See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260487892

Determination of Water Requirement and Crop water productivity of Crops

Grown in the Makkah Region of Saudi Arabia

Article  in  Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences · September 2012

CITATIONS READS

18 4,491

8 authors, including:

Naima Siam Ali A Aldosari

Ministry of Health, Palestine King Saud University
2 PUBLICATIONS   24 CITATIONS    29 PUBLICATIONS   205 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

K.A. Al-Gaadi V.C. Patil

King Saud University K. J. Somaiya Institute of Applied Agricultural Research
69 PUBLICATIONS   366 CITATIONS    96 PUBLICATIONS   495 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Desert Wildlife habitats research project View project

Spatial prediction of crop yield View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rangaswamy Madugundu on 14 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 6(9): 196-206, 2012
ISSN 1991-8178

Determination of Water Requirement and Crop water productivity of Crops Grown in

the Makkah Region of Saudi Arabia
1
Hashim M.A.A., 1N. Siam, 1A. Al-Dosari, 2K.A. Asl-Gaadi, 2V.C. Patil, 3E.H.M. Tola, 3M.
Rangaswamy and 3M.S. Samdani
1
Department of Geography, College of Arts, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
2
Department of Agricultural Engineering, Precision Agriculture Research Chair, College of Food and
Agricultural Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
3
Precision Agriculture Research Chair, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Abstract: Determination of crop water requirement is one of the key parameters for precise irrigation
scheduling, especially in regions with limited water resources, such as Saudi Arabia. Neutron probe
and lysimeter measured Evapotranspiration (ET) data acquired at different crop growth stages were
used to assess the total water requirements of different crops for an entire growing season. The crops
included in the study encompassed seasonal crops (wheat, corn, broad beans, millet, cowpea, okra and
eggplant) and forage crops (alfalfa, blue panic grass, rhodes grass and Sudan grass) grown in Makkah
region, Saudi Arabia. The investigations were carried out at the Research Farm of King Abdul-Aziz
University, Hoda Al-Sham, Makkah area. Results revealed that crop water requirements were found to
vary from 303 to 727.8 mm in seasonal crops and from 436.7 to 1821.94 mm in forage crops. In
addition, crop water productivity (CWP) of summer season crops (1.478 kg/m3) was found to be higher
than the values associated with forage (1.079 kg/m3) and winter season (0.942 kg/m3) crops. The
lowest value of CWP was observed in corn (0.794 kg/m3), while the highest value of 1.724 kg m-3 was
associated with okra.

Key words: Crop water requirement, crop water productivity, neutron probe, lysimeter

INTRODUCTION

The geological surveys and exploration of arid lands during the last fifty years revealed vast natural
resource endowments in parts of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and adjacent countries. Increase in population in
the arid ecosystem of Saudi Arabia resulted in higher demand for food. This ever increasing demand has
resulted in the transformation from arid land farming to irrigated agriculture relying, to a great extent, on the
ground water as the main source of irrigation water. The groundwater is a non-renewable resource in the fragile
arid ecosystems of the world, and its exploitation calls for an environmentally compatible and ecologically
sustainable water resource management (Saif-ud-din, et al., 2004; FAO-Aquastat, 2009). Ground water in the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which is a non-renewable fossil water of age ranging from 10000 to 28000 years B.P.
(Edgell, 1997), is exploited as the major source of irrigation (El-Quesy, 2009). Irrigation utilizes about 80 to
88% of the total water consumption in the Kingdom (Sadik and Barghouti, 1994). Moreover, the volume of
water used for irrigation has tripled from about 6.8 km3 in 1980 to about 21 km3 in 2006 (FAO-Aquastat, 2009).
The groundwater exploitation, if not managed judiciously, will result in environmental degradation of the fragile
arid ecosystem and increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, such as droughts and
floods (El-Quesy, 2009), which may cause economic, social and environmental effects (AbuZeid and Abdel
Megeed, 2004; Ouda et al., 2011). Under such circumstances, adoption of optimum water management practices
assumes prime importance for attaining national food and water security.
Efficient use of water resources can be made possible through the assessment of crop water requirements
and proper scheduling of irrigation. Temporal prediction of soil moisture and evapotranspiration (ET) plays a
crucial role in irrigation water management (Abdelhadi et al., 2000; Ali et al., 2007) and drought monitoring
(Narasimhan and Srinivasan, 2005). ET from the field is an actual unrecoverable water loss within the irrigation
schemes (Bryla et al., 2003). It has been demonstrated that optimal irrigation scheduling requires accurate
estimates of crop evapotranspiration (ETc) (Doorenbos and Pruitt, 1977; Kamel et al., 2012). Allen et al. (1998)
reported that factors, such as soil salinity, poor land fertility, limited application of fertilizers, presence of hard
or impenetrable soil profiles, lack of proper control of diseases and pests and poor soil management may limit
crop development and reduce ET. Other factors to be considered when assessing ET are ground cover, plant
density and soil water content, however, ET is not an easy factor to measure (Allen et al., 1998). Specific
devices, accurate measurements of various physical parameters and soil water balance determined by lysimeters
are usually necessary measures to determine ET. However, these methods are expensive and tedious, and are
best done in research settings. Although these methods are inappropriate for routine measurements, they remain
Corresponding Author: V.C. Patil, Department of Agricultural Engineering, Precision Agriculture Research Chair, College
of Food and Agricultural Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
E-mail: vpatil@ksu.edu.sa
196
 Aust. J. Basic & Appl. Sci., 6(9): 196-206, 2012

important for validation of ET estimates obtained by indirect procedures. Actual crop water use, represented by
ET, can be indirectly determined by measuring temporal changes in soil water content. ET may be theoretically
and empirically correlated to weather parameters to generate ET models that can be used to estimate ET from
weather parameters.
The main goal of this study was to determine water requirement and crop water productivity (CWP) for a
wide array of crops grown in Makkah region of Saudi Arabia. Neutron probe and Lysimeter based soil moisture
data were collected and assessed based on FAO (1998) guidelines. For computing of water requirements,
amount of water supplied at different growth stages and soil water depletion rate were taken into account.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 Study Area:

Field study was conducted at the 100 ha agricultural research farm of King Abdul Aziz University at Hoda
Al-Sham, Makkah Region of Saudi Arabia. The farm contained eight artesian wells, with depths ranging from
15-29 m, which were used for irrigation. The field soil was characterized as loose sandy silt with volcanic rocks
appearing in some parts of the farm at shallow depths (60-120 cm). Meteorological data used to calculate the
rate of ET (measured daily) was collected from both agricultural research station at Huda Al-Sham and the
Makkah station of the General Administration of Meteorology, Government of Saudi Arabia.

2.2 Test Crops:

Four winter season crops (wheat, corn, millet-Pennisetum typhoides and broad beans- Vicia faba), three
summer season crops (cow pea-Vigna sinensis, okra-Hybiscus esculentus and egg plant-Solanum melougena)
and four multi-cut forage crops (alfalfa, Rhodes grass, Sudan grass and blue panic grass) were selected for
determining the water requirement, dry matter production and crop water productivity.

2.3 Methodology:
Inductive, descriptive and analytical approaches were employed to estimate crop water requirements based
on measured ET and soil moisture content using neutron probe and lysimeter.

2.3.1 The Neutron Probe Method for Soil Moisture Measurements:

The soil moisture neutron probe (SMNP) is an in-situ measuring instrument (Bavel et al., 1956) that is
widely used by researchers (Moutonnet et al., 1988; Heng et al., 2001; Yao et al., 2004) to measure soil
moisture for programming of irrigation (Siam, 1979; WMO, 1974; Alshair, 1989). SMNP (Model 503 DR) was
used in this study for in-situ soil moisture measurements of the test crops.
Neutron probe readings were recorded by inserting the neutron probe in to the aluminum tubes installed in
the test crop fields. Two tubes each were installed in all the crops, except in alfalfa and millet where 4 and 6
tubes were installed, respectively. Soil moisture measurements were taken at 10 cm vertical intervals to a depth
of 110 cm once in two to three days, depending on the irrigation interval in designated crops. Data collected by
the neutron probe was converted into moisture content values (cm3/cm3) using Equations 1 and 2.
11
VT   Vi  V1  V2  .......... ..  V11 .......... .......... .......... .....(1)
i 1

V1  d1 v1
V2  d 2 v2
V3  d 3  v3
V11  d11 v11

where V1, V2, …, V11 represent the volumetric water content per unit area for soil layers 1 to 11 d1, d2, …, d11
represent the depth (10 cm) of soil layers; and θv1, θv2, …, θv11 represent the soil moisture content (cm3/cm3) of
respective soil layers 1 to 11.
where (ΔVT)J is the change in water content over the whole soil depth of 110 cm for the time interval from time
J to (J-1); (VT)J is the total water content for the whole soil depth at time (J); and (VT) J-1 is the total water content
for the whole soil depth at time (J-1).

( VT ) J  (VT ) J  (VT ) J 1 .......... .......... .......... .......( 2)

2.3.2 Determination of Evapotranspiration Using Neutron Probe- Measured Soil Moisture:

197
 
 Aust. J. Basic & Appl. Sci., 6(9): 196-206, 2012

The actual water consumption (evapotranspiration) for the whole soil depth at each irrigation application
was calculated as follows:
Substituting Equation 2 into Equation 3 yields the following:

ET J  I J  P J   V T J .......... .......... ........( 3)

ET J  I  J  P  J  V T J  V T J 1 .......... .......... ........( 4 )

Where (ET)J is the actual water consumption (evapotranspiration) in cm day-1 for the time J; (I)J is the
irrigation water quantity for the time J; (P)J is the deep percolation (below the soil depth of 110 cm) in cm/day
for the time J. Deep percolation could be neglected as the quantity of irrigation water was controlled in the
center pivot system. Therefore, Equation 4 was adjusted as shown in Equation 5.

ET  J  I  J  VT  J  VT  J 1 .......... .......... ........( 5)

Finally, crop water consumption was determined using the following formula:
ET  ( i 1   i )  I i  Ri .......... .......... .........( 6)

Where ET is the evapotranspiration of the particular agricultural crop; ωi and ωi-1 are the soil moisture
contents at the end and beginning of the time interval, respectively; and Ii and Ri are water quantities in
irrigation and rainfall, respectively.

2.3.3 Determination of Evapotranspiration Using Lysimeter:

Unlike in small areas, the process of measuring evapotranspiration over large areas is not possible in
practice. The lysimeter method has been used for more than 300 years to measure water consumption of plants
in the field (Howell, 1991). A 2x3x2 m lysimeter was used to determine water consumption of selected crops.
For a given irrigation schedule, soil samples were weighed in both pre and post irrigation conditions throughout
the growing season. The differences in weight due to water lost from the lysimeter through evapotranspiration
(WET) were calculated using the following formula:

WET  Wsi  Wsi 1 .......... .......... .......... .......... ..(7)

Where WET is the weight of sample water (kg) lost by the evapotranspiration process; and Wsi and Wsi-1 are
the weight of soil (kg) at post and pre irrigation conditions, respectively in a given irrigation schedule.
The amount of evapotranspiration (ET) was converted from kg to cm/cm by dividing the lysimeter
measured evapotranspiration (WET) by the area of the lysimeter (cm2) as follows:
WET
ETi  ...............................(8)
60000

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Comparison Between the Lysimeter and the Neutron Probe Measurements:
The neutron probe was calibrated according to the procedure outlined by the British Institute of Hydrology
(Eeles, 1969; Siam, 1979; AlShaer, 1989) and the ET values of the different crops were derived from
corresponding equations. Many studies have shown that it was necessary to validate these equations before
being used, especially since they were often developed in moist areas that were very different from the dry
environment (Siam, 1985; Al-Shaer, 1989). Mean ET values measured through neutron probe ranged between
130 and 240 mm, whereas lysimeter - measured actual water consumption (ET) values varied from 140 to 234
mm. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to analyze the relationship between the ET values obtained from
both neutron probe and lysimeter. There was a strong correlation between the ET values derived by neutron
probe and the lysimeter - measured ET values (Fig.1) with R2 value of 0.6562 (P≤ 0.01). Similar conclusions
were reached at by Prueger et al. (1997) and Vera et al. (2009).

3.2 Crop Water Consumption During Different Crop Growth Stages:

3.2.1 Winter Season Crops:
The data on seasonal crop water consumption (as ET values) of the winter season crops (wheat, broad
beans, corn and millet) are presented in Table 1 and Fig.2. Among the winter season crops, the highest seasonal
mean crop water consumption of 727.8 mm (ET) was observed in millet, followed by wheat (518.5 mm), corn

198
 
 Aust. J. Basic & Appl. Sci., 6(9): 196-206, 2012

(452.6 mm) and broad beans (303 mm). The highest mean daily ET (mm) for the whole cropping season was
recorded in millet (4.90), followed by corn (4.10), wheat (3.87) and broad beans (3.60).

Table 1: Estimated Crop water consumption (ET) of winter crops.

Crop Growth Stage Duration (day) ET (mm/day) ET (mm)
Wheat Seedling stage 15 2.73 40.95
Vegetative growth stage 20 3.65 73.00
Peak growth stage 65 4.95 321.75
Maturity stage 20 4.14 62.50
Total/Mean 120 3.87 498.20
Broad Beans Seedling stage 10 3.20 32.00
Vegetative growth stage 15 3.60 54.00
Peak growth stage 40 4.70 188.00
Maturity stage 10 2.90 29.00
Total/Mean 75 3.60 303.00
Corn Seedling stage 14 4.40 57.20
Vegetative growth stage 19 4.50 85.50
Peak growth stage 55 4.80 264.00
Maturity stage 17 2.70 45.90
Total/Mean 105 4.10 452.60
Millet Seedling stage 15 5.10 76.50
Vegetative growth stage 29 5.10 147.90
Peak growth stage 77 5.60 431.20
Maturity stage 19 3.80 72.20
Total/Mean 140 4.90 727.80

Fig. 1: Correlation between Evapotranspitation (ET) values derived from lysimeter and neutron probe.

Fig. 2: Water consumption in winter season crops.

199
 
 Aust. J. Basic & Appl. Sci., 6(9): 196-206, 2012

In contrary to the results of high ET observed in millet, Sivakumar and Salaam (1999) reported lower water
use values of pearl millet from 170 to 395 mm in non-fertilized crop and 193 to 467 mm for fertilizer applied
crop. The results of present study on estimated water consumption by wheat crop are in line with those reported
earlier by several researchers (Abdulmumin, 1988; Changming et al., 2002; Kang et al., 2002; Er-Raki et al.,
2011; FAO 2011). However, much lower seasonal ET values of 242–264 mm were reported for the same crop in
the piedmont and 247–281 mm in the lowlands (Zhang et al., 1999). The estimated water consumption by corn
was lower than reported by Zhao and Zhongren (2004), Zhao et al. (2010), Karimi and Gomrokchi (2011) and
FAO (2011). The ET values obtained in this study for broad beans were similar to those reported by Doorenbos
and Kassam (1979) and German (2007).
The crop water consumption in winter season crops was observed to be higher during the peak growth.
During peak growth stage when there is full canopy coverage, a crop will have the maximum ETr (reference
ET) rate if soil water is not limited. This soil water status is generally observed when the soil root zone is at field
capacity. The water consumed during peak growth stage varied from 58.33 per cent of the total water
consumption in corn to 64.58 per cent in wheat crop. Although wheat crop consumed greater proportion of the
total water during peak growth stage (64.58 %) and maturity stages (12.55 %) compared to the other winter
season crops, the crop consumed lower proportion of the total water than all the other crops during the first two
stages (seedling and vegetative growth).

