Water balance and irrigation scheduling simulation model

The WinISAREG model

Draft manual

Prepared by Paula Paredes

Supervised by Luis Santos Pereira
Table of Contents
1. Basic concepts ........................................................................................................................ 3
1.1. Soil water balance ............................................................................................................ 3
1.2. Salinity impacts ................................................................................................................ 5
1.3. Capillary rise from shallow water table ............................................................................. 7
1.4. Crop characterization ....................................................................................................... 7
1.4.1. Kc for the initial stage for annual crops ...................................................................... 8
1.4.2 Kc for the mid and end seasons................................................................................ 10
1.4.3. Soil water depletion fraction for non stress (p) ........................................................ 11
1.4.4. Rooting depth .......................................................................................................... 11
2. Presentation of the WinISAREG software............................................................................. 12
2.1. Introduction..................................................................................................................... 12
2.2. Installing the WinISAREG software ................................................................................ 14
2.3. General overview of the model....................................................................................... 17
2.4. Input data ....................................................................................................................... 21
2.4.1. Soil data .................................................................................................................. 22
2.4.1.1. Creating soil files: ............................................................................................. 22
2.4.1.2. Modifying soil files ............................................................................................ 24
2.4.1.3. Surface layer characterization .......................................................................... 25
2.4.2. Crop data................................................................................................................. 25
2.4.2.1. Creating or editing crop files............................................................................. 28
2.4.2.2. Searching for crop data included in the model crops database........................ 34
2.4.3. Meteorological files.................................................................................................. 38
2.4.3.1. Data files........................................................................................................... 38
2.4.3.2. Computing ETo using EVAP56 program........................................................... 45
2.4.4. Irrigation options ...................................................................................................... 50
2.4.4.1 Concepts ........................................................................................................... 50
2.4.4.2. Irrigation schedule option ................................................................................. 51
2.4.5. Water supply restrictions ......................................................................................... 57
2.4.6. Potential groundwater contribution .......................................................................... 58
2.4.6. Irrigation Simulation................................................................................................. 60
2.4.6.1. Presentation of the base data for the soil water balance.................................. 60
2.4.6.2. Entering the year or series of years for the simulation ..................................... 60
2.4.6.3. Executing a new simulation modifying only one element ................................. 61
2.7. Results ........................................................................................................................... 62
2.7.1. Soil water balance results ....................................................................................... 62
2.7.2. Graphical presentation of results............................................................................. 64
3. Bibliography........................................................................................................................... 68

2
1. Basic concepts

1.1. Soil water balance

The model performs the water balance for a multilayered soil (Fig. 1). Depending on
weather data availability, various time step computations can be used (daily, 10-day
and monthly). Input data include precipitation, reference evapotranspiration, total and
readily available soil water, soil water content at planting, potential groundwater
contribution, crop coefficients and soil water depletion fractions for no-stress relative to
crop growth stages, root depths and the water-yield response factor.

Crop transpiration

Precipitation Irrigation
Soil evaporation

Runoff

Deep percolation Capillary rise from

shallow water table
Fig. 1. Representation of the main water balance components for a multi-layer soil
The potential crop evapotranspiration is defined by
ETc = Kc ETo [1]

thus from the reference evapotranspiration (ETo, mm) and the crop coefficients (Kc).
The actual evapotranspiration (ETa) is computed through the model as a function of the
available soil water in the root zone when depletion exceeds the depletion fraction for
no stress (p) as explained by Teixeira and Pereira (1992) and Liu et al. (1998).
The crop coefficient, Kc, is the ratio between the crop evapotranspiration (ETc) and, the
reference evapotranspiration (ETo). It represents an integration of the effects of three
primary characteristics that distinguish the crop from the reference crop. These
characteristics are: crop height (affecting roughness and aerodynamic resistance); crop-
soil surface resistance (affected by leaf area, the fraction of ground covered by
vegetation, leaf age and condition, the degree of stomatal control, and soil surface
wetness); and albedo (reflectance) of the crop-soil surface, affected by the fraction of
ground covered by vegetation and by the soil surface wetness (Allen et al., 1998). The
FAO-PM equation to compute ETo is

3
 900
0.408 Δ ( Rn − G ) + γ u2 ( es − ea )
T + 273
ETo = [2]
Δ + γ ( 1+ 0.34 u2 )

where, Rn is the net radiation at the crop surface [MJ m-2 d-1], G is soil heat flux density
[MJ m-2 d-1], T is the air temperature at 2 m height [°C], u2 is the wind speed at 2 m
height [m s-1], es is the vapour pressure of the air at saturation (kPa), ea is the actual
vapour pressure (kPa), Δ is the slope of the vapour pressure curve (kPa ºC-1), and γ is
the psychrometric constant [kPa ºC-1]. G may be ignored for daily time step
computations.
Many historical weather data sets include only measurements of daily air temperature.
When ETo estimates are desired, Rs, actual vapour pressure, and/or u2 maybe
estimated following the procedures described by Allen et al. (1998); where Rs is
estimated from Tmax-Tmin, actual vapour pressure is estimated from Tmin, and u2 is
estimated from regional averages or from some regional weather station (Popova et al.,
2006b).
The computation of the irrigation water requirements throughout the soil water balance
that is calculated for the effective root depth as:

θ i =θ i −1+
(P − RO )+I
i i i −ETc i −DPi +GWi
[3]
1000zr i

where θi and θi-1 are soil water content in the root zone (m3 m-3), in the days i and i-1, Pi
is the precipitation (mm), RO i is the runoff (mm), Ii is the net irrigation depth (mm) that
infiltrates the soil, ETci (mm) is the crop evapotranspiration (mm), DPi represents deep
percolation (mm), GWi is the capillary rise/groundwater contribution (mm), and Zr i is the
rooting depth (m) in day i. GW and DP are estimated from soil hydraulic properties and
the water table depth as described by Liu et al. (2006).

First θi computed and then the required irrigation depths In i are calculated when the
appropriate thresholds for the soil water are reached as described below. The ETa
computations are based on the product between the reference evapotranspiration and
a crop coefficient (Allen et al., 1998). Two alternatives maybe considered for the
estimation of the groundwater contribution GWi: the simplified procedure proposed by
Doorenbos and Pruitt (1977) or an algorithm developed by Liu et al. (2006). Deep
percolation is estimated either empirically (Teixeira and Pereira, 1992) or using an
algorithm describing the soil water depletion from saturation to field capacity (Liu et al.,
2006). The runoff depth RO i can be predicted using the SCS curve number method
(USDA-SCS, 1972) but, for most applications, runoff can be neglected.
The irrigation threshold to avoid water stress is when the actual soil water content θi
equals the threshold relative to the depletion fraction for no stress p, θi = θp given by
θ p = (1 − p )(θ FC − θWP ) + θWP [4]

and the corresponding net irrigation depth is then

In i =1000 zr i (θFC −θ p ) [5]

Irrigation is scheduled when the management-allowed depletion, MAD, is attained.

When water stress is not admitted, then MAD = p; a MAD < p is adopted when there is

4
risk aversion or uncertainty, and MAD > p when crop water stress is allowed, i.e. when
deficit irrigation is applied, which means to adopt an irrigation that only partly satisfies
the crop irrigation requirements but is able to provide for a yield reduction that allows
the economic return of irrigation. Therefore, irrigations are scheduled (Eq. 4) for
θ i = θMAD = (1 − MAD)(θ FC − θWP ) + θWP [6]
and the applied depth (norm) is either a user selected fixed quantity D (mm), or a
variable D = θFC - θi.
The maximal net irrigation depth is then
In i =1000zr i (θFC −θMAD ) [7]

In practice, a user selected fixed depth D ≤ In I (mm) is adopted.

The season net crop irrigation requirements is given by
ETc −Pe −GW − ΔS
IWR = [8]
1−LR

where Pe is the effective precipitation (mm), GW is the cumulated capillary rise flux
during the crop vegetative period (mm), ΔS is the cumulative variation of the soil water
storage in the root zone during the crop vegetative period, and LR is the leaching
fraction. The gross irrigation water requirement is computed as

IWR
GIWR= [9]
Eff

where Eff is the seasonal efficiency of the irrigation system.

The water stress impact on the crop yield is evaluated by the methodology proposed by
Stewart et al. (1977) and Doorenbos and Kassam (1979), where relative yield losses
(RYL= 1-Ya/Ym) depend upon the relative evapotranspiration deficit (RED = 1-ETa/ETc)
through the water-yield response factor Ky (dimensionless):
⎛ Ya ⎞ ⎛ ET ⎞
⎜⎜1 − ⎟⎟ = K y ⎜⎜1 − a ⎟⎟ [10]
⎝ Ym ⎠ ⎝ ETc ⎠

where ETa and ETc are respectively the seasonal actual and potential crop
evapotranspiration (mm) and Ya and Ym are the corresponding achieved yields, tabled
in Allen et al. (1998). A validation is presented by Teixeira et al. (1995).

