Content uploaded by Erol H. Cakmak
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Erol H. Cakmak
Content may be subject to copyright.
Options méditerranéennes, Series B, n°52 Irrigation Systems Performance
216
IRRIGATION SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE:
TURKEY COUNTRY REPORT
R. Kanber*, M. Ünlü*, E. H. Cakmak** and M. Tüzün***
*Univ.of Çukurova, Agric. Struc. and Irr. Dept., Adana, Turkey
E-mails: kanber@cu.edu.tr, munlu@cu.edu.tr
**Middle East Technical University – METU, Turkey, E-mail: cakmake@metu.edu.tr
***South-Eastern Anatolia Project Regional Development Administration GAP-RDA, Turkey
SUMMARY - Turkey has 25.85 Mha irrigable area (4.3 Mha is being irrigated) and 106.6 km3 per year
total available water resources. Most of the irrigation systems (96%) are designed, and operated by
DSI (State Hydraulic Works) and GDVS (General Directorates of Village Services) based on their
surface irrigation methods, 3.38% is being irrigated by sprinkler and 1% by drip irrigation methods.
Turkey is a Mediterranean country which has devoted huge resources to implementation of the
irrigation projects in the last three decades. However, the chances of implementing such new
irrigation projects are decreasing gradually since investment costs are being perceived to be too high.
Accordingly, the new situation of the Turkish economy necessitates irrigated agriculture to be more
productive and cost effective. Unfortunately, the results obtained from the irrigated agriculture - in
terms of yields and farm income - do not seem to satisfy the expectations. This study evaluates the
irrigation systems performances (ISP) in Turkey from the standpoint of effective use of water for
agriculture. Several irrigation systems located in the different regions of Turkey were evaluated to
obtain their system hydraulic, economic and agricultural performance indicators. Results indicated
that the hydraulic performance indicators varied region by region according to system type, irrigation
method, plant and knowledge of far nears. For instance, water application efficiencies were found to
be 29-58% in Central Anatolia, 35-55% in Black Sea, 38-61 in Southeastern Anatolia, 52-84% in
Mediterranean, 37-59% in Aegean region. In this work, it is obtained that there are considerable
changes in the size of irrigated area and cropping pattern from year to year in all irrigation schemes. It
can also be stated that efficient irrigation scheduling has still not achieved properly and this causes
too low water application efficiencies with high water conveyance losses.
Key words: Irrigation Systems Performance, Water Resources, Water Application Efficiency, Turkey
INTRODUCTION
A considerable part of the world’s food and fiber is currently produced by irrigated agriculture
which has experienced significant improvements in terms of both production and yield in the last
century. Huge resources are devoted to the implementation of irrigation projects around the world in
the last few decades. Numerous irrigation projects have been developed with high investment costs.
However, the chances of implementing such new irrigation projects are decreasing gradually since
investment costs are being perceived to be too high. Accordingly, the new situation of the world
economy necessitates irrigated agriculture to be more productive and cost effective. Unfortunately,
the results obtained from the irrigated agriculture - in terms of yields and farm income - do not seem
to satisfy the expectations.
The performance evaluation of an irrigation project can be examined in two major components, i.e.
the on-farm system, and supply and distribution (off-farm) system. It is obvious that, the off-farm
system should be capable of delivering water to farms with sound adequacy, efficiency, dependability,
and equity. These parameters are commonly used for controlling an irrigation system performance.
The performance of a system can be defined as the measurement of the degree/level of fulfillment of
the established objectives (Ait Kadi, 1994). Such a degree/level is expressed by one or several
parameters chosen as evaluation criteria or as indicators of the considered objectives. In other words,
Options méditerranéennes, Series B, n°52 Irrigation Systems Performance
217
the definition implies that performance is a relative rather than an absolute concept. It is relative to
some objectives which should be defined in advance.
Turkey is a Mediterranean country where considerable improvement in the irrigation development
has taken place in the last three decades. This report evaluates the performance of irrigation systems
(ISP) in Turkey with the standpoint of effective use of water for agriculture.
In the following section of the study, brief information about general indicators of irrigation -
geography and climate, soil and water resources, history of irrigation, regional use of water, and water
consumption of some major crops - is presented briefly. In the third section, the concept of irrigation
systems performance and results for different regions and different irrigation systems are
investigated. Methods used and comparable results for different conditions, systems and regions are
pointed out in order to evaluate system performance. In addition, encountered problems in transferred
irrigation systems are discussed and relevant recommendations are given. In the fourth section,
performance of some selected irrigation systems is examined via several indicators; such as,
irrigation efficiency, irrigation effectiveness, and irrigation uniformity for different irrigation systems in
different regions.
GENERAL INDICATORS OF IRRIGATION IN TURKEY
Geography and Climate
Turkey occupies a total area of about 78 million ha, of which about 1.1 million is inland lakes. The
country forms an elongated rectangle roughly 1,700 kilometers in an east-west direction and 1,000
kilometers north to south. On the east, Turkey has borders with Iran, Azerbaijan, Georgia and
Armenia. On the southeast Turkey’s neighbors are Iran, Iraq and Syria. On the south and west, the
country is surrounded with the Mediterranean and Aegean Sea. On the northwest, Turkey has
borders with Bulgaria and Greece. The Black Sea lies in the north of the country. Anatolia, except its
eastern parts, is surrounded by seas and has a total coastline of over 10,000 km, including the
Thrace and islands. Turkey forms a bridge between Europe and Asia, with about 3 percent of its land
in Europe and the rest in Asia.
Turkey is under effect of both maritime and continental weather patterns, which cause extreme
geo-climatic diversity when combined with a highly varied topography. The Mediterranean region
(southern coastal region) is regarded as sub-tropical, characterized by hot, dry summers and mild,
rainy winters. The Black Sea region receives rain throughout the year and lives both mild summers
and winters. The Aegean Region (Western Anatolia) has mountains which run roughly east to west
(i.e. perpendicular to the coast) and which are interspersed with grassy flood plains. It has also a
Mediterranean type of climate with hot, dry summers and mild winters. Central Anatolia is a vast high
plateau with an average altitude of 1,000 meters above sea level and a semi-arid continental climate,
i.e. hot and dry summers.
The average annual temperature varies between 18-20 oC on the south coast, falls to 14-15oC on
the west coast, and finally in the interior regions, depending on the location of the place from the
mean sea level, fluctuates between 4 with 19 0C. The annual average precipitation is 643 mm, but it
varies from 250 mm in the central part to 3000 mm in the Eastern Black Sea region. Seventy-five
percent of annual rainfall is received in the winter season. Except for the coastal areas, Thrace and
Eastern Anatolia, annual rainfall is less than 500 mm; therefore irrigation is of paramount importance.
Generally, agricultural production is adversely affected by the shortage and inconsistency of the
rainfall during the growing season. Solar energy, which depends on factors; such as, altitude and
seasons, makes it possible to grow arid and semi-arid crops like bananas and citrus. Moreover, it is
possible to have 2-3 crops from irrigated areas by allowing 270-day crop growing seasons. However,
some crops may be harvested before maturation, particularly in Eastern Anatolia with its 60-90
growing days. The southeast region records very low humidity levels. The coastal regions have quite
high levels being in line with precipitation rates. Inevitably, the topographical features are main factors
shaping the distribution. The highest average speed of wind is measured in the Çanakkale province,
being on the northwest Aegean coast. Moreover, a speed of about 136 km per hour is detected in the
provinces of Ankara, Kırşehir and İskenderun. The long-term annual evaporation rates indicate a high
Options méditerranéennes, Series B, n°52 Irrigation Systems Performance
218
rate particularly in the southeast region, which receives almost no rainfall during the summer and
reaches more than 2000 mm per year.
Land and Water Potentials
Land Potential
Turkey rooms in most of large land groups found on the earth today with her diverse geological,
climatic, vegetation and topographical features. This variety also makes it possible to raise a diversity
of crops, many of which are high in their quality.
The total area of Turkey is 77,945,200 ha, separated into 28,059,397 ha of arable lands, 21 506
028 ha of pastures, and common grazing lands, 1 159 207 ha of water surfaces areas, 23,248,297 ha
of shrubs, and forests, 3,972,271 ha of residential areas. Of the arable land, 25.85 million ha is
irrigable and 2.21 million ha is non-irrigable land. The irrigated area is 4.3 million ha (Table 1).
Table 1. The distribution of Arable Land (Source: GDRS, 2003)
Land Area (1000 ha) %
Arable Area 28,059.397 100
Non-irrigable Area
2,205.723 8
Irrigable Area 25,853.674 92
Sloped Area 9,341.833 36
Plain Area 16,511.841 64
Arable Area (today) 100
Special Farming
1,402.970 5
Irrigated Farming 4,300. 000 15
Dry land Farming 22,356.427 80
Fallow Dry Farming 16,523.184 74
Non-Fallow Dry Farming 5,833.243 26
It should be noted that important changes have taken place with respect to land use. The area,
which can be made available for irrigation, is estimated by DSI (State Hydraulics Works) at 8.5 million
ha gross area (6.4 million ha for major irrigation projects), of which about 4.3 million ha has already
been under irrigation. The remaining area of about 4.2 million ha is yet to be developed for irrigation
(Table 2). This does not mean that under present conditions it would be economically feasible to
irrigate the whole area. For the Irrigation Master Plan of Turkey, 227 projects covering a gross
irrigable area of 2.94 million ha have been analyzed. 139 of these covering a gross irrigable area of
2.07 million ha, or 70 % of the total area reviewed, have an IRR of 8% or more. If that same
percentage is applied to the area still to be developed, a potential additional irrigable area of 3.2
million ha will be added.
