Reduction of Sugarcane Water Footprint by Controlled Drainage, in Khuzestan, Iran

Jahani, Babak; Mohammadi, Amir Soltani; Nasseri, Abd Ali; Oel, Pieter van; Lari, A Sadeghi

doi:10.1002/ird.2148

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…CD is expected to contribute to more sustainable water development over conventional drainage by giving the farmer more flexibility in terms of water management [17]. In the literature, we can also find other WCS synonyms such as drainage control structures (DCS) [18][19][20], outlet control structures (OCS) [13,21,22], water level control structures (WLCS) [23][24][25][26][27][28], water table control structures (WTCS) [10,29,30], and hydraulic control structures (HCS) [31]. All of these structures allow farmers to set the drainage outlet at a definite level between the ground surface (undrained condition) and the drain depth (conventional drainage) [12].…”

Section: Overview Of Water Control Structures In Drainage Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A New Concept of Flashboard Risers in Controlled Drainage Structures

Napierała

2024

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drainage water management (DWM), also known as controlled drainage (CD), is one of the edge-of-field strategies mainly designed to reduce the nitrate load from subsurface drainage systems. By limiting runoff, we also increase local retention, contributing to the sustainable management of water resources. For that purpose, CD involves using different kinds of controlled drainage devices. They are usually based on simple flashboard risers or stoplogs that regulate the drainage intensity by raising and lowering the drainage outlet. The problem with this type of device is the need for manual control, which can cause the CD system to be more demanding in terms of maintenance. A new approach to water management by CD allows the possibility of individual disassembly of each board without necessarily removing all of them. Thanks to the use of sideling runners, the water management process is much quicker. This is especially important when a farmer needs to manage water in a few controlled drainage devices in the field. The different variants of the design are shown here, as well as the way of stop-log assembly and control and the costs of maintaining similar devices. The advantages and disadvantages are described, and the usefulness of the new patented solution is assessed.

show abstract

Section: Overview Of Water Control Structures In Drainage Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A New Concept of Flashboard Risers in Controlled Drainage Structures

Napierała

2024

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…DDWB can rely on ground-based measurements for the primary purpose of decision making (16 publications) (Table 1). Some agricultural decision-making examples include comparing the water budget components between different cropping systems to help decide which practice to follow (Fouli et al, 2012;Jahani et al, 2017;Li et al, 2019) Note. The types of applications are estimating or partitioning the water budget ("Estimating/Partitioning"), using the water budget for decision-making ("Decision-Making"), using the water budget for validating another data source ("Validating"), using the water budget to calculate something difficult or impossible to measure ("Difficult/Impossible"), and evaluating water budget closure and/or uncertainty ("Uncertainty/Closure").…”

Section: Entirely Ground-based Approach Ddwb and Its Suitable Applica...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…DDWB can rely on ground‐based measurements for the primary purpose of decision making (16 publications) (Table 1). Some agricultural decision‐making examples include comparing the water budget components between different cropping systems to help decide which practice to follow (Fouli et al., 2012; Jahani et al., 2017; Li et al., 2019), comparing the effects of various irrigation systems on deep percolation (Darzi‐Naftchali et al., 2013; LaHue & Linquist, 2021), determining the soil management effect on the water budget in dryland soil (D. Zhang et al., 2016; S. Zhang et al., 2016), and comparing water use efficiencies under different irrigation schemes (Barnard et al., 2017). Ecosystem decision‐making examples include evaluating the projected water budget under various climate change scenarios using a Budyko framework (Csaki et al., 2020), assessing forest thinning impacts on the water balance in the Sierra Nevada mixed‐conifer headwater basins to understand the extent to which biomass reductions increase runoff (Saksa et al., 2017), assessing the importance of regenerative forest management practices on the water budget (Munoz‐Villers et al., 2012), and identifying three main phases of ecological development of a creek catchment (Schaaf et al., 2017).…”

Section: Classification Of Data‐driven Water Budget Approaches and Th...mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Decade of Data‐Driven Water Budgets: Synthesis and Bibliometric Review

Moyers,

Sabie,

Waring

et al. 2023

Water Resources Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scarce water resources across the globe have prompted the development of data‐driven water budgets to account for and distribute limited water more effectively across various land uses and purposes. Data‐driven approaches for estimating individual water budget components have been extensively developed and subsequently reviewed (e.g., evapotranspiration, precipitation, groundwater, surface water, runoff), but the state of the art of data‐driven approaches for estimating and integrating complete water budgets has not been the subject of a review paper to our knowledge. In this review, we fill this void by reviewing 81 systematically identified publications from the last decade (2012–2022) on data‐driven water budget approaches. We describe the current state of measurements and data products for data‐driven water budgets for various spatiotemporal scales. Our analysis suggests that spatiotemporal parameters drive the approach for data‐driven water budgets, with larger spatiotemporal scales relying more on satellite remote sensing data products and smaller spatiotemporal scales relying more on ground‐based monitoring. The incorporation of satellite remote sensing data products and ground‐based monitoring was common across various spatiotemporal scales and enabled the estimation of complete water budgets in areas of limited data availability. We conclude that improved reporting of simplifying assumptions, uncertainty analysis methods, and data sources are required for the alignment of water budget estimations between resource managers at varied spatiotemporal scales. Our review calls for the standardization of data‐driven water budget reporting protocols to improve the interpretability of data‐driven water budgets across decision‐makers working at various spatiotemporal scales.

show abstract

“…Indeed in Iran water footprint of sugarcane under free drainage could reach 250 m 3 for each tonne produced (Jahani et al, 2017). Further, in Southern Africa where irrigation water is showing an alarming decline, Mhlanga et al (2006) estimated the average irrigation requirement for sugarcane in Swaziland at 1,000 mm a year.…”

Section: Quantitative Impactmentioning

confidence: 99%

What are the Impacts of Sugarcane Production on Ecosystem Services? A Review

Chami¹,

Daccache²,

Moujabber³

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the 1950s sugarcane production has grown rapidly from less than 0.5 billion tonnes in the late 50s to reach over 1.9 billion tonnes in 2012 on about 27 million hectares of agricultural land. This expansion has been boosted by the high demand for bioethanol promoted as a sustainable bioenergy source which accounted in 2010 for the biggest share of the global biofuel market. Despite its benefits, the scientific debate on sugar is growing especially that counterarguments are so many, including negative impacts on different interacting ecosystems and human well-being, e.g. bigger stress on land and water resources, environmental externalities on air, a harmful impact on the biodiversity and endemic species, negative environmental externalities, health, and socio-economic aspects. This paper provides a narrative systematic review (SR) of the impacts of sugarcane production on these different ecosystems employing the ecosystem services framework for its acceptance by policy-makers. The references included for the SR were 163 and results showed that the majority of the studies are from Brazil, Australia, South Africa and the USA (≈ 75% of the literature), most of them were from peer-reviewed journals (85%), and most of the case studies adopted a quantitative research approach (93%). The literature assessed showed that sugarcane, like all agro-systems, depends on the practices and techniques to transform negative impacts into positive externalities on ecosystems and human well-being. However, the literature studied failed to include the inter-linkage in sugarcane production impacts’ and therefore to evaluate the related ecosystem services with respect to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) framework to account for existing trade-offs. Therefore, the findings are addressed to the scientific community and decision-maker for an intensification of interdisciplinary and integrated research based on the MA framework to cover all ecosystem services, for sustainable development of the sugarcane sector.

show abstract

Reduction of Sugarcane Water Footprint by Controlled Drainage, in Khuzestan, Iran

Cited by 11 publications

References 61 publications

A New Concept of Flashboard Risers in Controlled Drainage Structures

A New Concept of Flashboard Risers in Controlled Drainage Structures

A Decade of Data‐Driven Water Budgets: Synthesis and Bibliometric Review

What are the Impacts of Sugarcane Production on Ecosystem Services? A Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About