Ensuring an optimal irrigation system and planting layout for crops in areas with water resource deficiencies is a complex process. A model of the optimal allocation of water and land resources for the irrigation system of the ‘reservoir and pumping station’ under crop rotation was established in this study. For the above complex nonlinear model, two-hybrid algorithms are proposed: (1) the decomposition aggregation dynamic programming (DADP) method and linear programming (LP) successive approximation algorithm [(DADP–LP)SA] and (2) the DADP algorithm based on the orthogonal design (OD) method (OD–DADP). The (DADP–LP)SA and OD–DADP algorithms were compared with the real-coded genetic algorithm (RGA) and particle swarm optimization (PSO) to analyze the performance of the four algorithms. The developed algorithms were applied to the Gao'a irrigation area in the north of Jiangsu Province, China. The solution results showed that the annual output value of water-deficient irrigation areas was improved, and limited water and land resources were optimally allocated, demonstrating the feasibility of the two-hybrid algorithm. Moreover, through a comparative analysis of the optimality and applicability of the four algorithms, it can be observed that (DADP–LP)SA and OD–DADP are more suitable for optimizing the allocation of scarce water and land resources than RGA and PSO.

  • The optimal allocation model of water and land resources for the joint operation of reservoirs and pumping stations is established on the basis of regional water rights restriction.

  • A hybrid successive approximation algorithm for large-scale systems is proposed.

  • A new hybrid algorithm is proposed by combining the solution method of high-dimensional dynamic programming with the orthogonal design method.

Irrigated agriculture accounts for more than 70% of freshwater withdrawals from rivers, lakes, and aquifers, and the development of countries worldwide is directly or indirectly affected by the restriction of water resources (Fan et al. 2020). Agricultural irrigation water and crop planting layout planning affect each other. To achieve the dual goals of food security and sustainable economic development, we need to focus on the synchronous and optimal allocation of water and land resources.

Since the 1970s, models have been developed for the optimal allocation of water and land resources. In the literature, such models are divided into three categories according to different decision variables: (1) optimizing the planting area of different crops when the irrigation water volume is sufficient to maximize the yield per unit area (Maji & Heady 1978; Morales et al. 1987; Paudyal & Gupta 1990). (2) When irrigation water volume is limited but the crop planting area is determined, the limited irrigation water is allocated at different growth periods of the crops, to obtain the maximum yield and benefit throughout the entire growth period of crops (Hiessl & Plate 1990; Paudyal & Manguerra 1990; Akhand et al. 1995). (3) When irrigation water volume and crop planting area are limited, water resources and land resources need to be optimized simultaneously to obtain the maximum yield and benefits of different crops.

Hitherto, many scholars have conducted in-depth research on the third type of model. Khandelwal & Dhiman (2018) proposed a deterministic linear programming (DLP) model and a chance constrained linear programming (CCLP) model to jointly dispatch surface water and groundwater and formulate a sustainable land and water resource management plan. Ren et al. (2017) proposed a multi-objective fuzzy optimization method for water and land resources based on the objectives of administrative, economic, and ecological benefits, and solved it at the level of fuzzy parameters to obtain the optimal irrigation scheme. Li et al. (2022) quantified the changing environmental model and established a multi-dimensional model for the synchronous optimal allocation of water and land resources in combination with climate and socio-economic changes. However, the water source projects of the irrigation system involved in the above research were mostly single reservoirs and multiple reservoirs, or the joint operation of surface water and groundwater. There are relatively few studies on irrigation systems with special hydraulic connections. In China, with the gradual modernization of irrigation areas to meet the water demand of irrigation areas, a large number of pumping stations have been built in water-deficient irrigation areas to reduce the diversion of water resources outside the area, thus forming an irrigation system comprising a joint operation ‘reservoir and pump station’. Concurrently, with the gradual improvement of the water rights distribution system (Molle 2004; Heikkila 2015), the annual diversion volume of the water diversion project is strictly limited; as such, when optimizing the allocation of water and land resources in water-deficient irrigation areas, the impact of regional water rights restrictions must be considered.

There are many decision variables and engineering constraints that must be considered in the optimal allocation model of water and land resources. Furthermore, classical optimization algorithms, such as linear/nonlinear programming and dynamic programming (DP), struggle to solve such high-dimensional and nonlinear problems (Nagesh Kumar & Janga Reddy 2007; Tsoukalas & Makropoulos 2015). However, with the rapid development of computer technology, modern heuristic algorithms (such as genetic algorithm (Nagesh Kumar et al. 2006), simulated annealing algorithm (Georgiou et al. 2006), and ant colony algorithm (Nguyen et al. 2016)) have been developed to solve corresponding problems with satisfactory results. However, intelligent algorithms are limited owing to their tendency for premature convergence or convergence to local optimal solutions. On this basis, some scholars have integrated the characteristics of different algorithms and proposed a new hybrid algorithm to overcome the defects of classical and intelligent algorithms. For example, Dahmani & Yebdri (2020) proposed a new hybrid algorithm (HPSOGWO) based on the particle swarm optimization algorithm and the gray wolf algorithm and compared it with the real-coded genetic algorithm (RGA) and the gravitational search algorithm (GSA). The results showed that the combined algorithm can obtain higher-quality solutions than the other algorithms. Rasoulzadeh-Gharibdousti et al. (2011) proposed a new hybrid algorithm, the nonlinear-programming-genetic-algorithm (NLP-GA), based on nonlinear programming and a genetic algorithm. The solution results show that the hybrid algorithm could not only improve the convergence speed of the algorithm but also avoid local optimization. Masoud et al. (2021) proposed a new algorithm combining the Pareto evolutionary algorithm and multi-objective particle swarm optimization (MOPSO) for the optimization of pipe networks. The results of the case study showed that the hybrid algorithm was more stable in obtaining a global optimal solution.

