Environ Model Assess
DOI 10.1007/s10666-013-9379-x
Calibration and Validation of SWAP to Simulate Conjunctive
Use of Fresh and Saline Irrigation Waters
in Semi-Arid Regions
Ajit Kumar Verma & Suresh Kumar Gupta &
Rajendra Kumar Isaac
Received: 14 October 2012 / Accepted: 9 July 2013
# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013
Abstract Soil–Water–Atmosphere–Plant (SWAP) version
2.0 was evaluated for its capability to simulate crop growth
and salinity profiles at Agra (India) located in a semi-arid
region having deep water table and monsoon climate. The
data of 12 conjunctive use treatment combinations simulat-
ing cyclic and mixing modes of fresh and saline water for
wheat were used to calibrate and validate the model.
Absolute deviations between the SWAP simulated and ob-
served relative yields during calibration ranged from 2.5 to
2.9 %. A close agreement in the trend and values of mea-
sured and simulated soil salinity profiles was observed.
Scenario building simulations carried out with the validated
SWAP revealed that the maximum crop yields varied from
97 to 99 % with the best available water (EC 3.6 dS m−1)
while the minimum ranged from 65 to 79 % in the treatment
with all saline water. Other than this, the relative yield varied
from 80 to 98 % in 10 other cyclic and mixing mode treat-
ments. It was established that notwithstanding the seasonal
build-up of salts due to saline water use, there would be no
long-term build-up of salts as leaching during the monsoon
season would render the soil profile salt free at the time of
sowing of rabi (winter) crops. Thus, short-term field obser-
vations could be used in conjunction with SWAP to show
that there seems to be an assured long-term sustainability
when saline water is used in conjunctive mode with fresh
water in monsoon climatic conditions with deep water table.
A. K. Verma (*)
Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Panch Marg, Yari Road,
Versova, Andheri (W), Mumbai 400 061, India
e-mail: akverma45@yahoo.com
S. K. Gupta
Central Soil Salinity Research Institute, Karnal 132001, India
R. K. Isaac
Sam Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture, Technology and
Sciences (SHIATS), Allahabad 211007, India
These results are in conformity with the observation that
many farmers in India are using saline and fresh water in
conjunctive mode on a long-term basis.
Keywords Simulation . SWAP . Cyclic and mixing mode .
Relative yield . Salinity profile . Wheat
1 Introduction
In many arid and semi-arid regions, irrigation water supplies
through the canal systems are limited. The ground water
quality is also unfavorable which poses a threat to the sus-
tainability of irrigated agriculture. On the other hand, use of
poor-quality ground water could meet the shortfall in sup-
plies and even release high-quality water for other sectors of
economy to meet their increasing demand. Use of saline
water for irrigation has received considerable attention in
this region [7, 28–30]. Field experiments on short-term basis
have proved the potential of saline water use for crop pro-
duction [8, 11, 20, 22, 27, 34]. Various strategies have been
proposed to use the saline waters. Cyclic and mixing use
strategies have advantage in most cases and could be a
practical solution to fully meet water requirement where
non-saline water is limited [3, 24].
A conventional way to evaluate management options to
use saline water is through conducting field trials. Although
many researchers have conducted experiments on cyclic and
mixing modes, most of these are for limited time periods. To
arrive at sound conclusions, one needs to conduct long-term
experiments. If so, the conventional techniques would re-
quire huge manpower, financial resources, and other infra-
structure. Another approach is to utilize the limited field
experimental data and using appropriate mathematical
models to arrive at the most appropriate option(s). It seems
that simulation/computer models offer excellent support to
reduce the required time and effort on repeat field testing
 A.K. Verma et al.

Table 1 Physico-chemical
properties of initial soil Horizon Depth (m) pH ECe (dS m−1) K (mm h−1) Textural class

A1 0.00–0.20 8.5 1.0 11.5 Sandy loam

A3 0.20–0.45 8.5 2.6 6.5 Loam
B2-1t 0.45–0.72 8.6 3.2 6.0 Clay loam
B2-2t 0.72–1.15 8.5 2.0 1.51 Clay loam
B3-Ca 1.15–1.40 8.6 2.5 8.1 Sandy loam
C 1.40–1.80 8.6 4.5 18.2 Loam

provided adequate data for calibration and validation of the
models are available [4, 5, 12, 44].
A number of models have been used for short and long-
term description of salt and water transport under different
climatic, drainage, and crop conditions [16–18, 23, 35].
Currently, the Soil–Water–Atmosphere–Plant (SWAP) mod-
el has been widely used because it has an edge over other
models due to its many distinctive features as it can simulate
physical, chemical, and biological processes at field-scale
level and can accommodate long-term simulations with mul-
tiple crops per year [25, 26, 37, 40]. In addition, it has the
capability to predict relative yield and salinity profiles.
However, the model has been tested on a limited scale and
only few references are available for its application to arid
and semi-arid monsoon climatic conditions [33, 41]. Since
soil resource health and crop yield are two parameters of
great consequence in the use of saline water for crop pro-
duction, it was decided to test the applicability of this model
under saline water irrigation for monsoon climate and deep-
water table region. Besides testing the performance of the
SWAP model, the purpose of this paper is to confirm the
application of short-term field observations to construct
practical scenarios and forecasting the results using SWAP
on a long-term basis.
2 Brief Description of the SWAP Model
SWAP is a deterministic model that describes water, solute,
and heat transport in the saturated–unsaturated zone. In the
model, soil water flow in the soil matrix in the unsaturated–
saturated zone, is described by the Richard’s equation


∂θ ∂h ∂ ∂h
¼ C ð hÞ ¼ K ð hÞ þ 1 −S ðhÞ; ð1Þ
∂t ∂t ∂z ∂z
where θ denotes the volumetric water content (in cubic
centimeter per cubic centimeter), t is the time (in days), C
is the differential water capacity (in per centimeter), h is the
soil water pressure head (in centimeters), z is the vertical
coordinate positive in the upward direction (in centimeters),
K is the hydraulic conductivity (in centimeters per day) and S
is the soil water extraction rate by plant roots (in cubic
centimeter per cubic centimeter per day).
SWAP provides three different sub-model for the purpose of
simulating crop growth i.e., (a) detailed crop growth, (b) de-
tailed grass growth, and (c) simple crop growth. Due to limita-
tion of the data required for simulations with detailed crop
growth model, simple crop growth model was used in this
study. In this model, for each development stage, the actual

Table 2 Irrigation scheduling

under different treatments Treatments No. of irrigation

1 2 3 4 5 6

T1=All B B B B B B B
T2=All S S S S S S S
T3=1B:1S B S B S B S
T4=1S:1B S B S B S B
T5=1B:2S B S S B S S
T6=1S:2B S B B S B B
T7=2B:4S B B S S S S
T8=2S:4B S S B B B B
T9=3B:3S B B B S S S
T10=50B+50S 50B+50S 50B+50S 50B+50S 50B+50S 50B+50S 50B+50S
T11=30B+70S 30B+70S 30B+70S 30B+70S 30B+70S 30B+70S 30B+70S
BAW/B = ECiw 3.6 dS/m and T12=70B+30S 70B+30S 70B+30S 70B+30S 70B+30S 70B+30S 70B+30S
Saline/S = ECiw 15 dS/m
Calibration and Validation of SWAP

Table 3 Details of experimental

work Operations 2001–2002 2002–2003

Crop and variety Wheat (Raj.3077) Wheat (Raj.3077)

Date of sowing 28.11.2001 18.11.2002
Depth of irrigation 7 cm 7 cm
Nos. and intervals of irrigation 6; Pre, 17,45, 72, 100, and 110 DAS 6; Pre, 23, 43, 80, 92, and 103 DAS
Rainfall during crop period 67 mm 48.7 mm
Date of harvesting 02.04.2002 01.04.2003
Source: Chauhan and Singh [6]

yield Ya,k (in kilograms per hectare) relative to the potential
yield Yp,k (in kilograms per hectare) is calculated as follows:
 .   . 
1− Y a;k Y y;k ¼ K y;k 1−T a;k T p;k ; ð2Þ
where Ky,k is the yield response factor of growing stage k and
Tp,k (in centimeters) and Ta,k (in centimeters) are the potential
and actual transpiration, respectively, during period k. The
relative yield of the whole growing season is calculated as a
product of relative yield of each growing stage.
 .  n  . 
Y a Y p ¼ ∏ V a;k Y p;k ; ð3Þ
K¼1
where Ya is the cumulative actual yield (in kilograms per
hectare) of whole growing season, Yp is the cumulative poten-
tial yield (in kilograms per hectare) of whole growing season,
index k is the growing stage, and n is the number of defined
growth stages. Although in SWAP, irrigation could be pre-
scribed at fixed times or scheduled according to a number of
criteria, fixed-time approach was used in the simulations as per
the experimental conditions. The convection, dispersion, and
diffusion are the three main process of solute transport embed-
ded in the SWAP model. The total solute flux is calculated
according to equation
 ∂c
J ¼ qc−θ Ddif þ Ddis ; ð4Þ
∂z
where J is the total solute flux density (in grams square centi-
meter per day), Ddif is the solute diffusion coefficient (in square
centimeters per day), Ddis is the solute dispersion coefficient (in
square centimeters per day), and ∂c/∂z is the solute concentra-
tion gradient. The effect of salinity on crop yield is taken into
account and is defined both by a critical saturated paste electri-
cal conductivity (EC) level below which no salt stress occurs
and by the decline of root water uptake above this EC and the
maximum level in percentage crop yield reduction per
deciSiemens per meter. Although the threshold and slope of
the piecewise linear model for the wheat crop were available
[21], it was decided to develop the piecewise linear function
using the relative yield (RY) and mean root zone salinity (EC)
of the top 90 cm of the soil profile. The data from several other
experiments conducted at this site during previous years with
wheat variety Raj. 3077 were compiled and SALT program of
the USSL [39] was used to develop the following function:
RY ¼ 100−4:2ðEC−5:9Þ; ð5Þ
SWAP provides a wide range of upper and lower bound-
ary conditions. Potential evapotranspiration, irrigation, and
precipitation describe upper boundary conditions of the sys-
tem. The bottom boundary conditions can also be described
through various options. Groundwater level as a function of
time, flux to/from semi confined aquifer, flux to/from open
surface drains, an exponential relationship between bottom
flux and groundwater table or zero flux, and free drainage or
free outflow at the bottom of the profile. Measured ground-
water levels as a function of time were considered to describe
the bottom boundary condition.

Table 4 Parameters describing

the soil hydraulic properties Soil Topsoil Subsoil

Depth of layer (m) 0–1.2 1.2–1.8

Soil texture Sandy loam Sand loam/loam
Residual water content, θres(cm3 cm−3) 0.02 0.01
Saturated water content, θsat (cm3 cm−3) 0.36 0.36
Shape parameter, α (cm−1) 0.017 0.015
Shape parameter, n 1.45 2.0
Source: Hirekhan et al. [14] and Shape parameter, λ 0.5 0.5
value selected from the proposed Horizontal saturated hydraulic conductivity, Kxx (m day−1) 0.16 1.1
range suggested in the model Vertical saturated hydraulic conductivity, Kzz (m day−1) 0.25 0.75
SWAP
 A.K. Verma et al.

The SWAP is user friendly with clear instructions on
the operation of the model provided in the manual [15].
Model input and other details are briefly described in
Section 4.
3 Materials and Methods
To calibrate and verify the model, long-term and short-term
data were collected from Bichpuri, Agra, in the state of Uttar
Pradesh, India. The site is situated at latitude of 27.2 o N and
longitude of 77.9 o E, and is 163 m above the mean sea level.
The study site has a deep-water table and crops at this site are
grown with conjunctive use of fresh and saline water. Agra is
located in a semi-arid region and has a monsoon climate with
an average annual rainfall of 665 mm. Around 80 % of the
total rainfall is concentrated during June to October. The
soils of the Agra region are predominantly alluvial in origin.
The soil of the experimental site is light in texture and varied
from sandy loam at the soil surface to sandy clay loam in the
subsurface. The soils are non-saline and alkaline in reaction.
During the study period (April 2001 to June 2003), the water
table fluctuated between 6.1 m (October) and 7.7 m (April)
below the soil surface. Groundwater contribution to crop
water use was neglected due to the relatively deeper depth
of the water table. The physico-chemical properties of soil at
the initiation of experiments are presented in Table 1.
Table 6 Parameters for the calculation of solute transport
Initial soil ECe (dS m−1) 1.0 (soil surface)–4.5
(180-cm depth)
Initial EC groundwater ECe (dS m−1) 3.6
Dispersion length, αL (cm) 20.0
Diffusion coeff. in water, Dw (cm2 d−1) 0.72
Source: adjusted within the range suggested by SWAP
The experiment was conducted in a plot size of 2.5×2.5 m
[6]. To check seepage, polythene sheets were used up to 0.90-
cm depth for separating each plot. The saline water of 15 dS m−1
was prepared synthetically by using CaCl2, MgCl2, MgSO4,
NaCl, and Na2SO4 commercial grade salts with best available
water (ECiw=3.6) such that the Ca/Mg ratio was 1:1.6 and the
Cl/SO4 ratio 3:1 with SARiw =10 mmol0.5/l0.5. Twelve treat-
ments with three replications were used in this experiment
(Table 2). Table 3 shows details of experimental work, irrigation
scheduling, and amount of water used under different treatments
for 2 years (2001–2003). A pre-sowing irrigation of 7 cm with
best available water (BAW) was common for all the treatments.
The duration of each irrigation was set on the basis of pump
discharge and the plot size to apply 7 cm of irrigation. The
salinity of the soil saturation extract at harvest was measured.
Average for 8 points in each treatment was taken, 2 points in
each plot from two locations in each plot at depths of 0–15, 15–
30, 30–60, and 60–90 cm multiplied by number of replications.

Table 5 Crop and irrigation data 4 Model Inputs and Outputs

General
4.1 Climate Data
Simulation period July 2001–June2004
Crop Wheat
The model uses meteorological data on daily basis. Data on
Boesten parameter, βp (cm1/2) 0.54
daily rainfall, maximum and minimum temperature, wind
Irrigation water quantity (mm) 70
velocity, relative humidity, sunshine hours, and radiation
EC of irrigation water (dS m−1) 3.6
were used to prepare input file. Since the climate conditions
Crop specific Wheat
in the region do not very much, except for the rainfall, which
Length of crop cycle (days) 126*
Maximum crop height (cm) 90
Leaf area index, LAI (−) 0.05–0.87–5.83–2.9
Simulated Observed
Maximum rooting depth (cm) 100 1.0

h1, h2, h3h# − −1.0, −500

0.1, 0.8
h3l, h4 (cm)# −900, −2,000
Relative yield

Threshold ECe (dS m−1) 5.9 0.6

Slope (% per dS m−1) 4.2 0.4

Minimum canopy resistance (S m−1) 0.70
0.2
Precipitation interception coefficient 0.25
0.0
*126 days in year 2001–2002, 127 days in year 2002–2003 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12
# Treatment
Parameters of Feddes functions for simulating the effect of matric
stress on plant growth (Adjusted as per values suggested by Wesseling Fig. 1 Measured and simulated relative yield during 2001–2002
et al. [43] and Taylor and Ashcroft [36]) (calibration)
Calibration and Validation of SWAP

