Please wait a minute...
Journal of Arid Land
Journal of Arid Land  2025, Vol. 17 Issue (2): 245-258    DOI: 10.1007/s40333-025-0005-y     CSTR: 32276.14.JAL.0250005y
Research article     
Improving irrigation management in wheat farms through the combined use of the AquaCrop and WinSRFR models
Arash TAFTEH*(), Mohammad R EMDAD, Azadeh SEDAGHAT
Department of Irrigation and Soil Physics, Soil and Water Research Institute, Agricultural Research Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj 31587-77871, Iran
Download: HTML     PDF(986KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      

Abstract  

Water is essential for agricultural production; however, climate change has exacerbated drought and water stress in arid and semi-arid areas such as Iran. Despite these challenges, irrigation water efficiency remains low, and current water management schemes are inadequate. Consequently, Iranian crops suffer from low water productivity, highlighting the urgent need for enhanced productivity and improved water management strategies. In this study, we investigated irrigation management conditions in the Hamidiyeh farm, Khuzestan Province, Iran and used the calibrated AquaCrop and WinSRFR (a surface irrigation simulation model) models to reflect these conditions. Subsequently, we examined different management scenarios using each model and evaluated the results from the second year. The findings demonstrated that combining simulation of the AquaCrop and WinSRFR models was highly effective and could be employed for irrigation management in the field. The AquaCrop model accurately simulated wheat yield in the first year, being 2.6 t/hm2, which closely aligned with the measured yield of 3.0 t/hm2. Additionally, using the WinSRFR model to adjust the length of existing borders from 200 to 180 m resulted in a 45.0% increase in efficiency during the second year. To enhance water use efficiency in the field, we recommended adopting borders with a length of 180 m, a width of 10 m, and a flow rate of 15 to 18 L/s. The AquaCrop and WinSRFR models accurately predicted border irrigation conditions, achieving the highest water use efficiency at a flow rate of 18 L/s. Combining these models increased farmers' average water consumption efficiency from 0.30 to 0.99 kg/m³ in the second year. Therefore, the results obtained from the AquaCrop and WinSRFR models are within a reasonable range and consistent with international recommendations. This adjustment is projected to improve the water use efficiency in the field by approximately 45.0% when utilizing the border irrigation method. Therefore, integrating these two models can provide comprehensive management solutions for regional farmers.

Key words： AquaCrop      crop modeling      WinSRFR      water management      water use efficiency     
Received: 30 June 2024      Published: 28 February 2025
Corresponding Authors: *Arash TAFTEH (E-mail: arash_tafteh@yahoo.com)
Service
E-mail this article
Add to my bookshelf
Add to citation manager
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Arash TAFTEH
Mohammad R EMDAD
Azadeh SEDAGHAT
Cite this article:

Arash TAFTEH, Mohammad R EMDAD, Azadeh SEDAGHAT. Improving irrigation management in wheat farms through the combined use of the AquaCrop and WinSRFR models. Journal of Arid Land, 2025, 17(2): 245-258.

URL:

http://jal.xjegi.com/10.1007/s40333-025-0005-y     OR     http://jal.xjegi.com/Y2025/V17/I2/245

Fig. 1 Location of the study area (a) and farms (b) in the Hamidiyeh region, Iran. D, sluice gate.
Depth (cm) Soil texture PWP (%) FC (%) SOC (%) pH SAR EC (dS/m) BD (g/cm3)
0-30 Clay loam 19 31.9 0.5 7.8 4.3 4.5 1.48
30-60 Clay loam 23 36.4 0.3 7.8 5.1 5.0 1.53
Table 1 Mean soil physical and chemical properties
Fig. 2 Reference evapotranspiration (ET0) and precipitation (P) in wheat-growing season during the two years
Fig. 3 Changes in the length of water advancing front in the soil of the three farms
Fig. 4 Process of combining the results of the AquaCrop and WinSRFR models for farm water management
Index Farm 1 Farm 2 Farm 3
3 4 5 6 3 4 5 6 3 4 5 6
Consumed water (kg/m3) 5800 7600 9400 11,200 5800 7600 9400 11,200 5800 7600 9400 11,200
ET (mm) 234 258 270 297 272 309 323 333 267 302 329 328
Total yield (t/hm2) 4.7 5.8 5.8 6.0 6.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 5.6 6.6 6.7 6.6
Grain yield (t/hm2) 1.9 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.2 2.6 2.6 2.6
WP (kg/m3) 0.33 0.31 0.26 0.22 0.43 0.38 0.31 0.26 0.38 0.34 0.28 0.23
Table 2 Variation of simulated wheat yield with irrigation events using the Aquacrop model
Fig. 5 Comparison between simulated and measured grain yields by the AquaCrop model. NRMSE, normalized root mean square error.
Farm Irrigation Stage Discharge (L/s) Water depth (mm) Net water depth (mm) Measured application efficiency (%) Simulated application efficiency (%) Standard error (%)
1 1 Initial 19 161 50 31.0 28.0 6.9
2 Development 17 185 50 27.0 25.0 7.4
3 Mid-growth 20 172 50 29.0 26.0 10.3
2 1 Initial 18 156 50 32.0 30.0 6.2
2 Development 17 160 50 31.0 28.0 9.6
3 Mid-growth 19 188 50 26.0 24.0 7.6
3 1 Initial 18 180 50 28.0 25.0 10.7
2 Development 19 165 50 30.0 27.0 10.0
3 Mid-growth 19 160 50 31.0 28.0 9.6
Table 3 Comparison between measured and simulated application efficiencies in the first year
Fig. 6 WinSRFR simulation result under different border widths with a 0.2% slope. (a), 8 m width; (b), 10 m width; (c), 12 m width.
Fig. 7 Water use efficiency under different widths and discharges with a border length of 180 m
Farm Replication Stage Flow (L/s) Depth of water (mm) Net depth of water (mm) Measured water application efficiency (%) Simulated water application efficiency (%) Standard error
(%)		 WP (kg/m3)
Farm 1 1 Initial 18 110 50 45.0 40.0 11.0 0.97
2 Development 20 115 50 43.0 37.0 14.0 0.81
3 Mid-growth 22 120 50 41.0 35.0 15.0 0.97
Farm 2 1 Initial 18 114 50 44.0 40.0 9.0 1.01
2 Development 20 142 50 35.0 37.0 6.0 0.80
3 Mid-growth 22 152 50 33.0 35.0 6.0 0.75
Farm 3 1 Initial 18 108 50 46.0 40.0 13.0 0.98
2 Development 20 125 50 40.0 37.0 8.0 0.89
3 Mid-growth 22 132 50 38.0 35.0 8.0 0.83
Average 1 Initial 18 111 50 45.0 40.0 11.0 0.99
2 Development 20 127 50 39.0 37.0 9.0 0.83
3 Mid-growth 22 135 50 37.0 35.0 10.0 0.85
Table 4 Range of water productivity (WP) measured in the second year
[1]   Abbasi F, Sheini Dashtegol A. 2017. Evaluating and improving the sugarcane furrow irrigation management in Khuzestan. Water and Soil Science, 26(4): 109-121.
[2]   Abi Saab M T, Todorovic M, Albrizio R. 2015. Comparing AquaCrop and CropSyst models in simulating barley growth and yield under different water and nitrogen regimes. Does calibration year influence the performance of crop growth models? Agricultural Water Management, 147: 21-33.
[3]   Afshar A, Neshat A. 2013. Evaluation of AquaCrop computer model in the potato under irrigation management of continuity plan of Jiroft region, Kerman, Iran. International Journal of Advanced Biological and Biomedical Research, 1(2): 1669-1678.
[4]   Alavi S A, Naseri A A, Ritzema H, et al. 2022. A combined model approach to optimize surface irrigation practice: SWAP and WinSRFR. Agricultural Water Management, 271: 107741, doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2022.107741.
[5]   Amirouche M, Smadhi D, Zella L. 2021. Calibration and validation of the AquaCrop model for the culture lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) under fertilization levels in pluvial condition. Agricultural Engineering International: CIGR Journal, 23(1): 36-44.
[6]   Asana R, Kale V. 1965. A study of salt tolerance of four varieties of wheat. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology, 8: 5-22.
[7]   Chen B, Ouyang Z, Sun Z G, et al. 2013. Evaluation on the potential of improving border irrigation performance through border dimensions optimization: A case study on the irrigation districts along the lower Yellow River. Irrigation Science, 31: 715-728.
[8]   Corbari C, Ben Charfi I, Mancini M. 2021. Optimizing irrigation water use efficiency for tomato and maize fields across Italy combining remote sensing data and the aquacrop model. Hydrology, 8(1): 39, doi: 10.3390/hydrology8010039.
[9]   Ferrández-Pastor F J, García-Chamizo J M, Nieto-Hidalgo M, et al. 2018. Precision agriculture design method using a distributed computing architecture on internet of things context. Sensors, 18(6): 1731, doi: 10.3390/s18061731.
[10]   Forouzani M, Karami E. 2011. Agricultural water poverty index and sustainability. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 31: 415-431.
[11]   Guendouz A, Hafsi M, Moumeni L, et al. 2014. Performance evaluation of aquacrop model for durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) crop in semi arid conditions in Eastern Algeria. International Journal of Current Micriobology and Applied Science, 3(2): 168-176.
[12]   Hjorth P, Madani K. 2014. Sustainability monitoring and assessment: new challenges require new thinking. Journal of Water Resources Planing and Management, 140(2): 133-135.
[13]   Horne A C, O'Donnell E L, Loch A J, et al. 2018. Environmental water efficiency: Maximizing benefits and minimizing costs of environmental water use and management. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 5(4): e1285, doi: 10.1002/wat2.1285.
[14]   Keshavarz M, Karami E, Vanclay F. 2013. The social experience of drought in rural Iran. Land Use Policy, 30(1): 120-129.
[15]   Khoshsirat A M, Najarchi M, Jafarinia R, et al. 2022. Sensitivity analysis and determination of the optimal level of water use efficiency for winter wheat and barley under different irrigation scenarios using the AquaCrop Model in arid and semiarid climatic conditions (Case Study: Dehloran Plain, Iran). Water, 14(21): 3455, doi: 10.3390/w14213455.
[16]   Kumar P, Sarangi A, Singh D, et al. 2014. Evaluation of AquaCrop model in predicting wheat yield and water productivity under irrigated saline regimes. Irrigation and Drainage, 63(4): 474-487.
[17]   Ma J J, Sun X H, Guo X H, et al. 2010. Multi-objective fuzzy optimization model for border irrigation technical parameters. Journal of Drainage and Irrigation Machinery Engineering, 28(2): 160-163, 178. (in Chinese)
[18]   Madani K. 2014. Water management in Iran: what is causing the looming crisis? Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 4: 315-328.
[19]   Mazarei R, Mohammadi A S, Naseri A A, et al. 2020. Optimization of furrow irrigation performance of sugarcane fields based on inflow and geometric parameters using WinSRFR in Southwest of Iran. Agricultural Water Management, 228: 105899, doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2019.105899.
[20]   Navabian M, Liaghat A, Smith R, et al. 2009. Empirical functions for dependent variables in cutback furrow irrigation. Irrigation Science, 27: 215-222.
[21]   Nazari B, Liaghat A, Akbari M R, et al. 2018. Irrigation water management in Iran: Implications for water use efficiency improvement. Agricultural Water Management, 208: 7-18.
[22]   Nie W B, Fei L J, Ma X Y. 2014. Applied closed-end furrow irrigation optimized design based on field and simulated advance data. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 16(2): 395-408.
[23]   Radmanesh M, Ahmadi S H, Sepaskhah A R. 2023. Measurement and simulation of irrigation performance in continuous and surge furrow irrigation using WinSRFR and SIRMOD models. Scientific Reports, 13: 5768, doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-32842-8.
pmid: 37031260
[24]   Raes D, Steduto P, Hsiao T C, et al. 2009. AquaCrop—the FAO crop model to simulate yield response to water: II. main algorithms and software description Agronomy Journal, 101(3): 438-447.
[25]   Raghuwanshi N, Damodhara R, Mailapalli S, et al. 2011. Infiltration evaluation strategy for border irrigation management. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 137(9): 601-609.
[26]   Sallah A H M, Tychon B, Piccard I, et al. 2019. Batch-processing of AquaCrop plug-in for rainfed maize using satellite derived Fractional Vegetation Cover data. Agricultural Water Management, 217: 346-355.
[27]   Sanchez C, Zerihun D, Farrell-Poe K. 2009. Management guidelines for efficient irrigation of vegetables using closed-end level furrows. Agricultural Water Management, 96(1): 43-52.
[28]   Sawadogo A, Kouadio L, Traoré F, et al. 2020. Spatiotemporal assessment of irrigation performance of the Kou Valley irrigation scheme in Burkina Faso using satellite remote sensing-derived indicators. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 9(8): 484, doi: 410.3390/ijgi9080484.
[29]   Strelkoff T S, Clemmens A J. 2007. Hydraulics of Surface Systems, Design and Operation of Farm Irrigation Systems (2nd ed.). St. Joseph: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, 436-498.
[30]   Tafteh A, Emdad M R. 2017. Improvement of water use productivity through the SRFR model in border strip irrigation of wheat across Hamidiyeh farms (Khuzestan, Iran). Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 25(12): 7885-7892.
[31]   Taghizadeh Z, Verdinejad V R, Ebrahimian H, et al. 2013. Field evaluation and analysis of surface irrigation system with WinSRFR (case study furrow irrigation). Water and Soil, 26(6): 1450-1459.
[32]   Thebuwena A C H J, Samarakoon S S M, Ratnayake R C. 2024. On the necessity for improving water efficiency in commercial buildings: A green design approach in hot humid climates. Water, 16(17): 2396, doi: 10.3390/w16172396.
[33]   Wale A, Dessie M, Kendie H. 2022. Evaluating the performance of AquaCrop model for potato production under deficit irrigation. Air, Soil and Water Research, 15(1): 1-14.
[34]   Xu J T, Cai H J, Saddique Q, et al. 2019. Evaluation and optimization of border irrigation in different irrigation seasons based on temporal variation of infiltration and roughness. Agricultural Water Management, 214: 64-77.
[35]   Zahedpour Yeganeh H, Khorsand A, Rezaverdinejad V, et al. 2024. Field assessment and analysis of border irrigation systems with WinSRFR software (case study: Urmia Plain wheat fields). Water and Soil Management and Modeling, 4(3): 187-202.
[36]   Zhai Y, Huang M, Zhu C, et al. 2022. Evaluation and application of the AquaCrop model in simulating soil salinity and winter wheat yield under saline water irrigation. Agronomy, 12(10): 2313, doi: 10.3390/agronomy12102313.
[37]   Zhang W H, Liu W Z, Xue Q W, et al. 2013. Evaluation of the AquaCrop model for simulating yield response of winter wheat to water on the southern Loess Plateau of China. Water Science and Technology, 68(4): 821-828.
doi: 10.2166/wst.2013.305 pmid: 23985512
[38]   Zhou Q, Zhang Y L, Wu F. 2021. Evaluation of the most proper management scale on water use efficiency and water productivity: A case study of the Heihe River Basin, China. Agricultural Water Management, 246: 106671, doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106671.
[1] Teame G KEBEDE, Emiru BIRHANE, Kiros-Meles AYIMUT, Yemane G EGZIABHER. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi improve biomass, photosynthesis, and water use efficiency of Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) Miller under different water levels[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(8): 975-988.
[2] Mohamed K EL-GHANNAM, Fatma WASSAR, Sabah MORSY, Mohamed HAFEZ, Chiter M PARIHAR, Kent O BURKEY, Ahmed M ABDALLAH. Controlled drainage in the Nile River delta of Egypt: a promising approach for decreasing drainage off-site effects and enhancing yield and water use efficiency of wheat[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(4): 460-476.
[3] XIE Yuxi, ZENG Weihua, QIU Jie. Integrated water risk early warning framework of the semi-arid transitional zone based on the water environmental carrying capacity (WECC)[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(2): 145-163.
[4] HAN Mengxue, ZHANG Lin, LIU Xiaoqiang. Subsurface irrigation with ceramic emitters improves wolfberry yield and economic benefits on the Tibetan Plateau, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(11): 1376-1390.
[5] Halimeh PIRI, Amir NASERIN, Ammar A ALBALASMEH. Interactive effects of deficit irrigation and vermicompost on yield, quality, and irrigation water use efficiency of greenhouse cucumber[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2022, 14(11): 1274-1292.
[6] Ibtihal AL-MANTHRIA, Abdulrahim M AL-ISMAILIA, Hemesiri KOTAGAMAB, Mumtaz KHANC, L H Janitha JEEWANTHAD. Water, land, and energy use efficiencies and financial evaluation of air conditioner cooled greenhouses based on field experiments[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2021, 13(4): 375-387.
[7] PEI Yanwu, HUANG Laiming, SHAO Ming'an, ZHANG Yinglong. Responses of Amygdalus pedunculata Pall. in the sandy and loamy soils to water stress[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2020, 12(5): 791-805.
[8] JIA Hao, WANG Zhenhua, ZHANG Jinzhu, LI Wenhao, REN Zuoli, JIA Zhecheng, WANG Qin. Effects of biodegradable mulch on soil water and heat conditions, yield and quality of processing tomatoes by drip irrigation[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2020, 12(5): 819-836.
[9] ZHOU Honghua, CHEN Yaning, ZHU Chenggang, YANG Yuhai, YE Zhaoxia. Water transport and water use efficiency differ among Populus euphratica Oliv. saplings exposed to saline water irrigation[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2019, 11(6): 866-879.
[10] Shanshan JIN, Youke WANG, Xing WANG, Yonghong BAI, Leigang SHI. Effect of pruning intensity on soil moisture and water use efficiency in jujube (Ziziphus jujube Mill.) plantations in the hilly Loess Plateau Region, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2019, 11(3): 446-460.
[11] RUDIKOVSKII Alexandr, RUDIKOVSKAYA Elena, DUDAREVA Lyubov. Impact of air drought on photosynthesis efficiency of the Siberian crabapple (Malus baccata L. Borkh.) in the forest-steppe zone of Transbaikalia, Russia[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2019, 11(2): 255-266.
[12] Jing ZHENG, Junliang FAN, Fucang ZHANG, Shicheng YAN, Jinjin GUO, Dongfeng CHEN, Zhijun LI. Mulching mode and planting density affect canopy interception loss of rainfall and water use efficiency of dryland maize on the Loess Plateau of China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2018, 10(5): 794-808.
[13] Xiaobing LI, Qi HUANG, Xue MI, Yunxiao BAI, Meng ZHANG, Xu LI. Grazing every month minimizes size but boosts photosynthesis in Stipa grandis in the steppe of Inner Mongolia, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2018, 10(4): 601-611.
[14] Xiaotao HUANG, Geping LUO, Feipeng YE, Qifei HAN. Effects of grazing on net primary productivity, evapotranspiration and water use efficiency in the grasslands of Xinjiang, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2018, 10(4): 588-600.
[15] Xuelian JIANG, Ling TONG, Shaozhong KANG, Fusheng LI, Donghao LI, Yonghui QIN, Rongchao SHI, Jianbing LI. Planting density affected biomass and grain yield of maize for seed production in an arid region of Northwest China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2018, 10(2): 292-303.