Search for: All records

Soil salinization is a global phenomenon that affects large tracts of arid farmland worldwide. It contributes to the loss of soil fertility, declining yields, and – in the most severe cases – land unsuitability for cultivation. Irrigation water applications are both the main cause of and the solution to, anthropogenic (or ‘secondary’) salinization because salt typically enters the soil column as dissolved in irrigation water and leaves it through excess water applications (e.g., leaching). Excess leaching, which places additional water costs in areas affected by water scarcity, can be achieved with different irrigation techniques and practices. Here, by complementing a process-based crop water model with a salt balance of the shallow soil, we investigate the tradeoff between root zone salinization and water conservation to limit withdrawals from the water source. We evaluate how such a tradeoff is achieved under different irrigation technology and excess leaching practices. Considering as a case study the cultivation of tomatoes in Egypt, we find that drip and furrow irrigation allows for better control of salt accumulation, thus preventing crop exposure to salt stress. Drip irrigation achieves this goal with minimal water applications because it maintains the soil wetter. Thus, the (rare) rainfall events find more suitable conditions to drain the excess moisture. Conversely, by using more irrigation water (and ‘less efficiently’), furrow irrigation allows for higher rates of soil drainage and salt leaching. The irrigation schedule typically adopted with sprinkler irrigation allows for soil drying, thus limiting the ability of rainfall events to drain the soil and leach its salts. Collectively, these results highlight the key role of irrigation technology and practices in the management of secondary salinity in dryland agriculture. Specifically, there is a tradeoff between minimizing water use and preventing salt accumulation in the root zone. Drip irrigation exhibits the co-benefit of achieving both goals, while furrow irrigation limits soil salinity at the cost of requiring greater volumes of applied irrigation water. 

Abstract The ongoing agrarian transition from smallholder farming to large-scale commercial agriculture promoted by transnational large-scale land acquisitions (LSLAs) often aims to increase crop yields through the expansion of irrigation. LSLAs are playing an increasingly prominent role in this transition. Yet it remains unknown whether foreign LSLAs by agribusinesses target areas based on specific hydrological conditions and whether these investments compete with the water needs of existing local users. Here we combine process-based crop and hydrological modelling, agricultural statistics, and georeferenced information on individual transnational LSLAs to evaluate emergence of water scarcity associated with LSLAs. While conditions of blue water scarcity already existed prior to land acquisitions, these deals substantially exacerbate blue water scarcity through both the adoption of water-intensive crops and the expansion of irrigated cultivation. These effects lead to new rival water uses in 105 of the 160 studied LSLAs (67% of the acquired land). Combined with our findings that investors target land with preferential access to surface and groundwater resources to support irrigation, this suggests that LSLAs often appropriate water resources to the detriment of local users. 

Foreign investors have acquired approximately 90 million hectares of land for agriculture over the past two decades. The effects of these investments on local food security remain unknown. While additional cropland and intensified agriculture could potentially increase crop production, preferential targeting of prime agricultural land and transitions toward export-bound crops might affect local access to nutritious foods. We test these hypotheses in a global systematic analysis of the food security implications of existing land concessions. We combine agricultural, remote sensing, and household survey data (available in 11 sub-Saharan African countries) with georeferenced information on 160 land acquisitions in 39 countries. We find that the intended changes in cultivated crop types generally imply transitions toward energy-rich, but nutrient-poor, crops that are predominantly destined for export markets. Specific impacts on food production and access vary substantially across regions. Deals likely have little effect on food security in eastern Europe and Latin America, where they predominantly occur within agricultural areas with current export-oriented crops, and where agriculture would have both expanded and intensified regardless of the land deals. This contrasts with Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, where deals are associated with both an expansion and intensification (in Asia) of crop production. Deals in these regions also shift production away from local staples and coincide with a gradually decreasing dietary diversity among the surveyed households in sub-Saharan Africa. Together, these findings point to a paradox, where land deals can simultaneously increase crop production and threaten local food security.