Conference Sponsors

Water for Food Conference Committees

Contents

In Memoriam

$50 Million Gift from Robert B. Daugherty Foundation Funds Water for Food Institute

On April 20, 2010, the University of Nebraska announced a $50 million founding gift commitment from the Robert B. Daugherty Charitable Foundation to support the global Water for Food Institute, a research, education and policy analysis institute focused on the efficient use of water in agriculture.

NU President James B. Milliken said the gift will enable the university to become a global resource for developing solutions to the challenges of hunger, poverty, agricultural productivity and water management. “By 2050, the world’s population will increase by 40 percent and demand for food – produced with finite amounts of land and water – will double,” Milliken said. “We have the experience and opportunity to build a global center in Nebraska, leveraging the knowledge and resources of the University of Nebraska and other leading institutions to help alleviate human suffering and food insecurity.”

Milliken praised the vision and commitment of Robert B. Daugherty, founder of Valmont Industries, who created the most successful irrigation company in the world and remained committed to the efficient and sustainable use of water to feed a growing world population. “Bob Daugherty was a true pioneer and visionary,” Milliken said. “He helped transform production agriculture and was a leader in addressing one of the most critical challenges facing the world.”

When the gift was announced in April, Daugherty said, “I have great faith in the University of Nebraska and its ability to make this institute a place where the best minds come together to find solutions that will improve the quality of life for people around the world through the strategic and responsible use of water.”

The Water for Food Institute is committed to helping the world efficiently use its limited fresh water resources to ensure the food supply for current and future generations. The institute will offer research, education and policy analysis on the efficiency and sustainability of water use in agriculture, the quantity and quality of water resources, and human issues that affect the water decision-making process.

Issues surrounding water for food have long been, and continue to be, a focus of University of Nebraska research. The knowledge and capabilities developed in Nebraska can be shared and applied globally, and Nebraska can, in turn, learn from its regional, national and international partners, Milliken said.

The water for food institute is governed by a board of directors: James B. Milliken, president, University of Nebraska, chairman; Mogens Bay, chairman of the board, Robert B. Daugherty Charitable Foundation, and chief executive officer, Valmont Industries; and Jeff Raikes, CEO, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Foreword

Foreword

Today 75 to 80 percent of human water consumption is used to grow food. The projected doubling in food demand, coupled with the impact of climate change on the geographic availability of water, will significantly increase the demand for water and the potential for a water crisis.

As native Nebraskans, we know very well the linkage between water and food. We grew up in an agricultural state, in an environment with an abundance of good soil, enough rainfall and water for irrigation, and the constant expansion of agriculture through innovation. As the threat of global poverty and food insecurity grows, we know that water security and food security are inextricably linked. Without adequate water resources, we cannot meet the needed increase in food production. We must grow more “crop per drop.”

This was the key issue at the 2010 Water for Food Conference: Growing More with Less, hosted by the University of Nebraska with the support of the Robert B. Daugherty Charitable Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Monsanto Company. This report documents the ideas and discussions that emerged from that conference.

Two weeks before the conference convened, fellow Nebraskan Robert B. Daugherty showed his commitment to the efficient and sustainable use of water to feed a growing world population with a founding gift of $50 million from his foundation to the University of Nebraska to establish the global Water for Food Institute. As founder of Valmont Industries, the most successful irrigation company in the world, Daugherty played a role in transforming production agriculture and was a leader in addressing one of the most critical challenges facing our world. His gift creates an opportunity for the University of Nebraska to make a lasting impact on global poverty and hunger.

The conference provided a forum to bring together more than 300 people from 13 countries who share our urgent interest in finding innovative solutions to the challenge of growing more food with less water. We hope this report inspires you to consider your contribution to growing more with less.

Executive Summary

Chapter 1-Introduction

Chapter 2- Global Perspectives on Water for Food

Chapter 3- Genetics and Physiology of Crop Water Use

Chapter 4: Human Dimensions of Water for Food Production

Chapter 5: Technologies and Advances in Water Management

Chapter 6: A View from Agricultural Producers

Chapter 7: Climate Challenges to Water for Agriculture

Chapter 8: Key Issues for the Future

Appendix

“I see the linkage of the water crisis and the future of global poverty, yet I don’t see the general awareness of this issue. Finally, after 25 years of tragically reduced investment in agricultural development, we hear the talk of food security; we see significant increases in the investment that is necessary. Yet I don’t hear the talk of securing water for food,” Jeff Raikes, chief executive officer of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, said in his keynote address at the 2010 Water for Food Conference.

Hosted by the University of Nebraska with the support of the Robert B. Daugherty Charitable Foundation, the Bill&Melinda Gates Foundation and Monsanto Company, the conference brought together more than 300 scientists and decision makers from universities, the private sector, governments and nongovernmental organizations around the world to discuss the challenge of growing more food using less water.

Raikes concluded in his keynote address: “If we don’t change, if we don’t innovate across the spectrum of all the levers that we can pull, if we don’t take an integrated, interdisciplinary approach to this challenge, we are not going to be able to feed the world.”

The need to use all available tools – technological, political, societal and institutional – was echoed throughout the conference and reflected in the diversity of topics, perspectives and expertise represented.

Innovating Across the Spectrum

The Gates Foundation is concerned about water-scarce areas, Raikes said, because that is where people are hungriest and global poverty is greatest. Business as usual will not suffice in overcoming water shortages, and although Raikes observed limitations in applying past solutions to the future, he also expressed optimism that we can achieve food security for all people by combining the best practices of today – such as seed technology, market access and soil management – with advances to come, particularly in helping small farmers by developing affordable water storage, pumps and micro-irrigation technologies. Policies, including incentives that provide adequate water resources for farmers, also will be key.

Pedro Sanchez of Columbia University’s Earth Institute demonstrated that tripling Africa’s rainfed cereal crop production from 1 ton to 3 tons per hectare is not only possible, but achievable. It can be accomplished without increasing water use by reducing losses from evapotranspiration at higher plant densities of 3 tons per acre. “This is what I would like to call the Green Revolution bonus,” Sanchez said. “As you go from 1 to 3 tons per hectare, you can get a lot more water.” Successes in Malawi and the Earth Institute’s Millennium Villages project have shown that distributing fertilizer and seed increases production dramatically. These successes have led to the Global Food Security Trust Fund, a global fund for smallholder agriculture. “I’d like to redefine the goal of the Green Revolution as going from 1 to 3 tons per hectare,” Sanchez said. Sanchez also described efforts to create a digital soil map of the world to better manage local needs by, for example, pinpointing areas requiring additional nutrients or erosion control and identifying regions with a higher probability of drought stress.

David Molden of the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) urged prioritizing water access for the poor, ecosystem enhancement and improved water governance. He reinforced Sanchez’s point that the greatest opportunity lies in low-yield agriculture; increasing yields from 1 ton to 2 tons per cubic meter of water increases water productivity 74 percent. “This is the area for the biggest potential. … This is also the area where there’s high poverty. If we can go and narrow in on that focus, we get two big wins all at the same time.” Rather than focusing on the distinction between rainfed and irrigated agriculture, Molden encouraged looking at appropriate available solutions in a given location as well as considering large-scale innovative solutions. He offered six problem sets for the future: 1) upgrade rainfed systems with better water and soil management; 2) revitalize under-performing irrigation systems; 3) learn to manage groundwater sustainably; 4) reuse urban wastewater safely; 5) transform water governance and management; and 6) improve information systems.

Irrigation must play a large role in a future Green Revolution for Africa, said Ken Cassman of the University of Nebraska–Lincoln (UNL). The 1960s Green Revolutions in Asia and Nebraska relied primarily on irrigation, which allowed both areas to successfully and dramatically increase productivity, Cassman said. “If [Sub-Saharan African] agriculture is much more like the harsher rainfed environments of the western Corn Belt, can rainfed agriculture do it alone?” he asked. Sub-Saharan Africa has sufficient water resources to support irrigation, which in turn provides stable yields and generates income to support investment in associated industries and infrastructure.

Although irrigation maximizes yields, greatest net income occurs below maximum yields after factoring in additional water costs, said Richard Cuenca of the National Science Foundation (NSF). What incentives, he asked, can be used to encourage growers to consider other objectives besides reaching maximum production? Cuenca also cautioned that climate change will undoubtedly affect future food production, although models disagree by how much. An International Food Policy Research Institute study predicted that by 2050, food production of major rainfed and irrigated cereal crops will decline 13 to 42 percent, eliminating progress made in lowering child malnutrition rates.

Ken Cassman offered three thoughts to guide the Water for Food Institute: 1) engaging young people is important; 2) irrigated agriculture has a reputation, even in Nebraska, as being bad for the environment and the economy, yet irrigated agriculture will play a significant role in a Green Revolution in Sub-Saharan Africa, although that role has yet to be defined; and 3) research and education conducted at the institute must benefit Nebraska, contribute to the university’s land-grant mission and be fundamentally important internationally. “What that means to me is the institute, early on, has to be very successful at picking foci and priorities for their efforts that can be articulated very clearly as important to Nebraskans and important globally,” Cassman said.

Because resources won’t be enough for separate agendas, issues the institute focuses on must benefit Nebraska’s interests and international interests while using the same teaching and research expertise.

Cassman said one example would be to answer the questions: Can high-yield, irrigated agriculture be sustainable in terms of food supply, economics and social acceptance? How can policymakers be convinced that irrigation is sustainable? How can purchasers or donors be convinced that irrigated agriculture can be part of development plans?

A second example might be to conduct life cycle assessments of agricultural systems’ water footprints. For example, studies demonstrate that lettuce grown efficiently and trucked elsewhere contributes fewer greenhouse gases than locally produced lettuce. Similarly, feedlot cattle have lower greenhouse gas emissions per unit of meat produced than do grass-fed beef. Understanding agriculture’s water footprint will require interdisciplinary integration, Cassman said.

