Alternative Techniques of Irrigation Water Management for Improving Crop Water Productivity

Abstract

The pressure on water resources is due to different factors that affect agricultural development for food security. Large agricultural lands are not irrigated because of limited water resources and poor irrigation water management. This results in poor crop water productivity. Therefore, this paper focused on finding alternative techniques of irrigation water management to solve the problems of poor irrigation water management for crop water productivity for diverse crop species. Although there are different options for saving and managing irrigation water to improve crop water productivity, deficit irrigation in different mechanisms, drip irrigation, pitcher irrigation and surface mulch were some of the innovative techniques of irrigation water management. Accordingly, stage-wise deficit irrigation was better than deficit irrigation throughout the growing season for improving yield productivity. Considering the furrow irrigation system, alternate furrow irrigation is better to save water and improve crop water productivity than fixed furrow irrigation. On the other hand, drip irrigation is better performed to improve crop water productivity than conventional irrigation systems. Furthermore, pitcher irrigation system and deficit irrigation with mulch had better performance than conventional furrow irrigation to save irrigation water and improve crop water productivity. Therefore, the alternative techniques of irrigation water management to improve crop water productivity are the best option for food security in areas of water scarcity. Particularly, deficit irrigation, alternate irrigation, drip irrigation with mulching and pitcher irrigation are alternatively recommended for implementation in the areas of water scarcity for sustainable development.

1. Introduction

The limitation of water resources is a major factor in the development of agriculture in arid and semiarid areas of the world [1, 2, 3]. One of the primary factors is climate change and variability that affect the potential of available water resources [4, 5, 6].

Global warming is also a major factor to reduce water resources and increase water demand. According to Mo et al. [5], by the 2050s, the increased crop water demand and intensified evapotranspiration resulting from global warming will reduce water resources surplus by about 4–24% and increase significantly the irrigation water demand in crop growth periods. Similarly, population growth affects water resources through domestic water use and food consumption. Thomas and Durham [7] clarified that population growth particularly was limiting the amount of water available per person because an increase in per capita water consumption driven by development will intensify water demand and strain the local water supply. The population is not only consuming water as drinking but also consuming food. Therefore, the introduction of irrigation water management (IWM) is mandatory to compensate for the food demand expansion. The management of irrigation water used to produce a certain amount of agricultural production should be improved [8, 9]. In this case, huge water may be needed to irrigate those agricultural areas. So, the potential of water for agricultural input is reduced.

Limitation of water resources and low efficiency of irrigation are practiced in farmers’ agricultural fields. The research was conducted on small-scale irrigation schemes in Ethiopia, and the observed application efficiency and overall efficiency was 56.05% and 43.54%, respectively [10]. This makes it necessary to investigate further alternative techniques to maximize crop water productivity. Although water-saving technologies are available, the installation cost is very high and limited in developing countries saving water consumption [11]. Therefore, finding alternative techniques of irrigation water management to improve sustainable crop water productivity is crucial all over the world, particularly in areas of water scarcity.

This paper attempts to review different techniques of irrigation water management that have higher crop water productivity to have been done in the past studies for various crops. Alternative techniques in this context focused on irrigation systems and water management practices to achieve higher production with less amount of water used. Although crop water productivity varies with alternative techniques of irrigation methods, crop types, soil types and agro-climate conditions, this paper has reviewed any crop, agro-climate conditions and soil types that are done in different areas. Therefore, the limitation of this paper is that it does not specific to a single crop type and agro-climate conditions of the area.

2. Alternative techniques of irrigation water management

Considering irrigation systems, there are surface and pressurized irrigation systems. We know that a pressurized irrigation system is better than surface irrigation for higher crop water productivity because of consuming less amount of water particularly; drip irrigation is preferable to sprinkler irrigation [12]. However, the installation cost is very high to run the system. In line with this, finding out the integration of easy methods of surface irrigation with water management is crucial. Considered irrigation water management practices, there are several techniques to minimize water loss as runoff, deep percolation, and evaporation. Some of these are deficit irrigation, drip irrigation using locally available materials, pitcher irrigation, and surface mulch.

2.1 Deficit irrigation

Deficit irrigation (DI) strategies have been recommended in areas where water supply is limited under erratic climate situations without significant yield loss [1, 13]. These DI strategies offer great opportunities for saving water. Several researchers have reported water savings from 43% to 65% under regulated deficit irrigation (RDI) strategy with a little reduction in yield [14]. This RDI is an irrigation practice in which a crop is watering below full crop water requirement to increase water use efficiency. Regulated deficit irrigation shows significant performance in fruit trees in terms of water saving and crop water productivity [13].

There are three different methods of RDI practiced in the field [13]. These are RDI throughout crop growth season, RDIC (where full irrigation is applied at critical growth stages while less amount of irrigation water is applied at non-critical growth stages), and partial root-zone drying (PRD).

2.1.1 Water stress throughout the entire growth season

Deficit irrigation is practiced in different experimental works. This system is practiced for non-identified critical crop growth stages, which are sensitive to water stress. Some authors have practiced such a system of water management under different crops [15]. They concluded that the crop was sensitive to water stress or not sensitive to water stress based on seasonal outputs. Although it reported the crop was sensitive to water stress throughout the growing season, it may not be sensitive to one of the growth stages. This technique may not be good for better irrigation water management. Water stresses throughout the growing season significantly affect the yield attribute and yield [16]. According to Hirich et al. [17], 50% deficit irrigation (saving 50% of irrigation water) was practiced throughout the growing season; the yield productivity was reduced by 34.8% and 43.7% for sweet corn and chickpea respectively compared to conventional irrigation methods. On the other hand, as shown in Figure 1(b), 50% deficit irrigation at the vegetative growth stage for sweet corn increased crop productivity by 28.2% as compared to conventional irrigation. The crop water productivity for 50% deficit irrigation throughout the entire crop growth season was less than 50% deficit only at the vegetative crop growth stage for the quinoa crop (Appendix).

2.1.2 Water stress at a specific growth stage

In nature, the response of crops to water stress has different for different growth stages. The effect of water stress at a specific crop growth stage is interesting to identify the sensitivity of crops to water stress. In this case, some crop growth stages have not been affected by water stress except the critical crop growth stages to water stress. According to Nuruddin et al. [16], crops that have water stressed only at the flowering crop growth stage showed fewer and bigger fruit as compared to non-stressed crops. Hirich et al. [17] also planned deficit irrigation strategies and got a fruit full result; which is 50% deficit irrigation only at the vegetative growth stage achieved more yield and crop water productivity than conventional irrigation and other deficit irrigation strategies. At this crop growth stage, the crop does not require more water. If more water will apply in this growth stage, the crop productivity of sweet corn has reduced. The maximum crop water productivity (6.48 kg m^-3) was observed due to 50% deficit irrigation practiced at the vegetative growth stage (Figure 1(a)). Although the water saved (22.9%) in this growth stage is less than the 50% of deficit irrigation throughout the growing season, the reduced yield productivity was below zero as compared to that one. In line with this, the maximum yield (469.1 g plant^-1) was obtained from this treatment of the control treatments (365.9 g plant^-1) [17]. The following graphical interpretations are developed using the data obtained from Hirich et al. [17].