Fig. 2 Measured and simulated Electrical Coductivity (dS m-1)

salinity profile at crop harvest
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
(calibration)
0
-10
-20
-30

Depth (cm)
-40
-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
2001-02
T1(S) T2(S) T5 (S) T6(S)
T1(O) T2(O) T5 (O) T6(O)

(a) Treaments T1, T2, T5 and T6

Electrical Coductivity (dS m-1)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
0
-10
-20
-30
Depth (cm)

-40
-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
2001-02
T3(S) T4(S) T7 (S) T8(S)
T3(O) T4(O) T7 (O) T8(O)

(b) Treaments T3, T4, T7 and T8

Electrical Coductivity (dS m-1)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
0
-10
-20
-30
Depth (cm)

-40
-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
2001-02
T9(S) T10(S) T11(S) T12(S)
T9(O) T10(O) T11(O) T12(O)

(c) Treaments T9, T10, T11 and T12

 A.K. Verma et al.

Simulated Observed
1.0 were selected from the data proposed by Wesseling et al.
0.8
[43] and Taylor and Ashcroft [36] and are given in Table 5.
Relative yield

SWAP has built-in alternatives to calculate actual crop

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
Treatment
Fig. 3 Measured and simulated relative yield during 2002–03 (validation)
was obtained from Agra gauging station, all other data sets
were obtained from meteorological observatory at Karnal.
4.2 Soil Hydraulic Properties
The parameters required to describe soil hydraulic properties
were adjusted as suggested in the SWAP model and are
summarized in Table 4.
4.3 Crop and Irrigation Data
A summary of the SWAP input data with regard to crop data
and irrigation plan is given in Table 5. The parameters,
maximum crop height, leaf area index (LAI) and maximum
rooting depth as a function of the crop development stages
were selected from the literature. The LAI values for each
crop relate to the start of the initial stage (emergence), the
end of the initial stage, the mid-season stage, and the end of
the season stage, respectively. The soil water extraction by
the plants besides osmotic stress is also governed by the
matric stress experienced by the crop. The effect of matric
stress is simulated by a sink term proposed by Feddes et al.
[9]. Critical pressure head values required for simulation
1.00
0.80
Simulated
evapotranspiration. In our case, the potential crop evapo-
transpiration is calculated by Penman–Monteith equation
for a reference crop and is separated into potential crop
transpiration and potential soil evaporation. Precipitation
T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12
interception coefficient and LAI as a function of crop growth
stage are used to calculate the precipitation interception by
the crop canopy using Braden [2] formula. Till such time this
intercepted water is evaporated from the crop canopy, tran-
spiration component is treated as zero. The potential evapo-
ration rate of a soil under a standing crop is derived from the
Penman–Monteith equation by neglecting the aerodynamic
term, assuming that the net radiation inside the canopy
decreases according to an exponential function, and that the
soil heat flux can be neglected [1, 10, 38].
4.4 Solute Transport Parameters
Since the parameters related to solute transport affect the
salinity profile, the crop growth was adjusted by varying the
parameters within the range suggested in the SWAP manual
(Table 6).
4.5 Model Calibration and Validation
The recorded data for the years 2001–2002 were used to
calibrate the model, and then validated for the year 2002–2003.
4.6 Scenario Building
To ascertain the impact of long-term use of saline water, a
scenario was constructed wherein wheat yields (irrigated with
cyclic and mixing mode for conjunctive use as per treatments
in Tables 2 and 3 during winter season) were simulated for a
period of 9 years. It was assumed that pearl millet (rain fed
during monsoon season) is grown in sequence with wheat
although its yields were not monitored. All the irrigation and
crop data for the year 2001–2003 were repeated during 2003–
2005, 2005–2007, and 2007–2009 in the same sequence. For

0.60 the last year, it was assumed to be the same as that of the year
2001–2002, making a total set of 9 years. The relative yields
0.40 under various treatments were predicted to see the yield var-
iations over a period of 9 years. The same exercise was also
0.20 carried out for salt build-up in the soil profile.

