Next Article in Journal
Assessing Potential Climate Change Impacts on Irrigation Requirements of Major Crops in the Brazos Headwaters Basin, Texas
Previous Article in Journal
Spatial Prediction of Erosion Risk of a Small Mountainous Watershed Using RUSLE: A Case-Study of the Palar Sub-Watershed in Kodaikanal, South India
Previous Article in Special Issue
Estimating Changes in the Green Water Productivity of Cropping Systems in Northern Shaanxi Province in China’s Loess Plateau
Article Menu

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Water 2018, 10(11), 1609;

Water Footprint for Pulse, Cereal, and Oilseed Crops in Saskatchewan, Canada

1,* , 2
College of Resources and Environmental Engineering, Ludong University, Yantai 264025, China
Department of Soil Science, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A8, Canada
School of Hydraulic Energy and Power Engineering, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou 225127, China
Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Urumqi 830011, China
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 2 October 2018 / Revised: 5 November 2018 / Accepted: 6 November 2018 / Published: 9 November 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Agriculture Water Efficiency)
Full-Text   |   PDF [2195 KB, uploaded 9 November 2018]   |  


The water footprint (WF) of crop production is a friendly approach for the analysis of water resource consumption in agricultural production systems. This study assessed the inter-annual variability of the total WF of three types of main crops, namely, cereal (i.e., spring wheat and barley), oilseed (i.e., canola and sunflower) and pulse (i.e., lentils and chickpea), from the perspective of yield and protein. It also determined the major factors that influence the WFs in Saskatchewan province of Canada. Over the period of 1965–2014, the annual precipitation in Saskatchewan fluctuated considerably but increased slightly with time. The grain yield-based WF ranged between 1.08 and 1.80, 0.90 and 1.38, 1.71 and 2.58, 1.94 and 4.28, 1.47 and 2.37, and 1.39 and 1.79 m3 kg−1; whereas the protein yield-based WF ranged between 7.69 and 10.44, 8.27 and 16.47, 3.79 and 7.75, 4.86 and 11.17, 5.09 and 7.42, and 5.51 and 10.69 m3 kg−1 for spring wheat, barley, canola, sunflower, lentils, and chickpea, respectively. All the WFs of crops generally decreased with time, which could be attributed to precipitation factors. In addition, the scientific and technological progress and agricultural inputs also evidently influenced the grain yield-based WFs of all crops. Pulse crops had a higher grain yield-based WF (an average of 1.59 m3 kg−1 for pulse crops and 1.18 m3 kg−1 for cereal crops) but a lower protein yield-based WF (an average of 6.58 m3 kg−1 for pulse crops and 9.25 m3 kg−1 for cereal crops) than cereal crops. Under conditions of improved protein consumption and healthy living in the future, pulse crops may be a preferred crop. View Full-Text
Keywords: water footprint; spring wheat; barley; climatic factor; water resource management water footprint; spring wheat; barley; climatic factor; water resource management

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0).

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Ding, D.; Zhao, Y.; Guo, H.; Li, X.; Schoenau, J.; Si, B. Water Footprint for Pulse, Cereal, and Oilseed Crops in Saskatchewan, Canada. Water 2018, 10, 1609.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics



[Return to top]
Water EISSN 2073-4441 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top