Agricultural Water Management 256 (2021) 107088

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agricultural Water Management

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

Smart water management approach for resource allocation in High-Scale

irrigation systems
Andrés-F. Jiménez a, b, *, Pedro-F. Cárdenas a, Fabián Jiménez c
a
Universidad Nacional de Colombia – Sede Bogotá, School of Engineering, Department of Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering, un-Robot, Carrera 45 N◦ 26-85 -
Uriel Gutiérrez Building, Bogotá D.C. 111321, Colombia
b
Universidad de los Llanos, School of Basic Sciences and Engineering, Dynamic Systems Research Group, Km. 12 Vía Puerto López, Villavicencio, Colombia
c
Universidad Pedagógica y Tecnológica de Colombia, Avenida Central del Norte 39-115, PBX: (57+8) 7405626, Tunja, Boyacá, Colombia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling editor: Xiying Zhang Water is a common resource shared by many agents or farmers in irrigation districts, where water management
is, therefore, a very complex problem if the target is the equitable distribution of resources or the efficient use of
Keywords: water. This paper aims to present the design and implementation of an Irrigation Agent-Based Model (IABM) for
Agent-Based Model the distribution of water in an irrigation district. In the IABM proposed, each field or farm can be considered as a
Irrigation scheduling
micro-level and a region or irrigation district as a macro-level. The most approximated irrigation scheduling at
Negotiation
each micro-level allows determining the water needs at the macro-level, as a reference for the negotiation of
Precision irrigation
Water sustainability water distribution. A Geographical Information System (GIS) was used to manage georeferenced field infor­
mation. Field capacity and permanent wilting point values, initial soil moisture, crop types, crop coefficients,
root depth, sowing dates and weather data were incorporated into the IABM model for determining irrigation
prescriptions. When water available in the irrigation district is insufficient to supply water requirements of all the
irrigation fields, the IABM allows water distribution among them according to the cultivated field sizes, irrigation
priorities, phenological states and the behavior of neighbors. When water resources are distributable, the pro­
posed negotiation algorithm ensures that fields will use irrigation prescriptions defined with technical and
agronomic criteria, thus avoiding the waste of water resource. The IABM developed meets the satisfaction
requirement of the greatest number of agents by avoiding as much as possible that the soil water stress increases,
using 25% of permissible level of moisture depletion respect to the total available water in each field.

1. Introduction called agents, use reactive or rational behavior to determine actions in

Efficient water management in agricultural crops is of paramount
importance for sustainable development and food security (Mango et al.,
2018). Currently, climate change and water scarcity in some parts of the
world urge the search for solutions that allow the optimization of agri­
cultural processes, thus obtaining higher yields with better use of re­
sources and reduction of production costs (Ojha et al., 2015). Precision
irrigation consists of sustainable water management, which involves
applying water to crops to meet specific plant needs (Adeyemi et al.,
2018). With the development of modern technologies, a considerable
transformation has been observed in many areas, especially in precision
agriculture applications. Artificial Intelligence (AI) has acquired a major
role in daily lives, thus improving our perceptions and abilities to modify
the environment around us (Talaviya et al., 2020). In AI, the systems,
the surrounding environment (Jimenez et al., 2020b). An agent is an
autonomous entity, which obtains information from the environment
using a perception system, makes decisions through strategies and
carries out actions to modify the environment using actuators (Russell
and Norvig, 2016).
Irrigation districts are complex systems. Farmers can be considered
as adaptive agents, who have autonomy, intelligence and relative
knowledge about their environment (crop fields) (An et al., 2005). These
agents can update their knowledge and adjust their behaviors to the
environment change. Farmers are interconnected through social re­
lationships with irrigation management authorities and also with their
neighbors. The interactions between farmers could lead to patterns at
the aggregate level as conflict resolution through negotiation, coordi­
nation, cooperation and competition in the distribution of water

* Correspondence to: Department of Mathematics and Physics. Unillanos, km. 12 Vía Puerto López, 500017 Villavicencio (Meta), Colombia.
E-mail addresses: ajimenez@unillanos.edu.co (A.-F. Jiménez), pfcardenash@unal.edu.co (P.-F. Cárdenas), fabian.jimenez02@uptc.edu.co (F. Jiménez).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2021.107088
Received 2 October 2020; Received in revised form 9 July 2021; Accepted 18 July 2021
Available online 28 July 2021
0378-3774/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
A.-F. Jiménez et al.
Fig. 1. Large-scale irrigation and drainage district of Chicamocha and Firavitoba (UsoChicamocha). Irrigation units: (1) Holanda, (2) Surba, (3) Pantano de Vargas,
(4) Ayalas, (5) Duitama, (6) Cuche, (7) San Rafael, (8) Las Vueltas, (9) Tibasosa, (10) Ministerio and (11) Monquirá.
resources (Cai and Xiong, 2017). Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) are
developed by the interaction of several agents that exchange informa­
tion between them and generally cooperate for solving problems. The
role of an agent in MAS consists of its nature, interfaces, responsibilities,
functions and behaviors. Agent-Based Modeling (ABM) is a type of MAS,
whose aim is to use rules of the local agents in the micro-level for finding
a collective behavior of several agents in a macro-level using modeling,
analysis and simulation (Grashey-Jansen, 2014).
Researches have used ABM to model relationships between the micro
and macro levels and to infer or make decisions based on different AI
techniques or expert knowledge. Emergence is a term associated to an
unexpected behavior that appears during the algorithms execution and
was not defined by the programmer in the agents design specification.
The ABM models capture these emerging phenomena and obtain a
complete overview of the system. ABM applications have been used in
crop modeling irrigation management systems (Matthews, 2006), water
management policies in irrigation systems (Rege et al., 2015), resource
negotiation processes (Janssen and Baggio, 2016), emulation of irriga­
tion water resource monitoring (Zhao et al., 2011) and simulation of
large-scale irrigation models, primarily by flood irrigation (Guyennon
et al., 2016). Competition for the use of water is increasing globally and
the development of models that allow simulating views of the competing
parties are necessary to negotiate water resources and mitigate conflicts.
ABM models have also been used as a conflict resolution strategy for the
management of irrigation resources between stakeholders. Akhbari and
Grigg (2013) explain the development of an ABM that takes into account
the interactions among the parties and how they can be encouraged to
cooperate in the game to work toward a solution. Cai and Xiong (2017)
implemented an ABM simulation for studying cooperation formation
when irrigation is used. The stakeholder first becomes a potential
participant when the cost of cooperation it needs to cover is not higher
than the amount it can afford or is willing to pay. On top of this, the
propensity that the stakeholder participates is heavily affected by its
personal characteristics and neighborhood effects. Finally, Belaqziz
et al. (2014) implemented an ABM simulation focused on gravity irri­
gation systems with an evolutionary strategy algorithm for the distri­
bution in rate and time of water resources in a pilot region located in
Morocco. Several researches have applied multi-agent models to study
water distribution in cultivated regions with several stakeholders, but
none have used neither crop phenological characteristics as a relevant
negotiation parameter nor agent satisfaction levels as irrigation
2
Agricultural Water Management 256 (2021) 107088
UsoChicamocha Central Station.
performance measurement in the design of intelligent agents. Addi­
tionally, the use of crop characteristics and neighbor behaviors for
negotiation and water distribution introduces proactive and social be­
haviors in the irrigation agents of the ABM proposed in this paper, which
can be implemented with real devices in crop fields (Jimenez et al.,
2020b). For more details about Multi-Agent Systems and their applica­
tions to irrigation management, please refer to the previous work by
Jimenez et al. (2020a).
This paper shows the design and implementation of an Irrigation
Agent-Based Model IABM for the Large-Scale Irrigation and Drainage
District of Chicamocha and Firavitoba (UsoChicamocha) in Boyacá –
Colombia, where water is a common resource shared by many agents.
This district is currently comprised of eleven irrigation units that benefit
about 4000 ha of 6087 potentials. Irrigation waters are taken from the
Chicamocha riverbed and carried to the fields through pumping stations.
Since the implementation of the district in 1998, the bulb onion culti­
vation has emerged as an alternative of commercial agriculture under
irrigation, looking for the agricultural reconversion of lands considered
for use in livestock. The establishment of productive systems with the
use of irrigation has caused difficulties and shortcomings mainly due to
the lack of knowledge of the biophysical and technological components
associated with the use of water in the exploitation of horticultural
crops, especially the bulb onion, whose planting area in the district has
reached more than 2000 ha per year (1000 per semester cycle). The
specific problem of the UsoChicamocha irrigation district is the physical
and hydraulic infrastructure, which is considered adequate for the dis­
tribution of land irrigation, but becomes inefficient due to the non-
application of technical criteria with concepts that indicate when, how
much and how to irrigate (Cely, 2010).
A characteristic of the proposed IABM is the management of local
information in the cultivated fields: farmers are simulated as intelligent
agents with the capability of determining water requirements based on
the soil water balance equation and field data as soil textures and soil
hydrologic parameters. Additionally, the IABM system is implemented
with social capabilities represented by cooperative and non-cooperative
behaviors among neighbors agents and the ability to negotiate the dis­
tribution of resources when there is not enough water to maintain all the
cultivated plots at field capacity. After the negotiation procedure, the
agents apply irrigation to their crops according to new prescriptions that
seek to optimize the distribution of irrigation in the study region where
the system was implemented. The contribution of this work is an Agent-
A.-F. Jiménez et al. Agricultural Water Management 256 (2021) 107088

Based modelling framework specifically designed for the management of

0.3
0.9
water resources in an irrigation district, including the representation of

165
19
collective decision-making procedures with the integration of real
geographical and weather data, python™ algorithms and NetLogo. This
framework allows the negotiation of water resources in an irrigation

0.4
1.2
18

165
district, taking into account the emerging behavior from the micro
(farmers) to macro (irrigation district) levels for the efficient manage­
ment of freshwater in agriculture, as one of the most important resources

0.6
1.5
for the humanity subsistence.

