Tradeoffs between groundwater conservation and air pollution from agricultural fires in northwest India

Article metrics

Abstract

Air pollution imposes enormous public health and economic burdens in northwest India. Groundwater conservation policies appear to be exacerbating the crisis by concentrating agricultural burning in the late fall with a 39% higher peak fire intensity occurring when meteorological conditions favour poor air quality. Reconciling food security, resource depletion and environmental quality tradeoffs is necessary for achieving sustainable development in the breadbasket region of India.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Rice harvesting dates.
Fig. 2: Fires and PM2.5 concentrations.

Data availability

MODIS EVI data were acquired from the NASA Land Data Products and Services portal: https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/products/mod13q1v006/. MODIS active fire data were acquired from the Fire Information for Resource Management System: https://firms.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov/download/. Measured PM2.5 data for New Delhi were acquired from the National Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network that aggregates information from 27 air quality monitoring stations that are distributed across the capital region. Year-wise daily data are available from the Government of India (note: filter results for ‘Delhi’): https://data.gov.in/catalog/historical-daily-ambient-air-quality-data. Satellite-estimated PM2.5 data for New Delhi were acquired from the University of Miami: http://precise.miami.edu/index_delhi.php. Rice yield data for Punjab and Haryana were compiled from various Government of India sources: https://aps.dac.gov.in/APY/Public_Report1.aspx, https://nfsm.gov.in/ReadyReckoner/NFSMRR/NFSM_AllocationReleases2018.pdf and http://esaharyana.gov.in/en-us/Economic-Survey-of-Haryana-2016-17-English. Weather data for New Delhi were acquired from the Indian Agricultural Research Institute: http://www.iari.res.in/index.php?Itemid=1033&id=402&option=com_content&view=article. Political boundaries depicted in our maps are distributed as spatial data by GADM (www.gadm.org).

References

  1. 1.

    Bikkina, S. Nat. Sustain. 2, 200–205 (2019).

  2. 2.

    Cusworth, D. H. et al. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 044018 (2018).

  3. 3.

    Landrigan, P. L. et al. Lancet 391, 462–512 (2017).

  4. 4.

    Ghude, S. D. et al. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 4650–4658 (2016).

  5. 5.

    Guttikunda, S. K. & Goel, R. Environ. Dev. 6, 8–20 (2013).

  6. 6.

    Chowdhury, S. et al. Environ. Sci. Policy 74, 8–13 (2017).

  7. 7.

    Dey, S. et al. Remote Sens. Environ. 127, 153–161 (2012).

  8. 8.

    Liu, T. et al. Atmos. Environ. 172, 83–92 (2018).

  9. 9.

    Jethva, H. et al. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 18, 1756–1773 (2018).

  10. 10.

    Rajput, P. et al. Atmos. Environ. 45, 6732–6740 (2011).

  11. 11.

    Ortiz-Monasterio, J. I. et al. Field Crops Res. 37, 169–184 (1994).

  12. 12.

    Ahmad, T. et al. Land Use Policy 47, 448–458 (2015).

  13. 13.

    Rodell, M., Velicogna, I. & Famiglietti, J. S. Nature 460, 999–1001 (2009).

  14. 14.

    Humphreys, E. et al. Adv. Agron. 109, 155–217 (2010).

  15. 15.

    Chhatre, A. et al. Decision 43, 167–179 (2016).

  16. 16.

    Singh, B. et al. Field Crops Res. 173, 68–80 (2015).

  17. 17.

    Singh, R. P. & Kaskaoutis, D. G. Eos 95, 333–340 (2014).

  18. 18.

    Guttikunda, S. K. & Jawahar, P. Atmos. Environ. 92, 449–460 (2014).

  19. 19.

    Bollasina, M. A. et al. Science 334, 502–505 (2011).

  20. 20.

    Sidhu, H. S. et al. Field Crops Res. 184, 201–212 (2015).

  21. 21.

    Sidhu, H. S. et al. Agric. Water Manag. 216, 273–283 (2018).

  22. 22.

    Boschetti, M. et al. Int. J. Remote Sens. 30, 4643–4662 (2009).

  23. 23.

    Eckmann et al. Earth Interact. 14, 1–29 (2010).

  24. 24.

    Zhang et al. Remote Sens. Environ. 198, 407–424 (2017).

  25. 25.

    Kumar, N. et al. Atmos. Environ. 41, 4492–4503 (2007).

Download references

Author information

B.-S. and A.J.M. conceptualized the study and were the principal drafters of the manuscript. A.K.S. developed the analytical methods and conducted the geospatial analyses. B.G. contextualized the research within broader frameworks for sustainable intensification, and contributed to the manuscript accordingly.

Correspondence to Andrew J. McDonald.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplemental Figs. 1–4

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark