Letter | Published:

Groundwater depletion embedded in international food trade

Nature volume 543, pages 700704 (30 March 2017) | Download Citation

  • A Corrigendum to this article was published on 29 November 2017

This article has been updated


Recent hydrological modelling1 and Earth observations2,3 have located and quantified alarming rates of groundwater depletion worldwide. This depletion is primarily due to water withdrawals for irrigation1,2,4, but its connection with the main driver of irrigation, global food consumption, has not yet been explored. Here we show that approximately eleven per cent of non-renewable groundwater use for irrigation is embedded in international food trade, of which two-thirds are exported by Pakistan, the USA and India alone. Our quantification of groundwater depletion embedded in the world’s food trade is based on a combination of global, crop-specific estimates of non-renewable groundwater abstraction and international food trade data. A vast majority of the world’s population lives in countries sourcing nearly all their staple crop imports from partners who deplete groundwater to produce these crops, highlighting risks for global food and water security. Some countries, such as the USA, Mexico, Iran and China, are particularly exposed to these risks because they both produce and import food irrigated from rapidly depleting aquifers. Our results could help to improve the sustainability of global food production and groundwater resource management by identifying priority regions and agricultural products at risk as well as the end consumers of these products.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Change history

  • 30 November 2017

    Please see accompanying Corrigendum (https://doi.org/10.1038/nature24664). Supplementary Tables 1 and 2 were swapped. In addition, the information for China was missing from Supplementary Table 1. These errors have been corrected online.


  1. 1.

    , & Global modeling of withdrawal, allocation and consumptive use of surface water and groundwater resources. Earth Syst. Dynam. 5, 15–40 (2014)

  2. 2.

    , & Satellite-based estimates of groundwater depletion in India. Nature 460, 999–1002 (2009)

  3. 3.

    The global groundwater crisis. Nat. Clim. Chang. 4, 945–948 (2014)

  4. 4.

    et al. Groundwater depletion and sustainability of irrigation in the US High Plains and Central Valley. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 9320–9325 (2012)

  5. 5.

    , & Nonsustainable groundwater sustaining irrigation: a global assessment. Water Resour. Res. 48, W00L06 (2012)

  6. 6.

    Land subsidence and cracking due to ground-water depletion. Ground Water 15, 358–364 (1977)

  7. 7.

    & Groundwater depletion: a global problem. Hydrogeol. J. 13, 317–320 (2005)

  8. 8.

    , & Water saving through international trade of agricultural products. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 10, 455–468 (2006)

  9. 9.

    , , & An estimation of global virtual water flow and sources of water withdrawal for major crops and livestock products using a global hydrological model. J. Hydrol. 384, 232–244 (2010)

  10. 10.

    et al. Water for food: the global virtual water trade network. Wat. Resour. Res. 47, W05520 (2011)

  11. 11.

    , , , & Evolution of the global virtual water trade network. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 5989–5994 (2012)

  12. 12.

    , , , & Temporal dynamics of blue and green virtual water trade networks. Wat. Resour. Res. 48, W07509 (2012)

  13. 13.

    , , & Virtual groundwater transfers from overexploited aquifers in the United States. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 8561–8566 (2015)

  14. 14.

    & Four billion people facing severe water scarcity. Sci. Adv. 2, e1500323 (2016)

  15. 15.

    , , & Water balance of global aquifers revealed by groundwater footprint. Nature 488, 197–200 (2012)

  16. 16.

    , & Tracing distant environmental impacts of agricultural products from a consumer perspective. Ecol. Econ. 70, 1032–1040 (2011)

  17. 17.

    , , , & Water resources transfers through Chinese interprovincial and foreign food trade. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 9774–9779 (2014)

  18. 18.

    , , , & Diet change a solution to reduce water use? Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 074016 (2014)

  19. 19.

    , , , & Lost water and nitrogen resources due to EU consumer food waste. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 084008 (2015)

  20. 20.

    et al. Multimodel assessment of water scarcity under climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3245–3250 (2014)

  21. 21.

    , & Wedge approach to water stress. Nat. Geosci. 7, 615–617 (2014)

  22. 22.

    , & Incorporating the water footprint and virtual water into policy: reflections from the Mancha Occidental region, Spain. Water Resour. Manage. 24, 941–958 (2010)

  23. 23.

    & Quantifying blue and green virtual water contents in global crop production as well as potential production losses without irrigation. J. Hydrol. 384, 198–217 (2010)

  24. 24.

    , & Mirca2000 global monthly irrigated and rainfed crop areas around the year 2000: a new high-resolution data set for agricultural and hydrological modeling. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 24, GB1011 (2010)

  25. 25.

    et al. Past and future contribution of global groundwater depletion to sea-level rise. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, L09402 (2012)

  26. 26.

    , & Development of Functional Types of Irrigation for Improved Global Crop Modelling. Report 104 (Institute for Climate Impact Research, 2007)

  27. 27.

    , & Modelling global water stress of the recent past: on the relative importance of trends in water demand and climate variability. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 15, 3785–3808 (2011)

  28. 28.

    FAO. Technical Conversion Factors for Agricultural Commodities. (FAO Rome, January 2015)

  29. 29.

    , & Rapid growth in agricultural trade: effects on global area efficiency and the role of management. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 034015 (2014)

  30. 30.

    & Water resources transfers through Southern African food trade: water efficiency and climate signals. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 015005 (2016)

Download references


C.D. acknowledges the funding support of the Belmont Forum (SAHEWS project, NERC NE/L008785/1), the Economic and Social Research Council through the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, and the Natural Environment Research Council Fellowship (NERC NE/N01524X/1). T.K. was supported by the European Research Council Starting Grant LUISE (263522) and the Swedish Research Council Formas (grant number 231-2014-1181). M.J.P. acknowledges fellowship support from the Columbia University Center for Climate and Life. Y.W. is supported by a Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) Oversea Research Fellowship (JSPS-2014-878). This paper was presented at the conference Virtual Water in Agricultural Products: Quantification, Limitations and Trade Policy (Lincoln, Nebraska, USA, 14–16 September 2016), sponsored by the OECD Co-operative Research Programme: Biological Resource Management for Sustainable Agricultural Systems (CRP). The CRP financially supported C.D. to participate in the conference. The opinions expressed and arguments employed in this paper are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the OECD or of the governments of its Member countries.

Author information


  1. Institute for Sustainable Resources, University College London, 14 Upper Woburn Place, London WC1H 0NN, UK

    • Carole Dalin
  2. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Schlossplatz 1, A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria

    • Yoshihide Wada
  3. Columbia University, Center for Climate Systems Research, 2880 Broadway, New York, New York 10025, USA

    • Yoshihide Wada
    •  & Michael J. Puma
  4. NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2880 Broadway, New York, New York 10025, USA

    • Yoshihide Wada
    •  & Michael J. Puma
  5. Department of Physical Geography, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands

    • Yoshihide Wada
  6. Institute of Social Ecology, Vienna, Alpen-Adria Universitaet Klagenfurt, Wien, Graz, Schottenfeldgasse 29, 1070 Vienna, Austria

    • Thomas Kastner
  7. Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (BiK-F), Senckenberganlage 25, 60325 Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    • Thomas Kastner
  8. Center for Climate and Life, Columbia University, 61 Route 9W, Palisades, New York 10964, USA

    • Michael J. Puma


  1. Search for Carole Dalin in:

  2. Search for Yoshihide Wada in:

  3. Search for Thomas Kastner in:

  4. Search for Michael J. Puma in:


C.D., Y.W. and M.J.P. designed the research. Y.W. carried out the simulation to estimate non-renewable groundwater abstraction per crop class. T.K., M.J.P. and C.D. processed the trade data. C.D. performed the analysis. C.D. wrote the paper with help from Y.W., M.J.P. and T.K.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carole Dalin.

Reviewer Information Nature thanks M. Aldaya, D. Vanham and the other anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Supplementary information

Excel files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Table 1

    This table shows shows the GWD intensities for crops belonging to 26 major crop classes, by country for years 2000 and 2010. A large variability in GWD intensities across countries and crop classes may be found.

  2. 2.

    Supplementary Table 2

    This table contains the extraction rates for food commodities.

About this article

Publication history






Further reading


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.