Next Article in Journal
Buckling Failure Mechanism of a Rock Dam Foundation Fractured by Gentle Through-Going and Steep Structural Discontinuities
Next Article in Special Issue
Social Assessment of the Value of Forests and Protected Areas on the Example of the Silesian Voivodeship
Previous Article in Journal
Analyzing the Business Case for Hydrogen-Fuel Infrastructure Investments with Endogenous Demand in The Netherlands: A Real Options Approach
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Socio-Environmental History of a Copper Mining Company: Rio-Tinto Company Limited (1874–1930)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 12
Issue 13
10.3390/su12135425
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Contribution of Irrigation Ponds to the Sustainability of Agriculture. A Review of Worldwide Research

by
Belén López-Felices
1,
José A. Aznar-Sánchez
1,*,
Juan F. Velasco-Muñoz
1 and
María Piquer-Rodríguez
2,3
1
Department of Economy and Business, Research Centre CIAIMBITAL and CAESCG, University of Almería, 04120 Almería, Spain
2
Department of Geography, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, 6, 10099 Berlin, Germany
3
Latinamerika-Institut, Frei Universität zu Berlin, 54-56, 14197 Berlín, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2020, 12(13), 5425; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135425
Submission received: 22 June 2020 / Revised: 30 June 2020 / Accepted: 3 July 2020 / Published: 5 July 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Economy and Sustainability of Natural Resources)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The use of irrigation ponds has proved to be an efficient alternative for increasing the availability and quality of water resources for irrigation and contributing to the sustainability of agriculture. This article analyses the dynamics of worldwide research on this topic over the last two decades. To do this, a review including a qualitative systematic analysis and a quantitative bibliometric analysis was carried out on a sample of 951 articles. The results reveal that this line of research is becoming more relevant within agricultural research, particularly in recent years. The research in this topic has focused on the sustainable development of vulnerable regions, the contribution to the agronomic improvement of crops and farms, environmental impact assessment, the joint management of water resources, the restoration of groundwater bodies, and the use of rainfall. Gaps have been found in the literature with respect to the capacity of irrigation ponds to cover the irrigation needs in different agricultural contexts, the perceptions and attitudes of farmers towards the use of irrigation ponds, and the economic–financial feasibility of these systems.

1. Introduction

Guaranteeing the supply of food and the conservation and availability of quality and sufficient water resources are two closely related challenges that society must address in the 21st century [1,2]. Agricultural ecosystems play a fundamental role in meeting these two challenges as they are the principal suppliers of food but also the principal consumers of water resources on a global level [3,4]. The consumption of fresh water for agricultural irrigation can vary between 60% and 90%, depending on the level of economic development and the climatic conditions of the region [5,6]. In this respect, the scarcity and the degradation of water resources can constitute an obstacle to economic development, particularly in developing countries and in areas with arid and semi-arid climates, where there is scarce rainfall and a limited availability of surface water [7,8,9]. Therefore, in order to guarantee the sustainability of agriculture, it is necessary to develop agricultural practices that are safe and do not negatively affect the environment, optimising food production and natural resources, particularly with respect to the management of water resources [10,11].
In this context, recovering certain traditional agricultural management practices can contribute to the sustainability of the activity and of the natural environment as a whole. These practices include the use of irrigation ponds [12,13]. The use of irrigation ponds (IPs) has been a common practice for centuries, both in domestic and agricultural uses [14]. Irrigation ponds are small, shallow bodies of water, varying in size from 1 to 50,000 m2. They hold water permanently or temporarily and can be man-made or naturally formed [15,16]. There are different types of IP depending on their construction, grouped into two main categories [17,18]: natural substrate ponds, which include embankments in small streams and ponds excavated in natural depressions, and artificial substrate ponds, which include those made from concrete and those lined with polyethylene. On a global level, it is estimated that there are 277,400,000 IPs with an area of less than one hectare and 24,120,000 water bodies with areas of between one and 10 hectares, accounting for more than 90% of the world’s standing water bodies [19,20]. Furthermore, the area on which reservoirs are constructed throughout the world has increased from 5% to 50% since the 1960s and, in the case of small ponds for agricultural irrigation, this increase many have been greater [21]. There are no data on a global scale that quantify the area, volume, or irrigation capacity of small ponds [22]. However, some data on a regional level reveal that in India the IP supply crops area varies between 1.5 and 50 hectares [23].
The water of agricultural ponds usually comes from rainfall, runoff, the storage of reused water, or the deviation of water from streams at moments of maximum flow [24]. The IPs allow farmers to capture rainfall, store excess water from irrigation channels, and conserve water from other sources [25,26]. The use of IPs enables the supply of complementary irrigation, which is particularly relevant in areas with scarce water resources, contributing to increasing and stabilising crop yields [27]. Chander et al. [28] showed the efficiency of agricultural IPs for withstanding long periods of drought and intensifying and diversifying production systems. Consequently, in recent years there has been an increase in the construction of agricultural IPs throughout the world [29,30]. In order to function correctly, IPs must be designed according to crop irrigation needs, estimating the possible losses through evaporation and filtration, and they should be located in such a way so as to collect the greatest amount of water possible from the catchment area [14]. Therefore, in order to select the most appropriate location, we must take into account different factors such as the type of soil, the slope of the catchment area, the rate of infiltration, the vegetation, and the amount and distribution of rainfall [31].
As well as the advantages for agriculture, the use of IPs has a positive impact on groundwater. On the one hand, the availability of surface water reduces the extraction of groundwater, and on the other hand, the use of natural substrate ponds helps to recharge groundwater resources as they allow infiltration to occur [32,33]. Some studies have indicated that IPs can provide many ecosystem services, such as the contribution to biodiversity, the supply and storage of water, the improvement in the quality of the water and air, the regulation of greenhouse gases, and flood control. [34,35]. However, the use of IPs also has drawbacks such as their dependence on rainfall, which is uncertain and limited; the possible losses of water through evaporation and filtration; the reduction in the availability of downstream and surface water resources for production as they are built on arable land; and the possible loss of storage capacity due to sedimentation [36,37,38,39,40].
Over the last few years, there has been an increase in the scientific literature on the use of IPs due to the many contributions of this type of system. However, we are unaware of any study that summarises the vast scientific information on the use, evolution, and trends related to irrigation ponds and their contribution to the sustainability of agricultural activity. Therefore, the objective of this article is to analyse the dynamics of the research on IPs in the agricultural context over the last 20 years, identifying the most relevant lines of research and possible gaps in the literature. The results of this article can be useful for research studies related to the sustainability of agriculture and for policy makers when designing policies and action programmes related to the management of water resources and the agricultural activity in arid and semi-arid environments.

2. Methodology

2.1. Bibliometric Analysis

A bibliometric analysis was used to carry out this study. This method was developed in the 1950s by Garfield with the objective of identifying, organising, and assessing the principal components of a specific field of research [41,42,43]. Since then, this methodology has been used in different disciplines, such as biology, engineering, medicine, and economics [44]. This analysis uses mapping techniques to represent the available bibliographic information in a database and statistical and mathematical methods to determine the trends in a research field [45,46]. In these types of studies we can find three kinds of indicators [47]: quantity indicators, which measure productivity; relevance indicators, which show the impact of the publications; and structural indicators, which analyse the connections between the different elements of the same research field. On the other hand, there are three approaches that are considered to be traditional for developing bibliometric studies [48]: co-occurrence, co-citation, and bibliographic coupling analysis. This study takes into account the three types of indicators and the traditional approach based on co-occurrence.
First, the journals, countries, and institutions that have most published on the use of IPs as a measure for achieving agricultural sustainability were identified and the impact of the publications was analysed. To do this, the following quality indicators were selected: the counting of citations, the H index, and the impact factor of the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) journals. The H index shows the number h of a total of N documents that include at least h citations in each of them [49]. Meanwhile, the SJR is an indicator that shows a weighting of the number of the citations received, taking into account the material and the prestige of the journal in which the citation is made [50]. These indicators are highly interesting for researchers, given that they enable them to compare the relevance of the journals in which to publish their articles [44]. Finally, the use of mapping techniques enables us to visualise the network generated between the agents who participate in a research field and to determine its trends [4].

