Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar a este item: http://hdl.handle.net/10261/277160
COMPARTIR / EXPORTAR:
logo share SHARE logo core CORE BASE
Visualizar otros formatos: MARC | Dublin Core | RDF | ORE | MODS | METS | DIDL | DATACITE

Invitar a revisión por pares abierta
Título

Carbon and water footprints of irrigated corn and non-irrigated wheat in Northeast Spain

AutorAbrahão, Raphael; Carvalho, Mónica; Causapé Valenzuela, Jesús Antonio
Palabras claveEnvironmental impact
Irrigation
Fertilization
Rainfed farming
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
Spain
dióxido de carbono
Fecha de publicación2017
EditorSpringer Nature
CitaciónEnvironmental Science and Pollution Research, vol.24, 5647–5653
ResumenIrrigation increases yields and allows several crops to be produced in regions where it would be naturally impossible due to limited rainfall. However, irrigation can cause several negative environmental impacts, and it is important to understand these in depth for the correct application of mitigation measures. The life cycle assessment methodology was applied herein to compare the main irrigated and non-irrigated crops in Northeast Spain (corn and wheat, respectively), identifying those processes with greater contribution to environmental impacts (carbon and water footprint categories) and providing scientifically-sound information to facilitate government decisions. Due to concerns about climate change and water availability, the methods selected for evaluation of environmental impacts were IPCC 2013 GWP (carbon footprint) and water scarcity indicator (water footprint). The area studied, a 7.38-km2 basin, was monitored for 12 years, including the period before, during, and after the implementation of irrigation. The functional unit, to which all material and energy flows were associated with, was the cultivation of 1 ha, throughout 1 year. The overall carbon footprint for irrigated corn was higher, but when considering the higher productivity achieved with irrigation, the emissions per kilogram of corn decrease and finally favor this irrigated crop. When considering the water footprint, the volumes of irrigation water applied were so high that productivity could not compensate for the negative impacts associated with water use in the case of corn. Nevertheless, consideration of productivities and gross incomes brings the results closer. Fertilizer use (carbon footprint) and irrigation water (water footprint) were the main contributors to the negative impacts detected.
Versión del editorhttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-016-8322-5
URIhttp://hdl.handle.net/10261/277160
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-8322-5
ISSN1614-7499
Aparece en las colecciones: (IGME) Artículos




Ficheros en este ítem:
Fichero Descripción Tamaño Formato
carbon_water_footprints_2017.pdfArtículo principal466,54 kBAdobe PDFVista previa
Visualizar/Abrir
Mostrar el registro completo

CORE Recommender

Page view(s)

28
checked on 23-abr-2024

Download(s)

75
checked on 23-abr-2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric

Altmetric


NOTA: Los ítems de Digital.CSIC están protegidos por copyright, con todos los derechos reservados, a menos que se indique lo contrario.