Simulation of maize evapotranspiration: An inter-comparison among 29 maize models

Crop 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.

Enregistré dans:
Détails bibliographiques
Auteurs principaux: Kimball, Bruce A., Boote, Kenneth J., Hatfield, Jerry L., Ahuja, Lajpat R., Stöckle, Claudio, Archontoulis, Sotirios, Baron, Christian, Basso, Bruno, Bertuzzi, Patrick, Constantin, Julie, Deryng, Delphine, Dumont, Benjamin, Durand, Jean-Louis, Ewert, Franck, Gaiser, Thomas, Gayler, Sebastian, Hoffmann, Munir P., Jiang, Qianjing, Kim, Soo-Hyung, Lizaso, Jon, Moulin, Sophie, Nendel, Claas, Parker, Philip, Palosuo, Taru, Priesack, Eckart, Qi, Zhiming, Srivastava, Amit Kumar, Stella, Tommaso, Tao, Fulu, Thorp, Kelly R., Timlin, Dennis, Twine, Tracy E., Webber, Heidi, Willaume, Magali, Williams, Karina E.
Format: article biblioteca
Langue:eng
Sujets:F60 - Physiologie et biochimie végétale, U10 - Informatique, mathématiques et statistiques, maïs, Zea mays, évapotranspiration, modèle mathématique, besoin en eau, http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_12332, http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_8504, http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_2741, http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_24199, http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_8323,
Accès en ligne:http://agritrop.cirad.fr/592866/
http://agritrop.cirad.fr/592866/1/Simulation%20of%20maize%20evapotranspiration%20An%20inter-comparison%20among%2029%20Models.pdf
Tags: Ajouter un tag
Pas de tags, Soyez le premier à ajouter un tag!
id dig-cirad-fr-592866
record_format koha
institution CIRAD FR
collection DSpace
country Francia
countrycode FR
component Bibliográfico
access En linea
databasecode dig-cirad-fr
tag biblioteca
region Europa del Oeste
libraryname Biblioteca del CIRAD Francia
language eng
topic F60 - Physiologie et biochimie végétale
U10 - Informatique, mathématiques et statistiques
maïs
Zea mays
évapotranspiration
modèle mathématique
besoin en eau
http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_12332
http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_8504
http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_2741
http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_24199
http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_8323
F60 - Physiologie et biochimie végétale
U10 - Informatique, mathématiques et statistiques
maïs
Zea mays
évapotranspiration
modèle mathématique
besoin en eau
http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_12332
http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_8504
http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_2741
http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_24199
http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_8323
spellingShingle F60 - Physiologie et biochimie végétale
U10 - Informatique, mathématiques et statistiques
maïs
Zea mays
évapotranspiration
modèle mathématique
besoin en eau
http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_12332
http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_8504
http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_2741
http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_24199
http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_8323
F60 - Physiologie et biochimie végétale
U10 - Informatique, mathématiques et statistiques
maïs
Zea mays
évapotranspiration
modèle mathématique
besoin en eau
http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_12332
http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_8504
http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_2741
http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_24199
http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_8323
Kimball, Bruce A.
Boote, Kenneth J.
Hatfield, Jerry L.
Ahuja, Lajpat R.
Stöckle, Claudio
Archontoulis, Sotirios
Baron, Christian
Basso, Bruno
Bertuzzi, Patrick
Constantin, Julie
Deryng, Delphine
Dumont, Benjamin
Durand, Jean-Louis
Ewert, Franck
Gaiser, Thomas
Gayler, Sebastian
Hoffmann, Munir P.
Jiang, Qianjing
Kim, Soo-Hyung
Lizaso, Jon
Moulin, Sophie
Nendel, Claas
Parker, Philip
Palosuo, Taru
Priesack, Eckart
Qi, Zhiming
Srivastava, Amit Kumar
Stella, Tommaso
Tao, Fulu
Thorp, Kelly R.
Timlin, Dennis
Twine, Tracy E.
Webber, Heidi
Willaume, Magali
Williams, Karina E.
Simulation of maize evapotranspiration: An inter-comparison among 29 maize models
description Crop 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.
format article
topic_facet F60 - Physiologie et biochimie végétale
U10 - Informatique, mathématiques et statistiques
maïs
Zea mays
évapotranspiration
modèle mathématique
besoin en eau
http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_12332
http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_8504
http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_2741
http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_24199
http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_8323
author Kimball, Bruce A.
Boote, Kenneth J.
Hatfield, Jerry L.
