Agricultural Water Management 279 (2023) 108182

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agricultural Water Management

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

An intelligent irrigation management model for direct injection of solar

pumping systems
Jorge Cervera-Gascó *, Jesús Montero , Miguel A. Moreno
Department of Plant Production and Agricultural Technology, Higher Technical School of Agricultural and Forestry Engineering and Biotechnology, University of Castilla-
La Mancha, Campus Universitario, s/n 02071 Albacete, Spain

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling editor- Dr Z Xiying The photovoltaic pumping systems are useful for irrigation, but must ensure that water is applied to the crop as
uniformly and efficiently as possible at all points of the irrigation subunit. To solve this problem, the I-Selector
Keywords: model was developed. It allowed to generate irrigation schedules with the application of quality criteria both for
Solar pumping system combinations of subunits studied individually (with a standard deviation in the applied water sheet: 2.8 m3⋅ha− 1)
Global efficiency
and for combinations of several subunits studied working together depending on,among other things, the
Quality irrigation
available photovoltaic energy and the extraction capacity of the well, allowing to compare and analyze the best
Irrigation management
irrigation strategy to be used and being a flexible model that can be used in any case of study. Thus, the I-Selector
model has generated irrigation schedules to establish the optimal sequence of opening combinations of subunits
distributed by daily time slots, thus indicating the convenience of its use at each time of day for the best use of
water and energy in a high-power solar pumping system located in Albacete, Spain.

1. Introduction reduction in water use. Energy consumption, however, has increased

The agriculture is one of the sectors that presents increased vulner­
ability (Tingem et al., 2009) with rainfed systems being especially
fragile when there are changes in weather conditions (Valverde et al.,
2015). Thus, the aquifers are overexploited (Molina et al., 2009), since,
to a large extent, they are the main sources of water supply in irrigation.
Only in Castilla-La Mancha they account for more than 65% of the water
consumed (Moreno et al., 2010).
This situation suggests a scenario of savings and efficiency in even
more restrictive use of water and energy. This must necessarily be driven
by adequate modernization in irrigation, oriented towards increasing
the productivity of water and profitability, as well as enhancing the
reliability and flexibility of the water deliveries, considering the existent
demands and complying with environmental requirements (Playán and
Mateos, 2006). Furthermore, there is a need for the use of tools and
simulation models and the performance of appropriate and efficient
irrigation practices (Tarjuelo et al., 2015), which must be combined
with new accurate technologies that allow information to be gathered
from different sources in the decision making processes (Díaz et al.,
2020).
The modernization processes implemented have achieved a
exponentially (Corominas, 2010). As well as the type of crop and the
irrigation area, other variables related to the design of the irrigation
system also influence energy consumption. These include the water
supply point (underground or surface), sizing of pressure pipes, both the
distribution network and the subunits (length and diameters) and their
layout (land topography and elevations), correct sectorization (Carril­
lo-Cobo et al., 2014), the final pressurization of the selected irrigation
system (sprinkler, drip or gravity) (Jackson et al., 2010; Zehnder et al.,
2003) and, of great importance, the pumping system (Cervera-Gascó
et al., 2021a, 2021b; Córcoles et al., 2019; Singh et al., 2002). Evidently,
and after a good design of the irrigation infrastructure, it is essential to
manage the complete system. It has been shown that efficient irrigation
scheduling saves water and energy and helps farmers achieve better
yields and quality (S. Taghvaeian et al., 2020).
It is worth noting that the growth of photovoltaic solar energy, as a
renewable source in particular, not only in the domestic and industrial
environments but also in the rural and agricultural environment as a
sustainable solution bringing environmental benefits (Todde et al.,
2019), where solar pumping systems are a clear alternative to other both
conventional and renewable energy sources (Aliyu et al., 2018; Chandel
et al., 2015). Combining this type of energy has enabled the installation

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jorge.cervera@uclm.es (J. Cervera-Gascó), jesus.montero@uclm.es (J. Montero), miguelangel.moreno@uclm.es (M.A. Moreno).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2023.108182
Received 25 August 2022; Received in revised form 17 January 2023; Accepted 18 January 2023
Available online 31 January 2023
0378-3774/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
J. Cervera-Gascó et al. Agricultural Water Management 279 (2023) 108182

of solar pumping systems in many countries, such as the US (Vick et al.,
2003), India (Pande et al., 2003), Turkey (Senol, 2012), Spain (Reca
et al., 2016; Tarjuelo et al., 2015) and Algeria (Bouzidi, 2011).
However, one of the main problems detected in solar pumping sys­
tems is the lack of uniform emission in irrigation subunits and the low
efficiency of water use in these types of systems, which has a direct
impact on irrigation quality (Contreras et al., 2020). This is mainly
because the activation of the combinations of irrigation subunits occurs
without precise knowledge of whether the photovoltaic energy gener­
ated is sufficient to achieve quality irrigation, with, generally speaking,
seeing water coming out of the drippers being considered sufficient.
Moreover, another important aspect when referring to the requirements
for irrigation is the need to have precise knowledge of the water needs of
each crop (Lenton, 2014; López-López et al., 2018a, 2018b). However, it
may be the case that these amounts cannot be supplied since the supply
depends on the energy generation system, the extraction capacity and
the availability of water. Thus, the irrigation capacity of a system is a
result of the conditions mentioned above.
Appropriate management of the opening of subunit combinations
exclusively when quality irrigation is guaranteed requires simulation
models that can estimate these conditions. There are numerous models
for the management of hydraulic systems (Carrión et al., 2016, 2013;
González Perea et al., 2014, 2019a, 2019b; Rodríguez Díaz et al., 2011;
Tarjuelo et al., 2015) and for the management of photovoltaic power
generation systems (Aliyu et al., 2018; Chandel et al., 2015; Li et al.,
2017; Poompavai and Kowsalya, 2019; Shen et al., 2008; Zerhouni et al.,
2010). Moreover, there are several studies that highlight the benefits
and feasibility of using solar irrigation pumps (Aliyu et al., 2018;
Ledesma et al., 2022; Reca et al., 2016; Senthil Kumar et al., 2020) and
control algorithms have been developed that allow for the integrated
management of photovoltaic generation systems and hydraulic models
(Calero-Lara et al., 2021; González Perea et al., 2019a, 2019b).
However, no model has been developed that accurately integrates
the photovoltaic power generation component, the simulation of
pumping systems and hydraulic modeling, in order to address irrigation
management considering highly variable photovoltaic power genera­
tion, both at the time of the year and throughout the day and in between
days of the irrigation campaign. Moreover, no irrigation scheduling al­
gorithms based on accurate simulation of the behavior of the system as a
whole have been found.
The aim of this work is to generate a management model for an
irrigation system powered by photovoltaic solar energy, applying algo­
rithms that decide, in line with different criteria, the opening order and
irrigation time of the subunits, taking into account the available
photovoltaic power according to the moment of the day and the
extraction potential of the well, and with the premise of achieving
correct irrigation quality.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Case study
The management model was applied at an irrigated farm called
"Peruelos”, which is located in the southeast of Albacete, Spain (latitude
38.994◦ , longitude − 1.859◦ ). The total area is 90 ha, distributed in 20
subunits of highly irregular shape and topography, with a total differ­
ence between the highest and the lowest point of the farm of about 63 m
(Table 1). The crop is almond trees with a planting frame of 7 × 7 m2.
The irrigation system installed is an underground drip irrigation system
powered by photovoltaic solar energy. The underground water is
extracted from a well with a dynamic level of approximately 200 m
deep. The water level undergoes extreme variations depending on the
day of the year and the flow rate of the system. The maximum discharge
of the well is 7.5 L⋅s – 1. An accurate description of the pumping system
to obtain the pump characteristic curves appears in (Cervera-Gascó
et al., 2021a, 2021b). Fig. 1 shows the description and location of the
different elements that make up the solar pumping system studied.
2.2. Description of the I-Selector model
The simulations in the I-Selector model are carried out for all the
months, in this case from March to October (8 months), of the 2017
irrigation campaign analyzed in 10-minute time periods, which allows
highly accurate results to be obtained. For this period of time, the
following are determined: the irrigation quality parameters of each
subunit, the hydraulic performance of the distribution network, the
performance of the pumping system and the performance of all the
photovoltaic production system.
For a more detailed description, two sections with different func­
tionalities can be distinguished in the I-Selector model as shown in
Fig. 2. The first refers to the implementation of a series of predefined
requirements that ensure a defined irrigation quality, as well as the
determination of the combinations of subunits that comply with these
requirements and their potential hourly analysis. The second refers to
the selection engine that the model uses to establish the best optimal
sequence for activating irrigation combinations, the real-time analysis
and water application, as well as the generation of irrigation calendars
that allow recommendation tables to be obtained for the activation of
combinations both individually and in combination with others.
Table 1
Main characteristics of the subunits in the "Peruelos" case study.
Subunit Area Number Subunit Max. Min.
(ha) of Inlet Elevation in Elevation in
drippers Elevation the Subunit the Subunit
(m) (m) (m)

1 4.124 5560 532.1 553.3 534.0

The model generated in this work, called I-Selector, was developed in 2 4.339 5601 531.9 546.9 527.8
MATLAB® (Mathworks Inc., Massachusetts, USA). It complements the 3 5.179 8079 539.1 544.6 533.5
4 6.296 7975 531.7 537.3 527.0
work developed in the EVASOR model (Cervera-Gascó et al., 2020) and 5 7.235 9472 527.5 529.5 517.9
uses its results to establish the best optimal opening sequence of subunit 6 5.176 6366 531.7 551.8 532.1
combinations to be irrigated in real time in an automated manner. 7 6.164 10,281 522.8 538.8 520.4
Applying the model in previous irrigation campaigns helps determine 8 5.623 7882 526.1 541.3 517.9
9 3.586 7600 526.1 535.9 515.4
the irrigation potential of each subunit and establish irrigation priorities
10 4.154 4668 519.5 520.4 511.9
based on the probability of opening each subunit during each irrigation 11 2.208 2683 516.8 540.7 523.6
month. That is, those subunits that have greater difficulties to irrigate 12 4.178 8204 516.8 532.1 507.2
with solar energy, that is less irrigation probability due to its high energy 13 2.559 2726 513.9 527.5 512.5
demand, will be prioritized over those with greater irrigation possibil­ 14 3.117 4016 511.5 523.3 506.7
15 4.439 6093 505.7 515.8 500.9
ities with solar energy, that is less irrigation difficulty due to its low 16 4.899 8804 507.6 515.3 500.1
energy demand, so that all subunits receive a similar amount of water 17 4.640 5218 514.3 523.6 506.6
per surface area. 18 3.552 4729 514.2 535.5 513.7
19 5.789 5173 500.0 507.4 490.5
20 3.347 4079 500.0 504.1 490.9

2
J. Cervera-Gascó et al. Agricultural Water Management 279 (2023) 108182

Fig. 1. Map with the description and location of the different elements that make up the solar pumping system studied.

Fig. 2. Map with the description and location of the different elements that make up the solar pumping system studied.

2.3. 1st Section: Application of irrigation restrictions to ensure suitable
quality of the irrigation events
In the first section, for the correct selection, scheduling and opera­
tion of all photovoltaic pumping installations, a series of limitations or
conditions are established that depend, according to this case, on the
components of the study installation.
• Value of available photovoltaic power, whose value must be suffi­
cient to obtain the minimum power established through the synthetic
data obtained with EVASOR.
• Maximum pressure of the distribution pipe, to guarantee the integ­
rity of the installation without rupture due to overpressure.
• Maximum pressure of the drippers inside the subunit, to guarantee
the integrity of the installation without overpressure rupture.
• Minimum emission uniformity, established to determine a minimum
quality during the irrigation process.
• Minimum irrigation time, to avoid short irrigations.

3
J. Cervera-Gascó et al.
• Maximum well capacity, which limits the maximum extraction flow
rate.
These restrictions presented in the model and the values considered
in the case study of "Peruelos" are explained below, taking into account
that the model has the sufficient versatility for other values to be
established with other criteria.
2.3.1. Photovoltaic power available
The production of power generated in a solar photovoltaic installa­
tion depends on the day and the period of time studied during the year.
Consequently, the I-Selector model checks whether the photovoltaic
power supplied to the input of the irrigation pump, obtained with the I-
Solar model (Cervera-Gascó et al., 2021a, 2021b), is located within the
operating power limits of each combination of selected subunits and
determines whether that combination of subunits can or cannot be
irrigated at that particular moment in time.
Throughout the day, certain critical moments can be distinguished in
relation to the practice of irrigation. At dawn, the photoelectric effect
begins to occur in the photovoltaic generator, which allows a certain
power to be attained, but not sufficient to reach the pressure that gua­
rantees sufficient irrigation uniformity.
This moment is identified as the Start of the Daily Workday (SDW).
The same happens at the end of the day, at sunset, which is identified as
the End of the Daily Workday (EDW). After the SDW, during the course
of the day, a certain power is reached that allows irrigation to be carried
out with sufficient quality, where a minimum irrigation uniformity is
guaranteed. This moment is referred to as Start of the Quality Irrigation
(SQI). Finally, End of Quality Irrigation (EQI) is defined as the moment
after which insufficient power is generated to be able to perform quality
irrigation.
Fig. 3 depicts a scheme where the critical moments for irrigation are
observed, as well as the areas where the subunits present more favorable
conditions, that is, low energy demand, and which can be irrigated at
times of low irradiance corresponding to the morning and afternoon
periods, respectively. The subunits with a high energy demand cannot
be irrigated during these periods.
While the central hours of the day provide high values of power that
are effective for operating high energy demanding subunits (HEDS) that
require high energy and that can only be irrigated during this period of
the day. However, during this period, if necessary, the low energy
demanding subunits (LEDS) can also be irrigated.
2.3.2. Maximum pressures in the installation
Other checks that the model performs are related to the maximum
levels of pressure that the distribution pipes and the dripper pipes are
Fig. 3. Scheme with the identification of the beginning and end of irrigation
days (SDW - EDW) and quality irrigation (SQI- EQI), and the most LEDS and
HEDS irrigation zones.
4
Agricultural Water Management 279 (2023) 108182
able to withstand. The I-Selector model developed allows any value to be
established for these variables. However, in the specific case of "Perue­
los", the manufacturer indicated that the maximum working pressure of
the distribution pipe is 60 mca while the maximum working pressure of
the dripper is 35 mca.
In the case of the dripper, and depending on the pressure reached at
the head of the subunit at each moment, the model checks this pressure
through the results obtained in the Presud-Irregular module (Moreno
et al., 2016), determining whether any dripper has exceeded its
maximum pressure established by the manufacturer (in this case, 35
mca) inside of the subunit. If so, the combination of subunits evaluated
at that moment is discarded giving the opportunity to another combi­
nation of subunits for its evaluation by this criteria. The same occurs
with the maximum pressure of the distribution pipe, evaluated using the
Solar-Net module (Cervera-Gascó et al., 2020). This restriction ensures
the integrity of the irrigation infrastructure.
2.3.3. Minimum irrigation uniformity
To provide the necessary irrigation quality, the model checks for
Emission Uniformity (EU). Various sources of information have dis­
cussed the minimum acceptable value for application without present­
ing a clear guideline or concrete value that defines this limit (Keller and
Bliesner, 1990). This is typically a decision to be taken by the manager,
and evaluated according to the type of crop, water availability and
irrigation time availability, among many other factors. Therefore, and
although any value can be established for this variable, in this case
study, in order to guarantee a good irrigation quality for all subunits, a
minimum value of 85% is established. All the subunits with a value
lower than that indicated for each evaluated moment are discarded for
irrigation. This information can be obtained thanks to the
Presud-Irregular module.
2.3.4. Minimum irrigation time
In order to have continuous irrigation periods for efficient use of
water by the crop, and taking into account that the time periods used are
10 min, the minimum irrigation duration for each combination of sub­
units is set at 1 h. This minimum value can also be selected, although
lower times are not practical, especially in case of surface irrigation,
which would lend too great a weight to the evaporative component. In
cases of underground irrigation, as at "Peruelos", evaporation losses
would not be a problem, but this limit is established in order to consider
minimum times to reach hydraulic equilibrium once the subunit com­
bination is activated.
2.3.5. Maximum extraction flow rate
The last restriction corresponds to the maximum capacity of the well.
Those options that demand a flow rate that exceeds the well capacity are
not valid. In this case study, the capacity of the well has a maximum
value of 7.5 L⋅s− 1. Therefore, the model evaluates that in no case can this
value be exceeded, since the water extraction levels would be compro­
mised, as well as the recharge rate.
2.4. 2nd Section: Open subunit and irrigation time selection algorithm
Once all the above checks are carried out, a data matrix of smaller
dimensions than the original one is obtained, containing all the com­
binations of subunits that meet the restrictions described.
2.4.1. Calculation of opening probabilities of subunit combinations to
achieve quality irrigation events
The model returns the total useful working hours obtained every
10 min for each day. With these total useful irrigation hours per day
(UIHT), defined by the time period between the SQI and the EQI, and the
useful irrigation hours available daily for each combination of subunits
(UIHCS), we can determine the probability of the opening of each com­
bination of subunits (POCS) in the day (Eq. 1) and thus prioritize their
J. Cervera-Gascó et al.
opening at each moment.
UIH T
POCS(%) = (1)
UIH CS
Thus, the most LEDS combinations will have a 100% probability
while the most HEDS ones will have a lower value. As an example, a
combination of subunits with a POCS = 50% will have half the time to
perform a quality irrigation schedule than the most LEDS combinations
that day with a POCS = 100%.
2.4.2. Distribution of the applied water sheet
In this second section, the model studies, analyzes and selects com­
binations of subunits for irrigation, both individually and jointly. In both
cases, the priority is to uniformly distribute the applied water sheet
according to Eq. 2.
V
LA = (2)
S
3 − 1 3
Being LA applied water sheet (m ⋅ha ), V the volume applied (m )
and S the area of the subunit (ha).
Therefore, in this case, if we wish to supply the same sheet of water to
each subunit, the activation priority of the combinations of subunits will
be defined by the criteria described in the methodology and imple­
mented in the I-Selector model.
For a better understanding of how the model works, the decision-
making criteria for irrigation events for each day are now described
step by step.
• The frequency of data collection in this work is 10 min and each
value at this time constitutes an instant of irrigation, so that the
model, from the first instant of the SQI, recognizes the combinations
of subunits that present possibilities for the event of quality irriga­
tion, based on the restrictions established in Section 2.3.
• The selected subunit combinations are studied according to the
irrigation probabilities calculated using Eq. 1.
• Volume parameters are checked at all moments to ensure that the
subunits studied do not exceed the water sheet equilibrium threshold
so that they all have an equal chance of being irrigated. In case of the
subunit or subunits that form the evaluated combination exceeding
the equilibrium threshold, this combination is discarded and the
opportunity is offered to the next one until the requirement is met.
• All selected subunit combinations must have at least one full hour of
irrigation. If the model proves that this is not the case, the subunit is
discarded, offering the opportunity to the next one until the
requirement is met. As a last resort, if the initial requirement is not
met, the model evaluates possibilities up to a minimum time of
30 min.
• Moreover, there are certain difficulties to be taken into account in
the EQI of the Daily Workday in order to optimize the adjustment of
subunit combinations. The I-Selector model checks at all moments
whether there is a possibility of a full hour of irrigation of the subunit
combinations. However, these conditions may not be satisfied for the
EQI of the daily workday and the time distribution may need to be
readjusted. Thus, it is considered appropriate that, if there is not a
full hour of irrigation, two options should be used. The first option is
to check for a minimum of 30 min. In case of availability of the time
mentioned above or longer, it is assigned to a combination of sub­
units. The second one is that, if the time available is less than 30 min
of irrigation, the I-Selector model checks whether there is a combi­
nation of subunits able to undertake the corresponding set time of 1 h
plus all the remaining time difference up to the EQI.
• Finally, once all the checks are carried out, the available subunit
combinations are selected. For this purpose, from the group of
combinations of subunits obtained, the combination with the lowest
irrigation probability value is selected. The reason for this choice is
5
Agricultural Water Management 279 (2023) 108182
to prioritize combinations of subunits that, despite having certain
irrigation probabilities, are more restrictive than others.
With all the information completed, daily irrigation schedules are
elaborated that allow us to know the moment at which the optimal
irrigation sequence of the combinations of subunits, irrigation hours,
applied volumes, as well as the average amount of water sheet distrib­
uted, has been produced.
3. Results and discussion
This model yields the results of the management irrigation for
combinations of individual subunits or for combinations with several
subunits working together. In this work, the analysis was carried out for
two cases:
• For combinations of individual subunits (20 combinations).
• For combinations of two subunits working together (190
combinations)
Nevertheless, the I-Selector model could also be used to combine
three or more subunits because it has been programmed to work with
several combinations of subunits. However, the limitation of opening
several simultaneous subunits is conditioned by the energy produced by
the PV generator, as well as the capacity of the well for its extraction and
the pump that must be able to provide the required flow rate in the
subunits.
Determining the combinations that should have been opened to
optimize the irrigation in previous campaigns is useful to make recom­
mendations on activating them in real time, based on the probability of
each combination being irrigated with high quality.
3.1. 1st Section: Determination and analysis of total available hours
A common, but not greatly recommendable, technique in solar irri­
gation is to irrigate when a flow is discharged from any dripper in the
installation, even if the flow is low. This generates very low irrigation
uniformities and, therefore, an inefficient use of resources. To avoid this
problem, the number of hours available for irrigation is determined,
applying the conditions described in the methodology, related to irri­
gation quality, which ensure an EU greater than or equal to 85%, the
correct pressure in distribution pipes and dripper, the minimum irriga­
tion time of 1 h and a capacity lower than, or equal to, the maximum of
the well. These restrictions mean that the available irrigation hours will
be even lower but will ensure efficient water use.
3.1.1. Total number of hours available
A number of factors, including temperature and wind speed, can
substantially impact the final photovoltaic production, and, therefore,
the total number of hours available for irrigation. The presence of clouds
must also be considered as it may cause variations in the previous values
from one campaign to another.
Table 2 shows the total number of available hours obtained for each
month of the 2017 campaign, in the different time intervals (SDW-EDW
and SQI-EQI for the two cases of subunit combinations studied). As can
be seen, the differences in time in hours between the SDW-EDW and the
SQI-EQI are noteworthy. Moreover, there are also time differences be­
tween the SQI-EQI for the 1 subunit combination and for the 2 subunit
combination, since the activation energy requirements for the 2 subunit
combination are higher and thus the potential hours available for acti­
vation are lower. Additionally, it can be observed that the average
number of available hours of daily operation in this farm, in both cases,
for the months of March, April, August and September (the most
restrictive months) is lower than the 8 h of reference corresponding to
the off-peak hours in conventional irrigation tariffs. However, this effect
is more substantial with the activation of 2 subunit combinations, where
J. Cervera-Gascó et al. Agricultural Water Management 279 (2023) 108182

Table 2
Total number of hours in SDW- EDW and SQI - EQI and average daily number of hours of operation of the "Peruelos" farm in the 2017 campaign.
Month SDW - EDW Combination of 1 Subunit Combination of 2 subunits

SQI – EQI % Average number of hours per day SQI – EQI % Average number of hours per day

March 395.3 208.7 52.8 6.7 188.8 6.1

47.8
April 395.3 219.8 55.6 7.3 197.2 6.6
49.9
May 432.5 278.8 64.5 9.0 256.5 8.3
59.3
June 436.2 281.3 64.5 9.4 260.2 8.7
59.7
July 442.0 284.7 64.4 9.4 258.8 8.3
58.6
August 415.7 238.8 57.4 9.2 212.8 6.9
51.2
September 370.5 222.7 60.1 7.7 198.8 6.6
53.7
October 343.7 186.0 54.1 7.4 161.3 5.2
46.9
Total campaign 3203.2 1920.8 60.0 8.3 1734.5 7.1
54.1

the decrease is more generalized, even in the less restrictive months,
with very close approximations to these reference hours.
For the case study, in which the crop implanted on the "Peruelos"
farm is almond trees, two periods are very sensitive to water stress:
spring, when the fruits grow rapidly, and the end of summer/beginning
of autumn, which is when the fruit load for the following campaign will
be determined (Goldhamer et al., 2006). These periods correspond to the
months of a lower number of potential hours, and, therefore, to a lower
number of daily average hours. For irrigation, it is, consequently,
essential to optimally manage the combinations that are activated dur­
ing these periods.
3.1.2. Average number of daily operating hours with high irrigation quality
The average number of hours per day gives an idea of the irrigation
possibilities of each combination of subunits. Thus, in Fig. 4a), it can be
observed that the average number of hours available per day to carry out
high quality irrigation for combinations of 1 subunit is, in all cases, less
than 8 h, with it being possible to reach 3 h on average in the irrigation
campaign for combination 7, with daily average values of 1.2 h in the
month of October for this combination, minimizing the possibilities of
carrying out post-harvest irrigation in some cases. The standard devia­
tion of the number of available hours is located between 1 and 1.3 h, a
high value, so the number of quality hours is highly dependent on the
irrigation month.
In Fig. 4b), the number of daily available hours to carry out high
quality irrigation for combinations of 2 subunits is even less than 7 h. In
this case, the standard deviation interval is located between 1 and 1.5 h,
which adds a greater degree of dependence.
3.1.3. Time slots with high irrigation quality in the daytime
Some very practical information that can serve as a reference for the
irrigation manager to visualize the different possibilities of opening
combinations of subunits in their installation are the time slots between
the SQI and EQI ranges, which is with high irrigation quality. As an
example, we present the time slots for June 2 of the 2017 irrigation
campaign for the combination of 1 subunit (Fig. 5a) and for the com­
bination of 2 subunits (Fig. 5b).
It can be observed that the discontinuities that appear in the figures
(Green = possibility of opening; White = no possibility of opening) are
caused by the absence or decrease of power, related to the increased
working temperature of the photovoltaic generator, passing of clouds,
etc., which make it impossible to open the combinations with quality
criteria.
Thus, depending on the possible opening times of the subunit com­
binations, an activation priority criterion can be determined in real time.

Fig. 4. (a) Mean number of daily operating hours of high quality irrigation for combinations of 1 subunit of the "Peruelos" farm for the 2017 season. (b) Mean number
of daily operating hours of high quality irrigation for combinations of 2 subunits of the "Peruelos" farm for the 2017 campaign.

6
J. Cervera-Gascó et al.
Fig. 5. (a) Possible opening hours of subunit combinations ensuring high irrigation quality for June 2 of the 2017 campaign for 1-subunit combinations. (b) Possible
opening hours of subunit combinations ensuring high irrigation quality for June 2 of the 2017 campaign, taking into account combinations of 2 subunits.
3.2. 2nd Section: Optimal selection of irrigation combinations, analysis
and generation of schedules
In this 2nd section of the I-Selector model, and with the information
obtained in the 1st section of this model, irrigation schedules and
recommendation tables are automatically generated, which depend on
irradiance conditions, temperature, wind speed and initial water energy
in the form of the dynamic well level. Thus, the most suitable combi­
nations of subunits to be opened are selected according to their proba­
bility of opening and subject to the conditions of the practical exercise of
irrigation, as has been described in the methodology.
3.2.1. Generation of optimized irrigation schedules
The I-Selector model is applied for all the days of the study months of
the selected irrigation campaign. However, as an example, in Fig. 6a,)
the optimized irrigation schedule for the combination of 1 subunit is
represented, and, in Fig. 6b), for the combination of 2 subunits, both
resulting from the application of the I-Selector model in the "Peruelos"
farm for June 2 of the 2017 irrigation campaign. The figures indicate the
combination of subunits that should be irrigated at each time of the day.
In both figures, it can be observed that the most HEDS combinations
can only be irrigated during the central hours of the day, with high
irradiation levels, where the photovoltaic power generated is sufficient
to provide irrigation with high uniformity, such as the example of
combination 7 in combination with 1 subunit. On the other hand, in the
initial and final periods of the day, the combinations of subunits selected
are the most LEDS, that is, those that need less irradiation and power to
Fig. 6. (a) Irrigation schedule for June 2 of the 2017 campaign, for combinations of 1 subunit (b) and for combinations of 2 subunits after application of the I-
Selector model.
7
Agricultural Water Management 279 (2023) 108182
irrigate with quality and which, following the example of combinations
of 1 subunit, would be, in this case, the combination 20 and 13.
Moreover, it can be seen that the selection of 2 subunit combinations
is given by the appropriate balance in the election of subunit combi­
nations adjusted to the photovoltaic power generated both in the central
hours of the day, when the most LEDS are combined with the most HEDS
ones (as an example, combination 19 corresponding to subunits 1 and
20), and in the initial and final periods of the day, when the most LEDS
subunits are combined with each other (as an example, combination 147
corresponding to subunits 11 and 13).
3.2.2. Number of hours used and monthly water sheet for each subunit
In this work, the irrigation interval evaluated was monthly. Hence,
the daily quantification of each month allowed us to obtain the irriga­
tion schedule for the entire irrigation campaign, having calculated, for
each subunit, the accumulated water sheet in the combination of 1
subunit and in the combination of 2 subunits for each month of the
irrigation campaign.
For combinations of 1 subunit (Fig. 7a), the distribution of the
average applied water sheet for each month was very similar to the
maximum value reached in that month, which indicates that, in all the
subunits, the water sheet was uniformly distributed and, therefore, the
irrigation management was appropriate since all the points of the plot
received the same amount of water.
However, in the case of 2 subunit combinations (Fig. 7b), it can be
observed that the distribution of the average applied water sheet for
each month presents great variability between subunits, causing
J. Cervera-Gascó et al.
Fig. 7. (a) Water sheet applied monthly for each subunit when using 1 subunit
combinations and (b) using combinations of 2 subunits working together during
the 2017 irrigation campaign.
substantial differences in the maximum and average values, which in­
dicates that the subunits were not uniformly irrigated. Moreover, it
should also be noted that, in general, the best-irrigated subunits, and,
therefore, those with the highest number of accumulated irrigation
hours, correspond to those with the most low energy conditions, while
the worst-irrigated subunits are in the contrasting situation. Therefore,
there may exist a lack of available photovoltaic power to allow the
activation of subunits under higher energy demand when they work
together.
3.2.3. Water sheet for the entire irrigation campaign in each subunit
With the previous values, the applied water sheet was plotted, for
both the combination of 1 subunit and for the combination of 2 subunits
(Fig. 8) for each subunit across the entire irrigation campaign.
Thus, it can be seen that, for the combination of 1 subunit, the
average applied water sheet was 228.7 m3⋅ha− 1, with a standard devi­
ation between subunits of 2.8 m3⋅ha− 1, indicating the high uniformity of
the applied water sheet between subunits. These values of average
applied water sheet may be low (228.7 m3⋅ha− 1), but they are influ­
enced, on the one hand, by the possible irrigation hours that the
photovoltaic system is capable of supplying, and on the other hand, by
the irrigation strategy defined when programming the model to select
combinations of subunits individually. Therefore, taking into account
8
Agricultural Water Management 279 (2023) 108182
Fig. 8. Total water sheet applied for each subunit in the 2017 irrigation
campaign using 1 subunit and 2 subunit combinations.
that irrigation planning was carried out for all the subunits that compose
the farm under study, these amounts would constitute support irrigation
to help in the final production of the crop, since according to some au­
thors the maximum irrigation volumes applied to almond trees in the
climatic conditions of southern Spain can be close to 8000 m3⋅ha− 1
(Gutiérrez-Gordillo et al., 2019; Jofre-Cekalovic et al., 2022;
López-López et al., 2018a, 2018b).
In the case of the use of 2 subunit combinations, the applied water
sheet distribution significantly increased its value. However, there are
significant inequalities that caused the most LEDS to achieve values
higher than 600 m3⋅ha− 1 while the most HEDS are in some cases far
below 220 m3⋅ha− 1. Indeed subunit 7 was not even irrigated. This is
justified by the fact that a large percentage of the time was used for the
most LEDS, which were those most irrigated, while the remaining sub­
units were not used for as much time due to their higher energy demand
and were thus poorly irrigated. Therefore, the statistical values conclude
with a mean sheet of applied water of 347 m3⋅ha− 1 and a standard de­
viation of 237.8 m3⋅ha− 1.
Thus, taking into account the evolution in the results obtained pre­
viously, it does not make sense to combine more than 2 subunits working
together and if there were the possibility of making combinations of 3
subunits working together, in any case, it would only be possible with
the subunits with low energy demand (LEDS) because it would not be
possible to do it with those with high energy demand (HEDS). Therefore,
the use of combinations of 3 subunits working together would possibly
have worse consequences in irrigation management than those achieved
with combinations of 2 subunits working together, and therefore this
irrigation strategy is not recommended in this case.
In addition, the use of combinations of 3 subunits working together
could exceed the extraction capacity of the well as well as the need to
have sufficient photovoltaic energy for its activation. Therefore, it is
concluded that, according to the characteristics presented in this case
study, this solar pumping system has been designed and works well for
the individual management of irrigation subunits.
3.2.4. Water volumes for each month during the entire irrigation campaign
Moreover, Fig. 9 shows the volume of water applied, for both the
combination of 1 subunit and for the combination of 2 subunits for the
different months of the irrigation campaign on the "Peruelos" farm.
For the combination of 1 subunit, the total volume applied was
20,610.0 m3, with the use of a total of 1736.5 h for irrigation. However,
for the combination of 2 subunits, the total volume applied was
26,463.3 m3, with the use of a total of 1436.3 h for irrigation. As with
the sheet of water, the volume of water supplied, as is logical, increased,
although not significantly, since the low participation of the most HEDS,
which in many cases require higher volumes of water, contributed to the
lower than expected value.
J. Cervera-Gascó et al.
Fig. 9. Distribution of water volume applied for 1 subunit and 2 subunit combinations by month throughout the irrigation campaign, as well as the total vol­
ume achieved.
3.2.5. Recommendation tables for opening subunit combinations
Finally, using the I-Selector model, it was possible to generate a
mapping that indicates the frequency or number of times of opening of
the combinations of subunits and the moment in which this occurred for
each month studied across the entire irrigation campaign. As an
example, Fig. 10a) represents the mapping for the combination of 1
subunit for the month of June of the 2017 irrigation campaign. The color
scale goes from 0 = no opening, up to 6 = opening of 6 or more times.
This figure visually reflects the trend of the combinations of subunits for
their opening and operation according to the type of irrigation strategy
used, showing a greater repetition of combinations of more LEDS in the
extremes of the day and of the most HEDS ones in the central hours of
the day.
Fig. 10b) shows the mapping for the combination of 2 subunits for
the month of June of the 2017 irrigation campaign, where 2 clearly
differentiated zones can be observed. These correspond to the opening of
more HEDS combinations (located between 1 and 120), which were
poorly used, and to the opening of more LEDS combinations (located
between 120 and 190), which were predominantly used. This reflects a
lack of photovoltaic power in the solar pumping system to activate the
most HEDS. Moreover, it can be seen that many combinations of sub­
units were not irrigated.
With the information of all the months included in the irrigation
campaign, recommendation tables were generated for opening subunit
Fig. 10. (a). Frequency of subunit combination activation for the month of June of the 2017 campaign, for combinations of 1 subunit (b) and for combinations of
2 subunits.
9
Agricultural Water Management 279 (2023) 108182
combinations (Table 3: For 1 subunit combination). These provide
useful hourly information for irrigation managers about the percentage
of utilization of the different combinations, as well as the average irra­
diance of operation for the corresponding time period. This global in­
formation is key and determines, in real time, the optimal selection of
irrigation combinations to make efficient use of the water and energy
available. Table 3 shows all the combinations of 1 subunit, while
Table 4, as an example, depicts the 5 best combinations of 2 subunits for
each period of time considered, due to the high number of combinations
formed in this case.
4. Conclusions
This study reveals the need to generate irrigation management
models with solar photovoltaic energy given the complexity of the
conditions of irradiance, temperature, wind speed and initial energy of
the water in the form of the dynamic level of the well in order to make
optimal use of the water and the available energy. The I-Selector model
allows us to incorporate different parameters that are determinants of
achieving the required irrigation quality for each case, being a flexible
model that can be used in any case of study. Using the I-Selector model,
optimal irrigation schedules in combinations of 1 and 2 subunits,
depending on the irrigation strategy used, can be generated from cli­
matic data from previous campaigns. This information is of great
J. Cervera-Gascó et al. Agricultural Water Management 279 (2023) 108182

Table 3
Recommendation table for opening subunit combinations for 1 subunit combination for all the 2017 irrigation campaign.

A.I = Average irradiance; F.U = Frequency of use.

Table 4
Recommendation table for opening subunit combinations for 2 subunit combinations for all the 2017 irrigation campaign.

A.I = Average irradiance; F.U = Frequency of use.

10
J. Cervera-Gascó et al.
interest because, although climatic conditions suffer considerable
interannual variations, the main conditioning factors and recommen­
dations for the opening of combinations of subunits of a complex irri­
gation system can be determined. Thus, determining the most HEDS
combinations, considering the time available to perform quality irriga­
tion, allows subunits with a lower temporal probability of being irri­
gated to be organized and prioritized, so that a uniform sheet of water
can be applied in all the farm.
Although, these values may undergo variations that, on the one
hand, might be influenced by the analysis of better irrigation strategies
or, on the other hand, by the owner’s decisions, since, in scenarios of
water scarcity, it is not the same to irrigate the 20 subunits with irri­
gation deficit than to irrigate specifically with the 10 best subunits and
obtain a significant increase in crop productivity. In any case, it has been
demonstrated that the I-Selector model distributes the water according
to the available photovoltaic energy and the extraction capacity of the
well gauge and not only by the only the water needs.
As a contribution of ideas, one of the characteristics that can be
observed on the farm is the great variability in the characteristics of the
soil, even in its tonality, which affects the water retention of the different
subunits. This can mean that, for the same target, some subunits need
more time and water than others. The implementation of precision
technologies would allow us to obtain characteristic coefficients that
define the state of the soil in the different subunits. These could be used
in the I-Selector model to provide more irrigation time and quantity of
water to subunits with poorer soil conditions, less irrigation time and a
lower quantity of water compared to subunits with better soil
conditions.
Another interesting aspect is that the development of predictive
models based on artificial intelligence makes it possible to estimate
future situations. These predictions of weather or of available power
could be used by the I-Selector model to take irrigation-scheduling de­
cisions in real time based on climatic conditions in the past and the
predicted future.
Funding
This research was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and
Innovation, grant number PID2020-115998RB-C22 (Co-funded by
FEDER) and the University of Castilla-La Mancha predoctoral contract
action, identification number [2014/10340] and the University of
Castilla-La Mancha postdoctoral contract action, identification number
BDNS (Identif.): 562729. [2021/5937] both co-financed by the Euro­
pean Social Fund.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Jorge Cervera-Gascó: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal
analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Supervision,
Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. Jesús Montero: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding
acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, project administration, Re­
sources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft,
Writing – review & editing. Miguel A. Moreno: Conceptualization,
Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology,
project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualiza­
tion, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
11
Agricultural Water Management 279 (2023) 108182
Data Availability
The authors are unable or have chosen not to specify which data has
been used.
References
Aliyu, M., Hassan, G., Said, S.A., Siddiqui, M.U., Alawami, A.T., Elamin, I.M., 2018.
A review of solar-powered water pumping systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 87,
61–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.02.010.
Bouzidi, B., 2011. Viability of solar or wind for water pumping systems in the Algerian
Sahara regions - Case study Adrar. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15, 4436–4442.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.108.
Calero-Lara, M., López-Luque, R., Casares, F.J., 2021. Methodological advances in the
design of photovoltaic irrigation. Agronomy 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/
agronomy11112313.
Carrillo-Cobo, M.T., Camacho-Poyato, E., Montesinos, P., Rodriguez-Diaz, J.A., 2014.
Assessing the potential of solar energy in pressurized irrigation networks. The case of
Bembézar MI irrigation district (Spain). Span. J. Agric. Res. 12, 838–849. https://
doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2014123-5327.
Carrión, F., Tarjuelo, J.M., Hernández, D., Moreno, M.A., 2013. Design of microirrigation
subunit of minimum cost with proper operation. Irrig. Sci. 31, 1199–1211. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s00271-013-0399-8.
Carrión, F., Sanchez-Vizcaino, J., Corcoles, J.I., Tarjuelo, J.M., Moreno, M.A., 2016.
Optimization of groundwater abstraction system and distribution pipe in pressurized
irrigation systems for minimum cost. Irrig. Sci. 34, 145–159. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00271-016-0489-5.
Cervera-Gascó, J., Montero, J., Del Castillo, A., Tarjuelo, J.M., Moreno, M.A., 2020.
EVASOR, an integrated model to manage complex irrigation systems energized by
photovoltaic generators. Agronomy 10, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/
agronomy10030331.
Cervera-Gascó, J., Montero, J., Moreno, M.A., 2021a. AS-Solar, a tool for predictive
maintenance of solar groundwater pumping systems. Agronomy 11. https://doi.org/
10.3390/agronomy11112356.
Cervera-Gascó, J., Montero, J., Moreno, M.A., 2021b. I-Solar, a real-time photovoltaic
simulation model for accurate estimation of generated power. Agronomy 11. https://
doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11030485.
Chandel, S.S., Nagaraju Naik, M., Chandel, R., 2015. Review of solar photovoltaic water
pumping system technology for irrigation and community drinking water supplies.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 49, 1084–1099.
Contreras, J.I., Baeza, R., Alonso, F., Cánovas, G., Gavilán, P., Lozano, D., 2020. Effect of
distribution uniformity and fertigation volume on the bio-productivity of the
greenhouse Zucchini crop. Water 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/W12082183.
Córcoles, J.I., Perea, R.G., Izquiel, A., Moreno, M.Á., 2019. Decision support system tool
to reduce the energy consumption of water abstraction from aquifers for irrigation.
Water 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11020323.
Corominas, J., 2010. Agua y energía en el riego, en la época de la sostenibilidad. Ing. Del.
Agua 17. https://doi.org/10.4995/ia.2010.2977.
Díaz, J.A.R., Perea, R.G., Moreno, M.Á., 2020. Modelling and management of irrigation
system. Water 12, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12030697.
Goldhamer, D.A., Viveros, M., Salinas, M., 2006. Regulated deficit irrigation in almonds:
effects of variations in applied water and stress timing on yield and yield
components. Irrig. Sci. 24, 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-005-0014-8.
González Perea, R., Camacho Poyato, E., Montesinos, P., Rodríguez Díaz, J.A., 2014.
Critical points: interactions between on-farm irrigation systems and water
distribution network. Irrig. Sci. 32, 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-014-
0428-2.
González Perea, R., Camacho Poyato, E., Montesinos, P., Rodríguez Díaz, J.A., 2019a.
Prediction of irrigation event occurrence at farm level using optimal decision trees.
Comput. Electron. Agric. 157, 173–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compag.2018.12.043.
González Perea, Rafael, Mérida García, A., Fernández García, I., Camacho Poyato, E.,
Montesinos, P., Rodríguez Díaz, J.A., 2019b. Middleware to operate smart
photovoltaic irrigation systems in real time. Water 11, 1508. https://doi.org/
10.3390/w11071508.
Gutiérrez-Gordillo, S., García-Tejero, I.F., García-Escalera, A., Galindo, P., Arco, M.D.C.,
Zuazo, V.H.D., 2019. Approach to yield response of young almond trees to deficit
irrigation and biostimulant applications. Horticulturae 5, 1–10. https://doi.org/
10.3390/horticulturae5020038.
Jackson, T.M., Khan, S., Hafeez, M., 2010. A comparative analysis of water application
and energy consumption at the irrigated field level. Agric. Water Manag. 97,
1477–1485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2010.04.013.
Jofre-Cekalovic, C., Nieto, H., Girona, J., Pamies-Sans, M., Bellvert, J., 2022. Accounting
for almond cropwater use under different irrigation regimes with a two-source
energy balance model and copernicus-based inputs. Remote Sens 14. https://doi.
org/10.3390/rs14092106.
Keller, J., Bliesner, R.D., 1990. Sprinkle and trickle irrigation. Sprink. Trickle Irrig.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-1425-8.
Ledesma, J.R., Almeida, R.H., Narvarte, L., 2022. Modeling and simulation of
multipumping photovoltaic irrigation systems. Sustain 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su14159318.
Lenton, R., 2014. Irrigation in the twenty-first century: reflections on science, policy and
society. Irrig. Drain. 63, 154–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/ird.1844.
J. Cervera-Gascó et al.
Li, G., Jin, Y., Akram, M.W., Chen, X., 2017. Research and current status of the solar
photovoltaic water pumping system – A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 79,
440–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.055.
López-López, M., Espadador, M., Testi, L., Lorite, I.J., Orgaz, F., Fereres, E., 2018a. Water
use of irrigated almond trees when subjected to water deficits. Agric. Water Manag.
195, 84–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2017.10.001.
López-López, M., Espadafor, M., Testi, L., Lorite, I.J., Orgaz, F., Fereres, E., 2018b. Water
requirements of mature almond trees in response to atmospheric demand. Irrig. Sci.
36, 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-018-0582-z.
Molina, J.L., García Aróstegui, J.L., Benavente, J., Varela, C., de la Hera, A., López
Geta, J.A., 2009. Aquifers overexploitation in SE Spain: a proposal for the integrated
analysis of water management. Water Resour. Manag. 23, 2737–2760. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11269-009-9406-5.
Moreno, M.A., Ortega, J.F., Córcoles, J.I., Martínez, A., Tarjuelo, J.M., 2010. Energy
analysis of irrigation delivery systems: Monitoring and evaluation of proposed
measures for improving energy efficiency. Irrig. Sci. 28, 445–460. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00271-010-0206-8.
Moreno, M.A., del Castillo, A., Montero, J., Tarjuelo, J.M., Ballesteros, R., 2016.
Optimisation of the design of pressurised irrigation systems for irregular shaped
plots. Biosyst. Eng. 151 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2016.10.005.
Pande, P.C., Singh, A.K., Ansari, S., Vyas, S.K., Dave, B.K., 2003. Design development and
testing of a solar PV pump based drip system for orchards. Renew. Energy 28,
385–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-1481(02)00037-X.
Playán, E., Mateos, L., 2006. Modernization and optimization of irrigation systems to
increase water productivity. Agric. Water Manag. 80, 100–116. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.agwat.2005.07.007.
Poompavai, T., Kowsalya, M., 2019. Control and energy management strategies applied
for solar photovoltaic and wind energy fed water pumping system: A review. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.02.023.
Reca, J., Torrente, C., López-Luque, R., Martínez, J., 2016. Feasibility analysis of a
standalone direct pumping photovoltaic system for irrigation in Mediterranean
greenhouses. Renew. Energy 85, 1143–1154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2015.07.056.
Rodríguez Díaz, J.A., CamachoPoyato, E., BlancoPérez, M., 2011. Evaluation of water
and energy use in pressurized irrigation networks in Southern Spain. J. Irrig. Drain.
Eng. 137, 644–650. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000338.
S. Taghvaeian, A.A., Andales, L.N., Allen, I., Kisekka, S.A.O., D. O. Porter, R., Sui, S.,
Irmak, A., Fulton, J.A., 2020. Irrigation scheduling for agriculture in the United
12
Agricultural Water Management 279 (2023) 108182
States: the progress made and the path forward. Am. Soc. Agric. Biol. Eng. 63,
1603–1618. https://doi.org/10.13031/trans.14110.
Senol, R., 2012. An analysis of solar energy and irrigation systems in Turkey. Energy
Policy 47, 478–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.05.049.
Senthil Kumar, S., Bibin, C., Akash, K., Aravindan, K., Kishore, M., Magesh, G., 2020.
Solar powered water pumping systems for irrigation: A comprehensive review on
developments and prospects towards a green energy approach. Mater. Today Proc.
33, 303–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.04.092.
Shen, C., He, Y.L., Liu, Y.W., Tao, W.Q., 2008. Modelling and simulation of solar
radiation data processing with Simulink. Simul. Model. Pract. Theory 16, 721–735.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2008.04.013.
Singh, H., Mishra, D., Nahar, N.M., 2002. Energy use pattern in production agriculture of
a typical village in arid zone. India Part I. Energy Convers. Manag 43, 2275–2286.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-8904(01)00161-3.
Tarjuelo, J.M., Rodriguez-Diaz, J.A., Abadía, R., Camacho, E., Rocamora, C., Moreno, M.
A., 2015. Efficient water and energy use in irrigation modernization: Lessons from
Spanish case studies. Agric. Water Manag. 162, 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agwat.2015.08.009.
Tingem, M., Rivington, M., Bellocchi, G., 2009. Adaptation assessments for crop
production in response to climate change in Cameroon. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 29,
247–256. https://doi.org/10.1051/agro:2008053.
Todde, G., Murgia, L., Deligios, P.A., Hogan, R., Carrelo, I., Moreira, M., Pazzona, A.,
Ledda, L., Narvarte, L., 2019. Energy and environmental performances of hybrid
photovoltaic irrigation systems in Mediterranean intensive and super-intensive olive
orchards. Sci. Total Environ. 651, 2514–2523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2018.10.175.
Valverde, P., Serralheiro, R., de Carvalho, M., Maia, R., Oliveira, B., Ramos, V., 2015.
Climate change impacts on irrigated agriculture in the Guadiana river basin
(Portugal). Agric. Water Manag. 152, 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agwat.2014.12.012.
Vick, B., Neal, B., Clark, R., Holman, A., 2003. Water Pumping with AC Motors and Thin-
Film Solar Panels, in: Conference, SOLAR 2003; Including Proceedings of 32nd ASES
Annual Conference; 2003. American Solar Energy Society, Austin, TX, p. 6.
Zehnder, A.J.B., Yang, H., Schertenleib, R., 2003. Water issues: the need for action at
different levels. Aquat. Sci. 65, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s000270300000.
Zerhouni, F.Z., Zerhouni, M.H., Zegrar, M., Benmessaoud, M.T., Stambouli, A.B.,
Midoun, A., 2010. Proposed methods to increase the output efficiency of a
photovoltaic (PV) system. Acta Polytech. Hung. 7, 55–70.