Assessing AquaCrop model to simulate soil water contents under semi arid climate of Central Tunisia

Resumo

The objective of the present study was to preliminary calibrate and validate AquaCrop model based on crop conservative parameters from the literature for plant growth and water stress thresholds. In addition, physical soil characteristics, root growth, duration of plant stages and atmospheric demands were introduced according to field measurements. Based on this preliminary calibration, simulated water contents were compared to a measured data set of water contents retrieved from deficit and full irrigation treatments on a potato cropped field during an experimental year of 2015. Statistical indexes were computed and finally this performance in simulating water contents were validated under independent measurements carried out during an experiments campaign on the same field on 2014. Moreover, the paper presents the experimental protocol followed for soil characterization, considered as a milestone component for this soil water contents prediction. Results showed, that under the followed preliminary calibration, the model was able to simulate water contents (Ɵv). In general, values of Root Mean Square Error were lower than 0.03 cm3.cm-3 representing the magnitude of error of the time domain reflectometry probe. Moreover values of Nash coffecients were close to 1 confirming the goodness of fit between measured and estimated water contents. Once assessed, the model could be used to study effects of different irrigation strategies on dynamic of water contents aiming to increase water use efficiency.

Referências

1. Allen, R. G.; Pereira, L. S.; Raes, D.; Smith, M.
2. Crop evapotranspiration: Guidelines for
3. computing crop water requirements. Rome:
4. Food, 1998. (FAO Irrigation and Drainage,
5. Paper 56).
6. Ghazouani et al.
7. Braz. J. Biol. Sci., 2019, Vol. 6, No. 12, p. 203-221.
8. Bagnouls, F.; Gaussen H. Saison sèche et
9. indice xérothermique. Documents pour les
10. Cartes des Productions Vegetales, Tome
11. III(1), Toulouse, 1953.
12. Dane, J. H.; Hopmans, J. W. Pressure plate
13. extractor. In: Dane, J. H.; Topp, G. C. (Eds.).
14. Methods of soil analysis. Part 4. Physical
15. methods. Madison, WI: SSSA, 2002. (SSSA
16. Book Serie, 5). p. 688-690.
17. Dane, J. H.; Topp, G. C. Methods of soil
18. analysis. Part 4: Physical methods. Madison:
19. Soil Science Society of America, 2002. (SSSA
20. Book Serie, 5).
21. Farahani, H. J.; Izzi, G.; Oweis, T. Y.
22. Parameterization and evaluation of the
23. AquaCrop model for full and deficit irrigated
24. cotton. Agronomy Journal, v. 101, no. 3,
25. p. 469-476, 2009. https://doi.org/10.2134/
26. agronj2008.0182s
27. Heng, L. K.; Hsiao, T.; Evett, S.; Howell, T.;
28. Steduto, P. Validating the FAO AquaCrop
29. model for irrigated and water deficient field
30. maize. Agronomy Journal, v. 101, no. 3,
31. p. 488-498, 2009. https://doi.org/10.2134/
32. agronj2008.0029xs
33. Hsiao, T. C.; Heng, L.; Steduto, P.; Rojas-Lara,
34. B.; Raes, D.; Fereres, E. AquaCrop: The FAO
35. crop model to simulate yield response to
36. water: III. Parameterization and testing for
37. maize. Agronomy Journal, v. 101, no. 3,
38. p. 448-459, 2009. https://doi.org/10.2134/
39. agronj2008.0218s
40. Jury, W. A.; Vaux, H. The role of science in
41. solving the world’s emerging water
42. problems. PNAS, v. 102, no. 44, p. 15715-
43. , 2005. https://doi.org/10.1073/
44. pnas.0506467102
45. Katerji, N.; Campi, P.; Mastrorilli, M.
46. Productivity, evapotranspiration, and water
47. use efficiency of corn and tomato crops
48. simulated by AquaCrop under contrasting
49. water stress conditions in the Mediterranean
50. Region. Agricultural Water Management,
51. v. 130, p. 14-26, 2013. https://doi.org/
52. 1016/j.agwat.2013.08.005
53. Kawakami, J.; Iwama, K.; Jitsuyama, Y. Effects
54. of planting date on the growth and yield of
55. two potato cultivars grown from
56. microtubersand conventional seed tubers.
57. Plant Production Science, v. 8, no. 1, p. 74-
58. , 2005. https://doi.org/10.1626/pps.8.74
59. Moriasi, D. N.; Arnold, J. G.; Van Liew, M. W.;
60. Bingner, R. L.; Harmel, R. D.; Veith T. L. Model
61. evaluation guidelines for systematic
62. quantification of accuracy in watershed
63. simulations. Transaction of the American
64. Society of Agricultural and Biological
65. Engineers, v. 50, no. 3, p. 885-900, 2007.
66. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.23153
67. Nash, J. E.; Sutcliffe, J. V. River flow
68. forecasting through conceptual model. Part 1:
69. A discussion of principles. Journal of
70. Hydrology, v. 10, no. 3, p. 282-290, 1970.
71. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(70)90
72. -6
73. Paredes, P.; Rodrigues, G. C.; Alves, I.; Pereira,
74. L. S. Partitioning evapotranspiration, yield
75. prediction and economic returns of maize
76. under various irrigation management
77. strategies. Agricultural Water
78. Management, v. 135, p. 27-39, 2014.
79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2013.12.010
80. Raes, D.; Steduto, P.; Hsiao, T. C.; Fereres, E.
81. AquaCrop Reference Manual: Version 4.
82. Rome, Italy: FAO Land and Water Division,
83. Rallo, G.; Agnese, C.; Minacapilli, M.;
84. Provenzano, G. Comparison of SWAP and FAO
85. agro-hydrological models to schedule
86. irrigation of wine grape. Journal of
87. Irrigation and Drainage Engineering,
88. v. 138, no. 7, p. 581-591, 2012.
89. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-
90. 0000435
91. Seki, K. SWRC fit: A nonlinear fitting program
92. with a water retention curve for soils having
93. unimodal and bimodal pore structure.
94. Hydrology and Earth System Science
95. Discussion, v. 4, p. 407-437, 2007.
96. https://doi.org/10.5194/hessd-4-407-2007
97. Shahnazari, A.; Liu, F.; Andersen, M. N.;
98. Jacobsen, S.-E.; Jensen, C. R. Effects of partial
99. root-zone drying on yield, tuber size and
100. water use efficiency in potato under field
101. conditions. Field Crops Research, v. 100,
102. no. 1, p. 117-124, 2007. https://doi.org/
103. 1016/j.fcr.2006.05.010
104. Šimůnek, J.; Van Genuchten, M. Th. Modeling
105. nonequilibrium flow and transport with
106. HYDRUS. Vadose Zone Journal, v. 7, no. 2, p.
107. -797, 2008. https://doi.org/10.2136/
108. vzj2007.0074
109. Assessing AquaCrop model to simulate soil water contents 221
110. Braz. J. Biol. Sci., 2019, Vol. 6, No. 12, p. 203-221.
111. Steduto, P.; Hsiao, T.C.; Raes D.; Fereres, E.
112. AquaCrop: The FAO crop model to simulate
113. yield response to water: I. concepts and
114. underlying principles. Agronomy Journal,
115. v. 101, no. 3, p. 426-437, 2009.
116. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2008.0139s
117. Van Dam, J. C.; Groenendijk, P.; Hendriks, R. F.
118. A.; Kroes, J. G. Advances of modeling water
119. flow in variably saturated soils with SWAP.
120. Vadose Zone Journal, v. 7, p. 640-653, 2008.
121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2006.05.010