Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1 s2.0 S0378377422005996 Main
1 s2.0 S0378377422005996 Main
1 s2.0 S0378377422005996 Main
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Handling Editor- Dr. B.E. Clothier Low efficiency of irrigation is a major problem with surface irrigation methods, mainly due to poor management
and improper design. The objective of this study was to evaluate and improve the performance of different surge
Keywords: and alternate furrow irrigation methods. A field experiment was conducted during the grain maize growing
Furrow irrigation season in the Jayedar Plain of Poldokhtar City (southwest of Iran) in the years 2020 and 2021. Five different
Performance evaluation
furrow irrigation methods including conventional furrow irrigation (CFI), surge irrigation with on/off cycle
Application efficiency
ratios of 1 and 0.5 (SFI1–1 and SFI1–2, respectively), fixed alternate irrigation (FFI) and variable alternate
Infiltration
WinSRFR software irrigation (AFI) were investigated. A total of 15 irrigation evaluations were performed at the initial, middle, and
end of the growing season by measuring inflow rate, cutoff time, outflow rate, infiltration and advance time. The
length and spacing of experimental furrows were 120 and 0.75 m, respectively, and the inflow rate of furrows
and the flow cutoff times at the initial (3rd irrigation), middle (6th irrigation), and end (9th irrigation) of the
season were 0.28 L/s and 240 min, 0.42 L/s and 360 min, 0.35 L/s and 300 min, respectively. The WinSRFR 3.1
software was calibrated and applied using field data based on the zero-inertia model. The results of the furrow
irrigation sensitivity analysis with WinSRFR 3.1 software demonstrated that furrow irrigation in the studied area
was most sensitive to the inflow rate, cutoff time and infiltration parameters, respectively. There were high
correlations between the measured and simulated values of runoff, infiltration and advance time (coefficient of
determination of 1.0, 0.94, and 0.97, respectively). The relative error values in estimating runoff, infiltration and
advance time were 5.60 %, 5.09 %, and 2.14 %, respectively. Mean performance indices of different furrow
irrigation methods under field experiments showed that the highest values of Application Efficiency (78.7 %),
Potential Application Efficiency of the minimum (69.5 %), and Potential Application Efficiency of low-quarter
(74.1 %) were observed under the AFI method. By optimizing the inflow rate and flow cutoff time, applica
tion efficiencies of 66.6–80.7 % were obtained for different irrigation methods. The results of this study show
that AFI is a more suitable method for maize irrigation in the study area.
1. Introduction total studies of irrigation systems are related to furrow irrigation and its
application efficiency and uniformity are reported as 49 % and 76 %,
Surface irrigation is the oldest and the most common irrigation respectively (Abbasi and Sohrab, 2011).
method. Pressurized irrigation systems usually have high irrigation ef One of the ways to improve the performance of furrow irrigation is to
ficiency, but due to rising energy and equipment costs, many researchers complement field experiments with simulation models. The major
carry out significant research to increase efficiency of surface irrigation benefits of mathematical simulation models for surface irrigation
systems and propose this method as a proper alternative to pressurized include high speed, low cost, investigation of various combinations of
irrigation methods. Proper design and management of surface irrigation design parameters without the need for extensive and high-cost field
will improve irrigation performance indices, and increase water pro experiments, and a rapid review of new surface irrigation schemes in a
ductivity and reduce agrochemical pollution (Ebrahimian and Playán, wide range (Bassett, 1972; Smith et al., 2018; Abbasi et al., 2003).
2014; Lalehzari et al., 2015; Mazarei et al., 2020). In Iran, 37.8 % of the Ebrahimian and Liaghat (2011) investigated the performance of three
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: a.soltani@scu.ac.ir, a_soltani60@yahoo.com (A.S. Mohammadi).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2022.108052
Received 6 September 2022; Received in revised form 11 November 2022; Accepted 14 November 2022
Available online 24 November 2022
0378-3774/© 2022 The Authors. 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/).
A. Mehri et al. Agricultural Water Management 276 (2023) 108052
mathematical models, hydrodynamics, zero-inertia, and kinematic wave (Bautista et al., 2019).
for furrow and border irrigation methods. Based on the results, a Due to the need to improve furrow irrigation performance in the
non-significant difference was found between hydrodynamic and Jayder Plain of southwest of Iran, this study was conducted during the
zero-inertia models in estimating advance and recession times, infiltra grain maize growing season using five different furrow irrigation
tion, and runoff for both furrow and border irrigation methods. Gillies methods (including one conventional, two alternate and two surge
and Smith (2015) developed the SISCO software to evaluate and methods) with the following goals:
improve surface irrigation performance. They reported the suitability of 1) Perform a sensitivity analysis of furrow irrigation for key input
the software to evaluate furrow and border irrigation performance in parameters with WinSRFR software.