1.2. Salinity impacts

A subroutine was developed for ISAREG aimed at predicting impacts of soil salinity on
evapotranspiration and crop yields (Pereira et al., 2003; 2007). The effects of the
salinity on yields are estimated through the equation proposed by Ayers and Westcot
(1985):

= 1− (ECe − ECe threshold )

Ya b
[11]
Ym 100
where Ya and Ym are the actual and potential crops yields (kg ha-1), when the crop
techniques are appropriate to the local environmental conditions and no water stress

5
affects the crop; b is a crop specific parameter which describes the rate of yield
decrease per unit of excess salts (%/ dS m-1), and ECe and ECe threshold are respectively
the actual electrical conductivity of the soil saturation extract and the crop specific ECe
threshold above which the crop is affected by salinity. The parameters b and ECe threshold
are tabled in Allen et al. (1998) for the main crops.
When both the salinity and a water deficit affect a crop, then Eqs. 10 and 11 combine to
produce (Allen et al., 1998):
Ya ⎡ b ⎤ ⎡ ETa ⎤
1− = ⎢(ECe − ECe threshold ) ⎢K y (1 − ET )⎥ [12]
Ym ⎣ 100 ⎥⎦ ⎣ m ⎦

The parameter Ky can be used to adjust the (potential) crop evapotranspiration (ETc)
relative to optimal crop growth during the full crop season for the conditions were stress
occurs (Allen et al., 1998). Thus, rewriting Eq. 10 to take in consideration the impacts of
water stress and/or salinity, the adjusted crop evapotranspiration ETc adj is:
RYL
ETc adj = (1 - ) ETm [13]
Ky
Equation 13 allows estimating the cumulative crop ET for the season (mm) when the
yield reduction is known. ISAREG computes the water balance on a daily basis and
assumes an exponential decrease for ETc when the soil water depletion fraction
exceeds the depletion fraction p, which is crop specific and decreases when the climate
demand increases. Thus, the factor p should be corrected, becoming smaller when ECe
is larger then ECe threshold, and depending upon the crop sensitivity to salinity through the
parameter b of Eq. 11. The fraction p corrected for salinity (pcor) is then estimated from:
pcor = p - [b (ECe - ECe threshold )] p [14]
Equation 14 indicates that p decreases with increasing salinity and with increasing crop
sensitivity to salts. Decreasing p means that smaller soil water depletion is required for
the crop to evapotranspire at a rate ETa < ETm at higher soil water contents than
without salinity effects. The limit p ≥ 0.1 proposed by Allen et al. (1998) is kept since
soil evaporation is not affected.
Salinity increases the soil water content at the wilting point because crop roots have to
overcome the combined matric potential and increased osmotic potential (Beltrão and
Ben Asher, 1997). When salts are present the value for θWP is corrected as
⎛ ECe - ECe threshold ⎞
θWP salt = θWP + b ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ ⋅ (θFC - θWP ) [15]
⎝ 10 ⎠
where θWP is the soil water content at wilting point under non-saline conditions, θFC is
the soil water content at field capacity (m3 m-3), and θWPsalt is the soil water content at
wilting point (mm mm-1) for saline conditions. Following this approach, the total
available soil water (TAW) is decreased due to salinity effects becoming
TAWsalt = (θFC - θWP salt ) ⋅ 10 ⋅ Z r [16]
where TAWsalt is the corrected value of the total available soil water (mm) and Zr is the
root depth (m).
Equations 13 to 16 are used only when RYL do not exceed 50% because this value is
generally assumed as the limit for the validity of the yield–water equation (Eq. 10)
(Doorenbos and Kassam, 1979). It is assumed that a crop would not be grown on a
saline soil that would produce a relative yield Ya/Ym < 0.50.
6
1.3. Capillary rise from shallow water table
The WinISAREG model computes the capillary rise from the shallow water table
applying the equations presented by Liu et al (1998, 2006). The parametric equations
used to compute the groundwater contribution GW (mm d-1) are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of equations used to compute the groundwater fluxes and respective
parameters (Liu et al., 2006).
Equations Conditions Parameters
Wc = a1⋅ Dwb1 a1 = WFc, the soil water storage to 1.0 m
depth at field capacity
b1 = -0.17
Ws = a2⋅ Dwb2 a2 = 1.1 (WFc + WWp)/2, a storage above
the average between those at field capacity
and the wilting point
b2 = -0.27
Dwc =a3⋅ ETm+ b3 when ETm ≤ 4 mm d-1 a3 = -1.3
Dwc = 1.4 when ETm > 4 mm d-1 b3 = 6.7 for clay and silty clay loam soils,
decreasing to 6.2 for loamy sands
GW max = k⋅ ETm when Dw ≤ Dwc a4 = 4.6 for silty loam and silty clay loam
soils, decreasing to 3 for loamy sands
GW max = a4⋅ Dw b4 When Dw > Dwc
b4 = -0.65 for silty loam soils and
decreasing to –2.5 for loamy sand soils
k = 1 - e-0.6⋅ LAI When ETm ≤ 4 mm d-1
k = 38/ETm When ETm > 4 mm d-1

1.4. Crop characterization

The crop coefficient can be represented by:
K c = K s K cb + K e [17.1]

where Kcb is the basal crop coefficient, Ke is the coefficient representing the
evaporation of soil water, and Ks is the water stress coefficient. This dual form of the
crop coefficient requires a daily water balance of the evaporation soil surface layer. A
more common approach, which includes the effects of several days evaporation from
the soil surface is the time-averaged crop coefficients approach:
K c = K cb + K e [17.2]

This approach is accurately used for planning studies, irrigation system design and for
typical irrigation management, and is currently used in many irrigation scheduling
simulation models, including the WinISAREG model (Pereira et al., 2003).
The time average crop coefficients approach is represented through a curve (Fig. 2),
the crop coefficient curve, which describes the changes in Kc over the length of the
growing season. As shown in Figure 2, shortly after planting of annuals or shortly
after the initiation of new leaves for perennials, the value for Kc is small. The Kc
begins to increase from the initial Kc value, Kc ini, at the beginning of rapid plant
development and reaches a maximum value, Kc mid, at the time of maximum or near
maximum plant development. The period during which Kc = Kc mid is referred to as the

7
mid season period. During the late season period, as leaves begin to age and
senesce due to natural or cultural practices, the Kc begins to decrease until it reaches
a lower value at the end of the growing period equal to Kc end (Allen et al., 1998; Pereira
and Allen, 1999; Allen et al., 2005a).

Fig. 2. Crop coefficient curve and stage definitions (Allen et al., 1998)

1.4.1. Kc for the initial stage for annual crops

The evaporation from the soil is the predominant component of the evapotranspiration
in the initial crop stage, so in this period the Kc ini is strongly influenced by the frequency
that the soil surface is wetted.
The Kc ini is computed using a numerical procedure based in a model that considers the
evaporation from bare soil occurring in two distinct stages (Allen et al., 1998; 2005b,
Pereira and Allen, 1999). During stage 1 evaporation is limited by the energy available
at the soil surface. At stage 2, evaporation depends on the availability of the soil water
in the soil evaporation layer and decreases with the remaining evaporable water in the
soil. As in Fig. 3, the depth of evaporated water, De, is limited to the readily evaporable
water, REW, during stage 1, and to the total evaporable water, TEW, during stage 2.
-1
Evaporation Rate, mm d

Stage 1 Stage 2
Drying Drying

REW TEW
De
Depth of Soil Water Evaporated, D e, mm

Fig. 3. Two stages model for soil evaporation (Allen et al., 1998)
The Kc ini is given by Equation 18 when the mean interval between wettings, tw, is
smaller than the duration of stage 1 drying, t1 (tw ≤ t1), i.e., when the entire process
resides within stage 1:
8
 Eso
K c ini = = 1.15 [18]
ETo ini

where Eso is the potential evaporation from the soil and ETo ini is the average ETo during
the initial period. When tw > t1, then:
⎡ ⎛ REW ⎞⎤
⎢ − (tw − t1 ) Eso ⎜1 + ⎟⎥
TEW − (TEW − REW ) exp ⎢ ⎝ TEW − REW ⎠⎥
⎢ TEW ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
K c ini = [19]
tw ETo ini
The duration of stage 1 drying is
t1 = REW / Eso [20]

and the average interval between wettings is

tw = tini / nw [21]

where tini is the time duration of the initial periods and nw is the number of wetting
events (two successive events are counted as one only).
The evaporation soil water depths can be estimated from the soil characteristics:
REWest = 20 - 0.15 Sa when Sa ≥ 80 [22a]

REWest = 11 - 0.06 Cl when Cl ≥ 50 [22b]

REWest = 8 + 0.08 Cl when Sa < 80 and Cl < 50 [22c]

where Sa and Cl are the sand and clay percentages in the soil evaporation layer of the
depth Ze. For ETo ini ≥ 5 mm d-1 the TEW is estimated by:
TEWest = 1000 (θFC − 0.5 θWP ) Ze [23a]

When ETo ini < 5 mm d-1, then

0.5
⎛ ET ⎞
TEWest = 1000 (θFC − 0.5 θWP ) Ze ⎜⎜ o ini ⎟⎟ [23b]
⎝ 5 ⎠

However TEW and REW have to be corrected when the depth of water in the
evaporation soil layer is small. Thus, it is first computed the mean infiltrated depth Pmean
from the net infiltration depths from rain (Pn) and irrigation (In) relative to all wetting
events (nw).
Pmean = (Σ Pn + Σ In) / nw [24]

However, each value of Pn and In must be limited to Pn ≤ TEW and In ≤ TEW.

Considering the water depth, Wini, existing in the evaporative soil layer at the first day,
the values of REW and TEW are then:

9
 ⎡ ⎛ W ⎞⎤
⎢ ⎜ Pmean + ini ⎟⎥
nw
REW = REW est ⎢min ⎜ , 1⎟⎥ [25]
⎢ ⎜ TEWest ⎟⎥
⎢ ⎜ ⎟⎥
⎣ ⎝ ⎠⎦

⎡ ⎛ W ⎞⎤
TEW = min ⎢TEWest , ⎜⎜ Pmean + ini ⎟⎟⎥ [26]
⎣ ⎝ nw ⎠⎦

When only a portion of the soil surface is wetted, such as for furrow or trickle irrigation
the value for In in Eq. (24) should also be adjusted to the average fraction of surface
wetted, fw, making:
In = I / fw [27]

Therefore, the value calculated for Kc ini in Eq. (18 and 19) should be reduced in
proportion to fw:
Kc ini =Kc ini Eq. (17.2) fw [28]

The use of Eq. (22) and (23) requires further verification because TEW is computed
from the soil water retention at depth Ze while REW is estimated from soil texture
characteristics, thus REW can easily be overestimated. Therefore, following the
procedures for graphical computation of Kc ini presented in Allen et al. (1998), the
empirical ratio TR is used to adjust REW:
TEW
REW = [29]
TR

Whenever ETo ≥ 5 mm d-1, the ratio TR is given by Eq. (30) but if ETo < 5 mm d-1, Eq.
(29) should be used:
TR = 4 − [0.05 − 0.002 (TEW − 15 )] (Pmean − 10 ) [30]

ETo
TR = 4 − [0.05 − 0.002 (TEW − 15 )] (Pmean − 10 ) [31]
5

thus, it expresses the influences of the average wetting depths Pmean (Eq. 24) and
evaporable water in the soil surface layer TEW.

