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

This Article 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 Web of Science (12) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Jara, J. Articles by Stockle, C. O. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Jara, J. Articles by Stockle, C. O. Agricola Articles by Jara, J. Articles by Stockle, C. O.

Simulation of Water Uptake in Maize, Using Different Levels of Process Detail

Dep. of Agricultural Engineering, Univ. of Concepción, Casilla 537, Chillán, Chile
Dep. of Biological Systems Engineering, Washington State Univ., Pullman, WA 99164-6120

^* Corresponding author (stockle{at}wsu.edu).

Daily crop water uptake was simulated using algorithms from three crop simulation models, CropSyst, CERES, and EPIC (listed in order of decreasing process detail). Simulated results were compared with measurements of sap flow and soil water content for maize (Zea mays L.) growing at Prosser, WA, under a wet and a dry irrigation treatment, and with soil water content measurements for nonirrigated maize ai Davis, CA. At Prosser, the dry treatment imposed only a mild stress; at Davis, the stress was severe. Simulation variables such as maximum crop evapotranspiration, root density by soil layer, and green leaf area index were provided as daily input. At Prosser, all algorithms performed similarly when simulating crop water uptake. For the wet treatment, the root mean square error (RMSE) was 0.27 to 0.28 mm d^–1, and the relative error [RE = 100 (RMSEIMeasured average)] was 7.0 to 7.2%. For the dry treatment, simulation accuracy decreased (RMSE = 0.33–0.38 mm d^–1; RE = 9.0–10.5%). The time evolution of water uptake simulated by CropSyst better depicted the measured sap flow (water uptake) difFerence between wet and dry treatments. Simulations of soil water content by layer for the wet treatment, compared with measurements available for 17 d, yielded RMSEs from 0.022 to 0.024 m³ m^–3 and RES from 8.5 to 9.2%. For the dry treatment (12 d of measurements), the best simulations were obtained with the water uptake algorithms from CropSyst and CERES, with RMSE = 0.015 m³ m^–3 (both models) and RE = 6.4% (CropSyst) and 6.6% (CERES), compared with RMSE = 0.019 m³ m^–3 and RE = 8.1% for EPIC. Under the severe water stress at Davis, CropSyst had the best performance. This algorithm simulated changes in soil water content by layer (8 d of measurements availabie) with RMSE of 0.011 m³ m^–3 and RE of 5.0%, while the RMSE and RE values for CERES and EPIC were 0.016 and 0.019 m³ m^–3 and 7.6 and 9.0%, respectively. The more process-oriented algorithm (CropSyst) showed an increasing advantage as water stress severity increased. The EPIC algorithm had the poorest performance under water stress. This could be improved by modifying the value of the water extraction distribution parameter in EPIC, but with this change the wet treatment simulations at Prosser deteriorated substantially, indicative of Limitations in EPIC'S simple approach.

Received for publication July 30, 1997.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				F. X. Lopez-Cedron, K. J. Boote, J. Pineiro, and F. Sau Improving the CERES-Maize Model Ability to Simulate Water Deficit Impact on Maize Production and Yield Components Agron. J., February 26, 2008; 100(2): 296 - 307. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Y. Miao, D. J. Mulla, W. D. Batchelor, J. O. Paz, P. C. Robert, and M. Wiebers Evaluating Management Zone Optimal Nitrogen Rates with a Crop Growth Model Agron. J., April 11, 2006; 98(3): 545 - 553. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. F. Grant, B. A. Kimball, G. W. Wall, J. M. Triggs, T. J. Brooks, P. J. Pinter Jr., M. M. Conley, M. J. Ottman, R. L. Lamorte, S. W. Leavitt, et al. Modeling Elevated Carbon Dioxide Effects on Water Relations, Water Use, and Growth of Irrigated Sorghum Agron. J., November 1, 2004; 96(6): 1693 - 1705. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. A. Andales, L. R. Ahuja, and G. A. Peterson Evaluation of GPFARM for Dryland Cropping Systems in Eastern Colorado Agron. J., November 1, 2003; 95(6): 1510 - 1524. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]