Crop-specific seasonal estimates of irrigation-water demand in South Asia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Especially in the Himalayan headwaters of the main rivers in South Asia, shifts in runoff are expected as a result of a rapidly changing climate. In recent years, our insight into these shifts and their impact on water availability has increased. However, a similar detailed understanding of the seasonal pattern in water demand is surprisingly absent. This hampers a proper assessment of water stress and ways to cope and adapt. In this study, the seasonal pattern of irrigation-water demand resulting from the typical practice of multiple cropping in South Asia was accounted for by introducing double cropping with monsoon-dependent planting dates in a hydrology and vegetation model. Crop yields were calibrated to the latest state-level statistics of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal. The improvements in seasonal land use and cropping periods lead to lower estimates of irrigation-water demand compared to previous model-based studies, despite the net irrigated area being higher. Crop irrigation-water demand differs sharply between seasons and regions; in Pakistan, winter (rabi) and monsoon summer (kharif) irrigation demands are almost equal, whereas in Bangladesh the rabi demand is ∼ 100 times higher. Moreover, the relative importance of irrigation supply versus rain decreases sharply from west to east. Given the size and importance of South Asia improved regional estimates of food production and its irrigation-water demand will also affect global estimates. In models used for global water resources and food-security assessments, processes like multiple cropping and monsoon-dependent planting dates should not be ignored.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".