A quantitative review of water footprint accounting and simulation for crop production based on publications during 2002–2018

The water footprint (WF) of crop production has been widely accepted as a comprehensive indicator of agricultural water consumption. Rationality and accuracy in crop WF accounting are thus prerequisites for implementation of WF assessments that yield sustainable regional agricultural water managemen...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Bianbian Feng, La Zhuo, Dong Xie, Ying Mao, Jie Gao, Pengxuan Xie, Pute Wu
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Elsevier 2021
Materias:	Quantification methods Spatial scales Uncertainty Ecology QH540-549.5
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/eda3f6ddfd2e431e89f7f94e00b83e20
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:eda3f6ddfd2e431e89f7f94e00b83e20
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:eda3f6ddfd2e431e89f7f94e00b83e202021-12-01T04:30:53ZA quantitative review of water footprint accounting and simulation for crop production based on publications during 2002–20181470-160X10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106962https://doaj.org/article/eda3f6ddfd2e431e89f7f94e00b83e202021-01-01T00:00:00Zhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X20309018https://doaj.org/toc/1470-160XThe water footprint (WF) of crop production has been widely accepted as a comprehensive indicator of agricultural water consumption. Rationality and accuracy in crop WF accounting are thus prerequisites for implementation of WF assessments that yield sustainable regional agricultural water management. However, few studies have focused on the rationality of multiple quantitative approaches and the associated differences in crop WF accounting among different studies. Here we, focusing on maize, wheat and rice, review quantitatively the effects of different quantification approaches and scales on the results of crop WF accounting and simulations in relevant published research during 2002–2018 worldwide. Results show that (i) The number of studies on crop WF accounting has increased by 17 times since 2002 (~the year of creation of WF concepts); the research direction is focused on improvement of quantification and resolution in both time and space. (ii) The current approaches to WF calculation can be divided into five main types: the field crop water requirement (FCWR) approach, field soil water balance (FSWB) approach, regional water balance (RWB) approach, remote sensing (RS) approach and field measured water balance (FMWB) approach. The FCWR and FSWB approaches are more widely adopted than the other three. (iii) There were non-negligible differences in the WF accounting results among approaches and scales. At the global level, the deviations in WF for maize, wheat, and rice were relatively low among different studies, with the world average values of 0.73 m3 kg−1 ± 14.9%, 1.136 m3 kg−1 ± 13.5%, and 1.269 m3 kg−1 ± 27%, respectively. The ranges of uncertainty varied significantly when downscaling to specific countries and provinces. The maximum coefficients of variation (CV) of WF for maize, wheat, and rice in different regions were up to 40%, 49%, and 50%, respectively. (iv) The WF simulations showed very reasonable agreement and lower deviation between the FCWR and FSWB approaches.Bianbian FengLa ZhuoDong XieYing MaoJie GaoPengxuan XiePute WuElsevierarticleQuantification methodsSpatial scalesUncertaintyEcologyQH540-549.5ENEcological Indicators, Vol 120, Iss , Pp 106962- (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Quantification methods Spatial scales Uncertainty Ecology QH540-549.5
spellingShingle	Quantification methods Spatial scales Uncertainty Ecology QH540-549.5 Bianbian Feng La Zhuo Dong Xie Ying Mao Jie Gao Pengxuan Xie Pute Wu A quantitative review of water footprint accounting and simulation for crop production based on publications during 2002–2018
description	The water footprint (WF) of crop production has been widely accepted as a comprehensive indicator of agricultural water consumption. Rationality and accuracy in crop WF accounting are thus prerequisites for implementation of WF assessments that yield sustainable regional agricultural water management. However, few studies have focused on the rationality of multiple quantitative approaches and the associated differences in crop WF accounting among different studies. Here we, focusing on maize, wheat and rice, review quantitatively the effects of different quantification approaches and scales on the results of crop WF accounting and simulations in relevant published research during 2002–2018 worldwide. Results show that (i) The number of studies on crop WF accounting has increased by 17 times since 2002 (~the year of creation of WF concepts); the research direction is focused on improvement of quantification and resolution in both time and space. (ii) The current approaches to WF calculation can be divided into five main types: the field crop water requirement (FCWR) approach, field soil water balance (FSWB) approach, regional water balance (RWB) approach, remote sensing (RS) approach and field measured water balance (FMWB) approach. The FCWR and FSWB approaches are more widely adopted than the other three. (iii) There were non-negligible differences in the WF accounting results among approaches and scales. At the global level, the deviations in WF for maize, wheat, and rice were relatively low among different studies, with the world average values of 0.73 m3 kg−1 ± 14.9%, 1.136 m3 kg−1 ± 13.5%, and 1.269 m3 kg−1 ± 27%, respectively. The ranges of uncertainty varied significantly when downscaling to specific countries and provinces. The maximum coefficients of variation (CV) of WF for maize, wheat, and rice in different regions were up to 40%, 49%, and 50%, respectively. (iv) The WF simulations showed very reasonable agreement and lower deviation between the FCWR and FSWB approaches.
format	article
author	Bianbian Feng La Zhuo Dong Xie Ying Mao Jie Gao Pengxuan Xie Pute Wu
author_facet	Bianbian Feng La Zhuo Dong Xie Ying Mao Jie Gao Pengxuan Xie Pute Wu
author_sort	Bianbian Feng
title	A quantitative review of water footprint accounting and simulation for crop production based on publications during 2002–2018
title_short	A quantitative review of water footprint accounting and simulation for crop production based on publications during 2002–2018
title_full	A quantitative review of water footprint accounting and simulation for crop production based on publications during 2002–2018
title_fullStr	A quantitative review of water footprint accounting and simulation for crop production based on publications during 2002–2018
title_full_unstemmed	A quantitative review of water footprint accounting and simulation for crop production based on publications during 2002–2018
title_sort	quantitative review of water footprint accounting and simulation for crop production based on publications during 2002–2018
publisher	Elsevier
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/eda3f6ddfd2e431e89f7f94e00b83e20
work_keys_str_mv	AT bianbianfeng aquantitativereviewofwaterfootprintaccountingandsimulationforcropproductionbasedonpublicationsduring20022018 AT lazhuo aquantitativereviewofwaterfootprintaccountingandsimulationforcropproductionbasedonpublicationsduring20022018 AT dongxie aquantitativereviewofwaterfootprintaccountingandsimulationforcropproductionbasedonpublicationsduring20022018 AT yingmao aquantitativereviewofwaterfootprintaccountingandsimulationforcropproductionbasedonpublicationsduring20022018 AT jiegao aquantitativereviewofwaterfootprintaccountingandsimulationforcropproductionbasedonpublicationsduring20022018 AT pengxuanxie aquantitativereviewofwaterfootprintaccountingandsimulationforcropproductionbasedonpublicationsduring20022018 AT putewu aquantitativereviewofwaterfootprintaccountingandsimulationforcropproductionbasedonpublicationsduring20022018 AT bianbianfeng quantitativereviewofwaterfootprintaccountingandsimulationforcropproductionbasedonpublicationsduring20022018 AT lazhuo quantitativereviewofwaterfootprintaccountingandsimulationforcropproductionbasedonpublicationsduring20022018 AT dongxie quantitativereviewofwaterfootprintaccountingandsimulationforcropproductionbasedonpublicationsduring20022018 AT yingmao quantitativereviewofwaterfootprintaccountingandsimulationforcropproductionbasedonpublicationsduring20022018 AT jiegao quantitativereviewofwaterfootprintaccountingandsimulationforcropproductionbasedonpublicationsduring20022018 AT pengxuanxie quantitativereviewofwaterfootprintaccountingandsimulationforcropproductionbasedonpublicationsduring20022018 AT putewu quantitativereviewofwaterfootprintaccountingandsimulationforcropproductionbasedonpublicationsduring20022018
_version_	1718405877582528512

A quantitative review of water footprint accounting and simulation for crop production based on publications during 2002–2018

Ejemplares similares