recent trends in crops water productivity across the contiguous states
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Recent trends in crops water productivity across the contiguous states](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070600/589bde991a28aba5108b5215/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
January 26, 2017
Michael MarshallWorld Agroforestry CentreUnited Nations Ave, Gigiri
P.O. Box 30677-00100Nairobi, Kenya
Recent trends in crop water productivity across the
contiguous United States: a call for “more crop per drop”
![Page 2: Recent trends in crops water productivity across the contiguous states](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070600/589bde991a28aba5108b5215/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
USGS (2005)IPCC-AR5
Climate Change and Water Use in the U.S.
![Page 3: Recent trends in crops water productivity across the contiguous states](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070600/589bde991a28aba5108b5215/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Williams et al. (2015)
California Drought 2012-2016
![Page 4: Recent trends in crops water productivity across the contiguous states](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070600/589bde991a28aba5108b5215/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
North American Drought 2012-2013
![Page 5: Recent trends in crops water productivity across the contiguous states](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070600/589bde991a28aba5108b5215/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Funk and Brown (2009)
Jung et al. (2010)
WARMER
June et al. (2004)
Globally
![Page 6: Recent trends in crops water productivity across the contiguous states](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070600/589bde991a28aba5108b5215/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Blue-Green Revolution▪ Crop type and variety▪ Surface/groundwater coordination▪ Precision agriculture
─ Deficit irrigation─ Drip irrigation─ Irrigation scheduling─ Soil salinity
▪ Integrated assessments▪ Water markets or tax
![Page 7: Recent trends in crops water productivity across the contiguous states](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070600/589bde991a28aba5108b5215/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
℘1=Total Dry Matter (kg)
Cumlative Transpiration (m3)
℘2=Grain∨Seed Yield(kg)
Cumlative Transpiration (m3)
Water Productivity (WP)Ali and Talukder (2008) define crop WP in terms of total dry matter (net primary production-NPP) and yield:
Rain-fed water productive crops assimilate more carbon, while losing less water to the atmosphere. Irrigated crops are typically on a deficit schedule, so crop yield is more appropriate.
![Page 8: Recent trends in crops water productivity across the contiguous states](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070600/589bde991a28aba5108b5215/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
ObjectivesDetermine green, blue, and overall trends in WP for major crops in the U.S. (alfalfa, corn, cotton, rice, sorghum, and soy):
Parameterize models with high resolution Earth observation and climate geospatial data over the primary growing season
Quantitative assessment of WP1 (2001-2015)
Qualitative assessment of WP2 (2008-2015)
![Page 9: Recent trends in crops water productivity across the contiguous states](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070600/589bde991a28aba5108b5215/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Crop Yield Model DevelopmentLight-Use or Production Efficiency Models (PEMs) are a compromise between simple empirical models and fully mechanistic models (e.g. APSIM)
Process-based
Transferable
Climatic constraints (explicit)
Non-climatic (implicit)
![Page 10: Recent trends in crops water productivity across the contiguous states](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070600/589bde991a28aba5108b5215/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Crop Yield Model DevelopmentPEMs perform best for forests and more poorly for croplands/ecosystems.
Based on Challinor et al. (2009) we optimized the approach for croplands:
Sensitivity Analysis
Rigorous model calibration (light- and water-use literature)
Multi-scale evaluation with MOD17 (Running et al., 2004)
![Page 11: Recent trends in crops water productivity across the contiguous states](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070600/589bde991a28aba5108b5215/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Sensitivity AnalysisOne-parameter at a time approach on model inputs: PAR, NDVI, VPDX, and TX
Parameter Description Equation Citation
GPP MAX Maximum daily gross primary production ᵋMAX * FPAR * FM * FT * FA * PAR
F PAR Fraction of photosynthetically active radiation 1.257 * NDVI - 0.161 Bastiaanssen et al., 2003
F M Short-term moisture stress min (1, 1 / √ VPDX) Zhou et al., 2014
F T Temperature stress 1.1814 / ((1 + e0.2 * (Topt - 10 - Tx)) (1 + e0.3 * (Tx - 10 - Topt))) Potter et al., 1993
F A Long-term (seasonal) moisture stress FPAR / FPAR, MAX Fisher et al., 2008
ᵋ MAX Maximum quantum conversion efficiency C3 crops: 0.08 * (CA - Γ) / (CA + 2Γ) Collatz et al., 1991
C4 crops: 0.06 Collatz et al., 1992
Station Parameter B1 (gCO2 m-2 d-1) B0 (gCO2 m-2 d-1)US NE-1 TX (< 0) 16.65 35.73
TX (> 0) -17.96 36.94(-0.65)
VPDX -9.55 36.84PAR 23.56 34.38NDVI 17.43 25.66
![Page 12: Recent trends in crops water productivity across the contiguous states](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070600/589bde991a28aba5108b5215/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
CalibrationThe baseline model was most sensitive to PAR (FA), NDVI (FPAR), VPDX (FM), and TX (FT)
Bastiaanssen et al. (2003), Running et al. (2004), and Potter et al. (2003) led to overall best performance for C3 and C4 crops
![Page 13: Recent trends in crops water productivity across the contiguous states](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070600/589bde991a28aba5108b5215/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Optimized Water-Light use (OWL) model
Marshall, M., Tu, K.P., Brown, J., 2017. Light- and water-use efficiency model optimization for large-areacrop yield estimation. Remote Sens. Environ. (under review)
![Page 14: Recent trends in crops water productivity across the contiguous states](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070600/589bde991a28aba5108b5215/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Eddy Covariance Flux Tower Data (OWL)
![Page 15: Recent trends in crops water productivity across the contiguous states](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070600/589bde991a28aba5108b5215/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Eddy Covariance Flux Tower Data (MOD17)
![Page 16: Recent trends in crops water productivity across the contiguous states](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070600/589bde991a28aba5108b5215/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
![Page 17: Recent trends in crops water productivity across the contiguous states](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070600/589bde991a28aba5108b5215/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
![Page 18: Recent trends in crops water productivity across the contiguous states](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070600/589bde991a28aba5108b5215/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
GPP → NPP → Yield (Regional Assessment)GPP minus respiration costs were used to estimate net photosynthesis (Pn):
Pn was summed over a fixed growing season (mid-May to late-October) to estimate NPP.
NPP was converted to yield (Y) using the harvest index (HI), root-to-shoot ratio (RS), and seed moisture content (MC)
𝐘= ∑𝐢=𝐒𝐎𝐒
𝐧𝐏𝐧𝐢×
𝐇𝐈1+𝐑𝐒 ×
11−𝐌𝐂
![Page 19: Recent trends in crops water productivity across the contiguous states](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070600/589bde991a28aba5108b5215/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Climate Inputs DOE interpolated climate fields
from NCDC and NRCS stations CONUS Mosaics Daily 1km Temperature and precipitation --
IWD weighted by DEM--(Thorton et al., 1997)
SWIN and VPD from DTR and dew point (Thorton et al., 2000)
2001-2015 Monthly Average MODIS Albedo
RN from albedo, SWIN, DEM, T, VPD, latitude (Allen et al., 1998)
![Page 20: Recent trends in crops water productivity across the contiguous states](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070600/589bde991a28aba5108b5215/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
eMODIS (January 2001)
1.00
0.00
Vegetation Input USGS-EROS MODIS based
expedited (eMODIS) NDVI CONUS Mosaics Near real-time 7-day 250m MODIS Land Science
Collection 5 Atmospherically Corrected Surface
Optimized Savitsky-Golay filter (Chen et al., 2004)
SAVI approximation (Los et al., 2000)
![Page 21: Recent trends in crops water productivity across the contiguous states](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070600/589bde991a28aba5108b5215/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Cropscape 30m (2015)
![Page 22: Recent trends in crops water productivity across the contiguous states](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070600/589bde991a28aba5108b5215/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
OWL MOD17 OWL – MOD17
NPP (Fixed Season = mid-May to late-October)
Mea
nSt
dev
![Page 23: Recent trends in crops water productivity across the contiguous states](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070600/589bde991a28aba5108b5215/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
D = 0.57RMSE = 1.45RMSEU = 0.97RMSES = 1.08
D = 0.63RMSE = 1.26RMSEU = 0.66RMSES = 1.07
D = 0.50RMSE = 0.55RMSEU = 0.42RMSES = 0.36
D = 0.33RMSE = 0.70RMSEU = 0.53RMSES = 0.45
Cot
ton
Soyb
eans
OWL MOD17
![Page 24: Recent trends in crops water productivity across the contiguous states](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070600/589bde991a28aba5108b5215/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Major Findings of Optimization Procedure
C3 and C4 partitioning was essential- particularly during green-up and brown-down
FA (soil moisture indicator) was an important improvement- particularly for the C3 pathway
The C4 pathway remains underestimated, but model bias is primarily systematic in nature
Model counters MOD17 bias in non-agroecosystems and should be further explored
![Page 25: Recent trends in crops water productivity across the contiguous states](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070600/589bde991a28aba5108b5215/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Fisher, J.B., Tu, K.P., Baldocchi, D.D., 2008. Global estimates of the land–atmosphere water flux based on monthly AVHRR and ISLSCP-II data, validated at 16 FLUXNET sites. Remote Sens. Environ. 112, 901–919.
NASA PT-JPL model
![Page 26: Recent trends in crops water productivity across the contiguous states](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070600/589bde991a28aba5108b5215/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
WP1 Trends (2001-2015)
kg•m-3
32.0
-12.2
![Page 27: Recent trends in crops water productivity across the contiguous states](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070600/589bde991a28aba5108b5215/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Yield
ETC
Alfalfa
Irrigated
Rainfed
Combined
![Page 28: Recent trends in crops water productivity across the contiguous states](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070600/589bde991a28aba5108b5215/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Irrigated
Rainfed
CombinedYield
ETC
Rice
![Page 29: Recent trends in crops water productivity across the contiguous states](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070600/589bde991a28aba5108b5215/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Corn
Irrigated
Rainfed
CombinedYield
ETC
![Page 30: Recent trends in crops water productivity across the contiguous states](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070600/589bde991a28aba5108b5215/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Improvements in Progress
eMODIS Remote Sensing Phenology
MODIS Irrigated Agriculture Dataset for the United States (MIrAD-US)
MODIS Global Food Security-support Analysis Data (GFSAD) crop type 2001-2015
![Page 31: Recent trends in crops water productivity across the contiguous states](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070600/589bde991a28aba5108b5215/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Summary WP (high to low): Alfalfa, Corn, Soybeans, Sorghum,
Cotton, and Rice WP increases
–Mid-West: rain-fed corn and soybeans–Texas: irrigated/rain-fed cotton and sorghum
WP declines Ogallala Aquifer: irrigated/rain-fed corn and wheat Central Valley, California and Mississippi: irrigated
rice 2012-13 North American Drought Next step: 30+ year (1982-2012) global assessment
![Page 32: Recent trends in crops water productivity across the contiguous states](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070600/589bde991a28aba5108b5215/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Thank You