Assessing The Impacts of Climate Change On Irrigation Water Use in The Cambridge University Botanic Garden

CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY
Daro Lorenzo Daz
Assessing the Impacts of Climate Change on Irrigation Water Use in the Cambridge University Botanic Garden
SCHOOL OF APPLIED SCIENCES
MSc THESIS
CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF APPLIED SCIENCES MSc THESIS Academic Year 2006-2007
Daro Lorenzo Daz
Assessing the Impacts of Climate Change on Irrigation Water Use in the Cambridge University Botanic Garden
Supervisor: Dr Jerry W. Knox September 2007
This thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Water Management
Cranfield University 2007. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the written permission of the copyright owner.
Abstract
Gardening is not only an essential part of the UK cultural heritage and style of life, but also a direct contributor to the economy. Climate change will vary temperature and precipitation patterns, increasing water demand for irrigation, and will put pressure into water resources, reducing water availability for the different users, including the gardening sector. In this context, the impacts of climate change on irrigation water use were assessed for the Cambridge University Botanic Garden.
Using the UKCIP02 scenarios, four future climate data sets were derived for the 2050s and 2080s time slices and for the Low and High scenarios. Then, future volumetric water demand (m3) in the garden was estimated on the basis of historical irrigation trends and climate patterns, through the agroclimatic indicator PSMD. On a next step, future irrigation water needs (mm) were estimated for four different irrigated plant species displayed in the garden using WaSim model. Finally, an adaptation survey was carried out with the intention of identifying possible future strategies to cope with water shortages.
Recent dry conditions, such as those in 1976 or 1990, will become more common in the future, rising volumetric irrigation water demand in the garden by 21-53% for the 2050s and by 37-80% for the 2080s. WaSim estimations confirm that climate change will increase irrigation requirements for the four plant species studied by 33-176%. The model also proves that impacts will be more significant over perennial plant species than over annuals. Finally, responses to the adaptation survey reveal that the garden accounts already for several measures to deal with water scarcity problems, such as rain-water harvesting structures, drought resistant plants or improved soil structure. However, repairing leakage in the water system, improving irrigation scheduling or switching to more efficient irrigation methods, are still key gaps to be covered if water use efficiency in the Cambridge Botanic Garden is to be maximized. Keywords: Climate change, gardening, irrigation, water use efficiency.
ii
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr Jerry Knox for wisely guiding me throughout the work. I also would like to express my gratitude to the managers of the Cambridge University Botanic Garden, Peter Atkinson and Tim Upson, for their inestimable collaboration. For supporting me on the field work, much thanks to the staff on the garden, especially John Kapor, always ready for a chat about the weather.
Finally I would like to show my most sincere appreciation to my loving mother, father and sister, who overall give me all the support I need to reach my most elevated goals.
iii
Table of contents
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Climate change ................................................................................................. 1 Importance of gardens in UK............................................................................ 3 Need for further research .................................................................................. 3 Aim and Objectives .......................................................................................... 4 General Aim.............................................................................................. 4 Specific Objectives ................................................................................... 4 Soil ............................................................................................................ 5 Climate...................................................................................................... 6 Water sources............................................................................................ 8
1.4.1 1.4.2 1.5 1.5.1 1.5.2 1.5.3 2
Case study: Cambridge University Botanic Garden ......................................... 4
LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................... 9 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 Water supplies and water demand .................................................................... 9 Plant responses to water stress........................................................................ 10 Impacts on soils and water regime.................................................................. 10 Impacts on water bodies ................................................................................. 11 Impacts on irrigation ....................................................................................... 11 CO2 impacts on plant water use ...................................................................... 12
METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... 13 3.1 3.2 Current volumetric water demand correlated against PSMD ......................... 14 WaSim modelling irrigation needs ................................................................. 16 Soil input data ......................................................................................... 17 Crop input data........................................................................................ 18 Irrigation scheduling input data .............................................................. 21 Weather input data .................................................................................. 21 Future volumetric irrigation water demand (m3) .................................... 25 Future irrigation needs (mm) .................................................................. 25
3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 4
Future irrigation water demand modelling ..................................................... 22
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 26 4.1 4.2 4.3 Historical pattern of irrigation water demand (m3)......................................... 26 Assessing current irrigation needs (mm) ........................................................ 28 Future irrigation water requirements .............................................................. 30 Dario Lorenzo Diaz, 2007
Cranfield University
iv 4.3.1 4.3.2 5 Future irrigation water abstraction (m3).................................................. 32 Future irrigation needs (mm) .................................................................. 34
DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................ 39 5.1 5.2 Climate change uncertainties .......................................................................... 39 Modelling limitations...................................................................................... 40 Water sources validation......................................................................... 40 Crop modelling limitations ..................................................................... 41 Overall limitations of the approach......................................................... 41 Licensed water use.................................................................................. 45
5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.3 6 7 8 5.3.1
Adaptation options .......................................................................................... 42
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................. 47 REFERENCES...................................................................................................... 50 APPENDICES ....................................................................................................... 54 8.1 Appendix A: Survey of climate change impacts over water use in the Cambridge University Botanic Garden....................................................................... 54
Dario Lorenzo Diaz, 2007
List of Tables
Table 1-1: IPCC Climate change evidence indicators. .................................................... 1 Table 1-2: Monthly averages for the Cambridge Botanic Garden weather station................................................................................................................................ 6 Table 3-1: Weather stations coordinates........................................................................ 14 Table 3-2: Summary of soil characteristics used for modelling the water balance. ........................................................................................................................... 18 Table 3-3: Selected representative species to calculate irrigation needs using WaSim. ........................................................................................................................... 18 Table 3-4: Crop characteristics for each plant species used in the WaSim model. ............................................................................................................................. 20 Table 3-5: Irrigation scheduling input data for each plant entered in WaSim model. ............................................................................................................................. 21 Table 3-6: Socio-economic, temperature (C) and CO2 concentration (ppm) changes for the 2080s time slice for the different UKCIP02 scenarios.......................... 22 Table 3-7: Percentage Change factors (%) for mean monthly rainfall for the selected UKCIP02 scenarios........................................................................................... 24 Table 3-8: Percentage Change factors (%) for mean monthly reference evapotranspiration (ETo) for the selected UKCIP02 scenarios...................................... 24 Table 4-1: Yearly water abstraction from Borehole 1 with irrigation purposes for the baseline (1970-2006)........................................................................................... 26 Table 5-1: Summary of responses of the water shortage adaptation options survey.............................................................................................................................. 42
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Soil strata at Cambridge University Botanic Garden.................................... 5 Figure 1-2: General and detailed views of the weather station at Cambridge University Botanic Garden. .............................................................................................. 6 Figure 1-3: Mean monthly data for rainfall and reference evapotranspiration (1970-2006) (mm/month). ................................................................................................ 7 Figure 1-4: Cambridge University Botanic Garden map. The Systematic Beds Area is surrounded with a red circle. Water sources are also indicated. .......................... 8 Figure 3-1: Ranked maximum PSMD for the Cambridge University Botanic Garden (1970-2006) (mm/year)...................................................................................... 15 Figure 3-6: UKCIP02 50 km resolution cell size grids for the UK and for the study area. ....................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 4-1: Annual correlation (1970-2006) between PSMDmax (mm) and irrigation water abstraction (m3). .................................................................................... 27 Figure 4-2: WaSim annual theoretical irrigation needs (mm) for representative perennial species. ............................................................................................................ 28 Figure 4-3: WaSim annual theoretical irrigation needs (mm) for representative annual species. ................................................................................................................ 29 Figure 4-4: Comparison of mean monthly rainfall (mm/month) for Cambridge University Botanic Garden for the baseline and UKCIP02 scenarios. ........................... 30 Figure 4-5: Comparison of mean monthly reference evapotranspiration (ETo) (mm/month) for Cambridge Botanic Garden for the baseline and UKCIP02 scenarios.......................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 4-6: Comparison between ranked annual PSMDmax (mm) for the baseline and for the UKCIP02 scenarios. ....................................................................... 32 Figure 4-7: Comparison between ranked annual volumetric irrigation water use (m3) for the baseline (1970-2006) and for the UKCIP02 scenarios. ........................ 33 Figure 4-8: Comparison of irrigation needs (mm) for the selected plant species, for the baseline and for the UKCIP02 scenarios. .............................................. 34 Figure 4-9: Comparison of volumetric irrigation demand (m3) for the selected plant species, for an average bed size of 25.42 m2, for the baseline and for the UKCIP02 scenarios......................................................................................................... 35 Cranfield University Dario Lorenzo Diaz, 2007
vii Figure 4-10: Annual correlation (1970-2006) between WaSim irrigation depths (mm) and PSMDmax (mm) for Ligularia. .......................................................... 36 Figure 4-11: Annual correlation (1970-2006) between WaSim irrigation depths (mm) and PSMDmax (mm) for Marrow. ............................................................ 36 Figure 4-12: Annual correlation (1970-2006) between WaSim irrigation depths (mm) and PSMDmax (mm) for Tobacco. ........................................................... 37 Figure 4-13: Annual correlation (1970-2006) between WaSim irrigation depths (mm) and PSMDmax (mm) for Rhubarb. ........................................................... 37 Figure 5-1: Mulching techniques at Cambridge University Botanic Garden. ............... 43 Figure 5-2: Drought tolerant species at Cambridge University Botanic Garden. In the picture, rosemary, pine tree and lavender............................................................. 44 Figure 5-3: Rain-water harvesting structure and underground water storage tank.................................................................................................................................. 44 Figure 5-4: Traditional irrigation methods at the garden. Hose-reel to apply surface irrigation. ............................................................................................................ 44 Figure 5-5: Lake at the Rock Garden, the main leakage source. ................................... 45 Figure 5-6: Percentage (%) of licensed irrigation water volume abstracted for the baseline and for the UKCIP02 scenarios. ................................................................. 45
1 INTRODUCTION
The aim of this section is to set the context of the study, providing some general information to introduce the covered topic and allow the reader to get a better understanding of the issues developed in this thesis. Firstly a quick overview about climate change is provided, especially its implications and trends for the UK climate. Secondly, the importance of gardening in UK is highlighted. Then, the aim and objectives of the thesis are presented. Finally, the location and characteristics of the study site, the Cambridge University Botanic Garden, are introduced.
1.1 Climate change

Even though taking into account natural climatic variability, the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion is confident about the fact of global warming and climate change due to human activities (Houghton, 2004). Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in 1750, global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a consequence of human activities (IPCC, 2007a). That increase in green-house gases brings about warming of the earths temperature, leading to a change in global climate. This is currently supported by several evidences, which the IPCC (2001) develops under the form of different indicators (Table 1-1).
Table 1-1: IPCC Climate change evidence indicators.
Indicator Atmospheric concentration of CO2 Global mean surface temperature
Observed Changes 280 ppm for the period 1000-1750 to 368ppm in year 2000 Increased by 0.6+0.2C over the 20th century Became more frequent, persistent and intense during the last twenty to thirty years compared to the previous 100 years
El Nio events
Source: Adapted from IPCC (2001).
2 The table above displays observed changes attributable to human actions for different evidence indicators. An increment in atmospheric CO2 concentration of about 90ppm for the period 1750-2000 has been demonstrated by the IPCC. Also, anthropogenic activities have lead to an increase in temperature of approximately 0.6C during the 20th century. Besides, higher recurrence of extreme events such as El Nio evidences the effects of a changing climate.
Gathered climatic data concerning the UK confirms that the last decade has been the warmest in over 300 years, and 0.5C warmer than the average 1961-90 climate (MAFF, 2000). Bisgrove and Hadley (2002) affirm that, since the 18th century, while the frequency of hot days in the UK has doubled during the last decade respect to the long term average, in contrast, the number of cold days has fallen from 15-20 days per year to approximately 10 days per year. These are no other than evidences that climate change is a reality also in the UK. The prospects for future climate change in the UK sets that both temperature and precipitation patterns will vary across the country, with the greatest changes and greatest extremes occurring in the south east (Bisgrove and Hadley, 2002), including Cambridge, the location for this case study.
All these, above mentioned, variations in earths climate and likely future changes, not only present a serious threat to human society in general (HM Government, 2006), but more in particular to the water sector, bringing consequences and implications that will affect the future management of water resources. Climate change, among others, put pressure into water resources and become water scarcer, therefore reducing its availability for the different water users, including the gardening sector. Hence that a growing awareness of the reality of long term climate change has led to concern for the future of UK gardens (Bisgrove and Hadley, 2002).
1.2 Importance of gardens in UK

The UK has a remarkable history of gardens and gardening spanning a thousand years, ranging from rich heritage gardens to lively traditional domestic gardens (Bisgrove and Hadley, 2002). This is supported by the statement: England is a nation of gardeners, cited in more than one occasion by different authors (Bisgrove and National Trust., 1990; DEFRA, 2006). Moreover, gardens make a substantial contribution to the UK economy of about 300 million per year (Bisgrove and Hadley, 2002). This fact sheds light on gardening being not only an essential part of the UK cultural heritage and style of life, but also a direct contributor to the economy.
UK Historic gardens and traditional planting schemes are, among many other aspects of the historic environment, potentially at risk from climate change (English Heritage, 2006). Also, due to global warming, gardens are expected to play an increasingly important role since more access to outdoor natural spaces will be demanded in the future (London Climate Change Partnership, 2002; London Climate Change Partnership, 2005). In addition, botanic gardens in particular, will face even more elevated challenges due to climate change, such as securing plant species conservation or conveying important environmental messages (BGCI, 2006).
1.3 Need for further research

In the preceding section, not only has just been highlighted the great significance of gardening in the UK, but also its increasing importance under the threat of climate change. As a consequence of this, some general reports have been published to date relating climate change and gardening in the UK, of whom the most relevant is that by Bisgrove and Hadley, (2002), Gardening in the Global Greenhouse. However, in many studies concerning climate change (Bisgrove and Hadley, 2002; IPCC, 2007a), it is pointed out the need for regional analysis if the real scope of climate change impacts in a particular place is to be known. What is more, the magnitude of climatic changes to which a garden is likely to be subject will depend on its local setting and on the characteristics of the garden on itself (Bisgrove and Hadley, 2002). Also in Bisgrove and Hadley (2002), one of the points arranged in the future research agenda claims for further analysis of the potential demand for water in gardens on a regional basis in order Cranfield University Dario Lorenzo Diaz, 2007
4 to highlight future water management problems. In this context, a study concerning climate change in relation with water use on garden, carried out in a specific site like the Cambridge University Botanic Garden, would be covering, for a concrete location, the gap specified in the research agenda and, therefore, contributing to asses the real future impacts of climate change on UK gardens. This is precisely the objective of this thesis.
1.4 Aim and Objectives

1.4.1 General Aim
The principal aim of this thesis is to asses the impacts of climate change over water use, focusing on irrigation, on the Cambridge University Botanic Garden.
1.4.2 Specific Objectives

To establish a climate and irrigation water abstraction baseline for the Cambridge University Botanic Garden. To create a set of future climatic conditions for the Cambridge University Botanic Garden by using the UKCIP02 scenarios. To estimate the quantity of water needed for irrigation in the garden under future climate conditions. To asses the impacts of climate change on irrigation needs over different species displayed in the garden. To review the strategies in the garden to cope with water shortages and identify potential adaptation measures to deal with climate change in the Cambridge University Botanic Garden.
1.5 Case study: Cambridge University Botanic Garden

The site of the study, the Cambridge University Botanic Garden, is located in the city centre of Cambridge, in Eastern England. The garden spreads over a surface of 16 ha. Nevertheless, this study is focused on only the irrigated part of the garden, named the Systematic Beds Area, with an extension of 0.4 ha. In this region of the garden, more
5 than 80 families of plants are displayed in different beds, constituting a really heterogeneous area (Figure 1-4).
Since it was opened to the public in 1856, the Cambridge University Botanic Garden has grown several collections of trees, shrubs and herbs, both native from England and from other world habitats. Nowadays, its tree collection is regarded as the finest of all East of England (Cambridge University Botanic Garden, 2006). Other relevant data showing the high importance of the garden is its elevating number of visitors, rising about 100,000 every year. Furthermore, the garden is currently running a wide range of activities and events linked to local schools and associations. This makes the Cambridge University Botanic Garden not only a wonderful place for tourists, but also an essential meeting point for the local community.
1.5.1 Soil
By contrasting the Soil Survey and Land Research Centre map corresponding to the Cambridge area (Palmer, 1988) with a geological exploration carried out in the garden for drilling purposes in 1966, it is concluded that the soil in the Botanic Garden is a moderately loamy over clayey soil, with an Organic Carbon percentage between 2-4%. Drilling ground exploration shows that strata in the Cambridge Botanic Garden are allocated as following:
Surface
LOAM
3.7m
GAULT CLAY
43m
SAND
49m
Figure 1-1: Soil strata at Cambridge University Botanic Garden. Source: Adapted from Forbes (1967).
6 Gault Clay acts as an impervious layer, which limits severely root development beyond 3.7m. According to the Aquifer Classification type, the soil leaching class is low, which reveals that almost no percolation problems may take place in this site.
1.5.2 Climate
Cambridge University Botanic Garden has a weather station (Figure 1-2), where data has been collected and transmitted to the Met Office since 1904. Cambridge is in the driest region of Britain and its climate is more continental than most of the rest of the country (Cambridge University Botanic Garden, 2006). Climate data collected for the period 1970-2006 is presented in Table 1-2.
Figure 1-2: General and detailed views of the weather station at Cambridge University Botanic Garden. Table 1-2: Monthly averages for the Cambridge Botanic Garden weather station.
Month Tmax(C) Tmin(C) Wind(m/s) RH(%) SUN(h) Rain(mm) ETo(mm) Jan 7.2 1.3 3.3 88.5 1.8 46.1 12.9 Feb 7.5 1.0 3.3 86.9 2.7 33.9 17.9 Mar 10.3 2.6 4.2 81.3 3.4 40.3 38.9 Apr 13.1 4.1 4.0 74.9 4.9 41.8 61.1 May 17.0 7.0 4.5 71.5 6.1 44.1 90.8 Jun 20.1 9.9 4.3 73.0 6.2 49.3 99.6 Jul 22.6 12.1 4.2 74.9 6.1 44.2 107.4 Aug 22.7 11.9 3.9 75.3 6.0 50.1 93.7 Sep 19.5 9.9 4.3 79.5 4.8 51.2 62.1 Oct 15.3 7.0 4.2 85.0 3.7 54.3 34.4 Nov 10.5 3.7 3.4 87.8 2.3 55.2 15.0 Dec 7.9 2.0 3.1 89.1 1.6 47.9 10.4 558.4 644.1 Total
7 The previous table confirms that August is the warmest month, with an average maximum temperature of 22.7C. By the contrary, February is the coldest month with an average minimum temperature of 1.0C. Also, figures demonstrate that, while May is the windiest month, with an average wind speed of 4.5 m/s, June is the month accounting for more sunshine hours, with an average of 6.2 hours/day, and December is the most humid, with an average relative humidity of 89.1%. Data concerning precipitation and reference evapotranspiration are illustrated in Figure 1-3.
Rainfall 120 100 Reference Evapotranspiration (ETo)
mm/month
80 60 40 20 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Figure 1-3: Mean monthly data for rainfall and reference evapotranspiration (1970-2006) (mm/month).
Precipitation is evenly distributed throughout the year, being November the wettest month with 55.2 mm. The data shows that precipitation for the summer period (Jun, Jul and Aug) exceeds that for the winter season, in which February accounts for the lowest rainfall value with only 33.9 mm on average. Though, evapotranspiration rises notably during the summer months and then goes down considerably during the winter. This fact sheds light on the need for irrigating during the summer season (highlighted in red in Figure 1-3). Yearly average figures for the 37 year period are 558 mm/year for rainfall and 644 mm/year for reference evapotranspiration.
1.5.3 Water sources

There are four main water sources in the garden (Figure 1-4). The first is an open channel diverting water from the public supply at Hobsons Conduit, whose principal aim is topping up the lake in the Rock Garden area. The second are rain water harvesting structures. Collected rain water is stored in underground tanks and mostly used for general gardening purposes and yard cleaning. Thirdly is Borehole 2, currently abstracting only small amounts of water for specific tasks. Finally there is Borehole 1, from where water is withdrawn in large amounts for irrigation.
Rainwater Harvesting
Borehole 2
Borehole 1
Hobsons Conduit
Figure 1-4: Cambridge University Botanic Garden map. The Systematic Beds Area is surrounded with a red circle. Water sources are also indicated.
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter includes a review of the available literature, including an assessment of climate change impacts on water supplies and demand, plant responses to water stress, soils, water bodies and irrigation. In addition, the effects of CO2 over plant water use are also analyzed.
2.1 Water supplies and water demand

SDRT (2003) regional climate change modelling for East of England concludes that, within the next hundred years, temperature is likely to rise between 1 and 4.5C and overall precipitation is likely to decrease between 10 and 20%. Rising temperatures combined with less precipitation will suppose meeting higher evapotranspirative demands with a reducing amount of rainfall. This reduction in natural water supply, and therefore in the water available for the plant, can be expressed in terms of an increase in potential soil moisture deficit, which, particularly for the case of Cambridge will range between 61 and 112% (Downing et al., 2003).
Cambridge is not only experiencing significant population growth and urban development, but is likely to do so in the future (SDRT, 2003), which will put even more pressure on local water resources. The increase in water use will claim for a water demand management strategy in the area, probably provoking reductions in the supply and higher water prices (Bisgrove and Hadley, 2002).
Then, impacts on the local gardens will come as a result of both, directly a decrease in natural water supply and indirectly a reduction in water availability at the public supply system (Bisgrove and Hadley, 2002).These reductions in water consumption could bring as a consequence plant stress, whose effects are explained in the following section.
10
2.2 Plant responses to water stress

The most obvious effect of even water stress is growth reduction (Hsiao et al., 1976). In addition, due to plants show a marked capacity for acclimation to stress, water deficits can greatly modify plant development and morphology (Jones, 1992). These adaptations are described by Bisgrove and Hadley (2002): In the longer term (days, weeks, months), early flowering, compact plants with thicker leaves and resources orientated to root development. In the very long term (centuries, millennia), plants will develop adaptive mechanisms such as hairiness, waxiness, water storage tissues or specialized metabolisms. However, the effects of water stress are dependent on the extent of the water deficit and are dissimilar for the different plant species (Griffiths and Parry, 2002). The issues above mentioned will provoke changes in the ornamental value of the plants, therefore affecting the aesthetic composition of the garden.
2.3 Impacts on soils and water regime

Temperature, precipitation and atmospheric CO2 changes due to climate change will affect soil ecology and organic matter, in turn affecting soil structure and ultimately water regime and plant growth (MAFF, 2000). Hence that modification of soil properties by climate change is taken into account when assessing water use on garden.
The main effects of climate change on soils will be to accelerate loss of soil organic matter and to release nutrients in higher quantities (Bisgrove and Hadley, 2002). Decreasing amounts of organic matter provoke negative effects on the structural stability of the soil, reducing its water-holding capacity (Bisgrove and Hadley, 2002; IPCC, 2001). This, together with the facts of more concentrated precipitation patterns and increasing incidence of extreme events, will cause:
In well drained soils, more drainage water flowing through the water table and, consequently, groundwater pollution.
11 In heavy, poorly drained soils, more water-logging and surface run-off with associated flooding and erosion problems.
Therefore, special attention will be required in the management of the gardens soil in order to, firstly, keep an acceptable soil water retention level that support adequate plant growth, and, secondly, avoid water waste and environmental problems that may negatively affect the garden.
2.4 Impacts on water bodies

From the eighteen century, when English gardening shifted towards a more naturalistic approach, water features have played an increasingly important role in the landscape of the English garden (Paul and Rees, 1986). Bisgrove and Hadley, (2002) state that the main impact of climate change on all water bodies will be the fluctuation of water throughput. This will vary from falling water levels during the summer months due to high surface evaporation, to overflow in excess supply periods originated by the concentration of rainfall events. In addition, higher temperatures will make oxygen in the water less available, which together with higher nitrate concentrations due to accelerated soil breakdown, will provoke algal blooms and will increase the risk of eutrophication on water bodies (Bisgrove and Hadley, 2002). This will be a detriment to the gardens aesthetic qualities.
2.5 Impacts on irrigation

Changes in local weather, particularly in rainfall and evapotranspiration patterns, will affect the soil water balance and hence the irrigation needs (Downing et al., 2003). A study by Herrington (1996) shows that an increase in UK temperature by 1.1C, would bring a 35% increase in water use for lawn sprinkling. Furthermore, a specific study for Cambridge (Harte et al., 1995) demonstrated that a 3C rise in soil temperature would entail a 25% decrease in soil moisture, which consequently would enlarge irrigation needs. This is proved by Dll (2002), who confirms that the net irrigation requirement (mm/year) for South East England will switch from 77 (current baseline) to 129 in the 2020s scenario. However, irrigation to reduce the impact of water deficits will be Cranfield University Dario Lorenzo Diaz, 2007
12 subject both, to the availability of sufficient water resources, and to higher supply prices originated by an increasing water demand by the different sectors of the society (Bisgrove and Hadley, 2002).
2.6 CO2 impacts on plant water use

Sections above have shown how climate change may cause water stress and its effects. However, when including in the analysis the effect of rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, the picture changes significantly. Studies looking at the interaction of elevated CO2 concentrations and water stress showed that plants growing in elevated CO2 were able to withstand stress better and often showed a delay in the onset of stress (Allen et al., 1990). This is due to decreased stomatal conductance and transpiration in response to elevated CO2 concentrations, leading to an increase in water use efficiency (Eamus, 1991; Johnson et al., 2002). This means that for the same growth rate, water consumption by the plant would be smaller. However, Eamus (1991) concludes that substantially local and regional further studies are required before reliable predictions about the effects of CO2 can be made.
13
3 METHODOLOGY
In order to make a detailed assessment of such a complex phenomenon, different tools and methods of analysis must be carried out (Downing et al., 2003). In this study, a three stage methodology was developed.
Firstly, current volumetric irrigation water demand (m3) in the Cambridge University Botanic Garden was assessed on the basis of historical irrigation trends and climate patterns. For this purpose, the climate and irrigation water abstraction baselines were correlated using an agroclimatic indicator.
Secondly, irrigation needs (mm) were estimated using a computer model (WaSim) (Hess and Counsell, 2000) to calculate plant water requirements. However, irrigation needs were not calculated globally for the whole garden, but for four different plant species. This allows knowing how different plants will be affected by climate change in relation to water needs. The species chosen for this purpose are representative for those groups of plants that are most sensitive to water stress, and therefore which would need to be monitored more intensively under drier conditions under climate change. However, in order to cover the whole range of irrigated plants in the garden, species representing low water consumption plants were also modelled.
Finally, through using the selected agroclimatic indicator, comparison between the baseline and the future in terms of climate and water use, gives an estimation of future volumetric irrigation water demand (m3) and irrigation needs (mm) in the Botanic Garden. For this purpose, a set of future climatic conditions was modelled by applying four defined climate change scenarios to the historical climate data set.
In addition, once the effects of climate change over the Cambridge University Botanic Garden were recognized, a survey was carried out with the intention of identifying possible adaptation options in terms of improving water use efficiency. Also, an Cranfield University Dario Lorenzo Diaz, 2007
14 assessment contrasting actual volumetric water use with licensed water volumes was completed so as to identify potential future changes in the quantity of water allowed for abstraction.
3.1 Current volumetric water demand correlated against PSMD

If future water demand is to be calculated on the basis of historical climate and irrigation patterns, a baseline representing the present conditions must be defined. Baseline data are then used as a reference when predicting future conditions and when establishing comparisons.
A climate baseline for the study site was created by gathering meteorological data from the BADC service for the period 1970-2006. The main body of the data comes from the Cambridge Botanic Garden weather station. The rest of the data were collected from the Cambridge NIAB weather station, also considered as representative since it is located within Cambridge city. Reference evapotranspiration was calculated with WaSim-ET (Hess and Counsell, 2000) using the Penman-Monteith equation1 using the parameters wind speed, relative humidity, sunshine hours and temperature.
Table 3-1: Weather stations coordinates.
Weather Station Cambridge Botanic Garden Cambridge NIAB
Longitude (decimal degrees) 52.193 52.225
Latitude (decimal degrees) 0.132 0.103
Most studies involved in assessing climate change impacts in relation with future water demand require the computation of a water balance (Knox et al., 2005). In order to do so, the agroclimatic indicator PSMD was used. This parameter was selected because it requires input data relating to rainfall and reference evapotranspiration, variables which
See FAO 56 for the Penman-Monteith method to calculate reference evapotranspiration.
15 together are able to generate a simple water balance. The PSMD was calculated monthly according to the following method suggested by Knox et al. (2005):
PSMDi = PSMD i-1 + ETi Pi Where PSMDi potential soil moisture deficit in month i, mm
The PSMD in the Cambridge University Botanic Garden for the period 1970-2006 is illustrated in Figure 3-1.
600 500 PSMD (mm) 400
LTA
300 200 100 0
87 88 00 82 81 85 99 86 93 01 83 05 92 84 98 77 79 91 74 78 04 97 71 02 73 80 72 75 06 70 94 89 96 95 03 76 90
Ranked Years
Figure 3-1: Ranked maximum PSMD for the Cambridge University Botanic Garden (19702006) (mm/year).
The long term average (LTA) PSMD was 263mm, which corresponds to the year 1997. The driest year of the baseline was 1990, showing a PSMD close to 500 mm. By the contrary, the years 1987and 1988 were particularly wet. This is reflected by their low PSMD values (88 mm and 139 mm respectively).
Then, the PSMD was correlated against the volumetric irrigation water demand for the period 1970-2006. Volumetric irrigation water demand baseline was produced from collecting water use records displayed in the Abstraction Licence corresponding to the main borehole at the Cambridge University Botanic Garden, principally used for irrigation purposes. This Cranfield University Dario Lorenzo Diaz, 2007
16 was corroborated when reading through the boreholes water abstraction contract, where spray irrigation is displayed as the main authorized purpose of the licence. Once collected the data, irrigation water abstractions were ranked yearly in order to show the years with higher water consumptions. To do so, water use for each particular year was derived from the monthly records written down in Boreholes 1 Abstraction Licence.
3.2 WaSim modelling irrigation needs

WaSim software is a one-dimensional model developed by Cranfield University which simulates changes in soil water content in response to weather and water management (Hess, 2000). Relevant parameters used in the model concerning soil water content, and therefore irrigation needs, are easily available water capacity (EAWC) and soil water deficit (SWD). The equations used by the software to calculate these parameters are displayed below:
EAWC = TAWC * p Where EAWC p TAWC easily available water capacity of root zone, mm fraction of total available water that is easily available, dimensionless total available water capacity of root zone, mm
TAWC = (FC PWP) * ri* 1000 Where FC PWP ri volume water fraction at field capacity, dimensionless volume water fraction at permanent wilting point, dimensionless root zone at day i, m
17 SWD = (FC ) * r * 1000 Where SWD r FC soil water deficit of root zone, mm root depth, m volume water fraction at field capacity, dimensionless volume water fraction of root zone, dimensionless
Other important assumptions utilized when running WaSim were the following: The initial water content in the unsaturated zone is field capacity. The model was run with the water-table and salinity options off. No capillary rise was assumed to be taking place.
In order to run the model, input data on soil, crop and weather are required. Input data for the Cambridge University Botanic Garden is explained below.
3.2.1 Soil input data

According to the map from the Soil Survey and Land Research Centre for South Cambridgeshire (Palmer, 1988), the soil in the Botanic Garden is classified as Loam over clay. Due to WaSim is a two layered model (topsoil and subsoil) (Knox et al., 1997), a first intuitive approach would consider appropriate to represent both layers by choosing a Clay Loam soil type. However, WaSim model works between an upper boundary represented by the soil and the impermeable layer acting as lower boundary (Hess et al., 2000). For this reason, taking into account that Gault Clay forms an impervious layer in the gardens soil profile, a Loamy soil type with a depth profile of 3.7 m was the most suitable for the existing conditions. In addition, since the soil in the Cambridge University Botanic Garden is receiving constant maintenance and improvements, it should be better represented by choosing a soil with a higher value of water holding capacity. Soil characteristics used in WaSim are summarized in Table 3-2. Cranfield University Dario Lorenzo Diaz, 2007
18
Table 3-2: Summary of soil characteristics used for modelling the water balance.
Hydraulic Soil Type Saturation (%) FC (%) PWP (%) AWC(mm/m) Conductivity (m/d) Loam 46.3 27.9 11.7 162 1.0
3.2.2 Crop input data

Calculation of irrigation requirements using WaSim covered four different groups of plants from the Systematic Beds area in the Cambridge University Botanic Garden. Two criteria were set in order to form the groups. The first was to select mainly species with medium or high water needs. This is because plants with elevated water requirements are consuming the most water within the garden and because precisely these ones will be the most affected under future water scarcity conditions. However, as pointed out earlier, a low water use plant was also modelled so as to complete the analysis. The second criterion was making a difference between annual and perennial species. This standard was picked because, since annual and perennials do not remain the same time on the field, their water consumption is dissimilar.
Finally, four species were selected as representative for the different groups of irrigated plants (Table 3-3). Selection of suitable model plants was made relying on local knowledge from the gardens staff and supported by a review of general literature (FAO, 2007; Sanders, 1997).
Table 3-3: Selected representative species to calculate irrigation needs using WaSim.
Plant Species Ligularia (Ligularia japonica) Rhubarb (Rheum palmatum) Marrow (Cucurbita pepo) Tobacco (Nicotiana rustica)
Representative group Perennials with high water requirements Perennials with low water requirements Annuals with high water requirements Annuals with medium water requirements
19 Pictures of the selected model plants are shown below:
Figure 3-5: Nicotiana rustica at the Cambridge University Botanic Garden. Figure 3-4: Ligularia japonica at the Cambridge University Botanic Garden.
Figure 3-3: Cucurbita pepo at the Cambridge University Botanic Garden.
Figure 3-2: Rheum palmatum at the Cambridge University Botanic Garden.
20 For each plant, the characteristics used to run WaSim are summarized in Table 3-4.
Table 3-4: Crop characteristics for each plant species used in the WaSim model.
Crop Characteristics Planting date Emergence date 20% cover date Full cover date Maturity date Harvest date Maximum root depth date Crop cycle duration (days) Maximum crop cover (%) Crop coefficient at full cover (Kc) Planting depth (m) Maximum root depth (m) p-fraction (%)
2
Ligularia 1 Mar 15 Mar 30 Mar 19 May 7 Aug 15 Nov 19 May 260 100 1.0 0.1 1.5 0.45
Rhubarb 1 Mar 15 Mar 30 Mar 19 May 7 Aug 15 Nov 19 May 260 100 1.0 0.1 1.5 0.45
Marrow 1 May 15 May 30 May 15 Jul 15 Jul 1 Sep 15 Jul 124 100 1.0 0.1 0.8 0.5
Tobacco 15 May 29 May 13 Jun 2 Aug 2 Aug 1 Sep 2 Aug 110 100 1.15 0.1 0.8 0.6
Values for crop parameters were taken from a review of literature. Plant dates, lengths of crop development stages, depletion fractions and crop coefficients have been extracted from FAO 56 (Allen et al., 1998) and Vegetable Crop Irrigation (Sanders, 1997). Rooting depth was taken from Root Development of Vegetable Crops (Weaver
Even though Ligularia and Rhubarb are perennial species; planting dates have been used in their
modelling. This is because both Rhubarb and Ligularia, after following a growth season their crowns become dormant and is not till next spring, once bud break have been stimulate, that subsequent vegetative growth happens. Therefore, to monitor these plants in terms of water consumption, it is regarded as most sensitive to consider only the growth season, which is actually the period when these plants demand water.
21 and Bruner, 1927). Values for ornamental specimens could not be found in general literature, so they were obtained by comparison with agricultural crops with similar characteristics. This was the case of ligularia, compared to the perennial vegetable artichoke.
3.2.3 Irrigation scheduling input data

Irrigation scheduling and irrigation periods used in WaSim to calculate irrigation needs for the model plant species are shown in Table 3-5.
Table 3-5: Irrigation scheduling input data for each plant entered in WaSim model.
Plant
Irrigation period
Irrigation scheduling: Irrigate at fixed depletion (%AWC) Return to fixed deficit (%AWC)
Ligularia Rhubarb Marrow Tobacco
1 Mar-15 Nov 1 Mar-15 Nov 1 May1 Sep 15 May1 Sep
30% 80% 30% 60%
5% 5% 5% 5%
Guidelines for irrigation scheduling of the different species was taken from general literature (FAO, 2007; Sanders, 1997). Irrigation was scheduled returning the soil to a fixed deficit of 5% to allow possible contributions from rainfall.
3.2.4 Weather input data

WaSim runs on daily basis using rainfall and reference evapotranspiration data (Hess and Counsell, 2000). Therefore, daily data corresponding to the Cambridge Botanic Garden and Cambridge NIAB weather stations for the period 1970-2006 were used to calculate baseline irrigation requirements. Simulations up to 30 years duration can be undertaken using WaSim (Hess and Counsell, 2000). Then, the 37 years data set (19702006) was split into two and the model was run twice for each simulation.
22
3.3 Future irrigation water demand modelling

In order to generate future climatic conditions, the UKCIP02 scenarios were used (Hulme et al., 2002). These scenarios, the latest version prepared for the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, represent future climatic projections for three thirty-year time slices 2020s (2011-2040), 2050s (2041-2070) and 2080s (2071-2100) and four equally possible scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions (Low, Medium-Low, MediumHigh and High). The characteristics for the different UKCIP02 scenarios are summarized in Table 3-6.
Table 3-6: Socio-economic, temperature (C) and CO2 concentration (ppm) changes for the 2080s time slice for the different UKCIP02 scenarios.
UKCIP02 Emissions climate change scenarios scenarios
Increase in Storyline description
global temperature concentration (ppm) (C)
Atmospheric CO2
B1
Low
B2
Medium-Low
A2
Medium-High
A1
High
Local solutions to sustainability, increasing population at low rates, slow technological change Global solutions to sustainability, population peaks midcentury, clean and efficient technologies Economic growth on regional scales, increasing population, preservation of local identities Very rapid economic growth, population peaks mid-century, market mechanisms dominate
2.0
525
2.3
562
3.3
715
3.9
810
Source: Adapted from Hulme et al., 2002.
23
These predicted changes on climate are reported across the UK in 50 km resolution cell size grids (UK Climate Impacts Programme, 2007). Since the alternative scenarios result from uncertain future conditions (UK Climate Impacts Programme, 2007), the wider the range of scenarios chosen, the more robust and reliable the results obtained. However, for this study, in order to simplify the analysis only the scenarios deriving higher contrasts were considered. Therefore only the Low and High scenarios were modelled. Furthermore, only the 2050s and 2080s time slices were used in order to come out with more marked figures, which provide more significant results.
It was determined that the UKCIP02 grid corresponding to Cambridge University Botanic Garden was number 376 (Figure 3-6).
Figure 3-6: UKCIP02 50 km resolution cell size grids for the UK and for the study area.
24 For the selected grid, it were extracted from the UKCIP02 dataset archive a 50km resolution modelled baseline (1961-1990) and its correspondent 50km resolution future climate change scenarios for the 2050s and 2080s. Then, by comparing future climate with baseline data the percentage changes were calculated (Table 3-7 and Table 3-8). Finally, by applying these change factors into the observed climate baseline (19702006), a set of future climatic conditions was derived for the Cambridge University Botanic Garden.
Table 3-7: Percentage Changes (%) expressed as a proportion of the baseline, for mean monthly rainfall for the selected UKCIP02 scenarios.
Baseline (mm) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 46.1 33.9 40.3 41.8 44.1 49.3 44.2 50.1 51.2 54.3 55.2 47.9
2050L
10 8 4 -2 -7 -14 -18 -18 -13 -6 2 8
2050H
25 21 10 -4 -18 -33 -51 -58 -40 -15 4 18
2080L
14 11 5 -2 -11 -19 -26 -26 -19 -9 2 11
2080H
28 22 10 -4 -21 -38 -51 -50 -36 -17 4 22
Table 3-8: Percentage Changes (%) expressed as a proportion of the baseline, for mean monthly reference evapotranspiration (ETo) for the selected UKCIP02 scenarios.
Baseline (mm) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 12.9 17.9 38.9 61.1 90.8 99.6 107.4 93.7 62.1 34.4 15.0 10.4
2050L
38 24 16 13 14 16 18 14 9 8 17 34
2050H
60 40 26 21 23 27 29 21 9 10 29 56
2080L
53 35 23 19 20 24 26 19 9 10 25 50
2080H
106 72 49 39 42 50 51 29 -7 2 53 102
25
3.3.1 Future volumetric irrigation water demand (m3)

The first step to calculate future irritation water demand was to work out the design dry year PSMD for the selected UKCIP02 scenarios. The concept dry year is introduced in the following paragraph. UK summer weather unpredictability provokes marked variations on irrigation demand between years. It is not economically feasible to design for the extreme dry year or for the average one. As an alternative, irrigation capacity is designed for a designed dry year, which is this year whose supply is sufficient to meet the demand with 80% probability of exceedance or the demand of 4 out of 5 years (Downing et al., 2003). In this study, the dry year has been set according to a raking (Hess, 2001) to calculate effective rainfall, but applied for the parameter PSMDmax. Following this, annual maximum PSMD data were ranked and annual PSMD with the rank n x 80% was selected, where n is the number of years of data available, in this case 37. Then, using the correlation graph for PSMDmax and irrigation water abstraction, future volumetric irrigation water demands (m3) were estimated for the design dry year.
3.3.2 Future irrigation needs (mm)

Climate change impacts on water depths applied over the selected model plant species were estimated using WaSim. Future irrigation needs (mm) were calculated using daily climate input data corresponding to the different UKCIP02 scenarios and for the different time slices. Soil and plant characteristics remained the same as for calculating baseline irrigation needs. Furthermore, irrigation needs for the studied plant species were also calculated in volumetric terms (m3). For this purpose, irrigation depths (mm) from WaSim were multiplied by the average plant bed size of the studied area. VIN = IN * Abed / 1000 Where VIN IN Volumetric Irrigation Demand, m3 Irrigation Depth, mm
Abed Average plant bed area, m2
26
4 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

In this chapter the results obtained are presented and analyzed. The structure followed in this section corresponds to the three main work areas of the study: assessing current volumetric irrigation water demand, assessing current irrigation needs for the selected plant species and calculating future irrigation requirements through modelling future climatic conditions.
4.1 Historical pattern of irrigation water demand (m3)

Historical pattern of irrigation water demand shows how much water was withdrawn each year for irrigation purposes from Borehole 1 at Cambridge University Botanic Garden (Table 4-1).
Table 4-1: Yearly water abstraction from Borehole 1 with irrigation purposes for the baseline (1970-2006).
Year 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
Irrigation abstraction(m3) 4845 3116 4626 2957 1991 3721 6598 1078 1073 1514 1477 1113 2000 1445 1521 1092 361 989 1084
Year 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Average
Irrigation abstraction (m3) 3675 7575 2522 3310 2175 5560 10301 12554 9379 4485 3438 3730 1846 4888 8956 6646 7804 4164 3935
27 The historical data shows an enormous variation in water abstractions between the different years, ranging from 361 m3 abstracted in 1986 to 12554 m3 in 1996. The average quantity of water withdrawn from Borehole 1 is 3935m3. Weather variability is the main source of variability in water use between years, but not the only one. Other possible factors affecting the quantity of water withdrawn from Borehole 1 are outlined next in this section.
To calculate future volumetric irrigation water demand on the basis of historical climate and irrigation patterns, the parameters irrigation water use and PSMD were correlated, proving certain relation (Figure 4-1).
14000 Annual water abstraction (m3) 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Annual PSMDm ax (mm) y = 22.391x - 1958.9 R2 = 0.5071
Figure 4-1: Annual correlation (1970-2006) between PSMDmax (mm) and irrigation water abstraction (m3).
The relation between irrigation water abstraction and PSMD displays a logical trend, showing higher water use for the years with higher PSMD. However, it is demonstrated that years with peak PSMD are not necessarily the ones consuming the more water, or that in years with medium or low PSMD values, excessive quantities of water are abstracted. In order to validate the PSMD as a suitable indicator to predict future irrigation requirements, reasons for these inaccuracies were pursued through interviewing the gardens staff. Results from the investigation showed that, contrary to that assumed in this study, not all the water coming from Borehole 1 was being used for its licensed purpose, spray irrigation. Depending on concrete conditions for specific Cranfield University Dario Lorenzo Diaz, 2007
28 moments during the baseline period, and without responding to a fixed pattern, in some of the years water abstracted from the borehole was also utilized for domestic use, gardening purposes or to top up the gardens lake suffering from leakage. In addition, it was discovered that during some years, presumably 1996 and 1997, the other main source of water for the garden, the Hobsons Conduit, was cut off due to road works in Cambridge City. Replacement of this water source was solved through additional abstraction from Borehole 1, which explains the apparently unreasonable high water use for these two years in relation with its PSMD (these years are highlighted in red). All these reasons justify a correlation which is not excessively strong R2=0.5071 and suggest that results obtained express water use values higher than those which should have been obtained by analyzing exclusively irrigation water use. Going further, taking into account all these non-licensed water uses in the analysis is a way of including possible future unexpected events in the Botanic Gardens water balance, providing more real and robust results.
4.2 Assessing current irrigation needs (mm)

Baseline theoretical irrigation requirements for reference plants were calculated using WaSim (Hess and Counsell, 2000). Output from the model is shown in Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3.
Ligularia 400 350 Irrigation Depth (mm) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06
Rhubarb
Figure 4-2: WaSim annual theoretical irrigation needs (mm) for representative perennial species.
29 According to WaSim output data, the species ligularia japonica, which represents perennial plants with high watering needs, requires to be irrigated every year during the baseline period 1970-2006. On the contrary, rhubarb, which represents perennial plants with low irrigation requirements, only needs to be irrigated in the driest years. Long term average theoretical irrigation requirements are 206 mm/year and 68 mm/year for ligularia and rhubarb respectively.
Tobacco 300 Irrigation Depth (m m ) 250 200 150 100 50 0
Marrow
Figure 4-3: WaSim annual theoretical irrigation needs (mm) for representative annual species.
The theoretical LTA irrigation needs for marrow, which represents annuals with high irrigation requirements, is 115 mm/year. For tobacco, identified with medium water consumption annuals, the LTA irrigation need is 87 mm/year. As expected, tobacco was proved to be more resistant to water stress than marrow. Furthermore, output data from the model shows that, while the marrow should have been irrigated every year during the period 1970-2006, tobacco did not require irrigation in the wettest years.
70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06
30
4.3 Future irrigation water requirements

Future climatic conditions for the Cambridge University Botanic Garden were estimated by applying the corresponding climate change factors to the observed climate baseline. Rainfall and ETo, for the 2050s and 2080s time slices and for the Low and High UKCIP02 scenarios, are illustrated in Figure 4-4 and Figure 4-5.
70 Mean monthly rainfall (mm) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May 2050L Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Baseline
2050H
2080L
2080H
Figure 4-4: Comparison of mean monthly rainfall (mm/month) for Cambridge University Botanic Garden for the baseline and UKCIP02 scenarios.
Comparison between baseline and UKCIP02 scenarios shows that rainfall decreases from April to October, and increases from November to March. Annually, a total reduction in rainfall takes place as a consequence of climate change, since the decrease in rainfall for the summer months is higher than the increase for the winter months. The most significant changes happen for the High scenario, during the months of January and August. It is also worthy to point out that, contrary as expected, summer rainfall at some points is higher for the 2080-High scenario than for the 2050-High. Although this fact does not look reasonable, it is supported by the Hadley Centre (2005), which demonstrates that rainfall in South-East England for the 2080Med-High scenarios may not necessarily decrease. This is because when doing regional or local climate change assessments, like in this case, and especially for the longest term scenarios, the uncertainty is even bigger (Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, 2005).
31
180 Mean monthly ETo (mm) 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 2050L Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2080H
Baseline
2050H
2080L
Figure 4-5: Comparison of mean monthly reference evapotranspiration (ETo) (mm/month) for Cambridge Botanic Garden for the baseline and UKCIP02 scenarios.
As a consequence of climate change, evapotranspiration is predicted to rise throughout all months of the year. Higher ETo increments occur during the summer season, being July the peak month with an increment of almost 60% for the 2080s High scenario. On the one hand, higher evapotranspiration and less rain during the summer season suggest an increase in the net irrigation demand. On the other hand, wetter winters offer greater extent for conservation of winter rainfall, through rainwater harvesting structures or winter storage reservoirs (Downing et al., 2003).
32
4.3.1 Future irrigation water abstraction (m3)

In this section, predicted future changes in PSMD are compared with the historical records for the Cambridge University Botanic Garden (Figure 4-6).
700 600 PSMD (mm) 500 400 300 200 100 0

87 88 00 82 81 85 99 86 93 01 83 05 92 84 98 77 79 91 74 78 04 97 71 02 73 80 72 75 06 70 94 89 96 95 03 20 76 20 50L 80 L 20 90 5 20 0H 80 H
80% Dry year
Ranked Years
Figure 4-6: Comparison between ranked annual PSMDmax (mm) for the baseline and for the UKCIP02 scenarios.
The design dry year PSMD is 337 mm, which corresponds to the year 1970. Estimated dry year PSMD for the 2050-Low (449 mm) and 2080-Low (490 mm) scenarios correspond roughly to the years 1976 and 1990 respectively. For the 2050-High and 2080-High scenarios, dry year PSMD projections are, in that order, 539 and 620 mm, which exceed the PSMD even for 1990, the driest year in the 37 year baseline. Therefore, as a consequence of climate change, recent dry conditions such as those in 1976 or 1990, and even drier ones, will become more common in the future (2050s and 2080s).
PSMD and water use for irrigation were linked by using baseline figures as input data. Once correlated both parameters (correlation details were presented in section 4.1), volumetric irrigation water demand for the future UKCIP02 scenarios was estimated. Irrigation water abstraction is presented in Figure 4-7.
33
14000 12000 Water Use (m3) 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0
86 87 78 77 88 85 81 83 80 79 84 01 74 82 93 91 73 71 92 99 89 75 00 06 98 72 70 02 94 76 04 90 20 05 50 L 20 03 80 L 20 97 50 H 20 95 80 H 96
80% Dry year
Ranked Years
Figure 4-7: Comparison between ranked annual volumetric irrigation water use (m3) for the baseline (1970-2006) and for the UKCIP02 scenarios.
For the present design dry year at Cambridge University Botanic Garden, 1970, irrigation water abstraction account for 4845 m3. For future design dry years, irrigation water demand for the 2050s time slice are 8000 m3 and 10110 m3 respectively for the Low and High scenarios, matching approximately with the irrigation water abstraction of the years 2005 and 1995. As expected, for the 2080s the design dry year irrigation demand is higher, reaching 9017 m3 for the Low scenario, which roughly equates to the year 2003, and 11923 m3 for the High, which is slightly lower than water use in 1996 (the highest water consumption year). Therefore, elevated volumetric irrigation water abstractions, such as the ones experienced in highly water consumption years (1995, 1996), will be more typical in forthcoming years as a consequence of climate change.
34
4.3.2 Future irrigation needs (mm)

In this section, future irrigation needs (mm) are estimated. For each plant species, the dry year irrigation needs, for the baseline and for the UKCIP02 scenarios are illustrated in Figure 4-8.
LTA 500 450 Irrigation Needs (mm) 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Ligualria Rhubarb Marrow Tobacco Baseline DY(Dry Year) 2050L(DY) 2050H(DY) 2080L(DY) 2080H(DY)
Figure 4-8: Comparison of irrigation needs (mm) for the selected plant species, for the baseline and for the UKCIP02 scenarios.
Figures show that the present design dry year irrigation needs are 266 mm/year for ligularia, 124 mm/year for rhubarb, 157 mm/year for marrow and 126 mm/year for tobacco. This suggests that, at present conditions, plant water use in the Botanic Garden is ranked as following: High IN Perennials > High IN Annuals > Medium IN Annuals > Low IN perennials However, the picture changes concerning future scenarios. Analyzing the most extreme case, the 2080-High scenario, design dry year irrigation needs are 497 mm /year for ligularia, 348 mm /year for rhubarb, 317 mm /year for marrow and 269 mm /year for tobacco. This suggests that, in the future (2050s, 2080s), plant water use in the Botanic Garden will be ranked as following: High IN Perennials > Low IN Perennials > High IN Annuals > Medium IN Annuals WaSim estimations confirm that climate change will increase irrigation requirements for the four plant species studied by 33-176%, depending on the climate change scenarios and time slices. Cranfield University Dario Lorenzo Diaz, 2007
35 These results explain, firstly, that future conditions will involve increasing irrigation needs and, secondly, that climate change will have greater impact on irrigation needs over perennial species than over annuals. Reasons for this are further explained next in this section.
In addition, volumetric irrigation demand (m3) was worked out for the selected model plants assuming an irrigated area of 25.42 m2, corresponding to the average bed size of the Systematic Beds Area. For each plant species, the dry year volumetric irrigation demand for the baseline and for the UKCIP02 scenarios is illustrated in Figure 4-9.
LTA Volumetric Irrigation Demand (m3) 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0
Baseline DY(Dry Year)
2050L(DY)
2050H(DY)
2080L(DY)
2080H(DY)
Ligualria
Rhubarb
Marrow
Tobacco
Figure 4-9: Comparison of volumetric irrigation demand (m3) for the selected plant species, for an average bed size of 25.42 m2, for the baseline and for the UKCIP02 scenarios.
The picture above shows the amount of water required for 25.42 m2 of land planted with each one of the different model pants for the different scenarios. Then, for the 2080High scenario, the average bed size planted with ligularia will require 12.64 m3 for the design dry year. The same bed will require 8.05 m3/year of irrigation if planted with marrow, 8.85 m3/year if planted with rhubarb and 6.83 m3/year if cropped with tobacco (again design dry year). In order to validate future water needs modelling, irrigation output data from WaSim were correlated with the agroclimatic indicator PSMD for the baseline period. Cranfield University Dario Lorenzo Diaz, 2007
36 Correlation for the different model species are illustrated in Figure 4-10, Figure 4-11, Figure 4-12 and Figure 4-13.
L.Japonica
450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 100 200 300 PSMD (mm) 400 500 600 y = 0.8148x - 8.1875 R2 = 0.8732
Figure 4-10: Annual correlation (1970-2006) between WaSim irrigation depths (mm) and PSMDmax (mm) for Ligularia.
Irrigation Needs (mm)
Marrow
300 Irrigation Needs (mm) 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 100 200 300 PSMD (mm) 400
y = 0.5649x - 33.668 R2 = 0.7508
500
600
Figure 4-11: Annual correlation (1970-2006) between WaSim irrigation depths (mm) and PSMDmax (mm) for Marrow.
37
Tobacco
300 Irrigation Needs (mm) 250 200 150 100 50 0 -50 0 100 200 300 PSMD (mm) 400
y = 0.5094x - 47.347 R2 = 0.6919
500
600
Figure 4-12: Annual correlation (1970-2006) between WaSim irrigation depths (mm) and PSMDmax (mm) for Tobacco.
Rhubarb
300 Irrigation Needs (mm) 250 200 150 100 50 0 -50 0 -100 PSMD (mm) 100 200 300 400
y = 0.7844x - 138.07 R2 = 0.6285
500
600
Figure 4-13: Annual correlation (1970-2006) between WaSim irrigation depths (mm) and PSMDmax (mm) for Rhubarb.
The graphs prove a clear relationship between irrigation depths and PSMD, demonstrating that the higher the deficit of water in the soil, the higher the irrigation needs. Correlation values displayed in the graphs are ranked as following: Ligularia (R2=0.8732) > Marrow (0.7508) > Tobacco (0.6919) > Rhubarb (0.6285) Species showing higher correlations are those whose water use is more sensitive to weather variations, and therefore that might be more affected by changing conditions Cranfield University Dario Lorenzo Diaz, 2007
38 under climate change. Then, for example, future irrigation requirements should increase more for marrow than for rhubarb, which is proved to be more insensitive to water stress (as it is evidenced by the linear trend of the scatter showed in Figure 4-13). However, this statement was proved to be false (see Figure 4-8), since in the majority of the future scenarios contemplated the rhubarb consumes more water than the marrow. Apparent source of error arises from the relationship showed on these graphs, only representing current conditions, but not capable to predict future changes. Indeed, the key issue is that peak PSMD does not take place when annual plants are over the field, but it does when the perennials are. Since the most significant changes as a consequence of climate change are those happening for the peak PSMD, perennial species, such as the rhubarb, will subsequently be more affected in terms of irrigation needs than annual ones, such as the marrow. Therefore, when considering the scope of climate change over different plants in terms of water use, not only its sensitivity to climate and water must be assessed, but also its annual or perennial nature.
39
5 DISCUSSION
In this section, the key assumptions for this study case and the main uncertainties surrounding climate change modelling are explained, giving way to carry out a further analysis of the results. Also, possible solutions to cope with water shortages are assessed through the adaptation options survey and a contrast of licensed water use against actual water use.
5.1 Climate change uncertainties

The basic physics of climate change is well-understood and not controversial (Heal and Kristrm, 2002). However, there are many sources of uncertainty regarding climate change science. The UKCIP02 scenarios are alternative descriptions about future trends and behaviour in terms of population growth, socio-economic development and technological progress, and how these might influence future global emissions of greenhouse gases (UK Climate Impacts Programme, 2007). Since all these factors depend on human behaviour, impossible to forecast, results coming from climate change studies must not be presented as exact future predictions, but just as estimations. Furthermore, there are other sources of uncertainty arising from not resolved issues at the scientific level, such as the behaviour of terrestrial and ocean carbon sinks at higher temperatures and CO2 concentrations (Heal and Kristrm, 2002).
In addition to all the issues above related, for this study only the 2050s and 2080s Low and High scenarios were contemplated, which means that other equally possible scenarios, such as the Medium-Low and the Medium-High, remain unstudied. This leaves some possible future projections without being covered, narrowing the scope of the analysis.
Moreover, extreme weather events will become more frequent, more widespread and/or more intense during the 21st century (IPCC, 2007b). Projected likely changes in extreme climate phenomena are higher maximum temperatures, more hot days and heat waves, fewer cold and frost days, more intense precipitation events and intensified droughts
40 and floods (IPCC, 2001, IPCC, 2007b). Since the scope of these changes can not be accurately predicted yet, they constitute another source of uncertainty when modelling future climate.
5.2 Modelling limitations

There also a number of assumptions in the WaSim modelling that need to be recognized.
The supposition that sets the water content in the unsaturated zone to field capacity at planting date can be validated due to the predominant humid weather conditions in the UK. Additionally, running WaSim without taking into account any salinity issues was also a correct assumption since no salinity problems are identified by the Soil Survey and Land Research Centre for the Cambridgeshire area (Palmer, 1988). Finally, other model assumptions, such as not considering capillary rise or assuming zero runoff from rainfall, are considered reasonable for most irrigated crops in dry summers in the UK (Knox et al., 1997).
It was also assumed that rooting depths vary during the growing season and that the irrigation scheduling used in the garden for the period 1970-2006 was steady. These two assumptions are sources of error because rooting depth for perennial plant species does not change along the growing season and because the irrigation schedule in the garden is likely to have changed along the period 1970-2006. Of the parameters used in the modelling, irrigation scheduling appears to be the most critical (Knox et al., 1997).
5.2.1 Water sources validation

Even accounting the Cambridge University Botanic Garden for four different water supplies, Borehole 1 was clearly the most sensible choice for this investigation. This is mainly because Borehole 1 is, as specified on its water abstraction licence, used for irrigation. However, it would have been more comprehensive to take into account the rest of water sources since they can contribute to the water balance of the garden, Cranfield University Dario Lorenzo Diaz, 2007
41 affecting indirectly the quantity of water destined to irrigation. The principal reason why this could not be done was lack of records from these water supplies. Apart from this, a study watching at all the water purposes and water sources in the garden would have been out of the scope of this analysis.
5.2.2 Crop modelling limitations

The four model species picked in representation of the Systematic Beds Area (ligularia, rhubarb, marrow and tobacco), were selected according to their annual or perennial nature and differentiating between water consumption levels. Therefore, certain logical criteria were assumed when selecting these species. Besides, apart from reviewing general literature (FAO, 2007; Sanders, 1997), local knowledge was taken into account when trying to identify the most appropriate plant species. However, it is barely possible to get a perfect representation of such a huge number of species displayed in the Systematic Beds Area (80 different families accounting for around 10-15 species each) , which does not guarantee that the standard plants selected for modelling are completely representative for the study site.
5.2.3 Overall limitations of the approach

When carrying out this study, it was assumed that future weather variations are only happening as a consequence of climate change. Though, decisive factors such as the inter-annual and the multi-decadal variability are not taken into account. These other drivers that may influence future weather trends, exacerbating or ameliorating the impacts of climate change, should be contemplated for a more exhaustive analysis. Effects derived from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 are also ignored. By assuming this, some potential implications affecting plant growth rates, and thus irrigation needs, are being overlooked. Future plant adaptations, such as an increase in water use efficiency through a decrease in bulk stomatal conductance, are as well neglected, constituting another limitation of this analysis. Neither possible future changes in planting dates are contemplated when modelling future irrigation requirements.
42 Additionally, climate change impacts on soils are not considered in this assessment. Since these impacts may have an effect on soil water holding capacity, they might affect irrigation crucially, and therefore should be a concern in future studies.
5.3 Adaptation options

In order to assess the visions and opinions from the Cambridge University Botanic Garden staff regarding different issues in relation to water use and climate change a survey was undertaken. This survey was completed by the managers of the garden, but also information about irrigation systems and scheduling was assembled from different gardens staff working directly at the field. Results are shown in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1: Summary of responses of the water shortage adaptation options survey.
Considered implementing
Technically possible, but no plans X X X X X X X
Water shortage adaptation options in the Cambridge University Botanic Garden Already done
Increase water availability Purchase additional water abstraction licences Build a reservoir Rainwater harvesting Use recycled water/Re-use grey water Water trading Obtain additional public mains water Improve water management Get better irrigation scheduling Move to more efficient irrigation systems Reduce pipes and water reservoirs seepage Change soil and/or plant management Improve soil structure and enhance soil water retention Use mulching techniques Introduce plants with higher tolerance to water stress Change planting dates Other Reduce the irrigated area Keep irrigating, but with reductions in dry years Stop irrigating, sell your licence
X X X
X X
X X
Technically impossible X
43 Response to the survey reveals that the staff in charge of managing Cambridge University Botanic Garden is very sensible and well informed about climate change and its potential impacts over water resources. Garden managers affirm that climate change is a serious threat which could start affecting the garden in a time period of 5 years, bringing about moderate reductions in water availability. This awareness is reflected in the wide range of measures already taken to cope with water shortages, especially in terms of soil and plant management. Mulching techniques are already in use in the garden, soil texture is regularly looked after and water tolerant species, particularly Mediterranean ones such as rosemary, lavender or various pine species, are already widely spread around the garden. Also rain-water harvesting structures have been installed over the roof of different buildings to increase water availability. Nevertheless, in terms of water management, there is still large room for improvement. Irrigation is applied not following an organized scheduling, but relying on the expertise of the gardeners. Irrigation systems are surface irrigation, and a hand move sprinkler. Furthermore, probable but unknown leakage from the pipes and proved seepage from the lake in the Rock Garden, evidence an inefficient water system, reducing the availability of water for irrigation. Pictures of the issues above mentioned are following showed:
Figure 5-1: Mulching techniques at Cambridge University Botanic Garden.
44
Figure 5-2: Drought tolerant species at Cambridge University Botanic Garden. In the picture, rosemary, pine tree and lavender.
Figure 5-3: Rain-water harvesting structure and underground water storage tank.
Figure 5-4: Traditional irrigation methods at the garden. Hose-reel to apply surface irrigation.
45
Figure 5-5: Lake at the Rock Garden, the main leakage source.
5.3.1 Licensed water use

In this section, actual volumetric water use is contrasted with licensed water volume. Results are illustrated in the Figure 5-6.
Percentage of licensed water used (%) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 20 06 20 50L 2050H 20 80L 80 H
Figure 5-6: Percentage (%) of licensed irrigation water volume abstracted for the baseline and for the UKCIP02 scenarios.
The limit quantity of water authorized to be abstracted for irrigation purposes from Borehole 1 at Cambridge University Botanic Garden is 16400 m3 per year. Water use records demonstrate that the peak volume of water abstracted during the baseline period
46 (12554 m3 in 1996) only represents the 75% of the total amount of water allowed for abstraction per year. Besides, the design dry year predicted future water use for the 2080-High scenario is the 73% of the annual water volume allowed for abstraction. This means that, for this scenario, in 4 years out of 5 at least the 27% of the licensed water (4400 m3) would remain unused. Therefore, concerning irrigation design purposes, no present or future water demand problems are highlighted in relation with the quantity of water abstracted from Borehole 1 for irrigation, unless that, as a consequence of climate change, other areas of the garden are irrigated in the future or current unirrigated plants need irrigation. Moreover, higher recurrence of extreme events such as droughts or flooding may also affect the quantity of water abstracted from Borehole 1.
47
6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The impacts of climate change over irrigation water use in the Cambridge University Botanic Garden have been assessed. On a first step, current volumetric water demand was assessed and correlated against the agroclimatic indicator PSMD. Secondly, irrigation needs were calculated using the software WaSim. Then, future sets of climatic conditions were modelled for the different UKCIP02 scenarios and time slices, and future irrigation requirements were estimated. Finally, a survey highlighting adaptation options in the garden to cope with water shortages was carried out.
As a consequence of climate change, recent dry conditions such as those in 1976 or 1990, and even drier ones, will become more common in the future (2050s and 2080s) of the Cambridge University Botanic Garden. More arid climate will bring about increasing irrigation water abstractions, projected in rising by 21-53% for the 2050s and by 37-80% for the 2080s.
Irrigation needs will increase for the four plant species studied by 33-176%. However, climate change will have greater impact on irrigation needs over perennial plant species than over annuals. The reason for this is that the most significant changes due to climate change are those regarding peak PSMD, which does not take place when the annuals are over the field, but it does when the perennial are.
Response to the survey reveals that, the Cambridge University Botanic Garden accounts for several measures to deal with future water scarcity problems, such as rain-water harvesting structures, drought resistant plants or improved soil structure. However, seepage in the water system, lack of scheduling and traditional irrigation methods, evidence that there are still many key gaps to be covered if water use efficiency in the garden is to be maximized.
48 Finally, it must be pointed out that this study has been undertaken under certain assumptions. It uses only one climate change model, it just contemplates water use in the garden for irrigation purposes and also it ignores many crucial effects of climate change, such as increased CO2 concentrations, future plant adaptations or impacts on soils. In this context, some points for further research have been identified: To perform the study including several climate change models and using different agroclimatic indicators. To carry out a study assessing water use from all the water sources in the Cambridge University Botanic Garden. To assess the effects of climate change on water use including the effects of rising CO2 concentrations and taking into account possible plant adaptations and changes in soil water regime. To undertake a sensitivity analysis in order to identify the most sensitive parameters in relation to climate change and plant water use.
Additionally, some real implications for the Cambridge University Botanic Garden were withdrawn from this work. These are the following:
It is likely that the current quantity of water allowed for abstraction from Borehole 1 (16400 m3) is enough to cope with future irrigation requirements. Therefore, in future licence renovations it should not be necessary to increase the amount of water allowed for abstraction if the irrigated area remain the same. However, future higher recurrence of extreme events, such as droughts, may aggravate water scarcity problems, claiming for additional water abstractions.
Furthermore, future abstraction licence renewal will require demonstrating efficient use of water. Therefore, it is encouraged to increase water use efficiency on the field. This is achieved by applying the exact amount of water at the right time on the right place. Particularly for the Cambridge University Botanic Garden, irrigation scheduling could be improved by setting a simple water balance using the weather station data to monitor soil water deficit. Cranfield University Dario Lorenzo Diaz, 2007
49
Also, future drier conditions claim for selection of plant species requiring few or no irrigation at all. This report evidenced that perennial plants with current low irrigation needs may require more water in the future than those annuals currently considered as high water demanding plants. Therefore, a careful plant selection according to the needs of the garden and attending not only to plants sensitivity to climate and water, but also to its annual or perennial nature, should be done in the Cambridge University Botanic Garden.
50
7 REFERENCES
Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D. and Smith, M. (1998), Crop Evapotranspiration. Guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO irrigation and drainage paper No. 56. FAO, Rome. Allen, S. G., Idso, S. B., Kimball, B. A., Baker, J. T., Allen Jr, L. H., Mauney, J. R., Radin, J. W. and Anderson, M. G. (1990), Effects of air temperature on atmospheric CO2plant growth relationships. US Dept of Energy, Washington. BGCI (2006), The Gran Canaria Declaration II on Climate Change and Plant Conservation. Area de Medio Ambiente y Aguas del Cabildo de Gran Canaria, Canary Islands, Spain. Bisgrove, R. and Hadley, P. (2002), Gardening in the Global Greenhouse: The Impacts of Climate Change on Gardens in the UK. Technical Report, UKCIP, Oxford. Bisgrove, R. and National Trust. (1990), The National Trust book of the English garden. Viking, London. Cambridge University Botanic Garden (2006), The Garden, available http://www.botanic.cam.ac.uk/GardenIntro.htm (accessed 16th August 2007). at:
DEFRA (2006), Speech by Ian Pearson at the Energy Efficiency Partnership For Homes Annual Conference, London - 28 June 2006, available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/ministers/speeches/ian-pearson/ip060628.htm (accessed 7th July 2007). Dll, P. (2002), "Impact of Climate Change and Variability on Irrigation Requirements: A Global Perspective", Climatic Change, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 269-293. Downing, T. E., Weatherhead, E. K., Knox, J. W. and Stockholm Environment Institute. (2003), Climate change and demand for water final report. Stockholm Environment Institute, Oxford. Eamus, D. (1991), "The interaction of rising CO2 and temperatures with water use efficiency", Plant,-Cell-and-Environment, vol. 14, no. 8, pp. 843-852.
51 English Heritage (2006), Climate Change and the Historic Environment. English Heritage, London. FAO (2007), Crop Water Management, available at: http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/AGLW/cropwater/tobacco.stm (accessed 16th August 2007). Forbes, C. L. (1967), Report on construction and pumping of the new borehole at the University Botanic Garden, Cambridge. George Lack and Sons, Cambridge. Griffiths, H. and Parry, M. A. (2002), "Plant responses to water stress", Annals of botany, vol. 89, pp. 801-802. Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research (2005), Climate Change and the greenhouse effect. A briefing from the Hadley Centre. Met Office, Exeter. Harte, J., Torn, M. S., Chang, F., Feifarek, B., Kinzig, A. P., Shaw, R. and Shen, K. (1995), "Global warming and soil microclimate: Results from a meadow-warming experiment", Ecological Applications [ECOL.APPL.].Vol.5, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 132-150. Heal, G. and Kristrm, B. (2002), "Uncertainty and Climate Change", Environmental and Resource Economics, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 3-39. Herrington, P. (1996), Climate change and the demand for water. Department of the Environment, HMSO, London. Hess, T. (2000), WaSim-Tutorial Manual. HR Wallingford, Wallingford, UK. Hess, T. (2001), Soil Plant Water Management Lecture Notes. Irrigation Water Requirements, Cranfield University. Hess, T. and Counsell, C. (2000), A water balance simulation model for teaching and learning-WaSim. HR Wallingford, Wallingford, UK. Hess, T. and Leeds-Harrison, P. and Counsell, C. (2000), WaSim-Technical Manual. HR Wallingford, Wallingford, UK. HM Government (2006), Climate Change. The UK Programme 2006. TSO, Norwich.
52 Houghton, J. (2004), Global Warming: The complete briefing. Third ed, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Hsiao, T. C., Acevedo, E., Fereres, E. and Henderson, D. W. (1976), "Water Stress, Growth, and Osmotic Adjustment", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London.Series B, Biological Sciences, vol. 273, no. 927, pp. 479-500. Hulme, M., Jenkins, G.J., Lu, X., Turnpenny, J.R., Mitchell, T.D., Jones, R.G., Lowe, J., Murphy, J.M., Hassell, D., Boorman, P., McDonald, R., and Hill, S. (2002), Climate Change Scenarios for the United Kingdom: The UKCIP02 Scientific Report. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. IPCC (2007a), Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. IPCC (2007b), Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. IPCC (2001), Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. A Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY, USA. Johnson, J. D., Tognetti, R. and Paris, P. (2002), "Water relations and gas exchange in poplar and willow under water stress and elevated atmospheric CO2", Physiologia Plantarum, vol. 115, no. 1, pp. 93-100. Jones, H. G. (1992), Plants and Microclimate: A Quantitative Approach to Environmental Plant Physiology, 2nd ed, Cambridge University Press. Knox, J. W., Weatherhead, E. K. and Bradley, R. I. (1997), "Mapping the total volumetric irrigation water requirements in England and Wales", Agricultural Water Management, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 1-18. Knox, J. W., Weatherhead, E. K. and Hess, T. (2005), "Mapping the impacts of climate change on soil moisture deficits: implications for irrigation in England and Wales", Climatic Change (accepted, subject to revision). Cranfield University Dario Lorenzo Diaz, 2007
53 London Climate Change Partnership (2005), Adapting to climate Change: A checklist for development. Guidance on designing developments in a changing climate. Greater London Authority, London. London Climate Change Partnership (2002), The Impacts of Climate Change on London. Technical Report. Public Liaison Unit, London. MAFF (2000), Climate change and agriculture in the United Kingdom. MAFF Publications, London. Palmer, R. C. (1988), Soil and Rock Characteristics above Groundwater: Map 6 South Cambridgeshire. Soil Survey and Land Research Centre, Cranfield University. Paul, A. and Rees, Y. (1986), The Water Garden. Frances Lincoln, London. Sanders, D. C. (1997), Vegetable Crop Irrigation. Horticulture Information Leaflet 33E. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, North Carolina Sate University. SDRT, (2003), Living with Climate Change in the East of England Stage 1 Report: Guidance on Spatial Issues. The East of England Regional Assembly, Hertfordshire. UK Climate Impacts Programme (2007), Scenarios gateway: UKCIP02, available at: http://www.ukcip.org.uk/scenarios/ukcip02/ukcip02_whatis02.asp (accessed 16th August 2007). Weaver, J. E. and Bruner, W. E. (1927), Root Development of Vegetable Crops. McGraw-Hill, New York.
54
8 APPENDICES
8.1 Appendix A: Survey of climate change impacts over water use in the Cambridge University Botanic Garden
Section A: Water Shortage Adaptation Options This section aims at identifying which possible adaptation strategies may be/have been carried out in the Botanic Garden as a consequence of water scarcity. For this purpose, in the table below, please tick the boxes that reflect your situation:
Technically impossible
Water shortage adaptation options in the Cambridge Botanic Garden implementing Already done Considered
Technically possible,
Increase water availability Purchase additional water abstraction licenses Build a reservoir Rainwater harvesting Use recycled water/Re-use grey water Water trading Obtain additional public mains water Improve water management Get better irrigation scheduling (tensiometers, water balance) Move to more efficient irrigation systems Reduce pipes and water reservoirs seepage
but no plans
55
Change soil and/or plant management Improve soil structure and enhance soil water retention Use mulching techniques Introduce plants with higher tolerance to water stress Change planting dates Other Reduce the irrigated area Keep irrigating, but with reductions in dry years Stop irrigating, sell your license
Section B: Understanding climate change This section aims at identifying your perception of climate change. For this purpose, please tick the appropriate boxes in the questions below and then justify your choice:
Q1. In your opinion, how do you think that Cambridge University Botanic is going to be affected by climate change? Severely affected Moderately affected Slightly affected No affected
Explain briefly your answer:
Q2. In your opinion, when do you consider that climate change will become a problem which needs a respond from the gardening community in terms of real changes?
56 Not in the In the 2020s In the 2050s foreseeable future
Nowadays
In 5 years time
Q3. In your opinion, how do you think that climate change is going to affect water resources in the Cambridge University Botanic Garden?
Increase water availability
No impact over water resources
Minor reductions on water availability
Moderate reductions on water availability
Severe reductions on water availability

Assessing The Impacts of Climate Change On Irrigation Water Use in The Cambridge University Botanic Garden

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Assessing The Impacts of Climate Change On Irrigation Water Use in The Cambridge University Botanic Garden

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY

Daro Lorenzo Daz

SCHOOL OF APPLIED SCIENCES

Daro Lorenzo Daz

Supervisor: Dr Jerry W. Knox September 2007

1.4.1 1.4.2 1.5 1.5.1 1.5.2 1.5.3 2

Case study: Cambridge University Botanic Garden ......................................... 4

3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 4

Future irrigation water demand modelling ..................................................... 22

5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.3 6 7 8 5.3.1

Adaptation options .......................................................................................... 42

Dario Lorenzo Diaz, 2007

Dario Lorenzo Diaz, 2007

Dario Lorenzo Diaz, 2007

Dario Lorenzo Diaz, 2007

1.1 Climate change

Table 1-1: IPCC Climate change evidence indicators.

Indicator Atmospheric concentration of CO2 Global mean surface temperature

Dario Lorenzo Diaz, 2007

Dario Lorenzo Diaz, 2007

1.2 Importance of gardens in UK

1.3 Need for further research

1.4 Aim and Objectives

1.4.2 Specific Objectives

1.5 Case study: Cambridge University Botanic Garden

Dario Lorenzo Diaz, 2007

Dario Lorenzo Diaz, 2007

Dario Lorenzo Diaz, 2007

Dario Lorenzo Diaz, 2007

1.5.3 Water sources

Dario Lorenzo Diaz, 2007

2.1 Water supplies and water demand

Dario Lorenzo Diaz, 2007

2.2 Plant responses to water stress

2.3 Impacts on soils and water regime

Dario Lorenzo Diaz, 2007

2.4 Impacts on water bodies

2.5 Impacts on irrigation

2.6 CO2 impacts on plant water use

Dario Lorenzo Diaz, 2007

3.1 Current volumetric water demand correlated against PSMD

Table 3-1: Weather stations coordinates.

Weather Station Cambridge Botanic Garden Cambridge NIAB

Longitude (decimal degrees) 52.193 52.225

Latitude (decimal degrees) 0.132 0.103

See FAO 56 for the Penman-Monteith method to calculate reference evapotranspiration.

Dario Lorenzo Diaz, 2007

3.2 WaSim modelling irrigation needs

Dario Lorenzo Diaz, 2007

3.2.1 Soil input data

3.2.2 Crop input data

Dario Lorenzo Diaz, 2007

19 Pictures of the selected model plants are shown below:

Figure 3-3: Cucurbita pepo at the Cambridge University Botanic Garden.

Figure 3-2: Rheum palmatum at the Cambridge University Botanic Garden.

Dario Lorenzo Diaz, 2007

Dario Lorenzo Diaz, 2007

3.2.3 Irrigation scheduling input data

Ligularia Rhubarb Marrow Tobacco

1 Mar-15 Nov 1 Mar-15 Nov 1 May1 Sep 15 May1 Sep

30% 80% 30% 60%

3.2.4 Weather input data

Dario Lorenzo Diaz, 2007