2.2. Data Processing

The Scopus database was used to obtain the sample of studies to analyse based on different criteria. Scopus is the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature [51]. Furthermore, this database is the most widely used in bibliometric studies on similar topics such as irrigation, agriculture, and water resources [52,53]. The selection of the sample of articles to analyse in this study was carried out in February 2020 based on the following parameters: TITLE-ABS-KEY (pond OR reservoir OR “irrigation raft” OR “farm dam”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (irrigation OR agricultur* OR crop* OR farm* OR “greenhouse cultivation” OR horticulture) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (sustainability OR sustainable). The search was limited to the period 2000-2019. Only documents up to 2019 were included so that complete annual periods can be compared [54]. It is worth pointing out that different search queries can give rise to different results.
In order to avoid duplications, only original articles and reviews were included in the sample [55]. The initial sample was made up of 1343 documents. Then, a review of the documents was carried out based on titles and abstracts in order to eliminate from the sample all documents whose principal theme was not the analysis of the use of IPs in agriculture. The final sample was made up of 951 documents. After the information was downloaded, the data were refined to eliminate duplications, omissions and errors and to search for incomplete information [49]. Furthermore, a search for articles on agriculture with the same restrictions was carried out to analyse the relative importance of the use of IPs for sustainable agriculture within this general theme. The variables analysed were the number of articles, their year of publication, the subject area, the name of the journals, and the trends in the main keywords. The tools used were Excel (version 2016, Microsoft, Redmond, DC, USA), SciMaT (v1.1.04, Soft Computing and Intelligent Information Systems research group, University of Granada, Granada, Spain), and VOSviewer (version 1.6.5., Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands). Figure 1 shows the methodology applied in this study.

3. Results

3.1. Evolution of the General Characteristics of Research on Irrigation Ponds for Sustainable Agriculture (IPSA)

Table 1 shows the evolution of the principal variables related to the research on the use of irrigation ponds for sustainable agriculture (IPSA) in the period 2000–2019. The number of articles increased from 10 in 2000 to 111 in 2019. It is important to point out that this line of research has been experiencing strong growth in recent years, given that more than 50% of the articles of the sample have been published in the last five years. In order to determine whether the growth in the number of articles is due to the general trend in the research as a whole on agriculture, the annual variation in the number of articles published in both lines of research was calculated, taking the first year of the period analysed as a base (Figure 2). The average annual growth of the articles on agriculture was 9.97%, while that of articles on IPSA was 13.51%. These data allow us to confirm that IPSA is an increasingly relevant line within research on agriculture.
During the whole period analysed, a total of 3317 authors participated in the 951 articles that make up the sample. This is the variable that has experienced the most growth, increasing from 25 authors in 2000 to 492 in 2019. The average number of authors per article doubled from two to four. It is worth pointing out that the number of studies carried out by each of the authors is very low. Almost 95% of the researchers participated in only one article. Only 0.5% of the authors participated in four or more articles, and no authors participated in more than six. In the year 2000, the 10 articles analysed were published in 10 different journals, while in 2019 the 111 articles of the sample were published in 88 different journals. The average number of articles per journal has remained practically constant, increasing from one to two at the end of the period analysed. With respect to the countries that participated in carrying out the articles, during the whole period analysed there were a total of 106. The number of countries increased from 8 in 2000 to 52 in 2019. With respect to the citations, all of the documents in the sample accumulated a total of 16629 during the whole period. This figure increased from 8 in 2001 to 2938 in 2019. The average number of citations obtained per article grew from 0.3 in 2001 to 17.5 in 2019.

3.2. Evolution of Research in IPSA by Subject Area

Figure 3 shows the evolution of the articles published that have been classified based on the thematic categories established by Scopus. It should be taken into account that the same study may be classified in more than one category simultaneously. The category that accumulates the highest number of studies is Environmental Sciences with 64.35% of the total sample. This is followed by Agricultural and Biological Sciences with 34.38%, Earth and Planetary Sciences with 17.46%, Social Sciences with 16.41%, and Engineering with 13.76%. This concept of sustainability covers three fundamental dimensions: the environmental, economic, and social aspects [56]. The categories classified as being economic (Economics, Econometrics, and Finance and Business, Management, and Accounting) account for barely 5% of studies in the sample. Other representative categories such as Multidisciplinarity or Decision Science represent less than 2% and 1% of the total studies in the sample, respectively. These data highlight that there is a predominance of studies that analyse the environmental aspects of sustainability and a lack of studies that analyse the other dimensions. This implies that, despite the availability of the relevant information, research in IPSA is limited and greater analysis is required of aspects such as the profitability and economic–financial feasibility of the use of IPs, or the perception of the different parties interested in their benefits and drawbacks.

3.3. Most Relevant Journals in IPSA Research

Table 2 shows the most prolific journals in IPSA in the period 2000-2019 and the principal characteristics of their articles. The group as a whole published a total of 164 of the articles making up the sample analysed, representing 17% of the total. This highlights the wide dispersion with respect to the journals that publish articles on this topic. The journal with the highest number of articles published is Water with a total of 23. This journal has an H index of 8, a total of 143 citations, and its average number of citations per article is 6.2. Its SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) impact factor is 0.670, and it has been publishing on IPSA since 2009, when its first article on this topic was printed. Nongye Gongcheng Xuebao Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering is in second place with a total of 21 articles. This Chinese journal has an H index of 6, a total of 92 citations, and its average number of citations per article is 4.4. Its SJR impact factor is 0.422. This journal is the only one that has not published any articles on the subject since 2017. In third position is Agricultural Water Management with a total of 19 articles. This journal published its first article on IPSA in the year 2000 and is therefore the most veteran in the table. It currently maintains this line of publication. The H index of this journal is 11, it has a total of 323 citations, and the average number of citations per article is 17.1. Journal of Hydrology is in seventh place with 15 articles. It is the journal with the highest SJR impact factor—1.830. This journal also accumulates the highest number of citations,588, and the highest average number of citations per article, with 39.2 and an H index of 10. Sustainability and Journal of Cleaner Production are the most recent newcomers to the subject, given that, in both cases, their first articles within the sample analysed were published in 2015. Despite this, these two journals are in fifth and ninth position, with 16 and 12 articles, respectively.

3.4. Most Relevant Countries in IPSA Research

Table 3 shows the most prolific countries in IPSA research in the period 2000–2019 and the principal characteristics of their articles. This group includes a very heterogeneous series of countries, located in every continent except Africa. It is worth mentioning that practically all of these countries began to participate in this line of research at the beginning of the period analysed and continue to do so today. China holds the first position with a total of 186 articles. This is followed by the USA with 174, India with 103, the UK with 58, and Germany with 50. In order to determine the relative weight of each country in the research on IPSA in the global context, the number of articles per million inhabitants was calculated. Based on this variable, Australia is the most productive country with 1.961 articles per million inhabitants. This is followed by the UK with 0.872, France with 0.731, Spain with 0.706, and Germany with 0.603. With respect to the relevance of the research, measured through the number of citations obtained by the articles, the USA holds the first position with a total of 5597 citations. This is followed by China with 2272, Italy with 1852, the UK with 1.551, and France with 1512. However, if we consider the average number of citations per article, Italy is the most prominent country with 52.9. This is followed by Spain with 38.5, the USA with 32.2, France with 30.9, and the UK with 26.7.
The results of the analysis of the collaboration networks established between the most prolific countries with respect to research on IPSA are shown in Table 4. The average percentage of articles carried out through international collaboration by the group of the 10 countries is 47.79%. The average size of the collaboration networks is 25 countries. The country with the highest percentage of studies carried out through international collaboration is France with 67.35%. This is followed by the UK with 67.24% and the USA with 60.34%. The USA has the largest collaboration network with 45 different collaborators. This is followed by France with 36, the UK with 34, and Germany with 30. The table also shows the five principal collaborators of each country. The USA forms part of the group of the most important partners of the rest of the countries, except Spain, which is the principal collaborator of seven of them (China, India, UK, Germany, France, Brazil, and Italy). The articles written in collaboration obtained an average of 36.1 citations, while those without collaboration obtained 19.1.
Figure 4 shows a network map depicting the collaboration relationships established between the different countries. The size of the circle varies depending on the number of articles of each country, and the lines represent the relationships established between countries, the thickness of which depends on the number of collaborations. The different colours identify the collaboration groups, with three clusters being distinguished. The red cluster is led by China in terms of the number of articles and includes the USA, India, the UK, Canada, and the Netherlands among its principal collaborators. The green cluster is led by Germany and includes countries such as Italy, Brazil, Spain, and Portugal. Finally, the blue cluster is led by Australia, which appears together with France, Turkey, Belgium, and South Africa.

3.5. Most Relevant Institutions in IPSA Research

Table 5 shows the most prolific institutions in IPSA in the period 2000–2019 and the principal characteristics of their articles. These institutions belong to China, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, and Ethiopia. It is worth pointing out the low number of articles per institution. The institutions as a whole account for 17% of the total number of articles forming the sample, and only two of them have published more than 10 articles on IPSA. The Chinese Academy of Sciences holds the first position with 62 articles. This institution also has the highest number of citations, with a total of 1097, an average of 17.7 citations per article, and an H index of 16. The institution with the second largest number of articles is the Ministry of Education China with a total of 11 articles published. This institution has 244 citations, an average of 22.2 citations per article and an H index of 6. In third place is the Wageningen University and Research Centre with 10 articles in total, 360 citations, an average of 36.1 citations per article, and an H index of 6. The Belgian institute KU Leuven has the highest average number of citations of those included in the table with 42.9.
With respect to the international collaboration of the institutions, the average percentage of articles carried out through collaboration with other institutions is 48.62%. In two of these institutions, KU Leuven and Mekelle University, 100% of their articles published have been carried out through international collaboration. They are followed by Wageningen University and Research Centre and Universiteit Gent, each with 80%. The institutions with the highest number of citations in the jointly written articles were KU Leuven, Ministry of Education China, and Wageningen University and Research Centre.

3.6. Keywords Analysis in IPSA Research

Figure 5 shows the grouping of the principal keywords used in the sample of articles as a whole, based on the network analysis. The colour represents the group in which the keyword is included depending on the number of co-appearances. The most used keywords in the period as a whole and, therefore, which constitute the central focus of the research in this topic are “sustainable development”, “water management, “water supply”, “groundwater”, “water resources”, “environment”, “land use”, and “rural development”. The use of these terms became widespread between 2012 and 2013. The terms “water conservation” and “climate change” gained weight after 2015, revealing the current growing concern over water resources and the effects of climate change.
In this figure we can see the terms grouped into clusters, showing different lines of research in IPSA. The first (violet) refers to the management of water resources, including terms such as “adaptive management”, “resources management”, “water management”, “water planning”, “decision making”, and “optimization”. Within the current context of scarce water resources, this line of research is particularly relevant as it is necessary to carry out a correct management of the available water resources, creating plans to ensure an optimum combination of conventional resources and other alternative resources such as desalinated or reused water, thanks to the use of IPs [57,58,59,60]. More specifically, this line of research focuses on the use of the new information technologies for developing programs to obtain reliable data regarding the number of IPs, spatial distribution, and potential storage volume with the objective of increasing the availability and quality of the water and reducing the costs of the agricultural farms [61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68].
The second cluster (yellow) focuses on groundwater resources and includes concepts such as “groundwater abstractions”, “groundwater resources”, or “groundwater recharge”. The growing concern for conserving groundwater resources has led to the construction of more IPs on agricultural farms, giving rise to the development of a line of research based on the study of the contribution of the IPs to the recharging of aquifers [33,69] and the management and joint use of different water sources to guarantee the sustainability of groundwater without affecting the agricultural yields [70,71,72,73].
The third cluster (dark blue) studies the rainwater harvesting and runoff systems, including terms such as “rainwater harvesting”, “runoff”, “catchment areas”, or “rain”. These systems usually require the use of a pond or tank to store the water, so studies have been developed to determine the appropriate location and structure for their implementation [74,75,76,77]. The correct implementation of these systems has favourable implications for the area in which they are located, going beyond agriculture, namely flood prevention and the conservation of infrastructures. However, it is still necessary to improve the knowledge regarding their use, their capacity to cover irrigation needs based on the characteristics of the area of study, and the perception of the farmers therein.
The fourth cluster (green) refers to sustainable development, with terms such as “development”, “rural population”, or “household income”. Along these lines we can find studies on the capacity of the IPs to act as systems to boost certain areas or regions, particularly in countries with fewer resources which are those that are expected to be harder hit by the effects of climate change. The use of IPs may provide a whole host of benefits derived from the possibility of increasing the availability of water, both for its use in the home and for agriculture and cattle farming [78,79,80,81]. However, more studies are required related to the limitations that may exist in implementing these systems and the possible impacts on the areas in which they are located.
The fifth (light blue) analyses the effects that the construction and use of IPs can have on natural resources and the environment, including concepts such as “environmental impact”, “environmental protection”, “biodiversity”, “ecology”, or “ecosystem service”. Along these lines we can find studies that show that IPs are one of the freshwater habitats with the greatest biodiversity and ecological importance, providing valuable ecosystemic services for society [82,83]. Other studies focus on the assessment of the negative impacts, such as the reduction of river flows [84,85].
The sixth (red) focuses on the agronomic environment, including terms related to crops, such as “crop yield”, “crop plant”, “crop production”, “wheat”, or “rice”. With respect to the IPs, the study from an agronomic perspective has been based on the analysis of the possible effects that these can have on the production capacity of the agricultural ecosystems in a certain area [86,87]. However, it is difficult to determine the possible increase in the yields due to the fact that there are no data with respect to the irrigation capacity of the IP as well as the variability in rainfall, the principal supply source of the IP.

4. Discussion

Currently, water resources are suffering from a severe degradation process due to global climate change, demographic growth, the modification in the use of land, and overexploitation derived from economic development [88,89,90,91]. As a result, an increase in the competition for the available water will arise in the near future, which represents a threat to ensuring the resources necessary to guarantee the food supply [92,93]. In this context, the objective is sustainable development, defined as that which satisfies the needs of the current generation without compromising the capacity of future generations to satisfy theirs, considering the environmental, economic, and social dimensions [94]. The use of IPs has positive impacts on these three dimensions to be considered to reach sustainable development in agriculture.
From an economic perspective, an irregular and insufficient supply of water can limit agricultural production, compromising the stability of income and the survival of many families who rely on a subsistence agricultural model [95]. Therefore, the construction and use of IPs can positively influence the maintenance of the activity in agricultural areas as it provides an alternative source of water and guarantees supply when the distribution of rainfall over time does not coincide with the crop seasons [14,23]. Different studies have shown that the use of IPs can be translated into increases in cultivated areas, a diversification of production to adapt it to market demand, and an increase in yields [22,28,31,65].
On an environmental level, the IPs can have different positive effects. The development of agricultural activity in certain areas has fundamentally been based on the use of water drawn from underground sources, leading to a current state of overexploitation of these sources [8,9]. This is the case of the arid and semi-arid areas where between 60% and 100% of the water supply for agriculture depends on groundwater resources [96,97]. It is estimated that the overexploitation of groundwater resources on a global level amounts to 163 km3 each year [5,98]. The IPs can contribute to recharging the aquifers and to reducing the extractions of groundwater, reducing the pressure that these water bodies are subjected to. Ouyang et al. [30] determine that the irrigation of 10,000 hectares of crops in Mississippi with water accumulated in IPs could reduce the use of groundwater by 11%. Carvajal et al. [29] conclude that the use of water collected in IP systems in an agricultural area in Southeast Spain enabled the water needs from other sources to be reduced by 53%. On the other hand, the IPs can help to mitigate the effects of climate change as they act as carbon sinks. Downing [99] indicates that “carbon sequestration by ponds may be as great as or greater than that of forests, grasslands, and all the world’s oceans”. More specifically, it is estimated that a 500 m2 IP can sequester up to 1000 kg of carbon per year [20]. Thus, the IPs can offer diverse ecosystemic services and favourably influence the biodiversity [100].
No studies have been found that specifically analyse the impact of the use of IPs in the social context. However, the availability of these systems has been associated with a reduction in the vulnerability of the population to the effects of climate change and an improvement in the livelihoods of the poorest areas of developing countries [37]. The greater availability of water resources derived from the use of IPs would guarantee the supply of water and food. The possibility of extending the agricultural areas would facilitate the generation of employment and the increase in wealth in the most disadvantaged areas. Furthermore, the construction of IPs close to inhabited areas and crops could represent an increase in schooling and the incorporation of women into the labour market, as these groups, which are in danger of exclusion, would be liberated from the task of collecting water [101].
On the other hand, the use of IPs contributes to achieving the objectives proposed in the United Nations Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development [102]. Water plays a fundamental role in all aspects of sustainable development, as it is an essential natural resource on which all social and economic activities depend as do the different types of ecosystem [103]. Thus, water directly or indirectly influences the achievement of the 17 objectives included in this Agenda. The increase in the availability of water as a result of the use of IPs can help to mitigate poverty (Objective 1), as it enables an increase in agricultural yields and the income derived from extending the crop area and/or the diversification of production. Currently, there are more than 820 million people who suffer from hunger throughout the world. Therefore, Objective 2 of the Agenda is to eradicate hunger and improve nutrition [104]. The use of IPs enables the growing of food for small scale supply, thanks to the availability of water for irrigating an orchard and covering cattle needs. The generation of employment and economic growth are also objectives for sustainable development (Objective 8). The use of IPs contributes to this objective as it guarantees the survival of the agricultural activity, particularly in those areas in which it is an essential activity and through the possibility of extending the crop area. The different positive effects on the environment derived from IPs, such as carbon sequestration or the reduction in the overexploitation of aquifers, can contribute to the fight against climate change (Objective 13).
IPs have positive impacts on achieving agricultural sustainability, but we must consider a series of limitations. Although new approaches have been developed to estimate the number of IPs, their volume, and capacity based on the new technologies and techniques of remote sensing and geographic information systems (GISs), it is not simple to carry out these quantifications and determine their possible environmental impacts [67]. The difficulty in estimating these data is derived from the need to conduct them on a local or regional level, given the influence of a series of factors that vary in accordance with the area such as the soil conditions, the slope, or the climate [22,40]. Furthermore, the non-existence of a common method to carry out these studies gives rise to heterogeneous results in the same area of study. This difficulty in quantifying the number, area, and volume of these water bodies means that, in many cases, they are not taken into account as part of the hydrological system [64]. On the other hand, with respect to estimating the irrigation capacity of the ponds, this will vary depending on the area and the type of crop, which requires the development of specific studies that analyse these aspects jointly [105]. Therefore, it will be necessary to consider alternatives to the factors that can limit the benefits derived from the use of the ponds and study their possible effects on a regional scale and how to address the possible consequences that climate change may have on them. Furthermore, it is necessary to analyse the contribution of the IPs to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Objectives in order to obtain all of the information necessary to design specific action plans on a local, regional, and national scale.

5. Conclusions

The development of alternative sources of water resources is one of the most promising options for addressing the challenge of satisfying the future demand for irrigation water. The use of IPs has been shown to be a relevant practice to increase the availability of water resources for agricultural use, as they enable the storage of water during the rainy season for its subsequent use in accordance with crop needs and they allow the mixture of water from different origins. Furthermore, the use of these systems can have a favourable impact on sustainable development. From an economic sustainability point of view, they can help the survival of the agricultural sector in areas with scarce water resources, particularly small farms, and enable the extension of the crop area and the diversification of production, which can translate into an increase in income. With respect to the environment, the use of IPs can contribute to mitigating the effects of climate change, as they act as regulators of greenhouse gases. They can also contribute to the conservation of groundwater as they reduce extractions and favour infiltration. Finally, the use of IPs enables the settlement of the population and literacy and the incorporation into the labour market of people in danger of exclusion in poor rural areas. However, the significance and quantification of the possible effects of the IPs on the three dimensions of sustainability will vary depending on the characteristics of the area of study. Therefore, it is necessary to undertake studies that analyse in depth the use of IPs, particularly in the poorest regions prone to suffering the effects of climate change.
The keywords analysis reveals that the research in IPSA has continually evolved over the period analysed, with a predominance of the development of very recent research topics. This indicates that this is a very new line of study. It has also revealed the principal lines of research and certain gaps in the knowledge with respect to each of them. In general, the main gaps, which constitute possible future lines of study, correspond to the technical development of the reservoir systems, including the measurement of their capacity based on rainfall prediction models; the quantification of the impact of the use of IPs, both positive and negative, for agriculture and for the environment as a whole, for example groundwater; the capacity to increase the crop yields in different agricultural contexts; and the possibility of diversifying them depending on the characteristics of the geographic area. On the other hand, it is particularly relevant to analyse the level of knowledge on the use of IPs by farmers, as well as the study of the different aspects related to the socio-economic characteristics of these farmers as the perception of adopting this system, the economic–financial feasibility of its application, willingness to pay, or whether government incentives are required.

Author Contributions

The four authors have equally contributed to this paper. All authors have revised and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

This work was partially supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness and the European Regional Development Fund by means of the research project ECO2017-82347-P, and by the Research Plan of the University of Almería through a Gerty Cori Predoctoral Contract to Belén López Felices. This paper was developed during the research stay by José A. Aznar-Sánchez at the Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Aznar-Sánchez, J.A.; Belmonte-Ureña, L.J.; Velasco-Muñoz, J.F.; Manzano-Agugliaro, F. Economic analysis of sustainable water use: A review of worldwide research. J. Clean Prod. 2018, 198, 1120–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. WWAP (United Nations World Water Assessment Programme)/UN-Water. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2018: Nature-Based Solutions for Water; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  3. Assouline, S.; Russo, D.; Silber, A.; Or, D. Balancing water scarcity and quality for sustainable irrigated agriculture. Water Resour. Res. 2015, 51, 3419–3436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Velasco-Muñoz, J.F.; Aznar-Sánchez, J.A.; Batlles de la Fuente, A.; Fidelibus, M.D. Sustainable Irrigation in Agriculture: An Analysis of Global Research. Water 2019, 11, 1758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Adeyemi, O.; Grove, I.; Peets, S.; Norton, T. Advanced monitoring and management systems for improving sustainability in precision irrigation. Sustainability 2017, 9, 353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Velasco-Muñoz, J.V.; Aznar-Sánchez, J.A.; Belmonte-Ureña, L.J.; Román-Sánchez, I.M. Sustainable water use in agriculture: A review of worldwide research. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Yang, H.; Zehnder, A.J.B. Water Scarcity and Food Import: A Case Study for Southern Mediterranean Countries. World Dev. 2002, 30, 1413–1430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Siebert, S.; Burke, J.; Faures, J.M.; Frenken, K.; Hoogeveen, J.; Döll, P.; Portmann, F.T. Groundwater use for irrigation–a global inventory. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2010, 14, 1863–1880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Wada, Y.; Van Beek, L.P.H.; Bierkens, M.F.P. Nonsustainable groundwater sustaining irrigation: A global assessment. Water Ressour. Res. 2012, 48, W00L06. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lichtfouse, E.; Navarrete, M.; Debaeke, P.; Souchère, V.; Alberola, C.; Ménassieu, J. Agronomy for sustainable agriculture. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2009, 29, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Shah, F.; Wu, W. Soil and Crop Management Strategies to Ensure Higher Crop Productivity within Sustainable Environments. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Angelakis, A.N.; Spyridakis, D.S. Water supply and wastewater management aspects in Ancient Greece. Water Sci. Technol. Water Supply 2010, 10, 618–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. De Feo, G.; Laureano, P.; Drusiani, R.; Angelakis, A.N. Water and wastewater management technologies through the centuries. Water Sci. Technol. Water Supply 2010, 10, 337–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Anjum, S.A.; Wang, L.C.; Xue, L.; Saleem, M.F.; Wang, G.X.; Zou, C.M. Desertification in Pakistan: Causes, impacts and management. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2010, 8, 1203–1208. [Google Scholar]
  15. Céréghino, R.; Biggs, J.; Oertli, B.; Declerck, S. The ecology of European ponds: Defining the characteristics of a neglected freshwater hábitat. Hydrobiologia 2008, 597, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Riley, W.D.; Potter, E.C.D.; Biggs, J.; Collins, A.L.; Jarvie, H.P.; Jones, J.I.; Kelly-Quinn, M.; Ormerod, S.J.; Sear, D.A.; Wilby, R.L.; et al. Small Water Bodies in Great Britain and Ireland: Ecosystem function, human-generated degradation, and options for restorative action. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 645, 1598–1616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Casas, J.; Toja, J.; Bonachela, S.; Fuentes, F.; Gallego, I.; Juan, M.; Leon, D.; Peñalver, P.; Pérez, C.; Sánchez, P. Artificial ponds in a Mediterranean region (Andalusia, southern Spain): Agricultural and environmental issues. Water Environ. J. 2011, 25, 308–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Jiang, S.; Ning, S.; Cao, X.; Jin, J.; Song, F.; Yuan, X.; Zhang, L.; Xu, X.; Udmale, P. Optimal Water Resources Regulation for the Pond Irrigation System Based on Simulation—A Case Study in Jiang-Huai Hilly Regions, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Downing, J.A.; Prairie, Y.T.; Cole, J.J.; Duarte, C.M.; Tranvik, L.J.; Striegl, R.G.; McDowell, W.H.; Kortelainen, P.; Caraco, N.F.; Melack, J.M.; et al. The global abundance and size distribution of lakes, ponds, and impoundments. Limnol. Oceanogr. 2006, 51, 2388–2397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Céréghino, R.; Boix, D.; Cauchie, H.-M.; Martens, K.; Oertli, B. The ecological role of ponds in a changing world. Hydrobiologia 2014, 723, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Ramsar Convention Secretariat. Global Wetland Outlook: State of the World’s Wetlands and Their Services to People; Ramsar Convention on Wetlands: Gland, Switzerland, 2018; p. 24. [Google Scholar]
  22. Wisser, D.; Frolking, S.; Douglas, E.M.; Fekete, B.M.; Schumann, A.H.; Vörösmarty, C.J. The significance of local water resources captured in small reservoirs for crop production—A global-scale analysis. J. Hydrol. 2010, 384, 264–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Gunnell, Y.; Krishnamurthy, A. Past and present status of runoff harvesting systems in dryland peninsular India: A critical review. Ambio 2003, 32, 320–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Ouyang, Y.; Paz, J.O.; Feng, G.; Read, J.J.; Adeli, A.; Jenkins, J.N. A Model to Estimate Hydrological Processes and Water Budget in an Irrigation Farm Pond. Water Resour. Manag. 2017, 31, 2225–2241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Mushtaqa, S.; Khana, S.; Hafeezb, M. Evaluating the impact of ponds in sustaining crop production: A case of Zhanghe irrigation system in China. Water Policy 2009, 11, 236–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Fuentes-Rodríguez, F.; Juan, M.; Gallego, I.; Lusi, M.; Fenoy, E.; León, D.; Peñalver, P.; Toja, J.; Casas, J.J. Diversity in Mediterranean farm ponds: Trade-offs and synergies between irrigation modernisation and biodiversity conservation. Freshw. Biol. 2013, 58, 63–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Oweis, T.; Hachum, A. Water harvesting and supplemental irrigation for improved water productivity of dry farming systems in West Asia and North Africa. Agric. Water Manag. 2006, 80, 57–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Chander, G.; Reddy, T.Y.; Kumar, S.; Padmalatha, Y.; Reddy, S.; Adinarayana, G.; Wania, S.P.; Reddy, Y.V.M.; Srinivas, K. Low-cost interventions for big impacts in dryland production systems. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2019, 65, 1211–1222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Carvajal, F.; Agüera, F.; Sánchez-Hermosilla, J. Water balance in artificial on-farm agricultural water reservoirs for the irrigation of intensive greenhouse crops. Agric. Water Manag. 2014, 131, 146–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ouyang, Y.; Feng, G.; Read, J.J.; Leininger, T.D.; Jenkins, J.N. Estimating the ratio of pond size to irrigated soybean land in Mississippi: A case study. Water Sci. Technol.-Water Supply 2016, 16, 1639–1647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Rao, C.S.; Rejani, R.; Rao, C.A.R.; Rao, K.V.; Osman, M.; Reddy, K.S.; Kumar, M.; Kumar, P. Farm ponds for climate-resilient rainfed agricultura. Curr. Sci. 2017, 112, 471–477. [Google Scholar]
  32. Sikka, A.K.; Islam, A.; Rao, K. Climate-smart land and water management for sustainable agriculture. Irrig. Drain. 2017, 67, 72–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Morsy, K.M.; Morsy, A.M.; Hassan, A.E. Groundwater sustainability: Opportunity out of threat. Groundw. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 7, 277–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Moore, T.L.C.; Hunt, W.F. Ecosystem service provision by stormwater wetlands and ponds—a means for evaluation? Water Res. 2012, 46, 6811–6823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Prudencio, L.; Null, S.E. Stormwater management and ecosystem services: A review. Environ. Res. Lett. 2018, 13, 033002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Craig, I.; Green, A.; Scobie, M.; Schmidt, E. Controlling Evaporation Loss from Water Storages; Report 1000580/1; National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture: Toowoomba, Austalia, 2005.
  37. Liebe, J.; van de Giesen, N.; Andreini, M. Estimation of small reservoir storage capacities in a semi-arid environment: A case study in the Upper East Region of Ghana. Phys. Chem. Earth Parts A/B/C 2005, 30, 448–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ngigia, S.N.; Savenije, H.H.G.; Thome, J.N.; Johan Rockström, J.; de Vries, F.W.T.P. Agro-hydrological evaluation of on-farm rainwater storage systems for supplemental irrigation in Laikipia district, Kenya. Agric. Water Manag. 2005, 73, 21–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Krol, M.S.; de Vries, M.J.; van Oel, P.R.; de Araújo, J.C. Sustainability of small reservoirs and large scale water availability under current conditions and climate change. Water Resour. Manag. 2011, 25, 3017–3026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Vico, G.; Tamburino, L.; Rigby, J.R. Designing on-farm irrigation ponds for high and stable yield for different climates and risk-coping attitudes. J. Hydrol. 2020, 584, 124634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Garfield, E.; Sher, I.H. New factors in the evaluation of scientific literature through citation indexing. Am. Doc. 1963, 14, 195–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Huang, L.; Zhang, Y.; Guo, Y.; Zhu, D.; Porter, A.L. Four dimensional science and technology planning: A new approach based on bibliometrics and technology roadmapping. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2014, 81, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Aznar-Sánchez, J.A.; Velasco-Muñoz, J.F.; García-Gómez, J.J.; López-Serrano, M.J. The Sustainable Management of Metals: An Analysis of Global Research. Metals 2018, 8, 805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Aznar-Sánchez, J.A.; Belmonte-Ureña, L.J.; López-Serrano, M.J.; Velasco-Muñoz, J.F. Forest Ecosystem Services: An Analysis of Worldwide Research. Forests 2018, 9, 453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Uriona-Maldonado, M.; Silva-Santos, J.L.; Santos, R.N.M. Inovação e Conhecimento Organizacional: Um mapeamento bibliométrico das publicações cientificas até 2009. In Proceedings of the XXXIV Encontro ANPAD, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 25–29 September 2010. [Google Scholar]
  46. Albort-Morant, G.; Henseler, J.; Leal-Millán, A.; Cepeda-Carrión, G. Mapping the field: A bibliometric analysis of green innovation. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Durieux, V.; Gevenois, P.A. Bibliometric indicators: Quality measurements of scientific publication. Radiology 2010, 55, 342–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Robinson, D.K.; Huang, L.; Guo, Y.; Porter, A.L. Forecasting Innovation Pathways (FIP) for new and emerging science and technologies. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2013, 80, 267–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Aznar-Sánchez, J.A.; Velasco-Muñoz, J.F.; López-Felices, B.; Román-Sánchez, I.M. An Analysis of Global Research Trends on Greenhouse Technology: Towards a Sustainable Agriculture. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Aznar-Sánchez, J.A.; Velasco-Muñoz, J.F.; Belmonte-Ureña, L.J.; Manzano-Agugliaro, F. The worldwide research trends on water ecosystem services. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 99, 310–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Opejin, A.K.; Aggarwal, R.M.; White, D.D.; Jones, J.L.; Maciejewski, R.; Mascaro, G.; Sarjoughian, H.S. A Bibliometric Analysis of Food-Energy-Water Nexus Literature. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Velasco-Muñoz, J.F.; Aznar-Sánchez, J.A.; Belmonte-Ureña, L.J.; López-Serrano, M.J. Advances in Water Use Efficiency in Agriculture: A Bibliometric Analysis. Water 2018, 10, 377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Aznar-Sánchez, J.A.; Piquer-Rodríguez, M.; Velasco-Muñoz, J.F.; Manzano-Agugliaro, F. Worldwide research trends on sustainable land use in agriculture. Land Use Pol. 2019, 87, 104069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Velasco-Muñoz, J.F.; Aznar-Sánchez, J.A.; Batlles-delaFuente, A.; Fidelibus, M.D. Rainwater Harvesting for Agricultural Irrigation: An Analysis of Global Research. Water 2019, 11, 1320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Aznar-Sánchez, J.A.; García-Gómez, J.J.; Velasco-Muñoz, J.F.; Carretero-Gómez, A. Mining Waste and Its Sustainable Management: Advances in Worldwide Research. Minerals 2018, 8, 284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Galdeano-Gómez, E.; Aznar-Sánchez, J.A.; Pérez-Mesa, J.C.; Piedra-Muñoz, L. Exploring synergies among agricultural sustainability dimensions: An empirical study on farming system in Almería (Southeast Spain). Ecol. Econ. 2017, 140, 99–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Loukas, A.; Mylopoulos, N.; Vasiliades, L. A modeling system for the evaluation of water resources management strategies in Thessaly, Greece. Water Resour. Manag. 2007, 21, 1673–1702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Laghari, A.; Vanham, D.; Rauch, W. The Indus basin in the framework of current and future water resources management. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2012, 16, 1063–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Paul, N.; Elango, L. Predicting future water supply-demand gap with a new reservoir, desalination plant and waste water reuse by water evaluation and planning model for Chennai megacity, India. Groundw. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 7, 8–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Aznar-Sánchez, J.A.; Belmonte-Ureña, L.J.; Velasco-Muñoz, J.V.; Valera, D.L. Aquifer Sustainability and the Use of Desalinated Seawater for Greenhouse Irrigation in the Campo de Níjar, Southeast Spain. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  61. Froebrich, J. Enhanced reservoir operation- concept for improving water quality and water management in water stressed areas (a comparison and synthesis from case studies in Central Asia and North-Africa). Int. Agric. Eng. J. 2005, 14, 147–160. [Google Scholar]
  62. Sawunyama, T.; Senzanje, A.; Mhizha, A. Estimation of small reservoir storage capacities in Limpopo River Basin using geographical information systems (GIS) and remotely sensed surface areas: Case of Mzingwane catchment. Phys. Chem. Earth 2006, 31, 935–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Aznar-Sánchez, J.A.; Galdeano-Gómez, E.; Pérez-Mesa, J.C. Intensive Horticulture in Almería (Spain): A Counterpoint to Current European Rural Policy Strategies. J. Agrar. Chang. 2011, 11, 241–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Rodrigues, L.; Sano, E.; Steenhuis, T.; Passo, D. Estimation of small reservoir storage capacities with remote sensing in the Brazilian Savannah Region. Water Resour. Manag. 2012, 26, 873–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Aristeidis, K.; Dimitrios, S. The effect of small earth dams and reservoirs on water management in North Greece (Kerkini municipality). Silva Balcanica 2015, 16, 71–84. [Google Scholar]
  66. Hong, E.M.; Choi, J.Y.; Nam, W.H.; Kim, J.T. Decision support system for the real-time operation and management of an agricultural water supply. Irrig. Drain. 2016, 65, 197–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Casadei, S.; Di Francesco, S.; Giannone, F.; Pierleoni, A. Small reservoirs for a sustainable water resources management. Adv. Geosci. 2019, 49, 165–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Sanchis, R.; Díaz-Madroñero, M.; López-Jiménez, P.A.; Pérez-Sánchez, M. Solution Approaches for the Management of the Water Resources in Irrigation Water Systems with Fuzzy Costs. Water 2019, 11, 2432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Walraevens, K.; Gebreyohannes-Tewolde, T.; Amare, K.; Hussein, A.; Berhane, G.; Baert, R.; Ronsse, S.; Kebede, S.; Van Hulle, L.; Deckers, J.; et al. Water Balance Components for Sustainability Assessment of Groundwater-Dependent Agriculture: Example of the Mendae Plain (Tigray, Ethiopia). Land Degrad. Dev. 2015, 26, 725–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Gebreyohannes, T.; Smedt, F.; Walraevens, K.; Gebresilassie, S. Application of a spatially distributed water balance model for assessing surface water and groundwater resources in the Geba basin, Tigray, Ethiopia. J. Hydrol. 2013, 499, 110–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kovacs, K.; Mancini, M. Conjunctive water management to sustain agricultural economic returns and a shallow aquifer at the landscape level. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2017, 72, 158–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Mehta, V.; Young, C.; Bresney, S.; Spivak, D.; Winter, J. How can we support the development of robust groundwater sustainability plans? Calif. Agric. 2018, 72, 54–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Soares, S.; Terêncio, D.; Fernandes, L.; Machado, J.; Pacheco, F. The Potential of Small Dams for Conjunctive Water Management in Rural Municipalities. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Tsihrintzis, V.A.; Baltas, E. Determination of rainwater harvesting tank size. Glob. Nest. J. 2014, 16, 822–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Hussein, F.; Shariff, R. Selection of rainwater harvesting sites by using remote sensing and GIS techniques: A case study of Kirkuk, Iraq. J. Teknol. 2015, 76, 75–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Singh, L.; Jha, M.; Chowdary, V. Multi-criteria analysis and GIS modelling for identifying prospective water harvesting and artificial recharge sites for sustainable water supply. J. Clean Prod. 2016, 142, 1436–1456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Mugo, G.M.; Odera, P.A. Site selection for rainwater harvesting structures in Kiambu County-Kenya. Egypt. J. Remote Sens. Space Sci. 2018, 22, 155–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Rabbani, G.; Rahman, S.; Faulkner, L. Impacts of Climatic Hazards on the Small Wetland Ecosystems (ponds): Evidence from Some Selected Areas of Coastal Bangladesh. Sustainability 2013, 5, 1510–1521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Deka, N.; Bhagabati, A.K. Wetlands in a Village Environment: A Case from Brahmaputra Floodplain, Assam. Trans. Inst. Indian Geogr. 2015, 37, 35–46. [Google Scholar]
  80. Ojha, A.; Pattnaik, A.K.; Rout, J. Climate change impacts on natural resources and communities: A geospatial approach for management. Lakes Reserv. Res. Manag. 2018, 23, 34–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Ho, L.T.; Goethals, P.L.M. Opportunities and Challenges for the Sustainability of Lakes and Reservoirs in Relation to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Water 2019, 11, 1462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Brainwood, M.; Burgin, S. Hotspots of biodiversity or homogeneous landscapes? Farm dams as biodiversity reserves in Australia. Biodivers. Conserv. 2009, 18, 3043–3052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Hill, M.J.; Hassall, C.; Oertli, B.; Fahrig, L.; Robson, B.J.; Biggs, J.; Samways, M.J.; Usio, N.; Takamura, N.; Krishnaswamy, J.; et al. New policy directions for global pond conservation. Conserv. Lett. 2018, 11, e12447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Döll, P.; Fiedler, K.; Zhang, J. Global-scale analysis of river flow alterations due to water withdrawals and reservoirs. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. 2009, 6, 4773–4812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Habets, F.; Philippe, E.; Martin, E.; David, C.H.; Leseur, F. Small farm dams: Impact on river flows and sustainability in a context of climate change. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2014, 18, 4207–4222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Tan, C.S.; Zhang, T.Q.; Drury, C.F.; Reynolds, W.D.; Oloya, T.; Gaynor, J.D. Water Quality and Crop Production Improvements Using a Wetland-Reservoir and Drainage/Subsurface Irrigation System. Can. Water Resour. J. 2007, 32, 129–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Ferreira, V.; Panagopoulos, T.; Andrade, R.; Guerrero, C.; Loures, L. Spatial variability of soil properties and soil erodibility in the Alqueva reservoir watershed. Solid Earth 2015, 6, 383–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Mehan, S.; Aggarwal, R.; Gitau, M.W.; Flanagan, D.C.; Wallace, C.W.; Frankenberger, J.R. Assessment of hydrology and nutrient losses in a changing climate in a subsurface-drained watershed. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 688, 1236–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Schewe, J.; Heinke, J.; Gerten, D.; Haddeland, I.; Arnell, N.W.; Clark, D.B.; Dankers, R.; Eisner, S.; Fekete, B.M.; Colon-Gonzalez, F.J.; et al. Multimodel Assessment of water scarcity under climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 3245–3250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  90. Namugize, J.N.; Jewitt, G.; Graham, M. Effects of land use and land cover changes on water quality in the uMngeni river catchment, South Africa. Phys. Chem. Earth 2018, 105, 247–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Graham, N.T.; Hejazi, M.I.; Chen, M.; Davies, E.G.R.; Edmonds, J.A.; Kim, S.H.; Turner, S.W.D.; Li, X.; Vernon, C.R.; Calvin, K.; et al. Humans drive future water scarcity changes across all Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. Environ. Res. Lett. 2020, 15, 014007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. WWAP (UNESCO World Water Assessment Programme). The United Nations World Water Development Report 2019: Leaving No One Behind; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  93. Fróna, D.; Szenderák, J.; Harangi-Rákos, M. The Challenge of Feeding the World. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Brundtland, G.; Khalid, M.; Agnelli, S.; Al-Athel, S.; Chidzero, B.; Fadika, L.; Hauff, V.; Lang, I.; Shijun, M.; Okita, S.; et al. Our Common Future (‘Brundtland Report’); Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1987; ISBN 019282080X. [Google Scholar]
  95. WWAP (United Nations World Water Assessment Programme). The United Nations World Water Development Report 2016: Water and Jobs; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  96. Hetzel, F.; Vaessen, V.; Himmelsbach, T.; Struckmeier, W.; Villholth, K.G. (Eds.) Groundwater and Climate Change: Challenges and Possibilities; Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (BGR): Hannover, Germany, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  97. Chowdhury, K.; Behera, B. Is depletion of groundwater table linked with disappearance of traditional water harvesting systems (tank irrigation)? Empirical evidence from West Bengal, India. Groundw. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 7, 185–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Hedley, C.B.; Knox, J.W.; Raine, S.R.; Smith, R. Water: Advanced irrigation technologies. Encycl. Agric. Food Syst. 2014, 5, 378–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Downing, J.A. Emerging global role of small lakes and ponds: Little things mean a lot. Limnetica 2010, 29, 9–24. [Google Scholar]
  100. Biggs, J.; von Fumetti, S.; Kelly-Quinn, M. The importance of small waterbodies for biodiversity and ecosystem services: Implications for policy makers. Hydrobiologia 2017, 793, 3–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Ortiz-Correa, J.S.; Resende Filho, M.; Dinar, A. Impact of access to water and sanitation services on educational attainment. Water Resour. Econ. 2016, 14, 31–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. United Nations. General Assembly. Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015: 70/1. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  103. WWAP (United Nations World Water Assessment Programme). The United Nations World Water Development Report 2015: Water for a Sustainable World; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  104. FAO; IFAD; UNICEF; WFP; WHO. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2019: Safeguarding Against Economic Slowdowns and Downturns; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  105. Ouyang, Y.; Feng, G.; Leininger, T.D.; Read, J.; Jenkins, J.N. Pond and irrigation model (PIM): A Tool for simultaneously evaluating pond water availability and crop irrigation demand. Water Resour. Manag. 2018, 32, 2969–2983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 12 05425 g001 550
Figure 1. Summary of the methodology.
Figure 1. Summary of the methodology.
Sustainability 12 05425 g001
Sustainability 12 05425 g002 550
Figure 2. Comparative trends in irrigation ponds for sustainable agriculture (IPSA) and agriculture research.
Figure 2. Comparative trends in irrigation ponds for sustainable agriculture (IPSA) and agriculture research.
Sustainability 12 05425 g002
Sustainability 12 05425 g003 550
Figure 3. Comparative trends of IPSA research.
Figure 3. Comparative trends of IPSA research.
Sustainability 12 05425 g003
Sustainability 12 05425 g004 550
Figure 4. Major characteristics in the collaboration of the most active countries related to IPSA research.
Figure 4. Major characteristics in the collaboration of the most active countries related to IPSA research.
Sustainability 12 05425 g004
Sustainability 12 05425 g005 550
Figure 5. Main keywords related to IPSA research.
Figure 5. Main keywords related to IPSA research.
Sustainability 12 05425 g005
Table
Table 1. Main characteristics of the irrigation ponds for sustainable agriculture (IPSA) research.
Table 1. Main characteristics of the irrigation ponds for sustainable agriculture (IPSA) research.
YearArticlesAuthorsJournalsCountriesCitationsAverage Citations 1
2000102510800.0
20011641161080.3
2002122312840.3
200322652215130.4
200420591814440.9
200527872217751.3
20063410730211422.0
2007308226171962.8
20084815240292523.4
20095216842323684.1
20102810425214965.3
20115419150346726.4
20124921642418127.7
201373272603411839.0
2014632454830141610.6
2015582755239154512.1
2016773306138184513.5
2017733185837218615.1
2018944606957243416.3
20191114928852293817.5
1 Total number of citations accumulated to date divided by the total number of articles published to date.
Table
Table 2. Major characteristics of the most active journals related to IPSA research.
Table 2. Major characteristics of the most active journals related to IPSA research.
JournalArticlesSJR 1H Index 2CountryCitationsAverage Citations 3First ArticleLast Article
Water230.670 (Q2)8Switzerland1436.220092019
Nongye Gongcheng Xuebao210.422 (Q2)6China924.420112017
Agricultural Water Management191.403 (Q1)11Netherlands32317.120002019
Water Resources Management171.097 (Q1)13Netherlands40423.820072019
Acta Ecologica Sinica160.197 (Q4)5China835.220102018
Sustainability160.549 (Q2)4Switzerland543.420152019
Journal of Hydrology151.830 (Q1)10Netherlands58839.220082019
Environmental Earth Sciences130.625 (Q2)6Germany957.320122019
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment120.623 (Q2)8Netherlands1169.720042019
Journal of Cleaner Production121.620 (Q1)7Netherlands12910.820152019
1 SCImago Journal Rank 2018; 2 only sample documents; 3 total number of citations divided by the total number of articles.
Table
Table 3. Main characteristics of the most active countries related to IPSA research.
Table 3. Main characteristics of the most active countries related to IPSA research.
CountryArticlesAverage per Capita Articles 1CitationsAverage Citations 2H Index 3First ArticleLast Article
China1860.134227212.22920002019
USA1740.532559732.23320002019
India1030.076128312.51820002019
UK580.872155126.72120002019
Germany500.60398219.61620002019
Australia491.961108222.11620012019
France490.731151230.91820032019
Brazil360.17254015.01020012019
Italy350.579185252.91620012019
Spain330.706126938.51520002019
1 Total number of articles per million inhabitants; 2 total number of citations divided by the total number of articles; 3 only sample documents.
Table
Table 4. Major characteristics in the collaboration of the most active countries related to IPSA research.
Table 4. Major characteristics in the collaboration of the most active countries related to IPSA research.
CountryPercentage of Collaboration 1Number of CollaboratorsMain CollaboratorsAverage Citation
Collaboration 2Non-Collaboration 3
China29.126USA, Australia, Netherlands, Canada, Germany17.610.0
USA60.345China, Mexico, France, Germany, Netherlands40.219.9
India20.414USA, Netherlands, France, Germany, Canada38.95.7
UK67.234USA, Italy, Australia, South Africa, China22.735.0
Germany60.130USA, China, Italy, Brazil, India19.519.9
Australia40.823China, USA, UK, Canada, France34.713.4
France67.436USA, Italy, Tunisia, India, UK33.924.6
Brazil38.911USA, Germany, Canada, France, Spain30.45.2
Italy51.422USA, UK, France, Germany, Netherlands90.712.9
Spain42.416Germany, Italy, UK, Brazil, Portugal32.343.0
1 Number of articles written through international collaboration divided by the total number of articles; 2 number of citations obtained by articles made through international collaboration divided by the number of articles; 3 number of citations obtained for articles not made through international collaboration divided by the number of articles.
Table
Table 5. Major characteristics of the most active institutions related to IPSA research.
Table 5. Major characteristics of the most active institutions related to IPSA research.
InstitutionCountryArticlesCitationsAverage Citations 1H Index 2Percentage of Collaboration 3Average citation
Collaboration 4Non-Collaboration 5
Chinese Academy of SciencesChina62109717.71633.919.516.8
Ministry of Education ChinaChina1124422.2618.236.519.0
Wageningen University and Research CentreNetherlands1036036.168029.960.5
Universität BonnGermany1012512.566016.07.3
Universiteit GentBelgium1018918.958023.12.0
China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower ResearchChina9333.7411.12.03.9
Beijing Forestry UniversityChina9839.2522.227.54.0
Beijing Normal UniversityChina99911.0533.34.714.2
KU LeuvenBelgium938642.9610042.90.0
Northwest A&F UniversityChina9819.0422.23.010.7
Mekelle UniversityEthiopia917919.9610019.90.0
Southwest UniversityChina9333.7422.27.52.6
1 Total number of citations divided by the total number of articles; 2 only sample documents; 3 number of articles written through international collaboration divided by the total number of articles; 4 number of citations obtained by articles made through international collaboration divided by the number of articles; 5 number of citations obtained for articles not made through international collaboration divided by the number of articles.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

López-Felices, B.; Aznar-Sánchez, J.A.; Velasco-Muñoz, J.F.; Piquer-Rodríguez, M. Contribution of Irrigation Ponds to the Sustainability of Agriculture. A Review of Worldwide Research. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5425. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135425

AMA Style

López-Felices B, Aznar-Sánchez JA, Velasco-Muñoz JF, Piquer-Rodríguez M. Contribution of Irrigation Ponds to the Sustainability of Agriculture. A Review of Worldwide Research. Sustainability. 2020; 12(13):5425. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135425

Chicago/Turabian Style

López-Felices, Belén, José A. Aznar-Sánchez, Juan F. Velasco-Muñoz, and María Piquer-Rodríguez. 2020. "Contribution of Irrigation Ponds to the Sustainability of Agriculture. A Review of Worldwide Research" Sustainability 12, no. 13: 5425. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135425

APA Style

López-Felices, B., Aznar-Sánchez, J. A., Velasco-Muñoz, J. F., & Piquer-Rodríguez, M. (2020). Contribution of Irrigation Ponds to the Sustainability of Agriculture. A Review of Worldwide Research. Sustainability, 12(13), 5425. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135425

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop