期刊
ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS
卷 120, 期 -, 页码 -出版社
ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106962
关键词
Quantification methods; Spatial scales; Uncertainty
资金
- National Key Research and Development Plan [2018YFF0215702]
- National Natural Science Foundation of China [51809215]
- West Light Talent Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences
The research showed that the number of crop water footprint accounting studies has increased significantly since 2002, focusing on improving quantification and resolution in both time and space. Current approaches to water footprint calculation can be divided into five main types, with the FCWR and FSWB approaches being more widely adopted, and there are differences in accounting results among different methods and scales.
The water footprint (WF) of crop production has been widely accepted as a comprehensive indicator of agri-cultural 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 (similar to 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 m(3) kg(-1) +/- 14.9%, 1.136 m(3) kg(-1) +/- 13.5%, and 1.269 m(3) 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.
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。
推荐
暂无数据