Figure 1: Effect of 50% Deficit Irrigation (DI) events on (a) Crop Water Productivity (CWP) (upper figure) and (b) the amount of water saved (%) (lower figure) for sweet corn

2.1.3 Partial root-zone drying

Partial root-zone drying (PRD) is a newly evolving irrigation technique, which is simply required to wet only one-half of the rooting zone and leave the other half dry; which is half of the irrigation demand has been applied [18]. It was developed to monitor the growth and transpiration of plants to avoid the extreme water stress periods that happen in regulated deficit irrigation [19, 20, 21]. PRD technique is one part of the root system that is slowly dried while the remaining roots are exposed to wet soil. Thus, roots of the watered side maintain a favorable plant water status, while dehydrating roots will produce chemical signals that are transported to the shoots via the xylem and will hypothetically control vegetative vigor and stomatal aperture [22]. In recent years, much information obtained under controlled conditions has provided evidence for a reduction of growth and gas exchange of plants in drying soil, without shoot-water relations being affected [23, 24]. The observed water use efficiency in partial root-zone drying was double as compared to full irrigation [25], which was the same yield obtained in all systems; but the water applied to the crop was reduced by half in partial root-zone drying. The most common techniques used to improve crop water productivity under PRD are fixed furrow irrigation and alternate furrow irrigation.

2.1.4 Fixed and alternate furrow irrigation

Fixed furrow irrigation (FFI) is an alternative technique of irrigation water management, in which the irrigation water is applied to a fixed every-other furrow throughout the growing season (Figure 2). This method can save irrigation water by half as compared to conventional furrow irrigation. Here, the yield is reduced a little due to saving 50% of irrigation water [1]. According to Akele [1], the onion bulb yield has been reduced by only 25.5% as compared to conventional furrow irrigation with 100% water applied. However, the water saved due to the use of fixed furrow irrigation was 50% of the total required water. This technique of irrigation water management is preferable to a conventional furrow irrigation system, but not to an alternate furrow irrigation system [1, 2].

Alternate furrow irrigation (AFI) is one of the most common irrigation water management techniques, in which the irrigation water is applied to alternate furrows throughout the growing season; that is water was being applied to the alternate furrows which is dry in the previous irrigation cycle (Figure 2). Alternate furrow irrigation was proposed as a method to increase crop water productivity and area of water scarcity as compared to every-furrow irrigation and minimum yield losses were observed for different crops for example compared with fixed furrow irrigation systems [26, 27].

Figure 2: Layout of alternate furrow and fixed furrow irrigation methods [28]

Alternate furrow irrigation methods compared to conventional furrow and fixed furrow irrigation (FFI) can save more water without the reduction of yield. EL-Halim [27] reported that conventional furrow irrigation applied 13% more water than the mean of the two alternate furrow treatments (7 and 14-day irrigation intervals) for the corn crop.

The lowest irrigation water was applied for AFI treatments as compared with conventional furrow irrigation; because of the wetted soil surface area in AFI (almost half of the area is reduced). AFI saved 50% of the water applied as compared with a conventional furrow in uniform furrow length and soil environment [29]. The highest crop water productivity (11.2 kg m^-3) was observed under alternate furrow irrigation (AFI), whereas the lowest value (4.1 kg m^-3) was obtained under the conventional furrow irrigation system. According to Khokan et al. [30], AFI saved irrigation water by 35 to 38% for irrigation levels up to 80 and 100% water level, compared to the conventional furrow respectively. Mehari et al. [2] also concluded that the minimum amount of irrigation water and labor costs were required for the AFI technique and could maintain statistically the same grain yield of maize to full irrigation or conventional furrow irrigation. On the other hand, the nutrient uptake of winter wheat in the AFI system is greater than conventional furrow in the same soil water content and environment [31]. Furthermore, Du et al. [32] reported that AFI always achieved the highest seed cotton yield with the three irrigation levels. AFI has not only saved water but also produced a maximum yield [1]. He concluded that AFI with 100% crop evapotranspiration (ETc) could observe the possibilities of increasing additional net irrigable land up to 0.868 ha per hectare of irrigation water as compared to conventional furrow irrigation systems (control). Therefore, compared to conventional and fixed furrow irrigation systems, AFI was the best technique of irrigation water management to improve crop water productivity in areas of water scarcity. However, for specific studies in the area of water scarcity, paired row furrow irrigation (PRFI) system was preferable to AFI for better-maximizing yield for example for the red Bombay onion variety [33]. The following graphical interpretations (Figure (3) are developed using the data from previous studies [34]. As shown in Figure 3(a), AFI is preferable for crop water productivity to other alternative techniques for maize crops. Similarly, there is no significant yield reduction in the use of AFI (Figure 3(b)). Comparisons of alternative techniques of irrigation water management for crop water productivity improvement on different crops are available in Appendix.

Figure 3: Effect of alternative techniques of irrigation water management on (a) Crop water productivity (CWP) improvement (upper figure) and (b) water saved and yield reduced (lower figure) for maize crop (AFI: Alternative Furrow Irrigation; FFI: Fixed Furrow Irrigation; CFI: Conventional Furrow Irrigation; DI: Deficit Irrigation)

2.2 Drip irrigation

Drip irrigation can improve crop water productivity up to 15% for maize crops as compared to border irrigation systems [35]. Similarly, Chouhan et al. [36] also conclude that the use of drip irrigation can save irrigation water up to 28.42% more than border irrigation for wheat crop. In line with this, crop water productivity for drip-irrigated wheat was 24.24% more than the border irrigation system. Furthermore, a drip irrigation system increased the maize grain yield production by 57.53% and saved 33.7% of irrigation water as compared to conventional furrow irrigation (farmer’s practice) [37]. On the other hand, compared to alternate furrow irrigation, 71.5% of maize yield was increased and 24.58% loss of irrigation water over alternate furrow irrigation [37]. Yohannes and Tadesse [38] also reported that the highest crop yield and crop water productivity was observed from drip irrigation as compared to furrow irrigation for tomato crops.

A drip irrigation system is ideal and important for saving irrigation water and is the most efficient method [39, 40, 41]. In addition to this, it is a better alternative technique that is combined with deficit irrigation to ensure water-saving [11]. Enchalew et al. [42] reported that 248.7 mm of water was saved due to the use of drip irrigation with 50% deficit irrigation compared to normal drip irrigation. For the use of drip irrigation, 27% of irrigation water consumption was reduced as compared to conventional flooded irrigation in aerobic rice production systems [43]. In the current condition, population growth with their demand day by day has increased whereas the availability of water becomes reduced [44]. In this case, it is important to use such types of alternative methods to save irrigation water. Drip irrigation delivers the enabled quantity of water directly to the plant’s root zone, in the right amounts at the right time; which is each plant gets the exact amount of water when it requires to grow optimally [45, 46]. Furthermore, it is the most efficient (90–95%) method, had a more uniform rate of water application with less maintenance along with 20% to 70% water saving and increased crop production prospects [47].

A drip irrigation system requires a little amount of water as compared to other irrigation methods. About 40–80 liters per day are needed per 100–200 plants [48]. This small amount of water applied to the field can also reduce weed growth and limits the leaching of plant nutrients down in the soil.

Drip irrigation saves up to 50% of the water in comparison to flood and furrow irrigation systems and fertigation via drip was 30% more effective than flooding [46]. These combinations of drip irrigation and fertigation increased productivity by up to 200% and in sugarcane by up to 133% [46]. Its field application efficiency can be as high as 90% compared to 60–80% for sprinklers and 50–60% for surface irrigation [49]. The reason why to capture higher efficiency to save water and improve crop water productivity in this method is no loss of water, which means the principle of a drop of water per crop (cannot wet the total area of the field but rather the crop root zone).

Drip irrigation has been practiced manually for small-scale farming households in dry and arid climates where water is scarce [50]. All the different designs reduce water evaporation and allow people to sustain their food with simple but effective techniques. One of these techniques is the use of locally available water storage tanks and bamboo as drip pipelines. According to Krishnamurthy [51], farmers in the Northeastern state of Meghalaya, India have used bamboo in the construction of an indigenous technique of drip irrigation to irrigate their plants for over 200 years.

2.3 Pitcher irrigation system

Pitcher irrigation is a buried clay pot irrigation system and one of the most efficient systems of irrigation that were well-known more than 2000 years ago like in China in many small farmers [52]. The crop water productivity in pitcher irrigation technology is better than furrow irrigation. In line with this, the crop water productivity was improved from 2.5–7 kg m^-3 due to the use of pitcher irrigation; in the same condition, 0.7 kg m^-3 was recorded for the closed furrow irrigation method [52]. According to Gebru et al. [53], the crop water productivity in pitcher irrigation for Swiss chard, tomato, and pepper was 10.9, 4.2, and 1.8 kg m^–3, respectively, whereas crop water productivity in furrow irrigation for the corresponding crops was 4.1, 1.8 and 0.8 kg m^–3, respectively (Figure 4(a)). Furthermore, Malekinezhad [54] observed that the crop water productivity for cucumber and watermelon crops using a pitcher irrigation system was 4.91 and 4.79 times as high as the furrow irrigation, respectively. Bhayo et al. [55] also reported that a higher CWP was observed from pitcher irrigation because less amount of irrigation water was consumed as compared to other irrigation methods.

Pitcher irrigation technology is very important to save irrigation water. According to Siyal et al. [56], compared with conventional surface irrigation methods, pitcher irrigation reduced water consumption by approximately 82–84%. It could also save 50–70% of water without affecting the growth of plants and yield production [57]. Figure 4(b) shows that irrigation water has saved 43.9% as compared to the conventional furrow irrigation system. This water was saved without reducing the yield productivity; rather increased the yield productivity due to the use of pitcher irrigation technology. The yield productivity was increased by 50.9 % than the conventional furrow for the Swiss chard crop [53]. Thus, in areas with moisture scarcity, introducing pitcher irrigation will play a big role in minimizing water constraints and contribute to water equity among beneficiaries. The following graphical representations are developed using the data from Gebru et al. [53].

Figure 4: Significant importance of pitcher irrigation technology for (a) Crop Water Productivity (CWP) (right figure) and (b) Saving irrigation water (left figure) for different crops

2.4 Surface mulching

Mulching is one of the water management techniques in dryland areas for conserving soil moisture, regulating temperature, and reducing soil evaporation [58, 59]. Surface mulching has been widely practiced as a water conservation technique in rain-fed farming systems [60]. According to Jabran et al. [61], the mulching system has saved irrigation water (18–27%) with improved crop water productivity than the conventional systems [61]. Mulching can also increase the moisture-holding capacity of the soil, which reduces evapotranspiration, the weed growth and moderates the soil temperature. Furthermore, mulching can increase water use efficiency, reduce the leaching of nutrients, diminish soil erosion and increase the infiltration capacity of the soil [62]. The crop yield productivity was increased by 64.24% and 33.95% for papaya and banana due to the use of mulching as compared to non-mulching [62]. The use of Sudan grass-type mulching could save the soil moisture by 21.8% for soil depth from 0.21–0.4m after 30 days of sowing; increasing the crop yield productivity by 249.5% for sesame crops [63]. The crop water productivity for the wheat crop was increased by 17.3% due to the use of rice husk mulch [64]. On the other hand, the crop water productivity for maize crops varied under the different mulching types. In line with this, crop water productivity was improved by 30% and 16.6% for the use of plastic and straw mulch, respectively [65].

The crop water productivity was improved under the combined effect of deficit irrigation and mulching levels. According to Tufa et al. [66], the maximum crop water productivity (10.22 kg m^-3) was observed for a combined effect of 40% deficit irrigation and 9 t ha^-1 straw mulch for onion crops (Figure 5). This CWP increased by 67.3% compared to the conventional practice (control) with 40% saved water. This saved water can irrigate an additional 0.4 ha of agricultural land. The following graphical interpretation is developed based on the data obtained from Tufa et al. [66].

Figure 5: Significant importance of Deficit Irrigation (DI) with mulching on Crop Water Productivity (CWP) for onion crop

Several researchers have recommended the use of deficit irrigation with mulching than non-mulching and conventional systems in the area of water scarcity [67, 68, 69]. On the other hand, the combination of drip irrigation and deficit irrigation with mulch had a significant value for the improvement of crop water productivity. According to Biswas et al. [68], the higher crop water productivity (59.2 kg m^-3) was obtained from the 50% water application under polyethylene mulch using drip irrigation. Patra et al. [69] also reported that the maximum crop water productivity (11.49 kg m^-3) was observed from the combination of drip irrigation, deficit irrigation and black plastic mulch (BPM) on broccoli crops (Figure 6). The minimum irrigation water level is advisable due to reduced deep percolation and increased water use from the crop root zone of the soil. The following graphical explanation is developed using the data from Patra et al. [69].

Figure 6: Significant importance of drip irrigation and deficit irrigation combined with mulching

(CWP: Crop Water Productivity; DI: Deficit Irrigation; BPM: Black Plastic Mulch)

Several scholars have investigated different furrow irrigation techniques with mulch on different crops and environments [70, 71, 72, 73]. Under limiting irrigation water, adopting alternate furrow irrigation with mulch minimizes evaporation loss and maximizes water productivity for maize production compared to fixed furrow irrigation [70, 71]. According to Lindi et al. [73], the maximum crop water productivity (19.76 kg m^-3) was observed due to the interaction use of AFI with straw mulch for potato crops (Figure 7). The following graph was developed based on the data from Lindi et al. [73].

Figure 7: Importance of AFI with mulch to achieve Crop Water Productivity (CWP)

(CFI: Conventional Furrow Irrigation; AFI: Alternate Furrow Irrigation; FFI: Fixed Furrow Irrigation)

2.5 Micro basin irrigation

Micro basin irrigation is a small basin for quick application of significant irrigation depth, which is commonly practiced in home gardens. The area is flat, elevated sections of the field surrounded by soil bunds or embankments that holds water inside the basin. This basin allows users to apply large depths of water in a short time, which will slowly infiltrate into the crop’s root zone as the water is held inside the basin by the bunds [74]. Micro basin irrigation can save water as compared with flood irrigation due to the reduction in water loss from evaporation, deep percolation as well as during water delivery [75]. In the area of irrigation water shortage, water-saving irrigation methods will become more important. However, their wide use in crops is still limited, due to the high investment and maintenance cost of the irrigation system and the lower economic returns of the crops [76]. However, micro basin irrigation is not recommended for fungal disease-sensitive crops [74]. Overall, the advantages, disadvantages and challenges of alternative techniques of irrigation water management for different crops and environments are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Advantages, disadvantages and challenges of alternative techniques of irrigation water management for different crops and climate zones

Alternative Techniques	Advantages	Disadvantages	Challenges for different crops and climate	Sources
PRD (AFI and FFI)	Decreases the conductance of stomata and increases CWP; improves hydraulic conductivity of the soil; improves uptake of plant nutrients; effective use of irrigation water; achieves a better quality of fruit.	Reduction in the CO2 uptake by the plants, and development of salinity during the dry phase of PRD.	Lack of understanding of hormonal signaling under changes in nutrient and water resources, lack of practical knowledge.	[77; 78; 79; 80; 81; 82]
DI	Reduce the overall water demand; reduce the decline of land productivity allied with soil erosion, waterlogging, and salinization; decrease operation and maintenance costs related to desilting and water outtake including the costs of pumping, delivering water, or water fees; increase irrigated areas with the same amount of irrigation water; reducing the effect of fungal diseases; decline agrochemical and nutrient losses through leaching from the root zone; reduce the fertilizer needs of the crop, and improves groundwater quality; improvement of CWP.	Some yield reductions per hectare and the leaching of salts from the root zone is lower.	Lack of knowledge on better and diversified irrigation agronomic practices, technical constraints, insufficient baseline data and information on the development of water resources, lack of community contribution during planning, construction and use of irrigation development.	[83; 84; 85; 86; 87]
Drip Irrigation	Improve yield and CWP, no soil erosion, fertilizer applied with high efficiency, high water application efficiency and lower labor costs, save irrigation water.	Plugging of drip hoses and emitters, pressure problems, a high skill required, expensive, salinity problem, it needs pure water,	Small tubing is clogged from hard water, and the more sophisticated the technology is, the more expensive it is for the farmer to acquire and install, expensive to set up a drip irrigation system in a large yard, an economic challenge.	[88; 89; 90; 87]
Pitcher irrigation	Simple and cheap, it increases the water penetration into the soil and delivers the water directly, saves water, improves CWP, reduces seepage and evaporation losses, is suitable for horticulture crops and vegetables, and reduces expenditure.	Requires clean water, possible only in a limited area, costly of the clay pots, the energy required to fire them, less flexibility once they are installed.	Very low-fired pots may break Up in very saline soil as a result of chemical reactions with the salts, not suitable for every crop. Socioeconomic challenge.	[91; 92; 87; 53; 55; 56].
Surface mulch	Retain moisture (save water), Improve CWP, suppresses weed growth, reduce sun heat damage, reduce soil erosion, provide soil nutrients, encourage beneficial soil organisms, and worm activity improves the soil structure, reduce plant nutrient loss through leaching, reduce soil salinity by reducing evaporation, controls weeds.	It blocks sunlight and prevents some seeds from germinating, and development of unwanted insects (Slugs, earwigs, cutworms, and other pests) due to the love for cool, dark, moist places. heavy rains can make the ground soggy for several days.	It creates an anaerobic (low or no oxygen) environment that allows fungal diseases to develop in plant stems and roots (some are toxic to humans) due to mulch, and climate variability affects the durability of mulch material.	[59; 62; 63; 66]

PRD: Partial root-zone drying; AFI: Alternate Furrow Irrigation; FFI: Fixed Furrow Irrigation; DI: Deficit Irrigation; CWP: Crop Water Productivity

3. Conclusion

Limitation of water resources and low efficiency of irrigation water practice results in poor crop water productivity in agriculture. This paper attempted to review the most relevant alternative techniques of irrigation water management to achieve crop water productivity without significant yield reduction. Overall, under limited water resources, the reviewed alternative techniques of irrigation water management are a viable option to improve crop water productivity for different crops and environments, particularly, mulching combined with those alternatives. In line with this, the productivity of yield increases by irrigating extra land using the saved water due to the application of the alternative techniques of irrigation water management practices. On the other hand, there is no research conducted by considering all of the alternative techniques in a specific area, crop type, soil and environment. Therefore, further research is required to evaluate all of the alternative techniques of irrigation water management in the same environment.

Appendix

Table A1: Alternative techniques of irrigation water management for crop water productivity improvements for various crops, climate conditions and soil types

Alternative techniques	Crop type	Maximum CWP (kg m-3) to		Irrigation Water Saved (%)	Yield reduced (%)	Climate condition	Soil texture	Sources
		Conventional	Management
Alternate wetting and drying	Rice	0.46	0.59	21.8	0.3	low land	clay loam	[93]
NTI, Drip	corn hybrids BH9029	Increased by 29%	Temperature reduced by 0.6 ℃	Not saved		semi-arid climate	clay soil	[94]
Alternate furrow	Okra	2.84	5.29	50	7	highland	loam	[95]
Alternative	Potato	110	224	49	3	semiarid climatic	clay loam	[96]
Fixed		110	186	50	23
Alternative with DI		11.04	22.38	62	7
Fixed with DI		11.04	18.6	63	26
AFI	Maize	0.912	1.72	50	5.6	semi-arid lowlands	clay loam	[97]
FFI		0.912	1.29	50	29.1
AFI with 50%DI		0.912	2.02	75	44.6
FFI with 50%DI		0.912	1.35	75	63
50% DI CFI		0.912	1.21	50	33.3
AFI	Maize	1.9	3.6	37	0.85	10 masl (Modhupur Tract)	silty loam	[34]
FFI		1.9	2.84	36	4.5
AFI with 60% DI		>1.9	3.11	41	16.3
FFI with 60% DI		1.9	2.88	40.5	20.5
CFI with 60%DI		1.9	2.16	16	15.4
DI (60%ETc)	Common bean	0.42	0.36	40.1	37.85	Kabul Province	clay loam	[98]
AFI	Potato	6.1	11.2	50	0.5	Humid climate	clay	[29]
FFI		6.1	10.7	50	9.6
50% DI throughout	Chickpea	0.88	0.98	50	43.7	Arid climate	loamy	[17]
50% DI on flowering		0.88	0.76	15.2	26.1
50% DI on grain filling		0.88	0.67	18.9	37.9
50% DI throughout	Sweet corn	3.9	5.03	50	34.8
50% DI on lowering		3.9	3.82	10.2	11.9
50% DI on grain filling		3.9	3.83	16.3	17.7
50% DI on vegetative		3.9	6.48	22.9	-28.2
50%DI on flowe. & veg.		3.9	4.12	33.1	29.3
50%DI throughout	Quinoa	1.04	1.04	50	50.2
50%DI on flowering		1.04	0.77	8.9	32.3
50%DI on grain filling		1.04	0.84	21.8	37.1
50%DI on vegetative		1.04	1.25	19.3	2.9
50%DI on flowe. & veg.		1.04	0.78	28.2	45.9
AFI	Maize	10.8	19.57	50	9.3	semi-arid	clay loam	[99]
FFI		10.8	12.47	50	41.9
25%DI		10.8	13.72	25	4.7
50%DI		10.8	14.87	50	31
AFI with 25%DI		10.8	19.8	62.5	31
AFI with 50%DI		10.8	12.68	75	70.5
FFI with 25%DI		10.8	11.43	62.5	60
FFI with 50%DI		10.8	9.48	75	78
17%DI	Maize	1.72	1.81	14	6.5	Humid	loamy	[100]
33%DI		1.72	2.02	28	7.9
50% DI		1.72	1.9	41.9	24
70%DI		1.72	1.98	55.9	32.6
Pitcher Irrigation	Swiss chard	4.1	10.9	43.9	-50.9	2,212 masl (Midland)	sandy clay loam	[53]
	Tomato	1.8	4.2	41.7	-32.1
	Pepper	0.8	1.8	41.2	-30.2

DI: Deficit irrigation; NTI: Night Time Irrigation; AFI: Alternative furrow irrigation; FFI: Fixed furrow irrigation; CFI: Conventional furrow irrigation

References

• [1] Akele Z (2009) Evaluation of alternate, fixed and conventional furrow irrigation systems with different water application level on onion yield in Dubti, Afar, and Ethiopia. Indu. Eng. Lett., 9 (5): 15–22.
• [2] Mehari H, Bedadi B and Abegaz F (2020) Maximizing water productivity of maize using alternate furrow irrigation at clay-loam soil, Raya valley, Ethiopia. Int. J. Plant Breed. Crop Sci., 7(2): 771–778.
• [3] Njoyim KI, Kengni L, Tita MA, Tamungang EN, Fonzenyuy VF and Aziwo BT (2020) Hydrogeochemistry of surface and ground water in Alatening Village, Northwest Region, Cameroon. Appl. Environ. Soil Sci., 2020: 1–15.
• [4] Felter C and Robinson K (2021) Water stress: A Global Problem That’s Getting Worse. Council on Foreign Relations, 2021.
• [5] Mo X, Hu S, Lin Z, Liu S and Xia J (2017) Impacts of climate change on agricultural water resources and adaptation on the North China Plain. Adv. Clim. Chang. Res., 8(2): 93–98.
• [6] Nikolaou G, Neocleous D, Christou A, Kitta E and Katsoulas N (2020) Implementing sustainable irrigation in water-scarce regions under the impact of climate change. Agronomy, 10(8): 1–33.
• [7] Thomas JS and Durham B (2003) Integrated water resource management: Looking at the whole picture. Desali., 156: 21–28.
• [8] Magha AM, Tamfuh PA, Mamdem LE, Yefon MC, Kenzong B and Bitom D (2021) Soil water characteristics of Gleysols in the Bamenda (Cameroon) wetlands and implications for agricultural management strategies. Appl. Environ. Soil Sci., 2021: 1–15.
• [9] Moghimi MM, Niknejad F, Mahmoudi MR and Moghaddam A (2021) Determining optimal values of performance indicators in different scenarios of on-farm water management. Irrig. Drain., 71: 1–18.
• [10] Kibret EA, Abera A, Ayele WT and Alemie NA (2021) Performance evaluation of surface irrigation system in the case of Dirma small-scale irrigation scheme at Kalu Woreda, Northern Ethiopia. Water Conserv. Sci. Eng., 6: 263–274.
• [11] Moumen Z, Elhassnaoui I, Khaddi W, Wahba M and Lahrach A (2021) Assessment of deficit irrigation efficiency. Case study: Middle Sebou and Innaouene downstream. Open Agric., 6 (1): 102–114.
• [12] Darouich H, Cameira MR, Gonçalves JM, Paredes P and Pereira LS (2017) Comparing sprinkler and surface irrigation for wheat using Multi-Criteria Analysis: Water Saving vs. Economic Returns. Water, 9(1): 1–19.
• [13] Fereres E and Soriano MA (2007) Deficit irrigation for reducing agricultural water use. J. Exp. Bot., 58 (2): 147–159.
• [14] Miras-Avalos JM, Perez-Sarmiento F, Alcobendas R, Alarcón JJ, Mounzer O and Nicolás E (2016) Using midday stem water potential for scheduling deficit irrigation in mid-late maturing peach trees under Mediterranean conditions. Irrig. Sci., 34(2): 161–173.
• [15] Mebrahtu Y, Woldemichael A and Habtu S (2018) Response of onion (Allium cepa l.) to deficit irrigation under different furrow irrigation water management techniques in Raya Valley, Northern Ethiopia. Afric. J. Plant Sci., 12: 105–113.
• [16] Nuruddin MM, Madramootoo CA and Dodds GT (2003) Effects of water stress at different growth stages on greenhouse tomato yield and quality. Hortic. Sci., 38(7): 1389–1393.
• [17] Hirich A, Choukr-Allah R, Fahmi H, Rami A, Laajaj K, Jacobsen S and El Omari H (2014) Using deficit irrigation to improve crop water productivity of sweet corn, chickpea, faba bean and quinoa: a synthesis of several field trials. Rev. Mar. Sci. Agron., 2(1): 15–22.
• [18] Kirda C, Topalolu F, Topçu S and Kaman HM (2007) Yield response to partial root drying and conventional deficit irrigation. Turkish J. Agric. For., 31: 1–10.
• [19] Dry PR, Loveys BR, Botting D and During H (1996) Effects of partial root-zone drying on grapevine vigour, yield, composition of fruit and use of water. Proc. 9th Aust. Wine Indust. Tech. Conf., Australia: 126–131.
• [20] During H, Loveys BR and Dry PR (1997) Root signals affect water use efficiency and shoot growth. Acta Hortic., 427: 1–14.
• [21] Loveys BR, Dry PR, Stoll M and Mccarthy MG (2000) Using plant physiology to improve the water efficiency of horticultural crops. Acta Hortic., 537: 187–197.
• [22] Dodd IC, Stikic R and Davies WJ (1996) Chemical regulation of gas exchange and growth of plants in drying soil in the field. J. Exp. Bot., 47: 475–1490.
• [23] Davies WJ, Tardieu F and Trejo CL (1994) How do chemical signals work in plants that grow in drying soil? Plant Physiol., 104: 309–314.
• [24] Liu FL, Jensen CR and Andersen MN (2003). Hydraulic and chemical signals in the control of leaf expansion and stomata conductance in soybean exposed to drought stress. Funct. Plant Biol., 30: 65–73.
• [25] Santos TP, Lopes CM, Rodrigues ML, Desouza CR, Ricardo-Da-Silva JM, Maroco JP, Pereira JS and Chaves MM (2005) Effects of partial root-zone drying irrigation on cluster microclimate and fruit composition of field-grown Castelao grapevines. Vitis., 44 (3):117–125.
• [26] Barker DM, Raine SR and Robertson MJ (1997) A Preliminary investigation of alternate furrow irrigation for sugar cane production. Proc. Aus. Soc. Sugar Cane Tech., 20: 302–309.
• [27] EL-Halim AA (2013) Impact of alternate furrow irrigation with different irrigation intervals on yield, water use efficiency and economic return of corn. Chilean J. Agric. Res., 73:175–180.
• [28] Devkota M, Gupta RK, Martius C, Lamers JPA, Devkota KP, Sayre KD and Vlek PLG (2015) Soil salinity management on raised beds with different furrow irrigation modes in salt-affected lands. Agric. Water Manag., 152: 243–250.
• [29] Eba TA and Seyoum T (2018) The impact of alternate furrow irrigation on water productivity and yield of potato at small scale irrigation, Ejere district, West Shoa, Ethiopia. Appl. Eng., 2: 1–18.
• [30] Khokan KS, Akanda MAR, Biswas SK, Roy DK, Khatun A and Goffar MA (2016) Field performance of alternate wetting and drying furrow irrigation on tomato crop growth, yield, water use efficiency, quality and profitability. J. Integ. Agric., 15: 2380–2392.
• [31] Li Z, Zhang F and Kang S (2005) Impacts of the controlled roots divided alternative irrigation on water and nutrient use of winter wheat. Trans. Canadian Soc. Asso. Excu., 21: 17–21.
• [32] Du T, Kang S, Zhang J, Li F and Hu X (2006) Yield and physiological responses of cotton to partial root-zone irrigation in the oasis field of Northwest China. Agric. Water Manag., 84: 41–52.
• [33] Asres LA (2022) Seasonal yield response factor for red bombay onion (allium cepa l.) variety in Arba Minch, Ethiopia. Agric. Sci. Dig., 42(3): 266–271.
• [34] Sarker KK, Hossain A, Timsina J, Biswasa SK, Malone SL, Alam MK, Loescher HW and Bazzaz M (2020) Alternate furrow irrigation can maintain grain yield and nutrient content, and increase crop water productivity in dry season maize in sub-tropical climate of South Asia. Agri. Water Manag., 238: 106229.
• [35] Wang Y, Li S, Cui Y, Qin S, Guo H, Yang D and Wang C (2021) Effect of drip irrigation on soil water balance and water use efficiency of maize in Northwest China. Water, 13: 217.
• [36] Chouhan SS, Awasthi MK, and Nema RK (2015) Studies on water productivity and yields responses of wheat based on drip irrigation systems in clay loam soil. Indian J. of Sci. and Technol., 8(7): 650–654.
• [37] Borena FR and Seyoum T (2021) Effect of drip and furrow irrigation at different irrigation levels on water use efficiency and economics of maize (Zea Mays L.) at Werer, Middle Awash, Ethiopia. Afric. J. Agric. Res., 17(9): 1221–1228.
• [38] Yohannes F and Tadesse T (1998) Effect of drip and furrow irrigation and plant spacing on yield of tomato at Dire Dawa, Ethiopia. Agric. Water Manag., 35: 201–207.
• [39] Michael AM (2007) Irrigation and practice. 2^nd edition, Vikas Press, India.
• [40] Musa M, Iqbal M, Tariq M, Sahi F, Cheema N and Jahan F (2014) Comparative water use efficiency of drip and furrow irrigation systems for off-season vegetables under plastic tunnel. SAARC J. Agric., 12 (1): 62–71.
• [41] Mhmdy MAL and Dulaimy SHE (2018) Performance evaluation of drip irrigation system according to the suggested standards. Iraqi J. Agric. Sci., 49 (6): 1099–1109.
• [42] Enchalew B, Gebre SL, Rabo M, Hindaye B, Kedir M, Musa Y and Shafi A (2016) Effect of deficit irrigation on water productivity of onion (allium cepal.) under drip irrigation. Irrig. Drain. Sys. Eng., 5: 172.
• [43] Parthasarathi T, Vanitha K, Mohandass S and Vered E (2018) Evaluation of drip irrigation system for water productivity and yield of rice. Agronomy J., 110 (6): 1–12.
• [44] Jarwar AH, Wang X, Wang L, Mangi N, Ma Q and Shuli F (2019) Performance and evaluation of drip irrigation system, and its future advantages. J. Bio. Agric. Healthcare, 9 (9): 25–33.
• [45] Arshad I (2020) Importance of drip irrigation system installation and management – A review. PSM Biol. Res., 5(1): 22–29.
• [46] Manda RR, Addanki VA and Srivastava S (2021) Role of drip irrigation in plant health management, its importance and maintenance: Review article. Plant Archiv., 21: 1294–1302.
• [47] Ranjan A, Denis D, Mishra H and Singh I (2018) Performance evaluation of drip irrigation under high density planting of papaya. J. Pharma. Phytochem., 7(3): 2262–2270.
• [48] Seif AA (2019) Water for irrigation. Intern. Centre for Insect Physio. and Eco. https://infonet-biovision.org/EnvironmentalHealth/Water-irrigation (Accessed on 30 January 2022).
• [49] Dasberg S and Or D (1999) Drip irrigation. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.
• [50] Stauffer B and Spuhler D (2019) Manual irrigation. https://sswm.info/sswm-solutions-bop-markets/inclusive-innovation-and-service-delivery/labour-intensive-technologies/manual-irrigation (Accessed on 21 February 2022).
• [51] Krishnamurthy R (2014) Bamboo drip irrigation. Permaculture research institute. https://www.permaculturenews.org/2014/02/28/bamboo-drip-irrigation/ (Accessed on 21 February 2022).
• [52] Bainbridge DA (2001) Buried clay pot irrigation: a little known but very efficient traditional method of irrigation. Agric. Water Manag., 48: 79–88.
• [53] Gebru AA, Araya A, Habtu S, Wolde-Georgis T, Teka D and Martorano LG (2018) Evaluating water productivity of tomato, pepper and Swiss chard under clay pot and furrow irrigation technologies in semi-arid areas of northern Ethiopia. Int. J. Water, 12 (1): 54–65.
• [54] Malekinezhad H (2015) Comparison of cucumber and watermelon yield and water use in clay pitcher and furrow irrigation methods. Int. J. Water, 9(3): 275–285.
• [55] Bhayo WA, Siyal AA, Soomro SA and Mashori AS (2018) Water saving and crop yield under pitcher and wick irrigation methods. Pak. J. Agri. Agril. Engg. Vet. Sci., 34(1): 57–67.
• [56] Siyal AA, Soomro SA and Siyal AG (2015) Performance of pitcher irrigation with saline water under high evapotranspiration rates. J. Chinese Soil Water Conserv., 46 (1): 61–69.
• [57] Harland M (2013) Clay pot irrigation - a simple adaptation of an ancient technique. https://www.permaculture.co.uk/articles/clay-pot-irrigation-a-simple-adaptation-of-an-ancient-technique/ (Accessed on 20 April 2022).
• [58] Yang N, Sun Z, Feng L, Zheng M and Chi D (2015) Plastic film mulching for water efficient agricultural applications and degradable films materials development research. Mater Manuf. Process., 30(2): 37–41.
• [59] Kader MA, Senge M, Mojid MA and Ito K (2017) Recent advances in mulching materials and methods for modifying soil environment. Soil Tillage Res., 168: 155–166.
• [60] Zribi W, Aragues R, Medina E and Faci JM (2015) Efficiency of inorganic and organic mulching materials for soil evaporation control. Soil Tillage Res.,148: 40–45.
• [61] Jabran K, Ullah E, Hussain M, Farooq M, Zaman U, Yaseen M and Chauhan BS (2015) Mulching improves water productivity, yield and quality of fine rice under water-saving rice production systems. J. Agro. Crop Sci., 201: 389–400.
• [62] Prem M, Ranjan P, Seth N and Patle GT (2020) Mulching techniques to conserve the soil water and advance the crop production - A Review. Current World Environ., 15 (1): 10–30.
• [63] Teame G, Tsegay A and Abrha B (2017) Effect of organic mulching on soil moisture, yield, and yield contributing components of sesame (Sesamum indicum L.). Int. J. Agro., 2017: 6.
• [64] Chakraborty D, Nagarajan S, Aggarwal P, Gupta VK, Tomar RK, Garg RN, Sahoo RN, Sarkar A, Chopra UK, Sundara KS and Kalra N (2008) Effect of mulching on soil and plant water status, and the growth and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in a semi-arid environment. Agric. Water Manag., 95: 1323–1334.
• [65] Mebrahtu Y and Mehamed A (2019) Effect of different type of mulching and furrow irrigation methods on maize (Zea mays L.) yield and water productivity at Raya Valley, Northern Ethiopia. J. Bio. Agric. Healthcare, 9(20): 6–13.
• [66] Tufa KN, Abebe YA and Ahmed FA (2022) Effects of deficit irrigation and mulch levels on growth, yield and water productivity of onion (Allium cepa L.) at Werer, Middle Awash Valley, Ethiopia. Plant, 10 (1): 26–35.
• [67] Malik A, Shakir AS, Naveedullah, Khan MJ, Latif M, Khattak MS and Khan TA (2018) Interactive effect of deficit irrigation and mulching on sugar beet productivity in Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 50(5): 1775–1783.
• [68] Biswas SK, Akanda AR, Rahman MS and Hossain MA (2015) Effect of drip irrigation and mulching on yield, water-use efficiency and economics of tomato. Plant Soil Environ., 61: 97–102.