Ahuja, Lajpat R.
Stöckle, Claudio
Archontoulis, Sotirios
Baron, Christian
Basso, Bruno
Bertuzzi, Patrick
Constantin, Julie
Deryng, Delphine
Dumont, Benjamin
Durand, Jean-Louis
Ewert, Franck
Gaiser, Thomas
Gayler, Sebastian
Hoffmann, Munir P.
Jiang, Qianjing
Kim, Soo-Hyung
Lizaso, Jon
Moulin, Sophie
Nendel, Claas
Parker, Philip
Palosuo, Taru
Priesack, Eckart
Qi, Zhiming
Srivastava, Amit Kumar
Stella, Tommaso
Tao, Fulu
Thorp, Kelly R.
Timlin, Dennis
Twine, Tracy E.
Webber, Heidi
Willaume, Magali
Williams, Karina E.
author_facet Kimball, Bruce A.
Boote, Kenneth J.
Hatfield, Jerry L.
Ahuja, Lajpat R.
Stöckle, Claudio
Archontoulis, Sotirios
Baron, Christian
Basso, Bruno
Bertuzzi, Patrick
Constantin, Julie
Deryng, Delphine
Dumont, Benjamin
Durand, Jean-Louis
Ewert, Franck
Gaiser, Thomas
Gayler, Sebastian
Hoffmann, Munir P.
Jiang, Qianjing
Kim, Soo-Hyung
Lizaso, Jon
Moulin, Sophie
Nendel, Claas
Parker, Philip
Palosuo, Taru
Priesack, Eckart
Qi, Zhiming
Srivastava, Amit Kumar
Stella, Tommaso
Tao, Fulu
Thorp, Kelly R.
Timlin, Dennis
Twine, Tracy E.
Webber, Heidi
Willaume, Magali
Williams, Karina E.
author_sort Kimball, Bruce A.
title Simulation of maize evapotranspiration: An inter-comparison among 29 maize models
title_short Simulation of maize evapotranspiration: An inter-comparison among 29 maize models
title_full Simulation of maize evapotranspiration: An inter-comparison among 29 maize models
title_fullStr Simulation of maize evapotranspiration: An inter-comparison among 29 maize models
title_full_unstemmed Simulation of maize evapotranspiration: An inter-comparison among 29 maize models
title_sort simulation of maize evapotranspiration: an inter-comparison among 29 maize models
url http://agritrop.cirad.fr/592866/
http://agritrop.cirad.fr/592866/1/Simulation%20of%20maize%20evapotranspiration%20An%20inter-comparison%20among%2029%20Models.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT kimballbrucea simulationofmaizeevapotranspirationanintercomparisonamong29maizemodels
AT bootekennethj simulationofmaizeevapotranspirationanintercomparisonamong29maizemodels
AT hatfieldjerryl simulationofmaizeevapotranspirationanintercomparisonamong29maizemodels
AT ahujalajpatr simulationofmaizeevapotranspirationanintercomparisonamong29maizemodels
AT stockleclaudio simulationofmaizeevapotranspirationanintercomparisonamong29maizemodels
AT archontoulissotirios simulationofmaizeevapotranspirationanintercomparisonamong29maizemodels
AT baronchristian simulationofmaizeevapotranspirationanintercomparisonamong29maizemodels
AT bassobruno simulationofmaizeevapotranspirationanintercomparisonamong29maizemodels
AT bertuzzipatrick simulationofmaizeevapotranspirationanintercomparisonamong29maizemodels
AT constantinjulie simulationofmaizeevapotranspirationanintercomparisonamong29maizemodels
AT deryngdelphine simulationofmaizeevapotranspirationanintercomparisonamong29maizemodels
AT dumontbenjamin simulationofmaizeevapotranspirationanintercomparisonamong29maizemodels
AT durandjeanlouis simulationofmaizeevapotranspirationanintercomparisonamong29maizemodels
AT ewertfranck simulationofmaizeevapotranspirationanintercomparisonamong29maizemodels
AT gaiserthomas simulationofmaizeevapotranspirationanintercomparisonamong29maizemodels
AT gaylersebastian simulationofmaizeevapotranspirationanintercomparisonamong29maizemodels
AT hoffmannmunirp simulationofmaizeevapotranspirationanintercomparisonamong29maizemodels
AT jiangqianjing simulationofmaizeevapotranspirationanintercomparisonamong29maizemodels
AT kimsoohyung simulationofmaizeevapotranspirationanintercomparisonamong29maizemodels
AT lizasojon simulationofmaizeevapotranspirationanintercomparisonamong29maizemodels
AT moulinsophie simulationofmaizeevapotranspirationanintercomparisonamong29maizemodels
AT nendelclaas simulationofmaizeevapotranspirationanintercomparisonamong29maizemodels
AT parkerphilip simulationofmaizeevapotranspirationanintercomparisonamong29maizemodels
