Managing water and fertilizer for sustainable agricultural intensification 39

Chapter 3

Water use efficiency in agriculture:

Measurement, current situation
and trends
Bharat Sharma1, David Molden2 and Simon Cook3

Abstract
Agriculture is the largest consumer of water and total evapotranspiration from global
agricultural land could double in next 50 years if trends in food consumption and
current practices of production continue. There is an imminent need to improve the
water use efficiency or more importantly the water productivity. This chapter explains
in detail the concept and measurement of ‘water-use efficiency’ and ‘water productivity’
as applied at plant, field, farm, region/sub-basin, basin and national level through
traditional and remote sensing based estimations. Further, the methods for improving
water productivity under irrigated, water scarce conditions, paddy fields and large river
basins are discussed. The discourse has a special focus towards better understanding
and employing the water-nutrient interactions for improving water productivity at all
levels. The complexities of measurement and strategies for improvement of physical or
economic water productivity increase as the domain of interest moves from crop-plant
to field, farm, system, basin, region and national level. Achieving synchrony between
nutrient supply and crop demand without excess or deficiency under various moisture
regimes is the key to optimizing trade-offs amongst yield, profit and environmental
protection in both large-scale commercial systems in developed countries and small-
scale systems in the developing countries. Appropriate water accounting procedures
need to be put in place to identify the opportunities for water savings. As pressure on
the available land and water increases, higher water productivity is the only solution to
providing the food that will be needed with the water that is available.

“It is not the quantity of water applied to a crop, it is the quantity of intelligence applied
which determines the result - there is more due to intelligence than water in every case.”
Alfred Deakin, 1890.

1
International Water Management Institute (IWMI), New Delhi, India, b.sharma@cgiar.org
2
International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, Kathmandu, Nepal, dmolden@icimod.org
3
International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Colombo, Sri Lanka, s.cook@cgiar.org
40 Managing water and fertilizer for sustainable agricultural intensification

Introduction
Improving water use efficiency or enhancing agricultural water productivity is a critical
response to growing water scarcity, including the need to leave enough water in
rivers and lakes to sustain ecosystems and to meet the growing demands of cities and
industries. Originally, crop physiologists defined water use efficiency as the amount of
carbon assimilated and crop yield per unit of transpiration (Viets, 1962) and then later
as the amount of biomass or marketable yield per unit of evapotranspiration. Irrigation
scientists and engineers have used the term water (irrigation) use efficiency to describe
how effectively water is delivered to crops and to indicate the amount of water wasted
at plot, farm, command, or system level and defined it as “the ratio of irrigation water
transpired by the crops of an irrigation farm or project during their growth period
to the water diverted from a river or other natural source into the farm or project
canal or canals during the same period of time (Israelsen, 1932). This approach was
further improved by introducing the concepts of uniformity, adequacy, and sagacity
of irrigation (Solomon, 1984; Whittlesey et al., 1986; Solomon and Burt, 1997). Some
scholars have even pointed out that the commonly described relationship between
water (input, mm or ML) and agricultural product (output, kg or ton) is an index, and
not efficiency (Skewes, 1997; Barrett Purcell & Associates, 1999). Still this concept of
water use efficiency provides only a partial view because it does not indicate the total
benefits produced, nor does it specify that water lost by irrigation is often reused by
other users (Seckler et al., 2003). The current focus of water productivity has evolved
to include the benefits and costs of water used for agriculture in terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems. So, agricultural water productivity is the ratio of the net benefits from crop,
forestry, fishery, livestock and mixed agricultural systems to the amount of water used
to produce those benefits (Molden and Oweis, 2007). In its broadest sense, it reflects the
objectives of producing more food, income, livelihood and ecological benefits at less
social and environmental cost per unit of water consumed. Physical water productivity
is defined as the ratio of agricultural output to the amount of water consumed, and
economic water productivity is defined as the value derived per unit of water used, and
this has also been used to relate water use in agriculture to nutrition, jobs, welfare and
the environment.
Increasing water productivity is particularly appropriate where water is scarce
and one needs to realize the full benefits of other production inputs, viz., fertilizers,
high- quality seeds, tillage and land formation, and the labor, energy and machinery.
Additional reasons to improve agricultural water productivity include (Molden et al.,
2010) (i) meeting the rising demands for food and changing diet patterns of a growing,
wealthier and increasingly urbanized population, (ii) responding to pressures to
reallocate water from agriculture to cities and industries and ensuring water is available
for environmental uses and climate change adaptation, and (iii) contributing to poverty
reduction and economic growth of poor farmers. Productive use of water means better
food and nutrition for families, more income and productive employment. Targeting
high water productivity can reduce cost of cultivation of crops and lower energy
requirements for water withdrawal. This also reduces the need for additional land and
 3. Water use efficiency in agriculture: measurement, current situation and trends 41

water resources in irrigated and rain-fed systems. With no gains in water productivity,
average annual agricultural evapotranspiration could double in the next 50 years (de
Fraiture et al., 2007). Better understanding, measurement and improvement of water
productivity thus constitute a strategic response to growing water scarcity, optimization
of other production inputs, and enhanced farm incomes and livelihoods.

Measurement of water use efficiency and water productivity

Crop scientists express and measure water use efficiency as the ratio of total biomass
or grain yield to water supply or evapotranspiration or transpiration on a daily or
seasonal basis (Sinclair et al., 1984). Biomass yield versus evapotranspiration relations
have intercepts on the evapotranspiration axis, which are taken to represent direct
evaporation from the soil (Hanks, 1974), and yield can be considered a linear function
of transpiration, provided water use efficiency does not vary greatly during the season.
Linearity of the yield versus evapotranspiration relation denotes that water use efficiency
would increase with increase in evapotranspiration as a consequence of increased
transpiration/evapotranspiration ratio because the intercept has a constant value. For
this reason, water use efficiency also increases with increase in crop water supply up
to a certain point (Gajri et al., 1993). Water supply has also been observed to increase
fertilizer use efficiency by increasing the availability of applied nutrients, and water and
nutrients exhibit interactions in respect of yield and yield components (Prihar et al.,
1985; Eck, 1988; Fischer, 1998).
The irrigation system perspective of water use efficiency depends upon the water
accounting where losses occur at each stage as water moves from the reservoir (storage
losses), conveyed and delivered at the farm gate (conveyance losses), applied to the farm
(distribution losses), stored in the soil (application losses) and finally consumed by the
crops (crop management losses) for crop production. Depending upon the area of
interest, it is possible to measure the water conveyance efficiency, application efficiency,
water input efficiency, irrigation water use efficiency and crop water use efficiency
(Barrett Purcell & Associates, 1999). Whereas crop water use efficiency compares an
output from the system (such as yield or economic return) to crop evapotranspiration
the irrigation efficiency often compares an output or amount of water retained in the root
zone to an input such as some measure of water applied. The term ‘water productivity’
was an attempt to mediate the prevailing complexity and other inherent limitations of
the existing concept.
The concept of water productivity (WP) was offered by Kijne et al. (2003) as a robust
measure of the ability of agricultural systems to convert water into food. So, the basic
expression of agricultural water productivity is a measure of output of a given system in
relation to the water it consumes, and may be measured for the whole system or parts of
it, defined in time and space (Cook et al., 2006).

Agricultural benefit
Water productivity =
Water use
42 Managing water and fertilizer for sustainable agricultural intensification

It is normal to represent water productivity in units of kg m-3, where crop production

is measured in kg ha-1 and water use is estimated as mm of water applied or received as
rainfall, converted to m3 ha-1 (1 mm = 10 m3 ha-1). Alternatively, it may be represented
as food (kcal m-3) or its monetary value ($ m-3).
Agricultural systems are defined by plot, field, sub-basin and basin and the crop(s)/
cropping patterns followed at each component level. Water productivity values make
better sense when the relative comparisons are made at the component parts of the
agricultural system. The time period over which water productivity is estimated is
determined by the cycle of agricultural production that drives the system. Normally,
this would include at least one complete crop cycle (e.g. rice, wheat, maize, vegetables,
etc.) extended over a complete year (rice-wheat, maize-wheat, sugarcane, banana,
etc.) to account for productive and non-productive water use. Assessment may be
extended over several years to derive estimates of average, minimum or maximum
water productivity within each season. Cropping systems provide internal benefits in
addition to yield, such as fodder, legumes or soil nutrition, which may significantly
influence water productivity in subsequent years. Additionally, the patterns of climate,
disease and pest infestation, markets, etc. may induce an estimation error at the time of
assessment which may, or may not, be representative of the average situation.

Defining the area for estimation

The first step is to define the boundaries of the system for which WP is to be estimated.
This is determined by the definition of production system (field, farm, command area,
administrative unit) and the area for which water consumption can be defined (plot,
field, sub-basin, watershed or basin). Measurement of partial WP for a single crop at field
or plot level is the simplest, and some estimation errors may creep in for representation
of a large hydrologic system. This shall be explained in a separate section. In rain-fed
areas and areas with shallow groundwater levels, WP will vary spatially according to
varying water storage capacities of the soil (Bouman et al, 2007) and the definition of a
particular production system can be underrepresented or overrepresented within areas
having a high or low storage capacity.

Estimating the agricultural production: The numerator

Agricultural biomass or production can be expressed in a range of forms, as yield (kg,
Mg, t), or food and energy equivalent (kcal), income ($) or other agreed measures of
well-being derived from the agricultural system. This may be expressed as:

Output per cropped area ( ha$ ) = Production

Irrigated cropped area

Output per unit command ( ha$ ) = Production

Command area
 3. Water use efficiency in agriculture: measurement, current situation and trends 43

Commonly used forms of agricultural production are given in Table 1.

Table 1. Possible forms of agricultural production used for estimating water productivity (adap-
ted from Cook et al., 2007).

Parameter Agricultural production

Physical water productivity at field, farm or Yield (kg) of biomass, or fruit or grain
system level
Economic water productivity at farm level Gross or net value of product, or net benefits of
production (monetary or energy units)
Economic water productivity at basin scale Any of the above valuations including those derived
from livestock, fishery, agroforestry, pastures and
plantations.
Macroeconomic water productivity at regional Monetary values of all direct and indirect economic
or national scale benefits minus the associated costs, for all the uses of
water in the domain of interest.

Estimation of WP of a principal crop is simple - estimate the yield (kg, t) and

agricultural water use (mm, m3) over an area of interest. For large areas, crop production
data may be estimated through random surveys and secondary statistics on crop
production.
The economic measure of productivity at field scale is gross margin (GM) for a single
product during a single phase of the crop rotation. For areas that contain different
production systems and for cross-system comparison a composite measure may
be required. The Standardized Gross Value of Production (SGVP) was developed to
harmonize the differences in local prices at different locations throughout the world.
To obtain SGVP, equivalent yield is calculated based on local prices of the crops grown,
compared with the local price of the predominant, locally grown, internationally traded
base crop. The second step is to value this equivalent production at world prices. To do
this, economists normally use long-term averages of World Bank prices to take care of
the distortions caused by year-to-year price fluctuations (Sakthivadivel et al., 1999). For
example, if the local price of a commodity (say, pulse crop) is twice the local price of
wheat, one may consider the production yield of 2 t ha-1 of pulse crop to be equivalent
to 4t ha-1 of wheat. Total production of all crops is then aggregated on the basis of
‘wheat equivalent’ and the gross value of output is calculated as this quantity of wheat
multiplied by the average world market price of wheat.

SGVP = [ ∑ A Y PP ] P
crop
i i
i

b
world

where,
SGVP= Standardized Gross Value of Production
Ai = Area cropped with crop i
44 Managing water and fertilizer for sustainable agricultural intensification

Yi = Yield of crop i
Pi = Local price of crop i
Pb= Local price of base crop
Pworld= Value of base crop traded at average world market price

However, the full range of economic benefits from agricultural production extends
far beyond the simple measure of local production, to include indirect and broader
impacts (Hussain et al., 2007) which may include higher employment rates and wages,
improved markets for inputs (fertilizers, seeds, machines, chemicals, services) and the
outputs (commodities, transport, trade) and a general improvement of the economy
and well-being. Multipliers of economy-wide farm/nonfarm multipliers vary widely.
Estimates in India suggest a multiplier as low as 1.2 for local schemes and up to about
3 for the country as a whole. Multipliers tend to be larger in developed economies,
estimated as high as 6 for Australia (Hill and Tollefeson, 1996). Hussain et al. (2007)
point out that the most significant measure is of marginal value, which shows the
additional value created when water is added or lost when water is not available. The
noneconomic benefits of production may be measured through improvements in
environmental benefits and services and changes in the Human Development Index
(Maxwell, 1999) or the Basic-Needs Index (Davis, 2003).

Estimating the water consumed: The denominator

Water input to a field or an agricultural system is not the same as the water used or
depleted for crop production. However, we may work out water use efficiency as output
per unit of irrigation supply. Water productivity is estimated from the amount of water
directly consumed by the agricultural system (evaporation and transpiration) and
not the amount of irrigation water applied or rainfall received (Molden et al., 2003,
Molden and Oweis, 2007; Kassam et al., 2007, Molden et. al., 2010). This distinction is
increasingly important as we move upscale from field to farm to basin because water
that is taken into the system, but not consumed, is available downstream and hence is
excluded from calculation. At a given scale, this may be estimated through a simple
water balance equation or by following the water accounting framework (Molden et al.,
2003). At field scale, the key term is evapotranspiration (ET), which may be estimated
as:
ET = P + I + G ± Q - ΔS

where, P is precipitation, I is irrigation, G is net groundwater flow, Q is run-on or

runoff and ΔS is change in soil water content within the root zone, all measured in
millimetres of water. Evapotranspiration of crops is normally estimated from more
easily measured climatic variables and the predetermined crop-coefficients (Allen et
al., 1998).
Based on the above, two important indicators for ‘water applied’ and ‘water used’ will
be (Sakthivadivel et al., 1999):
 3. Water use efficiency in agriculture: measurement, current situation and trends 45

Output per unit irrigation supply $)=

( m3 Production
Diverted irrigation supply

Output per unit water consumed $)=

( m3 Production
Volume of water consumed
by evapotranspiration

The relationship between water diversion and depletion is complex, and significant
variations exist due to variations in water diverted. The variations average out if one
moves out to a larger scale. Interventions should start in areas with the lowest water
productivity.

Measuring regional- and basin-level water productivity

At the larger scale of an administrative unit or the sub-basin and basin it is rather
impossible to have water balances for each field and the crop. Moreover, at the field or
system scales, part of the water delivered is often reused within the field or the system or
elsewhere in the basin. To avoid these complications in capturing the reuse and benefits
outside the areas of interest, the value of production per unit of crop consumptive water
use (CWU) is considered to be a better measure of water productivity (Molden et al.,
2003). Consumptive water use in irrigated areas implies the potential evapotranspiration
(ETp), while in rain-fed areas it is the minimum of effective rainfall and ETp. Depending
on the availability of data, resources and competence and the objective of analysis, the
estimates of crop yields and the consumptive water use may be made through following
either the statistical data on crop yields and historical values of crop coefficients and
potential evapotranspiration or the more recent approaches utilizing remote-sensing
imagery and crop modelling.

Statistical approach
Long-term (minimum of 3 years) subnational data on detailed land use, crop
production, extent of irrigated and rain-fed areas of different crops and the combined
total production can help estimate the value of crop production. Climate data (monthly
ETp and rainfall available from IWMI Global Climate and Water Atlas (2001), or FAO
and local meteorological departments) and crop coefficients of the major crops can
help determine consumptive water use. The method has been described in detail by
Amarasinghe et al. (2010). The important governing equations are given below:
• Crop water use in irrigated areas (IR) is potential ET during crop growth periods of
different seasons and is given by,
IR IR
CWU ij = Area ij x ( ∑ Kc x { ∑
kε
jk
lεmonths
p
ETikl )
for the jth crop in the ith season (k denotes the specific crop growth stage, and i denotes
the month in the growing season of the crop). Kcs are the crop coefficients over the
defined growth periods and ETps are monthly reference evapotranspiration values.
46 Managing water and fertilizer for sustainable agricultural intensification

• CWU in rain-fed areas is only the effective rainfall during the season, and is estimated
as:
RF
CWU ij = Areaij x
RF
∑
min Kcjk ETjkl
p

kεgrowth periods
( p
ETjkl ∑
lεmonths )
where, ERFjkl is the effective rainfall of lth month in the kth growth period.
• CWU of the area of interest (district, zone, etc.) is estimated as:

CWU = ∑ ∑
iεseasons jεcrops
(CWUij + CWU ij )
IR RF

• Total WP of the area of interest is estimated by:

∑jεcrops Average yieldj x (Area i + Area j )

IR RF

WP =
CWU

Integrating use of remote sensing and crop census data

Lack of data required for monitoring the productivity of land and water resources,
especially over vast irrigation schemes and river basins can often hamper the
application and understanding of the water productivity framework and design of the
interventions. Integration of satellite measurements for the climatic data with ancillary
in-situ data into a geographic information system shall be quite helpful (Bastiaanssen
et al., 2003). Remote-sensing measurements are converted to crop yield and to actual
evapotranspiration. Existing land use-land cover maps and census data (with ground
truthing) are used to map the dominant crops. The yields are calculated from national
statistics and interpolated to pixel level using the Normalized Difference Vegetation
Index (NDVI) satellite data. Crop evapotranspiration (ETa) is mapped using a
Simplified Surface Energy Balance (SEBAL) model based on the satellite data of land
surface temperature and data from the weather stations (Bastiaanssen et al., 2005). WP
of dominant crops and total agricultural yield are mapped by dividing crop yield by ETa
for each pixel (Ahmad et al., 2009; Cai and Sharma, 2010). These methods have now
been used extensively to map WP of large sub-basins in Pakistan (Ahmad et al., 2009),
the Indo-Gangetic basin (Cai et al., 2010), the Karkheh basin in Iran (Ahmad et al.,
2009), the Nile basin (Karimi et. al., 2012) and several others.
These WP maps display the spatial variation in great detail (Figure 1). We can
identify well-performing ‘bright spots’ and low-performing ‘hot spots’ regardless
of administrative boundaries. Linking them to rainfall distribution, topography,
groundwater level and other spatial information can indicate causal relationships,
which is useful to provide information for improved intervention planning (Sharma et
al., 2010).
 3. Water use efficiency in agriculture: measurement, current situation and trends 47

70°E 80°E 90°E

N administrative boundary
35°N Wheat 1.71 - 4.3 35°N
water 1.44 - 1.7
productivity 1.22 - 1.43
(kg m-3) 0.97 - 1.21
0.73 - 0.96
0.50 - 0.72
30°N 30°N

25°N 25°N

70°E 80°E 90°E

basin boundary
35°N Rice 1.24 - 9.68 35°N
water 0.84 - 1.23
productivity 0.61 - 0.83
(kg m-3) 0.38 - 0.6
0.08 - 0.37
30°N 30°N

25°N 25°N

70°E 80°E 90°E

Figure 1. Variations in rice and wheat water productivity in the Indo-Gangetic basin.
48 Managing water and fertilizer for sustainable agricultural intensification

Improving agricultural water productivity

Irrigation along with fertilizers and improved seeds has been essential components
of a global strategy for increasing agricultural productivity. During the past decades
emphasis on improved agricultural water management has been on increasing
irrigation water use efficiency, but more recently enhanced emphasis is placed on
producing more with relatively less water – increasing water productivity. There is a
need to find new ways to increase water productivity by improving biological, economic
and environmental output per unit of water used in both irrigated and rain-fed
agricultural systems. Physical productivity improvements can be made by obtaining
more productive transpiration from rain and irrigation withdrawals, producing more
and higher-value crops per unit of transpiration, reducing evaporation, and managing
agricultural water deliveries and drainage better. Such opportunities are very diverse
and occur at biological, environmental and management levels.

Water productivity at plant level

Actual crop yield and actual evapotranspiration both depend on physiological processes
– stomata need to open for carbon inhalation and vapour exhalation. For a given crop
variety and climate there is a well-established linear relationship between plant biomass
and transpiration (Steduto et al., 2007). Different kinds of plants are more water-
efficient in terms of the ratio between biomass and transpiration. C3 crops, such as
wheat and barley, are less water-efficient than C4 crops, such as maize and sugarcane.
The most water-efficient crops are the CAM (Crassulacean acid metabolism) crops such
as cactus and pineapple (xerophytes). One of the most successful strategies of the plant
breeders has been to develop varieties with a higher harvest index (ratio of marketable
grain yield to total crop biomass), achieving more economic produce per unit of
transpiration. This plant-breeding strategy has probably raised the potential for gains
in water productivity more than any other agronomic practice over the last 40 years
(Keller and Seckler, 2004). The harvest index of wheat and maize improved from about
0.35 before the 1960s to 0.5 in the 1980s (Sayre et al., 1997). This happened during the
era of the Green Revolution in Asia and elsewhere. However, it appears that this strategy
has achieved its potential and further increase in harvest index has slowed down. New
innovations in plant biotechnology like the development of drought-tolerant varieties
for arid zones and salt and flood-tolerant rice for the coastal areas are required to make
the next breakthrough. Introduction of submergence-tolerant Scuba gene in rice is one
such good example (Septiningsih et. al., 2009)
The near linear relationship (in good productive fields) between transpiration and
crop production has far-reaching consequences for water needs. Increase in food
production in productive areas is achieved with a near proportionate increase in
transpired water. Molden et al. (2010) identified this as the main reason why increases
in food production have caused serious environmental consequences, e.g. steep decline
in water tables in the highly productive areas of the Indus basin and elsewhere (Rodell et
al., 2009). Feeding more people will require more water to be transpired. An alternative
strategy may be to provide higher attention to low productivity areas in Africa and
 3. Water use efficiency in agriculture: measurement, current situation and trends 49

South Americas where application of small amounts of water and fertilizers can pay
much larger dividends (Rockström et. al., 2007, Rockström and Barron, 2007; Sharma
et al., 2010).

Water and fertilizer interactions at the field and farm level

Water availability, water use and nutrient supply to plants are closely interacting factors
influencing plant growth and yield production. It is generally reported that application
of fertilizers enhances water use efficiency by causing greater increase in yield relative
to that in evapotranspiration (Viets, 1962; Ritchie, 1983). Evapotranspirational
and transpirational water use efficiency can be increased by raising soil nutrient
levels. Adequately fertilized soils promote rapid leaf area expansion, thus increasing
transpiration, and more rapid ground cover, thus reducing evaporation and increasing
evapotranspirational water use efficiency. Raised soil nutrient levels seem to exert
additive effects on water use efficiency, and increasing or optimizing yields by adequate
application of fertilizers will increase transpiration efficiency of the crop plants
(Schmidhalter and Studer, 1998). Plants which have adequately used fertilizers may also
show higher drought tolerance (Lahiri, 1980; Wang et al., 2011). Water use efficiency
also increases with increase in water supply up to a certain point. Water supply has
been observed to increase fertilizer use efficiency by increasing the availability of
applied nutrients. In fact, water and nutrients have been shown to exhibit interactions
in respect of yield (Prihar et al., 1985; Aggarwal, 2000). Combination effects of nitrogen
(N) and irrigation are generally more than the sum of their individual effects. Gajri et
al. (1993) very conclusively show that in deeply wetted coarse-textured soils with low
organic matter, N application and early-post seeding irrigation in wheat enhance profile
water use by increasing depth and density of rooting as well as leaf area index and leaf
area duration. While better rooting increases capacity of the plant to extract water
by increasing the size of the water reservoir, extensive canopy with longer duration
increases the plant demand for water. Increased canopy also increases the transpiration
component of evapotranspiration. Thus nitrogen application, apart from increasing
evapotranspiration and transpiration/evapotranspiration ratios, also increases water
use efficiency (Table 2). A strong interaction between N and water for yield, dependence
of water use efficiency on nitrogen rate, and nitrogen use efficiency on water supply
have important management implications. Similarly, water use efficiency was 119%
and 150% higher when only pre-sowing irrigation and pre-sowing irrigation plus
phosphorus application were made, respectively, to the wheat crop, as compared to
control (Li et al., 2004). Fertilizer rates, over which farmers usually have better control,
need to be adjusted properly in relation to the available water supplies.
In several studies, soil nitrogen level was positively related to water use efficiency
(Paramweswaran et al., 1981; Heiholdt, 1989). Similarly, applying phosphorus
fertilizers increases root density and rooting depth and the amount of water available
to plants is increased. Phosphorus, in a balanced soil fertility program, increases water
use efficiency and helps crops achieve optimal performance under limited moisture
conditions (Payne et al., 1992; Wang et al., 2011). The uptake of water by the plant roots
and the transport of the water to other parts of the plant are significantly determined by
50 Managing water and fertilizer for sustainable agricultural intensification

Table 2. Nitrogen and irrigation effects on water use efficiency (kg grain ha-1 mm-1) and N-use ef-
ficiency (kg grain (kg fertilizer N)-1) in wheat at Ludhiana, India (adapted from Gajri et al., 1993).

Irrigation Water use efficiency N-use efficiency

(mm) N rate (kg ha ) -1
N rate (kg ha-1)
0 40 80 120 40 80 120
No irrigation (rain-fed) 2.8 4.4 6.3 3.6 5.3 4.8 0.9
50 5.2 9.4 10.3 10.9 23.3 12.0 9.8
120 5.7 8.4 10.3 9.0 23.0 17.6 8.8
300 5.1 7.0 8.6 8.8 19.5 20.0 14.8

potassium. Potash fertilizers are directly involved in the water management of the plant
since it reduces water loss through transpiration. In sandy soils, water use efficiency for
total dry matter production is increased by potassium application (Schmidhalter and
Studer, 1998; Prasad et al., 2000). Based on the results of a number of on-farm trials in
the savannahs prone to water scarcity, Rockstrom and Baron (2007) also concluded that
crop transpiration and yield relationship show non-linearity under on-farm and low-
yield conditions. With integrated soil and water management, focusing on mitigation of
dry spells and improved soil fertility can potentially more than double on-farm yields.
In most cases, increasing or optimizing yields by the use of adequate fertilizers will
increase water use efficiency.
Typically, in situations where yield is less than 40-50% of the potential, non-water
factors such as soil fertility, limit yield and crop water productivity. However, when
yield levels are above 40-50% of their potential, yield gains come at a near proportionate
increase in the amount of evapotranspiration (Figure 2); thus incremental gains in water
productivity become smaller as yields become higher. For example, the application of
relatively small amounts of water and fertilizers for raising yields from 1 to 2 t ha-1 will
lead to much higher gains in water productivity than doubling the yields from 4 to 8 t
ha-1 (Molden et al., 2010).
Thus, there appears to be a considerable scope for improving the productivity
relative to evapotranspiration before reaching the upper limit. This variability is due to
management practices and is important because it offers hope for possible improvements
in the ratio between evapotranspiration and marketable yield. For the high productivity
fields, balanced use of fertilizers should be encouraged to ensure sustainable productivity
in the intensive cropping system as its lack could lead to significant decline in yields and
water use efficiency with lapse of time. Additions of organic materials to soil increases
soil water-holding capacity, which in turn improves water availability to plants (Fan et
al., 2005).
 3. Water use efficiency in agriculture: measurement, current situation and trends 51

4.5
WHEAT RICE MAIZE
4.0

3.5

3.0
WPet (kg m-3)

2.5
e)
Log. (Maiz
2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Yield (kg ha )-1

Figure 2. Water productivity gains are higher at lower yield levels and tend to be proportionate at
higher yield levels (adapted from Zwart and Bastiaanssen, 2004).

Water productivity under scarce water conditions

Serious water deficits and deteriorating environmental quality are threatening
agricultural sustainability in large parts of Asia and Africa. To increase crop yield
per unit of water requires both better cultivars and better agronomy. The challenge
is to manage the crop or improve its genetic makeup. After analysing a large dataset
Passioura (2006) found that in the field, the upper limit of water productivity of well-
managed water-limited cereal crops is typically 20 kg ha-1 mm-1. If the productivity is
markedly less than this (e.g. rain-fed water use efficiency in China is 2.3 kg ha-1 mm‑1,
far less than the potential; Deng et al., 2006), it is likely that major stresses other than
water appear, such as poor nutrition and diseases. Unfortunately, there are no genetic
transformations that are likely to improve water productivity greatly. Small and
timely irrigation, along with management of soil nutrients is the focal issue which is
shown to increase water use efficiency by 10-25%. Often, soil fertility is the limiting
factor to increased yields in rain-fed agriculture. Soil degradation, through nutrient
depletion and loss of organic matter, causes serious yield decline closely related to water
determinants, as it affects water availability for crops, due to poor rainfall infiltration,
and plant water uptake, due to weak roots. Studies have even shown that within certain
limits, nitrogen and water supply have substituted for each other in increasing crop
yields (Gajri et al., 1993). In sub-Saharan Africa, soil nutrient mining is particularly
severe. By farming intensively without replenishing soil nutrients, farmers across sub-
52 Managing water and fertilizer for sustainable agricultural intensification

Saharan Africa have lost nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium on an average of 22, 2.5
and 15 kg ha-1, respectively, annually over the past 30 years – the yearly equivalent of
US$ 4 billion worth of fertilizers. As a result, yields are meagre (IFDC, 2006; Gilbert,
2012). Similarly, in India, participatory watershed management trials in more than 300
villages showed that farming practices had depleted soils not only in macronutrients
but also in micronutrients such as zinc and boron, and secondary nutrients such as
sulphur beyond the critical limits. A substantial increase in crop yields of 70-120%
was achieved when both micronutrients and adequate nitrogen and phosphorus
were applied to a number of rain-fed crops (maize, sorghum, beans, pigeon pea, and
groundnut) in farmers’ fields (Rego et al., 2005). Therefore, investment in soil fertility
directly improved water management. The rainwater productivity was increased by 70-
100% for maize, groundnut, mung bean, castor and sorghum by adding boron, zinc and
sulphur. Even in terms of economic returns, rainwater productivity was substantially
higher by 1.50 to 1.75 times (Rego et al., 2005).
The low water use efficiency in farmer’s fields compared with well-managed
experimental sites indicates that more efforts are needed to transfer water saving
technologies to the farmers. Under such scenarios, water-saving agriculture and water-
saving irrigation technologies, including deficit irrigation, low pressure irrigation,
subsurface drips, drip irrigation under plastic covers, furrow irrigation, rainfall
harvesting and conservation agriculture shall be quite helpful. Water-saving agriculture
includes farming practices that are able to take full advantage of the natural rainfall and
irrigation facilities. Where water is more limiting than land, it is better to maximize yield
per unit of water and not yield per unit of land. Limited or deficit irrigation is becoming
an accepted strategy in West Asia and North Africa (Table 3; Oweis and Hachum, 2009)
and northern China regions. Supplemental irrigation, the combination of dryland
farming and limited irrigation, is an ideal choice for improving crop yields in rain-
fed regions (Deng et al., 2006). Results from a nationwide study in India showed that
water used in supplemental irrigation had the highest marginal productivity and with
improved management, an average increase of 50% in total production can be achieved
with a single supplemental irrigation. Water harvesting and supplemental irrigation
are economically viable even at the national level. Droughts have very mild impacts
on productivity when farmers are equipped with supplemental irrigation (Sharma et

Table 3. Gains in water productivity for wheat grain under rain-fed and supplemental irrigation
with different levels of nitrogen in northern Syria (source: Oweis and Hachum, 2009).

Nitrogen application rate Water productivity (kg grain m-3 )

(kg N ha-1) Rain-fed water Irrigation water
(one supplemental irrigation)
0 0.54 0.81
50 0.89 1.41
100 0.84 2.14
150 0.81 1.40
 3. Water use efficiency in agriculture: measurement, current situation and trends 53

al., 2010). Increasing the availability of plant nutrients increases yields as well as water
use by the crop; however, the increase in water use is usually small – generally < 25%
(Power, 1983). A classic example is provided by Carlson et al. (1959) who showed that
maize yields were doubled primarily by N fertilizers whereas transpiration varied by
less than 10%.
On-farm water use efficiency can be further improved by moving to a more efficient
irrigation system. Maximum values of water use efficiency and harvest index occur
under appropriately controlled water conditions. Micro irrigation has developed rapidly
in recent years and adopted for a variety of high-value crops in water-scarce regions.
In northwest China, traditional furrow or border (flood) irrigation methods have an
annual average water demand of about 7,320 m3 ha-1 in contrast to only 3,250 m3 ha-1 for
fields under micro irrigation (Deng et al., 2006). Use of subsurface drip irrigation has
also progressed from being a novelty employed by researchers to an accepted method of
irrigation of both annual and perennial crops. Analyses of the data for 15 years at Water
Management Research Laboratory have demonstrated a significant yield and water use
efficiency increase in a number of crops (tomato, cotton, alfalfa, and cantaloupe). The
use of high-frequency irrigation resulted in reduced deep percolation and increased
use of water from shallow groundwater when crops were grown in high water table
areas (Ayars et al., 1999). In the Middle East, wheat yields were twice as high under
subsoil irrigation compared with furrow irrigation. Water use efficiency ranged from
1.64 to 3.34 in subsoil irrigation and from 0.46 to 1.2 kg grain m-3 in furrow irrigation;
and N release from soil was also much higher under subsoil irrigation (11-216 kg N
ha-1) than under furrow irrigation (11 to 33 kg N ha-1) (Banedjschafle et al., 2008).
Without adequate water, nitrogen use efficiency remains low, resulting in substantial
nitrogen losses. Too much water leads to excessive NO3–N leaching and lower water
productivity. The lack of N is a cause of low water productivity but too much of it leads
to lower nitrogen use efficiency and higher losses. Though increased NO3–N leaching is
an inevitable by-product of increased WP, its adverse impacts can greatly be reduced by
managing the quantity and timing of nitrogen fertilizer and water application (Nangia
et al., 2008). Better inorganic nitrogen and water management lead to higher water
productivity and, at the same time, less NO3–N leaching. The use of slow- or controlled-
release fertilizers can further mitigate the NO3–N leaching.

Water productivity under paddy fields

A unique feature of most commonly cultivated irrigated lowland rice culture is crop
growth in submerged soil. In transplanted rice, fields are puddled to reduce percolation
and are flooded before planting and the daily losses are made up through frequent
irrigations. Rice can also be planted by direct seeding, using either wet seeding, with
pre-germinated seed broadcast on a puddled soil surface or dry seeding after normal
soil tillage with flooding after the seedlings are established. Bhuyian et al. (1995)
showed that wet-seeded rice culture requiring less water is superior to the traditional
transplanted rice in terms of water use efficiency. More recently, aerobic rice, system
of rice intensification (SRI) technique and irrigating rice fields with drips and micro
sprinklers are also gaining ground. For a typical 100-day season of modern high-
54 Managing water and fertilizer for sustainable agricultural intensification

yielding rice, the total water input varies from 700 to 5,300 mm, depending on soil,
climate and hydrologic conditions, with 1,000-2,000 mm as a typical value for many
lowland areas (Tuong and Bouman, 2003). Water productivity of lowland rice (based
on irrigation+rainfall) varies from 0.2 to 1.2 kg m-3 and is much less than for wheat
(0.8 to 1.6 kg m-3) and maize (1.6 to 3.9 kg m-3). Water productivity of rice may be
improved through reducing large amounts of unproductive water outflows during
the crop growth and using the rain more efficiently. Instead of keeping the rice field
continuously flooded with 5-10 cm of water, the floodwater depth can be decreased,
the soil can be kept around saturation or alternate wetting and drying regimes can be
imposed. Dry-seeded rice technology offers a significant opportunity for conserving
irrigation water by using rainfall more effectively. Studies have shown that maintaining
a field bund of 22 cm height around rice fields had helped in capturing more than 95%
of seasonal rainfall in paddy fields and thus reduced the need for irrigation (Humphreys
et al., 2005). Dry-seeded rice significantly increased water productivity in respect of
irrigation over wet-seeded and transplanted rice. Aerobic rice, a new approach to
reducing water inputs in rice, is to grow the crop like an irrigated upland crop, such as
wheat and maize. With suitable stress-tolerant cultivars, the potential water savings of
aerobic rice are large, especially on soils with high percolation rates. On a regional basis,
large amounts of irrigation water may be saved by delaying the rice transplanting to
avoid the excessively hot summer season. To bring some semblance to the fast-depleting
water tables (assigned to large-scale summer paddy cultivation) in Indian Punjab, the
government enacted a legislation to force all farmers to delay (from as early as 10th May)
transplanting of paddy to 15th of June. Studies have shown that this legislation resulted
in real water savings of about 2.18 billion m3 (7% of annual draft in the state) of water
(Sharma and Ambili, 2010).
Studies have also shown that water productivity in rice was significantly increased
by N application which increased grain yield through an increased biomass and grain
number. In irrigation systems with a shallow water table, optimal N management is
as important as water saving irrigation to enhance water productivity. Fischer (1998)
estimated that if the technologies that affect nutrient utilization by the rice crop remain
unchanged, the production increase will require almost 300% more than the present
application rate of N alone in irrigated environments. Achieving synchrony between
N supply and crop demand without excess or deficiency under various moisture
regimes is the key to optimizing trade-offs amongst yield, profit, and environmental
protection in both large-scale systems in developed countries and small-scale systems
in developing countries. N fertilizer losses in water-intensive paddy fields are thus a
symptom of incongruity between N supply and crop demand rather than a driving force
of N efficiency and thus provide significant opportunities by improved management of
nitrogen and water resources.

Water productivity of large systems/river basins

At larger regional or river-basin scales with more users, and more interaction between
users, water productivity issues become increasingly complex. Minimizing non-
productive depletion of water flows, improving management of existing irrigation
 3. Water use efficiency in agriculture: measurement, current situation and trends 55

facilities and reallocating and co-managing water among uses by allocating water to
high-value uses and the outflows for the environment and downstream, are some of
the pathways for improving water productivity at the basin level. The primary options
to create ‘new water’ are to transfer the consumptive portion of existing agricultural
allocations to other uses, construction of desalination facilities and the creation of
additional storage (at the surface or in the aquifers) of surplus floodwaters (Frederiksen
and Allen, 2011). At the same time, the common water conservation practices –
including urban indoor and outdoor efficiency programs, precision irrigation systems,
improvement in soil moisture monitoring and management, deficit irrigation and other
approaches – have enormous potential to conserve water in several basins. We must have
appropriate water-accounting procedures in place in order to identify the opportunities
for water savings. Each basin is different, and therefore the mix of demand- and supply-
side solutions will vary according to what is hydrologically, economically, socially and
politically possible (Gleick et al., 2011).
A recent assessment of water productivity in ten major river basins across Asia,
Africa and South America, representing a range of agro-climatic and socioeconomic
conditions showed that there was very high inter-basin and intra-basin variability,
attributed mainly to the lack of inputs (including fertilizers), and poor water and crop
management (Cai et al., 2011). Intensive farming in the Asian basins (Yellow River,
Indus-Ganges, Mekong, and Karkheh) produces much greater agricultural outputs and
higher water productivity. Largely subsistence agriculture in African basins (Limpopo,

Table 4. Water productivity of important crops in some major river basins in Asia and Africa
(adapted from Cai et. al., 2011).

Basin Water source Cropland area Crop types Yields Water

(Mha) (t ha-1) productivity
(kg m-3)
Yellow River irrigated 7.5 wheat 3.7 1.39
maize 5.3 0.97
rice 5.4 0.5
Mekong rain-fed 8.80 maize 3.0 1.09
soybean 1.40 0.41
irrigated 3.28 rice 2.87 0.43
sugarcane 64.5 9.81
maize 3.79 0.58
Indo-Gangetic irrigated 62.1 rice 2.6 0.74
wheat 2.65 0.94
Limpopo rain-fed 2.06 maize 3.6 0.14
Volta irrigated 0.036 millet 1.0 0.1
Sao Francisco irrigated 0.355 maize 1.3 0.15
sorghum 1.0 0.1
millet 0.9 0.08
56 Managing water and fertilizer for sustainable agricultural intensification

Niger, and Volta) has significantly lower water productivity (Table 4).Yields of the major
crops (maize, wheat, rice) vary both across and within basins. All three crops in the
Yellow River basin have relatively high yields. The Indus-Ganges basins have the most
intensive cultivation, but have relatively low yields overall for both rice and wheat,
which are the major sources of food and income.
There is large intra-basin variability in all the basins. The average yield of maize in
the Limpopo is 3.6 t ha-1. While the irrigated commercial farms with good inputs of
fertilizers and crop management yield as high as 9 t ha-1, the large areas of subsistence
farms, which are threatened by frequent droughts and soil nutrient depletion, yield less
than 2 t ha-1. The Indian states of Punjab and Haryana, the “bright spots” in the Indus-
Ganges basin yield more than double elsewhere (Figure 1). Similarly, variation in water
productivity in different basins may be related to the use of fertilizers, crop management
and other inputs. Water productivity of maize is highest in the Yellow River (0.97 kg
m-3 , fertilizer use of > 250 kg ha-1), followed by Mekong (0.58 kg m-3, fertilizer use ~
120 kg ha-1) and lowest in Limpopo (0.14 kg m-3, fertilizer use < 30 kg ha-1). Higher
spatial variation in water productivity suggests greater chances to close the gap between
the good and poor performers. Understanding the reasons for these differences at the
regional or water-basin scale would both assess the potential for improvement and
identify priority interventions in low-performing areas.

Causes of variation of water productivity

At the large scale of a country or river basin, besides the biophysical aspects, the level
of socioeconomic development has a significant impact on agriculture. In most cases,
the higher the contribution of agriculture to the gross domestic product, the higher
the incidence of poverty (Hanjra and Gichuki, 2008). In turn, this limits farmers’
capacity to increase inputs to agriculture, improve water productivity, and cope with
droughts and floods. The African basins mostly rely on rain-fed agriculture with poor
infrastructure, low inputs of fertilizers and irrigation, and consequently low crop yields
and low crop water productivity. Water stress is a determining factor for all regions.
Water for crop production is a concern in most areas including the extremely water-
scarce basins. Water scarcity has worsened over the years and the trend will continue
due to competitive demand from other sectors. Lack of appropriate diversion and
storage structures exposes farmlands to droughts and sometimes even to floods.
Improved seed varieties, fertilizers, pesticides, and energy for tillage and other
operations are critical inputs for large areas of low productivity. Land degradation is
often another serious problem. Combined management of soil, water, plants and pests
is required to overcome these constraints and secure improvements in yield (Bossio
et al., 2008) and water productivity. Additional threats are emerging in the form of
environmental degradation and climate change. As agriculture intensifies it almost
certainly has negative impacts on the environment (Bakkes et al., 2009). In closed
basins, where there is competitive demand for water, the need for environmental
flows from the rivers is often ignored. The Yellow River ceased to reach the sea in the
1990s.The Indus is another closed basin where both surface water and groundwater
are overexploited, causing significant declines in groundwater table, which threatens
 3. Water use efficiency in agriculture: measurement, current situation and trends 57

sustainability of intensive agricultural systems (Sharma et al., 2010). For the limited
quantity of water left in rivers and aquifers, water quality often becomes a major
concern. A survey in the Yellow River in 2007 found that about 34% of the river system
registered a level lower than level V (Level Five) for water quality, which is considered
unfit for any economic activity including agriculture. In the lower parts of the Ganges
basin, arsenic contamination of groundwater is a threatening menace and is linked to
overexploitation of groundwater (Chakraborty, 2004). Nonpoint source pollution from
agriculture is a major threat to water quality in areas of intensive irrigation, where it is
often accompanied by high fertilizer inputs (FAO, 1996). The severely degraded water
quality threatens water supplies, and consequently, the water productivity. Similarly,
climate-change-induced extreme climatic events, such as shorter and more intense
rainy seasons and longer and more intense dry seasons will make agriculture, especially
rain-fed agriculture, more vulnerable and thus lower the agricultural water productivity.
However, further precise assessments of the impact of climate change on crop water
productivity are especially needed.

Improving regional- or basin-level water productivity

Large gains in water productivity can be achieved by growing suitable crops in places
where climate and management practices enable high water productivity and selling
them to places with lower water productivity. Good analysis of basin-level water
productivity maps helps compare the “bright spots” and “hot spots” to identify the
visible yield gaps. Crop water productivity values with remote sensing at the pixel level
provides explicit descriptions of both the magnitude and the variation (Figure 2) (Cai
et al., 2010, Zwart and Bastiaanssen, 2004). The next step is to make an assessment
of the biophysical potential through local analysis based on solar radiation and soil
of the region; to explore water-fertilizer applications in conjunction with crop-genetic
innovations. This approach remains the major strategy to achieve the world’s long-term
goal of higher productivity and food security (Cai et al., 2011). Improving WP through
better water management is central to the solutions for improved productivity. Reliable,
low-cost irrigation along with the critical inputs would enable poor farmers to improve
their productivity.

Conclusions
During the last 50 years, the original concept of ‘water-use efficiency’ has been
considerably enhanced to include ‘crop productivity or value per drop of water’. In its
broadest sense it relates to the net socio-economic and environmental benefits achieved
through the use of water in agriculture. The more commonly used concept of ‘water
productivity’ and its measurement at various scales is a robust measure of the ability
of agricultural systems to convert water into food. Increasing water productivity is
particularly important where water is scarce compared with other resources involved
in production. While water productivity increases with increase in water supply up to
58 Managing water and fertilizer for sustainable agricultural intensification

a certain point, water supply also improves fertilizer-use efficiency by increasing the
availability of applied nutrients.
The complexities of measurements of physical or economic water productivity increase
as the domain of interest moves from crop-plant to field, farm, system, basin, region and
national level. An important fact to appreciate is that the water input to a field or an
agricultural system is not the same as the water used or depleted for crop production
as the water that is taken into the system, but not consumed, is available downstream
and hence excluded from the estimation. Besides the conventional methods, the use of
remote-sensing satellite data and crop modelling has helped comprehensively map the
variations in basin- or regional-level water productivity and identify the potential areas
for appropriate interventions.
Development of crop varieties with a higher harvest index during the Green
Revolution era was the most successful strategy to improve land and water productivity,
but further increases have slowed down. Additional increase in crop production is
now achieved with near proportionate increase in water consumption leading to
over-exploitation of water resources in the productive areas. Alternatively, dry-spell
mitigation and soil-fertility management can potentially more than double the on-farm
yields in the vast low-productivity rain-fed areas. Fertilizer-mediated better rooting
increases the capacity of the plant to extract water by increasing the size of the water
reservoir and extensive canopy with longer-duration increases in plant demand for
water. Fertilizer rates (including secondary and micronutrients), over which farmers
have better control, need to be adjusted properly in relation to available water supplies.
Very low water productivity levels, even under water-scarcity conditions, might indicate
that major stresses other than water are at work, such as poor nutrition and diseases.
In large rain-fed areas of sub-Saharan Africa, often soil fertility is the limiting factor
to increased yields. Achieving synchrony between nutrient supply and crop demand
without excess or deficiency under various moisture regimes (including lowland paddy)
is the key to optimizing trade-offs amongst yield, profit and environmental protection
in both large-scale systems in developed countries and small-scale systems in the
developing countries.
At large river-basin scales with diverse and interacting uses and users, the water
productivity issues become increasingly complex. Options for improving water
productivity include reallocation and co-management of the resources among the
high-value uses while maintaining a healthy ecosystem. Appropriate water accounting
procedures need to be put in place to identify the opportunities for water savings.
Large gains in water productivity can be achieved by growing suitable crops in places
where climate and management practices enable high water productivity and selling
them to places with lower water productivity. Presently, there is great scope for
increasing economic water productivity by increasing the value generated by water
use and decreasing the associated costs. However, a number of key drivers including
climate change, urbanization, changes in diets and populations, and change in prices
of commodities (outputs) and inputs (seeds, fertilizers, energy, etc.) will require
that systems need to rapidly respond to take advantage of potential gains in water
productivity.
 3. Water use efficiency in agriculture: measurement, current situation and trends 59

References
Aggarwal, P.K. 2000. Application of system simulation for understanding and
increasing yield potential of wheat and rice. Published Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen,
The Netherlands. http://edepot.wur.nl/197264
Ahmad, M.D., Turral, H., Nazeer, A. 2009. Diagonising irrigation performance and
water productivity through satellite remote sensing and secondary data in a large
irrigation system of Pakistan. Agricultural Water Management 96: 551-564.
Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D., Smith, M. 1998. Crop evapotranspiration guidelines
for computing crop water requirements. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56. FAO,
Rome.
Amarasinghe, U., Malik, R.P.S., Sharma, B.R. 2010. Overcoming growing water scarcity:
Exploring potential improvements in water productivity in India. Natural Resources
Forum 34:188-199.
Ayars, J.E., Phene, C.J., Hutmacher, R.B., Davis, K.R., Schoneman, R.A., Vail, S.S., Mead,
R.M. 1999. Subsurface drip irrigation of row crops: A review of 15 years of research at
the Water Management Research Laboratory. Agricultural Water Management 42:1-
27.
Bakkes, J., Laura, A., Oonsie, B.,Hoff, H., Garry, P. Getting into the right lane for 2050:
A primer for EU debate. Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, Bilthoven,
Netherlands.
Banedjschafle, S., Bastani, S., Widmoser, P., Mengel, K. 2008. Improvement of water use
and N fertiliser efficiency by subsoil irrigation of winter wheat. European Journal of
Agronomy 28(1): 1-7.
Barrett Purcell & Associates. 1999. Determining a framework, terms and definitions
for water use efficiency in irrigation. Report to Land and Water Resources Research
and Development Corporation, September 1999. 26 p. Land & Water Australia.
http://lwa.gov.au
Bastiaanssen,W., Ahmad, M.D., Tahir, Z. 2003. Upscaling water productivity in irrigated
agriculture using remote sensing and GIS technologies. In: Kijne, J.W., Barker, R.,
Molden, D. (eds.). 2003. Water productivity in agriculture: Limits and opportunities
for improvements. Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture
Series 1, CABI International, UK, pp. 289-300.
Bastiaanssen,W., H. Pelgrum, G.Davids, B.D. Thoreson, R.G.Allen. 2005. SEBAL model
with remotely sensed data to improve water resources management under actual
field conditions. J. Irrigation Drain. Engg., 131: 85-95.
Bhuyian, S.I., Sattar, M.A., Khan, M.A.K. 1995. Improving water use efficiency in rice
irrigation through wet seeding. Irrigation Science 16 (1): 1-8.
Bossio, D., Kim, G., William, C. 2010. Managing water by managing land: Addressing
land degradation to improve water productivity and rural livelihoods. Agricultural
Water Management 97(4): 536-542.
Bouman, B.A.M., E. Humphreys, T. Yuong., R. Barker. 2007. Rice and water. Advances
in Agronomy, 92:187-237.
60 Managing water and fertilizer for sustainable agricultural intensification

Cai,X., Sharma, B.R. 2010. Integrating remote sensing, census and weather data for
an assessment of rice yield, water consumption and water productivity in the Indo-
Gangetic river basin. Agricultural Water Management 97:2, 309-316.
Cai, X., Sharma, B.R., Matin, M.A., Sharma, D., Gunasinghe, S. 2010. An assessment of
water productivity in the Indus and Ganges river basins: Current status and scope
for improvement. IWMI Research Report 140. International Water Management
Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka, p. 30.
Cai,X., Molden, D., Mainuddin, M., Sharma, B., Ahmad, M., Karimi, P. 2011. Producing
more food with less water in a challenging world: Assessment of water productivity
in 10 major river basins. Water International 36:1, 42-62.
Carlson, C.W., Alessi, J.; Mickelson, R.H. 1959. Evapotranspiration and yield of corn
as influenced by moisture level, nitrogen fertilisation, and plant density. Soil Science
Society of America Proceedings 23:242-245.
Chakraborty, D. 2004. Groundwater arsenic contamination and its health effects in
the Ganga-Meghna-Brahmaputra plain. Journal of Environmental Monitoring 6(6):
75N-83N.
Cook, S., Gichuki, F., Turral, H. 2006. Water productivity: Estimation at plot, farm, and
basin scale. Basin Focal Project Working Paper No. 2. Challenge Program on Water
and Food, Colombo.
Davis, J. 2003. Choosing a method for poverty mapping. FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.
org/DOCREP/005/Y4597E/Y4597E00.HTM
De Fraiture,C., Wichelns, D., Rockstrom, J., Kemp-Bendict, E., Eriyagama, N., Gordon,
L.J., Hanjra, M.A., Hoogeveen, J., Huber-Lee, A., Karlberg, L. 2007. Looking ahead
to 2050: Scenarios of alternative investment approaches. In: Molden, D. (ed.) Water
for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in
Agriculture. Earthscan/IWMI, London, UK/ Colombo, Sri Lanka, pp. 91-145.
Deng, X.P., Shan, L., Zhang, H., Turner, N.C. 2006. Improving agricultural water use
efficiency in arid and semiarid areas of China. Agricultural Water Management 80:
23-40.
Eck, H.V. 1988. Winter wheat response to nitrogen and irrigation. Agronomy Journal
80: 902-908.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations).1996. Control of water
pollution from agriculture. Irrigation and Drainage Paper 55. FAO, Rome.
Fan, T., Stewart, B.A., Yong, W., Junjile, L., Guangye, Z. 2005. Long-term fertilisation
effects on grain yield, water-use efficiency and soil fertility in the dryland Loess
Plateau in China. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 106(4): 313-329.
Fischer, K.S. 1998. Toward increasing nutrient-use efficiency in rice cropping systems:
The next generation of technology. Field Crops Research 56:1-6.
Frederiksen, H.D., Allen, G.R. 2011. A common basis for analysis, evaluation and
comparison of offstream water uses. Water International 36:3. 266-282.
Gajri, P.R., Prihar, S.S., Arora, V.K. 1993. Interdependence of nitrogen and irrigation
effects on growth and input-use efficiencies in wheat. Field Crops Research 31:71-86.
Gilbert, N. 2012. Dirt poor - The key to tackling hunger is in enriching its (sub-Sahara)
soil. Nature 483: 525-527.
 3. Water use efficiency in agriculture: measurement, current situation and trends 61

Gleick, P.H., Christian-Smith, J., Cooley, H. 2011. Water-use efficiency and productivity:
Rethinking the basin approach. Water International 36 (7): 784-798.
Hanjra, M.A., Gichuki, F. 2008. Investments in agricultural water management for
poverty reduction in Africa: Case studies of Limpopo, Nile and Volta river basins.
Natural Resources Forum 32(3): 185-202.
Hanks, R.J. 1974. Model for predicting plant yield as influenced by water used.
Agronomy Journal 66: 660-665.
Heitholt, J.J. 1989. Water use efficiency and dry matter distribution in nitrogen- and
water-stressed winter wheat. Agronomy Journal 81:464-469.
Hill, H., Tollefeson, L. 1996. Institutional questions and social challenges. In: Pereira, L.S.,
Feddes, R.A., Gilley, J.R., Lessafre, B. (eds.). Sustainability of Irrigated Agriculture,.
pp. 47-59. NATO ASI series. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Humphreys, E., Meisner, C., Gupta, R., Timsina, J., Beecher, H.G., Lu, T.Y., Singh, Y.,
Gill, M.A., Masih, I., Guo, Z.J., Thompson, J.A. 2005. Water saving in rice-wheat
system. Plant Production Science, 8(3): 242-258.
Hussain, I., Turral, H., Molden, D., Ahmad, M. 2007 Measuring and enhancing the
value of agricultural water in irrigated river basins. Irrigation Science 25:263-282.
IFDC (International Fertilizer Development Center). 2006. Agricultural production
and soil nutrient mining in Africa; implications for resource conservation and policy
development. IFDC Technical Bulletin. IFDC, Albama, USA.
Israelsen, O.W. 1932. Irrigation principles and practices. Wiley and Sons, New York.
411 p.
IWMI (International Water Management Institute). 2001. Climate and Water Atlas,
IWMI, Colombo, Sri Lanka, CD-ROM.
Karimi, P., Molden, D., Bastiaanssen, W. 2011. Mapping crop water productivity in the
Nile basin through combined use of remote sensing and census data. Proceedings
ICID 21st International Congress on Irrigation and Drainage, 15-23 October 2011,
Tehran, Iran, pp137-148.
Kassam, A.H., Molden, D., Fereres, E., Doorenbos, J. 2007. Water productivity: Science
and practice-introduction. Irrigation Science 25: 185-188.
Keller, A., Seckler, D. 2004. Limits to increasing the productivity of water in crop
production. Winrock Water, Arlington, VA.
Kijne, J.W., Barker, R., Molden, D. (eds.). 2003. Water productivity in agriculture:
Limits and opportunities for improvements. Comprehensive Assessment of Water
Management in Agriculture Series 1, CABI International, UK.
Lahiri, A.N. 1980. Interaction of water stress and mineral nutrition on growth and
yield. In: Turner, N.C. and P.J. Kramer (eds.). Adaptation of plants to water and high
temperature stress. John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 87-103.
Li, ZXhen-Zi, Li, W, Li, L.W. 2004. Dry-period irrigation and fertiliser application
affect water use and yield of spring wheat in semi-arid regions. Agricultural Water
Management, 65(2): 133-143.
Maxwell, S. 1999. The meaning and measurement of poverty. ODI Poverty Briefing,
ODI, UK
62 Managing water and fertilizer for sustainable agricultural intensification

Molden, D.J., Murray-Rust, H., Sakthivadivel, R., Makin, I. 2003. A water-productivity

framework for understanding and action. In: Kijne, J.W., Barker, R., Molden, D., eds.
2003. Water productivity in agriculture: Limits and opportunities for improvements.
Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture Series 1, CABI
International, UK.
Molden, D.J., Oweis, T. 2007. Pathways for increasing agricultural water productivity.
In: Molden, D. (ed.). Water for food, water for life. Comprehensive Assessment of
Water Management in Agriculture. Earthscan, London and International Water
Management Institute, Colombo.
Molden, D., Oweis, T., Steduto, P., Bidraban, P., Hanjra, M.A., Kijne, J. 2010. Improving
agricultural water productivity: Between optimism and caution. Agricultural Water
Management 97: 528-535.
Nangia, V., de Fraiture, C., Turral, H. 2008. Water quality implications of raising crop
water productivity. Agricultural Water Management 95: 825-835.
Oweis,T., Hachum, A. 2009. Supplemental irrigation for improved rainfed agriculture
in WANA region. In: Wani, S.P., Rockstrom, J., Oweis, T. (eds.). Rainfed agriculture:
Unlocking the potential. Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in
Agriculture Series 7, CABI, London, UK, pp.182-196.
Paramweswaran, K.V.M., Graham, R.D., Aspinall, D. 1981. Studies on the nitrogen and
water relations of wheat-I. Growth and water use in relation to time and method of N
application. Irrigation Sciences 3:29-44.
Passioura, J. 2006. Increasing crop productivity when water is scarce - from breeding to
field management. Agricultural Water Management 80: 176-196.
Payne, W.A., Drew, M.C., Hossner, L.R., Lascano, R.J., Onken, A.B., Wendt, C.W. 1992.
Soil phosphorus availability and pearl millet water-use efficiency. Crop Sciences
32:1010-1015.
Power, J.F. 1983. Soil management for efficient water use: Soil Fertility P 461-470. In:
Taylor, H.M., WR Jordan, T R Sinclair (eds.) Limitations to efficient water use in
production. American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America,
Madison, Wisconsin.
Prasad, M.R., Singh, A.P., Singh, B. 2000. Yield, water-use efficiency and potassium
uptake by summer mungbean as affected by various levels of potassium and moisture
stress. Journal of Indian Society of Soil Science 48(4): 827-828.
Prihar, S.S., Gajri, P.R., Arora, V.K. 1985. Nitrogen fertilisation of wheat under limited
water supplies. Fertiliser Research 8:1-8.
Rego, T.J., Wani, S.P., Sahrawat, K.L., Pardhasardhy, G. 2005. Macro-benefits from
boron, zinc and sulphur application in Indian SAT: A step for grey to green revolution
in agriculture. Global Theme on Agroecosystem Report No. 16. International Crops
Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, India.
Ritchie, J.T. 1983. Efficient water use in crop production: Discussion on the generality
between biomass production and evapotranspiration. In: Taylor, H.M. Jordan, W.,
Sinclair, T.R. (eds.). Limitations to efficient water use in crop production. American
Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin, 29-44.
 3. Water use efficiency in agriculture: measurement, current situation and trends 63

Rockstrom, J., Barron, J. 2007. Water productivity in rainfed systems: Overview of

challenges and analysis of opportunities in water scarcity prone Savannahs. Irrigation
Science 25(3): 299-311.
Rockstrom, J., Wani, S.P., Oweis, T., Hatibu, N. 2007. Managing water in rainfed
agriculture. In: Water for food, water for life: A comprehensive assessment of water
management in agriculture. Earth Scan/IWMI; London, UK/Colombo, Sri Lanka,
pp. 315-348.
Rodell, M., Velicogna, I., Famiglietti, J.S. 2009. Satellite-based estimates of groundwater
depletion in India. Nature, 460 (7258): 999-1002.
Sakthivadivel, R., de Fraiture, C., Molden, D.J., Perry, C., Kloezen, W. 1999. Indicators of
land and water productivity in irrigated agriculture. Water Resources Development
15: 161-179.
Sayre, K.D., Rajaram, S., Fischer, R.A. 1997. Yield potential progress in short bread
wheats in Northwest Mexico. Crop Science 37(1): 36-42.
Schmidhalter, U., Studer, C. 1998. Water use efficiency as influenced by plant mineral
nutrition. Proceedings 1st Sino-German workshop “Impact of Plant Nutrition on
Sustainable Agricultural Production”. Kiel, 22-23 October, 1998, 9 pages.
Seckler, D., Molden, D., Sakthivadivel, R. 2003. The concept of efficiency in water
resources management and policy. In: Kijne, J.W., Barker, R., Molden, D. (eds.).
2003. Water productivity in agriculture: Limits and opportunities for improvements.
Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture Series 1, CABI
International, UK.
Septiningsih, E.M., Pamplona, A.M., Sanchez, D.L., Neerja, C.N., Vergara, G.V., Heuer,
S., Ismail, A.M., Mackill, D.J. 2009. Development of submergence-tolerant rice
cultivars: the Sub 1 locus and beyond. Annals of Botany, 103:151-160.
Sharma, B.R. 2009. Rainwater harvesting in the management of agro-ecosystem. In:
Barron. J. (ed.). Rainwater harvesting: A lifeline of human wellbeing. United Nations
Environment Programme/Stockholm Environment Institute, Nairobi, Kenya, p. 80.
Sharma, B.R., Amarasinghe, U., Cai, X., de Condappa, D., Shah, T., Mukherji, A., Bharati,
L., Ambili, G., Qureshi, A., Pant, D., Xenarios, S., Singh, R., Smakhtin, V. 2009. The
Indus and the Ganges: River basins under extreme pressure. Water International 35
(5): 493-521.
Sharma, B.R., Rao, K.V., Vittal, K.P.R., Rammakrishna, Y.S., Amarasinghe, U. 2010.
Estimating the potential of rain-fed agriculture in India: Prospects for water
productivity improvements. Agricultural Water Management 97(1): 23-30.
Sharma, B.R., Ambili, G. 2010. Impact of state regulation on groundwater exploitation
in the ‘hotspot’ region of Punjab, India. Abstracts “Towards sustainable groundwater
in agriculture: An international conference on linking science and policy”, University
of California, Davis, 15-17 June 2010. http://www.ag-groundwater.org/presentations/
author/?uid=1225&ds=517
Sinclair, T.R., Tanner, C.B., Bennnet, J.M. 1984. Water use efficiency in crop production.
Bioscience 34: 36-40.
64 Managing water and fertilizer for sustainable agricultural intensification

Skewes, M.A. 1997. Technology vs management skill - the challenge of efficient

irrigation. Striking the balance: Irrigation and the environment - the 44th ANCID
Conference and Study Tour. Deniliquin, NSW, ANICD, Australia.
Solomon, K.H. 1984. Yield related interpretations of irrigation uniformity and efficiency
measures. Irrigation Science 5: 161-172.
Solomon, K.H., Burt, C.M. 1997. Irrigation sagacity: A performance parameter for
reasonable and beneficial user. ASAE Paper No. 97-2181.
Steduto, P., Hsaio, T.C., Fereres, E. 2007. On the conservative behaviour ofbiomass
water productivity. Irrigation Science 25: 189-207.
Tuong, T.P., Bouman, B.A.M. 2003. Rice production in water scarce environments. In:
Kijne, J.W., Barker, R., Molden, D. 2003. Water productivity in agriculture: Limits and
opportunities for improvements. Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management
in Agriculture Series 1, CABI International, UK, pp. 53-68.
Viets, F.G. 1962. Fertiliser and efficient use of water. Advances in Agronomy 14: 223-
264.
Wang, B., Liu, W., Dang, T. 2011. Effect of phosphorus on crop water and nitrogen use
efficiency under different precipitation year in dryland. Proceedings of International
Symposium on Water Resources and Environmental Protection, ISWREP-2011,
Xi’an, China.
Whittlesey, N.K., McNeal, B.L., Obersinner, V.F. 1986. Concepts affecting irrigation
management. Energy and Water Management in Western Irrigated Agriculture.
Studies in Water Policy and Management 7: 101-127.
Zwart, S.J., Bastiaanssen, W.G.M. 2004. Review of measured crop water productivity
values for irrigated wheat, rice, cotton and maize. Agricultural Water Management
69 (2): 115-133.