed. This happened together with the progressive development of modern agriculture,
including mechanization. Innovations were dictated by the need for reducing labor
requirements, decreasing irrigation costs, improving irrigation water use and water saving,
and controlling environmental impacts of cropping practices and irrigation (Table 2). Lately, SI
areas have slowly decreased due to the competition of pressurized systems, mechanized and
often automated, thus with lower labor requirements and easier control of water use, and
whose market is well established and continuously growing. Contrarily, the market of surface
irrigation equipment and services is small and did not develop where SI is dominantly
practiced in small farms and labor costs are low, thus propitiating the use of traditional SI.
These systems are adopted worldwide, mainly in Asia, for both rice paddies and field crops,
although they are being slowly improved through adopting more efficient equipment of water
distribution and control and/or precise land-leveling practices.
Table 2. Measures and Practices for Improved Performance of Basins, Furrows, and Borders
Techniques Benefits Applicability
Precision land- – Less water to complete advance, – Applies to basins,

leveling improved distribution uniformity; borders, and furrows and is
favorable conditions for deficit particularly important for
irrigation and to control the basin irrigation
leaching fraction
Basin irrigation
Page 12 of 37
date: 26 May 2021
– Higher discharges, – Fast advance time, reduced – Easy; limitations relate to

reduced widths and/ volumes applied, easier application field size and geometry
or shorter flow of deficit irrigation and control of
lengths the leaching fraction
– Furrowed basins for – Faster advance, improved – Easy to implement

row crops emergence and rooting of the crops
planted on the bed
– Higher basin dikes – Providing for full conjunctive use – Easy to implement,
to catch storm rainfall of irrigation and rainfall mainly for paddy fields
– Maintaining low – Lower seepage and percolation – Limitations when land-

water depths in rice and better conditions to store any leveling is poor and/or
basins storm rainfall delivery is infrequent
– Non-flooded paddies – Lower seepage, deep percolation, – Only for paddies in warm
(i.e., maintaining the and evaporation losses; better climates and when
soil water near conditions to store any storm deliveries are frequent
saturation) rainfall
Furrows and borders
– Irrigation with – Reduced water application to the – Easy to apply

alternate furrows entire field; favored deep rooting of
the crops
– Reuse of tail water – Avoidance of runoff losses, – Need for collective

runoff increased systems efficiency, and facilities in case of small
controlled quality of return flows farms
– Closed furrows and – Avoiding runoff at the – Needs controlled inflow

borders downstream end discharges to avoid
waterlogging downstream
– Contour furrows – Runoff and erosion control in – When fields are not
sloping land oriented down slope
– Surge flow – Faster advance, reduced – Easy for large farms but
percolation and runoff, higher difficult for small ones.
performance; provides for system Needs level basins or slight
automation slopes to avoid erosion
Page 13 of 37
date: 26 May 2021
– Continuously – Control of percolation and runoff – Requires technological

decreased inflow by adjusting flow rates to support and is difficult for
rates (cablegation) infiltration, and provides for system small farmers
automation
– Irrigation with – Reduced water application; runoff – When available water is

anticipated cutoff is minimized and percolation is limited; applies better to
reduced borders and furrows
On-farm water distribution
– Gated pipes and – Easier control of discharges, – Easy to adopt but

layflat pipes control of seepage; provides for requires investment by
using automation valves (e.g., surge farmers
flow) and cablegation
– Buried pipes for – Easier control of discharges, – Less appropriate for

basins and borders avoidance of seepage, and favored small farms
conditions for automation (e.g.,
cablegation)
– Lined on-farm – Easier control of discharges when – Only for large farms
distribution canals using siphons, canal gates, and
weirs; avoidance of seepage
– Improved on-farm – Easier control of discharges when – Limitations relative to

earth canals using siphons; reduced seepage farm implements available
– Automation and – Improved conditions for – Application only to large

remote control of operation; favored application of farms with high
farm systems irrigation scheduling and precise technological and financial
real-time irrigation management capabilities
Source: Adapted from Pereira et al. (2009).
Basin Irrigation
Basin irrigation modernization includes:
(i) Precise laser land-leveling, aimed at achieving high DU (Fangmeier et al., 1999; Bai et
al., 2011).
(ii) Qin control equipment aimed at adjusting it to basin intake rate, L and So, thus to
achieve short tadv and high DU. Equipment to control Qin includes: (a) automated or
semi-automated canal check gates to regulate weirs or pipe water turnouts (Fig. 7a); (b)
pipe outlets with gate control; (c) outlet boxes to derive water from earthen canals; (d)
Page 14 of 37
date: 26 May 2021
gated pipes to distribute water at the upstream end; (e) buried pipes equipped with
valve-controlled risers; (f) buried pipes with risers and water control with a cable-plug
system (Fig. 7b), buried cablegation (Trout & Kincaid, 1989).
Figure 7. Farm water supply to basins under operation: (a) canal equipped with
automated check gates and side long crested weirs; (b) buried cablegation system with
risers supplying basins
Source: photos by L. S. Pereira.
(iii) Shortening the basins and/or reducing their width for short tadv and higher DU when
Qin is small and/or variable.
(iv) Automatic control devices and sensors for automation of gates and valves.
(v) Furrowed basins for row crops that improve advance and DU and avoid excess wetting
of plants.
Paddy Rice Basin Irrigation

Paddy rice basin irrigation typically consists of basins where ponding is continuous during the
crop season and water applications are frequent, from daily to a few days. Precise land-
leveling is commonly used in large farms, mainly in Europe and Americas. Water delivery to
fields use the same type of water control devices referred above for non-rice basins. Various
paddy rice irrigation methods exist:
(i) Conventional paddies, where ponding is deep, near 10 cm, and irrigation frequency
varies from daily to a few days; this method is appropriate where water plays a main
role in temperature regulation, and the present tendency is to adopt reduced depths,
variable along the crop season, thus decreasing percolation and reducing irrigation
water use.
Page 15 of 37
date: 26 May 2021
(ii) Shallow-ponded water paddies, where ponding depths are close to 5 cm and daily
irrigation events are common, resulting in less water use and high yields (Mao et al.,
2004); border dikes are kept high in the monsoon areas to keep rainwater inside the
basins.
(iii) Intermittent flooding, corresponding to aerobic rice, where climate favors natural soil
drying; irrigation events have large intervals between successive ponding, and
bordering dikes are high in the monsoon areas to collect rainwater; this approach aims
at water saving and decreasing methane emissions.
(iv) Permanent soil wetting, with frequent irrigations but without ponding; this approach
aims at water saving and high yields in warm monsoon climates.
(v) Floating rice paddies, where basins allow for deep water and rice varieties adapt to
grow when floating in deep water; floating rice basins are used in areas with very high
precipitation, as in the Mekong Delta, where they show good yield and economic results
comparable to conventional paddies (Nguyen et al., 2015).
Research for modernizing paddies generally considers water saving, yields, reduction of
greenhouse gases, and multi-functionality (Matsuno et al., 2006; Sharma et al., 2016).
Infiltration Methods: Border Irrigation

To avoid erosion, the soil should be covered as happens to grasslands. In orchards and
vineyards, the crops are planted on the border-dike and the inter-row space consists of the
border strip (Fig. 2a), where active vegetation may grow. If borders are open at the
downstream end, the non-infiltrated water drains into a downstream ditch and may be reused
in other fields or pumped back to the same field. To control outflows, anticipated cutoff may
be used (Niblak & Sanchez, 2008). Border irrigation is gradually declining in use and borders
are being converted to basins to irrigate field crops, namely row crops adopting a ridge-
furrow system, when land slopes are small, or they are converted to sprinkler irrigation.
Orchards and vineyards border irrigation are quite often converted to micro-irrigation.
Borders modernization, as for basins, consists of adopting precise land-leveling, equipment,
and tools for Qin control (Morris et al., 2015), and shortening and/or reducing the width of the
border strips for reducing tadv and improving DU, as well as adopting drainage reuse for
water saving.
Infiltration Methods: Furrow Irrigation

