Climate change heightens India's agricultural risks, particularly in nations like India heavily reliant on farming. Previous studies focused on Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase (CMIP3) and (CMIP5) scenarios for large river basins, but the heightened risk of local climate changes poses a significant threat to smaller basins, notably affecting crops. This study investigates the spatiotemporal dynamics of climate change impacts on paddy crop irrigation in India's Lower Mahanadi Basin, utilizing the latest general circulation models (GCMs) from the CMIP6, focuses on two emission scenarios, SSP585 and SSP370. Thirteen models were analysed, top six were selected based on statistical criteria like PBIAS, NSE, R2, RSR, and RMSE. Models project climate changes for near- (2025–2050), mid- (2051–2075), and far-future (2076–2100) periods against a baseline (1981–2014), investigating spatiotemporal variations in rainfall, temperature, and irrigation water requirements (IWRs) in the region. In both scenarios, future mean seasonal rainfall is expected to increase compared with the baseline. SSP370 projects a 23.7% rise in minimum rainfall, while maximum rainfall varies by 11.5%. SSP585, on the other hand, projects a 9.53% decrease in maximum IWR and a 28.9% increase in maximum rainfall compared with the baseline. Both scenarios anticipate a 3–4 °C temperature increase in the far-future.

  • Utilizing advanced CMIP6 models enhances the reliability of projections, contributing to the latest advancements in climate change research.

  • Findings hold international relevance, with insights adaptable to similar regions globally, aiding a comprehensive understanding of climate-induced agricultural vulnerabilities.

  • Future scenarios show increased rainfall and a 3–4 °C temperature rise, affecting irrigation needs.

Climate changes directly impact socio-economic activities, affecting agriculture, water, energy, and food security, limiting growth (Hochman et al. 2018). Water scarcity constrains Indian agriculture, and climate change will impact agricultural water use. Studying climate effects on irrigation water requirement (IWR) is vital for addressing both food security and sustainable water use (Makar et al. 2022). India holds the leading position in paddy production, with around 84% of cultivation occurring during the Kharif season. This season necessitates rainfall exceeding 1,000 mm and an ideal temperature of 25 °C (Vyankatrao 2017). The total water requirement is influenced by key factors such as rainfall quantity, distribution, temperature fluctuations, crop variety, and soil composition. Additionally, alterations in the duration and intensity of rainfall, fluctuations in diurnal temperatures, and shifts in weather patterns significantly impact the production of Kharif crops (Mall et al. 2007). It is important to highlight climate change assessments for a better grasp, especially because future predictions for regional monsoons are uncertain. Thorough investigations are necessary due to the significant impact of global warming on the sensitivity of monsoons (Moon & Ha 2020).

Erratic rainfall, water scarcity, extreme weather, and saline intrusion pose significant challenges to paddy cultivation, crucial for the nation's food supply. Paddy irrigation in India is threatened by climate change, impacting agriculture and food security. This underscores the urgent need for proactive measures to safeguard paddy irrigation. To address these challenges, studies have explored various mitigation and adaptation strategies aimed at enhancing the resilience of paddy cultivation to climate change impacts (Suryavanshi et al. 2012; Shanabhoga et al. 2020; Malhi et al. 2021). Water-saving methods like sprinklers and drip systems aid agriculture's adaptation to climate change. Crop diversification with saline-tolerant varieties boosts paddy farming resilience. Rising temperatures increase evapotranspiration rates, requiring more water for paddy fields. Erratic rainfall and longer dry spells make water availability unpredictable, harming rice cultivation. These factors intensify pressure on traditional irrigation methods, reducing crop yields, and worsening water scarcity (Kumar et al. 2012). A report (Nelson et al. 2009) indicated that climate change will affect both the direct and indirect aspects of IWR and crop yields, respectively. Climate change's adverse effects on agriculture have made global food security a paramount challenge in the 21st century. McGuire (2015) studied climate change effects on agriculture and food security using different scenarios. Results show similar impacts for moderate emissions of representative concentration pathways (RCP4.5 and RCP6.0) but worsen under higher emissions (RCP8.5). Shared socio-economic pathways SSP1 and SSP2 have smaller impacts than SSP3, and RCP4.5/RCP6.0 have less impact than RCP8.5. New models perform better than older Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase (CMIP5) in predicting future climate conditions. For instance, a study by Hamed et al. (2022) compared the performance of two CMIP5 scenarios (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5) with their CMIP6 counterparts (SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5) in Egypt. The results indicated that CMIP6 models exhibit less uncertainty in accurately simulating changes in seasonal air temperatures and rainfall compared with CMIP5 models. Ming et al. (2021) described the key message from the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) of Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC), global surface temperatures are projected to increase by a minimum of 2.1 °C by 2100 compared with 1850–1900 under all emission and global precipitation is expected to rise by up to 13% by 2100 compared with 1994–2010, but not uniformly, with some regions, like parts of the subtropics, facing decreased rainfall. So, it is necessary to examine regional-scale climate patterns to enhance the understanding of localized climate behaviour. To grasp future regional climate change and its effects, global climate models/general circulation models (GCMs) serve as reliable tools. These models project various hydro-meteorological variables under different potential climate scenarios. Utilizing projections from multiple climate models is essential for gaining insights into model uncertainties and for the development of effective risk management strategies (Kang et al. 2009; Hannah 2022).

In the Lower Mahanadi Basin (LMB), characterized by high variability in basin yield and river discharge, floods occur during wet years while water scarcity prevails in dry years. Rapid economic growth, industrialization, urbanization, and population growth in states like Chhattisgarh and Odisha exacerbate water stress. Future droughts could lead to conflicts over water allocation within and between states. Climate change, with an increased frequency of extreme events, further compounds these challenges (Kumar & Bassi 2021). The LMB is a crucial agricultural region known for its fertile lands and significant agricultural productivity. With heavy reliance on irrigation for crop production, accurate projections of IWRs are essential for optimizing agricultural practices and ensuring sustainable water use. Climate change exacerbates these challenges, highlighting the urgency of adaptive water management strategies. This study's projections not only address immediate agricultural needs but also inform policy decisions and long-term planning efforts (Naha et al. 2022).

This paper contributes to the existing literature by concentrating on the establishment of a framework for determining the seasonal boundaries of maximum (max) and minimum (min) values for rainfall, temperature, and IWR in an LMB situated in the state of Odisha in India for future periods near-future (2025–2050), mid-future (2051–2075), and far-future (2075–2100). As different models are expected to give different results, to enhance result reliability, various models are applied in this study. Six models demonstrated superior performance based on statistical parameters in the analysis of 13 bias-corrected climate models from the more recent CMIP6 framework, introduced to address limitations in CMIP3 and CMIP5 models (Gupta et al. 2020), utilized for examining regional climate impacts under two scenarios, SSP370 and SSP585. By integrating advanced climate models and rigorous analysis, the research offers valuable insights into the nuanced impacts of climate change on paddy crop irrigation. It enhances understanding of future climate risks and informs targeted adaptation strategies crucial for safeguarding food security and livelihoods in vulnerable regions like the LMB. It fills a crucial gap by examining the specific challenges faced by smaller basins, which are often overlooked but disproportionately affected by climate variability. This will help us grasp the lasting effects of climate change on development and mitigation. It will also assist local water managers, researchers, and policymakers in creating plans to adapt local agricultural water management.

Study domain

The Mahanadi Basin stands out as one of India's major rivers, the peninsula extending over five states of Chhattisgarh and Odisha and comparatively smaller portions of Jharkhand, Maharashtra, and Madhya Pradesh, draining into the Bay of Bengal draining an area of 139681.51 km2. According to the Central Water Commission (CWC), the basin is broadly divided into three sub-basins: Upper, Middle, and Lower sub-basins. This study is conducted in LMB with an area of 57958.88 km2. Mahanadi lower sub-basin is located between 82°3′ to 86°43′ E and 19°15′ to 21°40′ N. The location map of the study area and grid station used for analysis is shown in Figure 1. The area experiences a sub-tropical climate, and the majority of the basin receives rainfall ranging from 1,200 to 1,400 mm (can be seen in Supplementary Figure S1), with the southwest monsoon (June–October) contributing to nearly 91% of the total annual rainfall. The annual mean maximum temperature (Tmax) and minimum temperature (Tmin) stand at 32.24 and 20.78 °C, respectively. During the summer months (April–June), temperatures soar, with Tmax reaching up to 42.00 °C in the basin. The soil types include red, yellow, laterite, and alluvial soil in the coastal plain. This combination of period and soil is suitable for rainfed paddy. A substantially deltaic region lies in the eastern part of the basin.
Figure 1

Study area map (Source: created by author using ArcGIS).

Figure 1

Study area map (Source: created by author using ArcGIS).

Close modal

The LMB spans across 20 districts of Odisha, delineated in Supplementary Figure S2. Below the Hirakud dam, it is primarily nourished by major tributaries such as the Ong and Tel rivers. The total population of the Mahanadi Basin, according to the 2001 census, amounts to approximately 2,83,22,294 (approximately 3 million), with over 1.49 million residing in the LMB. This region plays a vital role in Odisha's socio-economic fabric. Paddy farming dominates the region, making a substantial contribution to the state's agricultural production, which is primarily supported by its rural populace. Approximately three-fifths of its workforce is involved in agriculture, a sector contributing around one-sixth of the state's gross product. Cultivated lands cover roughly one-third of the state's total area, with about three-fourths of these lands dedicated to paddy cultivation. This emphasizes the significant role of agriculture, particularly paddy farming, in Odisha's economy and livelihoods (Das & Huke 2024). Prioritizing water conservation, infrastructure development, and sustainable agricultural practices is essential to ensure a prosperous future for the state's agricultural sector and rural communities. Additionally, conducting spatiotemporal studies of IWR in the basin is crucial for understanding water availability and usage patterns, and addressing potential challenges effectively.

Data used

In this study, meteorological datasets, involving daily Tmax, Tmin, and rainfall, were acquired over a 34-year period (1981–2014) as a baseline from the India Meteorological Department (IMD) (http://www.imdpune.gov.in/) for 84 geographical latitudes and longitudes which comes under the LMB. Rainfall data were accessible at a grid resolution of 0.25° × 0.25° while the temperature data was taken at the spatial resolution of 1° × 1°. This dataset is set as an observed dataset for the study. A short summary of the temporal period and other details of data used in the study is shown in Table 1.

Table 1

Summary of data used and temporal period

Data typeSourceTemporal coverageSpatial resolutionDescription
Meteorological Data India Meteorological Department 1981–2014 Rainfall: 0.25° × 0.25°
Temperature: 1° × 1° 
Daily temperature (Tmax, Tmin) and rainfall data for 84 locations in the Lower Mahanadi Basin. 
CMIP6 GCMs Data Mishra et al. (2020)  Historical: 1981–2014
Future: 2025–2100 
0.25° × 0.25° Downscaled CMIP6 GCMs datasets with bias correction for SSP370 and SSP585 scenarios. Historical and future projections for near (2025–2050), mid (2051–2075), and far (2076–2100) future periods. 
Crop Data Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) – – Nursery, transplantation, and percolation, Kc value, etc. ETo calculated by ETo Calculator by FAO 
Data typeSourceTemporal coverageSpatial resolutionDescription
Meteorological Data India Meteorological Department 1981–2014 Rainfall: 0.25° × 0.25°
Temperature: 1° × 1° 
Daily temperature (Tmax, Tmin) and rainfall data for 84 locations in the Lower Mahanadi Basin. 
CMIP6 GCMs Data Mishra et al. (2020)  Historical: 1981–2014
Future: 2025–2100 
0.25° × 0.25° Downscaled CMIP6 GCMs datasets with bias correction for SSP370 and SSP585 scenarios. Historical and future projections for near (2025–2050), mid (2051–2075), and far (2076–2100) future periods. 
Crop Data Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) – – Nursery, transplantation, and percolation, Kc value, etc. ETo calculated by ETo Calculator by FAO 

Scenario data of CMIP6 GCMs

To project the future climate change on IWR, the downscaled CMIP6 GCMs datasets, subject to bias correction, were developed by Mishra et al. (2020) for South Asia were taken. The available datasets include daily bias-corrected data generated using the Empirical Quantile Mapping approach. These datasets encompass historical data from 1951 to 2014 and future projections from 2015 to 2100 across four distinct scenarios, shared socio-economic pathways (SSP126, SSP245, SSP370, and SSP585). The dataset employed for analysis consists of downscaled high spatial resolution data measuring 0.25° × 0.25° from 13 CMIP6 GCMs (refer to Supplementary Table S1). Three time horizons were taken for the future climate change detection and their implication on IWR under two climatic scenarios (SSP370 and SSP585) in LMB, which are near- (2025–2050), mid- (2051–2075), and far- (2076–2100) future and the baseline period is 1981–2014. SSPs forecast future greenhouse gas emissions up to the year 2100, considering various global socio-economic changes. They outline trajectories based on a no-climate-policy baseline scenario post-2010, resulting in a temperature increase of 3.00–5.00 °C by 2100. These SSPs, akin to RCPs, can be associated with climate policies, offering diverse outcomes at the century's end with radiative forcing levels of 2.6, 3.4, 4.5, 6.0, 7.0, and 8.5 W/m2 in 2100 (Riahi et al. 2017).

CMIP6 GCMs performance evaluation

Over time, various GCMs have been developed to address different scenarios outlined in the IPCC assessment reports. These models have been part of key initiatives such as the CMIP, spanning different phases including CMIP3, CMIP5, and the more recent CMIP6. Notable distinctions between CMIP6 simulations and its predecessors (CMIP3 and CMIP5) encompass the initiation years for future scenarios, as well as the introduction of updated specifications for concentration, emission, and land-use scenarios (Gidden et al. 2019). Despite the absence of a comprehensive ensemble of GCMs for CMIP6, recent studies have showcased its resilience and reliability, surpassing CMIP5 in certain regions, e.g., South Asia, South Korea, Australia, China, and Africa (Shiru & Chung 2021). Hence, it is crucial to evaluate their effectiveness in regions where they have not been extensively used or are yet to be applied widely. The study applied five statistical indices: Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE), percentage of bias (PBIAS), coefficient of determination (R2), root mean square error (RMSE), and RMSE-observations standard deviation ratio (RSR) for the model performance evaluation based on Moriasi et al. (2007). NSE (Equation (1)) indicates how well the plot of observed versus simulated data fits the 1:1 line. Values below 0.0 mean observed data is a better predictor than simulated, indicating poor performance. PBIAS measures how simulated data compares to observed data in terms of being larger or smaller on average (Equation (2)). Positive values indicate model underestimation bias and negative values indicate model overestimation bias. RMSE measures how close predictions are to the actual values. An RMSE of 0 means a perfect match, while higher RMSE values indicate a less accurate prediction (Equation (3)). A lower RSR (Equation (4)) indicates that the model's predictions are relatively close to the observed values, while a higher RSR suggests that the model's predictions are less accurate compared with the variability in the observed data. R2 (Equation (5)) describes the degree of collinearity between simulated and measured data, which ranges between 0 and 1, and describes the proportion of the variance in the measured data, which is explained by the model, with higher values indicating less error variance. Table 2 describes the performance rating according to the standard values of these statistical parameters.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
where is mean of observed values, n is the number of observations, is the observed value, and is the simulated value.
Table 2

Model performance rating of RSR, NSE, and PBIAS based on standard values (Abeysingha et al. 2015)

Performance ratingNSEPBIAS%RSR
Very good 0.75 ≤ NSE ≤ 1.00 |PBIAS| < 10 0.00 ≤ RSR ≤ 0.5 
Good 0.65 < NSE ≤ 0.75 10 < |PBIAS| ≤ 15 0.5 < RSR ≤ 0.6 
Satisfactory 0.5 < NSE ≤ 0.65 15 < |PBIAS| ≤ 25 0.6 < RSR ≤ 0.7 
Unsatisfactory NSE < 0.5 |PBIAS| > 25 RSR > 0.7 
Performance ratingNSEPBIAS%RSR
Very good 0.75 ≤ NSE ≤ 1.00 |PBIAS| < 10 0.00 ≤ RSR ≤ 0.5 
Good 0.65 < NSE ≤ 0.75 10 < |PBIAS| ≤ 15 0.5 < RSR ≤ 0.6 
Satisfactory 0.5 < NSE ≤ 0.65 15 < |PBIAS| ≤ 25 0.6 < RSR ≤ 0.7 
Unsatisfactory NSE < 0.5 |PBIAS| > 25 RSR > 0.7 

Estimation of IWR

Paddy rice, known for growing with ‘its feet in the water’, stands as an exception. Apart from meeting the crop's water needs through irrigation or rainfall, additional water is required for soil saturation before planting, addressing percolation and seepage losses, and establishing a water layer, as shown in Equations (6) and (7). The specific needs, tailored to the region and crop, were addressed in this study, focusing on the nursery, transplantation, and percolation stages following the region's standard practices.
(6)
where,
(7)
SAT is the amount of water needed to make the soil thoroughly wet during land preparation by puddling. OR are the other needs including leaching, field percolation, nursery activities, transplantation, and so on. WL is the quantity of water required to form a layer of water. Pe represents effective rainfall. Kc is the crop coefficient, which varies based on the type of crop and its growth stage. Various evapotranspiration calculation methods, including Blaney–Criddle, Hargreaves, Penman, Modified Penman, and Penman–Monteith equations, have been proposed over the years, each varying in complexity and accuracy. Among them, the Penman–Monteith equation is widely endorsed by researchers and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (Jaiswal 2022). In this study, the Penman–Monteith equation was applied to calculate ETo, as presented in Equation (8).
(8)
where ETo is the reference crop evapotranspiration (mm/day) for the reference crop when adequately watered, and it is influenced solely by climatic conditions. refers to the net radiation received at the surface of the crop (MJ/m2/day), G represents the density of soil heat flux (MJ/m/day) and can be disregarded, denotes the average air temperature (°C), is the wind speed recorded at a height of 2 metres (m/s), represents the vapour pressure at saturation (kPa), is the existing vapour pressure (kPa), represents the gradient of the vapour pressure curve (kPa/°C), and is the psychrometric constant (kPa/°C). The ETo calculator was employed to calculate evapotranspiration (ETo) over an extended period at various stations. Subsequently, this ETo data, in conjunction with crop coefficient, rainfall, nursery demand, percolation, and transplantation information, was input into an Excel-based computer program to ascertain the IWRs for the Kharif paddy across different years, following this, the average IWR for all 84 distinct geographical grid locations within the LMB was calculated independently. Effective rainfall (Pe) is calculated using the fixed percentage method. In the context of India, it is advisable to take 50–80% of the total rainfall as effective (Dastane 1977). In this study, an effective rainfall value of 80% was chosen, considering the undulating topography of the study area. The irrigation demand is calculated by subtracting the estimated effective rainfall from the computed crop water requirement. Due to climate change, the spatial and temporal distribution of IWR will vary a lot and we will further see this variation through imaging.

Climate change scenario

In the CMIP6 phase, the scenarios of the RCPs, namely RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6.0, and RCP8.5 from CMIP5, have been replaced with SSPs. These include SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5, SSP3-7.0, and SSP5-8.5, each considering radiative forcing levels for 2100. The climate change research community introduced SSPs to facilitate integrated analysis of future climate vulnerabilities, impacts, adaptation, and mitigation (Riahi et al. 2017). SSPs encompass five scenarios: (1) a trajectory marked by sustainability-focused growth and equality (SSP1); (2) a scenario where trends broadly adhere to historical patterns (SSP2); (3) a world characterized by ‘resurgent nationalism’ and fragmentation (SSP3); (4) a scenario defined by escalating global inequality; and (5) a situation of rapid and unconstrained growth in energy use and economic output (SSP5), developed by the climate change research community, the SSPs represent an innovative scenario framework (Kriegler et al. 2014). This framework aims to streamline the comprehensive analysis of forthcoming climate impacts, and vulnerabilities, as well as adaptation and mitigation strategies. Developed collaboratively over recent years, the pathways delineate plausible global trajectories that would, in time, pose distinct challenges for climate change mitigation and adaptation. These SSPs hinge on five narratives delineating alternative socio-economic progressions, encompassing sustainable development, regional competition, inequality, fossil-fuel-driven growth, and moderate development.

The analysis aimed to calculate the future irrigation water needs for Kharif paddy in the LMB. It also examined seasonal rainfall and temperature variations across 84 grid stations from 2025 to 2100.

CMIP6 GCMs performance evaluation for LMB

Different GCMs are evaluated for the study area to examine their capacity to replicate rainfall, Tmax, and Tmin with respect to the observed dataset of IMD. Out of 13 GCMs chosen from the CMIP6 database for the baseline period, six models – EC-Earth3, EC-Earth3-Veg, INM-CM5-0, MPI-ESM1-2-HR, MPI-ESM1-2-LR, and NorESM2-MM – emerge as superior performers based on statistical parameters (PBIAS, NSE, R2, RSR, and RMSE) shown in Table 3. All the six GCMs have R2 values greater than or equal to 0.65, where the ranges of PBIAS, NSE, RSR, and RMSE are (9–25), (0.59–0.7), (0.54–0.64), and (77.02–90.90), respectively, which are up to satisfactory performance. The mean monthly rainfall, Tmax, and Tmin of the GCMs compared with the observed data are presented in Figure 2(a)–2(c), respectively. Regarding rainfall, the models generally exhibit satisfactory performance in the dry seasons from November to May, characterized by high variability in estimated rainfall by the GCMs compared with IMD data during the wet season (June to October) in the study area; whereas most models exhibited significant variation in Tmax during the baseline period, the variation observed in Tmin was comparatively less pronounced. Consistently, all models exhibit a common trait in analysing Tmax and Tmin. Specifically, during January, there is a prevalent tendency across models to significantly underestimate values. Conversely, towards December's conclusion, there is a collective inclination among models to exhibit overestimated values.
Table 3

Model performance evaluation

Sl. No.ModelR2PBIASRMSENSERSR
1. ACCESS-CM2 0.37 20.81 116.28 0.32 0.81 
2. ACCESS-ESM-1-5 0.13 18.90 140.38 0.02 0.99 
3. BCC-CSM2-MR 0.55 −0.86 97.67 0.52 0.69 
4. CanESM5 0.38 21.86 118.52 0.30 0.83 
5. EC-Earth3 0.67 9.91 87.01 0.62 0.61 
6. EC-Earth3-Veg 0.68 17.63 85.05 0.64 0.60 
7. INM-CM4-8 0.56 21.33 99.25 0.51 0.70 
8. INM-CM5-0 0.66 25.36 87.72 0.61 0.61 
9. MPI-ESM1-2-HR 0.74 20.91 77.02 0.70 0.54 
10. MPI-ESM1-2-LR 0.70 14.69 81.96 0.66 0.58 
11. MRI-ESM2-0 0.51 17.39 104.23 0.46 0.73 
12. NorESM2-LM 0.61 16.10 91.04 0.59 0.64 
13. NorESM2-MM 0.65 5.88 90.90 0.59 0.64 
Sl. No.ModelR2PBIASRMSENSERSR
1. ACCESS-CM2 0.37 20.81 116.28 0.32 0.81 
2. ACCESS-ESM-1-5 0.13 18.90 140.38 0.02 0.99 
3. BCC-CSM2-MR 0.55 −0.86 97.67 0.52 0.69 
4. CanESM5 0.38 21.86 118.52 0.30 0.83 
5. EC-Earth3 0.67 9.91 87.01 0.62 0.61 
6. EC-Earth3-Veg 0.68 17.63 85.05 0.64 0.60 
7. INM-CM4-8 0.56 21.33 99.25 0.51 0.70 
8. INM-CM5-0 0.66 25.36 87.72 0.61 0.61 
9. MPI-ESM1-2-HR 0.74 20.91 77.02 0.70 0.54 
10. MPI-ESM1-2-LR 0.70 14.69 81.96 0.66 0.58 
11. MRI-ESM2-0 0.51 17.39 104.23 0.46 0.73 
12. NorESM2-LM 0.61 16.10 91.04 0.59 0.64 
13. NorESM2-MM 0.65 5.88 90.90 0.59 0.64 

The bold values highlight 6 models selected for their superior performance metrics.

Figure 2

(a–c) Comparison of observed with GCM rainfall, maximum temperature, and minimum temperature, respectively during baseline period (1981–2014).

Figure 2

(a–c) Comparison of observed with GCM rainfall, maximum temperature, and minimum temperature, respectively during baseline period (1981–2014).

Close modal

Seasonal rainfall and IWR by using IMD data

The approach of the study involved the analysis of gridded data on rainfall, Tmax, and Tmin. This dataset facilitated the computation of reference crop evapotranspiration using a computational program. Subsequently, the same data informed the assessment of water requirements, encompassing various agricultural activities such as field preparation, nursery operations, transplantation, and percolation processes. The basin's average annual rainfall based on the gridded rainfall data of the IMD for a baseline period of 34 years is approximately 1440.039 mm. The spatial distribution of the seasonal average values for both rainfall and IWR can be seen in Supplementary Figure S1, most of the area encounters a seasonal rainfall ranging from 1,063 to 1,359 mm. However, specific locations, such as certain parts of the northern and southern regions, experience higher rainfall within the range of 1,500–1,800 mm. A similar trend is evident in the spatial distribution of IWR, where areas with high rainfall exhibit a narrower range of IWR, typically between 290 and 340 mm. In contrast, most locations fall within the broader range of 340–426 mm.

CMIP6 scenario-based projections of spatiotemporal changes in future seasonal rainfall

In terms of emission scenarios and future periods, the changing rate of rainfall shows a distinct pattern. Figures 3 and 4 depict the projected spatiotemporal variation of seasonal rainfall under two more intense forcing scenarios (SSP370 and SSP585) under the three time phases of near-, mid-, and far-future. In the figure depicting various GCMs, namely EC-Earth3, EC-Earth3-Veg, INM-CM5-0, MPI-ESM1-2-HR, MPI-ESM1-2-LR, and NorESM2-MM, denoted as A, B, C, D, E, and F, respectively, it is observed that under both considered emission scenarios, all models indicate a rise in rainfall (Naskar et al. 2023). Among the chosen GCM models, MPI-ESM1-2-LR projects a more significant increase in rainfall, while EC-Earth3 forecasts a comparatively smaller increase across the entire region. For both SSPs, the far-future rise in rainfall was predicted to be greater than the increases in the near- and mid-futures. However, upon careful visualization, it becomes evident that SSP370, INM-CM5-0, MPI-ESM1-2-HR, and NorESM2-MM project a decline in rainfall across many areas in the mid-future. Subsequently, in the far-future, there will be a notable and drastic increase in rainfall among all the GCMs. The average rainfall range for SSP370 is 1,142–2,213 mm, while for SSP585, it extends from 1,060–2,517 mm. The highest value increases by 13.73% in SSP585, with a decrease in the lowest value. Spatially, there is a notable overall increase in average rainfall in most areas under SSP585. Rainfall levels in the upper and lower segments of the study area are notably lower when contrasted with the central portion, indicating a visible unevenness in rainfall distribution across different sections of the study area.
Figure 3

Different GCMs ((a) ‘EC-Earth3’, (b) ‘EC-Earth3-Veg’, (c) ‘INM-CM5-0’, (d) ‘MPI-ESM1-2-HR’, (e) ‘MPI-ESM1-2-LR’, and (f) ‘NorESM2-MM’) projected spatiotemporal distribution of summer monsoon rainfall of SSP370 scenario.

Figure 3

Different GCMs ((a) ‘EC-Earth3’, (b) ‘EC-Earth3-Veg’, (c) ‘INM-CM5-0’, (d) ‘MPI-ESM1-2-HR’, (e) ‘MPI-ESM1-2-LR’, and (f) ‘NorESM2-MM’) projected spatiotemporal distribution of summer monsoon rainfall of SSP370 scenario.

Close modal
Figure 4

Different GCMs ((a) ‘EC-Earth3’, (b) ‘EC-Earth3-Veg’, (c) ‘INM-CM5-0’, (d) ‘MPI-ESM1-2-HR’, (e) ‘MPI-ESM1-2-LR’, and (f) ‘NorESM2-MM’) projected spatiotemporal distribution of summer monsoon rainfall of SSP585 scenario.

Figure 4

Different GCMs ((a) ‘EC-Earth3’, (b) ‘EC-Earth3-Veg’, (c) ‘INM-CM5-0’, (d) ‘MPI-ESM1-2-HR’, (e) ‘MPI-ESM1-2-LR’, and (f) ‘NorESM2-MM’) projected spatiotemporal distribution of summer monsoon rainfall of SSP585 scenario.

Close modal

Projected average values for rainfall and temperature for different GCMs and scenarios

Combined data from different GCMs was used to predict average future max and min seasonal rainfall and temperatures for the region. Figure 5 depicts the variability in projected max seasonal rainfall and temperature (a and d) as well as min seasonal rainfall and temperature (b and c). In general, the rates of rainfall increase follow a linear pattern with slopes that vary depending on the rise in temperature. INM-CM-5-0 exhibits a relatively smaller range of variation in Tmax, hovering around 34 °C for both SSP370 and SSP585 scenarios, distinguishing it from other GCMs. However, it shows a more significant variation in Tmin, ranging between 26 and 27 °C. Except for INM-CM-5-0, all other GCMs present consistent outcomes for max rainfall and temperature across various time scales. In contrast, for Tmin projections, EC-Earth3, EC-Earth3-Veg, and INM-CM5-0 exhibit a similar range, approximately spanning from 25 to 27 °C for SSP370 and 25 to 28 °C for SSP585. Meanwhile, MPI-ESM1-2-HR, MPI-ESM1-2-LR, and NorESM2-MM consistently demonstrate temperature ranges across various time scales and these three GCMs exhibit lower values, ranging approximately from 25 to 26 °C for both SSP370 and SSP585 scenarios, distinguishing them from the previous three GCMs.
Figure 5

Range of projected maximum seasonal rainfall and temperature (a and d) and minimum seasonal rainfall and temperature (b and c) using different CMIP6 GCMs under SSP370 and SSP585 scenarios in the different time spans of near-, mid-, and far-future.

Figure 5

Range of projected maximum seasonal rainfall and temperature (a and d) and minimum seasonal rainfall and temperature (b and c) using different CMIP6 GCMs under SSP370 and SSP585 scenarios in the different time spans of near-, mid-, and far-future.

Close modal

Seasonal rainfall exhibits unique values for each GCM across different time spans. In the mid-future, a distinct pattern emerges in min rainfall projections. Notably, INM-CM-5-0, MPI-ESM1-2-HR, and NorESM2-MM depict a decrease in rainfall for SSP370 compared with the near-future. Conversely, for SSP585, there is an upward trend in rainfall values across all time spans for each GCM. Reflecting on these findings, it is noteworthy that INM-CM-5-0 stands out with its unique temperature patterns, emphasizing the significance of considering individual GCM behaviour (Hannah 2022). This reinforces the importance of understanding GCM-specific variations to enhance the reliability of climate projections.

Spatiotemporal climate change impact on IWR

In Figures 6 and 7, the projected spatiotemporal shifts in IWR for two scenarios (SSP370 and SSP585) across three time phases are shown. During the baseline period, the study area showed minimal IWR in the central region, ranging from 290 to 340 mm, while the eastern and western regions exhibited higher values, approximately between 400 and 460 mm. However, the projected scenarios depict a contrasting picture. The initial increase in the near-future was compared with historical values, ranging from 255 to 455 mm in the SSP370 scenario. The projected result shows that according to MPI-ESM1-2-LR in both the scenarios (SSP370 and SSP585) the highest decreasing value of IWR was in the mid- and far-future. When considering spatial distribution, certain areas like the west and east portion of the study area exhibit elevated IWR in the mid-future. INM-CM5-0, MPI-ESM1-2-HR, and MPI-ESM1-2-LR consistently indicate decreasing IWR across most areas. Conversely, EC-Earth3, EC-Earth3-Veg, and NorESM2-MM suggest an increase in IWR across most areas throughout every time span in the SSP370 scenario. The IWR value ranges from 175 to 507 mm for SSP370 and 142 to 507 mm for SSP585. While the range of IWR values is approximately similar for both scenarios, the spatial distribution is different. Under SSP370, most places experience medium IWR values, and there are only a few places with extremely high or low IWR values. Under SSP585, most places experience extreme high or low IWR values, there are fewer places with medium IWR values. This suggests that SSP585 is associated with more extreme IWR events. It is important to visualize the data both spatially and temporally to better understand the patterns of change in different scenarios (Shahi et al. 2021).
Figure 6

Different GCMs ((a) ‘EC-Earth3’, (b) ‘EC-Earth3-Veg’, (c) ‘INM-CM5-0’, (d) ‘MPI-ESM1-2-HR’, (e) ‘MPI-ESM1-2-LR’, and (f) ‘NorESM2-MM’) projected spatiotemporal distribution of irrigation water requirement of SSP370 scenario.

Figure 6

Different GCMs ((a) ‘EC-Earth3’, (b) ‘EC-Earth3-Veg’, (c) ‘INM-CM5-0’, (d) ‘MPI-ESM1-2-HR’, (e) ‘MPI-ESM1-2-LR’, and (f) ‘NorESM2-MM’) projected spatiotemporal distribution of irrigation water requirement of SSP370 scenario.

Close modal
Figure 7

Different GCMs ((a) ‘EC-Earth3’, (b) ‘EC-Earth3-Veg’, (c) ‘INM-CM5-0’, (d) ‘MPI-ESM1-2-HR’, (e) ‘MPI-ESM1-2-LR’, and (f) ‘NorESM2-MM’) projected spatiotemporal distribution of irrigation water requirement of SS585 scenario.

Figure 7

Different GCMs ((a) ‘EC-Earth3’, (b) ‘EC-Earth3-Veg’, (c) ‘INM-CM5-0’, (d) ‘MPI-ESM1-2-HR’, (e) ‘MPI-ESM1-2-LR’, and (f) ‘NorESM2-MM’) projected spatiotemporal distribution of irrigation water requirement of SS585 scenario.

Close modal

Projected average values of IWR for different GCMs and scenarios

Figure 8 (a)–8(d) depicts projected average max and min IWR under different scenarios and GCMs. In the SSP370 scenario, EC-Earth3-Veg forecasts the highest average max IWR value at 506.5 mm during the far-future (2076–2100). Conversely, the lowest average max IWR, projected at 354.5 mm, is anticipated by MPI-ESM1-2-LR for the same far-future period. In the far-future, EC-Earth3-Veg projects the highest average min IWR value at 331.4 mm under SSP370, while EC-Earth3 anticipates the same at 328.6 mm under SSP585. The lowest average min IWR in both scenarios is projected to be 175.2 mm (SSP370) and 142.77 mm (SSP585), with MPI-ESM1-2-LR and MPI-ESM1-2-HR, respectively, in the far-future. Overall, the highest and lowest average max and min IWR values are projected to occur in the far-future (2076–2100). However, different GCMs predict different patterns of IWR change. For example, EC-Earth3 predicts that IWR will increase from the near- to the far-future. However, other GCMs predict that IWR will decrease in both the near-future and the far-future.
Figure 8

Projected average maximum and minimum IWR (a–d) using different CMIP6 GCMs under SSP370 and SSP585 scenarios in the different time periods of near-, mid-, and far-future.

Figure 8

Projected average maximum and minimum IWR (a–d) using different CMIP6 GCMs under SSP370 and SSP585 scenarios in the different time periods of near-, mid-, and far-future.

Close modal

Projected range for average Tmax, Tmin, rainfall, and IWR

By consolidating data from various GCMs, a comprehensive range for average seasonal max and min IWR, rainfall, and temperature has been established. This detailed information is presented in Table 4 for each period and emission scenario, highlighting notable trends. In the SSP370 scenario from near-future to far-future, min rainfall exhibits fluctuation, ranging from 1217.07 to 1313.82 mm, signifying a 23.7% increase from the baseline. Conversely, max rainfall experiences more significant variation, spanning 1640.47 to 2011.37 mm, reflecting an 11.5% increase compared with the baseline period. Under the SSP585 scenario, max and min IWR decrease by 9.53 and 20.2% and max rainfall increases by 28.9% relative to the baseline period in the far-future. Despite the overall increase in rainfall and a decrease in IWR anticipated in the near-, mid-, and far-future, the exploration through spatiotemporal mapping reveals specific locations where IWR is increasing. This emphasizes the critical importance and precision of spatiotemporal studies in detecting regional climate change impacts. However, a distinct pattern emerges in temperature trends, indicating a more pronounced increase in Tmin compared with Tmax in both SSP370 and SSP585 scenarios. In the SSP370 scenario, Tmin ranges from 25.7 to 27.1 °C, while Tmax shows a comparatively narrower variation, ranging from 34.1 to 35.3 °C. This parallel variation is observed in the SSP585 scenario as well. This emphasizes the importance of recognizing the temperature dynamics for effective climate adaptation planning. Both the average seasonal Tmax and Tmin are going to increase by 3–4 °C by the end of the 21st century with respect to the baseline period in both scenarios (Mishra et al. 2020; Salunke et al. 2023).

Table 4

Projected range for average Tmax, Tmin, rainfall, and IWR for Kharif season

SSP370
SSP585
Baseline period (1981–2014)2025–20502050–20752075–21002025–20502050–20752075–2100
Rain max (mm) 1,804.24 1,640.47 1,754.65 2,011.37 1,683.21 1,949.89 2,325.76 
Rain min (mm) 1,061.96 1,217.07 1,214.83 1,313.82 1,190.81 1,346.27 1,442.62 
IWR max (mm) 460.43 437.79 430.08 422.25 436.01 413.88 416.51 
IWR min (mm) 289.84 285.71 263.39 250.41 280.70 248.64 231.27 
Temp max (°C) 31.5 34.1 34.7 35.3 34.1 34.8 35.8 
Temp min (°C) 23.7 25.7 26.4 27.1 25.8 26.6 27.5 
SSP370
SSP585
Baseline period (1981–2014)2025–20502050–20752075–21002025–20502050–20752075–2100
Rain max (mm) 1,804.24 1,640.47 1,754.65 2,011.37 1,683.21 1,949.89 2,325.76 
Rain min (mm) 1,061.96 1,217.07 1,214.83 1,313.82 1,190.81 1,346.27 1,442.62 
IWR max (mm) 460.43 437.79 430.08 422.25 436.01 413.88 416.51 
IWR min (mm) 289.84 285.71 263.39 250.41 280.70 248.64 231.27 
Temp max (°C) 31.5 34.1 34.7 35.3 34.1 34.8 35.8 
Temp min (°C) 23.7 25.7 26.4 27.1 25.8 26.6 27.5 

In the LMB with diverse terrain like hilly regions and coastal plains, the basin's water availability is influenced by hard sedimentary and alluvial systems (Kumar & Bassi 2021). Understanding these complexities is crucial for effective water resource management and evaluating climate models' performance in replicating key variables like rainfall and temperature.

The results of the present study show that the spatial distribution of rainfall influenced the IWR, with areas of high rainfall exhibiting a narrower range of IWR (290–340 mm) compared with locations with lower rainfall (340–426 mm) (Bassi 2023). Initially, the baseline study indicates a tendency for irrigation requirements to decrease as rainfall increases. However, as the study progresses into future time periods, the situation becomes more complex. Each selected GCM model presents a distinct projection for IWR. While some GCMs suggest an increase in IWR for the future, others indicate a decrease. This is because unexpected extreme events might change the situation down the road, as the Tmax and Tmin are also showing increasing trends in the future. This divergence underscores the variability and uncertainty inherent in future climate projections and emphasizes the importance of considering multiple models in assessing future irrigation needs (N'guessan et al. 2023).

Analysis of the performance of various GCMs in the study area highlights the importance of selecting suitable models for climate change research and water resource management, because relying solely on the outcomes of a single climatic model is insufficient. So, to establish a more reliable and comprehensive range for climatic parameters like rainfall, Tmax, and Tmin, it is prudent to incorporate results from multiple GCMs (Ahmed et al. 2019). Further study of average rainfall and temperature reveals that one or two GCMs stand out with unique temperature patterns, emphasizing the importance of understanding individual GCM behaviour for reliable climate projections (Thao et al. 2022).

As discussed in the result section, under both the intense forcing SSP (SSP370 and SSP585) emission scenarios, all GCMs indicate an increase in rainfall (Abbas et al. 2023). The findings suggest that rainfall increases will be more pronounced in the far-future which further indicates that adaptation strategies should account for long-term changes in water availability and the uneven spatial distributions of rainfall imply that certain regions could face challenges in managing water resources, necessitating targeted planning efforts (McCrystall et al. 2021). Examining spatiotemporal shifts in IWR under diverse climate scenarios unveils model-specific trends. SSP585 indicates heightened extreme IWR events, with distinct spatial variations. Certain areas show elevated IWR levels. Understanding these shifts is crucial for effective water resource management and agricultural planning (Ahmad et al. 2023).

All these trends suggest that the region may experience more extreme weather events in the future, potentially leading to increased water stress and challenges in water management. Irrigation constitutes a substantial portion of this usage, highlighting the significance of efficient water allocation and management practices to sustain agricultural activities in the region (Samuel et al. 2017). Studies suggest that benefit-sharing mechanisms can play a crucial role in improving water allocation among riparian states facing water stress, as demonstrated in the case of the Mahanadi Basin. Such approaches could be instrumental in mitigating water deficits and enhancing the equitable distribution of water resources among stakeholders (Bassi & Chaturvedi 2024).

The selected GCMs collectively indicated an overall increase in rainfall, with distinctive variations among them. Notably, MPI-ESM1-2-LR projected a significant rise, while EC-Earth3 displayed a more modest increase. Intriguingly, some models forecasted a temporary decline in rainfall during the mid-future under SSP370, followed by a substantial increase in the far-future. The range of IWR values is approximately similar for both scenarios. However, a closer examination of spatial and temporal analyses reveals diverse trends, with MPI-ESM1-2-LR predicting the highest decrease in the mid- and far-future. The spatial distribution of extreme (highest and lowest) values of IWR varied between scenarios, SSP585 is associated with more extreme IWR events. There are places which have high rainfall as well as higher values of IWR, suggesting that the region may experience more frequent and intense rainfall events, underlining the critical role of spatiotemporal analyses in understanding regional climate change impacts.

Temperature projections further emphasized the unique characteristics. Importantly, findings project a more pronounced increase in Tmin compared with Tmax in both SSP370 and SSP585 scenarios, with a projected 3–4 °C rise by the far-future relative to the baseline period. The projected increase in temperature suggests that the region may experience more heatwaves, which could lead to increased heat-related illnesses.

The research contributes vital information for climate modelling and adaptation planning. The study highlights the need for careful consideration of spatiotemporal analysis in understanding climate change. It serves as a useful guide for policymakers, agricultural researchers, and water resource managers, aiding them in adopting effective, long-term crop planning strategies, mitigation and adaptation strategies, stressing the importance of using diverse climate models for reliable predictions.

The authors would like to acknowledge the Central University of Jharkhand for pursuing this research.

The authors received no funds, or grants for the preparation of this manuscript.

All authors contributed to the study's conception and design. Data collection and analysis were performed by R.K.J. and H.P.S. Program-based IWR analysis was first done by R.K.J. The spatiotemporal analysis of all the climatic parameters and IWR was first done by P.K. along with the preparation of the first draft of the manuscript and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript.

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

The authors declare there is no conflict.

Abbas
A.
,
Bhatti
A. S.
,
Ullah
S.
,
Ullah
W.
,
Waseem
M.
,
Zhao
C.
,
Dou
X.
&
Ali
G.
2023
Projection of precipitation extremes over South Asia from CMIP6 GCMs
.
J. Arid Land
15
(
3
),
274
296
.
Abeysingha
N. S.
,
Singh
M.
,
Sehgal
V. K.
,
Khanna
M.
,
Pathak
H.
,
Jayakody
P.
&
Srinivasan
R.
2015
Assessment of water yield and evapotranspiration over 1985 to 2010 in the Gomti River basin in India using the SWAT model
.
Curr. Sci.
108
(
12
),
2202
2212
.
Ahmad
Q.-A.
,
Moors
E.
,
Biemans
H.
,
Shaheen
N.
,
Masih
I.
&
ur Rahman Hashmi
M. Z.
2023
Climate-induced shifts in irrigation water demand and supply during sensitive crop growth phases in South Asia
.
Clim. Change
176
(
11
),
150
.
Das
M. N.
&
Huke
R. E.
2024
‘Odisha’. Encyclopedia Britannica. Available from: https://www.britannica.com/place/Odisha (accessed 9 May 2024)
.
Dastane
N. G.
1977
Effective Rainfall in Irrigated Agriculture
, Vol.
25
.
FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper
,
Rome, Italy
.
Gidden
M. J.
,
Riahi
K.
,
Smith
S. J.
,
Fujimori
S.
,
Luderer
G.
,
Kriegler
E.
,
Van Vuuren
D. P.
,
vanden Berg
M.
,
Feng
L.
,
Klein
D.
,
Calvin
K.
,
Doelman
J. C.
,
Frank
S.
,
Fricko
O.
,
Harmsen
M.
,
Hasegawa
T.
,
Havlik
P.
,
Hilaire
J.
,
Hoesly
R.
,
Horing
J.
,
Popp
A.
,
Stehfest
E.
&
Takahashi
K.
2019
Global emissions pathways under different socioeconomic scenarios for use in CMIP6: A dataset of harmonized emissions trajectories through the end of the century
.
Geosci. Model Dev.
12
(
4
),
1443
1475
.
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-1443-2019
.
Gupta
V.
,
Singh
V.
&
Jain
M. K.
2020
Assessment of precipitation extremes in India during the 21st century under SSP1-1.9 mitigation scenarios of CMIP6 GCMs
.
J. Hydrol.
590
,
125422
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125422
.
Hamed
M. M.
,
Nashwan
M. S.
,
Shiru
M. S.
&
Shahid
S.
2022
Comparison between CMIP5 and CMIP6 models over MENA region using historical simulations and future projections
.
Sustainability
14
(
16
),
10375
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610375
.
Hannah
L.
2022
The climate system and climate change
. In:
Clim. Chang. Biol
(Hannah, L., ed.).
Elsevier
, Santa Barbara, CA.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102975-6.00002-9
.
Hochman
A.
,
Bucchignani
E.
,
Gershtein
G.
,
Krichak
S. O.
,
Alpert
P.
,
Levi
Y.
,
Yosef
Y.
,
Carmona
Y.
,
Breitgand
J.
,
Mercogliano
P.
&
Zollo
A. L.
2018
Evaluation of regional COSMO-CLM climate simulations over the Eastern Mediterranean for the period 1979–2011
.
Int. J. Climatol.
38
(
3
),
1161
1176
.
https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5232
.
Jaiswal
R. K.
2022
Rainfall and agro related climate extremes for water requirement in paddy grown Mahanadi Basin of India
.
Agric. Res.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40003-022-00629-4
.
Kang
Y.
,
Khan
S.
&
Ma
X.
2009
Climate change impacts on crop yield, crop water productivity and food security – A review
.
Prog. Nat. Sci.
19
(
12
),
1665
1674
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnsc.2009.08.001
.
Kriegler
E.
,
Edmonds
J.
,
Hallegatte
S.
,
Ebi
K. L.
,
Kram
T.
,
Riahi
K.
,
Winkler
H.
&
Van Vuuren
D. P.
2014
A new scenario framework for climate change research: The concept of shared climate policy assumptions
.
Clim. Change
122
(
3
),
401
414
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0971-5
.
Kumar
M. D.
&
Bassi
N.
2021
The climate challenge in managing water: Evidence based on projections in the Mahanadi River Basin, India
.
Front. Water
3
,
662560
.
Kumar
S. N.
,
Singh
A. K.
,
Aggarwal
P. K.
,
Rao
V. U. M.
&
Venkateswarlu
B.
2012
Climate Change and Indian Agriculture: Impact, Adaptation and Vulnerability
.
ICAR
.
Makar
R. S.
,
Shahin
S. A.
,
El-Nazer
M.
,
Wheida
A.
&
Abd El-Hady
M.
2022
Evaluating the impacts of climate change on irrigation water requirements
.
Sustainability (Switzerland)
14
(
22
).
https://doi.org/10.3390/su142214833
.
Malhi
G. S.
,
Kaur
M.
&
Kaushik
P.
2021
Impact of climate change on agriculture and its mitigation strategies: A review
.
Sustainability
13
(
3
),
1318
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031318
.
Mall
R. K.
,
Singh
R.
,
Gupta
A.
,
Srinivasan
G.
&
Rathore
L. S.
2007
Impact of climate change on Indian agriculture: A review
.
Clim. Change
82
(
1–2
),
225
231
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9236-x
.
McCrystall
M. R.
,
Stroeve
J.
,
Serreze
M.
,
Forbes
B. C.
&
Screen
J. A.
2021
New climate models reveal faster and larger increases in Arctic precipitation than previously projected
.
Nat. Commun.
12
(
1
),
6765
.
Ming
A.
,
Rowell
I.
,
Lewin
S.
,
Rouse
R.
,
Aubry
T.
&
Boland
E.
2021
Key Messages from the IPCC AR6 Climate Science Report
.
Cambridge University Press
,
Cambridge, UK
.
Mishra
V.
,
Bhatia
U.
&
Tiwari
A. D.
2020
Bias-corrected climate projections for South Asia from Coupled Model Intercomparison Project-6
.
Sci. Data
7
(
1
),
1
13
.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-00681-1
.
Moon
S.
&
Ha
K. J.
2020
Future changes in monsoon duration and precipitation using CMIP6
.
npj Clim. Atmos. Sci.
3
(
1
),
1
7
.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-020-00151-w
.
Moriasi
D. N.
,
Arnold
J. G.
,
Van Liew
M. W.
,
Bingner
R. L.
,
Harmel
R. D.
&
Veith
T. L.
2007
Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations
.
Trans. ASABE
50
(
3
),
885
900
.
N'guessan
K. J. Y.
,
Adahi
B.
,
Konan-Waidhet
A. B.
,
Masayoshi
S.
&
Assidjo
N. E.
2023
Assessment of climate change impact on water requirement and rice productivity
.
Rice Sci.
30
(
4
),
276
293
.
Naha
S.
,
Ramirez
M. A. R.
&
Rosolem
R.
2022
Quantifying the hydrological responses of future climate changes on a large scale river basin in India
. In
EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts
.
EGU22-11093
,
Vienna
,
23–27 May
.
Naskar
P. R.
,
Singh
G. P.
,
Pattanaik
D. R.
&
Katyar
S.
2023
CMIP6 projections of spatiotemporal changes in rainfall and droughts over India
.
J. Earth Syst. Sci.
132
(
3
).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-023-02143-9
.
Nelson
G. C.
,
Rosegrant
M. W.
,
Koo
J.
,
Robertson
R.
,
Sulser
T.
,
Zhu
T.
,
Ringler
C.
,
Msangi
S.
,
Palazzo
A.
,
Batka
M.
&
Magalhaes
M.
2009
Climate Change: Impact on Agriculture and Costs of Adaptation
.
Intl Food Policy Res Inst.
,
Washington, DC
.
Riahi
K.
,
VanVuuren
D. P.
,
Kriegler
E.
,
Edmonds
J.
,
O'Neill
B. C.
,
Fujimori
S.
,
Bauer
N.
,
Calvin
K.
,
Dellink
R.
,
Fricko
O.
,
Lutz
W.
,
Popp
A.
,
Cuaresma
J. C.
,
S
K. C.
,
Leimbach
M.
,
Jiang
L.
,
Kram
T.
,
Rao
S.
,
Emmerling
J.
,
Ebi
K.
,
Hasegawa
T.
,
Havlik
P.
,
Humpenöder
F.
,
Dasilva
L. A.
,
Smith
S.
,
Stehfest
E.
,
Bosetti
V.
,
Eom
J.
,
Gernaat
D.
,
Masui
T.
,
Rogelj
J.
,
Strefler
J.
,
Drouet
L.
,
Krey
V.
,
Luderer
G.
,
Harmsen
M.
,
Takahashi
K.
,
Baumstark
L.
,
Doelman
J. C.
,
Kainuma
M.
,
Klimont
Z.
,
Marangoni
G.
,
Lotze-Campen
H.
,
Obersteiner
M.
,
Tabeau
A.
&
Tavoni
M.
2017
The shared socioeconomic pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview
.
Glob. Environ. Chang.
42
,
153
168
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009
.
Salunke
P.
,
Keshri
N. P.
,
Mishra
S. K.
&
Dash
S. K.
2023
Future projections of seasonal temperature and precipitation for India
.
Front. Clim.
5
.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2023.1069994
.
Samuel
A.
,
Joy
K. J.
&
Bhagat
S.
2017
Integrated Water Management of the Mahanadi Basin
.
Pune
.
Available from: waterconflictforum.org.
Shahi
N. K.
,
Das
S.
,
Ghosh
S.
,
Maharana
P.
&
Rai
S.
2021
Projected changes in the mean and intra-seasonal variability of the Indian summer monsoon in the RegCM CORDEX-CORE simulations under higher warming conditions
.
Clim. Dyn.
57
(
5–6
),
1489
1506
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-021-05771-3
.
Shanabhoga
M. B.
,
Bommaiah
K.
,
S
S. V.
&
Dechamma
S.
2020
Adaptation strategies by paddy-growing farmers to mitigate the climate crisis in Hyderabad-Karnataka region of Karnataka state, India
.
Int. J. Clim. Change Strategies Manage.
12
(
5
),
541
556
.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-01-2020-0010
.
Shiru
M. S.
&
Chung
E. S.
2021
Performance evaluation of CMIP6 global climate models for selecting models for climate projection over Nigeria
.
Theor. Appl. Climatol.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-021-03746-2
.
Suryavanshi
P.
,
Babu
S.
,
Baghel
J. K.
&
Suryavanshi
G.
2012
Impact of climate change on agriculture and their mitigation strategies for food security in agriculture: A review
.
ISCA: J. Biol. Sci.
1
(
3
),
72
77
.
Thao
S.
,
Garvik
M.
,
Mariethoz
G.
&
Vrac
M.
2022
Combining global climate models using graph cuts
.
Clim. Dyn.
59
(
7–8
),
2345
2361
.
Vyankatrao
N. P.
2017
Impact of climate change on agricultural production in India: Effect on rice productivity
.
Biosci. Discov.
8
(
4
),
897
914
.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits copying and redistribution for non-commercial purposes with no derivatives, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Supplementary data