0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 5 Model Performance Evaluation
Observed
Fig. 4 Relation between simulated and observed relative crop yield for The performance of the model was evaluated by comparing the
different treatments measured relative yield and salinity profile with the simulated
Calibration and Validation of SWAP

Fig. 5 Measured and simulated Electrical Coductivity (dS m-1)

salinity profile at crop harvest
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
(validation)
0
-10
-20
-30
-40

Depth (cm)
-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
2002-03
T1(S) T2(S) T5 (S) T6(S)
T1(O) T2(O) T5 (O) T6(O)

(a) Treaments T1, T2, T5 and T6

Electrical Coductivity (dS m-1)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
0
-10
-20
-30
Depth (cm)

-40
-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
2002-03
T3(S) T4(S) T7 (S) T8(S)
T3(O) T4(O) T7 (O) T8(O)

(b) Treaments T3, T4, T7 and T8

Electrical Coductivity (dS m-1)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
0
-10
-20
-30
Depth (cm)

-40
-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
2002-03
T9(S) T10(S) T11(S) T12(S)
T9(O) T10(O) T11(O) T12(O)

(c) Treaments T9, T10, T11 and T12

results. The agreement between the measured and predicted error and absolute deviation. Statistically, the average absolute
values was statistically quantified by calculating the standard deviation and standard error are indicators of quantitative
 A.K. Verma et al.

Table 7 Relative yield with cyclic or mixing mode irrigation water

S.No. Year T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12

1 2002 0.99 0.71 0.92 0.87 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.82 0.95 0.92 0.84 0.97
2 2003 0.99 0.73 0.93 0.87 0.88 0.90 0.91 0.84 0.94 0.94 0.86 0.98
3 2004 0.97 0.73 0.91 0.85 0.86 0.89 0.88 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.95
4 2005 0.99 0.70 0.92 0.85 0.83 0.91 0.88 0.85 0.93 0.91 0.84 0.97
5 2006 0.99 0.65 0.88 0.86 0.80 0.92 0.87 0.80 0.93 0.90 0.80 0.97
6 2007 0.99 0.71 0.94 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.88 0.87 0.93 0.92 0.84 0.97
7 2008 0.99 0.79 0.92 0.94 0.85 0.97 0.89 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.89 0.98
8 2009 0.98 0.73 0.95 0.84 0.85 0.90 0.89 0.86 0.94 0.93 0.85 0.97
9 2010 0.98 0.67 0.88 0.89 0.81 0.93 0.89 0.81 0.93 0.91 0.82 0.97

dispersion between the measured and predicted values. The data were used to calibrate the model. The simulated results
standard error was calculated as were in close agreement with the observed values (Fig. 1).
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
X ffi From the results, it could be concluded that the calibra-
2
ðY m−Y pÞ tion parameters used in the model simulated the ob-
Standard Error ðSE Þ ¼ ð6Þ served data well, the values of average absolute devia-
n
tions and standard error for relative yield being 2.9 and
Where: 3.4 %. These values of AD and SE for relative yield are
SE Standard Error (in meters) within the range reported by Wahba et al. [42], and
n number of observations considered in the test Verma et al. [41].
Ym measured value (in meters) The salinity profiles for the year 2002 (crop season 2001–
Yp predicted value (in meters). 2002) were also used to calibrate the model. The data were
divided into three groups to facilitate easy interpretation and
The average absolute deviation (AD) was computed for to make a pleasing view of the results in a diagram. The
each test period as follows: results showed that the model simulations captured the trend
X of the salinity profile well (Figs. 2 and 3). The deviations
jY m−Y pj
Absolute Deviation ðADÞ ¼ ð7Þ observed at various points and times could be attributed to
n large spatial variability in the values of soil parameters
The variables in this equation have the same meaning as reported by many researchers in Indian [13, 31, 41]. The
for standard error (Eq. 6). deviation between predicted and measured data revealed that
AD was 1.33 dS m−1 and SE was 1.62 dS m−1 for salinity
profile, which are on the lower side of the range reported by
6 Results and Discussion Hirekhan et al. [14] for this parameter, using model WaSim.
Considering the spatial averages of various model inputs and
6.1 Calibration the comparison with the results obtained in previous studies,
it could be concluded that the agreement between the simu-
The conjunctive use of fresh and saline water with cyclic and lated and the observed results for salinity profiles is good to
mixing modes at the site began in 2001–2002. The first year excellent.

Fig. 6 Annual salt build-up in T1 T2 T5 T6 T9 T10

the root zone for the treatments 20.0
T1, T2, T5, T6, T9, and T10
16.0
EC (dS m-1)

(at time of harvest)

12.0

8.0

4.0

0.0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Year
Calibration and Validation of SWAP

Fig. 7 Annual salt build-up in T3 T4 T7 T8 T11 T12

the root zone for the treatments 20.0
T3, T4, T7, T8, T11, and T12
16.0
(at time of harvest)

EC (dS m-1)
12.0

8.0

4.0

0.0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year

Fig. 8 Annual salt build-up in 5.0

T1 T2 T5
the root zone for the treatments T6 T9 T10
T1, T2, T5, T6, T9, and T10 4.0
EC (dS m-1)

(before sowing)
3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Year

6.2 Validation of the Model
The calibrated model parameters were used as such to vali-
date the model with the data set of the year 2002–2003. The
simulated and the observed data for relative yield were quite
close (Fig. 3). The values of average absolute deviations and
standard error for relative yield ranged from 2.5 to 3.4 %.
Comparing the results obtained with those of studies by
Wahba et al. [42] and Verma et al. [41], it seems that the
present simulation yielded good agreement between simu-
lated and observed results. A plot of simulated and observed
relative crop yields is reasonably close to the 1:1 line, the
correlation coefficient being 0.905 (Fig. 4). It also indicated a
good agreement between the predicted and observed relative
crop yield.
The simulated and the observed salinity profiles for the
year 2003 (crop season 2002–2003) revealed almost similar
results at per calibration period (Fig. 5). A close match with
some deviation here and there proves the capability of the
model in simulating salinity profiles under situations
where fresh and saline waters are used in conjunctive mode.
The values of AD (1.81 dS m−1) and SE (2.23 dS m−1) for

Fig. 9 Annual salt build-up in 5.0

T3 T4 T7
the root zone for the treatments T8 T11 T12
T3, T4, T7, T8, T11 and T12 4.0
EC (dS m-1)

(before sowing)
3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Year

salinity profile are on the lower side of the range reported by
Hirekhan et al. [14].
6.3 Scenario Building to Assess the Management Options
Long-term use of saline water, even in conjunctive mode, has
been adversely commented upon because of the fear of salt
build-up in the long-term. Since experiments are usually
conducted over a few years, it is difficult to remove this fear.
Although many modelers have discounted such fears [25, 26,
33, 37, 41], questions are still raised for conditions where no
drainage provision exists although the water table is deep
[14, 41]. Limited studies conducted under monsoon climate
conditions where shallow water table existed, and a provi-
sion of subsurface drainage had been made, have also
discounted this fear. Therefore, a long-term simulation was
made assuming that the climatic conditions prevalent during
these 2 years would occur in succession, and normal culti-
vation practices as adopted in the 2 years of experimentation
would be adopted. It was also assumed that a crop is grown
in the monsoon season solely as rain fed to conserve the rain
water. As such, no detailed simulations for this crop were
undertaken. It was also assumed that initially (in the month
of October), soil was non-saline with a soil salinity of the
root zone as 0.4 dS m−1.
The scenario building exercises over a period of 9 years
revealed that the maximum crop yield varied from 97 to
99 % with the best available water (T1), while it was 65 to
79 % in treatments where all saline water was used (T2).
Other than this, the relative yield varied from 88 to 95, 84 to
94, 80 to 88, 89 to 97, 87 to 91, 80 to 94, 92 to 95, 90 to 95,
80 to 89, and 95 to 98 % for cyclic or mixing mode treat-
ments T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, T8, T9, T10, T11, and T12,
respectively (Table 7).
Although none of the treatments gave yield numerically
equal to the treatment T1, in all the treatments, the yield
continued to be higher than treatment T2 showing the supe-
riority of cyclic and mixing mode for conjunctive use on a
long-term basis. Clearly, over the simulation period of
9 years, the yield ranged from 84 to 98 % in treatments
T3, T4, T6, T7, T9, T10, and T12 and could be few of
the better options for wheat production in areas with
fresh water scarcity.
The salinity build-up at the time of wheat harvest ranged
between 3.58–3.89, 16.41–18.91, 14.45–16.25, 5.40–6.31,
14.45–16.25, and 9.98–11.27 dS m−1 in T1, T2, T5, T6, T9,
and T10 treatments, respectively (Fig. 6), and between
12.22–13.98, 7.70–8.12, 15.47–17.50, 4.63–5.36, 12.08–
14.30, and 8.28–7.38 dS m−1 in T3, T4, T7, T8, T11, and
T12 treatments, respectively, (Fig. 7) from 2001 to 2010.
These results are in line with the results of scenarios as the
salinity build-up depends upon the quantity of saline water
used, quality of water, and rainfall.
A.K. Verma et al.
The maximum salinity build-up before sowing of wheat
were 1.31, 4.64, 4.00, 2.02, 3.91, and 3.02 dS m−1 with T1,
T2, T5, T6, T9, and T10 treatments, respectively (Fig. 8),
and 3.31, 2.70, 4.23, 1.77, 3.67, and 2.34 dS m−1 with T3,
T4, T7, T8, T11, and T12 treatments, respectively (Fig. 9), in
the year 2002. It was less in the year 2003 and ranged from
0.36 to 0.58 dS m−1 for all treatments. For other years from
2004 to 2009, salinity build-up ranged from 0.37 to 1.34 dS
m−1. This simulation, together with the simulation for soil
salinity after the wheat harvest, supports the statements that
there is not much build-up of salts on annual basis in the
profile with long-term use of saline water.
7 Conclusions
Based on these results, it could be concluded that in spite of
seasonal build-up of salts due to use of saline water in the
winter season, the concentrated excess rainfall during the
monsoon season would leach down the accumulated salts,
making the root zone salt free. Thus, there seems to be an
assured sustainability of conjunctive use of fresh and saline
water with cyclic and mixing modes under deep-water table
conditions in monsoon climatic conditions. The observation
is strengthened because such a conclusion has emerged
previously on the basis of few years conducted by few
investigators [14, 19, 20, 32]. Moreover, general field obser-
vations made in farmers’ fields also supports this conclusion
as they are applying saline water on a long-term basis.
In addition, a good match of the simulated results with the
observed results of wheat yield and salinity profiles at Agra,
makes it safe to conclude that the SWAP model seems to be a
useful tool to assess the relative yields and salinity profiles
under various conjunctive use options of fresh and saline
water.
References
1. Belmans, G., Wesseling, J. G., & Faddes, R. A. (1983). Simulation
of the water balance of a cropped soil: SWATRE. Journal of
Hydrology, 63, 271–286.
2. Braden, H. (1985). Ein Energiehaushalts- und Verdunstungsmodell
for Wasser und Stoffhaushaltsuntersuchungen landwirtschaftlich
genutzer Einzugsgebiete. Mittelungen Deutsche Bodenkundliche
Geselschaft, 42, 294–299.
3. Bradford, S., & Letey, J. (1992). Cyclic and blending strategies for
using nonsaline and saline waters for irrigation. Irrigation Science,
13(3), 123–128.
4. Breve, M. A., Skaggs, R. W., Passons, J. E., & Gilliam, J. W.
(1998). Using the DRAINMOD- N model to study effects of
drainage system design and management on crop productivity,
profitability and NO3- N losses in drainage water. Agricultural
Water Management, 35, 227–243.
Calibration and Validation of SWAP
5. Breve, M. A., Skaggs, R. W., Passons, J. E., Mohammad, A. T., &
Gilliam, J. M. (1995). Simulation of drainage water quality
with DRAINMOD. Irrigation and Drainage System, 9, 259–
277.
6. Chauhan, C. P. S., & Singh, R. B. (2003). Progress report of NATP
on develop regional salt and water balance models. Bichpuri: Raja
Balwant Singh College. 34 p.
7. Chauhan, C. P. S., Singh, R. B., & Gupta, S. K. (2008).
Supplemental irrigation of wheat with saline water. Agricultural
Water Management, 95, 253–258.
8. Dinar, A., Letey, J., & Vaux, H. J., Jr. (1986). Optimal ratios of
saline and non-saline irrigation waters for crop production. Soil
Science American Journal, 50, 440–443.
9. Feddes, R. A., Kowalik, P. J., & Zaradny, H. (1978). Simulation of
field water use and crop yield, Simulation Monographs, Pudoc,
Wageningen, 189p.
10. Goudriaan, J. (1977). Crop meteorology: a simulation study.
Simulation monographs, Pudoc, Wageningen.
11. Grattan, S. R., & Rhoades, J. D. (1990). Irrigation with saline
groundwater and drainage water. In K. K. Tanji (Ed.), Agricultural
salinity assessment and management, Chap 20 (pp. 432–449). New
York: American Society of Civil Engineers.
12. Gupta, G. P., Prasher, S. O., Chieng, S. T., & Mathur, I. N. (1993).
Application of DRAINMOD under semi-arid conditions. Agricultural
Water Management, 24, 63–80.
13. Gupta, S. K. (2002). Future prospect of subsurface drainage in
India. Journal of Water Management, 10, 49–57.
14. Hirekhan, M., Gupta, S. K., & Mishra, K. L. (2007). Application of
WaSim to assess performance of a subsurface drainage system under
semi-arid monsoon climate. Agricultural Water Management, 88,
224–234.
15. Kroes, J. G., van Dam, J. C., Huygen, J., & Vervoort, R. W. (1999).
Users guide of SWAP version 2.0 (Simulation of water flow, solute
transport and plant growth in the soil–water–atmosphere–plant
environment, Technical Document 53). DLO Winand Staring
Centre: Wageningen.
16. Lamsal, K., Paudyal, G. N., & Saeed, M. (1999). Model for
assessing impact of salinity on soil water availability and crop
yield. Agricultural Water Management, 41, 57–70.
17. Majeed, A., Stockle, C. O., & King, L. G. (1994). Computer model
for managing saline for irrigation and crop growth: preliminary testing
with lysimeter data. Agricultural Water Management, 26, 239–251.
18. Martin, D. L., Watts, D. G., & Gilley, J. M. (1984). Model and
production function for irrigation management. Journal of Irrigation
and Drainage Engineering, 110(20), 149–154.
19. Minhas, P. S., & Gupta, R. K. (1992). Quality of irrigation water-
assessment and management (Information and publication section).
New Delhi: Indian Council of Agricultural Research.
20. Naresh, R. K., Minhas, P. S., Goyal, A. K., Chauhan, C. P. S., &
Gupta, R. K. (1993). Conjunctive use of saline and non-saline
waters. II. Field comparison of cyclic use and mixing for wheat.
Agricultural Water Management, 23, 139–148.
21. Oosterbaan, R. J., Sharma, D. P., Singh, K. N., & Rao, K. V.
G. K. (1990). Crop production and soil salinity: evaluation of
field data from India by segmented linear regression, in:
Amer, M.H., Abu-Zeid, M.A. (Eds.), Proceeding of the
Symposium on Land Drainage for Salinity Control in Arid
and Semi Arid Regions. 25th February–2nd March 1990,
Cairo, Egypt. 3, 373–383.
22. Pasternak, D., de Malach, Y., & Barovic, I. (1986). Irrigation with
brackish water under desert conditions. VII. Effect of time of
application of brackish water on production of processing toma-
toes. Agricultural Water Management, 12, 149–158.
23. Prendergast, J. B., Rose, C. W., & Hogarth, W. L. (1994). A model
for conjuctive use of groundwater and surface waters for control of
soil salinity. Irrigation Science, 14, 167–175.
24. Rhoades, J. D., Bingham, F. T., Letey, J., Hoffman, G. J., Pinter, P. J.,
Jr., & Replogle, J. A. (1989). Reuse of drainage water for irrigation:
imperial valley study. Agricultural Water Management, 16, 25–26.
25. Sarwar, A., & Bastiaanssen, W. G. M. (2001). Long-term effects of
irrigation water conservation on crop production and environment
in semiarid areas. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering,
127(6), 331–338.
26. Sarwar, A., Bastiaanssen, W. G. M., & Feddes, R. A. (2001).
Irrigation water distribution and long-term effects on crop and
environment. Agricultural Water Management, 50, 125–140.
27. Sharma, D. P., Rao, K. V. G. K., Singh, K. N., Kumbhare, P. S., &
Ooterbaan, R. J. (1994). Conjunctive use of saline and non-saline
irrigation waters in semi-arid regions. Irrigation Science, 15, 25–33.
28. Sharma, D. P., Singh, K. N., & Rao, K. V. G. K. (1989). Reuse of saline
drainage water for irrigation of wheat. Indian Farming, 39, 32–33.
29. Sharma, D. P., Singh, K. N., Rao, K. V. G. K., & Kumbhare, P. S.
(1990). Response of wheat (Triticum aestivum) to re-use of saline
drainage water in a sandy-loam soil. Indian Journal of Agricultural
Sciences, 60(7), 448–452.
30. Sharma, D. P., Singh, K. N., Rao, K. V. G. K., & Kumbhare, P. S.
(1993). Management of subsurface saline drainage water. Indian
Farming, 43, 15–19.
31. Sharma, K. K., Gupta, S. K., Singh, R. P., & Chauhan, H. S. (2003).
Comparison of conventional and geostatistical procedures for
assessing hydraulic conductivity for drainage design. Journal of
the Indian Society of Soil Science, 51, 489–495.
32. Sharma, D. P., & Rao, K. V. G. K. (1998). Strategy for long term use
of saline drainage water for irrigation in semi-arid regions. Soil &
Tillage Research, 48, 287–295.
33. Singh, R. (2004). Simulations on direct and cyclic use of saline
waters for sustaining cotton-wheat in a semi-arid area of north-west
India. Agricultural Water Management, 66, 153–162.
34. Singh, R. B., Minhas, P. S., Chauhan, C. P. S., & Gupta, R. K. (1992).
Effect of high salinity and SAR waters on salinization, sodication and yield
of pearl millet and wheat. Agricultural Water Management, 21, 93–105.
35. Singh, R., & Singh, J. (1996). Irrigation planning in cotton through
simulating modelling. Irrigation Science, 17, 31–36.
36. Taylor, S. A., & Ashcroft, G. M. (1972). Physical Edophology (pp.
434–435). San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Co.
37. Tedeschi, A., & Menenti, M. (2002). Simulation studies of long-
term saline water use: model validation and evaluation of sched-
ules. Agricultural Water Management, 54, 123–157.
38. van Dam, J. C., Huygen, J., Wesseling, J. G., Feddes, R. A., Kobat,
P. E. V., van Waslsum, Groenendijk, P., & Diepen, C. A. (1997).
Theory of SWAP version 2.0. Department of Water Resour., Report
71. Wageningen: Wageningen Agricultural University. 167p.
39. van Genuchten, M. Th. (1983). SALT: analysis of crop salt toler-
ance data. Research Report No. 12. US Salinity Laboratory, USDA-
ARS, Riverside, California, 50 p.
40. Vazifedoust, M., van Dam, J. C., Feddes, R. A., & Feizi, M. (2008).
Increasing water productivity of irrigated crops under limited water
supply at field scale. Agricultural Water Management, 95, 89–102.
41. Verma, A. K., Gupta, S. K., & Isaac, R. K. (2010). Long-term use of saline
drainage waters for irrigation in subsurface drained lands: simulation
modelling with SWAP. Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 47, 15–23.
42. Wahba, M. A. S., Ganainy, M. E., Dayem, M. S. A., Kandil, H., &
Gobran, A. (2002). Evaluation of DRAINMOD-S for simulating
water table management under semi-arid condition. ICID Journal,
51(3), 213–226.
43. Wesseling, J. G., Elbers, J. A., Kabat, P., & van den Broek, B. J.
(1991). SWATRE: instructions for input. Internal Note, Winand
Staring Centre, Wageningen, the Netherlands. International Water
logging and Salinity Research Institute, Lahore, Pakistan, 29 p.
44. Workman, S. R., & Skaggs, R. W. (1989). Comparison of two
drainage simulation models using field data. Transaction ASAE,
32(6), 1933–1938.