Agricultural Water Management 213 (2019) 97–106

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agricultural Water Management

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

Simulating the effects of climatic fluctuations on rice irrigation water T

requirement using AquaCrop
⁎
Nader Pirmoradiana, , Naser Davatgarb
a
Water Engineering Department, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Guilan, Rasht, 41889-58643, Iran
b
Soil and Water Research Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Irrigation water requirement is influenced by climatic fluctuations which can be simulated using agro-meteor-
Irrigation prediction ological models. This study investigates fluctuating irrigation water requirements for rice as affected by drought
Reconnaissance drought index occurrences. Irrigation requirements were simulated by the AquaCrop model in paddy fields of Guilan in
Rice ET northern Iran. Model validation was done based on field measurements during two consecutive years of 2012
and 2013 in the study area. The reconnaissance drought index (RDI), based on cumulative values of precipitation
and potential evapotranspiration, was used for drought monitoring for 1982–2014, in two time scales of 3- and
6-month. Also, irrigation water requirements (IWR) were calculated for this period. The normalized root mean
square error (NRMSE) for simulating canopy cover, biomass, rice evapotranspiration and deep percolation by
AquaCrop were obtained 7.0, 8.8, 18.45 and 26.6%, respectively. The contributions of crop evapotranspiration
and deep percolation in IWR were 70.5% and 22.9%, respectively. There are more drought occurrences after
1994. A good correlation was obtained between simulated rice IWR and RDI of July (calculated with 3-month
time scale) (R = -0.89). Maximum amounts of required irrigation water in wet, normal and dry years, were
6750, 8050 and 8760 m³ ha−1, respectively. Obtained relationship between rice IWR and RDI of July with a 3-
month time scale can be used to allocate paddies irrigation water of the studied area at transplanting time based
on seasonal forecasts of drought.

1. Introduction responses of yield production to changes in temperature (Bachelet and

Trying to make optimal use of agricultural inputs is an inevitable
way to promote the next generation food production due to scarcity of
water and soil resources. For decades, irrigation has also been used as a
form of ‘insurance’ on yield reductions due to dry spells and to control
the uniform quality of high value (export) crops. Irrigated lands cover
16% of the agricultural area, while producing 40% of all crops (Bos
et al., 2009). Hence, irrigation plays a major role in feeding the world.
Awareness of irrigation water requirement (IWR) could help to modify
consumption patterns and reduce water demand and increase water
productivity.
IWR depends on local weather conditions, soil type and farm
management practices. Annual IWR varies due to climatic fluctuations
and resulting changes in the irrigation scheduling. Determining IWR
exclusively based on the field researches is difficult and time con-
suming. Simulation models are an important tool for studying the
present and future effects of climatic fluctuations on agriculture (Mei
et al., 2011). Crop simulation models have been applied to show the
Gay, 1993; Aggarwal and Mall, 2002; Pirmoradian and Sepaskhah,
2007; Challinor and Wheeler, 2008; Todorovic et al., 2009), CO2 con-
centration (Bachelet and Gay, 1993; Ewert et al., 2002; Matthews and
Wassmann, 2003), and saturation vapor pressure (Bachelet and Gay,
1993). The effects of environmental factors such as drought occurrence
on IWR can be investigated using crop growth simulation models (Bray,
1997). Accurate modelling of IWR can improve irrigation management,
relating IWR more closely to drought occurrence (Popova and Pereira,
2008; Wriedt et al., 2009; Smith et al., 2012).
Crop simulation models need to be calibrated and parameterized to
local conditions before they can be used as predictive tools. The algo-
rithm of these models usually estimates the production rate of biomass
from the captured resources such as carbon dioxide, solar radiation, and
water (Azam et al., 1994; Steduto, 2003). The water-driven crop growth
models assume a linear relationship between biomass growth rate and
transpiration through a water productivity parameter (Tanner and
Sinclair, 1983; Steduto and Albrizio, 2005). AquaCrop is a water-driven
growth model presented by FAO (Steduto et al., 2009; Vanuytrecht

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: npirmoradian@guilan.ac.ir (N. Pirmoradian), n_davatgar@yahoo.com (N. Davatgar).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2018.10.003
Received 6 June 2018; Received in revised form 2 October 2018; Accepted 4 October 2018
0378-3774/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
N. Pirmoradian, N. Davatgar Agricultural Water Management 213 (2019) 97–106

Fig. 1. Study area location.

et al., 2014). A major advantage of water-driven models over radiation- 2. Materials and methods
driven models is the opportunity to normalize the water productivity
(WP*) parameter for climate, making these models widely applicable in 2.1. Study area location
different locations under varying climatic and spatio-temporal settings
(Steduto and Albrizio, 2005; Steduto et al., 2007). Guilan province is located at south of the Caspian Sea and bounded
Guilan province is located at the northern part of Iran (Fig. 1). Rice to Talesh Mountains westward and Alborz Mountain Range southward.
as the most important crop is produced from about 230,000 ha in The plain regions of thisprovince are located between the sea and the
Guilan (Ministry of Jahad-e-Keshvarzi, 2015). Sefidrood Dam is located mountains. Guilan’s climate is known as “moderate Caspian” which is
on Sefidrood River upstream of Guilan plain and supplies irrigation under the influence of weather from both Alborz Mountains and
water for 189,000 ha of rice cultivated area. The rest of the paddy fields Caspian Sea. The Sefidrood Irrigation and Drainage Network consist of
are irrigated by local river or groundwater resources. In recent years, three districts (East, Central and Foumanat) and 17 command areas.
various water storage and adjustments dams have been built in basins This study was conducted at Foumanat District in the eastern part of the
upstream of Sefidrood Dam, resulting in less water entering the Sefi- F1 command area (east longitude between 49˚ 38ʹ to 49˚ 47ʹ and north
drood Dam reservoir and a water supply crisis in the Guilan Province. latitude between 37˚ 16ʹ to 37˚ 26ʹ), where there were 3293 ha of paddy
Now, in the operation of Sefidrood Irrigation and Drainage Network, rice in 2012.
IWR is estimated for normal condition based on the average of a cli- The daily weather data required by AquaCrop including maximum
matic period, and does not consider the effects of wet or dry conditions and minimum temperature (Tmax, Tmin), sunshine hours (n), precipita-
on IWR, crop yield, or water productivity. It is necessary to account for tion (P), maximum and minimum relative humidity (RHmax, RHmin) and
climatic fluctuations, particular drought, in a more realistic estimation wind speed at 2 m above ground (U), were obtained from Rasht
of IWR. Agricultural Meteorological Station (Lat. 37˚12′ N; Long. 49˚39′ E;
Drought indices are important tools for monitoring and assessing Elevation of 24.6 m). Mean monthly data for the period 1982–2014 are
drought for planners, designers and water resources managers (Richard shown in Table 1.
and Heim, 2002; Hayes, 2004). Irrigation requirements vary by climatic
fluctuations that are monitored by drought indices. Therefore, drought 2.2. Field measurements
monitoring can be used to predict irrigation requirements before the
start of the growing season. One of the most widely used indices for Field measurements were conducted during two years, 2012 and
assessing the severity of the drought is Reconnaissance Drought Index
(RDI), calculated on the basis of monthly amounts of precipitation and Table 1
potential evapotranspiration. Water scarcity could be better expressed Mean monthly meteorological data in Rasht between 1982 and 2014.
using RDI with regard to evapotranspiration as compared to indices that
Month n Tmin Tmax RHmin RHmax P
are only based on precipitation. RDI can be more effectively associated
(hr/month) (˚C) (˚C) (%) (%) (mm/month)
with hydrological and agricultural drought. Also, it is an ideal index to
study the effects of climate instability (Tsakiris and Vangelis, 2005). Jan 100.6 3.0 11.2 70 97 130.6
This study was conducted to estimate IWR of paddy rice in Guilan as Feb 92.8 3.1 11.2 70 97 119.6
Mar 103.2 5.7 13.9 68 97 106.4
affected by climatic fluctuations using the FAO AquaCrop model, and
Apr 129.4 10.3 19.4 64 97 64.0
relate the simulated IWR to the corresponding RDI. The aim was to find May 180.0 15.2 24.1 63 96 44.8
a relationship between RDI and irrigation water requirements in order Jun 223.3 19.4 28.3 60 95 41.0
to be able to predict irrigation water requirements before the start of Jul 230.9 21.3 30.4 59 94 38.1
the growing season. Aug 196.0 21.2 30.4 61 95 73.3
Sep 139.7 18.5 26.9 68 97 155.5
Oct 122.7 14.0 22.4 71 98 213.6
Nov 100.4 9.0 17.2 72 98 199.7
Dec 96.4 5.0 13.2 71 97 152.3

98
N. Pirmoradian, N. Davatgar
Fig. 2. Geographical positions of the studied paddy fields and meteorological station.
2013. Equipment to measure evapotranspiration (ET) and deep perco-
lation (DP) were installed in 10 paddy fields at first. The measurements
were continued over the two years only for seven fields, and the mea-
sured data are the means for the seven fields. The geographical posi-
tions of the studied paddy fields and that of the meteorological station
are shown in Fig. 2.
Before cultivation, soil samples were taken from each field at depth
of 0–30 and 30–60 cm. Subsamples were randomly collected from 12
points of each field and provided as a composite sample. Soil particles
size distribution was determined using the hydrometer method (Klute,
1986). The volumetric water content at field capacity (33 kPa matric
suction, FC) and permanent wilting point (1500 kPa matric suction,
PWP) were measured using a pressure cell. Soil characteristic data are
shown in Table 2.
The fields were flooded and covered by 5–10 cm water depth and
puddled before transplanting. A local cultivar named Hashemi was
transplanted on May 4 in both years, and harvested on July 29, 2012,
and on August 4, 2013. Fertilizers were applied as 100, 50, 50, 25 kg
ha−1 of N, P, K, Zn, in the form of urea, triple super phosphate, po-
tassium sulfate and zinc sulfate, respectively, according to re-
commendations by Rice Research Institute of Iran. The irrigation was
controlled by a reference mark in each field and the water level was
regulated at 3 to 7 cm in each irrigation event due to spatial variations
in plot leveling. Regular field control and measurements were carried
out between 7 to 8:30 AM from Field 1 to Field 7 (Fig. 2), respectively.
Based on recorded dates and daily temperature data, the duration of a
process or the time required to reach a particular stage was computed in
growing degree day (GDD, °C day) instead of number of days (Raes
et al., 2012).
A closed bottom cylindrical mini-lysimeter with a diameter of 56 cm
and depth of 60 cm was installed in each field to measure the crop
evapotranspiration (ETc). The mini-lysimeters set in the underground.
Farming operations such as transplanting date and density (6 plants at
20 × 20 cm spacing in mini-lysimeter) in mini-lysimeters were the
same as the surrounding field. Also, an open bottom cylinder with a
diameter of 20 cm and depth of 50 cm (30 cm below the soil on the hard
Table 2
Mean ( ± STDa) of some soil characteristics in the studied paddy fields.
Depth EC pH Sand
Cm dS m−1 % %
0-30 0.87 ( ± 0.22) 7.02 ( ± 0.39) 10.4 ( ± 5.8)
30-60 0.81 ( ± 0.27) 6.96 ( ± 0.29) 12.2 ( ± 7.0)
a
Standard deviation.
Agricultural Water Management 213 (2019) 97–106
pan layer) was used to measure deep percolation in each field. A lid was
placed on each cylinder to prevent evaporation from it. ETc and DP
were measured at 2 or 3-day intervals. At the start, water level in the
mini-lysimeters and cylinders were adjusted to be the same as outside.
This level was marked as the reference level. In subsequent measure-
ments in the absence of rain, water level in the mini-lysimeter or cy-
linder dropped due to ETc or DP. Water was then added to reach the
reference level and the volume added was taken as the amount of ETc or
DP during that period. In the event of rain, ETc was calculated as the
sum of rain and the added water (when water was added to reach the
reference level), or as the amount of rain minus the removed water
(when water was removed to reach the reference level). During growing
season, the reference level inside the mini-lysimeters and cylinders
were also the same as outside and water level was adjusted at 3 to 7 cm
in each irrigation event. In cylinders, water level after adjusting to the
reference level would be partially higher than the outside because of
ET.
In each field and at each sampling time, an area of 1 m2 was har-
vested every 10 days for measuring leaf area index (LAI) and biomass.
Plants were removed with roots and transported to the laboratory with
the roots immersed in water in pots in order to maintain plants fresh-
ness. Then, the leaves, stems and panicles of plants were separated and
leaf area was measured using a leaf area meter (MODEL: LI- 3100 AREA
METER). LAI was calculated based on 1 m2 planted area.
To calculate the canopy cover (CC) according to measured LAI, Eq.
(1) was used (Ritchie, 1972; Ritchie et al., 1985; Belmans et al., 1983):
CC = 1-exp (-K*LAI) (1)
Where CC is canopy cover, and K is extinction coefficient. The values of
extinction coefficient for rice are between 0.4–0.7 (Hay and Walker,
1989). Here, it was considered to be 0.55.
Sampled biomass was air dried for 5 d before being oven dried at
70 °C for 48 h.
Silt Clay FC PWP Ks
% cm−3 cm−3 cm−3 cm−3 mm d−1
40.8 ( ± 6.8) 48.8 ( ± 5.7) 0.52 ( ± 0.03) 0.29 ( ± 0.02) 7.6 ( ± 0.12)
34.1 ( ± 5.2) 53.8 ( ± 7.7) 0.57 ( ± 0.08) 0.30 ( ± 0.04) 1.6 ( ± 0.04)
99
N. Pirmoradian, N. Davatgar Agricultural Water Management 213 (2019) 97–106

2.3. Model description
AquaCrop simulates crop growth and yield based on atmospheric
(rainfall, temperature, reference evapotranspiration and carbon dioxide
concentration), crop (phenology, green canopy cover, root depth, nor-
malized water productivity (WP*), harvest index, and stress responses),
soil (saturated hydraulic conductivity, field capacity, permanent wilting
percentage), and management (plant density, irrigation, fertility) fac-
tors (Raes et al., 2009a; Steduto et al., 2009). AquaCrop calculates se-
parately crop transpiration and soil evaporation using an approach
based essentially on crop coefficients and a daily water balance. Tran-
spiration is related to canopy cover whereas evaporation is related to
the area of soil uncovered by canopy. The crop responds to water stress
through four stress coefficients (leaf expansion, stomata closure, canopy
senescence, and change in harvest index). AquaCrop calculates the
daily aboveground biomass from the daily transpiration and reference
evapotranspiration and WP* (Hsiao et al., 2009; Steduto et al., 2009).
Yield is obtained by multiplying biomass by harvest index. The ad-
justment of HI in relation to the available water depends on the timing,
severity and duration of water stress (Hsiao et al., 2009; Raes et al.,
2009a; Steduto et al., 2009). The default reference HI in AquaCrop for
rice is 43 percent, but can be cultivar specific (Hsiao et al., 2009).
2.4. Model validation
Model validation was conducted by using the default conservative
parameters (Hsiao et al., 2009; Raes et al., 2009b) calibrated by FAO for
rice, along with local management dependent parameters and phono-
logical stages for the local cultivar, as listed in Table 3. The local
parameters were gained from the measured data during growing sea-
sons of 2012 and 2013. Reference HI, though nominally considered to
be conservative, is taken to be 40 percent, slightly less than the 43
percent default value.
Validation of the model was done based on comparing simulated
and measured crop evapotranspiration (ETc), deep percolation (DP),
canopy cover (CC), biomass (BM), and grain yield in 2012 and 2013
growing seasons. The comparison criteria were the root mean square
error (RMSE), normalized root mean square error (NRMSE), Nash-
Sutcliffe model efficiency coefficient (EF) and Willmotts index of
agreement (d), as follows:
n
1
RMSE =
n
∑ (Si−Oi )2
i=1 (2)
n
∑i = 1 (Si−Oi )2
d = 1− n
∑i = 1 (|Si−Omean| + |Oi−Omean |)2 (5)
Where Si and Oi are simulated and observed values, respectively, Omean
is the mean of observed values and n is the number of observations. The
values of RMSE close to zero indicate the best fit of the model. In case of
NRMSE, simulation results can be considered excellent if NRMSE is
smaller than 10%, good if it is between 10 and 20%, fair if it is between
20 and 30% and poor if it is larger than 30% (Willmott, 1982; Jacovides
and Kontoyiannis, 1995). EF and d, range from negative infinity to
positive 1; the closer to 1, the higher the model fidelity.
Daily reference evapotranspiration (ETo) was computed from me-
teorological data (Tmax, Tmin, U, n, RHmax and RHmin) using FAO 56
Penman–Monteith method (Allen et al., 1998) with the ETo Calculator
software (FAO, 2009) for the 2012 and 2013 seasons. After preparing
the other input data, simulation was run with AquaCrop version 6.0 for
mentioned period.
2.5. Model estimation of IWR
The validated model was used to estimate IWR for a previous
period, from 1982 to 2014. Reference ET for those 33 years were cal-
culated the same way as already described. AquaCrop features a way to
calculate IWR, but not for flooded cultivation. It was necessary to
generate an irrigation schedule to approximate intermittent flooding
using the generation of irrigation schedule feature of the model. First,
the start of simulation was set at 1 day before transplanting, with initial
condition of soil water set at 50% total available water (TAW), ac-
cording to regional soil water condition in May, to account for water
needed for pre-transplanting flooding. The irrigation schedule in
AquaCrop can be generated based on time and depth of irrigation.
Under “Time Criterion” in the model, the allowable depletion of readily
available water (RAW) was set to zero. Under “Depth Criterion”, the
amount of water applied was set at “back to FC + 50 mm” to keep the
soil saturated and flooded, from transplanting to 10 days before har-
vesting. At 10 days before harvesting, “Time Criterion” was set to de-
plete RAW 100% and “Depth Criterion” was set as “back to FC -100
mm”, to simulate drying of paddy fields for harvesting. Bund height in
field management menu was set at 0.25 m and water depth between soil
bunds in initial condition menu set as zero. The saturated hydraulic
conductivity (Ksat) was taken to be the measured values (Table 2).
2.6. Drought assessment
RDI as a drought characterization index is proposed by Tsakiris and

NRMSE =
( 1
n
n
)
∑i = 1 (Si−Oi )2 100 Vangelis (2005). RDI is based on the ratio of cumulative precipitation to
cumulative potential evapotranspiration (ak), over the same time in-
Omean (3) terval, and is denoted by ak with k indicating a certain month during a
year. The Standardized RDI (RDIst) is computed by Eq. (6).
n
∑i = 1 (Si−Oi )2 yk −y¯k
EF = 1− n RDIst (k ) =
∑i = 1 (Si−Omean )2 (4) σˆk (6)
Where yk is the ln ak of a given year, ȳk and σ̂k are the arithmetic mean
Table 3 and the standard deviation of ln ak for all the years of the climate record
Value of some measured local parameters used in AquaCrop to simulate rice data. It is advisable to use periods of 3, 6, 9 and 12 months in calcu-
growth and yield. lating RDI as a general indicator of meteorological drought (Tsakiris
Description Measured value and Vangelis, 2005). The mentioned time scales mean that ak is for a
period ending at the end of month k plus including the time of 2, 5, 8, or
Initial canopy cover, % 1.25
11 months preceding the month k, with total coverage of 3, 6, 9 or
Plant density, plants ha−1 250000
Maximum canopy cover (CCx) in fraction soil cover 0.9 12 months.
Reference Harvest Index (HIo) (%) 40 In this study, potential evapotranspiration was taken to be the re-
From transplanting to recovered transplant, GDD 50 ference ET calculated, based on FAO Penman–Monteith method (Allen
From transplanting to maximum canopy cover, GDD 525 et al., 1998). The RDI was calculated for the period 1982–2014 in two
From transplanting to start senescence, GDD 1090
time scales of 3- and 6-month regarding the period of agricultural ac-
From transplanting to maturity, GDD 1410
Maximum effective rooting depth, m 0.30 tivities on the paddy fields. Then, the best month and time scale for RDI
to estimate IWR is obtained based on the correlation between RDI and

100
N. Pirmoradian, N. Davatgar
Fig. 3. Rainfall and simulated and observed ETc and deep percolation (DP) in paddy fields during growing season for 2012 and 2013. Error bars indicate the standard
deviation across measurements on 7 fields.
estimated IWR from AquaCrop. Also, the RDI and corresponding IWR
were classified for drought severity, with RDI ≥ 0.5 being considered as
wet, −0.5 < RDI < 0.5 as normal, and RDI ≤ -0.5 as dry. The stan-
dardized RDI (RDIst) behaves in a generally similar way to the Stan-
dardized Precipitation Index (SPI) (McKee et al., 1993) and therefor,
the interpretation of the results is similar since the same threshold as
SPI can be used (Tsakiris and Vangelis, 2005).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Model validation
The occurred rainfall and simulated and observed ETc as well as DP
in the paddy fields, during growing season 2012 and 2013 are shown in
Fig. 3. As expected, there was an increasing of DP and a decreasing of
ETc with occurrence of rainfall. The simulated and observed CC and BM
are shown in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively. For each parameter, the
standard deviation across measurements on 7 fields per day were cal-
culated in EXCEL software and are shown as the error bars in the Fig-
ures. There is quite a good fit between observed and simulated data.
Measured ETc varied between 2.4 to 6.9 mm d−1 for both years. Mea-
sured DP ranged between 0.7–2.3 mm d−1 in the paddy fields.
101
Agricultural Water Management 213 (2019) 97–106
According to Fukuda and Tsutsui (1979), DP in paddy fields in Japan
was 1 to 3 mm d−1 for clay loam. Pirmoradian et al. (2004) obtained
3.5 mm d−1 of DP in continuous flooding irrigation of a paddy field
with a silty clay soil in southern Iran. In Guilan province, the amount of
DP reported by Herve (1996) was 1.9 to 4.2 mm d-1 in Foumanat district
for continuous flooding irrigation. In this study, soil textures of paddy
fields were clay (Table 2) and water depth in irrigation events of the
fields regulated between 3 and 7 cm. Therefore, the measured DP were
lower than those obtained.
Maximum measured LAI during growing season were 4.29 and 4.06
in 2012 and 2013, respectively. The observed yield and BM at harvest
were obtained 4.52 ( ± 0.3) and 10.86 ( ± 0.49) t ha−1 in 2012 and
4.76 ( ± 0.31) and 11.56 ( ± 0.33) t ha−1 in 2013, respectively. Grain
yield was estimated with an absolute error of 6.0%.
The statistical indications of model performance in simulating ETc,
DP, CC, and BM are shown in Table 4. Based on the average of NRMSE,
there was an excellent performance (NRMSE < 10%) in simulating CC,
BM, and yield. Also, simulation results of ETc and DP by AquaCrop were
good (10% < NRMSE < 20%) and fair (20% < NRMSE < 30%), re-
spectively. There was an overestimate of DP according to a mean of
relative error as -0.165. Water level in the cylinder during days after
that regulation would be partially higher than the outside because of
N. Pirmoradian, N. Davatgar Agricultural Water Management 213 (2019) 97–106

Fig. 4. Comparison of simulated and observed canopy cover (%) during growing season in studied paddy fields for 2012 and 2013. Error bars indicate the standard
deviation across measurements on 7 fields.

Fig. 5. Comparison of simulated and observed biomass during growing season in studied paddy fields for 2012 and 2013. Error bars indicate the standard deviation
across measurements on 7 fields.

Table 4 data of seven fields, the coefficients of variation of the measured DP

Statistical tests of model performance in simulating crop evapotranspiration ranged between 0.10–0.91 and 0.08–0.41 in 2012 and 2013, respec-
(ETc), deep percolation (DP), canopy cover (CC), and biomass (BM). tively. The EF coefficient determines the relative magnitude of the re-
Year Parameter RMSE NRMSE (%) EF d sidual variance compared to the variance of the observations (Nash and
Sutcliffe, 1970). An EF close to 1 indicates a perfect match between the
2012 ETc 0.90 mm 18.8 0.55 0.85 model and the observations, an EF of 0 means that the model predic-
DP 0.39 mm 28.9 −0.25 0.75
tions are as accurate as the average of the observed data and a negative
CC 3.2 % 5.0 0.99 1.0
BM 0.42 t ha−1 6.64 0.98 0.99 EF occurs when the mean of the observations is a better prediction than
2013 ETc 0.90 mm 18.1 0.62 0.88 the model. Therefore, there are indication of perfect match between
DP 0.34 mm 24.4 −2.11 0.99 observed and simulated CC and BM. For ETc, the value of EF (≈0.6) is
CC 5.5 % 9.0 0.97 0.99 not perfect but shows a good simulation, since the measurements in the
BM 0.75 t ha−1 11.0 0.96 0.99
fields have some complicacy and uncertain factors that result in the
Average ETc 0.90 mm 18.45 0.59 0.87
DP 0.36 mm 26.6 −1.18 0.87 errors. For DP, the value of EF is negative and shows the mean of the
CC 4.35 % 7.0 0.98 0.99 observations (1.4 mm d−1) is a better prediction than the model. A d
BM 0.58 t ha−1 8.8 0.97 0.99 represents the ratio between the mean square error and the potential
error which is defined as the sum of the squared absolute values of the
distances from the predicted values to the mean observed value and the
ET. This difference in hydraulic head would probably cause the mea- distances from observed values to the mean observed value (Willmott,
sured DP to be only very slightly higher than the actual DP. In addition, 1982). Therefore, values of d (> 0.87) indicate the perfect agreement
the lower accuracy in simulating DP can be due to spatial variations of between observed ETc, DP, CC, and BM and those simulated by Aqua-
soil characteristics as shown in Table 2, that the standard deviation of Crop. In case of rice growth simulation, Saadati et al. (2011) reported
soil particles percent were 6.4%, on average. Also, regarding observed

Fig. 6. Simulated irrigation water requirement and total occurred rainfall during rice growing season for the studied years.

102
N. Pirmoradian, N. Davatgar Agricultural Water Management 213 (2019) 97–106

Fig. 7. Simulated transpiration, evaporation and deep percolation during rice growing season for the studied years.

Fig. 8. Variations of the calculated RDI during 1982–2014 in 3- and 6-Month time scales.

Table 5 (2015)for lowland rice in Bangladesh, presented CC simulation statis-

Frequency percentage of wet, normal and dry occurrences during 1982–2014 tics as 7.6% ≤ NRMSE ≤ 14.3%, 0.9 ≤ EF ≤ 0.99 and 0.97 ≤ d ≤ 1.00
and separately for 1982–1994 and 1995–2014 periods. and BM simulation statistics as 10.0% ≤ NRMSE ≤ 14.7%, 0.93 ≤ EF
Time scale 1982-2014 1982-1994 1995-2014 ≤ 1.00 and 0.97 ≤ d ≤ 1.00, in their validation season. Those results
are similar to this study in the cases of EF and d but the lower values of
Wet Normal Dry Wet Normal Dry Wet Normal Dry NRMSE were obtained in this study.
3-Month 33 40 27 46 34 20 24 44 32
6-Month 30 39 31 46 40 24 20 38 42 3.2. Simulation of IWR

Simulated IWR and total occurred rainfall during rice growing

that the RMSE was 0.7 t ha-1 for simulating grain yield (4.3–6.1 t ha-1) season for the studied years (1982–2014) are shown in Fig. 6. Total
in the validation process. Shrestha et al. (2013) calibrated and validated rainfall during rice growing season ranged between 22 mm (1989) to
the AquaCrop model to local field data of the lowland rice in Nepal and 302 mm (2004) with an average of 121 mm. The amount of IWR varied
reported EF of 0.92 for grain yield simulation. Maniruzzamana et al., from 240 mm (2004) to 515 mm (2014) with a mean of 418 mm. A

103
N. Pirmoradian, N. Davatgar
Table 6
Correlation coefficients between IWR of rice and RDI for 3- and 6-month time scales.
Time Scale (Month) Jan Feb Mar Apr
3 −0.25 0.09 0.02 0.03
6 −0.14 −0.12 −0.13 −0.21
a
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
b
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Fig. 9. Variation of RDI for July with 3-month time scale during 1982–2014.
Fig. 10. Relationship between RDI for July with 3-month time scale and IWR of
rice for the studied area.
correlation coefficient of -0.91 was obtained between IWR and total
rainfall during rice growing season. The other 9% variation could be
caused by variations of no effective rainfall for studied years. Simulated
transpiration, evaporation and deep percolation (mm) during rice
growing season for the studied years are shown in Fig. 7, averaging 249,
131 and 123 mm, respectively, for the studied years. The amount of
moisture left stored in the soil, averaged 36 mm at harvest, based on
soil water balance. Typical ET rates of rice in Asia range from 4 to 7 mm
d−1 (De Datta, 1981; Tuong, 1999). Maniruzzamana et al., (2015) re-
ported the irrigation requirements of 749 and 843 mm to meet con-
tinuous irrigation of rice that was cultivated in a silty clay soil in
Bangladesh with the measured percolations of 468 and 509 during two
consecutive years, respectively. In East Coast Malaysia, Hayes,
2004observed that the average seasonal consumptive use of water for
rice cultivation was 795 mm, out of which 572 mm (72%) was ac-
counted by ET and 223 mm (28%) by percolation. In this study, the
contributions of ETc and DP in IWR were 70.5% and 22.9%, respec-
tively. The other 6.6% was moisture left stored in the soil. Variations of
paddy IWR could be depended on climate, soil and field management.
So, different results are expected for different regions.
3.3. Drought analysis
Variations of the calculated RDI during 1982–2014 in 3- and 6-
month time scales are shown in Fig. 8. In general, with increasing in
Agricultural Water Management 213 (2019) 97–106
May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
−0.18 −0.63 b
−0.89 b
−0.65 b
−0.26 0.08 −0.19 −0.18
−0.13 −0.44a −0.55b −0.56b −0.53b 0.01 −0.15 −0.14
time scale the drought duration and severity as RDI values tend to in-
crease. The periods of droughts in Fig. 8 were often interrupted by
normal rainfall which slightly relieved the drought. As shown, there are
more drought occurrences after 1994. The percentages of wet, normal
and dry conditions during 1982–2014 and separately for 1982–1994
and 1995–2014 periods are presented in Table 5. The frequency of
drought had more than doubled during 1995–2014 compared to
1982–1994. This is the consequence of 3-month decreased precipitation
and increased ETo for 1982–1994 (P = 363 mm, ETo = 208 mm)
compared to 1995–2014 (P = 317 mm, ETo = 230 mm).
3.4. RDI and IWR relationship
To drought assessment, RDI was calculated for every month in two
time scales. Now, as a question, which of RDI time scale and month is
according to IWR of rice? Therefore, correlation coefficients between
IWR of rice and RDI in 3-, 6-month time scales are shown in Table 6.
With respect to duration of rice growing season in the studied area (15-
May to 15-August, about 90 days), the highest correlations are obtained
for the months of June, July and August and those correlation coeffi-
cients are decreased with increasing time scale. The best correlation (R
= −0.89) is for RDI of July with 3-month time scale. That RDI, during
1982–2014 is shown in Fig. 9. During the 33-year studied, the fre-
quencies of wet, normal and dry years for rice cultivation were 11
(33%), 13 (40%) and 9 (27%), respectively. Also, the mean values of
simulated IWR of rice for wet, normal and dry conditions were 333, 435
and 495 mm, respectively.
The relationship between RDI for July with 3-month time scale and
IWR of rice for the studied area is shown in Fig. 10. IWR indicates a
lower sensitivity to RDI in the negative range. Its variation is 74 mm in
the negative range compared to 171 mm in the positive range. Based on
the relationship, maximum value of IWR was obtained 511 mm.
4. Conclusion
Considering efficiencies of water conveyance (95%), distribution
(93%) and operation (66%) (Pirmoradian, 2016), there should be al-
located 4550–6750, 6750–8050 and 8050 to 8760 m−3 ha-1 of irriga-
tion water in wet, normal and dry years, respectively, for the 3293 ha of
rice cultivated in Eastern-F1. This relationship can be used to allocate
104
N. Pirmoradian, N. Davatgar
the paddies irrigation water of the studied area based on drought pre-
diction studies.
RDI is calculated from measured weather data in monthly time
scale. On the other hand, water allocation is usually made ahead of
planting time for the crop, so RDI must be predicted for the future.
Then, IWR can be estimated based on RDI with 3-month time scale and
used by water resources planners. They can decide to apply water al-
location policies in drought conditions, such as water supply turn-
around or the management of transplanting date in the study area.
Drought forecasting is generally based on drought indicators com-
puted using dynamic or statistical model simulations of drought-related
variables (AghaKouchak, 2014). Chhinh and Millington (2015) focused
on relationships between drought occurrences in Cambodia and (i)
damage to the annual rice harvest, and (ii) the Niño 3.4 index. There
was achieved a statistically significant correlation (r = −0.455) be-
tween Niño 3.4 and 12-month SPI (Standard Precipitation Index) values
lagged by three months. That indicated the importance of ENSO lin-
kages in explaining drought in that region.
Prediction of RDI can be made based on the probability of RDI va-
lues derived from past weather records, or on weather forecasted for the
full growing season. The validity of the seasonal forecasts depends on
the ability to model processes on the scale of months. For example,
Wetterhall et al. (2015) used a probabilistic seasonal forecasting system
and investigated how well seasonal forecasts predict dry spells over a
basin during the rainy season with lead times from 0 to 4 months. The
forecasts showed skill in predicting dry spells in comparison with a
climatological ensemble based on previous years. Also, AghaKouchak
(2014) used a probabilistic framework for drought forecasting based on
the persistence property of accumulated soil moisture and showed that
the US drought of summer 2012 was predictable several months in
advance. Therefore, RDI can be predicted based on seasonal forecasts
that provide information on the development of the climate up to 3
months. Then, water allocation can be planned at transplanting time for
paddy fields.
Acknowledgment
This work was financially supported by the Research Committee of
the Regional Water Company of Guilan, Iran (No. GII89034).
References
Aggarwal, P.K., Mall, R.K., 2002. Climate change and rice yields in diverse agro-en-
vironments of India. II. Effect of uncertainties in scenarios and crop models on impact
assessment. Clim. Change 52, 331–343.
Aghakouchak, A., 2014. A baseline probabilistic drought forecasting framework using
standardized soil moisture index: application to the 2012 United States drought.
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 18, 2485–2492.
Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D., Smith, M., 1998. Crop evapotranspiration - guidelines
for computing crop water requirements. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56. Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, pp. 293.
Azam, A., Crout, S.N., Bradley, R.G., 1994. Perspectives of modelling resource capture by
crops. In: Monteith, J.L., Unsworth, M.H., Scott, R.K. (Eds.), Resource Capture by
Crops. Proceedings of the 52nd Univ. of Nottingham Eastern School. Nottingham
University Press, pp. 125–140.
Bachelet, D., Gay, C.A., 1993. The impacts of climate change on rice yield comparison of 4
model performances. Ecol. Model. 65, 71–93.
Belmans, C., Wesseling, J.G., Feddes, R.A., 1983. Simulation model of the water balance
of cropped soil: SWATRE. J. Hydrol. 63, 71–286.
Bos, M.G., Kselik, R.A.L., Allen, R.G., Molden, D.J., 2009. Water Requirements for
Irrigation and the Environment. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 174.
Bray, E.A., 1997. Plant responses to water deficit. Trends Plant Sci. 2, 48–54.
Challinor, A.J., Wheeler, T.R., 2008. Crop yield reduction in the tropics under climate
change: processes and uncertainties. Agric. Forest Meteorol. 148, 343–356.
Chhinh, N., Millington, A., 2015. Drought monitoring for rice production in Cambodia.
Climate 3, 792–811.
De Datta, S.K., 1981. Principles and Practices of Rice Production. IRRI, Los Baños,
Philippines, pp. 618.
Ewert, F., Rodriguez, D., Jamieson, P., et al., 2002. Effects of elevated CO2 and drought
on wheat: testing crop simulation models for different experimental and climatic
conditions. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 93, 249–266.
FAO, 2009. ETo calculator version 3.1. Evapotranspiration from Reference Surface, FAO,
Land and Water Division. Rome, Italy.
105
Agricultural Water Management 213 (2019) 97–106
Fukuda, H., Tsutsui, H., 1979. Rice irrigation in Japan. JAJA 155.
Hay, R.K.M., Walker, A.J., 1989. An Introduction to the Physiology of Crop Yield.
Longman Scientific and Technical, New York, pp. 292.
Hayes, M., 2004. Drought Indices. National Drought Mitigation Centre. http://www.
drought.unl.edu/whatis/indices.htm.
Herve, P., 1996. Guilan, a successful irrigation project in Iran. Irrig. Drain. Sys. 10,
95–107.
Hsiao, T.C., Heng, L.K., Steduto, P., Rojas-Lara, B., Raes, D., Fereres, E., 2009. AquaCrop-
the FAO crop model to simulate yield response to water: III. Parameterization and
testing for maize. Agron. J. 101, 448–459.
Jacovides, C.P., Kontoyiannis, H., 1995. Statistical procedures for the evaluation of
evapotranspiration computing models. Agric. Water. Manage. 27, 365–371.
Klute, A., 1986. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1, Physical and Mineralogical Methods.
Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Maniruzzamana, M., Talukderb, M.S.U., Khanc, M.H., Biswasd, J.C., Nemese, A., 2015.
Validation of the AquaCrop model for irrigated rice production under varied water
regimes in Bangladesh. Agric. Water. Manage. 159, 331–340.
Matthews, R., Wassmann, R., 2003. Modelling the impacts of climate change and methane
emission reductions on rice production: a review. Eur. J. Agron. 19, 573–598.
McKee, T.B., Doesken, N.J., Kleist, J., 1993. The relationship of drought frequency and
duration to time scales. Proceeding of the 8th Conference on Applied Climatology
179–184.
Mei, Y.F., Cheng, Q.P., Hua, Z.J., Da, L.E., Vijendra, B., 2011. Uncertainties in assessing
the effect of climate change on agriculture using model simulation and uncertainty
processing methods. Atmos. Sci. 56 (8), 729–737.
Ministry of Jahad-e-Keshvarzi, 2015. Statistical Book of Agriculture. Ministry of Jahad-e-
Keshvarzi Publication, Tehran, Iran (In Persian).
Nash, J.E., Sutcliffe, J.V., 1970. River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I-
a discussion of principles. J. Hydrol. 10, 282–290.
Pirmoradian, N., 2016. Modeling of Water Delivery Scheduling in Sefidrood Irrigation
Network Paddy Fields Using Geographic Information System (GIS) to Perform of
Intermittent Irrigation. Research Final Report. Regional Water Company of Guilan,
Rasht, Iran, pp. 173 (In Persian).
Pirmoradian, N., Sepaskhah, A.R., 2007. Rice optimal water use in different air tem-
peratures at flowering, nitrogen rates and plant populations. Pak. J. Biolog. Sci. 10
(23), 4197–4203.
Pirmoradian, N., Kamgar-Haghighi, A.A., Sepaskhah, A.R., 2004. Lateral seepage, deep
percolation, runoff, and the efficiencies of water use and application in irrigation rice
in Kooshkak region in Fars province, I.R. of Iran. Iran Agric. Res. 23 (2), 1–8.
Popova, Z., Pereira, L.S., 2008. Irrigation scheduling for furrow-irrigated maize under
climate uncertainties in the Thrace plain, Bulgaria. Biosyst. Eng. 99, 587–597.
Raes, D., Steduto, P., Hsiao, T.C., Fereres, E., 2009a. AquaCrop-the FAO crop model to
simulate yield response to water: II. Main algorithms and software description.
Agron. J. 101, 438–447.
Raes, D., Steduto, P., Hsiao, T.C., Fereres, E., 2009b. Crop Water Productivity. Calculation
Procedures and Calibration Guidance. AquaCrop Version 3.0. FAO, Land and Water
Development Division, Rome.
Raes, D., Steduto, P., Hsiao, T.C., Fereres, E., 2012. Reference manual of AquaCrop model.
Chapter 2. Users Guide. FAO Land and Water Division, Rome Italy, pp. 164.
Richard, R., Heim, J., 2002. A review of twentieth-century drought indices used in the
United States. Bull. Am. Meteo. Soc. 83, 1149–1165.
Ritchie, J.T., 1972. Model for predicting evaporation from a row crop with incomplete
cover. Water Resour. Res. 8, 1204–1213.
Ritchie, J.T., Godwin, D.C., Otter-Nacke, S., 1985. CERES-Wheat: A Simulation Model of
Wheat Growth and Development. Texas A. & M. Univ. Press, College Station.
Saadati, Z., Pirmoradian, N., Rezaei, M., 2011. Calibration and Validation of AquaCrop
Model in Rice Growth Simulation under Different Irrigation Managements. ICID 21st
International Congress on Irrigation and Drainage. Publ. no R.56.5/Poster/14,
Tehran, Iran, pp. 15–23 October, 2011.
Shrestha, N., Raes, D., Vanuytrecht, E., Sah, S.K., 2013. Cereal yield stabilization in Terai
(Nepal) by water and soil fertility management modeling. Agric. Water Manage. 122,
53–62.
Smith, P.C., Calanca, P., Fuhrer, J., 2012. A simple scheme for modeling irrigation water
requirements at the regional scale applied to an Alpine River Catchment. Water 4,
869–886.
Steduto, P., 2003. Biomass water-productivity: comparing the growth-engines of crop
models. FAO Expert Meeting on Crop Water Productivity under Deficient Water
Supply. pp. 26–28 Rome, February.
Steduto, P., Albrizio, R., 2005. Resource-use efficiency of field grown sunflower sorghum,
wheat and chickpea. II. Water use efficiency and comparison with radiation use
efficiency. Agric. Meteorol. 130, 269–281.
Steduto, P., Hsiao, T.C., Fereres, E., 2007. On the conservative behaviour of biomass
water productivity. Irrig.Sci. 25, 189–207.
Steduto, P., Hsiao, T.C., Raes, D., Fereres, E., 2009. AquaCrop-the FAO crop model to
simulate yield response to water. I. Concepts and underlying principles. Agron. J.
101, 426–437.
Tanner, C.B., Sinclair, T.R., 1983. Efficient water use in crop production: research or re-
search? In: Taylor, H.M., Jordan, W.A., Sinclair, T.R. (Eds.), Limitations to Efficient
Water Use in Crop Production. A.S.A., Madison, Wisconsin, USA, pp. 1–27.
Todorovic, M., Albrizio, R., Zivotic, L., Saab, M.T.A., Stöckle, C., Steduto, Pasquale, 2009.
Assessment of AquaCrop, CropSyst, and WOFOST models in the simulation of sun-
flower growth under different water regimes. Agron. J. 101 (509), 521.
Tsakiris, G., Vangelis, H., 2005. Establishing a drought index incorporating evapo-
transpiration. Eur. Water 9 (10), 3–11.
Tuong, T.P., 1999. Productive water use in rice production: opportunities and limitations.
J. Crop Prod. 2 (2), 241–264.
N. Pirmoradian, N. Davatgar
Vanuytrecht, E., Raes, D., Steduto, P., Hsiao, T.C., Fereres, E., Heng, L.K., Vila, M.G.,
Moreno, P.M., 2014. AquaCrop: FAO’s crop water productivity and yield response
model. Environ. Modell. Softw. 62, 351–360.
Wetterhall, F., Winsemius, H.C., Dutra, E., Werner, M., Pappenberger, E., 2015. Seasonal
predictions of agro-meteorological drought indicators for the Limpopo basin. Hydrol.
106
Agricultural Water Management 213 (2019) 97–106
Earth. Syst. Sci. 19, 2577–2586.
Willmott, C.J., 1982. Some comments on the evaluation of model performance. Bull. Am.
Meteo. Soc. 63, 1309–1313.
Wriedt, G., van der Velde, M., Aloe, A., Bouraoui, F., 2009. Estimating irrigation water
requirements in Europe. J. Hydrol. 373, 527–544.