An Unbiased Source of Information

Eugene Glock emphasized the importance of compiling and disseminating information. “If you’re trying to push it on people, it’s not going to happen. But if you can show people some way that it’s going to benefit them personally, economically, socially, some way that it will be helpful, they’ll adopt that pretty quickly.” He gave the example of high-pressure pivot irrigation, which uses less water. Although lower pressure pivots are less expensive, when diesel fuel reached $4 per gallon and it cost up to $30,000 to add an inch of water to a field, people reconsidered high-pressure irrigation. “That’s what we have to strive for, and that’s what this institute has to have a hand in doing – getting people excited about doing something that is right, not trying to force them,” Glock said.

He also urged the institute to avoid becoming a lobbying agency, but rather to be available to help policymakers make good decisions. Glock, who was the state agriculture representative on former U.S. Sen. Bob Kerrey’s staff, said he believes policymakers need an unbiased center to help determine worthwhile projects to fund.

Although farmers in Vietnam’s Mekong Delta adapt to current weather variabilities, they may be unequipped to deal with future changes in global climate, Nguyen Hieu Trung said. He presented results from a study investigating the impacts of weather variability on rice and aquaculture production.

To cope with seasonal flooding as well as limited water and salinity intrusion during the dry season, Vietnam developed a rice irrigation system using canals and sluice gates. Cropping calendars and diversification also were introduced.

Today, in dry fields, farmers cultivate rice and fish together. Farming is typically done on a small scale, with most producers managing less than a hectare or two.

To date, the system yields well, but climate variability is predicted to increase temperatures, reduce rainfall and raise sea levels, threatening productivity in the delta.

Trung and his colleagues investigated the impacts of short-term weather variability on rice and aquaculture production to suggest adaptive strategies for the future. Using weather statistical series data from 1990 to 2008, participatory community appraisals and individual household structured interviews, the researchers analyzed the effects of weather variability on agriculture and aquaculture production to determine how farmers adapt to weather and climate variability.

The results indicate that farmers use a cropping calendar based on weather variables. For example, farmers recognize that every two to four years, low January temperatures and abnormally high February rainfall cause a 0.6-ton loss per rice paddy, which is consistent with statistical data. When the temperature increases 1 degree in aquaculture settings, shrimp yields decrease 0.7 ton per hectare.

The study illustrates that scientists can learn much from farmers about how weather variation affects their experiences and strategies. “This is very important for our assessment of the vulnerability of climate change in the future,” Trung said.

For rice production, farmers cope by integrating nutrient management to help rice better tolerate weather anomalies and by using appropriate rice cultivars and cropping calendars. Farmers also irrigate using groundwater, which is illegal, and create field ditches to drain the surplus water and to prevent soil acidification, a problem in the Mekong Delta. To reduce temperature’s impact on aquaculture, farmers deepen ponds, adjust feed and exchange pond water for intensive Pangasius catfish culture. In shrimp ponds, farmers grow aquatic plants to stabilize the temperature and reduce water pollution. The household’s economic livelihood strongly influences coping measures; poor households are the most vulnerable, with low resilience to change.

Adaptation strategy is a time-dependent and location-specific learning process, Trung said. “We should have a systems approach, which includes an integral combination of agriculture production system and food security and livelihoods, and this approach should be from top down and bottom up.”

Martin Pasman, an Argentine agronomist with a master’s degree in business administration, began his career as a consultant to farmers and has experience in Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Brazil, where he was instrumental in helping to develop 80,000 hectares in the western part of the Cerrado area. His farming experience stems from his family’s farms, located in five areas of Argentina. Most are rainfed, but one area receives less than 500 millimeters of rain annually. Pasman also runs an irrigation business serving 80 percent of the Argentine market, giving him vast experience in developing irrigated land.

Argentina is the second-largest South American country after Brazil and is one-third the size of the U.S. One-third of Argentina receives more than 800 millimeters of rain and depends upon rainfed agriculture, while the majority receives less than 800 millimeters. Argentina cultivates 30 million hectares per year, of which 2.2 million are irrigated. Total production output is 90 million metric tons, and about 70 percent of farmers in Argentina practice no-till agriculture.

Pasman’s family came to Argentina from the U.S. around 1825, when it was primarily cattle country. His family brought the first Aberdeen Angus bull to Argentina and also helped develop agriculture. In the 1970s, the family farmed 6,000 hectares, of which only 500 were used for crops, yielding 3.5 tons of corn per hectare and 1.5 tons of wheat per hectare. They plowed the land and used few herbicides and no fertilizers. The majority of the land was used to raise 3,000 head of cattle, which were finished in natural pastures.

