Anas Mansouri Thesis

Dedication
I lovingly dedicate this thesis to my dear mother, for her

unflagging love and unconditional support throughout my life
and studies. Make her proud is my greatest ambition.
To my father, who always supported me with great love and
affection throughout my life.
To the soul of my brother, may Allah forgive him and grant
him his highest paradise.
To my dear brothers and sisters, thanks for being the happiness

of my life. God blessed me in many ways, but having them is
the first thing I am grateful to.
To my dear aunt Raphyaa Sefiani, and her family for

their support and love even from across the sea.
To my dear friends Aziz,Khalid,Sarah,Salah,Amine,Ayman and Oualid for

their support and love even from across the sea
For you I dedicate this modest work.
Mansouri Anas
28th September,2017
Bari, Italy
Acknowledgment
In foreword to this thesis, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to those who gave me their
support and contributed to the development of this work and the success of the academic year.
I would like to express my cordial thanks to the director of MAI-Bari, Dr. M. Raeli, and to all MAIB
staff for their excellent hospitality.
My gratitude goes to the head of the Land and Water Resources Management Department,
Prof..Eng. Nicola Lamaddalena, who gave me the great opportunity to attend the MSc course, not
to mention all the staff for their general supervision and coordination during the academic year.
I sincerely thank my supervisors, Prof. Hammani Ali and Prof.Eng. Mladen Todorovic for the time
they willingly gave me, for the valuable guidance and patience they have demonstrated despite
their academic and professional duties.
I would like to express my cordial thanks to my advisors. Prof.Alessandra, Prof.Khadra,and

Ms.Sara Boularbah, for their collaborations and advices to accomplish part of this work.
I place on record, my sincere gratitude to Prof. Sebari Karima head of Water, environment and
infrastructure department, IAV Hassan II. And Prof.Barali El Houssine. I am extremely grateful and
indebted to them for their expert, sincere and valuable guidance and encouragement extended to
me.
My deep and sincere regards to Dr. Fadhila Lahmer for her support, kindness and help.
Finally, I would like to express my deep appreciation for the precious friends I met at IAV
Hassan II and MAIB and with whom I shared unforgettable moments.
Last but not least, a deep thought to my family, my parents and brothers, for their unflagging love
and unconditional support throughout my life and studies. My success would not have been
possible unless them. Make them proud is my greatest ambition.
Thank you all

Table of Contents
List of tables: ................................................................................................................................I
List of figures: .............................................................................................................................II
List of annexes:......................................................................................................................... IV
List of Acronyms and abbreviations ..................................................................................... V
Chapter 1: Introduction .............................................................................................................1
Chapter 2: Literature review .....................................................................................................4
2.1. General presentation of Tadla region ........................................................................4
2.1.1. Geography and Climate in Tadla region ...................................................4
2.1.2. Soil and crops .............................................................................................5
2.1.3. Water resources in Tadla region ...............................................................7
2.1.4. PNEEI and water saving in Morocco .........................................................7
2.2. Social side of the National Irrigation Water Saving Program (PNEEI) ..........8
2.2.1. PNEEI objectives ........................................................................................8
2.2.2. PNEEI Levers ..............................................................................................8
2.2.3. Projected effects of the PNEEI ..................................................................9
2.3. National Irrigation Water Saving Program (PNEEI) in Tadla region ..............9
2.3.1. Situation of water resources in Tadla scheme .........................................9
2.3.2. National irrigation water saving program in Tadla region (PNEEI) .........9
2.3.3. Purpose of the project.............................................................................. 10
2.3.4. Consistency of the project and sources of financing ............................ 10
2.3.5. Presentation of the pilot sector ............................................................... 12
2.3.6. Impacts of the conversion project in the pilot sector ............................ 14
2.4. Design, operation, maintenance and performance evaluation of farm drip
irrigation systems. ........................................................................................................ 16
2.4.1. Advantages ............................................................................................... 16
2.4.2. Disadvantages .......................................................................................... 16
2.4.3. Components of drip irrigation system .................................................... 16
2.5. Drip Irrigation performance ................................................................................. 17
2.5.1. Indicators of hydraulic Efficiency............................................................ 18
2.5.1.1 Transport efficiency ............................................................................... 18
2.5.1.2 Distribution efficiency ............................................................................ 18
2.5.1.3 Application efficiency............................................................................. 18
2.5.1.4 Crop water requirements satisfaction index......................................... 19
2.5.1.5 Adequacy ................................................................................................ 20
2.5.1.6 Pressure variation .................................................................................. 20
2.5.1.7 Irrigation uniformity................................................................................ 20
2.5.1.8 Factors affecting drip irrigation uniformity........................................... 23
2.6. Agronomic performances ......................................................................................... 25
2.6.1. Yield........................................................................................................... 25
2.6.2. Water use efficiency ................................................................................. 25
2.7. Economic performances .......................................................................................... 26
2.7.1. Water productivity .................................................................................... 26
2.7.2. Profitability per cubic meter of irrigation water...................................... 27
2.7.3. Cost-benefit ratio ...................................................................................... 28
2.7.4. Cost per unit of production...................................................................... 28
2.8. Crop water requirements ..................................................................................... 28
2.8.1. Evapotranspiration ................................................................................... 29
2.8.2. Indirect method......................................................................................... 30
2.8.3. Reference evapotranspiration (ETo) ....................................................... 30
2.8.4. Radiation-based methods ........................................................................ 31
2.8.5. Temperature-based methods................................................................... 32
2.8.6. Combined based methods ....................................................................... 32
2.8.7. Crop coefficient ........................................................................................ 34
2.8.8. Water stress coefficient ........................................................................... 35
2.9. Water balance ............................................................................................................ 36
Chapter 3: Material and Methods .......................................................................................... 37
Introduction: ..................................................................................................................... 37
3.1. Description of study area ......................................................................................... 38
3.2. Climatic characteristics ............................................................................................ 38
3.2.1. Temperature .............................................................................................. 39
3.2.2. Precipitation .............................................................................................. 40
3.2.3. Soil data .................................................................................................... 41
3.2.4. Effective soil depth ................................................................................... 41
3.2.5. Soil texture ................................................................................................ 41
3.2.6. Bulk density: ............................................................................................. 42
3.3. Sampling and characterization of surveyed farms ................................................. 43
3.4. Data collection and calculation of performance indicators ................................... 47
3.4.1. Investigations ........................................................................................... 47
3.5. Field measurements.................................................................................................. 48
3.5.1 Technical indicators .................................................................................. 48
3.6. Agro-economic indicators ........................................................................................ 56
3.6.1. Yields......................................................................................................... 57
3.6.2. The revenue .............................................................................................. 57
3.6.3. Cost of production ................................................................................... 57
3.6.4. The net and gross margin ........................................................................ 58
3.6.5. Water use efficiency ................................................................................. 58
3.6.6. Economic valuation of irrigation water ................................................... 58
Chapter 4: Results and Discussion ...................................................................................... 59
4.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 59
4.2. Choice of cropping systems .................................................................................... 59
4.3. Level of technical capacity of the farmers in using drip irrigation technique ...... 59
4.4. Use of groundwater................................................................................................... 60
4.5. Marketing of farms products .................................................................................... 61
4.6. Problems encountered after the implementation of the project ............................ 61
4.7. Analysis of Irrigation Performances ........................................................................ 62
4.8. Technical performance ............................................................................................. 62
4.8.1. Analysis of irrigation practices ............................................................... 62
4.8.2. Soil Water balance .................................................................................... 65
4.9. Evaluation of technical (hydraulic) performances .................................................. 71
4.9.1. Pressure variations .................................................................................. 71
4.9.2. Distribution uniformity ............................................................................. 74
4.9.3. Application efficiency............................................................................... 76
4.9.4. Calculation of crop water requirements.................................................. 77
4.9.5. Gross and net irrigation requirements .................................................... 78
4.9.6. Determination of applied irrigation volumes .......................................... 81
4.9.7. Crop water requirements satisfaction index........................................... 81
4.10. Agro-economic performance ................................................................................. 85
4.10.1. Operating expenses ............................................................................... 85
4.10.2. Yield......................................................................................................... 86
4.10.3. Operating revenues ................................................................................ 86
4.10.4. Gross margin .......................................................................................... 87
4.10.5. Economic value of irrigation water ....................................................... 88
4.10.6. Water use efficiency (WUE) ................................................................... 88
4.10.7. Benefit cost ratio (BCR) ......................................................................... 89
Conclusion and recommendations:...................................................................................... 91
References ................................................................................................................................. 93
Annexes ...................................................................................................................................... 98
List of tables
List of tables
Table 1: Project Components in Tadla region (ORMAVT, 2010). ............................................... 10

Table 2: Basic Determinants for the design of Internal Equipment’s (ORMVAT, 2010). ............. 13
Table 3: Water Application Efficiencies (Burt, 1997) .................................................................. 18
Table 4: Average climatic characteristics of study area analysed on monthly basis for the period
Sept 2016 – Aug 2017 ............................................................................................................... 39
Table 5: Gravimetric soil characteristics (ORMVAT, 2016) ........................................................ 42
Table 6: Soil bulk density of soil profile. ..................................................................................... 42
Table 7: Characterization of the surveyed farms........................................................................ 43
Table 8: The characteristics of the selected measurement sites. ............................................... 47
Table 9: Micro-irrigation system uniformity classification based on uniformity coefficient. .......... 50
Table 10: The organic matter content, Field capacity and wilting point of the soil determined in the
laboratory for different horizons (ORMVAT, 2016). .................................................................... 51
Table 11: Daily ETo values for Souk Sebt calculated directly from the weather stations for the year
2016-2017. ................................................................................................................................ 53
Table 12: The correction factor (Kr) computed by different researchers according to percentage of
ground cover of the cultivated land (FAO, 1984)........................................................................ 54
Table 13: Soil types and equivalent Ks (Vermerian and jobling, 1984) ...................................... 56
Table14: Hydraulic characteristics of drip irrigation systems measured for selected plots for each
of 23 farms. ............................................................................................................................... 73
Table 15: Average daily evapotranspiration and rainfall calculated by two meteorological stations
in the study area (zone CDA535, 2016-2017). ........................................................................... 78
Table 16: Net and gross irrigation requirements. ....................................................................... 78
Table 17: Calculation of the agro-economic indicators............................................................... 90
List of figures
List of figures:
Figure 1: Layout of Tadla irrigated perimeter ............................................................................... 4

Figure 2: Distribution of the farmland in the Tadla-Azilal Region (ORMVAT, 2015) ..................... 6
Figure 3: Distribution of agricultural area in 2015 (Oustou, 2015) ................................................ 6
Figure 4: Situation map of the 1st and 2nd phase of the project. ............................................... 11
Figure 5: Situation of the 1st phase of the project (ORMVAT, 2010).......................................... 12
Figure 6: Situation of the pilot sector (ORMVAT, 2010). ............................................................ 13
Figure 7: Crop rotation in the Study area before the implementation of the conversion project
(ORMVAT, 2015)....................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 8: Expected crop allocation in the Study area after the implementation of the project
(ORMVAT, 2015)....................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 9: Main components of drip irrigation system (Capra, 1998). .......................................... 17
Figure 10: Discharge variation resulting from pressure changes for emitters with different
discharge exponents (Karmeli and Keller, 1974). ...................................................................... 24
Figure 11: Three types of evapotranspiration estimated by the FAO-56 model: reference
evapotranspiration (ETo), evapotranspiration under standard conditions (ETc) and under real
conditions (ETc adj) (Allen et al., 1998) ..................................................................................... 30
Figure 12: Evolution of single crop coefficient during the growing season (Source: FAO, 1998) 34
Figure 13: Location of the study area ........................................................................................ 38
Figure 14: Variation of maximum, minimum and average monthly temperatures for the location of
the project for the period Sept 2016- Aug 2017(CDA, 16/2017). ................................................ 39
Figure 15: Average monthly precipitation variation during the period Sept 2016 – Aug 2017. .... 40
Figure 16: Bagnauls-Gaussen diagram for the period (1980-2015) ........................................... 41
Figure 17: Localization of the surveyed farms. .......................................................................... 46
Figure 18: Control points and selected laterals location for drip network evaluation. ................. 49
Figure 19: Pressure gauge for pressure measurement. ............................................................. 50
Figure 20: Level of technicality of the farmers in using drip technique. ...................................... 60
Figure 21: Monitoring of volumetric soil water content at plot C1 – citrus crop. .......................... 63
Figure 22: Monitoring of volumetric soil water content at plot SB1. ............................................ 64
Figure 23: Monitoring of volumetric soil water content at plot SB2 ............................................. 65
Figure 24: Comparison between cumulative actual evapotranspiration and cumulative crop
evapotranspiration for plot SB1 (until DAS 152)......................................................................... 67
II
List of figures
Figure 25: Irrigation applications compared to gross irrigation water requirements (both in mm) on
a plot of sugar beet (SB1). ......................................................................................................... 67
evapotranspiration for plot SB2. ................................................................................................ 68
a sugar beet plot (SB2).............................................................................................................. 69
evapotranspiration for plot C1.................................................................................................... 70
Figure 29: Relationship between the upstream pressure and measured average drippers flow rate.
.................................................................................................................................................. 72
Figure 30: Percentage of farmers according to the uniformity coefficients (excellent CU≥90%, good
80%≤CU<90%, fair 70%≤CU<80%, poor 60%≤CU<70%, unacceptable CU<60%). .................. 74
Figure 31: The variation of average coefficient of uniformity and upstream and downstream
pressures for selected plots at 23 farms. ................................................................................... 75
(b).............................................................................................................................................. 76
Figure 32: Relationship between the uniformity coefficient and upstream pressure (a) and
uniformity coefficient and downstream pressure (b) ................................................................... 76
Figure 33: weighted Average application efficiencies at farms scale.......................................... 77
Figure 34: Crop water requirements satisfaction index for cereals. ............................................ 81
Figure 35: Crop water requirements satisfaction index for fruit trees. ........................................ 82
.................................................................................................................................................. 82
Figure 36: Crop water requirements satisfaction index for vegetables. ...................................... 82
Figure 37: Crop water requirements satisfaction index for alfalfa. .............................................. 82
Figure 38: Crop water requirements satisfaction index for sugar beet. ...................................... 83
Figure 39: Irrigation performance measured at the plot: over-irrigation (high crop water
requirements satisfaction index - CWRSI) even in the case of high coefficient of uniformity (CU).
.................................................................................................................................................. 84
Figure 40: Water consumption before and after the conversion project ..................................... 84
Figure 41: Crop yields before and after the project .................................................................... 86
Figure 42: Revenues before and after the conversion project .................................................... 87
Figure 43: Economic productivity of irrigation water ................................................................... 88
Figure 44: Crop productivity of irrigation water. ......................................................................... 89
III
List of annexes
List of annexes:
Annex 1: Survey sheet .............................................................................................................. 98

Annex 3: Measurement of distribution uniformity ..................................................................... 103
Annex 4: Monitoring of soil water content using a PR2/6. ........................................................ 104
Annex 5: Measurements of the leaf area index (LAI). .............................................................. 105
Annex 6: Kc*Kr adjusted for drip irrigation. .............................................................................. 106
Annex 7: Calibration of the PR2/6............................................................................................ 106
Annex 8: Uniformity coefficients .............................................................................................. 107
Annex 9: Application efficiencies ............................................................................................. 109
Annex 10: Applied irrigation volumes per crop cycle. ............................................................... 111
Annex 11: Crop water requirements satisfaction index (CWRSI). ............................................ 113
Annex 12: Water consumption before(2013) and after the conversion project(2016). .............. 116
List of acronyms and abbreviations
List of Acronyms and abbreviations
ADA Agricultural Development Agency
ADB African Development Bank
ADF Agricultural Development Fund
A.S.L Above sea level
ASW Available soil water (mm)
AUEA Agricultural Water Users’ Association
CDA Centre de développement agricole
COSUMAR Morocco Sugar Corporation
CU Christiansen coefficient (%)
CWR Crop water requirements (mm)
CWRSI Crop water requirements satisfaction index (%)
DAS Day after sowing
DH Moroccan currency. 1euro = 11 DH
DU Distribution uniformity
E Soil evaporation (mm)
Ea Application efficiency
ET Evapotranspiration (mm)
ETa Actual evapotranspiration (mm)
ETc Maximum crop evapotranspiration (mm)
ETc act Actual crop evapotranspiration (mm)
ETo Reference evapotranspiration (mm)
Fc Field capacity(%)
GIR Gross irrigation requirements (mm)
IPT Irrigated Perimeter of Tadla
IWR Irrigation water requirements (mm)
Kc Crop coefficient
List of acronyms and abbreviations
Kcb Basal crop coefficient
Kcb act Actual basal crop coefficient
Kcb end Basal crop coefficient at end of the late season growth stage
Kcb in Basal crop coefficient during the initial growth stage
Kcb mid Basal crop coefficient during the mid-season growth stage
Ke Soil evaporation coefficient
Ky Yield response factor
LAI Leaf area index (m²/m²)
LSI Large Scale Irrigation
MAPM Ministry of Agriculture and Maritime Fisheries
NIR Net irrigation requirements (mm)
ORMVAT Regional Agricultural Development Authority of Tadla
PAPNEEI Irrigation Water Saving Programme Support Project
PMV Green Morocco Plan
PNEEI National Irrigation Water Saving Programme
PPP Public-Private Partnership
PR2/6 Profile probe
RH Relative humidity (%)
SMSI Small and Medium Scale Irrigation
TAW Total available water (mm.m-1)
TEW Total evaporable water (mm)
TWU Total water use (mm)
WP Water productivity (kg.m-3)
WPIRR Irrigation Water productivity (kg.m-3)
WS Wind speed (m.s-1)
WUA Water user association
Ya Actual yield (kg.ha-1)
Ym Maximum yield (kg.ha-1)
Zr Root depth (m)
VI
Introduction
Chapter 1: Introduction
Water scarcity in Tadla region is a well-known and alarming problem. Increasing water
scarcity is threatening the economic development and the stability of many parts of the region. At
present, agriculture accounts for over 75% of the total consumption of water in the region.
However, with rapidly growing demand, it is certain that water will increasingly be reallocated away
from agriculture to other sectors. Moreover, opportunities for the significant capture of new water
are now limited. Most river systems suitable for large-scale irrigation have already been
developed. Few major resources of renewable groundwater remain untapped and current
resources are subject to overexploitation, with extraction exceeding recharge rate in many cases.
Therefore, the management of Tadla irrigated scheme is subject to several constraints that
are increasingly difficult to manage: i) water resources are low and their availability is erratic, ii)
huge water consumption with continuously increasing trend, iii) irrigation is inefficient because it
is based on the farmers experiences and perception of soil moisture rather than on the
measurements and irrigation scheduling, iv) weak self-management skills of the water user
associations (WUA’s), v) inadequate control of the soil-plant-atmosphere components and
irrigation management at most farms, and vi) the absence of a database on irrigation management
for archiving and management difficulties related to area and number of farmer-related data.
Consequently, there is a need for a rational and sustainable management of irrigation water
in the region. One of the solutions to save water in this area is to optimize irrigation inputs in
respect to the water availability and agricultural water demand according to the real needs of crops
and in agreement with their phenological development. Moreover, it is necessary to improve the
profitability of agricultural production and to respect eventual environmental constraints.
In this context, the new Green Morocco Plan (GMP) was developed in order to make the
agricultural sector the main engine of economic growth and national development during the next
10 to 15 years. The water situation has been particularly analysed in light of the new strategy
because of its scarcity and its vulnerability to climate change. The irrigation rate is still among the
lowest in the region, water losses are high, and water productivity per hectare is still relatively low.
There are still only limited incentives for the efficient management and conservation of water and
the price of water for irrigation does not reflect its scarcity. The only potential safeguard of the
sustainability of investments, including investment in irrigation, is the conversion of irrigation
systems from surface irrigation (furrow) to drip irrigation.
That is why the Moroccan government actively stimulates farmers to install drip irrigation by
subsidizing the investment costs with 80 to 100%. Farmers owning more than five hectares can
apply for a subsidy of 80%, while farmers with less land and farmers in collectives can apply for
subsidies of 100%. These subsidies are part of the National Irrigation Water Saving Plan of 2007,
which is encapsulated in the Green Morocco Plan since 2008. The aim of the National Irrigation
Water Saving Plan is to counterbalance the water deficits that the country faces. According to the
plan, stimulating the conversion of 550,000 hectares (of these, 217,940 ha will be through
collective conversion and 332,060 ha through individual conversion. The total cost of the
programme is estimated at US$ 4.35 billion) of surface irrigated land to drip irrigation in the period
Introduction
from 2007 to 2022 would mean water saving of 826 Mm3 per year (Belghiti, 2009). The ‘saved’
water would partly be used to increase agricultural production in large-scale irrigation systems
(which do not perform optimally anymore because of limited water availability) and should be used
to replenish aquifers and thus counter dropping groundwater levels. The Basin Agencies align with
the national irrigation water saving program (PNEEI) in the efforts to shift to drip irrigation. They
do so by organising training on drip irrigation, providing subsidies and starting pilot sites (El
Haouat, 2012).
The PNEEI, as well as the National Water Strategy formulated in 2009 by the Water and
Environment Secretariat, provide support to the Green Morocco Plan (PMV) aimed at making
agriculture a national growth engine. The project will intervene in three water basins with high
water stress levels: the Oum Rbia and the Moulouya, and the third basin, the Loukkos the selection
of which was based on the desire to offset the imbalance between cost of energy and the relatively
low levels of development (African Development Bank, 2009).
The irrigated perimeter of Tadla, is located in Oum Er Rbia basin, and it is the most affected
by climate change among seven perimeters covered by the programme.This perimeter is located
in a semi-arid region and the irrigated area is about 140,000ha. Water resources are becoming
increasingly scarce and there is little potential for mobilising new ones. Rainfall has reduced by
about 4.7mm per year and the annual rainfall variability is becoming very high (World Bank, 2009).
The coefficient of variation of rainfall increased from 27 per cent during the period 1970-80 to 36
per cent in the period 1981-2003. During the latter period, average annual rainfall decreased by
about 100mm (Gerbert Roerink, Claire Jacobs, Ali Hammani, 2005). The main strategy for
adaptation to climate change in this region is the conversion from surface irrigation to drip
irrigation. In the Tadla perimeter, collective and individual conversion programs cover 49,040 ha
and 39,700 ha respectively. The first part of the collective program covers 10,000 ha and will
benefit farmers belonging to four water use associations. The cost of this operation is estimated
to be US$ 8,235 per hectare. In Tadla region, land development is based mainly on cereal
cultivation, market gardening, tree plantations, fodder crops, citrus fruits, olive trees, sugar beet is
the main agricultural production, market gardening, and groundnuts. Agro-industrial activity (sugar
refinery, flour-milling, dairy, olive trituration units, tomato processing units, etc) is experiencing
rapid growth in the area, and the relevant professional organizations are dynamic (dairy
cooperatives, citrus farmers’ associations, etc.).
Indeed, the pilot sector in Tadla region represents the first experience of collective conversion
at national level, it has recently converted from surface to drip irrigation method, it covers an area
of 4,045 ha, Including 1,100 ha that was watering in January 2015.
However, as an innovative technique, problems of irrigation management (over irrigation and

under irrigation) and adaptation of farmers begin to emerge. This raises the interest of carrying
out a study in this regard, and it is necessary to understand the dynamics generated after the
implementation of this project and introduction of the drip irrigation practices by farmers after this
huge investment.
The main objective of this study is to assess the overall technical and agro-economic
performances of adopted irrigation practices in order to improve the agricultural water use in the
irrigated perimeter of Tadla after the National Irrigation Water Saving Programme (PNEEI)).
2
Introduction
The specific objectives are:
To analyse the current state of water use efficiency in the irrigated perimeter from agronomic
point of view, i.e. by means of crop water requirements, irrigation water use, yield and adopted
cropping pattern;
To analyse the actual situation about the water use efficiency from the engineering point of
view, i.e. elaborating the technical performance of on-farm water distribution and adopted irrigation
practices at plot scale;
To identify possible technical measures agronomic and engineering for the improvement of
irrigation water use in the study area and to estimate potential water saving.
Comparison between the irrigation water requirements and the volumes of water provided by
crops. (Estimation of crop water requirements and corresponding volumes of water applied: over
or under irrigation).
The approach adopted for carrying out this study is as follows:
- Survey and data collection through the interviews with officials and representatives of the
ORMVAT, form different sources including farmers, cooperatives and Water User
Association;
- Choice of farms to be surveyed and monitored;
- Conducting a survey of farmers;
- The choice of a pilot sites for the implementation of measurement and monitoring
equipment, using a Soil Moisture Profile Probe PR2/6 has been used for direct
measurements of soil water content) for soil water content monitoring and irrigation
scheduling;
- Determination of soil characteristics in the laboratory;
- Analysis of farmers' irrigation practices in terms of crop water requirements, irrigation
inputs, yield, management and maintenance in relation to their irrigation system;
- The measurement and calculation of hydraulic parameters to evaluate the performance
of the conversion project in the area;
- Interpretation of results, identification of possible technical measures for the improvement
of irrigation water use and formulation of recommendations.
This study is organized as follows. Chapter 2 is devoted to the literature review on
presentation of Tadla region, national irrigation water saving program, crop water requirements
and the related Introduction terminologies, Design, operation, maintenance and performance
evaluation of farm drip irrigation systems. Chapter 3 concerns the description of the methodology
used to assess drip irrigation performances and to evaluate farmer’s irrigation practices. Results
from the case study are described and discussed in Chapter 4 and concluding remarks and
recommendations are provided in Chapter 5.
3
Chapter 2: Literature review
2.1. General presentation of Tadla region
2.1.1. Geography and Climate in Tadla region
The irrigated perimeter of Tadla (IPT) is located in the Middle Atlas of Morocco about 200 km
south-east of Casablanca at an altitude of 400 m. It is bordered in the north by Khouribga plateau,
in the east by Oued Zem plateau, in the west by the river (Oued El Abid) and in the south by the
Atlas Mountains.
Tadla irrigates more than 100,000 hectares and is one of the most important agricultural areas
in Morocco regarding its contribution to the Gross National Product. The perimeter is composed
of two sub perimeters, which are hydraulically distinct (Figure1):
- Beni Moussa sub-zone in the west with an area of 69,500 ha, which is fully irrigated from
the Bin El Ouidane dam that was built on Oued El Abid River. This large sub-zone is called Bni
Moussa-East and West.
- Beni Amir sub-zone in the right side with an area of 27,500 ha, where the water source
was Oum Rabia river; but since 2001-02, it became the Ahmed El Hansali dam built on this river.
Figure 1: Layout of Tadla irrigated perimeter (Hammani, 2009).
The area has an arid to semi-arid climate, receiving about 300 mm of rainfall per year, most
of this amount received during the winter, rainy season from November to March. The
temperatures vary widely, being more temperate during the winter, but with peaks in summer
reaching at times 45-50 degrees Celsius. The main irrigated crops in the area are fodder crops
(alfalfa, maize), wheat, olives, citrus, and vegetables. Livestock production (milk, meat) also plays
an important role in Tadla.
The Tadla irrigated perimeter is suffering from water stress. The main problem is the high
consumption of irrigation water in combination with groundwater overexploitation, leading to a
lowering of the groundwater table in the area. Approximately 50% of the farms have private wells
and about 10,000 wells are used in the irrigated schemes (Hammani et al., 2006). There has been
4
a regular decline in the level of the shallow aquifer for already 20 years now, and there is no
regulation to control withdrawals of groundwater (Ait Kadi, 2002). Surveys make clear that
groundwater is pumped not only from the phreatic aquifer, but also from the deeper eocene aquifer
(Ait Kadi et al., 2004).
The ROADT (Regional Office of Agricultural Development of Tadla), in charge of the

management of the irrigation schemes, implemented a monitoring network to keep track of the
fluctuations of the water levels in the perimeter. At present the depth of the groundwater table in
Beni Amir and Beni Moussa varies between 50 m and 180 m below soil surface, reaching in some
places more than 200 meters depth (Kselik et al, 2008). An additional concern is the deteriorating
water quality, with increasing amounts of water needed to flush and dilute pollution loads.
Climate change has a significant impact on water availability. It is about especially fresh water,
which is the most vulnerable part of the hydrosphere (Kernan et al. 2010), due to rising
temperatures and declining rainfall (Sipes, 2010). From the early 80s, Morocco has experienced
a sharp decrease in rainfall (30%) over the decade of 1970. This break rainfall was generally
across the country (Balaghi, 2006). Thus, drought has become a feature of the Moroccan climate
and its frequency has increased in recent years. The frequency of dry years where rainfall is less
than 400 mm gradually increased during six years out of 16 (37.5%) in the 1980-1995 period and
then during four years out of 7 (57.1%) between 1996s and 2002s being low during the 1940s to
1960s, with only five years out of 40 (12.5%) (Bahri, 2007).
Studies have shown that the impact of climate change differs between Moroccan regions and
commodities, as some crops are very sensitive to climate change. The Tadla-Azilal region is one
of the regions vulnerable to climate change. Indeed in terms of future projections, the region will
undergo global warming ranging from less than 1 ° C (horizon 2011-2030) to more than 3 ° C
(horizon 2071-2100) for annual temperatures (TSP 2008), knowing that the climate in this region
is semi-arid to arid with a dry season from April to October and a wet season from November to
March. Annual rainfall is 300mm (it can exceed 600 mm for rainy years and reach values below
200 mm for dry years).The average temperature is 18 ° C with a maximum in August of 38 °C and
a minimum in January of 3.5 °C.
2.1.2. Soil and crops
Cereals, fruit trees, fodder, sugar beet and vegetables dominate the production systems in
the region. Alfalfa is the main irrigated forage crops. The areas occupied by citrus fruit remained
stable overall.
5
5%
15%
8%
9% 63%
cereals fodder crops fallow arboriculture vegetables
Figure 2: Distribution of the farmland in the Tadla-Azilal Region (ORMVAT, 2015)
The crop rotation of the irrigated perimeter of Beni Moussa Beni Amir in the whole region is
particularly dominated by the same crops: cereal crops, forage and fruit trees, with a significant
presence of sugar beet, vegetable crops and Bell pepper (Pepper) the most popular crop in the
region.
Alfalfa is the priority crop in case of irrigation by groundwater. The cereals are the second
preference of farmers. Farmers have a priority to secure livestock feed, an important source of
income through the sale of milk and cattle in addition to ensuring self-subsistence (Bekkar, 2007).
The following figure represents the distribution of the agricultural area of a sample
investigated by (Oustou,2015) in the irrigated area before the implementation of the conversion
project.
3% 1% 3%
8% 25%
7%
24% 18%
11% 8%
cereals arboriculture vegetables industrial crops forage crops

bell pepper vegetables leguminous sesame mint
Figure 3: Distribution of agricultural area in 2015 (Oustou, 2015)
6
2.1.3. Water resources in Tadla region
The irrigated perimeter of Tadla offers two types of water:
- Surface water coming from Bin El Ouidane dam on Oued El Abid river (1,500 million m3)
and Ahmed El Hansali dam on the Oum Er Rbia (740 million m3);
- Groundwater of a multilayer aquifer system whose most aquifers are important
groundwater Beni Moussa Beni Amir, the web captive of the Eocene and the deep aquifer
Turonian (Belabbes, 2013).
- Groundwater resources are composed of two aquifers: the unconfined upper aquifer and
the deeper confined aquifer. The evolution of the level of water table is monitored in
piezometric stations of ORMVAT and the Agency of Oum Rabia basin. The water level is
continuously decreasing because of the pumping of water from wells and the low rainfall.
In 1987-1993, and less importantly in 1997-1999, there was a significant rise in the level
of water table especially in Beni Moussa region. This recharge was due to high rainfall and
infiltration.
2.1.4. PNEEI and water saving in Morocco
In such a tight context, the concept of water saving has a special character. In fact, it is
necessary to safeguard the productive potential of irrigated perimeters, which have always been
the centre for the creation of wealth and jobs for regional and national economy (PMV, 2008). The
safeguarding of these irrigated perimeters is only through the adoption of new efficient irrigation
techniques, but above all, by the development of a profitable agriculture which takes into account
the limited water resources (PNEEI, 2007).
In this sense, the PNEEI introduced several innovations taking into account the previous
approaches and the levers to promote water saving and its valorisation. For several years, the
public authorities have expressed the desire to accelerate the modernization of irrigation systems.
This strategy was included in the PNEEI for the modernization projects(Belghiti, 2009).
Therefore, the state has acted by financial subsidies to individual promoters of water saving
projects that have shown their limitations in the perimeters of large hydropower since 34 900 ha
are converted to drip irrigation, 5% of the areas managed by the State for over two decades; but
above all by the creation of favourable conditions for conversion to water saving irrigation
techniques and the overall modernization of production systems(Bendarou, 2014).
Obviously, it is not a matter of authoritative modernization of irrigation systems at the risk of

disempowering farmers who are the key players in this process of modernization. The solutions
to be sought are probably as much social as they are economic and technical, notably through a
voluntary change in which the public authorities play a catalytic role in helping farmers to
modernize their production systems and guarantee an improvement in their incomes while
preserving water resources allocated to them (Belghiti, 2005).
7
2.2. Social side of the National Irrigation Water Saving Program (PNEEI)
In such a tight context, the concept of water saving has a special character. In fact, it is
necessary to safeguard the productive potential of irrigated perimeters, which have always been
the centre for the creation of wealth and jobs for regional and national economy (Belghiti, 2009).
The modernization of irrigated agriculture will henceforth be conceived within the framework of a
global vision that integrates research and the promotion of valuation of agricultural production in
productive basins. Indeed, only a coherent strategy at all levels is able to lead to the hoped for
success. This strategy affects all levels of the problem and requires innovations not only on the
economic and technical sides but also on socio-institutional engineering (PMV, 2008).The
program is based on five components:
- Collective modernization of large-scale irrigation schemes;
- Individual modernization (SMID and Private Irrigation);
- Valorisation of agricultural production;
- Strengthening technical skills;
- Accompanying measures, such as simplifying the procedures for granting State financial
subsidies, organizing occupations involved in the sector, standardization, lands grouping.
2.2.1. PNEEI objectives
The purpose of the national irrigation water saving program (PNEEI) is to protect water
resources and improve the living conditions of rural populations through sustainable management
of these resources. The PNEEI, as well as the National Water Strategy formulated in 2009 by the
Water and Environment Secretariat, provide support to the Green Morocco Plan (PMV) aimed at
making agriculture a national growth engine. The project will intervene in 3 water basins (2 with
high water stress levels: the Oum Rbia and the Moulouya, and the 3rd basin, the Loukkos the
selection of which was based on the desire to offset the imbalance between cost of energy and
the relatively low levels of development) (PNEEI,2009).
2.2.2. PNEEI Levers
Consolidation of encouraging instruments to water saving:
- Modernization of collective irrigation networks;

- Implementation of subsidies system for water saving techniques;
- Looking for new more productive and water saving cropping systems;
- Grouping, partnership with agro-industrials for a better valorization;
- Research and development in irrigation networks (conceptions and designs) (Belghiti,
2009).
8
2.2.3. Projected effects of the PNEEI
The main expected effects of the PNEEI are:

- Saving water by 20 to 50% by reducing the preventable water losses in both distribution
networks, and on farm application, thus making it possible to eventually reduce the deficits
recorded in the (BID) by nearly 700 Mm3/year and reduce the groundwater depletion by
nearly 740 Mm3/year;
- Reducing the vulnerability of irrigated agriculture to climate change;
- Increasing water productivity by 10 to 100% depending on crop type;
- The increase in water valuation by 114% to reach about 5.12 DH/m3 at the end of the
program;
- The significant increase in agricultural incomes;
- The increase in national agricultural production and the contribution to a balancing of the
food trade balance;
- Maintaining jobs threatened by water resources scarcity and creating new jobs
opportunities;
- Water resources and environment protection (fertilizers leaching control, groundwater
saving) (Belghiti, 2009).
2.3. National Irrigation Water Saving Program (PNEEI) in Tadla region
2.3.1. Situation of water resources in Tadla scheme
The irrigated perimeter of Tadla is located in a semi-arid region, and it is one of the most
affected perimeters by climate change according to national studies. Irrigated area is about
140,000 ha (Bekkar, 2007), Water resources in this region are becoming increasingly limited and
the potential for mobilizing new resources is low (Hammani,2008). The average rainfall reduction
is about 4.7 mm per year and the annual rainfall variability is becoming very high. In fact, the
coefficient of variation increased from 27% during the 1970-1980 period to 36% in 1981-2003
period. During the last period, average annual rainfall decreased by about 100 mm (Chati, 2014).
2.3.2. National irrigation water saving program in Tadla region (PNEEI)
The main strategy to adapt to climate change in this region is the conversion of surface
irrigation to drip irrigation. In the Tadla perimeter, collective and individual conversion programs
concern 49,040 ha and 39,700 ha, respectively. The first part of the collective program concerns
10,000 ha and will benefit farmers belonging to four water user associations (Hanafi, 2011). The
cost of this operation is estimated to 70,000 DH per hectare.
9
2.3.3. Purpose of the project
The national irrigation water saving program (PNEEI), as well as the National Water Strategy
formulated in 2008 by the Water and Environment Secretariat, provide support to the Green
Morocco Plan (PMV) aimed at making agriculture a national growth engine (PAPNEEI, 2009).
The purpose of PNEEI is to improve the living conditions of the rural population through more
sustainable management of water resources and improvement of productivity of the irrigation
areas. The project objective is to ensure the rational and positive utilization of irrigation water
resources against a backdrop of increasing scarcity (PAPNEEI, 2009).
2.3.4. Consistency of the project and sources of financing
The project is divided into two parts:

First part: covering an area of 10,235 ha. The zone corresponds to the hydraulic sectors
served by the secondary channels M1 and M9 containing the WUAs: Arraja, Al Ittihad, Al Omrania
and Annour (Laguig, 2014). This part has two components:
- PROMER: Modernization of irrigation water infrastructure in the perimeter of the Oum Er-
rbia basin which concerns 7,375 ha;
- PAPNEEI: Support for irrigation water development of the PNEEI, which concerns 2,860
ha.
Second part: within the framework of the PMGI project coordination and capacity building,
which concerns an area of 12,100 ha including the WAUs: Amana, Brahmia, Tissir, Elkhair,
Essounboula, Moussaouia and Falah (NOVEC, 2009).
Table 1: Project Components in Tadla region (ORMAVT, 2010).
Project Components Total cost Area (ha) Period of Financing Progress of the
(Millions DH) completion sources project at the end
of April 2016
National PROMR 445 7,375 2010 – 2016 Own resources 95%
Irrigation (BIRD)
Water PAPNEEI 176 2,860 2011 – 2016 Loan (ADB) 80%
Saving PMGI 892 12,100 2016 - 2020 Own resources Start-up phase
Program (BIRD) (10%)
10
Figure 4: Situation map of the 1st and 2nd phase of the project (ORMBAT, 2010).
Regarding the support for the internal equipment at the plots level, the ORMVAT has signed
a technical assistance contract to support farmers during the period 2012/2017 and accompany
the drip irrigation companies.
The approach adopted, which includes all the stockholders of the project (WAUs, ORMVAT,
technical assistance, drip irrigation companies), distinguishes four stages of internal equipment:
- First stage: 1,500 ha of the WAUs Al Ittihad and Al Omrania sectors of the CDA 536 (Rural
Commune of Ouled Naceur), of which 1,000 ha are already equipped(ORMVAT, 2012).
- Second stage: with an area of 1,800 ha, comprising 17 lots in Al Ittihad and Al Omrania,
was allocated at the end of the year 2015.
- Third stage: With an area of 3,300 ha in preparation in the WAUs Annour sector of CDA
534 (Dar Ouled Zidouh).
- Fourth stage: With an area of 2,859 ha in the sector of the AUAA Arraja of CDA 535 (Ouled
Bourahmoun Communal), which is scheduled to be equipped in 2016/2017 (OMRVAT,
2010).
11
Figure 5: Situation of the 1st phase of the project (ORMVAT, 2010).
The implementation of the project took place according to the following chronology:
- 2009: Initiation of the project and implementation of external equipment’s;
- 2010: Obtaining of PROMER funding from IBRD;
- 2013: Completion of external equipment;
- 2014: Preparation of administrative records;
- 2015: implementation of internal equipment;
- End of 2015: start of irrigation.
2.3.5. Presentation of the pilot sector
The pilot sector is located in the north-west of the Béni Moussa Ouest perimeter. It covers an
area of 4,045 ha. From an administrative point of view, the sector belongs to the circle of Ouled
Naceur, part of the circle of the Beni Moussa of the province of Fkih Ben Salah.
12
Figure 6: Situation of the pilot sector (ORMVAT, 2010).
The pilot sector in question is located in the CDA 534 area in part and the CDA 536. It is the
hydraulic sector served by the M4 to M7 channels and managed by the two WUAs: Al Ittihad and
Al Omrania.
Table 2: Basic Determinants for the design of Internal Equipment’s (ORMVAT, 2010).
Parameters of drip irrigation - Duration of irrigation=even or odd days(*)

- Type of the delivery schedule: pressurized on demand
restraint system with 2 groups of farmers.
Characteristics of the water - Demand for gross irrigation water at the head of the perimeter.
allocation scheme - Calculation based on peak month (July).
3
- CWR in the peak period= 7,783 m /ha/year.
Assessment of crop water - 177 million m3 by considering the overall efficiency from the
requirements Afourer basin.
Specific continuous - 1.5 litres/s/ha.
discharge
Irrigation water tarif - Volume based: Monoblock: the rate is fixed independently of
the consumption.
- Water price=0.3 DH/m3 = 0.03 €/m3
13
2.3.6. Impacts of the conversion project in the pilot sector
2.3.6.1. Expected impact and project objectives
These impacts were highlighted by the ORMVAT before the project was set up to forecast its
impact on the environment, crop rotation, crop yields, farmers' incomes and the economy of the
region.
2.3.6.2. Environmental impact
Saving water (better efficiency): a decrease in water demand of about 42 Mm3 compared to
the surface irrigation (MAPM, 2010).
Reduce pressure on ground water use (irrigation water saving effect), ground water recharge
and anticipated decline in groundwater pollution by leaching fertilizers through the establishment
of a fertigation program, and the application of agro-chemicals will be highly controlled(MATEE,
2016).
2.3.6.3. Expected crop allocation
The cropping pattern within the study area before the implementation of the project is
presented in the following figure:
Citrus
6% 6%
11% Olive trees
18%
Cereals
8% Sugar beet
Other Forages
34%
4%
Maize
10%
3% Vegetables
Alfalfa
not used
Figure 7: Crop rotation in the Study area before the implementation of the conversion project
(ORMVAT, 2015)
The figure shows that cereals are the dominant crops in the project area before the conversion
project with a percentage of 34% of the total area, because it is indispensable for the consumption
in the region. Forage crops, mainly alfalfa, are also very important for the feeding of livestock. In
14
addition it makes possible to assure to the farmers a frequent income after each cut. For other
crops, including vegetable crops with a percentage of 8% and maize with 3%, farmers receive the
income only at the end of the growing season.
Cropping pattern after project
11% 13%
13%
17%
9%
21%
13%
3%
Citrus Olive trees Cereals Sugar beet Other Forages Maize Vegetables Alfalfa
Figure 8: Expected crop allocation in the Study area after the implementation of the project
(ORMVAT, 2015).
After the implementation of the project, it was planned an extension of crop rotation of more
than 22%, ranging from 21,140 ha to 25,800 ha (ORMVAT, 2015).
It was expected a reduction of 28% of the area devoted to cereals. The same is expected for
forage crops (alfalfa and other fodder crops) with a decrease of about 30%. The exception should
be maize for which is forecasted a sharp increase of about 300%.
The area devoted to fruit trees will increase sharply (around 170% for citrus and 66% for olive
trees), vegetable crops will increase by 78% followed by sugar beet with 49%.
An increase in high value crops, which contributes directly (fruit trees and market gardening)
and in an indirect way (forage, sugar beet) by feeding the livestock.
2.3.6.4. Expected yields
The Regional Agricultural Development Authority of the Tadla region (ORMVAT) has fixed
the objective of achieving an appreciable improvement in crop yields for all agricultural sectors,
including industrial crops (60-64%), fruit trees (48-119%), cereals (32-114%) and forage crops (15
to 42%) (ORMVAT, 2015).
15
2.3.6.5. Impacts on farmers' incomes and on the economy of the region
Among the objectives of the project, the achievement of an additional income of the farmers
in the range of 11,500 to 20,600 DH/year and an additional average income per hectare of about
19, 200 DH/year is predicted.
2.4. Design, operation, maintenance and performance evaluation of farm drip irrigation
systems.
Drip irrigation, is an irrigation method that minimizes the use of water and nutrients by dripping
the water slowly to the plant roots, either onto the soil surface or directly onto the root zone (Sub-
surface irrigation), through a network of valves, pipes, tubing, and emitters (EL alaoui,2011).
Drip irrigation has the greatest potential, where soils are sandy, rocky or difficult to level where
high value crops are produced (Buck and Nakayama, 1982) and where water is expensive. Drip
irrigation is the most effective way to supply water and nutrients to the plant, does save not only
water but also increase crop yield and quality.
2.4.1. Advantages
- Reduction in water losses because water is applied directly to the root.

- Fertilizers can be applied while irrigating (Fertigation). With the limited volume of water
applied, leaching of fertilizers into the groundwater is largely eliminated.
- Possibility to apply low but frequent dose of water. The plant can be less subjected to water
and for some crops it could mean higher yield and better quality.
- High application efficiency in comparison with surface and sprinkler irrigation.
- Relatively easy to operate and to automate the system (low labour cost).
2.4.2. Disadvantages
- Expensive to install (20,000 – 60,000 DH/ha);

- If the water is not properly filtered or the water is of low quality possible to clogging
problems;
- Restrict plant root development, which could be a problem for fruit trees in windy areas;
- Accumulation of salts in the root zone.
2.4.3. Components of drip irrigation system
The main components found in the modern drip irrigation system are as follows:
- Pump or pressurized water source;
- Check valves or backflow prevention device;
- Chemical injector equipment;
- Water filter(s) or filtration systems: sand separator, screen filters, media filters, disc
filters;
- Pressure Control Valve and air relief valves;
16
- Hand-operated, electronic, or hydraulic control valves and safety valves;

- Water distribution system;
o Main line and submain lines (larger diameter pipe and pipe fittings)
o Laterals (smaller diameter polytube)
- Water applicators (drippers, micro spray head...).
Figure 9: Main components of drip irrigation system (Capra, 1998).
2.5. Drip Irrigation performance
The terminology used to describe irrigation performance usually includes “efficiency” and
“uniformity” terms. These terms frequently mean different things to different authors. Unfortunately
there is not a single performance term that can be used alone to describe irrigation performance.
That is the reason why several performance indexes are often used to describe an irrigation event.
(Heermann, 1990).
Conceptually, drip irrigation performance depends on:
- The increment in soil water retained in the root zone of a crop after an irrigation event.
- Deep percolation losses.
- The evenness (uniformity) of the infiltrated water along the field.
- Soil water deficit after irrigation.
Farms irrigation systems are designed to supply the individual irrigation requirements so that
they can control deep percolation, runoff, evaporation, and operational losses. The purpose of
evaluating irrigation systems is resumed in a fourfold: (1) To determine the efficiency of the
system; (2) to determine how effectively the system can be operated and whether it can be
improved; (3) to obtain information that will assist engineers in designing other systems; and (4)
to obtain information for the comparison of various methods, systems, and operating procedures
as a basis for economic decision (Merriam et al., 1980)Various criteria have been developed and
used to evaluate the irrigation system performance. They include mainly social, economical and
technical (hydraulic) indicators of the performance of irrigation systems (Ait Kadi, 1994). These
are known as the performance criteria of a system. They are, for instance, productivity, social
stability, financial and economic criteria, effectiveness, efficiency, equity, reliability, and general
welfare criteria (Essafi, 1995).
17
The hydraulic performance of a farm irrigation system is determined by the efficiency with
which water is diverted, conveyed, and applied and by the adequacy and uniformity of the
application in each field on the farm to evaluate the irrigation system (Clemmens, 2000). Three of
the most commonly used criteria are efficiency, effectiveness, and uniformity. In the following
chapter, some important hydraulic criteria of performances are summarized.
2.5.1. Indicators of hydraulic Efficiency
Efficiency is the ratio of the useful water quantities that are recovered at the outlet to the water
quantities injected at the inlet. For the efficiency of irrigation (E.I.), the result at outlet is represented
by the water used for the crop production. This quantity of useful water is divided by the quantity
of water injected at the plot inlet. Irrigation efficiency mainly reflects the efficiency of the irrigation
technique adopted. (Belabbes, 2013).
There are generally three levels of irrigation water efficiency: transport efficiency, efficiency
of distribution and application efficiency.
2.5.1.1 Transport efficiency
It is the efficiency of water transport from the source to the irrigation dam or draw-off point on
the farm boundary (Amghar, 2005).
This term can be very important for collective networks: there is a first approach by primary
efficiency, which is the ratio between the sum of the volumes measured on the individual counters
and the volume measured at the pumping station. (Granier and Deumier, 2013).
2.5.1.2 Distribution efficiency
According to Bekkar (2007), it is the efficiency by which water is distributed from the irrigation
dam or draw-off point on the farm boundary through the irrigation system to the point where it
leaves the distributor. Losses from the irrigation dam are included here.
2.5.1.3 Application efficiency
Application efficiency of a farm irrigation system is the percentage of water supplied to the
farm that is beneficially used for irrigation on the farm. Water application efficiency depends on
the irrigation method (Table 3).
Table 3: Water Application Efficiencies (Burt, 1997)
Irrigation methods Attainable Efficiencies

Surface Irrigation
Basin 60 - 65%
Border 60 - 70%
Furrow 60 - 75%
Sprinkler Irrigation
18
Hand Move or Portable 65 - 75%

Traveling Gun 60 - 70%
Center Pivot & Linear Move 75 - 90%
Solid Set or Permanent 70 - 80%
Trickle Irrigation
With Point Source Emitters 75 - 90%
With Line Source Products 70 - 85%
Irrigation efficiency can be estimated as:

water stored in the root zone
Ea = ∗ 100
water delivered to the plot
In drip irrigation, the infiltration presents either an axi-symmetric character for the case of a
point source or a bidirectional character for the case of an online source (Hammani, 2011). As a
result, the measurement of hydraulic performance indicators in the field is rather difficult. Knowing
the flow rate of the drippers and the watering times, it is possible to estimate percolations under
the root zone, assuming that the initial moisture is known at the beginning of the irrigation season,
and to deduce application efficiency (Bulming, 2007). In practice, the application efficiency of water
in trickle irrigation is calculated by multiplying the coefficient of uniformity by the efficiency of the
irrigation (FAO, 1984).
2.5.1.4 Crop water requirements satisfaction index
The water requirements satisfaction index of each farm is determined by dividing the volume
of irrigation water supplied to the farm by the gross irrigation requirements of the different farm
crops over the period considered.
In 2012, Hssini and Alaoui carried out a study about the sustainability and hydraulic
performance of oasis extensions in the DRAA Valley. They concluded that water requirements
satisfaction index which exceeds 100% for most crops and for all farmers. Generally, vegetable
crops and alfalfa are the most over irrigate crops. It should be noted that in some farms, inputs
are five to six times larger than necessary. It should also be noted that the palm tree is not enough
irrigated in comparison to other crops, it is considered as a rainfed crop. The results of calculation
of the (CWRSI) carried out in 2014 by (Chahri and Saouabe) are presented as follows:
- A low Crop Water Requirements Satisfaction Index (WRSI) of cereal crops, this under
irrigation can be justified by the low interest given by farmers to these crops, mainly based
on rainwater ;
- In the case of vegetable crops, an over-irrigation, this is due to the high added value of
these crops;
19
- By comparing the inputs and water requirements of fodder crops, they noticed an over
irrigation, this justified because these crops (especially alfalfa) are intended for livestock
feed, which is a necessity for farmers in the region;
- An over-irrigation of sugar beet (the most practiced industrial crop in the region), the reason
for this over-irrigation, is that the cycle of this crop can be extended for some of the farmers,
because of the grubbing round organized by COSUMAR(Refining and extraction beet and
sugar cane in Morocco).
2.5.1.5 Adequacy
The adequacy of irrigation is the percentage of the field receiving sufficient water to maintain
the quantity and quality of crop production at a profitable level. Adequacy is defined as the
percentage of the field (farm) receiving the desired amount of water or more. This definition
requires crop, soil, and market conditions to be specified. The adequacy of irrigation is evaluated
using a cumulative frequency distribution (Pereira et al., 1997).
Area with root zone replenished