Taking the water-deficient irrigation area in the northern hilly area of Jiangsu Province as a case study, this study constructed an optimal allocation model of water and land resources for a ‘reservoir and pumping station’ irrigation system supplying a water-deficient area under crop rotation with consideration of water rights restrictions.

When the area decision variables in the large-scale system model are determined, the model can be transformed into a high-dimensional DP model. When decision variables such as water supply and spill of the reservoir and water replenishment of the pumping station are determined in the large-scale system model, the model can be transformed into a linear model. Therefore, this study proposes two-hybrid optimization algorithms to solve the above model. The first-hybrid algorithm is a large-scale system successive approximation method [(DADP–LP)SA]. The algorithm uses DADP (Gong & Cheng 2018; Gong et al. 2019) to solve the high-dimensional DP model, linear programming (LP) to solve the linear model and obtains the global optimal solution of the large-scale system model through the successive approximation of DADP and LP. The second-hybrid algorithm (OD–DADP) is based on the theory of experimental optimization and solves the large-scale system model by mixing the orthogonal design (OD) method and DADP. In addition, these two-hybrid algorithms were compared with a real-coded genetic algorithm (RGA) and PSO, and the optimality and applicability of the various algorithms were analyzed and compared.

Model construction

Objective function

When the effective water supply is limited, optimizing the irrigation system and planting layout of crops is an effective means of fully utilizing water and land resources. The water production function is an important basis for evaluating various irrigation strategies. In this study, Jensen's (1968) model was introduced as the basic mathematical model. At the same time, to facilitate the joint operation calculation of the ‘reservoir and pumping station’ irrigation system, the ratio of actual evapotranspiration to potential evapotranspiration in the model was transformed into the ratio of reservoir water supply to crop water demand (Wardlaw & Barnes 1999). The model takes the maximum annual output value of the irrigation area as the objective function and the water supply and spill of the reservoir, water replenishment of the pumping station, and the crop planting area as the decision variables. The objective function is given in Equation (1):
(1)
where G is the annual output value of the irrigation area, rmb; i is the type of crop; j is the stage of crop growth; Mi is the total number of i crop growth stages; Xi,j is the actual water supply of the reservoir at the j growth stage of crop i, MCM; YSi,j refers to the average water demand in the j growth stage of crop i in the irrigation area when the water supply is sufficient, MCM; (Ym)i is the maximum yield of crop i under sufficient water supply, kg/hm2; hi,j is the sensitive index of the yield response to water shortage in the j growth stage of crop i; Ai is the planting area of i crops, hm2; Pi is the unit price of crop i, kg/rmb (rmb is China's legal tender; MCM is in million m3).

Constraint

  • (1)

    Water supply constraints:

    • (a)
      Total annual water supply constraint of the system:
      (2)
    • (b)
      Water supply restriction during the entire growth period of a single crop:
      (3)
      where SK is the total annual water supply of the annual regulation reservoir, MCM; BZ is the water rights of the pumping station, that is, the maximum allowable water replenishment volume of the pump station in a year, MCM; IWi is the upper limit of the water supply during the entire growth period of a single crop, MCM.

  • (2)

    Crop planting area constraints:

    • (a)
      Constraints on the total planting area of multiple crops:
      (4)
    • (b)
      Single crop planting area constraints:
      (5)
      where TA is the total planned planting area of various crops, hm2; Aimin is the minimum planting area of i crops, hm2; Aimax is the maximum planting area of i crops, hm2.

  • (3)
    Scheduling criteria constraints:
    (6)
    where Vi,j is determined according to the water balance equation:
    (7)

In the formula, Vi,j is the reservoir storage capacity at the end of stage j of crop i, MCM.

According to the water balance equation of the system, the operational criteria of the reservoir are as follows:
(8)
  • (4)

    Pumping station constraints:

    • (a)
      Constraints on the water replenishment capacity of the pumping station:
      (9)
    • (b)
      Water rights constraints:
      (10)

  • (5)
    Crop water demand constraints:
    (11)
    where is the average minimum water demand in the j growth stage of crop i, MCM.
  • (6)
    Initial and boundary conditions:
    (12)
    where V0 is the initial storage capacity of the reservoir, and Vend refers to the storage capacity at the end of reservoir regulation and storage.

Model solution

Hybrid algorithm (DADP–LP)SA

The (DADP–LP)SA algorithm is a hybrid algorithm for the successive approximation of large-scale systems, mainly aimed at the optimal allocation model of water and land resources. When the area decision variables in the large-scale system model are determined, the model can be solved by using the DADP method. When the decision variables such as water supply and spill of the reservoir and water replenishment of the pumping station are determined, the model can be solved by using the LP method. The global optimal solution of the large-scale system model can be obtained by successive approximations of DADP and LP.

Among these, DADP is based on the decomposition aggregation method. The large-scale system model is decomposed into a series of subsystem models. The subsystem model can be solved using the one-dimensional DP method to ensure optimal solution results are obtained for the subsystem model. Then, based on the corresponding relationship between each subsystem and the large-scale system, a series of subsystem models are aggregated according to the recurrence principle of DP. The aggregation model can also be solved by DP, and the global optimal solution of the large-scale system model can be obtained by checking the optimal solution of each subsystem model back from the optimal solution of the aggregation model. The essence of the algorithm is to nest multiple new DP processes in a recursive process of DP.

The algorithm flow of (DADP–LP)SA is shown in Figure 1, and the specific solution steps are as follows:
  • Step 1: The planting area of the proposed two dry crops Ai0(i = 1,2);

  • Step 2: By substituting Ai0(i = 1,2) into the model, the large-scale system model can be transformed into a mathematical model with only water supply Xi,j and spill PSi,j of the reservoir, and water replenishment Yi,,j of the pumping station as decision variables, which can be solved by DADP. The specific steps are as follows:

    • Step 2.1: Large-scale system decomposition. The large-scale system model is decomposed into two subsystem models. The objective function and constraints of the subsystem model are as follows:

Figure 1

(DADP–LP)SA algorithm flow chart.

