Resources

Rockström, J. et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472–475 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Steffen, W. et al. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347, 1259855 (2015). Revises and updates the planetary boundaries framework, including a regional-scale planetary boundary for freshwater use based on environmental flow requirements.Article 

Google Scholar 
Steffen, W. et al. Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 8252–8259 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gerten, D. et al. Towards a revised planetary boundary for consumptive freshwater use: role of environmental flow requirements. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 5, 551–558 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gleeson, T. et al. Illuminating water cycle modifications and Earth system resilience in the Anthropocene. Water Resour. Res. 56, e2019WR024957 (2020). Provides an overview of the many roles of the water cycle for Earth system functioning and evidence-based justification for a water planetary boundary that represents more than blue water.Article 

Google Scholar 
Gleeson, T. et al. The water planetary boundary: interrogation and revision. One Earth 2, 223–234 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Karlberg, L., Rockström, J., Falkenmark, M. & Others. in Rainfed Agriculture: Unlocking the Potential (eds Wani, S. P., Rockström, J. & Oweis, T.) 44–57 (CABI, 2009).Levy, M. C., Lopes, A. V., Cohn, A., Larsen, L. G. & Thompson, S. E. Land use change increases streamflow across the arc of deforestation in Brazil. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 3520–3530 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Falkenmark, M., Wang-Erlandsson, L. & Rockström, J. Understanding of water resilience in the Anthropocene. J. Hydrol. X 2, 100009 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Staal, A. et al. Hysteresis of tropical forests in the 21st century. Nat. Commun. 11, 4978 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Berdugo, M. et al. Global ecosystem thresholds driven by aridity. Science 367, 787–790 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gordon, L. J., Peterson, G. D. & Bennett, E. M. Agricultural modifications of hydrological flows create ecological surprises. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23, 211–219 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, J., Wang, B., Cane, M. A., Yim, S.-Y. & Lee, J.-Y. Divergent global precipitation changes induced by natural versus anthropogenic forcing. Nature 493, 656–659 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Miralles, D. G., Brutsaert, W., Dolman, A. J. & Gash, J. H. On the use of the term ‘evapotranspiration’. Water Resour. Res. 56, e2020WR028055 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Berg, A., Lintner, B. R., Findell, K. & Giannini, A. Uncertain soil moisture feedbacks in model projections of Sahel precipitation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 6124–6133 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Seneviratne, S. I. et al. Investigating soil moisture–climate interactions in a changing climate: A review. Earth Sci. Rev. 99, 125–161 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tuinenburg, O. A. Atmospheric Effects of Irrigation in Monsoon Climate: The Indian Subcontinent. PhD thesis, Wageningen Univ. (2013).Green, T. R. et al. Beneath the surface of global change: Impacts of climate change on groundwater. J. Hydrol. 405, 532–560 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Del Grosso, S. et al. Global potential net primary production predicted from vegetation class, precipitation, and temperature. Ecology 89, 2117–2126 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shi, P. et al. Urbanization and air quality as major drivers of altered spatiotemporal patterns of heavy rainfall in China. Landsc. Ecol. 32, 1723–1738 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Runyan, C. W., D’Odorico, P. & Lawrence, D. Physical and biological feedbacks of deforestation. Rev. Geophys. 50, RG4006 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang-Erlandsson, L. et al. Remote land use impacts on river flows through atmospheric teleconnections. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 22, 4311–4328 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lo, M.-H. & Famiglietti, J. S. Irrigation in California’s Central Valley strengthens the southwestern U.S. water cycle. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 301–306 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lawrence, D. & Vandecar, K. Effects of tropical deforestation on climate and agriculture. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 27–36 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pitman, A. J. et al. Effects of land cover change on temperature and rainfall extremes in multi-model ensemble simulations. Earth Syst. Dyn. 3, 213–231 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sillmann, J. et al. Extreme wet and dry conditions affected differently by greenhouse gases and aerosols. NPJ Clim. Atmos. Sci. 2, 24 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pascale, S., Lucarini, V., Feng, X., Porporato, A. & ul Hasson, S. Projected changes of rainfall seasonality and dry spells in a high greenhouse gas emissions scenario. Clim. Dyn. 46, 1331–1350 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rosenfeld, D. et al. Flood or drought: how do aerosols affect precipitation? Science 321, 1309–1313 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fowler, H. J. et al. Anthropogenic intensification of short-duration rainfall extremes. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2, 107–122 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, W. et al. Increasing precipitation variability on daily-to-multiyear time scales in a warmer world. Sci. Adv. 7, eabf8021 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chiang, F., Mazdiyasni, O. & AghaKouchak, A. Evidence of anthropogenic impacts on global drought frequency, duration, and intensity. Nat. Commun. 12, 2754 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lenton, T. M. et al. Tipping elements in the Earth’s climate system. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 1786–1793 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hirota, M., Holmgren, M., Van Nes, E. H. & Scheffer, M. Global resilience of tropical forest and savanna to critical transitions. Science 334, 232–235 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Staver, C. A., Archibald, S. & Levin, S. A. The global extent and determinants of savanna and forest as alternative biome states. Science 334, 230–232 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vico, G., Dralle, D., Feng, X., Thompson, S. & Manzoni, S. How competitive is drought deciduousness in tropical forests? A combined eco-hydrological and eco-evolutionary approach. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 065006 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Duke, N. C., Field, C., Mackenzie, J. R., Meynecke, J.-O. & Wood, A. L. Rainfall and its possible hysteresis effect on the proportional cover of tropical tidal-wetland mangroves and saltmarsh–saltpans. Mar. Freshw. Res. 70, 1047–1055 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Neves, D. M. et al. Evolutionary diversity in tropical tree communities peaks at intermediate precipitation. Sci. Rep. 10, 1188 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, Z. et al. Precipitation thresholds regulate net carbon exchange at the continental scale. Nat. Commun. 9, 3596 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Guan, K. et al. Photosynthetic seasonality of global tropical forests constrained by hydroclimate. Nat. Geosci. 8, 284–289 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Souza, R. et al. Vegetation response to rainfall seasonality and interannual variability in tropical dry forests. Hydrol. Process. 30, 3583–3595 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rohr, T., Manzoni, S., Feng, X., Menezes, R. S. C. & Porporato, A. Effect of rainfall seasonality on carbon storage in tropical dry ecosystems. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 118, 1156–1167 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vezzoli, R., De Michele, C., Pavlopoulos, H. & Scholes, R. J. Dryland ecosystems: The coupled stochastic dynamics of soil water and vegetation and the role of rainfall seasonality. Phys. Rev. E 77, 051908 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, C. et al. Drivers and impacts of changes in China’s drylands. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2, 858–873 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Aguirre-Gutiérrez, J. et al. Long-term droughts may drive drier tropical forests towards increased functional, taxonomic and phylogenetic homogeneity. Nat. Commun. 11, 3346 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Anderson, L. O. et al. Vulnerability of Amazonian forests to repeated droughts. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 373, 20170411 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hubau, W. et al. Asynchronous carbon sink saturation in African and Amazonian tropical forests. Nature 579, 80–87 (2020). Extensive observation-based analyses show that net carbon uptake has peaked in the Amazon, and, more recently, also in African rainforests.Article 

Google Scholar 
Dannenberg, M. P., Wise, E. K. & Smith, W. K. Reduced tree growth in the semiarid United States due to asymmetric responses to intensifying precipitation extremes. Sci. Adv. 5, eaaw0667 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gherardi, L. A. & Sala, O. E. Enhanced precipitation variability decreases grass- and increases shrub-productivity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 12735–12740 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Eekhout, J. P. C., Hunink, J. E., Terink, W. & de Vente, J. Why increased extreme precipitation under climate change negatively affects water security. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 22, 5935–5946 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sharma, A., Wasko, C. & Lettenmaier, D. P. If precipitation extremes are increasing, why aren’t floods? Water Resour. Res. 54, 8545–8551 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Merz, B. et al. Causes, impacts and patterns of disastrous river floods. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2, 592–609 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sterling, S. M., Ducharne, A. & Polcher, J. The impact of global land-cover change on the terrestrial water cycle. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 385–390 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gordon, L. J. et al. Human modification of global water vapor flows from the land surface. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 7612–7617 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rost, S., Gerten, D. & Heyder, U. Human alterations of the terrestrial water cycle through land management. Adv. Geosci. 18, 43–50 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, K. et al. Vegetation greening and climate change promote multidecadal rises of global land evapotranspiration. Sci. Rep. 5, 15956 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cheng, L. et al. Recent increases in terrestrial carbon uptake at little cost to the water cycle. Nat. Commun. 8, 110 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ainsworth, E. A. & Rogers, A. The response of photosynthesis and stomatal conductance to rising [CO2]: mechanisms and environmental interactions. Plant. Cell Environ. 30, 258–270 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Keenan, T. F. et al. Increase in forest water-use efficiency as atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations rise. Nature 499, 324–327 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Keys, P. W., Wang-Erlandsson, L. & Gordon, L. J. Revealing invisible water: moisture recycling as an ecosystem service. PLoS One 11, e0151993 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thiery, W. et al. Present-day irrigation mitigates heat extremes. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 122, 1403–1422 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thiery, W. et al. Warming of hot extremes alleviated by expanding irrigation. Nat. Commun. 11, 290 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kang, S. & Eltahir, E. A. B. North China Plain threatened by deadly heatwaves due to climate change and irrigation. Nat. Commun. 9, 2894 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Raymond, C., Matthews, T. & Horton, R. M. The emergence of heat and humidity too severe for human tolerance. Sci. Adv. 6, eaaw1838 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zemp, D. C. et al. Self-amplified Amazon forest loss due to vegetation-atmosphere feedbacks. Nat. Commun. 8, 14681 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Staal, A. et al. Forest-rainfall cascades buffer against drought across the Amazon. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 539–543 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lee, J.-E., Lintner, B. R., Kevin Boyce, C. & Lawrence, P. J. Land use change exacerbates tropical South American drought by sea surface temperature variability. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, L19706 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Boers, N., Marwan, N., Barbosa, H. M. J. & Kurths, J. A deforestation-induced tipping point for the South American monsoon system. Sci. Rep. 7, 41489 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bruijnzeel, L. A. Hydrological functions of tropical forests: not seeing the soil for the trees? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 104, 185–228 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
van Luijk, G., Cowling, R. M., Riksen, M. J. P. M. & Glenday, J. Hydrological implications of desertification: Degradation of South African semi-arid subtropical thicket. J. Arid Environ. 91, 14–21 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Robinson, D. A. et al. Experimental evidence for drought induced alternative stable states of soil moisture. Sci. Rep. 6, 20018 (2016). Manipulation experiments demonstrate the presence of drought-driven irreversible tipping points of soil moisture states, in support of previous modelling and observation-based studies.Article 

Google Scholar 
Borrelli, P. et al. An assessment of the global impact of 21st century land use change on soil erosion. Nat. Commun. 8, 2013 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Panagos, P. et al. The new assessment of soil loss by water erosion in Europe. Environ. Sci. Policy 54, 438–447 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bonfils, C. J. W. et al. Human influence on joint changes in temperature, rainfall and continental aridity. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 726–731 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Samaniego, L. et al. Anthropogenic warming exacerbates European soil moisture droughts. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 421–426 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Budyko, M. I. Climate and Life (Academic Press, 1974).Malhi, Y. et al. Exploring the likelihood and mechanism of a climate-change-induced dieback of the Amazon rainforest. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 20610–20615 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Saatchi, S. et al. Persistent effects of a severe drought on Amazonian forest canopy. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 565–570 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Murray-Tortarolo, G. et al. The dry season intensity as a key driver of NPP trends. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 2632–2639 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nepstad, D. C., Tohver, I. M., Ray, D., Moutinho, P. & Cardinot, G. Mortality of large trees and lianas following experimental drought in an Amazon forest. Ecology 88, 2259–2269 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Meir, P. et al. Threshold responses to soil moisture deficit by trees and soil in tropical rain forests: insights from field experiments. Bioscience 65, 882–892 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brookshire, E. N. J. & Weaver, T. Long-term decline in grassland productivity driven by increasing dryness. Nat. Commun. 6, 7148 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Piao, S. et al. Characteristics, drivers and feedbacks of global greening. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 1, 14–27 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Berg, A. & McColl, K. A. No projected global drylands expansion under greenhouse warming. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 331–337 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Green, J. K. et al. Large influence of soil moisture on long-term terrestrial carbon uptake. Nature 565, 476–479 (2019). Shows that soil moisture variability substantially reduces the carbon land uptake due to non-linear ecological responses to water availability and land–atmosphere interactions.Article 

Google Scholar 
Quan, Q. et al. Water scaling of ecosystem carbon cycle feedback to climate warming. Sci. Adv. 5, eaav1131 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stocker, B. D. et al. Quantifying soil moisture impacts on light use efficiency across biomes. New Phytol. 218, 1430–1449 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Humphrey, V. et al. Sensitivity of atmospheric CO2 growth rate to observed changes in terrestrial water storage. Nature 560, 628–631 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kerr, D. D. & Ochsner, T. E. Soil organic carbon more strongly related to soil moisture than soil temperature in temperate grasslands. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 84, 587–596 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ahlstrom, A. et al. The dominant role of semi-arid ecosystems in the trend and variability of the land CO2 sink. Science 348, 895–899 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Poulter, B. et al. Contribution of semi-arid ecosystems to interannual variability of the global carbon cycle. Nature 509, 600–603 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, W. et al. Tundra shrubification and tree-line advance amplify arctic climate warming: results from an individual-based dynamic vegetation model. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 034023 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bragazza, L., Parisod, J., Buttler, A. & Bardgett, R. D. Biogeochemical plant–soil microbe feedback in response to climate warming in peatlands. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 273–277 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Knoblauch, C., Beer, C., Liebner, S., Grigoriev, M. N. & Pfeiffer, E.-M. Methane production as key to the greenhouse gas budget of thawing permafrost. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 309–312 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Natali, S. M. et al. Permafrost thaw and soil moisture driving CO2 and CH4 release from upland tundra. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 120, 525–537 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Slessarev, E. W. et al. Water balance creates a threshold in soil pH at the global scale. Nature 540, 567–569 (2016). Shows that a bimodal pattern in global soil pH distribution is regulated by annual water balance and suggests that human-driven changes in aridity can result in transitions from alkaline to acid soils, with unknown implications for soil nutrients supply and biomass production.Article 

Google Scholar 
Moreno-Jiménez, E. et al. Aridity and reduced soil micronutrient availability in global drylands. Nat. Sustain. 2, 371–377 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Maestre, F. T. et al. Increasing aridity reduces soil microbial diversity and abundance in global drylands. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 15684–15689 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rabbi, S. M. F. et al. Climate and soil properties limit the positive effects of land use reversion on carbon storage in Eastern Australia. Sci. Rep. 5, 17866 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kramer, M. G. & Chadwick, O. A. Climate-driven thresholds in reactive mineral retention of soil carbon at the global scale. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 1104–1108 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Seneviratne, S. I., Lüthi, D., Litschi, M. & Schär, C. Land–atmosphere coupling and climate change in Europe. Nature 443, 205–209 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Whan, K. et al. Impact of soil moisture on extreme maximum temperatures in Europe. Weather Clim. Extremes 9, 57–67 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hirschi, M. et al. Observational evidence for soil-moisture impact on hot extremes in southeastern Europe. Nat. Geosci. 4, 17–21 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hauser, M., Orth, R. & Seneviratne, S. I. Role of soil moisture versus recent climate change for the 2010 heat wave in western Russia. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 2819–2826 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yang, L., Sun, G., Zhi, L. & Zhao, J. Negative soil moisture-precipitation feedback in dry and wet regions. Sci. Rep. 8, 4026 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhou, S. et al. Soil moisture–atmosphere feedbacks mitigate declining water availability in drylands. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 38–44 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Miralles, D. G., Teuling, A. J., van Heerwaarden, C. C. & de Arellano, J. V.-G. Mega-heatwave temperatures due to combined soil desiccation and atmospheric heat accumulation. Nat. Geosci. 7, 345–349 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, P. et al. Abrupt shift to hotter and drier climate over inner East Asia beyond the tipping point. Science 370, 1095–1099 (2020). Analyses based on tree-ring data over the past 260 years show an abrupt shift that could potentially be explained by self-amplifying feedbacks of soil moisture deficit and surface warming, which points towards risk for an irreversible tipping point in the East Asian climate system under climate change.Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, Y. et al. Detecting the causal effect of soil moisture on precipitation using convergent cross mapping. Sci. Rep. 8, 12171 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Feng, M. et al. Understanding the resilience of soil moisture regimes. Water Resour. Res. 55, 7541–7563 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Good, S. P., Moore, G. W. & Miralles, D. G. A mesic maximum in biological water use demarcates biome sensitivity to aridity shifts. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1883–1888 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
D’Odorico, P. & Porporato, A. Preferential states in soil moisture and climate dynamics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101, 8848–8851 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rodriguez-Iturbe, I., Entekhabi, D., Lee, J.-S. & Bras, R. L. Nonlinear dynamics of soil moisture at climate scales: 2. Chaotic analysis. Water Resour. Res. 27, 1907–1915 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
Peterson, T. J., Saft, M., Peel, M. C. & John, A. Watersheds may not recover from drought. Science 372, 745–749 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rockström, J. et al. Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol. Soc. 14, 32 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, Y. et al. Multi-decadal trends in global terrestrial evapotranspiration and its components. Sci. Rep. 6, 19124 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Coenders-Gerrits, A. M. J. et al. Uncertainties in transpiration estimates. Nature 506, E1–E2 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, L., Good, S. P. & Caylor, K. K. Global synthesis of vegetation control on evapotranspiration partitioning. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 6753–6757 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Heimann, M. & Reichstein, M. Terrestrial ecosystem carbon dynamics and climate feedbacks. Nature 451, 289–292 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Beck, H. E. et al. MSWEP: 3-hourly 0.25° global gridded precipitation (1979–2015) by merging gauge, satellite, and reanalysis data. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 21, 589–615 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Greve, P., Roderick, M. L., Ukkola, A. M. & Wada, Y. The aridity index under global warming. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 124006 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yang, Y., Roderick, M. L., Zhang, S., McVicar, T. R. & Donohue, R. J. Hydrologic implications of vegetation response to elevated CO2 in climate projections. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 44–48 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ghannam, K. et al. Persistence and memory timescales in root-zone soil moisture dynamics. Water Resour. Res. 52, 1427–1445 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Entin, J. K. et al. Temporal and spatial scales of observed soil moisture variations in the extratropics. J. Geophys. Res. 105, 11865–11877 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Famiglietti, C. A., Michalak, A. M. & Konings, A. G. Extreme wet events as important as extreme dry events in controlling spatial patterns of vegetation greenness anomalies. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 074014 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wieners, K.-H. et al. MPI-M MPI-ESM1.2-LR model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical. Earth System Grid Federation. https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.6595 (2019).Jungclaus, J. et al. MPI-M MPI-ESM1.2-LR model output prepared for CMIP6 PMIP midHolocene. Earth System Grid Federation. https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.6644 (2019).Winkler, K., Fuchs, R., Rounsevell, M. & Herold, M. Global land use changes are four times greater than previously estimated. Nat. Commun. 12, 2501 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kaplan, J. O., Krumhardt, K. M. & Zimmermann, N. The prehistoric and preindustrial deforestation of Europe. Quat. Sci. Rev. 28, 3016–3034 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dallmeyer, A. et al. Holocene vegetation transitions and their climatic drivers in MPI-ESM1.2. Clim. Past 17, 2481–2513 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Persson, L. et al. Outside the safe operating space of the planetary boundary for novel entities. Environ. Sci. Technol. 56, 1510–1521 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jaramillo, F. & Destouni, G. Comment on ‘Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet’. Science 348, 1217 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Campbell, B. M. et al. Agriculture production as a major driver of the Earth system exceeding planetary boundaries. Ecol. Soci. 22, 8 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lade, S. J. et al. Human impacts on planetary boundaries amplified by Earth system interactions. Nat. Sustain. 3, 119–128 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, S. et al. Recent global decline of CO2 fertilization effects on vegetation photosynthesis. Science 370, 1295–1300 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wieder, W. R., Cleveland, C. C., Smith, W. K. & Todd-Brown, K. Future productivity and carbon storage limited by terrestrial nutrient availability. Nat. Geosci. 8, 441–444 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhu, Z. et al. Comment on ‘Recent global decline of CO2 fertilization effects on vegetation photosynthesis’. Science 373, eabg5673 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, S. et al. Response to Comments on ‘Recent global decline of CO2 fertilization effects on vegetation photosynthesis’. Science 373, eabg7484 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sang, Y. et al. Comment on ‘Recent global decline of CO2 fertilization effects on vegetation photosynthesis’. Science 373, eabg4420 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Frankenberg, C., Yin, Y., Byrne, B., He, L. & Gentine, P. Comment on ‘Recent global decline of CO2 fertilization effects on vegetation photosynthesis’. Science 373, eabg2947 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tagesson, T. et al. Recent divergence in the contributions of tropical and boreal forests to the terrestrial carbon sink. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 202–209 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tuinenburg, O. A., Theeuwen, J. J. E. & Staal, A. High-resolution global atmospheric moisture connections from evaporation to precipitation. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 12, 3177–3188 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Adams, M. A., Buckley, T. N. & Turnbull, T. L. Diminishing CO2-driven gains in water-use efficiency of global forests. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 466–471 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ravi, S., Breshears, D. D., Huxman, T. E. & D’Odorico, P. Land degradation in drylands: Interactions among hydrologic–aeolian erosion and vegetation dynamics. Geomorphology 116, 236–245 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Miralles, D. G. et al. Contribution of water-limited ecoregions to their own supply of rainfall. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 124007 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Keys, P. W. et al. Analyzing precipitationsheds to understand the vulnerability of rainfall dependent regions. Biogeosciences 9, 733–746 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Korell, L., Auge, H., Chase, J. M., Harpole, W. S. & Knight, T. M. Responses of plant diversity to precipitation change are strongest at local spatial scales and in drylands. Nat. Commun. 12, 2489 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhou, S., Zhang, Y., Park Williams, A. & Gentine, P. Projected increases in intensity, frequency, and terrestrial carbon costs of compound drought and aridity events. Sci. Adv. 5, eaau5740 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Miner, K. R. et al. Permafrost carbon emissions in a changing Arctic. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 3, 55–67 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ford, T. W. & Frauenfeld, O. W. Surface–atmosphere moisture interactions in the frozen ground regions of Eurasia. Sci. Rep. 6, 19163 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chen, J. M. et al. Vegetation structural change since 1981 significantly enhanced the terrestrial carbon sink. Nat. Commun. 10, 4259 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, W. K. et al. Large divergence of satellite and Earth system model estimates of global terrestrial CO2 fertilization. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 306–310 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Huntzinger, D. N. et al. Uncertainty in the response of terrestrial carbon sink to environmental drivers undermines carbon-climate feedback predictions. Sci. Rep. 7, 4765 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jensen, L., Eicker, A., Dobslaw, H., Stacke, T. & Humphrey, V. Long-term wetting and drying trends in land water storage derived from GRACE and CMIP5 models. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 124, 9808–9823 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Samset, B. H., Fuglestvedt, J. S. & Lund, M. T. Delayed emergence of a global temperature response after emission mitigation. Nat. Commun. 11, 3261 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
te Wierik, S. A., Gupta, J., Cammeraat, E. L. H. & Artzy-Randrup, Y. A. The need for green and atmospheric water governance. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 7, e1406 (2020). Provides rationales for the need for regulating and governing human interference with green water and atmospheric water.Article 

Google Scholar 
Young, O. R. Institutional Dynamics: Emergent Patterns in International Environmental Governance (MIT Press, 2010).Schmidt, F. in Transgovernance: Advancing Sustainability Governance (ed. Meuleman, L.) 215–234 (Springer, 2013).Lal, R. et al. Soils and sustainable development goals of the United Nations: An International Union of Soil Sciences perspective. Geoderma Reg. 25, e00398 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Falkenmark, M. & Rockström, J. The new blue and green water paradigm: Breaking new ground for water pesources planning and management. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 132, 129–132 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Borrelli, P. et al. Land use and climate change impacts on global soil erosion by water (2015-2070). Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 21994–22001 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Evans, C. D. et al. Overriding water table control on managed peatland greenhouse gas emissions. Nature 593, 548–552 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Zipper, S. C. et al. Integrating the water planetary boundary with water management from local to global scales. Earths Future 8, e2019EF001377 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Häyhä, T., Lucas, P. L., van Vuuren, D. P., Cornell, S. E. & Hoff, H. From planetary boundaries to national fair shares of the global safe operating space — How can the scales be bridged? Glob. Environ. Change 40, 60–72 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dearing, J. A. et al. Safe and just operating spaces for regional social-ecological systems. Glob. Environ. Change 28, 227–238 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bjørn, A. et al. Challenges and opportunities towards improved application of the planetary boundary for land-system change in life cycle assessment of products. Sci. Total. Environ. 696, 133964 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bunsen, J., Berger, M. & Finkbeiner, M. Planetary boundaries for water–A review. Ecol. Indic. 121, 107022 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Link, A., van der Ent, R., Berger, M., Eisner, S. & Finkbeiner, M. The fate of land evaporation–a global dataset. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 12, 1897–1912 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
van der Ent, R. J., Savenije, H. H. G., Schaefli, B. & Steele-Dunne, S. C. Origin and fate of atmospheric moisture over continents. Water Resour. Res. 46, W09525 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Schyns, J. F., Hoekstra, A. Y. & Booij, M. J. Review and classification of indicators of green water availability and scarcity. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 19, 4581–4608 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Stenzel, F., Gerten, D., Werner, C. & Jägermeyr, J. Freshwater requirements of large-scale bioenergy plantations for limiting global warming to 1.5 °C. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 084001 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dalby, S. Framing the Anthropocene: The good, the bad and the ugly. Anthropocene Rev. 3, 33–51 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tainter, J. A. in The Way the Wind Blows: Climate, History, and Human Action (eds McIntosh, R. J., Tainter, J. A. & McIntosh, S. K.) 331 (Columbia University Press, 2000).Ripl, W. Water: the bloodstream of the biosphere. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 358, 1921–1934 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dorigo, W. et al. ESA CCI Soil Moisture for improved Earth system understanding: State-of-the art and future directions. Remote Sens. Environ. 203, 185–215 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grillakis, M. G., Koutroulis, A. G., Alexakis, D. D., Polykretis, C. & Daliakopoulos, I. N. Regionalizing root-zone soil moisture estimates from ESA CCI soil water index using machine learning and information on soil, vegetation, and climate. Water Resour. Res. 57, e2020WR029249 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Eyring, V. et al. Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 1937–1958 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Trugman, A. T., Medvigy, D., Mankin, J. S. & Anderegg, W. R. L. Soil moisture stress as a major driver of carbon cycle uncertainty. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 6495–6503 (2018). Shows that the simplistic representations of soil moisture stress across global vegetation models cause major uncertainties in estimated land carbon sink under climate change.Article 

Google Scholar 
Beyer, R. M., Krapp, M. & Manica, A. High-resolution terrestrial climate, bioclimate and vegetation for the last 120,000 years. Sci. Data 7, 236 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Allen, J. R. M. et al. Global vegetation patterns of the past 140,000 years. J. Biogeogr. 47, 2073–2090 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kageyama, M. et al. The PMIP4 contribution to CMIP6–Part 1: Overview and over-arching analysis plan. Geosci. Model Dev. 11, 1033–1057 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dorigo, W. et al. The International Soil Moisture Network: serving Earth system science for over a decade. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 25, 5749–5804 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Baldocchi, D. et al. FLUXNET: A new tool to study the temporal and spatial variability of ecosystem–scale carbon dioxide, water vapor, and energy flux densities. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 82, 2415–2434 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bouaziz, L. J. E. et al. Improved understanding of the link between catchment-scale vegetation accessible storage and satellite-derived Soil Water Index. Water Resour. Res. 56, e2019WR026365 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Martens, B. et al. GLEAM v3: satellite-based land evaporation and root-zone soil moisture. Geosci. Model Dev. 10, 1903–1925 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tian, S., Renzullo, L. J., van Dijk, A. I. J. M., Tregoning, P. & Walker, J. P. Global joint assimilation of GRACE and SMOS for improved estimation of root-zone soil moisture and vegetation response. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 23, 1067–1081 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang-Erlandsson, L. et al. Global root zone storage capacity from satellite-based evaporation. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 20, 1459–1481 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fan, Y., Miguez-Macho, G., Jobbágy, E. G., Jackson, R. B. & Otero-Casal, C. Hydrologic regulation of plant rooting depth. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 10572–10577 (2017). Shows that rooting depths globally are highly adaptive to hydroclimate, topography and soil hydrology, with implications for improving the representation of plant–water interactions in Earth system models.Article 

Google Scholar 
Kleidon, A. Global datasets of rooting zone depth inferred from inverse methods. J. Clim. 17, 2714–2722 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
McCormick, E. L. et al. Widespread woody plant use of water stored in bedrock. Nature 597, 225–229 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vereecken, H. et al. Infiltration from the pedon to global grid scales: An overview and outlook for land surface modelling. Vadose Zone J. 18, 1–53 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Singh, C., Wang-Erlandsson, L., Fetzer, I., Rockström, J. & van der Ent, R. Rootzone storage capacity reveals drought coping strategies along rainforest-savanna transitions. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 124021 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sakschewski, B. et al. Variable tree rooting strategies improve tropical productivity and evapotranspiration in a dynamic global vegetation model. Biogeosciences 27, 1–35 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Wilkinson, M. D. et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci. Data 3, 160018 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Biermann, F. & Kim, R. E. The boundaries of the Planetary Boundary framework: A critical appraisal of approaches to define a “safe operating space” for humanity. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 45, 497–521 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Petschel-Held, G., Schellnhuber, H.-J., Bruckner, T., Tóth, F. L. & Hasselmann, K. The tolerable windows approach: theoretical and methodological foundations. Clim. Change 41, 303–331 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ziegler, R., Gerten, D. & Döll, P. in Global Water Ethics (eds Ziegler, R. & Groenfeldt, D.) 109–130 (Routledge, 2017).Sivapalan, M. & Blöschl, G. Time scale interactions and the coevolution of humans and water. Water Resour. Res. 51, 6988–7022 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mueller, B. et al. Benchmark products for land evapotranspiration: LandFlux-EVAL multi-data set synthesis. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 17, 3707–3720 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Oki, T. & Kanae, S. Global hydrological cycles and world water resources. Science 313, 1068–1072 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
von Bloh, W. et al. Implementing the nitrogen cycle into the dynamic global vegetation, hydrology, and crop growth model LPJmL (version 5.0). Geosci. Model Dev. 11, 2789–2812 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Gaget, E. et al. Conserv. Biol. 35, 834–845 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Green, A. J. et al. in The Wetland Book II. Distribution, Description and Conservation (eds. Finlayson, C. M. et al.) 1123–1136 (Springer, 2018).Sergio, F. et al. Oecologia 166, 79–90 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Scheffer, M. et al. Science 347, 1317–1319 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Green, A. J. et al. Front. Ecol. Environ. 15, 99–107 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ruaro, R. & Laurance, W. F. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 6, 120–121 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Paredes, I. et al. Wetlands Ecol. Manage. 29, 41–65 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rodríguez-Rodríguez, M. et al. Wetlands 41, 25 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Campo-Celada, M. et al. Oikos https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.08387 (2022).Almaraz, P., Green, A. J., Aguilera, E., Rendón, M. A. & Bustamante, J. J. Anim. Ecol. 81, 1113–1125 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain
the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in
Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles
and JavaScript. More

Siebert, S., Portmann, F. T. & Döll, P. Global patterns of cropland use intensity. Remote Sens. 2, 1625–1643 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rodell, M., Velicogna, I. & Famiglietti, J. S. Satellite-based estimates of groundwater depletion in India. Nature 460, 999–1002 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tiwari, V. M., Wahr, J. & Swenson, S. Dwindling groundwater resources in northern India, from satellite gravity observations. Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL039401 (2009).Chen, J., Li, J., Zhang, Z. & Ni, S. Long-term groundwater variations in northwest India from satellite gravity measurements. Glob. Planet. Change 116, 130–138 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bhanja, S. N. & Mukherjee, A. In situ and satellite-based estimates of usable groundwater storage across India: implications for drinking water supply and food security. Adv. Water Resour. 126, 15–23 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tang, Y. et al. Reconstructing annual groundwater storage changes in a large-scale irrigation region using GRACE data and Budyko model. J. Hydrol. 551, 397–406 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ahmed, K., Shahid, S., Demirel, M. C., Nawaz, N. & Khan, N. The changing characteristics of groundwater sustainability in Pakistan from 2002 to 2016. Hydrogeol. J. 27, 2485–2496 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Asoka, A., Gleeson, T., Wada, Y. & Mishra, V. Relative contribution of monsoon precipitation and pumping to changes in groundwater storage in India. Nat. Geosci. 10, 109–117 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
MacDonald, A. M. et al. Groundwater quality and depletion in the Indo-Gangetic basin mapped from in situ observations. Nat. Geosci. 9, 762–766 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Basharat, M., Umair Ali, S. & Azhar, A. H. Spatial variation in irrigation demand and supply across canal commands in Punjab: a real integrated water resources management challenge. Water Policy 16, 397–421 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Irfan, M., Qadir, A., Ali, H., Jamil, N. & Ahmad, S. R. Vulnerability of Environmental Resources in Indus Basin after the Development of Irrigation System (Intechopen, 2019).Shah, T. Taming the Anarchy: Groundwater Governance in South Asia (Routledge, 2010).Tahir, Z. & Habib, Z. Land and Water Productivity: Trends Across Punjab Canal Commands Vol. 14 (IWMI, 2001).Van Dijk, W. M. et al. Spatial variation of groundwater response to multiple drivers in a depleting alluvial aquifer system, northwestern India. Prog. Phys. Geogr. Earth Environ. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133319871941 (2020).Lapworth, D. J. et al. Groundwater recharge and age-depth profiles of intensively exploited groundwater resources in northwest India. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 7554–7562 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Raza, A., Latif, M. & Shakir, A. S. Long-term effectiveness of lining tertiary canals in the Indus basin of Pakistan. Irrig. Drain. 62, 16–24 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mukherji, A. Sustainable groundwater management in India needs a water–energy–food nexus approach. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 44, 394–410 (2020).Panda, D. K. & Wahr, J. Spatiotemporal evolution of water storage changes in India from the updated GRACE-derived gravity records. Water Resour. Res. 52, 135–149 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tripathi, A., Mishra, A. K. & Verma, G. Impact of preservation of subsoil water act on groundwater depletion: the case of Punjab, India. Environ. Manage. 58, 48–59 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Watto, M. A., Mugera, A. W., Kingwell, R. & Saqab, M. M. Re-thinking the unimpeded tube-well growth under the depleting groundwater resources in the Punjab, Pakistan. Hydrogeol. J. 26, 2411–2425 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Greenman, D. W., Bennett, G. D. & Swarzenski, W. V. Ground-Water Hydrology of the Punjab, West Pakistan, with Emphasis on Problems Caused by Canal Irrigation (US Government Printing Office, 1967).Jeevandas, A., Singh, R. & Kumar, R. Concerns of groundwater depletion and irrigation efficiency in Punjab agriculture: a micro-level study. Agric. Econ. Res. Rev. 21, 191–199 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Shekhar, S. et al. Modelling water levels of northwestern India in response to improved irrigation use efficiency. Sci. Rep. 10, 13452 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ground-Water Studies in the Ghaggar River basin in Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan Final Technical Report Vol. 1 (UNDP, 1985).Long, D., Chen, X. & Scanlon, B. et al. Have GRACE satellites overestimated groundwater depletion in the northwest India aquifer? Sci. Rep. 6, 24398 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Joshi, S. K., Gupta, S., Sinha, R., Densmore, A. L., Rai, S. P., Shekhar, S. & van Dijk, W. M. Strongly heterogeneous patterns of groundwater depletion in northwestern India. J. Hydrol. 598, 126492 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Joshi, S. K. et al. Tracing groundwater recharge sources in the northwestern Indian alluvial aquifer using water isotopes (Δ18O, Δ2H and 3H). J. Hydrol. 559, 835–847 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
O’Keeffe, J. et al. Isolating the impacts of anthropogenic water use within the hydrological regime of north India. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 45, 1217–1228 (2019).Erenstein, O. Comparing water management in rice–wheat production systems in Haryana, India and Punjab, Pakistan. Agric. Water Manage. 96, 1799–1806 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zaveri, E. et al. Invisible water, visible impact: groundwater use and Indian agriculture under climate change. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 084005 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shah, T. Climate change and groundwater: India’s opportunities for mitigation and adaptation. Environ. Res. Lett. 4, 035005 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mishra, V. Long-term (1870–2018) drought reconstruction in context of surface water security in India. J. Hydrol. 580, 124228 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Devanand, A., Huang, M., Ashfaq, M., Barik, B. & Ghosh, S. Choice of irrigation water management practice affects Indian summer monsoon rainfall and its extremes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 9126–9135 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Laghari, A., Vanham, D. & Rauch, W. The Indus basin in the framework of current and future water resources management. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 16, 1063–1083 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wijngaard, R. R. et al. Climate change vs. socio-economic development: understanding the future South Asian water gap. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 22, 6297–6321 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Butler, J. J., Bohling, G. C., Whittemore, D. O. & Wilson, B. B. A roadblock on the path to aquifer sustainability: underestimating the impact of pumping reductions. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 014003 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Turner, S. W. D., Hejazi, M., Yonkofski, C., Kim, S. H. & Kyle, P. Influence of groundwater extraction costs and resource depletion limits on simulated global nonrenewable water withdrawals over the twenty-first century. Earths Future 7, 123–135 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Khan, S., Rana, T., Gabriel, H. & Ullah, M. K. Hydrogeologic assessment of escalating groundwater exploitation in the Indus basin, Pakistan. Hydrogeol. J. 16, 1635–1654 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mekonnen, D., Siddiqi, A. & Ringler, C. Drivers of groundwater use and technical efficiency of groundwater, canal water, and conjunctive use in Pakistan’s Indus basin irrigation system. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 32, 459–476 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Report of the 5th Census of Minor Irrigation Schemes (Ministry of Water Resources, 2017).Qureshi, A. S., Tushaar, S. & Mujeeb, A. The Groundwater Economy of Pakistan (IWMI, 2003).Bennett, G. D. Analysis of aquifer tests in the Punjab region of West Pakistan (US Government Printing Office, 1967).Bonsor, H. C. et al. Hydrogeological typologies of the Indo-Gangetic basin alluvial aquifer, South Asia. Hydrogeol. J. 25, 1377–1406 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lapworth, D. J. et al. Groundwater quality in the alluvial aquifer system of northwest India: new evidence of the extent of anthropogenic and geogenic contamination. Sci. Total Environ. 599–600, 1433–1444 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Krishan, G. et al. Isotopes (δ18O, δD and 3H) variations in groundwater with emphasis on salinization in the State of Punjab, India. Sci. Total Environ. 148051 (2021).Punjab Development Statistics 2003 (Bureau of Statistics, 2003).Punjab Development Statistics 2019 (Bureau of Statistics, 2019).Statistical Abstract of Punjab 2019 (Economic and Statistical Organisation, 2019).Statistical Abstract of Haryana 2018–19 (Department of Economic and Statistical Analysis, 2020).Harris, I., Osborn, T. J., Jones, P. & Lister, D. Version 4 of the CRU TS monthly high-resolution gridded multivariate climate dataset. Sci. Data 7, 109 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hirsch, R. M., Slack, J. R. & Smith, R. A. Techniques of trend analysis for monthly water quality data. Water Resour. Res. 18, 107–121 (1982).Article 

Google Scholar 
McKee, T. B., Doesken, N. J. & Kleist, J. The relationship of drought frequency and duration to time scales. In Proc. 8th Conference on Applied Climatology Vol. 17, 179–183 (1993). More

In the version of this article initially published, there was a misstatement in the third paragraph, fourth sentence, now reading in part, “Now hundreds of farmers and villagers in this cold, arid desert use the ice stupas to save the water that flows in autumn,” where “hundreds” has replaced “dozens.”. In the fifth from last paragraph, “University of Applied Sciences in Lucerne” has replaced “….Life Sciences.”After this article was published, a highly relevant paper followed, which is now referenced to enhance understanding. It is cited in the eighth paragraph, following the quote “‘Seventy-eight percent of the water used is lost during the ice stupa formation,’ said Balasubramanian6,” and provided below. The changes have been made to the HTML and PDF versions of the article. More

Estimating future economic and domestic water use is difficult due to uncertain changes in climate and socioeconomic conditions. Now, research estimates future water use in the United States could decrease or more than double by 2070 under plausible socioeconomic and climate scenarios.Between 1980 and 2015, the United States added more than 82 million people (34% increase), generated 1,786 billion kWh more electricity annually (78% increase), and irrigated 2.4 million more hectares of cropland each year (10% increase). Yet, surprisingly, during this same period, total annual water withdrawals decreased by nearly 150 billion m3 (25% reduction)1,2. Given the importance of water in meeting our basic needs and supporting economic activity, long-term forecasts of societal water use are required to ensure that enough water is available to meet future water needs. However, uncertainties in future climate and socioeconomic conditions make it difficult to predict future water use. Recent research reported in Earth’s Future by Warziniack and colleagues3 introduces a novel approach to project freshwater use in the United Sates through 2070. They find that water consumption could decrease by as much as 8% or increase up to 235% under different socioeconomic and climate scenarios. More

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain
the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in
Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles
and JavaScript. More

In order to maximise the potential for comparability with established global estimates GHG emission rates were built up for each emission category from established IPCC methodology wherever possible. All emissions were converted to carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) using the 100-year global warming potential (GWP) of each gas (34 for methane, 298 for nitrous oxide)18.Methane emission factor for typical sanitation containment and treatment systemsThe IPCC estimates methane emissions for sanitation systems from chemical oxygen demand based on Eq. 1. Emission factors are derived from Eq. 2, summed for the population segment using each type of sanitation system.$${{{{{rm{C}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{H}}}}}}}_{4}={sum }^{}Ptimes {{{{{rm{COD}}}}}}times P{R}_{{{{{{rm{COD}}}}}}}times {{{{{rm{EF}}}}}}$$
(1)
where; CH4 = total methane emissions from a given element of the system (kgCH4/year), P = population using the system, COD = chemical oxygen demand from the excreta of each person (kg COD/cap/year), PRCOD = percentage reduction of chemical oxygen demand whilst in situ (0–1), EF = emission factor for each containment technology (kgCH4/kg COD)$$E{F}_{c}={B}_{0}times {{{{{rm{MC}}}}}}{F}_{c}$$
(2)
where; EFC = emission factor for each containment technology, B0 = maximum methane-producing capacity kgCH4/kg COD, MCFC = methane correction factor for each containment technologyWe used Eqs. 1 and 2 to model estimates of direct emissions from typical sanitation systems based on updated methane correction factors (MCFc). MCFc varies from 0 (for a fully aerobic environment) to 1 (for a fully anaerobic environment)19,20. We developed new models for the types of latrines commonly found in Kampala based on field data provided by Nakagiri et al21. As inputs, we assumed a typical value for the COD of raw feaces (upstream of the toilet) of 71 kg COD/capita/day22, and a typical value for PR of 70%22,23. The value of B0 is 0.25 kg CH4/kg COD12.The methane-forming reaction, methanogenesis, occurs under obligate anaerobic conditions. A low dissolved oxygen (DO) level is a good indicator for higher rates of methane emission. DO falls when the loading is high, and correspondingly when dilution rates are low. DO will also tend to be lower at depth in static flow systems (i.e., within pit latrines or stagnant water bodies)21. DO also appears to fall in dry seasons and rise during the rains24. Consistent with DO, low oxidation reduction potential (ORP) of less than +50 mV indicates anoxic condition. Further, low ORP between −199 and −51 mV indicates acidic environment, ideal for methane formation21. Almost all pit latrines surveyed by Nakagiri et al.21 were within low DO and acidic ORP. In sludges, within pits and tanks, or in wastewater and faecal sludge treatment plants, higher moisture content and acidic environment are associated with enhanced methanogenesis. Thus, lined/sealed containers, waterlogged toilets, water borne piped sewerage and anaerobic, high load or saturated treatment processes are all likely to be associated with higher methane emissions.To establish values for MCFc, the physical characteristics of sludge inside containers are required, particularly the extent of aerobic and anaerobic conditions at different depths (see also Supplementary Method 1). Nakagiri et al.21 examined the physical properties of sludge cores taken from a number of pits in Kampala. These data were combined with citywide sanitation data from Musabe25 to produce emissions profiles for a set of ‘typical types’ of containers in the city using the IPCC method11,13. Details of the determination of MCFc and EF for methane are in Supplementary Tables 1, 3 with a summary of the results shown in Table 2.Methane emissions from treatment plants were calculated using a modified IPCC formula that is based on Reid et al.20$${{{{{{rm{CH}}}}}}}_{4}=Sigma [{{{{{rm{U}}}}}},{{{{{rm{x}}}}}},{{{{{rm{EF}}}}}},{{{{{rm{x}}}}}}({{{{{rm{TOW}}}}}}){{{{{rm{x}}}}}}(1{-}({{{{{rm{L}}}}}}+{{{{{rm{S}}}}}}+{{{{{rm{R}}}}}}))]$$
(3)
where methane emissions are expressed in kg CH4/year and are summed for each treatment plant. U = effective population (the population equivalent of excreta from direct inflow to the process plus effluent from previous, usually drying, process), EF = emission factors (kg CH4/kg COD) = B0 × MCF, B0 = Maximum methane producing capacity kg CH4/kg COD by process in the local context, MCF = methane correction factor, TOW = total organics in wastewater per year (kg COD/ year), L = proportion of organic component removed as effluent, S = proportion of organic component removed as sludge, R = proportion of methane recovered through capture processesDetailed calculations are presented in the Supplementary Information.Nitrous-oxide emission factors for typical sanitation containment and treatment systemsNitrous oxide is produced during both nitrification and denitrification. Nitrification occurs at the surface facilitating the escape of nitrous oxide gas, and is therefore the more significant process. During denitrification nitrous oxide formed in an anaerobic zone may be dissolved into a liquid phase or converted to dinitrogen (N2) before it can escape as a gas26. The rate of nitrous oxide emission is therefore dependent on the extent to which aerobic conditions exist at the surface and anaerobic conditions below the surface. These can be impacted by both system design and operational conditions.Nitrous oxide emissions are calculated based on Eq. 4 summed for the population segment using each type of sanitation system11,13,21:$${{{{{{rm{N}}}}}}}_{2}{{{{{rm{O}}}}}}={sum }^{}Ptimes {N}_{I}times {{{{{rm{EF}}}}}}times frac{44}{28}$$
(4)
where N2O = total N2O emissions (kg N2O/year), P = population using each sanitation facility (cap), NI= nitrogen influent from urine and faeces (kg N/cap/year), EF = emission factor for each sanitation facility (kg N2O-N/kg N), (frac{44}{28}) = conversion factor for N2O–N into kg N2O.For containment, we used field-study-derived data21,25 to generate modelled estimates for emission factors. We assumed a production of 4.672 kg N/capita /year in faeces and urine combined for Kampala (based on a reported value of 12.8 g/cap/day)27. For treatment processes we used the standard emission factors provided by IPCC11,13. Details of the resultant emission factors for nitrous oxide are in the Supplementary Tables 2, 4 with a summary of the results shown in Table 3.Operational emissions (trucking)Operational emissions were calculated on the basis of fuel use for trucking faecal sludge (see also Supplementary Method 4). We used data from truck operations to estimate typical transport distances28 and combined this with estimate of emissions factors for typical trucks, based on work conducted on the transport sector in South Africa29. The emissions from faecal sludge trucking were calculated using Eq. 5 summed for all known trucks operating in Kampala28.$${{{{{rm{C}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{O}}}}}}}_{2,T}={sum }^{}{N}_{T}times {{{{{rm{DT}}}}}}times E{F}_{V}$$
(5)
where CO2,T = total CO2 emissions from the transport of FS (kgCO2/year), NT = number trips made per year, DT = average distance travelled per trip (vehicle km), EFV = emission factor for each type of vehicle within the FSM fleet (kgCO2/vkm)Data on truck journeys are summarised in Supplementary Table 8, which also shows the resultant total CO2 emissions obtained by applying Eq. 5.Operational emissions (pumping and aerating wastewater in sewers and treatment plants)Emissions associated with electricity or fuel usage (e.g., diesel) were calculated using Eqs. 6 and  7 for electricity and diesel respectively summed for each pumping station and/or treatment plant.$${{{{{rm{C}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{O}}}}}}}_{2,el}={sum }^{}{C}_{el}times E{F}_{el}$$
(6)
where CO2,el = CO2 emissions associated with electricity usage (kgCO2/year), Cel = electricity consumption (MWh/year), EFel = emission factor (tCO2e/MWh/year)$${{{{{rm{C}}}}}}{{{{{{rm{O}}}}}}}_{2d}={sum }^{}{C}_{d}times E{F}_{d}$$
(7)
where CO2d = CO2 emissions associated with diesel usage (kgCO2/year), Cd = diesel consumption (l/year), EFd = emission factor (kg CO2e/l diesel)We used data on electricity and fuel usage in sewer and wastewater treatment operations and applied Eqs. 6 and 7 to obtain total operational emissions for wastewater operations. Supplementary Method 7 provides more details in the method and the results are broken down on Supplementary Table 14.Embedded carbon in construction materialWe used analytical estimation to model emissions associated with embedded carbon. Full details of the approach are in Supplementary Method 2 for containment, 3 for sewerage, and 6 for treatment plants. Quantities of materials in sanitation structures (toilets, sewers, treatment plants etc.) were estimated based on standard designs and information on the design of toilets in Kampala from Nakagiri, et al.30. Standard emission factors were applied31,32,33. Typical estimates of infrastructure design life were used to create an annual value. A summary of the emission factors used is shown in Supplementary Table 5 and details of the system-wise calculations are in Supplementary Tables 6, 7, 13.Sanitation system in KampalaIn order to create the emission profile for the city sanitation system of Kampala, we used data from Nakagiri et al.21, Kimuli et al.24, Musabe25, Schoebitz et al.34, McConville et al.35 and Lwasa17. The section below draws on all these sources.According to the most recent estimate of excreta flows in Kampala, close to half ends up in the environment untreated34. Around one fifth of the population have sanitation connected to sewers; around a third of wastewater is treated, while two-thirds end up in drains or other water bodies. The remaining population primarily use onsite sanitation systems that are either unlined or lined pit latrines, or so-called septic tanks, many of which are shared. Two-thirds of the population, and many of the people who rely on onsite systems, live in informal low income settlement in low lying areas with high water table, and it is widely reported that most onsite systems are regularly inundated with surface water or flooded with ground water. Of the excreta collected in onsite sanitation systems, about one third remains safely stored in pit latrines and one third are stored in tanks and pits that are located in areas where there is significant risk of groundwater pollution. The remaining third are collected in tanks and pits that are emptied on average once every three years. During flood events there is evidence that many toilets located near to drains are flushed out, using a ‘foot valve’ or vertical gate at the bottom of the tank that can be lifted manually. A graphical summary of the sanitation system is shown in Fig. 1.There are two major treatment plants, Lubigi and Bugolobi. The Lubigi plant comprises a series of waste stabilization ponds (anaerobic followed by facultative ponds) followed by drying beds for wastewater sludge. Faecal sludge from onsite sanitation is delivered to settling/thickening tanks; liquids are co-treated with wastewater in the stabilisation ponds, and solids in the drying beds. The faecal sludge treatment plant was reportedly already at design capacity of 400 m3 faecal sludge per day within the first months of operation28. Lubigi receives 3,000 m3 wastewater daily out of the 5,000 m3 design capacity35.Bugolobi wastewater treatment plant consists of settling tanks with supernatant going to trickling filters, solids going to digesters (if operational) followed by drying beds28. While Bugolobi was not designed to co-treat faecal sludge, it nonetheless receives about 200 m3 faecal sludge per day. The plant receives 13,000 m3 wastewater daily out of the 32,000 m3 design capacity35.The remaining three wastewater treatment plants in Kampala, Naalya, Ntinda and Bugolobi Flats have negligible capacity of 1,175 m3/d14, approximately 3% of the capacity of Lubigi and Bugolobi combined (37000 m3). Based on the available data we therefore assume that of the excreta that are treated, 80 percent of wastewater and 33 percent of faecal sludge are treated at Bugolobi with the balance treated at Lubigi.Emissions profileTo produce an emission profile across the entire system, the unit emissions rates calculated as described above were mapped onto the actual sanitation service profile for Kampala using the excreta-flow diagram or SFD for the city34. The process is described in Supplementary Methods 8. Peal et al.16 note that significant system failures occur in typical urban sanitation systems in Subsaharan Africa. This confirms the findings of Schoebitz et al.34. Many system failures result in discharges to the open stormwater drainage network. Because the drains are sometimes dry we used the mean of the emission rates for untreated waste discharged to open drains in the wet and dry seasons to estimate methane and nitrous oxide emissions caused by flows to open drains (see ‘No facility’ emission rates in Supplementary Table 4). We assumed that all illegal dumping and discharges upstream of the treatment plants went to open drains. However, failures at containment were divided. Shoebitz et al. report that most ‘failed’ containment results in infiltration to the groundwater that is assumed to have negligible impact on emissions34. A quarter of failures at containment are assumed to result in pits and tanks being flushed out to drains during flood events. More