Wheat − Australia a. 1980. 1985. 1990. 1995. 2000. 2005. 2010. Year. −3. −2. −1. 0. 1. 2. 3. Y ield anomalies [t ha. −1. ] 0.79 ***. −0.16 n.s.. 6% irrigated. Wheat − ...
Type of file: PDF Size of file: 0 KB Title of file for HTML: Supplementary Information Description: Supplementary Figures, Supplementary Tables and Supplementary References Type of file: PDF Size of file: 0 KB Title of file for HTML: Peer Review File Description:
Supplementary Figure 1: Uncertainty range of the current status of environmental flow transgressions. The degree to which EFRs are undermined is expressed as the transgressionto-uncertainty ratio (>5% ’Within uncertainty range’, >100% ’Transgressed’), averaged over months with EFR transgressions (1980–2009, 0.5◦ resolution). Borders delineate Food Production Units. The proportion of EFR deficit (EFRdef ) and the EFR uncertainty (range of EFR estimates from three methods as defined in the Methods section), calculated for each month and grid cell (EFRstatus ). EFRstatus is shown as the average over months in which both pristine river discharge and current EFRdef are ≥ 0.1 m3 s−1 , throughout the simulation period 1980–2009. EFRdef = max(EFR − current discharge, 0) is calculated as the mean of the three EFR methods. The map in Figure 1a illustrates the proportion of mean annual EFRdef and current mean annual discharge. See Supplementary Figure 2a for the sum of annual EFRdef in million m3 and Supplementary Figure 2b for the average number of months in which at least one of three methods indicates EFRdef ≥ 0.1 m3 s−1 .
1
Supplementary Figure 2: Current status of environmental flow transgressions in absolute terms. Map (a) illustrates the total annual EFR transgressions in million m3 (mean of three EFR methods), map (b) shows the number of months per year in which at least one of the three EFR methods indicates an EFR transgression > 0.1 m3 s−1 (1980–2009, 0.5◦ resolution).
2
2.3 double agricultural productivity of smallscale food producers
6.4
2.4
ensue sustainable withdrawals
ensue sustainable food production systems
6.4
2.4
increase water-use efficiency
Indivisible Reinforce Constrain Quantified in this study
resilient agricultural practices
6.6 protect and restore waterrelated ecosystems (wetlands, rivers, lakes, aquifers)
Supplementary Figure 3: Interaction of SDG targets subjected in this study. Constraints of maintaining sustainable withdrawals (6.4) on agricultural productivity (2.3) (red) and reinforcements of increased water-use efficiency (6.4) for 2.3 (mint) are explicitly quantified in this study. While in this context additional inter-linkages exist1 (especially with SDG 15), the figure illustrates the most important interactions between SDG 2 and 6.
3
2000
2005
1980
1985
1990
2000
2005
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2000
2005
FAO observations
0.7 ***
1 0 1980
1985
1990
1995
3 2 1 0 −3 −2 −1
2010
Maize − Argentina 0.74 ***
0.27 n.s.
1
2
3
3% irrigated
1980
1985
i 0.7 ***
2
3
2010
Year
2005
0
2010
Rice − Japan 98% irrigated
2000
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Year
−3 −2 −1
Yield anomalies [t ha−1]
3 2
1990
1995
1995
−3 −2 −1
3 1
1980
h 0.71 ***
1
Yield anomalies [t ha−1]
0.72 ***
0
1985
1990
Year
−3 −2 −1 1980
0.46 **
0
2010
Rice − Korea, Republic of 67% irrigated
f
2
0.59 ***
Year
g
1985
Year
2000
2005
3
1995
1980
Maize − United States 15% irrigated
0.08 n.s.
2010
Year
LPJmL simulations (standard)
Rice − Indonesia 37% irrigated
0.46 **
0.48 **
2
1990
2010
−3 −2 −1
1
1985
Yield anomalies [t ha−1]
3
0.16 n.s.
2
0.65 ***
0
Yield anomalies [t ha−1]
e
−3 −2 −1
4
1980
2005
Year
Maize − France 36% irrigated
2000
0.75 ***
1
d
1995
Yield anomalies [t ha−1]
3 2 1
2010
Year
18% irrigated
0
1995
−0.16 n.s.
Wheat − Syrian Arab Republic
−3 −2 −1
1990
0.79 ***
Yield anomalies [t ha−1]
1985
6% irrigated
0
1 0 1980
c
Wheat − Spain
−3 −2 −1
0.26 n.s.
Yield anomalies [t ha−1]
0.86 ***
2
3
2% irrigated
−3 −2 −1
Yield anomalies [t ha−1]
b
Wheat − Australia
Yield anomalies [t ha−1]
a
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Year
LPJmL simulations (full irrigation)
Supplementary Figure 4: Evaluation of observed and LPJmL-simulated yield variability. Country-level time series of detrended yield anomalies from FAOSTAT reference data2 opposed to LPJmL simulations for wheat (a–c), maize (d–f) and rice (g–i). LPJmL simulations are shown for the standard simulation (irrigation constrained by surface water availability, mint) and a simulation which omits water stress for irrigated and rainfed crops (salmon). The Pearson’s correlation coefficient is indicated respectively in the top right corner of each plot (significance: ***, p
