Using Simulation Models to Improve Irrigation Water Application

N. Schahbazian1, J. Eitzinger2, A. Montazar3, G. Akbari4 and I. Allahdadi5

ABSTRACT: The soil water and crop models can be used at increasing efficient use of the allocated irrigation water. This study was carried out to compare a number of these models and evaluate using in such a purpose. Field measurements were conducted for three growing seasons on winter wheat and cotton crops at the experimental station of University college of Aboureyhan, located at the region of Varamin in Iran. A measuring system including data acquisition system using a mini datalogger for meteorology and soil water content parameters was to be adapted. The measurements were done in a high time resolution, 15 min average values, and are a good data base for the applied water balance models. The selected models/algorithms for water-balance calculation were parameterised and tested based on the measured data from field tests. The model testing study showed the models are most useful for application in irrigation scheduling and the water productivity can be significantly improved using the simple simulation models such FAO & Allen algorithm, CROPWAT and WOFOST Models. The comparison of the simulations showed also reasonable good results for irrigation scheduling and the performance of these models was similar to more complex ones. The application of the more sophisticated models (CERES, SWAP) strongly depends on available input data and model validation. They can be very useful however, as the extended range of system outputs widen their applicability also for other agro-meteorological planning activities. The results indicated all models could help reduce the amount of needed water considerably, with almost no loss in yield. KEYWORDS: Irrigation scheduling; simulation model; water balance, water management.

INTRODUCTION The aim of irrigation is to provide the amount of water that a crop requires during the growing season, which is not supplied by natural rainfall. In arid and semi-arid areas, where annual rainfall is not adequate for reasonable crop yields, irrigation increases crop yield and farming profit. On the other hand, growing water scarcity has further constrained the attainment of goals of food security and sustainable natural resource management. Hence, the worsening situation can

Assistant Professors, Agronomy and Plant Breeding Dept., University College of Aboureyhan, University of Tehran, Iran. 2 Professor, University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences (BOKU), Vienna. Institute of Meteorology (BOKU-Met). Peter-Jordan Str. 82, 1190 Vienna, Austria. 3 Assistant Professor, Irrigation and Drainage Dept., University College of Aboureyhan, University of Tehran, Iran.

1,4,5

only be reverted if water is managed more efficiently and judiciously. Water accounting and water productivity concepts are useful to evaluate the existing performance and to explore options for real water saving from field to basin scale (Molden, 1997). These concepts require complete understanding of the existing water use pattern and the interaction of different water balance components, which are complex, at different spatial and temporal scales. New irrigation scheduling approaches aimed at increasing efficient use of the allocated irrigation water, so as to give the highest crop production with the least water use, must be developed (Kirda and Kanber, 1999; Pereira, 1999). Profit maximizing strategies call for significantly less water than maximum yield strategies. The biophysical models can be used for such a purpose. Using of different experimental methods or simulation models to determine the biomass or evapotranspiration (ET) will affect the water productivity values.

Pakistan Journal of Water Resources, Vol.11(2) July-December 2007 / 43

N. Schahbazian, J. Eitzinger, A. Montazar, G. Akbari and I. Allahdadi

As mentioned, the dynamic simulation models are well-established tools for understanding and managing agriculture systems. However, a soilplant-atmosphere system is viewed as a continuum in which water flows and redistributes itself according to soil water potential gradient. Continual monitoring of this system is very important for efficient water management in any irrigation project. Depending on the available data, there exist different methods to calculate potential and actual evapotranspiration, as well as other components of the hydrological water balance. Therefore, a simulation modeling approach is an appropriate alternative to study water balance in this complicated system. Several dynamic soil water and crop models such CROPWAT (FAO, 1997), SWAP (Kroes, et al., 1999), WOFOST (Van Diepen, et al., 1989), DSSAT (Ritchie, 1998) and EPIC (Williams and Renerd, 985) have been developed as research and/or management tools during the last few decades. These models integrate the effects of different factors on productivity and have been used to determine the production potential, optimize crop management, quantify yield gaps, and to study the consequences of climate variability and climate change (Tsuji et al., 1998 and Matthews et al., 2002). The simulation models should be continued to be modified or reused by other researchers. On this area, CERES, WOFOST and SWAP models for simulating soil water content during growing season under different soil conditions have been evaluated by Eitzinger et al. (2002). There are two basic approaches in the study of soil water balance: volume balance models and dynamic models (Panigrahi and Panda, 2003). Volume balance models are more popular than the dynamic models since they are relatively simple, require few parameters and can be easily used at the field scale level. Water-balance models have been used as stand-alone applications (Chopart and Vauclin, 1990) and as components of larger agricultural-system models. For example, a water-balance model developed by Ritchie has been integrated into numerous simulation models for a number of agronomic crops (Ritchie and Otter, 1985). This study was carried out to compare some different soil water and crop models/algorithms and evaluate their

efficiency to improve irrigation water application at the field scale level. MATERIALS AND METHODS Field measurements Field tests were conducted in the region of Varamin in Iran. The location belongs to the semiarid climate of the subtropics (33 28 N; 50 58 E, 1180 m above sea level). The soil at the site was a deep rootable horizon and relatively homogeneous silty loam (wilting point 12% Vol, and field capacity 28% Vol). The annual average temperature and the mean annual precipitation at this area are 16.9 C and 164 mm, respectively. The field experiments were carried out with winter wheat for two growing seasons (2001-2002 and 2002-2003) and cotton for one growing season (2001). The field tests started in July 2001 for cotton and were continued in Nov. 2002 and 2003 for winter wheat. The crops were sown on 2 plots 10 m 20 m. Furrow irrigation was used for all the experiments. A measuring system including data acquisition system using a mini datalogger for meteorology and soil water content parameters was to be adapted. The agrometeorological measurements at the experimental site, air temperature at 2 m (thermocouple), canopy temperature, air humidity at 2 m (Vaisala sensor), soil water potential at 35 cm soil depth (Watermark sensor), soil water content in 20 cm and 35 cm soil depth (TDR method), global radiation (Licor sensor) were continuously monitored at 15-minute intervals. The measurements were taken in a high time resolution, 15 min average values, and are a good data base for the applied water balance models. Applied Simulation Models The hydrological analyses at the experimental plots were performed using the field measurements and the following simulation models.

CROPWAT: A soil water regime model to be

used for irrigation scheduling and calculation of soil water balance parameters on a monthly or 10day weather data input basis. The model calculates daily reference evaportranspiration and with the help of crop coefficients actual

Pakistan Journal of Water Resources, Vol.11(2) July-December 2007 / 44

Using Simulation Models to Improve Irrigation Water Application

evapotranspiration and soil water content. Due to its wide distribution and application, the relevant data base is available for many locations and for many crops worldwide (FAO, 1997).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Field trial with cotton in 2001 The field experiment was carried out to gather data related to the soil crop water balance under semi-arid conditions for model testing and comparison. This included phenological observations and observations of canopy development and measurements of agrometeorological parameters. The measured agrometeorological parameters show a typical pattern for a semi-arid location with a high potential of water demand for crops. The amount of precipitation reached only approx. 12 mm during 3 months, the average relative air humidity was only 30% and the average temperature was 25 C. The measurements were done in a high time resolution (15 min average values) and are a good data base for the applied water balance models. The most important results of these measurements are represented in Table 2. It shows statistical parameters of measured and estimated parameters of the field experiment with cotton in 2001. Model Testing and Evaluation The selected models and algorithms (SWAP, WOFOST, FAO & Allen) for water balance calculation were parameterised and tested based on the measured data from the cotton field experiment. Figure 1 shows an overview of some parameters simulated by WOFOST during the cotton growing period. To compare different models, selected water balance parameters were compared in Figures 26. The models are different in their structure and outputs, only a few parameters are comparable. Also, it has to be considered that the model inputs differ from model to model, which is a potential source of uncertainty in the results. Figure 2 indicates the calculated actual evaporation of the FAO & Allen method and the WOFOST model has similar values. For transpiration (Figure 3), the FAO & Allen method predicted lower transpiration than WOFOST or the FAO & Allen method using the Hargreaves formula. Because the water balance calculation is based on the FAO Penman-Monteith equation, it can be assumed that evapotranspiration is well estimated (while the estimation of evaporation and