17

165
Maturation
2. Materials and methods

0.7
1.8
16

165
This research was developed in the large-scale irrigation and
drainage district of Chicamocha and Firavitoba (UsoChicamocha),
located in Boyacá, Colombia. The division of the territory belonging to

0.7
2.0
the UsoChicamocha irrigation district was defined by the Territorial

15

165
Arrangement Planning (TAP) of the Department of Boyacá, Colombia.
This governmental body divided the district into eleven territorial sec­
tors adjacent to the riverbed of the Chicamocha River to guide and

0.6
2.0
14

157
manage the physical development of the territory and the use of the
land. These territorial sectors defined in the TAP coincide with the
established fields in the irrigation units, without considering the spatial

Crop coefficient, crop evapotranspiration (ETc), and root depth of the bulb onion crop in the area of the San Rafael UsoChicamocha irrigation unit.

0.8
2.6
heterogeneities of the soils. However, climatic conditions of these irri­

13

148
gation units are homogeneous given their spatial proximity, tempera­
ture, relative humidity, rainfall and altitude level. Therefore, the district
has eleven irrigation units with one pumping station each: Holanda,

0.7
1.9
12

139
Surba, Pantano de Vargas, Ayalas, Duitama, Cuche, San Rafael, Las
Vueltas, Tibasosa, Ministerio and Monquirá (Fig. 1).
The water sources are La Copa and La Playa dams, and water is

0.7
2.2
11

130
distributed throughout the Chicamocha riverbed. Each pumping station
is responsible for supplying water to several fields. The experimental
fields used in this study corresponded to the San Rafael irrigation unit

0.9
2.6
that has an area of 8451.3 km2 and is located in 5.789569◦ N,

10

121
72.988214◦ W. Fig. 1 shows the cultivated fields supplied by the San
Rafael pumping station, located in the municipality of Nobsa, Boyacá, Bulbification
Colombia. The area comprised by the San Rafael irrigation unit has an
0.8
3.0
9

112
annual average of solar brightness of 1852hours and an average tem­

Note: rd is root depth (mm) ETc is crop evapotranspiration (mm∙day− 1 ) and kc is crop coefficient.
perature of 14.05◦ C, with a high qualification for the sowing of agri­
cultural species (Weather Spark, 2020). There is a humidity deficit of
0.7
2.3

485 mm/year derived from an annual average of rainfall and evapora­

8

103

tion rates of 798 mm/year and 1283 mm/year, respectively. The envi­
ronmental climate corresponds to dry-cold, with a bimodal regime and a
water deficit in most of the months, with a concentration of rains be­
0.7
2.5
7

94

tween of April and May in the first semester and October to November in
the second, according to 10-year data (Cely, 2010).
0.5
1.6
85
6

2.1. Crop characterization - bulb onion

The bulb onion crop (Allium cepa, Hybrid Yellow Granex) is the
0.5
1.4
5

76

principal product planted in UsoChicamocha. For this study, parameters

and characteristics of this crop were defined using the results of the
project entitled: “Determination of irrigation and drainage parameters
0.4
1.3
4

67

for the cultivation of bulb onion (Allium cepa) in soils of the Alto Chi­
camocha Irrigation District - Boyacá – Colombia (Cod.
1c10937819630)”, supported by the Administrative Department of
0.4
1.3

Science, Technology and Innovation of Colombia - Colciencias and

58
3

finished in 2009. According to this research, three phenological phases

Leaves-development

were defined for the development of this crop.

0.5
1.3

Phase I. Leaves development: It is characterized by a minimal

2

49

accumulation of phytomass and no very noticeable changes in the

Source: (Cely, 2010).

phenotype. This phase begins from transplantation to the beginning of

0.4
1.3

bulbification. Plants develop 58% of the total leaves, acquire 48% of its
40
1

maximum height, and 45% of the maximum number of cataphiles and

63% of the maximum length of the root are formed. These values are
Table 1

Week
Stage

significant for a single-phase, which corresponds to 40% of the total

ETc
Kc

rd

cultivation cycle. In this phenological state, the plant presents a gradual

3
A.-F. Jiménez et al. Agricultural Water Management 256 (2021) 107088

Table 2 Once ETr has been calculated, a crop coefficient value (Kc ) must be
Data description. multiplied by ETr for adjusting the value to the studied crop in its
Data name Time/ Time span Data source different development stages (Subedi and Chávez, 2015). The crop
space water requirements are expressed in millimeters, either per day, month
resolution or vegetative cycle. The definition of the phenological scale and Kc for
Meteorological Day/point 11–01–2019 GrowWeather station the study area are fundamental parameters to carry out the irrigation
variables to with Weather Wizard III programming that is required to be applied at each stage of the crop. The
08–01–2020 console (Davis crop coefficient describes the variations in the amount of water that
Instruments, Hayward,
CA, USA)
plants extract from the soil as they develop, from sowing to harvest, as it
Meteorological Day/point 07–01–2020 Weather Station Pro2 depends on the anatomical, morphological and physiological plant
variables to Plus- Datalogger characteristics (Spiliotopoulos and Loukas, 2019). Due to the charac­
08–01–2020 WeatherLink IP (Davis teristics of the bulb onion crop and the variations in the incidence of ETr
Instruments, Hayward,
during the different growth stages, Kc changes from planting to harvest.
CA, USA)
Interpolated maps: 1:25000 2009 Administrative According to Cely (2010), onion plants have abundant thin roots
Permanent Wilting Department of Science, measuring around 40 mm at the transplanting time. From the third week
point (PWP); Field Technology and after transplanting, the length of the roots begins to increase and
Capacity (FC); Innovation of Colombia consequently their weight. Subsequently, a significant increase in the
Saturation Point - Colciencias (Project:
(SP); clay, silt and 110937819630)
number of roots is evident, becoming abundant. Without interrupting its
sand percentages; growth in length, from week 8 onwards a thickening of the roots occurs.
hydraulic Around week 15, at the beginning of the maturation phase, the roots
conductivity and stop growing, reaching approximately 165 mm in length and maintain a
apparent density.
constant dry weight, until the end of the cultivation cycle. Table 1 shows
Polygon layer- 1:25000 2020 UsoChicamocha
Irrigation area map Irrigation District site-specific values of Kc , effective root depth (rd ) and ETc for the fields
Root depth (rd ) Parameter 2010 Cely (2010). located in the San Rafael irrigation unit of UsoChicamocha and defined
Crop Coefficient (kc ) Parameter 2010 Cely (2010). for bulb onion (Allium cepa, Hybrid Yellow Granex).
Management Parameter Allen et al. (1998).
allowable depletion
2.2. Field data collection
(MAD)

and constant increase in its growth and number of cells of meristematic
tissues, besides several small and thin leaves appear, as well as very fine
roots and cataphiles.
Phase II. Bulbification: This stage is characterized by an increase in
most of the physiological parameters, in which a representative growth
is observed. At the beginning of this phase, the thickening of the base of
the leaves begins, the number of cataphiles increases and leaves
continue to appear. The leaf area increases because its length increases
in width and length and a thickening process occurs in the limb and,
therefore, in the pseudostem. In the fullness of the phase, the equatorial
diameter of the onion bulbs increases to exceed 65% of its final diam­
eter, the fresh and dry bulb phytomass show a drastic change and the
leaves remain erect in the fullness and end of the phase. The total dry
phytomass increases because all the organs are presenting significant
changes in length, thickness and stored products of photosynthesis.
Phase III. Ripening: In this last phase, which goes until the harvest or
maturity of the crop, the highest rate of accumulation of dry and fresh
Table 2 describes the data sources used in this study. Daily meteo­
rological data of precipitation, pressure, maximum temperature, mini­
mum temperature, wind speed, radiation, evapotranspiration and
relative humidity were collected from a Davis GrowWeather station with
Weather Wizard III console (Davis Instruments, Hayward, CA, USA)
located in a field of the San Rafael irrigation unit (5.787021◦ N,
− 72.973932◦ ), from November 1, 2019 to August 01, 2020. Precipita­
tion and reference evapotranspiration (ETr ) data were used as input
parameters for the hydric balance equation. Rain was measured and ETr
was computed on hourly time step throughout the 24 h period and
summed up to a daily time step. The effective precipitation was calcu­
lated through the methodology stated by Adnan and Khan (2009), where
a kp coefficient is obtained from the relationship between evapotrans­
piration and the observed precipitation by using Eq. (1). Then, the kp
coefficient is multiplied by the observed precipitation and the result is
equal to the effective precipitation, as expressed in Eq. (2).
0.001143∗ET 0.5208∗ET
(1)
r r
kp = 1.011 ∗ e− rain − 1.011 ∗ e− rain

phytomass of the bulb stands out. The bulb completes its filling and the
rate of appearance of cataphiles decreases, as they are thickening to
consolidate the final formation of the bulb. The leaf part loses impor­
tance, since the foliar area and the number of leaves remain constant and
low. At the end of this phase, the leaves die after the plants are over­
whelmed, which basically consists in drying the bulb neck and as a
result, the plant falls due to the weight of its leaves. It is observed that
the water consumption of the crop is higher in the second stage of
development, in addition to a shorter duration in days. This corresponds
to the phase where the greatest accumulations of biomass occur and the
organs develop, that is, the critical period of the onion bulb cultivation
matches the formation of the bulb, a stage in which it consumes 47% of
its water needs.
The water requirements in a crop are directly related to the evapo­
transpiration (ET), corresponding to the water that the plant uses to
carry out its physiological functions, including that which the plant
expels through the leaves (transpiration), that which is lost from the soil
where the crop is (evaporation) and the water intercepted by the foliage
(Allen et al., 1998). ETr is the calculated reference ET for grass (mm).
Raineff = Rain ∗ kp (2)
where kp (dimensionless) is the precipitation coefficient, ETr (mm) is
the reference evapotranspiration, rain(mm) is the precipitation and
Raineff (mm) is the effective precipitation.
Taking as reference the semi-detailed soil study at scale 1:25000 of
UsoChicamocha (Cely, 2010), a total of 100 sites were geo-referenced
and used for defining textural, physical and hydraulic parameters
maps. The geographical distribution of these sites represents the contrast
of the soil pattern and climatic distribution of the area occupied by bulb
onion in the UsoChicamocha district. In this study, soil maps were
prepared with spatial indicators, including textures, apparent density,
total porosity and its distribution, saturated hydraulic conductivity and
soil moisture points (saturation, FC and PWP). These maps were ob­
tained by ordinary Kriging interpolation in Quantum GIS (OSGeo, Bea­
verton, OR, USA) and SAGA (Dept. of Physical Geography, University of
Hamburg, GER). The procedure consisted of a structural analysis that
evaluated data correlation and dependency through a variogram, and a
predictive analysis using ordinary Kriging (Arétouyap et al., 2015).

4
A.-F. Jiménez et al. Agricultural Water Management 256 (2021) 107088

Table 3
Variograms parameters and performance values of kriging interpolations.
Parameter Clay Silt Sand Density Saturation Point Field Capacity Permanent Wilting Point

Nugget 320 280 100 0.02 28 28 60

Still 450 360 210 0.06 75 88 160
Range 0.016 0.016 0.024 0.026 0.024 0.024 0.024
RMSE 0.63 0.48 039 0.005 0.19 0.21 0.29
MAE 0.46 0.32 0.27 0.003 0.13 0.15 019

(a) (b)
Fig. 2. Interpolated maps. (a) Field capacity and (b) Permanent wilting point.

Currently, Kriging is the best interpolation technique because it is un­ for Field Capacity and Permanent Wilting Point.
biased. Nevertheless, it requires data to be correlated and dependent. For the management of spatial data, a polygon layer was developed
This structural analysis is conducted by means of the variogram. A with all the fields belonging to the San Rafael irrigation unit (Fig. 2).
variogram is a tool that is used to describe the spatial continuity of a Zone Statistics tool in QGIS was used to extract the values of the inter­
phenomenon (Caridad and Jury, 2013). The variogram provides a polation maps (raster data) to the polygon layer. These values corre­
measure of spatial correlation by describing how the sample data are spond to the average amount of pixels of the interpolation maps that
related to distance and direction (Kaluzny et al., 1998). In order to apply belong to each field polygon of each spatial indicator. Finally, the geo­
the Kriging procedure, the variogram should be fitted to a simplified spatial information was organized in a vector file (in shape format *.shp)
model. Parameters that describe the variogram with sufficient detail are and a *.dbf file with fields of latitude and longitude of polygon centroid,
nugget, sill and range. The spherical model is the most common model in field area, sand, loam and clay percentages, apparent density, saturated
geostatistics and it was selected and implemented using Eq. (3). hydraulic conductivity and soil moisture points (saturation, FC and
⎧ ⎫ PWP). This vector layer corresponds to the spatial parameters that are
⎪ 0, h = 0 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ( )
⎪
⎪
⎪ constant in the study region and represent the invariant aspects of the
⎪ ( )3 ⎪
⎨ h h ⎬ environment in the proposed Agent-Based Model.
γ(h) = C0 + C 1.5 ∗ − 0.5 ∗ , 0<h≤a (3)
⎪
⎪ a a ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩
⎪
⎪
⎭ 2.3. Irrigation prescription
C0 + C, h > a
A precision irrigation prescription implies watering in such a way
where γ(h) is the variogram, h is the offset, C0 is the nugget variance,
that it represents the necessary humidity to obtain optimum yields. The
C0 +C is the Sill (scale), C is the partial sill (variance), and a is the
total available water (TAW) is the quantity of water that can be stored in
effective range (Arétouyap et al., 2015). Semivariograms were used for
the soil and used by crops (Barradas et al., 2012). TAW is defined by
understanding the spatial dependence for each spatial indicator. For
using the field capacity (FC) and the permanent wilting point (PWP)
each indicator, nugget, sill and range were defined for the spherical
parameters (Eq. (4)).
model and the results of the Kriging ordinary interpolation were eval­
uated using the Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and the Root Mean Square %VWCFC − %VWCPWP
TAW = ∗ Rd (4)
Error (RMSE), according to Table 3. Fig. 2 shows the interpolated maps 100

5
A.-F. Jiménez et al.
Fig. 3. Model of the Class-Level organization structure for the San Rafael PumpStation-IABM.
where %VWCFC is the volumetric water content at FC, %VWCPWP is the
volumetric water content at PWP and Rd is the effective root depth in
mm. The FC is related to the quantity of water that a soil can retain after
saturation caused by rain or irrigation activities, with free drainage and
without losses by evaporation, until the soil moisture stabilizes. The
PWP is the point under which a plant cannot extract water from the soil
and cannot recover from the loss of water, even if water is applied again
(Ghorbani et al., 2017).
In the IABM, irrigation scheduling must be evaluated for each field
belonging to the San Rafael irrigation unit of UsoChicamocha. The
management of irrigation prescriptions in the IABM is used to keep each
field within a soil moisture range defined by the percentage of permis­
sible level of moisture depletion (MAD). If the soil is sufficiently wet, it
supplies water fast enough to meet the atmospheric demand of the crop
and keep water uptake equal to ETc. The knowledge of the initial soil
water content in the effective root zone, ETc , TAW, rain and irrigation
amount on the specific day are necessary for applying the soil water
balance equation. Irrigation is required when ETc exceeds the water
supply. The net irrigation (D) is the difference between FC and the
current soil volumetric water content. In the field, deep percolation
P(mm) and runoff RO(mm) are difficult to estimate. Assuming that Irr
and Raineff readily infiltrate into the soil and discarding RO and P, the
net irrigation is calculated using Eq. (5).
( )
D = D− 1 − Irr − Raineff + ETc if D is negative, then set it to 0.0 (5)
where D (mm) is the soil water deficit or net irrigation requirement;
D− 1 (mm) is the soil water deficit on the previous day; Irr (mm) is the
irrigation amount for the current day; Raineff (mm) is the effective
precipitation for the current day and ETc (mm) is the crop evapotrans­
piration or crop water requirement for the current day. The unit mm
means cubic meters of water per square meter of soil. The term D is set
equal to zero if its value becomes negative when precipitation and/or
irrigation exceed D− 1 plus ETc . This means that water added to the soil
exceeds field capacity within the plant root zone. Any water excess in the
6
Agricultural Water Management 256 (2021) 107088
root zone is assumed to be lost through RO or P (Andales et al., 2011).
The irrigation method efficiency (Ef) (60% for surface irrigation, 75%
for sprinkler irrigation and 90% for drip irrigation) is added in the cal­
culus in Eq. (6).
100
DT = D∗ (6)
Ef
where DT is the total irrigation (mm), D is the net irrigation (mm) and Ef
is the field application efficiency (%). Finally, the irrigation time is
determined using Eq. (7).
DT
Irrigation Time (IT) = (7)
Irrigation application rate
The MAD is used as a threshold value for defining the irrigation
timing associated to the soil water depletion from the FC to the current
VWC. To enable a crop to extract water from the root zone without
suffering water stress, only the Readily Available Water (RAW) of the
Total Available Water (TAW) is allowed to be depleted as shown in Eq.
(8) (Al-Kaisi et al., 2009).
MAD
RAW = TAW × (8)
100
The RAW is used as a guide for deciding when to irrigate,
whenever D ≥ RAW. This condition avoids water stress in the crop
and does not depend on the capabilities of the irrigation system.
2.4. Agent modeling language and framework
The multi-agent programmable modeling environment NetLogo was
used for the IABM development (Jaxa-Rozen et al., 2019). Netlogo al­
lows the implementation of the FIPA specifications (Foundation for
Intelligent Physical Agent). The framework uses two extra libraries: one
for Belief, Desires and Intentions agent architecture (BDI), and one for
Agent Communication Language (ACL) that allows the development of
goal-oriented agents that communicate using FIPA-ACL messages
A.-F. Jiménez et al.
Fig. 4. Multi-agent irrigation system sequence diagram.
(Sakellariou et al., 2008). NetLogo was selected because it allows the use
of geographical information layers, and connectivity with hardware
devices and algorithms developed in Python3™ (Wilensky and Rand,
2015).
Turtles, patches, links and the observer are different types of agents
or entities in NetLogo. These agents are able to carry out their own ac­
tivities and follow instructions at the same time. Turtles are the "beings"
that move around the “world” (the grid of patches). The world is two-
dimensional and it is divided into a grid of patches. Each patch is a
squared region of "terrain" on which the turtles can move. The patches
have coordinates and cannot move, but they may have similar properties
to those of turtles. The links are the agents that connect two turtles.
Finally, the observer has no place in the “terrain”, as it is looking at the
world of turtles and patches and controls the experiment. Each patch
and turtle can have their own user-defined variables, thus allowing the
simulation of complex environments.
According to the ABM methodology proposed by Wilensky and Rand
(2015), the first phase is the multi-agent framework design, which takes
into account the spatial distribution, interactions and relationships that
can exist between the agents. The IABM proposed consists of the inte­
gration of the supervising-planning subsystem and the customer sub­
system. The supervising-planning subsystem (SPS) is responsible for
monitoring the irrigation agent status, definition of prescription maps
using field data, mapping using global information and coordination of
conflict resolution between agents. In the SPS, the Pump Station Agent
(psa), the Weather Station Agent (wsa) and the Water Supply Agent
(wsua) interact. The customer subsystem is constituted by Field Agents
(faj) in charge of the irrigation prescription and the application of water
resources, where j is the number of the field corresponding to the fa.
These types of agents accomplish together a fully functional ABM with
capabilities of autonomy, coordination, deliberation, conflict resolution
and decision making.
The Agent Modeling Language (AML) is used for specifying the agent
roles, behavioral aspects and interactions between agents (Cervenka
et al., 2005). Entities in AML correspond to agents, resources, environ­
ments or organizations, designated to explicitly represent various (MAS)
7
Agricultural Water Management 256 (2021) 107088
society abstractions. An organization is a specialized environment type
in the IABM. The IABM organization is specified in the model of the
Class-Level organization structure (Fig. 3). For the external perspective,
the organization represents an autonomous entity. The organization
behavior consists, on the one hand, in the emergent properties and
behavior of their agents, their mutual relationships, observations and
interactions, and on the other hand, in the features and behavior of the
entity as a whole. For the internal perspective, organization units are
types of environments specified by structures, interactions, roles, con­
straints, rules, among other elements (Cervenka et al., 2005). Addi­
tionally, agents act not only in isolation but also in cooperation or
coordination with other agents. The resources in the IABM are the water
and the information stored in the databases.
Fig. 3 shows a class diagram depicting the generic organization
structure of the San Rafael Pump Station in the UsoChicamocha irriga­
tion district. The organization comprises a psa agent (of the Pump­
Station entity role type), a wsua agent (of the WaterSupply entity role
type), a wsa agent (of the WeatherStation entity role type) and n fa
agents (of the Field entity role type). The fa agents are peers to each
other (the cooperate connector), and subordinates to the psa agent (the
manage connector). The psa agent is superordinate to the wsua agent
(the manage connector). Each fa agent of the San Rafael Pump Station
organization comprises a sds agent (of the SmartDecisionSystem entity
role type), a ps agent (of the PerceptionSystem entity role type) and an
iae agent (of the IrrigationActivationEmulation entity role type). The
number of fa agents (n) depends on the number of simulated fields.
2.4.1. Sequence diagram
The sequence diagram is used for modeling the interactions between
agents. With this representation, it is possible to illustrate how the
different agents of the IABM system interact with each other to carry out
the irrigation management and the order in which these interactions are
performed. For the San Rafael irrigation pump station crop fields were
defined according to the UsoChicamocha cartographic map. A lifeline
represents an individual participant in the sequence diagram and it is
shown using a rectangle for its head, followed by a vertical dashed line
A.-F. Jiménez et al.
that represents the lifetime of the participant. Participants in the pro­
posed IABM are the psa, wsua, wsa, fa1, …, fan (Fig. 4). Synchronous
messages between lifelines were defined. The sender waits for the
receiver to process the message and returns an answer before carrying
on with another message. Synchronous messages between lifelines were
defined. The sender waits for the receiver to process the message and
returns before carrying on with another message. In each irrigation
event, the pump station agent requests from the wsua the total supply
available water (TSAW). Each fa requests rain and reference evapo­
transpiration data to the wsa. All the fas plan irrigation and determine
the amount of water they required from wsua. At this stage the fas do
not actually perform irrigation, and only send these values to the psa.
The psa verifies that the TSAW is sufficient for the water demand. The
psa verifies that the TSAW is sufficient for the water demand. If this is
not the case, the psa performs the conflict resolution protocol, and
finally, sends the final irrigation scheduling to the fas who carry out the
irrigation application.
The model was adjusted according to crop water requirements, soil
parameters and the characteristics of the San Rafael irrigation unit of
UsoChicamocha. The ABM implemented in NetLogo acquires informa­
tion about the environment using the vector dataset stored in a * .shp
file. Afterwards, each fa determines its irrigation prescription using its
local information, such as soil characteristics, crops and sowing date,
and climatic parameters, such as rainfall and reference evapotranspi­
ration. The Total Water Required (TWR) amount is defined as the sum of
all the individual agent water requirements (AWR). It is calculated with
the irrigation prescriptions for each field in the region covered by the
San Rafael irrigation unit, using Eq. (9).
∑
n
TWR = AWRj (9)
j=1
where j represents each field monitored by an agent and AWRj is the
water requirement defined by the agent in charge of the field j. The total
supply available water TSAW for the fields belonging to the San Rafael
irrigation unit is the total available water that can be used in an irri­
gation event. The TSAW is set by the wsua agent. The available water
per field area AWj is defined using each field area FAj and Eq. (10).
TSAW
AWj = ∑n × FAj (10)
j FAj
The supply and demand relationships are determined by subtracting
the TWR from the TSAW (Eq. (11)).
ODR = TSAW − TWR (11)
On the one hand, if ODR < 0, there is a conflict resolution protocol
based on the negotiation of water resources between agents, which
represents cooperation between them. On the other hand, if ODR > 0,
there is no need for negotiation between agents, which means that there
are no cooperation events and field agents receive authorization for
applying their initial prescriptions. Initially, in the negotiation process,
if an agent j has AWj ≥ AWRj it is cooperative (C), otherwise the agent is
non-cooperative (NC). The water distribution protocol begins with the
assignation of AWj equal to AWRj for cooperative agents. For each
cooperative agent j, there is a saved water amount (SWj (C)) defined
using Eq. (12).
SWj (C) = AWj (C) − AWRj (C) and AWRj (C) = AWj (C) (12)
∑
TSW = SWj (C) (13)
The total saved water amount TSW is defined by the sum of all the
SWj (C) according to Eq. (13). The new total available water for non-
cooperative agents (NTAW(NC)) is obtained by adding TSW to the
total available water of the non-cooperative agents using Eq. (14) and it
is distributed between the non-cooperative agents according to each
8
Agricultural Water Management 256 (2021) 107088
irrigation area, using Eq. (15).
∑
NTAW(NC) = AWj (NC) + TSW (14)
NTAW(NC)
AWj (NC) = ∑ × FAj (NC) (15)
FAj (NC)
At the end of this procedure there is a new cooperative (C) and non-
cooperative (NC) assignation to all the field agents. If an agent j has
AWj ≥ AWRj , it is cooperative (C), otherwise the agent is non-
cooperative (NC). Eqs. (12)–(15) are repeated until the quantity of
TSW = 0 or the number of non-cooperative agents is equal to zero. The
last case occurs if the resources are enough to satisfy the needs of all the
fields. In this case, there is no negotiation, all the agents can use the
irrigation prescription defined, and agents are cooperative. Those as­
signments are used for defining the proportion of neighbors of agent j
with cooperative (C) and non-cooperative (NC) behaviors. Utility func­
tions were defined using Eqs. (16)–(19), according to the model devel­
oped by Edwards et al. (2005), which is inspired in the sociologic
diffusion model for water domains. The decision of an agent to change
its cooperative or non-cooperative behavior in the negotiation process
relies on a trade-off between social pressure and personal interest. Social
pressure is related to the behavior of neighboring agents, while the
personal interest is related to the goal of the agent to apply the necessary
water according to the phenological state of the plants in order to ensure
the best production in its field.
ψ j (C→C) = a × Pj (C) + I (16)
( ) )
ψ j (C→NC) = 1 − a × (1 − Pj (C) (17)
ψ j (NC→C) = c × Pj (C) + I (18)
( ) )
ψ j (NC→NC) = 1 − c × (1 − Pj (C) (19)
where ψ j (C→C) is the utility function defined for maintaining the
cooperation status of the agent j, ψ j (C→NC) is the utility function
defined when an agent j changes from cooperation status to non-
cooperation status, ψ j (NC→C) is the utility function defined when
an agent j changes from non-cooperation status to cooperation status
and ψ j (NC→NC) is the utility function defined for maintaining the
non-cooperation status of agent j. Pj (C) is the proportion of neighbors of
agent j of cooperative behavior (C). The proportion of neighbors for each
behavior was calculated using NetLogo, by defining the number of
neighbors in a radius r from the centroid of each polygon feature of the
shapefile that corresponds to the location of each agent. When agents
remain in their current behavior (C→C) or (NC→NC), a = 1 − c = 0.7.
On the contrary, when agents change to the opposite behavior (C→NC)
or (NC→C), 1 − a = c = 0.3, according to Akhbari and Grigg (2013). I
is an operator related to the environment and the field agents, and serves
as a modification factor that is, a function of water requirements ac­
cording to the phenological status of crops. The maximum value of the
utility function is 1 and the maximum value of I is 0.3. This value was
obtained by solving Eq. (16), when all the neighbors are collaborative
Pj (C) = 1 and the maximum value of ψ j (C→C) = 1= 0.7 × 1 + I, as it
is the highest utility value that can be obtained using Eqs. (16)–(19). The
proposed modification factor function decreases linearly from the
beginning of the crop-development phase (0.3) to the beginning of the
mid-season or bulbification phase for bulb onion (0.0). Once the bul­
bification phase is finished, the utility function increases linearly until
the end of the late season or ripening phase for bulb onion (0.3). Ac­
cording to this function, the priority irrigation is performed in the bul­
bification phase, as it is the critical period in bulb onion cultivation,
hence there will be no pressure on the agent to cooperate and the agent
might only be influenced by its neighbors.
The linear behavior is established in the transitions between the
A.-F. Jiménez et al. Agricultural Water Management 256 (2021) 107088

Fig. 5. Relationship between (a) crop coefficient (FAO, 2020) and (b) proposed modification factor ℑ.

phases of leaves-development to bulbification and bulbification to defined by the sum of all the Ij (C) according to Eq. (22).
ripening, as it is the simplest function to represent the changes, which is ∑
inversely proportional to the behavior of the crop coefficient during the TI = Ij (C) (22)
plant development of a crop, according to FAO (2020) (Fig. 5). The New Total Available Water for the Non-Cooperative agents
The utility function ψ j corresponds to the one with the highest value, (NTAW(NC)) is obtained by adding TI to the total available water of the
taking into account whether the agent was initially cooperative (Eqs. non-cooperative agents using Eq. (23) and it is distributed between the
(16) and (17)) or non-cooperative (Eqs. (18) and (19)). A study on onion non-cooperative agents according to each irrigation area using Eq. (24).
irrigation in Southwest Texas found that reducing the amount of applied ∑
water to 75% of the recommended level resulted in a moderate reduc­ NTAW(NC) = AWj (NC) + TI (23)
tion in marketable yield. In addition, this condition showed a substantial
reduction in the number of larger bulbs sizes (Leskovar et al., 2012). The NTAW(NC)
AWj (NC) = ∑ × FAj (NC) (24)
recommended agricultural management to produce better shape index FAj (NC)
of onion bulbs, is to irrigate onion plants using irrigation level between
80% and 100% of water requirements (Mubarak and Hamdan, 2018). If At this stage, the negotiation process is developed only with the non-
the agent is cooperative, in the proposed method, RAWj (C)/2 is the cooperative agents. AWRj (NC) − AWj (NC) is the maximum water de­
mand for the non-cooperative agent j. By applying the I factor for non-
maximum water amount that it is willing to compromise in the negoti­
ation process, that corresponds to maintain the soil at 87.5% of water cooperative agents and calculating the fas utilities ψ j , the demand
requirements. By applying the I factor and calculating the fas utilities modification amount (Ij (NC)) is defined using Eq. (25).
ψ j , the demand modification amount for the cooperative agent (Ij (C)) is ( ) {( ( ) ( )) ( ) (
AWRj NC − AWj NC × 1− ψ j ;∀j,AWRj NC > AWj NC
) ( )
defined using Eq. (20). Ij NC = ( ) ( )
0; ∀j,AWRj NC ≤ AWj NC
/ )
Ij (C) = RAWj (C) 2 × (1 − ψ j (20) (25)

Then, the new demand of agent j (NAWRj (C)) is calculated using Eq. Then, the new demand of agent j (NAWRj (NC)) is calculated using
(21). Eq. (26).
{ ( ) { ( )
0; ∀j, AWRj NC = 0
NAWRj (C) =
0; ∀j, AWRj (C) = 0
/ (21) NAWRj NC = (26)
RAWj (C) 2 + Ij (C); ∀j, AWRj (C) > 0 AWj (NC) + Ij (NC); ∀j, AWRj (NC) ∕
=0

The total offer modification amount for the cooperative agents (TI) is The non-cooperative total new demand TND(NC) is calculated by

Fig. 6. Influence of cooperative neighbors Pj (C) (%)

and modification factor ℑ on agent j: (a) agent utility
(ψ j ) vs. Pj (C) (%) for cooperative agent behavior, (b)
ψ j vs. Pj (C) (%) for non-cooperative agent behavior,
(c) changes in demand modification amount for
cooperative agent behavior according to their utility
with AWRj = AW j = RAW = 115.9 m3 (3.591mm)
and (d) changes in demand modification amount for
non-cooperative agent behavior according to their
utility, AWRj > AW j , where AWRj = 115.9 m3
(3.591 mm) and AWj = 64.5m3 (2 mm). Agent water
requirement (AWRj ) and field available water
(AWj ). PWP = 36.60%, FC = 52.56%, effective root
depth = 90 mm and area of 32289.87m2 .

9
A.-F. Jiménez et al.
Fig. 7. NetLogo interface - IABM-WNeg.
adding all the NAWRj (NC) according to Eq. (27).
∑ 90 mm and an area of 32289.87m2 , the RAW corresponded to ((FC −
TND(NC) = NAWRj (NC) (27)
While NTAW(NC) < TND(NC), there is an iterative process of water
reduction waj (m3 ) according to a water amount ρ (mm) and the field area
(m2 ) by field agent, until TSAW ≥ TND for all the cooperative and non-
cooperative agents using Eqs. (28) and (29).
waj (NC) = FAj (NC) ∗ ρ (28)
NAWRj (NC) = NAWRj (NC) − waj (NC) (29)
While NTAW > TND, there is an iterative process of water distribu­
tion of NTAW − TND between all the cooperative and non-cooperative
agents according to each irrigation area, where if NAWRj > AWRj ,
then NAWRj = AWRj . According to this algorithm, the non-cooperative
field agents demand more water. However, this new demand could be
less than the initially requested and will depend on the behavior of the
neighbors and how they cooperate or not in the distribution of the
resource. At the end of the negotiation stage, the total supply available
water TSAW amount has to be more than or equal to the total new de­
mand TND. In addition, after the negotiation, if NAWRj < AWj , then
NAWRj = AWj . Finally, the irrigation agents can define irrigation
events, but they cannot apply water to their fields without the coordi­
nator agent permission.
3. Results and discussion
The IABM field agents obtain data from their fields, define irrigation
prescriptions and in the supervising-planning subsystem (SPS) the con­
flict resolution protocol is developed for the distribution of water re­
sources, according to the total available water. Fig. 6a and 6b show the
behavior of the utility function for the field agents according to changes
in the modification factor with respect to the percentage of cooperative
neighbors. The pilot crop for this behavior analysis was located at
5.787980◦ North latitude and 72.974122◦ longitude in the municipality
of Nobsa, Boyacá, Colombia. According to the soil sample in this field,
10
Agricultural Water Management 256 (2021) 107088
PWP = 36.60%, FC = 52.56%, with an effective root depth of rd =
PWP)/100) ∗ rd ∗ 0.25 = 3.591mm, equivalent to 115.9m3 for the total
area. Fig. 6a shows the behavior of cooperative agents and Fig. 6b the
behavior of non-cooperative agents. These figures show the influence of
the modification factor in decision-making. In Fig. 6a, if the percentage
of cooperating neighbors is less than 30%, the cooperative agent
changes its behavior to non-cooperative due to the influence of its non-
cooperative neighbors. If the modifying factor increases, the agent is
more permissive and does not change to the non-cooperative state.
Furthermore, if the modification factor is high, the crop is not in the
bulbification phase and the agent remains as cooperative. As the per­
centage of cooperating neighbors increases, the agent will remain in its
cooperative status despite the change in the values of the modification
factor.
In Fig. 6b, if the percentage of cooperative neighbors is less than
70%, the non-cooperative agent remains with this behavior. If the
modification factor increases, the agent is more permissive and,
depending on the value of this factor, it changes to cooperative behavior.
The utility of the cooperative agent is generally greater than the utility of
the non-cooperative agent when the percentage of cooperative neigh­
bors increases. In case of a reduction in the available water, the agent
that initially presented cooperative behavior has the capability of
sharing a water amount, while the non-cooperative agent requests
additional water for satisfying its needs. This behavior is evidenced in
Fig. 6c and 6d for water amount requested after negotiation of the
cooperative and non-cooperative agents, respectively. In Fig. 6c the field
agent had AWRj = AWj = RAW = 115.9 m3 (3.591mm) then, it was
initially cooperative.
With the negotiation process, each cooperative agent allows the
reduction of water with respect to its initial irrigation prescription, ac­
cording to the modification factor I (Fig. 6c). If I is low, the crop is in
the bulbification phase and the agent allows less water reduction with
respect to I = 0.3. In Fig. 6d, the field agent has AWRj > AWj , where
AWRj = 115.9 m3 (3.591 mm) and AWj = 64.5m3 (2 mm), then, it was
initially non-cooperative. Additionally, if I is low, the crop is in the
bulbification phase and the agent requests more water with respect to
A.-F. Jiménez et al. Agricultural Water Management 256 (2021) 107088

Fig. 8. Maps obtained with IABM-WNeg: (a) Vector file -.shp polygons, (b) permanent wilting point, (c) field capacity, (d) potential evapotranspiration, (e) crop
coefficient, (f) weeks after transplanting, (g) crop evapotranspiration, (h) initial irrigation and (i) initial soil moisture content.

I = 0.3, for Pj (C) higher than 40%. An aspect to consider in future re­
searches is the evaluation of other modification functions and their
response to the differences between the required water and the available
water.

3.1. IABM-Wneg

The software application of the Irrigation Agent Based Model for

Water Negotiation (IABM-WNeg) was developed for studying the
behavior of spatio-temporal variables for water management in the
Usochicamocha irrigation district. IABM-WNeg integrates geographic
information systems (GIS), site-specific technical irrigation prescriptions
and agent-based modeling tools. The negotiation protocol is performed
by obtaining a new agent irrigation prescription per field and finally
implementing a satisfaction algorithm.
Fig. 7 shows the graphical user interface (GUI) of the IABM-WNeg
software application. The GUI is divided into the following seven sec­
tions. First, the Weather Station allows defining and modifying the pa­
rameters of rain and reference evapotranspiration. Second, DataSetMaps
allows loading and viewing the vector file data maps. Third, the Calcu­
lated Maps section enables the calculation of irrigation parameters maps
according to the real information on the fields. Fourth, Conflict resolution
allows the calculation of cooperative and non-cooperative behaviors,
negotiation and satisfaction factor dependent on the soil water stress.
Fifth, Day Simulation allows running all the procedures for obtaining the Fig. 9. Irrigation prescription map obtained with IABM-WNeg.
irrigation prescription after negotiation by one simulation day. This
option is called using a Python™ script that improves the data obtention

11
A.-F. Jiménez et al.
Table 4
Simulation results with six total supply available water amounts. MTWR = 40030
Percentage of MTWR 0.25 10
TSAW(m ) 3 100 4000
TWR (m3 ) 41892.2 26128.2
TIPAN 99.9 3995.4
SL Fields (%) 0 24
Note: Maximum Total Water Required (MTWR), Total Supply Available Water (TSAW), Total Water Required (TWR), Total Irrigation Prescription After Negotiation
(TIPAN), Satisfied Level (SL). 890 fields.
for analysis and plotting. Sixth, Temporal Simulation allows running the
simulation for several days and plot the temporal behavior of the tank
level, irrigation prescriptions before and after negotiation, and the
percentage of satisfaction response of agents. Seventh, the Environment is
the region where the agents are located and where their spatial behavior
is displayed. It contains the pump station agent (psa), the weather sta­
tion agent (wsa), the water supply agent (wsua) and the field agents
(faj). Fig. 8 shows the maps that can be obtained using the IABM-Wneg
application. With the information collected and mapped, the irrigation
rescription for the day studied can be calculated, thus obtaining the
irrigation prescription map in Fig. 9.
3.2. One day irrigation negotiation - performance
The model performance for multiple agents was evaluated using
several amounts of TSAW. The Maximum Total Water Required (MTWR)
was defined by adding the Readily Available Water (RAW) of all the
fields in the study region using FC and PWP. According to Cely (2010),
for the cultivation of bulb onion grown in the UsoChicamocha region,
the MAD corresponds to 25% and the maximum effective root depth is
0.165m. For the San Rafael irrigation unit, the MTWR calculated was
40030.422 m3 by adding all the RAW amounts and taking into account
the cultivated areas and a root depth of 10 cm. Table 4 shows the results
of the simulation for six amounts of the total supply available water
TSAW selected within the MTWR calculated. Fig. 10 shows the coop­
erative and non-cooperative behavior irrigation prescriptions after
negotiation and satisfaction level of agents for the five smallest TSAW
values of Table 4, because AWRj < AWj for TSAW values greater than
28,000, in all the fields. It can be observed that the number of collab­
orative agents increases with the available water and it is enough for all
the fields. The non-collaborative agents appear because the water
availability for these fields was insufficient to satisfy the needs of the
crops before the negotiation process.
When soil water is extracted by evapotranspiration, the depletion
increases and stress will be induced when D becomes equal to RAW. The
water stress coefficient (ks ) is calculated using Eq. (30) (Kokkotos et al.,
2020).
( )
TAWj − Dj − IPANj
ksj = (30)
TAWj − RAWj
where RAW is the Readily Available Water (mm), TAW is the Total
Available Water (mm), D is the soil water deficit or net irrigation
requirement (mm), IPAN is the irrigation prescription applied after
negotiation (mm) and j is the agent identification number corresponding
to the same field number. According to Fig. 10, if ks ≥ 1 (satisfied level),
there is no soil water stress and the available water is within the 25% of
TAW (purple color); but if 0< ks < 1 (dissatisfaction levels), there is a
stress level in the corresponding field (blue to red colors). If there is
water stress, it is assumed that the agent is unsatisfied because the crop
could have problems in its normal development. If there is water scarcity
and water resources are extremely low, it is impossible to satisfy the
needs of all the fields and there are higher levels of dissatisfaction due to
values of less than one in the water stress. Additionally, the satisfaction
level also increases with the irrigation water available. Results highlight
12
Agricultural Water Management 256 (2021) 107088
m3 .
30 50 70 100
12000 20000 28000 40000
26050.4 26609.0 26243.7 26509.9
11996.9 19993.7 26243.7 26509.9
90 100 100 100
that the satisfied level occurs when fields have no water stress. The
satisfaction level scale from 0 to 1 is used as a visualization mechanism
in the software application of the Irrigation Agent Based Model for
Water Negotiation (IABM-WNeg).
Table 4 shows the model capability for distributing water supply
amounts among the fields belonging to the San Rafael pumping station. The
dissatisfaction appears when the TSAW is less than 40% of the MTWR,
which means that water prescribed per field is insufficient to maintain
crops in the best conditions, but at least there is a data-driven criterion for
the distribution of resources according to areas and crop needs. For 0.25%
of MTWR, the simulation was run with an initial soil moisture between
PWP +(FC − PWP)/2(%) and PWP +(FC − PWP)/2 – λ(%) for each
field. The constant value λ was selected at a value of 3% for obtaining
random values in each field and extract a chart with the necessary char­
acteristics for the explanation and analysis of the data, thus ensuring
various levels of dissatisfaction. Fig. 10a shows that, in this case, all crops
presented water stress and that the color scale allows knowing their
severity. The satisfaction level 0 corresponds to the permanent wilting
point.
Fig. 11 shows the relationships between agent water requirements
(AWR), the initial available water (AW1 ), the available water before the
negotiation process (AW) and the irrigation prescription after negotia­
tion (IPAN), per field area using 890 agents in the simulation. When
water resources were insufficient, each agent received the acceptance
for applying irrigation at a very low value, which was rarely greater than
the amount of AW for each one (Fig. 11a and 11b). Irrigation pre­
scriptions for the fields in this case were defined according to the
cultivated area, but without satisfying the irrigation needs of most fields,
as represented by the high difference between the AWR and the IPAN for
each field.
Fig. 11c with 30% of TSAW shows that the negotiation algorithm
became more evident when the total amount of water available
increased, which allowed the reduction of the prescriptions in some
fields and the addition of these resources to other fields trying to satisfy
their crops needs. Fig. 11d shows that with 50% of available water, there
was more distribution of the resource through negotiation decisions
than through allocation by the division of water by areas, as there was
enough water resource to negotiate. Several agents did not obtain the
amount of water that they initially prescribed, but many of them
received more water than the initially available for their fields. It was
also observed that when the TSAW increased and was sufficient to
supply the demand of the crops, there was no negotiation process and
these fields received the values prescribed by the IABM (Fig. 11e). One
of the relevant aspects of the proposed model is that, despite the water
resource is much greater than the prescriptions, the negotiation process
ensures that the fields will use irrigation prescriptions defined with
technical and agronomic criteria, thus avoiding the waste of the water
resource. On the other hand, when water resources are very small, the
IABM allows equitable distribution by field size and irrigation priority
according to phenological states.
Taking into account the results of Figs. 10 and 11, it can be stated
that the IABM developed meets the requirements of seeking the satisfied
level of the greatest number of agents by avoiding as much as possible
that the water stress coefficient decreases from 25% of the TAW (ks < 1),
considering crop coefficients and root depths. Figs. 10 and 11 show that
A.-F. Jiménez et al. Agricultural Water Management 256 (2021) 107088

13 (caption on next page)

A.-F. Jiménez et al. Agricultural Water Management 256 (2021) 107088

Fig. 10. Simulation results for an irrigation prescription day on the San Rafael pumping station: Cooperative and non-cooperative behavior (Left), irrigation pre­
scriptions after negotiation (center), and satisfaction level of agents (Right). (a) TSAW = 100m3 (0.25% of MTWR), (b) TSAW = 0.40 × 104 m3 (10%
of MTWR), (c) TSAW = 1.20 × 104 m3 (30% of MTWR), (d) TSAW = 2.00 × 104 m3 (50% of MTWR) and (e) TSAW = 2.80 × 104 m3 (70% of MTWR).
TSAW is the total supply available water and MTWR is the maximum total water required. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure, the reader is
referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 11. Relationship between agent water requirements AWR, initial available water per field area (AW1 ), available water per field area before the negotiation
process (AW), and irrigation prescription after negotiation IPAN for each agent in the simulation. Water amounts per agent (Left); AWR and IAN vs. AW (Right). (a)
TSAW = 100 m3 (0.25% of MTWR), (b) TSAW = 0.40 × 104 m3 (10% of MTWR), (c) TSAW = 1.20 × 104 m3 (30% of MTWR), (d) TSAW = 2.00 ×
104 m3 (50% of MTWR) and (e) TSAW = 2.80 × 104 m3 (70% of MTWR). TSAW is the total supply available water and MTWR is the maximum total
water required.

14
A.-F. Jiménez et al.
when the TSAW increases, the number of field agents with cooperative
behavior also increases. When TSAW is large enough, there is no need of
the negotiation procedure, field agents are collaborative and 100%
satisfaction will be achieved. In the negotiation algorithm, the principal
constraint is that the sum of final prescriptions for each field after
negotiation must not exceed the limit for the amount of water available
throughout the region.
4. Conclusions
In this article, we showed the particular applied case of the San
Rafael irrigation unit of the UsoChicamocha irrigation district. The type
of information available about resources and the environment in the
Irrigation Agent Based Model (IABM) implemented plays a key role not
only in the evolution of each field agent model (micro-level) but also in
the interaction of multiple agents (macro-level). For the indicators
tested, the difference seems to be associated with the availability of
water for supplying all the irrigation needs and the decision mechanisms
of each agent in the fields.
The IABM developed makes water allocation decisions based on crop
coefficients, root depths, the soil water balance equation and weather
data. This tool is especially useful during water scarcity when farmers
are required to make water reduction in the farm, but also when the
regional waste of water is a priority for sustainable resources manage­
ment. Based on the simulations results, it can be observed that the
proposed model was able to save water even when water reduction is in
place.
The results presented in this paper are very specific for several fields
with bulb onion cultivation and the soil and environmental character­
istics of the study region. But the model is easy to implement with mixed
crops and other climatic conditions. For this purpose, soil sampling is
very important for determining hydraulic parameters such as field ca­
pacity and permanent wilting point. Another principal technical aspect
is the characterization of crops to understand their phenological needs
and their irrigation requirements during the growing season.
For future work, the research aims to extend this model to several
irrigation units of UsoChicamocha. The calculation of water pre­
scriptions and soil water stress values will be potentiated by the use of
crop models and the integration of this system with a Web application.
Each agent can accurately formulate its crop irrigation prescriptions, but
in water scarcity cases it is quite possible that there is an excess of water
that can be optimized.
From the moment of transplantation in each field, daily water bal­
ance monitoring can be carried out in the IABM simulation, which al­
lows monitoring the behavior of water requirements in each field of the
irrigation district. The IABM allows the determination of an agent
satisfaction level based on the soil water stress coefficient, which is a
performance indication in the water distribution of the studied fields, as
it is associated with the permissible soil moisture limits so that crops do
not suffer damage.
Funding
This research was funded by Minciencias and the Department of
Boyacá - Colombia through the Ph.D. scholarship program No. 733 –
2015. Thesis name: Intelligent Agent-Based model to support irrigation
management in agricultural crops – Cod: 46620 – Universidad Nacional
de Colombia, Colombia. This research also was funded by the Uni­
versidad de los Llanos (DGI) - Colombia, with the project: Agent-Based
Model (ABM) for the distributed allocation of resources in continuous
dynamic systems, with application to irrigation distribution in agricul­
tural crops.
15
Agricultural Water Management 256 (2021) 107088
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Andrés-F Jiménez, Pedro-F Cárdenas and Fabián Jiménez con­
ducted Conceptualization, Methodology and original draft preparation.
Andrés-F Jiménez and Fabián Jiménez performed Writing – review &
editing and Visualization.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
A.F. Jiménez expresses his gratitude to the Department of Boyacá
and Minciencias – Colombia for the support through the scholarship
program No. 733 - 2015 for the Ph.D. program at Universidad Nacional
de Colombia and to Universidad de los Llanos. Pedro Cardenas expresses
his gratitude to MinCiencias - Colombia for the abroad Ph.D. scholarship
– 2007. F.R. Jiménez expresses his gratitude to Universidad Pedagogica
y Tecnologica de Colombia for allowing the development of this work as
a result of a research proposal for the teaching promotion.
References
Adeyemi, O., Grove, I., Peets, S., Domun, Y., Norton, T., 2018. Dynamic neural network
modelling of soil moisture content for predictive irrigation scheduling. Sensors 18
(10), 3408. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18103408.
Adnan, S., Khan, A., 2009. Effective rainfall for irrigated agriculture plains of Pakistan.
Pak. J. Meteorol. 6 (11), 61–72.
Akhbari, M., Grigg, N., 2013. A framework for an agent-based model to manage water
resources conflicts. Water Resour. Manag. 27 (11), 4039–4052. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11269-013-0394-0.
Allen, R., Pereira, L., Raes, D., Smith, M., 1998. Crop evapotranspiration: guidelines for
computing crop water requirements. In: United Nations FAO, Irrig. Drain.. FAO,
Rome, Italy.
An, L., Linderman, M., Qi, J., Shortridge, A., Liu, J., 2005. Exploring complexity in a
human–environment system: an agent-based spatial model for multidisciplinary and
multiscale integration. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 95 (1), 54–79. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1467-8306.2005.00450.x.
Andales, A., Chávez J., Bauder T., Broner I., 2011. Irrigation scheduling: the water
balance approach, Service 544 in action; no. 4.707.
Al-Kaisi, M.M., Broner, I., Andales, A.A. , 2009. Crop water use and growth stages, Fact
sheet (Colorado State University. Extension), Crop series; no. 4.715.
Arétouyap, Z., Nouck, N., Nouayou, R., Méli’i, J., Kemgang Ghomsi, F., Piepi Toko, A.,
Asfahani, J., 2015. Influence of the variogram model on an interpolative survey
using Kriging Technique. J. Earth Sci. Clim. Change 6 (316), 2. https://doi.org/
10.4172/2157-7617.1000316.
Barradas, J., Matula, S., Dolezal, F., 2012. Decision support system-fertigation simulator
(DSS-FS) for design and optimization of sprinkler and drip irrigation systems.
Comput. Electron. Agric. 86, 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compag.2012.02.015.
Belaqziz, S., Mangiarotti, S., Le Page, M., Khabba, S., Er-Raki, S., Agouti, T., Jarlan, L.,
2014. Irrigation scheduling of a classical gravity network based on the Covariance
Matrix Adaptation–Evolutionary Strategy algorithm. Comput. Electron. Agric. 102,
64–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2014.01.006.
Cai, J., Xiong, H., 2017. An agent-based simulation of cooperation in the use of irrigation
systems. Complex Adapt. Syst. Model. 5 (1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40294-
017-0047-x.
Caridad, R., Jury, M., 2013. Spatial and temporal analysis of climate change in
Hispañola. Theor. Appl. Clim. 113, 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-012-
0781-0.
Cely, G., 2010. Determinación de parámetros de riego para el cultivo cebolla de bulbo en
el distrito de riego del alto chicamocha, Escuela de Posgrados, (Master Disertation).
〈https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/handle/unal/70468〉.
Cervenka, R., Trencansky, I., Calisti, M., 2005. Modeling social aspects of multi-agent
systems: the AML approach. In International Workshop on Agent-Oriented Software
Engineering. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 28–39.
Edwards, M., Ferrand, N., Goreaud, F., Huet, S., 2005. The relevance of aggregating a
water consumption model cannot be disconnected from the choice of information
available on the resource. Simul. Model Pract. Theory 13 (4), 287–307. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.simpat.2004.11.008.
A.-F. Jiménez et al.
FAO, 2020. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Onion. (Last
accessed 02/08/2020). 〈http://www.fao.org/land-water/databases-and-software
/crop-information/onion/en/〉.
Ghorbani, M.A., Shamshirband, S., Haghi, D.Z., Azani, A., Bonakdari, H., Ebtehaj, I.,
2017. Application of firefly algorithm-based support vector machines for prediction
of field capacity and permanent wilting point. Soil Tillage Res. 172, 32–38. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2017.04.009.
Grashey-Jansen, S., 2014. Optimizing irrigation efficiency through the consideration of
soil hydrological properties–examples and simulation approaches. Erdkunde 68,
33–48. https://doi.org/10.2307/24365168.
Guyennon, N., Romano, E., Portoghese, I., 2016. Long-term climate sensitivity of an
integrated water supply system: the role of irrigation. Sci. Total. Environ. 565,
68–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.04.157.
Janssen, M.A., Baggio, J.A., 2016. Using agent-based models to compare behavioral
theories on experimental data: application for irrigation games. J. Environ. Psychol.
46, 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.04.003.
Jaxa-Rozen, M., Kwakkel, J.H., Bloemendal, M., 2019. A coupled simulation architecture
for agent- based/geohydrological modelling with NetLogo and MODFLOW. Environ.
Modell. Softw. 115, 19–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.01.020.
Jimenez, A.F., Cardenas, P.F., Canales, A., Jimenez, F., Portacio, A., 2020a. A survey on
intelligent agents and multi-agents for irrigation scheduling. Comput. Electron.
Agric. 176, 105474 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2020.105474.
Jimenez, A.F., Cardenas, P.F., Jimenez, F., Canales, A., López, A., 2020b. A cyber-
physical intelligent agent for irrigation scheduling in horticultural crops. Comput.
Electron. Agric. 178, 105777 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2020.105777.
Kaluzny, S., Vega, S., Cardoso, T., Shelly, A., 1998. Analyzing geostatistical data. S+
SpatialStats. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-7826-0_
4.
Kokkotos, E., Zotos, A., Patakas, A., 2020. Evaluation of water stress coefficient Ks in
different olive orchards. Agronomy 10 (10), 1594. https://doi.org/10.3390/
agronomy10101594.
Leskovar, D.I., Agehara, S., Yoo, K., Pascual-Seva, N., 2012. Crop coefficient-based deficit
irrigation and planting density for onion: growth, yield, and bulb quality.
HortScience 47 (1), 31–37. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.47.1.31.
Mango, N., Makate, C., Tamene, L., Mponela, P., Ndengu, G., 2018. Adoption of small-
scale irrigation farming as a climate-smart agriculture practice and its influence on
household income in the chinyanja triangle. South. Afr. Land 7 (2), 49. https://doi.
org/10.3390/land7020049.
16
Agricultural Water Management 256 (2021) 107088
Matthews, R., 2006. The People and Landscape Model (PALM): towards full integration
of human decision-making and biophysical simulation models. Ecol. Model. 194 (4),
329–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.10.032.
Mubarak, I., Hamdan, A., 2018. Onion crop response to different irrigation and N-
fertilizer levels in dry Mediterranean region. Adv. Hortic. Sci. 32 (4), 495–501.
https://doi.org/10.13128/ahs-21934.
Ojha, T., Misra, S., Singh, N., 2015. Wireless sensor networks for agriculture: The state-
of-the-art in practice and future challenges. Comput. Electron. Agric. Vol. 118,
66–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2015.08.011.
Rege, S., Gutiérrez, T., Marvuglia, A., Rege, E., Stilmant, D., 2015. Modelling price
discovery in an agent based model for agriculture in Luxembourg. Comput. Econ.
Finance. Springer, Cham, pp. 91–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-319-99624-0_
5.
Russell, S., Norvig, P., 2016. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Pearson
Education Limited, Malaysia.
Sakellariou, I., Kefalas, P., Stamatopoulou, I., 2008. Enhancing NetLogo to simulate BDI
communicating agents. Hellenic Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Springer,
Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 263–275.
Spiliotopoulos, M., Loukas, A., 2019. Hybrid methodology for the estimation of crop
coefficients based on satellite imagery and ground-based measurements. Water 11
(7), 1364. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11071364.
Subedi, A., Chávez, J., 2015. Crop evapotranspiration (ET) estimation models: a review
and discussion of the applicability and limitations of ET methods. J. Agric. Sci. 7 (6),
50. https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v7n6p50.
Talaviya, T., Shah, D., Patel, N., Yagnik, H., Shah, M., 2020. Implementation of artificial
intelligence in agriculture for optimisation of irrigation and application of pesticides
and herbicides. Artif. Intell. Agric. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aiia.2020.04.002.
Weather Spark. 2020. Average Weather in Nobsa Boyacá, Colombia. 〈https://weatherspa
rk.com/y/25267/Average-Weather-in-Nobsa-Colombia-Year-Round〉. (Last accessed
07/20/2020).
Wilensky, U., Rand, W., 2015. An Introduction to Agent-Based Modeling: Modeling
Natural, Social, and Engineered Complex Systems with NetLogo. Mit Press.
Zhao, T., Ding, R., Man, Z., 2011. Long-range monitoring system of irrigated area
wateruse based on Multi-Agent, in: 2011 International Conference on Mechatronic
Science, Electric Engineering and Comput. (MEC). Jilin, China, IEEE, pp. 580–583.
〈https://doi.org/10.1109/MEC.2011.6025531〉.