Next Article in Journal
Role of Gravitational Processes in the Migration of Heavy Metals in Soils of the Priolkhonye Mountain-Steppe Landscapes, Lake Baikal: Methodology of Research
Previous Article in Journal
Liming Optimizes Nitrogen Fertilization in a Maize-Upland Rice Rotation under No-Till Conditions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 11
Issue 10
10.3390/agronomy11102006
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Climate-Induced Perspective Variations in Irrigation Schedules and Design Water Requirements for the Rice–Wheat System

by
Mirza Junaid Ahmad
1 and
Kyung-Sook Choi
2,*
1
Department of Agricultural Civil Engineering, Kyungpook National University, Daegu 41566, Korea
2
Department of Agricultural Civil Engineering, Institute of Agricultural Sciences & Technology, Kyungpook National University, Daegu 41566, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2021, 11(10), 2006; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11102006
Submission received: 19 July 2021 / Revised: 22 September 2021 / Accepted: 30 September 2021 / Published: 3 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Agricultural Biosystem and Biological Engineering)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Conceptualizing the implications of climate change for crop evapotranspiration (ETc) and subsequent net irrigation water requirement (NIWR) is critical to sustaining Pakistan’s agriculture and food security. In this article, future ETc, NIWR, and design water requirements (DWR) were projected for the rice–wheat system of Punjab, Pakistan. Consistently increasing temperatures signify an impending hotter transition in the future thermal regime, accompanied by a substantial increase in monsoon rainfall. Future climate warming accelerated ETc and NIWR, which were compensated by 2–5 and 1–2 additional irrigations during the rice and wheat seasons, respectively. Future rice and wheat required 13–18 and 2–5 irrigations per season, respectively. Effective rainfall increments did not compensate for the warming-driven higher ETc and NIWR because of uneven and erratic rainfall distribution. Rainfall occurrence and the duration of peak irrigation demand were mismatched, resulting in surplus rainwater availability during the future rice season. The results suggest that DWR for 5- and 10-year return period droughts during the baseline period (965 and 1000 mm, respectively) should be revised to accommodate the additional 100–200 mm of irrigation water per season; otherwise, the study area will face an acute water shortage in the future.

1. Introduction

According to the recently released Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), human-induced anthropogenic interventions have unequivocally changed the Earth’s climate, which is evident from global surface warming, sporadic rainfall patterns, intensification of the water cycle, and an overall energy imbalance in the atmosphere [1]. Evidence of human-inflicted climate change in triggering the slew of cataclysmic weather and climate extremes and their attribution to human influences has strengthened since AR5 [1]. The literature includes many studies addressing the assessment and mitigation of climate change impacts across various aspects of human life [2,3]. Agriculture is the primary target of adverse climate change impacts due to its indisputable higher dependence on the climate for survival [4]. Climate-driven natural calamities such as floods, droughts, and warm and dry spells, exacerbated by climate warming or rainfall changes [1], are reshaping crop growth patterns, irrigation demand and supply, and particularly yields [2,3,5,6,7,8].
For an agriculture-dependent economy like Pakistan, these climate change trends are alarming because of its overreliance on irrigated agriculture and low adaptive capacity [5,6]. Pakistan ranked fifth on the Global Climate Risk Index among the countries frequently experiencing extreme climate events during 1999–2019. A severe drought struck the country in 2018–2019, and 2020 was the wettest recorded year [9]. Ineffective use of scanty water supplies and climate change are key drivers of low agricultural production and food shortages in the country [3,10]. Rice and wheat constitute up to 62% of the national calorific intake, and their availability and accessibility dictate the food security of Pakistan [11]. Despite a good wheat harvest in 2014, up to 47% of the country’s population was food insecure, led by widespread malnutrition, uneven food distribution, and water shortages [12]. Ineffective technological interventions also neglected the issues of water shortages and tolerance to heat or salt stress, mainly focusing on developing or adopting high-yield, disease-resistant crop varieties [13]. Therefore, the cultivation areas and yields of both crops have been dwindling because of growing water scarcity, rapid urbanization of farmland, and climate change [11]. Discerning the climate-driven water consumption patterns of the rice–wheat system is imperative to ensure food security of the growing population of Pakistan.
Several studies have quantified the severity of the climate change phenomenon in Pakistan and its implications for crop production and water requirements [3,6,7,9,14,15,16]. Climate change impacts on crop water requirements [7,16,17], crop phenology [2,18], yields, and water productivity using the crop growth models [6,9,10,14,15] and yield gap [11] have been evaluated. Shabbir et al. [19] and Shahid et al. [14] optimized adaptation strategies such as nitrogen application rates, plant density, and sowing dates for rice and wheat, respectively, against future climate change threats. Most studies predicted potential irrigation water requirements or examined adaptation strategies to maximize yields and water productivity from an agronomic point of view.
Various water-saving technologies such as deficit irrigation [20], laser land leveling, high-efficiency irrigation systems [21], ridge and furrow cultivation [22], and optimized nitrogen and irrigation application rates [23] have shown the potential to improve yields and water productivity of the crops under current farming practices. However, the suitability of these approaches should be assessed based on future crop water requirements. In this study, the irrigation schedules and design water requirements (DWR) are projected to meet the future crop water requirements of the rice–wheat system of Punjab, Pakistan.
In Pakistan’s largest agricultural province of Punjab, the rice–wheat system is mainly concentrated in the Upper Chenab Canal (UCC) command area. Shakir et al. [24] reported an existing deficit of more than 40% between irrigation demand and canal water supply in the UCC command area. An ensemble of statistically bias-corrected outputs from eight global circulation models (GCMs) projected the future climate of the study area. Irrigation schedules were generated based on future crop water requirements while considering the composite effect of all influential climate variables, and the DWR were projected for 5- and 10-year return period droughts. The study outcomes will contribute to developing an efficient irrigation scheduling strategy for tackling the climate change threats to the rice–wheat system in Punjab, Pakistan. We estimated the future DWR, which may be used to develop an integrated water resource policy for better distribution of limited water resources and canal water supply regulation.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Punjab is a province equipped with an extensively organized and well-integrated canal system and is the primary contributor to Pakistan’s gross crop production [11]. Summer and winter cropping seasons in Punjab last from May to October and from November to April, respectively. Rice–wheat rotation covers approximately 1.1 million hectares (Mha) in Punjab, of which 0.59 Mha lies in the culturable command area of the non-perennial UCC. During the summer and winter seasons, 50–60% of the UCC command area remains under rice and wheat cultivation, respectively [7,17].
This study focuses on the UCC command area (Figure 1), where canal water is available only during the summer (rice) season. Due to the limited canal water supply, rice and wheat are partially and fully dependent on marginal quality groundwater, respectively. Flooding is the common irrigation mode, and groundwater fulfils about two-thirds of gross irrigation demands [11]. The climate of the study area is semiarid to subhumid, and most of the annual rainfall occurs during the summer (rice) season. The average temperature ranges in the summer and winter seasons are 20–42 °C and 8–19 °C, respectively, and the summer season receives approximately 60% of annual cumulative rainfall (975 mm) as monsoon rainfalls in July–August. Moderately fine- to medium-textured clay-loam and loamy soils dominate most parts of the UCC command area [7,11].

2.2. Climate Data

The Pakistan Meteorological Department (PMD) operates the Sialkot weather station, located at latitude 32.51 N and longitude 74.53 E near the study area with reliable long-term data records. Data of the daily maximum temperature (Tmax), minimum temperature (Tmin), number of sunshine hours, solar radiation (Rn), rainfall (P), and monthly averaged relative humidity (RH) and wind speed (u2) were collected from the PMD during the baseline period of 1980–2010. Daily RH and u2 data were also retrieved for a grid containing the Sialkot station from the National Centers for Environment Prediction Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR) global climate dataset (https://globalweather.tamu.edu/#pubs (accessed on 1 February 2021)) [25,26,27]. Possible biases in the CFSR daily datasets were removed using a linear scale change factor bias correction procedure [17]. The recorded Tmax, Tmin, P, and Rn were combined with the bias-corrected RH and u2 data to devise the daily baseline climatology of the study area [7].
We selected eight GCMs (Supplementary Table S1) from the CMIP5 archives to project the future climate under the IPCC representative concentration pathway (RCPs) scenarios—4.5 and 8.5—during two time slices—the 2030s (2021–2050) and 2060s (2051–2080). The coarse-resolution daily GCM outputs were statistically bias-corrected using quantile mapping, which tailored the distribution functions of the climate variables in raw GCM time series. The cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) of the climate variables in the observed time series were mapped over raw GCM historic time series [28,29]. The same empirical CDFs were applied to the daily time series of the GCM-projected future Tmax, Tmin, RH, u2, P, and Rn. The detailed bias correction outcomes for each selected GCM were provided by Ahmad et al. [7].

2.3. Estimation of Crop Water Requirements and Irrigation Scheduling

According to the FAO-56 water balance model, the crop water requirement is equivalent to the water depth lost through crop evapotranspiration (ETc), which is estimated from the product of reference evapotranspiration (ETo) and crop coefficients (Kc) [30,31]. We used the FAO-developed CROPWAT model v 8.0 for ETc estimation of the rice–wheat system during the baseline and future time slices. The CROPWAT used the FAO Penman–Monteith equation for daily ETo estimation, and the potential irrigation water requirement (PIWR) was approximated as the difference between the ETc and effective rainfall (ER) at a 10-day time step [30,31]. The 10 daily Kc values for the UCC rice–wheat system were referenced from Ullah et al. [32], and the ER was calculated using the United States Department of Agriculture’s method [33].
For user-defined soil and irrigation management conditions, CROPWAT generates irrigation schedules based on the daily water balance of the root zone [34]. Seasonal cumulative water demand determines the net irrigation water requirement (NIWR) based on predefined irrigation scheduling criteria and the daily soil water balance. We derived the irrigation schedules and NIWR for the rice–wheat system according to the guidelines from the Directorate of Agriculture Information of the government of Punjab (http://dai.agripunjab.gov.pk/croptechnologies (accessed on 1 March 2021)) as well as the earlier field studies [11,23,35].
During any particular wheat season, three irrigations, each 75 mm in depth, are recommended. In Punjab, wheat is irrigated 1–4 times, depending on the seasonal rainfall and soil type, with an average of 2.38 irrigations applied per season [11]. In this study, the representative soil properties for a medium loam-textured soil were taken from Khaliq et al. [11] (Supplementary Table S2). Wheat irrigation was triggered when the soil moisture in the extractable root zone dropped below 80 mm and each time 75 mm water was applied through flooding. The wheat sowing and harvesting dates were 20 November and 10 April, respectively.
In the UCC command area, a ponding water depth of 50–75 mm is maintained during most of the rice season, and 250–900 mm of puddling water is used for land preparation [36,37]. The soil texture determines the rice field percolation rates, which range from 2 mm/day for heavy clay soils to 6 mm/day for sandy soils [38]. A percolation rate of 1.5 mm/day had been used for rice consumptive water demand estimation in various canal commands of the Indus Basin in Pakistan [32]. CROPWAT defines the after-puddling percolation rate as the maximum percolation rate of non-puddled soil raised to the power of 0.33. We set the puddling criterion as irrigation at a 0-mm water depth and a refill depth of 60 mm, and the scheduling criterion for rice NIWR estimation was irrigation at a 5-mm water depth and a refill depth of 60 mm. The durations of nursery raising and land preparation were 30 days and 25 days, respectively. The rice transplanting and harvesting dates were 1 July and 10 October, respectively.

2.4. Trend Analysis

Parametric and non-parametric tests can be used for trend detection in time series. Parametric tests are mostly preferred for trend detection in normally distributed time series, and non-normally distributed time series are treated using non-parametric tests [39]. The rank-based non-parametric Mann-Kendall (MK) test is widely used to detect the direction and statistical significance of trends in hydro-meteorological data. The World Meteorological Organization recommends the MK test because of its applicability to non-normal data without being influenced by outliers or missing values [40,41,42].
The MK test indicates increasing or decreasing trends as signs of Z-scores, and the presence of a statistically significant trend is detected if |Z| > Z1−α/2, where α is the significance level [41]. We used the MK test for trend detection in the seasonal time series of the Tmax, Tmin, Rn, P, ETo, ETc, PIWR, NIWR, and number of rainy days (N) during the baseline and future time slices. The trend magnitude was estimated using Sen’s slope estimator [41,43].

2.5. Estimation of the Design Water Requirement

The frequency of droughts in Pakistan has been steadily increasing, as extreme droughts that covered two-thirds of the country were witnessed during 1952, 1969, 1971, 2000, 2001, and 2002 [44]. During the rice season, return periods of moderate, severe, and extreme droughts are in the range of 7–9, 13–19, and 30−45 years, respectively [5]. Since the UCC is a non-perennial canal that supplies irrigation water only during the rice season, the DWR were considered equivalent to the rice NIWR for 5- and 10-year return period droughts.
We conducted a frequency analysis using probability distribution functions (PDFs) from the Generalized Extreme Value (GEV), Gamma (GA), log-gamma (LGA), log-Pearson type 3 (LP3), Normal (NOR), log-Normal (LNOR), Weibull (WEI), Logistic (LOG), and Gumbel (GUM) distributions. The parameters of the distributions were estimated using the maximum likelihood method, and the goodness of fit was evaluated using the Anderson–Darling (AD) and Kolmogorov–Simirnov (KS) tests [45]. Based on the selected PDFs, the rice NIWR for the 5- and 10-year return period droughts were estimated using the Chow frequency factor method [46,47,48,49] and were subsequently considered the DWR during the baseline and future time slices.

3. Results

3.1. Projected Climate Change

Figure 2 and Figure 3 show the wheat and rice seasonal average Tmax, Tmin, and cumulative P and Rn during the baseline and future time slices. The right-hand side panels in Figure 2 and Figure 3 show the expected climate change compared with the baseline average climatology. During the baseline, the wheat seasonal average Tmax, Tmin, P, and Rn were 24 °C, 10 °C, 200 mm and 2660 MJm−2, while for the rice season, these were 35 °C, 23 °C, 765 mm, and 3800 MJm−2, respectively.
Consistent increments in the projected Tmax and Tmin, regardless of the crop season, RCP, or time slice, supported the impending hotter transitions in the study area’s future temperature regimes. Noteworthy features of the climate warming magnitude included the following: Tmin > Tmax, wheat season > rice season, RCP 8.5 > RCP 4.5, and 2060s > 2030s (Figure 2a,b and Figure 3a,b). Rice season receives monsoon rainfall, which makes up a major proportion of the annual rainfall. The rice season median P featured moderate and intense increments during the 2030s (RCP 4.5) and 2060s (RCP 8.5), respectively (Figure 3c). The wheat season median P was almost unchanged during the 2030s, but it slightly dropped during the 2060s, particularly under RCP 4.5 (Figure 2c). Contrary to projected climate warming, the future Rn declined notably in the rice season. The Rn decline magnitude was as follows: rice season > wheat season and RCP 8.5 > RCP 4.5. For the wheat season, the 2030s Rn decline was greater, and for the rice season, the 2060s Rn decline was greater compared with their corresponding counterparts (Figure 2d and Figure 3d).
Figure 4 and Table 1 show the MK test Z-scores and Sen’s slope for interseasonal trends of the Tmax, Tmin, Rn, and P during the baseline and future time slices. Except for an unchanged Tmax trend during the baseline rice season, the Tmax and Tmin trends significantly (α = 1%) increased regardless of the time slice, RCP, or cropping season. Sen’s slopes of the wheat and rice season Tmax and Tmin trends were almost similar for a certain time slice or RCP, with an overall change range of 0.02–0.06 °C/year (Table 1). The future P trends for both crops were mainly non-significant, regardless of their direction. The wheat season P trends were downward throughout the baseline and future time slices, and these were significant only during the baseline (α = 5%) and 2030s under RCP 4.5 (α = 10%). Conversely, the rice season P trends were upward across the baseline and future time slices and only significant during the 2030s under RCP 8.5 (α = 1%). The wheat season Rn trends were highly significant (α = 1%) during the baseline, 2030s (RCP 8.5), and 2060s (RCP 4.5), but the rice seasonal Rn trends did not follow a particular pattern across the time slices of the RCPs. During the 2030s and 2060s, the rice seasonal Rn trends were significant (α = 1%) only under RCPs 8.5 and 4.5, respectively (Figure 4 and Table 1).

3.2. Comparison of CROPWAT Results with the Literature

Before projecting future water demands, the CROPWAT simulation outcomes during the baseline were evaluated by comparing the ETc and NIWR of both crops with the published literature. In this study, the baseline rice seasonal cumulative ETc and NIWR varied in the ranges of 580–675 mm and 730–1080 mm, respectively, and for wheat, these were in the ranges of 204–260 mm and 75–300 mm, respectively.
In the Indus Basin of Pakistan, the seasonal cumulative ETc of rice and wheat could vary in the range of 540–1156 mm and 290–520 mm, respectively [13]. According to the field studies conducted across Punjab, the rice and wheat ETc ranges are 520–640 mm and 250–400 mm, respectively (Supplementary Table S3). Shakir et al. [24] reported the average ETc of rice and wheat in the UCC canal command to be 520 mm and 250 mm, respectively. Similarly, our estimated NIWR and number of irrigations for both crops was also supported by the findings of previously conducted surveys or experimental studies [11,15,23,35].
In Punjab, three irrigations, each 75 mm in depth, are recommended for wheat cultivation, and occasionally, fourth irrigation can also be applied in the case of less seasonal P. In this study, the wheat was irrigated 1–4 times, which was in close agreement with the irrigation scheduling mostly adopted by previous studies to represent the farmers’ practices (Supplementary Table S3).
In the case of rice, the recommended ponding depth is 50–75 mm, and 1000–1600 mm water is applied as 15–25 irrigations during a particular season. In this study, the ponding depth was 60 mm, and 11–16 irrigations were applied during the baseline. Khaliq et al. [11] and Gaydon et al. [23] also applied 16 irrigations, each 60 mm in depth, to represent the current rice farming practices in Punjab. A detailed comparison of CROPWAT outcomes in this study with the literature is also provided in Supplementary Table S3 and Figure S1. The comparison suggested that the simulation results fairly represent the current field-scale irrigation practices in Punjab, Pakistan.

3.3. Projected Wheat Irrigation Schedules

We projected various parameters that govern the future irrigation water management of wheat, including the ETo, ETc, ER, PIWR, NIWR, N, and number of irrigations. Figure 5 presents the mean and median variations of the above parameters during the baseline and future time slices, and the right-hand side panels show the variations relative to the respective baseline average values. The MK test Z-scores and Sen’s slope of the interseasonal trends of the parameters are provided in Figure 6 and Table 2, respectively. During the baseline, the average wheat seasonal ETo, ETc, ER, PIWR, NIWR, and N were 400 mm, 235 mm, 130 mm, 150 mm, 180 mm, and 16 days, respectively. On average, 2.4 irrigations were applied during the baseline wheat season.
ETo is the primary determinant of ETc rates, and it indicates the overall climate change influence on atmospheric evaporative demand [2,22]. Future climate warming steadily raised the wheat seasonal cumulative ETo and ETc up to 40 mm, with the highest positive shifts during the 2060s under RCP 8.5 relative to the baseline (Figure 5a,b). The difference between ETc and ER determines the PIWR and NIWR for a specific crop. In the 2030s, the future ER and N increased somewhat from the baseline, but in the 2060s, these were nearly identical to the baseline (Figure 5c,g). As a result, the baseline averaged PIWR and NIWR dropped in the 2030s and rose in the 2060s. Despite projected increases in ETo and ETc, positive ER contributions restricted the expected increase in irrigation frequency, with wheat requiring 2.5 and 3.3 irrigations per season in the 2030s and 2060s, respectively. The IQR of the number of irrigations was unclear, since wheat requires a maximum of four irrigations per season (Figure 5f). The results indicate that 2–3 irrigations per season will be the most common irrigation schedule for future wheat, especially in the 2060s.
Figure 6 and Table 2 present the trends of the parameters during a specific time slice. The future ETo and ETc trends were identical to their respective absolute changes relative to the baseline. The ETo increased significantly (α = 5% and 1%) in the range of 0.61–0.79 mm/year, but positive ETc trends were mostly non-significant, except for the 2030s under RCP 4.5 (α = 1%) (Table 3). The absolute changes in the wheat seasonal cumulative ER and N were positive compared with the baseline, but their trends highlighted inevitable drying of the future wheat seasons. Except for the 2030s under RCP 8.5, the ER and N trends significantly (α = 1%) dropped during the baseline and non-significantly declined during the future time slices. Due to the higher variability range, positive trends were detected in future PIWR, but the NIWR trends were not apparent due to a limited variation range (Figure 6 and Table 2). Absolute changes occurred in the future PIWR and NIWR compared with the baseline, as well as their respective change trends during the baseline and future time slices behaving in opposite directions. This implies that the warming-induced increase in the ETc will eventually outweigh the positive contribution of the ER, resulting in higher PIWR and NIWR in the future.

3.4. Projected Rice Irrigation Schedules

The means, medians, and variability ranges of the rice seasonal cumulative ETo, ETc, ER, PIWR, NIWR, N, and number of irrigations during the baseline, 2030s, and 2060s are shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8, and Table 3 presents the MK test Z-scores and Sen’s slope of trends across the time slices and RCPs for the above parameters, respectively. During the baseline, the average rice seasonal ETo, ETc, ER, PIWR, NIWR, and N were 830 mm, 630 mm, 360 mm, 750 mm, 890 mm, and 35 days, respectively. On average, rice was irrigated 13 times per season during the baseline.
The baseline ETo and ETc increased up to 40 mm under the influence of projected rice seasonal warming, particularly in the 2060s (RCP 8.5). The baseline ER increased gradually during the 2030s and dramatically increased throughout the 2060s, implying that heavy monsoon rainfalls could improve rainwater availability. Despite overall ER increments of up to 200 mm from the baseline, the future PIWR and NIWR rose to 300 mm by the end of the 2060s (Figure 7d,e). This can be explained by an N decline of up to 10 days, suggesting limited ER contributions to ETc-driven PIWR and NIWR increments because of erratic and unequal distribution of future monsoon rainfall. As a result, we estimated that the future rice production would require 2–5 extra irrigations per season (Figure 7f). The aforementioned calculations showed the absolute change in the respective variables when compared with the baseline average values.
The rice seasonal ETo and ETc trends did not follow a consistent pattern across the time slices, as these were negative in the baseline and 2030s (RCP 8.5) and positive in the remainder of the cases. Nonetheless, these were highly significant in the 2060s for both RCPs (α = 5% and 1%) (Table 3). Absolute changes in the future ER relative to the baseline and trend directions were identical, showing that future rice seasons will receive more rainfall. The positive ER trends were significant (α = 1% and 5%) under RCP 8.5 and 4.5 during the 2030s and 2060s, respectively. The absolute change in the future N was negative compared with the baseline, but the Z-scores of the MK test were positive (Figure 8), and the trends were not significant, except during the 2030s under RCP 8.5 (α = 1%) (Table 3). Future PIWR and NIWR trends were downward and mainly non-significant, notably for NIWR, but the PIWR-trend magnitudes were comparably higher than those of NIWR.

3.5. Projected Change in Design Water Requirements

The goodness of fit for nine PDFs was evaluated by the KS and AD statistical tests (α = 5%) to determine the best fitting PDF. The estimated parameters of the PDFs based on the maximum likelihood method and goodness-of-fit results during the baseline and future time slices are provided in Supplementary Tables S4–S6.
All PDFs were suitable for rice NIWR, but according to both goodness-of-fit tests, the GEV and WEI were most suitable. The GEV is a continuous probability distribution described by three parameters—location, scale, and shape—and these parameters explain the distribution’s shift on the horizontal axis, spread, and shape, respectively [50,51]. Among the three, the shape parameter is skewness-dependent, and it represents where most of the data lie. For the baseline and future NIWR time series, we calculated a negative shape factor, which reduced the GEV to the WEI distribution [50,51] (Supplementary Tables S4–S6). Hence, WEI was chosen as the most suitable PDF for DWR estimation of the 5- and 10-year return periods.
Figure 9 shows the DWR for the 5- and 10-year (DWR5 and DWR10, respectively) return periods during the baseline and future time slices. Despite the expected rise in seasonal cumulative ER, the baseline DWR5 and DWR10 (965 and 1000 mm, respectively) showed a future increase of 90 mm. The DWR5 and DWR10 thresholds were crossed during 8 baseline years (Figure 9a), and future DWR thresholds were crossed approximately 5 times for a single time slice, except during the 2030s under RCP 8.5 (Figure 9b–e) when the ER increments were limited (Figure 7c). These estimates were based on the assumption that future DWRs would be improved according to the projected NIWR; otherwise, the study area will experience acute water shortages in the future. The DWR5 and DWR10 were nearly identical across the time slices or RCPs; therefore, future DWRs should be revised according to NIWR for the 10-year return period drought.

4. Discussion

During the last 30 years, the seasonal and annual average temperatures across Punjab have changed at a rate of 0.020–0.60 °C/year [52]. The magnitudes and change rates of Tmax and Tmin projected in our study were in good agreement with the published literature [41,52,53,54]. Figure 2 and Figure 3 indicate that the future wheat season will experience stronger and warmer shifts than the rice season. Most weather stations in Punjab have detected substantial wheat seasonal warming during the past 30 years [52,53,54]. Ahmad and Choi [41] linked steady warming of the UCC command area since 1980 to a temperature rise phenomenon, notably witnessed in the winter months. We predicted a dramatic increase in the monsoon P magnitude or intensity in the rice season, particularly in the 2060s, while the wheat seasonal P remained stable in the 2030s and declined in the 2060s. Past trends and future projections of rainfall change patterns in Punjab also support the plausibility of receiving excessive monsoon rainfall in the rice season [7,17,41,52].
Climate change could have serious repercussions for the rice–wheat system of Punjab, Pakistan, impacting yields, growing season lengths, warming-driven ETc, ER, and NIWR behaviors, and eventually influencing the irrigation scheduling of the crops [3,6,7,17]. The IQRs in Figure 2 and Figure 3 show that future Tmin change would be higher than the Tmax change for both seasons. Tmin is often associated with the night, and a conspicuously high nighttime temperature can drastically limit the spikelet fertility, grains per spike, and grain size in wheat [3,8]. A surge in nighttime warming also accentuates detrimental soil water stresses, and each increase of 1 °C can impart a 10% drop in rice yield [52].
Future seasonal P variation would directly impact the irrigation demands and available water supplies. Unexpectedly longer warmer spells with scarce rainfall during future wheat seasons would rapidly deplete the soil moisture, resulting in frequent irrigations with smaller water depths. Since wheat production in the study area is entirely groundwater-dependent, warming-driven ETc would instigate rigorous groundwater exploitation for irrigation, straining the dwindling groundwater resources [6,7]. A higher monsoon P might be beneficial for future rice, but it would also accentuate the waterlogging and drainage problems. Ahmad et al. [7] argued that due to uneven distribution, the anticipated rise in the monsoon P would not compensate for monthly increases in ETc driven by warming, necessitating intensive irrigation applications.
We predicted a significant increase in the ETo, ETc, and subsequent NIWR of both crops as a result of future climate warming, which contradicts recent findings [3,6,7,17]. The ambient temperature primarily drives the crop phenological process, and its increase often leads to a shorter growth span [8]. Furthermore, the ETo is highly sensitive to the temperature and Rn fluctuations in the study area [22], and the Rn reduction could offset the warming-driven ETo and ETc rates [2,37,38]. All of the aforementioned studies attributed the ETo, ETc, and NIWR declines to a combination of growth span shrinkage and Rn reduction. This study mainly focused on the worst-case scenario, which may serve as the foundation for future mitigation and adaptation strategies. Hence, climate warming impacts on crop growth span shrinkage were not evaluated in this study. We observed that seasonal Rn declines primarily occurred during the rice season, but these were insufficient to offset warming-driven ETc and NIWR increases.
The study area was predicted to receive more rainfall in the future, but ER contributions to the PIWR and NIWR were limited due to intense and erratic rainfall events. This was especially noticeable during the rice season when, despite receiving heavy monsoon rainfalls, both the PIWR and NIWRE showed substantial positive shifts, and future wheat and rice required 1–2 and 2–5 more irrigations per season, respectively.
Since 1982, canal water supplies have been dwindling across Punjab, and crops are increasingly relying on groundwater and ER for their survival [10]. Our results suggested the availability of surplus rainwater because of the mismatch between rainfall occurrences and the duration of peak irrigation demands. Farmers should be encouraged to adopt rainwater harvesting to harness surplus rainwater and excess drainage from fields into public and community-operated wells. Pakistani farmers are usually unaware of actual crop water requirements and over-irrigate their crops for yield maximization [13,55]. This malpractice should be discouraged, and the adaptation of water and resource conservation strategies such as zero tillage, precision land leveling, and the furrow bed method of irrigation could play a vital role in sustaining rice and wheat production under climate change threats.
From the policy point of view, future crop water requirements could be managed by improving conveyance and water use efficiencies, irrigation technology adaptation, and shifting toward low-water intensive crops. The experimental findings of Khan et al. [20] support our suggestion of frequent irrigations with smaller water depths, as they achieved the maximum wheat yield by applying four irrigations, each 60 mm in depth, at a potential soil moisture deficit of 45 mm. Soomro et al. [37] concluded that rice cultivation on beds is a viable and efficient irrigation practice to save up to 23% of water without compromising yields. Improving the conveyance efficiency of irrigation canals can save an additional 14.8 billion cubic meters of water [13], which can be used to meet future crop water requirements. The adoption of high-efficiency irrigation systems, like drip and sprinkler irrigation systems, can deliver on multiple fronts such as water-saving, fertilizer use reduction, crop diversification, and enhancing yields and water productivity [21].
Our study included some limitations and assumptions that need to be addressed before implementing future water management measures and irrigation schedules. Due to the lack of detailed data, we did not consider the spatial variability of the soil, climate, and groundwater depth, which can produce extremely heterogeneous soil water balances at farm levels, ultimately influencing the NIWR and irrigation scheduling. A generalized version of the field conditions was presented in our study, but actual farm-level situations may vary dramatically according to crop variety, irrigation method, water quality, and soil management practices. Future studies should focus on tackling the climate change issue for maintaining and maximizing crop yields and water productivity, given the limited availability of irrigation water. Pakistan should seriously improve and standardize its protocols regarding data collection and the reporting of distribution, consumption, and production of land and water at the canal command scale [13]. The incorporation of such information would play a critical role in devising mitigation strategies to offset the adverse climate change impacts.
Despite the shortcomings, our research can contribute to developing an effective irrigation scheduling strategy for sustaining Punjab’s rice–wheat system in the face of climate change threats. We estimated the future DWR, which may be used to develop an integrated water resource policy based on the future NIWR, DWR, and ER for better distribution of limited water resources based on agricultural water demand and canal water supply regulation.