SWAP: SWAP is a one-dimentional physically

based model for water, heat, and solute transport in the saturated and unsaturated zones. This model is a sophisticated soil water balance model (Kroes, et al., 1999), which includes the basic WOFOST crop growth modules. The program is designed to simulate the transport processes at field scale level and during entire growing seasons.

WOFOST: WOFOST is an explanatory and dynamic crop model (Van Diepen, et al., 1989). This model has been frequently evaluated and used in European climate change impact studies on agricultural crop production. The major processes taken into account are phenological development, assimilation, respiration and evapotranspiration. It uses parameters and functions describing the effects of temperature, radiation and water stress on important physiological crop processes as a function of the development stage and crop status. FAO and Allen Method: In the simplified FAO &
Allen method (Allen, et al., 1989), daily crop and soil water balance is calculated based on daily weather input data from a simplified algorithm, which has been adapted for purposes as follows: (a) Calculation of daily water balance of the upper soil layer (no transpiration assumed) (b) Calculation of daily water balance of the lower root layer (only transpiration including crop water stress is considered).

CERES Models: The CERES models simulate crop growth, development and yield taking into account the effects of weather, management, genetics, and soil water, C and N. In this study, the CERES-Wheat model (Ritchie and Otter, 1985) was applied. This one-dimentional model, computes the daily changes in soil water content by soil layer due to infiltration of rainfall and irrigation, vertical drainage, unsaturated flow, soil evaporation, plant transpiration, and root water uptake.

Pakistan Journal of Water Resources, Vol.11(2) July-December 2007 / 45

N. Schahbazian, J. Eitzinger, A. Montazar, G. Akbari and I. Allahdadi

transpiration separately is empirical and uncertain by the FAO & Allen approach). Some deviations are observed in the early development stages, which can be a result of deviations in simulated crop status which influences calculated transpiration. Figure 4 shows that the simulated actual evapotranspiration of the model WOFOST is in good agreement with the simplified FAO & Allen algorithm in the early growing period. The deviations in simulated soil water content in WOFOST is probably caused by its one-layer approach in calculating soil water content. The results for potential evapotranspiration of the different models show a deviation of about 1-2 mm per day (Figure 5). These deviations have cumulative effects on the water balance and soil water content calculations of the models (Figure 6). That is why, it appears sensible, apart from a good site specific calibration of the evapotranspiration equations, to include a control parameter (such as the measured soil water content) to avoid increasing deviations between the calculations and predictions. This will also allow easy adaptation of the measurement system to different locations. Compared to measured soil water content, the simplified FAO & Allen method

showed good results in calculating water balance and can therefore be used for irrigation scheduling. The results of the more complex models partly show relatively good agreement with the measurements. However, there is still a need for a better calibration. When the relevant data are available, these models can deliver more detailed outputs than the FAO & Allen algorithm or CROPWAT. Field trial with winter wheat (2002 and 2003) The field experiment for winter wheat was carried out at the same site as for cotton and on the same experimental plots in the 2001-2002 and 20022003 season. The following Table shows selected measured parameters (shown only for the 20012002 season), which served as model data inputs of the model comparison and evaluation study. The measured agro-meteorological parameters show that during winter period soil water reserves were increasing and used in spring for winter wheat growth. There is obviously a great impact of winter soil reserves on the coming growing season, irrigation demand in this climatic region. The amount of precipitation reached 126 mm during the winter wheat growing period, which is approx. 40% of its demand for optimum yield level.

Table 1: Agro-technical Measures of Field Tests

Field Test Agrotechnical Measures Sowing: 30 kg/ha Row distance: 75 cm Plant distance: 20 cm Seeding depth : 4-5 cm Cultivar: Varamin Depth of irrigation : 500 mm Cultivar : Omid (T. aestivum), TKW 45g 2 Sowing density : 400 kernels/m Row distance : 20 cm Fertilization : Urea Grain yield : 21.2 dt/ha Straw yield : 37.5 dt/ha Plants/m : 258 Depth of irrigation : 330 mm Cultivar: Omid (T. aestivum), TKW 45g 2 Sowing density : 400 kernels/m Row distance : 20 cm Fertilization : Urea Grain yield : 23.1 dt/ha Straw yield : 40.1 dt/ha Plants/m : 260 Depth of irrigation : 260 mm

Cotton (2001)

Winter wheat (2001-2002)

Winter wheat (2002-2003)

Pakistan Journal of Water Resources, Vol.11(2) July-December 2007 / 46

Using Simulation Models to Improve Irrigation Water Application

Table 2: Statistic of Measured Parameters Unit June July 2001 2001 Air temperature, mean 28.0 29.6 C Air temperature, mean Maximum 36.1 37.5 C Air temperature, mean Minimum 19.6 21.8 C Air temperature, canopy height, mean C Air temperature, canopy height, mean Maximum C Air temperature, canopy height, mean Minimum C Rel. Air humidity, mean % 25.8 27.5 Rel. Air humidity, mean Maximum % 40.5 47.2 Rel. Air humidity, mean Minimum % 17.5 16.0 Precipitation mm 13 0 Irrigation (approximativ) mm 200 150 Global radiation MJ/m2 Dew point temperature, mean 5.4 7.8 C Air pressure deficit, mean kPa 2.95 3.22 Soil temperature, 20cm, mean C Soil water content, 20cm, mean Vol.% Soil water content, 35cm, men Vol.% Wind, mean km/h 0.6 1.2 Plant height, change cm 0-14 14-62 Leaf area index, change 0-0.3 0.3-3 Dry matter/Plant., change g 0-15 15-44 Pan-A evaporation, sum mm 375 302 Parameter

August 2001 29.6 37.5 21.8 28.5 37.1 19.5 25.3 44.3 14.0 5.5 150 824 6.4 3.5 25.4 36.2 24.0 3.0 62-95 3-4.5 44-78 264

Sept. 2001 26.0 33.1 18.9 25.2 33.1 17.3 26.4 45.1 15.5 0 100 618 4.0 2.7 21.9 30.5 19.3 1.2 95-100 78-93 136

October 2001 19.6 26.9 12.4 18.7 27.0 11.4 37.6 58.9 21.0 0 30 422 3.1 1.6 18.0 28.6 19.0 4.3 -

Table 3: Statistic of Simulation Results of the Cotton Field Experiment (115 days) Parameter Pot. Evapotranspiration [sum - mm] Act. Evapotranspiration [sum - mm] Act. Transpiration [sum - mm] Act. Evaporation [sum - mm] Soil water content 35cm [mean - Vol %] SWAP 472 236 150 34 26 WOFOST 330 300 34 19 FAO and Allen (Penman) 355 357 286 75 21 FAO & Allen (Hargreave) 580 388 389 86 18

Pakistan Journal of Water Resources, Vol.11(2) July-December 2007 / 47

N. Schahbazian, J. Eitzinger, A. Montazar, G. Akbari and I. Allahdadi

20

18
Biom [t/ha] ass Flow period ering Available Soilw [cm ater ] Actual ETP [m ] m

16

14

12

10

0 10 M onth 11 7 8 9

Figure 1: Simulated Cotton Crop Parameters by WOFOST

12 11 10 9
C -Panevaporation- m lassA onthlym ean Potential Evaporation- S A WP A al E ctu vaporation - W F S O OT A al E ctu vaporation - F O an A Penm A al E ctu vaporation - F O argreaves A -H

Evaporation [mm]

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 7 8 9 10

M onth

Figure 2: Comparison of Simulated Evporation of Different Models for Cotton Pakistan Journal of Water Resources, Vol.11(2) July-December 2007 / 48

11

Using Simulation Models to Improve Irrigation Water Application

1 2 1 1 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 7 8 9 10
T n ira n-S A (soba ) ra sp tio WP yen T n ira n-WF S (c tto) ra sp tio OOT o n T n ira n-F O e o-F Oe mn(c tto) ra sp tio AM d APn a o n th T n ira n-F O e o-Hrg a e (c tto) ra sp tio AM d a revs o n th C ssA a e a o tio -mn lyma la -Pnvpra n oth en

Mn oth

Figure 3: Comparison of Simulated Transpiration for Cotton

12

Actual ETP - SWAP (soybean) Actual ETP - FAOPenman (cotton)

Actual ETP - WOFOST (cotton) ClassA-Panevaporation - monthly mean

11

10

Actual Evapotranspiration [mm]

0 7 8 9 10

11

Month

Figure 4: Comparison of Simulated Actual Evapotranspiration

Pakistan Journal of Water Resources, Vol.11(2) July-December 2007 / 49

11

N. Schahbazian, J. Eitzinger, A. Montazar, G. Akbari and I. Allahdadi

16 Pan evaporation [mm] 14 FAO-Penman 12 Hargreaves

Potential ETP [mm]

10

FAO24-Penman Eto by SW model AP

0 7 8 9 10

Month

Figure 5: Comparison of Simulated Potential Evapotranspiration (Compared to Measured Pan Evaporation)

80

70

M easured Soil w content 20cm[V ] ater ol.% M easured Soil w content 35cm[V ] ater ol.% Flow period ering Soil w content 10-40cm- calculated by FA m ater O ethod Soilw content 35cmSW P [V ] ater A ol% Soil w content - W ater OFOST

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 7 8 9 10

M onth

Figure 6: Comparison of Measured and Simulated Soil Water Contents in Cotton of the Different Models

Pakistan Journal of Water Resources, Vol.11(2) July-December 2007 / 50

11

11

Using Simulation Models to Improve Irrigation Water Application

Model testing and evaluation The selected models and algorithms CROPWAT, FAO & Allen method, SWAP, CERES-wheat were parameterised and tested based on the measured data from the winter wheat field experiment for water balance calculation. The models CROPWAT, SWAP and CERES were included in the testing procedure in order to include them in the system. To compare the different models, relevant output water balance parameters were compared (Figures 7-11). The different model inputs (Table 4), are a potential source of uncertainty in the results. The following results are based on preliminary parameterised models and a further validation could improve model performance. The calculation of potential evapotranspiration is the base of all other simulated water balance parameters and therefore of crucial importance for actual evapotranspiration, soil water content and water stress. As can be seen in Figure 7, the temperature based equations (such as Hargreaves) show very high values. This is probably an overestimation of real values. Penman-Montheith seems to be the best approach without prior calibration. If there is a good on-site calibration any equation may be applicable. Figure 8 shows that the simulated actual evapotranspiration between the models can differ in a manner that is different from that of potential evapotranspiration, as different approaches in calculation of actual ETP are involved depending on the model (crop parameters such as rooting depth, biomass are additionally critical in crop models). The results for potential evapotranspiration of the different models show a deviation of about 1-2 mm per day during the warm period (Figure 7), during the cold period the deviations are small. These deviations are therefore critical during warm and semi-arid conditions. Compared to measured soil water content, the simplified FAO & Allen method (Figure 9) showed satisfying results (a direct absolute comparison is difficult because of deviations from point measurements to simulated profile water content).

CROPWAT, and CERES seem to overestimate soil water depletion probably because of overestimation of potential ETP (compare also Table 5). The results of the more complex models (Figure 10) only partially show sufficient agreement with the measurements and there is still a need for better calibration. However, when the relevant data are available, these models can deliver more detailed outputs than the FAO based simple-algorithms. They have the potential for several additional applications. The simulated water balance parameters of the different models are depending on the calculated potential evapotranspiration which is shown in Table 5. In Figure 11, a comparison between the proposed models and their efficiency in irrigation scheduling for winter wheat is shown. The real irrigation represents the locally applied irrigation on fixed dates. It can be seen that the simple FAO algorithms (incl. CROPWAT) reach a similar performance than the more complex models in the season 2001-2002. It can therefore be recommended in semi-arids areas for irrigation scheduling. The lower need for irrigation in the 2002-2003 season is based on higher precipitation and better distribution than in the 2001-2002 season. Only small change in potential yields was allowed for crop models and CROPWAT, for FAO & Allen, a maximum soil water depletion of 2/3 of available water content was allowed. Precipitation was 120 mm in 20012002 and 193 mm in 2002-2003. The optimized irrigation scheduling results by FAO & Allen model indicates that water saving of winter wheat was 1300 and 1100 m/ha for 2001-2002 and 20022003, respectively in growing period. However, the water productivity can be significantly improved using the simple simulation models, alike the mentioned model. For CERES-wheat and SWAP, it had been compared in the optimised version of simulated irrigation scheduling with the real irrigation as shown in Figures 11 and 12. The results shows that both models could help reduce the amount of needed water considerably, with almost no loss in grain yield. However, both models were only preliminary calibrated, because of limited available input data.

Pakistan Journal of Water Resources, Vol.11(2) July-December 2007 / 51

N. Schahbazian, J. Eitzinger, A. Montazar, G. Akbari and I. Allahdadi

Table 4: Statistic of Measured Parameters During the Winter Wheat Growing Period 2001-2002 Parameter Air temperature, mean Air temperature, mean Maximum Air temperature, mean Minimum Air temperature, canopy height, mean Air temperature, canopy height, mean Maximum Air temperature, canopy height, mean Minimum Air humidity, mean Air humidity, mean Maximum Air humidity, mean Minimum Precipitation Irrigation Global radiation Dew point temperature, mean Air pressure deficit, mean Soil temperature, mean Soil water content, mean Soil water content, mean Wind Plant height, change Dry matter/Plant. Unit C C C C C C % % Oct 2001 19.6 26.9 12.4 18.7 27.0 11.4 37.6 58.9 Nov 2001 11.8 17.8 6.2 11.1 17.8 5.2 45.5 65.9 Dec 2001 8.0 13.0 3.9 7.2 12.7 2.8 68.7 83.8 Jan 2002 5.0 10.0 0.7 4.4 10.6 -0.4 61.9 79.1 Feb 2002 8.2 15.3 1.9 7.5 15.8 0.4 45.2 66.4 Mar 2002 13.4 19.9 6.6 12.4 20.9 4.5 36.3 56.9 Apr 2002 15.8 21.6 10.0 15.1 22.9 8.3 55.3 77.9 May 2002 22.5 29.6 14.6 21.9 31.5 12.6 34.0 58.0 Jun 2002 28.3 35.7 19.7 28.4 37.2 18.9 22.0 40.8

% mm mm MJ/m2 C kPa C Vol.% Vol.% km/h cm g

21.0 6.0 0 422 3.1 1.6 18.0 28.6 19.0 4.3 -

26.6 2.0 60 252 -0.6 0.85 12.8 29.6 19.2 0.8 0-1 -

48.2 37.5 179 2.1 0.37 8.8 39.0 32.3 1-5 -

40.6 12.0 199 -2.3 0.39 6.9 32.9 27.7 0.7 5 -

23.7 0.0 50 282 -4.1 0.70 7.7 35.1 30.1 1.7 5-16 -

18.6 15.0 150 428 -3.1 1.10 11.8 34.3 27.8 1.7 1663 -

34.1 49.0 60 479 5.6 0.95 14.8 38.7 27.7 2.4 63110 3

16.8 5.0 60 738 3.7 2.09 19.9 28.3 20.9 8.2 110 15

10.4 0.0 0 838 2.6 3.28 29.7 21.4 17.0 4.4 110 23

Table 5: Statistic of Simulation Results of the Winter Wheat Field Experiment 2001-2002 (204 days) Parameter Pot. Evapotranspiration (sum mm) Act. Evapotranspiration (sum mm) Soil water content 35cm (mean - Vol %) CROPWAT 671 451 SWAP 499 301 25.4 CERES 509 438 27.2 FAO & Allen (Penman) 427 292 FAO & Allen (Hargreaves) 780 380 -

Pakistan Journal of Water Resources, Vol.11(2) July-December 2007 / 52

Using Simulation Models to Improve Irrigation Water Application

10 9 8 7 Potential ETP (mm) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 Month 6

6
F AO-P e nm a n Ha rgre a ve s F AO24-P e nm a n Eto by C ER ES Whe a t (P rie s tle y-Ta ylo r)

Figure 7: Comparison of Simulated Potential Evapotranspiration by Different Methods

10 9 8 Actual Evapotranspiration (mm) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 11 12 1 2 3 4 Month

Figure 8: Comparison of Simulated Actual Evapotranspiration by Different Models
Actual ETP - SWAP (winter wheat) Actual ETP - FAOhargr (winter wheat) Actual ETP - FAOPenman (winter wheat) Actual ETP - CERES (winter wheat)

Pakistan Journal of Water Resources, Vol.11(2) July-December 2007 / 53

N. Schahbazian, J. Eitzinger, A. Montazar, G. Akbari and I. Allahdadi

55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6
So il water co ntent 10 -4 0 cm calculated b y FAO&Allen met ho d So ilwater co ntent 0 -4 0 cm CROPWAT [Vo l% ] M eas ured So il wat er co nt ent 2 0 cm [Vo l.% ] M eas ured So il wat er co nt ent 3 5cm [Vo l.% ] Flo wering p erio d

M onth
Figure 9: Comparison of Measured and Simulated (FAO&Allen and CROPWAT) Soil Water Contents in Winter Wheat Based on Real Data in 2001-2002

60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 11 12

Measured Soil water content 20cm [Vol.%] Measured Soil water content 35cm [Vol.%] Flowering period Soilwater content 35cm SWAP [Vol%] Soilwater content 35cm CERES [Vol%]

Month
Figure 10: Comparison of Measured and Simulated (SWAP and CERES) Soil Water Contents in Winter Wheat 2001-2002 Pakistan Journal of Water Resources, Vol.11(2) July-December 2007 / 54

Using Simulation Models to Improve Irrigation Water Application

300 250 I r r ig a tio n ( m m )

I r r ig a tio n ( m m )

350 300 250 200 150 100

Optimized IrrigationSWAP Optimized IrrigationCERES Optimized IrrigationCROPWAT Optimized IrrigationFAO&Allen Real Irrigation

200 150 100 50 0

Season120022003

50 0 8 Season 20012002

Figure 11: Comparison of the Water Saving Potential of the Different Models

3000

2500

Grain Yield [kg/ha]

2000

1500

1000

500

0 observed values SWAP_reported irrigation SWAP_optimised irrigation CERES_reported irrigation CERES_optimised irrigation

Figure 12: Comparison of Simulated Winter Wheat Grain Yield of CERES and SWAP (2001-2002)

Pakistan Journal of Water Resources, Vol.11(2) July-December 2007 / 55

N. Schahbazian, J. Eitzinger, A. Montazar, G. Akbari and I. Allahdadi

CONCLUSIONS The model testing study showed the simulation models are most useful for application in irrigation water scheduling and management. All considered models could help reduce the amount of needed water considerably, with almost no loss in yield. Hence, the water productivity may be significantly improved because of increasing crop yields, which can be achieved by the optimized irrigation scheduling. The simple FAO model approaches (FAO & Allen; CROPWAT) were relatively easy to adapt and their input data need is very limited compared to the other more sophisticated models. Both FAO models showed also reasonable good results for irrigation scheduling and their performance was similar to the more complex models. The application of the more sophisticated models (CERES, SWAP) strongly depends on available input data and model validation. They can be very useful however, as the extended range of system outputs widen their applicability also for other agro-meteorological planning activities. The results of the field experiments confirmed that daily temperature, air humidity and solar radiation are the most critical meteorological model input parameters to be measured for a representative water balance calculation on this semi-arid site. Daily precipitation is another input needed for the soil water balance models. Precipitation and irrigation has to be and can be easily estimated manually. In general, daily wind speed is a key factor for evapotranspiration. In the very dry environment of our experimental site evapotranspiration was, however, relatively insensitive to the local mean wind speeds. Soil water content turned out to be an important control parameter and should therefore be continuously monitored. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors would like to thank the University of Tehran- college of Aboureyhan for technical supporting to this project. REFERENCES Allen, G.A., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D. and Smith, M. (1998). Crop evapotranspirationGuidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO

Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56. FAO, Rome, Italy, 78-86. Chopart, J.L., Vauclin, M. (1990). Water balance estimation model: field test and sensitivity analysis. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 54, p. 1377-1384. Eitzinger, J., Trnka, M., Hsch, J., alud, Z., Dubrovsk, M. (2002). Comparison of CERES, WOFOST and SWAP models in simulating soil water content during growing season under different soil conditions. submitted to : Ecological modelling FAO (1986). Yield response to water.- FAO irrigation and drainage paper 33. FAO (1997). CROPWAT-A computer program for irrigation planning and management.- FAO irrigation and drainage paper 46. Kirda, C., Kanber, R. (1999). Water, no longer a plentiful resource, should be used sparingly in irrigated agriculture. In: Kirda, C., Moutonnet , P., Hera, C., Nielsen, D.R., (Eds.), Crop yield responses to deficite irrigation, Kluwer Academic, Dodrecht, pp. 1-20. Kroes, J.G., Van Dam, J.C., Huygen, J., and Vervoort, R.W. (1999). Users Guide of SWAP version 2.0. Simulation of water flow, solute transport and plant growth in the Soil-WaterAtmosphere-Plant environment. Technical Document 48, Alterra Green World Research, Wageningen, Report 81, Department of Water Resources, Wageningen University, 127p. Matthews, R.B., Stephens, W. (2002). Crop-soil simulation models. Application in developing countries. CABI publishing, 277p. Molden, D. (1997). Accounting for water use abd productivity. SWIM paper 1. International water management Institute (IWMI), Colombo, Sri Lanka. Panigrahi, B., Panda, S.N. (2003). Field test of a soil water balance simulation model. Agric. Water Management, 58: 223-240. Pereira, L.S. (1999). Higher performance through combined improvements in irrigation methods and scheduling: a discussion. Agric. Water Manage. 40: 153-169. Ritchie, J.T. (1998). Soil water banalce and plant water stress. In: Tsuji, G.Y., Hoogenboom, G.,

Pakistan Journal of Water Resources, Vol.11(2) July-December 2007 / 56

Using Simulation Models to Improve Irrigation Water Application

Thornton, P.K. (Eds.), Understanding options for agricultural production. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands. Ritchie, J.T., Otter, S. (1985). Description and performance of CERES_Wheat: a useroriented wheat yield model. In: ARS wheat yield project. ARS-38. Natl. Tech. Info. Serv., Spring field, Missouri, pp. 159-175. Tsuji, G.Y., Hoogenboom, G., Thornton, P.K. (1998). Understanding options for agricultural production. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands. 399p.

Van Diepen, C.A., Wolf,J.,van Keulen, H.,and Rappolt, C. (1989). WOFOST: a simulation model of crop production. Soil Use Manage, 5: 16-24. Williams, J.R., Renerd, K.G. (1985). Assessment of soil and crop productivity with process models (EPIC). In: Follett, R.F., Stewart, B.A. (Eds.), Soil erosion and crop productiovity. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, pp. 68-102 (Chapter 5).

Pakistan Journal of Water Resources, Vol.11(2) July-December 2007 / 57