AT palosuotaru simulationofmaizeevapotranspirationanintercomparisonamong29maizemodels
AT priesackeckart simulationofmaizeevapotranspirationanintercomparisonamong29maizemodels
AT qizhiming simulationofmaizeevapotranspirationanintercomparisonamong29maizemodels
AT srivastavaamitkumar simulationofmaizeevapotranspirationanintercomparisonamong29maizemodels
AT stellatommaso simulationofmaizeevapotranspirationanintercomparisonamong29maizemodels
AT taofulu simulationofmaizeevapotranspirationanintercomparisonamong29maizemodels
AT thorpkellyr simulationofmaizeevapotranspirationanintercomparisonamong29maizemodels
AT timlindennis simulationofmaizeevapotranspirationanintercomparisonamong29maizemodels
AT twinetracye simulationofmaizeevapotranspirationanintercomparisonamong29maizemodels
AT webberheidi simulationofmaizeevapotranspirationanintercomparisonamong29maizemodels
AT willaumemagali simulationofmaizeevapotranspirationanintercomparisonamong29maizemodels
AT williamskarinae simulationofmaizeevapotranspirationanintercomparisonamong29maizemodels
_version_ 1792499765176434688
spelling dig-cirad-fr-5928662024-01-29T02:04:47Z http://agritrop.cirad.fr/592866/ http://agritrop.cirad.fr/592866/ Simulation of maize evapotranspiration: An inter-comparison among 29 maize models. Kimball Bruce A., Boote Kenneth J., Hatfield Jerry L., Ahuja Lajpat R., Stöckle Claudio, Archontoulis Sotirios, Baron Christian, Basso Bruno, Bertuzzi Patrick, Constantin Julie, Deryng Delphine, Dumont Benjamin, Durand Jean-Louis, Ewert Franck, Gaiser Thomas, Gayler Sebastian, Hoffmann Munir P., Jiang Qianjing, Kim Soo-Hyung, Lizaso Jon, Moulin Sophie, Nendel Claas, Parker Philip, Palosuo Taru, Priesack Eckart, Qi Zhiming, Srivastava Amit Kumar, Stella Tommaso, Tao Fulu, Thorp Kelly R., Timlin Dennis, Twine Tracy E., Webber Heidi, Willaume Magali, Williams Karina E.. 2019. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 271 : 264-284.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.02.037 <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.02.037> Simulation of maize evapotranspiration: An inter-comparison among 29 maize models Kimball, Bruce A. Boote, Kenneth J. Hatfield, Jerry L. Ahuja, Lajpat R. Stöckle, Claudio Archontoulis, Sotirios Baron, Christian Basso, Bruno Bertuzzi, Patrick Constantin, Julie Deryng, Delphine Dumont, Benjamin Durand, Jean-Louis Ewert, Franck Gaiser, Thomas Gayler, Sebastian Hoffmann, Munir P. Jiang, Qianjing Kim, Soo-Hyung Lizaso, Jon Moulin, Sophie Nendel, Claas Parker, Philip Palosuo, Taru Priesack, Eckart Qi, Zhiming Srivastava, Amit Kumar Stella, Tommaso Tao, Fulu Thorp, Kelly R. Timlin, Dennis Twine, Tracy E. Webber, Heidi Willaume, Magali Williams, Karina E. eng 2019 Agricultural and Forest Meteorology F60 - Physiologie et biochimie végétale U10 - Informatique, mathématiques et statistiques maïs Zea mays évapotranspiration modèle mathématique besoin en eau http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_12332 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_8504 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_2741 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_24199 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_8323 Crop 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. article info:eu-repo/semantics/article Journal Article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion http://agritrop.cirad.fr/592866/1/Simulation%20of%20maize%20evapotranspiration%20An%20inter-comparison%20among%2029%20Models.pdf text Cirad license info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess https://agritrop.cirad.fr/mention_legale.html https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.02.037 10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.02.037 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.02.037 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/purl/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.02.037 info:eu-repo/semantics/reference/purl/https://doi.org/10.18167/DVN1/JSAHFB