Pa = ( ) ∗ 100
Total irrigated area
2.5.1.6 Pressure variation
The variation of the consecutive pressures at drippers is the origin of the dysfunctions of a
drip irrigation system.
The results of pressure measurements using a pressure gauge in the set of investigated plots
in the Boulaouane sector show that head loss varies from 0.05 bars to 1.5 bars in all farms (Jorti
and Douzi, 2015).
The cooperative with the minimum head losses values is "Etifakia" due to its proximity to the
pumping station. In addition, the regular cleaning carried out by the farmers surveyed in this area
helps obtain standard values of the pressure. In the case of cooperatives with large head loss
values, "Alia" and "Hamdania", as these two cooperatives are located at the end of the sector,
which makes them the last served by the pumping station. Added to this, the problems of clogging
drippers and poor quality of drip irrigation installations decrease network performance and leads
to huge losses (Jorti and Douzi, 2015).
2.5.1.7 Irrigation uniformity
2.5.1.7.1 Distribution uniformity
Irrigation uniformity is expressed by indexes. In all of them, a value of 100 indicates that all
points in the filed receive the same amount of irrigation water (Bleisner, 1977).
20
In statistics, variability is usually judged through the determination of two statistics: standard
deviation and coefficient of variation. One of the most commonly used criteria for assessing
uniformity of irrigation are the Christiansen coefficient of uniformity, which can be defined as:
∑x
CU(%) = 100(1 − )
mn
Where:
∑ 𝑥 is the sum of the absolute deviations from the mean (mm or ml) of all the observations,
m is the mean application depth (mm or ml),
n is the number of observations (catch cans).
Both design and maintenance influence the distribution uniformity (DU) of water in drip/micro
systems. Published in 1956, USDA agriculture handbook 82 introduced the concept of using the
“average of the low ¼” as the numerator in a uniformity ratio that described overlap patterns with
hand move sprinklers. This concept was later incorporated into the “low quarter Distribution
Uniformity” (DUlq) definition that is commonly used today (Burt et al., 1997).
Merriam et al.(1973) developed one of the first field evaluation techniques for drip irrigation
systems. The DUlq (called “Emission Uniformity”, or “EU” by the authors) was calculated and
adjusted to the number of emitters per plant (n) using the following formula:
 1 1 q min lq 
DU lq  1   *  * 100
 q avg 
 n n 
Where:
qmin lq
: average of the lowest one-quarter of the drippers flow rates
qavg
: average of the total drippers flow rates
Numerous DU components contribute to the non-uniformity of the total drip irrigation system,
therefore, if one of these components is ignored in an evaluation procedure, the system will be
overestimated. For that reason, Karmeli and Keller (1974) considered two components of non-
uniformity in the design of drip/micro system: manufacturing variation and pressure differences. It
should be noted that this formula was intended for the design, not evaluation of irrigation system.
Their recommendation for a new DU equation was:
 CV   qmin lq 
DU lq  1  1.27 m  *   * 100
 n   q 
 avg 
21
Where CVm is the manufacturing coefficient of variation (Standard deviation divided by the
mean) of emitter flow rates and Qminlq/Qavg is the ratio of “minimum” to average flow rates due to
pressure differences(Kambou,1994).
Written another way, this early formulation of a combined DU can be written as:
(DUlq due to manufacturing variation ∗ DUlq due to pressure differences)
DUlq =
100
Bleisner (1977) recognized that pressures must be adjusted by the emitter discharge
exponent found in the emitter discharge equation. For that reason, he introduced the concept of
“pressure uniformity” which was eventually used as:
x
 average of low 1/4 of H measuremen ts 
DU lq due to pressure    * 100
 average of all H measuremen ts 
In 2015, Douzi and Jorti carried out a study of the irrigation practices and performance
evaluation of trickle irrigation in the sector of Boulaouane, Doukkala region, within the framework
of the collective conversion. In their framework, they analysed the values of uniformity coefficients
measured at 18 farms and presented the following subdivision into two classes:
Class A: Considered excellent, because the uniformity of distribution exceeds 90%. These
values are obtained at 8 farms, which represents about 50% of the surveyed farms. Those farms
belong to 7 cooperatives (Hamdania, Etifakia, Amria, Fath, Mansouria, Reja Felah, Wifak). This
excellent distribution of water is due to several reasons; in some cases, the installation of the drip
system was a personal project (F3 and F18), the study was carried out and the equipment was
purchased and installed independently without any intervention by the state. Whereas in others,
these values are due to the successful completion of the study, by the delegated companies
responsible for the design, and the carrying out of the study within these cooperatives as part of
the conversion project to micro-irrigation in the sector. The good maintenance of the equipment
by the operators is also a reason behind the results obtained.
Class B: considered satisfied, since the uniformity coefficient varies between 80 and 90%.
These values are found in 2 farms belonging to 2 neighbouring cooperatives (Hamdania and
Etifakia). These values are due to the proximity of these cooperatives to the pumping station,
which explains why the water arrives with a sufficiently high speed and pressure. Add to this, the
good maintenance of the network is a factor for the good uniformity to the plot.
In 2016, Bayali and Amari carried out a study of the assessment of irrigation performances in
Tadla region after collective conversion. Based on their analysis of the values of the uniformity
coefficient calculated, they found that:
- 65% of farms had an excellent uniformity, because the coefficient of uniformity exceeds
90% (E2, E4, E6, E7, E9, E11, E17, E19, E20), this is explained by the fact that the
irrigation equipment is recently installed, the successful completion of the study by the
delegated companies, as well as the proper maintenance of the equipment by the
operators.
22
- 25% of farms have a satisfactory uniformity which varies between 80% and 90% (cases of
E2, E3, E5, E8, E10, E18) are due to the low maintenance despite the fact that the
equipment is newly installed, requires frequent cleaning of the network.
- 10% of farms have bad uniformity (cases of E1 and E15), this is explained for E15 by the
clogging of drippers and also by the growing of weeds and their winding around laterals,
degrades the material and causes leakages. Concerning the plots where the uniformity of
distribution is unacceptable case of for E1, this it was the unique farm studied and
converted to the individual location in 2005, poor uniformity in this farms is mainly explained
by the age of material means degradation of irrigation equipment, abundance of leaks and
the clogging of drippers.
In 2011, Hanafi carried out an approach to evaluate the performance of irrigated farm-level
systems in the irrigated Borj Toumi perimeter in the Medjerda Valley in Tunisia.
She made an assessment of the uniformity and application efficiency and noticed a bad
conduct of drip irrigation. The inadequacy of the filtration station at the flow rate used and the
clogging of the drippers greatly affect the efficiency of distribution at the plot and the coefficient of
uniformity of the drippers. The results of measurements showed that the coefficient of uniformity
of the drippers varied between 20% and 86%, with a median value of 61%, and the efficiency of
distribution at the plot varied between 54 and 83%.
2.5.1.8 Factors affecting drip irrigation uniformity
Many factors can affect the uniformity of a drip irrigation system:
- Pressure effect: a bad irrigation system design could create a pressure differences
between drippers that will cause flow rate differences according to the pressure-discharge
relationship;
Q = K ∗ HX
Where:
Q: dripper discharge (l.h-1)
H: dripper pressure head (m)
K: and x parameters primarily depend on the dripper’s design and diameter.
X: characterizes the sensitivity of the emitter flow to the pressure change.
The Lower is x less the discharge is affected by pressure and vice versa.
23
Figure 10: Discharge variation resulting from pressure changes for emitters with different discharge
exponents (Karmeli and Keller, 1974).
- Uneven Spacing: This refers to non-uniformity that is caused by having different number
of emitters per unit area in the field(Ait ali, 2004);
- Unequal drainage: When a drip system is shut off, some emitters may continue to drain for
a considerable time when most of the drippers have stopped discharging water (Burt,
2004). This is particularly important on sloping ground for systems that have irrigation sets
to very short duration (e.g., pulsing or frequent irrigation);
- Drippers’ temperature: for the new generation of drippers, the effect of temperature
differences between drippers is ignored because very few now have the long smooth paths
(spaghetti) that were at one time particularly sensitive to temperature differences
(Parchomchuk, 1976);
- Plugging plugging of drippers is the biggest problem in drip irrigation systems. Partial or
complete clogging reduces emission uniformity and consequently decreases irrigation
efficiency and increases the water volumes needed for crop growing. In many cases, to
assure irrigated plants of the necessary water volume it is necessary to put up with a water
loss due to over irrigation. There are different types of plugging that could be classified
into (Capra and Scicolone, 1998);
o Physical clogging: caused by suspended inorganic particles (Sand, silt, clay,
plastics..), organic materials (animal residues, snails,…) and microbiological debris
(algae…).
o Chemical clogging: it occurs when dissolved solids interact between each other to
form precipitates. Waters rich in calcium and bicarbonates are susceptible to
chemical clogging obtained from calcium carbonate precipitation.
o Biological clogging: due to algae, iron and sulfur slimes.
- Wear and manufacturer variation: This cause differences in the flow rate among emitters
of the same type and operating at the same pressure.
24
2.6. Agronomic performances
Irrigation is considered as an important pillar in the operation of any farms, the challenge is to
produce more with less water. In this sense, several studies have focused on agronomic indicators
that increase the productivity of irrigation water.
With the water scarcity, irrigated agriculture faces today a double challenge: the first one is to
improve the overall water use efficiency in irrigation systems, the second is to increase the
productivity of water in terms of the use and valorization of water by crops. (Bouaziz, Belabbes,
2002).
Doorenbos and Kassam (1979) worked on a yield response factor (ky), which relates the
actual yield (Yact) to actual evapotranspiration (ETa):
Ya = f(K y , Ypot , ETa , ETPot )

Where
Ypot: the maximum yield (Kg/ha)
Ya : the actual yield (Kg/ha)
ETpot: the maximum evapotranspiration (mm)
ETa: actual evapotranspiration (mm)
Ky: yield response factor representing the effect of a reduction in evapotranspiration on yield
losses.However, (Zwart and Bastiaanssen, 2004), showed the non-consistency of the yield-water
relationship used, because it can vary even on a single site.
2.6.1. Yield
The yield is considered as one of the important indicators for assessing of the agronomic
performances. Yield is calculated over three to four years to take into account the interannual
variability’s. According to several studies, yield improvement is based on the following factors: the
quality of plot, respect of irrigation scheduling, input composition and application, effective weed
control and control of water at the plot level (Hanafi, 2011).
2.6.2. Water use efficiency
Water use efficiency (WUE) is one of the fundamental terms that define the links between
water used in relation with biomass produced. It is determined by many factors (salinity,
acidification, root distribution, soil depth, texture and structure) that are manipulated to maximize
yield from every unit of available moisture (Preira et al. 2011). WUE is determined by the ratio of
yield obtained and irrigation water consumption (Coelli, 2000).
Water use efficiency on various scales from the leaf to the field. In its simplest terms, it is
characterized as crop yield per unit water use. At a more biological level, it is the carbohydrate
formed from CO2, sunlight and water through photosynthesis per unit transpiration.
The Soil-Plant-Atmosphere Continuum (SPAC) is the pathway for water moving from soil through
plants to the atmosphere with limited water resources that is why we have to increase the WUE
25
in order to get more biomass with less quantity of water. The transport of water along the plant
occurs in components, variously defined among scientific disciplines, which are, meteorology,
physical and physiological factors (André, 2005).
Water productivity (WP) is defined as the ratio between the actual crop yield achieved (kg/ha)
and water consumption (m3/ha). This ratio is often called water use efficiency; a discussion on
terminology is reported by Pereira et al. (2012). The water productivity is expressed in terms of:
The actual crop transpiration (WPT):

Ya
WPT =
Ta
The actual crop evapotranspiration (WPET):

Ya
WPET =
ETcadj
The total water use (WPTWU):

𝑌𝑎
𝑊𝑃𝑇𝑊𝑈 =
𝑇𝑊𝑈
Where:
- Ya: actual yield (Kg/ha),
- Ta: actual transpiration (m3/ha),
- ETcadj: actual evapotranspiration (m3/ha),
- TWU: total water use (m3/ha).
2.7. Economic performances
The International Water Management Institute (IWMI) developed a set of comparative

performance indicators with the purpose of the economic assessment of irrigation performance
(Molden et. al., 1998). In these indicators, water input-yield relationships are used mainly. The first
four basic indicators relate agricultural production to water amount. These indicators allow a
comparison of the performance of fundamentally different systems by standardizing the gross
value of agricultural production (Değirmenci et. al., 2003). The standardized gross value of
production (SGVP) per unit of water consumed is significant especially for areas where water
scarcity exists, while output per unit of commanded or cropped area is more important for areas
where the land is regarded as a limited source. The four basic indicators are; unit output of cropped
area, unit output of commanded area, unit output of irrigation supply, and unit output of water
consumed.
2.7.1. Water productivity
Water productivity can be defined in several ways according to the purpose, scale & domain
of analysis (Molden et al., 2001; Bastiaanssen et al., 2003). In a simple way, water productivity
(WP) is defined as ‘crop production’ per unit ‘amount of water used’ (Molden, 1997).
26
The concept of water productivity describes various aspects of water management such as
production, utilization and economic issues (Molden & Sakthivadivel, 1998,). Accordingly, there
are several ways to express water productivity using the agronomic, biophysical, eco-
physiological, engineering and economic parameters and considering in the numerator of the WP
ratio either biomass, yield, CO2 assimilation, market value of production or product added value,
whereas in the denominator is used usually one of the following: transpiration, evapotranspiration,
irrigation volume applied, etc.
According Bouaziz and Belabbes (2002), calculating the economic value of water use is done
in two ways. The first is calculating the ratio between the gross product and the amount of water
used during the whole crop cycle (DH/m3). The second is the calculation of the ratio between the
gross product and the total cost of irrigation water used throughout the crop cycle, in the case of
known and different water tariffs.
2.7.2. Profitability per cubic meter of irrigation water
A very useful indicator of the profitability of irrigation is the gross margin per cubic meter of
water. By itself, it provides an idea about how much gross margin the farmer may expect from
every cubic meter that he/she uses. Furthermore, it provides an idea of where irrigation water can
be used with greater returns. In the case of Morocco, this indicator ranges from 3-22 DH/m3
(Doukkala and Gharb regions) to 1-5 DH/m3 for the rest of the country. This reflects that in reality,
there are two main types of irrigated agriculture in Morocco. One that is dedicated to the
horticulture and fruit production with a high productivity and returns and another dedicated to the
production of cereals, industrial crops and pasture (Bouaziz, 2004).
Studies have been carried out in the irrigated perimeter of Moulouya in terms of gross margin
per cubic meter of water for different crops. Crops can be classified into two categories (Bouaziz
and Belabbes, 2002):
- Those with a gross margin exceeding 4 DH/m3. These are potatoes, beans, green peas,
tomatoes, beans and vines.
- Those with a gross margin less than 4 DH/m3. These include sugar beet, wheat, dry beans,
melon/watermelon, citrus, olive, apricot, sugar cane and alfalfa.
The gross margin calculated in the sector of Boulaouane varies from one farm to another
according to the cropping pattern. The calculated values range from 4,437 DH/ha for the case of
beet to 42,581 DH/ha for potato. This variation in profits is due to the farmer’s practices on the
one hand and to human and financial resources disposed (Douzi, 2015).
The Grain is remarkable for farmers who practice potatoes and corn, and for some who
practice sugar beets, profits range from 10,262 to 42,581 DH/ha. In the case of other farmers who
practice sugar beet, the profits were only from 4,000 to 6,000 DH/ha. These low gains are a
function of the price of sugar beet, which varies according to the sugar content. (Douzi and Jorti
2015).
27
The Grain is remarkable for farmers who practice potatoes and corn, and for some who
practice sugar beets, profits range from 10,262 to 42,581 DH/ha. In the case of other farmers who
practice sugar beet, the profits were only from 4,000 to 6,000 DH/ha. These low gains are a
function of the price of sugar beet, which varies according to the sugar content. (Douzi and Jorti
2015).
Passing from one irrigated perimeter to another, the irrigation water valuation levels differ. In
the Souss-Massa irrigated perimeter, the average value of production in monetary term per cubic
meter of irrigation water consumed is 4 DH/m3, and it is only 1.7 DH/m3 in the Loukkos perimeter,
with an average of 2.8 DH/m3 in the large perimeters. The value added is 2.4 DH/m3 in the Souss-
Massa and 1 DH/m3 in the Loukkos (Laaguig, 2008).
2.7.3. Cost-benefit ratio
The cost benefit ration is the ratio between the profit obtained (in monetary form) for a unit
area and the cost of production for that unit. It is expressed as follows:
benefit
CBR =
cost
2.7.4. Cost per unit of production
It is the cost of producing unitary yield. The yield can be total harvest yield (e.g., fodder, grass)
or seed yield (for cereals). Its unit is monetary unit/ton.
2.8. Crop water requirements
The rainfall constraints in arid and semi-arid climate require the development of agricultural
technics, that give the best use of scarce water resources available for improvement and
stabilization of production. For this, the determination of crop water needs is considered one of
the best solutions required to improve irrigation management.
According to the guideline of the FAO 56, crop water requirements are defined here as "the
depth of water needed to meet the water loss through evapotranspiration (ET) of a disease-free
crop, growing in large fields under non restricting soil conditions including soil water and fertility
and achieving full production potential under the given growing environment (FAO, 1998).
For irrigated crops, irrigation water requirements (IWR) are defined as the net depth of water
(mm) that is required to be applied to a crop to fully satisfy its specific crop water requirements.
The IWR is the fraction of CWR that is not satisfied by rainfall, soil water storage and groundwater
contribution (Pereira and Cordery, 2012).
If irrigation water needs are not properly determined, water losses are inevitable. In case of
underestimation, in short time the amount of water supplied completely evaporates from soil and
leaf surface, whereas in case of overestimation water percolates down and cannot be further
absorbed by plant roots. Thus, the knowledge of the exact water loss through evapotranspiration
28
is necessary for sustainable development and environmentally sound water management

especially in the Mediterranean region (Katerji and Rana, 2008).
Weather and crop (type of crop, species, growing stage, leaf area index, leaf type, stomata
behavior, roots length and roots density) have an influence in determining water requirements for
crops. In return, different crops use different amount of water during their growing period (Ali,
2010).
2.8.1. Evapotranspiration
Evapotranspiration represents the major consumptive use of irrigation water and rainfall in
agricultural land (Burt et al., 2005). Thus, it is important to estimate ET in the management of
irrigation water (Köksal et al., 2010). Evapotranspiration is considered as a combination of two
components: the evaporation from the soil and the transpiration process of the plant. Burt et al.
(2004) confirmed that transpiration is the portion of ET that flows through the plant system, which
makes of it the main component of ET that affects the ET-yield relationship. However, the
evaporation component can also be a significant component of the total (Sharma, 1985).
There are several levels of evapotranspiration depending on some specific conditions.
- The first is the reference evapotranspiration ETo which is defined as all water loss through
evaporation and transpiration of a large area of grass well supplied with water, having an
uniform height of 8 to 15 cm, in full period of growth, and completely covering
ground(FAO56).
- The second is evapotranspiration ETc under standard conditions known as maximum
evapotranspiration. It is defined at different crop development stages of a given crop under
optimal agronomic conditions; i.e. disease-free and without water or nutrient stress. ETc is
linked to ETo via a coefficient Kc called crop coefficient that takes into account the physical
and physiological difference between the reference surface and the given crop.
ETC = K c ∗ ETO
- The last one is the evapotranspiration under non-standard conditions ETa or ETcadj also
called actual evapotranspiration (ETa) which is defined as the sum of the quantities of
water vapor evaporated from the soil and vegetation at a given stage of physiological
development and the real crop evapotranspiration may deviate from ETc due to non-
optimal conditions such as the presence of pests and diseases, soil salinity, low soil fertility,
water shortage or waterlogging. This may result in scanty plant growth, low plant density
and may reduce the evapotranspiration rate below ETc.
ETa is also related to ETc by a coefficient Ks called water stress coefficient as follows:
ETa = K c ∗ K s ∗ ETo
29
Figure 11: Three types of evapotranspiration estimated by the FAO-56 model: reference
evapotranspiration (ETo), evapotranspiration under standard conditions (ETc) and under real
conditions (ETc adj) (Allen et al., 1998)
The agricultural sector is the largest consumer of water mobilized and is thus called to use
irrigation water through a rational valuation of this resource. For this, the determination of the
reference evapotranspiration value with the highest accuracy is a key step.
To this end, several methods of measurement and ETO calculation formulas are presented
in detail in the next part.
2.8.2. Indirect method
To determine the maximum evapotranspiration and actual evapotranspiration, it is necessary

to determine three parameters: the reference evapotranspiration ETO, the Kc crop coefficient and
water stress coefficient Ks.
2.8.3. Reference evapotranspiration (ETo)
Many empirical or semi-empirical methods have been developed to estimate the reference
evapotranspiration from different climatic variables. These empirical formulas can be classified
into three groups: temperature methods, methods of radiation and combined methods.
30
2.8.4. Radiation-based methods
 Priestley Taylor method(1972)
When the evaporation surface is well supplied by water, Priestley-Taylor showed that
evapotranspiration depends mainly on the solar radiation and therefore the aerodynamic term is
negligible compared to the energy term. In this case, the reference evapotranspiration is given by:
1.26 ∗ ∆ ∗ (R n − Q)
ETO =
∆+γ
Where:
Rn: net radiation (MJ m-2 day-1),
G: is soil heat flux at land surface (MJ m-2 day-1),
Δ: is slope of the saturation vapor-pressure-temperature curve,
γ: is psychometric constant.
 Turc method(1961)
The Turc formula can be applied in temperate climates for estimating ETo.
𝑇
𝐸𝑇𝑂 = 0.4 ∗ (𝑅𝐺 + 50) ∗
𝑇 + 50
Where:
Rg: solar radiation (MJ m-2 day-1),
T: average air temperature (˚C) calculated as (Tmax+ Tmin)/2.
 Makkink-FAO-24
Makkink gave reference evapotranspiration as follows:

∆
𝐸𝑇𝑂 = 𝐶𝑚 ∗ ∗ 𝑅𝐺
∆+𝛾
Where:
Rg : short wavelength radiation (MJ m-2 day-1),
Cm : a factor depends on the region.
31
2.8.5. Temperature-based methods
 Blaney-Criddle method (1951)
The Blaney-Criddle method is simple, using measured data on temperature only . It should
be noted, however, that this method is not very accurate; it provides a rough estimate or "order of
magnitude" only. Especially under "extreme" climatic conditions the Blaney-Criddle method is
inaccurate: in windy, dry, sunny areas, the ETo is underestimated (up to some 60 percent), while
in calm, humid, clouded areas, the ETo is overestimated (FAO 56).
ET = k ∗ p ∗ (0.46 ∗ 𝑇𝑎 + 8.13)
Where ET = reference evapotranspiration, in mm/day, for the period in which p is expressed;

Ta = mean temperature in ◦C; p = percentage of total daytime hours for the used period (daily or
monthly) out of total daytime hours of the year (365 × 12); k = climatic coefficient depending on
the mean temperature.
 Hargreaves and Samani method (1985)
Hargreaves and Samani (1985) developed a simplified equation requiring only temperature,
day of year and latitude for calculating ETo:
ETO = a ∗ (T + 17.8) ∗ (Tmax − Tmin )0.5 ∗ R a
Where:
Ra: extraterrestrial radiation (MJ m-2 day-1),
Tmin: minimum temperature (°C),
Tmax: maximum temperature (°C),
a: 0.0023 empirical coefficient.
2.8.6. Combined based methods
Among the proposed theoretical formulas for calculating the reference evapotranspiration, the
Penman formula (1948) for calculating the evaporation of a water surface. This method has a
physical meaning since it results from the energy balance combined with the aerodynamic
transfer. It was developed by many researchers and has been extended to vegetative surfaces by
introducing aerodynamic resistance and surface resistance factors (Monteith, 1965).
The Penman-Monteith equation was formulated to include all parameters governing the
exchange energy of a wide and uniform vegetation. Most of these parameters are measured or
can be rapidly calculated from data meteorological. This equation can be used for a direct
calculation of evapotranspiration once the aerodynamic resistance and surface are specified.
32
In the interest of standardization, FAO through its group of experts, operating in different climatic
contexts, adapted the Penman-Monteith formula the conditions of a covered with grass¹ and
offers, the formula derived as the new definition of reference evapotranspiration (Allen et al. 1998):
0.408  Rn  G   u 2 es  ea 

900
ETo  T  273
   1  0.34u 2 
Where:
ETo: reference evapotranspiration [mm day-1],
Rn: net radiation at the crop surface [MJ m-2 day-1],
G: soil heat flux density [MJ m-2 day-1],
T: mean daily air temperature at 2 m height [°C],
u2: wind speed at 2 m height [m s-1],
es: saturation vapour pressure [kPa],
ea: actual vapour pressure [kPa],
es-ea: saturation vapour pressure deficit [kPa],
∆: slope vapour pressure curve [kPa °C-1],
γ: psychrometric constant [kPa °C-1].
On hourly basis:
- Replace 900 by 37(=900/24) and

- Express the net radiation and the soil heat flux on hourly basis
¹ The FAO Expert Consultation on Revision of FAO Methodologies for Crop Water
Requirements accepted the following unambiguous definition for the reference surface:
“A hypothetical reference crop with an assumed crop height of 0.12 m, a fixed
surface resistance of 70 s m-1 and an albedo of 0.23”.
Belabbes and Shati (1996) have demonstrated the validity of the Penman Monteith formula
in all Moroccan irrigated perimeters and many other areas.
However, if some data are missing as relative humidity, wind speed and solar radiation, then
the Hargreaves-Samani (1985) is recommended. This method provides a relatively good
evaluation of reference evapotranspiration (ETo) when only temperature data are available.
According to a testing study of different methods of calculating evapotranspiration compared

to the reference method, the Blaney-Criddle method , has given good results in Tadla perimeter.
33
2.8.7. Crop coefficient
Kc is the ratio of the crop ETc to the reference ETo. According to the FAO-56 model, two
approaches developed for the determination of this coefficient: an approach with a simple crop
coefficient and another with dual crop coefficient. In the first approach, the single crop coefficient
Kc combines the evaporation of the soil and the transpiration of the plant. In the Second approach
(Allen, 2000), Kc is divided into two terms:
- Ke, which takes into account only the evaporation of the soil,
- Kcb, which takes into account the transpiration of the plant.
The coefficient Kc represents the integral effect of several characteristics which distinguish
crop from reference grass. Its value is largely affected by several factors:
- Crop type (height taller crops and close spacing mean greater Kc,)
- Climate (more arid climate and higher wind speed mean greater Kc
- Soil evaporation (depends on soil wetness)
- Crop growth stages (initial, crop development, mid-season and late season).
The values of Kc published by FAO-56 (Allen et al., 1998) are given by crop considering four
crop growth stages:
- Initial phase,
- Crop development,
- Mid-season phase, and
- Late season phase.
Figure 12 illustrates a curve representative of the evolution of single crop coefficient during
the growing season.
sugar cane
cotton
maize
cabbage, onions
frequent apples
Wetting
events
infrequent
soil ground cover crop type crop type

evapo- plant (humidity)
ration development (wind speed) harvesting date
Figure 12: Evolution of single crop coefficient during the growing season (Source: FAO, 1998)
34
2.8.8. Water stress coefficient
The effects of water stress on crop ET are described by reducing the value for the crop
coefficient. This is accomplished by multiplying the crop coefficient by the water stress coefficient,
Ks. According to the single crop coefficient approach, the actual evapotranspiration is given by:
ETa = K c ∗ K s ∗ ETo
If we use the dual crop coefficient approach, actual evapotranspiration is given by:
ETa = (K s ∗ K cb + K e ) ∗ ETo
The process of calculating the water stress coefficient depends on the crop tolerance to water
stress expressed by a parameter p - a fraction of total available water in the root zone (TAW)
which can be depleted without suffering from water stress. Then, the water stress coefficient starts
when the root zone depletion (Dr) is greater than readily available depletion (RAW) and it is
calculated considering the soil water balance in the root zone by the following equation (Allen et
al., 1998):
TAW − Dr TAW − Dr
Ks = =
TAW − RAW (1 − p) ∗ TAW
Where:
Ks: is a dimensionless transpiration reduction factor dependent on available soil water [0 -1],
Dr: root zone depletion [mm],
TAW: total available soil water in the root zone [mm],
p: fraction of TAW that a crop can extract from the root zone without suffering water stress.
The fraction of TAW that a crop can extract from the root zone without suffering water stress
is the readily available soil water:
RAW = p ∗ TAW
TAW is the total available water in the root zone is the difference between the water content
at field capacity and wilting point:
TAW = 1000 ∗ (FC − WP) ∗ Zr
Where:
TAW the total available soil water in the root zone [mm],
FC the water content at field capacity [m3/m3],
WP the water content at wilting point [m3/m3],
Zr the rooting depth [m].
35
2.9. Water balance
Soil water balance is an account of all quantities of water added, removed or stored in a given
volume of soil during a period. The soil water balance equation estimates of the parameters
influencing the amount of soil water. The use of the soil water balance equation can help identify
periods of water stress or excesses, which may have adverse effect on crop performance, and
thus adopt the appropriate management practices to alleviate the constraint and increase the crop
yields.
The root zone can be presented by means of a container in which the water content may
fluctuate, whereby any water entering to the soil via precipitation, irrigation and capillary rise must
be transferred into soil evaporation, transpiration and deep percolation, or stored in the ground
(Allen et al., 1998).Evapotranspiration can also be determined by measuring the various
components of the soil water balance. The method consists of assessing the incoming and
outgoing water flux into the crop root zone over some period.
The actual evapotranspiration is estimated using the following equation:
ETa = I + P − RO − DP + CR ± ∆SF ± ∆SW
Where: I: Irrigation, P: rainfall, RO: runoff, DP: deep percolation, CP: capillary rise, ∆SF:
subsurface flow in/out, ET: evapotranspiration, ∆SW: soil water content.
The soil water balance is performed considering the soil divided into two zones: the upper
one where roots are, and the underlying layer that develops from the actual root depth to the
maximum one, which behaves like a reservoir where soil water becomes available for the crop as
much as roots grow (Camp, 1996).
36
Chapter 3: Material and Methods
Introduction:
The main objective of our study is to help identify, analyse irrigation practices and evaluate
crop water requirements in comparison with the inputs of the farms studied at the pilot sector level
in the Tadla perimeter, one of the most important irrigated perimeter in Morocco. After the
implementation of the collective conversion project, it represents a field of experimentation based
on several hypotheses concerning the technical choices and management of irrigation.
The following flowchart show all the steps of the study:
Assessment of drip irrigation

Collection of data
(climatic, soil, Field measurements
agronomic, socio
economic,…)
Hydraulic Agro-economic
Performancess Performances
Pressure Parameters of Distribution NIR Flow rate and

Yield
variations the water uniformity duration of
balance irrigation
Ea Ea
Water
Cost of
consumptions
productions
Flow GIR
Irrigation Soil water
rate Climate
scheduling content
WUE
ETo CWRSI Gross
Irrigation
practices of and net
farmers margin
Gravimetric
Profile probe
method
Profitability of
irrigation water
(€/m3)
37
3.1. Description of study area
The project area is situated approximately 300 Km south east of Rabat in the province of
Souk Sebt in Tadla Region, at approximately 32°36'51.72"N latitude and -6°17'5.38"W
longitude. The study area is characterized by semi-arid Mediterranean climatic conditions, with
hot and dry summer season and moderately cold and wet winter, it is characterized by a gentle
slope with average altitude of the about 400 m a.s.l. The average temperature is 18°C, and
the dominant wind direction is NW at 7 km/h, with approximately a humidity of 59% (ORMVAT.
2010).
The main economic activity in the study area is related to agricultural production and most
of land is used for the cultivation of olives, citrus, orchards and horticultural crops.
The population of the region under study amounts to 22 000 inhabitants according to the
population census of 2014. The study area was recently converted totally from surface into
drip irrigation, the area that is supposed to be served by the project has surface of 4 045 ha.
Figure 13: Location of the study area (ORMVAT,2010)
3.2. Climatic characteristics
Because of its important role in the soil-plant-atmosphere continuum, climate is the main
factor that affects all the decisions of any irrigation project (water requirements, network and
irrigation system design). In our case, the climatic data relative to the study area were collected
from the CRTS 1,2 agro-meteorological station. Data, represented by monthly minimum and
maximum temperature, monthly precipitation and number of rainy days, are shown in Table 4 with
the average monthly values referring to 2016.
38
Table 4: Average climatic characteristics of study area analysed on monthly basis for the period
Sept 2016 – Aug 2017
Tavg Rainfall
Months Tmax (°C) Tmin (°C) N° Rainy Days
(°C) (mm)
January 33.0 1.2 13.7 29 4
February 25.2 0.0 11.7 69.8 6
March 27.6 -0.2 12.9 18.6 3
April 31.1 3.9 16.9 0 0
May 41.0 7.5 20.2 26.8 6
June 42.9 13.1 25.2 1 1
July 45.6 16.8 29.0 0 0
august 43.1 15.1 29.4 0 0
September 34.9 11.2 22.1 0.2 1
October 33.1 9.4 20.1 12.2 3
November 30.3 3.5 13.9 2 2
December 21.0 0.2 9.7 0.2 1
Annual average Annual Total
34.1 6.8 18.7 159.8 26
Source: CDA, 2016/17
3.2.1. Temperature
Air temperature influences the plant’s physiological and biological processes thus its growth
and development; each crop has its own optimum temperature range for growth and development.
Duration of growth stages is almost directly proportional to the sum of air temperatures above a
base temperature, a threshold below which crop development does not progress. Air temperature
also affects the amount of water a crop requires. The variation of maximum, minimum and average
monthly temperatures for the location of the project for the year 16-2017 is shown in Figure 14.
60
Temerature (°C)
40
20
0
jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug spt oct nov dec
-20
months
Tmax (°C) Tmin (°C) Tavg (°C)
Figure 14: Variation of maximum, minimum and average monthly temperatures for the location of
the project for the period Sept 2016- Aug 2017(CDA, 16/2017).
39
The average annual temperature is 13 °C, whereas average annual minimum and maximum
temperatures are 6 °C and 34 °C, respectively. The coldest month is February with an average
minimum temperature of 0 °C; therefore, so there is no frost risk in the study area, and the hottest
months are July and August with an Average Maximum Temperature of 45 °C and 43 °C,
respectively.
3.2.2. Precipitation
The rainfall contributes to a greater or lesser extent in satisfying CWR, depending on the
location. During the rainy season, a great part of the crop's water needs may be covered by rainfall,
while during the dry season the major supply of water should come from irrigation. How much
water is coming from rainfall and how much water should be covered by irrigation is,
unfortunately, difficult to predict as rainfall varies greatly from season to season. The variation of
average monthly rainfall (2016-2017) of the project area is shown in figure 15.
80
70
60
Rainfall(mm)
50
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 15: Average monthly precipitation variation during the period Sept 2016 – Aug 2017 (CDA,
16/2017).
The annual precipitation of the study period (Sept 2016 – Aug 2017) is about 112 mm and it
occurs in 35 rainy days, mainly during the winter season. The maximum average monthly rainfall
is in February and March and corresponds to 27 and 25 mm, respectively. The minimum monthly
rainfall amount is 0 mm in July and August.
Rainfall in the season 2016/17 was much lower than the long-term average while
evapotranspiration was higher than the long-term average.
The monthly values of average air temperature and precipitation are presented by means of
Thermo-Pluviometric Bagnauls-Gaussen diagram in Figure 16. The diagram is based on the long
term historical data from the study area. This diagram shows that dry period goes from May to
October, which could correspond to the period of year where irrigation is needed to sustain
agricultural production.
40
40 80
Temperature (°C)
Precipitation (mm)
35
30 60
25
20 40
15
10 20
5
0 0
Air temperature Precipitation
Figure 16: Bagnauls-Gaussen diagram for the period (1980-2015)(ORMVAT,2016)
3.2.3. Soil data
When talking about irrigation, several questions arise, how much, how long, and how often
we need to irrigate. The answers usually involve a combination of plant growth stages, weather
data, and soil characteristics.
Soil characteristics in the study area are important for the determination of irrigation
scheduling and in order to judge the irrigation management.
3.2.4. Effective soil depth
Effective soil depth should be determined from the description of soil profile and it refers to
the thickness of the layer without limitations for root development and agricultural production
(FAO, 36).
Effective soil depth that can be effectively exploited by plant root is limited to 100 cm in the
study area, within seven layers.
3.2.5. Soil texture
Soil texture is defined in terms of relative proportions of different soil constituents (sand, silt
and clay) independently of the nature and the composition of these minerals. Soil texture has an
impact on the rate of water infiltration into the soil.
According to Soil classification of the USDA (the U.S. Department of Agriculture),

dimensions of the soil particles are defined as following:
- Clay: <0.002 mm.

- Silt: Between 0.002 and 0.05 mm.
- Sand: Between 0.05 and 2 mm.
41
The percentage of gravimetric soil characteristics for each layer of the soil profile are given in
table 5.
Table 5: Gravimetric soil characteristics (ORMVAT, 2016)
Fine Coarse
Depth Clay Fine silt Coarse Total Total
sand sand
(cm) (%) (%) silt (%) silt sand
(%) (%)
0 to 10 40.16 25.95 14.22 40.17 16.75 2.92 19.67
10 to 20 41.88 23.67 15.45 39.12 16.23 2.77 19.00
20 to 30 43.9 21.8 14.64 36.44 16.11 3.54 19.65
30 to 40 39.23 28.93 8.84 37.77 19.57 3.43 23
40 to 60 44.42 25.21 10.89 36.1 14.36 5.12 19.48
60 to 80 43.86 24.75 11.54 36.29 14.18 5.67 19.85
80 to 100 46.23 23.38 11.08 34.46 14.54 4.77 19.31
Weighted
43.42 24.70 12 36.70 15.49 4.38 19.86
Averages
The soil of the study area is classified as clay loam soil based on the soil triangle of U.S
Department of Agriculture.
3.2.6. Bulk density:
Bulk density is the dry weight of soil per its unit volume. Soil bulk density gives an idea about
the degree of soil compaction, its aeration and its water retention. The value of bulk
density generally varies between 1-1.1 and 1.6-1.7 g/cm3 depending on soil texture and its state
of compaction. Soil bulk density for each layer is given in Table 6. The weighted average of soil
bulk density of the whole soil profile is estimated to be 1.31 g/cm3.
Table 6: Soil bulk density of soil profile.
Depth Bulk density

(cm) (g/cm3)
0 to 10 1.22
10 to 20 1.18
20 to 30 1.15
30 to 40 1.17
40 to 60 1.4
60 to 80 1.51
80 to 100 1.27
Source: ORMVAT, 2016.
42
3.3. Sampling and characterization of surveyed farms
In order to have a good representativeness of the farms studied, we chose a sampling. The
selection of farms surveyed is based on the following sampling criteria:
- The wiliness of farmers to take measures on their drip irrigation system and answer a set
of questions;
- The distribution of farms on the various WUA’s in the sector;
- Farm size, as we hypothesized that farm size had an impact on the choice and quality of
the irrigation equipment (as large-scale farms have more financial means) and on irrigation
practices (larger plots, fewer financial constraints for larger farms);
- Installation date, hypothesizing that older equipment will have a lower irrigation
performances;
- Water source(wells or tube wells);
- The presence of adaptations at the level of the installed irrigation network;
- The different irrigation practices and cropping systems;
- The irrigation management applied.
The surveys were carried out on the drip irrigation network, to determine the technical and
agro-economic performance of the selected farms:
- Measurements of dripper’s flows and laterals pressure were carried out at 23 farms.
- Surveys of farmers about irrigation practices adopted after the conversion project;
- Measurements of distribution uniformity;
- Measurements of the volumes of water consumed for each farm using a flow meter to
quantify the water volume consumed per plot;
- At these same farms, surveys were carried out on income and expenses of crops practiced
and irrigation schedules followed.
- The survey also covered irrigation practices and adaptations introduced by farmers on the
drip network.
The farms surveyed are distributed throughout the pilot sector and are part of two water user
associations WUA’s: Al Ittihad and Al Omrania.
Table 7 shows the area of each farm and the crops practiced.
Table 7: Characterization of the surveyed farms.
Year of
Plots size Crop on the Number of installation
Farms Farmers WUA's Bloc Soil type
(ha) study plots wells of drip
system
Mandarin
9.9 2 Clay loam 2007
trees
F1 AMAR 16 9.9 Orange trees 1 Clay loam 2007
2.2 Sugar beet 0 Clay loam 2015
F2 MEZOUAR 3 0.95 Sugar beet 2 Clay loam 2015
43
Year of
system
F3 MOUSTAGHIT 43 0.6 Olive trees 2 Clay loam 2015
2 Sugar beet Clay loam 2015
0.4 Wheat Clay loam 2015
1 Alfalfa Clay loam 2015
0.7 Mint Clay loam 2015
F4 MERKAOUI 33 2.5 Sugar beet 1 Clay loam 2015
5 Wheat Clay loam 2015
F5 DAHBI 14 1.2 Sugar beet 1 Clay loam 2015
1.2 Alfalfa Clay loam 2015
1.4 Barley Clay loam 2015
0.6 Olive trees Clay loam 2015
F6 CHAKOURE 14 1 Sugar beet 1 Clay loam 2015
Spring
0.7 wheat Clay loam 2015
0.8 Onion Clay loam 2015
F7 MOUHTARIM 48 1.1 Sugar beet 2 Clay loam 2015
AL ittihad 1.6 Alfalfa Clay loam 2015
6.5 Barley Clay loam 2015
F8 ASSOULI 43 2 Alfalfa 0 Clay loam 2015
1 Mint Clay loam 2015
F9 BELGHIT 43 0.7 Alfalfa 1 Clay loam 2015
0.5 Oats Clay loam 2015
0.9 Bell pepper Clay loam 2015
F10 BIMONDA 40 1 Wheat 0 Clay loam 2015
1 Bell pepper Clay loam 2015
F11 CHANCHAL 38 0.5 Sugar beet 0 Clay loam 2015
0.5 Bean Clay loam 2015
44
Year of
system
F12 ROCHDI 25 1.5 Barley 0 Clay loam 2015
0.6 Carrot Clay loam 2015
Al ittihad
F13 MAHFOUD 62 0.6 Cereals 0 Clay loam 2015
0.4 Zucchini Clay loam 2015
F14 FOUKHARI 49 0.6 Bell pepper 0 Clay loam 2015
F15 MERRAKCHI 14 68.8
Citrus 4 Clay loam 2007
F16 EL KHOUAL 14 1 Bell pepper 1 Clay loam 2015
1.5 Cereals Clay loam 2015
0.2 Bell pepper Clay loam 2015
0.8 Sugar beet Clay loam 2015
F17 CHERKAOUI 24 1.3 Cereals 0 Clay loam 2015
F18 ASSHITI 21 1.5 Carrot 0 Clay loam 2015
AL Omrania 1 Carrot Clay loam 2015

F19 HORMA 62 0.8 Alfalfa 0 Clay loam 2015
0.4 Oats Clay loam 2015
F20 OMRAOUI 57 0.8 Olive trees 0 Clay loam 2015
0.4 Tomato Clay loam 2015
F21 HAKI 2 1.2 Alfalfa 0 Clay loam 2015
0.5 Carrot Clay loam 2015
0.3 Sugar beet Clay loam 2015
F22 LHMIRI 47 1 Olive trees 0 Clay loam 2015
1.7 Potato Clay loam 2015
40 1.5 Potato 0 Clay loam 2015
F23 Illoul
45
From this table, we notice that the pilot sector is dominated by small and medium farms.
Farmers irrigate field crops (maize, wheat, alfalfa) with drip irrigation and we know that drip
irrigation is most suitable for row crops (vegetables, soft fruit), tree and vine crops, generally only
high value crops are considered because of the high capital costs of installing a drip system.
However, some strategic crops like wheat, maize, broad bean, soybeans, and sunflower are
irrigated with drip irrigation according to self-sufficiency policy of these crops.
The evolution of the farms studied is closely related to the practices followed by the farmers.
Indeed, the choice of cropping systems, irrigation technics and the mode of marketing are behind
this evolution followed by the introduction of new irrigation systems, agricultural intensification and
the development of management methods.
Figure 17: Localization of the surveyed farms (Source: ORMVAT, 2010)
Two farms (F1, F2) among these twenty-three chosen have been the subject of:
- Installation of 13 soil moisture measurement sites;

- Monitoring the irrigation schedule.
The characteristics of the measurement sites chosen at the level of the two farms are as
follows:
46
Table 8: The characteristics of the selected measurement sites.
Number of
Farms WUA’s Plots Area(ha)
sites
C1 (Citrus) 8 3.9
F1 Al SB1 (Sugar beet 1) 2 0.75
Itihad
F2 SB2 (Sugar beet 2) 3 0.95
The choice of those farms is based on their proximity to the road as well as the fact that the
farmer is lodged on site, which facilitates the collection of data. And These farms were converted
into localized irrigation and started to irrigate several months before the start of this study.
3.4. Data collection and calculation of performance indicators
3.4.1. Investigations
3.4.1.1. Survey with farmers
This part is based on a survey sheets, completed during the visit of the farms and sometimes
in the meeting places of the farmers. The choice of these survey places has the following
advantages:
- The availability of farmers in the field makes the survey easier than looking for elsewhere;
- The availability of farmers to respond to questions from the survey sheet;
- The meeting of farmers on the field makes it possible to observe the behaviour of the
farmer during the irrigation of their plots, as well as the quality of the drip irrigation system.
- The survey forms for the selected farms cover the following aspects:
- The characteristics of the plots surveyed (crops practiced, soil type, water source, irrigation
technics, the area) (See Annex 1 for more details);
- Irrigation schedule (frequencies and durations of crop irrigation) (See Annex 1);
- Income and expenses of installed crops in order to identify the economic performances
(See Annex 1).
3.4.1.2. Survey with Water user association and water guards
The surveys sheet developed during the discussion with the WUA’s and the water guards
contains the following elements (see Annex 2):
- Identification of WUA (name, area under control, number of members, date of Creation,
start date);
- Role of the association in the design and implementation of the project (choice of
companies for the installation of the system);
47
- Information on the collective conversion project in the sector: the various partners of the
project, date of commissioning of the drip network and the number of farmers benefiting
from the project;
- Role of water guards in controlling the operation counters, volumes consumed, and in the
event of a claim following a leak or a fault in the external network equipment.
3.4.1.3. Survey with responsible of ORMVAT
- These surveys were conducted through direct discussions with the responsible at the
ORMVAT to have information about this sector, the situation of the sector in the region and
data about conversion project in this sector.
- These discussions allowed us to understand:
o The framework of the conversion project in the sector pilot;
o The phase of study;
o The overall cost of the project;
o The choice of the project site;
o The evolution of the perimeter before and after the collective conversion project
regarding the yields and cropping pattern.
3.5. Field measurements
The evaluation of hydraulic performances and the irrigation management are two operations,
which require the realization of certain measurements, which require either the installation of the
equipment’s permanently, and/or temporarily at the experimental site.
These measures concerning the technical and agro-economic performance indicators as well
as the parameters for irrigation management:
3.5.1 Technical indicators
3.5.1.1. Distribution uniformity (DU) measurement
The distribution uniformity of the irrigation water on a plot depends on the uniformity of the
emitters flows ensuring the watering of this surface. The differences in flow rates between the
flows of the various drippers in operation, Come from the manufacturing process of the emitters,
clogging of the emitters, and pressure differences at each emitter. These pressure differences are
due to: Linear head losses along laterals, to the local head losses caused by the fixation of emitters
on laterals, and field topography.
Both design and maintenance influence the distribution uniformity (DU) of water in drip/micro
systems.
- Material for carrying out the Distribution uniformity test:

o Catch-cups;
o Timer, Stopwatch;
48
o Container;
o Graduated cylinders;
o Pots.
o Procedure:
The procedure applied to the field consists in measuring on four laterals, the flow rate of four
drippers:
o The measurement is conducted on the first and last laterals and those that are at the
third and two thirds of the mainline length;
o On each of these laterals chosen before, the emitters chosen are the first and last
drippers, thirds and two-thirds of the lateral length;
o Measure the flow rate of selected drippers;
o Measured flow rates are classified in ascending order;
o Then we calculate the average flow rate of the 16 emitters chosen.
Figure 18: Control points and selected laterals location for drip network evaluation.
The distribution uniformity of irrigation (DU) was calculated by the formula of Keller (1974):
 qmin lq 
DU(%) =   x100
 q 
 avg 
Where:
q min lq : is the mean application depth in the lowest quartile (mm or ml), and
Sum of the lowest values

q min lq =
4
49
q avg : is the mean application depth (mm or ml).
16
𝑞𝑖
qavg =∑
16
𝑖=1
The value of the CU makes it possible to judge the quality of the uniformity and the necessity
of the cleaning of the irrigation system. Merriam and Keller (1978) proposes the following
classification:
Table 9: Micro-irrigation system uniformity classification based on uniformity coefficient.
Uniformity coefficient, DU (%) Classification

Above 90 % excellent
90%-80% good
80%-70% Fair
70%-60% Poor
Below 60% Unacceptable
Source: Keller and Karmeli, 1975.
3.5.1.2. Pressure measurement
To check the functioning of a drip irrigation system, the pressure measurements at the
different points is one of the indicators that inform about the state of the network.
Pressure is measured at the start and output points of the laterals: (more favourable lateral,
more unfavourable lateral) using pressure gauges.
Figure 19: Pressure gauge for pressure measurement.
50
3.5.1.3. Monitoring of the irrigation scheduling
In order to know the irrigation frequencies and doses provided by the farmers during the
follow-up period, we have asked the farmers concerned to register the dates and duration of
irrigation for each crop.
The flows rates per each plot were calculated based on number of drippers per plot and the
average drippers flow rate.
For the monitoring of soil water content, an Amplitude Domain Reflectometric (ADR) sensor
(Soil Moisture Profile Probe PR2/6, Delta T Devices Ltd, UK) has been used for direct
measurements of soil water content. The PR2 soil moisture probe measures soil water content in
all soil types with minimal influence from either salinity or temperature. The PR2/6 measures soil
moisture at 6 depths down to 100 cm (10, 20, 30, 40, 60,100 cm) by means of access tubes that
have been installed into soil using specially designed auger equipment provided with the
instrument (annex). PR2 profile probe was inserting in the tubes and instantaneous readings will
display the LCD screen. The system record soil moisture changes over time which could be stored
to memory for later download to PC. Two access tubes will install in the middle of each plot to
have an idea about roots activity.The calibration of PR2/6 was needed because the soils can be
enormously different one from another (see annex 7).
In order to facilitate the interpretation of the results, we deemed appropriate to determine

moisture at field capacity and wilting point, soil texture in the laboratory. The values obtained are
given in the following table:
Table 10: The organic matter content, Field capacity and wilting point of the soil determined in the
laboratory for different horizons (ORMVAT, 2016).
Horizons Soil water Organic matter FC WP

(cm) content (%) content (%) (%) (%)
0 - 10 29.80 1.80 35 19
10 - 20 29.49 1.05 35 19
20 - 30 29.25 1.89 36 20
30 - 40 29.32 1.26 34 19
40 - 60 27.85 0.69 36 20
60 - 80 26.31 0.56 35 19
80 - 100 27.38 0.61 36 20
51
3.5.1.4. Monitoring of climatic parameters
3.5.1.5. Calculation of crop water requirements
Firstly, weather data were gathered from the meteorological station located in the first and the
third farm (F1, F3). Daily data (maximum and minimum temperature, precipitation, maximum and
minimum air relative humidity, solar radiation and wind speed) those data collected from 10/2016
to 08/2017.
Crop water requirements can be defined as the amount of water needed to maintain an
optimal moisture condition in the crop rooting depth, to compensate for water lost mainly through
the process of evapotranspiration (ET). The main factors affecting ET are the weather parameters,
crop characteristics, management and environmental conditions. Crop water requirements and
net irrigation requirements are calculated through the following steps:
- Estimation of reference evapotranspiration (ETo) using climatic data of project area.
- Estimation of crop evapotranspiration (ETc) considering crop coefficient (Kc) and reference
evapotranspiration (see annex 6).
- Determination of effective precipitation (Peff) from the precipitation data for the specific
area.
- Estimation of net irrigation requirement (NIR) as a difference between Crop
evapotranspiration and effective precipitation.
3.5.1.6. Reference evapotranspiration (ETo):
Reference evapotranspiration is defined as the evapotranspiration from a reference surface.

The reference surface is a hypothetical grass reference crop with an assumed crop height of 0.12
m, a fixed surface resistance of 70 s m-1 and an albedo of 0.23. It closely resembles an extensive
surface of green, well-watered grass of uniform height, actively growing and completely shading
the ground. The fixed surface resistance of 70 s m-1 implies a moderately dry soil surface resulting
from about a weekly irrigation frequency (FAO, 56)
Numerous empirical and physically based methods exist to determine ETo. The Penman-
Monteith method has been recommended by the FAO as the most appropriate physically-based
method to estimate ETo from climatic data (temperature, humidity, solar radiation, wind speed).
This equation can be written in the following form:
0.408  Rn  G   u 2 es  ea 

900
ETo  T  273
   1  0.34u 2 
Where:
ETo: the reference evapotranspiration (mm day-1),
52
Rn: the net radiation at the crop surface (MJ m-2 day-1),
G: The soil heat flux density (MJ m-2 day-1),
T: The mean daily air temperature at 2 m height (oC ),
: The slope vapor pressure curve (kPa oC-1 ),
: The psychrometric constant (0.066 kPa oC-1),
es: The saturated vapor pressure (kPa),
ea: The actual vapor pressure (kPa),
U2: The mean wind speed measured at 2 m height (m s-1).
Table 11: Daily ETo values for Souk Sebt calculated directly from the weather stations for the year
2016-2017.
Min Max
Humidity Wind Sun Rad ETo
Months Temp Temp
°C °C % m/s hours W/m² mm/day
Jan 1.2 33 66.4 3.2 3.4 114.39 1.2
Feb 0 25.2 75.4 7.4 4.2 163.22 1.7
Mar -0.2 27.6 74.3 6.4 5.4 217.89 2.8
Apr 3.9 31.1 71.6 5.4 6.6 248.82 3.6
May 7.5 41 66.4 5.6 8.1 214.41 3.9
Jun 13.1 42.9 48.9 11.1 9.8 249.78 5.5
Jul 16.8 45.6 48.6 7.9 14 228.46 5.4
Aug 15.1 43.1 44 7.9 16 207.53 4.5
Sept 11.2 34.9 60.8 3.5 9 155.8 2.4
Oct 9.4 33.1 68.2 7.9 7 129.81 2.3
Nov 3.5 30.3 74.3 8.6 5.2 123.91 1.5
Dec 0.2 21 77.7 1.6 4.3 148.77 1
Average 6.8 34.1 64.7 6.4 9.3 183.6 3.0
Source: CRTS weather station. 2016
3.5.1.7. Calculation of effective rainfall Peff
The choice of the appropriate method for calculating effective precipitation requires serious
reflection. Different methods have been developed, each taking into account the climate of the
region where the measurements are to be carried out. For our case, we have used USDA Soil
Conservation Method.
Peff = Pavg * (1 - 0.2 * Pavg / 125) pour Pavg < 250 mm/month
53
Peff = 125 + 0.1 * Pmoy pour Pavg > 250 mm/month
3.5.1.8. Crop evapotranspiration (ETc)
ETc is the evapotranspiration from disease-free, well-fertilized crops, grown in large fields,
under optimum soil water conditions and achieving full production under the given climatic
conditions. ETc can be calculated from climatic data taking into consideration crop characteristics
(FAO 56).
ETC = K C ∗ ETO
Evapotranspiration must be computed as transpiration from crop and transpiration from soil.in
micro irrigation only a part of the soil surface is wetted while the rest remains dry. In addiction in the
case of widely spaced crops, crop canopy coverage is also limited. Thus only a portion of sunlight
received at the soil surface is intercepted by crop canopy.
Therefore, factors that could reduce the evapotranspiration must be taken into account,
correction factors (Kr) computed using the percentage of crop canopy coverage of cultivated land
could be used to compute evapotranspiration for the limited area wetting (Verman and Jobling,
1984). Table contain correction factors values computed by different researchers according to
percentage canopy coverage of the cultivated area.
The ground cover is computed by the following formula (Keller and Karmeli FAO 36):
GC
Kr =
0.85
Where, GC is the ground cover fraction.
FAO (1984) provides the reduction factors suggested by various researchers in order to account
for the reduction in evapotranspiration.
Table 12: The correction factor (Kr) computed by different researchers according to percentage of
ground cover of the cultivated land (FAO, 1984).
Percent ground coverage Kr according to different researchers

by canopy GC(%) Keller and Karmeli Freeman and Gazoli Decroix (CTGREF)
10 0.12 0.10 0.20

20 0.24 0.20 0.30
30 0.35 0.30 0.40
40 0.47 0.40 0.50
50 0.59 0.75 0.60
60 0.70 0.80 0.70
70 0.82 0.85 0.80
80 0.94 0.90 0.90
90 1 0.95 1
100 1 1 1
Source: FAO, 2002.
54
The gound cover of each crop was estimated using an LAI-Ceptometer or AccuPARLP80 (see
annex 5) consisting of a microcontroller and an integrated probe 80 cm in length supporting 80
photodiodes that are sensitive to the PAR waveband (fraction of the spectrum of wavelengths
between 400 And 700 nm and is usable by plants). The microcontroller interprets the signals
transmitted by the probe and the PAR value is read on the device. It also calculates the solar
radiation intercepted by the canopy cover (PARt).
So the crop evapotranspiration become: ETC = K r ∗ K C ∗ ETO

The crop coefficient (Kc) integrates the effect of characteristics that distinguish a typical field
crop from the grass reference. Consequently, different crops will have different Kc coefficient. The
changing characteristics of the crop over the growing season also affect the value of Kc. Finally, as
evaporation is an integrated part of crop evapotranspiration, conditions affecting soil evaporation will
also have an effect on Kc.
In this study, several crops are considered for the study. Values of Kc, length of growing
seasons for each crop as well as other crop characteristics necessary for irrigation scheduling are
summarized in the table in annex 4.
3.5.1.9. Net and gross irrigation requirements
FAO(1984) defines the net irrigation requirements (NIR) as the amount of water that crops need
to satisfy the water losses by crop evapotranspiration after subtracting the amount of effective rainfall
(Peff).
𝑁𝐼𝑅 = 𝐸𝑇𝐶 − 𝑃𝑒𝑓𝑓
The gross irrigation requirement (GIR) is the amount of irrigation water that should be applied
at the head of irrigation field in order to satisfy the NIR. The GIR is obtained by dividing the amount
of the net irrigation requirement (NIR) for each crop by the application efficiency (E a) of the
irrigation method.
𝑁𝐼𝑅
𝐺𝐼𝑅 = 𝐸𝑎
Net irrigation requirements (NIR) were determined from the difference between the crop
evapotranspiration and the effective rainfall, which refers to the amount of rainfall that is available
for the plants.
3.5.1.10 Application efficiency
The application efficiencies of each drip irrigation at each farm are calculated by the following
formula (FAO 1984):
Ea = Ks ∗ CU
55
Where:
Ks: after last application of water, average soil moisture content in root zone depending on
soil type.
CU: coefficient of uniformity.
Table 13: Soil types and equivalent Ks (Vermerian and jobling, 1984)
Soil types Ks (%)

Gravel subsoil 87
Sandy soils 91
Clay loam 95
Loam and clay soil 100
3.5.1.11. Determination of applied irrigation volumes
The volume of water supplied to each plot in a given period is expressed by the following
formula:
Va = D ∗ Q
Where:
Q: Flow to plot (m3/h);
D: Duration of irrigation (h).
3.3.1.12. Calculation of crop water requirements satisfaction index (CWRSI)
Crop water requirement satisfaction index is calculated as the ratio between the applied
irrigation volumes (Va) and gross irrigation requirements (GIR).
Va
CWRSI = ∗ 100
GIR
- CWRSI: crop water requirement satisfaction index (%).

- Va and GIR are the applied irrigation volumes and the gross irrigation requirements over
the period considered in m3/ha.
3.6. Agro-economic indicators
The purpose of the agro-economic performance evaluation is to determine the gross margin
per hectare, and the irrigation water value per cubic meter for each selected farms. For this, it was
necessary to determine the following parameters:
56
3.6.1. Yields
The crop yields (t/ha) were estimated based on interviews with the sample farmers(The yield
can be total harvest yield (eg, fodder, grass) or seed yield (for cereals). In addition, crosschecked
with a broker in our study area, involved essentially in facilitating the selling and buying in the study
area.
3.6.2. The revenue
The income in dirham per hectare will be determined for each farms studied by the following
formula.
𝐷𝐻 𝑡𝑜𝑛 𝐷ℎ
Revenue ( ) = Crop yield ( ) ∗ The unit price of the crop( )
ℎ𝑎 ℎ𝑎 𝑡𝑜𝑛
3.6.3. Cost of production
Describe the average cost of producing one unit of the commodity. The production costs are
determined for each crop, Production cost including variable and fixed costs were obtained from
the declarations of farmers. Variable cost is given depending on crops, water consumption, and
the fixed cost (only for the perennial crops, citrus and olive trees) is strictly for the cost of plantation.
The expenditures to be taken into consideration are as follows:
Variable costs:
- Purchase of inputs (fertilizers, seeds, Hauling, pesticides, water etc...).

- Fuel, oil expenses is related to type of machinery used and operations performed for this
crop. Accordingly, the total expenses are divided by time or by hectares.
- Purchase of services: (rent, professional consultancy, product insurance, taxes on cars
and means of transportation, consortium services).
- Labor: include labor requirement provided by the farm operator and by hired labor. The
opportunity cost of farm operator labor is used to value labor.
- The cost of irrigation per plot is determined by applying the following formula:
DH DH m3
Irrigation cost ( ) = The cost per unit volume ( 3 ) ∗ The applied volume( )
ha m ha
Fixed Costs:
- Cost of plantation only for perennial crops.

- Depreciation: loss of value of assets used in the production process over the time
(Machinery depreciation, interests, insurance).
57
3.6.4. The net and gross margin
For the computation of the gross margin (Gm) and the net margin (Nm) of each crop, the
following formulas have been used.
𝐺𝑚𝑐 = 𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑐 ∗ 𝑌𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑𝑐 − 𝑉𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑐 + 𝐷𝑝𝑎𝑦
- Gmc: gross margin (DH/ha)

- Pricec: crop price (DH/ton)
- Yieldc: crop yield (ton/ha)
- Vcostc: variable costs (DH/ha)
- Dpay: direct payment (subsidies)
𝑁𝑚𝑐 = 𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑐 ∗ 𝑌𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑𝑐 − 𝑉𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑐 − 𝐾𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑐 + 𝐷𝑝𝑎𝑦
- Nmc: net margin (DH/ha)

- Kcostc: fixed (i.e. plantation) cost (DH/ha)
3.6.5. Water use efficiency
Water productivity (WP) or water use efficiency is defined as the ratio between the actual crop
yield achieved (kg/ha) and water consumption through irrigation (m3/ha). For our case, we have
considered the water productivity in term of total irrigation water use per crop. The objective of
determining the agronomic efficiency of water use per crop is to evaluate and compare the water
inputs of the crops in the different farms surveyed in the study area.
3.6.6. Economic valuation of irrigation water
The economic value calculated as the amount of crop output in economic terms (gross
margin) divided by the irrigation water consumption per each crop, the valuation of each m3 of
water consumed is deduced.
58
Chapter 4: Results and Discussion
4.1. Introduction
We first looked at the results of the surveys carried out, about the choice of the cropping
system, level of farmers in using drip irrigation, use of groundwater, marketing of farms products,
the problems encountered after the implementation of the conversion project and the adaptions
introduced.
The second part is about the analysis of irrigation management and irrigation practices of
farmers by monitoring soil moisture using a capacitance probe at 13 measuring sites (access tube)
for a period of 260 days. It aims at determining the parameters of the water balance equation.
The third part focuses on the evaluation of technical and agro-economic performances of the
project, by calculating different indicators, including: the uniformity of distribution, the pressure
variation, the crop water requirements satisfaction index, application efficiency, water use
efficiency (WUE), gross margin and profitability of irrigation water. The practical part consists of
the realization of surveys and measurements in 23 farms located in the pilot sector.
4.2. Choice of cropping systems
According to the surveys carried out, it was observed that the rotation follows a slight
evolution. Before the conversion project, the crops practiced by the surveyed farmers were
mainly: Alfalfa that allows the farmers to provide forage for their livestock’s and a frequent income,
cereal crops, because it is still an essential element for the food, and sugar beet because it makes
it possible to cover production costs and its marketing is guaranteed. Fruit trees is also present in
the pilot sector, particularly citrus and olive trees, as they are high value-added crops.
After the conversion project, about 75% of the farmers surveyed saved the same rotation
after the implementation of the project. From this sample, 70% do not foresee a change in the
coming years, because of marketing difficulties and market saturation, while 29% of these farmers
intend to introduce new crops as tomato and potato. Some farmers are waiting for the end of the
alfalfa cycle to replace it. However, others only changed the areas allocated to each crop. Among
these same farmers, 55% have a vision to practice in the coming years new high-value crops such
horticultural crops, pepper, chickpea, quinoa and fruit trees.
4.3. Level of technical capacity of the farmers in using drip irrigation technique
According to the responses of farmers interviewed in relation to the degree of knowledge of

the drip irrigation systems, it was noticed that 80% of farmers have an average level of knowledge
about the operation of drip irrigation equipment. Indeed, during the last two years, they have been
able to acquire a modest experience that allowed them to manage their drip irrigation installations.
A percentage of 12% of surveyed farmers are in the technical learning phase, they have many
problems in irrigation practices, which reflects the quality of the drip installations, which are
generally in poor condition, while 8% of farmers in the pilot sector have a satisfactory level of
59
knowledge in relation to drip irrigation equipment. This is due to their learning of drip irrigation from
large farms, which has allowed them to produce better, since they are constantly looking for new
techniques and irrigation practices.
The different levels mentioned are the basis of farmers' responses to the operation of drip
irrigation equipment, achieved yield, irrigation water consumption, as well as my own judgment
regarding the drip irrigation equipment, its quality and its functioning at the plot level.
90%
80%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20% 12%
8%
10%
0%
Learning phase Medium level Satisfactory level
Figure 20: Level of technicality of the farmers in using drip technique.
The level of technicality of the farmers in using drip irrigation technique has a direct impact on
the evolution of the farms. Indeed, a good mastery of the technique leads to good yields and better
water management within the plot.
4.4. Use of groundwater
Among the objectives of the collective conversion project, improving the level of awareness
of farmers in terms of groundwater use is a major objective, because of the overexploitation.
Indeed, the passage from surface to drip irrigation should help reduce pressure on groundwater
resources.
From our surveys, we have deduced that 43% (10/23) of the farmers have wells or tube wells in
their farms. Of these farmers, 15% practice a conjunctive use system between groundwater and
surface water, while 67% rarely use groundwater only in case of water cut due to storms that
cause turbidity of water coming from the dam. However, 22% of the farmers have abandoned the
use of groundwater because pumping is more expensive than using surface water.
60
4.5. Marketing of farms products
Regarding the mode of product marketing, it differs depending on the crops. For vegetable
crops, 90% of farmers sell their products on the field, because of the high demand for
transportation and storage facilities in the harvest seasons, in order to protect the harvest from
deteriorating. The rest of the farmers (10%), sell their products locally (local market).
For corn silage, the sale takes place in the field, while for the rest of the fodder products and
cereal products, farmers favor selling it during the weekly market, as a result of price fluctuations
in agricultural products due to the imbalance in supply and demand.
In the study area, we have noticed that most of the farmers are illiterate and ignorant of the
accurate prices ruling in the markets. The intermediaries enjoy the benefits of selling the
agricultural goods to the consumers at a higher price and give lower returns to the farmers. This
is another problem facing the marketing of agricultural goods in the study area.
4.6. Problems encountered after the implementation of the project
According to the results of the survey, it was possible to reveal the degree of satisfaction of
the farmers interviewed in relation to the collective conversion project.
Indeed, 40% of farmers are not satisfied with their drip installations compared with 60% whose
equipment is considered to be of good quality. The main reason behind these claims is the poor
quality of some equipment installed by some drip irrigation companies. We have noticed that after
a period not exceeding 3 years, the equipment is in poor conditions, leaks are noticed everywhere,
in addition to the problems of clogging that are identified in most of the farms. The reason behind
the leaks and problems of clogging is that suppliers have chosen a poor quality of drip irrigation
equipment’s (cheapest one).
Furthermore, pressure problems are strongly evoked by all farmers. Indeed, the farms located
near the filtration station have high pressure that can reach 1.8 bar, so the drip irrigation equipment
is affected. For other farmers, including those who are far from the pumping station, the pressures
are low, which leads to low flow rates.
More than 80% do not know the utility of each device and do not know how to use it (fertilizer
tank, pressure gage, pressure regulator) which means there is a lack of support and
accompaniment of farmers by the stakeholders.
Conclusion:
After focusing on the equipment process of the pilot sector, and the impact of the project on
the population in the region, several problems were identified after the project was set up. These
problems are essentially technical, which has led farmers in the sector to introduce several
adaptations to their drip irrigation.
61
4.7. Analysis of Irrigation Performances
The objective of this section is to calculate a set of indicators that can be used to evaluate the
performances of drip irrigation at farm and plot level, through identification of problems and
measurements to correct and improve them afterwards.
These indicators are classified into two types:
- Technical
- Agro-economic
4.8. Technical performance
To analyze the technical performance of irrigation, it is necessary to start with analyzing

irrigation practices by the farmers.
4.8.1. Analysis of irrigation practices
To characterize the irrigation practices of the farmers, a monitoring of soil water content was
carried out at 13 sites located in the selected farms (F1 and F2) chosen to judge the frequency
and duration of irrigation practiced (irrigation scheduling).
4.8.1.1. Soil moisture monitoring
The monitoring of soil water contents was performed using profile probes that allowed us to
measure soil moisture content at different depths within the soil profile.
Measurements by the PR2/6 are taken daily from October 2016 to May 2017. Subsequently,
a series of meteorological data was established for each plot belonging to the two farms.
4.8.1.2. Monitoring the soil water content of citrus plot
The citrus plot, where eight measuring access tubes are installed, has an area of 3.9 ha. The
results show an important fluctuation in soil moisture, particularly in the 10 and 20 cm horizons,
during the month of April and from the second decade of May. The fluctuations of the soil moisture
are minor on the 30 and 40 cm horizons, and are very low in the deeper horizons, 60 and 100 cm.
This is due to the clay loam soil texture, which is characterized by a high water retention capacity,
most of this water is tightly bound and is not available to plants.
62
volumetric water content(m3/m3)

0,400 45
0,350 40
irrigation or rainfall(mm)
0,300 35
0,250 30
25
0,200
20
0,150 15
0,100 10
0,050 5
0,000 0
Date
Irrigation (mm) Rainfall(mm) 10 cm 20cm 30cm 40cm 60cm 100cm
Figure 21: Monitoring of volumetric soil water content at plot C1 – citrus crop.
We notice that irrigation is managed by low frequencies (long duration separating two
successive irrigations), as indicated in the figure above.
- The superficial horizon (10 cm) is more susceptible to evaporation. Moreover, with distant
inputs, the fluctuation of the moisture tends to be stable between two irrigations.
- The 30 and 40 cm horizons concentrate the maximum number of active roots for a crop
grown under localized irrigation, which is explained by a strong suction and high water
demand. This demand is accentuated in April and May, which correspond to the critical
periods of the plant, where, the cellular activity is intense (flowering in March, fruit set in
April and fruit enlargement in May and June) and an unusual rise in temperature is noticed
at these periods. On the contrary, these horizons have a high water retention thanks to the
texture and richness in organic matter, as is proved by soil analysis. With high irrigation
frequencies, the fluctuations of the soil moisture at these horizons are justified.
- It can be concluded that the soil water content depends on climatic conditions, soil texture,
soil organic matter, soil tillage, amount and frequency for irrigation application.
63
4.8.1.3. Monitoring the soil water content of Sugar beet 1 plot
The SB1 plot has an area of 0.75 ha, planted with Sugar beet, and includes 2 measurement
sites.
0,4 35
30
irrigation or rainfall(mm)
0,35
volumetric water content(m3/m3)
25
0,3 20
0,25 15
10
0,2
5
0,15 0
1 9 19 30 41 48 56 64 73 81 83 88 96 102 108 118 124 129 135 140 146 152
Day after sowing
Figure 22: Monitoring of volumetric soil water content at plot SB1.
- The fluctuation between depletion and water supply is very significant at the level of the
area that can be explored by the roots. This type of fluctuations of the soil moisture curve
gives the impression that we are faced with a surface irrigation method, this hypothesis is,
confirmed by the date of the water supply. This is due to the anchoring of the surface
irrigation method in the mentality of the farmer.
- These fluctuations concern mainly the first three horizons, especially that of 10 to 20 cm
where the roots are concentrated and which mean high roots extraction. Fluctuations are
observed in February and March, corresponding to the vegetative stage, storage root
growth period and a higher water needs for sugar beet.
- In the initial growing phase, the root depth is shallow and high water amount were applied
(50 mm). In fact, deep percolation is important in the first phases of crop growth stage.
- It can be seen that the moisture at the 20 cm horizon is higher than the surface moisture,
this can be explained by the high root density explained by high water extraction.
- At depths ranging from 60 to 100 cm, moisture values remain constant, due to the high
clay content, which is in the order of 44 to 46%, the soils become tacky and very
impermeable, constituting therefore a barrier to capillary upwelling and infiltration.
64
4.8.1.4. Monitoring the soil water content of Sugar beet 2 plot
The sugar beet plot (SB2), where two measuring access tubes are installed, has an area of
0.95 ha.
0,45 80
0,4 70
Volumetric water content(m3/m3)
Rainfall or irrigation(mm)
60
0,35
50
0,3
40
0,25
30
0,2
20
0,15 10
0,1 0
41
152
1
9
19
30
48
56
64
73
81
83
88
96
102
108
118
124
129
135
140
146
153
159
162
169
176
180
187
193
197
202
204
209
Day after sowing
Figure 23: Monitoring of volumetric soil water content at plot SB2
- In general, there is an increase in the soil moisture following each supply of irrigation water or
rain. However, in the 201th day after sowing, the water supply is followed by a decrease in the
soil moisture in the depths of 10 to 20 cm, explained by evaporation and absorption by the
roots. The graph shows two remarkable decreases in 81 and 159th DAS in the 20 and 30 cm
horizons, which can be explained by high crop water consumption by the plant because this
period corresponds to storage root growth period.
- We can notice that the irrigation of 70 mm occurred all in one day, which is not suitable for the
drip irrigation method. The farmer irrigates with the same manner as surface irrigation
(because the study area has been recently converted from surface to drip irrigation).
- It should be noted that the irrigation at the 209th day after sowing might not be useful because
it occurs at the end of the crop cycle on the one hand, and on the other hand, the soil moisture
remains high due to the high irrigation inputs at the 202th DAS.
- In the initial growing phase, the root depth is shallow and high water amounts were applied
(50 mm). In fact, deep percolation is important in the first phases of crop growth stage.
4.8.2. Soil Water balance
The water balance method is based on the conservation of mass which states that change in
soil water content ∆S of a root zone of a crop is equal to the difference between the amount of
water added to the root zone, Qi, and the amount of water withdrawn from it Qo, (Hillel, 1998) in
a given time interval expressed as in the following equation:
∆𝐒 = 𝑸𝒊 − 𝑸𝒐
65
This equation can be used to determine actual evapotranspiration of a given crop as follows:
𝑬𝑻𝒂 = 𝑷 + 𝑰 + 𝑪𝑹 − 𝑹𝑶 − 𝑫 ± ∆𝐒
Where ∆S = change in root zone soil moisture storage, P = Precipitation, I = Irrigation, CR =

upward capillary rise into the root zone, R = Runoff, D = Deep percolation beyond the root zone,
ET = evapotranspiration. All quantities are expressed as volume of water per unit land area (depth
units).
In order to use this equation to determine the actual evapotranspiration (ET), other
parameters must be measured or estimated. It is relatively easy to measure the amount of water
added to the field by rain and irrigation. For our case, the irrigation technique is drip irrigation,
which means that, the amount of runoff is generally small, we have thus considered it negligible.
In addition, the groundwater table is so deep (80 m), capillary rise CR is considered negligible and
because the soil texture is clay loam which means very slow infiltration rates. These soils, when
thoroughly wetted, have a very slow rate of water transmission so also the deep percolation D is
considered negligible for orange trees plot. For sugar beet, we have taken into consideration
rooting depth to determine the deep percolation, we have tried to see at the beginning of the
season what are the variations of soil water content in the first 30 cm and in the rest of profile
assuming that those in the deeper layers (below 30 cm) are due to deep percolation. The change
in soil water storage ∆S is estimated from the daily measured soil water content before and after
irrigation or rainfall, using a profile probe PR2/6.
We have assumed for the initial growing phase the root depth of sugar beet as 30 cm and
then we have increased it with the crop growth and development. In fact, deep percolation is
important in the first phases of crop growth when root is shallow and high water amounts were
applied.
In the following, we will compare the cumulative actual evapotranspiration (AET) and the
cumulative crop evapotranspiration (ETc) to assess irrigation practices and their influence on soil
moisture and crop.
The following graph shows the evolution of the cumulative actual evapotranspiration for sugar
beet (SB1) and cumulative crop evapotranspiration in farm F1.
66
4.8.2.1. Sugar beet, plot SB1
350
Evapotranspiration(mm)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
DAS
cumulative AET cumulative ETM
evapotranspiration for plot SB1 (until DAS 152).
35
30
25
20
15
10
irrigation(mm) Gross irrigation requirements(mm)
a plot of sugar beet (SB1).
For the first growth stage, the actual evapotranspiration is less than maximum
evapotranspiration; this are because for the beginning of this stage there is no transpiration only
evaporation and most losses are due to evaporation and deep percolation.
Then, it can be seen that after the 108th DAS, crop evapotranspiration considerably exceeds
the actual evapotranspiration. This can be explained by high evaporation and high climatic
demand , so the water stress coefficient Ks is less than 1, because in this period the farmer didn’t
67
apply enough water, since the farmer irrigates sugar beet, with the same manner as surface
irrigation, with high doses that reach 50 mm and low frequency of irrigation (15 days). Indeed, the
farmer brought variable irrigation doses to sugar beet, it can be more than the crop water
requirements, or less than the crop water requirement.
Two main reasons can be put forward to explain the high values of the volumes of water
supplied at the beginning of the crop growth cycle:
1. For some systems, we see poor water supply to the plot due to network design and
maintenance problems, which farmers compensate by bringing more water.
2. For other systems, we observe farmer's ambition for excellent yields, and over-irrigation
with the aim to avoid water stress and yield losses.
The main reasons can be put forward to explain the low values of the volumes of water
supplied at the end of the crop growth cycle, this is because the farmer though that, if he bring
less water the sugar content in the beet will be more and he will gain more, so famer farmers have
agro-economic motivations.
4.8.2.2. Sugar beet, plot SB2
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
48
1
9
19
30
41
56
64
73
81
83
88
96
102
108
118
124
129
135
140
146
152
153
159
162
169
176
180
187
193
197
202
204
209
Day after sowing
evapotranspiration for plot SB2.
68
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 9 19 96 108 124 129 135 159 169 176 180 193 197 202 209
Irrigation (mm) Gross irrigation requirements(mm)
a sugar beet plot (SB2).
Concerning Sugar beet 2 plot, the AET approximates the ETM during the monitoring period.
However, there is a significant decrease in AET at the end of the crop growth cycle.
It is found that for SB2 plot, the actual evapotranspiration AET is near the maximum
evapotranspiration ETM at the beginning of the crop growth cycle, but at the end is less than the
maximum evapotranspiration. This is explained by the high water supply, which compensate in
excess the withdrawals of the plant and the climatic demand. Indeed, the farmer brings to the
sugar beet a volume that largely exceeds the crop water requirements at the beginning of the
cycle, since they irrigate the sugar beet with the same manner as surface irrigation, i.e. with doses
that reach 70 mm. Farmer under-irrigates sugar beet at the end of the crop cycle to have more
sugar content and to obtain higher economic benefit.
This farmer wanted to be sure that whatever happened, his crop would not suffer from water
stress and his yield would not be adversely affect.
69
4.8.2.3. Citrus plot
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Date
evapotranspiration for plot C1.
We notice that the actual evapotranspiration is less than maximum evapotranspiration; this is
because the irrigation was insufficient and not frequent. Therefore, the readily available water
(RAW) is drawn, the plant is then under conditions of water stress and partially closes its stomata,
so the water stress coefficient Ks was less than one.
At the end, we notice that the actual evapotranspiration was near the maximum
evapotranspiration, which means that the plant consumes the readily available water and is in its
optimal conditions of growth and development. The irrigation input therefore responds accurately
to the climatic demand and the crop water requirements.
This farmer under irrigate his plot, the main reason for the low volumes applied is that farmer
was not aware of the bad application efficiency (53%) of his system. Therefore, he was not trying
to compensate for the poor distribution uniformity of his irrigation systems by applying more water.
4.8.2.4. Conclusion
Because of volumetric soil moisture measurements in three plots, the following conclusions
can be drawn:
- The irrigation doses applied vary from one farmer to another, even if it is the same crop.
Indeed, the farmer bases his decisions to irrigate or not on the phenological aspect and the soil
70
moisture state of the surface layer of the soil, which is demonstrated by the difference in terms of
irrigation water supply. This difference is reflected by the fluctuations in soil moisture levels
observed in the farms monitored.
- Under-irrigation or over-irrigation can cause enormous fluctuations in soil moisture at

different soil layers, which affects the growth of plants. Indeed, over-irrigation can cause
waterlogging, root asphyxia, and death of the plant, while sub-irrigation can lead to the non-
satisfaction of crop water requirements, which results in low yields. Therefore, irrigation
management is necessary to control the doses of water applied, and to fit the real crop water
needs.
- According to irrigation practices for each farmer, the actual evapotranspiration can be less,
equal to the maximum evapotranspiration. Indeed, during our analysis, we have found that the
dose and the frequency of irrigation constitutes determining factors of the variation of the water
state of the soil. These factors vary from farm to farm and from one crop to another.
Two main reason can be put forward, to explain the high values of the applied volumes. We
observe a farmer's ambition for get excellent yields, and wishing to avoid all circumstances that
could affect adversely the yield.
4.9. Evaluation of technical (hydraulic) performances
The hydraulic performance of drip irrigation systems were evaluated for selected plots at each
of 23 farms. The pressure variation was measured upstream and downstream of each plots
together with the coefficient of uniformity at the plots.
4.9.1. Pressure variations
After making pressure measurements using a pressure gauge in all surveyed farms, the
results are as follows (Table 14).
The analysis of the table 14 of pressure variation measures reflects that:
- In general, the measured pressure values vary considerably from one farm to another.
They oscillate between 0.5 to 1.8 bars. The farms located more close to the filtration and
pumping stations had higher pressure than those located far from the station.
- 26% of surveyed farms have high average downstream pressure more than 1.2 bar. This
is mainly because those farms located close to the pumping station and due to the absence
of pressure regulator upstream. Moreover, the farmers do not respect the irrigation rules
and sectorization (number of blocks under irrigation simultaneously is less than the
recommended blocks in operation).
- 9% of farms have a low downstream pressure less than 0.8 bar. This is mainly because
those farms are located far from the pumping station, and this is due to not respect of
sectorial water distribution plan (number of blocks in operation exceeds design number).
The analysis of Table 14 below shows that the head losses varies from 0.1 bar to 0.4 bar in
all farms. The farms with the minimum head losses values are (F17, and F20) due to, the regular
71
cleaning and maintenance made by farmers investigated in this area contributed to the reduction
of head losses within the plots. The size of plots and proper design of on-farm systems were
another reasons for proper functioning of irrigation systems.
In the case of farms having the high head losses values, case of (F3, F11 and, F14) opposite
characteristics were observed. They had the problems of clogging and plugging of drippers, as
well as the poor quality of the drip installations that reduce the performance of the network and
generates huge water losses.
3,00
y = 0,9109x + 1,1306
R² = 0,9534
Average drippers flow rate(l/h)
2,50
2,00
1,50
1,00
0,50
0,00
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2
Upstream pressure(bar)
Figure 29: Relationship between the upstream pressure and measured average drippers flow rate.
The relationship between the upstream pressure and measured average drippers flow rate
(Figure 29) confirmed the strong linear function (R2=0.95) and the variation of pressure and water
distribution among the plots. Moreover, it helps to identify the eventual specific problems related
to the management and maintenance of irrigation systems at plot scale and, eventually, to the
quality and age of installed irrigation equipment. Since all data follows the linear relationship
between the drippers flow rate and upstream pressure it seems that there is no operation problems
at the plot scale and that the pressure regulation upstream is needed to reduce the variability of
flow rate among the plots.
72
Table14: Hydraulic characteristics of drip irrigation systems measured for selected plots for each of 23 farms.
Farms F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20 F21 F22 F23
WUAs Al ittihad Al Omrania

Sugar Olive Olive Sugar Sugar Sugar
Citrus Cereal Onion Onion Alfalfa Pepper Cereal Cereal Alfalfa Pepper Citrus Pepper Alfalfa Mint Mint Cereal Potato
Crops beet tree tree beet beet beet
Nominal
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
pressure(bar)
Acceptable
discharge 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%
variation
Allowable
total pressure 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21
variations(bar)
Average
upstream 1.83 0.82 1.18 1.16 1.14 1.2 1.12 1.17 1.2 0.94 0.9 1.1 0.9 1.46 1.6 1.7 1.1 0.7 1.1 1.68 1 1.5 1.3
pressure(bar)
Coefficient of
5.2% 5.4% 5.8% 4.2% 2.7% 2.9% 3.4% 1.7% 5.9% 4.4% 4.1% 6.3% 4.5% 3.1% 2.8% 5.6% 4.9% 4.6% 3.5% 4.6% 3.2% 4.6% 3.8%
variation (%)
Average
downstream 1.61 0.62 0.93 1 0.9 1.1 1 1 1.1 0.8 0.5 0.98 0.7 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.02 0.4 0.97 1.46 0.93 1.4 1.1
pressure(bar)
Coefficient of
5.1% 5.3% 5.2% 4.1% 2.6% 2.7% 3.3% 1.8% 5.6% 4.1% 4.6% 6.1% 4.3% 3.6% 2.3% 5.5% 4.6% 4.8% 3.3% 4.2% 3.5% 4.2% 3.6%
variation (%)
Total head
0.22 0.2 0.25 0.16 0.24 0.1 0.12 0.17 0.1 0.14 0.4 0.12 0.2 0.26 0.2 0.3 0.08 0.3 0.13 0.22 0.07 0.1 0.2
losses(bar)
Average
drippers flow 2.79 1.84 2.28 2.15 2.12 2.30 2.23 2.14 2.16 1.95 1.92 2.21 2.01 2.51 2.44 2.70 2.09 1.79 2.09 2.68 2.00 2.55 2.38
rate(l/h)
Average
uniformity 68% 81% 90% 89% 91% 93% 93% 96% 93% 88% 85% 96% 89% 86% 81% 79% 96% 76% 92% 73% 91% 79% 87%
coefficient (%)
73
4.9.2. Distribution uniformity
The measurements of distribution uniformities had been done, for 76 plots at 23 farms in order
to get an idea about the distribution of water at plots and farm level and to assess the performance
of the installed system.
The results of the evaluation of distribution uniformity in 23 farms belonging to two WUA’s is
presented in the Annex 8 and in Figure 30.
60%
PERCENTAGE OF SURVEYED PLOTS
50%
53%
40%
41%
30%
20%
10%
4% 1,3% 1,3%
0%
Excellent Good Fair Poor Unacceptable
CLASSIFICATION
Figure 30: Percentage of farmers according to the uniformity coefficients (excellent CU≥90%, good
80%≤CU<90%, fair 70%≤CU<80%, poor 60%≤CU<70%, unacceptable CU<60%).
Based on the analysis of the values of the uniformity coefficient calculated for the plots (76
plots) surveyed, we found that:
- Almost 53% of plots have an excellent uniformity, because the uniformity coefficient
exceeds 90%, this is explained by the fact that the irrigation equipment is newly installed.
The successful completion of the study by the delegated companies, as well as the good
maintenance of the equipment by the farmers.
- 41% of surveyed plots have a satisfactory uniformity, which varies between 80% and 90%,
this values due to an insufficient maintenance of network despite the fact that the
equipment is newly installed, which necessitates frequent cleaning of the network.
- 6% of farms have poor uniformity (CU≤80%), this is explained by the emitters clogging
(Physical clogging: caused by suspended inorganic particles (sand, silt, clay),) and
development of weeds and their winding around the laterals and drippers and wear and
manufacturer variation. The poor uniformity in these plots is explained mainly by the
degradation of the material that has not been renewed since its installation. Consequently,
the age of the systems is decisive in explaining the differences in uniformity coefficients
observed.
Factors explaining the bad uniformity of the systems newly installed, design problems, high
or low pressure, especially in the absence of pressure-compensating drippers, these pressure
74
differences would lead to differences in discharge. The variation of the coefficient of uniformity
and upstream and downstream pressure were measured 25 times for a selected plot at each of
23 farms and the average values are given in Figure 30. The relationship between the coefficient
of uniformity and upstream and downstream pressures (Figure 31) confirmed the satisfactory
performance of the system within the range of nominal pressure for drip irrigation (0.8-1.2 bars).
100% 2
90% 1,8
Uniformity coefficient(%)
80% 1,6
70% 1,4
Pressure(bar)
60% 1,2
50% 1
40% 0,8
30% 0,6
20% 0,4
10% 0,2
0% 0
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20 F21 F22 F23
Average uniformity coefficient(%) Average upstream pressure(bar)

Average downstream pressure(bar)
Figure 31: The variation of average coefficient of uniformity and upstream and downstream
pressures for selected plots at 23 farms.
100%
90%
80%
Uniformity coefficient(%)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2
Upstream Pressure(bar)
(a)
75
100%
90%
80%
Uniformmity coefficient(%)
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8
Downstream pressure(bar)
(b)
Figure 32: Relationship between the uniformity coefficient and upstream pressure (a) and uniformity
coefficient and downstream pressure (b).
From this figure we can deduce that the uniformity coefficient is closely related to the pressure
variation since the system is newly installed, farms with high or low pressure seems to have the
lowest uniformity coefficients. Moreover, it is possible to identify the farms (F1) which could have
some specific technical problems related to the design, operation and maintenance. On field
survey confirmed that the irrigation equipment at F1 was obsolete (because it was installed already
in 2007) which was one factor of the explanation of the low coefficient of uniformity. The second
farm with the relatively old irrigation equipment was F15 – however, this farmer does regular
maintenance of the drip irrigation system and reparation and substitutions of not-functioning
components.
4.9.3. Application efficiency
The application efficiency of water use (Ea) is calculated by multiplying the coefficient of
uniformity and the efficiency of irrigation (Ks) which refers to the average water stored in root
volume per average water applied and depends mainly on soil texture. For our case soil texture
of the study area is clay loam, which means that Ks=95% .The efficiency of the irrigation Ks for
our case is equal to 95% for all farms since the soil texture was the same (result of the soil particle
size analysis carried out by the ORMVAT). The results of elaboration of application efficiency are
given in Figure 30.
76
100% 91%
88% 89% 88% 88% 90%
88% 87% 87% 86% 85% 84% 85%
90% 82% 84%
80% 82% 81%
77% 77% 80% 78%
application efficiency(%)
80%
67%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Farms
Figure 33: weighted Average application efficiencies at farms scale
From the analysis of the figure (for more details see annex 9), we remark that the range of
weighed average application efficiency is between 67% and 92 % in all surveyed farms. The
variations of application efficiencies, from one farm to another, depends only on the coefficient of
uniformity, i.e. Christiansen coefficient (CU). Therefore, the application efficiency for my case
depends mainly on the factors affecting distribution uniformity, as well as irrigation management,
pressure effect, plugging, filtration system and chemicals injection (chlorination and acid
injections).
Analysis of the application efficiency (refer to all 76 plots, see the annex 9 for more details)
shows that:
- 9% of surveyed farms have an excellent application efficiency (more than 90%);

- 74% of surveyed farms have a good to satisfactory application efficiency (from 80% to
90%);
- 17% of farms have a poor application efficiency (from 53 to 80%).
4.9.4. Calculation of crop water requirements
The purpose of calculating crop water requirements is to determine the crop water
requirements satisfaction index and, therefore, to have an idea about how much water was used
effectively in respect to estimated crop water requirements. In addition, it will help to judge the
quality of the irrigation management by the farmers by determining water supply.
4.9.4.1. Reference evapotranspiration
The weather data are given by two meteorological stations (CRTS1 and CRTS2) in the study
area. The data provided by the integrated station allows the calculation of the reference
evapotranspiration using the Penman-Monteith method (calculated directly by software of the
meteorological stations).
77
In order to calculate the net irrigation requirements per growing cycle that extends into
September, we have used the meteorological data for the period 2016-2017.
The two meteorological stations give the measured rainfall as well as the daily mean reference
evapotranspiration values calculated by the Penman-Monteith method.
Table 15: Average daily evapotranspiration and rainfall calculated by two meteorological stations in
the study area (zone CDA535, 2016-2017).
Months Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
ETo (mm/day) 2.4 2.3 1.5 1 1.2 1.7 2.8 3.6 3.9 5.5 5.4 4.5
ETo (mm/month) 72 71.3 45 31 37.2 47.6 86.8 108 120.9 165 167.4 139.5
Pav (mm/month) 0.2 12.2 2 0.2 29 69.8 18.6 0 26.8 1 0 0
Peff (mm/month) 0.16 9.76 1.6 0.16 23.2 55.84 14.88 0 0 0.8 0 0
Source: CRTS meteorological station, 2017
4.9.5. Gross and net irrigation requirements
The values of the net and gross water requirements of the selected crops from the 23 farms
surveyed is presented in Table 16:
Table 16: Net and gross irrigation requirements.
Gross
Net irrigation Application
Planting/sowing Harvesting irrigation
Farms WUA's Crops requirements efficiency
date date requirements
(m3/ha) Ea (%)
(m3/ha)
F1 Mandarin trees 8369 64% 13020
Orange trees 8369 53% 15786
Sugar beet 25 October 3 June 3956 85% 5137
F2 Sugar beet 26 October 7 June 4110 77% 4570
F3 Olive trees 5282 86% 6160
Sugar beet 21 October 16 may 3370 89% 3802
Wheat 3 November 27 may 2291 83% 2744
Alfalfa 9598 90% 10719
Mint 9598 91% 10566
F4 Sugar beet 4 November 6 June 4013 89% 4522
Al ittihad
Wheat 13 November 29 May 3676 84% 4353
Alfalfa 9598 73% 13117
Barley 2 November 16 May 2370 77% 3080
Olive trees 5282 87% 6091
Spring wheat 2 December 5 May 2474 88% 2806
Alfalfa 9598 88% 10864
Onion 4 October 28 April 2480 89% 2800
78
Gross
(m3/ha) Ea (%)
(m3/ha)
Alfalfa 9598 84% 11381
Onion 28 February 2 July 2480 88% 2805
Barley 2 December 27 May 2370 87% 2717
F8 Alfalfa 9598 92% 10474
Wheat 5 December 26 May 2474 90% 2737
Alfalfa 9598 93% 10354
Mint 9867 92% 10762
F9 Alfalfa 9598 91% 10490
Oats 2 December 24 May 1978 88% 2243
Alfalfa 9598 83% 11559
Bell pepper 4 May September 3858 89% 4341
Mint 9867 88% 11206
F10 Maize March July 5280 84% 6317
Alfalfa 9598 80% 12043
Al ittihad 22
Alfalfa 9598 82% 11773
Wheat 6 November 26 May 2609 87% 3004
Bean 1 November 20 May 2854 80% 3578
F12 Barley 2 November 31 May 2589 91% 2847
Sugar beet 28 October 3 June 3951 87% 4545
Carrot September November 1588 92% 1731
Alfalfa 9598 88% 10855
F13 Maize March July 5280 85% 6182
Sugar beet November June 4338 83% 5201
Alfalfa 9598 85% 11344
Zucchini 6 June September 4277 88% 4871
F14 Bell pepper May September 3915 82% 4755
Onion October April 2480 86% 2871
79
Gross
(m3/ha) Ea (%)
(m3/ha)
F15 Citrus 8369 77% 9576

Maize December May 5280 82% 6445
Alfalfa 9598 77% 12517
Bean 4 November 31 May 3257 83% 3922
F17 Alfalfa 9598 91% 10540
Cereals 4 November 13 May 2610 86% 3022
Cereals 16 November 8 May 2610 78% 3327
Alfalfa 9598 83% 11624
F19 Mint 9598 87% 11012
AL
30
Omrania
Carrot 2 September November 1588 90% 1759
F20 Mint 9598 86% 11113
Tomato March July 3807 84% 4510
F21 Alfalfa 9598 91% 10573
Oats November 27 May 2610 89% 2940
F22 Wheat November 25 May 2532 87% 2909
Alfalfa 9598 87% 11051
Carrot September November 1588 81% 1956
Sugar beet 5 November 22 June 5218 75% 6944
Potato 5 April August 6791 83% 8233
F23
Alfalfa 9598 79% 12077
This table shows that the crop water requirements of the same crops vary from one farm to
another depending on planting/sowing date and the application efficiency. For example, for farm
F1, citrus has very high gross irrigation requirement of 15,786 m3/ha/cycle, this is explained by the
low application efficiency, which is around 53% for orange tree crop, whereas for F15, citrus has
a gross irrigation requirement of 9,576 m3/ha/cycle, as it has an application efficiency of 77%.
80
4.9.6. Determination of applied irrigation volumes
In order to judge the crop water requirements satisfaction index, a measurement of the
volumes applied per plot is necessary.
Based on the flow meters installed at the hydrants, it was possible to determine the flow rate
and volume of water used per each plot, and to have after the declarations acquired from farmers.
While, it was possible the utmost care to record the exact timing of irrigation for each plot,
regarding the duration of irrigation and irrigation frequencies, we were able to estimate the
volumes of water, for each plot during its growing cycle and then calculate the crop water
requirements satisfaction index.
The analysis of the table (for more details refer to annex 10) shows that the variation in the
volumes applied depends mainly on the flow rate and the duration of irrigation, this difference is
related, first, to the flow rate delivered to the farms, which depends on the location of the farms
relatively to the pumping station upstream or downstream.
4.9.7. Crop water requirements satisfaction index
Crop water requirements satisfaction index (CWRSI) of each crop, was determined by dividing
the volume of water supplied by the gross irrigation requirements of the different crops of the farm
during the 2016/2017 irrigation season.
This index is an indicator that makes it possible to deduce the contribution of irrigation in
meeting the water requirements of the theoretically calculated crops irrigation requirements and
therefore, is an interesting way of analyzing farmers’ irrigation practices. Average CWRSI values
for each farm are given in Figure 34 and for some selected crops in Figures 35-38.
120%
100%
CWRSI(%)
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
F2 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F17 F18 F21 F22
Figure 34: Crop water requirements satisfaction index for cereals.
81
100%
CWRSI(%)
50%
0%
F1 F15 F3 F5 F6 F21 F22
Citrus Olive trees
Figure 35: Crop water requirements satisfaction index for fruit trees.
300%
250%
200%
CWRSI(%)
150%
100%
50%
0%
F6 F7 F14 F12 F19 F21 F9 F10 F14 F16 F17 F20 F23 F13
Onion Carrot Bell pepper Tomato Potatozucchini
Figure 36: Crop water requirements satisfaction index for vegetables.
250%
200%
CWRSI(%)
150%
100%
50%
0%
F3 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F16 F17 F18 F21 F22
Figure 37: Crop water requirements satisfaction index for alfalfa.
82
300%
250%
200%
CWRSI(%)
150%
100%
50%
0%
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F11 F12 F13 F16 F18 F22
Figure 38: Crop water requirements satisfaction index for sugar beet.
The observed variability in crop water requirement satisfaction index, between the different
crops is explained mainly by the high variability of the volumes applied according to the irrigation
practices of each farmer.
The analysis of the results of the figures led us to deduce:
- Under-irrigation of cereal crops, olive trees ,and citrus crop this under irrigation can be
justified by the low interest given by the consideration of cereals and olive trees as rainfed
crops, lack of experience about citrus irrigation ,and overall poor technical capacity of
farmers.
- In the case of vegetable crops, an over-irrigation, is due to the high added value of these
crops;
- By comparing the volume added and water requirements of fodder crops, an over irrigation,
is justified by the intent that the farmers have for those crops (especially alfalfa). They are
meant for livestock feed, which is a necessity for farmers in the region;
- The vast majority of the farmers over-irrigated Sugar beet because .they are still in the
learning phase of this new irrigation method; for other farmers, they think that this crop
require large volumes of water to ensure maximum development.
Although crop water requirements satisfaction index reports on irrigation practices and the CU of
the condition of the equipment and sometimes the design and maintenance of the network, the
two parameters are often interacting. A farmer with a system with distribution problems (and thus
a low CU) may be tempted to compensate for this by giving more water to the entire plot, leading
to over-irrigation on part of the plot, and thus an increase in the value of CWRSI (over irrigation).
However, Figure 39 does not confirm this hypothesis since there are several farmers who over-
irrigate their crops even if CU is more than 90%. This indicated that the over-irrigation is mainly
related to the economic motivation of farmers to increase yield and revenue and lack of experience
about proper irrigation management of localized watering methods.
83
600% 0%
20%
500% 40%
400% 60%
CWSI(%)
80%
CU(%)
300% 100%
120%
200% 140%
100% 160%
180%
0% 200%
mint
Orange trees
carrot
maize
carrot
alfalfa
alfalfa
alfalfa
zucchini
maize
citrus
alfalfa
tomato
cereals
cereals
onion
onion
potato
Olive trees
bell pepper
bell pepper
bell pepper
bell pepper
Olive trees
Olive trees
mint
bean
sugar beet
sugar beet
sugar beet
sugar beet
sugar beet
crops
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11F12 F13 F14F15 F16 F17F18F19F20F21F22F23
Figure 39: Irrigation performance measured at the plot: over-irrigation (high crop water requirements
satisfaction index - CWRSI) even in the case of high coefficient of uniformity (CU).
4.9.8. Actual consumption of irrigation water in respect to the past (before the
conversion)
To approximate as far as possible the volumes actually consumed by farmers, a comparison

between the volumes invoiced on 16 Farms during two years: 2013, i.e. before the conversion
(gravity surface irrigation) and 2016, i.e. after the conversion project (localized irrigation).
In order to minimize the margin of error, we made sure that the gap in rainfall is lower between
the past chosen years. It was 214 mm1 in 2013, surface irrigation, compared to 191 mm1 in 2016,
localized irrigation. Sixteen farms were selected in the study area, and different from the other
previous 23 farms, in a way that the crop rotation remain the same between these two years.
1
ADA souk Sebt meteorological station and weather station M1.
50000
Water consumption(m3/ha)
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
F'1 F'2 F'3 F'4 F'5 F'6 F'7 F'8 F'9 F'10 F'11 F'12 F'13 F'14 F'15 F'16
Consumption before the conversion project(2013)

Consumption after the conversion project(2017)
Figure 40: Water consumption before and after the conversion project
84
The analysis of this table shows that:
- Overall, water consumption between the two irrigation techniques is nearly equal, with a
slight excess of the volume of 4% recorded by the drip irrigation, about 22,654 m3 for an
area of about 51 ha, at a rate of 446 m3/ha, compared to the volumes consumed by surface
irrigation.
- 69% of farmers recorded high water consumption in drip irrigation, than the volumes
consumed in surface irrigation, with a rate of increase ranging from 7% to 114%.
- 31% of farmers made lower consumption in localized irrigation compared to the
consumption of surface irrigation, with reduction of 1% to 30%.
This is caused by the switching of the irrigation delivery schedule, from rotation into restricted
on demand, and irrigation is inefficient because it is based on the farmers experiences and
perception of soil moisture rather than on the measurements and irrigation scheduling.
From those results, we can deduce that the use of drip irrigation does not lead automatically
to water saving, even at plot and farm level.
4.10. Agro-economic performance
In order to process this part, an investigation of all inputs and outputs was necessary to
determine the gross margin of each farm, which will allow judging the profits.
The calculation in Table 17 shows all the costs of production given by each farmer depending
on the crop, including seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, tillage, labour and the cost of irrigation. On the
other hand, on the basis of the yields obtained, the revenues of each farm are calculated in order
to deduce the gross margin of each crop, these data are necessary for the evaluation of agro-
economic indicators.
4.10.1. Operating expenses
The operating costs vary from one crop to another, ranging from 6,150 DH/ha for cereals to
24, 883 DH/ha for potato. Irrigation costs range from 701 DH/ha, for barely because they do not
require a large amount of water and because farmers consider it as rainfed crop, to 8,494 DH/ha
for alfalfa which is the highest crop water needs. The cost of seed varies between 400 DH/ha for
alfalfa, and reaches 13,000 DH/ha for the potato crop. Alfalfa does not require much fertilizer
compared to other crops. Indeed, the potato crop is the most consumed in terms of fertilizers with
a cost estimated at 6,500 DH/ha. The expenses for tillage and manpower vary according to the
availability of human and financial means. The labor cost ranges from 300 DH/ha to 4,000 DH/ha.
Wages costs vary from 400 to 3,000 DH/ha, this variation in costs is closely related to the crop-
management practices and the number of family labor. While the harvesting cost vary from 0*
DH/ha for sugar beet, to 4,500 DH /ha for citrus.
* The cost of harvesting of sugar beet is 0DH/ha this is because the COSUMAR who take
charge of the harvest and post-harvest handling.
85
4.10.2. Yield
Among the objectives of the collective conversion project in the study area is the improvement
of the yields of all the crops, so we evaluated the yields before conversion based on the results of
Laguig, (2001-2014) and after the conversion, based on the farmer’s declarations.
For example, cereals had an average yield of 36 q/ha before the conversion project (surface
irrigation), and have increased to (to 78 q)/ ha after the conversion. In addition, the yield of alfalfa
has passed from 17.7 t/ha before conversion, compared to 50 to 60 t/ha after conversion. For
citrus, the yield has increased up to 50%. Regarding sugar beet, its yield was around 62 t/ha and
increased to 85 to 95 t/ha after the implementation of the project.
Therefore, the irrigation method is a very important factor that significantly influences crop
yields. According to the comparison of yields, it was observed that localized irrigation induces an
increase in yields compared to surface irrigation.
100
Yield(t/ha)
80
60
40
20
0
maize
carrot
citrus
carrot
tomato
alfalfa
onion
alfalfa
alfalfa
alfalfa
alfalfa
Citrus
potato
barley
Olive trees
sugar beet
bell pepper
sugar beet
sugar beet
olive trees
Sugar beet
Sugar beet
wheat
Yield before project(2001-2014)(t/ha) Yield after project(2017)(t/ha)
Figure 41: Crop yields before and after the project
4.10.3. Operating revenues
Improving farmers' incomes is one of the expected socio-economic impacts of the collective
conversion project in the study area. The following graph shows the revenues of all farms surveyed
before and after conversion project:
The revenue has increased up to 80% for alfalfa, it ranges from 11,760 DH /ha for barley to
86,088 DH/ha for citrus. This difference in revenues is closely related to the deployed expenses
(cost of irrigation, seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, tillage). This notable gain in citrus crop is due to
the high unit price and this crop is still present in the market, which makes it a high value-added
crop despite the costly expense. Sugar beet does not lead to an incentive gains, because the
marketing of the product is reserved for the COSUMAR monopoly and because the income from
this crop is used mainly to cover its costs.
86
100000
90000
80000
70000
Revenues(DH//ha)
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
maize
alfalfa
alfalfa
alfalfa
alfalfa
citrus
alfalfa
onion
Citrus
Sugar beet
Sugar beet
sugar beet
carrot
sugar beet
sugar beet
carrot
wheat
barley
bell pepper
Olive tree
tomato
potato
olive trees
revenue before project(2001-2014)(Dh/ha) revenue after project(2017)(Dh/ha)
Figure 42: Revenues before and after the conversion project
4.10.4. Gross margin
The gross margin calculated in Table 17 varies from one farm to another depending on the
crop practiced. The calculated values range from 3,625 DH/ha for carrot to 70,719 DH/ha for
orange trees. This variation in profits is due to the crop management practices by each farmer,
and to the human and financial resources disposed for each farm on the other hand.
The benefice is remarkable among farmers who practice potato and corn, and for some sugar
beet farmers, gross margin ranges from 18,707 to 36,189 DH/ha. In the case of other sugar beet
farmers, the profits are only about 12,000 DH/ha, these low gains depending on the unit price of
sugar beet, which varies according to the sugar content.
The passage from surface into localized irrigation method, leads to an increase in the gross
margin generated per hectare at plot and at farm scale, since localized irrigation allows an
increase in yield and thus an increase in the production, on the other hand, a reduction in costs,
mainly due to the elimination of the labor force for irrigation which is costly for surface irrigation,
fertilizers, pesticides and weeding.
87
4.10.5. Economic value of irrigation water
The economic value calculated as the amount of crop output in economic terms (gross
margin) divided by the water consumption per each crop, the valuation of each m 3 of water
consumed is deduced. According to the calculations made in the table below, the value of the
cubic meter of water varies from 2.2 to 3.9 DH/m3 for the cultivation of sugar beet, for alfalfa
between 0.7 and 5.1, from 2.2 to 5.8 DH/m3 in the case of cereals, and from 9 to 11.2 DH/m3 for
citrus.
Bell pepper, onion and tomato were found to have the highest economic value about 5.4, 5.8
and 4.2 (DH/m3) respectively among summer crops. On the other hand, carrot and alfalfa had the
smallest economic value about 1.1 and 0.7 (DH/m3) respectively. On the other side, sugar beet
had an average economic value of about 2.2 and 3.9 (DH/m3) respectively. Citrus had the highest
economic value about 11 (DH/m3).
This leads to the conclusion citrus has the highest economic value, followed by onion, tomato,
maize, cereals, and ultimately sugar beet and alfalfa.
This variation is closely related to the gross margin deducted, which is based on income,
expenses, and crop-management practices by each farmer.
12,0 11,2
Economic productivity of
10,0 9,0
water(Dh/m³)
8,0
6,1 6,2 5,8 5,8
6,0 5,1 5,4 5,2 5,1
4,0 4,3 3,9 3,8 4,2
4,0 2,8
1,7 2,2 2,5 2,1
2,0 1,1 1,4
0,7
0,0
Citrus Maize Carrot Alfalfa Onion Sugar beet PepperTomaPotato Cereals Olive trees
Figure 43: Economic productivity of irrigation water
4.10.6. Water use efficiency (WUE)
Water productivity (WP) or water use efficiency is defined as the ratio between the actual crop
yield achieved (kg/ha) and water consumption (m3/ha). For our case, we have considered the
water productivity in term of total water use per crop. The objective of determining the agronomic
efficiency of water use per crop is to evaluate and compare the water inputs of the crops in the
different farms surveyed.
The water use efficiency of cereals is about 2.4 Kg/m3,about 1.2 Kg/m3/ha for olive trees, ,
about 6 Kg/m3/ha for citrus. Regarding sugar beet, its water use efficiency varies from 8 to 13
Kg/m3/ha. For maize, it has an agronomic efficiency of 11 Kg/m3/ha. The agronomic efficiency of
88
irrigation water varies from one farmer to another and from one crop to another depending on the
amount of the applied irrigation volumes and the yields achieved for each crop.
Therefore, the crop management practices and better irrigation management are the main
factors behind the total water use and yield obtained. A farmer, who mastered the irrigation
technique, can achieve better agronomic water-use efficiency while saving the resource and
achieving high yields.
14,0 13,2
12,2
12,0 11,4 11,1
10,8
9,8
Water use efficiency(Kg/m³)
10,0
7,7 8,2 8,4
8,0 7,0 7,4
5,7
6,0
4,2
4,0 3,4 3,9 3,0
2,6 2,4
1,6 1,8 1,4 1,0
2,0 0,9
0,0
Citrus Maize Carrot Alfalfa Onion Sugar beet Pepper
TomaPotato Cereals Olive trees
Figure 44: Crop productivity of irrigation water.
4.10.7. Benefit cost ratio (BCR)
The benefit-cost ratio varies from 1.2 for carrot to 7.9 for alfalfa, which means that the farmer
has earned 1.2 time more the production cost for carrot and eight time more the production costs
expended for alfalfa.
*1€ = 11 MAD
89
Table 17: Calculation of the agro-economic indicators.

Farms F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20 F21 F22 F23
WUAs Al ittihad Al Omrania

Sugar Olive Sugar Sugar Bell Sugar Sugar Olive
crops citrus beet tees beet Alfalfa Onion Barely Alfalfa Alfalfa Maize beet Carrot Alfalfa pepper Citrus beet Alfalfa beet Carrot Tomato Wheat tees Potato
1 Yield in (t/ha) 40.8 92.6 7.8 88.6 52.0 84.6 4.2 59.0 55.0 8.3 72.6 25.0 43.8 26.3 38.0 102.6 25.0 92.7 27.0 68.0 7.8 6.6 24.0
2 Unit price(DH/Kg) 2.11 0.43 6.50 0.48 1.40 0.70 2.80 1.40 1.40 0.85 0.44 1.10 1.40 2.92 2.11 0.35 1.50 0.57 1.40 0.90 2.80 6.50 1.60
3 Variable costs (4+...+15+17) 21408 11950 6150 12324 15656 14688 6851 11881 12338 14188 13238 23875 15550 21194 19079 14781 17594 16650 23209 22156 6728 7863 24883
4 Fertilizers(DH/ha) 4300 3250 300 2900 5600 1700 3500 5900 5100 1600 2400 1500 1800 3300 4700 2400 4200 2300 1900 3200 620 900 6500
5 Seeds and seedings)(DH/ha) -- 2800 -- 2700 400 400 800 400 400 1300 3200 900 600 3800 -- 3200 600 2200 1600 5200 820 -- 13000
6 Pesticides(DH/ha) 1900 1050 400 1300 3000 900 850 450 800 1800 2100 1100 800 2900 1900 2100 600 2700 2400 1200 200 700 920
7 Labour (manual operations)(DH/ha) 2000 550 300 480 2000 400 -- 300 500 -- 300 4000 900 1100 2000 700 300 900 2500 900 400 500 200
8 Weeding (DH/ha) 2600 400 400 600 -- 700 -- -- -- 4200 850 1400 550 400 1200 750 900 400 2100 1400 -- 900 400
9 Labour for plant protection(DH/ha) -- 200 -- 600 -- 600 -- -- -- -- 1000 -- -- 1600 -- 1300 -- 1900 -- 800 -- -- --
10 Harvesting(DH/ha) 4500 1100 1100 0 700 2700 400 650 700 1400 0 3200 700 2400 3800 0 700 0 1500 1800 1300 900 500
11 Mechanical works(DH/ha) 850 200 -- 200 -- 200 200 -- -- 200 600 3000 -- 200 1050 900 -- 1500 2400 900 -- -- --
12 Ploughing 900 300 -- 300 -- 500 100 -- -- 600 200 2200 -- 300 1700 900 -- 1900 1800 600 -- -- --
13 Disking -- -- -- -- -- 500 100 -- -- 800 -- 1600 -- 300 -- -- -- -- 1700 500 400 -- --

14 Bed preparing -- -- -- -- -- 300 200 -- -- 900 -- 1800 -- 400 -- -- -- -- 2100 800 200 -- 400
15 Services (transport. parties. etc.) 2200 -- 2000 -- -- 3500 -- -- -- -- -- 2200 2100 1400 1100 -- 1800 -- 2500 2100 2000 1900
16 Water consumption(m3/ha) 7193 7000 5500 10813 13188 7625 2337 13938 16125 4625 8625 3250 27000 10313 5431 8438 28313 9500 2364 9188 2625 6875 9875
Unit price of water (DH/m3) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
17 Irrigation cost(DH/ha) 2158 2100 1650 3244 3956 2288 701 4181 4838 1388 2588 975 8100 3094 1629 2531 8494 2850 709 2756 788 2063 2963
18 Fixed costs(DH/ha) 8800 400 8000 368 493 640 549 706 850 1200 700 800 590 590 4300 360 400 340 830 710 540 230 210
Tax No taxation of agricultural sector in Morocco
19 Total costs (3+18) 30208 12350 14150 12324 15656 14688 6851 11881 12338 14188 13238 23875 15550 21194 19079 14781 17594 16650 23209 22156 6728 7863 24883
20 Gross margin (23-3)(DH/ha) 64680 27468 36550 30204 57144 44533 4909 70719 64663 28313 18707 3625 45770 55602 61101 21129 19906 36189 14591 39044 15113 35038 13518
21 Net margin (23-3-18) 55880 27068 28550 29836 56651 43893 4360 70013 63813 27113 18007 2825 45180 55012 56801 20769 19506 35849 13761 38334 14573 34808 13308
22 Benefit cost ratio (23/19) 2,9 3.2 3.5 3.8 5.1 4.1 1.7 7.9 7.5 3.0 2.5 1.2 6.0 3.8 4.2 2.5 3.2 3.3 1.6 4.8 3.4 5.6 1.6
23 Revenue after project(DH/ha) 86088 39818 50700 42528 72800 59220 11760 82600 77000 42500 31944 27500 61320 76796 80180 35910 37500 52839 37800 61200 21840 42900 38400
24 Revenue before project(DH/ha) 64000 28000 45000 32000 68000 44000 8500 54000 43000 31000 27000 25000 55000 72000 76000 32000 28000 48000 32000 35000 18000 37000 32000
25 Water use efficiency(Kg/ m3)(1/16) 5.7 13.2 1.4 8.2 3.9 11.1 1.8 4.2 3.4 10.8 8.4 7.7 1.6 2.6 7.0 12.2 0.9 9.8 11.4 7.4 3.0 1.0 2.4
Profitability of irrigation water(DH/m3)
26 (20/16) 9.0 3.9 5.2 2.8 4.3 5.8 2.1 5.1 4.0 6.1 2.2 1.1 1.7 5.4 11.2 2.5 0.7 3.8 6.2 4.2 5.8 5.1 1.4
90
Conclusions and recommendations
Conclusion and recommendations:
Drip irrigation is a common topic in the international literature and is often viewed as a
technical innovation leading to irrigation that is more efficient and water saving. At the end of this
study, we can deduce the following conclusions based on the surveys and field measurements
carried out during one irrigation season and estimation of technical and agro-economic
parameters:
- A large number of farmers (70%) are not satisfied with their drip irrigation facilities, whereas
the remaining 30% consider the equipment to be of a good quality. The reason behind
these results is the detection of a set of problems: drippers clogging, high-pressure
variations, and leakages;
- 38% of the farmers have wells in their farms, from this, 15% practice a conjunctive use
system between groundwater and surface water, while 67% rarely use groundwater only
in the case of water cut due to storms that cause turbidity of water coming from dam;
- 80% of farmers have an average level of knowledge about the operation of drip irrigation
equipment, while 12% of surveyed farmers are in the learning phase, they have many
problems in irrigation practices, which reflect the quality of the drip installations, generally
in poor conditions;
- About 75% of the farmers surveyed saved the same rotation after the implementation of
the project, from this, 70% do not foresee a change in the upcoming years, because of
marketing difficulties, and market saturation, while 29% of these farmers intend to
introduce a high added value crops as tomato and potato. Some are just waiting for the
end of the alfalfa cycle to replace it;
- About 55% of farmers reported the receiving support and follow-up during project
implementation, of which 30% say that these explanations are insufficient and need to be
strengthened. However, 40% of farmers did not attend to the seminars organized by
technical assistance about irrigation management;
- The drip irrigation does not lead automatically to water saving at both plot and farm level;
- Irrigation practices vary from one farmer to another and from one crop to another within
the same farm;
- Water consumption has increased at almost all farms after the conversion from surface to
drip irrigation due to greater water availability (shifting from rotation to restricted on-
demand water supply) and low technical capacity (experience) of farmers to use drip
irrigation;
- Both distribution uniformity and application efficiency are satisfactory for the most of plots;
- Farmers under-irrigate cereals, olive trees and citrus and over-irrigate all other crops
(sugar beet, alfalfa, vegetables);
- Inadequate operating pressure was observed at most plots due to not respect of sectorial
water distribution plan;
- Farmers irrigate in function to their economic motivations;
- The conversion to drip irrigation induced an increase in yields and revenue as compared
to surface irrigation – however, without water saving;
91
Conclusions and recommendations
- Our observations revealed that the farmers’ irrigation practices were linked to (1) the way
farmers perceive the impact of irrigation on yields, (2) experiences acquired using surface
irrigation method.
Following the results of this study on the analysis of the practice of irrigation on the plot and
farm scale as well as the assessment of irrigation performance, a few recommendations deserve
to be raised, in addition to the various recommendations developed in the previous chapters:
- Involving farmers during the design phase, to take account of their remarks and proposals
in relation to the project design;
- Training of farmers has to be done for a large period, and evaluates farmers’ practices in
order to ensure the achievement of the project objectives.
- Technical support to farmers through the extension service should be reinforced. The
demonstration fields should be established to introduce the management tools and
practices for more efficient use of water resources.
- Sensitizing farmers about the actual situation of water resources, and convince them that
‘water saving’ is the main objective of agricultural production in Morocco;
- The accompanying measures must be applied for a large period, and evaluates farmers’
practices in order to ensure the achievement of the project objectives;
- In order to facilitate collective management of irrigation over time and space, the planned
regrouping and synchronization of seedlings and early planting scheduled together with
the WUA, aggregators and ORMVAT is considered useful and necessary. The sowing
dates of each group must be spread over 7 to 10 days so that the irrigation of this group is
controlled with the same crop coefficient (Kc) ;
- Sensitizing farmers to introduce less water use crops and high value cropping systems
such as quinoa, viticulture and market gardening;
- Monitoring the environmental quality of water and soil, as well as the management of
plastic wastes generated by the installation of localized irrigation;
- Because of the high-pressure fluctuations, I recommend changing the type of emitters from
turbulent into fully compensating emitters.
- Changing the water tariffs from mono-block into, several blocks of consumption, the
application of this tariff may stimulates the reduction of water consumption;
- Making small payments (every month, for example) makes the payment easier for small-
scale farmers.
- Using Aqua-card to assign water volumes to each farmer and crop and to monitor water
use as in some European countries (Spain, Italy).
92
References
References
Administration Du Génie Rural, 2007. Programme National d’Economie d’Eau En Irrigation (PNEEI).
Aït Ali I., (2004), « Diagnostique technique des systèmes d’irrigation localisée du Gharb ». Mémoire de
troisième cycle, pour l’obtention du diplôme d’Ingénieur d’état en agronomie, option Machinisme Agricole.
175 p.
Ait Kadi, (2002) M. Irrigation Water pricing in Morocco Large Scale Irrigation Projects in Options
Méditerraneénnes, No. 49: Water Valuation and Cost Recovery mechanisms in the Developing countries of
the Mediterranean region CIHEAM , Bari, Italy.
Allen R.G., Pereira L.S., Raes D. and Smith M. (1998). Crop evapotranspiration. Guidelines for Computing
Crop Water Requirements. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. FAO
irrigation and drainage Paper, 56.
Allen, R.G. and Pruitt, W.O. 1986. Rational use of the FAO Blaney-Criddle formula. J. Irrig. and Drain.
Engrg., ASCE 112(IR2):139-155.
Allen, R.G., 2000. Using the FAO-56 dual crop coefficient method over an irrigated region as part of an
evapotranspiration intercomparison study. Journal of Hydrology. 229, 27–41.
Allen, R.G., Smith, M., Pereira, L.S., and Perrier, A. 1994b. An update for the calculation of reference
evapotranspiration. ICID Bulletin, 43 (2): 35-92.
Allen, R.G., Smith, M., Perrier, A., and Pereira, L.S. 1994a. An update for the definition of reference.
Amara, N., Robert, R. (2000). Mesure de l'efficacité technique : Revue de la littérature ;Série Recherche
SR.00.07, Département d'économie agroalimentaire et des sciences de la consommation, Université Laval,
Québec.
Amghar S. Et Jellal J., 2005. La valorisation de l'eau d'irrigation par les productions végétales dans le
périmètre irrigué de Doukkala. Ingénieries N° 41 – p.39 à 49
André Musy. 2005. Cours d’Hydrologie générale. Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Suisse.
Bahri A. et Bouazzama B., (2007), Evaluation des performances des installations de l’irrigation localisée au
niveau des exploitations agrumicoles du Tadla. Homme Terre et Eaux Vol C, N°136. p 37- 40.
Bayali N. et Ammari O., 2016.Etudes des pratiques d’irrigation et évaluation des performances de l’irrigation
localisée dans un secteur de reconversion collective : cas du secteur pilote. Mémoire pour l’obtention du
diplôme d’Ingénieur d’Etat en Génie rural, Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire Hassan II, Rabat, 134p
BEKKAR. Y, KUPER. M, HAMMANI. A, DIONNET. M, ELIAMANI. A, (2007). Reconversion vers des

systèmes d’irrigation localisée au Maroc, Quels enseignements pour l’agriculture familiale ?
Belabbes K,et Bouaziz. (2002) Calcul pratique des besoins en eau des cultures en irrigation
localisée.ORMVAG, Rabat, 123 p.
Belabbes, K. (2013) Calcul pratique des besoins en eau des cultures en irrigation localisée. Cours de 5 ème
année Génie Rural-IAV Hassan II, Rabat, 33 p.
93
References
Belghiti M., 2009. Le Plan National d’Economie d’Eau en Irrigation (PNEEI) : une réponse
au défi de la raréfaction des ressources en eau. Revue HTE N°143/144. P :34-36.
Belghiti, M., 2009. Le plan national d’économie d’eau en irrigation (PNEEI) : une réponse
au défi de la raréfaction des ressources en eau. Hommes Terres et Eaux, Issue 143/144, pp.
34-36.
BELGHITI. M, 2005. Gestion de l‘eau d‘irrigation au Maroc.
BELGHITI. M, 2008. Efficience d’utilisation de l’eau au Maroc : État des lieux et progrès réalisés.
Bendarou B., 2014. Evaluation des performances des systèmes d’irrigation localisée fonctionnant au
pompage solaire dans la plaine de Tafilalet. Mémoire pour l’obtention du diplôme d’ingénieur d’Etat en
Génie rural, Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire Hassan II, Rabat, 117 p
Blaney, H.F. and Criddle, W.D. 1950. Determining water requirements in irrigated areas from climatological
and irrigation data. USDA Soil Conserv. Serv. SCS-TP96. 44 pp.
Bleisner R.D. (1977). Field evaluation of trickle irrigation efficiency. Proceedings of the ASCE
Bouaziz, A., 2004. Valorisation de l’eau d’irrigation dans la région de Tadla, Institut Agronomique et
Vétérinaire Hassan II Rabat, 154p.
Buck D.A. and Nakayama F.S. (1982). Principles, practices, and potentialities of trickle (drip) irrigation. Adv.
Irrigation 1, pp. 220–290
Burt C.M., Clemmens A.J., Strelkoff T.S., Solomon K.H., Howell L.T., Eisenhauer D.,
Bleisner R., 1997. Irrigation performance measures: Efficiency and uniformity. Irrigation and
Drainage Engineering, pp. 423–442.
Burt Charles M., (2004). Rapid field evaluation of drip and microspray distribution uniformity. Irrigation and
drainage Systems (18): 275-297.
Camp, C.R., Busscher,W.J. and Sadler, E.J. (1987).Wetting patterns for line-source trickle emitters.
Presented at the Int’l Winter Mtg of the ASAE, Chicago, Ilinois. December 15-18, 1987. ASAE Paper No.
87-2524. 23pp.
Camp, C.R., Sadler, E.J. and Yoder, R.E. 1996. Evapotranspiration and irrigation scheduling. Proc. Int.
Conf. on Evapotranspiration and Irrigation Scheduling. Am. Soc. Ag. Engineers, St. Joseph, MI. ISBN 0-
929355-82-2. 1166 p
Campbell, G.S., et Campbell, M.D., (1982). Irrigation Scheduling using soil moisture measurement: Theory
and Practice
Capra A. and Scicolone B. (1998). Water quality and distribution uniformity in drip/trickle Irrigation systems.
J.Agric.Engng Res. (70), 355-365.
Chahri R. et Saouabe T., 2014. La reconversion collective à l’irrigation localisée dans le

Tadla : Analyse de l’approche de l’équipement interne et impact sur les prélèvements à
partir de la nappe. Mémoire pour l’obtention du diplôme d’ingénieur d’Etat en Génie rural,
Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire Hassan II, Rabat, 128 p
94
References
Chati T., Laiti A. et Penadille Y., (2014), Action des laboratoires d’essais dans le processus de
modernisation des irrigations. Actes du Séminaire : Modernisation de l’Agriculture Irriguée, Rabat.
Clemmens, A.J., Dedrick, A.R., clyma,W., Ware, R.E. (2000). On-farm system performance in the Maricopa-
Stanfield Irrigation and Drainage District area. Irrigation and Drainage Systems.
Coelli, T.J., Rao, D.S., Battese, G.E., 1998. An Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis, Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Boston.
Değirmenci, et. al., (2003). Assessment of Irrigation Schemes with Comparative Indicators in the
Southeastern Anatolia Project. Turk J. Agric. Forest. 27: 293-303
Douzi J. et Jorti A., 2015.Etudes des pratiques d’irrigation et évaluation des performances de
l’irrigation localisée dans un secteur de reconversion collective : cas de Boulaouane
(Doukkala). Mémoire pour l’obtention du diplôme d’Ingénieur d’Etat en Génie rural, Institut
Agronomique et Vétérinaire Hassan II, Rabat, 117p
El Alaoui, M., (1999). Avertissement à l’irrigation de la culture de pomme de terre dans le périmètre du
Loikkos. Mémoire de 3éme cycle-IAV Hassan II Rabat.
Essaafi., 1995. Assessment of drip irrigation performance in semi-arid environments. Agricultural Water
Management, 64, 91-106.
FAO (1973). Trickle irrigation. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nationa Irrigation and
Drianage Paper. 29.
FAO, 1977. Irrigation and drainage paper No.24 - Crop water requirements, Rome: s.n
List, R.J. 1984. Smithsonian Meteorological Tables, 6th rev. ed., Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.,
U.S.A. 539 p.
FAO, 1979. Agrometeorological crop monitoring and forecasting. FAO Plant Production and Protection
paper No. 17, by M. Frère and G.F. Popov. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Hammani A., Kuper M., 2008. Caractérisation des pompages des eaux souterraines dans
leTadla, Maroc. Marcel. Kuper, Abdel Aziz Zaıri. Troisième atelier régional du projet
Sirma, Juin 2007, Nabeul, Tunisie. Cirad, 10 p.,.
Hammani A., Kuper M., Bekkar Y., Zaz H., 2006. Exploitation des eaux souterraines dans le périmètre
irrigué de Tadla (Maroc) Etat des lieux et éléments de méthodologie pour contribuer à une réflexion sur une
gestion intégrée et durable des eaux souterraines et de surface. Economies d’eau en Systèmes Irrigués au
Maghreb. Deuxième atelier régional du projet Sirma, Marrakech, Maroc.
Hammani, A., El Masri, A., Bouaziz, A. & Kuper, M., 2009. Valorisation de l’eau souterraine par les cultures
fourragères dans le périmètre irrigué du Tadla, Maroc. Mostaganem, T. Hartani, A. Douaoui, M. Kuper.
Economies d'eau en systèmes irrigués au Maghreb.
Hanafi S., 2011. Approche d’évaluation de la performance des systèmes irrigués à l’échelle
des exploitations agricoles. Cas du périmètre irrigué de Borj Toumi (vallée de la Medjerda
Tunisie).Thèse de doctorat, université Agro Paris Tech, Paris, 101p.
Hargreaves, G.H. 1983. Discussion of 'Application of Penman wind function' by Cuenca, R.H. and
Nicholson, M.J. J. Irrig. and Drain. Engrg., ASCE 109(2):277-278
95
References
HEERMANN D.F., WALLENDER W.W. AND BOS G.M., 1990. Irrigation efficiency and uniformity. In :
Hoffman G.J., Howell T.A., Solomon K :H :, Management of farm irrigation systems. ASAE, St Joseph,MI,
125-149.
Hillel, D. 1997. Small scale irrigation for arid zones: Principles and options, Development monograph No. 2
, FAO, Rome.
Hillel, D. 1998. Environmental soil physics. Academic press. 771 pp. Elsevier (USA). Monteith, J.L. 1981.
Evaporation and surface temperature. Quart. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc.,107:1-27.
Kambou, D., Xanthoulis, D., Ouattara, K. & Degré, A., 1994. Concepts d’efficience et de
productivité de l’eau (synthèse bibliographique). Biotechnol. Agron. Soc. Environ., 18(1),
pp. 108-120
Karmeli, D. and Keller, J. (1974). Trickle Irrigation Design. Rain Bird Sprinkler Manufacturing Corp.,
Glendora, California.
Keller J. and Bleisner R.D., 2000. Sprinkler and trickle irrigation.Van Nostrand Reinhold- New York.
Keller J. and D. Karmeli, (1974), Trickle irrigation design parameters.
Kernan M., Battarbee R. W., and Moss B., 2010. Climate Change Impacts on Freshwater Ecosystems. A
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Publication. 314p.
Laguig, S., 2014. Performances des systèmes de cultures sous irrigation localisée dans le périmètre irrigué
de Tadla, IAV Hassan II, Rabat: Mémoire du troisième cycle pour l’obtention diplôme d’Ingénieur d’Etat en
Agronomie
M. El Alaoui. Les pratiques participatives des associations d’usagers de l’eau dans la gestion de l’irrigation
au Maroc : étude de cas en petite, moyenne et grande hydraulique Manage (2011).
Merriam J.L., Keller J. and Alfaro, J.F. (1973). Irrigation Systems Evaluation and Improvement. Agricultural
and Irrigation Engineering Department, Utah State University, Logan, UT.
Molden, D.J., Sakthivadivel, R., Perry, C.J., Fraiture, C., Klooezen, W. (1998). Indicators for Comparing
Performance of Irrigated Agricultural Systems. Research Report 20. International Water Management
Institute: Colombo
Monteith, J.L., 1965. Evaporation and Environment. 19th Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology,
University Press, Cambridge, 19:205-234.
NOVEC, 2009. Etude de faisabilité de la reconversion collective à l’irrigation localisée dans les Béni
Moussa. Phase II : Etude de faisabilité des secteurs sélectionnés. Etape 1 : Avant-projet sommaire du
secteur pilote.
ORMVA du Tadla, 2008. Observatoire de suivi des exploitations équipées en système d’irrigation localisée.
ORMVAT, 2012. Monographie de la plaine du Tadla, Fquih Ben Saleh: s.n.