Australia. 2) Parameterize the WinSRFR software to improve different furrow
Sayari et al. (2017) evaluated the furrow irrigation system with irrigation methods (conventional, surge and alternate).
different inflow rates using the WinSRFR software (Bautista et al., 3) Compare the performance of different furrow irrigation methods.
2009). They found that the kinematic wave model was less accurate than 4) Determine the optimized inflow rate and cutoff time parameters
the zero-inertia model. The lowest error in estimating advance time was based on the performance indicators of the irrigation system.
1.2 % (constant inflow rate) and the highest error was 11.2 % (incre
mental inflow rate). The highest water application efficiency and the 2. Materials and methods
lowest amount of runoff (72 % and 28 %, respectively) corresponded to
the cut-back inflow regime. Mazarei et al. (2020) applied the WinSRFR 2.1. Research area
software to optimize furrow irrigation performance in sugarcane farms
(southwestern Iran) under different inflow rates and geometric param Field experiments were conducted in the Jayder plain of Poldakhtar
eters. They suggested a flow rate of 3 L/s and a cut-off time of 379.5 min city, located in the southwest of Lorestan province (Iran) at a longitude
to achieve the highest irrigation performance in their conditions. Ismail of 47◦ 41’ E, a latitude of 33◦ and 6′ N, and an altitude of 686 m above
et al. (2021) evaluated and optimized the performance of furrow irri sea level. The study area has a hot and dry climate, with dry summers
gation systems in Egypt using the WinSRFR software. They concluded and mild winters. The average precipitation is 414 mm, according to
that increasing the furrow length reduced irrigation performance, and statistics for 55 years (1966–67–2020–21) from the Poldakhtar meteo
the optimal combination of inflow rate and cut-off time resulted in rological station near the project site. Fig. (1) shows the geographical
increased Application Efficiency and reduced deep percolation losses. location of the study area on the Iran map.
Yadeta et al. (2022) assessed the furrow irrigation performance using
the WinSRFR software in Ethiopia. The results indicated that changing
decision variables (inflow rate and cut-off time) significantly improved 2.2. Field data
performance indices, such as application efficiency and deep percola
tion, but the uniformity of distribution remained unchanged. The per Soil texture was obtained using the hydrometer method, and the
formance calculated by the software was better than the performance textural class was determined using the USDA method. The soil bulk
determined in the irrigation evaluation. Wu et al. (2017) investigated density was measured using the cylinder method. Soil moisture at field
the accuracy of the SIRMOD model in the simulation of alternate furrow capacity (FC) and permanent wilting point (PWP) was determined in the
irrigation (AFI) and conventional furrow irrigation (CFI) and stated that pressure heads of 33 and 1500 kPa, respectively, using a pressure plate
the simulations were done with very good accuracy in both cases. apparatus and a pressure membrane, respectively. The results of the soil
Ahmadabadi et al. (2020) investigated various scenarios using the SIR physicochemical analyses are presented in Table (1).
MOD model to improve furrow irrigation application efficiency in sugar Furrows at 0.75 m spacing and a length of 120 m were made after
beet fields located in the Moghan plain of Ardabil province, Iran. The plowing, disc, fertilizing, and re-disc operations. The experimental field
results demonstrated that using different scenarios could significantly was then prepared under grain maize cultivation (Single Cross 704) with
reduce water losses in the field. Ebrahimian et al. (2020) used various an furrow irrigation system. The crop was sown in the third week of
methods to estimate infiltration parameters of furrow irrigation. The March 2021 and harvested in mid-July 2021. The longitudinal and cross
results demonstrated that the Elliott and Walker method was the most slopes of the field were determined at 0.0085 and 0.0022 m/m,
accurate among the various two-point methods. The multi-level cali respectively, by a using survey equipment. Five furrow irrigation
bration method was the most accurate method for estimating the infil methods including conventional furrow irrigation (CFI), surge furrow
tration coefficients compared to other computer-based models. Their irrigation with on/off cycle ratios of 1 and 0.5 (SFI1-1 and SFI1–2,
sensitivity analysis demonstrated that changes of errors in estimating respectively), and fixed and variable alternate furrow irrigation (FFI and
infiltration parameters were a function of soil texture, furrow length, AFI, respectively) were investigated. In total, 20 furrows were estab
inflow, and field slope. Chen et al. (2012) reported that proper flow rate lished (Fig. 2). The lateral furrows of each treatment acted as buffer
could improve application efficiency of furrow irrigation system in furrows (to eliminate lateral flow error of measuring from the lateral
North China Plain by 27 %. Anwar et al. (2016), Akbar et al. (2016) and furrows), and the required parameters were measured in the middle
Nie et al. (2019) also demonstrated that a proper combination of inflow furrow. A schematic map of the experimental furrows is displayed in
and cutoff time increased application efficiency to the 75–90 % range. Fig. (2). Due to changes in soil infiltration characteristics during the
By the hydraulic analysis of surface irrigation, WinSRFR software is growing season, a total of three evaluations were carried out at the
able to determine the optimal performance and select a solution that is beginning (third irrigation), middle (sixth irrigation), and end (ninth
more compatible with implementation constraints (Bautista et al., irrigation) of the season. In each irrigation evaluation, inflow rate and
2009). To evaluate the performance of the surface irrigation simulation cutoff time, runoff, infiltration and advance time were recorded. The
models and obtain reliable results, the field parameters of the model maximum non-erosive inflow rate (0.7 L/s) of the experimental furrows
need to be measured with an acceptable level of accuracy. The simula was determined using the Bohr (1976) equation. In all irrigation
tion accuracy of the model depends on the input factors, especially the methods, inflow rates and cutoff times were 0.28 L/s and 240 min,
inflow rate, the infiltration equation coefficients, and the Manning’s 0.42 L/s and 360 min, and 0.35 L/s and 300 min in the third, sixth, and
roughness coefficient (Ebrahimian and Liaghat, 2011). ninth irrigations, respectively. The inflow and outflow rates of the fur
For the proper design of a surface irrigation systems, many variables rows were measured using WSC flumes. Advance time was measured
need to be considered. Operations irrigation variables are limited to cut- and recorded at nailed points at 10 m spacing along the experimental
off time and inflow rate. In this situation, iso-performance curves are furrows. The geometric dimensions of the experimental furrows are
considered a suitable tool to improve the performance of the system presented in Table (2).
2
A. Mehri et al. Agricultural Water Management 276 (2023) 108052
Table 1
Soil physical and chemical characteristics of the experimental field.
Soil depth Percentage of soil particles Texture soil ρb (Mg m− 3) FC PWP ECe pH
(cm) (m3 m− 3) (m3 m− 3) dS m− 1
clay silt sand
ρb = dry bulk density; FC= Field Capacity; PWP = Permanent Wilting Point; ECe = Electrical Conductivity of saturated soil extract
2.3. Crop water requirements where ETc is crop evapotranspiration (mm/day), KC is the crop coeffi
cient and KP denotes the pan coefficient, and EPan indicates the evapo
The crop water requirements during the growth period were calcu ration rate from Class A pan in mm/day. The pan evaporation data were
lated by Eq. (1) (Allen et al., 1998): obtained from the Poldakhtar synoptic meteorological station near the
ETc = KC × KP × EPan (1) study area. It should be noted that no effective precipitation occurred
during the plant growth period. The KP was considered 0.7 on average.
3
A. Mehri et al. Agricultural Water Management 276 (2023) 108052
water surface (m/m), and Q is the inflow rate (m3/S). where XP is the simulated value, Xm is the measured value, X‾m is the
The flow cross-sectional area and wetted perimeter of the experi average measured value N is the number of measurements, and λ is the
mental furrows were measured using a cross-sectional measuring device slope of the fitting line equation. If λ is less than 1, the software
(Walker and Skogerboe, 1987) at three points (the beginning, middle underestimated, and if λ is greater than 1, the software overestimated.
and end) of the furrows. Then, the Manning’s equation was used to es The λ value close to 1 and an RE value close to zero indicate a good
timate the mean value of n when infiltration rate reached steady state estimate by the software.
condition.
2.6.2. Sensitivity analysis of furrow irrigation with WinSRFR software
The sensitivity of the furrow irrigation to WinSRFR software input
parameters, including cutoff time, the Kostiakov-Lewis infiltration
4
A. Mehri et al. Agricultural Water Management 276 (2023) 108052
5
A. Mehri et al. Agricultural Water Management 276 (2023) 108052
Table 4
Measured and simulated values of runoff, infiltration and advance time for different furrow irrigation methods.
Irrigation Irrigation Measured runoff Simulated runoff Measured Simulated Measured advance Simulated advance
method event (m3 ) (m3 ) infiltration (m3 ) infiltration (m3 ) time (min) time (min)
and 0.9708, respectively) (Fig. 3). The RE values were 5.60 %, 5.09 %, close to zero indicate a good performance of the software. The highest
and 2.14 % in estimating runoff, infiltration, and advance time, accuracy in estimating runoff belong to the AFI, SFI1–1, SFI1–2, FFI, and
respectively (Table 5). Previous studies (Bautista et al., 2012; Gillies CFI methods, respectively (Table 5). The highest accuracies in infiltra
et al., 2010; Anwar et al., 2016) indicated that the WinSRFR software tion estimation are related to the AFI, FFI, SFI1–2, SFI1–1 and CFI
could predict the advance time and runoff of furrow irrigation systems methods, respectively (Table 5). Therefore, the best and poorest esti
with acceptable accuracy, which is consistent with the results of this mates of runoff and infiltration are related to the AFI and CFI methods,
research. In our particular experiments, the software overestimates the respectively. The highest model accuracy in estimating advance time
runoff (λ = 1.056) and the advance time (λ = 1.0214), but it un was obtained for SFI1–1, SFI1–2, CFI, FFI, and AFI methods irrigation,
derestimates infiltration (λ = 0.9491). The value of λ close to 1 and RE respectively (Table 5). Hence, SFI1–1 and AFI methods represent the
Fig. 3. Comparison between measured and estimated values of runoff (a), infiltration (b) and advance time (c) for the different furrow methods.
6
A. Mehri et al. Agricultural Water Management 276 (2023) 108052
Table 5
Parameterization of WinSRFR software for irrigation events in different irrigation methods.
Irrigation method λ RE ( %)
best and weakest model estimates for the advance time. The mean value
Table 7
of RMSE in estimating advance time was 4.6, 4.6, 4.7, 6.3, and 5.8 min
Sensitivity coefficient of some input parameters of the WinSRFR software.
for the CFI, SFI1–1, SFI1–2, FFI, and AFI methods, respectively (Table 6).
Accordingly, the software simulated the advance times of the surge Input Output parameter Average of
parameter sensitivity
irrigation methods with higher accuracy than those of the alternate AE RO DP TL ADmin DUlq
coefficient
methods. Chen et al. (2012), Sayari et al. (2017) and Xu et al. (2019) also
Tco 0.61 0.31 0.78 0 0.95 0.01 0.44
reported that the WinSRFR software had good accuracy and small error
a 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.32 0.06 0 0.08
in simulating advance times. K 0.091 0.17 0.23 0.61 0.1 0.03 0.2
f0 0.32 0.51 0.67 0.22 0.67 0.02 0.39
s 0.001 0.005 0.004 0.15 0.003 0 0.03
3.4. Sensitivity analysis of furrow irrigation with WinSRFR software
n 0 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.01 0 0.04
q 0.98 0.92 0.09 1.18 0.21 0.09 0.56
The results of the sensitivity analysis are presented in Table (7). The
AE = application efficiency; RO = runoff; DP = deep percolation; TL = advance
highest sensitivity effects on the application efficiency (AE) belong to
time; ADmin = minimum irrigation adequacy; DUlq = low-quarter distribution
inflow rate (0.98) and the cutoff time (0.61). The lowest effect on AE was
Uniformity; TCO = cutoff time; a and k = coefficients of the Kostiakov-Lewis
obtained for the furrow slope with a sensitivity coefficient of 0.001. The infiltration equation; f0 = basic infiltration rate; s = the longitudinal slope of
Manning’s roughness coefficient had no effect on AE. The results showed the water surface; n = Manning’s roughness coefficient; q= inflow rate
that among the parameters of the Kostiakov-Lewis infiltration equation,
the highest sensitivity is related to the final infiltration rate. The highest
effect of the final infiltration rate is on the deep percolation and mini
The values of AE, RO, DP, PAEmin and PAElq were 64.9 %, 33.7 %,
mum irrigation adequacy with a sensitivity coefficient of 0.67. Based on
1.4 %, 61.8 %, and 63.6 % for SFI1–1 and 64.2 %, 34.2 %, 1.6 %, 61.1 %,
the sensitivity analysis of the Manning’s roughness coefficient, this co
and 62.7 % for SFI1–2, respectively. After the AFI method, SFI1–1 and
efficient has a negligible effect on the other output parameters, except
SFI1–2 had better performance. The values of ADmin were 97.8 %, 94.6 %
for the advance time. The results of the sensitivity analysis in this study
and 94.9 % in the CFI, SFI1-1, and SFI1–2 methods, respectively, indi
are consistent with previous similar studies- (Zerihun et al., 1996;
cating that deficit irrigation did not occur in these irrigation methods
Ebrahimian et al., 2020).
because of the high consumed water (more than the requirement level).
In the FFI and AFI methods, however, the mean values of ADmin were
3.5. Furrow irrigation performance indicators 92.3 % and 86.6 %, respectively, suggesting the occurrence of deficit
irrigation in the alternate methods. Under water shortage conditions,
Table 8 presents the furrow irrigation performance indicators. The deficit irrigation increases both the area under cultivation and water
average performance indices of the five furrow irrigation methods were productivity, leading to water savings. The highest (98.6 %) and the
compared between three irrigation events. The results revealed that the least (92.7 %) ADlq values were observed in the CFI and AFI methods.
minimum and maximum values of AE, PAEmin , and PAElq were ob Some studies (Smith et al., 2005; Lalehzari et al., 2015; Kifle et al.,
tained in CFI (62.0 %, 60.3 %, and 61.9 %, respectively) and AFI (78.7 2017; Salahou et al., 2018; Nie et al., 2019) reported that increasing the
%, 69.5 %, and 74.1 %, respectively), respectively. The average values of flow cutoff time increased irrigation losses, particularly runoff, and
runoff and deep percolation losses were 35.7 % and 2.3 % in CFI, reduced AE by exceeding the required irrigation depth. In this study, AE
respectively. These values were 19.5 % and 1.8 % in AFI, respectively. showed a descending trend in the third, ninth, and sixth assessment
The lowest and highest values of DUlq belonged to AFI (92.5 %) and CFI times in the different irrigation methods due to increasing the inflow
(96.9 %), respectively. In the AFI method, the high AE and the low rate and cutoff times. Rising trends were also observed in distribution
difference between DUlq and PAElq are due to the proper management uniformity and irrigation adequacy.
and the appropriate use of the irrigation system. The high difference The present study revealed that AFI and CFI were the best and worst
(35.0 %) of these two parameters in CFI indicates poor irrigation man furrow irrigation methods, respectively. The low values of the perfor
agement and caused large water losses in the field. In addition to AE and mance indices, particularly AE, in the CFI method were caused by the
DU, irrigation adequacy is also important in the design and assessment difference between the values of DUlq and PAElq , suggesting poor
of irrigation systems. irrigation management. Thus, proper measures such as proper deter
mination of irrigation depth and, inflow rate, cutoff time, furrow length
Table 6 time based on the field specifications as well as training farmers and
The values of RMSE in estimating advance time (min) for different irrigation irrigators are among the strategies for improving the AE level. Conse
events and furrow methods. quently, performance evaluation of irrigation systems, awareness of the
Irrigation event Irrigation method status quo, and providing applicable solutions in the field will help
CFI SFI1-1 SFI1-2 FFI AFI
provide more uniform and effective use of water in the field.
7
A. Mehri et al. Agricultural Water Management 276 (2023) 108052
Table 8
Performance evaluation indicators of the furrow irrigation system (percent).
Irrigation event Irrigation method AE RO DP DUmin DUlq ADmin ADlq PAEmin PAElq
3 CFI 73.5 23.8 2.7 93.5 96.5 96.6 99.7 71.2 73.7
SFI1–1 75.7 21.5 2.8 91.9 95.5 95.5 99.4 72.5 75.3
SFI1–2 75.5 21.9 2.6 92.3 95.6 95.6 99.6 71.7 74.3
FFI 77.1 21.2 1.7 91.0 94.9 91.4 95.3 72.7 75.5
AFI 85.1 12.5 2.4 83.2 91.2 83.6 91.6 73.0 79.4
6 CFI 55.4 42.8 1.7 94.6 96.7 97.3 99.4 52.8 54.1
SFI1–1 56.8 42.1 1.1 94.3 96.4 93.5 95.7 53.8 55.2
SFI1–2 55.9 42.6 1.5 94.3 96.5 94.1 96.2 53.2 54.3
FFI 63.7 35.5 0.7 93.3 95.9 93.3 95.7 60.2 61.7
AFI 71.0 27.4 1.6 88.3 92.8 88.5 93.0 64.1 67.2
9 CFI 57.1 40.3 2.5 95.4 97.4 99.6 96.8 56.9 58.0
SFI1–1 62.1 37.6 0.3 94.6 96.2 94.8 96.1 59.0 60.3
SFI1–2 61.0 38.2 0.7 94.6 96.8 95.0 96.3 58.4 59.6
FFI 75.0 23.7 1.3 91.6 95.5 92.2 96.1 69.8 72.6
AFI 80.0 18.6 1.3 87.9 93.5 87.8 93.4 71.5 75.8
Average CFI 62.0 35.7 2.3 94.5 96.9 97.8 98.6 60.3 61.9
SFI1–1 64.9 33.7 1.4 93.6 96.1 94.6 97.1 61.8 63.6
SFI1–2 64.2 34.2 1.6 93.7 96.3 94.9 97.4 61.1 62.7
FFI 71.9 26.8 1.2 92.0 95.4 92.3 95.7 67.6 69.9
AFI 78.7 19.5 1.8 86.5 92.5 86.6 92.7 69.5 74.1
AE = application efficiency; RO = runoff; DP = deep percolation; DUmin = minimum distribution uniformity; DUlq = low-quarter distribution uniformity;
ADmin = minimum irrigation adequacy; ADlq = low-quarter irrigation adequacy; PAEmin = potential application efficiency of the minimum; PAElq = potential appli
cation efficiency of the low quarter
irrigation performance indicators (AE and DU) under the experimental system were employed as a new and effective management tool to
field conditions were compared with the values optimized with the iso- improve the irrigation system performance. In studies on optimizing
performance curves of the WinSRFR software (Table 9). AE values under inflow rate and cutoff time (Khatri et al., 2007; Morris et al., 2015;
the field conditions were between 62.0 % (CFI) and 78.7 % (AFI). Anwar et al., 2016; Akbar et al., 2016; Nie et al., 2019), it was concluded
Assuming the minimum uniformity of distribution in the current con that the management of inflow rate and cutoff time could improve
ditions (field experiments) is maintained between 86.5 % (AFI) and 94.5 furrow irrigation performance, which is in agreement with our results.
% (CFI) and by combining the contour map of application efficiency and
distribution uniformity, the optimal application efficiency of different 4. Conclusion
irrigation treatments was varied between 66.6 % (CFI) and 80.7 % (AFI).
AE could not be increased more than this value (80.7 %) regarding the The present study examined and analyzed sensitivity of furrow irri
field properties such as furrow geometry and soil characteristics. The gation to WinSRFR software input parameters and performance of
greatest improvement in application efficiency was observed in CFI, different furrow irrigation methods. We also evaluated the parametri
SFI1–1 and SFI1–2 by 8.2 %, 8.1 % and 8 % respectively. zation of the WinSRFR software to improve the performance of different
In the current research, the iso-performance curves of the irrigation furrow irrigation systems in the southwest Iran. Sensitivity analysis
Table 9
Comparison of furrow irrigation performance evaluation indicators (AE and DUmin ) under the field experiments and optimization with WinSRFR.
Irrigation event Irrigation method Field experiments Optimized increase in AE
( %)
q Tco AE DUmin (%) q Tco AE DUmin (%)
(L/s) (min) (%) (L/s) (min) (%)
q= inflow rate; Tco= Cutoff time; AE= Irrigation efficiency, DUmin = minimum uniformity distribution
8
A. Mehri et al. Agricultural Water Management 276 (2023) 108052
revealed that furrow irrigation was the most sensitive to inflow rate, Chen, B., Ouyang, Z., Zhang, S.H., 2012. Evaluation of hydraulic process and
performance of border irrigation with different regular bottom configurations.
cutoff time, and the Kostiakov-Lewis infiltration equation parameters.
J. Resour. Ecol. 3 (2), 151–160.
To achieve reliable results, therefore, these parameters should be Dialameh, B., Parsinejad, M., Ebrahimian, H., Mokhtari, A., 2017. Field comparison of
measured with acceptable accuracy. The highest effect of Manning’s infiltration in conventional and alternate furrow irrigation under various initial and
roughness coefficient was obtained on the flow advance time. boundary conditions. Irrig. Drain. 67, 156–165.
Ebrahimian, H., Liaghat, A., 2011. Field. Eval. Var. Math. Models Furrow Bord. Irrig.
By conducting the field experiments and software parameterization, Syst. J. Soil Water Res 6 (2), 91–101.
software could simulate runoff, infiltration, and advance time with good Ebrahimian, H., Playán, E., 2014. Optimum management of furrow fertigation to
accuracy at relative errors of 5.60 %, 5.09 %, and 2.14 %, respectively. maximize water and fertilizer efficiency and uniformity. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 16
(3), 591–607.
In estimating runoff and infiltration, the best and poorest performance Ebrahimian, H., Ghaffari, P., Ghameshlou, Arezoo N, Hassan Tabatabaei, Alizadeh Dizaj,
of the software were observed for the AFI and CFI methods, respectively. A, H., 2020. Extensive comparison of various infiltration estimation methods for
The software estimated the advance time with the highest and lowest furrow irrigation under different field conditions.Journal. Agric. Water Manag. 230
(2020), 105960.
accuracies in the SFI1–1 and AFI methods, respectively. Elliott, R.L., Walker, W.R., 1982. Field evaluation of furrow infiltration and advance
The performance of different surge and alternate furrow irrigation functions. Trans. ASAE 25 (2), 396–400.
methods is evaluated using the WinSRFR software. According to the Fu, Q., Hou, R., Li, T., Li, Y., Liu, D., Li, M., 2019. A new infiltration model for simulating
soil water movement in canal irrigation under laboratory conditions. Agric. Water
results, the best and poorest performance corresponded to the variable Manag. 213, 433–444.
alternate irrigation and conventional furrow irrigation methods, Gillies, M.H., Smith, R.J., 2015. SISCO: surface irrigation calibration and optimization.
respectively, hence AFI is recommended in the studied area. After the J. Irrig. Sci. 33 (5), 339–355.
Gillies, M.H., Smith, R.J., Williamson, B., Shanahan, M., 2010. Improving performance of
AFI method, the SFI1–1 and SFI1–2 methods had better performance
bay irrigation through higher flow rates irrigation. : Aust. Conf. Syd., Aust.
than the CFI and FFI methods. Hanson, B.R., Prichard, T.L., Schulbach, H., 1993. Estimating. Furrow infiltration. J.
Changing the inflow rate from 0.35 to 0.34 L/s and the cutoff time Agric. Water Manag 24 (4), 281–298.
from 300 to 304 min increased the application efficiency from 62.0 % to Ismail, S.M., Thabet, A., Abdel El-Al, A., Omara, A.I., 2021. Mproving irrigation
performance of raised bed wheat using the WinSRFR model under Egyptian
66.6 % in CFI. Also, changing the inflow rate from 0.35 to 0.34 L/s and condition. Misr J. Ag. Eng. 38 (4), 309–332. https://doi.org/10.21608/
the cutoff time from 300 to 320 min in SFI1–1 increased the application mjae.2021.87350.1035.
efficiency from 64.9 % to 69.7 %. Thus, furrow irrigation performance Kamali, P., Ebrahimian, H., Parsinejad, M., 2018. Estimation of manning roughness
coefficient for vegetated furrows. Irrig. Sci. 36, 339–348.
was improved by managing the cutoff time and the inflow rate. Khatri, K.L., Smith, R.J., 2007. Toward a simple real-time control system for efficient
In this study, WinSRFR software was well established and parame management of furrow irrigation. Irrig. Drain. 56 (4), 463–475.
terized which led to sufficient agreement between the field observations Kifle, M., Gebremicael, T.G., Girmay, A., Gebremedihin, T., 2017. Effect of surge flow
and alternate irrigation on the irrigation efficiency and water productivity of onion
and the model outputs for furrow irrigation. This software improved the in the semi-arid areas of North Ethiopia. J. Agric. Water Manag 187, 69–76.
performance of the different furrow irrigation methods (conventional, Lalehzari, R., Ansari Samani, F., Boroomand-nasab, S., 2015. Analysis of evaluation
surge and alternate) in the study area. indicators for furrow irrigation using opportunity time. Irrig. Drain. 64, 85–92.
Liu, H.F., Genard, M., Guichard, S., Bertin, N., 2007. Model-assisted analysis of tomato
fruit growth in relation to carbon and water fluxes. J. Exp. Bot. 58 (13), 3567–3580.
Declaration of Competing Interest Mailapalli, D.R., Raghuwanshi, N., Singh, R., Schmitz, G., Lennartz, F., 2008. Spatial and
temporal variation of Manning’s roughness coefficient in furrow irrigation. J. Irrig.
Drain. Eng. 134, 185–192.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial Mazarei, R., Mohammadi, A.S., Naseri, A.A., Ebrahimian, H., Izadpanah, Z., 2020.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence Optimization of furrow irrigation performance of sugarcane fields based on inflow
and geometric parameters using WinSRFR in Southwest of Iran. Agric. Water Manag.
the work reported in this paper. 228, 105899.
Morris, M.R., Hussain, A., Gillies, M.H., Halloran, N.J., 2015. Inflow rate and border
Data Availability irrigation performance. J. Agric. Water Manag 155, 76–86.
Nie, W.B., Li, Y.B., Zhang, F., Ma, X.Y., 2019. Optimal discharge for closed-end border
irrigation under soil infiltration variability. J. Agric. Water Manag 221, 58–65.
Data will be made available on request. Playán, E., Rodríguez, J.A., Garcia-Navarro, P., 2004. Simulation model for level
furrows. I: analysis of field experiments. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 130 (2), 106–112.
Rodríguez, J.A., 2003. Estimation of advance and infiltration equations in furrow
Acknowledgments irrigation for untested discharges. Agric. Water Manag. 60, 227–239.
Salahou, M.K., Jiao, X., Lu, H., 2018. Border irrigation performance with distance-based
We are grateful to the Research Council of Shahid Chamran Uni cut-off. J. Agric. Water Manag 201, 27–37.
Sayari, S., Rahimpour, M., Zounemat-Kermani, M., 2017. Numerical modelling based on
versity of Ahvaz for financial support (GN: SCU.WI1400.273).
a finite element method for simulation of flow in furrow irrigation. J. Paddy Water
Environ. 15 (4), 879–887.
References Smith, R., Uddin, M., Gillies, M., 2018. Estimating irrigation duration for high
performance furrow irrigation on cracking clay soils. Agric. Water Manag 206,
78–85.
Abbasi, F., Sohrab, F., 2011. Evaluating irrigation efficiency and iso-efficiency maps in
Smith, R.J., Raine, S.R., Minkovich, J., 2005. Irrigation application efficiency and deep
iran. icid 21st international congress on irrigation and drainage, 15-23 October
drainage potential under surface irrigated cotton. J. Agric. Water Manag 71 (2),
2011. Tehran, Iran. Persian.
117–130.
Abbasi, F., Shooshtari, M.M., Feyen, J., 2003. Evaluation of various surface irrigation
Strelkoff, T.S., Clemmens, A.J., Schmidt, B.V., Slosky, E.J., 1996. BORDER—a design and
numerical simulation models. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 129 (3), 208–213.
management aid for sloping border irrigation systems. WCL Report 21. US Dept Agr.
Ahmadabadi, Y.H., Liaghat, A., Sohrabi, T., Rasoulzadeh, A., Ebrahimian, H., 2020.
Res. Serv. U. S.
Improving performance of furrow irrigation systems using simulation modelling in
Strelkoff, T.S., Clemmens, A.J., Schmidt, B.V., 1998. SRFR, Version3.31. A model for
the Moghan plain of Iran. Irrig. Drain. 2020, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/
simulating surface irrigation in borders, basins and furrows. US Dept Agr. Res. Serv.,
ird.2534.
U. S.
Akbar, G., Ahmad, M.M., Ghafoor, A., Khan, M., Islam, Z., 2016. Irrigation efficiencies
Walker, W.R., Humpherys, A.S., 1983. Kinematic-wave furrow irrigation model. Irrig.
potential under surface irrigation farms in Pakistan. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 35 (2), 15–23.
Drain. Eng. 109 (4), 377–392.
Allen, R.G., Preira, L.S., Raes, D., Smith, M., 1998. Crop evapotranspiration guidelines
Walker, W.R., Skogerboe, G.V., 1987. Surface Irrigation. Theory and Practice’. Prentice-
for computing crop water requirement. FAO Irrig. Drain. Pap. (No. 56) (Rome, Italy).
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA.
Anwar, A.A., Ahmad, W., Bhatti, M.T., Haq, Z.U., 2016. The potential of precision surface
Wu, D., Xue, J., Bo, X., Meng, W., Wu, Y., Du, T., 2017. Simulation of irrigation
irrigation in the Indus. Basin Irrig. Syst. J. Irrig. Sci. 34 (5), 379–396.
uniformity and optimization of irrigation technical parameters based on the
Bassett, D.L., 1972. A mathematic model of water advance in furrow irrigation. Trans.
SIRMOD. Model Altern. Furrow Irrig. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 66 (4), 478–491.
ASCE 15 (5), 992–995.
Bautista, E., Schlegel, J.L., 2019. WinSRFR 5.1 User Manual. Arid Land Agricultural
Research Center, Maricopa, AZ.
Bautista, E., Clemmens, A.J., Strelkoff, T.S., 2009. Modern analysis of surface irrigation
systems with WinSRFR. J. Agric. Water Manag 96 (7), 1146–1154.
Bautista, E., Schlegel, J.L., Strelkoff, T.S., 2012. WinSRFR 4. 1 Use Man. Arid Land Agric.
Res. Cent.
9
A. Mehri et al. Agricultural Water Management 276 (2023) 108052
Xu, J., Cai, H., Saddique, Q., Wang, X., Li, L., Ma, C., Lu, Y., 2019. Evaluation and Central Ethiopia. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 69 (2022), 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s44147-
optimization of border irrigation in different irrigation seasons based on temporal 022-00071-x.
variation of infiltration and roughness. J. Agric. Water Manag. 214, 64–77. Zerihun, D., Feyen, J., Reddy, J.M., 1996. Sensitivity analysis of furrow irrigation
Yadeta, B., Ayana, M., Yitayew, M., Hordofa, T., 2022. Performance evaluation of furrow performance parameters. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 122 (1), 49–57. https://doi.org/
irrigation water management practice under Wonji Shoa Sugar Estate condition, in 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(1996)122:1(49).
10