Table 2. Distribution of Irrigable Land (Source: GDRS, 2003)
Land Area, 1000ha %
Irrigable Land 25,853.674 100
Economically Irrigable Land 8,500.000 33
With Surface Water Resources 7,900.000 93
With Ground Water Resources 600.000 7
Equipped With Irrigation 4,300.000 51
Surface Water 3,854.144 90
Ground Water 445.856 10
Options méditerranéennes, Series B, n°52 Irrigation Systems Performance
219
To be Irrigated in the Future 4,200.00 49
Surface Water 4,045.856 96
Ground Water 154.144 04
Irrigation development is currently being carried out by the private sector, i.e. farmers and groups
of farmers, and the public sector, i.e. DSI and GDRS, General Directorate of Rural Services. Irrigation
development by DSI has gradually picked up momentum since 1950 (Table 3).
Table 3. Irrigation area development (in 1000ha) by DSI (Source: DSI, 2001)
Year Operated by DSI Operated by Users Total
1950 123 20 143
1960 185 31 215
1970 521 76 598
1980 755 245 1001
1990 1251 375 1626
2000 1266 422 1689
2001 Projected 2939
Water Potential
One of the most important aspects of land and water resource development programs is the
determination of the inventory of the resources. If resources and opportunities are not known
accurately before projects are undertaken, the installations will not be feasible and failure will result in
most cases.
The average annual precipitation of the country is 642.6 mm, which corresponds to a water
potential of 501 km3 per year. Runoff amounts to 238 mm, an average rate of 37 %, and the
remaining 63% is lost to evapotranspiration. A certain amount of the runoff is allocated to meet the
water rights and requirements of the neighboring countries. The amount of surface water, which is
utilized for consumptive purposes, is in the range of 95 km3 per year. According to the studies based
on groundwater resources, the total safe yield of groundwater resources is estimated to be 11.6 km3.
The potential of total available water resources from surface flow and groundwater would amount to
106.6 km3 per year (Table 4).
Table 4: Water Potential (Source: DSI, 2001)
Average Annual Precipitation: 643 mm
Water Potential from Precipitation: 501.0 km3
Surface Water Potential, km3 Groundwater Reserves, km3
Annual Flow
Runoff Coefficient
Utilizable potential
Actual Annual Potential
186.05
0.37
95.00
31.49
Surfaced Annual Reserve of
Groundwater
Annual Water Reserved by the DSI
Actual Annual Potential
12.3
9.0
6.0
In order to regulate the whole surface waters in the country, the construction of 662 dams is
required. Thus, it is obvious that the possibilities mentioned above require great amounts of
investment and a long period of construction. The water supplies from these dams would be regulated
to achieve the following objectives: irrigation of 6,609,382 ha; drainage of 135,801 ha, flood control of
636,794 ha; conveyance of 7,726 km3 of water to urban areas and generation of 121,484 MKwh of
electric power by the hydroelectric power plants with a total electricity capacity of 34,484 MW.
It is clear that water resources in Turkey are considerably limited given tables above about land
and water resources potential. Water is a constraint to agricultural productivity in comparison with the
extent of existing irrigable land resources. Inter-basin water transfer is possible as a solution, which
Options méditerranéennes, Series B, n°52 Irrigation Systems Performance
220
would be very expensive given the current economic conditions. It can also be noted that the Central
Anatolia Region, recognized for cereal production, and some of the inter-zone areas between the
coast and central region would be the most profitable areas to implement supplemental irrigation.
Utilization of Water Resources
Total water consumption rose to 42.0 km3 by the end of 2000 as a result of numerous projects
developed by various agencies, including the DSI being the first, in charge of developing water
resources. Breakdown of the total figure is as follows: Irrigation (31.5 km3, 75%); drinking-use water
(6.4 km3, 15%); and for industrial purposes; 4.1 km3, 10% (Table 5).
32.9 km3 of 38.9 km3 of water consumed in 1998 comes from surface water resources while 6 km3
is provided through groundwater reserves. Sectoral breakdown of utilized surface water resources is
as follows: Irrigation (82 %), drinking-use (10 %) and industrial purposes (8%). Corresponding
percentages for the utilization of groundwater are 39, 37 and 24, respectively.
Table 5: Actual Water Consumption, 1990-2000 (Source: SPO, 2001)
Water Consumption by Sectors, km3
Year
Total water
consumption
106 m3
Potential use
(%) Irrigation Drinking-Use Industrial
1990 30,600 28 22,016 72 5,141 17 3,443 11
1992 31,600 29 22,939 73 5,195 16 3,466 11
1998 38,900 35 29,200 75 5,700 15 4,000 10
2000 42,000 38 31,500 75 6,400 15 4,100 10
History of Irrigation in Turkey
Anatolia located at the crossroads of many antic civilizations has witnessed various water facilities
during the last 4,000 years. Central, western, southern and southeastern parts of Anatolia room in
many water facilities built by Hittites (2000 BC), Urartu (1000 BC), and rulers in the Hellenistic period,
Romans, the Byzantine, Seljuk and the Ottoman. Some of these facilities are even usable today.
Remains of other facilities are also visible in many parts of Anatolia as examples of fine engineering
skills. The first modern irrigation and drainage facility in Anatolia dates back to 1908-1914 (the
ottoman period) as “Çumra Irrigation and Drainage Project” (FNCI, 2001).
The State gave priority to the drainage of swampy areas as a part of combat against malaria, and
introduced some small irrigation projects starting with the republican era. Upon the establishment of
the General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works in 1954 with the law no. 6200, investments in such
projects dam-reservoir construction, pumping, regulation and irrigation networks etc. were intensified.
The General Directorates of Village Services and Agrarian Reform were established mainly for the
regular extension of on-farm development and land rehabilitation services accompanied by efforts to
ensure efficiency in irrigation. In this overall framework, the development of water resources having a
flow of more than 500 lt/second fall within the mandate of the DSI while smaller surface flows are
developed by the General Directorate of Village Services. In Turkey, 58 to 80 percent of total
investments in agriculture in the planned period have targeted the development of land and water
resources. In the period 1963-80, 20 to 33 percent of state investment budget was allocated to land
rehabilitation and irrigation investments. This share turned out to be much lower (around 10 %) in the
90s (FNCI, 2001). Problems related to the utilization, sufficiency and reliability of water resources
have raised serious concerns throughout the world. Consequently, the model “Devolution in Irrigation
Management” has come to the fore as the solution starting from the 1950s.
Many countries in Asia, Africa, America and Far East have adopted this model of devolution. The
first examples were observed in the USA, France and Taiwan in 1950s, 60s and 70s, respectively.
Options méditerranéennes, Series B, n°52 Irrigation Systems Performance
221
Devolution secured its place as a national strategy during the 80s and 90s in many countries,
including Chile, Peru, Mexico, Brazil, Senegal, Sudan, Somali, Pakistan, India and Turkey. This
devolution has been perceived differently in countries. For example, it is merely “transfer” in Indonesia
and the Philippines; “delegation of management” in Mexico; “privatization” in Bangladesh;
“responsibility sharing” in China and “participatory irrigation management” in Turkey (FNCI, 2001).
Regional Irrigated Land and Irrigation Practices
Irrigation Methods
Irrigation systems constructed by DSI have been mostly designed, operated and based on surface
irrigation methods. 95.93% of irrigation area was irrigated by surface irrigation, 3.38% by sprinkler
and 1% was irrigated by drip irrigation methods in DSI operated schemes. In Regions I, XI and XII,
sprinkling system was also used besides surface irrigation methods with 61.82%, 14.46% and
11.47% shares, respectively. 47.13% of land was irrigated by drip irrigation methods in Region VI.
The rest of the regions used only surface irrigation methods.
Transferred schemes displayed quite various irrigation methods, however. On average, 92.09% of
irrigated area was irrigated by surface irrigation, 7.03% by sprinkler and 0.88% was irrigated by drip
irrigation methods.
Irrigation systems set up by GDRS are planned to irrigate mostly by surface and sprinkler irrigation
methods. The latter method is used to irrigate land that have special conditions, for instance, where
irrigation water is taken from deep wells of ground water resources.
Sources of Irrigation Water
Land was mostly irrigated by well-sourced water (37.55%), stream water (28.64%) or water from a
dam (15.87%) in overall Turkey. However, most of the holdings used well-sourced water (30.35%)
and stream water (38.20%). Only 9.25% of holdings used water provided by a dam.
