Combining Crop and Water Decisions to Manage Groundwater Overdraft over Decadal and Longer Timescales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coordinating management of groundwater, surface water, and irrigated crops is fundamental economically for many arid and semi-arid regions. This paper examines conjunctive water management for agriculture using hydro-economic optimization modeling. The analysis is integrated across two timescales: a two-stage stochastic decadal model for managing annual and perennial crops spanning dry and wet years and a far-horizon dynamic program embedding the decadal model into a longer groundwater policy setting. The modeling loosely represents California’s San Joaquin Valley and has insights for many irrigated arid and semi-arid regions relying on groundwater with variable annual hydrology. Results show how conjunctive water management can stabilize crop decisions and improve agricultural profitability across different water years by pumping more in dry years and increasing recharging groundwater in wetter years. Using groundwater as a buffer for droughts allows growing more higher-value perennial crops, which maximizes profit even with water-scarce conditions. Nevertheless, ending overdraft in basins with declining groundwater for profit-maximizing farming reduces annual crops to maintain more profitable perennial crops through droughts. Results are affected by economic discount rates and future climates. Operating and opportunity costs from forgone annual crops can reduce aquifer recharge early in regulatory periods.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".