Today, the family’s farm operation has expanded to 20,000 hectares, 15,000 of them used for agriculture. In the low-productivity land, they also manage 9,000 head of cattle in cow-calf operations, finishing the animals in American style feedlots. In rainfed fields, the Pasmans produce 8 tons of corn per hectare and 3 tons of wheat; under irrigation, they get 12 tons of corn and 6 tons of wheat. The most important crop, however, is soybeans. They also grow potatoes, corn and sunflower seeds for Monsanto Company. The farm uses 42 pivots to irrigate 4,000 hectares, and about 80 percent of the farm is double-cropped: wheat plus soybeans, seed corn plus soybeans, potato plus corn. Argentina uses a huge amount of herbicides and genetically modified crops, Pasman said, adding that his farm was one of the first to produce Roundup Ready® soybean seeds in 1994.

A View from Agricultural Producers

“The cornerstone of our production technology is no-till,” Pasman said, a technique used on the entire farm except the potato fields, which follow a rotation of one year of potatoes followed by three years of no-till. A corn crop follows the potato harvest in the same year.

No-till improves water infiltration and water retention and reduces evaporation because the previous crops’ residue minimizes runoff and allows the soil to retain more water. No-till also reduces erosion risk and increases organic matter, improving oxidation and carbon circulation in the soil. It improves soil fertility, increases productivity and sustainability, and allows farming in difficult soils, particularly shallow soils of 3 inches.

No-till uses less than half the water and less labor compared to conventional tillage, reducing production costs by 30 percent, Pasman concluded. “It is very important, the mix of no tillage with center pivot (irrigation) against traditional management.”

Farmers are challenged to use water more efficiently while maximizing net return, Suat Irmak said. Researchers at the University of Nebraska– Lincoln (UNL) are investigating ways to improve agricultural practices and minimize water loss.

Center pivot irrigation research is designed to measure and understand crop response to water and chemigation under limited and full irrigation settings with the goal of determining how much farmers can reduce irrigation while maintaining high yields.

Irrigation treatments investigated range from dryland conditions to 50 percent irrigated to fully irrigated, and measurements include biomass production, kernel weight and other grain quality parameters. Other research addresses the effect of irrigation frequency on crop yield, water use efficiency and soil evaporation for corn under subsurface drip irrigation. Four years of results indicate that, in most cases, high-frequency irrigation leads to higher yields than low- or medium-frequency irrigation.

Additional research on crop water stress aims to determine, in part, how much stress the crop can withstand without a reduction in economical yields. A crop water stress index is determined from continuous canopy temperature monitoring using infrared thermometers from a few days after emergence to physiological maturity, coupled with microclimate variables, such as temperature and humidity.

Irmak and his colleagues also are improving models to separate evapotranspiration (ET) into evaporation and transpiration. By obtaining field measurements of stomatal conductance, researchers can develop a model to estimate transpiration. Such measures could be used to better analyze water use efficiency and other agricultural production indices. “We can do a pretty good job estimating or measuring soil moisture, rainfall or snowfall, but I think we have a long way to go to accurately quantify evapotranspiration,” Irmak said.

Irmak established the Nebraska Water and Energy Flux Measurement, Modeling and Research Network to measure ET for a variety of vegetative surfaces, including irrigated and rainfed crops and grasslands, crops under different conservation practices and invasive species. Twelve network instruments have been collecting data continuously throughout Nebraska for several years. One finding showed that disk-tilled fields averaged 7 percent higher ET rates than no-till fields during the past 18 months.

Environmental concerns, which fall outside normal market powers, require special incentives and consideration in water resource decisions, Marty Matlock said.

Given that the world’s population now consumes past the point of sustainability, should sustainability be a market choice for consumers? “This should be pre-competitive,” Matlock said. “The consumers should have confidence that everything they buy complies with a certain threshold of humanity, of behavior, of ethics and sustainability.”

The market has the power to move materials, goods and services from areas of plenty to those of scarcity. The problem is that the market is not responding to water scarcity, in part because crops are grown where there is no water. For example, in Brazil, areas that once were rainforest now grow 2.4 crops annually for export to China. “They’re exporting de facto water to China,” Matlock said.

Another example stems from the 1 billion people who lack access to water and the 2.4 billion who don’t have basic sanitation. Every day, waterborne diseases kill 5,400 children. “That’s the cost of this failure of technology – failure of civilizations,” Matlock said. “It’s a pretty dramatic cost.”

Global climate change will increase water scarcity in already water-stressed areas. Although agriculture no longer accounts for 90 percent of global water use, as it did in 1900, agricultural water use has increased fivefold since then. Competing with other sectors for limited water affects the many other uses that are not monetized, such as biodiversity. The Colorado and Ganges rivers offer examples of dramatic decreases in water discharge due to overallocation. Peak flows have not changed, but critical base flows have dropped considerably over time. “It’s hard to have a functional, viable aquatic ecosystem without the aquatic,” Matlock said.

Rice, which accounts for 15 percent of human water use, presents another problem. But improvement is possible, Matlock said.

