Artigos Palestra - Marcos Eric

Agricultural Water Management 108 (2012) 3951
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Agricultural Water Management
j our nal home page: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ agwat
Improved indicators of water use performance and productivity for sustainable
water conservation and saving
Luis S. Pereira
a,
, Ian Cordery
b
, Iacovos Iacovides
c
a
CEER Biosystems Engineering, Institute of Agronomy, Technical University of Lisbon, Tapada da Ajuda, Portugal
b
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
c
I.A.CO Ltd., Environmental and Water Consultants, Nicosia, Cyprus
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Keywords:
Benecial water use
Water wastages and losses
Water productivity
Economic water productivity
Water conservation
Water saving
Efcient water use
a b s t r a c t
Water use concepts and performance descriptors that may be useful in dening conservation and saving
of water are discussed with the aim of improving the overall performance and productivity of water use.
Newindicators are proposed which include consideration of water reuse and aim to assist in identifying
and providing clear distinctions between benecial and non-benecial water uses. An analysis of produc-
tivity concepts useful both in irrigation and elsewhere is provided together with suggestions for where
commonly used terms, such as the broadly used water use efciency among others, would be better
avoided in irrigation engineering and given much more narrowly dened meanings in agronomy and
biological sciences. Particular attention is given to economic issues in water productivity. The analysis is
completed with various case study applications at irrigation farm and system scales. It is recommended
that a set of terms (not necessarily those developed here) be widely adopted that will provide a basis for
easy, certain communication and provide widespread common understanding of the issues which must
be faced to develop approaches to achieve efcient water use.
2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
For millennia, civilizations developed in water scarce envi-
ronments, however where scarcity was less stringent than that
we know today. The respective cultural skills, particularly with
respect to water use are an essential heritage of those nations
and peoples, and of humanity generally. However, progress in the
XXth century questioned traditional know-how, which has often
been replaced by modern technologies and management imported
from different environments and cultures. A culture of economis-
ing water is following the technical one, which was introduced
when large irrigation schemes were built and water scarcity was
not yet a challenge. Both technologies and management were
generally imported from different cultural and institutional envi-
ronments, and their adaptation to local conditions has not always
been successfully adopted or accepted by farmers. Management
therefore faces difcult challenges arising from the fact that irri-
gators perceive problems, practices and objectives different from
those perceived by the non-farmer water and nancial managers.
Despite its great importance, a discussion on differences of per-
ception of water management and efciency objectives between
Corresponding author. Tel.: +351 213653480; fax: +351 213653287.

E-mail address: lspereira@isa.utl.pt (L.S. Pereira).
farmers and policy- and decision-makers is out of the scope of
this paper. For example, an analysis of UK farmers perception of
irrigation efciency is addressed in this issue (Knox et al., 2011).
The last century has knownanincreasedinterventionof govern-
mental and state institutions in water management following the
enormous investments made. Traditional institutions lost impor-
tance and new centralized institutions were created to manage
and operate the introduced investments and technologies. Even
though in many places there is already 100% commitment of water
resources there remains ongoing increasing demand. As a result of
lack of success of existing institutional arrangements a number of
variations of participatory irrigation management are now being
considered to solve the resulting problems. Related challenges and
successful issues for Asian irrigation communities are analysed in
Shivakoti et al. (2005). Self-governing irrigation systems are advo-
cated by many authors. The classical analysis on this subject by
the 2009 Nobel Prize winner deserves attention (Ostrom, 1992).
A reconsideration of traditional irrigation practices is starting and
a new appreciation of the advantages of traditional know-how
is beginning to appear. However, pressures on irrigating farmers
are continuing to require them to increase irrigation efciency,
achieve higher water productivity and use less water. Yet there is
often a lack of assistance for themto develop and adopt improved
approaches and techniques appropriate to these changing farming
objectives, however keeping farmers objectives of nancial and
0378-3774/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2011.08.022
40 L.S. Pereira et al. / Agricultural Water Management 108 (2012) 3951
social nature. In addition, perceptions of an urban society that very
highly prioritises environmental preservationfor future water allo-
cation are also challenging farmers attitudes and requiring new
approaches.
A new communication model has to be developed that could
lead to a better understanding of water use in agriculture and
demonstrate why performance improvement must occur within
the context of the needs of the societies and the objectives of farm-
ing (Clemmens and Molden, 2007; Perry, 2007; Lankford, in this
issue). Newapproaches are requiredtoproperly dene andaccount
for eachitemof water useandproductivitywithwater conservation
andsavingbeingtheprimarydrivers toachievehigher performance
(Foster andPerry, 2010; Moldenet al., 2010). Fromthis perspective,
the performance concepts need to be differently dened, under-
stood and applied. In other words, we need a new model in terms
of conceptualization of water use performance that can be under-
stoodby users, managers anddecision-makers alike. This improved
conceptualization can then provide a common framework around
which actual water use (hopefully monitored water use debate
over words is not very useful if the actual volumes involvedare only
approximate) canbecomesustainablefor largeandsmall farmers or
other users, in all climates and in societies with different degrees of
development, utilising a wide range of technologies (see for exam-
ple Rockstrm et al., 2010, calling for a paradigm shift to water
management in rainfed agriculture).
The terms water conservation and water saving are generally
associatedwiththe management of water resources under scarcity.
However, these terms are often used with different meanings
within specic scientic and technical disciplines or in the water
user sector considered. Often, both terms are used synonymously.
The term water conservation is used herein to refer to every
policy, managerial measure, or user practice that aims to conserve
or preserve the water resource, as well as to combat the degra-
dation of the water resource, including its quality. Differently, the
termwater saving describes the avoidance of loss of water by lim-
iting or controlling water demand and use for any specic purpose
(cf. diversion and depletion savings proposed by Haie and Keller,
2008), including the avoidance of wastes and the misuse of water.
In practice these terms or perspectives are complementary and
inter-related. Water conservationplays a major role inrainfedagri-
culture and when irrigation is supplemental of rainfall (Unger and
Howell, 1999; Oweis and Hachum, 2003, 2006; Rockstrm et al.,
2010) but it is essential in all water use systems, often as a means to
achieve water saving (Pereira et al., 2009). Water conservation can
play a major role in agricultural and landscape irrigation consid-
ering that predictions for climate change indicate a concentration
of rainfall and an increase of its intensity. A coupling of soil and
water conservation is then essential to increase water inltration
and storage in the soil prole as well as to control soil evapo-
ration. Water conservation increases the amount of consumptive
use by crops and natural vegetation, sometimes called the green
water fraction, andassists inpreserving the quality of ows that are
oftencalledthe blue water, the general goodquality environmental
water (Falkenmark and Lannerstad, 2005). Water savings usually
refer to the blue water fraction. Despite it often not being easy
to distinguish between conservation and saving, these terms
should not be used synonymously. For example questions rela-
tive to preservation and upgrading of water quality are essential
in water conservation but are rarely relevant to the usual ideas
of water saving. A comprehensive analysis on water conservation
and saving for a variety of agricultural and non-agricultural uses is
presented by Pereira et al. (2009).
It is arguably a moderntragedy that considerable volumes of the
scarceresourcecanandarebeinglost or wastedduetolackof clarity
of terms usedandmiscommunicationbetweenthose involved. This
is analysed in most papers in this issue, with the various authors
adopting a variety of approaches. Yet communication must also
apply to specic elds or scales: our main focus in this paper is
water use at the farmscale, or a group of users served by the same
system, not basinplanning or water allocation. Therefore the aimof
this paper is twofold: (1) to demonstrate the confusion of the terms
used both between and within disciplines and groups of users, and
the resulting potential for poor use of water, and (2) to suggest
alternative terms that could gain wide acceptance and common
usage. Some case study applications are used to illustrate the use
of these terms and ideas.
2. Water use, consumptive use, water losses, and
performance
2.1. Water systems, efciency, and water use performance
The performance of water supply systems and water use activi-
ties are often expressed with terms relative to efciency. However,
there are no widely accepted denitions, and the efciency terms
are used with different meanings, mainly relative to the various
water use sectors. In certain cases, both water conservation and
water saving are used as synonymous with water use efciency
(e.g., Gardu no and Arregun-Corts, 1994). For a better understand-
ing of terminology utilized in relation to water use performance, a
more consistent conceptual approach is required.
The termefciency is oftenusedinthe case of irrigationsystems
and it is commonly applied to each irrigation sub-system: storage,
conveyance, off- and on-farmdistribution, and on-farmapplication
sub-systems (Bos and Nugteren, 1982; Wolters, 1992). It can be
dened by an output to input ratio, between the water depth ben-
ecially used by the sub-systemunder consideration and the total
water depth supplied to that sub-system, usually being expressed
in percentage terms. In case of on-farm application efciency, the
numerator is replaced by the amount of water added to the root
zone storage and the denominator is the total water applied to that
eld. However, we argue that an efciency indicator refers to a
single event and should not be applied to a full irrigation season
without adopting an appropriate up-scaling approach. These indi-
cators relate to individual processes and their use as a bulk term
does not provide sufcient information on the processes involved.
A schematic of processes involved in irrigation water use is given
in Fig. 1. For non-irrigation water systems, the term efciency is
Crop
transpiration
Soil
evaporation
Seepage +
runoff
Conveyance +
distribution
Application to
cropped field
Deep percolation
+ runoff
Direct evaporation
+ non-crop ET
YIELD
Reuse
Classical transport &
distribution efficiency
Classical application
efficiency
Water diversion
Agriculture
Effective rain
Reuse
Fig. 1. Processes inuencing irrigation efciency off- and on-farm: grey boxes are
the processes leading to the crop yield; white boxes are those leading to water
wastes and losses.
L.S. Pereira et al. / Agricultural Water Management 108 (2012) 3951 41
less used but could be similarly applied referring to the various
processes involved.
A good set of efciency terms was developed in the 70s (Bos,
1979; Bos andNugteren, 1982), whichbecame the object of numer-
ous discussions, applications and publications (e.g., Wolters, 1992;
Bos, 1997). Later, theefciencyterms denedinthoseclassical pub-
lications were considered less satisfactory, particularly relative to
conveyance and distribution systems; hence, different irrigation
system performance indicators were searched and progressively
adopted (e.g., Molden and Gates, 1990; Murray-Rust and Snellen,
1993; Lamaddalena and Sagardoy, 2000; Bos et al., 2005; Molden
et al., 2007). These changes in terminology were progressively
adopted, with abandonment of the term efciency including to
describe farmirrigation processes (Bos et al., 2005).
The term efciency often leads to misconceptions and misun-
derstandings (e.g., Jensen, 1996, 2007; Allen et al., 1997; Burt et al.,
1997; Molden, 1997; Pereira, 1999; Perry, 1999, 2007; Pereira et al.,
2002). Willardson et al. (1994) were the rst to propose water
use fractions as indicators and abandonment of efciency terms.
Keller et al. (1996) proposed the term effective efciency to take
into consideration the reuse fraction of the applied water. Haie and
Keller (2008) further analyse the usefulness of effective efciency.
Solomon and Burt (1999) adopted the term irrigation sagacity
to consider the irrigation water used benecially or reasonably.
Lankford (2006) introduced the term attainable efciency for a
descriptor expressing the ratio between an irrigation dose when a
farmer cares for the limited resource available and a dose that is
applied less carefully (or in excess). All these approaches identify
and qualify the insufcient information provided by the word ef-
ciency. However, terms relativetoapplicationefciencytomeasure
the performance of irrigation events at farm scale are somewhat
consensual (Heermann and Solomon, 2007).
A common misconception is that of considering that increas-
ing irrigation efciency is almost synonymous with creating more
available water. In fact, increasing water availability requires the
consideration of time and space scales of interventions, as well as
other variables controlling the hydrologic processes. Earlier dis-
cussions on this subject include those by Seckler (1996), Keller
et al. (1996) and Molden (1997). For the basin level, new concepts
and terminology, on basin water accounting, were then introduced
(Molden, 1997). Good reviews on this subject are presented in
the book edited by Kijne et al. (2003), mainly that by Seckler
et al. (2003). A good application and discussion is presented by
Bluemling et al. (2007), whonot only advancedideas aroundadopt-
ing new water use indicators but related these ideas to water
productivity. The available literature shows that there is the need
to quantify the fractionof water used(divertedfor a givenuse), that
is benecially consumed, andthe fractionthat is not consumptively
used and is available for reuse or becomes degraded after use. For
the later case, improving efciencies would represent a reduction
in water losses and contribute to the conservation of the available
resource. In many cases, however, the non-consumed fraction is
not degraded and is used by other systems downstream so that
improving efciencies would not necessarily be advantageous to
the total system.
The present trendis to abandonthe termefciency for irrigation
water conveyance and distribution and to adopt service perfor-
mance indicators (Willardson et al., 1994; Burt and Styles, 2000;
Bos et al., 2005; Merriamet al., 2007). In fact, it is recognized that
impacts on agricultural yields, farmers incomes, and farm water
management largely result from the quality of the water deliv-
ery service (Clemmens, 2006; Calejo et al., 2008; Zaccaria et al.,
2010). Indicators referring to the reliability, dependability, ade-
quacy, or equity of deliveries may be used for that purpose (e.g.,
Hashimoto et al., 1982; Molden and Gates, 1990; Lamaddalena
and Sagardoy, 2000; Pereira et al., 2003; Lamaddalena and Pereira,
2007). These and other indicators are measures of the capability of
collective water systems for timely water delivery with appropri-
ate discharges, pressure head, time intervals and duration to satisfy
the farmrequirements throughout the irrigation season and inde-
pendently of the location of the gate or hydrant. It is well known
to farmers in some systems (e.g., warabandi in the Indian sub-
continent, Zardari and Cordery, 2009) that poor maintenance and
disinterest among delivery system operators can devastate farm
operations and ensure much of the delivered water is wasted, since
lack of water for weeks at crucial parts of growing cycles means
the death of the crop, and all subsequently delivered water pro-
duces verylittle or nothing. Similar water service indicators are also
used for other non-irrigation networks. All irrigation systems need
active, real time monitoring, with actual measurement of ows at
a fewkey points to provide feedback on the directions and rates of
owat any time.
The term application efciency is still used to characterize the
management relative to a given event; meanwhile, Bos et al. (2005)
already proposed its replacement by the term water application
ratio. However, by themselves, neither of these terms is very mean-
ingful. They need to be complemented by an indicator of the
uniformity of water distribution within the eld, such as the distri-
bution uniformity or the uniformity coefcient (Burt et al., 1997;
Pereira, 1999; Heermann and Solomon, 2007). In fact, if a system
does not provide uniform water application, efciency is neces-
sarily low and percolation through the bottom of the root zone is
high.
Another term commonly used is water use efciency (WUE),
but again no common denition has been adopted (Steduto, 1996;
Pereira et al., 2002; Hsiao et al., 2007; Perry, 2007). Some authors
refer to it as a non-dimensional output/input ratio as for the single
term efciency noted above, e.g., as used by Seckler (1996) when
discussing issues onwater use, particularly inrelationto water sav-
ingandthebasinscale. Others adopt it toexpress theproductivityof
the water, as a yield to water used ratio (e.g., Shideed et al., 2005).
In crop production, the term WUE may be applied with precise
meanings, such as the yield or biomass WUE, which is the ratio of
the harvested biomass to the water consumed to achieve that yield,
i.e., the season plant transpiration (e.g., Katerji et al., 2008). In plant
physiology and eco-physiology the photosynthetic WUE expresses
the ratio between assimilates or biomass produced during a cer-
tain period of time and the corresponding plant transpiration. WUE
therefore expresses the performance of a given plant or variety
in using water (Steduto, 1996). Various scales may be considered,
fromthe leaf to the plant or the crop, and fromthe day to a growth
period or the crop season as discussed by Steduto et al. (2007).
Meanwhile, these authors abandoned the termWUE and replaced
it by water productivity (WP) due to the misunderstandings behind
the term efciency, thus creating other misunderstandings with
the term WP because they proposed to use the term WP down to
the scale of the leaf (photosynthetic WP), which is typical of plants
physiology, not irrigation engineering. Nevertheless, this approach
was also adopted by Perry et al. (2009). In another paper, the same
authors (Hsiao et al., 2007) adopted the term WUE with the same
meaning of the classical termirrigation efciency, thus not recog-
nizing the many efforts to clarify water use communication and
water accounting, but contributing to the confusion on the use of
related terminology and concepts as analysed above.
To avoid misunderstandings, the term water use efciency
should only be used to measure the water performance of plants
and crops, irrigated or non-irrigated, to produce assimilates,
biomass and/or harvestable yield. The term water productivity
(WP) should be adopted to express the quantity of product or ser-
vice produced by a given amount of water used, i.e., consumptive
and non-consumptive uses, both in irrigation and non-irrigation
water uses, in contrast to the proposal by Perry et al. (2009) who
NON-
CONSUMED
FRACTION
-
Degraded
Quality
Preserved
Quality
Beneficial Beneficial
WATER DIVERTED
FOR ANY USE
CONSUMED
FRACTION
- NON-
REUSABLE
-
Beneficial Beneficial
REUSABLE
Beneficial
Non-beneficial
Beneficial
Non-beneficial
Non-consumptive
process use
Non-beneficial, waste
(available for reuse)
Non-beneficial
(non-reusable)
LOSSES
Fig. 2. Water use, consumptive and non-consumptive use, benecial and non-
benecial uses, water wastes and losses.
adopted WP with physiological meanings such as photosynthetic
and biomass WP, which are far fromwater uses in irrigation, indus-
try or elsewhere. Hence, WP should be used with more precision
with identication of the scales to which it refers, as discussed later
in this paper relative to irrigation and non-irrigation water use.
2.2. Water use, consumption, wastes and losses
New concepts to clearly distinguish between consumptive and
non-consumptive uses, and benecial and non-benecial uses are
being developed. Similarly the differences between reusable and
non-reusable fractions of the non-consumed water diverted into
an irrigation system or subsystem are being claried (Willardson
et al., 1994; Allen et al., 1997; Pereira et al., 2002; Perry et al., 2009).
Along this line, aimed at promoting sustainable groundwater use
in irrigation, Foster and Perry (2010) also proposed a set of water
use fractions. These descriptors consist of alternative performance
indicators that are much more relevant than irrigation efciency
when adopted in regional water management for the formulation
of water conservation and water saving policies and measures. An
expected advantage of these indicators is that irrigating farmers
understandthembetter thanefciencies. Moreover, these concepts
and indicators are applicable to irrigation and non-irrigation water
uses.
When water is diverted for any use only a fraction is consump-
tive use. The non-consumed fraction is returned after use with its
quality preserved or degraded. Quality is preserved when the pri-
mary use does not degrade its quality to a level that does not allow
reuse, or when water is treated after that primary use, or when
water is not added to poor quality, saline water bodies. Otherwise,
water quality is considered degraded and water is not reusable
(Fig. 2). Alternatively, the terms recoverable and non-recoverable
are adopted by Perry et al. (2009).
Both consumed and non-consumed fractions concern benecial
and non-benecial water uses. These are benecial when they are
fully oriented to achieve the desirable yield, product, or service.
Alternatively, when that use is inappropriate or unnecessary, it is
called non-benecial. Reusable water fractions are not lost because
they return to the water cycle and may be reused later by the same
or by other users. They are not losses, but are wastes since they
correspond to water unnecessarily mobilized. Contrarily, the non-
benecial water consumed (perhaps evaporated) or returned to
poor quality, saline water bodies, or that contributes todegradation
of any water body, is effectively a water loss (Fig. 2).
Although a water use attempts to be purposeful, it is impor-
tant to recognize, from the water economy perspective, both the
WATER USE IN
AGRICULTURE AND
LANDSCAPE
Reservoir
System
Field
YIELD
Crop ET
Leaching
BWU
Seepage +
runoff
Non-crop ET
Evaporation
Percolation +
runoff
N-BWU
Fig. 3. Benecial and non-benecial water use (respectively BWU and N-BWU) in
crop and landscape irrigation.
benecial and non-benecial water uses (Fig. 3). This has also been
attempted by Solomon and Burt (1999) when they proposed the
termirrigation sagacity. In crop and landscape irrigation, the bene-
cial uses are those directly contributing to an agricultural product
or anagreeable garden, lawnor golf course where the desiredprod-
uct may be maintenance of certain characteristics in the biomass.
Non-benecial uses are those that result from excess irrigation,
poor management of the supply system, or from misuse of the
water.
These concepts may also be applied to the use of water in indus-
try, urban regions, energy production and other activities. Then
benecial uses include all the activities and processes leading to
achievement of some production or service which results in some
good or benet, such as drinking, cooking, washing, heating, cool-
ing, or generating energy. The uses are not benecial when water
is used in non-necessary processes, is misused or is used in excess
of the requirements for productivity (Fig. 4).
It is important to recognize that the approach referred to
above, which is based upon the water use fractions proposed by
Willardson et al. (1994) and Allen et al. (1997), as well as the
water accounting developed by Molden (1997), essentially aims at
assessingthepathways for improvingwater uses inagricultural and
WATER DIVERSION
FOR ANY USE
Reservoir
Conveyance
+ delivery
system
Process
application
PRODUCT
Process
water use
BWU
Seepage +
runoff
Evaporation
Non-process
water use
N-BWU
Reuse and
recycling
Fig. 4. Benecial and non-benecial water use (respectively BWU and N-BWU) in
agriculture, industry, urban processes, energy production and landscape develop-
ment, with reference to reuse or recycling.
non-agricultural processes. They apply tosingle users or togrouped
users practicing a common activity that leads to the same type of
product or service, e.g., a farm, a group of farmers within an irri-
gation sector, an industry or a urban sector. This papers approach
differs from the water accounting approach developed by IWMI
(Molden, 1997; Molden et al., 2003) where the water balance is
mainly focused on the (basin) water allocation and its assessment.
Assuming the concepts above, it is therefore important to recog-
nize what is meant by efcient water use. Tosupport this concept,
a few important ideas are developed in Fig. 5. First, it is necessary
to identify the water pathways in any water use, then to distin-
guish what is consumptive and non-consumptive water use, what
is a benecial or a non-benecial water use, and which fractions
are really losses or wastes; the latter can be recovered later by
some means and used for other uses. This requires that productive
and non-productive processes, i.e., those oriented to achieve the
water use goal, be recognized. Then, a water use is more efcient
when benecial water uses are maximized, water productivity is
increased, and water losses and wastes are minimized. However, it
does not mean that less water is consumed when making water use
more efcient because maximizing benecial water uses and water
and land productivities through the use of improved technologies
may give the opportunity for higher crop evapotranspiration with
reducedwater wastes andlosses (e.g., Ahmadet al., 2007). The term
efcient water use may therefore be thought of as a synonymous
with sustainable or rational water use.
3. Water use performance indicators
3.1. Consumptive use and benecial use
Assuming the concepts above, it is possible to dene water use
indicators adapted to any process or system involving water, for
irrigation or non-irrigation uses, and to ensure measures are put
in place to make more efcient use of the water, i.e., aimed at
improving performances from the perspective of water resources
conservation. These indicators may be useful for water resources
planning and management under scarcity. They may be combined
with process indicators, including those which relate to the qual-
ity of service of water systems. It needs to be emphasized that
it is necessary to actually measure water ows at various points
in the system so that real values can be attributed to the perfor-
mance and productivity of each part of the system. For example,
most urbanwater deliverysystems suffer largeleakagelosses (from
buried pipes) which remain undetected for years because insuf-
cient measurements are routinely made to allow the location of
major leaks to be determined.
The indicators refer to the three water use fractions (Fig. 2) and
to the respective benecial and non-benecial water use compo-
nents. These indicators can be characterized in equations such as
those showbelow:
(a) The consumptive use fraction (CF), consisting of the fraction of
diverted water which is evaporated, transpired or incorporated in
the product, or consumed in drinking and food, which is no longer
available after the end use:
CF =
E +ET
process
+ET
weeds
+IN
food
+IN
product
TWU
(1)
where the numerator refers to process evaporation (E) and evap-
otranspiration (ET) and incorporation in products (IN), and the
denominator is the total water use (TWU) or total water applied
or input. Subscripts identify the main sinks of water consumption.
The CF benecial and non-benecial components are:
BCF =
E
process
+ET
process
+IN
food
+IN
product
TWU
(2)
and
N-BCF =
E
non-process
+ET
weeds
TWU
(3)
(b) The reusable fraction (RF), consisting of the fraction of
diverted water which is not consumed when used for a given pro-
ductionprocess or service but that returns withappropriate quality
to non-degraded surface waters or ground-water and, therefore,
can be used again.
RF =
(Seep +Perc +Run)
non-degraded
+(Ret ow+Ef)
treated
TWU
(4)
where the numerator consists of non-consumptive use processes
seepage (Seep), deep percolation (Perc) and runoff (Run) that did
not degrade the water quality, thus allowing further uses, including
when the return ows (Ret ow) and efuents (Ef) are treated to
avoid degradation of water bodies where efuents are disposed.
The RF components are the benecial and non-benecial reusable
fractions. The benecial reusable fraction (BRF) is:
BRF =
(LF +Runoff
process
)
non-degraded
+Ef
treated
TWU
(5)
whichincludes water usedfor salt leaching (LF), runoff necessary to
the processes such as tail end runoff in open furrowand border irri-
gation, or channel lling (though developments in pipe networks
and sprinkler and micro irrigation methods can reduce the need
for this water use), and controlled efuents (Ef) required by non-
agricultural uses, as for many domestic uses. The non-benecial
reusable fraction (N-BRF) is then
N-BRF =
(Seep +Perc +Exc Runoff)
non-degraded
+Exc Ef
treated
TWU
(6)
and refers to excess (Exc) water use in the processes involved such
as seepage and leaks from canals and conduits, spills from canals,
excess percolation in irrigation uses or excess runoff that is non-
degraded, and efuents produced by water wastage when they are
captured and treated.
(c) The non-reusable fraction (NRF), consisting of the fraction
of diverted water which is not consumed in a given production
process or service but which returns with poor quality or returns
to degraded surface waters or saline ground-water and, therefore,
cannot be used again.
NRF =
(Seep +Perc +Run)
degraded
+(Ret ow+Effl)
non-treated
TWU
(7)
which refers to the same process as the RF but where the water has
lost quality and is not treated or is added to water bodies which are
not usable for normal processes. The NRF shall also be divided into
a benecial (BNRF) and a non-benecial component (N-BNRF):
BNRF =
(LF +Runoff
process
)
degraded
+Ef
non-treated
TWU
(8)
and
N-BNRF =
(Seep +Perc +ExcRunoff)
degraded
+ExcEff
non-treated
TWU
(9)
In addition to the indicators dened above, it is also worthwhile
dening the benecial and the non-benecial water use fractions
(BWUF and N-BWUF), which are obtained fromthe various compo-
nents dened above, respectively through Eqs. (2), (5) and (8) for
the rst, and (3), (6) and (9) for the second. Examples of application
of indicators dened above are described in Section 4.
Illustrations of the main processes of water use for the fractions
described above are presented in Tables 1 and 2 for agricultural and
non-agricultural uses, respectively.
Beneficial
Non-beneficial
REUSABLE
Degraded
Quality
Preserved
Quality
Beneficial
Non-beneficial
Beneficial
Non-beneficial
WATER DIVERTED
FOR ANY USE
CONSUMED
FRACTION
NON-
CONSUMED
FRACTION
NON-
REUSABLE
-
Wastage,
non-beneficial
LOSSES
Beneficial
Non-beneficial
Beneficial
Non-beneficial
Beneficial
Non-beneficial
--
Wastage,
non-beneficial
LOSSES
Identify the pathways of water use
Maximize beneficial uses
Minimize non-beneficial uses
Control, avoid water losses
Maximize water productivity
Beneficial
Non-beneficial
Beneficial
Non-beneficial
Beneficial
Non-beneficial
-
Wastage,
non-beneficial
LOSSES
Beneficial
Non-beneficial
Beneficial
Non-beneficial
Beneficial
Non-beneficial
--
Wastage,
non-beneficial
LOSSES
Fig. 5. Pathways of water use identifying main locations or processes inuencing the efcient use of water.
Table 1
Benecial and non-benecial water use and its relation to consumptive and non-consumptive uses in irrigation.
Consumptive Non-consumptive but reusable Non-consumptive and non-reusable
Benecial uses ET fromirrigated crops Leaching water added to reusable water Leaching added to saline water
Evaporationfor climate control
Water incorporated in product
Non-benecial uses Excess soil water evaporation Deep percolation added to good quality aquifers Deep percolation added to saline groundwater
ET fromweeds and phreatophytes Reusable runoff Drainage water added to saline water bodies
Sprinkler evaporation Reusable canal seepage and spills
Canal and reservoir evaporation
Consumed fraction Reusable fraction Non-reusable fraction
Table 2
Benecial and non-benecial water use and its relation to consumptive and non-consumptive uses in non-irrigation user sectors.
Consumptive Non-consumptive but reusable Non-consumptive and
non-reusable
Benecial uses Human and animal drinking
water
Treated efuents from
households and urban uses
Degraded efuents from
households and urban uses
Water in food and process drinks Treated efuents fromindustry Degraded efuents fromindustry
Water incorporated in industrial
products
Return ows frompower
generators
Degraded efuents fromwashing
and process waters
Evaporation for temperature
control
Return ows fromtemperature
control
Every non-degraded efuent
added to saline and lowquality
water bodies
ET fromvegetation in
recreational and leisure areas
Non-degraded efuents from
washing and industrial processes
Evaporation fromrecreational
lakes
Non-benecial uses ET fromnon-benecial vegetation Non-degraded deep percolation
fromrecreational and urban areas
added to good quality aquifers
Deep percolation from
recreational and urban areas added
to saline aquifers
Evaporation fromwater wastes Leakage of non-degraded water
fromurban, industrial and
domestic systems added to good
quality waters
Leakage fromurban, industrial
and domestic systems added to
lowquality waters and saline
water bodies
Evaporation fromreservoirs
Consumed fraction Reusable fraction Non-reusable fraction
Water
diversion
Agriculture
and landscape
Effective rain
Crop
Transpiration
Soil
Evaporation
Seepage +
runoff
Conveyance +
distribution
Application to
cropped field
Percolation +
runoff
Non-crop ET
YIELD
reuse
Total WP
Irrig WP
WUE
Farm WP
Fig. 6. Water productivity in agriculture at various scales: (a) the plant, through
the water use efciency WUE; (b) the irrigated crop at farm scale (Farm WP); (c)
the irrigated crop, at system level (Irrig WP); and the crop including rainfall and
irrigation water (Total WP).
3.2. Water productivity: irrigation water uses
Nowadays, there is a trend to call for increasing water pro-
ductivity (WP) as an important issue in irrigation (Molden et al.,
2003, 2010; Oweis and Hachum, 2003; Clemmens and Molden,
2007). The attention formerly given to irrigation efciency is now
transferred to water productivity. However, this termis used with
different meanings in relation to various scales (Fig. 6) as discussed
by Molden et al. (2003, 2010) and, relative to biomass WP, by
Steduto et al. (2007). The analysis herein is oriented only to the
WP of irrigated crops. WUE was discussed in Section 2.1.
Water productivity in agriculture and landscape irrigation may
be generically dened as the ratio between the actual crop yield
achieved (Y
a
) and the water use, expressed in kg/m
3
. For a
given landscape, a convenient denition of Y
a
has to be selected
by observers/users of a particular landscape because irrigating
gardens, lawns or golf courses produces qualitative yields. The
denominator may refer to the total water use (TWU), including
rainfall, or just to the irrigation water use (IWU). This results in
two different indicators:
WP =
Y
a
TWU
(10)
and
WP
Irrig
=
Y
a
IWU
(11)
The meaning of these indicators is necessarily different. The
same amount of grain yield depends not only on the amount of
irrigation water used but also on the amount of rainfall water that
the crop could use, which depends on the rainfall distribution dur-
ing the crop season. Moreover, we believe pathways to improve
crop yields are often not so much related to water management as
to agronomic practices and the adaptation of the crop variety to the
cropping environment. However, a crop variety with a higher WUE
than another variety has the potential for using less water than the
second when achieving the same yield. Therefore, discussing how
improving WP could lead to water saving in irrigation requires the
consideration of various different factors: (a) the contribution of
rainfall to satisfy crop water requirements, (b) the management
and technologies of irrigation, (c) the agronomic practices, (d) the
adaptability of the crop variety to the environment, and (e) the
water use efciency of the crop and variety under consideration.
Eq. (10) may take a different form:
WP =
Y
a
P +CR +SW+I
(12)
where Y
a
is the actual harvestable yield (kg), P is the season amount
of rainfall, CR is the amount of water obtained from capillary
rise, SW is the difference in soil water storage between plant-
ing and harvesting, and I is the season total amount of irrigation, all
expressed in m
3
. When appropriate soil water conservation prac-
tices are adopted, the proportion of total P that is available to the
crop is increased and soil water storage at planting may also be
increased. When irrigation practices are oriented for water con-
servation, crop roots may be better developed and the amount of
water fromCR and SWmay become higher. The result may then
be a lower demand for irrigation water.
The same Eq. (10) may be written in another form:
WP =
Y
a
ET
a
+LF +N-BWU
(13)
where Y
a
is the actual harvestable yield (kg), ET
a
is the actual sea-
son evapotranspiration, LF is the leaching fraction, the water used
for leaching when control of soil salinity is required, and N-BWU is
the non-benecial water use, i.e., the water in excess to the bene-
cial ET
a
and LF water needs. N-BWUconsists of percolationthrough
the bottom of the root zone, runoff out of the irrigated elds, and
losses by evaporation, and wind drift in sprinkling, as shown in
Fig. 3. WP may be increased by minimizing the N-BWU compo-
nents. The relationship between WP and the potential seasonal
irrigation efciency referring to these N-BWU components is dis-
cussed by Rodrigues and Pereira (2009). For sprinkler systems it
is also of interest to analyse the energy performance of the irriga-
tion systemand crop production (e.g., energy output to input ratio,
i.e., crop energy produced per unit of energy used in production, or
crop energy produced per unit water used, MJ m
3
) in addition to
irrigation performance (Rodrigues et al., 2010a).
A higher WP could also be attained through higher yields.
Achieving this may require an increase in ET
a
to its optimumlevel,
ET
c
. It could be that attaining the maximal value for WP in irriga-
tion requires that yields are maximized, ET and LF are optimized
and N-BWU is minimized:
max(WP) =
Y
max
ET
c
+LF +min(N-BWU)
(14)
A high WP may also be obtained when a crop is water stressed,
but then the yield is reduced. It is the case for decit irrigation,
where crops are deliberately allowed to sustain some degree of
water decit in such a way that crop production is economically
viable. It is also observed that the resulting increases in WP are
often small (e.g., Zairi et al., 2003). Under these conditions the eco-
nomic results of production may not be good, particularly for small
farms where perfect management may not be possible or econom-
ically feasible. This implies that in addition to WP economic water
productivity should also be considered as shown in the analysis by
Rodrigues and Pereira (2009) on the economic water productivity
of various scenarios of decit irrigation as inuenced by the water
price. An interesting review on water value issues was recently
presented by Hussain et al. (2007).
3.3. Economic water productivity: irrigation water use
The productivity of water needs to be considered not only in
physical terms but also in economic terms. The economic value of
water is of great importance but so is the economic return that
results for the farmer when using water in irrigation. A good dis-
cussion on the need to consider the social or public value of water
was presented by Perry et al. (1997). An appropriate consideration
0,0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
810 720 630 540 450 360 270 180 90 0
Season irrigation (mm)
a
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0
3,5
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
360 300 240 180 120 60 0
E
W
P