To improve the performance of furrows, thus achieving a short advance and high DU, in
addition to precise land-leveling, various practices are used aimed at controlling furrows Qin,
mainly considering that furrows intake rate decreases with time. The intake rate is higher
when the furrows are dry, because soil macroporosity is then high; soil macropores tend to
progressively seal after furrows wetting, due to sedimentation of small soil eroded particles
carried by the flowing water. The control of Qin may be achieved with:
(i) Gated pipes, including lay-flat tubes, which supply water to each furrow and may be
controlled with automated valves.
(ii)
Page 16 of 37
date: 26 May 2021
Surge-flow irrigation, generally using automated valves that provide for on and off
cycles of water delivered to the gated pipes located on both sides of the valve (Fig. 8),
so producing on and off cycles of inflow to the furrows (Humpherys, 1989). Commonly,
four cycles are used during the advance phase. After the advance is completed, on and
off cycles may continue or, more often, the initial Qin is halved and applied
simultaneously to furrows on both sides of the valve. Impacts include improvements in
DU, ea, water saving, and WP (Horst et al., 2007).
Figure 8. Surge-flow: furrows on left completed the first surge and those on right
have just initiated that first cycle.
Source: photo by L. S. Pereira.
(iii) Irrigation with cutback, using automated valves or manually, directing half of initial Qin
into other areas to reduce furrows inflow when their intake rate decreases, thus
controlling drainage outflows (Campo-Bescós et al., 2015) and deep percolation, so
improving DU.
(iv) Cablegation, which consists of an automated and continuous cutback through

controlling the discharges of a gated pipe, placed on land with uniform slope, where a
plug moves down at a controlled velocity (Fig. 9). The outlets located immediately
upstream of the plug have essentially full pressure providing highest Qin, while further
upstream pressure and Qin are reduced, that is, Qin decreases according to the velocity
of the plug. Larger initial Qin favor a faster advance, and smaller Qin later help in
controlling both drainage outflows and deep percolation (Kemper et al., 1987).
Page 17 of 37
date: 26 May 2021
Figure 9. Cablegation, an automated cut-back control system for furrow irrigation.
(v) Earthen canals controlled with check gates to supply siphons feeding every furrow.
(vi) Farm water supply as referred to basins, namely: (a) canal outlets with pipe control
boxes to derive water from earthen canals into farm earth ditches that supply furrows;
(b) buried pipes with valve-controlled risers to supply the gated pipes; (c) related
sensors and controllers.
Rainwater Harvesting, Runoff Collecting and Spreading, and Spate Irrigation

Modernization of these systems essentially refers to the structures used to derive water from
natural streams, to collect and apply harvested rainwater, and to derive and distribute flood
water from rivers into the basins of the cropped area.
Sustainability Issues and Contradictions
The SI sustainability depends upon its economic, social, water use, and environmental
impacts, which are interlinked. Current research goes in these directions, but contradictorily.
The lack of market of SI equipment and services and the lack of political will to support SI
innovation contribute to a controversial discourse: “SI systems are not efficient, use too much
water, and impact the environment through polluting surface and groundwater with nitrates
and herbicides.” However, this discourse is not based upon innovation research, ignores the
impacts due to external causes such as the referred lack of market and the impacts of poor
Page 18 of 37
date: 26 May 2021
fertilizer, crop and irrigation management, and that conditions for sustainable use of SI
systems vary worldwide with climate, soils, environmental, agricultural, economic, social, and
cultural contexts.
Sustainability of SI is impacted by a variety of factors. First, there is an insufficient adoption

of equipment and tools for semi-automated and automated irrigation, particularly for Qin
control. This is particularly important in countries where SI markets are poor or nonexistent
and farmers have very limited access to SI equipment and services, contrary to what happens
with pressurized systems markets. Lacking Qin control equipment, farmers face difficulties in
using less water and better controlling contamination, the latter being particularly important
when poor-quality water, wastewater, and saline water are used (Pereira et al., 2014).
Contrarily, the implementation of water saving and contamination control with pressurized
systems is easier due to availability of related equipment.
The poor use of performance terms, including by researchers, conveys a message that SI is
inefficient. However, field observations of ea are often missing, and the dependence of ea to
DU is generally not considered. Therefore, ea is used as the sole performance indicator
without distinguishing the important impacts of irrigation and crop management in addition to
DU. For China, Miao et al. (2015) reported that while DU of precise land-leveled basins was
very high (up to 95%), ea was small (<60%) because farmers were not using an appropriate
irrigation scheduling. The need for an approach assessing both DU and ea was reported by
Pereira et al. (2002, 2012), including for controlling salinity.
There is evidence that well-designed and managed sprinkler and drip systems use less water
than SI, particularly when the latter do not adopt precise land-leveling and/or improved water
control devices (Darouich et al., 2014, 2017). The water consumption use of SI may be similar
to pressurized systems, but percolation and runoff are greater. However, percolation is
generally reusable as groundwater (Ahmad et al., 2014), while runoff may be reused or may
add to streamflow downstream (Ahadi et al., 2013), that is, it does not consist of water losses
but benefices to downstream users. Water-table levels influence groundwater contributions
and salinity, particularly in SI systems. Thus, adopting efficient drainage that controls water-
table levels contributes to the performance of SI systems, namely yields and WP (Xu et al.,
2013).
It is well known that pressure control in pipes is easier then water level control in canals, thus
conveyance and distribution in canal systems need to be modernized to allow delivery
scheduling to match irrigation scheduling requirements; otherwise, varied discharges,
volumes, and timings of deliveries impact the performance of SI systems (Gonçalves et al.,
2007; Hashemy-Shahdany & Firoozfar, 2017).
There is evidence that percolation and runoff favor contamination of ground and surface
waters, so that the risk of contamination is greater for SI relative to pressurized systems,
mainly when land-leveling is poor and Qin is not properly controlled. This happens mainly in
farms not adopting adequate irrigation scheduling, fertilizer management, or pesticide and
herbicide practices (Azevedo et al., 2000; Causapé et al., 2006). NO3 leaching and N2O
emissions may be high in SI systems, namely in rice paddies, but they are also high elsewhere
if fertilizer management is poor (Quemada et al., 2013). However, those N issues are
aggravated when land-leveling and Qin control are poor and irrigation scheduling is
Page 19 of 37
date: 26 May 2021
inadequate. Methane emissions from rice paddies are controllable using paddies without
ponding, with intermittent ponding or seeding dry and later allowing soil drying (Kumar et al.,
2016; Peyron et al., 2016).
Yields may be similar to those obtained with pressurized systems, but, as mentioned before,
water productivity is generally smaller because SI uses more water. WP of SI systems,
however, increases if deep percolation and runoff are controlled. Energy use in SI farms is
reduced to farming operations and land-leveling, and is obviously much less than for
pressurized systems, which rely on electrical or diesel energy to properly convey, distribute,
and apply water. Production costs with SI are smaller than for pressurized systems because
energy and investment costs in equipment are generally higher than costs of land-leveling.
Darouich et al. (2014, 2017) reported that advantages of drip or sprinkler over SI systems
occur when the priority is water saving but not if the priority is the economic return to the
farmer.
In conclusion, SI systems can be sustainable if control of inflows is practiced, precise land-

leveling is adopted, systems are properly designed, irrigation scheduling is appropriate,
fertilizer management is adequate, and crop management, including the control of pests and
weeds, is appropriate. These requirements imply farmers’ incentives and adequate extension
services.
Current State of the Science
Processes Modeling
The process of surface irrigation combines the hydraulics of surface flow over the irrigated
land or in the furrows with the infiltration of water into the soil profile. Surface flow is
unsteady and varies spatially. The flow at a given section in the irrigated field changes with
time depending upon the system geometry, resistance to flow, and soil infiltration, which also
change in space and time. The equations describing the hydraulics of surface irrigation are
the Saint-Venant continuity and momentum equations (Walker & Skogerboe, 1987). The
continuity equation expresses the conservation of mass and can be written as
(6)
3 −1
where t is time (s), Q is the discharge (m s ), x is the distance (m) from the upstream
2 3
section, A is the flow cross-sectional area (m ), and I is the infiltration rate per unit length (m
−1 −1
s m ). Several infiltration equations are used, most commonly the empirical Kostiakov
equations:
(7a)
Page 20 of 37
date: 26 May 2021
(7b)
−1
where I is the infiltration rate per unit area [mm h ], Z is the cumulative infiltration [mm], a
and k are empirical parameters, τ is the time of opportunity for infiltration [h], and f0 is the
−1
empirical final or steady state infiltration rate [mm h ], commonly used in furrow infiltration
where cutoff times are long and infiltration tends to approach a steady rate. When initial
preferential flow occurs, as for swelling or cracking soils, an initial “instantaneous” infiltration
amount must be considered. Other infiltration equations are sometimes used, namely the
more precise two-dimensions Richards’ equation (Tabuada et al., 1995; Bautista et al., 2016).
However, the complexity in parameterizing a model increases and precision of simulated
infiltration is shadowed by the variability of soil hydraulic properties.
The momentum equation, expressing the dynamic equilibrium of the flow process, is
(8)
−2 −1
where g is the gravitational acceleration (m s ), So is the land (or furrow) slope (m m ), Sf is
−1 −1
the friction loss per unit length or friction slope (m m ), v is the flow velocity (m s ), and y is
the flow depth (m). These equations are first-order non-linear partial differential equations
without a known closed-form solution.
The current approaches to solutions of (6) and (8) are: (a) the method of characteristics,
converting these equations into ordinary differential ones; (b) the Eulerian integration, based
on the concept of a deforming control volume made of individual deforming cells, which
provides for the complete solution of the Saint Venant equations; (c) the zero-inertia
approach, assuming that the inertial and acceleration terms in the momentum equation (8)
may be neglected in most cases of surface irrigation aiming at avoiding difficulties inherent to
the full hydrodynamics solution; and (d) the kinematic-wave approach, which assumes that a
unique relation exists describing the Q = f (y) relationship but that is not applicable to level
basins or zero-level furrows. Advances for solving these equations resulted from mathematical
computing developments and from accurate observations and field evaluation of irrigation
systems, including, recently, from the use of modern sensors. Consolidated reviews and
description of those solutions, using the Kostiakov infiltration (7), are given by Walker and
Skogerboe (1987) and Strelkoff and Clemmens (2007).
The Eulerian approaches and related simplifications are incorporated in various mathematical
models. Strelkoff and Katopodes (1977) first presented an application of zero-inertia modeling
for border irrigation, and various modeling applications were then developed, as for furrow
surge flow modeling (Oweis & Walker, 1990). The first computer programs for surface
irrigation included BRDRFLW (Strelkoff, 1985), BASCAD (Boonstra & Jurriens, 1988), BASIN
(Clemmens et al., 1993), BORDER (Strelkoff et al., 1996) and SURDEV (Jurriëns et al., 2001).
Currently, the most commonly used models are SRFR (Strelkoff et al., 1998; Bautista et al.,
2015) and SIRMOD (Walker, 2003).
Page 21 of 37
date: 26 May 2021
The simple volume balance equation, which describes the continuity equation, can be
appropriate for many practical problems of sloping furrows and borders (Walker & Skogerboe,
1987; Bautista et al., 2012). That equation expresses the time varied relationships between
inflow discharge and the volumes infiltrated or stored on the surface:
(9)
3 −1 3
where Q0 is the inflow discharge (m min ), t is the supply time (min), Vy (m ) is the volume
3
of water stored on the soil surface, and Vz (m ) is the volume infiltrated. Modeling with (9) is
particularly useful to study the advance phase and to derive infiltration characteristics from
observations of advance (Smerdom et al., 1988; Gillies & Smith, 2005).
Field evaluation of farm irrigation systems plays a fundamental role in improving surface
irrigation. The first consolidated guidelines are those by Merriam and Keller (1978).
Evaluations detect system problems, produce information to advise irrigators on how to
improve their systems operation, and provide data for improved design. Basic field evaluation
includes observation of: (a) inflow and outflow discharges and volumes, following equipment
developments by Bos (1976) and Replogle et al. (1990), (b) the irrigation phases, particularly
advance and recession, (c) soil water storage, (d) field geometry and leveling conditions, (e)
soil erosion (Trout, 1996; King et al., 2016), (f) hydraulic roughness estimations, and (g)
applied irrigation management procedures. Aimed at model parameterization, various
procedures have been developed (Katopodes et al., 1990).
Measuring the infiltration characteristics is essential for surface irrigation performance

assessment and design, considering its spatial and temporal variability. Methods include the
cylinder infiltrometer, ponding (e.g., basin infiltrometers), inflow-outflow field measurements,
blocked furrow method, and the recycling furrow infiltrometer (Walker & Skogerboe, 1987).
More recently, Kostiakov infiltration parameters are derived from applying the inverse
modeling using advance, recession, and runoff measurements (McClymont & Smith, 1996;
Gillies & Smith, 2005).
Decision Tools for Design and Ranking

Traditionally, the design of surface irrigation systems has been based on the application of
empirical rules. Advances in simulation modeling, computing, and user-friendly software for
personal computers provided good tools for design of surface irrigation systems, as described
by many authors (Walker & Skogerboe, 1987; Clemmens et al., 2007; Reddy, 2013). In addition
to hydraulics simulation modeling, design requires the application of other approaches such
as for land-leveling (Dedrick et al., 2007), water delivery and distribution systems (Walker &
Skogerboe, 1987; Humpherys, 1995; Replogle & Kruse, 2007), and cost and environmental
analysis (Khan et al., 2010; Gonçalves et al., 2011). Moreover, design requires identification of
irrigation scheduling options to be used (Pereira, 1999), when aiming at controlling salinity
(Pereira et al., 2007), and the consideration of supply management to be practiced in the area
(Pereira et al., 2002). Design software may then comprise the canal or pipe supply system, as
for the models SEDAM (Gonçalves et al., 2007) and SIDES (Adamala et al., 2014).
Page 22 of 37
date: 26 May 2021
The decision support systems (DSS) methodology makes handling data of various types easier
and favors the integration of simulation models and their interactive application. A variety of
DSS have been developed in the general irrigation domain, for example, Rao et al. (2004) and
Gonçalves et al. (2007), relative to canal management and assessing alternative delivery
schedules; Thysen and Detlefsen (2006), aimed at advising farmers; Khan et al. (2010),
focusing on irrigation infrastructure investments; and Anane et al. (2012), for ranking sites for
irrigation with reclaimed water. Only a few DSS focus surface irrigation design (Gonçalves &
Pereira, 2009; Flores et al., 2010); however, a DSS using multi-criteria analysis provides for
comparing and ranking alternative design solutions following various objectives and criteria,
such as achieving water saving, attaining high water productivity, or maximizing farm
incomes, as described in the following two examples.
These examples refer to cotton irrigation in Ras-El-Ain area, located in the northeast of Syria,
where the climate is semi-arid and the challenge for sustainable water use in agriculture is
great (Darouich et al., 2012, 2014). The first study aimed at ranking various design solutions
for graded furrows and graded borders considering precise land-leveling (GF and GB) and
non-precise land-leveling (GFNLL and GBNLL), which is less costly but provides for less good
-1
irrigation performance. The total available discharge was 40 l s , and various inflow
discharges were considered. The reference condition was to the traditional zigzag furrowed
basins system. All design solutions referred to a field 100 m long and 50 m wide, with 0.8%
longitudinal slope, zero cross slope, and medium infiltration characteristics (Darouich et al.,
2012).
Indicators of water use in Fig. 10 refer to: (a) the beneficial water use fraction (BWUF), ratio
of beneficial water used to total irrigation water applied (TIW); (b) irrigation water
productivity (IWP), ratio of yield to TIW; (c) total costs of irrigation (TC); and economic water
productivity ratio (EWPR), that is, the ratio of the yield value to TC (Pereira et al., 2012).
Results show that: (i) BWUF increases when precise land-leveling is adopted and decreases
for larger Qin, and IWP behaves similarly to BWUF, since higher BWUF corresponds to less
water use; (ii) total costs increase when precise land-leveling is applied, thus making EWPR
inversely decrease. Overall, results show that there is a contradiction when searching for
improved water use or to better economic results; design objectives must be clearly stated,
namely when adopting multi-criteria analysis. For this application to cotton, there is a slight
advantage of furrow over border irrigation. This was also the preference of farmers.
Page 23 of 37
date: 26 May 2021
Figure 10. Comparing beneficial water use fraction (a), irrigation water productivity (b),
total cost (c), and economic water productivity ratio (d) for graded furrows and borders (GF
and GB). The abbreviation NLL is used for non-precise land-leveling. Inflow rates (l s-1
furrow-1 or l s-1 m-1 in case of borders) are indicated in brackets.
Source: adapted from Darouich et al., 2012.
The second example compares drip and surface irrigation using similar indicators as above
(Darouich et al., 2014). Drip irrigation design considered various alternatives: double and
single row per lateral (DRL and SRL), emitter spacing (ES) of 0.5 and 0.7 m, various pipe
layouts (L1 to L8), and diverse types of self-and non-compensating emitters (SC and NC).
Surface irrigation design alternatives referred to graded furrows and borders, precise and
non-precise land-leveling (LL and NLL), and various Qin rates. Fields were 100 m or 200 m in
length. Comparing surface and drip irrigation systems (Fig. 11), it was evidenced that: (i) total
irrigation water use was smaller for drip and non-beneficial water use was much greater for
SI, particularly for NLL systems, which means that drip provides for large savings in water;
(ii) consequently, IWP was higher for drip systems; (iii) irrigation costs were much less in case
of SI; and therefore (iv) EWPR was much favored in case of SI systems. Again, overall results
show a contradictory issue, with a clear advantage of drip systems when searching for
improved water use and saving, and, contrarily, the superiority of surface irrigation when
searching for improved economic results. Clearly, these results make evident the need for
considering economic results and not only water use indicators. Moreover, results show that
there is a potential for further using surface irrigation, particularly when system
Page 24 of 37
date: 26 May 2021
improvements are adopted, namely land-leveling, control of inflow discharges, and adoption of
appropriate irrigation schedules. Appropriate support to farmers is required for them to adopt
innovative approaches that may provide for the sustainability of surface irrigation.
Figure 11. Comparing graded furrows and borders with drip irrigation relative to: (a) total
irrigation and beneficial water use and irrigation water productivity, and (b) irrigation costs
and economic water productivity ratio. The abbreviations LL and NLL are used for precise and
non-precise land-leveling. Inflow rates (l s-1 furrow-1 or l s-1 m-1 in case of borders) are
indicated in brackets. Abbreviations for drip systems are: SRL and DRL for single and double
rows per lateral, ES for emitter spacing, L1 to L8 for layouts adopted, and SC and NC for self-
and non-compensating emitters. Emitters discharges (l h-1) are also indicated.
Page 25 of 37
date: 26 May 2021
Source: adapted from Darouich et al., 2014.
Future Trends
Surface irrigation is slowly losing importance but will continue to be a more common
irrigation method than pressurized systems, which require higher investment costs and
operation energy. However, SI faces a great variety of challenges whose solutions are difficult.
Related advances essentially refer to engineering and management, but progress is limited.
Nevertheless, a potential exists to adopt equipment and software tools in SI practice that will
help improve irrigation performances, reduce water use, attain higher yields, and control
percolation and runoff operational losses, reducing surface- and groundwater pollution and
contamination as well as controlling GHG emissions, namely from rice paddies.
Progress in automation and semi-automation of conveyance and supply systems, mainly

relative to hydraulic head and discharge controllers for canals and low-pressure pipes, is
evident worldwide and has made easier off-farm water management of collective systems.
However, this is less true in traditional systems where rotational water deliveries are the rule
(e.g., “warabandi” systems in the Indus basin) and where irrigated farms are small. This is an
engineering domain where progress is required, particularly aimed at equity in deliveries to
farms, but it faces difficulties relative to requiring appropriate interaction between delivery
schedules and crop irrigation schedules whose actors, canal managers and farmers, have
different and often opposed interests and priorities (Shah et al., 2016).
Despite progress in the automation of canal and pipe on-farm supply systems (Walker &
Skogerboe, 1987; Replogle & Kruse, 2007), farmers often prefer hand operation, because
automation may require sensors, controllers, and wireless transmission-reception devices,
which are costly, quite demanding in terms of operation, and not available ready to use.
Automated alfalfa valves may be an exception, due to their simplicity and availability in the
market. Meanwhile, research is proposing new tools like those for paddies (Masseroni et al.,
2017).
Research aimed at the automation of furrows, basins, and borders has been enormous (Walker
& Skogerboe, 1987; Humpherys, 1989, 1995), but farmers have not adopted them as
expected; for example, the adoption of cablegation systems (Kemper et al., 1987) has
remained far behind expectations, likely due to complexity in management. Future trends are
likely to involve adopting sensors for water advancing in furrows or borders and using
wireless transmission and controllers equipped with receivers and specific operational
algorithms (Koech et al., 2014; Arnold et al., 2015). However, the adoption of such tools by
farmers implies that related equipment is industrialized, cheap, and easy to operate. In
addition, the appropriate design of those tools implies an improved use of models such as
SRFR and SIRMOD to support the optimization of inflow discharges, field sizes, and slopes.
Adopting Qin control, the anticipated cutoff in borders and cutback in furrows aimed at
reducing percolation and runoff may be achieved with automation, such as cablegation or
modified surge-flow. However, this requires focused modeling. Adopting real-time control of
Qin and of the cutoff time using sensors and transmission devices, which requires special
consideration of infiltration variability in time and space (Bautista et al., 2014; Nie et al.,
Page 26 of 37
date: 26 May 2021
2017), is now a current research subject. This precise SI approach is quite demanding, may
require better knowledge and modeling of the coupled surface and subsurface flow processes
(Furman, 2008), and is apparently difficult for farmers to adopt. An easier but rougher
approach is to adopt soil intake families for design modeling (Walker et al., 2006), which is
quite useful for improved design as well to support Qin control in areas where soil infiltration
data is scarce.
Land-leveling has revealed quite important for improved SI performance, particularly basins.
However, the spatial variability of infiltration adds to that of micro-topography in affecting DU
(Bai et al., 2017). Moreover, the avoidance of water percolation out of the root zone is not
achievable only through precision land-leveling but requires adopting appropriate irrigation
schedules, namely Qin and tco, that fit the crops demand and the performance of SI systems.
Exploring an irrigation scheduling model associated with a surface irrigation simulation model
is likely required to support design and, mainly, improved operation of the systems (Miao et
al., 2015). The adoption of precise land-leveling by farmers is, however, limited when field
sizes are small and the crops sequence reduces the time when land is uncropped and a
leveling operation could be performed. Incentives, including of a financial nature, may then be
required.
NO3 losses and N2O emissions may be controlled if appropriate fertilizer scheduling is
adopted. The application of fertilizers with the irrigation water—fertigation—may be helpful in
controlling fertilizer impacts (van der Gulik et al., 2007), although precise land leveling is also
needed for higher DU. The control of impacts of other chemicals may also be achieved
through controlled application and, likely less probable, if applied with irrigation water,
chemigation.
The control of methane and GHG emissions from paddy fields is a challenging area. To achieve
that control, paddy water management has to be modified, as previously discussed, by
adopting aerobic rice and intermittent paddy wettings (Chang et al., 2016; de Maria et al.,
2016; Kumar et al., 2016; Sharma et al., 2016).
Adopting appropriate soil tillage, in particular conservation tillage, favors furrow firming in
more permeable soils and improves soil aggregation in low intake soils, and thus may lead to
improved soil and water conservation, reduced operational water losses, and better crop
development and yield (Ahmad et al., 2014). This may be greatly relevant when irrigating in
saline environments (Hoffman & Shalhevet, 2007).
In addition to performance evaluation surveys, and hopefully in combination with them, there
is the need to perform focused economic surveys at the farm level aimed at assessing the
economics of water use and saving and related water productivity. That information is
required to better parameterize models and DSS usable for design and operation management
of SI. In combination with the former, it is also required to develop easy-to-apply
methodologies to monitor environmental impacts of irrigation, particularly greenhouse gas
emissions, transport of solutes to ground- and surface waters, and salinity impacts. Specific
surveys focusing on public health issues are required when reclaimed wastewater is used.
The developments considered above mostly involve large and/or commercial farms in
countries such as the United States and Australia, where good markets exist for equipment,
software, and consulting services. Thus, areas requiring innovation include small farms,
mainly in areas where the equipment market is limited or nonexistent, which are dominant
Page 27 of 37
date: 26 May 2021
worldwide. Farmers likely face economic and managerial difficulties to adopt existing
innovation tools. Limited issues are yet considered. Developments are also required in
institutional terms that favor participation of farmers in water resources management,
provide for incentives to farmers, and support extension services, including irrigation
scheduling.
Conclusions
Surface irrigation systems have been used for millennia and continue to be the most
important type of irrigation system worldwide. There is a large variety of surface irrigation
methods, revealing their adaptability to climate, crops, land forms, and cropping techniques.
Their sustainability is evident in economic, productive, and social terms. Likely, surface
irrigation methods and their wide adaptability to a range of climatic and socioeconomic
contexts will contribute to the resilience of agricultural systems to global change, mainly
considering modernization issues involving environmental sustainability of irrigation. The very
low energy demand and the low investment requirements also contribute to irrigation
sustainability. However, the challenges to be faced are enormous.
Surface irrigation has known great changes where new technologies and management tools
are adopted. However, those tools are difficult to access for small farms and areas where a
specialized market does not exist, farmers have little access to investment facilities, and the
incentives and extension by adequate institutions are lacking. These farming conditions
represent the majority of cases, but information and accessibility to advanced equipment and
models use are also limited in the case of large and commercial farms. Without proper
institutional arrangements, the use of pressurized systems is favored.
The sustainability of surface irrigation systems does not depend only on irrigation advances
but relates to agricultural production systems. On the one hand, a successful irrigation
depends not only upon the adequacy of water application technologies, but also upon
irrigation scheduling, and, for collective canal systems, of management rules and delivery
scheduling, which should match crop and farming requirements. An appropriate management
of irrigation greatly limits operational losses of water by deep percolation and runoff. On the
other hand, the appropriate control of fertilizer, herbicide, and pesticide application reduces
pollution and contamination of surface- and groundwater and, at same time, provides for
improved yields and economic results of irrigated crops. This is particularly important in
saline environments and when wastewaters are used; then, a proper management of irrigation
not only favors the environment but also reduces risks that may affect human health.
The need to access hydrologic impacts of surface irrigation at the basin scale is great. On the
one hand, such assessment may lead to better understanding of the relationships of surface
irrigation and groundwater, both in terms of water fluxes and of water quality. In fact, the
commonly mentioned inefficiencies of SI may well favor groundwater recharge, and water
quality impacts may be reduced if proper practices of fertilizer and chemical use are adopted.
On the other hand, inefficiencies of upstream SI systems may also favor the availability of
surface water to irrigators downstream. While the last decades of the 20th century were
successful in understanding processes at field level and promoting innovations usable at the
farm, a priority for the 21st century may be to enlarge the scope of SI research to better
understand processes occurring at the basin scale and to promote the farm innovations that,
Page 28 of 37
date: 26 May 2021
in addition to the farm scale, have positive impacts at a basin scale. Naturally, remembering
the propositions by the Nobel Prize laureate Elinor Ostrom (1992), approaches must consider
the need for reinventing institutions for self-governing irrigation systems that should support
farmers in adopting more environmentally friendly practices that would contribute to the
sustainability of surface irrigation.
Further Reading
Hoffman, G. J., Evans, R. G., Jensen, M. E., Martin, D. L., & Elliot, R. L. (Eds.). (2007). Design and
operation of farm irrigation systems (2nd ed.). St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural
and Biological Engineers.
Oweis, T. Y., Prinz, D., & Hachum, A. Y. (2012). Rainwater harvesting for agriculture in the dry
areas. Leiden, The Netherlands: CRC Press.
Pereira, L. S., Cordery, I., & Iacovides, I. (2009). Coping with water scarcity: Addressing the
challenges. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
van Lier, H. N, Pereira, L. S., & Steiner, F. R. (Eds.). (1999). CIGR handbook of agricultural
engineering: Land and water engineering. Vol. 1. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of
Agricultural Engineers and the International Commission of Agricultural Engineering.
van Steenbergen, F., Lawrence, P., Haile, A. M., Salman, M., Faurès, J. M., Anderson, I. M., &
Ratsey, J. (2010). Guidelines on spate irrigation. Irrigation and Drainage Paper 65. Rome: FAO.
Walker, W. R. (1989). Guidelines for designing and evaluating surface irrigation systems.
Irrigation and Drainage Paper 45. Rome: FAO.
Walker, W. R., & Skogerboe, G. V. (1987). Surface irrigation: Theory and practice. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
References
Adamala, S., Raghuwanshi, N. S., & Mishra, A. (2014). Development of surface irrigation
systems design and evaluation software (SIDES). Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 100,
100–109.
Ahadi, R., Samani, Z., & Skaggs, R. (2013). Evaluating on-farm irrigation efficiency across the
watershed: A case study of New Mexico’s Lower Rio Grande Basin. Agricultural Water
Management, 124, 52–57.
Ahmad, M., Masih, I., & Giordano, M. (2014). Constraints and opportunities for water savings
and increasing productivity through resource conservation technologies in Pakistan. Agriculture,
Ecosystems & Environment, 187, 106–115.
Anane, M., Bouziri, L., Limam, A., & Jellali, S. (2012). Ranking suitable sites for irrigation with
reclaimed water in the Nabeul-Hammamet region (Tunisia) using GIS and AHP-multicriteria
decision analysis. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 65, 36–46.
Page 29 of 37
date: 26 May 2021
Arnold, B. J., Upadhyaya, S. K., Wallender, W. W., & Grismer, M. E. (2015). Sensor-based cutoff
strategy for border check–irrigated fields. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering,
141(7), 04014081.
Azevedo, A. S., Kanwar, R. S., & Pereira, L. S. (2000). Atrazine transport in irrigated heavy-and
coarse-textured soils, Part I: Field studies. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 76(2),
165–174.
Bai, M., Xu, D., Li, Y., Zhang, S., & Liu, S. (2017). Coupled impact of spatial variability of
infiltration and microtopography on basin irrigation performances. Irrigation Science, 35(5),
437–449.
Bai, M. J., Xu, D., Li, Y. N., & Pereira, L. S. (2011). Impacts of spatial variability of basins
microtopography on irrigation performance. Irrigation Science, 29(5), 359–368.
Bautista, E., Schlegel, J. L., & Clemmens, A. J. (2015). The SRFR 5 modeling system for surface
irrigation. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 142(1), 04015038.
Bautista, E., Strelkoff, T. S., & Clemmens, A. J. (2012). Improved surface volume estimates for
surface irrigation volume-balance calculations. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering,
138(8), 715–726.
Bautista, E., Warrick, A. W., & Strelkoff, T. S. (2014). New results for an approximate method for
calculating two-dimensional furrow infiltration. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering,
140(10), 04014032.
Bautista, E., Warrick, A. W., Schlegel, J. L., Thorp, K. R., & Hunsaker, D. J. (2016). Approximate
furrow infiltration model for time-variable ponding depth. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage
Engineering, 142(11), 04016045.
Bazza, M. (2007). Overview of the history of water resources and irrigation management in the
Near East region. Water Science and Technology: Water Supply, 7(1), 201–209.
Boonstra, J., & Jurriëns, M. (1988). BASCAD: A mathematical model for level basin irrigation.
ILRI Publication 43. Wageningen: International Institute for Land Reclamation and
Improvement.
Bos, M. G. (Ed.). (1976). Discharge measurement structures. ILRI Publication 20. Wageningen:
International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement.
Burt, C. M., Clemmens, A. J., Strelkoff, T. S., Solomon, K. H., Bliesner, R. D., Hardy, L. A., &
Eisenhauer, D. E. (1997). Irrigation performance measures: Efficiency and uniformity. Journal of
Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 123(6), 423–442.
Butzer, K. W. (1976). Early hydraulic civilization in Egypt: A study in cultural ecology. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Campo-Bescós, M. A., Muñoz-Carpena, R., Kiker, G. A., Bodah, B. W., & Ullman, J. L. (2015).
Watering or buffering? Runoff and sediment pollution control from furrow irrigated fields in arid
environments. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 205, 90–101.
Page 30 of 37
date: 26 May 2021
Causapé, J., Quílez, D., & Aragüés, R. (2006). Irrigation efficiency and quality of irrigation return
flows in the Ebro River Basin: An overview. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 117(1),
451–461.
Chang, Y. C., Uphoff, N. T., & Yamaji, E. (2016). A conceptual framework for eco-friendly paddy
farming in Taiwan, based on experimentation with System of Rice Intensification (SRI)
methodology. Paddy and Water Environment, 14(1), 169–183.
Chipana-Rivera, R., Moreno-Pérez, M. F., Velasco, R. C., & Roldán-Cañas, J. (2016). Performance
of pre-Hispanic irrigation systems in the Andean region of Bolivia. Agricultural Water
Clemmens, A. J., Dedrick, A. R., & Strand, R. J. (1993). BASIN 2.0 for the design of level-basin
irrigation systems. In R. G. Allen (Ed.), Management of irrigation and drainage systems:
Integrated perspectives (pp. 875–882). New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.
Clemmens, A. J., Walker, W. R., Fangmeier, D. D., & Hardy, L. A. (2007). Design of surface
systems. In G. J. Hoffman, R. G. Evans, M. E. Jensen, D. L. Martin, & R. L. Elliot (Eds.), Design
and operation of farm irrigation systems (2nd ed., pp. 499–531). St. Joseph, MI: American
Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers.
Darouich, H., Cameira, M. R., Gonçalves, J. M., Paredes, P., & Pereira, L. S. (2017). Comparing
sprinkler and surface irrigation for wheat using multi-criteria analysis: Water saving vs.
economic returns <http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/w9010050>. Water, 9, 50.
Darouich, H., Gonçalves, J. M., Muga, A., & Pereira, L. S. (2012). Water saving vs. farm
economics in cotton surface irrigation: An application of multicriteria analysis. Agricultural
Water Management, 115, 223–231.
Darouich, H. M., Pedras, C. M., Gonçalves, J. M., & Pereira, L. S. (2014). Drip vs. surface
irrigation: A comparison focussing on water saving and economic returns using multicriteria
analysis applied to cotton. Biosystems Engineering, 122, 74–90.
de Maria, S. C., Rienzner, M., Facchi, A., Chiaradia, E. A., Romani, M., & Gandolfi, C. (2016).
Water balance implications of switching from continuous submergence to flush irrigation in a
rice-growing district. Agricultural Water Management, 171, 108–119.
Dedrick, A. R., Gaddis, R. J., Clark, A. W., & Moore A. W. (2007). Land forming for irrigation. In G.
J. Hoffman, R. G. Evans, M. E. Jensen, D. L. Martin, & R. L. Elliot (Eds.), Design and operation of
farm irrigation systems (2d ed., pp. 320–346). St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural
and Biological Engineers.
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. Transactions of the
ASAE, 42(4), 1019–1025.
Flores, C. I., Holzapfel, E. A., & Lagos, O. (2010). A dynamic decision support system for farm
water management in surface irrigation: Model development and application. Chilean Journal of
Agricultural Research, 70(2), 278–286.
Furman, A. (2008). Modeling coupled surface–subsurface flow processes: A review. Vadose Zone
Journal, 7(2), 741–756.
Page 31 of 37
date: 26 May 2021
Gillies, M. H., & Smith, R. J. (2005). Infiltration parameters from surface irrigation advance and
run-off data. Irrigation Science, 24(1), 25–35.
Gonçalves, J. M., Muga, A. P., Horst, M. G., & Pereira, L. S. (2011). Furrow irrigation design with
multicriteria analysis. Biosystems Engineering, 109(4), 266–275.
Gonçalves, J. M., & Pereira, L. S. (2009). Decision support system for surface irrigation design.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 135(3), 343–356.
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.
Agricultural Water Management, 94(1), 93–108.
Hamdi, M., Louati, D., Majdoub, R., & Abida, H. (2016). Impact of spate irrigation of flood waters
on agricultural drought and groundwater recharge: Case of Sidi Bouzid plain, Central Tunisia.
Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 9(15), 653.
Hashemy Shahdany, S. H., & Firoozfar, A. R. (2017). Providing a reliable water level control in
main canals under significant inflow fluctuations at drought periods within canal automation.
Water Resources Management, 31(11), 3343–3354.
Hoffman, G. J., & Shalhevet, J. (2007). Controlling salinity. In G. J. Hoffman, R. G. Evans, M. E.

Jensen, D. L. Martin, & R. L. Elliot (Eds.), Design and operation of farm irrigation systems (2d
ed., pp. 160–207). St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers.
Horst, M. G., Shamutalov, S. S., Gonçalves, J. M., & Pereira, L. S. (2007). Assessing impacts of
surge-flow irrigation on water saving and productivity of cotton. Agricultural Water
Management, 87(2), 115–127.
Humpherys, A. S. (1989). Surge irrigation: 1. An overview. ICID Bulletin, 38(2), 35–48.
Humpherys, A. S. (1995). Semiautomation of irrigated basins and borders: I. Single-function

turnout gates. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 11(1), 67–74.
Jurriëns, M., Zerihun, D., Boonstra, J., & Feyen, J. (2001). SURDEV: Surface irrigation software;
design, operation, and evaluation of basin, border, and furrow irrigation. ILRI publication 59.
Wageningen: International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement.
Katopodes, N. D., Tang, J. H., & Clemmens, A. J. (1990). Estimation of surface irrigation
parameters. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 116(5), 676–696.
Kemper, W. D., Trout, T. J., & Kincaid, D. C. (1987). Cablegation: Automate supply for surface
irrigation. In D. Hillel (Ed.), Advances in irrigation (Vol. 4, pp. 1–66). New York: Academic Press.
Khan, S., Mushtaq, S., & Chen, C. (2010). A decision support tool for irrigation infrastructure
investments. Irrigation and Drainage, 59(4), 404–418.
King, B. A., Bjorneberg, D. L., Trout, T. J., Mateos, L., Araujo, D. F., & Costa, R. N. (2016).
Estimation of furrow irrigation sediment loss using an artificial neural network. Journal of
Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 142(1), 04015031.
Koech, R. K., Smith, R. J., & Gillies, M. H. (2014). A real-time optimisation system for automation
of furrow irrigation. Irrigation Science, 32(4), 319–327.
Page 32 of 37
date: 26 May 2021
Kumar, A., Nayak, A. K., Mohanty, S., & Das, B. S. (2016). Greenhouse gas emission from direct
seeded paddy fields under different soil water potentials in Eastern India. Agriculture,
Ecosystems & Environment, 228, 111–123.
Mao, Z., Dong, B., & Pereira, L. S. (2004). Assessment and water saving issues for Ningxia
paddies, upper Yellow River Basin. Paddy and Water Environment, 2(2), 99–110.
Martínez Saldaña, T., Palerm, J., Pereira, L. S., & Castro, M. (2009). Riegos ancestrales en
Iberoamérica. Texcoco, Mexico: Colegio de Postgraduados and Mundi-Prensa México.
Masseroni, D., Uddin, J., Tyrrell, R., Mareels, I., Gandolfi, C., & Facchi, A. (2017). Towards a
smart automated surface irrigation management in rice-growing areas in Italy. Journal of
Agricultural Engineering, 48(1), 42–48.
Matsuno, Y., Nakamura, K., Masumoto, T., Matsui, H., Kato, T., & Sato, Y. (2006). Prospects for
multifunctionality of paddy rice cultivation in Japan and other countries in monsoon Asia. Paddy
and Water Environment, 4(4), 189–197.
McClymont, D. J., & Smith, R. J. (1996). Infiltration parameters from optimisation on furrow
irrigation advance data. Irrigation Science, 17(1), 15–22.
Merriam, J. L., & Keller, J. (1978). Farm irrigation system evaluation: A guide for management.
Logan: Dept. Agricultural and Irrigation Engineering, Utah State University.
Miao, Q., Shi, H., Gonçalves, J. M., & Pereira, L. S. (2015). Field assessment of basin irrigation
performance and water saving in Hetao, Yellow River basin: Issues to support irrigation systems
modernisation. Biosystems Engineering, 136, 102–116.
Morris, M. R., Hussain, A., Gillies, M. H., & O’Halloran, N. J. (2015). Inflow rate and border
irrigation performance. Agricultural Water Management, 155, 76–86.
Nguyen, V. K., Van Vo, O., & Huynh, D. N. (2015). Comparing the costs and benefits of floating
rice-based and intensive rice-based farming systems in the Mekong Delta. Asian Journal of
Agriculture and Rural Development, 5(9), 202–217.
Niblack, M., & Sanchez, C. A. (2008). Automation of surface irrigation by cut-off time or cut-off
distance control. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 24(5), 611–614.
Nie, W., Huang, H., Ma, X., & Fei, L. (2017). Evaluation of closed-end border irrigation
accounting for soil infiltration variability <https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.
1943-4774.0001174>. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 143(6).
Ostrom, E. (1992). Crafting institutions for self-governing irrigation systems. San Francisco:
Institute for Contemporary Studies.
Oweis, T. Y., Prinz, D., & Hachum, A. Y. (2012). Rainwater harvesting for agriculture in the dry
areas. Leiden, The Netherlands: CRC Press.
Oweis, T. Y., & Walker, W. R. (1990). Zero-inertia model for surge flow furrow irrigation.
Irrigation Science, 11(3), 131–136.
Pereira, L. S. (1999). Higher performance through combined improvements in irrigation

methods and scheduling: A discussion. Agricultural Water Management, 40(2), 153–169.
Page 33 of 37
date: 26 May 2021
Pereira, L. S., & Trout, T. J. (1999). Irrigation methods. In H. N van Lier, L. S. Pereira, & F. R.
Steiner (Eds.), CIGR handbook of agricultural engineering: Land and water engineering (pp.
297–379). Vol. 1. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural Engineers and the
International Commission of Agricultural Engineering.
Pereira, L. S., Cordery, I., & Iacovides, I. (2009). Coping with water scarcity: Addressing the
challenges. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Pereira, L. S., Cordery, I., & Iacovides, I. (2012). Improved indicators of water use performance
and productivity for sustainable water conservation and saving. Agricultural Water
Pereira, L. S., Duarte, E., & Fragoso, R. (2014). Water use: Recycling and desalination for
agriculture. In N. Van Alfen (Ed.), Encyclopedia of agriculture and food systems (Vol. 5, pp. 407–
424). San Diego: Elsevier.
Pereira, L.S., Gonçalves, J. M., Dong, B., Mao, Z., & Fang, S. X. (2007). Assessing basin irrigation
and scheduling strategies for saving irrigation water and controlling salinity in the Upper Yellow
River Basin, China. Agricultural Water Management, 93(3), 109–122
Pereira, L. S., Oweis, T., & Zairi, A. (2002). Irrigation management under water scarcity.
Peyron, M., Bertora, C., Pelissetti, S., Said-Pullicino, D., Celi, L., Miniotti, E., & Sacco, D. (2016).
Greenhouse gas emissions as affected by different water management practices in temperate
rice paddies. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 232, 17–28.
Pôças, I., Cunha, M., & Pereira, L. S. (2009). Los lameiros, pastizales seminaturales de regadio
de montaña: Sistemas ancestrales en el paisaje rural portugués del siglo XXI. In T. Martínez
Saldaña, J. Palerm, L.S. Pereira, & M. Castro (Eds.), Riegos ancestrales en Iberoamérica (pp. 27–
40). Texcoco, Mexico: Colegio de Postgraduados and Mundi-Prensa México.
Pôças, I., Cunha, M., Pereira, L. S., & Allen, R. G. (2013). Using remote sensing energy balance
and evapotranspiration to characterize montane landscape vegetation with focus on grass and
pasture lands. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 21, 159–
172.
Quemada, M., Baranski, M., Nobel-de Lange, M. N. J., Vallejo, A., & Cooper, J. M. (2013). Meta-
analysis of strategies to control nitrate leaching in irrigated agricultural systems and their
effects on crop yield. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 174, 1–10.
Rao, N. H., Brownee, S. M., & Sarma, P. B. S. (2004). GIS-based decision support system for real
time water demand estimation in canal irrigation systems. Current Science, 87(5), 628–636.
Ratnagar, S. (1986). An aspect of Harappan agricultural production. Studies in History, 2(2),

137–153.
Reddy, J. M. (2013). Design of level basin irrigation systems for robust performance. Journal of
Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 139(3), 254–260.
Page 34 of 37
date: 26 May 2021
Replogle, J. A., Clemmens, A. J., & Bos, M. G. (1990). Measuring irrigation water. In G. J. Hoffman,
T. A. Howell, & K. H. Solomon (Eds.), Management of farm irrigation systems (pp. 315–370). St.
Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural Engineers.
Replogle, J. A., & Kruse, E. G. (2007). Delivery and distribution systems. In G. J. Hoffman, R. G.
Evans, M. E. Jensen, D. L. Martin, & R. L. Elliot (Eds.), Design and operation of farm irrigation
systems (2nd ed., pp. 347–391). St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural and Biological
Engineers.
Shah, M. A. A., Anwar, A. A., Bell, A. R., & Haq, Z. (2016). Equity in a tertiary canal of the Indus
Basin Irrigation System (IBIS). Agricultural Water Management, 178, 201–214.
Sharma, S. K., Singh, Y. V., Tyagi, S., & Bhatia, A. (2016). Influence of rice varieties, nitrogen
management and planting methods on methane emission and water productivity. Paddy and
Water Environment, 14(2), 325–333.
Smerdon, E. T., Blair, A. W., & Reddell, D. L. (1988). Infiltration from irrigation advance data. I:
Theory. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 114(1), 4–17.
Strelkoff, T. (1985). BRDRFLW: A mathematical model of border irrigation. Phoenix, AZ: US

Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, US Water Conservation Laboratory.
Strelkoff, T., & Katopodes, N. D. (1977). Border-irrigation hydraulics with zero inertia. Journal of
the Irrigation and Drainage Division, 103(3), 325–342.
Strelkoff, T. S., & Clemmens, A. J. (2007). Hydraulics of surface systems. In G. J. Hoffman, R. G.

Evans, M. E. Jensen, D. L. Martin, & R. L. Elliot (Eds.), Design and operation of farm irrigation
Engineers.
Strelkoff, T. S., Clemmens, A. J., & Schmidt, B. V. (1998). SRFR, Version 3.31—A model for
simulating surface irrigation in borders, basins and furrows. Phoenix, AZ: US Department of
Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, US Water Conservation Laboratory.
Strelkoff, T. S., Clemmens, A. J., Schmidt, B. V., & Slosky, E. J. (1996). BORDER: A design and
management aid for sloping border irrigation systems. WCL Report 21. Phoenix, AZ: US
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, US Water Conservation Laboratory.
Tabuada, M. A., Rego, Z. J. C., Vachaud, G., & Pereira, L. S. (1995). Modelling of furrow
irrigation: Advance with two-dimensional infiltration. Agricultural Water Management, 28(3),
201–221.
Tan, X., Wang, Y., & Zhou, K. (2005). History of irrigation and flood control in China. Beijing:
China Waterpower Press.
Thysen, I., & Detlefsen, N. K. (2006). Online decision support for irrigation for farmers.
Trout, T. J. (1996). Furrow irrigation erosion and sedimentation: On-field distribution.

Transactions of the ASAE, 39(5), 1717–1723.
Page 35 of 37
date: 26 May 2021
Trout, T. J., & Kincaid, D. C. (1989). Border cablegation system design. Transactions of the ASAE,
32(4), 1185–1192.
Tubeileh, A., Bruggeman, A., & Turkelboom, F. (2009). Effect of water harvesting on growth of
young olive trees in degraded Syrian dryland. Environment, Development and Sustainability,
11(5), 1073–1090.
van der Gulik, T. W., Evans, R. G., & Eisenhauer, D. E. (2007). Chemigation. In G. J. Hoffman, R.
G. Evans, M. E. Jensen, D. L. Martin, & R. L. Elliot (Eds.), Design and operation of farm irrigation
Engineers.
van Steenbergen, F., Lawrence, Ph., Haile, A. M., Salman, M., Faurès, J. M., Anderson, I. M., &
Ratsey, J. (2010). Guidelines on spate irrigation. Irrigation and Drainage Paper 65. Rome: FAO.
Viollet, P.-L. (2007). Water engineering in ancient civilizations: 5,000 years of history. Boca
Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Walker, W. R. (2003). SIRMOD III: Surface irrigation simulation, evaluation and design; Guide
and technical documentation. Logan: Department of Biological and Irrigation Engineering, Utah
State University.
Walker, W. R., Prestwich, C., & Spofford, T. (2006). Development of the revised USDA–NRCS
intake families for surface irrigation. Agricultural Water Management, 85(1), 157–164.
Walker, W. R., & Skogerboe, G. V. (1987). Surface irrigation: Theory and practice. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Xu, X., Huang, G., Sun, C., Pereira, L. S., Ramos, T. B., Huang, Q., & Hao, Y. (2013). Assessing the
effects of water table depth on water use, soil salinity and wheat yield: Searching for a target
depth for irrigated areas in the upper Yellow River basin. Agricultural Water Management, 125,
46–60.
Zhang, S., Yi, Y., Liu, Y., & Wang, X. (2013). Hydraulic principles of the 2,268-year-old
Dujiangyan Project in China. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 139(5), 538–546.
Related Articles
Ecosystem Services
Rethinking Conflict over Water
Effective Practices in Mitigating Soil Erosion from Fields
Soil Quality as Affected by Intensive versus Conservative Agricultural Managements
Nutrient Pollution and Wastewater Treatement Systems
Water Footprint
Input-Output Models Applied to Environmental Analysis
Page 36 of 37
date: 26 May 2021
Page 37 of 37
date: 26 May 2021

Cong Nghe Tuoi Mat Ruong

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cong Nghe Tuoi Mat Ruong

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Surface Irrigation

Luis S. Pereira, Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Lisbon, Portugal and José M. Gonçalves,

Keywords: design, economic environmental impacts, future issues, irrigation management,

Subjects: Sustainability and Solutions, Agriculture and the Environment

Surface Irrigation Methods

EUROPE 29.93 63.31 6.76

Western & 3.69 6.69 0.95 11.33 32.56 59.04 8.41

Eastern 0.59 2.37 0.02 2.98 19.93 79.57 0.50

AFRICA 65.27 20.27 14.47

Northern 4.65 0.92 1.13 6.70 69.36 13.74 16.90

Sub- 2.30 1.24 0.41 3.95 58.32 31.35 10.33

AMERICAS 58.09 35.72 6.19

Northern 17.25 13.77 2.00 33.02 52.23 41.71 6.05

Central 1.28 0.26 0.09 1.63 78.99 15.73 5.27

Southern 9.80 3.39 0.94 14.13 69.37 24.00 6.63

ASIA 95.13 3.53 1.33

Middle 15.93 2.49 1.36 19.79 80.53 12.58 6.89

Central 9.19 0.14 0.02 9.35 98.29 1.54 0.16

Southern 174.17 4.77 1.41 180.35 96.57 2.64 0.78

OCEANIA 1.94 1.02 0.23 3.19 60.88 31.83 7.29

Source: FAO AQUASTAT <http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/data/query/results.html>.

Figure 3. Surface runoff irrigation

Figure 4. Water harvesting: (a) sequence of “meskats,” in southern Tunisia, collecting

The performance indicators usually considered in SI studies consist of the distribution

Irrigation Phases and Related Performance Improvements

Figure 6. Irrigation phases of a furrow irrigated field.

As mentioned before, the efficiency ea highly depends upon DU in addition to irrigation

Modernization for Improved Water, Labor, and Yield Performance

Techniques Benefits Applicability

Precision land- – Less water to complete advance, – Applies to basins,

– Higher discharges, – Fast advance time, reduced – Easy; limitations relate to

– Furrowed basins for – Faster advance, improved – Easy to implement

– Maintaining low – Lower seepage and percolation – Limitations when land-

Furrows and borders

– Irrigation with – Reduced water application to the – Easy to apply

– Reuse of tail water – Avoidance of runoff losses, – Need for collective

– Closed furrows and – Avoiding runoff at the – Needs controlled inflow

– Continuously – Control of percolation and runoff – Requires technological

– Irrigation with – Reduced water application; runoff – When available water is

On-farm water distribution

– Gated pipes and – Easier control of discharges, – Easy to adopt but

– Buried pipes for – Easier control of discharges, – Less appropriate for

– Improved on-farm – Easier control of discharges when – Limitations relative to

– Automation and – Improved conditions for – Application only to large

Source: Adapted from Pereira et al. (2009).

Paddy Rice Basin Irrigation

Infiltration Methods: Border Irrigation

Infiltration Methods: Furrow Irrigation

(iv) Cablegation, which consists of an automated and continuous cutback through

Rainwater Harvesting, Runoff Collecting and Spreading, and Spate Irrigation

Sustainability Issues and Contradictions

Sustainability of SI is impacted by a variety of factors. First, there is an insufficient adoption

In conclusion, SI systems can be sustainable if control of inflows is practiced, precise land-

Current State of the Science

Measuring the infiltration characteristics is essential for surface irrigation performance

Decision Tools for Design and Ranking

Progress in automation and semi-automation of conveyance and supply systems, mainly

Hoffman, G. J., & Shalhevet, J. (2007). Controlling salinity. In G. J. Hoffman, R. G. Evans, M. E.

Humpherys, A. S. (1989). Surge irrigation: 1. An overview. ICID Bulletin, 38(2), 35–48.

Humpherys, A. S. (1995). Semiautomation of irrigated basins and borders: I. Single-function

Pereira, L. S. (1999). Higher performance through combined improvements in irrigation

Ratnagar, S. (1986). An aspect of Harappan agricultural production. Studies in History, 2(2),

Strelkoff, T. (1985). BRDRFLW: A mathematical model of border irrigation. Phoenix, AZ: US