The agricultural regions, Aegean, Mediterranean and Southeast displayed similar patterns like
Turkey in percentage distribution of sources of irrigation water. However, the Middle South Region
irrigated land mostly with well-sourced water alone (74.24%). Holdings used mostly well-sourced
water (38.74%) or stream water (29.28%) in Aegean Region. In Mediterranean, holdings used mostly
stream water (37.97%) and well-sourced water (26.63%). In Southeast, holdings used mostly stream
water (36.68%) and spring water (32.97%). In Middle South, well-sourced water was used at a share
of 58.44%.
Irrigated land developed by DSI varies from region to region. Middle Anatolia and Mediterranean
regions occupy the most irrigated area among the others. Table 6 shows the irrigated lands in the
regions.
Table 6. Irrigated Lands by DSI (Source: DSI, 2001)
Regions Irrigated Lands (ha) %
Marmara 199,195 8.5
Aegean 401,501 17.2
Mediterranean 540,912 23.1
Southeastern 189,368 8.1
East Anatolia 308,346 13.1
Black Sea 153,471 6.6
Middle Anatolia 547,404 23.4
Total 2,340,197 100.0
Water Use for the Major Crops
Options méditerranéennes, Series B, n°52 Irrigation Systems Performance
222
Various crops can be grown in different geographic regions of Turkey. The results on irrigation of
the crops getting from experiments, which are carried on for long year periods in the different regions,
are used in the farmers’ guide. Water consumption data is taken by a different method, which is water
budget approach in the field plots, as a result of experiment that is arranged to obtain suitable
irrigation programs for different crops in different regions. Seasonal water consumption of some main
crops for different regions is shown in Table 7.
Table 7. Water Consumption For Main Crops (mm) (Kanber, 1982)
Crops Marmara Aegean Mediterran
.
Middle A. East A. Black Sea SouthEeast.
Vegetable
s
560-620 400-800 500-800 490-560
Dec. Fruit 580-680 650-980
Olive 550-620 620
Sunflower 400-520
Cotton 570-800 630-1000 1100-1300
Maize 760-900 700-800
Citrus 780-890 900-950
Wheat 570-630 490-600 450-700 400-530 360-730
Potato 560-840 530-930
Sugar beet 830-1330 630-1000 870-1130
Pistachio 320-600
Grape 720-820
The values (results) given in Table 7 are, in general, higher than those in the literature on the
water consumption of plants taken from different regions in the world where similar climatic conditions
prevail. This difference can be explained by the method used for obtaining ET of crops mentioned
before.
IRRIGATION SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE (ISP)
Irrigation Systems/Methods
(i) Farm Irrigation Systems
Farm irrigation systems must supply water at adequate rates, quantities and correct times to meet
farm irrigation requirements and schedules. They divert water from a water source, convey it to
cropped areas of the farm, and distribute it over the target area. In addition, it is essential that the
farm irrigation system facilitate management by providing a means of measuring and controlling flow
(James, 1988).
Irrigation water required during the growing season of crops brings to the head ditch of the field by
the farm irrigation systems and applies to the plants by irrigation method being used. Thus, the
functions of the farm irrigation systems are being carried out by irrigation methods. As it is well known
that irrigation methods are defined as the manner in which water is applied to the soil. An irrigation
system consists of all engineering structures needed for effective use of water by plant. Irrigation
projects include either irrigation system or irrigation method besides irrigated area (Thompson et al.,
1980).
Irrigation systems in the irrigation projects can be divided into two sub-systems as to area to be
served: Irrigation network and farm irrigation systems. The irrigation network is a great project and
covers very extensive areas. Farm irrigation systems serve to one or a few farms and have a small
capacity (Q≤0.5 m3/s). These systems are located under the tertiary canal to convey and distribute
Options méditerranéennes, Series B, n°52 Irrigation Systems Performance
223
water to individual fields. In addition to the irrigation system, which is settled by using a well, an earth
dam or any source to irrigate a field can be accepted as a farm irrigation system.
The farm irrigation system can be classified according to the manner in which water is available to
the plants to be used (Thompson et al., 1980). There are two primary ways of diverting surface and
ground waters: gravity diversions and pumping plants. Water is conveyed from the water source to
cropped areas of the farm in networks of open channels and/or pipelines.
(ii) Application Systems
The application systems can be mentioned as sprinkle, trickle, and surface (gravity) systems, each
of which necessitates different conditions for their favorable uses. A system can be successfully
applied on a given crop and soil condition while another may not. There are many parameters to be
considered while selecting a proper irrigation system. It is important that the farmers have to know the
specifications of different irrigation systems.
Sprinkler Systems: This system use sprinklers operating at pressures ranging from 70 to over 700
kPa to form and distribute "rain like" droplets over the land surface. In most common systems; such
as, hand-move, solid-set, side-roll, or big gun, a lateral line comes off of the main line to deliver water
to the sprinkler nozzles. The position of the lateral may be permanent as in a solid set, or movable as
in hand-move and side-roll systems. The spacing between the successive positions of the lateral
along the mainline is called “lateral spacing”. The spray area that is wetted by each sprinkler nozzle at
a particular operating pressure is designed as the wetted diameter. The wetted diameters are over-
lapped along the lateral to promote a more uniform distribution of water application (Cuenca, 1989).
Sprinkler systems apply water efficiently, however, have relatively high capital costs and low labor
requirements, and use more energy than other application methods. Sprinkle irrigation is adaptable to
many soils and terrains.
Trickle Systems: It can also be mentioned as drip irrigation. Trickle systems differ from the
application systems formerly discussed in that the water is applied at a point to a very limited fraction
of the total area of a field. This system is the frequent, slow application of water either directly onto the
land surface or into the root zone of the crop. It is based on the fundamental concepts of irrigating
only the root zone of the crop (rather than the entire land surface) and maintaining the water content
of the root zone at near optimum levels. The major difference between trickle systems and most other
application systems is that the balance between evapotranspiration and applied water is maintained
over limited periods of 24 and 72 hours. Trickle irrigation is accomplished using pressures ranging
from 15 to 200 kPa to drip water one-drop-at-a-time onto the land or into the root zone, spray it as a
fine mist over portions of the land surface, or bubble it onto the land surface in small streamlets.
Waters with high concentrations of particulate, chemical, and/or biological materials that clog trickle
system components make trickle irrigation difficult and expensive. Trickle irrigation is adaptable to
most soils and terrains.
Surface (Gravity) Irrigation: Most irrigation throughout the world is accomplished via surface
(gravity) techniques. Surface irrigation systems generally require a smaller initial investment (except
when extensive land smoothing is needed), are more labor intensive, and apply water less efficiently
than other types of irrigation systems (Kay, 1989). Surface irrigation systems are best suited to soils
with moderate to low infiltration capacities and land with relatively uniform terrain and slopes less than
2 percent. The adaptability of different soil types and topography to methods of surface irrigation is a
function of many different parameters. Some scientists have developed many graphs, and tables
given information of surface irrigation methods' specifications for various soil, crops and topographic
conditions. These tables also specify ranges of required water flows for the different methods,
recommended soil characteristics, and comment regarding to installation cost and labor requirements
(Booher, 1974).
The Concept of Performance Evaluation of Farm Irrigation Systems
Options méditerranéennes, Series B, n°52 Irrigation Systems Performance
224
Farm irrigation systems are designed to supply the individual irrigation requirements of each field
on the farm while controlling for deep percolation, runoff, evaporation, and operational losses. The
purpose of evaluating irrigation systems is fourfold: (1) To determine the efficiency of the system; (2)
to determine how effectively the system can be operated and whether it can be improved; (3) to
obtain information that will assist engineers in designing other systems; and (4) to obtain information
for comparison of various methods, systems, and operating procedures as a basis for economic
decision (Merriam et al., 1980, Ait Kadi, 1994). Various criteria have been developed and used for
evaluating of irrigation system performance. They include mainly social, economical and technical
(hydraulic) indicators of performance of irrigation systems. These are known as the performance
criteria of a system. They are, for instance, productivity, social stability, financial and economic
criteria, effectiveness, efficiency, equity, reliability, and general welfare criteria (Essafi, 1995).
The hydraulic performance of irrigation systems has been intensively investigated in the technical
literature. The hydraulic performance of a farm irrigation system is determined by the efficiency with
which water is diverted, conveyed, and applied and by the adequacy and uniformity of the application
in each field on the farm to evaluate the irrigation system. Three of the most commonly used criteria
are efficiency, effectiveness, and uniformity. In the following chapter, some important hydraulic criteria
of performances are summarized.
Hydraulic Performance Indicators
(i) Irrigation Efficiency
In the discussion of any type of irrigation systems, it is useful to have the concept of efficiency to
enable comparison of different management strategies for a particular system. If experiences of
different irrigation systems are being compared, it is clearly that stated how the efficiencies were
derived to see that they actually measure the same value of efficiency. The efficiency of any system is
an indicator of the losses, which occur in the system in view of its input and output. In general,
efficiency is defined as the ratio of output to input. Thus, the overall efficiency of a farm irrigation
system is the percentage of water supplied to the farm that is beneficially used for irrigation on the
farm. Irrigation efficiency can be thus defined as by Equation 1.
100×= FarmthetoDeliveredWater
ZoneRoottheinStoredWater
Ea (1)
It should be noted that efficiencies of various parts of a water resources system are described by
the foregoing set of relationships. The application efficiency is an indicator of the water losses, which
occur in the system at the farm level. These irrigation losses may include operational losses from
distribution system, seepage and evaporation losses from canals and farm ditches, deep percolation
losses below root zone, tail water losses at field end, and evaporation and drift losses resulting from
sprinkling.
It is often useful to examine the efficiency of each system component while evaluating the
performance of a farm irrigation system. This allows components that are not performing well to be
identified. When testing the efficiency of any irrigation system, reservoir storage efficiency and
conveyance efficiency must be considered for obtaining reliable results, as well.
(ii) Irrigation Uniformity
The uniformity of application is used to describe to what extent an application system distributes
the water evenly over a field. The spatial variability of the water amounting to the soil can be observed
in the variability of crop yield over the irrigated field. In statistics, variability is usually judged through
the determination of two statistics: standard deviation and coefficient of variation. One of the most
commonly used criteria for evaluation of irrigation uniformity is the uniformity coefficient introduced by
Christiansen which can be defined as the Christiansen Uniformity Coefficient (Equation 2).
Options méditerranéennes, Series B, n°52 Irrigation Systems Performance
225
−×= Mean
MeanFromDeviationAverage
CU 1100 (2)
Distribution uniformity (DU) is another index for the application of uniformity. DU is the ratio,
expressed in percent, of the average low-quarter amount caught/infiltrated to the average amount
caught/infiltrated. DU is defined by;
×= Mean
QuarterLowAverage
DU 100 (2a)
(iii) Adequacy of Irrigation
The adequacy of irrigation is the percentage of the field receiving sufficient water to maintain the
quantity and quality of crop production at a profitable level. Adequacy is defined as the percentage of
the field (farm) receiving the desired amount of water or more (Equation 3). This definition requires
crop, soil, and market conditions to be specified. The adequacy of irrigation is evaluated using a
cumulative frequency distribution.
×= AreaIrrigatedTotal
plenishedZoneRootwithArea
Pa Re
100 (3)
When the desired depth of irrigation fills the soil to the field capacity, a term called the storage
efficiency (Es) is often used as an index to adequacy. The Es is computed using Equation 3a.
×= IrrigationBeforeDeficitMoistureSoil
ZoneRoottheinStoredWaterofAmount
Es 100 (3a)
(iv) Irrigation Effectiveness
This is a term that describes the application efficiency, uniformity, and adequacy of irrigation
qualitatively. The desired effectiveness of irrigation, i.e. the desired combination of efficiency,
uniformity, and adequacy, maximizes net farm profit. Irrigations with the highest application of
efficiency, uniformity, and adequacy are not always desirable, since they do not always maximize net
farm profit. Thus, an understanding of the relationship between applications of efficiency, uniformity,
and adequacy is needed to identify proper irrigation systems.
Economical Performance Indicators
The International Water Management Institute (IWMI) developed a set of comparative
performance indicators with the purpose of the economic assessment of irrigation performance
(Molden et. al., 1998). In these indicators, water input-yield relationships are used mainly. The first
four basic indicators relate agricultural production to water amount. These indicators allow a
comparison of the performance of fundamentally different systems by standardizing the gross value of
agricultural production (Değirmenci et. al., 2003). The standardized gross value of production (SGVP)
per unit of water consumed is significant especially for areas where water scarcity exists, while output
per unit of commanded or cropped area is more important for areas where the land is regarded as a
limited source. The four basic indicators are; unit output of cropped area, unit output of commanded
area, unit output of irrigation supply, and unit output of water consumed. These indicators are defined
by equations given below.
crop
crop I
SGVP
T= (4)
Options méditerranéennes, Series B, n°52 Irrigation Systems Performance
226
com
com A
SGVP
T= (5)
ds
is I
SGVP
T= (6)
et
wc W
SGVP
T= (7)
Where, T is the output per cropped area (Tcrop), per commanded area (Tcom), per irrigation supply
(Tis), and per water consumed (Twc). Icrop shows the irrigated cropped area, Acom is the commanded
area by the irrigation system; Ids is the diverted irrigation supply; and Wet is the volume of water
consumed by evapotranspiration. SGVP in all equations is the output of the irrigated area in terms of
the gross or net value of production measured at local or world prices.
world
crop
P
Pb
Pi
YiAiSGVP
=∑ (8)
Where; Ai is the area cropped with crop i (ha), Yi is the yield of crop i (ton per hectare), Pb is
the local price of the base crop (USD t-1), and Pworld is value of base crop traded at world price. SGVP
is used for the cross-system comparison, and there exist some differences in local prices at different
locations throughout the world. Therefore, a plant must be chosen as a base crop according to its
cropping intensity in the study area and its importance in the international markets.
Agricultural Performance Indicators
This group of indicators contains relative water supply, irrigation ratio and water diversion capacity
ratio of the system. These performance indicators are assumed to be social indicators or physical
indicators of the irrigation systems, as well.
)(
Re ETDemandWaterCrop
SupplyWaterTotal
SupplyWaterlative −
= (9)
AreaCommand
AreaCroppedIrrigated
RatioIrrigation = (10)
SupplyWaterPlanned
SupplyWaterDiverted
RatioCapacityDiversionWater = (11)
There are also some other indicators for the same purpose; such as, realized crop pattern ratio,
benefit/cost ratio, planned water supply ratio, sustainable irrigated area ratio, etc.
IRRIGATION SYSTEM PERFORMANCES IN TURKEY
The relevant studies on irrigation system performance were begun almost in 1980s. The first study
was carried out on areas that are irrigated by Lower Seyhan Irrigation System, with the support of
FAO (Benli et. al., 1987). In this study, monitoring and evaluation of the LSP system were particularly
considered. Besides, several irrigation systems in different regions were evaluated to obtain their
system performance. Open channel systems, and pressurized systems, like sprinkler and drip, were
examined in these studies. Moreover, the irrigation systems, which irrigate land by water that is
Options méditerranéennes, Series B, n°52 Irrigation Systems Performance
227
conveyed from earth dams constructed in the high plateaus, were worked for their performance. In
the below section, some results obtained are summarized for different regions.
Mediterranean Region
The study carried out by Benli et al. (1987) assessed the performance of Lower Seyhan Irrigation
System in Adana. In the study, the system was tested according to their technical aspects; such as,
water conveyance, seepage and tail water losses, irrigation efficiencies, and all system design and
efficiency of operation. In addition, the variation of cropping pattern over the years, groundwater
observations, dissolved salt concentration of ground water in the peak irrigation months, water use
and water balance, etc. were mentioned. Results indicated that water amounting to 50 percent of that
is taken from reservoir of Seyhan Dam was available to plants grown on the Seyhan Plain. It means
that 50 percent of water is lost and can not be used by the plants. This is caused not only by the
irrigation and drainage system development simultaneously, but also by administrative, financial and
management problems, the extreme change of cropping pattern, the lock of the land leveling of the
irrigated area, etc.
Yavuz (1993) tested three different irrigation methods; namely, furrow, drip and sprinkler, in a field
condition. In addition, various management techniques for each irrigation methods were included in
his work. For instance, furrow irrigation consisted of pounded alternative furrows (PAF); free end
furrows (FEF) and pounded continuous flow furrows (PCF). Drip irrigation applications consisted of
two different emitter spacing (d1: 30 and d2: 60 cm) and two different planting techniques; traditional
(T) and double row (D) in a single planting bed. In sprinkler irrigation (SI), different final irrigation
dates and different irrigation levels were evaluated. Table 8 shows some efficiency components; such
as, application (Ea), requirement (Er), infiltration (Ei), tail water ratio (TWR), deep percolation ratio
(DPR), uniformity of Christiansen coefficient (UCC), distribution uniformity (DU), and water use
efficiency (WUE) calculated for different irrigation methods besides total infiltrated water during
irrigation events (Zi). In the table, infiltrated water estimated from net infiltration opportunity time,
which were obtained by flow advance and recession data during irrigation event, was also given.
Similar results were obtained by Önder (1994) from his study on surge and continuous furrow flow
in the Tarsus Plain. He found out that surge flow increased the tail water runoff losses, while deep
percolation losses decreased. Moreover, the soil and water losses increased depending on the flow
size in all treatments used in his field experiment.
A study was carried out by Uçar (1994) on the pressurized system (mini-sprinkler) at the Research
and Production Farm of The Agriculture Faculty of Çukurova University. Results indicated that the
pressure variation between the first and the last lateral as to the location of control unit was estimated
to be 16.7% while distribution coefficient was 67% and storage efficiency varied from 59 to 74.8%
during the irrigation season. Additionally, wetted area was determined to be 15.94% and average
application rate was 5.5 mm/hr. During the test, 892 mm of irrigation water was applied throughout
the season.
Table 8. Irrigation Performances For Different Methods For Cotton (Source: Yavuz, 1993)
Methods Zi Ea Er Ei TWR DPR UCC DU WUE
PAF
FEF
PCF
SI*
DTd2
DTd1
DDd2
DDd1
375
653
722
834
Da*
8
16
9
15
80
67
77
92
Eu
90
82
70
76
81
69
75
85
PELQ
91
74
63
68
100
100
100
100
AELQ
78
71
61
66
-
33
-
-
Dn
7
12
6
11
20
-
23
8
89
94
91
100
90
62
94
100
0.49
0.40
0.35
0.27
0.39
0.39
0.36
0.54
0.43
Note: Da, average application depth; Eu, emission uniformity; PELQ, potential application efficiency; AELQ,
application efficiency; Dn, minimum application depth.
Options méditerranéennes, Series B, n°52 Irrigation Systems Performance
228
Considered irrigation events used for testing have different irrigation time due to the irrigations that
were begun at the different available water level in the root zone. Overall performance of the system
has been considered to be acceptable. However, a few simple changes are required for improving
system performances.
Gözen and Hakgören (2000) examined the performance of individual drip irrigation systems for the
Antalya-Kumluca region with a high rate of greenhouse production. It should be noted that drip
irrigation system is used in all greenhouses in the region. In their study, the hydraulics performance
indicators were evaluated for selected greenhouses that were constructed at different frameworks
and, in which drip-irrigated tomato is grown. The results for selected greenhouses are shown in Table
9.
Table 9. Some Hydraulics Performance Indicators For Drip Irrigation In Kumluca (Source: Gözen and
Hakgören, 2000)
Number of Greenhouse EUs Q
cv CU Us Ea
1 90.49 14 96.38 94.12 90.54
2 87.34 34 93.29 91.74 87.15
3 81.48 29 91.11 88.09 81.09
4 78.23 31 89.94 87.18 74.44
5 90.11 16 95.39 90.00 88.38
The greenhouses that are numbered as 1, 2, and 3 have arch-frame work with 3, 6 and 9 blocks,
respectively. The greenhouse 4 is also arc-frame work with 4 blocks while number 5 is mono-block
with cradle skeleton. All greenhouses are covered with plastic sheet. According to the results,
Emission uniformity (EUs), statistical uniformity concept (Us) and Christiansen uniformity coefficient
(CU) increased in the greenhouses, which have arc-framework depending on the block number,
except emitter flow variation (Qcv). This indicator decreased as the blocks in the greenhouses
increased. There is no difference between frameworks of arch and cradle of greenhouses for
performance indicators of drip irrigation systems.
Yıldırım and Orta (1993) carried out another study of performance evaluation on drip irrigation
systems of nine farms in Antalya Region. In their work, existing drip irrigation systems and water
applications were investigated, the system operational plans were prepared and the results obtained
were compared to present applications. As a result, it was obtained that the system elements were
not designed properly; the infiltration of water has not been supplied because that the equipments
required were not placed in the control units. Lastly, system layouts and operations were insignificant
in all drip irrigation systems.
Ertek (1998) studied also on the drip system evaluation in a field irrigation experiment. Different
irrigation programs were considered in his study for irrigation of cotton, and better performance
indicators were found out.
Yazar et al. (1990) studied on the pressurized irrigation system performances in irrigated areas
around Seyhan. In the study, hose-reel sprinkler system was considered using various operating
conditions; such as, operating pressure, nozzle size, traveling speed and travel lane spacing (Table
10).
Table 10. Some Performance Indicators For Reel-Hose Sprinkler System (Source: Yazar et al., 1990)
Travel
Speed
[m/h]
Pressure at
Nozzle
[KPa]
Nozzle
Size
[mm]
CU
[%]
Travel-Lane
Spacing
[m]
Wetted
Diameter,
[m]
App.
Rate
[mm/h]
20 405 17.8 90 52 70 10.56
40 405 12.7 91 36 45 5.81
60 405 12.7 84 43 55 6.74
Options méditerranéennes, Series B, n°52 Irrigation Systems Performance
229
Overlapped distribution pattern was obtained by catch can data and Christiansen uniformity
coefficient, which showed that water distribution was found to be more than 85% if proper operating
conditions were used.
A similar study was carried out by Andırınlıoğlu (1993) on a linear moving sprinkler irrigation
system used on a private farm located in Seyhan irrigation areas. The system was 650 m in length
with 12 towers, including a control unit. The pumping station was placed in the middle of the system.
According to the results, water application efficiency did vary between 95 (min.) and 97% (max.),
distribution uniformity was 87.2%, system capacity was 7714 L/min, and maximum application rate
was 106 mm/h. Fuel, energy and water use efficiencies were found to be 56.1 L/ha, 0.026 l/kg, 0.66
kg/m3, respectively.
In the last decade, most of the irrigation systems were transferred to water user associations that
are responsible for only management and maintenance. Bulut and Çakmak (2001) carried out a study
to compare pre and post-transfer of irrigation system performance in Mersin Irrigation Scheme. The
performance indicators, which were used for the assessment of water management performance,
were grouped in terms of water use, agricultural and economic efficiencies. Results indicated that
some indicators increased after the transfer while others did decrease. For instance, water supply
ratios were 1.43-1.69 in pre-transfer, and 1.33-1.82 in post-transfer as to total water requirement.
Irrigation ratios were 85-93% in pre-transfer; 87-98% in the post-transfer period. Crop production
ratios were calculated as 70-113% in the pre-transfer, and as 72-117% in the post-transfer. The ratio
of financial efficiency, financial sufficiency, water fee collection ratio and sustainable irrigated area
were found out to be 145-320%, 42-93%, 40-54% and 81-93% for the pre-transfer, and 46-297%, 26-
59%, 32-143% and 63-70% for the post-transfer of the system. Similarly, field application,
conveyance, distribution and total irrigation efficiencies were calculated as 70, 92, 82 and 53%,
respectively.
Southeast Anatolia Region
A study was carried out in the area covered by the Southeastern Anatolia Project by Değirmenci et
al. (2003) to assess the irrigation performances of some selected irrigation schemes using 6
comparative indicators. These performance indicators were applied to 12 irrigation systems in the
project region from 1997 to 2001. The performance indicators were the economic characteristics, i.e.
the output per cropped area, output per unit commanded area, output per unit irrigation supply, output
per unit water consumed, relative water supply, and the irrigation ratio, etc. The comparative
indicators considered in this study were suitable for the comparison of performances among different
irrigation schemes. These indicators were calculated depending on the irrigation system as
USD1223-9436 ha-1, USD308-5771 ha-1, USD0.2-2.16 m-3, and USD0.45-2.92 m3, 1.00-5.90 and 7-
100%, respectively. The results indicated that the differences among the schemes in the output per
unit cropped area, output per irrigation supply, output per unit water consumed and relative water
supply were not statistically significant but that the differences in output per unit command and
irrigation ratio were statistically significant. It was reported that an information system for monitoring
and evaluation, which encompasses all stakeholders, should be set up and irrigation scheduling
should be designed for an efficient management of an irrigation system in the area of Southeastern
Anatolia Project.
Another study was carried out in the field irrigation of Harran Plain by Kanber et al. (2001). In the
experiment of two years, irrigation performance parameters of surface irrigation methods of
continuous and surge furrow flow were tested. Different flow rates (less and high inflow) and on and
off time (surge) were considered at the 180 m length of the field. Results indicated that surge flow
with less inflow rate increased the application efficiency compared to continuous flow (Table 11).
Besides, it did not reason to create any problem on the relationship between soil and water in the
heavy textured soils. In surge flow, 30 and 43% of water were losses and not available to the cotton
crop while these figures were 38 and 53 % in continuous furrows of C1 and C2. The average
requirement efficiency (Er) was high in all treatments and they were found to be still in acceptable
limits. The infiltration efficiency (Ei) was higher in furrows with less flow rates (C1 and S1) than those
in high flow rate-furrows (C2 and S2). The highest wasted water from tail water and deep percolation
was obtained in S2 with 28% of TWR and in C2 with 33% of DPR. It should be noted that the high
DPR and TWR in continuous and surge flows did result with a lower rate of application efficiency. The
Options méditerranéennes, Series B, n°52 Irrigation Systems Performance
230
uniformity coefficients (UCC and DU) ranging from 79 to 94% were within the acceptable limits,
except the DU value of S1. This implies that decreasing the infiltration rate in time resulted in
acceptable uniformity coefficients even if there were significant differences in the opportunity of time.
However, the lowest DU value was obtained in the S1 treatment. This can be explained by the result
of the higher tail water runoff losses in this treatment.
