Green, blue and greay water footpring reduction in irrigated crop production

Chukalla, Abebe Demissie

doi:10.3990/1.9789462337565

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 92 publications

(147 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Water use is measured as green plus blue water consumption and is known as physical WP (PWP in kg/m 3 ). It is expressed as the inverse of consumptive water footprint (CWF) as indicated in Equation ( 4) (Hoekstra et al 2011;Chukalla 2017). where PWP i is the physical water productivity for the ith year; WF green , i and WF blue,i is the green and blue WFs for the ith year in m 3 /ton and are converted into m 3 /kg; the total consumptive WF is the sum of the green and blue WFs.…”

Section: Physical Wpmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The WP concept is closely related to the WF principle and is defined as the ratio of the mass of agricultural output to the amount of water used (Molden et al 2007;Chouchane et al 2015). The physical WP is specifically expressed as either the blue water or total (green plus blue) water consumption for crop production or the amount of crop produced per unit of water used; and it is important for understanding the relationship between water consumption and food production (Zwart & Bastiaanssen 2004Liu et al 2007;Chukalla 2017). When water use is measured as green plus blue water consumption, physical water productivity (PWP in ton/m 3 ) is given as an inverse of the green plus blue WF (in m 3 /ton) (Chukalla 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The physical WP is specifically expressed as either the blue water or total (green plus blue) water consumption for crop production or the amount of crop produced per unit of water used; and it is important for understanding the relationship between water consumption and food production (Zwart & Bastiaanssen 2004Liu et al 2007;Chukalla 2017). When water use is measured as green plus blue water consumption, physical water productivity (PWP in ton/m 3 ) is given as an inverse of the green plus blue WF (in m 3 /ton) (Chukalla 2017). Furthermore, in order to define the economic benefits, the concept of 'economic water productivity (EWP)' has been introduced, which is the value of agricultural output derived per unit of water used (Molden et al 2007;Garrido et al 2010;Chouchane et al 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Green, blue and economic water productivity: a water footprint perspective from the Upper Awash Basin, Central Ethiopia

Hirpa

Adane

Asrat

et al. 2023

Journal of Water and Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rise in global freshwater consumption, inefficient water use and population growth are the main drivers of water scarcity and food insecurity. This study analyzed the green, blue and economic water productivity (GWP, BWP and EWP, respectively) of the rainfed (teff, maize and sorghum) and irrigated (sugarcane) crops along with green water scarcity (GWS) in the Upper Awash Basin using water footprints (WFs) approaches. Teff has the lowest average GWP (∼0.3 kg/m3) and the highest average WF (4205 m3/ton) between 2000 and 2010 with an average EWP of ∼0.3 USD/m3 which is higher than those of other rainfed cereal crops (maize and sorghum). The highest GWS of maize was recorded in Metehara (269 mm/growing period) and the lowest in Debrezeit (70 mm/growing period) with an intermediate value of 90 and 117 mm in Wonji and Melkassa, respectively. All the rainfed crops have lower EWP (less than 0.3 USD/m3) compared with the irrigated sugarcane in the basin. This study demonstrates that increasing the value per unit of green/blue water through increasing yield per unit of supply and switching from high to low WFs crops has significant implications for addressing the water scarcity problem by setting a WP benchmark in the basin.

show abstract

Section: Physical Wpmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Green, blue and economic water productivity: a water footprint perspective from the Upper Awash Basin, Central Ethiopia

Hirpa

Adane

Asrat

et al. 2023

Journal of Water and Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Farmers should be made aware of water use efficiency and how they can increase that. Upgrading the water management practices by implementing precision irrigation methods, improving irrigation efficiency, and irrigation scheduling can significantly decrease water consumption in the agriculture sector while ensuring food security (Chukalla, 2017;Huang et al, 2015;Nouri et al, 2020;Zhuo and Hoekstra, 2017). Regional assessment of crops' WFs is important and necessary to reflect close to real-world conditions (Khan et al, 2021) Rapid population and economic growth have strained our already limited freshwater resources.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of water footprint for a few major crops in Banas River Basin of Rajasthan

Mehla

Kothari²,

Singh³

et al. 2022

JANS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Water security is essential for socio-economic development, ecosystem management, and environmental sustainability. An improved understanding of the relationships between water demand and supply is needed to mitigate the impacts of diminishing water resources. The present study aimed to assess the crop water footprint of sixteen major crops in the basin namely, bajra/ pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum L.), barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), cotton (Gossypium herbaceum L.), gram/chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.), groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.), guar/cluster beans (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba L.), jowar/ sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.), lentil/ masoor (Lens culinaris L.), maize (Zea mays L.), mungbean (Vigna radiata L.), rapeseed & mustard (Brassica napus L.), rice/paddy (Oryza sativa L.), sesame (Sesamum indicum L.), soybean (Glycine max L.), urad/ black gram (Vigna mungo L.) and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) was estimated during 2008-2020 in the Banas river basin of Rajasthan. The average annual water footprint of crop production varied from 11365.8-23131.5 MCM/yr (Mean 19254.5 MCM/yr) during the study period. Wheat, bajra, maize, rapeseed & mustard make up 67.4 % of the total average annual water footprint of crop production. The blue water footprint of crop production was 3942.1 MCM/yr, with wheat, rapeseed & mustard accounting for almost 87.0 % of the average annual blue water footprint. Blue, green and grey water footprints comprised 20.8, 69.7 and 9.5 % of the total WF of crop production in the basin, respectively. This assessment can play a significant role in developing better policies for properly managing water footprints for sustainable crop production in the basin.

show abstract

Green, blue and greay water footpring reduction in irrigated crop production

Cited by 2 publications

References 92 publications

Green, blue and economic water productivity: a water footprint perspective from the Upper Awash Basin, Central Ethiopia

Green, blue and economic water productivity: a water footprint perspective from the Upper Awash Basin, Central Ethiopia

Assessment of water footprint for a few major crops in Banas River Basin of Rajasthan

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About