Abstract
Recent studies have found that increasing intra-seasonal precipitation variability will lead to substantial reductions in rice production in India by 2050, independently of the effect of rising temperatures. However, these projections do not account for the possibility of adaptations, of which the expansion of irrigation is the primary candidate. Using historical data on irrigation, rice yields, and precipitation, I show that irrigated locations experience much lower damages from increasing precipitation variability, suggesting that the expansion of irrigation could protect Indian agriculture from this future threat. However, accounting for physical water availability shows that under current irrigation practices, sustainable use of irrigation water can mitigate less than a tenth of the climate change impact. Moreover, if India continues to deplete its groundwater resources, the impacts of increased variability are likely to increase by half.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
The importance of accounting for adaptation, and its limits, in projections of the impacts of climate change is widely recognized (Tol et al. 1998; Smit et al. 2000; Howden et al. 2007; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2014), but quantifying these limits empirically remains a challenge. In this paper, I use data on crop yields, precipitation, irrigation, and estimates of groundwater resources to demonstrate the extent to which the depletion of groundwater resources restricts the scope for irrigation to adapt Indian agriculture to increased precipitation variability.
Climate change is expected to shift precipitation patterns in ways that will threaten agriculture worldwide, especially in the semi-arid tropics. Precipitation is projected in decline in some areas and increase in others, but is likely to become more variable, within seasons, in most locations (Tebaldi et al. 2006; Meehl et al. 2000; Allan and Soden 2008; Min et al. 2011; Goswami et al. 2006; Meehl et al. 2005; Rajah et al. 2014; Krishnamurthy and Shukla 2000; Shukla 2003; Krishna Kumar et al. 2011; Trenberth et al. 2005; Hennessy et al. 1997). Relatively few studies have quantified the impacts on increasing intra-seasonal variability on crop yields, but both modeling (Wolf et al. 1996; Mearns et al. 1996, 1997; Olesen et al. 2000; Richter and Semenov2005; Semenov and Porter1995; Patil et al. 2012) and recent statistical analyses of historical rainfall and crop yields (Auffhammer et al. 2012; Fishman 2016) have found these impacts to be negative and large. However, these projections do not account for all possible adaptations, of which the expansion of irrigation is a primary candidate.
Irrigation has been used to buffer crop yields from precipitation shortages for millennia, since irrigation water can substitute for rainfall deficiencies in terms of both quantity and timing. The expansion of irrigated area is therefore often considered to be a promising adaptation strategy to climate variability and change (Rosenzweig and Parry1994; Mendelsohn and Dinar1999, 2003; Howden et al. 2007; Parry2007) but the scope for irrigation as an adaptation strategy is constrained by physical water availability. This constraint is likely to become increasingly binding as renewable water supply is becoming exhausted and non-renewable resources, primarily groundwater aquifers, are becoming depleted (Konikow and Kendy 2005; Wada et al. 2010; Famiglietti 2014; Zaveri et al. 2016).
Numerous studies have used climate and crop modeling to simulate the future direct impacts of climate change on crop yields (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2014). Several studies have also evaluated the direct impacts of climate change on water availability for irrigation (Vörösmarty et al. 2000; Arnell 2004; Fischer et al. 2007; Konzmann et al. 2013; Haddeland et al. 2014) and the resulting impacts on agriculture (Elliott et al. 2014). However, as far as I am aware, the extent to which the depletion of water resources might limit the scope for adapting to climate change has not been quantified to date, especially on the basis of observed relationships between rainfall, crop yields and irrigation. This impact can be thought of as the interaction of the direct agricultural impact of climate change and of anthropogenic water resource depletion. Here, I perform such an analysis for the case of rice production in India.
Globally, rice is one of the three most important sources of energy for human consumption (Lobell et al. 2011). In India, it delivers about half of all calories obtained from cereals,Footnote 1 and occupies more than half the cultivated area in the rainy season.Footnote 2 Since India produces about a fifth of the world’s rice crop, substantial losses in local yield will directly bear on global food grain prices.
The high variability and uneven temporal distribution of rainfall in India, both within and across years, has made irrigation essential for agricultural productivity and food security, and its expansion has been one of the central pillars of India’s agricultural development policy for decades. India is now the world’s third largest dam builder, with over 4000 large dams, and the world’s largest consumer of groundwater, with over ten million wells. Groundwater is estimated to support 70% of agricultural production and more than 50% of the Indian population (World Bank 1998; Shah 2008). India is probably also the country most vulnerable to the threat of groundwater depletion. Over-extraction of groundwater (in excess of natural recharge) is widespread (Rodell et al. 2009; World Bank 1998; Livingston 2009; Shah 2008; Fishman et al. 2011) and the rates of water table declines across the country are alarming(Aeschbach-Hertig and Gleeson 2012; Rodell et al. 2009; Tiwari et al. 2009; Livingston 2009).
My approach is based on a recent statistical analysis of historical rice yields and precipitation in almost 500 locations across India in the period 1970–2003, that estimates the impact of rainfall variability on rice yields (Fishman 2016). Statistical analyses are widely used, alongside those based on crop models, to project climate change impacts (Lobell and Burke 2010). Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses. One particular advantage of statistical models, which is especially important in developing countries, is that they base their estimates on observed crop production achieved by farmers that often employ sub-optimal cultivation practices that can be quite different than those used in controlled agronomic conditions or assumed in crop models (Mondiale 2008).
Numerous such statistical analyses of historical crop-weather relationships have estimated the impact of rising temperatures on crop yields, in India and elsewhere (Schlenker and Lobell 2010; Schlenker and Roberts 2009; Deschenes and Greenstone 2007; Fisher et al. 2012; Welch et al. 2010; Peng et al. 2004; Nelson et al. 2009; Guiteras 2008; Krishna Kumar et al. 2004; Dinar 1998; Rosenzweig et al. 2013). However, reference (Fishman 2016) has for the first time used this approach to show that increasing rainfall variability (measured by the number of rainy days in the season) also has large negative impacts on crop yields. Applying the estimates to a climate change projection showed that by 2050, increasing variability will more than offset the beneficial impacts of increased precipitation totals, and result in a net 10% decline in rice yields. These impacts are independent of and additional to the well-documented effects of rising temperatures.
Here, I build on this analysis and assess the degree to which irrigation reduces the impact of precipitation variability on crop yields. Basing this assessment on empirical estimates derived from observed yields is important, because farmers are likely to be applying irrigation water in sub-optimal ways due to various hydrological and economic constraints, and may adjust to the availability of irrigation in additional ways (Taraz 2017).
I then apply these estimates to a number of stylized integrated climate-groundwater scenarios that combine projections of precipitation variability to 2050 with several possible trajectories for India’s irrigation expansion and its groundwater aquifers. These highly stylized simulations are not meant to provide an accurate and comprehensive projection that accounts for all factors impacting rice production in India in mid-century. Rather, they are meant to illustrate the interplay between the impacts of climate change and the ongoing depletion of India’s water resources. In particular, they provide novel quantification of the extent to which groundwater availability limits the future prospects of adaptation to climate change. The effects of these two independent threats to Indian agriculture have until now been mostly subject to separate analyses.
2 Methods
Data sources
I use the same weather and agriculture data sets employed in reference (Fishman 2016) and repeat its description here. Daily gridded (1∘× 1∘) precipitation and temperature data (Rajeevan et al. 2005; Srivastava et al. 2009) for the period 1970–2004 are modified to represent 2001 Indian district boundaries through weighted spatial averaging (Devineni et al. 2013). Additional modifications are made to account for district splits during the period (Kumar and Somanathan 2009). Daily mean temperatures during the rainy season (June–September) are used to calculate the growing season degree days, a measure of heat often used in phenological studies (Schlenker et al. 2006). Daily precipitation data is used to calculate total seasonal rainfall and several other indicators of intra-seasonal rainfall variability, including the number of days with rainfall in excess of 0.1 mm (see the results section). Rainy season rice yields, cropped areas and gross (annually totaled) irrigated areas, at the district level, are obtained from the Indian Harvest Data set of the Center for the Monitoring of the Indian Economy (CMIE). In total, 6,432 annual weather and agricultural observations in 485 districts (covering 18 indian states) are available. Table S1 reports the mean and standard deviation of the main variables used in the analysis.
Weather-yield analysis
The impacts of climatic variability on rice yields are estimated using a multivariate log-linear regression model that controls for growing season heat exposure, measured by degree days (Schlenker et al. 2006); total seasonal rainfall; and the number of rainy days (May 2004) as a measure of intra-seasonal variability (Summary statistics for these variables are reported in Table S1).
where Y s d t is the crop yield in district d, state s and year t; W s d t is a vector of weather variables including total Monsoon rainfall, seasonal degree days, and the number of rainy days. The three coefficients contained in the vector v represent the impact of deviations in these three weather indicators on rice yields. The model follows standard practices in the literature and includes unobserved, time-invariant factors, p d , that are specific to each district such as soil types, water resources availability and other geographical or time invariant socio-economic characteristics; and state-specific quadratic time trends f s (t) to reflect the substantial variation in agricultural technological progress across Indian states. By including these controls, the estimation is based on random deviations of weather from its long-term mean within each district, and thus facilitates causal inference. Additional details are provided in reference (Fishman 2016).
Heterogenous impacts by irrigation cover
The CMIE dataset does not report irrigated and unirrigated yields separately, making it impossible to directly estimate whether irrigated yields are less sensitive to weather patterns. However, the dataset does report the seasonal rice cropped area GA and gross (annually totalled) rice cropped irrigated area GIA (where water was applied at least once during the growing season). I use the fraction of gross area irrigated FIA s d t = GIA s d t /GA s d t as a measure of irrigation cover in each state, district and year.
To estimate the degree to which the impacts of weather deviations on rice yields differ between irrigated and non-irrigated areas, I estimate a regression model, similar to Eq. 1, that also includes interaction terms between irrigation cover and the weather variables:
In this model, the three coefficients contained in the vector v0 represent the impact of deviations of the three weather indicators on rice yields in completely non-irrigated districts (where irrigation cover equals zero). The three coefficients in the vector δ represent the change in the sensitivity of crop yields to the three weather variables, as irrigation cover increases (continuously) from 0 (no irrigation) to 1 (fully irrigated).
One possible concern in interpreting estimates of regression (2) lies with the possibility of un-observed variables that might be correlated with irrigation cover and are the ones responsible for reducing the impacts of rainfall variability. In such a case, a causal interpretation of the results that implies that increasing irrigation cover will reduce the future impacts of rainfall variability can be misleading. While I am unable to fully address these concerns, I can separate the effects of irrigation from those of any unobservable confounder operating at the state level by estimating a model:
which also controls for interactions between all weather variables and state-specific linear time trends (obtained as products of 18 state level binary indicators I s with state specific constants and time trends). This range of 36 controls will capture all potential confounders whose variation is well captured at the state level, or by state dependent linear time trends. These would include time-invariant attributes such as institutional or geographical state attributes, and variables that change linearly over time, even if the rate of change differs across states. The resulting estimate of the coefficient δ is therefore based only on variation in irrigation cover that occurs within states and is also orthogonal to arbitrary state level linear trends in time.
I further estimate an additional variant of the interaction model
in which the 54 binary indicators Is,D (18 states times 3 decades) represent more flexible interactions of the weather variables with arbitrary state decade combinations and therefore capture all slow moving (decadal) processes occurring at the state level.
Additional robustness tests are discussed and reported in the Results section, below.
Climate change simulations
To perform simple climate change impact simulations, I multiply projected changes in total precipitation and the number of rainy days ΔW from an illustrative climate change scenario for South Asia by the estimated coefficients relating rice yields to changes in these weather variables.Footnote 3 The climate change scenario used in this projection is taken from reference (Fishman 2016) and includes a 100 mm increase in total precipitation (inspired by the IPCC’s A1B, South Asia, 2080–2099 median projection of a 10% increase in precipitation) and a decrease of 15 rainy days by 2050 cited by IPCC AR4 (Solomon 2007; Krishna Kumar et al. 2003).
In each district, changes in rice yields are calculated on the basis of the sensitivity of (log) rice yields to weather fluctuations in that district, v d , which is in turn determined by the irrigation cover FIA d in that district, according to the estimated coefficients of Eq. 2, i.e.,:
where FIA d is the irrigation cover in district d in the irrigation scenario in question (see below), and v o and δ are the estimated obtained from regression (2).
Calculated yields y d in each district are then multiplied by mean rice cropped areas A d in each district (1980–2000), which is assumed to remain unchanged, and aggregated production losses ΔP are aggregated across India:
Groundwater scenarios
To incorporate the effect of irrigation expansion into a climate change impact projection, and illustrate the interaction between climate change and water resource availability, I couple the above climate change scenario with five stylized irrigation-groundwater scenarios that capture different possible trajectories of groundwater irrigation in India. Each scenario projects the future irrigation cover in each district FIA d on the basis of current irrigation cover (leftmost map in the top panel of Fig. 2) and different stylized assumptions. These values are then plugged into Eq. 5 to produce a simulation of future rice yields.
Five irrigation scenarios are considered. In the benchmark scenario, irrigation cover is maintained at current levels (1980–2000 means). In this scenario, FIA d is given by its current value \(FI{A^{C}_{d}}\) (displayed in the left most map in the top panel of Fig. 2). In the full irrigation scenario, it is assumed that FIA d = 1 everywhere.
To calculate the fraction of area irrigated in the sustainable expansion scenario, I use data on the fraction of overall irrigated area that is irrigated by groundwater GW d Footnote 4 and X d , the stage of groundwater development, provided by the Indian government (Central Ground Water Board 2004), and defined as the ratio of extraction to renewable natural recharge (Fig. S1). In districts where this parameter exceeds 100%, extraction already exceeds recharge and is therefore un-sustainable. Note that this data is only available at the aggregate level across all crops, so I assume the rice specific figures are similar to the aggregate ones. In making the projection, I assume that the area served by surface irrigation does not change, and allow the area served by groundwater to adjust to sustainable levels:Footnote 5
In the mild depletion scenario, the area irrigated by groundwater it is assumed to reduce to zero in districts where it is currently unsustainable. In the severe depletion scenario, it is assumed to reduce to zero everywhere. In all scenarios, cropped areas and areas irrigated by other (surface) sources are assumed to remain unchanged
3 Results and discussion
The effect of intra-seasonal precipitation variability on rice yields
Estimates of regression (1) (essentially identical to those in (Fishman 2016)) are reported in Column 1 of Table 1, with coefficients presented in terms of 0.01 logarithmic units, so that they can be approximately interpreted as the number of percentage points by which rice yield are estimated to change per unit increase in the respective weather variable. The estimates reveal the large effect of intra-seasonal variability. They imply that each additional rainy day, keeping heat exposure and total precipitation fixed (which amount to a more even intra-seasonal distribution), increases rice yields by an estimated 0.78% (p < 0.01). In comparison, an additional 10 mm of total precipitation, roughly the amount of precipitation in an average rainy day, increases yields by 0.11% (while keeping the number of rainy days fixed). Heat has a negative effect: each additional degree-day reduces yields, on average, by 0.11%.
Difference in effects in irrigated and non-irrigated areas
The impacts estimated above represent an India-wide average. However, significant heterogeneity exists in cultivation practices across the country, particularly with respect to irrigation cover. Across the entire sample, the mean irrigated fraction of the area cultivated with rice is 55% but it exhibits a substantial degree of spatial variation (rightmost map in the top panel of Fig. 2). To estimate the degree to which irrigation is associated with a lower sensitivity of rice yields to weather fluctuations, I estimate regressions that includes interactions between all three weather variables and irrigation cover (share of rice cultivated land which is irrigated).
Column 2 of Table 1 reports estimates of the basic interaction model, Eq. 2. The results can be interpreted to mean that in the absence of irrigation, an additional rainy day increases yields by 1.36% (p < 0.01), but as irrigation cover increases, this impact eventually decreases by 0.96 percentage points (p < 0.01). They are represented by the light blue line in Fig. 1, which depicts the change in the estimated impact of an additional rainy day on rice yields (vertical axis) as irrigation cover continuously increases from 0 to 100% (horizontal axis). In the bottom two rows of the Table 1 report the point estimate and P value of the impact of rainy days on rice yields in completely irrigated districts, which I define as the sum of the coefficients v0 + δ.
Columns 3–8 of the same table report estimates of a range of alternative specifications and robustness checks that aim to improve the interpretation of the results. These estimates are also summarized in Fig. 1
Columns 3 and 4 report results of robustness tests (Eqs. 3 and 4) that address concerns about a biased interpretation of the effect of irrigation by including flexible controls for interactions between weather deviations and unobservable factors varying at the state and time level, as described in the methods section. The estimated coefficients of interest remain remarkably similar in magnitude and statistical significance to those obtained using the basic interaction model. Note that unlike the estimates reported in column 2, in the case of columns 3 and 4, one may not interpret the coefficient of the un-interacted weather terms as capturing the effect of these weather fluctuations in completely un-irrigated districts, because of the presence of interaction terms between weather variables and state specific intercepts in the regressions.
A second potential concern with model (2) is that irrigation cover is itself endogenous (responsive) to weather anomalies in a particular district and year, leading to biased estimates. To partially address this concern, I also estimate a model in which I use the time-invariant long-term average of irrigation cover in each district in place of its contemporaneous level, i.e., I use \(FIA_{sd} = \overline {{GIA_{sdt}}/{GA_{sdt}}}\). The results, reported in column 5 of Table 1, remain extremely similar. In column 6 I add interactions between weather variables and state specific fixed effects to the same model, so that the estimates are based only on variation between districts in the same state, for the same reasons discussed above.
In columns 7 and 8 I repeat the estimation reported in Columns 5 and 6 in a sub-sample of the data in which rice is only cultivated in the rainy season. My main motivation for doing so lies in the concern that the definition of irrigation cover may be skewed in such locations, because it divides the gross irrigated area, i.e. the annual irrigated area, by the rainy season cropped area. If rice is cultivated outside the rainy season, this measure could be misleading. However, I find that the results remain similar to those obtained with the full sample.
I also subject the results to a number of variations of the specification of the basic weather model, that consist of inclusion of year fixed effects, a quadratic expression in total precipitation, and replacing degree days as my measure of heat exposure by a flexible model relying on the number of days in various temperature ranges. The main results remain robust to these alternative specifications (see the SOI and Table S2 for more details).
It is interesting to note that I only find robust and statistically significant evidence that irrigation cover reduces the impacts of changes in the intra-seasonal variability of precipitation, and not the impacts of changes in total precipitation. Previous statistical estimates of Indian agricultural data did find evidence that irrigation reduces the impacts of total precipitation on agricultural production (Duflo and Pande 2007; Taraz 2017), but they did not control for intra-seasonal variability. When I only include total precipitation in the regressions, I find similar results to these studies, but once I control for intra-seasonal variability, the interaction estimates between total precipitation and irrigation cover become smaller, statistically insignificant and less robust. This disparity can be understood to reflect the particular effectiveness of irrigation in compensating for intra-seasonal variability in rainfall, more than for shortages in the overall amount of rainfall, since irrigation itself relies on water resources whose recharge also often depends on total rainfall amounts. Similarly, I do not find evidence that irrigation reduces the negative impacts of heat exposure. This, too, is broadly consistent with simple phenological considerations, since the impacts of high temperatures on crop growth are not limited to increased evapo-transpirative water demands, and several studies have observed strong temperature effects on irrigated rice crops in Asia (Peng et al. 2004; Welch et al. 2010; Nelson et al. 2009).
The statistically significant negative sign of the estimated interaction term between precipitation variability and irrigation cover indicates that the negative impacts of rainfall variability are lower in more highly irrigated districts. However, it does not necessarily imply a causal relationship, strictly speaking, since in principle, other, unobserved factors correlated with irrigation might be responsible for the reduced impact. While I am unable to fully account for this possibility, I subject the regression results to a range of robustness tests that include separating the effects of irrigation from any potential confounders operating at the state level in increasingly demanding specifications (see the methods section for details), at which most water and irrigation related policies are determined (including, for example, water tariffs and subsidies on power used for irrigation). Estimates of the interaction term of interest remain stable and statistically significant across this range of alternative model specifications, reported in columns 2–8 of Table 1 and depicted in Fig. 1 using lines of different colors. While I avoid making causal claims, I assume these estimates to be illustrative of the impact of irrigation on the sensitivity of yields to increased variability, and make use of them in the projections that follow.
Simulation of climate change impacts
Figure 2 depicts simulated future irrigation cover in each of the five groundwater-irrigation scenarios and the associated projected losses in rice production in 2050.
In the first scenario, irrigation cover remains at its current levels indefinitely. In this scenario, the negative effect of the decrease in the number of rainy days on 2050 rice yields is estimated at − 11%, large enough to offset a small positive gain (2%) resulting from the increase in total precipitation, and result in a net 10% decline in rice yields (Fishman 2016) (this effect is independent of and additional to the impact of increasing temperatures).
The first scenario fails to account for the possibility of adapting through the expansion of irrigation. As I found above, the impact of variability in irrigated areas is much lower than in non-irrigated areas, suggesting that an expansion of irrigation could substantially reduce the resulting climate change impact in 2050. In the second scenario, I allow irrigation to expand so as to cover all area cropped with rice, and estimate that such an expansion would reduce the impact of changing precipitation patterns by about a half (from 10% loss to 6%).
Given current limitations on India’s water resources, however, neither current irrigation cover nor a full expansion are sustainable using current irrigation practices. While more than half of India’s irrigated area is irrigated by groundwater, unsustainable over-exploitation (relative to natural recharge) and falling water tables are already pervasive (Shah 2008; Rodell et al. 2009; Fishman et al. 2011).
The third scenario I consider is a scenario of sustainable expansion, in which groundwater usage is everywhere brought to levels of natural recharge. This involves an expansion of groundwater irrigation in areas where resources are not fully utilized, and a shrinking of the area irrigated by groundwater in locations in which they are fully utilized or over-extracted. In this scenario, the impact of climate change is little changed, and turns out to be reduced by less than a tenth (from 11 to 10%). This reduction is mostly a result of the fact that both the associated increases and declines in production losses are modest and tend to offset one another.
I next calculate climate change impacts in two scenario of “business as usual” in which groundwater resources are exhausted in areas in which they are currently being unsustainably depleted (“mild” depletion) or everywhere (“severe” depletion). Climate change impacts in these scenarios are found to be larger (worse) by a factor of about 1.2 (12%) and 1.5 (15%), respectively, as compared to the benchmark scenario (which ignores water resources limitations).
Using estimates from the alternative regression specifications discussed above leads to results that are broadly similar in pattern (see Fig. S2).
4 Conclusions
Increasing rainfall variability is projected to have large negative impacts on crop production in the semi-arid tropics. The expansion of irrigation, a primary adaptation strategy, is shown here to have a large theoretical potential to reduce future climate change impacts, but a much more limited scope for mitigating this impact if physical constraints on future groundwater availability are taken into account. Continuing the current un-sustainable use of groundwater in much of India is likely to lead to a shrinking of irrigation in over-exploited areas by the time climate change impacts manifest, and my estimates show that if this results in a decline in irrigation cover, climate change impacts will be substantially amplified in comparison to those estimated on the basis of current irrigation cover. On the other hand, the maximal sustainable use of groundwater, which involves shrinking irrigation cover in some areas and expanding it in others, is shown to have little potential to reduce climate change impacts (but also to avoid enlarging them). These findings demonstrate an additional pathway through which growing water scarcity will impact future crop yields, above and beyond its direct impacts on agriculture or on water resources (Tilman et al. 2002; Gleick 2000; Elliott et al. 2014).
Agricultural systems are increasingly exposed to multiple environmental stresses (Godfray et al. 2010). Acting together, such stresses can interact in unexpected ways, resulting in losses that exceed the linear total of their separate impacts. For example, the North American “Dust Bowl” exemplifies how one form of stress (intensive land use) can exacerbate a system’s susceptibility to another (drought) (Worster 1982; Cook et al. 2009). This paper demonstrates another important example of such a coupling. It is shown how the depletion of groundwater resources constrains the capacity of India’s agriculture to adapt to increasing precipitation variability. Thus, in this case, the degradation of a natural resource reduces a system’s capacity to adapt to environmental change.
The approach used in this paper is limited in several ways. First, like other statistical models, it is unable to account for the fertilisation impact of higher CO2 concentrations on crop yields, which may also depend on irrigation. Second, it does not attempt to account for adaptations other than the expansion of irrigation. For example, my model assumes rice cropped areas will remain unchanged. Lower availability of irrigation water may also lead to reductions in rice cultivation. Since the areas most dependent on groundwater irrigation tend to have higher productivity, such reductions are likely to further decrease nationally averaged rice yields, meaning my estimates are conservative. On the other hand, shifts to less water intensive crops may potentially help buffer overall productivity (across the entire crop mix) from losses in rice yields. My model also does not currently account for possible shifts in irrigation practices (Gleick 2003; Fishman et al. 2015). Third, the irrigation scenarios considered here are simplistic and are only meant to highlight the importance of accounting for physical constraints on adaptation. Future studies should also take into account the direct impacts of climate change on water supplies, such as the direct impacts of precipitation shifts on groundwater recharge, and those of Himalayan glacial and snow melt on downstream river flow and surface irrigation (Shukla 2003; Immerzeel et al. 2010).
Notes
Food and Agriculture Organization, http://faostat3.fao.org/
Source: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Dept. of Agriculture, Govt. of India.
My analysis is focused on the effects of precipitation and I therefore omit the impacts of temperature increases from the analysis. To first order, the impacts of the shifts in the three weather indicators are linearly separable, so that the impact of temperature increases, which have been investigated in other studies, are, to first order, independent of and additional to those at the focus of the analysis.
Source: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Dept. of Agriculture, Govt. of India.
I force the resulting irrigation cover remain below 1
References
Aeschbach-Hertig W, Gleeson T (2012) Regional strategies for the accelerating global problem of groundwater depletion. Nat Geosci 5(12):853–861
Allan RP, Soden BJ (2008) Atmospheric warming and the amplification of precipitation extremes. Science 321(5895):1481–1484
Arnell NW (2004) Climate change and global water resources: Sres emissions and socio-economic scenarios. Glob Environ Chang 14(1):31–52
Auffhammer M, Ramanathan V, Vincent JR (2012) Climate change, the monsoon, and rice yield in india. Clim Chang 111(2):411–424
Central Ground Water Board (2004) Dynamic groundwater resources of India, as on March, 2004. Govt. of India
Cook BI, Miller RL, Seager R (2009) Amplification of the north american ?dust bowl? drought through human-induced land degradation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106 (13):4997–5001
Deschenes O, Greenstone M (2007) The economic impacts of climate change: evidence from agricultural output and random fluctuations in weather. Am Econ Rev 97(1):354–385
Devineni N, Perveen S, Lall U (2013) Assessing chronic and climate-induced water risk through spatially distributed cumulative deficit measures: a new picture of water sustainability in India. Water Resour Res 49(4):2135–2145
Dinar A (1998) Measuring the impact of climate change on Indian agriculture, vol 23. World Bank Publications
Duflo E, Pande R (2007) Dams*. Q J Econ 122(2):601–646
Elliott J, Deryng D, Müller C, Frieler K, Konzmann M, Gerten D, Glotter M, Flörke M, Wada Y, Best N et al (2014) Constraints and potentials of future irrigation water availability on agricultural production under climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111(9):3239–3244
Famiglietti J S (2014) The global groundwater crisis. Nat Clim Chang 4(11):945–948
Fischer G, Tubiello FN, Van Velthuizen H, Wiberg D A (2007) Climate change impacts on irrigation water requirements: effects of mitigation, 1990–2080. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 74(7):1083–1107
Fisher AC, Michael HW, Roberts MJ, Schlenker W (2012) The economic impacts of climate change: evidence from agricultural output and random fluctuations in weather: comment. Am Econ Rev 102(7):3749–3760
Fishman R (2016) More uneven distributions overturn benefits of higher precipitation for crop yields. Environ Res Lett 11(2):024004
Fishman R M, Siegfried T, Raj P, Modi V, Lall U (2011) Over-extraction from shallow bedrock versus deep alluvial aquifers: reliability versus sustainability considerations for india’s groundwater irrigation. Water Resour Res 47(6)
Fishman R, Devineni N, Raman S (2015) Can improved agricultural water use efficiency save India’s groundwater? Environ Res Lett 10(8):084022
Gleick PH (2000) A look at twenty-first century water resources development. Water Int 25(1):127–138
Gleick PH (2003) Global freshwater resources: soft-path solutions for the 21st century. Science 302(5650):1524–1528
Godfray HCJ, Beddington JR, Crute IR, Haddad L, Lawrence D, Muir JF, Pretty J, Robinson S, Thomas SM, Toulmin C (2010) Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327(5967):812–818
Goswami B N, Venugopal V, Sengupta D, Madhusoodanan M S, Xavier PK (2006) Increasing trend of extreme rain events over india in a warming environment. Science 314(5804):1442
Guiteras R (2008) The impact of climate change on indian agriculture. University of Maryland Mimeo, College Park
Haddeland I, Heinke J, Biemans H, Eisner S, Flörke M, Hanasaki N, Konzmann M, Ludwig F, Masaki Y, Schewe J et al (2014) Global water resources affected by human interventions and climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111 (9):3251–3256
Hennessy K J, Gregory J M, Mitchell J F B (1997) Changes in daily precipitation under enhanced greenhouse conditions. Clim Dyn 13(9):667–680
Howden SM, Soussana JF, Tubiello FN, Chhetri N, Dunlop M, Meinke H (2007) Adapting agriculture to climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104(50):19691
Immerzeel WW, van Beek LPH, Bierkens MFP (2010) Climate change will affect the asian water towers. Science 328(5984):1382–1385
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014) Climate change 2014–impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: regional aspects. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Konikow LF, Kendy E (2005) Groundwater depletion: a global problem. Hydrobiol J 13(1):317–320
Konzmann Markus, Gerten Dieter, Heinke Jens (2013) Climate impacts on global irrigation requirements under 19 gcms, simulated with a vegetation and hydrology model. Hydrol Sci J 58(1):88–105
Krishna Kumar K, Deshpande NR, Mishra P K, Kamala K, Kumar KR (2003) Future scenarios of extreme rainfall and temperature over india. In: Proceedings of the workshop on scenarios and future emissions, Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Ahmedabad, July 22, pp 56–68
Krishna Kumar K, Rupa Kumar K, Ashrit R G, Deshpande N R, Hansen J W (2004) Climate impacts on indian agriculture. Int J Climatol 24(11):1375–1393
Krishna Kumar K, Kamala K, Rajagopalan B, Hoerling MP, Eischeid JK, Patwardhan S K, Srinivasan G, Goswami B N, Nemani R (2011) The once and future pulse of indian monsoonal climate. Clim Dyn 36(11–12):2159–2170
Krishnamurthy V, Shukla J (2000) Intraseasonal and interannual variability of rainfall over india. J Clim 13(24):4366–4377
Kumar H, Somanathan R (2009) Mapping indian districts across census years, 1971–2001. Econ Polit Wkly 69–73
Livingston M (2009) Deep wells and prudence: towards pragmatic action for addressing groundwater overexploitation in India Report, World Bank
Lobell D, Burke M (2010) Climate change and food security. Springer, Berlin
Lobell DB, Schlenker W, Costa-Roberts J (2011) Climate trends and global crop production since 1980. Science 333(6042):616–620
May W (2004) Simulation of the variability and extremes of daily rainfall during the indian summer monsoon for present and future times in a global time-slice experiment. Clim Dyn 22(2):183–204
Mearns LO, Rosenzweig C, Goldberg R (1996) The effect of changes in daily and interannual climatic variability on ceres-wheat: a sensitivity study. Clim Chang 32 (3):257–292
Mearns LO, Rosenzweig C, Goldberg R (1997) Mean and variance change in climate scenarios: methods, agricultural applications, and measures of uncertainty. Clim Chang 35(4):367–396
Meehl GA, Zwiers F, Evans J, Knutson T, Mearns L, Whetton P (2000) Trends in extreme weather and climate events: issues related to modeling extremes in projections of future climate change*. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 81(3):427–436
Meehl G A, Arblaster J M, Tebaldi C (2005) Understanding future patterns of increased precipitation intensity in climate model simulations. Geophys Res Lett 32(18)
Mendelsohn R, Dinar A (1999) Climate change, agriculture, and developing countries: does adaptation matter? World Bank Res Obs 14(2):277
Mendelsohn R, Dinar A (2003) Climate, water, and agriculture. Land Econ 79(3):328–341
Min S-K, Zhang X, Zwiers FW, Hegerl GC (2011) Human contribution to more-intense precipitation extremes. Nature 470(7334):378–381
Mondiale B (2008) World development report 2008: agriculture for development
Nelson GC et al. (2009) Climate change: impact on agriculture and costs of adaptation, vol 21. Intl Food Policy Res Inst
Olesen JE, Jensen T, Petersen J (2000) Sensitivity of field-scale winter wheat production in Denmark to climate variability and climate change. Clim Res 15 (3):221–238
Parry M L (2007) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: working group II contribution to the fourth assessment report of the IPCC intergovernmental panel on climate change, vol 4. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Patil RH, Laegdsmand M, Olesen JE, Porter JR (2012) Sensitivity of crop yield and n losses in winter wheat to changes in mean and variability of temperature and precipitation in denmark using the fasset model. Acta Agric Scand Sect B Soil Plant Sci 62(4):335–351
Peng S, Huang J, Sheehy JE, Laza RC, Visperas RM, Zhong X, Centeno GS, Khush GS, Cassman KG (2004) Rice yields decline with higher night temperature from global warming. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101(27):9971
Rajah K, O’Leary T, Turner A, Petrakis G, Leonard M, Westra S (2014) Changes to the temporal distribution of daily precipitation. Geophys Res Lett 41(24):8887–8894
Rajeevan M, Bhate J, Kale J D, Lal B (2005) Development of a high resolution daily gridded rainfall data for the indian region. Met Monograph Climatol 22:2005
Richter G M, Semenov M A (2005) Modelling impacts of climate change on wheat yields in england and wales: assessing drought risks. Agric Syst 84(1):77–97
Rodell M, Velicogna I, Famiglietti JS (2009) Satellite-based estimates of groundwater depletion in india. Nature 460(7258):999–1002
Rosenzweig C, Parry ML (1994) Potential impact of climate change on world food supply. Nature 367(6459):133–138
Rosenzweig C, Elliott J, Deryng D, Ruane A C, Müller C, Arneth A, Boote K J, Folberth C, Glotter M, Khabarov N et al (2013) Assessing agricultural risks of climate change in the 21st century in a global gridded crop model intercomparison. Proc Natl Acad Sci 201222463
Schlenker W, Lobell DB (2010) Robust negative impacts of climate change on african agriculture. Environ Res Lett 5(1):014010
Schlenker W, Roberts MJ (2009) Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to us crop yields under climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106(37):15594
Schlenker W, Hanemann WM, Fisher AC (2006) The impact of global warming on us agriculture: an econometric analysis of optimal growing conditions. Rev Econ Stat 88(1):113–125
Semenov MA, Porter J R (1995) Climatic variability and the modelling of crop yields. Agric For Meteorol 73(3):265–283
Shah T (2008) Taming the anarchy: groundwater governance in South Asia. Earthscan
Shukla P R (2003) Climate change and India: vulnerability assessment and adaptation. Universities Press, Hyderabad
Smit B, Burton I, Klein RJT, Wandel J (2000) An anatomy of adaptation to climate change and variability. Clim Chang 45(1):223–251
Solomon S (2007) Climate change 2007-the physical science basis: Working group I contribution to the fourth assessment report of the IPCC, vol 4. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Srivastava A K, Rajeevan M, Kshirsagar S R (2009) Development of a high resolution daily gridded temperature data set (1969–2005) for the indian region. Atmos Sci Lett 10(4):249–254
Taraz V (2017) Adaptation to climate change: Historical evidence from the Indian monsoon. Environ Dev Econ 22(5):517–545
Tebaldi C, Hayhoe K, Arblaster JM, Meehl GA (2006) Going to the extremes. Clim Chang 79(3):185–211
Tilman D, Cassman KG, Matson PA, Naylor R, Polasky S (2002) Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418(6898):671–677
Tiwari V M, Wahr J, Swenson S (2009) Dwindling groundwater resources in northern India, from satellite gravity observations. Geophys Res Lett 36(18)
Tol RSJ, Fankhauser S, Smith JB (1998) The scope for adaptation to climate change: what can we learn from the impact literature? Glob Environ Chang 8(2):109–123
Trenberth KE, Fasullo J, Smith L (2005) Trends and variability in column-integrated atmospheric water vapor. Clim Dyn 24(7):741–758
Vörösmarty CJ, Green P, Salisbury J, Lammers RB (2000) Global water resources: vulnerability from climate change and population growth. Science 289 (5477):284–288
Wada Y, van Beek L P H, van Kempen C M, Reckman J W T M, Vasak S, Bierkens M F P (2010) Global depletion of groundwater resources. Geophys Res Lett 37(20)
Welch JR, Vincent JR, Auffhammer M, Moya PF, Dobermann A, Dawe D (2010) Rice yields in tropical/subtropical asia exhibit large but opposing sensitivities to minimum and maximum temperatures. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107(33):14562
Wolf J, Evans L G, Semenov M A, Eckersten H, Iglesias A (1996) Comparison of wheat simulation models under climate change. I. Model calibration and sensitivity analyses. Clim Res 7:253–270
World Bank (1998) India - Water resources management sector review: groundwater regulation and management report (English). World Development Sources, WDS 1998-3. Washington, DC: World Bank
Worster D (1982) Dust bowl: the southern plains in the 1930s. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Zaveri E, Grogan D S, Fisher-Vanden K, Frolking S, Lammers R B, Wrenn D H, Prusevich A, Nicholas R E (2016) Invisible water, visible impact: groundwater use and indian agriculture under climate change. Environ Res Lett 11 (8):084005
Acknowledgments
I thank Upmanu Lall, Jeffrey Sachs, Wolfram Schlenker, Jesse Anttila-Hughes, David Blakeslee, Brian Dillon, Solomon Hsiang, Chandra Kiran Krishnamurti, Gordon McCord, and Kyle Meng for helpful suggestions and comments. I also thank David Blakeslee and Naresh Devineni for sharing data. This work was supported in part by the Harvard Sustainability Science Program and the Columbia Water Center.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fishman, R. Groundwater depletion limits the scope for adaptation to increased rainfall variability in India. Climatic Change 147, 195–209 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2146-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2146-x