EconPapers    
Economics at your fingertips  
 

Comparing AquaCrop and CropSyst models in simulating barley growth and yield under different water and nitrogen regimes. Does calibration year influence the performance of crop growth models?

Marie Therese Abi Saab, Mladen Todorovic and Rossella Albrizio

Agricultural Water Management, 2015, vol. 147, issue C, 21-33

Abstract: This work investigated the performance of AquaCrop and CropSyst in simulating barley growth under three water treatments (full irrigation, 50% irrigation and rainfed) and two nitrogen levels (high and low) with a particular attention to the influence of calibration year on the modelling results. Three years (2006–2008) of data from the experimental work carried out in Southern Italy were used. The models were calibrated for each of three years and then validated for two other years. The overall results pointed out that both models could be calibrated with data of one of any the three years and validated with all other data. Nevertheless, errors of estimate slightly changed in respect to the year of calibration and were sensitive, from one year to another, to weather conditions and different water and nitrogen regimes. The results indicated AquaCrop superior than CropSyst when the calibration was done on the basis of 2006 and 2008 data, whereas the models performed in a similar way when the calibration was done for 2007. In the case of final biomass, the relative RMSE was lower for AquaCrop (from 0.09 to 0.15) than for CropSyst (from 0.15 to 0.17). Similarly, in the case of final yield, the relative RMSE of AquaCrop was lower (from 0.11 to 0.17) than that of CropSyst (from 0.16 to 0.23). AquaCrop overestimated final biomass by 0.18 and 0.27tha−1 for 2006 and 2008 calibration year, respectively, and underestimated biomass by 1.02tha−1 when calibration was done on 2007 data. CropSyst underestimated biomass independently on the calibration year, from 0.83 to 1.26tha−1.

Keywords: Hordeum vulgare L.; Mediterranean conditions; Nitrogen deficit; Water deficit; Water productivity (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2015
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (13)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378377414002273
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:agiwat:v:147:y:2015:i:c:p:21-33

DOI: 10.1016/j.agwat.2014.08.001

Access Statistics for this article

Agricultural Water Management is currently edited by B.E. Clothier, W. Dierickx, J. Oster and D. Wichelns

More articles in Agricultural Water Management from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().

 
Page updated 2025-03-19
Handle: RePEc:eee:agiwat:v:147:y:2015:i:c:p:21-33