IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE

Irrig. and Drain. 61: 178–188 (2012)

Published online 9 May 2011 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/ird.633

SIMULATION AND OPTIMIZATION FOR IRRIGATION AND CROP PLANNING†

DARSHANA1, ASHISH PANDEY1*, MANFRED OSTROWSKI2 AND R. P. PANDEY3
1
Department of Water Resources Development and Management, IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, India
2
T.U. Darmstadt, Germany
3
National Institute of Hydrology Roorkee, Roorkee, India

ABSTRACT
In this study, simulation and optimization models were assembled for the optimization of irrigation systems and their
operation. The simulation model CROPWAT was used for estimation of the crop water requirement, time and depth. The
evolutionary algorithm (GANetXL) was used for the optimal planning of cropping pattern, maximization of net benefits and
minimization of irrigation water requirements for the study area of Holeta catchment, Ethiopia. The study area encompasses
three command areas, i.e. farm A, farm B and Tsedey State Farm, and five different type of crops, i.e. potato, tomato, apple,
peach and winter wheat. The simulation results of the CROPWAT model illustrated that crop water requirement for apple was
highest (993 mm), followed by peach (908 mm), tomato (470 mm), potato (443 mm) and wheat (294 mm). The study reveals
that fruit crops have more crop water requirements than cereals. The results of the GANetXL show that when the cropped area
and water allocated was varied between extreme values, 23% of water can be saved. The total benefit from the study area can
be enhanced by USD 34 ha−¹ and can be helpful in improving the economic conditions of the farmers. Copyright # 2011 John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
key words: CROPWAT model; irrigation; optimization; simulation; genetic algorithm

Received 24 November 2009; Revised 22 February 2011; Accepted 23 February 2011

RÉSUMÉ
Dans cette étude, des modèles de simulation d’optimisation ont été assemblés pour optimiser les systèmes d’irrigation et leur
conduite. Le modèle de simulation CROPWAT a été utilisé pour l’estimation quantitative et temporelle des besoins en eau des
cultures. L’algorithme évolutionnaire (GANetXL) a été utilisé pour la planification optimale de la répartition des cultures, la
maximisation des bénéfices nets et la minimisation des besoins en eau d’irrigation pour la zone d’étude du bassin versant de
Holeta, en Ethiopie. La zone d’étude englobe trois mailles hydraulique, à savoir les fermes A et B et la ferme d’Etat de Tsedey;
cinq cultures différentes ont été considérées: pommes de terre, tomate, pomme, pêche et blé d’hiver. Les résultats des
simulations du modèle CROPWAT ont montré que les besoins en eau des cultures les plus élevés étaient ceux de la pomme
(989 mm), puis ceux de la pêche (912 mm), de la tomate (469 mm), des pommes de terre (443 mm) et du blé (293 mm).
L’étude confirme ainsi que les besoins en eau de l’arboriculture sont supérieurs à ceux de la céréaliculture. Les résultats de
l’GANetXL montrent qu’en faisant varier la superficie cultivée et l’eau allouée entre deux valeurs extrêmes, il existe un
optimum qui permet d’économiser 23% de l’eau d’irrigation et d’améliorer la marge nette de la zone d’études de USD 34 ha−¹,
améliorant ainsi la condition économique des agriculteurs. Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
mots clés: modèle CROPWAT; irrigation; optimisation; simulation; algorithme évolutionnaire

* Correspondence to: Ashish Pandey, Department of Water Resources
Development and Management, IIT Roorkee, Roorkee‐247 667, India,
Uttarakhand, E‐mail: ashish_nerist@yahoo.co.in, ashisfwt@iitr.ernet.in
†
Simulation et optimisation de la planification de l'irrigation et des cultures.
INTRODUCTION
Water allocation and its management for agricultural
purpose is a complex issue depending on social, environ-
mental and political factors. It has generally been
performing far below its potential, particularly in drought‐
prone areas, making the level of agricultural production and

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

 SIMULATION AND OPTIMIZATION FOR IRRIGATION AND CROP PLANNING
irrigation benefit economically inadequate (Raju and
Kumar, 1999). Efficient irrigation systems would play a
key role in achieving the secured food supply of the world’s
population. Between 60 and 70% of all inland water
resources are actually used for irrigation purposes, with
efficiencies ranging from 30 to 70%. It is obvious that
available water resources, although renewable, have an
upper limit. It is being realized that the available water
resources may decrease in coming years due to their
excessive exploitation. The feasible solutions to this
problem appear to be scientific improvement in irrigation
technology, including development of optimum irrigation
systems, i.e. engineering and agricultural infrastructure, and
optimum operation of such systems. Computer‐based
simulation and optimization have a significant role to play
in supporting management decisions in an environment
where the interacting processes are complex and vary
spatially and temporally, and where scheme managers use a
rule of thumb to predict the effects of their decisions on a
scheme’s performance (Kuo et al., 2001).
Optimization, simulation and simulation–optimization
approaches are usually used for irrigation planning and
management. The simulation approach include models of
soil water balance (Liu et al., 1998; George et al., 2000;
Mateos et al., 2002), soil water dynamics (Singh and Singh,
1997; Shang et al., 2004) and crop simulation (Rinaldi,
2001; Bergez et al., 2002). These simulation models were
able to give a more detailed description of evapotranspira-
tion and crop growth. For the optimization approach,
irrigation was scheduled with dynamic programming (Rao
et al., 1988; Naadimuthu et al., 1999), nonlinear program-
ming (Ghahraman and Sepaskhah, 1997), etc., to obtain
maximum crop yield or profit.
The traditional optimizing irrigation planning model
attempts to obtain optimum values, thus satisfying the
objective function and constraints. Moreover, traditional
optimization models in irrigation planning have been of
extensive interest (Matanga and Marino, 1979; Paudyal and
Gupta, 1990; Raman et al., 1992; Singh et al., 1999). To
maximize the gross benefit of a yield, subject to total water
supply, Matanga and Marino (1979) developed an area‐
allocation model. Thereafter, to resolve the complex
problem of irrigation management within a large heteroge-
neous basin, Paudyal and Gupta (1990) applied a multi‐
level optimization technique. Kuo and Liu (2003) developed
a simulation and optimization model and applied it to an
irrigated area in Delta, Utah, to optimize the economic
benefit, simulate the water demand, and search the related
crop area percentage with specified water supply and planted
area constraints.
In this study, the problem was divided into three phases.
In the first phase the CROPWAT model was used for
optimization of irrigation system operation, such as when to
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
179
irrigate and how much to irrigate. In the second phase the
relationship between yield and total water applied (rain +
irrigation) was developed as per the criterion suggested by
Doorenbos and Kassam (1979). In the third phase the results
from the first and second phases were used for the
optimization of irrigation system structure, such as type of
cropping pattern using multi‐objective optimization using
an evolutionary algorithm (GANetXL).
STUDY AREA
The Holeta catchment lies in the upper course of the Awash
basin, Ethiopia. It is a small catchment with an area of 119.0
km2. The loamy soil of the study area is the main cause of
erosion in the rainy season. The average altitude of the study
area varies between 2400 and 3200 metres above mean sea
level. The environment is seasonally humid with long‐term
(1976–2005) average annual rainfall of 1055 mm, of which
85% is received between the months of June and September,
and mean maximum and minimum temperatures of 22.2
and 6.1 °C, respectively. Wind speed in the Holeta catchment
varies from 175 to 425 km per day. The mean relative
humidity varies from 84% in August to 55% in February.
The town of Holeta is only major settlement in the
catchment of the Holeta River, which is the capital of the
Wolmera‐Genet area and 45 km from Addis Ababa.
The Holeta river tributary passes Holeta town about 1 km
to the east. It serves as the water supply for people and
cattle outside of the central town, which is supplied by
wells. The catchment has fertile soils (loam) and a high
potential for water resource development. However,
development in the valley is limited to a few hundred
hectares of irrigation and a small milling plant due to a
very high seasonal variation of water availability. Farmers
in this area depend exclusively on rain‐fed agriculture and
most crops are grown in the main rainy season.
There are three different farms in the Holeta catchment,
i.e. farm A, farm B and Tsedey State Farm, and location of
the study area is presented in Figure 1. Irrigation sector A is a
smallholding of about 300 ha (approximately 600 family
heads). The Holeta River is the main source of surface water
in the study area. Water is diverted from the Holeta River to
the farms, passing through a 3 km contour canal having a
maximum capacity of 150 l s−¹. There is no facility to store
rain water in the rainy season for use in the dry season. The
average monthly runoff (1975–1991) of the Holeta River
varies from 0.68 million cubic metres (MCM) in the month
of January to 20.4 MCM in the month of August. The farms
are poorly managed and constructed without any proper
water control structure. Therefore, irrigation efficiency of
farms A and B is very low (30%). Water is distributed to
every farmer on a rotational basis. A village committee is
Irrig. and Drain. 61: 178–188 (2012)
180 D. DARSHANA ET AL.
Figure 1. Map of study area
established to coordinate farm activities and to negotiate
with other entities about their share of water from the Holeta
River. Cereals are produced by farmers under rain‐fed
agriculture from June to November for subsistence. Potatoes
and tomatoes are the dominant horticultural crops irrigated
by the farmers, although several other crops are also
cultivated. Planting of potatoes and tomatoes takes place in
the first week of January and February, respectively. Tsedey
State Farm is run by a state‐owned enterprise for
horticultural development. It grows deciduous fruit trees,
mainly apples on 100 ha and peaches on 50 ha. The farm has
a well‐constructed intake and water control structure
downstream of the mill and it is well managed. The
irrigation efficiency of Tsedey State Farm is 50%. Irrigation
sector B is the same as sector A except that the area brought
under irrigation is 100 ha (approximately 200 families).
Shortage of water is more pronounced in this farm than
elsewhere in the upstream area. There are periods when the
available water is fully diverted by the upstream users,
leaving no water in the river for farm B users.
METHODOLOGY
CROPWAT model
The CROPWAT model for Windows was used for the
estimation of crop water requirements. It is a program that
uses the Penman–Monteith method to calculate crop
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
evapotranspiration (Smith, 1992). The Penman–Monteith
approach is a combination of both aerodynamic and
radiation terms as reported by FAO Paper No. 56, and the
general equation is as follows:
0:408ΔðRn −GÞ þ γ Tþ273
900
u2 ðes −ea Þ
ETo ¼ (1)
Δ þ γð1 þ 0:34u2 Þ
where ETo is the reference crop evapotranspiration
(mm day−1); Rn is the net radiation at the crop surface
(MJ m−2 day−1); G is the soil heat flux (MJ m−2 day−1); T
is the mean daily air temperature at 2 m height (°C); u2 is
the wind speed at 2 m height (m s−1); es is the saturation
vapour pressure (kPa); ea is the actual vapour pressure
(kPa) ; (es – ea) is the saturation vapour pressure deficit
(kPa); Δ is the slope vapour pressure curve (kPa °C); γ is
the psychometric constant (kPa °C) and 900 is the con-
version factor for daily basis calculation.
For the calculation of effective precipitation, the USDA
Soil Conservation method was used (Smith, 1991). This
method assumes that crops can use almost 60–80% of
precipitation up to 250 mm per month. Over 250 mm per
month, the crops benefit from only 10% of the total
precipitation. In other words as precipitation increases, its
efficiency decreases. The empirical equation is as follows:
125−0:2Ptot
Peff ¼ Ptot  for Ptot < 250 mm (2)
125
Irrig. and Drain. 61: 178–188 (2012)
 SIMULATION AND OPTIMIZATION FOR IRRIGATION AND CROP PLANNING
Peff ¼ 125 þ 0:1 Ptot for Ptot > 250 mm (3)
where Peff is the effective rainfall (mm) and Ptot is the total
rainfall (mm).
Input data requirement of the CROPWAT model
The CROPWAT model uses climatic, crop and soil data
for the calculation of the crop water requirement. The
meteorological data include: (1) maximum and minimum
temperature, (2) wind speed, (3) sunshine hours, (4)
relativity humidity and (5) rainfall. The climatic data of
the study area are taken from the CLIMWAT model. In this
study, for estimation of the crop water requirement, five
crops, namely potato, tomato, apple, peach and winter
wheat, are considered. The CROPWAT model contains
default data for potato, tomato and winter wheat. The crop
parameters of apple and peach are not available in the
CROPWAT model. The crop parameters of apple and peach
can be created through the CROPWAT model interface.
The cropping pattern consists of planting date, crop
parameters (including Kc value, stage days, root depth,
depletion fraction) and the area planted (0–100% of the total
area). In this study, it was taken that apple, peach, potato,
tomato and winter wheat crops were planted on 20 October,
28 February, 2 January, 5 February and 20 November
respectively. It was assumed that the crops were planted at
the same time. The CROPWAT model requires information
on soil type such as: total available moisture, readily
available moisture and initial available moisture. The
CROPWAT model contains default data for loamy soil.
MATHEMATICAL MODEL FORMULATION
The objective of the model was maximization of net benefits
(Equation 4) and minimization of irrigation water require-
ments (Equation 7). These two competing objectives of the
system are expressed as follows.
Objective function
Objective Function 1 (OF1): Maximization of net
benefits (MNB). The maximization of net returns is
commonly aspired to by every decision maker in the
planning process. However, farmers are more biased towards
such objectives and always prefer crop planning which can
provide them with greater financial returns. The net returns
under different crops from the command areas of Holeta farm
A, farm B and Tsedey State Farm are to be maximized. These
are obtained by deducting the cost of irrigation water,
fertilizer and labour (CP) from the gross economic benefits
(GI) of crops and can be expressed as
OF1 ¼ MNB ¼∑nt¼1 ðGIt −CPt Þ (4)
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
181
GIt ¼ ∑ci Pc  Ac  Yc (5)
CPt ¼ ∑ci Cp  Ac þ ∑ci Cwt  Uc (6)
where Pc is crop price (US$ t−¹), Ac is the crop area for crop c
(ha), Yc is yield for crop c (t ha−¹), Cp = costs of production per
unit area (US$ ha−¹), Cwt = cost of irrigation water (m3), Uc is
irrigation release (106 m3) for crop c. Table I shows the crop
prices and cost of production per unit area.
Objective Function 2 (OF2): Minimization of
irrigation water requirement (MIR).
OF2 ¼ MIR ¼ ∑ INðc; mÞ  Ac (7)
ðc; mÞ
where IN(c, m) is the irrigation water need for crop c in
month m (106 m3 ha−¹).
Constraints. The objective function is subject to the
following constraints (Equations 8 and 9).
Area availability. The sum of all crop area is equal or
less then total farm area.
∑ Ac ≤ ∑ TA (8)
c
where TA is the total area and Ac is the area of crop c.
Water demand to water availability. Total irrigation
water needed in the irrigation area should not exceed total
water available for irrigation area:
∑ INðc;mÞ  Ac ≤ ∑ WA (9)
ðc;mÞ
where WA is the total water available.
Decision variables are the amount of land in the irrigated
area for growing crop c (ha), denoted as Ac. It is assumed
that the soil is homogeneous and irrigation efficiency is
30% for farms A and B and 50% for Tsedey State Farm. It
is important to adjust crop patterns on an economic basis
and for optimal use of resources.
Relationship between yield and total water applied
Yaron and Bresler (1983) reported that dated response
functions can be incorporated into optimization models
which provide guides regarding the timing and quantities of
irrigation water applied under given conditions. Many
authors have proposed semi‐empirical water production
functions that relate crop yield to the amount of evapo-
transpiration. It has been pointed out that an important
factor in irrigation water management is the timing of soil
moisture stress imposed on a crop in relation to its
Irrig. and Drain. 61: 178–188 (2012)
182 D. DARSHANA ET AL.
Table I. Crop prices and cost of production
Potato Tomato
Production cost (US$ ha−¹) 152 364
Crop price (US$ t −¹) 30 45
Source: Woreda Ministry of Agricultural (2004).
physiological stage of growth. Different water production
functions which take into account the developmental stage
of a crop can be found in the literature (Vaux and Pruitt,
1983). One of the most currently used is the multiplicative
form of the Stewart formula proposed in the FAO
methodology (Doorenbos and Kassam, 1979; Juan et al.,
1996).
A relationship between crop yield and water applied was
developed using the procedure as suggested by Doorenbos
and Kassam (1979). The equation is as follows:
   
