Comparison of precise water depth measurements on agricultural storages with open water evaporation estimates

Craig, Ian

doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2006.04.010

Cited by 24 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The losses from evaporation are not known with certainty due to the difficulty in direct measurement of inflows and outflows and the complexity of modelling evaporation from the surface of small bodies of water (Craig 2006;Hipsey 2006). That said, the losses are regarded as large, and efforts are underway in Australia to develop cost-effective farm dam evaporation mitigation technologies (Watts 2005;Baillie 2008).…”

Section: Life Cycle Inventorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This figure corresponds with the upper estimate of water lost to evaporation from farm dams in Australia by experienced agricultural engineers (Baillie 2008). At other locations, the water in storage lost to evaporation was scaled downward based on the local ETo, which has been found to correlate well with evaporation from small farm dams of about 50-m dimension or less (Craig 2006). To determine water in storage, a demand factor (i.e.…”

Section: Life Cycle Inventorymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Water footprint of livestock: comparison of six geographically defined beef production systems

Ridoutt

Sanguansri

Freer

et al. 2011

Int J Life Cycle Assess

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Water use in the livestock sector has featured in the debate about sustainable food systems. Most evidence has come from virtual water calculations which lack impact assessment and adequate consideration of the heterogeneity in livestock production. This study sought new evidence, using a recently developed life cycle impact assessment method for water use to assess six geographically defined beef cattle production systems in New South Wales, Australia, a major production region. Methods The livestock production systems were diverse in farm practice (grass and feedlot finishing), product (yearling to heavy steers), environment (high-rainfall coastal to semi-arid inland) and local water stress. Life cycle inventories were developed from representative farm enterprise budgets. The farm water use inventories sought to describe the impact of the production system on catchment water resources and included irrigation water use as well as the reduction in flows due to the operation of stock dams. Results and discussion The normalised life cycle impact category results for water use, referred to as the water footprint, ranged from 3.3 to 221 L H 2 Oe kg −1 live weight at farm gate. Due to variation in local water stress, the impact category results were not correlated with the inventory results. Conclusions The substantial variability in water footprint between systems indicates that generalisations about livestock and livestock products should be avoided. However, many low input, predominantly non-irrigated, pasturebased livestock production systems have little impact on freshwater resources from consumptive water use, and the livestock have a water footprint similar to many broad-acre cereals. Globally, the majority of beef cattle are raised in non-irrigated mixed farming and grazing systems. Therefore, the general assertion that meat production is a driver of water scarcity is not supported.

show abstract

Section: Life Cycle Inventorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Life Cycle Inventorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Water footprint of livestock: comparison of six geographically defined beef production systems

Ridoutt

Sanguansri

Freer

et al. 2011

Int J Life Cycle Assess

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…FAO-56 Penman-Monteith reference evapotranspiration values (Et o , Allen et al, 1998) were used as estimates of open-water evaporation (Craig, 2006). Et o values were provided by the station CA12 of the agro-meteorological network SIAM (Servicio de Información Agraria de Murcia, http://siam.imida.es), which is located 100 m from the experimental reservoir.…”

Section: Reservoir and Cover Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of evaporation estimation methods for a covered reservoir in a semi-arid climate (south-eastern Spain)

Gallego-Elvira

Baille

Martín-Górriz

et al. 2012

Journal of Hydrology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Surface storages have significant evaporation losses reported as high as 35-45 % from surface farm dams annually (Craig 2006;Craig et al 2005). MAR can be an option to minimize evaporation losses by storing water in aquifers and recovering that water when needed.…”

Section: Potential Of Managed Aquifer Recharge From Large Floods Evenmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managed Aquifer Recharge in Integrated Water Resource Management

Dillon

Arshad

2016

Integrated Groundwater Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Managed aquifer recharge (MAR) is one tool in integrated water resources management which can restore over-allocated or brackish aquifers, protect groundwater-dependent ecosystems, enhance urban and rural water supplies, reduce evaporation losses and improve water supply security. This chapter describes the ways in which MAR is used around the world and presents two Australian case studies, with a focus on economics. Aquifer storage and recovery of urban stormwater via a confined limestone aquifer is shown to provide a viable alternative to use of existing mains water or desalinated seawater for public open space irrigation. The second case study is a desk-top evaluation of the potential for recharge of harvested floodwater via infiltration basins for irrigation of cotton and faba bean crops. Based on assumptions about scale of operations, component and maintenance costs, and evaporation losses, the net benefits of infiltration basins for a range of infiltration rates were compared with those of surface water storage and of aquifer storage and recovery wells. Infiltration basins with moderate to high rates of infiltration (>0.15 m/d) had the highest net benefits and warrant testing in a pilot program. Water treatment costs make ASR with flood waters unattractive for crop irrigation, in comparison with both basin infiltration and surface storage. Selection of the most economic method of storage depends on availability of an aquifer, soil and subsurface hydraulic characteristics, available quantity and quality of surface water, land value and end use of the water. MAR is shown to offer a range of options that P. Dillon (*) Honorary Fellow, CSIRO Land and Water,

show abstract

Comparison of precise water depth measurements on agricultural storages with open water evaporation estimates

Cited by 24 publications

References 22 publications

Water footprint of livestock: comparison of six geographically defined beef production systems

Water footprint of livestock: comparison of six geographically defined beef production systems

Evaluation of evaporation estimation methods for a covered reservoir in a semi-arid climate (south-eastern Spain)

Managed Aquifer Recharge in Integrated Water Resource Management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About