Naji MSC Corr

ROYAUME DU MAROC ‫المملكة المغربية‬
-=-=- -=-=-
INSTITUT AGRONOMIQUE ET
VETERINAIRE HASSAN II
‫معهد الحسن الثاني للزراعة والبيطرة‬
-=-=- -=-=-
COMPLEXE HORTICOLE D'AGADIR ‫مركب البستنة بأكادير‬
-=-=- -=-=-
PROJET DE FIN D’ETUDE POUR L’OBTENTION
DU DIPLOME D’INGENIEUR D’ETAT EN AGRONOMIE
Option: Horticulture
ème
50 Promotion
Irrigation of olive trees by treated wastewater:

Evaluation of the feasibility of innovative
irrigation practices and technologies in the
region of Souss Massa, Morocco.
Présenté et soutenu publiquement par:
Yassine Naji
Devant le Jury composé de :
Prof. M.C. HARROUNI (I.A.V. Hassan II, Agadir) Président
Prof. M. EL-OTMANI (I.A.V. Hassan II, Agadir) Rapporteur
Prof. R. CHOUKR-ALLAH (I.A.V. Hassan II, Agadir) Rapporteur
Prof. H. EL OMARI (I.A.V. Hassan II, Agadir) Examinateur
Prof. A. REMAH (I.A.V. Hassan II, Agadir) Examinateur
Mr. L. BENZINE (RAMSA, Agadir) Examinateur
Novembre 2020
Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire Hassan II Complexe Horticole d’Agadir B.P. 18/S Agadir, Maroc
Tél : +212 5 28 24 01 55 / 24 10 06 Fax : +212 5 28 24 22 43
E-mail : direction.iavcha@gmail.com
Dedication
To the reason of life, light and love,

To the two people life would not be life without them,
To my parents
To life accomplices and journey partners,

To the flavor of life,
To my sister and brothers
To my guardian angels,
To my grandfathers
To all my friends and colleagues
I dedicate this work.
Yassine Naji
Acknowledgments
First, I would like to address my utmost respect to the staff of the CIHEAM-IAMB and
IAV-CHA for the huge efforts they put into forming young researchers and help solve the
most problematic issues facing agriculture in the region.
My sincere and deepest gratitude goes to Dr. R. Choukr-Allah, Dr. A. Scardigno,

Dr. M. El-Otmani and Dr. G. Dragonetti for their guidance and support throughout this
special year without which this work would not have been achieved.
My profound gratitude to Miss Mansir Imane for her hard work and devotion. I could
not have asked for a better partner.
I would also like to thank the staff of the IAV-CHA for their help and guidance in the
different labs that were needed in the completion of this work. Special thanks to Mr. Khalali
Ali for his kindness and availability.
Special thanks are also ought to the staff of the Ocean Golf. Especially Mr. Wafir,
who did everything possible to make the job easy.
My deepest gratitude also to the staff of the ORMVA and farmers of the region who
opened their doors and were more than happy to share their knowledge and time and make
the stay enjoyable as much as it was educational. Special thanks to Mr. Adil in Oulad Berhil.
My sincere salutations and warm gratitude go to everyone who contributed in the

success of this research activity.
Abstract
The use of treated wastewater (TWW) represents a strategic perspective for

sustainable agricultural development in water-scarce countries. However, technological and
management innovations are required to make it feasible and effective. The objective of the
present research is to evaluate the feasibility of adopting an innovative calibrated nozzle
and an irrigation scheduling model, SIM, in the irrigation of olive trees by treated wastewater.
A cost-benefit analysis was conducted to assess the economic performances after one year
of treated wastewater irrigation.
The study was conducted on 4 years old olive trees (cv. Picholine marocaine)
transplanted in 2018 and using a density of 1333 trees/ha. The results showed that neither
the agronomic nor the physiological parameters were affected by the irrigation with treated
wastewater, while the nozzle distribution uniformity is higher (89%) than drippers (85%).
SIM allowed 13% of water savings compared to the standard ETc method which was equal
to 113 and 128 €/ha (for TWW with and without SIM respectively) compared to the actual
quantity of freshwater used. The gain in fertilizers was 403 €/ha using the SIM model and
457 €/ha without it.
Results demonstrated that the adoption of the two innovations generated additional
benefits amounting to 1,467 €/ha/year, while the introduction of the nozzle with treated and
freshwater generated additional benefits of 1,400 €/ha/year and 237 €/ha/year, respectively.
A minimum yield increase of only 0.6% is required to cover investment costs over the 30-
year project lifetime for the nozzles and the investment could be profitable even with 48%
yield decreases if no additional infrastructure investment is required.
Keywords: Treated wastewater, irrigation scheduling, water saving, olive irrigation, cost
benefit analysis.
Résumé
L’utilisation des eaux usées traitées (EUT) représente une perspective stratégique
pour le développement agricole durable dans les pays déficitaires en eau. Mais pour que
cette stratégie soit faisable et efficace, des innovations en matière de technologie et de
gestion sont nécessaires. La présente étude avait pour objectif d’évaluer la possibilité
d’adopter un ajutage calibré innovant et un modèle de pilotage de l’irrigation, SIM, dans
l’irrigation des oliviers avec les eaux usées traitées. Une analyse couts/bénéfices a été
conduite afin d’évaluer les performances économiques une année après l’introduction de
l’irrigation avec les eaux usées traitées.
L’étude a été conduite sur une jeune plantation des oliviers (cv. Picholine marocaine)
de 4 ans transplantés en 2018. La densité était de 1333 arbres à l’hectare. Les résultats
ont montré que ni les paramètres agronomiques ni les paramètres physiologiques ont été
affecté par l’irrigation avec les eaux usées traitées, tandis que l’uniformité de distribution
des ajutages est supérieure (89%) à celle des goutteurs (85%). SIM a permis de réaliser
une économie d’eau de 13% par rapport à la méthode standard de l’ETc, c’est-à-dire 113
et 128 €/ha (avec et sans SIM respectivement en utilisant EUT) par rapport aux quantités
d’eau utilisée pour le traitement témoin. Le gain d’engrais était de 403 € avec le modèle
SIM et de 457 € sans le modèle.
Les résultats ont demontré que l’adoption des deux innovations génèrent des
bénéfices additionnels s’élevant à 1,467 €/ha/an, tandis que l’introduction de l’ajutage avec
les eaux traitées et les eaux douces génèrent des avantages supplémentaires de 1400 et
237 €/ha/an, respectivement. Une hausse de rendement de 0,6% seulement serait
suffisante pour couvrir les coûts des investissements sur la durée de vie du projet de 30
ans, et l’investissement pourrait être rentable même avec des pertes de rendement de
l’ordre de 48% si les couts supplémentaires de l’infrastructure ne sont pas comptabilisés.
Mots clés: Eaux usées traitées, pilotage de l’irrigation, économie d’eau, irrigation de
l’olivier, analyse couts/bénéfices.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
List of tables .................................................................................................................... IV
List of figures ................................................................................................................... VI
List of Annexes .............................................................................................................. VIII
Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... IX
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1
Chapter 1. Literature review ............................................................................................... 3
1.1. Overview of the problematic water resource ..................................................... 3
1.2. Water resources in Morocco: Souss Massa case study .................................... 3
1.2.1. Climate ............................................................................................... 3
1.2.2. Water resources ................................................................................. 3
1.2.3. Reuse of treated wastewater on a global scale................................... 5
1.2.4. Wastewater potential in Morocco ........................................................ 5
1.2.5. Wastewater treatment in the Souss-Massa region .............................. 6
1.2.6. Effects of treated water on the soil characteristics .............................. 7
1.3. Olive and water management ........................................................................... 9
1.3.1. Global overview .................................................................................. 9
1.3.2. Olive production in Morocco ............................................................... 9
1.3.3. Irrigation and fertilization management for olive trees ....................... 11
1.3.4. Reuse of treated wastewater in olive cultivation ............................... 14
1.4. Cost Benefit Analysis ...................................................................................... 16
1.5. Modeling in agriculture .................................................................................... 17
Chapter 2. Material and Methods ..................................................................................... 19
2.1. Experiment site ............................................................................................... 19
2.2. Plant material .................................................................................................. 19
2.3. Experimental plot ............................................................................................ 20
2.3.1. Experimental design and statistical analysis ..................................... 21
2.4. Water resources ............................................................................................. 21
2.4.1. Irrigation system ............................................................................... 21
2.4.2. L’Mzar wastewater treatment plant ................................................... 22
2.4.3. Water pricing .................................................................................... 24
2.4.4. Irrigation scheduling ......................................................................... 24
I
Table of Contents
2.4.5. Fertilization ....................................................................................... 27

2.5. Soil characteristics .......................................................................................... 27
2.6. Studied parameters......................................................................................... 28
2.6.1. Agronomic parameters ..................................................................... 28
2.6.2. Physiologic parameters .................................................................... 29
2.6.3. Leaf analysis .................................................................................... 29
2.6.4. Distribution uniformity ....................................................................... 30
2.6.5. Soil analysis ..................................................................................... 30
2.7. Cost-Benefit Analysis ...................................................................................... 31
2.7.1. Problem analysis .............................................................................. 31
2.7.2. Definition of the project and the reference case ................................ 31
2.7.3. Estimation of costs and benefits ....................................................... 32
2.7.4. Monetization ..................................................................................... 33
2.7.5. Discounting future effects ................................................................. 33
2.7.6. Main performance indexes ............................................................... 34
2.7.7. Sensitivity analysis ........................................................................... 35
Chapter 3. Results and Discussion .................................................................................. 37
3.1. Agronomic parameters .................................................................................... 37
3.1.1. Tree height ....................................................................................... 37
3.1.2. Canopy diameter .............................................................................. 37
3.1.3. Shoot growth .................................................................................... 38
3.1.4. Tree-trunk diameter .......................................................................... 39
3.2. Physiological parameters ................................................................................ 39
3.2.1. Photosynthesis rate .......................................................................... 39
3.3. Leaf analysis ................................................................................................... 41
3.4. The water discharge distribution uniformity ..................................................... 41
3.5. Water and fertilizers savings ........................................................................... 43
3.6. Soil analysis results ........................................................................................ 44
3.6.1. pH .................................................................................................... 44
3.6.2. Electrical Conductivity ...................................................................... 45
3.6.3. Sodium ............................................................................................. 46
3.6.4. Nitrogen............................................................................................ 47
3.6.5. Phosphorus ...................................................................................... 48
II
Table of Contents
3.6.6. Potassium ........................................................................................ 49

3.6.7. Calcium ............................................................................................ 50
3.6.8. Magnesium ....................................................................................... 51
3.7. Cost Benefit Analysis ...................................................................................... 52
3.7.1. Reference case ................................................................................ 52
3.7.2. Estimation of the costs and benefits ................................................. 52
3.7.3. Financial Analysis ............................................................................. 52
3.7.4. Sensitivity analysis ........................................................................... 55
3.7.5. Conclusions ...................................................................................... 57
Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................ 59
References ...................................................................................................................... 61
Annexes........................................................................................................................... 71
III
List of tables
List of tables
Table 1. Comparison of the performance of irrigation using TWW and FW. ...................... 7
Table 2. Olive sector according to the Green Morocco Plan............................................ 11
Table 3. Critical nutrient levels in olive leaves (weight / dry weight) ................................ 16
Table 4. The components of the different treatments ...................................................... 21
Table 5. Properties of the TWW ...................................................................................... 23
Table 6. F2 values for the calculation of the crop coefficient ........................................... 26
Table 7. Calculated Kc values for the olive trees............................................................. 26
Table 8. Fertilizers application for the FW treatments ..................................................... 27
Table 9. Soil texture in the field experiment .................................................................... 28
Table 10. Soil moisture characteristics measured for the field experiment ...................... 28
Table 11. Potential yield, irrigation and fertilizer requirements for the base scenario ...... 32
Table 12. Leaf analysis results for all of the treatments................................................... 41
Table 13. Comparison of the leaf concentrations to reference values ............................. 41
Table 14. Average distribution uniformity values ............................................................. 42
Table 15. Recommended ASABE ranges for the distribution uniformity .......................... 42
Table 16. Quantity and composition of Treated wastewater delivered per treatment ....... 43
Table 17. Yearly water and fertilizers savings using the SIM model and without ............. 43
Table 18. CBA results for scenario 1 using TWW, nozzles and SIM ............................... 53
Table 19. CBA results for scenario 2 using TWW and nozzles ........................................ 54
Table 20. CBA results for scenario 3 using FW and nozzles ........................................... 54
Table 21. Sensitivity analysis results for interest rates (Scenario 1) ................................ 55
Table 24. Sensitivity analysis results for yield increases (Scenario 3) ............................. 56
Table 27. Project costs for the treatment T1 ................................................................... 77
Table 31. CBA results for scenario 1 using TWW, nozzles and the SIM model ............... 85
Table 32. CBA results for scenario 2 using TWW and nozzles ........................................ 87
IV
List of tables
Table 33. CBA results for scenario 3 using FW and nozzles ........................................... 89
V
List of figures
List of figures
Figure 1. Evolution of the quantities of wastewater produced in Morocco (FAO, 2011) ..... 6
Figure 2. Development of olive area and production in Morocco from 2007 to 2018
(MAPMDREF, 2019) ....................................................................................................... 10
Figure 3. Changes in table olives and olive oil exports from 2008 to 2018 (MAPMDREF,
2019) .............................................................................................................................. 10
Figure 4. Ocean Golf location ......................................................................................... 19
Figure 5. Picholine Marocaine planted in the field ........................................................... 19
Figure 6. The design of the experimental plot ................................................................. 20
Figure 7. The olive trees plantation ................................................................................. 20
Figure 8. Head station with the irrigation equipment........................................................ 21
Figure 9. Nozzles used in the experiment ....................................................................... 22
Figure 10. Time course of tree height as affected by treatments ..................................... 37
Figure 11. Effect of the irrigation treatments on the evolution of the canopy diameter of olive
trees ............................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 12. Effect of irrigation treatments on the evolution of shoot growth ...................... 38
Figure 13. Evolution of the tree-trunk diameter between November 2019 and September
2020 ............................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 14. Effect of irrigation treatment on photosynthesis rate on 19 of July 2020 ......... 40
Figure 15. Effect of irrigation strategy on the photosynthesis rate on September, 10th, 2020
....................................................................................................................................... 40
Figure 16. Distribution uniformity values during the experimental period ......................... 42
Figure 17. Average evolution of soil pH throughout the experiment ................................ 44
Figure 18. Average evolution of Electrical conductivity in soil throughout the experiment 45
Figure 19. Average evolution of Sodium concentration in soil throughout the experiment 46
Figure 20. Average evolution of Nitrogen content in soil throughout the experiment ....... 47
Figure 21. Average evolution of Phosphorus content in soil throughout the experiment .. 48
Figure 22. Average evolution of Potassium content in soil throughout the experiment .... 49
Figure 23. Average evolution of Calcium content in soil throughout the experiment ........ 50
Figure 24. Average evolution of Magnesium content in soil throughout the experiment .. 51
Figure 25. Location of the L’Mzar treatment plant ........................................................... 71
Figure 26. Water screening process ............................................................................... 72
Figure 27. Grit removal and degreasing .......................................................................... 72
Figure 28. Primary treatment: water decantation ............................................................. 73
VI
List of annexes
Figure 29. Secondary treatment: sand filter .................................................................... 74

Figure 30. UV disinfection system - tertiary treatment ..................................................... 75
VII
List of figures
List of Annexes
Annexe 1. Wastewater treatment process at the L’Mzar station. ..................................... 71
Annexe 2. p values calculated for the agronomic parameters at each date ..................... 76
Annexe 3. Different project costs for each treatment along the project life ...................... 77
Annexe 4. Cost benefit analysis results........................................................................... 85
VIII
List of annexes
Abbreviations
ABHSM Agence du bassin hydraulique du Souss Massa
BCR Benefit to Cost Ratio
CBA Cost-Benefit Analysis
DU Distribution Uniformity
EC Electrical Conductivity
ETo Reference Evapotranspiration
ETc Crop Evapotranspiration
FW Freshwater
IRR Internal Rate of Return
Kc Crop coefficient
MAPMDREF Ministère de l’Agriculture, de la Pêche Maritime, du Développement Rural et
des Eaux et Forêts.
MEMDE Ministère de l’Eau des Mines et de l’Environnement: Département de
l’Environnement.
NPV Net Positive Value
RAMSA Régie Autonome Multi Services d’Agadir
SAR Sodium Adsorption Ratio
SIM Safe Irrigation Methods
TWW Treated wastewater
WHO World Health Organization
IX
Introduction
Introduction
The natural water resources in Morocco are among the lowest in the world. In fact,
their potential is evaluated at 22 billion m3 per year; the equivalent of 700 m3/inhabitant/year.
The yearly surface water resources are evaluated at 18 billion m3 on average, but vary from
5 to 50 billion m3/year (ABHSM, 2016). This difference becomes a matter of concern
because not only it occurs in time but also in space. In detail, the northern basins in addition
to the Sebou basin cover only 7% of the country’s territory but hold more than half of its
water resources (ABHSM, 2016).
The Souss-Massa basin is located in the center of the country covering an area of
27.800 km2 approximately. It is characterized by an arid climate with low and highly variable
precipitations. The annual rainfall can be as low as 15 mm in a dry year and as high as 600
mm in a humid year with an average amount of 200 mm/year.
The region mobilizes around one billion cubic meter of surface and groundwater,
which generates a deficit of 290 million m3/year. This negative balance is covered by a
groundwater mining and a lowering of the piezometric level with an average of 2–3 meters
per year. Most of the available water is consumed for agricultural purposes (86%), and the
remaining is consumed by the industry and potable water (Choukr-Allah et al., 2016).
In arid and semi-arid regions, changes in precipitation accompanied by successive

droughts generate long-term impacts on water availability for farmers (Aziz and Farissi,
2014). These effects are aggravated by climate change, from which the world suffers and
especially the Mediterranean countries. In fact, Giorgi (2006) described the Mediterranean
region as one of the two most prominent ‘Hot-spots’ for climate change. For all of these
reasons, measures should be taken to reduce the increasing pressure on the fresh water
resources.
In 2011, the wastewater production in Morocco was 700 million m3, from which only
25% (177 million m3) was treated and an even smaller portion was used (80 million m3)
(Guardiola et al. 2012). This use is mainly localized to the periphery of some large interior
cities where agricultural lands are located in the downstream of treated effluent (Choukr-
Allah, 2012). The National Sanitary Plan has set the goal of reusing 300 million m3 of treated
wastewater in the irrigation of golf courses, landscape and suitable crops.
Wastewater can be both an opportunity and a problem in the coming decades.

Unmanaged wastewater could generate pollution and risks to human health and
ecosystems, while its safe reuse can be source of several potential benefits (Hernandez-
Sancho et al, 2015). Reuse of treated wastewater preserves the high quality, expensive
fresh water for the highest value purposes, primarily for drinking. Its collecting and treating
protects existing sources of valuable fresh water, the environment in general and public
health and can also be used to recharge aquifers. If managed properly, treated wastewater
can be a superior source for agricultural water, compared with some fresh water sources
(Choukr-Allah, 2012). In this complex context, a comprehensive evaluation of both costs
and benefits to evaluate the feasibility of wastewater option is required.
1
Introduction
In Morocco, the effects of treated wastewater for irrigation were studied on cereals,
forage and vegetable crops. Yields were higher for plants irrigated with treated wastewater,
and so was the Water Use Efficiency (Hamdy and Choukr-Allah, 2005). The same
experiment also revealed important economic gains; generated by the fertilizing value of
treated wastewater, exceeding 350 €/ha. A similar research conducted in the region showed
that the use of treated wastewater in citrus irrigation; and an adequate public incentives
policy; can lead to savings in freshwater up to 3580 m3/hectare. Similarly, in terms of
fertilizers, treated wastewater can cover up to 81% and 38% of the crop requirements in
Nitrogen and Phosphorus respectively. (Oubelkacem, 2018).
Olive trees are known for their relatively high salt and Boron resistance which makes
them prime candidates for irrigation with treated wastewater (Erel et al., 2019).In fact,
Bedbabis et al., (2010) and Erel et al., (2019) reported higher yields when irrigating with
TWW.
The appropriate management of irrigation is of primary importance and requires

routine monitoring and modeling for assessing to provide the answers to questions on the
effects of TWW irrigation on soil, and on agricultural productivity taking into account different
types of TWWs and the substitution of fertilizers.
Further, innovations aimed at irrigation practices are also needed to deal with the fairly
common fouling and clogging problems when irrigating with treated wastewater due to the
nutritive character of the distributed water.
Based on all of the above, studying the effects of using treated wastewater as a source
of irrigation water for olive trees seems evident especially since this tree is of great
importance on the national level. In fact, the area covered by olive trees in Morocco
exceeded a million hectares as of 2016 (MAPM, 2019), which got the country to rank fourth
worldwide in terms of area occupied (FAOSTAT, 2017). An economic evaluation will also
be conducted in order to assess the feasibility of its introduction into the olive sector in
Morocco.
Based on the above information, a study will be conducted to evaluate the feasibility
of the irrigation of olive trees by treated wastewater using two technologies: the innovative
calibrated nozzles and TWW irrigation scheduling. For this reason, a field experiment will
take place to compare irrigation with two different water qualities (freshwater and treated
wastewater) and quantities using innovative calibrated nozzles and the normal drip irrigation
and two TWW irrigation schedules.
The second part concerns the economic analysis of the use of innovative calibrated
nozzles and the Safe Irrigation Management (SIM) model in irrigation of olive trees using
treated wastewater. In addition to the evaluation of their technical performances, a cost-
benefit analysis will be carried out to provide an insight into the economic performance of
the tehcnology (nozzles) and practice (SIM irrigation scheduling). Through this analysis, we
will judge the economic advantages or disadvantages of the use of innovative calibrated
nozzles on the one hand, and the SIM model on the other by assessing the costs and
benefits of their use in order to assess the welfare change attributable to it.
2
Chapter 1. Literature review
1.1. Overview of the problematic water resource
Fresh water is a precious and scarce natural resource. Although 70% of the Earth's
surface is water, less than 3% of this water is fresh, of which 2.2% is contained in glaciers
and groundwater. This leaves less than 1% of the Earth's water available to meet the needs
of human beings and animal and plant species (Hassan, 2008).
The world will have to face a global water deficit of 40% by 2030, according to experts
from the United Nations World Water Assessment Program (2030 WRG, 2009).The scarcity
of freshwater in most countries in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region is an
increasingly acute problem. Fourteen of 20 MENA nations are in water deficit (less than 500
m3 of renewable water supply per capita per year) (Kfouri et al., 2009).
Water for agriculture is critical for food security. Agriculture remains the largest water
user, with about 70% of the world’s freshwater consumption. According to recent Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) data, only 30 to 40% of the world’s food comes from irrigated
land comprising 17% of the total cultivated land. In the future, water availability for
agriculture will be threatened by the increasing domestic and industrial demand (FAO,
2018).
1.2. Water resources in Morocco: Souss Massa case study
1.2.1. Climate
Souss-Massa region; located in southern-west of Morocco; is considered as one of

the most dynamic and wealthy regions in Morocco. It is characterized by a semi-arid to sub-
desert climate. Precipitations in the region show a great spatial and temporal variability.
Rainfall season usually lasts from November to March, while the dry season persists from
April to October. Amounts vary locally, in frequency and quantity, depending on the
topographical aspect of the terrain, ranging from 200 mm/year in the plains to 600 mm/year
in the mountains and the evapotranspiration is close to 2,000 mm/year. In general,
according to the study carried out by Bouchaou et al. (2011), monthly measurements over
the last 50 years indicate high seasonal irregularities and a downward trend in rainfall.
1.2.2. Water resources
Surface water inflows in the Souss-Massa region are characterized by irregularity and
the impact of climate change. Regarding groundwater, it is obtained from Chtouka, Tiznit
and the Souss aquifers, the latter being the most important aquifer in southern Morocco
(ABHSM, 2006).
The influence of intensive pumping and the lack of precipitations cause a decline of
the groundwater level. In fact, the region mobilizes around one billion cubic meters of
surface and groundwater/year, which generates a deficit of 290 million m3/year. This
3
negative balance is covered by a groundwater mining and a lowering of the piezometric

level of the water table with an average of 2–3 meters per year. Most of the available water
is consumed for agricultural purposes, and the remaining is used by the industry and potable
water (Choukr-Allah et al., 2016).
It should be pointed out that more than 25,000 boreholes have been drilled in the
Souss-Massa basin. Most of them correspond to irrigation wells (ABHSM, 2006). The
groundwater remains largely overexploited due to the succession of drought years and the
extending of irrigated areas. This has affected the quantity and the quality of the water
resources available which also are becoming vulnerable to pollution.
Several factors are affecting the water resources management within the Souss-
Massa region and the main constraints can be summarized as follows:
 Adverse climatic conditions due to arid climatic conditions and climate change
during recent decades;
 A large variability of surface water potential from year to year;
 A limited groundwater potential;
 A high vulnerability to pollution resulting from intensive use of fertilizers and
pesticides in agriculture in addition to agriculture, industry and urban
wastewater discharge;
 A high water demand caused by rapid population growth and conflicting
demand between all economy sectors;
 Vulnerability of the coastal zone due to salinization of the ground water and
degradation of several wetlands;
 A significant increase in the irrigated land during recent decades due to greater
demand for food and fodder;
 Inadequate irrigation strategies with of the sought water efficiency.
Agriculture in particular constitutes the main sector that absorbs almost all the
available volumes with more than 95%, followed by the drinking water sector and industry
with only 5% (Hirich et al, 2015). However, this region suffers from a serious problem of
water scarcity and overexploitation of groundwater reserves. A study done by ABHSM
(2011) warned about the risk of completely exhausting the groundwater resources between
2020 and 2025. It also expected for the period from 2010 to 2020:
 The level of the water table decreased by 160 m;

 Groundwater balance deficit: 410 Mm3/year;
 Marine intrusion: 10 Mm3/year;
 Irrigated areas at risk of being abandoned: 21,300 ha;
 Number of threatened farms (< 5 ha): 231 in 2010 and 420 in 2020;
 The updated renewable groundwater potential is 425 Mm3/year on average.
Today, due to the resulting scarcity of water, the total mobilization of surface water
and the establishment of water use rationalization practices such as the development of
micro-irrigation will not be sufficient actions to make up for the total water deficit. Thus, it is
4
necessary to consider the contribution of the potential of non-conventional water and

especially the reuse of treated wastewater to reduce this deficit (ABHSM, 2016).
1.2.3. Reuse of treated wastewater on a global scale
Wastewater can be both an opportunity and a problem in the coming decades.

Unmanaged wastewater may generate pollution and risks to human health and ecosystems,
while its safe reuse can be source of several potential benefits (Hernandez-Sancho et al,
2015). Reuse of treated wastewater preserves the high quality, expensive fresh water for
the highest value purposes, primarily for drinking. Its collecting and treating protects existing
sources of valuable fresh water, the environment and public health and can also be used to
recharge aquifers. If managed properly, treated wastewater can be a superior source for
agricultural water, compared with some fresh water sources (Choukr-Allah, 2012). In this
complex context, a comprehensive evaluation of both costs and benefits to evaluate the
feasibility of wastewater option is required.
Reuse of treated wastewater has several benefits e including the following (Hamdy
and Lacirignola, 2005; Choukr-Allah, 2009; Becerra-Castro, 2015; Petousi et al., 2018):
 Prevention of surface water pollution, which may occur when wastewater is not
used but is discharged in rivers and lakes. The quantification of the cost of the
enormous damage those problems are already causing shows that the treatment
and re-use of wastewater is now a must;
 The use of wastewater for irrigation will help in reducing the over-pumping and
exploitation of groundwater, thus avoiding sea-water intrusion and the
deterioration of ground water quality particularly in coastal areas, groundwater
being the main source of drinking water ;
 Creation of an additional resource for agricultural irrigation and landscape and
generating extra economic profit from the fertilizing potential of the treated
wastewater;
 This resource also offers a solution to irrigation in countries with water scarcity
conditions (such as the Mediterranean countries) and the availability of large
quantities throughout the year;
 Better rationale use of the water resources, with low quality water being used for
irrigation purposes and good quality freshwater being used for potable water and
other special uses;
 The use of treated wastewater serves also as a nutrient source, which can reduce
the use of chemical fertilizers with a reduction in energy costs and industrial and
environmental pollution.
1.2.4. Wastewater potential in Morocco
In Morocco, annual wastewater discharge volumes have increased sharply over the
last three decades. They increased from 48 million to 600 million m3/year between 1960
and 2005, reaching 700 million in 2010 (Figure 1). This will continue to grow rapidly and is
expected to exceed 900 million m3 at the end of 2020 (FAO, 2011).
5
1000
900
900
800
700
700
600
495
500
370
400
270
300
200 129
100 48
0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Volume in Mm3
Figure 1. Evolution of the quantities of wastewater produced in Morocco (FAO, 2011)
The main factors that contribute to this phenomenon are:
 The increase in the expanding of the drinking water network in urban areas,
which has moved from 79% in 1993 to 91% in 2014. (HCP, 2014)
 The increase of the urban population from 55.1% in 2004 to 60.3% in 2014
(HCP, 2014).
1.2.5. Wastewater treatment in the Souss-Massa region
1.2.5.1. Wastewater potential in Souss-Massa region
The Souss-Massa region is an agricultural region characterized by limited water

resources and nutrient-poor soils. Therefore, the use of treated wastewater in agriculture is
a good alternative that will help to preserve the region's water resources and the reduction
of the abusive use of fertilizers (Mouhanni et al., 2011).
Currently, liquid wastewater discharges, over the whole Souss basin, amount to 25
million m³/year. Early in the last decade, a volume of 14 million m³/year is discharged directly
to treatment plants, 8.5 million m³/year to septic tanks and the rest is discharged directly
into the natural environment (ABHSM, 2013). The National Program for Liquid Sanitation
and Wastewater Treatment (PNA) was launched in 2005, jointly by the Department of the
Environment and the Ministry of the Interior (MEMDE, 2011) and sets specific objectives for
2030 as follows:
 Achieve an overall level of connection of wastewater producing units to the

wastewater discharge network system of 80% by 2020 and 90% by 2030;
 Reduce domestic pollution by 80% by 2020 and 90% by 2030;
 Treat and reuse 100% of collected wastewater by 2030.
6
1.2.6. Effects of treated water on the soil characteristics
Irrigation with treated wastewater affects certain soil parameters over time. A slight
decrease in pH is observed in some basic soils (Rattan et al., 2005; Abbass et al.,
2007).This decrease is explained by leaching caused by irrigation water from active
limestone, which is responsible for soil alkalinity (Solis et al., 2005). Wastewater, through
its fertilizing power, also leads to an increase in soil organic matter and nutrients (Yadav et
al., 2002; Rattan et al., 2005). These nutrients stimulate soil microbiological activity
(Magesan et al., 2000), which favors the mineralization of organic matter, thus reducing the
soil's cation exchange capacity (Solis et al., 2005; Herpin et al., 2007).
Unfortunately, potential problems associated with used treated wastewater in irrigation

do exist. These problems include increased salinity and relatively high Na and B
accumulation in the soil. Especially, the significantly higher soil sodium adsorption ratio
(SAR) in recycled wastewater-irrigated sites compared with surface water irrigated sites
provided reason for concern about possible long-term reductions in soil hydraulic
conductivity and infiltration rate in soil with high clay content, although these levels were not
high enough to result in short-term soil deterioration (Levy, 2014; Erel, 2019). Salt leaching
would become less effective when soil hydraulic conductivity and infiltration rate are
reduced. These chemical changes may in part contribute to the stress symptoms and die-
off observed in some crops. Magesan et al. (2000) also reported that, following irrigation
with treated wastewater, this intensification of soil microbiological activity decreases soil
hydraulic conductivity due to the formation of bacterial biofilms that clog soil porosity.
a) Effect of treated wastewater irrigation on plant growth and

development
Due to its nutrient content and richness in micro-nutrients, wastewater, when reused
for irrigation, leads to improved crop yields. In fact, Fars et al (2003) and Rusan et al (2007)
reported an increase in the biomass of a forage plant when irrigated with either raw or
treated wastewater.
According to Choukr-Allah and Hamdy (2005), irrigation using treated wastewater

gave similar and sometimes better yields than irrigation with fresh water without the addition
of fertilizers. Table 1 presents some examples:
Table 1. Comparison of the performance of irrigation using TWW and FW.
Crops
Traitment Chrysanthemum Melon Zucchini Eggplant Corn Durum wheat
Flower / plant T / ha Kg / plant Kg / m2 Qx /Ha Qx / ha
Fresh water 69.00 26.20 1.29 3.17 12.43 -
Treatedwastewater 80.00 34.60 2.18 3.41 12.62 31.83
Source: (Choukr-Allah and Hamdy, 2005)
As a result, wastewater has a high nutritional value that can improve plant growth,
reduce fertilizer application rates, and increase the productivity of poorly fertilized soils. It
has been suggested that treated wastewater can be used to irrigate vegetables that are
7
consumed cooked, with continuous monitoring of effluent quality to avoid health risks
(Kiziloglu et al., 2007).
b) Impact of treated wastewater irrigation on the groundwater

quality
The impacts of saline treated wastewater irrigation (and associated leaching) can be
detrimental to groundwater resources. The soil leaching practices carry out salts from the
root zone to the underlying water table (Condom, 2015).
The effects of salinity on soils and groundwater are often visible after a few years,
depending on soil texture, chemical and hydraulic properties, and depth of groundwater
(Condom, 2015). Ionic leachate analyses lead to the conclusion that, despite the high
fertilizing value of treated wastewater, a slight salinity is noticed, which is accentuated by
the transport of soluble salts from the soil to the groundwater table during irrigation by
treated wastewater (Mouhanni et al., 2011).
In addition to the accumulation of salts and nitrates, under certain conditions,

wastewater irrigation has the potential to transfer pathogenic bacteria and viruses to
groundwater (Hussain et al., 2002). In addition, irrigation with treated wastewater leads to
an increase in the EC of drainage water between the beginning and end of the melon cycle
(Ouarzane, 1996), common wheat and carnation (Lamdaghri and M'seffer, 1996).
c) Impact of treated wastewater irrigation on human health
Wastewater is subject to various sources of contaminants, limiting its potential for

reuse (Guillemain, 2010). It can contain a wide range of biological, organic and inorganic
constituents, some of which can be harmful to human health and safety depending on
concentration and duration of exposure (US NRC, 2012).
The risk factor that is given the most prominence in the literature is the presence of
pathogens. Viruses, bacteria, protozoa and helminthes, particularly those from enteric
sources, have the potential to cause disease to humans (WHO, 2012). No single treatment
can remove them all. Effluent always contains some, but the types and amounts depend on
the treatment system used. For example, pathogens can cause health risks if the reuse of
treated wastewater is poorly controlled or if the water is not or inadequately treated. Uses
for which contact through ingestion is unavoidable (drinking water production) or likely
(irrigation of food crops) are then more risky. Despite their presence, the health risks
associated with the reuse of treated wastewater can be minimized by adopting certain
practices and taking some precautions. This is the case with irrigation, where micro-
irrigation techniques can limit the dispersal of microbiological organisms into the
environment (Trad Raïs and Xanthoulis, 2006).
Furthermore, treated wastewater can be a vector for various chemical contaminants

(AFSSA, 2008). By transfer via the food chain or by contamination of surface water from
groundwater aquifers, these contaminants can affect the health and well-being of
populations (WHO, 2012). Since the health risks associated with chemical contaminants
8
are not well known in the direct use of treated wastewater for consumption, uses are
generally restricted to indirect applications (Exall, 2004).
1.3. Olive and water management
Olive (Olea europaea L.) is an evergreen tree grown primarily between 30 and 45°
latitude in both hemispheres. In 2017, the total harvested area was over 10,800,000
hectares, more than 93% of which was concentrated in the Mediterranean countries
(FAOSTAT, 2017). It is native to the coastal areas of the eastern Mediterranean basin. For
several thousand years, the olive has been grown in the region surrounding the
Mediterranean, mainly as a rain-fed crop (Carr, 2013).
1.3.1. Global overview
In the year 2017, 41 countries were producing olives. The total production ranged from
68 tons in Kuwait to more than 6.5 million tons in Spain. The latter also leading the countries
with the largest planted area (2.5 million hectares), followed by Greece (2.72 million T from
870.000 ha) and Italy (2.58 million T, 1.3 million ha) (FAOSTAT, 2017).
Since the beginning of the millennia, the area covered by olives worldwide has
increased by 30% moving from 8 million hectares in 2000 to 11 million hectares in 2017.
The total production has doubled over the past 25 years. This is a result of the scientific
efforts to understand the physiology of the tree better and more importantly to the
introduction of irrigation.
1.3.2. Olive production in Morocco
1.3.2.1. Overview of the national olive production
Taking into consideration the increasing demand for olive and its oil, this
sector has been developing rapidly especially since the launch of the Green
Morocco Plan in 2008. In fact, the area covered by olives went from 748.000 ha
in 2008 to more than a million ha (+40%) in less than 10 years (MAPMDREF,
2019). This is due, at least in part, to the encouragement of investments, the
modernization of technologies and the introduction of new ones to better exploit
the production potential of the plantings. Figure 2 shows the significant
development of areas and production of olives in Morocco.
9
1573 1559
1444 1416
1405
1316
1182
1143 1055
1008 1025 1045
997
922 947
803 885
813 839
748 773
662
07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18
Area (1000 ha) Production (1000 T)
Figure 2. Development of olive area and production in Morocco from 2007 to 2018
(MAPMDREF, 2019)
Morocco has also developed a significant expertise in olive processing that allowed it
to commercialize its oil on very exigent and competitive markets such as the USA and the
European Union. Figure 3 shows the trend in exports of table olives and olive oil since 2008.
The slow increase in olive production has had a significant positive impact on the population
and this is reflected on the socioeconomic gains developed as a result.
80 35
70 30
Table Olives (1000 T)
60
25
Olive oil (1000 T)
50
20
40
15
30
10
20
10 5
0 0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Table Olives Olive oil
Figure 3. Changes in table olives and olive oil exports from 2008 to 2018 (MAPMDREF, 2019)
10
1.3.2.2. Socioeconomic stakes
Olive oil and table olives are significant contributors to the balance of trade of Morocco.
In 2017, olive export reached 170 million USD, of which 137 million USD provided by table
olives and the remaining 33 million USD by olive oil. Table olives are the fifth exportation
crop in terms of value, and the country is the third table olives exporter in the world after
Spain and Greece (FAO, 2019).
It is estimated that 5% of the Moroccan agriculture GDP comes from the olive sector.
Furthermore, the sector has a key role in society as it represents the main source of income
for more than 400.000 families. It also actively contributes to the rural and urban
employment by creating more than 15 million workdays annually; the equivalent of 100,000
permanent jobs (FAO, 2019).
The olive sector is in the heart of the Green Morocco Plan strategy. It aims for the
strengthening of the sector competitiveness through the improvement of the production and
its valorization conditions and the improvement of the commercialization conditions not only
on the domestic market but also globally. Table 2 summarizes the objectives traced for the
olive sector in the Green Morocco Plan (2020), the initial situation at the date of the launch
of the Plan (2008) and the situation ten years later (2018).
Table 2. Olive sector according to the Green Morocco Plan
2008 2018 2020
Total area (1000 ha) 748 1,045 1,220
Total production (1000 T) 662 1,559 2,500
Exports (1000 T) 66.5 90 270
Source: (MAPMDREF, 2008; FAO, 2019).
1.3.3. Irrigation and fertilization management for olive trees
1.3.3.1. Irrigation management
The olive tree can survive under semi-arid conditions due to its physiological and
morphological adaptive properties. They are efficient for preventing soil erosion and
desertification. For these reasons, olives have been cultivated for many centuries in the
region, mainly under rain-fed conditions.
However, intensification of olive cultivation by shifting a tree crop that was traditionally
rain fed to irrigated conditions, calls for improved knowledge of tree water requirements as
an input for precise irrigation scheduling (Orgaz et al., 2006).
In Morocco, since the launch of the Green Morocco Plan, olive tree cultivation has
shifted to irrigated and intensively managed plantings. More importantly, there is a need for
a more accurate irrigation scheduling of in olive orchards, not only because of the increasing
demand from competing water consumers, but also because of the increasing demand for
olive and olive oil quality. Increasing efforts are being put into the development of new
techniques for estimating the crop evapotranspiration (ETc) for a more precise irrigation in
olive orchards. Water supplies in the orchard can be scheduled taking into account the soil
11
water status, the atmospheric demand or plant-based water status measurements

(Fernandez, 2006).
a) Estimation of the evapotranspiration from atmospheric demand
The crop evapotranspiration is a function of the weather conditions and the growth
stage of the crop and crop management practices (tree density, soil management etc.). The
standard and most widely used method to estimate crop evapotranspiration is the FAO 56
crop coefficient method (Allen et al., 1998) defined as follows:
𝐸𝑇𝑐 = 𝐾𝑐 × 𝐸𝑇𝑜 (1)
Where:
ETc: crop evapotranspiration [mm.d-1]
Kc: crop coefficient [dimensionless]
ETo: reference crop evapotranspiration [mm.d-1]
Reference evapotranspiration (ETo):
The reference evapotranspiration (ETo) is the evapotranspiration rate from a

reference surface, not short of water, which is a hypothetical grass reference crop with an
assumed crop height of 0.12 m, a fixed surface resistance of 70 s m-1 and an albedo of
0.23. It is estimated using the Penman-Monteith equation (Allen et al., 1998).
Crop coefficient (Kc)
Olive groves share the complexities in the determination of Kc with all other tree crops,
with some additional difficulties. Olive is an evergreen species that is active throughout the
year, thus requiring a longer irrigation season than deciduous tree species, especially after
dry winters (Orgaz et al., 2006). Until recently, olive trees were mostly rain-fed and this adds
to the problem of needs estimation.
The literature is rich with values for the olives crop coefficient. However, these values
present important variations. Allen et al. (1998) indicated a value of 0.70 for trees with 40 to
60% canopy cover. Orgaz and Fereres (2010) found coefficients ranging from 0.45 to 0.75
in Spain for similar percentages, while Testi et al. (2004) reported values of 0.30 but for a
25% canopy cover.
For the average weather conditions in the Mediterranean basin (ETo: 1200 mm/year
and rainfall: 500 mm/year), the average ETc for mature olive orchards with densities of 100-
300 trees/ha and localized irrigation, can reach a maximum potential ETc of 600-700
mm/year, from which 300-400 mm must be applied by irrigation (Fernandez, 2006). In the
super high density orchards in California (1700 tree/ha), and under similar conditions (ETo
of 1330 mm/year and rainfall of 533 mm), ETc was close to 600 mm/year (Grattan et al.,
2006). Moriana et al. (2003) indicated values between 700 and 800 mm/year in south Spain.
12
b) Irrigation methods
Under normal conditions, the type of irrigation method selected will depend on water
supply conditions, climate, soil, crops to be grown, cost of irrigation method and the ability
of the farmer to manage the system. However, when using wastewater as the source of
irrigation, other factors such as contamination of plants and harvested product, farm
workers, and the environment, and salinity and toxicity hazards, will need to be considered
(Pescod, 1992).
The choice of irrigation method in using wastewater is governed by the following

technical factors:
- the crops considered for irrigation;

- wetting of foliage, fruits and aerial parts;
- distribution of water, salts and contaminants in the soil;
- ease with which high soil water potential could be maintained;
- efficiency of application;
- potential to contaminate farm workers and the environment.
In the context of this project, we will be using an alternative solution to drip irrigation
emitters which is the calibrated nozzles. The main advantage of this technology is the
capacity to withstand treated wastewaters with a high content of suspended solids that
normally require the use of fine filtration systems or frequent cleaning when distributed with
micro-irrigation drippers. This is obtained by the high discharge (48 l/hour), preventing any
deposit in the emitter that may lead to clogging.
1.3.3.2. Fertilization management
Olive tree organs, like most other plants, are composed of 20 elements: C, H, O, N,
P, K, Ca, Mg, S, Fe, Zn, Mn, Mo, Cu, B, Ni, Si, Co, Na, and Cl, all essential for proper plant
development and production (Zipori et al., 2020). Of all these elements, N, P and K are the
most important in terms of uptake by the plant, fertilization and risk to the environment.
Large amounts of these nutrients are exported from olive orchards in olives and the
pruning wood (Zipori et al., 2020). As a result, the elements are depleted from the soil and
need to be replenished in order to ensure a good crop nutrition.
a) Olive nutrients requirements

Nitrogen (N)
Nitrogen is the most commonly applied element in olive orchards and sometimes the
only one applied regularly. Haberman et al. (2019) found out that an adequate N fertilization
resulted in greater vegetative growth, and increased fruit set and flowering.. On the other
hand, low N availability can lead to reduced vegetative growth, flowering, fruit set, and
subsequent fruit yield (Erel et al., 2013; Haberman et al., 2019).
13
Phosphorus (P)
Phosphorus has a key role in a number of cellular processes, including the

maintenance of membrane structures, synthesis of biomolecules and formation of high-
energy molecules (Razaq et al., 2017). It is a structural constituent of macromolecules such
as nucleic acids, and forms part of nucleoproteins, phospholipids, and a large number of
enzymes involved in energy processes (Jimenez-Moreno et al., 2016). It also improves the
soil by increasing the activity of soil microorganisms. It increases flowering, and fruit quality.
It also increases the resistance of the tree against harsh climate (Dolek Gencer et al., 2019).
Potassium (K)
Potassium is considered to be one of the most important minerals in olive nutrition

mainly because of its high concentration in the olive fruit (Bustan et al., 2013). It also plays
a key role in the water economy of plants, especially through osmoregulation and
maintenance of cell turgor. It is also considered as a significant element in flowering and
fruit set.
Potassium application in olive fertilization can be very tricky. On the one hand, K
exports in fruits and pruning wood are higher than any other element (Zipori, 2020). On the
other hand, a number of studies found no effect of K fertilization on the vegetative growth
or yield (Erel et al., 2013; Ben Mimoun et al., 2004). Other research papers reported an
increase in fruit yield but no effect on vegetative growth (Haberman, 2019)
Calcium (Ca)
Calcium is a constituent of the middle lamella of cell walls as Ca-pectate. It is required

as a cofactor by some enzymes involved in the hydrolysis of ATP and phospholipids. It is
also an important element for root development and functioning, a constituent of cell walls
and is required for chromosome flexibility and cell division. Calcium also regulates soil
acidity and improves soil texture.
Magnesium (Mg)
Magnesium plays an important role in chlorophyll synthesis and as an enzyme

activator. The important factor is not the concentration of Mg but the Ca/Mg ratio (Therios,
2008). It is required by a large number of enzymes involved in phosphate transfer. It is
involved in photosynthesis, carbohydrate metabolism, synthesis of nucleic acids, related to
movement of carbohydrates from leaves to upper parts, and stimulates P uptake and
transport in addition to being an activator of several enzymes.
1.3.4. Reuse of treated wastewater in olive cultivation
The use of treated wastewater as a source of irrigation is very beneficial as it allows

the recycling of water and nutrients that would otherwise be disposed of, although it can
cause major problems especially related to plant toxicity and groundwater contamination.
This is mainly because of its high content in potentially harmful element led by boron (B),
sodium (Na) and chlorine (Cl).
14
Treated-wastewater irrigation for olive trees can be sustainable as long as there is

enough leaching of the accumulated salts, as demonstrated by Erel et al. (2019). Fruit yield
was higher than the freshwater irrigated olive trees but salt accumulation was greater. Many
other studies assessed the effects of irrigation with treated wastewater on olive trees but
with inconsistent, sometimes contradictory, results. For example, Charfi et al., (1999)
demonstrated that wastewater can increase vegetative growth and olive fruit yield but
Bedbabis et al., (2010) reported that it can also cause vegetative growth retardation.
1.3.4.1. Olive response to salinity
Crops and even different cultivars of the same crop vary considerably in their tolerance
to salinity. Maas and Hoffman (1977) concluded that crop yield is not reduced until a
threshold of salinity is exceeded. The yield reduction is affected according to the equation
published in the FAO 29 (Ayers and Westcot, 1994).
𝑌𝑟 = 100 − 𝑏(𝐸𝐶𝑒 − 𝑎) (2)
Where:
Yr : the relative crop yield [%];
ECe: average salinity of soil saturation extract [dS/m];
a : salinity threshold [dS/m];
b : slope parameter.
Salt accumulation in the root zone causes the development of an osmotic stress
(osmotic effect) and disrupts cell ion homeostasis by inducing inhibition in the uptake of
essential nutrients like K+, Ca2+ and NO− 3 (possibly leading to nutrient deficiency) and
accumulation of Na+ and Cl- to potentially toxic levels within cells (specific ion effect)
(Chartzoulakis, 2005). As a result, the impacts of salinity are reflected by a decline in growth,
reductions in yield and can possibly lead to leaf injury or even complete defoliation of the
plant.
High salinity of irrigation water generally reduces olive yield, fruit weight and oil
content when the salinity exceeds a certain limit assumed to be 5.0 dS.m-1 (Chartzoulakis,
2011). Irrigation of olive trees with moderate saline water (EC = 4.2 dS.m−1) can lead to
significant increase in tree productivity and oil yield as compared to the high salinity (7.5
dS.m-1) or the control (1.2 dS.m-1) treatments (Wiesman et al., 2004).
Olive trees have a good salinity resistance due to their ability to limit uptake and/or the
transport of these ions from the root zone to the aerial parts of the plant (Tattini, 1994).
Furthermore, Bader et al. (2015) conducted an experiment on three olive cultivars
(Picholine, Meski, Ascolana) and found that the salinity resistance mechanisms were
effective in all of them. However, the most effective mechanism was observed in the
Picholine cultivar, which is characterized by an important accumulation of salts in the root
zone and an inhibition of their translocation to the leaves.
15
1.3.4.2. Specific ion toxicity
The difference between a salinity problem and a toxicity problem is that the latter
occurs with the plant itself and in not caused by a water shortage. Toxicity is the result of
certain ions (mainly boron, sodium and chloride) being taken up with the soil solution and
accumulated in the leaves beyond toxic levels, which results in damage to the plant. The
damage can be caused by each toxic element individually or in combination and yield losses
are observed when toxicity level is severe enough (Ayers and Westcot, 1994).
Leaf analysis is an important tool to keep track of not only the nutritional status of the
plant but also the possible toxicities the plant may be suffering from. Table 3 summarizes
the different levels (deficiency, optimal and toxic) for the most toxic ions
Table 3. Critical nutrient levels in olive leaves (weight / dry weight)
Element Deficiency range Optimal range Toxic rage
Boron (B) 14 ppm 19-150 ppm 185 ppm
Chloride (Cl) > 0.50%
Sodium (Na) > 0.20%
Source: (Kailis and Harris, 2007)
Boron and chlorine are essential elements for tree growth, but they are required in
very small amounts. Excess amounts in the soil may cause toxicities and problems for the
plant and inhibit its normal development (Navarro and Parra, 2010). In irrigated plantings,
chloride or boron toxicity is very often associated with the use of irrigation water containing
high concentrations of these ions. Olive trees have good tolerance against boron toxicity
(Rostami, 2017) as well as chlorine excess (Benlloch et al., 1990), and they actually are
more tolerant than most other fruit trees.
1.4. Cost Benefit Analysis
The Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) is defined in the European Commission guidelines
(EC, 2014) as an analytical tool to be used to appraise an investment decision in order to
assess the welfare change attributable to it. It is an approach to estimate the strengths and
weaknesses of multiple alternatives to a project aiming to satisfy certain needs. It also takes
into consideration the perspective of society and; thus; includes the costs and benefits for
not only the project owner but also all the stakeholders involved.
The CBA is one of the most widely accepted economic instruments since it is a rational
and systematic decision-making support tool (Molinos-Senate et al., 2010). However, it is
argued that the choice of the benefits and costs included can lead to a skewness of the
results obtained by this analysis (Huesemann, 2011). For this reason, it is extremely
important to include at least all of the primary costs and benefits (direct effects) (Boardman,
2011). Failing to include all the impacts and indicators bears the potential systematic risk of
drawing wrong conclusions and producing biased results (Huesemann, 2011).
The cost benefit analysis has been introduced in agriculture with many studies dealing
with a wide range of agronomic aspects. Niang et al., (2016) used this analysis to correct
some traditional technical practices in rice cultivation in south France into more
16
economically viable alternatives. More recently, DeVincentis et al., (2020) proved the long
term profitability of using winter cover cropping and its potential to increase the income of
farmers in California. CBA was also applied to wastewater reuse and has gained a lot of
interest in this field over the last decades (Zayas et al., 2016). Many studies were done to
assess the different effects of using treated wastewater mainly on health and environment
(Weis, 2015).The problem with these aspects however is that their costs and benefits are
often left uncalculated because they have no market value. However, the monetary
valuation of these effects is necessary to justify the economic feasibility of any wastewater
related project (Molinos-Senate et al., 2010).
CBA applied to agriculture was also used by researchers to address the different
issues specific to each problem, which can be very diversified. Yaqob et al., (2015) used
the CBA to decide on the best strategy to use treated wastewater in irrigation under different
scenarios for the location of the wastewater treatment plant and different types of crops in
Palestine. Another study was conducted in Columbia to determine the financial viability of
the reuse of treated wastewater in sugarcane crop irrigation (Galvis et al., 2018). The results
showed that the two main factors affecting the financial viability of the project are the
irrigation requirements and the additional investment either to treat the wastewater further
to be used in irrigation or to bring it to the crops.
The main strength of the CBA in water reuse projects is to facilitate the comparison of
seemingly different kinds of costs and benefits, providing evidence for decision makers to
decide on the scheme of water reuse that is likely to deliver the highest net benefits. This is
achieved by reducing all cost and benefit components (thus including environmental and
non‐environmental, private and social costs and benefits) to monetary terms (Zayas et al.,
2016).
Evaluation of some benefits and costs remains a challenging aspect because they are
difficult to be valued into monetary terms (Kihila et al., 2014, DeClerq et al., 2017). This is
particularly true when assessing and evaluating the potential health benefits and costs along
the food chain. The same applies to studies that compare farm performance indicators of
freshwater and wastewater irrigation, as there is a cumulating the difficulties of assessing
and costing likely health and environmental impacts for the two water qualities (Drechsel et
al., 2015).
1.5. Modeling in agriculture
A model is a mathematical representation of a real system, and modeling is an efficient

way to learn about complex biophysical systems. For this reason, it has been used in a wide
range of fields to help researchers get a better understanding of the processes studied.
Modeling is a relatively new concept in agriculture with the introduction of crop models
in the late 1970s. This was a huge step forward as it allowed for a better decision-making,
forecasting of crop growth and development, yield losses minimization, and the
determination of the optimal dates for the different agricultural operations, which lead to a
more sustainable crop production under changing climatic scenarios. It is becoming a
17
valuable tool for increasing the understanding of crop physiology and ecology for
sustainable agricultural production (Ahmed et al., 2012).
Models can be divided in two categories: physically based and empirically based. The
first category is based on the understanding of the physics behind the processes studied.
This property makes it possible to use this approach in a wider scope of situations. The
empirically based models however, tend to be used for precise conditions and are usually
more precise at a local scale (Ranatunga et al. 2008).
A number of models dealing with the different aspects of agriculture have appeared
over the years. Some focused on yield prediction (Liu et al., 2011), others were interested
in crop damage caused by different factors (Ahmed et al., 2012). Some works concentrated
on soil water as it is a crucial part in increasing the water use efficiency in agriculture (Van
der Laan et al., 2010; Liu et al., 2011).
Soil moisture balance models range from very simple to complex. Manabe (1969)
modeled the soil as a simple bucket that can be filled using precipitation, emptied by
evaporation and runoff occurring when the bucket is full. This assumes the soil is a single
layer that is homogeneous vertically and horizontally. More complex models followed, based
mainly on the Richards equation (Richards, 1931). An example is the model developed by
Broadbridge and White (1988) linking the soil water content, its hydraulic conductivity and
its water potential.
Zaragoza et al., (2020) developed an application to optimize the irrigation and

fertilization of olive orchards using treated wastewater through a daily real-time schedule
recommendation at farm scale. The introduction app; called REUTIVAR; adapted the
irrigation (and fertilization) scheduling to the actual weather conditions and adjusted the
water allocation along the irrigation season, allowing saving costs for the farm.
18
Chapter 2. Materials and Methods
Chapter 2. Material and Methods
The current work aims to evaluate the feasibility of innovative irrigation practices and
technologies in the irrigation of olive trees using treated wastewater. The experiment took
place in the Ocean Golf just south of the city of Agadir.
2.1. Experiment site
The experiment took place in the Ocean Golf, situated not far from the Souss river
mouth. It started from October 2019 and lasted until September 2020.
Figure 4. Ocean Golf location
2.2. Plant material
The trees used in this experiment are the Moroccan

traditional variety “Picholine Marocaine” appreciated for
both its table olives and olive oil. It is the most important
variety in Morocco occupying over 90% of the plantations.
It is also known for its high adaptability to the local weather
conditions. However, this variety can be sensible to certain
diseases, and alternate bearing.
The Picholine Marocaine is not usually used in

intensive setups. In fact, the most widely used densities
are between 80-100 trees/ha. Modern orchards densities
usually used are around 400 trees/ha.
Plantation took place on March 2019. Figure 5. Picholine Marocaine

planted in the field
19
2.3. Experimental plot
A plot of 450 m2 was used to house 60 olive trees. The 4 year old trees (cv. picholine)
coming from the plant nursery were transplanted in March 2018. The high density of 1333
trees/hectare was achieved by using distances of 2.5 meters between the lines and 3 meters
between the trees on the same line. Each line contained five trees and the resulting 12 lines
were divided in four groups each one associated with one treatment. The experimental
design is presented in the next figure (Figure 6) as well as the actual plantation (Figure 7)
Figure 6. The design of the experimental plot
Figure 7. The olive trees plantation
The treatments used in the experiment were defined in a way to include both the
innovative practices and technologies (T1) using treated wastewater, only the technology
(innovative nozzles) with treated wastewater (T2) or with fresh water (T3) and finally a
treatment with neither the technology nor the practices (T4) which will represent the current
farmers’ practice. The treatments are shown in the following table (Table 4).
20
Table 4. The components of the different treatments

Id. Plot Irrigation water type Irrigation device Use of the Irrigation Model SIM
T1 TWW innovative nozzles With SIM
T2 TWW innovative nozzles No SIM
T3 FW innovative nozzles No SIM
T4 FW drip irrigation No SIM
2.3.1. Experimental design and statistical analysis
As the previous figure (Figure 6) shows, the adopted experimental design for this
experiment is the randomized complete block design with the following attributes:
 1 factor (irrigation type) with 4 levels (TWW + SIM, TWW, FW, FW +

dripper),
 3 blocks (repetitions),
 Each block with 4 experimental units resulting in a total of 12,
 Each experimental unit containing five trees.
The statistical analysis was carried out by the “MINITAB” software. Tukey method was
used to separate the group means and the confidence level was set at 95%.
2.4. Water resources
2.4.1. Irrigation system
The irrigation system consisted of a head station in which a tank, a pump and a
screening filter were assigned to each treatment (Figure 8). The pumps were controlled
using a control panel to automate the irrigation events.
Figure 8. Head station with the irrigation equipment
21
Mainline pipes were extended from the head station to the plot, from which one lateral
pipe per experimental unit was assigned. Each tree received the daily irrigation using one
nozzle or dripper, depending on the treatment.
The drippers used for treatment T4 are 8 l/hour drippers meanwhile the commercial
nozzles used in the remaining treatment are 48 l/hour both functioning at a system pressure
of 1 bar. These nozzles withstand using treated wastewater for irrigation thanks to their high
discharge, as this reduces the precipitation of elements leading to clogging and also
reducing the cleaning operations compared to the drippers.
Figure 9. Nozzles used in the experiment
It is important to mention that the drippers cost 0.10 € / unit compared to 0.18 € / unit
for the nozzles.
2.4.2. L’Mzar wastewater treatment plant
The wastewater used in this experiment is treated at the L’Mzar station situated 8.5
kilometers south of the city of Agadir. There is a strong trend to use the treated wastewater
coming from this plant in the irrigation of some golf courses and the landscape in the city.
The different steps of the wastewater treatment process at the L’Mzar station are
presented in Annex 1.
The various elements determining the quality of this resource were provided by the
RAMSA and are resumed in Table 5.
22
Table 5. Properties of the TWW
Unit of Entrance Ocean Ocean Golf Agadir

Parameter
measure Golf Agadir storage basin
pH - 7.75 9.05
EC dS/m dS/m 3.97 4.15
Total Nitrogen mg/l 97.00 60.50
Nitrates NO3 mg/l 385.00 255.00
Total phosphorus mg/l 14.28 10.71
Potassium mg/l 350.00 350.00
Calcium mg/l 202.40 202.69
Sodium mg/l 460.00 460.00
Chloride mg/l 752.00 809.00
SM mg/l 6.00 8.00
BOD5 mg d’O2/l 6.00 6.00
TDS - 2310 2370
Fecal coliform UFC/100ml 24 38
Helminth eggs U/l Absence Absence
2.4.2.1. Constraints for the reuse of the treated wastewater
Although the treatment performance is generally very satisfactory, concentrations of

soluble salts in wastewater effluent are very high (RAMSA, 2017).The high salt content of
L'Mzar Station's treated wastewater is mainly due to salt discharges from the various fish
canning factory. This source of salts, if not controlled, may pose serious problems that can
limit the use of treated water on salt-sensitive species. That is why RAMSA (Multi-Service
Autonomous Board of Agadir) has forced fish canneries to separate the internal sanitation
network. The separation of liquid discharges to salt water and unsalted waters is necessary
in order not to disturb the progress of the urban water treatment process.
Indeed, the concentration of salts in the treated wastewater is as follows:

• The electrical conductivity reaches 4,000 µS/cm
• Chloride levels are 850 mg/l.
These concentrations far exceed the reuse standards of 3000 µS/cm for conductivity
and 100 mg/l for chlorides respectively. Their consequences would be detrimental on:
• Crop production (phytotoxicity, nutritional disturbance, water stress...)
• The physico-chemical properties of soils (soil salinity and therefore
deterioration of its structure).
23
2.4.3. Water pricing
One of the most encouraging aspects of using treated wastewater in agriculture;

besides its availability; is the cost. In fact, in the Ocean Golf where the experiment took
place, the cost of the treated wastewater is 0.10 € / m3, compared to 0.14 €, which is the
average cost of pumping one cubic meter of freshwater at the same location. Of course,
other benefits are added to the use of the freshwater represented mainly in the included
free fertilization value.
2.4.4. Irrigation scheduling
Two irrigation scheduling methods were used in this experiment:
 SIM irrigation scheduling

 Crop evapotranspiration using the single crop coefficient method
2.4.4.1. Crop evapotranspiration (ETc)
The crop evapotranspiration is a function of the weather and the growth stage of the
crop. The standard FAO 56 crop coefficient method takes these aspects in consideration
using a crop coefficient (Kc) to represent the growth stage and a reference
evapotranspiration (ETo) to account for the weather conditions. It is defined as follows:
𝐸𝑇𝑐 = 𝐾𝑐 × 𝐸𝑇𝑜 (3)
Where:
ETc: crop evapotranspiration [mm.d-1]
Kc: crop coefficient [dimensionless]
ETo: reference crop evapotranspiration [mm.d-1]
Reference evapotranspiration (ETo):
The reference evapotranspiration (ETo) is the evapotranspiration rate from a

reference surface, not short of water, which is a hypothetical grass reference crop with an
assumed crop height of 0.12 m, a fixed surface resistance of 70 s m-1 and an albedo of
0.23 (FAO,56). It is estimated using the Penman-Monteith equation:
900
0.408∆(Rn−G)+ U (e −ea )
T+273 2 s
ETO = (4)
∆+γ(1+0.34U2 )
Where:
ETo: reference evapotranspiration [mm.day-1]
Rn: net radiation at the crop surface [MJ.m-2.day-1]
G: soil heat flux density [MJ.m-2.day-1]
T: mean daily air temperature at 2 m height [°C]
U2: wind speed at 2 m height [m.s-1]
es: saturation vapour pressure [kPa]
ea: actual vapour pressure [kPa]
es-ea: saturation vapour pressure deficit [kPa]
24
Δ: slope vapour pressure curve [kPa.°C-1]

γ: psychrometric constant [kPa.°C-1]
Crop coefficient (Kc)
Olive groves share the complexities in the determination of Kc with all other tree crops,
with some additional difficulties. Olive is an evergreen specie that is active throughout the
year, thus requiring a longer irrigation season than deciduous tree species, especially after
dry winters (Orgaz et al., 2006). Until recently, olive trees were mostly rainfed and this adds
to the problem of needs estimation.
The literature is rich with values for the olives crop coefficient. However, these values
present important variations. The FAO indicated value is 0.70 for trees with 40 to 60%
canopies. Orgaz and Fereres (2010) found coefficients ranging from 0.45 to 0.75 in Spain
and Testi et al. (2004) found values of 0.30 but for a 25% canopy cover.
Orgaz et al. (2006) developed a model to compute olive orchard ETc by calculating
the soil evaporation and plant transpiration separately. The evaporation component of ETc
was calculated by separating the evaporation from the wet spots by the emitters from the
rest of the soil. Fereres et al. (2011) continued to develop this model and came up with a
calculation method of the ETc of olive trees. The calculation steps are demonstrated next:
Calculation of the radiation interception Qd:
𝐷2 𝑑𝑝
 Ground cover fraction: 𝐺𝐶𝐹 = 𝜋 ×
4 10000
1
 Canopy volume: 𝑉𝑜 = 6 𝜋𝐷 × 𝐻2
𝑑𝑝
 Canopy volume per surface unit 𝑉𝑢 = 𝑉𝑜 ×
10000
 Leaf area density (Limited to 2) 𝐿𝐴𝐷 = 2 − 0.53 × (𝑉𝑢 − 0.5)
 Radiation extinction coefficient
𝐾𝑒𝑥𝑡 = 0.52 + 0.00079 × 𝑑𝑝 − 0.76 × 𝑒 −1.25 ×𝐿𝐴𝐷
 Fraction of intercepted radiation 𝑄𝑑 = 1 − 𝑒 − 𝐾𝑒𝑥𝑡 × 𝑉𝑢
Calculation of the crop coefficient components:
 Coefficient of transpiration 𝐾𝑝 = 𝑄𝑑 × 𝐹1 × 𝐹2
 Coefficient of evaporation from the soil (Ks1 must be > 0.3/ETo)
3.8 × 𝐹𝑟 ×(1− 𝐹𝑟 )
𝐾𝑠1 = [ 0.28 − 0.18 × 𝐺𝐶𝐹 − 0.03 × 𝐸𝑇𝑜 + 𝐸𝑇𝑜
]
 Coefficient of evaporation from the soil wetted by emitters (Ks2 must be ≤

1.4 𝑒 −1.6 × 𝑄𝑑 )
√𝑖−1
(1.4 × 𝑒 −1.6 × 𝑄𝑑 ) + (4.0 )
𝐸𝑇𝑜
𝐾𝑠2 =
𝑖
25
Calculation of the components of the evapotranspiration:
 Canopy transpiration 𝐸𝑝 = 𝐸𝑇𝑜 × 𝐾𝑝

 Evaporation from the soil 𝐸𝑠1 = (𝐸𝑇𝑜 × 𝐾𝑠1 ) × (1 − 𝑓𝑤)
 Evaporation from the soil wetted by emitters
𝐸𝑠2 = (𝐸𝑇𝑜 × 𝐾𝑠2 ) × 𝑓𝑤
 Olive evapotranspiration 𝐸𝑇𝑐 = 𝐸𝑝 + 𝐸𝑠1 + 𝐸𝑠2
Where:
D: Canopy average diameter [m];
H: Canopy height [m];
𝒅𝒑 : Plantation density [trees / ha];
𝑭𝒓 : Rainfall frequency [number of rainy days / total number of days in the
month];
i: Interval between irrigation events [days];
fw: fraction of soil wetted by the emitters (fraction, 0 ≤ fw <1).
F1 and F2 are parameters defined as follows:

F1 = 0.72 for plantation densities < 250 trees/ha
F1 = 0.66 for densities greater
Table 6 gives the values used for F2 in the calculation:

Table 6. F2 values for the calculation of the crop coefficient
Month F2 Month F2 Month F2
January 0.70 May 1.05 September 1.25
February 0.75 June 1.25 October 1.20
March 0.80 July 1.25 November 1.10
April 0.90 August 1.20 December 0.70
Source: (Fereres et al., 2011)
The Kc values calculated from the method above are as follows:
Table 7. Calculated Kc values for the olive trees

Month Kc Month Kc Month Kc
January 0.30 May 0.39 September 0.34
February 0.30 June 0.39 October -
March 0.33 July 0.39 November 0.30
April 0.36 August 0.36 December 0.30
2.4.4.2. SIM model
SIM (Safe Irrigation Management) is a one-dimensional, daily water balance model

use to simulate the soil moisture content under specific conditions (crop, soil, irrigation
management, water quality and climate). The model contains four modules:
26
 Crop water demand and irrigation scheduling module;

 Salinity management module;
 Bacterial movement and risk assessment module;
 Nutrient management module.
The irrigation scheduling module uses a soil water balance model in which the net
water retained in the soil is the difference between inputs (irrigation and precipitation) and
outputs (evapotranspiration, runoff and drainage). Thus, the daily soil water balance is
calculated as follows:
𝛿𝑤 = (𝑃𝑖 + 𝐼𝑖 ) − (𝑇𝑐𝑖 + 𝐸𝑠𝑖 ) − (𝑅𝑂𝑖 + 𝑑𝑟𝑖 )
Where:
𝜹𝒘: daily variation in soil moisture content [mm];

𝑷𝒊 : the precipitation at day i [mm];
𝑰𝒊 : water applied by irrigation [mm];
𝑻𝑪𝒊 : crop transpiration [mm];
𝑬𝒔𝒊 : the soil evaporation [mm];
𝑹𝑶𝒊 : the runoff [mm];
𝒅𝒓𝒊 : the volume of water drained below the root zone [mm];.
2.4.5. Fertilization
One of the benefits of using treated wastewater for irrigation is that it comes with a set
of nutrients that can actually be used by the plants. As such, no additional fertilizers were
added to the treatments using the treated wastewater (T1 and T2).
To deliver the necessary nutrients for an optimal growth of the trees in the remaining
treatments using freshwater (T3 and T4), a fertilization plan was set in place. During this
cycle, the following amounts of fertilizers were delivered:
Table 8. Fertilizers application for the FW treatments

Element Amount delivered in g/tree/year
N 100
P 90
K 250
As the trees are still young, micronutrients were also delivered via leaf application for
all treatments.
2.5. Soil characteristics
The following table (Table 9) sums up the texture of the soil on which the experiment
was conducted. The analysis was done in the soil lab in IAV CHA. It is composed of mostly
fine sand and the texture is considered sandy based on the USDA classification.
27
Table 9. Soil texture in the field experiment
Silt Sand
Component Clay
Fine silt Coarse silt Fine sand Coarse sand
0.21 3.84 56.55 39.23
% 0.17
4.05 95.78
Other particularly important attributes of the soil are connected to its water availability
and capacity to hold it. They are called the soil moisture characteristics and are defined by
the FAO as follows:
 Field capacity: it is the soil water content that comes immediately after the
drainage had stopped. The larger soil pores are filled with water and air while
the smaller ones are still occupied by water.
 Permanent wilting point: the soil water content at which the roots become
unable to uptake the water from the soil. The plant cannot recover and dies.
 Available water content: it is the water amount that is actually available for the
plant to uptake. It is the soil water content at the permanent wilting point
subtracted from the water content at field capacity.
The next table (Table 10) contains the soil moisture characteristics for the experiment.
Table 10. Soil moisture characteristics measured for the field experiment
Field Permanent wilting Available water
Parameter
capacity point content
Value (mm water
90 50 40
depth / m soil depth)
2.6. Studied parameters
2.6.1. Agronomic parameters
In order to closely follow the effect of irrigation with treated wastewater on olive trees,
multiple parameters were monitored on the Soil Plant Atmosphere Continuum (SPAC). Soil,
water and agronomic parameters were recorded regularly. The monitoring of these
parameters lasted from November 2019 to September 2020. Nine trees per treatment were
chosen for the monitoring. The objective of this part is to find out if the tree growth was
affected by the water quality, irrigation technology or irrigation practices studied. They are
presented next:
2.6.1.1. Plant height:
Plant height is measured using a stick vertically from the highest leaf to the ground.
The height was monitored for trees from the different treatments throughout the
experimental period. The evaluation of this parameter consisted in measuring the distance
between the highest leaf and the ground.
28
2.6.1.2. Canopy dimensions:
To follow the canopy evolution, two perpendicular diameters (North/South and

East/West) were monitored and averaged throughout the year to obtain the average canopy
diameter.
2.6.1.3. Shoot growth:
The third agronomic parameter evaluated is the shoot growth. Two shoots were
chosen on opposite sides of the canopy. The increase in their length was measured
regularly and recorded. This resulted in eighteen values for each treatment.
2.6.1.4. Trunk diameter:
The last agronomic parameter that was studied is the trunk diameter. The trees were
marked at the beginning of the experiment at 20 centimeters above the soil. The trunks
were then measured at the same marked level.
2.6.2. Physiologic parameters
 Photosynthesis rate
Photosynthesis is the process by which plants convert light energy into chemical
energy that will be used to support the different activities of the organism. This energy is
stored in carbohydrate molecules, such as sugars, which are synthesized from carbon
dioxide and water.
The photosynthesis rate was measured using a portable ambient photosynthesis

measuring system called LCi-SD. The principle of this apparel is to trap the leaf in a chamber
and quantify the gas exchanges. It also uses a 3 – 4 meters high inlet to ensure the
continuous supply of fresh air and stable CO2 levels.
The measures took place between 10AM and 12AM (GMT +1). The photosynthesis
rates were measured for nine exposed leaves per treatment.
2.6.3. Leaf analysis
Assessing the nutritional status of the trees is a crucial step in the optimization of
fertilization programs and leaf analysis is the best diagnostic method to assess it. It allows
in many cases the detection of deficiencies and/or excesses that may lead to damage to
the plant material (Fernandez-Escobar R., 2010).
The olive leaf analysis in this experiment followed the leaf analysis principles
described by Fernandez-Escobar R., (2010):
 The leaf samples were taken in July as this is the time when leaf elements
concentrations are the most stable.
29
 Leaves of the current year's growth from non fruit-bearing shoots were
sampled.
 Leaves were oven-dried at 70°C for 72 hours and milled to powder.
The analysis of the samples was done at the Labomine Lab. The total nitrogen was
determined using the Kjeldhal method. The rest of the elements (Phosphorus, Potassium,
Magnesium, Calcium, Zinc and Sodium) were determined using the inductively coupled
plasma optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES).
2.6.4. Distribution uniformity
Emission uniformity (EU) is a measure of how uniformly water is applied to the area
being watered. It is measured in the field using the Distribution Uniformity (DU) by averaging
the lowest quarter (25%) of the discharges sample to the global average.
𝑞′
𝐷𝑈 = 100 (𝑞𝑛′ ) (5)
𝑎
Where:
 DU: Distribution uniformity [%];
 𝒒′𝒏 : average discharge of the lowest 25% of the field data discharge
readings [l/h];
 𝒒′𝒂 : average discharge of all the field data emitter discharges [l/h].
2.6.5. Soil analysis
Soil samples for analysis were taken from a depth between 0 and 30 cm to determine
and to compare the impact of wastewater irrigation and the nutritive solution (for fresh water
+ fertilizers) on physico-chemical proprieties on the soil.
When irrigating, it is necessary to survey the level of soil salinity, pH and the mineral
contents in the soil. The analyzed parameters are as follows:
- pH
- Electrical Conductivity
- Mineral Nitrogen (NO 3 - , NH 4 + )
- Sodium (Na)
- Potassium (K)
- Phosphorus (P)
- Calcium (Ca)
- Magnesium (Mg)
Soil analysis were done at the Labomine lab. Soil pH, electrical conductivity and
phosphorus were determined according to the methods of NM ISO 10390, NM ISO 11265
and NM ISO 11263 respectively and total Kjeldahl Nitrogen using the NM EN 16169 method.
The Sodium, Potassium, Magnesium and Calcium content of the soil samples were
determined using the NF X 31-108 method.
30
Sampling was done on November 2019, March 2020, July 2020 and September 2020.
2.7. Cost-Benefit Analysis
The Cost and Benefit Analysis is a technique used to determine whether an

investment project should go ahead, and answers the question: do the benefits outweigh
the costs? It is an economic approach applied to compare the advantages (benefits) and
disadvantages (costs) related to a particular project that can have long term effect on both
investors and communities.
Based on the EC guidelines (EC, 2014), the adopted CBA include the following
components and consists of the following steps:
2.7.1. Problem analysis
In this first step, the problem at the base of the project is explained. The current
situation is described and the project trying to solve the issue is introduced. The other project
alternatives are also treated at this level.
In our case, olive trees cultivation is still practiced under rainfed conditions in many
regions of the country. However, as the demand for Moroccan olives and oil increased,
commercial irrigated orchards also increase using mainly drip irrigation.
Three scenarios will be compared to the base scenario and they are as follows:
 Scenario 1: Irrigation with treated wastewater managed using the SIM software
and the nozzles (this corresponds to the treatment T1).
 Scenario 2: Using the treated wastewater instead of freshwater (corresponding
to treatment T2) along with the use of nozzles.
 Scenario 3: Introduction of the nozzles which will be used instead of the
drippers using freshwater (corresponding to treatment T3)
2.7.2. Definition of the project and the reference case
The project itself is developed in this section along with the assumptions made. The
future situation without the project implementation is considered as the reference case and
will be used as the base scenario for comparisons.
Our base scenario will be a hypothetical hectare of olive trees conducted in an

intensive mode over a project lifetime of 30 years (1333 trees/ha to be reduced by half to
666 trees/ha starting from the sixth year). The irrigation will be using freshwater for irrigation
and using drippers as emitters. The potential yield, irrigation and fertilizers requirements are
presented in the following table.
31
Table 11. Potential yield, irrigation and fertilizer requirements for the base scenario
Adult tree
Year 1 2 3 4 5
On Off
Yield (kg/ha) 0 0 2,500 6,000 8,000 15,000 11,000
Revenue (€/ha) - - 1,152 2,765 3,687 6,912 5,069
Irrigation (mm) 200 250 300 400 600 650 450
N (g/tree) 30 60 90 125 200 563 422
P2O5 (g/tree) 24 48 70 150 270 375 281
K2O (g/tree) 34 68 100 200 325 563 422
As this olive variety is not used in such intensive setups, the values in the table were
estimated based on the individual inputs from the current agricultural practices (lower
densities). The price used in this simulation is 0.46 € / kg of olives.
2.7.3. Estimation of costs and benefits
The estimation of some costs and benefits of the base scenario was done based on
the data collected from adult olive orchards in the region especially regarding the average
labor costs. The investment costs were extrapolated from the plot. Previous studies done in
neighboring regions were also used as reference (Ait Hmida, 2010; Nangia, 2016).
2.7.3.1. Estimation of the costs
There are multiple categories of costs to be considered for the analysis and they are
as follows:
 Investment costs: construction, transportation, equipment, land costs …

o Emitters: the costs of nozzles (T1, T2 and T3) and drippers (T4);
o Pipes: accounts for the piping costs;
o Filtration: the cost of the filters used in each treatment;
o Pumps: investment in the pumping equipment;
o Tanks: the costs of reservoirs;
o Control panel: used to automate the irrigation system.
 Operational expenses: energy, resources, labor, maintenance costs …
o Water costs: the quantity of water used for irrigation
o Electricity: this is the main source of energy
o Labor: expenses related to the manpower
o Fertilizers: this only concerns the treatments using freshwater
Other costs include cleaning, replacements and the different maintenance operations
throughout the system.
2.7.3.2. Estimation of the benefits
The benefits can be divided into two categories:
32
 Direct: such as cost savings (from savings on fertilizer, maintenance, labor …),
additional income (increased yields).
 Indirect benefits are the effects that cannot be directly estimated like
environmental and health impacts and effects on external markets (such as
labor market or tourism). This category of benefits was not be covered in the
study.
2.7.4. Monetization
In order to assess the feasibility of the project, the Cost Benefit Analysis has first to
predict the impacts that would be generated by the different project alternatives and then
value these quantified impacts in a common money metric (usually the national currency,
US dollar or the Euro).
Monetization can be straightforward and easy or indirect and uncertain. Some impacts
can be directly and confidentially monetized using market prices; this is the case for the use
of real resources for a project implementation. Other positive and negative impacts, i.e.
environmental or related to the health, are more or less hard to monetize and can be very
uncertain. There is no direct way to estimate their economic value -how much people would
be willing to pay for them - since quite often they are not traded in markets and their
economic value is not revealed in market prices. These impacts are often based on
statistical inference or even theory alone in some cases. Additionally, monetizing often
requires the use of shadow prices, such as the willingness to pay for a good or service.
2.7.5. Discounting future effects
CBA usually studies the effects of projects over a long period of time and aims to make
intertemporal comparisons. As such, we have to discount future effects (costs and benefits)
so that they are all in a common metric, known as the Present Value (PV). Using this last
metric, project alternative can be compared by measuring the net social benefits for each
of them (Boardman, 2014).
The value of money today is less than its value in the future. This is true because
money can earn interests. This also means that the PV is less than the value in one year.
This can be translated into the following equation:
𝑌
𝑃𝑉 =
1+𝑖
Where:
PV : The present value
Y : The amount received in one year
i : The rate of interest
However and as mentioned before, we need to calculate the present values of sums
received many years ahead. Thus, the following equation integrates the year factor:
33
𝑌
𝑃𝑉 =
(1 + 𝑖)𝑛
Where:
PV : The present value
Y : The amount received in n years
i : The annual rate of interest
Now we can calculate the stream of benefits acquired in a project by adding up the
present values of the benefit recorded for each year:
𝑛
𝐵0 𝐵1 𝐵𝑛 𝐵𝑡
𝑃𝑉(𝐵) = 0
+ 1
+ ⋯+ 𝑛
= ∑
(1 + 𝑖) (1 + 𝑖) (1 + 𝑖) (1 + 𝑖)𝑡
𝑡=0
And similarly for the costs:

𝑛
𝐶𝑡
𝑃𝑉(𝐶) = ∑
(1 + 𝑖)𝑡
𝑡=0
Now we can introduce the Net Present Value (NPV), which is the difference between
the present value of the benefits and costs:
𝑁𝑃𝑉 = 𝑃𝑉(𝐵) − 𝑃𝑉(𝐶)
2.7.6. Main performance indexes
Before starting any investment project, it is essential to do a study in order to ensure

that the project will provide benefits. Therefore, we use several indexes to analyze and to
assess the project. These indexes are explained below:
2.7.6.1. The net present value (NPV)
This indicator reflects the added value a project can offer, in other words the difference
between the present value of cash inflows and the cash outflows, and it is expressed as:
𝑵𝑷𝑽 = 𝑩0 − 𝑪0
Where
𝑩0 : Discounted present value of benefits (€), calculated as:
𝒏
𝟏
𝑩0 = ∑ 𝑩𝒊
(𝟏 + 𝒓)𝒊
𝒊=0
𝑪0 : Discounted present value of costs (€), calculated as:

𝒏
1
𝑪0 = ∑ 𝑪𝒊
(𝟏 + 𝒓)𝒊
𝒊=0
34
Where
𝒊: Index of year;
𝑩𝒊 : Benefit flow of the ith year [€];
𝑪𝒊 : Cost flow of the ith year [€];
r: Interest rate;
𝒏: Time frame of the project.
The computed NPV value allows us to judge the profitability of the project, three
possible results are mentioned below:
 NPV > 0: If the NPV is greater than 0, it means that the investment will bring a
net benefit and therefore, the investment project must be accepted;
 NPV = 0: If the NPV is equal to 0 means that the project will neither bring
neither benefits nor losses. So, although the project may be accepted or
rejected;
 NPV < 0: A negative NPV implies that the result of the operation will be
negative and therefore, the investment project should be rejected.
2.7.6.2. The benefit cost ratio (BCR)
It is the ratio between the discounted benefits and costs, and expressed as:
𝑩0
𝑩𝑪𝑹 =
𝑪0
The investment is cost effective when BCR ≥ 1.
2.7.6.3. The internal rate of return (IRR)
IRR measures the implicit profitability (in %) of the project.
Mathematically, it is the rate that makes equal the initial accumulation of costs to that
of benefits, thus making the NPV equal to zero.
Therefore, r = IRR when NPV = 0, and the investment is cost effective when IRR ≥ r.
In fact, if the initial investment is not recovered throughout the life of the project, this
means that NPV will be negative. On the other hand, if the initial investment is recovered,
this means that after that moment, all cash flows are a plus regarding the initial investment,
and so project’s NPV is positive. The project is cost effective when PBT ≤ n.
2.7.7. Sensitivity analysis
This step aims to identify the critical variables of the project, whose variations, either
positive or negative, have the highest influence on the financial and/or economic
performances of the project. The sensitivity analysis is carried out by varying each variable
individually and assessing the impact this variation has on the NPV. The European
35
Commission recommended to consider critical any variable for which a variation of ±1% of
the base value give rise to a variation of more than 1% in the value of the NPV (EC, 2014).
The tested variables should be deterministically independent and as disaggregated

as possible. Correlated variables would give rise to distortions in the results and double
counting. Therefore, before proceeding to the sensitivity analysis, the CBA model should be
reviewed with the aim of isolating the independent variables and eliminating all
dependencies. For example, ‘revenue’ is a compound variable, which depends on the two
independent items ‘quantity’ and ‘tariff’, both of which should be analyzed.
36
Chapter 3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Agronomic parameters
3.1.1. Tree height
The trees gained approximatively 40 centimeters in height during the 10 months period
of the monitoring, most of which happened between the months of April and July which
overlays with the active vegetative growth phase of olive trees (FAO). The growth is then
reduced as the tree enters a reduced vegetative growth phase starting from July in which
the energy is focused on the fruit formation. The results are shown in Figure 10.
250
230
Tree height (cm)
210
190
170
15/11/19 15/01/20 15/03/20 15/05/20 15/07/20 15/09/20
TWW + SIM TWW FW + Nozzles FW + drippers
Figure 10. Time course of tree height as affected by treatments
Based on these results and the analysis of variance (Annexe 2) no significant

differences were recorded between the treatments at any date. This means that the trees
were growing uniformly and independently of the water quality, the technology and the
practices used.
3.1.2. Canopy diameter
Similarly to the tree height, we can distinguish, on Figure 11, the active vegetative
growth phase marked by the significant increase between April and July followed by a
decrease during the reduced vegetative growth phase of August-Septemeber. The canopy
diameter increased by almost 40 centimeters for all of the treatments.
37
140
120
Canopy diameter (cm)
100
80
60
15/11/19 15/01/20 15/03/20 15/05/20 15/07/20 15/09/20
Figure 11. Effect of the irrigation treatments on the evolution of the canopy diameter of olive
trees
The ANOVA showed that no significant differences between treatments for the canopy
diameter at any of the dates of the monitoring. Therefore, the canopy diameter was not
affected by the treatment applied to the trees and was evolving in a similar way for all of the
treatments.
3.1.3. Shoot growth
20
15
Shoot growth (cm)
10
0
15/11/19 15/01/20 15/03/20 15/05/20 15/07/20 15/09/20
Figure 12. Effect of irrigation treatments on the evolution of shoot growth
Figure 12 summarizes the evolution of shoot growth throughout the experimental

period. The general shape shows distinctive phases during the cycle. During the first five
months (from December to April), the shoots grew by 5 centimeters. The next three months
38
(from May to July) witnessed an increase of 9 centimeters on average for the shoots, which
corresponds to the active vegetative growth phase. During the last two months (August and
September), the increase averaged less than 2 centimeters.
The statistical analysis of these results showed no significant differences between

treatments (Annexe 2). Shoot growth was similar for all of the treatments all along the
monitoring period.
3.1.4. Tree-trunk diameter
Figure 13 shows the increase of tree-trunk diameter over the monitoring period. The
growth was slow at the beginning of the experiment (1.5 millimeters between December
and March) then accelerated starting from April until September (8.5 millimeters gained on
average). Generally speaking, the trunk diameters for all of the olive trees increased by 1
centimeter during the period of this study. The results of the statistical test are summarized
in Annexe 2.
40
35
Trunk diameter (mm)
30
25
20
15
15/11/19 15/01/20 15/03/20 15/05/20 15/07/20 15/09/20
Figure 13. Evolution of the tree-trunk diameter between November 2019 and September 2020
3.2. Physiological parameters
3.2.1. Photosynthesis rate
The plants use light energy to convert water, minerals and carbon dioxide into oxygen
and organic compounds through the process of photosynthesis. This process is mainly
influenced by the light intensity, CO2 concentrations and temperature (Zelitch, 1975).
In this part, the photosynthesis rates were measured on nine trees per treatment at
two different dates and were analyzed to evaluate the effect of the treatments on the
physiology of the trees.
39
The first date was July, 19th. The Figure 14 shows the average photosynthesis rate (in
μmol.m-².s-1) recorded for each of the treatments. The ANOVA showed that the differences
between averages is highly significant (p = 0.011). Precisely, the photosynthesis rate for the
treatment using treated wastewater and no SIM (Treatment T2) was higher than that for the
treatments using freshwater (T3 and T4).
a
Photosynthesis rate (μmol.m-².s-1)
ab
5
5.13
4 4.43
b
3
b
2.64
2 2.39
0
Figure 14. Effect of irrigation treatment on photosynthesis rate on 19 of July 2020
The second date for the monitoring was the 10th of September 2020. The values were
recorded between 10 and 12 AM on sunny and healthy leaves. The air was slightly less
humid; the relative humidity went from 46.5% in the beginning of the experiment to 42.7%
with a mean value of 44.5%. The air temperature was between 31.7°C and 32.4°C.
Figure 15 shows the averaged values for each treatment. The statistical analysis
showed no differences between the treatments (p = 0.344).
7
Photosynthesis rate (μmol.m-².s-1)
5
4.87
4 4.25
3.91 3.97
3
0
Figure 15. Effect of irrigation strategy on the photosynthesis rate on September, 10th, 2020
40
3.3. Leaf analysis
The Table 12 below sums up the concentrations of the different elements in the leaves
for each of the treatments.
Table 12. Leaf analysis results for all of the treatments
Element TWW+SIM TWW FW + nozzles FW + drippers p-Value Average
N (%) 1.73 1.59 1.76 1.76 0.62 1.71 ± 0.05
P (%) 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.61 0.13 ± 0.01
K (%) 0.65 0.62 0.62 0.52 0.46 0.60 ± 0.03
Mg (%) 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.94 0.16 ± 0.01
Ca (%) 0.96 0.91 1.00 1.13 0.22 1.00 ± 0.04
Zn (ppm) 36.9 49.0 35.3 34.7 0.54 39.0 ± 3.70
Na (%) 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.26 0.06 ± 0.01
The next table compares the recorded values to the reference values:
Table 13. Comparison of the leaf concentrations to reference values
Reference values
Element Average Deficiency Adequate Toxic
N (%) 1.71 ± 0.05 1.40 1.50 - 2.00 -
P (%) 0.13 ± 0.01 0.05 0.10 - 0.30 -
K (%) 0.60 ± 0.03 0.40 > 0.80 -
Mg (%) 0.16 ± 0.01 0.08 > 0.10 -
Ca (%) 1.00 ± 0.04 0.30 > 1.00 -
Zn (ppm) 39.0 ± 3.70 - > 10.0 -
Na (%) 0.06 ± 0.01 - - > 0.20
(Source: Fernandez-Escobar R., 2010)
According to these results, no significant differences were observed for any of the
elements (p-values all greater than 0.05). This shows that, at the end of the experiment, the
trees were absorbing the elements from the soil in the same way regardless of the treatment
applied.
Based on the reference values set by Fernandez-Escobar R., (2010), the

concentrations are in the adequate range for all of the elements except for Potassium, which
is a little short from the adequate range; for all treatments; but not low enough to cause
deficiencies.
3.4. The water discharge distribution uniformity
To make sure that the irrigation system worked properly and that all the plants
received an equivalent amount of irrigation water, the distribution uniformity of the irrigation
system was monitored throughout the experimental period. Figure 16 shows the values
recorded for each treatment at each month.
41
Distribution Uniformity
95%
90%
85%
80%
December January February March June July
TWW+SIM+Nozzles TWW+Nozzles FW+Nozzles FW+drippers
Figure 16. Distribution uniformity values during the experimental period
As shown in Figure 16, the treatments using nozzles to deliver the water had
significantly higher distribution uniformities (p = 0.001). These treatments averaged 89% in
the distribution uniformity, while the treatment using dripper averaged 84%. Table 14 sums
up the average values for each treatment.
Table 14. Average distribution uniformity values
Treatment TWW + SIM TWW FW + Nozzles FW + drippers
Average (%) 88.9 ± 0.3 a 87.8 ± 0.5 a 89.4 ± 0.1 a 83.7 ± 0.3 b
The American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE) sets the
recommended ranges for the distribution uniformity as shown in Table 15.
Table 15. Recommended ASABE ranges for the distribution uniformity
Emitter type Spacing (m) Topography Slope (%) EU (%)
Point source on uniform <2 90 to 95
>4
perennial crops steep or undulating >2 85 to 90
Point source on perennial uniform <2 85 to 90
<4
or semi-permanent crops steep or undulating >2 80 to 90
Line source on annual or uniform <2 80 to 90
All
perennial crops steep or undulating >2 70 to 85
Source: (ASABE, 2014)
The values recorded for the first three treatments (using nozzles) are closer to the
upper value of the recommended range for a point source emitter, close spacing and
uniform topography which represent the situation of our field experiment. The drippers
recorded 84% and this can be partly explained by the technical problems that occurred at
the beginning of the experiment (81% average before January). The pump used for the
treatment was oversized, thus the pressure in the system was out of control making
42
irregularities in the drippers discharges. After fixing the problem, the distribution uniformity
recovered and averaged 85% between February and September.
3.5. Water and fertilizers savings
The following table shows the different quantities of treated wastewater delivered
during the experiment based on the SIM irrigation scheduling (T1) and the standard FAO
56 method (T2), and the treated wastewater composition for each month.
Table 16. Quantity and composition of Treated wastewater delivered per treatment
m3/month TWW concentration (mg/L)

T1 T2 N P K Ca
December 2.43 2.43 68.5 8.2 44.4 285
January 2.26 2.26 75.0 19.2 40.7 280
February 2.63 2.63 77.0 19.2 43.4 282
March 2.93 3.45 74.4 15.7 50.5 273
April 2.14 2.52 56.6 14.7 35.2 252
May 4.08 4.80 50.5 10.3 31.8 243
June 4.80 5.65 70.4 11.2 40.0 293
July 4.06 4.77 66.4 12.2 41.0 177
August 3.64 4.28 75.3 10.3 40.0 185
September 2.84 3.34 71.3 12.4 50.2 237
Total 31.8 36.1
The data shows yearly water savings of up to 12% when using the SIM model (31.8
m3 compared to 36.1 m3). As each treatment was conducted on 112.5 m2 (3m x 2.5m x 15
trees), it is equivalent to 282 mm and 321 mm per year respectively.
Because of the fertilizing properties of the treated wastewater, important amounts of

nutrients were received with the irrigation water. These amounts were scaled up to one
hectare and the following results were obtained:
Table 17. Yearly water and fertilizers savings using the SIM model and without
Fertilizer costs (€/ha) Water costs (€/ha) Total (€/ha)
TWW + SIM 403 113 516
TWW 457 128 585
Given the prices of the fertilizers equal to 0.27 € /kg for ammonium nitrate, 0.69 €/L
for phosphoric acid and 0.92 € /kg for potassium sulfate, the irrigation using the SIM model
allowed for fertilizers savings equivalent of 403 € /ha in macro-elements (Nitrogen,
Phosphorus and Potassium). The water savings (compared to treatments using freshwater)
were evaluated at 113 € /ha which amounts to 516 € /ha in costs savings for the treatment
T1 using the SIM model for irrigation scheduling.
Treatment T2 using treated wastewater and the standard irrigation scheduling

accounted for 457 € /ha in fertilizers savings and 128 € /ha in water savings summing up to
585 € /ha.
43
These results are similar to the economic gains from fertilizers savings reported by
Choukr-Allah and Hamdy (2005) in the region, which ranged from 350 € /ha for Maize to
more than 780 € /ha for durum wheat.
3.6. Soil analysis results
3.6.1. pH
9.20
a
a a a
a
a a
8.80
pH
ab
b
b
8.40 b
b
8.00
November 2019 March 2020 July 2020 September 2020
TWW+SIM+Nozzles TWW+Nozzles FW+Nozzles FW+Drippers
Figure 17. Average evolution of soil pH throughout the experiment
According to the results obtained (Figure 17), TWW induces an alkalization of soil.
The pH of the soil samples was found to be within the range of 8.85 to 9.12 for soil irrigated
with treated wastewater (TWW+SIM and TWW) and 8.27 to 9.09 for soil irrigated with fresh
water (FW+Nozzles and FW+ Drippers).
An increase in soil pH is noticed for the two treatments irrigated with treated
wastewater (TWW + SIM and TWW). Since the change of soil pH value is dependent on
the irrigation water quality, these values can be explained by the fact that treated
wastewater is rich in bicarbonates and sodium (Nobel et al., 1992). Previous work by other
researchers indicated that long-term wastewater irrigation has inconsistent impact on soil
pH. Schipper et al. (1996) showed that continuous wastewater irrigation increases pH due
to the high content of basic cations the applied wastewater. Others reported pH decreases
due to the formation of organic acids and high ammonia content (Xu et al., 2010).
On the other hand, there is a decrease in the pH value for soils irrigated with fresh
water. This decrease can be explained by the regular application of the phosphoric acid as
a fertilizer from the beginning of the vegetative stage and floral induction in the month of
March.
44
Statistically, the ANOVA found a very high significant difference (p = 0.000) between
soil irrigated with fresh water and soil irrigated with treated wastewater and not significant
between the two specific irrigation systems for each quality. However, the different irrigation
volumes supplied between the two strategies: SIM and without-SIM have influenced the
infiltration and redistribution water processes in the soil because the pH value observed for
T1 increases along the irrigation season showing a fluctuation between 9 to 9.10 inducing
a different behavior and its pH trend was significant for three campaign of measurements.
3.6.2. Electrical Conductivity
0.400
a a
Electrical conductivity (dS/m)
0.300
a
ab
ab
0.200 b
b b
0.100
0.000
Figure 18. Average evolution of Electrical conductivity in soil throughout the experiment
Statistical analysis observation of the ECe in the month of March showed a very
significant difference between soils irrigated with fresh water and soils irrigated with treated
wastewater (p = 0.001) with two homogeneous groups (Figure 18). It should be noted that
the TWW treatment recorded the highest ECe value at the end of the trial period, which was
equal to 0.313 dS/m, in contrast to the FW+Nozzles treatment, which recorded the lowest
value. This means that the nozzles did not contribute to changing the ECe and it may be
due to the short period of monitoring and the fact that the irrigation systems did not show
significant problems like clogging.
These results are similar to those found by Tsigoida (2019) who showed that irrigation
with saline water causes an accumulation of salts in the soil, this accumulation is directly
related to the salinity level of the water used for irrigation. According to Jerate (1997),
chemical analyses of soil and drained solutions showed the effect of wastewater salinization
on the receiving environment, since the electrical conductivity and salt content in the soil
increase following irrigation with wastewater, which is confirmed by the rates of change of
EC in the soil during the experiment.
45
However, at this stage; the olive trees are young and have been irrigated with TWW
for only one irrigation season; the salinity has not yet been pronounced yet. In fact, the value
of ECe was not different and averaged around 0.25 dS/m which is still a low value. The soil
type has also played an important role. As it is a sandy soil, and olive trees have not yet
developed a strong root system, the salt was not taken up but rather fast moved below the
soil rootzone.
This can be demonstrated by looking the results observed in term of sodicity. In fact
for T1 the sodium value decreases over the irrigation season expect for July 2020. This is
due to the high evapotranspiration demand and the amount of supplied water was higher
compared to the remained period. It then decreased at the end of the irrigation season even
if not significantly because the sodium is a cation and it gets adsorbed to the solid particles
of the soil. Thus, the amount of TWW could have influenced the lateral infiltration or drainage
flux compared to the other treatments.
3.6.3. Sodium
0.300
a a
Sodium concentration (g/kg)
a a
0.200 a
ab
b b
b
0.100
b
b b
0.000
Figure 19. Average evolution of Sodium concentration in soil throughout the experiment
For Sodium (Figure 19), both treatment TWW+SIM+nozzles and TWW+Nozzles

recorded maximum values (0.191g/kg and 0.263 g/kg respectively) at the end of the
experiment. While treatment FW+NOZZLES recorded the lowest value which was equal to
0.113 g/kg.
For the TWW+SIM treatment where SIM is used, the sodium concentration is lower
than in TWW due to the amount of water used for irrigation, which is 12% lower than in
TWW. These results can be explained by the fact that the high sodium content in the
wastewater showed considerable increases throughout the soil profile compared to
untreated soil conditions (Herpin et al., 2007). However, it shows at end of the irrigation
46
season the sodium decreases for T1 compared to the same treatment T2, but not using the
SIM technology.
Statistical analysis of soil sodium content showed that there was a significant
difference in March and July 2020, between treatment irrigated with fresh water (TWW+SIM
and TWW) and treatment irrigated with treated wastewater (FW+NOZZLES and
FW+DRIPPERS) (p = 0.002) but there is no difference between the two irrigation systems.
3.6.4. Nitrogen
0.500
0.375
Nitrogen concentration (g/kg)
0.250
0.125
0.000
Figure 20. Average evolution of Nitrogen content in soil throughout the experiment
According to the graphic in Figure 20, nitrate concentrations in the soil increased in all
treatments from November 2019 to July 2020. For the TWW+SIM and TWW treatments,
the increase is because the treated wastewater is basically nitrogen-rich compared to the
fresh water. For fresh water, Ammonitrate was added as a fertilizer in month of March, April
and July 2020. The decrease in concentration in September 2020 is due to the nitrification
of ammonium in nitrate that added to the available nitrate supplies that were assimilated by
the trees. This confirms the results obtained from the leaf analysis. This means that the
TWW allowed to uptake nitrate efficiently and reduce drainage fluxes where the nitrate is
present as it moves with water.
Statistical analysis of the September 2020 data revealed a non-significant difference

between the four treatments used (p = 0.752) due to the small variations of nitrogen values
among the four treatments and the short observation olive response.
From a general point of view, the largest accumulation of soil nitrogen between
November 2019 and September 2020 was recorded by TWW+SIM, with an increase of
0.067 g/kg, as opposed to Fresh Water + Nozzles and TWW, which showed no difference
over the same period.
47
TWW irrigation has contributed to supply nitrogen overtime compared to the FW where
the fertigation was done only at specific periods. Overall, this fertilizer strategy has not
differentiated the nitrogen concentrations among the four treatments at the end of the
irrigation season.
3.6.5. Phosphorus
180.00
a a
Phosphorus concentration (mg/kg)
ab
120.00
ab
b
b
60.00 b b
0.00
Figure 21. Average evolution of Phosphorus content in soil throughout the experiment
Statistical analysis of the phosphorus concentration during the month of September

showed no significant differences between the four treatments (p = 0.245). Unlike the month
of March where there is a high significant difference (p = 0.000) between treatments using
nozzles (TWW+SIM, TWW and FW+Nozzles) and the treatment using drippers in the
irrigation system.
It is noted that treatments FW+Drippers showed an increase from 58.98 mg/kg in

November to 159.18 mg/kg in March. Moreover, it is the same for treatment FW+Nozzles,
which shows a great increase in soil phosphorus content from March 2020 to July 2020
(Figure 21).
These high values of phosphorus concentration for these two treatments can be
explained by the addition of phosphoric acid as a fertilizer to fresh water at the beginning of
the vegetative development stage of the olive trees because phosphoric acid is a major
element for the plant and promotes its growth (Ferreira et al., 2018).
pH trend has also a relevant role to solubilize P (Wang et al., 2007; Veneklaas et al.,
2003) and/or develops cluster roots which provide enhanced zones for P uptake In olive,
studies showing a positive response of the tree to P fertilizers are practically non-existent
(Freeman and Carlson, 2005; Gregoriou and El-Kholy, 2010; Fernández-Escobar et al.,
48
2017). The absence of response may be due to the very low amount of P removed in harvest
(Rodrigues et al., 2012; Fernández-Escobar et al., 2017).
Instead, soil P mobility is very low, and most P uptake occurs by root interception
(Marschner, 1995). Therefore, P fertigation improves P availability and enhances the plants’
potential to take up P rapidly when required (Zipori et al., 2013). Thus, TWW application
contributes to providing a soluble source of P. (Zipori et al., 2020).
3.6.6. Potassium
0.150
Potassium concentration (g/kg)
0.100
0.050
0.000
Figure 22. Average evolution of Potassium content in soil throughout the experiment
Regarding soil Potassium concentration, statistical analysis shows that there is no

significant difference between the four treatments (p = 0.151). In general, it can be
concluded that there was a decrease followed by a slight increase for all treatments except
for treatment FW+Nozzles where the concentration of potassium in the soil continues to
decrease (Figure 22).
These results can be explained by the fact that in the vegetative development stage,
the olive trees consume potassium in a higher way than the other stages (Heidarpour et al.,
2007; Petousi et al., 2015). It can also be added that the FW+Nozzles treatment is the best
treatment that ensures a good assimilation of potassium.
Soil application of a large quantity of fertilizer containing K was shown to be

responsible for major yield increases in olive orchards that had previously been seriously K
deficient (Hartmann et al., 1986). Thus, TWW contributed to K fertilization.
Zipori et al. (2015) also found an increase in K uptake with increasing irrigation level.
K mobility and availability for plant uptake is higher under fertigation compared to broadcast
application (Neilsen et al., 1999). However, this elevated uptake cannot be attributed solely
49
to the increase in soil K availability resulting from higher K translocation from the adsorbing
complex into the soil solution, as uptake of K from foliar application also depends on water
availability (Restrepo-Diaz et al., 2008). Although K is considered to have an important role
in plant water balance and carbohydrate assimilation in olives (Arquero et al., 2006; Erel et
al., 2014). Erel et al. (2014) found no correlation between K levels and drought tolerance,
including stomatal control mechanisms. It can observed by looking at Figure 22 that T1
provided a better K level in the soil compared to the other treatments because the variation
of K values was in the same range overtime.
Besides The elevated microbiological activity transforms organic P into mineral P. The
actual contribution of TWW to olive nutrition is site-specific, depending on the actual
concentrations of the individual minerals in the water and the amount of water irrigated.
However, continuous irrigation with TWW might impair the soil’s physical properties (Ayoub
et al., 2016) and measures, such as enrichment with Ca ions by liming should be
considered.
3.6.7. Calcium
Regarding the Calcium content, the statistical analysis showed that there is no
significant difference between the four treatments (p = 0.725).
According to the Figure 23, it can be seen that in September 2020, treatment using
irrigation with treated wastewater (TWW+SIM and TWW) recorded slightly higher value of
calcium content which is equal to 8.433 g/kg and 8.371 g/kg respectively followed by FW
and Drippers and finally FW using Nozzles.
10.000
8.000
Calcium concentration (g/kg)
6.000
4.000
2.000
0.000
Figure 23. Average evolution of Calcium content in soil throughout the experiment
From these results it can be concluded that the Calcium content of the soil increases
as the salinity level increases, this may be due to the blockage of calcium assimilation by
50
the plant caused by the salinity, so there is an accumulation of calcium in the soil which
causes high salinity. It can therefore also affect the absorption of elements, including
Calcium, from the soil (Kent and Läuchli, 1985).
Ca2+ supply in the irrigation water probably had a positive effect on protection of the
cell wall and regulated the selectivity of ionic uptake under a short TWW irrigation
management.
3.6.8. Magnesium
0.400
a ab
ab
Magnesium concentration (g/kg)
0.300 b
0.200
0.100
0.000
Figure 24. Average evolution of Magnesium content in soil throughout the experiment
For the magnesium concentration, no significant difference between the treatments is

noticeable in September 2020 (p = 0.678). Comparing November 2019 to September 2020,
all treatments recorded a decrease in soil magnesium concentration, except for treatment
TWW + Nozzles, which had a slight increase in September 2020. The final concentrations
recorded were 0.315 g/kg, 0.325 g/kg, 0.273 g/kg and 0.290 g/kg for treatments TWW+SIM,
TWW, FW+Nozzles and FW+Dippers respectively at the end of the experiment (Figure 24).
The Magnesium is, together with Nitrogen, the essential component of the chlorophyll
nucleus. In general, the amount of magnesium absorbed is 4 to 5 times less than that of
potassium. It is also less easily absorbed by the roots than potassium (Grunes and Welch
1989, Jakobsen 1993).
The competition between Mg2+ and K+ is also expressed in the transfers within the
plant. The Mg2+ content of the leaves decreases when potassium absorption increases
(Grunes and Welch 1989, Mulder and Bakema 1956).
Overall, the short TWW period affected the soil characteristics in terms of pH,
phosphorus and ECe showing that the amount of water plays an important role. Therefore,
51
it is relevant to decide how much water should be supplied to the olive because the soil-
water-plant interactions influence the availability of nutrients and salinity level.
Thus, use technologies designed to optimize the TWW irrigation management and
improve water efficiency such as SIM and innovative nozzles, respectively can contribute
to enhance water and nutrient uptake.
3.7. Cost Benefit Analysis
In order to evaluate the economic viability and performance of the different

technologies endorsed in this research, a cost benefit analysis was performed for the
different scenarios over the lifetime of the project (30 years).
3.7.1. Reference case
The focus of this research is to introduce innovative technologies in the cultivation of

olive trees. In our case, this translates to the use of nozzles and the SIM software which are
both destined mainly to be used with treated wastewater. As such, it would be appropriate
that the starting point is also on a technically high level (drip irrigation with a proper irrigation
and fertilization scheduling) instead of a rainfed base scenario.
3.7.2. Estimation of the costs and benefits
The estimation of the costs and benefits of the project was done based on the actual
counterparts recorded on the field. These effects were then scaled up to 1 hectare to allow
for better comparisons.
The specific costs related to the adoption of the different technologies and the
associated practices are detailed in the Annexe 3. They can be distinguished in investment
costs, operation and maintenance.
The benefits are mainly due to savings (on water and fertilizer costs) and yield
increase. As for the savings on water and fertilizers costs from the using of treated
wastewater and nozzles and the SIM software, they were extrapolated from the field study.
The benefits related directly to the yield income were estimated using the yield increase
percentages mentioned before. As a measure of precaution and to be protected from the
results, the sensitivity analysis will test the economic performance of the projects using
different yield increase rates.
3.7.3. Financial Analysis
The three scenarios, T1, T2 and T3 were compared to the base scenario, T4. The cost
benefit analysis done for the three scenarios is detailed in Annexe 4.
3.7.3.1. Scenario 1
52
This scenario concerns the irrigation practices. The use of the irrigation model SIM
could allow for further water savings. In fact, during the experiment, the treatment T1 used
12% less water than treatment T2 and no significant differences were observed on any of
the studied parameters. However, the decrease in water quantity used for irrigation would
mean a slight increase in the fertilizers needed. The fertilizers cost increase was evaluated
at 4.5% for the duration of the project.
The rationale behind using the SIM software is to optimize the irrigation using treated
wastewater based on the soil balance. The yield increase could not be determined this year
as the trees are not in full production yet. A fixed value of 12% increase was considered for
this scenario.
The next table (Table 18) shows the financial analysis results.
Table 18. CBA results for scenario 1 using TWW, nozzles and SIM
NPV € 45,438
BCR -1.53
IRR 48.50%
The results of the CBA are favorable as the NPV is positive and shows a value of more
than € 45,000 throughout the project lifetime (30 years). This means that the investment
could bring additional benefits.
The benefit to cost ratio (BCR) is negative and this can be explained by the fact that
the costs decreased and summed to a cumulative negative value whereas the benefits
increased and summed to a positive value. The value of -1.53 means that thanks to the
project, the costs would generally decrease (as we have cost savings) and the benefits
obtained would be equal to 1.53 for each unit of cost saved.
The IRR shows a value of 48.50% indicating a growth and the profitability of the
project.
3.7.3.2. Scenario 2
In this scenario, the use of treated wastewater in irrigation along with the nozzles is
evaluated. This treatment (equivalent to T2) allows for important savings not only on the
water costs, as the treated wastewater costs less than the freshwater (€ 0.10/m3 compared
to € 0.14/m3), but also on the fertilizers costs. In fact, it actually covers all the need for the
plants in terms of nitrogen and potassium. However, the phosphorus content of this
resource is low, and will not be able to cover the needs of adult trees in full production. For
the scenarios 1 and 2 using treated wastewater, we suppose the addition of phosphorus to
the solution starting from the sixth year of cultivation.
As mentioned by the manufacturer, the potential yield increase for using the nozzles
along with treated wastewater is taken to be 10%. The CBA results are given in the following
table:
53
Table 19. CBA results for scenario 2 using TWW and nozzles
NPV € 42,032
BCR -1.47
IRR 46.27%
The analysis of shows a very important increase in the NPV value at the end of the
project. This is a result of the benefits increase and the cost savings associated with this
treatment. The value is positive indicating a favorable investment.
The value of the BCR in this case is negative and this is because there are significant
cost savings and increased benefits at the same time. The value of -1.47 indicates that not
only this project will save money but also for each unit of cost saved a benefit of 1.47 is
gained.
The IRR shows a value of 46.27%. It is higher than the interest rate fixed thus making
the project profitable.
3.7.3.3. Scenario 3
The use of the nozzles in treatment T3 using freshwater would generate an increase
in the cost only equal to the difference between the nozzles cost and that of the drippers.
The nozzles are supposed to have a high application efficiency even when used with treated
wastewater. This is actually one of the technology’s strongest attributes. As such, no
additional water costs were taken into consideration compared to the base scenario
(localized irrigation has also a very high application efficiency). Similarly for the base
scenario, this treatment uses the same water quality for irrigation and the same amounts of
fertilizers were applied too, thus no costs savings were generated at this level either.
As explained before, no cost savings are expected in this scenario. The benefits were
only due to the yield increase previously fixed at 5%.
The CBA of adopting the nozzles in olive irrigation shows the following results:
Table 20. CBA results for scenario 3 using FW and nozzles
NPV € 3,348
BCR 8.90
IRR 19.41%
The NPV of the investment is positive showing that the project is beneficial at the end
of its lifetime. The value of € 3,348 means that the investment in the nozzle would bring this
additional benefit compared to the base scenario.
The BCR is 8.90 shows a very important benefit to cost ratio as the benefits from the
investment are 8.90 times higher than the costs. This is also a positive indicator encouraging
the use of this technology.
The IRR of this investment is equal to 19.41% which is higher than the 5% interest
rate fixed for the project.
54
3.7.4. Sensitivity analysis
A sensitivity analysis also known as a What-If analysis or a What-If simulation

exercise, is commonly used in economics to predict the effect of changing certain input
variables on target variables. In other words, the impact on project outcomes when one or
more uncertain key input factor changes.
Two factors were selected for this analysis. The first is the yield increase related to
each treatment as the exact values were not determined in the experiment. This will allow
a better understanding of the feasibility of the project and determine some critical values for
the use of the innovative technology and practices. The second factor is the interest rate,
and this is an important factor since the Moroccan government adopted a new vision to
encourage youth entrepreneurship through a set of new measures including significantly
lower interest rates and advisory committees to guide young entrepreneurs and help them
succeed. It is also a crucial factor to keep in mind because the world’s economies are facing
uncertain futures due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and most countries expected to face
recessions at least on the short term. This could mean that the cost of the capital may not
remain stable and could know some change depending on the country’s economic recovery
(World Bank, 2020).
3.7.4.1. Uncertainty of interest rate
Interest rate sensitivity is a measure of the fluctuations of the price of a fixed-income

asset resulting from changes in the interest rate. The analysis was done for each of the
three scenarios and the results are shown next.
For the scenario 1 and 2 using treated wastewater, the NPV values are positive at the
end of the lifetime, meaning that the projects are cost effective. The BCR remains negative
as the investment keeps making costs savings even at higher interest rates, indicating that
the project can still be feasible. The benefits gained per unit cost saved decrease from 1.55
at an interest rate of 1% to 1.48 at 15% for scenario 1 and from 1.48 to 1.43 for scenario 2.
Table 21. Sensitivity analysis results for interest rates (Scenario 1)
1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 8% 10% 15%
NPV (€) 77,350 66,980 58,437 51,353 45,438 32,687 26,986 18,070
BCR -1.55 -1.54 -1.54 -1.53 -1.53 -1.51 -1.50 -1.48
1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 8% 10% 15%
NPV (€) 71,501 61,927 54,038 47,495 42,032 30,251 24,982 16,737
BCR -1.48 -1.48 -1.48 -1.47 -1.47 -1.46 -1.45 -1.43
Even with the increase in the interest rates, scenario 3 has a positive NPV indicating
positive benefits over the project lifetime. The BCR is also > 1 at all the scenarios which
55
means that the project is still worth the investment even if the ratio goes from 11.33 at 1%
to 4.84 with an interest rate of 15%.
1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 8% 10% 15%
NPV (€) 6,079 5,189 4,457 3,852 3,348 2,270 1,793 1,059
BCR 11.33 10.68 10.06 9.46 8.90 7.38 6.52 4.84
3.7.4.2. Uncertainty of yield increase
Since the exact yield increases due to each treatment are uncertain, this analysis
would take into account the effect of the different potential yield increases on the economic
viability of the investment.
The following table (Table 24) shows the impacts of the yield increase for the first
scenario. The project costs in the scenario 3 are not very different from the base scenario
and are due mainly to the cost of the nozzles which is a little higher than that of the drippers.
This is reflected by the analysis that showed that an increase of only 0.6% of the yield is
enough to cover for the costs of switching from the drippers to the nozzles using freshwater
as a source of irrigation.
As one would expect, the increase in the yield and thus the revenue has an important
positive effect on the financial indicators. The NPV continues to increase from € 3,348 to €
7,121 when the yield increase percentage doubles from 5% to 10%. The BCR also doubles
over the same range indicating that the investment becomes more cost effective as the yield
increases rate becomes more important. The returns also increase from 19.41% at 5% yield
increase to 21.57% at 10%.
Table 24. Sensitivity analysis results for yield increases (Scenario 3)
Yield increase 0.6% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10%

NPV (€) 29 3,348 4,103 4,857 5,612 6,367 7,121
BCR 1.07 8.90 10.67 12.45 14.23 16.01 17.79
IRR 17.33% 19.41% 19.86% 20.30% 20.73% 21.15% 21.57%
For the scenarios 1 and 2, the analysis is a little different as the scenarios include
important costs savings thus making them negative. In fact, using treated wastewater would
mean paying less for the water resource itself and little to none in fertilizers costs. This
means that on most years, the costs for the project would be negative (compared to the
base scenario) and the sum over the project lifetime is also negative. The following tables
(Tables 25 and 26) show the results for using treated wastewater with nozzles without and
with SIM (scenario 2 and 1, respectively).
According to the folliwing table (Table 25), even with decreases in the yield, the project
is still financially feasible. In fact, even at a decrease of almost half the yield (45%) the NPV
is still positive indicating that the project can still bring benefits after the investment.
56

Yield
-46% -23% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10%
increase
NPV (€) - 221 17,133 38,259 39,014 39,768 40,523 41,277 42,032
BCR 1.01 -0.01 -1.25 -1.29 -1.34 -1.38 -1.42 -1.47
IRR 23.78% 34.81% 44.72% 45.03% 45.35% 45.66% 45.96% 46.27%
Based on these results, three intervals of yield increase can be distinguished:
 Yield decrease greater than 46%: The NPV is negative indicating that the
project is not able to cover the costs and would be losing money. The BCR will
also continue to increase beyond the value of one. Since the costs are
negative, this means that the we will be losing more than 1 unit of benefits for
1 unit of costs saved, also pointing that the project is not feasible and should
not be conducted.
 Yield decrease between 23 and 46%: The NPV will continue to increase from
zero to € 17,133. This means that the project will start making money. The
BCR will also decrease from one to zero. Given that the costs are still negative,
this means that one unit of costs saved corresponds to a value (between zero
and 1) of benefits lost. This project can be considered cost effective and should
be pushed forward.
 At yield increase rates or yield decrease less than 23%, the NPV is positive
and the BCR is lower than -1. This means that the project would allow making
benefits and saving costs at the same time. The value is less than one meaning
that one unit of costs saved can generate benefits even higher than.
The same logic can be used to explain the results obtained for scenario 1. The
following table sums up the financial indicators for the different yield increase values that
can be associated with Scenario 1.
Yield
-48% -24% 10% 11% 12% 13% 14% 15%
Increase
NPV (€) 167 18,276 43,929 44,684 45,438 46,193 46,947 47,702
BCR 0.99 -0.02 -1.44 -1.49 -1.53 -1.57 -1.61 -1.65
IRR 24.72% 36.17% 47.89% 48.20% 48.50% 48.80% 49.09% 49.39%
Similarly, three intervals can be distinguished for scenario 3. The project can still be
profitable even with yield decreases up to 48%. The project starts making ‘positive’ benefits
starting from a yield decrease of 24%.
3.7.5. Conclusions of the CBA
Using nozzles instead of drippers can be an important decision and a very profitable
one even in the case of freshwater. This is due mainly to the fact that the price difference is
not significant and as shown by the financial analysis, an increase of 0.6% of the yield is
enough to cover the costs of investing in the technology. Of course, more studies should be
57
done on the actual yield increase, but if the yield increases prove to be important then this
investment will be interesting.
As expected, the use of treated wastewater for irrigation would be very profitable
because it reduces the costs for water and the fertilizers drastically and the results of the
analysis are extremely encouraging.
Of course, this result is partly determined by the different price for fresh and
wastewater in the case study area. There are many criteria considered for the pricing of
treated wastewater, one of which is the technology used for treatment. In the city of Agadir
(L’Mzar station), the process used is an infiltration percolation on sand (Annexe 1) and it
allows for a lower pricing compared to stations using other technologies such as activated
sludge. As we mentioned before, the two main factors affecting the financial viability of the
project are the irrigation requirements and the additional investment either to treat the
wastewater further to be used in irrigation or to bring it to the crops (Galvis et al., 2018).
However, in our case, the treated wastewater inlet was located on the plot and no costs for
the treatments or additional infrastructure was considered thus cutting a very important part
of the costs and driving the possible benefits from the investment to be very high.
Nonetheless, even if the infrastructure investments were to be high, the use of treated
wastewater for olives irrigation can be a very promising alternative especially with public
subsidies to help protect freshwater resources.
The use of the SIM model did not bring important benefits even when the water saved
was 12% compared to scenario 2 due to the TWW short-term assessment. This is mainly
because of the additional fertilization that should be added. However, as the olive trees
were still young, the exact yield increase due to the use of the SIM model was not valuable.
The potential high yield increases when using the SIM model for treated wastewater
irrigation scheduling, could make its impacts much more pronounced. In fact, the fertilizers
and water savings are not very different between the treatment using the SIM model and
the treatment that is not. As the trees grow and require greater amounts in irrigation water,
this difference would also grow and the cost of the additional fertilizer will be higher. The
optimal balance between the water savings and the fertilizers savings should be further
investigated and the decision-making should take into consideration the effects of using the
SIM model on the soil and as a result on the plant on the one hand, and the economic
repercussions on the other.
Switching to treated wastewater for irrigation instead of freshwater will not only
generate additional benefits for the farmer; thanks to the cost savings; but also huge social
and environmental impacts. In a recent study in the region, Oubelkacem et al. (2020)
indicated that with the right public subsidies, 59% of the land occupied by the most cultivated
citrus varieties in the region (more than 32.000 ha) would be converted to TWW irrigation.
With an average of 3580 m3/hectare, this would mean saving more than 67 million cubic
meter of freshwater yearly that would tend to the more concerning human needs.
The effect of using treated wastewater on the soil was not taken into account in the
simulation. In fact, the salts accumulations and the changes to the soil would eventually
lead to negative impacts on the tree and consequently on the yield.
58
Conclusions and Recommendations
Morocco, just like the neighboring Mediterranean countries, is facing a number of

challenges in the water resources management. As the water demand tends to increase
and the irregularity of precipitations becomes more acute, alternative and unconventional
water resources have been considered to help mitigate these effects. Wastewater is one of
the most considerations even though only 25% of the wastewater production in Morocco
was treated and an even smaller portion (11%) was reused.
Social acceptance, potential risks to the health (possible contaminations), to soil

(damage to the structure and physico-chemical properties), technical (i.e. irrigation
management) and environment (e.g. groundwater contamination) issues are among the
main limiting factors of treated wastewater reuse in agriculture.
The present research introduced an innovative technology (nozzles) and practice

(SIM) to tackle some of the most important issues related to TWW irrigation. The nozzles
were used as a solution for the problematic clogging typical of the standard drippers when
used with low quality water and the SIM model was used as an innovative management tool
for the TWW irrigation with a focus on the assessment of the effects on the soil.
The field study results show that after one year of irrigation with the nozzles, the
vegetative growth of the olive trees was similar regardless of the irrigation device used. This
was also confirmed by the photosynthesis rate measurements and leaf analysis. However,
the nozzles showed a superior distribution uniformity compared to drippers. The nozzles
also required a yield increase of only 0.6% to be financially viable which is barely significant
compared to the potential yield increase it could bring. Regarding the effects on the soil, the
nozzles performed similarly to the drippers for all of the elements considered in the study.
However, the effects of using treated wastewater could not always be quantified on
the short term. Actually, at the end of this experiment, the olive trees were comparable to
their freshwater irrigated counterparts on all of the agronomic aspects. The soil however
reacted differently as its alkalinity stayed more or less the same using TWW but witnessed
a decrease for the FW treatments. The ECe was generally higher for TWW compared to
FW with an upward trend for both. The P availability was also affected in this case study,
as the TWW averaged fewer quantities because of the low phosphorus concentration in the
TWW of the region.
As no additional constructions and infrastructure investments were needed for the

TWW, it did extremely well in the financial analysis. In fact, these costs could be very
important and are crucial for the financial viability or related projects (Galvis et al., 2018).
The results show that using TWW for olive irrigation will not only bring very important
benefits to the farmer but also save costs in doing so. Moreover, the sensitivity analysis
indicates that the project would survive yield decreases higher than 45%.
The use of the SIM for the irrigation management resulted in 12% water savings
compared to the standard management. A difference this significant can be a crucial factor
later in the project when the irrigation requirements become much higher. However, based
59
on the fertilizers cost in this case study, the fertilizing value lost in this economy (elements
contained in the 12% difference) is higher than the costs saved. As such, further studies of
the impacts on the soil and the plant should be carried out and an optimal balance between
the costs saved, the benefits lost and the environmental impacts has to be reached.
To conclude, the freshwater situation is getting worse in many regions of the

Mediterranean basin and particularly in the Souss Massa region. Understanding the impacts
of TWW irrigation and having the tools to manage it is a crucial part in adapting to this
situation. As such, a long-term study of the impacts of using this water resource is
mandatory to draw solid conclusions and further help on the decision-making.
60
References
References
2030 WRG (2009). Charting our water future: Economic frameworks to inform decision-making. 2030
Water Resources Group. (PDF)
Abbas S.T., Sarfraz M., Mehdi S.M., Hassan G. and Obaid-Ur-Rehman (2007).Trace elements
accumulation in soil and rice plants irrigated with the contaminated water.Soil and Tillage Research,
94(2): 503–509.doi:10.1016/j.still.2006.10.004
ABHSM (2006). Etude de révision du plan directeur d’aménagement intégré des ressources en eau
(PDAIRE) des bassins du Souss-Massa. Volume 10: Demande en eau agricole. Agadir: Agence du
bassin hydraulique de Souss-Massa.
ABHSM (2011). Ressources en Eau à Souss Massa Draa. Agadir: Agence du bassin hydraulique de
Souss-Massa. (PDF)
ABHSM (2013). Projet du plan directeur d’aménagement intégré des ressources en eau des bassins
du Souss Massa. Agadir: Agence du bassin hydraulique de Souss-Massa.
ABHSM (2016). Ministère de l'Equipement, du Transport, de la Logistique et de l'Eau, Département

de l’eau, Ressources en eau, Agence du bassin hydraulique du Souss-Massa.
http://www.water.gov.ma/ressources-en-eau/agence-de-bassins-hydrauliques-abh/abh-souss-
massa/
AFSSA (2008). Réutilisation des eaux usées traitées pour l’arrosage ou l’irrigation. Paris: Agence
française de sécurité sanitaire des aliments.
Ahmed M., Muhammad A., Hirani A.H. and Mustazar N.A. (2012). Modeling for agricultural
sustainability: A review. In: Bhullar G. and Bhullar N. (eds). Agricultural Sustainability. Saint Louis:
Elsevier Science.
Ait Hmida A. (2010). Rentabilité de l'olivier en modes de production intensif et super-intensif dans le
Haouz au Maroc. New Medit, 9(1): 31-34.
Allen R., Pereira L.S., Raes D. and Smith M. (1998). Crop evapotranspiration - Guidelines for
computing crop water requirements. Rome: Fao. Fao Irrigation and Drainage paper, 56.
Arquero O., Diego B. and Benlloch M. (2006). Potassium starvation increases stomatal conductance
in olive trees. HortScience, 41(2). doi:10.21273/HORTSCI.41.2.433
ASABE (2014). Design and installation of microirrigation systems. St. Joseph: American Society of
Agricultural and Biological Engineers.
Asano T. and Levine A.D. (1998). Wastewater reclamation, recycling, and reuse: an introduction. In:
Asano, T. (ed.) Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse. Lancaster: Technomic Publishing Company,
pp. 1–56. Water quality management library, 10.
Ayers R.S. and Westcot D.W. (1994). Water quality for agriculture. Rome: FAO. Fao Irrigation and
Drainage paper, 29. Reprint of 1989 ed.
61
References
Ayoub S., Al-Shdiefat S., Rawashdeh H. and Bashabseh I. (2016). Utilization of reclaimed
wastewater for olive irrigation: Effect on soil properties, tree growth, yield and oil content. Agricultural
Water Management, 176 : 163-169. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2016.05.035
Aziz F. and Farissi M. (2014). Reuse of treated wastewater in agriculture: Solving water deficit
problems in arid areas (review). Annals of West University of Timişoara, ser. Biology, XVII(2): 95-
110.
Bader B., Aissaoui F., Kmicha I., Ben Salema A., Chehab H., Gargouri K., Boujnah D. and Chaiebb
M. (2015). Effects of salinity stress on water desalination, olive tree (Olea europaea L. cvs ‘Picholine’,
‘Meski’ and ‘Ascolana’) growth and ion accumulation. Desalination, 364: 46-52.
doi:10.1016/j.desal.2015.01.002
Becerra-Castro C., Lopes A. R., Vaz-Moreira I., Silva E. F., Manaia C. M. and Nunes O.
C. (2015). Wastewater reuse in irrigation: a microbiological perspective on implications in
soil fertility and human and environmental health. Environment International, 75: 117-135.
doi:10.1016/j.envint.2014.11.001
Bedbabis S., Ferrara G., Ben Rouina B. and Boukhris, M. (2010). Effects of irrigation with treated
wastewater on olive tree growth: yield and leaf mineral elements at short term. Scientia Horticulturae,
126 (3): 345–350. doi:10.1016/j.scienta.2010.07.020
Ben Mimoun M., Gharb M., Latiri K. and Hellali R. (2004). Foliar potassium application on olive tree.
Submitted to: IPI regional workshop on Potassium and Fertigation development in West Asia and
North Africa, Rabat/Morocco, November 24-28.
Benlloch M., Arboleda F., Diego B. and Fernandez-Escobar R. (1990). Response of young olive trees
to sodium and boron excess in irrigation water. HortScience, 26(7): 867-870.
Boardman A.E. (2011). Cost-benefit analysis: concepts and practice. London: Prentice Hall.
Bouchaou L., Tagma T., Boutaleb S., Hssaisoune M. and El Morjani Z.A., (2011). Climate change
and its impacts on groundwater resources in Morocco : the case of the Souss- Massa basin. In:
Treidel H., Martin-Bordes J.L and Gurdak J.J.(eds). Climate Change Effetcs On Groundwater
Ressources, pp. 129–144. Leiden: CRC Press/Balkema.
Broadbridge P. and White I. (1988). Constant rate rainfall infiltration: A versatile nonlinear modeld:
Analytical solution. Water Resources Research, 24: 145-154. doi:10.1029/WR024i001p00145
Bustan A., Avni A., Yermiyahi U., Ben-Gal A., Riov J., Erel R., Zipori I. and Dag A. (2013). Interactions
between fruit load and macroelement concentrations in fertigated olive (Olea europea L.) trees under
arid saline conditions. Scientia Horticulturae, 152: 44–55. doi:10.1016/j.scienta.2013.01.013
Carr M.K.V. (2013). The water relations and irrigation requirements of olive (Olea europaea L.): a
review. Experimental Agriculture, 49(4): 597–639. doi:10.1017/S0014479713000276
Charfi D., Trigui A. and Medhioub K., (1999). Effect of irrigation with treated wastewater on olive trees
cv. Chemlali of Sfax at the station El Hajeb. Agricultural Water Management, 78: 108–121.
doi:10.17660/ActaHortic.1999.474.80
Chartzoulakis K., (2005). Salinity and olive: Growth, salt tolerance, photosynthesis and yield. Acta
Horticulturae, 888: 97–108.doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2005.04.025
62
References
Chartzoulakis K., (2011). The use of saline water for irrigation of olives: effects on growth, physiology,
yield and oil quality. Acta Horticulturae, 888: 97–108. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2005.04.025
Choukr-Allah R. and Hamdy A. (2005). Best management practices for sustainable reuse of treated
wastewater. In : Hamdy A., El Gamal F., Lamaddalena N., Bogliotti C. and Guelloubi R. (eds). Non-
conventional water use: WASAMED project. Valenzano: CIHEAM Bari, p.191-200. Options
Méditerranéennes, B 53. http://om.ciheam.org/article.php?IDPDF=800762
Choukr-Allah R. (2009). Recyclage des eaux non conventionnelles comme ressources potentielles
d'économie d'eau pour les pays Méditerranéens. AGDUMED. Rabat, Maroc.
Choukr-Allah R. (2012). Perspectives of wastewater reuse in the Mediterranean region. In: Choukr-
Allah R., Ragab R., Rodriguez-Clemente R. (eds) Integrated water resources management in the
Mediterranean region. Heidelberg: Springer, Dordrecht.
Choukr-Allah R., Nghira A., Hirich A. and Bouchaou L. (2016). Water resources master plan for
sustainable sevelopment of the Souss-Massa river basin. In: Choukr‐Allah R., Ragab R., Bouchaou
L., Barceló D. (eds). The Souss‐Massa River basin, Morocco. Cham: Springer. The Handbook of
Environmental Chemistry, 53.
Condom N., Lefebvre M. and Vandome L. (2012). La réutilisation des eaux usées traitées en
méditerranée : retour d’expériences et aide à l’élaboration de projets. Valbonne, France.
Declercq R., Loubier S., Condom N. and Molle B. (2017). Socio‐economic interest of treated
wastewater reuse in agricultural irrigation and indirect potable water reuse: Clermont‐Ferrand and
Cannes case studies' Cost–Benefit Analysis. Irrigation and Drainage, 69(S1): 194-208.
doi:10.1002/ird.2205
DeVincentis A.J., Solis S.S., Bruno E.M., Leavitt A., Gomes A., Rice S. and Zaccaria D. (2020). Using
cost-benefit analysis to understand adoption of winter cover cropping in California’s specialty crop
systems. Journal of Environmental Management, 261: 110205. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110205
Dölek Gencer C., Okatan V. and Korkmaz N. (2019). Olive growing and importance of plant nutrition
in olive cultivars. Turkish Journal of Food and Agriculture Sciences, 1(2): 34-38.
doi:10.14744/turkjfas.2019.007
Drechsel P., Danso G. and Qadir M. (2015). Wastewater Use in Agriculture: Challenges in Assessing
Costs and Benefits. In: Drechsel P., Qadir M., Wichelns D. (eds) Wastewater. Dordrecht: Springer,
pp 139-152.
EC (2014). Guide to Cost-Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects Economic appraisal tool for
Cohesion Policy 2014-2020. Brussels: European Commision.
Erel R., Yermiyahu U., Van Opstal J., Ben-Gal A., Schwartz A. and Dag A. (2013). The importance
of olive (Olea europaea L.) tree nutritional status on its productivity. Scientia Horticulturae, 159: 8-
18. doi:10.1016/j.scienta.2013.04.036
Erel R., Ben-Gel A., Dag A. Schwartz A. and Yermiyahu U. (2014). Sodium replacement of potassium
in physiological processes of olive trees (var. Barnea) as affected by drought. Tree Physiology,
34(10): 1102-1117.
Erel R., Eppel A., Yermiyahu U., Ben-Gal A., Levy G., Zipori I., Schaumann G.E., Mayer O. and Dag
A. (2019). Long-term irrigation with reclaimed wastewater: Implications on nutrient management, soil
63
References
chemistry and olive (Olea europaea L.) performance. Agricultural Water Management, 213: 324-335.
doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2018.10.033
Exall K., Marsalek J. and Schaefer K. (2004). A review on water reuse and recycling, with reference
to Canadian practice and potential : 1. Incentives and implementation – Review article. Water Quality
Research Journal, 39(1): 1-12.doi.org/10.2166/wqrj.2004.003
FAO (2011). Capacity building project on the safe use of wastewater in agriculture. National report
of Morocco Mixt Program FAO/UNW-DPC/UNU-INWEH. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.
FAO (2018). Progress on level of water stress, global baseline for SDG indicator 6.4.2. Rome: Food
and Agriculture Organization.
FAO (2019). Notes sur la taille de l’olivier au Maroc. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization. (PDF)
FAOSTAT (2017). Food and agriculture data. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/
Fars S., Bousselhaj K., Nejmeddine A., Ouazzani N., Laghmari A. and Bouadili A. (2003).
Réutilisation d'une eau résiduaire brute et épurée en agriculture: Disponibilité de l'azote et trois
métaux lourds (Cu, Cd et Cr). Submitted to: Séminaire international: Réutilisation des eaux usées
traitées et des sous-produits de l'épuration: optimisation, valorisation et durabilité, Tunis/Tunisia,
September.
Fernandez J.E. (2006). Irrigation management in olive. Submitted to: Olivebioteq 2006, Marsala/Italy,
November 5-10.
Fernandez-Escobar R. (2010). Fertilization. In: Barranco D., Fernandez-Escobar R. and Rallo L.

(eds). Olive growing. 1st English edition of the 5th revised and enlarged edition of El Cultivo del Olivo.
Kingston: RIRDC.
Fernández-Escobar R. and Jimenez-Moreno M.R. (2017). Influence of nutritional status of

phosphorus on flowering in the olive (Olea europaea L.). Scientia Horticulturae, 223: 1-4. doi:
10.1016/j.scienta.2017.05.028
Ferreira I. Q., Rodrigues M. Â., Moutinho-Pereira J. M., Correia C. M. and Arrobas M. (2018). Olive
tree response to applied phosphorus in field and pot experiments. Scientia Horticulturae, 234: 236-
244.
Freeman M. and Carlson R.M. (2005). Mineral nutrient availability. In: Sibbett G.S., Ferguson L.
(Eds.), Olive Production Manual. Oakland: University of California, pp. 75–82.
Food And Agriculture Organization [on line]. Rome. http://www.fao.org/land-water/databases-and-

software/crop-information/olive/en/. Accessed August 31, 2020.
Galvis A., Jaramillo M.F., van der Steen P. and Gijzen H.J. (2018). Financial aspects of reclaimed
wastewater irrigation in three sugarcane production areas in the Upper Cauca river Basin, Colombia.
Agricultural Water Management, 209: 102-110. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2018.07.019
Grattan SR, Berenguer MJ, Connell JH, Polito VS and Vossen PM. (2006). Olive oil
production as influenced by different quantities of applied water. Agricultural Water
Management, 85: 133-140.doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2006.04.001
Giorgi F., 2006. Climate change hot-spots. Geophysical Research Letters, 33(8).
64
References
Gregoriou C. and El-Kholy M. (2010). Fertilization, in: Olive GAP Manual: Good Agricultural Practices
for the Near East and North Africa Countries. Rome: FAO.
Grunes D. L. and Welch R. M. (1989). Plant contents of magnesium, calcium and potassium in
relation to ruminant nutrition. Journal of Animal Science, 67(12): 3485-3494.
Guardiola-Claramonte M., Sato T., Choukr-Allah R. and Qadir M., (2012). Wastewater production,
treatment and reuse around the Mediterranean region: Current status and main drivers. Integrated
Water Resources Management in the Mediterranean Region, 139-179.
Guillemain L. (2010). La réutilisation des eaux usées: un enjeu majeur de développement

durable. Les enjeux des géosciences. Fiche de synthèse scientifique N° 24.
https://fr.calameo.com/read/0057191213a969f96dcff
Haberman A., Dag A., Shtern N., Zipori I., Erel R., Ben-Gal A. and Yermiyahu U. (2019) Significance
of proper nitrogen fertilization for olive productivity in intensive cultivation. Scientia Horticulturae, 246:
710–717. doi:10.1016/j.scienta.2018.11.055
Hamdy A. and Lacirignola C. (2005). Coping with water scarcity in the Mediterranean: What, Why
and How? In: A. Hamdy and C. Lacirignola. (eds.). Advances in natural and technological hazards
research. Valenzano: Ciheam Bari.
Hartmann H.T., Opitz K.W., Stafford E.M., Allen J.A. and Bentel J.A. (1986). Production
of olive in California. Olivae, 3: 24–66.
Hassan A.R. (2008). Les nations unies et le problème de l’eau dans le monde: essai sur
ONU-EAU. Montreal: Univériste du Québec.
HCP (2014). Recensement Général de la Population et de l'Habitat. Rabat : Haut

Commissariat au Plan.
Hernandez-Sancho F., Lamizana-Diallo B., Mateo-Sagasta J. and Qadir, M. (2015).

Economic Valuation of Wastewater: The cost of action and the cost of no action, Nairobi:
UNEP.
Heidarpour H., Mostafazadeh-Fard B., Abedi Koupai J. and Malekian R., 2007. The
effects of treated wastewater on soil chemical properties using subsurface and surface
irrigation methods. Agricultural Water Management, 90: 87–94.
Herpin U., Gloaguen T. V., da Fonseca A. F., Montes C. R., Mendonça F. C., Piveli R. P.,
Breulmann G., Forti M. C. and Melfi, A. J. (2007). Chemical effects on the soil-plant
system in a secondary treated wastewater irrigated coffee plantation- A pilot field study in
Brazil. Agricultural Water Management, 89, 105 – 115.doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2007.01.001
Hirich A., Choukr-Allah R., Rami A. and El-Otmani M. (2015). Feasibility of using
desalination for irrigation in the Souss Massa region in the south of Morocco. In:
Baawain M., Choudri B.S., Ahmed M. and Purnama A. (eds). Recent progress in
desalination, environmental and marine outfall systems. Cham: Springer, pp. 189-203.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19123-2_13
Huesemann M. and Huesemann, J. (2011). The positive biases of technology assessments and cost
benefit analyses. In: Huesemann M. (ed). Technofix: why technology won’t save us or the
environment. New York: New Society Publishers.
65
References
Hussain I., Raschid L., Hanjra M. A., Marikar F. and van der Hoek W. (2002). Wastewater use in
agriculture: Review of impacts and methodological issues in valuing impacts. Colombo, Sri
Lanka: IWMI.
Jakobsen S. T. (1993). Interaction between plant nutrients: III. Antagonism between

potassium, magnesium and calcium. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica B-Plant Soil
Sciences, 43(1): 1-5.
Jerate K. (1997). Impact de l’irrigation par les eaux usées épurées par infiltration-
percolation et par épuvalisation sur la nutrition minérale chez l’Œillet (Dianthus
Caryophyllus cv. Scarlette) sous serre. Agadir: Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire
Hassan II CHA. Mémoire de fin d’étude.
Jimenez-Moreno M.J. and Fernandez-Escobar R. (2016). Response of young olive plants

(Olea europaea) to phosphorus application. HortScience, 51(9): 1167-1170.
doi:10.21273/HORTSCI11032-16
Kailis S. and Harris D. (2007). Producing table olives. Collingwood: Landlinks Press.
Kent L. M. and Läuchli A. (1985). Germination and seedling growth of cotton: Salinity‐calcium
interactions. Plant, Cell and Environment, 8(2): 155-159.
Kfouri C., Mantovani P. and Jeuland M. (2009). Water reuse in the MNA region: constraints,
experiences, and policy recommendations. In: Jagannathan N.V., Mohamed A.S. and Kreme A.
(eds). Water in the Arab World: Management, perspectives and innovations, pp. 447-478.
Washington: World Bank.
Kihila J., Mtei K.M. and Njau K.N. (2014). Development of a cost-benefit analysis approach for water
reuse in irrigation. International Journal of Environmental Protection and Policy, 2(5): 179-184.
doi:10.11648/j.ijepp.20140205.16
Kiziloglu F. M., Turan M., Sahin U., Angin I., Anapali O. and Okuroglu M. (2007). Effects of
wastewater irrigation on soil and cabbage-plant (Brassica oleracea var. capitate) chemical properties.
Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 170: 166–172.doi:10.1002/jpln.200621971
Lamdaghri S.and M’seffer H.(1996). Effet de la réutilisation de deux types d’eaux usée traitées par
infiltration controlée et par épuvalisation et deux types de goutteurs de l’irrigation localisée : twindrip
et goutteur linéaire sur une culture d’œillet (Dianthuscaryophylluscv.Scarlette) sous serre. Mémoire
de fin d’étude. Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire Hassan II CHA. Agadir. Morocco
Levy G.J., Fine P., Goldstein D., Azenkot A., Zilberman A., Chazan A. and Grinhut T. (2014). Long
term irrigation with treated wastewater (TWW) and soil sodification. Biosystems Engineering, 128: 4-
10. doi:10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2014.05.004
Liu H.L., Yang J.Y., Tan C.S., Drury C.F., Reynold W.D., Zhang T.Q., Bai Y.L., Jin J., He P. and
Hoogenboom G. (2011). Simulating water content, crop yield and nitrate-N loss under free and
controlled tile drainage with subsurface irrigation using the DSSAT model. Agricultural Water
Management, 98(6): 1105-1111. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2011.01.017
Maas E.V. and Hoffman G.J. (1977). Crop salt tolerance - current assessment. Journal of the
Irrigation and Drainage Division, 103(2): 115-134.
66
References
Magesan G.N., Williamson J.C., Yeates G.W. and Lloyd-Jones A.R. (2000). Wastewater C:N ratio
effects on soil hydraulic conductivity and potential mechanisms for recovery. Bioresource
Technology, 71(1): 21-27.doi:10.1016/S0960-8524(99)00054-1
Manabe S. (1969). Climate and ocean circulation: The atmospheric circulation and the hydrology of
the earth’s surface. Monthly Weather Review, 97: 739-774. doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1969)097
MAPMDREF (2019). L'agriculture Marocaine en chiffres 2018. Maroc: Ministère de l’agriculture, de

la pêche maritime, du développement rural et des eaux et forêts. (PDF)
Marschner H. (1995). Mineral nutrition of higher plants. London: Academic Press.
MEMDE (2011). Stratégie de l’eau. Maroc: Ministère de l’eau des mines et de

l’environnement département de l’environnement. (PDF)
Molinos-Senante M., Hernández-Sancho F. and Sala-Garrido R. (2010). Economic feasibility study

for wastewater treatment: A cost–benefit analysis. Science of the Total Environment, 408: 4396–
4402. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.07.014
Mouhanni H., Bendou A. and Er-Raki S. (2011). Disinfection of Treated Wastewater and its Reuse
in the Irrigation of Golf Grass: The Case of Plant M’zar Agadir-Morocco. Water, 3: 1128-1138.
Moriana A., Orgaz F., Pastor M. and Fereres E. (2003). Yield responses of a mature olive orchard to
water deficits. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 128(3):425-431.
doi:10.21273/JASHS.128.3.0425
Mulder E. G. and Bakema K. (1956). Effect of the nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and magnesium
nutrition of potato plants on the content of free amino-acids and on the amino-acid composition of
the protein of the tubers. Plant and Soil, 135-166.
Nangia V. (2016). Improved on-farm irrigation management for olive growing-A case study from
Morocco. Annals of arid zone, 55(3-4): 147-151.
Navarro C. and Parra M. A. (2010). Planting. In: Barranco D., Fernandez-Escobar R. and Rallo L.
(eds). Olive growing. 1st English edition of the 5th revised and enlarged edition of El Cultivo del Olivo.
Kingston: RIRDC.
Neilsen G., Neilsen D. and Peryea F. (1999). Response of soil and irrigated fruit trees to fertigation
or broadcast application of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. Horttechnology, 9(3): 393–401.
Niang A., Pernollet C.A., Gauthier-Clercb M. and Guillemaina M. (2016). A cost-benefit analysis of
rice field winter flooding for conservation purposes in Camargue, Southern France. Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment, 231: 193–205. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2016.06.018
Nobel P. S. and Cui M. (1992). Hydraulic conductances of the soil, the root-soil air gap, and the root:
changes for desert succulents in drying soil. Journal of Experimental Botany, 43(3): 319-326.
Orgaz F., Testi F., Villalobos, F.J. and Fereres E. (2006). Water requirements of olive orchards-II:
Determination of crop coefficients for irrigation scheduling. Irrigation Science, 24(2) 77-84.
doi:10.1007/s00271-005-0012-x
67
References
Orgaz F. and Fereres E. (2010). Irrigation. In: Barranco D., Fernandez-Escobar R. and Rallo L. (eds).
Olive growing. 1st English edition of the 5th revised and enlarged edition of El Cultivo del Olivo.
Kingston: RIRDC.
Ouarzane S. (1996). Impact de l’irrigation par des eaux usées par infiltration-percolation et par
épuvalisation sur la nutrition minérale d’une culture de melon (Cucumus melo L.) sous serre.
Mémoire de fin d’étude. Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire Hassan II CHA. Agadir. Morocco
Oubelkacem A., (2018). Treated wastewater use on citrus in Morocco: assessing the economic
feasibility of irrigation and nutrient management strategies. Master of Science thesis, CIHEAM.
Mediterranean Agronomic Institute. Bari. Italy.
Oubelkacem A., Scardigno A. and Choukr-Allah R. (2020). Treated wastewater reuse on Citrus in
Morocco: Assessing the economic feasibility of irrigation and nutrient management strategies.
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management. doi:10.1002/ieam.4314
Pescod M.B. (1992). Wastewater treatment and use in agriculture. Rome: Fao. Fao irrigation and
drainage paper, 47.
Petousi I., Fountoulakis M. S., Saru M. L., Nikolaidis N., Fletcher L., Stentiford E. I. and Manios T.
(2015). Effects of reclaimed wastewater irrigation on olive (Olea europaea L. cv. ‘Koroneiki’) trees.
Agricultural Water Management, 160: 33-40.
Petousi I., Daskalakis G., Fountoulakis M. S. and Lydakis D. (2018). Effects of treated wastewater
irrigation on the establishment of young grapevines. Science of The Total Environment, 658: 485-
492. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.065
Ranatunga K., Nation E.R. and Barratt D.G. (2008). Review of soil water models and their
applications in Australia. Environmental Modelling and Software, 23(9): 1182-1206.
doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2008.02.003
Rattan R.K., Datta S.P., Chhonkar P.K., Suribabu K.and Singh A.K. (2005). Long-term
impact of irrigation with sewage effluents on heavy metal content in soils, crops and
groundwater—a case study. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 109: 310–322.
doi:10.1016/j.agee.2005.02.025
Razaq M., Zhang P., Shen H.I. and Salahuddin (2017). Influence of nitrogen and
phosphorous on the growth and root morphology of Acer mono. PLoS ONE, 12(2):
e0171321. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0171321
Restrepo-Diaz H., Benlloch M., Navarro C. and Fernández-Escobar R. (2008). Potassium fertilization
of rainfed olive orchards. Scientia Horticulturae, 116(4): 399-403. doi:10.1016/j.scienta.2008.03.001
Richards L.A. (1931). Capillary conductivity of liquid through porous media. Physics, 1: 318-333.
doi:10.1063/1.1745010
Rodrigues M., Ferreira I.Q, Claro A.M. and Arrobas M. (2012). Fertilizer recommendations for olive
based upon nutrients removed in crop and pruning. Scientia Horticulturae, 142: 205–211.
doi:10.1016/j.scienta.2012.05.024
Rostami S.J (2017). Effects of different boron concentration on the growth and physiological
characteristics of two olive cultivars. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 40(17): 2421-2431.
doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2017.1346680
68
References
Rusan L. and Hinnawi R.S. (2007). Long term effect of wastewater irrigation of forage crops on soil
and plant quality parameters. Desalination, 215: 143–152.doi:10.1016/j.desal.2006.10.032
Schepers J. S., Francis D. D., Vigil M. and Below F. E. (1992). Comparison of corn leaf nitrogen
concentration and chlorophyll meter readings. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis,
23(17-20): 2173-2187.
Solis C., Andrade E., Mireles A., Reyes-Solis I.E., Garcia-Calderon N., Lagunas-Solar M.C., Pina
C.U. and Flocchini R.G. (2005). Distribution of heavy metals in plants cultivated with wastewater
irrigated soils during different periods of time. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research
B, 241: 351–355. doi:10.1016/j.nimb.2005.07.040
Tattini M., (1994). Ionic relations of aeroponically grown olive plants during salt stress. Plant Soil,
161: 251–256. doi:10.1007/BF00046396
Testi L., Villalobos F.J. and Orgaz F. (2004). Evapotranspiration of a young irrigated olive
orchard in southern Spain. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 121 (1-2): 1-18.
doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2003.08.005
Therios I. (2008). Olives. Wallingford: CABI.
Trad Raïs M. and Xanthoulis D. (2006). Rôle de la micro-irrigation dans l’atténuation des risques
sanitaires liés à la réutilisation des eaux usées à des fins agricoles. Vecteur-Environnement, 39: 75-
81.
Tsigoida A. and Argyrokastritis I. (2019). The effect of sub-irrigation with untreated and treated
municipal wastewater on organic matter and nitrogen content in two different soils. Global NEST
Journal, 21(3): 389-398.
US NRC (2012).Water reuse: Potential for expanding the nation's water supply through reuse of
municipal wastewater. Washington: National Academies Press.
Van der Laan M., Stirzakera R.J., Annandalea J.G., Bristowa K.L. and du Perez C.C. (2010).
Monitoring and modelling draining and resident soil water nitrate concentrations to estimate leaching
losses. Agricultural Water Management, 97(11): 1779-1786. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2010.06.012
Veneklaas E., Stevens J.C., Cawthray G. and Turner S. (2003). Chickpea and white lupin rhizosphere
carboxylates vary with soil properties and enhance phosphorus uptake. Plant and Soil, 248(1): 187-
197. doi:10.1023/A:1022367312851
Wang B.L., Shen J.B., Zhang W.H., Zhang F.S. and Neumann G. (2007). Citrate exudation from
white lupin induced by phosphorus deficiency differs from that induced by aluminum. New
Phytologist, 176(3): 581–589. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02206.x
Weis D.S. (2015). Systematic literature review on impacts and indicators for measuring costs and
benefits of water sector related interventions. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1-15.
doi:10.2139/ssrn.3377219
WHO (2012). WHO guidelines for the safe use of sewage, excreta and gray water. Geneva: World
Health Organization.
69
References
World Bank [On line]. The Global economic outlook during the COVID-19 pandemic: A changed
world. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2020/06/08/the-global-economic-outlook-during-
the-covid-19-pandemic-a-changed-world
Wiesman Z., Itzhak D. and Ben-Dom N. (2004). Optimization of saline water level for sustainable
Barnea olive and oil production in desert conditions. Scientia Horticulturae, 100: 257-266.
doi:10.1016/j.scienta.2003.08.020
Xu J., Whu L. Chang A.C. and Zhang Y. (2010). Impact of long-term reclaimed wastewater irrigation
on agricultural soils: A preliminary assessment. Journal of hazardous materials, 183(1-3): 780-6.
doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.07.094
Yadav R.K., Goyal B., Sharma R.K., Dubey S.K. and Minhas P.S. (2002). Post-irrigation impact of
domestic sewage effluent on composition of soils, crops and groundwater—A case study.
Environmental International. 28 (6) :481-6. doi:10.1016/S0160-4120(02)00070-3
Yaqob E., Al-Sayed R., Sorial G. and Suidan M. (2015). Cost-benefit analysis model for treated
wastewater use in agricultural irrigation: four Palestinian case studies. Global Journal for Research
Analysis, 4(12).
Zaragoza C. A., Perea R. G., Garcia I. F., Poyato E. C. and Diaz J. A. R. (2020). Open source
application for optimum irrigation and fertilization using reclaimed water in olive orchards. Computers
and Electronics in Agriculture, 173: 105407.
Zayas I., De Paoli G., Brun F. and Mattheiss V. (2016). Cost-benefit analysis approach suited for
water reuse schemes. http://demoware.eu/en/results/deliverables/deliverable-d4-3-cost-benefit-
analysis-approach-suited-for-water-reuse-schemes.pdf
Zelitch I. (1975). Improving the Efficiency of Photosynthesis. Science, 188(4188): 626-633.
Zipori I., Yermiyahu U., Erel R., Presnov E., Faingold I., Ben-Gal A. and Dag A. (2015). The
influence of irrigation level on olive tree nutritional status. Irrigation Science, 33(4): 277–287.
doi:10.1007/s00271-015-0465-5
Zipori I., Erel R., Yermiyahu U., Ben-gal A. and Dag A. (2020). Sustainable Management of Olive
Orchard Nutrition: A Review. Agriculture, 10(1): 11. doi:10.3390/agriculture10010011
70
Annexes
Annexes
Annexe 1. Wastewater treatment process at the L’Mzar station.
 Geographic location
The site of L’Mzar treatment plant is located approximately 8.5 km south of the city of
Agadir on the coastal dunes L’Mzar. The western boundary of the site is about 1500 m from
the sea (Figure 25).
Figure 25. Location of the L’Mzar treatment plant
The treatment process consists of four successive stages of treatment, which are:
 The pretreatment mode:
The wastewater is collected and transported to the pre-treatment system located in

Souss River; this procedure consists of three main stages:
Screening
The first step of the treatment is the screening. It consists of filtering the wastewater
though a grid, whose bars; more or less spaced; will retain the most voluminous materials
that will be eliminated with household waste (Figure 26).
These are usually equipped with automatic cleaning systems to prevent clogging, the
material retained by the screenings and floating products are pressed to remove the water
before sending to the landfill.
Grit removal
The reduction of flow velocity in the basin allows the decantation of heavy materials
essentially not putrescible (gravel, sand, metal elements), the latter will be recovered by
pumping.
71
Annexes
Figure 26. Water screening process
Degreasing
It is based on the reduction of flow velocity of the water in order to float the fat, this
flotation is accelerated by the injection of air micro-bubbles in the bottom, and the fats are
then scraped on the surface. This technique allows eliminating 80 to 90% of fats and floating
materials (30 to 40% of total fat) (Figure 27).
Figure 27. Grit removal and degreasing
 Primary treatment mode: “Anaerobic decantation”
This process consists, on the one hand in a decantation with a hydraulic retention time
of the effluents equal to 2.5 days, on the other hand, the settling basins are deep enough to
present a large volume reserved for the storage of sludge that undergo anaerobic digestion
within the same decanter (Figure 28).
72
Annexes
Characteristics:
 Treatment capacity : 75 000 m3/day;

 Number of decanters: 13;
 Current flow received by the station: 50 000 m3/day;
 Number of operational settlers: 8;
 Total volume of decanters: 145,000 m3 (for 8 decanters) and 210,000 m3
(for 13 decanters);
 Volume of each decanter: 16,000 m3;
 Abatement of 40% to 60 % of suspended matter (SM), COD et BOD5.
Figure 28. Primary treatment: water decantation
 Secondary treatment mode: “Infiltration percolation on sand massif”
The purification of water by this process consists in slowly percolating the water
through a granular environment, in which an unsaturated flow of water is maintained and in
a sequential feed mode which alternates feeding periods (3 days of successive operation)
and periods of unemployment (2 days of rest) (Figure 29).
Different processes operate in the granular tank:
 Physical mechanisms: retention at the filter surface of almost all suspended solids
in the effluent and bigger pathogenic microorganisms (parasites); the particles are
either blocked at the pores of the sand or fixed by adsorption.
 Biological mechanisms: Oxidation of organic substances and oxidizable nitrogen
dissolved in the effluent during its slow percolation and in the presence of the
gaseous phase oxygen of the filter and degradation of microorganisms (germs)
blocked in pores or adsorbed on the surface of grains.
Characteristics:
 Flow rate to be treated: 30,000 m3/day;
 Number of filters: 24;
 Surface of each filter: 5000 m2 approximately;
 Volume of the tarpaulin (volume received by each filter): 835 m3;
 Reduction of 96 to 99% of SM, COD and BOD5.
73
Annexes
Figure 29. Secondary treatment: sand filter
 Tertiary treatment mode: “UV Rays”
Tertiary treatment adopted in L’Mzar WWTP is ultraviolet disinfection. This technique

consists in reproducing in a suitable reactor ultraviolet rays similar to those emitted by the
sun, but at higher intensity. These ultraviolet rays emit a specific wavelength, attack the
cells of microorganisms and stop the duplication of their DNA (Figure 30).
The micro-organisms are then inactivated, without modifications of the physical-

chemical quality of the treated water. The treatment is carried out in closed reactors, where
the water to be treated passes between lamps that radiate the fluid in a few seconds.
Characteristics:
 Processing capacity: 30,000 m3 / day;

 Number of Pumps: 7 including one emergency;
 Flow rate of each pump: 270 m3 / hour;
 Number of Reactors: 6;
 Capacity of each reactor: 5000m3 / day;
 Lamps
- Number per reactor: 14 low pressure Amalgam lamps.
- Wavelength: 254 nm.
- Exposure dose: 50 mJ / cm2.
- Life time: 16000 hour.
 Contact time: 4 seconds;
 Abatement: <1000 CF per 100ml at the exit.
74
Annexes
This treatment process allows us to achieve significant purification yields:
• COD abatement: 97%;

• BOD5 abatement: 98%;
• MES reduction: 98%;
• CF reduction: 7 U log (with tertiary UV treatment);
• Total reduction of helminth eggs.
Figure 30. UV disinfection system - tertiary treatment
75
Annexes
Annexe 2. p values calculated for the agronomic parameters at each date

p-value
Date Tree height Canopy diameter Shoot growth Trunk diameter
28-Nov 0.933 0.118 - 0.620
15-Jan 0.907 0.140 0.140 0.618
28-Feb 0.859 0.084 0.315 0.505
23-Apr 0.804 0.076 0.354 -
3-Jun 0.922 0.176 0.894 -
7-Jul 0.660 0.252 0.846 0.625
9-Sep 0.698 0.363 0.834 0.435
76
Annexes
Annexe 3. Different project costs for each treatment along the project life
Table 27. Project costs for the treatment T1
Control Installation Total cost

Year Emitter Pipes Filtration Pumps Storage Water Labor Electricity Fertilizer
panel costs (EUR)
1 267 1078 230 276 461 135 1004 180 700 32 0 4364
2 225 700 41 0 965
3 269 700 49 0 1019
4 359 1100 66 0 1525
5 404 1100 107 0 1611
6 134 230 149 584 880 74 185 2236
7 404 1100 107 241 1852
8 584 880 74 185 1722
9 404 1700 107 241 2452
10 584 1360 74 185 2202
11 134 1078 230 276 705 404 1700 107 241 4875
12 584 1360 74 185 2202
13 404 2500 107 241 3252
14 584 2000 74 185 2842
15 404 2500 107 241 3252
16 134 230 461 135 394 584 2000 74 185 4196
17 404 2500 107 241 3252
18 584 2000 74 185 2842
19 404 2500 107 241 3252
20 584 2000 74 185 2842
21 134 1078 230 276 705 404 3000 107 241 6175
22 584 2400 74 185 3242
23 404 3000 107 241 3752
77
Annexes
24 584 2400 74 185 3242

25 404 3000 107 241 3752
26 134 230 149 584 2400 74 185 3756
27 404 3000 107 241 3752
28 584 2400 74 185 3242
29 404 3000 107 241 3752
30 584 2400 74 185 3242
78
Annexes

panel costs (EUR)
1 267 1078 230 276 461 135 1004 206 700 32 0 4390
2 258 700 41 0 999
3 310 700 49 0 1059
4 413 1100 66 0 1578
5 465 1100 107 0 1671
6 134 230 149 671 880 74 178 2316
7 465 1100 107 230 1901
8 671 880 74 178 1802
9 465 1700 107 230 2501
10 671 1360 74 178 2282
11 134 1078 230 276 705 465 1700 107 230 4925
12 671 1360 74 178 2282
13 465 2500 107 230 3301
14 671 2000 74 178 2922
15 465 2500 107 230 3301
16 134 230 461 135 394 671 2000 74 178 4276
17 465 2500 107 230 3301
18 671 2000 74 178 2922
19 465 2500 107 230 3301
20 671 2000 74 178 2922
21 134 1078 230 276 705 465 3000 107 230 6225
22 671 2400 74 178 3322
23 465 3000 107 230 3801
24 671 2400 74 178 3322
79
Annexes
25 465 3000 107 230 3801

26 134 230 149 671 2400 74 178 3836
27 465 3000 107 230 3801
28 671 2400 74 178 3322
29 465 3000 107 230 3801
30 671 2400 74 178 3322
80
Annexes

panel costs (EUR)
1 267 1078 230 276 461 135 1004 276 700 32 166 4626
2 346 700 41 333 1419
3 415 700 49 490 1654
4 553 1100 66 937 2655
5 622 1100 107 1564 3392
6 134 230 149 899 880 74 1044 3410
7 622 1100 107 1392 3220
8 899 880 74 1044 2896
9 622 1700 107 1392 3820
10 899 1360 74 1044 3376
11 134 1078 230 276 705 622 1700 107 1392 6244
12 899 1360 74 1044 3376
13 622 2500 107 1392 4620
14 899 2000 74 1044 4016
15 622 2500 107 1392 4620
16 134 230 461 135 394 899 2000 74 1044 5370
17 622 2500 107 1392 4620
18 899 2000 74 1044 4016
19 622 2500 107 1392 4620
20 899 2000 74 1044 4016
21 134 1078 230 276 705 622 3000 107 1392 7544
22 899 2400 74 1044 4416
23 622 3000 107 1392 5120
24 899 2400 74 1044 4416
81
Annexes
25 622 3000 107 1392 5120

26 134 230 149 899 2400 74 1044 4930
27 622 3000 107 1392 5120
28 899 2400 74 1044 4416
29 622 3000 107 1392 5120
30 899 2400 74 1044 4416
82
Annexes

panel costs (EUR)
1 135 1078 230 276 461 135 950 276 700 32 166 4440
2 346 700 41 333 1419
3 415 700 49 490 1654
4 553 1100 66 937 2655
5 622 1100 107 1564 3392
6 68 230 122 899 880 74 1044 3317
7 622 1100 107 1392 3220
8 899 880 74 1044 2896
9 622 1700 107 1392 3820
10 899 1360 74 1044 3376
11 68 1078 230 276 678 622 1700 107 1392 6151
12 899 1360 74 1044 3376
13 622 2500 107 1392 4620
14 899 2000 74 1044 4016
15 622 2500 107 1392 4620
16 68 230 461 135 366 899 2000 74 1044 5277
17 622 2500 107 1392 4620
18 899 2000 74 1044 4016
19 622 2500 107 1392 4620
20 899 2000 74 1044 4016
21 68 1078 230 276 678 622 3000 107 1392 7451
22 899 2400 74 1044 4416
23 622 3000 107 1392 5120
24 899 2400 74 1044 4416
83
Annexes
25 622 3000 107 1392 5120

26 68 230 122 899 2400 74 1044 4837
27 622 3000 107 1392 5120
28 899 2400 74 1044 4416
29 622 3000 107 1392 5120
30 899 2400 74 1044 4416
84
Annexes
Annexe 4. Cost benefit analysis results

Table 31. CBA results for scenario 1 using TWW, nozzles and the SIM model
Before project After project Incremental
NB1=Discounted Benefit-Discounted
Discounted Benefits before project
Discounted Benefits after project

Discounted costs before project
Discounted costs after projects
NB2=Incremental Benefits-
Benefits after project
Incremental benefits
Costs after project
Incremental costs
Incremental costs
Discount factor
Benefits (€)
costs (€)
years
costs
1 1 0 4,440 0 4,440 -4,440 263 4,364 263 4,364 263 -76 339
2 0.95 0 1,419 0 1,352 -1,352 454 965 432 920 432 -432 864
3 0.91 1,152 1,654 1,045 1,500 -455 1,926 1,019 1,747 924 702 -576 1,278
4 0.86 2,765 2,655 2,388 2,294 95 4,227 1,525 3,652 1,317 1,263 -977 2,240
5 0.82 3,687 3,392 3,033 2,791 242 5,911 1,611 4,863 1,325 1,830 -1,466 3,295
6 0.78 5,069 3,317 3,972 2,599 1,373 6,851 2,236 5,368 1,752 1,396 -847 2,243
7 0.75 6,912 3,220 5,158 2,403 2,755 9,111 1,852 6,799 1,382 1,640 -1,021 2,662
8 0.71 5,069 2,896 3,603 2,058 1,544 6,851 1,722 4,869 1,224 1,267 -834 2,101
9 0.68 6,912 3,820 4,679 2,586 2,093 9,111 2,452 6,166 1,659 1,488 -926 2,414
10 0.64 5,069 3,376 3,268 2,176 1,091 6,851 2,202 4,416 1,420 1,149 -757 1,906
11 0.61 6,912 6,151 4,244 3,776 468 9,111 4,875 5,593 2,993 1,350 -783 2,133
12 0.58 5,069 3,376 2,964 1,974 990 6,851 2,202 4,006 1,288 1,042 -686 1,728
85
Annexes
13 0.56 6,912 4,620 3,849 2,573 1,276 9,111 3,252 5,073 1,811 1,224 -762 1,986
14 0.53 5,069 4,016 2,688 2,130 558 6,851 2,842 3,633 1,507 945 -623 1,568
15 0.51 6,912 4,620 3,491 2,334 1,158 9,111 3,252 4,602 1,642 1,110 -691 1,802
16 0.48 5,069 5,277 2,438 2,538 -100 6,851 4,196 3,296 2,018 857 -520 1,377
17 0.46 6,912 4,620 3,167 2,117 1,050 9,111 3,252 4,174 1,490 1,007 -627 1,634
18 0.44 5,069 4,016 2,212 1,752 459 6,851 2,842 2,989 1,240 778 -512 1,290
19 0.42 6,912 4,620 2,872 1,920 952 9,111 3,252 3,786 1,351 913 -569 1,482
20 0.4 5,069 4,016 2,006 1,589 417 6,851 2,842 2,711 1,125 705 -465 1,170
21 0.38 6,912 7,451 2,605 2,808 -203 9,111 6,175 3,434 2,327 828 -481 1,309
22 0.36 5,069 4,416 1,820 1,585 234 6,851 3,242 2,459 1,164 640 -421 1,061
23 0.34 6,912 5,120 2,363 1,750 613 9,111 3,752 3,114 1,282 751 -468 1,219
24 0.33 5,069 4,416 1,650 1,438 213 6,851 3,242 2,231 1,056 580 -382 962
25 0.31 6,912 5,120 2,143 1,588 556 9,111 3,752 2,825 1,163 682 -424 1,106
26 0.3 5,069 4,837 1,497 1,428 69 6,851 3,756 2,023 1,109 526 -319 845
27 0.28 6,912 5,120 1,944 1,440 504 9,111 3,752 2,562 1,055 618 -385 1,003
28 0.27 5,069 4,416 1,358 1,183 175 6,851 3,242 1,835 868 477 -314 792
29 0.26 6,912 5,120 1,763 1,306 457 9,111 3,752 2,324 957 561 -349 910
30 0.24 5,069 4,416 1,232 1,073 159 6,851 3,242 1,665 788 433 -285 718
NPV 45,438
BCR -1.53
IRR 48.50%
86
Annexes
Table 32. CBA results for scenario 2 using TWW and nozzles
NB1=Discounted Benefit-Discounted

Costs after project
Incremental costs
Incremental costs
Discount factor
Benefits (€)
costs (€)
years
costs
1 1 0 4,440 0 4,440 -4,440 236 4,390 236 4,390 236 -49 285
2 0.95 0 1,419 0 1,352 -1,352 420 999 400 951 400 -400 800
3 0.91 1,152 1,654 1,045 1,500 -455 1,862 1,059 1,689 960 644 -540 1,184
4 0.86 2,765 2,655 2,388 2,294 95 4,118 1,578 3,558 1,364 1,169 -930 2,099
5 0.82 3,687 3,392 3,033 2,791 242 5,777 1,671 4,752 1,375 1,719 -1,416 3,135
6 0.78 5,069 3,317 3,972 2,599 1,373 6,670 2,316 5,226 1,814 1,255 -784 2,039
7 0.75 6,912 3,220 5,158 2,403 2,755 8,923 1,901 6,658 1,419 1,500 -984 2,485
8 0.71 5,069 2,896 3,603 2,058 1,544 6,670 1,802 4,740 1,281 1,138 -778 1,916
9 0.68 6,912 3,820 4,679 2,586 2,093 8,923 2,501 6,039 1,693 1,361 -893 2,254
10 0.64 5,069 3,376 3,268 2,176 1,091 6,670 2,282 4,300 1,471 1,032 -705 1,737
11 0.61 6,912 6,151 4,244 3,776 468 8,923 4,925 5,478 3,023 1,234 -753 1,987
12 0.58 5,069 3,376 2,964 1,974 990 6,670 2,282 3,900 1,334 936 -640 1,576
13 0.56 6,912 4,620 3,849 2,573 1,276 8,923 3,301 4,969 1,838 1,119 -735 1,854
87
Annexes
14 0.53 5,069 4,016 2,688 2,130 558 6,670 2,922 3,537 1,550 849 -580 1,429
15 0.51 6,912 4,620 3,491 2,334 1,158 8,923 3,301 4,507 1,667 1,015 -666 1,682
16 0.48 5,069 5,277 2,438 2,538 -100 6,670 4,276 3,209 2,057 770 -482 1,252
17 0.46 6,912 4,620 3,167 2,117 1,050 8,923 3,301 4,088 1,512 921 -604 1,525
18 0.44 5,069 4,016 2,212 1,752 459 6,670 2,922 2,910 1,275 699 -477 1,176
19 0.42 6,912 4,620 2,872 1,920 952 8,923 3,301 3,708 1,372 835 -548 1,384
20 0.4 5,069 4,016 2,006 1,589 417 6,670 2,922 2,640 1,156 634 -433 1,067
21 0.38 6,912 7,451 2,605 2,808 -203 8,923 6,225 3,363 2,346 758 -462 1,220
22 0.36 5,069 4,416 1,820 1,585 234 6,670 3,322 2,394 1,192 575 -393 967
23 0.34 6,912 5,120 2,363 1,750 613 8,923 3,801 3,050 1,299 687 -451 1,138
24 0.33 5,069 4,416 1,650 1,438 213 6,670 3,322 2,172 1,082 521 -356 878
25 0.31 6,912 5,120 2,143 1,588 556 8,923 3,801 2,767 1,179 623 -409 1,032
26 0.3 5,069 4,837 1,497 1,428 69 6,670 3,836 1,970 1,133 473 -296 768
27 0.28 6,912 5,120 1,944 1,440 504 8,923 3,801 2,509 1,069 565 -371 936
28 0.27 5,069 4,416 1,358 1,183 175 6,670 3,322 1,787 890 429 -293 722
29 0.26 6,912 5,120 1,763 1,306 457 8,923 3,801 2,276 970 513 -337 849
30 0.24 5,069 4,416 1,232 1,073 159 6,670 3,322 1,621 807 389 -266 655
NPV 42,032
BCR -1.47
IRR 46.27%
88
Annexes
Table 33. CBA results for scenario 3 using FW and nozzles

NB1=Discounted Benefit-
Discounted costs
Costs after project
Incremental costs
Incremental costs
Discount factor
Benefits (€)
costs (€)
years
1 1 0 4,440 0 4,440 -4,440 0 4,626 0 4626 0 186 -186

2 0.95 0 1,419 0 1,352 -1,352 0 1,419 0 1352 0 0 0
3 0.91 1,152 1,654 1,045 1,500 -455 1,210 1,654 1,097 1,500 52 0 52
4 0.86 2,765 2,655 2,388 2,294 95 2,903 2,655 2,508 2,294 119 0 119
5 0.82 3,687 3,392 3,033 2,791 242 3,871 3,392 3,185 2,791 152 0 152
6 0.78 5,069 3,317 3,972 2,599 1,373 5,323 3,410 4,170 2,672 199 73 126
7 0.75 6,912 3,220 5,158 2,403 2,755 7,258 3,220 5,416 2,403 258 0 258
8 0.71 5,069 2,896 3,603 2,058 1,544 5,323 2,896 3,783 2,058 180 0 180
9 0.68 6,912 3,820 4,679 2,586 2,093 7,258 3,820 4,913 2,586 234 0 234
10 0.64 5,069 3,376 3,268 2,176 1,091 5,323 3,376 3,431 2,176 163 0 163
11 0.61 6,912 6,151 4,244 3,776 468 7,258 6,244 4,456 3,833 212 57 155
12 0.58 5,069 3,376 2,964 1,974 990 5,323 3,376 3,112 1,974 148 0 148
13 0.56 6,912 4,620 3,849 2,573 1,276 7,258 4,620 4,042 2,573 192 0 192
14 0.53 5,069 4,016 2,688 2,130 558 5,323 4,016 2,823 2,130 134 0 134
89
Annexes
15 0.51 6,912 4,620 3,491 2,334 1,158 7,258 4,620 3,666 2,334 175 0 175
16 0.48 5,069 5,277 2,438 2,538 -100 5,323 5,370 2,560 2,583 122 45 77
17 0.46 6,912 4,620 3,167 2,117 1,050 7,258 4,620 3,325 2,117 158 0 158
18 0.44 5,069 4,016 2,212 1,752 459 5,323 4,016 2,322 1,752 111 0 111
19 0.42 6,912 4,620 2,872 1,920 952 7,258 4,620 3,016 1,920 144 0 144
20 0.4 5,069 4,016 2,006 1,589 417 5,323 4,016 2,106 1,589 100 0 100
21 0.38 6,912 7,451 2,605 2,808 -203 7,258 7,544 2,735 2,843 130 35 95
22 0.36 5,069 4,416 1,820 1,585 234 5,323 4,416 1,910 1,585 91 0 91
23 0.34 6,912 5,120 2,363 1,750 613 7,258 5,120 2,481 1,750 118 0 118
24 0.33 5,069 4,416 1,650 1,438 213 5,323 4,416 1,733 1,438 83 0 83
25 0.31 6,912 5,120 2,143 1,588 556 7,258 5,120 2,250 1,588 107 0 107
26 0.3 5,069 4,837 1,497 1,428 69 5,323 4,930 1,572 1,456 75 28 47
27 0.28 6,912 5,120 1,944 1,440 504 7,258 5,120 2,041 1,440 97 0 97
28 0.27 5,069 4,416 1,358 1,183 175 5,323 4,416 1,426 1,183 68 0 68
29 0.26 6,912 5,120 1,763 1,306 457 7,258 5,120 1,851 1,306 88 0 88
30 0.24 5,069 4,416 1,232 1,073 159 5,323 4,416 1,293 1,073 62 0 62
NPV 3,348
BCR 8.90
IRR 19.41%
90
‫ملخص‬
‫يعتبر استعمال مياه الصرف الصحي المعالجة توجها استراتيجيا للتطور الزراعي المستدام في الدول التي تعاني من فقر‬
‫للمياه‪ .‬و لكن التطور التكنولوجي و التسييري ضروريان لجعل استخدامه ممكنا و فعاال‪ .‬الهدف من هذا العمل هو تقييم إمكانية‬
‫استعمال فوهات و برنامج سقي جديدين في سقي اشجار الزيتون بالمياه المعالجة‪ .‬تم استعمال تحليل للكلفة‪-‬الفائدة لدراسة األداء‬
‫االقتصادي بعد عام من السقي بالمياه العادمة المعالجة‪.‬‬
‫تمت الدراسة على اشجار زيتون بعمر ‪ 4‬سنوات تم غرسها سنة ‪ 2018‬باستخدام كثافة ‪ 1333‬شجرة‪/‬هكتار‪ .‬أبرزت‬
‫النتائج أن البارامت رات الزراعية و الفيزيولوجية المقاسة لم تتأثر بالسقي المياه المعالجة بعد سنة واحدة‪ .‬وحدة التوزيع كانت جيدة‬
‫‪SIM‬بالنسبة ألداتي السقي مع أن الفوهات (‪ )89%‬كانت لديهم وحدة توزيع أهم من أجهزة الري بالنتقيط(‪ .)85%‬برنامج أدى‬
‫الى استخدام ماء أقل بـ ‪ 13%‬مقارنة بالحساب اإلعتيادي‪ .‬المبالغ المالية المدخرة في مياه السقي كانت ‪ 113‬و ‪ 128 €‬في الهكتار‬
‫مقارنة بالري بالماء العذب و بالتنقيط في حين كانت ‪ 403‬و‪ 457 €‬في الهكتار بالنسبة لألسمدة على التوالي باستخدام البرنامج و‬
‫دونه‪.‬‬
‫أبرزت النتائج أن استخدام التقنيتين معا أدى إلى فوائد إضافية تقدر بـ ‪ 1467 €‬للهكتار في السنة في حين أن استخدام‬
‫المياه المعالجة بدون البرنامج كانت الفوائد اإلضافية ‪/€ 1400‬هكتار‪/‬سنة‪ .‬استخدام الجهاز الجديد وحده يضيف ‪237‬‬
‫‪/€‬هكتار‪/‬سنة‪ .‬الجهاز يحتاج ‪ 0.6%‬فقط إضافية في المنتوج لكي يغطي الدخل اإلضافي قيمة اإلستثمار على مدار الـ ‪ 30‬سنة‬
‫مدة المشروع‪ .‬النتائج أكدت أيضا أن المشروع يمكن أن يكون مربحا حتى مع نقص في الإلنتاج إلى حدود ‪ 48%‬في حالة لم يتم‬
‫احتساب التكلفة اإلضافية المتعلقة بالبنية التحتية‪.‬‬
‫كلمات مفتاح‪ :‬مياه عادمة‪ ،‬برمجة السقي‪ ،‬حفظ الماء‪ ،‬سقي الزيتون‪ ،‬تحليل كلفة‪-‬فائدة‬
‫‪ROYAUME DU MAROC‬‬ ‫المملكة المغربية‬
‫‪-=-=-‬‬ ‫‪-=-=-‬‬
‫‪INSTITUT AGRONOMIQUE ET‬‬
‫‪VETERINAIRE HASSAN II‬‬
‫معهد الحسن الثاني للزراعة والبيطرة‬
‫‪-=-=-‬‬ ‫‪-=-=-‬‬
‫‪COMPLEXE HORTICOLE D'AGADIR‬‬ ‫مركب البستنة بأكادير‬
‫‪-=-=-‬‬ ‫‪-=-=-‬‬
‫مشروع التخرج للحصول على دبلوم مھندس دولة في‬

‫الزراعة‬
‫مسلك‪ :‬البستنة‬
‫الدفعة‪50 :‬‬
‫سقي أشجار الزيتون بالمياه العادمة المعالجة‪:‬‬

‫تقييم إمكانية استعمال طرق و تقنيات سقي جديدة في جھة سوس‬
‫ماسة‬
‫قدم و نوقش من طرف‪:‬‬
‫ياسين ناجي‬
‫أمام اللجنة المكونة من‪:‬‬
‫رئيس‬ ‫معھد الحسن الثاني للزراعة والبيطرة‪ -‬اكادير‬ ‫األستاذ م‪ .‬ش‪ .‬حروني‬
‫مؤطر‬ ‫معھد الحسن الثاني للزراعة والبيطرة‪ -‬اكادير‬ ‫األستاذ م‪ .‬العثماني‬
‫مؤطر‬ ‫معھد الحسن الثاني للزراعة والبيطرة‪ -‬اكادير‬ ‫األستاذ ر‪ .‬شكر هللا‬
‫ممتحن‬ ‫معھد الحسن الثاني للزراعة والبيطرة‪ -‬اكادير‬ ‫األستاذ ه‪ .‬العماري‬
‫ممتحن‬ ‫معھد الحسن الثاني للزراعة والبيطرة‪ -‬اكادير‬ ‫األستاذ ع‪ .‬الرماح‬
‫ممتحن‬ ‫‪ -RAMSA‬اكادير‬ ‫السيد ل‪ .‬بن الزين‬
‫نونبر ‪2020‬‬
‫معھد الحسن الثاني للزراعة والبیطرة مركب البستنة بأكادیر‪ .‬صندوق البرید ‪/ 18‬س أكادیر المغرب‬
‫هاتف‪ / +212 528 24 01 55 :‬فاكس‪+212 528 24 22 48 :‬‬
‫برید إلكتروني‪direction.iavcha@gmail.com :‬‬

Naji MSC Corr

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

Naji MSC Corr

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ROYAUME DU MAROC ‫المملكة المغربية‬

PROJET DE FIN D’ETUDE POUR L’OBTENTION

DU DIPLOME D’INGENIEUR D’ETAT EN AGRONOMIE

Irrigation of olive trees by treated wastewater:

Devant le Jury composé de :

Prof. M.C. HARROUNI (I.A.V. Hassan II, Agadir) Président

Prof. M. EL-OTMANI (I.A.V. Hassan II, Agadir) Rapporteur

Prof. R. CHOUKR-ALLAH (I.A.V. Hassan II, Agadir) Rapporteur

Prof. H. EL OMARI (I.A.V. Hassan II, Agadir) Examinateur

Prof. A. REMAH (I.A.V. Hassan II, Agadir) Examinateur

Mr. L. BENZINE (RAMSA, Agadir) Examinateur

To the reason of life, light and love,

To life accomplices and journey partners,

To all my friends and colleagues

I dedicate this work.

My sincere and deepest gratitude goes to Dr. R. Choukr-Allah, Dr. A. Scardigno,

My sincere salutations and warm gratitude go to everyone who contributed in the

The use of treated wastewater (TWW) represents a strategic perspective for

2.4.5. Fertilization ....................................................................................... 27

3.6.6. Potassium ........................................................................................ 49

Figure 29. Secondary treatment: sand filter .................................................................... 74

In arid and semi-arid regions, changes in precipitation accompanied by successive

Wastewater can be both an opportunity and a problem in the coming decades.

The appropriate management of irrigation is of primary importance and requires

Chapter 1. Literature review

1.1. Overview of the problematic water resource

1.2. Water resources in Morocco: Souss Massa case study

Souss-Massa region; located in southern-west of Morocco; is considered as one of

1.2.2. Water resources

negative balance is covered by a groundwater mining and a lowering of the piezometric

 The level of the water table decreased by 160 m;

necessary to consider the contribution of the potential of non-conventional water and

1.2.3. Reuse of treated wastewater on a global scale

Wastewater can be both an opportunity and a problem in the coming decades.

1.2.4. Wastewater potential in Morocco

Figure 1. Evolution of the quantities of wastewater produced in Morocco (FAO, 2011)

The main factors that contribute to this phenomenon are:

1.2.5. Wastewater treatment in the Souss-Massa region

1.2.5.1. Wastewater potential in Souss-Massa region

The Souss-Massa region is an agricultural region characterized by limited water

 Achieve an overall level of connection of wastewater producing units to the

1.2.6. Effects of treated water on the soil characteristics

Unfortunately, potential problems associated with used treated wastewater in irrigation

a) Effect of treated wastewater irrigation on plant growth and

According to Choukr-Allah and Hamdy (2005), irrigation using treated wastewater

b) Impact of treated wastewater irrigation on the groundwater

In addition to the accumulation of salts and nitrates, under certain conditions,

c) Impact of treated wastewater irrigation on human health

Wastewater is subject to various sources of contaminants, limiting its potential for

Furthermore, treated wastewater can be a vector for various chemical contaminants

1.3. Olive and water management

1.3.1. Global overview

1.3.2. Olive production in Morocco

1.3.2.1. Overview of the national olive production

Area (1000 ha) Production (1000 T)

Table Olives Olive oil

1.3.2.2. Socioeconomic stakes

1.3.3. Irrigation and fertilization management for olive trees

1.3.3.1. Irrigation management

water status, the atmospheric demand or plant-based water status measurements

a) Estimation of the evapotranspiration from atmospheric demand

𝐸𝑇𝑐 = 𝐾𝑐 × 𝐸𝑇𝑜 (1)

The reference evapotranspiration (ETo) is the evapotranspiration rate from a