## Materials and Methods
### Validation  
Plot data were collected at two irrigation schemes--AGBP data in the Wonji, and ETa data in the Zankalon. The observed AGBP (AGBP\({}_{\text{a}}\)) data was collected from farmers for the period 2009-2016 and were provided by the sugarcane estate managers in the Wonji. In-situ ETa data was collected through eddy covariance (EC) observations, which was operated through the University of Tsukuba in partnership with Cairo University, the National Water Research Center, Qalubia, Egypt, and the Agriculture Research Center, Giza, Egypt [54]. Farmer estimates of fresh AGBP\({}_{\text{a}}\) were available for 66 plots in the Wonji within the WaPOR data timeframe. The reported AGBP\({}_{\text{a}}\) (with planting and harvest dates) were used for a direct NPP comparison. The average dekad value for each NPP pixel falling within the plot was aggregated over the growing season for each plot. The WaPOR NPP was converted to WaPOR AGBP (dry matter) using Equation (6) and then converted to a fresh AGBP (AGBP\({}_{\text{e}}\)) using conversion factors shown in Table 4 (i.e., AGBP\({}_{\text{e}}\) = WaPOR AGBP multiplied by each of the conversion factors). The reported yield is fresh matter (compared to WaPOR, which is dry); therefore, a conversion for moisture content was also required.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Factor** & **WaPOR AGBP** & **AGBP\({}_{\text{a}}\)** & **Conversion Factor * \\ \hline LUE (gC/MJ) & 2.7 & 2.6 [55] & 0.96 \\ \hline Moisture content (-) & - & 0.65 [56] & \(\frac{1}{1-0.65}\) \\ \hline Above ground fraction (-) & 0.65 & 0.8 [56] & 1.23 \\ \hline HI & - & 0.95 & 0.95 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* The conversion factor is the factor applied to the dry WaPOR AGBP to make it comparable with the AGBP\({}_{\text{a}}\); the conversion factor is a result of reducing the difference between the values associated with the WaPOR AGBP and the AGBP\({}_{\text{a}}\).  
\end{table}
Table 4: Conversion factors used to convert WaPOR dry aboveground biomass productivity (AGBP) to sugarcane for comparison against farmer reported fresh AGBP\({}_{\text{a}}\).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Criteria** & **Performance Indicator** & **Definition** & **Applied Irrigation Schemes** \\ \hline Adequacy & Relative evapotranspiration & \(\frac{ETIa}{CWR}\) & Metehara, Wonji \\ \hline Equity & CV of evapotranspiration & \(\frac{Standard deviation ETIa}{MJ}\) & All \\ \hline Productivity & CWP & \(\frac{Initial biomass}{LII}\) & All \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Irrigation performance indicators and their propertiesThe EC site is an irrigated site in the Nile Delta and is under rotation with three major summer crops--rice, maize and cotton--and four major winter crops--wheat, berseem (_Trifolium alexandrinum_), fava beans, and sugar beet [54]. The field is 200 m \(\times\) 200 m, surrounded by agricultural land, extending at least 800 m in the dominant (northwest) wind direction. Suitable data for validation covers 2010-2013. The WaPOR-derived ETla dataset was spatially averaged over a 750 m \(\times\) 750 m pixel window covering the EC station, based on the assumption that the window represents the measurement footprint of the EC station. The WaPOR ETla for the in-situ comparison was taken as the sum of soil evaporation, plant transpiration, and interception. The ETa from the EC (ETa-EC) data were derived from the latent heat flux (LE) measurements and aggregated temporally to dekadal averages to match the temporal resolution of the WaPOR ETla products. Footprint data was unavailable, which may introduce bias to the spatial analyses of ETa. At L1 resolution, plot size is smaller than the pixel resolution, and a single pixel extends beyond the experimental field. However, due to the high correlation between L1 and L2 (which fits within the field), we decided to include EC data for the validation at both levels.