HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hsiao, T. C. Articles by Fereres, E. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Hsiao, T. C. Articles by Fereres, E. Agricola Articles by Hsiao, T. C. Articles by Fereres, E. Related Collections Agroclimatology Water Management Water Use Water Stress Evapotranspiration Models Maize Crop Models Maize Management Irrigation Water Conservation

SYMPOSIUM PAPERS

AquaCrop—The FAO Crop Model to Simulate Yield Response to Water: III. Parameterization and Testing for Maize

^a Dep. of Land, Air and Water Resources, Univ. of California, Davis, CA USA
^b Land and Water Division, FAO, United Nations, Rome, Italy
^c Dep. of Earth and Environmental Sci., K.U. Leuven Univ., Leuven, Belgium
^d IAS-CSIC and Univ. of Cordoba, Cordoba, Spain

^* Corresponding author (tchsiao{at}ucdavis.edu).

The first crop chosen to parameterize and test the new FAO AquaCrop model is maize (Zea mays L.). Working mainly with data sets from 6 yr of maize field experiments at Davis, CA, plus another 4 yr of Davis maize canopy data, a set of conservative (nearly constant) parameters of AquaCrop, presumably applicable to widely different conditions and not specific to a given crop cultivar, was evaluated by test simulations, and used to simulate the 6 yr of Davis data. The treatment variable was irrigation—withholding water after planting continuously, only up to tasseling, from tasseling onward, or intermittently, and with full irrigation (FI) as the control. From year to year, plant density (7–11.9 plants m^–2), planting date (14 May–15 June), cultivar (a total of four), and atmospheric evaporative demand varied. The conservative parameters included: canopy growth and canopy decline coefficient (CDC); crop coefficient for transpiration (Tr) at full canopy; normalized water productivity for biomass (WP*); soil water depletion thresholds for the inhibition leaf growth and of stomatal conductance, and for the acceleration of canopy senescence; reference harvest index (HI_o); and coefficients for adjusting harvest index (HI) in relation to inhibition of leaf growth and of stomatal conductance. With all 19 parameters held constant, AquaCrop simulated the final aboveground biomass within 10% of the measured value for at least 8 of the 13 treatments (6 yr of experiments) and also the grain yield for at least five of the cases. In at least four of the cases, the simulated results were within 5% of the measured for biomass as well as for grain yield. The largest deviation between the simulated and measured values was 22% for biomass, and 24% for grain yield. Importantly, the simulated pattern of canopy progression and biomass accumulation over time were close to those measured, with Willmott's index of agreement (d) for 11 of the 13 cases being 0.98 for canopy cover (CC), and 0.97 for biomass. Accelerated senescence of canopy due to water stress, however, proved to be difficult to simulate accurately; of the six cases, the index of agreement for the worst one was 0.957 for canopy and 0.915 for biomass. Possible reasons for the discrepancies between the simulated and measured results include simplifications in the model and inaccuracies in measurements. The usefulness of AquaCrop with well-calibrated conservative parameters in assessing water use efficiency (WUE) of a crops under different conditions and in devising strategies to improve WUE is discussed.

Abbreviations: CC, canopy cover • CDC, canopy decline coefficient • CGC, canopy growth coefficient • d, Willmott's index of agreement • DAP, days after planting • E, soil evaporation • ET, evapotranspiration • ET_o, reference evapotranspiration • FC, field capacity • FI, full irrigation • GDD, growing degree days • HI, harvest index • HI_o, reference harvest index • Ks, stress coefficients • LAI, leaf area index • p, fractional depletion of total available water in the root zone • PWP, permanent wilting point • SWC, soil water content • Tr, crop transpiration • WP, water productivity (for biomass) • WP*, normalized (for evaporative demand and atmospheric CO₂) water productivity (for biomass) • WUE, water use efficiency

All rights reserved. No part of this periodical may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

Received for publication June 29, 2008.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. Steduto, T. C. Hsiao, D. Raes, and E. Fereres AquaCrop--The FAO Crop Model to Simulate Yield Response to Water: I. Concepts and Underlying Principles Agron. J., April 3, 2009; 101(3): 426 - 437. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Raes, P. Steduto, T. C. Hsiao, and E. Fereres AquaCrop--The FAO Crop Model to Simulate Yield Response to Water: II. Main Algorithms and Software Description Agron. J., April 3, 2009; 101(3): 438 - 447. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Garcia-Vila, E. Fereres, L. Mateos, F. Orgaz, and P. Steduto Deficit Irrigation Optimization of Cotton with AquaCrop Agron. J., April 3, 2009; 101(3): 477 - 487. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]