Improving border irrigation performance with predesigned varied-discharge

Kaihua Liu; Xiyun Jiao; Weihua Guo; Yunhao An; Mohamed Khaled Salahou

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0232751

Abstract

Insufficient water resources restrict wheat production in the North China Plain, so it is urgent and essential to improve the border irrigation performance and water use efficiency. This study developed a predesigned varied-discharge irrigation scheme in the closed-ended border. Field treatments, including continuous-discharge (CD), increased-discharge (ID) and decreased-discharge (DD) border irrigation tests, were conducted to evaluate the irrigation performance of the proposed varied-discharge scheme. The DD border irrigation treatment had great application efficiency (AE), distribution uniformity (DU) and requirement efficiency (RE), and its comprehensive evaluation indicator (Y) was also significantly higher than other treatments. DD treatment achieved the average AE, DU, RE and Y values of 91.4%, 95.5%, 99.5% and 95.4%, respectively. Furthermore, the hydraulic simulation model WinSRFR was used to optimize the scheme of predesigned varied-discharge border irrigation, and sensitivity analyses of infiltration parameters, roughness coefficient, slope and inflow rate were carried out. The results indicate that the predesigned varied-discharge border irrigation scheme can improve the irrigation performance, and the DD border irrigation scheme has more satisfactory robustness than that of the ID border irrigation scheme.

Citation: Liu K, Jiao X, Guo W, An Y, Salahou MK (2020) Improving border irrigation performance with predesigned varied-discharge. PLoS ONE 15(5): e0232751. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232751

Editor: Vassilis G. Aschonitis, Hellenic Agricultural Organization - Demeter, GREECE

Received: October 28, 2019; Accepted: April 21, 2020; Published: May 6, 2020

Copyright: © 2020 Liu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: This research was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant number 51879073 and 51609064. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

The North China Plain is one of the most important agricultural regions in China [1]. As rainfall is insufficient and uneven (mainly concentrated in summer), irrigation water for wheat is mostly pumped from groundwater, and irrigation has been identified as one of the main factors of groundwater drawdown [2–5]. Border irrigation is the most widely used irrigation method in the North China Plain [6]. It is urgent and essential to increase the border irrigation water use efficiency and avoid further overexploitation of groundwater.

In the border irrigation system, the variable measures are soil infiltration properties, roughness coefficient, border dimensions (length and width), slope, inflow rate and cut-off time (or cut-off distance) [7,8]. Although the soil infiltration properties and roughness coefficient have been proven to affect the performance of border irrigation [9–11], they are difficult to control artificially, so the soil infiltration properties and roughness coefficient are regarded as input parameters rather than controlled variables in border irrigation design. Optimizing the border dimensions and slope can improve the irrigation performance [12,13]. The border dimensions and slope are designed before planting according to the topography, which are difficult to change afterwards. Therefore, the border dimensions and slope are mostly regarded as fixed input parameters rather than control variables when irrigating at different growth stages. At present, the optimal design for inflow rate (including cut-off) is a simple and commonly used way to improve border irrigation performance [14].

According to whether the inflow is adjusted in the irrigation process of a border, border irrigation is divided into continuous-discharge (CD) and varied-discharge irrigation. CD irrigation is a traditional irrigation method with a constant inflow rate across the entire border, and many researches have been conducted to improve CD irrigation. On the basis of analyzing the influence of inflow and cut-off time on distribution uniformity, Santos [15] proposed the optimum combination of inflow rate and cut-off time. Bai et al. [16] improved the irrigation performance by optimizing the cut-off time. Salahou et al. [6] proposed a reasonable inflow rate and distance-based cutoff to improve border irrigation performance and water use efficiency in the closed-ended border irrigation system. Although these studies improved the irrigation performance of CD irrigation to a certain extent, CD irrigation still has unsatisfactory application efficiency and distribution uniformity [17,18].

Varied-discharge irrigation is described by increasing or decreasing the inflow rate before the water advance phase is completed. Compared with the continuous-discharge irrigation, the varied-discharge irrigation further improves the irrigation performance. The varied-discharge irrigation usually includes real-time control irrigation, surge irrigation and predesigned varied-discharge irrigation. The real-time control system for surface irrigation has been extensively studied due to its good irrigation performance and reduced labor requirements [19–21]. The system uses a lot of sensors to monitor the process of surface flow advance, calculates soil infiltration properties in real time, and simulates the irrigation to determine the best inflow rate (or cut-off time). The disadvantage of this irrigation system is that it needs a lot of sensors and complex calculations in a short time. Economically and technically, the real-time control system is difficult to be widely used in the North China Plain. Surge irrigation is a special irrigation method for the intermittent application of water to furrows or borders in a series of periodic on and off periods of specific time spans [18]. Properly managed, and under long field conditions, surge irrigation can lessen deep percolation and improve irrigation performance [22–24]. However, the adaptability study of surge irrigation demonstrated that surge irrigation offers no advantage over conventional continuous-flow border irrigation if the border length is less than 100 meters in the North China Plain [25]. In China, agricultural practice is mainly carried out on small farms [13], and the border length is generally not long. Furthermore, to increase the border irrigation water use efficiency and yield, the border length is usually no more than 100 meters [26]. In this case, surge irrigation will not significantly improve the irrigation performance in the North China Plain.

The predesigned varied-discharge irrigation, including increased-discharge (ID) and decreased-discharge (DD) border irrigation, is simple and feasible. Many studies have indicated that satisfactory irrigation performance can be obtained by reducing the initial inflow after the advance water reaches the furrow end [27,28]. Valipour [29] used SIRMOD software to simulate the cutback irrigation method in open-ended border irrigation systems, and indicated that the cutback irrigation method can increase irrigation efficiency by 11.66%. Vázquez-Fernández et al. [30] compared the distribution uniformities between continuous-discharge and ID (the discharge doubled when the water reached a quarter or half of the furrow’s length) furrow irrigations, and concluded that ID irrigation was an efficient irrigation in closed-ended furrows.

Previous studies only focused on the problem of predesigned varied discharge in furrow irrigation or open-ended border irrigation systems. However, for crops in the North China Plain, especially winter wheat, the main crop, closed-ended border irrigation is the main irrigation method [6]. Additionally, previous studies change the discharge in a special proportion, mostly doubling or halving, without finding the optimal numerical varied-discharge scheme. Hence, the objectives of this study were as follows: (1) to preliminarily evaluate the irrigation performance of CD, ID and DD border irrigation methods through field tests; (2) to determine the optimal predesigned varied-discharge border irrigation scheme with the aid of the hydraulic simulation model WinSRFR; (3) to assess the sensitivity of the soil infiltration properties, roughness coefficient and slope on the irrigation performance when the optimal predesigned varied-discharge border irrigation scheme is used; and (4) to provide recommendations for improving the border irrigation performance and water use efficiency in the North China Plain.

Materials and methods

Study area

The experimental filed is located at the Nanpi Ecological Agricultural Experiment Station of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hebei Province, China (116°40 ′ E, 38°06 ′N). This area has a continental monsoon climate. Winter wheat is the main crop to be cultivated, usually planted in October and harvested in June next year. The mean annual precipitation at the study site is 567.4 mm, with approximately 73%, 13%, 11%, and 3% of the annual precipitation occurring during the summer, autumn, spring and winter, respectively [6]. The mean annual temperature, sunshine hours and radiation are 12.3 °C, 2938.6 hr and 5592.3 MJ cm^-2, respectively. And the average annual rainfall during the winter wheat growing season from 1996 to 2016 was 125 mm [31]. The average monthly precipitation and temperature from 2013 to 2018 are shown in Fig 1. Weather data were obtained from the Botou Weather Station of China Meteorological Data Service Center, which was about 14 kilometers away from the study site. The experimental field is high in the south and low in the north, with an overall slope of about 0.0025. Closed-ended border irrigation is the main irrigation method, and irrigation water mostly comes from groundwater. The soil particle size was classified as a silt loam (63.12% silt, 29.79% sand, and 7.09% clay on average). The average dry bulk density is 1.49 g/cm³ at a depth of 1 m (1.40 g/cm³ at 0–20 cm, 1.49 g/cm³ at 20–40 cm, 1.56 g/cm³ at 40–60 cm, 1.51 g/cm³ at 60–80 cm, and 1.48 g/cm³ at 80–100 cm).

Download:

Fig 1. Average monthly precipitation and temperature from 2013 to 2018 during winter wheat growing seasons.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232751.g001

Experimental design and data measurement

Experiments were conducted in the jointing stage, which is the most important irrigation period in the wheat growing process in the North China Plain [32–34]. Three schemes of CD, ID and DD border irrigations were carried out. Like the borders used by local farmers, all the test borders were 0.0025 in slope, 80 m in length, 3.7 m in width and closed-ended. The border slope of 0.0025 and border length of 80m are favorable for higher water use efficiency and yield [26,35]. The working width of the local seeder is 1.8m. And the border width of 3.7 m is slightly larger than twice the working width of the seeder, which is convenient for the operation of the seeder. The required application water depth was 60 mm [6,35]. The inflow rate is limited by water supplies, soil texture and other factors, and too large or too small of an inflow rate is not feasible. The general inflow rate ranges approximately from 3 to 7 L s^-1m^-1 for border irrigation in the North China Plain [6,35]. Hence the CD experimental inflow rates were divided into three levels (high, moderate, and low, at 7 L s^-1m^-1, 5 L s^-1m^-1, and 3 L s^-1m^-1, respectively), and the distance-based cut-off ratios were determined according to the inflow rate [6]. Based on the existing research [30] and irrigation experience, exploratory ID and DD experiments were designed. The advances of the inflow rate change were a quarter and half of the border length [30], and the water cut-off was determined according to the flow rate. As shown in Table 1, six treatments (CD1, CD2 CD3, ID1, ID2 and DD) were designed and each treatment was repeated in 2–3 borders (CD1, CD2, CD3 and ID2 was repeated in 2 borders, ID1 and DD was repeated in 3 borders). A total of 14 border irrigation experiments were carried out.

Download:

Table 1. Experimental treatment design of continuous-discharge irrigation and varied-discharge irrigation.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232751.t001

For each border, the relative elevations were measured every 5 m using the optical level DSZ2 (±1mm). Then linear least square regression is used for the relative elevation data of the same border, and the slope of the line is the border slope [36]. The soil moistures were measured before and after irrigation by the gravimetric method. Then the a and k parameters of the Kostiakov equation can be calculated using the volume balance method [35]. The roughness coefficient n is difficult to measure or calculate directly. In this study, n was obtained by the trial and error approach with the aid of the widely recognized hydraulic simulation model WinSRFR [6,37]. Specifically, a value was assigned to the n parameter and entered into the WinSRFR model, and the simulated advance and recession trajectories were compared with the observed data. If the fit was poor, a new value was assigned to the n parameter. This process was repeated until the simulated trajectories were in good agreement with the field data. The inflows of every border were measured by the electromagnetic flow meter (accuracy of ±1.5%).

Irrigation performance analysis

The irrigation performance was usually evaluated by application efficiency (AE), distribution uniformity (DU) and requirement efficiency (RE) [6,16]. The AE is defined as the ratio of the average infiltrated water depth in the root zone and the average applied water depth. The DU is a measure of how uniformly water is applied across the border. The RE is defined as the ratio of the average infiltrated water depth in the root zone and the required water depth. AE, DU and RE reflect different aspects of irrigation performance. To better explain the irrigation performance, a comprehensive evaluation indicator Y was used for final evaluation [38]. Y has the maximum value of 100%, and the larger Y is, the better the irrigation performance is. (1) (2) (3) (4) where h_i is the infiltrated water depth in the root zone; z_i is the infiltrated water depth; z_A is the average infiltrated water depth and ; n is the number of stations along the border length; and z_r is the required water depth.

Sensitivity analysis

Considering the spatiotemporal variability of the input parameters (infiltration parameters, roughness coefficient, slope and inflow rate), sensitivity analyses should be conducted to demonstrate the robustness of the proposed system [39,40]. There is a certain correlation between k and a [41], so these two parameters should be considered as a whole. The range of each parameter is determined based on the field data.

Results and discussion

Irrigation tests performance

Border irrigation parameters, obtained by averaging the parameters of the experimental borders of the same treatment, are shown in Table 2. Coefficients of variation (CV) of k, a and n were 2.4%, 1.1% and 1.7%, respectively, and the difference among the treatments was no more than 10%. The variability of S was a little larger (CV = 9.8%), but the differences of different treatments are mostly within 20%. These results indicate that no large variation in the border irrigation parameters distribution occurred within each treatment. These data were analyzed using a Duncan test to further determine differences between treatments, and the results also showed that there was no significant difference in irrigation parameters among the treatments.

Download:

Table 2. Observational data of border slope, Kostiakov parameters and roughness coefficient.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232751.t002

The measurement results of inflow rate are shown in Fig 2. In the border irrigation system, it is difficult to control the inflow rate accurately. And this difficulty will be more prominent when adjusting inflow rate during irrigation. But overall, the errors of inflow rate were almost within 10%.

Download:

Fig 2. Measurement results of inflow rate for (a) continuous-discharge irrigation treatment, and (b) varied-discharge irrigation treatment.

The vertical bars indicate the standard deviations of the inflow rate; for some points, the vertical bars are too small to be seen.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232751.g002

The irrigation performance indexes (AE, DU, RE and Y) of each treatment are shown in Table 3. For all the treatments, the RE values were greater than 98%, which meant that the cut-off distance ratios were conservative, and the irrigation satisfied the required water depth in the root zone. For the CD treatments, the AE values ranged from 78.5% to 83.9% and the DU values ranged from 86.4% to 93.5%. Overall, the treatment for which the inflow rate was 5 L s^-1m^-1 and the cut-off distance ratio was 0.85 (CD2) was more satisfactory. The results were consistent with the closed-ended border irrigation testes conducted by Salahou et al. [6]. For the ID treatments, the ranges of the irrigation performance indexes were similar to those of the CD treatments, and there was no significant difference in irrigation performance between CD and ID treatment. The AE, DU and Y values of DD treatment were the largest, which were 91.4%, 95.5% and 95.4% respectively, and were significantly higher than those of CD and ID treatments. From the experiment data, the DD border irrigation is recommended.

Download:

Table 3. Irrigation performance of each treatment.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232751.t003

Optimal border irrigation scheme simulation

There are too many varied-discharge border irrigation schemes to test each one. The experimental conclusion may not be all-inclusive. Hence, numerical simulation is needed to verify the test results and find the optimal scheme. To avoid the influence of different infiltration parameters, slopes and roughness coefficients, all the simulations were based on the same border irrigation parameters (S = 0.0025, k = 6.782, a = 0.7, n = 0.1). The advances of inflow rate change were a quarter and half of the border length (20 and 40 m) and the inflow rate step was 0.5 L s^-1m^-1, ranging from 3 to 7 L s^-1m^-1.

Through WinSRFR model simulation, appropriate schemes of ID and DD border irrigation were obtained. The top ten schemes of each group with the maximum Y values are shown in Table 4. The AE, DU, RE and Y values were 96.0%, 92.2%, 96.3% and 94.8%, respectively for the optimal ID scheme (ID01) and 97.1%, 94.9%, 97.9% and 96.6% respectively for the optimal DD scheme (DD01). The independent sample t-test (p = 0.05) indicated that the DU, RE and Y values of DD scheme were significantly higher than that of ID schemes. The AE, DU, RE and Y values of all 20 schemes were greater than 90%, and the mean values of the AE, DU and RE were greater than 94% and 95% for the ID and DD schemes, respectively. Although the irrigation performance of the DD border irrigation was better than that of the ID border irrigation, the ID and DD schemes were both quite satisfactory. In addition, satisfactory irrigation performance was achieved when the ranges of the initial inflow rate, the inflow rate after the first change and the inflow rate after the second change were almost 4–5 L s^-1m^-1, 5–5.5 L s^-1m^-1 and 6–7 L s^-1m^-1, respectively, for the ID border irrigation, and 6.5–7 L s^-1m^-1, 5.5–6.5 L s^-1m^-1 and 4–4.5 L s^-1m^-1, respectively, for the DD border irrigation. The appropriate cut-off distance ratio was closely related to the final inflow rate rather than the initial inflow rate or the inflow rate after the first change. This also means that the larger the final inflow rate is, the smaller the cut-off distance ratio.

Download:

Table 4. Top ten schemes of ID and DD border irrigation.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232751.t004

Sensitivity analysis

The proposed optimal border irrigation scheme was analyzed over ranges of input parameters as follows: (k, a) from (6.4 mm·min^-α, 0.68) to (7.2 mm·min^-α, 0.71); n values of 0.10 ± 10%; S values of 0.0025 ± 20%; and q values of ± 10%. In the interest of brevity, the results of the analyses of sensitivity to the input parameters are reported without any adjustments to the optimal ID and DD irrigation schemes (ID01 and DD01 in Table 4). The AE, DU, RE and Y were still used as the performance indicators, and the irrigation performance deviations due to the spatiotemporal variability of the input parameters are shown in Fig 3. For the ±10% change in the inflow rate, the adverse impact on the DU was greater than that on the AE and RE (Fig 3a). The minimum DU values for the DD and ID schemes were 91.2% and 88.0%, respectively. The sensitivity of the slope was simulated over a range of slopes from 0.002 to 0.003. The irrigation performance of the DD scheme was excellent, and the AE, DU, RE and Y values of this varied-discharge irrigation method were almost greater than 95% (Fig 3b). The infiltration parameters (k, a) ranged from (6.4 mm·min^-α, 0.68) to (7.2 mm·min^-α, 0.71), and they had a greater impact on the irrigation performance than the other input parameters. In this case, the minimum AE, DU, RE and Y values were 93.6%, 88.4%, 93.3%, and 92.0% respectively for the DD scheme, and 92.8%, 84.7%, 91.1% and 89.5% respectively for the ID scheme (Fig 3c). For the ±10% change in the roughness coefficient, the irrigation performance (AE, DU, RE and Y) of the DD scheme was also better than that of the ID scheme (Fig 3d). Unlike the other input parameters, the roughness coefficient had little effect on the DU.

Download:

Fig 3. Sensitivity analysis of (a) inflow rate, (b) slope, (c) infiltration parameters, and (d) roughness coefficient.

The vertical bars represent the deviations of irrigation performance indexes caused by the spatiotemporal variability of inflow rate, slope, infiltration parameters, and roughness coefficient.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232751.g003

In general, the spatiotemporal variability in the input parameters decreased the irrigation performance of both the ID and the DD border irrigation schemes. The infiltration parameters had the greatest impact on the irrigation performance, followed by the inflow rate, slope and roughness coefficient. The result agreed with the research of Wang et al. [42] who simulated the contribution rate of the influence factors on continuous-discharge irrigation performance in closed-ended border irrigation systems and indicated that the most important influence factors were the inflow rate, infiltration coefficient (k) and infiltration index (a). When the input parameters changed, the DD scheme performed almost better than the ID scheme on all irrigation performance indexes. This partly explained the phenomenon that the DD border irrigation scheme achieved the most satisfactory irrigation performance in the field tests.

Conclusions

The field testes and simulations indicated that the predesigned varied-discharge border irrigation scheme could improve the irrigation performance. For the irrigation event during the jointing stage in the North China Plain, the following suggestions were drawn from the study.

Decreased-discharge (DD) border irrigation has good irrigation performance and robustness against the spatiotemporal variability in the input parameters (infiltration parameters, roughness coefficient, slope and inflow rate), so this predesigned varied-discharge irrigation method is recommended.
The satisfactory irrigation performance was achieved when the ranges of the initial inflow rate, the inflow rate after the first change and the inflow rate after the second change were almost 6.5–7 L s^-1m^-1, 5.5–6.5 L s^-1m^-1 and 4–4.5 L s^-1m^-1, respectively. The appropriate cut-off distance ratio was closely related to the inflow rate after the second change, and the specific correspondence between them is as follows: 0.8 for 4.5 L s^-1m^-1, 0.85 for 4.0 L s^-1m^-1 and 0.9 for 3.5 L s^-1m^-1.
The sensitivity analysis showed that the infiltration parameters are the greatest influence factor on the irrigation performance. Therefore, more attention should be paid to the measurement of the infiltration parameters to design the optimal predesigned varied-discharge border irrigation scheme.

The predesigned varied-discharge border irrigation presented in this study was based on the irrigation event during the jointing stage in the North China Plain. The required application water depth and field characteristics may be greatly different for other irrigation events in other areas. Therefore, further research should be conducted in different fields to verify the universality of the proposed irrigation scheme.

Supporting information

S1 File. Observed relative elevations and calculated border slopes.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232751.s001

(XLS)

S2 File. Border geometry, Kostiakov parameters, roughness coefficient, inflow rate and irrigation performance of border irrigation experiments.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232751.s002

(XLS)

S3 File. Sensitivity analysis of inflow rate, slope, infiltration parameters, and roughness coefficient.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232751.s003

(XLS)

S4 File. Monthly precipitation and temperature from 2013 to 2018 during winter wheat growing seasons.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232751.s004

(XLS)

References

1. Jeong SJ, Ho CH, Piao S, Kim J, Ciais P, Lee YB, et al. Effects of double cropping on summer climate of the North China Plain and neighbouring regions. Nature Climate Change. 2014; 4(7): 615.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
2. Sun HY, Liu CM, Zhang XY, Shen YJ. Zhang YQ. Effects of irrigation on water balance, yield and WUE of winter wheat in the North China Plain. Agricultural water management. 2006; 85(1–2): 211–218.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
3. Lv L, Yao Y, Zhang L, Dong Z, Jia X, Liang S et al. Winter wheat grain yield and its components in the North China Plain: irrigation management, cultivation, and climate. Chilean journal of agricultural research. 2013; 73(3): 233–242.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
4. Yang Y, Watanabe M, Zhang X, Zhang J, Wang Q, Hayashi S. Optimizing irrigation management for wheat to reduce groundwater depletion in the piedmont region of the Taihang Mountains in the North China Plain. Agricultural Water Management. 2006; 82(1–2): 25–44.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
5. Yuan Z, Shen Y. Estimation of agricultural water consumption from meteorological and yield data: a case study of Hebei, North China. PloS one. 2013: 8(3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058685.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
6. Salahou MK, Jiao X, Lü H. Border irrigation performance with distance-based cut-off. Agricultural water management. 2018; 201: 27–37.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
7. Dong Q, Zhang S, Bai M, Xu D, Feng H. Modeling the Effects of Spatial Variability of Irrigation Parameters on Border Irrigation Performance at a Field Scale. Water. 2018; 10(12): 1770.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
8. Pereira LS, Oweis T, Zairi A. Irrigation management under water scarcity. Agricultural water management. 2002; 57(3): 175–206.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
9. Bautista E, Strelkoff TS, Clemmens AJ. Sensitivity of surface irrigation to infiltration parameters: implications for management. In: USCID/EWRI Conference, Energy, Climate, Environment and Water. Issues and Opportunities for Irrigation and Drainage. 2002, July 10–13, ASCE, San Luis Obispo, pp. 475–485.
10. Strelkoff TS, Clemmens AJ, Bautista E. Field properties in surface irrigation management and design. Journal of irrigation and drainage engineering. 2009; 135(5): 525–536.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
11. Nie W, Fei L, Ma X. Impact of infiltration parameters and Manning roughness on the advance trajectory and irrigation performance for closed-end furrows. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research. 2014; 12(4): 1180–1191.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
12. Anwar AA, Ahmad W, Bhatti MT, Haq ZU. The potential of precision surface irrigation in the Indus Basin Irrigation System. Irrigation science. 2016; 34(5): 379–396.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
13. Chen B, Ouyang Z, Sun Z, Wu L, Li F. 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. 2013; 31(4): 715–728.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
14. Morris MR, Hussain A, Gillies MH, O’Halloran NJ. Inflow rate and border irrigation performance. Agricultural Water Management. 2015; 155: 76–86.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
15. Santos FL. Evaluation and Adoption of Irrigation Technologies: Management-Design Curves for Furrow and Level Basin Systems. Agricultural Systems. 1996; 52(2/3): 317–329.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
16. Bai M, Li Y, Tu S, Liu Q. Analysisi on cutoff time optimization of border irrigation to improve irrigated water quality. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering. 2016; 32(2): 105–110. In Chinese.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
17. El-Dine TG, Hosny MM. Field evaluation of surge and continuous flows in furrow irrigation systems. Water resources management. 2000; 14(2): 77–87.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
18. Kifle M, Tilahun K, Yazew E. Evaluation of surge flow furrow irrigation for onion production in a semiarid region of Ethiopia. Irrigation science. 2008; 26(4): 325–333.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
19. Khatri KL, Smith RJ. Toward a simple real‐time control system for efficient management of furrow irrigation. Irrigation and Drainage. 2007; 56(4): 463–475.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
20. Koech RK, Smith RJ, Gillies MH. A real-time optimisation system for automation of furrow irrigation. Irrigation science. 2014; 32(4): 319–327.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
21. Wu C. The mechanism and method of real-time feedback control border irrigation process based on surface water advance data. Thesis, Beijing: China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research; 2015. In Chinese.
22. Kanber R, Köksal H, Önder S, Kapur S, Sahan S. Comparison of surge and continuous furrow methods for cotton in the Harran plain. Agricultural water management. 2001; 47(2): 119–135.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
23. Horst M, Shamutalov SS, Gonçalves J, Pereira L. Assessing impacts of surge-flow irrigation on water saving and productivity of cotton. Agricultural water management. 2007; 87(2): 115–127.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
24. Kifle M, Gebremicael T, Girmay A, Gebremedihin T. Effect of surge flow and alternate irrigation on the irrigation efficiency and water productivity of onion in the semi-arid areas of North Ethiopia. Agricultural water management. 2017; 187: 69–76.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
25. Qunchang L, Di X, Chongbao X, Bin H. Adaptability of Surge Flow Irrigation Applying on Farmland. Transactions of The Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering. 2002; 18(1): 35–40. In Chinese.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
26. Ma S, Yu Z, Wang D, Zhang Y, Shi Y. Effects of field border length for irrigation on the water consumption characteristics and grain yield of wheat. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2012, 23(09): 2489–2496. In Chinese.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
27. Alazba AA. Simulating furrow irrigation with different inflow patterns. Journal of irrigation and drainage engineering. 1999; 125(1): 12–18.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
28. Bautista E, Wallender WW. Optimal management strategies for cutback furrow irrigation. Journal of irrigation and drainage engineering. 1993; 119(6): 1099–1114.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
29. Valipour M. Increasing irrigation efficiency by management strategies: cutback and surge irrigation. Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science. 2013; 8(1): 35–43.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
30. Vázquez-Fernández E, López-Tellez P, Chagoya-Amador B. Comparison of water distribution uniformities between increased-discharge and continuous-flow irrigations in blocked-end furrows. Journal of irrigation and drainage engineering. 2005; 131(4): 379–382.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
31. Zhang M, Dong B, Qiao Y, Yang H, Wang Y, Liu M. Effects of sub-soil plastic film mulch on soil water and salt content and water utilization by winter wheat under different soil salinities. Field Crops Research. 2018, 225: 130–140.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
32. Shang S, Mao X. Application of a simulation based optimization model for winter wheat irrigation scheduling in North China. Agricultural Water Management. 2006; 85(3): 314–322.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
33. Li Q, Dong B, Qiao Y, Liu M, Zhang J. Root growth, available soil water, and water-use efficiency of winter wheat under different irrigation regimes applied at different growth stages in North China. Agricultural Water Management. 2010; 97(10): 1676–1682.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
34. Zhang D, Li R, Batchelor WD, Ju H, Li Y. Evaluation of limited irrigation strategies to improve water use efficiency and wheat yield in the North China Plain. PloS one. 2018; 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189989.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
35. Wang, W. Spatial variability of influencing factors on border irrigation and robust design on irrigation technical parameters. Thesis, Nanjing: Hohai University; 2009. In Chinese.
36. Long Y, Wang L, Pang G, Yang Q. Analysing field measured slope differences. Journal of Northwest University (Natural Science Edition), 2019, 49(02):65–72.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
37. Bautista E, Clemmens AJ, Strelkoff TS, Schlegel J. Modern analysis of surface irrigation systems with WinSRFR. Agricultural Water Management. 2009; 96(7): 1146–1154.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
38. Nie WB, Li YB, Zhang F, Dong SX, Wang H, Ma XY. A Method for Determining the Discharge of Closed-End Furrow Irrigation Based on the Representative Value of Manning’s Roughness and Field Mean Infiltration Parameters Estimated Using the PTF at Regional Scale. Water. 2018; 10(12), 1825.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
39. Bautista E, Clemmens AJ, Strelkoff TS, Niblack M. Analysis of surface irrigation systems with WinSRFR—Example application. Agricultural water management. 2009; 96(7): 1162–1169.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
40. Lalehzari R, Nasab SB. Improved volume balance using upstream flow depth for advance time estimation. Agricultural water management. 2017; 186: 120–126.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
41. Valiantzas JD, Aggelides S, Sassalou A. Furrow infiltration estimation from time to a single advance point. Agricultural Water Management. 2001; 52(1): 17–32.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
42. Wang W, Jiao X, Peng S, Chen X. Sensitivity analysis of border irrigation performance using robust design theory. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering. 2010; 26(11): 37–42. In Chinese.
- View Article
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Jeong SJ, Ho CH, Piao S, Kim J, Ciais P, Lee YB, et al. Effects of double cropping on summer climate of the North China Plain and neighbouring regions. Nature Climate Change. 2014; 4(7): 615.
View Article
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Sun HY, Liu CM, Zhang XY, Shen YJ. Zhang YQ. Effects of irrigation on water balance, yield and WUE of winter wheat in the North China Plain. Agricultural water management. 2006; 85(1–2): 211–218.
View Article
Google Scholar

[5] View Article

[6] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Lv L, Yao Y, Zhang L, Dong Z, Jia X, Liang S et al. Winter wheat grain yield and its components in the North China Plain: irrigation management, cultivation, and climate. Chilean journal of agricultural research. 2013; 73(3): 233–242.
View Article
Google Scholar

[8] View Article

[9] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Yang Y, Watanabe M, Zhang X, Zhang J, Wang Q, Hayashi S. Optimizing irrigation management for wheat to reduce groundwater depletion in the piedmont region of the Taihang Mountains in the North China Plain. Agricultural Water Management. 2006; 82(1–2): 25–44.
View Article
Google Scholar

[11] View Article

[12] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Yuan Z, Shen Y. Estimation of agricultural water consumption from meteorological and yield data: a case study of Hebei, North China. PloS one. 2013: 8(3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058685.
View Article
Google Scholar

[14] View Article

[15] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Salahou MK, Jiao X, Lü H. Border irrigation performance with distance-based cut-off. Agricultural water management. 2018; 201: 27–37.
View Article
Google Scholar

[17] View Article

[18] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Dong Q, Zhang S, Bai M, Xu D, Feng H. Modeling the Effects of Spatial Variability of Irrigation Parameters on Border Irrigation Performance at a Field Scale. Water. 2018; 10(12): 1770.
View Article
Google Scholar

[20] View Article

[21] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Pereira LS, Oweis T, Zairi A. Irrigation management under water scarcity. Agricultural water management. 2002; 57(3): 175–206.
View Article
Google Scholar

[23] View Article

[24] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Bautista E, Strelkoff TS, Clemmens AJ. Sensitivity of surface irrigation to infiltration parameters: implications for management. In: USCID/EWRI Conference, Energy, Climate, Environment and Water. Issues and Opportunities for Irrigation and Drainage. 2002, July 10–13, ASCE, San Luis Obispo, pp. 475–485.

[ref10] 10. Strelkoff TS, Clemmens AJ, Bautista E. Field properties in surface irrigation management and design. Journal of irrigation and drainage engineering. 2009; 135(5): 525–536.
View Article
Google Scholar

[27] View Article

[28] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Nie W, Fei L, Ma X. Impact of infiltration parameters and Manning roughness on the advance trajectory and irrigation performance for closed-end furrows. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research. 2014; 12(4): 1180–1191.
View Article
Google Scholar

[30] View Article

[31] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Anwar AA, Ahmad W, Bhatti MT, Haq ZU. The potential of precision surface irrigation in the Indus Basin Irrigation System. Irrigation science. 2016; 34(5): 379–396.
View Article
Google Scholar

[33] View Article

[34] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Chen B, Ouyang Z, Sun Z, Wu L, Li F. 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. 2013; 31(4): 715–728.
View Article
Google Scholar

[36] View Article

[37] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Morris MR, Hussain A, Gillies MH, O’Halloran NJ. Inflow rate and border irrigation performance. Agricultural Water Management. 2015; 155: 76–86.
View Article
Google Scholar

[39] View Article

[40] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Santos FL. Evaluation and Adoption of Irrigation Technologies: Management-Design Curves for Furrow and Level Basin Systems. Agricultural Systems. 1996; 52(2/3): 317–329.
View Article
Google Scholar

[42] View Article

[43] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Bai M, Li Y, Tu S, Liu Q. Analysisi on cutoff time optimization of border irrigation to improve irrigated water quality. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering. 2016; 32(2): 105–110. In Chinese.
View Article
Google Scholar

[45] View Article

[46] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. El-Dine TG, Hosny MM. Field evaluation of surge and continuous flows in furrow irrigation systems. Water resources management. 2000; 14(2): 77–87.
View Article
Google Scholar

[48] View Article

[49] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Kifle M, Tilahun K, Yazew E. Evaluation of surge flow furrow irrigation for onion production in a semiarid region of Ethiopia. Irrigation science. 2008; 26(4): 325–333.
View Article
Google Scholar

[51] View Article

[52] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Khatri KL, Smith RJ. Toward a simple real‐time control system for efficient management of furrow irrigation. Irrigation and Drainage. 2007; 56(4): 463–475.
View Article
Google Scholar

[54] View Article

[55] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Koech RK, Smith RJ, Gillies MH. A real-time optimisation system for automation of furrow irrigation. Irrigation science. 2014; 32(4): 319–327.
View Article
Google Scholar

[57] View Article

[58] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Wu C. The mechanism and method of real-time feedback control border irrigation process based on surface water advance data. Thesis, Beijing: China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research; 2015. In Chinese.

[ref22] 22. Kanber R, Köksal H, Önder S, Kapur S, Sahan S. Comparison of surge and continuous furrow methods for cotton in the Harran plain. Agricultural water management. 2001; 47(2): 119–135.
View Article
Google Scholar

[61] View Article

[62] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Horst M, Shamutalov SS, Gonçalves J, Pereira L. Assessing impacts of surge-flow irrigation on water saving and productivity of cotton. Agricultural water management. 2007; 87(2): 115–127.
View Article
Google Scholar

[64] View Article

[65] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Kifle M, Gebremicael T, Girmay A, Gebremedihin T. Effect of surge flow and alternate irrigation on the irrigation efficiency and water productivity of onion in the semi-arid areas of North Ethiopia. Agricultural water management. 2017; 187: 69–76.
View Article
Google Scholar

[67] View Article

[68] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Qunchang L, Di X, Chongbao X, Bin H. Adaptability of Surge Flow Irrigation Applying on Farmland. Transactions of The Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering. 2002; 18(1): 35–40. In Chinese.
View Article
Google Scholar

[70] View Article

[71] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Ma S, Yu Z, Wang D, Zhang Y, Shi Y. Effects of field border length for irrigation on the water consumption characteristics and grain yield of wheat. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2012, 23(09): 2489–2496. In Chinese.
View Article
Google Scholar

[73] View Article

[74] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Alazba AA. Simulating furrow irrigation with different inflow patterns. Journal of irrigation and drainage engineering. 1999; 125(1): 12–18.
View Article
Google Scholar

[76] View Article

[77] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Bautista E, Wallender WW. Optimal management strategies for cutback furrow irrigation. Journal of irrigation and drainage engineering. 1993; 119(6): 1099–1114.
View Article
Google Scholar

[79] View Article

[80] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Valipour M. Increasing irrigation efficiency by management strategies: cutback and surge irrigation. Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science. 2013; 8(1): 35–43.
View Article
Google Scholar

[82] View Article

[83] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Vázquez-Fernández E, López-Tellez P, Chagoya-Amador B. Comparison of water distribution uniformities between increased-discharge and continuous-flow irrigations in blocked-end furrows. Journal of irrigation and drainage engineering. 2005; 131(4): 379–382.
View Article
Google Scholar

[85] View Article

[86] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Zhang M, Dong B, Qiao Y, Yang H, Wang Y, Liu M. Effects of sub-soil plastic film mulch on soil water and salt content and water utilization by winter wheat under different soil salinities. Field Crops Research. 2018, 225: 130–140.
View Article
Google Scholar

[88] View Article

[89] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Shang S, Mao X. Application of a simulation based optimization model for winter wheat irrigation scheduling in North China. Agricultural Water Management. 2006; 85(3): 314–322.
View Article
Google Scholar

[91] View Article

[92] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Li Q, Dong B, Qiao Y, Liu M, Zhang J. Root growth, available soil water, and water-use efficiency of winter wheat under different irrigation regimes applied at different growth stages in North China. Agricultural Water Management. 2010; 97(10): 1676–1682.
View Article
Google Scholar

[94] View Article

[95] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Zhang D, Li R, Batchelor WD, Ju H, Li Y. Evaluation of limited irrigation strategies to improve water use efficiency and wheat yield in the North China Plain. PloS one. 2018; 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189989.
View Article
Google Scholar

[97] View Article

[98] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Wang, W. Spatial variability of influencing factors on border irrigation and robust design on irrigation technical parameters. Thesis, Nanjing: Hohai University; 2009. In Chinese.

[ref36] 36. Long Y, Wang L, Pang G, Yang Q. Analysing field measured slope differences. Journal of Northwest University (Natural Science Edition), 2019, 49(02):65–72.
View Article
Google Scholar

[101] View Article

[102] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Bautista E, Clemmens AJ, Strelkoff TS, Schlegel J. Modern analysis of surface irrigation systems with WinSRFR. Agricultural Water Management. 2009; 96(7): 1146–1154.
View Article
Google Scholar

[104] View Article

[105] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Nie WB, Li YB, Zhang F, Dong SX, Wang H, Ma XY. A Method for Determining the Discharge of Closed-End Furrow Irrigation Based on the Representative Value of Manning’s Roughness and Field Mean Infiltration Parameters Estimated Using the PTF at Regional Scale. Water. 2018; 10(12), 1825.
View Article
Google Scholar

[107] View Article

[108] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Bautista E, Clemmens AJ, Strelkoff TS, Niblack M. Analysis of surface irrigation systems with WinSRFR—Example application. Agricultural water management. 2009; 96(7): 1162–1169.
View Article
Google Scholar

[110] View Article

[111] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Lalehzari R, Nasab SB. Improved volume balance using upstream flow depth for advance time estimation. Agricultural water management. 2017; 186: 120–126.
View Article
Google Scholar

[113] View Article

[114] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Valiantzas JD, Aggelides S, Sassalou A. Furrow infiltration estimation from time to a single advance point. Agricultural Water Management. 2001; 52(1): 17–32.
View Article
Google Scholar

[116] View Article

[117] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Wang W, Jiao X, Peng S, Chen X. Sensitivity analysis of border irrigation performance using robust design theory. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering. 2010; 26(11): 37–42. In Chinese.
View Article
Google Scholar

[119] View Article

[120] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Study area

Experimental design and data measurement

Irrigation performance analysis

Sensitivity analysis

Results and discussion

Irrigation tests performance

Optimal border irrigation scheme simulation

Sensitivity analysis

Conclusions

Supporting information

S1 File. Observed relative elevations and calculated border slopes.

S2 File. Border geometry, Kostiakov parameters, roughness coefficient, inflow rate and irrigation performance of border irrigation experiments.

S3 File. Sensitivity analysis of inflow rate, slope, infiltration parameters, and roughness coefficient.

S4 File. Monthly precipitation and temperature from 2013 to 2018 during winter wheat growing seasons.

References