Next Article in Journal
The Occurrence of Cold Spells in the Alps Related to ClimateChange
Next Article in Special Issue
The Global Dimension of Water Governance: Why the River Basin Approach Is No Longer Sufficient and Why Cooperative Action at Global Level Is Needed
Previous Article in Journal
X-ray and Neutron Diffraction in the Study of Organic Crystalline Hydrates
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Estimating Green Water Footprints in a Temperate Environment

Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedford, MK43 0AL, UK
Water 2010, 2(3), 351-362; https://doi.org/10.3390/w2030351
Submission received: 9 June 2010 / Revised: 2 July 2010 / Accepted: 12 July 2010 / Published: 14 July 2010

Abstract

:
The “green” water footprint (GWF) of a product is often considered less important than the “blue” water footprint (BWF) as “green” water generally has a low, or even negligible, opportunity cost. However, when considering food, fibre and tree products, is not only a useful indicator of the total appropriation of a natural resource, but from a methodological perspective, blue water footprints are frequently estimated as the residual after green water is subtracted from total crop water use. In most published studies, green water use (ETgreen) has been estimated from the FAO CROPWAT model using the USDA method for effective rainfall. In this study, four methods for the estimation of the ETgreen of pasture were compared. Two were based on effective rainfall estimated from monthly rainfall and potential evapotranspiration, and two were based on a simulated water balance using long-term daily, or average monthly, weather data from 11 stations in England. The results show that the effective rainfall methods significantly underestimate the annual ETgreen in all cases, as they do not adequately account for the depletion of stored soil water during the summer. A simplified model, based on annual rainfall and reference evapotranspiration (ETo) has been tested and used to map the average annual ETgreen of pasture in England.

1. Introduction

In England almost all agricultural grassland is rainfed. Weatherhead [1] estimated that only 3,671 ha of grassland in England received any irrigation in 2005, representing less than 0.1% of the national area of managed grassland. Therefore the contribution of grass to the water footprint of raising livestock is entirely associated with ‘green’ water—i.e., rainfall that is used by the vegetation at the place where it falls [2].
Often, the green water footprint of a good or service is considered of low importance, as green water has a low or negligible opportunity cost. In the case of a crop, if the crop were not grown, the green water would not be available for other users (such as domestic water supply or industry) in the catchment. Assuming the field is not kept bare or sealed by an impermeable surface, if the crop in question was not grown, some other vegetation (e.g., ‘natural’ vegetation) would use a similar amount of water. However, estimation of the green water component of the water footprint is important for four reasons;
  • It is important to show the total water use of a crop in order to estimate the total impact of crop production on the aquatic environment.
  • It serves to demonstrate the importance of rainfed agriculture on global agricultural production and food security [3].
  • The renewal of surface and groundwater resources is dependent on the difference between precipitation and evapotranspiration in the catchment. Changes in land cover and land use will lead to changes in the evapotranspiration (and green water footprint) thus affecting the availability of “blue” water for other uses. Rost et al. [4] for example, have estimated that global agriculture has resulted in 5% increase in global river discharge compared to the potential natural vegetation due to the generally lower evapotranspiration of agricultural crops and pastures compared to natural vegetation.
  • Most calculations of blue water use are based on the difference between estimated total crop water use and green water use. Many studies explicitly estimate the irrigation requirement to fulfil the deficit between crop water requirement and that which is supplied by rainfall. Any error in the estimation of green water use is therefore transferred directly to the estimate of blue water use.
For rainfed cropping systems, the green water footprint (GWF) is equivalent to the volume of water consumed by evaporation and transpiration (ETgreen) over the period between planting and harvest (or in the case of a perennial crop like pasture, an entire year) plus the volume of water physically embedded in the harvested product (and technically the water consumed in photosynthesis). GWF may be expressed as volume, representing the total impact of an activity or an entity, or as a volume per unit of production. As ET accounts for the majority (>99%) of the water use in most agricultural systems, the GWF is usually estimated from the depth of evapotranspiration (ET) converted to a volume. Apart from occasional lysimeter or local water balance studies very little data exist on actual ET rates from rainfed crops and therefore in water footprinting studies ET is generally modelled from climatic data.
One approach is to estimate ETgreen from monthly effective rainfall – defined, in this context, as the proportion of gross rainfall that is available to be evaporated or transpired from the crop after losses due to runoff and deep percolation have been taken into account [5]. For each month of calculation, the ETgreen is the minimum of the potential evapotranspiration for the chosen crop and stage of growth, ETc, and the effective rainfall, Peff [6]. ETc can be estimated from climate data using the Penman-Monteith equation and appropriate crop coefficients [7] but estimating effective rainfall is more difficult.
Many water footprint studies (e.g., [8,9,10]) have used the CROPWAT v8.0 model [11] to estimate monthly effective rainfall. Although the software offers several alternative methods, the method referred to as the “USDA SCS method” has generally been used [6] due to its simplicity; being only a function of monthly precipitation and not requiring local calibration. However, the implementation in the CROPWAT model [12] is a simplified version of the USDA SCS model based on an assumed average consumptive use (ET) of 8”/month (≈200 mm/month) and a “useable” soil water storage of 3” (≈75 mm). Although this may be an appropriate simplification for irrigation system design in semi-arid environments, it is clearly inappropriate for estimating green water use in English conditions; where ET rates in the peak months of the year may only average 100 mm/month.
The original USDA SCS method estimates monthly effective rainfall from gross rainfall, soil water holding capacity and ETc. It was calibrated on 50 years of rainfall records at 22 locations throughout the United States [13] and has been shown to perform well in well-drained soils in the USA [14]. However, Mohan et al., [15] found that it under-predicted effective rainfall in India compared to other methods. No evidence could be found of the original USDA SCS method being used in water footprinting studies.
The CROPWAT model also offers an option to estimate actual evapotranspiration from a water balance based on average monthly rainfall and ETo data (using the irrigation schedule function with the option to select “no irrigation”). Hoekstra et al. [6] recommend using this method as the model includes a dynamic soil water balance. They presented an example of the estimation of the water footprint of growing a crop of sugar beet in Spain and found that the effective rainfall method, based on Smith [9], gave an estimate of ETgreen that was only 40% of that derived from the water balance. This brings into question the validity of the effective rainfall method for calculating water footprints.
Actual ET is affected by many local factors including plant cover, soil water holding capacity, the reference evapotranspiration (ETo) and the interval between rainfall events. The same monthly rainfall total may contribute very differently to crop water use if it falls as many small storms compared to a single large storm. Therefore, a more realistic estimate of ETgreen can be derived from a water balance simulation using local daily rainfall and ETo data over a long time period. This was the approach used to calibrate the USDA SCS method in the 1960s [13] and to test its performance [15]. Although the CROPWAT model has the facility to use daily rainfall and ETo data, it can only run simulations for discrete, individual years. This makes it difficult to account for any carry-over of soil water from one year to the next. In contrast, the Wasim model [16] is a one-dimensional soil water balance model that operates in a similar way to the CROPWAT scheduling option, but it can be run for long-term, continuous time series, allowing a more meaningful estimation of long-term average ETgreen.
This paper, aims to compare the estimates of ETgreen (and therefore green water footprint) based on effective rainfall from Smith [9] and the USDA SCS [13] method, with estimates based on a soil water balance using monthly (CROPWAT Schedule) and daily (Wasim) meteorological data, in order to test the suitability of each approach for use in water footprinting studies in a temperate environment. Pasture in England will be used as a case study as grassland is the largest agriculturally managed land use in the country and therefore has the greatest potential impact on water resources.

2. Materials and Methods

Eleven meteorological stations were chosen as being representative of the range of agroclimatic conditions in England. For each, daily rainfall and ETo were collated for as many years as possible within the 30-year climate baseline period (1961 to 1990). In all, this represented 291 station-years of data (Table 1). This data set included years with an annual rainfall ranging from 400–1,900 mm and annual ETo ranging from 390–790 mm (Figure 1).
Table 1. Location, altitude, data range and average annual rainfall and reference evapotranspiration (ETo) for the 11 meteorological stations.
Table 1. Location, altitude, data range and average annual rainfall and reference evapotranspiration (ETo) for the 11 meteorological stations.
Station LatitudeLongitudeFromToAltitudeAverage annual
(m)Rainfall (mm/y)ETo(mm/y)
Brooms Barn52.26 °N0.57 °E1964199075588585
Carlisle54.93 °N2.96 °W1961198826832596
Gleadthorpe53.22 °N1.12 °W1970199060628470
Redesdale55.25 °N2.26 °W19711990235874448
Ringway53.36 °N2.28 °W1963199069811697
Shawbury52.79 °N2.66 °W1963199072653567
Silsoe52.01 °N0.41 °W1963199059547541
Slaidburn53.99 °N2.43 °W196319881921,515487
Terrington St. Clement52.75 °N0.29 °E196319903587564
Woburn52.01 °N0.64 °W1963199089632564
Wye51.18 °N0.45 °E1972199056738582
Figure 1. Distribution of annual rainfall (mm) and ETo (mm) for 291 station-years of data for 11 stations in England.
Figure 1. Distribution of annual rainfall (mm) and ETo (mm) for 291 station-years of data for 11 stations in England.
Water 02 00351 g001
Four methods of estimating the green water use of pasture were compared. Two were based on “effective rainfall” estimated from monthly rainfall and potential evapotranspiration, and two based on a simulated water balance.

2.1. Smith (1992) Effective Rainfall Method

For each station-month, effective rainfall (Peff) was estimated using the USDA SCS method as implemented in the CROPWAT v8.0 software [12];
P e f f = P ( 125 0.2 P ) 125  for P 250 mm / m
P e f f = 125 + 0.1 P  for P > 250 mm / m
where P is the gross monthly rainfall, and ETgreen is determined from,
E T g r e e n = m i n ( E T c , P e f f )
Where ETc is the potential evapotranspiration ≈ ETo for the case-study grass surface.

2.2. USDA SCS (1993) Effective Rainfall Method

Following USDA [10] and converting the units of inputs from inches to mm,
P e f f = 25.4 S F ( 0.04931 P 0.82416 0.11565 ) × 10 0.000955 E T c
and the soil factor,
S F = ( 0.531747 + 0.011621 · D 8.943 × 10 5 · D 2 + 2.321 × 10 7 · D 3 )
where D is the “usable soil water storage”, mm, equivalent to approximately half the available water capacity [13]. As above,
E T g r e e n = m i n ( E T c , P e f f )

2.3. CROPWAT Schedule Monthly Water Balance Method

The irrigation scheduling option in CROPWAT is designed to be used for irrigation system design and evaluation. It works by calculating a daily soil water balance and scheduling an irrigation event when pre-defined soil water status criteria are met. If the irrigation criterion is set to “no irrigation” it performs a rainfed water balance. Actual evapotranspiration is estimated from ETo, a crop coefficient and a stress factor related soil moisture. Average monthly rainfall is distributed over the month in six events and decadal (10 day) average ETo is interpolated from the monthly averages. The CROPWAT schedule option was run for each station using the averages of monthly rainfall and ETo for the periods shown in Table 1. As the pasture is not irrigated,
E T g r e e n = E T
where ET is the modelled actual evapotranspiration.

2.4. Wasim Daily Water Balance Method

Wasim is a one-dimensional, daily, soil water balance model that simulates the soil water storage and rates of input (infiltration) and output (evapotranspiration, runoff and drainage) of water in response to weather. Although originally developed as a teaching and learning tool [16], its value in hydrological research has been demonstrated in several applications including estimation of irrigation requirements [17], runoff estimation [18], drainage performance [19] and groundwater recharge potential [20]. Full details of the modelling approach are given in Hess et al. [21].
For a grass surface (with an assumed 100% ground cover), ET, is estimated from;
E T = E T o K s
Where Ks (dimensionless) is a stress factor used to account for dry soil conditions. Ks is equalto 1.0 when the root zone soil water content is between field capacity and 50% of the available water capacity. For restricted water supply, it decreases linearly to zero at permanent wilting point and remains zero thereafter. For excess water, it decreases linearly to zero when the root zone soil water content reaches saturation. This has been shown to be an acceptable simplification [22]. Adjustments are made for days with rain that falls when the soil at <50% of available water.
If the soil water content is between the field capacity and saturation then water is lost to drainage following an exponential decay function according to the soil permeability. Surface runoff due to the intensity of rainfall is estimated using the SCS Curve Number method, adjusted for antecedent conditions [23]. Any rain falling on saturated soil is assumed to run off and any rain that does not run off is assumed to infiltrate.
The model was parameterised for a loam soil with an available water capacity of 162 mm/m and a grass cover with a maximum rooting depth of 0.7 m. Free-drainage conditions were assumed and the water table simulation options within Wasim were disabled. The model was then run for each ofthe 11 climate stations and the monthly estimated actual evapotranspiration was recorded. As the pasture is rainfed the irrigation options of Wasim were disabled. ETgreen is equivalent to the actual ET as in equation 7 above.

2.5. Spatial Variability of Green Water Use

When comparing models there is always a need for an independent, data based reference against which to compare them. There are few data on actual evapotranspiration rates available to validate the two approaches; however, actual evapotranspiration can be inferred from annual catchment-scale water balances. Gustard et al. [24] used long-term river discharge, rainfall and potential evapotranspiration data to estimate annual catchment scale “losses”. Based on a study of 687 catchments in the UK, they showed that losses could be estimated from;
l o s s e s = E T o ( 0.00061 R + 0.475 )  for R 850  mm
l o s s e s = E T o  for R > 850  mm
Where losses is the difference between annual rainfall and annual runoff expressed as a depth, mm, and R is the average annual rainfall, mm. As the dominant loss at the catchment scale is through evapotranspiration, the losses estimated from the water balance is a good estimator of annual evapotranspiration. Although this represents the evapotranspiration from a range of land cover types, less than 10% of the land area of England is woodland [25], and less than 1% of the agricultural area is irrigated [1], so the estimate of catchment ET should be broadly representative of rainfed grassland, agricultural and natural vegetation. This can be approximated to be equivalent to the total ETgreen of the catchment and therefore provides an independent benchmark against which to test the validity of the other methods.
The UK Climate Impacts Programme has generated 5km gridded datasets of long-term average annual rainfall and ETo for the baseline (1961–1990) period for the UK. If the Gustard et al. [24] method is in good agreement with the site-specific estimates of green water use of pasture, it can be used with this dataset to estimate the green water use of pasture in different parts of the country.

3. Results and Discussion

Figure 2 shows the average ETgreen for pasture at each climate station in comparison to the estimates of catchment scale losses. The Wasim model has the best fit with the catchment losses with a root mean squared error (RMSE) of 32 mm compared to 130 mm and 204 mm for the effective rainfall methods of Smith [12] and USDA SCS [13] respectively. The method of Smith under estimated ETgreen by 13–34% with the greatest difference in the drier locations (Figure 3). This is compatible with the findings of Hoekstra et al. [6]. Surprisingly, the USDA SCS method performed worse than Smith’s simplification, perhaps reflecting the differing rainfall characteristics of England compared to the USA. The CROPWAT schedule approach performed better than either of the two effective rainfall methods with a RMSE of 38 mm and an average underestimate of 5%.
Figure 2. Comparison between average annual catchment losses and ETgreen estimated using four alternative approaches showing the 1:1 line (dotted).
Figure 2. Comparison between average annual catchment losses and ETgreen estimated using four alternative approaches showing the 1:1 line (dotted).
Water 02 00351 g002
Figure 3 shows the average annual ETgreen for each station calculated using each method. It shows that the CROPWAT effective rainfall method produced lower estimates of the water use at all stations; ranging from 74–88% of the water use estimated with the daily water balance at Brooms Barn and Slaidburn respectively. In all cases the Wasim and CROPWAT schedule results were closer to the estimated catchment scale “losses” than the estimates based on effective rainfall and on average the Wasim estimate of ETgreen was 96% of the estimated catchment scale losses. This suggests that the estimate of green water use of pasture derived from a water balance is more appropriate for English conditions than the methods based on effective rainfall.
Figure 3. Average annual evapotranspiration, ETgreen, estimated using four methods for 11 stations in England compared to estimated catchment-scale losses.
Figure 3. Average annual evapotranspiration, ETgreen, estimated using four methods for 11 stations in England compared to estimated catchment-scale losses.
Water 02 00351 g003
When the seasonal distribution of ETgreen is considered (Figure 4) it is clear that all methods yield similar results in the winter (October to March), when ET is limited by solar radiation and monthly ETc is less than rainfall. However, in the summer months the estimate of ETgreen from estimated effective rainfall (Smith and USDA methods) is less than that from the water balance methods (Wasim and CROPWAT schedule). By definition, the ETgreen estimated from effective rainfall must be less than the monthly gross rainfall. From April to August, the average ET estimated using the effective rainfall methods was 75–83% of average rainfall. However, under the English climate, with a cool, wet winter, the soil will typically be at, or close to field capacity by the start of April [26]. Therefore, not only can the crop utilise the rain that falls in each summer month, but it can also draw on stored soil water and a soil water deficit can develop potentially to the limit of the available water capacity. Given the loam soil used in this example and a 0.7 m rooting depth for grass, this amounts to 113 mm. The daily water balance (Wasim) shows that, on average, ET exceeds summer rainfall by 56 mm, equivalent to half of the available soil water. By September, the soil water deficit will have reached a maximum, limiting evapotranspiration, and in this month the effective rainfall and water balance methods gave more similar estimates of ETgreen.
Figure 4. Average monthly evapotranspiration, ETgreen (mm/month) estimated using each method compared to average rainfall (mm/month).
Figure 4. Average monthly evapotranspiration, ETgreen (mm/month) estimated using each method compared to average rainfall (mm/month).
Water 02 00351 g004
When comparing the two water balance methods, the Wasim method estimates higher ETgreen in June and July compared to the CROPWAT schedule method, however the latter approach give higher values for September and October. This suggests that the use of monthly average weather data in CROPWAT results in an over-estimate of the impact of water stress on ET during the mid-summer months and an under-estimate in the early autumn. This may be related to the allocation of rainfall into a few discrete events in the CROPWAT schedule method.
The method of Gustard et al. [24], being based only on annual rainfall and ETo, lends itself to national extrapolation. Figure 5 shows the estimated annual green water use of pasture in England. It ranges from <475 mm/year in the north-east, which has high rainfall, but low annual ETo, to >650 mm/year in the south-west of England. In eastern England, although the ETo is the highest in the country, ETgreen is limited by low annual rainfall.
Figure 5. Figure 5.Map of England showing average annual a) rainfall, mm (Source: UK Climate Impacts Program) and b) estimated ETgreen, mm for pasture in England.
Figure 5. Figure 5.Map of England showing average annual a) rainfall, mm (Source: UK Climate Impacts Program) and b) estimated ETgreen, mm for pasture in England.
Water 02 00351 g005

4. Conclusions

This case study has shown that the commonly used method for estimating ETgreen, based on monthly effective rainfall, is not appropriate for English conditions as it fails to account for the contribution of stored soil water to summer evapotranspiration. The effect of this will be to underestimate the green water footprint, and in irrigated conditions to overestimate the blue water component of the water footprint. The case study has also shown how a more realistic estimate of ETgreen can be derived from a daily soil water balance, although using monthly average weather data (as in the CROPWAT schedule method) is adequate for estimating annual green water totals.
Where daily or monthly weather data are not available, a reasonable estimate can be derived from average annual rainfall and reference evapotranspiration using the method of Gustard et al. [24]. Using this approach, the average annual green water use of pasture in England has been estimated to range from 475–650 mm/year in the north-east and south-west of England respectively.
The study has also highlighted the simplifications made to the USDA SCS effective rainfall method implemented in the CROPWAT v8.0 software that limit its application to locations and months with high potential evapotranspiration. However, in the English context, the use of the original USDA SCS method results in a less accurate estimate of green water use.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to my colleagues Andre Daccache, for generating the national maps of rainfall and actual ET, and Jerry Knox, for constructive comments on the draft. The UK Climate Impacts Programme is acknowledged for the provision of the spatial gridded meteorological data.

References

  1. Weatherhead, E.K. Survey of Irrigation of Outdoor Crops in 2005: England and Wales; Cranfield University: Cranfield, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  2. Falkenmark, M. Land-water linkages: A synopsis. In FAO Land and Water Bulletin No. 1. Land and Water Integration and River Basin Management; Mather, T.H., Ed.; Food and Agriculture Organisation: Rome, Italy, 1995; pp. 15–16. [Google Scholar]
  3. Aldaya, M.M.; Allan, J.A.; Hoekstra, A.Y. Strategic importance of green water in international crop trade. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 887–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Rost, S.; Gerten, D.; Bondeau, A.; Luncht, W.; Rohwer, J.; Schaphoff, S. Agricultural green and blue water consumption and its influence on the global water system. Water Resour. Res. 2008, 44, W09405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Dastane, N.G. Effective Rainfall in Irrigated Agriculture; Irrigation and Drainage Paper 25; Food and Agriculture Organisation: Rome, Italy, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  6. Hoekstra, A.Y.; Chapagain, A.K.; Aldaya, M.M.; Mekonnen, M.M. Water Footprint Manual—State of the Art 2009; Water Footprint Network: Enschede, the Netherlands, 2009; pp. 1–127. [Google Scholar]
  7. Allen, R.G.; Pereira, L.S.; Raes, D.; Smith, M. Crop Evapotranspiration: Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements; Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56; Food and Agriculture Organisation: Rome, Italy, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  8. Chapagain, A.K.; Hoekstra, A.Y.; Savenije, H.H.G.; Gautam, R. The water footprint of cotton consumption: An assessment of the impact of worldwide consumption of cotton products on the water resources in the cotton producing countries. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 60, 186–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Galan-del-Castillo, E.; Valazquez, E. From water to energy. The virtual water content and water footprint of biofuel consumption in Spain. Energ. Policy. 2010, 28, 1345–1352. [Google Scholar]
  10. Chapagain, A.K.; Orr, S. An improved water footprint methodology linking global consumption to local water resources: A case of Spanish tomatoes. J. Environ. Manage. 2009, 90, 1219–1228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. CROPWAT [computer program]; Version 8.0; Food and Agriculture Organisation: Rome, Italy, 2009.
  12. Smith, M. CROPWAT—A Computer Program for Irrigation Planning and Management; Irrigation and Drainage Paper 46; Food and Agriculture Organisation: Rome, Italy, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  13. Irrigation water requirements. In National Engineering Handbook, Part 623 ed.; United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (USDA): Washington DC, USA, 1993.
  14. Patwardhan, A.S.; Nieber, J.L.; Johns, E.L. Effective rainfall estimation methods. J. Irrig. Drain. E-ASC. 1990, 116, 182–193. [Google Scholar]
  15. Mohan, S.; Simhadrirao, B.; Arumugam, N. Comparative study of effective rainfall estimation methods for lowland rice. Water Resour. Manag. 1996, 10, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hess, T.M.; Counsell, C. A water balance simulation model for teaching and learning—Wasim. In ICID British Section Irrigation and Drainage Research Day, Wallingford, UK, 29 March 2000.
  17. Knox, J.W.; Weatherhead, E.K.; Bradley, R.I. Mapping the total volumetric irrigation water requirements in England and Wales. Agr. Water Manage. 1997, 33, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hess, T.M.; Holman, I.P.; Rose, S.C.; Rosolova, Z.; Parrott, A. Estimating the impact of rural land management changes on catchment runoff generation in England and Wales. Hydrol. Process. 2010, 24, 1357–1368. [Google Scholar]
  19. Hirekhan, M.; Gupta, S.K.; Mishra, K.L. Application of Wasim to assess performance of a subsurface drainage system under semi-arid monsoon climate. Agr. Water Manage. 2007, 88, 224–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Holman, I.P.; Tascone, D.; Hess, T.M. A comparison of stochastic and deterministic downscaling methods for modelling potential groundwater recharge under climate change in East Anglia, UK: Implications for groundwater resource management. Hydrogeol J. 2009, 17, 1629–1641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hess, T.M.; Leeds-Harrison, P.B.; Counsell, C. Wasim Technical Manual. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/1826/2455 (accessed on 26 November 2009).
  22. Brisson, N. An analytical solution for the estimation of the critical available soil water fraction for a single layer water balance model under growing crops. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sc. 1998, 2, 221–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hawkins, R.H.; Hjelmfelt, A.T.; Zevenbergen, A.W. Runoff probability, storm depth, and curve numbers. J. Irrig. Drain. Engineering-ASCE. 1985, 111, 330–340. [Google Scholar]
  24. Gustard, A.; Bullock, A.; Dixon, J.M. Low Flow Estimation in the United Kingdom, Report no. 108; Institute of Hydrology: Wallingford, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  25. Countryside Survey: England Results from 2007; CEH Project Number C03259; NERC/Centre for Ecology & Hydrology: Wallingford, UK, 2009; p. 119.
  26. Smith, L.P. The Agricultural Climate of England and Wales; Technical Bulletin 35; Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, HMSO: London, UK, 1976. [Google Scholar]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hess, T. Estimating Green Water Footprints in a Temperate Environment. Water 2010, 2, 351-362. https://doi.org/10.3390/w2030351

AMA Style

Hess T. Estimating Green Water Footprints in a Temperate Environment. Water. 2010; 2(3):351-362. https://doi.org/10.3390/w2030351

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hess, Tim. 2010. "Estimating Green Water Footprints in a Temperate Environment" Water 2, no. 3: 351-362. https://doi.org/10.3390/w2030351

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop