Abstract
Sustainable groundwater use relies on adequate rates of groundwater recharge, which are expected to change with climate change. However, climate impacts on recharge remain uncertain due to a paucity of measurements of recharge trends globally. Here we leverage the relationship between climatic aridity and long-term recharge measurements at 5,237 locations globally to identify regions where recharge is most sensitive to changes in climatic aridity. Recharge is most sensitive to climate changes in regions where potential evapotranspiration slightly exceeds precipitation, meaning even modest aridification can substantially decrease groundwater recharge. Future climate-induced recharge changes are expected to be dominated by precipitation changes, whereby changes in groundwater recharge will be amplified relative to precipitation changes. Recharge is more sensitive to changes in aridity than global hydrological models suggest. Consequently, the effects of climatic changes on groundwater replenishment and their impacts on the sustainability of groundwater use by humans and ecosystems probably exceed previous predictions.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Data used in this study are available via the cited sources. Precipitation data are available at https://www.worldclim.org/data/v1.4/worldclim14.html. Potential evapotranspiration and aridity data are available at https://cgiarcsi.community/data/global-aridity-and-petdatabase/. Recharge data are available at https://opendata.eawag.ch/dataset/globalscale_groundwater_moeck.
Climate projections are provided at https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.10605454 (ref. 44).
Code availability
The code to reproduce the results of this study is available at https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.10605454 (ref. 44).
References
Bierkens, M. F. & Wada, Y. Non-renewable groundwater use and groundwater depletion: a review. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 063002 (2019).
Gleeson, T., Wada, Y., Bierkens, M. F. & van Beek, L. P. Water balance of global aquifers revealed by groundwater footprint. Nature 488, 197–200 (2012).
Gleeson, T., Cuthbert, M., Ferguson, G. & Perrone, D. Global groundwater sustainability, resources, and systems in the anthropocene. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 48, 431–463 (2020).
Cuthbert, M. O., Gleeson, T., Bierkens, M. F. P., Ferguson, G. & Taylor, R. G. Defining renewable groundwater use and its relevance to sustainable groundwater management. Water Resour. Res. 59, e2022WR032831 (2023).
Moeck, C. et al. A global-scale dataset of direct natural groundwater recharge rates: a review of variables, processes and relationships. Sci. Total Environ. 717, 137042 (2020).
Berghuijs, W. R., Luijendijk, E., Moeck, C. & Allen, S. T. Recharge observations indicate strengthened groundwater connections to surface fluxes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 49, e2022GL099010 (2021).
Scanlon, B. R. et al. Global synthesis of groundwater recharge in semi-arid and arid regions. Hydrol. Process. 20, 3335–3370 (2006).
Mohan, C., Western, A. W., Wei, Y. & Saft, M. Predicting groundwater recharge for varying land cover and climate conditions – a global meta-study. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 22, 2689–2703 (2018).
Taylor, R. G. et al. Ground water and climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 322–329 (2013).
Reinecke, R. et al. Uncertainty of simulated groundwater recharge at different global warming levels: a global-scale multi-model ensemble study. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 25, 787–810 (2021).
IPCC Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021).
Refsgaard, J. C. et al. Climate change impacts on groundwater hydrology – where are the main uncertainties and can they be reduced? Hydrol. Sci. J. 61, 2312–2324 (2016).
Mileham, L., Taylor, R. G., Todd, M., Tindimugaya, C. & Thompson, J. The impact of climate change on groundwater recharge and runoff in a humid, equatorial catchment: sensitivity of projections to rainfall intensity. Hydrol. Sci. J. 54, 727–738 (2009).
Jannis, E., Adrien, M., Annette, A. & Peter, H. Climate change effects on groundwater recharge and temperatures in Swiss alluvial aquifers. J. Hydrol. X 11, 100071 (2021).
Leterme, B., Mallants, D. & Jacques, D. Sensitivity of groundwater recharge using climatic analogues and HYDRUS-1D. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 16, 2485–2497 (2012).
Hartmann, A., Gleeson, T., Wada, Y. & Wagener, T. Enhanced groundwater recharge rates and altered recharge sensitivity to climate variability through subsurface heterogeneity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 2842–2847 (2017).
West, C., Rosolem, R., MacDonald, A. M., Cuthbert, M. O., & Wagener, T. Understanding process controls on groundwater recharge variability across Africa through recharge landscapes. J. Hydrol. 612, 127967 (2022).
Döll, P. & Fiedler, K. Global-scale modeling of groundwater recharge. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 12, 863–885 (2008).
Gleeson, T. et al. GMD perspective: the quest to improve the evaluation of groundwater representation in continental-to global-scale models. Geosci. Model Dev. 14, 7545–7571 (2021).
Cuthbert, M. O. et al. Observed controls on resilience of groundwater to climate variability in sub-Saharan Africa. Nature 572, 230–234 (2019).
West, C. et al. Ground truthing global-scale model estimates of groundwater recharge across Africa. Sci. Total Environ. 858, 159765 (2023).
Roderick, M. L. & Farquhar, G. D. A simple framework for relating variations in runoff to variations in climatic conditions and catchment properties. Water Resour. Res. 47, W00G07 (2011).
Scanlon, B. R., Healy, R. W. & Cook, P. G. Choosing appropriate techniques for quantifying groundwater recharge. Hydrol. J. 10, 18–39 (2002).
Walker, D. et al. Insights from a multi-method recharge estimation comparison study. Groundwater 57, 245–258 (2019).
MacDonald, A. M. et al. Mapping groundwater recharge in Africa from ground observations and implications for water security. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 034012 (2021).
Müller Schmied, H. et al. The global water resources and use model WaterGAP v2.2d: model description and evaluation. Geosci. Model Dev. 14, 1037–1079 (2021).
de Graaf, I. E. M., Sutanudjaja, E. H., van Beek, L. P. H. & Bierkens, M. F. P. A high-resolution global-scale groundwater model. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 19, 823–837 (2015).
de Graaf, I. E. M., Gleeson, T., van Beek, L. R., Sutanudjaja, E. H. & Bierkens, M. F. Environmental flow limits to global groundwater pumping. Nature 574, 90–94 (2019).
Taylor, R. G. et al. Evidence of the dependence of groundwater resources on extreme rainfall in East Africa. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 374–378 (2013).
Beven, K. & Germann, P. Macropores and water flow in soils revisited. Water Resour. Res. 49, 3071–3092 (2013).
Trabucco, A. & Zomer, R. J. Global Aridity and PET Database (CGIAR, 2009); https://cgiarcsi.community/data/global-aridity-and-pet-database/
Fick, S. E. & Hijmans, R. J. WorldClim 2: new 1-km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 37, 4302–4315 (2017).
Gudmundsson, L., Greve, P. & Seneviratne, S. I. The sensitivity of water availability to changes in the aridity index and other factors—a probabilistic analysis in the Budyko space. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 6985–6994 (2016).
Berghuijs, W. R., Larsen, J. R., van Emmerik, T. H. & Woods, R. A. A global assessment of runoff sensitivity to changes in precipitation, potential evaporation, and other factors. Water Resour. Res. 53, 8475–8486 (2017).
Jaramillo, F. et al. Fewer basins will follow their budyko curves under global warming and fossil‐fueled development. Water Resour. Res. 58, e2021WR031825 (2022).
Ziehn, T. et al. The Australian Earth system model: ACCESS-ESM1.5. J. South. Hemisph. Earth Syst. Sci. 70, 193–214 (2020).
Danabasoglu, G. et al. The community earth system model version 2 (CESM2). J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 12, e2019MS001916 (2020).
Döscher, R. et al. The EC-earth3 Earth system model for the Coupled Model Intercomparison project 6. Geosci. Model Dev. 15, 2973–3020 (2022).
Walters, D. et al. The Met Office Unified Model Global Atmosphere 7.0/7.1 and JULES Global Land 7.0 configurations. Geosci. Model Dev. 12, 1909–1963 (2019).
Boucher, O. et al. Presentation and evaluation of the IPSL-CM6A-LR climate model. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 12, e2019MS002010 (2020).
Cheruy, F. et al. Improved near-surface continental climate in IPSL-CM6A-LR by combined evolutions of atmospheric and land surface physics. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 12, e2019MS002005 (2020).
Mauritsen, T. et al. Developments in the MPI-M Earth system model version 1.2 (MPI-ESM1.2) and its response to increasing CO2. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 11, 998–1038 (2019).
Müller, W. A. et al. A higher-resolution version of the Max Planck Institute Earth system model (MPI-ESM1.2-HR). J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 10, 1383–1413 (2018).
Berghuijs, W. Data and code supporting analysis of the climate sensitivity of recharge (Version 1) (Data set). Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10605455 (2024).
Acknowledgements
The contributions of F.J. were funded by the Swedish National Space Agency (180/18), Projects 2022-02148 and 2022-01570 of the Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development (FORMAS), and Project 2021-05774 of the Swedish Research Council (VR).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
W.R.B. conceived the idea and analysed the data. W.R.B., R.A.C., S.T.A., S.J., Y.v.d.V., F.J., E.L. and C.M. co-designed the study, discussed results and contributed to writing the paper.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Climate Change thanks Nick Cartwright, Alan MacDonald and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended data
Extended Data Fig. 1 Nonlinearity of recharge.
A comparison of recharge non-linearity for a linear or non-linear bucket model with varying climatic aridity indicates that non-linearity may need to be included in the model to lead to more realistic recharge dynamics (see Methods). Recharge is normalized by its maximum recharge ratio for that b-value to highlight the general non-linearity in the recharge climatic aridity relationship.
Extended Data Fig. 2 Impacts of projected climate changes on groundwater recharge for SSP5–8.5.
Projected relative recharge changes (2050–2080 versus 1980–2010) (%) induced by changes in precipitation (a), potential evaporation (b), and climatic aridity (c). Results depicted here are for SSP5–8.5 and show broadly similar spatial patterns to those presented in the main text Fig. 4.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Berghuijs, W.R., Collenteur, R.A., Jasechko, S. et al. Groundwater recharge is sensitive to changing long-term aridity. Nat. Clim. Chang. 14, 357–363 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-01953-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-01953-z