IGSNRR OpenIR
Simulation of maize evapotranspiration: An inter-comparison among 29 maize models
Kimball, Bruce A.1; Boote, Kenneth J.2; Hatfield, Jerry L.3; Ahuja, Laj R.4; Stockle, Claudio5; Archontoulis, Sotirios6; Baron, Christian7,8; Basso, Bruno9,10; Bertuzzi, Patrick11; Constantin, Julie12; Deryng, Delphine13,14; Dumont, Benjamin15; Durand, Jean-Louis16; Ewert, Frank17,18; Gaiser, Thomas18; Gayler, Sebastian19; Hoffmann, Munir P.16,20; Jiang, Qianjing21; Kim, Soo-Hyung22; Lizaso, Jon23; Moulin, Sophie24; Nendel, Claas17; Parker, Philip25; Palosuo, Taru26; Priesack, Eckart27; Qi, Zhiming21; Srivastava, Amit18; Stella, Tommaso17; Tao, Fulu26,28; Thorp, Kelly R.1; Timlin, Dennis29; Twine, Tracy E.30; Webber, Heidi17,18; Willaume, Magali12; Williams, Karina31
2019-06-15
Source PublicationAGRICULTURAL AND FOREST METEOROLOGY
ISSN0168-1923
Volume271Pages:264-284
Corresponding AuthorKimball, Bruce A.(bruce.kimball@ars.usda.gov)
AbstractCrop yield can be affected by crop water use and vice versa, so when trying to simulate one or the other, it can be important that both are simulated well. In a prior inter-comparison among maize growth models, evapotranspiration (ET) predictions varied widely, but no observations of actual ET were available for comparison. Therefore, this follow-up study was initiated under the umbrella of AgMIP (Agricultural Model Inter-Comparison and Improvement Project). Observations of daily ET using the eddy covariance technique from an 8-year-long (2006-2013) experiment conducted at Ames, IA were used as the standard for comparison among models. Simulation results from 29 models are reported herein. In the first "blind" phase for which only weather, soils, phenology, and management information were provided to the modelers, estimates of seasonal ET varied from about 200 to about 700 mm. Subsequent three phases provided (1) leaf area indices for all years, (2) all daily ET and agronomic data for a typical year (2011), and (3) all data for all years, thus allowing the modelers to progressively calibrate their models as more information was provided, but the range among ET estimates still varied by a factor of two or more. Much of the variability among the models was due to differing estimates of potential evapotranspiration, which suggests an avenue for substantial model improvement. Nevertheless, the ensemble median values were generally close to the observations, and the medians were best (had the lowest mean squared deviations from observations, MSD) for several ET categories for inter-comparison, but not all. Further, the medians were best when considering both ET and agronomic parameters together. The best six models with the lowest MSDs were identified for several ET and agronomic categories, and they proved to vary widely in complexity in spite of having similar prediction accuracies. At the same time, other models with apparently similar approaches were not as accurate. The models that are widely used tended to perform better, leading us speculate that a larger number of users testing these models over a wider range of conditions likely has led to improvement. User experience and skill at calibration and dealing with missing input data likely were also a factor in determining the accuracy of model predictions. In several cases different versions of a model within the same family of models were run, and these within-family inter-comparisons identified particular approaches that were better while other factors were held constant. Thus, improvement is needed in many of the models with regard to their ability to simulate ET over a wide range of conditions, and several aspects for progress have been identified, especially in their simulation of potential ET.
KeywordMaize Simulation Evapotranspiration Water use Model Yield
DOI10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.02.037
WOS KeywordSOIL-WATER BALANCE ; CANOPY-TEMPERATURE ; CROP MODELS ; EVAPORATION ; PRODUCTIVITY ; UNCERTAINTY ; HEAT ; CORN ; REDISTRIBUTION ; TRANSPIRATION
Indexed BySCI
Language英语
Funding ProjectFederal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF, Germany)[FKZ031A258B] ; FFAR grant entitled Improving simulation of soil water dynamics and crop yields in the corn belt, USA ; 'Limpopo Living Landscapes' project within the SPACES programme - German Federal Ministry of Education and Research[01LL1304A]
Funding OrganizationFederal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF, Germany) ; FFAR grant entitled Improving simulation of soil water dynamics and crop yields in the corn belt, USA ; 'Limpopo Living Landscapes' project within the SPACES programme - German Federal Ministry of Education and Research
WOS Research AreaAgriculture ; Forestry ; Meteorology & Atmospheric Sciences
WOS SubjectAgronomy ; Forestry ; Meteorology & Atmospheric Sciences
WOS IDWOS:000468709200025
PublisherELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
Citation statistics
Document Type期刊论文
Identifierhttp://ir.igsnrr.ac.cn/handle/311030/59399
Collection中国科学院地理科学与资源研究所
Corresponding AuthorKimball, Bruce A.
Affiliation1.USDA ARS, US Arid Land Agr Res Ctr, 21881 North Cardon Lane, Maricopa, AZ 85138 USA
2.Univ Florida, Agron Dept, Gainesville, FL 32611 USA
3.USDA ARS, Natl Lab Agr & Environm, Ames, IA 50010 USA
4.ARS, Agr Syst Res Unit, USDA, 2150 Ctr Ave,Bldg D,Suite 200, Ft Collins, CO 80526 USA
5.Washington State Univ, Biol Syst Engn, 1935 E Grimes Way,POB 646120, Pullman, WA 99164 USA
6.Iowa State Univ, Dept Agron, Ames, IA 50010 USA
7.CIRAD, UMR TETIS, F-34398 Montpellier, France
8.Univ Montpellier, TETIS, AgroParisTech, CIRAD,CNRS,IRSTEA, Montpellier, France
9.Michigan State Univ, Dept Geol Sci, 288 Farm Ln,307 Nat Sci Bldg, E Lansing, MI 48824 USA
10.Michigan State Univ, WK Kellogg Biol Stn, 288 Farm Ln,307 Nat Sci Bldg, E Lansing, MI 48824 USA
11.INRA, US1116 AgroClim, Ctr Rech Provence Alpes COte dAzur, Domaine St Paul,Site Agroparc, 228 Route Aerodrome,CS 40 509, F-84914 Avignon 9, France
12.Univ Toulouse, AGIR, INRA, INPT,INP EI PURPAN, 24 Chemin Borde Rouge,Auzeville CS 52627, Castanet Tolosan, France
13.Leibniz Ctr Agr Landscape Res ZALF, D-15374 Mucheberg, Germany
14.Humbolt Univ Berlin, IRI THEsys, Berlin, Germany
15.Univ Liege, ULg GxABT, Gembloux Agro Bio Tech Fac, Dept Agron Bioengn & Chem,Crop Sci Unit, Passage Deportes 2, B-5030 Gembloux, Belgium
16.INRA, Unite Rech Pluridisciplinaire Prairie & Plantes F, F-86600 Lusignan, France
17.Leibniz Ctr Agr Landscape Res, Eberswalder Str 84, D-15374 Muncheberg, Germany
18.Univ Bonn, Inst Crop Sci & Resource Conservat, Katzenburgweg 5D, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
19.Univ Hohenheim, Inst Soil Sci & Land Evaluat, Biogeophys, Emil Wolff Str 27, D-70599 Stuttgart, Germany
20.Georg August Univ Goettingen, Trop Plant Prod & Agr Syst Modeling TROPAGS, Grisebachstr 6, Gottingen, Germany
21.McGill Univ, Dept Bioresource Engn, Macdonald Campus,1-024 Macdonald Steward Hall, Ste Anne De Bellevue, PQ H9X 3V9, Canada
22.Univ Washington, Sch Environm & Forest Sci, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
23.Tech Univ Madrid UPM, Dept Prod Agr, CEIGRAM, Madrid 28040, Spain
24.INRA, UMR 1114 EMMAH, Ctr Rech Provence Alpes Cote dAzur, Domaine St Paul,Site Agroparc, 228 Route Aerodrome,CS 40 509, F-84914 Avignon 9, France
25.Spatial Business Integrat, Marienburgstr 27, D-64297 Darmstadt, Germany
26.Nat Resources Inst Finland Luke, Latokartanonkaari 9, FI-00790 Helsinki, Finland
27.Helmholtz Ctr Munich, Inst Biochem Plant Pathol, Ingolstaedter Landstr 1, D-85764 Neuherberg, Germany
28.Chinese Acad Sci, Inst Geog Sci & Nat Resources Res, 11A Datun Rd, Beijing 100101, Peoples R China
29.USDA ARS, Crop Syst & Global Change Res Unit, Beltsville, MD USA
30.Univ Minnesota, Dept Soil Water & Climate, 1991 Upper Buford Cir, St Paul, MN 55108 USA
31.Hadley Ctr, FitzRoy Rd, Exeter EX1 3PB, Devon, England
Recommended Citation
GB/T 7714
Kimball, Bruce A.,Boote, Kenneth J.,Hatfield, Jerry L.,et al. Simulation of maize evapotranspiration: An inter-comparison among 29 maize models[J]. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST METEOROLOGY,2019,271:264-284.
APA Kimball, Bruce A..,Boote, Kenneth J..,Hatfield, Jerry L..,Ahuja, Laj R..,Stockle, Claudio.,...&Williams, Karina.(2019).Simulation of maize evapotranspiration: An inter-comparison among 29 maize models.AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST METEOROLOGY,271,264-284.
MLA Kimball, Bruce A.,et al."Simulation of maize evapotranspiration: An inter-comparison among 29 maize models".AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST METEOROLOGY 271(2019):264-284.
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Related Services
Recommend this item
Bookmark
Usage statistics
Export to Endnote
Google Scholar
Similar articles in Google Scholar
[Kimball, Bruce A.]'s Articles
[Boote, Kenneth J.]'s Articles
[Hatfield, Jerry L.]'s Articles
Baidu academic
Similar articles in Baidu academic
[Kimball, Bruce A.]'s Articles
[Boote, Kenneth J.]'s Articles
[Hatfield, Jerry L.]'s Articles
Bing Scholar
Similar articles in Bing Scholar
[Kimball, Bruce A.]'s Articles
[Boote, Kenneth J.]'s Articles
[Hatfield, Jerry L.]'s Articles
Terms of Use
No data!
Social Bookmark/Share
All comments (0)
No comment.
 

Items in the repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.