scholarly journals The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived crop products

2011 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 1577-1600 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. M. Mekonnen ◽  
A. Y. Hoekstra
Keyword(s):  
Water Balance ◽  
River Basin ◽  
Crop Production ◽  
Water Footprint ◽  
Grid Cell ◽  
Blue Water ◽  
Total Water ◽  
Grey Water ◽  
Global Average ◽  
Average Water

Abstract. This study quantifies the green, blue and grey water footprint of global crop production in a spatially-explicit way for the period 1996–2005. The assessment improves upon earlier research by taking a high-resolution approach, estimating the water footprint of 126 crops at a 5 by 5 arc minute grid. We have used a grid-based dynamic water balance model to calculate crop water use over time, with a time step of one day. The model takes into account the daily soil water balance and climatic conditions for each grid cell. In addition, the water pollution associated with the use of nitrogen fertilizer in crop production is estimated for each grid cell. The crop evapotranspiration of additional 20 minor crops is calculated with the CROPWAT model. In addition, we have calculated the water footprint of more than two hundred derived crop products, including various flours, beverages, fibres and biofuels. We have used the water footprint assessment framework as in the guideline of the Water Footprint Network. Considering the water footprints of primary crops, we see that the global average water footprint per ton of crop increases from sugar crops (roughly 200 m3 ton−1), vegetables (300 m3 ton−1), roots and tubers (400 m3 ton−1), fruits (1000 m3 ton−1), cereals (1600 m3 ton−1), oil crops (2400 m3 ton−1) to pulses (4000 m3 ton−1). The water footprint varies, however, across different crops per crop category and per production region as well. Besides, if one considers the water footprint per kcal, the picture changes as well. When considered per ton of product, commodities with relatively large water footprints are: coffee, tea, cocoa, tobacco, spices, nuts, rubber and fibres. The analysis of water footprints of different biofuels shows that bio-ethanol has a lower water footprint (in m3 GJ−1) than biodiesel, which supports earlier analyses. The crop used matters significantly as well: the global average water footprint of bio-ethanol based on sugar beet amounts to 51 m3 GJ−1, while this is 121 m3 GJ−1 for maize. The global water footprint related to crop production in the period 1996–2005 was 7404 billion cubic meters per year (78 % green, 12 % blue, 10 % grey). A large total water footprint was calculated for wheat (1087 Gm3 yr−1), rice (992 Gm3 yr−1) and maize (770 Gm3 yr−1). Wheat and rice have the largest blue water footprints, together accounting for 45 % of the global blue water footprint. At country level, the total water footprint was largest for India (1047 Gm3 yr−1), China (967 Gm3 yr−1) and the USA (826 Gm3 yr−1). A relatively large total blue water footprint as a result of crop production is observed in the Indus river basin (117 Gm3 yr−1) and the Ganges river basin (108 Gm3 yr−1). The two basins together account for 25 % of the blue water footprint related to global crop production. Globally, rain-fed agriculture has a water footprint of 5173 Gm3 yr−1 (91 % green, 9 % grey); irrigated agriculture has a water footprint of 2230 Gm3 yr−1 (48 % green, 40 % blue, 12 % grey).

scholarly journals The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived crop products

2011 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 763-809 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. M. Mekonnen ◽  
A. Y. Hoekstra
Keyword(s):  
Water Balance ◽  
River Basin ◽  
Crop Production ◽  
Water Footprint ◽  
Grid Cell ◽  
Blue Water ◽  
Total Water ◽  
Grey Water ◽  
Global Average ◽  
Average Water

Abstract. This study quantifies the green, blue and grey water footprint of global crop production in a spatially-explicit way for the period 1996–2005. The assessment is global and improves upon earlier research by taking a high-resolution approach, estimating the water footprint of 126 crops at a 5 by 5 arc min grid. We have used a grid-based dynamic water balance model to calculate crop water use over time, with a time step of one day. The model takes into account the daily soil water balance and climatic conditions for each grid cell. In addition, the water pollution associated with the use of nitrogen fertilizer in crop production is estimated for each grid cell. The crop evapotranspiration of additional 20 minor crops is calculated with the CROPWAT model. In addition, we have calculated the water footprint of more than two hundred derived crop products, including various flours, beverages, fibres and biofuels. We have used the water footprint assessment framework as in the guideline of the water footprint network. Considering the water footprints of primary crops, we see that global average water footprint per ton of crop increases from sugar crops (roughly 200 m3 ton−1), vegetables (300 m3 ton−1), roots and tubers (400 m3 ton−1), fruits (1000 m3 ton−1), cereals} (1600 m3 ton−1), oil crops (2400 m3 ton−1) to pulses (4000 m3 ton−1). The water footprint varies, however, across different crops per crop category and per production region as well. Besides, if one considers the water footprint per kcal, the picture changes as well. When considered per ton of product, commodities with relatively large water footprints are: coffee, tea, cocoa, tobacco, spices, nuts, rubber and fibres. The analysis of water footprints of different biofuels shows that bio-ethanol has a lower water footprint (in m3 GJ−1) than biodiesel, which supports earlier analyses. The crop used matters significantly as well: the global average water footprint of bio-ethanol based on sugar beet amounts to 51 m3 GJ−1, while this is 121 m3 GJ−1 for maize. The global water footprint related to crop production in the period 1996–2005 was 7404 billion cubic meters per year (78% green, 12% blue, 10% grey). A large total water footprint was calculated for wheat (1087 Gm3 yr−1), rice (992 Gm3 yr−1) and maize (770 Gm3 yr−1). Wheat and rice have the largest blue water footprints, together accounting for 45% of the global blue water footprint. At country level, the total water footprint was largest for India (1047 Gm3 yr−1), China (967 Gm3 yr−1) and the USA (826 Gm3 yr−1). A relatively large total blue water footprint as a result of crop production is observed in the Indus River Basin (117 Gm3 yr−1) and the Ganges River Basin (108 Gm3 yr−1). The two basins together account for 25% of the blue water footprint related to global crop production. Globally, rain-fed agriculture has a water footprint of 5173 Gm3 yr−1 (91% green, 9% grey); irrigated agriculture has a water footprint of 2230 Gm3 yr−1 (48% green, 40% blue, 12% grey).

scholarly journals A global and high-resolution assessment of the green, blue and grey water footprint of wheat

2010 ◽  
Vol 14 (7) ◽  
pp. 1259-1276 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. M. Mekonnen ◽  
A. Y. Hoekstra
Keyword(s):  
High Resolution ◽  
Water Balance ◽  
Water Footprint ◽  
Grid Cell ◽  
Virtual Water ◽  
Blue Water ◽  
Grey Water ◽  
Wheat Production ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Average Water

Abstract. The aim of this study is to estimate the green, blue and grey water footprint of wheat in a spatially-explicit way, both from a production and consumption perspective. The assessment is global and improves upon earlier research by taking a high-resolution approach, estimating the water footprint of the crop at a 5 by 5 arc minute grid. We have used a grid-based dynamic water balance model to calculate crop water use over time, with a time step of one day. The model takes into account the daily soil water balance and climatic conditions for each grid cell. In addition, the water pollution associated with the use of nitrogen fertilizer in wheat production is estimated for each grid cell. We have used the water footprint and virtual water flow assessment framework as in the guideline of the Water Footprint Network. The global wheat production in the period 1996–2005 required about 108 billion cubic meters of water per year. The major portion of this water (70%) comes from green water, about 19% comes from blue water, and the remaining 11% is grey water. The global average water footprint of wheat per ton of crop was 1830 m3/ton. About 18% of the water footprint related to the production of wheat is meant not for domestic consumption but for export. About 55% of the virtual water export comes from the USA, Canada and Australia alone. For the period 1996–2005, the global average water saving from international trade in wheat products was 65 Gm3/yr. A relatively large total blue water footprint as a result of wheat production is observed in the Ganges and Indus river basins, which are known for their water stress problems. The two basins alone account for about 47% of the blue water footprint related to global wheat production. About 93% of the water footprint of wheat consumption in Japan lies in other countries, particularly the USA, Australia and Canada. In Italy, with an average wheat consumption of 150 kg/yr per person, more than two times the word average, about 44% of the total water footprint related to this wheat consumption lies outside Italy. The major part of this external water footprint of Italy lies in France and the USA.

scholarly journals A global and high-resolution assessment of the green, blue and grey water footprint of wheat

2010 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 2499-2542 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. M. Mekonnen ◽  
A. Y. Hoekstra
Keyword(s):  
High Resolution ◽  
Water Balance ◽  
Water Footprint ◽  
Grid Cell ◽  
Virtual Water ◽  
Blue Water ◽  
Grey Water ◽  
Wheat Production ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Average Water

Abstract. The aim of this study is to estimate the green, blue and grey water footprint of wheat in a spatially-explicit way, both from a production and consumption perspective. The assessment is global and improves upon earlier research by taking a high-resolution approach, estimating the water footprint of the crop at a 5 by 5 arc minute grid. We have used a grid-based dynamic water balance model to calculate crop water use over time, with a time step of one day. The model takes into account the daily soil water balance and climatic conditions for each grid cell. In addition, the water pollution associated with the use of nitrogen fertilizer in wheat production is estimated for each grid cell. We have used the water footprint and virtual water flow assessment framework as in the guideline of the Water Footprint Network. The global wheat production in the period 1996–2005 required about 1088 billion cubic meters of water per year. The major portion of this water (70%) comes from green water, about 19% comes from blue water, and the remaining 11% is grey water. The global average water footprint of wheat per ton of crop was 1830 m3/ton. About 18% of the water footprint related to the production of wheat is meant not for domestic consumption but for export. About 55% of the virtual water export comes from the USA, Canada and Australia alone. For the period 1996–2005, the global average water saving from international trade in wheat products was 65 Gm3/yr. A relatively large total blue water footprint as a result of wheat production is observed in the Ganges and Indus river basins, which are known for their water stress problems. The two basins alone account for about 47% of the blue water footprint related to global wheat production. About 93% of the water footprint of wheat consumption in Japan lies in other countries, particularly the USA, Australia and Canada. In Italy, with an average wheat consumption of 150 kg/yr per person, more than two times the word average, about 44% of the total water footprint related to this wheat consumption lies outside Italy. The major part of this external water footprint of Italy lies in France and the USA.

Assessment of Water Footprint for Koshi River Basin (KRB), Nepal

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raj Deva Singh ◽  
Kumar Ghimire ◽  
Ashish Pandey
Keyword(s):  
River Basin ◽  
Water Use ◽  
Crop Production ◽  
Agricultural Land ◽  
Water Footprint ◽  
Green Water ◽  
Blue Water ◽  
Total Water ◽  
Green And Blue Water ◽  
Koshi River Basin

<p>Nepal is an agrarian country and almost one-third of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is dependent on agricultural sector. Koshi river basin is the largest basin in the country and serves large share on agricultural production. Like another country, Nepalese agriculture holds largest water use in agriculture. In this context, it is necessary to reduce water use pressure. In this study, water footprint of different crop (rice, maize, wheat, millet, sugarcane, potato and barley) have been estimated for the year 2005 -2014 to get the average water footprint of crop production during study period. CROPWAT model, developed by Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO 2010b).</p><p>For the computation of the green and blue water footprints, estimated values of ET (the output of CROPWAT model) and yield (derived from statistical data) are utilised. Blue and green water footprint are computed for different districts (16 districts within KRB) / for KRB in different years (10 years from 2005 to 2014) and crops (considered 7 local crops). The water footprint of crops production for any district or basin represents the average of WF production of seven crops in the respective district or basin.</p><p>The study provides a picture of green and blue water use in crop production in the field and reduction in the water footprint of crop production by selecting suitable crops at different places in the field. The Crop, that has lower water footprint, can be intensified at that location and the crops, having higher water footprint, can be discontinued for production or measure for water saving technique needs to be implemented reducing evapotranspiration. The water footprint of agriculture crop production can be reduced by increasing the yield of the crops. Some measures like use of an improved variety of seed, fertilizer, mechanized farming and soil moisture conservation technology may also be used to increase the crop yields.</p><p>The crop harvested areas include both rainfed as well as irrigated land. Agricultural land occupies 22% of the study area, out of which 94% areas are rainfed whereas remaining 6% areas are under irrigation. The study shows 98% of total water use in crop production is due to green water use (received from rainfall) and remaining 2 % is due to blue water use received from irrigation (surface and ground water as source). Potato has 22% blue water proportion and contributes 85% share to the total blue water use in the basin. Maize and rice together hold 77% share of total water use in crops production. The average annual water footprint of crop production in KRB is 1248 cubic meter/ton having the variation of 9% during the period of 2005-2014. Sunsari, Dhankuta districts have lower water footprint of crop production. The coefficient of variation of water footprint of millet crop production is lower as compared to those of other crops considered for study whereas sugarcane has a higher variation of water footprint for its production.</p>

scholarly journals Sensitivity and uncertainty in crop water footprint accounting: a case study for the Yellow River Basin

2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 135-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Zhuo ◽  
M. M. Mekonnen ◽  
A. Y. Hoekstra
Keyword(s):  
River Basin ◽  
Water Footprint ◽  
Yellow River ◽  
Yellow River Basin ◽  
The Yellow River ◽  
Blue Water ◽  
Total Water ◽  
Crop Water ◽  
Input Variables ◽  
The Yellow River Basin

Abstract. Water Footprint Assessment is a quickly growing field of research, but as yet little attention has been paid to the uncertainties involved. This study investigates the sensitivity of water footprint estimates to changes in important input variables and quantifies the size of uncertainty in water footprint estimates. The study focuses on the green (from rainfall) and blue (from irrigation) water footprint of producing maize, soybean, rice, and wheat in the Yellow River Basin in the period 1996–2005. A grid-based daily water balance model at a 5 by 5 arcmin resolution was applied to compute green and blue water footprints of the four crops in the Yellow River Basin in the period considered. The sensitivity and uncertainty analysis focused on the effects on water footprint estimates at basin level (in m3 t−1) of four key input variables: precipitation (PR), reference evapotranspiration (ET0), crop coefficient (Kc), and crop calendar. The one-at-a-time method was carried out to analyse the sensitivity of the water footprint of crops to fractional changes of individual input variables. Uncertainties in crop water footprint estimates were quantified through Monte Carlo simulations. The results show that the water footprint of crops is most sensitive to ET0 and Kc, followed by crop calendar and PR. Blue water footprints were more sensitive to input variability than green water footprints. The smaller the annual blue water footprint, the higher its sensitivity to changes in PR, ET0, and Kc. The uncertainties in the total water footprint of a crop due to combined uncertainties in climatic inputs (PR and ET0) were about ±20% (at 95% confidence interval). The effect of uncertainties in ET0 was dominant compared to that of precipitation. The uncertainties in the total water footprint of a crop as a result of combined key input uncertainties were on average ±26% (at 95% confidence level). The sensitivities and uncertainties differ across crop types, with highest sensitivities and uncertainties for soybean.

scholarly journals The water footprint of electricity from hydropower

2011 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 8355-8372 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. M. Mekonnen ◽  
A. Y. Hoekstra
Keyword(s):  
Crop Production ◽  
Water Footprint ◽  
Environmental Flows ◽  
Stream Water ◽  
Electric Energy ◽  
Blue Water ◽  
Water Users ◽  
Hydropower Plants ◽  
Average Water ◽  
Year 2000

Abstract. Hydropower accounts for about 16% of the world's electricity supply. It has been debated whether hydroelectric generation is merely an in-stream water user or whether it also consumes water. In this paper we provide scientific support for the argument that hydroelectric generation is in most cases a significant water consumer. The study assesses the blue water footprint of hydroelectricity – the water evaporated from manmade reservoirs to produce electric energy – for 35 selected sites. The aggregated blue water footprint of the selected hydropower plants is 90 Gm3 yr−1, which is equivalent to 10% of the blue water footprint of global crop production in the year 2000. The total blue water footprint of hydroelectric generation in the world must be considerably larger if one considers the fact that this study covers only 8% of the global installed hydroelectric capacity. Hydroelectric generation is thus a significant water consumer. The average water footprint of the selected hydropower plants is 68 m3 GJ−1. Great differences in water footprint among hydropower plants exist, due to differences in climate in the places where the plants are situated, but more importantly as a result of large differences in the area flooded per unit of installed hydroelectric capacity. We recommend that water footprint assessment is added as a component in evaluations of newly proposed hydropower plants as well as in the evaluation of existing hydroelectric dams, so that the consequences of the water footprint of hydroelectric generation on downstream environmental flows and other water users can be evaluated.

scholarly journals Understanding the Spatial-Temporal Changes of Oasis Farmland in the Tarim River Basin from the Perspective of Agricultural Water Footprint

Water ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 696
Author(s):  
Aihua Long ◽  
Jiawen Yu ◽  
Xiaoya Deng ◽  
Xinlin He ◽  
Haifeng Gao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
River Basin ◽  
Crop Production ◽  
Water Footprint ◽  
Tarim River ◽  
Tarim River Basin ◽  
Blue Water ◽  
Agricultural Water ◽  
The Tarim River ◽  
Production Water ◽  
The Tarim River Basin

The Tarim River Basin in China has predominantly assumed the task of commodity cotton and other high water-intensive crop production in recent years. The spatial matching status of agricultural water and land resources is a prerequisite for local economic development. This paper provides an insight into the spatiotemporal variation trends of agricultural production water footprint and oasis farmland in the Tarim River Basin. The degree of spatial mismatching between oasis farmland and crop production water footprints studied in this paper found how the crop water footprint affected the change in oasis farmland area by sensitivity analysis. Time series data covering the period of 1990–2015 were used for the study. The results showed that the annual variation of crop production water footprint and oasis farmland area have experienced upward trends in Tarim River Basin. The blue water makes the largest contribution to the components of the crop production water footprint in each district (all exceeded 77%). The crop production water footprint and oasis farmland area tend to aggregate towards the eastern region. The level of spatial mismatch between the blue water footprint and farmland area fluctuated during the study period, but it was gradually remedied after 2000, while the spatial mismatch between green water footprint and farmland area gradually worsened. The number of districts with mid and high sensitivity to changes in blue water footprint continuously increased during 1990–2005, which revealed that the change in blue water footprint has an increasing influence on oasis farmland. The results can provide operable recommendations for efficient use of water resources, maintaining oasis suitable farmland scale and agricultural sustainable development in the Tarim River Basin.

scholarly journals Assessment of Crop Water Footprint for Different Varieties of Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Ramachandran ◽  
R. Lalitha ◽  
S. Vallal Kannan ◽  
K. Sivasubramanian
Keyword(s):  
Water Stress ◽  
Tamil Nadu ◽  
Crop Production ◽  
Water Footprint ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Green Water ◽  
Blue Water ◽  
Total Water ◽  
Crop Water ◽  
Different Levels

Background: Water Footprint is a recently used indicator which helps to reduce water depletion and alleviate water stress in areas of drought and proper crop cultivation. Hence a study was taken up to assess the crop water footprint of different groundnut varieties namely TMV 7, VRI 2, VRI 3, VRI Gn 5, VRI Gn 6, CO 3, CO Gn 4, ALR 3 and TMV Gn 13 cultivated during Kharif and Rabi seasons at Tiruchirapalli district of Tamil Nadu. Methods: The total water requirement, blue and green crop evapotranspiration, blue and green crop water use and total water footprint for different varieties of groundnut were estimated using CROPWAT 8.0 Windows. A comparison was made between the water footprint of groundnut varieties and the strategies to reduce water footprint is presented. Result: The total water footprint for groundnut varieties ranged from 2603 to 4889 m3 ton-1 (CV of 26%) during kharif season, while it was ranged from 1465 to 2470 m3 ton-1 (CV of 18%) during rabi season. It was found that in all groundnut varieties the blue water footprint is higher than the green water footprint, while VRI Gn 5 variety had minimum total water footprint. It was concluded that, the groundnut production is affected by different levels of blue water stress which requires effective irrigation practices and water management strategies to enhance the crop production.

scholarly journals Assessing water footprint at river basin level: a case study for the Heihe River Basin in northwest China

2012 ◽  
Vol 16 (8) ◽  
pp. 2771-2781 ◽  
Author(s):  
Z. Zeng ◽  
J. Liu ◽  
P. H. Koeneman ◽  
E. Zarate ◽  
A. Y. Hoekstra
Keyword(s):  
River Basin ◽  
Crop Production ◽  
Arid Regions ◽  
Water Footprint ◽  
Freshwater Ecosystems ◽  
Heihe River Basin ◽  
Heihe River ◽  
Blue Water ◽  
Semi Arid ◽  
The Heihe River Basin

Abstract. Increasing water scarcity places considerable importance on the quantification of water footprint (WF) at different levels. Despite progress made previously, there are still very few WF studies focusing on specific river basins, especially for those in arid and semi-arid regions. The aim of this study is to quantify WF within the Heihe River Basin (HRB), a basin located in the arid and semi-arid northwest of China. The findings show that the WF was 1768 million m3 yr−1 in the HRB over 2004–2006. Agricultural production was the largest water consumer, accounting for 96% of the WF (92% for crop production and 4% for livestock production). The remaining 4% was for the industrial and domestic sectors. The "blue" (surface- and groundwater) component of WF was 811 million m3 yr−1. This indicates a blue water proportion of 46%, which is much higher than the world average and China's average, which is mainly due to the aridness of the HRB and a high dependence on irrigation for crop production. However, even in such a river basin, blue WF was still smaller than "green" (soil water) WF, indicating the importance of green water. We find that blue WF exceeded blue water availability during eight months per year and also on an annual basis. This indicates that WF of human activities was achieved at a cost of violating environmental flows of natural freshwater ecosystems, and such a WF pattern is not sustainable. Considering the large WF of crop production, optimizing the crop planting pattern is often a key to achieving more sustainable water use in arid and semi-arid regions.

scholarly journals Assessing water footprint at river basin level: a case study for the Heihe River Basin in northwest China

2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 5779-5808 ◽  
Author(s):  
Z. Zeng ◽  
J. Liu ◽  
P. H. Koeneman ◽  
E. Zarate ◽  
A. Y. Hoekstra
Keyword(s):  
River Basin ◽  
Crop Production ◽  
Arid Regions ◽  
Water Footprint ◽  
Freshwater Ecosystems ◽  
Heihe River Basin ◽  
Heihe River ◽  
Blue Water ◽  
Semi Arid ◽  
The Heihe River Basin

Abstract. Increasing water scarcity places considerable importance on the quantification of water footprint (WF) at different levels. Despite progress made previously, there are still very few WF studies focusing on specific river basins, especially for those in arid and semi-arid regions. The aim of this study is to quantify WF within the Heihe River Basin (HRB), a basin located in the arid and semi-arid northwest of China. The findings show that the WF was 1768 million m3 yr−1 in the HRB over 2004–2006. Agricultural production was the largest water consumer, accounting for 96% of the WF (92% for crop production and 4% for livestock production). The remaining 4% was for the industrial and domestic sectors. The "blue" component of WF was 811 million m3 yr−1. This indicates a blue water proportion of 46%, which is much higher than the world average and China's average, which is mainly due to the aridness of the HRB and a high dependence on irrigation for crop production. However, even in such a river basin, blue WF was still smaller than green WF, indicating the importance of green water. We find that blue WF exceeded blue water availability during eight months per year and also on an annual basis. This indicates that WF of human activities was achieved at a cost of violating environmental flows of natural freshwater ecosystems, and such a WF pattern is not sustainable. Considering the large WF of crop production, optimizing the crop planting pattern is often a key to achieving more sustainable water use in arid and semi-arid regions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document