sustainability

Article
Optimization of Water Consumption Distribution
Based on Crop Suitability in the Middle Reaches
of Heihe River
Liuyue He, Sufen Wang *, Congcong Peng and Qian Tan
Center for Agricultural Water Research in China, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China;
[email protected] (L.H.); [email protected] (C.P.); [email protected] (Q.T.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-10-6273-8548




Received: 9 May 2018; Accepted: 13 June 2018; Published: 21 June 2018


Abstract: Optimizing regional crop water consumption is considered to be a significant approach

for increasing yields and reducing water consumption. This paper proposes a single-objective linear
programming model which couples the distributed water consumption model with crop suitability.
The impacts of meteorological, topographic, and soil factors were taken into account in both the
distributed water consumption model and the crop suitability. The developed model was applied
to a real case study in the middle reaches of Heihe River basin, in the northwest of China. In the
optimization model, the net benefit which combined the water consumption with crop suitability was
regarded as the objective function, while the limits on available water and planting area were set as
the constraints. Optimal results regarding crop distribution and water consumption were generated
for dry, normal, and wet hydrological years. Two optimization strategies were analyzed, including
one with a fixed area of each crop and the other with a fixed total planting area. Economic analyses
showed that net income under both optimization strategies increased by 31% and 33%, respectively.
Although water consumption increased slightly in both optimization scenarios, the unit water income
and unit area income were much higher than in the pre-optimization conditions. The obtained results
are valuable for supporting the adjustment of planting patterns and the identification of desired plans
for sustainable irrigation water allocation.

Keywords: spatiotemporal variability; distributed model; crop suitability; planting pattern

1. Introduction
In recent decades, water scarcity has been more serious due to human-induced environment
changes. For example, the advancement of industrialization has been sharply reducing water quantity
and significantly deteriorating water quality, and population growth has caused a fast rise in water
demand [1]. In the last decade, in the middle reaches of Heihe River, the dramatic increase in cultivated
area and irrigation area has led to a dramatic increase in agricultural water consumption [2]. Declining
water availability and growing water demand have intensified water competition among sectors,
resulting in enormous risks in food security. Agriculture is the largest consumer of water in most
countries, especially in China. Agricultural water accounts for 62.4% of total water use, which is
much higher than industrial, domestic, and ecological water use [3]. Due to intensive agricultural
production in Heihe River basin, agricultural irrigation occupies approximately 90% of the local total
water consumption [4]. The conflict between food demand and limited water resources has been
an acute issue in this area. Therefore, proper agricultural water management is crucial in achieving
food security and sustaining livelihoods. Crop water consumption accounts for a large proportion
of agricultural water. With the development of science, agricultural water can be rationally allocated

Sustainability 2018, 10, 2119; doi:10.3390/su10072119 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2018, 10, 2119 2 of 17

to reduce unnecessary water consumption through various methods, such as the optimization of
water–land combinations under various scales. Therefore, optimization models can be an effective tool
for crop water management [4–6].
In order to figure out how to optimize agricultural planting patterns and achieve water-saving
potential from cultivation, an increasing number of scholars have carried out studies on the
optimization of planting patterns under various constraints related to water resources [7]. For example,
in 2012, the discrete particle swarm optimization (DPSO) algorithm was applied to optimize cropping
areas and irrigation water allocation [8]. Apart from the DPSO, many other mathematical algorithms
such as linear programming (LP), nonlinear programming (NLP), dynamic programming (DP),
genetic algorithm (GA), and simulated annealing arithmetic (SAA) have been used to solve specific
optimization problems in the last decade [9–11]. In 2016, an interval linear fractional irrigation
water allocation (ILFIWA) model was developed to address uncertainty in an irrigation system
through coupling interval parameter programming (IPP) with linear fractional programming (LFP) [12].
The past reviews on optimization models are mainly focused on the following sections: irrigation
management, crop pattern adjustment, and water resource allocation, etc. [13,14]. The past studies
on water resource allocation mainly concentrate on water distribution during crop growth or water
distribution among different crops. However, they are achieved by a top-down quantitative water
allocation method [15–17], which cannot make corresponding water adjustments according to crop
water consumption. In addition, most previous studies on crop planting patterns only change the
cropping areas [18]. In fact, when the available agricultural water is drastically reduced, the really
important issues for authorities and farmers are what kind of crops should be planted, and over how
much area and where should they be planted to ensure the maximum economic benefits. Therefore,
once the water consumption distribution of regional crops can be obtained, planting patterns can be
adjusted by optimizing crop water consumption.
However, crop water consumption is affected by various factors, such as climate, topography, and
soil, which makes it difficult to calculate under different temporal and spatial scales [19,20]. For this
reason, some studies began to focus on the spatiotemporal variability in water consumption. The net
radiation and Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) were found to be the driving factors
of the temporal and spatial variations in crop water use, and a number of empirical models were
established accordingly in reported areas [21]. However, due to the inconsistency in driving factors
within a region, there were few studies on estimating regional crop water consumption through the
driving factors. Accordingly, some researchers began to consider the spatial and temporal scales
separately in their studies [22]. For example, a software program was developed to maximize the gross
margin by optimizing cropping patterns under the boundary conditions of limited water (temporal
scale) and available land (spatial scale). A number of optimization models [23] and decision support
methods [24] were also developed to optimize the allocation of agricultural water at a certain time
or spatial scale. The characteristics of spatiotemporal changes suitable for the growth of important
crops are gradually being emphasized in future climate scenarios [25]. Other studies which related
to the costs of critical infrastructure operation [26,27] and forecasts [28,29] provide the possibility of
optimizing scenarios. The above studies on temporal and spatial variations have inspired us with
new ways to combine regional water consumption with mathematical optimization. The temporal
and spatial variability of meteorological, soil, and terrain factors has great impacts on crop growth
and water consumption, but it was not taken into account in the previous cropping optimization.
In addition to affecting crop water consumption, spatiotemporal variability directly affects crop
growth. In ecological evaluation, crop suitability (CS) has been an important indicator to evaluate
the status of cultivated land and the growth environment for crops, such as the climate, topography,
and soil [30,31]. One of the most important strategies for improving water use efficiency in agriculture
is the correct choice of cropping systems adapted to the climatic and pedological conditions of the
site [32]. Combing crop suitability with crop water consumption can effectively reflect the influence of
spatiotemporal factors on the crop growth. However, it was not reported in the existing literature.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2119 3 of 17

Therefore, the aim of this study is to develop a crop water consumption optimization model based
on crop suitability to optimize water use distribution. The benefits of the developed model include
(1) reflecting the soil, topographic, and climatic factors on crop water consumption; and (2) intuitively
displaying the distribution of water consumption and crop planting on any grid cell. This intuitive
display of the optimization distribution of planting patterns and water consumption has never been
seen in previous studies, and will provide new ideas for future crop optimization. This model is then
applied to a real case study of crop optimization in the middle reaches of Heihe River basin, China.
The generated crop planting pattern will demonstrate the feasibility and applicability of the developed
model, and it can be helpful for managers to determine crop water consumption at various grid cells
with different water availability. The method of construction of the optimization model is not limited
to any area and can therefore be used anywhere.

2. Materials and Methods

This study built a regional optimization model by combining the distributed crop water
consumption model with the evaluation results of crop suitability. It can be an effective way to
optimize regional crop water consumption on time and spatial scales. The methodology includes the
following steps: (1) combine the water consumption throughout the course of crop growth (temporal
scale) with the spatial distribution of crop water consumption (spatial scale) to obtain a distributed
crop water consumption model; (2) calculate crop suitability (CS) based on the ecological niche model
and the main growth influence factors; (3) take the economic benefits as the objective function of the
optimization model, built from the distributed water consumption model and crop suitability, with the
crop species as the decision variables and the cultivated area and available water as the constraints;
(4) adjust crop planting spatial distribution according to water availability in different hydrological
years (Dry, Normal, and Wet years) through the established optimization model; and (5) analyze the
economic benefits and water consumption indicators under two optimization scenarios (one with
a fixed area of each crop, and the other with a fixed total area). Figure 1 shows the general framework
of the study model. In this study, wheat, maize, and seed corn, which are the main crops in the middle
reaches of the Heihe River, have been selected as the study subjects. Previous studies have shown
that there is a small difference in water consumption during the whole growth period between seed
corn and field corn [33]. In addition, there are few studies on the suitability of crops. Therefore, in this
study, the water consumption and crop suitability of maize are considered to be equivalent to those of
seed corn. However, the economic benefits are still calculated separately in the optimization model.
This is because there is a big difference between maize and seed corn in the market price, and the
minimum planting areas of field corn and seed corn are restricted by local policies.
The purpose of this section is to introduce the development procedures of the distributed crop
water consumption model, the crop suitability model, and the optimization model.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2119 4 of 17

Figure 1. Framework of the study. Note: PCA means the method of principal component analysis;
GIS means geographical information system.

2.1. The Distributed Crop Water Consumption Model

(a) Calculation of ETc for Each Weather Station

Based on the data (from 1961 to 2010) from ten weather stations which are distributed in the
Heihe River basin, we calculated the crop water consumption (ETc ) by the crop coefficient method:

ETc = ET0 × Kc (1)

where ETc is the crop evapotranspiration (mm/d); ET0 is the reference evapotranspiration, calculated
according to the Food Agriculture Organization (FAO) Penman–Monteith equation [34]; and Kc is the
crop coefficient, which is calculated according to experimental results from 1989 to 1991 [35] (Table 1).
The test site was in the Zhangye Irrigation Experiment Station of the Gansu Academy of Agricultural
Sciences, which is located in the middle reaches of Heihe River. Therefore, these crop coefficients were
calculated on all weather stations.

Table 1. Kc in each month of the growth period.

March April May June July August September

Wheat 0.594 0.812 1.336 1.665 1.739 / /
Maize / 0.418 0.483 0.723 1.211 1.377 1.562

(b) Interpolation of ETc and Meteorological Variables in the Entire Heihe River Basin

The ETc and the meteorological variables of the weather stations were interpolated to obtain values
for each cell with a size of 900 m × 900 m, by using the multiple linear regression (MLR) plus inverse
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2119 5 of 17

distance weighting (IDW) method [36] in ArcGIS 10.0 platform which was developed by Environmental
Systems Research Institute, United States. First, we established a regression relationship between the
data and the latitude (ϕ), longitude (λ), and elevation (Z) of the weather station. Then, the regression
formula was used to calculate the values at each grid cell. Afterwards, the residual values of weather
stations obtained by regression were interpolated by IDW to obtain the residual values of each grid
cell. Finally, we superimposed the regressed calculation results and interpolated residuals of cells to
get the final values. After obtaining the meteorological data of the entire Heihe River Basin, the mask
extraction tool in geographical information system (GIS) was used to extract the data values of the
cultivated land in the middle reaches of the Heihe River.

(c) Screening of the Main Influencing Factors of Crop Water Consumption

The main influencing factors for crop water consumption were extracted from the meteorological
variables (effective precipitation (Pe ), solar radiation (Ra ), accumulated temperature (Ta ), and ET0 ),
soil properties (soil bulk density (ρb )) and topographical characteristics (elevation (Z), slope (S),
and aspect (A) obtained from the Digital Elevation Model (DEM)) by using Principal Component
Analysis (PCA) [37]. Multivariate linear regression analysis was used to establish the spatial
relationship between crop water consumption and the selected influencing factors:

ETcij = F (c)ij = k + aFaij + bFbij + . . . + nFnij (2)

where j is the cell (j = 1, 2, . . . , m), and m is the number of cells; ETc j is the evapotranspiration in cell
j (mm/d). The study area is divided into 1995 cells and each cell must have only one crop (m = 1995).
k, a, b, n are the constant and the regression coefficients; Fa, Fb, and Fn are the selected influencing
factors. F (c)ij is the relationship between crop water consumption and impact factors.

(d) Obtention of the Distributed Crop Water Consumption Model over Time

We fit crop water use data obtained from the field experiments [35] to get the function of crop
water consumption over time as a quadratic function (Equation (3)):

ETct = f (t)i (3)

where ETct is the crop water consumption at time t (mm/d); t is the number of days from the beginning
(d); i is the crop type (1, 2, . . . , I), and I = 3 in this study; and f (t)i is the relationship between crop
water consumption and time.
We combine Equations (2) and (3) to get a distributed crop water consumption model over time:

ETct
ETc jt = (k + aFaj + bFbj + . . . + nFnj ) × (4)
T
∑ ETct
t =1

where ETc jt is the crop water consumption in cell j at time t (mm/d); and T is the total days of
growth (d).

(e) Consideration of Water Deficit in Distributed Crop Water Consumption Model

Considering that the actual water stress often occurs for most crops during their growth, especially
in arid and semi-arid regions, Equation (4) is amended as follows:

ETct
ETa jt = ETc jt × Ksjt = (k + aFaj + bFbj + · · · + nFnj ) × × Ksjt (5)
T
∑ ETct
t =1
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2119 6 of 17

where ETa jt is the actual crop water consumption in cell j at time t (mm/d). Ks is the water stress
coefficient in each grid for crops and can be written as
(
1 NDV I > staNDV I
Ks = (6)
NDV I/staNDV I NDV I < staNDV I

where NDVI is normalized difference vegetation index and staNDVI is the threshold of NDVI. According to
the probability distribution of the NDVI value of all cells, the cumulative frequency of 90% NDVI is set as
the staNDVI. The NDVI was downloaded from the Heihe Planning Data Management Center [38]. The data
has a high temporal resolution (5 days) and spatial resolution (1 km). The verification results of the data in
farmland and forest areas in the middle reaches of the Heihe River indicate that there is a good agreement
with the measured data on the ground (RMSE = 0.105) [39].

2.2. The Crop Suitability

In this paper, the crop suitability is used to reflect the suitability of the crop to the environment.
n
CS = ∑ Sk · Wk (7)
k =1

In Equation (7), CS is the crop suitability index; Sk is the niche suitability of crop habitat condition
k, k ∈ [1, n], where n is the number of influencing factors; and Wk is the weight value of habitat
factors, determined by the PCA. The evaluation factors of crop suitability include soil factors (total
nitrogen, total phosphorus, total potassium, clay content, and pH value), meteorological factors
(rainfall, accumulated temperature, ETc ), and topographic factors (elevation, slope, aspect). The larger
the CS is, the better the suitability is.
According to the ecological niche suitability model [40], habitat condition is divided into three
categories: “the larger the better”, “appropriate interval”, and “the smaller the better”. Sk is expressed
as different equations when referring to different habitat conditions.
The first category is for the “the larger the better” type, such as organic matter, total nitrogen,
total phosphorus, and total potassium content. In this case, the larger the value of the environmental
factor, the better the suitability is, and Sk is expressed as Equation (8).


 0 Xk ≤ Dkmin
Sk = Xk/Dkopt Dkmin < Xk < Dkopt (8)
Xk ≥ Dkopt

 1

The second category is environmental factors of which crops require a certain range. Too much or
too little is not conducive to crop growth, such as for sand content and pH value. The Sk is calculated
by Equation (9). 

 0 Xk ≤ Dkmin or Xk ≥ Dkmax
Sk = Xk /Dkopt Dkmin < Xk < Dkopt (9)

 1 Dkopt < Xk < Dkmax
The third category is for the “the smaller the better” type, such as slope. Sk can be given by


 1 Xk ≤ Dkmin
Sk = 1 − ( Dkmax − Xk )/( Dkmax − Dkmin ) Dkmin < Xk < Dkopt (10)
( Dkmax − Xk )/( Dkmax − Dkopt ) Xk ≥ Dkmax



where Xk is the real niche of k in evaluation cells; Dkmin and Dk max are the minimum and maximum of
the real niche of factor k, respectively; and Dk opt is the ideal niche of factor k.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2119 7 of 17

2.3. The Optimization Model

Although a large number of studies have shown that too much or too little soil moisture can inhibit
crop growth and reduce crop yields [41,42], few crops are suppressed in arid and semi-arid areas due
to too much soil moisture because of the low rainfall during the growth season. Thus, the crop water
production function between crop water consumption and yield can also be considered as a linear
relationship. Based on statistical data, crop yields can be amended using the crop water consumption
and crop suitability models from Sections 2.1 and 2.2. In this paper, optimization criteria are set as
follows: (1) for the same crop in different locations, the greater the multiplied value of ET and CS is,
the better the suitability for crop growth is, and the greater the crop yield and economic efficiency
are; and (2) for the same cell, the crop with the highest net benefits has the top priority for planting.
In addition, taking the unilateral water benefits of the region as the final goal in the optimization
model can effectively avoid waste of water and reduced economic benefit. The optimization model
can thus be formulated as follows:
Objective function:
" ! #
I m ETaij × CSij .
max f = ∑∑ ETaij × CSij
× vij yij − cij ETaij × xij (11)
i =1 j =1

where xij is the decision variable; f is the net income ($/ha/mm); vij is the unit price of the crop (i) in
the cell (j) ($/kg); yij is the yield (kg/ha); CSij is the crop suitability evaluation value; cij is the cost of
crops, include planting costs and labor costs ($/ha); and ETaij × CSij is the mean of ETaij × CSij .
Constraints:
(1) Water availability constraint. The sum of water allocated to all cells must not exceed the total
agricultural available water. This constraint can be written as

I m
∑ ∑ mij xij × a × 10−3 ≤ λQ (12)
i =1 j =1

where mij is the amount of irrigation water (mm), which is obtained by deducting effective rainfall
from ETa for crop growth; λ is the irrigation water use efficiency; Q is the available agricultural water
(m3 ); and a is the area of the cell (m2 ).
(2) Planting area constraint. The planting area of each crop must exceed the minimum value
during the ten-year period from 2001 to 2010 to ensure local food security. Simultaneously, the sum of
all crop areas is controlled within the total area. The constraint can be expressed as
m
aimin ≤ ∑ xij × a (13)
j =1

I m
∑ ∑ xij × a ≤ b (14)
i =1 j =1

where amin is the lower limit of planting area (ha) and b is the total area in this study area (ha).
(3) Decision variables constraint. In this model, the decision variables are limited by the following
equation:
I
∑ xij = 1, and xij = 1or0. (15)
i =1

2.4. Study Area and Data

The study area is located in the middle reaches of Heihe River basin (38◦ 390–39◦ 590N,
98◦ 580–100◦ 510E),
China, including Ganzhou District, Linze County, and Gaotai County (Figure 2).
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2119 8 of 17

From the 30 year averages of weather variables, the study area presents a continental dry climate,
strong solar radiation and evaporation, and reduced rainfall [43]. The middle reaches are the main
agricultural production area of the Heihe River Basin, which involves 40% of the whole river basin’s
population, 60% of the total crop planting area, and 70% of the total water resource consumption from
the Heihe main stream [44]. Moreover, a large amount of agricultural irrigation water in the middle
reaches squeeze ecological water use in the lower reaches, giving rise to destruction of the ecological
environment. Therefore, it is significant to adjust crop area planning and promote water resource
allocation in the middle reaches of Heihe River basin.

Figure 2. The study area.

The study area is characterized by relatively higher altitude in the south and lower altitude in
the north, with elevations ranging from 1235 m to 3634 m. The annual mean precipitation is only
60~280 mm which is far less than the average annual evaporation of 2000~3500 mm. Besides this,
the rainfall is unevenly distributed during the year and 75% of the precipitation is concentrated in
June to September. According to the Harmonized World Soil Database, in the study area, the soil
texture also changes from clay loam soil in the southeast to sticky salt sand in the northwest. As affected
by the deposition of terrain water, the soil particles are coarse in the south and fine in the north.
The content of organic matter in the south can reach up to 8%, and the content of organic matter in
most areas in the north is less than 1%. The total nitrogen content varies from 0 to 0.4% throughout the
region and becomes lower from the south to the north. However, more than 90% of the area is less
than 0.1%, which is not very suitable for crop growth if not changed by human measures. The total
phosphorus content in the whole area is less than 0.08%, which is much less than the crop-suitable
value of 0.17% [43]. In contrast, the total potassium content of the area is high, varying from 1.5% to 2%.
In sum, the overall nutrient status of the study area features insufficiency in nitrogen and phosphorus
and surplus of potassium. According to the Land-Use and Land-Cover Change (LUCC) classification
results (shown in Figure 3), more than half of the land in the middle reaches of Heihe River is bare land.
Next to that are the cropland and grassland, accounting for 24% and 15% of the land area, respectively.
The woodland area occupies the smallest area, taking up only 1.5% of the total. The vegetation coverage
in the south is denser than that in the north.
The study area is divided into 1995 cells with a size of 900 m × 900 m. The year 2014 was chosen as
the research year because of information sufficiency. Table 2 shows the relevant inputs of the optimization
model for crops in 2014. These data include yield (y), cost price (c), market price (v), and minimum
planting area (amin) of crops; and irrigation water use efficiency (λ). The irrigation water use efficiency (λ)
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2119 9 of 17

selected in this paper represents the irrigation efficiency of the entire region, taking into account the canal
irrigation water efficiency and the field irrigation water efficiency. All these came from the statistical data
(e.g., Gansu agricultural products bazaars prices in 2014, Analysis on Grain Production of Summer and Autumn
in Zhangye and Statistical Yearbook in Zhangye in 2005~2014). The minimum planting area of the crop from
2005 to 2014 is treated as amin. Table 3 shows the agricultural available water and rainfall in dry, normal,
and wet years, with the guarantee rate being 80%, 50%, 20%, respectively. Different hydrological years
are divided according to the Pearson-III (PIII) frequency curve which was calculated from the 50 years of
meteorological data from 1961 to 2010. The available agricultural water came from The Heihe Water Dispatch
Workbook, and the effective rainfall during the crop growth period was calculated from the annual mean
value from 1961 to 2010. The growth period of maize is from 15 April to 5 September and that of wheat is
from 15 March to 25 July.

Figure 3. The land use of the middle reaches of Heihe River.

Table 2. Crop information of the optimization model.

Yield (y) Cost Price Market Price Minimum Planting Irrigation Water
Item
(kg/ha) (c) ($/ha) (v) ($/kg) Area (amin ) (104 ha) Use Efficiency (λ)
Wheat 6373.5 888.46 0.38 1.2
Maize 8196 888.46 0.33 1.0 0.53
Seed Corn 8196 1776.92 0.62 6.4

Table 3. The basic data of different hydrological years.

Item Dry Year Normal Year Wet Year

Agricultural available water (108 m3 ) 9.39 9.92 10.45
Effective rainfall in wheat growth period (mm) 40.0 64.3 80.1
Effective rainfall in maize growth period (mm) 82.6 102.8 125.5

3. Results and Discussions

3.1. Distributed Crop Water Consumption Model

The crop water consumption of maize (F(c)M ) and wheat (F(c)W ) calculated by Equation (2) can
be obtained as follows:

F (c) M = 410.54 + 0.078Z + 0.386ρb + 0.049Ta − 0.399Pe (16)

F (c)W = 326.884 + 0.117Z − 1.693ρb + 0.137Ta − 0.692Pe . (17)

Sustainability 2018, 10, 2119 10 of 17

Through linear regression analysis of field experiment data, we can get the water consumption
changes of maize ( f (t) M ) and wheat ( f (t)W ) with time t throughout the growth period:

f (t) M = −0.00034t2 + 0.083t + 0.4245 (18)

f (t)W = −0.00055t2 + 0.13308t + 0.3843 (19)

where t is the number of days from emergence.

Equation (5), which reflects the temporal and spatial variation of crop water consumption, can be
achieved as

ETaM = (410.54 + 0.078Z + 0.386ρb + 0.049T − 0.399Pe ) × KS × −0.00034t2 +0.083t+0.4245 (20)

T
∑ (−0.00034t2 +0.083t+0.4245)
t =1

ETaW = (326.884 + 0.117Z − 1.693ρb + 0.137T − 0.692Pe ) × KS × −0.00055t2 +0.13308t+0.3843 (21)

T
∑ (−0.00055t2 +0.13308t+0.3843)
t =1

where T is the whole growth period in days.

The simulated values of ETa during the whole growing season (the growth period days of wheat
and maize are 133 and 144, respectively) directly obtained by the distributed water consumption model
(Equation (20) and (21)) are shown in Figure 4, and are in agreement with the spatial interpolated
values. The determination coefficient (R2 ), mean absolute error (MAE), and root mean squared error
(RMSE) for wheat are 0.58, 72.87 mm, and 52.55 mm. Those values for maize are 0.59, 82.61 mm,
and 68.47 mm. The water consumption of wheat ranges from 297 mm to 733 mm and that of maize
ranges from 235 mm to 626 mm, which are consistent with the previous studies [45]. The lands in
central Ganzhou and Linze have higher water consumption, where there are more densely planted
than others whose crop water consumption is less, such as the west of Gaotai and the south of Ganzhou.
One reason for this is that the low cultivation area is far from the center of the Heihe River and the
amount of available water is less.

Figure 4. Distribution of water consumption simulation values for wheat (a) and maize (b).

3.2. Crop Suitability

The distribution of crop suitability can be obtained according to the niche model associated with
each influencing factor. The suitability values of wheat and maize calculated from Equation (7) are
shown in Figure 5. Similar to in other studies [46], the suitability values of wheat and maize are
0.495~0.907 and 0.496~0.915, respectively. Both the mean values are above 0.8. The area of land
that is highly suitable for crops (CS > 0.72) accounts for about 84.6% of the total in the study area,
which means that most of the cultivated land can meet the requirements for growth of wheat and maize.
The spatial distributions of the CS values of wheat and maize are basically consistent. Lower suitability
values mainly occur in the areas with higher altitude, lower organic matter and nitrogen contents,
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2119 11 of 17

limited rainfall, and higher accumulated temperature, such as southern Ganzhou and western Gaotai.
Ganzhou has the highest CS average, followed by Linze and Gaotai. It can be observed that lower
contents of organic matter, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus in soil lead to lower CS values. The CS
values and crop yields could thus effectively increase through improving the physical and chemical
properties of soil by fertilization.

Figure 5. The suitability distribution of wheat (a) and maize (b).

3.3. Optimization of Planting Pattern in Different Hydrological Years

Figure 6 shows the respective distributions of planting patterns and water consumption in
different hydrological years. The corresponding planting areas and economic benefits are shown in
Table 4. In each year, seed corn can be planted in a large area due to its high prices. The total water
consumption of seed corn is also the highest among all the crops. Because of the significant economic
benefits caused by seed production, the optimization model would allocate as much land and water
resources as possible to the seed corn in accordance with the water supply in different hydrological
years under the premise of satisfying food security and planting area constraints. Therefore, as the
volume of available agricultural water increases, the planting area of seed corn increases significantly
from 12.54 × 104 ha to 13.84 × 104 ha. In contrast, the total area of wheat and maize remain almost
constant, and only the spatial distribution of crops changes. Although the planting area of seed
corn and the water consumption respectively increase by 5.34% and 10.37% in normal and wet years,
the net income per hectare which reflects the final benefit after deducting planting costs increases
by only 4.90% and 9.71%, respectively. In addition, considering the increase of the planting areas,
the growth of the benefits per unit area is almost negligible. Further, with the increase of water
consumption in wet years, the unilateral water benefits—the economic benefits per unit volume of
water consumed—have been reduced by 0.85%. The main reason for the smaller increase in economic
efficiency per hectare is that the increased area of seed corn in the wet year is mainly located in the
high-water-consumption area. However, the production is not proportional to the water consumption
in this area. In normal years, the cells with lower water consumption are preferred for planting.
Therefore, the maximum unilateral water benefits appear in normal years. Such results suggest that
the increase in economic benefits brought by increased planting areas of seed corn in wet years is
limited. The water use efficiency can be readily improved by adjusting the suitable planting areas of
crops. In addition, the constraints on the maximal planting area of seed corn should also be integrated
with governmental policy and demands. After all, corn is not supposed to be grown indefinitely.
In summary, the planting pattern of local crops should be enriched. Other suitable crops or economic
crops should be planted in high-water-consumption areas during wet years. Then, more crops should
be planted in the areas where the crop water consumption is low.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2119 12 of 17

Table 4. The optimized results of planting patterns in different hydrological years.

Index Crops Dry Year Normal Year % Wet Year %

Wheat 1.20 1.20 - 1.20 -
Maize 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 -
Area (104 ha)
Seed Corn 12.54 13.21 5.34 13.84 10.37
Total 14.74 15.41 4.54 16.04 8.82
Wheat 373.43 368.22 −1.40 366.99 −1.73
Maize 691.03 691.03 0 691.03 0
Net Income (104 $)
Seed Corn 45,805.25 48,107.89 5.03 50,363.88 9.95
Total 46,869.70 49,167.14 4.90 51,421.90 9.71
Total water consumption (108 m3 ) 6.57 6.64 1.07 7.27 10.65
Net income per unit area ($/ha) 3179.76 3190.60 0.34 3205.85 0.82
Unilateral water benefits ($/m3 ) 0.71 0.74 3.66 0.71 −0.86

Figure 6. The optimized distributions of planting pattern (left) and water consumption (right) in
different hydrological years: (a) planting pattern in dry year; (b) crop water consumption in dry year;
(c) planting pattern in normal year; (d) crop water consumption in normal year; (e) planting pattern in
wet year; (f) crop water consumption in wet year.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2119 13 of 17

3.4. Comparative Advantages

The economic benefits under the two strategies are shown in Table 5. The first strategy is to
keep the planting area of each crop unchanged, while changing the spatial distribution (referred to as
Strategy I). The second one is to keep the total acreage, while adjusting the planting area of each crop
and its spatial distribution (Strategy II).

Table 5. The economic performance before and after optimization.

Index Crops Present Strategy I % Strategy II %

Wheat 1.29 1.29 - 1.20 −6.97
Maize 1.20 1.20 - 1.00 −16.67
Area (104 ha)
Seed Corn 6.40 6.40 - 6.69 4.53
Total 8.89 8.89 - 8.89 -
Wheat 1947.83 2100.85 7.86 1941.71 −0.31
Maize 2187.03 2269.75 3.78 1855.96 −15.14
Net Income (104 $)
Seed Corn 20,907.32 28,423.71 35.95 29,498.38 41.09
Total 25,042.18 32,794.31 30.96 33,296.05 32.96
Total water consumption (108 m3 ) 4.30 4.63 7.67 4.61 7.21
Net income per unit area ($/ha) 2816.89 3688.90 30.96 3745.34 32.96
Unilateral water benefits ($/m3 ) 0.58 0.71 21.37 0.72 23.75

After adjusting the distribution of current crops through Strategy I, an obvious improvement
could be observed compared with the present situation. The net incomes of the three crops increased
by 7.86%, 3.78%, and 35.95%, respectively. The total income increased by 30.96%. The net benefits per
unit area changed from 2816.89 $/ha to 3688.90 $/ha, which has the same growth rate as net income
due to the unchanged cropping area. It is not difficult to find that the seed corn plays an important
role in local crop production. In addition, though the total water consumption has slightly increased in
Strategy I, the increase in total net incomes is much greater than that in the total water consumption.
Thus, once the water consumption is considered, the increase in benefits is not as optimistic as the total
net income. Therefore, through Strategy I, the unilateral water benefits have raised from 0.58 $/m3 to
0.71 $/m3 , with an increase ratio of 21.37%.
The second strategy shows another optimization scenario which not only adjusts the crop space
layout but also the planting pattern in the case of fixed total area. As a result, the model allocates
more area to seed corn which can bring about more benefits in general. The area of seed corn is
increased by 41.09%. Correspondingly, the areas of wheat and maize are reduced by 0.31% and 15.14%,
respectively. The results show that the overall economic benefits increase to 332.96 million dollars,
the economic benefits per unit increase to 3745.34 $/ha, and the unilateral water benefits further
increase to 0.72 $/m3 . Without doubt, the second optimization strategy outperforms the first strategy.
Compared with Strategy II, Strategy I results in not only a slight reduction in water consumption,
but also an obvious increase in the overall economic benefits (especially the net incomes brought by
seed corn). More specifically, an increase in overall economic efficiency is achieved along with reduced
wheat and maize acreage. Nonetheless, this strategy may be more risky in certain circumstances.
Although the minimum requirements for food safety related to wheat and maize can be ensured,
there may be higher food security risks due to market volatility and policy changes. It is a clear fact
that seed production is more profitable than the mass production of other crops. However, in most
cases, it is unreasonable to improve agricultural water productivity merely by increasing the scale of
seed production due to land insufficiency. Given this consideration, the unilateral water benefit of
Strategy II has no practical significance. To sum up, the decision-makers may consider the following
suggestions when adjusting the local crop planting pattern as per the optimization results: (1) increase
the area of seed corn moderately according to related policies such as the corn reduction policy on the
“Sickle Blend” area published by the Ministry of Agriculture [47]; and (2) try to reduce the inputs of
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2119 14 of 17

food crops and increase economic crops on the premise of food security in high-water-consumption
areas. In addition, decision-makers can also get optimized crop water consumption distributions at
a given time through the model proposed in this paper.

4. Conclusions
A regional crop water consumption optimization model combining the distributed water
consumption model with the crop suitability index has been established in this study, including
the establishment of a distributed water consumption model as well as the optimization of agricultural
water consumption distribution and planting patterns under different scenarios. As screened by
PCA, the main water consumption factors in the distributed water consumption model are elevation,
accumulated temperature, effective precipitation, KS , and bulk density. The objective is to maximize
the net income acquired from unit water and area. The decision variable is the species of crops planted
in grids, and the constraints are the limits on cultivated area and available water. The developed
optimization model is capable of (1) reasonably estimating crop water consumption during the
growth period at any location with limited data; (2) adjusting the planting patterns according to
demands; and (3) realistically reflecting the suitability for crop cultivation, water consumption,
and socioeconomic policies.
The developed model was applied to a real study case in the middle reaches of Heihe River
basin. The results for crop water consumption and planting pattern in grid cells were obtained under
different hydrological years (dry year, normal year, and wet year with the guarantee rates being 80%,
50%, 20%, respectively) and two kinds of strategies. The first strategy is to keep the planting area of
each crop unchanged, while changing the spatial distribution. The second one is to keep the total
acreage, while adjusting the planting area of each crop and its spatial distribution. Economic analyses
showed that net income under these optimization strategies increased by 31% and 33%, respectively.
Although water consumption increased slightly in both optimization scenarios, the unit water income
and unit area income were much higher than before. Results show that the water use efficiency
can be readily improved by adjusting the suitable planting areas of crops. It is suggested that the
authorities take corresponding measures in the future to enrich the cultivation methods of local crops.
Other appropriate crops and cash crops should be planted in high-consumption areas, especially when
there is a large amount of available agricultural water in a wet year.
Incorporating the crop suitability index into the optimization model can also provide a new idea
to other researchers. Analyses of different crop distribution policies corresponding to various scenarios
could provide locals with more choices according to specific conditions. Specific planting patterns
and irrigation regimes also need the input of managers/authorities responsible for irrigation water
allocation. The study demonstrates the model’s effectiveness and applicability in the optimization
of crop planting patterns. However, there still exist some shortcomings in this study such as the
inaccurate distribution of meteorological data caused by spatial interpolation of fewer weather
stations. Increasing the credibility of the spatial weather data will be carried out in future work.
In addition, the distributed crop water consumption model based on an empirical formula also brings
some limitations to application. Future work will focus on the development of a distributed water
consumption model to match more areas, the consideration of more crop types, and uncertainty in the
optimization model.

Author Contributions: S.W. and C.P. analyzed and built the optimization model; L.H. and C.P. collected the
related data and solved the model; L.H. and S.W. analyzed the results and wrote the paper; Q.T. modified
this article.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Key Research and Development Plan (2016YFC0400207) and
the National Natural Science Foundation of China (91425302, 51439006).
Acknowledgments: We are very grateful to Cold and Arid Regions Science Data Center at Lanzhou for providing
the DEM and NDVI data.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2119 15 of 17

References
1. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2015-Water for Sustainable World (WWDR 2015).
Available online: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/water/wwap/wwdr/
2015-water-for-a-sustainable-world/ (accessed on 18 August 2017).
2. Zou, M.Z.; Niu, J.; Kang, S.Z.; Li, X.L.; Lu, H.N. The contribution of human agricultural activities to increasing
evapotranspiration is significantly greater than climate change effect over Heihe agricultural region. Sci. Rep.
2017, 7, 8805. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. The Ministry of Water Resources of the People’s Republic of China. Available online: http://www.mwr.gov.
cn/sj/tjgb/szygb/201707/t20170711_955305.html/ (accessed on 15 August 2017).
4. Wagener, T.; Sivapalan, M.; Troch, P.A.; McGlynn, B.L.; Harman, C.J.; Gupta, H.V.; Kumar, P.; Rao, P.S.; Basu, N.B.;
Wilson, J.S. The future of hydrology: An evolving science for a changing world. Water Resour. Res. 2010, 46,
1369–1377. [CrossRef]
5. Singh, A.; Panda, S.N. Development and application of an optimization model for the maximization of net
agricultural return. Agric. Water Manag. 2012, 115, 267–275. [CrossRef]
6. Singh, A. Irrigation planning and management through optimization modeling. Water Resour. Manag. 2014,
28, 1–14. [CrossRef]
7. An, P.L.; Ren, W.; Liu, X.L.; Song, M.M.; Li, X.M. Adjustment and Optimization of the Cropping Systems
under Water Constraint. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1207. [CrossRef]
8. Noory, H.; Liaghat, A.M.; Parsinejad, M.; Haddad, O.B. Optimizing irrigation water allocation and multicrop
planning using discrete PSO algorithm. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 2016, 138, 437–444. [CrossRef]
9. Otieno, F.A.O.; Adeyemo, J.A. Strategies of differential evolution for optimum cropping pattern.
Trends Appl. Sci. Res. 2010, 5, 1–15. [CrossRef]
10. Karamouz, M.; Zahraie, B.; Kerachian, R.; Eslami, A. Crop pattern and conjunctive use management: A case
study. Irrig. Drain. 2008, 59, 161–173. [CrossRef]
11. Zhang, L.J.; Yin, X.A.; Xu, Z.H.; Zhi, Y.; Yang, Z.F. Crop planting pattern optimization for water scarcity
alleviation in China. J. Ind. Ecol. 2016, 20, 435–445. [CrossRef]
12. Li, M.; Guo, P.; Singh, V.P. An efficient irrigation water allocation model under uncertainty. Agric. Syst. 2016,
144, 46–57. [CrossRef]
13. Singh, A. An overview of the optimization modelling applications. J. Hydrol. 2012, 466–467, 167–182.
[CrossRef]
14. Cui, L.; Li, Y.P.; Huang, G.H. Planning an Agricultural Water Resources Management System: A Two-Stage
Stochastic Fractional Programming Model. Sustainability 2015, 7, 9846–9863. [CrossRef]
15. Huang, Y.; Li, Y.P.; Chen, X.; Ma, Y.G. Optimization of the irrigation water resources for agricultural
sustainability in Tarim River Basin, China. Agric. Water Manag. 2012, 107, 74–85. [CrossRef]
16. Li, M.; Guo, P. A multi-objective optimal allocation model for irrigation water resources under multiple
uncertainties. Appl. Math. Model. 2014, 38, 4897–4911. [CrossRef]
17. Li, M.; Guo, P. A coupled random fuzzy two-stage programming model for crop area optimization—A case
study of the middle Heihe River basin, China. Agric. Water Manag. 2015, 155, 53–66. [CrossRef]
18. Garg, N.K.; Dadhich, S.M. Integrated non-linear model for optimal cropping pattern and irrigation
scheduling under deficit irrigation. Agric. Water Manag. 2014, 140, 1–13. [CrossRef]
19. Zhao, C.S.; Xia, J.; Li, Z.L.; Liu, Y.; Tang, B.H.; Tang, R.L.; Yan, Z.Q.; Ouyang, X.Y. Using high-temporal
geostationary satellite data to analysis temporal and spatial pattern of regional water consumption—A case
study of the agricultural district upstream the Bengbu Sluice in the Huaihe River Basin in spring drought
season. J. Nat. Resour. 2008, 6, 1055–1067. [CrossRef]
20. Cai, J.L.; Varis, O.; Yin, H. China’s water resources vulnerability: A spatio-temporal analysis during
2003–2013. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 2901–2910. [CrossRef]
21. He, R.Y.; Jin, Y.F.; Kandelous, M.M.; Zaccaria, D.; Sanden, B.L.; Snyder, R.L.; Jiang, J.B.; Hopmans, J.W.
Evapotranspiration estimate over an almond orchard using Landsat satellite observations. Remote Sens. 2017,
9, 436. [CrossRef]
22. Multsch, S.; Grabowski, D.; Lüdering, J.; Alquwaizany, A.S.; Lehnert, K.; Frede, H.-G.; Winker, P.; Breuer, L.
A practical planning software program for desalination in agriculture–SPARE: WATERopt . Desalination 2017,
404, 121–131. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2119 16 of 17

23. Sethi, L.N.; Panda, S.N.; Nayak, M.K. Optimal crop planning and water resources allocation in a coastal
groundwater basin, Orissa, India. Agric. Water Manag. 2006, 83, 209–220. [CrossRef]
24. Brown, P.D.; Cochrane, T.A.; Krom, T.D. Optimal on-farm irrigation scheduling with a seasonal water limit
using simulated annealing. Agric. Water Manag. 2010, 97, 892–900. [CrossRef]
25. Zhang, Y.J.; Wang, Y.F.; Niu, H.S. Spatio-temporal variations in the areas suitable for the cultivation of rice
and maize in China under future climate scenarios. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 601–602, 518–531. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
26. Pietrucha-Urbanik, K. Multidimensional comparative analysis of water infrastructures differentiation.
In Proceedings of the Conference on Environmental Engineering IV, Lublin, Poland, 03–05 September 2012;
pp. 29–34. [CrossRef]
27. Pietrucha-Urbanik, K. Assessing the Costs of Losses Incurred as a Result of Failure. In Proceedings of the 11th
International Conference on Dependability and Complex Systems (DepCoS-RELCOMEX), Brunow, Poland,
27 June–01 July 2016; pp. 355–362. [CrossRef]
28. Tchorzewska-Cieslak, B.; Rak, J. Method of identification of operational states of water supply system.
In Proceedings of the 3rd Congress of Environmental Engineering, Lublin, Poland, 13–16 September 2019;
pp. 521–526. [CrossRef]
29. Pietrucha-Urbanik, K.; Tchorzewska-Cieslak, B. Water Supply System operation regarding consumer safety
using Kohonen neural network. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference on European Safety and
Reliability (ESREL), Amsterdam, Netherlands, 29 September–2 October 2013; pp. 1115–1120.
30. Abah, R.C.; Petja, B.M. Crop suitability mapping for rice, Cassava, and Yam in North Central Nigeria.
J. Agric. Sci. 2017, 9, 96–108. [CrossRef]
31. Piikki, K.; Winowiecki, L.; Vågen, T.G.; Ramirez-Villegas, J.; Söderström, M. Improvement of spatial
modelling of crop suitability using a new digital soil map of Tanzania. S. Afr. J. Plant Soil 2017, 34, 243–254.
[CrossRef]
32. Bittelli, M. Measuring Soil Water Potential for Water Management in Agriculture: A Review. Sustainability
2010, 2, 1226–1251. [CrossRef]
33. Li, J.; Zhu, T.; Mao, X.M.; Adeloye, A.J. Modeling crop water consumption and water productivity in the
middle reaches of Heihe River Basin. Comput. Electron. Agr. 2016, 123, 242–255. [CrossRef]
34. Allen, R.G.; Pereira, L.S.; Raes, D.; Smith, M. Crop Evaporation: Guidelines for Computing Crop Water
Requirements; Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 56; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations:
Rome, Italy, 1998.
35. Lei, N.; Xie, Z.K.; Ma, Z.M. The research on water requirement of spring wheat and corn in Heihe Areas.
In The Study on Crop Water Requirement and Water Saving Irrigation in Arid Areas; Li, S.Q., Lan, N.J., Eds.;
Gansu Science and Technology Press: Lanzhou, China, 1992; pp. 25–34, (In Chinese). ISBN 7-5424-0428-8.
36. Chen, T.; Ren, L.L.; Yuan, F.; Yang, X.L.; Jiang, S.H.; Tang, T.T.; Liu, Y.; Zhao, C.X.; Zhang, L.M. Comparison
of Spatial Interpolation Schemes for Rainfall Data and Application in Hydrological Modeling. Water 2017, 9,
342. [CrossRef]
37. Fang, S.B.; Jia, R.F.; Tu, W.R.; Sun, Z.L. Assessing factors driving the change of irrigation water-use efficiency
in China based on geographical features. Water 2017, 9, 759. [CrossRef]
38. Zhong, B.; Yang, A.X.; Wu, S.L.; Li, J.; Zeng, Y.L.; Liu, Q.H.; Zhao, J.; Xu, B.D. HiWATER: 1km/5day
compositing Vegetation Index (NDVI/EVI) product of Heihe River Basin. Cold and Arid Regions Science
Data Center at Lanzhou. 2014. [CrossRef]
39. Li, X.; Liu, S.M.; Xiao, Q.; Ma, M.G.; Jin, R.; Che, T.; Wang, W.Z.; Hu, X.L.; Xu, Z.W.; Wen, J.G.; et al.
A multiscale dataset for understanding complex eco-hydrological processes in a heterogeneous oasis system.
Sci. Data 2017, 4, 170083. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40. Ouyang, Z.Y.; Weisman, J.; Wang, R.S. Ecological niche suitability model with an application in Taojiang
land use planning. J. Environ. Sci. 1994, 6, 449–456.
41. Singh, R.B.; Chauhan, C.P.S.; Minhas, P.S. Water production functions of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)
irrigated with saline and alkali waters using double-line source sprinkler system. Agric. Water Manag. 2009,
96, 736–744. [CrossRef]
42. Liu, W.Z.; Hunsaker, D.J.; Li, Y.S.; Xie, X.Q.; Wall, G.W. Interrelations of yield, evapotranspiration, and water
use efficiency from marginal analysis of water production functions. Agric. Water Manag. 2002, 56, 143–151.
[CrossRef]
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2119 17 of 17

43. Jiang, P.H.; Zhao, R.F.; Zhao, H.L.; Fan, J.P.; Wang, J.Z.; Liu, C. Spatial-Temporal Evolution of Land Use/Cover
Change in Middle Section of Heihe Basin since 1975. J. Ecol. Rural Environ. 2012, 28, 473–479, (In Chinese
with English Abstract). [CrossRef]
44. Li, Q.S.; Zhao, W.Z. Effect of Water Allocation of the Heihe River on Plan Structure and Stable Development
of the Ecosystem in the Linze Oasis, Gansu—A Case Study in the Pingchuan Irrigation District in Linze
County at the middle reaches of the Heihe River. J. Glaciol. Geocryol. 2004, 3, 333–343, (In Chinese with
English Abstract). [CrossRef]
45. Tan, M.H.; Zheng, L.Q. Different irrigation water requirements of seed corn and filed corn in the Heihe River
Basin. Water 2017, 9, 66. [CrossRef]
46. Tu, J.J.; Hua, J. An evaluation on farmland eco-economical suitability in mountain area based on niche
fitness model and GIS technology. Chinese High Technology Letters. 2013, 4, 436–441, (In Chinese with
English Abstract). [CrossRef]
47. Mao, L.X.; Zhao, J.F.; Xu, L.L.; Yan, H.; Li, S.; Li, Y.F. Climatic suitability of spring maize planted in the “sickle
bend” area of China and regulation suggestion. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2016, 27, 3935–3943. [CrossRef]

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).