ORMVAT, 2015. Programmes d'irrigation et de cultures du périmètre du Tadla, s.l.: s.n.
Oustou B., 2015. Etude d’impact de la reconversion de l’irrigation gravitaire à l’irrigation localisée sur les
ressources en eau souterraines au périmètre irrigué de Tadla. Mémoire pour l’obtention du diplôme
d’ingénieur d’Etat en Génie rural, Institut Agronomique et
96
References
Vétérinaire Hassan II, Rabat, 115pP.
Parchomchuk P. (1976). Temperature effects on emitter discharge rates. Transactions of ASAE 19: 690–
692.
Paul R. et Léopold R., (1996 ), Guide pratique irrigation, Centre national du machinisme agricole, des eaux
et des forêts France, Pierre
Pereira, L.S. and Smith, M. 1989. Proposed procedures for revision of guidelines for predicting crop water
requirements. Land and Water Use Div., FAO Rome, 36 p
Pereira, L.S., Cordery, I., Iacovides, I. (2012). Improved indicators of water use performance and
productivity for sustainable water conservation and saving. Agric. Water Manage (2012).
Sharma, M.L. 1985. Estimating evapotranspiration. p. 213-281 in Adv. in Irrigation, Vol III, D. Hillel (Editor).,
Academic Press, New York.
Smith, M., 1992. Expert consultation on revision of FAO methodologies for crop water requirements. FAO,
Rome, Publication 73.
Turc, L., 1961. Estimation of irrigation water requirement, potential evapotranspiration: a simple climatic
formula evolved up to date. Ann. Agron., 12: 13-49
Vermeiren I. And Jobling G. A.(1980). Localized irrigation: design, installation, operation, evaluation. Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nationa Irrigation and Drianage Paper. 36.
Vermerein and Jobling , G.A 1984 . localized irrigation FAO, irrigation and drainage pepper.No 36.
Zwart, S.J. and Bastiaanssen, W.G.M. (2004) Review of Measured Crop Water Productivity Values for
Irrigated Wheat, Rice, Cotton and Maize. Agricultural Water Management, 69, 115-133.
Web References:
FAO, (2005), http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/countries_regions

Maghreb Canada Express, (2007), Le casse-tête hydrique http://www.maghreb-canada.ca Vol. V Numéro
1 JANVIER 2007.
MAPM., 2010. Irrigation au Maroc : http://www.agriculture.gov.ma/
MATEE. http://www.water.gov.ma
Mokhtar B., (2004), Rapport national sur les ressources en eau au Maroc.
http://www.pnud.org.ma/pdf/Rappt_national_1%20juin_fr.pdf
ORMVAT, 2015. Etat d’avancement des projets. Site de l’Office Régional de Mise en
Valeur Agricole de Tadla, ORMVAT (www.ormva-tadla.ma
97
Annexes
Annexes
Annex 1: Survey sheet
- Identification and location of the farms:
Name of the WUA’s Bloc Village Phone number

farmer
Plots Area (ha) Soil Irrigation Date of the Crop rotation Crop rotation
type managemen installation of the before project after project
t system
- Irrigation scheduling of the surveyed farms
Average Spacing Number of Volume

Duration of Area per Autonomy
Date of Frequencies emitter between irrigation of the
Crops irrigation per irrigation basin of basin
irrigation of irrigation flow rate laterals blocks
plot (h) bloc (Day)
(l/h) (m) (ha) (m3)
98
Annexes
- Revenues of farms:
Yield before the Yield after the Unitary price

Crop Area (ha) conversion project conversion project
(DH/tonne)
(t/ha) (t.ha)
- Operating costs
 labor:
Crops Own equipment Renting equipment

Number of Number of Cost of
Fuels and Total
Rental working manpower labor
Designation lubricants Designation cost
value days days per day
(UP*Quantity)

 Seeds and seeding:
Variety Quantity of Cost of Materials Cost Manpower

seeds(kg/ha) seeds used Number Number of UP(DH/day) Cost(DH/ha)
(DH/kg) of days per Total
workers hectare cost(DH/ha)
 Fertilizers:
Crops Date Type Quantity (Kg) Price (DH/Kg) Total cost

 Pesticides:
Crops Date Type Quantity (Kg) Price (DH/Kg) Total cost



99
Annexes
 Irrigation:
Water source Price of m3 Cost of pumping Total cost
 Harvesting:
Crops Date Number of manpower Cost of manpower
100
Annexes
Annex 2: Survey with farmers and presidents of the water user associations
Surveys with the farmers:

 Is drip irrigation the best solution to the problems posed by surface irrigation?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
 In your opinion what are the constraints to which you are faced with after the introduction
of the drip irrigation?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
 Since the introduction of the drip irrigation, do you think you gain more time?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
 Since the introduction of the drip irrigation, have you increased or reduced the number of
workers and saved the number of working days?
 Concerning the use of fertilizers and pesticides, has there been a change in the quantities
brought in?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
 Have you change the rotation after the project? And why?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
 What do you think about saving-water in the region after the conversion project?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
 What improvements would you make to this system?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
 What services are guaranteed by the WUA’s?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
 Did you benefit from support and follow-up after the implementation of the project?
101
Annexes
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
 Do you have any knowledge about the operation and management of this new
system?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………….……………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………….
Surveys with the presidents of the water user association

 As president of WUA, could you give us some information about the activities of the
association?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
 When did the establishment of the WUA association take place?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
 The WUA Is put into operation before or after the conversion project in the pilot sector ?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
 How many farmers are members of the WUA?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
 What are the members who have benefited from the collective conversion project?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
 The implementation of the project was in consultation with the WUA?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
 The choice of companies for internal equipment is carried out by the members of the WUA or by
the ORMVAT?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
 What is the role of the WUA in the implementation of the project
…………………………………………………………………………………………………

After the selection of the drip irrigation companies responsible for the implementation of the project,
is there any communication between the farmers and the representatives of these companies about
the scheme of the network?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
 After the project, farmers were satisfied with their installations without any claims.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
102
Annexes
Annex 3: Measurement of distribution uniformity
 catch-cups;
 Timer,Stopwatch;
 Container;
 Graduated cylinders;
103
Annexes
Annex 4: Monitoring of soil water content using a PR2/6.
104
Annexes
Annex 5: Measurements of the leaf area index (LAI).
105
Annexes
Annex 6: Kc*Kr adjusted for drip irrigation.
Crops Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Sugar beet 0.5 0.5 0.65 0.9 1.1 1.15 1.15 1 0.7
Barley/oats/
wheat 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 1 0.8 0.4
Spring weat 0.7 0.7 0.7 1 0.8 0.4
Alfalfa 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1 1.1 1.2 1.2
Onion 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.95 1 0.95 0.95
Zucchini 0.7 0.5 1.1 0.8
Carrot 1 1 0.6
Olive trees 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.45 0.55 0.6 0.6 0.6
Citrus 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Bell pepper 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6
Beans 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 1 1 0.7
Peas 0.6 0.7 1 1.2 1
Tomato 0.5 0.85 1 0.85
Potato 0.5 1.15 1.15 1.15 0.75
Mint 0.6 0.7 1 1 0.8 0.9 1 1.15 1.15 1.1 1 1
Maize 0.5 0.9 1 1 0.7
Annex 7: Calibration of the PR2/6
17
16
15
14
root square(ε)
13
y = 5,7874x + 13,454
12
11
10
8
0,1 0,12 0,14 0,16 0,18 0,2 0,22 0,24 0,26
volumetric soil water content(m3/m3)
106
Annexes
Annex 8: Uniformity coefficients
Farms WUA's Crops Q min lq(l/h) Q avg(l/h) CU(%) Classification

F1 Mandarin
trees 1.89 2.79 68% Poor
Orange trees 2,21 3,96 56% Unacceptable
Sugar beet 2,15 2,41 89% Good
F2 Sugar beet 1.49 1,884 81% Good
F3 Olive trees 2.05 2,28 90% Excellent
Sugar beet 2,09 2,24 93% Excellent
Cereals 2,03 2,31 88% Good
Alfalfa 2,13 2,26 94% Excellent
Mint 2,18 2,28 95% Excellent
F4 Sugar beet 1,56 1,67 93% Excellent
Cereals 1,91 2.15 89% Good
F5 Sugar beet 1,34 1,57 86% Good
Alfalfa 1,41 1,61 87% Good
Olive trees 1,92 2.12 91% Excellent
Cereals 1,42 1,53 93% Excellent
Onion 2,14 2,3 93% Excellent
Al Ittihad
Olive trees 1,55 1,62 96% Excellent
F7 Sugar beet 1,73 1,92 90% Excellent
F8 Alfalfa 2,05 2,14 96% Excellent
Pepper 2,03 2,16 93% Excellent
F10 Cereals 1,71 1.95 88% Good
Pepper 1,81 2,22 81% Good
107
Annexes
Bean 1,36 1,62 84% Good

F12 Cereals 2,12 2,21 96% Excellent
Sugar beet 1,72 1,88 91% Excellent
Carrot 1,69 1,75 96% Excellent
Sugar beet 1,87 2,13 88% Good
Zucchini 1,83 1,98 92% Excellent
F14 Pepper 2,17 2,51 86% Good
F15 Citrus 1,97 2,44 81% Excellent
Bean 1,18 1,35 88% Good
F18 Sugar beet 1,36 1,79 76% Poor
F19 AL Mint 1,92 2,09 92% Excellent
Omrania Carrot 2,11 2,22 95% Excellent
F20 Mint 1,95 2,68 73% Excellent
Carrot 2,55 2,87 89% Good
Carrot 2,29 2,68 86% Good
Sugar beet 2,01 2,55 79% Fair
Potato 2,44 2,81 87% Good
F23
108
Annexes
Annex 9: Application efficiencies
Farms WUA's Crops CU(%) Ks(%) Ea(%)

F1 Mandarin
Trees 68 95 64
Orange trees 56 95 53
sugar beet 89 95 85
F2 sugar beet 81 95 77
F3 Olive trees 90 95 86
sugar beet 93 95 89
wheat 88 95 84
alfalfa 94 95 89
mint 95 95 90
wheat 89 95 85
alfalfa 87 95 83
barley 81 95 77
Olive trees 91 95 87
spring wheat 93 95 88
alfalfa 93 95 88
Al Ittihad onion 93 95 88
Olive trees 96 95 91
alfalfa 89 95 84
onion 93 95 88
Barly 92 95 87
F8 alfalfa 96 95 92
wheat 95 95 90
alfalfa 97 95 93
mint 96 95 91
F9 alfalfa 96 95 91
oats 93 95 88
alfalfa 88 95 83
Bell pepepr 93 95 89
mint 93 95 88
F10 wheat 88 95 84
alfalfa 84 95 80
Bell pepepr 81 95 77
alfalfa 85 95% 81%
109
Annexes
wheat 91% 95% 87%

bean 84% 95% 80%
F12 barly 96% 95% 91%
sugar beet 91% 95% 86%
carrot 96% 95% 91%
alfalfa 93% 95% 88%
F13 cereals 90% 95% 85%
alfalfa 89% 95% 84%
zucchini 92% 95% 88%
F14 Bell pepepr 86% 95% 82%
onion 91% 95% 87%
F15 citrus 81% 95% 77%
F16 sugar beet 84% 95% 80%
cereals 86% 95% 82%
alfalfa 81% 95% 77%
bean 88% 95% 83%
Bell pepepr 79% 95% 75%
F17 alfalfa 96% 95% 91%
cereals 91% 95% 87%
Bell pepepr 89% 95% 85%
F18 sugar beet 76% 95% 72%
cereals 82% 95% 78%
alfalfa 87% 95% 83%
F19 AL mint 92% 95% 87%
Omrania carrot 95% 95% 90%
F20 mint 91% 95% 86%
tomato 89% 95% 84%
F21 alfalfa 96% 95% 91%
oats 93% 95% 89%
Olive trees 96% 95% 91%
F22 wheat 92% 95% 87%
alfalfa 92% 95% 87%
carrot 86% 95% 81%
Olive trees 93% 95% 89%
potato 87% 95% 83%
F23
alfalfa 83% 95% 79%
110
Annexes
Annex 10: Applied irrigation volumes per crop cycle.
Farms WUA's Area Crops Flow rate Duration Applied volumes

(ha) (m3/h) (h) (m3/ha)
F1 9,9 Mandarin trees 138.0 516 7193
9,9 Orange trees 138.0 516 7193
2,2 Sugar beet 46.9 307 6541
F2 0,95 Sugar beet 59.4 112 7000
F3 0,6 Olive trees 37.5 88 5500
2 Sugar beet 125.0 153 9563
0,4 Cereals 25.0 32 2000
1 Alfalfa 62.5 232 14500
0,7 Mint 43.8 167 10438
F4 2,5 Sugar beet 78.1 346 10813
5 Cereals 312.5 38 2375
F5 1,2 Sugar beet 75.0 154 9625
1,2 Alfalfa 75.0 211 13188
1,4 Cereals 87.5 49 3063
0,6 Olive trees 37.5 67 4188
F6 Al
Ittihad 1 Sugar beet 62.5 133 8313
0,7 Cereals 43.8 35 2188
1,2 Alfalfa 75.0 226 14125
0,8 Onion 50.0 122 7625
0,65 Olive trees 40.6 97 6063
F7 1,1 Sugar beet 68.8 123 7688
1,6 Alfalfa 100.0 187 11688
0,8 Onion 50.0 124 7750
6,5 Cereals 62.5 243 2337
F8 2 Alfalfa 125.0 223 13938
1 Cereals 62.5 44 2750
1 Sugar beet 62.5 178 11125
1 Mint 62.5 295 18438
F9 0,7 Alfalfa 43.8 258 16125
0,5 Cereals 31.3 31 1938
0,9 Alfalfa 56.3 219 13688
111
Annexes
0,9 Bell pepper 56.3 128 8000

1,7 Mint 106.3 249 15563
F10 1 Cereals 62.5 74 4625
0,5 Alfalfa 31.3 238 14875
1 Bell pepper 62.5 186 11625
F11 0,5 Sugar beet 31.3 138 8625
1 Alfalfa 62.5 243 15188
1 Cereals 62.5 43 2688
0,5 Bean 31.3 65 4063
F12 1,5 Cereals 93.8 34 2125
2 Sugar beet 125.0 118 7375
0,6 Carrot 37.5 52 3250
1,2 Alfalfa 75.0 198 12375
F13 0,6 Maize 37.5 39 2438
2 Sugar beet 125.0 151 9438
0,8 Alfalfa 50.0 432 27000
0,4 Zucchini 25.0 108 6750
F14 0,6 Bell pepper 37.5 165 10313
0,6 Onion 37.5 89 5563
F15 68,8 Citrus 108.0 3460 5431
F16 1 Sugar beet 62.5 135 8438
1.6 Maize 231.0 34 4909
1.5 Alfalfa 93.8 341 21313
0.2 Bean 12.5 64 4000
0.8 Bell pepper 50.0 123 7688
F17 AL 1.3 Alfalfa 81.3 453 28313
Omrania 0.4 Cereals 25.0 41 2563
0.4 Bell pepper 25.0 123 7688
F18 1.5 Sugar beet 93.8 152 9500
2.4 Cereals 150.0 43 2688
1 Alfalfa 62.5 273 17063
F19 0.8 Mint 50.0 182 11375
0.4 Carrot 25.0 38 2364
112
Annexes
F20 0.8 Mint 50.0 227 14188

0.4 Tomato 25.0 147 9188
F21 1.2 Alfalfa 75.0 220 13743
0.5 Cereals 31.3 42 2625
0.3 Olive trees 18.8 69 4313
F22 1 Cereals 62.5 54 3375
1.7 Alfalfa 53.1 449 14031
0.7 Carrot 43.8 47 2938
1 Sugar beet 62.5 137 8563
0.8 Olive trees 50.0 110 6875
1.5 Potato 93.8 158 9875
F23
0.3 Alfalfa 18.8 238 14875
Annex 11: Crop water requirements satisfaction index (CWRSI).
Flow volumes
Farms WUA's Area (ha) Crops Duration(h) GIR(m3/ha) CWRSI(%)
rate(m3/h) added(m3/ha)
Mandarin
9.9 138.0 516 7193 13020 55
trees
F1 Orange
9.9 138.0 516 7193 15786 46
trees
2.2 Sugar beet 46.9 307 6541 4734 138
F2 0.95 Sugar beet 59.4 112 7000 4570 153
0.6 Olive trees 37.5 88 5500 6160 89
2 Sugar beet 125.0 153 9563 3802 252
F3 0.4 Cereals 25.0 32 2000 2744 73
1 Alfalfa 62.5 232 14500 10719 135
Al
Ittihad 0.7 Mint 43.8 167 10438 10566 99
2.5 Sugar beet 78.1 346 10813 4522 239
F4
5 Cereals 312.5 38 2375 4353 55
1.2 Sugar beet 75.0 154 9625 5348 180
1.2 Alfalfa 75.0 211 13188 11536 114
F5
1.4 Cereals 87.5 49 3063 3080 99
0.6 Olive trees 37.5 67 4188 6091 69
1 Sugar beet 62.5 133 8313 5075 164
F6
0.7 Cereals 43.8 35 2188 2806 78
113
Annexes
1.2 Alfalfa 75.0 226 14125 10864 130

0.8 Onion 50.0 122 7625 2800 272
0.65 Olive trees 40.6 97 6063 5811 104
1.1 Sugar beet 68.8 123 7688 5067 152
1.6 Alfalfa 100.0 187 11688 11381 103
F7
0.8 Onion 50.0 124 7750 2805 276
6.5 Cereals 62.5 243 2337 2717 86
2 Alfalfa 125.0 223 13938 10474 133
1 Cereals 62.5 44 2750 2737 100
F8
1 Sugar beet 62.5 178 11125 10354 107
1 Mint 62.5 295 18438 10762 171
0.7 Alfalfa 43.8 258 16125 10490 154
0.5 Cereals 31.3 31 1938 2243 86
F9 0.9 Alfalfa 56.3 219 13688 11559 118
0.9 Bell pepper 56.3 128 8000 4341 184
1.7 Mint 106.3 249 15563 11206 139
1 Cereals 62.5 74 4625 6317 73
F10 0.5 Alfalfa 31.3 238 14875 12043 124
1 Bell pepper 62.5 186 11625 5077 229
0.5 Sugar beet 31.3 138 8625 5353 161
1 Alfalfa 62.5 243 15188 11773 129
F11
1 Cereals 62.5 43 2688 3004 89
0.5 Bean 31.3 65 4063 3578 114
1.5 Cereals 93.8 34 2125 2847 75
2 Sugar beet 125.0 118 7375 4545 162
F12
0.6 Carrot 37.5 52 3250 1731 188
1.2 Alfalfa 75.0 198 12375 10855 114
0.6 Maize 37.5 39 2438 6182 39
2 Sugar beet 125.0 151 9438 5201 181
F13
0.8 Alfalfa 50.0 432 27000 11344 238
0.4 Zucchini 25.0 108 6750 4871 139
0.6 Bell pepper 37.5 165 10313 4755 217
F14
0.6 Onion 37.5 89 5563 2871 194
F15 68.8 Citrus 108.0 3460 5431 9576 57
1 Sugar beet 62.5 135 8438 5434 155
AL
1.6 Maize 231.0 34 4909 6445 76
F16 Omrania
1.5 Alfalfa 93.8 341 21313 12517 170
0.2 Bean 12.5 64 4000 3922 102
114
Annexes
0.8 Bell pepper 50.0 123 7688 5107 151

1.3 Alfalfa 81.3 453 28313 10540 269
F17 0.4 Cereals 25.0 41 2563 3022 85
0.4 Bell pepper 25.0 123 7688 4541 169
1.5 Sugar beet 93.8 152 9500 7266 131
F18 2.4 Cereals 150.0 43 2688 3327 81
1 Alfalfa 62.5 273 17063 11624 147
0.8 Mint 50.0 182 11375 11012 103
F19
0.4 Carrot 25.0 38 2364 1759 134
0.8 Mint 50.0 227 14188 11113 128
F20
0.4 Tomato 25.0 147 9188 4510 204
1.2 Alfalfa 75.0 220 13743 10573 130
F21 0.5 Cereals 31.3 42 2625 2940 89
0.3 Olive trees 18.8 69 4313 5790 74
1 Cereals 62.5 54 3375 2909 116
1.7 Alfalfa 53.1 449 14031 11051 127
F22 0.7 Carrot 43.8 47 2938 1956 150
1 Sugar beet 62.5 137 8563 6944 123
0.8 Olive trees 50.0 110 6875 5975 115
1.5 Potato 93.8 158 9875 8233 120
F23
0.3 Alfalfa 18.8 238 14875 12077 123
115
Annexes
Annex 12: Water consumption before(2013) and after the conversion project(2016).
(1)
(2)
Water (2)
Consumption (1)
Farms Area(ha) Consumption
(surface irrigation (drip irrigation

2013) 2016)
F’1 2.76 13284 28414 2.14
F’2 2.25 16272 24295 1.49
F’3 1.47 18864 20276 1.07
F’4 2.07 18432 19994 1.08
F’5 3.92 27216 31731 1.17
F’6 3.25 35208 38165 1.08
F’7 3.22 32976 30980 0.94
F’8 0.49 5760 7211 1.25
F’9 0.68 3672 4158 1.13
F’10 1.13 20304 20187 0.99
F’11 1.53 12060 18127 1.5
F’12 1.03 21888 15237 0.7
F’13 0.3 8208 6759 0.82
F’14 0.31 4860 6500 1.34
F’15 0.78 19116 17452 0.91
F’16 2.9252 41688 29636 0.71
Total 50.7514 516672 539296 1.04
116
117

Anas Mansouri Thesis

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Anas Mansouri Thesis

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Dedication

I lovingly dedicate this thesis to my dear mother, for her

To the soul of my brother, may Allah forgive him and grant

him his highest paradise.

To my dear brothers and sisters, thanks for being the happiness

To my dear aunt Raphyaa Sefiani, and her family for

To my dear friends Aziz,Khalid,Sarah,Salah,Amine,Ayman and Oualid for

I would like to express my cordial thanks to my advisors. Prof.Alessandra, Prof.Khadra,and

Thank you all

Table 1: Project Components in Tadla region (ORMAVT, 2010). ............................................... 10

Figure 1: Layout of Tadla irrigated perimeter ............................................................................... 4

Annex 1: Survey sheet .............................................................................................................. 98

List of Acronyms and abbreviations

ADA Agricultural Development Agency

ADB African Development Bank

ADF Agricultural Development Fund

A.S.L Above sea level

ASW Available soil water (mm)

AUEA Agricultural Water Users’ Association

CDA Centre de développement agricole

COSUMAR Morocco Sugar Corporation

CU Christiansen coefficient (%)

CWR Crop water requirements (mm)

CWRSI Crop water requirements satisfaction index (%)

DAS Day after sowing

DH Moroccan currency. 1euro = 11 DH

E Soil evaporation (mm)

ETa Actual evapotranspiration (mm)

ETc Maximum crop evapotranspiration (mm)

ETc act Actual crop evapotranspiration (mm)

ETo Reference evapotranspiration (mm)

GIR Gross irrigation requirements (mm)

IPT Irrigated Perimeter of Tadla

IWR Irrigation water requirements (mm)

Kcb Basal crop coefficient

Kcb act Actual basal crop coefficient

Kcb in Basal crop coefficient during the initial growth stage

Ke Soil evaporation coefficient

Ky Yield response factor

LAI Leaf area index (m²/m²)

LSI Large Scale Irrigation

MAPM Ministry of Agriculture and Maritime Fisheries

NIR Net irrigation requirements (mm)

ORMVAT Regional Agricultural Development Authority of Tadla

PAPNEEI Irrigation Water Saving Programme Support Project

PMV Green Morocco Plan

PNEEI National Irrigation Water Saving Programme

PPP Public-Private Partnership

PR2/6 Profile probe

RH Relative humidity (%)

SMSI Small and Medium Scale Irrigation

TAW Total available water (mm.m-1)

TEW Total evaporable water (mm)

TWU Total water use (mm)

WP Water productivity (kg.m-3)

WPIRR Irrigation Water productivity (kg.m-3)

WS Wind speed (m.s-1)

WUA Water user association

Ya Actual yield (kg.ha-1)

Ym Maximum yield (kg.ha-1)

Zr Root depth (m)

However, as an innovative technique, problems of irrigation management (over irrigation and

The specific objectives are:

Chapter 2: Literature review