-
Open Access Article
1 - The Effect of Water Use Management in Growth Different Stages on Two Peanut Cultivars Using WOFOST Model
Ali Abdzad GohariBackground and Aim: One of the most important factors limiting peanut production is water stress and shortage in plant growth stages. Therefore, crop simulation models can be useful for predicting yield and assessing the effect of water stress on plant growth and develo MoreBackground and Aim: One of the most important factors limiting peanut production is water stress and shortage in plant growth stages. Therefore, crop simulation models can be useful for predicting yield and assessing the effect of water stress on plant growth and development. In this study, the WOFOST model was used to simulate biomass yield, seed yield and water use productivity in peanut. As the peanut modeling research has not been well-addressed in Iran, thus, the purpose of this study is to evaluate the ability of WOFOST model to simulate the yield of two peanut cultivars under irrigation conditions at different growth stages in Astaneh Ashrafiyeh region.Method: This experiment was performed in the form of split plots in a randomized complete block design with three iterations. The main treatment included irrigation until the beginning of flowering time (I1), irrigation until the beginning of pod time (I2) and full irrigation (I3), and the sub-treatment included two cultivars of Jonobi peanut (C1) and Guil (C2). The WOFOST version 7.1.3 model was employed. In this model, crop growth simulation is based on carbon cycle, which models crop growth in three situations: absence of limiting factor, water limitation, and nutrient limitation.Results: Model evaluation showed that the root mean square between the observed and simulated values in estimating biomass yield for Jonobi and Guil cultivars in 2017 were 0.554 and 0.501%, in 2018 were 0.872 and 0.897%, and in 2019 were 0.449 and 0.466%, respectively. The root of the mean squares between the observed and simulated values in estimating seed yield for Jonobi and Guil cultivars in 2017 were 0.052 and 0.065%, in 2018 were 0.132 and 0.131%, and in 2019 were 0.101 and 0.096%, respectively. The mean values of relative error between the observed and simulated values in 2017, 2018 and 2019 for biomass yield were 10.2, 18.1, and 7.7%, and for seed yield were 4.35, 6.4 and, -4.5%, respectively; also the efficiency coefficient index ranged from 0.442 to 0.960.Conclusion: Evaluation of simulated and observed values on biomass yield and seed yield demonstrate that RMSE, RMSEn and other statistical indexes were acceptable and the WOFOST model simulated two peanut cultivars accurately in different irrigation treatments. Manuscript profile -
Open Access Article
2 - Sensitivity analysis of CSM-CERES-MAIZE to field capacity in simulation of nitrogen fate
Rahele Malekian Mahdi GheysariCERES is a family of crop-soil-atmosphere models which is a component of the DSSAT, can successfully simulate N budget of the crop-soil system and also different N management scenarios. Field capacity (FC) is one of the important parameters of soil-water-crop-atmosphere MoreCERES is a family of crop-soil-atmosphere models which is a component of the DSSAT, can successfully simulate N budget of the crop-soil system and also different N management scenarios. Field capacity (FC) is one of the important parameters of soil-water-crop-atmosphere models which the accurate measurement of this parameter is very expensive and time consuming. In this study the sensitivity of the CSM-CERES-Maize model to FC in simulation of soil nitrate and ammonium concentration in different soil layers, and plant N uptake was evaluated. The study was performed using the experimental data obtained from the field study conducted on silage maize in 2003 and 2004 at the south of Tehran, Iran. The treatments were four irrigation levels of 0.7, 0.85, 1 and 1.13 soil moisture depletion with three fertilizer levels (0, 150, and 200 kg N ha-1). The results showed that the percentage change of simulated soil nitrate concentration was between 7.17 and 96.75 due to 25% change of FC (either increase or decrease). This value for simulated soil ammonium concentration was between 33.31 and 139.01. The CERES model was sensitive to FC changes in simulation of soil nitrate and ammonium concentrations and its sensitivity was different in soil layers. This model was little sensitive to FC changes in simulation of mineralization, nitrification, and plant N concentration. Overall the results revealed that an exact determination of FC can reduce uncertainty in simulation of soil nitrate and ammonium concentration using the CERES model. Manuscript profile -
Open Access Article
3 - Simulation of the Effect of Irrigation Management on Yield, Biomass and Water Use Efficiency of Canola (Brassica napus L.) Using AquaCrop Model
Afsaneh Gholami Aslan Egdernezhad Niaz Ali EbrahimipakThe aims of this study is evaluate AquaCrop in simulating rapeseed yield, biomass and water use efficiency under different irrigation amounts (E1, E2, E3 and E4, indicating water supply of 50, 75, 100 and 125 mm from the evaporation pan, respectivly) was performed in th MoreThe aims of this study is evaluate AquaCrop in simulating rapeseed yield, biomass and water use efficiency under different irrigation amounts (E1, E2, E3 and E4, indicating water supply of 50, 75, 100 and 125 mm from the evaporation pan, respectivly) was performed in three cropping years (Y1, Y2 and Y3 representing the first, second and third years, respectively). In order to calibrate this model, the data collected from the first year used for calibration and data for the second and third year were used for validation. The results showed that AquaCrop had an overestimated error (MBE< 0) to simulate all three parameters studied. The accuracy of AquaCrop was excellent for simulating yield and biomass (NRMSE <0.1) and good for water use efficiency (NRMSE <0.2). The mean differences between simulated and observed yield, biomass and water use efficiency water were 0.19 t.ha-1, 0.78 t.ha-1 and 0.05 kg.m-3, respectively. Based on the results, use of AquaCrop to simulate rapeseed yield, biomass and water use efficiency is recommended. Manuscript profile -
Open Access Article
4 - Yield and Water Productivity Simulation of Different Rice Cultivars under Various Planting Methods using AquaCrop, CropSyst and WOFOST Models
Seyed Amir Hossein Mousavi Aslan Egdernezhad Abdolali GilaniSimulation of rice yield and its water productivity studied using AquaCrop, WOFOST and CropSyst models, in an experiment at Khuzestan Agricultural Research Station. In this study, three types of planting methods (D1: transplanting, D2: direct seeding, and D3: dry bed se MoreSimulation of rice yield and its water productivity studied using AquaCrop, WOFOST and CropSyst models, in an experiment at Khuzestan Agricultural Research Station. In this study, three types of planting methods (D1: transplanting, D2: direct seeding, and D3: dry bed seeding) and three rice cultivars (V1: Red-Anbori, V2: Champa, V3: Danial) were considered. Results of MBE (0.36 t.ha-1), RMSE (0.1.07 t.ha-1) and NRMSE (0.14 t.ha-1). MBE, RMSE and NRMSE values for water productivity calculated by using AquaCrop model were -0.11 kg.m-3, 0.40 kg.m-3 and 0.15, respectively. The values for yield simulation using WOFSOT model were 0.06 ton.ha-1, 1.14 t.ha-1 and -0.01, respectively, and aforementioned values for water productivity simulated by WOFOST were 0.15 kg.m-3, 0.40 kg.m-3 and -0.13, respectively. The mentioned values for CropSyst simulated as 0.11 t.ha-1, 0.80 t.ha-1 and -0.24 for yield and 0.15 kg.m-3, 0.40 kg.m-3 and -0.14 for water productivity, respectively. According to the results, accuracy for all models were accepted to simulate rice yield and water productivity. However, WOFOST accuracy was better than the other models in most treatments. Thus, it is recommended to use WOFOST for simulation of rice yield and water productivity at different rice cultivars. Manuscript profile -
Open Access Article
5 - Simulating of Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) Yield under Different Irrigation Conditions using AquaCrop and Cropsyst Models
Mohammad Ali Ansari Aslan Egdernezhad Niaz Ali EbrahimipakTo 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 MoreTo 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. Manuscript profile -
Open Access Article
6 - Evaluation of AquaCrop and WOFOST in simulating of corn yield under deficit irrigation
Aslan Egdernezhad1 Ali Reza Masjedi 2 Ali Reza Shokouhfar 3 Mojtaba Alavifazel 4This study was conducted to evaluate two crop growth models (AquaCrop and WOFOST) in simulating corn yield under different irrigation water (T1:50, T2:75, T3:100 and T4: 150 mm evaporation from pan A) using data collected from a research farm station in Ahwaz during one MoreThis study was conducted to evaluate two crop growth models (AquaCrop and WOFOST) in simulating corn yield under different irrigation water (T1:50, T2:75, T3:100 and T4: 150 mm evaporation from pan A) using data collected from a research farm station in Ahwaz during one season crop. Results showed that the highest and the lowest different between collected and simulated yield values using AquaCrop were obtained in T3 (0.45 ton.ha-1) and T2 (0.10 ton.ha-1), respectively. Using WOFOST were obtained in T4 (0.15 ton.ha-1) and T1 (0.01 ton.ha-1), respectively. The lowest and the highest different for biomass values using AquaCrop were obtained in T4 (1.1 ton.ha-1) and T3 (2.03 ton.ha-1), respectively. Results for WOFOST were obtained in T2 (0.65 ton.ha-1) and T1 (1.95 ton.ha-1), respectively. RSME values for corn yield using AquaCrop and WOFOST were 0.16 and 0.15 ton.ha-1, respectively. RMSE values for corn biomass using AquaCrop and WOFOST were 0.92 and 0.88 ton.ha-1, respectively. Values for MBE using AquaCrop and WOFOST were 0.04 and -0.05 ton.ha-1 for corn yield, respectively, and -0.52 and -0.47 ton.ha-1 for corn biomass, respectively. In general, WOFOST had a better accuracy to simulate corn yield. Manuscript profile
Sanad
Sanad is a platform for managing Azad University publications
Links
Related Centers
Technical Support
Official pages
The rights to this website are owned by the Raimag Press Management System.
Copyright © 2021-2024