4.7 Article

Global-scale assessment of groundwater depletion and related groundwater abstractions: Combining hydrological modeling with information from well observations and GRACE satellites

期刊

WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH
卷 50, 期 7, 页码 5698-5720

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2014WR015595

关键词

-

资金

  1. German Research Foundation (DFG) [SPP 1257]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Groundwater depletion (GWD) compromises crop production in major global agricultural areas and has negative ecological consequences. To derive GWD at the grid cell, country, and global levels, we applied a new version of the global hydrological model WaterGAP that simulates not only net groundwater abstractions and groundwater recharge from soils but also groundwater recharge from surface water bodies in dry regions. A large number of independent estimates of GWD as well as total water storage (TWS) trends determined from GRACE satellite data by three analysis centers were compared to model results. GWD and TWS trends are simulated best assuming that farmers in GWD areas irrigate at 70% of optimal water requirement. India, United States, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and China had the highest GWD rates in the first decade of the 21st century. On the Arabian Peninsula, in Libya, Egypt, Mali, Mozambique, and Mongolia, at least 30% of the abstracted groundwater was taken from nonrenewable groundwater during this time period. The rate of global GWD has likely more than doubled since the period 1960-2000. Estimated GWD of 113 km(3)/yr during 2000-2009, corresponding to a sea level rise of 0.31 mm/yr, is much smaller than most previous estimates. About 15% of the globally abstracted groundwater was taken from nonrenewable groundwater during this period. To monitor recent temporal dynamics of GWD and related water abstractions, GRACE data are best evaluated with a hydrological model that, like WaterGAP, simulates the impact of abstractions on water storage, but the low spatial resolution of GRACE remains a challenge.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据