بهره‌گیری از مفهوم ردپای آب مجازی در تولید محصولات اصلی برای عبور از بحران آب منطقه قزوین

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی

نویسندگان

دانشگاه بین المللی امام خمینی(ره)، قزوین

چکیده

دشت قزوین، از مهمترین دشت‌های مرکزی ایران به دلیل خشکسالی‌ و افزایش مصارف بخش‌های مختلف، با بحران کمبود آب مواجه شده است. لذا مدیریت آب بخش کشاورزی به عنوان مهمترین‌ مصرف‌کننده آب در منطقه ضروری است. در این تحقیق از مفهوم ردپای آب مجازی برای محصولات اصلی آبی و دیم منطقه برای مدیریت بهتر آب کشاورزی استفاده شد. مجموع ردپای آب مجازی در تولید محصولات اصلی آبی و دیم منطقه برای 2014-2003، حدود 2053 میلیون مترمکعب در سال است که سهم آب سبز، آبی، خاکستری و سفید به‌ترتیب 31، 25، 2 و 42 درصد می‌باشد. از مجموع ردپای آب در تولید محصولات اصلی منطقه، سهم آب خاکستری و سفید حدود 44 درصد است. پایین بودن راندمان سیستم‌های آبیاری و مصرف بیش از حد کودهای ازته باعث افزایش سهم آب سفید و خاکستری در منطقه است. کشت وسیع ذرت دانه‌ای، ذرت علوفه‌ای، گوجه فرنگی و یونجه از دلایل اصلی بالا بودن حجم صادرات آب مجازی منطقه می‌باشد. حدود 1022 میلیون مترمکعب به صورت صادرات آب مجازی از منطقه خارج می‌شود. حجم صادرات آب مجازی ذرت دانه‌ای، ذرت علوفه‌ای، یونجه و گوجه فرنگی مجموعا 4/54 درصد یعنی حدود 556 میلیون مترمکعب در سال از کل حجم صادرات آب مجازی منطقه است. با حذف صادرات این چهار محصول تابستانه حدود 507 میلیون مترمکعب در سال از خروج منابع آب سطحی و زیرزمینی جلوگیری می‌شود. اما این محصولات به دلیل بالا بودن عملکرد و سودخالص در هر هکتار مورد توجه کشاورزان قرار می‌گیرد. گندم نیز با سهم 4/28 و 2/20 درصدی از کل حجم آب مجازی و حجم منابع آبی صادر شده از منطقه، نقش مهمی در خروج آب از منطقه دارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Using the Concept of Virtual Water Footprint in Main Crops Production for Crossing the water crisis in Qazvin

نویسندگان [English]

  • Hadi Ramezani Etedali
  • Alireza Shokoohi
  • S. Amin Mojtabavi
Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin
چکیده [English]

Introduction: Qazvin plain is one of the most important agricultural regions in the central part of Iran. Because of recent continuous droughts and the increases in the demands of different sectors such as agriculture, industry, environment and domestic, the plain is faced witha severe shortage of water resources. Due to the declining share of surface waters, farmers increased the using of groundwater. And the overusing of groundwater for irrigation has caused the severe drop in water level of the aquifer. The critical situations in the Qazvin plain have made the agricultural water management and crop pattern modification vital and necessary.Due to the population increase, concepts and theories such as food security, environmental protection and sustainable management of groundwater and surface water resources, virtual water footprint and virtual water trading are a dynamic concept for water resource management in all sectors that has considered more in recent years.
Materials and Methods: The green (effective precipitation), blue (net irrigation requirement), gray (for diluting chemical fertilizers) and white (irrigation water losses) water footprints (WF) of main crop production were estimated for Qazvin plain. The average yield and fertilizer application in irrigated and rainfed lands, for main crops wasobtained from Agricultural-Jihad Bureau of Qazvin Province in for 2003-2014. Pe values were calculated by USDA method and ETc was calculated by FAO-Penman-Montieth method using the model CROPWAT. Values of α under irrigation and rain-fed were considered 5 and 10%, respectively. In this study, WFGray has been calculated just for nitrogen fertilizers. The maximum nitrogen concentration in the receiving waters based on the US-EPA Standard is 10 mg/lit. Due to the differences in crop yield under rainfed and irrigation conditions, the WF components were calculated using crop yield for different conditions, separately.
Results and Discussion: Canola and maize with 4066 and 185 m3/ton have maximum and minimum WF in the irrigated lands, due to the yield of two crops. Canola and maize have maximum and minimum yield between the irrigated crops, respectively. The total wheat WF of was estimated 2673 m3/ton in the area. The total WF in the rainfed lands is much more than the total WF in irrigated lands that is due to the significant yield differences in the irrigated and rainfed lands, especially for wheat and barley. In recent years, because of the decrease in precipitation, the rainfed crop yields have decreased considerably. Between the irrigated crops, wheat, barley, tomato, and canola are the four crops which have similar white WF (about 50%) and gray WF (about 10%). Also there are the same shares between white and gray WFs of corn and maize. The shares of white and gray WF in corn and maize are 28 and 18, respectively. These results show that agricultural practices and managements are similar. In other words, the irrigation system efficiency and fertilizer application are similar in farms and for crops. Also there aren’t significant differences in the green and blue WFs of corn and maize. These similarities in WF components are the result of approximate equalities in the evapotranspiration, effective rainfall, fertilizer application, and depth of irrigation. In irrigated lands, white WF contains about 46% of the total water footprint in the production of main crops. In irrigated and rainfed lands, about 42% of the WF is related to white water. Thus, irrigation losses are about 864 MCM/year in the region, which is really considerable for a region that faced with water shortage crisis. In rainfed lands, the gray WF component is about 13. In total. If this gray WF which is the environmental need for protecting water quality doesn’t meet, contamination of surface and groundwater resources will be occurred. Wheat has the most consumed and exported virtual water volume with 652 and 343 MCM/year, respectively. The export of wheat includes 28.4% of the total exported virtual water volume and 20.2% of the exported water resources volume. Total consumed and exported virtual water volume from the region are 1031 and 1022 MCM/year. The exported volume of blue, gray and white WFs consists about 783 MCM/year. Therefore, considerable volumes of groundwater and surface water resources exported from the region by exporting main crops. The exported weight of maize, corn, alfalfa and tomato from the region is greater than the weight of consumption in the region. The total of blue, gray and white WFs is much higher than the green WF of these crops. The export of these crops imports the most pressure on groundwater and surface water resources of the region.
Conclusions: Qazvin Plain as one of the most important plains in the central part of Iran faces to water shortage crisis. The concept of virtual water and WF of agricultural production help to better agricultural water management in the region. The total share of gray and white WFs in the region is about 907.5 MCM/year and 44% of the total WF in the agricultural main crop production. Low efficiency of irrigation systems and excessive use of nitrogen fertilizers in farms are the most important causes of high shares of these two WF components. The planting and export of summer crops hasa considerable share of VW trade in the region. Due to the high water requirements, the total share of blue, gray and white WFs is high in these crops. These WF components are supplied from the limited surface and groundwater resources of the region. Also, WF in rainfed crops is much greater than the irrigated crops. Droughts and rain reduction are the main reasons of severe decreasing in the yield of rainfed lands. Supplementary irrigation is a management for reducing WF and improving yield in rainfed land. VW trade volume is about 1,022 MCM/year.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Blue water
  • Gray Water
  • Green water
  • Virtual Water Trading
  • White Water
1- Ababaei B., and Ramezani Etedali H. 2014. Estimation of Water Footprint Components of Iran’s Wheat Production: Comparison of Global and National Scale Estimates. J. Environ. Process. 1:193-205.
2- Ababaei B., and Ramezani Etedali H. 2016. Water Footprint Components of Cereal Production in Iran. Agricultural Water Management. DOI:10.1016/j.agwat.2016.07.016.
3- Agriculture Jihad Ministry. 2015. http://www.maj.ir.
4- Aldaya M.M., Allan, J.A., and Hoekstra, A.Y. 2010. Strategic importance of green water in international crop trade. Ecological Economics, 69(4):887–894.
5- Aldaya, M.M., Hoekstra, A.Y. 2010. The water needed for Italians to eat pasta and pizza. Agr. Syst., 103:351–360.
6- Allan J.A. 1997. Virtual water: A long-term solution for water short Middle Eastern economies. Paper presented at the 1997 British Assoc. Festival of Sci., University of Leeds, UK.
7- Allan J.A. 2003. Virtual water – the water, food, and trade nexus: Useful concept or misleading metaphor?. Water International, 28(1): 106–113.
8- Allen R.G., Pereira L.S., Raes D., and Smith M. 1998. Crop evapotranspiration: guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO Drainage and Irrigation Paper 56, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.
9- Antonelli M., and Sartori y. 2015. Unfolding the potential of the virtual water concept. What is still under debate? Environmental science & policy, 50(2):240 – 251.
10- Chapagain A.K., and Hoekstra A.Y. 2004. Water footprints of nations, Value of Water Research Report Series No. 16, UNESCO-IHE, Delft, The Netherlands.
11- Chapagain A.K., Hoekstra A.Y., and Savenije H.H.G. 2006. Water saving through international trade of agricultural products. Hydrol. Earth SystemScience, 10:455–468.
12- Chukalla A.D., Krol M.S., and Hoekstra A.Y. 2015. Green and blue water footprint reduction in irrigated agriculture: effect of irrigation techniques, irrigation strategies and mulching. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19:4877–4891.
13- Daneshkar Arasteh P., and Shokoohi A.R. 2008. In search of the effects of climate change on weather conditions and surface water resources in Iran. 3rd Conference of Iran water resources management. Tabriz, Iran.
14- De Fraiture C., Cai, X., Amarasinghe U., Rosegrant M., and Molden, D. 2004. Does international cereal trade save water? The impact of virtual water trade on global water use. Comprehensive Assessment Research Report, Vol. 4, International Water Management Institute, Colombo.
15- Faramarzi M., Yang H., Mousavi J., Schulin R., Binder C., and Abbaspour, K. 2010. Modelling blue and green water resources availability in Iran. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions, 7(3):2609-2649.
16- Gerbens-Leenes W., Hoekstra A.Y., and Van der Meer, T.H. 2009. The water footprint of bioenergy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(25):10219-10223.
17- Gleick P.H. 1993. Water in crisis: A guide to the world’s fresh water resources, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
18- Hoekstra A.Y. 2003. Virtual water trade: Proceedings of the International Expert Meeting on Virtual Water Trade, Delft, The Netherlands, 12–13 December 2002, Value of Water Research Report Series No.12, UNESCO-IHE, Delft, The Netherlands.
19- Hoekstra A.Y., and Chapagain A.K. 2007. Water footprints of nations: water use by people as a function of their consumption pattern. Water Resources Management, 21(1):35–48.
20- Hoekstra A.Y., and Chapagain A.K. 2008. Globalization of water: Sharing the planet’s freshwater resources. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK.
21- Hoekstra A.Y., Chapagain A.K., Aldaya M.M., and Mekonnen M.M. 2009. Water footprint manual: State of the art 2009, Water Footprint Network, Enschede, the Netherlands.
22- Hoekstra A.Y., Chapagain A.K., Aldaya M.M., and Mekonnen M.M. 2011. The water footprint assessment manual: setting the global standard, Water Footprint Network, Enschede, the Netherlands.
23- Hoekstra A.Y., and Hung P.Q. 2002. Virtual water trade: A quantification of virtual water flows between nations in relation to international crop trade. Value of Water Research Report Series No. 11, UNESCO-IHE, Delft, the Netherlands.
24- Hoekstra A.Y., and Hung P.Q. 2005. Globalisation of water resources: International virtual water flows in relation to crop trade. Global Environmental Changes, 15(1):45–56.
25- Hoff H., Falkenmark M., Gerten D., Gordon L., Karlberg L., and Rockstr’om J. 2010. Greening the global water system. Journal of Hydrology, 384:177–186.
26- Jenkinson D.S. 2001. The impact of humans on the nitrogen cycle, with focus on temperate arable agriculture. Plant and Soil, 228(1):3–15.
27- Liu J., and Yang H. 2010. Spatially explicit assessment of global consumptive water uses in cropland: green and blue water. Journal of Hydrology, 384:187–197.
28- Liu J., Williams J.R., Zehnder A.J.B., and Yang H., 2007. GEPIC – modeling wheat yield and crop water productivity with high resolution on a global scale. Agricultural Systems, 94:478–493.
29- Liu J., Zehnder A.J.B., and Yang H. 2009. Global consumptive water use for crop production: The importance of green water and virtual water. Water Resources Research. 45, W05428, DOI:10.1029/2007WR006051.
30- Mekonnen M.M., and Hoekstra A.Y. 2010. A global and high-resolution assessment of the green, blue and grey water footprint of wheat. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 14:1259-1276.
31- Mitchell T.D., and Jones P.D. 2005. An improved method of constructing a database of monthly climate observations and associated high-resolution grids. International Journal of Climatology, 25:693–712.
32- Molden D. 2007. Water for food, water for life: A comprehensive assessment of water management in agriculture, Earthscan, London, UK.
33- Norse D. 2005. Non-point pollution from crop production: Global, regional and national issues. Pedosphere, 15(4):499–508.
34- Oki T., and Kanae S. 2004. Virtual water trade and world water resources. Water Science and Technology, 49(7):203–209.
35- Pahlow M., Snowball J., and Fraser G. 2015. Water footprint assessment to inform water management and policy making in South Africa. Water SA, 41(3):301-305
36- Portmann F., Siebert S., Bauer C., and Doll P. 2008. Global data set of monthly growing areas of 26 irrigated crops. Frankfurt Hydrology Paper 06, Institute of Physical Geography, University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
37- Postel S.L. 2000. Entering an era of water scarcity: The challenges ahead. Ecological Applications, 10(4):941–948.
38- Ramezani Etedali H., Ahmadaali K., Liaghat A., Parsinejad M., Tavakkoli A.R., and Ababaei, B. 2015. Optimum Water Allocation between Irrigated and Rainfed Lands in different Climatic Conditions. Biological Forum – An International Journal, 7(1):1556-1567.
39- Ramezani Etedali H., Liaghat A., Parsinejad M., Tavakkoli A.R., Bozorg Haddad O., and Ramezani Etedali M. 2013. Water Allocation Optimization for Supplementary Irrigation in Rainfed Lands to Increase Total Income (Case Study: Upstream Karkheh River Basin). Journal of Irrigation and Drainage, 62:74-83.
40- Sacks W.J., Deryng D., Foley J.A., and Ramankutty N. 2009. Crop planting dates: An analysis of global patterns. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 19(5):607-620.
41- Schyns J.F., Hamaideh A., Hoekstra A.Y., Mekonnen M.M., and Schyns M. 2015. Mitigating the Risk of Extreme Water Scarcity and Dependency: The Case of Jordan. Water, 7: 5705-5730.
42- Shokoohi A.R. 2012. Comparison of SPI and RDI in drought analysis in lical scale with emphasizing on agricultural drought (Case study: Qazvin and Takestan). Irrigation and water Journal. 3(9):111-122. (in Persian with English abstract)
43- Shokoohi A.R., Raziei T., and Daneshkar Arasteh P. 2014. On The Effects of Climate Change and Global Warming on Water. International Bulletin of Water Resources & Development. 2(4):1-9.
44- Siebert S., Doll P. 2008. The global crop water model (GCWM): Documentation and first results for irrigated crops, Frankfurt Hydrology Paper 07, Institute of Physical Geography, University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
45- Siebert S., Doll P. 2010. Quantifying blue and green virtual water contents in global crop production as well as potential production losses without irrigation. Journal of Hydrology, 384:198–207.
46- Statistical Center of Iran. 2015. http://www.amar.org.ir.
47- Tavakkoli A.R. 2010. Improvement of water productivity by conjunctive management of limited irrigation and advanced agronomic practices in rainfed cereals farming areas. PhD Thesis. University of Tehran, Iran. (in Persian with English abstract)
48- Tehran Regional Water Company. 2006. Review of Qazvin Irrigation and Drainage Network. Final report. (in Persian)
49- Tian G. 2013. Effect of Consumption of Livestock Products on Water Consumption in China Based on Virtual Water Theory. International Conference on Future Information Engineering, 5(3):112 – 117.
50- Wackernagel M., and Jonathan L. 2001. Measuring sustainable development: Ecological footprints. Centre for Sustainability Studies, Universidad Anahuac de Xalapa, Mexico.
51- Wackernagel M., and Rees W.1996. Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the Earth. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, B.C., Canada.
52- Wackernagel M., Onisto L., Linares A.C., Falfan I.S.L., Garcia J.M., Guerrero I.S., and Guerrero M.G.S. 1997. Ecological footprints of nations: How much nature do they use? How much nature do they have? Centre for Sustainability Studies, Universidad Anahuac de Xalapa, Mexico.
53- Wang Y. D. Leeb J. S., Agbemabiesea L., Zamea K., and Kang, S. 2015. Virtual water management and the water–energy nexus: A case studyof three Mid-Atlantic. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 98(3):76–84.
54- WWAP. 2009. The United Nations World Water Development Report 3: Water in a changing world, World Water Assessment Programme, UNESCO Publishing, Paris/Earthscan, London.
55- Yang H., Wang L., Abbaspour K.C., and Zehnder A.J. 2006. Virtual water highway: water use efficiency in global food trade. Journal Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 3(1):1–26.
56- Yang H., Wang L., Abbaspour K.C., Zehnder A.J.B. 2006. Virtual water trade: an assessment of water use efficiency in the international food trade. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 10:443–454.
57- Zhuo L., Mekonnen M.M., Hokestra A.Y., and Wada Y. 2016. Inter- and intra-annual variation of water footprint of crops and blue water scarcity in the Yellow River basin (1961-2009). Advances in Water Resources, 87:29–41.