Modeling malt barley water use and evapotranspiration partitioning in two contrasting rainfall years. Assessing AquaCrop and SIMDualKc models
Modeling malt barley water use and evapotranspiration partitioning in two contrasting rainfall years. Assessing AquaCrop and SIMDualKc models
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.agwat.2015.06.006
复制
发表时间：
2015-09
影响因子：
6.7
通讯作者：
Luis S. Pereira;P. Paredes;G. Rodrigues;Manuela Neves
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Luis S. Pereira;P. Paredes;G. Rodrigues;Manuela Neves
两个对比的降雨大麦季节，干（2012年）和湿（2013年），被用来参数化和评估性能的SIMDualKc和AquaCrop模型。田间数据来自葡萄牙Ribatejo农民田间种植的麦芽大麦。SIMDualKc应用双作物系数方法计算和划分作物蒸散量（ET），而AquaCrop使用经验方法根据冠层覆盖（CC）估计潜在作物蒸散量（Tc）和土壤蒸发量（Es）。两个模型的校准和验证，通过比较观测和预测的土壤水分含量（SWC）的两个季节。SIMDualKc的拟合优度指标非常好，估计误差很低（RMSE < 0.015 cm3cm−3）。AquaCrop首先参数化的CC曲线，这两年使用叶面积指数观测。当测试SWC时，指标显示出比SIMDualKc更低的准确性。通过对日基础作物系数（Kcb）和日蒸发系数（Ke）的分析，以及对各作物生长阶段和各季节的实际作物蒸腾量（Ta）和实际作物蒸腾量（Es）的累积，将ET分解为Tc和Esby两个模型。干湿年之间的差异是明显的，也在模拟SWC时的模型行为。差异也显着相对于水平衡条款，即Taand Es。利用AquaCrop估算Kc和Ke的问题被识别出来，这可能导致其在模拟SWC方面的性能不太好，并影响产量估算。评估两个模型的结果得出结论，在AquaCrop中使用的计算程序的Tc，Taand Eslead的不准确性，使AquaCrop不太适合支持灌溉调度。
Two contrasting rainfall barley seasons, dry (2012) and wet (2013), were used to parameterize and assess the performance of the SIMDualKc and AquaCrop models. Field data were obtained from malt barley cropped in a farmer’s field in Ribatejo, Portugal. SIMDualKc applies the dual crop coefficient approach for computing and partitioning crop evapotranspiration (ET), while AquaCrop uses an empirical approach to estimate potential crop transpiration (Tc) and soil evaporation (Es) depending upon the canopy cover (CC). The calibration and validation of both models was performed through comparing observed and predicted soil water content (SWC) for both seasons. The goodness-of-fit indicators were very good for SIMDualKc, with low errors of estimate (RMSE < 0.015 cm3cm−3). AquaCrop was first parameterized for the CC curves of both years using LAI observations. When tested for SWC, indicators have shown less accuracy than SIMDualKc. The analysis focused the partition of ET into Tcand Esby both models through the analysis of the daily basal crop coefficients (Kcb) and evaporation coefficients (Ke), and the actual crop transpiration (Ta) and Esvalues cumulated to each crop growth stage and the season. Differences between the dry and wet year were evident, also in terms of model behavior when simulating SWC. Differences were also notable relative to the water balance terms, namely Taand Es. Problems with estimating Kcband Kewith AquaCrop were identified, which likely cause its less good performance in simulating SWC and impacted yield estimation. Results of assessing both models led to conclude that computation procedures used in AquaCrop for Tc, Taand Eslead to inaccuracies that make AquaCrop less appropriate to support irrigation scheduling.