Abstract
Crop water productivity models are valuable tools for investigate the crop responses to the water-management strategies and ameliorate the efficiency of water use in agriculture. The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of AquaCrop model for maize crop (Zea mays L.) under full, excessive and deficit applications of drip irrigation in semi-humid region of China. The evaluation results emphasized the model accuracy in simulations CC, SWC, B*, Y and WUE with satisfactory performance in full irrigation, and moderate water stressed treatment T2 of 75% of full irrigation. This accuracy declines in circumstances of excessive irrigation T1 of 125% of full irrigation, and high water stressed T3 of 50% of full irrigation. The RMSEs and NRMSEs in simulated CC, and SWC for full irrigation, T1, T2 and T3 treatments were 7.3–8.6, 6.3–7.2, 5.4–6.3 and 4.9–5.6% CC, respectively, and 9.4–4.8, 16.1–8.1, 16.4–9.3 and 20.9–13.4% SWC, respectively. Whereas, the D-index and R2 of CC varied between 0.72 to 0.89 and 0.99 to 1.0, while in the SWC varied between 0.54 to 0.83 and 0.48 to 0.96 for the four irrigation treatments. The differences (S.D) in final biomass and grain yield were within the range of 0.23 to 4.45% and 0.30 to 1.46% between the measurement and simulation. Simulated WUEs of biomass and yield under different irrigation treatments ranged between 6.07 to 6.52 kg/m3 and 3.07 to 3.16 kg/m3, AquaCrop’s performance trends to underestimate the WUEs of biomass and yield, and emphasizes that the yield WUE increased linearly with water stress condition increased.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 14
Claim · model-written summary
AquaCrop model accuracy for maize was satisfactory under full irrigation, compared with excessive irrigation T1
- Treatment
- full irrigatione1
- Outcome
- model accuracye1
- Qualifier
- satisfactory performancee1
- Comparator
- excessive irrigation T1e3
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize crop (Zea mays L.)”
e1“The evaluation results emphasized the model accuracy in simulations CC, SWC, B*, Y and WUE with satisfactory performance in full irrigation”
e3“This accuracy declines in circumstances of excessive irrigation T1 of 125% of full irrigation, and high water stressed T3 of 50% of full irrigation”
Claim · model-written summary
AquaCrop model accuracy for maize was moderate under T2 (75% of full irrigation)
- Treatment
- T2 of 75% of full irrigatione2
- Outcome
- model accuracye1
- Qualifier
- moderatee2
- Comparator
- full irrigatione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize crop (Zea mays L.)”
e1“The evaluation results emphasized the model accuracy in simulations CC, SWC, B*, Y and WUE with satisfactory performance in full irrigation”
e2“moderate water stressed treatment T2 of 75% of full irrigation”
Claim · model-written summary
AquaCrop accuracy for maize declined under excessive irrigation T1 (125% of full irrigation)
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize crop (Zea mays L.)”
e3“This accuracy declines in circumstances of excessive irrigation T1 of 125% of full irrigation, and high water stressed T3 of 50% of full irrigation”
Claim · model-written summary
AquaCrop accuracy for maize declined under high water stress T3 (50% of full irrigation)
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize crop (Zea mays L.)”
e3“This accuracy declines in circumstances of excessive irrigation T1 of 125% of full irrigation, and high water stressed T3 of 50% of full irrigation”
Claim · model-written summary
RMSE and NRMSE of simulated canopy cover for maize ranged 4.9–8.6% across irrigation treatments
- Outcome
- RMSEs and NRMSEs in simulated CCe5
- Value
- 7.3–8.6, 6.3–7.2, 5.4–6.3 and 4.9–5.6% CCe5
- Comparator
- full irrigation, T1, T2 and T3 treatmentse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize crop (Zea mays L.)”
e5“The RMSEs and NRMSEs in simulated CC, and SWC for full irrigation, T1, T2 and T3 treatments were 7.3–8.6, 6.3–7.2, 5.4–6.3 and 4.9–5.6% CC, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
RMSE and NRMSE of simulated soil water content for maize ranged 4.8–20.9% across irrigation treatments
- Outcome
- RMSEs and NRMSEs in simulated CC, and SWCe4
- Value
- 9.4–4.8, 16.1–8.1, 16.4–9.3 and 20.9–13.4% SWCe6
- Comparator
- full irrigation, T1, T2 and T3 treatmentse4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize crop (Zea mays L.)”
e4“The RMSEs and NRMSEs in simulated CC, and SWC for full irrigation, T1, T2 and T3 treatments were 7.3–8.6, 6.3–7.2, 5.4–6.3 and 4.9–5.6% CC, respectively”
e6“and 9.4–4.8, 16.1–8.1, 16.4–9.3 and 20.9–13.4% SWC, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
D-index and R2 of simulated canopy cover for maize ranged 0.72–0.89 and 0.99–1.0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize crop (Zea mays L.)”
e7“Whereas, the D-index and R2 of CC varied between 0.72 to 0.89 and 0.99 to 1.0, while in the SWC varied between 0.54 to 0.83 and 0.48 to 0.96 for the four irrigation treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
D-index and R2 of simulated soil water content for maize ranged 0.54–0.83 and 0.48–0.96
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize crop (Zea mays L.)”
e7“Whereas, the D-index and R2 of CC varied between 0.72 to 0.89 and 0.99 to 1.0, while in the SWC varied between 0.54 to 0.83 and 0.48 to 0.96 for the four irrigation treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Difference between measured and simulated final biomass of maize was 0.23–4.45%
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize crop (Zea mays L.)”
e4“The differences (S.D) in final biomass and grain yield were within the range of 0.23 to 4.45% and 0.30 to 1.46% between the measurement and simulation”
Claim · model-written summary
Difference between measured and simulated final grain yield of maize was 0.30–1.46%
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize crop (Zea mays L.)”
e4“The differences (S.D) in final biomass and grain yield were within the range of 0.23 to 4.45% and 0.30 to 1.46% between the measurement and simulation”
Claim · model-written summary
Simulated biomass WUE of maize ranged 6.07–6.52 kg/m3 across irrigation treatments
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize crop (Zea mays L.)”
e5“Simulated WUEs of biomass and yield under different irrigation treatments ranged between 6.07 to 6.52 kg/m3 and 3.07 to 3.16 kg/m3”
Claim · model-written summary
Simulated yield WUE of maize ranged 3.07–3.16 kg/m3 across irrigation treatments
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize crop (Zea mays L.)”
e5“Simulated WUEs of biomass and yield under different irrigation treatments ranged between 6.07 to 6.52 kg/m3 and 3.07 to 3.16 kg/m3”
e6“AquaCrop’s performance trends to underestimate the WUEs of biomass and yield, and emphasizes that the yield WUE increased linearly with water stress condition increased”
Claim · model-written summary
AquaCrop tends to underestimate the WUEs of biomass and yield of maize relative to measurement
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize crop (Zea mays L.)”
e6“AquaCrop’s performance trends to underestimate the WUEs of biomass and yield, and emphasizes that the yield WUE increased linearly with water stress condition increased”
e4“The differences (S.D) in final biomass and grain yield were within the range of 0.23 to 4.45% and 0.30 to 1.46% between the measurement and simulation”
Claim · model-written summary
Simulated yield WUE of maize increased linearly as water stress increased
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize crop (Zea mays L.)”
e6“AquaCrop’s performance trends to underestimate the WUEs of biomass and yield, and emphasizes that the yield WUE increased linearly with water stress condition increased”