Agricultural Water Management 123 (2013) 103–110

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Agricultural Water Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat

The efficiency of drip irrigation unpacked

Saskia van der Kooij a,∗ , Margreet Zwarteveen a , Harm Boesveld a , Marcel Kuper b,c
a
Irrigation and Water Engineering Group, Centre for Water and Climate, Wageningen University, Droevendaalsesteeg 3a, 6708 PB Wageningen, The
Netherlands
b
Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (CIRAD), UMR G-EAU, Avenue Agropolis, 34398 Montpellier,
France
c
Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire Hassan II, BP 6202, Rabat, Morocco

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Drip irrigation figures prominently in water policy debates as a possible solution to water scarcity prob-
Received 28 November 2012 lems, based on the assertion that it will improve water use efficiencies. We use this article to carefully
Accepted 20 March 2013 trace the scientific basis of this assertion. Through a systematic review of the literature, we show that
the term efficiency means different things to different people, and can refer to different elements in the
Keywords: water balance. Most articles claim that drip irrigation is irrigation water use efficient and crop water use
Micro irrigation
efficient, but different studies use different definitions of these terms. In addition, measured efficiency
Water use efficiency
gains not only refer to different capacities of the technology, but are also based on very specific boundary
Water scarcity
Water saving
(scale) assumptions. We conclude that efficiency gains from drip irrigation will only be achieved under
Irrigation science narrowly defined operational conditions, and just apply to very specific spatial and temporal scales.
Hence, and unlike what generalized statements in policy documents and the overall enthusiasm for drip
as a water saving tool suggest, expectations of increased water efficiencies associated with drip will only
be realized, and are just realizable, in very specific circumstances.
© 2013 Published by Elsevier B.V.

1. Introduction 42–255% for crops as diverse as banana, cotton, sugar cane and
sweet potato” (Gleick, 2002: 373). Numbers like those mentioned
Drip irrigation figures prominently in proposed solutions to the by Postel and Gleick circulate widely in irrigation and water policy
water crisis. In national and international policy documents, it is reports, underscoring that drip irrigation is a promising technol-
seen and promoted as a device to use water more efficiently (see ogy to help solve the water crisis. Reports also often contrast drip
for examples: EEA, 2009; CA, 2007; World Bank, 2006). The belief irrigation with surface irrigation methods, which are presented as
in the water saving potential of drip irrigation is often substanti- inefficient and using excessive amounts of water. A World Bank
ated with impressive statistics and measurements. Postel (2000) report for instance states: “Drip irrigation uses 30–50% less water
for instance claims that drip irrigation “. . .has the potential to at than surface irrigation, reduces salinization and waterlogging, and
least double crop yield per unit water in many applications, includ- achieves up to 95% irrigation efficiency” (World Bank, 2006: 163).
ing irrigation of most vegetables, cotton, sugarcane, and orchard Where do these numbers come from, and what do they say?
and vineyard crops. A collection of research results from various In this article we set out to carefully explore the scientific basis of
Indian research institutes indicates typical water use reductions with the expectation that drip irrigation will save water, and investi-
drip irrigation of 30–60% and typical yield increases of 20–50% for gate under which conditions these expectations may be realized.
a variety of crops, including cotton, sugarcane, grapes, tomatoes, We engage in this exercise because, within irrigation studies, there
and bananas (Indian National Committee, 1994; Sivanappan, 1994). is much debate and controversy about definitions and (ab-)uses of
Together, the greater water application efficiency and higher yields the term efficiency. In the past, there have been many efforts to
produce a doubling or tripling of water productivity.” (Postel, 2000: come up with one best definition and measurement of efficiency,
945, emphasis added). Likewise, in an article in Nature, Gleick, often as part of attempts to assess and compare the performance
2002 asserts that “Shifting from conventional surface irrigation to of irrigation systems (Israelsen, 1950; Jensen, 2007). Burt et al.
drip irrigation in India has increased overall water productivity by (1997), for instance, document one such effort, done at the request
of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Their primary
goal was to clarify the terms in use, as too many scholars used
∗ Corresponding author at: Droevendaalseweg 3a, 6708 PB Wageningen, The the same efficiency terms in different ways. They soon discov-
Netherlands. Tel.: +31 317 483446. ered that performance definitions in use needed to be adapted
E-mail address: Saskia.vanderkooij@wur.nl (S. van der Kooij). to new technologies and evolving scientific insights. “. . . in order

0378-3774/$ – see front matter © 2013 Published by Elsevier B.V.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2013.03.014
104 S. van der Kooij et al. / Agricultural Water Management 123 (2013) 103–110

to avoid confusion and mathematical errors” (p. 424), Burt et al. comparability and generalizability of measurements, and brings
thus proposed changes and improvements to prevailing efficiency out the diversity of ways of understanding and looking at water.
definitions. In the 1990s, the efficiency debate received new impe- In epistemological terms, by bringing out the constructedness of
tus with a seminal article by Seckler on the (mis) use of efficiency irrigation knowledge, this insight challenges the thesis that there
terms (Seckler, 1996). The article focused in particular on the differ- is only one kind of (irrigation) knowledge, only one science, and
ence between ‘dry’ and ‘wet’ water savings to distinguish between only one scientific method. For the analysis in this article, we make
reallocation and resource repletion (also see Molden, 1997; Perry, use of the ideas of Knorr-Cetina about epistemic cultures to express
1999, 2007; Jensen, 2007). A recent issue of Agricultural Water this. The term epistemic culture comes from studying ‘science-in-
Management also engages with this discussion, presenting a col- practice’; “investigating scientists at work as opposed to the history
lection of papers reviewing and discussing definitions of efficiency of ideas, the structure of scientific theories, or the institutional sett-
in irrigation and water management (Lankford, 2012a). ings of science” (Knorr-Cetina, 1999: 9). The reference to culture
If there is one thing that the on-going discussion about irrigation serves to articulate the idea that science and expert systems are
efficiency shows, it is that definitions and uses of efficiency terms divided by cultures, “as they are pursued by groupings of specialists
are not uniform or agreed upon within the community of irrigation who are separated from other experts by institutional boundaries
scholars (van Halsema and Vincent, 2012; Lankford, 2012b) and deeply entrenched in all levels of education, in most research orga-
that claims about efficiency are often inappropriately used outside nizations, in career choices, in our general systems of classification”
the contexts to which they apply leading to false estimates of water (Knorr-Cetina, 1999: 2).1
savings at the basin scale (van Halsema and Vincent, 2012; Perry, In what follows, we first discuss our methodology (Section 2)
2007). What this means is that any promise of greater efficiency, as and then go on to characterize drip irrigation efficiency narratives
for instance made for drip irrigation, needs to be treated with cau- by situating them in broader irrigation efficiency debates and epis-
tion. In this article we precisely do that. We engage with the larger temic cultures (Section 3). In Section 4, we zoom in on the specific
debate about irrigation efficiency to present results of a thorough definitions of efficiency used in the drip irrigation debate, examin-
review of the literature about drip irrigation efficiencies. We used ing the assumptions on which these are based and the conditions
the review to identify and categorize the different definitions of under which they remain valid. Section 5 presents the conclusions
efficiency that different authors use, and to trace the debates they and discussion.
engage with so as to understand their concerns and priorities. Our
aim with this exercise is not to suggest or propose which defini- 2. Methodology
tions are the best. Rather, by carefully mapping and unravelling
what different studies and authors say about the efficiency of drip In this article, the scientific literature on drip irrigation consti-
irrigation, we aim to critically examine the origins and validity of tutes the object of research, rather than being used as a source of
the belief that drip irrigation will help minimize water losses and reference. We selected the reviewed articles dealing with the effi-
save water. ciency of drip irrigation from the Web of Science database. The
Two related insights inform our analysis. The first directly stems first iterative search stage was a broad one, aimed at selecting a
from the debate about water efficiency and productivity and has to wide range of articles. We selected articles with ‘drip irrigation’ in
do with the already noted understanding that any assessment of the title, but also those with ‘trickle irrigation’ or ‘micro irrigation’
water savings is always scale- and context-sensitive, implying for (but excluding references to other forms of micro irrigation such
instance that increases in water use or application efficiencies at the as micro sprinklers). We combined this with ‘efficiency’, broaden-
plot or irrigation system level say nothing about how much water ing the search terms for efficiency with: productivity, water saving,
is saved at river basin or watershed levels (Seckler, 1996; Perry, WUE and IWUE. We chose for selecting articles with these terms in
2007). Actual water savings depend on where the ‘saved’ water is the title, rather than searching for keywords, as our aim was to find
going: is it productively used elsewhere or does it flow to the sea? articles that specifically focused on the efficiency of drip irrigation.
Indeed, and as many scholars have noted, when water saved at As we realized the risk of missing important articles with this
plot or system level is recaptured for use within the same plot or method, we complemented it with a citation analysis of the selected
system, this may result in reducing downstream water flows, thus articles to identify seminal studies in the field. Our initial search
causing a re-allocation of water rather than a net saving (Molden, yielded 54 articles, of which we excluded five articles as these did
1997; Sakthivadivel et al., 1999; Seckler et al., 2003; Guillet, 2006; not deal with the efficiency of drip irrigation (most of them instead
Lankford, 2006; Perry, 2007; van Halsema and Vincent, 2012). referred to fertilizer use efficiency). For practical reasons, we only
Because of this scale- and context sensitivity of water efficiency included articles available online and written in English. We did not
measures, they are not comparable across locations (van Halsema include handbooks and text books on drip irrigation, which have a
and Vincent, 2012). wider and often more professional audience.
The second important theoretical pillar of our analysis extends This search strategy resulted in a final list of 49 articles (see the
this insight, and has to do with the understanding that measuring entire list at the end of this paper), dating from 1974 to 2011, of
how much water is used, saved or wasted cannot be done from any which most (44) were published in the last decennium. Two of the
neutral or objective perspective, but is always tied to the specific 49 articles discuss low-cost drip irrigation; seven are on subsurface
standpoint (and often interests or projects) of the people observing drip irrigation and the majority, 40, are on standard surface drip
and measuring. van Halsema and Vincent (2012) illustrate this by
showing that most measurements of irrigation efficiency are done
from what they call a proprietor’s perspective, providing an indica-
1
We ourselves, as the authors of this article, of course also belong to a specific
tion of how well the irrigation system uses water without wasting
epistemic culture. It can perhaps be characterized as an academic sub-group, the
it. From this perspective, the water leaving the system is a loss. members of which focus on irrigation-related topics from an explicitly interdisci-
Yet, from the perspective of someone responsible for managing and plinary perspective founded on the idea that technology and society are mutually
allocating water at the basin level, this same water may be consid- constitutive. This specific article is part of a broader project on drip irrigation, in
ered as a gain when it can be used for other productive purposes which we approach technology in terms of what it does (and for whom) in different
contexts. Rather than ascribing specific qualities of a technology – such as water
(van Halsema and Vincent, 2012: 10). The acknowledgement that saving – to the characteristics of the technology, our approach seeks to understand
measurements of efficiency are always relative to context (tempo- these as stemming from the interaction between the technology and the context in
ral and spatial) scale and perspective thus calls into question the which it operates (or is invoked).
 S. van der Kooij et al. / Agricultural Water Management 123 (2013) 103–110 105

irrigation. There is no specific author, research institute or country, A main concern of the studies is with how water is distributed
which is most prominent in the list of articles. The highest number within the soil, and with what this means for the root zone of the
of articles, 12, was published in Agricultural Water Management. crop. The underlying rationale of most studies relates to optimizing
This journal also recently organized a special issue about the ‘crop per drop’, or to maximizing yields per unit of water. This can be
question of efficiency. achieved by improving the control of water, expressed as the ability
Final search strategy in Web of Science: to (more) precisely administer water in stipulated quantities and at
stipulated times. The studies’ concern with controlling water also
‘drip irrigat*’ OR ‘micro irrigat*’ OR ‘trickl* irrigat*’ in title AND shows in frequent references to valves, water metres and other con-
WUE OR IWUE OR effici* OR productiv* OR ‘water sav*’ in title trol structures. Seventeen out of 49 studies discuss drip irrigation
Only English, only Articles in combination with deficit irrigation, in which crops purposively
get less water than they need with the objective of optimizing the
amount of water used per unit of production. When combining drip
To analyse these articles, we carried out a qualitative content irrigation with deficit irrigation, it is the reduction in water appli-
analysis (Silverman, 2006) facilitated by the qualitative data analy- cations that allows realizing efficiency gains rather than the drip
sis software Atlas.ti. For each article, we coded the quotations of the irrigation technology itself (which is just the tool enabling deficit
used definitions of efficiency with the terms used in the text. We irrigation).
noted in which context the terms were used, by coding the debates With this line of argumentation, perspective and rationale, the
to which they referred, the justification used for the research and reviewed studies can be characterized as belonging to a familiar
the description of the technology. An attempt to further categorize epistemic tradition in irrigation engineering studies, falling into
the efficiency definitions used, on the basis of which flows of water the broader category of irrigation modernization studies. A gen-
they take into consideration, proved difficult because many arti- eral definition of irrigation modernization is given by FAO: “A
cles did not provide the details required to do this. Together, this process of technical and managerial upgrading (. . .) of irrigation
allowed linking used efficiency terms with concepts and debates. In schemes combined with institutional reforms, with the objective
analogy with suggestions about narrative analysis by Somers and to improve resource utilization (labour, water, environment, econ-
Gibson (1994) and Roe (1991), we used this to re-construct the omy) and water delivery service to farmers” (Burt and Styles, 1999:
story line of drip irrigation studies, focusing in particular on how 15). Although what ‘improvement’ entails is not spelled out in this
they link discussions and measurement of efficiencies to political definition, in most studies it refers to an increase in the efficiency
and societal concerns over water governance. In addition, we linked with which resources (in particular water and (public) funds) are
our findings to broader discussions and reviews of irrigation schol- used. Realizing more outputs with fewer inputs, that is what the
arship and efficiency studies (including van Halsema, 2002; Seckler, irrigation modernization project is about. Avoiding the waste of
1996; Zwarteveen, 2006) in an attempt to associate the reviewed water and money may be an even more accurate way of summa-
drip irrigation studies with specific scholarly communities, tradi- rizing it. For water, this task is seen to consist of better matching
tions and epistemic cultures. water deliveries to crop water requirements, with water delivery
conceptualized as a controllable natural-physical process that can
3. Narratives and epistemic cultures of drip irrigation be monitored and manipulated with technologies (cf. van Halsema,
studies 2002: 13). The perspective of these studies most often is that of the
irrigation manager or irrigation system operator, implying that the
Although each of the reviewed articles has its specific interest, scale at which they apply is that of the irrigation system and that
they all follow a remarkably similar line of argumentation. They, ‘waste’ is defined as water (or money) leaving the irrigation system
first, start with some proclamation of a problem or crisis, often without being productively used within the system (cf. Zwarteveen,
related to global environmental concerns. They, secondly, continue 2006).
by suggesting drip irrigation as a possible (contribution to a) solu- Interestingly, the reviewed studies also belong to this irrigation
tion to this problem or crisis, referring to its potential to reach high modernization tradition in yet another sense. The word ‘modern-
water use efficiencies. To support the claim of high efficiencies, ization’ evokes a notion of progress realized through the use of
most articles refer to research done by others. Thirdly, authors con- ever more sophisticated and advanced technologies. As a new and
tinue with a description of the area where the study was conducted, relatively ‘modern’ technology, drip irrigation assumes an impor-
which they tend to characterize in terms of cropping patterns, soil tant place in this modernization vision, setting standards of what
types, salinity levels of irrigation water, etc. Fourthly, they present is achievable and against which current and progressive levels of
their goal: a search for the circumstances or irrigation conditions performance can be measured and assessed. In this way, the adop-
(drip or furrow, deficit or full irrigation, etc.) that would yield high- tion or transfer to drip irrigation automatically comes to imply
est productivities per unit of water for the specific crops and region advancement, and is associated both with good water use and man-
of interest. The final objective of the reviewed articles, therefore, is agement practices as well as with positive development more in
to arrive at ‘best (irrigation) practices’, which are defined as those general.
practices that result in the highest productivities and efficiencies. Water scarcity is most often mentioned as the problem or crisis,
The emphasis of the articles is on the potential of drip irrigation which the reviewed studies aspire to help solving. Twenty-six out of
to precisely adjust water applications to pre-calculated crop water 49 articles explicitly refer to water scarcity to justify their research
requirements, because drip irrigation allows more regular water on drip irrigation. A few examples include: “Water resources are
applications as compared to surface irrigation and limits the wet- limited worldwide and there is an urgent need to identify and
ted area. The articles mainly focus on agricultural production, and adopt efficient irrigation management strategies since irrigation of
reflect a view of water as a productive good, which constitutes a agricultural lands accounts for over 85% of worldwide water usage
major limiting factor for food production. An important assump- (Zegbe et al., 2006).” (Quezada et al., 2011: 16), or “The decrease in
tion of the reviewed studies is that both under- and over-irrigation the availability of water for agriculture, coupled with the require-
harms yields: “The purpose of irrigation is to keep the water status ment for the higher agricultural productivity, means that there
at a level that maximizes yield within the constraints of available is no option but to improve the water use efficiency. This has
irrigation water supply and growing season weather” (Aujla et al., to include an efficient utilization of available water which other-
2005: 168). wise would evaporate or percolate from the root zone of the soil.”
106 S. van der Kooij et al. / Agricultural Water Management 123 (2013) 103–110

(Kumar et al., 2009: 107). Twelve out of the 22 articles not directly explicit how the measured efficiency gains translate into wider
naming water scarcity mention a related problem: groundwater water savings, or explain how these will help solving problems of
depletion (6), competition over natural resources (9) and the high water scarcity.
water consumption of agriculture (7). Nine of the remaining stud-
ies refer to population growth, and seven state that agricultural 4. Measuring the water use efficiency of drip irrigation:
development should increase. Six of those do not directly men- experiments, definitions, equations
tion limited water availability, but a close reading reveals that they
expect to achieve higher levels of agricultural production with the Most reviewed articles (44 out of 49) describe experiments with
same, or a limited amount of water. In all, our review shows that drip irrigation set up at research institutes, one article shows the
water scarcity provides the major justification for research on drip results of a water distribution model (Barragan et al., 2010) and only
irrigation efficiencies. Only the oldest articles (Bucks et al., 1974; 3 articles (Thompson et al., 2009; Kumar et al., 2009; Maisiri et al.,
Grieve, 1989) do not link drip irrigation to a societal concern, but 2005) look at drip irrigation as used by farmers. This is remark-
discuss drip irrigation as a topic which is interesting of itself, with- able, as the actual achievement of the measured efficiency gains
out needing it to be embedded in a wider debate. The appeal to a depends on the behaviour and practices of farmers actually using
looming crisis serves to convey a sense of importance, rallying a the technology. Farmer’s drip irrigation practices will not just (or
larger audience around the need for finding credible and relatively sometimes not at all) be determined by a desire to use water more
quick solutions: “Saving of water is a constant concern and new efficiently, but will also be informed by broader objectives of liveli-
methods and irrigation strategies are urgent.” (Badr et al., 2010: hood security or agricultural productivity.
69). In this way, the water crisis provides a firm social and envi- 40 articles use the term Water Use Efficiency (WUE). Among
ronmental mandate for studying drip irrigation. As Quezada et al. these, some explicitly explain that they refer to crop Water Use
(2011: 17) state: “Drip irrigation is the response to pressure on Efficiency (from now onwards referred to WUEcrop ), while others
limited fresh-water resources and plays an important role in the refer to Irrigation Water Use Efficiency (IWUE). A closer exami-
increase of WUE.” nation reveals that 18 of the reviewed articles use WUEcrop , which
Water scarcity figures in the articles as a global environmental they define as [yield]/[crop evapotranspiration], whereas 28 use the
challenge, which is not time or location specific. Only in some cases notion of IWUE. IWUE refers to [yield]/[(irrigation) water applied].
do authors make reference to locations when describing water Four articles use the more specific notion of Application Efficiency
scarcity such as: “in arid and semi-arid regions” (Al-Mefleh and and three articles use the term Water Productivity.2 Several arti-
Tadros, 2010: 1917), or “in Egyptian agriculture” (Badr et al., 2010: cles make reference to more than one efficiency term. We focus
64). Also, most articles present water scarcity as a given, rarely spec- on the two most mentioned efficiency terms, WUEcrop and IWUE,
ifying its causes. The few articles that do go into possible reasons for comparing them with other efficiency terms where relevant.
scarcity either refer in general terms to an increasing demand for Both efficiency concepts – IWUE and WUE – use [yield] in
water or point to “abuses in traditional irrigation practices” (Zhai their equation. Yet, what is meant with the notion of yield dif-
et al., 2010: 709), using efficiency figures of 40–50% to mark these fers. To name some examples: it can represent dry matter yield
traditional practices as wasteful. One example: “. . .field applica- of leaves (Al-Mefleh and Tadros, 2010), wet mass basis (Karimi and
tion efficiency in most traditional irrigation methods is still very Gomrokchi, 2011), marketable yield (Bucks et al., 1974) or fresh
low, typically less than 50% and often as low as 30%” (El-Hendawy fruit yield (Cetin and Uygan, 2008). Also in terms of variables, yield
et al., 2008: 181). In addition, many articles echo each other in can be expressed differently: while Karimi and Gomrokchi (2011)
stating that 70–80% of the world’s fresh water sources are used describe yield in gram per m2 , Badr et al. (2010) use yield in kilo-
in agriculture. This statement serves to emphasize the responsibil- grams per hectare.
ity of the agricultural sector to more efficiently use water. Finally, The denominator of the WUEcrop equation, determining the
most articles stress the urgency of the problem of water scarcity. evapotranspiration (ET), is not straightforward either. ET might be
Kumar et al. (2009: 107) for instance states “there is no option but derived from a water balance (leading to actual evapotranspiration,
to. . .”, Quezada writes “. . .there is an urgent need” (Quezada et al., ETa ) or calculated with the Kc values of the specific crop and the
2011: 16). Other articles use a similar rhetoric: “dramatic shortage specific weather conditions, leading to a calculated ET.
of water resources” (Badr et al., 2010: 69), “the severity of water When ET is calculated based on Kc values (in seven out of the 18
scarcity” (Karimi and Gomrokchi, 2011: 36), “the need for water WUEcrop cases), this is done by making use of weather data from
saving in agriculture has never been so great” (Thompson et al., local weather stations. Pan evaporation or local weather data are
2009: 850). Mentioned reasons for this urgency are the increase of consequently converted to reference ET (ETo), by making use of the
the world population, leading to the need to grow more food (water Penman–Monteith method. Reference ETo multiplied by crop spe-
is the “most critical factor in plant growth” (Goodwin et al., 2003: cific Kc values leads to the calculated crop ET. These calculations are
189)) and intensifying competition over water. based on a number of assumptions, which may not directly apply to
This representation of water scarcity as a global and urgent phe- drip irrigation situations. First, they are made on the basis of surface
nomenon is a discursive construction with a clear rhetoric effect: irrigation methods with relatively long irrigation intervals. With
it turns water scarcity into something affecting ‘all of us’ living on drip irrigation, frequent intervals mean that the soil is wetted more
the earth, also making ‘all of us’ responsible for solving it. This is often, thus being exposed to the atmosphere for a longer period of
a distinct de-politicization, since it obscures the fact that a lack time, which could lead to higher evaporation.3 At the same time, the
of water in most cases has to do with how it is distributed and wetted area with drip irrigation is smaller, potentially leading to a
allocated among competing uses and users, with (more) water for lower evaporation. In sum, the soil surface will be wet for a longer
some implying less availability for others. That none of the articles period over the irrigation season, while the total wetted area will
provide details about the specifics of water scarcity (quantifying
or qualifying it) for their study areas creates the distinct impres-
sion that use of the term merely serves as a legitimation for the
2
research, making it seem (more) acceptable and important, rather Some scholars propose use of the term water productivity to overcome the
lack of clarity associated with the terms water use efficiency. However, few of the
than reflecting genuine ambitions to help understanding or solv- reviewed studies use the term water productivity.
ing specific incidences of scarcity. Adding to this impression, and 3
Note, that this argument does not apply for sub-surface drip irrigation, where
as we further show below, is the fact that none of the studies make the soil surface will not be wetted.
 S. van der Kooij et al. / Agricultural Water Management 123 (2013) 103–110 107

be smaller under drip irrigation and the outcome influences the ET. also other important differences in how they account for this
These differences suggest that there would be merit in adjusting water. The IWUE experiments are mostly set up to allow express-
standard Kc values to drip irrigation circumstances, for example ing water flows as a simple equation. ‘Interfering’ water flows that
as described in the FAO manual 56 (Allen et al., 1998). None of the would occur under field circumstances – runoff, drainage, capillary
reviewed articles indicate having done this. Secondly, calculated Kc rise – are avoided or not mentioned at all. Though some articles
values are for crops under reference circumstances. Drip irrigation clearly specify the parameters used (Yin et al., 2011; El-Hendawy
research is often carried out in combination with deficit irrigation et al., 2008), others are less clear about which flows are taken into
methods, leading to water stress and thus a lower evapotranspira- account. In eight of the 28 articles, for instance, it is unclear whether
tion. Thirdly, ET values calculated with this method are based on rainwater (which is water that is used by crops, but not purpo-
the evapotranspiration of the soil and the specific crop. Any inter- sively diverted) is included or not. Another important difference
ferences, such as weeds, are not taken into account. Within our is whether or not drainage water is included within the calcula-
review, it seems that this is done either because of the assumption tions; this is water that is diverted and applied to crops, but that is
that drip irrigation will reduce weed growth, or because researchers not beneficially used (by the crop) and can therefore potentially be
eliminate all weeds during the experiments. re-used.
The second option to determine ET is to derive the evapo- Although the studies make use of the similar term water use
transpiration from the water balance, thus leading to actual efficiency, most do not provide details about their definition of the
evapotranspiration. This is done in 11 out of the 18 WUEcrop term and fail to specify what they exactly took into account and
cases under review. The basic idea behind this method is that what not. In many cases, authors seem to consider their specific
all elements in the water balance, except for ET, can be directly definitions and use of the efficiency terms as self-evident. However,
measured. In the most elaborated version, this formula looks like: our review shows that there is no consensus about which parame-
ETa = P + I + S − R − D + Cr , in which ETa is the actual evapotranspi- ters have to be taken into account and that there is a wide variety
ration, P is the rainfall, I is the irrigation water, S is the change of different uses of similar efficiency terms. Only one article dis-
of water storage in the soil, D is the drainage and Cr is the cap- plays awareness of this ambiguity when arguing why rainfall and
illary rise. The eleven studies, which derived ET from a water water storage in the soil are not accounted for: “Several workers
balance, follow a similar approach. They mention all elements calculated WUE as yield/irrigation water (either pumped from the
of the water balance as stated above, but in different words or water source or received by the crop), ignoring water from other
combined in different ways. For example, drainage and capillary sources which may have contributed to yield” (Hodgson et al., 1990:
rise are taken as one “flux across the lower boundary of the soil 144).
profile” in Ibragimov et al. (2007), p. 115. However, after men- To conclude, there is huge variation in how different studies
tioning these elements of the water balance, authors continue define water efficiencies, and which elements they include in effi-
by arguing that many can be assumed zero or neglected: runoff, ciency equations. This reflects the fact that studies use IWUE and
drainage, capillary rise and sometimes rain do not have to be WUEcrop values in accordance with specific contexts and from par-
taken into consideration, because drip irrigation allows a precise ticular perspectives. Yet, these contexts and perspectives are sel-
control of water flows: “Surface runoff in this study was neg- dom made explicit; many of the reviewed studies proceed as if their
ligible because of the control of water application” (Yin et al., definitions and equations are obvious and generalizable, and do
2011), p. 41. In addition, the time frame taken for measurements not hesitate to straightforwardly compare their results with results
influences the preciseness of the water balance. The element S, from other studies (which use different definitions and equations).
change of water storage in the soil, is a good example of this. The Without specification of the efficiency terms used, and of the spe-
change in water storage in the soil is either measured before each cific settings of the experiments, such a comparison is meaningless.
irrigation turn (using neutron probes) or measured before planting In addition, most studies assume that reported changes (most
and after harvest (with gravitary method to measure soil mois- often increases) in water efficiencies can be used as measures of
ture). water saving or water productivity increases. Even though some
For IWUE, calculating the ET (with Kc or water balance) has of the articles refer to other water uses than irrigation in their
another function. Rather than assessing the missing factor ET, it is a introduction, they all assume that water not evapotranspirated by
method to estimate the required irrigation water treatment (which the crop it was assigned to, is lost (or wasted). This assumption is
is also sometimes done for WUEcrop , to estimate the irrigation water false; measures of WUEcrop and IWUE, irrespective of their precise
requirements prior to irrigating). The irrigation water use equation definition, represent the efficiency of water utilization at a specific
is also ambiguous. It does not refer to water used by crops, but scale level (plant, plot, farm or system) and thus indicate how well
to water applied. Different reviewed articles use different ways of water is handled or used at this scale, without any predictive value
defining and calculating the amount of water applied. Some look for other scales (cf. van Halsema and Vincent, 2012: 11). Indeed,
at the water released by the emitter to the root zone of a crop. An switching scales can drastically change one’s assessment of water
example is Goodwin et al. (2003), who carry out an experiment in efficiency from poor to good when water initially regarded as
containers to make the water balance as exact as possible. Others ‘wasted’ is beneficially re-used (Clark and Aniq, 1993; Guillet,
instead look at amounts of water released by entire irrigation sys- 2006).
tems. Kumar et al. (2009) take the entire discharge of a particular
source to calculate IWUE. In the latter example, the attempt to max- 5. Discussion and conclusions
imize the efficiency of the involved irrigation system included both
the installation of drip irrigation on plots, as well as the lining of the The review of scientific studies as presented in this article shows
reservoir near the source. The detailed methodological description that the evidence about the water saving potential of drip irrigation
of Kumar is rare. Most articles do not clearly explain from which is far from conclusive. First, a larger majority of studies present
point in the system onwards they start intervening and measur- findings from very localized experimental situations, specifically
ing water diversions and applications. Based on the experiments carried out to assess how the use or application of water can be
they describe, we deduce that most refer to the water applied to a optimized at plot level. Results of such experiments leave out a very
specific (experimental) plot. important ‘variable’ in determining water efficiencies: farmers and
Not only do different articles use different temporal and spa- their practices. The importance of this is not to be underestimated.
tial scales for measuring the amount of water applied, there are The first studies undertaken in the context of a larger research
108 S. van der Kooij et al. / Agricultural Water Management 123 (2013) 103–110

program on drip irrigation, of which this article forms part, reveal also becomes problematic when such findings are generalized for
why and how farmers use drip irrigation. These show that (a more) real-world situations, inappropriately jumping scales and contexts
efficient use of water is seldom the main concern of farmers. Span- (see also van Halsema and Vincent, 2012).
ish (van der Kooij, 2009), Moroccan (Benouniche et al., 2011) and The reviewed studies show, in different ways, that drip irrigation
Zambian (Tuabu, 2012) farmers for instance indicate that they shift potentially allows using less water for a single plot without com-
to drip irrigation because of its greater ease of use or a reduction of promising (or even improving) yield. This is an interesting finding,
labour costs, or because it allows to irrigate on steep slopes (Sese- but it reveals little to nothing about the water saving potential of
Minguez, 2012). Without a sound understanding of how different drip irrigation at the river basin or watershed level. This is what
farmers deal with (scarce) water, predictions about the actual water Seckler called a ‘composition problem’: a certain calculation can
savings that drip irrigation can achieve remain far-fetched spec- apply to part of the system, but not to the whole as return flows
ulations. This would require a better understanding of farmers’ come back into the system (Seckler, 1996). The reviewed stud-
practices, related to issues such as the perceived CWR. ies using some definition of IWUE for calculating efficiencies all
Second, the reviewed studies use a wide variety of different defi- assume that water drained is lost, but (unless it goes to sinks) this is
nitions of similar efficiency terms. WUEcrop and IWUE are the terms water that can potentially be re-used elsewhere. It may for instance
mostly used, but authors also refer to other terms such as applica- be recaptured for use by the same farmer or system, which in a
tion efficiency and water productivity. Efficiency can refer to the closed river basin (Molle et al., 2010; Seckler, 1996) will lead to a
uptake of water in the root zone of a plant, but can also refer to reduction of downstream water flows and thus implies a de facto re-
how much water is lost when it flows through piped canals. In some allocation of available water (see also Molden, 1997; Molden and
definitions, the term just takes irrigation water into account, but in Sakthivadivel, 1999; Seckler et al., 2003; Guillet, 2006; Lankford,
others also rainwater or groundwater are accounted for. Efficiency 2006; Perry, 2007; van Halsema and Vincent, 2012). This exam-
gains may refer to actual water savings, or instead may indicate ple not just shows that calculations about ‘savings’ and ‘losses’ are
higher agricultural production per unit of water. IWUE is the effi- always scale-sensitive, but also that they are of little practical use
ciency term that is most often used in the reviewed studies, yet it without further specification of who incur these gains and losses.
is probably the most confusing term of all: van Halsema and Vin- To whom does the saved water flow, who has a right to access and
cent even labelled it a ‘non-fertile cross-breed’ (van Halsema and use this water? Is the ‘more efficient’ farmer the best and most
Vincent, 2012: 12). progressive, and the one who therefore deserves more support (cf.
The wide variety of definitions and equations in use to express Boelens and Vos, 2012) even if her efficient use of water means that
water efficiency show that each study uses its own specific mea- downstream farmers are deprived? Indeed, in this sense calculat-
surements, in accordance with the specific concerns the study sets ing efficiencies is not a politically neutral exercise, but directly tied
out to address and reflecting the priorities and interests of the up with complex distributional questions.
authors. Yet, the use of similar terms and the lack of discussion In sum, our analysis clearly shows that there is no conclusive
about them create a suggestion of agreement and consensus, or scientific evidence to support a general belief in drip irrigation
indeed of scientific unity. This suggestion becomes even stronger as a water saving device or as a tool to help solve the water cri-
because studies generalize results and compare them with those of sis. Our analysis thus serves as a warning against the general and
other studies; efficiency measures from specific experiments are unspecified association of drip irrigation with greater water effi-
compared with those of other experiments as if they are inter- ciency. In terms of research, our analysis suggests that studies
changeable and as if they address the same components of the about the efficiency of drip irrigation would benefit from a more
water balance. In doing this, none of the reviewed studies display explicit recognition of the specificity and constructedness of the
awareness of the larger debate about how to define and measure efficiency terms used for characterizing drip irrigation situations,
efficiency in irrigation. and by more meticulousness and modesty about the comparability
Creating a suggestion of comparability and generalizability and generalizability of results. Assessing the water saving potential
can perhaps be partly explained by its strategic convenience in of a technology such as drip irrigation, moreover, requires bet-
helping create legitimacy for studies on the efficiency of drip ter awareness of the implications of improving efficiencies at one
irrigation. The statement that drip irrigation is (more) efficient, scale level for other scale levels, and of the allocational implications
especially when water resources are under pressure, is likely to help of changing water flows. In terms policy, our conclusions caution
assure future research and development funding for drip irrigation. against too much enthusiasm about the water saving potential
Our analysis suggests that the prevailing epistemic culture and of drip irrigation. Promoting the introduction of drip irrigation to
scholarly tradition to which most reviewed studies belong pro- bring about water savings at national or regional scales should not
vides another explanation. This tradition is technology-centred. be based on studies that report efficiency gains achieved at plot
Researchers aspire to ascribe specific characteristics and abilities to levels only, as these cannot be generalized for other scales.
a technology, implicitly assuming that similar technologies will dis-
play the same behaviour everywhere. Hence the desire to compare Acknowledgements
performance across technological systems: it allows to ‘diagnose’
what can be improved or what is wrong in engineering terms. Faith- We thank Jos van Dam, Bart Snellen, the Ph.D. students from the
ful to this tradition, most efficiency assessments of drip irrigation IWE group and three anonymous reviewers for useful comments
follow a particular scientific procedure designed to achieve a form on earlier drafts of this article. This research was made possi-
of objectivity that works to hide the specificities of the research ble through the financial support of the NWO-MVI project ‘Drip
location and the researchers. This happens through the reduction of Irrigation Realities in Perspective’ and the Wageningen School of
an overwhelmingly complex world to an isolated ‘laboratory’-like Social Sciences.
setting, a closed system-model in which a small number of control-
lable variables determine water flows. There is nothing intrinsically References
wrong with this procedure, but it becomes problematic when the
presentation of the results does not show how the ‘laboratory’ Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D., Smith, M., 1998. Crop Evapotranspiration – Guide-
was constructed and when findings from such specific ‘laborato- lines for Computing Crop Water Requirements – FAO Irrigation and Drainage
Paper 56. FAO, Rome.
ries’ are compared to those of other ‘laboratories’ without properly Al-Mefleh, N.K., Tadros, M.J., 2010. Influence of water quantity on the yield, water
assessing whether or to what extent they resemble each other. It use efficiency, and plant water relations of Leucaenaleucocephala in arid and
 S. van der Kooij et al. / Agricultural Water Management 123 (2013) 103–110 109

semi-arid environment using drip irrigation system. African Journal of Agricul- Molle, F., Wester, P., Hirsch, H., 2010. River basin closure: processes, implications
tural Research 5 (15), 1917–1924. and responses. Agricultural Water Management 97 (4), 569–577.
Aujla, M.S., Thind, H.S., Buttar, G.S., 2005. Cotton yield and water use efficiency Perry, C.J., 1999. The IWMI water resources paradigm – definitions and implications.
at various levels of water and N through drip irrigation under two methods of Agricultural Water Management 40, 45–50.
planting. Agricultural Water Management 71 (2), 167–179. Perry, 2007. Efficient irrigation; inefficient communication; flawed recommenda-
Badr, M.A., Abou Hussein, S.D., El-Tohamy, W.A., Gruda, N., 2010. Efficiency of tions. Irrigation and Drainage 56 (4), 367–378.
subsurface drip irrigation for potato production under different dry stress con- Postel, S.L., 2000. Entering an era of water scarcity: the challenges ahead. Ecological
ditions. GesundePflanzen 62 (2), 63–70. Applications 10 (4), 941–948.
Barragan, J., Cots, L., Monserrat, J., Lopez, R., Wu, I.P., 2010. Water distribution Quezada, C., Fischer, S., Campos, J., Ardiles, D., 2011. Water requirements and water
uniformity and scheduling in micro-irrigation systems for water saving and use efficiency of carrot under drip irrigation in a haploxerand soil. Journal of Soil
environmental protection. Biosystems Engineering 107 (3), 202–211. Science and Plant Nutrition 11 (1), 16–28.
Benouniche, M., Kuper, M., Poncet, J., Hartani, T., Hammani, A., 2011. Quand les Roe, E.M., 1991. Development narratives, or Making the best of blueprint develop-
petites exploitations adoptent le goutte-à-goutte: initiatives locales et pro- ment. World Development 19 (4), 287–300.
grammes étatigues dans le Gharb (Maroc). Cahiers Agricultures 20 (1–2), 40–47. Sakthivadivel, R., de Fraiture, C., Molden, D.J., Perry, C., Kloezen, W., 1999. Indicators
Boelens, R., Vos, J., 2012. The danger of naturalizing water policy concepts: water of land and water productivity in irrigated agriculture. International Journal of
productivity and efficiency discourses from field irrigation to virtual water trade. Water Resources Development 15 (1–2), 161–179.
Agricultural Water Management 108, 16–26. Seckler, D., 1996. The New Era of Water Resources Management. International
Bucks, D.A., Erie, L.J., French, O.F., 1974. Quantity and frequency of trickle and Irrigation Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
furrow irrigation for efficient cabbage production. Agronomy Journal 66 (1), Seckler, D., Molden, D., Sakthivadivel, R., 2003. The concept of efficiency in
53–57. water resources management and policy. In: Kijne, J.W., Barker, R., Molden, D.
Burt, M.C., Clemmens, A.J., Strelkoff, T.S., Solomon, K.H., Bliesner, R.D., Hardy, L.A., (Eds.), Water Productivity in Agriculture, Limits and Opportunities for Improve-
Howell, T.A., Members, A.S.C.E., Eisenhauer, D.E., 1997. Irrigation performance ment. CABI Publishing/International Water Management Institute, Wallingford,
measures: efficiency and uniformity. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engi- UK/Colombo.
neering 123 (6), 423–442. Sese-Minguez, S., 2012. Perspectives of different stake holders to implement drip
Burt, M.C., Styles, S., 1999. Modern water control and management practices in irrigation systems and its consequences for land and water use. A case study
irrigation impact on performance. FAO-IPTRID-World Bank. FAO Water Report in Cànyoles river basin, Valenvia (Spain). M.Sc. Thesis Research. Wageningen
No. 19. University, Wageningen.
Cetin, O., Uygan, D., 2008. The effect of drip line spacing, irrigation regimes and plant- Silverman, D., 2006. Interpreting Qualitative Data. Methods for analysing Text, Talk
ing geometries of tomato yield, irrigation water use efficiency and net return. and Interaction, 3rd ed. Sage Publications, London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi.
Agricultural Water Management 95 (8), 949–958. Sivanappan, R.K., 1994. Prospects of micro-irrigation in India. Irrigation and
Clark, A.K., Aniq, M., 1993. Canal irrigation and development opportunities for the Drainage Systems 8 (1), 49–58.
Indus Right Bank in Sindh and Baluchistan. ICID Bulletin 42 (1), 11. Somers, M.R., Gibson, G.D., 1994. Reclaiming the epistemological other: narrative
Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture (CA), 2007. and the social constitution of identity. In: Calhoun, C. (Ed.), Social Theory and
Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Man- the Politics of Identity. Wiley, Oxford, UK/Cambridge, USA, pp. 37–99.
agement in Agriculture. Earthscan/International Water Management Institute, Thompson, T.L., Pang, H.C., Li, Y.Y., 2009. The potential contribution of subsur-
London/Colombo. face drip irrigation to water saving agriculture in the Western USA. Agricultural
EEA (European Environment Agency), 2009. Water resources across Europe – con- Sciences in China 8 (7), 850–854.
fronting water scarcity and drought. EEA Report No. 2/2009. Tuabu, O.K., 2012. The innovation of low-cost drip irrigation technology in Zambia. A
El-Hendawy, S.E., Hokam, E.M., Schmidhalter, U., 2008. Drip irrigation frequency: study of the development of drip by International Development Enterprises and
the effects and their interaction with nitrogen fertilization on sandy soil water smallholder farmers. M.Sc. Thesis Research. Wageningen University, Wagenin-
distribution, maize yield and water use efficiency under Egyptian conditions. gen.
Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 194 (3), 180–192. van der Kooij, S., 2009. Why Yunquera will get drip irrigation. Social groups iden-
Gleick, P.H., 2002. Soft water paths. Nature 418, 373. tity and construction of meanings as an approach to understand technological
Goodwin, P.B., Murphy, M., Melville, P., Yiasoumi, W., 2003. Efficiency of water modernization. M.Sc. Thesis Research. Wageningen University, Wageningen.
and nutrient use in containerised plants irrigated by overhead, drip or capillary van Halsema, G.E., 2002. Trial and re-trial: the evolution of irrigation modernisation
irrigation. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 43 (2), 189–194. in NWFP, Pakistan. Ph.D. Dissertation. Wageningen University, Department of
Grieve, A.M., 1989. Water use efficiency, nutrient uptake and productivity of Water Resources, Netherlands.
micro-irrigated citrus. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 29 (1), van Halsema, G.E., Vincent, L., 2012. Efficiency and productivity terms for water
111–118. management: a matter of contextual relativism versus general absolutism. Agri-
Guillet, D., 2006. Rethinking irrigation efficiency: chain irrigation in northwestern cultural Water Management 108, 9–15.
Spain. Human Ecology 34 (3), 305–329. World Bank, 2006. Reengaging in Agricultural Water Management. Challenges and
Hodgson, A.S., Constable, G.A., Duddy, G.R., Daniels, I.G., 1990. A comparison of drip Options. Washington, DC.
and furrow irrigated cotton on a cracking clay soil. 2. Water use efficiency, water- Yin, X.H., Seavert, C.F., le Roux, J., 2011. Responses of irrigation water use and pro-
logging, root distribution and soil structure. Irrigation Science 11, 143–148. ductivity of sweet cherry to single-lateral drip irrigation and ground covers. Soil
Ibragimov, N., Evett, S.R., Esanbekov, Y., Kamilov, B.S., Mirzaev, L., Lamers, J.P.A., Science 176 (1), 39–47.
2007. Water use efficiency of irrigated cotton in Uzbekistan under drip and Zegbe, J.A., Hossein, M., Clothier, B.E., 2006. Responses of ‘Petopride’ processing
furrow irrigation. Agricultural Water Management 90 (1–2), 112–120. tomato to partial rootzone drying at different phenological stages. Irrigation
Indian National Committee on Irrigation and Drainage, 1994. Drip Irrigation in India. Science 25 (1), 203–210.
New Delhi. Zhai, Y.M., Shao, X.H., Xing, W.G., Wang, Y., Hung, T.T., Xu, H.L., 2010. Effects of drip
Israelsen, O.W., 1950. Irrigation Principles and Practices, 2nd ed. John Wiley, New irrigation regimes on tomato fruit yield and water use efficiency. Journal of Food
York. Agriculture & Environment. 8 (3–4), 709–713.
Jensen, 2007. Beyond irrigation efficiency. Irrigation Science 25, 233–245. Zwarteveen, M., 2006. Wedlock or deadlock? Feminists’ attempts to engage
Karimi, M., Gomrokchi, A., 2011. Yield and water use efficiency of corn planted in irrigation engineers. Ph.D. Thesis. Wageningen University, The Netherlands.
one or two rows and applying furrow or drip tape irrigation systems in Ghazvin
Province, Iran. Irrigation and Drainage 60 (1), 35–41.
Knorr-Cetina, K., 1999. Epistemic Cultures. How the Sciences Make Knowledge. List of reviewed articles
Harvard University Press, Cambridge/London.
Kumar, M., Kumar, N., Singh, K.P., Kumar, P., Srinivas, K., Srivastva, A.K., 2009. Al-Jamal, M.S., Ball, S., Sammis, T.W., 2001. Comparison of sprinkler, trickle and
Integrating water harvesting and gravity-fed micro-irrigation system for effi- furrow irrigation efficiencies for onion production. Agricultural Water Manage-
cient water management in terraced land for growing vegetables. Biosystems ment 46 (3), 253–266.
Engineering 102 (1), 106–113. Al-Omran, A.M., Sheta, A.S., Falatah, A.M., Al-Harbi, A.R., 2005. Effect of drip irrigation
Lankford, B. (Ed.), 2012a. Irrigation Efficiency and Productivity: Scales, Systems and on squash (Cucurbitapepo) yield and water-use efficiency in sandy calcare-
Science. Agricultural Water Management 108, 1–96 (special issue). ous soils amended with clay deposits. Agricultural Water Management 73 (1),
Lankford, B., 2012b. Fictions fractions, factorials and fractures; on the framing of 43–55.
irrigation efficiency. Agricultural Water Management 108, 27–38. Antony, E., Singandhupe, R.B., 2004. Impact of drip and surface irrigation on growth,
Lankford, B., 2006. Localizing Irrigation Efficiency. Irrigation and Drainage 5 (4), yield and Molle E of Capsicum (Capsicum annum L.). Agricultural Water Man-
345–362. agement 65 (2), 121–132.
Maisiri, N., Senzanje, A., Rockstrom, J., Twomlow, S.J., 2005. On farm evaluation of Arbat, G.P., Lamm, F.R., AbouKheira, A.A., 2010. Subsurface drip irrigation emitter
the effect of low cost drip irrigation on water and crop productivity compared spacing effects on soil water redistribution, corn yield, and water productivity.
to conventional surface irrigation system. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 30 Applied Engineering in Agriculture 26 (3), 391–399.
(11–16), 783–791. Aruajo, F., Williams, L.E., Matthews, M.A., 1995. A comparative study of
Molden, D., 1997. Accounting for Water Use and Productivity. SWIM Paper 1. Inter- young thompson-seedless grapevines (vitis-vinifera l) under drip and furrow
national Irrigation Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka. irrigation.2. growth, water use efficiency and nitrogen partitioning. Scientia-
Molden, D., Sakthivadivel, R., 1999. Water Accounting to Assess Use and Productiv- Horticulturae 60 (3–4), 251–265.
ity of Water. International Journal of Water Resources Development 15 (1–2), Aujla, M.S., Thind, H.S., Buttar, G.S., 2007. Fruit yield and water use efficiency of egg-
55–71. plant (Solanummelongema L.) as influenced by different quantities of nitrogen
110 S. van der Kooij et al. / Agricultural Water Management 123 (2013) 103–110

and water applied through drip and furrow irrigation. ScientiaHorticulturae 112 to full and deficit irrigation regimes. European Journal of Horticultural Science.
(2), 142–148. 74 (2), 79–85.
Bhattarai, S.P., Midmore, D.J., Pendergast, L., 2008. Yield, water-use efficiencies and Kigalu, J.M., Kimambo, E.I., Msite, I., Gembe, M., 2008. Drip irrigation of tea (Camellia
root distribution of soybean, chickpea and pumpkin under different subsurface sinensis L.) 1. Yield and crop water productivity responses to irrigation. Agricul-
drip irrigation depths and oxygation treatments in vertisols. Irrigation Science tural Water Management 95 (11), 1253–1260.
26 (5), 439–450. Lei, T.W., Xiao, J., Li, G.Y., Mao, J.H., Wang, J.P., Liu, Z.Z., Zhang, J.G., 2003. Effect of
Bielorai, H., 1982. The effect of partial wetting of the root zone on yield and water drip irrigation with saline water on water use efficiency and quality of water
use efficiency in a drip irrigated and sprinkler irrigated mature grapefruit grove. melons. Water Resources Management 17 (6), 395–408.
Irrigation Science 3 (2), 89–100. Najafi, P., Tabatabaei, S.H., 2007. Effect of using subsurface drip irrigation and ET-HS
Blaikie, S.J., Chacko, E.K., Lu, P., Muller, W.J., 2001. Productivity and water relations model to increase WUE in irrigation of some crops. Irrigation and Drainage 56
of field-grown cashew: a comparison of sprinkler and drip irrigation. Australian (4), 477–486.
Journal of Experimental Agriculture 41 (5), 663–673. Ngouajio, M., Wang, G., Goldy, R.G., 2008. Timing of drip irrigation initiation affects
Da Silva, A.J.P., Coelho, E.F., de Miranda, J.H., Workman, S.R., 2009. Estimating water irrigation water use efficiency and yield of bell pepper under plastic mulch.
application efficiency for drip irrigation emitter patterns on banana. PesquisaA- Horttechnology 18 (3), 397–402.
gropecuariaBrasileira 44 (7), 730–737. Pablo, R.G., O’Neill, M.K., McCaslin, B.D., Remmenga, M.D., Keenan, J.G., Onken, B.M.,
Du, T.S., Kang, S.Z., Zhang, J.H., Li, F.S., Yan, B.Y., 2008. Water use efficiency and 2007. Evaluation of corn grain yield and water use efficiency using subsurface
fruit quality of table grape under alternate partial root-zone drip irrigation. drip irrigation. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 30 (1), 153–172.
Agricultural Water Management 95 (6), 659–668. Payero, J.O., Tarkalson, D.D., Irmak, S., Davison, D., Petersen, J.L., 2008. Effect of
Enciso-Medina, J., Unruh, B.L., Henggeler, J.C., Multer, W.L., 2002. Effect of row pat- irrigation amounts applied with subsurface drip irrigation on corn evapotrans-
tern and spacing on water use efficiency for subsurface drip irrigated cotton. piration, yield, water use efficiency, and dry matter production in a semiarid
Transactions of the ASAE 45 (5), 1397–1404. climate. Agricultural Water Management 95 (8), 895–908.
Grabow, G.L., Huffman, R.L., Evans, R.O., Jordan, D.L., Nuti, R.C., 2006. Water distri- Rajak, D., Manjunatha, M.V., Rajkumar, G.R., Hebbara, M., Minhas, P.S., 2006. Com-
bution from a subsurface drip irrigation system and dripline spacing effect on parative effects of drip and furrow irrigation on the yield and water productivity
cotton yield and water use efficiency in a coastal plain soil. Transactions of the of cotton (Gossypiumhirsutum L.) in a saline and waterlogged vertisol. Agricul-
ASABE 49 (6), 1823–1835. tural Water Management 83 (1–2), 30–36.
Kang, S.Z., Zhang, L., Hu, X.T., Li, Z.J., Jerie, P., 2001. An improved water use efficiency Sharmasarkar, E.C., Sharmasarkar, S., Miller, S.D., Vance, G.F., Zhang, R., 2001. Ass-
for hot pepper grown under controlled alternate drip irrigation on partial roots. esment of drip and flood irrigation on water and fertilizer use efficiencies for
ScientiaHorticulturae 89 (4), 257–267. sugarbeets. Agricultural Water Management 46 (3), 241–251.
Karam, F., Lahoud, R., Masaad, R., Kabalan, R., Breidi, J., Chalita, C., Rouphael, Y., Singh, R., Kumar, S., Nangare, D.D., Meena, M.S., 2009. Drip irrigation
2007. Evapotranspiration, seed yield and water use efficiency of drip irrigated and black polyethylene mulch influence on growth, yield and water-
sunflower under full and deficit irrigation conditions. Agricultural Water Man- use efficiency of tomato. African Journal of Agricultural Research 4 (12),
agement 90 (3), 213–223. 1427–1430.
Karam, F., Breidy, J., Stephan, C., Rouphael, J., 2003. Evapotranspiration, yield and Topak, R., Suheri, S., Acar, B., 2011. Effect of different drip irrigation regimes on
water use efficiency of drip irrigatied corn in the Bekaa Valley of Lebanon. Agri- sugar beet (Beta Vulgaris L.) yield, quality and water use efficiency in Middle
cultural Water Management 63 (2), 125–137. Anatolian, Turkey. Irrigation Science 29 (1), 79–89.
Karam, F., Masaad, R., Bachour, R., Rhayem, C., Rouphael, Y., 2009. Water and radi- Wu, I.P., Gitlin, H.M., 1983. Drip irrigation application efficiency and schedules.
ation use efficiencies in Drip-irrigated pepper (Capsicum annuum L.): response Transactions of the ASAE 26 (1), 92–99.