Human Dimensions of Water for Food Production

Anheuser-Busch InBev, for example, achieved 4.7 percent per-unit reductions in rice culture, saving 3.5 billion liters of water in five years.

Water intake is only one issue; equally important is water effluent. From an ecological standpoint, given grossly limited incentive funding, Matlock believes profitable production practices should not be incentivized. “If you already have an incentive for conserving water − reducing soil erosion − then we don’t need to give you more money to do that which you ought to be doing anyway, because the marketplace will weed you out if you don’t perform,” he said. “It’s the things that we don’t incentivize, like preservation of riparian zones, that we should perhaps be incentivizing with our limited resources.”

The Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System offers an example of the interconnectedness of agriculture effluent and environmental harm. Pollutants, particularly sediment and nutrients carried downstream from plantations to the Caribbean Sea, have the equivalent effect of a 10-degree temperature change, bleaching the coral reefs.

Impacts that are acceptable with 6.7 billion people will not be with 9 billion, Matlock concluded. If management happens only to things that are measured, and not everything can be measured, which metrics are important and how can they be incentivized? “We have to shift our thinking from maximizing any one variable or metric to optimizing several key ones.”

Marty Matlock described a high-resolution water assessment model he and colleagues are developing to determine how much water corn uses globally and to evaluate the balance between rainwater stored as soil moisture (green water) and water from surface water or groundwater sources (blue water). With a framework for assessing these characteristics, the model can analyze various scenarios, such as climate change and water demand by region.

“Our quest is to develop a modeling framework that has utility for decision-makers,”Matlock said.

To achieve high resolution, Matlock and his colleagues divided the globe into geospatial resolution cells of 5 minutes by 5 minutes, or about 10 kilometers by 10 kilometers. After inputting data for each cell, the researchers ran the model to determine yield. Comparing the results between the model’s predicted yield and observed data, the model was calibrated using high resolution input and yield data available for the U.S. heartland (Corn Belt). From potential yield data, researchers can determine water demand.

Matlock and his colleagues chose the CERESMaize simulation model embedded in the Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT) because it uses daily rainfall inputs. It is therefore sensitive to critical threshold water scarcity, a more important element for kernel development than annual rainfall. Using the CERES model required collecting and entering daily data sources into each cell for each characteristic. Temperature and radiation data were acquired from the Climate Research Unit; precipitation data were acquired first from the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission and later from the National Climatic Data Center; and soil characteristics came from the ISRIC-World Inventory of Soil Emission Potentials soil dataset.

After running the model, Matlock’s team assessed its predicted values against global crop yield data obtained from Foley et al. published in Science magazine in 2005. The model did well in dryland regions, but predictions did not match observed yields in wetter regions. To calibrate the model using the highest geospatial resolution yield data, they focused on the U.S. heartland region, inputting high-resolution soil, temperature and rainfall data.

“We’re modeling one stalk of corn and extrapolating that to the world,”Matlock said. “If I really wanted this model to be right, I’d quit right now. All models are wrong; some models are useful. The question is, is there utility with this model? And I would argue that, yes, there’s strong utility because of its process-based development.”

To establish the model’s parameters,Matlock and his colleagues developed a set of parameters based on what other researchers use to model at the field or plot level. They first performed calibration runs on a 40-county region, then on a larger region spanning several hundred counties. For single cultivars, the model is sensitive to the four parameters that define the way a single corn stalk responds to precipitation and temperature. In the case of a single cultivar, the predicted versus observed graphs were not effective. However, modeling using nine cultivars and selecting the cultivar that best fit yield resulted in good calibration between predicted and observed yield. Mapping the results showed these four variables are associated with other important variables as well.

The next step will be evaluating the model’s ability to adequately predict water use. The model then can be used to analyze land use impacts on blue water resources; to determine a stress-related water footprint using regional stress factors; and to develop a series of water stress indices, including the impact on base flow under various scenarios, such as climate change, population change and industrial demand.

A lack of regional high-spatial and high-temporal data remains a problem, Matlock said. In addition, he continued, “We lack integrated models for the outcomes of concern: the ‘so what?’ part. We have to build that from scratch because life cycle assessment, risk-based models just don’t cut it for these sorts of social and economic impacts.”

Plant Research Innovations in the University: When Will They Apply to the Real World?

Despite tremendous innovations in plant research today, the challenges of integrating research into the real world leave many of those innovations stuck in the laboratory, Sally Mackenzie said. She described the approach taken by the Center for Plant Science Innovation at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln (UNL) to move research to the field.

Some of the research occurring in universities includes innovations to improve seed nutrient content, modify plant architecture for water use efficiency and alter properties to enhance shelf life.

Many innovations stem from the ability to sequence the genomes of major crop species, which is helping researchers understand the genes and mechanisms that one day may improve plant tolerance to drought and other beneficial characteristics.

