Search

Irrigated agriculture is the dominant user of water globally, but most water withdrawals are not monitored or reported. As a result, it is largely unknown when, where, and how much water is used for irrigation. Here, we evaluated the ability of remotely sensed evapotranspiration (ET) data, integrated with other datasets, to calculate irrigation water withdrawals and applications in an intensively irrigated portion of the United States. We compared irrigation calculations based on an ensemble of satellite-driven ET models from OpenET with reported groundwater withdrawals from hundreds of farmer irrigation application records and a statewide flowmeter database at three spatial scales (field, water right group, and management area). At the field scale, we found that ET-based calculations of irrigation agreed best with reported irrigation when the OpenET ensemble mean was aggregated to the growing season timescale (bias = 1.6–4.9 %, R2 = 0.53–0.74), and agreement between calculated and reported irrigation was better for multi-year averages than for individual years. At the water right group scale, linking pumping wells to specific irrigated fields was the primary source of uncertainty. At the management area scale, calculated irrigation exhibited similar temporal patterns as flowmeter data but tended to be positively biased with more interannual variability. Disagreement between calculated and reported irrigation was strongly correlated with annual precipitation, and calculated and reported irrigation agreed more closely after statistically adjusting for annual precipitation. The selection of an ET model was also an important consideration, as variability across ET models was larger than the potential impacts of conservation measures employed in the region. From these results, we suggest key practices for working with ET-based irrigation data that include accurately accounting for changes in soil moisture, deep percolation, and runoff; careful verification of irrigated area and well-field linkages; and conducting application-specific evaluations of uncertainty.

Substantial storage reductions by irrigation pumping in many of the world’s major aquifers jeopardize future food production. As a result, new conservation measures are being utilized to reduce pumping and extend aquifer lifespans. The key question is how effective are these practices in attaining true water conservation (i.e., water use reduction) for a given area? Relationships between pumping and precipitation help provide an answer, as precipitation explains most of the variation in annual irrigation water use for aquifers in semi-arid to sub-humid climates when surface water supplies are limited. Our objective is to utilize correlations between radar precipitation and irrigation groundwater use at a range of spatial scales to assess the effectiveness of conservation approaches in the High Plains aquifer in the central USA. Linear regressions between pumping and precipitation for a conservation area established in 2013 in northwest Kansas indicate that water use and water use per irrigated area were over 27 % less and 25 % less, respectively, during 2013–2021 compared to the same climatic conditions during 2005–2012. Similar regressions found over a 38 % reduction and 23 % reduction in irrigation water use and use per irrigated area, respectively, during 2018–2021 compared to the same conditions during 2005–2017 in a west-central Kansas county with conservation areas. A decrease in irrigated area accounted for most of the difference between these reductions. Higher R2 values after conservation area establishment imply that irrigation tracks precipitation better due to use of soil moisture sensors and other measures as part of increased irrigation efficiency and enhanced water management. The precipitation and water use relationships, which are statistically significant for a wide range of spatial scales, have great potential for assessing the effectiveness of conservation practices in areas with high-quality water use and precipitation data.

Hearing loss affects 1.6 billion people worldwide and disproportionately affects those in low- and middle-income countries. Despite being largely preventable or treatable, ear and hearing conditions result in significant and lifelong morbidity such as delayed language development, reduced educational attainment, and diminished social well-being. There is a need to augment prevention, early identification, treatment, and rehabilitation for these conditions. Expanded access to hearing screening, growth of the hearing health workforce, and innovations in ear and hearing care delivery systems are among the changes that are needed. To that end, the World Health Organization has prioritized ear and hearing care as a component of Universal Health Coverage, and recent publications have advanced the priority for ear and hearing care. Efforts are underway at the national levels around the world, as evidenced by countries like Zambia and Nigeria that have integrated ear and hearing care within national health strategies. While significant strides have been made in improving access, a critical need remains for additional research, advocacy, and intervention to ensure that no one is left behind in the goal to achieve universal access to ear and hearing care., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Recent studies of cochlear implants (CIs) in profound unilateral hearing loss (UHL) patients have demonstrated a restoration of some binaural hearing., Aims/objectives: The objective was to evaluate three possible advantages of binaural hearing in CIs adult users with UHL including single-side deafness (SSD) and asymmetric hearing loss (AHL) subgroups., Material and Methods: A prospective study was conducted that included 70 sequentially implanted patients. Subgroups of these subjects included 64 with a postlingual onset of a profound hearing loss on the implanted side and 6 with a prelingual onset of that loss. Three binaural effects - redundancy, head shadow, and squelch - were evaluated., Results: Significant differences between the 'CI on' and 'CI off' conditions were found for all three binaural effects for the study group as a whole and for the postlingual subgroup. However, results for the subjects in the prelingual subgroup did not demonstrate any of the binaural advantages., Conclusion and Significance: Patients with a postlingual onset of a profound hearing loss in one ear and normal hearing or only a moderate loss in the other ear are able to make the effective use of a CI in the profound-loss ear in conjunction with acoustic stimulation of the other ear.