(
U
S
D

m
-
3
)
L
E
P

(
U
S
D

h
a
-
1
)
E
W
P

(
U
S
D

m
-
3
)
L
E
P

(
U
S
D

h
a
-
1
)
Season irrigation (mm)
b
Fig. 7. EWP () and LEP ( ) curves relative to various water stress irrigation strategies for maize (a) and wheat (b) under center-pivot irrigation and the average (*) and
very high climatic demand () in southern Portugal.
Source: Rodrigues et al. (2003).
of the problemis possible when WP is observed under an economic
perspective (Barker et al., 2003; Rodrigues and Pereira, 2009).
Replacing the numerator of the equations above by the mon-
etary value (D ) of the achieved yield Y
a
, the economic water
productivity (EWP) is expressed as D /m
3
and can be dened by:
EWP =
Value(Y
a
)
TWU
(15)
However, the economics of production are less visible in this
form. An alternative when focusing at farm level is to use in the
numerator thegross margincorrespondingtotheachievedyieldY
a
;
thenEWP describes thefarmer gross return, particularlywhencon-
sidering decit irrigation (Rodrigues et al., 2003; Zairi et al., 2003).
It is interesting to note the difference in behaviour of both EWP and
land economic productivity (LEP) as a function of the consumptive
use of the crops, also depending upon the climatic evapotranspira-
tion demand. EWP and LEP curves for maize and wheat relative to
various water decit irrigation strategies are compared in Fig. 7
for the average and very high climatic demand (drought). Both
EWP and LEP were obtained fromthe gross margins of both crops
(Rodrigues et al., 2003).
Because maize yields strongly depend upon irrigation water
in climates having a dry spring-summer period, both EWP and
LEP decrease when the seasons irrigation dosage also decreases
(Fig. 7a); that decrease is greater when the climatic demand for
water is higher under drought conditions. Alternatively for a win-
ter cereal such as wheat (Fig. 7b), where irrigation is supplemental
of rainfall, LEP decreases when the season irrigation application
dose is lesser but EWP increases when less water is applied. These
differences between a full irrigated and a supplemental irrigated
crop explain why it is relatively easy to adopt decit irrigation for
winter wheat in contrast with maize.
To understand the economics of water productivity, it may be
better to express both the numerator and the denominator in mon-
etary (D ) terms, respectively the yield value and the TWU cost, thus
yielding the economic water productivity ratio (EWPR):
EWPR =
Value(Y
a
)
Cost(TWU)
(16)
which shows to be very useful to analyse impacts of water prices
on the economic return of irrigation (Rodrigues and Pereira, 2009).
Alternatively, considering Eq. (12), we have:
EWPR =
Value(Y
a
)
Cost(soil water conservation) +Cost(I)
(17)
Eq. (17) shows the costs for capturing more rainfall in the soil
and encouraging capillary rise, and the costs of irrigation. Improv-
ing this ratio implies nding a balance between production and
yield costs, as well as appropriate soil and water conservation and
irrigation practices. This is not easy to achieve and explains why
farmers may retain low irrigation performance and poor conser-
vation practices if related costs for improvement are beyond their
economic capacity.
Alternatively, considering Eq. (13), the following ratio is
obtained:
EWPR =
Value(Y
a
)
Costs(ET
a
+LF +N-BWU)
(18)
This suggests that the costs for reducing the N-BWU may be
the bottleneck in improving water productivity. To reduce N-BWU
implies investment in improving the irrigation system and this
may be beyond the farmers capacity, particularly for small farm-
ers. Attention can then be directed to the need for support and
incentives for farmers when a society requires they decrease the
demand for water and increase the water productivity. In collective
andcooperativeirrigationsystems part of thedifcultyresults from
poor systemmanagement and inadequate delivery services, which
are often outside the control of the farmers, as mentioned earlier
(Section 2.1) for the warabandi water sharing system(Zardari and
Cordery, 2009).
Maximizing EWPR, when all costs other than for water use are
kept constant, means ndingthelimit totheratiobetweentheyield
value and the water use costs, which corresponds to maximizing
crop revenue in the form:
max(EWPR) = max
Value(Y
opt
)
Water Costs for Y
opt
max(Income) (19)
This maximal EWPR generally relates to the maximal farm
income. The optimal yield, Y
opt
, is often different from the maxi-
mum yield, depending upon the structure of the production costs.
An alternative to EWPR (Eq. (16)) is to compute the ratio yield
value to full production costs (EWPR
full-cost
). It allows assessing the
feasibility of a different irrigation strategy, e.g., a decit irrigation
strategy. An application is given in Section 4.
3.4. Water productivity for any water use sector
The concept of water productivity is also applied in other water
user sectors. It must be adapted to the specicities of each sector
Total Water Use
Agriculture, Industry,
Urban, Landscape, Energy
Conveyance &
distribution
Process
application
End product
or service
Total WP
Process WP
Beneficial and
non-beneficial
water use
Non-process
water use
Fig. 8. Water productivity in any user sector considering the full water use (Total
WP) and a single process.
and activity. The term water productivity probably needs to be
used or dened separately for each production or service process
(Fig. 8). Similar to WP being expressed in kg of grain per m
3
of
water used in the case of irrigation, it is also possible to express WP
in meters of fabric per m
3
of water in the textile industry; kWh pro-
duced per m
3
of water in energy generation; m
2
of lawns irrigated
per m
3
of water in recreational areas; or m
2
of area washed per m
3
of water in commercial areas, or even as value of sales per m
3
.
Extending the water productivity concepts used in agriculture
to other user sectors yields:
WP =
End Product or Service
TWU
(20)
where the numerator is expressed in units appropriate to the activ-
ity under consideration, and the denominator consists of the total
water used to yield that product or service.
Eq. (20) may take a different form to distinguish the benecial
and non-benecial water uses contributing to yield of product or
service
WP =
End Product or Service
BWU +N-BWU
(21)
This equation shows that WP may be increased through improved
production processes that may require less BWU or when N-
BWU (non-process water uses) is minimized. In the industrial
applications, BWU is commonly reduced by recycling and reuse
for less stringent processes and applications. In urban and domes-
tic uses, BWU may also be decreased when treated wastewater is
used for processes not requiring the highest water quality.
Replacing the numerator of equations above by the monetary
value (D ) of the achieved product or service produces the economic
water productivity (EWP) expressed as D /m
3
EWP =
Value(Product or Service)
TWU
(22)
and the economic water productivity ratio
EWPR =
Cost(TWU)
(23)
Eq. (23) shows that when this ratio is very large, which is com-
mon to most non-agricultural water uses there is no incentive to
reduce TWU unless water policies relative to the quality of efu-
ents and respective treatment induce a reduction of the amounts
to be treated and, therefore, used. Water scarcity may be a signif-
icant reason for reducing TWU, mainly when competition among
users is high or the available supply is very limited. Simple mone-
tary cost may not be a possible disincentive since high water cost
may cause elimination of processes or services considered essen-
tial for example irrigation water to provide food but also local
employment.
Maximizing EWPRis a questionof minimizing the costs of water
used to yield the desired product or service:
max(EWPR) = max
Water Costs
(24)
Differently fromagriculture, where water use and related costs
(including equipment, labour, and energy) may constitute a large
percentage of production costs, water costs in other user sectors
are often thought to be a small fraction of the production costs, but
often include wastewater treatment and water recycling. There-
fore, the rationale behind water productivity for most sectors and
activities is very different from that in agriculture. In urban sup-
ply systems consumption data are usually available in terms of
litres/person/day; considering water saving objectives, there needs
tobe anoperational aimtohave these quantities continuallyfalling.
Inall the above cases, for farms, factories anddomestic supplyoper-
ations there need to be policies and incentives aimed at bringing
water consumption to the lowest possible level for each unit of
production or activity, i.e., increasing the water productivity in all
uses.
Table 3
Assessing decit irrigation strategies for sprinkler irrigated potato and tomato and respective alternatives in terms of surface allocated to each crop under drought conditions.
Water decit irrigation
strategies
Season net irrigation
water available (mm)
Land economic
productivity, LEP
(USDha
1
)
Economic water
productivity, EWP
(USDm
3
)
Percent surface allocated to given
irrigation strategy as alternative to a
more severe water decit
Potato
SC 320 3209 0.802 100% SC
LDI 280 3032 0.866 100% LDI
DI 240 2537 0.845 85% LDI
LID 200 2159 0.863 71% LDI
VLID 160 1612 0.806 57% LDI
EID 120 976 0.650 42% LDI
Tomato
SC 840 4206 0.400 100% SC
LDI 680 3600 0.423 100% LDI
DI 560 2700 0.385 82% LDI
LID 560 2700 0.385 82% LDI
VLID 480 2207 0.367 71% LDI
EID 400 1734 0.346 59% LDI
Source: Zairi et al. (2003).
Note: SC: satisfaction of crop need; LDI: low decit irrigation; DI: (moderate) decit irrigation; LID large irrigation decit; VLDI: very large irrigation decit; EID: extreme
irrigation decit.
It canbe difcult to achieve water savings inindustrial andcom-
mercial activities unless there are signicant incentives because
changes in processes usually require capital investment. It is not
difcult to justify increasing the price of water for large users,
but to make the incentives large enough to ensure changes in
behaviour, industries need to be charged for their efuent releases
as well as for their intake of water as it currently happens in
Europe and elsewhere. Tariffs for disposal can easily be related to
the quality of the efuent and made large enough to encourage
recycling. Introductionof recycling usually leads to the double ben-
et of a reduction of pollutants passing to the environment and a
reduction in volumes of water taken fromthe local supply system
(Asano, 2005; Tangsubkul et al., 2005; Memon et al., 2007; Radcliffe,
2010).
4. Case study applications
4.1. Selection of decit irrigation strategies and crop land
allocation under drought
Under drought water scarcity, when water is not available to
fully satisfy crop irrigation requirements, farmers may have to
adopt decit irrigation and/or reduce the area cropped. To provide
the farmer with a sound economic basis for deciding on his strat-
egy an analysis was performed to compute the economic water
productivity (EWP) and land economic productivity (LEP) fromthe
crop gross margins obtained frompotatoes and tomatoes for vari-
ous water decit irrigation strategies (DI). Analysis of both the EWP
and LEP for various DIs allows selection of the DI that gives the
best performance considering the available amount of water, or
alternatively shows how the best result can be obtained by crop-
ping a smaller area and adopting a less stringent DI. A study for
potato and tomato was developed for the Siliana area, Tunisia, and
main results are shown in Table 3. Description of methods applied
and results obtained for other crops, irrigation methods and cli-
matic conditions are given by Zairi et al. (2003) and Rodrigues et al.
(2003).
It can be observed in Table 3 that LEP steadily decreases when
the season irrigation water decreases while the EWP for this case
study has a maximum when a low decit irrigation (LDI) strategy
is applied. The best solutions when less season irrigation water is
available are not to apply a larger decit but to reduce the cropped
area and to allocate 100% of LDI to that area to produce the highest
EWP.
4.2. Assessing impacts of decit irrigation, water pricing and
irrigation systemperformance using the economic water
productivity ratio
The economic water productivity ratio (EWPR) was used to
assess the impact of water price combined with farmirrigation sys-
temperformance in southern Portugal under average and drought
climatic conditions. Both decit and full irrigation were consid-
ered for selected center-pivot maize irrigation farms (Rodrigues
et al., 2010b, 2010c). EWPR was computed taking the yield value
in the numerator and the irrigation cost (water and application
costs) in the denominator as for Eq. (16) (Fig. 9a) or the irriga-
tion production full cost in the denominator (Fig. 9b and c), herein
EWPR
full-cost
.
Adopting EWPR (Eq. (16)) results shows the impact of water
prices (Fig. 9a). EWPR falls hugely from present conditions, with
subsidized water costs, to foreseen conditions when the European
water framework policies are applied to fully cover the operation,
maintenance and management (OM&M) costs, or to cover OM&M
and investment costs. Results in Fig. 9a also show the impacts
Fig. 9. Economic water productivity ratios appliedto a center-pivot maize irrigation
farmto assess impacts of water prices (present and covering OM&Mor total costs)
for various seasonal PELQ and average (Av), very high (VH) and extreme climatic
demand (Ext): (a) EWPR for decit irrigation, (b) EWPR
full-cost
for full irrigation, and
(c) EWPR
full-cost
for decit irrigation (Vigia, Portugal).
Source: Rodrigues et al. (2010b, 2010c).
of irrigation performance, when the season potential low quar-
ter application efciency (PELQ), as dened by Pereira (1999), is
taken into account. When EWPR
full-cost
is considered, the results
show that adopting full or decit (water stress) irrigation (respec-
tively Fig. 9b and c) leads to farm economic losses when OM&M
or full water price recovery are practiced. Results also show the
inuence of climatic demand and operational management (PELQ)
on the economic results. Despite the brevity of the summary pre-
sented here, this case study shows the potential benets of using
economic water productivity indicators when analysing irrigation
management options and the impacts of policies at farmlevel.
4.3. EWP for assessing impacts of irrigation improvements at
farmand systemscales
The assessment of impacts of improvements in farm irrigation
and in distribution and conveyance systems requires some inte-
grative approach, which may be provided by EWP computed for
the water use at farm and system level. A case study of farm and
Fig. 10. EWP for various levels of farmand systemimprovements for water saving in the Huinong system, YellowRiver basin, China.
Source: Gonc alves et al. (2007).
system modernization was analysed through a decision support
system (DSS) applied to the Huinong canal system in the upper
reaches of the YellowRiver, China (Gonc alves et al., 2007). Results
of this application were analysed using the EWP corresponding to
each step of the improvement (Fig. 10).
Fig. 10 shows that improvements in drainage and the delivery
systembring the largest improvements overall. Results comparing
EWP computed at the farmand systemscales showthat following
those improvements leading to higher water productivity, the EWP
increases moreat thesystemscalethanat thefarmscale, suggesting
there are difculties in involving farmers in a large and long lasting
process of modernization when they do not perceive a reasonable
and continuous gain at their level.
Fig. 11. Comparing water productivity (WP), water consumedfractions (WCF), ben-
ecial water use fractions (BWUF) and relative yields (Ya/Ymax) for furrowirrigated
cotton at Fergana, Uzbekistan, for various farmsystems. Farmsystemsymbols are:
EC irrigation in every furrowwith continuous ow; ES irrigation in every furrow
with surge ow; AC irrigation in alternate furrows with continuous ow; and AS
irrigation in alternate furrows with surge ow.
Source: Horst et al. (2007).
4.4. Relating yields and the benecial water use fraction for
various farmfurrow irrigation improvements
Water saving in cotton irrigation in the Aral Basin, Central Asia,
is generally considered a must. However it is necessary to assess
the economic feasibility of adopting improvements in presently
used furrow irrigation systems. Experimental results obtained for
Fergana, Uzbekistan, fromcomparing various techniques contin-
uous and surge ow, and irrigation in every furrow or in alternate
furrows are summarized in Fig. 11 (Horst et al., 2007).
Results show the potential for water saving when adopting
alternate furrowirrigation and surge owsince these systems pro-
duce the highest WP, consumed fraction and benecial water use
fraction (BWUF). However, the actual yield is less than the max-
imum because these practices are difcult to apply by the local
farmers, thus causing a decrease inyields. Since the farmers income
directly relates to the actual yield and not to WP, the farmers are
reluctant to adopt water saving. These results were conrmed in
a study on furrowirrigation design applied to the same area using
multicriteria analysis. Environmental and economic criteria were
showntobe contradictory: whenwater saving criteria prevail more
advanced solutions are selected, but when economic criteria are
prevalent thenthe water saving techniques are rejected(Gonc alves
et al., 2011). It is likely that when economic factors change and all
farmer subsidies are removed the adopted managerial and tech-
nical options may change and real water conservation and saving
may occur.
Examples above may be extended to analyse water use and
productivity for non-irrigation uses. Similarly, the extension of
economic water productivity concepts to industry may show that
paying the real value for releasing efuents (which is not exactly
the same as the principle that the polluter pays) can have a huge
impact onwater saving andconservationbut fewagencies or gov-
ernments appear willingtoconfront this issue, presumablybecause
they fear it may have unexpected effects in the wider economy.
5. Conclusion
There are some difculties in discussing water productivity and
efciency because there are many terms which are used rather
loosely and even synonymously. Opportunities for increases in
water productivity and efcient application of water are being
missed or hidden by the use of a number of similar, but actually
quite different terms. Unfortunately the imprecise use of these
terms can prevent managers seeing or understanding some of the
issues (such as hidden subsidies) which can inuence the best use
of water or opportunities for saving of water. In our water decient
worldof the21st centurythis is unfortunate. Anewcommunication
model has been proposed here with emphasis on clearly dening
terms, proposing some new terms and better integrating opera-
tions to make most effective use of all available water, including
providing water for environmental uses. Some of the subtle differ-
ences between terms used for management of both irrigation and
non-irrigation water uses have been discussed with a plea for more
careful and thoughtful use of the terms. For example, instead of
discussing wastes and losses, both of which have broad mean-
ings but are seen by some irrigators to only apply to other water
users (never their own operations) there is perhaps a need to use
benecial and non-benecial uses, with which irrigators and
other water users are more likely to identify. Adopting water use
fractions relative to consumptive and non-consumptive use of the
water, to benecial and non-benecial water uses and to reusable
and non-reusable non-consumptive uses may encourage better
understanding by water users than the awed and misleading con-
cept of irrigation efciency. Then it is likely more easy to develop
programs that lead to improved and sustainable water uses.
The consideration of economic water productivity indicators
shows to be of relevance when analysing improvements in irri-
gation systems and management at farm and project scales. Case
studies are shown to illustrate the use of these economic water
productivity indicators in practice. It may be expected that their
adoption will provide for a better understanding of water conser-
vation and saving. Similar concepts of water productivity may be
adapted to non-irrigation uses, including with consideration of the
costs for releasing efuents andfor their treatment, whichare main
issues in water conservation and saving.
It is expected that adoption of a new openness in consider-
ing all costs and benets, and more precise use of terms could
lead to much improved communications between disciplines and
aid in achieving large improvements in management of scarce
resources. Inevitably this could lead to better understanding of
water performance and productivity by farmers and the public and
by government and water agency decision makers.
Acknowledgements
Authors arethankful toDr. BruceLankfordfor havinginvitedthis
paper for this special issue andfor the suggestions for improvement
following his in-depth careful review.
References
Ahmad, M.D., Turral, H., Masih, I., Giordano, M., Masood, Z., 2007. Water saving
technologies: Myths and realities revealed in Pakistans rice-wheat systems.
Research Report 108, IWMI, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 44 pp.
Allen, R.G., Willardson, L.S., Frederiksen, H.D., 1997. Water use denitions and their
use for assessing the impacts of water conservation. In: de Jager, J.M., Ver-
mes, L.P., Ragab, R. (Eds.), Sustainable Irrigation in Areas of Water Scarcity
and Drought (Proc. ICID Workshop, Oxford). British Nat. Com. ICID, Oxford, pp.
7281.
Asano, T., 2005. Urban water recycling. Water Sci. Technol. 51 (8), 8389.
Barker, R., Dawe, D., Inocencio, A., 2003. Economics of water productivity in man-
aging water for agriculture. In: Kijne, J.W., Barker, R., Molden, D. (Eds.), Water
Productivity in Agriculture: Limits and Opportunities for Improvement. IWMI
and CABI Publ., Wallingford, pp. 1935.
Bluemling, B., Yang, H., Pahl-Wostl, C., 2007. Making water productivity
operationala concept of agricultural water productivity exemplied at a
wheatmaize cropping pattern in the North China plain. Agric. Water Manage.
91, 1123.
Bos, M.G., 1979. Standards for irrigation efciencies of ICID. J. Irrig. Drain. Div. ASCE
105 (IRI), 3743.
Bos, M.G., 1997. Performance indicators for irrigation and drainage. Irrig. Drain. Syst.
11 (2), 119137.
Bos, M.G., Nugteren, J., 1982. OnIrrigationEfciencies. Intl Inst. for LandReclamation
and Improvement, ILRI Publ. 19, Wageningen, 138 pp.
Bos, M.G., Burton, M.A., Molden, D.J., 2005. Irrigation and Drainage Performance
Assessment. Practical Guidelines. CABI Publish, Wallingford.
Burt, C.M., Styles, S.W., 2000. Irrigation district service in the Western United States.
J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 126 (5), 279282.
Burt, C.M., Clemmens, A.J., Strelkoff, T.S., Solomon, K.H., Bliesner, R.D., Hardy, L.A.,
Howell, T.A., Eisenhauer, D.E., 1997. Irrigationperformance measures: efciency
and uniformity. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 123, 423442.
Calejo, M.J., Lamaddalena, N., Teixeira, J.L., Pereira, L.S., 2008. Performance analy-
sis of pressurized irrigation systems operating on-demand using ow driven
simulation models. Agric. Water Manage. 95 (2), 154162.
Clemmens, A.J., 2006. Improving irrigated agriculture performance through an
understanding of the water delivery process. Irrig. Drain. 55 (3), 223234.
Clemmens, A.J., Molden, D.J., 2007. Water uses andproductivityof irrigationsystems.
Irrig. Sci. 25, 247261.
Falkenmark, M., Lannerstad, M., 2005. Consumptive water use to feed humanity
curing a blind spot. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 9, 1528.
Foster, S.S.D., Perry, C.J., 2010. Improving groundwater resource accounting in irri-
gated areas: a prerequisite for promoting sustainable use. Hydrogeol. J. 18,
291294.
Gardu no, H., Arregun-Corts, F. (Eds.), 1994. Efcient Water Use. UNESCO Regional
Ofce ROSTLAC, Montevideo, Uruguay.
Gonc alves, J.M., Pereira, L.S., Fang, S.X., Dong, B., 2007. Modelling and multicriteria
analysis of water saving scenarios for an irrigation district in the Upper Yellow
River Basin. Agric. Water Manage. 94, 93108.
Gonc alves, J.M., Muga, A.P., Horst, M.G., Pereira, L.S., 2011. Furrowirrigation design
with multicriteria analysis. Biosyst. Eng. 109, 266275.
Haie, N., Keller, A.A., 2008. Effective efciency as a tool for sustainable water
resources management. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 44 (4), 961968.
Hashimoto, T., Sredomger, J.R., Loucks, D.P., 1982. Reliability, resilience and vulnera-
bility criteria for water resources systemperformance evaluation. Water Resour.
Res. 18 (1), 1420.
Heermann, D.F., Solomon, K.H., 2007. Efciency and uniformity. In: Hoffman, G.J.,
Evans, R.G., Jensen, M.E., Martin, D.L., Elliot, R.L. (Eds.), Design and Operation of
FarmIrrigation Systems. , 2nd ed. ASABE, St. Joseph, MI, pp. 108119.
Hsiao, T.C., Steduto, P., Fereres, E., 2007. A systematic and quantitative approach to
improve water use efciency in agriculture. Irrig. Sci. 25, 209231.
Horst, M.G., Shamutalov, Sh.Sh., Gonc alves, J.M., Pereira, L.S., 2007. Assessingimpacts
of surge-owirrigation on water saving and productivity of cotton. Agric. Water
Manage. 87, 115127.
Hussain, I., Turral, H., Molden, D., Ahmad, M., 2007. Measuring and enhancing the
value of agricultural water in irrigated river basins. Irrig. Sci. 25, 263282.
Jensen, M.E., 1996. Irrigated agriculture at the crossroads. In: Pereira, L.S., Feddes,
R.A., Gilley, J.R., Lesaffre, B. (Eds.), Sustainability of Irrigated Agriculture. Kluwer
Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, pp. 1933.
Jensen, M.E., 2007. Beyond irrigation efciency. Irrig. Sci. 25, 233245.
Katerji, N., Mastrorilli, M., Rana, G., 2008. Water use efciency of crops cultivated in
the Mediterranean region: reviewand analysis. Eur. J. Agron. 28, 493507.
Keller, A., Keller, J., Seckler, D., 1996. Integrated Water Resource Systems: Theory
and PolicyImplications. ResearchReport 3, International IrrigationManagement
Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 1996.
Kijne, J.W., Barker, R., Molden, D. (Eds.), 2003. Water Productivity in Agriculture:
Limits and Opportunities for Improvement. IWMI and CABI Publ., Wallingford.
Knox, J.W., Kay, M.G., Weatherhead, E.K., 2011. Water regulation, crop production
and agricultural water management understanding farmer perspectives on
irrigation efciency. Agric. Water Manage., doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2011.06.007.
Lamaddalena, N., Sagardoy, J.A., 2000. Performance Analysis of On-Demand Pressur-
ized Irrigation Systems. Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 59, FAO, Roma.
Lamaddalena, N., Pereira, L.S., 2007. Pressure-drivenmodelingfor performanceanal-
ysis of irrigationsystems operating ondemand. Agric. Water Manage. 90, 3644.
Lankford, B., 2006. Localising irrigation efciency. Irrig. Drain. 55 (4), 345362.
Lankford, B., Fictions, fractions, factorials, fractures and fractals; on the framing of
irrigation efciency. Agric. Water Manage., in this issue.
Memon, F.A., Zheng, Z., Butler, D., Shirley-Smith, C., Lui, S., Makropoulos, C., Avery,
L., 2007. Life cycle impact assessment of greywater recycling technologies for
newdevelopments. Environ. Monit. Assess. 129, 2735.
Merriam, J.L., Styles, S.W., Freeman, B.J., 2007. Flexible irrigation systems: concept,
design, and application. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 133 (1), 211.
Molden, D., 1997. Accounting for water use and productivity. SWIMPaper 1. Inter-
national Irrigation Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Molden, D.J., Gates, T.K., 1990. Performance measures for evaluation of
irrigationwater delivery systems. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 116 (6), 804823.
Molden, D., Murray-Rust, H., Sakthivadivel, R., Makin, I., 2003. A water-productivity
framework for understanding and action. In: Kijne, J.W., Barker, R., Molden, D.
(Eds.), Water Productivity in Agriculture: Limits and Opportunities for Improve-
ment. IWMI and CABI Publ., Wallingford, pp. 118.
Molden, D., Burton, M., Bos, M.G., 2007. Performance assessment, irrigation service
deliveryandpovertyreduction: benets of improvedsystemmanagement. Irrig.
Drain. 56 (23), 307320.
Molden, D., Oweis, T., Steduto, P., Bindraban, P., Hanjra, M.A., Kijne, J., 2010. Improv-
ing agricultural water productivity: between optimism and caution. Agric.
Water Manage. 97, 528535.
Murray-Rust, D.H., Snellen, W., 1993. Irrigation System Performance: Assessment
and Diagnosis. International Irrigation Management Institute, Colombo, Sri
Lanka, 141 pp.
Ostrom, E., 1992. Crafting Institutions for Self-Governing Irrigation Systems. ICS
Press, S. Francisco.
Oweis, T.Y., Hachum, A.Y., 2003. Improving water productivity in the dry areas of
West Asia and North Africa. In: Kijne, J.W., Barker, R., Molden, D. (Eds.), Water
Productivity in Agriculture: Limits and Opportunities for Improvement. IWMI
and CABI Publ., Wallingford, pp. 179198.
Oweis, T., Hachum, A., 2006. Water harvesting and supplemental irrigation for
improved water productivity of dry farming systems in West Asia and North
Africa. Agric. Water Manage. 80, 5773.
Pereira, L.S., 1999. Higher performances through combined improvements in irriga-
tion methods and scheduling: a discussion. Agric. Water Manage. 40, 153169.
Pereira, L.S., Oweis, T., Zairi, A., 2002. Irrigation management under water scarcity.
Agric. Water Manage. 57, 175206.
Pereira, L.S., Calejo, M.J., Lamaddalena, N., Douieb, A., Bounoua, R., 2003. Design
and performance analysis of lowpressure irrigation distribution systems. Irrig.
Drain. Syst. 17, 305324.
Pereira, L.S., Cordery, I., Iacovides, I., 2009. Coping with Water Scarcity. Addressing
the Challenges. Springer, Dordrecht, 382 pp.
Perry, C.J., 1999. The IWMI water resources paradigm denitions and implications.
Agric. Water Manage. 40, 4550.
Perry, C., 2007. Efcient irrigation; inefcient communication; awed recommen-
dations. Irrig. Drain. 56, 357378.
Perry, C.J., Rock, M., Seckler, D., 1997. Water as an economic good: a solution, or
a problem? Research Report 14. International Irrigation Management Institute,
Colombo, Sri Lanka, 16 pp.
Perry, C., Steduto, P., Allen, R.G., Burt, C.M., 2009. Increasing productivity in irri-
gatedagriculture: agronomic constraints andhydrological realities. Agric. Water
Manage. 96 (11), 15171524.
Radcliffe, J.C., 2010. Evolution of water recycling in Australian cities since 2003.
Water Sci. Technol. 62 (4), 792802.
Rodrigues, G.C., Pereira, L.S., 2009. Assessing economic impacts of decit irrigation
as related to water productivity and water costs. Biosyst. Eng. 103, 536551.
Rodrigues, G.C., Carvalho, S., Paredes, P., Silva, F.G., Pereira, L.S., 2010a. Relating
energy performance and water productivity of sprinkler irrigated maize, wheat
and sunower under limited water availability. Biosyst. Eng. 106, 195204.
Rodrigues, G.C., Silva, F.G., Pereira, L.S., 2010b. Anlise econmica e da produtividade
da gua emrega emcondic es de seca: aplicc o s culturas de milho e trigo no
regadio da Vigia. In: Pereira, L.S., Mexia, J.T., Pires, C.A.L. (Eds.), Gesto do Risco
em Secas. Mtodos, tecnologias e desaos. Edic es Colibri e CEER, Lisboa, pp.
321344.
Rodrigues, G.C., Silva, F.G., Pereira, L.S., 2010c. Assessing the feasibility of decit
irrigation under drought conditions. In: Lpez-Francos, A. (Ed.), Options
Mditerranennes Sries A 95, pp. 285291.
Rodrigues, P.N., Machado, T., Pereira, L.S., Teixeira, J.L., El Amami, H., Zairi, A., 2003.
Feasibility of decit irrigation with center-pivot to cope with limited water
supplies in Alentejo, Portugal. In: Rossi, G., Cancelliere, A., Pereira, L.S., Oweis,
T., Shatanawi, M., Zairi, A. (Eds.), Tools for Drought Mitigation in Mediterranean
Regions. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 203222.
Rockstrm, J., Karlberg, L., Wani, S.P., Barron, J., Hatibu, N., Oweis, T.,
Bruggeman, A., Farahani, J., Qiang, Z., 2010. Managing water in rainfed
agriculturethe need for a paradigm shift. Agric. Water Manage. 97 (4),
543550.
Seckler, D., 1996. The new era of water resources management. Research Report 1.
International Irrigation Management Institute (IIMI). Colombo, Sri Lanka, 17 pp.
Seckler, D., Molden, D., Sakthivadivel, R., 2003. The concept of efciency in water
resources management and policy. In: Kijne, J.W., Barker, R., Molden, D. (Eds.),
Water Productivity in Agriculture: Limits and Opportunities for Improvement.
IWMI and CABI Publ., Wallingford, pp. 3751.
Shideed, K., Oweis, T.Y., Gabr, M., Osman, M., 2005. Assessing On-Farm Water-Use
Efciency: A NewApproach. ICARDA, Aleppo, 86 pp.
Shivakoti, G.P., Vermillion, D.L., Lam, W.-F., Ostrom, E., Pradhan, U., Yoder, R. (Eds.),
2005. Asian Irrigation in Transition. Responding to Challenges. IWMI and AIT,
Sage Publications, India, NewDelhi, 528 pp.
Solomon, K.H., Burt, C.M., 1999. Irrigation sagacity: a measure of prudent water use.
Irrig. Sci. 18, 135140.
Steduto, P., 1996. Water use efciency. In: Pereira, L.S., Feddes, R., Gilley, J.R., Lesaffre,
B. (Eds.), Sustainability of Irrigated Agriculture. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 193209.
Steduto, P., Hsiao, T.C., Fereres, E., 2007. On the conservative behavior of biomass
water productivity. Irrig. Sci. 25, 189207.
Tangsubkul, N., Beavis, P., Moore, S.J., Lundie, S., Waite, T.D., 2005. Life cycle assess-
ment of water recycling technology. Water Res. Manage. 19, 521537.
Unger, P.W., Howell, T.A., 1999. Agricultural water conservation a global perspec-
tive. In: Kirkham, M.B. (Ed.), Water Use in Crop Production. The Haworth Press,
NewYork, pp. 136.
Willardson, L.S., Allen, R.G., Frederiksen, H.D., 1994. Universal fractions andthe elim-
ination of irrigation efciencies. In: Proceedings 13th Technical Conference, US
Commission on Irrigation and Drainage, Denver, CO, 1922 October 1994.
Wolters, W., 1992. Inuences on the Efciency of Irrigation Water Use. ILRI Publ. 51,
Wageningen.
Zaccaria, D., Oueslati, I., Neale, C.M.U., Lamaddalena, N., Vurro, M., Pereira, L.S.,
2010. Flexible delivery schedules to improve farm irrigation and reduce
pressure on groundwater: a case study in southern Italy. Irrig. Sci. 28,
257270.
Zairi, A., El Amami, H., Slatni, A., Pereira, L.S., Rodrigues, P.N., Machado, T., 2003.
Coping with drought: decit irrigation strategies for cereals and eld horticul-
tural crops in Central Tunisia. In: Rossi, G., Cancelliere, A., Pereira, L.S., Oweis,
T., Shatanawi, M., Zairi, A. (Eds.), Tools for Drought Mitigation in Mediterranean
Regions. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 181201.
Zardari, N.u.H., Cordery, I., 2009. Water productivity in a rigid irrigation delivery
system. Water Resour. Manage. 23, 10251040.
THE IMPORTANCE OF SAP FLOW MEASUREMENTS TO ESTIMATE ACTUAL WATER
USE OF MESKI OLIVE TREES UNDER DIFFERENT IRRIGATION REGIMES IN TUNISIA
MAURITS W. VANDEGEHUCHTE
1
*
, MOHAMED BRAHAM
2
, RAOUL LEMEUR
1
AND KATHY STEPPE
1
1
Laboratory of Plant Ecology, Department of Applied Ecology and Environmental Biology, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
2
Institute of the Olive Tree Station of Sousse, Sousse, Tunisia
ABSTRACT
Improvement in irrigation techniques has led to an expansion of the irrigated olive area in Tunisia and consequently a rise in
agricultural water consumption. Here, the actual water use of Olea europaea L. Meski as estimated by thermal dissipation
probe measurements was compared for different irrigation regimes: three plots with irrigation doses based on PenmanMonteith
crop evapotranspiration (ETc), 0.33 ETc and the local growers experience (about 0.6 ETc), respectively. The scaling up of
sap ux densities proved to be difcult given the azimuthal and radial sap ux density variability and the conductive surface area
asymmetry. Moreover, natural thermal gradients may lead to inaccurate use of standard sap ow formulas. Depending on the
manner of upscaling, differences in water use of more than 50 l day
-1
per tree were obtained (up to 0.7 ETc irrigation dose).
Despite these difculties, sap ow calculations seem crucial to accurately determine the water needs of the orchard under
investigation, as they corresponded closely to the lowest irrigation dose which was considered sufciently high as no signicant
differences in drought stress variables were detected between the plots. Therefore, irrigation based solely on ETc leads to
wasting of water; hence, careful application of both meteorological and sap ow methods is desirable in irrigation scheduling.
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
key words: irrigation; PenmanMonteith; thermal dissipation probe (TDP); sap ow; radial prole; Olea europaea L. (olive) tree
Received 22 July 2011; Revised 12 April 2012; Accepted 12 April 2012
RSUM
Lamlioration des techniques dirrigation conduit lexpansion de la supercie irrigue pour la culture doliviers en Tunisie,
et par consquent laugmentation de la consommation deau par lagriculture. Dans cette tude, la consommation deau relle
de Olea europaea L. Meski telle quelle est estime par des mesures de dissipation thermique a t compare diffrents
rgimes dirrigation: trois parcelles avec des doses dirrigation sur la base de lvapotranspiration des cultures de Penman
Monteith (ETC), 33% de cette ETC et lexprience du producteur local (environ 60% de lETC), respectivement. Lintensication
des densits de ux de sve sest avre difcile en raison de la variabilit azimutale et radiale de la densit de ux de sve et
de lasymtrie de la surface conductrice. En outre, les gradients thermiques naturels peuvent conduire une utilisation
inexacte des formules standard de ux de sve. En fonction de changer dchelle, des diffrences de consommation deau
arbre de plus de 50 l arbre
-1
j
-1
ont t obtenues (jusqu 70% de la dose dirrigation ETC 100%). Malgr ces difcults,
les calculs de ux de sve semblent dune importance cruciale pour dterminer avec prcision les besoins en eau du verger
tudi car les calculs obtenus de ux de sve correspondaient troitement la dose la plus faible dirrigation qui a t juge
sufsamment leve pour ne pas gnrer de diffrences signicatives dans les variables indicatrices de stress hydrique inter
parcellaire. Par consquent, lirrigation base uniquement sur ETC mne au gaspillage deau, et une application rigoureuse
des deux mthodologies bases respectivement sur des donnes mtorologique et les mthodes de ux de sve est donc
souhaitable pour laborer le calendrier dirrigation. Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
mots cls: irrigation; PenmanMonteith; sonde de dissipation thermique (TDP); ux de sve; prol radial; Olea europaea L. (olivier)
* Correspondence to: Maurits W. Vandegehuchte. Laboratory of Plant Ecology, Department of Applied Ecology and Environmental Biology, Faculty of
Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Coupure links 653, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium, Phone +32 9 264 61 12, Fax +32 9 224 44 10.
E-mail: maurits.vandegehuchte@UGent.be
Limportance des mesures de ux de sve pour estimer la consommation deau relle doliviers Meski sous diffrents rgimes dirrigation en Tunisie.
IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE
Irrig. and Drain. 61: 645656 (2012)
Published online 15 July 2012 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/ird.1670
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
INTRODUCTION
Given the adaptations of olive trees (Olea europaea L.) to
long-term drought, their cultivation is widely spread in
semi-arid areas with a Mediterranean climate such as Tunisia
(Gimenez et al., 1997). While rain-fed orchards are still often
exploited, irrigated orchards are gaining ground thanks to
larger fruit yield and growth. Given the higher economic value
and to meet the growing demand for olive products, many
traditional orchards have therefore been modernized by means
of several irrigation procedures (Fernandez and Moreno,
1999), inevitably raising the consumption of water. Because
of this augmented water use, researchers are stressing the
necessity of more accurate and precise irrigation methodolo-
gies (Fereres and Evans, 2006).
Irrigation is often based on direct measurements of the
soil-water status either in terms of water content (gravimet-
ric method) or water potential (tensiometer, psychrometer).
These methods have the disadvantage that multiple sensors
are needed when dealing with a heterogeneous soil. An
alternative approach is to determine the atmospheric water
demand based on the combination of an energy and water
balance such as the PenmanMonteith method (Allen
et al., 1998). A major shortcoming of soil- and atmospheric-
based methods is that they do not take specic plantwater
interactions into account such as changes in internal water
storage. Therefore, Jones (2004) suggests that when develop-
ing new irrigation strategies, stress indicators which are
measured on the plant itself are taken into account. Possible
stress indicators are leaf water potential, stomatal resistance,
sap ux density or stem diameter variations (Nadezhdina,
1999; Moriana and Fereres, 2002; Jones, 2004; Saveyn
et al., 2007; De Pauwet al., 2008; Sevanto et al., 2008; Steppe
et al., 2008; De Swaef et al., 2009; Villez et al., 2009). Irriga-
tion methods based on direct measurements of leaf water
potential and stomatal resistance have, however, the disadvan-
tage that they are hard to automate. Moreover, they do not lead
to accurate results when dealing with isohydric species
because of the partial separation of the linkage between these
indicators and sap ux density (Buckley, 2005; Fisher et al.,
2006; Franks et al., 2007). Because of these limitations, irriga-
tion methods based on direct sap ux density measurements
are gaining in importance (Fernandez and Moreno, 1999;
Do and Rocheteau, 2002; Nadezhdina et al., 2002; Lu et al.,
2004; Steppe et al., 2008).
This study had the objective of assessing the applicability
and benets of thermal dissipation probe (TDP) measure-
ments to determine whole-tree water use of olive (Olea
europaea L. Meski) growing in a commercial orchard at
Endha, Tunisia, in comparison with classically applied
PenmanMonteith based crop evapotranspiration for irriga-
tion scheduling. To this end, water use of Meski olive trees
(Olea europaea L. Meski) irrigated based on the local
growers experience was compared with water use of trees
irrigated according to the PenmanMonteith crop evapo-
transpiration (ETc), both for 100% ETc and 33% ETc. Next
to TDP sap ux density estimates, ecophysiological mea-
surements of leaf and stem water potential and azimuthal
and radial sap ux densities were conducted.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Plant material and experimental set-up
Measurements were carried out on 15-year-old Meski olive
trees (Olea europaea L. Meski), an important table olive
cultivar. These trees were part of an orchard located at
Endha, central Tunisia (10
22
0
E, 36
38
0
N), which belongs
to lOfce de Terres Domaniales de lEndha (OTD). This
region is characterized by a semi-arid climate with dry, hot
summers and humid, mild winters, resulting in an average
annual rainfall of 300 mm and temperature of 1825

C.
The loamy-sand soil has an average to low organic carbon
content and nitrogen content. The trees are located in grids
of 7 7 m and are pruned once a year after harvesting. In this
orchard, three plots of 10 trees were selected for the experi-
ments. In each plot, three trees were selected with a stem
diameter of 18 3.4 cm at breast height and a similar height
(3.5 0.4 m), crown shape and leaf area index (1.7 0.2).
Still, differences in stem and branch shape were detectable.
These irregular forms are typical of olive trees.
Each plot was irrigated by a localized irrigation system
with, for each tree, four drip nozzles located at a distance
of 1.0 m to the north, east, south and west of the trunk,
respectively. All plots were irrigated based on the experi-
ence of the local grower, irrigating 8 ha day
1
with a
discharge rate of approximately 1.4 l h
-1
per nozzle (approx-
imately 45 l day
1
per tree) before the experiment was
started. From April onwards, the three plots were irrigated
differently. For plot one, a water irrigation amount equiva-
lent to 100% of crop evapotranspiration (ETc) was
provided, calculated using the PenmanMonteith FAO
method (Allen et al., 1998). To obtain crop evapotranspira-
tion from reference evapotranspiration, a single estimated
crop coefcient (K
c
= 0.45) and a coverage coefcient
(K
r
= 0.67) were applied, as it has recently been shown
that the K
c
values provided by the FAO lead to overestima-
tions of crop evapotranspiration (dAndria et al., 2004;
Er-Raki et al., 2008). For plot two, one-third of this irriga-
tion dose was applied, while for plot three, the dose as deter-
mined by the local grower remained applicable.
Evapotranspiration
For evapotranspiration measurements an on-site weather
station was used to measure the relative humidity (RH)
646 M. W. VANDEGEHUCHTE ET AL.
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 61: 645656 (2012)
and the air temperature (T) using an integrated relative
humidity sensor (RHT2nl combined sensor, Delta-T
Devices Ltd, Cambridge, UK). Shortwave radiation was
measured with a photodiode 5 m above the ground surface
(ES2 Si, Delta-T Devices Ltd, Cambridge, UK) and soil heat
ux with a Heatux plate (HFP01SC, Hukseux, Delft,
Netherlands). Wind speed was measured with an anemometer
(AN1, Delta-T Devices Ltd, Cambridge, UK), installed 5 m
above the orchard oor.
Evapotranspiration calculations were carried out manu-
ally based on the FAO PenmanMonteith method developed
by Allen et al. (1998). To determine the net radiation (R
n
in
J m
-2
day
-1
), the following formula was used:
R
n
1 a R
s
R
l;in
esT
4
surf
(1)
where a is the albedo (for olive orchards with sand-loamy
soils equal to 0.2 (Moreno et al., 1996), s the Stefan-
Boltzmann constant (J K
-4
m
-2
day
-1
), e the emissivity
constant (equal to 0.98 according to Sepulcre-Canto et al.,
2006), T
surf
the surface temperature (K), R
s
the incoming
shortwave radiation (J m
-2
day
-1
) and R
l,in
the incoming
longwave radiation (J m
-2
day
-1
).
To determine R
l,in
several empirical formulas, using air
temperature (T in K) and vapour pressure (e
a
in hPa), were
evaluated. Most commonly used formulas are those of
Swinbank (1963) (Equation 2), Idso (1981) (Equation 3)
and Brunt (1932) (Equation 4):
R
l;in
0:92 10
5
T
2

sT
4
(2)
R
l;in
0:70 5:95 10
5
e
a
exp 1500=T

sT
4
(3)
R
l;in
0:51 0:066 e
a
1=2

sT
4
(4)
These formulas are adequate for use with clear skies,
which was the case in this study where they were compared
with the standard FAO method.
Water potential and stomatal resistance
Differences in drought stress between the three different
irrigation plots were assessed based on different physiological
measurements during July and August 2008 as these
months were considered to cause the highest level of drought
stress. Leaf and stem water potential were measured with a
Scholander pressure chamber (Scholander pressure chamber,
PMS Instrument Company, Oregon, USA) for nine trees
(three trees per irrigation plot). As the trees were of similar
height, crown structure and shape, stem diameter at breast
height and leaf area index, comparison of measurements was
possible. For each measurement day, one tree from each
irrigation plot was measured in four azimuthal directions from
sunset till approximately 7 pm. This was repeated for the same
trees on three comparable clear sky days. As the meteorolog-
ical conditions during the measurement period remained
approximately constant, comparison of the three measurement
repetitions per tree was possible. Hence, nine measurement
days in total were conducted: three repetitions with for every
repetition one tree per irrigation plot. For a single measure-
ment, the average of three leaves was taken.
For each tree, leaf and stem water potential and stomatal
resistance (AP4 dynamic porometer, Delta-T Devices Ltd,
Cambridge, UK) were measured in the four azimuthal
directions. To determine stem water potentials, selected
leaves were enclosed, still attached to the tree, in plastic
bags covered with aluminium foil 2 h prior to the measure-
ment (Fulton et al., 2001). Both for the stem and leaf water
potentials as for the stomatal resistance, the average of three
leaves was taken for each measurement point. Attention was
paid to choose leaves at similar height and of similar age and
exposure to sunlight.
For each measurement day, six to seven measurement
points per azimuthal direction for both stem and leaf water
potential and stomatal resistance were obtained between
sunset and 7 pm.
Sap ux density
Sap ux density was continuously monitored approximately
30 cm above soil level in four azimuthal directions using
thermal dissipation probes (TDP30, Dynamax Inc., Houston,
TX, USA) on the same trees on which stomatal resistance
and water potentials were measured. As natural temperature
gradients were considered a risk, a cyclical heating scheme
as suggested by Do and Rocheteau was applied (2002). The
thermocouple of the thermal dissipation probes was located
15 mmfromthe tip of the needle. The heater and measurement
needle were located 4 cm distant. The heater element was
discontinuously heated (10 min heating, 20 min cooling) in
order to use less energy. Using the equations of Do and
Rocheteau (2002), sap ux density was calculated as
SFD 0:00274 K
a
= 1 K
a

0:707
(5)
with SFDthe sap ux density (m m
-2
s
-1
) (Steppe et al., 2010)
and K
a
calculated as
K
a
T
a0
T
au
= T
au
(6)
with T
a0
the maximum alternating signal (T
on
T
off
with T
on
the temperature difference between the needles at
the end of the heating and T
off
the temperature difference
between the needles at the end of the cooling period) and
T
au
the measured alternating signal.
To determine whole-tree water use, sap ux density was
multiplied by the total conductive surface area. This
surface area is commonly calculated as a fraction of the total
647 WATER USE MESKI OLIVE
cross- sectional area of the stem (considered as a perfect
disc) (Allen and Grime, 1995)
To gain more insight in the radial sap ux prole in
olive, the sensor needles were displaced at different depths
(5, 8, 15 and 20 mm) every second day with 24 h measure-
ments for each depth. Hence, on the measurement days on
which sap ux was determined at 5, 8 and 15 mm depth,
water potential and stomatal resistance were also measured
on the same trees.
For each new depth, the insertion hole was drilled a bit
deeper, taking care not to extend the diameter of the drill
hole. To be able to compare these measurements, meteoro-
logical conditions between the days should not differ too
much. To this end, average values and correlation coef-
cients of air temperature, relative humidity, shortwave
radiation, soil heat ux and wind speed for the different days
were calculated. For air temperature, shortwave radiation
and soil heat ux, correlation coefcients varied between
0.92 and 0.99 for the four depths considered. The correla-
tions for relative humidity and wind speed were less
pronounced (Table I). Table II gives the lower and upper
bounds of the signicant differences for the meteorological
variables for the different depths. Because the environ-
mental variables were statistically comparable, it was
possible to approximate the radial sap ux prole in olive
(determined by averaging the sap ow measurements of
the four azimuthal directions). This statistical analysis
also justies the comparison of the water potential and
stomatal resistance measurements for the consecutive mea-
surement days.
In addition, the actual surface area of the conductive
tissue was determined by colouring the xylem tissue.
Therefore, a waterproof receptacle was constructed around
the stem of one of the olive trees. This receptacle was lled
with an acid fuchsine solution (0.5% w/v). Several holes
were drilled underwater to prevent air bubbles from entering
the trunk. The coloured solution penetrated the conductive
tissue and was taken up by the sap stream. When colouring
of the leaves was visible, the tree was cut down. A surface
scanner (Li 3050A, Li-Cor, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA)
was used to determine the actual conductive surface area
of the trunk.
Statistical analysis
For statistical analysis, the software package S + (TIBCO
Software Inc.) was used. Normality and homoscedasticity
of the data were tested with Kolmogorov Smirnov and
modied Levene tests, respectively. Averages were then
compared based on a Tukey test (95% signicance level).
RESULTS
PenmanMonteith crop evapotranspiration
The use of different empirical formulas to determine R
l,in
led
to differences in R
n
(Figure 1a) and, subsequently, to small
deviations in reference evapotranspiration (Figure 1b).
Statistical analysis showed that only the reference evapo-
transpiration calculated according to Idso (1981) was signif-
icantly higher than the other methods.
The irrigation dose based on the reference evapotranspira-
tion, which was on average about 5.5 mm day
-1
during July
and August 2008, corresponded to approximately 75 l per tree.
For the second irrigation plot, one-third of this dose was
applied ( 25 l per tree) while, based on the experience of
the local grower, plot three was irrigated with45 l per tree.
Water potential and stomatal resistance
The average meteorological conditions for the measurement
days are presented in Figure 2. In the three different
Table I. Correlation coefcients for relative humidity and wind speed for thermal dissipation probe measurements at 5, 8, 15 and 20 mm depth
Relative humidity Wind speed
Depth 5 mm 8 mm 15 mm 20 mm 5 mm 8 mm 15 mm 20 mm
5 mm 1 0.559 0.810 0.753 1 0.775 0.632 0.706
8 mm 0.559 1 0.841 0.770 0.775 1 0.722 0.828
15 mm 0.810 0.841 1 0.821 0.632 0.722 1 0.840
20 mm 0.753 0.770 0.821 1 0.706 0.828 0.840 1
Table II. Lower and upper bound for the signicant differences
between the four depths (5, 8, 15 and 20 mm) for the
meteorological variables (Tukey, 95% signicance)
Lower
bound
Upper
bound
Temperature 8 mm 5 mm (
C) 0.694 5.75
Temperature 8 mm 20 mm (
C) 0.598 5.65
Relative humidity 15 mm 20 mm (%) 31.2 14.2
Wind speed 15 mm 5 mm (m s
-1
) 1.22 0.238
Wind speed 8 mm 5 mm (m s
-1
) 1.08 0.099
Figure 1. Net radiation calculated according to the standard FAO method and the Idso, Brunt and Swinbank equations (a). Corresponding reference evapotrans-
piration using the net radiation calculated according to the standard FAO method and the Idso, Brunt and Swinbank equations (b)
Figure 2. Average net radiation (a) and vapour pressure decit (b) for the measurement days
Figure 3. Leaf water potentials for the different azimuthal orientations on DOY (day of the year) 225 for irrigation dose of 100% ETc (a), 33% ETc (b) and local
experience of the grower (c)
irrigation plots, a typical water potential pattern was found,
with values declining during the morning to reach a
minimum around midday and riseing again in the afternoon
(Figure 3). Standard deviations were relatively small
(average 0.32 MPa for leaf water potential and 0.18
MPa for stem water potential). This resulted from small
errors in the actual measurements. Besides spatial differ-
ences between the four orientations, temporal differences
occurred where relative ratios of water potentials for the four
orientations changed with time (data not shown).
Despite the use of different irrigation doses, average leaf
and stem water potential (average of four azimuthal directions
and three trees per plot) showed no signicant differences
during the measurement period (Figure 4). To conrm this,
the pre-dawn leaf water potential and leaf water potential at
13 h were statistically compared for the different irrigation
plots. This test did not yield signicant differences between
the plots (p >0.05). For the pre-dawn leaf water potential,
an overall average value of 0.5 0.11 MPa was obtained.
Larger variations were found for stomatal resistance, but
no signicant difference in average values existed between
the three irrigation plots for the measured times (p >0.05)
(Figure 5). Stomatal resistance declined strongly during
the morning to reach a minimum between 9.30 h and 10 h,
then rose to a maximum between 12 h and 14 h, subse-
quently declining again towards a second minimum in the
afternoon and nally rising again slowly in the evening.
Sap ux density and radial prole
Figure 6 shows a typical sap ux density pattern obtained by
applying the Do and Rocheteau (2002) equation. From the
temperature measurements at the end of the cooling period,
the natural thermal gradient in the wood was assessed (con-
sidering a distance of 4 cm between heater and measurement
needle) (Figure 7). This gradient was largely positive with
only short negative periods around midday.
Figure 8(a) shows sap ux density measurements for the
four azimuthal orientations for a measurement tree of the
33% ETc plot. When compared to Figures 8(b) and (c)
Figure 4. Daily pattern of average leaf water potentials (thin lines) and stem
water potentials (thick lines) for the three irrigation doses for the different
measurement days. 100% ETc: solid lines, 33% ETc: dashed lines, local
experience grower: dotted lines
Figure 5. Daily pattern of average stomatal resistances for the different measurement days for irrigation dose of 100% ETc (a), 33% ETc (b) and local
experience of the grower (c)
showing the leaf water potential and stomatal resistance,
respectively, it is clear that no conclusive pattern for the
azimuthal variation can be detected. For the other trees,
different ratios for the sap ux densities of the azimuthal
directions were obtained. There was no statistical correlation
between differences in azimuthal sap ux density and
meteorological conditions, ecophysiological variables or
the irrigation plots.
The radial sap ux prole is summarized in Figure 9. A
similar temporal and spatial pattern was observed for the
other trees, namely a clear daily pattern of rising sap ow
from sunset till midday, falling again towards the evening,
and a radial pattern rising from the bark to the centre of
the tree till about 1214 mm depth and then falling further
towards the centre. To gain better insight into the azimuthal
inuence on the obtained radial prole, box plots were made
using the sap ux density data of the different directions and
depths (Figure 10). In the south, measurements at 20 mm
depth were relatively higher compared to the other azimuthal
directions for this measured tree. This was, however, not
always the case for the other trees measured. In general, for
all trees, it was clear that the radial sap ux density patterns
differed between azimuthal directions.
Water use based on sap ux density
Based on the sap ux density measurements at 15 mm depth,
the water use of the three irrigation plots was calculated (as an
average of the azimuthal directions and the three repetitions
per irrigation plot) and compared with the PenmanMonteith
crop evapotranspiration obtained (Figure 11a). There seems
to be good correspondence between the calculated crop
evapotranspiration and the water use based on TDP measure-
ments. Moreover, Figure 11(a) conrms the hypothesis that
no signicant drought stress differences occurred between
the three irrigation plots as there was no signicant difference
in water use. However, when the radial prole is taken into
account, the calculated crop evapotranspiration clearly overes-
timates the actual water use (Figure 11b).
DISCUSSION
More water, less stress?
Given the large differences in irrigation doses, a difference
in water potential, as a direct drought stress indicator, was
expected. When comparing leaf and stem water potential
for the three irrigation plots (Figure 3), no signicant
differences in drought stress could be detected. Moreover,
the pre-dawn leaf water potential, which is considered a
good approximation of soil water potential, showed no
signicant difference between the plots and had an overall
average value of 0.5 0.11 MPa which is considered the
upper limit for good soil water status (Michelakis et al.,
1994; Fernandez and Moreno, 1999; Tognetti et al., 2004;
Diaz-Espejo et al., 2007). This indicates that no large differ-
ences in drought stress at soil level occurred. Moreover, no
signicant difference in stomatal resistance was noted
between the irrigation plots (Figure 4). Although no signi-
cant differences in water potentials were observed between
the irrigation plots, stomatal resistance showed a maximum
shortly after midday for all plots (so-called midday closure)
(Figure 4). This can be explained by the high vapour
pressure decit during this period of the day (up to 4 kPa)
which has also been noted by Trilo et al. (2007) who
mention 45% loss in hydraulic conductivity at an applied
pressure of 3.5 MPa for twigs of Olea europaea Leccino.
From these data, it seems the lowest irrigation dose
(25 l day
-1
per tree) was sufcient for irrigation purposes,
while the irrigation dose of 75 l day
-1
per tree based on
Figure 6. Typical sap ux density pattern as obtained by the Do and
Rocheteau equation (2002)
Figure 7. Natural thermal gradient measured at the end of the cooling period
of the discontinuous heating cycle (southern sensor) from DOY 228 to 234
for one of the measured trees. Similar results were obtained for the other
trees although the gradient varied slightly between azimuthal directions
PenmanMonteith evapotranspiration calculations led to
water overspill.
Sap ux density
Inuence of thermal gradient: pitfall for cyclic heat-
ing. The use of crop coefcients to determine crop evapo-
transpiration from reference evapotranspiration is susceptible
to errors, because the actual physiology of the plant is not fully
taken into account (Fernandez et al., 1997; Tognetti et al.,
2004). Factors such as midday stomatal closure, pruning, crop
height, tree- to-tree distance, etc. can inuence the crop
coefcient, making it difcult to apply when no validation
measurements (for instance based on eddy covariance) have
been conducted (Teixeira et al., 2008). In order to include
the actual plantwater relations of the studied species and to
take the individual variability of trees into account, increasing
attention is currently being paid to irrigation methods that use
specic plant-based variables, including sap ow, detecting
drought stress directly at the plant level (Jones, 2004).
However, when using sap ow as a variable, attention should
be paid to natural thermal gradients. In this study, the natural
thermal gradient was mainly positive (Figure 7). This is in
contrast with the original study of Do and Rocheteau (2002).
When analysing the temperature differences between the
sensor needles at the end of the cooling period, Do and
Rocheteau (2002) found mainly positive natural gradients
(up to 1.5

C) during the night, while negative natural gradi-
ents occurred during the day (down to 2

C). This led to
an overestimation of the reference temperature difference
(for zero ow conditions) and, hence, an overestimation of
the actual sap ux density when applying the Granier formula,
Figure 8. Sap ux density (a), water potential (b) and stomatal resistance (c) for the different azimuthal directions for the irrigation dose of 33% ETc
Figure 9. Radial sap ux density prole for a tree for the irrigation dose of 33% ETc. This gure is available in colour online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ird
because during the day the reference needle was inuenced by
the negative natural gradient. In this study, application of the
Granier method would have led to underestimation of the
sap ux density, probably due to the heat capacity of the soil.
Although the formula developed by Do and Rocheteau
(2002) has proven to be very useful when taking natural
gradients into account, it should be applied with caution.
Indeed, when the K
a
value in Equation (5) is larger than 1,
imaginary results are obtained. A K
a
value larger than 1
might occur when T
a0
>2.T
au
. This is possible for high
T
a0
or low T
au
values. Since T
a0
values are based on
zero sap ow conditions, this value always reaches a
maximum dependent on the thermal conductivity of the
tissue in which the sensor is installed and on the natural
thermal gradients that occur. For a tree, this value is more
or less constant. The reason why K
a
values can be larger
than 1 is thus mainly due to low T
au
values with
T
au
T
on;u
T
off;u
(7)
with T
on,u
and T
off,u
the temperature difference between
the needles at the end of the heating period and at the end of
the cooling period, respectively. Low values are thus caused
by either a high sap ux density (which results in a low
Figure 10. Sap ux density at the different measurement depths and for the different azimuthal orientations for one tree: (a) north, (b) east, (c) south, (d) west
Figure 11. Water use of the different irrigation plots compared to the calculated PenmanMonteith crop evapotranspiration: (a) based on the TDP measurements
at 15 mm, (b) based on the radial prole. For both (a) and (b) an outer annulus of 36 mm was considered as conductive sapwood
temperature difference when the needles are heated) or a
high natural thermal gradient (which means a high tempera-
ture difference between the needles when they are not
heated) or by a combination of these factors. In this study,
imaginary results were obtained for four measurement days
and mostly at midday. These data were not used in the rest
of the analysis. In total, about 4% of the data were not used
because of this problem. However, even if the results are not
imaginary, their accuracy can be questioned. Because of
these limitations, it is advisable to repeat the calibration
procedure as described by Do and Rocheteau (2002) to see
whether the used species meets the empirical relationship.
It is clear that correct application of the sensors and use
of the corresponding equations is necessary to obtain
accurate results.
Scaling up sap ow measurements: azimuthal varia-
tion. When using TDP as a basis for irrigation, it is essential
that the measurements of the probe are representative for the
whole stem. Measurements were therefore conducted in the
four azimuthal directions. It was expected that sap ux density
would be higher for the southern sensors compared to the
northern ones due to the longer and direct exposure to radia-
tion. Because the northern tree side receives no direct radia-
tion (at least in the northern hemisphere) and to minimize
thermal effects on the sensors, it has been advised to install
TDP probes in this azimuthal direction (Do and Rocheteau,
2002; Steppe et al., 2002). We found that the azimuthal
pattern for sap ux density did not match the pattern for leaf
water potential or stomatal resistance (Figure 8 as an example
of one tree). This indicates that the variation between the
azimuthal directions is probably not due to meteorological
factors. The water potential measurements conrmed this
(Figure 3). One would expect that leaf water potentials decline
more strongly during the morning and rise more quickly
during the evening in the east (reversed reasoning for the
west), but the data did not show such a pattern. Fernandez
et al. (2001) argued that spatial differences were rather due
to different orientations of the primary branches and, coupled
with this, differences in leaf area index of the olive tree and
not to differences in radiation interception. These authors
suggested that measurements should therefore be performed
at primary branch level instead of at stem level. In our study
this was not the case, as no equal ratio between the directions
could be found despite the similar structure of crown
and branches.
Scaling up sap ow measurements: radial prole.
Besides azimuthal variation, studies have indicated radial
variation in the sap ux density (Granier et al., 1994; Lu
et al., 2000; Nadezhdina et al., 2002; Saveyn et al., 2008;
Steppe et al. 2010). This radial (and temporal) variability also
existed in Meski olive trees (Figure 9): sap ux density was
lower at smaller depths, then rose towards a maximum and
then slowly descended. This radial prole was, however,
not constant for the different azimuthal orientations
(Figure 10). Azimuthal differences in the radial prole can
be attributed to the coupling between the xylem and the
crown of the tree (Tyree and Zimmerman, 2002). A locally
smaller leaf area can lead to a lower sap ux density. In
addition, it seems plausible that these differences are
inuenced by the structure of the wood as this is linked with
the development and structure of the tree. To conrm this, a
coloured section of the stem was investigated. Through
colouring of the wood, it became clear that the conductive
tissue was not uniformly distributed in stems of olive trees
and that, when different sensors are placed in the stem, the
thermocouples, although placed at the same depth, were
located in different concentric stem sections of the conductive
tissue. This might largely explain the observed azimuthal
variation in the radial prole.
Because azimuthal and radial variability appeared to
depend largely on the structure of the sapwood and not
directly on meteorological variables, it was not feasible to
develop correction factors to scale from one-point sap ux
density measurements to the whole tree. To obtain an accu-
rate estimation of the total sap ow, multiple measurements
at different depths and azimuthal directions are, hence,
necessary. Multiple point sensors such as the heat eld
deformation sensor (Nadezhdina et al., 2012) could play a
major role in the upscaling.
Scaling up sap ow measurements: which surface to
use? To determine the total sap ow or whole-tree water
use from sap ux density measurements, the sap conductive
surface area has to be taken into account. The coloured stem
section indicated that using the total surface area to scale up
from a single-point measurement to tree level led to an over-
estimation since the inner part of the wood was not coloured
and, thus, did not conduct sap. The olive tree sapwood had
an average depth of 36 mm, corresponding to 74% of the
total cut surface area. This corresponded closely with the
sapwood depth of 40 mm reported earlier for olive trees
by Nadezhdina et al. (2007). It is thus not only important
to take into account azimuthal and radial variation, but also
the shape and depth of the conductive tissue. This becomes
clear when comparing whole-tree water use calculated with
and without taking radial variation into account. When using
only the azimuthal single-point measurements (no radial
prole) and considering the whole stem cross section as con-
ductive (the surface of the section was divided in four parts
according to the four azimuthal directions), an average daily
sap ow of 113 l (2.3 mm day
-1
or 5.4 l m
leaf
-2
day
-1
) was
estimated (average of all plots as there was no signicant
difference between them). When only using a disc section
(considering the 36 outer mm of the wood as conductive), this
amount reduced to 68 l (1.39 mm day
-1
or 3.2 l m
leaf
-2
day
-1
).
If radial variability was taken into account, the total daily sap-
ow decreased to only 34 l (0.70 mm day
-1
or 1.6 m
leaf
-2
day
-1
). If then not a perfect disc section but the actual conduc-
tive surface was used as for the cut tree, this amount was
reduced even more to 23 l (0.47 mm day
-1
or 1.1 l m
leaf
-2
day
-1
). These last values correspond well with the irrigation
dose of 33% ETc, conrming that this dose was sufcient
for this specic olive orchard. Hence, sap ux density mea-
surements that take radial and azimuthal variation into account
can lead to more accurate assessments of actual water use. It is
thus recommended to use sap ow data as validation for irri-
gation methods based on PenmanMonteith crop transpiration
calculations. Moreover, this combination can lead to a better
estimation of water use for the local grower, leading to a
decrease in water use and hence an economic advantage.
CONCLUSIONS
In this study an evaluation of the whole-tree water use of
olive trees and of frequently used irrigation methods is
presented. Based on water potential and stomatal resistance,
no difference in tree drought stress level for the three irriga-
tion doses (25, 45 and 75 l day
-1
per tree) was found, which
was a rst indication that the doses based on Penman
Monteith and the experience of the local grower led to
wasting of water. Sap ow measurements have great poten-
tial in irrigation research as they take into account the
ecophysiological response of the tree and are not primarily
based on meteorological factors. However, natural thermal
gradients played an important role when using them in Olea
europaea L. Meski, which made application of the
conventional sap ow formulas difcult. Moreover, radial
and azimuthal variability were mainly dependent on the
structure of the sapwood and not closely linked to meteoro-
logical variables such as radiation, which made scaling up a
difcult task for olive trees. Further research that could
remove the current pitfalls in sap ux density equations
could lead to even more accurate water use estimations.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank the Research Foundation
Flanders (FWO) for the PhD funding granted to the
rst author and the Flemish Interuniversity Council (VLIR)
for supporting this study as part of a larger Own Initiatives-
project (ZEIN2006PR326). We are also indebted to Fethi
Ben Mariem, Olfa Boussadia and the other Tunisian
researchers and technical staff of the Olive Institute
(Sousse) and Kim Callewaert for her help with the water
potential measurements.
REFERENCES
Allen R, Pereira L, Raes D, Smith M. 1998. Crop evapotranspiration.
Guidelines for computing crop water requirements. Irrigation and Drainage
Paper 56, FAO, Rome; 229.
Allen SJ, Grime VL. 1995. Measurements of transpiration from savanna
shrubs using sap ow gauges. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
75(13): 2341.
Brunt D. 1932. Notes on radiation in the atmosphere. Quarterly Journal of
the Royal Meteorological Society 58(247): 289420.
Buckley TN. 2005. The control of stomata by water balance. New Phytologist
168(2): 275291. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2005.01543.x
dAndria R, Lavini A, Morelli G, Patumi M, Terenziani S, Calandrelli D,
Fragnito F. 2004. Effects of water regimes on ve pickling and double
aptitude olive cultivars (Olea europaea L.). Journal of Horticultural
Science and Biotechnology 79(1): 1825.
De Pauw DJW, Steppe K, De Baets B. 2008. Identiability analysis and
improvement of a tree water ow and storage model. Mathematical
Biosciences 211(2): 314332. doi:10.1016/j.mbs.2007.08.007
De Swaef T, Steppe K, Lemeur R. 2009. Determining reference values for
stem water potential and maximum daily trunk shrinkage in young apple
trees based on plant responses to water decit. Agricultural Water
Management 96(4): 541550. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2008.09.013
Diaz-Espejo A, Nicolas E, Fernandez JE. 2007. Seasonal evolution of
diffusional limitations and photosynthetic capacity in olive under
drought. Plant Cell and Environment 30(8): 922933. doi:10.1111/
j.1365-3040.2007.001686.x
Do F, Rocheteau A. 2002. Inuence of natural temperature gradients on
measurements of xylem sap ow with thermal dissipation probes. 1. Field
observations and possible remedies. Tree Physiology 22(9): 641648.
Er-Raki S, Chehbouni A, Hoedjes J, Ezzahar J, Duchemin B, Jacob F.
2008. Improvement of FAO-56 method for olive orchards through
sequential assimilation of thermal infrared-based estimates of ET.
Agricultural Water Management 95(3): 309321. doi:10.1016/j.
agwat.2007.10.013
Fereres E, Evans RG. 2006. Irrigation of fruit trees and vines: an introduction.
Irrigation Science 24(2): 5557. doi:10.1007/s00271-005-0019-3
Fernandez JE, Moreno F. 1999. Water use by the olive tree. Journal of
Crop Production 2: 101162.
Fernandez JE, Moreno F, Giron IF, Blazquez OM. 1997. Stomatal control
of water use in olive tree leaves. Plant and Soil 190(2): 179192.
Fernandez JE, Palomo MJ, Diaz-Espejo A, Clothier BE, Green SR, Giron
IF, Moreno F. 2001. Heat-pulse measurements of sap ow in olives for
automating irrigation: tests, root ow and diagnostics of water stress.
Agricultural Water Management 51(2): 99123.
Fisher RA, Williams M, Do Vale RL, Da Costa AL, Meir P. 2006.
Evidence from Amazonian forests is consistent with isohydric control
of leaf water potential. Plant Cell and Environment 29(2): 151165.
Franks PJ, Drake PL, Froend RH. 2007. Anisohydric but isohydrodynamic:
seasonally constant plant water potential gradient explained by a stomatal
control mechanism incorporating variable plant hydraulic conductance.
Plant Cell and Environment 30(1): 1930. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
3040.01600.x
Fulton A, Buchner R, Olson B, Schwankl L, Gilles C, Bertagna N, Walton
J, Shackel K. 2001. Rapid equilibration of leaf and stem water potential
under eld conditions in almonds, walnuts, and prunes. HortTechnology
11(4): 609615.
Gimenez C, Fereres E, Ruz C, Orgaz F. 1997. Water relations and gas
exchange of olive trees: diurnal and seasonal patterns of leaf water poten-
tial, photosynthesis and stomatal conductance. Acta Horticulturae (ISHS)
449: 411416.
Granier A, Anfodillo T, Sabatti M, Cochard H, Dreyer E, Tomasi M,
Valentini R, Breda N. 1994. Axial and radial water-ow in the trunks
of oak trees a quantitative and qualitative analysis. Tree Physiology
14(12): 13831396.
Idso SB. 1981. A set of equations for full spectrum and 8-mu-m to 14-mu-m
and 10.5 mu-m to 12.5 mu-m thermal-radiation from cloudless skies.
Water Resources Research 17(2): 295304.
Jones HG. 2004. Irrigation scheduling: advantages and pitfalls of plant-
based methods. Journal of Experimental Botany 55(407): 24272436.
doi:10.1093/jxb/erh213
Lu P, Muller WJ, Chacko EK. 2000. Spatial variations in xylem sap ux
density in the trunk of orchard-grown, mature mango trees under changing
soil water conditions. Tree Physiology 20(10): 68369.
Lu P, Urban L, Zhao P. 2004. Graniers thermal dissipation probe (TDP)
method for measuring sap ow in trees: theory and practice. Acta Botanica
Sinica 46(6): 631646.
Michelakis NIC, Vouyoucalou E, Clapaki G. 1994. Soil moisture depletion,
evapotranspiration and crop coefcients for olive trees cv. Kalamon, for
different levels of soil water potential and methods of irrigation. Acta
Horticulturae 356: 162167.
Moreno F, Fernandez JE, Clothier BE, Green SR. 1996. Transpiration and
root water uptake by olive trees. Plant and Soil 184(1): 8596.
Moriana A, Fereres E. 2002. Plant indicators for scheduling irrigation of
young olive trees. Irrigation Science 21(2): 8390. doi:10.1007/
s00271-001-0053-8
Nadezhdina N. 1999. Sap ow index as an indicator of plant water status.
Tree Physiology 19: 885891.
Nadezhdina N, Cermak J, Ceulemans R. 2002. Radial patterns of sap ow
in woody stems of dominant and understory species: scaling errors
associated with positioning of sensors. Tree Physiology 22(13): 907918.
Nadezhdina N, Nadezhdin V, Ferreira MI, Pitacco A. 2007. Variability with
xylem depth in sap ow in trunks and branches of mature olive trees.
Tree Physiology 27(1): 105113.
Nadezhdina N, Vandegehuchte M, Steppe K. 2012. Sap ux density mea-
surements based on the heat eld deformation method. Trees Structure
and Function: 110. doi:10.1007/s00468-012-0718-3
Saveyn A, Steppe K, Lemeur R. 2007. Drought and the diurnal patterns of
stem CO2 efux and xylem CO2 concentration in young oak (Quercus
robur). Tree Physiology 27(3): 365374.
Saveyn A, Steppe K, Lemeur R. 2008. Spatial variability of xylem sap
ow in mature beech (Fagus sylvatica) and its diurnal dynamics in
relation to microclimate. Botany 86(12): 14401448. doi:10.1139/
b08-112
Sepulcre-Canto G, Zarco-Tejada PJ, Jimenez-Munoz JC, Sobrino JA, de
Miguel E, Villalobos FJ. 2006. Detection of water stress in an olive
orchard with thermal remote sensing imagery. Agricultural and Forest
Meteorology 136(12): 3144. doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2006.01.008
Sevanto S, Nikinmaa E, Riikonen A, Daley M, Pettijohn JC, Mikkelsen TN,
Phillips N, Holbrook NM. 2008. Linking xylem diameter variations with
sap ow measurements. Plant and Soil 305(12): 7790. doi:10.1007/
s11104-008-9566-8
Steppe K, Lemeur R, Samson R. 2002. Sap ow dynamics of a beech tree
during the solar eclipse of 11 August 1999. Agricultural and Forest
Meteorology 112(34): 139149.
Steppe K, De Pauw DJW, Lemeur R. 2008. A step towards new irrigation
scheduling strategies using plant-based measurements and mathematical
modelling. Irrigation Science 26(6): 505517. doi:10.1007/s00271-008-
0111-6
Steppe K, De PauwDJW, Doody TM, Teskey RO. 2010. Acomparison of sap
ux density using thermal dissipation, heat pulse velocity and heat eld de-
formation methods. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 150: 10461056.
Swinbank WC. 1963. Long-wave radiation from clear skies. Quarterly
Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 89(381): 339348.
Teixeira AHD, Bastiaanssen WGM, Moura MSB, Soares JM, Ahmad MD,
Bos MG. 2008. Energy and water balance measurements for water
productivity analysis in irrigated mango trees, Northeast Brazil.
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 148(10): 15241537.
doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2008.05.004
Tognetti R, dAndria R, Morelli G, Calandrelli D, Fragnito F. 2004. Irriga-
tion effects on daily and seasonal variations of trunk sap ow and leaf
water relations in olive trees. Plant and Soil 263(12): 249264.
Trilo P, Lo Gullo MA, Nardini A, Pernice F, Salleo S. 2007. Rootstock
effects on xylem conduit dimensions and vulnerability to cavitation of
Olea europaea L. Trees Structure and Function 21(5): 549556.
doi:10.1007/s00468-007-0148-9
Tyree MT, Zimmerman MH. 2002. Xylem Structure and the Ascent of Sap.
Springer Series in Wood Science: New York.
Villez K, Steppe K, De Pauw DJW. 2009. Use of Unfold PCA for on-line
plant stress monitoring and sensor failure detection. Biosystems
Engineering 103(1): 2334. doi:10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2009.01.014

Artigos Palestra - Marcos Eric

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Artigos Palestra - Marcos Eric

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Agricultural Water Management 108 (2012) 3951

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Corresponding author. Tel.: +351 213653480; fax: +351 213653287.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi