Journal of Cleaner Production 298 (2021) 126780

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Yields and water footprints of sunflower and winter wheat under

Different Climate Projections
€ y a, b, *, Levent Şaylan a
Serhan Yeşilko
a _
Department of Meteorological Engineering, Faculty of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Istanbul _
Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
b _
Istanbul _
Directorate of Provincial Agriculture and Forestry, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Istanbul, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Water consumption in agriculture has a significant impact on water resources. On the other hand,
Received 29 October 2020 agricultural production is also important in terms of food sustainability. In this study, the yield and water
Received in revised form footprint (WF) of sunflower and winter wheat in the Northwestern (Thrace) part of Turkey were
1 March 2021
modeled. In addition, the meteorological data of the optimistic (RCP 4.5) and pessimistic (RCP 8.5)
Accepted 18 March 2021
Available online 23 March 2021
scenarios of three climate change models (EC-EARTH, HadGEM2-ES, and IPSL-CM5A-MR) until 2099
were obtained from the Coordinated Regional Climate Downscaling Experiment (hereafter CORDEX).
Handling editor; Bin Chen According to projection data, it was predicted that the annual mean air temperature will increase be-
tween 1.7 and 3.3
C. The average change in the precipitation will decrease between 10 and 33% during
Keywords: the sunflower growing seasons. It was calculated that it will increase from 9 to 25% in the winter wheat
Climate change growing seasons. We calibrated grain yield using Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer
Crop water footprint (DSSAT). Performance indicators like Normalized Root Mean Square Error (NRMSE) and Mean Absolute
Crop productivity Percentage Error (MAPE) were calculated as 5.3% and 4.7% for sunflower; 7.9% and 6.3% for winter wheat,
Crop growth simulation model
respectively. The yields and WFs of the crops were simulated according to the climate projections with
Future projections
the calibrated DSSAT. The yield and WF simulation results were evaluated for three successive periods
(P1: 2020e2040; P2: 2041e2070; P3: 2071e2099). It was determined that the sunflower yield will tend
to decrease in the future periods in all locations. On the other hand, it was estimated that winter wheat
yield might increase by 25% in the Tekirdag  city while it would decrease by 29% in the Edirne and
Kırklareli cities.
© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The shortage of water resources in a country is a restrictive

Agriculture is the largest consumer of freshwater and strongly
impacted by climate change. Precipitation is the only contributor to
rainfed agriculture (Liu et al., 2009; Galan-Martin et al., 2017),
while a large percentage of 69% is used in irrigation (Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2016). As stated
in the 5th Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, water scarcity is already an environmental
concern of humankind (IPCC, 2014; Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2016).
Also, water and food security issues cannot be ignored that the
world population is expected to be 9 billion next decades (Godfray
ne
et al., 2010; Be  et al., 2015; Batibeniz et al., 2020).
* Corresponding author. Department of Meteorological Engineering, Faculty of
_
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Istanbul _
Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey.
€ y).
E-mail address: yesilkoy@itu.edu.tr (S. Yeşilko
factor to social and economic growth (Ridoutt and Pfister, 2010; Li
et al., 2020). Garrote et al. (2015) and Kreins et al. (2015) indicated
that agricultural irrigation needs are projected to increase by
70e90% by 2050. As shown in all similar researches, effective
management of water resources would significantly support sus-
tainable agriculture, economic growth, and diminish the pressure
on water resources (Monaghan et al., 2013).
The water footprint (WF) was introduced by Hoekstra (2003)
and is a useful quantitative indicator to measure water consump-
tion during the production of a product (Hoekstra et al., 2011). In
agriculture, the amount of crop WF is determined as the ratio of the
cumulative actual evapotranspiration (ET) plus polluted freshwater
by chemicals and fertilizers, divided by the crop yield (Hoekstra and
Chapagain, 2011; Hoekstra et al., 2011). There are two approaches
to determine WF, Water Footprint Assessment (WFA) and Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA). According to WFA, crop WF has three compo-
nents, blue, green, and grey. The blue and green water WFs of a crop

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126780
0959-6526/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 €y and L. Şaylan
S. Yeşilko
refers to the water used from underground or aboveground sources
and volume of rainfall water usage during crop development
period, respectively (Siebert and Do € ll, 2010; Hoekstra et al., 2011;
Kersebaum et al., 2016). The third component, grey WF, expresses
the amount of freshwater contaminated by agricultural pollutants
such as chemical fertilizers and pesticides (Mekonnen and
Hoekstra, 2011; Bocchiola et al., 2013; Lovarelli et al., 2016; Feng
and Zhao, 2020). On the other hand, the LCA approach neglects
the green water consumption (Pfister and Hellweg, 2009; Hoekstra,
2016). In this study, the WFA approach was applied because it was
aimed to estimate the crop WF in rainfed conditions.
The crop yields and WFs vary spatially and temporally (Zhang
et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2019) related to climatic conditions, soil
type, and agro management activities (Barbosa et al., 2017; Babel
et al., 2018; Dekamin et al., 2018; Tsakmakis et al., 2018;
Villanueva-Rey et al., 2018). For these reasons, crop growth simu-
lation models (i.e. AquaCrop, DSSAT, CropWAT) are useful tools to
examine these effects quantitatively (Palosuo et al., 2011;
Kersebaum et al., 2016; Gobin et al., 2017). In literature, studies of
climate change impacts on crop yields and WFs are limited. These
studies have been usually conducted and simulated for major crops
like rice with DSSAT-Rice and ORYZA (Shrestha et al., 2017; Zheng
et al., 2020), cereals with SWAT and AquaCrop (Masud et al.,
2018; Yeşilko € y and Şaylan, 2020) and soybean with land-use
change scenario (Ayala et al., 2016), maize with deep neural
network (Elbeltagi et al., 2020) in experimental sites (Bocchiola
et al., 2013; Bochhiola, 2015; Xu et al., 2020) or diverse climatic
environments (Kassie et al., 2016; Garofalo et al., 2019). The com-
mon feature of these studies, which is the most prevalent approach,
is to predict crop yields and WFs with crop growth simulation
models using the outputs of one or more general circulation models
(GCMs).
There are some studies about WF calculations in Turkey. Some of
these can be listed as follows: Gobin et al. (2017) showed the WF
variability of cereals is much higher than tuber and root crops in
different parts of Europe. Boyacıog lu (2018) proposed an approach
to determine a municipal WF. Cakar et al. (2020) investigated the
carbon footprint, WF, and energy footprint of the food waste with
LCA. Muratoglu (2020a) calculated the grey WF based on the ni-
trogen surplus of Turkey. Muratoglu (2019) assessed the basin WF
with the CropWAT model based on not only crop production but
also livestock production, domestic and industrial use. Muratoglu
(2020b) determined wheat’s virtual water trade and its quantifi-
cation. Yeşilko€ y and Şaylan (2020) modeled future winter wheat
WFs and yields with AquaCrop with a single GCM output. The re-
sults showed that the projected winter wheat yield and its WF
would tend to increase and decrease, respectively. There are also
some researches which simulate crop growth parameters and
investigate the effects of climate change with crop growth simu-
lation models for Turkey: Çaldag  and Şaylan (2005) and Caldag et al.
(2017) estimated climate change impacts on crop growth and yield
by performing sensitivity analysis with WOFOST and DSSAT-CERES-
€
Wheat. Ozdo an (2011) projected the wheat yield, which will be
g
reduced by 15e20%, of northwestern Turkey with a dynamic
process-based model (AFRC2). Vanli et al. (2019) evaluated the
climate change impacts on wheat yield with the CERES-Wheat
model in the Southeastern part of Turkey. Their results showed
that wheat yield will decrease by 13e18%, although both studies
€
(Ozdo an, 2011; Vanli et al., 2019) used the outputs of results of
g and consisted of daily air temperature (average, maximum and
GCMs.
The most important feature that distinguishes the study from
other studies is the bias correction of climate projection data. Many
studies confirmed that bias correction in climate change impact
studies is inevitable (Luo et al., 2018; Soriano et al., 2019). From this
point of view, it is thought that a study in a major crop production
2
Journal of Cleaner Production 298 (2021) 126780
region with corrected climate projection data will help to better
understand and manage future agricultural activities and water
resources planning.
To fulfill the knowledge gap, which caused by not applied bias
correction, we simulated future yields and WFs of sunflower and
winter wheat with DSSAT using three corrected climate models
(HadGEM2-ES, CM5A-MR, and EC-EARTH) and two RCPs (RCP 4.5
and 8.5) outputs as input data. Study area has the highest sunflower
and winter wheat yields in rainfed production of Turkey, which
reveals the importance of the study. The purpose of this study was
(i) to calculate WF of sunflower and winter wheat which were
grown in rainfed condition with DSSAT in calibration period (ii) to
calibrate for crop yield and evaluate DSSAT-CROPGRO and DSSAT-
Nwheat models’ performance (iii) to predict yield and WF of sun-
flower and wheat with three climate projections under RCP 4.5 and
8.5 scenarios. This is the first study to perform DSSAT-CROPGRO
and Nwheat models for both crops in order to estimate their
yields and WF projections for Turkey.
The manuscript was structured as follows. Section 2 shows the
location of the study area where there are the phenological records
of the crops (sunflower and winter wheat) and the physical prop-
erties of the soil. Measured meteorological (long term and cali-
bration period) and projected data were presented and bias
correction methods were addressed. The genotype coefficients of
crops used in DSSAT calibration were presented. Model perfor-
mance of DSSAT was evaluated by comparing the actual and
modeled crop yields. Also, WFs of sunflower and winter wheat and
their estimation method were defined. In Section 3, results were
presented. Model accuracy of DSSAT was considered. Future pro-
jections of meteorological variables, crop yield, and WFs were
shown. In Section 4, results were discussed with similar studies.
Some suggestions were given, which can mitigate the climate
change impacts on water resources, for decision makers.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study area
The study was carried out in Edirne (41.68
N, 26.55
E, 48 m asl),
Kırklareli (41.74
N, 27.22
E, 170 m asl), and Tekirdag  (40.96
N,


27.50 E, 14 m asl) provinces with three different climate and soil
types during the growing season of winter wheat and sunflower
between 2014 and 2018 in the Northwestern part of Turkey (Fig. 1).
During these years, measurements were carried out for three
growing seasons (2014, 2015, and 2017) of sunflower and two
growing periods (2015e2016 and 2017e2018) of winter wheat.
Sunflower and winter wheat are grown alternately and widely in
rainfed conditions in our research area. In addition, the average
yields of sunflower and wheat in Thrace were 2.21 t ha1 (38.1%
more than country avg.) and 4.46 tha-1 (90.9% more than country
avg.), respectively.
2.2. Data
2.2.1. Historical climate data
In this study, historical meteorological data from 1971 to 2018
were obtained from the Turkish State Meteorology Service (TSMS)
minimum), relative humidity, precipitation, global solar radiation,
and wind speed. Mean temperature and total precipitation maps
can be seen in Fig. 2. The average temperature of the region was
calculated as 13.6
C and the annual precipitation amount was
601.8 mm. The southwestern part of the region has higher values
than both air temperature and precipitation averages.
 €y and L. Şaylan
S. Yeşilko Journal of Cleaner Production 298 (2021) 126780

Fig. 1. Location of study area.

Fig. 2. Mean air temperature and total precipitation maps.

2.2.2. Crop and soil data Table 2

Table 1 shows the planting and harvesting dates from our Soil types and hydrological properties.

observation of sunflower and winter wheat. Texture and hydro- Location Texture FC (%) WP (%) SOM (%)
logical information of soils in the experiment sites are given in Edirne C 37 23 1.49
Table 2 (Gobin et al., 2017; Gürbüz et al., 2019). Kırklareli SL 35 17 1.52
Tekirdag L 39 28 1.44
2.2.3. Climate projection data C ¼ Clay; SL ¼ Sandy Loam; L ¼ Loamy; FC ¼ Field Capacity; WP ¼ Wilting Point;
In this study, EURO-CORDEX data obtained from three General SOM ¼ Soil Organic Matter.
Circulation Models (GCMs) and downscaled to 0.11
(~12.5 km)
horizontal resolution with regional climate models (RCMs) were
provided (Table 3). The daily air temperature (Tmax, and Tmin), relative humidity (RH), precipitation (P), global solar radiation (Rg),
and wind speed (WS) data generated for the RCP 4.5 and 8.5 sce-
narios published in the AR5 were used.
Table 1 The historical data of climate models have bias from the mea-
Crops’ planting and harvest date. surement data in the baseline scenario (1971e2000). For this
Sunflower Winter Wheat reason, bias correction must be applied to the projection data
Edirne Kırklareli 
Tekirdag Edirne Kırklareli 
Tekirdag
especially in impact studies (e.g. crop modelling, drought) because
of reducing uncertainties (Teng et al., 2015; Mostafa et al., 2019;
Planting 25-Apr 10-Apr 20-Apr 20-Oct 20-Oct 20-Oct
Azmat et al., 2020). Bias correction was applied to projection data
Harvest 1Sep 20-Aug 25-Aug 20-June 25-June 20-June

3
 €y and L. Şaylan
S. Yeşilko Journal of Cleaner Production 298 (2021) 126780

Table 3
List of EURO-CORDEX future projection experiments.

Driving GCM RCM Institute

IPSL-CM5A-MR RCA4 Rossy Centre, Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI), Sweden
ICHEC-EC-EARTH RACMO22E Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI), Netherlands
MOHC-HadGEM2-ES HIRHAM5 Met Office Hadley Centre, UK

GCM ¼ General Circulation Model; RCM ¼ Regional Climate Model.

using measurements in the baseline. There are many different bias 2.3.2. DSSAT-Nwheat
correction methods (Feigenwinter et al., 2018; Pasten-Zapata et al., Nwheat model was embedded DSSAT v4.7, which is based on
2020). In this study, air temperature data were corrected by sea- the APSIM-Nwheat model, and tested in locations with different
sonal mean bias correction (Bergstro€ m et al., 2001; Soriano et al., climatic characteristics for temperature, CO2, nitrogen, water, and
2019), and other meteorological variables (P, Rg, WS, RH) were management (Asseng et al., 1998, 2003; Wessolek and Asseng,
corrected using quantile mapping (Luo et al., 2018; Heo et al., 2019). 2006; Bassu et al., 2009; O’Leary et al., 2015; Kassie et al., 2016;
Equations of seasonal mean bias correction (Eq. (1)) and quantile Liu et al., 2020). Although the Nwheat model has the same input
mapping (Eq. (2)) methods were computed as follows: content as the CERES-Wheat (another model in DSSAT), there are
more cultivar coefficients to calibrate. The genotype coefficients of
Ti; cor ¼ Ti þ DTi (1) the DSSAT-Nwheat in the locations where our study was conducted
are given in Table 4.
Qm ðtÞ ¼ F01 ½Fs ½Qs ðtÞ (2)
2.3.3. Model evaluation
where Ti; cor is the corrected temperature in month i, Ti is the Performance indicators such as normalized root mean square
measured temperature in month i, DTi is the difference between error (NRMSE, Eq. (3)), mean absolute percentage error (MAPE, Eq.
projected and baseline temperature of climate model in month i, (4)) were used to evaluate model performance.
Qm ðtÞ is the corrected data, Qs ðtÞ is the RCM data during baseline, Fs vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u"Pn #
u 2
is the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the raw data, F01 is i¼1 ðSi  Oi Þ
NRMSE ¼ t 2
x 100 (3)
the inverse CDF of the observed data. nO

n  
1X 
Oi  Si 
2.3. DSSAT model description MAPE ¼ 100 x (4)
n 1  Oi 
In this study, DSSAT v4.7.5 was used to simulate crop yield. It is a
physiological-process-based model (Jones et al., 2003) and able to where n is the number of data, Si and Oi are the simulated and
simulate not only wheat and sunflower but also more than 20 crops observed values, respectively. Model performances is considered as
including rice, maize (Hoogenboom et al., 2017; Shrestha et al., excellent when these indicators with <10%; good if 10e20%; fair if
2017). Crop genotype coefficients of wheat and sunflower were 20e30%; poor if >30% (Jamieson et al., 1991; Soler et al., 2007;
estimated based on field measurements such as phenological dates, Kadiyala et al., 2015; Mehrabi and Sepaskhah, 2019).
biomass, yields through the DSSAT-GLUE package with 3000 iter-
ations (He et al., 2009; Jones et al., 2011) afterward fine-tuning by 2.4. Water footprint calculations
hand (Palosuo et al., 2011; Kersebaum et al., 2016; Siedel et al.,
2018). In this study, green WF represents the total WF. Because sun-
flower and winter wheat were grown under rainfed conditions
(Hoekstra et al., 2011; Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2011; Chukalla
2.3.1. DSSAT-CROPGRO et al., 2015). Green WF (m3 t1) of crops were calculated as fol-
Since the CROPGRO sunflower model was integrated with lows (Eq (5)):
version 4.7 of DSSAT, there are a limited number of studies. In this Plgp  
model, there are 18 different genetic coefficients for the sunflower 10* day¼1 min ET; Peff
(Hoogenboom et al., 2017; Malik and Dechmi, 2019). In Table 5, WFGreen ¼ (5)
Y
genetic coefficients of the sunflower, which are used in the model,
were given. where ET is the daily actual evapotranspiration (ET, mm day1),

Table 4
Main cultivar coefficients of DSSAT-Nwheat.

Code Definition Edirne Kırklareli 

Tekirdag

VSEN Sensitivity to vernalization 1.60 1.40 1.50

PPSEN Sensitivity to photoperiod 1.20 1.20 1.20
P1 Thermal time from seedling emergence to end of juvenile phase 400 380 400
P5 Thermal time (start of grain filling to maturity) (
C) 720 740 680
PHINT Phyllochron interval (
C-days/leaf appearance) 88 105 120
ADLAI Threshold aeration deficit (AF2) affecting LAI 1.00 0.90 0.99
GRNO Kernel number per stem weight (kernel/g-stem) 30 30 30
MXFIL Potential kernel growth rate (mg kernel1 day1) 1.90 2.50 2.30
STMMX Potential final dry weight of a single tiller (g stem1) 3.00 2.50 2.00

4
 €y and L. Şaylan
S. Yeşilko Journal of Cleaner Production 298 (2021) 126780

Table 5
Genotype coefficients of DSSAT-CROPGRO.

Code Definition Edirne Kırklareli 

Tekirdag

CSDL Critical long day length above which reproductive development progresses with no daylength effect 15.00 15.00 15.00
PPSEN Slope of the relative response of development to photoperiod with time 0.086 0.086 0.086
EM-FL Photothermal time between plant emergence and flower appearance 25.0 27.0 27.0
FL-SH Photothermal time between starburst and begin thalamus 3.0 3.0 3.0
FL-SD Photothermal time between starburst to anthesis/begin seed 10.2 10.2 10.2
SD-PM Photothermal time between anthesis/begin seed and physiological maturity 30.00 30.00 30.00
FL-LF Photothermal time between starburst and end of leaf expansion 14.00 14.00 14.00
LFMAX Maximum leaf photosynthesis rate 8.00 8.00 8.00
SLAVR Specific leaf area of cultivar under standard growth conditions (cm2 g1) 140 115 120
SIZLF Maximum size of full leaf (cm2) 600 650 600
XFRT Maximum fraction of daily growth partitioned to thalamus, achen and seed 0.89 0.79 0.82
WTPSD Maximum weight per seed (g) 0.07 0.07 0.07
SFDUR Seed filling duration for pod cohort at standard growth conditions 18.0 18.0 18.0
SDPDV Average seed per pod under standard growing conditions 2.00 2.00 2.00
PODUR Photothermal time to reach final pod load under optimal conditions 4.2 4.2 4.5
THRSH Threshing percentage 80.0 80.0 80.0
SDPRO Fraction protein in seeds (g(protein)/g(seed)) 0.140 0.140 0.140
SDLIP Fraction oil in seeds (g(oil)g(seed)1) 0.450 0.450 0.450

which were calculated by DSSAT after the calibration with Priestly
and Taylor (1972) method, lgp is the length of the crop growing
period, Y is the yield (t ha1). The multiplier 10 converts the unit
from mm to m3 ha1. Peff is the effective precipitation (mm day1)
which is calculated by the USDA-SCS method (Eqs. (6) and (7))
determined by Nearing et al. (1989):
 
Pday 4:17  0:2Pday
Peff ¼ ; Pday < 8:3 mm
4:17
Peff ¼ 4:17 þ 0:1Pday ; Pday  8:3 mm
where Pday is the daily total precipitation (mm day1).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Model calibration and evaluation
In the calibration of the DSSAT, actual yields of three growing
seasons for sunflower (2014, 2015, and 2017) and two growing
seasons for winter wheat (2015e2016 and 2017e2018) were used.
Fig. 3 shows the actual and modeled grain yields of sunflower and
winter wheat for Edirne, Kırklareli, and Tekirdag . The DSSAT was
calibrated on the basis of crop yields at the field scale. Performance
indicators NRMSE and MAPE were calculated as 5.3% and 4.7% for
sunflower, 7.9% and 6.3% for winter wheat, respectively, and the
calibration process was considered as “excellent”. The average
sunflower and winter wheat yield of the region in this period was
calculated as 2.21 and 4.46 t ha1, and the modeled average yield
(6) was 2.20 and 4.22 t ha1, respectively.
Statistics of measured precipitation, Peff, maximum, and mini-
mum temperatures of the long term (1971e2018), and calibration
(7) periods can be found in Table 6. According to the table, the
maximum temperature in the sunflower and wheat growing sea-
sons in the calibration period is 0.9 and 1.6
C higher than the long-
term averages, respectively. While the minimum temperature in
the calibration period of the sunflower growing season is 1.1
C
higher than the long-term averages in Edirne and Tekirdag ,
whereas, it is 1
C lower than the long-term average in Kırklareli.
The minimum temperature in the calibration period of the wheat
growing season is 0.8
C higher than the long-term averages. When
the calibration period and long-term precipitation and Peff values
are compared, it is calculated that they are 9.5% and 54.5% more in

Fig. 3. Comparison of actual and modeled crop yields.

5
 €y and L. Şaylan
S. Yeşilko
Table 6
Meteorological statistics of long term and calibration periods.
Sunflower Growing Season
Tmax (
C) Tmin (
C) P (mm)
a a a a
Edirne 29.3 (29.9 ) 15.3 (15.4 ) 165.5 (176.1 )
Kırklareli 26.5 (27.6a) 14.4 (13.4a) 174.8 (205.5a)
Tekirdag 24.9 (25.8a) 16.3 (17.4a) 122.5 (128.2a)
a
¼ Calibration Years’ Averages.
the sunflower calibration period, respectively. For the wheat
growing season, long-term precipitation and Peff amounts have
values close to each other in all locations. Average precipitation and
Peff amounts in this period are 446.9 and 214.0 mm, respectively.
The green WFs were calculated after the model calibration. The
green WF of sunflower and winter wheat in the locations where the
DSSAT model was performed is shown in Fig. 4. As we mentioned
before the WF is very sensitive to the environment, soil, and
cultivar type in which the crop grows. Therefore, different soil types
and meteorological variables, which affect actual ET, in the loca-
tions considerably caused different our results in WFs. Region
average of sunflower green WF was calculated as 445 m3 t1. The
reason for the sunflower green WF value of 554 m3 t1 in Kırklareli
is thought to be since the Peff amount was approximately 33.1%
more than Edirne and Tekirdag . The average WF of the winter
wheat in the study area is half of the sunflower and was calculated
as 218.3 m3 t1. The WF of winter wheat in Tekirdag  is lower than
other locations and it was calculated as 177.1 m3 t1. The reason for
this might be that the meteorological variables in Tekirdag  differ
from other locations not only the different soil types but also the
sea effect. Besides, the Peff in Tekirdag  is approximately 80 mm
(26%) lower than the average of Edirne and Kırklareli stations.
Although winter wheat yield and Peff amount in Edirne and
Kırklareli are nearly close, it is thought that different climate and
soil type affect the amount of winter wheat WF.
3.2. Climate projections
The annual average temperature and total precipitation time
series from 1971 to 2099 obtained from measurements
(1971e2018) and three climate projections of Edirne, Kırklareli, and
Tekirdag stations were illustrated in Fig. 5. The annual total pre-
cipitation of these stations between 1971 and 2018 was measured
as 575.0, 563.7, and 554.9 mm, respectively. According to the RCP
Fig. 4. Green water footprint of sunflower and winter wheat calculated by DSSAT.
Journal of Cleaner Production 298 (2021) 126780
Winter Wheat Growing Season
Peff (mm) Tmax (
C) Tmin (
C) P (mm) Peff (mm)
a a a
79.2 (107.2 ) 15.3 (17.3 ) 5.1 (6.5 ) 452.4 (498.5 ) 214.9 (325.7a)
85.5 (138.5a) 14.6 (16.7a) 5.6 (5.8a) 444.5 (459.4a) 213.9 (318.0a)
60.7 (100.8a) 14.1 (14.7a) 7.0 (7.7a) 443.8 (363.9a) 213.2 (239.3a)
4.5 and 8.5 of three climate projections, the annual precipitation
was predicted to be change until the end of the 21st century be-
tween 14.5 and 2.7% in Edirne, 8.9 and 5.4% in Kırklareli, 25.5
and 4.0% in Tekirdag. It is expected that the annual mean air tem-
perature change in the Thrace region would be 1.7
C in the RCP 4.5
scenarios and 3.3
C in the RCP 8.5 scenarios until 2099.
On the other hand, it is necessary to evaluate precipitation and
temperature changes during the months of the sunflower and
winter wheat growing seasons, separately.
3.2.1. Sunflower growing seasons
The results of temperature and precipitation changes in the
sunflower growing seasons under three climate models and two
scenarios were periodically (P1: 2020e2040, P2: 2041e2070, P3:
2071e2099) evaluated. In all scenarios and periods of climate
projections, changes in temperatures (mean, max, and min) pre-
cipitation were found as follows:
In the optimistic (RCP 4.5) scenario of the EC-EARTH model,
precipitation decreased in the periods P1, P2, P3 by 19, 8, and 4%,
respectively. In the pessimistic scenario (RCP 8.5), the rate of
decrease in precipitation may increasingly continue until the end of
the century and periodically decrease by 7, 13, and 15%, respec-
tively. The average temperature change is estimated to be
1.4e2.2
C in the RCP 4.5 and 1.6e4.1
C in the RCP 8.5 and may
continuously increase. A similar amount of increase was deter-
mined for the maximum and minimum temperatures. It was pre-
dicted that the maximum and minimum temperature increases in
the RCP 4.5 might be between 1.2 and 1.9
C, 1.2e2.1
C, and the
increase in the RCP 8.5 between 1.4 and 3.8
C, 1.6e4.2
C,
respectively.
Among the climate models, it was found that the highest tem-
perature increase was estimated by the HadGEM2-ES model. In the
RCP 4.5 and 8.5, temperatures would constantly increase until the
end of the century. Mean, maximum, and minimum temperatures
rise were calculated as 3.8, 5.0, 1.1
C and 6.7, 6.7, 3.4
C, respec-
tively. Although the change in precipitation is would decrease
throughout the region, an increase of precipitation was predicted in
Tekirdag. The decrease in the amount of precipitation was calcu-
lated as 35% and 31% in Edirne and Kırklareli, respectively. On the
other hand, the precipitation increase in Tekirdag  was calculated as
46% in RCP 4.5. In the RCP 8.5, it was estimated that the precipi-
tation in the region would decrease by approximately half.
According to the results of RCP 4.5 and 8.5 of the IPSL-CM5A-MR
model, the maximum and minimum temperatures increase is
higher than the mean temperature increase. While the maximum
and minimum temperatures increase in RCP 4.5 is 2.3
C, the mean
temperature increase is 1.7
C. Concordantly, the maximum, mini-
mum and mean temperatures increase in the RCP 8.5 was calcu-
lated as 2.3, 3.9 and 3.8
C, respectively. In RCP 4.5 and 8.5, when
the change in precipitation is examined periodically, it was esti-
mated that it might decrease continuously in P1, P2, and P3 periods.
It was calculated that the precipitation would decrease by 0, 21, 21%
in the RCP 4.5 and 19, 34, 47% in the RCP 8.5, respectively.
6
 €y and L. Şaylan
S. Yeşilko
Fig. 5. Time series of measurements and projected annual mean temperature and annual total precipitation for Edirne, Kırklareli, and Tekirdag
3.2.2. Winter wheat growing seasons
In the RCP 4.5, an increase in temperature and precipitation was
predicted. In the RCP 8.5, it was estimated that while temperatures
continuously increase and precipitation decreases in some periods
and increases in some periods.
In the RCP 4.5 and 8.5 of the EC-EARTH, temperatures may in-
crease in successive periods. It was estimated that the temperatures
would increase between 1.4 and 2.6
C in the RCP 4.5 and between
1.7 and 4.5
C in the RCP 8.5. The increase in precipitation was
estimated to be between 26-39% and 21e41% in the RCP 4.5 and 8.5,
respectively.
It was found that the temperature increase in HadGEM2-ES is
higher than models. The temperature rise was estimated to be
7
Journal of Cleaner Production 298 (2021) 126780
.
between 1.4 and 4.7
C in the RCP 4.5 and 2.0e7.5
C in the RCP 8.5.
Although the precipitation in the optimistic scenario increased by
25% and decreased by 12% in the pessimistic scenario until 2099,
when the averages of all periods were analyzed.
In the RCP 4.5 and 8.5 of the IPSL-CM5A-MR model, it was
predicted that the temperature would continuously increase and it
was estimated to be between 1.3-2.9
C and 1.4e6.0
C, respec-
tively. The precipitation in the RCP 4.5 was expected to increase by
26, 14, and 9% in the periods of P1, P2, P3 compared to the baseline,
respectively. There is a similarity in the RCP 8.5 and precipitation
increased by 23% and 10% in periods P1 and P2, respectively, while
it decreased by 6% in period P3.
 €y and L. Şaylan
S. Yeşilko
3.3. Potential yield changes
Future yield simulations for sunflower and winter wheat were
performed by the calibrated DSSAT model with two atmospheric
CO2 concentration scenarios and corrected meteorological data
obtained from three climate models. The simulation results of
 for
sunflower and winter wheat for Edirne, Kırklareli, and Tekirdag
three successive periods (P1: 2020e2040; P2: 2041e2070; P3:
Fig. 6. Sunflower yield changes with the estimation of DSSAT under different climate projections.
8
Journal of Cleaner Production 298 (2021) 126780
2071e2099) are shown in Figs. 6 and 7, respectively.
According to the simulation results using EC-EARTH data, it was
determined that the sunflower yield could decrease 11 and 10% in
RCP 4.5 and 8.5, respectively. The highest yield decrease is esti-
mated for Edirne with an average of 16% (equals in RCP 4.5 and 8.5),
and at least in Kırklareli with an average of 5% in the RCP 4.5 and 6%
in the RCP 8.5.
The simulation results of the HadGEM2-ES model with the RCP
 €y and L. Şaylan
S. Yeşilko
Fig. 7. Winter wheat yield changes with the estimation of DSSAT under different climate projections.
4.5 scenario showed that a decrease of the sunflower yield in the
region by an average of 16% and the RCP 8.5 by 19%. However, the
 could
average yield in the last period (P3) of the RCP 4.5 in Tekirdag
increase 2% and the average yield in the first period (P1) of the RCP
8.5 seems unaffected. In the RCP 4.5, it was modeled that the
average yield in Edirne and Kırklareli might decrease by 30% and
16%, respectively. On the other hand, in the RCP 8.5, it showed that a
9
Journal of Cleaner Production 298 (2021) 126780
continuous decline periodically by 33% in Edirne and 21% in
Kırklareli.
The decrease in sunflower yield simulated with the results of
the IPSL-CM5A-MR model was higher than the other models. In this
model, it was simulated that the yield will decrease by 21% ac-
cording to the RCP 4.5 and 27% in the RCP 8.5. When the stations
and periods were examined, the crop yield would periodically
 €y and L. Şaylan
S. Yeşilko Journal of Cleaner Production 298 (2021) 126780

decrease. In the RCP 4.5, it was estimated that the yield would
decrease at least in Tekirdag  P3 with 13% and maximum in Edirne
P3 with 32%. In the RCP 8.5, the yield decrease is greater, and it was
modeled that the yield will decrease by more than half (57%) during
the P3 in Edirne.
Simulations for winter wheat were predicted that the yield will
decrease in Edirne and Kırklareli, while the yield will increase in
Tekirdag  in the future periods. In the simulation results of RCP 4.5
results of the EC-EARTH model, winter wheat yield in Edirne and
Kırklareli decreased by 27 and 23%, respectively, while the yield in
Tekirdag  increased by 27%. In the RCP 8.5 results, it was modeled
that the yield in Tekirdag  will increase by 37%. The yield reductions
in Edirne and Kırklareli were calculated as 24 and 25%, respectively.
According to the results of the HadGEM2-ES model, the average
change in the yield of the wheat in the RCP 4.5 decreased by 39 and
29% in Edirne and Kırklareli, respectively, while the yield in
Tekirdag  continuously increased by 15% on average. In the RCP 8.5,
the yield in Tekirdag  increased by 6% only in the P2 and decreased
by 3 and 6% in the P1 and P3, respectively. It was modeled that until
the end of the 21st century, the average yield in Edirne might
decrease approximately one third (35%), whereas it could decrease
an average of one quarter (26%) in Kırklareli.
In simulations performed with RCP 4.5 and 8.5 data of the IPSL-
CM5A-MR model, it was modeled that the winter wheat yield will
tend to increase in Tekirdag  until the end of the century and in-
crease by 29 and 42% respectively. On the other hand, it was
simulated that yield will decrease in Edirne and Kırklareli. For
Edirne, the yield decrease in RCP 4.5 and 8.5 was calculated as 34
and 33%, respectively. For Kırklareli, this decrease was 24 and 30%,
respectively.
3.4. Water footprint estimations
The potential green WFs (GWF) of sunflower and winter wheat
were calculated using the possible yields modeled with the DSSAT,
modeled ET values and corrected precipitation data obtained from
climate models (Tables 7 and 8).
The average GWF calculated from the model results of the
sunflower is higher in all locations and periods in the RCP 4.5
compared to the RCP 8.5. The GWF of Edirne decreased periodically
from 268 to 244 m3 t1 in the RCP 4.5. On the other hand, in the RCP
8.5, the P3 is 21 m3 t1 more than the P2. The average GWF of
sunflower in Kırklareli decreased from 247 to 235 m3 t1 from P1 to
P3 and from 224 to 167 m3 t1 in RCP 4.5 and 8.5, respectively. The
average GWF in Tekirdag  was calculated as lower than other loca-
tions in optimistic and pessimistic scenarios. In addition, while the
average GWF in the RCP 4.5 was 223 m3 t1, it decreased by 39% in
the RCP 8.5e137 m3 t1.
During the calibration period of DSSAT, the average GWF of a
winter wheat was almost half that of a sunflower GWF.
Concordantly, it was modeled that a similar situation may occur in
the future and it was calculated that 13% lower in RCP 4.5 and 16%
lower in RCP 8.5. The average GWF of winter wheat in Edirne was
calculated as 240 and 195 m3 t1 in the P1 of RCP 4.5 and 8.5,
respectively. Until the P3, these values decreased by 11 and 29%,
respectively, to 213 and 138 m3 t1. It was determined that a similar
decrease (11 and 26%) occurred in Kırklareli in RCP 4.5 and 8.5. The
average GWFs decreased from P1 to P3 from 242 to 215 m3 t1 and
from 184 to 112 m3 t1 in the RCP 4.5 and 8.5, respectively. Average
GWFs in Tekirdag  are 25% lower than Edirne and Kırklareli. It was
calculated that the GWF of winter wheat will decrease from 176 to
165 m3 t1 in the RCP 4.5 and from 134 to 112 m3 t1 in the RCP 8.5.
It can be said that the reason why the GWF of winter wheat in
Tekirdag is low compared to other locations is that the crop yield
tends to increase continuously.
4. Conclusion
In this study, the DSSAT model was calibrated for sunflower and
winter wheat in an area where cultivation is carried out in rainfed
conditions. Besides, yield and GWF of crops and changes were
analyzed with the data obtained from three climate models with
optimistic and pessimistic scenario results.
In the literature, a limited number of studies were found on
predicting future yield and WF changes of sunflower and winter
wheat. Yeşilko €y and Şaylan (2020) used the results of the
HadGEM2-ES climate model with the AquaCrop model to estimate
the future wheat yield and green WF for the same locations. Con-
trary to our study, it was modeled that the wheat yield increased
continuously not only in Tekirdag , but also in Edirne and Kırklareli,
and the WFs were also reduced. Garofalo et al. (2019) simulated the
future (in 2050) WF of winter wheat in Germany and Italy with
various models including DSSAT. Their results showed that wheat
yield and WF will be respectively 29% and 2.3 times higher in the
future in Germany (Continental climate), and 9% and 3.1 times
higher in Italy (Mediterranean climate) compared to our results.
Lali
c et al. (2018) determined the green WF of sunflower grown in
rainfed conditions in Serbia. Since the rainfall in Serbia was 82%
higher than the average of our study area, the yield and green WF
were determined to be relatively more than double our results.
Kersebaum et al. (2016) simulated the yield and WF of the wheat
with 7 different models, including DSSAT, in five different envi-
ronments in Europe with different climatic conditions. In DSSAT
simulations, the increase in CO2 reduced the WF by half, on the
other hand, it increased the yield by approximately 10%. Gobin et al.
(2017) determined the WF of rainfed crops (including wheat) across
Europe with the AquaCrop model and calculated an average of
1108 ± 580 m3 t1 and found that different soil and climatic con-
ditions increased the variability of green WF. Zhuo et al. (2016)
determined the green WF of the wheat in the wide geography of

Table 7
Sunflower Green Water Footprint (m3 t1) Estimations by DSSAT.

Period GCM Edirne Kırklareli 

Tekirdag

RCP 4.5 RCP 8.5 RCP 4.5 RCP 8.5 RCP 4.5 RCP 8.5

P1 EC-EARTH 240.2 ± 72.7 241.9 ± 63.7 222.0 ± 62.0 220.1 ± 73.4 170.8 ± 81.0 187.8 ± 67.2
HadGEM2-ES 238.2 ± 77.3 177.3 ± 63.6 227.6 ± 66.0 210.8 ± 74.2 293.5 ± 86.5 108.2 ± 52.6
IPSL-CM5A-MR 325.6 ± 94.9 285.6 ± 87.0 291.6 ± 88.5 239.9 ± 79.9 219.7 ± 72.4 181.5 ± 65.3
P2 EC-EARTH 246.1 ± 73.8 210.0 ± 81.2 235.7 ± 90.7 192.7 ± 83.5 189.6 ± 84.9 165.8 ± 70.8
HadGEM2-ES 238.9 ± 86.8 154.3 ± 60.0 225.0 ± 79.8 155.1 ± 54.9 285.4 ± 77.0 84.3 ± 45.2
IPSL-CM5A-MR 263.2 ± 105.9 226.6 ± 94.2 245.9 ± 101.0 193.3 ± 78.9 200.4 ± 91.0 152.7 ± 75.5
P3 EC-EARTH 253.0 ± 78.8 217.2 ± 79.5 238.5 ± 95.7 191.4 ± 93.3 190.7 ± 84.8 155.8 ± 78.2
HadGEM2-ES 228.1 ± 86.8 181.3 ± 66.2 221.6 ± 78.8 144.6 ± 57.6 285.5 ± 94.8 79.0 ± 35.1
IPSL-CM5A-MR 250.2 ± 86.6 254.7 ± 116.2 245.6 ± 63.2 166.7 ± 81.2 169.0 ± 53.8 114.2 ± 73.2

10
 €y and L. Şaylan
S. Yeşilko Journal of Cleaner Production 298 (2021) 126780

Table 8
Winter Wheat Green Water Footprint (m3 t1) Estimations by DSSAT.

Period GCM Edirne Kırklareli 

Tekirdag

RCP 4.5 RCP 8.5 RCP 4.5 RCP 8.5 RCP 4.5 RCP 8.5

P1 EC-EARTH 201.5 ± 78.3 176.9 ± 46.8 190.5 ± 56.5 170.0 ± 46.7 132.4 ± 51.8 122.0 ± 28.5
HadGEM2-ES 311.0 ± 91.7 204.5 ± 47.7 301.1 ± 109.3 194.9 ± 40.1 254.7 ± 84.3 158.6 ± 44.5
IPSL-CM5A-MR 206.1 ± 65.5 203.8 ± 68.2 234.8 ± 101.2 188.4 ± 58.5 139.3 ± 54.0 122.3 ± 35.4
P2 EC-EARTH 201.5 ± 62.1 185.2 ± 44.2 225.4 ± 64.6 184.2 ± 51.5 147.5 ± 50.0 136.8 ± 38.3
HadGEM2-ES 275.6 ± 107.6 167.7 ± 66.7 264.2 ± 89.8 153.1 ± 52.7 231.4 ± 68.7 130.5 ± 66.0
IPSL-CM5A-MR 181.9 ± 45.3 169.2 ± 45.7 180.1 ± 48.0 161.9 ± 48.0 121.0 ± 41.2 99.4 ± 37.1
P3 EC-EARTH 185.6 ± 59.9 162.5 ± 51.8 206.0 ± 79.4 171.0 ± 59.8 145.5 ± 57.6 126.1 ± 51.7
HadGEM2-ES 276.3 ± 109.0 132.6 ± 43.5 263.9 ± 95.1 132.6 ± 41.9 239.9 ± 84.6 138.8 ± 60.5
IPSL-CM5A-MR 176.4 ± 50.3 119.1 ± 30.7 174.3 ± 54.2 107.2 ± 35.0 109.1 ± 27.4 70.9 ± 27.7

China in different climatic and soil conditions and was determined
to be high (1120 ± 320 m3 t1) according to our results. The reason
why their result is higher than the results of our study is thought to
be the amount of precipitation in China was twice the amount of
precipitation in our study area.
The results show that sunflower yield will decrease significantly
throughout the region and winter wheat yield will decrease slightly
(except Tekirdag ). Also, the possible reduction in effective rainfall
during crop development periods caused a decrease in the amount
of green WF. It can be thought that the water requirements of
sunflower and winter wheat would need irrigation because of crop
water requirements. This situation will create significant pressure
on existing water resources. These results can aid particular actions
which can be taken as follows: (1) to investigate the possible
impact of climate change on water resources (2) to plan and
manage the existing infrastructure of water resources (3) to provide
training activities (i.e. deficit and drip irrigation) for stakeholders
(farmers, agricultural institutions) (4) to create policy and support
rural development.
As can be seen from these studies, the same crops with different
culture types, climate, soil, and agricultural activities cause
considerably different results in yield and WF. Therefore, it can be
said that it is crucial to carry out WF studies in diverse environ-
mental conditions.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Serhan Yeşilko € y: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data
Collection, Modelling, Visualization, Writing - review & editing.
Levent Şaylan: Supervision, Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgment
This study is a part of the Ph.D. Thesis at Istanbul Technical
€
University. We thank Prof. Barış Onol  for their
and Prof. Barış Çaldag
suggestions.
References
Asseng, S., Keating, B.A., Fillery, I.R.P., Gregory, P.J., Bowden, J.W., Turner, N.C., et al.,
1998. Performance of the APSIM-wheat model in Western Australia. Field Crop.
Res. 57 (2), 163e179. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4290(97)00117-2.
Asseng, S., Turner, N.C., Botwright, T., Condon, A.G., 2003. Evaluating the impact of a
trait for increased specific leaf area on wheat yields using a crop simulation
model. Agron. J. 95 (1), 10e19. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2003.0010.
Ayala, L.M., van Eupen, M., Zhang, G., Pe rez-Soba, M., Martorano, L.G., Lisboa, L.S.,
Beltrao, N.E., 2016. Impact of agricultural expansion on water footprint in the
Amazon under climate change scenarios. Sci. Total Environ. 569, 1159e1173.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.06.191.
Azmat, M., Wahab, A., Huggel, C., Qamar, M.U., Hussain, E., Ahmad, S., Waheed, A.,
2020. Climatic and hydrological projections to changing climate under
CORDEX-South Asia experiments over the Karakoram-Hindukush-Himalayan
water towers. Sci. Total Environ. 703, 135010 https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.scitotenv.2019.135010.
Babel, M.S., Deb, P., Soni, P., 2018. Performance evaluation of AquaCrop and DSSAT-
CERES for maize under different irrigation and manure application rates in the
Himalayan Region of India. Agric. Res. 8 (2), 207e217. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40003-018-0366-y.
Barbosa, E.A.A., Matsura, E.E., dos Santos, L.N.S., Gonçalves, I.Z., Naza rio, A.A.,
Feitosa, D.R.C., 2017. Water footprint of sugarcane irrigated with treated sewage
and freshwater under subsurface drip irrigation, in Southeast Brazil. J. Clean.
Prod. 153, 448e456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.167.
Bassu, S., Asseng, S., Motzo, R., Giunta, F., 2009. Optimising sowing date of durum
wheat in a variable Mediterranean environment. Field Crop. Res. 111 (1e2),
109e118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2008.11.002.
Batibeniz, F., Ashfaq, M., Diffenbaugh, N.S., Key, K., Evans, K.J., Turuncoglu, U.U.,
€
Onol, B., 2020. Doubling of US population exposure to climate extremes by
2050. Earth’s Future 8 (4), e2019EF001421. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2019EF001421.
ne, C., Barange, M., Subasinghe, R., Pinstrup-Andersen, P., Merino, G., Hemre, G.I.,
Be
Williams, M., 2015. Feeding 9 billion by 2050ePutting fish back on the menu.
Food Security 7 (2), 261e274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-015-0427-z.
Bergstro€ m, S., Carlsson, B., Gardelin, M., Lindstro € m, G., Pettersson, A.,
Rummukainen, M., 2001. Climate change impacts on runoff in Sweden assess-
ments by global climate models, dynamical downscaling and hydrological
modelling. Clim. Res. 16 (2), 101e112. https://doi.org/10.3354/cr016101.
Bocchiola, D., Nana, E., Soncini, A., 2013. Impact of climate change scenarios on crop
yield and water footprint of maize in the Po valley of Italy. Agric. Water Manag.
116, 50e61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2012.10.009.
Boyacıog lu, H., 2018. Internal (blue) water footprint of municipal consumption: a
case study for Turkey. Environ. Monit. Assess. 190 (7), 403. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10661-018-6779-z.
Cakar, B., Aydin, S., Varank, G., Ozcan, H.K., 2020. Assessment of environmental
impact of FOOD waste in Turkey. J. Clean. Prod. 244, 118846 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118846.
Chukalla, A.D., Krol, M.S., Hoekstra, A.Y., 2015. Green and blue water footprint
reduction in irrigated agriculture: effect of irrigation techniques, irrigation
strategies and mulching. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 19 (12), 4877e4891. https://
doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-4877-2015.
Çaldag, B., Şaylan, L., 2005. Sensitivity analysis of the CERES-wheat model for var-
iations in CO2 and meteorological factors in Northwest Turkey. Int. J. Environ.
Pollut. 23 (3), 300e313. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEP.2005.006869.
Caldag, B., Saylan, L., Akatas, N., Bakanogullari, F., Ozgur, E., 2017. Investigation of
the adaptation potential of winter wheat crop to future climatic conditions in
northwest of Turkey. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 26 (1), 29e37.
Dekamin, M., Barmaki, M., Kanooni, A., 2018. Selecting the best environmental
friendly oilseed crop by using Life Cycle Assessment, water footprint and ana-
lytic hierarchy process methods. J. Clean. Prod. 198, 1239e1250. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.115.
Elbeltagi, A., Aslam, M.R., Malik, A., Mehdinejadiani, B., Srivastava, A., Bhatia, A.S.,
Deng, J., 2020. The impact of climate changes on the water footprint of wheat
and maize production in the Nile Delta, Egypt. Sci. Total Environ. 743, 140770
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140770.
FAO, 2016. Food and agricultural organization of the united nation. AQUASTAT,
information system on water and agriculture. www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/
water_use/index.stm. (Accessed 6 July 2020).
Feigenwinter, I., Kotlarski, S., Casanueva, A., Schwierz, C., Liniger, M.A., 2018.
Exploring quantile mapping as a tool to produce user-tailored climate scenarios
for Switzerland. Technical Report MeteoSwiss, Zurich, Switzerland. In: Federal
Office of Meteorology and Climatology M, p. 44.
Feng, D., Zhao, G., 2020. Footprint assessments on organic farming to improve
ecological safety in the water source areas of the South-to-North Water

11
 €y and L. Şaylan
S. Yeşilko
Diversion project. J. Clean. Prod. 254, 120130 https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2020.120130.
Galan-Martin, A., Vaskan, P., Anton, A., Esteller, L.J., Guillen-Gosalbez, G., 2017.
Multi-objective optimization of rainfed and irrigated agricultural areas
considering production and environmental criteria: a case study of wheat
production in Spain. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 816e830. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2016.06.099.
Garofalo, P., Ventrella, D., Kersebaum, K.C., Gobin, A., Trnka, M., Giglio, L., et al., 2019.
Water footprint of winter wheat under climate change: trends and un-
certainties associated to the ensemble of crop models. Sci. Total Environ. 658,
1186e1208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.279.
Garrote, L., Iglesias, A., Granados, A., Mediero, L., Martin-Carrasco, F., 2015. Quan-
titative assessment of climate change vulnerability of irrigation demands in
Mediterranean Europe. Water Resour. Manag. 29 (2), 325e338. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11269-014-0736-6.
Gobin, A., Kersebaum, K.C., Eitzinger, J., Trnka, M., Hlavinka, P., Taka 
c, J., et al., 2017.
Variability in the water footprint of arable crop production across European
regions. Water 9 (2), 93. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9020093.
Godfray, H.C.J., Beddington, J.R., Crute, I.R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J.F., et al.,
2010. Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. science 327
(5967), 812e818. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1185383.
Gürbüz, M.A., Kayalı, E., Bahar, E., Oz,€ T.A., Kurşun, I.,_ 2019. Composing the database
of Thrace soils and some soil characteristics. Toprak Bilimi ve Bitki Besleme
Dergisi 7 (1), 28e36. https://doi.org/10.33409/tbbbd.595133.
He, J., Dukes, M.D., Jones, J.W., Graham, W.D., Judge, J., 2009. Applying GLUE for
estimating CERES-Maize genetic and soil parameters for sweet corn production.
Transactions of the ASABE 52 (6), 1907e1921. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.agsy.2010.01.006.
Heo, J.H., Ahn, H., Shin, J.Y., Kjeldsen, T.R., Jeong, C., 2019. Probability distributions
for a quantile mapping technique for a bias correction of precipitation data: a
case study to precipitation data under climate change. Water 11 (7), 1475.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w11071475.
Hoekstra, A.Y., 2003. Virtual water trade: a quantification of virtual water flows
between nations in relation to international crop trade. In: Proceedings of the
International Expert Meeting on Virtual Water Trade, vol. 12, pp. 25e47. Delft.
Hoekstra, A.Y., Chapagain, A.K., 2011. Globalization of Water: Sharing the Planet’s
Freshwater Resources. John Wiley & Sons.
Hoekstra, A.Y., Chapagain, A.K., Mekonnen, M.M., Aldaya, M.M., 2011. The Water
Footprint Assessment Manual: Setting the Global Standard. Routledge.
Hoekstra, A.Y., 2016. A critique on the water-scarcity weighted water footprint in
LCA. Ecol. Indicat. 66, 564e573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.02.026.
Hoogenboom, G., Porter, C.H., Shelia, V., Boote, K.J., Singh, U., White, J.W., et al., 2017.
Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT) Version 4.7.
DSSAT Foundation, Gainesville, Florida.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), CoreWriting Team, 2014.
Climate change 2014: synthesis report. In: Pachauri, R.K., Meyer, L.A. (Eds.),
Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.
Jamieson, P.D., Porter, J.R., Wilson, D.R., 1991. A test of the computer simulation
model ARCWHEAT1 on wheat crops grown in New Zealand. Field Crop. Res. 27
(4), 337e350. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4290(91)90040-3.
Jones, J.W., Hoogenboom, G., Porter, C.H., Boote, K.J., Batchelor, W.D., Hunt, L.A.,
et al., 2003. The DSSAT cropping system model. Eur. J. Agron. 18 (3e4),
235e265.
Jones, J.W., He, J., Boote, K.J., Wilkens, P., Porter, C.H., Hu, Z., 2011. Estimating DSSAT
cropping system cultivar-specific parameters using Bayesian techniques.
Methods of Introd. Sys. Models into Agric. Res. 2, 365e393. https://doi.org/
10.2134/advagricsystmodel2.c13.
Kadiyala, M.D.M., Jones, J.W., Mylavarapu, R.S., Li, Y.C., Reddy, M.D., 2015. Identifying
irrigation and nitrogen best management practices for aerobic riceemaize
cropping system for semi-arid tropics using CERES-rice and maize models.
Agric. Water Manag. 149, 23e32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2014.10.019.
Kassie, B.T., Asseng, S., Porter, C.H., Royce, F.S., 2016. Performance of DSSAT-Nwheat
across a wide range of current and future growing conditions. Eur. J. Agron. 81,
27e36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2016.08.012.
Kersebaum, K.C., Kroes, J., Gobin, A., Taka c, J., Hlavinka, P., Trnka, M., et al., 2016.
Assessing uncertainties of water footprints using an ensemble of crop growth
models on winter wheat. Water 8 (12), 571. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8120571.
Kreins, P., Henseler, M., Anter, J., Herrmann, F., Wendland, F., 2015. Quantification of
climate change impact on regional agricultural irrigation and groundwater
demand. Water Resour. Manag. 29 (10), 3585e3600. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11269-015-1017-8.
Lali
c, B., Sremac, A.F., Eitzinger, J., Stri
cevi
c, R., Thaler, S., Maksimovi c, I., et al., 2018.
Seasonal forecasting of green water components and crop yield of summer
crops in Serbia and Austria. J. Agric. Sci. 156 (5), 658e672. https://doi.org/
10.1017/S0021859618000047.
Li, M., Xu, Z., Jiang, S., Zhuo, L., Gao, X., Zhao, Y., et al., 2020. Non-negligible regional
differences in the driving forces of crop-related water footprint and virtual
water flows: a case study for the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region. J. Clean. Prod.
279, 123670 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123670.
Liu, J., Zehnder, A.J., Yang, H., 2009. Global consumptive water use for crop pro-
duction: the importance of green water and virtual water. Water Resour. Res. 45
(5) https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006051.
Liu, H., Pequeno, D.N., Herna ndez-Ochoa, I.M., Krupnik, T.J., Sonder, K., Xiong, W.,
Xu, Y., 2020. A consistent calibration across three wheat models to simulate
12
Journal of Cleaner Production 298 (2021) 126780
wheat yield and phenology in China. Ecol. Model. 430, 109132 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2020.109132.
Lovarelli, D., Bacenetti, J., Fiala, M., 2016. Water Footprint of crop productions: a
review. Sci. Total Environ. 548, 236e251. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.scitotenv.2016.01.022.
Luo, M., Liu, T., Meng, F., Duan, Y., Frankl, A., Bao, A., De Maeyer, P., 2018. Comparing
bias correction methods used in downscaling precipitation and temperature
from regional climate models: a case study from the Kaidu River Basin in
Western China. Water 10 (8), 1046. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10081046.
Malik, W., Dechmi, F., 2019. DSSAT modelling for best irrigation management
practices assessment under Mediterranean conditions. Agric. Water Manag.
216, 27e43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2019.01.017.
Masud, M.B., McAllister, T., Cordeiro, M.R., Faramarzi, M., 2018. Modeling future
water footprint of barley production in Alberta, Canada: implications for water
use and yields to 2064. Sci. Total Environ. 616, 208e222. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.004.
Mehrabi, F., Sepaskhah, A.R., 2019. Winter wheat yield and DSSAT model evaluation
in a diverse semi-arid climate and agronomic practices. Int. J. Plant Prod. 1e23.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42106-019-00080-6.
Mekonnen, M.M., Hoekstra, A.Y., 2011. The green, blue and grey water footprint of
crops and derived crop products. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 15, 1577e1600. https://
doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-1577-2011.
Mekonnen, M.M., Hoekstra, A.Y., 2016. Four billion people facing severe water
scarcity. Science advances 2 (2), e1500323. https://doi.org/10.1126/
sciadv.1500323.
Monaghan, J.M., Daccache, A., Vickers, L.H., Hess, T.M., Weatherhead, E.K.,
Grove, I.G., Knox, J.W., 2013. More ‘crop per drop’: constraints and opportunities
for precision irrigation in European agriculture. J. Sci. Food Agric. 93 (5),
977e980. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.6051.
Mostafa, A.N., Wheida, A., El Nazer, M., Adel, M., El Leithy, L., Siour, G., et al., 2019.
Past (1950e2017) and future ( 2100) temperature and precipitation trends in
Egypt. Weather and Climate Extremes 26, 100225. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.wace.2019.100225.
Muratoglu, A., 2019. Water footprint assessment within a catchment: a case study
for Upper Tigris River Basin. Ecol. Indicat. 106, 105467 https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecolind.2019.105467.
Muratoglu, A., 2020a. Grey water footprint of agricultural production: an assess-
ment based on nitrogen surplus and high-resolution leaching runoff fractions in
Turkey. Sci. Total Environ. 742, 140553 https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.scitotenv.2020.140553.
Muratoglu, A., 2020b. Assessment of wheat’s water footprint and virtual water
trade: a case study for Turkey. Ecological Processes 9 (1), 1e16. https://doi.org/
10.1186/s13717-020-0217-1.
Nearing, M.A., Foster, G.R., Lane, L.J., Finkner, S.C., 1989. A process-based soil erosion
model for USDA-Water Erosion Prediction Project technology. Transactions of
the ASAE 32 (5), 1587e1593.
O’Leary, G.J., Christy, B., Nuttall, J., Huth, N., Cammarano, D., Sto € ckle, C., et al., 2015.
Response of wheat growth, grain yield and water use to elevated CO2 under a
Free-Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) experiment and modelling in a semi-arid
environment. Global Change Biol. 21 (7), 2670e2686. https://doi.org/10.1111/
gcb.12830.
€
Ozdo an, M., 2011. Modeling the impacts of climate change on wheat yields in
g
Northwestern Turkey. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 141 (1e2) https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.agee.2011.02.001.
Palosuo, T., Kersebaum, K.C., Angulo, C., Hlavinka, P., Moriondo, M., Olesen, J.E., et al.,
2011. Simulation of winter wheat yield and its variability in different climates of
Europe: a comparison of eight crop growth models. Eur. J. Agron. 35 (3),
103e114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2011.05.001.
n-Zapata, E., Jones, J.M., Moggridge, H., Widmann, M., 2020. Evaluation of the
Paste
performance of Euro-CORDEX Regional Climate Models for assessing hydro-
logical climate change impacts in Great Britain: a comparison of different
spatial resolutions and quantile mapping bias correction methods. J. Hydrol.
584, 124653 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.124653.
Pfister, S., Hellweg, S., 2009. The water “shoesize” vs. footprint of bioenergy. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. Unit. States Am. 106 (35), E93eE94. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.0908069106.
Priestley, C.H.B., Taylor, R.J., 1972. On the assessment of surface heat flux and
evaporation using large-scale parameters. Mon. Weather Rev. 100 (2), 81e92.
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1972)100<0081:OTAOSH>2.3.CO;2.
Ridoutt, B.G., Pfister, S., 2010. A revised approach to water footprinting to make
transparent the impacts of consumption and production on global freshwater
scarcity. Global Environ. Change 20 (1), 113e120. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.gloenvcha.2009.08.003.
Shrestha, S., Chapagain, R., Babel, M.S., 2017. Quantifying the impact of climate
change on crop yield and water footprint of rice in the Nam Oon Irrigation
Project, Thailand. Sci. Total Environ. 599, 689e699. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.scitotenv.2017.05.028.
€ ll, P., 2010. Quantifying blue and green virtual water contents in global
Siebert, S., Do
crop production as well as potential production losses without irrigation.
J. Hydrol. 384 (3e4), 198e217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.07.031.
Soler, C.M.T., Sentelhas, P.C., Hoogenboom, G., 2007. Application of the CSM-CERES-
Maize model for planting date evaluation and yield forecasting for maize grown
off-season in a subtropical environment. Eur. J. Agron. 27 (2e4), 165e177.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2007.03.002.
Soriano, E., Mediero, L., Garijo, C., 2019. Selection of bias correction methods to
 €y and L. Şaylan
S. Yeşilko
assess the impact of climate change on flood frequency curves. Water 11 (11),
2266. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11112266.
Teng, J., Potter, N.J., Chiew, F.H.S., Zhang, L., Wang, B., Vaze, J., Evans, J.P., 2015. How
does bias correction of regional climate model precipitation affect modelled
runoff? Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 19 (2) https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-711-2015.
Tsakmakis, I.D., Zoidou, M., Gikas, G.D., Sylaios, G.K., 2018. Impact of irrigation
technologies and strategies on cotton water footprint using AquaCrop and
CROPWAT models. Environmental Processes 5 (1), 181e199. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s40710-018-0289-4.
€ Ustundag, B.B., Ahmad, I., Hernandez-Ochoa, I.M., Hoogenboom, G., 2019.
Vanli, O.,
Using crop modeling to evaluate the impacts of climate change on wheat in
southeastern Turkey. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 26 (28), 29397e29408.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-06061-6.
Villanueva-Rey, P., Quinteiro, P., V azquez-Rowe, I., Rafael, S., Arroja, L., Moreira, M.T.,
, et al.Dias, A.C., 2018. Assessing water footprint in a wine appellation: a case
study for Ribeiro in Galicia, Spain. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 2097e2107. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.210.
Wessolek, G., Asseng, S., 2006. Trade-off between wheat yield and drainage under
current and climate change conditions in northeast Germany. Eur. J. Agron. 24
(4), 333e342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2005.11.001.
Xu, Z., Chen, X., Wu, S.R., Gong, M., Du, Y., Wang, J., et al., 2019. Spatial-temporal
assessment of water footprint, water scarcity and crop water productivity in a
13
Journal of Cleaner Production 298 (2021) 126780
major crop production region. J. Clean. Prod. 224, 375e383. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.108.
Xu, Q., Hu, K., Liang, H., Leghari, S.J., Knudsen, M.T., 2020. Incorporating the WHCNS
model to assess water and nitrogen footprint of alternative cropping systems
for grain production in the North China Plain. J. Clean. Prod., 121548 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121548.
Yeşilko€y, S., Şaylan, L., 2020. Assessment and modelling of crop yield and water
footprint of winter wheat by Aquacrop. Italian Journal of Agrometeorology (1),
3e14. https://doi.org/10.13128/ijam-859.
Zhang, G., Wang, X., Zhang, L., Xiong, K., Zheng, C., Lu, F., et al., 2018. Carbon and
water footprints of major cereal crops production in China. J. Clean. Prod. 194,
613e623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.024.
Zheng, J., Wang, W., Ding, Y., Liu, G., Xing, W., Cao, X., Chen, D., 2020. Assessment of
climate change impact on the water footprint in rice production: historical
simulation and future projections at two representative rice cropping sites of
China. Sci. Total Environ. 709, 136190 https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.scitotenv.2019.136190.
Zhuo, L., Mekonnen, M.M., Hoekstra, A.Y., 2016. Benchmark levels for the
consumptive water footprint of crop production for different environmental
conditions: a case study for winter wheat in China. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 20,
4547e4559. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-4547-2016.