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