5. Conclusions

In this study, irrigation schedules were generated based on future water requirements of the wheat–rice system of Punjab, Pakistan. Future wheat and rice seasons were distinguished by distinctly high warming rates, with the Tmin remaining significantly higher than the Tmax. A sharp rise in the erratic monsoon P was envisaged during future rice seasons, while the wheat season P remained unchanged or dropped slightly. Unexpectedly longer warmer and drier spells during future wheat seasons would rapidly deplete the soil moisture, while future rice seasons would experience a mismatch between rainfall occurrences and the duration of peak irrigation demands because of erratic and uneven monsoon rainfall distribution. Climate warming instigated a substantial increase in the ETo and ETc rates, and to compensate for consequently higher NIWR, the wheat and rice required 1–2 and 2–5 additional irrigations per season, respectively. Future DWR should be revised according to NIWR for the 10-year return period drought to accommodate the additional 100–200 mm of irrigation water per season; otherwise, the study area could experience water shortages in the future. Surplus rainwater was available during rice season that could be harnessed by adopting rainwater harvesting techniques and be used later during peak demand periods. Frequent irrigations with smaller water depths or deficit irrigation could be a viable irrigation strategy for wheat, whereas rice cultivation on beds could be an efficient irrigation practice for sustaining yields with limited water resources. Devising irrigation schedules to maximize the rainwater consumption could alleviate the anticipated stresses on surface water. Farmers should be encouraged to adopt resource conservation strategies and field management practices aimed at conserving and improving soil organic matter and water holding capacities. Developing suitable crop cultivars with better heat and water stress tolerance could be a long-term and reliable solution for maintaining yields with a limited water supply under future climate warming.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agronomy11102006/s1, Figure S1: Comparison of CROPWAT simulated irrigation day for wheat during the baseline (1980–2010) and the recommended irrigation period which is represented by the horizontal dashed lines, Table S1: Summary of GCMs used in the study, Table S2: Representative soil characteristics used in the study, Table S3: Comparison of CROPWAT results in this study with the literature, Table S4: Estimated parameters and goodness of fit results based on Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) and Anderson-Darling (AD) tests for the nine probability distribution functions (PDFs) during the baseline (1980–2010), Table S5: Estimated parameters and goodness of fit results based on Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) and Anderson-Darling (AD) tests for the nine probability distribution functions (PDFs) during 2021–2080 under RCP 4.5, Table S6: Estimated parameters and goodness of fit results based on Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) and Anderson-Darling (AD) tests for the nine probability distribution functions (PDFs) during 2021–2080 under RCP 8.5.

Author Contributions

M.J.A. conceived and developed the methodology, performed the data analysis, compiled the results, and prepared the manuscript; K.-S.C. supervised the research, provided the funding and technical assistance, and contributed to the results and discussion by suggesting constructive remarks ultimately leading to the final draft. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation (NRF) of Korea grant No. 2020R1A2C1013947, funded by the Korean government.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. IPCC. Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Masson-Delmotte, V.P., Zhai, A., Pirani, S.L., Connors, C., Péan, S., Berger, N., Caud, Y., Chen, L., Goldfarb, M.I., Gomis, M., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  2. Azmat, M.; Ilyas, F.; Sarwar, A.; Huggel, C.; Vaghefi, S.A.; Hui, T.; Qamar, M.U.; Bilal, M.; Ahmed, Z. Impacts of climate change on wheat phenology and yield in Indus Basin, Pakistan. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 790, 148221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ahmad, M.J.; Choi, K.-S.; Cho, G.-H.; Kim, S.-H. Future Wheat Yield Variabilities and Water Footprints Based on the Yield Sensitivity to Past Climate Conditions. Agronomy 2019, 9, 744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Wang, X.-J.; Zhang, J.-Y.; Ali, M.; Shahid, S.; He, R.-M.; Xia, X.-H.; Jiang, Z. Impact of climate change on regional irrigation water demand in Baojixia irrigation district of China. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2016, 21, 233–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ahmed, K.; Shahid, S.; Nawaz, N. Impacts of climate variability and change on seasonal drought characteristics of Pakistan. Atmos. Res. 2018, 214, 364–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ahmad, M.J.; Iqbal, M.A.; Choi, K.S. Climate-driven constraints in sustaining future wheat yield and water productivity. Agric. Water Manag. 2020, 231, 105991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ahmad, M.J.; Cho, G.-H.; Kim, S.-H.; Lee, S.; Adelodun, B.; Choi, K.-S. Influence mechanism of climate change over crop growth and water demands for wheat-rice system of Punjab, Pakistan. J. Water Clim. Chang. 2020, 12, 1184–1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Asseng, S.; Ewert, F.; Martre, P.; Rötter, R.P.; Lobell, D.B.; Cammarano, D.; Kimball, B.A.; Ottman, M.J.; Wall, G.W.; White, J.W.; et al. Rising temperatures reduce global wheat production. Nat. Clim. Change 2015, 5, 143–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Alvar-Beltrán, J.; Heureux, A.; Soldan, R.; Manzanas, R.; Khan, B.; Dalla Marta, A. Assessing the impact of climate change on wheat and sugarcane with the AquaCrop model along the Indus River Basin, Pakistan. Agric. Water Manag. 2021, 253, 106909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Akhtar, I.U.H.; Athar, H. Water supply and effective rainfall impacts on major crops across irrigated areas of Punjab, Pakistan. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2020, 142, 1097–1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Khaliq, T.; Gaydon, D.S.; Ahmad, M.-U.-D.; Cheema, M.J.M.; Gull, U. Analyzing crop yield gaps and their causes using cropping systems modelling–A case study of the Punjab rice-wheat system, Pakistan. Field Crops Res. 2019, 232, 119–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kirby, M.; Ahmad, M.-U.-D.; Mainuddin, M.; Khaliq, T.; Cheema, M.J.M. Agricultural production, water use and food availability in Pakistan: Historical trends, and projections to 2050. Agric. Water Manag. 2017, 179, 34–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Habib, Z.; Wahaj, R. Water Availability, Use and Challenges in Pakistan—Water Sector Challenges in the Indus Basin and Impact of Climate Change; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  14. Shahid, M.R.; Wakeel, A.; Ishaque, W.; Ali, S.; Soomro, K.B.; Awais, M. Optimizing different adaptive strategies by using crop growth modeling under IPCC climate change scenarios for sustainable wheat production. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 11310–11334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hussain, J.; Khaliq, T.; Ahmad, A.; Akhter, J.; Asseng, S. Wheat Responses to Climate Change and Its Adaptations: A Focus on Arid and Semi-arid Environment. Internat. J. Environ. Res. 2018, 12, 117–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Arshad, A.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, W.; Gujree, I. Long-Term Perspective Changes in Crop Irrigation Requirement Caused by Climate and Agriculture Land Use Changes in Rechna Doab, Pakistan. Water 2019, 11, 1567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Ahmad, M.J.; Choi, K.S. Climatic influence on the water requirement of wheat-rice cropping system in UCC command area of Pakistan. J. Korean Soc. Agric. Eng. 2018, 60, 69–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ahmad, S.; Abbas, G.; Ahmed, M.; Fatima, Z.; Anjum, M.A.; Rasul, G.; Khan, M.A.; Hoogenboom, G. Climate warming and management impact on the change of phenology of the rice-wheat cropping system in Punjab, Pakistan. Field Crops Res. 2019, 230, 46–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Shabbir, G.; Khaliq, T.; Ahmad, A.; Saqib, M. Assessing the climate change impacts and adaptation strategies for rice production in Punjab, Pakistan. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 22568–22578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Khan, S.; Rasool, A.; Irshad, S.; Hafeez, M.B.; Ali, M.; Saddique, M.; Asif, M.; Hasnain, Z.; Naseem, S.; Alwahibi, M.S.; et al. Potential soil moisture deficit: A useful approach to save water with enhanced growth and productivity of wheat crop. J. Water Clim. Chang. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Yasin, H.Q.; Akram, M.M.; Tahir, M.N. High Efficiency Irrigation Technology as a Single Solution for Multi-Challenge. In Water, Climate Change and Sustainability; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2021; Chapter 12; pp. 185–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hussain, I.; Ali, A.; Ahmed, A.; Nasrullah, H.; Iqbal, S.; Aulakh, A.M.; Akhter, J.; Ahmed, G. Impact of Ridge-Furrow Planting in Pakistan: Empirical Evidence from the Farmers Field. Int. J. Agron. 2018, 2018, 3798037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Gaydon, D.S.; Khaliq, T.; Ahmad, M.-U.-D.; Cheema, M.J.M.; Gull, U. Tweaking Pakistani Punjab rice-wheat management to maximize productivity within nitrate leaching limits. Field Crops Res. 2021, 260, 107964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Shakir, A.; Khan, N.; Qureshi, M. Canal water management: Case study of upper Chenab Canal in Pakistan. Irrig. Drain. 2010, 59, 76–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Fuka, D.R.; Walter, M.T.; MacAlister, C.; Degaetano, A.T.; Steenhuis, T.S.; Easton, Z.M. Using the Climate Forecast System Reanalysis as weather input data for watershed models. Hydrol. Process. 2013, 28, 5613–5623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Dile, Y.T.; Srinivasan, R. Evaluation of CFSR climate data for hydrologic prediction in data-scarce watersheds: An application in the Blue Nile River Basin. J. Am. Water Resour. As. 2014, 50, 1226–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Saha, S.; Moorthi, S.; Pan, H.L.; Wu, X.; Wang, J.; Nadiga, S.; Tripp, P.; Kistler, R.; Woollen, J.; Behringer, D.; et al. The NCEP Climate Forecast System Reanalysis. Bull. Amer. Meteorol. Soc. 2010, 91, 1015–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Miao, C.; Su, L.; Sun, Q.; Duan, Q. A nonstationary bias-correction technique to remove bias in GCM simulations. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2016, 121, 5718–5735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Rajczak, J.; Kotlarski, S.; Salzmann, N.; Schär, C. Robust climate scenarios for sites with sparse observations: A two-step bias correction approach. Int. J. Climatol. 2016, 36, 1226–1243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Pereira, L.S.; Allen, R.G.; Smith, M.; Raes, D. Crop evapotranspiration estimation with FAO56: Past and future. Agric. Water Manag. 2015, 147, 4–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Allen, R.G.; Pereira, L.S.; Raes, D.; Smith, M. Crop Evapotranspiration: Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements; FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  32. Ullah, M.K.; Habib, Z.; Muhammad, S. Spatial Distribution of Reference and Potential Evapotranspiration across the Indus Basin Irrigation Systems; International Water Management Institute (IWMI): Anand, India, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  33. Smith, M. CROPWAT: A Computer Program for Irrigation Planning and Management; Food & Agriculture Organisation of United Nations: Rome, Italy, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  34. Pereira, L.S.; Paredes, P.; Jovanovic, N. Soil water balance models for determining crop water and irrigation requirements and irrigation scheduling focusing on the FAO56 method and the dual Kc approach. Agric. Water Manag. 2020, 241, 106357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Soomro, Z.A.; Ashraf, M.; Ejaz, K.; Bhatti, A.Z. Water Requirements of Major Crops in the Central Punjab; Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources (PCRWR): Lahore, Pakistan, 2018; p. 44. [Google Scholar]
  36. Aslam, M.; Qureshi, A.S.; Horinkova, V.M. Water saving strategies for irrigated rice. J. Drain. Water Manag. 2002, 6, 25–36. [Google Scholar]
  37. Soomro, Z.A.; Arshad, M.D.; Ejaz, K.; Bhatti, A.Z.; Ashraf, M. Rice Cultivation on Beds—An Efficient and Viable Irrigation Practice; Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources (PCRWR): Lahore, Pakistan, 2015; p. 24. [Google Scholar]
  38. Chapagain, A.K.; Hoekstra, A.Y. The blue, green and grey water footprint of rice from production and consumption perspectives. Ecol. Econom. 2011, 70, 749–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Salehi, S.; Dehghani, M.; Mortazavi, S.M.; Singh, V.P. Trend analysis and change point detection of seasonal and annual precipitation in Iran. Int. J. Climatol. 2020, 40, 308–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mahbod, M.; Rafiee, M.R. Trend analysis of extreme precipitation events across Iran using percentile indices. Int. J. Climatol. 2021, 41, 952–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ahmad, M.J.; Choi, K.S. Influence of climate variables on FAO Penman–Monteith reference evapotranspiration in the Upper Chenab Canal command area of Pakistan. Paddy Water Environ. 2018, 16, 425–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Abbasnia, M.; Toros, H. Trend analysis of weather extremes across the coastal and non-coastal areas (case study: Turkey). J. Earth Syst. Sci. 2020, 129, 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sen, P.K. Estimates of the Regression Coefficient Based on Kendall’s Tau. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1968, 63, 1379–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Adnan, S.; Ullah, K. Development of drought hazard index for vulnerability assessment in Pakistan. Nat. Hazards 2020, 103, 2989–3010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Rao, A.R.; Hamed, K.H. Flood Frequency Analysis; CRC Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  46. Lee, S.-H.; Yoo, S.-H.; Choi, J.-Y.; Hwang, S. GCM-related uncertainty in forecasting irrigation and design water requirement for paddy rice fields. Int. J. Climatol. 2017, 38, 1298–1313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Islam, A.R.M.T.; Shen, S.; Yang, S.; Hu, Z.; Chu, R. Assessing recent impacts of climate change on design water requirement of Boro rice season in Bangladesh. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2019, 138, 97–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Islam, A.R.M.T.; Shen, S.-H.; Yang, S.-B. Predicting design water requirement of winter paddy under climate change condition using frequency analysis in Bangladesh. Agric. Water Manag. 2018, 195, 58–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Chow, V.T. A general formula for hydrologic frequency analysis. Eos Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 1951, 32, 231–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Millington, N.; Das, S.; Simonovic, S.P. The Comparison of GEV, Log-Pearson Type 3 and Gumbel Distributions in the Upper Thames River Watershed under Global Climate Models; The University of Westren Ontario: London, ON, Canada, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  51. Ayuketang Arreyndip, N.; Joseph, E. Generalized Extreme Value Distribution Models for the Assessment of Seasonal Wind Energy Potential of Debuncha, Cameroon. J. Renew. Energy 2016, 2016, 9357812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Nawaz, Z.; Li, X.; Chen, Y.; Guo, Y.; Wang, X.; Nawaz, N. Temporal and Spatial Characteristics of Precipitation and Temperature in Punjab, Pakistan. Water 2019, 11, 1916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Ahmad, W.; Fatima, A.; Awan, U.K.; Anwar, A. Analysis of long term meteorological trends in the middle and lower Indus Basin of Pakistan: A non-parametric statistical approach. Glob. Planet. Chang. 2014, 122, 282–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Iqbal, M.A.; Penas, A.; Cano-Ortiz, A.; Kersebaum, K.; Herrero, L.; del Río, S. Analysis of recent changes in maximum and minimum temperatures in Pakistan. Atmos. Res. 2016, 168, 234–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Qureshi, A.S.; Gill, M.A.; Sarwar, A. Sustainable groundwater management in Pakistan: Challenges and opportunities. Irrig. Drain. 2010, 59, 107–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 11 02006 g001 550
Figure 1. (a) Location of the UCC command area in Punjab, Pakistan. (b) Major water channels in the UCC command area.
Figure 1. (a) Location of the UCC command area in Punjab, Pakistan. (b) Major water channels in the UCC command area.
Agronomy 11 02006 g001
Agronomy 11 02006 g002 550
Figure 2. Wheat seasonal (November–April) average (a) maximum temperature (Tmax), (b) minimum temperature (Tmin), and (c) seasonal cumulative rainfall (P), as well as the (d) solar radiation (Rn) during the baseline (1980–2010), 2030s (2021–2050), and 2060s (2051–2080). The box in Figure 2 and hereafter represents the interquartile range (IQR). The whiskers extend up to 1.5 times the IQR, and the hollow dot outside the box represents the outliers.
Figure 2. Wheat seasonal (November–April) average (a) maximum temperature (Tmax), (b) minimum temperature (Tmin), and (c) seasonal cumulative rainfall (P), as well as the (d) solar radiation (Rn) during the baseline (1980–2010), 2030s (2021–2050), and 2060s (2051–2080). The box in Figure 2 and hereafter represents the interquartile range (IQR). The whiskers extend up to 1.5 times the IQR, and the hollow dot outside the box represents the outliers.
Agronomy 11 02006 g002
Agronomy 11 02006 g003 550
Figure 3. Rice seasonal (May–October) average (a) maximum temperature (Tmax), (b) minimum temperature (Tmin), and (c) seasonal cumulative rainfall (P), as well as the (d) solar radiation (Rn) during the baseline (1980–2010), 2030s (2021–2050), and 2060s (2051–2080).
Figure 3. Rice seasonal (May–October) average (a) maximum temperature (Tmax), (b) minimum temperature (Tmin), and (c) seasonal cumulative rainfall (P), as well as the (d) solar radiation (Rn) during the baseline (1980–2010), 2030s (2021–2050), and 2060s (2051–2080).
Agronomy 11 02006 g003
Agronomy 11 02006 g004 550
Figure 4. MK test Z-scores for (a) wheat season and (b) rice season climate change trends during the baseline (1980–2010), 2030s (2021–2050), and 2060s (2051–2080).
Figure 4. MK test Z-scores for (a) wheat season and (b) rice season climate change trends during the baseline (1980–2010), 2030s (2021–2050), and 2060s (2051–2080).
Agronomy 11 02006 g004
Agronomy 11 02006 g005 550
Figure 5. Wheat seasonal (November–April) cumulative (a) reference evapotranspiration (ETo), (b) crop evapotranspiration (ETc), (c) effective rainfall (ER), (d) potential irrigation water requirement (PIWR), (e) net irrigation water requirement (NIWR), (f) number of irrigations, and (g) number of rainy days (N) during the baseline (1980–2010), 2030s, (2021–2050) and 2060s (2051–2080).
Figure 5. Wheat seasonal (November–April) cumulative (a) reference evapotranspiration (ETo), (b) crop evapotranspiration (ETc), (c) effective rainfall (ER), (d) potential irrigation water requirement (PIWR), (e) net irrigation water requirement (NIWR), (f) number of irrigations, and (g) number of rainy days (N) during the baseline (1980–2010), 2030s, (2021–2050) and 2060s (2051–2080).
Agronomy 11 02006 g005
Agronomy 11 02006 g006 550
Figure 6. MK test Z-scores for wheat seasonal (November–April) cumulative reference evapotranspiration (ETo), crop evapotranspiration (ETc), effective rainfall (ER), potential irrigation water requirement (PIWR), net irrigation water requirement (NIWR), and number of rainy days (N) during the baseline (1980–2010), 2030s (2021–2050), and 2060s (2051–2080).
Figure 6. MK test Z-scores for wheat seasonal (November–April) cumulative reference evapotranspiration (ETo), crop evapotranspiration (ETc), effective rainfall (ER), potential irrigation water requirement (PIWR), net irrigation water requirement (NIWR), and number of rainy days (N) during the baseline (1980–2010), 2030s (2021–2050), and 2060s (2051–2080).
Agronomy 11 02006 g006
Agronomy 11 02006 g007 550
Figure 7. Rice seasonal (May–October) cumulative (a) reference evapotranspiration (ETo), (b) crop evapotranspiration (ETc), (c) effective rainfall (ER), (d) potential irrigation water requirement (PIWR), (e) net irrigation water requirement (NIWR), (f) number of irrigations, and (g) number of rainy days (N) during the baseline (1980–2010), 2030s (2021–2050), and 2060s (2051–2080).
Figure 7. Rice seasonal (May–October) cumulative (a) reference evapotranspiration (ETo), (b) crop evapotranspiration (ETc), (c) effective rainfall (ER), (d) potential irrigation water requirement (PIWR), (e) net irrigation water requirement (NIWR), (f) number of irrigations, and (g) number of rainy days (N) during the baseline (1980–2010), 2030s (2021–2050), and 2060s (2051–2080).
Agronomy 11 02006 g007
Agronomy 11 02006 g008 550
Figure 8. MK test Z-scores for rice seasonal (May–October) cumulative reference evapotranspiration (ETo), crop evapotranspiration (ETc), effective rainfall (ER), potential irrigation water requirement (PIWR), net irrigation water requirement (NIWR), and number of rainy days (N) during the baseline (1980–2010), 2030s (2021–2050), and 2060s (2051–2080).
Figure 8. MK test Z-scores for rice seasonal (May–October) cumulative reference evapotranspiration (ETo), crop evapotranspiration (ETc), effective rainfall (ER), potential irrigation water requirement (PIWR), net irrigation water requirement (NIWR), and number of rainy days (N) during the baseline (1980–2010), 2030s (2021–2050), and 2060s (2051–2080).
Agronomy 11 02006 g008
Agronomy 11 02006 g009 550
Figure 9. Design water requirements for the 5- and 10-year return period drought (DWR5 and DWR10, respectively) during the (a) baseline (1980–2010), (b,c) 2030s (2021–2050), and (d,e) 2060s (2051–2080). The solid horizontal lines in Figure 9 (b–e) represent DWR5 and DWR10 during the baseline.
Figure 9. Design water requirements for the 5- and 10-year return period drought (DWR5 and DWR10, respectively) during the (a) baseline (1980–2010), (b,c) 2030s (2021–2050), and (d,e) 2060s (2051–2080). The solid horizontal lines in Figure 9 (b–e) represent DWR5 and DWR10 during the baseline.
Agronomy 11 02006 g009
Table
Table 1. Sen’s slope of the climate change trends for the wheat and rice seasons during the baseline and future time slices.
Table 1. Sen’s slope of the climate change trends for the wheat and rice seasons during the baseline and future time slices.
SeasonClimate
Variable		Baseline (1980–2010)2030s (2021–2050)2060s (2051–2080)
RCP 4.5RCP 8.5RCP 4.5RCP 8.5
WheatTmin (°C/year)0.04 ***0.03 ***0.02 ***0.02 ***0.05 ***
Tmax (°C/year)0.05 **0.04 ***0.02 **0.02 **0.05 ***
Rainfall (mm/year)−3.98 **−2.07 *−0.10−0.10−0.71
Rn (MJm−2/year)6.10 ***1.483.97 ***3.97 ***1.62
RiceTmin (°C/year)0.05 ***0.03 ***0.04 ***0.02 ***0.06 ***
Tmax (°C/year)No trend0.03 ***0.02 ***0.01 *0.05 ***
Rainfall (mm/year)1.270.488.48 *5.422.35
Rn (MJm−2/year)1.44−1.08−4.03 ***2.88 ***No trend
An asterisk represents the significance level according to the MK test. *, **, and *** represent α = 10, 5, and 1%, respectively. The values without symbols are non-significant.
Table
Table 2. Sen’s slope of trends for the wheat irrigation management components during the baseline and future time slices.
Table 2. Sen’s slope of trends for the wheat irrigation management components during the baseline and future time slices.
ParameterBaseline (1980–2010)2030s (2021–2050)2060s (2051–2080)
RCP 4.5RCP 8.5RCP 4.5RCP 8.5
ETo (mm/year)0.480.61 ***0.55 **0.55 **0.79 ***
ETc (mm/year)0.47 *0.55 ***0.160.310.59
Effective rainfall (mm/year)−2.58 ***−0.701.78−0.87−0.54
PIWR (mm/year)2.30 ***0.86−0.700.320.25
NIWR (mm/year)No trend3.57 ***No trend−0.68No trend
No. of rainy days (days/year)−0.32 ***−0.08No trend−0.05−0.06
Asterisks represent the significance level according to the MK test. *, **, and *** represent α = 10, 5, and 1%, respectively. The values without symbols are non-significant.
Table
Table 3. Sen’s slope of trends for the rice irrigation management components during the baseline and future time slices.
Table 3. Sen’s slope of trends for the rice irrigation management components during the baseline and future time slices.
ParameterBaseline (1980–2010)2030s (2021–2050)2060s (2051–2080)
RCP 4.5RCP 8.5RCP 4.5RCP 8.5
ETo (mm/year)−0.640.35−0.140.67 **0.97 ***
ETc (mm/year)−0.270.12−0.40 *0.66 **0.65 **
Effective rainfall (mm/year)0.28−0.782.61 ***2.57 **1.65
PIWR (mm/year)−1.470.57−3.33 **−1.64−4.21 *
NIWR (mm/year)−1.15−0.51−5.70−0.68−0.70
No. of rainy days (days/year)0.05No trend0.375 ***0.180.22
Asterisks represent the significance level according to the MK test. *, **, and *** represent α = 10, 5, and 1%, respectively. The values without symbols are non-significant.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ahmad, M.J.; Choi, K.-S. Climate-Induced Perspective Variations in Irrigation Schedules and Design Water Requirements for the Rice–Wheat System. Agronomy 2021, 11, 2006. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11102006

AMA Style

Ahmad MJ, Choi K-S. Climate-Induced Perspective Variations in Irrigation Schedules and Design Water Requirements for the Rice–Wheat System. Agronomy. 2021; 11(10):2006. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11102006

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ahmad, Mirza Junaid, and Kyung-Sook Choi. 2021. "Climate-Induced Perspective Variations in Irrigation Schedules and Design Water Requirements for the Rice–Wheat System" Agronomy 11, no. 10: 2006. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11102006

APA Style

Ahmad, M. J., & Choi, K.-S. (2021). Climate-Induced Perspective Variations in Irrigation Schedules and Design Water Requirements for the Rice–Wheat System. Agronomy, 11(10), 2006. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11102006

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop