NASA NTRS2008
Human demand for food influences the water cycle through diversion and extraction of fresh water needed to support agriculture. Future population growth and economic development alone will substantially increase water demand and much of it for agricultural uses. For many semi-arid lands, socio-economic shifts are likely to exacerbate changes in climate as a driver of future water supply and demand. For these areas in particular, where the balance between water supply and demand is fragile, variations in regional climate can have potentially predictable effect on agricultural production. Satellite data and biophysically-based models provide a powerful method to quantify the interactions between local climate, plant growth and water resource requirements. In irrigated agricultural lands, satellite observations indicate high vegetation density while the precipitation amount indicates otherwise. This inconsistency between the observed precipitation and the observed canopy leaf density triggers the possibility that the observed high leaf density is due to an alternate source of water, irrigation. We explore an inverse process approach using observations from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS), climatological data, and the NASA's Simple Biosphere model, SiB2, to quantitatively assess water demand in a semi-arid agricultural land by constraining the carbon and water cycles modeled under both equilibrium (balance between vegetation and prevailing local climate) and nonequilibrium (water added through irrigation) conditions. We postulate that the degree to which irrigated lands vary from equilibrium conditions is related to the amount of irrigation water used. We added water using two distribution methods: The first method adds water on top of the canopy and is a proxy for the traditional spray irrigation. The second method allows water to be applied directly into the soil layer and serves as proxy for drip irrigation. Our approach indicates that over the study site, for the month of July, spray irrigation resulted in an irrigation amount of about 1.4 mm per occurrence with an average frequency of occurrence of 24.6 hours. The simulated total monthly irrigation for July was 34.85 mm. In contrast, the drip irrigation resulted in less frequent irrigation events with an average water requirement about 57% less than that simulated during the spray irrigation case. The efficiency of the drip irrigation method rests on its reduction of the canopy interception loss compared to the spray irrigation method. When compared to a country-wide average estimate of irrigation water use, our numbers are quite low. We would have to revise the reported country level estimates downward to 17% or less