Linking groundwater use and stress to specific crops using the groundwater footprint in the Central Valley and High Plains aquifer systems, U.S.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A number of aquifers worldwide are being depleted, mainly by agricultural activities, yet groundwater stress has not been explicitly linked to specific agricultural crops. Using the newly developed concept of the groundwater footprint (the area required to sustain groundwater use and groundwater‐dependent ecosystem services), we develop a methodology to derive crop‐specific groundwater footprints. We illustrate this method by calculating high‐resolution groundwater footprint estimates of crops in two heavily used aquifer systems: the Central Valley and High Plains, U.S. In both aquifer systems, hay and haylage, corn, and cotton have the largest groundwater footprints, which highlights that most of the groundwater stress is induced by crops meant for cattle feed. Our results are coherent with other studies in the High Plains but suggest lower groundwater stress in the Central Valley, likely due to artificial recharge from surface water diversions which were not taken into account in previous estimates. Uncertainties of recharge and irrigation application efficiency contribute the most to the total relative uncertainty of the groundwater footprint to aquifer area ratios. Our results and methodology will be useful for hydrologists, water resource managers, and policy makers concerned with which crops are causing the well‐documented groundwater stress in semiarid to arid agricultural regions around the world.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".