These innovations and capabilities are already happening in the laboratory, Mackenzie said, adding that “the innovation is not what limits our ability to actually come up with some interesting solutions.”

The Crisis
Already about 75 to 80 percent of human water consumption is used to grow food, Raikes said. The projected doubling in food demand, coupled with climate change’s impact on geographic availability of water, will significantly increase the demand for water, precipitating a water crisis.

To illustrate the crisis, Raikes, who grew up on a family farm near Ashland, Neb., remembers his father describing the state’s wonderful agricultural resources – the rich soils and nearly infinite supply of water. But a photograph of Lake McConaughy in western Nebraska that shows a boat dock left high and dry far from the lake due to plunging water levels tells a different story. Similarly, a photograph of a dry Jialing River in the shadow of Chongqing, a Chinese city of more than 30 million people, illustrates how urbanization stresses water resources. Industrial water consumption is expected to more than double by 2050. And in a third photograph, a crowd surrounds a large well during a 2003 drought in Natwargadh in India’s Gujarat state. “Think about the regional context,” Raikes said. “In India, it may be low groundwater levels as the largest problem. In China … it can be rivers that don’t reach the sea.”

Raikes compared projections for 2050 to today’s food and water needs. Agriculture currently uses about 7 million cubic kilometers of water annually through evapotranspiration to produce the nearly 20 calories consumed daily. By 2050, based on projected food demand from population increases and dietary changes, water requirements will reach 13 million cubic kilometers under a business-as-usual scenario. That figure does not include demands from biofuels.

In addition, water is not where it is needed most, a problem likely to worsen. Raikes said the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is particularly concerned about areas of water scarcity, both physical and economic, because the places where water is scarce are the same places where hunger is worst.

Global weather trends are particularly threatening in Sub-Saharan Africa, which is likely to get drier. The way in which climate change will expose itself to the world, the way in which it will become tangible to people, is through a crisis, Raikes said. “My conclusion is that if we don’t change, if we don’t innovate across the spectrum of all the levers that we can pull, if we don’t take an integrated, interdisciplinary approach to this challenge, we are not going to be able to feed the world.”

Solutions

Given this crisis, what solutions are available? Raikes asked. Some options include:

• Using more land, an unsustainable worldwide solution in the long term.

• Using more water, an option in some areas of Sub-Saharan Africa, but sufficient water may be unavailable or inaccessible.

• Reusing wastewater, an important option for urban farming, but inappropriate for some crops and unable to alleviate much of the water pressure in rural areas.

• Wasting less food, an important but ill-understood option. An estimated 30 to 40 percent of all food produced fails to reach consumers because of post-harvest losses in developing countries and food disposal in developed countries. Less waste, however, can alleviate only some of the water pressure.

The Future of Water for Food conference in 2009 brought together experts from around the world to discuss the issues and challenges surrounding the use of water for agriculture and to explore the need for an organization with a global perspective and diverse expertise to address these challenges. Building on the enthusiasm of that conference and a generous $50 million gift from the Robert B. Daugherty Charitable Foundation, in 2010 the University of Nebraska established the global Water for Food Institute, a research, education and policy analysis institute dedicated to helping the world efficiently use its water resources to ensure a sustainable food supply.

The Water for Food Institute is an emerging institute, one that is putting down roots and seeking international collaborations and partnerships. Yet it grows from the University of Nebraska’s long history of research leadership in water, agriculture and natural resources management, and the university’s willingness to share that critical knowledge not only with Nebraskans, but with the rest of the world. The annual Water for Food conferences are one means of engaging with, and learning from, others who bring decades of experience and perspectives from many disciplines and cultures.

In 2010 the second international conference – Water for Food: Growing More with Less – explored the roles of science, technology, policy and education in developing solutions to the global challenge of doubling world food production under water-limited conditions. This interdisciplinary, multiple-stakeholder conference brought together more than 300 people from 13 countries and included agricultural producers, scientists, scholars and leaders from academic institutions, business, government and nonprofit organizations. Participants came with a shared concern and urgency about a looming crisis in water and food security. They also brought considerable optimism fueled by the renewed interest and funding in agricultural development, and the dawning recognition in the private and public sectors that the global community is reaching a critical juncture in the management of water resources.

This was made clear in the keynote address by Jeff Raikes, CEO of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, who issued a call to action, urging that we innovate across the spectrum, invest in and pull on all the key levers, and take an interdisciplinary, integrated approach. “It will be your understanding of this crisis and your vision that leads to greater awareness and inspiring the necessary public and political will to support these investments,” Raikes said.

The conference included plenary sessions, technical sessions with presentations and discussions by panels of experts, a panel discussion presenting the views of agricultural producers and a closing panel session. The plenary sessions, Global Perspectives on Water for Food (Chapter 2), outlined the major topics and challenges, and presented diverse viewpoints from scientific experts and decision-makers, including, among others, Pedro Sanchez, Columbia University Earth Institute and 2002 World Food Prize Laureate; John Briscoe, professor of the practice of environmental engineering and environmental health, Harvard University; David Molden, deputy director general for research, International Water Management Institute; U.N. Panjiar, secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, India; Shiqi Peng, chief scientist,Ministry of Agriculture, China; and Robert T. Fraley, executive vice president and chief technology officer, Monsanto Company.

Concurrent technical sessions focused on four broad areas that are central to the challenge of growing more food with less water. Genetics and Physiology of Crop Water Use (Chapter 3) covered global assessment of corn water use, breeding techniques for drought tolerance in cereal crops and the transition of scientific innovations from the laboratory to the field. Human Dimensions of Water for Food Production (Chapter 4) featured diverse views, from Australia to Zambia, on the policies and economics of agricultural water use, the world food equation and management of water scarcity. Technologies and Advances in Water Management (Chapter 5) explored applications of research and technologies, such as modeling and remote sensing of evapotranspiration, wireless underground sensor networks and irrigation system advances, and their effects on increasing crop water productivity. Climate Challenges to Water for Agriculture (Chapter 7) focused on climate effects on water resources and crop production in two key areas: the glaciers of the Hindu Kush and Western Himalayas, and rice and aquaculture production in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam.

Recognizing that even the most innovative research and policy advances are effective only if they are adopted by those who grow our food, the panel, A View from Agricultural Producers (Chapter 6), stimulated the most discussion of any conference event. Producers from Nebraska, Argentina and Oregon, who manage irrigated and rainfed systems, discussed the advances in crop production and water management they have implemented from the 1950s until today, as well as the challenges and potential solutions on the horizon.

The closing session, Key Issues for the Future (Chapter 8), addressed what participants learned at the conference, goals for the Water for Food Institute during the next three years and perspectives on the most pressing questions facing researchers, producers, policymakers and organizations interested in water issues. The panelists brought together perspectives on crop science, international water management, economics and policy, and agricultural production.

Despite the many disciplines and viewpoints represented at the conference, all participants agreed that the challenges surrounding water for food are urgent and that our search for solutions must include the diverse expertise and experiences of scientists, scholars and decision-makers from all corners of the world. The goal of the Water for Food Institute at the University of Nebraska, and of future conferences, is to build the partnerships and programs that will contribute to those solutions.

Technologies and Advances in Water Management

Human Dimensions of Water for Food Production

Genetics and Physiology of Crop Water

Other

Conference Participants (148-153)

Photos (154-160)

Socio-economic analysis weighs the costs of any restrictions on the production and use of chemicals against the benefits to human health and the environment.

The reasons why industry needs to understand the principles and practices of socioeconomic analysis are: (l) to carry out, where appropriate, a SEA as an argument for authorisation (this is an industry responsibility), and (2) to be able to contribute as stakeholders in socio-economic discussions with regulatory authorities when a SEA is used as a basis for justifying restrictions.

The focus of this report is on the ecological impacts of chemicals rather than on their human health impacts. This is where many of the most profound ecological and economic challenges are, and the ECHA guidance for socio-economic analysis associated with both restrictions and authorisation in the REACH process identifies the need for more work in this area.

The report argues for as much quantification as possible, with the ideal of monetisation so that a cost-benefit analysis can be carried out. Without quantification the ecological benefits of restrictions on chemicals (including failure to authorise) may well be presented in emotive terms that are hard to counter on the basis of the economic benefits that might be lost from restricted use or the banning of a chemical. An ecological benefits assessment involves two components. One is the extent to which ecological etlects are or may be ameliorated by restrictions on a chemical, and the other is the monetary value that is put on the ecosystems so protected.

There are enormous challenges in ascribing monetary values, especially to non-marketed ecological goods or services. However, environmental economics has made great strides over recent years in developing appropriate methodologies to enable this to be achieved. This report draws attention to the appropriate sources.

A substantial part of the challenge for valuation in benefits assessments is in identifying and quantifying the ecological impacts themselves in appropriate terms. The problem is that ecological risk characterisations and assessments do not express effects in terms of 'impacts' that can be valued.

This report draws attention to a number of possible scenarios whereby the outputs of risk characterisations might be linked to quantified ecological impacts through such methods as species-sensitivity analysis, smart modelling, making connections to ecological quality status and using an ecosystem services approach. None of these methods is developed to the extent that they could be applied in case studies. There will be a need for pioneering efforts in these areas.

The challenge of conducting a socio-economic analysis becomes even harder when only hazard criteria are available as is the case for substances of very high concern. The report takes the view that most of these chemicals will be degradable in the environment and in organisms, and therefore should be amenable to standard risk characterisations. However, the expectation is that the SEA arguments will have to be particularly convincing to allow authorisation.

Finally, socio-economic analysis needs to bring together risk assessment and economic considerations. This requires that ecologists and economists, scientists and regulators understand each other's needs and languages. The establishment of a forum to facilitate this is to be encouraged.

Prem S. Paul, Vice Chancellor for Research and Economic Development

Discovery Could Spark Smaller, Faster Electronics 2

MRSEC Fosters Collaboration 3

Harnessing Laser Power Creates Precise Nanostructures 5

Nanohybrids Promise ‘Best of Both Worlds’ 6

Water for Food Institute Building Partnerships 8

World Water Expert to Lead Institute 9

Understanding Aquifer Recharge 10

Targeted Research Investments Hedge Against Food Crisis 11

Uncovering New Perspectives on Whitman 12

Civil War Washington Going Digital 14

Humanities Grants Support Language, Digital Initiatives 15

Improving Children’s Reading Comprehension 16

Transforming Early Childhood Education 17

Bullying: Filling Gaps Between Research, Practice 18

Preparing Military Kids for Success in School 19

Museum Celebrates 140 Years of Discovery 20

Development Revving Up at Nebraska Innovation Campus 22

Building Industry Connections 23

Virtual View to Safer Job Sites 24

Teaming on Wheat Improvement 25

UNL Technology Powers Solar Startup 25

Zeroing in on Genes to Beat Rice Blast Fungus 26

Coalition Aims to Turn Algae into Biofuel 27

Partnership Expanding Brain Research 28

Targeting Metabolism to Combat Staph Infections 30

Probing Genes, Gut Microbes and Food Safety 31

Breaking the Revictimization Cycle 32

Rooting Out Health Disparities 33

Student Ad Agency Sets Sail 34

Hollywood Pros, Students Team Up for Film Series 35

Prepping for Legal Reform 36

Durham School Building on Strengths 37

Research Highlights 38

Financials 41

Creating a culture of collaboration has been central to UNL’s research progress over the past decade. Expanding collaborations and partnerships is essential to our success as we build for the future. The reason is simple: We achieve far more by working together – across disciplines, institutions and geographic boundaries – with both public and private sector partners. The complexities of 21st century challenges and opportunities demand this approach. We’ve made significant progress. Our research in digital humanities, water for food and nanotechnology, as well as strides in economic development, are among the examples of UNL’s collaborative spirit featured in this report. Nebraska Athletics and the UNL Office of Research and Economic Development are partnering to create research space for a new interdisciplinary research initiative in the East Stadium addition to Memorial Stadium, home to Husker football. This initiative will bring together behavioral, biological social science, and health and performance researchers in the proposed Center for Brain, Biology and Behavior to tackle, among other topics, performance issues such as the effects of concussion on the brain (page 28). Nebraska Innovation Campus, UNL’s private-public research campus, illustrates the payoffs when the state, university and private sector work together. A $25 million investment by Nebraska’s Legislature and the governor has fueled $80 million in private and public investments in the Phase I development (page 22). UNL’s entrance into the Big Ten Conference in 2011 launched a promising and exciting new era of collaboration for UNL research and academics as well as athletics. Big Ten members are among the nation’s leading research universities, renowned for excellence in the classroom, lab and playing field. Collaboration is a rich Big Ten tradition, and the affiliated Committee on Institutional Cooperation offers the most sophisticated collaborative infrastructure in American higher education. It’s a great fit for UNL and we look forward to building productive partnerships across the conference. From carbon nanostructures to aquifer recharge, from virtual 3-D construction sites to genetic control of gut microbes, and from a high-powered laser lab to world-class digital humanities research, UNL faculty are innovating for the future. This report highlights how our collaborative spirit fuels this innovation to benefit Nebraska, the nation and the world. We are excited about our future and look forward to enhancing collaborations and developing key partnerships. We welcome your innovative ideas. If you would like to partner with us or know of potential collaborators, please let us know.

Prem S. Paul,

Vice Chancellor for Research and Economic Development

This eighth annual “Major Sponsored Programs and Faculty Awards for Research and Creative Activity” booklet highlights the successes of University of Nebraska–Lincoln faculty during 2009. It lists the funding sources, projects and investigators on major grants and sponsored program awards received during the year; published books and scholarship; fellowships and other recognitions; start-ups and intellectual property licenses; and performances and exhibitions in the fine and performing arts.

This impressive list grows each year and I am pleased to present evidence of our faculty’s accomplishments. Large grants in fields ranging from rural and math education to water and renewable energy to virology, redox biology and nanomaterials enable UNL faculty to address important challenges facing Nebraska, our nation and the world. Our external research funding reflects their achievements, reaching a new record total of $122 million in fiscal year 2009, marking a 13 percent increase over last year.

We are harnessing this momentum to advance new initiatives with an innovative perspective and research that responds to a changing world. We are reaching beyond our institutional, state and national borders to build partnerships that seek solutions to global challenges, provide our students with an interdisciplinary, international perspective, and enhance our state’s economy.

As you read the accomplishments in this booklet, I invite you to imagine how the innovative and collaborative research, scholarship and creative activity of our faculty is changing our world and meeting the complex global challenges that lie before us.