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

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (21) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Cavero, J. Articles by Faci, J. M. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Cavero, J. Articles by Faci, J. M. Agricola Articles by Cavero, J. Articles by Faci, J. M. Related Collections Crop Growth and Development Water Stress Maize Crop Models Irrigation

Simulation of Maize Yield under Water Stress with the EPICphase and CROPWAT Models

^a Dep. Genetica y Produccion Vegetal, Estacion Experimental de Aula Dei (CSIC), Apdo. 202, 50080 Zaragoza, Spain
^b Unidad de Suelos y Riegos, Servicio de Investigacion Agroalimentaria (DGA), Apdo. 727, 50080 Zaragoza, Spain
^c INRA, Station d'Agronomie, BP 27, 31326 Castanet-Tolosan cedex, France

View larger version (67K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1 Experimental layout of the continuous water deficit experiment (1986). Numbers 1 to 6 indicate the position of the different irrigation treatments

View larger version (29K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2 Comparison of seasonal simulated evapotranspiration (ET) from EPICphase and CROPWAT with adjusted ET (calculated from the soil water balance and the simulated deep percolation by each of the two models). Each point represents the mean of each treatment of the different experiments. The diagonal line represents the 1:1 relationship

View larger version (31K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3 Comparison of maize grain yield, aboveground biomass, harvest index, and maximum leaf area index (LAI) measured and simulated with EPICphase. Each point represents the mean of each treatment of the different experiments. The diagonal line represents the 1:1 relationship

View larger version (29K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4 Comparison of measured and simulated leaf area index (LAI) and aboveground biomass in selected treatments of the 1986 and 1995 experiments. Symbols are the mean values; error bars are the standard deviation. Lines represent the mean simulated values with EPICphase (solid lines) or EPICphase modified (dotted lines)

View larger version (22K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5 Relationships of the leaf photosynthesis or leaf elongation against the relative transpiration rate obtained from different studies with maize and the relationships used in EPICphase and EPICphase modified to reduce biomass production or LAI growth as function of the water stress reduction factor (actual ET/potential ET)

View larger version (20K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6 (A) Mean values of the light extinction coefficient (k) calculated for the different treatments in the flood-irrigated experiments at maize flowering. (B) Relationship between the water stress reduction factor (actual evapotranspiration [ET]/potential ET) and the correction factor for k used in the modified EPICphase model

View larger version (32K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7 Comparison of maize grain yield, aboveground biomass, harvest index, and maximum leaf area index (LAI) measured and simulated with EPICphase modified. Each point represents the mean of each treatment of the different experiments. The line represents the 1:1 relationship

View larger version (48K): [in a new window]   Fig. 8 Comparison of measured and simulated yield reduction with EPICphase modified and CROPWAT in the different experiments. Values are means of each treatment; error bars represent standard deviations

View larger version (21K): [in a new window]   Fig. 9 Comparison of the drainage below the rooting depth simulated with EPICphase and CROPWAT. Each point represents the mean of each treatment of the different experiments. The diagonal line represents the 1:1 relationship. Numbers inside the symbols indicate the number of points that are coincident