Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Jul;51(7):5217-5238.
doi: 10.1002/2015WR017349. Epub 2015 Jul 14.

Quantifying renewable groundwater stress with GRACE

Alexandra S Richey  1 , Brian F Thomas  2 , Min-Hui Lo  3 , John T Reager  2 , James S Famiglietti  4 , Katalyn Voss  5 , Sean Swenson  6 , Matthew Rodell  7
Affiliations

Quantifying renewable groundwater stress with GRACE

Alexandra S Richey et al. Water Resour Res. 2015 Jul.

Abstract

Renewable groundwater stress is quantified in the world's largest aquifersCharacteristic stress regimes are defined to determine the severity of stressOverstressed aquifers are mainly in rangeland biomes with some croplands.

Keywords: anthropogenic biomes; groundwater stress; large aquifers; remote sensing; stress regimes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study aquifers by continent based on the WHYMAP delineations of the world's Large Aquifer Systems [WHYMAP and Margat, 2008]. The number represents the aquifer identification number for each aquifer system. The world's largest lakes and reservoirs are based on the Global Lake and Wetland Database Level‐1 lakes and reservoirs [Lehner and Döll, 2004].
Figure 2
Figure 2
Characteristic stress regimes that encompass the possible behavior of stress given positive (gaining) or negative (extracting/depleting) use behavior and positive (recharging) or negative (capillary fluxes) groundwater availability. The schematics represent integrated behavior across an aquifer system.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Anthropogenic biome types within the study aquifers. Biome types are gridded at 0.0833° spatial resolution from Ellis and Ramankutty [2008].
Figure 4
Figure 4
Water storage components in the Ganges‐Brahmaputra Basin in millimeters per year. (a) Total GRACE‐derived terrestrial water storage anomalies, (b) the sum of model output from the Global Land Data Assimilation System (GLDAS) of snow water equivalent (SWE) and canopy water storage (CAN) anomalies, (c) routed river storage anomalies from the Community Land Model (CLM) 4.0, (d) subsurface storage anomalies as the difference between total storage anomalies and the sum of SWE, CAN, and river storage.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Spatially distributed groundwater withdrawal statistics in the study aquifers in millimeters per year. The statistics represent the sum of withdrawals for agricultural, domestic, and industrial end uses.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Basin‐averaged groundwater use quantified by (a) groundwater withdrawal statistics and (b) GRACE‐derived depletion in millimeters per year. The GRACE‐derived estimates have both positive and negative estimates, while the withdrawal statistics are limited to negative estimates alone.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Basin‐averaged mean annual recharge from CLM 4.0 model output in millimeters per year. Negative recharge represents capillary fluxes as a flow out of the groundwater system. Positive recharge represents vertical flow into the system.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Renewable groundwater stress ratio derived from groundwater withdrawal statistics. (a) Overstressed conditions are shown as the rate of withdrawals assuming no available recharge (mm/yr). (b) Variable stressed conditions are dimensionless with a positive value of recharge and a negative value of use.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Renewable Groundwater Stress ratio derived from GRACE‐based groundwater depletion. (a) Overstressed conditions and (c) human‐dominated stress are shown as the rate of GRACE‐based use assuming no available recharge (mm/yr). (b) Variable stressed conditions have a positive value of recharge and a negative value of use. (d) Unstressed systems have positive estimates of use and availability. The values are dimensionless in Figures 9b and 9d.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Alcamo, J. , Döll P., Kaspar F., and Siebert S. (1997), Global Change and Global Scenarios of Water Use and Availability: An Application of WaterGAP 1.0, Cent. for Environ. Syst. Res., Univ. of Kassel, Kassel, Germany. [Available at file:///home/sasha/Documents/Research/papers/alcamo_etal_1997.pdf.]
    1. Alcamo, J. , Flörke M., and Märker M. (2007), Future long‐term changes in global water resources driven by socio‐economic and climatic changes, Hydrol. Sci. J., 52(2), 247–275, doi:10.1623/hysj.52.2.247. - DOI
    1. Alexandra, S. R. , and Famiglietti J. S. (2012), Quantifying Water Stress Using Total Water Volumes and GRACE, AGU, Kona, Hawaii.
    1. Alley, W. M. (2006), Tracking U.S. groundwater reserves for the future?, Environment, 48(3), 10–25.
    1. Alley, W. M. , Reilly T. E., and Franke O. L. (1999), Sustainability of ground‐water resources, U.S. Geol. Surv. Circ, 1186, 79 pp.