Water Conservation Science and Engineering (2021) 6:263–274

https://doi.org/10.1007/s41101-021-00119-8

ORIGINAL PAPER

Performance Evaluation of Surface Irrigation System

in the Case of Dirma Small‑Scale Irrigation Scheme at Kalu
Woreda, Northern Ethiopia
Eshetu Adane Kibret1 · Abebech Abera2 · Workineh Tadesse Ayele1 · Neway Asrat Alemie1

Received: 5 July 2021 / Revised: 22 September 2021 / Accepted: 22 September 2021 / Published online: 12 October 2021
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021

Abstract
This study was conducted to evaluate the performance of Dirma small-scale irrigation scheme using selected performance
indicators. To achieve these objectives, the primary data collected for this study were discharge measurements in the canals,
measurements of water applied to the field, and soil data before and after irrigation. Besides, secondary data collected were
also climatic and agronomic data, yields, command, and initial area. CROPWAT 8.0 model and Microsoft Excel were used
to analyze the data. The results of internal indicators: conveyance efficiency, application efficiency, storage efficiency, and
overall efficiency were 76.64%, 56.05%, 79.40%, and 43.54%, respectively, whereas the results of the external indicators:
relative water supply, relative irrigation supply, water delivery capacity, irrigation ratio, the sustainability of an irrigated
area, output per unit irrigated area, output per unit command area, output per unit water supply, and output per unit water
consumed were 1.0, 0.95, 0.26, 0.41, 1.5, 4881.40 US$/ha, 1896.56 US$/ha, 1.64 US$/m3, and 1.25 US$/m3, respectively.
There was an unfair distribution of water due to water scarcity and illegal water users as the beneficiaries responded. Those
performance external indicator values indicate that there is a low water supply, the actual command area was reduced by
61% from initially designed, and some structures initially installed were becoming nonfunctional. The basis of this conclu-
sion was frequent field observation, sustainability of an irrigated area result, and beneficiary responses about the initial and
current condition of the scheme. Generally, the overall performance of the scheme is considered poor. Therefore, a gated
division system, regular canal cleaning, and maintenance of broken irrigation infrastructures should be applied to mitigate
the water scarcity problem.

Keywords Indicators · Field efficiency · Performance

Introduction

Water is a crucial natural resource for all aspects of life,

which is used for domestic, agriculture, recreation, and
industrial purpose. The major portion of the water resource
* Abebech Abera is used in the agriculture sector for irrigation purposes to
abiti.abe@gmail.com
enhance crop production. Irrigation is an artificial applica-
Eshetu Adane Kibret tion of water for crops in a specified area to increase yield
eshetu2127@gmail.com
and production, particularly in dry climates where the rain-
Workineh Tadesse Ayele fall is not sufficient for crop production. Therefore, optimum
Workineh2658t@gmail.com
utilization of the available water is of paramount importance
Neway Asrat Alemie [20].
newayasrat@gmail.com
Small-scale irrigation is considered as one of the options
1
Hydraulic and Water Resources Engineering, Debre Tabor for increasing agricultural productivity and supporting
University, Debre Tabor, Ethiopia development in Sub-Saharan Africa [22]. It is characterized
2
Bahir Dar Institute of Technology, Bahir Dar University, by the use of simple water access technologies for irrigation.
Bahir Dar, Ethiopia For several years, Africa has advocated irrigated agriculture

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
264 Water Conservation Science and Engineering (2021) 6:263–274

as a way of ensuring food safety and improving the living land is too low as compared with the planned area, water
standards of rural people [19]. control structures constructed in the scheme are not fully
Various studies have shown that irrigation schemes operational, and the scheme has not been fully functional
improve food security and livelihoods of rural farmers in as expected.
Africa [4, 11, 32, 44].
Ethiopia is one of the African countries endowed with
ample water resources. According to Change [10], Ethiopia Materials and Methods
has 12 river basins with an annual runoff volume of 124
billion meter cube (BMC) of water and an estimated range Description of the Study Area
of 2.6 to 30 BMC groundwater potential. The irrigation
potential is also estimated at 5.3 Mha from 15 Mha of the The irrigation scheme is located mainly at Kalu Woreda
total cultivated area. The irrigated area of the country is in the South wollo zone from Amhara National Regional
640,000 ha. Of these 120,000 ha using rainwater harvesting, State (ANRS). The altitude of the woreda ranges between
383,000 ha from small-scale irrigation, and 129,000 ha from 1400 and 2800 m above mean sea level. The project area is
medium and large-scale irrigation systems [3], [10]). Lamb- accessed through asphalt road 20 km from Kombolcha to
isso [24] revealed that one of the best alternatives to consider Harbu and 6 km from Harbu to the proposed project area is
for reliable and sustainable food security is expanding irriga- a gravel road and constructed by the Commission for Sus-
tion development on various scales, through river diversion, tainable Agriculture and Environmental Rehabilitation in
constructing micro dams, and water harvesting structures. the Amhara Region (Co-SAERAR) in the year 1994 E.C.
The majority population of Ethiopia is dependent on The rainfall distribution is a bimodal type, contains “Belg”
rain-fed agricultural production for its livelihood. The major and “Kiremet” season, but the Belg rainfall is very variable
problems associated with rain-fed agriculture in the country in commencement and amount (Fig. 1).
are a high degree of rainfall variability and unreliability. In
this regard, sustainable food production through an optimal Materials Used
development of water resources, in conjunction with the
development of land, depends on the method of irrigation Auger and core samplers were used to collecting disturbed
considered (FAO, 2003). and undisturbed soil samples, respectively. The sensitive
As IWMI [21] reported, Ethiopia faces four key technical, balance was used to measure the weight of the soil sam-
socioeconomic, institutional, and environmental challenges ple and a smartphone camera to capture necessary photos
that must be overcome to meet irrigation development: during observation and field measurement. Ninety-degree
behind schedule scheme delivery, low-performance of the V-notches weirs were used to measure the discharge of the
schemes, constraints on scale-up of irrigation projects, and branch off-take canals and applied water to the field. Float-
protecting irrigation development sustainability. ing objects and a stopwatch were used for measuring canal
Evaluating the performance of irrigation systems was water flow velocity. A tape meter was used to measure dif-
assist to distinguish whether the targets and objectives of the ferent dimensions. Global Positioning System (GPS) was
irrigation projects are met or not [41]. The performance indi- used to capture different coordinate points of the scheme.
cator study shows that the evaluation of the actual perfor-
mance of the irrigation system should depend on an accurate Method of Data Collection
hydrological water balance over the area considered [20].
The performance of many agriculture systems are signifi- Data were collected from both primary and secondary
cantly below their potential due to poor design, construc- sources in collaboration with agronomists, kebele develop-
tion, operation, maintenance, and inefficient irrigation water ment agents (Das), and some farmers who were consulted
management [30]. about the irrigation scheme condition.
According to Pereira [33], field evaluation plays a funda- Primary data were collected through field observations
mental role in improving irrigation systems. International and field measurements. Secondary data were gathered
Water Management Institute (IWMI) developed two types from different sources like reports, documents kept by the
of indicators to evaluate irrigation systems: internal and Woreda Agricultural Office, literature, and personal visits
external (productivity) indicators. The main objective of this at the scheme.
study was going to evaluate the performance of the irriga-
tion scheme using selected internal and external indicators. Method of Data Analysis
The selection of those indicators was based on the material
and data availability for data collection and analysis. The For data analysis and manipulation activities, CROPWAT
major problems of the study area are that the actual irrigated 8.0 and Microsoft Excel were used. Arc GIS and Google

13
Water Conservation Science and Engineering (2021) 6:263–274 265

Fig. 1  Map of the study area

Earth were used to delineate the map of the study area and ∑n (𝜃vAI − 𝜃vBI)
Ds = i ∗ Di
the layout of the irrigation schemes through digitization. i=0 100
The soil particle size composition of each particle was
analyzed using hydrometer analysis in the laboratory and where Ds is the average depth of water stored to the root
based on the percentage of each particle composition, the zone (mm); θvAI and θvBI are moisture content of the ith
soil textural class was determined by the USDA soil textural soil layer after and before irrigation on an oven-dry volume
triangle method [8]. Soil moisture content was determined basis (%), respectively; Di is the thickness of the ith soil
by gravimetric moisture content oven drying the soil sam- layer (m); and n is the number of layers in the root zone.
ples taken from preselected fields by 30 cm depth interval Field capacity (FC) and permanent wilting point (PWP)
up to 90 cm from the top at 105 °C for 24 h. The average were determined using pressure plate apparatus in the labo-
depth of water stored to the root zone (mm) determined by ratory and the soil moisture content at 0.33 bar suction was
gravimetric soil moisture content in each sample on a weight for FC and that at 15 bar was for PWP by taking three com-
basis infraction (θw) was calculated using the equation [15]: posite soil samples from each stratum (head, middle, and
tail). Based on field capacity (FC) and permanent wilting
Ww − Wd point (PWP), total available water (TAW​) amount in the soil
𝜃w = ∗ 100 (1)
Wd was determined which is the total amount of water a crop
can extract from its root zone.
where θw = soil water content on a dry weight basis,
Ww = wet weight of the soil (g) Wd = dry weight of the soil TAW = 1000 ∗ (𝜃fc − 𝜃pwp) ∗ Zr (2)
(g).
The gravimetric moisture content on volume base was where TAW​the total available soil water in the root zone
estimated as the product of gravimetric content and bulk (mm), 𝜃fc the water content at field capacity ­(m3/m3), 𝜃pwp
density: 𝜃v = 𝜃w ∗ Bd .

13
266 Water Conservation Science and Engineering (2021) 6:263–274

the water content at wilting point (­ m3/m3), and Zr effective Rn

root depth of crop (m). Rg = (7)
Ea
Bulk density refers to the compactness of soil and which
was determined using undisturbed soil samples with a core where Rn is the net irrigation requirement which is the same
sampler volume of 98.125 c­ m 3 at the interval of 30 cm as CWR​, Rg is the gross irrigation requirement, and Ea is the
each. The samples were weighed and placed in an oven and field irrigation application efficiency. Data for major crops
dried at 105 °C for 24 h. The dry bulk density (Bd) was grown in the study areas including growing stages and stage
computed by dividing the oven-dry mass of the soil sample lengths (days), crop coefficients (kc), rooting depths (Zr),
(Md) to a known volume of core sampler (Vc) [6] as: depletion levels (P), and yield response factors (ky) were
obtained from the report document and interview [2, 14].
Md
Bd = (3)
Vc
Irrigation Scheduling
where Bd is the bulk density of the soil (g/cm3), Md is the
dry weight of the soil (g), Vc is the volume of core sam- The method of deciding when to irrigate and how much
plers ­(cm3), i.e., Vc = A * h, A is the area of the core ­(cm2), water to add to the field per irrigation is irrigation sched-
2
A = πd4 , because the core samplers were circular. uling. To calculate the irrigation interval, the first readily
h is the height of the core (cm) and d is the internal available water was calculated from the total water available
diameter of the core (cm). and the management of permissible depletion. The part of
the total water available that is most easily extracted by the
plant roots without causing stress is readily available water.
Determination of Irrigation Water Requirement
RAW = P ∗ TAW (8)
for Crop
where RAW​= the readily available soil water in the root zone
To estimate the crop water requirements, irrigation water (mm), P = an average fraction of total available soil water
requirement (IWR) and establish irrigation scheduling (TAW​) that can be depleted from the root zone before mois-
of the major crops grown in the scheme, CROPWAT 8:0 ture stress (reduction in ET) occurs (0–1) water depletion
model was used [16]. Penman–Monteith method was fraction/management allowable depletion (%) and then the
selected to calculate the reference crop evaporation (ETo) irrigation interval was calculated as:
as indicated in Eq. 4.
RAW
900
Intervals(days) = (9)
CWR
( ) ( )
0.408Δ Rn − G + 𝛾 T+273 u2 es − ea
ET o = ( ) (4)
Δ + γ 1 + 0.34u2
Internal Performance Indicators
where ETo is the reference evapotranspiration ( mm day−1);
Rn is net radiation at the crop surface ( MJ m−2 day−1); G is The internal indicators examine the technical or field per-
soil heat flux density ( MJ m−2 day−1); T is air temperature formance of a project by measuring how close an irrigation
(◦ C ); u2 is wind speed ( ms−1); es and ea are saturation and event is to an ideal one.
actual vapor pressures, respectively ( kPa ); Δ is slope vapor
pressure curve ( kPa ◦ C−1); and 𝛾 is psychrometric constant
Conveyance Efficiency (CE)
( kPa ◦ C−1).
Then the crop water requirement (CWR​) was estimated
The conveyance efficiency of the main, secondary, and field
by subtracting effective rainfall from ETc [13] as:
canals was measured by the inflow outflow method to deter-
ET c = ET o × kc (5) mine the conveyance loss [1].
Vo
CWR = ET c − Pe if ET c > Pe Ce = (10)
(6) Vi
otherwise CWR = 0, rainfall is enough
where Ce is the conveyance efficiency; Vi and Vo were the
Hence, the gross irrigation requirement was determined inflow diverted into the canal and outflow from the canal/in
by first measuring the field application efficiency and then specified canal reached length ­(m3/s) determined by floating
dividing the net irrigation requirement (CWR​) by the effi- at lined canals and V-notch method at unlined canals.
( ) The
ciency obtained.
surface velocity, Vs and mean flow velocity as: Vs ms = tav L

13
Water Conservation Science and Engineering (2021) 6:263–274 267

0.85 ∗ L The depths of water applied to the field were estimated as:
Vm = (11)
tav
Q ∗ t ∗ 1000
Df =
The cross-sectional area was calculated as: a
A = (b * y), for rectangular cross-section
where Df = the depth of water applied into the field (mm),
A = (a+b) ∗ y, for the trapezoidal cross-section
2 Q = discharge ­( m 3/s) obtained from V-notch formula,
where A — cross-sectional area of flow (­ m2), a — top width
t = inflow time (s), and a = irrigated area ­(m2).
of the canal (m), b — base width of the canal (m), and y —
depth of water in canal (m).
Finally, discharge can be calculated by the area velocity Storage Efficiency
method, Q = V * A that is:
( 3) It is the ratio of the quantity of water stored in the root zone
m 0.85 ∗ L ∗ A during an irrigation event determined by gravimetric mois-
Q = (12)
s t ture content laboratory to water desired in the root zone
before irrigation.
Then the general conveyance efficiency of the scheme was
calculated by weight as: Ds
Es = ∗ 100 (16)
Wd
Ecm ∗ Lm + Ecs ∗ Ls + Ect ∗ Lt
Ec = (13)
Lm + Ls + Lt where Es is storage efficiency (%), Ds is water stored in the
root zone (mm), and Wd is water desired to be stored in the
where Ecm is the conveyance efficiency of the main canal;
root zone before irrigation (mm) computed using Michael
Ecs is the conveyance efficiency of the secondary canal; Ect
[26] equation:
is the conveyance efficiency of the tertiary canal; and Lm, Ls,
and Lt are the lengths of the main, secondary, and tertiary, ∑n (MFC − MBI)
respectively. Wd = Ai ∗ Di
i=0 100

Application Efficiency where MBI = ith layer of volumetric moisture content before
irrigation (%), MFC = ith layer of volumetric moisture con-
The application efficiencies (Ea) of irrigation at the selected tent at field capacity (%), Ai = bulk density of the soil in
field is the ratio of the depth of the water stored in the root the ith layer, Di = ith layer of crop root depth (mm), and
zone of the soil (Ds) to the depth of water applied into the n = number of layers in the root zone.
fields (Df) determined by the V-notch weir.
Ds Deep Percolation Ratio (DPR)
Ea =
Df
∗ 100 (14)
The runoff ratio was normally being considered for this par-
where Ea is application efficiency (%), Ds is the average ticular study as zero as the farmers’ are using furrows whose
depth of water stored in the root zone (mm), and Df is the tail ends are closed. However, the deep percolation ratio was
average depth of water applied to the field (mm). computed as the ratio of the percolated water beyond the
The field application water depth was measured by 90° root zone to the volume of water applied to the field was
V-notch weirs which were installed at the entrance of the test computed using the formula [18]:
plot and frequent readings were taken when the farmers irri-
DPR = 100 − Ea − RR (17)
gate the test plot used to measure the discharge entering into
the field (sample) plot. The triangular or V-notch weir is pref- where DPR is deep percolation ratio (%), Ea is application
erable to other weirs for the measurement of low and widely efficiency, and RR is runoff ratio (RR = 0).
variable flows [31]. The measured water depth was changed
into its respective discharge by using the V-notch formula [39].
Overall Scheme Efficiency
√
2gtan 𝜃2 H5
Q=C
8 (15) Overall scheme efficiency was calculated as the product of
15 2 conveyance and application efficiency.
The most common angle of the notch is 90°, for which, Ep = Ec ∗ Ea (18)
with a value of C about 0.6–0.62, the approximate formula
for discharge is Q = 2.5H2.5 [31]. where Ep is overall scheme efficiency (%), Ec is conveyance
efficiency (%), and Ea is application efficiency (%).

13
268 Water Conservation Science and Engineering (2021) 6:263–274

External Performance Indicators With the same computation procedures, the total net
irrigation requirements of the season were determined.
The external or comparative performances of the scheme
were evaluated using some selected comparative indicators. Water Delivery Capacity

Water delivery capacity is the ratio of the amount of actual

Water Delivery Indicators water supplied by the system relative to the amount of irriga-
tion water intended. It was measured by comparing the volume
The selected indicators used for the evaluation of water of water delivered to the expected volume (design) of water
delivery indicators are relative water supply (RWS), rela- to be delivered.
tive irrigation supply (RIS), and water delivery capacity It demonstrates improvements in service quality for water
(WDC). Both RWS and RIS are given some indication users and quantifies the uniformity and equity of water deliv-
about the condition of water abundance or scarcity and ery [7]. The water delivery capacity indicator was calculated
how tightly supply and demand are matched [41]. as:
Qa
WDC = ∗ 100 (21)
Qi
Relative Water Supply
where WDC is the water delivery capacity (%), Qa is actu-
According to Molden et al. [30], the relative water supply ally delivered discharge of water ­(m3/s), and Qi is designed
is the ratio of total annual water supplied (irrigation plus (intended) discharge of water to be delivered ­(m3/s).
rainfall) to the annual crop water demand (determined with
the CROPWAT model). Physical Indicators
Totalwatersupply
Relativewatersupply = (19) Physical indicators are related to changing or losing irrigated
Cropwaterdemand
land in the command area for different reasons. The selected
where Total water supply = surface diversion plus effective indicators used for the evaluation of physical performance are
rainfall ­(m3); Crop water demand = potential ET or the ET irrigation ratio (IR) and sustainability of irrigated area (SIA).
under well-water conditions for each crop ­(m3). Irrigation ratio (IR) is an indicator used to evaluate the
degree of utilization, in which the land available for irrigation
is also a useful indicator of whether factors are contributing to
Relative Irrigation Supply under irrigation of the command area. Irrigated area sustain-
ability (SIA) tells us that the area under irrigation is contracting
Relative irrigation supply (RIS) is the ratio of annual irri- or expanding as compared to the area initially irrigated.
gation supply (which excludes rainfall) to annual irrigation
Irrigatedcroppedarea
demand. This indicator is useful to assess the degree of Irrigationratio(IR) = (22)
Commandarea
irrigation water stress/abundance/irrigation demand [30].
Values of relative irrigation supply (RIS) higher than one
Currentlyirrigablearea
indicate that excess irrigation water is being supplied. The Sustainabilityofirrigatedarea(SIA) =
Initiallyirrigatedarea (23)
indicators are estimated as per the equations below.
where Irrigated crop area (ha) is the portion of the actual
Irrigationsupply irrigated land in any given irrigation season, Command
Relativeirrigationsupply = (20)
Irrigationdemand area (ha) is the potential scheme designed command area,
Currently irrigable area is the area that currently can be
where Irrigation supply = only the surface diversion for irri-
irrigated (ha), and Initially irrigated area is the designed/
gation ­(m3), Irrigation demand = the crop ET less effective
nominal/irrigable area (ha).
rainfall ­(m3).
The total net crop water requirement/demand/for the
season was determined as:
Agricultural Performance Indicators

Aonion Atomato The basic indicators of agricultural performance were

( ) ( )
CWR = CWRonion ∗ + CWRtomato ∗
Atotal Atotal related to crop production as output while inputs were land
Ateff Apepper
+ CWRteff ∗ + CWRpepper ∗ ( ) and water.
Atotal Atotal

13
Water Conservation Science and Engineering (2021) 6:263–274 269

Output per Unit Irrigated Area (Birr/ha) Results and Discussions

In the irrigation season, it was measured as the overall out- Soil Textural Class, Bulk Density, and PH Value
put value per harvested area.
According to the USDA SCS Soil textural triangle, the tex-
Seasonalvalueofproduction
OPUIA = (24) tural class for Dirma irrigation scheme was clay, clay loam
Irrigatedcroppedarea
and sandy loam that were dominant at head reach, middle
reach, and tail reach of the canal, respectively. The average
bulk density of the sampled properties of the soil results
Output per Unit Command Area (Birr/ha)
was at the head, middle, and tail reach of the canal which
were 1.18, 1.25, and 1.19 g/cm3, respectively. The result
This is another measure of land productivity that quanti-
implies the top surface soil had lower bulk density than the
fies the amount of output obtained per unit irrigable area
subsurface and soil with textural class clay loam which was
of command.
more compacted than clay and sandy loam as indicated in
Seasonalvalueofproduction Table 1. Miller and Donahue [27] recommended soil bulk
OPUCA = (25) density below 1.4 g/cm3 for clays and 1.6 g/cm3 for sands
Commandarea
to get better plant growth. The current results at the head,
middle, and tail reach were in the recommended range. The
Output per Unit Irrigation Water Supply (Birr/m3) average soil pH was 5.31 to 5.66 for the three canal reaches
of the irrigation scheme as indicated in Table 1. The pH
Water productivity indicators are calculated as the total value value of the scheme was in line with Liu and Hanlon [25]
of production per unit of water diverted from the source to which was reported as a pH range from 5.5 to 7.0 is suitable
the command area throughout the irrigation season [30]. for most vegetable crops than acidity.
Seasonalvalueofproduction
OPUIS = (26) Field Capacity, Permanent Wilting Point, and Total
Divertedirrigationsupply
Available Water

Output per Unit Water Consumed (Birr/m3) The soil moisture content at field capacity (FC) varied
from 17.89 to 31.87%, permanent wilting point (PWP)
Consumed water is the actual evapotranspiration or process 9.25 to 19.24%, and total available water (TAW​) 86.4 to
consumption from only irrigated crops (ET); it excludes 133.6 mm/m with the interval of 30 cm up to 90 cm soil
other losses and water depletion from the hydrological cycle. depth was analyzed as indicated the results in Table 2.
The relative magnitude of moisture content at field capac-
Seasonalvalueofproduction
OPUWC = (27) ity (FC) and permanent wilting point (PWP) of the soil
Volumeofwaterconsumedbycrop depends on its textures and structures. In general, the
where Production = the output of the irrigated area in terms results of FC, PWP, and TAW​ were found to be in the
of the gross or net value of production measured at local acceptable range given by FAO [17].
or world prices, Irrigated cropped area = the sum of the The reference crop evapotranspiration (ETo) and effective
areas under crops during the period of analysis, Command rainfall of the study area were computed and mean monthly
area = the nominal or design area to be irrigated, Diverted ETo values were much higher than that of effective rainfall
irrigation supply = the volume of surface irrigation water except in July and August. As a result, extra water is required
diverted to the command area, and Volume of water con- to fulfill the evapotranspiration demands of the scheme as
sumed by ET = the actual evapotranspiration of crops. indicated in Fig. 2. Similarly, the mean annual effective rain-
The need for calculation of so many indicators was lim- fall of the area, available for the plant, was 714.5 mm with
ited by those indicators based on the scope of the study and mean monthly values.
limited data. The scope of this study was concerned with the
performance evaluation of the scheme, with special attention Crop Water and Irrigation Water Requirements
to the evaluation of the current operation rules in terms of
matching supply with demand, adequacy, output, scheme Crop water and irrigation water requirements were calcu-
efficiency and sustainability, and delivery to various parts lated using CROPWAT 8.0 model based on Eqs. 4, 5, and
of the system. 6 by using crop characteristics data and soil description as

13
270 Water Conservation Science and Engineering (2021) 6:263–274

Table 1  Soil textural class, bulk Farmers field Soil depth Particle size distributions % Bd pH Soil texture class
density, and pH value cm g/cm3
Sand Silt clay

Head reach 0–30 21 31 48 1.21 5.48 Clay

30–60 28 29 42 1.28 5.49 Clay
60–90 33 26 41 1.05 5.54 Clay
Average 1.18 5.5
Middle reach 0–30 39 33 28 1.39 5.65 Clay loam
30–60 41 31 29 1.17 5.66 Clay loam
60–90 40 33 27 1.18 5.68 Clay loam
Average 1.25 5.66
Tail reach 0–30 55 29 16 1.24 5.28 Sandy loam
30–60 55 26 18 1.02 5.3 Sandy loam
60–90 53 27 20 1.31 5.34 Sandy loam
Average 1.19 5.31

Table 2  Soil moisture at FC, Farmers field Soil depth FC PWP TAW​ TAW​ TAW​
PWP, and TAW​of the irrigation cm % % % mm/m mm
scheme
Head reach 0–30 31.87 19.24 12.63 126.3 37.89
30–60 31.75 19.18 12.57 125.7 37.71
60–90 31.65 19.08 12.57 125.7 37.71
Average 31.76 19.17 12.59 125.9 37.77
Middle reach 0–30 28.35 14.99 13.36 133.6 40.08
30–60 28.28 14.95 13.33 133.3 39.99
60–90 28.24 14.92 13.32 133.2 39.96
Average 28.29 14.95 13.34 133.37 40.01
Tail reach 0–30 18.23 9.46 8.77 87.7 26.31
30–60 18.19 9.32 8.87 88.7 26.61
60–90 17.89 9.25 8.64 86.4 25.92
Average 18.1 9.34 8.76 87.6 26.28

Fig. 2  Mean monthly rainfall,

effective rainfall, and reference 400.0
evapotranspiration 350.0
300.0
Rainfall and ET0
(mm/month)

250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Rainfall Eff.Rainfall ETo

input for the major irrigated crops grown in the irrigation Irrigation Scheduling
scheme and this model result was used as input for irrigation
water delivery performance (Table 3). The irrigation interval in the scheme was irregular depend-
ing on the availability of water; condition of crop and growth

13
Water Conservation Science and Engineering (2021) 6:263–274 271

Table 3  The major seasonal irrigated crops were grown in the irriga- of water in the canal is admitted. The main causes of
tion scheme high water loss or low conveyance efficiency were due to
Crop type Effective rainfall Crop water Irrigation sedimentation and growing weeds, silting with soil and
mm/season requirement require- other debris, cracking and breaking lined canals, over-
mm/season ment flowing in an unlined canal, none functional of all flow
mm/season
control gates, unauthorized water turnouts, and illegal
Onion 181.8 391.1 209.3 water abstractions.
Tomato 231.9 500.9 269 Overall conveyance efficiency of the scheme is 76.64%
Teff 105.9 288.7 182.8
Pepper 217.7 431.2 213.5
Application Efficiency

The estimated application efficiency of selected fields

Table 4  Average conveyance efficiency of canal systems
at the irrigation scheme was 59.75%, 56.43%, and
Canal part Conveyance efficiency Length Remark 51.97% at the head, middle, and tail reach, respec-
(%) (m)
tively, with an average application efficiency of the
Lined main canal 95.43 above [37], 650 Good scheme 56.05%. The average values of application effi-
88.7% ciencies of the three reaches were within the ranges
Unlined secondary 77.37 above [28], 70% 200 Good indicated in many kinds of literature reported for sur-
canal 1 face irrigation.
Unlined secondary 73.19 above [28], 70% 550 Good Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) [15] reported
canal 2
the average application efficiency for surface irrigation in the
Lined secondary canal 3 72.67 below [37], 1930 Poor
88.7% range of 50 to 60%. Savva and Frenken [36] recommended
Lined secondary canal 4 77. 70 below [37], 940 Poor 50 to 70% for properly designed furrow irrigation.
88.7%
Unlined tertiary canal 69.04 below [28], 70% 500 Poor
Storage Efficiency

Mean water storage efficiency (Es) computed using Eq. 16

stage of the crop the interval varies between 7 and 10 days in the selected fields at the head, middle, and tail-end water
throughout the growing season. The next irrigation turn will users was 86.65%, 75.92%, and 75.61%, respectively, with
be repeated after all the groups have fully irrigated their the average storage efficiency of the scheme was 79.4%.
farm. The storage efficiency of all reaches was generally very low
During this time some farmers irrigate their farms by rent compared to the storage efficiency of Raghuwanshi and Wal-
pumping 40 ETB per hour of pumping to achieve better crop lender [34] of 87.5%.
production; the existed irrigation interval was longer than
the farmers required duration.
Deep Percolation Ratio
Internal Performance Indicators
As Eq. 17 in Dirma small-scale irrigation scheme, deep
percolation ratio of the farmers varied from 40.25% at the
Conveyance Efficiency
head and 43.57% at the middle reach and 48.03% at tail
reach, 43.95% as average deep percolation ratio. In the
Conveyance efficiency associated with main, secondary,
scheme, there is a high deep percolation ratio which indi-
and tertiary canals of the systems was computed using
cates over-irrigation.
Eq. 10 considering the total flow delivered by the con-
veyance system and total inflow into the system as shown
in Table 4. The corresponding discharge lost was esti- Overall Irrigation Efficiency of the Scheme
mated 0.02 l/s/m from lined main canal, 0.05 l/s/m and
0.06 l/s/m from unlined secondary canals, 0.04 l/s/m and In this study, the overall efficiency of the irrigation scheme
0.06 l/s/m from lined secondary canals, and 0.03 l/s/m was 43.54% which is poor according to FAO [15]; a scheme
from unlined tertiary canal. Only the lined main canal was irrigation efficiency of 50–60% is good, while a scheme
in the acceptable range when the results were compared irrigation efficiency of below 50% is considered to be poor
to Renault et al. [35] which was about 10 to 15% of loss (Table 5).

13
272 Water Conservation Science and Engineering (2021) 6:263–274

Table 5  Summary of internal process indicators result the capacity of the canal is a constraint to meet the maxi-
Internal indicators The efficiency of mum crop water requirement due to poor management of the
the scheme (%) scheme and reduction of flow velocity.

Conveyance efficiency 77.68

Application efficiency 56.05 Physical Indicators
Storage efficiency 79.40
Deep percolation ratio 43.95 The irrigation scheme of command area, initial irrigated
Overall efficiency 43.54 area, and currently irrigated areas was 231 ha, 60 ha, and
89.75 ha, respectively. The irrigation ratio and sustainabil-
ity of irrigated areas were calculated using Eqs. 22 and 23,
respectively.
External Performance Indicators

Irrigation Water Delivery Performance Irrigation Ratio

The irrigation ratio of the scheme was 0.39 which means

Relative Water Supply The calculated value of the relative 39% of the command area was currently under irrigation
water supply indicator was 1.0. A similar result was reported and about 61% of the command area was not under irriga-
by Wondatir [43], at Jari small-scale irrigation scheme which tion during the study period. The main reasons for this were
was 1.0. competition due to the increasing number of water users of
As the result shows, the total water supplied was sufficient neighboring woreda and kebeles upstream of the scheme
for the demand for the crop water; however, it could not diversion headwork, construction of highway road across the
irrigate additional farmland. scheme, and lack of irrigation infrastructures at the scheme.

Relative Irrigation Supply The relative irrigation supply

Sustainability of Irrigated Area
(RIS) shows whether the irrigation demand is satisfied or
not. The computed value of relative irrigation supply was
The scheme’s calculated sustainability value for the irrigated
0.95 less than one which means that the diverted irrigation
area was 1.5 higher than the unit, which suggests irrigated
supply was insufficient for the irrigation demand of the crop.
area expansion and would mean more sustainable irrigation
The result indicated that the water would not irrigate
than what was initially irritated. The result was nearly iden-
additional irrigable land even from currently irrigated area
tical with Kassa [23] result, at Tigray, Ethiopia (Mychew
tail users faced water scarcity from late May through early
small-scale irrigation scheme) which was 1.7.
June.

Water Delivery Capacity The water delivery capacity was Irrigated Agriculture Performance Indicators
determined using Eq. 21 which based on the designed
amount of water was 0.2 ­m3/s from the design document Under agriculture performance, land and water productiv-
and the actual water delivered through the main canal is ity indicators were analyzed using irrigation supply/sea-
0.053 ­m3/sec. The actual volume of water delivered to the son 267,940 ­m3, crop water consumed/season 349,819 ­m3,
main canal is much less than the designed discharge that command irrigable area 231 ha, and total income of the
means the result of WDC was 0.26. The result indicates that scheme 438,106.01 US$ (Table 6).

Table 6  Irrigated crop type, yields, and output production values of the scheme
Crop type Area (ha) Yield (Ql/ha) Total yield (Ql) Unit price Total output (Birr) Total income (US$)
(Birr/Ql)

Onion 10.5 125 1312.5 1800 2,362,500 66,648.99

Tomato 24.25 220 5335 1000 5,335,000 150,506.81
Teff 35 11 385 3200 1,232,000 34,756.21
pepper 20 60 1200 5500 6,600,000 186,194.00
Total 89.75 416 8232.5 11,500 15,529,500 438,106.01

Ql, quintal; 1 Ql = 100 kg and 1 US$ = 35.4469 Ethiopian Birr rate, August 2020

13
Water Conservation Science and Engineering (2021) 6:263–274 273

Land Productivity Indicators Conclusions

Under land productivity issues, output per unit area irri- Internal performance indicators such as conveyance efficiency,
gated and output per unit command area performance field application efficiency, storage efficiency, deep percola-
indicators were analyzed using Eqs. 25 and 26. The find- tion ratio, and overall efficiency of the scheme were computed.
ing of output per unit area irrigated was 4881.40 US$/ha Under external performance indicators, water delivery perfor-
which shows that the scheme has better value than kinds mance, physical performance, and agricultural performance
of the kinds of literature [42] at Wosha irrigation scheme were estimated. The scheme has a 650 m length of rectangular
which was 4213.97 US$/ha, Moges [29] result the output lined main canal which providing water to two unlined and two
per unit irrigated area was 4,306.76 US$/ha, 2,852.77 lined secondary canals with few direct tertiary canals. From
US$/ha as reported by Shiberu et al. [41] and lower than this lined concrete canal, the average conveyance efficiency
Tesfaye et al. [42] at Werka irrigation scheme reported was 95.43% whereas the overall conveyance efficiency of the
5840.34 US$/ha. A similar result also was reported by scheme was 76.64%. The result shows that there was high
Degirmenci et al. [12] who found the output per irrigated water loss due to the absence of flow control gates, lack of fre-
area was varied between 308 and 5771 US$/ha for twelve quent canal cleaning and maintenance, compaction of seepage
irrigation schemes found in the Southeastern Anatolia lines, and protection rules from canal breaching.
Project. The average field application efficiencies of the scheme
The output per unit command area result of the scheme are 56.05% which is good as compared with an application
was 1896.56 US$/ha higher than the results of 709 US$/ efficiency of 50–70% for furrow irrigation observed in other
ha reported by Şener et al. [38] and 1,278.59 US$/ha African countries. Similarly, the mean value of storage effi-
reported by Shiberu et al. [41]. However, the calculated ciency of the scheme was 79.4% low compared to the storage
value was smaller than values of 4,746 US$/ha at Selamko efficiency of 87.5%. The overall efficiency of the scheme was
[40] and 2,852.77 US$/ha at Haleku small-scale irriga- also 43.54% which was poor. The relative water supply was
tions scheme [41]. sufficient, whereas relative irrigation supplies were insuf-
ficient beyond the crop demand.
The results of performance concerning land and water
Water Productivity Indicators productivity output per unit irrigated area, output per unit
command area, output per unit irrigation supply, and output
The outputs per unit irrigation supply showed the rev- per unit water consumed were evaluated. The main factors of
enue from the agricultural output for each meter cube of which were the shortage of water, illegal water abstractions,
irrigation water supplied (Eq. 27). The outputs per unit market problems, and crop damage by insects and diseases.
irrigation supply of the scheme was 1.64 US$/m3 which
lies in the range from 0.03 to 2.21 US$/m 3 according
to Cakmak [9], where the study was conducted on sixty Data Availability The required data collected for analysis are included
in the manuscript. The corresponding author is ready to clarify the data
irrigation schemes found in Kızılırmak Basin, Turkey.
and provides all the necessary data set as per the request.
However, the finding was higher than the Golda irriga-
tion scheme reported by Moges [29] which is 1.42 US$/
Declarations
m3 and 0.47 US$/m3 and 0.2 US$/m3 obtained from Jari
and Aloma schemes, respectively, reported by Wondatir Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate All procedures performed
[43]. A higher value of this indicator indicates that there in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the
is a lower irrigation supply to the command area. ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee
and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or
The output per unit of water consumed is used to
comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all
describe the return on the water consumed by the crop individual participants involved in the study.
(Eq. 28). This indicator gives due attention to the water
consumed by the scheme and tells us how water is effi- Conflict of Interest The authors declare no competing interests.
ciently utilized by the scheme from an economic point of
view. The values for this indicator were found to be 1.25
US$/m3 and it was in the range of 0.15–1.55 US$/m3 as
reported by Cakmak [9]. References
This result shows that the water use efficiency is better
than the Selamko irrigation scheme which was 1.15 US$/ 1. Abera A, Verhoest NEC, Tilahun SA, Alamirew T, Adgo E, Moges
m3 as Shenkut [40] reported. MM, Nyssen J (2019) Performance of small-scale irrigation schemes

13
274 Water Conservation Science and Engineering (2021) 6:263–274

in Lake Tana Basin of Ethiopia: technical and socio-political attrib- 24. Lambisso R (2008) Assessment of design practices and performance
utes. Phys Geogr 40(3):227–251 of small-scale irrigation structures in the south region
2. Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M (1998) Crop evapotran- 25. Liu G, Hanlon E (2012) Soil pH range for optimum commercial
spiration-guidelines for computing crop water requirements-FAO vegetable production
irrigation and drainage paper 56. Fao, Rome 300(9):D05109 26. Michael AM (2008) Irrigation theory and practice, 2nd edn. VIKAS
3. Awulachew SB, Erkossa T, Namara RE (2010) Irrigation potential Publishing house Pvt Ltd., India
in Ethiopia–constraints and opportunities for enhancing the system, 27. Miller WR, Donahue RL (1995) Soils in our environment, 7th edn.
International Water Management Institute. Colombo, Sri Lanka Prentice Hall Inc, New Jersey, p 649p
4. Awulachew, Seleshi B, Merrey, Douglas J (2007) Assessment of 28. MoAFS (2002) Assessment of irrigation efficiency in traditional
small-scale irrigation and water harvesting in Ethiopian agricultural smallholder schemes in Pangani and Rufji basins
development. International Water Management Institute (IWMI) 29. Moges F (2019) Performance evaluation of gold small-scale irriga-
5. Awulachew SB, Erkossa T, Namara, RE (2010) Irrigation potential tion scheme in Assosa Woreda, Benishangul Gumuz Regional State.
in Ethiopia. Constraints and opportunities for enhancing the system; Hawassa University, Ethiopia
International Water Management Institute: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 30. Molden DJ, Sakthivadivel R, Perry CJ, De Fraiture C (1998) Indica-
6. Blake GR (1965) Bulk density. Methods of soil analysis: part 1 tors for comparing the performance of irrigated agricultural systems
physical and mineralogical properties, including statistics of meas- (Vol. 20): IWMI
urement and sampling, 9, 374–390 31. Olabisi A, Joshua AT, Benjamin O (2017) Experimental deter-
7. Bos MG (1997) Performance indicators for irrigation and drainage. mination of the effect of notch shape on weir flow characteristics
Irrig Drain Syst 11(2):119–137 using constant head discharge apparatus. Asian Journal of Current
8. Bouyoucos GJ (1951) A recalibration of the hydrometer method for Research 2(2):55–64
making mechanical analysis of soils 1. Agron J 43(9):434–438 32. Oni SA, Maliwichi LL, Obadire OS (2011) Assessing the contribu-
9. Cakmak B (2003). Evaluation of irrigation system performance with tion of smallholder irrigation to household food security, in com-
comparative indicators in irrigation schemes, Kizilirmak Basin, Tur- parison to dryland farming in Vhembe district of Limpopo province,
key. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences (Pakistan) South Africa. Afr J Agric Res 6(10):2188–2197
10. Change, Ethiopian Panelon Climate (2015) First assessment report 33. Pereira LS (1999) Higher performance through combined improve-
working group ii-climate change impact, vulnerability, adaptation ments in irrigation methods and scheduling: a discussion. Agric
and mitigation V: Ethiopian AcademyofSciences. Water Manag 40(2–3):153–169
11. Chazovachii B (2012) The impact of small-scale irrigation schemes 34. Raghuwanshi NS, Wallender WW (1998) Optimal furrow irrigation
on rural livelihoods: the case of Panganai irrigation scheme Bikita scheduling under heterogeneous conditions. Agric Syst 58(1):39–55
District Zimbabwe. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa 35. Renault D, Facon T, Wahaj R (2007) Modernizing irrigation man-
14(4):217–231 agement: the MasscotE approach—mapping system and services for
12. Degirmenci H, Büyükcangaz H, Kuscu H (2003) Assessment of canal operation techniques (Vol. 63): Food & Agriculture Org
irrigation schemes with comparative indicators in the Southeastern 36. Savva AP, Frenken K (2002) Irrigation manual. Planning, develop-
Anatolia Project. Turk J Agric For 27(5):293–303 ment monitoring and evaluation of irrigated agriculture with farmer
13. Döll P (2002) Impact of climate change and variability on irrigation participation. FAO
requirements: a global perspective. Clim Change 54(3):269–293 37. Seleshi B, Mekonen A (2011) Performance of irrigation: an assess-
14. Doorenbos J, Kassam AH (1979) Yield response to water. FAO ment at different scales in Ethiopia. Exp Agric 47(S1):57–69
Irrigation and drainage paper 33:193 38. Şener M, Yüksel AN, Konukcu F (2007) Evaluation of Hayrabolu
15. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) (1989) Guideline for irrigation scheme in Turkey using comparative performance
designing and evaluating surface irrigation systems. Irrigation and indicators
drainage paper. No. 45.FAO, Rome 39. Shen J (1981) Discharge characteristics of triangular-notch thin-plate
16. FAO(Food and Agriculture Organization) (1992) Ninth meeting of weirs: studies of flow to water over weirs and dams: US Geological
the east and southern African sub-committee for soil correlation and Survey: for sale by Supt. of Docs., USGPO
land evaluation. Soil bulletin 40. Shenkut A (2015) Performance assessment irrigation schemes
17. FAO(Food and Agriculture Organization) (1998) Crop evapotran- according to comparative indicators: a case study of Shina-Hamusit
spiration-guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO and Selamko, Ethiopia. Int J Sci Res Publ 2:451–465
irrigation and drainage paper, 56, Rome 41. Shiberu E, Hailu HK, Kibret K (2019) Comparative evaluation
18. Feyen J, Zerihun D (1999) Assessment of the performance of bor- of small scale irrigation schemes at Adami Tulu Jido Kombolcha
der and furrow irrigation systems and the relationship between Woreda, Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Irrigation & Drainage Sys-
performance indicators and system variables. Agric Water Manag tems Engineering, 5. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4172/​2168-​9768.​10002​26
40(2–3):353–362 42. Tesfaye H, Danato M, Woldemichael A (2019) Comparative perfor-
19. Hillel D (1997) Small-scale irrigation for arid zones: principles and mance evaluation of irrigation schemes in southern Ethiopia. Irriga-
options: Food & Agriculture Org tion & Drainage Systems Engineering
20. Ingle PM, Shinde SE, Mane MS, Thokal RT, BL, Ayare. (2015) Per- 43. Wondatir, Solomon. (2016). Performance evaluation of irrigation
formance evaluation of a minor irrigation scheme. Research Journal schemes. Arba Minch Univesity
of Recent Sciences ISSN 2277:2502 44. You L, Ringler C, Wood-Sichra U, Robertson R, Wood S, Zhu T,
21. IWMI(international water management institute) (2010) Irrigation … Sun Y (2011) What is the irrigation potential for Africa? A com-
potential in Ethiopia constraints and opportunities for enhancing the bined biophysical and socioeconomic approach. Food Policy 36(6):
system 770-782
22. Kamwamba-Mtethiwa J, Weatherhead K, Knox J (2016) Assess-
ing performance of small-scale pumped irrigation systems in sub- Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
Saharan Africa: evidence from a systematic review. Irrig Drain jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
65(3):308–318
23. Kassa T (2017) Comparative performance analysis of two small-
scale irrigation schemes: case of Tahtay Tsalit and Mychew, Tigray,
Ethiopia. (Master of Science), Arba Minch University

13