Agronomy Journal
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Published in Agron J 97:1183-1193 (2005)
DOI: 10.2134/agronj2005.0019
© 2005 American Society of Agronomy
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Anapalli, S. S.
Right arrow Articles by Halvorson, A. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Anapalli, S. S.
Right arrow Articles by Halvorson, A. D.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Anapalli, S. S.
Right arrow Articles by Halvorson, A. D.
Related Collections
Right arrow Water Use
Right arrow Dryland Cropping Systems
Right arrow Soil Organic Matter
Right arrow Maize
Right arrow Wheat
Right arrow Crop Models
Right arrow Soil Models
Right arrow Tillage

Effectiveness of RZWQM for Simulating Alternative Great Plains Cropping Systems

Saseendran S. Anapalli, David C. Nielsenb,*, Liwang Maa, Lajpat R. Ahujaa, Merle F. Vigilb and Ardell D. Halvorsonc

a USDA-ARS, Great Plains Syst. Res., 2150 Centre Ave., Bldg. D, Suite 200, Fort Collins, CO 80526
b USDA-ARS, Central Great Plains Res. Stn., 40335 County Rd. GG, Akron, CO 80720
c USDA-ARS, Soil Plant Nutrient Res., 2150 Centre Ave., Bldg. D, Suite 100, Fort Collins, CO 80526



View larger version (34K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1. Measured and predicted (RZWQM) total profile (180 cm) soil water under wheat fallow (WF) for the beginning wheat data set: (a) conventional tillage (CT), (b) no-till (NT), (c) comparison of predicted soil water under WF(CT) and WF(NT), and (d) comparison of measured soil water under WF(CT) and WF(NT).

 


View larger version (34K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2. Measured and predicted (RZWQM) total profile (180 cm) soil water under wheat fallow (WF) for the beginning fallow data set: (a) conventional tillage (CT), (b) no-till (NT), (c) comparison of predicted soil water under WF(CT) and WF(NT), and (d) comparison of measured soil water under WF(CT) and WF(NT).

 


View larger version (36K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3. Comparison between measured and RZWQM-predicted total profile (180 cm) soil water under wheat–corn–fallow no-till [WCF(NT)] beginning with (a) wheat, (b) corn, and (c) fallow phases in 1992.

 


View larger version (37K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4. Model simulations of residue dynamics and residue effects on soil evaporation from conventional till (CT) and no-till (NT) systems in the wheat–fallow cropping system (beginning fallow data set): (a) flat residue mass on the soil surface, (b) residue evaporative resistance, and (c) potential soil evaporation.

 


View larger version (23K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 5. Comparison between measured and predicted (RZWQM) wheat evapotranspiration (ET) for wheat–fallow (WF) cropping systems in beginning fallow (WF-F) and beginning wheat (WF-W) data sets. Error bars show one standard deviation about the mean of measured ET. CT, conventional till; NT, no-till.

 


View larger version (15K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 6. Comparison between measured and predicted (RZWQM) wheat and corn evapotranspiration (ET) for the wheat–corn–fallow (WCF) cropping system in the beginning wheat (WCF-W), beginning corn (WCF-C), and beginning fallow (WCF-F) data sets. Error bars show one standard deviation about the mean of measured ET.

 


View larger version (24K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 7. Comparison between measured and predicted (RZWQM) wheat grain yields for the wheat–fallow (WF) cropping systems in beginning fallow (WF-F) and beginning wheat (WF-W) data sets. Error bars show one standard deviation about the mean of measured yield. CT, conventional till; NT, no-till.

 


View larger version (22K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 8. Comparison between measured and predicted (RZWQM) wheat and corn grain yield for the wheat–corn–fallow (WCF) cropping system in the beginning wheat (WCF-W), beginning corn (WCF-C), and beginning fallow (WCF-F) data sets. Error bars show one standard deviation about the mean of measured yield.

 


View larger version (24K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 9. Comparison between measured and predicted (RZWQM) wheat biomass for the wheat–fallow (WF) cropping systems in beginning fallow (WF-F) and beginning wheat (WF-W) data sets. Error bars show one standard deviation about the mean of measured biomass. CT, conventional till; NT, no-till.

 


View larger version (21K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 10. Comparison between measured and predicted (RZWQM) wheat and corn biomass for the wheat–corn–fallow (WCF) cropping system in the beginning wheat (WCF-W), beginning corn (WCF-C), and beginning fallow (WCF-F) data sets. Error bars show one standard deviation about the mean of measured biomass.

 





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Crop Science Vadose Zone Journal
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education
Soil Science Society of America Journal
Journal of Plant Registrations Journal of
Environmental Quality
The Plant Genome
Copyright © 2005 by the American Society of Agronomy.