Table 11. Estimated average irrigation performance parameters (in %) for surge and steady flows
(Source: Kanber et al., 2001)
Treatment Ea Er Ei TWR DPR UCC DU
C
1
62 87 86 26 12 90 82
S1 70 87 88 20 11 89 79
C2 47 100 60 20 33 94 88
S2 57 96 64 28 16 89 89
Central Anatolia Region
Çakmak (2001) evaluated the irrigation performance of the water user associations of Konya
irrigation scheme. Some irrigation systems in Konya province; such as, Atlantı (10230 ha), Çumra
(59,704), Gevrekli (4,438 ha), Ilgın (5,214 ha), Ivriz (32,254 ha), Karaman (15,040 ha) and Uluırmak
(20,422 ha) and total 239,302 ha irrigated area, were taken as the sample using data from 1995 to
1999. The economical performance indicators; such as, output per command area, output per
cropped area, output per unit irrigation supply, output per unit water consumed, and two agricultural
indicators of water supply, and irrigation ratio were used to compare the irrigation schemes. The
results indicated that output per command area, output per cropped area, output per unit irrigation
supply, output per unit water consumed, water supply, and irrigation ratio were found to be 195-5391
USD/ha 359-6197 USD/ha 0.02-1.29 USD/m3 0.07-2.25 USD/m3 0.30-7.83% and 36-104%,
respectively.
Yıldırım and Kodal (1990) have studied on choosing a proper system for Konya-Yunak-Gölpınar
TOPRAKSU Cooperative, where the area was being irrigated with groundwater resources, between
surface and sprinkler irrigation applications. Alternative surface and sprinkler irrigation systems were
designed for adequate and limited water regimes, in which the water requirements were supplied
completely and with extending irrigation intervals, respectively. The results showed that all alternative
projects of both irrigation systems with 9-18 days intervals were found to be inappropriate regarding
to the economic factors behind. The highest benefit-cost ratio was achieved at the sprinkler system of
adequate water regime. As a result, sprinkler irrigation system with 6-12 days interval was suggested
as the investigation area.
Furthermore, water distribution and water use efficiencies in Konya-Alakova pump irrigation
system was evaluated by Balaban and Beyribey (1991). The irrigation system was constructed by
State Hydraulic Works (DSI) in 1965 to irrigate an area of almost 895 ha. The water conveyance and
water application efficiencies were found to be 85 and 48.7 %, respectively. According to results
taken from the experiment, a flow diagram was prepared in order to evaluate and monitor the
irrigation system.
Kadayıfçılar et al. (1998) studied on the evaluation of the systems around the Nevşehir and Niğde
region, where sprinkler irrigation system was widely used particularly for irrigation of potato, according
to their water application performances. 25 farms, almost all of which used the sprinkler system, were
considered and their irrigation systems and irrigation applications were evaluated. The results
indicated that, the considered sprinkler irrigation systems were placed to take into consideration of
farms location and whole farm-area shape. However, 24 of which were not operated in convenient
pressure and sprinkler headspace, and 40 of which radius of main and lateral lines were not selected
conveniently. In the region, excessive water was generally applied while application was not enough
to meet the crop water requirement during the overall growing season and not to suffer from stress
due to lack of water.
Options méditerranéennes, Series B, n°52 Irrigation Systems Performance
231
Öğretir (1981) carried out a study on the Çifteler irrigation scheme, which is located in Eskişehir
province and where 6110 ha area was irrigated, in order to determine the water conveyance losses
and the water application efficiencies. The canals, which convey water, were lined by concrete in the
whole system. Water conveyance losses were determined by the inflow-outflow method and water
flow was a measure by current-meter. The results showed that water losses by seepage of canals
were 0.44-4.29 % of inflow of canals, and average conveyance losses was calculated as to be 1.88%
of inflow. Water application efficiencies varied between 32 and 77% according to the irrigation
methods used in the area. For sprinkler irrigation systems, it was 66% while 42% for wild flooding.
The same irrigation scheme, which was put into practice by State Hydraulic Works in 1969 partly
and in 1974 completely, was evaluated by Alibiglouei and Öneş (1992) for water losses and water
application efficiency. As a result of their study, the water conveyance losses and water application
efficiencies were found to be as 87.0 and 59.5 %, respectively.
Öğretir and Beyribey (1997) evaluated the Eskişehir irrigation system, which irrigated a net area of
17,500 ha near the Eşkişehir city. In the study, the data for 1984-1995 was used to assess some of
the performance indicators; such as, water consumption, agricultural, economic, social, and
environmental indicators. According to the results, the project efficiency was found as 55%; water
supply ratio on a monthly basis, 2.3; irrigation ratio, 48%; benefit/cost ratio, 2.9; financial efficiency
ratio, 95%; financial sufficiency ratio, 26%; fee collection ratio, 83%; and lastly, sustainable irrigation
ratio was obtained as 98%.
Marmara Region
Yazgan and Değirmenci (2002) carried out a study using the data of 1992-1996 irrigation results.
In the study, 15 different physical, economical and institutional efficiency indicators were applied to
Bursa Groundwater Irrigation Project to evaluate the performance of the irrigation system. The study
area was about 1,650 ha, and it had 41 deep water-wells, which had an average flow rate of 20-
40L/s. Irrigation water was conveyed by 11,775 km long spiral steal pipe and 68,576 km asbestos-
cement pipe in the system. The results taken from study are arranged according to performance
indicators in Table 12. Foreign currency of dollars was used for calculating the economic indicators,
and water consumption of crops was estimated by the Blaney-Criddle method. According to the
results from Table 12, water supply ratio varied between 0.6 and 1.09, and irrigation ratio was found
to be 57-81%. On the other hand, the realized crop pattern ratio of 71-96%; benefit cost ratio of 2.5-
10%; planned water supply ratio of 61-115.3% and water-use per unit area of 5917.3-8701.3 m3ha-1,
water fee collection ratio of 71-100%, sustainable irrigated area ratio of 1.71, out put per unit
command area of USD2628.7 ha-1, and out put per cropped area of USD4198.5 were obtained. After
the evaluation, it could be said that irrigation planning must be carried out for the sake of farmers,
market and water resources and for an efficient irrigation management.
Table 12. Some Irrigation Performance Indicators of Ground Water Irrigation in Bursa (Source:
Yazgan and Değirmenci, 2002)
Performance Indicators 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Physical
Indicators
Realized Crop Pattern Ratio, %
Planned Water Supply Ratio, %
Water supply Ratio
Irrigation Ratio
Water Use per Unit Area (m3ha-1)
Benefit/cost Ratio
Water Fee Collection Ratio
73.3
96.6
0.98
81
6741.8
2.5
100
71.7
72.5
1.03
57
7837.4
2.6
99
94.5
115.3
1.07
72
8701.3
6.4
99
89.2
91.9
1.09
59
8479.
8
10.0
96
96.6
61
0.60
67
5917.3
8.2
71
Physical
and
Indicators Groundwater Irrigation Open Channel
Irrigation
Options méditerranéennes, Series B, n°52 Irrigation Systems Performance
232
Institutional Sustainable Irrigated Area Ration
Distribution System Per Unit Irr. System
Irr. System per Unit Command Area (ha
km-1)
Personnel per Unit of System (km pers-1)
Personnel per Unit of Command Area
(km pers-1)
1.71
0.83
29.56
21.57
443.7
1.40
0.77
20.26
59.70
137.40
Indicators 1996 Economic
Output per Cropped Area, $ ha-1
Output per Unit Command Area, $ ha-1
Output per Unit Supplied Water, $ m-3
Output per Unit Water Consumed, $ m-3
4198.5
2628.7
0.8
0.9
Black Sea Region
This region has quite enough precipitation rates for the season of crop growing. Irrigation is
usually being applied at the local area with water conveyed from earth dams constructed by General
Directorate of Village Affair.
Bayrak (1991) evaluated some irrigation systems located at Havza, Vezirköprü and Kavak
provinces in the interior of Samsun. In this experiment, water conveyance losses and water
application efficiencies were studied. The results revealed that water conveyance losses varied
between 0.14 and 3.34 % of the diverted water, and the application efficiency was found to be 70.5 %
as the average of all irrigation systems were considered.
Aegean Region
The Great Menderes Basin-irrigation schemes, as it was mentioned before that most of the
irrigation schemes were transferred to water user associations (WUA), was also transferred to WUAs.
Irrigation networks of the basin were operated also by other user organizations. A study was carried
out by Koç (2001) to assess the impact of the water user associations relating to management–
operation and maintenance (MOM) of the irrigation schemes. In the study, 4 schemes; namely,
Nazilli, Akçay, Aydın and Söke irrigation systems, were considered using a random methodology for
survey to investigate the effectiveness of WUA on the MOM. A questionnaire consisting of 5 different
topics; that were water delivered, personnel number and maintenance of networks, sustainability of
WUA and the collection of fees, was used to analyze the operative performance of the WUA. The
results were recorded with respect to the answers of the water users to the questions about irrigation
systems management and operations. Average total water users in the irrigation schemes considered
lead to the following conclusions with their weights; the sustainability and sufficiency of water amount
diverted by WUA was every time good, 71%; bad, 15%; sometimes good, 14%. On and off time of the
water diverted by the systems was regarded to be reasonable (63%) and unreasonable (37%) by the
water users. In addition, maintenance and repairing of the all systems were adequate for 38 and 72
percent of the water users, respectively. Water users in all systems replied to the question of “how do
you find the ability of personnel working in the WUA to deal with the problems related to irrigation?” to
be good (80%), not good (19%), and fair (1%). The water price was regarded as being high for 64%,
normal for 32%, and cheap for 3% of water users. The opinion of users, generally, was that the
transfer of the irrigation systems to the WUA had a very positive impact.
Koç (2003) carried out another study on the irrigation performance of Great Menderes basin
irrigation schemes for pre and post-transfer periods, being 1992 – 1994 and 1999 – 2001,
respectively. Some irrigation networks, such as, Nazilli, Akçay and Aydın, were studied to assess the
management-operation and maintenance (MOM) of the systems. In order to measure and evaluate of
the performance of MOM for the selected systems, almost 20 performance indicators were used with
weighed average mark method (WAM), and an index system was scored. When high WAM was
found, irrigation system was accepted as having a high irrigation performance. Results showed that,
the total WAM indexes of irrigation systems for MOM at the pre and post-transfer were found to be
significantly not different. However, the economical indicators of MOM increased slightly after the
turnover of irrigation system during 1999-2001 (Table 13).
Options méditerranéennes, Series B, n°52 Irrigation Systems Performance
233
In Aegean Region, another study was made on the Menemen Plain for obtaining irrigation
efficiencies by Şener (1978). In this research, two concrete canals of Kesikköprü, P3 and P4 were
used in order to determine the water losses and irrigation efficiencies on the irrigated lands during the
irrigation events. For this purpose, the amount of irrigation water was measured using constant head
orifices at the inlet and outlet of the canals from the beginning of the irrigation season, July to the end
of September, being the end of the irrigation season.
Table 13: Average Irrigation System Performance Indicators (Source: Koç, 2003)
Akçay Aydın Nazilli
Indicators Pre-transfer Post-
transfer Pre-transfer Post-
transfer Pre-transfer Post-
transfer
Physical 30.97 30.67 34.04 33.01 34.33 33.12
Economic 26.67 31.32 27.20 29.40 27.52 30.28
Social 6.81 7.75 7.86 5.94 8.63 6.90
WAM 70.46 77.68 75.10 75.88 76.47 76.29
Results Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair
Moreover, the area of the land irrigated by each irrigator was also determined. The soil depth of
1.2 m was considered for determining the irrigation water amount that was infiltrated into the root
zone after irrigation applications. According to the results, application rates varied between 46 and
287 mm for P3 and 70 and 534 mm for P4 canals, and application efficiencies of irrigation water were
43-65% depending on areas serving to different canals, and irrigation events.
CONCLUSIONS
This country report presents the results of the studies on irrigation performances of irrigation
systems in Turkey. The total number of scientific studies, which varies depending on the year,
conducted up to now is 87. The results of the first studies were published at 1970s. The number of
studies increased rapidly over the years and reached to the top point constituting the 24 percentage
of the total during the period of 1990-2000. It must be pointed that different institutions and
organizations have carried out all these studies. Most of these studies, 69% of the total were done by
universities, and the rest, 31 % by research institutions. Most of the studies have been carried out in
Mediterranean and Middle Anatolia Regions with 35 and 32 percent, respectively. Aegean Region
with 23 percent comes after others.
According to the results referring to all relevant scientific studies, performance of irrigation
schemes located in different regions of Turkey, overall, is not at acceptable levels. This inadequacy
can be highly related to the infrastructure, management (agency, joint, and farmer), allocation and
distribution procedures (demand vs. supply), and the climate and socio-economic setting. In almost
all systems, the whole area can not be irrigated for various reasons; such as, water scarcity, fallow
land, socioeconomic reasons, and lack of infrastructure. On the other hand, there are considerable
changes in the size of irrigated area and cropping pattern from year to year in all irrigation schemes,
referring to all relevant studies. It can also be stated that efficient irrigation scheduling has still not
achieved properly and this causes too low water application efficiencies with high water conveyance
losses. Water application efficiencies, which have been achieved for different regions and different
irrigation methods, are summarized in Table 14 as an example.
Table 14. Results on Water Application Efficiency, Ea, (%)
Regions Drip Irrigation
Method
Sprinkler Irrigation
Method
Surface Irrigation Method
Mediterranean 67-84 (Söğüt,
1986)
95-97
(
Andırınlıo
ğ
lu,
52-59 (Şimşek, 1992)
Options méditerranéennes, Series B, n°52 Irrigation Systems Performance
234
87-98 (Bilal, 1997) 1993)
Southeastern 61 (Oğuzer and
Önder, 1988)
86-94 (for blocked furrow, Kanber et
al., 1996)
60-70 (for free end furrow, Kanber et
al., 1996)
38 (Oğuzer and Önder, 1988)
Middle
Anatolia
33.7 (Şimşek,
1992)
48.7 (Balaban and Beyribey, 1991)
29-80 (Ertaş, 1980)
37.9 (Şimşek, 1992)
32-77 (Öğretir, 1981)
23-58 (Oykukan, 1970)
Black sea 35-94 (Bayrak, 1991)
55-87 (Balçın, et al., 2001)
Lastly, Table 15 shows the results taken from irrigation schemes on some irrigation performance
indicators; such as, uniformity of irrigation (CU and DU), storage efficiency (Es) dripper emission
uniformity (EU), conveyance efficiency (Ec) and conveyance losses (CL).
Table 15. Irrigation Performance Indicators for Different Regions
Regions Es DU CU EU Ec
Mediterranea
n
56-75 mini
sprink.,
(Uçar, 1994)
98-99 Drip
(Bilal, 1997)
82-88 Surface
irr
(Şimşek, 1992)
87.2 Sprinkler
(Andırınl, 1993)
12.1 Furrow
(Önder et al.,
1992)
40 furrow
(Önder et al, 1992)
97.5 Drip
(Oğuzer and
Yılmaz, 1991)
84 Drip
(Söğüt,
1986)
Aegean
Souteastern 24 Furrow,
41 sprinkler
(Oğuzer and
Önder, 1988)
85 Sprinkler
(Kanber et al.,
1996)
85 Surface and
sprinkler
(Kanber et al,
1996)
Middle Anat. 75-80
Surface Irr.
(Oylukan,
1972)
85 with land
leveling
61-98
Surface irr.
(Oylukan,
1970)
37-81 sprinkler
(Tarı, 1998)
58-82 Sprinkler
(Tarı, 1998)
85 Irr. Canal
(Balaban
and
Beyribey,
1991)
Black sea 17-90
Surface irr.
(Bayrak,
1991)
Options méditerranéennes, Series B, n°52 Irrigation Systems Performance
235
REFERENCES
Ait Kadi, M., (1994). Performance Evaluation of an Irrigation System Conceptual Framework. In
Advanced Course on Farm Water Management Techniques. Comp. by A. Hamdy. 7-22 May,
1994. Rabat, Morocco, p. 3-16.
Andırınlıoğlu, A., (1993). The Performance Evaluation of A Linear Move Sprinkler Irrigation System.
Çukurova University, Institute of Science, Irrigation and Drainage Eng. Department, MSc, Adana.
Balaban, A., Beyribey, M., (1991). Water Distribution and Water-Use Efficiencies in Konya-Alakova
Pump Irrigation System. Doğa, Tr. J. of Agric. and Forestry, 15: 24-34.
Balçın, M., Ağırbaş, N. Karata, H. Güleç, H. ve Aydın, O. (2001). Irrigation Performances of Irrigatiion
Scheme of Artova-Çelikli Earth Dam. Tokat Res. Inst., No: 117, Tokat
Bayrak, F., (1991). Water Conveyance Losses and Water application Efficiencies in the Irrigated
Areas in Samsun Province. Samsun Res. Ins. Pub., No. 69/60, Samsun.
Benli, E., Tekinel, O., Yazar, A., Kanber, R., Çevik, B. (1987). Ex-Post Evaluation of The Lower
Seyhan Project, (Technical Aspects). FAO Project of TCP/TUR/6652, University of Cukurova,
Faculty of Agriculture, Irrigation and Drainage Eng. Dep., Adana
Bilal, A. (1997). The evaluation of irrigation performances for a drip irrigation system in a citrus
orchard in Adana-Yakapınar district. MSc Thesis, Univ. of Çukurova, Institute of Science, Agric.
Structure and Irrigation Dep. Adana, 62 p
Booher, L.J. (1974). Surface Irrigation, FAO United Nations, Development Paper,
No. 95, Rome.
Bulut, İ., Çakmak, B. (2001). Comparison of Pre and Post Transfers of Irrigation
System performance in Mersin Irrigation. Tarim Bilimleri Derg. Ankara, 7(3): 58-
65
Cuenca, R. H., (1989). Irrigation System Design: An Engineering Approach. Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: 552p.
Çakmak, B. (2001). The irrigation performance evaluation of Konya irrigation associations. Tarim
Bilimleri Dergisi, 7(3): 111-117
Değirmenci, et. al., (2003). Assessment of Irrigation Schemes with Comparative
Indicators in the Southeastern Anatolia Project. Turk J. Agric. Forest. 27: 293-
303
DSI (2001). Evaluation Report on Irrigation Schemes Operated or Transferred By DSI. General
Directorate of State Hydraulic Works (DSI), Ankara.
Ertaş, M.R. (1980). Evaluation of Water Conveyance losses and Water Application Efficiencies in
Konya Irrigation Scheme. Konya Res. Inst., No. 67/R, Konya, 53p
Ertek, A., (1998). Possibility of Irrigation of Cotton by Drip System (in Turkish). Çukurova University,
Institute of Science, Irrigation and Drainage Eng. Dept. PhD thesis, Adana, 140p
Essafi, B., (1995). Farm Water Management: Technical Aspects. In Advanced short course on: Farm
Water Management: Socio-economic and environmental aspects. Comp. by A. Hamdy.” June 4-
18,1995. Adana, p. 1-28
FNCI (2001). First National Congress of Irrigation (FNCI) (2001), Kulturteknik Dernegi, Ankara, p. 82-
92
GDRS (2003). Soil and Water Resources of Turkey and Erosion. General Directorate of Rural Service
(GDRS). Ankara.
Gözen, V., Hakgören, F. (2000). Problems and Solution Proposals of the Planning of the Drip
Irrigation Systems Used In Greenhouses In Antalya-Kumluca Region. (in Turkish) Akdeniz
Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(2):145-158
James, L.G. (1988). Principles of Farm Irrigation System Design. John Wiley and Sons. Inc., New
York, 543 p.
Kadayıfçılar, A., Oğuz, M., Kodal, S. (1998). Sprinkler Irrigation Applications in Nevşehir, Derinkuyu
and Kaymaklı Region. Tarım Bilimleri Derg., 4(3):15-23
Kanber, R., (Ed.). (1982). Water Consumption of Irrigated Crops in Turkey. Köyişleri ve Kooperatifler
Bakanlığı, TOPRAKSU Genel Müdürülüğü, Araşt. Daire Başkanlığı, Yay. No. 35, Rehber, No. 5,
Genel Yay. No. 718, Ankara, 630p
Kanber, R., Önder, S, Ünlü, M., Köksal, H., Özekici, B., Sezen; S. M., Yazar, A., and Koç, K. (1996).
The Optimizition of Surface Irrigaition Methods Which are Used For Cotton Production and Their
Comparision witt Sprinkler Irrigation. Final Report for Prime Ministry of Turkey, GAP-RDA, No: 18,
GAP Pub., No: 96, General No: 155, Adana,
Options méditerranéennes, Series B, n°52 Irrigation Systems Performance
236
Kanber, R., Köksal, H., Önder, S., Kapur, S., Sahan, S. (2001). Comparison of Surge and Continuous
Furrow Methods For Cotton In The Harran Plain. Agric. Water Manage. 47:119-135
Kay, M. (1989). Surface Irrigation. Cranfıeld Press, Oxford, 139 p.
Koç, C. (2001). Performance of Water User Associations in the Management-Operation and
Maintenance of Great Menderes Basin Irrigation Network. 1st National Irrigation Congress, 08-11
November, 2001 Antalya, p. 71-76
Koç, C. (2003). Measurement and Evaluation of Performance Management-operation and
Maintenance of Great Menderes Basin Irrigation Network in Before and After Turnover. Third
National Irrigation Congress, 16-19 November, 2003 Aydın, p. 484-492
Merriam, J.L. (1965). A Management Control Concept for Determining the Economical Frequency of
Irrigation. AASE Annual Meeting, Paper No.65-206:1-10
Merriam, J.L., Shearer, M. N., Burt, C.M. (1980). Evaluating Irrigation Systems. In Design and
Operation of Farm Irrigation Systems. Ed. M.E. Jensen, ASAE Monograph No. 3, Chap. 17, St
Joseph, MI, pp. 721-760
Molden, D.J., Sakthivadivel, R., Perry, C.J., and de Fraiture, C. (1998). Indicators for Comparing The
Performance Of Irrigated Agriculture Systems. IWMI Research Report 20, 26p
Oğuzer, V., Yılmaz, E. (1991). Damla Sulama Sistemlerinde Kullanılan Yerli ve Yabancı Kökenli Bazı
Damlatıcıların Hidrolik Özellikleri Üzerine Bir Çalışma. Doğa-Tr. J. of Agricultural and Forestry, No:
15, 121-128
Oğuzer, V., Önder, S. (1988). Urfa-Harran Ovası Koşullarında Soya Bitkisinin Karık ve Yağmurlama
Sulama Yöntemlerinin Proje Ölçütlerinin İrdelenmesi. 3. Kültürteknik Kongresi, 20-23 Eylül 1988,
No: 1, Adana, p. 273-284
Öğretir, K. (1981). Water Conveyance Losses and Water application Efficiencies in the Çifteler
Irrigation Network. Topraksu Araşt. Enst. Yay, No. 165/124, Eskişehir, 20p
Öğretir, K., Beyribey, M. (1997). The Evaluation of Irrigation System Performances of Eskişehir
Irrigation Scheme. Eskişehir Res. Inst. 34p
Önder, S.,Kanber, R., Köksal, K. (1992). Different Approaches which are used for obtaining the
performance of Furrow irrigation methods. Fourth International Congress on Irrigation and
Drainage Eng. (Kültürteknik), 24-26/6/1992. Erzurum,
Önder, S. (1994). Comparison of Surge And Continuous Furrow Flows Under Çukurova Conditions.
Çukurova University, Institute of Science, Irrigation and Drainage Eng. Dept. PhD thesis, Adana,
273p
Oylukan, Ş. (1970). The Obtaining of Irrigation Efficiencies for Eskişehir-Alpu Irrigation Scheme.
Eskişehir Res. Inst. No. 67/R, Eskişehir, 40p
Oylukan, Ş., (1972). Seepage losses from the canals of irrigation scheme in Eskişehir-Alpu and Its
Effect on The Ground Water Level. Eskişehir Res. Inst. No. 96, 87/R, Eskişehir, 57p
Söğüt, A. (1986). Irrigation Performance of Drip Irrigation Systems which are Used for Orchard
Irrigation. MSc Thesis, Univ. of Çukurova, Institute of Science, Agric. Structure and Irrigation Dep.
Adana, 51 p
SPO (2001). 8th Five-Year Development Plan. Report by the Special Commission on Water Basins
and Management, SPO, Ankara.
Şimşek, H. (1992). A Study on the Field Irrigation Efficiencies in the Niğde-Misli Plain. Proc. Of IV.
National Congre for Agric. Struc. And Irrigation, 24-26 Haziran 1992, Erzurum. p.161-174
Tarı, A.F. (1998). The Evaluation of Performances of Sprinkler Irrigation Systems Used in Konya-Ilgın
Plain. T.C. Tarım ve Köy İşleri Bakanlığı Köy Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü APK Dairesi Başkanlığı
Toprak ve Su Kaynakları Araştırma Şube Müdürlüğü, Ankara, p. 220-238,
Thompson, G. T., Spiess, L.B., Krider, J.N. (1980). Farm Resources and System Selection. In Design
and Operation of Farm Irrigation Systems. Ed. M.E. Jensen. ASAE Monograph. No. 3, Chap., 3, St
Joseph, MI, pp. 45-73
Uçar, A. (1994). Evaluation on the Performance of Mini-Sprinkler That Is Established In an Orchard At
The Çukurova Region. MSc Thesis, Univ. of Çukurova, Institute of Science, Agric. Structure and
Irrigation Dep. Adana, 62 p
Yavuz, M.Y. (1993). The Effects of Different Irrigation Methods on the Yield and Evapotranspiration of
Cotton. University of Çujurova, Institute of Science, Irrigation and Drainage Eng. Dep. PhD thesis,
Adana, 196 p.
Yazar, A.,Oğuzer, V., Alagöz, T., Diker, K., and Gencoglan, C. (1990). Performance Of A Traveling
Hose-Reel Sprinkler Machine Under Various Operation Conditions. Doga, Tr. J. of Agric. and
Forestry, 14:352-359
Yazgan, S., Değirmenci, H. (2002). Efficiency Indicators in Irrigation Projects’ Performance
Evaluation: A Case Study on Bursa Groundwater Irrigation Project. Turk J. Agric. Forest. 26:93-99
Options méditerranéennes, Series B, n°52 Irrigation Systems Performance
237
Yıldırım, O., Orta, H.A. (1993). Evaluation Of Some Drip Irrigation Systems In Antalya Region. Doga,
Tr. J. of Agric. and forestry, 17:499-509
Yıldırım, Y.E., Kodal, S. (1990). Comparison of Sprinkler and Surface Irrigation Systems in Konya-
Yunak-Gölpınar Irrigation Ptoject. Doğa, Tr. J. Of Agric. And Forestry, 14:534-542