1.4.2 Kc for the mid and end seasons

The Kc mid and Kc end values tabled by Allen et al. (1998) correspond to an irrigation
management and precipitation frequencies typical of a sub-humid climate, where RHmin
= 45% and u2 = 2 m s-1. When climatic conditions are different from these values, the
values for Kc mid and Kc end must be adjusted. The following equations (Allen et al., 1998)
are adopted:
0 .3
⎛h⎞
K c mid = K c mid (Tab) + [0.04 (u2 − 2) − 0.004 (RH min − 45 )]⎜ ⎟ [32]
⎝3⎠
0 .3
⎛h⎞
K c end = K c end (Tab) + [0.04 (u2 − 2) − 0.004 (RH min − 45 )]⎜ ⎟ [33]
⎝3⎠
10
where u2 and RHmin are the average daily values for the wind speed and minimum
relative humidity during the initial period, and h is the crop height. Indicative values for
maximum h are given in Allen et al. (1998) and Pereira and Allen (1999).
No adjustment for Kc end is necessary when Kc end do not exceeds 0.45, i.e. when crops
are allowed to senesce and dry in the fields.
When RHmin data are not available, they can be estimated from
RHmin = 100 eº (Tmin) / eº (Tmax) [34]

i.e. from the ratio of saturated vapor pressure at minimum and maximum temperature.

1.4.3. Soil water depletion fraction for non stress (p)

The soil water depletion for no stress, p, is the average fraction of available soil water in
the root zone that can be depleted before the crop could be water stressed. The soil
water content θp is therefore a threshold value to compute the irrigation requirements to
be used in irrigation scheduling, and to define the water stress coefficients in Eq. (18.1)
(Pereira and Allen, 1999). The fraction p is therefore a main input in irrigation
scheduling models namely on WinISAREG.
Allen et al. (1998) present p values for most crops. These values correspond to
average ETc = 5 mm d-1 and shall be corrected for the actual ETc, averaged for each
crop period, through the following equation:
p = p tab + 0.04 (5 - ETc) [35]

but limited to 0.1 ≤ p ≤ 0.8. However, during the initial crop stage, p ≤ 0.6 to guarantee
a good crop establishment (Allen et al., 1998).

1.4.4. Rooting depth

The ISAREG model computes for the annual crops the root depth curve, as given in
Fig. 4. The model assumes a minimum (Zr min) at the initial period and that the maximum
root development (Zr max) is attained when the crop reaches full development, at the mid
season period. A linear variation is adopted.

Root depth (m)

Zr max

Crop Mid Season

Zr min Dev. Period
Initial Period
Period

Time of Season, in days

Fig. 4. Linear model to predict the root depth.

11
2. Presentation of the WinISAREG software

2.1. Introduction
The irrigation scheduling simulation models are essentially of two types: water fluxes
simulation models, when the water balance is computed from the water fluxes entering
and leaving the root zone, and soil water balance simulation models, when the water
balance computations are performed by estimating the input and output quantities of
water to the soil reservoir with a predetermined time step (Pereira et al., 1995).
The use of soil water balance simulation models for irrigation scheduling is definitely
recommended when applied in the irrigation practice by planners, farmers, managers or
farm advisers. This is the case for the WinISAREG model.
The WinISAREG software is the integration of two different models, the EVAP56 (for
computing reference evapotranspiration) and the ISAREG as described by Pereira et
al. (2003). It also includes an algorithm that takes into consideration the soil salinity
impacts on ETc and yields (Campos et al., 2003; Pereira et al., 2007) and an algorithm
for computation of the groundwater contribution (GW) and percolation (Liu et al., 2006)
as explained in Sections 1.2 and 1.3 respectively. Percolation resulting from excess
water in the root zone is estimated by a parametric equation as a function of soil
characteristics and the amount of water in excess to field capacity (Liu et al., 2006).
Irrigation depths and dates may be selected in accordance with different objectives and
are computed according to water depths limits and soil water thresholds defined by the
user. The water stress impact on crop yield is evaluated by the model proposed by
Stewart et al. (1977) where relative yield losses depend upon the relative
evapotranspiration deficit through the water-yield response factor Ky.
The ISAREG model performs the soil water balance computation according to the
methodology proposed by Allen et al. (1998) using different options to define and
evaluate the irrigation schedules (Teixeira and Pereira, 1992; Liu et al., 1998 and 2006;
Fortes et al., 2005; Popova et al., 2006a; Cholpankulov et al., 2008; Pereira et al.,
2009; Cai et al., 2009). In Fig. 5 the generic scheme is presented. The model is
available for downloading in http://ceer.isa.utl.pt/cms/.
The model performs the irrigation scheduling simulations according to the following
user options:
• to define an irrigation scheduling to maximize crop yields, i.e. without crop water
stress;
• to generate an irrigation scheduling using selected irrigation thresholds, including
for allowed water stress and responding to water restrictions imposed at given
time periods;
• to evaluate yield and water use impacts of a given irrigation schedule;
• to test the model performance against observed soil water data and using actual
irrigation dates and depths, which is the option used for model calibration and
validation;
• to execute the water balance without irrigation; and
• to compute the net crop irrigation requirements, and performing the frequencies’
analysis of irrigation requirements when a weather data series is considered.

12
Fig. 5. Simplified flow-charts of WinISAREG model

The WinISAREG is developed through the presentation of a sequence of choices that

define the various options to be taken by the user. The main menu (Fig. 6) contains the
major information and computations to be performed by the program.
The base data files are organized as follows (Fig. 6):
• soil data for a multi-layer soil relative to each layer, the respective depth d (m); the
soil water content at field capacity θFC (m3 m-3) and the wilting point θWP (m3 m-3), or the
total available water (TAW, mm); an additional file is used to characterize the evaporable
layer also named superficial layer using total evaporable water [TEW, mm] and the
readily evaporable water [REW, mm]. When not known, TEW is estimated from the soil
water retention characteristics of the upper soil layer, with a depth Ze = 0.10 to 0.15 m,
and REW is estimated from the soil textural characteristics. Estimates for TEW and
REW are provided by Allen et al. (1998, 2005a) for main soil textural classes; the initial
soil water content is provided by the user.
• meteorological data concerning effective precipitation, Pe (mm) and reference

13
evapotranspiration, ЕТo (mm), or weather data to compute ЕТo using the FAO-PM
methodology, including alternative computation methods for missing climate data (Allen et
al., 1998); Additional files may be used to adjust crop coefficients to climatic conditions,
wind speed and minimum relative humidity.
• crop data referring to dates of crop development stages, crop coefficients (Kc);
root zone depths Zr (m); soil water depletion fractions for no-stress (р); and the
seasonal water-yield response factor (Kу);
• Irrigation options - the irrigation scheduling simulations according to user-defined
options
• Groundwater contribution - an additional file is used to parameterize the equations
relative to groundwater contribution and percolation
• Water restrictions - e.g. the definition of a minimum interval between irrigations, or
water supply restrictions

Fig. 6. Main menu

2.2. Installing the WinISAREG software

To install the WinISAREG model the user must follow the next steps.
1) Open the zip file an extract all files
2) Execute the setup
The program’s setup presentation is showed on the screen (Fig. 7a). Press <NEXT> to
continue.

14
Fig. 7a. WinISAREG Setup window

3) Chose the destination of the model should be installed for the data files
The user may browse for specify a destination of the folder that contains the model.
Press <next> (Fig. 7b).

Fig. 7b. Selecting the model destination location

When the menu in Fig. 7c appears the user should select at least the additional task of
associating the WinISAREG model to *.isr files. This will allow the user to accede the
content of a file just by clicking on it.

15
Fig. 7c. Selecting additional tasks

Continue with the installation process by pressing <Next>. The sequence of windows
presented in Fig. 7d will be showed.

Fig. 7d. Installation of WinISAREG model: final sequence.

After properly install the model then the user is ready to create a new *.isr file. The
menu shown in Fig. 8 may be used when the user wants to create a new *.isr file or to
open a previously made one. In this version of WinISAREG the concept of the project is
introduced; this concept is related to a holding data file created by the model where all
data entered by the user will be stored. Every time the program is loaded the user will
be prompt to create a new project or to open an existing one.

16
Fig. 8. Welcome model window

2.3. General overview of the model

After creating a new *.isr file the main menu is showed (Fig. 9). The user must then:

a) Choose the data files to be created

In the navigation tree on the main menu (Fig. 9), the user may choose the different data
files to load the different databases with information. The user may also choose the
data files type using the menu option data (Fig. 10) and a new window will be opened
to create a new input file. An important note is that the user should always save the
information (Fig. 11).

Navigation tree

Fig. 9. WinISAREG main menu (with identification of the navigation tree where data files are
created, edited or deleted).