Figure 1

(DADP–LP)SA algorithm flow chart.

Close modal
Objective function:
(13)
(14)
Constraints:
(15)

In addition, the two subsystem models must meet the constraints of scheduling criteria, water replenishment of the pumping station, crop planting area, and crop water demand.

  • Step 2.2: Subsystem solution. The subsystems are obtained by the system decomposition belonging to the DP model, which can be solved using the classical DP method, where the state variable λi,j is the total water supply of the reservoir to the entire growth period of a single crop, which is discretized in a fixed step d in [0, IWi]. For each state variable λi,j, the decision variable Xi,j in its feasible region [0, λi,j] is discretized in step d. Using sequential recurrence, the state transition equation λi,j−1 = λi,,jXi,j, the optimal water supply process Xi,j(i = 1,2;j = 1,2,…,Mi), and the objective function value F of the reservoir for each growth stage of dry crops in the subsystem can be obtained. Based on the optimal water supply process of the reservoir, the optimal spill process of the reservoir PSi,j(i = 1,2;j = 1,2,…,Mi) and the optimal water replenishment process Yi,j(i = 1,2;j = 1,2,…,Mi) of the pumping station can be determined.

  • Step 2.3: Subsystem aggregation. If the two subsystem models are aggregated, the aggregation model can be solved using a DP method. The objective functions and constraints of the aggregation model are as follows:

Objective function:
(16)
Coupling constraints:
(17)
After solving the aggregation model, the objective function value G0 and the optimal total water supply IWi*(i = 1,2) of each subsystem can be obtained. According to the optimization results of the optimal IWi* back check subsystem, the globally optimal irrigation water supply process Xi,j0(i = 1,2;j = 1,2,…,Mi) and the spill process PSi,j0(i = 1,2;j = 1,2,…,Mi) of the reservoir and the water replenishment process Yi,j0(i = 1,2;j = 1,2,…,Mi) of the pumping station can be obtained.
  • Step 3: Substitute Xi,j0(i = 1,2;j = 1,2,…,Mi), PSi,j0(i = 1,2;j = 1,2,…,Mi) and Yi,j0(i = 1,2;j = 1,2,…,Mi) obtained in step 2 into the model. Then, the large-scale system model is transformed into a linear model with the crop planting area Ai(i = 1,2) as the decision variable. The optimal planting area Ai1(i = 1,2) and the objective function value G1 can be obtained using the LP solution.

  • Step 4: Substitute Ai1(i = 1,2) obtained in step 3 into the model and repeat steps 2 and 3 above until (ε to meet the required iterative control accuracy), then the calculation is completed. Then, Gk is the global optimal value of the objective function. Accordingly, the optimal crop planting area Ai*(i = 1,2) of the subsystem, the optimal water supply Xi,,j*(i = 1,2;j = 1,2,…,Mi) and spill PSi,j*(i = 1,2;j = 1,2,…,Mi) of the reservoir, and the water replenishment Yi,j*(i = 1,2;j = 1,2,…,Mi) of the pumping station to the entire crop growth period can also be obtained.

Hybrid algorithm OD–DADP

The OD method is a scientific test method for the optimization of multifactor tests (Wang et al. 2017). A standardized orthogonal table was used to reasonably arrange the test. Using this method, we only need to perform a few experiments to determine the best scheme; then, through orthogonal analysis, we can obtain more comprehensive and systematic experimental results and find the optimal solution.

This study used an experiment with three factors and three levels as an example to illustrate the principle of the experimental arrangement. The three factors were recorded as A, B, and C, and the three levels as 1, 2, and 3. As shown in Figure 2(a), each yellow dot represents one test; therefore, there are 27 test schemes in total (3 × 3 × 3 = 27). This problem could thus be solved by testing 27 schemes and analyzing the test results. According to the principle of ‘comprehensive comparability’ of OD, representative tests were found; a few tests could be used to replace all tests. As shown in Figure 2(b), nine tests were representative, the manifestation of all factors meeting each other across levels only once.
Figure 2

(a) All the experimental combination of three factors and three levels, and (b) a combination of three factors and three levels of the orthogonal test.

Figure 2

(a) All the experimental combination of three factors and three levels, and (b) a combination of three factors and three levels of the orthogonal test.

Close modal

For the optimal allocation model of water and land resources established in this study, the OD could be used to solve the crop area, and the DADP could be used to solve the high-dimensional DP model. Therefore, the specific solution steps of OD–DADP are as follows:

  • Step 1: Using crop type i (i = 1,2) as the test factor and the discrete value Ai of the crop area as the test level, an orthogonal table was constructed, and the test combination was determined.

  • Step 2: Substituting the different crop area test combinations into Equation (1), the large-scale system model could be transformed into a high-dimensional DP model that could be solved, which can be solved using DADP. The solution process of the DADP can be referred to as the solution process of the (DADP–LP)SA, and the objective function value G was obtained at the end of the solution.

  • Step 3: The best area scheme Ai* for all test combinations using orthogonal analysis was determined.

  • Step 4: The best function value G* of the large-scale system model was obtained by substituting the best area scheme Ai* into Equation (1). Then, we obtained the optimal water supply process Xi,,j*(i = 1,2;j = 1,2,…,Mi), the optimal spill process PSi,j*(i = 1,2;j = 1,2,…,Mi) of the reservoir, and the optimal water replenishment Yi,j*(i = 1,2;j = 1,2,…,Mi) of the pumping stations.

Real-coded genetic algorithm

Wright (1991) proposed a RGA and showed that the RGA has better convergence and optimality compared with the earlier binary-coded genetic algorithm. In the optimization process, the RGA usually randomly generates N possible solution sets Xi = (xi1,xi2,…,xid). In the iteration process, the population evolves through three operations: selection, crossover, and mutation, and finally converges to the optimal solution.

In this study, in the process of RGA optimization, the selection operation adopted the elite selection mechanism, and the crossover and mutation operations adopted the random single-point crossover and mutation modes, respectively. Simultaneously, penalty items were constructed to overcome the constraints. The penalty items are as follows:
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
where P1, P2, P3, and P4 are the penalty functions of the upper and lower limit constraints of storage capacity, water rights constraints of the pump station, and boundary condition constraints of storage capacity, respectively; μ1, μ2, μ3, and μ4 are the penalty factors, respectively. In the actual solution process, the penalty factors were taken as −100,000.
By integrating the objective function of the model with the penalty term, the fitness function of the RGA is constructed as follows:
(22)
where F is the fitness function value.

Particle swarm optimization

Kennedy first proposed the PSO algorithm, which is widely used in reservoir operation (Wan et al. 2017; Yousefi et al. 2018). The basic principle is to randomly generate a certain number of particles to form a particle swarm, and each particle s has its own position vector θs (including X, Y, PS, and other components) and velocity vector υs. Then, during each iteration, the position vector and velocity vector are updated according to Equations (23) and (24) until the iteration termination conditions are met.
(23)
(24)

Similarly, in the PSO solution process, the penalty term in Equations (18)–(21) are constructed to deal with the corresponding constraints.

Data of the study area

The Gao'a irrigation area is in the eastern mountainous region of Xinyi City, Jiangsu Province, China. The location of the study area is shown in Figure 3. In general, the annual rainfall in normal years (50% probability of exceedance) is 750 mm, and the annual average evaporation is 968 mm. Wheat and corn are the main crops because of terrain and climatic factors. The planned total planting area of the irrigated area is 4.36 × 103 hm2, of which the minimum planting area of wheat of 1.26 × 103 hm2, with a maximum planting area of 2.96 × 103 hm2; the minimum planting area of corn is 1.47 × 103 hm2, with a maximum planting area of 3.12 × 103 hm2. The main irrigation water source in the irrigation area is the GaoTang (GT) reservoir, with a designed storage capacity of 15 MCM, a lower limit storage capacity of 3 MCM, and an irrigation water utilization coefficient of 0.65.
Figure 3

Location of the study area.

Figure 3

Location of the study area.

Close modal

The two main crops in the study area showed the characteristics of rotation cultivation. The entire growth period of corn is from June to September and that of wheat is from October to May of the following year. The total growth period of the two rotation crops corresponds to the regulation and storage cycle of the entire hydrological year of the annual regulation reservoir (from October to September of the following year). Therefore, the regulation and storage periods of the GT reservoir are divided according to the growth stage of crops. The crop parameters of the irrigation area are shown in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1

Experimental parameters of wheat

Growth period Seeding Returning green Jointing Heading Filling Mature 
Optimize period 
Time 1/10–31/10 1/11–10/1 11/1–20/2 21/2–10/3 11/3–30/4 1/5–31/5 
Sensitive index 0.2675 0.0613 0.3765 0.5951 0.5951 0.2981 
Crop water requirement (mm) 107 19 33.4 101.3 121.8 115.5 
Growth period Seeding Returning green Jointing Heading Filling Mature 
Optimize period 
Time 1/10–31/10 1/11–10/1 11/1–20/2 21/2–10/3 11/3–30/4 1/5–31/5 
Sensitive index 0.2675 0.0613 0.3765 0.5951 0.5951 0.2981 
Crop water requirement (mm) 107 19 33.4 101.3 121.8 115.5 
Table 2

Experimental parameters of corn

Growth period Seeding Jointing Heading/filling Mature 
Optimize period 10 
Time 1/6–30/6 1/7–20/7 21/7–31/8 1/9–30/9 
Sensitive index 0.257 0.2022 0.3237 0.2189 
Crop water requirement (mm) 92.4 91.8 85.2 115.8 
Growth period Seeding Jointing Heading/filling Mature 
Optimize period 10 
Time 1/6–30/6 1/7–20/7 21/7–31/8 1/9–30/9 
Sensitive index 0.257 0.2022 0.3237 0.2189 
Crop water requirement (mm) 92.4 91.8 85.2 115.8 

The study area is in a hilly and mountainous area with high terrain. Artesian water diversion and reservoir storage cannot meet the water demand of the irrigation area. The newly built Shengli (SL) pumping station has transformed and modernized the irrigation area and water from the Shu River to supplement the GT reservoir to alleviate the water deficiency in the irrigation area. The characteristic parameters of the pump station are presented in Table 3.

Table 3

Characteristic parameters of the pump station

NameDesign flow (m3/h)Maximum daily running hours (h)Water right (MCM)
SL 3,600 20 
NameDesign flow (m3/h)Maximum daily running hours (h)Water right (MCM)
SL 3,600 20 

The evaporation loss of the irrigation reservoir is determined according to the evaporation depth during this period and the average water area of the reservoir. The evaporation depth adopts the measured evaporation data of E601 evaporator and is corrected using the conversion coefficient wi,j (Table 4). The water area is determined according to the relationship function between the reservoir area and the water storage provided by the reservoir manager.
(25)
where EFi,j is the reservoir evaporation at the j growth stage of crop i, MCM; Ei,j is the evaporation capacity of the evaporator, mm; wi,j is the conversion coefficient of water surface evaporation in the j growth stage of crop i; Vi,j is the average water storage of the reservoir in the j growth stage of crop i, MCM; and α, β are the coefficients (α = 2.117 × 10−3, β = 1.863).
Table 4

Parameters of evaporation

Period12345678910
Ei,j 92.8 102 44.2 51.6 107.6 94.6 126.3 134.4 118.6 96.5 
wi,j 1.04 1.11 1.03 0.96 0.93 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.97 1.01 
Period12345678910
Ei,j 92.8 102 44.2 51.6 107.6 94.6 126.3 134.4 118.6 96.5 
wi,j 1.04 1.11 1.03 0.96 0.93 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.97 1.01 

Evaluation index

The reliability of the water supply assurance rate and the water shortage index of the reservoir (Hashimoto et al. 1982; Chanda et al. 2014) were used to further evaluate the performance of the irrigation system optimized by the four algorithms. The water supply assurance rate represents the degree of satisfaction with the water demand of the irrigation system, which is expressed by the ratio of the actual water supply to the water demand, and is calculated according to Equation (26). The water shortage index represents the severity of the water shortage in the irrigation system, which is calculated according to Equation (27).
(26)
(27)

Orthogonal analysis

Before comparing the performance of the algorithms, the OD–DADP using the orthogonal design method was analyzed. Range analysis can effectively clarify the interaction between various factors and the corresponding relationship between local and overall tests. In this study, two crops are mainly planted in the study area, so the factor number is 2. Then, nine values of the planting area of the two crops are discretized in the feasible area, that is, the level number is 9, and an orthogonal table L81(92) at 2 factors and 9 levels per factor is constructed. As shown in Table 5, a total of 81 test schemes will be generated, and corresponding objective function values can be obtained by substituting different combination schemes of area decision variables into the model. Then, orthogonal analysis was carried out on the test results to obtain the optimal combination scheme corresponding to the global optimal solution, as shown in Table 6. When factors 1 and 2 were both taken as the first discrete value, the global optimal solution of the model was (3.05 × 107) rmb.

Table 5

Orthogonal design table

NumberFactor 1Factor 2Objective functionNumberFactor 1Factor 2Objective functionNumberFactor 1Factor 2Objective function
2.23 × 107 28 2.99 × 107 55 2.97 × 107 
2.69 × 107 29 2.13 × 107 56 2.87 × 107 
2.54 × 107 30 2.12 × 107 57 1.86 × 107 
2.97 × 107 31 2.09 × 107 58 1.94 × 107 
2.90 × 107 32 2.07 × 107 59 2.90 × 107 
2.85 × 107 33 2.11 × 107 60 2.25 × 107 
2.90 × 107 34 2.95 × 107 61 1.99 × 107 
1.76 × 107 35 2.70 × 107 62 1.77 × 107 
2.80 × 107 36 1.92 × 107 63 2.99 × 107 
10 1.84 × 107 37 1.84 × 107 64 2.27 × 107 
11 1.98 × 107 38 2.49 × 107 65 2.34 × 107 
12 2.01 × 107 39 2.98 × 107 66 1.89 × 107 
13 2.64 × 107 40 1.96 × 107 67 2.70 × 107 
14 1.84 × 107 41 2.79 × 107 68 1.88 × 107 
15 2.83 × 107 42 2.99 × 107 69 2.51 × 107 
16 2.78 × 107 43 2.89 × 107 70 1.79 × 107 
17 2.13 × 107 44 1.99 × 107 71 1.86 × 107 
18 2.61 × 107 45 2.35 × 107 72 1.74 × 107 
19 2.80 × 107 46 2.89 × 107 73 2.57 × 107 
20 3.05 × 107 47 1.73 × 107 74 1.96 × 107 
21 1.78 × 107 48 1.85 × 107 75 2.76 × 107 
22 2.53 × 107 49 2.42 × 107 76 2.68 × 107 
23 2.12 × 107 50 2.99 × 107 77 1.83 × 107 
24 2.66 × 107 51 2.37 × 107 78 2.39 × 107 
25 2.06 × 107 52 1.86 × 107 79 2.32 × 107 
26 2.81 × 107 53 2.24 × 107 80 1.99 × 107 
27 2.66 × 107 54 2.73 × 107 81 1.87 × 107 
NumberFactor 1Factor 2Objective functionNumberFactor 1Factor 2Objective functionNumberFactor 1Factor 2Objective function
2.23 × 107 28 2.99 × 107 55 2.97 × 107 
2.69 × 107 29 2.13 × 107 56 2.87 × 107 
2.54 × 107 30 2.12 × 107 57 1.86 × 107 
2.97 × 107 31 2.09 × 107 58 1.94 × 107 
2.90 × 107 32 2.07 × 107 59 2.90 × 107 
2.85 × 107 33 2.11 × 107 60 2.25 × 107 
2.90 × 107 34 2.95 × 107 61 1.99 × 107 
1.76 × 107 35 2.70 × 107 62 1.77 × 107 
2.80 × 107 36 1.92 × 107 63 2.99 × 107 
10 1.84 × 107 37 1.84 × 107 64 2.27 × 107 
11 1.98 × 107 38 2.49 × 107 65 2.34 × 107 
12 2.01 × 107 39 2.98 × 107 66 1.89 × 107 
13 2.64 × 107 40 1.96 × 107 67 2.70 × 107 
14 1.84 × 107 41 2.79 × 107 68 1.88 × 107 
15 2.83 × 107 42 2.99 × 107 69 2.51 × 107 
16 2.78 × 107 43 2.89 × 107 70 1.79 × 107 
17 2.13 × 107 44 1.99 × 107 71 1.86 × 107 
18 2.61 × 107 45 2.35 × 107 72 1.74 × 107 
19 2.80 × 107 46 2.89 × 107 73 2.57 × 107 
20 3.05 × 107 47 1.73 × 107 74 1.96 × 107 
21 1.78 × 107 48 1.85 × 107 75 2.76 × 107 
22 2.53 × 107 49 2.42 × 107 76 2.68 × 107 
23 2.12 × 107 50 2.99 × 107 77 1.83 × 107 
24 2.66 × 107 51 2.37 × 107 78 2.39 × 107 
25 2.06 × 107 52 1.86 × 107 79 2.32 × 107 
26 2.81 × 107 53 2.24 × 107 80 1.99 × 107 
27 2.66 × 107 54 2.73 × 107 81 1.87 × 107 
Table 6

Results of range analysis K ( × 107)

FactorLevel
123456789
26.88 25.83 24.71 22.26 20.21 19.26 18.45 17.57 16.93 
22.84 22.62 22.61 22.5 21.21 20.65 19.94 19.68 20.05 
FactorLevel
123456789
26.88 25.83 24.71 22.26 20.21 19.26 18.45 17.57 16.93 
22.84 22.62 22.61 22.5 21.21 20.65 19.94 19.68 20.05 

Algorithm optimality

To compare the performances of (DADP–LP)SA, OD–DADP, RGA, and PSO, this study compared and analyzed the optimality of the objective function, stability of the algorithm, convergence of the algorithm, and speed of the solution.

First, the sensitivities of the four algorithms were analyzed. It can be seen from the range analysis in Table 6 that when the test combination was (1,1), it was the optimal combination, and the optimal value of the objective function of the OD–DADP was (3.05 × 107) rmb. As shown in Table 7, the optimal solution obtained by the (DADP–LP)SA algorithm was (3.05 × 107) rmb, and the convergence accuracy was 100,000. For the RGA, the optimal value of the objective function was (2.94 × 107) rmb. At this time, the population size was 100, the crossover probability was 0.6, and the mutation probability was 0.2. For PSO, the optimal value of the objective function was (2.87 × 107) rmb. At this time, the population size was 70, the inertia weight was 0.4, and the acceleration factor (c1 = c2) was 1.4.

Table 7

Parameter analysis of (DADP–LP)SA, RGA, and PSO

(DADP–LP)SA
Iterative accuracy εObjective function
100 3.05 × 107     
1,000 3.05 × 107     
10,000 3.05 × 107     
100,000 2.96 × 107     
1,000,000 2.74 × 107     
RGA 
Population size Objective function Crossover Objective function Mutation Objective function 
10 1.73 × 107 0.3 1.96 × 107 0.1 2.33 × 107 
30 2.24 × 107 0.4 2.48 × 107 0.15 2.54 × 107 
50 2.16 × 107 0.5 2.37 × 107 0.2 2.94 × 107 
70 2.09 × 107 0.6 2.94 × 107 0.25 2.27 × 107 
100 2.94 × 107 0.7 2.57 × 107 0.3 2.43 × 107 
PSO 
Population size Objective function Inertia weight Objective function Acceleration factor (c1 = c2) Objective function 
20 1.65 × 107 0.3 2.61 × 107 1.2 1.73 × 107 
30 1.97 × 107 0.4 2.87 × 107 1.4 2.87 × 107 
50 2.33 × 107 0.5 2.30 × 107 1.6 2.19 × 107 
70 2.87 × 107 0.6 1.99 × 107 1.8 2.76 × 107 
100 2.63 × 107 0.7 2.54 × 107 2.54 × 107 
(DADP–LP)SA
Iterative accuracy εObjective function
100 3.05 × 107     
1,000 3.05 × 107     
10,000 3.05 × 107     
100,000 2.96 × 107     
1,000,000 2.74 × 107     
RGA 
Population size Objective function Crossover Objective function Mutation Objective function 
10 1.73 × 107 0.3 1.96 × 107 0.1 2.33 × 107 
30 2.24 × 107 0.4 2.48 × 107 0.15 2.54 × 107 
50 2.16 × 107 0.5 2.37 × 107 0.2 2.94 × 107 
70 2.09 × 107 0.6 2.94 × 107 0.25 2.27 × 107 
100 2.94 × 107 0.7 2.57 × 107 0.3 2.43 × 107 
PSO 
Population size Objective function Inertia weight Objective function Acceleration factor (c1 = c2) Objective function 
20 1.65 × 107 0.3 2.61 × 107 1.2 1.73 × 107 
30 1.97 × 107 0.4 2.87 × 107 1.4 2.87 × 107 
50 2.33 × 107 0.5 2.30 × 107 1.6 2.19 × 107 
70 2.87 × 107 0.6 1.99 × 107 1.8 2.76 × 107 
100 2.63 × 107 0.7 2.54 × 107 2.54 × 107 

Therefore, the objective function values of (DADP–LP)SA and OD–DADP were the same, and better objective function values could be obtained than those of the RGA and PSO. It can be observed that in the solution process of (DADP–LP)SA and OD–DADP, the additional parameters of the algorithm do does not need calibrating. By adjusting the convergence accuracy of the (DADP–LP)SA or the level number discretization accuracy of the OD–DADP, the optimal value of the objective function could be obtained, which has better optimality of the objective function and operability of the algorithm.

According to the algorithm parameters in Table 7, the four algorithms were run randomly 10 times to verify algorithm stability. As shown in Table 8, the 10 running results indicate that the objective function values obtained by (DADP–LP)SA and OD–DADP were optimal. Moreover, the worst solutions, the averages and standard deviations of (DADP–LP)SA and OD–DADP were still superior to those of RGA and PSO. Therefore, the above results show that the (DADP–LP)SA and OD–DADP algorithms proposed in this study exhibit better stability.

Table 8

Ten random results for (DADP–LP)SA,OD–DADP, RGA, and PSO

Run(DADP–LP)SAOD–DADPRGAPSO
3.05 × 107 3.05 × 107 2.57 × 107 2.68 × 107 
3.05 × 107 3.05 × 107 2.68 × 107 2.33 × 107 
3.05 × 107 3.05 × 107 2.06 × 107 2.29 × 107 
3.05 × 107 3.05 × 107 2.51 × 107 2.74 × 107 
3.05 × 107 3.05 × 107 2.06 × 107 2.65 × 107 
3.05 × 107 3.05 × 107 2.16 × 107 2.35 × 107 
3.05 × 107 3.05 × 107 2.69 × 107 2.84 × 107 
3.05 × 107 3.05 × 107 2.83 × 107 2.79 × 107 
3.05 × 107 3.05 × 107 2.67 × 107 2.84 × 107 
10 3.05 × 107 3.05 × 107 2.43 × 107 2.52 × 107 
Best 3.05 × 107 3.05 × 107 2.83 × 107 2.84 × 107 
Worst 3.05 × 107 3.05 × 107 2.06 × 107 2.29 × 107 
Average 3.05 × 107 3.05 × 107 2.47 × 107 2.60 × 107 
Standard deviation 2.67 × 106 2.04 × 106 
Run(DADP–LP)SAOD–DADPRGAPSO
3.05 × 107 3.05 × 107 2.57 × 107 2.68 × 107 
3.05 × 107 3.05 × 107 2.68 × 107 2.33 × 107 
3.05 × 107 3.05 × 107 2.06 × 107 2.29 × 107 
3.05 × 107 3.05 × 107 2.51 × 107 2.74 × 107 
3.05 × 107 3.05 × 107 2.06 × 107 2.65 × 107 
3.05 × 107 3.05 × 107 2.16 × 107 2.35 × 107 
3.05 × 107 3.05 × 107 2.69 × 107 2.84 × 107 
3.05 × 107 3.05 × 107 2.83 × 107 2.79 × 107 
3.05 × 107 3.05 × 107 2.67 × 107 2.84 × 107 
10 3.05 × 107 3.05 × 107 2.43 × 107 2.52 × 107 
Best 3.05 × 107 3.05 × 107 2.83 × 107 2.84 × 107 
Worst 3.05 × 107 3.05 × 107 2.06 × 107 2.29 × 107 
Average 3.05 × 107 3.05 × 107 2.47 × 107 2.60 × 107 
Standard deviation 2.67 × 106 2.04 × 106 

It is known that the running time of OD–DADP is independent of the number of iterations; therefore, it is impossible to directly compare its convergence and running time with those of the other three algorithms. However, the running time of OD–DADP was much longer than that of (DADP–LP)SA.

The termination condition of the (DADP–LP)SA algorithm was changed from iteration accuracy to iteration times, and Figure 4(a) shows the convergence trend of the three algorithms. The results show that the convergence of the (DADP–LP)SA occurred earlier than that of the RGA and PSO. Figure 4(b) shows the running times of the three algorithms. (DADP–LP)SA and OD–DADP had considerably long running times, whereas that of RGA and PSO was significantly less. Therefore, the (DADP–LP)SA and OD–DADP methods proposed in this study are disadvantaged by their large storage and lengthy running times compared to those of intelligent algorithms such as RGA and PSO.
Figure 4

(a) The convergence trend of the three algorithms and (b) the running and solving time of the three algorithms.

Figure 4

(a) The convergence trend of the three algorithms and (b) the running and solving time of the three algorithms.

Close modal

Notably, the initial solution sets of the RGA and PSO were randomly generated, and it is difficult for a series of random numbers to simultaneously meet the judgment constraints (Equation (8)) and equality constraints (Equations (7) and (12)) involved in the model. Therefore, the intelligent algorithms, RGA and PSO, are prone to fall into a dead cycle. Therefore, in this study, the constraints in Equations (8) and (12) are not considered in the solution processes of RGA and PSO.

Overall, despite their longer running times, in terms of the optimality of the objective function, the stability of the algorithm, and the convergence of the algorithm, the two-hybrid algorithms were better than RGA and PSO and had better algorithm optimality.

Algorithm applicability

This study analyzed the scheduling process and results of a ‘reservoir and pumping station’ irrigation system to verify the applicability of the four algorithms. As shown in Figure 5, in terms of the water supply process of the reservoir, the water supply trends of (DADP–LP)SA and OD–DADP are the same, whereas RGA and PSO had significant differences in individual sections of water supply due to the effect of the random search characteristics of the intelligent algorithms.
Figure 5

Water supply process of (a) (DADP–LP)SA, (b) OD–DADP, (c) RGA, and (d) PSO.

Figure 5

Water supply process of (a) (DADP–LP)SA, (b) OD–DADP, (c) RGA, and (d) PSO.

Close modal
As shown in Figure 6, a comparison of the storage capacity curves shows that the storage capacity curves of (DADP–LP)SA and OD–DADP were closer to the lower boundary of the reservoir storage. This is because (DADP–LP)SA and OD–DADP are limited by the regulation criteria, which ensure the full utilization of surface runoff and maintain the storage capacity of the reservoir near its lower limit. This regulation and storage method can effectively reduce evaporation loss in irrigation systems.
Figure 6

Storage capacity curves of (a) (DADP–LP)SA, (b) OD–DADP, (c) RGA, and (d) PSO.

Figure 6

Storage capacity curves of (a) (DADP–LP)SA, (b) OD–DADP, (c) RGA, and (d) PSO.

Close modal
As shown in Figure 7, the water replenishment process of the pumping station and the spill process of the reservoirs for the four algorithms are significantly different. The pumping stations of (DADP–LP)SA and OD–DADP mainly show the characteristics of less water lifting in the early stage and concentration in the later stage. In contrast, the pumping stations of RGA and PSO were randomly generated as independent variables, owing to which the phenomenon of multi-stage water replenishment is clearer. From an economic perspective, the centralized water replenishment operation of the (DADP–LP)SA and OD–DADP can reduce the startup times of the pump station, effectively reduce the operation cost of the pump station, and is also conducive to the maintenance and management of the pump station unit.
Figure 7

Spill and water replenishment process of (a) (DADP–LP)SA, (b) OD–DADP, (c) RGA, and (d) PSO.

Figure 7

Spill and water replenishment process of (a) (DADP–LP)SA, (b) OD–DADP, (c) RGA, and (d) PSO.

Close modal

In addition, (DADP–LP)SA and OD–DADP do not need to spill in the entire regulation and storage cycle of the reservoir, whereas the spill of the reservoir of RGA and PSO is obtained by random generation. Therefore, the phenomenon of spill occurs in individual periods. This means that the pumping station water replenishment phenomenon and the spill of the reservoir coexist in uncertain periods, which violate common sense reservoir regulation. It is also the existence of spill that makes the four algorithms slightly different from the total amount of water supply.

Table 9 lists the water supply assurance rate and the water shortage index of the four algorithms. The irrigation assurance rates of (DADP–LP)SA and OD–DADP were higher than those of RGA and PSO, and the water deficit index was lower than those of RGA and PSO. Therefore, (DADP–LP)SA and OD–DADP can ensure the optimal operation of the irrigation system.

Table 9

Index analysis

Evaluation index(DADP–LP)SAOD–DADPRGAPSO
Reliability(%) 67.5 67.5 66.5 66.2 
Vulnerability (%) 20.0 20.0 51.1 50.2 
Evaluation index(DADP–LP)SAOD–DADPRGAPSO
Reliability(%) 67.5 67.5 66.5 66.2 
Vulnerability (%) 20.0 20.0 51.1 50.2 

Overall, in terms of the dispatching process and results of the ‘reservoir and pumping station’ irrigation system, (DADP–LP)SA and OD–DADP were more reasonable and applicable than RGA and PSO.

In this study, an optimal allocation model of water and land resources for the combined irrigation of reservoirs and pumping stations is established. The model considers the irrigation water supply and spill of the reservoir and water replenishment of the pumping station as related variables, suggests the constraints of operation criteria, and synchronously solves the optimal water supply and spill process of the reservoir, the optimal water replenishment process of the pumping station, and the optimal planting area of different crops.

Although the (DADP–LP)SA and OD–DADP proposed in this study are two complex hybrid algorithms, their basic algorithms are classical function optimization methods such as DP, decomposition aggregation, linear programming, and orthogonal design. To ensure the optimal value of the objective function of the mathematical model, the hybrid algorithm can also reasonably deal with equality and judgment constraints. Compared to modern heuristic algorithms, the hybrid algorithm was more effective advantages in dealing with complex constraints.

The simulation results show that the operation time of (DADP–LP)SA and OD–DADP algorithms is longer than that of RGA and PSO algorithms. However, this is outweighed by the superior optimization and applicability of the (DADP–LP)SA and OD–DADP algorithms. This means that the hybrid algorithms developed here can effectively improve the annual output value of the irrigation area, improve the utilization rate of limited water and land resources, and provide a reference for the planning and management of similar water-deficient irrigation areas. This study also provides new ideas for the planning and solving of complex nonlinear models.

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (grant no. 52079119).

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

The authors declare there is no conflict.

Akhand
N. A.
,
Larson
D. L.
&
Slack
D. C.
1995
Canal irrigation allocation planning model
.
Transactions of the ASAE
38
(
2
),
545
550
.
Georgiou
P. E.
,
Papamichail
D. M.
&
Vougioukas
S. G.
2006
Optimal irrigation reservoir operation and simultaneous multi-crop cultivation area selection using simulated annealing
.
Irrigation and Drainage
55
,
129
144
.
Gong
Z. H.
,
Jiang
X. H.
,
Cheng
J. L.
,
Gong
Y.
&
Cheng
H. M.
2019
Optimization method for joint operation of a double reservoir and double pumping station system: a case study of Nanjing, China
.
Journal of Water Supply Research and Technology – Aqua
68
(
8
),
803
815
.
Hashimoto
T.
,
Stedinger
J. R.
&
Loucks
D. P.
1982
Reliability, resiliency, and vulnerability criteria for water resource system performance evaluation
.
Water Resources Research
18
(
1
),
14
20
.
Jensen
M. E.
,
1968
Water consumption by agriculture plants
. In:
Water Deficits and Plant Growth
, Vol. 2 (
Kozlowski
T. T.
, ed.).
Academic Press
,
New York
, pp.
1
22
.
Masoud
G.
,
Seyed
K. H.
&
Alireza
K.
2021
Multi-objective optimization of water distribution system: a hybrid evolutionary algorithm
.
Journal of Applied Water Engineering and Research
9
(
3
),
203
215
.
Morales
J. C.
,
Marino
M. A.
&
Holzapfel
E. A.
1987
Planning model of irrigation district
.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering
113
(
4
),
549
564
.
Nagesh Kumar
D.
&
Janga Reddy
M.
2007
Multipurpose reservoir operation using particle swarm optimization
.
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
133
(
3
),
192
201
.
Nagesh Kumar
D.
,
Srinivasa Raju
K.
&
Ashok
B.
2006
Optimal reservoir operation for irrigation of multiple crops using genetic algorithms
.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering
132
(
2
),
123
129
.
Nguyen
D. C. H.
,
Maier
H. R.
,
Dandy
G. C.
&
Ascough
J. C.
2016
Framework for computationally efficient optimal crop and water allocation using ant colony optimization
.
Environmental Modelling & Software
76
,
37
53
.
Paudyal
G. N.
&
Gupta
A. D.
1990
Irrigation planning by multilevel optimization
.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering
116
(
2
),
273
291
.
Paudyal
G. N.
&
Manguerra
H. B.
1990
Two-step dynamic programming approach for optimal irrigation water allocation
.
Water Resources Management
4
,
187
204
.
Rasoulzadeh-Gharibdousti
S.
,
Haddad
O. B.
&
Marino
M. A.
2011
Optimal design and operation of pumping stations using NLP-GA
.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Water Management
164
(
4
),
163
171
.
Wardlaw
R.
&
Barnes
J.
1999
Optimal allocation of irrigation water supplies in real time
.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering ASCE
125
(
6
),
345
354
.
Wright
A. H.
1991
Genetic algorithms for real parameter optimization
. In:
Edited by Worthy N. Martin and William M. Spears.
Foundations of Genetic Algorithms
, Vol.
1
.
Elsevier
, pp.
205
218
.
340 Pine Street, Sixth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104-3205, USA.
Yousefi
M.
,
Banihabib
M. E.
,
Soltani
J.
&
Roozbahani
A.
2018
Multi-objective particle swarm optimization model for conjunctive use of treated wastewater and groundwater
.
Agricultural Water Management
208
,
224
231
.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying, adaptation and redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).