







































 

 

 
39 

© 2024 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Optimizing yield and irrigation water productivity of wheat under Sahel conditions in North 
East Nigeria   

 

 

 Ibrahim Ahmed 
Jajere1 

 Ibraheem 
Alhassan2+ 

 Ishaku James 
Dantata3 

 Aminu Maidala4 

1Department of Geography, Federal University, Gashua, Yobe State, Nigeria. 
1Email: iajajere2000@gmail.com  
2,3 Department of Agronomy, Federal University, Gashua, Yobe State, Nigeria. 
2Email: ialhassand@gmail.com  
3Email: ishiyakudjames@gmail.com 
4Department of Animal Science, Federal University, Gashua, Yobe State, 
Nigeria. 
4Email: aminuyari@gmail.com  

 

 
(+ Corresponding author) 

 ABSTRACT 
 
Article History 
Received: 26 August 2024 
Revised: 20 September 2024 
Accepted: 30 September 2024 
Published: 2 October 2024 
 

Keywords 
Chad basin 
Cropwat 
Irrigation 
Water requirement 
Water use efficiency 
Wheat. 

 
Unsustainable irrigation practices are a major threat to the available water resources and 
food security of the country. This research was conducted to determine the optimal wheat 
grain yield and water productivity (WP) under limited irrigation practices for the 
enhanced livelihood of small farmer holdings in the Sahel region of northeast, Nigeria. 
The research was carried out in randomized complete block design (RCBD) with split 
plot arrangement and replicated three times. The main plot treatment was 7 (I1), 10 (I2), 
and 14(I3) days irrigation intervals, while the subplot factor was 100 (V1), 85 (V2), and 
70% (V3), of crop water requirement (ETc) replacement. The cropWat model was used 
to determine the crop water requirement (ETc) of the wheat (var. Norman) used in the 
research. The findings indicated that a 7-day irrigation interval increased grain yield by 
20.18 over a 10-day irrigation interval and by 63.10% over 14-day irrigation intervals. 
Grain yield was found to decrease by 44.80 and 747.25kgHa-1 respectively for 85 and 
70% ETc replacement irrigations from full ETc replacement irrigation. Crop water use 
efficiency was higher and better (0.74 mm-kg/ha) with I1V2 irrigation treatment for 
wheat and saved 11.55.50 m3 irrigation water over other irrigation schedules. It is 
recommended that 7 7-day irrigation interval be maintained, while irrigation depth can 
be reduced by up to 15% for optimum water productivity.  
 

Contribution/Originality: The results from this study indicated that the irrigation intervals of 10 and 14 days 

are not suitable for wheat production in the Sahel regions of Northeast, Nigeria. The 7-day irrigation interval with 

85% ET replacement is recommended to improve the water productivity of wheat grown in the Sahel agroecological 

zone of Nigeria. 

 

1. INTRODUCTION 

The main issues that the majority of people in the Chad basin are dealing with are the availability of sufficient 

water for crop production and food security. Crop productivity and food security are being negatively impacted by 

the agriculture sector's unsustainable usage of freshwater [1]. Both the global water demand and the level of water 

stress are rising as a result of the world's population expansion and economic development. Therefore, the question 

of how to attain sustainable development and improve the management of water resources becomes one that the 

governments of all nations need to think about and resolve. Irrigation accounted for 87% of the world's water 

extraction (extraction minus return) approximately ten years ago. Meanwhile, those irrigated areas produced 40–

Current Research in Agricultural Sciences 
2024 Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 39-47 
ISSN(e): 2312-6418 
ISSN(p): 2313-3716 
DOI: 10.18488/cras.v11i2.3916 
© 2024 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0460-8630
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7453-0210
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0996-6533
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4095-352X
mailto:iajajere2000@gmail.com
mailto:ialhassand@gmail.com
mailto:ishiyakudjames@gmail.com
mailto:aminuyari@gmail.com
https://www.doi.org/10.18488/cras.v11i2.3916


Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 11(2): 39-47 

 

 
40 

© 2024 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

45% of the world's food [2]. The recent increase in irrigation farming brought on by the drought and the need for 

food security has led to overexploitation of groundwater resources, which is expected to worsen in the years to come 

[3]. In arid and semi-arid environments, the primary problem impeding crop production is water constraint [4]. 

Presently, 40% of global crops are grown on irrigated land, demonstrating the continued importance of irrigation in 

assuring food production [5]. It is forecasted that by 2030, there will be a 50% increase in water consumption, and 4 

billion people, or half of the world's population, will likely experience severe water shortage. This will mostly happen 

in South Asia, the Middle East, and Africa [6]. Crop water productivity has become a key strategy for dealing with 

water scarcity and improving the relationship between crops and water. Crop water productivity (CWP) is defined 

as the amount of product produced per unit of water applied. Farmers typically focus on increasing profitability or 

enhancing food security rather than prioritizing water productivity [7]. Water plays a crucial role in the growth and 

yield of crops, especially in dry and semiarid regions where water is limited [8]. Efficient water use is essential for 

optimizing irrigation schedules, and improving water availability, soil quality, and crop yield [9].  

A significant agricultural issue is using less land and water while producing a sufficient, safe, and balanced diet 

to feed the world's expanding population [7]. Achieving global food security requires increasing agricultural water 

productivity since unsustainable water use can impede food production [10]. Measures to improve agricultural water 

productivity and reduce the gap between supply and demand for water are needed to remedy the imbalance the water-

related yield gap must be considered [11]. Water-saving agriculture involves implementing various strategies to 

efficiently use water and improve crop water productivity [12]. One approach is deficit irrigation, which can reduce 

water usage while enhancing water efficiency and productivity at different scales [12, 13]. Additionally, enhancing 

agricultural production is crucial for increasing income, household food supply, food security, and poverty reduction 

and it can also improve land productivity and boost farming profits through better input management [14].  

The Sahel region has a semi-arid to arid climate with high temperatures and erratic rainfall patterns which are 

often major constraints to agricultural production [15]. The usually short rainy season in North East Nigeria further 

restricts wheat production by reducing its cropping opportunity for irrigation during the cold dry season. These 

circumstances make it necessary to create plans that optimize water use and raise crop yield levels. Since irrigation is 

crucial to the Sahelian wheat cropping, it must be carefully managed to ensure the area's agriculture is sustainable. 

To further maximize water use efficiency in the area, enhancing irrigation infrastructure and management techniques 

is indispensable [16]. This study was, therefore, designed to estimate the water consumption and productivity of 

irrigated wheat during the dry season in the Yobe basin. The goal was to identify the most effective irrigation strategy 

to optimize wheat yield and water productivity in the region. 

 

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS 

2.1. Location Description 

The research was conducted on the floodplains of the Yobe River in the Bursari Local Government Area (12.24 

– 13.00o N, 11.00 – 11.48oE) of Yobe State, Nigeria (Figure 1). It is located about 12 kilometers northeast of Gashua, 

Bade Local Government Area (LGA). The research site experiences three distinct seasons in a year: a hot and dry one 

from March to June, a wet one from July to September/October, and a cold and dry one from November to March. 

The area receives 350 to 400 mm of rain on average per year. During the harmattan season, the average temperature 

is about 20oC, while the average temperature ranges from < 20oC during the harmattan season to about 44oC in the 

hot, dry months. The soils of the study area were mostly dominated by sandy loam texture alfisols. However, sandy 

clay and clay loam also exist in the riverine alluvial deposits in the area. The area is characterized by Sahel savanna 

sparse vegetation. During the dry seasons, the area's farmers primarily grow vegetables, rice, wheat, and maize. The 

main source of water for irrigation in the area is the Yobe River, with some over-flooded retention ponds and tube 

wells dug on the floodplain of the river. 

 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 11(2): 39-47 

 

 
41 

© 2024 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 
Figure 1. The research area location map (Bursari local government area (LGA)). 

 

The main source of water for irrigation in the area is the Yobe River, with some over-flooded retention ponds 

and tube wells dug on the floodplain of the river. The irrigation method used was surface irrigation by using Polyvinyl 

chloride (PVC) pipe networks to supply water to the check basins formed on the farm. 

 

2.2. Meteorological Data 

Climatic data for the area were obtained from the meteorological station located inside the Federal University, 

Gashua. The data collected include precipitation, air temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, and sunshine hours 

(Table 1). The data was used in the determination of potential and actual evapotranspiration using Cropwat model 

8.4. 

 

Table 1. Meteorological data of Gashua, Yobe State (2013 – 2023). 

Month 
Rain 
mm 

Min. 
temp °C 

Max. 
temp °C 

Humidity 
% 

Wind 
km/Day 

Sun 
hours 

Rad 
MJ/m²/Day 

ETo 
mm/Day 

January 0 12.6 31 22 69 7.7 18.1 3.6 
February 0 14.3 33.8 21 70 7.9 19.8 4.04 
March 0 18.8 40 20 72 6.8 19.5 4.65 
April 1 21.6 42.5 25 86 6.8 20 5.43 
May 6.4 24.1 41.6 43 130 8.1 21.8 6.4 
June 46.2 24 38.5 51 156 8 21.3 6.25 
July 131.5 22.5 34.7 64 190 7.1 20 5.52 
August 184.8 21.7 31.8 74 138 5.9 18.4 4.35 
September 74.3 21.8 32.3 71 70 7.9 21.2 4.47 
October 4.2 19.8 35.8 49 69 8.7 21.2 4.67 
November 0 16.5 35.1 27 78 8.9 20 4.4 
December 0 13.2 31.3 24 86 8.9 19.2 4.03 
Average 448.4 19.2 35.7 41 101 7.7 20 4.82 

Note: MJ = Megajoule 

 

2.3. Experimental Design and Treatments 

The experiment was laid out as a split plot design and replicated three (3) times, giving a total of 27 plots and 

the area of each plot is 2.4 x 3m. The two factors involved were: irrigation frequency and volume. The level of the 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 11(2): 39-47 

 

 
42 

© 2024 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

irrigation frequency included: irrigation every 7 days (I1), irrigation every 10 days (I2), and irrigation after every 14 

days (I3) arranged in the main plot while, the irrigation volume was; 100% of the crop water requirement (ETc) as 

(V1), 85% of ETc (V2) and 70% of ETc (V3) plots placed in the subplots. The levels of the factors were combined to 

form 9 treatments. 

 

2.4. Field Measurement Data 

The field data collected by the research farm include the plant height (cm), 1000 grain weights (g), straw weights 

(kg/ha), grain yields (kg/ha), harvest index (%), and applied irrigation water (m3) for each treatment. 

Harvest Index (HI): The ratio of grain (weight) to total above-ground biomass weight on a dry matter basis.  

HI = Grain weight/ grain weight + straw weight. 

 

2.5. Crop Water Productivity Estimation 

Productivity, as defined by the FAO, is the relationship between an input unit and output [7]: 

• The quantity or value of the product is the output (numerator). 

• The amount or value of water utilized or consumed (ET) is the input (denominator). 

Transpiration controls the amount of water that crops produce. However, because it is challenging to distinguish 

between transpiration and evaporation, evapotranspiration (ET) is employed to determine how much water is used 

[17]. 

Equation 1 was used to get the CWP for each treatment based on the harvested wheat yield [18].  

𝐶𝑊𝑃 =    
𝑌

10 × 𝐸𝑇𝑎,𝑠𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙
        (1) 

Where: CWP is the crop water productivity (kg/m3), Y is the wheat yield (kg/ha), and ETa (seasonal) is the total 

actual evapotranspiration throughout the growing season of the wheat. 

The irrigation water productivity (IWP) was calculated using the following equation [19]: 

𝐼𝑊𝑃 =  𝑌/𝐼   (2) 

Where: IWP is the irrigation water productivity (kg/m3), Y is the wheat yield (kg/ha), and I is the total irrigation 

amount throughout the growing season of the wheat. 

 

2.6. Cropwat Model 

A comprehensive set of irrigation levels and timings based on crop growth stage is offered by the CropWat 

model. When accurate input data is included, the observer can use the model's simulated output to estimate crop 

evapotranspiration. Version 8.0 of the CROPWAT model incorporates the updated Penman-Monteith approach, as 

stated in Equation 3 [20, 21]. 

 

ET˳ =
0.408∆(𝑅𝑛−G)+γ

900

𝑇+273
𝑢2  (𝑒𝑠− 𝑒𝑎

∆+ 𝛾(1+0.34𝑢2)
                 (3) 

Where: 

ETo reference evapotranspiration [mm day-1], 

Rn net radiation at the crop surface [MJ m-2 day-1], 

G soil heat flux density [MJ m-2 day-1], 

T mean daily air temperature at 2 m height [°C], 

U2 wind speed at 2 m height [m s-1], 

es saturation vapor pressure [kPa], 

ea actual vapor pressure [kPa], 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 11(2): 39-47 

 

 
43 

© 2024 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

es - ea saturation vapor pressure deficit [kPa], 

Δ slope vapor pressure curve [kPa °C-1], 

γ psychrometric constant [kPa °C-1].  

The reference evapotranspiration, ETo, provides a standard to which: 

• Evapotranspiration at different periods of the year or in other regions can be compared. 

• Evapotranspiration of other crops can be related. 

The crop coefficient (Kc) for winter wheat was determined based on [20]. The ETo obtained from the FAO 

Penman-Monteith method and the Kc were used to calculate the ETa depending on actual weather data as follows: 

𝐸𝑇𝑎  =  𝐸𝑇 ×  𝐾𝑐          (4) 

 

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 

Responses of straw and grain yield to irrigation regimes varied significantly (P < 0.05) as well as irrigation 

interval versus irrigation volume interaction (Table 2). Both straw and grain yields were higher (12741.69 and 

4255.68kg ha-1 respectively) under a 7-day irrigation interval and decreased with a decrease in irrigation frequency. 

Irrigation volume treatment had an effect also on both straw and grain yields, with 100 and 85% of the irrigation 

requirement producing higher yields significantly at par. Harvest index was higher with 7 days irrigation interval 

(33.87%) and 100% of ET (29.99%), but both were at par with 10 days interval and 85% of ET respectively, while the 

minimum was recorded with 14 days interval and 70% of ET (Table 2). 

 

Table 2. The main effect of irrigation regimes on straw and grain yield (kg/ha) and harvest index (%) of wheat. 

Irrigation regime Straw yield (kg/ha) Grain yield (kg/ha) Harvest index (%) 

Irrigation interval (I) 
I1 12741.69a 4255.68a 33.87a 
I2 10740.40b 3397.04b 32.14a 
I3 9823.45c 1570.46c 16.39b 
LSD 429.39 161.46 3.56 
Irrigation volume (V) 
V1 13083.74a 3338.41a 29.99a 
V2 11646.90a 3293.61a 27.51ab 
V3 8574.88b 2591.16b 24.89b 
LSD 1748.57 217.80 3.97 
I x V * * * 

Note: I1 = 7 days irrigation interval, I2 = 10 days irrigation interval, I3 = 14 days irrigation interval, V1 = 100% of ET, V2 = 85% 
of ET, V3 = 70% of ET. LSD = Least significant difference. a,b,c Within the column, mean values with the same letter are 
not significantly different, * = significant interaction. 

 

The interaction effect of irrigation interval and irrigation volume (I x V) on straw yield (Table 3) showed that 7 

days interval with full irrigation requirement (I1V1) significantly produced the highest yield (15439.32kg ha-1) while 

the least was recorded under 14 days interval and 70% of ET (I3V3). Grain yield was significantly higher (4749.51kg 

ha-1) with the interaction of 7 days intervals with 85% of irrigation water requirement (I1V2), while the minimum 

(1435.72kg ha-1) was recorded under 14-day irrigation interval and 70% of ET (I3V3). It could be related to water 

stress which adversely impacts many physiology of plants leading to a reduction in growth, development, and 

productivity [22].  

To match the crop's water requirements with its maximum production, the ideal irrigation scenario must be 

modified (i.e. wheat grain yield). It is crucial to stress that the best yield was not always obtained with the full 

irrigation requirement treatment (V1). This demonstrates the beneficial and negative effects of varying irrigation 

volumes and frequencies on wheat grain yield. In a similar vein, the harvest index was comparable to that of I1V3 but 

much greater with I1V2 and I2V1 (Table 3). This indicated that both irrigation frequency and volume are important 

in determining the best irrigation scenario for dry-season wheat in North Yobe State. 

 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 11(2): 39-47 

 

 
44 

© 2024 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Table 3. Interaction effect of irrigation intervals and volume on wheat yield parameters. 

Treatments Straw yield (kg/ha) Grain yield (kg/ha) Harvest index (%) 

I1V1 15439.32a 4571.23a 29.68b 
I1V2 13201.84b 4749.51a 35.98a 
I1V3 9583.92e 3446.30c 35.97a 
I2V1 12489.53b 3800.94b 30.40b 
I2V2 11358.15c 3498.73c 30.81b 
I2V3 8373.51f 2891.46d 35.20a 
I3V1 11322.37c 1643.07e 14.60d 
I3V2 10380.72d 1632.58e 15.75cd 
I3V3 7767.22f 1435.72e 18.83c 
LSD 743.72 279.66 3.56 

Note: I1 = 7 days irrigation interval, I2 = 10 days irrigation interval, I3 = 14 days irrigation interval, V1 = 100% of ET, V2 = 
85% of ET, V3 = 70% of ET. a, b, c, d, e, f Within the column, mean values with the same letter are not significantly different. 

 

The crop water requirements (ETc) according to treatments' main effect differed significantly as 7 days of 

irrigation would require more water than 10 and 14-day intervals (Table 4). Regarding crop water use efficiency 

(CWUE), results revealed that it was higher with I1 and decreased with reduced frequency of irrigation, while 

irrigation volume showed no significant differences between the 100 and 85% ETc watering regimes. The amount of 

water used was higher in I1 and V1 as in ETc because of the frequency and high volume respectively. Crop water 

productivity was higher in I1 and V1 also, this could be attributed to high frequency and maximum ET replacement 

as similarly reported by Ahmed, et al. [23]. 

 

Table 4. The main effect of irrigation regimes on crop water use efficiency and productivity of wheat. 

Irrigation regime ETc (mm) 
CWUE  

(mm-kg/ha) 
Water used 

(m3) 
CWP 

(m3/kg/ha) 

Irrigation interval (I) 
I1 623.24a 6.57a 6505.17a 0.66a 
I2 529.76b 5.25b 4553.62b 0.52b 
I3 436.27c 2.45c 3252.58c 0.25c 
SE 63.59 0.24 1623.45 0.02 
Irrigation volume (V) 
V1 735.40a 5.06a 7658.01a 0.51a 
V2 623.13b 4.84a 6502.50b 0.34a 
V3 511.20c 4.36b 5355.00c 0.31b 
SE 97.44 0.31 2113.08 0.03 
I x V * * * * 

Note: I1 = 7 days irrigation interval, I2 = 10 days irrigation interval, I3 = 14 days irrigation interval, V1 = 100% of ET, 
V2 = 85% of ET, V3 = 70% of ET. a, b, c Within the column, mean values with the same letter are not significantly 
different, * = significant interaction. 

 

Table 5 presents the results of the interaction effect of irrigation intervals and volume on wheat water use 

efficiency, water use, and productivity. The I1V1 treatment had the highest ETc (735.40 mm), which suggests that it 

uses the most water because it is irrigated frequently and replaces all of the ET. This is consistent with findings by 

Islam, et al. [24] who reported higher ETc with more frequent and full irrigation. The treatment I3V3 had the lowest 

ETc (357.84 mm), indicating the least amount of water used with fewer irrigation frequencies and the least amount 

of ET replacement.  

The highest CWUE (7.31 mm-kg/ha) was found in I1V2, suggesting that the most effective way to utilize water 

for higher yields is to combine frequent irrigation with 85% ET replacement. This is consistent with the findings of 

Zhang, et al. [25] who reported the benefit of regulated deficit irrigation in enhancing crop water use efficiency of 

wheat. The treatment combinations (I3V1) had the lowest CWUE (2.15 mm-kg/ha), indicating inefficient water usage 

under infrequent irrigation and complete ET replacement treatments (Table 5).  



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 11(2): 39-47 

 

 
45 

© 2024 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

The largest water use was found in I1V1 treatment (7658.00 m3), which could be due to the highest ETc and 

frequent irrigation applied. According to Mallareddy, et al. [26] frequent irrigation with full ET replacement leads 

to higher total water usage. While, I3V3 (2677.50 m³) had the least amount of water used, which corresponds to the 

lowest ETc and the least amount of irrigation (Table 5).  Reduced irrigation water volume and multiple irrigations 

(I1V2) improved soil water storage (SWS) uptake and utilization reduced total water use and resulted in significantly 

higher irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE) [27]. I1V2 had the highest CWP (0.51 m³/kg/ha), which suggests that 

it has the best water productivity when it is irrigated often with 85% ET replacement. Moderate water deficits 

maintained higher yields and significantly improved HI and Moderate water stress maximizes CWP which ensures 

healthy crop growth [28]. The lowest CWP (0.15 m³/kg/ha) was found in I3V1, indicating low water productivity 

with less frequent irrigation and complete ET replacement (Table 5).  

 

Table 5. Interaction effect of irrigation intervals and volume on wheat water use efficiency and productivity. 

Treatments ETc (mm) 
CWUE  

(mm-kg/ha) Water used (m3) 
CWP  

(m3/kg/ha) 

I1V1 735.40a 5.97c 7658.00a 0.42c 
I1V2 623.13c 7.31a 6502.50b 0.51a 
I1V3 511.20f 6.44b 5355.00d 0.45b 
I2V1 625.09b 4.96e 5360.60c 0.35e 
I2V2 529.66d 5.38d 4552.75e 0.37de 
I2V3 434.52h 5.40d 3748.50g 0.38d 
I3V1 514.78e 2.15g 3829.00f 0.15g 
I3V2 436.19g 2.51fg 3251.25h 0.18fg 
I3V3 357.84i 2.68f 2677.50i 0.19f 
LSD 11.04 0.41 281.19 0.04 

Note: I1 = 7 days irrigation interval, I2 = 10 days irrigation interval, I3 = 14 days irrigation interval, V1 = 100% of ET, V2 = 85% of ET, 
V3 = 70% of ET. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i Within the column, mean values with the same letter are not significantly different. 

 

4. CONCLUSION 

The study showed that 7-day irrigation intervals had the highest yield compared to 10 and 14-day irrigation 

intervals, while the yield under irrigation depth (volume of water applied) was higher with 100% and 85% irrigation 

replenishment of the wheat crop's water requirements. As the amount of irrigation water applied grew, so did the 

overall amount of water utilized in the various irrigation scenarios. Rather than depending solely on strict watering 

intervals, the irrigation schedule should be adjusted to the crop's water requirements. It is advised to be aware of the 

irrigation needs throughout growth phases to guarantee an adequate supply of irrigation water at certain times, such 

as flowering, and prevent severe stress. 

 
Funding: This research is supported by the Multi-Sectoral Recovery Programme of the North East 
Development Commission of Nigeria, under the agricultural value chain research projects supported by the 
World Bank (Grant number: NEDC/MCRP/RESEARCH/FUG/AGRIC/12). 
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. 
Transparency: The authors state that the manuscript is honest, truthful, and transparent, that no key aspects 
of the investigation have been omitted, and that any differences from the study as planned have been clarified. 
This study followed all writing ethics. 
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. 
Authors’ Contributions: Conceived and designed the study, I.A.; laid out the experiment on the field, A.I.J.; 
collected and analyzed data, J.I.D.; proofread the manuscript and made corrections, A.M. All authors have read 
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. 

 

REFERENCES 

[1] J. Xu et al., "Exploring optimal irrigation and nitrogen fertilization in a winter wheat-summer maize rotation system for 

improving crop yield and reducing water and nitrogen leaching," Agricultural Water Management, vol. 228, p. 105904, 

2020.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2019.105904 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2019.105904


Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 11(2): 39-47 

 

 
46 

© 2024 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

[2] P. Döll and S. Siebert, "Global modeling of irrigation water requirements," Water Resources Research, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 8-

1-8-10, 2002.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2001wr000355 

[3] F. W. Schwartz, G. Liu, and Z. Yu, "HESS opinions: The myth of groundwater sustainability in Asia," Hydrology and 

Earth System Sciences, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 489-500, 2020.  https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-489-2020 

[4] M. Jabeen, S. R. Ahmed, and M. Ahmed, "Enhancing water use efficiency and grain yield of wheat by optimizing 

irrigation supply in arid and semi-arid regions of Pakistan," Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 878-

885, 2022.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2021.10.018 

[5] A. Ertek and H. Yilmaz, "The agricultural perspective on water conservation in Turkey," Agricultural Water Management, 

vol. 143, pp. 151-158, 2014.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2014.07.009 

[6] M. Bos, M. Burton, and D. Molden, Irrigation and drainage performance assessment: Practical guidelines, Oxfordshire, UK: 

CABI Publishing, 2005.  

[7] FAO, The state of food insecurity in the world. When people must live with hunger and fear of starvation. Rome: FAO, 2003. 

[8] S. Yeşilköy and L. Şaylan, "Assessment and modeling of crop yield and water footprint of winter wheat by aquacrop," 

Italian Journal of Agro-Meteorology, vol. 3, pp. 3-14, 2020.  

[9] M. H. Sheta and M. H. Fayed, "Productivity and water use efficiency of summer squash crop under two methods of 

irrigation water application," Egyptian Journal of Soil Science, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2021.  

https://doi.org/10.21608/EJSS.2020.48343.1404 

[10] A. K. Biswas, "Integrated water resources management: Is it working? " International Journal of Water Resources 

Development, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 5-22, 2008.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07900620701871718 

[11] L. G. Raeisi, S. Morid, M. Delavar, and R. Srinivasan, "Effect and side-effect assessment of different agricultural water 

saving measures in an integrated framework," Agricultural Water Management, vol. 223, p. 105685, 2019.  

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2019.105685 

[12] M. Samimi et al., "Adapting irrigated agriculture in the Middle Rio Grande to a warm-dry future," Journal of Hydrology: 

Regional Studies, vol. 45, p. 101307, 2023.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2022.101307 

[13] T. Du, S. Kang, J. Zhang, and W. J. Davies, "Deficit irrigation and sustainable water-resource strategies in agriculture 

for China’s food security," Journal of Experimental Botany, vol. 66, no. 8, pp. 2253-2269, 2015.  

https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erv034 

[14] FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, and WHO, The state of food security and nutrition in the world: Safeguarding against economic 

and slowdowns and downturns. Rome: The State of the Word Series 2019. 

[15] W. Zhang, M. Brandt, F. Guichard, Q. Tian, and R. Fensholt, "Using long-term daily satellite-based rainfall data (1983–

2015) to analyze spatiotemporal changes in the Sahelian rainfall regime," Journal of Hydrology, vol. 550, pp. 427-440, 

2017.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.05.033 

[16] B. E. Bravo-Ureta, D. Higgins, and A. Arslan, "Irrigation infrastructure and farm productivity in the Philippines: A 

stochastic meta-frontier analysis," World Development, vol. 135, p. 105073, 2020.  

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105073 

[17] M. Salman, E. Pek, E. Fereres, and M. Garcia-Vila, Field guide to improving crop water productivity in small-scale agriculture. 

Rome: FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca8443en, 2020. 

[18] K. G. B. Turk and M. A. Alsanad, "Estimation of water consumption and productivity for wheat using remote sensing 

and SEBAL model: A case study from central clay plain Ecosystem in Sudan," Open Agriculture, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 20220230, 

2023.  https://doi.org/10.1515/opag-2022-0230 

[19] O. Çetin and A. Kara, "Assessment of water productivity using different drip irrigation systems for cotton," Agricultural 

Water Management, vol. 223, p. 105693, 2019.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2019.105693 

[20] R. G. Allen, L. S. Pereira, D. Raes, and M. Smith, "Guidelines for computing crop water requirements," Rome: FAO 

Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 56, 1998. 

https://doi.org/10.1029/2001wr000355
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-489-2020
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2021.10.018
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2014.07.009
https://doi.org/10.21608/EJSS.2020.48343.1404
https://doi.org/10.1080/07900620701871718
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2019.105685
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2022.101307
https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erv034
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.05.033
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105073
https://doi.org/10.4060/ca8443en
https://doi.org/10.1515/opag-2022-0230
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2019.105693


Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 11(2): 39-47 

 

 
47 

© 2024 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

[21] S. H. Dahri, M. A. Mangrio, I. A. Shaikh, Z. H. Dahri, J. H. Jakhrani, and T. A. Syed, "Actual and predicted 

evapotranspiration along with groundwater contribution for wheat (Triticum aestivum) crop. AgricEngInt," Agricultural 

Engineering International: CIGR Journal, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 65-75, 2021.  

[22] I. S. El idrisi, R. Kattani, M. Farrahi, A. Nabloussi, R. Ziri, and N. Brhadda, "Water stress effect on durum wheat 

(Triticum durum Desf.) advanced lines at flowering stage under controlled conditions," Journal of Agriculture and Food 

Research, vol. 14, p. 100696, 2023.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2023.100696 

[23] S. Ahmed et al., "Effect of different irrigation water regimes on water productivity of wheat crop," Pure and Applied 

Biology (PAB), vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 1479-1489, 2023.  

[24] S. Islam, M. Haque, M. Hasan, A. Khan, and U. Shanta, "Effect of different irrigation levels on the performance of wheat," 

Progressive Agriculture, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 99-106, 2018.  https://doi.org/10.3329/pa.v29i2.38293 

[25] X. Zhang, J. Zhang, J. Xue, and G. Wang, "Improving wheat yield and water use efficiency by optimizing irrigations in 

Northern China," Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 13, p. 10503, 2023.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310503 

[26] M. Mallareddy et al., "Maximizing water use efficiency in rice farming: A comprehensive review of innovative irrigation 

management technologies," Water, vol. 15, no. 10, p. 1802, 2023.  https://doi.org/10.3390/w15101802 

[27] Z. Cui et al., "Agronomic cultivation measures on productivity of oilseed flax: A review," Oil Crop Science, vol. 7, no. 1, 

pp. 53-62, 2022.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocsci.2022.02.006 

[28] F. Jiao et al., "Multi-growth stage regulated deficit irrigation improves maize water productivity in an arid region of 

China," Agricultural Water Management, vol. 297, p. 108827, 2024.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2024.108827 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), Current Research in Agricultural Sciences shall not be responsible or 
answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. 

 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2023.100696
https://doi.org/10.3329/pa.v29i2.38293
https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310503
https://doi.org/10.3390/w15101802
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocsci.2022.02.006
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2024.108827

