Simulating of Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) Yield under Different Irrigation Conditions using AquaCrop and Cropsyst Models
Subject Areas :
Journal of Crop Ecophysiology
Mohammad Ali Ansari
1
,
Aslan Egdernezhad
2
,
Niaz Ali Ebrahimipak
3
1 - M.Sc. Student of Irrigation and drainage, Department of Water Sciences and Engineering, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran.
2 - Assistant Professor, Department of Water Sciences and Engineering, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran.
3 - Associate Professor, Department of irrigation and soil physics, Soil and Water Research Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran.
Received: 2018-12-20
Accepted : 2019-04-20
Published : 2019-06-22
Keywords:
Water stress,
Crop Modeling,
Radiation-driven Model,
Water-driven Model,
Abstract :
To evaluate AquaCrop and Cropsyst models for simulating yield and water use efficiency (WUE), this research was performed at the Research Station in ChaharTakhteh, Shahrekord, during 1998-1999, by considering water stress amount at five levels (E0, E1, E2, E3, and E4 indicating 100, 85,70, 50, and 30 percent of crop water needed according to lysimeter data, respectively) in three periods during potato production (T1, T2, and T3 indicating 50, 100, and 150 days after sowing, respectively) and 15 data in each year. First year data was used to calibrate and the second year was used to validate AquaCrop. The highest and lowest differences between observed and AquaCrop simulated yield were 3.15 (E1T2) and 0.3 (E1T3) ton.ha-1, respectively, and the highest and lowest WUE were 0.53 (E3T2) and 0.03 (E4T2) kg.m-3, respectively. The highest and lowest differences between observed and Cropsyst were 2.34 (E3T3) and 0.35 (E1T2), ton.ha-1, respectively. Corresponding results for WUE were 0.32 (E3T2) and (E1T1) kg.m-3, respectively. NRMSE results for Yield were 0.9 (AquaCrop) and 0.7 (CropSyst) for calibration periods and 0.5 (AquaCrop) and 0.9 (CropSyst) for validation periods. EF values for yield were 0.99 and 0.95 for AquaCrop and 0.90 and 0.79 for CropSyst in calibration and validation periods, respectively. Both models had good precision; however, AquaCrop had better efficiency for simulating yield. Based on results, it is recommended to use AquaCrop in low water stress (since it is water-driven model and simulates water response to water accurately) and apply Cropsyst in high water stress (since it is radiation-driven model). In addition, using Cropsyst in T2 is better than AquaCrop.
References:
· Ahmadee, M., A. Khashei Siuki, and M.H. Sayyari. 2015. Comparison of efficiency of different equations to estimate the water requirement in saffron (Crocus sativus L.) (Case study: Birjand plain, Iran). Agroecology. 8(4): 505-520. (In Persian).
· Anonymous. 2013. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Stadistic division. [online: http://faostat3fao.org/faostatgateway/go/to/download/Q/QC/S; November11.
· Araya, A., S. Habtu, K.M. Hadgu, A. Kebede, and T. Dejene. 2010. Test of AquaCrop model in simulating biomass and yield of water deficit and irrigated barely. Agricultural Water Management. 97: 1838–1846.
· Bellocchi, G., N. Silvestri, M. Mazzoncini, and S. Menini. 2002. Using the CropSyst model in continuous rainfed maize (Zea mays L.) under alternative manangment option. Italian Journal of Agronomy. 6: 43-56.
· Confalonieri, R., and S. Bocchi. 2005. Evaluation of CropSyst for simulation the yield of flooded rice in Northern Italy. Europian Journal of Agronomy. 23: 315-326.
· Doorenbos, J., and A.H. Kassam. 1979. Yield response to water. FAO Irrigation and Drainage, Paper 33, Rome, 193 p.
· Ebrahimipak, N.A. 2014. Determination of the potato yield response factor (Ky) to deficit irrigation in different growth stages in shahrekord. Irrigation and Water Engineering. 4(15): 39-50. (In Persian).
· Esmaeilian, Y., and M. Ramroudi. 2018. Evaluation of AquaCrop model in simulating yield and water use efficiency of three corn hybrids under hot-dry climatic conditions. Journal of Crop Ecophysiology. 12(47): 355-376. (In Persian).
· Fallahgh Ghalhari, Gh., M. Baaghideh, and H. Rezaei. 2016. Estimation for potato products water requirement in Torbat Heidariyah region and determining the actual evapotranspiration based on the reference evapotranspiration. Journal Management System. 14(2): 49-60.
· Garcia-Vila, M., and E. Fereres. 2012. Combining the simulation crop model AquaCrop with an economic model for the optimization of irrigation management at farm level. European Jornal of Agronomy. 36(1): 21-31.
· Geerts, S., and D. Raes. 2009. Defecit irrigation as on-farm strategy to maximize crop water productivity in dry areas. Agricultural Water Management. 96: 1275-1284.
· Hassan, A.A., A.A. Sarkar, M.H. Ali, and N.N. Karim. 2002. Effect of deficit irrigation at different growth stage on the yield of potato. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences. 5(2): 128-134.
· Heng, L.K., T.C. Hsiao, S. Evett, T. Howell, and P. Steduto. 2009. Validating the FAO AquaCrop model for irrigated and water deficient field maize. Agronomy Journal. 101(3): 488-498.
· Huang, X., G. Huang, Ch. Yu, Sh. Ni, and L. Yu. 2017. A multiple crop model ensemble for improving broadscale yield prediction using Bayesian model averaging. Field Crop Research. 211: 114-124.
· Kiziloglu, F.M., U. Sahin, T. Tune, and S. Diler. 2006. The effect of deficit irrigation on potato evepotranspiration and tuber yield under cool season and semiarid climatic conditions. Journal of Agronomy. 5(2): 284-288.
· Moriondo, M., F. Maselli, and M. Bindi. 2007. A simple model of regional wheat yield based on NDVI data. Europian Journal of Agronomy. 26: 266-274.
· Nagaz, K., M.M. Masmoudi, and N.B. Mechlia. 2007. Soil salinity and yield of drip –irrigated potato under different irrigation regimes with saline water in arid conditions of Southern Tunisia. Journal of Agronomy. 6(2): 324-330.
· Peralta, J.M., and C.O. Stockle. 2002. Dynamics of nitrate leaching under irrigation potato rotation in Washington State: a long-term simulation study. Agricultural, Ecosystems & Environment. 88(1): 23-34.
· Raes, D., P. Steduto, T.C. Hsiao, and E. Fereres. 2009. AquaCrop— the FAO crop model to simulate yield response to water II. Main algorithms and software description. Agronomy Journal. 101: 438–447.
· Stockle, C.O., and R.L. Nelson. 1996. Cropsyst user’s manual (Version 2.0). Biological Systems Engineering Dept., Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA.
· Stricevic, R., M. Cosic, N. Djurovic, B. Pejic, and L. Maksimovic. 2011. Assessment of the FAO AquaCrop model in the simulation of rainfed and supplementally irrigated maize sugar beet and sunflower. Agricultural Water Management. 98: 1615-1621.
· Yuan, B.Z., S. Nishiyama, and Y. Kang. 2003. Effect of different irrigation regimes on the growth and yield of drip irrigated potato. Agricultural Water Management. 63: 153-167.
_||_