• [69] Patra SK, Poddar R, Pramanik S, Gaber A and Hossain A (2022) Crop and water productivity and profitability of broccoli (Brassica oleracea L. var. italica) under gravity drip irrigation with mulching condition in a humid sub-tropical climate. PLoS One, 17(3): 1–19.
• [70] Abebe N, Alemayehu Y and Abegaz F (2020) Effect of mulching materials and furrow irrigation techniques on yield, water productivity and economic return of maize (Zea mays L.) at Werer, Middle Awash Valley, Ethiopia. Int. J. Agri. Biosci., 9(4): 156–162.
• [71] Jemal K and Agegnehu G (2020) Integrated effect of Furrow Irrigation Methods and Types of Mulches on Yield and Water Productivity of Maize (Zea mays L.) in Hawassa, Ethiopia. Ethiop. J. Agric. Sci., 30(4): 121–145.
• [72] Mekonnen E, Bedane H and Genemo G (2021) Effects of furrow irrigation methods and mulching on growth, yield and water use efficiency of tomato at Bakotibe, Western Shoa. Irrig. and Drai. Sys. Engin., 10: 1–5.
• [73] Lindi S, Hone M, Meskelu E, Iticha B, Admasu W and Tadesse K (2018). Integrated effect of different mulching and furrow irrigation techniques on potato (Solanum tuberosum L) yield and water productivity at Kulumsa, Ethiopia. Acad. Res. J. Agri. Sci. Res., 6(8): 488–494.
• [74] Salomon A (2019) Small-scale irrigation technologies for horticulture. https://horticulture.ucdavis.edu/information/small-scale-irrigation-technologies-horticulture (Accessed on 04 September 2022).
• [75] Namara RE, Nagar RK and Upadhyay B (2007) Economics, adoption determinants, and impacts of micro-irrigation technologies: empirical results from India. Irrig. Sci., 25: 283–297.
• [76] Maisiri N, Senzanje A, Rockstrom J and Twomlow SJ (2005) On farm evaluation of the effect of low cost drip irrigation on water and crop productivity compared to conventional surface irrigation system. Phys. and Chem. of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 30 (11–16): 783–791.
• [77] Iqbal R, Andersen MN, Raza MAS, Rashid MA and Ahmad S (2019) Physiological manipulation and yield response of wheat grown with split root system under deficit irrigation. Pak. J. Agric. Res., 32:514–526.
• [78] Iqbal R, Muhammad ASR, Muhammad FS, Imran HK, Salman A, Muhammad SZ, Muhammad U and Imran H (2019) Physiological and biochemical appraisal for mulching and partial rhizosphere drying of cotton. J. Arid. Land, 11:785–794.
• [79] Ezzo MI, Mohamed AS and Glala AA (2020) Utilization of grafting technique for sustaining cantaloupe productivity and quality under deficit irrigation water. Bull. Nat. Res. Cent., 44:23.
• [80] Ahmad S, Raza MAS, Saleem MF, Zaheer MS, Iqbal R, Haider I, Aslam MU, Ali M and Khan IH (2020) Significance of partial root zone drying and mulches for water saving and weed suppression in wheat. J. Anim. Plant. Sci., 30: 154–162.
• [81] Rashid MA, Zhang X, Andersen MN and Olesen JE (2019) Can mulching of maize straw complement deficit irrigation to improve water use efficiency and productivity of winter wheat in North China Plain? Agric. Water Manag., 213: 1–11.
• [82] Jovanovic Z and Stikic R (2018) Partial root-zone drying technique: from water saving to the improvement of fruit quality. Front. Susta. Food Sys., 1(3): 1–9.
• [83] Asmamaw DK, Janssens P, Dessie M, Tilahun S, Adg E, Nyssen J, Walraevens K and Cornelis W (2021) Deficit irrigation as a sustainable option for improving water productivity in Sub-Saharan Africa: the case of Ethiopia. A critical review. Environ. Res. Commun., 3: 1–20.
• [84] Tari AF (2016) The effects of different deficit irrigation strategies on yield, quality, and water-use efficiencies of wheat under semi-arid conditions. Agric. Water Manag., 167: 1–10.
• [85] Mila AJ, Ali MD, Akanda AR, Rashid MH and Tejada ARM (2017) Effects of deficit irrigation on yield, water productivity and economic return of sunflower. Cog. Food Agric., 3:1–14.
• [86] Varzi MM and Grigg N (2019) Overcoming obstacles to deficit irrigation: Colorado case study. J. Water Resource Planning Management, 145(10): 05019014.
• [87] Eshete DG, Sinshaw BG and Legese KG (2020) Critical review on improving irrigation water use efficiency: Advances, challenges, and opportunities in the Ethiopia context. Water-Ener. Nexus, 3: 143–154.
• [88] Hernandez J (2016) Drip and micro irrigation design and management for trees, vines and field crops. 5^th Edition, ITRC.
• [89] Bhasker P, Singh RK, Gupta RC, Sharma HP and Gupta PK (2018) Effect of drip irrigation on growth and yield of onion (Allium cepa L.). J. Spic. Aroma. Crops, 27(1): 32–37.
• [90] Shareef T, Ma Z and Zhao B (2019) Essentials of drip irrigation system for saving water and nutrients to plant roots: as a guide for growers. J. Water Resource Prot., 11: 1129–1145.
• [91] Woldu Z (2015) Clay pot pitcher irrigation: a sustainable and socially inclusive option for homestead fruit production under dry land environments in Ethiopia (A Partial Review). J. Bio. Agric. Healthcare, 5: 157–167.
• [92] Pal A, Adhikary R, Bera M, Garanayak R and Kumar S (2020) Pitcher irrigation technology for crop cultivation in arid region. Biosc. Biotech. Res. Commun., 13 (12): 44–47.
• [93] Busari IT, Senzanje A, Odindo AO and Buckley CA (2019) The impact of irrigation water management techniques on the performance of rice using treated wastewater reuse in Durban, South Africa. Water Supp., 19: 1604–1611.
• [94] Dong X, Xu W, Zhang Y and Leskovar DI (2016) Effect of irrigation timing on root zone soil temperature, root growth and grain yield and chemical composition in corn. Agronomy, 6: 34.
• [95] Siyala AA, Mashorib AS, Bristowc KL and Genuchten MTV (2016) Alternate furrow irrigation can radically improve water productivity of okra. Agri. Water Manag., 173, 55–60.
• [96] Kassaye KT, Yilma WA, Fisha WH and Haile DH (2020) Yield and water use efficiency of potato under alternate furrows and deficit irrigation. Int. J. Agronomy, 2020: 11.
• [97] Seid MM and Narayanan K (2015) Effect of deficit irrigation on maize under conventional, fixed and alternate furrow irrigation systems at Melkassa, Ethiopia. Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol., 4(11): 119–126.
• [98] Alipour S, Amini MZ and Haidari MD (2022) Effects of regulated deficit irrigation on crop water productivity, yield components, and yield response factor of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L). Central Asian J. Water Research, 8(1): 112–125.
• [99] Bayisa GD, Hordofa T, Tezera K, Tesfaye A, Ashame G and Wondimu T (2021) Maize yield and water use efficiency under different irrigation levels and furrow irrigation methods in semiarid, tropical region. Air, Soil Water Res., 14: 1–7.
• [100] Greaves GE and Wang Y (2017) Yield response, water productivity, and seasonal water production functions for maize under deficit irrigation water management in southern Taiwan. Plant Prod. Sci., 20 (4): 353–365.