sustainable agriculture under climate change in the aral sea basin. maryse bourgault

Sustainable agriculture under climate change in the

Aral Sea Basin

Maryse Bourgault1*, C.A. Madramootoo1, H.A. Webber1, G. Stulina2, M. Horst2, D.L. Smith1

1. Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, McGill University

* Current address: CSIRO, Plant Industry, Climate Adaptation Flagship, St. Lucia, Australia

2. Central Asia Scientific Research Institute of Irrigation (SANIIRI)

Outline• The Aral Sea ecological disaster and

humanitarian crisis• Socio-politico-economic context of

agriculture in Uzbekistan• Possible solutions:

– Institutions for water management and other social changes (not covered here)

– Surface irrigation technologies– Crop rotations, choices and diversification

of agricultural production

ARAL SEA DISAPPEARANCE

2008NASA

1964

1997

1987

Humanitarian crisis

• Water and food contamination from water pollution and dust storms

• Incidence of diseases increased in terms of folds rather than percentages

• Lack of modern facilities• Depression and mental

health issues

CLIMATE CHANGE

Climate Change• Expected temperature increases in the basin: likely

to lead to heat stress• Conflicting evidence for precipitation changes

Climate Change• Expected temperature increases in the basin: likely

to lead to heat stress• Conflicting evidence for precipitation changes• Melting of glaciers: earlier and greater runoff in the

spring• Very likely increases in the frequency of heavy

precipitation events: flash floods and landslides

Savoskul et al. 2003

SOCIO-POLITICO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT OF AGRICULTURE

Uzbek agriculture

• Low governmental investment in agriculture

• State farms and agricultural assets

• Quotas for cotton and wheat

• Large uneducated rural population

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS:SURFACE IRRIGATION TECHNOLOGIES

Regulated Deficit Irrigation•When to irrigate? Depletion factor

Field Capacity

Recommended Moderate Stress

Large Stress

Wilting Point

0% 100%threshold

Slide by Heidi Webber

Alternate Furrow Irrigation

Alternate Furrow Irrigation versus Conventional Every Furrow Irrigation

2003 2004

Parameter of interest Alternate furrow

Every furrow

P value Alternate furrow

Every Furrow

P value

Yield (kg ha-1) 656 692 0.3113 832 826 0.8276

Number of seeds per pod

6.9 7.1 0.1023 6.6 6.8 0.0441

100 seed weight (g) 24.3 24.1 0.5972 19.1 20.0 0.0367

Pods per plant 25.2 28.3 0.1379 9.7 10.2 0.2198

Harvest index (%) 0.302 0.346 0.1339 0.306 0.284 0.2486

Stem Water Potential (bars)

Before irrigation events

-10.2 -10.0 0.5025 -8.1 -8.0 0.0554

After irrigation events

-8.9 -8.2 0.0027 -7.7 -7.5 0.0346

Stomatal conductance (mmol m-2 sec-1)

Before irrigation events

221.0 233.5 0.1409 357.5 330.3 0.0947

After irrigation events

316.9 364.4 <0.0001 449.0 461.7 0.1410

Surge-flow Irrigation

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS: CROP CHOICES

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Inoculated

Control

Conclusions

• Physical environment is already under stress and vulnerable

• The socio-economic context of agriculture in the region is specific and has implications for the introduction of new technologies

• In the short term, introduction of legumes in crop rotations

• Crop diversification to decrease vulnerability to lower irrigation water availability

AcknowledgmentsProf. Don SmithProf. Philippe SeguinProf. Chandra A. Madramootoo

Dr. Heidi WebberCatherine SenecalNicholas StampfliRobert Baker

Misha HorstGalina StulinaDr. Victor Dukhovnyall the field staff in Uzbekistan

Brace Center for Water Resources ManagementFonds Quebecois de Recherche en Nature et Technologies