17
Fig. 10. WinISAREG main menu where it is pointed how to create a new data file

Fig. 11a shows the example of saving every data file within the WinISAREG model.
However, if the user forgets to save the information that was introduced the message in
Fig. 11b shows. If the user selects option “yes” the window will close and the entered
and/or changed data will not be saved. If “No” is selected then the window will remain
open and the save must be made.
In the list box it’s listed the names of the data of the same type previously saved. A new
name must be entered in the text box below. The “Save” button is used to initiate the
saving process. Note that the window will not close after the data is saved, so the user
is enabled to make changes in the data and save it again. The names must be
exclusive, for each type of data, meaning that the user may not repeat the same name
for different instances of the same data (however the same name can be used for
different data types).
If the user uses a name equal to one already in the list box (eg. example1 as in Fig.
11a) a warning message box will appear (Fig. 11c). If “yes” is chosen the model will
overwrite in the existing file. If the changes are not to be saved then the user should
select “no” and change the name of the file.

Yes No b)

a)
Yes No c)

Fig. 11. Saving window and warning message boxes.

18
b) Choose the combination of files by specifying soil, climatic, crop, irrigation options as
well indicate if groundwater contribution and water restrictions should or not be
considered (Fig. 12).

Fig. 12. Example of the main menu window after the input files were selected by the user.

c) Computing the water balance and irrigation schedule

For the chosen combination of input data the “make soil water balance” option should
be select. Then the user should choose the year for the simulation and if the user
wants to compute or adjust crop coefficients (Fig. 13) select those options.

Fig. 13. Soil water balance option.

19
After simulating the soil water balance the WinISAREG model provides for the following
screen results:
1. Irrigation volumes - total irrigation (mm); deep percolation (if existing); scheduling
efficiency (not available for irrigation options 1, 4 and 5), irrigation dates and depths,
and cumulated depths per month and total irrigation (Fig. 14a)
2. Control data - soil water variation thought the irrigation period and includes: i) RAW
(mm) at the start and end of crop season; ii) TAW (mm) at the start and end of crop
season; iii) deep percolation (mm); iv) cumulative rainfall (mm); v) non-used rainfall
(mm); vi) actual evapotranspiration (ETa, mm); and vii) GW (mm) (Fig. 14b) .
3. ET and Qfc: includes the cumulative ETm, ETa, ratio ETa/ETm; yield decrease due to
water stress (express as a percentage), due to salinity stress and total yield decrease;
continuous peak discharge (Qfc, is a project parameter and it is the maximum value
obtained when dividing the irrigation event volume (mm) by the time interval between
irrigation event (l s-1 d-1); further information is given: identification of the day that Qfc
was computed and the interval between irrigations)
4. Simulation data - identification of the files used for the balance namely the base data
(crop, soil, ETo, precipitation), irrigation options, water restrictions, and GW
5. Crop coefficients
6. Field data

a)

b)
Fig. 14. Example of water balance results for a cotton crop and irrigation scheduling aiming at
maximizing yields: a) irrigation volumes window; b) control data window.

20
b) Creating a combined data file
The model allows that a combination file will be created with the group of information
data files (in the navigation tree just select combined data and create a new one;
whenever the user decides to change the combination of the files the user may choose
to update the previously created combine data file or to create a new one (if choosing
the latter the user will not loose the old combination). e.g. when different irrigation
options are created and all the other data is maintained just create a new combine data
for the specific irrigation schedule (Fig. 15).

Fig. 15. Example of two combined data files with the same input data except for the irrigation
option

2.4. Input data

When starting a new project different input files have to be built. The following sections
explain how to create those data files required for the simulation

21
2.4.1. Soil data

2.4.1.1. Creating soil files:

Figure 16 shows generically the different options of the program to enter the soil
parameters. After choose on the navigation menu (Fig. 16a); or data in the horizontal
bar (Fig. 16b) the option the word “new”.

a)

b)
Fig. 16. Example of the two options to create new data files

22
The parameters required to define the soil hydrologic characteristics are designated as
soil data. The user has to input data on depth and thickness of the soil layers and
respective water holding capacity. The latter can be inputted as (Figure 17):
- total available soil water, TAW [mm],
- the soil water content at the field capacity and the wilting point, θFC and θWP [m3 m-3 ],
- the soil water content at the field capacity and the wilting point, WFC and WWP [kg kg-1]
and the bulk density of the soil [kg dm-3].

Fig. 17. Soil data input window.

The total available soil water (TAW) refers to the capacity of a soil to retain water
available to plants. It is obtained subtracting the volume of water stored by the soil
when it is at field capacity (FC), and the volume of water stored at the permanent
wilting point (WP).
Field capacity is the amount of water that a well-drained soil should hold against
gravitational forces, or the amount of water remaining when downward drainage has
markedly decreased. In the absence of water supply, the water content in the root zone
decreases as a result of water uptake by the crop. As water uptake progresses, the
remaining water is held to the soil particles with greater force, lowering its potential
energy and making it more difficult for the plant to extract it.
Eventually, a point is reached where the crop can no longer extract the remaining
water. The water uptake becomes zero when wilting point is reached. Wilting point is
the water content at which plants will permanently wilt (Allen et al. 1998). TAW is the
amount of water that a crop can extract from its root zone, and its magnitude depends
on the type of soil and the rooting depth.
When FC and WP are expressed in fraction of water by the volume of soil:
TAW = 1000 Zr (θFC - θWP) [35]

where
TAW (mm); θFC - soil water content at field capacity [m3 m-3]; θWP - soil water content at
wilting point [m3 m-3]; Zr - root depth [m].
23
When FC and WP are expressed in percentage of weight of soil (ponderal percentage),
being bd the bulk density of the dry soil.
TAW = 10 Zr (FC - WP) bd [36]

Table 2 provides a resume of main soil water characteristics for the different soil types.

Table 2. Typical soil water characteristics for different soil types (Allen et al., 1998; 2007)
Depth of water that can be depleted by
evaporation
Stages 1 and 2 Stages 1 and 2
Soil type Soil water characteristics Stage 1 TEW[1] TEW[1]
(USDA soil texture θFC θWP (θFC – θWP) REW (Ze = 0.10 m) (Ze = 0.15 m)
classification) m3 m-3 m3 m-3 m3 m-3 mm mm mm
Sand 0.07-0.17 0.02-0.07 0.05-0.11 2-7 612 9-13
Loamy sand 0.11-0.19 0.03-0.10 0.06-0.12 4-8 9-14 13-21
Sandy loam 0.18-0.28 0.06-0.16 0.11-0.15 6-10 15-20 22-30
Loam 0.20-0.30 0.07-0.17 0.13-0.18 8-10 16-22 24-33
Silt loam 0.22-0.36 0.09-0.21 0.13-0.19 8-11 18-25 27-37
Silt 0.28-0.36 0.12-0.22 0.16-0.20 8-11 22-26 33-39
Silt clay loam 0.30-0.37 0.17-0.24 0.13-0.18 8-11 22-27 33-40
Silty clay 0.30-0.42 0.17-0.29 0.13-0.19 8-12 22-28 33-42
Clay 0.32-0.40 0.20-0.24 0.12-0.20 8-12 22-29 33-43
[1]
TEW = (θF C – 0.5 θWP) Ze

2.4.1.2. Modifying soil files

The user is able to modify the parameters there were input in the soil file by using the
option edit values (Fig. 18) and saving the changes afterwards.

Fig. 18. Option for editing the soil data files, main menu window.

24
2.4.1.3. Surface layer characterization
Soil data may include the characterization of the evaporable layer, also named surface
layer, using total evaporable water [TEW, mm] and the readily evaporable water.
[REW, mm] (see example in Fig. 19). When not known, TEW is estimated from the soil
water retention characteristics of the upper soil layer, with a depth Ze = 0.10 to 0.15 m,
and REW is estimated from the soil textural characteristics. Estimates for TEW and
REW for main soil textural classes are provided in Table 2.

Fig. 19. Window relative to surface soil layer characterization and example.

2.4.2. Crop data

After using the main menu to create a new file for crop data the following menu
appears (Fig. 20); data refers to dates of crop development stages, crop coefficients
(Kc) for each stage, soil water depletion fraction for no stress (p), crop height (h), root
depths (Zr) from planting to maximum development, and yield response factor (Ky).

Crop data is handled differently according to the type of crop, thus the first step is to
enter one of the following options: (a) field, horticultural and tree crops, (b) winter field
crops in environments where the soil is frozen during a few months, (c) forage crops
having several cuts during the growing season, and (d) perennial crops having a
constant crop coefficient.
The model is prepared for calculations under conditions of frozen soil with crop planting
before soil freezing or after melting. The initial soil water content is provided by the user
or from estimations performed by simulating a previous period of fallow, which
simulation starts at the end of the dry season, when most of the soil water is
consumed, or during the wet season when replenishment of the soil water may be
assumed. Campos et al. (2003) presented some examples of these procedures.
Kc and p are adjusted to local and season climate using the methodology proposed by
FAO (Allen et al., 1998). Thus, Kc and p may change from one year to the other. Using
the option search crops several crop data files may be acceded to help the user
selecting the duration of crop growth stages, crop coefficients, crop height, root depths,
the soil water depletion fraction for no stress and the crop yield response factor Ky .

25
Fig. 20. Crop data main menu
a) Crop development stages
In these stages, variation in time of the crop parameters is, for every crop, related with
the stages of its development cycle. A maximum of five crop development stages are
considered in the model, which are limited as defined below.
A --> planting, initiation or 1st irrigation;
B --> start of vegetative growth;
C --> full cover or flowering;
D --> yield formation;
E --> ripening or start of senescence
F --> harvesting or end season.
The crop development stages are therefore the following:
• initial, from dates A to B
• development, from B to C
• early mid season, from C to D;
• late mid season, from D to E, and
• end season, From E to F.
However, commonly only four stages are considered, thus with just the mid season,
from C to E. The mid season is braked into two only when different p and MAD values
are set before and after yield formation.
Allen et al. (1998, 2007) provide for the lengths (days) of crop development stages for
various crop planting periods and climatic regions. However, data in these tables are
only indicative. The user has to adopt actual crop stage lengths and dates as observed
in the field. Errors due to adopt indicative tabled values instead of actual, observed
ones may be enormous.
26
b) Crop coefficient (Kc)
This coefficient introduces the crop specificity in the evapotranspiration model. It is
defined in the way it is going to be used by the program so it is able to explain every
phenomena that happens at the soil-water-plant system level. The crop coefficient
permits the comparison of a climatic parameter (ETo) with an agronomic parameter
(ETm), admitting a linear relation between them (see introduction).
Allen et al. (1998, 2007) provide for values of the single crop coefficients, Kc, and mean
maximum plant heights (h) for non stressed, well-managed crops in sub-humid
climates. Further Kc data for horticulture crops and trees are provided by Allen and
Pereira (2009), which consider Kc, estimated from crop ground cover and height.
c) root depth (Zr) and depletion fraction for no stress (p)
This model parameter indicates the way roots evolve in the soil profile along the crop
vegetative cycle. The readily available water (RAW) is defined in this model as the
fraction of soil available water for which plants do not suffer yield losses caused by
water stress. It is characterized by the depletion factor (p) that indicates what fraction of
TAW is the RAW.
The ranges of maximum effective rooting depths (Zr), and soil water depletion fraction
for no stress (p), for common crops may be found in Allen et al. (1998; 2007).
d) yield response factor (Ky)
The parameter Ky introduces in the program, by the Stewart’s model S-1 (Stewart et al.,
1977), the relation between evapotranspiration deficit caused by water stress and the
corresponding yield decrease. Table 3 presents some example values of Ky.
Table 3. Seasonal yield response functions (Doorenbos and Kassam, 1979).

e) Salinity impacts
The respective functions are described in section 1.2. Input data are provided as for
Fig. 21a. If the salinity impacts are to be considered in the soil water balance the option
“consider salinity” has to be activated before simulating (Fig. 21b).

27
 a)

b)

Fig. 21. Menu for inputting the salinity of water and/or soil data

2.4.2.1. Creating or editing crop files

The manipulation of crop files is performed differently according to the type of crops
a) Crops of type 1 - Field, horticultural and tree crops
There are various alternative options to enter the crop coefficients:
i) Option 1 for data input – Crop coefficients related with the development stages
This option 1 consists in considering Kc constant in the initial stage Kc ini (crop
establishment), which is calculated:
a) as a function of the time interval between wetting events as described in Section
1.4.1, which is the most appropriate for annual crops;
b) estimated from tabled values (Allen et al., 1998, 2007; Allen and Pereira, 2009)
that is indicated for the trees and shrubs fruit crops.
After the end of the crop establishment stage starts the rapid vegetative growth
stage. Transpiration gets a major role in evapotranspiration and Kc increases with
development of the leaf area until it reaches its maximum value when the crop enters

28
 the full vegetative development, that may coincide with flowering for most annual
crops. Thus, Kc varies along the vegetative development period between Kc ini and
Kc mid.
At mid season, Kc mid remains constant until senesce starts, i.e., when the late
season starts. the end of flowering and the beginning of yield formation decreasing
until the end of the period. At the end of the crop season the value Kc end is assumed
and during the late season Kc varies between Kc mid and Kc end (see Fig 22). Fig. 23
shows an example of the crop coefficients curve.

Fig. 22. Typical ranges expected in Kc for the four development stages (Allen et al., 1998)

Fig. 23. Example of crop coefficients for the cotton crop (Cholpankulov et al., 2008).

29
 ii) Option 2 for data input - Crop coefficients averaged by periods of time
In this second option, the user has the possibility to enter the average crop
coefficients by period of time. Values may be inserted as monthly (Fig. 24) or 10-day
(Fig. 25).

Fig. 24. Example of timely averaged crop coefficients for maize with a monthly time step period

Fig. 25. Example of timely averaged crop coefficients for maize with a 10-day time step period

30
 iii) Option 3 for data input – Entering crop coefficients at user selected dates
The third option gives the user the opportunity to enter the Kc values known on given
days. The program calculates the average values for the time periods by linear
interpolation (Figure 26). An example of input data is given in Fig. 27.

1,2 3/7 10/7

25/7 15/8
1 20/6
2/9
0,8 15/9
Kc

0,6 10/6
0,4
1/5
0,2
15/5
0
Days in which Kc is known

Fig. 26. Crop coefficient known on given dates, example of a maize crop.

Fig. 27. Example of crop coefficients input at selected dates

b) Crops of type 2 - winter crops with frozen soil

This option is used when the annual field crop has one frozen period preceding (Fig.
28a) or following (Fig. 28b) the crop planting. In addition to the four crop development
periods mentioned above, it is then considered the soil frozen period. Figure 29
presents an example of winter wheat when the soil freezes after planting.

31
 K c mid K c mid
1.2
K c 1.2 Kc
1.0 1.0
Planting
Planting Kc Kc
0.8 0.8
Kc ini
0.6 Kc ini 0.6

0.4 0.4 Initial

Crop Late Period Crop Late
Soil Frost Soil Frost
0.2 Period Initial Dev. Mid Season Season 0.2 Period Dev. Mid Season Season
Period Period Period Period Period Period Period
0.0 0.0

Time of Season, days Time of Season, days

a) b)
Fig. 28. Crop coefficient curve and stage definitions for: a) a crop with a soil frost period
previously to planting; b) a crop with a soil frost period during the initial crop period

Fig. 29. Example of crop coefficients for winter crop with a soil frost period after planting.

c) Crops of type 3 – forage crops with multiple cuts

The choice of the crop coefficients for this type for crops is done differently once it is
necessary to consider the leaf area index, LAI, during the irrigation period. The
maximum value of Kc occurs right before cutting, while the minimum value can be
observed after it. The program considers a linear variation of Kc between the two
extreme values like is shown in Figure 30. The possibility for entering the values by
period of time or known days is maintained. An example is provided (Fig. 31a and b)

32
Fig. 30. Crop coefficients calculation for alfalfa submitted to several annual cuts (Allen et al.,
1998).

a)

b)
Fig. 30. Example of crop coefficients of forage with several cuts

33
d) Crops of type 4 - constant crop parameters along the crop season
Once crop parameters are constant, the program only needs one value of Kc that will
be the same for all time periods; this maybe the case of evergreen trees and grass in
tropical climates (Fig. 31).

Fig. 31. Example of a grass crop with constant crop coefficients

2.4.2.2. Searching for crop data included in the model crops database
To run the program, the user may check crop parameters in the model database, which
includes data from Allen et al. (1998) (see Fig. 32):
• table on the lengths (in days) of the crop development stages for various climatic
regions and planting periods for common agricultural crops;
• single crop coefficients, Kc mid, Kc end, and mean maximum plant heights (h) for non
stressed, well-managed crops in sub-humid climates (RH min = 45%, u2 = 2 m s-1);
• ranges of maximum effective rooting depth (Zr max) and soil moisture depletion
fractions for no stress (p) for common agricultural crops;

34
Fig. 32. Searching information on the crops database.

35
2.4.2.3. Adjusting crop coefficients to local climate
The model allows adjusting the crop coefficients values to local climatic conditions. For
adjusting the Kc ini values it is required to have information on TEW and REW (see
section 1.4.1) and daily rainfall and ET data (Fig. 33a). For adjusting Kc mid and Kc end to
local climatic conditions the user should provide for daily values of wind speed and
minimum relative humidity, and for the average crop height (Fig. 33b).

a)

b)
Fig. 33. Example of crop coefficient adjustment by the model: a) Kc ini using superficial soil layer
characteristics daily values of rainfall and ETo; b) Kc mid and Kc end using the daily values of u2
and RH min
36
2.4.2.4. Using field observed soil water content data
When using field observed data of soil water content and related actual data on soil,
climate, crop, and irrigation schedule used in the field, the calibration and validation of
the model parameters (p and Kc) is possible. See example in Fig. 34a relative to data
input and Fig. 34b for presenting the data when results are observed. Several
examples are available in literature, e.g. Alba et al. (2003); Rodrigues et al. (2003);
Cancela et al. (2006), Popova et al. (2006a), Cholapankulov et al (2008), Cai et
al.(2009).

a)

b)
Fig. 34. Example of adjustment of crop coefficients using experimental data: a) inserting the
soil water content observations; b) visualization of soil water availability simulation (green line)
thought the crop season and observed values (red dots).

37
2.4.3. Meteorological files

2.4.3.1. Data files

Effective rainfall (Pe) and reference evapotranspiration (ETo) are the basic model
meteorological parameters. ETo computation is also referred below as well as the input
of the respective climatic data. Input data can be monthly, 10-day or daily values. The
number of years to consider is also variable, and so is the number of months per year.
The only question is that in each application all data has to have the same time step –
daily, monthly or 10-day, and every file has to have the same months, i.e., for every
year of data if data refers to January to July for one year it has to be the same for every
other years.
The files can be created by two different ways:
a) handily Inserted by the user (Fig. 35) – first the user has to define the series time
step and number of years; after it may insert directly the data;

Fig. 35. Example of directly introduced monthly rainfall data.

b) Through a spreadsheet (e.g. EXCEL) or data base. It is necessary to respect the

following data files’ structure (see Fig. 36):
- first line stating the data time step through the codes 1, 3 or 31 as the data are
monthly, 10-day or daily, respectively, and the code of the units for the various
variables, which are defined in Table 4;
- second line to state the number of years and the first and last month with data;
- third line to indicate the first year of the series;
- all other lines filed with data for the time period considered with each column
corresponding to a month; these are shown by order.

38
 Code for type of data: 1 for monthly; 3 for 10-day; 31 for daily

Number of years of data

Units code

1st and last month of available data

Starting year for the data

Fig. 36. Specifications of the codes adopted for the meteorological data files.

The rainfall values are expressed in mm month-1, mm 10-day-1 or mm day-1, depending

on the time period.
For monthly data the file contains one line per year; for 10-day data three lines per year
are used and for daily data 31 lines are considered. For 10-day daily data in these last
two cases, values of different years must be preceded by the indication of the
corresponding year (Fig. 37 to 39).

Fig. 37. Example of the format of a file with monthly values (code 1) of global solar radiation
(MJ m-2 d-1, code 4) considering 1 year data (code 1 in second line) from January (second code
1 in second line) to December (code 12, same line).

39
Fig. 38. Example of the format of a file relative to average relative humidity, 10-day values
(code 3 in first line), relative to a series of 3 years (code 3 in second line) from April to
September (codes 4 and 9 in second line) starting 1990.

Fig. 39. Example of the format of a file with daily values (code 31) of minimum temperature, for
a series of 1 year data (2001), from January to December (1 and 12). In yellow the codes -77
and -99, for respectively non existing days and missing data.
40
The following restrictions on the use of the files should be considered by the users:
a) the first series month should be coincident or antecedent to the starting of the
crop irrigation season to be simulated.
b) whenever data is missing the code “-99” should be used;
c) for daily data, the code “-77” should be used for the days that do not exist
(e.g. 30 February or 31 April)
The files are recognized with an extension as shown in Table. 4

Table 4. Extension codes for the different meteorological data

Climatic file type Units File extensions

41
Fig. 40. Example of the meteorological data file to be used for computing ETo and water
balance

It is advisable to built a unique excel file per meteorological station (see Fig. 40). After
having the excel file is full, then it has to be saved excel as an ISR file as used by
ISAREG. The procedure is:
• First step is to save as “text (tab delimited)” using the name of the file between
inverted commas (“ ”) with the extension mentioned in Table 4 for each type of
variable (Fig. 41a).
• Then various messages show up and the user should enter “ok” or “yes” in all the
messages that will appear along the creation of the file process (Fig. 41b).

42
 a)

b)
Fig. 41. Example of the steps to be performed to save a file with minimum temperature: a) the
file is saved with the extension presented in Table 4 and as “text tab delimited”; b) sequential of
messages that will appear before the file is saved.

43
In Fig. 42 is an example of archive of files relative to the Fergana meteorological station
created for computing ETo and the soil water balance (Pe).

Fig. 42. Example of archive listing of files built for computing ETo

When all needed data files are available they must be imported into an *.isr file relative
to the simulation to be performed. The New button in the main menu (Fig. 43) should
be used; then a window opens showing a button “Read from disk file” (Fig. 44a) and
data is consequently imported, which should be then saved (Fig. 44b).

Fig. 43. Window showing the example of creating a new precipitation data file

44
 a)

b)
Fig. 44. Windows showing: (a) an example of reading/importing a precipitation data file, and (b)
saving data after these are shown in the window.

2.4.3.2. Computing ETo using EVAP56 program

The program EVAP56 program computes the reference evapotranspiration using the
FAO Penman Monteith method (FAO-PM) with full and insufficient weather data.
Computation of ETo initiates with pushing the respective button in the main menu (Fig.
45). It results in a ISAREG model file with extension “ET0” (see Table 4).

45
Fig. 45. Window showing how to compute ETo

The first step is to introduce the base information on the meteorological station in the
main menu of the EVAP56 program (Fig. 46). Fig. 47 presents the sequence of
introduction of data required to compute ETo. For the case of missing data the program
presents solutions for computing the vapour pressure (Fig. 47b), wind speed (Fig. 47d)
and solar radiation (Fig. 47f) variables based on the procedures described in Allen et al.
(1998; 2007) and analyzed by Popova et al. (2006b).

Fig. 46. Main menu of the EVAP56 program

46
 a) b)

c) d)

e f)
)
Fig. 47. Sequential data input for computing ETo.
Fig. 48 presents the results of the computation of ETo using FAO-PM methodology.
47
Fig. 48. Example of a daily computation of ETo using the FAO-PM methodology.

2.4.3.3. Reading and/or modifying existing meteorological data files

The user may correct the values of the different meteorological files: a) directly by using
the “show file” button and altering the file (Fig.49); or by opening the previously created
climatic file using excel and than re-importing the file (Fig. 50).

48
Fig. 49. Sequence of procedures to use for modifying directly an existing climatic file

49
 Open with

Fig. 50. Sequence of procedures to use for modifying an existing climatic file

2.4.4. Irrigation options

2.4.4.1 Concepts
Once known the soil and crop characteristics already stored in data files, it is important
to consider how the irrigation is performed and that is to know the moment of the
irrigation and the volume to apply. This data are designated irrigation options.
To accede the irrigation files the user should choose “irrigation option” on the main
menu and create a new or editing a file.
The model performs the irrigation scheduling simulations according to user-defined
options such as:
• to define an irrigation scheduling to maximize crop yields, i.e. without crop water
stress;
• to generate an irrigation scheduling using selected irrigation thresholds, including
for allowed water stress and responding to water restrictions imposed at given time
periods;
• to evaluate yield and water use impacts of a given irrigation schedule;
• to test the model performance against observed soil water data and using actual
irrigation dates and depths, which is the option used for calibration and validation;
• to execute the water balance without irrigation; and

50
• to compute the net crop irrigation requirements, and performing the frequencies’
analysis of irrigation requirements when a weather data series is considered.

2.4.4.2. Irrigation schedule option

The irrigation schedule is considered to be a set of all information concerning the aims
of the irrigation, its opportunity and volume of water applied to the soil. The menu in
Fig. 51 allows the user to define the aim of the irrigation:
ƒ Irrigation aiming optimum yield
ƒ Enter irrigation timing and depths
ƒ Enter irrigation dates
ƒ Crop without irrigation
ƒ Compute net irrigation requirements

Fig. 51. Example of the definition of the initial conditions of soil water and limiting the last
irrigation

Once the aim of the irrigation is chosen, the characterization of the irrigation schedule
is completed with the statement of the initial and final conditions of the irrigation season
and definition of the following variables:
a) irrigation timing, that is the most favorable time to start the irrigation (limited to 30
irrigation events);
b) irrigation quantity, that permits the computer to determine the volume of water to
be applied to the crop.
The initial soil water contents and the number of days before harvest to end the
irrigation are included in all irrigation schedule files.
Soil water content in the initial period - Concerning the initial conditions, the program
generally demands two values (Fig. 51):

51
 i) The first one is related with the soil layers above the depth crop stage A starts (zo).
These layers can have more moisture than the others below (if, for instance,
irrigation for seedbed preparation has occurred) or less moisture (when irrigation or
any rainfall has not occurred on the precedent days).
ii) The second is related with the water content of the rest of the soil layers that are
at a depth between zo and the maximum depth (zm), for which the soil water balance
is performed. zm is usually equal to the stated maximum root depth (z), but can be
inferior if the soil depth is limitative. In this case, zm equals the potential root
exploration depth (pr).
Considering two initial values of soil water contents in two layers is related with the way
the soil water balance will be performed. In the beginning of the cycle, only the first
value is considered, remaining the water stored in the deeper layers until roots reach it.
Fixing the end of the irrigation (by stating the number of days before harvest to stop it)
hinders the program to consider irrigation when the crop would only use a small
quantity of water.
The initial soil water contents and the number of days before harvest to end the
irrigation are included in all irrigation schedule files.
a) Irrigation aiming optimum yield (type 1 irrigation schedule)
In scheduling irrigation for optimum yield, the goal is to provide the crop with water
every time the soil water content reaches the p.
The program defines the irrigation timing when this limit is reached. The irrigation
quantity is known, once the volume of water to apply is calculated to totally fill the soil
available water. An example is presented in Fig. 51.
b) Irrigation fixing the timing and quantity (type 2 irrigation schedule)
Each option of the program to identify this irrigation-scheduling mode will be illustrated
with the necessary proceedings for the creation of the respective data files. Figures 52
to 57 show the information given by the computer after completing each one of the five
files created.
The fixing irrigation timing menu has the following options that are going to be analysed
in detail:
1) ETa/ETm ratio (option 1)
2) Percentage of TAW depleted (option 2)
3) Percentage of soil moisture content depleted (option 3)
4) Management allow depletion (MAD>p) (option 4)
5) The soil water depletion fraction for no stress (MAD = p) (option 5)
The relation between actual and maximum evapotranspiration values (ETa/ETm) can be
an important parameter in defining the irrigation timing once it is closely related with
yield losses. This way, when simulating the irrigation like it is performed in a certain
region is the goal, characterizing the farmers’ behaviour in defining the irrigation timing
is fundamental. The farmer usually decides to irrigate when the crop presents
phenological aspects of being dry. By this time, the crop is already in water stress for
some time, being the ratio ETa/ETm inferior to the unity. The traditional irrigation
scheduling method in which the irrigation control is done by knowing the quantity of
water existing on the soil corresponds to fixing irrigation timing taking in account the
percentage of AW or the soil moisture contents.
52
The choice of the last options should be done when the purpose of fixing the irrigation
timing is to achieve a certain yield, once the p defines the bound under which the
program estimates yield losses.
To make the definition of irrigation timing more flexible, this parameter can be entered
by crop growth stage. Choosing this option is interesting when the objective is to study
water stress situations.
The first step is to define the initial and final conditions relative to soil water content
(Fig. 52). For all the cases presented bellow the same initial and final conditions were
considered.

Fig. 52. Example of initial condition

Fig. 53. Example of setting the irrigation thresholds according to ETa/ETm

Fig. 54. Example of setting the irrigation thresholds according the percentage of TAW depleted

To state irrigation timing as a function of the soil moisture contents, this moisture
content is expressed in percentage in volume (rarely in weight, depending on definition
given during the creation of the soil data file).

53
Fig. 55. Example of setting the irrigation thresholds according the percentage of soil moisture
content depleted

Fig. 56. Example of setting the irrigation thresholds according the management allow depletion
(MAD>p)

When the volume of irrigation water is limited, it may occur that restrictions in some
periods hinder the irrigation timing and/or quantity. In these conditions, an irrigation
schedule is obtained that, for the total volume of water available, is not equal to the one
that permits maximum yield (the trend is to concentrate irrigation in the initial stages).
To define this irrigation schedule, the user should state the number of irrigations to
consider as well as the volume of each one of them. The program, step by step,
modifies the irrigation day and calculates the corresponding yield loss, until it reaches
the irrigation schedule that permits maximum yield. The definition of a time interval
between irrigations is important, once it reduces the number of possible combinations.

54
 a)

b)

Fig. 57. Examples of setting the irrigation thresholds according to the soil water depletion
fraction for no stress (MAD = p) using a defined irrigation depth: a) % of TAW, b) fixing the
depth.

Fix irrigation dates (type 3 irrigation schedule)

In this option a programmed irrigation schedule is obtained in which the periods
between irrigations are kept constant along the irrigation season. A second option
should be used when the goal is to evaluate a certain irrigation schedule.
The statement of the irrigation volumes has particular interest for the calibration of the
model (Fig. 58), once it permits:
i) compare the soil moisture contents obtained in the simulation with the ones
measured in the field, for the irrigation schedule defined;
ii) evaluate the response, in terms of production, of a pre-defined schedule.

55
 a)

b)

Fig. 58. Example of the definition of two schedules using fixed irrigation dates using: a) a fixed
irrigation frequency; b) a pre-defined schedule

Crop without irrigation (type 4 irrigation schedule)

This option will be used to evaluate a crop’s behavior in dry conditions (Fig. 59), when
the water supply is done from the water table or when, in a rotation, it is interesting to
consider a period without irrigation.

Fig. 59. Example of the definition of without irrigation (rainfed) schedule

Compute net irrigation requirements (type 5 irrigation schedule)

The net irrigation requirements (NIR) are refereed to the theoretical irrigation
requirements of a crop, not considering the water supply method (Fig. 60). This way,
NIR only satisfy the crop transpiration needs so it does not present yield losses.

56
Fig. 60. Example of a NIR computation for 3 year period

2.4.5. Water supply restrictions

The program considers certain restrictions aiming an approximation to the real
conditions in which irrigation is performed:
1 – Set a minimum interval between irrigations - A minimum interval between irrigations
should be considered for example, in collective delivery systems, where, especially
during peak periods, there is a restrict irrigation schedule that limits the water use by
the farmers.
2 – Enter one or more period of time when water is limited - Two types of program
application can be achieved with the definition of one or more period of time when
water is limited (“option 2”):
a) When the delivery system reservoir is not at its full capacity in the beginning of the
period, being necessary to restrict the water supply to the farmers. In this case a
limited period covering the entire development cycle should be considered and the
limiting volume for all that period stated. Irrigation will be held on while there is
sufficient water available, which promotes its concentration on the first stages. An
optimised solution can be achieved if the irrigations obtained in this option are
entered, on a following simulation, on a type 4 irrigation schedule, so the optimum
irrigation schedule for the depths calculated in this option can be reached.
b) When the aim is to use models to optimise the water distribution in a delivery
system with several parcels, being necessary to compute for each crop the water
stress influence in every period considered by the model. In this case one can
simulate all possible stress situations, ascribing to every one of them a yield loss
calculated by program ISAREG.
An example considering three periods with restrictions (not necessarily continuous) is
now presented in Fig. 61.

57
 a)

b)

Fig. 61. Example of the definition of water supply restrictions: a) defining a minimum interval
between irrigations and a restriction period; b) water availability during one or more periods of
time

2.4.6. Potential groundwater contribution

Constant potential groundwater contribution throughout the irrigation period - The
choice of this type of restriction is performed on the GW menu and the GW stays
constant throughout the irrigation period (Fig. 62)

Fig. 62. Example of a constant GW contribution option along the crop growing season

58
Variable potential groundwater contribution throughout the irrigation period - In “option
2” the user states the days in which GW is known (Fig. 63). The program will then
compute, for the time intervals corresponding to the time laps, the average values of
groundwater contribution, considering it null on the first and last day of the irrigation
period, if, for these days, the GW value was not stated.
In the example on the first date the GW value is very low due to the small root depth. A
maximum on the 5th of July is stated and after that a decrease due to the lowering of
the water table. It should be noted that if the values corresponding to the beginning and
end of the irrigation period are not stated, they will be considered equal to zero for
interpolation purposes.

Fig. 63. Example of a GW contribution that varies along the crop season

Compute GW and deep percolation using parametric equations – an example is

presented in Fig. 64 (see detailed description of the equations above).

Fig. 64. Example of GW contribution using parametric equations (note that LAI and water table
depths measurements should be inserted)

59
2.4.6. Irrigation Simulation

2.4.6.1. Presentation of the base data for the soil water balance
Using the main menu the user must select the soil, climatic station, crop, irrigation
option and/or the potential groundwater contribution and the water restrictions if there
are any. In Fig. 65 it is presented, as an example, the statement of the data files, for the
cotton crop in Fergana (Uzbekistan) considering the ground water contribution using
parametric equations, using a daily time step.

Fig. 65. Main menu presenting all the data bases filled in.

2.4.6.2. Entering the year or series of years for the simulation

After choosing the simulation option and clicking on “make soil water balance” the user
may:
1. Use a single year (if the climatic data file has only one year of data or select one
year of the data series) (Fig. 66a)
2. Select several or all the years for computing the soil water balance (Fig. 66b)

When a certain year is specified, the irrigation simulation is performed for the rainfall
and evapotranspiration values respecting the same year. If a series of years is entered,
the program executes the soil water balances in a sequence, for all series years and
presents as result the ordered series of the crop water needs and the peak discharge.

60
 a) b)

Fig. 66. Example of selection of the years for computing the soil water balance: a) for one year;
b) for 3 years.

2.4.6.3. Executing a new simulation modifying only one element

After the irrigation schedule option data are entered, following the procedure presented
in the former section, the program executes the soil water balance and shows the
results as a table or a graph.
The following data may be altered:
- one of the base data files (soil, crop, rainfall, evapotranspiration);
- the year or series of years;
- the irrigation option data;
- to consider or not GW and deep percolation
- to consider or not water restrictions
- to consider or not soil and/or water salinity.

File modification should be used when the analysis of the differences obtained with
changing only one type of data is wanted. Examples can be the use of the same crop
as a function of the soil type; the same soil/crop combination under the meteorological

61
data of different years; the results sensibility to the presence of a water table at several
depths; the influence of a restriction in an irrigation schedule; etc…

2.7. Results

2.7.1. Soil water balance results

The results obtained are as follows:
Irrigation volumes - Irrigation dates and depths (mm); cumulated depths per 10-days
and month; and total irrigation depths (mm); total deep percolation (mm) is also a result
as well as the irrigation scheduling efficiency (for some irrigation options only) (Fig.
67a);
Control data - the initial and final soil water conditions, deep percolation, rainfall during
the crop season and non used rainfall, season ETa, and in case GW is available the
total amount (mm) (Fig. 67b);
Results concerning the yield decrease and peak continuous design discharge - in this
window specific results for ETm and ETa are presented; the yield decrease due to water
stress and salinity are presented as a percentage of total yield. The peak requirements
for project design are also available (Fig. 67c). When considering a single irrigation, or
a crop without irrigation, this value has no meaning. For the type 6 irrigation option
(compute net irrigation requirements) the continuous peak discharge is the maximum
value obtained by dividing the water consumption by the number of days of each 10-
day;
Simulation data – the combination set of data files is presented in this window (Fig.
67d);
Crop coefficients – the crop coefficients that were used for the computation are also
available (Fig. 67e);
Field data – whenever the user has introduced the field data observed and respective
irrigation schedule (and respective soil, crop, meteorological data) it is possible to
visualize the water balance simulation and the observed values (Fig. 67f);
Frequencial analysis- this option is only available for the case of the computation of the
net irrigation requirements; it allows the user to select the years according to the
climatic demand conditions (Fig. 69).

62
 a)

b)

c)

d)

e)

f)

Fig. 67. Example, for a cotton crop, of the information provided by the model after simulation
the soil water balance.
63
2.7.2. Graphical presentation of results
The graph presented in Fig. 68 has two different parts:
- the variables available soil water and TAW (expressed in mm) (Fig. 68a); and soil
moisture, FC, WP (expressed in % of soil water) (Fig. 68b), and for both cases
OYT (that corresponds to p);
- the actual evapotranspiration and groundwater contribution curves (mm day-1) as
well as the variation of the ETa (mm day-1) (Fig. 68c).

a)

b)

c)
Fig. 68. Example, for a cotton crop, of graphical representation of the results of the soil water
balance

For the case of the computation of the net irrigation requirements (NIR) the cumulated
irrigation depths are available.

64
Fig. 69. Example of the computation of the NIR for a cotton crop and a 3-years series of
meteorological data (2001-03)
The model also allows that the soil water balance results may be exported as an excel
file (Fig. 70). To export the results the user should select the button “export results to
excel” (Fig. 70a).

a)

b)
Fig. 70. Example of window where: a) the selection of the “exporting results to excel” is pointed;
b) the excel file with results is presented
65
Notation

Δ slope of the saturation vapor pressure-temperature relationship at mean air

temperature [kPa ºC-1],
γ psychometric constant [kPa ºC-1]
Cl clay fraction in the soil [%]
De depth of soil water evaporated [mm]
DP deep percolation [mm]
ea mean actual vapour pressure [kPa]
ECe electrical conductivity of the saturation extract of the soil [dS m-1]
Eff is the efficiency of the irrigation system [%]
o
e (T) saturation vapor pressure at temperature T [kPa]
es saturation vapor pressure [kPa]
Eso potential evaporation from the soil [mm d-1]
ETc crop evapotranspiration [mm d-1]
ETo reference evapotranspiration [mm d-1]
fw average fraction of soil surface wetted, [0 - 1]
G soil heat flux [MJ m-2 d-1]
GIWR gross irrigation water requirement [mm]
GW capillary rise/groundwater contribution [mm]
h plant height [m]
I depth of infiltration from irrigation [mm]
In net irrigation infiltration [mm]
Kc end crop coefficient at the end of the late season [ ]
Kc ini crop coefficient during the initial period [ ]
Kc mid crop coefficient for the mid season period [ ]
Kcb basal crop coefficient [ ]
Ke coefficient representing the evaporation of soil water [ ]
Ks water stress coefficient [ ]
Ky water-yield response factor [ ]
LR leaching fraction [mm]
MAD Management-allowed depletion [ ]
NIR Net irrigation requirements [mm]
nw number of wetting events [ ]
p soil water depletion fraction for no stress [ ]
Pmean average depth of water added to the evaporating layer [mm]

66
Pn net precipitation [mm]
REW readily evaporable water [mm]
RED relative evapotranspiration deficit [%]
RHmin minimum relative humidity [%]
Rn net radiation [MJ m-2 d-1]
RO runoff [mm]
Rs solar radiation [MJ m-2 d-1]
RYL relative yield losses [%]
Sa sand fraction in the soil [%]
T mean daily air temperature [°C]
t1 time duration of stage 1 drying [days]
TAW total available water at the root zone [mm]
TEW total evaporable water [mm]
tini length of the initial period stage [days]
Tmax maximum daily temperature [ºC]
Tmin minimum daily temperature [ºC]
tw mean interval between wetting events [days]
u2 wind speed at 2 m height [m s-1]
Wini initial water content in the evaporative layer [mm]
Ya actual crop yield [kg ha-1]
Ym maximum expected crop yield [kg ha-1]
Ze depth of the evaporative surface soil layer [m]
Zr rooting depth [m]
Zr max root depth at full crop development [m]
Zr min root depth at planting [m]
ΔS cumulative variation of the soil water storage in the root zone during the crop
vegetative period [mm]
θi soil water content in the root zone [m3 m-3]
θFC soil water content at field capacity [m3 m-3]
θini initial soil water content at Ze [m3 m-3]
θp soil water content when the fraction p is depleted [m3 m-3]
θWP soil water content at wilting point [m3 m-3]

67
3. Bibliography
Alba, I., Rodrigues, P.N., Pereira, L.S., 2003. Irrigation scheduling simulation for citrus in
Sicily to cope with water scarcity. In: G. Rossi, A. Cancelliere, L. S. Pereira, T. Oweis,
M. Shatanawi, A. Zairi (Eds.) Tools for Drought Mitigation in Mediterranean Regions.
Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 223-242.
Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., 2009. Estimating crop coefficients from fraction of ground
cover and height. Irrig Sci 28, 17-34
Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D., Smith, M., 1998. Crop Evapotranspiration.
Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements. FAO Irrigation and Drainage
Paper 56, FAO, Rome, Italy, 300p.
Allen, R.G., Clemmens, A.J., Burt, C.M., Solomon, K., O’Halloran, T., 2005a. Prediction
Accuracy for Projectwide Evapotranspiration Using Crop Coefficients and Reference
Evapotranspiartion. J Irrig. Drain. Engng. 131: 24-36.
Allen, R.G., Pruitt, W.O., Raes, D., Smith, M., Pereira L.S., 2005b. Estimating
Evaporation from Bare Soil and the Crop Coefficient for the Initial Period Using
Common Soils Information. J. Irrig. Drain. Engng. 131(1): 14-23.
Allen, R.G., Pruitt, W.O., Wright, J.L., Howell, T.A., Ventura, F., Snyder, R., Itenfisu, D.,
Steduto, P., Berengena, J., Baselga, J., Smith, M., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D., Perrier, A.,
Alves, I., Walter, I., Elliott, R., 2006. A recommendation on standardized surface
resistance for hourly calculation of reference ETo by the FAO56 Penman-Monteith
method. Agric. Water Manage. 81:1-22.
Allen, R.G., Wright, J.L., Pruitt, W.O., Pereira, L.S., Jensen, M.E., 2007. Water
Requirements. In: Hoffman, G.J., Evans, R.G., Jensen, M.E., Martin, D.L., Elliot, R.L.
(eds.) Design and Operation of Farm Irrigation Systems (2nd Edition), ASABE, St.
Joseph, MI, pp. 208-288.
Ayers, R.S., Westcot, D.W., 1985. Water Quality for Agriculture. FAO Irrig. Drain. Pap.
29, FAO, Rome.
Beltrão, J., Ben Asher, J., 1997. The effect of salinity on corn yield using the CERES-
maize model. Irrig. Drain. Syst. 11, 15-28.
Cai, J., Liu, Y., Xu, D., Paredes, P., Pereira, L.S., 2009. Simulation of the soil water
balance of wheat using daily weather forecast messages to estimate the reference
evapotranspiration. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 1045–1059
Campos, A.A., Pereira, L.S., Gonçalves, J.M., Fabião M.S., Liu, Y., Li, Y.N., Mao, Z.,
Dong, B., 2003. Water saving in the Yellow River Basin, China. 1. Irrigation demand
scheduling. Agricultural Engineering International Vol. V
(http://www.cigrjournal.org/index.php/Ejounral/article/view/403 ).
Cancela, J.J., Cuesta, T.S., Neira, X.X., Pereira, L.S., 2006. Modelling for improved
irrigation water management in a temperate region of Northern Spain. Biosystems
Engineering 94(1): 151-163.
Сholpankulov, E.D., Inchenkova, O.P., Paredes, P., Pereira, L.S., 2008. Cotton
irrigation scheduling in Central Asia: Model calibration and validation with
consideration of groundwater contribution. Irrig. and Drain. 57:516-532
Doorenbos, J., Kassam, A.H., 1979. Yield Response to Water. FAO Irrig. and Drain.
Paper No. 33, Rome, Italy.
Doorenbos, J., Pruitt, W.O., 1977. Crop Water Requirements. FAO Irrig. and Drain.
Paper No. 24, Rome, Italy.
Fortes P.S., Platonov A.E., Pereira L.S., 2005. GISAREG - A GIS based irrigation
scheduling simulation model to support improved water use. Agric. Water Manage.
77: 159-179.

68
Liu, Y., Teixeira, J.L., Zhang, H.J., Pereira, L.S., 1998. Model validation and crop
coefficients for irrigation scheduling in the North China Plain. Agri. Water Manag. 36:
233-246.
Liu, Y., Pereira, L.S., Fernando, R.M., 2006. Fluxes through the bottom boundary of the
root zone in silty soils: parametric approaches to estimate groundwater contribution
and percolation Agric. Water Manage. 84: 27-40.
Pereira LS, 2004. Necessidades de Água e Métodos de Rega. Publ. Europa-América,
Lisboa, 313 p. (in Portuguese)
Pereira, L.S., Allen, R.G., 1999. Crop water requirements, In: H. Van Lier, L. S. Pereira
and F. Steiner (eds). CIGR Handbook of Agricultural Engineering, vol. I: Land and
Water Engineering, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI, pp. 213-262.
Pereira, L.S., van den Broek, B.J., Kabat, P., Allen, R.G. (Eds.), 1995. Crop-Water
Simulation Models in Practice. Wageningen Pers, Wageningen.
Pereira, L.S., Perrier, A., Alves, I., Allen, R.G., 1999. Evapotranspiration: Review of
concepts and future trends. J. Irrig. Drain. Engrg. 125(2):45-51.
Pereira, L.S., Teodoro, P.R., Rodrigues, P.N., Teixeira, J.L., 2003. Irrigation scheduling
simulation: the model ISAREG. 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. 161-180.
Pereira L.S., Gonçalves J. M., Dong B., Mao Z., Fang S. X., 2007. Assessing basin
irrigation and scheduling strategies for saving irrigation water and controlling salinity
in the Upper Yellow River Basin, China. Agric. Water Manage. 93(3): 109–122
Pereira, L.S., Paredes, P., Сholpankulov, E.D., Inchenkova, O.P., Teodoro, P.R., Horst
M.G., 2009. Irrigation scheduling strategies for cotton to cope with water scarcity in
the Fergana Valley, Central Asia. Agric. Water Manage 96, 723–735
Popova, Z., Eneva, S., Pereira, L.S., 2006a. Model validation, crop coefficients and
yield response factors for maize irrigation scheduling based on long-term
experiments. Biosystems Engineering 95 (1), 139–149
Popova, Z., Kercheva, M., Pereira, L.S., 2006b. Validation of the FAO methodology for
computing ETo with missing climatic data. Application to South Bulgaria. Irrigation
and Drainage 55(2): 201-215.
Rodrigues, P.N., Machado, T., Pereira, L.S., Teixeira, J.L., El Amami, H., Zairi, A.,
2003. Feasibility of deficit 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. 203-222.
Stewart, J.L., Hanks, R.J., Danielson, R.E., Jackson, E.B., Pruitt, W.O., Franklin, W.T.,
Riley, J.P., Hagan, R.M., 1977. Optimizing Crop Production Through Control of Water
and Salinity Levels in the Soil. Utah Water Res. Lab. Rep. PRWG151-1, Utah St.
Univ., Logan.
Teixeira, J.L., Pereira, L.S., 1992. ISAREG, an irrigation scheduling model, ICID Bulletin
41(2): 29-48.
Teixeira, J.L., Fernando, R.M., Pereira, L.S., 1995. Irrigation scheduling alternatives for
limited water supply and drought. ICID Journal, 44(2): 73-88.
USDA-SCS, 1972. National Engineering Handbook. USDA Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Printing Office, Washington D.C.

69