Using AquaCrop Model to simulate irrigation water use efficiency of potato crop under semi-arid conditions of Central Tunisia

Resumo

In Tunisia, water scarcity forces producers to face stress conditions. In this study, AquaCrop was used to reproduce the dynamic of water contents, vegetative growth, yield production and water use efficiency under a non-stressed and water stressed treatments. Calibration procedure aimed to use in maximum default parameters of AquaCrop. Since, the paper presented only the parameters that have to be adjusted to obtain similar results of field measurements. Root mean squared error, RMSE, values were always lower than 0.04 cm3.cm-3 for water contents lower than 0.06 for vegetation cover estimation. Moreover, results from Nasch Coefficient, E, were almost equal to one. RMSE and E justified that the model was well assessed to predict the soil water contents and vegetation development under the study area. However, the model presented a greater performance in the case of full irrigation strategy. When evaluating different values of water productivity, it was showed that a WP of 32 g.m-2 produced the lowest estimation error. Regarding yield productions, statistical indictors, computed for a water productivity value of 32 g.m-2 show in general RMSE values lower than 0.4 t/ha. In addition, E was closer to one for the non stressed treatment, T1. For irrigation water use efficiency, it was depicted that the model underestimated field IWUE. Moreover, the discrepancy between simulated and estimated irrigation water use efficiency rose for treatment T2, implying that the model calibration should be improved, especially for stressed conditions. The model, after being calibrated, could be used for simulating the response of the crop to different irrigation management aiming to optimize water use efficiency.

Referências

1. Chehaibi, S.; Hamdi, W., Abroug, K. Effects
2. of planting depth on agronomic
3. performance of two potato varieties
4. grown in the Sahel Region of Tunisia.
5. Journal of Development and
6. Agricultural Economics, v. 5, no. 7,
7. p. 272-76, 2013.
8. Douh, B. Etude théorique et
9. expérimentale de l’irrigation goutte à
10. goutte souterraine sur une culture de
11. maïs (Zea mays L.). Sousse, Tunisia:
12. Higher Agronomic Institute of Chott
13. Meriem, 2012. (Ph. D. thesis).
14. Droogers, P.; Hunink, J. Assessment of
15. impact of climate change on Wheat in
16. Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia.
17. Regional Analytical and Advisory
18. Activities Program on Developing
19. Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies in
20. the Agricultural Sector for Armenia,
21. Azerbaijan and Georgia. Future Water,
22. Eldredge, E. P.; Holmes, Z. A.; Mosley, A.
23. R.; Shock, C. C.; Stieber, T. D. Effects of
24. transitory water stress on potato tuber
25. stem-end reducing sugar and fry color.
26. American Potato Journal, n. 73, p. 517-
27. , 1996.
28. Using AquaCrop Model to simulate irrigation water use efficiency 231
29. Braz. J. Biol. Sci., 2019, Vol. 6, No. 12, p. 223-231.
30. Farahani, H. J.; Izzi, G.; Oweis, T. Y.
31. Parameterization and evaluation of the
32. AquaCrop model for full and deficit
33. irrigated cotton. Agronomy Journal,
34. no. 101, p. 469–476, 2009.
35. Heng, L. K.; Hsiao, T.; Evett, S.; Howell, T.;
36. Steduto, P. Validating the FAO AquaCrop
37. model for irrigated and water deficient
38. field maize. Agronomy Journal, no. 101,
39. p. 488–498, 2009.
40. Hsiao, T. C.; Heng, L.; Steduto, P.; RojasLara, B.; Raes, D.; Fereres, E. AquaCropThe FAO crop model to simulate yield
41. response to water: III. Parameterization
42. and testing for maize. Agronomy
43. Journal, no. 101, p. 448–459, 2009.
44. Katerji, N.; Campi, P.; Mastrorilli, M.
45. Productivity, evapotranspiration, and
46. water use efficiency of corn and tomato
47. crops simulated by AquaCrop under
48. contrasting water stress conditions in the
49. Mediterranean Region. Agricultural
50. Water Management, no. 130, p. 14-26,
51. Kayshap, P. S.; Panda, R. K. Effect of
52. irrigation scheduling on potato crop
53. parameters under water stressed
54. conditions. Agricultural Water
55. Management, no. 59, p. 49-66, 2002.
56. Kayshap, P. S.; Panda, R. K. Effect of
57. irrigation scheduling on potato crop
58. parameters under water stressed
59. conditions. Agricultural Water
60. Management, no. 59, p. 49-66, 2002.
61. Nash, J. E.; Sutcliffe, J. V. River flow
62. forecasting through conceptual models.
63. Part I: A discussion of principles. Journal
64. of Hydrology, no. 10, p 282-290, 1970.
65. Shock, C. C.; Zalewski, J. C.; Stieber, T. D.;
66. Burnett, D. S. Impact of early-season
67. water deficits on Russet Burbank plant
68. development, tuber yield and quality.
69. American Potato Journal, no. 69,
70. p. 793-803, 1993.
71. Steduto, P.; Hsiao, T. C.; Raes, D.; Fereres,
72. E. AquaCrop-The FAO crop model to
73. simulate yield response to water: I.
74. Concepts and underlying principles.
75. Agronomy Journal, no. 101, p. 426-437,
76. Todorovic, M.; Albrizio, R.; Zivotic, L.; Abi
77. Saab, M. T.; Stöckle, C.; Steduto, P.
78. Assessment of AquaArop, CropSyst, and
79. WOFOST models in the simulation of
80. sunflower growth under different water
81. regimes. Agronomy Journal, no. 101,
82. p. 509-521, 2009.
83. Willmott, C. J.; Wicks, D. E. An empirical
84. method for the spatial interpolation of
85. monthly precipitation within California.
86. Physical Geography, no. 1, p. 59-73,
87. Wright, J. L.; Stark, J. C. Potato. In:
88. Stewart, B. A.; Nielsen, D. R. (Eds).
89. Irrigation of Agricultural Crops:
90. Agronomy. Madison, Wisconsin: ASACSSA-SSSA, 1990. (Monograph, 30).