3.2.2 Summer Season Crops:

The data on crop water consumption (ET) for the summer crops (cowpea, okra, and eggplant) during
different crop growth stages are presented in Table 2 and Fig.3. Total crop water consumption for the tested
summer crops was highest in egg plant (580.8 mm) followed by okra (502.1 mm) and cow pea (457.7 mm).
The seasonal water use by egg plant reported by Kirnak et al (2002) was much higher (905 to 1373 mm)
than the values obtained in the present study. At the other extreme, the whole season irrigation requirement of
egg plant was as low as 380 mm (Chartzoulkis and Droso, 1995). However, whole season ET of 520 mm for egg
plant recorded by Karam et al (2011) was comparable to the value reported in this study. The results of okra
agree with those of Fapohunda (1992) with an observed ET of 460–470 mm per season. While in cow pea,
Moroke et al. (2011) reported much lower water use of 131 to 255 mm.

Table 2: Estimated Crop water consumption (ET) of Summer crops.

Crop Growth Stage Duration (day) ET (mm/day) ET (mm)
Cowpea Seedling stage 12 3.93 47.20
Vegetative growth stage 20 5.22 104.40
Peak growth stage 48 5.69 273.10
Maturity stage 15 2.20 33.00
Total/Mean 95 4.26 457.70
Okra Seedling stage 13 2.86 37.20
Vegetative growth stage 19 5.22 99.20
Peak growth stage 50 6.22 311.00
Maturity stage 13 4.21 54.70
Total/Mean 95 4.63 502.10
Eggplant Seedling stage 14 3.90 54.60
Vegetative growth stage 20 5.30 106.00
Peak growth stage 53 6.40 339.20
Maturity stage 15 5.40 81.00
Total/Mean 102 5.25 580.80

As in the winter season crops, the highest water consumption in summer season crops was observed during
the peak crop growth stage (Fig.3). On a daily basis, egg plant consumed more water during both peak growth
stage and maturity stages followed by okra and cowpea. However, during the first two stages, okra consumed
less water per day than the other two crops. The seasonal mean ET for the whole cropping season was 4.26, 4.63
and 5.25 mm per day for cowpea, okra and eggplant, respectively. The daily evapotranspiration in egg plant
varied from 0.5 to 4.5 mm (Chartzoulkis and Droso, 1995).

3.2.3 Forage Crops:

The data on crop water consumption determined for four fodder crops are presented in Table 3a and 3b. The
total crop water consumption (mm) was highest in alfalfa (1922.50) followed by rhodes grass (1821.94), blue
panic grass (1287.76) and Sudan grass (962.75). Annual evapotranspiration values of rhodes grass obtained in
this study far exceeded the experimental values of 982 and 1191 mm reported by Edraki et al. (2004) from
Australia. Similarly, water consumption in alfalfa was higher than those reported by Wright (1988) and FAO
(2011) (between 800 and 1600 mm/growing period). The mean daily water consumption (mm/day) was highest
in alfalfa (4.94) followed by Rhodes grass (4.78), blue panic grass (4.70) and Sudan grass (3.48).

200
 
 Aust. J. Basic & Appl. Sci., 6(9): 196-206, 2012

Table 3a: Estimated Crop Water Consumption (ET) of forage crops – Alfalfa and Rhodes grass.
Alfalfa Rhodes Grass
Stage Duration (day) ET (mm/day) ET (mm) Stage Duration (day) ET (mm/day) ET (mm)
Seedling 19.00 4.47 84.90 Seedling 15.00 5.92 88.80
Growth-1 14.00 5.20 72.80 Growth-1 16.00 6.00 96.00
1st cut 32.00 6.63 212.20 1st cut 23.00 6.15 141.45
Growth-2 6.00 6.90 41.40 Growth-2 9.00 5.10 45.90
2nd cut 22.00 7.90 173.80 2nd cut 22.00 6.38 140.36
Growth-3 7.00 5.10 35.70 Growth-3 8.00 4.00 32.00
3rd cut 23.00 5.68 130.60 3rd cut 22.00 4.96 109.12
Growth-4 8.00 3.80 30.40 Growth-4 9.00 4.00 36.00
4th cut 24.00 4.90 117.60 4th cut 25.00 4.48 112.00
Growth-5 7.00 3.20 22.40 Growth-5 7.00 2.90 20.30
5th cut 23.00 4.20 96.60 5th cut 24.00 3.81 91.44
Growth-6 8.00 3.10 24.80 Growth-6 8.00 2.80 22.40
6th cut 24.00 4.92 118.10 6th cut 25.00 3.85 96.25
Growth-7 7.00 3.90 27.30 Growth-7 9.00 4.00 36.00
7th cut 23.00 5.33 122.60 7th cut 22.00 4.70 103.40
Growth-8 8.00 4.00 32.00 Growth-8 8.00 4.50 36.00
8th cut 24.00 5.70 136.80 8th cut 23.00 5.90 135.70
Growth-9 7.00 3.80 26.60 Growth-9 7.00 4.20 29.40
9th cut 22.00 5.73 126.10 9th cut 22.00 5.10 112.20
Growth-10 6.00 3.90 23.40 Growth-10 8.00 4.50 36.00
10th cut 21.00 5.51 115.70 10th cut 24.00 5.38 129.12
Growth-11 6.00 4.00 24.00 Growth-11 7.00 5.10 35.70
11th cut 22.00 5.76 126.70 11th cut 22.00 6.20 136.40
Total/Mean 363.00 4.94 1922.50 Total/Mean 365.00 4.78 1821.94

Table 3b: Estimated Crop Water Consumption (ET) of forage crops - Sudan grass and Blue panic grass.
Sudan Grass Blue Panic Grass
Stage Duration (day) ET (mm/day) ET (mm) Stage Duration (day) ET (mm/day) ET (mm)
Seedling 14 3.92 54.88 Seedling 13 5.95 77.35
Growth-1 15 4.2 63.00 Growth-1 12 6.1 73.20
1st cut 25 4.87 121.75 1st cut 25 7.86 196.50
Growth-2 8 3.7 29.60 Growth-2 8 6.2 49.60
2nd cut 24 4.02 96.48 2nd cut 27 7.22 194.94
Growth-3 8 3.6 28.80 Growth-3 8 4.9 39.20
3rd cut 27 4.59 123.93 3rd cut 26 5.66 147.16
Growth-4 9 2.1 18.90 Growth-4 9 4.1 36.90
4th cut 26 2.47 64.22 4th cut 27 4.9 132.30
Growth-5 8 2.5 20.00 Growth-5 9 2.79 25.10
5th cut 27 3.02 81.54 5th cut 25 4.83 120.75
Growth-6 9 3 27.00 Growth-6 8 2.2 17.60
6th cut 29 4.07 118.03 6th cut 27 2.9 78.30
Growth-7 8 2.4 19.20 Growth-7 9 1.9 17.10
7th cut 26 3.67 95.42 7th cut 28 2.92 81.76
Total/Mean 263 3.48 962.75 Total/Mean 261 4.70 1287.76

Fig. 3: Water consumption in summer season crops.

201
 
 Aust. J. Basic & Appl. Sci., 6(9): 196-206, 2012

3.3 Dry Matter Production (DMP) of Crops:

The data on DMP (kg/ha) of the tested crops are presented in Table 4. The mean DMP was much lower in
winter season crops (5071) than in summer season crops (7625). However, the mean DMP in perennial crops
(15933) was way higher than seasonal crops, which was quite obvious due to longer duration of these crops.
Among the winter crops, the highest DMP was observed in millet (9102), which was more than double as
compared to wheat (4128) and corn (4048) and three times that of broad beans (3007). However, among the
summer season crops, DMP was more or less similar in okra (8664) and egg plant (8335) but higher in cow pea
(5876). DMP in okra was found to increase from 3900 kg ha-1 to 8700 kg ha-1 when improved practices were
adopted (Woltering et al., 2011), which is in agreement with the results of the study. However, the same authors
reported very high DMP in egg plant (2 to 5 times higher) as compared to the production obtained in this study.
The yield of cow pea reported earlier varied from 1000 to 4000 kg ha-1 under rain fed conditions (Turk et al.,
1980; Pandey and Agarm 1985) and reached 6000 kg ha-1 under irrigation in California (Fery, 1990).
Among the forage crops, blue panic grass produced the highest dry matter (19981 kg/ha), which was almost
double the amount produced by Sudan grass (10895 kg/ha). The potential production of blue panic grass is also
evident from a previous report from India (Dagar et al., 2008), with gross dry matter yield of 9340 to 15050 kg
ha-1 and a mean of 11890 kg ha-1. The DMP values of alfalfa and rhodes grass were in between the DMP values
associated with blue panic and Sudan grass.

Table 4: Dry matter production and crop water productivity of seasonal (summer / winter) and forage crops.
Season Crop Production (Kg/ha) Water Use Efficiency (Kg/m3)
Winter Crops Wheat 4127.5 0.83
Corn 4048.4 0.79
Millet 9102.3 1.15
Beans 3007.0 1.00
Mean 5071.3 0.94
Summer Crops Cowpea 5875.7 1.28
Okra 8663.7 1.72
Eggplant 8335.4 1.43
Mean 7624.9 1.48
Forage Crops Alfalfa 17734.0 0.84
Sudan Grass 10895.2 1.14
Blue Panic 19981.0 1.54
Rhodes Grass 16693.2 0.80
Mean 16325.9 1.079

3.4 Crop Water Productivity (CWP):

Water requirement (consumptive use) and crop water productivity (CWP) of crops are two important
factors that should be considered when assessing the feasibility of growing crops in any region. CWP is defined
in this text as being the yield or biomass production (kg) per unit of crop water use (m3). Data on CWP of
different crops are presented in Fig.4. The mean CWP (kg/m3) of forage crops (1.529) was higher than that of
summer (1.478) and winter (0.942) season crops. Al-Kaisi and Broner (2009) reported that crop water use is
influenced by prevailing weather conditions, available water in the soil, crop species and growth stage.

Fig. 4: Dry matter production (kg/ha) and water use efficiency (kg/m3) of tested seasonal (winter and summer)
and forage crops.

202
 
 Aust. J. Basic & Appl. Sci., 6(9): 196-206, 2012

3.4.1 Winter Season Crops:

CWP was highest in millet (1.149 kg/m3) followed by beans, wheat and corn. The CWP values of all the
winter crops studied were observed to be lower than those reported in previous studies. CWP of millet crop was
found in this study to be lower than the values of 1.27 to 4.06 kg m-3 reported by Sivakumar and Salaam (1999).
Similarly, Gaber et al. (2006) also reported higher CWP values in Sudanese pearl millet (5.60 Kg grain/m3) and
in Egyptian variety of pearl millet (5.37 kg/m3). The CWP of broad beans obtained in this study (1 kg/m3) was
also much lower than the values of 3 to 6 kg m-3 reported by Doorenbos and Kassam (1979) and Mahlooji et al.
(2000); and 2.9 kg m-3 by Miller et al. (2002) with a range of 0.3 to 6.7 kg m-3, for dry beans across locations
and years in the Northern Great Plains of the USA. The observed CWP of wheat (0.826 kg/m3) was also lower
than the values of 0.98 to1.22 kg m-3 for rainfed wheat and 1.20 to1.40 kg m-3 for irrigated wheat obtained by
Zhang et al. (1999) and between 0.99 to 1.50 kg m-3 stated by Kharrou et al., (2011). For corn, the calculated
CWP was found to be low compared to values stated in previous reports (3.17 kg/m3 by Tingwu et al., (2005);
3.5 to 4.5 kg m-3 by Rafiee and Shakarami (2010); and 0.82 to 1.96 kg m-3 by Karimi and Gomrokchi (2011)).

3.4.2 Summer Season and Forage Crops:

Among all summer season crops, okra recorded the highest CWP of 1.724 kg m-3. Cowpea exhibited a
CWP value of 1.282 kg m-3, which was two to three times higher than those reported by Moroke et al. (2011).
CWP of forage crops varied from 0.800 kg m-3 in Rhodes grass to 1.538 kg m-3 in blue panic grass. CWP of 0.7
kg m-3 in Rhodes grass was reported earlier (Al-Said et al., 2012) The CWP of blue panic grass (1.538 kg/m3)
was higher than in Rhodes grass, Sudan grass and alfalfa. However, much higher CWP of 2.47 kg m-3 was
reported before in blue panic grass (Dagar et al., 2008).

4. Conclusions:
A field study was conducted to determine the water requirements and crop water productivity of different
seasonal and forage crops cultivated in the Makkah region of Saudi Arabia. The following specific conclusions
were drawn from the study:
i) The neutron probe method was found to be accurate and efficient in soil moisture and plant
evapotranspiration determination on large scale areas. The neutron probe was calibrated against a lysimeter and
a strong correlation was observed with R2 value of 0.6562.
ii) For winter season crops, the lowest crop water requirements (ET in mm) of 303 were associated with broad
beans, whereas the highest requirements of 727.80 were observed with millet. However, the requirements for
summer season crops ranged from 580.80 for egg plant to 457.70 for cowpea. In forage crops, the water
requirements varied from 962.75 mm in Sudan grass to 1922.50 mm in alfalfa.
iii) On the average, forage crops exhibited the highest dry matter production (DMP) of 16325.9 kg/ha followed
by summer season (7625 kg/ha) and winter season (5071 kg/ha) crops.
iv) Crop water productivity (kg/m3) in forage crops (1.529) was higher than that for summer (1.478) and winter
(0.942) season crops. The lowest CWP value of 0.794 was observed in corn, while the highest value of 1.724
was found to associate with okra.
v) Based on the CWP of crops obtained in the study, cultivation of millet in winter season and okra in summer
season can be recommended. Blue panic grass can be recommended for cultivation as a forage crop.

REFERENCES

Abdelhadi, A.W., T. Hata, H. Tanakumaru, A. Tada and M.A. Tariq, 2000. Estimation of crop water
requirements in arid region using Penman-Moneith equation with derived crop coefficients: a case study on
Acala cotton in Sudan Gezira irrigated scheme. Agricultural Water Management, 45(3): 203-214.
Abdulmumin, S., 1988. Crop coefficients and water requirements of irrigated wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)
in the Nigerian savannah zone. Irrigation Science, 9: 177-186.
Abu Zeid, K. and A. Abdel Megeed, 2004. Status of Integrated Water Resources management planning in
Arab Mediterranean Countries. IWRM, International Water Demand Management Conference, Dead Sea,
Jordan. June 2004.
Al Alawi, J. and M. Abdulrazzak, 1994. Water in the Arabian Peninsula: Problems and Perspectives. Water
in the Arab World (Ed.) Peter Rogers and Peter Lydon, Harvard University Press, 171-202.
Ali, M.H., M.R. Hoque, A.A. Hassan and A. Khair, 2007. Effects of deficit irrigation on yield, water
productivity, and economic returns of wheat. Agricultural water management, 92: 151-161.
Al-Kaisi, M.M. and I. Broner, 2009. Crop water use and growth stages. Crop Series (Irrigation), no. 4.715.
Colorado State University Extension, www.ext.colostate.edu.
Allen, R.G., L.S. Pereira, D. Raes and M. Smith, 1998. Crop evapotranspiration: guidelines for computing
crop water requirements. FAO Irrigation and Drainage. paper No. 56. Rome, Italy.

203
 
 Aust. J. Basic & Appl. Sci., 6(9): 196-206, 2012

Al-Said, F.A., M. Ashfaq, M. Al-Barhi, M.A. Hanjra and I.A. Khani, 2012. Water Productivity of
vegetables under modern irrigation methods in Oman. Irrigation and Drainage. Article first published online on
22 MAR 2012- http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ird.1644/pdf (accessed on 14/May/2012).
Al-Shaer, J., 1989. Climatic conditions and their relationship to estimate the need of water for agriculture.
Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Damascus University, Syria.
Bavel, V., C.H.M. Underwood, R.W. Swanson, 1956. Soil moisture measurement by neutron moderation.
Soil Science, 82: 29-41.
Bryla, D.R., G.S. Banuelos and J.P. Mitchell, 2003. Water requirements of subsurface drip-irrigated faba
bean in California. Irrigation Science, 22(1): 31-37.
Changming, L., X. Zhang and Y. Zhang, 2002. Determination of daily evaporation and evapotranspiration
of winter wheat and maize by large-scale weighing lysimeter and micro-lysimeter. Agricultural and Forest
Meteorology, 111: 109-120.
Chartzoulakis, K. and N. Droso, 1995. Water use and yield of greenhouse grown eggplant under drip
irrigation. Agricultural Water Management, 28(2): 113-120.
Dagar, J.C., O.S. Tomar, P.S. Minhas, G. Singh and J. Ram, 2008. Dry land Biosaline Agriculture - Hisar
Experience, Central Soil Salinity Research Institute, India, Technical Bulletin 6/2008,
http://www.cssri.org/dryland.pdf.
Doorenbos, J. and A.H. Kassam, 1979. Yield response to water. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 33.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
Doorenbos. J. and W.O. Pruitt, 1977. Crop water requirements. Irrigation and Drainage Paper No 24, FAO,
Rome, Italy.
Edgell, H.S., 1997. Aquifers of Saudi Arabia and their Geological Framework. Arabian Journal of Science
and Engineering, 22(1C): 4-31.
Edraki, M., H.B. So and E.A. Gardner, 2004. Water balance of Swamp Mahogany and Rhodes grass
irrigated with treated sewage effluent. Agricultural Water Management, 67(3): 157-171.
Eeles, C.W.O., 1969. Installation of access tube, and calibration of neutron moisture probes. Ins. of Hyd.
Rep. WO.7, pp: 13.
El-Quasy, D., 2009. Impact of climate change: vulnerability and adaptation on fresh water. In (Ed.) Tolba,
M.K and Saab, N.W., Impact of climate change on Arab countries. Arab Forum for Environment and
Development 75-86.
Er-Raki, S., A. Chehbouni, J. Ezzahar, S. Khabba, E.K. Lakhal and B. Duchemin, 2011. Derived Crop
Coefficients for Winter Wheat Using Different Reference Evpotranspiration Estimation Methods. Journal of
Agricultural Science and Technology 13, 209-221.
FAO, 2011. http://www.fao.org/nr/water.html.
FAO-Aquastat, 2009. Water Reports, 34. In (Ed.) Karen Frenken., Irrigation in the Middle East region in
figures AQUASTAT Survey – 2008. Land and Water Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations. Rome. ftp://ftp.fao.org/agl/aglw/docs/wr34_eng.pdf.
Fapohunda, H.O., 1992. Irrigation frequency and amount for okra and tomato using a point source sprinkler
system. Scientia Horticulturae, 49(1-2): 25-31.
Fery, R.L., 1990. Cowpea production in the United States. Horticultural Science, 16: 473-474.
Gaber, A.M., E.I. Gaber, A.S. El-Hassanin and El-Boraie, 2006. Maximizing crop water productivity of
pearl millet by water and drip irrigation management. The 2nd International Conf. on Water Resources & Arid
Environment.
German, C.M., R.G. Allen, D.T. Westermann, J.L. Wright and S.P. Singh, 2007. Crop water productivity
among dry bean landraces and cultivars in drought-stressed and non-stressed environments. Euphytica, 155:
393-402.
Heng, L.K., R.E. White, K.R. Helayr, R. Fisher and D. Chen, 2001. Seasonal differences in the soil water
balance under perennial and annual pastures on an acid spodosol in Southern Australia. European Journal of Soil
Sciences, 52: 227-236.
Howell, T.A. and A.D. Schneider, 1991. History of Lysimeter use for Evapotranspiration measurements. In:
Lysimeters for Evapotranspiration and environmental measurements. Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Lysimetry, A.S.A, E., Honolulu (July 23-25, 1991) 1-9.
Kamel, N., M.M. Mohamed and N.B. Mechliaba, 2012. Impacts of irrigation regimes with saline water on
carrot productivity and soil salinity. Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences, 11(1): 19-27.
Kang, S., B. Gu, T. Du and J. Zhang, 2002. Crop coefficient and ratio of transpiration to evapotranspiration
of winter wheat and maize in a semi-humid region. Agricultural Water Management, 59(3): 239-254.
Karam, F., R. Saliba, S. Skaf, J. Breidy, Y. Rouphael and J. Balendonck, 2011. Yield and water use of
eggplants (Solanum melongena L.) under full and deficit irrigation regimes. Agricultural Water Management,
98: 1307-1316.

204
 
 Aust. J. Basic & Appl. Sci., 6(9): 196-206, 2012

Karimi, M. and A. Gomrokchi, 2011. Yield and crop water productivity of corn planted in one or two rows
and applying furrow or drip tape irrigation systems in Ghazvin Province, Iran. Irrigation and Drainage, 60: 35-
41.
Kharrou, M.H., S. Er-Raki, A. Chehbouni, B. Duchemin, V. Simonneaux, M. LePage, L. Ouzine and L.
Jarlan, 2011. Crop water productivity and yield of winter wheat under different irrigation regimes in a semi-arid
region. Agricultural Sciences, 2(3): 273-282.
Kirnak, H., I. Tas, C. Kaya and D. Higgs, 2002. Effects of deficit irrigation on growth, yield and fruit
quality of eggplant under semi-arid conditions. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 53(12): 1367-1373.
Lei, T., W. Zhan, J. Xiao, X. Huang and J. Mao, 2005. Crop water productivity of a mixed cropping system
of corn with grasses. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 12(1): 55-59.
Mahlooji, M., S.F. Mousavi and M. Karimi, 2000. The effects of water stress and planting date on yield and
yield components of pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Journal of Science and Technology of Agriculture and
Natural Resources, 4: 57-68.
Miller, P.R., B.G. McConkey, G.W. Clayton, S.A. Brandt, J.A. Staricka, A.M. Johnston, G.P. Lafond, B.G.
Schatz, D.D. Baltensperger and K.E. Neill, 2002. Pulse crop adaptation in the northern Great Plains. Agronomy
Journal, 94: 261-272.
Moroke, T.S., R.C. Schwartz, K.W. Brown and A.S.R. Juo, 2011. Crop water productivity of dryland
cowpea, sorghum and sunflower under reduced tillage. Soil and Tillage Research, 112: 76-84.
Moutonnet, P.P., N. El-Mourabit and P. Couchat, 1988. Measuring the spatial variability of soil hydraulic
conductivity using an automatic neutron moisture guage. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 52: 1521-
1526.
Narasimhan, B. and R. Srinivasan, 2005. Development and evaluation of Soil Moisture Deficit Index
(SMDI) and Evapotranspiration Deficit Index (ETDI) for agricultural drought monitoring. Agricultural and
Forest Meteorology, 133: 69-88.
Ouda, S., F. Khalil, A. Gamal and A.H. Sayed, 2011. Prediction of total water requirements for agriculture
in the Arab world under climate change. Fifteenth International Water Technology Conference, IWTC-15 2011,
Alexandria, Egypt.
Pandey, R.K. and A.T. Agarm, 1985. Agronomic research advances in Asia. In: Singh, S.R., Rachie, K.O.
(Eds.), Cowpea Research, Production and Utilization. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, 297-306.
Petersen, K.L., H.J. Mack and R.H. Cuenca, 1985. Effect of tillage on the crop-water production function of
sweet corn in West Oregon. HortScience, 20: 901-903.
Prueger, J.H., J.L. Hatfield, J.K. Aase and J.L.Jr. Pikul, 1997. Bowen-Ratio Comparisons with Lysimeter
Evapotranspiration. Agronomy Journal, 89: 730-736.
Rafiee, M. and G. Shakarami, 2010. Crop water productivity of corn as affected by every other furrow
irrigation and planting density. World Applied Sciences Journal, 11(7): 826-829.
Sadik, A.K. and S. Barghouti, 1994. The Water Problems of the Arab World: Management of Scarce
Resources. Water in the Arab World, (Ed.) Peter Rogers and Peter Lydon, Harvard University Press, 1-37.
Saif-ud-din., Y.A. Al-Rumikhani and S.L. Mohammad, 2004. Use of remote sensing and agrometerology
for irrigation management in arid lands: A case study from Northwestern Saudi Arabia. Journal of
Environmental Hydrology 2, paper 9; http://hydroweb.com/jeh/jeh2004/din.pdf.
Siam, N., 1979. Soil Moisture Changes and Drainage under Arab land, Ph. D. Thesis, Geog. Dept. Univ. of
New Castle Upontyne.
Siam, N., 1985. Comparison between Penman method and its amendments and Priestly method used for the
calculation of evapotranspiration. Journal of Agriculture and Water in dry areas in the Arab world, 2: 58-67.
Sivakumar, M.V.K. and S.A. Salaam, 1999. Effect of year and fertilizer on water-use efficiency of pearl
millet (Pennisetum glaucum) in Niger. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge, 132: 139-148.
Turk, K.J. and A.E. Hall, 1980. Drought adaptation of cowpea: influence of drought on plant water status
and relation with seed yield. Agronomy Journal, 72: 421-427.
Vera, J., O. Mounzer, M.C. Ruiz-Sanchez, I. Abrisqueta, L.M. Tapia and J.M. Abrisqueta, 2009. Soil water
balance trial involving capacitance and neutron probe measurements. Agricultural Water Management, 96(6):
905-911.
WMO., 1974. Guide to Hydrological practices. World Meteorological Organization. WMO-No-168.
http://www.bom.gov.au/hydro/wr/wmo/guide_to_hydrological_practices/WMOENG.pdf (Accessed on
September 28, 2011).
Woltering, L., I. Ali, P. Dov and N. Jupiter, 2011. The economics of low pressure drip irrigation and hand
watering for vegetable production in the Sahel. Water Management, 99: 67-73.
Wright, J.L., 1988. Daily and Seasonal Evapotranspiration and Yield of Irrigated Alfalfa in Southern Idaho.
Agronomy Journal, 80: 662-669.
Yao,T., P.J. Wierenga, A.R. Graham and S.P. Neuman, 2004. Neutron probe calibration in a vertically
stratified Vadose zone. Vadose Zone Journal, 3: 1400-1406.

205
 
 Aust. J. Basic & Appl. Sci., 6(9): 196-206, 2012

Zhang, H., X. Wang, M. You, C. Liu, 1999. Water-yield relations and water-use efficiency of winter wheat
in the North China Plain. Irrigation Science, 19: 37-45.
Zhao, C. and N. Zhongren, 2007. Estimating water needs of maize (Zea mays L.) using the dual crop
coefficient method in the arid region of northwestern China. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 2(7):
325-333.
Zhao, W., B. Liu and Z. Zhang, 2010. Water requirements of maize in the middle Heihe River basin, China.
Agricultural Water Management, 97: 215-223.

206
 

View publication stats