Agricultural Water Management 96 (2009) 875–882

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agricultural Water Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat

Estimation of irrigation return flow from paddy fields considering

the soil moisture
H.K. Kim a, T.I. Jang a,*, S.J. Im b, S.W. Park a
a
Department of Rural Systems Engineering, Research Institute for Agricultural & Life Sciences, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
b
Department of Forest Sciences, Research Institute for Agricultural & Life Sciences, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: The objective of this study was to estimate irrigation return flow in irrigated paddy fields considering the
Received 9 May 2008 soil moisture. The proposed model was applied to examine its feasibility with regard to the growing
Received in revised form 19 November 2008 period of rice. Simulation results showed a good agreement between the observed and simulated values:
Accepted 22 November 2008
root mean square error (RMSE) of 6.05–7.27 mm day1, coefficient of determination (R2) of 0.72–0.73,
Available online 6 January 2009
and coefficient of efficiency (E) of 0.54–0.55. The estimated average annual irrigation return flow during
the period from 1998 to 2001 was 306.2 mm, which was approximately 25.7% of the annual irrigation
Keywords:
amounts. Of this annual irrigation return flow, 14.1% was attributable to quick and 11.6% to delayed
Evapotranspiration
return flow. These results indicate that considerable amounts of irrigation water in the paddy fields were
Modeling
Saturated and unsaturated flow returned to streams and canals by surface runoff and groundwater discharge. The modeling assessment
Water balance method proposed in this study can be used to manage agriculture water and estimate irrigation return
flow under different hydrological and water management conditions.
ß 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Extensive areas in Asia and other parts of the world are under
rice cultivation (Odhiambo and Murty, 1996). Recently, increasing
attention has been focused on irrigation water management of
paddy fields because of their importance for food production and
huge demand (Li and Cui, 1996). In the Republic of Korea, paddy
fields cover an area of 11,500 km2, which comprises 61% of the
nation’s total cultivated area.
Irrigation water is diverted or withdrawn from irrigation
reservoirs, pumping stations, and tube wells. Some portion of
applied water is not consumed in paddy fields and flows to streams
or drainage canals. This is known as irrigation return flow, and it is
an important aspect of irrigation. This return flow is also important
factor for water resource planning and irrigation system design.
Since 1950, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has compiled data
at 5-year intervals on the amount of water used in homes,
businesses, industrial estates, and farms throughout the United
States, and it has described how water use has changed with time
(Solley et al., 1998). Oad et al. (1997) conducted research to
estimate the consumptive use of grass and return flow in urban
lawn water use. Besides direct surveying or monitoring, irrigation
water return flow can be quantitatively estimated using simulation
models. Boldt et al. (1999) developed a crop growth model and a
furrow irrigation model to estimate applied water, net depletion,
return flow, and grain yield. Ito et al. (1980) presented a method for
numerical estimation of irrigation return flow from paddy fields
using a multiple regression model, and Liu et al. (2004) estimated
subsurface return flow and groundwater recharge of terrace fields
in northern Taiwan using a three-dimensional model. In addition,
the Complex Tank Model was applied to quantify the amount of
return flow from paddy fields at the basin scale (Nakagiri et al.,
2000).
The soil in paddy fields characterized by ponded water is under
saturation conditions during the growing period, but is sometimes
unsaturated under intermittent submerged conditions. Thus, slight
water stress is unavoidable. These variations in soil moisture affect
patterns of evapotranspiration, percolation, and runoff in paddy
fields (Li and Cui, 1996; Reshmidevi et al., 2008).
Water movement and soil moisture within the hydrological
system of paddy fields can be predicted by mathematical tools
such as hydrological models. The objectives of this study were to
design a model to consider the soil moisture and estimate
irrigation return flow in irrigated paddy fields.
2. Modeling approach

Hydrologic characteristics of a paddy field are shown in Fig. 1.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 28804591; fax: +82 28738725. Runoff occurs when ponded water depth exceeds the height of the
E-mail address: uriduri7@snu.ac.kr (T.I. Jang). drainage outlet. The inflow to the field consists of precipitation and

0378-3774/$ – see front matter ß 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2008.11.009
876 H.K. Kim et al. / Agricultural Water Management 96 (2009) 875–882

Fig. 1. Water balance of paddy fields.

applied irrigation water, and water can leave the field through In case of the saturated multilayer soil zones, Darcy’s law can be
evapotranspiration, surface runoff, seepage, and vertical percola- used for modeling of vertical flow. If the head of vertical inflow for
tion. time interval dt is equal to dh, the rate of flow of the water through
The water balance equation for a paddy field can be expressed soil is given by
as
dh h
q ¼ A ¼k A (6)
WDt ¼ WDt1 þ RAINt þ WIRRt  ETAt  VTFLOt  HZFLOt dt L
 SURFLOt (1) where q is flow rate (mm3 day1), h is the head (mm), L is the depth
of the soil layer (mm), k is the hydraulic conductivity (mm day1),
where WD is ponded water depth of a field (mm), RAIN is and A is the cross-sectional area of soil column (mm2).
precipitation amount (mm), WIRR is irrigation water (mm), ETA is Integration of Eq. (6) with limits of the head difference from
actual evapotranspiration (mm), VTFLO is vertical percolation WDi to WDf and time (day) from t1 to t2 gives
(mm), HZFLO is seepage through bunds in paddy fields (mm), and
SURFLO is surface runoff over the spillway (mm), and subscript t  
loge WDi þ kVðeqÞ ðt 2  t 1 Þ
represents time (days). WDf ¼ exp (7)
Hsat

2.1. Evapotranspiration
Actual evapotranspiration for paddy fields can be calculated
using the following relationship,
ETAt ¼ KCt  KSSt  ETPt (2)
where KC is a crop coefficient that varies with the crop growth
stage, KSS is the soil stress coefficient, and ETP is the daily reference
evapotranspiration (mm day1).
Reference evapotranspiration is computed by the FAO Penman–
Monteith equation (Allen et al., 1998). The effect of soil moisture in
the root zone is considered by the soil stress coefficient (KSS)
estimated using the relationship between actual and saturated
water content (Li and Cui, 1996):
where WDi and WDf are the ponded water depth (mm) at the
beginning and end of the time interval, respectively, Hsat is the
depth of the saturated soil zone (mm), and kV(eq) is the equivalent
hydraulic conductivity (mm day1) for vertical flow perpendicular
to the saturated layer. According to Das (1998), kV(eq) can be
computed by using the flowing equation.
Hsat
kV ðeqÞ ¼ (8)
ððd1 =k1 Þ þ ðd2 =k2 Þ þ ðd3 =k3 Þ þ    þ ðd j =k j ÞÞ
where k1, k2, . . ., kj and d1, d2, . . ., dj are the hydraulic conductivities
(mm day1) and depth (mm) of the individual saturated layers in
the vertical direction, respectively.

KSSt ¼ 1:0 if WACOt ¼ SWCOt (3)

ln½1 þ 100ðWACOt =SWCOt Þ
KSSt ¼ if hSWCOt
ln 101
 WACO t < SWCOt  (4)
WACOt  hSWCOt
KSSt ¼ e exp if WACOt < hSWCOt (5)
hSWCOt
where WACOt and SWCOt are the actual and saturated soil
moisture content (m3 m3), respectively, and h and e are empirical
coefficients for rice set equal to 0.80 and 0.95, respectively (Li and
Cui, 1996).

2.2. Vertical percolation

The vertical movement of water in paddy fields has two

patterns, saturated percolation during the flooding period and
unsaturated percolation during the non-irrigation period (Fig. 2). It
depends on soil texture and the depth of ponded water in the fields. Fig. 2. Vertical flow for saturated and unsaturated soil condition in stratified soil.
 H.K. Kim et al. / Agricultural Water Management 96 (2009) 875–882
Vertical percolation in a saturated soil layer can thus be
calculated as
ðWDi  WDf Þ
VTsat ¼ (9)
t2  t1
where VTsat is the vertical percolation in the saturated soil layer
(mm day1).
A discrete formulation of the Richards equation is applied to
simulate the vertical percolation of water within the unsaturated
multilayer soil zones (Schulla and Jasper, 2000). Between two soil
layers with indices u (upper) and l (lower), the specific water flux is
given by
hh ðQu Þ  hh ðQl Þ 1
VTunsat ðiÞ ¼ keff with
0:5ðdu þ dl Þ keff
du 1 dl 1
¼  þ 
dl þ du kðQu Þ dl þ du kðQl Þ
where VTunsat is the flux between two discrete layers (mm day1),
keff is the effective hydraulic conductivity (mm day1), Q is the
volumetric water content (m3 m3), hh is the hydraulic head (m), d
is the thickness of the layers under consideration (m), and i
represents the discrete layer.
The relationship proposed by van Genuchten (1980) is also used
to calculate the hydraulic properties of the soil. This approach
estimates the soil water retention curve Q(c) for different soil
textures by means of five independent parameters: residual water
content Qr, saturated water content Qs, and shape factors a, n, and
m.
2.3. Seepage
Seepage in paddy fields involves horizontal movement of water
in the soil and is calculated using the following equation:
DH p
HZFLOt ¼
g the surface runoff and seepage by irrigation and rainfall, it is
where HZFLOt is seepage through bunds in paddy fields
(mm day1), DHp is the pressure head difference between the
field and water level in a drainage canal (mm), and g is the
hydraulic resistance (days). The hydraulic resistance can be
calculated from the equation of Ernst (ILRI, 1983).
2.4. Surface runoff
Although surface runoff from paddy fields is a distributed
process because the flow rate, velocity, and ponded water depth
vary in space and time throughout the fields, Odhiambo and Murty
(1996) proposed a lumped model to estimate surface runoff under
the following assumptions: the velocity of water in the field is
negligible, water at no time overtops the paddy bunds, and the side
walls of a paddy field are vertical and the field area is independent
of water depth. Therefore overflow occurs only through drainage
outlet when the depth of ponded water exceeds the drainage outlet
height. The lumped model is based on field water balance defined
by an ordinary differential equation expressed as
dH ½WINðtÞ  Q ðHt Þ
¼ (12)
dt A
where WIN(t) is the inflow into the paddy as a function of time,
Q(Ht) is the outflow through the drainage outlet as a function of Ht,
Ht is the water head above the drainage outlet, and A is the paddy
field area.
WIN(t) is the sum of rainfall and irrigation water if evapo-
transpiration, seepage, and percolation are negligibly small during
the time interval, and Q(H) (m3 s1) is determined by a broad
877
crested weir formula expressed as
Q ðHÞ ¼ m  LEN  H1:5 (13)
where m is the coefficient of discharge and LEN is the drainage
outlet length perpendicular to the direction of flow (m). The
coefficient of discharge is calculated by the equation for broad
crested weirs (Wang and Hagan, 1981; Odhiambo and Murty,
1996).
Eq. (12) was solved using a numerical method derived from the
fourth-order Runge–Kutta technique (Press et al., 1992). The
surface runoff (mm) SURFLOt was computed by the ponded water
depth difference after calculating Eq. (12). For the daily water
balance estimation, SURFLOt was calculated at the end of each day.
2.5. Groundwater discharge
(10)
Groundwater discharge can be computed by a non-linear
recession equation
GWFt ¼ Pa ðGWTt ÞPb (14)
GWTt ¼ GWTt1 þ DPt  GWFt1 (15)
1
where GWFt is the groundwater discharge (mm day ), GWTt is the
groundwater storage (mm day1), and DPt is vertical percolation
from the lowest soil layer (mm day1). The empirical parameters
Pa and Pb are influenced by topographical factors. The Pa and Pb
parameter values in the groundwater discharge function were
adopted from a previous study by Im (2000).
2.6. Irrigation return flow
In this study, irrigation return flow is divided into two parts,
including quick return flow and delay return flow. Quick return
flow is defined as the sum of the surface runoff and seepage from
paddy fields by irrigated water and not by rainfall. To distinguish
(11)
assumed that water of paddy fields is always provided through
rainfall before irrigation. Irrigation is necessary when rainfall does
not meet crop water requirements. In the case that the depth of
ponded water increased by rainfall does not exceed the height of
the drainage outlet, rainfall does not have an influence on surface
runoff because surface runoff from paddy fields occurs only when
the depth of ponded water exceeds the drainage outlet height.
Therefore if the depth of ponded water increased by the irrigation
water provided after rainfall exceeds the height of the drainage
outlet, surface runoff occurs from paddy fields only by irrigation
water. Hence, the return flow by seepage can be calculated as a
fraction of the irrigation water contributing to maximum ponding.
In contrast, when the depth of ponded water increased by rainfall
exceeds the height of the drainage outlet, surface runoff occurs
from paddy fields by rainfall. In this case, irrigation water is not
consumed in paddy fields and seepage occurs from the paddy field
only by rainfall. Quick return flow is thus equal to the supplied
irrigation. Quick return flow (mm day1), QRFt can be calculated
from the following equation:
WIRRt
QRFt ¼ SURFLOt þ  HZFLOt if 0
WIRRt þ RAINt
 PWDRt < GateHgtt (16)
QRFt ¼ WIRRt if PWDRt  GateHgtt (17)
where PWDRt is the depth of ponded water increased by rainfall
(mm), GateHgtt is the height of the drainage outlet (mm).
Delayed return flow refers to discharge from groundwater
recharged by percolation of irrigation water. In this study, delayed
878 H.K. Kim et al. / Agricultural Water Management 96 (2009) 875–882

Fig. 3. Location of Gicheon watershed and outline of the experimental field.

return flow is computed by the difference in groundwater
discharge from paddy fields under irrigation and non-irrigation,
and is given by
DRFt ¼ GWFIRt  GWFNOt (18)
where DRFt is delayed return flow (mm day1), GWFIRt is
groundwater discharge from the paddy fields where irrigation
water is supplied (mm day1), and GWFNOt is groundwater
discharge from the same paddy fields under conditions without
irrigation (mm day1).
Return flow ratio is defined as the ratio of return flow to the
supplied irrigation amount. Quick, delayed, and total return flow
ratios were computed in this study.
3. Study watershed and experimental paddy fields
3.1. Study watershed
The study was conducted on the 313.2 ha Gicheon watershed
located next to a suburb of Suwon, Republic of Korea (Fig. 3). The
watershed has 61.5 ha paddy fields that use irrigation water from
the Gicheon irrigation reservoir. An irrigation monitoring system
in the Gicheon watershed was established in 1998.
Meteorological data such as daily temperature, wind speed,
solar radiation, relative humidity, and sunshine duration were
obtained from the Suwon National Weather Station located
approximately 8 km northeast of the experimental site. Rainfall
data were collected from a tipping bucket type rain gauge. Soil data
including depth and type of each layer were derived from a soil
map provided by the Agricultural Soil Information System in Korea
(Rural Development Administration, 2007).
Paddy fields in Korea are blocked by bunds to maintain ponded
conditions. Usually, the height of the outlet for drainage is lower
than that of the bund. Surface drainage from paddy fields varies
with the height of the drainage outlet and ponded water depth. The
height and length of the drainage outlet, which are arbitrarily
controlled by a farmer, were measured at 76 paddy fields in the
watershed from 1996 to 2000 on a weekly basis.
feasibility of the model. The experimental field (2.7 ha) located
in the Gicheon watershed consisted of nine paddy fields
cultivated using typical practices (Fig. 3). Irrigation water was
measured during the growing season with a self-recording water
level gauge. A water level gauge was installed to measure
surface drainage at the most downstream point in the
drainage canal. The field experiment was conducted in 1999
and 2001.
3.3. Model parameter estimation
The required model parameters were directly and indirectly
measured at the study site. The soil types of each layer were
classified according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) textural classification, in which groups are defined by
particle size distribution. The parameters for each soil type used
in the van Genuchten equation were adopted from Carsel and
Parrish (1988). Table 1 lists the depth, particle size distribution,
and soil type of each soil layer. The soil type of the Gicheon
watershed was loam. The saturated hydraulic conductivity,
saturated moisture content, residual moisture content, a and n
for loam are 1.04 cm h1, 0.43, 0.078, 0.036 cm1 and 1.56,
respectively.
The seasonal variation in drainage outlet height measured in
the 76 paddy fields is shown in Fig. 4. The 10-day average
drainage outlet height varied from 34.6 to 80.9 mm during the
growing season. The average drainage outlet length was 200 mm.
The results were used to simulate the water balance in paddy
fields.
4. Feasibility of the model
As quantitative criteria for evaluating the model performance,
the coefficient of determination (R2), the root mean square error
Table 1
Soil characteristics of the Gicheon watershed.
Depth (cm) Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%) Soil type

0–12 31.7 45.3 23.0 Loam

3.2. Experimental paddy fields 12–30 33.9 41.5 24.6 Loam
30–65 34.9 44.8 20.3 Loam
65–100 33.4 41.9 24.7 Loam
Hydrology was intensively monitored on the experimental
100–170 31.2 47.5 21.3 Loam
paddy fields to obtain data needed for evaluating the
 H.K. Kim et al. / Agricultural Water Management 96 (2009) 875–882 879

Fig. 4. Seasonal variation of drainage outlet height.

Table 2
Statistical summary of simulation results for daily runoff in the experimental field.

Period of record Rainfall (mm) Irrigation (mm) Runoff (mm) RMSE (mm day1) R2 E

Observed Simulated

7/1/99–9/10/99 710.2 776.5 731.3 709.7 7.27 0.73 0.54

6/1/01–9/10/01 836.7 1244.3 1237.6 992.1 6.05 0.72 0.55

Fig. 5. Observed and simulated runoff from the experimental field (1999).
880 H.K. Kim et al. / Agricultural Water Management 96 (2009) 875–882

Fig. 6. Observed and simulated runoff from the experimental field (2001).

(RMSE), and the coefficient of efficiency (E) were used to examine The RMSE is an absolute error measure quantifying the error in
the feasibility of the model. The value of R2 ranged from 0.0 to 1.0, terms of the units of the variable, and is given by
with higher values indicating better agreement. The value of R2 " #0:5
was calculated as 1X N
RMSE ¼ ðO  P i Þ2 (20)
N i¼1 i
8 92
>
< PN >
=
ðO i  OÞðP i  PÞ Nash and Sutcliffe (1970) defined the coefficient of efficiency as
R2 ¼ h i¼1
i h i (19)
: PN ðO  OÞ2
> 0:5 P 2 0:5 >
N ;
i¼1 i i¼1 ðP i  PÞ PN
ðO  Pi Þ2
E ¼ 1:0  Pi¼1 i 2
(21)
N
where Oi and Pi are the observed and simulated values for the i-th i¼1 ðOi  OÞ

pair; the over-bar denotes the mean for the entire time period of This ranges from minus infinity to 1.0, with higher values
the evaluation. indicating better agreement. If the value of E is greater than zero,

Table 3
Observed and simulated runoff from the experimental field in 1999 and 2001.

Period Rainfall (mm) Irrigation (mm) Runoff (mm) Relative error (%)

Observed Simulated

1999
1–10 July 77.6 237.2 122.8 130.3 6.1
10–20 July 4.6 132.5 84.8 39.4 53.6
20–31 July 189.8 26.6 117.1 116.3 0.7
1–10 August 326.6 77.3 195.5 224.4 14.8
10–20 August 3.6 263.9 102.0 132.7 30.1
20–31 August 30.2 0.0 42.6 34.1 19.9
1–10 September 77.8 0.0 66.5 32.5 51.1

Subtotal 632.4 776.5 731.3 709.7 3.0

2001
1–10 June 0.0 288.6 182.6 96.7 47.0
10–20 June 56.8 167.3 137.9 100.9 26.8
20–30 June 165.5 0.0 80.2 80.8 0.7
1–10 July 8.5 83.3 55.4 60.9 10.0
10–20 July 47.2 49.0 74.5 29.9 59.9
20–31 July 414.0 0.0 240.6 238.8 0.8
1–10 August 42.7 104.3 95.4 69.3 27.3
10–20 August 102.0 142.2 124.7 128.1 2.7
20–31 August 0.0 242.0 148.1 113.0 23.7
1–10 September 0.0 167.6 98.2 737.7 24.9

Subtotal 836.7 1244.3 1237.6 992.1 19.8

 H.K. Kim et al. / Agricultural Water Management 96 (2009) 875–882 881

the model is considered to be a better predictor of the system Table 4

Results of quick return flow estimation for all paddy fields within the Gicheon
behavior than the mean of the observed data.
watershed during the growing season from 1998 to 2001.

Period Rainfall Irrigation Quick return Quick return

5. Results and discussion (mm) (mm) flow (mm) flow ratio (%)

1998
5.1. Evaluation of the model feasibility April 105.9 48.2 0.4 0.8
May 86.4 242.7 40.2 16.6
June 213.7 56.5 0.0 0.0
The feasibility of the proposed model was examined July 306.0 214.6 0.9 0.4
using observed data from the experimental paddy fields. August 591.6 145.8 22.5 15.4
Hydrological components such as surface runoff, seepage, and September 141.2 230.7 70.1 30.4
groundwater discharge from paddy fields were simulated. 1999
Table 2 shows the statistical summary of application results April 73.6 56.5 1.6 2.8
for runoff at the experimental site. The values of RMSE, R2, and E May 121.3 220.4 15.6 7.1
were 7.27 mm day1, 0.73, and 0.54 in 1999 and 6.05 mm day1, June 76.7 225.7 0.1 0.0
July 272.0 167.7 0.0 0.0
0.72, and 0.55 in 2001, respectively. Figs. 5 and 6 show the
August 360.4 415.7 179.6 43.2
simulated and observed runoff in 1999 and 2001, respectively. September 403.8 0.0 0.0 –
Ramanarayanan et al. (1997) suggested that model predic-
2000
tions with R2 and E values greater than 0.6 and 0.5, respectively,
April 20.4 30.0 0.0 0.0
are acceptable or satisfactory. Accordingly, the simulation May 43.7 294.8 57.0 19.3
results in this study showed good agreement with the observed June 118.2 339.7 0.2 0.1
data. July 375.8 271.7 21.8 8.0
August 448.8 387.4 54.2 14.0
The relative error (RE) variation in runoff during the simulation
September 182.2 0.0 0.0 –
period of 10 days is summarized in Table 3. The RE values varied
from 0.7% to 53.6% in 1999 and from 0.7% to 59.9% in 2001. The 2001
April 12.9 55.5 0.6 1.1
lowest RE value was 0.7% for the last period of July in 1999 and June
May 13.8 419.5 90.2 21.5
in 2001, whereas the highest RE value was 59.9% for mid-July in June 222.3 80.0 0.0 0.0
2001. The RE values for total runoff during the growing period were July 469.7 46.4 0.1 0.2
3.0% and 19.8% in 1999 and 2001, respectively. August 144.7 574.1 117.3 20.4
September 12.1 245.6 0.8 0.3

5.2. Estimation of irrigation return flow

The irrigation return flow for all paddy fields (61.5 ha) within
the Gicheon watershed was estimated on the basis of rainfall and
irrigation amount data, which were measured for the watershed
from 1998 to 2001. Table 4 shows the results of the estimated
quick return flow in the Gicheon watershed during the growing
season since 1998. The water for irrigation was intensively
supplied from May through August when irrigation water
requirements of paddy fields were high. The quick return flow
was highest during September in 1998, and May in 2000, and
August in 1999 and 2001 when an amount of irrigation was
supplied. The quick return flow ratio ranged from 0.0% to 43.2%,
and was several times higher in May and August than in the other
months. Quick return flow ratio, however, was not necessarily
highest when the most irrigation was supplied. The quick
irrigation return flow ratio in August 2001 was the lowest,
despite the largest irrigation amount during the simulated period.
Overall, the quick return flow ratio appears to have been
influenced by a combination of factors related to rainfall,
irrigation, and season variability.
Annual quick and delayed return flows estimated in the
Gicheon watershed from 1998 to 2001 are summarized in Table 5.
Irrigation water and rainfall during the period from 1998 to 2001
ranged from 938.5 to 1421.1 mm and 1067.2 to 1626.9 mm,
respectively. Rainfall was greatest in 1998, while irrigation water
was lowest. Quick, delayed, and total return flow at the Gicheon
watershed varied from 133.2 to 209.0 mm, 109.8 to 154.9 mm,
and 276.4 to 352.7 mm, respectively. The average irrigation return
flow was 306.2 mm, which was 25.7% of the annual irrigation
amount. The total return flow ratio ranged from 20.9% to 30.8%.
The return flow ratio estimated in this study was lower than the
reported value (49.3%) of Ito et al. (1980), but higher than the
estimated 20% of Solley et al. (1998). Fig. 7 shows the water
balance in the Gicheon watershed. The annual runoff from paddy
fields in Gicheon watershed during the simulation period was
1026.8 mm, which included irrigation return flow of 306.2 mm. Of
the annual irrigation return flow, 14.1% was attributable to quick
return flow and 11.6% to delayed return flow (Fig. 7). These results
revealed that an amount of irrigation water returned from paddy
fields to streams and canals by surface runoff and groundwater
discharge.

Table 5
Results of irrigation return flow estimation for all paddy fields within the Gicheon watershed from 1998 to 2001.

Year Rainfall (mm) Irrigation (mm) Quick return flow Delayed return flow Total return flow

Amount (mm) Ratio (%) Amount (mm) Ratio (%) Amount (mm) Ratio (%)

1998 1626.9 938.5 134.1 14.3 154.9 16.5 289.0 30.8

1999 1506.7 1086.0 196.9 18.1 109.8 10.1 306.7 28.2
2000 1328.8 1323.6 133.2 10.1 143.2 10.8 276.4 20.9
2001 1067.2 1421.1 209.0 14.7 143.7 10.1 352.7 24.8

Mean 1382.4 1192.3 168.3 14.1 137.9 11.6 306.2 25.7

882 H.K. Kim et al. / Agricultural Water Management 96 (2009) 875–882
Fig. 7. Water balance in the Gicheon watershed.
6. Conclusions
A modeling approach was applied to estimate irrigation return
flow. The proposed model simulated the daily ponded depth
fluctuation, and estimated the return flow from paddy fields with
the various hydrologic components related to evapotranspiration,
vertical flow, surface flow, seepage and groundwater discharge
considering the variation of the soil moisture. Results of the model
simulation indicated a reasonable overall agreement with the field
observations.
Based on these results, this modeling assessment can provide a
valuable approach for managing the agriculture water and
estimating the irrigation return flow under different hydrological
and water management conditions. In addition, the irrigation
return flow can be determined in various scenarios in terms of
seasonal, annual, and regional variations in precipitation and
irrigation amounts in paddy fields. However, the proposed model
did not involve components that estimated the recaptured and
reused return flow for irrigation. More research considering these
factors is needed to quantify the return flow more accurately.
Acknowledgment
This research was supported by a grant (code# 4-5-3) from the
Sustainable Water Resources Research Center of the 21st Century
Frontier Research Program.
References
Allen, R.G., Pereia, L.S., Raes, L., Smith, M., 1998. Crop evapotranspiration: guidelines
for computing crop water requirements. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
Boldt, A.L., Eisenhauer, D.E., Martin, D.L., Wilmes, G.J., 1999. Water conservation
practices for a river valley irrigated with groundwater. Agric. Water Manage. 30,
235–256.
Carsel, R.F., Parrish, R.S., 1988. Developing joint probability distributions of soil
water retention characteristics. Water Resour. Res. 24, 755–769.
Das, B.M., 1998. Principles of Geotechnical Engineering, fourth ed. PWS Publishing
Co., Boston, MA, pp. 181–185.
ILRI, 1983. Drainage Principles and Applications, vol. II. Theories of Field Drainage
and Watershed Runoff. ILRI Publ. 16. International Institute for Land Reclama-
tion and Improvement, Wangeningen, The Netherlands.
Im, S.J., 2000. Modeling irrigation return flow from paddy fields on agricultural
watersheds. Ph.D. thesis. Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea (in
Korean, with English abstract).
Ito, Y., Shiraishi, H., Oonishi, R., 1980. Numerical estimation of return flow in river
basin. JARQ 14, 24–30.
Li, Y.H., Cui, Y.L., 1996. Real-time forecasting of irrigation water requirements of
paddy fields. Agric. Water Manage. 31, 185–193.
Liu, C.W., Huang, H.C., Chen, S.K., Kuo, Y.M., 2004. Subsurface return flow and ground
water recharge of terrace fields in northern Taiwan. JAWRA 40, 603–614.
Nakagiri, T., Watnabe, T., Horino, H., Maruyama, T., 2000. Analysis of sufficiency and
reuse of irrigation water in the Kino River basin—analysis of irrigation water use
by a basin hydrological model (ii). Trans. JSIDRE 205, 35–42 (in Japanese, with
English abstract).
Nash, J.E., Sutcliffe, J.V., 1970. River flow forecasting through conceptual models.
Part I-A: discussion of principles. J. Hydrol. 10, 282–290.
Oad, R., Lusk, K., Podmore, T., 1997. Consumptive use and return flows in urban lawn
water use. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. ASCE 123, 62–69.
Odhiambo, L.O., Murty, V.V.N., 1996. Modeling water balance components in relation
to field layout in lowland paddy fields (I). Agric. Water Manage. 30, 185–199.
Press, W.H., Teukosky, S.A., Vetterling, W.T., Flannery, B.P., 1992. Numerical Recipes
in C, The Art of Scientific Computing, second ed. Cambridge Univ. Press,
Cambridge, NY, pp. 710–714.
Ramanarayanan, T.A., Williams, J.R., Dugas, W.A., Hauck, L.M., McFarland, A.M.S.,
1997. Using APEX to identify alternative practices for animal waste manage-
ment. ASAE Paper 97-2209.
Reshmidevi, T.V., Jana, R., Eldho, T.I., 2008. Geospatial estimation of soil moisture in
rain-fed paddy fields using SCS-CN-based model. Agric. Water Manage. 95,
447–457.
Rural Development Administration, 2007. Agricultural soil information system.
Rural Development Administration, Suwon, Republic of Korea. Available online
at http://asis.rda.go.kr/ (accessed on 01 November 2007, in Korean).
Schulla, J., Jasper, K., 2000. Model description WaSiM-ETH. Internal report. Institute
for Atmospheric and Climate Science. ETH Zurich, Switzerland.
Solley, W.B., Pierce, R.R., Perlman, H.A., 1998. Estimated use of water in the United
States in 1995. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1200, U.S. Geological Survey,
Denver, CO.
van Genuchten, M.T., 1980. A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic
conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 44, 892–898.
Wang, J.K., Hagan, E.R. (Eds.), 1981. Irrigated rice production systems: design
procedures. Westview Tropical Agriculture Series no. 3. Westview Press,
Boulder, CO, 192 pp.