Ya ETa
1− ¼ Ky 1− (10)
Y max ETmax
where Ky is the crop yield reduction factor, Ya, ETa is the
crop actual yield and evapotranspiration, respectively and
Ymax, ETmax are the maximum crop yield and potential
evapotranspiration, respectively.
Multi‐objective evolutionary algorithms (MOEA)
In this study, GANetXL (Evolutionary Optimization for
Microsoft Excel) was used for optimization of benefits and
irrigation water requirements. It is a genetic algorithm add‐
on for Microsoft Excel supporting single and multi‐
objective optimization. The source code has been taken
from http://cws/ganetxl and then the problem was formu-
lated in this code. GANetXL supports only one algorithm
(NSGA II) for multi‐objective problems and three (gener-
ational, generational elitist, steady state) for a single
objective problem. In this study, Non Sorting Genetic
Algorithm II (NSGA‐II) proposed by Deb et al. (2000) is
used to identify feasible solutions with trade‐offs between
competing objectives (i.e. minimize irrigation requirements
and maximize net benefits).
NSGA‐II is a multi‐objective optimization algorithm
based on non‐dominated sorting. In this algorithm the entire
population is sorted according to their non‐dominance over
the other solutions. Based on the number of dominated
solutions, a rank is assigned to a particular member of the
population. A front is comprised of members having the same
rank. The front consisting of rank 1 members is the current
best estimate of the Pareto front. To preserve diversity among
a population of the same generation, the crowding‐distance
approach is used. The crowding distance is the largest cuboid
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Wheat Apple Peach
606 1 460 1 460
40 91 91
that encloses the current members but uses members on the
same front. The selection operator used is crowded
tournament selection (Deb and Goldberg, 1989), where both
children and parents in the same generation compete with
each other. The members having a better rank are selected
automatically. If any two members have the same rank, the
one having the greater crowding distance is selected. The
process of selection, recombination and mutation processes is
iterated until there is a sufficient number of generations. The
detail process of GANetXL is explained in the manual of
GANetXL 2006 (http://centres.exeter.ac.uk/cws/downloads/
cat_view/25‐software/42‐ganetxl).
Prior to the random search process, the user must specify
four control factors: (1) number of generations, (2) chromo-
some size within one population, (3) probability of crossover
and (4) probability of mutation. The parameters of the NSGA‐
II optimization algorithm were set taking into account
suggestions in the literature for specifying these parameters
(Deb, 2001). Multi‐point crossover and the Simple by Gene
mutator were chosen. A multi‐point crossover operator was
used to achieve greater diversity in the generated chromo-
somes. The best value of the probability of crossover and
mutation is considered to be equal to 0.8 and 0.01 respectively,
which is also obtained through a trial‐and‐error process.
Goldberg (1989) revealed that satisfactory GA performance
requires high crossover and low mutation probabilities, as
well as a moderate population. The total net profit is maxi-
mized while total irrigation water is minimized. The algorithm
is run for a maximum generation of 3000 and population size
of 150. A random seed value of 1 was assumed.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this study, the CROPWAT model was used for the
estimation of reference crop evapotranspiration, crop water
requirement and net irrigation requirement for different
crops, namely apple, peach, potato, tomato and winter
wheat. In this case the calculated crop water requirement is
a function of area. From the results it was found that crop
water requirement increased from initial stage to crop
development stage (Table II). The peak amount of water is
required during the growing and crop development stages.
As seen from Table III, the reference crop evapotrans-
piration (ETo) value varies greatly among these crops. The
Irrig. and Drain. 61: 178–188 (2012)
 SIMULATION AND OPTIMIZATION FOR IRRIGATION AND CROP PLANNING 183

Table II. Estimation of crop water requirement (mm month−1)

Month Apple Peach Potato Tomato Wheat

January 69 90 58 – –
February 83 62 109 71 –
March 96 60 133 95 –
April 102 60 115 121 –
May 95 73 28 112 –
June 87 58 – 71 18
July 83 65 – – 43
August 85 76 – – 96
September 85 83 ‐ – 100
October 79 90 – – 37
November 64 95 – – –
December 65 96 – – –
Total 993 908 443 470 294

Table III. Actual cropping pattern (ha) and estimated crop water requirement of the study area

Crop name Area (ha) ET0 CWR Effective IWR

(mm) (mm) rainfall (mm)
Farm A Farm B Tsedey State Farm (mm)

Apple – – 100 1 236 993 514 475

Peach – – 50 1 236 908 271 641
Potato 150 50 – 490 443 100 343
Tomato 150 50 – 515 470 172 297
Wheat 150 50 – 785 294 206 86

perennial apple and peach crops indicated the highest value
of reference crop evapotranspiration (1236 mm) and potato
has the lowest (490 mm). Tomato and wheat gave reference
crop evapotranspiration values of 515 and 785 mm
respectively. The maximum/potential evapotranspiration or
crop water requirement (ETcrop or ETm) values for the crops
followed a similar pattern to those of reference evaporation.
Apple recorded the maximum evapotranspiration value of
993 mm, followed by peach (908 mm), tomato (470 mm),
potato (443 mm) and wheat (294 mm). As seen from
Table II, the results for apple and peach indicated similar
amounts of reference evapotranspiration but different
amount of crop water requirement. This may be due to
the higher value of the crop coefficient for apple. Using crop
yield data for the period from 1975 to 1991 for the study
area, water–yield relationships for potato, tomato, winter
wheat, apple and peach were developed and are presented in
Figures 2–6.
The following regression equation represents the water–
yield relationship for the potato crop:


Y ¼ − 0:0005x2 þ 0:178x þ 2:76 R2 ¼ 0:58
It can be seen from Figure 2 and Equation (11) that the
potato yield increases linearly when application of water
reaches up to 90 mm, and beyond 90 mm the relationship
between potato yields and applied water is curvilinear.
Equation (12) presents the water–yield relationship for
the tomato crop. It can be seen from Figure 3 and Equation
(12) that the tomato yield increases linearly with increase of
applied water up to 74 mm, and beyond 74 mm the relation
between tomato yields and applied water is nonlinear:


Y ¼ − 0:0004x 2 þ 0:177x − 2:09 R 2 ¼ 0:71 (12)
In the case of winter wheat the following relationship
(Equation 13) was obtained. The relationship presented in
Figure 4 indicates that the drop in wheat yield increases
linearly with increase of applied water up to 72 mm, and
beyond 72 mm the relation between tomato yields and
applied water is also nonlinear.


Y ¼ − 0:0003x2 þ 0:115x þ 6:68 R2 ¼ 0:78 (13)
A similar relationship could be obtained for yield of apple
and water used as shown in Equation (14) and Figure 5. It
(11) can be seen from Figure 5 that the apple yield increase is
linear with increase of applied water up to 108 mm, and
beyond that value the relation between apple yields and
applied water is nonlinear.

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 61: 178–188 (2012)
184 D. DARSHANA ET AL.
−1
Figure 2. Relationship between potato yield (t ha ) and total water
applied (mm)
Figure 3. Relationship between tomato yield(t ha−1) and total water
applied (mm)
Figure 4. Relationship between wheat yield (t ha−1) and total water
applied (mm)

The GANetXL algorithm for determining the optimal
Y ¼ − 0:0004x 2 þ 0:205x − 0:38 R 2 ¼ 0:80 (14)
In the case of the peach crop the relationship is linear
with increase of applied water up to 131 mm, and beyond
131 mm the relation is nonlinear. The water–peach crop
yield relationships are shown in Figure 6 and Equation (15):


Y ¼ − 0:0006x2 þ 0:283x− 8:16 R 2 ¼ 0:71 (15)
The above water– yield relationship for various crops
confirms that the optimum crop yield can be obtained with
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Figure 5. Relationship between apple yield (t ha−1) and total water
use (mm)
Figure 6. Relationship between peach yield (t ha−1) and total water
applied (mm)
optimum water application at different stages of crop
development. However, excess application of irrigation water
beyond the optimum value may lead to reduction of crop yield.
The irrigation water requirement was highest for peach
(641 mm) and lowest for wheat (86 mm). The irrigation
water requirement for apple, potato and tomato crops was
475, 343 and 297 mm respectively. This shows that there is
more demand for soil moisture by peach and apple than by
the other three crops which had comparable irrigation water
requirements. Apple has a higher crop water requirement
than peach but a lower irrigation water requirement. This is
due to the occurrence of more effective rainfall during the
peak water requirement period of peach.
cropping pattern which can maximize the benefits and
minimize the irrigation water requirement was used in this
study. The total cultivated area was kept constant. The areas
of the different crops were changed to discover the optimal
cropping pattern. But the limit of maximum and minimum
crop area was fixed. The actual cropping pattern in the study
area of the Holeta catchment is presented in Table III. The
MOGA (multi‐objective genetic algorithm) was applied
with a population of 150 chromosomes and 3000 genera-
tions, a multi‐point crossover with probability of 0.8 and
Irrig. and Drain. 61: 178–188 (2012)
 SIMULATION AND OPTIMIZATION FOR IRRIGATION AND CROP PLANNING 185

simple By Gene mutation with probability of 0.01. Figure 7
shows the optimal cropping area of different crops which
can maximize net benefits and minimize the irrigation
requirement for farm A, farm B and Tsedey State Farm. It
was found that the area increased for those crops having a
low irrigation demand and decreased for those crops with a
high irrigation demand. The results of the optimization
problem are discussed below.
Farm A
Figure 8 shows the Pareto optimal set for the crop
planning model of two objective functions (maximizing
total net benefits and minimizing irrigation water) when the
crop area is allowed to change between minimum and
maximum. It was found that the solution is well distributed
along the Pareto front. Table IV shows the optimized
benefits and irrigation water requirement corresponding to
the optimal area of potato, tomato and winter wheat of farm
A. It can be seen from Table IV that before optimization
the total benefits for potato, tomato and winter wheat were
US$86 500, US$153 000 and US$64 100 respectively, and
after optimization were US$32 300, US$250 000 and US
$161 000 respectively. The irrigation water requirement
before optimization was 5.14 × 10 6 , 4.45 × 10 6 and
0.39 × 106 m3 and after optimization was 1.92 × 106,
7.24 × 106 and 0.77 × 106 m3 respectively for potato, tomato
and winter wheat for farm A. It was found that with the
optimal cropped area, total benefit increased by an amount
of US$140 000 more than the actual case, and the optimum
irrigation water requirement is less than the actual case
from the whole of farm A. It was concluded that after
optimization the increase in net benefits was US$69 ha−¹,
and the decrease in irrigation requirement was about 25%
from the whole of farm A.
Farm B
The Pareto optimal front for the crop planning model of
two objective functions (maximizing benefits and minimiz-
ing irrigation water requirement) is shown in Figure 9 when
the cropping area is allowed to change between minimum and
maximum. It was found that the solution is well distributed
along the Pareto front. Table IV shows the optimized benefits
and irrigation water requirement corresponding to the
optimal area of potato, tomato and winter wheat of farm B.
It can be seen from Table IV that before optimization the
total benefits for potato, tomato and winter wheat were
US$28 900, US$51 100 and US$20 200 respectively and
after optimization were US$5 781, US$90 100 and US$39 600

Figure 7. Actual and optimal area of different crops in the study area

Figure 8. Pareto optimal set for crop planning model when maximizing total benefits and minimizing irrigation water from farm A

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 61: 178–188 (2012)
186 D. DARSHANA ET AL.

Table IV. Actual and optimized benefits and irrigation water for different crops

Farm Crop Benefits before Benefits after Irrigation demand before Irrigation demand after
name optimization (US$) optimization (US$) optimization (106 m3) optimization (106 m3)

Farm A Potato 86 500 32 300 5.14 1.92

Tomato 153 000 250 000 4.45 7.24
Wheat 64 100 161 000 0.39 0.77
Farm B Potato 28 900 5 780 1.71 0.34
Tomato 51 100 90 100 1.48 2.61
Wheat 20 200 39 600 0.13 0.25
Tsedey State Apple 131 000 190 000 2.85 3.99
Farm Peach 61 600 12 300 1.89 0.38

Figure 9. Pareto optimal set for crop planning model when maximizing total benefits and minimizing irrigation water from farm B

respectively. The irrigation water requirement before opti-
mization was 1.71 × 106, 1.48 × 106 and 0.13 × 106 m3 and
after optimization was 0.34 × 10 6 , 2.61 × 10 6 and
0.25 × 106 m3 respectively for potato, tomato and winter
wheat for farm B. It was found that with the optimal cropping
area, the increase in total benefit was US$35 300 more than
the actual case, and the optimum irrigation water requirement
is less than the actual case from farm B. It was concluded that
after optimization the increase in net benefits was US$23 ha−¹
and the decrease in irrigation requirement was about 26%
from the whole of farm B.
Tsedey State Farm
Figure 10 shows the Pareto optimal set for the crop
planning model of two objective functions (maximizing total
Figure 10. Pareto optimal set for crop planning model when maximizing
total benefits and minimizing irrigation water from Tsedey State Farm
net benefits and minimizing irrigation water) when the crop
area is allowed to change between minimum and maximum.
It was found that the solution is well distributed along the
Pareto front. Table IV shows the optimized benefits and
irrigation water requirement corresponding to the optimal
area of apple and peach. It can be seen from Table IV that
before optimization the total benefits were US$131 000 and
US$61 600 for apple and peach and after optimization were
US$190 000 and US$12 300. The irrigation water
requirement before optimization was 2.85 × 10 6 and
1.89 × 106 m3 and after optimization was 3.99 × 106 and
0.38 × 106 m3 for apple and peach for the Tsedey State Farm.
It was found that with the optimal cropped area, total benefit
increased by an amount of US$9 700 more than the actual
case, and optimum irrigation water requirement is less than
the actual case from the whole of Tsedey State Farm. It was
concluded that after optimization the increase in net benefits
was US$65 ha−¹ and the decrease in irrigation requirement
was about 8% from the whole of Tsedey State Farm.
It can be seen from Figure 11 that with the optimal
cropped area, total benefit increased by an amount of US
$185 000 than that of actual from the entire study area.
Further, Figure 12 reveals that the optimum irrigation water
requirement is less than the actual case. Thus, it was found
that the optimum distribution of the cropped area and
optimum irrigation application may increase net benefits in
the order of US$34 ha − ¹ and reduce the irrigation
requirement by 23%.

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 61: 178–188 (2012)
 SIMULATION AND OPTIMIZATION FOR IRRIGATION AND CROP PLANNING
900
Objective Function 1
Benefits (103US$)
750
596
600
450
300
150
0 mation in genetic function optimization. In Proceedings of the 3rd ICGA.
Actual
Figure 11. Total benefits from the study area
Figure 12. Total irrigation requirement
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions have been drawn from the study.
The simulated results from the CROPWAT model show that
crop water requirement for apple was highest (993 mm),
followed by peach (908 mm), tomato (443 mm), potato
(470 mm) and wheat (294 mm). The water–yield relation-
ships for potato, tomato, winter wheat, apple and peach
were developed. The simulated crop water requirement
from the CROPWAT model and the developed water–yield
relationship were used to optimize the cropping pattern of
different crops in the study area using the GANetXL
optimization algorithm. Analysis of the results from the
GANetXL algorithm showed approximately 23% of water
saving when the crop areas were allowed to change between
minimum and maximum. The net benefit from the area was
US$34 ha −¹. The results of this study might be helpful in
achieving optimal benefits from the studied farms in
particular and from farms all over the globe.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The financial support provided by the DAAD (Deutscher
Akademischer Austausch Dienst) to conduct a part of the
research work in the TU Darmstadt, Germany, is gratefully
acknowledged. The authors would also like to thank the
anonymous referees for contributing insightful remarks and
useful suggestions, which led to a substantially improved
manuscript.
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
187
REFERENCES
781
Bergez JE, Deumier JM, Lacroix B, Leroy P, Wallach D. 2002. Improving
irrigation schedules by using a biophysical and a decisional model.
European Journal of Agronomy 16: 123–135.
Deb K. 2001. Multi‐Objective Optimization using Evolutionary Algorithms.
John Wiley and Sons: Chichester, UK.
Deb K, Goldberg DE. 1989. An investigation of niche and species for-
Optimal
Morgan Kaufmann. George Mason University: United States; 42–50.
Deb K, Agrawal, S, Pratap A, Meyarivan T. 2000. A Fast and Elitist
Genetic Algorithm NSGAII. Technical Report 2000001. Indian Institute
of Technology, Kanpur, India.
Doorenbos J, Kassam AH. 1979. Yield response to water. Irrigation and
Drainage Paper No. 33. FAO: Rome, Italy; 193 pp.
George BA, Shende SA, Raghuwanshi NS. 2000. Development and testing of an
irrigation scheduling model. Agricultural Water Management 46: 121–136.
Ghahraman B, Sepaskhah AR. 1997. Use of a water deficit sensitivity
index for partial irrigation scheduling of wheat and barley. Irrigation
Science 18: 11–16.
Goldberg DE. 1989. Genetic algorithms. In Search, Optimization and
Machine Learning. Addison‐Wesley; New York.
Juan JA, Tarjuelo JM, Valiente M, and Garcia P. 1996. Model for optimal
cropping patterns within the farm based on crop water production
function and irrigation uniformity. I. Development of a decision model.
Agricultural Water Management 31: 115–143.
Kuo SF, Liu CW. 2003. Simulation and optimization model for irrigation
planning and management. Hydrological Processes 17: 3141–3159.
Kuo SF, Liu CW, Merkley GP. 2001. Application of the simulated
annealing method to agricultural water Resource management. Journal
of Agricultural and Engineering Research 80 (1): 109–124.
Liu Y, Teixeira JL, Zhang HJ, Pereira LS. 1998. Model validation and crop
coefficients for irrigation scheduling in the North China plain.
Agricultural Water Management 36: 233–246.
Matanga GB, Marino MA. 1979. Irrigation planning: 1. Cropping pattern.
Water Resources Research 15: 672–678.
Mateos L, Lopez‐Cortijio I, Sagardoy JA. 2002. SIMIS: the FAO decision
support system for irrigation scheme management. Agricultural Water
Management 56: 193–206.
Naadimuthu G, Raju KS, Lee ES. 1999. A heuristic dynamic optimization
algorithm for irrigation scheduling. Mathematical and Computer
Modelling 30: 169–183.
Paudyal GN, Gupta AD. 1990. Irrigation planning by multilevel
optimization. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, ASCE
116: 273–291.
Raju KS, Kumar DN. 1999. Multicriterion decision making in irrigation
planning. Agricultural Systems 62: 117–129.
Raman H, Mohan S, Rangacharya NCV. 1992. Decision support for crop
planning during droughts. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage
Engineering, ASCE 118: 229–241.
Rao NH, Sarma PBS, Chander S. 1988. Irrigation scheduling under a
limited water supply. Agricultural Water Management 15: 165–175.
Rinaldi M. 2001. Application of EPIC model for irrigation scheduling of
sunflower in Southern Italy. Agricultural Water Management 49: 185–196.
Shang SH, Li XC, Mao XM, Lei ZD. 2004. Simulation of water dynamics
and irrigation scheduling for winter wheat and maize in seasonal frost
areas. Agricultural Water Management 68: 117–133.
Singh R, Singh J. 1997. Irrigation planning in wheat (Triticum aestivum)
under deep water table conditions through simulation modeling.
Agricultural Water Management 33: 19–29.
Singh R, Refsgaard JC, Y de L. 1999. Application of irrigation
optimization system (IOS) to a major irrigation project in India.
Irrigation and Drainage Systems 13(3): 229–248.
Irrig. and Drain. 61: 178–188 (2012)
188 D. DARSHANA ET AL.

Smith M. 1991. CROPWAT: Manual and Guidelines. FAO of UN: Rome,
Italy.
Smith M. 1992. CROPWAT: a Computer Program for Irrigation Planning
and Management. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations: Rome, Italy.
Vaux HJ, Pruitt WO. 1983. Crop water production functions. In Advances
in Irrigation, vol. 2, Hillel D (ed.). Academic Press: New York; 61–79.
Yaron D, Bresler E. 1983. Economics analysis of on farm irrigation using
response functions of crops. In Advances in Irrigation, vol. 2, Hillel D
(ed.). Academic Press: New York; 223–255.
http://centres.exeter.ac.uk/cws/downloads/cat_view/25‐software/42‐ganetxl
http://centres.exeter.ac.uk/cws/technology/20‐geneticalgorithms/76‐ganetxl
http://www.fao.org/nr/water/infores_databases_climwat.html
www.kimberly.uidaho.edu/ref‐et/fao56.pdf

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 61: 178–188 (2012)